6 L
| if iil
Presented to
The Library
of tbe
University of Toronto
by
Lady Falconer
from the books of the late
Sit Robert Falconer, R.C.MD.G.,
President of the University of
Toronto, 1907=1932
EL St Oey.
OF THE
CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
: * l
i. “
‘ a
.
¥ .
L LL
#
;
.
, ,
L
'
.
’
-
L
.
.
‘
.
.
4
¥ 0
‘
;
.
.
à *$ “
3
Bib. Lat
T
I et Oi
OF THE
CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
IN THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
BY
BOW ARD H-t.0 8 8;
PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF STRASBURG.
TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND FRENCH EDITION, WITH THE
AUTHOR’S OWN CORRECTIONS AND REVISION, BY
DAVID BUN TER: DD,
LATE SCHOLAR AND FELLOW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
EDINBURGH:
JAMES GEMMELL, GEORGE IV. BRIDGE,
Sane SEEN BY
PRESERVATION
SERVICES
| pate, SU 1 4 1992
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAP, I.—USsE or THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
Reading of the O. T. in the Jewish Synagogues
This reading continued in the Christian churches
Was the canon of the O. T. closed then ?
The bearing of the Septuagint on this question
The apostolic theory of inspiration .
CHAP. II.—THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH
How these writings were disseminated . a
How the custom arose of reading them in public
Their growing influence on Christian teaching
But no notion yet of any canon of Scripture
CHAP. III.—FIRST BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC
WRITINGS
The prejudice i in favour of the early closing of the canon
Arguments advanced for the early closing, _..
The inspiration of the apostles was not at first held to
apply to their writings
Facts against the early closing
Examination of Christian writers between 130 and 180
Papias .
Epistle to Diognetus a
Hegesippus ..
Melito of Sardis
Claudius Apollinaris ...
Dionysius of Corinth...
Treatise against Montanism
Athenagoras (117)...
Letter from the Church of Lyoi ons
Martyrdom of Polycarp
Martyrdom of Ignatius
The Pastor of Hermas
Justin Martyr
CHAP. IV.—HERESY ... =
Attitude of heretical writers towards apostolic ‘books ...
The Jewish Christians oe oe
The Gnostics :
The attitude of both prove non-existence of a canon
Marcion’s treatment of the gospels
Tatian’s Diatessaron
The existence of pseudonymous books
Marcion and the Pauline epistles
CHAP, V.—CATHOLICISM
Growing importance of tradition :
And increasing value of the apostolic writings
vl CONTENTS.
PAGE
Influence of Montanism and Gnosticism on the concep-
tion of Scripture = : ie i 02
Opinion of certain Catholic w riters—
Theophilus of Antioch Ae re Coe
Irenaeus and Tertullian AA on [280
CHAP. VI.—TnE COLLECTIONS IN USE TOWARDS THE END OF THE
SECOND CENTURY a n 02
The Muratorian Canon (180- 190), a ae 4 Oe
Discussion of its statements .. i ae 198
Trenaeus (1202) __..... =e ae re 2. 2103
Tertullian (190)... Me nan 100
Clement of Alexandria ( 190) . ee . 112
CHAP. VII.—BIBLIOGRAPHY ... Lu HET
Two distinct parts in the collection of the N.T. . 112
The crder of the books in the collection oe ppm 120
The term Catholic Epistles ... ia . pee
CHAP. VIII.—THE THIRD CENTURY... ee 129
Slow progress of the canon in ‘the third century 120
The Syriac version or Peschito oo a vote
Origen (184-253) … à Pee 129
The School of Alexandria and the Apocalypse ese.
The Apostolic Constitutions .. a IE
Cyprian of Carthage e (+260) .. ye ap ae CE
CHAP. IX.—TuHeE FourtH CENTURY—STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE 146
Eusebius of Caesarea (270-340) 148
His difficulty about the Epistle to the Hebrews and the
A pocal ypse .. 154
His position tow ards certain apocryphal books erg) 5
Testimony of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Clermontanus 158
The Bibles prepared for the Emperor Constantine +. 100
CHAP. X.—ATTEMPTS AT CopIFICATION—THE EASTERN CHURCH ... 163
Athanasius (296-373) ee oF a 164
Gregory of Nazianzus (+390) es ee 2 107
Cyril of Jerusalem (+386)... ae 4109
Didymus of Alexandria (+394 or 399) = TE
Epiphanius of Salamis (+403) 172
The School of Antioch—Theodore of Mopsuestia (1428) 174
Chrysostom (+407) … 175
Theodoret Ma if ree yi i
Council of Laodicea (363) …. ao 4 100
Apostolic Canons ... a = un FRS K-3 |
CHAP. XI.—ATTEMPTS AT CopIFICATION—THE WESTERN Bie hess 185
Hilary of Poitiers (+368) ae a eet
Philastrius of Brescia (tabout 1) aa ne Seon ty)
Toranius Rufinus (410) + 192
Different estimates of certain books in East and West .. 192
étre (329-420) … ee DS
ugustine (354-430) a a .«- 200
angus Synod of Carthage (397) oa i ae
The Epistle of Pope Innocent I. (405) ue . See
CONTENTS.
CHAP. XII. THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY
Uncertainty still prevails about the canon
Results established by the previous chapters .
Meaning of the term canon, canonical, etc.
The books placed by the Fathers in a second canon
Meaning of the term apocryphal
General criticism of the testimony of the Fathers
CHAP. XIII.—Tue MIDDLE AGEs
Various catalogues of the biblical books
The decree of Pope Gelasius I. (492-496)
The Synopsis of Holy Scripture
Junilius, De partibus legis divine
Cosmas Indopleustes (535)
Euthalius (459) —...
Leontius of Byzantium ( (590)
Anastasius Sinaita (+599)
Cassiodorius (+562)...
Pope Gregory the Great (+604)
Isidore of Seville (+636) ;
The Council of Trullum (691- 2)
John of Damascus (1754)...
Nicephorus of Constantinople (+828)
Raban Maur of Mayence (+856)
The evidence of Bibles and Manuscripts
Peter of Clugny (+1156) __... oF
Hugo of St. Victor (+1141) ...
John of Salisbury (+1182)
Thomas Aquinas...
Nicephorus Callistus (fourteenth centur y)
Peter of Blois (+1200), and Hugo of St. Cher (#1263)
Nicolas de Lyra (+1340) —..
The Albigenses, Cathari, and Waldenses
CHAP. XIV.—THE RENAISSANCE
Position of the canon at fhe ond of the four teenth cen-
tury
Bull of Pope Eugenius IV. (1439)
Thomas Cajetanus
Erasmus ...
CHAP. XV,—OFFICIAL AND Mon ou LE
Decree of Council of Trent .
Discussion of the decree
Sixtus of Sienna …
Decisions of{the Eastern Church
Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625)
Cyrillus Lucaris (1629) re
Present state of the canon in the Eastern Church
CHAP. XVI.—THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS
The principles of the Reformation, and their application
to the canon
Opinions of Calvin, Zw ingle, and Petrus Vermilius
Statements in the Helvetic Confessions of Faith
Statements in the Scotch Confession and the thirty-nine
Articles
All these base et ats on the witness of the Holy
Spirit
Vill CONTENTS.
PAGE
Practical difficulties of this theory ... ace 008
As seen in the position aa to the 1e Apocrypha ee ly
Opinions of Luther 1020
His principle of canonicity . at … 332
Opinions of Melanchthon, Brent, Flacius .… > 009
Carlstadt (+1541) … 336
Translator’s note on the position of the Apocrypha in in
early English Bibles . ; 339
CHAP. XVII.—THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS de 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 … … 345
The treatment of the O. T. Apocrypha ical 002
Relation of the terms Scripture and Word of God … 354
The Consensus Helveticus (1675) - ou ODL
Attacks made by Protestants on the ebay pha … 359
The Synod of Dort (1620) … 302
Treatment of the N. T. books nr ve 1 1008
The polemic of Martin Chemnitz a oc … 366
CHAP. XVIII.—Criticism AND THE CHURCH se... os oi
Some words of retrospect and prospect 371
Influence of Protestant theology on the notion of the
canon rh
Similarity of results among Protestants and Catholics … 374
Growth of traditionalism in the Reformed Churches... 376
Recoil from excessive traditionalism : hot Ole
Influence of Pietism on the Lutheran Church _ 7 692
Influence of Rationalism … a Ne i 909
Rise of the historical method iy me 1.908
Semler... os as ... 388
Semler’s use of internal ev idence ie oe Meus)!
His theory of inspiration … ane +. … 393
His theory of the canon i 2. 200
Concluding remarks—hopes for the future... ess 400
AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION.
Nk
—_—
The History of the 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 Théologie, published at Strasburg.
From these articles a selection was made, with some changes
and additions to form this work, so that this second edition,
which has been called for in a few months, is really a third
edition. It has further been carefully revised, and enriched
with some accessory details.
As to the matter and spirit of the book, I do not believe
it to be necessary for me to make a profession of principles.
I wish to be an historian, and nothing more. I shall leave
the facts to speak for themselves ; or, at least, the commen-
t Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften N. T., by Ed, Reuss. A fifth im-
proved edition of this work appeared in 1874.
x AUTHOR’S PREFACE.
taries which I may have to add when the real or apparent
contradictions of the witnesses might arrest the reader, will
never be confused with the materials furnished by the
history, and, in this way, each one will be left to form his
own opinion. When the points on which the historian
must touch are still burning questions, it is his duty more
than ever to make the facts tell their own tale. And
he fails in this duty, not only when he interprets them
wrongly, but also when he does not present them in their
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 will form his own from
the documents placed before him. But he will readily be
convinced that these books are rather theoretical works, and
as such, only reproduce a conception which is already old, and
which has been sufficiently discussed, in the place belonging
to it, in the general scheme of the evolution of ideas and
institutions.
TRANSLATORS PREFACE.
M. Revss’s History of the Canon has long been known to
scholars; it is now translated in the hope of bringing it
more prominently before the English-reading public. I
share the opinion of many, in believing it to be the best
history of the canon that has yet been written. Much has
been published in Britain of recent years on the subject,
but chiefly in support of a dogmatic prepossession against,
or in favour of, the canon as it now stands in our English
Bible. The treatment of the whole subject has been too
often based on the quotation of proof passages from the
early Fathers. Thus, on the one hand, a book hike
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
xi 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—z.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. Davip HUNTER.
St. Mary’s, Partick, Giascow, Oct., 1883.
* Westcott, History of the Canon of the N. T., p. 12.
HAS ON
OF THE
CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
CHAPTER I.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
In the times of Jesus Christ and of the apostles, the sacred
books of the Old Testament were used for the purposes of
edification in the Jewish communities; and hence they
were regularly read to the people in the synagogues, both
on festival-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: ee iBdouddos tat
Thy &xpoaciy Tov vémou txtrcuoey (6 vowobirns) cvrAAbysobas.
os 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 Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, B. 1, chs.
ii. and iii.
3 Acts xv. 21: ix ysvtay dpyaiwyv—xara reAw—iv cals cuveywyais xaTa way
cuplaroy—
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
apostolic age, religious exercises usually ended with the
reading of a passage taken from one of these books. These
passages, therefore, were disconnected fragments, isolated
from one another, simply pericopes or lessons, as they were
called afterwards in the 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 ina 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
, ~ 7 ~ ~
1 Ver. 15: avdyywois rod vouoy nal roy rpopnruwr.
+ HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
more strongly by the frequent use of the phrase, the law
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 in
ordinary reading, and therefore, in the minds of the hearers,
represented the sacred code.
Such was the state of things at the death of Jesus, when
His disciples began to associate more closely with one
another, and to form communities more and more numerous
and distinct. I do not need to remind my readers, that
those of the believers who belonged to the Jewish nation
did not cease to frequent the synagogue, and that to them
the public reading of the sacred books continued therefore
to be a familiar practice. They soon introduced into their
own special meetings, even before their final separation
from the Jews, the same means of edification as were used
in the 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 contine 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
1 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; Rom. iii. 21). See Reuss, Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften
des A. T., $ 413.
2 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
continually quoted, either to give to the facts of the gospel
history their religious and providential meaning, or to give
sanction to the doctrines contained in them. Quotation
was made most of all when the doctrines seemed to be in
contradiction with the former revelation or opposed to the
traditional beliefs. Hence there is hardly a page in the
New Testament in which the Old is not cited with a dog-
matic purpose, or indication given by the writers of great
familiarity with its texts. But if this is a fact beyond dis-
pute for writers and preachers, we must suppose something
of the same familiarity to have existed among readers and
hearers, in so far, at least, 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 all 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 difference on this point. They all received
the same instruction from the apostles. Besides, many of
the Greek proselytes had frequented the synagogues be-
fore presenting themselves for baptism; and the apostles,
who never for a moment thought of diminishing the dignity
of the Old Testament, or of doubting its Divine origin, had
* See on the contrary, Acts xvii. 11, viii. 28 ; Gal. iv. 21, &c.
6 THE HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
as little intention of founding the faith of their Pagan
disciples on any basis other than that on which their own
convictions rested.
But here arise some special questions, all the more inter-
esting that they will recur all through the history of the
Christian canon, and are not settled to this very day.
It has, for instance, been asked what was the form or the
extent of the collection of sacred books in the apostolic age.
Was the canon of the Old Testament closed, and was it the
same as we have now in our Hebrew Bibles? or did it not,
perhaps, include some other books ? Every possible answer
has been given to these questions without arriving at any
certain result. There are, however, some facts which should
not be neglected in the discussion.
In the first place, we must not lose sight of the fact that
all Christians could not make use of the original Hebrew.
The ancient language of the prophets was no longer spoken ;
it differed as much from the usual language of the Palestinian
Jews, as the French of Sire de Joinville or the English of
Wycliffe differs from that of the nineteenth century ; and it
could not be understood without some literary education.
Hence the reading of the texts was accompanied with an inter-
pretation in the vulgar idiom, This interpretation was still
more indispensable for the Jewish communities, which, either
in the maritime towns of their own land, or still more in
foreign lands, had absolutely forgotten the language of their
fathers, even in its latest forms, in order to adopt Greek, or
what they believed to be Greek. It cannot be proved that
so early as the first century of our era, readings were made
in the synagogues of sacred texts in the Aramean dialect,
but this was incontestably the case in later times ; the inter-
pretation may still have been oral. With greater reason we
must admit that it was the same with Greek, although there
already existed written translations. We know that long
-~
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 4
after, in the time of the Emperor Justinian, opposition was
still made by the Jews to the official use of these Greek
translations.! But what was the custom of the Christians ?
Did they submit to the demands of this linguistic ortho-
doxy, or did their pressing desire for edification prevail
over the tenacity of forms? We do not know. We know
absolutely nothing of the fortunes of the celebrated Greek
version of Alexandria (the Septuagint) before the time when
the Church and Christian theoloey 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 unusua! forms of expression, various readings, and
exegetical 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, especially in Greek-
speaking countries. On the one hand, we cannot affirm
1 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 all
the New Testament, no one has been able to point out a
single dogmatic passage taken from the Apocrypha and
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 9
quoted as proceeding from a sacred authority. Hence,
whatever may have been the practice followed in the
various Christian communities, it must be said that 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 @ 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 proot that these books were not in the
hands of the first Christians, were neither read nor consulted
by them, this same argument might be advanced against
certain writings in the Hebrew collection, which also the
New Testament does not mention, and to whose authority it
makes no appeal. Among these writings there are not only
historical books, whose contents were not suited to the
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 1s easy
to see that in that passage he is simply enumerating the
bocks in which Messianic prophecies were found. The name
Psalms cannot possibly have included also such books as
Ezra and Chronicles.
In the second place, though the apostles in their writings
are silent regarding certain canonical books of the Old
Testament, they make 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. Ido not wish to insist here on certain passages which
cannot be found in the Hebrew text—eg., John vil. 38 ;
Luke xi. 49; 1 Cor. 11.9; James iv. 5; Matt. ii, 23, ete—
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, Reuss, Geschichte der Schriften des A. T., § 411 ff,
544, 579 ff.
2 Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,
Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 11
by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 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 havo
still in our hands, and which no one assuredly is willing to
consider authentic or divinely inspired.’
From all this it follows, at least, that we should not be too
hasty in attributing to the apostles the theories regarding
the canon 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 which 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 Greek re-
cension inserts the Song of the Three Children in the furnace, —
and the stories of Susanna, of Bel and the Dragon. Thus
the book of Jeremiah has not only undergone a complete
* [This is the much-discussed book of Enoch. It had long disappeared ;
but in 1773 Bruce brought three MSS. from Abyssinia containing a trans-
lation in 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 ; but the passage does not appear in the fragment
that has survived in Latin. |—77.
12 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
transformation in the order of its contents and chapters, but
there have been also added to it an epistle of the prophet
and what is called the book of Baruch. The book of Esther
has been enriched by a series of documents professing to be
official. Finally, the book of Ezra’ occurs twice in two very
different forms. Now it is not merely probable, it is proved
by testimonies which I shall present in their proper place,
that the Christians who made use of the Greek Bible and
were not, like Origen and Jerome, sufficiently learned to
compare it with the original, knew and read the books just
mentioned only in the form of the Greek version, or, we
would now say, in the apocryphal form. To what date does
this fact go back ? We are no longer able to determine the
exact time when these additions were made, but very
possibly they were in existence before the Christian era. I
have shown that the historian Josephus knew only the Greek
recension of several of these books. We shall see later, that
this was the case with almost all the fathers of the Church.
Having thus proved that the history of the canon of
Scripture in the apostolic age is not so simple and clear, nor
so consistent with the notions commonly received as some
would like to make it, I shall further say a word or two re-
garding the theological aspect of the question. On this
point there is not the least doubt that the apostles, and, as
a rule, the Christians of their time held the law and the
prophets to be divinely inspired,? and therefore held the
words of Scripture to be, not the words of men, but the
words of God. It is the Spirit of God who speaks by the
mouth of the sacred authors * and the prophets in writing
* [Ezra and Esdras are different forms of the same name. In our English
Bibles, Ezra is applied to the canonical book and Esdras to the two books
of the Apocrypha ; in French, the one form Esdras is applied to both.]—77.
* For this whole question, I refer my readers to Reuss, History of
Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, i., p. 352.
> Acts i. 16, iti. 18, 21; Heb. iii. 7, iv. 7, ix. 8, &c.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 13
hold a special position which excludes the idea of any
common and human mistake (ey mvedyarr, Matt. xxii. 43). In
this respect, king David, considered as the author of all the
Psalms (Acts iv. 25; Heb. iv. 7), shared in the privilege of
the prophets (Acts ii. 30, &e.); 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
lonours 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-
agovie point of view,in which case we should rather be
inclined to extend the circle of books having a religious
value. We shall find that the entire history of the canon
in the Christian Church resolves itself finally into alterna-
tions between these two points of view.
CHAPTER II.
THE WRITINGS OF 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 all 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, the Epistle to the Hebrews was written for a
particular church (certainly not the church at Jerusalem),
it too must be mentioned here. Now we see clearly enough,
from texts we can consult, what took place in regard to
these epistles. Generally they reached their destination by
means more or less accidental! Sometimes the occasion of
writing them was equally accidental. They were ad-
dressed or sent to the heads of the communities, who on
that account were charged with general and individual salu-
tations, and who caused them to be read to the meeting of
the faithful, a course so natural, that the apostle only speaks
of it once (1. Thess. v. 27) in his earliest epistle. The
same officials had to communicate these letters to other
neighbouring communities when the apostle expressed a de-
sire for it. In this way, of course, the Epistle to the Gala-
tians must have been put in circulation after its arrival in
the leading church of the province; for if there had been
only one church there, we would not understand how it
should be nowhere designated by the name of its locality.
Thus, the Epistle to the Colossians must have been com-
municated to one other church at least, if not to several
(Col. iv. 16; comp. ii. 1). Thus also the Epistles to the
Corinthians, at anyrate the second (1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Cor. i. 1),
are encyclical, and it is well-known that many exegetes
have adopted a similar hypothesis regarding the Epistle to
the Ephesians. The epistles may have been communicated
in various ways, either by the transmission of the original,
or by copies. Even in the former case, it is very probable
that every church that received a missive of this kind, took
care to have it copied before returning the loan. For all
1 Rom. xvi.l; 1 Cor. xvi. 17; 2 Cor. viii. 18 f; Eph. vi. 21 f;
Col. iv. 7; Tit. iii. 13.
2 These salutations are always introduced by the exhortation : 2eracacé:.
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
| B
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 his
first epistle. I do not on that account admit that the work
of diffusing the rising literature of Christianity was done
by commercial speculation, or, as we might now say, the
book-trade. The immense majority of the Christians were
common people, and the common people did not read. The
gospel was still diffused, or, rather, had all along been dif-
fused and put into shape, by oral instruction, The need for
replacing this by other less simple means would not be felt,
since the apostles and their successors continued to visit the
* Papias was acquainted only 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.2 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
Nos WIN pe de 1 00 cv Ola eV 200, at ANR eo,
ax 175 1 Cor iv. 47; xvi. 10, 12: 2 ‘Cory vit Gb vin: 6 xi. 18;
Phil. ii. 19f, Col. iv. 10; 1 Thess. iii. 2; 2 Tim. iv. 10; Titus iii. 12.
? Acts xx. 17, 28; Titus i. 5, 7; Eph. iv. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 25 Pini Was
1 Cor. xii. 8, xiv., &c.
3 1 Cor. xvi. 15; Phil. ii. 29; Col. i. 7; 1 Thess. v. 12; Clement Ep. ad
Cor. i. 42; Ignat. ad Philad. 7; Magnes. 8, 13.
4 Ebayytriav, ebayyersoris, ebayysaiZecba, Rom. i. 1; 1 Cor. iv. 15, ete. ;
Luke ix. 6; Acts viii. 4, ete.; 2 Tim. iv. 5.—Kipoyya, xiprt, xnpÜT et,
Titus i. 3; 1 Cor. ii. 4; 2 Tim. i. 11; Matt. x. 7; Acts xx. 25.—Napadoris,
rapadidoves, 2 Thess. ii. 15; Luke i. 25 Acts xvi. 4,—Maprupia, Haprupeiy,
uéprus, Acts 1. 8, xxii. 18, xxiii. 11; Rev. i. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 15, etc.—
"Avokis cov orouaros, Eph. vi. 19.—Adyos, Acts iv. 31; James i. 22, etc.—
Aoyos axons, 1 Thess. ii. 13; Heb. iv. 2.—Aaaciv, Acts xviii. 15; Titus ii.
15.—"Axoûu, Eph. i. 13; 1 John ii. 7, ete.—’Axpoaotas, James i. 22, etc.
Comp. especially Rom. x. 14-17 ; 2 Tim. ii. 1,2; Gal. iii, 2,5: Heb. ii. 1-4.
5 Papias, apud Eusebium, iii. 39: Ob yap rà ix œüv BiBriwy rocodrés ps
WOEALiv DrenduBavoy tou re rape Cwons Quvas xa) usvovons. 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
their churches, as Paul had given example, and even if the
writings attributed to what are called the Apostolic Fathers,’
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 24.
2 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
aworrodixés is met for the first time in the Martyrology of St. Polycarp, ch.
16; but, as it is joined there to rpopnrimès, 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 (iv rois af ruts xpiveis Biddonaros dx. nai xpop. yivomivos).
WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES 1N THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 21
—i.e., to the writers who must have flourished between
the years 90 and 130--were not all authentic (which
is very probable), they are at least of high antiquity, and, in
any case, they may be of use to us as evidence. Clement of
Rome then was said to have written to the Corinthians,
Polycarp of Smyrna to the Philippians, Ignatius of 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. Tadd 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 the apostles had not only
extended beyond the narrow circle of their first origin or
local destination, but that they were already exercising a
™ Polycarp, ad Phil. ch. 13; comp. Euseb. iii. 36, 37. I quote this text
and some others, without inquiring into its authenticity, which is suffi-
ciently doubtful. The inferences to be drawn from them lose nothing of
their value, even if these texts are of a later date.
2 Kuseb. 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 name, with some rare ex-
ceptions to which I shall return by-and-by, and the texts of
the apostles are nowhere appealed to expressly and literally
as authorities ; but they are sometimes made use of tacitly,
in a way not to be mistaken. In certain passages, the ex-
hortations are couched in the formulas employed by those
illustrious predecessors, and the conviction is readily formed
that the writers of this second generation were already
studying the works of the first. Thus, the Epistle of
Clement presents accurate enough reminiscences of some
passages in the Epistles to the Romans and to the
Corinthians, and above all, in that to the Hebrews ;' those
of Jenatius, 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 Gospet
of John ;? finally, the very brief Epistle of Polycarp has fre-
quent allusions to apostolic passages, notably to Acts, the
First Epistle of Peter, the First of John, the Epistles to the
Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the
First to Timothy.’ One point more: this use is purely
homiletical or rhetorical. Nowhere is the reader warned by
an apostle’s name, or by a formula of quotation, or by any
notice whatever, that the words which we at once recognise
as borrowed have a special value different from that of their
context
I said that there exist some exceptions to this usage.
1 Clement, ad Cor. i. 24, 32-36.
2 Ignatius, ad Magnes. ch. 10; ad Ephes. ch. 18; ad Rom. ch. 3, 7; 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 Daillé and other critics, 1 am suspicious of the
authenticity of that part.
4 This homiletic use goes back further still. See,in the Reuss, History of
Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, Vol. II., 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 ~
still 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 himself of the
example of the illustrious and blessed Paul, who preceded
him among them, both in his preaching directly 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.4 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
t Clement, loc. cit., ch. 47 : avaadBers ray émioroAy rod waxapiov MavaAov rou
amorrorov. Ti dpi Eyparper;
2 Polyc., loc. cit., ch. 3: © xal roy duiy typarpey imirords sis ds tev tyxv-
wernt: duvndncsods cinzodousiobur x. 7. À.
3. Ignatius, ad Hphes. ch. 12; comp. Paul, Æ'phes. i. 16.
4 See, e.g., Ignat. ad Æphes. ch. 14, ch. 19; ad Smyrn. ch. 1 ; ad Polyc. 2.
Polycarp ad Phil. 2. Clement ad Cor. ch. 46, &c.
24 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Jesus, when risen, said to the disciples, “Take hold, touch
me, and see that I am not a spectre without body.” Clement
quotes the following words: “ Be merciful, that you may ob-
tain mercy; pardon, that you may be pardoned; according
as you do, so will be done to you: according as you give,
so it will be given to you; according as you judge, so will
you be judged ; according as you will show kindness, so will
kindness be shown to you—with the same measure with
which you will mete, it will be measured to you again.” A
still more curious fact of the same kind is found in the
epistle which bears the name of Barnabas, and is earlier, in
my opinion, than those of which I have been speaking.
When it comes to treat of the Sabbath, it declares that the
Christians spend the eighth day in rejoicing, because on
that day Jesus rose again, appeared to His disciples, and
ascended into heaven.* Whoever wrote this sentence was
either unacquainted with the gospels of Matthew, of Mark,
and of John, and with the Acts of the Apostles, or did not
regard them as authoritative; for none of these docu-
ments permit us to suppose that the resurrection, the
appearances, and the ascension of Jesus took place on one
and the same day, as the text of the third gospel seems to
represent.‘
These extracts, which might be multiplied, will convince
us that there is as yet no question of textual quotations of
canonical gospels, consulted exclusively for the history of
the Lord. But there is more. In place of the canonical
texts which sometimes fail us, we find others to which the
* AdPert, YnaaQiourt wt xal Vers Ori obx tind damonoy cuaroy (ad Smyrn.,
ch. 3; comp. Luke xxiv. 39).
? Clem. loc. cit. i. 13 ; comp. Luke vi. 36 ff.
3 Ep. Barnab, ch. 15: dyousy chy tyutpav chy bydonv cis sUppocivny ty 7 xai 6
"Incovs aviorn tx vixpay ai Puvepwlels vin tis rovs obpavors.
* Comp. also the last phrase of ch. 7, appealed to as a word of Jesus
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—+.e., not preceded by à 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 all.
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 “/t 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 ips? aire’ vi troimous; à vis évriorhoires ro pares
THs ioxvos adroù ; comp. Wisdom xii. 12. |
3 Ch. 50: yéyparrai prnobicopas fpipas dyalñs ral avacriow duos tx cov
@nxay ua; comp. 4 Esdras ii. 16.—ch. 23: 4 ypagn abyer Turaixwpol sic oi
dipuyos of Siordlovres chy Yuriy x. 7. À,
4 Kpist. 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, “ /¢ 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 be
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. Barn. ch. 16.
? Ignat. ad Phi ad. ch. 7.
3 Reuss, History of Christian Theology, E.T. Vol. IL, B. vi.
WRITINGS OF 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 III.
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—7.c., 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 will 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
all the churches had been for centuries in possession of the
complete Bible, and there no longer existed any disputes re-
varding 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 generations following (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 immediately to the will of the apostles. The
rites, the liturgical formulas, 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, 1 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 simply to complete the narratives of
the three others, and thereby attest them 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-
t 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 term 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 will 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. Thisis what
I say to the people of that kind : “My records, my authentic
* Ignatius, ad Philad., ch. 5... . œporQuyèr rw sbayytriw às capxi "Inoov
ual rois àroorohois ws mpsoBuripiw ixxAndias x. T. À.
2 Ignat. ad Philad., ch. 8: #xouré civwv Avyévewy, rs av pon by rois apysios
tipm, ty ro tvayytriw ov miortiw. [xal Abyovros pou abrois OTs Yiypamras, awtxpibncay
; quo Ors mpontires.] Enoi à apysia tors "Inoots Xpioros, re &linra [V. 1. abbivrixa]
apxtia à oravpès avrov x. 7. 2. In place of the bracketted clause, the text
of the second recension reads: fois 38 rosovrois tye Aiyw.
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 arule 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 Testament ; 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 épxyæus and the old translation
runs :—in veteribus. But this does not agree with what follows, though in
substance the interpretation is accurate.
? [And in Britain, as recent discussions have shown].—7'r.
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 1s
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
rich 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 he
placed above the books of the prophets. To these latter a
special place and value were assigned in the minds of Chris-
tians, 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 justifies 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 all, if you will; but it was not different in kind. Had
not Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to all his disciples ?
Does not the apostolic history aftirm 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 all 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 churisms 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 him preach, we admire
*Comp., for instance; John xiv. 16, xv. 26, xvi. 7-15; Acts ii. 14, ff,
iv. 31, viii. 15 ff, x. 44, xi. 15 f., xv. 8, 28, etc.; Rom. viii. 9, 14; 1 Cor. iii.
aeivi. 19, vii. 40, xii. 3£; 2 Cor. i. 22, iii. 17 £; Eph. iv. 30; 1 Thess.
v. 19f; 1. John iv. 2, etc.
2 Aidxupiois roy mvevpéruy, 1 Cor. xii. 10; 1 Thess. v. 21; 1 John iv. 1.
3 1 Cor. xii. ; Rom. xii.
’ C
34 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
especially that gift which he possessed more than any of his
colleagues ; and the fact that so few of the disciples applied
themselves 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 ahout 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 (Barn. 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 from the story of the phcenix-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 light—
* IlApns av. ay. txxvois tal xrdveras, Clem. ad Cor., ch. 2, 46: Barn., ch.
16: Oscs cixs7 ty nui... « bv hui æpopnriüwr. 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. 39
dim to us, brilliant to them—of legends which were at
times 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 nv com-
munion with one another, and whose differences had not
yet been settled by any decision of men, nor by the slower
but more 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 simply 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 embrace 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, imperéeptibly and by the force
1 See Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 27. Irenaeus Adv. Haer. i. 26.
!
90 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 most 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?” Ifa 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 colleagues, then all the writings, regarding whose
apostolic origin the Church had doubts afterwards, or which
simply remained unknown to certain churches, are made
BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. ay |
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 themselves formed
the canon, how does it happen that several of their writings
have not come down to us?! To this question there 1s 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 from Jewish Christianity on the one hand
and philosophic syncretism (Gnosticism) on the other. Un-
fortunately this series of testimonies is neither numerous
nor rich in facts. Still there is not one which does not
make its little contribution.
The first author to be mentioned here is Papias, bishop’ of
Hierapolis, 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
1 ]. 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.
2 Hist. Eccles. iii. 39.
L PA ~ ~ / \ \ ,
3 où yap ra tx roy BiBAiwy ToroUTOY pus WPEALLY UmthauBavey Oro, Ta Wape Luans
Quyns xai pevobans.
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 Æpistle to l'iognetus, which is
frequently printed at the end of the works of Justin Martyr,
and has by some critics been placed in the same 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,
bué not the need of invoking their authority. Once, how-
ever, on the last page, a word 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 says:
“henceforth 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, 1s observable. The
gospels appear in the plural, and the word is here for the
1 Epist. ad Diogn. ch. 5, 6, 9.
2 Ep. ad Diogn., ch. 12: 6 érévroos Abyss, 1 Cor. viii. 1.
3 Ch. 11: tira QoBos vduou dderas, nai rpodnray xapis yrrmonsras, xal euayytriwy
, 7 ‘ » ‘ 4 a ff ae ’ LA -
ROTI pures, Xai GTOCTOÀ WY Tapédoois QuAdedi TAs, KAI EXMANTIUS YOUpIs THIPTH.
BEGINNINGS OF À 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, allusion is made to their oral teaching and not
to their writings. I have no wish to diminish the force of
this testimony, though modern critics are inclined to con-
sider the two last chapters as not authentic. In a history
where exact chronology is impossible, some dozens of year's
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 communion of faith with the churches
he visited, it follows 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
t Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 22.
2 Gpès Adyos. . . . &s Ô vomos xnpUrTE mai oi TpoPnras mai 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 confirmatioa of my remarks.
The same writer had also composed a work which, ap-
parently, included a series of extracts from the Old Testa-
ment intended to support the Christian faith. Eusebius has
transcribed the preface of this work, which contains an
enumeration of all the books of the Old Covenant, and
speaks of it in such a way as to show that Melito had no
idea of any other collection of sacred books. Eusebius, who
is so anxious to collect the opinions of the ancients in regard
to the canon of the New Testament, would not have failed
to direct attention to those of Melito, if he had found the
least trace of them. It may be remarked in passing, that
the catalogue above mentioned omits the book of Esther,
As we shall see later on, this was neither the fault of the
copyist nor unwitting forgetfulness on the part of the
author.
In the few fragments preserved to us of Claudius
Apollinaris,, bishop of Hierapolis and contemporary of
Melito, there is some discussion of the controversy which
had arisen in Asia Minor on the subject of Easter-day.
Apollinaris was the first bishop of that country who main-
tained that Jesus, in the year of His death, had not eaten
the paschal lamb but had been crucified on the day on
which the Jews were eating it. His adversaries made ap-
* Chron. Pasch. p. 13. ed. Dindorf. [This is the form of the name in the
oldest Greek MSS, but Latin writers commonly use Apollinarius]. Tr.—
BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 41
peal to Matthew; but he declares that they are mistaken.
and that they have against them both the Law and the
gospels. This last expression, unless it be extended to in-
clude works now lost, can only refer to that of John, for he
alone of those now existing supports the opinion of Apol-
linaris. This shows that the gospels were in his time
consulted on questions of ecclesiastical discipline, and
that they had already come to be compared with one
another.
A little later came Dionysius, bishop of Corinth} the
author of a great number of epistles addressed to various
churches. In the analysis which Eusebius gives of them,
we find a very interesting passage, extracted from a letter
to the Romans, and telling that on that same day, a Sunday,
they had been reading the letter which the Romans had
just written to the Corinthians, and that they would not
fail to read it subsequently for the instruction of the faith-
ful just as they had read the epistle written formerly by
Clement. This shows that, in this locality and probably
elsewhere, the public readings included epistolary communi-
cations. I shall make no difficulty in granting that, if
Clement of Rome was read at Corinth sixty years after his
death, the Apostle Paul had the same privilege. This
would be the most ancient testimony (though only by in-
ference) to a periodical reading of the epistles. Still it is
certain that those of the apostles were not the only ones
thus used. In another place, Dionysius complains that his
letters had been falsified by interpolations and abridg-
ments, but adds that there was nothing astonishing in this,
since some had dared to treat in the same fashion the evan-
gelic writings (ypapai kvpakai). 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 earlier.
I might pass over in silence an anonymous fragment
which Eusebius (//ist. Eccles. v. 16, 17), extracts from an
extensive work against the Montanists. In all probability,
the author wrote only towards the end of the century, at a
time when opinions relative to the canon were already
much more settled. But seeing that the author, 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 from certain
people the reproach of desiring to add new ordinances to
the word of the new evangelic covenant, to which word
nothing ought to be added, and from which word, nothing
ought to be taken away by any one who wishes to live
according to the gospel! By rashly employing here the
term New Testament instead of New Covenant, some
were led to suppose that this passage directly proves the
existence of the New Testament, in the modern sense, as a
collection closed and complete from the middle (?) of the
second century. But it is evident that, even if the author
in speaking of the 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-
1 VU 4 ‘ , 4 “ + LA 4 ~ ~ 2 , ,
+ NN O0 TITI ÉTAT Y YPAQEUY 4 imiiararrioba: Tw TiS Tov tUayytAsou
xaivns diabhans Oyu x. 7. À.
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 Philip, and those belonging to the century
following, such as Quadratus, together with some contem-
poraries. At the same time he makes use of a saying of
the Apostle to the effect that the gift of prophecy was to
exist in the whole church, until the coming of the Lord.
This latter passage proves two things :—first, that by New
Covenant the author does not mean the book we call the
New Testament, and, secondly, that the author, notwith-
standing his anxiety not to encroach on the rights of the
evangelic word, is not well acquainted with the written
texts, or handles them very freely.
While we are gleaning among the accounts which Euse-
bius gives of the Montanists, I may say in passing that he
also cites a certain Apollonius. This Apollonius 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 by him and a treatise on the Resurrection
x Where did the apostle say this? In spirit it is a legitimate infgrence
from 1 Cor. xii. xiv ; still the text does not furnish the exact words.
2 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. Still, among these
textual quotations, there is one for which we would vainly
search in our canonical gospels. The Lord is said to have
siven precise instructions as to the manner in which Chris-
tians were to give each other the fraternal kiss, that no
cuilty thoughts might arise and compromise their salvation.’
The formulas of quotation are here so positive that it must
be acknowledged that the author had a written text before
him.
We possess, almost complete, an account of the persecu-
tion of the Christians in Gaul, under Marcus Aurelius ; it 1s
contained in a letter addressed by the churches of Lyons and
Vienne to those of Asia Minor‘ This letter may go back to
the year 177 and possibly enough Irenaeus, who later was
bishop of Lyons, may have had some part in the writing of
it. However, as that is not certain, we can consider the
letter by itself. Of all the literary monuments of that
period, it contains most allusions to the apostolic books.
We find in it phrases, evidently borrowed from Romans,
Philippians, First and Second Timothy, First Peter, and
Acts; further, a saying of the Lord which we know only
from the Gospel of John, once even a direct and textual
1 Kark viv érésroxo. De Resurr. 16 ; comp. also ch. 9 and 19.
2 Romans, Galatians, First Timothy. Comp. Athen. leg. ch. 13, 16, 37.
3 [hid., ch. 32 : éjuv ui At yovres roù Aéyou. . . . wal bœupéporros. . . .
4 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 1.
ST set CS din TES
BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLICWRITINGS. 45
quotation, described as from Scripture. Strange to say this
quotation, which besides is loose in form, is taken from the
Apocalypse.
To the same period may be assigned the account of the
martyrdom of St. Polycarp which is printed in the collec-
tions of the Apostolic Fathers. It is not altogether free
from critical suspicion, but I do not wish here to enter on a
discussion immaterial to my present purpose. In it also are
found phrases borrowed without acknowledgment from the
books of the 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 martyrdom of Ignatius printed in the
same collection, is much more suspicious. It exists in as
many as eight different forms, and Eusebius was not ac-
quainted with it. I therefore mention it merely. In the
least amplified edition, the Old Testament is sometimes
quoted,’ the New nowhere directly. We can see in it many
traces of the Epistle to the Romans and of Paul’s history as
related in the Acts ; but that is all.
We pass to one of the most read and most highly extolled
works of the first centuries, the Pastor of 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, many
passages in it are influenced by biblical language ; and, in
regard to the New Testament in particular, there are not a
few allusions to certain passages in the Synoptic Gospels, in
1. WON ypagn mAnpul, 6 &vouos avouncarw Ets ai 6 diness dixaiwlire
des; comp. Rev. xxii. 11.
2 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
viyperras refers to Moses.
La
46 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
the Pauline Epistles,and inthe First Epistle of Peter. But the
famous sicut seriptum 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
seneral results of our studies on the 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-
tilment. Hence Justin bases his apologetic and polemic
arguments on the relation between the prophetic texts of
the Old Testament (inspired by the Word) and the facts in
the history of Jesus as stated in the Memoirs of the apostles.
These two kinds of quotations, 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; 2aaz
rois mpoPntevoucs nar’ dvéyany weibousha dic cd spay... . Hatp psyiorn xa)
adrnbicrarn amodutis (Apol. i. 30, p. 72). How could we believe of one
crucified, that he is the eldest son of the Eternal and the judge of the world,
if we had not had the prophecies previous to his birth and did not see their
fulfilment? (/bid., ch. 53, p. 88. Comp. Dial. c. Tryph. 32, p. 249.)
BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. 47
employed, are almost the only quotations to be found in
him. The didactic books of the New Testament are not
once mentioned throughout his writings, though it seems to
me impossible to maintain that he was not acquainted with
them. On the other hand, we find often enough phrases
and ideas which recall, either the Gospel of John, or the
Epistles of Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews (but neither
the Pastoral nor the Catholic Epistles). Above all, it is to
be observed that the quotations from the Old Testament
sometimes agree more closely with the text of Paul (whose
name is never mentioned by the author’)than with the text
of the Septuagint.
Justin’s apologetic method has as its corollary or rather as
its basis, a very rigorous theory of inspiration. He is in
truth, the doctor of the @comvevoria 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 from above to holy men.
To receive it, they need neither rhetoric nor dialectic; they
must give themselves up simply and purely to the action of
the Holy Spirit that the divine bow, descending from
heaven and playing on them as on a stringed instrument,
may reveal to us the knowledge of heavenly things.” This
definition has been very inappropriately understood to re-
late to every kind of biblical composition. It is 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 idwacéura are false prophets. Comp.
Acts xv. 29; Rev. ii. 14, 20; with 1 Cor. viii. 4, x. 23 ff.
2... Wve co Slavik oùpavod xariov TAG Tpor, doTtp ipyavy xibopms vivès à Avpas
rois dixmiois àvdpéos sxpapsvor, thy THY belay huis aroxwaiyn yroow (Coh. ad
Gr., ch. 8.)
48 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
be considered prophecy—ie., from his point of view, to the
whole of the Old Testament, and to anything, outside of
that collection, which bore the same character. That is
why neither the gospels, nor the epistles are ever quoted as
inspired books. The latter are not quoted at all as I have
just said ; the gospels are appealed to as historical documents
proving the fulfilment of the inspired prophecies. But be-
yond the Old Testament, Justin was acquainted with other
prophetic books which he quotes as such and which he re-
garded as entitled to all the prerogatives of prophecy.
Three of them he quotes by name. The first is the
Apocalypse whose author, John, one of Christ’s apostles re-
ceived a special revelation regarding the millenial reign.’
Then comes the Sibylline Books from which he borrows a
good deal; he explains their metrical defects by the power of
the inspiration which prevailed in them Finally, the book of
a prophet now unknown, one Hystaspes who long afterwards
was quoted by the later fathers, is expressly put on the
same level as the Sibylline Books and the sacred authors of
the Old Testament, “the devils alone being able to restore a
law which forbade the reading of them, so profitable to
men.”? Let me add further, that Justin, consistently with
himself, maintains that the Old Testament is to be regarded
not as the property of the Jews to whom Providence in-
trusted it provisionally but as the property of the Christians,
: And not once to what we call the New Testament, which 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-
pendent of the books containing them.
2 Dial. c. Tryph. ch. 81.
3 duvarn ii vola (Con. ad. gr. ch. 16, ch. 37, 38. Apol. L 20, 44). On
the use which the Fathers make of the Sybilline oracles, comp. generally.
the article in Vol. vii. of the Nouvelle Revue, pp. 199 ff.
4 Apol. i. 20, 44. I have explained this passage in the article quoted in
the 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),”
* “all those of us who live in the same town or
he says,
district assemble together, and there is read to us some part
of the memoirs of the apostles, or of the writings of the
prophets, so much as time permits ; then, when the reader
has finished, the president gives an hortatory application,
after which we rise for common prayer; afterwards bread,
wine, &c. are brought.” Here, then, according to an explicit
testimony which may go back to the year 140, we find the
gospels regularly read along with the Old Testament. For
there can be no doubt that these Memoirs of the apostles
are gospels and nothing else. Justin says so himself a few
lines previous,’ and in such a way as to remind us that this
word gospels, in so far as it is used of books, is a popular
* ob aurois GAA’ huis Hix rouTwy diaPipss duTKAAIA.... ui TH MusTipa Ocors Bein
diapipouras Bibra (Coh. ad Gr., ch. 13).
? The Holy Spirit predicted by the prophets all that relates to Jesus
Christ : rà xar& "Incody méyra (Apol. i. 61 ; comp. ch. 50).
3 dsige duvdmer Thy ipunvelay ysypégém. . .. with the fable well known through
the account of Aristeas. raÿra où polo! (loc. cit.)
4 Apol., i. 67: va AMOMYN MOVED LATA THY KTOTTOAWY 4 Te CUYYphpeara THY
| TpoPnToy dvayivwrniTes mixpis byrupsie
> oi &roTono ty rois yevouévos Ux bray érouymuorstmaoiy À xartiras svayysrim
(loc. cit., 66).
D
50 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 fora 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, telling
how that disciple used to collect from the preaching of Peter
the historical elements which the apostle happened to
mention (és €uypdvevoev), and put them together in writing
as well as he could reproduce them from memory (és
drepynpdvevosv). 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
(aropynpovevcavros). Eusebius directs attention to the fact
that Irenaeus speaks somewhere of the dmopynpovedpara
(memoirs, recollections, 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 inspired 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 rcason to
doubt.
2 Papias, apud Euseb. iii. 39. Comp. Nouvelle Revue ii. 61. In the |
Clementine Recognitions, Peter also is made to say (ii. 1), Jn consuetudine
hahui verba domini quae ab ipso audieram in memoriam revocare,
3 Origen apud Euseb. vi. 25.
4 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 8.
BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. ol
declares plainly that these Memoirs had no authority in
themselves, but that Christians put faith in them because
the prophets (of the Old Testament) ratified and sanctioned
their narratives beforehand.’ Prediction alone is the test of
truth, because it alone is an exclusively divine manifesta-
tion, and Christ Himself ordains us to obey not human
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 must 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 (dvrod) Memoirs® As Justin nowhere else
speaks of Memoirs, or rather, of Recollections of Jesus
7 Ols irioridoauey torsidn nai cd xpodnrindy vue rodro t¢n (Apol., i. 33 ;
comp. Dial. c. Tryph., ch. 119).
2 Oùx avtpwarsios diddypurs xextrcvousla ix adrod rod Xpirrod weibsobas, à A
Tos Oi Toy paxapiwy xpopnray xmpuxbeios nai dv adrod didaxésios (Dial. c.
Tryph., 48).
3 oi dmouvnmovivouyres mévra Tx wep) Tov cwrnpos (Apol., loc. cit.).
4 & Onur tad roy arorroAwy xual Toy ixsivois Tapuxoroudncavrwy cuvreran bas
(Dial. c. Tryph., ch. 103). These last words remind us of Luke’s preface.
5 Dial. c. 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 makes it the
Gospel of Mark, here attributed to Peter. But as in every
other passage, without a single exception, he speaks of
Memoirs 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 much importance to the letter; and the
imperfect 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. Hccles. 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
THEIR 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 generally makes use
of the same expressions. This fact seems 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 them 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
born in a cave* near the village, because there was no rooni
tor him in the houses. This detail, which is unknown to
% Dial. c. Tryph. ch. 43, 100. Comp. Matt. i. 16; Luke iii. 23.
? Dial. c. Tryph. ch. 77, 78, 88, 102, 106, seven times.
3 ty ormaais (Dial c. Tryph. ch. 78). |
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 some 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 Gethsemane, 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, not & single avin 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 modern narratives, unless it be supposed that Justin
possessed a gospel in which the incident of Peter and
Malchus was omitted All the disciples abjured their
* Evang. Jacobi, ch. 18; Evang. infant, p. 169, Fabr. ; Origen, contra
'elsum i. 51 ; Eusebius, Vita Constant.iii. 40.
2 up avipen tv rw lopdavn (Dial. c. Tryph., ch. 88. Coll. Fabric., Cod.
apocr., iii, 654. Sibyl. vi., vii. ; comp. Nouvelle Revue vii, pp. 235, 238).
3 Dial. c. Tryph. ch. 88, 103; Psalm ii. 7 ; Clement of Alex., Pad., i. 6;
Augustine, De consensu evv. ii. 14, are acquainted with this formula (sce
Luke iii. 22; Matt. iii. 17). It exists in Codex D.
4 Dial. c. Tryph. ch. 88; comp. Mark vi. 3. Origen maintains (contra
Celsum vi. 36) that this is not found in any canonical gospel.
s Apol. i. 34.
© payinn Qayrasia (Dial. c. Tryph., ch. 69. Clementine Recognitions, i. 58.
Lactantius, /nstit. div. v. 3).
7 Dial c. Tryph. ch. 103. Comp. Luke xxiii. 44.
8 ovdels, ovdi peixcpis vos avbpwmou, Bondsiv abra vanpyxey (loc. cit.)
BEGINNINGS OF A COLLECTION OF APOSTOLIC WRITINGS, 55
Master until after the resurrection This exaggeration,
which is several times 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 shall 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, they 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 the spirit and by its own internal testimony.
1 Apol. i. 50. Dial. c. Tryph., 53, 106 : axiorncay aprnodpivor.
2 Dial c. Tryph., ch. 17, 108 ; Matt. xxviii. 12 ff.
3 "Evora: cxisuare na) aiptosis (Dial. c. Tryph., ch. 35).—’Ev ois ay ps
xarardpe, tv robras xa npivo (ibid., ch. 47).—Ei dyardies robs dyarivras spas
wi auvèy mois; ma) yeep of op sobre wowdow (Apol. i, 15).—'Incods vives
juûs od frouasuive Wiipara idy xpdkupsy cas abcod ivroads txiexsre (Dial. c.
Tryph., ch. 116).—or: det abri wadbeiv. . . . nal mél rapaysviosobas be
“Ispovraan xa) rors rois wadnraig adrod cymes nai ouudaysiy x, T. À, 3 COMP.
Matt. xx. 17; Mark x. 32; Luke xviii. 31.
06 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
As to their practice, they sought edification in the reading
of the apostolic books which they had in their hands; even
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 more 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
wutings. 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, whose 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 more clearly what
was thenceforth called Catholicism—i.e.,the Church universal
and its creed—from heresy or dissent; for it should be
observed that this term, 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 more correctly, they form a very 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 called 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 w 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 them all in their true
light.
And, in the first place, a clear distinction must here be
drawn between two tendencies diametrically 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 Christ)—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! Iam 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
* Reuss, History of Christian Theology. Books iii., iv.
HERESY. 59
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 the
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 still very firm, and the
example of such men as Justin and Hegesippus shows that
the transitions from one shade of opinion to the other were
sometimes not easily 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 compromising 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 collection of apostolic 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
sometimes attributed to Matthew, sometimes to Peter, some-
T gods Adyovras ovdaious tivas EavTods xal obx siziv (Rev. ii. 9).
2 Thave 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.
60 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 followed 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
1 yar Marluter, xura Ilérpoy, xuré cols Swoexa, xal “EBpaious, +o tBpaixey, ro
gupiaxov, etc. ;
2 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 theory of their time, are inclined to treat the
Jewish Christians as dissenters. See Reuss, Geschichte des N. 7’. Sect. 198,
199, and especially Credner, Beiträge, vol. i. :
HERESY. OL
propagated slowly, progressively, on lines 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—ze., 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 more different
still, 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 religious 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
become heretical, as philosophers to be debarred from enter-
62 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
ing because they 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, I say, had furnished them with the most abundant and
the most precious material, and at the same time the Church
contained the audience most 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 them 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—.e., who
were trying to demonstrate the evangelic faith traditionally
taught—had recourse to the Old Testament, to prophecy, to
the spiritualistic interpretation of the law. Now, Gnosti-
cism, at least in its chief forms, was very pronounced in its
antipathy to the 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 the gospels and the
epistles ; they were the first exegetes of the apostolic books.
The Fathers who afterwards took up the struegle with
Gnosticism are unanimous in directing attention to this
fact... It is not necessary for me to pause over the estimate
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 all 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 among 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
books of iEnynrix tis vd shayytasv. 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.
? Trenaeus, Adv. haer., III. 12: Scripturas quidem confitentur, interpreta-
giones vero convertunt. Tertull., Praescr., 38 : [Valentinus] sensus exposi-
tione intervertit . . . He did not falsify the texts, et tamen plus abstulit
et plus adjecit auferens proprictates singulorum verborum et adjiciens dis-
positiones non comparentium rerum. Euseb. Hist. eccles., iv., 29: xpavras
sVayytrioid sdiws Epunvevovres Tay ispay Tax vonuare ypaQuv x. r. À. Irenaeus, in his
first book, Origen in his commentary on St. John, and the iwirouai 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 180, 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
list of the apostolic 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 whieh they had simply to berrow
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 make of the apostolic literature were decided
by their theorics, 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 skill was applied; and above
all 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 himself to the words of the Lord, who was regarded
as the revealer of all the mysteries 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 authors 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, much occupied with the antithesis between the Gospel
and the Law, which he exaggerated to the extent of detecting
the traces of an absolute metaphysical 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
some 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 (Tertull., Prescr., 3S).
2 ebay ior à roy Driprocuiwy ywors (Basil. ap. Hippol., Philos., p
243). Comp. note 1 on page 63.
3 Heracleon ap. Origen. in Jo., passim.
4 See, in regard to Marcion, the details in the pages that follow.
5 Cum ex scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum
scripturarum quasi non recte habeant neque sint ex auctoritate (Iren.. III., 2).
—Ista heresis non recipit quasdam scripturas, et si quas recipit . . . ad
dispositionem instituti sui intervertit ; et . . . non recipit integras etc. (Tert.,
Prescr., 17).—(Apelles) + elayysrlwv i ro àmoréhou rà aploxovra ar
wipstres (Hippol., loc. cit., p. 259) etc.
E
66 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
we have seen, and we shall see again, that this liberty existed
also in the other camp, that it was still the common right
of all 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
from the pen of a Catholic 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; more 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
form, 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 collections of this kind, either by
making simple extracts from those they possessed, or by
combining several books, or even by composing narratives
under the direct influence 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 well-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).
ae eet
HERESY. 67
against his teaching long after his death, was accused by
the Fathers of having mutilated the Gospel of Luke. I
shall 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 light. 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
call 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 apostolic name. He did not
call it by that name, he called it the gospel (i.c., 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 might 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 biblical
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 sti// com-
positions private in character and used at discretion, like all
ordinary books? and that they were not vel instruments
(Tertullian’s expression) —.e., official documents, authentic
* Contraria queque swe sententiv erasit . . . competentia reservavit (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 the
text.
68 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
writings in the juridical sense of that term.’ 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 outery was made about them. Thus the
Fathers often describe copies of Matthew without the gene-
alozy, 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-
ledve 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 from those of the Catholic Church ;° while Irenæus,
much 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
t 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 difficulty. 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.
2 Jerome, Adv. Lucif., ii. 100 ed. Trib. Ad eos venio hærelicos que
evangelia laniaverunt, Satarninum quemdam et Ophitas. . .. et Carpocratem
et Cerinthum et huius successorem Hebionem (!) quemdam.—Epiphanius,
Haer., 28, 5, in speaking of the party of Cerinthus, says: xpvra Ty xaTà
Marbaioy siayytriw aad puipous xal oÙY éaw.—Origen, Opp., iv. 52. Ruari.
says of Apelles: Ævangelia purgavit.—Epiphanius, Haer. 44, 4, apostro-
plises the same Apelles : si à bobau AapBdvus dad ris bsias ypaPijs, xal & Boiru
xaroiurévus, Apa your xpiThs ixabicus x. +. a.—Euseb., Hist. Eccl., v. 28, etc.
3 Epiphanius, loc. cit. xxx. 14. :
4 Irenæus, Adv. hacer. iii. 11, § 7.
a a A ET
jte:
HERESY. 69
among them énventing the very heretics whom he accuses
of rending the Seriptures ?*
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 Diatessaron
(which means pretty much, book or summary of four).
This name, which may not have been given by the author
himself, since the work of Tatian was known to the public
by other titles,? 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-
1 See in the note above what Jerome says about a supposed Ebion, founder
' of the Ebionite sect !
2 Euseb., Hist. Eccl. iv. 29 : cuvéquéy rive xal cuvaywyny roy wayytriwy ox
ald derws cvvbsis. :
3 Epiph., Haer. xlvi. 1, says that it was also called the Gospel of the
Hebrews. Victor of Capua, in his preface to the Harmony of the Gospels,
calls it Dia pente. Comp. Fabric. Cod. apocr. i. 378.
4 Theod., Haeret. fabb. i. 20.
70 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
nius is not wrong in bringing it into connection with what
was called 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 collect about two hundred copies of it, which
he put aside—ze., 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 compositions is
justified if they were based partly on a tradition not yet
fixed in writing. Of course this tradition might 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.
I Din A 5 « A » Ca EX § / 30 A a / , ,
aArAa nal ob rois HMoTTOAIMOLs EToueEvos doyuaci, THY THs TuvdnxnNs HAKOUPYIAY OUR
iyywxires, ZAR’ arrovarepoy ws cuvroun Ta BiBAiw xpnoaepsya (loc. cit.)
? Origen in Luc. Opp. iii. 933 : Ausus fuit Basilides scribere evangelium
et suo nomine titulare. Comp. Jerome, Prooem. in Matth. Eusebius (iv. 7)
attributes to him ¢ciparadis uvboroias ; but what Clement of Alexandria
(Stromata i. 340, iii. 426; Sylb.) quotes from Basilides agrees with our
texts. Valentinus also had his own gospel, swum practer haec nostra (Pseudo-
Tertull., Praescr. 49), His disciples called it the true gospel (ev. veritatis),
and Irenaeus (iii. 11) designates it as in nihilo conveniens apostolorum evange-
liis. But what Tertullian says of it (/oc. cit. 38), as well as the little treatise
of his disciple Ptolemaeus, which Epiphanius (//aer. 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.
Se ee a ee ONE
HERESY. val
It is proper here to remind my readers that in the
second century there also appeared a great number of
pseudonymous books—i.., books falsely attributed to authors
of the first century. I have no wish at present to discuss
this kind of literature; still it is important to remark
that the very possibility of producing it with any chance
of success proves that the church did not yet possess an
official collection so distinct that exclusion from it was
enough to condemn a book and stamp it as prohibited.
This remark applies specially to a great number of
apocryphal Acts of various apostles, mostly of Gnostic origin,
wherein the plan, generally romantic and full of marvels,
served to introduce their authors’ doctrines, which were
put in the mouths of the heroes. Such books (and the
same may be said of many gospels) were much read by
those who greedily accepted all stories of miracles; the
only precaution taken was to suppress the heretical dis-
courses. Mutilated or expurgated editions circulated with-
out hindrance in the Catholic Churches. A great number of
these Gospels or these Acts, called heretical or Gnostic by
the Fathers, have come down to us, and have been printed
in recent years. But in most cases, the heterodox elements
have altogether disappeared. They were read in this form
in the churches, conjointly with the canonical books, on
saints’ days (Joseph, Mary) and on the days of the apostles
they celebrated® We know further, that the apocalyptic
form was sometimes also employed to introduce to the pub-
lic doctrines opposed to ecclesiastical tradition, or merely
the fancies, more or less inoffensive, of some excited brain.
The epistolary form was less suited to this kind of theological
. industry ; still it too was represented in the pseudonymous
* For all these matters, see my Geschichte des N. T. §§ 236, 279, where
are given the patristic proofs for each detail.
72 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
library of the period, which was far richer than that of the
apostolic writings. |
Let us return to the history of the latter, and to the use
made of them by the heretics.
There is still one most interesting fact to be pointed out
to my readers. The first trace in all ancient Christian
literature of the existence of a collection of apostolic books,
is connected with the name of the heretic Marcion. I have
already said that this Gnostic philosopher, occupied with the
necessity for basing his system on apostolic texts in order to
obtain acceptance for it, chose from among them those least
unfavourable to his views, after altering them however (as
it appears), and suppressing everything which did not agree
completely with his theory. His collection consisted of two
parts, which he called the Gospel and the Apostle! The
first division I have already discussed; the second in-
cluded ten epistles of Paul. It would be wrong to call this
a scriptural Canon in the sense which afterwards was
current in the church, for Marcion was far from regarding
Paul as an absolute authority. Still less should any great
literary importance be attached to his collection, as if it
proved anything whatever against the authenticity of the
epistles not contained in it. Nevertheless this collection is
very curious ; for it is easy to see that it was made quite
independently, and with no previous usage to determine
its form. So much may be clearly inferred from the
list of the epistles, as Marcion had classed them, accord-
ing to the authors who mention it. He placed them
in the following order: Galatians, Corinthians, Romans,
Thessalonians, Laodiceans, Colossians, Philemon, Philip-
pians. Epiphanius makes a great outery about this
arrangement, because in his time—ze. 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 generally adopted.
Much clamour was also made about the substitution of the
name of the Laodiceans for that of the Ephesians. But
these very peculiarities, which had no connection whatever
with the author’s theological prejudices, should direct our
attention to the collection itself. When he put the name of
Laodicea in the passage where we now read that of
Ephesus, Marcion may have simply made a conjecture based
on Col. iv. 16, a conjecture which many moderns, not Mar-
cionites, have likewise adopted ; but he may also have had
in his hands a manuscript which did not contain the name
Ephesus, such as existed in the time of St. Basil? and exists
even yet at the present time.2 At any rate as he had not
the least interest in preferring one name to the other, it may
be inferred that no constant tradition, no collection officially
circulated, was in existence to determine his choice. The
order adopted for the epistles is still more significant. This
order is evidently based on the chronology. According
to the general consent of modern criticism, Marcion was
wrong about the epistles to the Thessalonians, but
criticism supports him regarding all the others; and it
must be agreed that in this he gave evidence of great exe-
getical sagacity, or that he received good instruction from
others who before him had already been making similar re-
searches. The order which was finally adopted in the
Catholic Churches is not at all rational, for it consists in
putting the longest episties first and ending with the
shortest, or in assigning their places according to the
political importance of the cities. Now I ask which of the
two arrangements is the earliest, that which shows so great
* It is not true that the order of the books of the New Testament was
constantly the same in the local manuscript collections. I shall return to
this point further on.
2 Basil, c. Hunom. 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 collection of epistles (I have
even shown that the contrary is very probable); but I
think that in all the extent of territory traversed by
Marcion, no church, not even Rome, possessed THE collection
which was afterwards inserted in the canon—i.e., the collec-
tion complete, closed and arranged in the order which was
finally adopted. I have even material proofs of this and to
these I shall return by-and-by.
It is useless to prolong this discussion for which there
would be no lack of materials, although we have them only
at second hand and ina very fragmentary state, the authen-
tic documents having long ago perished, with the exception
of a very small number” The result of our researches is
clear enough, and it is this—that in a portion of the Church
which was notable at this period, but of little importance
for the future, the use of the apostolic writings was almost
unknown, and was restricted to evangelic narratives 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 existence and
propagation of books now non-canonical. Nowhere does he speak of a col-
lection closed and official ; and he even indicates, though he does not make
war on the Gnostics, that the text of the gospels was undergoing alteration
(wordrAaxh piramdéreu, Orig., c. Cels. ii. 27).
HERESY. 75
the Catholic Fathers of the next century found to be in
part open to grave suspicion. The Gnostics, on the other
hand, manifest great interest in these writings. They not
only use them homiletically, but they also make commen-
taries, opposing them to the tradition of the Church against
which they were making war. They go even so far as to
alter their form to suit their polemics or their theories.
For this purpose they also quoted apostolic tradition ;' but
they found it in the texts of the apostles 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 Gnosticism was arrested on the threshold
of the Church, and not in the least by an official collection
of books of a canon of the New Testament, the very ex-
istence of which would have refuted their claims. For had
there been a canon, the orthodox church would have had
nothing to do but protest against the pseudonymous writ-
ings of the Gnostics ; the recent origin of these books could
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.
1 (kmorrodinh mapédoris) iy ix duador fs nad huss mapuriquusr werd nu rod
xavoyioei ravras Tos Aoyous Tr TOU cuwrpos didacxariz (Ptolem., Ep. ad Floram,
ap. Epiph., Haer., 33.
CHAPTER V.
CATHOLICISM.
Tue 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 applied to the
debates of the day. Apart altogether from the results ob-
tained by philosophical speculation which professed to base
itself on texts, which results were open to suspicion from their
diversity and their novelty, the labour necessary for attain-
ing them, this exegetical study, so arduous, uncertain, and
arbitrary, brought into relief the advantages of the earlier
and more usual method pursued in the church. That
method consisted in accepting simply and frankly whatever
was transmitted from one generation to another by the
mouth of the bishops. This did not hinder the homiletic
use of the apostles’ writings, which there was no intention
of restricting ; but it prevented the possible errors of a sub-
jective interpretation, which could only be held within
bounds by a positive and distinct rule. What I am stating
here is no gratuitous supposition ; it is a fact attested by all
: CATHOLICISM. 17
the organs of the rising Catholicism —+e., of that universal
Christian Church which, at the end of its victorious contest
with Gnosticism, had put to flight not only a speculative
philosophy which was fundamentally opposed to the gospel
of the Bible, but also a Jewish prejudice, and had at the
same time arrived at complete self-consciousness. In
proof of this it would be sufficient to give a few out of
many possible quotations, or I might do without proof al-
together, since the Catholic Church has remained faithful to
its principle down to our own time. The rule of faith
which united and guided the Church consisted in believing
and teaching the existence of one God who had made the
world from nothing by His Son, the Word, who after having
appeared to the patriarchs and inspired the prophets, had
finally become flesh in the womb of the Virgin, that He
might come to preach a new law and a new promise of the
kingdom of heaven; and who, crucified, risen from the dead,
ascended to the right hand of the Father, sends now the
power of the Holy Spirit to direct believers, and will one
day return to receive them into glory and to punish un-
believers with fire eternal. That is the whole of Chris-
tianity, the rule, the canon of the Church’ It deals with
principles and facts, not with books. No doubt there may
be a desire for greater knowledge on more than one point ;
but, if the essential truth is known, it is better to remain in
ignorance than to learn what ought not to be known. It is
faith that saves, and not the study of the Scriptures. Faith
adheres to the rule and arrives at its end by submitting to
its law ; study is a matter of curiosity, and the glory result-
1 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.
2 Tertull., De prescr. haer. ch. 13.
3 Regula fidei, xavav ixxancimorixis.
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 will it be seen where the true interpretation of
Scripture and the true traditions are? Beyond this, an
exegetical debate will have no other effect than that of up-
setting your stomach or your brain.’ The heretics will
always be able to escape you if you try to refute them by
scriptural proofs ; there is only one sure means of vindicat-
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.5
" Iynorare melius est ne quod non debeas noris quia quod debes nosti.
Fides tua te salvum facit non exercitatio scripturarum. Fides in regula
posita est, habens legem, et salutem de observatione legis ; exercitatio autem
in curiositate consistit, habens gloriam solam de peritiæ studio. Cedat curio-
sitas fidei, cedat gloria saluti (Tertull., loc. cit. 14).
2 Ergo non ad scripturas provocandum est, nec in his constituendum cer-
tamen quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est . . . nunc solum disputandum
est cut competat fides ipsa? a quo et per quos et quibus sit tradita disciplina
qua fiunt Christiani? ubi enim apparuerit esse veritatem discipline et fidet,
illic erit veritas scripturarum et expositionum et omnium traditionum (Ter-
tull., loc. cit. ch. 19).
2 Nihil proficit congressio scripturarum nisi ut aut stomachi quis ineat
eversionem aut cerebri (Tertull. J. c. ch. 16).
4 Tiy wapadoow roy arorrorwy ty néon ixxangic mopioriy areyrupioas rois TAANIA
épar iiroves, xal txopsy xarapilusiy cols Urs tiv &moorohwy xaracTa!t,ras ‘riox6-
mous nal rods diadeLapivevs abrobs {ws nuov (Iren., Adv. haer., iii. 3.)
5 Sunt multa verba in Scripturis divinis que vossunt trahi ad eum sensum
quem sibi unusquisque sponte presumsit . . . ideo ab eo oportet intelligentiam
SS. discere qui eam a majoribus secundum veritatem sibi traditam servat
(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 Gnosticism as well as the impoverish-
ing stagnation of the Jewish-Christian spirit. The same
theologians who pleaded so energetically for the privilege
of tradition, were also the most eloquent panegyrists of the
apostles, and the first to recognise in them explicitly a
special and exceptional inspiration. It is not difficult to
state the causes of this movement, which resulted in causing
a great advance to be made on the question of the canon.
In the first place, according to a law of the human mind,
the distance which separated the generation living after the
middle of the second century, from the glorious period of the
foundation of the church, increased the glories of that
period to the imagination. The daily experience of the im-
perfections of the actual reality made the picture of the
primitive state appear brilliant as an ideal; in face of more
than one symptom of corruption, the communities of the
first age seemed to be free from every fault ; miracles, grown
rare, and hardly known except by hearsay, shed a great
lustre over the age in which they had been frequent ; and
the religious and dogmatic dissensions which agitated the
churches and absorbed its best forces, caused many to turn
with bitter regret to a time in which it was supposed these
had been unknown. Ah! if they had really read and
* Mixps uv rors xpovwv wapbivos xabapa Emeivey 4 txxAncia, tv adiAw wou oxores
PwrAsvovrwy tidérs rors Trav rapadbeipey ixixsipodyTwy Tov Uy xavove ToD cwrnpinn
xnpoymaros. ‘Ns do ispos Toy amocroAwy xopos tiAñQes Tod Biou tires maperanavbss rs
À ytvec txeivn, cnuxadra rs abtov mAdyns rny apxny tAduBavey ñ sioracis x. T. AP
(Hegesippus, ap. Euseb., iii. 32.)
SQ HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
meditated on the epistles, as certain modern authors main-
tain they did, they would have found numerous proofs to
the contrary, they would have seen exhortations, reproaches,
acts of discipline, incessant discussions, just as there were a
hundred years later; and, certainly, in our opinion, the
generation which remained steadfast in its faith in spite of
the coldblooded Roman laws and the insensate rage of a
population drunk 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
Jerusalem 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 Jerusalem, and of what had come
forth from it for the salvation of the world.
If this was specially the view of the masses who rightly
estimated their immediate surroundings though they were
deceived by the perspective, we must not refuse praise to
the leaders of the churches, to the theologians above all and
writers, for the deference and respect which they as gene-
rally but more intelligently showed towards the memory
of their illustrious predecessors. Not only were the apostles
extolled as the founders of the churches which might al-
ready have been celebrating the centenary of their origin,
had their rough fortunes given them leisure to think of
chronology ; not only were the names and persons of the
apostles made resplendent by the reflected glory of the
Lord ; but all admiration was given to the literary monu-
ments which some of them had bequeathed to posterity ; a
modest pleasure was felt in recognising the spirit that had
CATHOLICISM. 81
dictated their writings ; and with a complete abnegation of
self-esteem, their admirers marked the distance which separ-
ated the glowing eloquence, the sublime teaching, the preg-
nant brevity of those few pages, 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 literary instinct, quite as much as
religious sentiment, was soon compelled to give a special
place to such of the writings of the first generation of
Christians as had fortunately been saved. The unfamiliar
form of the Greek idiom which the apostles had used, so
far from presenting any difhiculty to writers who looked
more to the subject-matter, gave a special outward distinction
to these writings, and brought them into closer contact with
the more ancient sacred literature which had been read only
in that form. In the case of the most fertile author of the
first century, and the most indefatigable missionary founder
of churches, there was further a necessity for show-
ing personal gratitude, which necessity was increased
by the opposition his name and glory were always en-
countering from a considerable part of Christendom. Paul’s
importance was bound to grow in the eyes of the com-
munities of Syria, Asia, Macedonia, Achaia, Keypt, and
Rome, simply because in other spheres, narrower in a
double sense, his memory and his preaching were some-
times passed over in affected silence, sometimes secretly or
openly attacked. To the churches of these countries, he
was the apostle par excellence, and if they had no intention
of pushing their zeal to the extent of excluding other
apostles who were extolled exclusively by the Jewish-Chris-
tians, at least not one of these apostles could, from a
literary point of view, dispute with him the first place.
This attitude of mind towards those who had inaugurated
F
82 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
the great work, an attitude right enough in itself and
universally upheld by succeeding generations, will appear
to us all the more natural that it has been constantly
assumed in similar circumstances towards the most distin-
guished teachers of the great periods of history. With
what a halo these illustrious theologians, who were them-
selves so modest towards their predecessors, and whose
authority is consecrated by the name Fathers as by a kind of
proper name—with what a halo they are surrounded in the
eyes of all those who have not broken with tradition !
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, isa happy and comforting trait in human
nature.
I cannot pass over in silence another fact which may have
exercised a certain influence on the formation of the idea of
inspiration, I mean Montanism. The most salient feature of
this special religious tendency was the exaggeration of that
principle, the assertion of a unique claim on the part of
some to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, above all to prophecy.
If up to this time the action of the Holy Spirit on the inner
life of the faithful had always been spoken of in such a way
as to exclude no one, these claims to a privileged communi-
cation now taught Christians to distinguish between the
ordinary and the extraordinary, between the natural and the
miraculous ; and further, as the pretended extraordinary
inspiration of the new prophets, in its strange and disorderly
manifestations, seemed like a caricature of what had been
CATHOLICISM. 83
attributed to the ancients, Christians came to recognise in
the inspiration of the prophets and apostles a phenomenon
really special and unique. By rejecting Montanism not only
in its errors but also in the evangelical part of its principles,
the Church drew a line of demarcation round apostolic times,
and expressed its opinion that these were distinguished from
later times, not only by exceptional historical facts but
also by religious and psychological facts peculiar to that
period. The Gospel had not intended to restrict these facts
to the first century ; but sentiment, which does not permit
of such distinctions, had gradually given place to reflection,
and some external circumstance alone was needed to give
the latter an occasion for formulating its categories and
defining its laws.
Finally, there was still another and more direct way in
which the methods adopted by the Gnostic philosophers
increased the estimate of the writings of the apostles even
within the pale of the Church. If the heretics claimed to
found their doctrines on these writings, there was all the
greater reason that the Catholics should study them from
the same point of view, whereas, up to this time, they had
been content to found their teaching on a tradition still pure
and living. When the books were put forward to contradict
or modify this tradition, and there was no room for doubting
their authenticity, it was natural that the fact should be
examined and the pretended difference verified. On the
other hand, as the dissenting schools were also producing
unknown or suspected books in support of their systems, the
orthodox found it necessary to distinguish more clearly the
two classes of works and assure themselves of their respective
value. In these two directions, the great struggle fought in
the domain of pure dogma had its results also in a more
precise knowledge, a more profound study, a more careful
examination of a literature which hitherto had only been
84 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
employed to a limited extent, and could not but gain by
being more fully known. It was also about this same time,
according to history, that there began a universal propaga-
tion of the apostolic books, a greater activity on the part of
individuals and churches in collecting and utilising them,
whether in theological discussions, or in the readings made
at public assemblies. This fact I am going to establish by
an attentive analysis of the authors of the end of the second
century and beginning of the third. I shall point out by
turns what relates to the general point of view just noted as
an auvance in theological ideas, and what concerns the detail
of literary and ecclesiastical facts.
The first author, in the order of time, who furnishes clear
evidence of this advance, is Theophilus of Antioch. In the
course of his 4 pology,' after speaking of the prophets of the
Old Testament and of their inspiration, proved both by their
foretelling the future and by their perfect agreement, and
after likening them to the Greek Sibyl, he goes on else-
where? to put the Gospels on the same level, expressly
claiming for the latter the same inspiration as for the former.
It is true that on this occasion the author is only making a
comparison between texts from the prophets and axioms
from the Sermon on the Mount in order to establish the
unity and excellence of revealed morality, so that we might
be tempted to refer the inspiration of which he speaks not
so much to the evangelic books as to the person of the Lord
who speaks in them. But in other passages he clearly
attributes this inspiration, if not to the writings taken
Theoph. ad Autol., 11. 9: oi rod b800 avbpworos vivaroPopas TYEUUTOS &yiov.
6. Ue aÙroù rod bod tuavevoblyrss xal ooQiobévres byévoyro bsodidaxro. . . .
épyava God yivouive, .. . Kal ody tis À duo AAA WAsioves ivtvibncay rapa ‘“EBpalas,
aArAw nai map “EXAncs Zifuida, nai mévris Qiau aAAMAOS nal CUuPwYE sipræair.
. « » (comp. ii. 33, 35).
2 "Axtrouba tipisxsras mal ra av rpodnray al roy hayytrioy Eater, die Td role.
Téyrus vivuaropopous tvl wvevmars bsod AtAaAnxivas (iii. 12).
CATHOLICISM. . 85
objectively, at least to their authors. Thus, some pages
further on, he quotes a phrase from the first Epistle to
Timothy with the formula: the divine word, a formula which
not only indicates the intrinsic value of the passage quoted,
but ought certainly to remind us of its supernatural origin.
Elsewhere,” when developing the doctrine regarding the
hypostatic and creative Word, Theophilus analyses first in
this sense the narrative of Genesis and then transcribes, as
if to summarise and confirm his theory, the first lines of the
Gospel of John. He thus considers the latter to be inspired
though still distinguishing it from the IToly 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 gradually added
to the very much earlier conception of the Holy Scripture—
z.e., of the Old Testament.
If the apology for Christianity addressed by Theophilus
to the pagan Autolycus has furnished me with only a few
texts relating to my special purpose, it is quite different
with the two writers who closely followed him. They are
much engrossed with the necessity for defending the pure
gospel against heresy, and continually assert, as the basis and
source of all legitimate Christian teaching, the collective,
unanimous, and equal authority of the apostles and of tradi-
tion. These of course are Irenaeus and Tertullian, the true
representatives of Catholicism in the ancient sense of that
word, and, in some sort, the founders of it in theological
literature.
It is altogether superfluous to collect from these authors
passages proving that everywhere they make much of tradi-
Till. 14: 6 estos Adyos.
2 ii 22: ai dysces ypagal ral rdvres of rvevuaroPopor, E wv lwdvns Abyss x. 7. À
86 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
tion ; that, according to them, the Spirit of God comes to
individuals only by means of the Church in its corporate
capacity, so much so, that it may be said not only that the
Church is where the Spirit is, but also that the Spirit is
where the Church is;’ that the guardians of tradition, the
regularly constituted heads of the various communities,
principally of those founded by the apostles themselves and of
Rome above all,’ are also the best teachers of the truth;*
that entire peoples may believe in Christ and carefully pre-
serve the ancient tradition without the aid of paper and
‘an short, that if by chance the apostles had written
nothing, recourse would have to be made to the tradition of
the churches founded by them, and this would be done
without any danger of mistake.’ It is therefore by a
ak
singular delusion that certain modern authors transform
these Fathers into Protestant theologians, solely intent on
the absolute and exclusive authority of the apostolic scrip-
tures, and setting out from this gratuitous supposition,
which is entirely contrary to the spirit and the texts of the
period, infer the existence of a scriptural canon which had
been for some time fixed and universally adopted.
Still, on the other hand, if Irenaeus and Tertullian felt
before all the need of being consciously in communion with
the earliest churches, of asserting the uninterrupted suc-
cession of the legitimate channels of tradition, and conse-
‘Irenaeus iii., 24, $1: Ubi enim ecclesia ibi et Spiritus Dei, et ubi Spiritus
Dei thi ecclesia. . . « cujus non participant omnes qui non currunt ad
ecclesiam.
? Irenaeus iii, 1, §2; comp. Tertull., Adv. Marc. iv.
Praescr, 36.
3 Irenaeus iv., 26, $ 5 : Discere oportet veritatem apud quos est ea que est
ab apostolis ecclesia successio ; comp. § 2.
>» 5. De
4 TloAAd tbvn cay BapBapwy roy sis Xpiorèy miorivéyrwr xupls xdprov xal miravos
viypaupiony ixovrts bia av. ay. by wals napdiais THY cwrnpiay na) chy apraiuy
æapadors Quadasovris. . . . (Iren., iii. 4, § 2.)
5 Ibid., §1: 2... obm dp ides pos ras aprauraras &xodpautiv izxancias....
Auf ro achares xual 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 testimonies 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
followed. 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 them, of Christ :1 tradition interprets Serip-
ture? While, with the heretics, falsification of texts and
alteration of docrines go side by side, in the Catholic 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
all the faithful are not apostles. The Spirit, such as the
apostles received, exists where there is prophecy, the gift of
iniracles, 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 fail of our pur-
pose, we must keep to the churches founded by them, and
to the apostolic writings preserved in these churches.’ In
In ea regula incedimus quam ecclesia ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus
a Deotradidit. . . ego sum haeres apostolorum (Tert., Praescr 37, comp. 20, 21).
2 Omnis sermo (credenti) constabit si scripturas diligenter 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: Scriptura quidem perfect
sunt quippe a verbo Dei et spiritu ejus dictæ, nos autem secundum quod minores
sumus, etc. (Iren. ii 28, §§ 2, 3.)
3 Tertull., Praescr. 38.
4 Ibid. 22.
STertull., Exhort. cast. 2. This work, written from the Montanistic point
of view, does not mean to restrict these privileges to the apostles only.
6 Si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio quod ab
apostolis, pariter utique constabit id esse ab apostolis traditum quod apud
ecclesias 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 will of God, been committed 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
realising their predictions, gave to His disciples the mission
of being the spiritual guides of the human 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 à 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 apostolic books—ze., 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, ete. (Tert. Adv.
Marc. iv. 5.) Percurre ecclesias apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedræ apostolo-
rum suis locis praesidentur, apud quas authenticae literae eorum reciiantur,
etc. (Id. De praescr, 36.) This latter passage might tempt us to believe
perhaps that the epistles were not yet read generally ; but no doubt the
author wishes only to indicate what is the guarantee of the authenticity of
these writings.
* Trenaeus iii. 1.
* Ibid., 1. 8: xpopijras txrputay, 6 xvpios ididaker, droorora raptdwxav.—Tert.,
Prescr., 36: (Ecclesia) legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis literis
miscet.
? Tren 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. /
4 Universae scripturae, et prophetiae et evangelia (Iren ii. 27 ; comp. Tert.,
De praescr, 14 8.8 passim. De resurr. carnis, 22, 25, 27, etc.)
CATHOLICISM. 89
more than once I shall have to return to facts of this kind.
But it was precisely against this subjective criticism that
the authors I am analysing took up their stand. According
to them, the churches which, from the earliest times, have
been in possession of the writings of the apostles, are always
a guarantee for their authenticity, and against their agrec-
ment there is no appeal.t It is true this did not prevent
any book which presented itself under the name of an
apostle but was not generally known from being examined
from a dogmatic stand-point, in order to have its value
determined.?
Besides these Fathers, who were thoroughly conservative
and champions of tradition, we have others who were more
influenced by the philosophical movement, But while
these claimed for themselves the right of study and the
glory of a science more advanced and more profound than
that of the common herd, and therefore plumed themselves
on the name of (nostics, 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
t Tert., De prescr. 36, quoted a little ago.—Id., De pudic. 10, in speak-
ing of the Pastor of Hermas : ab omni concilio ecclesiarum falsa judicatur. —
Id., De prescr. 28: Quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum.
Audeat ergo aliquis dicere illos errasse qui tradiderunt.
2 Eusebius (vi. 12), relates a noteworthy instance. The bishop Serapion,
a contemporary of Irenaeus, had found a pretended gospel of Peter in use
in his diocese. At first he saw no harm in it and did not proscribe it ;
but when he discovered in it traces of Docetism, he put his church on their
guard against this book, while he protested his attachment to Peter and all
the apostles, Tlérpov wal TOUS HAAoUS AmorrToACNS arabe ourbe ws Xpiorov.
YO HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
knows no other rule than the harmony of the Church with
the apostles,’ and the harmony of the apostles with the
prophets® With him, too, the frequent quotations taken
from the epistles are expressly introduced as the words of
the Holy Spirit, and the apostles are represented as pos-
sessing completely all the gifts which other believers receive
only partially.
But it is important here to remember that the speculative
school, of which Clement was one of the first and most bril-
liant representatives, finding itself hampered by the narrow
limits of the traditional teaching, and at the same time
obliged to prove its agreement with that teaching or with
Scripture, revived the hermeneutic method of the profound
and hidden meaning which had already corrupted the theo-
logy of the Jews and was thenceforth to invade that of the
Christians. Everywhere parables, allegories, mysteries,’ were
discovered ; and if in other places we see the beautiful
thought of Jesus maintained, that the simple are best able
to understand the gospel, provided they possess the neces-
sary moral qualities, here we see theologians pride them-
selves on a special sagacity, look with pity on simple
believers, glory in that wrongly applied saying of the
t Strom. vii. pp. 762 f. ‘Hyly Moves 6 iv avrals xaraynpacas reals ypupats, env
amorTIAiKny ai ixxAnoiaorinny cucwy ’oplorouiay ray doyuérTuv, KATE TO sbayytluoy
opborare fuiot.
= Strom., Vil. p. 757 : Exousy ony aprcny vis didacxarlas Tov xvpiov, Ud Te THY
mpopnrar, did re To} sbayytrion, mal diè tuv axorrsrwv.—lbid., vi. p. 676: ‘O
xavwy 6 EXKANTIMOTINOS N TUMPUVIC vopuou Ts xual TpoPnTwy TA KATA THY xupiou WapouTiay
rapadsdoutyn duabixn.—Ibid., ili. p. 455: vôuos xal rpopnre: ody re svayysriw ty
bvouars Xpiorod tis wiay ouvéyoyres yrwow. This 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 Tasca ypagn ws iv rapaBorn sipnutyn (Strom., v. p. 575).—Oùrs n æpopnrsia
ours 6 cuTnp am us TH bila puoripia aasPbiytaro arr’ tv wapaBorals. . . . "Eyxpüær-
ovras Tov vor wi ypaQal iva Enrnrinol drépyumir. . . . cols ixAËxTOIs ray avbpwrwy
Tols ix wiorems sis yrwow byxpirois, Tnpoluiva Ta Kyi puorhpia Wupaborals ibyxaad-
TTITAI x. T, À (Lbid., vi. pp. 676 ff.)
CATHOLICISM. O1
vy
apostle that knowledge is not possible to every one? and
pursue the noble and perilous aim of extending its domains.
Those whose faith was summarised in the few lines which
finally became the universal credo and are known to us by
the name of the Apostles’ Creed, had doubtless no need to
trouble themselves about exegesis for proving its authority ;
nor did their profession of respect for the apostles (as may
well be supposed) contain any Protestant meaning of oppos-
ing their writings to ecclesiastical tradition. As to the
philosophers, I mean the school of Alexandria and many
other theologians who took part in scientific work in the
development of theology, they no doubt professed an equal
respect for Scripture, but they wrought constantly and with
a very marked, but, in some respects,’ regrettable success in
transforming the teaching of the Bible and the teaching of
the Church.
t Strom. vii. p. 703.
2 It is needless to enter into the details of this special series of facts.
Every one knows the wildness of patristic exegesis ; what seems to be less
known, or less remarked, is the quite as great and more guilty wildness of
modern exegesis.
CHAPTER VE
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 alist of them. This
part of our work would be very easy, if there existed any-
where an official document, a synodal declaration of this
period, or even a catalogue made by a known and trust-
worthy author, for this might have told us in few words
what was the complete series of apostolic books adopted
by the church. We possess indeed two texts which may
and ought to be quoted here. Unfortunately neither of
them belongs to Greek Christianity, and they therefore
cannot be completely relied on for establishing its usages.
Beyond these, we are confined to scattered, accidental
passages in the authors of the time. By uniting these
passages, by comparing them with one another, we may
succeed, not in restoring the cunonical 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
of 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.—Tertull.,
De pudic., 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 only to what con-
cerns the writings of the apostles; still, to clear away
every prejudice, I shall once more remind my readers that
the Christian theologians of this period knew the Old
Testament only in its Greek form (in the Septuagint), and
consequently that they made no distinction between what
we call canonical books (Hebrew) and apocryphal books
(Greek). They quote both with the same confidence, with
the same formulas of honour, and attribute to them an equal
authority based on an equal inspiration! As this fact
needs no lengthy demonstration, I pass to my chief subject
and summon the witnesses in order, as was done with pre-
| ceding generations.
I shall not spend time in discussing Theophilus of Antioch,
an author who must be put at the head of this new series for
reasons already given. The few direct quotations found in his
book have all been mentioned already. It may be added that
there are also in his writings frequent reminiscences of
Paul’s epistles,? 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 Catholic epistles ; on the
whole, he is one of those who scarcely use the writings of
the apostles except for rhetorical or homiletical purposes,
1 See e.g. regarding Wisdom, Clement of Alexandria, Strom. iv. 515,
Sylb. (1 ésia copia); ibid., v. 583 (5 Saaguay) ; Tertullian, Adv. Valent., ch. 2
(ipsa Sophia, non quidem Valentini sed Salomonis) ; regarding Ecclesiasvicus,
Tertullian, Æxhort, 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 (4 ésia ypagñ)
etc. Regarding the theory, see Irenaeus, iii. 21, $ 4, quoted above.
2 Comp. e.g. i. 6, 14; ii. 16, 17, 22, 36 ; iii. 2.
3 grspsà rpopa (ii. 25, Heb. v. 12)—adiuiros cidwrorarpeia (ii. 34, 1 Pet. iv. 3).
94 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
and in this respect he might have been ranked along with
his predecessors. I shall, however, note this other fact that
he is the first Catholic writer who sveaks by name of the
Apostle John as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Some
modern critics have availed themselves of this circumstance
to suppose that the book only dates from the middle of the
century ; but I have shown that for a long time previous
the Gnostic teachers had made this gospel the subject of
their speculative studies. The silence of the Catholic
writers then arises from more causes than one, and the ex-
planations I have given regarding the general progress of
ideas ought to dispel all doubts on this point.
In chronological order we come now to a document much
more important, because it is the earliest that contains a
venuine catalogue of apostolic books. This is the celebrated
fragment known by the name of the Muratorian Canon.
Muratori was an Italian scholar. He had found in a manu-
script of the eighth century, belonging to the Ambrosian
Library in Milan, and formerly in the convent of 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) 1s
said to acknowledge as apostolic, and to which it appeals as
an authority against the heretical books. Muratori had this
fragment printed in his Jtalian Antiquities of the Middle
Ayes,’ in 1740, 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 outery about the
copyist’s ignorance, the frightful barbarity of his Latin, his
1 L A. Muratori, Antiquitates Italiae medii aevi, iii. 854. See the
fac-simile of the fragment in the work by the late S. P. Tregelles. Canon
Muratorianus. Oxford, 1867, 4.
COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 95
gross solecisms. Corruptions, omissions, faults of translation,
have been seen in it to any extent ; and some, making the
most of all 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 1m-
portance and the curious peculiarities of this document
compel me to devote some time to its examination.
I give a complete analysis, which is supported in the
notes by the transcription of the text in its authentic
form.
The list of the apostolic books included at first four
gospels, and Luke and John are named as the authors of the
last two. The writer of the treatise insists on the con-
nection and conformity of these four books in regard both to
the facts narrated and to the spirit that dictated them.
That to begin with is a very important point. This number
four, these gospels forming a collection by themselves and
opposed to everything analogous which might exist in the
literature of the time—these are facts quite new in the
history of the canon, and their novelty is not due merely to
the accidental silence of the earlier authors. On the
contrary, my 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
previous period, when oral tradition was still contending for
* The text begins, after leaving a space blank, with some words relating,
it would appear, to the gospel of Mark, and passes immediately to the third
gospel.
96 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
the first place with the written te and favouring a freer
use of the latter.
