The formation of the New Testament list of sacred books

By Very Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P., S.T.M.
Doctor in Sacred Scripture,
Member of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, and
late Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Collegio Angelico, Rome.

A. Theoretical Principles

The word "canon," κανών, signifies "rule" or "measure". When we speak of the "canonical books" we mean those which serve as the "rule" or norm of our faith. By a natural transition the word "canon" came to mean the list or catalogue of such Books as served for the "measure" or "rule" of our faith. For the New Testament this list contains the following Books: the Four Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul; the seven Catholic Epistles, viz. one of St. James, two of St. Peter, three of St. John, one of St. Jude; and lastly the Apocalypse of St. John. In spite of the assertions of some of the so-called Reformers—for Luther maintained that the Epistle of St. James was "an Epistle of straw"—all the separated Churches retain in their Canon the same Books of the New Testament as does the Catholic Church.

It is clear that from the very earliest times the question must have arisen: Which are the Books of the New Testament? We can perhaps discern a trace of such disputes in St. Peter's words about St. Paul's Epistles. [1] But the Church must have speedily made up her mind as to the principles which must decide any dispute on the point. The guiding principle was of course that for writings to be canonical, or the norm of faith, they must be divinely inspired. This was St. Paul's principle: "All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct to justice." [2] But there still remains the further question: What proof is there that any Book claiming to form part of the Scriptures is really inspired and therefore an integral part of the Canon? Upon the solution of this question the whole of the controversy with Marcion turned. Tertuliian routed his opponent by laying down the following incontrovertible points:

"We lay down as our first position that the Evangelical Testament has Apostles for its authors; to them was assigned by the Lord Himself the office of publishing the Gospel. And if there are also Apostolic men (i.e. Mark and Luke), we yet maintain that these latter do not stand alone but with the Apostles and after them. For the preaching of disciples might be suspected to be mere seeking for reputation unless they had in their support the authority of the masters, nay of Christ Himself, for He made the Apostles masters. Thus, of the Apostles, John and Matthew instil the faith into us; of the Apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it." [3]

Tertuliian then proceeds to show how absurd it is for Marcion to endeavour to uphold his edition of Luke's Gospel as opposed to that long current in the Church:

"He tries to undermine the value of those Gospels which are published as genuine (propria) and under the name of Apostles or of Apostolic men, and this, forsooth, with a view to winning for his own Gospel the credit which he denies to them." [4]

Marcion tried to evade the force of this argument by urging that the Church's Gospels were adulterated. But Tertuliian retorts:

"If the Apostles gave us the genuine Gospel ... and if false Apostles have adulterated it, and if our copies are derived from this adulterated one, then which is the genuine instrument of the Apostles which suffered at the hands of these adulterers?" [5]

This was an impasse.

"I call my Gospel the genuine one, Marcion maintains that his is genuine. I say his is adulterated, he says mine is! What is to decide between us save the argument which is drawn from time and which declares that authority lies with that which shall be shown to be the older and which establishes that that is adulterated which shall be convicted of being later?" [6]

Tertullian then draws his conclusion:

"In fine, then, if it is agreed that that is truer which is earlier, and that that is earlier which was from the beginning, and that that was from the beginning which was from the Apostles then it will also hold good that that was handed down by the Apostles which the Churches of the Apostles have kept as a sacred deposit. ... I maintain, then, that in these Churches, and not only in the Apostolic Churches but in all the Churches which are united to them by the bond of the Sacrament, that Gospel of Luke has from its very earliest publication stood its ground which we are defending with all our might. ... And the same authority of the Apostolic Churches will stand guarantee for the other Gospels too which we hold through them and according to their usage. I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew. Moreover the Gospel which Mark published may be termed Peter's, for Mark was his interpreter; just as people are wont to assign Luke's digest to Paul. And indeed what the disciple publishes should rightly be assigned to his master. Consequently Marcion must be called to account regarding these other Gospels. Why did he omit them and especially insist on that of Luke ? As though these latter were not from the beginning in full use in the Churches just as was Luke's ? Indeed it is quite credible that these other Gospels were even more in evidence, being first because Apostolic, and being coeval in origin with the Churches themselves (cum ipsis Ecclesiis dedicata}. ... These are the compendious arguments we make use of when we dispute with heretics touching our faith in the Gospel. For these arguments uphold the order of time which brands with the note of adulteration what is proved to be late; they uphold, too, the authority of the Churches which stablishes the Apostolic tradition; for truth must needs precede falsehood and proceeds direct from those by whom it is delivered." [7]

It is interesting to note how Tertullian thus insists on the final authority of the Church in supporting the Apostolic tradition touching the contents of the Canon.

B. The Church's Treatment of the Question

In the formation of the Canon a double process can be traced: the process of accumulation of Apostolic writings, since individual Churches received, for example, St. Paul's various Letters and only gradually made them known to the rest of the world; and the process of elimination of what was not inspired and was therefore not canonical. We have only to examine the formidable list of Apocryphal writings claiming Apostles for their authors to see how vast was the mass of material, and to reflect on the other hand on the seemingly trivial character of such an Epistle as that of St. Paul to Philemon to see how minute was the care taken by the Church in preserving the veriest fragments of Apostolic writings. To declare that the Epistle to Philemon was in spired and therefore canonical, and that at the same time so important and popular a work as the Shepherd of Hermas was without these necessary qualifications, demanded an absolutely certain criterion on the part of the Church. She must have based her decision on no merely critical grounds, but on her own subjective certainty as to her Divinely- bestowed knowledge on the point. But in another sense the Church's judgment was a critical one. Her pronouncements were not authoritative declara tions which disregarded evidence. But the evidence she weighed was the authoritative voice of her representatives scattered throughout the world. In other words she took the votes of those who in the various Apostolic Sees were in a position to declare what was the tradition they had re ceived. Thus, while our knowledge of the contents of the Canon is derived from the Church's authoritative pronounce ments, i.e. from the official lists of the Canonical Books drawn up by the Pontiffs or by the Councils, it is also true that these latter, viz. the various Pontiffs or Councils, derived their knowledge from the declarations of various Fathers who collectively represented the volume of Apostolic tradition. And it was only by slow degrees that the Church entered into her inheritance in the full Canon of Holy Scripture. For in the first place it is clear that so long as any Apostle survived the deposit of written revelation it could not be said to be definitely completed. Hence it was not till the first century had closed and St. John was dead that the Church could arrive at a knowledge of the fulness of her deposit. And to this knowledge the Churches of Asia, of Europe, and of Egypt had each to contribute their quota. When a Catholic, then, desires to know what are the contents of the Canon he consults the Church's official Decrees, e.g. those of the Councils of Florence, Trent, and the Vatican. When, however, he desires to learn on what the -Church based these Decrees he consults the writings of the various Fathers of the Church who, either by the use they made of various Books, or by the lists which they drew up, e.g. in the case of St. Athanasius and St. Augustine, showed what was the tradition they received and handed down. How much discussion existed in the early Church on the contents of the Canon may be gathered from Eusebius, who says:

