(_b_) 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Philemon, t.i.tus, 1 and 2 Timothy, to the Laodiceans, the Alexandrians (the Epistle to the Hebrews); in the Muratorian canon.

(_c_) Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Colossians, Timothy, t.i.tus, Philemon, Hebrews; in Augustine, and several MSS. of the Vulgate in England.(372)

(_d_) Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy, t.i.tus, Philemon, Hebrews; in the so-called decree of Gelasius in the name of Hormisdas, in Labbe's text.

But here different MSS. vary in regard to the position of the Thessalonian epistles.

VII. The Laodicean letter was inserted either before the pastoral epistles, as in several MSS. of the Vulgate in England; or before the Thessalonian epistles preceding them; or at the end of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as in a MS. of the Latin Bible at Lembeth. Its insertion in copies of the Vulgate was owing to the authority of Gregory the Great, who looked upon it as authentic.

VIII. The position of the Epistle to the Hebrews usually was either before the pastoral epistles, _i.e._, immediately after those to the Thessalonians; or after the pastoral ones and Philemon. The former method was generally adopted in the Greek Church from the fourth century. The latter prevailed in the Latin Church from Augustine onward.

(_a_) Pauline epistles to churches (the last being the second to the Thessalonians), Hebrews, Timothy, t.i.tus, Philemon; in the MSS. ?, A. B. C.

H., Athanasius, Epiphanius; Euthalius,(373) Theodoret. Jerome mentions it after the epistles of Paul to the seven churches as an eighth excluded by the majority, and proceeds to specify the pastoral ones. But Amphilochius and Ebedjesu the Syrian have the western order, viz., the following-

(_b_) Pauline Epistles, Hebrews (following immediately that to Philemon); in Augustine and the Vulgate version generally. It is so in the canons of the councils at Hippo and Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397), and in the MSS. D.

and G., in Isidore of Spain, and the council of Trent.

IX. With respect to the order of the _Catholic Epistles_, which were not _all_ adopted into the canon till the end of the fourth century; Eusebius putting all except 1 John and 1 Peter among the _antilegomena_; while Jerome, and the council of Carthage (A.D. 397) admit them unreservedly; the usual order, viz., James, 1 and 2 Peter, John, Jude, prevailed in the Eastern Church. It is in the Pes.h.i.to or old Syriac version, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, the 60th of the Laodicean canons, Athanasius, Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus, Amphilochius, the stichometry of Nicephorus, the MSS. ?. A. B. C., and most Greek MS. But the 76th of the Apostolic canons has Peter, John, James and Jude. The canon, however, is comparatively late.

(_a_) Peter, John, Jude, James; in Philastrius of Brescia. If we may rely on Ca.s.siodorus's account of Augustine, the African father followed the same arrangement.

(_b_) Peter, James, Jude, John; in Rufinus.

(_c_) Peter, John, James, Jude; in the councils of Carthage, A.D. 397, 419, Ca.s.siodorus, and a Gallican Sacramentarium. The Vulgate and council of Trent follow this arrangement.

(_d_) John, Peter, Jude, James; in the list given by Innocent I., and the third council of Toledo.

The Eastern church naturally set the Epistle of James, who was Bishop of Jerusalem, at the head of the others; while the Western put Peter, the Bishop of Rome, in the same place.

X. The Revelation varied little in position.

(_a_) In the decree of Galasius, according to its three recensions, the Revelation follows Paul's epistles, preceding those of John and the other Catholic ones.

(_b_) In D or the Clermont MS. it follows the _Catholic_ epistles, and precedes the Acts; which last is thrown to the end of all the books, as if it were an appendix to the writings of the apostles.(374)

CHAPTER IX. SUMMARY OF THE SUBJECT.