After the gospels, the author passes to the Acts of the
Apostles. With regard to Acts, the Catholic Church
recognises only one single work, that of Luke, beginning
with these words: Optime Theophile, and narrating what
had taken place in the presence of the author2 As the
legend of Peter’s martyrdom was at that time attracting
much attention, as well as the tradition of a journey made
by Paul to Spain, the author expressly adds that it is not
found in Acts, but elsewhere. Observe that this is the
first direct mention of the book of Acts in all ancient
literature.
In the paragraph devoted to the epistles of Paul, the
author fixes their number and order, and adds various ob-
servations which we must not neglect. I place the entire
* As this first part cannot give rise to any doubts, I do not copy the
text of it.
* Luke’s work being anonymous, the author of course transcribed the
first words in order to indicate it sufficiently. Further, it is clear from
what he says of it how far the readers at this period were from being critic-
ally exact. No one now-a-days will admit that Luke was everywhere an
eye-witness.
acta autem omnium apostolorum
sub uno libro scribta sunt lucas obtime theofi
le comprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula
gerebantur sicut et semote passionem petri
evidenter declarat sed profectionem pauli ab ur
bead 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,
“themselves 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 (ce.
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, following the example of his prede-
cessor John” wrote by name only to seven churches—viz.,
1 epistule autem
pauli que a quo loco vel qua ex causa directe*
sint volentibus intellegere ipse declarant
primum omnium corintheis scysme heresis in
terdicens deinceps callactis circumcisione*
romanis autem ordine scripturarum sed et
principium earum esse christum intimans. . .+
prolexius scripsit de quibus sincolis neces
se est ad nobis desputari cum ipse beatus
apostolus paulus sequens prodecessoris sui
johannis ordinem nonnisi nomenatim semptæm
ecclesiis scribat ordine tali a corenthios
prima ad efesios seconda ad philippinses ter
tia ad colosensis quarta ad calatas quin
ta ad tensaolenecinsis sexta ad romanos
septima verum corentheis et thensaolccen
sibus licet pro correbtione iteretur una
tamen per omnem orbem terre ecclesia
deffusa esse denoscitur et johannis enim in a
pocalebsy licet sebtem eccleseis scribat
tamen omnibus dicit verum ad philemonem una
et ad titum una et ad tymotheum duas pro affec
to et dilectione in honore tamen ecclesiæ ca
tholice in ordinatione eclesiastice
descepline sanctificate sunt. . .
* It is to be remembered that ancient orthography put e for @and that m and n are often
indicated by strokes (here omitted) over the preceding vowels.
+ 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, Philippians, Colossians, Gala-
tians, Thessalonians and Romans (there are two epistles to
the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, because of
reprimands that had to be made), still it is known that
there is but one single Church spread over the whole earth.
In the same way John, while addressing only the seven
churches in the Apocalypse, has them all in view. As to
epistles to Philemon, Titus and Timothy, which were
written by the apostle from motives of friendship, they be-
came sacred when ecclesiastical discipline was organised.”
This means no doubt that these epistles, which were private
in their origin, became public and official documents be-
cause the Church drew from them the principles of her
government. Two things must strike us here. One is the
very peculiar order in which the epistles are enumerated.
Nowhere else do we find this order; and as it is 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—
Ze. from the time of their composition or at least soon after,
that they might be handed down to posterity in the form
of a complete collection. Then also we see here for the first
time that theology, while still recognising the primitive
destination of each letter, expressly regards them as the
common possession of the church, not only because the
whole Church may profit by them, but also because the
sacred writers had this universal destination directly in
he is generally placed at the end of the century. This proves that at first
it was remembered that the Apocalypse had been written before the ruin of
Jerusalem and not 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 some idea of repairing by an
apocryphal compilation, the loss of a letter to the Laodiceans,
of which loss there was believed to be an indication in
Col. iv. 16; but it is beyond all question that this compila-
tion was not the document which still exists under that
name in Latin and which will be noticed later. As to the
letter to the Alexandrians, no other ancient writer speaks of
it. Modern critics are inclined to see in it the Epistle to the
Hebrews, which our text passes over in silence. Certainly if
the latter epistle was written to any particular community,
there are a thousand reasons for thinking of the Church at
Alexandria more than any other. Still, as it is anonymous,
the question arises how our author could have spoken of it
as fabricated under Paul’s name. That would be intelligible
only if the copies of his time had borne that name, which is
not found in our ordinary manuscripts. Further, only a
prejudiced and very superficial reader could see in it any
trace of Marcion’s heresy? However that may be, the
: . . . Jertur etiam ad
laudecenses alia ad alexandrinos pauli no
mine fincte ad heresem marcionis et alia plu
ra que in catholicam eclesiam recepi non
potest fel enim cum melle misceri non con
cruit. . . x
* It has been proposed to read: ad haeresem Marcionis refutandam, 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 alloy ; he not only seeks out the authentic
books, but also eliminates with care the false merchandise ;
he does not wish to mingle gall with the honey.’
The few lines devoted to the epistles usually called
Catholic present several difficulties.” Still it is evident that
the author is not acquainted with the Epistle of James, nor
with the two of Peter ; in addition to that of Jude he only
names two of John. But there are three words in the text
which invite criticism. In the first place, what does this
expression mean: there is indeed in the Catholic Church
an epistle of Jude and two of John? Are we to suppose
that the author alludes here to some opposition made to
these epistles, or does it mean that he himself doubts their
authenticity ? In this case his remark would be connected
with the last phrase where mention is made of the Wisdom
of Solomon, written, he says, by friends of that king in his
honour. But what is this book doing here? Ought we
perhaps to change the text and read: (ut for et) these
epistles are called by the names of Jude and John, just as
Wisdom is named after Solomon—1.e., these apostles, to say
truth, did not write them with their own hand? Finally,
what are we to make of that impossible word: superscrictio ?
Are we to read superscripti (the aforesaid John) because he
has already been under discussion, or superscriplione—1.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.
2, . . . epistola sane jude et superscrictio
johannis duas in catholica habentur et sapi
ientia ab amicis salomonis in honorem ipsius
SCD ne
3 By this name, the author appears to have meant to designate either the
(apocryphal) Wisdom, or Proverbs, which were also at times designated
in this way. The Jewish doctors did not regard Proverbs as composed by
Solomon himself (see ch. xxv., xxx.. XXxi.)
COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 101
probable since the author has already spoken of one at least
as an authentic writing. All the same, it is clear that it is
very difficult to say exactly what was his meaning; but
this does not authorise the rash changes in his text by
means of which attempts have been made to insert the
epistles passed over.
I direct special attention to the omission of the two
epistles of Peter. This forms another argument to be urged
in favour of the hypothesis that this canon was composed in
the Latin Church, and not in the Greek Church, though
many scholars now-a-days regard it only as a bad translation
of a Greek original. We have one other Latin witness who
confirms us in believing that even the first epistle of Peter
penetrated but slowly into the West.
Finally, the series of apostolic books ends with the
Apocalypses of John and of Peter, of which the author says
that they alone of all the Apocalypses then existing were
received in the Church. He remarks, however, in regard to
the Apocalypse of Peter, that some refuse it the honour of
being used officially in the Church?
Such is the famous Muratorian Canon, about which there
has been so much writing and discussion for the last twenty
years. The text clearly is not free from errors; but there
is no trace of lacunæ 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, the author does not enumerate it in
the series of the sacred writings ; he only appeals to it to prove (i. 1.) that
the Gospel was written by an eye-witness. Here he 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.
7. . . . . apocalapseetiam 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 names of four gospels, of
Acts, of thirteen Pauline epistles, of three other epistles and
two Apocalypses, and it does so with a dogmatic purpose,
to form what was afterwards called the canon—zi.e., the list
of authoritative books. It remains for me to inquire con-
cerning its date and origin. To these two questions the
answer cannot be doubtful. After speaking of Apocalypses
declared to be canonical, the author names still another, the
Pastor of Hermas, which he says had been written recently
in our time, while Pius occupied the episcopal chair of
Rome. This Pius, the first of the name and brother of
Hermas, was bishop about the year 156. As it is said that
the Pustor 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 publica-
tion of Hermas and the composition of the document before
us. Hence the date generally accepted lies between 180 and
190. Further, the language, the rejection of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, or at least the silence observed regarding it,
everything down to the mention of the city of Rome and its
bishop, betrays a Latin and probably African pen. One
point more : it is very important to remark that the author
does not express his own individual views, but sets before
us the usage established in his ecclesiastical sphere. On the
D Sage! hace ime nc RE ee DEF
nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe
roma herma conscripsit sedente cathe
tra urbis romae pio episcopo fratie
ejus et ideo legi quidem eum oportet se pu
plicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter
profettas completum numero neque
inter apostolos in finem temporum 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 collection, but his scrip-
tural quotations are so numerous that by scrutinising them
we can, without risk of error, reconstruct that collection.
As Irenaeus was a native of Asia, was full of respect for
Rome, and was bishop of Lyons, it may be boldly affirmed
that in certain respects his testimony is of greater weight
than that of his contemporaries, whose ecclesiastical horizon
was much more limited. Hence Eusebius even made
this Father the subject of a work such as I am about
to undertake; but he left it very imperfect I imain-
tain that Irenaeus had before him the four gospels, the Acts,
thirteen epistles of Paul, one of Peter, two of John, and the
Apocalypse of John; consequently, with the exception of
three books (Jude and the Apocalypse of Peter, on the one
hand ; the epistle of Peter, on the other), precisely the same
list as is presented to us in the African treatise published by
Muratori. Still, this list calls for some observations in
detail.
In 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, that in the time of Irenaeus the
Church Catholic had ceased to consider any but our four
gospels, or, rather, one single gospel in four forms.’ This fix-
ing of the number and selection is final; it even becaine so
much a matter of principle—I would almost say an article
of faith—that theological scholasticism was already trying
to find a reason for it: not in historical recollections, nor in
* The document closes with some lines relating to heretical books which
have not come down to us. The numerous and gratuitous conjectures
about the name of the author are of no interest.
2 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. v. 8.
3 £6 svayyirsoy rerpauoppor, Irenaeus, iii. 11, $S.
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 the question. There are four
gospels because the Church represents the world, and, just as
the world has four cardinal points whence four winds blow,
so the gospel ought to be for the Church a quadruple column
breathing both incorruptibility and life. The gospels are
further represented by four cherubim : that of John, which
begins with the generation of the word, has for its emblem
the lion; that of Matthew, which begins with the genealogy,
corresponds to the human figure; that of Luke, which
begins with Zacharias the sacrificing priest, suggests the
ox; that of Mark, finally, which ends in prophecies, is like
the eagle! That we may not have to return to it, I may
say once for all that contemporary and later authors no
longer show any variation from this fixing of the four
gospels.” This theological idea of one single gospel narrated
under four forms or having four faces, explains the true
meaning of the title which our gospels bear in Greek and in
Latin, as well as in several modern versions, This title no-
where suggests the idea of a composition at second hand,
as if the proper name were not the writer’s but the name of
a guarantee or primitive witness.’ But the proper and
original meaning of the word gospel is still reflected in this
* Irenaeus, loc. cit.—As is well known, this symbolism was afterwards
inverted without thereby becoming more spiritual. It has continued to be
one of the favourite forms of traditional symbolism. Later exegetes exerted
themselves to endow theology with other parallels of the same kind.
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, praf in Matth. ; Pseudo-Jerome, Expos. iv.
evv. ; Athanasius, Syn. S. 8. ii. 155 ; Alcuin, Disp. puer., ch. 8, etc).
2 Clem, Alex., Strom. iii. 465; Tertull., Adv. Marc. iv. 2ff; Origen,
apul Eusebium vi. 14; Jerome, Pref. in Matth. ; Jerome, Pref. in evv. ad
Damasum, ete.
3 siayy. xara (secundum, according to) Marrbaioy, ete.
COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 105
formula, while in common usage the name was already com-
ing to signify à book and to be used in the plural.
I must now make some remarks on the epistles quoted by
Irenaeus. Of the Pauline epistles, there would be wanting,
it must be confessed, the Epistle to Philemon ; but I do not
for a moment hesitate to suppose that this silence arises
solely from the fact that Irenaeus had no occasion to quote
it, every other explanation being improbable. As to the
Epistle to the Hebrews, which is nowhere quoted in his
great work, I may for it refer to a passage in Eusebius,
where he speaks of having found it quoted in a small work
of Irenaeus now lost. The allusions which some profess to
find in the 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 epistolu. 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.
? Trenaeus, iii. 6, § 5, Moses fidelis famulus is taken from Num. vii. 7;
and ii. 30, § 9, God created the universe by His powerful word does not even
correspond with Heb, i. 3, and is a thought so familiar to the theology of
the second century, that no special quotation was needed for expressing it.
3 ili, 16, § 5 ff., in epistola sua, tv 7% imioronñ. Comp. i. 16, § 3.
4 And perhaps in others. See above what was said on the same subject
in connection with the Muratorian Canon (p. 101).
106 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
clined to find a trace of the Epistle of James in a passage
where Irenaeus calls Abraham a friend of God;! but this
surname was not invented by James. It is found else-
where in ancient literature, and notably in a passage in
Clement of Rome, the substance of which has passed as it
stands into the argument of Irenaeus; this argument, in
other respects, being quite different from that of James.
The latter reference seems to me all the more natural that
we find elsewhere* the epistle of Clement praised at great
length by our author. Finally, with regard to Peter,
Irenaeus knew positively only his first epistle, from which
he borrows some phrases, but which he very rarely quotes
in any direct way.’
I have found in Irenaeus only two extra-canonical quota-
tions introduced with the consecrated formula, Scripture
(ypapy, Scriptura). One is connected with the epistle of
Clement ; the other, which is more express, with the Pastor
of Hermas.4| We know that these two writings were held
in considerable esteem, very much circulated and publicly
read 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 surroundings,
but also in the distant countries with which he had main-
* iv. 16, § 2. Comp. James ii. 23 ; Clem., ad Cor. 10,
* Trenaeus, 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 claim
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-
ally, occasionally, 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 may 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 establish 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 follows 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 might furnish him
with moral precepts but with few rules of discipline, 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 foremost, 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 meaning of the technical terms
connected with them, I refer my readers to the following chapter.
COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 109
Epistle. 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 him 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 stumbling-block
to ancient and modern 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 more than in the Muratorian Canon, and it
is no mere matter 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
1 Volo tamen ex redundantia alicuius etiam comitis Apostolorum testimo-
nium superducere, 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
; (1 Cor. ix. 5) . . . . etutique receptior apud ecclesias ep.
Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum.
2 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 books, but quite distinct from those beloriging to the
sacred volume.
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 from the New Testa-
ment in the same order and with the same number of parts:
tirst, the Lord in the Gospels, then the apostles—ze., 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 De 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 because it preaches Christ, and, to crown all,
he applies to it the famous passage in 2 Tim. ii. 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 Tertullian (Scorpiace adv. 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 habitu muliebri, ch. 3.
COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 111
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 Tertullian does not rank it among the
apostolic documents, quoting it but once in all 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 silence.’
I shall 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 160-189, 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
1 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 justificabuntur a Deo, 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 compilation.
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 collection 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—ze., the collection
traditionally used in his 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.
2 Eusebius had already observed this comparative abundance, and he
directed attention to it in the passage where he speaks of Clement (ist.
eccl., vi. 13, 14).
3 Quite distinct from one another. He quotes the first with the formula :
, os , : ac
iy TA psilow imirrod.n.
COLLECTIONS TOWARDS END OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 113
succinct analysis of all the 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
Kusebius 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 name are absurd,’ and that the very arguments, when
Joined to the contrary tradition of the Latins, prove that
* gions ris ivdiecbyxov ypadis iririrunuives dinynoss (Euseb., loc. cit.)
? Photius, Cod. 109.
3 Adumbrationes Clementis presbyteri in Epp. Petri [i.], Judae et Johannis
[i., ii.], «xn Opp. ed. Potter. This perhaps is the work which Cassiodorus
(De. div. lect., ch. 8) says he caused to be done, taking care to erase from it
everything offensive. Aliqua incaute locutus est quae nos ita transferri
Jecimus in latinum ut exclusis quibusdam offendiculis purificata doctrina ejus
securior (sic) posset hauriri. Only in place of Jude he mentions James,
which may have been simply an inadvertence.
+ See espec. Strom. iv. pp. 514, 525; vi. p. 645.
5 Euseb. vi. 14.
H
114 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
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 some find, I have only to repeat what
was said on the preceding occasion. 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 the first or the beginning of the second
century, but do not attribute to a companion of Paul);? the
epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, with which
we have already met as a book for edification; even
books positively apocryphal, but occasionally 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 Tradi-
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-
D à
comp. ii. 360, 384 ; iv. 503).
2 BapréBas &révronss (Strom. ii. 373, 375; comp. 389, 396, 410; v. 571,
577 ; vi. 646).
3 Strom. i. 289 ; iv. 516 (axocrorcs) ; vi. 647.
4 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 14 ; comp. Epit. Theod. p. 806.
5 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 6 xvpios (iii. 452, 453, 465).
© Strem. 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 testimonies 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 faith-
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 they had long been consecrated by
public use, and that common opinion placed them in close
relation with certain apostles. The book of Acts was added
for the same reason, all 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, especially those of Paul, which were
distinguished both by their number and by the lasting
interest shown in them by the churches which that apostle
had founded. They formed the nucleus of the second part
1 See, for example, Strom. i. 354; iv. 488; v. 596; vi. 647, &c.
2 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, nec spiritus sancti esse possunt qui
necdum spiritum sanctum agnoscere possint discentibus missum, nec ecclesiam
defendere qui, quando et quibus incunabulis institutwm est hoc corpus, probare
non habent (Tert., Praescr. ch. 22),
4
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 apostolical 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. See above
on p. 105 and Note 1 on p. 101.
2 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 literary, and these will 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 literary 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 all, 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 remembrance 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 collections 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 from the
Jewish-Christian communities which wished to remain
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
still aware of the existence of two different collections, 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 simply 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 necessary.
Tertullian, the lawyer-theologian, introduced and popu-
larised the term evangelic and apostolic imstrument—ie.,
document, charter, official decree, brief of proofs and illus-
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 form 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
ie, that the
Pauline epistles alone appeared in the second part of
explained by the fact mentioned above
the collection as it at first existed. We can see from the
Lord shayyirsuv—o axorroaos (Clem., Strom., vii. 706.) Ævangelium Domini
— Apostoli literæ (Tertull., De bapt., ch. 15.) ra wWayysdixa—rae àmosrolixd
(Iren., i. 3, § 6.) Ævangelicæ, apostolicæ litere (Tert., De prescr., 36;
comp. Adv. Prax., 15.)--The author of the dialogue De recta in Deum fide
(Opp. Orig., vol. xvi.) introduces a personage who maintains (p. 309):
husis mAioy Tov svayystriov xal rou éoaronov où dsxousba. The meaning of this
last term, applied to Paul exclusively, could not be doubtful.
? Instrumentum evangelicum, apostolicum (Tert., Adv. Marc. iv. 2. De
pudic. 12). Instrumentum Moysi (Tert., Adv. Hermog. 19.) Instrumentum
propheticum (Tert., De resurr. carn. 33). Instrumentum Joannis, Pauli(Tert.,
De resurr. carn, 38, 39). Instrumentum Actorum (Tert., Adv. Marc. v. 2).
3 Clem. Alex., Strom., vi. 659: Nôpos nai wpoQñrei—"Amocronns civ Ta
deyytraiv.—This parallelism in substance and form is called pouoixn auupuvia.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 119
very terms employed 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
«postles, 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 gradually, we frequently find
passages where apparently three co-ordinate parts are
spoken of.?2 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 explicitly 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-
1 Tertull., Adv. Marc. iii. 14: Lex et Evangelium ; Adv. Hermog., 45 :
Prophetae et apostoli.
2 Clem. Alex., Strom., iii. 445 : vôuos a) rpopiiras ody ra slayytrin; V. 561 :
Td sbæyyÉAioy ma oi aMOTT OA bmoiws TOis TpophTeis X- Taie
3 Jeremiah xxxi. 32
4 Matt. xxvi. 28: xaiwn Diudhun, novum testamentum (for novum fœdus).
52 Cor. iii. 6f; Gal. iv. 24f; 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 remembrance of the primitive
value of these diverse expressions was not at once lost.
Later this remembrance was lost, and the name Testament
for the collection itself was finally consecrated in such a way
that the older and more logical terminology disappeared.
The order in which the various books contained in the
two collections of the New Testament were arranged, was
not everywhere and always the same. This fact is of little
importance in itself; still it may serve to prove that the
collection was not made at a very early date and by a
superior ecclesiastical authority, but, successively, according
to necessities and means and no doubt in several places at
once. It would be difficult otherwise to explain how the
lists came to vary in this respect.
As to the four gospels the canon of which was the first to
be closed, the order of the books as we have it now in all
our editions, was fixed from the second century,‘ but it was
not the only one in use. For, if the place assigned to each
evangelist at first was determined by the supposed chrono-
logical sequence of the dates of their gospels, it was
perhaps more natural still that care should be taken of the
respective dignity of the authors in such a way as to give
the apostles the precedence over their disciples.’ The latter
arrangement, in which John follows Matthew and Mark
* Instrumentum, vel, quod magis usui est dicere, testamentum (Tert., Adv.
Marc. iv. 1). Novum testamentum (Tert., Adv. Prax. 15). Utrumque
testamentum (Tert., De pudic. 1).
* Totum instrumentum utriusque testamenti (Tert., De pudic. 20).
3 Scriptura omnis in duo testamenta divisa est (Lactant., Inst, div, iv, 20,
* Muratorian Canon ; Iren., iii. 1. $ 1. Clem. and Orig., apud. Euseb.,
vi. 14, 25. Jerome, Vulgate, etc.
5 Constituimus evangelicum instrumentum Apostolos autores habere . . . et
A postolicos, cum Apostolis et post 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 itimplicitly. It is
also the order of the Gothic version, and down to the ninth
century it was preserved in the Greek copies. A modifica-
tion of it was introduced in another series of documents in
which Mark stood third and Luke last, and this order pre-
dominated in the East till the fifth century, so much so that
some modern critics have preferred it for their editions of
the Greek New Testament.
The thirteen Epistles of Paul do not always follow each
other in the same order as I have already had occasion to
remark in speaking of Marcion and the Muratorian Canon.
Still, notwithstanding the diversity of the lists preserved for
us by the Fathers or in the manuscripts, a certain uni-
formity is observable in so far as they are nearly always
arranged so as to form three groups, the members of which
are kept distinct. The first group is composed of the
Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians and the Galatians,
and these always stand first in the collection ; the second
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 embraces
the epistles addressed to individuals, and in regard to this I
have already noted some variations. It is not yet time to
speak of the place to be given to the Epistle to the Hebrews,
since it did not form part of what was called the Apostle at
the end of the second century.
Johannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex Apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant
(Tertull., Adv. Marc., iv. 2).
1 Codices Vercellensis, Veronensis, Brixianus, Corbeiensis, Cantabrigiensis
Palatinus [For some account of these MSS. of the old Latin versions, see
Smith’s Dict, of the Bible, iii. 1692 f. and Scrivener’s Plain Introduction,
pp. 256 f.]
2 Codd. Decret, Gelasii, various readings.
3 Augustine apud Cassiod. Divin. lect., ch. 13.—The Albigensian Version,
Lyons MS.
122 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
In regard to the Catholic Epistles, the question is more
complicated. When once their number had been brought
up to seven, there was first this great diversity in the
arrangement that the East assigned the first place to James
and the West to Peter; then the others were placed in every
possible form of mathematical combination and permutation
by the various authors and churches, which is one more
proof that the collection was closed gradually and that
opinion was fluctuating. At the same time these are facts
of no importance to us at this moment. For the period
under consideration, there can be no question about fixing
the rank of these epistles, for the simple reason that they
were not yet in a collected form. We found Tertullian
attaching the Epistle of John to the Apocalypse ; we found
in the same writer, in Irenæus and in Clement, scattered
quotations taken from the Epistles of Jude, of Clement, of
Barnabas, from the first of Peter, and the second of John,
which books undoubtedly did not form with one another one
single collected work. I readily admit that each of these
Fathers placed entire confidence in the writings of which
he thus made use, and accorded to them the same authority.
I believe simply that they possessed these epistles only as
isolated writings, and that copies of the Scriptures which
did not include them all, perhaps even those which did not
include any one of them, were not generally regarded as
incomplete. It is no less probable that these diverse epistles,
admitted in greater or less number into the sacred collection,
were finally added to it under a special name.
This special name, which I have already employed, has
been variously explained. The term catholic is 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.
2 Euseb., Hist. eccl., iii. 3, iv. 23, without distinguishing between the
apostolic books and others.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 127
been reserved for the epistles in question to the exclusion
of those of Paul. For the same reason, it cannot be taken
here as meaning writings received by the Churches or recog-
nised as sacred 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 from the two
others which are addressed to single individuals? The
same designation was used for the letter written by the
apostles from the conference at Jerusalem” and for that of
Barnabas.‘ In all these cases, the historical sentiment pre-
dominated over every other consideration. Not till later
did the name Catholic Epistles become merely a conven-
tional term for the non-Pauline epistles inserted in the
Canon.’ In this sense the two short Epistles of John pre-
sented no difficulty. The same fact also explains why the
Epistle to the Hebrews never figured in the number of
Catholic Epistles, among which it should have been placed
from its nature and title. When it was admitted into the
canon, it was everywhere received as a Pauline epistle; and
it was not admitted till a date at which the terminology
was definitely fixed, as I have just said. Still the primitive
meaning of the word was never completely lost.’ The
name Catholic Epistles was not adopted by the Latin
™ Euseb., ii. 23, even speaks of Catholic Epistles which were not re-
ceived,
2 Dionys. Alex. apud Euseb., vii. 25. Orig., passim.
3 Acts xv. Clem. Strom., iv. 512..
4 Origen, Contra Celsum, i. 63.
5 Euseb., il. 23; vi. 14.
6 Leontius de Sectis (Swe. vi.), ch. 2: xadorswai inrndnoay torsidav où pos Ey
ives iypadnoay, ws ai ro Tlavaov, AR xaborov wpis wavre.—According to a
Scholiast, the Epistle of James is put first ors rs rod Ilérpou xaborinoripa toriv
(Cotelerii PP. ap. pref. in Barn.)
124 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Church, which preferred to call them canonical epistles—t.e.,
recognised as apostolic. This term, to which I shall have to
return, prevailed at the period during which the seven
epistles were received into general use.’
But this digression has made us lose sight of the chrono-
logical order of the facts ; I hasten to resume the thread of
my narrative.
* Cassiod, Div. lect., ch. 8. Pseudo-Jerome, Prolog. in Epp. can.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE THIRD CENTURY.
THE question of the Canon did not make much progress in
the course of the third century. The collection, which
generally included four gospels, the Acts, the Apocalypse,
thirteen epistles of Paul, and the epistles of Peter and of
John, as already mentioned, was in some localities enlarged
by the addition of several other writings, formerly neglected
or put in the second rank ; but no official decision was any-
where given in the direction of fixing definitely the choice
and the list of the sacred books, and even the number of
testimonies at our disposal for simply ascertaining the state
of things at this period is very limited. This proves that
the theologians of the day did not consider the question so
pressing as we are inclined to suppose. Besides, most of
the testimonies to be quoted from this period are private
Judgments, individual opinions, as was the case also in the
previous period, at most, only valuable information as to
which books were received in certain localities. We must be
specially on our guard against supposing that these opinions
always exercised a direct and prevailing influence on ecclesi-
astical usages. I have already stated, on the strength of
the express words of Tertullian, that in this century there
was no official declaration proceeding from a central authority
(which did not exist), and that therefore the recognition of
the apostolic writings and the order of those included in
the usual collection were fixed by the traditional custom of
the principal, and particularly of the most ancient churches.
The critical or scientific studies of the learned, so far as any
were carried on, were of very little weight. From the
126 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
principal churches, the metropolitan, the collection naturally
passed into all the churches of one particular province, and
thus without difficulty considerable uniformity was estab-
lished among them.
This uniformity could not but show itself most of all
in places where the apostolic writings were known and
used only through a translation. I cannot be far wrong in
saying that the need of a translation would be nowhere felt
before the period when the nucleus of the collection had
already been formed in the Greek Church, and for its use.
It would be a singular thing that the Latin or Semitic
Churches should, in this respect, have anticipated the
Greeks, who were the depositaries and guardians of the
books of the apostles ; besides it would be contrary to all
we know of the propagation of the Gospel at that period,
since contemporary writers affirm that it was propagated
by the ministry of the living word, and that the Scriptures
came later! I maintain, therefore, that the first translations
made for the 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 collection, closed
and definite, must have been formed more readily and more
distinctly in the minds of the Latin and Semitic Christians,
who, from the very first, received an entire collection of
holy books, than in the minds of the Greeks, among whom
time was needed to efface the remembrance of the slow and
gradual formation of the collection. To convince ourselves
of the correctness of this observation, we have only to con-
sider the difference in standpoint and reasoning between
Clement and Tertullian—the difference observable in
the numerous extracts already given from these two
writers. Hence it is not by mere chance that the earliest
* Jrenaeus, Adv. haer., iii. 4.
THE THIRD CENTURY. 127
attempt to form a complete and methodical list of the
writings in the evangelical collection was not made in the
Greek but in the African Church, and dates from a period
which cannot be much later than that of the 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 civilisation had not succeeded
in crushing the national genius, we meet with another trans-
lation into the vulgar tongue, which we must consider for a
little. The precise date of its origin can hardly be deter-
mined. The Syrians themselves attribute it to an apostle ;!
but no dependence can be placed on such legends. The
common opinion of modern orientalists assigns it to the end
of the second century, or to the first half of the third. The
date of its origin is not of so much importance, when I can
affirm that for hundreds of years the Syrian churches were
content with this work, although it was incomplete as com-
pared with the final form of, the Greek New Testament.’
For this version, which soon acquired in the country and its
schools an official authority, differs in several points from
the collections we have hitherto been considering, whether
of the Greek theologians or the Latin churches. On the
one hand, it does not contain the Apocalypse ; on the other,
it adds to the Pauline epistles the Epistle to the Hebrews
* The supposition that the idiom of this version is exactly that spoken by
Jesus Christ may be pardoned in fathers more pious than learned ; it does not
admit of more serious discussion.
? In the Old Testament the Syriac Version (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 collection
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 James. We understand that in the East, in
the neighbourhood of Palestine, in a sphere where Jewish
Christianity might exercise a certain influence, this ancient
work commended itself to special attention, whereas the
churches under Pauline influence might neglect it, or even
ignore its existence. It is to be observed, nevertheless, that
its reception into the canon seems to have been due to an
oversight, or, at least, to be connected with a mistake re-
garding the person of the author. The special title which
precedes the volume of the Catholic Epistles, in the
ancient Syriac version, expressly says they were written
by the three disciples who were witnesses of the Lord’s
Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. Now, without in-
sisting on the point that the precise designation of the
place is purely legendary, it is a fact that the James,
who was there present, was the son of Zebedee and the
brother of John, and in no case could he be the author of
this epistle, no matter what opinion we adopt regarding the
person of its author, or the number of apostolic personages
bearing the name of James. Still, this shows that in the
Church of Syria also, there was no intention of putting
anything in the sacred collection except works belonging
to immediate disciples of the Lord. For the same reason,
the Epistle to the Hebrews figures here only because it was
attributed to the Apostle Paul, and not as an anonymous
but authentic monument of the teaching of the first century.
I go further, and say that the insertion of these two epistles
seems to prove of itself, notwithstanding the lack of all
direct evidence, that they were received on an equal footing,
and read in the Greek churches of Syria at the time when
THE THIRD CENTURY. 129
the 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 the author’s
name, could come only from the Greeks. The omission of
the Apocalypse leads me likewise to maintain that the re-
action against this book had already begun among the
Greeks at the date of the Syriac translation, or, at least,
that the Eastern Churches no longer regarded it as a book
suitable for the edification of the people, although the
theologians favourable to Chiliastic views continued to set
great store on it. In any case, these facts justify the
chronological place I have adopted for the document
under discussion. If its origin were placed much earlier,
the hesitations, the contradictions, the silence which I
have elsewhere noted in regard to the books in question,
would be inexplicable.!
Among the Fathers of the third century to be consulted,
there is not one that can be compared to Origen, either for
the number of interesting facts furnished by him or for the
confidence inspired in us by his vast erudition, Still the most
striking features in the mass of facts furnished by him are
the uncertainty of the results, the want of precision in his
point of view, and the facility with which he passes in
turn from scientific discussion to popular usages. That is
already visible in what he says of the Old Testament. It
will be remembered that the Greek Church was not at that
time very sure of its choice between the Hebrew canon and
the Septuagint. The learned Origen does not put an end
* The canon of the ancient Syriac version is not known simply by the
existing MSS., which might be incomplete ; it is expressly recognised and
confirmed by the Syrian authors of the centuries following.
I
130 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
to this uncertainty. When enumerating the books of the
Old Testament, he fixes their number at twenty-two, which
is the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and
this suggestive parallel is repeated again and again by later
authors.’ But the order of the books is evidently of Greek
origin, and foreign to the official form of the Hebrew canon.
Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah 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 come last. Further, when naming Jeremiah,
the author expressly mentions his epistle, which gives ground
for supposing that he acknowledged the canonicity of the
Greek form of that prophet’s book as well as of the books of
Daniel and Esther. As to the apocryphal writings proper,
he names in the passage quoted only the books of the
Maccabees, which he distinguishes from all the others as not
belonging to the catalogue of the twenty-two! But we
possess in the works of Origen two other writings containing
much information on this point. His friend Julius Africanus
writes him a letter regarding the story of Susanna, calling
it a pure fable as it is not found in the Hebrew text, and
declaring that nothing should be recognised as an integral
portion of the Old Testament except what had been trans-
lated from that original. Origen, ina 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
1 Selecta in Psalmos, Opp., xi. p. 378, ed. Lomm. The whole passage is
transcribed by Eusebius, vi. 25.
2 The enumeration itself is incomplete since the copyist has omitted the
book of the twelve minor prophets,
3 iZw rovrwy tori ra MaexxaGaixe (loc. cit.)
4 iL iBpuiav vois ErAAnos wsteBanen wave’ ou cis warasds diabnxns ipsras (Ep.
Afric. ad Orig., ch. i. In Orig. Opp., 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 prevail 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 will not be surprising to find him elsewhere quot-
ing the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and the books of
the Maccabees, as the Scriptures, the Word of God? and mak-
ing frequent reference to them. Origen went further. He
used even to admit that, outside of the Bible in books really
apocryphal,‘ there were inspired passages which the apostles
with their own inspiration could easily discern and repro-
duce, while other Christians, no longer enjoying that gift,
would do better to avoid these books. By way of proof he
cites some 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 apostolic books. When dealing
with the different statements found in his numerous works
* Orig. ad Afric., ch. 13, loc. cit., p. 42: éGpain rw TwBia ob ypavras.
GAN ère pwvras ro TwBia wi ixxancias, icrtov x. 7. À.
* Qui liber apud nos inter Salomonis volumina haberi solet (Homil. 18 in
Numer. ).
3 dsios Acyos, scripture (De princip., ii. 1,§5. Homil. in Lev. I. T. vi. :
in Jo., ch. 19; in Mait., Tract. 31; Contra Celsum, iii. 723 viii. 50.
Philocal, ch. 22.) See in general the indices to his works.
4 ty éroxpiqus, in secretis. See Prolog. in Cantic., Opp. xiv, 325. Comm.
in aie iv. 238 f. ; v. 29.)
5 Matt. xxiii. 37, xxvii. 9; 1 —. 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 all 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 most explicit manner
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 made its choice
among the great number 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
belicved in the churches to be divine For that matter all
“Ruseb., 7iist. eccl., vis 20.
2 Homil. i. in Luc. (Opp. v. 87): Ut sciatis non solum quatuor evangelia
sed plurima esse conscripta e quibus haec quae habemus electa sunt et tradita
ecclesiis ex ipso proemio Lucae cognoscamus. . . . Hoc quod ait: ‘‘conati
sunt,” latentem habet accusationem eorum qui absque gratia Spiritus sancti
ad scribenda evangelia prosilicrunt. Matthaeus, Marcus, Joannes et Lucas
non conati sunt scribere sed Spiritu sancto pleni scripserunt . . . Ecclesia
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 érû rav rarawe
xa) lovdainar ypauporwy ols nal nusis xpwpsba, oti nrroy di xal aed THY wETe Tov
"Incody ypaQivrwy xal iv vais ixxAnciass Osiwy sivas memioreupivur.
THE THIRD CENTURY. 195
these books are designated by à common and distinctive
name, which puts them in the same rank as those of the
Old Testament. They are the books of the Covenant, or, as
Tertullian would have said, the books of the Testament.”
The use of the singular in this formula has special signific-
ance, because it removes the last trace of any difference
between the two parts of the sacred collection? The terms
canon, canonical, terms of which I have already made
occasional use by anticipation, did not yet exist apparently
in a literary sense. By the ecclesiastical canon’ was still
meant the traditional rule, the established and regular
usage.
But I am in haste to come to facts more unexpected. To
begin with, Eusebius has preserved to us a very curious
passage regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews. According
to him, Origen said:* “The style of this epistle does not
bear the characteristics of Paul's ordinary diction. Paul
acknowledges himself to be no practised writer, whereas
this is classical in style, as all competent judges will agree.
On the other hand, no one can fail to see that its thoughts
are admirable and in no respect inferior to the apostolic
writings which are generally recognised. J am therefore of
opinion that the ideas are the apostle’s, but that the form
of their expression is due to some one who reproduced them
from memory. Hence, if any church holds it to be Paul’,
that church does not err, for the ancients had some grounds
T oa tv rn diabinn Biprla, ai tvdicbnxos BiBro. They are the same to which
he also gives the name éporsyovueva, i.e., the books which all the churches
agree in accepting.
2 This unity is expressly set forth (4 raarum diadinn apyn rod slayytdriov)
i, in Jo., ch. 15.
3 xaydv txxanoiaeorixos (Euseb., vi. 25.)
4 Euseb., loc. cit. : 6 yapaxrnp ris Atzews. . . . obm Exes vd by A6yw Diwrimey
ro) érocréhov. . . . MAG torly cuvbdess ris AlZews EAANUKWTEpA. TAs 6 imiorautys
xpivesy Opdoewy diecPopds, Cmorkoynoas ay. mA TE ad ori T@ vohuara Ths Emi Ton Ts
Cavpécié tors, nal où dedTepa Toy dmorToAmaY uonryouuivey ypauhéTuv.
134 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
for transmitting it to us as that apostle’s. Nevertheless,
God alone knows who wrote it, and on this point tradition
mentions sometimes the name of Clement of Rome, some-
times that of Luke.”! Clearly Origen here has had before
him several opinions somewhat opposed to each other, and
he is seeking to harmonise them 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 from 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 makes the basis of all his
studies, suggests to hima new theory. This hypothesis, made
at a venture, seemed to reconcile the hesitations 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 tous, 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 munifestly canonical, and speaks of its author as
an unknown person, at the same time adding that it could
be proved to be by the apostle, though many persons dis-
puted the fact.
1... rk wiv vouara rol drorroAev, ñ à Gpacis xai h cursors am opynpovEU-
cavrés vives Tz Gmosrolind nai wowsps) oxoAmypudroavros Ta sipnusya Uxd rod
Bidacxdrov x. T. À.
2 Epist. ad Afric., ch. 9. The facts given regarding the death of the
prophets by him who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews (¢ ypurpas), tv
oUderl ray Quripar PiPriwy yrypappiva,
THE THIRD CENTURY. 135
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 generally acknowledged,
perhaps a second, for this is doubtful. John (besides the
Gospel and the Apocalypse) left also a very brief epistle,
perhaps a second and a third, for all 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 simply the epistle (in the singu-
lar, without a figure)—the Catholic 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 James and Jude, too, are quoted with
some hesitation. The former is introduced as a work con-
sidered to be by James 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. In
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 recommended as full of celestial
grace and quoted several times, is not included among the
writings whose authority is indisputable.” Here, too, the
name of apostle is given to James and Jude in those works
1 Euseb., loc. cit. : Hérpos wlay Emioronhy ouoroyouuivny xarariromer. Er di
nal dsvripar aupiBéakires yap. . . . "Iwavyns. « . . imioroAny Taw GA yoy OTIX WY.
Lore Di nal Sevripay xed rpirnv ail où wdress Qurtyrnolous Tver radras.
2 For instance : Zn Joh., tom. vi. ch. 18. In Psalm 3 (Opp. xi. 420).—In
Matt. vol. xv. ch. 27, there must also be read àr0 +ÿs Ilérpov irurronis.
3 4 Qipouéyn ‘IaxdBou imisron (xix. in Joh., ch. 6).
4 Tom. x. in Matt. ch. 17.
5 si sis apecoiro thy “lovde tmioroany (tom. xvii. in Matt. ch. 30). Comp.
toni; x. ch: 17; xiii. 27; xvi 27).
136 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
of Origen, which have been preserved only in a Latin trans-
lation. Ido 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 collection, al-
though science could still 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 the
trumpet to overthrow the walls of the mystical Jericho, a
symbol of paganism, 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 collection would have been not only (as is
believed) quite as complete as the others, it would have
been still fuller; for he complacently quotes several other
books, using the same formulas, 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 Prine. iii. 2. Comm. in Rom. iv. 8, v. 1.
THE THIRD CENTURY. 137
did to his predecessors. He identifies the former 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 the 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 which, 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. Thus,
for example, he discusses very sensibly the value of a book
called the Preaching of Peter, which 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
t Vol. vi. in Joh., ch. 36.
2 Contra Cels., i. 63.
3 Que scriptura mihi valde utilis videtur et ut puto divinitus inspirata
(Comm. in Rom. Book x. ch. 31). Pspoutyn tv rn tuxancin ypagn od wupa mât
38 Speororyoupetyn tivæs Osia (in Matt. vol. xiv. ch. 21). Qui a nonnullis contemni
videtur (De prince. iv. 11). Comp. Hom. 1 in Psalm xxxvii. Hom. 8 in
Num. In Luc. hom. 35. Opp. v. p. 218.
4 ef cis mapadiyeres (Hom. in Jerem. xv. 4). si rw Qidov rapadiyecdus (vol.
xx. in Joh., ch. 12. ‘Comp. De princ., ii. 1, § 5).
5 xñpoyua Iérpov, doctrina Petri (De princ., preface, § 8). Respondendum
quoniam ille liber inter ecclesiasticos non habetur et ostendendum quia neque
Petri est ipsa scriptura neque alterius cuiuspiam qui Spiritu Dei fuerit in-
spiratus.
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), .e., that may have, in spite of their
general apocryphal character, elements of a value incontest-
ably superior.'. Authenticity, or legitimacy, as may be seen,
is not taken here in an exclusively literary sense.
The School of Alexandria of which Origen was the most
learned and most brilliant representative, was in an em-
barrassing position in regard to a book of which no special
mention has been made in these last pages. We have seen
that at a very early period the Apocalypse was held in
special, even exceptional, regard ; that, as a prophetic book,
it was the first of all the writings of the first century to be
ranked by theology with the inspired Scriptures. This
exceptional] position was retained by it so long as Chiliasm,
or the belief in the coming of the thousand years’ reign of
the elect, prevailed in the church and was admitted by the
principal theologians. But towards the end of the second
century a reaction had set in against this belief, which had
crown more and more materialistic, and the Alexandrine
Fathers in particular laboured for the spread of more
spiritual views regarding the general essence of Christianity,
and specially regarding the last things. The Apocalypse,
which was eminently favourable to the views already cur-
rent, must have given them trouble, and, as traditional
opinion seemed to put its claims beyond all attack, tke
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
T''Efsraoyrts œipi rol BiBAiou weripsy rors yrioisy Boris À vodov 4 puxroy (VOI.
xiv. in Joh.)
2 See Origen, De princ., ii. 11, § 6. Zn Matt. Opp., iv. 307.
THE THIRD CENTURY. 139
the new method met with opposition, and an Egyptian
bishop, named Nepos, published a volume of criticism against
the Allegorists!' which made much noise, as it frankly re-
asserted the literal meaning of a book which up to that
time had been so highly prized by Christians. The most
learned of Origen’s disciples, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria,
made extraordinary efforts to remove this opposition ; he
held public conferences with the partisans of Chiliasm, and
wrote besides a treatise “On the Promises,” of which
Eusebius has preserved several very interesting fragments.
Among other points, we find in them that Dionysius, while
professing respect for a book which others before him, he
says, had rejected as unworthy of an apostle and had attri-
buted to a heretic, tries to establish a doubt regarding the
person of the author. He alleges various reasons for not
identifying its author with the author of the Fourth Gospel
and of the Epistle, and he concludes that probably another
apostolic personage of the name of John, either Mark or
rather a certain presbyter of the Church of Ephesus whose
tomb was still to be seen in that city, wrote this Apocalypse.
He does not, however, dispute its inspiration. I shall not
discuss here the value of the arguments of Dionysius,
which recall those adduced by Origen in support of his
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 disesteem, so soon
as the current began to withdraw from the hopes that had
formerly excited the visionary enthusiasm of the first gene-
rations. The book was bound to follow the fate of the ideas
consecrated in it, and the allegorical interpretation, the busi-
1 *"Edeyxos &\Anyopisray Ap. Euseb., Hist. eccl. vii. 24.
2 œtpl txayyehay (Eusebius, loc. cit.)
140 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
ness of scholars only, could do no more than hinder the people
from turning away from the prophet when they had ceased
to believe in the prophecy. But if this were the case, as no
one can doubt, what is to be said of the basis on which
finally the choice of the church rested when forming its
sacred canon? On the one hand we have Origen recom-
mending the inclusion of an epistle that was still doubtful,
because its contents seemed to him excellent, while at the
same time he confesses that he does not know who wrote it,
and that the elegance of its style makes it impossible for
him to attribute it to an apostle. On the other hand we
have Dionysius advising the exclusion of a prophecy which
had long been received, but was opposed in the letter to his
theology, while he seeks for it a perhaps imaginary author
who is to be responsible both for the solecism in form from
which he wishes to relieve the apostle and for those peculi-
arities in the subject-matter with which he is unwilling to
burden his own conscience. But I hasten to add that the
fate of those books did not depend on the individual opinion
of our two learned theologians. They themselves felt the
pressure of an opinion more generally entertained, before
lending to it the support of their own personal authority,
which was no doubt very powerful. We may conclude
from all this that the tradition which, as we have seen, pre-
dominated in the formation of the canon of the New Testa-
ment, did not rest necessarily and everywhere on primordial
guarantees, on the testimonies of the first age ; otherwise
these fluctuations of opinion would be inexplicable, and
ecclesiastical usages could not have been modified from time
to time in accordance with systems, nay, according to the
taste of a particular age or school.