"It seems opportune here to present a summary list of the New Testament writings of which we have already spoken. In the first place then we must set the holy four-horsed chariot of the Gospels; then will come the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, and after it we place the Epistles of Paul. After them the one which is known as the First of John and also the authenticated Epistle of Peter. After these must be placed, if it seem fit, the Apocalypse of John concerning which we will set down in their place the opinions which have been held. Now these are among the accepted writings, ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις.

"But among the writings which are disputed, ἀντιλεγομένων, yet which are familiar to many, we have the Epistle which is said to be that of James, and that of Jude, as well as the Second Epistle of Peter and those that are termed the Second and Third of John, whether they were really written by the Evangelist or by someone who bore the same name with him.

"Amongst the spurious writings, νόθοις, must be reckoned the Acts of Paul, the Book called The Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter. In addition to which must be reckoned the current Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles (the Διδαχαί)- Add to these, as I said, the Apocalypse of John if it seem fit, for some, as I have said, set it aside, while others class it with the accepted writings. Indeed amongst these latter some even group the Gospel according to the Hebrews, a work which is especially acceptable to those of the Hebrews who have believed in Christ. All these, then, would rank among the disputed writings. And we have thought it necessary to draw up a list of these, thus distinguishing on the one hand the true and sincere Scriptures, viz. those accepted according to Ecclesiastical tradition, and on the other hand those other writings which are not incorporated into the body of the Testament [8] and which are disputed, though at the same time they are known to many Ecclesiastical people. And we have done this that we may have a ready means of ascertaining which these writings are, as well as those circulated under the name of Apostles by heretics, e.g. Gospels of Peter, Thomas and Matthias and others, as also Acts of Andrew, John and of other Apostles. Of writings such as these no man who has followed (the traditional teaching) according to the successive series of Ecclesiastical men has thought it worth while to make any mention in his writings. Indeed the whole character of these writings is alien to the style of the Apostles. And the ideas, too, as well as the entire scope of what is set forth in them, are as far as possible removed from true orthodoxy, thus clearly showing that they are the figments of heretics. Conse quently these writings cannot be reckoned amongst the spurious Books, but are to be set on one side as wholly absurd and impious." [9]

Thus Eusebius groups the various writings as (a) "Homologoumenoi" or accepted; (b) "Antilegomenoi" or disputed; (c) "Nothoi" or spurious. His meaning is clear, but his terms are confused. For he has placed the Apocalypse of John among the accepted Books and also among the spurious Books, whereas in reality he only calls in question its authenticity, and does not mean that it is to be regarded as spurious. The truth is that here Eusebius has really drawn up four classes of writings: the accepted, the disputed, the spurious, and these altogether rejected. It is clear, of course, that these two last-named really form one category. And Eusebius increases the confusion by saying that such spurious works as the Apocryphal Gospels and Acts are not to be classed amongst the spurious writings, but are to be rejected wholly. That this is merely a slip on his part is shown conclusively by the fact that a little lower down he has a perfectly consistent division; for there he speaks of:

"What has come to our knowledge concerning the Apostles and Apostolic times, as also about the Sacred Writings they have left us (i.e. accepted writings), as well as those writings which are in dispute, ἀντιλεγομένοι, but which at the same time are in full use in many Churches, as also of those that are wholly spurious, νόθοι, and alien to Apostolic orthodoxy..." [10]

The threefold division, viz. into genuine, apocryphal and doubtful, is given by St. Gregory Nazianzen as well as by Origen and St. Cyril of Jerusalem. [11]

The important point to note in reading the statements of various Fathers regarding the canonicity, or the opposite, of the New Testament writings are that (a) we never find any Father saying that some writing which the Church now accepts is not part of the Canon. Thus no Ecclesiastical writer rejects the Apocalypse or the Epistle to the Hebrews. They may, it is true, throw doubts on the authenticity of such Books, but it is one thing to question their authenticity, quite another to question their canonicity. Thus no one ever wrote more critically of the Apocalypse than did Denis of Alexandria; [12] but while he has very strong doubts as to St. John's authorship of it, he has no doubts whatever regarding its inspired character. [13] (b) On the other hand we have no instance of an Ecclesiastical writer insisting on the canonicity of some writing which the Church subsequently repudiated. Thus while the Canon of Moratori (q.v.) admits the Pastor of Hermas there is no attempt to maintain that it really is a part of the Canon, (c) Lastly, it is a fact that individual writers omit many writings from their lists, e.g. the Muratorian fragment omits the Epistle to the Hebrews while admitting the Apocalypse of Peter and expressly rejecting the Pastor; again many writers omit the Apocalypse of John, e.g. St. Cyril of Jerusalem and the Council of Laodicea. [14] Consequently the most that can be said against the canonicity of any particular writing is that certain Fathers hesitated to affirm its canonicity, either because the evidence for its Apostolic origin was not sufficiently clear or because, while some individual Father himself thinks the evidence sufficient, he is aware that there are many who do not think so. It must often have been the case, too, that some writing is not mentioned by a particular Father, for the simple reason that he has never heard of it. Thus the early Syrian Church apparently knew nothing of the Apocalypse, of Jude, of 2 Peter, and of 2-3 John. Much the same may perhaps be said of the Old Latin version which, so it is said, did not contain Hebrews, 2 Peter, and James. [15] It cannot be surprising that such brief writings as Jude and 2-3 John should pass unnoticed, though at the same time the fact that Philemon [16] is given practically unanimously is proof of the care used by St. Paul's Churches in collecting his Epistles.

