CANON. The Greek word KCLVI&V means originally a straight rod or pole, and metaphorically what serves to keep a thing upright or straight, a rule. In the New Testament it occurs in Gal. vi. 16 and 2 Cor. x. 13, 15, 16, signifying in the former passage a measure, in the latter, what is measured, a district. There are three opinions as to the origin of its application to the writings used by the church. According to Semler, Baur, and others, the word had originally the sense of list or catalogue—the books publicly read in Christian assemblies. Others, as Steiner, suppose that since the Alexandrian grammarians applied it to collections of old Greek authors as models of excellence or classics, it meant classical (canonical) writings. According to a third opinion, the term included from the first the idea of a regulating principle. This is the more probable, because the same idea lies in the New Testa-ment use of the noun, and pervades its applications in the language of the early Fathers down to the time of Con-stantine, as Credner has shown. The " KWWV of the church" in the Clementine homilies, the " ecclesiastical Kavaiv" and "the «aiw of the truth" in Clement and Irenseus, the Kavwv of the faith in Polycrates, the regula fidei of Tertullian, and the libri regulares of Origen imply a normative principle. Credner's view of KCLVWV as an abbreviation of ypa<f>al KOVOVOS, equivalent to Scriptures legis in Diocletian's Act, is too artificial, and is unsanc-tioned by usage.
The two significations of the word are—a rule or funda-mental principle, and a collection or list of books that form or contain the rule.
The earliest example of its application to a catalogue of the Old or New Testament books occurs in the Latin trans-lation of Origen's homily on Joshua, where the original seems to have been Kav<i>v. The word itself is certainly in
Amphilochius, as well as in Jerome10 and Rufinus. As the Latin translation of Origen has canonicus and canoni-zatus, we infer that he used KCLVOVIKOS, opposed as it is to apocryphus or secretus. The first occurrence of Kavovwcos is in the 59th canon of the Council of Laodicea, where it is contrasted with ISICJTIKOS and a.KavovujTo<;. Kaiwi^o/icra, " canonized books," is first used in Athanasius's festal epistle.12 The kind of rule which the earliest fathers thought the Scriptures to be can only be conjectured; it is certain that they believed the Old Testament books to be a divine and infallible guide. But the New Testament was not so considered till towards the close of the 2d century, when the conception of a Catholic Church was realized. The collection of writings was not called Scrip-ture, or put on a par with the Old Testament as sacred and inspired, till the time of Theophilus of Antioch (about 180 A.D.) Hence Irenasus applies the epithets divine and perfect to the Scriptures; and Clement of Alexandria calls them inspired.
When distinctions were made among the Biblical writ-ings other words were employed, synonymous with KOVOVI-fd/xeva or KCKavovicrpeva, such as tvSiaOrjKa, u>pwrp.¤va. The canon was thus a catalogue of writings, forming a rule of truth, sacred, divine, revealed by God for the instruction of men. The rule was perfect for its purpose.

The Old Testament Canon.
The individual who first gave public sanction to a por-tion of the national Jewish literature was Ezra, who laid the foundation of a canon. He was the leader in restoring the theocracy after the exile, " a ready scribe in the law of Moses, who had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments." The question how far Ezra was also the redactor of the Penta-teuch, or made additions to it, will be discussed in its

proper place (see PENTATEUCH). Here it is sufficient to observe that the public authority he conferred on the Law is the first step in the formation of the canon.
After the first collection was made attention was directed to other national documents. Of these the prophetic books were the most conspicuous; and the order of men from whom they came, or whose names they bore, stood out in a favourable light, when looked back at from the restored theocracy, because many of their predictions had been fulfilled. Exhortations and warnings, which had often fallen upon listless ears, had been verified by experience. A desire to gather together the earlier prophetic writings would naturally accompany or follow the zeal displayed in bringing forth the Pentateuch to public view. Hence the historical books of the nation which described the divine guidance of the people, as well as the kings under whom the earliest prophets lived (Joshua—-Kings), were first adopted.
This second canon originated with Nehemiah, of whom it is said in the second book of Maccabees, that, when found-ing a library, "he gathered together the acts of the kings, and the prophets, and the (Psalms) of David, and the epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts." These words, though somewhat ambiguous, and admitting different explanations, present an historical statement which should not be sum-marily rejected, as it is by Graetz. " The Acts of the Kings " contained the two books of Kings (including those now called after Samuel), with Joshua and Judges, of which last Ruth was the concluding part; for Joshua was now separate from the Mosaic books, with which it was closely connected at first. This historical portion was the proper continuation of Ezra's canon. The " Prophets " comprehended the four greater and twelve minor ones. Not all the latter, how-ever ; for Jonah is of subsequent date. Lamentations were united to Jeremiah as one book. The " Psalms of David " also belong to this canon, and may have been almost coex-tensive with the first three divisions of the present book. The epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts are not extant. They appear to have been the documents of heathen (Persian for the most part) kings favourable to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple. Nehemiah's canon was identical to some extent with the second divi-sion of the Biblical books. It wanted Jonah, perhaps Malachi, but it had " the Epistles of the kings." It was larger than the second Hebrew division of the Old Testa-ment, and had probably been preceded by smaller collec-tions of prophetic productions before the captivity. We know that in the captivity itself, and immediately after, older prophecies were edited.
Whether Nehemiah himself collected the books, or whether he merely set the thing on foot and saw that it was carried out by the learned aien of the time, can only be conjectured. As he was not a priest or a scribe like Ezra, but a statesman, the latter supposition is the more prob-able. This collection was highly esteemed; though it did not take equal rank with the first. It was not completed before the close of the 4th century B.C., because the book of Jonah was probably not written till that time. The close of the prophetic canon could not have taken place till some period had elapsed after Malachi,—a period sufficient for the growth of a general consciousness that the prophetic function had ceased with the youngest of the prophets. Besides the historical books which preceded, there were in it four prophetic ones—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the twelve minor prophets. Ruth belonged to the book of Judges, and Lamentations to Jeremiah; but they were afterwards detached and put into the third division or canon. Definite allusions to this prophetic collection do not occur till the 2d century B.C. Daniel speaks of a passage in Jeremiah being in "the books" or "writings;" and Sirach, both in the prologue and the 49th chapter, presupposes its completion. Such was the second or Nehemiah canon, partly gradual in its formation.
The third canon, in which the other books of the Old Testament were included, was not made at once. Its con-tents were multifarious, differing widely from one another in age and character—poetical,' prophetic, didactic, his-torical. Such as seemed worthy of preservation, though they had not been included in the second canon, were gathered together during the space of a hundred and fifty years. The oldest part consisted of psalms supposed to belong to David, which were a supplement to those in Nehemiah's collection,—perhaps the last two divisions, with some exceptions (books fourth and fifth). Next to the Psalms were Proverbs, Job, Canticles, which, though non-prophetic, and probably excluded on that account from the sacred canon, must have existed before the exile. En-riched with the latest additions, they survived the national disasters, and claimed a place next to the Psalms. They were but a portion of the literature current in and after the 5th century B.C., as may be inferred from the epilogue to Ecclesiastes and the Wisdom of Sirach. The historical work compiled by the chronicle-writer was separated, Ezra being put first as the most important part and referring also to the church of the 6th and 5 th centuries, whose history had not been written. The Chronicles themselves were placed last, being considered of less value than the first part, as they contained the summary of a period already described, though with numerous adaptations to post-exile times. The youngest portion consisted of the book of Daniel, not written till the Maccabean period (between 170 and 160 B.C.); and probably of several psalms which were inserted in different places of the collection so as to make the whole number 150. The list continued open, and no stringent principle guided selection. The character of the collection was somewhat indefinite. It was called c'tubim, i.e., writings, —a general epithet suited to the contents.
The earliest attestation of this third canon is that of the prologue to Jesus Sirach, where not only the law and the prophets are specified, but " the other books of the fathers," or "the rest of the books." No information is given as to its extent, or the particular books included. They may have been for the most part the same as the present ones. The passage does not show that the third list was closed. The better writings of the fathers, such as tended to learn-ing and wisdom, are not excluded by the definite article. In like manner, neither Philo nor the New Testament gives exact information as to the contents of the division in ques-tion. Indeed, several books (Canticles, Esther, Ecclesi-astes), are unnoticed in the latter. The argument drawn from Matthew xxiii. 35, that the Chronicles were then the last book of the canon, is inconclusive, as the Zechariah there named was probably different from the Zechariah in 2 Chronicles xxiv. The third canon is not proved to be closed by any of these witnesses, much less by a passage of 2 Maccabees ii. 14, which is sometimes adduced for the purpose.
A more definite testimony respecting the canon is given
by Josephus towards the end of the first century A.D. " Eor
we have not an innumerable multitude of books among
us, ... . but only twenty-two books, which contain the
records of all the past times ; which are justly believed to
be divine. And of them five belong to Moses But