The Greek Church of the third century furnishes us with
scarcely any more texts to be consulted on the history of
the canon. A hundred years after Origen we shall find
THE THIRD CENTURY. 141
things just where we left them. I simply remark that the
testimonies, commonly fragmentary, which have come down
to us from this period prove that the Epistle to the Hebrews
appears to have been accepted without difficulty in the
East as a work of Paul; at least, there is no trace of any
opposition on the point. Still, I shall not leave the Eastern
Church and pass to the no less interesting details furnished
by the Latin authors, without calling the attention of my
readers to a book which in its first form must belong to this
same period, and which, for more than one reason, still presents
matter of great historical interest. This is the famous com-
pilation known under the name of the Apostolic Constitu-
tions, a vast collection of laws and ordinances touching the
government of the Church, worship, discipline, and similar
subjects, intermingled with moral teachings. The apostles
appear in it as a kind of legislative body, speaking in their
collective name, and ruling with a sovereign authority all
that concerns the wants and duties of the Christian common-
wealth. It is, in truth, the earliest ecclesiastical code, and its
importanceis hardly lessened by the pretentious form in which
it is drawn up. Modern scholars are generally agreed in as-
signing the principal part (Books I.-VI.) to the third century,
while they make the appendices (Books 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 first place, let me quote
the place which the apostles claim for themselves in the
economy of Providence. “Every generation,” they say,
“has had its prophets who interpreted the will of God, and
were the means of his call to repentance: before the deluge,
there were Abel, Shem (sic), Seth, Enos, and Enoch ; in the
time of the deluge, Noah; in the time of Sodom, Lot; after
the cataclysm, Melchisedec, the patriarchs, and Job; in
* Const Apost. ii. 55.
14% HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Egypt, Moses; among the Israelites, in addition to the
latter, Joshua, Caleb, and Phinehas, and others; after the
Law, angels and prophets; then, further, God himself by his
incarnation in the Virgin; a little before His coming, John,
the forerunner ; finally, after His Passion, we, the Twelve,
and Paul, the chosen vessel. Witnesses of His presence
rapoveias), with James, the brother of the Lord, and seventy-
two other disciples and the seven deacons, we heard from
his own mouth, ete.” Among the injunctions laid upon the
Church, there is that of reading the Scriptures. Thus it
is ordained! that during the night preceding the Passover
Sunday there shall be read the Law, the Prophets, and the
Psalms until cock-crow, then the baptism of catechumens
shall take place, and the Gospel be read (76 evayyeduor), In
another passage? a complete enumeration is made of these
Scriptures :—“ The reader, placed in an elevated chair, shall
read the books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles,
and the Return; further, those of Job, Solomon, and the
sixteen prophets. At the end of every two pericopes* an-
other shall intone the Psalins of David, and the congregation
sing the responses. After that there shall be read our Acts
and the epistles of our fellow-worker, Paul, which he ad-
dressed to the churches by direction of the Holy Spint ;
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.” Tt will be observed that no mention is made here of
any one of the Catholic Epistles or of the Apocalypse. This
fact of itself, alone, authorises us in assigning an early date
either to the composition of the book itself, or to the usages
* Const. Apost. v. 19.
2 Const. Apost. ii. 57.
3 Ezra and Nehemiah.
4 ävæyrérmara. It is evident that here only readings or extracts are under
discussion.
THE THIRD CENTURY. 143
which it consecrates. In another passage! the faithful are
put on their guard against the pseudepigrapha. It is not to
the names they bear, it is said, that we must give heed, but
to their contents and spirit. Finally, in a passage of the
appendix,’ where he is speaking of the enthroning of the
bishop, Peter prescribes also the reading of the Law, the
Prophets, the Epistles, the Acts, and the Gospels, without
entering into the details. We shall hardly go wrong if we
see in these summary enumerations an index of the number
of the volumes of which the sacred library was composed,
and the care bestowed on reading a portion from each volume,
This supposition is further confirmed by the venerable us-
ages of the Catholic Church and of the Lutheran Churches.
I shall be able to pass rapidly over the Latin authors of
this century, for to them the canon of the New Testament
seems to have remained in its primitive simplicity, and almost
in the same state as we saw it in the Muratorian Canon. The
most 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. Ina fragment of Victorinus, bishop
* Const. Apost. vi. 16.
2 Const. Apost. viii. 5.
3] say nothing here of other passages (i. 5, 6; ii. 5) where the O. T. is
more particularly spoken of; a distinction is there established between
what has a permanent value and what only concerns the Jews.
4 Jerome, De Viris Ill., ch. 59: Apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli
ap. non habetur. 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,
mapa ‘Pupaiwy Tici,
5 Jerome and Eusebius, Jl. cc.
6 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 limited to
seven, as to a sacred number. In the works of Lactantius
there is no trace of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Later, when
opinion had changed, attempts were made to explain this
dislike of the early fathers to the epistle, by saying that the
orthodox theologians were prejudiced against this epistle
by the abuse which the heretics made of it. The Arians, it
is said, appealed to the passage in iil, 2; the Novatians,
who denied repentance to the renegade (lapsi), availed
themselves of vi. 4. and x. 262 But in what remains to us
of Novatian himself? no use is made of the epistle, and if its
authenticity and authority had been acknowledged previ-
ously, it is far from probable that the orthodox fathers
would have sacrificed it, simply to get rid of an exegetical
argument which was inconvenient to them.
The most celebrated and the most important Latin author
of the third century, the Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, will
also give us most complete information on the state of the
canon, In the Old Testament, he makes no 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
1 De fabrica mundi, ap. Cave, Hist. Lit. 1720, p. 95: postea (non nisi )
singularibus personis scripsit ne excederet modum septem ecclesiarum. Comp.
the same. In Apoc., p. 570, ed. Paris, 1654.
2 Ambrose, De Poenit. ii. 3. Philastr., Haer. 89.
3 Gallandi, Bibl. P.P., vol. iil.
4 Cyprian, Epp., 73.
s Id., De Exhort. mart., ch. 2. Adv. Jud., i. 20. Comp. 1 Sam., ii. 5.
THE THIRD CENTURY. 145
John are the only Catholic Epistles known or quoted by
Cyprian.
I may add further that the Latin theologians were far
from sharing that kind of antipathy against the Apocalypse
which, as we have just seen, sprang up and gained ground
in the bosom of the Eastern Church during this same cen-
tury. I quoted just now the testimony of Cyprian on the
point. Hippolytus,’ Victorinus,’ Lactantius, as partisans of
Chiliasm, professed great veneration for this book, and this
opinion was so predominant among the Latins that, as we
have seen elsewhere, Lactantius exalts in the most emphatic
manner the Sibylline prophecies, and does not hesitate a
moment about placing them on a level with inspired writ-
ings. The only author who is an apparent exception, is the
presbyter Caius, an adversary of Chiliasm. According to
Eusebius (f/ist. eccl., iii. 28), Caius accused the heretic
Cerinthus of having deceived the world by producing under
the name of a great apostle, pretended revelations com-
municated by angels. This passage has often been inter-
preted as if it applied to the Apocalypse of John, which
Caius would thus seem to have rejected and treated as an
apocryphal work. But this is not stated explicitly, and
above all Eusebius does not appear to have understood him in
this fashion. The great apostle might very well be, either
Paul or Peter ; at least this epithet was not given to John
in the early church.
* He had written a defence of the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John
(Opp. ed. Fabricius, p. 38. Jerome, De Vir. ill., 61. Andreas, Prolog. in
Apoc.).
? Jerome, l.c., 18. The traces of Chiliasm have disappeared from his
commentary in the recension which has come down to us.
CHAP ENR EX
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 policy or from popular antipathy, was free to
develop and organise itself in all directions according to its
spirit and its needs. What use did it make of this freedom
of movement which up to this time had been unknown ?
We do not find that any advantage was taken of it for
remodelling social institutions that had sprung up and
developed in difficult times and under the blows of persecu-
tion. It was left to time, to the instincts of future genera-
tions, the exigencies of circumstances, the convenience of
governments or individual interests, to modify these institu-
tions, complete them, or adapt them to the genius of each
epoch or country. That which predominated from the first
day of the emancipation, so to speak, from the day after the
last judicial murder ; that which occupied first the cultivated
minds that could lead the way in thought, and then the
masses; that which for centuries absorbed almost all
the religious activity of the church, enslaved all its powers
and finally exhausted them, was speculation, the infatua-
tion for transcendental questions, the demand for defining
metaphysical notions, for analysing them and drawing
inferences from them; in a word, for changing religion into
theology and theology itself into a matter for the learned
and for dialectics. This has a pearing on our special history
inasmuch as all this work was begun, continued, and, so to
speak, accomplished, at least in its most important and
THE FOURTH CENTURY—STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE, 147
most decisive parts, without the Church being in possession
of a clear and precise theory regarding the standard of dog-
matic truth, or of an official collection of the sacred books
carefully limited and generally recognised. Not but that
there were certain writings of the Old and New Testaments
regarding whose authority all were agreed, and against
which there could not be raised the least doubt, the least
contradiction ; but the number and the list of these books
were nowhere definitely determined ; and, besides, there
was a crowd of others whose claims were not verified, which
were used neither uniformly nor generally, and held a vague
and fluctuating position between sacred and profane litera-
ture, a position that might at any time embarrass science
and disconcert the faithful.
For the historian, this fact alone is enough to prove that
the formation of the sacred collection was a matter of local
custom, unconscious tradition, practical needs, relations
more or less intimate, more or less accidental between the
various churches. It was in no sense whatever an inherit-
ance from the apostolic age, complete and guaranteed from the
first, and running no risk of alteration in its form or materials.
But it is not my duty here to interpret the facts; I have
only to recount them and let them speak for themselves.
What the modern historian can establish by the study of
early writers and the analysis of the literary documents of
the first centuries—viz., the absence of any clearly defined
canon of Scripture at the Council of Nicæa, and the varia-
tions of opinion regarding the various parts of our existing
collections—all this was established through the same
methods by the contemporary historian, who had himself
been struck by the facts to which I now call attention, with
this single difference that he had them before his eyes,
while modern science has had to begin by discovering them
anew.
148 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Eusebius of Caesarea (for my readers will have divined
that I wish to devote this chapter to him) was the most
erudite of the theologians of his day. If he leaves much to
be desired as an exegete or an apologist for Christianity, he
had, on the other hand, one quality which was wanting in
all his predecessors as in all his contemporaries, the instinct
for historical research. I use the word instinct purposely.
His ecclesiastical history is an invaluable collection of
materials, the fruit of the most meritorious labour; but it
is nothing more. And we have reason to congratulate our-
selves on this, for his notes acquire all the more interest and
value that he is clearly incapable of blending them into a
true pragmatical history of the Church. What renders them
most of all precious to us, is the very marked attention
which he directs to all that concerns the history of the
Christian Bible. He read a prodigious number of authors,
for the most part now lost, and in the extracts he gives
from their writings he never fails to note the use they made
of Scripture, the list of books which they quote in passing or
fully discuss, the judgments they pronounce on them. What
is the reason of this anxiety? If we were still in possession
of all these authors, would we not have more pressing ques-
tions to address to them on the problems specially which
occupied the age of Eusebius, the problems of dogmatic and
speculative theology ? But, unless I am strangely deceived
about the state of things at the beginning of the fourth
century, it will not be difficult to explain why the bishop
took so much care to register these numerous individual
testimonies. Their relative value was all the greater that
there nowhere existed any official declaration having an
absolute value, no canon of a synod, no collective agreement
among churches or bishops, no letter from a pope or mandate
from a patriarch, and, above all, no apostolic decision. Of
all these there is not the shadow of a trace in this 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 them from any vain
curiosity, but with the distinct purpose of reaching some-
thing certain. And, when all is done, the most positive result
to which he comes is still uncertainty, and an uncertainty
so great that he gets confused while making a statement
of it. This may be seen fr m the analysis of his summary.
He returns to this subject in several passages of his third
book, to one of which, the twenty-fifth chapter, we must de-
vote some attention. I am going to transcribe it entire and
study it carefully, so as to institute a comparison between
its parallel texts. Let me begin by saying that Eusebius,
in the absence of any official list of the canonical writings
of the New Testament, finds it the simplest way to count
the votes of his witnesses, and by this means to distribute
all the apostolical or pretended apostolical books into three
categories :—(1) Those on whose authority and authenticity
all the churches and all the 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 homologumenu; or books universally
7 “Onodoyodmeva, &vavrippnra, évau@li\ixra, tvdudénxa. This last term is un-
translatable. Still, though a synonym with the three others, it clearly
150 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
recognised ; those of the second (%.., 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 trom a different order of
ideas, and these other terms have contributed not a little to
mislead modern scholars in the interpretation of his texts.
IT am thinking here chiefly of an expression which we have
already met in Origen, but to which Eusebius gives a
slightly novel meaning. He uses, the term yé6a, bastards,
(a pocrypha), not exactly for fictitious writings, pseudepi-
ygraupha, works bearing falsely an author’s name, nor, again,
for books which are to be rejected from a dogmatic point of
view, but simply for works which do not bear, so to speak,
the stamp of canonical legitimacy, which are not warranted by
the mass of votes as are those of the first class. I beg my
readers to take note of this, and to remember, when reading
the translation I am going to give of the texts from Eusebius,
that this term ¢//egztimate, with its derivations, does not imply
in the author’s thought any reproach of literary falsification or
dogmatic heresy, but simply states that there was no general
ecclesiastical 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
sums up the facts he has been able to establish by his
literary researches*:—“ Now that we have come to this
says something more. It not only affirms the unanimity of their reception
or use, but, no doubt, implies also the theological idea of a normal rule. I
shall translate it in this sense : books 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.
* ayTiMyoptva, yvapiua Tos moXoïs.
* Eusebius, Hist. eecl., iii. 25: EdNoyov Vivrada yivouivous dvaxsPadawcacbas
Tas dnabiloas Tis xauwijs diabians ypaQés. xal dn TaxTiov bv æpéTos Thy éylay Tov
say year TiTpaxT uv. ols basTash tev wpdkiwy Tov aw. YpaPn, mir Di TaUTHY Tas
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 followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles ;
after this we must rank the Epistles of Paul, and next to
them we must receive that which is known by the name of
the first of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter. To
these must be added, if it be thought right, the Apocalypse
of John, to which we shall return. These are the books
which stand in the class of those universally acknowledged:
In the class of contested books, which, however, are recog-
nised by most, it is usual to place the Epistle of James, the
Epistle of Jude, and those which are named the second and
third of John, whether they come from the evangelist or
some other person of the same name. Among the illegiti-
mate books we must rank the Acts of Paul, what is called
the Pustor, 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
TlavNou xaTan:xTiov érisro\ds ais ÉÉs ray Pepomévny "lwdvvov rpoTipay xal omolws THY
Tlitpou xupwrioy ixiorodny. tal roûTois TaxTiov, eye Pavein, Tay aroxdhuiy ’lwdyvou
. . . xal Tatra wiv tv ouooyouudvors, Twv à &vriNsyomivuy, yrwpluwy à oÙy bums Tals
moots, 1 Asyoutvn laxwBov Pipsras xal 4 "lovda, fre IléTpou devTépa taioToAn xal n
dvomatouwevn devTépa xal Tpirm Iwdyvov' site Tov elayysNcTo Tuyxdvovoas, site xal
ETipoy Ouuvÿuou txelvw. 'Ev Tots vobois xaTaTeTaxdw xal Toy IlavAeyv xpdzswvn ypagn,
ors Nsyousvos Tour, xaln axroxdruyis IliTpou, xal apos TovTos à Pspouivn BaprdBa
iwizToAn, xal Toy amocTo\wy al Asyémeva didayal ers di, ws Edn, n “Iwdvvov
Gmroxdduyis, si Pavsin, Hv Tives, ws Edny, absTovow Erspos D byxplyoves Tols ouodoy-
oumivois. Hon, d ty TowTous Tivis xal Td xad’ ‘EGpalous sbayyétdiov xaTéAsËav. . . .
TATA piv rdvTA Toy aYTIASyoutvay av ein "Avayxalws 33 xal TovTwY ouws Toy xaTd-
Noyoy remoinusba, diaxplvavrss Tas Ts xATA THY ExxAnciacTixny Tapddoow anbeis xal
axrdorovs xal avupohoynuivas ypapüs xal Tas GANas rapa TavTas, oÙx ivdiadyxous
Mev aNd xal avTideyoutvas, ouws 08 rapa wAsloTos Toy ixxAnocrixaY Yyiyywoxo-
pivas" ty sidivas Exoeey adeds Ts TavTas xal Tds dvouaTs Ty amwocTOAWY pds THY
aipstixay apoPspowivas. . . . dbev avd tv vedas ard xaTaraxréor, aN’ ws arora
xdvTn xal dvecsB rapaiTnrioy,
152 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
amongst the books universally acknowledged. Finally,
some place in this category the Gospel acccording to the
Hebrews, which the Jewish-Christians use by preference.
All these books may be ranked in the class of those which
are disputed. But we have been cbliged 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 most 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 place, 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 modern habits of thought.
Eusebius expressly says that he wished to draw up the
double catalogue of the homologumena and the antilegomena,
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
them 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 relatives difference between the 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, more 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-
self 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 follows
I shall 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 contrary 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.
* Euseb., Hist. eccl., iii, 3: apoiodons D ris ioToplas xpovpyou wraimoouas
ne Tivts Toy xaTà ypovous ixx\noinoTin dr cvyypadiwy érolcus REX pAYT OU
Toy ayTIASyomtvwy, Tha T? Tip Tay tvdiabixwy xa) suoroyoumtvey ypapway, xal aca
Tip TOY wn ToovTwy auToIs ore
3 Ibid., iii. 31: 1 6 GY TE xaraXsloiraciy Huy pay ypappérus, xal roy
ayriNiyoutvwy wev Suwe > ty mAsloras ixxAncioss dednuocitvmivey, tov re ruvrsAds
vobwv xual rhs drorrorin ts éplodotiles a&Norpiwy.
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 which Eusebius
makes of the word il/egitimate, used by him as synonymous
with disputed, ävrieyépevos. 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 the 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 former, we saw that he first places it among the books
universally received, adding, however, this singular phrase :
uf it be thought right; then, some lines lower, he returns to
it and places it among the illegitimate (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 times and the disfavour of
contemporaries. When applied to this sudden change of
opinion, the classification of the historian was insufficient.
We must not reproach him with calling the 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, 155
catalogue does not name 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.
Still 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 Wisdom and Keclesiasticus 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 from the former.
The Epistles of James and Jude were, in the passage
quoted above, reckoned among the disputed books. This
description is repeated ‘several times regarding the latter
* Ibid., iii. 3: vod 38 Masdov apodnro xal cages ai dexariooapss. Gre ye perv
Tives nbsrnxacs THY wpos “EGBpatous, xpos ris ‘Pwwatwy txxAnolas ds wh Ilaÿ\ov oucav
aurny avriNiysobas Phravrss, où Sixasov &yvosir.
2 [bid., vi. 13: . . . aad Tay dvrilsyouivus ypagav’ THs Te Neyoutyns SoNou-
wrT0s coplas xal Tis “Inood Tod Xupdy, xal THs æpôs ‘EBpalous imioTo\ÿs, Ths Te
BapydBa xal K\mu:vTos xal ’louda.
3 Jbid., iii. 38. 4 Ibid., vi. 13, 14.
156 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Both are mentioned further in another passage which we
cannot overlook. After narrating at length the history
and martyrdom of James, the brother of the Lord, Eusebius
adds," “It is to him that the first of whatare called the
Catholic Epistles is attributed. It should, however, be
known that it is illegitimate. Only a few ancient authors
mention it, as well as that other which bears the name of
Jude and also stands among the Catholic Epistles. Still we
know that both are used along with the others in most
churches.” This passage is specially interesting because it
furnishes us with the last piece of evidence that the terms
illegitimate and disputed have with Eusebius exactly the
same meaning. He does not mean to say that the Epistle
of James is a work forged, or heretical, or unworthy of
being read by the faithful ; on the contrary he attests that
it was read and recommends it ; he expresses no doubt re-
garding the person of the presumed author, but he knows
that all the churches do not regard it as a hook of the first
rank, no doubt because it is not by one of the twelve, and
he mentions this lack of the highest legitimacy.
In this same class of books of a second rank, Eusebius
also put, as we saw, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor,
the Acts of Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter. Elsewhere
he adds to these the Epistle of Clement. All these
writings, I repeat, have their place in this list by the same
title as the five disputed Catholic Epistles. I have just
quoted a passage in which the Epistles of Barnabas and
Clement are enumerated among the disputed books, be-
tween the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of Jude.’
In the same place this classification is repeated almost in
* Ibid., ii. 23 : où à xparn Tüv évouatouiver xebodixay tareredey sivas Mytras,
ioTiov di ws vobsisTas wiv... . Sums Di Lousy xal Tavras Mita Tay Nowy ty #AsleT as
bdnpociuvpivas ixxnolaus.
* vi. 13 (see Note 2 on the preceding page).
THE FOURTH CENTURY—STATISTICAL RETROSPECTIVE. 157
the same terms! Elsewhere he even says, when speaking
of Clement: “There remains of him a great, admirable
epistle, written in name of the Church of Rome to the
Church of Corinth, and universally acknowledged. “We
know that it has from an early date been publicly used in
most churches and is so still in our day.” Here, then, is
the same Epistle of Clement raised to the rank of the un-
disputed writings ;° there were so many opinions in its
favour, and such was the general use made of it ecclesias-
tically in the fourth century. The Acts of Paul are de-
scribed, in a very favourable manner, as not undisputed. As
to the Pastor, it should be known, says Eusebius, that it
meets with opposition: it cannot therefore be placed among
the undisputed books; others, however, consider it indis-
pensable for elementary teaching. For this reason it is
used in the churches, and I see that several very early
authors make use of it” The only point on which Eusebius
contradicts himself, is regarding the Apocalypse of Peter
which he puts sometimes among the disputed books, some-
times among the heretical books ;* and even here he is only
repeaitng the divergent opinions of his predecessors with-
out reconciling them.
What now is the conclusion to be drawn from all these
facts ? Are we to place in our canon of the New Testa-
t vi. 14. Clement of Alexandria in his Outlines (‘Yxrorurace;) passes in
review all the canonical Scriptures, not neglecting the disputed books:
unèè Tas avTiNeyoutvas maps Nav, Thy "Tovda Nyw, xal Tas Nom@as xadouxds EmioTo\Gs,
Thy Ts BapydBa xal Thy IléTpou Asyoutvny aroxdduyuy,
2 ji. 16: Tourou Tod KAiwsvTos cmodoyouuivn ia ixioTo\n PspsTas wsyddn Ts xal
davparia. . . . Tarn ty m\sloTais txxAnolass tal ToD xowol Dednwooitvuivny xdas
Ts xai xa Huds aUTods Eyvwmsy,
3 ili, 38: . . . . Tov KXiusvros, ty Tn evwmodoynuivn rapa mûr.
4 iii, 3: oùdè uny Tas Asyoutvas abrod TpéËsis tv dvau@i\ixTos rapii\npe.
5 Ibid. : ivrtoy ws xal Toro rpôs wiv Tivwy avTsAEhexTas, OV ods odx Ay tv duodoys-
umtyors Tebein, UP ETEpwy De avayxasoTaroy ois MANTA Dei CTOIVEIWoSWs sicaywyix hs
xéxpiTas, obey Hon xal tv txxAnolais lousy ado dsdnuooivusvov. x. T. À,
© Compare the passages quoted above, iii. 3 and vi. 14.
158 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
nent the Acts of Paul and the Epistle of Clement, or are we
to reject the Epistle of James and the Apocalypse? By
no manner of means. But the statements of Eusebius, so
positive, so impartial, so rich in facts which without him
would have been lost, show us plainly that the Church in
the middle of the fourth century did not yet possess any
official canon, clearly defined, closed and guaranteed by
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 me 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 maintain 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 from 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 the beginning of the ninth chapter
of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; the Pastoral Epistles and the Apocalypse
are wanting in it, and it is impossible to say whether all these books, or
perhaps 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 list 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
followed by the Psalms and the jive 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 Romans, 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 Philippians
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 Pustor, 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 Apostolic Fathers i. p. 6,
R. Simon, Hist. du Texte du N.T. p. 423, and other authors.
? Including, as is well known, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.
3 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 Græco-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 more eloquent witnesses than the
Fathers themselves; I shall return to them 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 Cæsarea, asking him to get
tifty 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-
mand, among other things two public carriages. Eusebius,
tells how he acquitted himself of his commission by sending
to the emperor magnificent volumes composed of double
sheets in sets of three or four, and that he received the
thanks of the prince. Two public carriages for fifty Bibles!
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 collection.
The simplest calculation leads me to think that these were
complete Bibles, the Old Testament being included. The
emperor asks for fifty coudra of the Holy Scriptures ; this
t Eusebius, Vita Const., iv. 36, 37.
THE FOURTH 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 most important of
all, and to this the text of Eusebius gives no reply. The
emperor asks for fifty copies of the Holy Seriptures, “ those
which you acknowledge to be the most necessary to be put
together and used, in the opinion of the church ” (or, regard
being 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 Nicæa how difficult it
is to maintain agreement among theologians, and who
would certainly not lightly run the risk of a new quarrel in
his own capital, it is evident that every one more or less
must have had this liberty, no competent authority having
ever decided the questions regarding the canon. But the
astonishing part of it is that this same Eusebius, who took
care to tell us at some length about the fluctuations of
opinion in regard to certain books 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
—1e. in the most important part of Christendom. F itty
magnificent copies, all uniform, could not but exercise a
great influence on future copies. But, I repeat, Eusebius
does not tell us what he caused to be put in them. Did he
abide by the principle of following the unanimity of opinion,
of restricting himself to the undisputed books? Or did he
* Eusebius, L. c. : . . . . rav deiwy Dn\adh ypuday, av wddora Ty T° Érivnsvny
\ \ Le ee we Le > T ‘
mal Thy xpHow Tw Tijs ÉxxAnolas Noyw avayxalay sivas yryraoxeis.
L
162 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
make the limits of the collection wider, while he preserved
established usages, traditional customs (as the text of the
emperor’s letter seems to insinuate)? We do not know.
There is no doubt that he admitted the Apocrypha of the
Old Testament and the Epistle to the Hebrews; but what
about the Apocalypse, with which almost no one at that
time in the East would have anything to do? And what
about the “beautiful and admirable Epistle of Clement
universally received by the churches?” In any case, the
silence of Eusebius on this fundamental point does not arise
from the New Testament of that day being a set of books
strictly detined, as it is in our day. It would be ex-
plained more naturally in this way, that if the commission
siven 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 uniformity in the usage
of the churches towards the middle of the fourth century.
It has also shown us that there was a growing necessity
for coming to some definite understanding on a point so
fundamental. Thus, we are not surprised to see the most
illustrious theologians of the second half of this same cen-
tury make reiterated efforts to put an end to all uncertainty
and 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 most interesting period of
the history of the canon; for we find here very numerous
and express testimonies, together with catalogues of the
sacred books, which more and more approach those that
have been adopted in modern 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 conflicted with the practice
of the churches, in short, that science had not succeeded in
endowing Christendom with an exact scriptural code. The
study of the texts will fully justify the title I have given to
this chapter ; it will bring to our notice a series of attempts,
the very number of which proves a fact which modern
apologetics seek in vain to disguise—viz., that, at a period
so far removed from primitive times, there was no longer
any means of doing better. These observations are all the
164 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
more important that the testimonies to be collected will be
no longer like those of preceding generations, occasional
allusions or heterogeneous facts, but judgments purposely
delivered, opinions taking the attractive form of dogmatic
thesis, or even regulations sanctioned by the common suff-
rages of persons invested with a public authority. I shall
bring together, in one chapter, the testimonies of the
Easterns; another will contain those of the Latins; a
third will be devoted to a systematic recapitulation of these
elementary facts, the explanation of the terminology con-
nected with them, and an estimate of the general results.
Let us begin with the most celebrated theologian of the
fourth century, the bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (7 372).
From what we know, he appears to have been the first
prelate who took advantage of his position at the head of a
vast and important diocese to settle the question of the
biblical canon. It was an ancient custom for the Egyptian
patriarchs, at the beginning of each year, to publish the
ecclesiastical calendar—i.e., to settle the date of Easter, on
which most of the other festivals depended, and on the
same occasion to address to the faithful pastoral letters, or,
as we would now say, episcopal charges. In one of these
epistles, which was written for the year 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 composing it. He begins
by setting forth the utility and necessity of such a list,
when numerous heretical books were circulating in the
Church ; and, to excuse his boldness,? he quotes the example
of the evangelist Luke, who decided to narrate the history
of the Lord, because others had attempted to introduce
suspicious matter into it. It needed boldness therefore to
à Athanasius, Ep. festal. Opp. ed. Montfaucon, ii. 38 f.
2 phoques pis cloracy Tis iwaurol rors TH riey rol ayyshioroU Aouad x. T. À.
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
itso as to please all the members of the Church. But let us
look at the catalogue itself. In the Old Testament, Athan-
asius reckons twenty-two books, according to the number of
the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Through Origen we are
acquainted both with this number and its curious explanation ;
but, in spite of a coincidence which cou!d not be fortuitous, the
catalogue of the patriarch differs from that of the professor,
both in the order of the books and in the books themselves.
With Athanasius, Job is put between Canticles and Isaiah ;
Daniel comes after Ezekiel; the book of Ruth is counted
as an independent work, distinct from Judges. On the
other hand, the book of Esther is deliberately omitted
altogether. As this omission is contrary to the usages of
the Synagogue and cannot be founded on a point of dogma,
it must be concluded that it was due to some ancient
custom, whose influence the patriarch did not think it right
to resist. We shall find that he was not the only one of his
century who held the same opinion, and, as we have already
seen, Melito, Bishop of Sardis, had two centuries before ex-
pressed a similar opinion, both for himself and for those
around him. Such an opinion could only have been founded,
at first, on the absolute difference between the spirit of this
book and that of the Gospel. Finally, it is almost superfluous
to note that Athanasius attributed canonicity to the Greek
texts of the books of Daniel, Jeremiah, and Ezra, without giv-
ing any heed to the differences between the Septuagint and
the original. That would be certain, even although the tex ¢
of his charge did not say so in so many words! But the point
T'lepeuios xal ody adra Bupody, Opiivar xal iriororñ. —The epistle of Jeremiah
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 enumerates all the twenty-seven
books which we now include in it, and excludes every other
book. The seven Catholic Epistles are attached to Acts;
the Epistle to the Hebrews is inserted between the second
to the Thessalonians and the first to Timothy ; and the
Apocalypse is reinstated in its ancient rights and honours.
Besides this collection of writings, called divine on the faith
of tradition and recognised as the only source of salvation
and of the authentic teaching of the religion of the Gospel,’
Athanasius notes certain other books inferior in dignity and
used habitually in elementary instruction. In this latter
class he places Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Tobit,
Judith, the Pastor, and the Apostolic Constitutions. I shall
have to return to this classification and to the theological
terms which are used to distinguish its component parts.
As the document we have just been studying is a pastoral
charge, and not a critical dissertation, the author brings no
proof to support his decisions. He himself calls them bold
and they are indeed bold, especially as regards the number
of the Catholic Epistles. If he makes appeal on this point
to the traditions of the fathers, he goes much beyond the
testimonies of history, which a short time before had been
so carefully collected by his learned theological antagonist,
Eusebius. But my readers now know them too well for me
to need to return to them. Let it be enough to show that the
individual opinion of the patriarch of Alexandria was far
from becoming the general law of the Church. The liberty,
or rather the uncertainty, continued afterwards as before.
chapter of the book of Baruch. But in the Greek Bibles it is separated
from this by Lamentations.
1 gapadolivra wiorsvbivra ve béta sivas Pifparia... . vaudra wnyal rol cwrnpiou.
ee by rovross wévus 7d ris sbosBtins didarnanetor suayyshileras,
2 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 (¢ 390), who was no less illustrious as a theologian,
and no less attached to the Nicæan orthodoxy. He, in turn,
sees the necessity for drawing up a catalogue of the biblical
books, and, whether it was that the subject seemed to him
worthy of it or that he wished to aid the memory of his
readers, he put it into verse! So far as concerns the Old
‘Testament, he agrees with Athanasius—twenty-two books,
twelve being historical, five poetical, and five prophetical.
Esther is wanting. In the New Testament there is just this
little difference that the seven Catholic Epistles come only
after the fourteen by Paul; but what is more important.
the Apocalypse is omitted, and omitted designedly. For,
after having named the Epistle of Jude and in the same verse,
so that there is no room for suspecting an omission on the
part of the copyist, he declares that these are all and that
beyond these books there are none legitimate.* Still, it is to
be observed that this exclusion implies no unfavourable
judgment regarding the book considered in itself, Indeed,
we find elsewhere in the works of the same Father, though
very rarely, some quotations from the Apocalypse, and in
the work now under discussion he calls the author of the
Fourth Gospel the great herald who has traversed the
heavens, a name which of course marks him as the author
of the Apocalypse. The legitimation refused to this book is
therefore not the authenticity in the literary sense of the
word, but the privilege of being ranked among those
writings which were to regulate ecclesiastical teaching.
In the editions of Gregory’s works there is another piece
™ Gregor. 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 "Leide 3 terly €O3sun. Udvas Ixus,
” , 2 \ ee ,
El Tk TOUTWY EXTOS OUX ey VYATINS.
4 xnpuË piyas obpavopoirns.
168 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
of verse called Jambics 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 amplified recension
of the Septuagint. He also mentions expressly the ex-
clusion of Esther in terms which show that he approves of
it, and that this was the opinion of most” The list of the
books of the New Testament presents several details worthy
of remark. John is named the fourth among the evangelists
according to the chronological order, while the author
assigns him the first rank because of the elevation of his
teaching. The Acts of the Apostles by Luke are styled
catholic, no doubt to contrast them with the numerous
apocryphal and heretical Acts which were then in circula-
tion. After them come the fourteen Epistles of Paul, the
Epistle to the Hebrews being the last, and the author
defending it against its detractors® There remain the
Catholic Epistles, which some say are seven in number,
others three; those of James, Peter, and John, one of each.
The author does not add a word to decide the question. He
1 rouros portyxpivovas any 'Eodnp œivis.
2 œivis Où Quoi ony æpos “EBpalous vobny,
oÙx 60 Niyourts’ yynola yap n xopis.
3 sity Th Auwèr, 2 se
4 civis piv dara Qaoiv, of dE rpsis wovas
Apres dixsolan ...
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 1s
that, having thus stated the doubtful right of several books
to be included in the sacred collection, the poem ends with
this incredible phrase: “This is perhaps the most exact list
of the inspired Scriptures,’ * a phrase which by its hypo-
thetical form furnishes the last proof that his lst 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 recommend-
ing the exclusive reading of the homologumend.* Passing
to the Old Testament, he relates at length the legend of the
seventy-two interpreters shut up in as many separate
chambers, and each in seventy-two 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
Try dé aroxdAaudiy lwavvod au
tives ev byzxpivouai, of m'clous dé ye
volny Niyougw. wee
2 oe. odros arpevdioraros
xavay y sin roy bsomvevorwy ypapwy,
3 Cyrill. Hieros., Catech. iv. p. 67.
4 He appears, however, to take this word in a larger meaning 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 :
’Eriyrols rapa rs ixxAnolas soins péy tics rhs Taras Siabhinns Biber, rotas dé
Tis nous nal pos undèy roy éronpÜpuy avaylvwoxt, 6 yap Te Tape AoW buoroyel-
sve ph sidds, Th wepl re auPiParrAdusva Tahamwpsis MATH;
170 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
enumerate the twenty-two books which their work contains,
and which the Christian disciple ought not to put on a
level with the Apocrypha. The enumeration itself shows us
once more, as with the Fathers previously analysed, a
Hebrew canon in a Greek recension—.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 ; (2) five
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 predecessors, who certainly would not have failed
to discourse regarding the number, if that had been already
fixed. He limits himself therefore to analysing the collection
into its chief elements, 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 assemblies, ought not to be read in private. We
*Ispsuiou pin posta xual Bapody xal Opnvav xal ixiwrodjs.—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 the
book of Daniel.
2 7 dé Acid wavra Elu xsicbw iv dsuripe.
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, arid 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 from that of Alexandria, and
that the influence 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 schoo! of Alex-
andria (+ 392), pronounces formally against the canonicity
of the Second Epistle of Peter! In order to understand
rightly the terms he uses, they must be re-translated into
Greek, which is not difficult. It is then evident that the
author does not mean to speak of a literary falsification, but
simply of what Eusebius had called the non-legitimacy
( fulsata = vobevera:); the epistle was in use in the church
(publicatur = sednpootevra), but had no canonical and norma-
tive authority for theological teaching. That is one more
t Non est ignorandum presentem epistolam esse falsatam quae licet pub-
licetur non tamen in canone est (Didymi Alex. opp. Col., 1531, fol. civ.)
172 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
proof that the two categories of books supposed to be apos-
tolie were not separated by any definite selection.
We come now to Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in
Cyprus (+ 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 least, the question was one
definitely settled with something like arithmetical precision.
Thus, in his treatise on Weights and Measures,' he goes into
eestasies 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 from Adam to Jacob, twenty-two letters of the
alphabet, and twenty-two sexturii 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
which Epiphanius gives these books should interest the
critics who believe that the Christian Bibles were stereo-
typed from the apostolic age: Pentateuch (5), Joshua, Job,
Judges, Ruth, Psalms, Chronicles (2), Kings (4), Proverbs,
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 ill, in carrying the number of the books of the Old
Testament from twenty-two to twenty-seven, without giving
up the mystic 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. 173
Epiphanius seems to attach no importance to such a calcula-
tion, or rather, as I have already indicated, the number was
not settled in the church, and could not therefore be made
the subject of mystical speculation. This is evident in
another passage where his text presents a strange enough
ECE
anomaly: “The man,” 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 them, and which are united to
the Acts of the Apostles belonging to the same period,? and
in the Apocalypse of John, and in the Wisdom of Solomon
and of the son of Sirach (7.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 remark 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. tom. i. p. 941, ed. Petav.
2 nalivrals xpo rovTwy xal ody rails ty roîs abray vpavos mpÜËErs Ty ArooTéhwy.
This does not mean that ‘‘ the Acts were written previous to, or about this
period,” as some have believed it possible to translate it, but that the
Catholic Epistles form with the Acts a volume which is placed in the
general series before the volume of the Epistles of Paul, and that the book
of Acts contains the narrative of facts contemporaneous with the composi-
tion of these epistles.
3 It is none the less curious that he here insists on the fact that the
Catholic Epistles form with Acts one whole. Is it perhaps that he may
get a total number which presents a mystical meaning? I leave to any one
who pleases the task of going over calculations so superfluous.
174 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
The sequel of my discussion will throw some light on a fact
apparently inexplicable. Let me at present simply affirm
that Epiphanius had no firmly settled opinion regarding the
nature and value of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament
(as we now call them) and of some other books : in other
words, that his mathematical and mystical tendencies could
not bring him to any precise result.
But if the leaders of orthodoxy were so far from being
fortunate in this work which is supposed to have been very
sunple, 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,
cuided 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 (+428), who in his
time received the honourable surname of the Æxegete, is
accused by them not only of having interpreted Scripture
in a poor and paltry fashion (which means that he clung to
the proper sense of the text and despised the sterile abund-
ance of mystical allegories), but also of having rejected some
books from the number divinely prescribed? He rejected,
* Wisdom and Keclesiasticus are, from their doubtful value, called
dœu@irimra (Haer. 8, tom. i. 19). The Apostolic Constitutions are a word of
God, ésios 26yos (Haer., 80); doubtful, but not without value, iv cugiarixce
42.2 obx adoxseos (Haer., 70).
? Leont. Byzant.' Contra Nestor. et Eutych. iii. (sec. vi.) : Theodorus
ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION—THE EASTERN CHURCH. 175
it is said, the Epistle of James and other Catholic Epistles,
the titles of the Psalms, Canticles, Chronicles, and Job. It
is evident that in this case the accusers did not even under-
stand the opinions they were attacking. In regard to Job,
Theodore seems ta have considered the framework of this
book as a poetic fiction and not as genuine history ; his in-
terpretation of the Psalms seems to have led him to regard
the inscriptions they bear as open to suspicion ; and in both
cases he gave proof of a sagacity far from common in his
day. The rejection of Canticles leads us to suppose that he .
gave a purely literal interpretation of it, the result of which
could not have appeared to him to be for the edification of
the Christian Church. Chronicles also may have appeared
to him unsuitable for edification, both on account of their
interminable lists of proper names, and their useless repeti-
tion of facts already given in Kings. In other words, his
decisions were not those of a critic disputing the antiquity
of these books ; he was rather a practical theologian, estimat-
ing them according to the needs of the church. As to the
particular Catholic Epistles which Theodore excluded from
the collection, there were many even in the opposite camp
who were allied with him on that point.
In his own camp he had on his side a colleague still more
illustrious than himself. This was the man to whom his
church and posterity have given the highest eulogiums and
honours, John Chrysostom, the great orator, the popular
exegete par excellence (+ 407). In none of his works, which
are almost all on practical and popular theology, do we find
any trace of the Apocalypse or of the four smaller Catholic
Epistles® Among his works there has been printed an
. audet contra gloriam Spiritus sancti, cum omnes scripturas humiliter et
demisse interpretans, tum vero a numero ss. Scripturarum divine praescripto
et indicato 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. 1 1.
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
ease in Catholic bibies. 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. They 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 che book of Acts and the three
Catholic Epistles? An old scholiast has added on the mar-
vin of the MS., “Observe that he does not speak of the
Apocalypse.”* The conclusion from 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.
2 It even says: xal ray xaboluxay irioro\ai rpsis (p. 318), a turn of expres-
sion which indicates the decided exclusion of other Catholic Epistles.
3 gnpalures dr: où pynmorsou THs Groxa\i sus.
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 these 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
oratorwas 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,eventhose of Paul.
The last writer of this school whose works we possess
was Theodoret (+ 450). He knows no other reason for ex-
cluding the Epistie 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 the orthodox Eastern Church
had become in thinking favourably of that epistle.
* Trav txxAnoialouivoy ob Toy aroxpipuy pèr i rpatn émioTont. Thy yap devrépay
wal Tpirny ol marépss axoxavoviZoue, (Chrysost. Opp., vi. 430).
? Opp., Xi. 391: xvdobs BiBria Cdpwana ris uric. ef mndèy Érepoy Bosnerle
Thy yoy xawny xticacbs, Toy &roaTonor, Tas pees, re sbeyysasa. Montfaucon
prints ray arorriAwy ras xpézeis, 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.
M
178 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Up to this point I have been collecting 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
acree with one another, neither regarding the canon of the
Old Testament nor regarding the elements of which the
sacred collection 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 all, these testimonies are from simple individuals who
are expressing their own personal views, and who, notwith-
standing the high consideration they enjoyed, cannot throw
a decisive weight into the scale of history. We possess
other documents of a more general character: on the one
hand, translations of the Bible which, as I have already
remarked, could not but be made from collections complete
end exactly determined; on the other hand, decisions of
councils or other declarations in a form more or less official.
Let us see if these documents establish, any more than the
texts just analysed, that uniformity 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 called 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 equally content with this
less extensive collection. This does not mean that the five
antilegomena 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 example is one more proof that the line of demarca-
tion between the various classes of books was uncertain and
fluctuating here as elsewhere.
The same fact is revealed, but by totally different symp-
LEE. "RE T
Mere ee
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
Nicæan Council, and where the Christians soon possessed a
Bible in the national tongue. No complete manuscript of it
now exists, but, from the numerous mutilated copies which
have been examined and from 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 pseudepigrapha—e.g.,
the book of Enoch mentioned in the Epistle of Jude, the
fourth book of Ezra, the vision of Isaiah, &e. 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, simply 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 Acthiopic 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 beoks
of the Apostolic Constitutions, and at the same time 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 Vulgate. 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 Council of Laodicea is uncertain in date, but plausible
arguments place it in 363. It was a simple provincial
synod which had no pretention to make laws for the
universal Church ; and, ifits canons were afterwards adopted
outside of its province 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—z.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 name 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.
2 brs où dat iDiwrinods Parpods Alytobasty 77 ixxancig od axavonora Piprla
GrAd péve TH navovind Tis xaiwihs nal waraids diabhans.
ME oe
ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION—THE EASTERN CHURCH. 181
list 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 Cyril and most 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 Testament, twenty-
two books without the Apocrypha ;* in the New Testament,
twenty-six without the Apocalypse. And this omission of
the Apocalypse is by no means a simple measure 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 silence 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 to do with the Greek recension, for the text says formally : ’Ispsuius
nul Bapody, Opijvor xat imiroan. 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 the fifth century, and
were then added as an appendix to the eight books of the
Coustitutions. In the recension adopted in the East, there
are cighty-five articles! The following concern us here.
The sixtieth pronounces the deposition of any one who should
publicly 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 Wisdom 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 composition may be
approximately determined, At bottom, it is the list which
we have seen more 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 Euler duly apoorropsicda parlérur tua rods véous thy copier ro) rorvuntog
2px.
4 An allusion to the parts of worship in which the catechumens did not
take part.
PRE D
ATTEMPTS AT CODIFICATION—THE EASTERN CHURCH. 183
New without the Apocalypse. At the same time, I am
much inclined to believe that this article has been altered
several times. The Maccabees may 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 manner is recommended
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 must 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 uniformity on this point among
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 all 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 earliest times or later,
was formed only 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 OF 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 came too late to gain universal currency
for the decree which it dared? to formulate.
* 4 taurod roxur (Athanas. Lp. fest., 1. c.)
CHAPTER 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 much 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 (+368), 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 Commentary
on the Psalms, he gives a list of the books of the Old Testa-
ment, copied literally from the text of Origen which we
have analysed ;! the same analogy to the alphabet, the
same order of the books, the same omission 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, in
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 Roman 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 limit. 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 all
the Fathers, Hilary as well as those of the Eastern Church,
abstain from mentioning any fixed number for this collec-
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
cpistles, 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 his canonical collection 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 Catholic Epistles. When it is
remembered that this author lived more than a century
after the celebrated professor of Alexandria, in totally dif-
ferent surroundings, 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 § 11; 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 Catholic Epistles as forming part of the canon, con-
trary to the usage of all the churches of his time. I leave
to my readers the task of drawing from these facts the
logical and legitimate conclusions ; but the facts seem to me
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 pillars of
orthodoxy.