(_a_) In relation to the Old Testament, the prevailing tendency in the Greek Church was to follow the Palestinian canon. Different lists appeared from time to time in which the endeavor there to exclude apocryphal, _i.e._, spurious works, was apparent. In addition to the _canonical_, a cla.s.s of _ecclesiastical_ books was judged fit for reading in the Church,-a cla.s.s intermediate between the canonical and apocryphal. The distinction between the canonical and ecclesiastical writings appears in Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, &c. The Latin Church showed a disposition to elevate the ecclesiastical books of the Greek Church to the rank of the canonical, making the line between the two indistinct; as we see from the acts of the councils at Hippo and Carthage, in the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, where Augustine's, influence was predominant. But notwithstanding this deviation from the stricter method of the Greeks, learned men like Jerome adhered to the Palestinian canon, and even styled the ecclesiastical books _apocryphal_, transferring the epithet from one cla.s.s to another. Hilary and Rufinus also followed the Greek usage.

During the sixth and following centuries, it cannot be said that the canon of the Greek Church was definitely closed, notwithstanding the decrees of councils and references to older authorities. Opinions still varied about certain books, such as Esther; though the Palestinian list was commonly followed. During the same period, the enlarged canon of the Alexandrian Jews, which went far to abolish the distinction between the canonical and deutero-canonical books, prevailed in the West, at least in practice; though some followed the shorter one, sanctioned as it had been by Jerome.

As both lists existed, no complete or final settlement of the question was reached in the Latin Church. Neither in the East nor in the West was the canon of the Old Testament really closed; for though the stricter principle of separation prevailed in theory, it was not carried out in practice consistently or universally. The two men most influential about the canon were Jerome and Augustine; the one representing its Palestinian, the other its Alexandrian type. After them no legal or commanding voice fixed either, to the absolute exclusion of its rival.

(_b_) The charge of Constantine to Eusebius to make out a list of writings for the use of the Church and its performance may be considered as that which first put the subject on a broad and permanent basis. Its consequences were important. If it cannot be called the completion or close of the New Testament canon, it determined it largely. Eusebius made a Greek Bible containing the usual books, except the Revelation. Though the historian of the church was not well fitted for the task, being deficient in critical ability and trammeled by tradition, he doubtless used his best judgment. Hence, about the year 337, the Constantinian Church received a Bible which had an influential origin. No binding authority indeed attached to the list of the Christian books it presented; but it had weight in the Greek Church. It did not prevent different opinions, nor deter individuals from dissent. Thus Athanasius, who disliked Eusebius and his party, issued a list of the sacred writings which included the Revelation. The canon of the Laodicean Council (A.D.

363) agreed with the Constantine one.

That variations still existed in the Eastern Church is shown by the lists which vied with one another in precedence. The apostolic canons adopted the seven general epistles, while the apostolic const.i.tutions excluded them. The Alexandrian MS. added to the ordinary books of the New Testament, Clement's two epistles; and Cosmas Indicopleustes omitted the general epistles as well as the Apocalypse. At length the Council of Constantinople, usually called the _Trullan_ (A.D. 692), laid down positions that fixed the canon for the Greek Church. The endeavor in it was to attain to a conclusion which should unite East and West. This council did not enumerate the separate books, but referred to older authorities, to the eighty-five canons of the apostles, the decrees of the synods of Laodicea, Ephesus, Carthage, and others; to Athanasius, Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus, Amphliochius of Iconium, Cyril of Alexandria, Gennadius, &c.

After the fourth century there was a general desire to fall back on apostolic times, to appeal to the Church, to ascertain the opinion of synods or a.s.semblies; in a word, to rely on authority.

Less discrepancy and activity were manifested about the canon in the Western Church. Here the chief doubts were directed to the epistle to the Hebrews and the seven general ones. The former was early excluded, and continued to be so even in the time of Jerome. The latter were adopted much sooner. The impulse given by Constantine to determine the books of Scripture re-acted on the West, where the Church considered it its own privilege. Augustine's influence contributed much to the settlement of the question. The synods of Hippo (A.D. 393) and of Carthage (A.D. 397) received the epistle to the Hebrews and the seven general ones, thus fixing the New Testament canon as it now is. In 419 the African bishops, in the presence of a Papal delegate, repeated their former decision. After the West Goths joined the Catholic Church in the sixth century, the Romish and Spanish Churches gave prominence to the fact of accepting both the Apocalypse and the epistle to the Hebrews. The canon of the West was now virtually closed; the fourth Council of Toledo (A.D. 632) at which Isidore was present, agreeing with the Augustinian list, ratified as that list had been by Innocent the First. The reception of the epistle to the Hebrews was facilitated by the objections of the Arians and Semiarians; while opposition to the Priscillianists in Spain strengthened adherence to the traditional canon. Augustine and the Trullan Council fixed the number of the New Testament books as they are now.

