The fifty copies which were made must have supplied Constantinople and the Greek Church for a considerable time with an authoritative canon.

Eusebius's catalogue agrees in substance with that of Origen's. The historian followed ecclesiastical tradition. He inquired diligently into the prevailing opinions of the Christian churches and writers, with the views held by others before and contemporaneously with himself, but could not attain to a decided result. His hesitation 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. Strictly speaking there were none.

Definite grounds for the reception or rejection of books were not apprehended. The choice was determined by various circ.u.mstances, 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 circ.u.mstances 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 Manichaean heretics whose doctrines were injurious to objective Christianity; while the multiplication of apocryphal works threatened to overwhelm genuine tradition with a heap of superst.i.tion. The Petrine and Pauline Christians, now amalgamated to a great extent, agreed in hastening the canon-process.

The infancy of the canon was cradled in an uncritical age, and rocked with traditional ease. Conscientious care was not directed from the first to the well-authenticated testimony of eye-witnesses. Of the three fathers who contributed most to its early growth, Irenaeus was credulous and blundering; Tertullian pa.s.sionate and one-sided; and Clement of Alexandria, imbued with the treasures of Greek wisdom, was mainly occupied with ecclesiastical ethics. Irenaeus argues that the gospels should be four in number, neither more nor less, because there are four universal winds and four quarters of the world. The Word or Architect of all things gave the gospel in a fourfold shape. According to this father, the apostles were fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge, after their Lord's ascension. Matthew wrote his gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church.(221) Such a.s.sertions show both ignorance and exaggeration.

Tertullian affirms that the _tradition of the apostolic churches_ guarantees the four gospels,(222) and refers his readers to the churches of Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, &c., for the _authentic epistles_ of Paul.(223) What is this but the rhetoric of an enthusiast? In like manner he states that bishops were appointed by the apostles, and that they existed from that time downward, the succession originating so early.(224)

Clement contradicts himself in making Peter authorize Mark's gospel to be read in the churches; while in another place he says that the apostle neither "forbad nor encouraged it."(225)

The three fathers of whom we are speaking, had neither the ability nor the inclination to examine the genesis of doc.u.ments surrounded with an apostolic halo. No a.n.a.lysis of their authenticity and genuineness was seriously attempted either by them or by the men of their time. In its absence, custom, accident, taste, practical needs directed the tendency of tradition. All the rhetoric employed to throw the value of their testimony as far back as possible, even up to or at least very near the apostle John is of the vaguest sort. Appeals to the continuity of tradition and of church doctrine, to the exceptional veneration of these fathers for the gospels, to their opinions being formed earlier than the composition of the works in which they are expressed, possess no force. The ends which the fathers in question had in view, their polemic motives, their uncritical, inconsistent a.s.sertions, their want of sure data, detract from their testimony. Their decisions were much more the result of pious feeling biased by the theological speculations of the times, than the conclusions of a sound judgment. The very arguments they use to establish certain conclusions show weakness of perception. What are the manifestations of spiritual feeling, compared with the results of logical reasoning? Are they more trustworthy than the latter? Certainly not, at least in relation to questions of evidence. It is true that their testimony has a value; but it is one proportionate to the degree of credibility attaching to witnesses circ.u.mstanced as they were, whose separation of canonical from uncanonical gospels, or rather their canonizing of certain writings apart from others, and their claiming of inspiration for the authors of the former, must be judged by the reasonableness of the thing itself, in connection with men of their type.

The second century abounded in pseudonymous literature; and the early fathers, as well as the churches, were occupied with other things than the sifting of evidence connected with writings considerably prior to their own time. The increase of such apocryphal productions, gospels, acts, and apocalypses among the heretical parties stimulated the orthodox bishops and churches to make an authentic collection; but it increased the difficulties of the task.