The accompanying table of the authorities for the New Testament Canon will prove useful:

C. Table of Ecclesiastical Writers and Documents illustrating the Formation of the New Testament Canon

Writers	Date	Writings referred to	Notes
St. Clement of Rome	d. A.D. 98	1 Cor. xliii  =  John 17:3 [17] ii  =  Acts 20:35 x  =  (?) Rom 4:3 xxxiv  =  1 Cor 2:9 ii  =  Ephes 5:21 xlvii  =  Phil 4:15 ii  =  Tit 3:1; cf. lviii ix  =  Heb 11:5, 7; cf. x. and xvii ii  =  1 Pet 5:5; cf. xxx. and xlix xi  =  Jas 1:8; cf. xxx. and xlix. [18]	17 - This seems a perfectly clear reference to John 17:3. 18 - Thus Clement shows an acquaintance with no less than ten of the Books of the New Testament. The only Gospel he can be said to quote is that of St. John. But he knows the Acts, and five of St. Paul's Epistles, while there are at least three apparent references to Hebrews, three to 1 Peter, and three to James. Clement also quotes certain writings as "Scripture," or with the formula "as it is written," which we cannot identify as forming part of the Bible, cf. xvii., xxiii., and xlvi.
Writers	Date	Writings referred to	Notes
St. Ignatius	d. A.D. 107 or 115[19]	Ephes. xiv  =  Matt 12:33 Prol.  =  Ephes 1:4, 19; 3:2, 19; 4:3 x  =  Col 1:23; cf. xviii xviii  =  1 Tim 1:4 ii  =  Phil 20 [20] Magnes, ix  =  Matt 27:52 v  =  Acts 1:25 x  =  1 Cor 5:7 Trall, viii  =  2 Cor 5:12 or 1 Tim 5:14 Romans vii  =  John 4:10; 7:38; 16:2 v  =  1 Cor 4:4; 15:32 iii  =  2 Cor 4:18 ii  =  Phil 2:17 or 2 Tim 4:6 Smyrn. i  =  Matt 3:15 vi  =  Matt 19:12 xi  =  Phil 3:15 Ad Polyc. v.  =  Ephes 5:25	19 - In the case of St. Ignatius, as with St. Clement, it is a question of reminiscence rather than of direct quotation. Still we can demand for Ignatius an acquaintance with Matthew and John, with the Acts, and with eight Epistles of St. Paul. 20 - The allusion is clearer than it may seem at first sight. In his Epistle to Philemon St. Paul plays on the name of Onesimus the slave, and this has apparently been noticed by St. Ignatius, cf. Magnes, ii., xii.; Rom. v.; ad Polyc. i. and vi.
Writers	Date	Writings referred to	Notes
St. Polycarp		Philip, vi  =  Matt 6:12, 14; John 4:3 i  =  Acts 2:24 vi  =  Rom 12:17 v  =  1 Cor 6:9-10 iii  =  Gal 4:26 i  =  Eph 2:8-9 i  =  Phil. 1:5 xi  =  2 Thess 3:15 v  =  2 Tim 2:12 i  =  1 Peter 1:8 vi  =  1 John 4:3 [21]	21 - These are direct quotations. The number of reminiscences of the New Testament which occur in this brief Epistle is remarkable; indeed it might be described as a cento of quotations and recollections of New Testament phraseology.
The Epistle to Diognetus		vi  =  John 17:11, 14 iv  =  Gal 4:10 [22]	22 - The scope of this Epistle does not permit of much quotation; but in the second portion, where the author treats of Christianity as opposed to Judaism, there are many reminiscences of New Testament phraseology.
The Epistle of Barnabas		v  =  Matt 9:13 iv  =  Matt 20:16; 22:14 [23] xix  =  Luke 6:30 or Matt 5:42 xii  =  Col 1:16(?)	23 - This is the famous passage where the words Many are called, but few are chosen is introduced by the formula: As it is written. The Greek of the passage does not exist, we have only a Latin translation.
The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles	late First century	v  =  Matthew, Luke; perhaps five Epistles of St. Paul; (?) Hebrews, 1 Peter, James, Apocalypse. [24]	24 - This document is replete with reminiscences of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But are they quotations? The verbal identities are rare; it is hard to say whether a passage is taken from Matthew or Luke; the doctrine is that of the Sermon on the Mount. At the same time we have the Pater Noster in practically the same form as in Matthew with the interesting appendage of the Doxology. In Chap, ix. we have the same order as in Luke xxii. for the Holy Eucharist, "first the Cup ... then for the broken Bread." But it must be confessed that none of these passages prove acquaintance with written records as distinct from familiar oral teaching. It is the same with the seeming references to the Epistles, e.g. the use of the formula "Maranatha" in chap, x 6, will not prove an acquaintance with 1 Cor 16:22, any more than the words "And let not your loins be unloosed," chap. xvi. i, will prove the use of Luke 12:35. The three most patent references to the Epistles are those to the Epistle of James in iv. 4, 14; xiv. i.
Writers	Date	Writings referred to	Notes
Simon Magus	First century, Palestine and Rome	Matt., John and 1 Cor. [25]	25 - Hipp. Adv. Haer. VI. 2, 4, 9, 11.
Cerinthus	Close of first century, Egypt	The Four Gospels, Rom, 1-2 Cor., Ephes., Galat., Heb., Col., Philip. [26]	26 - Ibid., VII. 21, 23; Epiphan. Haer. XXVIII. 2-4.
The Ebionites	Idem.
Basilides and his school	Circa A.D. 130, Alexandria	The Four Gospels, Rom., 1-2 Cor., Ephes., Col., 1 Tim., 1 Pet. They rejected the Pastorals and Heb. [27]	27 - Ibid., VII. 10, 13, 14, 15.
Valentinus and his school	Circa A.D. 150, Alexandria	Matt., Luke, John, i Cor., Heb., 1 John, Rom., i Cor., Ephes., 2 Tim. [28]	28 - H.E. IV. xi. i; also St. Irenaeus. Adv. HCBY. III. iv. 3; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VII. 17; Hipp. Adv. H<zr. VI. 24, 29, 30.
Marcion	Circa A.D. 140, Asia Minor and Rome	Luke, ten Epistles of St. Paul; he rejected the Acts, Heb.. Pastorals, Apocalypse. [29][30]	29 - Hipp. Adv. Her. VII. 19. 30 - The interest of these references to our Canonical Scriptures lies in the fact that such men as Cerinthus with his followers, and Basilides with his school, while making use of what they acknowledged to be Canonical Books, yet pretended to the possession of a tradition which came to them, in the one case through Mariamne from James " the Lord's brother," in the other through the Apostle Matthias. This shows how fully the Ecclesiastical writers of those early days realized the necessity of Apostolic tradition if their claims were to be accepted; cf. Hipp. Adv. Hcer. VII. 8; Clem. Strom. VII. 17.
Writers	Date	Writings referred to	Notes
Papias	Circa A.D. 60-135	Matt., Mark John, Acts (?), Apocalypse (?}, 1 Pet., 1 John [31]	31 - H.E. III. xxxix. 9-16; P.G. XX. 295; cf. St. Irenaeus Adv. Haer. V. xxx. i, xxxiii. 4, xxxvi. i.