as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, the prophets who were after Moses wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time: and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it has become natural to all Jews immediately and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them." This list agrees with our present canon, showing that the Pales-tinian Jews were tolerably unanimous as to the extent of the collection. The thirteen prophets include Job; the four lyric and moral books are Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesi-astes, and Canticles.
The canon, however, was not considered to be closed in the 1st century before and the 1st after Christ. There were doubts about some portions. The book of Ezekiel gave offence, because some of its statements seemed to contradict the law. Doubts about others were of a more serious nature,—about Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, Esther, and the Proverbs. The first was impugned because it had contradictory passages and a heretical tendency; the second, because of its worldly and sensual tone; Esther for its want of religiousness ; and Proverbs on account of incon-sistencies. This scepticism went far to procure the exclu-sion of the suspected works from the canon, and their rele-gation to the class of the genuzim. But it did not prevail. Hananiah, son of Hezekiah, son of Garon, about 32 B.C., is said to have reconciled the contradictions and allayed the doubts. But these traces of resistance to the fixity of the canon were not the last. They reappeared about 65 A.D., as we learn from the Talmud, when the contro-versy turned mainly upon the canonicity of Ecclesiastes, which the school of Shammai, who had the majority, opposed ; so that the book was probably excluded. The question emerged again at a later synod at Jabneh or Jam-nia, when R. Eleaser ben Asaria was chosen patriarch, and Gamaliel the second deposed. Here it was decided, not unanimously, however, but by a majority of Hillelites, that Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs " pollute the hands," i.e., belong properly to the Hagiographa. This was about 90 A.D. Thus the question of the canonicity of certain books was discussed at two synods. The canon was vir-tually settled at Jamnia, where was confirmed what B. Akiba said of the Canticles in his usual extravagant way: " No day in the whole history of the world is of so much worth as the one in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy; but the Song of Songs is most holy." As the Hagiographa were not read in public, with the exception of Esther, opinions of the Jewish rab-bins might still differ about Canticles and Ecclesiastes, even after the synod at Jamnia.
Jewish literature began to degenerate after the captivity,
and it continued to do so. It leant upon the past more and more, having an external and formal character with little of the living soul. The independence of their reli-gious literature disappeared with the national independence of the Jews; and the genius of the people was too exclu-sive to receive much expansion from the spirit of nations with whom they came in contact. In such circumstances, amid the general consciousness of present misfortune, which the hope of a brighter future could not dispel, and regretful retrospects of the past tinged with ideal splendour, the exact time of drawing a line between books that might be included in the third division of the canon must have been arbitrary. In the absence of a normal principle to determine selection, the productions were arbitrarily separ-ated. Not that they were badly adjusted. On the con-trary, the canon as a whole was wisely settled. Yet the critical spirit of learned Jews in the future could not be extinguished by anticipation. The canon was not really settled for all time by a synodical gathering at Jamnia; for Sirach was added to the Hagiographa by some rabbins about the beginning of the 4th century ; while Baruch circulated long in Hebrew, and was publicly read on the day of atonement in the 3d century according to the apostolic constitutions. These two books were in high re-pute for a considerable time, possessing a kind of canonical credit even among the learned Jews of Palestine. Bab, Jochanan, Elasar, Rabba bar Mare, occasionally refer to Sirach in the way in which the c'tubim were quoted; the writer of Daniel used Baruch; and the translator of Jere-miah put it into Greek.
With the formation of the canon we may now connect the labours of the Great Synagogue, so far as Jewish autho-rities present credible information regarding it. The Tal-mudic and other accounts are legendary in part, and also in-correct. Little as is known of its members or doings, some idea may be gathered from scattered notices about it as well as from analogy.
8 Zunz's Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, pp. 101, 102.
The oldest notice of the Great Synagogue is that in the Pirke Aboth, about 200 A.D., where it is said that " Moses received the law from Mount Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Syna-gogue. These last spake three words: Be cautious in pronouncing judgment; make many disciples; put a hedge about the law." In Baba Bathra their Biblical labours are somewhat minutely described : " Moses wrote his book, and the section of Balaam, and Job. Joshua wrote his book and eight verses in the law. Samuel wrote his book and Judges and Ruth. David wrote the psalms of the ten elders, &c, &c. Jeremiah wrote his book, Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and Coheleth. The men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel, the twelve prophets, Daniel, and Ezra. Ezra wrote his book and the genealogy in Chro-nicles down to himself." It is not clear what is meant by "writing" (3n3) in the latter part of the statement. It means composition in the first part, as the context un-doubtedly shows; and that is Rashi's explanation of the verb throughout.12 Perhaps, however, when used of the Great Synagogue it means no more than edit. That body put into their present form and received into the national library the works specified. Late writers, such as Abar-banel, Abraham ben David, ben Maimun, etc., record that Ezra was president, and that it consisted of 120 members, including Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, &c.; but the names

and number are evidently conjectural and incorrect. These late notices deserve little credit.
As Ezra is called " a ready scribe," and his labours in connection with the law were important, he may have organized a body of scribes who should work in harmony, attending, among other concerns, to the preservation and correction of the national literature. It must be admitted, however, that the priests enumerated in Nehemiah x. 1, <fcc., and the " company of scribes " in 1 Maccabees vii. 12 (comp. ii. 42), afford no basis for such a college. Still, there is nothing improbable in the hypothesis. A succes-sion of scribes and priests, if not conjointly, at least in harmony, continued to labour till the corporation ceased to exist with Simon the Just, who is mentioned as the last belonging to it, i.e., from 444 B.C. till about 200. What they did can only be inferred from the proceedings of Ezra himself, and from the prevailing views as well as wants of the times they lived in. Those who began with Ezra, see-ing what he did, would naturally follow his example, and would not scruple, if it seemed best, to revise the text in substance; but their chief work related to the form of the text. After the last canon was made, about a century or more anterior to the Christian era, the text was not con-sidered inviolate by the learned Jews; it received modi-fications and interpolations long after. The process of redaction had not ceased before the time of Christ. This was owing, among other causes, to the state of parties among the Jews, as well as the intrusion of Greek litera-ture and culture, whose influence the Palestinian Jews themselves were not able to withstand altogether.
The canon did not include all the national literature; and if it be asked on what principle books were admitted, it is not easy to answer. The higher the value of the writ-ings, the more conducive to the religious life and advance-ment of the people, they were the more readily accepted. Real or apparent importance determined their adoption. In judging of their value different considerations weighed. Some were regulative in the department of the legal and ethical; the prophetic claimed a divine origin; the lyric or poetic touched and elevated the ideal faculty on which religion acts. The nation, early imbued with the theo-cratic spirit, and believing itself the chosen of God, was favourably inclined toward documents in which that stand-point was assumed. The names of men renowned for their piety, wisdom, or knowledge of divine things, which some books bore, ensured their admission. A variety of considerations contributed to the gradual formation of the canon ; and the best part of the national literature was incorporated.
p. 422.
Of the three divisions, " The Law " or Pentateuch was most highly venerated by the Jews. It was the first trans-lated into Greek, and in Philo's view was inspired in a way peculiar to itself. " The Prophets," or second division, occu-pied a somewhat lower place in their estimation, but were read in the public services as the law had been before. The "C'thubim," or third division, was not looked upon as equal to the Prophets in importance; only the five Megiloth were publicly read. The three parts of the collection present the three gradations of sanctity which the books assumed successively in Israelite estimation. A certain reverence was attached to all as soon as they were made canonical; but the reverence was not of equal height, and the supposed authority was proportionately varied. The consciousness of prophetism being extinct soon after the return from Babylon was a genuine instinct. With the extinction of the Jewish state the religious spirit almost evaporated. The idealism which the old prophets proclaimed in contrast with the symbolic religion of the state gave place to forms and an attachment to the written law. Religion came to be a thing of the understanding, the subject of learned treatment; and its essence was reduced to dogmas or pre-cepts. Thus it ceased to be spiritual, or a thing in which the heart had free scope for its highest aspirations. The narrow prophetism that appeared after the restoration was little more than an echo of the past, falling in with an ex-ternal and written legalism. The literature of the people deteriorated in quality, and prophecy became apocalypse.
When the three divisions were united, the ecclesiastical respect which had gathered round the law and the prophets from ancient times began to be transferred to the c'thubim. A belief in their sanctity increased apace in the 1st century before the Christian era, so that sacrediiess and canonicity were almost identical. The doubts of individuals, it is true, were still expressed respecting certain books of the c'thubim, but they had no perceptible effect upon the cur-rent opinion. The sanctity attaching to the last division as well as the others did not permit the total displacement of any part.
The origin of the threefold division of the canon is not, as Oehler supposes, a reflection of the different stages of religious development through which the nation passed, as if the foundation were the Law, the ulterior tendency in its objective aspect the Prophets, and its subjective aspect the Hagiographa. The books of Chronicles and others refute this arbitrary conception. The triplicity lies in the manner in which the books were collected. Men who belonged to different periods and possessed different degrees of culture worked successively in the formation of the canon. It resulted out of the circumstances in which it was made, and the subjective ideas of those who made it.
The places of the separate books within the first divi-sion or Torah were determined by the succession of the historical events narrated. The second division naturally begins with Moses's successor, Joshua. Judges, Samuel, and Kings follow according to the regular chronology. To the former prophets, as Joshua to Kings were called, the latter were attached, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel,—succeeded by the twelve minor prophets, arranged for the most part according to their times, though the length of individual prophecies also influenced their position, together with similarity of contents. The arrangement of books in the third division depended on their age, character, and authors. The Psalms were put first, because David was supposed to be the author of many, and on account of their intrinsic value in promoting the religious life of the people. After the Psalms came the three poetical works attributed to Solomon, with the book of Job among them,—Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ecclesiastes. The book of Esther followed, since it was intended to further the observance of the Purim feast; with the late book of Daniel, which had some affinity to Esther in its relation to heathenism and to Greek life. To Ezra and Nehemiah, which were adopted before the other part of the chronicle-book and separated from it, were added the so-called Chronicles. Such was the original succession of the third division or c'thubim; but it did not remain unaltered. For the use of the synagogue the five Megiloth were put together, so that Ruth (originally the last part of Judges), and the Lamentations (appended at first to Jeremiah's prophecies) were taken out of the second and put into the third canon. This caused a separation of Canticles and Ecclesiastes.
5 Article " Kanon " in Herzog's Encyklopcedie, vol. vii. p. 253 ; and
The Samaritan canon consists of the Pentateuch alone.

This restricted collection is owing to the fact that, when the Samaritans separated from the Jews and began their wor-ship on Gerizim, no more than the Mosaic writings had been invested by Ezra with canonical dignity. The hostile feeling between the rivals hindered the reception of books subsequently canonized. The idea of their having the oldest and most sacred part in its entirety satisfied their spiritual wants. Some have thought that the Sadducees, who already existed as a party before the Maccabean period, agreed with the Samaritans in rejecting all but the Penta-teuch ; yet this is doubtful. It is true that the Samaritans themselves say so; and that some of the church fathers, Origen, Jerome, and others agree ; but little reliance can be put on the statement. The latter, perhaps, confounded the Samaritans and Sadducees. It is also noteworthy that Christ, in refuting the Sadducees, appeals to the Penta-teuch alone; but the conclusion that he did so because of their admitting no more than that portion does not follow The Alexandrian canon differed from the Palestinian. The Greek translation commonly called the Septuagint contains some later productions which the Palestinian Jews did not adopt, not only from their aversion to Greek litera-ture generally, but also from the recent origin of the books, and perhaps their want of prophetic sanction. The closing line of the third part in the Alexandrian canon was more or less fluctuating—capable of admitting recent writings ap-pearing under the garb of old names and histories, or em-bracing religious subjects ; while the Palestinian collection was pretty well determined, and all but finally settled. The judgment of the Alexandrians was freer than that of their brethren in the mother country. They had even separated in a measure from the latter, by erecting a temple at Leontopolis; and their enlargement of the canon was another step of divergence. The influence of Greek learn ing and philosophy led to a more liberal treatment of Jewish books. Nor had they the criterion of language for the separation of canonical and uncanonical; both classes were before them in the same tongue. The enlarged canon was not formally sanctioned; it had not the approval of the Sanhedrim; yet it was to the Alexandrians what the Palestinian one was to the Palestinians. If Jews who were not well acquainted with Hebrew used the apocryphal and canonical books alike, it was a matter of feeling and cus-tom ; and if those who knew the old language better ad-hered to the canonical one more closely, it was a matter of tradition and language. The former set little value on the prevalent consciousness of the race that the spirit of prophecy was extinct; their view of the Spirit's operation was larger. The latter clung to the past with all the more tenacity that the old life of the nation had degenerated. The identity of the Palestinian and Alexandrian canons must be abandoned. It is said, indeed, that Philo neither mentions nor quotes the Greek additions; but neither does he quote several canonical books. According to Eichhorn, no fewer than eight of the latter are unnoticed by him.2 Besides, he had peculiar views of inspiration, and quoted loosely from memory. Believing as he did in the inspira-tion of the Greek version a3 a whole, it is difficult to think that he made a distinction between the different parts of it. The argument for the identity of the two canons deduced from 4 Esdras xiv. 44, &c, as if the twenty-four open books were distinguished from the other writings dictated to Ezra, is of no force, both because the reading is uncertain and, even if seventy be distinguished from twenty-four in the passage, verisimilitude required that an Egyptian Jew him-self must make Ezra conform to the old Palestinian canon. It is also alleged that the grandson of Jesus Sirach, who translated his grandfather's work during his abode in Egypt, knew no difference between the Hebrew and Greek canon, though he speaks of the Greek version; he speaks as a Palestinian, without having occasion to allude to the difference between the canonical books of the Palestinian and Egyptian Jews. The latter may have reckoned the apocryphal writings in the third division ; and therefore the translator of Jesus Sirach could recognize them in the ordinary classification. The mention of three classes is not opposed to their presence in the third. The general use of an enlarged canon in Egypt cannot be denied, though it was somewhat loose, was not regarded as a completed collection, and wanted express rabbinical sanction. The very way in which apocryphal are inserted among canonical books in the Alexandrian canon, shows the equal rank assigned to both. Esdras first and second succeed the Chronicles ; Tobit and Judith are between Nehemiah and Esther ; the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach follow Can-ticles ; Baruch succeeds Jeremiah ; Daniel is followed by Susanna and other productions of the same class ; and the whole closes with the three books of Maccabees. Such is the order in the Vatican MS.