Textual criticism has been employed to discredit the true dates of the present gospels; and the most exaggerated descriptions have been given of the frequent transcription of the text and its great corruption in the second century. The process of corruption in the course of frequent transcription has been transferred even to the first century. It is true that the gospels at the end of that century exhibited a text which bears marks of transcription, interpolation, and addition; but they were not the complete works as we have them now, being then but in progress, except the fourth. The a.s.sumption that "advanced corruption" existed in the present text of the synoptists as early as the first century is gratuitous; unless the process by which they were gradually built up is so called. No attempt to get a long history behind the canonical gospels at the close of the first century out of "advanced corruption" can be successful. It is attested by no Christian writer of the century; and those in the first half of the second, both heretical and orthodox, did themselves treat the text in a manner far short of its implied infallibility. The various readings with which they had to do, do not carry up _the canonical gospels_ far into the first century. The transcription, enlargement, and interpolation of the materials which make up the body of them, must not be identified with the corruption of their _completed texts_, in order that the latter may be relegated to an early period; for the synoptists did not come forth full-blown, each from the hand of a single person. The old Latin version or versions used by Tertullian and the interpreter of Irenaeus, have been pressed into the same service, but in vain.

In like manner the Curetonian Syriac version of the gospels has been put as early as possible into the second century, though it can hardly have been prior to the very close of it, or rather to the beginning of the third. Here the strong a.s.sertions of apologetic writers have been freely scattered abroad. But the evidence in favor of the authors traditionally a.s.signed to the gospels and some of the epistles, is still uncertain. A wide gap intervenes between eye-witnesses of the apostles or apostolic men that wrote the sacred books, and the earliest fathers who a.s.sert such authorship. The traditional bridge between them is a precarious one. As the chasm cannot be filled by adequate external evidence, we are thrown back on the internal character of the works themselves. One thing appears from the early corruption of the sacred records spoken of by Irenaeus, Origen, and others, that they were not regarded with the veneration necessarily attaching to infallible doc.u.ments. Their being freely handled excludes the idea of rigid canonization. The men who first canonized them had no certain knowledge of their authors. To them, that knowledge had been obscured or lost; though a sagacious criticism might have arrived at the true state of the question even in their day.

In the sub-apostolic age Ebionitism pa.s.sed into Catholicism, Jewish into Pauline Christianity, the mythical and marvelous into the dogmatic, the traditional into the historic, the legendary into the literary. The conflict of parties within the sphere of Christianity gave rise to productions of various tendencies which reflected the circ.u.mstances out of which they arose. These were accepted or rejected by the churches according to the prevailing opinions of the persons composing the churches. Common usage led to the authorization of some; others were neglected. The state of the second century in its beliefs, credulity, idiosyncracies of prominent teachers, antagonistic opinions and mystic speculations, throws a light upon the New Testament writings and especially on the formation of the canon, which explains their genesis.

Two things stand out most clearly, the comparatively late idea of a _canonical_ New Testament literature; and the absence of critical principles in determining it. The former was not entertained till the latter part of the second century. The conception of canonicity and inspiration attaching to New Testament books did not exist till the time of Irenaeus.

When it is asked, to whom do we owe the canon? the usual answer is, to the Church. This is true only in a sense. The unity attributed to Christians before Irenaeus and Tertullian, consisted in their religious consciousness.

It was subjective. The idea of _the church_ was that of inward fellowship-the fellowship of the spirit rather than an outward organism.

The preservation of the early Christian writings was owing, in the first instance, to the congregations to whom they were sent, and the neighboring 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 a.s.semblies 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 canon was simultaneous. The circ.u.mstances in which the collection originated were unfavorable to the authenticity of its materials, for tradition had been busy over them and their authors. Instead of attributing the formation of the canon to the Church, it would be more correct to say that the important stage in it was due to three teachers, each working separately and in his own way, who were intent upon the creation of a Christian society which did not appear in the apostolic age,-a visible organization united in faith,-where the discordant opinions of apostolic and sub-apostolic times should be finally merged. The canon was not the work of the Christian Church so much as of the men who were striving to form that Church, and could not get beyond the mould received by primitive Christian literature. The first mention of a _Catholic Church_ occurs in _The Martyrdom of Polycarp_, an epistle that cannot be dated earlier than 160 A.D., and may perhaps be ten years later. But though the idea is there, its established use is due to Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian. The expression has a different and narrow sense in the seven Ignatian epistles which we believe to be supposit.i.tious and later than Justin. Neither the three epistles published in Syriac by Cureton, nor the seven Greek ones enumerated by Eusebius are authentic; though Zahn has tried to prove the latter such, dating them A.D. 144. His arguments, however, are far from convincing; and the whole story of(226) Ignatius's martyrdom at Rome rather than Antioch is still doubtful; for the circ.u.mstances under which he is said to have been dragged to Rome, and his writing letters to the churches by the way, are highly improbable. The testimony of Malalas that Ignatius suffered at Antioch in December, 115, in the presence of Trajan, may be quite as good as that of Chrysostom and the Syriac monthly calendar on which Zahn relies so confidently. The fact of the priority of the last two to Malalas is of little weight as evidence. The main point is _the locality_ in which Ignatius suffered; which Malalas, himself a native of Antioch and a historian, ought to have known better than Chrysostom, because he copied preceding historians.