Tatian	Died circa A.D. 170	The Four Gospels, also Ep. to Romans and perhaps Ephesians. [32]	32 - H.E. IV. xxx. 6; Cohortatio ad Graces iv. and xvi.
St. Justin	Flourished circa A.D. 148	The Four Gospels, three Epp. of St. Paul, the Acts, the Apocalypse [33]	33 - Apol. I. 15, 16, 61; Dial. 13, 35, 47, 63, 81, 100-107, 11O; Fragments, 2, 8, 9.
Hermas	Circa A.D. 140	Matt., John, Mark (?), Acts, Ephesians, Hebrews, James, Apocalypse [34]	34 - Vis. i. 3, iv. i, 2; Mand. iii., iv. i, xii. 5; Sim. i. viii. 6, ix. 12. These are only the clearer references, less certain ones to 1-2 Peter, 1 John, and Romans will be found in Vis. i. 3, iii. 7, iv. 2, 3, v., Sim. iv.
Old Latin Version	Second century	Apparently coincides with the Muratorian fragment as regards the Canon; there appears to be no proof that it contained 2 Peter or James; Hebrews is said to have been added later. [35]	35 - See Westcott, Canon, p. 234, 3rd Ed., 1870, and Charteris, Canonicity, 1880, p. 2; but see also Journal of Theological Studies for O-L. version of the Catholic Epistles, July, 1911.
Old Syriac Versions	Second century	The Four Gospels, the Acts, the Pauline Epistles. [36]	36 - See infra, s.v. Syriac Versions. That the Old Syriac had the Acts as well as the Epistles of St. Paul, while excluding the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, is stated in the Doctrine of Addai, see Hastings, D.B. IV. 646-7.
The Canon of Muratori	Circa A.D. 180	Omitted Hebrews, James, 1-2 Peter; and perhaps one of the Epp. of John [37]	37 - The language of the scribe is far from clear: he refers, p. 10, 1. 28, to John "in epistulis suis," and then quotes the opening lines of 1 John; but on p. n, 1. 6, he says "Johannis duas in Catholica habentur"; it might be a legitimate conclusion that, since he has mentioned the First Epistle above, he is here referring to 2-3 John, but it will still remain an enigma that he should speak of these two, to the seeming exclusion of the First, as among the "Catholic Epistles." It has been plausibly suggested that by the expression "in Catholica" he means in the Catholic Church. The mysterious words which follow: "et sapientia ab amicis salomonis in honore ipsius scripta" have been interpreted as meaning that 2-3 John are accepted by the Church, yet not as the work of the Apostle John, but on a par with (ut for et) the Book of Wisdom which was written not by Solomon himself but by his friends in his honor. The omission of all reference to 1 Peter is another enigma. It seems best to attribute it to an oversight, for there can hardly have been a doubt as to the canonicity of this Epistle at that date. It should be noted that it is only of the Apocalypse of Peter that the remark is made "quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt." It is also of interest to note that the Pastor is rejected precisely because it is recent: "Pastorem vero nuperrime et temporibus nostris in urbe roma herma conscripsit; it cannot therefore be reckoned with the "prophets who are complete in number, nor with the Apostles at the end of time." The so-called Epistles of St. Paul to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians are explicitly rejected.
Writers	Date	Writings referred to	Notes
St. Irenaeus	A.D. l60-202	The complete Canon. [38]	38 - Besides repeated references to the Four Gospels, Adv. Hier. III. i., ix-x., xi. 8-9, P.G. VII. 843-889, Irenaeus makes great use of Acts, ib. xiv-xv. He quotes all the Epistles of St. Paul except Philemon. His references to Hebrews are doubtful, cf. II. xxx. 9; P.G. VII. 822; but Eusebius expressly states H.E. V. xxvi., P.G. XX. 510, that Irenaeus commented on that Epistle. There are possible allusions to James, IV. xiii. i, xvi. 2; V. i. i; to i Peter we have references in IV. ix., x. i. 5; perhaps to 2 Peter iii. 8 in V. xxviii. 3; P.G. VII. 1200; cf. V. xxiii. 2, ib. 1186, but this may be a reference to Ps. Ixxxix. 4. In IV. xxxvi. 4, it is hard to say whether we have a reference to 2 Peter ii. 4-7 or to Jude 7. i John is well known to Irenaeus, as also 2 John which he quotes in III. xvi. 8, as "John in his aforementioned Epistle " citing 2 John 7-8; cf. I. xvi. 3. For the Apocalypse we have a definite statement as to its date, V. xxx. 3; cf. IV. xx. n; V. xxvi. i; and H.E. V. viii.; P.G. XX. 450.
The Martyrs of Vienne	A.D. 177	References to many Canonical Books. [39]	39 - Eusebius gives at full length the account furnished by the Churches at Lyons and Vienne of the "Acts" of these glorious Martyrs among whom was the venerable Pothinus the Bishop of Lyons. They do not mention any Book of the New Testament by name, but allusions are frequent; we find probable traces of St. Matthew's Gospel, also of those of St. Luke and St. John. There are reminiscences of Rom., Phil., 1 Tim., 1 Pet., 1 John, and perhaps of 1 Cor. The Apocalypse, xxii. 11 is quoted with the formula "that the Scripture might be fulfilled"; H.E. V. i.; P.G. XX. 434.
Writers	Date	Writings referred to	Notes
Clement of Alexandria	Died circa A.D. 220	The complete Canon. [40]	40 - Clement quotes all the undisputed Books of the New Testament; Eusebius, H.E. VI. xiii. 6, says that Clement in his various works makes use of "testimonies from the disputed Scriptures," e.g. Wisdom, Hebrews, Barnabas, Clement and Jude. Thus for his use of Hebrews cf. Strom. VI. 8; for Jude ibid., for James ibid. VI. 18, and III. 6; for 1 Peter, Pad. I. 6; for 2 Peter we have no quotation in Clement's existing works, but Eusebius makes the definite statement that in his Hypotyposes or "Outlines" Clement gave "abridged accounts of all Canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed Books, i.e. Jude and the other Catholic Epistles, and Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter," H.E. VI. xiv. i. At the close of Pad. III. xi. Clement quotes under the name of "John," 1 John 4:7, and in Strom. II. 15 he quotes 1 John 5:16-17 as "John in his larger Epistle," thus bearing clear witness to his knowledge of other Epistles of John's; in Strom. VI. 13 he refers to the Apocalypse as the work of John.