The threefold division of the canon, indicating three stages in its formation, has continued. Josephus, indeed, gives another, based on the nature of the separate books, not on MSS. We learn nothing from him of its his-tory, which is somewhat remarkable, considering that he did not live two centuries after the last work had been added. The account of the canon's final arrangement was unknown to him. The number of the books was variously estimated. Josephus gives twenty-two, which was the usual number among Christian writers in the 2d, 3d, and 4th cen-turies, having been derived from the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Origen, Jerome, and others have it. It con-tinued longest among the teachers of the Greek Church, and is even in Nicephorus's stichometry. The enumeration in question has Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. In Epiphanius the number twenty-seven is found, made by taking the alphabet enlarged with the five final letters, and dividing Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into two books each. The Talmud has twenty-four, which originated in the Greek alphabet, and probably proceeded from Alex-andria. After the Pentateuch and the former prophets, which are in the usual order, it gives Jeremiah as the first of the later, succeeded by Ezekiel and Isaiah with the twelve minor prophets. The Talmud knows no other rea-son for such an order than that it was made according to the contents of the prophetic books, not according to the times of the writers. This solution is unsatisfactory. It is more probable that chronology had to do with the arrange-ment. The Talmudic order of the Hagiographa is Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamenta-tions, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Chronicles. Here Ruth pre-cedes the Psalter, coming as near the former prophets as possible ; for it properly belongs to them, the contents associating it with the Judges' time. The Talmudic order is that usually adopted in German MSS.
6 Bala Bathra, fol. 14, 2.
The Masoretic arrangement differs from the Talmudic in putting Isaiah before Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The Hagio-grapha are—Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamen-tations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra (with Nehemiah), Chronicles. MSS. often differ arbitrarily, because tran-scribers did not consider themselves bound to any one arrangement. According to some, a very old testimony to

the commencing and concluding books of the third division is given by the New Testament (Luke xxiv. 44; Matthew xxiii. 35), agreeably to which the Psalms were first and the Chronicles last; but this is inconclusive.
The Alexandrian translators, as we have seen already, placed the books differently from the Palestinian Jews. In their version Daniel comes after Ezekiel, so that it is put beside the greater prophets. Was this done by Jews or Christians 1 Perhaps by the latter, who put it between the greater and lesser prophets, or, in other words, out of the third into the second division, because of dogmatic grounds, and so effaced a trace of the correct chronology. Little importance, however, can be attached to the order of the books in the Septuagint, because the work was done at different times by different persons. But whatever may have been the arrangement of the parts when the whole was complete, we know that it was disturbed by Protestants separating the apocryphal writings and putting them all together.
3 A Scholastical History of the Canon, p. 22.
67, &c.
The writings of the New Testament show their authors' acquaintance with the apocryphal books. They have ex-pressions and ideas derived from them. Stier collected 102 passages which bear some resemblance to others in the Apocrypha; but they needed sifting, and were cut down to a much smaller number by Bleek. They are James i. 19, from Sirach v. 11 and iv. 29; 1 Peter i. 6, 7, from Wisdom iii. 3-7; Hebrews xi. 34, 35, from 2 Maccabees vi. 18-vii. 42 ; Hebrews i. 3, from Wisdom vii. 26, <fec.; Romans i. 20-32, from Wisdom xiii.-xv.; Romans ix. 21, from Wisdom xv. 7; Eph. vi. 13-17, from Wisdom v. 18-20; 1 Cor. ii. 10, &c, from Judith viii. 14. Others are less probable. When Bishop Cosin says that "in all the New Testament we find not any one passage of the apocryphal books to have been alleged either by Christ or his apostles for the confirmation of their doctrine," the argument, though based on a fact, is scarcely conclusive; else Esther, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and other works might be equally discredited. Yet it is probable that the New Testament writers, though quoting the Septuagint much more than the original, were disinclined to the additional parts of the Alexandrian canon. They were Palestinian themselves, or had in view Judaizers of a narrow creed. The apostle Paul, at least, and probably the other writers of the New Testament, believed in the literal inspiration of the Biblical books, for he uses an argument in the Gala-tian epistle which turns upon the singular or plural of a noun. And as the inspiration of the Septuagint trans-lators was commonly held by the Christians of the early centuries, it may be that the apostles and evangelists made no distinction between its parts. Jude quotes Enoch, an apocryphal work not in the Alexandrian canon; so that he at least had no rigid notions about the difference of canonical and uncanonical writings. Still we know that the compass of the Old Testament canon was somewhat unsettled to the Christians of the 1st century, as it was to the Hellenist Jews themselves. It is true that the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms were universally recognized as authoritative; but the extent of the third division was indefinite, so that the non-citation of the three books re-specting which there was a difference of opinion among the Jews may not have been accidental. Inasmuch, however, as the Greek-speaking Jews received more books than their Palestinian brethren, the apostles and their immediate suc-cessors were not disinclined to the use of the apocryphal productions. The undefined boundary of the canon facili-tated the recognition of other sacred writings, such as the primitive records of the new revelation.
The early fathers used the Greek Bible, as almost all of them were ignorant of Hebrew. Thus restricted, they naturally considered its parts alike, citing apocryphal and canonical in the same way. Accordingly, Irenaeus (t 202) quotes Baruch under the name of "Jeremiah the prophet;" and the additions to Daniel as "Daniel the prophet." Clement of Alexandria (+ 220) uses the apo-cryphal books like the canonical ones, for explanation and proof indiscriminately. He is fond of referring to Baruch, which he cites upwards of twenty-four times in the second book of his Pcedagogus, and in a manner to show that he esteemed it as highly as many other parts of the Old Tes-tament. A passage from Baruch is introduced by the phrase " the divine Scripture says;" and another from Tobit by " Scripture has briefly signified this, saying." Tertullian (t 220) quotes the Wisdom of Solomon ex-pressly as Solomon's, and introduces Sirach by " as it is written." He cites Baruch as Jeremiah. He also be-lieved in the authenticity of the book of Enoch, and de-fends it at some length. Cyprian often cites the Greek additions to the Palestinian canon. He introduces Tobit with the words "as it is written," or "divine Scripture teaches, saying;" and Wisdom with " the Holy Spirit shows by Solomon." The African fathers followed the Alexandrian canon without scruple.
Melito of Sardis (t after 171) made it his special business to inquire among the Palestinian Jews about the number and names of their canonical books; and the result was the following list:—the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. Here Ezra includes Nehemiah; and Esther is absent, because the Jews whom he consulted did not consider it canonical.
19 Contra Cels. iii. 72 ; vol. i. p. 494, ed. Delarue.
Origen's (t 254) list does not differ much from the Palestinian one. After the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings first and second, Samuel, Chronicles, come Ezra first and second, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Can-ticles, Isaiah, Jeremiah with. Lamentations and the epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Esther. Besides these there are the Maccabees, which are inscribed Sarbeth sarbane el.17 The twelve prophets are omitted in the Greek , but the mistake is rectified in Rufinus's Latin version, where they follow Canticles, as in Hilary and Cyril of Jerusalem. It is re-markable that Baruch is given, and why 1 Because Origen took it from the MSS. of the Septuagint he had before him, in which the epistle is attributed to Jeremiah. But the catalogue had no influence upon his practice. He followed the prevailing view of the extended canon. Sirach is intro-duced by " for this also is written ;" 18 the book of Wis-dom is cited as "a divine word,"19 Tobit as "Scripture."20 His view of the additions to the book of Daniel and Esther, as well as his opinion about Tobit, are sufficiently expressed in the epistle to Africanus, so that scattered quotations from these parts of Scripture can be properly estimated.

Of the history of Susanna he ventures to say that the Jews withdrew it on purpose from the people. He seems to argue in favour of books used and read in the churches, though they may be put out of the canon by the Jews. As divine Providence had preserved the sacred Scriptures, no alteration should be made in the ecclesiastical tradition respecting books sanctioned by the churches though they be external to the Hebrew canon.