I pass now to an Italian author, Philastrius of Brescia
(+ towards 387). We have from him a list of 150 heresies,
from which list we obtain very instructive information 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 (!),
ie., secret, a heresy which accepts only the prophets and
the apostles, but not the canonical writings, 4e, the law
and the prophets, viz., the Old and New Testament, 3. 16
make some sense cut of this rigmarole, we must change the
text and suppose that the author said or meant 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.
t De Trinit,, iv. § 11.
2 Edition of Fabricius, 1721. The numbers vary in the editions.
3 Haeresis est etiam quae apocrypha, i.e. secreta dicitur, quae solum pro-
phetas et apostolos accipit, non scripturas canonicas, i.e., legem et prophetas,
vetus scilicet et novum teslamentum.
188 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Further on he adds that “the apostles and their successors
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 formulated 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—
Le, apocryphal—writings are to be read by the perfect for
moral edification, but not by every one, because the unintel-
ligent hereties have made in them all kinds of additions
Wo
and mutilations.”? This last phrase gives us the measure
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 recommend 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 fallen
here into the strangest confusion. The Greek Fathers had
recognised in the apocrypha of the Old Testament (Ecclesi-
asticus, Wisdom, Tobit, ete.) a relative value and permitted
them to be used in instruction, while refusing at the same
1 Statutum est ab apostolis et eorum successoribus non aliud legi debere in
ecclesia catholica nisi legem et prophetas et evangelia et actus et Pauli tre-
decim epistolas et septem alias, etc.
2 Scripturae autem absconditae, i.e., apocryphae ets legi debent morum
causa a perfectis, non ab omnibus legi debent, quia non intelligentes mulla
addiderunt et tulerunt quae voluerunt haeretict.
*t
ie
x
oa
=F
és
ro
CONTINUATION—THE WESTERN CHURCH. 189
time to put them on the level of canonical books. He, on
the other hand, though believing himself to be reproducing
their opinion, is thinking of the pseudonymous Acts of
Andrew, of John, of Peter, etc., whose miraculous results he
willingly 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 Testament 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 little ago the Apocalypse
did not appear in the number of the books declared to be
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 Apocalypse of John, and this
last book is employed 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
compiler. He copies more or less exactly texts of Greck
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
t See e.g., regarding Wisdom, Haer., 26, 95, 108, 110 ; for Ecclesiasticus,
Haer., 26; for 2 Maccabees, Haer., 18; for pseudo-Daniel, Haer., 96.
2 See e.g., Haer., 42. |
~
190 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
as an apostolic writing.’ He even devotes to it a special
paragraph where his confusion of ideas is again manifest ;
not knowing 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 Rome; others
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 some; 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, ete”? 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 all 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
1 Haer., 117, 122, 127, 134, 144, 150, etc.
2 Hacr., 89. Haeresis quorundam de ep. Pauli ad Hebraeos.
3 Sunt alii quoque qui ep. P. ad H. non adserunt esse ipsius sed dicunt
aut Barnabe esse Ap. aut Clementis ep. alii autem Lucae ev. ajunt epistolam
ctiam ad Laodicenses scriptam. Scripta b. Apostoli quidem volunt legere.
Et quia addiderunt in ea quaedam non bene sentientes inde non legitur in
ecclesia. tsi legitur in quibusdam non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo nist
tredecim epp. ejus et ad Hebraeos interdum. Et in ea quia rhetorice scripsit
sermone plausibili, inde non putant esse Apostoli. Et quia factum Christum
dicit in ea inde non legitur, ete.
CONTINUATION—THE WESTERN CHURCH. 191
accumulating from all quarters scattered notices which he
heaps together in his miserable compilation without trying
to bring them into harmony, perhaps without knowing
Greek enough to understand them, and certainly without
knowmg Latin enough to make himself understood. But I
shall ask a bishop who counts heresies by the dozen, where
he learned that people badly adviscd 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 somewhere
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 examination,
if some of his modern critics did not make him the subject
of a critical and philological skill worthy of such a model.
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 Philastrius, who besides understands
nothing of the divergences he finds, and is acquainted
neither with their origin nor bearing. We come now to a
t 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,
in 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
(+ 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 the 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 certain
influence on the opinions of the Latin authors of whom I
have been speaking. But, in general, the West was
separated from the Kast 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 among the Greeks; then they were not willing, or
they did not know how, to make any distinction between
the different elements of which the Old Testament 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
the Greek collection at the beginning of the third century,
* Rufini Lxpos. in Symbol., ch. 37 : Quae sunt N. ac V.T. volumina quae
secundum majorum TRADITIONEM per ipsum Sp. S. inspirata CREDUNTUR et
ecclesiis Christi tradita, competens videtur in hoc loco evidenti numero, sicut
ex patrum 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 collect all the
testimonies proving it for the fourth or fifth century. I
prefer even to remind my readers that this exclusion was
not universal. Besides the writers already named, there
may be quoted others who admit the Pauline origin of the
epistle—eg. Lucifer of Cagliari, and Ambrose of Milan ;
while Zeno of Verona, the deacon Hilary of Rome, Optatus
of Milevis, and others less known, represent the majority.
Their dissension, which is of no importance so far as the
authenticity or origin of this epistle is concerned, is of creat
importance for the history 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 the Western Church,
Jeromeand 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 time, as Eusebius had done at another
period, and that the results they give are what might be
called the last utterance of tradition. We shall see that the
generations following 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 the
whole Bible. The first is the famous Epistle to Paulinus,
* Latina consuetudo non recipit, ete. (Jerome, In Isai. lii., 6). DLrdti latina
dubitant, etc. (Id. Jn 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 all 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-
ment in the first chapters of his History of Ecclesiastical
Writers. Use might be made also of numerous passages in
his other works. -To make the matter clearer, I shall 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, he 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 from 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 from all the others
we know, and is afresh proof that the old Bibles had no
fixed order. Job precedes Joshua in it; the prophets come
immediately after Kings; next to them come David and
Solomon, Esther, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. As five
of these books are double, they represent the five final
letters of the 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 accomplishment of which no other Father since Origen
could boast, the fact is beyond doubt. Elsewhere he declares
formally that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, are
not in the canon.’ But he cannot withdraw himself
altogether from 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 Nicæa reckoned it among the Holy
Scriptures, I have yielded to your invitation, etc.” I
suppose no one will be angry with Jerome for having made
it a point to agree with the Nicæan Fathers in everything ;
and, if we cannot but suppose that he was mistaken about
that council’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 mixed 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. Opp. tom. III. ed.
Francf.
? Quem Hebræi de catalogo div. S.S. secantes his quae hagiographa memo-
rant manciparunt . . . sed melius esse judicans displicere Pharisaeorum
judicio et episcoporum jussionibus deservire, institi ut potui.
3 Just now the hagiographa were Job, Psalms, Solomon, Daniel, etc. !
196 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
and critical notes. But I was anxious to prove that the line
of demarcation is always fluctuating, and that a writer so
solicitous as the illustrious monk of Bethlehem of running
counter to no opinion which could call itself orthodox, was
led from time to time to make concessions in two opposite
directions. The matter 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 enumerates all our twenty-seven books, the Acts
coming after Paul’s Epistles. It is not so much an historical
and literary introduction as a piece of somewhat high-
flown rhetoric, and yet Jerome speaks in it as if the
canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews were very doubt-
ful From what we have established above, the phrase he
uses (that this epistle is excluded from the number by most
churches or theologians) can have no other meaning than
that indicated. Still, when he comes to write the simple
prose of the literary scholar, he makes more critical reserves.
He knows and writes that the authorship of the second
epistle that bears Peter's name is disputed by most ;* 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 Hebracos a
PLERISQUE extra numerum ponilur.
2 Catal. Vir. Iil., ch. 1: Secunda a plerisque ejus esse negatur, propter
styli cum priore differentiam.
3 Ex quo intelligimus pro necessitate rerum eum diversis usum esse inter-
pretibus (Epist. ad Hedib. qu. 11: Opp. iii. 102).
CONTINUATION—THE WESTERN CHURCH. 197
Bishop of Rome 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 him 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 most because it appeals to an
apocryphal testimony ; 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 whom we can still consult, the term in question
would hardly be justified ; on the other hand, it is far from
probable that there were so many opponents or critics
among the authors now lost. But Jerome’s expression will
be fully 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—
2.e., at the end of the second century—must have had great
difficulty in gaining an entrance everywhere even in the
most remote churches. The successive increase, in turn
attempted, patronised, or resisted by various scholars, must
long have remained a question for the school and study,
and cannot easily 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 knows that Peter was for twenty-five years Bishop of
Rome. It is an integral part of his testimony.
* Catal., ch. 2: Quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita
asseritur, licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit autoritatem.
3 Ibid. ch. 4: Quia de libro Enoch qui apocryphus est assumit testimonium
a plerisque rejicitur ; tamen autoritatem vetustate et USU 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. The epistle, entitled
to the Hebrews, is considered not to be his because of the
difference in style, but to be by Barnabas, according to
Tertullian, or by Luke, according to others, or by Clement
of Rome, who was supposed to have committed 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 translation made by another hand. More-
over, when he comes to speak of this epistle, he usually
introduces it with a doubtful formula? This 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 others antilegonena, 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 most flagrant contradictions
(all Greek authors attribute it to Paul, though most believe
it to be by Burnabas or Clenent), of affirming things which
© Catal, CD,
2 Comm. in Tit., i. and ii.; in Ephes., ü.; in Ezech., xxviii. etc. : si ques
vult recipere ; in Amos, viii.: sive Pauli sive alterius esse putas ; in Jerem.,
xxxi.: quicunque est ille qui scripsit.
3 Ep. ad Dardan., Opp. iii. 46 : Illud nostris dicendum est hance ep. non
solum ab eccl. orientis sed ab omnibus (?) retro graeci sermonis scriptoribus
quasi Pauli ap. suscipi, licet eam PLERIQUE (/) vel Barnabae (? !) vel Cle-
mentis arbitrentur ET NIHIL INTERESSE CUJUS SIT cum ecclesiastici viri sit et
quotidie lectione eccl. celebretur. Quod si eam latinorum consuetudo non
recipit inter S.S. canonicas, nec Graecorum eccl. apocalypsin eadem libertate
suscipiunt, et tamen NOS utraque suscipimus NEQUAQUAM HUJUS TEMPORIS con-
suetudinem sed veterum auctoritatem 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 all, 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 task 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 men 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 established for certain by Jerome’s
note ; but, while this omission arises, in my opinion, from
their not appearing in the primitive canon, Jerome 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 most strongly avowed in-
tention of giving to the Bible of the people an authentic
1 Catal., ch. 9: Scripsit unam epistolam quae ab universis ecclesiasticis et
eruditis viris probatur. Reliquae autem duae. . . . Joannis presbyteri
asseruntur (comp. ch. 18)—In another place (Zp. ad ÆEvagr., 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
Jearned 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
means of perpetuating the uncertainty and of never for-
getting the divergences of tradition and of ecclesiastical
customs. We shall now see how far his illustrious contem-
porary, the Bishop of Hippo, was more successful, Augustine,
the man of theory, the theologian par excellence, whose
genius paved the way for the reform of the sixteenth
century, and still 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 much 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
much more insufficient than with Jerome. But, for want of
historical investigations, he had to recommend 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 folios, where biblical texts are quoted
* Contra Gaudent., i. 31: Hane Scripturam que appellatur Machabe-
orum non habent Judai . . . sed recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter si
SOBRIE legatur vel audiatur.—Civ. Dei., XVII., 20: Salomonis tres libri
recepti sunt in auctoritatem canonicam... alii duo... propter eloquii simi-
litudinem ut Salomonis dicantur obtinuit consuetudo ; non autem esse ipsius
non dubitant doctiores. Eos tamen in auctoritatem maxime occidentalis anti-
quitus recepit Ecclesia,
* De pecc. mer., i. 27: Ep. ad. Hebræos nonnullis incerta ; mayis me
movet auctoritas eccl. orientalium que hanc quoque in canonicis habet. Expos.
= ee Tee:
CONTINUATION—THE WESTERN CHURCH. 201
in thousands, proves how little the author concerned him-
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 explicit 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 his 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 will 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 recommends the reading of
the latter first of all and the reservation till a later time of
in Rom., §11: Nonnulli eam in canonem S. 8. recipere timueruut ; sed quoquo
modo se habeat ista quæstio cett,— Adv, Julian., iti., 85: Fidelis fidei preedi-
cator qui scripsit ep. cett. Comp. Civ. Dei., xvi. 32.
* De Doctr. Chr. ii. 12f. This part of the work, it is important to observe,
was written before the Council of Carthage, 397.
* Brit divinarum scripturarum solertissimus indagator qui primo totas
legerit notasque habuerit, etsi nondum intellectu jam tamen lectione, duntaxat
eas quae appellantur canonice. Nam ceeteras securius leget Jide veritatis
instructus cett.
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 more copious. The only
difference to be marked here is that the term divine books
or scriptures is very positively given to the latter collection.
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 more 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, especially of
those which were founded by the apostles and had the
honour of receiving the epistles. Those received by all the
churches will therefore be preferred to those received only
by some. Of these latter, those will be preferred which are
received by the greatest number 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 same.” I might have fine sport
in criticising such a method of verifying the canonicity of
«In canonicis S.S. ecclesiarum catholicarum quam plurium auctoritatem
sequatur, inter quas sane ille sunt que apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas
accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in SS. canonicis ut eas que
accipiuntur ab omnibus ecclesiis catholicis preponat iis quas quædam non
accipiunt ; in eis vero que non accipiuntur ab omnibus præponat eas quas
plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis
ecclesia tenent. Si autem alias invenerit aspluribus alias a gravioribus haberi,
quanquam hoc facile invenire non possit, aequalis tamen auctoritatis haben-
das puto.
CONTINUATION—THE WESTERN CHURCH. 203
the holy books; it is enough for me to say that it was im-
practicable. No simple believer 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,
prudently 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 diametrically opposed to the basis of all Protestant
theology: “I would not believe in the 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 minority ? But
if all this is to have any meaning, does not the illustrious
bishop here make, without wishing it, a double admission,
very inconvenient for his Protestant admirers? On the
one hand, he admits 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,
but depends on the chance they have had of being circulated
in the churches, of being received by a larger or smaller num-
ber 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: Ego evangelio non crederem nisi me catholicæ
ecclesiæ auctoritas commoveret.
904 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
from possessing all the suffrages of the churches. That
being so, it is of little importance to us to know his own
opinion, because he declares himself that it is not a question
of history, or internal criticism, 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 numoer of testi-
monies in their support. He speaks as if he were absolutely
ignorant of the state of things in the Eastern Churches. 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 them. His list is as follows: there are first two
series of historical books in the Old Testament, the one
from Genesis to Chronicles, forms a chronological whole ; the
second, very different in this respect, contains books having
no connection with one another, and standing in no chrono-
logical order:? Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, the Maccabees,
Ezra. Then come 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.
2 Quae neque huic ordini neque inter se connectuntur.—I abstain from all
comment.
3 De quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur, qui tamen, quoniam in
auctoritatem 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. The
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 44.1 This is exactly twice the number given by “the
majority and the most venerable of the Fathers ;” but,
according to Augustine, it is that of the Church’ and only
Jews can have any other. In his New Testament he had
all the twenty-seven books which stand in our Bibles. It
is true that the Epistle of Jude is wanting in the list as
given in the editions of Augustine ; but that may be only
an old error of the copyist.
Practice was decidedly more powerful than theory. The
need of fixity, generally felt as it appears, caused several
African synods to turn their attention to the canon. Even
in 893, 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, seem
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 matter 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 name 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
1 His quadraginta quatuor libris F. T, terminatur auctoritas.
2 Comp Retract., ii. 4.
3 Civ. Dei xviii. 26: Liber Judith, quem sane Judai in canone non re-
cipere dicuntur. Ibid., 36: Machabæi, quos non Judai sed ecclesia pro
canonicis habet (comp. xvii. 20, and Contra Gaud. i. 31. quoted above.)
4 Concil Hippon., ch. 36, ap. Mansi, iii. 924.
5 Concil. Carthag. ii. 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 ;! the Fathers of Carthage
quite simply put five books of Solomon. That too was
simpler. 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 the text quoted above
what a strange formula was employed to arrange the matter
to everybody's satisfaction. As to the confirmation from
beyond the seas, it never came, 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 (Æetract., ii. 4) he even acknowledges that he had since learnt
that Solomon 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 Rome 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 formula 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 must conclude that the
Roman collection had been formed 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, 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.
tInnoc. Hp. ad Exsuper. Tolos. ap. Mansi, iii. 1040.
2 Moses, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Ruth, Prophets, Solomon (five books),
Psalter, Tobit, Job, Esther, Judith, Maccabees, Ezra, Chronicles, Gospels,
Paul (14 epistles), John, Peter, James, Jude, Acts, Apocalypse.
3 Concil. Carth., v., ch. 29 ; ap. Mansi iv., 430.
CHAPTER XII.
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. Iam of a totally different opinion. It is easy
to prove that the debate was not terminated by these
Synods—especially as they were only provincial assemblies
and contradicted one another in the most flagrant manner—
that the uncertainty, the divergences, the investigations,
the attempts at codification continued to the fifth century
and in the centuries following, to the two extremities of the
Christian world, with means of enquiry more and more
insuflicient, 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 my narrative,
I have still to present a series of more general observations
on the fourth century.
Let me for a moment grant, with the majority of my
predecessors, that at the end of this century the canon was
so well fixed that the generations following 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 English theologians in our
day still 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
TH EORY AND TERMINOLOGY, 209
principle that only canonical writings are to be read in the
Church ; but the lists they give differ from one another.
In the East the Apocalypse is excluded ; in the West it
is inserted. In the West the Old Testament 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 conséquence 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 most, 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 from 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 more. It is not my 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 formed ; and since it certainly did not fall from
0
910 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 following 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 from 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 common use at the same
time in the churches. As philological and historical know-
ledge gradually disappeared, the majority soon lost sight of
these diverse elements. In the West, in Ethiopia, in
THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY. Zi)
Armenia, in all the countries where the Scriptures existed
only in the form of a translation, only the most learned paid
_ any heed to the diversity, and then not with the purpose of
introducing any reform, 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 from those
which had formed the Hebrew canon ; but these latter even
were accepted in the amplified Greek form, because the
philological means of re-establishing the primitive 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—1.e., in ecclesiastical
readings, in the instruction of the people, in sermons and
catechisings—the elements peculiar to the one edition were
used with no less confidence than those common to both.
Even theology, whether dogmatic or polemical, did not
always observe the line of demarcation very strictly ; science
alone traced the line, and it had to do so without disturb-
ing the traditional order. We shall see by-and-by how
this came about.
In regard to what we now call the New Testament, the
history is more complicated and much less understood.
By a natural enough illusion, it has been supposed that, as
there 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 name of the first
supposing the immediate addition of the second. It has
then been hastily concluded that the last surviving apostle
912 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
at least must have collected his own works and those of his
colleagues 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 the facts and the testimonies has shown us that this was
not the course of events. According to the 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 (ie, the Old Testament 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, moreover, was so simple that it was summarised In a
formula which our children still learn by heart, and to it
there were added practical exhortations and consolations of
hope, the common 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 narratives,
and to read them 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 solidly con-
firmed by its abundant results, that soon steps were taken
to prevent the insertion of any suspected book among the
documents bequeathed by the first generations. After the
middle of the second century, the church had fixed its
choice and marked out four gospels among 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 collect 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 the circumstances of the faithful
became more trying and more filled with temptation, it was
all the more important to reanimate their courage by the
contemplation of the first origins of the church and by the
powerful eloquence of the founder of so many communities,
Other apostolic 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 came 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
public and regular readings from the writings of the apostles
was introduced long before the collection was in any degree
complete, and hence the collections in the various churches
soon differed from one another. Some were not acquainted
with the writings which were admitted in other places;
others refused to admit books not known to them from the
first, preferring to keep to those already received among
them and consecrated in their eyes by long custom ; others
received these additions, but in varying proportions ; others
finally, and these were the most numerous, assigned them a
secondary place. Ifit be remembered how far the Church
. in the first centuries was from having a centralised organisa-
tion, and how freely and independently local customs 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, had not
914 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
scientific theology been bound to consider it. But at the
very time when these readings from apostolic writings be-
came regular, and began to form 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 matter 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 à hundred years later, the time had passed for this.
The usage of the readings had consecrated writings which
had not been composed by apostles properly so called : other
books which might claim 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 all
theological formula, theologians had soon to face numerous
difficulties as my analysis of the testimonies 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 matter of much moment 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—ze., 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 many
Fathers and excellent theologians did not hesitate to eulogise
the Pastor of Hermas, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, and other
writings of a similar 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 dogmatic decisions formulated by Eastern
councils. The bishops of Africa had regard to practice, the
ecclesiastical code, the interests of worship and popular in-
struction, respect for established forms, 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 unwilling to exclude anything sanctified by
usage. Theformer were afraid to burden themselves with any
addition open to suspicion ; the latter, to impoverish them-
selves without plausible motive, by rigorously applying a
principle which was not at all familiar to them. To this prin-
ciple they did homage, almost against their will, when they
accepted an epistle still unknown to most of the churches.’
* I have already quoted several passages from Augustine, clearly showing
916 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
I have just been characterising the two points of view by
reducing them 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—1.e., the normal
collection of the Scriptures ; and by using the same term with
a different connotation, they introduced great confusion into
all that was said on this important subject. This confusion
manifests itself so soon as the necessities of dogmatic theology
take their place beside the traditional customs 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 made the confusion greater than before.
We have seen that Eusebius, in drawing up his statistics
of the New Testament, concerned himself only with the use
made cf each book in the various churches. His division
into homologoumena and antilegomena rests only on this
external principle of distinction, and the dogmatic question
plays as small a part in it as the question of authenticity.
The Acts of Paul belong to the antilegomena on the
same grounds as the Epistle of James; 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 Arles had been astonished that the
Bishop of Hipposhould cite the authority of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Gallic
theologians being at that time more familiar with the ideas of the Greeks
than were the Africans. Augustine replies: Non debuit repudiari sententia
libri Sapientiæ qui meruit in ecclesia Christi tam longa annositate recitari et
ab omnibus cum veneratione divine auctoritatis audiri (Hilar. ap. Aug. Ep.,
226, et De predest. i. 27).
THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY. 214
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 terms
hitherto unknown, or at least unfamiliar 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 most famous and the most important
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 dissimilar meanings in the applications
of common life, which applications are all 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 phiiology, and even in the sphere
of moral ideas. Later, the grammarians and critics of
Alexandria understood, by this technical term, the scries 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 sometimes in the sense of a rule, a principle?
perhaps even a line of demarcation or direction.’ Among
ecclesiastical authors it is used somewhat 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 more particularly in the
*Comp. Stephani Thesaur. 1. gr. ed. Paris s.v. xavdv,
* Gal. vi, 16; comp. Phil. iii, 16, where the reading is uncertain.
32 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 their 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 meaning, too, that the question arises of
cunonicul books, or a scriptural canon. Only modern
writers are not agreed regarding the manner in which these
expressions were derived from 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 more or less scientific, his language more or less popular.
It is a fact that the expression canonical books 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, 7c. the rule of faith itself, directly ; or whether,
' Exomivors To0 xavovos vhs Ineo) XpioroÙ ar diedoyny Tüv amorrsAwy oùpaylou
ixxanoias (Origen., De princ., iv. 9).
2 Chrysost., Homil. 58 in Genes., Opp., iv. 566: xavdr vis lilas ypPans
opposed to oixsîu 2oyiouei. Isidor. Pelus., Æpp., iv. 114: rév xævéva rs
dhnbsias, ras bsias Qnuil ypxPas, xarcarsvowuty, Iren., iii. 11, regula veritatis.
3 xavwy ixxAnoiaorixnos, à 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 expressions have at bottom the same origin and are derived
from a primitive meaning anterior to our canon of Scripture.
4 Bipria navonxà, libri canonici, regulares.
THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY. 219
as others think, and as seems most reasonable, it indicates
that they form the canon, 4e. 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
by a very natural transition to the purely literary signific-
ance of the term. For it cannot be denied that by
canon the Fathers very often understand the collection itself,
or even the simple catalogue of the books forming it. It is
evident 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 called 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 the term 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 : non in canone est (Didym. alex. /.c.), synonymous
with: in catalogo SS. divinarum (Jerome, Praef. in Job).
2 raûra wipl xavovwv diariréylw (Can. Ap., 85.) See above, p. 181.
3 BiPria obx dopiora &AX' dpiruive, —certo canone comprehensi libri (Pseudo.
Athan., Synops. S.S. Opp., ii, 96).
4 Unless use be made of the passage in vi. 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.
990 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
epoch were far more occupied than any of their predecessors,
with the necessity of determining the privileged 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 formed the verb canonise—1.e., to
insert à book in the catalogue of the canonical writings, to
place it in the regulating and standard collection! It is
superfluous 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.
Still the same Fathers to whom we owe, if not an unvary-
ing definition of the canon—z.e, an unvarying list of the
at least a clearer notion of
books reputed to be canonical
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 from 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 community. They attempted therefore to
place these in a category by themselves, or, as was also said,
in a second canon—1.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 moral training, a collection of books intended not for the
dogmatic investigations of scholars, but for the practical
teaching of the church. The Greeks, more exacting on this
* DiBrin xavoiTousva, xexavovicuive, libri intra canonem conclusi, in canonem
recipere (Athan., Ep. fest., l. c., Isidor. Pelus, Ep. i. 369. Rufin. in Symb.,
c. 37. August. in Rom., § 11, etc.)
bo
THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY. 224
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,
especially 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—ie., the book of the
church, the book of edification par excellence” These books
are useful, it is said, but have no authority in matters 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, eg., 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
1 See, e.g., the definition given by Athanasius, 1. ¢.: teri zai Erspa PiBaie
roûruy tober, ob xavavilousva pèy rerurupive À rapa ray maripuy avayiwarxecbas
rois apts mporipyçouivois xual Bourouivos xarnysiobos Tov ris svozGeias Loyer. Comp.
what was said in chap. x., regarding Cyril of Jerusalem. Rufin., /. c.:
Sciendum quod et alii libri sunt qui non canonici sed ECCLESIASTICI @ majori-
bus appellati sunt. . . . quos legi quidem in ecclesia voluerunt, non tamen
proferri ad auctoritatem fidei confirmandam.—BiPria dvaywucxiuve (Athan.,
l. c.), tv deurépy (xavôw), Cyril of Jerusalem, /. c.
2 Jerome, Pref. ad Salom.: Sicut Judith et Tobiæ et Machab. libros legit
quidem ecclesia sed ea inter canonicas SS. non recipit, sic et hee duo volumina
(Sap., Sir.) legit ad edificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem dogmatum con-
jirmandam.—Epiph. loc. cit. : adres xpioma piv sist xal apirmecs GAX tis
dpilpuôy pnray oÙx avaPéparras, did oùd ey TA rs diulnans xiParw averienoay.
3 œù rome Hw iv deurépw (Cyrill., Catech., l. c.).—Apocalypsis in ecclesiis
legitur, neque enim inter apocryphas SS. habetur sed inter ecclesiasticas
(Jerome, Jn Psalm. 149).
222 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
fourth century—eg., the epistles of Clement and Barnabas,
the Pastor, the Apostolic Constitutions, and some other
literary productions posterior to the apostolic age, regard-
ing which I refer my readers to the notices extracted from
fusebius, Athanasius, and other authors. (4) Homilies 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 make 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 sometimes in the second canon, sometimes in the first
or rather in one single canon, sometimes leaving the readers
to decide for themselves. 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 term quite as frequently em-
* Jerome, Catal., 115.
* Epistole communicatoriæ, xsvwind ypépuura (Euseb., vii. 30.)
3 Euseb., iv. 15, v. 4. Concil. Carth., iii. ch. 47. Augustine, passim.
THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY. 223
ployed as that of canon and its derivatives, but more vari-
able in its signification and hence more difficult to define.
It is the word apocryphal. Now-a-days this word is com-
monly used (outside of theological discussions) in the sense
of fictitious, lying, and it is certain that the Fathers some-
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 which 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 term 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 them. Clement 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—
t Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., iv. 36.
2 Luke xii. 2; comp. viii. 17. Mark iv. 22. Col. ii. 3.
3 Bipala axoxpyda, libri secreti. See the passages from Origen and his
translator in chap. viii. p. 131.
4 Quorum origo non claruit patribus (De civit. Dei, xv. 23). Comp. Gloss.
ad decret. Gratiani dist. 16: sine certo auctore.
5 Strom., i. 304: BiBrous émonpigous abxçoboi xsxrhobas
224 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
writing. Origen uses it in the second sense when he says”
that the story of Susanna exists in Hebrew, but that the
Jews, desirous of concealing 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 among 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 the
assemblies are called public or published works,’ a term we
have met with several times 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
1 Greg. Nyss., Or. de ordin., ii. 44: ’ludvyns iv &roxpÜgois 30 œiviyparos
atys.—Epiph., Her., 51: dua ra Paliws xal oxorsivas sipnutva.
2 wipisidoy ame THs yrwotws TOU Awol, wy Tia owlsTas iv awoxpypas (Orig. ad’
Afric, c. 9}
3 Ibid., c. 12: ro tBpaixsy tv aoroppnrois xsimevov.
4 [hid., ©. 13: oùdi yap txcovsw adra nai iv aroxpipos EBpairri.
5 Rufin., in Symbol, l. c. : quos in ecclesia legi noluerunt.
© BiBaia dsdnworsvuive, publicari, to be read in the church (Didym., /. c.)
7 àmonpoQhs warrov À évayrécsws akia (Synops. S. S. in Opp. Athan., ii. 55)..
8 BraBspes (Cyril., 1. c.). @éoporois (Constit. ap., vi. 16). aipsrixds (Athan.,
Ep. fest., l. c.). Comp. Iren., i. 20. Tertull., De anim, c. 2. Orig.,
Prol. in Cant.: Appellantur apocrypha propterea quod in tis multa corrupta.
et contra fidem veram 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 ;1 and that is why to this day we speak
of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, without meaning
thereby to say that Wisdom and Kcclesiasticus 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 am 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 of new confusion. To be
certain of this, we have only to read the explanation which
Isidore of Seville gives of the term under our notice, an
explanation combining without criticism the heterogeneous
elements of all the previous definitions.’ In support of my
assertion, I might further quote numerous passages from
Latin authors of the same epoch; but I think the fact
sufficiently established by the testimonies already placed
before my readers. Besides, the history of the Middle Ages,
* Jerome, Catal. 6 : Barnabas composuit epistolam ad aedificandam
ecclesiam quae inter apocryphas legitur.—1d. Prolog. in Reges (after enume-
rating the Hebrew books): quidquid extra hos est inter apocrypha
ponendum.
? 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, Lp. 7 ad Laectam: Caveat omnia apocrypha et si quando ea non ad
dogmatum veritatem sed ad signorum revercntiam legere voluerit sciat non
eorum esse quorum titulis praenotantur multaque his admixta vitiosa et
grandis esse prudentiae aurum querere in luto. 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. Ætymol., vi., 2: Apocrypha autem dicta i.e., secreta, quia
in dubium veniunt. Est enim occulta origo nec patet patribus, ex quibus
usque ad nos auctoritas veracium scripturarum certissima successione pervenit.
In iis apocryphis etsi invenitur aliqua veritas, tamen propter multa falsa nulla
est in tis canonica auctorilas, quae recte a prudentibus judicantur non esse
eorum credenda quibus adscribuntur. Nam multa sub nominibus prophet-
arum et apostolorum ab haereticis proferuntur, etc.
P
226 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
which has very wrongly been neglected by those writing that
of the canon of the Scriptures, will furnish me with one occa-
sion more for proving 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 themselves.
The mention of the Middle Ages, just made by anticipa-
tion, and the implied engagement to continue my narrative
beyond the point at which most authors stop, suggest another
reflection which I may suitably insert in this place. As a
general rule, those who collect from 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 external proof of the correctness of the col-
lection as itnow 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 pericd to have absolute value. Even if
such value were assigned to them, they are always of a
nature to leave doubts on many points. If modern criticism
has conceived more or less serious doubts regarding the
authenticity of certain books of the New Testament, formerly
regarded as homologoumena, still it ranks them among the
productions of an age anterior to that in which the positive
testimonies 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 from 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 names
for one and the same book, does it follow that they are
equally sure in regard to all the other historical questions
which present themselves in connection with these writings ?
Must we accept all the chronological, geographical, or lin-
guistic conjectures invented by their unsound exegesis ?
The Epistle to the Galatians will then have been written at
Rome, 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 himself obliged to reject as inadmissible the tradi-
tional solutions given to the one, should profess an implicit
faith for those recommended oy the other. If he is prudent,
he will accept them only so far as they are warranted by
facts. Considering this so-called external proof from what-
ever point of view I will, 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 all, 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. The 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
will acquaint us with the state of opinion and usage in the
* The original French is sous bénéfice 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 bave another no less important remark to make, which
may reassure those who might 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. Ihave just been calling
the above process of quoting the Fathers illusory 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 collection, 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 Testament, 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 absolutely independent of
their origin. The theory that the canon was composed by
the apostles themselves, 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 may be otherwise in these remarks,
they will do good in reminding our Protestant theologians
that in any case the collection 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 customs, arising from
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, eg.,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 from being uniform,
though uniformity is a thing which prejudice has first to
invent in order to give itself the satisfaction of finding it
* Keclesiae universae quae apostolicis de societate sacramenti confederantur
etc. (Tertull., Adv. Marc., iv, 5). Tot et tantae ecclesiæ, una est. Illa ab
apostolis prima ex qua omnes... . Omnes probant unitatem ; communicatio
pacis et appellatio fraternitatis, et contesseratio hospitalitatis: quae jura non
alia ratio regit quam ejusdem sacramenti una traditio (Id., De Praescr., c.
20; comp. c. 32, 36).
2 See above in chap. ix, p. 149, regarding the origin and value of the term
homologuomena.
230 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
again in history. Thus, at all periods, under all 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 some other standard than the process which is the very
thing to be verified.
But I may go turther and explain, in a simpler and more
rational way, the fact of these numerous 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 matter of prime necessity? To
this only one answer can be given. At the time when it
would have been the easiest thing in the world—ve., when
the apostles and their first disciples were still alive—an
official collection of their writings, a collection destined to
serve as law, was not a matter of prime 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, while at
the same time he declared that the kingdom of heaven
rested on a condition other than that of the authority of
1 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, the principle of
the new economy to that of the old, life to death? The
apostles, when recommending and practising the reading of
the prophets, in order to trace in them the admirable 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 him-
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 the 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.
1 Matt. v. 21f,: xi. 11 f.; xix, 8 etc. Comp. John i. 17.
2 2 Cor. iii. 6 f. Comp. Gal. iv. 24 f. ; Rom. 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 literature, 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 myself the trouble of disturbing the dust that covers
the forgotten volumes 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 J think not only
that they are quite admissible as witnesses in this great de-
bate, but also that their testimony is much 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—
governments, 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 civilisation which was
departing, and the cradle of a new and better civilisation.
THE MIDDLE AGES. case
This period is generally considered to be conservative and
stationary on all points connected with religious beliefs ;
and, certainly, literary and historical criticism must have
been the least anxiety of that golden age of legend and
tradition, which felt. neither need nor taste for criticism, still
less possessed means or courage for exercising it. But just
for that very reason, I attach a certain importance to the
facts Iam going to state. They will serve to verify the
conclusions we have drawn from our previous researches.
I shall begin by placing before my readers a series of
catalogues of the holy 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 L., 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 all the writings which can and ought to have authority
in the Catholic Church, especially 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 list 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, dist. 15, 3. Mansi, vol. viii. 146.
934 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 from having
a uniform Bible.
The following is the 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 may 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 booksof Solomon,
Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. These two last titles are some-.
times wanting; on the other hand sometimes jive books of
Solomon are mentioned. 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
generally different from the Hebrew and existing recension.
Finally, 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 the
Scriptures of the New Testament, the list varies ad infinitum
with the exception of the gospels, which always occupy
the first rank2 The Epistles of Paul are very diversely
numbered; that to the Hebrews usually occupies the last
place, but there are also copies which speak of only thirteen
epistles by Paul just as there are some which omit the
Apocalypse. In the catalogue of the Catholic Epistles, the
author of the last is regularly called Jude the Zealot, and
1 Credner has a lengthened discussion of this decree in his Beiträge zur
Geschichte des Canons, 1847.
2 For example, Paul, Apoc., Acts, Cath.—Acts, Paul, Apoc., Cath.—etc.
THE MIDDLE AGES. 235
the two short epistles of John are attributed in several
copies of an author different from 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 made 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 from falling into
oblivion. But only the complete 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 attempting such a consecration. It is
curious to verify the fact that the interest taken in collect-
ing and preserving the rare fragments of tradition (for ex-
ample, the conjecture about the two epistles of John the
Presbyter) the bearing of which fragments was no longer
seen, was still superior to that of the standard uniformity of
the canon. This is seen especially in the second part of the
decree which contains what might be called the earliest
index of prohibited books. In it stand numerous titles ot
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 documents. 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 modern prejudice only sees inconsistencies.
1 Joannis apostoli epistola una ; alterius Joannis presbyteri epistole duc.
236 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Another list of the biblical 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 much more recent period, though it is difficult to
fix it exactly. But, though no one can in these days appeal
to this document as an authentic testimony of the fourth
century, I shall take care not to neglect it. I believe it to
be a kind of commentary or paraphrase made by some un-
known person on the analogous text of the festal epistle of
the illustrious patriarch of Alexandria. The catalogue
acrees with that of the epistle in almost all the details,
while at the same time 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 documents. 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 them. Our commentator adds a note to
inform us that, according to early writers, the book of Esther
is canonical among the Hebrews, while Ruth is counted as
an integral part of Judges, so that even in the hypothesis of
this second conjecture, the number 22 is retained which ap-
parently was the great point. On the subject of the Apo-
* Live dis twrirouos rs bias ypaQñs.
* ob xavoniTousva wiv, dvayivwonousva OC mover rois xaTnyçoumivois.
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 complete enumeration of all the biblical
books, the author of the Synopsis takes them all up again
in the same order that he may enter into more or less ex-
tended details by way of introduction. Then he adds a
catalogue of antilegomena 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 from being precise and settled. Under
the head of antilegomena he once more introduces Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, and Tobit, and with them
four books of the 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 an-
spired extracts from the Clementines which means no doubt
an orthodox recension of that famous romance. The con-
fusion of the author’s ideas betrays itself most of all in the
fact that he ends his list of the antilesomena with these
words— ‘7 hese are the books which are read. This would lead
us to think that the terms antilegomena and deutero-canon-
ical were with him synonymous; but he immediately adds
that he has enumerated them only by way of memorandum,
because they are more 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
~ : , a ’ (4
2 Deybsion ds ixtivoy nul iyxpibeion dr wares dyiwy nai TyeumaToPopwy TATEPwY
\ ,
2 ok Kanulvrice LE dy pereQpérénaur ixeyivra ra arnbioripa nai dsomvivera.
3 œaûra Tà avayiwoKomsra.
4 äroxpughs udAAoy À avayvarems wera,
238 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
compiler collected them from various sources, without suc-
ceeding in reconciling them, 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 criticism of the
canon did not so much lack liberty in its methods 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, must have been a civil
functionary high in place at the court of Constantinople,
In this essentially dogmatic 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, anc also the Psalter and the Apocalypse,
regarding which last the Kastern Fathers had special doubts ;
(3) the proverbial books—z.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 many add five other epistles called
canonical (Catholic). As to their respective value, these
books have either complete authority, or medium authority,
or no authority at all. To the first class belong those
* See Kihn, Theodor v. Mopsuestia und Junilius, Friburg 1880. The
treatise of Junilius is known under the name De partibus legis divine
(Gallandi, Bibl. P.P., tom. xii). The true title is: Jnstituta regularia
divine legis. Kihn gives a critical edition of it.
oe ey
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, Wisdom 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 from 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 formerly prevailed
among the Greek theologians of Syria. To this sphere also
we are directed by the exclusion of the Apocalypse, and some
of the Catholic 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 time later, preserve feeble remains
or confused remembrances of the critical theories or tradi-
tions which had formerly been put in circulation by the
learned lectures of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of
* Quomodo divinorum librorum consideratur auctoritas ? Quia quidam
perfectæ auctoritatis sunt, quidam medic, quidam nullius. Qui sunt perfectæ
auctoritatis ? Quos canonicos in singulis speciebus absolute enumeravimus.
Qui medie ? Quos adjungi a pluribus diximus. Quinullius auctoritatis sunt?
Reliqui omnes (1. c. p. 81).
240 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Mopsuestia. But serious studies had so much degenerated
in a land falling 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 same epoch. Cosmas’ (535), an
Egyptian monk, who had formerly travelled much 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 compatriots much concern ; it was different with
the Epistles. Hence Cosmas saw himself obliged afterwards
to justify their exclusion. He boldly affirms that the
church in every age has regarded them as doubtful, and
that not a single author has made account of them or in-
cluded them 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
some 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 him 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, T'opogr. chr. ll. xii. ed. Montfaucon (Coll. nov.
P.P., tom. ii.), Book v. pp. 242, f.
* Id., ibid., B. vii. pp. 290 f. : ras xaborsnas dvixnabsy ñ ixxdngia au PiParro-
péves Lu nai mévris di of drousmaricavris Tas bsias ypaQs overs sis altar Royor
iroñeure, dAA& nai oi xavoyicuyris Tis ivduabirous PiBhous œévris ws auQiBôhous
auras iénwam , , .
THE MIDDLE AGES. 241
him that there is but one 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 custom and not by an act of authority, that
it was not a dogma; for otherwise an opposition so decided
and so unjustifiable as that of Cosmas, would certainly have
raised a tempest and called forth disciplinary measures.
Moreover, there is appar ent 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 (ii. 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.
Still we shall not be so severe on the facile decision of
Cosmas, when we remember 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 them about 462 for the first time into
sections or pericopes, to be read in due order at the usual
assemblies of the faithful? Up to this date, these epistles
1 ob ph obv viv cidsiov xpioriaviv, ix rèv &uPParroutywr tarornpilecbas, rar
iDiaddewy xa) nord sporsyoupiver ypaday nares wévre pnsvérru x. 7. à.
2 Kuthalii episc. Sulcensis editio actuum et epp. ed. Zacagni (Collect. monum.
vet. eccl., Rome 1698, tom. i.), p. 529: cay vor avayvictov aupiberrarny sounv
nests TEX VOACYNTAYTES avaxiParamonusbe,
: Q
949 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
were not always put together in one volume, nor were they
everywhere admitted 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 them. The work
of Euthalius must have been called forth by a need more
universally felt, but it may also have contributed to produce
and extend that need.
I shall mention only in passing the catalogues of Leontius
of Byzantium (560), and of Anastasius Sinaita, patriarch of
Antioch (+599). The former is complete for the New Testa-
ment, and for the Old it adheres to the Hebrew canon, except
that it omits Esther In this, the influence of Athanasius
is traceable, or rather there is one more proof that the
authority of a writer justly renowned in the orthodox
church was the most 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 same century furnishes us also with two illustrations
from the Latin Church which must not be neglected, though
the history of the canon has not much to gain from 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 himself at Viviers: the
other is Pope Gregory the Great.
Among other books for the instruction of his monks,
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. Aurelii Cassiodori de institutione div. litt. Opp. ed. Paris, 1600, tom. ii.
eee es
THE MIDDLE AGES. 243
more or less from one another, but, according to him, equally
venerated by the Catholic 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 number 72.2 The third is taken, it
is said, from the Septuagint, or, according to a more rational
if not more authentic reading, from an old translation, 4e.
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 complete 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 Testament; 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 (1604) gives no catalogue; but from his various
works there may be brought together notices of sufficient
interest regarding the questions with which 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 generibus divisionum a
diversis patribus fuerit intimata quam tamen veneratur et concorditer suscipit
universarum ecclesia regionum (I. c., f. 384 v).
? Cut cum s. trinitatis addideris unitatem fit totius libri competens et gloriosa
perfectio (ibid., f. 386 r). :
944 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 Testament. When quoting Maccabees,
for instance, he makes 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 certuin just or wise men; 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 Testament, we learn from him, and for the
first time, that Paul wrote jifteen epistles, but that the Church
adheres to the number 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 Seville (+636) there are three
catalogues, identical in substance and complete so far as the
traditions go, which 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 togetber, without observing the contradiction, the two
formulas which speak of Paul’s fourtcen epistles and of the
* Novam editionem edissero sed ut comprobationis causa exigit nunc novam
nunc veterem per testimonia assumo ut quia sedes apostolica cui præsideo
utraque utitur (Pref. in Job).
2 Moral. in Job., xix, 17.
3 Quidam justus (ibid., x, 6); quidam sapiens (ibid., v, 25; vi, 7; xix, 13).
4 Quamvis epistolas quindecim scripserit sancta tamen ecclesia non amplius
quam quatuordecim tenet (ibid., xxxv, 25).
S Isidori Hisp. de offic., i. 12. Etym., vi, 2. Lib. prowmior. in V. et N.
T', init.
oe
THE MIDDLE AGES, 245
seven churches to which the apostle is said to have written.
He mentions 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 fowrth class, are equally
inspired, and their true author is the Holy Spirit. The
uthor’s critical reserves are in truth nothing more than
faint echoes of his readings in Jerome.
My readers will 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
he 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 excommunication 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 silence 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 Hebreos ep. plerisque Latinis incerta propter dissonantiam sermonis.
Eandem alii Barnabam, alii Clementem conscripsisse suspicantur. Petri....
secunda a quibusdam eius esse non creditur propter stili distantiam. Jacobus
suam 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 Of., l.c.).
2 Wisdom was rejected by the Jews from the canon because of its
Christological testimonies.
3 Concil. Tolet., IV. ap. Mansi, X. p. 624, c. 17: Apocalypsin librum
multorum conciliorum auctoritas et synodica ss. praesulum romanorum decreta
Joannis ev. esse perscribunt et inter divinos libros recipiendum constituerunt,
sed quamplurimi sunt qui eius auctoritatem non recipiunt atque in eccl. Dei
praedicare contemnunt. St quis eum deinceps aut non receperit, aut pascha
usque ad pentecostem missarum tempore non praedicaverit excommunicationis
sententiam habebit.