With regard to the Bible canon in general, we see that councils had weight when they enumerated the sacred books; that prominent teachers delivered their opinion on the subject with effect, and that tradition contributed to one result; but no general council closed the canon once for all, till that of Trent promulgated its decrees. This body, however, could only settle the subject for Romanists, since, while the right of private judgment is exercised, no corporation can declare some books inspired and others not, some authoritative in matters of faith, others not, without presumption. Though the present Bible canon rests upon the judgment of good and learned men of different times, it can never be finally or infallibly settled, because the critical powers of readers differ, and all do not accept church authority with unhesitating a.s.sent.

It is the way of men to defer unduly to the opinions expressed by synods and councils, especially if they be propounded dogmatically; to acquiesce in their decisions with facility rather than inst.i.tute independent inquiry. This is exemplified in the history of the canon, where the fallibility of such bodies in determining canonicity is conspicuous. It is so in the general reception of the book of Esther, while the old poem, the Song of Songs, was called in question at the synod of Jamnia; in the omission of the Revelation from the canonical list by many belonging to the Greek Church, while the epistles to Timothy and t.i.tus were received as St. Paul's from the beginning almost universally.

CHAPTER X. THE CANON IN THE CONFESSION OF DIFFERENT CHURCHES.

The second Helvetic Confession (A.D. 1566) speaks of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament as those which the ancients wished to be read in the churches, but not as authoritative in matters of faith.(375)

The Gallic Confession (A.D. 1559) makes a distinction between canonical and other books, the former being the rule and norm of faith, not only by the consent of the Church, but much more by the testimony and intrinsic persuasion of the Spirit, by whose suggestions we are taught to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books, which, though useful, are not of the kind that any article of faith can be const.i.tuted by them.(376)

The Belgic Confession (A.D. 1561) makes a distinction between the sacred and apocryphal books. The latter may be read by the Church, but no doctrine can be derived from them. In the list of New Testament books given there are _fourteen_ epistles of Paul.(377)

The canon of the Waldenses must have coincided at first with that of the Roman Church; for the Dublin MS. containing the New Testament has attached to it the Book of Wisdom and the first twenty-three chapters of Sirach; while the Zurich codex of the New Testament has marginal references to the Apocrypha; to Judith, Tobit, 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, and Susanna. The _n.o.bla Leyczon_ containing a brief narration of the contents of the Old and New Testaments confirms this opinion. It opposes, however, the old law to the new, making them antagonistic. The historical doc.u.ment containing the articles of "The Union of the Valleys," A.D. 1571, separates indeed the canonical and apocryphal books, purporting to be founded on a Confession of Faith as old as A.D. 1120; but the latter is mythical, as appears from a comparison of it with the epistle which the legates of the Waldensians gave to colampadius. The articles of that "Union" are copied from Morel's account of his transactions with colampadius and Bucer in 1530. The literature of this people was altered by Hussite influences and the Reformation; so that though differing little from the Romanists at first except in ecclesiastical discipline, they diverged widely afterwards by adopting the Protestant canon and doctrines.(378) Hence, the Confession issued in 1655 enumerates as Holy Scripture nothing but the Jewish Palestinian canon, and the usual books of the New Testament.(379)

The canon of the Anglican Church (1562), given in the sixth article of religion, defines holy Scripture to be "those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church."

After giving the names and number of the canonical books, the article prefaces the apocryphal ones with, "And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine? Such are these following," &c., &c. At the end it is stated that "all the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them canonical." The article is ambiguous. If the canonical books enumerated are those meant in the phrase "of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church," the statement is incorrect. If a distinction is implied between the canonical books and such canonical ones as have never been doubted in the Church, the meaning is obscure. In either case the language is not explicit.

The Scottish or Westminster Confession of Faith gives a list of all the books of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of G.o.d written; adding that those called the apocrypha are not of divine inspiration, and no part of the canon,-of no authority in the Church, nor to be approved or made use of otherwise than human writings.