The New Testament Canon in the first three Centuries.
The first Christians relied on the Old Testament as their chief religious book. To them it was of divine origin and authority The New Testament writings came into gra-dual use by the side of the older Jewish documents, accord-ing to the times in which they appeared and the reputed names of the authors.
When Marcion came from Pontus to Eome (144 A.D.), he brought with him a Scripture-collection consisting of ten Pauline epistles. Those addressed to Timothy and Titus, with the epistle to the Hebrews, were not in it. The gospel of Marcion was Luke's in an altered state. From this and other facts we conclude that external parties were the first who carried out the idea of collecting Christian writings, and of putting them either beside or over against the sacred books of the Old Testament, in support of their systems. As to Basilides (125 A.D.), his supposed quota-tions from the New Testament in Hippolytus are too pre-carious to be trusted. It is inferred from statements in Origen and Jerome that he had a gospel of his own some-what like Luke's, but extra-canonical. His son Isidore and succeeding disciples used Matthew's gospel. Jerome says that Marcion and Basilides denied the Pauline author-ship of the epistle to the Hebrews and the pastoral ones. It is also doubtful whether Valentinus's (140-166) alleged citations from the New Testament can be relied upon. The passages of this kind ascribed to him by the fathers belong in a great measure to his disciples; and Henrici has not proved his position that he used John's gospel. But hjs followers, including Ptolemy (180 A.D.) and Heracleon (185-200), quote the gospels and other portions of the New Testament. From Hippolytus's account of the Ophites, Peratse, and Sethians, we infer that the Christian writings were much employed by them. An apocryphal work they rarely cite. More than 160 citations from the New Testament have been gathered out of their writings. We may admit that these Ophites and Perataa were of early origin, the former being the oldest known of the Gnostic parties; but there is no proof that the acquaint-ance with the New Testament which Hippolytus attributes to them belongs to the first rather than the second half of the 2d century. The early existence of the sect does not show an early citation of the Christian books by it, especi-ally of John's gospel; unless its primary were its last stage. Later and earlier Ophites are not distinguished in the Philosophumena. Hence there is a presumption that the author had the former in view, which is favoured by no mention of them occurring in the " Adversus omnes Haa-reses" usually appended to Tertullian's Preescriptiones Hcereticorum, and by Irenasus's derivation of their heresy from that of Valentinus. The latter father does not even speak of the Peratse. Clement of Alexandria is the first who alludes to them. The early heretics were desirous of confirming their peculiar opinions by the writings current among catholic Christians, so that the formation of a canon by them began soon after the commencement of the 2d century, and continued till the end of it,—contemporane-ously with the development of a catholic church and its necessary adjunct a catholic canon.
No New Testament canon, except a partial and unautho-ritative one, existed till the latter half of the 2d century, that is, till the idea of a catholic church began to be enter-tained. The Ebionites or Jewish Christians had their favourite gospels and Acts. The gospel of Matthew was highly prized by them, existing as it did in various recen-sions. Other documents, such as the Bevelation of John, and the Preaching of Peter, (a Jewish-Christian history sub-sequently re-written and employed in the Clementine Re-cognitions and Homilies) were also in esteem. Even so late as 170-175, Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian, used the gospel according to the Hebrews and despised Paul's writings, in conformity with the leading principle of the party to which he belonged, viz., the identity of Jesus's words with the Old Testament. The Clementine Homilies (161-180) used the four canonical gospels, even the fourth, which they assign to the apostle John. The gospel according to the Egyptians was also employed. Paul's epistles were rejected, of course, as well as the Acts; since the apostle of the Gentiles was pointed at in Simon Magus, whom Peter refutes. It is, therefore, obvious that a collection of the New Testament writings could make little progress among the Ebionites of the 2d century. Their reverence for the Law and the Prophets hindered another canon. Among the Gentile Christians the forma-tion of a canon took place more rapidly, though Judaic influences retarded it even there. After Paul's epistles were interchanged between churches a few of them would soon be put together. A collection of this kind is implied in 2 Peter hi. 16.
The apostolic fathers quote from the Old Testament, to them an inspired and sacred thing. They have scarcely any express cita-tions from the New Testament. Allusions occur, especially to the epistles. The letter of Clement to the Corinthians (about 120) does not use written gospels, though it presupposes an acquaintance with the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Hebrews. "Where " Scripture" is cited, or the expression "it is written" occurs, the Old Testament is meant.
Hermas (about 130) seems to have used the epistles to the Ephesians and Hebrews, those of James and 1 Peter, perhaps, too, the Acts; but there is great uncertainty about the matter, and he has no express quotation from any part of the New Testament. The writer often alludes to words of Jesus found in Matthew's gospel, so that he may have been acquainted with it.
Barnabas 'about 119) has but one quotation from the New Testament, if; indeed, it be such. Apparently, Matthew xx. 16 is introduced by "it is written," showing that the gospel was con-sidered Scripture. This is the earliest trace of canonical authority being transferred from the Old Testament to Christian writings.
As far as we can judge from Eusebius's account of Papias (t 163), that writer knew nothing of a New Testament canon. He speaks of Matthew and Mark ; but whether he had their present gospels is uncertain. According to Andreas of Caasarea he was acquainted with the Apocalypse of John, while Eusebius testifies to his knowledge of 1 Peter and 1 John. But he seems to have had no conception of canonical authority attaching to any part of the New Testament.
Traces of later ideas about the canonicity of the New Testament appear in the shorter Greek recension of the seven Ignatian epistles (about 175). There "the Gospel "and "the Epistles" are recog-nized as the constituents of the book. The writer also used the Gospel according to the Hebrews, for there is a quotation from it in the epistle to the Smyrnians. The second part of the collection seems to have wanted the epistle to the Ephesians.8
Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) knew some of the synoptic gospels— the first and third. The evidence of his acquaintance with Mark's is but small. His knowledge of the fourth is denied by many, and zealously defended by others. Thoma finds proof that Justin used

it freely as a text-book of gnosis, without recognizing it as the his-torical work of an apostle.' It is pretty certain that he employed an extra-canonical gospel, perhaps the so-called gospel of the Hebrews. He had also the older Acts of Pilate. Paul's epistles are never mentioned, though he doubtless knew them. Having little sympathy with Paulinism he attached his belief to the primi-tive apostles. The Apocalypse, 1 Peter, and 1 John he esteemed highly ; the epistle to the Hebrews and the Acts he treated in the same way as the Pauline writings. Justin's canon, as far as divine authority and inspiration are concerned, was the Old Testament. He was merely on the threshold of a divine canon made up of primitive Christian writings, attaching no exclusive sanctity to those he used, because they were not to him the only rource of doc-trine. Even of the Apocalypse he says, " A man among us named John, &c., wrote it." In his time none of the gospels had been canonized, not even the synoptists, if, indeed, he knew them all. Oral tradition was the chief fountain of Christian knowledge, as it had been for a century. In his opinion this tradition was embodied in writing ; but the documents in which he looked for all that related to Christ were not the gospels alone. Others he used freely, not looking upon any as inspired. Though lessons out of the gospels (some of our present ones and others), as also out of the prophets, were read in assemblies on the first day of the week, the act of converting the Christian writings into Scripture was posterior; for the mere reading of a gospel in churches on Sunday does not prove that it was considered divinely authoritative ; and the use of the epistles, which formed the second and less valued part of the collection, must still have been limited.
Justin's disciple, Tatian (160-180), who wrote an address to the Greeks, quotes the beginning of John's gospel; and his Diatessaron or Harmony probably included selections from the four canonical ones : but too little is known of it to enable us to speak with certainty. Doubtless he was acquainted with Paul's writings, as he quotes statements contained in them. He seems, however, to have rejected several of his epistles, probably 1 and 2 Timothy.
In Polycarp's epistle (150-166) there are reminiscences of the synoptic gospels ; and most of Paul's epistles as well as 1 Peter were used by the writer. But the idea of canonical authority, or a peculiar inspiration belonging to these writings, is absent.
Athenagoras of Athens wrote an apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius (176). In it he uses written and unwritten tradition, testing all by the Old Testament, which was his only authorita-tive canon. He makes no reference to the Christian documents, but adduces words of Jesus with the verb "he says." His treatise on the resurrection appeals to a passage in one of Paul's epistles.
The author of the epistle to Diognetus (about 200) shows his acquaintance with the gospels and Paul's epistles ; but he never cites the New Testament by way of proof. Words are introduced into his discourse in passing, and from memory.
Dionysius of Corinth (170) complains of the falsification of his writings, but consoles himself with the fact that the same is done to the "Scriptures of the Lord," i.e., the gospels containing the Lord's words ; or rather the two parts of the early collection, "the gospel" and "the apostle" together ; which agrees best with the age and tenor of his letters. If such be the meaning, the col-lection is put on a par with the Old Testament, and regarded as inspired. But Hegesippus still made a distinction between " the divine writings" (the Old Testament) and "the words of the Lord;" showing that Holy Scripture was nothing else, in his opinion, than the Jewish books. He also used the gospel of the Hebrews and Jewish tradition.
The letter of the churches at Vienne and Lyons (177) has quotations from the epistles to the Romans, Philippians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, Acts, the gospels of Luke and John, the Apocalypse. The last is expressly called '' Scripture." This shows a fusion of the two original tendencies—the Petrine and Pauline, and the formation of a catholic church with a common canon of authority. Accord-ingly, the two apostles, Peter and Paul, are mentioned together.
Theophilus of Antioch (180) was familiar with the gospels and most of Paul's epistles, as also the Apocalypse. He puts the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures on the same level, because they proceeded from men who had the same spirit. Passages are cited from Paul as "the divine word."
The conception of a catholic canon was realized about the same time as that of a catholic church. One hundred and seventy years from the coming of Christ elapsed before the collection assumed a form that carried with it the idea of holy and inspired. The way in which it was done was by raising the apostolic writings higher and higher till they were of equal authority with the Old Testament, so that the church might have a rule of appeal. The Old Testa-ment was not brought down to the New; the New was raised to the Old. It is clear that the earliest church fathers did not use the books of the New Testament as sacred documents clothed with divine authority, but fol-lowed for the most part, at least till the middle of the second century, apostolic tradition orally transmitted. They were not solicitous about a canon circumscribed within certain limits.
In the second half, then, of the second century there was a canon of the New Testament consisting of two parts called the gospel (TO eiayyiXtov) and the apostle (o a7roar-TOAOS). The first was complete, containing the four gospels alone; the second, which was incomplete, contained the Acts of the Apostles and epistles, i.e., thirteen letters of Paul, one of Peter, one of John, and the Revelation. How and where this canon originated is uncertain. Its birth-place may have been Asia Minor, like Marcion's; but it may have grown about the same time in Asia Minor, Alex-andria, and Western Africa. At all events, Irenseus, Cle-ment of Alexandria, and Tertullian speak of its two parts; and the three agree in recognizing its existence.
Irenajus had a canon which he adopted as apostolic. In his view it was of binding force and authoritative. This contained the four gospels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, the first epistle of John, and the Revelation. He had also a sort of aj>pendix or deutero-canon (which he highly esteemed, without putting it on a par with the received collection), consisting of John's second epistle, the first of Peter, and the Shepherd of Hermas. The last he calls a '' Scrip-ture " because it was prophetic. The epistle to the Hebrews, that of Jude, James's, 2 Peter, and 3 John he ignored.
Clement's collection was more extended than Irenseus's. His appendix or deutero-canon included the epistle to the Hebrews, 2 John, Jude, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the epistles of Clement and Barnabas. He recognizes no distinc-tion between the New Testament writings except by the more fre-quent use of those generally received, and the degree of importance attached to them. Yet Barnabas is cited as an apostle. So is the Roman Clement. The Shepherd of Hermas is spoken of as divine.18 Thus the line of the Homologoumena is not marked off even to the same extent as in Irenseus, and is sfeen but obscurely.
Tertullian's canon consisted of the gospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, the Apocalypse, and 1 John. As an appendix he had the epistle to the Hebrews, that of Jude, the Shepherd of Hermas, 2 John probably, and 1 Peter. This deutero-canon was not regarded as authoritative. No trace occurs in his works of James's epistle, 2 Peter, and 3 John. He used the Shepherd, but thought little of it, with the Montanists in general.16
These three fathers did not fix the canon absolutely. Its limits were still unsettled. But they sanctioned most of the books now accepted as divine, putting some extra-canonical productions almost on the same level with the rest, at least in practice.
The canon of Muratori is a fragmentary list which was made towards the end of the 2d century (170). Its birthplace is un-certain, though there are traces of Roman origin. Its translation from the Greek is assumed; but that is uncertain. It begins with the four gospels in the usual order, and proceeds to the Acts, thirteen epistles of Taul, the epistles of John, that of Jude, and the Apocalypse. The epistle to the Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and James are not named. The epistle "to the Laodiceans" is probably that to the Ephesians, which had this superscription in Murcion's canon ; and that "to the Alexandrians" seems to be the epistle to the Hebrews. According to the usual punctuation, both are said to have been forged in Paul's name, an opinion which may have been entertained among Roman Christians about 170 A.D. The epistle to the Hebrews was rejected in the West, and may have been thought a supposititious work in the interests of Paulism with some reason, because of its internal character. The story about the origin of the fourth gospel, with its apostolic and episcopal attestation, evinces a desire to establish the authenticity of a work which had not obtained universal acceptance at the time. It is