St. Hippolytus of Portus	A.D. 170-240	References to many Canonical Books. [41]	41 - In the Treatise De Christo et Antichristo, i, 2, 3, 6, 8, 26, 29, 56, 64, 67, we have references to the Gospel of Luke, to the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Tim., 2 Tim., Titus, 1 Peter and the Apocalypse. A reference to 2 Peter 1:21 in section 2 is clear. In the Contra Noetum 6, we have a reference to Acts, in 3 to i Corin thians; in Theophania 7, a possible allusion to Hebrews; in the Fragments, 3, to Colossians, in 10, to Jude and to 2 Peter. These are best seen in the English translation, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IX., Edinburgh.
Tertullian	Died AD. 230	No references (?) to 2 Peter or 2-3 John. [42]	42 - Tertullian quotes every Book of the New Testament with the exception of 2 Peter and 2-3 John. Thus, putting on one side his references to the undisputed Books, for which see such passages as Adv. Marcionem, IV. 2, 5; V. 2, 3, 9, u, 17, 21; De Prescript. H<zr. 6, 22, 25, 33, 36; De Pudicitia, 13, 20; De Resurrections Carnis, 23, 24, 47, etc.; we find him quoting Heb. vi. 4-8, De Pudicitia, 20, but apparently attributing it to Barnabas; he has implicit quotations of James in De Oratione, 8; Adv. Judaos, 2, and Scorpiace, 12; i Peter he quotes often, see Scorpiace, 12 and 14; of 2 Peter he apparently knows nothing; i John he often quotes, cf. Scorpiace, 15 and 25; of 2-3 John we have no trace; Jude he quotes once, De Cultu Feminarum, I. 3, where he sees in Jude 14 an authorization of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian takes it for granted that the Apocalypse is the work of St. John, cf. De Prescript, xxxiii.; Adv. Marc. III. 14; IV. 3.
Writers	Date	Writings referred to	Notes
St. Cyprian	Died A.D. 258	No references (?) to James or Jude [43]	43 - St. Cyprian makes no use of Hebrews unless we are to see a possible reference to Heb. xii. 6, in Ep. vii. 5; neither does he quote Philemon. 2, Peter is referred to by Firmilian when he says, Ep. LXXIV. 6 (inter Epp.'s. Cypriani} that " Peter and Paul in their Epistles execrated heretics and warned us to avoid them," words which are only true of 2 Peter; cf. St. Cyprian, Testim. III. n. As for 2 John we find Aurelius of Chullabi saying at the Seventh provincial Council of Carthage, held under St. Cyprian in A.D. 256, " John the Apostle laid it down in his Epistle ..." and then follows a quotation of 2 John 10-11. This expression "in his Epistle" is noteworthy; in Ep. xxiv. 2, 1 John is quoted with precisely the same formula; in Ep. LI. 18, Romans with the same formula; so too 1 Peter in Ep. LV. 2; and so too 1 Cor. in Ep. LXII. 10. When, then, we find other Fathers using the expression "John in his Epistle" or "Peter in his Epistle" we cannot jump to the conclusion that they thereby tacitly deny the existence of other Epistles by the same writers. Cyprian uses the Apocalypse frequently, e.g. Ep. v. 2, xiii. i; De Bono Patientia.
Origen	A.D. 185-254	The complete Canon. [44]	44 - As for the "disputed Books" Eusebius has preserved for us certain fragments from Origen's writings which show what was his attitude towards these Books. "Peter ... has left one acknowledged Epistle of ὁμολογουμένην; perhaps too a second, though this is called in question. ... John has left us one Gospel ... he wrote also the Apocalypse. ... He has also left us an Epistle of very few lines; perhaps too a Second and a Third, though all do not acknowledge them to be genuine." Of Hebrews he says that while the style is not that of the Apostle yet "if any Church holds that this Epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason did the men of old deliver it to us as Paul's. Still who wrote the Epistle, in truth God knows!" He then mentions the tradition that Clement wrote it, others that Luke was its author. H.E. VI. xxv. 8-14. Quotations from all these Books are to be found in Origen's extant writings. Thus in the De Principiis, II. v. 3, he speaks of Peter's "first Epistle," and while he speaks of "Peter in his Epistle" when quoting 1 Peter, H.E. VI. xxv. 5, he does the same when citing the Second Epistle, Lib. VIII. 7, in Romans: P.G. XIV. 1179. So also for 2-3 John see Hom. VII. 2 in Josue "John sang in his Epistles and in his Apocalypse." The Epistle of James is quoted at least twice by Origen, once with the caveat "as we read in the Epistle which circulates under the name of James," XIX. 6 in Joan., P.G. XIV. 570, and once without any qualification "as James, too, the Apostle says," Lib. IX. 25 in Rom., P.G. XIV. 1226. For Jude see De Principiis, III. ii. i, where the Ascension of Moses is referred to as being made use of by the "Apostle Jude in his Epistle"; the context shows that the Epistle is regarded as forming part of Holy Scripture. The Apocalypse is often quoted at length and as the work of "John the son of Zebedee," I. 14 in Joan., P.G. XIV. 47; cf. II. 4, ibid. 1115.
Writers	Date	Writings referred to	Notes
Eusebius	A.D. 270-340, Palestine	He has the same Canon as we have at present, though he acknowledges the "disputed" character of Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2-3 John and the Apocalypse. [45]	45 - For Eusebius Canon see pp. 75-76. For his various statements on the question see H.E. II. xxiii. 25; III. iii. 5, 25, etc., and see notes on each of the " disputed " Books.
Codex Vaticanus	Fourth century	This MS. is deficient from Heb. 9:14, but up to that point presents the same Canon as we have. [46]	46 - See p. 96, infra.
Codex Sinaiticus	Ibid.	The complete Canon. [47]	47 - See p. 97, infra.
Council of Laodicea	A.D. 363	Omits the Apocalypse. [48]	48 - The list of Books given at the close of the 59th Canon is now generally acknowledged to be a later addition; cf. Mansi, Concilia, II. 578 sqq., also III. 900 and Binius note.
St. Hilary of Poitiers	Died A.D. 368	The same Canon as ours. [49]	49 - He apparently has no doubts even of the Apocalypse which he refers to as the work of St. John, Explan. Ps. i., and de Trin. vi.
St. Athanasius	A.D. 329-373	The same Canon as ours, but he regards the Doctrine of the Apostles and Pastor as "Ecclesiastical Books". [50]	50 - Ep. XXXIX.; P.G. XXVI. 1438.
Pseudo-Athanasius		The same Canon as ours. [51]	51 - P.G. XXVIII. 281-438, a most valuable Synopsis by an unknown author of later date, however, than St. Athanasius.