It is necessary to be precise on this subject because some speak of _the church_ as though it were contemporary with the apostles themselves, or at least with their immediate disciples; and proceed to argue that dissensions arose soon after "within the church" rendering an appeal to the written word necessary. When the authority of _traditional teaching_ gave way to that of _a written rule_, a change came over the condition of _the church_. Such a view tends to mislead. There were dissensions among the earliest Christians. The apostles themselves were by no means unanimous. Important differences of belief divided the Jewish and Gentile Christians from the beginning. The types of Christian truth existing from the first gradually coalesced about the middle of the second century; when heretics, especially the Gnostics, appeared so formidable that a catholic church was developed. Along with this process, and as an important element in it, the writings of apostles and apostolic men were uncritically taken from tradition and elevated to the rank of divine doc.u.ments. It was not the rise of new dissensions "within the church" which led to the first formation of a Christian canon; rather did the new idea of "a catholic church" require a standard of appeal in apostolic writings, which were now invested with an authority that did not belong to them from the beginning.

Origen was the first who took a somewhat scientific view of the relative value belonging to the different parts of the biblical collection. His examination of the canon was critical. Before him the leading books had been regarded as divine and sacred, the source of doctrinal and historic truth. From this stand-point he did not depart. With him ecclesiastical tradition was a prevailing principle in the recognition of books belonging of right to the New Testament collection. He was also guided by the inspiration of the authors; a criterion arbitrary in its application, as his own statements show. In his time, however, the collection was being gradually enlarged; his third cla.s.s. _i.e._, _the mixed_, approaching reception into the first. But amid all the fluctuations of opinion to which certain portions of the New Testament were subject, and the unscientific procedure both of fathers and churches in the matter, though councils had not met to discuss it, and vague tradition had strengthened with time, a certain spiritual consciousness manifested itself throughout the East and West in the matter of the canon. Tolerable unanimity ensued.

The result was a remarkable one, and calls for our grat.i.tude, notwithstanding its defects. Though the development was pervaded by no critical or definite principle, it ended in a canon which has maintained its validity for centuries.

It is sometimes said that the history of the canon should be sought from definite catalogues, not from isolated quotations. The latter are supposed to be of slight value, the former to be the result of deliberate judgment.

This remark is more specious than solid. In relation to the Old Testament, the catalogues given by the fathers, as by Melito and Origen, rest solely on the tradition of the Jews; apart from which they have no independent authority. As none except Jerome and Origen knew Hebrew, their lists of the Old Testament books are simply a reflection of what they learned from others. If they deviate in practice from their masters by quoting as Scripture other than the canonical books, they show their judgment over-riding an external theory. The very men who give a list of the Jewish books evince an inclination to the Christian and enlarged canon. So Origen says, in his _Epistle to Africa.n.u.s_, that "the churches use Tobit." In explaining the prophet Isaiah, Jerome employs Sirach vi. 6, in proof of his view, remarking that the apocryphal work is in the Christian catalogue.