The Roman Catholic canon was finally determined at the Council of Trent (1546), which adopted all the books in the Vulgate as sacred and canonical, without distinction. Third and fourth Esdras, third Maccabees, and the prayer of Mana.s.seh were not included; though the first and last appeared in the original Clementine edition of 1592, but apart from the canonical books. They are not in the Sixtine edition of 1590.(380) A council at Florence in 1441 had set the example which was followed at Trent. But this stringent decree did not prevent individual Catholics from making a distinction between the books, in a.s.suming a first and second canon or proto-canonical and deutero-canonical books; as did Sixtis Senensis, B. Lamy, Anton a matre Dei, Jahn, and others; though it is hardly consistent with orthodox Catholicism or the view of those who pa.s.sed the decree. When the writings are said to be of different authority-some more, others less-the intent of the council is violated.

The Vatican council (1870) confirmed the Tridentine decree respecting the canon.

The Greek Church, after several ineffectual attempts to uphold the old distinction between the canonical and ecclesiastical books by Metrophanes Critopulus patriarch of Alexandria in 1625, and Cyril Lucaris patriarch of Constantinople (1638 A.D.),(381) came to the same decision with the Romish, and canonized all the apocrypha. This was done at a Jerusalem synod under Dositheus in 1672.

CHAPTER XI. THE CANON FROM SEMLER TO THE PRESENT TIME, WITH REFLECTIONS ON ITS READJUSTMENT.

Semler(382) was the most conspicuous scholar after the Reformation who undertook to correct the prevailing ideas respecting the canon. Acquainted with the works of Toland and Morgan, he adopted some of their views, and prosecuted his inquiries on their lines chiefly in relation to the New Testament. He had no definite principles to guide him, but judged books chiefly by their christian value and use to the Church. Though his views are sometimes one-sided and his essays ill-digested, he placed the subject in new lights, and rendered a service to truth which bore abundant fruit in after years.(383) He dealt tradition severe blows, and freed theology from the yoke of the letter. He was followed by his disciple Corrodi, by G. L. Oeder, J. D. Michaelis, Herder, Lessing, and Eichhorn,-most of whom recommended their views by a freshness of style which Semler did not command. The more recent works of Gesenius, De Wette, Zunz, Ewald, Hitzig, Geiger and Herzfeld have contributed to form a juster opinion of the true position which the books of the Bible occupy.

In the New Testament, the writings of F. C. Baur have opened up a new method of investigating the canon, which promises important and lasting results. Proceeding in the track of Semler, he prosecuted his researches into primitive Christianity with great acuteness and singular power of combination. Though his separation of Petrine and Pauline christianity is not new, he has applied it in ways which neither Toland nor Morgan was competent to manage. These writers perceived the difference between the leading principle of the twelve and that of Paul, they had some far-seeing glimpses of the origin and differences of the New Testament writings,(384) but they propounded them in an unsystematic way along with untenable conjectures. It was reserved for the Tubingen professor to elaborate the hypothesis of an Ebionite or primitive christianity in contra-distinction from a Pauline, applying it to the origin and const.i.tution of christian literature; in a word, to use a _tendenz-kritik_ for opening up the genius of the sacred writings as well as the stages of early christianity out of which they arose. The head of the Tubingen school, it is true, has carried out the antagonism between the Petrine and Pauline christians too rigorously, and invaded the authenticity of the sacred writings to excess; for it is hazardous to make a theory extremely stringent to the comparative neglect of modifying circ.u.mstances, which, though increasing the difficulty of criticism, contribute to the security of its processes.

Yet he has properly emphasized internal evidence; and many of his conclusions about the books will stand. He has thrown much light on the original relations of parties immediately after the origin of Christianity, and disturbed an organic unity of the New Testament which had been merely _a.s.sumed_ by traditionalists. The best Introductions to the New Testament must accept them to some extent. The chief characteristic of the school is the application of historic criticism to the genesis of the New Testament writings, irrespective of tradition-a striving to discover the circ.u.mstances or tendencies out of which the books originated. Baur's _tendenz_-principle judiciously applied cannot but produce good results.

