THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
" The Church values only the four Gospels " (7 Horn, in Lucam).
Generally thirteen epistles of Paul were received.
If in the Muratorian Canon the reception of four
private letters is justified, it appears to have been
caused less by a recollection of a late
2. The introduction of them into public serv-
Pauline ice than through a thought-process
Letters, of the author, equating the seven
letters of Paul to the communities in
symbolical fashion with the letters to the seven
churches of the Apocalypse. No statement can
be made regarding any favorable feeling for the
letters to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrians
there rejected. Great difference of opinion existed
as to Hebrews. The Alexandrians regarded it as
Pauline, and Origen supposed it substantially
Pauline through one of Paul's disciples, a position
which was widely adopted in the eastern Church.
But the western Church disputed its Paulinity,
while holding it in high esteem. This was the case
in Lyons, Rome, and Carthage. In the Monta-
nistic and .Novatian Churches there was a decided
tendency to ascribe it to Barnabas.
Of the Book of Acts all that need be said is that its name, its general recognition as of Lucan authorship, its position between the Gos- 3. The Acts pels and the Pauline Epistles in the of the Muratorian Canon, its abundant use Apostles, by Irenseus, Tertullian, and others, and the condemnation by Tertullian ■ of Marcion for rejecting it speak abundantly for its canonicity.
The strongest proofs are found of the reception of the Apocalypse by all parts of the Church. It was cited by Theophilus of Antioch about 180, and by the church of Lyons in 177, as " Holy Scripture." Neither Irenaeus nor the Muratorian Canon regard any defense of it as necessary.
4. The As against the high value attached Apocalypse, to it by the Montanists, the Alogi
scornfully criticized it as the work of Cerinthus. Caius of Rome assumed this attitude also, and Hippolytus defended it against him. But the general feeling of the catholic Church was that the book was inspired, written about 95 a.d., and properly closed the New Testament.
The position of the Catholic Epistles about 200
was a very varied one, though about 300 they were
known as one division of the New Testament. II
and III John must have been attached to I John,
if their history in the Church and their
5. The preservation are understood. Testi- Catholic mony to II John comes from Irenaeus Epistles, and Clement of Alexandria; that III
John was not treated by Clement docs not really damage the case. The doubt which stood in the way of the unconditional recognition of II and III John was soon banished. It is almost certain that the Muratorian Canon designated the two lesser epistles as recognized. Where it was not known that the Apostle John was by his disciples called "the Elder," there was likelihood of the authorship of those two being' questioned on the matter of genuineness. Their brevity was against both frequent citation and frequent use in public
and equally against serious question. Jude, as one of the Catholic Epistles, was the subject of comment by Clement of Alexandria. The Muratorian Canon quoted it as received. Tertullian cited it as the convincing writing of an apostle, though Origen remarked that it was not generally received. In the fourth century it was among the antilegomena (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., III. xxv. 3). The canonicity which it had in the earlier times was later lost for it in a wide circle of the Church. James, though read in the West in early times and known probably both to Irenseus and to Hippolytus, was until the middle of the fourth century not in the New Testament of the western Church. The Canon Muratori is silent; among the Greeks of the East it was among the generally recognized scriptures. Though Origen placed it among the antilegomena, in Codex Claromontanus it stands before I John. A noteworthy fact is that Methodius mistakenly ascribed it to Paul. In 325 it was by many considered not genuine and Eusebius put it among the antilegomena (Hist, eccl., III. xxv. 3). The general recognition of I Peter about the year 200 is vouched for by Irenaeus, the Epistle of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. The silence of the Muratorian Canon would have been inexplicable, and to it must refer the remark that a letter of Peter is received as is the Apocalypse. Against II Peter there were many protests. At Rome it was not unknown, but was not on the same footing as I Peter. It is doubtful whether Irenaeus knew it. Origen's personal opinion was favorable, but he recorded a divided opinion in the Church concerning the letter. In the East its position was different from that of I Peter in that there it was not a New Testament book (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., IV xxv. 8). As late as 380 Didymus pronounced it uncanonical and the Syrians determinedly rejected it. <Oi the Epistle of Barnabas it may be said that Clement of Alexandria seems to have included it among the Catholic Epistles, and the same is true of Origen., Codex Claromontanus puts it after the seven Catholic Epistles and before Revelation.) It is pertinent here to remark that the first and second Epistles of Clement are by the Canones Apostolorum, lxxxv., put between the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. I Clement is elsewhere given as a Catholic Epistle; at Corinth it was used occasionally in public service, a usage which spread to Alexandria and to Syria. It was cited by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen. But its connection with the New Testament was less firm even than that of Barnabas; in the West it was not considered as of the canon, and Irenaeus seems to have employed it as belonging to the subapostolic age.
The Shepherd of Hermas was used as scripture by Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, and in Antioch. At the beginning of the third 6. Writings century there was in Catholic and Temporarily Montanistic circles a loosening of Regarded the connection between this book and as Canonical, the canon. Tertullian, contrary to his earlier practise, owing to the laxity of discipline attributed to this book, declared that it should be regarded as apocryphal