In like manner Epiphanius, in a pa.s.sage against Aetius, after referring to the books of Scripture, adds, "as well as the books of Wisdom, _i.e._, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Jesus, son of Sirach; finally, all the other books of Scripture." In another place he gives the canon of the Jews historically, and excludes the apocryphal Greek books; here he includes some of the latter. We also learn from Jerome that Judith was in the number of the books reckoned up by the Nicene Council. Thus the fathers who give catalogues of the Old Testament show the existence of a Jewish and a Christian canon in relation to the Old Testament; the latter wider than the former; their private opinion being more favorable to the one, though the other was historically transmitted. In relation to the New Testament, the synods which drew up lists of the sacred books show the view of some leading father like Augustine, along with what custom had sanctioned. In this department no member of the synod exercised his critical faculty; a number together would decide such questions summarily.

Bishops proceed in the track of tradition or authority.

CHAPTER VII. THE BIBLE CANON FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY TO THE REFORMATION.

It will now be convenient to treat of the two Testaments together, _i.e._, _the canon of the Bible_. The canons of both have been considered separately to the end of the third century; they may be henceforward discussed together. We proceed, therefore, to the Bible-canon of the fourth century, first in the Greek Church and then in the Latin. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363), at which there was a predominant semiarian influence, forbad the reading of all _non-canonical_ books. The 59th canon enacts, that "private psalms must not be read in the Church, nor uncanonized books; but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament." The 60th canon proceeds to give a list of such. All the books of the Old Testament are enumerated, but in a peculiar order, somewhat like the Septuagint one. With Jeremiah is specified _Baruch_, then the Lamentations and _Epistle_. The prophets are last; first the minor, next the major and Daniel. In the New Testament list are the usual seven Catholic epistles, and fourteen of Paul, including that to the Hebrews.

The Apocalypse alone is wanting. Credner has proved that this 60th canon is not original, and of much later date.(227)

The Apostolic Const.i.tutions give a kind of canon like that in the 59th of Laodicea. After speaking of the books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, those belonging to the return from the captivity, those of Job, Solomon, the sixteen prophets, and the Psalms of David; our Acts, the epistles of Paul, and the four gospels are mentioned. It is remarkable that the Catholic epistles are not given. That they are indicated under Acts is altogether improbable. The Antiochian Church of that time doubted or denied the apostolicity of these letters, as is seen from Theodore, Cosmas, and others. Hence, their absence from these Const.i.tutions, which are a collection belonging to different times; the oldest portion not earlier perhaps than the third century.(228)

Cyril of Jerusalem, who took part in the Council of Laodicea,(229) gives a list "of the divine Scriptures." The books of the Old Testament are twenty-two, and the arrangement is nearly that which is in the English Bible. With Jeremiah is a.s.sociated "Baruch and the Epistle." All the New Testament books are given except the Apocalypse. The list agrees very nearly with that of Eusebius, by taking the latter's "controverted"

writings into the cla.s.s of the "generally received."(230) The writer insists on the necessity of unity in the Church upon the subject, and forbids the reading of writings not _generally received_. None but these are allowed. Yet he refers to Baruch (iii. 36-38) as _the prophet;_(231) and in adducing the testimonies of the prophets for the existence of the Holy Spirit, the last he gives is Daniel xiii. 41, 45. Sirach iii. 21, 22 is cited;(232) Wisdom is quoted as Solomon's (xiii. 5);(233) the song of the three children is used (verse 55)(234) with verses 27, 29;(235) and Daniel (xiii. 22, 45) is quoted.(236)

In Athanasius's festal epistle (365 A.D.) the archbishop undertakes "to set forth in order, the books that are canonical and handed down and believed to be divine." His list of the Old Testament nearly agrees with Cyril's, except that Esther is omitted and Ruth counted separately, to make out the twenty-two books. He adds, "there are other books not canonical, designed by the fathers to be read by those just joining us and wishing to be instructed in the doctrine of piety;" _i.e._, the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther and Judith and Tobit, and the Doctrine of the Apostles so called, and the Shepherd; "those being _canonical_, and these being _read_, let there be no mention of apocryphal writings," &c. The New Testament list is the same as Cyril's, with the addition of the Apocalypse.(237) He quotes several of the apocryphal books in the same way as he does the canonical. Thus he introduces Judith (viii.