Pope St. Damasus	A.D. 366-384	He refers 2-3 John to "John the Presbyter". [52]	52 - Cf. Charteris, Canonicity, p. 24.
Writers	Date	Writings referred to	Notes
St. Cyril of Jerusalem	A.D. 315-386	Omits Apocalypse. [53]	53 - Catechis. IV. 36; P.G. XXXIII. 500. Cyril gives the Four Gospels, but expressly repudiates the "Manichaean Gospel according to Thomas." He then mentions Acts, the Seven Catholic Epistles, and the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul. And he concludes: "All the rest put in the second rank." The Apocalypse was presumably to be relegated to this "second rank."
Council of Carthage, III	A.D. 397	Complete Canon. [54]	54 - This Third Council of Carthage, held in A.D. 397, confirmed the Acts of the Council of Hippo held in 393; St. Augustine was present and the Canon here given accords with that which he himself gives, De Doct. Christiana, II. viii. (12-13) 5 P-L. XXXIV. 40-41. The Council enumerates the Four Gospels, the Acts, "Epistolae Pauli Apostoli tredecim, ejusdem ad Hebr&os una," two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John. James is missing, perhaps by an oversight. St. Augustine gives it. The closing words of the Decree are of interest: "Hocetiam fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifacio vel aliis earum partium Episcopis pro confirmando isto canone innotescat, quia a patribus ista accepimus in Ecclesia legenda." This does not seem to have been Pope Boniface, for he only came to the throne in A.D. 418. For the various Councils of Carthage at this period see Mansi, Concilia.
St. Chrysostom	A.D. 347-407	Complete Canon. [55]	55 - He certainly seems to have questioned the Canonicity of 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Apocalypse; but he had Hebrews, on which he preached Homilies, and James; see Charteris, Canonicity, p. 23, and especially Montfaucon, Diatrila in Synopsim's. Scriptures auctore's. Chrysostomo, P.G. LVI. 305-9.
The Apostolic Canons	Fourth century	Omits Apocalypse. [56]	56 - The so-called Apostolical Canons are of course apocryphal and are generally referred to the fourth century. The LXXXIVth Canon opens thus: "All of you, both clergy and laity, must hold as venerable and holy the following Books" ... there then follows a list of the Books of the Old Testament; the Deutero-canonical Books are not included. The Canon concludes: "Outside these Books understand that your young people must learn the Wisdom of the most learned Sirach (viz. Ecclesiasticus), as also our wisdom, that is of the New Testament: the Four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the fourteen Epistles of St Paul; two of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude. The two Epistles of Clement and the ordinances, published in eight Books by myself Clement for you Bishops, are not to be in the hands of all by reason of the mystical nature of their contents; and the Acts of us the Apostles." Mansi, Concilia, I. 47. For the Greek text see Charteris, Canonicity, p. 26.
Writers	Date	Writings referred to	Notes
The Apostolic Constitutions	Fourth century	A very incomplete Canon. [57]	57 - Another Apocryphal work dating probably from the Fourth century. It enumerates the Gospels and the Acts, as well as the Epistles of Paul. The order of the Gospels is given as Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark. See Mansi, Concilia, I. 256; for the Greek text see Charteris, Canonicity, p. 25; for the English translation see Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. XVII., p. 84 Constit. II. 57. These Constitutions were rejected by the Trullan Synod, cf. J.T.S., October, 1914, p. 54. The Quinisext, or Trullan Synod, was held in A.D. 692; it owes its name of " Quinisext" to the equivocal place it holds between the Fifth and the Sixth General Councils. This Synod drew up Canons in supposed accordance with the Third Council of Constantinople, A.D. 681-2, for this Council had framed no Canons. No Roman Legate was present though a space was left at the top of the signatures for that of the Pope, TOTTOS rov ayia.ffr6.rov irdira pApi)*. These Canons were never confirmed by Rome; nor is it right to speak of them as an appendix to the Council of Constantinople. Several of the "Canons" are in contradiction with declarations of Rome, e.g. Can. II. confirms the "eighty-five Apostolic Canons" though not all these are even in substance accepted by the Church, indeed these said Apostolic Canons are condemned by the Gelasian Decree, cf. Mansi, Concilia, VIII. 151. Can. XIII. orders the Roman Church to allow the marriage of the clergy; Can. XXXVI. goes so far as to declare that the See of Constantinople has equal rights with that of Rome in accordance with the Decrees of Constantinople I. and Chalcedon ! Cf. Mansi, Concilia, XI. 927.
P. Innocent 1	A.D. 401	Complete Canon. [58]	58 - See Mansi, Concilia, III. 1040-1041, and also 129-131 for the same Pontiff's Breviarium Canonum ex Ep. ad Exuperium, a sixth-century MS. from Lucca; this gives " Toannis IV." (sic) and omits Jude.
Ruffinus	A.D. 345-410	Complete Canon. [59]	59 - De Symbolo, XXXVI.
St. Jerome	A.D. 346-420	Complete Canon. [60]	60 - Ep. LIII. 8; P.L. XXII. 548.
Theodore of Mopsuestia	Died A.D. 429	No Catholic Epistles nor Apocalypse [61]	61 - See Swete's Ed. of his Commentaries on the Epistles, 2 Vols., Cambridge University Press, 1882. Theodore does not quote in his extant remains the Catholic Epistles nor the Apocalypse.
Writers	Date	Writings referred to	Notes
St. Augustine	Died A.D. 430	Complete Canon. [62]	62 - De Doctrina Christiana, II. 12-13; P-L. XXXIV. 40-41.
The Peschitta - Syriac Version	? Fifth century	[63]	63 - Cf. p. 104,'s.v. Syriac Versions.
Codex Alexandrinus	Fifth century	Complete Canon. [64]	64 - See p. 97, Greek MSS. of the New Testament.
Pope Gelasius	Died A.D. 492	Complete Canon. [65]	65 - The history of this Decree is involved in obscurity. It is uncertain how much of it is due to Pope Damasus, how much to Pope Gelasius, and how much to Pope Hormisdas, A.D. 514-523. See infra p. 90, and Denzinger, nth ed., Nos. 84, 162, 166, 173, also J.T.S. October, 1914, p. 112.