-_
9406 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 time
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 importance 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
tothem. Inthe 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, may still pass for a learned man for his age LS
successors cannot claim that modest 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 literal
copy from the passage of Augustine which I have already
placed before my readers. Further, these Spaniards seem
to have had a more 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,? 4.e., with legends of
suspicious origin (Gnostic or Manichæan) which spread the
poison of heresy by the very attraction of the marvellous
* We find, e.g., in Cassiodorius (/. 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.
2 Turribii episc. Astur. Æpistola de non recipiendis apocr. scripturis in
Opp. Leonis M. ed. Ballerin., i. 711. Leonis Hp. ad eundem (ibid.,
706). .
THE MIDDLE AGES. 247
stories, and with which the guardians of orthodoxy could
find no other fault. |
While the West saw theological science gradually 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 shght
difference hardly made itself felt. On the contrary, I have
a fact of some importance to mention which proves sufli- _
ciently that a positive science of the canon did not exist
even in the Greek Church, and that the regulations which
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 IT, a council was held at Constantinople, in the part
of the palace called Trullum,! the first cecumenical council |
which took up the question of the biblical canon, at least
implicitly. By one of its first decrees, it determined the
series of the authorities which were to make law in the
Church. Among 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 my
readers that, so far as the list of the biblical books is con-
cerned, this sanctioned the 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
1 Concil. Trullanum, 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 centuries, 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 Rome 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 criticism, all the traces of a diver-
sity which nevertheless was far from 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 (+754), 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 dogmatic 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 Testament, 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 (+828) inserted in his Abridyment 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 list 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 Chronography, made towards the end of the ninth
century by the Roman librarian, Anastasius. The title of
t Joannis Damasc. De Orthod. Fide, iv. 17.
2 ÿ vowoésola or five books of Moses; rà ypageta, Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
Kings, Chronicles ; ai erixñpus BiBau, Job, Psalter, Solomon ; ñ xpogutixn.
See above (p. 170) the similar classification by Cyril of Jerusalem.
3 ivdperos wiv xal xaral an’ obx dpibwodvras old: ixsivta tv Tn xiPaTw, a phrase
borrowed from Epiphanius.
250 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
each book is accompanied by a figure indicating the number
of lines it contains. These figures are wanting only in the
Catholic Epistles, where the translator took care to add
them. This catalogue, however, does not appear to be the
work of the historian who has transmitted it to us. It
must be much more 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 time 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 time when these epistles were
senerally 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 time 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
with the orthodoxy of the Church of which he is the
head.
The feeble revival 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 ({856)
gives a complete catalogue of 72 biblical books, at the same
time mentioning the doubts of earlier writers regarding the
antilegomena ; but in this there is nothing very remarkable,
for it is plain from the very first that all this critical science
is literally borrowed from Isidore, beyond whom the
researches of French learning hardly found it necessary or
* Rab. Maurus, de Instit. cleric. ii., 53 £.
Ÿ
THE MIDDLE AGES. A |
prudent to venture. The old distinctions were no longer
kept up! In the same way, though his contemporary, the
Bishop Aimon of Halberstadt (+853) is at pains to defend
the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews,’ this does not
mean that the epistle had met with opposition in the monas-
teries along the Saale; the author is only taking pleasure in
the adornment of his work with some morsel 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 the stories of Bel, the dragon,
and the Maccabees, because they have no canonical authority.
Thus, too, Notker Labeo, a monk of St. Gall ({912), applies
this same criticism to the books of Esther and Chronicles.’
The name of Charlemagne himself may 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,f which does not mean, 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 more faulty through the ignorance
1 Hos (ll. apocr. V.T.) moderno tempore inter S.S. enumerat ecclesia
legitque eos sicut ceeteras canonicas (Id., Prol. in Sap.)
2 Haimon. Halb. Hist. sacr., ii. 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. |
4 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 admiratione habentur.
6 Volumus et ita missis nostris precepimus ut in ecclesiis libri canonici
veraces habeantur (Baluzii Capitul. r. franc., i., 210).
7 Fragments relatifs à Vhist. de la Bible fr. (Revue de théol., first series,
ii., pp. 65 f). ‘
252 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
of the scribes. As to the collection itself, it is to be believed
that the emperor adhered to general usages. Moreover,
Pope Adrian I. had sent him a collection 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 complete 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 made to the decision of the Council of Laodicea.
This would practically mean that the Church of the French
empire officially rejected the 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
criticism 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 list itself, which now forms the sixtieth article of the
acts of that Synod, was neither known to the composers 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 themselves which have survived from
that period. I have already had occasion to point out the
importance of their testimony ; I am willing to grant that
this importance diminishes in proportion as we advance to-
wards modern times ; still 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 still exist some copies complete, or supposed
to be complete, and belonging to a date before the eleventh
2 Jgitur quia cure nobis est ut nostrarum ecclesiarum status ad meliora
semper proficiat . . . universos V, et N.T. libros librariorum imperitia
depravatos correximus (Capitul., l.c. p. 203).
THE MIDDLE AGES. 259
century. In the Greek language (the Septuagint and the
New Testament) 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 more rarely than these last, not a hundred
copies being in existence. These figures clearly show that
the conception of the canon of the New Testament was not
essentially a dogmatic 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. Ifthe Apocalypse formed 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 sometimes
254 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
between Thessalonians and Timothy, sometimes after the
Epistle to the Colossians, most frequently after the Epistle
to Philemon, as an appendix added by way of afterthought
to a collection already complete. This variation, apparently
quite fortuitous, in the place assigned to it, is a sure index
of the persistence of the traditional doubt. The numerous
Latin manuscripts preserved to us have not yet been suffi-
ciently examined in relation to the history of the canon ;
still Iam in a position to mention some facts which prove
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
Romance translations of the Middle Ages. I have met with
it in the version of the Albigenses” It was so generally
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 1s
sometimes increased to four; the little work, called the
* Col., iv. 16.
2 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 ‘‘ To the Laodiceans,” corrupted into æpès Aasvdaxncas apysras
iwiroay%; but the text is not there.
THE MIDDLE AGES. 799
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. Still 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 dreamings, allegorical in-
terpretations applied 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 more and more 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 made
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
all the more easily that the dominating tendency towards
* On the meaning and history of this term, see my article in Herzog’s
Real-Encyclopädie, 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 same 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
known and more 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, 4e, they
were fixed by ecclesiastical authority. The terminology it-
self introduced or consecrated this confusion ; and public
usage, which was every day bringing together the biblical
texts and the formulas of the liturgy, gave to both the same
rank? Dom Mabillon found in the monastery of Bobbio a
very old liturgical book containing a catalogue of the holy
books in which the New Testament was reckoned as having
28 books ; fourteen and seven epistles, the Apocalypse, Acts,
the gospels, and a book sucrumentorum—te., the missal.
When the theological idea of the canon was so completely
forgotten, there cannot be any great interest in gathering
from the principal authors of the scholastic period, in-
: For further details, I may refer to what I have said in my Fragments
sur l'Histoire de la Bible fr. (Revue de Théol., first series, iv.) and espe-
cially in my treatise, Die deutsche Historienbibel vor der ÆErfindung des
Bücherdrucks, Jena, 1855.
2 Aurel. Agricola De Chr. eccl. politia, ed. Ritter i. 156: Sacros libros ap-
pellamus illos qui canonicas continent V. et N. T. scripturas que in sacra
liturgia leguntur. Hujus generis potissimum sunt evangelia atque aposto-
lorum epp. et acta, tum ex V. T. prophetarum scripta. His addimus missæ
canonem quem inter sacros libros merito recensemus.
3 Mus. Ital., i. 396.
THE MIDDLE AGES. 201
dividual opinions regarding the form and tenor of the sacred
collection. Still, as my 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
still for the schools, only instead of being imperfect, in-
sufficient as it had been formerly, it had, for a disinherited
generation, become bold and superfluous.
Peter of Clugny (11156) reckons 22 authentic books in
the Old Testament, 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 necessary contents, to be received by the
Church. Hugo of St. Victor (¢1141) 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 Testament, 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 the
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 peculiar to the Christian Church and what
it has in common with the Synagogues. At the same time
he declares that the books of this third order are not assimi-
lated to the canonical books, but to those which are simply
* Petri Cluniac. Ep. ii. B. i.: . . . restant post hos authenticos ll. sex non
reticendi libri (Wisd., Eccles., Judith, Tobit, Macc.) qui, etsi ad illam
sublimem precedentium dignitatem pervenire non potuerunt, propter lauda-
bilem tamen et pernecessariam doctrinam ab ecclesia suscipi meruerunt.
? Hugon. aS. Victore Hlucidd. de 8.8. c. 6.
R
258 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
read! John of Salisbury, bishop of Chartres ($1182), when
recalling the various lists of Cassiodorius, declares,’ that for
his part, he adheres to Jerome as the author most worthy of
faith in these matters. In his opinion, therefore, there are
22 books in the Old Testament ; the Apocrypha (to which
he adds the Pustor, telling us he never saw it) are not in
the canon, though they are piously received as edifying to
faith and religion? 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 more importance to them 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 criticism 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 master 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 same causes were again to come into operation. The great
St. Thomas Aquinas,’ no doubt, does not show his science in a
very brilliant light, when he states that before the synod of
: The same distinction of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament is also made
by Richard of Saint-Victor (Æxceptt., 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. Æp. 172, ad Henric. comit.
3 Quia religionem et fidem aedificant pie admissi sunt.
4 Quindecima quae ecclesiae Laodicensium scribitur, licet (ut ait Jeronymus)
ab omnibus explodutur, tamen ab apostolo scripta est !
5 Thom. Aquin., Prolog, in ep. ad Hebr.
THE MIDDLE AGES. 259
Nicaea some doubted whether the Epistle to the Hebrews
was Pauls, as if the synod of Nicaea had had anything to do
with the matter; 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 Testament), the science of the
Kast prefers to adhere to the official authorities whose
decisions it delights to recall, without removing their con-
tradictions. Indeed, in the numerous commentators 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
(Trullanum, 692) and, subsidiary to these, Fathers quoted
by that council, the synod of Carthage and sometimes the
synod of Laodicea, but rarely its famous 60th canon which
gives the list of the holy books, but appears not to have
been known generally at this time. From what has been
said of all these texts, it is manifest that, even apart from
the one last mentioned, 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 veneratione habeantur.
* E.g. Zonaras, Alexius Aristenus, Theodorus Balsamon, Arsenius, Blas-
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.
960 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
portant than the question of the canonicity of any particular
book. As the 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 sometimes
mentioned as optional; the exclusion of the Epistles of
Clement and of the Constitutions (which are included in it)
is justified, 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, they in turn
no longer paying any attention to it.
I shall cite further Nicephorus Callistus, an author of the
fourteenth century who, in his Æcclesiastical 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 them have finally been
dispelled, and he affirms that the Churches are unanimous
on this point?
Several symptoms, however, appear in the midst of that
dark period, and announce a coming 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. Ido not think I am wrong in directing attention first
to a feeble effort, made by a small number of theologians,
to break through the narrow limits of Latin science, the
common Bible and allegorical interpretation, that they might
inquire a little into the form and meaning it had among the
* Niceph. Callisti Hist. eccles. ii. 45 f.
2 raûra piv si wal duPlBora Tols æporipor Ldotay, aN’ oùy &wdoaus is Uorepoy Tals
bm’ obparèy ixxAnciass TO dvavrlipnroy tox nxera iywwxapsy,
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 the 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 made
of looking more 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 Synagogne, who flourished
at that time on both sides of the Pyrenees.
Thus we find in the works of Peter of Blois! ($1200) 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 them,
and preaches from them as divine. It is obvious that the |
antipathy against the Jews contributed to maintain these
apocrypha in the canon? A similar catalogue is given by
the Dominican, Hugo of St. Cher (+1263), in the prologue of
his series of sermons on Joshua. I transcribe it in a note
that my readers may at the same time 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. Blesensis, de divisione et scriptoribus ss. ll.
* 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 framed.’ The list in it is arranged from
the Hebrew canon, though there is no doubt that the author
had his science at second hand, and was compelled to use a
little liberty for the sake of versification, which all the
same had not caused him very great anxiety. When he
places the Pastor among the apocrypha of the Old Testa-
ment, 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 him much more readily than his
unfortunate division of the Bible into chapters, by which he
has gained an unhappy immortality.
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 more to the his-
tory of exegesis than that of the canon. The reserves he
makes regarding the canon hardly surpass those of his
predecessors in boldness.’
A century later (for progress was not very rapid in those
days) came the Greeks, classical studies, the Platonic phil-
osophy, the 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 my narrative, and I prefer to speak
of them in a special chapter.
> Quinque libros Moysi Josue Judicum Samuelem
Et Malachim ; tres precipuos bis sexque prophetas
Hebrœus reliquis censet precellere libris.
Quinque vocat legem, reliquos vult esse prophetas.
Post hagiographa sunt: Daniel David Esther ct Esdras
Job Paralipomenon et tres libri Salomonis. ‘
Lex vetus his libris perfecte tota tenetur.
Restant Apocrypha : Jesus Sapientia Pastor
Et Macchabæorum 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 romane ecclesia leguntur.
THE MIDDLE AGES. 263
I shall conclude this present chapter by reminding my
readers of a second symptom of awakening, more immedi-
ately fertile than that we have just been discussing.. I mean
the religious movements connected with the name of the
Waldenses, Albigenses, and other sects who tried to free
themselves from 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 like
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 hooks. The
proofs of these facts will be found in my preceding works
on the subject; it is superfluous to repeat them here. Be-
sides, this wholly subjective and dogmatic 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 most opposite camps the Bible had
to bend to the exigencies of systems. The 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 they themselves sought edification
* See my articles in the Revue, First Series, ii. p. 321; v. p. 321; vi. p.
65.
264 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
in reading Apocryphal books, such as the 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 Catholic
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 the Apocrypha of the Old Testa-
ment and the canonical books, is false and erroneous on
every point. It is founded on a pretended Confession of
Faith, datea 1120, which is now known to be forged, at
least antedated, and to belong at the earliest to the year
15324 The Waldenses of the Middle Ages were acquainted
and could be acquainted with the Vulgate only, as it was
generally received in their time; it is even very doubtful
whether they had a complete 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 preter Isaiam cuius dicunt esse quem-
dam libellum in quo habetur quod spiritus Isaie raptus a corpore usque ad
septimum celum ductus est in quo vidit quedam arcana quibus vehementissime
innituntur.
2 In this order . . . Phil., Thess., Col., Laod., Tim. &c.
3 Thilo reprinted it in his Codex apocryphus, p. 884 f.
4 Ara sensegon li libres apocryphes li qual non son pas receopu de li he-
brios, mas nos li legen (enaima dis Hierome al prologe de li proverbi) per
lenseignament del poble, non pas per confermar lauthorita de las doctrinas
ecclesiasticas. —For the proofs that this Confession of Faith is not authentic,
see Revue, First Series iii. p. 326f. 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 from 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 movements, 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 testimonies with which the literature
of the Middle Ages, and above all 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 delighted to parade on occasion whatever shreds
of historical knowledge they had been able to collect in their
reading, but did not know how to use them in combating
traditional opinions, or in making 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 formerly had considered
it important to give a more exclusively theological value to
the notion of the canon, had insensibly come to be in harmony
with the sister church as to the extent of the collection.
Still it will 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 time to the rules laid down
at Laodicea and Carthage, which contradicted each other,
and to those of Trullum which assigned the same authority
to them 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, from the first and quite independently,
become indisputable axioms for every member of the
church ; and the science of the schools when it did come 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 had 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
for six centuries.
But it also explains why this same question remained
undecided even when the attempt was made to resolve it
officially. Down to the close of the Middle Ages, the see of
Rome had not delivered 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 from successive alterations of its text. The papacy
was not therefore bound by its antecedents in such a way
as to be obliged to regard as heresy all freedom of opinion
on the subject of the canon, while at the same time it re-
268 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
mained in the narrow circle of the traditional reserves; it
had no motive powerful enough to make it break through the
neutrality. At the time of the Council 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 bull regarding the canon, This bull may be
considered to be the first document of the kind emanating
from the 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 bull of
which I am speaking declares all the books contained in the
Latin Bibles then in use to be inspired by the same Holy
Spirit? without distinguishing them 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.
2 Unum atque eundem Deum V. et N. T. h. e. legis et prophetarum atque
evangelii profitetur (ss. ecclesia romana) auctorem, quoniam eodem Spiritu
8. inspirante utriusque Testamenti sancti loquuti sunt, quorum libros suscipit
et vencratur, qui titulis sequentibus continentur. . . .
THE RENAISSANCE. 269
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 had 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 is
therefore ground for saying that 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 example, the opinions of Alphonsus |
Tostatus, bishop of Avila in Spain ($1455) and of the Car-
thusian Dionysius de Rickel, surnamed the ecstatic doctor
(1471), two of the most fertile exegetes of their day; the
one having left twenty-seven, the other twelve folio volumes
of commentary on the Bible.
1 Alphonsi Tostat. Praef. Quaest. i., in Scr... .. Ali sunt libri qui
ad s.s. pertinent qui in canone non sunt sed quartum locum obtinent .. . hos
apocryphorum loco censent. Quanquam horum doctrina ad convincendum...
minus idonea sit et auctoritas non ita ut caeterorum solida, s. tamen ecclesia
etsi prioribus minorem eis tamen auctoritatem accommodat. Dionys., Carthus.,
Prolog. in Sirac. ; Liber iste non est de canone quanquam de eius veritate non
dubitatur.
270 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
But it was quite another matter when, at the opening of
the following century, the vivifying breath of a new literary
and scientific life was added to that general need of religious
reform, which to all time constitutes the glory of that epoch,
We shall see by-and-by how, in the bosom of Protestant
societies, this movement 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 from without was energetic and the
crisis perilous, tied the hands even of the most enlightened
Catholic doctors, who were afraid of compromising graver
interests by yielding too much to the impulses of subjective
thought, even in ordinary questions. But just because
the position of affairs was governed by considerations of this
kind, I must set down even the slighest attempts at innova-
tion among those who belonged to the party of resistance.
Among the representatives of the higher Romish clergy
who are quoted as witnesses during the first yearsof the epoch
of the Reformation, a eulogistic appeal is made 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 commentaries in the literal sense, and the
research displayed in them was of itself an immense ad-
vance for the science of those times. These commentaries
are accompanied by introductions to the various books, in
which the author does not shrink from dealing with questions
of criticism. In regard to the Old Testament, he gets out
of any difficulty by means of a definition of canonicity which
THE RENAISSANCE. 21,
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; he avails himself 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 that he is not anxious to insist on the result obtained,
and that he will conform to usage in choosing the name of
the author? His book contains similar opinions regarding
the Epistles of James, of Jude, and the second and third of
John.’ Still he defends the canonicity of the second Epistle
of Peter. This is intelligible so soon as we recollect that
the doubts expressed regarding the other epistles relate only
to the apostolic dignity of the authors, who seem to him 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 criticism 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 dict canonici—i.e., regulares, ad aedificationem fidelium.
? Prooem. in ep. ad Hebr., fol. 374, ed. Lugd. 1556 : De auctore huius epis-
tolae certum est communem usum ecclesiae nominare Paulum ; Hieronymus
tamen non audet affirmare, etc. Et quoniam Hieronymum sortiti sumus
regulam ne erremus in discretione ll. canonicorum (nam quos ille canonicos
tradidit canonicos habemus), ideo dubio apud Hieronymum epistolae auctore
existente dubia quoque redditur epistola, quoniam nisi sit Pauli non perspi-
cuum est esse canonicam. . . Nos tamen loquentes ut plures Paulum auctorem
nominabimus.
3 Ibid., fol. 410, 454, 455.
972 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
judgment of the Church, I might almost have said, the
author’s palinodes, are more explicit, more ardent. Erasmus,
whose historical knowledge, critical instincts, and literary
taste were incessantly drawing him farther away from
Rome, was easily brought back again by his need of repose
and his religious indifference. He in no way felt the vocation
of the martyr, and easily endured that he should not be
permitted 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
instructive in this respect! “The arguments of criticism,
estimated by the rules of logic, lead me,” 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 seem to me 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 condemn my doubts, for the opinion formulated by
the Church has more value in my eyes than human reasons,
whatever they may be.”
Thus, at the very opening of the new era, there arose this
cardinal question, which, as we shall see, was clearly put
and courageously approached by the Reformers : “Is canon-
icity exclusively attached to the name of a certain number
of privileged persons, SO that a purely literary doubt involves
the rejection of a book, or does it depend on the book’s
t Declar. ad censuram facult. theol. paris (Opp., ix., 864) : Juxta sensum
humanum nec credo epistolam ad Hebracos esse Pauli aut Lucae, nec secun-
dam Petri esse Petri, nec Apocalypsin esse Joannis apostoli. . . Si tamen
titulos recipit Ecclesia, damno dubitationem meam ; plus apud me valet ex-
pressum Ecclesiae judicium quam ullae rationes humanae.—Supput. errorum
Beddae (Opp. ix., 594) : Seripsi semper fuisse dubitatum (de ep. ad Hebracos),
non scripsi ab omnibus dubitatum . . . et ipse, ut ingenue fatear, adhuc
dubito, non de auctoritate, sed de auctore.
THE RENAISSANCE. PATES:
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 first. 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 schismatical and heretical every
one who should refuse to recognise the canon of Carthage,
of Innocent or of Gelasius, or who should have the presump-
tion to interpret the Scriptures otherwise than the Fathers
did ÿ while the learned Dominican of Lucca, Pagnini, knows
no other means of neutralising the inconvenient effect of
Jerome’s liberties than to send his readers back to the
authority of Augustine, who, without being more certain of
his facts, has at least the assurance of prejudice.
* D’Argentré, Collect. judic., ii. 52; Jam non est fas Christiano de ils
dubitare.
2 Cone. Senonse. Decr., 4, ap. Hard., ix., 1939 : In enumerandis cano-
nice scripture libris qui prescriptum ecclesiæ usum non sequitur, Cartha-
ginense concilium iil., Innocentii et Gelasii decreta et denique definitum a ss.
patribus librorum catalogum respuit, aut in exponendis scripturis non pascit
haedos juxta tabernacula pastorum, sed fodit sibi cisternas dissipatas quae
continere non valent aquas, et spretis orthodoxorum patrum vestigiis proprii
spiritus judicium sequitur, is veluti schismaticus et haereseon omnium inventor
+... Teprimatur.
3 Santis Pagnini Zsag. ad ss. litt., 1536, c. 15.
S
CHAPTER XV
OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM.
ACCORDING to the pragmatism of history, we should now
turn our attention to the influence which the reforming
movement of the sixteenth century exercised on the notion
of the biblical canon. But this influence was so powerful,
and the consequences drawn from the new principles, partly
immediate, partly evolved in the growth of ideas, continued
so long to dominate 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
veen the last to be raised in the great debates which agitated
Central Europe during the second quarter of the sixteenth
century. In certain aspects they might be considered as the
most important of all, 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 all its phases with scrupulous
attention, would not of itself have been a very new or very
important matter of controversy, had it not been connected
with other theological problems which were far more impor-
OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM. 219
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 comments. Before questions so entirely novel as
these, the confused reminiscences, 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 Catholic dogma
in all particulars in order that 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 simply to the authority of the for-
mer decision ; whereas we learn, not without some 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 conc. di Trento, vi.).
276 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
up this catalogue. Some wished the books to be divided
into two classes, one containing those that had always been
received without contradiction, the other those which had
sometimes 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 these fathers had
followed an identical or analogous procedure. Other orators,
amending the preceding proposal, wished the books to be
distinguished into three kinds—those that had always been
acknowledged as divine; those that after some dispute had
finally been included in the canon (the six epistles and the
Apocalypse, as well as certain pericopes of the Gospels to
which I shall have to return) ; finally, 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—z.c., to neglect all dis-
tinctions and place in the catalogue all books usually 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 might become compromising by
1 Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, two books of the Maccabees,
and Baruch.
OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM. DT
bringing into conflict the most illustrious 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 name in any of the old catalogues that had
been used as precedents; but the consideration that the
Church sometimes 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 formation of the catalogue.
On this occasion, the partisans of the first system 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 all detailed nomenclature. There were therefore
three proposals laid before the 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 system I mentioned last, and accord-
ingly all distinction between the various books, whatever
might be its origin and purpose, was peremptorily sup-
pressed and condemned. Thus the council did not hesitate
to place itself in contradiction with most of the orthodox
Greek Fathers and a good number of the most illustrious and
esteemed Latin Fathers. The dogmatic principle of the
authority of Scripture had been put beyond attack by the
27S HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
prominence which the Reformation gave toit, and the council
saw no other means of bringing the 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 motive still for this decision, a motive less exalted but
more pressing; this was the desire and need, one might even
say the moral 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 translation, or eventually the liberty of revising the
work from time to time, was the natural consequence of
that opinion. But the same majority that had just voted
the entire and absolute canonicity of the Apocrypha, shrank
from the prospect of a work so difficult or a liberty so peril-
ous, and preferred to decree the privilege of inspiration to
St. Jerome, or to claim 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 Him 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 claimed for individuals, as
well 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
OFFICIAI, AND MODERN CATHOLIUISM. 279
of dogma were formulated, and two decrees were then promul-
gated. The one was intended to make the authority 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 anathema. 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 by any formula of an-
athema, because it was thought too much 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 my readers are acquainted
with it from the existing Catholic 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 immediately after the Gospels.
! DECRETUM DE CANONICIS SCRIPTURIS: SS. synodus. . .. perspiciens hanc
veritatem et disciplinam contineri in ll. scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus,
que ab ipsius Christi ore ab apostolis acceptæ aut ab apostolis Sp. s. dictante
quasi per manus tradite ad nos pervenerunt, orthodoxorum patrum exempla
secuta omnes libros V. et N. T., quum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nec
non traditiones ipsas tum ad fidem tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel
ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritus. dictatas et continua successione in eccl.
cath. conservatas pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur.
Sacrorum vero librorum indicem huic decreto adscribendum censuit ne cur
dubitatio suboriri possit quinam sint qui ab ipsa synodo 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
editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit et traditiones pre-
dictas sciens contempserit, anathema sit... .
DECRETUM DE EDITIONE ET USU SS. LIBRORUM : Insuper eadem ss. synodus,
considerans non parum utilitatis accedere posse ecclesiæ Dei, si ex omnibus
- latinis editionibus que circumferuntur ss. librorum, quenam pro authentica
habenda sit innotescat, statuit et declarat ut hec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio,
que longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectio-
nibus, disputationibus, predicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica ha-
beatur et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis pretextu audeat vel presumat....
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 circumstances the Catholic Church could hardly come to
any other conclusion. Had the Protestant Reformation not
taken place, the indecision regarding such questions might
have continued. Perhaps science would have had some
liberty in its development, 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 time insurmountable, 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 moment, which were not well
apprehended. The Protestants, who rightly deplore the
victory gained on this last great occasion by the spirit of
hierarchy over the reform desired by 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, imperfect in sense as
well as in language, they should not forget that, till recently,
they have practically done the same in regard to current
translations which are no less imperfect, and have not even
the privilege of great antiquity.
In my opinion, there cannot be the least doubt as to the
bearing of the decree of Trent. The council most 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 dogma 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 among 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 polemic
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 Roman Church
who affected to maintain 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-
libility, such a method of classification has nothing offensive;
still it is difficult not to see in it a last attempt of historical
criticism to protest against 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 Verbo Dei, i; Jos. Barre,
Vindiciae ll. deuterocan. V. T., Paris 1730; Alo. Vincenzi, Sessio iv. cone.
trid. vindicata, Rome, 1842 tom. iii., ete
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 Catholic 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
Song 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 angei assisting the Lord (xxii. 43 f), the
story of the woman taken in adultery (John viii.), the
Epistle to the Hebrews, five of the Catholic Epistles, the
Apocalypse—all these were regarded as apocryphal by the
Fathers ; but they were read to the catechumens, 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
confirmation of dogma; finally, it was decreed that they
should be received as having irrefragable authority. This
manner of understanding or expounding the history of the
canon does not require discussion ; it is more 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.
* Eosque apud solos catechumenos, nondum canonice lectionis capaces (!)
legi permiserunt ; deinde procedente tempore apud omnes fideles recitari con-
cesserunt,... demum inter S. S. irrefragabilis auctoritatis assumi voluerunt.
3 Bellarmine, /.c. Anton. a Matre Dei, Praludia ad ss. Ul. intell., 1670,
p. 85 f. L. E. du Pin, Dissert. Prélim., 1701, I, 1, § 6. Mt. Gerbert,
Princip. theol. exeg., 1757, p. 101. J. B. Glaire, Introd. aux livres de l'A.
et du N. T., 1843, I, 79 f. Scholz, Hinl., 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 much 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 illustrious
phalanx of Benedictines by which the age of Louis XIV.
was glorified never touched on it. Richard Simon himself,
though his bold criticism alarmed all parties and all schools,
and his great work explores all the details of the history of
the text and of versions of the Bible, seems 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 documents, had become
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 the same traditions,
was not slow in arriving at a similar conclusion after fluc-
* Bern. Lamy, Appar. bibl., 1696, p. 355. J. Jahn, EHinl. ins A. T.,
1802, I, 140, etc.
2 Glaire, /. 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, Zinl., 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 still 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 time the con-
tradictory decrees of Carthage and Laodicea. In other
words, the old theory of its great theologians, who wished
carefully to distinguish between the normative 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 become 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
books, 22 form the Old Testament, 11 the New. This cal-
1 Monumenta fidei ecel. or., ed. Kimmel, 1850, tom. ii. p. 104.
OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM. 285
culation is obviously based on the names 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 same 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 customs of the early church, with this exception,
that he includes the Apocalypse in the number of canonical
books. We find the same views in a still more famous
theologian, the Cretan Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of
Alexandria, later (after 1621) of Constaninople, and well-
known from 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 Testament 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
T'âroBañrous pi oy nyovusda, moNNà yap nOixa TAtloTov iwalvou aix iuripii-
xiTas TavTass. ‘Qs xavonxds 08 xal addsvrixds ovdimor GrsdsËaTo Toù XpioToù
éxx\nola x. T. À.
2 Cyrilli Lucaris confessio, in Monumentis (loc. cit. 1. 42),
3 ais cuvdaTomey xal Tay éroxd\u\iy Tov #yarnuévou,
4 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 with
these lines :
bsodoyinn à doroxduyis rdduv
oppayls rique Thods ris BiGNov rdons.
986 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
the prejudices of dogma, could no longer be maintained at
a time when there was no science to defend or dispute it,
and when the whole life of the church was concentrated in
a purely exterior worship. Besides, the two theologians |
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 criticism in the way it was
spoken of at Rome, 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 death could satisfy his
adversaries. He was condemned for heresy by a synod held
at Jassy in 1642, and thirty years later at Jerusalem, a new
confession of faith was sanctioned which canonized also the
Apocrypha of the Ola Testament. The terms used in it for
this purpose are somewhat curious. Clearly the bitterness
of the orthodox against Lucaris had much to do with the
decision, and the frank simplicity with which they pre-
tended to confirm the existing rules, while at the same time
they were making light of the Catholic theologians and even
of the synods to which they appeal, is worthy of an assembly
which very probably was acquainted with the Fathers only
1 Leo Allatius (+1669) de libris ecclesiasticis Graecorum, p. 36, ap. Fabric.
Bibl. gr. T. V.: Alio tempore de scripturis hisce disceptatum est in eamque
itum sententiam a plerisque, non esse corum auctorum quos pracferunt. .. «
attamen hisce temporibus, tanta est vis veritatis, ficum in Graecorum animis
mansit. . . . . epistolas catholicas et apocalypsin veram et genuinam esse
aan et uti talem publice in officiis per totam Graeciam, SS
et alias divinas scripturas, legunt.
OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM. 287
by hearsay, and was all the more able to lavish epithets on
those with more acquaintance.’ It roundly declared that to
deny the canonicity of the story 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 confirm 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 make 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 all 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 symptoms 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
* Confessio Dosithei, 1672, Quest. 3 (Monumenta, l.c., 1. 467): oroxobvres Ta
xavou THs xaboNixis txxAnolas lepav ypagay xadrodmev ixelva Tara doep o KupsAdos
bard Tis tv Agodixele cuvodov tpavicdutvos apidusl nal xpos TovTos Grip aovvitws xal
dpabüs sit’ ov Beroxaxoipyws aroxpuda xaTwvouacs. . . . (here comes a list of
the Apocrypha of the Old Testament). . . . auels yap xal ratra yriow Tijs
ypaPis uipn xplyousv, oT: à rapadocaca apyala cuvitea xai à xaé. ixxducla yriora
ver va ispd ebayythia xal Tabra sivas Tis dylas ypaghs uépn avauGiBows rapidwxs,
nal Tovrwy à Gpvnois ixslywy ioTiv abitnous x. T. À.
2'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-
Xvi. in the Latin Bibles.
288 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
insist on them. Thus in the confession most 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 contemptible* While reading such phrases, we might
be tempted to say, that between the Latin Church and the
: Further, this document which is very minute in every part, and 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 cecumenical
councils (pis và xparn. ... ras dha Ta dptpa Tis wloTEws Ts opbodozou ixxAnalas
vas wapadsdomiva dard roy xupioy pi TS piroy Tüy &morToNwY TOU tis THY ixxAnglay xai
ai obxougsyixal cvvodo: TH ipunvevovoay xai TA Doxluacay); 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 (ove To xpos al Tay Doximaciay, pipos dare Thy ixx. rap-
ddoow xal ard thy didacxadlay roy ruycdwy xal Tay aylwy TATipuy.) In Quest. 72,
it is said that the Holy Spirit is the author (eüpsrhs) of Scripture, and has
preached it (@uiAnss) by means of many fellow-workers (cuvepyav). For this
reason (Biz Thy APopuhy Tor), 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—.g., throughout Greece in ancient
Greek, throughout Russia in Sclavonian of the tenth century.
2 Monumenta, l. c. ii. 225.
3 Goa pivros Tav rs Tadasds Babixns Biblio» Ty drapdunos Tar &yioypéQuy où
cuprip\auBdvovtas, oùx dxrotperidlovTas Tara Évsxsy Tourou ws idnixd Tia xal
BiBnla. 'AAAR xark xal ivdpera wpooayopiveras xal obx GwoBaAnra Tuyxévaucs
BioAov. :
OFFICIAL AND MODERN CATHOLICISM. 289
Greek Church, there is still some 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 XVI.
THE THEOLOGY OF 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 time conclude our investiga-
tions. Up to this point we have constantly seen that the
collection of the Holy Scriptures, formed at first by practical
needs and according to varying local usages, 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 till 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 some ruling principle
which should be based on the theology of the Gospel. At the
beginning of their work, they saw themselves forced to break
with the tradition of the Church on more than one point; and
in order to justify their opposition, and maintain 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 position which would shelter them
ee …
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 impossible 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 1s 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
of free 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 1s supposed, without saying it in so many
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
rationalism 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 literature of that
memorable period. It will be sufficient to observe that a
theology which, wrongly or rightly, but always with im-
perilous energy and powerful unanimity, proclaimed as its
fundamental dogma the absolute incapacity of the 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 supreme jurisdiction
in religious matters. It could not then in any shape subor-
dinate the Bible, the immediate work of God, to that same
992 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
reason, which had fallen so sadly from what it was in the
beginning.
I call the Bible the immediate work of God; for it is to
be remembered here, that the dogma of the inspiration of
the 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 the Church. Indeed this dogma, while existing
theoretically in the theology of the Fathers and Pontifis, was
to some 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 the 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 illumination, all make appeal to
Scripture, and to it alone without reserve, for the confirma-
tion of the truth they taught, and the settlement of all
tI very much regret that the necessity of confining myself to my special
task prevents me from developing further this fundamental point. The
history 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, would 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. Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 293
vexed questions, we cannot deny that the conception of the
canon had become 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 necessity to bristle with new difficulties. When the dignity
of the code was increased, and a special place was assigned
to it among the providential means which might aid in the
religious education of men—when, so to speak, it was made
divine—it became all the more vitally important to mark out
its limits, withdraw from it all impure alloy, and distinguish
carefully its proper contents from the additions made to it
at various times by the ignorance or the piety of men. So
long as the chief point was to know what public or private
readings would edify Christendom, the presence of a doubt-
ful book, provided it served the purpose of edification,
caused neither trouble nor danger; the 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 all 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.
994 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
Reformers, 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 must have had in the Catholic Church—viz., that
the canonicity of the books was decided by the testimony of
the Synagogue and the Fathers. Now, nothing was further
from the thoughts of Luther, Calvin, and their illustrious
associates—nothing was more fundamentally opposed to
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 removing their ob-
scurities and contradictions by forced and violent inter-
pretations, as is the custom now. They understood perfectly
well that nothing could have been more illogical—nay, more
ruinous—to their system than to assign to the Church the
right of making 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 my readers
some 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 pernicious
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 on the Scriptures). In the last edition of the work, see B. L., ch. 7.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 295
demand: Who will certify to us that the Scriptures come from
God ; who will assure us that they have been preserved in
their entirety down to the present day; and who will
persuade us that one book is to be received and another
rejected, if the Church is not our guarantee on all these
matters? EHence 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
them. Thus these blasphemers, wishing to exalt an wn-
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 wm
the 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 tt
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 of distinguishing between the apocryphal books (edition 1562).
2 When it is said to them that it is enough that the Church has settled it,
will they be content with such an answer ? (Edition of 1562.)
3 Il y en a plusieurs en cest erreur pernicieux, que l’Escriture n'a non
plus d'importance que ce qui luy en est donné par le consentement de
l'Eglise ; comme si la vérité de Dieu eternelle et inviolable estoit fondée sur le
plaisir des hommes. Car ilz font ceste demande non sans grand opprobre
contre le sainct Esprit: Qui est celuy qui nous certifiera que l’Escriture est
procedée de Dieu? et qui nous asseurera qu’elle a esté gardée en son entier
iusques à nostre temps ? qui nous persuadera que l’un des liures doit estre
receu en obéissance et l’autre peut estre reietté? n’estoit que l'Eglise baille
reigle de toutes ces choses. Pour tant ilz concluent que cela gist en la determina-
tion de l’Eglise, de sauoir quelle reuerence nous deuons à l’Escriture et quelz
296 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
I have quoted from 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 come first in the
illustrious phalanx of witnesses I am going to bring forward.
Long before him, Zwingle summed up the same principles in
the first of the theses proposed by him 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.
“Tt 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 human origin but
truly divine. The Spirit, therefore, and not the Church,
liures doiuent estre comprins en icelle. En ceste maniere ces blasphemateurs,
voulans eleucr une tyrannie desbordée souz la couuerture de l'Eglise, ne se
soucient de quelles absurditez ilz s’enucloppent eux et les autres, moyennant
qu'ils puissent gaigner ce poinct entre les simples que toutes choses sont loisibles
à VEglise. Or si ainsi estoit, que deuiendroyent les poures consciences qui
cherchent certaine asseurance de la vie cternelle, quand elles verroyent toutes
les promesses d’icelle consister et estre appuyées sur le seul iugement des
hommes ? D'autre part à quelle moquerie des infideles nostre foy seroit-elle
exposée ? En quelle suspition viendroit-clle envers tout le monde? si on avoit
celle opinion qu'elle eust son fondement au mercy et bon plaisir des
hommes? . . . Touchant ce qwilz interroguent comment nous cognoistrons
que VEscriture est sortie de Dieu, si nous n’auons recours au decret de l'Eglise,
autant vaut comme si quelqu'un demandoit dont nous apprendrons à discerner
la lumiere des tenebres, le blanc du noir, Vaigre du doux.
* Quicunque Euangelion nihil esse dicunt, nisi ecclesiæ calculus et adpro-
batio accedat, errant et Deum blasphemant (Zwinglii Opp. ed. Sch., I, 195).
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 207
establishes the authority of Scripture.” It is true that the
canonical writers began by being members of the Church;
but it does not follow that the Scriptures derive their dig-
nity from this and not rather from 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 more 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 much pains were taken by all the
Protestant theologians, Calvin especially, to interpret in an
inoffensive way this declaration made by an author on whom
they were more dependent than they were aware of, and
much more than they dared confess.‘
With such explicit testimonies before us, we shall without
difficulty understand the meaning and drift of the declara-
tions regarding the notion of the canonicity of the holy
* P. M. Vermilii Loci communes. cl. iii., 1. iii, § 3: Non est verum quod
‘assumunt, Scripturam habere auctoritatem ab ecclesia. Ejus enim firmitas 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 agnoscerent
non esse humanum sermonem sed prorsus divinum. A Spiritu itaque accessit
auctoritas verbo Dei, non ab ecclesia.
? Wolfg. Musculus, Locè communes, p. 228 (Bas. 1560): Agnosco scrip-
tores canonicos esse membra ecclesiae, verum quod inde colligitur scripturam
non esse authenticam sine autoritate ecclesiae, plane nego . . . canonicae scrip-
turae autoritas suprema ac perpetua non est aliunde quam ex Deo, et sacri
scriptores non ecclesiae, sed Sp. S. instinctu, ideoque non tanquam membra
ecclesiae sed tanquam interpretes 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 securas reddere possit.
3 Augustine, Contra epist. fundamenti, ch. 5 : Ego evangelio non crederem
nist me moveret ecclesiae auctoritas.
4 Calvini Instit., ce. i. § 23. Edit. postr. 1, c. 7, §3. Muscul., J. c., p.
229. Vermigli, 7. c.
298 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
books which were inserted in most of the Reformed Con-
fessions of Faith.
The first Helvetic Confession of Faith, composed at Basle
in 1536, contains the above principles by implication, but
does not set them forth very clearly. It simply says in few
words that the canonical Scriptures, the Word of God trans-
mitted by the Holy Spirit and communicated to the world
by the prophets and apostles, is the most 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 themselves alone, with the help of the rule of
faith and charity ; the Fathers may be usefully consulted
in so fur 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 contained 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 themselves, it is evi-
dent a fortiori that the same will 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 part are silent regarding the Scriptures altogether. The Augsburg
Confession and the Apology only indicate in passing the superiority of the
Scriptures over tradition. The Formula of Concord (1576) alone expresses
in plain terms the principle universally recognised by Protestants that the
Bible (prophetica et apostolica scripta V. et N. T.) is the only and supreme
rule of faith and teaching (pit. p. 570).
2 Conf. helv., I. art. 1: Scriptura canonica, verbum Dei Spiritu 8. tra-
ditum et per prophetas apostolosque mundo propositum, omnium perfectis-
sima et antiquissima philosophia, pietatem omnem, omnem vitae rationem
sola per fecte continet.—Art. 2: Huius interpretatio ex ipsa sola petenda est,
ut ipsa interpres sit sui, caritatis fideique regula moderante.—Art. 3: A quo
interpretationis genere, quatenvs patres non discessere, eos ut interpretes scrip-
turae recipimus et veneramur.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 299
Beza and Bullinger, enters into more positive detail on these
principles, but with the same 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
DT
not from men. Then after establishing the nature and
bearing of this authority and the manner 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
interpretation of the Scriptures than that which 1s drawn
from the Scriptures themselves, by means of the preliminary
study of the languages, context, parallel 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. “Just 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, no 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, | shall confine my-
self to mentioning one other, the Scotch Confession of 1560,
which has a very forcible statement to the same effect. In
its nineteenth article, after vindicating in the previous
article for the Scriptures themselves—z.e., for the Holy Spirit
that dictated them—the exclusive right of interpreting
them, it goes on to say: “ As we beleeve and confesse the
t Conf. helv., II. c. i. : Credimus et confitemur scripturas canonicas . . .
ipsum esse verum verbum Dei et auctoritatem sufficientem ex semet ipsis, non
ex hominibus habere.
2 Conf. Gall., Art. 5: Credimus verbum his libris (canonicis Art. 4) com-
prehensum ab uno Deo esse profectum, quo etiam uno, non autem hominibus,
nitatur ipsius autoritas, etc.
300 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Scriptures of God sufficient to instruct and make the man of
God perfite, so do we affirm and avowe the authoritie of the
same to be of God and nether to depend on men nor
angelis. We affirme therefore that sik as allege the Serip-
ture to have nauther 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 maistres over the samin.””
After these quotations there can be no doubt about the
Protestant principle, nor about its intimate 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 prominence in all the countries that took
part in the movement 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
cuarantee, 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 1535, 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
buiks of the Auld and New Testamentis, those buiks, we mean, quhilk of the
ancient have been reputed canonicall.” [Trans.]
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 301
and endowed by them with canonical authority.” Among
the Lutheran formulas, there is also one which might be
mentioned here. It is the one composed by Brentz for the
Duchy of Wurtemberg in 1552.2 But we shall see after-
wards that the formula employed in it was, on the contrary,
intended by its author to consecrate a very important re-
servation.
But since, according to these formulas expressed in more
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 will he have, what means
more infallible can be offered him? If we continue to read
the pages of Calvin following the one above quoted, we
shall find the answer to this question. The Scriptures
themselves, their character, their teaching, their spirit, their
very forms, and above all the effects they produce on us
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, still hardened by sin, is not apt to
receive from the word of God such an impression at once
demonstrative and salutary. So, too, Protestant’ theology,
when it wished to put ina more scientific form 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
1 Conf. Bohem. Art. 1... . . docent scripturas sacras quae in bibliis ipsis
continentur et a patribus receptae autoritateque canonica donatae sunt pro veris
habendas etc.
2 Conf. Wurtemb. p. 540: sacram scripturam vocamus eos canonicos libros
V. et. N. T. de quorum autoritate in ecclesia nunquam dubitatum est.
3 P. Viret, De vero verbi Dei ministerio (1553), I. c. 5: . . . . quotiescun-
que nobis externus sermo, sive scripto, sive viva voce proponitur, hoc apud nos
confestim statuamus oportet, nullam illi quidem voci corporeae vim inesse atque
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
cuided by the Holy Spirit, and that it by no means derived
therefrom an authority superior to that of Scripture. “If
we wish,” says Calvin, “to make provision for consciences,
so as to keep them from being agitated in perpetual doubt,
we must 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 them, yet they begin truly to touch
us when they are sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spint.
Being then illuminated by His power, we believe, not on
our own judgment 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 mouth of God, just as if with the eye we were
contemplating in them 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 ct
efficaci verbo intus docuerit hominum mentes arcanoque suo afflatu aspiraverit.