16) with "the Scripture said;"(238) and Baruch (iii. 12) is cited as if it were Scripture.(239) Wisdom (vi. 26) has the epithet Scripture applied to it.(240) Sirach (xv. 9) is introduced with "what is said by the Holy Spirit."(241) Baruch (iv. 20, 22) and Daniel (xiii. 42) are referred to in the same way as Isaiah.(242) Tobit (ii. 7) has "it is written" prefixed to it.(243) Canonical and apocryphal are mentioned together; and similar language applied to them.

Eusebius of Caesarea cites Wisdom as a _divine oracle_;(244) and after adducing several pa.s.sages from Proverbs, subjoining to them others from the same book with the introductory formula "these are also said to be the same writers," he concludes with "such is the scripture."(245) Sirach is cited as Solomon's along with various pa.s.sages from Proverbs.(246) After quoting Baruch, he says, "there is no need to appeal to the divine voices, which clearly confirm our proposition."(247) The additions to Daniel are also treated as Scripture.(248)

Basil of Caesarea(249) had a canon agreeing with that of Athanasius. Along with the usual books reckoned as belonging to the canon, he used the apocryphal productions of the Old Testament. Thus the book of Wisdom (i.

4)(250) is quoted by him. So are Sirach (xx. 2);(251) Baruch, (iii.

36)(252) called Jeremiah's; Judith (ix. 4);(253) and Daniel (xiii.

50).(254)

Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus(255) puts his list into a poetical form. In the Old Testament it agrees with Athanasius's exactly, except that he mentions none but the canonical books. Like Athanasius, he omits Esther. In the New Testament he deviates from Athanasius, by leaving out the Apocalypse, which he puts among the spurious.(256) He does not ignore the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, but quotes Daniel xiii. 5.(257)

Amphilochius of Iconium(258) gives a metrical catalogue of the Biblical books. The canon of the Old Testament is the usual one, except that he says of Esther at the end, "some judge that Esther should be added to the foregoing." He notices none of the apocryphal books. His New Testament canon agrees with the present, only he excludes the Apocalypse as _spurious_; which is given as the judgment of the majority. He alludes to the doubts that existed as to the epistle to the Hebrews, but regards it as Pauline; and to the number of the catholic epistles (seven or three).(259) The concluding words show that no list was universally received at that time.

Epiphanius(260) follows Athanasius in his canon. As to the number of the Old Testament books, he hesitates between twenty-two and twenty-seven; but the contents are the same. At the end of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, Wisdom and Sirach are mentioned as "divine writings;" elsewhere they are characterized as "doubtful."(261) His practice shows his sentiments clearly enough, when Sirach (vii. 1) is introduced with "the Scripture" testifies(262); vii. 9 is elsewhere quoted(263); Wisdom (i. 4) is cited as Solomon's;(264) Baruch (iii. 36) is introduced with, "as the Scripture says,"(265) and Daniel (xiii. 42) is quoted with, "as it is written."(266) He mentions the fact that the epistles of Clement of Rome were read in the churches.(267)

Didymus of Alexandria(268) speaks against 2 Peter that it is not in the canons.(269)

Chrysostom(270) does not speak of the canon; but in the New Testament he never quotes the last four catholic epistles or the Apocalypse. All the other parts he uses throughout his numerous works,(271) including the Apocrypha. Thus he introduces Wisdom (xvi. 28) with "Scripture says."(272) He quotes Baruch (iii. 36, 38);(273) and Sirach (iv. 1.).(274)

Didymus of Alexandria(275) cites Baruch (iii. 35) as Jeremiah,(276) and treats it like the Psalms.(277) Daniel (xiii. 45) is also quoted.(278) He says of Peter's Second Epistle that it is not in the canon.

Theodore of Mopsuestia(279) was much freer than his contemporaries in dealing with the books of Scripture. It seems that he rejected Job, Canticles, Chronicles, and the Psalm-inscriptions; in the New Testament the epistle of James, and others of the catholic ones. But Leontius's account of his opinions cannot be adopted without suspicion.(280)

The canon of Cyril of Alexandria(281) does not differ from Athanasius's.