D. The Muratorian Canon

quibus tamen interfuit et itaposuit.

TERTIO EVANGELII LIBRUM SECANDO LUCAN
lucas iste medicus post acensum xpi.
cum eo paulus quasi ut juris studiosum.
secundum adsumsisset numeni suo
ex opinione concriset dnm tamen nee ipse
duidit in carne et ide pro asequi potuit.
ita et ad nativitate johannis incipet dicere.

QUARTI EVANGELIORUM_JOHANNIS EX DECIPOLIS
cohortantibus condescipolis et eps suis
dixit conjejunate mihi : odie triduo et qui
cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum
nobis ennareums eadem nocte reve
latum andreae ex apostolis ut recognis
centibus cuntis johannis suo nomine
cunta discribret et ideo licit varia sin
culis evangeliorum libris principia
doceantur nihil tamen differt creden
tium fedei cum uno ac principal! spu de
clarata sint in omnibus omnia de nativi
tate de passione de resurrectione
de convesatione cum decipolis suis
ac de gemino ejus adventu
primo in humilitate despectus quod fo
u secundum potetate regali pre
clarum quod foturum est. quid ergo
mirum si Johannes tarn constanter
sincula etia in epistulis suis proferat
dicens in semetipsu quae vidimus oculis
nostris et auribus audivimus et manus
nostrae palpaverunt haec scripsimus vobis
sic enim non solum visurem sed auditorem
sed et scriptore omnium mirabiliu dni per ordi
nem profetetur acta aute omniu apostolorum
sub uno libro scribta sunt lucas obtine theofi
le comprindit quia sub praesentia ejus singula
gerebantur sicute et semote passione petri
evidenter declarat sed profectione pauli ab ur
bes ad spania proficescentis epistulae autem
pauli quae a quo loco vel qua ex causa directe
sint volentatibus intellegere ipse declarant
primu omnium corintheis scysmae heresis in
terdicens deincepsb callaetis circumcisione
romanis aute ornidine scripturarum sed et
principium earum os esse xpm intimans
prolexius scripsit de quibus sincolis neces
se est ad nobis desputari cum ipse beatus
apostulus paulus sequens prodecessoris sui
johannis ordine non nisi comenati. semptae
eccleses scribat ordine tali a corenthios
prima ad efesios seconda ad philippinses
tertia ad colosensis quarta ad calatas
quinta ad tensaolenecinsis sexta . ad romanos
septima verum corentheis et tesaolecen
sibus licet pro correbtione iteretur una
tamen per omnem orbem terrae ecclesia
deffusa esse denoscitur et johannis eni in a
pocalebsy licet septe eccleseis scribat
tamen omnibus dicit veru ad filemonem una
et at titu una et ad tymotheu duas pro affec
to et dilectione in honore tamen eclesiae ca
tholice in ordinatione eclesiastice

I

descepline scificate sunt fertur etiam ad
laudicenses alia ad alexandrinos pauli no
mine fincte ad hesem marcionis et alia plu
ra quae in chatholicam eclesiam recepi non
potest fel enim cum melle misceri non con
cruit epistola sane jude et superscrictio
johannis duas in catholica habentur et sapi
entia ab amicis salomonis in honore ipsius
scripta apocalapse etiam johanis et pe
tri tantum recipemus quam quidam ex nos
tris legi in eclesia nolunt pastorem vero
nuperrim et temporibus nostris in urbe
roma herma aeclesiae pio eps frater
ejus et ideo legi eum quide oportet se pu
plicare vero in eclesia populo neque inter
profetas completum numero neque inter
apostolos in fine temporum potest.