—II. c. 3: Deus solus suo Spiritus afflatu corda movet..... Nam ne
ipsum quidem externum Christi ministerium quo in hac mortali vita defunc-
tus est, hac fuit preditum facultate nisi quoties arcano sui spiritus instinctu
pater quos filio adducturus erat trahere voluit. .. +»
* Vermigli, Loci commun. cl. I. 1. vi. § 8.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 03
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 from other Protestant authors of that
period. They at least still 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: ‘‘ St nous voullons bien pouruoir aux con-
sciences, si qu'elles ne soyent point agitées en perpctuclle doubte, il nous faut
prendre l’auctorité de l Escriture de plus hault que des raisons ow indices ou
coniectures humaines. C’est à scauoir que nous la fondions sur le tesmoignage
interieur du Sainct Esprit. Car iacoit qu’en sa propre maiesté elle ait assez
de quoy estre reuerée : neantmoins elle commence lors à nous vrayement toucher
quand elle est scellée en nos cœurs par le Sainct Esprit. Estans donc
illuminez par la vertu d’iceluy, desià nous ne croyons pas ou à nostre iuge-
ment, ow à celuy des aultres, que l’Escriture est de Dicu: mais par dessus
tout iugement humain nous arrestons indubitablement qu’elle nous a esté
donnée de la propre bouche de Dieu, tout ainsi que si nous contemplions à
Veil l’ Essence de Dieu en icelle. . . . C’est un tel sentiment qu'il ne se peut en-
gendrer que de reuelations celestes. Le ne ditz aultre chose que ce qu'un
chascun fidele experimente en soy: sinon que les paroles sont beaucoup in-
Jférieures à la dignité de l'argument.”
? Nullius hominis mortalis animus verbi divini et cœlestium rerum capax
esse poterit nist a Deo illustretur et doceatur. Mox, ut hoc fit, tam certum et
indubitatum fit homini verbum Dei ut veritate divina firmius et certius nitatur
quam omnibus literis utcunque obsignatis.... Solus spiritus docet omnia
que de Deo scire hominem convenit (Zwinglii Opp., i. 196 seq).—Dixerint
aliqui: nos spiritu destituti sumus. Quibus ego regeram: si spiritu vacui
estis, quomodo audetis vos appellare christianos? Nemo est vere christianus
cui tam parum spiritus huius concedatur quin valeat ex sacris literis hawrire
et iudicare que necessaria sunt ad salutem (P. M. Vermilit Loci communes,
cl. i. 1. vi. § 5).—Donum divinum est vera interpretatio et tudicit rectitudo,
etc. (Melanchthon. Opp., vii. 396.)
304 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
been placed by Protestant theology in official formulas.
Thus, the 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 of
the Church, depends on the internal illumination of the
Holy Spirit... The Confession of the Churches of the Low
Countries after enumerating the books of the Bible, adds :*
“These are the only books we receive as holy and canonical,
ie, as a supreme rule of our faith, and we believe without
reserve 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
themselves His seal.” The French Confession speaks to the
same purpose, though using an expression which is a little less
exclusive. It says:* not merely according to the- unanimous
feeling of the Church, but much more 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. IT. ce. 1: Neque arbitramur predicationem externam esse
inutilem, quoniam pendeat institutio vere religionis ab interna Spiritus illumi-
natione. Quanquam enim nemo veniat ad Christum nisi intus illuminetur
per Sp. S., scimus tamen, ete.
2 Conf. Belg., Art. 5: Hosce libros solos pro sacris et canonicis recipimus. .. .
idque non tam quod ecclesia eos pro huiusmodi recipiat et approbet, quam
imprimis quod Sp. S. in cordibus nostris testetur a Deo profectos esse, com-
probationemque eius in se ipsis habeant.
3 Conf. Gall., Art. 4: ....idque non tantum ex communi ecclesiæ consensu
sed etiam multo magis ex testimonio et intrinseca Sp. S. persuasione, quo sug-
gerente docemur illos ab aliis libris ecclesiasticis discernere.
4 The French edition, published at Montpellier in 1825, effaced this little
touch of distinction. It does not contain an authentic text of the sixteenth
century, but a somewhat free edition of it in modern French.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 305
cular case to meet polemical necessities, to escape from 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 element of evangelical mysticism which
was not foreign even to the spirit of the Middle Ages, but
which had been banished from official theology by the
ascendency of Scholastic rationalism, and the crushing sway
of the constitution of the Roman Church. In so far as it
concerned the new theology to demonstrate, not that such a
book was by such an author but that it contained the word
of life, arguments purely historical, and the testimonies of
the Fathers lost all value and had to give place to what the
apostle long ago had called “demonstration of spirit and
power.” Let me add that Calvin 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 incomplete, or they move in a
circle of ideas which gives them no hold over the religious
conscience, as may be seen from the despairing impotence
of ordinary apologetics; whereas inward experience is the
surest control over theory. This truth is as old as Christi-
anity, for it was proclaimed first by Jesus himself (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 fail 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 remarked that this action is not
uniform in all individuals, and that, according to the dis-
positions of character and temperament, according to the
; U -
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 might be edified and touched
by a writing which might have little or no influence on an-
other, and vice versa. The Psalms and Gospels, the Prophets
and Epistles, the Song of Solomon and the Apocalypse, have
in turn had a greater or less attraction for hearts and minds,
and these varying phenomena must not be neglected since
they are still visible among ourselves. In the main, they do
not constitute a triumphant instance against the Protestant
theory above stated, because that theory is not intended to
deny the variety of dispositions among men, nor the diversity
of God’s ways in the work of salvation.
Still 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 formulated 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 composed of numerous 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 vitality. Nothing is more interesting, but nothing
also is less known 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 makes the attempts at ap-
plication all the more astonishing to us in their diversity
and uncertainty. My readers have already perceived this
from some of the extracts from the confessions of faith which
I have put before them; but these same documents, to-
gether with the Protestant editions of the Bible and the
writings of the Reformers, furnish us with a mass of instruc-
tive details on this point deserving consideration for more
than one reason.
Let us consider for a moment the first fact, the fact most
generally known and therefore apparently very easy to un-
derstand or justify—I mean 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 still 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 formermly occupied. Now it is
well-known that from the first, the Reformers 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 ona
fact which needs no demonstration, I shall 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 bücher Die bey den alten vnder Biblische gschrifft
nit gezelt sind, auch bei den Ebreern nit gefunden. Then follows a preface
which begins with these words: Dise bücher, so hie den Biblischen angehenckt,
sind der meinung von vns getruckt, nit das sy in wärd und acht der 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 French Bibles.
In the latter the historical element, contained in the notice
to readers, shows some superficial appreciation of the usages
of the early Church, and the utility of these writings is not
so much insisted on. The Genevan Bibles of this first
period—and I have a whole series before me—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 some 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 must 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-
tvveen 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 Spirit,
gschrifft gleich gehalten werden süllind, sunder das denen so auch liebe zu diesen
bücheren habend zeläsen, weder mangel noch klag wire, vnd das ein yetlicher
Sunde das jm schmackte: dann ob schon dise bücher vnder die Biblischen
heyliger schrifft biicher, weder von den alten noch von uns gezelt, sind doch vil
ding darinn, die Biblischer gschrifit, dem glauben und liebe, keins wägs wider-
sträbend, ja auch etlich jren grund in Gottes word findend. The Bibles of
Luther (1534 et seq.) have only a general and very simple title : Apocrypha,
das sind bücher so nicht der heyligen Schrifft gleich gehalten, vnd doch nutzlich
ond gut zu lesen sind. There is no general preface, but there are special
introductions to each book which, while remarking on their inferiority, take
care 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 came from men.”
Then follow a sentence or two which were omitted from the
editions after 1559. “Wherefore, according to the saying
of St. Jerome, let all Christians read them and take from
them doctrine of edification. But let them, 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, while maintaining the separation, speak of the Apo-
exypha 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 the customs of
the Jews... . . Wherefore, reader, seeing that from all
flowers the fly may 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 matter
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
1 The old French original runs thus: Ces livres qu'on appelle Apocryphes,
ont esté de tout temps discernez d’aucc ceux qu’on tenoit sans difficulte estre de
lEscriture saincte. Car les Anciens voulans preuenir le dangier qu’ aucuns
. liures profanes ne fussent entremeslez auec ceux, qui pour certain estoyent pro-
cedez du sainct Esprit, en ont fait vn rolle qu’ ilz ont nommé Canon: signi-
fians par ce mot, que tout ce qui estoit l& comprins estoit reigle certaine, à
laquelle il se falloit tenir. Quant à ceux cy, ilz leur ont imposé nom d’A po-
cryphes : denotant qu on les deuoit tenir pour escritures priuées, 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 passé
deuant un notaire, et scellé pour estre receu de tous, et vne cedule d’un homme
particulier. Ilest vrayqu’ilzne sont pas à mespriser d'autant qwilz contiennent
bonne doctrine et vtile. Toutesfois c’est bien raison, que ce qui nous a esté donné
par le sainct Esprit ait preeminence pardessus tout ce qui est venu des hommes.
2 The original runs: Parquoy, suyuant le dire de sainct Jerosme, que tous
Chrestiens les lisent et en prennent doctrine d’edification. Mais qu’ilz soyent
cependant aduertiz gwilz ne doyuent point là prendre pleine asseurance des
articles de leur Foy: pource que ce n’est pas tesmoignage suffisant, etc.
310 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
made on them, do not fail’ to read them and to take from
them doctrine and edification”? (Lyons, de Tournes, 1551,
etc). I willingly admit 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 testimonies of the Fathers and sums 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 much 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 most 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
mouche peult tirer liqueur à faire miel, sans avoir esgard ou elle soit plantée,
au champ ou au jardin, ainsi de tous ces liures icy tu pourras retirer chose
duisante à ton salut sans te reigler par les J'uifs. . . . Puis dong que tous ont
re mesme source et saine racine, pour vne resecation qu’en ont faite les Juifs
ne laisse de les lire et en prendre doctrine et edification.
2 The original is: Ce ne sont pas liures diuinement inspirés comme le reste
des sainctes Escritures, mais qu’ estans de particuliere declaration ils ne doiuent
point estre receus ou produits publiquement en l'Eglise comme pour seruir de
reigle aux articles de nostre foy. Toutesfois on s’en peut seruir en particulier
pour en tirer instruction tant à cause de plusieurs beaux exemples qui nous y
sont proposés, que de notables sentences qwils contiennent.
3 Conf. Helvet., Il. art. 1: Interim nihil dissimulamus quosdam V. 7’,
libros a veteribus nuncupatos esse Apocryphos, ab aliis Ecclesiasticos, utpote
quos in ecclesiis legi voluerunt quidem, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex
his fidei confirmandam.—Conf. Gall., art. 4: . . . (libri ecclesiastici) qui, ut
sint utiles, non sunt tamen eiusmodi ut ex iis constitui possit aliqus fidei arti-
culus, — Thirty-Nine Articles, art. 6: And the other books, as Hierome
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. SE à
the distinction assumed an official and dogmatic 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.
Having 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 all, 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 collection, placed even
in the very midst of those which are regarded as emanating
from divine inspiration, and therefore authoritative? The
orthodox Calvinist theologians, who in our days have
applied the principle more rigorously, and have completely
eliminated them from the Bible, will 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 them that honour, otherwise the Bible
might have been further enriched by preference with
numerous monuments of Christian piety, from the Apostolic
Fathers, who at one time were admitted, down to the books
of the Reformers themselves, which were eagerly read by
thousands every day. The insertion, let me rather say, the
saith, the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners ;
but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.—Conf. Belg., art. 6:
Differentiam constituimus inter libros sacros et apocryphos, quos quidem eccle-
sia legere et ex tis documenta de rebus cum libris canonicis consentientibus
desumere potest. At nequaquam ea ipsorum vis et autoritas est ut ex ullo
testimonio ipsorum aliquod dogma de fide aut religione Christiana certo con-
stitui possit, etc. The Waldenses, after consulting Œcolampadius (see the
letter he wrote to them in Scultetus, Annal. evang., ii., 313), expressed
themselves in the same way in their Confession of Faith. 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 means of a note distributing
blame and praise in uncertain proportions, was evidently
a compromise between theory 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 custom of so many centuries had given a kind of
consecration.
zut I may also raise the opposite question, and ask by
what motive they were influenced in making 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 Wisdom,
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 ot
that kind. On the other hand, it is very simple to suppose,
or, rather, it is very easy to prove, from their own declara-
tions, that their purpose was to re-establish the canon of the
Old Testament in its primitive purity, such as it must have
existed, according to common opinion, among the ancient
Jews—.e., as we know it in our Hebrew Bibles. As an
actual fact, they do not fail to invoke the custom 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 example of the most learned Fathers,
and we must guard against reproaching their still imperfect
science that they did not beforehand submit to more careful
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. ole
criticism the tradition in regard to the formation of the
Hebrew canon. But I must call attention to this fact that
their procedure was exactly that which in principle they
had condemned; they implicitly acknowledged the authority
of tradition, and thus they returned to the very position
which they had loftily 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 form was attributed. They derived
this authority from the testimony of the New Testament,
from Jesus and the Apostles. As the value of this testimony
was beyond dispute, and the fact of quotations being made
from 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 limits its application.
Indeed, the canonicity of every book in the Old Testament
will 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 formula, as
we know, includes only those parts of the Bible which were
used in public readings and recital. Only once Psalms is
added, in order to be quite complete (Luke xxiv. 44). And
even though this circumstance should not form a complete
proof, it must be said that the absence of all quotation from
a particular book proves of itself that the spirit of that book
is not in intimate contact with that of the gospel. In a
passage to which I shall 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 shall see afterwards how freely
he pronounces judgment regarding the hagiographa. It
was from this point of view, no doubt, that the Fathers set
out when they removed the 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 apostolic writings. And,
in this way, he sets himself to draw up a catalogue in which
naturally most of the hagiographa are wanting—Kcclesiastes,
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 among the Jews.
And Flacius had learning enough to know that the books
just named had been matter of serious controversies among
the doctors of the Synagogue. By this inference, he returned
into the circle of ideas dominated by the theory of the Spirit,
a circle from which there had been an unconscious depar-
ture when an attempt was made to settle the question by
rabbinical tradition.
If the definition of the canon of the Old Testament placed
the Reformers 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.
2 Centuriae Magdeb. s. Hist. Eccl. N.T., ed. Semler, i., 29, 451: Ætsi
numerus librorum authenticorum V.T, ab apostolis ex professo nominatim
non est expressus, tamen hund obscure ex citationibus conjectari potest quod
eos pro certis et probatis habuerint de quibus antiquitas iudaica nunquam
dubitavit. 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 uniform and early enough
tradition on which to fall back. Hence on this point there
is apparent amongst them a great divergence in methods
and results. The theologians in the two churches—at least,
the Germans and the Swiss—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 judgment
nor follow the same principles in their judgment. This of
itself shows that the question of the canon, more particularly
that of the list 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 Reformed.
As a general thesis, the theologians of the Swiss churches,
while recognising the uncertainty of tradition regarding cer-
tain books, ‘and themselves professing doubts about their
origin, do not concern themselves much about that fact, and
are not alarmed by it. Thus Musculus mentions the seven
antilegomena, and under that name 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 inferior rank among the books of the New Testament.”
t Wolfg. Musculi Loct Communes, p. 221: Mec modestiae non est ut de
illis pronunciem, sintne eorum sub quorum nominibus exstant, vel secus.
Judicia tamen veterum hoc eficiunt ut minus sim illis quam ceteris scripturis
astrictus, licet haud facile quaevis damnanda censeam quae in illis leguntur.
2 Œcol. ap. Scultet. l.c.: In N.T, quatuor evangelia cum actis app. et
quatuordecim epistolis Pauli et septem catholicis una cum Apocalypsi reci-
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 compatriots show any hesita-
tion in making appeal to the testimony 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
immediate demonstration which prompted 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 homologoumena’ 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 named above, especially the
Epistle of James and that of Paul to the Hebrews, having
written commentaries on both these books. Calvin is still
more 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 apocalypsin cum epp. Jacobi et Judae et ultima Petri et
duabus posterioribus Joannis non cum caeteris conferamus.
’ Buceri Lnarrat. in Evv., fol. 20.
* Berner Disputation (Zwinglii, Opera. ii. 1, p. 169): Us Apocalypsi
nemend wir kein kundschafit an dann es nit ein biblisch buch ist. [With the
Apocalypse we have no concern, for it is not a Biblical book.] Comp. De
clarit. verbi Dei, p. 310: Apocalypsis prorsus non sapit os et ingenium
Joannis. Possum ergo testimonia si velim reiicere.
3 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 time he confesses his ignorance in
regard to the author, and willingly admits 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 may 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-authenticity. And he is prevented
from purely and simply rejecting this epistle, not by the
testimony of the Fathers, which seems to him insufficient,
nor by certain analogies which might be drawn, but solely
by the consideration that the excellence of its contents
appears to be irreconcilable with the fraud which would
result from the name of the Apostle being put to a writing
altogether fictitious. He concludes from this that a disciple
of Peter may have written it under the auspices of his
master, and according to his directions.’ The same reason
x 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, when introducing a passage of this epistle in continuation of one taken
from Colossians, he says explicitly that it is from another ne (teste altero
apostolo). Instit. ii., 16, 6. (Tom. ii., p. 374).
2 Boni quidam viri hanc supposititiam epistolam cr ediderunt, quae omnè
tamen ex parte apostolicum spiritum vere redolet (Opp. i., 678).
3. ... Quamvis aliqua notari possit affiinitos, fateor tamen manifestum esse
discrimen quod diversos scriptores arguat. Sunt et aliae probabiles coniec-
turae ex quibus colligere liceat alterius esse potius quam Petri. Interim om-
nium consensu adeo nihil habet Petro indignum ut vim spiritus apostolici et
gratiam ubique exprimat. Quod si pro canonica recipitur Petrum autorem
31S HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
also determined the place he assigns to it; for he alone,
among all the Reformers, separates it from the first epistle
by inserting those of John and James,’ a very curious
peculiarity which modern editions, modified by orthodoxy,
have taken care to efface. Thus everywhere Calvin is
euided 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-
ment, except the two short Epistles of John, on which he
wrote no commentary. But that conclusion is too hasty.
In the Znstitutes, the Apocalypse is sometimes quoted like
the other Apostolic writings, and even under John’s name.
[f 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 called him elsewhere.’
Jatert oportet quando... . fictio indigna esset ministro Christi. . . . Sic
iyjitur constituo, si digna fide censetur, a Petro fuisse profectam, non quod eam
scripserit ipse sed quod unus aliquis ex discipulis ipsius mandato complexus fuerit
quae temporum necessitas exigebat. . . . Certe quum in omnibus epistelae partibus
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 Catholic Epistles, all 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 ina way to exclude them : Joannes in sua canonica.
Instié. 11, 2, 24; 3, 23. (Opp., ii, 415, 453.)
3 When the second Helvetic Confession, art. ii., declares: damnamus iudaica
somnia quod ante iudicii diem aureum in terris sit futurum saeculum et pii regna
mundi occupaturi oppressis suis hostibus impiis, 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 these
Jewish dreams,
Ca]
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 all 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, more 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 all
confine themselves to the principles of the Gospel, judging
that its substance, faithfully formulated 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
Rochelle, in its third article, contains the complete 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 application of the principle expressly consecrated
by the very next article and quoted above, thus became not
simply superfluous, but forbidden and dangerous. I merely
state that, according to the 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 small liberty is refused to
the Reformed of the Netherlands, whose Confession (art. 4)
1 Epistolae Pauli, nempe ad Romanos una, ad Corinthios duae. . . . ad Phile-
monem una, Epistola ad Hebraeos, Jacobi epistola ete.
320 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
likewise contains a list, and in this list fourteen epistles of
Paul. Finally, the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican
Church do not give themselves 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 common 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 preliminary scrupulous examination of the
Scriptural authorities, thereby getting rid of some books
which might 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 much pre-
dominance that it regulated even the interpretation of the
texts, It is not surprising, therefore, that it was considered
quite superfluous to sift the canon. We are thus not at all
compelled to believe that the French, English, and Dutch
theologians came to insert these official lists of sacred books
in their Confessions of Faith, only by forgetting and deny-
ing the principle which had formed the point of departure
for their theology, and by falling back into the beaten paths
of the traditional method.
Still, at a much earlier period, and with a boldness of
logic which he did not show in everything, Luther had given
1 ** All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive
and account them canonical.”
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. Pa PA À
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 and His
expiatory death, to the absolute exclusion of all merit by
works. This truth was the cardinal point of all his theology,
of all his spiritual and religious life. Criticism, exegesis,
historical opinion, all his science, in short, was subordinated
to that axiom. Whether he arrived at this conviction from
the study of Augustine or the reading of the Bible, it matters
little ; he had always found it confirmed 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, Calvin said, in
somewhat general terms, that the Holy Spirit, speaking in us,
teaches us to recognise the Scriptures as truly inspired by God;
whereas Luther, expressing himself more clearly and positive-
ly, and at the same time putting his principle more within
the grasp 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 names and dignity of the authors,
true or supposed, were of no importance. 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
all the books and distinguishing the best. According to this
standpoint, the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul
(especially the Epistle to the Romans) together with the First
of Peter, are the very kernel and marrow of all the books, those
LA
<<
329 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
which ought to be the daily bread ofthe Christian. They are
much to be preferred to the others, particularly to the three
first gospels, which speak more of Christ’s miracles than of
His teaching, though the latter leads us to salvation, while
His works profit us nothing. In these books, to which may
be added the Epistles to the Galatians and the Ephesians,
as well 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. ii.) ; and Saint
Paul (1 Cor. ii.) wishes to know nothing but Christ. That
which does not teach Christ is not Apostolic, 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):
Aus diesem allen kannst du nu recht urtheilen unter allen Biichern und Unter-
schied nehmen welches die besten sind. Denn nämlich ist Johannis Evangelion
und S, Pauli Episteln, sonderlich die zu den Romern, und S. Peters erste Epistel,
der rechte Kern und Mark unter allen Büchern. . . . denn in diesen findist du
nicht viel Werk und Wunderthaten Christi beschrieben, du findist aber gar meister-
lich ausgestrichen wie der Glaube an Christum Sünd Tod und Holle überwindet
und das Leben Gerechtigkeit und Seligkeit gibt, welches die rechte Art ist des
Evangelii. Denn wo ich je der eins mangeln sollt, der Werke oder der Predigt
Christi, so wollt ich Lieber der Werk mangeln. Denn die hülfen mir nichts, aber
seine Wort die geben das Leben. . . . (darum) ist Johannis Evangelion das einige
zarte recht Hauptevangelion und den andern dreien weit fiirzuziehen und hoher zu
heben. Also auch S. Paulus und Petrus Episteln weit über die drei Evangelien
Matthei Marci und Luce fiirgehn. Summa, S. Johannis Evangel. und seine erste
Epistel, S. Paulus Episteln, sonderlich die zu den Romern, Galatern und Ephesern,
und S. Petrus erste Epistel, das sind die Biicher die dir Christum zeigen und alles
lehren das dir zu wissen noth und selig ist, ob du schon kein ander Buch nummer
sehest noch hürest.
2 Preface to the Epistle of James (Works, l. c., p. 157): Das ist der rechte
Priifestein alle Biicher zu taddeln wenn man siehet ob si Christum treiben oder
nicht ; sintemal alle Schrift Christum zeiget (Rom. iii.), und S, Paulus nichts
denn Christum wissen will (1 Cor. ii.). Was Christum nicht lehret, das ist noch
nicht apostolisch, wenns gleich S. Petrus oder Paulus lehrete ; wiederumh was
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. S25
We may not be able to follow Luther in all his conclusions,
and we may make reservations in regard to his critical
estimates ; but we are bound to acknowledge that he was
consistent in the application 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 somewhat
subjective criterion, which would leave it possible to each
individual to take his tastes and prejudices as a testimony
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 actually 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 much 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 formal
principle, the Gospel of grace above the written word which
bears testimony 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 the movement, 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 prediget das wiire apostolisch, wenns gleich Judas, Hannas, Pilatus und
Herodes 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 France, 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 some 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 commentary on a proposition with which we have
already met in the confessions of faith, and which was
destined ultimately to become the sovereign principle of
exegesis in the schools. When it was declared that all
interpretation must conform to the rule of faith, the latter
was certainly understood to mean the fundamental doctrines
of the Gospel as Protestantism conceived them. There was
a conviction that these doctrines present so faithful a
summary 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 naturally enough receive their true
meaning, or their most fruitful application, when brought
into more direct contact with one another, and with the
dogma itself. Whenever, therefore, a conscientious study
of the texts led to the conviction that there was a certain
incompatibility 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 made. 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 :
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 willing to
acknowledge this fact, that the Reformation was not a
simple reaction against religious tyranny nor the product of
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 925
a philosophical criticism, but the claim of a positive religious
belief, profoundly felt and raised to the dignity of an absolute
principle, will 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 complete collection of all 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 religious 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 reality. He thought himself bound, for the
very reasons I have been indicating, to dispute the canonical
dignity of several books of the New Testament, I mean, of
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 more
significant that the twenty-three first alone were numbered
while the four last were not. But still more interesting to
us is his statement of the motives for this separation. It is
found in the various prefaces he gave to his translation.
Everywhere he mentions 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 impartial, since he represents the Epistles of
James and Jude as generally 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 him 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
musterly statement of the 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-
ment, it contradicts Paul; it does not speak of Christ, His
death, His resurrection, His Spirit; it speaks of a law of
liberty, while we know from Paul that with the law are
rorzeiten 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 of James and Jude: Diese Ep. Jacobi, wiewohl sie
von den Alten verworfen ist, etc. [This Epistle of James, though it is rejected
by the Fathers, ete.] . . . 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 Väter beweget hat diese Epistel 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.
1 Aufs erste dass sie stracks wider S. Paulum und alle andre Schrift den
Werken die Gerechtigkeit gibt. . . . Aufs ander dass sie will Christenleut lehren
und gedenckt nicht einmal des Leidens, der Auferstehung, des Geistes Christi. Er
nennet Christum etlich mal aber er lehret nichts von ihm sondern sagt von gemeinem
Glauben an Gott. . . . Dieser Jacobus thut nicht mehr denn treibet zu dem Gesetz
und seinen Werken und wirft unürdig eins ins ander... . Er nennet das Gesetz
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 all Paul’s epistles. The Epistle of Jude * also, when judged
by what is fundamental in the Christian 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
Kzra; 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 my statement, that, though
the different standard applied to the literature of the first
century prevents the modern historical school from subscrib-
ing to Luther’s opinions, it does not prevent them from
acknowledging that these were natural and legitimate in
any one who set out from a purely dogmatic standpoint
and subordinated Scripture to his system exclusively Pauline,
or, if you will, Augustinian. Nevertheless, it may be said
that he did not intend to pronounce peremptory and in-
disputable verdicts. In spite of his strong convictions, he is
aware of the subjective nature of his reasonings, and willingly
ein Gesctz der Freiheit, so es doch S. Paulus ein Gesetz der Knechtschaft, des
Zorns, des Tods und der Siinde nennt. .
1 Ueber das hat sie einen harten Knoten dass sie. . . . stracks verneinet und
versaget die Busse den Sündern, nach der Taufe. . . . welches, wie es lautet,
scheinet wider alle Evangelien und Episteln S. Pauli zu sein. . . .
2 Darum ists doch eine unnithige Epistel unter die Hauptbiicher zu rechnen
die des Glaubens Grund legen sollen.
3 Mir mangelt an diesem Buche nicht einerlei dass ichs weder apostolisch noch
prophetisch halte. Aufs erste und allermeist, dass die Apostel nicht mit Gesichten
umbgehn. . . . denn es auch dem ap. Ampt gebuhrt klärlich und ohn Bild oder
Gesicht 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 spüren
kann dass es von dem H. Geist gestellet sei. Dazu dunkt mich das allzuviel dass er
so hart sein eigen Buch befiehlt, und dräuet wer etwas davon thue, vun dem werd
328 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
admits 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 methods, but on his own polemical pre-
judices. He exalts the good intentions of the unknown
disciples who composed the epistles in question, and making
use of an image borrowed from Paul, and applied to all the
doctors in turn, even to those he recommends,’ he regrets
only that the straw and wood are mingled with the precious
materials in these works of edification. It has often been
charged against him as a crime that he employs this image.
But his premises 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.
Still 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 momentary impulse,
that we find in his 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 limited to these few protestations more or less
Gott auch thun ; wiederumb sollen selig sein die da halten was drinnen steht, so
doch niemand weiss was es ist... . Mein Geist kann sich in das Buch nicht
schicken, u. ist mir die Ursach gnug dass ich sein nicht hoch achte dass Christus
drinnen weder gelehrt noch erkannt wird. ...
1 Preface to the Apocalypse : In this book I leave it to every man to make
out his own meaning ; I wish no one to be bound to my views or opinion . . .
let every man hold what his spirit gives him. . . . Preface to the Epistle of
James: Therefore I cannot place it among the right canonical works, but I
do not wish thereby to prevent any one from so placing it and extolling it as
seemeth good to him.
2 Opera Germ, ed. Erlangen, LXIII., p. 379.
3 Preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews: And though he does not lay the
Joundation of faith, still he builds gold, silver, precious stones (1 Cor. 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 mention
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 all the writings composing the apostolic
canon, and it was generally thought that, after eliminating
the Apocrypha, the canon of the Synagogue was raised above
all criticism. 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 from 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: These are the books which show thee
Christ, and teach all that is necessary for thee to know. . . . Wherefore St.
James’ Epistle is a true epistle of straw compared with them, for it contains
nothing of an evangelical nature.
1 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 afew. 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 Germ., 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
Epistle to 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
shall quote from the interesting collection 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 intelligence, more practical than
learned, was able sometimes to grasp the 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
many things; it has neither boots nor spurs, and rides in
simple sandals as I used to do when I was still in the con-
vent. Solomon is not its author,” ete. Evidently this criti-
cism applies to the theology of the book in which Luther,
with justice, did not recognise the spirit of his own—ie., 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 maxims. 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
by 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 Genes., c. xlviii. Opera Latina, Erlangen, XI., 130),
which is now widely adopted. Elsewhere (Opera Germana, XVIII, 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 (Germ. )
* Opera Germ., LXII. pp. 128 ff.
* The original German runs: Dies buch sollt vülliger sein, ihm ist zu viel
abgebrochen, es hat weder Stiefel noch Sporn, es reitet nur in Socken, gleich wie
ich da ich noch im Kloster war.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. do
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 harmony.”! “As to the second book of
Maccabees,” he say elsewhere, “and that of Esther, I dislike
them so much that 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 from time to time
wrote fragments of them, and thus what is now found in
the Bible, was formed 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 lst of their
kings and their kind of government.” “Job may 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 drama with a dialogue in the style of Terences
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 command; 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, l.c. p. 128, and Vol. LXIII., pp. 35, 37, 40.
2 Vol. LXII., p. 131: Ich bin dem Buch und Esther so feind dass ich wollte
sie waren gar nicht vorhanden ; denn sie judenzen zu sehr und haben viel
heidnische Unart.
3 Vol. LXII., pp. 132 f.
4 Interpretation of the Sixth ch. of J de 1532. Opera Germ., XLVIL., 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 fixing 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 him, 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 fulfils that end. The
faults, the weaknesses that may be discovered and observed
on this point in more than one book, do not compromise
the 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 man’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 same terms in the very bosom 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
themselves on a pretended internal illumination and rejected
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. Soe
the authority of Scripture. On his part this polemic was
not inconsistent; for according to him, the Holy Spirit pro-
mised and granted to the believer acts in an immediate
manner, but connects this action with the external (2e.
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 bad recognised as the
fundamental thought of the Gospel, and thus ran no risk of
confounding the eternally true and salutary word of God
with the collection of books, which only bears testimony to
it in very unequal proportions. For aman so profoundly
pious as Luther, this distinction was not an error, nor a
piece of weakness, as minds of another kind might suppose
it to be: it was an absolute necessity.
Objection will 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 immediate
successors were of the same opinion. Indeed, we find among
them some little variety on points of detail, 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 more than once’ to
discuss its texts when he wishes to refute the doctrines
opposed to the fundamental thesis of Protestantism ; but he
does not enter on the critical question. His exegesis enabled
him to neutralise the authors propositions, where Luther
could refute them only by the absolute rejection of the
hook. 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
colleague 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, he 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 importance.
Brentz, the reformer of the Duchy of Wurtemberg, is
equally acquainted with the 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 antilezomena. 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.
2 Luther somewhere jests about the trouble Melanchthon had taken to
bring the statements of Paul and James into agreement. ‘‘ Faith justifies ;
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 Germ.,
LXIL, p. 127.)
3 Scio in his apocryphis libris multa pietatis documenta contineri. Sapientia
Sal.,etc. . . . Habent et epistolae quae inter catholicas enumerantur et apoca-
lypsis Joannis suam utilitatem. Non igitur iudicamus hos libros prorsus
abiiciendos, Sed iliud nunc quacritur . . . . num liceat vel uni creaturae,
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 335
Epistle of James could not be put in harmony with the
apostolic 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 him have
no great authority, or none at all (for his definition is
ambiguous),? he means the Apocrypha of the Ola Testament.
The doubtful books—z.e., those which have been sus-
pected’—are the second epistle of Peter, that to the
Hebrews, those of James 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 criticism, nor deduce
from it any practical consequence. The separation he
makes between the doubtful and the apocryphal is always
in favour of the former. Elsewhere,‘ in a work in which
he was aided by friends devoted like himself to exclusive
tendencies, he applies himself to a more thorough discussion
of the value of the antilegomena of the New Testament.
He tests them in complete accordance with Luther’s
example—z.e., from the dogmatic 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 angelicae, vel alicui hominum coctui, quocunque
nomine, ad scripturam (ad libros veros canonicos) alios incertae originis
addere, eandem tis autoritatem tribuere. . . . (Brentii Apol. Confess, Wir-
temb., pp. 824 f.)
* Flacii Clavis S. S., part ii., 1, p. 46.
? Apocryphi quibus nulla eximia autoritas tribuitur sunt: Sap. Sal, ete... .
Hi libri licet biblico canoni nunc addantur, tamen nullius autoritatis apud
intelligentes scriptores habentur.
3 Dubios dico de quibus dubitatum est.
4 Centur. Magd., ed. Semler i., 452 f, Comp. U. Regii Int. locc. comm.,
p. 42.
336 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. —
I shall mention one author more, to whom I should, per-
haps, 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 equally energetic
in opposing. This very man became 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 enthusiasm about the majesty 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
elements, 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
1 De canonicis scripturis libellus: Witt. 1520, quarto. He issued a brief
summary of it in German: Welche biicher heilig und biblisch seind (ibid.
eod.). The original, become extremely rare, was reprinted in 1847 by
Credner with notes (Zur Geschichte des Canons, pp. 291 f.)
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 307
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—-z.c., 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 antilegomena 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 still lower than the Epistles of James, Jude, and
_ John, because the latter were admitted to the canon at an
earlier 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 from his preference for the Gospels over the writings
of St. Paul, and especially from his polemic on the question
of the Epistle of James,‘ to which polemic he returns on
several occasions with a certain bitterness. He also avails
himself of the famous saying of Augustine, to which I have
t Laibri prime note summeque dignitatis N. T!. totius veritatis divine cla-
rissima lumina.
2 See note on p. 10. |
3 Infimum autoritatis divine locum.
4 Jacobi epistola nihil usque sententiarum habet quod non possit canonicis
literis communiri. Si fas est vel parvum vel magnum facere quod placet,
futurum tandem erit dignitates et auioritates librorum e nostra pendere
Sacultate.
Y
333 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
before directed attention; for, he says, it is by the recogni-
tion and the testimony of the Church that we know what
books are genuinely evangelical, and how many 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 German New Testament
down to our times have preserved the order and arrange-
ment he introduced, separating the Epistle to the Hebrews
from the Epistles of Paul, and those of James and Jude from
the other Catholic Epistles. There exist even editions of the |
Greek New Testament, 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
from Luthers 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 shall have
occasion to return to these details.
Whatever impression my readers may 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 the 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 efface all the characteristic peculiar-
ities I have been pointing out. Marcion, who is called a forger, did not do
so much as that.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. 339
principles of their theology, did not attain to any uniformity
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 testimony of
tradition and the intrinsic religious principle; that the
symbolic books even contain on this point divergent rules
or assertions, and in more than one instance contradict them-
selves. Still we have also seen that, in spite of these dif-
ferences, no serious controversy arose among them or their
churches about the settlement 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 lively theological discussions on so many other points
which, to us now, have lost much of their importance. That
shows most convincingly that the question of the canon was
something more to our illustrious fathers than the question
of drawing up a literary catalogue, and in this way of
viewing it they were all agreed.
[Note on the position of the Apocrypha in early English Bibles.—In the
early English Bibles (excepting the Douay version, 1609) the Apocrypha
stands detached between the O. 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
books 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 the 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 Chaldee, 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 called
the Apocrypha, containing the books following,” or “The 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 confirm 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 Version, the books stand between the O. 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 O. 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 XVII.
THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS.
THE theologians, who followed the generation of the 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 more recent epoch, it
may be said that those at least, who simply continued the
dogmatic tradition of the early schools, are in our day almost
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 form of the works it produced has in
general the stamp 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 academies, I take leave to
affirm that the interpreters of the theory also, however de-
pendent in regard to the formulas elaborated by their pre-
decessors, frequently rise above the level of routine, and may
be studied to good purpose by those who wish to form an
exact conception of the movement of modern ideas. The
great revolution which took place in this sphere last century,
cannot be understood nor justly estimated 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 may draw from them 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 time of the death of the last
great Reformers, and during which the Confessions of Faith
were the exclusive and official standard of teaching. From
that time, science, but lately regenerated and quickened by
the powerful action of a supreme religious principle and
deriving increased energy from its recent proclamation, was
subordinated to the no less powerful but much less vivifying
law of the formulas, in which that principle, with its most
important applications, had finally 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 its own
fundamental axiom, the nearest source from which it now
drew strength was the Symbol, the Gospel turned into a
system and composed, not under inspiration from above, but
often amid the din of controversies, and sometimes with the
afterthoughts of compromise. That which had been an
excellent rallying-cry, whether to organize opposition against
Rome or to serve as a charter of liberty, became the barrier
which divided the churches and arrested progress. The
effects of this change in the position of the doctors and the
doctrines naturally made themselves felt, though in different
degrees, in all branches of ecclesiastical science and govern-
ment. JI have only to concern myself here with what
relates to my special subject. As to this latter, the 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 imperious need of
defining everything, systematizing everything, subordinating
everything, in short, to a work of dialectic reasoning, soon
led the Swiss Calvinists, and a little 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 more and more lengthy
on the Scriptures, their origin, composition, authority, and
other qualities, 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, | 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 possibility
of losing sight of the principle which exalted the authority
of Scripture over that of tradition! We, therefore, find
everywhere great prominence 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, 4.e., from God who
inspired it; Scripture is the supreme judge in matters of
faith and for everything relating to salvation ; Scripture is
the source of all authority in the Church, and the latter can
«In practice, frequent appeal was made 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 conciliation, 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 little pretend to exercise any patronage over Scripture as
it can pretend to have inspired it!
That is not all 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 arguments 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.2 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 and 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 from the people they
addressed, their 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 de S. S. (Opp., Gen.
1619, tom. viii., P. i.) p. 339. J. Cameron, Pralectt. de verbo Dei (Opp.,
Gen. 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 summo controvers. iudice, ibid., p. 101. J. H.
Heidegger, Corpus theol. chr., 1700, p. 30. M. Chemnitz, Examen cone.
trident., loc. i., c. vi., § 7f. J. Gerhard, Loci theol., ed. Cotta, tom. i.,
pp. 9f. Abr. Calovii Criticus sacer, 1673, pp. 57f. J. Musæi Introd. in
theol., p. 290. J. W. Baier, Compend. theol. positive, 1712, p. 81. J. Fe.
Buddei Instit. th. dogm., 1724, pp. 147 f. |
2 Zanchi, I. c., pp. 332 f. D. Chamier, Panstratia cath., 1627, P. i.
B. vi., c.i., §7 and c. iv. J. Cloppenburg, Æxercitt. super locos comm.
(Opp. theol., Amst. 1684, tom. i.), pp. 704 f. Calovius, 7. c., pp. 43 f. etc.
3 Cameron, J. c., pp. 458 f.
THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 345
word they preached was true, sublime, and efficacious ; but
_ these qualities were manifested only to those on whom God
wrought by the simultaneous action of his 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—ie., 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 made of these principles, we soon see
that it hardly ever descended from the abstract, I had almost
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 more and more from
what had been at first an intuitive conception, a conception
belonging to the sphere of the religious sentiment, rather
than to that of intelligence and demonstration. Thus, in the
controversy against Catholicism, much stress was laid on
this action of the Holy Spirit in favour of Scripture ; but
the need for guarding against the pretensions of the illumin-
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, all 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. 117f. Buddeus,
d. c., p. 103.
? Chamier, 2. c., iv., §4. Cameron, J. ¢., p. 467.
346 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
in fact useless and superfluous. 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 certain
obscurity, which generally reigns in the exposition of these
matters. Let me 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 ot God, that derived from the
action of the Holy Spirit (fides divina) and considered the
most important, was treated in general with much 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
primitive 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
elementary 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, inasmuch as the Spirit acts in it without any
need for distinguishing two active principles? All these
anatomical processes applied to inward religious experiences,
betray dispositions and tendencies very different from those
which had formerly guided Protestant theology in its theory
of canonicity.®
* Form. Conc., p. 656: Homo verbum Dei predicatum neque intelligit
neque intelligere potest, donec virtute Sp. S. per .verbum predicatum con-
vertatur.—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, 7. c., p. 107. Quenstedt, T'heol. did. pol., i.,
169 f. etc.
2 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 elements 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 human and preparatory
conviction, were divided into internal and external! The
former were derived both from the form and contents of
Scripture; the latter from its antiquity, the providential
propagation of the Gospel, the faith of the martyrs, the
manifestations of the divine justice in history, the credibility
of the Biblical narratives, the character of the authors,
miracles and predictions, finally and specially the testimony
of the Church. All these proofs, according to the theologians,
were only to produce a strong presumption in favour of the
Bible ; still, the power attributed to them 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 Cartesianism,’ 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 Word of God is not stained by the
logical vice of petitio principii.
* Comp. Cameron, /. c., pp. 417 £. 475. Zanchi, J. c., p. 337. Heidegger,
l.c., pp. 25f. Baier, Comp. theol. posit., pp. 84 f. Buddeus, /. c., pp.
101 f., 134 ete.
2 See the literature of this controversy directed especially against Herm.
Alex. Roéll, professor at Utrecht, in Buddeus J. c., p. 107. Comp. Gisb.
Voëtii Problem. de S. S. (Dispp. sel., Utr. 1669, P. V.), pp. 3 f. Val.
Alberti Cartesianismus Belgio 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
from that of their rationalistic adversaries.
Let us consider for a moment these two sets of proofs, in
order to bring out some 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 names of the authors was not in-
dispensable, provided the judgment to be passed on the
cround-work, the doctrine, is such as to dispel doubt.’ Still
we should not lose sight of the fact that this kind of demon-
stration, familiar as it is to most of our theologians, is hardly
applied by them except to Scripture considered as one whole
and with reservation of the critical questions in detail or
the doubts which 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 more 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. J 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 bad already lost the fresh energy of its origin
* Cameron, J. c., p. 473. Voëtius (1. c.) frankly declares that the titles
of the books and the inscriptions of the psalms do not form an integral
part of the canon.
2 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 from the testimony of the
Church. This is a most important point to us, because we
are concerned to know in what sense Protestant theology
intended to use this argument (which it did use. more and
more) without falling back into the paths of Catholic
traditionalism. 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 their 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 receiving Scripture, recommending it by attestation,
drawing up the official catalogue of the canonical books,
preserving the manuscripts, making a faithful translation of
them, composing in harmony with it the symbolic books and
catechisms, giving the interpretation of difficult and obscure
passages, &c. I do not very well see the difference between
this list of duties and the list of rights claimed by the
Catholic Church. Chamier® before this, when recounting
* Hence the formulas : xspaywyla, ministeriale indicium, non magisteriale
judicium ; ansa, non causa ; medium per quod, non propter quod ; non quia
ecclesia scripturas authenticas dicit, tales sunt, sed quia sunt, ecclesia tales
iudicat etc. Comp. Heidegger, J. c., pp. 28f. Chemnitz, Examen conc.
trid., l. c., §8§9f. Gerhard, J. c., p. 10. Quenstedt, Theol. didact. polem.,
i., 94. Baier, L. c., pp. 113 f. Calov., Crit. Sacr., pp. 66 f. etc.
2 Officia ecclesiæ, Cloppenburg, /. c., p. 708.
3 Panstrat. cath., B. vi., ch. i., § 5.
390 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 arguments 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 Reformers.
On the whole, the fact is worthy of notice that theology
did not succeed in extracting from these numerous and
learned discussions any clear and precise definition of the
notion of canonicity. The theological element, 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 some special
facts of a nature to show the embarrassment 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} well says that the term canon may be taken in
two senses—as a body of regulating and authoritative
dogmas, and as a list or collection of books regarded as
containing 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 the
canonical collection of the Old Testament ought not to
* Placeus, 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 from one another.
His no less famous colleague, Moses Amyraut,' is not more
happy when he tries to combine 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 the communication of the
Spirit which was made with a view to the discernment
(Svdkpiows) of the canonical Scriptures. Those who originally
formed the two collections (the author hazards no conjec-
ture on this point) must have possessed the Spirit in an
exceptional degree—viz., on a leve! with the prophets and
Apostles. Those who simply had the mission of preserving
them in their integrity, by preventing heretics from
mutilating them or introducing into them 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 make the canon or preserve it, but have to be
convinced in themselves of its authenticity. It is difficult
here to say which creates most wonder, the idea the author
appears to have formed of the working of the Holy Spirit,
or the frankness of his historical prejudices, or the 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 from
itself the feebleness of its position.”
The explanation I have just been reproducing made
t Amyraldus, De testim, Sp. S. (ibid.), p. 129.
2 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 (Prelectt. de verbo
Dei, l.c., p. 475).
852. HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
immense concessions to the Catholic system, and on that
account it does not appear to have been much 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 from pro-
nouncing the name 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 them the honour is due of having composed the two
canonical collections! 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 remembered that in the eighteenth
century the only point of difference to be discussed
between Catholics and Protestants (so far as concerned the
names of the sacred books), was the canonicity of the
Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sufficient account is not
taken of the 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 means was
sought to escape from the dilemma, proposed by their adver-
1 Buddei Jnstitt. theol. dogm., pp. 142 f.
THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 0
saries, who insisted on the illogical 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
inspired its author, I have aright to say that the latter,
absorbed by the details of his controversy, lost sight of large
principles and got confused to the extent of moving ina
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 will 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. Gerhard, Loci theol., i, ch. i., § 30: Testimonium ecclesiæ nec
unicum nec precipuum est argumentum (librum aliquem esse canonicum) sed
accedunt interna xpiripia et ipsius Spiritus S. testimonium. Initium quidem
Jieri potest ab ecclesiæ testimonio sed postea scriptura et Spiritus S. per scrip-
turam luculentissime de se testatus. Theory said (ib., § 33): Scriptura est
avromioros, Credimus scripturis canonicis quia sunt scripture canonice—i.e.,
quia a Deo profectæ et immediata Sp. S. inspiratione sunt perscripte, non
autem ideo illis credimus quia de illis ecclesia testatur.
Z
354 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
my mind this change was only very natural, from the
moment that it was recognised, and proved that the masses
cannot rise to the height of the few who are gifted minds
and accomplished 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 the evangelic principle of justification
by faith ; according to Calvin, 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 became superfluous ; the
analogy of faith was recognised; the authority of the previous
opinions —i.e., of the tradition of the Church, was substituted
for the criteria formerly extolled. The only thing left was to
seek out some 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
meaning. At the outset of the Reformation, the two terms
Scripture, and Word of God, were not employed as identical,
and Lutheran theology especially maintained 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—ze., canonical in the special sense.
* See, for instance, Apol., p. 267. Smalc., pp. 331, 333. Form. Conc.,
pp. 670, 818, ete.
THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 395
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 Biblical expressions are
not literally reproduced in it. Now, it is impossible to
avoid observing that gradually the two notions were confused
with one another. Scripture, and Word of God became
synonymous terms. That took place with tolerable rapidity
in the Calvinistic schools! because they were accustomed
from 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 more rigorous.
In both churches, it was finally extended to the very words
of the sacred texts ; and, if some theologians still spoke of a
certain accommodation 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 some 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 them 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 discussion 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.
2 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
Moulin refutes his adversary. His adversary reproaches Protestants with
being necessarily illogical, 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. ‘‘ Jt is enough,” he says, ‘to take the
Bible in the original tongues and run over the titles of the books” (1. 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 position to furnish
all the guarantees required? The closing of the canon is
officially mentioned in the last lines of the last prophet,
which declares clearly enough that inspiration would cease
till the coming 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-
gument, however, is hardly used except in a negative form
and against the Apocrypha; for it was remembered that all
the books of the Old Testament 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
1 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 him to seek it under the
figure of one of the personages therein represented (Placaei Opp., tom. i.
pp. 666, f.).
2 Placaeus, De Canone, I. c., p. 67. Buddei Znstitt., p. 136, etc.
3 Heidegger, Corpus theol. chr., loc. il. $ 43.
4Gerhard, Loci, tom. i. p. 5.
5 Si ideo canonici non sunt quia non citantur, ergo Nahum et Sophonias, qui
non citantur, canonici non sunt; Aratus contra, Menander et Epimenides
profani poetæ, canonici quia citantur (ap. Alting, Loci comm., p. 285).
THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 10 F4
the tendencies of the Reformed theology, when the reaction
had set in towards the authority of the tradition. The.
learned works of my illustrious countryman, 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 Saumur, whose colleagues also were
suspected to be unsound on predestination, the orthodox
succeeded in drawing up the formula called 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 divinely 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 traditionalism which had invaded the theology
of the Reformed schools; and the violent commotions which
it soon provoked, and which led to its revocation, were, in
the sphere of dogmatic science, the first symptom 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 individual caprice but of the general
spirit of the studies of the times, nor did it prevent the
majority of theologians? from accepting that canonisation.
Nor did it prevent others from growing impassioned on a
1 Art. i. : Deus verbum suum non tantum scripto mandari curavit, sed
etiam pro scripto vigilavit, ne Satane astu viliari possit. Proinde.... ne
apex quidem vel iota unicum peribit.—2: In specie hebraicus V. T. codex
quem ex traditione ecclesie judaice accepimus, tum quoad consonas, tum
quoad vocalia s. puncta bsorveveros.
2 See, for example, Gerhard, Loci, ii. 267, f. Voétius (J. 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 privilege to the Greek
accents of the New Testament.
358 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
point no less doubtful, viz., the form of the consonants which
was supposed to have remained the same since the deluge.’
As to the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, Protest-
ant science never deviated from the principles of the
Reformers by which they were excluded from the canon.
Still, on this particular point, as on others more important,
ideas and procedure varied. Some were content with main-
cuining the dogmatic distinction as an accepted fact, and did
not enter on any criticism of detail. Others, while con-
tinuing to speak of these books with much 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 same time aiming 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 somewhat generally in the Lutheran schools ;
the second gradually prevailed among Calvinists, though I
do not mean 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 literature of the day® I shall confine myself
here to some characteristic extracts.
* Critical science began to turn its attention to the comparatively recent
origin of what is called square writing. It is assailed by Buddeus (/nstt.
dogm., p. 98. Hist. eccl. V. T., p. 997).
* See, for example, J. Rainoldi Censura ll. apocr., 1611. Æg. Hunnius,
Dica pontificiis scripta ob falsi crimen in S. S., 1622. Chr. Kortholdt, De
libris apocr. V. T., 1664. Gl. Wernsdorf, Quod 1. Sap. et Eccl. pro canoni-
cis non sint habendi, 1728. H. Benzel, De l/. V. 7. apocryphis, 1733, etc.
THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 359
Those who desired to place themselves at the standpoint
of the Reformers were ingenious in finding formulas which
might justify, against the two extreme opinions, the secon-
dary place commonly assigned to these books, and should
also be intelligible to the people, growing more and more
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 primitive Lutheranism, 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 them. In England, Prideaux, whose orthodoxy on
other points is beyond all suspicion, distinguished between
a canon of faith and a canon of manners, 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. From this point of view
some theologians, not many it is true, regarded this contro-
versy as of small importance, 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. |
Still, when we inquire into the motives for depreciating
the Apocrypha, we generally find criticism availing itself of
arguments which infringed on the principle of Protestantism,
t Absconditi i.e., originis occultæ, non abscondendi i.e., quasi non legendi.
They were also called canonici xar& 7, i.e., relatively canonical. Gerhard,
Loci, tom. i., p. 3. Chemnitz, Hxam. cone. trid., l.c., § 20. Baier, J. c., p. 119.
Quenstedt, J. c., pp. 61, 235.
? Placæus, De canone (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 remembering that the authority of the
Church had been cast off; on the absence of prophetic types,
though with small effort 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 criticism, 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 more positive re-
membrance 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 exclud-
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
times ? But so very far from this severity being joined
with dignity of language, an enlightened appreciation of
literary forms, good taste and impartiality, the critics rivalled
one another in heaping on the Apocrypha the epithets
*Zanchi De Scr. S., l. c., pp. 439 f. Placei Comp. theol., i., ch. 6.
(Opp., tom. i., p. 667). Baier, J. c., p. 110. Buddeus, Znstitt. dogm.,
p. 144, etc.
* Du Moulin, /. c., p. 33.
3 Buddeus, Hist. eccl. V. T., i., 235, etc
THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 361
suggested by contempt and prejudice. The Apocrypha were
hated because the Catholics were hated; they were said to
be filled with fables, errors, superstitions, lies, impieties;! and
the violence of such attacks is surpassed only by the silliness
of the proofs urged in support of them. One chides the son
of Sirach for having said that the witch of Endor called
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-
fernes; another laughs over the name of the angel Raphael; a
third protests against the method 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, will end in showing to superficial and scoff-
ing minds the ways and means of sapping the authority of
the whole Bible ; and that the scoffs thrown at the head of
the little fish of Tobit,> will sooner or later destroy Jonah’s
* Falsa, superstitiosa, mendacia, suspecta, fabulosa, impia.—Comp. Cha-
mier, Panstr. cath., P. i., B. v. Alting, Loci, l.c., pp. 282 f. Du Moulin,
l. c., p. 34. Cloppenburg, Exercitt., 1. c., pp. 709 f. Alb. Regis Hxercitt.
de ll. can. et apocr., i.-iii., 1715, passim. Heidegger, Corpus 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.
2 It 1s curious to compare this unmeasured bitterness with the consider-
ation shown towards the most pitiful apostolic lucubrations, not canonised
by the Catholics, e.g., the letter of Jesus to king Abgarus (Alb. Regis
Exercitt, l. c., ili., 49).
3 Quid primum deprehendam? An quod piscis ita exsiliit et dum clamat
puellus non potuerit resilire? Ht magnum oportuit esse quia resilire non
potuit et quia devoraturus erat 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. All 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 still 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 ina permanent state of formation 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 from what is outside
of it; it is exempt from all imperfection, 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 came it that Churches,
which were neither scandalised nor disgusted by criticism
so poor and desperate, did not go a step further and exclude
simply, and purely, the Apocrypha from 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 Diodati 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 elements.
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, L. ¢.,
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. für
hist. Theol., 1854, p. 645.
THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 363
one single argument, that of the theological conception of
. the canon, might have been suflicient, had the preceding
generation succeeded in raising it to the dignity of a clearly
defined axiom. They remained a minority. Ecclesiastical
usage, the habits of the people, the opinion of the early
Fathers, the fear of the storm which an innovation might
cause, all the reasons which routine and indecision throw
into the balance of the debate, finally carried a conservative
vote. The vote showed the inability of the Church, and of
science, to settle a question which both of them 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 made to bestow less pains on them
than on the canonical books, to print them in small characters,
and put them at the very end of the volume after the New
Testament. Even still, the foreign deputies reserved to their
respective churches the right of taking their own course on
this last point.
As to the canon of the New Testament, the Reformed
theologians were spared all further labour. Calvin’s treat-
ment of the subject was to serve them asa 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 remember that there exist what are called
antilegomena, merely mention 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 himself Or,
if they do enter into details, they reason in such a superficial
* Chamier, /. c., P. i., B. iv., ch. 2. Cloppenburg, J. c. Alting, L. c.
? Placæi Opp., l. c., p. 666: Dubitatum est quidem aliquando sed nulla
iusta causa fuit dubitandi.
3 Heidegger, l. 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 ; time 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 the first had not the same degree of assurance for
ul the apostolic writings ; later on, the Holy Spirit put an
end to these doubts by completing the canon. But this
would lead us to suppose that 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 the 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. Hottinger, Quastt. theol. centuriæ, 1659, p. 178. J. Cameron,
Prelectt., l. c., pp. 476 f. Alb. Regis Hxercitt. l. 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. 1) siinply 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
probabiles conjecture ex quibus nec Pauli esse nec 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 might be,
he would rather overlook this peccadillo than enter on a
somewhat ticklish discussion; now-a-days, however Lutheran
a theologian may be, he makes no scruple of calling Luther
a fool. Such comparisons 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 more 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 following
Luther’s course in regard to the four books which he had
separated from the others; it would be quite superfluous to
quote names since, as I said before, the very editions of the
Bible attest the fact! But the distinction is further estab-
lished by official documents, so familiar had it become even
to laymen. Thus, to cite only one example, the Agenda or
Ecclesiastical Constitution published in 1598, by the magis-
trate of Strasburg, very explicitly confirms it.’
t 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 New 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) is
of an uncertain authorship, the two others (James and Jude) are by known
authors (certorum auctorum). It is important to note that the canonicity
is not determined here by the certainty of the origin.
2 P. 6: Dieweil aber beydes von alters hero und auch heutigestages it ge-
ringer streit ist welches die wahre echte und unzweivelige biicher seien. . . .
so erklären wir dass wir desshalb gdnzich der Meynung seien wie D. M.
Luther lehret. . . . im N. T. aber die Ep. an die Hbrier wie auch Jacobi
und Jude und die Of. Joh. nit so gewiss fiir Schriften der App. künnen
gehalten werden ob es sonst wohl gute und nutzliche bücher seynd welche wohl
mügen in der Kirche gelesen werden aber allein zur Aufbawung der Gemeinde
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, genuine
306 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Still from the moment 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
homologoumena and the antilesomena to which they attached
ereat importance. In this way they came 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 Luthers great principle; but at the
same 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
James 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 first
saying the same as the second.
1 Examen concil, trid., loc. i., sect. 6, §§ 9 f.—$ 15: Questio est, an ea
scripta, de quibus in antiquissima ecclesia dubitatum fuit, ideo quod testifica-
tiones primitive ecclesia de his non consentirent, præsens ecclesia possit facere
canonica? Pontificii hanc autoritatem usurpant, sed manifestissimum est
ecclesiam nullo modo eam habere ; eadem enim ratione posset etiam vel canon-
THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. SOT
rest on the fact of inspiration, and the testimony of the
primitive Church. Where the latter is wanting, it cannot
be replaced by opinion or the usage of a more 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 testimony from the primitive Church,
in order to establish the canonicity of the apostolic writings,
may seem 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. i. 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 any opposition on the point. Even
the Reformed theologians saw no necessity for entering into
controversy with the Lutherans, which clearly proves that
the question was not regarded as affecting dogma. The
seven books were boldly termed apocrypha, and this name
was justified by the assertion that they could not be used
in the same 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, among other heresies,
icos libros reiicere vel adulterinos canonisare. Tota hec res pendet e certis
testificationibus eius ecclesiæ que tempore apostolorum fuit, etc.,§ 25: Nullum
igitur dogma ex istis libris exstrui debet quod non habet certa et manifesta
Jundamenta in canonicis libris.
x W. Whitaker, Dispp. de ss. (1590), contr. i., qu. i., ch. 16: Si Lutherus
aut qui Lutherum sequuti sunt aliter senserint aut scripserint de quibusdam
libris N. T., ii pro se respondeant. Nihil ista res ad nos pertinet qui hac in
re Lutherum nec sequimur nec defendimus.
L. Osiander, Znstit. theol. chr. (1582), p. 37: Qui sequuntur libri non
368 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
with the heresy of effacing the difference between the
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 Testament. This was done, because
the O. 'T. Apocrypha, which had formerly been spoken of
with much esteem, suffered afterwards from the polemic
waged against the decisions of the Council of Trent, but also
because, from the 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 prioribus autoritate, propterea quod de autoribus
eorum subdubitatur. Liaque in diiudicandis religionis controversiis non ean-
dem vim probationis cum prioribus obtinent.... Apocalypsis propter magnam
obscuritatem et quia Loannis theologi, non apostoli, inscriptionem habet, non
inter authentica app. scripta numeratur.—N. Selneccer, Hxam. ordin.,
1584.—M. Hafenretier, Loci theol., 1603; Apocryphi libri N. T., sunt:
posterior ep. Petri, etc. Hi apocryphi libri quanquam in diiudicatione dog-
matum autoritatem non habent, quia tamen que ad institutionem et ædifica-
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. 7’. sunt: Ep. ad Hebræos, etc.
t Ausführliche Widerlegung des arianischen Catechismi welcher zu Rakau
1608 gedruckt. ... durch die Theol. Fakultüt zu Wittenberg, 1619, p. 13.
? Hafenretfer, 1. c.: Si apocryphos libros inter se conferimus uli qui in
ovo quam qui in Vetere Test. comprehenduntur, maiorem habent autorita-
tem.—F. Balduin, idea dispos. bibl., p. 68, sq. Æst discrimen inter apocry-
phos V. et N. 7, Ex illis nulla confirmari possunt dogmata fidei sed propter
moralia tantum leguntur in ecclesia; horum autem maior est auctoritas ita
ut NONNULLI etiam ad probanda fidei dogmata sint idonei, presertim ep. ad
Hebræos et Apocalypsis.—C. Dieterich, Znstitt. catech., 1613, pp. 19 f. :
Apocryphi N. T. non sunt usque adeo dubii nec quidquam e diametro cano-
nice scr. contrarium continent. . . . etsi de iisdem in ecclesia fuit dubitatum a
quibusdam, ab aliis tamen fuere recepti. Dubitatum fuit de autore, non de
doctrina. Errant autem pontificii qui absolute parem autoritatem cum cano-
nicis apocryphos ll. habere dictitant.—L. Hutter, Loci comm., 1619, p. 17,
claims for the Apocrypha of the N. T. auctoritatem quandam, such that
they occupy a place immediate between those of the O. T. and the canoni-
cal books. —B. Menzer, De S. S., Disp. i., th. 25 f. : Libri apocryphi primi
ordinis 8s. ecclesiastici N. T', in nostris ecclesiis fere eandem obtinent cum
canonicis autoritatem.
THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOOLS. 309
books. In the course of time, people grew more and more
familiar 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, provided 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 established
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 them
terms that were quite inoffensive; e.g., canonical books of the
Jurst and second series, or of the first and second canons
But this purely formal distinction finally 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 make any
* Æg. 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, J. c. |
? Abr. Calovii Syst, locc. theol., 1655, tom. i., p. 513: Nonnulli ex ortho-
doxis ep. ad Hebræos, etc. . . . deuterocanonicos libros vocant quod in ecclesia
iis aliquando contradictum fuerit ; qui tamen agnoscunt eosdem pro é:0-
avveros habendos esse nec canonicam illis autoritatem in firmandis fidei
dogmatibus derogant.—Andr. Quenstedt, Theol. did. pol., c. iv., qu. 23,
p. 235 : Disceptatum fuit de his libris, non ab omnibus sed a paucis, non
semper sed aliquando, non de divina eorum autoritate sed de autoribus secun-
dariis. Sunt equalis autoritatis cum reliquis non autem aequalis cognitionrs
apud homines. |
3. Schrœder, De princip. fidei, c. i., p. 146: Ut liber pro canonico habea-
tur, non requiritur necessario ut constet de autore secundarios. scriptore, satis
est si constet de primo autore qui est Spiritus sanctus.
4 Libri canonici primi et secundi ordinis, proto-deuterocanonici. J. Ger-
hard, Loci theol., ed. Cotta. i., p. 6; ii., p. 186. Quenstedt, 7. c. Baier,
‘Comp. theol., p. 120. J. Ens, De il. 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 made against him on this point; and
they make a very expeditious defence by perverting his
meaning.”
* Buddeus, U. c., p. 146: Dubitatum olim fuit ; etiam nostri doctores ali-
quando hesitarunt ; postquam autem cuncta adcuratiori studio discussa et
explorata sunt, nullum temere, cur recipi non debeant, superesse potest
dubium.—J. G. Pritii Introd. in N. T., 1737, pp. 37 £.: Inter canonicos
libros nullum ordinem nullamque eminentiam agnoscimus : etsi quoque da-
remus incertum esse auctorem, inde tamen immerito ad negandam libri
autoritatem canonicam concluditur.—J. W. Rumpæi Comm. crit. ad Ul.
N. T., 1757, p. 188: Hodie distinctio illa expiravit.—J. A. Dietelmaier,
Theol. Beitr., 1769, i., 377: Heutiges Tages kennten wir diesen Unterschied
zur Noth entbehren ; weil er aber doch noch einigen Gebrauch hat und besorgli-
cher Massen bald noch einen mehrern bekommen müchte (!), so ist fleissig zu
crinnern dass die Zusütze proto- deutero- nicht einen verschiedenen Werth
anzeigen sollen, sondern eine frühere oder spätere Aufnahme.—Ch. F.
Schmidt, //ist. et vind. canonis, 1775, p. 56: Impune et sine ulla impietatis
nota licuit priscis ambigere de ll. N. T, quorum divina origo istis tempori-
bus nondum satis nota esset. . . . quod nunc post perspecta clarissima arqu-
menta, traditionem perpetuam ecclesie constitutumque publicum eorum usum
indulgeri nequtt.
2 Pfeiffer, Crit. sac., 1688, p. 359. Gerhard, l. c., ii, 223.
CHAPTER XVIII.
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—.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 forms of the religious faith and life of the
Christian community, it has undergone no variation. The
doubts of scholars, which have since been put forward,
sometimes timidly, sometimes 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 remained unknown to the
general public. 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 elements of dissolution, which for nearly
one hundred years have been secretly mining the theological
edifice erected in the sixteenth century, and that edifice on
some future day will be replaced by a new construction
more in harmony with the primitive thought of the Gospel,
and therefore more enduring.
With this fact before me, I might have considered my
task as ended. The readers who had kindly followed me
thus far, in order to gain acquaintance with the various
evolutions of a principle seldom wel! 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 feeling that the ways and methods of
372 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
former days had ended only in the result we have stated,
and that, this result being unsatisfactory, the science of
Christianity must build the 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 the processes of theory or by the
help ofhistory. But the work is only begun. Those who are
devoting to it their powers do not deceive themselves about
the small success as yet obtained, nor about the greatness of
the difficulties to be overcome. Even the need for this vast
and uncertain work is still so far from being generally 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 them.
In adding, therefore, one more chapter to my 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 might 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 methods are recognised to be insufficient, and
the whole is so profoundly permeated withthe 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 movement 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 the 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 from the scientific or practical point of view. This
will lead me 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 will come to a reconciliation of their equally
lecitimate interests.
It is impossible to deny that Protestant theology had
made, 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 time ex-
perienced the need of formulating the conception of the
canon clearly and precisely, and of not being content with
vague eulogiums. These vague eulogiums had accommodated
themselves in early times to the caprices of custom, and more
recently had not prevented the holy books from falling into
oblivion among the faithful, and into the bondage of tradition
among the learned. Unfortunately this progress did not
succeed in ripening all the fruits it might have borne. The
fundamental principle regarding the definition of the canon
and common to the two fractions of the growing Protestan-
tism had consisted, as we have seen, in building the author-
ity of the written word on the internal testimony of the
Holy Spirit—z.e., on the assent of the Christian conscience,
an assent spontaneous, instinctive, free from all reserve
and hesitation, independent of tradition and delivering 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 came to neglect, to weaken, at last to
bury a theory which from the vital element of the system
had become a dead letter, and then to substitute for it a
scaffolding of conventional arguments, for the most part
without solid basis, and at all events quite unknown to the
body of the faithful. The same stiffness of the formulas,
the same dialectical routine which had changed the living
and victorious faith of the Reformers into a catalogue of
abstract and powerlesstheses and their 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 immediateness 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
among Catholics, with one single exception hardly worth
mentioning. This result would certainly be deeply important
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 some extent with
Calvin—it brought out some manifest differences of details,
and that these differences finally disappeared not by applying
CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 369
the theory of the Reformers more firmly, perhaps more legiti-
mately, but by abandoning it by returning to the old
methods, the time-honoured customs. In spite of the energy
of the religious movement 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 might be per-
mitted to these illustrious men seemed much too perilous
and compromising to men of the second and third rank.
On this point, therefore, we must 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 stability, 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 the 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 coming to any conclusion regarding
questions not yet clearly seen. An illusion was kept up re-
garding the little progress made by the new theology in
the department of history. There was no hesitation in pro-
nouncing judgment on points regarding which inquiry had
hardly been commenced. In places where the Reformers
had sought above all to make themselves acquainted with
the spirit, examining their own inward experience, their
successors confined themselves to ascertaining the pro-
per name, and for this purpose were very often content
with reading the current ticket and accepting the current
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 how theological tradition, after Luther
was established in the Lutheran Churches regarding the
376 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Apocalypse, and historical tradition, after Calvin, in the
Reformed 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 same among Protestants as among
Catholics, but that this difference was hardly worth men-
tioning. This assertion may appear strange and hazardous,
when it is remembered how desperately the canonicity of
the Apocrypha of the Old Testament was discussed between
the two parties. No doubt the 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, norvin 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 trammelled by disputes
regarding the validity of a quotation, or rather these quota-
tions, handed down from one generation to another, were no
more than one of the conventional forms of debate, and did
not exercise the smallest influence on the march of ideas.
Finally, as to the grounds for the difference maintained in
principle, there is no harm 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 mark, and, by neglecting the only solid basis on
which Protestantism could rest a theological notion of the,
canon, persisted in placing it on the 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. aCe
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 Rome, 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
Reformation, but its empire would have disappeared of pure
necessity if advance had been made in the path so gloriously
opened, if the fertile germ of the Gospel had been developed
and freed from all extraneous elements. Protestant theology,
in place of becoming more and more biblical, which it could
not be altogether at first, became traditional, as the Catholic
theology had always been. On both sides, orthodoxy in-
cluded many things of which neither prophets nor apostles
had ever dreamed. The confessions of faith, though they
had been generous manifestos of evangelic emancipation,
became stiff and cold as codes, all the more imperious that
they were more scholastic, more void of Christian life, and
more unintelligible 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 Formula of Concord, as it was called, and the
condemnation 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 sentiment and conscience. And if that
happened in the middle of the sixteenth century, what was
to take place later when the current of ideas, at first so
powerful and limpid, had slackened and grown troubled ?
Protestant theology, founded, as it said, on the Bible, came
at last not to open it; in more 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 maintained all the more doggedly that it was arbitrary,
and the generous efforts of a more thoughtful piety,
endeavouring to restore to the people the book whose
treasures scholars believed themselves to have exhausted,
were reviled quite as furtously 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 mean the Church of the martyrs 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 Judaism so well characterised by St.
Paul, when he calls it the ministry of the letter and of death,
Svaxovia ypdpparos Kai Oavdrov. Fortunately, the power of life
inherent in the gospel, though neutralised for a time by the
persistence of the work of systematizing, at length regained
its liberty 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. 319
last quarter of the seventeenth century. It appeared simul-
taneously in the three great fractions of the Christian
Church, but its chances for the future varied according to
the respective nature of these fractions. In all three, the
Bible was replaced, not theoretically but in actual usage,
on the pedestal of honour. From it, and not from tradition,
instruction and edification were sought, and theological
studies, placed henceforth in more direct contact with the
needs of the community, entered on a new course of develop-
ment. Not that the discussion of the canon itself was
revived; but the use made of what had been handed down,
proved that there was something better to bed one in this
sphere than to write dissertations on the forms without
penetrating into the spirit. At any rate, as I have already
said, the fate of these attempts at regeneration was not the
same everywhere, and the effects they produced had scarcely
any resemblance to one another.
Within the pale of the Catholic Church, Jansenism, vainly
recommended by the best and most serious men of the time,
men who united the eloquence of good taste to that of a
good example, 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 made on its visible
and permanent 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 them, and they had not
even the consolation or honour of buying with their own pains
and mortifications the liberty of a more fortunate generation.
3S0 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
In the churches of the Reformed rite, the movement was
more varied and more powerful. It succeeded in breaking
down the artificial barriers which hindered it at first, but not
without falling into various errors. While in Switzerland
the exaggerations of orthodox literalism went so far as to
give birth to theories more compromising 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 elements, or to the rule of its
prescribed methods. He frankly recognised the gradual
evolution of the divine revelations as they 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 immoderate taste for types
and allegories, and hence a preponderating influence of
imagination in exegesis, deprived this principle of much of its
proper fruits; and, as his disciples, according to the general
rule, imitated the master’s faults most 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 Amsterdam were already beginning to employ
criticism in discussing graver questions. But everywhere
the first energy of the work evaporated ; nor should this :
relaxation of zeal, which was felt all along the line, be attri-
buted to external causes, such as the revocation of the Edict
CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. SOL
of Nantes. The true cause seems to me rather to lie 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 philosophy, the mathematical and
physical sciences, history, law. All disposable powers, those
above all 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 moral 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-warm 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 and its fervour, at times
eccentric, revived 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 philosophy, are well suited for tranquillizing souls more
afraid of doubt than of error. Thus, by quite different means,
the development of ideas was arrested in all the camps. The
382 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
increasing division into sects, was neither the result nor the
forerunner of intellectual work. All ecclesiastical activity
tended in a different direction ; it continues to produce
numerous fruits of Christian charity, which, at the same
time, have often a very pronounced flavour, and resemble
manufactured products bearing a trade mark.
The Lutheran Church, specially 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 system. 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
God, with other food than incomprehensible definitions,
hollow formulas, and savage denunciations. It sought to
awaken the inner life, to bring the sinner face to face with
his Saviour without hiding Him 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
formal theology derived from it were put aside, not because
of any sceptical or aggressive criticism, 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 form of traditional teaching was put in ques-
tion. Unfortunately this form had finally pervaded every-
thing, so that the defenders of orthodoxy soon foresaw, and
rightly foresaw, that encroachment would be made also on
the essence. From this time 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, he 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 preliminary
guarantee provided by the theological police. This was
not said: there was no clear consciousness of it; but prin-
ciples were loudly proclaimed which were bound to lead to it ;
and principles never fail to produce their natural conse-
quences. Some 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 impossible. In another
direction, as religious life was brought back to a personal
communion with the Saviour, the Bible, destined to nourish
that life, was of more use in maintaining 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 he needed and no more, and each
_ one was sure of not failing in his search ; but all did not
seek in the same manner. Convinced beforehand that the
entire volume encloses an inexhaustible treasure of the
wisdom 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 miserably maltreated by orthodox exegesis,
became, in a certain sphere of Pietism, 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
many words, again became the essential principle, much
more even than it had been in the time of Luther himself.
Pietism had made a breach in scholastic orthodoxy, not
so much by learned and solid arguments as because it had
met a need long felt vaguely, and because the liberty of ex-
pansion, claimed by it for the religious sentiment, conciliated
the suffrages of all those who detested the tyrannical mon-
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 legitimate, 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
made the mistake 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
believed itself often to be at the end of its labours when they
were not seriously begun; it boldly marked out routes across
regions still 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 made dear to less
fickle or less exacting minds, were continually replaced by
other prejudices, which had sprung from a passing caprice
to be overturned on the morrow. Science of such a kind
had to contend with theology regenerated by piety quite as
_—— Maine De und cm
~
CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 385
much as with the theology that condemned all reform 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 applies much
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 Bille enfin
expliquée did no injury to the essence of Christianity, ‘any
more than the ill-humoured attacks of the Wolfenbiittel 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 Maréchal.
Let us, however, consider for an instant a phase of modern
development, or rather a party name which in our days and
specially in France is made responsible for all the opinions,
which, in regard to the canon, depart from the fixed conclu-
sions of ancient theology. I mean the Rationalism which pre-
vailed almost universally at the beginning of this century,
and whose traces have not yet wholly. disappeared. This
rationalism was not simply a method as it had been to the
scholastics in the Middle Ages, 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 human reason, aided no doubt by the teaching of the
Gospel; but the Gospel, oes controlled by reason, was
B
386 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
to be considered only as a more antique summary of truths,
quite analogous in origin and meaning to those which might
now be discovered and demonstrated, and which belonged
essentially to the domain of morality. This rationalism, an
essentially theoretical system of theology, or, if you will, of
philosophy, ignorant of all history or rather incapable of
turning attention to it in consequence of its complete sub-
jectivism, 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 having assailed the Biblical canon and
used criticism to get rid of an inconvenient and indis-
putable testimony. Rationalism never made any attempt in
this direction. Inspired by the moral philosophy of Kant,
it sought 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 recommended
by the illustrious philosopher of Kcenigsberg himself. But
this art of knowing how to find in the texts precisely what
is sought—~.e., what had been previously declared to be
necessarily true, this art now justly decried but once in
fashion among others than rationalists 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 operations. The meaning of texts was twisted ;
but whole members were not amputated from the body of
revelation ; the canon was not changed. The rationalists,
like the orthodox and the Pietists, might have a certain pre-
dilection for one book of the Bible over another; but, as
they attached no great value to any book, they accommodated
ae ae is
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 Pauline, in the very year in
which Dr. Tholuck abandoned the defence of the Pauline
authorship as hopeless. When Schleiermacher,the first theo-
logian to deal Rationalism a mortal blow, was the first also to
deny the authenticity of the Epistle to Timothy, Wegscheider,
the chief of the rationalist party, took on himself the reply.
The Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch was valiantly main-
tained by the rationalist Eichhorn, long after the super-
naturalist Vater had proved it to be inadmissible.
But these exainples, which might easily be multiplied, re-
mind me that Iam not writing a history of theology; I
have promised 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 modern 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 willingly believe there are—among contemporary writers
who till now have not yielded to the arguments of a doubt-
creating criticism, some who find themselves compelled by
their dogmatic convictions to refuse consent; but this
criticism, though it was sometimes turned into a party
question, sprung, nevertheless, from a different soil than that
of theory. It is the legitimate daughter of a principle, or, if
you like, an instinct which was almost unknown to the
ancients, Pagans, Jews or Christians, Catholics and Protes-
tants, and which modern critics even, both orthodox and
rationalist, have hardly recognised, or, at any rate, have
hardly placed at the service of the science—the historical
sense. I say the 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 come
388 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
through these organs, so a particular kind of mind is needed
in order to estimate rightly and without any sub-
jectivity facts outside of us or long past. By one of these
mysterious evolutions of the human 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 that time it gradually became a power of the
first rank in the vast domain of intelligence, an instrument
which, in the hands of the workers of scientific progress, has
enriched the labourers by increasing their field of activity.
It was a little after the middle of the last century that
the historical and objective method began to free itself from
the bonds of history, and was applied for the first time to
the questions now before us. This change in the direction
of theological work is connected with the name of a man
whom nature had not fashioned for a prophet or the leader
of a party. Jchn Solomon Semler 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 somewhat narrow Pietisn, but the
taste for study, the passion for books, had won the day over
the contemplative and sentimental tendencies fostered in
him by his education. He was dominated by the 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 immense 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 innumerable volumes he has written, pre-
faces, notes, and appendices rivalling the text itself in length,
EGO du Oe oe ee cé
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 all 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 dim-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 he long
remained the most erudite, the most indefatigable, the most
fortunate in making real or illusory discoveries, and the
most frank in communicating them to the publi, 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
delivered the rudest blows against traditional conceptions.
He wrote against the Deists, and unintentionally furnished
them with materials and arguments. 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 mind, but
to their intrinsic worth, and this same worth has preserved
to posterity the remembrance of Semler.
* Semler, Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanon, 1771 f. 4 vols.
In directing attention to Semler’s influence, I have no desire to pass over
those who prepared for his coming (J. Alph. Turretin, De S.S. interpretandae
methodo, 1728,) or who along with him vindicated the rights of criticism
(Lessing. T'heol. Nachlass, 1784.)
390 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Semler’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 time, serve as terms of divi-
sion for a brief summary of the later development 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 came to the conviction that it
was impossible to harmonise witnesses equally early, and
from our point of view, equally authoritative. He also felt
an instinctive and justifiable antipathy to the means
employed by conventional orthodoxy for getting rid of these
inconvenient testimonies, means which consisted sometimes
in ignoring them entirely, sometimes 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 testimonies.
And, as these external testimonies did not go back to so
early a date as the writings under discussion, writings, too,
which might 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 from the sacred writers themselves had confirmed or
corrected tradition. Ishall not enteron the details of Semler’s
investigation, or on the immediate results of his criticism.
I shall rather repeat with some emphasis that these results
do not concern us so much as his method. That method
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 imperfectly. These researches and debates have
been going on for more than a hundred years, without losing
any of their importanceor their interest. Advancing by round-
about ways, getting entangled in wrong paths, exaggerating
sometimes the value of a clue, sometimes the solidity of a
conjecture, borne along by the need of the intelligence to
arrive at something definite, criticism has committed many
mistakes, seen many hypotheses come into the world still-
born, 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 all scholars worthy
of being heard without distinction of school, are not very
numerous ; that it is very improbable that the controversy
will ever end in a general and complete agreement ; im fine,
that the science ought never to take rank as having nothing
more to learn. Still immense 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. Criticism (I mean
that which seeks truth sincerely and unreservedly), is no
longer the weapon or the privilege 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
992 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 immense advantage of this method over that which
makes facts dependent on axioms, and judges them accord-
ing to preconceived theories. The philosopher, the theoriser
will many times be tempted to sacrifice the facts to his
principles; when these are laid down, he will pass over
everything inconvenient, deny or pervert everything contra-
dictory. Besides, theories do not correct nor transform one
another ; they replace and succeed one another ; they are
overturned 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 matter of discouragement, or an obstacle to be
persistently got rid of, is, in his eyes, an advance, a conquest.
But I am forgetting that I have not to write an apology.
Let me resume, then, by saying that, touching this first
point, the generation which preceded us entered frankly into
the new arena opened to it, and that our generation followed
it all the more successfully, that long use has given to the
science an exact knowledge of its methods, and the first
gropings have given place more and more to intelligent and
rational work. Now-a-days, all 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 literature is more
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 collection, the sources of
which, on the whole, run with all desirable abundance, has
positively reached a degree of certainty which will be
further increased, and which theorists are making vain
efforts to depreciate.
CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 393
A second point, to which Semler called the attention of
his contemporaries, is the special character of the Biblical
writings or their inspiration. As the question here is not
one simply of method, but one of positive views directly
affecting dogma, the adoption of Semler’s view has naturally
been much less general, the opposition more vigorous, and
the systems to this day have remained more at variance.
This, however, has not prevented the professor of Halle
from exercising great influence on the question; on the
contrary, there are very few comtemporary 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. That notion had already in his day been strongly
shaken, but it still 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 more disposed to deny what he did
not experience, while orthodoxy, without being less dry and
prosaic, at least admitted the fact of inspiration as an in-
explicable privilege of certain mortals holding a special place
among men. To Semler, inspiration meant the moral illumi-
nation of men in general. He has, therefore, been often
called the coryphaeus or chief of rationalism, and indeed
there was much greater affinity between him and the
rationalistic school, though the latter, as I have already
remarked, remained indifferent to what had most occupied
the learned critic. Still it is more accurate to say that
rationalism was in the air, and that the philosopher could
not free himself from it any more than the historian, since
the illustrious thinker of Kcenigsberg made it one of the
corner-stones of his system. This may be some excuse for
Semler. Besides, neither the one nor the other deserves to
394 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
be confounded with the crowd which 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 element 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 meeting with it all
through our history ; but, just because it is a matter purely
of theory, I may dispense with entering on details, I shall
confine myself 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 many others. The present gene-
ration, without being able to flatter itself on having for ever
fixed the scientific conception of a fact, which, as essentially
mystical and individual, eludes ail purely dialectical pro-
cesses, 1s 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 motive 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 constitutes 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 may dispense
here with any profound treatment of this subject, the French
public having frequently had to consider it in recent years.
For among us, too, the scholastic conception, put forward in
all its crudity, has provoked very general protestations.
French theology, born but yesterday, is trying in its turn to
find a formula more adequate for defining a religious fact
which science formerly disfigured by its sophisms, but which
CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 395
our science, fortunately for itself, cannot do without. If
only it succeeds in understanding the fact, its regeneration
will be effected.
Nevertheless, modern theology, a daughter of that reaction
whose primitive character we are at this moment 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 toa cause absolutely external to
the will and conscience of their authors, it naturally under-
took to point out some other cause more in harmony with the
laws of psychology and history, and at the same time more
fitted for resolving the innumerable 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
followed 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 individuality, he entered resolutely on the path
of historical interpretation and applied himself to the study
of the social and religious conditions amid which the con-
victions of the disciples of Jesus were formed. On this
study he based his explanation of their books. I do not
hesitate to say that he was not altogether fortunate in this
work of exploration and reconstruction. He, too, brought to
it his share of prejudices ; and, what is still worse, though
he showed much sagacity in eliminating the errors with
which traditional history swarmed, he was not equally
skilled in recognising and defending the real facts. Thus,
for instance, he had dwelt ona fact, which no one before
him had noted with so much clearness, the presence and in-
fluence of certain Jewish ideas in the primitive Church.
He taught science, which has since improved on his concep-
tion but has not abandoned it. to distinguish Jewish Chris-
396 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
tianity from 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
Gospel, or rather betraying generally a certain awkwardness,
it might even be said, a radical incompetence, 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 intimate relations of the phenomena he was ob-
serving, the supreme law of these evolutions of religious
thought, in a word, the pragmatism of that history, escaped
him. In spite of these faults which I have no desire to con-
ceal, Tam bound to say that his fundamental ideas, especially
where they tended to change methods, have been justitied
by experience, I shall cite as one more 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 while rationalistic exegesis has disappeared
without hope of return. The natural origins are studied on
the soil where the Bible was formed, which by no means 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
enemy of fwith, but into the sphere of facts which can only
give to faith a more solid basis.
But the 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, modern science has
been least sure of its beginnings : its progress has been least
visible and most disputed. All 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 some 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 from 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 Biblical
writings a really distinct and special literature. On this
point, the first attempts of science were not happy. By one
of these caprices to which the human mind 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 more 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 the forms of its application.
Not but that 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
898 HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
but favourable to it. In any case, its author combined it
with another thesis, proclaimed as the principle henceforth
to be followed, 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 examined, 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 shall not waste time in proving that
Christianity is not merely a system of morality, above allin
the sense which Semler and his age meant; that point of
view has long been left behind. Still less is it necessary to
prove that the sacred authors did not wish to be simple
echoes of the natural law. Let me rather point out here
some details. First of all, I should say in defence of
Semler that his test of canonicity, though it could not be
accepted by Christian theology, and the theology of Protest-
tanism in particular, had a distant analogy with that of
Luther, inasmuch as the great Reformer also set up a theo-
retical axiom as the supreme rule determining the value of
cach element in the traditional canon. Only Luther’s axiom
was an evangelic truth, the very truth which brought about
the rupture with Rome; while Semler’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 will seem less superfluous when
it is found to help us toa better acquaintance with the
somewhat arbitrary methods which Semler used for recon-
ciling theory and practice. As an actual fact, he did not go
very far in his negations, and the parts of the canon which
he eliminated 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 his 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 most numerous and faithful disciples.
It is difficult to understand how a criticism undertaken in
the name and for the benefit of history—z.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 established by Semler 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.
All these gropings, all these errors and inconsistencies, are
explained when we remember 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 empire 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 mind.
They might be called two poles exercising their attraction
alternately, and increasing thereby the uncertainties of the
400 HISTORYOF THE CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
present moment, while guaranteeing progress for the future.
These inconveniencies may be regretted; suffering even
may arise from their immediate 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 impossible ; it has entered on
paths from which before all else it must 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 illumine it, begins invariably by extinguishing
the only lamp that gave security! But the sacred books are
descending more and more into the rank of simple historical
documents! But the authority of Scripture is sapped, and
with it bow many other authorities! These complaints are
the order of the day; they are almost general in France.
They do not proceed only from the ignorant mass 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 marking out in the
garden of science trees with forbidden fruit, believe that
reason, now more 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 compelled unceasingly to pull up the
thistles and thorns which have been permitted to grow
abundantly in the field of the human mind. But such
complaints are largely exaggerations, arising from a false
estimate of the facts, or from personal impressions which
—
CRITICISM AND THE CHURCH. 401
cannot give the true measure of things. Where they are
well-founded, they are far from authorising any absolute
condemnation of historical criticism in itself; they rather
mark the elements of a real progress, I might say, the young
fruits which are already visible in spring, and with the aid
of heaven, will one day form the harvest expected in
autumn. There may indeed have been sometimes too great
haste in destroying; wrong roads may have been pursued
and false lights followed; but, in almost all cases, the science
itself was the first.to discover the true cause of error, while
traditional and conventional opinion was simply putting
forward denials that refuted nothing and proved nothing.
If doubt still seems to occupy too large a place in modern
science, that is because science has recognised the oreat
value of doubt as a means 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 stifling or proscrib-
ing it. If now the books of the Bible are consulted chiefly as
the documents of religious 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 religious thought of the times, men 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 Testament is now no longer used as
in the days of our fathers, for constructing Christian dogma
by means of exegetical manipulations as repugnant to good
taste as to common sense and fairness, its own nature, its
religion and poetry, its morality and legislation, the holy
enthusiasm of its prophets, and the epic simplicity of its
| 20
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 Testament, we no
longer pause over proper names 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 example, 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 personality 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 literary 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 will 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 most 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
scheme of narration, sufficient for the narrow circle of early
times, 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 ; still some facts are now placed above discussion
and will no longer lose their weight. Among such facts,
there is first, in regard to theory, this fact, that inspiration
has appeared and still appears in different degrees, and that
no formula 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
conviction to the Protestant principle of appealing 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 helieve in the Bible
means 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 same credit be not given
to the story of the massacres caused by a Persian queen, a
story containing all 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 Wisdom 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 problem of drawing
up a list of books: that conception has had its day. Theo-
logy aims 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.
8S. Cowan & Co., Strathmore Printing Works, Perth.
VAM pes sy |
ae | szequny J fa “14 £soamdri0s
ATOH eu Jo uoue) ayy Jo ALOYSTH YU
en WTSUTTA prenpa ‘gone FFTATE
me ee .
a
v4 ew wpe
PP ey
Atty
Ai gers tT
iH ; f se
k ; f 6 : fur x
(Heys? 3 : D 4 tee
ff : : à Mee
PNA : Baas sani se
a | | Ee ectae tt ese ARS
tel
nn
fn
a
vante
nai.
», : HAS
ars iets it
3 pide th
oe
Se Le ee Y 4
Ex * ne = VE Ter SPAS
Ne see She pw OE 4 * EL:
, Led - £ .
= : re yes)
« . rs rh f
p P
Lg * . + * . L % *
De. | AE *
4°. .
Le RRQ tn f 5 oe
: 0 “ie +? LS
res e CA . is
PES A e ae $3 Ae ns
if RU ois ; , 2 ' : À , , : : r Me , “ + : ° = : ‘ ie of : “ ‘
2 De " 2 thes . , + À 4 ~ 1 + 4 . 5 y ; + re
STORRS | FT: Re A ANS (rs ; SENTE NSP! de LME 2 : i
: . FOUR a
7 A A i \
> ae ih
“~* 5 dx
‘ ’ UE: À
AA rt a y” Pit
Pure”, > * Er
EX Se. Gare
à ‘ VA ee >», ALES à ee
WS ; x : < |
= à ? “ L
PET . WT Aer Te eat LA ‘ \ r ; ANRT te |
K Oa s ; 7 # ; Adee À
FN be. ; : ;
c , i o) :
EE = ; ; Des : se %
ee Pe ue | Sit nae = PRES ë of ed
1 7.
Le
‘ , Êe wx,"
i! , x ;
ON A Stes We, : N'y , de d RC me NON TEE
RES
G
LPC
A
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11