PhOaatrios. ,
Jerome.
RnfiniiB
Innocent
[Gelasiue]
Cassiodonut (Kef. Tmn».y
(c) i Isidore of Sev...
Cod. BarocWa.
()
()
11
L. c w^, L. & 9upr,
L. e. supr, L. c. 9upr, Ue. mtpr.
£r. ^. iii, S6. L. cmipr. Adver. hcsr.
izxxi,a.
Ap. Eneeb. H.
J?.ri,2ft. L. c sttpr.
Lb cmtpr, L. 0. 9upr,
Synopsta 8. S,
vi,S18a. L. 0. ntpr. L. csttpr.
Tbchdt Cod. CZar.p.4688q. h.cst^r.
HiaL K. T.'Ca.
non,p.6688q. Bctr. 88 [60]. Ad Paul Ep.
63,88(1,648,
BClgne). L. c. eupr. L. c. supr. L. e. nqfr. De inttiL dtv.
LitL 14.
De Ord. Libr. I 8. 8. init. t 'Hody. p. 649.
TABLE IIL— THE CHIEF CATALOGUES OP THE BOOKS %,/;, « o. a ^.^ ..«.«^ nt\ Tk* 7»lflnlJLi. ^ OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. "'**'• ▼» ^ ; « fnort, permc, 19}, lUe mfluence of
ODiy"di,pot.d-b«K*.«*»oU«d.or.«hMw.«to.o-.di«mm«fai..d the Scriptares was already SO great and SO mtoi- M MthoiitaUT*. ThaiTBbokaranMdMiBTabkL ous that the sufsst method of dcstroymg the faith
seemed to be the destruction of the records on whidi itwas supported. The plan of the emperor was in part sucoessfUL Some were found who obtained protection by the surrender of the sacred books, and at a later time the question of the readmisrion of these "traitors** (iradUoret), as they were em- phatically called, CTMted a schism in the Church. The Donatists, who maintained the sterner judg- ment on their crime, may be regarded as maintain- ing in its strictest integrity the popular judgment in Africa on the contents of the Canon of Scrip- ture which was the occasion of the dissension ; and Augustine allows that they held, in conmion with the Catholics, the same "canonical Scriptures,*' and were alike " bound by the authority of both Testaments** (August, c. Cre$c i, 81, 67 ; Ep. 129, 8). The only doubt which can be raised as to the in- tegrity of the Donatist Canon arises from the uncer- tain language that Augustine himself usee as to the Epistie to the Hebrews, which the Donatists may also have countenanced. But, however this may have been, the complete Canon of the N. T., as com- monly received at present, was ratified at the third CouncQ of Carthage (A.D. 897), and fhmi that time was accepted throughout the Latin Church (Jerome, Innocent, Rufinus, Philastrins), though oocasional doubts as to the Epistie to the Hebrews still re- mained (Isid. Hisp. Proem. § 86-109). It wiU be perceived that there was no dispute as to the au- thentic and inspired character of most of the books, and as to the remainder there exist veiy respectable testimonies even in this early age (see Table lY). See AirriLisooMBNA.
4. At the era of the Reformation the question of the N.-T. Canon again assumed great importance. The hasty decree of the Council of Trent, which affirmed the authority of all the books commonly received, called out the opposition of controversial- ists, who quoted and enforced the eariy doubts. Erasmus, with characteristic moderation, denied the apostolic origin of the.^n«^ totkeHebriw, 2 Peier, and the ApoocJf/pst, but left their canonical author- ity unquestioned (Prmf. ad AntHeffomJ). Luther, on the other hand, with bold self-reliance, created a purely sul^ective standard for the canonicity of the Scriptures in the character of their " teaching of Christ,*' and while he placed the Gospel and first Epistie of John, the Episties of Paul to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and the first Epistie of Peter, in the first rank as containing the " kenyl of Christianity,** he set aside the EjMe'to (Me Be- brewSf Jude, James, and the Apocalgpse at the end of his version, and spoke of them and tiie remain-
CANON
88
CANON
^ ^
m hi ^ I
Ma, . .
^1 n'
to
.8|p|?r
Jig'
■F^P* t^f
tq
E
f-SfS-S?
3-
s
Si
55 p-
ing Antflegomena with Tarying degrees of disrespect, thoQ^ he did not sepante 2 Peter and 2, 8 John from Ae other Epistles (comp. Landerer, art. Kainon in Herzog's Ewijfldop. p. 295 sq.). The donbts which lAther rested mainly on internal evidence were ya- rbnslj extended by some of his followers (Melanc- tfaon, CetOar, Magdeb.^ Flacins, Gerhard ; comp. Benss, { 884); and especially with a polemical aim against the Romish Church by Chemnitz {Exam, Cows, Trid. i, 78). But while the tendency of the Lutheran writ- en was to place the Antilegoroena on a lower stage of antluirity, their yiews received no direct sanction in toy of tiie Lutheran aymbolic books which admit tile '^prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and
New Testaments** as a whole, without further clas- sification or detail. The doubts as to the Antilegom- ena of the N. T. were not confined to the Lutherans. Carlstadt, who was originally a fHend of Lather and afterward professor at Zurich, endeavored to bring back the question to a critical discussion of evidence, and placed the Antilegomena in a third class ** on account of the controversy as to the books, or rather (ut certius loquar) as to then- authors" (De Can. Script, p. 410-12, ed Credn.). Calvin, while he denied the Pauline au- thorship of the Fpigtle to ike Bebrew$, and at least ques- tioned the authenticity of 2 Peter, did not set aside their canonicity (Pnef, ad Hebr, ; ad 2 Petr,) ; and he notices the doubts as to Ja$nes and Jude only to dismiss them.
CANON
84
CANON
5. The language of the Articles of the Church of England with regard to the N. T. is remarkable. In the Articles of 1562 no list of the books of Scripture is ^yen ; but hi the Elizabethan Articles (1562, 1571} a definition of Holy Scripture is given as " the csinonical books of the Old and New Testament, oftohote oMtkor^ k^foaa never (msfdovbt in the Church" (Alt. vi). This definition is followed hy an enumeration of the books of the O. T. and of the Apociypha; and then it is said summarily, without a detailed catalogue, "all the books of tiie N. T., as they are commonly received, we do receive and account tiiem for canonical" (pro ca- nonicis habemus). A distinction thus remains between the ** canonical books" and such " canonical boolES as have never been doubted in the Church ;" and it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion tliat the ftamers of the Articles intended to leave a freedom of judgment on a point on which the greatest of the Continental re- formers, and even of Bomish scholars (Sixtus Sen. Biblhth, i9. i, 1 ; Cajetan, Prcef, ad Epp, ad Hebr,^ Jac., 2, 8 Johfif Jud.) were divided. The omission cannot have arisen solely from the fact that the Article in question was framed with reference to the Church of Borne, witb^hich the Church of England was agreed on the N.-T. Canon, for all the other Protestant oon^ fessions which contain any list of books give a list of the books of the New as well as of the Old Testament (Oonf,BelgA;Con/.GaU.B;Cot^.F%d.l). But,ifthU license is rightly conceded by the Anglican Articles, the great writers of the Church of England have not availed themselves of it. The early commentators on the Articles take little (Burnet) or no notice (Bever- idge) of the doubts as to the ^tilegomena ; and the chief controversialists of the Beformation accepted the ftill Canon with emphatic avowal (Whitaker, Visp. on Scripture^ cziv, p. 105 ; Fulke's Defence ofEng, TVchm. p. 8 ; Jewel, Defence o/Apol. ii, 9, 1).