Like other writers of the Greek Church in his day he uses along with the canonical the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. He quotes 1 (iii.) Esdras (iv. 36) with "inspired Scripture says."(282) Wisdom (vii. 6) is introduced with, "according to that which is written."(283) In another place it has the prefix "for it is written" (i. 7);(284) and is treated as Scripture (ii. 12).(285) Sirach (i. 1) is cited.(286) Baruch also (iii.

35-37) is introduced with, "another of the holy prophets said."(287)

The catalogues of the Old Testament contained in the ma.n.u.scripts B, C, and ? need not be given, as they are merely codices of the Septuagint, and have or had the books canonical and apocryphal belonging to that version.

The list of the New Testament books in B is like that of Athanasius.

Imperfect at the end, the MS. must have had at first the Epistles to Timothy, t.i.tus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse. C (cod. Ephraemi rescriptus) has fragments of the New Testaments, which show that it had originally all the present books in the same order as Athanasius's. ? or the Sinaitic ma.n.u.script has the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, in addition to the New Testament.

The progress made by the Greek Church of the fourth and former part of the fifth century, in its conception of the canon seems to be, that the idea of ecclesiastical settlement, or public, legal, definitive establishment was attached to the original one. A writing was considered canonical when a well-attested tradition put it among those composed by inspired men, apostles or others; and it had on that account a determining authority in matters of faith. Books which served as a rule of faith and were definitively set forth by the Church as divinely authoritative, were now termed _canonical_. The canon consisted of writings settled or determined by ecclesiastical law.(288) Such was the idea added to the original acceptation of canon. To canonical were opposed apocryphal writings, _i.e._, _heretical_ and _fabricated_ ones; while an intermediate cla.s.s consisted of those read in the churches, which were useful, but not decisive in matters of belief. Another advance in the matter of the canon at this period was the general adoption of the Hebrew canon, with a relegation of the Greek additions in the Septuagint to the cla.s.s _publicly read_.(289) Yet doubts about the reception of Esther into the number of the canonical books were still entertained, though it was one of the Jewish canon; doubtless on account of its want of harmony with Christian consciousness. And the catholic epistles which had been doubted before, Jude, James, Second Peter, were now generally received. But there was a division of opinion about the Apocalypse.

We come to the period of the Latin, corresponding to that of the Greek Church which has just been noticed. Augustine(290) gave great attention to the subject, laboring to establish a complete canon, the necessity of which was generally felt. According to him the Scriptures which were received and acknowledged by all the churches of the day should be canonical. Of those not universally adopted, such as are received by the majority and the weightier of the churches should be preferred to those received by the fewer and less important churches. In his enumeration of the forty-four books of the Old Testament, he gives, after Chronicles, other histories "which are neither connected with the order" specified in the preceding context, "nor with one another," _i.e._, Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, the two books of the Maccabees, and Esdras. Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, he thinks, should be numbered among the prophets, as deserving of authority and having a certain likeness to Solomon's writings.(291) He says of the Maccabees that this "Scripture has been received by the Church not uselessly, if it be read or heard soberly."(292) The famous pa.s.sage in the treatise on Christian doctrine, where he enumerates the whole canon, is qualified by no other; for though he knew the distinction between the canonical books of the Palestinian Jews and the so-called apocryphal ones, as well as the fact of some New Testament writings not being received universally, he thought _church-reception_ a sufficient warrant for canonical authority. Hence, he considered the books of the Maccabees canonical, because so received by the Church; while he says of Wisdom and Sirach that they merited _authoritative_ reception and numbering among the _prophetic_ Scriptures.(293) Of the former in particular he speaks strongly in one place, a.s.serting that it is worthy to be venerated by all Christians as of divine authority.(294) But he afterwards retracted his opinion of the canonical authority of Sirach.(295) He raises, not lowers, the authority of the so-called apocryphal books which he mentions. He enumerates all the New Testament books, specifying the Pauline epistles as fourteen, and so reckoning that to the Hebrews as the apostle's; but he speaks of it elsewhere as an epistle about which some were uncertain, professing that he was influenced to admit it as canonical by the authority of the Oriental churches.(296) In various places he speaks hesitatingly about its Pauline authorship.