We have seen that sound critical considerations did not regulate the formation of the three collections which made up the entire canon of the Old Testament. Had it been so, the Pentateuch would not have been attributed to Moses. Neither would a number of latter prophecies have been accepted as Isaiah's and incorporated with the prophet's authentic productions. All the Proverbs, the book of Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs would not have been a.s.signed to Solomon; Jonah would have been separated from the prophets, and Daniel must have had a later position in the Hagiographa. We cannot, therefore, credit the collectors or editors of the books with great critical sagacity. But they did their best in the circ.u.mstances, preserving invaluable records of the Hebrew people. In like manner, it has appeared, that the ecclesiastics to whom we owe the New Testament collection were not sharp-sighted in the literature with which they had to do. It is true that well-founded doubts were entertained by the early Christians about several portions, such as the second Epistle of Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, &c., but the Revelation was needlessly discredited. They accepted without hesitation the pastoral epistles as Pauline, but doubted some of the Catholic Epistles, which bear the impress of authenticity more strongly, such as James. It is therefore incorrect to say that 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse "have been received into the canon on evidence less complete" than that belonging to the others. The very general admission of the fourth gospel as the apostle John's, is a curious example of facile traditionalism. Biblical criticism, however, scarcely existed in the first three centuries. It is for us to set the subject in another light, because our means of judging are superior. If the resources of the early fathers were inadequate to the proper sifting of a copious literature, they should be mildly judged.

The question of the canon is not settled. It is probably the work of successive inquirers to set it on a right basis, and adjust the various parts in a manner consistent with historic criticism, sound reason, and religion. The absolute and relative worth of books; the degrees in which they regulate ethics and conduct; their varying values at the times of their first appearance and our own; their places in the general history of human progress-all these must be determined before the doc.u.ments of Judaism and Christianity be cla.s.sified aright. Their present arrangement is external. Based on no interior principle, it furnishes little help toward a thorough investigation of the whole. Those who look upon the question as historical and literary take a one-sided view. It has a theological character also. It needs the application, not only of historic criticism, but the immediate consciousness belonging to every Christian.

The two Testaments should be separated, and their respective positions a.s.signed to each-the Old having been preparatory to the New. Should it be said bluntly, as it is in the 7th Article of the Anglican Church, that the Old is not contrary to the New Testament? Luther at least expressed his opinion of the difference between them pretty clearly;(385) though the theologians of Germany after him evinced a desire to minimise the difference.(386) Should the general opinion of the Protestant Church that the authority of the Old Testament is not subordinate to that of the New, be rigidly upheld? According to one aspect of the former it may be so, viz., its prophetic and theological aspect, that in which it is brought into close union with the latter; the essence of the one being foreshadowed or implied in the other, as Justin Martyr supposed. And this view has never lost supporters, who by the help of double senses, types, and symbols, with a.s.sumed prediction of the definite and distant future, transform the old dispensation into an outline picture of the new; taking into it a body of divinity which is alien from its nature. According to another aspect, viz., the moral and historical, the equality can scarcely be allowed. Schleiermacher is right in saying that the Old Testament seems to be nothing but a superfluous authority for doctrine; an opinion coinciding with that of the early Socinians, who held that it has a historical, not a dogmatic, value. Only such of our pious emotions as are of a general nature are accurately reflected in the Old Testament; and all that is most decidedly Jewish is of least value to christians. The alleged coincidence of the Old Testament with the New must be modified by the doctrine of development. It has been fostered by types and prophecies supposed to refer to christian times; by the a.s.sumed _dictation_ of all Scripture by the Holy Spirit; by fancied references of the one dispensation to the other; by the confounding of a Jewish Messiah sketched in various prophets, with Jesus Christ, as if the latter had not changed, exalted and purified the Messianic idea to suit his sublime purposes of human regeneration. The times and circ.u.mstances in which the Old Testament Scriptures appeared, the manners, usages, civilization, intellectual and moral stage of the Semitic race combine to give them a lower position than that of the New Testament books which arose out of a more developed perception of the relations between G.o.d and men. Spiritual apprehension had got beyond Jewish particularism, especially in the case of the apostle Paul, who gave the new religion a distinct vitality by severing it from its Jewish predecessor.