Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 5.djvu/19

difficult to make out the meaning in various places ; and there is considerable diversity of opinion among the expositors of the docu ment.^[1]

The stichometrical list of the Old and New Testament Scriptures in the Latin of the Clermont MS. (D) was that read in the African Church in the 3d century. It is peculiar. After the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and the historical books, follow Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, Sirach, the twelve minor prophets, the four greater, three books of the Maccabees, Judith, Esdras, Esther, Job, and Tobit. In the New Testament, the four gospels, Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, are succeeded by ten epistles of Paul, two of Peter, the epistle of James, three of John, and that of Jude. The epistle to the Hebrews (characterized as that of Barnabas), the Revelation of John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Shep herd of Hernias, the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, follow. There are thus three New Testament works, afterwards reckoned apocryphal. It is possible that the carelessness of a transcriber may have caused some of the singularities observable in this list, such as the omission of the epistles to the Philippians and Thessa- lonians ; but the end shows a freer idea of books fitted for reading than -what was usual even at that early time in the African Church.^[2] In Syria a version of the New Testament for the use of the church was probably inade early in the 3d century. This work, commonly called the Peshito, wants 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse. It has, however, all the other books, including the epistle of James and that to the Hebrews. The last two were re ceived as apostolic.

Towards the middle of the 3d century Origen s testimony respect ing the Canon (t 254) is of great value. He seems to have dis tinguished three classes of books authentic ones, whose apostolic origin was generally admitted, those not authentic, and a middle class not generally recognized, or in regard to which his own opinion wavered. The first contained those already adopted at the beginning of the century both in the East and West, with the Apocalypse, and the epistle to the Hebrews so far as it contains Pauline ideas ;^[3] to the second belongs the Shepherd of Hennas, though he hesitated a little about it, the epistle of Barnabas, the acts of Paul, the gospel according to the Hebrews, the gospel of the Egyptians, and the preaching of Peter;^[4] to the third, the epistle of James, that of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.^[5] The separation of the various writ ings is not formally made, nor does Origen give a list of them. His classification is gathered from his works ; and though its application admitted of considerable latitude, he is cautious enough, appealing to the tradition of the church, and throwing in qualifying ex pressions.^[6]

The Canon of Eusebius (t 340) is given at length in his Ecclesiasti cal History.^[7] He divides the books into three classes, containing those writings generally received^[8] those controverted,^[9] and the heretical^[10] (iii. 31). The first has the four gospels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter, the Apocalypse.^[11] The second class is subdivided into two, the first corresponding to Origen s mixed or intermediate writings,^[12] the second to his spurious ones.^[13] The former subdivision contains the epistles of James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John ; the latter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrines of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John, the gospel according to the Hebrews. The third class has the gospels of Peter and of Thomas, the traditions of Matthias, the Acts of Peter, Andrew, and John. The subdivisions of the second class are indefinite. The only distinction which Eusebius put between them was that of ecclesiastical use. Though he classes as spurious the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, the tloctrines of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John, the gospel according to the Hebrews, and does not apply the epithet to the epistle of James, the 2 of Peter, 2 and 3 John, he uses of James s in one place the verb j/o0ei$o;uai.^[14] In like manner he speaks of the Apocalypse of Peter and the epistle of Barnabas as controverted.^[15] The mixed or spurious of Origen are vaguely separated by Eusebius ; both come under the general head of the controverted ; for after specifying them separately he sums up, "all these will belong to the class of the controverted," the very class already described as containing " books well known and recognized by most," implying also that they were read in the churches.^[16] About 332 the Emperor Constantino entrusted Eusebius with the commission to make out a complete collection of the sacred Christian writings for the use of the Catholic Church. How this order was executed we are not told. But Credner is probably correct in saying that the code con sisted of all that is now in the New Testament except the Revela tion. The fifty copies which were made must have supplied Con stantinople and the Greek Church for a considerable time with an authoritative canon.