In 393, the African bishops held a council at Hippo where the canon was discussed. The list of the canonical Scripture given includes, besides the Palestinian one, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the two books of Maccabees. The New Testament canon seems to have agreed exactly with our present one.(297) The Council of Carthage (397) repeated the statute of its predecessor, enumerating the same books of the Bible as canonical.(298) Augustine was the animating spirit of both councils, so that they may be taken as expressing his views on the subject.

Jerome(299) gives a list of the twenty-two canonical books of the Old Testament, the same as that of the Palestinian Jews, remarking that some put Ruth and Lamentations among the Hagiographa, so making twenty-four books. All besides should be put among the Apocrypha. Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, the Shepherd are not in the canon. The two books of Maccabees he regarded in the same light.(300) But though Jerome's words imply the apocryphal position of these extra-canonical books, he allows of their being read in public for the edification of the people, not to confirm the authority of doctrines; _i.e._, they belong to "the ecclesiastical books" of Athanasius. His idea of "apocryphal" is wider and milder than that of some others in the Latin Church. It has been conjectured by Welte,(301) that the conclusions of the African councils in 393 and 397 influenced Jerome's views of the canon, so that his later writings allude to the apocryphal works in a more favorable manner than that of the _Prologus galeatus_ or the preface to Solomon's books. One thing is clear, that he quotes different pa.s.sages from the Apocrypha along with others from the Hebrew canon. In his letter to Eustochius, Sirach iii. 33 (Latin) comes between citations from Matthew and Luke; and is introduced by _which is written_, in a letter to Pammachius; and xxii. 6 has _divine Scripture_ applied to it.(302) Ruth, Esther, and Judith are spoken of as _holy volumes_. The practice of Jerome differed from his theory; or rather he became less positive, and altered his views somewhat with the progress of time and knowledge. As to the New Testament, he gives a catalogue of all that now belongs to it, remarking of the epistle to the Hebrews and of the Apocalypse that he adopts both on the authority of ancient writers, not of present custom. His opinion about them was not decided.(303) In another work he gives the Epistle of Barnabas at the end of the canonical list. He also states the doubts of many respecting the Epistle to Philemon, and about 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John. According to him the first Epistle of Clement of Rome was publicly read in some churches.(304)

Hilary of Poitiers(305) seems to have followed Origen's catalogue. He gives twenty-two books, specifying "the epistle" of Jeremiah; and remarks that some added Tobit and Judith, making twenty-four, after the letters of the Greek alphabet. He cites Wisdom and Sirach as "prophets."(306) In the New Testament he never quotes James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, nor 2 Peter. 2 Maccabees (vii. 28) is introduced with "according to the prophet;"(307) Sirach (x.x.xi. 1) is introduced with "nor do they hear the Lord saying;"(308) Wisdom is cited as Solomon's (viii. 2);(309) Judith (xvi. 3) is cited;(310) so is Baruch (iii. 36);(311) and Daniel xiii. 42.(312)

Optatus of Mela(313) has the usual canonical books, but omits the epistle to the Hebrews. He uses the apocrypha without scruple, introducing Sirach (iii. 30) with "it is written;"(314) and Wisdom (i. 13) with "it is written in Solomon."(315)

Lucifer of Cagliari(316) uses the apocrypha equally with the canonical books. Thus 1 Maccabees (i. 43) is quoted as "holy Scripture."(317) So is 2 Maccab. (vi. 1).(318) Judith (ix. 2) is cited,(319) as are also Wisdom (xvii. 1, 2);(320) Tobit (iv. 6);(321) and Daniel (xiii. 20).(322)

Ambrose of Milan(323) had the same canon as most of the Westerns in his time. With some others, he considered the Epistle to the Hebrews to have been written by St. Paul. In the Old Testament he used the apocryphal books pretty freely. Wisdom (vii. 22) is cited as authoritative Scripture.(324) Sirach (xi. 30) is also cited as Scripture.(325) Baruch (iv. 19) is quoted;(326) Daniel (xiii. 44, 45) is treated as Scripture and prophetic;(327) and Tobit is expounded like any other book of Scripture.(328)