difficult to make out the meaning in various places ; and there is considerable diversity of opinion among the expositors of the docu-ment.
The stichometrical list of the Old and New Testament Scriptures in the Latin of the Clermont MS. (D) was that read in the African Church in the 3d century. It is peculiar. After the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and the historical books, follow Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, Sirach, the twelve minor prophets, the four greater, three books of the Maccabees, Judith, Esdras, Esther, Job, and Tobit. In the New Testament, the four gospels, Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, are succeeded by ten epistles of Paul, two of Peter, the epistle of James, three of John, and that of Jude. The epistle to the Hebrews (characterized as that of Barnabas), the Revelation of John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Shep-herd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, follow. There are thus three New Testament works, afterwards reckoned apocryphal. It is possible that the carelessness of a transcriber may have caused some of the singularities observable in this list,— such as the omission of the epistles to the Philippians and Thessa-lonians ; but the end shows a freer idea of books fitted for reading than what was usual even at that early time in the African Church. In Syria a version of the New Testament for the use of the church was probably made early in the 3d century. This work, commonly called the Peshito, wants 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse. It has, however, all the other books, including the epistle of James and that to the Hebrews. The last two were re-ceived as apostolic.
Towards the middle of the 3d century Origen's testimony respect-ing the Canon (T 254) is of great value. He seems to have dis-tinguished three classes of books—authentic ones, whose apostolic origin was generally admitted, those not authentic, and a middle class not generally recognized, or in regard to wdiich his own opinion wavered. The first contained those already adopted at the beginning of the century both in the East and West, with the Apocalypse, and the epistle to the Hebrews so far as it contains Pauline ideas; to the second belongs the Shepherd of Hermas, though he hesitated a little about it, the epistle of Barnabas, the acts of Paul, the gospel according to the Hebrews, the gospel of the Egyptians, and the preaching of Peter ; to the third, the epistle of James, that of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. The separation of the various writ-ings is not formally made, nor does Origen give a list of them. His classification is gathered from his works ; and though its application admitted of considerable latitude, he is cautious enough, appealing to the tradition of the church, and throwing in qualifying ex-pressions.
2 Tischendorf edited the Pauline epistles from this MS. 1852.
7 Hist. Eccles., iii. 25; also 31, 39 ; vi. 13, 14.
The Canon of Eusebius (t 340) is given at length in his Ecclesiasti-cal History.' He divides the books into three classes, containing those writings generally received, those controverted," and the heretical (iii. 31). The first has the four gospels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter, the Apocalypse. The second class is subdivided into two, the first corresponding to Origen's mixed or intermediate writings, the second to his sjmrioiis ones. The former subdivision contains the epistles of James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John ; the latter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrines of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John, the gospel according to the Hebrews. The third class has the gospels of Peter and of Thomas, the traditions of Matthias, the Acts of Peter, Andrew, and John. The subdivisions of the second class are indefinite. The only distinction which Eusebius put between them was that of ecclesiastical use. Though he classes as spurious the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, the doctrines of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John, the gospel according to the Hebrews, and does not apply the epithet to the epistle of James, the 2 of Peter, 2 and 3 John, he uses of James's in one place the verb voB(iog.at. In like manner he speaks of the Apocalypse of Peter and the epistle of Barnabas as controverted.lr' The mixed or spurious of Origen are vaguely separated by Eusebius ; both come under the general head of the controverted ; for after specifying them separately he sums up, '' all these will belong to the class of the controverted," the very class already described as containing "books well known and recognized by most," implying also that they were read in the churches.16 About 332 the Emperor Constantine entrusted Eusebius with the commission to make out a complete collection of the sacred Christian writings for the use of the Catholic Church. How this order was executed we are not told. But Credner is probably correct in saying that the code con-sisted of all that is now in the New Testament except the Revela-tion. The fifty copies which were made must have supplied Con-stantinople and the Greek Church for a considerable time with an authoritative canon.
Eusebius's catalogue agrees in substance with that of Origen. The historian followed ecclesiastical tradition. He inquired dili-gently into the prevailing opinions of the Christian churches and writers, the views held by others before and contemporaneously with himself, but could not attain to a decided result. His hesita-tion 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. Definite grounds for the reception or rejection of books were not very clearly apprehended. The choice was de-termined by various circumstances, 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 circumstances 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 Manichsean heretics, whose doctrines were injurious to objective Christianity; while the multiplication of apocryphal works threatened to overwhelm genuine tradition with a heap of superstition.
When it is asked, to whom do we owe the canon 1 the usual answer is, to the Church, which is hardly correct. The Church Catholic did not exist till after the middle of the second century. The preservation of the early Chris-tian writings was owing, in the first instance, to the con-gregations to whom they were sent, and the neighbouring ones with whom such congregations had friendly connec-tion. 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 assemblies 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
14 Hist. Eccles., ii. 23. Christophorson, Schmid, and Hug think that
Eusebius gave the opinion of others in this word; but it is more
likely that he gave his own, as Valesius thinks. See the note in
Schmid's Historia antigua et vindicatio Canonis, &c, p. 358.
15 Ibid., vi. 14.
16 See Weber' ^Beiträge zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons,
p. 142, kc.

canon was simultaneous. The circumstances in which the collection originated were unfavourable 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 organisation united ill 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 be there and in the Ignatian epistles, its established use is due to Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian.
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; and 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 class, 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 gratitude. 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 Afri-canus, 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 pas-sage against Aetius, after referring to the books of Scrip-ture, 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; but 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 more favourable 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 opinion 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.

The Canon from the Fourth Century.
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, at which there was a predominant senii-Arian influence, forbade 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. It is of much later date. The Council was held in the year 363 A.D. The Apostolic Constitutions 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 mentioned. 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 Constitutions, which are a collection belonging to different times, the oldest portion not earlier perhaps than the third century.8
Cyril of Jerusalem, who took part in the Council of Laodicea, and died 386 A.D., gives a list of "the divine Scriptures." The books of the Old Testament are twenty-two, and the arrangement is usually that which is in the English Bible. With Jeremiah are associated "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" writ-ings into the class of the " generally received." The writer insists on the necessity of unity in the Church upon the subject, and forbids the reading of writings not generally received. Yet he refers to Baruch (iii. 36-38) as " the prophet" ; and in adducing the tes-timonies of the prophets for the existence of the Holy Spirit, the last is Daniel xiii. 41, 45.
2 See Constit. Apostol., p. 67, ed. TJeltzen.
In Athanasius's festal epistle (365) the Alexandrian arch-bishop undertakes " to set forth in order the books that are cano-nical 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 Solo-mon 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 men-tion of apocryphal writings," &c. The New Testament list is the same as Cyril's, with the addition of the Apocalypse. He quotes several of the apocryphal books in the same way as he does the

canonical. Thus he cites Tobit xii. 7 with "as it is written,"1 and Sirach xxx. 4 with "as sacred Scripture somewhere says."2 Elsewhere he applies to the latter (ii. 33) "the divine Spirit says;" 3 and Daniel xiii. 45 is cited uuder the name of "the Scripture."4 Canonical and apocryphal are mentioned together, and similar language applied to them.
Gregory of Nazianzus (t 389) puts his list into a poetical form. In the Old Testament it agrees with Athanasius's exactly, only he mentions none but the canonical books ; in the New, he leaves out the Apocalypse, and so deviates from Athanasius.
Amphilochius of Iconium (f395) gives a long catalogue of the Biblical books in verse. 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, and to the number of the catholic epistles (seven or three). The concluding words show that no list was universally received at that time.
Epiphanius (+ 403) follows Athanasius in his canon. As to the number of the Old Testament books, he hesitates between twenty-t wo 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." His practice shows his sentiments clearly enough, when he refers to the Book of Wisdom in such phrases as " Scripture," "as Solomon the most blessed of the pro-phets says;" and cites Sirach (vii. 1) as well as Baruch as "Scrip-ture." He mentions the fact that the epistles of Clemens Ro-manus were read in the churches.
Didymus of Alexandria (f 392) speaks against 2 Peter that it is not in the canons.
Chrysostom (f 407) does not speak of the canon ; but in the New Testament he never quotes the four last catholic epistles or the Apocalypse. All the other parts he uses throughout his numerous works.
Theodore of Mopsuestia (+ 428) was much freer than his con-temporaries in dealing with the books of Scripture. It seems that he rejected Job, Canticles, Chronicles, and the Psalm-inscrip-tions 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.
The catalogues of the Old Testament contained in the manu-scripts B, C, and X 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 Testa-ment books in B is like that of Athanasius. Imperfect at the end, it must have had at first the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse. C (cod. Ephraemi rescriptus) has fragments of the New Testament, which show that it had originally all the present books in the same order as Athanasius's. X or the Sinaitic manuscript has in addition to the New Testament the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. 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 ecclesi-astical 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 con-sisted of writings settled or determined by ecclesiastical law. Such was the idea added to the original acceptation of canon. To canonical were opposed apocryphal writings, i.e., heretical and fabri-cated ones ; while an intermediate class 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 class "publicly read." 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. 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 (+ 430) gave great attention to the subject, labouring to establish a com-plete 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 of the churches and the weightier 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 Chro-nicles, 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 Eeclesiastieus, he thinks, should be numbered among the prophets, as deserving of authority and having a certain likeness to Solomon's writings. He says of the Maccabees that this '' Scripture has been received by the Church not uselessly, if it be read or heard soberly."17 The famous passage in the treatise on Christian, doctrine, where Augustine enumerates the whole canon, is qualified by no other ; for though he knew the distinction be-tween 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 considered 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 Scrip-tures. 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 se 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.18 He speaks hesitatingly in various places about its Pauline authorship.
In 393 the African bishops held a council at Hippo, where the canon was discussed. The list of the canonical Scriptures given includes, besides the Palestinian one, Wisdom, Eeclesiastieus, Tobit, Judith, and the two books of Maccabees. The New Testament canon seems to have agreed exactly with our present one.19 The Council of Carthage (397) repeated the statute of its predecessor, enumerating the same books of the Bible as canonical.20 Augustine was the animating spirit of both councils, so that they may be taken as expressing his views on the subject.
Jerome( T 420) 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 Kuth and Lamentations among the Hagiographa, so making twenty-four bocks. 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.21 But though Jerome's words imply the apocryphal posi-tion 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,22 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 favourable manner than that of the Prologus galeatus or the preface to Solomon's books. One thing is clear, that he quotes different passages from the Apocrypha along with others from the Hebrew canon. In his letter to Eustochius, Sirach iii. 33 comes between cita-tions from Matthew and Luke with the phrase " as it is written;" and xi. 30 has "holy Scripture" applied to it. Kuth, 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 knowiedge. As to the New Testament, he gives a catalogue of ail that now belong 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 pre-sent custom. His opinion about them was not decided.23 In another work he gives the Epistle of Barnabas at the end of the canonical