Eusebius s catalogue agrees in substance with that of Origen. The historian followed ecclesiastical tradition. Pie inquired dili gently into the prevailing opinions of the Christian churches and writers, the views held by others before and contemporaneously with himself, but could not attain to a decided result. His hesita tion stood in the way of a clear, firm view of the question. The tradition respecting certain books was still wavering, and he was unable to fix it. Authority fettered his independent judgment. That he was inconsistent and confused does not need to be shown.

The exact principles that guided the formation of a canon in the earliest centuries cannot be discovered. Definite grounds for the reception or rejection of books were not very clearly apprehended. The choice was de termined by various circumstances, of which apostolic origin was the chief, though this itself was insufficiently attested, for, if it be asked whether all the New Testament writings proceeded from the authors whose names they bear, criticism cannot reply in the affirmative. The example and influence of churches to which the writings had been first addressed must have acted upon the reception of books. Above all, individual teachers here and there saw the necessity of meeting heretics with their own weapons, in their own way, with apostolic records instead of oral tradition. The circumstances in which the orthodox were placed led to this step, effecting a bond of union whose need must have been felt while each church was isolated under its own bishop and the collective body could not take measures in common. Writings of more recent origin would be received with greater facility than such as had been in circulation for many years, especially if they professed to come from a prominent apostle. A code of apostolic writings, divine and perfect like the Old Testament, had to be presented as soon as possible against Gnostic and Manichsean heretics, whose doctrines were injurious to objective Christianity; while the multiplication of apocryphal works threatened to overwhelm genuine tradition with a heap of superstition.

When it is asked, to whom do we owe the canon ? the

usual answer is, to the Church, which is hardly correct. The Church Catholic did not exist till after the middle of the second century. The preservation of the early Christian writings was owing, in the first instance, to the congregations to whom they were sent, and the neighbouring ones with whom such congregations had friendly connection. The care of them devolved on the most influential teachers, on those who occupied leading positions in the chief cities, or were most interested in apostolic writings as a source of instruction. The Christian books were mostly in the hands of the bishops. In process of time the canon was the care of assemblies or councils. But it had been made before the first general council by a few leading fathers towards the end of the second century in different

countries. The formation of a Catholic Church and of a

---

1. It is printed and copiously commented on by Credner in his Ceschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanon, edited by Volkmar, p. 141, &c. , and by Westcott On the Canon, Appendix C, p. 466, 2d edition. Many others have explained it ; last of all Hilgenfeld.
2. Tischendorf edited the Pauline epistles from this MS. 1852.
3. T& eV TTJ 5ia0T)Kr? /3i/8Aia, eV5ia07)Ka, 6fj.ooyov/j.fva.
4. [ Greek ]
5. o.vTiey6/ji.tva.. Euseb., Hist. Eccles., vi. 25, iii. 25.
6. See Comment, in Matth., iii. p. 463 ; Hid., p. 814 ; Comment, in ep. ad Roman., iv. p. 683; 771 Matth., iii. p. 644; Homil. viii. in Xumb., ii. p. 294 ; Contra Cels., i. 63, p. 378 ; De Principiis prcef., i. p. 49. Opp., ed. Delarue. See also Euseb., II. E., vi. 25.
7. Hist. Eccles., iii. 25; also 31, 39 ; vi. 13, 14.
8. [ Greek ]
9. avTLfy6/j.fi>a., yvupi/j.a 8t ruts eV
10. aroira. irivr-t] Kal Svcrffe&r), tranf<as v6Qa.
11. This last with the qualification tfye Qave n). In another place he states that it was rejected by some, and therefore it is also along with the a.VTify6fj.fva or v66a.
12. uucrd.
13. vAGa.
14. Hist. Eccles., ii. 23. Christophorson, Schmid, and Hug think that Eusebius gave the opinion of others in this word ; but it is more likely that he gave las own, as Valesius thinks. See the note in Schmid s Historia antiqua et vindicatio Canonis, etc., p. 358..
15. Hid., vi. 14.
16. See Weber s Beitriige zur Gesclichte dcs ncvtesto.mentlichen Kanons, p. 142, &c.