E. Various Declarations touching on the Canon:

	Declarations	Notes
1.	"If anyone shall say or believe that other Scriptures besides those which the Catholic Church receives are to be held in veneration or considered authoritative, let him be anathema." [66]	66 - Cf. Denzinger, No. 32, nth ed. t 1911; this is an Anti-Priscillian Decree formerly known as the Creed of the First Council of Toledo and referred to the year 447, but it is probably a treatise known as the Libellus in modum Symboli, cf. Denzinger, I c.; and P.L. LVIII. 1103; Gennadius, De Scriptoribus Eccles. Ixxvi.
2.	"We must now treat of the divine Scriptures, viz. what the Universal Catholic Church may hold and what it must avoid." [67]	67 - Denz. 84, 162, 166, 173, Acts of the Roman Synod of A.D. 382. This is Pope Gelasius Decree De Libris recipiendis vel non recipiendis first published by Pope Damasus and repeated by Gelasius. After the opening clause given above there follows the catalogue of the Old and New Testament; the latter is given in the order: Four Gospels, Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, the Apocalypse, the Acts, the Seven Catholic Epistles. Cf. P.L. XIX. 787-794; LVI. Opp.'s. Gelasii, 157 pp.; LVI. 172, Appendix ad Opp.'s. Leonis M.
3.	"Besides the Canonical Scriptures let nothing be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are the following: "there then follows a list of the Books of O.T. and N.T., in the latter Four Gospels, the Acts, "thirteen Epistles of St. Paul as well as his Epistle to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John," are enumerated. It is then added: "But for the confirmation of this Canon let the Church across the seas be consulted. The Passions of the Martyrs may also be read when their anniversaries are kept." [68]	68 - Denz. 92, The Third Council of Carthage, A.D. 397; cf. P.L. LVI. 428, Can. xxxvi.; ib. 871, Acta Concilii Carthaginensis, A.D. 419, Can. xxix.
4.	"What Books are to be received into the Canon the following brief list will show :" the Books are then enumerated as in the preceding save that we have "fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle." The letter concludes with the words: But the rest which are written under the name of Mathias or of James the Less, or under the names of Peter and John and which were written by a certain Leucius (or under the name of Andrew but really written by Nexocharis and Leonidas the philosophers), or under the name of Thomas, as well as any others that may exist, these are not only to be repudiated but you must know that they are to be condemned." [69]	69 - Denz. 96; P. Innocent I., ad Exuperium, Ep. VI. vii. (13); cf. P.L. XX. 495-502.
5.	"If anyone reads the Scriptures which Priscillian corrupted in accordance with his erroneous teachings, or the Tractates of Dictinius which the said Dictinius wrote previous to his conversion, or any other heretical writings whatsoever which heretics have drawn up in keeping with their errors and have published under the name of the Patriarchs or the Prophets or the Apostles, if anyone reads or adheres to or defends these impious fictions, let him be anathema." [70]	70 - Denz. 245, The Council of Braga in Portugal, A.D. 561, against the Priscillianists.
6.	"I believe that there is but one Author of the Old Testament and the New, namely of the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles, viz. the Lord God Almighty." [71]	71 - Denz. 348; P. Leo IX., Symbohim Fidei.
7.	"Further I anathematise whosoever shall venerate or claim authority for any Scriptures other than those which the Catholic Church receives." [72]	72 - Idem.
8.	"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes that one and the same God is the Author of the Old and the New Testament, viz. of the Law, the Prophets and the Gospel, since the Saints of either Testament spoke under the inspiration of one and the same Holy Spirit; the same Holy Roman Church receives and venerates their Books as contained under the following headings..." [73]	73 - Denz. 706, The Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites, A.D. 1438-1445.
9.	"The Holy and (Ecumenical Synod of Trent ... seeing that this same Truth and Teaching (that set forth by Christ and His Apostles) is contained in written Books and in unwritten Traditions which being received from the mouth of Christ by the Apostles, or by the same Apostles from the Holy Spirit's dictation, have come down to us as though delivered by hand receives and reveres with equal devotion and veneration, in accordance with the example of the Orthodox Fathers, all the Books of the Old and the New Testament alike, since the One God is the Author of both, as also the Traditions concerning Faith and Morals which are derived as it were from Christ's mouth or have been dictated by the Holy Spirit and which have been preserved in the Catholic Church by continuous succession. It has been thought well to append a catalogue of the Sacred Books to this Decree lest any should be in doubt as to which are the Books received by the said Synod." The list then follows; that for the New Testament is as follows: "4 Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; 14 Epistles of Paul the Apostle (they are enumerated); of Peter the Apostle 2; of John the Apostle 3; of James the Apostle 1; of Jude the Apostle 1; and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle." "If anyone shall not receive as Sacred and Canonical the entire Books with all their parts according as they are wont to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are given in the ancient Vulgate Latin edition, and if anyone shall knowingly and deliberately contemn the aforesaid Traditions, let him be anathema." [74]	74 - Denz. 783-4.
10.	"I admit and embrace the Apostolic and Ecclesiastical Tra ditions and all the other observances and constitutions of the said Church. Moreover I admit the Holy Scriptures according to that interpretation of them which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, for it is for her to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, neither will I ever receive or interpret it save in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers." [75]	75 - Denz. 995; Pius IV., Bulla Injunctum nobis, 1564.
11.	The Vatican Council, 1869-1870, Sess. iii., cap. 2, repeated the Decree of Trent touching Scripture and Tradition as the sources of our knowledge of divine Revelation and continues: "The aforesaid entire Books of the Old and the New Testament with all their parts, are to be received as sacred and canonical according to the list set forth in the said Council's Decree and as they are given in the ancient Vulgate Latin edition. Further, the Church receives these Books as sacred and canonical not because they were compiled by human industry and afterwards approved by the Church's authority, nor merely because they contain Revelation without error, but because they were written through the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit and thus have for God their Author, and as such have been delivered to the Church. " [76]	76 - Denz. 1787.

______________________

1 - 2 Peter 3:15-16.

2 - 2 Timothy 3:16; cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21.

3 - Adv. Marcionem, IV. 2; P. L. II. 363.

4 - Adv. Marcionem, IV. 3; P.L. II. 365.

5 - Ibid.

6 - Adv. Marconem, IV. 4.

7 - Ibid. IV. 6.

8 - Eusebius employs here a word which is most instructive, for ἐνδιαθήκους is an adjective which means "incorporated into the Testament"; the use of such an adjective shows us at once the idea which the Fathers had of the Testament as a whole body of doctrine, and also that Books were regarded as incorporated into it by reason of some peculiar character they possessed.

9 - H.E. III. xxv.; P.G. XX. 267-271.

10 - Ibid., III. xxxi. 282.

11 - Thus Origen says it is idle to discuss whether the Preaching of Peter is "genuine," "spurious" or "mixed," γνήσιον ἢ νόθον ἢ μικτόν; Tom. XIII. 17 in Joan. P.G. XIV. 424-6; St. Gregory Nazianzen, ad Saleucum, P.G. XXXVII. 1598, cf. XXXVIII. 842; St. Cyril, Catech. IV.

12 - Ap. Eusebium, H.E. VII. xxv, and cf. Vol. III.'s.v. Apocalypse.

13 - "I agree that it is the work of a holy and inspired man; but I cannot readily admit that he was the Apostle by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle were written." H.E. VII. xxv. 7.

14 - Cf. infra.

15 - Cf. Charteris, Canonicity, p. 2, 1880.

16 - Thus note St. Jerome's remark: "Those who maintain its genuine character urge that it would never have been received by all the Churches throughout the world unless it had been believed to be the work of the Apostle Paul." Prol. in Comment, in Ep. ad Philemonem, P.L. XXVI. 60 1.


FRANCISCUS CARDINALIS BOURNE
ARCHIEPISCOPUS WESTMONAST.