15 ßtßXia avuytiiwtcoßeva. De Doetrina Christiana, ii. 8.
17 Contra tìaudent. i. 38 ; Opp. Paris, 1837, vol. ix. p. 1006.
18 De peccai, merit. i. 50 ; Opp. vol. x. p. 137, ed. Migne.
19 Mansi, tom. iii. p. 924. 20 Ibid. p. 891.
21 Prologus galeatus in Libros Regum ; Epist. ad Paulinum.
22 In Herbst's Einleit., erster Theil, p. 37.
23 Ep. ad Dardan.; Opp. vol. i. p. 1103, ed. Migne.

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 Clemens Romauus was publicly read in some churches.
Hilary of Poitiers (t 368) seems to have followed Origen's cata-logue. 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. Wisdom and Sirach he cites as '' prophets." In the New Testament he never quotes James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, nor 2 Peter.
Rufmus (t 410) enumerates the books of the Old and New Testa-ments which " are believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit itself, according to the tradition of our ancestors, and have been handed down by the Churches of Christ.'' All the books of the Hebrew canon and of the New Testament are specified. After the list he says, " these are they which the fathers include in the canon, by which they wished to establish the assertion of our faith." He adds that there are other books not canonical, but ecclesiastical—the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and the books of the Maccabees. Besides the usual New Testament works, he speaks of the Shepherd of Hernias and "the Judgment of Peter" as read in the churches, but not as authoritative in matters of faith.
Philastrius (t about 387) gives some account of the Scriptures and their contents in his time. The canonical Scriptures, which alone should be read in the Catholic Church, are said to be the Law and the Prophets, the gospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, and seven others. He speaks of heretics who reject John's gospel and the Apocalypse,—remarking also that some do not read the epistle to the Hebrews, not thinking it to be Paul's. The influence of the East upon the West appears in the statements of this father upon the subject. He had several canonical lists before him ; one at least from an Oriental-Arian source, which explains some assertions in his book.
Innocent I. of Rome wrote to Exsuperius (405), bishop of Toulouse, giving a list of the canonical books. Besides the Hebrew canon, he has Wisdom and Sirach, Tobit, Judith, the 2 Maccabees. The New Testament list is identical with the present. He also refers to pseudepigraphical writings which ought not only to be re-jected but condemned.
A canonical list appears in three different forms bearing the names of Damasus (366-384), Gelasius I. (492-496), and Honnisdas (514-523). According to the first, the books of the Old Testament are arranged in three orders. In the first are the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four Kings, two Chronicles, Psalms, Pro-verbs, Ecelesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus ; in the second, all the Prophets, including Baruch ; in the third, Job, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Esdras, two Maccabees. The New Testa-ment books are the four gospels, fourteen epistles of Paul, the Apocalypse, and Acts, with seven catholic epistles.
That which is called the Decree of Gelasius is almost identical with the preceding. It wants Baruch and Lamentations. It has also two Esdras instead of one. In the New Testament the epistle to the Hebrews is absent.
The Hormisdas-form ha3 the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and in the New Testament the epistle to the Hebrews.
The MSS. of these lists present some diversity ; and Credner supposes the Damasus-list a fiction. But Thiel has vindicated its authenticity. It is possible that some interpolations may exist in the last two ; but the first, which is the shortest, may well belong to the time of Damasus.0
In 419 A.D. another council at Carthage, at which Augustine was present, repeated the former list of books with a single alteration, viz., fourteen epistles of Paul (instead of thirteen).
6 Credner's Zur Gesehiehte des Kanons, p. 151, &c., and Thiel's Epistolce Ponianorum Pontijicum Genuince, torn. i.
The preceding notices and catalogues show a general desire in the Western Church to settle the canon. The two most influential men of the period were Augustine and Jerome, who did not entirely agree. Both were unfitted for the critical examination of such a topic. The former was a gifted spiritual man, lacking learning and independence. Tradition dominated all his ideas about the difficult or disputed books,—a tradition arbitrarily assumed. He did not enter upon the question scientifically, on the basis of certain principles, but was content to take refuge in authority—the prevailing authority of leading churches.
His judgment was weak, his sagacity moderate, and the absence of many-sidedness hindered a critical result Jerome, again, was learned but timid, lacking the courage to face the question fairly or fundamentally, and the in-dependence necessary to its right investigation. Belong-ing as he did to both churches, he recommended the practice of the one to the other. He, too, was chiefly influenced by tradition,—hy Jewish teachers in respect to the Old Testament, and by general custom as to the New. Compared with the Eastern Church, the Western accepted a wider canon of the Old Testament, taking some books into the class of the canonical which the former put among those " to be read." In regardto the New Testament, all the Catholic epistles and even the Apocalypse were received. The African churches and councils generally adopted this larger canon, which resulted from the fact of the old Latin versions of the Bible current in Africa being daughters of the Septuagint. If the Latins apparently looked upon the Greek as the original itself, the apocryphal books would soon get rank with the canonical. Still the more learned fathers, Jerome, Rufinus, and others, favoured the Hebrew canon in distinguishing between canonical and ecclesiastical books. The influence of the Eastern upon the Western Church is still visible, though it could not extinguish the prevailing desire to include the disputed books. The Greek view was to receive nothing which had not apparently a good attestation of divine origin and apostolic authority; the Latin was to exclude nothing hallowed by descent and proved by custom. The former Church looked more to the sources of doctrine ; the latter to those of edification. The one desired to contract those sources, so as not to be too rich; the other to enlarge the springs of edification, not to be too poor. Neither had the proper resources for the work, nor a right perception of the way in which it should be set about; and therefore they were not fortunate in their conclusions, differing in regard to points which affect the foundation of a satisfactory solution.
Notwithstanding the numerous endeavours both in the East and West to settle the canon during the 4th and 5th centuries, it was not finally closed. The doubts of indi-viduals were still expressed, and succeeding ages testify to the want of universal agreement respecting several books. The question, however, was practically determined. No material change occurred again in the absolute rejection or admission of books. With some fluctuations, the canon remained very much as it was in the 4th and 5 th centuries. Tradition had shaped and established its condition. General usage gave it a permanency which it was not easy to disturb. The history is mainly an objective one. Uncritical at its commencement, it was equally so in the two centuries which have just been considered.
The history of the canon in the Syrian church cannot be traced with much exactness. The Peshito version had only the Hebrew canonical books at first; the apocry-phal were added afterwards. In the New Testament it wanted four of the catholic epistles and the Apocalypse. Ephrem (378) uses all the books in our canon, the apocry-phal as well as the canonical. The former are cited by him in the same way as the latter.' The Syrian version made by Polycarp at the request of Philoxenus of Mabug, had the four catholic epistles wanting in the Peshito, and the Charklean recension of it probably had the Apocalypse also, if that which was published by De Dieu at Leyden belongs to it. Junilius, though an African bishop (about 550), says that he got his knowledge from a Persian of the name of Paulus, who received his education in the school of Nisibis. He may, therefore, be considered a witness of the opinions of the Syrian church at the beginning of the 6th century. Dividing the biblical books into those of

perfect, those of intermediate, and those of no authority, he makes the first the canonical; the second, those added to them by many (plures); the third, all the rest. In the first list he puts Ecclesiasticus. Among the second he puts 1 and 2 Chronicles, Job, Ezra and Nehemiah, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees; and in the New Testament, James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John. He also says that the Apocalypse of John is much doubted by the Orientals. In the third list, i.e., books of no authority added by some (quidam) to the canonical, are put Wisdom and Canticles. The catalogue is confused, and erroneous at least in the one respect, that Jerome is referred to as sanctioning the division given of the Old Testament books ; for neither he nor the Jews agree with it.
The canon of the old Abyssinian church seems to have had all the books in the Septuagint, canonical and apocry-phal together, little distinction being made between them. The New Testament agrees with the present Greek one. At a later period a list was made and constituted the legal one for the use of the church, having been derived from the Jacobite canons of the apostles. This gives in the Old Testament the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Puth, Judith, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Esther, Tobit, two books of Maccabees, Job, Psalms, five books of Solomon, minor and greater prophets. External are the Wisdom of Sirach (for teaching children) and the book of Joseph ben Gorion, i.e., that of the Maccabees. The New Testament has four gospels, Acts, seven apostolic epistles, fourteen of Paul, and the Revelation of John. Later catalogues vary much, and are often enlarged with the book of Enoch, 4 Esdras, the Apocalypse of Isaiah, &c. The canon of the Ethiopic church was fluctuating.
The Armenian canon, if we may judge from printed editions, follows the Septuagint; but the books are put in a peculiar position, The three books of Maccabees follow the historical ones. In the New Testament the epistle to the Hebrews precedes those to Timothy and Titus; while Sirach, a second recension of Daniel, Manasseh, 3 Corin-thians, with the account of John's death, are relegated to an appendix behind the New Testament.
The Bible canon of the Eastern Church in the Middle Ages shows no material change. Endeavours were made to remove the uncertainty arising from the existence of nume-rous lists ; but former decisions and decrees of councils were repeated instead of a new, independent canon. Here belongs the catalogue in the Alexandrian MS. of the 5th century, which is peculiar. After the prophets come Esther, Tobit, Judith, Ezra and Nehemiah, 4 Maccabees, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the all-virtu-ous Wisdom, the Wisdom of Jesus of Sirach. In the New Testament, the Apocalypse is followed by two epistles of Clement. The list was probably made in Egypt. That of Anastasius Sinaita (t 599) needs no remark. The apostolic canons (canon 76) give a list both of the Old and New Testament books, in which the usual canonical ones are supplemented by Judith, 3 Maccabees, and in the New Testament, by two epistles of Clement, and the Clementines in eight books. The Apocalypse is wanting. But the whole is a patchwork, borrowed from the Apostolic Constitutions, Athanasius's festal epistle, and other sources. It cannot be put earlier than the 5th century; and it is pretty certain that Judith and Maccabees are later inser-tions. We have also Nicephorus's Stichometry (806-815) ; Cosmas Indicopleustes (535), who never mentions the seven catholic epistles of the New Testament or the Apocalypse; the Council of Constantinople commonly called the Trvllan
(692), Johannes Damascenus (t 754), the second Niceue council (787), the Synopsis divince Scripturce Vet. et JVovi Test, (about 1000), Zonaras (about 1120), Alexius Aris-tenus (about 1160), and Nicephorus Callistus (1330).
In the Western church of the Middle Ages, diversity of opinion respecting certain books continued. Though the views of Augustine were generally followed, the stricter ones of Jerome found many adherents. The canon was fluctuating, and the practice of the churches in regard to it somewhat lax. Here belong Cassiodorus (about 550); the list in the Codex Amiatinus (about 550); and Isidore of Seville (t636), who, after enumerating three classes of Old Testament books gives a fourth, not in the Hebrew canon. Here he specifies Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, saying that the Church of Christ puts them among the divine books, honours and highly esteems them. There are also the fourth council of Toledo (632), Gregory the Great (f 604), Notker Labeo (t912), Ivo (about 1092), Bede (t735), Alcuin (t804), Rabanus Maurus (t 856), Hugo de St Victor (+ 1141), Peter of Clugny (t 1156), John of Salisbury (tll82), Thomas Aquinas (tl270), Hugo de St Caro (+1263), Wycliffe (+ 1384), Nicolaus of Lyra (+1340), &c. Several of these, as Hugo de St Victor, John of Salisbury, Hugo de St Caro, and Nicolaus of Lyra, followed Jerome in separat-ing the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old Testa-ment.
As to the arrangement of the New Testament books, the gospels stand thus in several MSS. of the old Latin version, in a, b, c,f,ff, q, cod. D (Latin),—Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. In the Acts of the council at Ephesus (431), Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and several Latin translations, they are Matthew, John, Mark, Luke. The Curetonian Syriac has Matthew, Mark, John, Luke; while a very old fragment of the gospels in Turin has Mark and Matthew.
The oldest order of the books, and that which lies at the basis of the current one given by Tertullian, is Gospels, Acts, Pauline epistles, Apocalypse, epistle of John. This was varied by putting the Catholic epistles before the Apocalypse, as in the Muratorian fragment. This order became the prevailing one in the West, with a few varia-tions here and there, such as the placing of the Acts after the Pauline epistles by the Peshito, Jerome, and Epiphanius; or after the Catholic epistles, immediately before the Apocalypse, by Augustine and the Spanish church; while in the Stichometry of the Clermont MS. they follow the Apocalypse as the last canonical book.
In the ancient Greek Church the order was different. There the usual one was Gospels, Acts, the Catholic epistles, the Pauline epistles, and the Apocalypse. This exists in Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the MSS. B and A. But the Sinaitic has Gospels, Pauline epistles, Acts, Catholic epistles, Apocalypse.
The Pauline epistles seem to have been arranged accord-ing to their length ; the Catholic ones have that of James first, because the author was the bishop of the church at Jerusalem, then the epistles of Peter, the chief of the apostles.
The Reformers generally returned to the Hebrew canon, dividing off the additional books of the Septuagint as well as those attached to the Vulgate. These they called apocr}'phal, after Jerome's example. The latter, though considered of no authority in matters of doctrine, were still pronounced useful and edifying. The principal reason that weighed with them was, that Christ and the apostles testified to none of the Septuagint additions.
Besides the canonical books of the Old Testament,

Luther translated Judith, Wisdom, Tohit, Sirach, Baruch,
1 and 2 Maccabees, the Greek additions to Esther and Daniel, with the Prayer of Manasseh. His judgment respect-ing several of these is expressed in the prefaces to them. With regard to 1 Maccabees he thinks it almost equal to the other books of Holy Scripture, and not unworthy to be reckoned among them. Of Wisdom, he says, he was long in doubt whether it should be numbered among the canoni-cal books; and of Sirach, that it is a right good book pro-ceeding from a wise man. But he speaks unfavourably of several other apocryphal productions, as of Baruch and
2 Maccabees. It is evident, however, that he considered all he translated of some use to the Christian Church. He thought that the book of Esther should not belong to the canon.
Luther's judgment respecting some of the New Testa-ment books was freer than most Protestants now are dis-posed to approve. He thought the epistle to the Hebrews was neither Paul's nor an apostle's, but proceeded from an excellent and learned man who may have been the disciple of apostles. He did not put it on an equality with the epistles written by apostles themselves. The Apocalypse he considered neither apostolic nor prophetic, but put it almost on the same level with the 4th book of Esdras, which he spoke elsewhere of tossing into the Elbe. This judgment was afterwards modified, not retracted. James's epistle he pronounced unapostolic. It was quite an epistle of straw. In like manner, he did not believe that Jude's epistle proceeded from an apostle. Considering it to have been taken from 2 Peter, and not well extracted either, he put it lower than the supposed original. The Reformer, as also his successors, made a distinction between the books of the New Testament similar to that of the Old,—the generally received (homologoumena) and controverted books (antilegomena); but the Calvinists afterwards obliterated it, as the Roman Catholics at the Council of Trsnt did with the Old Testament. The epistle to the Hebrews, those of Jude and James, with the Apocalypse, belong to the latter class. Luther assigned a greater or less value to the separate writings of the New Testament, and left every one to do the same. He relied on their internal value more than tradition,—taking the " Word of God" in a deeper and wider sense than its coincidence with the Bible.
Bodenstein of Carlstadt examined the question of canon-icity more thoroughly than any of his contemporaries, and followed out the principle of private judgment in regard to it. He divides the biblical books into three classes—o 1. Books of the highest dignity, viz., the Pentateuch and the Gospels; 2. Books of the second dignity, i.e., the works termed prophetic by the Jews, and the fifteen epistles universally received; 3. Books of the third and lowest authority, i.e., the Jewish Hagiographa and the seven antilegomena epistles of the New Testament. Among the Apocryphi he makes two classes—such as are out of the canon of the Hebrews yet hagiographical (Wisdom, Ecclesi-asticus, Judith, Tobit, the two Maccabees), and those that are clearly apocryphal and to be rejected (third and fourth Esdras, Baruch, Prayer of Manasseh, a good part of the third chapter of Daniel, and the last two chapters of Daniel).
Zwingli asserts that the Apocalypse is not a biblical book.
CEcolampadius says—" We do not despise Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the last two Esdras, the three Maccabees, the last two chapters of Daniel, but we do not attribute to them divine authority with those others."
As to the books of the New Testament he would not com-pare the Apocalypse, James, Jude, 2 Peter 2 and 3 John with the rest.
Calvin did not think Paul to be the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, nor 2 Peter to have been written by Peter; but both in his opinion are canonical.
The later Helvetic Confession speaks of the Apocryphal books as read in the churches, but not used as authorita-tive in matters of faith.
The Gallic Confession makes a distinction between canoni-cal 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 use-ful, are not of the kind that any article of faith can be constituted by them.
The Belgic Confession makes a distinction between the sacred and apocryphal books. The former may be read by the Church, but no doctrine can be derived from them. In the list of New Testament books given there are four-teen epistles of Paul.
The Waldensian canon, in which the canonical are care-fully separated from the apocryphal books, is not of the date 1120, but is a later document derived from or made by a Protestant after 1532. It is not genuine.
The canon of the Anglican Church (1562), given in the sixth Article of Eeligion, 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," <fec, &c. At the end it is stated that " all the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly re-ceived, 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 Westminster Confession of Faith gives a list of all the books of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God 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.
4 Ibid.
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. But 3 and 4 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and the Prayer of Manasseh were not included,—though the first and last appeared in the original Clementine edition of 1592, not however in the preceding one of Sixtus (1590). A council at Florence in 1441 had set the example, which was followed at Trent. But this stringent decree did not pre-vent individual Catholics from making a distinction be-tween the books, in assuming a first and second canon, or proto-canonical and deutero-canonical books,-—as did Sixtus Senensis, B. Lamy, Anton a matre Dei, Jahn, and others,—though it is hardly consistent with orthodox Catholicism or the view of those who passed 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 Tri-dentine 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), came to the same decision with the Romish, and canonized all the Apocrypha. This was done at a Jerusalem synod under Dositheus in 1672.
Semler (+1791) was the first scholar after the Re-formation who set himself to correct the prevailing ideas respecting the canon. 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 some-times one-sided, and his essays ill-digested, he placed the subject in new lights, and his labours bore abundant fruit in after years. He was followed by his disciple Corrodi, by G. L. Oeder, Michaelis, Herder, Lessing, and Eichhorn,—_ most of whom recommended their views by a freshness of style which Semler did not command. In more recent times the whole question has been subjected to very thorough discussion.
We observe in conclusion that the canonical authority of Scripture does not depend on the church or its councils.
The primitive church may be cited as a witness for it; that is all. Canonical authority lies in the Scripture itself ; it is inherent in the books so far as they contain a revelation or declaration of the divine will. Hence there is truth in the statement of old theologians that the authority of Scripture is from God alone. The canonicity of the books is a distinct question from that of their authenticity. The latter is a thing of historic criticism, the former of doctrinal belief.
See De "Wette's Einleitung in das alte Testament, by Sehrader,
8th edition ; Bleek's Einleitung in das alt. Test., edited by Kamp-
hausen ; the same author's Einleit. in das neue Testament, edited
by Mangold ; Dillmann in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie,
vol. iii. ; (Dehler and Landerer in Herzog's Encyklopcedie, vol. vii. ;
Steiner and Holtzmann in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, vol. iii.; Reuss's
Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften neuen Testaments; Credner's
Geschichte des mutest. Kanon, by Volkmar ; Ewald's Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, vol. vii. ; Diestel's Geschichte des alten Testamentes
in der Christliche Kirche ; Hilgenfeld's Der Kanon und die Kritik
des N. Test.; the same author's Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in
das neue Testament; Holtzmann's Kanon und Tradition; Herz-
feld's Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. ii.; Grätz's Kohelet, Anhang i.;
Fürst's Der Kanon des alten Testaments, u.s.w.; Versuch einer
Beleuchtung der Geschichte des judischen und christlichen Bibel-
kanons (by Corrodi); Weber's Beiträge zurr Geschichte des neutesta-
mentlichen Kanons; Jones's New and full method of settling the
canonical authority of the New Testament; Westeott, On the Ganor
of the New Testament; Stuart's Critical History and Defence of the
Old Testament, ed. Davidson. (S. D.)


Footnotes

Zur Geschichte des Kanons, pp. 3-68.
8 Clement. Horn., ap. Coteler., vol. i. p. 608.
" Stromata, vi. 15, p. 803, ed. Potter.
Adv. Itatres., i. 95.
6 Enseb. H. E., v. 24
8 De prcescript. Hcereticorum, chs. 12, 13.
Comment, in Mat. iii. p. 916 ; ed. Delaru.e.
Monumenta Vetera ad Donatistarum, historiam pertinentia, ed.
Dupin, p. 168.
Expos, in Symb. Apost., 37, p. 374, ed. Migne.
12 After the word is added KOJ Trapa$o84ma, tntrTfuSevra tr't Bua dvat. Opp., vol. i. p. 961, ed. Benedict.
9 At the end of the Iambi ad Seleucvm, on the hooks of the New Testament, he adds, OVTOS ail/ei/SeVTaror Kapuf hp etv rwv OtOTrvevvrajp ypatywv.
10 Prologus galeatus in ii. Meg

Chan, il 13.
!ix. 2.
D^-inip, translated by the Greek aytoypatpa, hagiographa.
* rà à\\à iraTo'ia. @i(3\ia ; rà Aos-irà rwy Bl&ALml'.

Contra Apion, i. 8.
a D'IM33 literally concealed, withdrawn from public use.
See Fürst's Der Kanon des alten Testaments, u.s.w. pp. 147, 148.
Tract. Sabbat., ch. i.
Adoyoth, v. 3.
See Graetz's Kohelet, pp. 162, 163.
One who said, " Whoever reads such writings as Sirach and the
later books loses all part in everlasting life," can have no weight.
v. 20, p. 124, ed. Ueltzen. 10 Chapter i.
11 Fol. 15, 1
12 See Herzfeld's Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. ii. p. 94.

See Buxtorf's Tiberias, chapter x. p. 88, &c.
8 Herzfeld's Geschichte des Koikes Israel,vo\. i. p. 380, &c.
8 Svvayoyii ypafifíctTétoy, without the article.
Billmann, in the Jahrbücher fur dsutsche Theologie, Bd. iii.
the same author's Prolegomena zur Theologie des alt. Test., pp. 91,

See Abulfath's Annal. Samar., p. 102, 9, &c. ' Einleitung in das alte Testament, vol. i. p. 133.
See Credner's Zur Geschichte des Kanons, p. 124.
* De mens, et pond., chapters 22, 23, vol. Ii. p. 180, ed. Petav.
8 See Fürst, Der Kanon, u.s.io. p. 14, &c.
8 See Fürst, Der Kanon, u.s.io. p. 14, &c.
Hody, De Bibliorum textihus originalibus, p. 644.
Hody gives lists of the order in which the hooks stand in some early printed editions and in a few MSS., p. 645. >

Die Apokryphen, u.s.w., p. 14, &c.
Studien und Kritihen for 1853, p. 267, &c.
9 Advers. Valentinianos, ch. 2.
See Rothe, "Zur Dogmatik," in Studien u. Kritihen, 1860, p.
Advers. Hceres., v. 35, referring to Baruch iv. 36, and v., p. 335, ed. Massuet.
6 Ibid., iv. 26, referring to Daniel xiii. 20 in the Septuagint.
Advers. Hceres., v. 35, referring to Baruch iv. 36, and v., p. 335, ed. Massuet.
6 Ibid., iv. 26, referring to Daniel xiii. 20 in the Septuagint.
Paidagog., ii. 3. . 8 Stromata, ii. 23.
9 Advers. Valentinianos, ch. 2.
10 De Exhortatione Castitatis, ch. 2.
11 Contra Gnósticos, ch. 8. 12 De Habitu Muliebri, ch. 3.
13 Epist. 55, p. 110, ed. Fell. 14 De Orat. Domin., p. 153.
15 De Exhorta!. Martyrii, ch. 12, p. 182.
16 Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 26. 17 Euseb. H. E., lib. vi. p. 25.
18 Comment, in Joann., torn, xxxii. ch. 14, ed. Huet. p. 409.
20 De Orations, ii. p. 215.
20 De Orations, ii. p. 215.

Opp., ed. Delarue, vol. i. p. 12. . 5 Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the If. Testam., vol. ii.
p. 388.
Explanatio in Epist. ad Titum, vol. iv. p. 407, ed. Benedict.
See the Indexes to Duncker and Schneidewin's edition.
s Hist. Eccles., iii. 39.
Epist. ad Philadelph., ch. 5. See Hefele's note on the passage. The other well-known passage in chapter viii. is too uncertain in read-ing and meaning to be adduced here.
Chapter iii. 8 To the Ephesians, chapter xii.

1 See Zeitschrift fur wissensehaftliche Theologie, 1875, p. 490, et seq.
' Dialogus, part ii. p. 315, ed. Thirlby. Comp. on Justin, Tjeenk-
Willink's Justinus Martyr in zijne Verhouding tot Paulus
* Apolog. i. p. 97, ed. Thirlby.
4 Hieronymi Proeem. in Epist. ad Titum. 5 Chapter xviii.
o Euseb. H.E., -iv. 23. 7 Ibid., iv. 22.
Photii Bibliotheca, cod. 232.
» Euseb. H.E., v. 1, p. 144, ed. Bright
Btios Aifyoj. Ad Autolycum, iii. 14, p. 1141, ed. Migne.
See Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the New Testament,
vol. ii. p. 508, &c. 12 Advers. Heeres., iv. 20, 2.
Stromata, ii. 6, p. 965, ed. Migne. 14 lb-id., iv. 17, p. 1312.
15 Ibid., i. 29, p. 928. 16 De Pudicitia, cap. 10.

It is printed and copiously commented on by Credner in his Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanon, edited by Volkmar, p. 141, &c., and by Westcott On the Canon, Appendix C, p. 466, 2d edition. Many others have explained it; last of all Hilgenfeld.
rcX 4v Tri §iaQi)Krj ßiß\ia, ¤V5ic(0?j/ca, 6[iO\oyovij.eva..
rcX 4v Tri §iaQi)Krj ßiß\ia, ¤V5ic(0?j/ca, 6[iO\oyovij.eva..
viBa.
b.VTi\ty6p.tva.. Euseb., Hist. Eccles., vi. 25, iii. 25.
See Comment, in Matth., iii. p. 463 ; Ibid., p. 814 ; Comment, in ep. ad Roman., iv. p. 683 ; in Matth., iii. p. 644; Homil. viii. in Numb., ii. p. 294 ; Contra Cels., i. 63, p. 378 ; De Principiis pros/., i. p. 49. Opp., ed. Delarue. See also Euseb., H. E., vi. 25.
It is printed and copiously commented on by Credner in his Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanon, edited by Volkmar, p. 141, &c., and by Westcott On the Canon, Appendix C, p. 466, 2d edition. Many others have explained it; last of all Hilgenfeld.
ö[to\oyov/AGva, erüidBnica, ö\vap.(pi\¤KTa, b.va.wi^n'ra..
aroira iravrri Kai Svcroißrj, TravreXots v6da.
This last with the qualification itye cpavdv. In another place he
states that it was rejected by some, and therefore it is also along with
the avTi\ey6fifi/a or v66a. 12 UUKT&. 13 v6Ba.
This last with the qualification itye cpavdv. In another place he

Geschichte des neatest. Kanon, p. 217, &c.
Cateeh., iv. 22, pp. 66, 67, ed. Milles.
Athanasii Opp. ed. Benedict, i. 2, pp. 962, 963.

I ii. 1, p. 305. 2 i. 1, p. 183. 3 ii. p. 283. 4 ii. p. 9.
Gregorii Nazianzeni Opp. ed. Migne, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.
6 Iambi ad Seleucum, in Greg. Naz. Opp. ii. p. 194.
a/i<fiiA.eKTtj. Adv. Hayres., i. p. 19. See Hceres., iii. torn. i. p. 941. De ponder, el mensur. 23.
Tom. i. pp. 573, 607, 713, ed. Petav. 9 Pp. 481, 755.
10 Ilceres. xxx. 15.
II Enarrat. in Ep. S. Petri Secundum, p. 1774, ed. Migne.
12 See Montfaucon in his edition of Chrysostom's Works, vol. vi.
pp. 364, 365, ed. Paris, 1835.
See Leontius Byzantinus contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, lib.
Iii. in Oallandi Bibliotheca, xii. p. 690. Comp. Fritzsche De
Theodori Mopsuest. vita et scriptis, Hate, 1836.
u $i$Ata Kavovi£6u.EVa, KavovtKa, KeKavovuriieva, upio-fj.4va.
u $i$Ata Kavovi£6u.EVa, KavovtKa, KeKavovuriieva, upio-fj.4va

See Onomastica Sacra; Comment, in Ep. ad Philem. ; De Viris illustr.
Prolog, in Psalm. ; Opp. ed. Migne, vol. i. p. 241.
Expos, in Synibol. Apostol., pp. 373, 374, ed. Migne.
De Uteres, chs. 60 and 61, in Gallandi, vii. pp. 424, 425.
Mansi, iii. pp. 1040, 1041.
Mansi, iv. p. 430.

Gallandi, xii. p. 79, &c.
See Dillmann in Ewald's Jahrbucher, v. p. 144, &c.
See Credner, Geschichte des neutest. Kanon, pp. 235, 236.
See Credner's Zur. Gesch. des Kanons, p. 97, &c.
Etymolog., vi. 1. 6 See Hody, p. 648, &c.
Etymolog., vi. 1. 6 See Hody, p. 648, &c.
See Credner's Geschichte, p. 393, et seq.

Carlstadt's treatise is reprinted in Credner's Zur Geschichte des Kanons.
a Werke, edited by Schuler and Scmilthess, vol. ii. p. 169.
"Ep. ad Valdenses" 1530, apud Scultet. Annal. evang. pp.
313, 314.
Niemeyer, Collectio Con/essionum. p. 468.
Niemeyer, Collectio Con/essionum. p. 468.
aIbid.,v. 330. 7 Ibid., pp. 361, 362

Kimmel's Monumenta fidei eccles. orient, part i. p. 467.
Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canon, 4 parts, Halle, 1771-1775