The earliest example of its application to a catalogue of the Old or New Testament books occurs in the Latin translation of Origen’s homily on Joshua, where the original seems to have been κανών. The word itself is certainly in

Amphilochius, as well as in Jerome and Rufinus. n .As the Latin translation of Origen has canonicus and cαnoni-zatus, we infer that he used κανονικός, opposed as it is to apocryphus or secretus. The first occurrence of κανονικός is in the 59th canon of the Council of Laodicea, where it is contrasted with ιδιωτικός and ακανόνιστος. Kαvovι(o∕z∈vα, “ canonized books,” is first used in Athanasius’s festal epistle. 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 Scripture, 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 Irenaeus applies the epithets divine and perfect to the Scriptures; and Clement of Alexandria calls them inspired.

When distinctions were made among the Biblical writings other words were employed, synonymous with κανοι> ζομεva or κeκavοvισμεva, such as ίνδοάθηκα, ωρtσμeva, 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 portion 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 Pentateuch, 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 founding 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 summarily 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, however; 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 coextensive 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 division 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 Testament, and had probably been preceded by smaller collections 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 men 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 probable. 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 unce. Its contents were multifarious, differing widely from one another in age and character—poetical, prophetic, didactic, historical. 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. Enriched 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 5th 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 thé 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 learning 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 question. Indeed, several books (Canticles, Esther, Ecclesiastes), 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. “For 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 Palestinian 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, Ecclesiastes, 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 inconsistencies. This scepticism went far to procure the exclusion of the suspected works from the canon, and their relegation 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.υ i , as we learn from the Talmud, when the controversy 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 Jamnia, 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,” t.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 virtually settled at Jamnia, where was confirmed what R. 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 rabbins -might still differ about Canticles and Ecclesiastes, even after the synod at Jamnia.

J ewish 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 souk The independence of their religious literature disappeared with the national independence of the J ews; and the genius of the people was too exclusive 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 separated. Not that they were badly adjusted. On the contrary, 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 repute for a considerable time, possessing a kind of canonical credit even among the learned Jews of Palestine. Rab, Jochanan, Elasar, Rabba bar Mare, occasionally refer to Sirach in the way in which the dtubim were quoted; the writer of Daniel used Baruch; and the translator of Jeremiah put it into Greek.

With the formation of the canon we may now connect the labours of the Great Synagogue, so far as Jewish authorities present credible information regarding it. The Talmudic and other accounts are legendary in part, and also incorrect. Little as is known of its members or doings, some idea may be gathered from scattered notices about it as well as from analogy.

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 Synagogue. . 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, <tc., &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 Chronicles down to himself.” It is not clear what is meant by “writing” (∏∏3) in the latter part of the statement. It means composition in the first part, as the context undoubtedly shows; and that is Rashi’s explanation of the verb throughout. 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 Abarbanel, Abraham ben David, ben Maimun, &e., 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 succession 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, t.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, seeing 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 considered inviolate by the learned Jews; it received modifications 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 literature 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 writings, the more conducive to the religious life and advancement 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 theocratic 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,...

The first observation which may be made on this subject is, that every book referred to or quoted in the sacred writings is not necessarily an inspired or canonical book. Because St. Paul cites passages from the Greek poets, it does not follow that we must receive their poems as inspired.

The first argument to prove that no canonical book has been lost, is derived from the watchful care of providence over the sacred Scriptures. Now, to suppose that a book written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and intended to form a part of the canon, which is the rule of faith to the church, should be utterly and irrecoverably lost, is surely not very honourable to the wisdom of God, and in no way consonant with the ordinary method of his dispensations, in regard to his precious truth. There is good reason to think that, if God saw it needful, and for the edification of the church, that such books should be written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by his providence he would have taken care to preserve them from destruction. We do know that this treasure of divine truth has been, in all ages, and in the worst times, the special care of God, or not one of the sacred books would now be in existence. And if one canonical book might be lost through the negligence or unfaithfulness of men, why not all? And thus the end of God, in making a revelation of his will, might have been defeated. But whatever other corruptions have crept into the Jewish or Christian churches, it does not appear that either of them, as a body, ever incurred the censure of having been careless in preserving the oracles of God. Our Saviour never charges the Jews, who perverted the sacred Scriptures to their own ruin, with having lost any portion of the sacred deposit intrusted to them. History informs us of the fierce and malignant design of Antiochus Epiphanes, to abolish every vestige of the sacred volume; but the same history assures us that the Jewish people manifested a heroic fortitude and invincible patience in resisting and defeating his impious purpose. They chose rather to sacrifice their lives, and suffer a cruel death, than to deliver up the copies of the sacred volume in their possession. And the same spirit was manifested, and with the same result, in the Dioclesian persecution of the Christians. Every effort was made to obliterate the sacred writings of Christians; and multitudes suffered death for refusing to deliver up the New Testament. Some, indeed, overcome by the terrors of a cruel persecution, did, in the hour of temptation, consent to surrender the holy book; but they were ever afterward called traitors; and it was with the utmost difficulty that any of them could be received again into the communion of the church, after a long repentance, and the most humbling confessions of their fault. Now, if any canonical book was ever lost, it must have been in these early times, when the word of God was valued far above life, and when every Christian stood ready to seal the truth with his blood.

A book may be written by an inspired man, and yet be neither inspired nor canonical. Inspiration was not constantly afforded to the prophets; but was occasional, and for particular important purposes. In common matters, and especially in things no way connected with religion, it is reasonable to suppose that the Prophets and Apostles were left to the same guidance of reason and common sense as other men. A man, therefore, inspired to deliver some prophecy, or even to write a canonical book, might write other books with no greater assistance than other good men receive. Because Solomon was inspired to write some canonical books, it does not follow that what he wrote on natural history was also inspired, any more than Solomon’s private letters to his friends, if ever he wrote any. Let it be remembered that the Prophets and Apostles were only inspired on special occasions, and on particular subjects, and all difficulties respecting such works as these will vanish. How many of the books referred to in the Bible, and mentioned above, may have been of this description, it is now impossible to tell; but probably several of them belong to this class. No doubt there were many books of annals much more minute and particular in the narration of facts than those which we have. It was often enough merely to refer to these _state papers_, or public documents, as being sufficiently correct, in regard to the facts on account of which the reference was made. The book of the wars of the Lord might, for aught that appears, have been merely a muster roll of the army. The word translated _book_ has so extensive a meaning in Hebrew, that it is not even necessary to suppose that it was a writing at all. The book of Jasher (or of _Rectitude_, if we translate the word) might have been some useful compend taken from Scripture, or composed by the wise, for the regulation of justice and equity between man and man. Augustine, in his “City of God,” has distinguished accurately on this subject. “I think,” says he, “that those books which should have authority in religion were revealed by the Holy Spirit, and that men composed others by historical diligence, as the prophets did these by inspiration. And these two classes of books are so distinct, that it is only by those written by inspiration that we are to suppose that God, through them, is speaking unto us. The one class is useful for fulness of knowledge; the other, for authority in religion; in which authority the canon is preserved.”

Another argument which appears to me to be convincing is, that in a little time, all the sacred books were dispersed over the whole world. If a book had, by some accident or violence, been destroyed in one region, the loss could soon have been repaired, by sending for copies to other countries. The considerations just mentioned would, I presume, be satisfactory to all candid minds, were it not that it is supposed that there is evidence that some things were written by the Apostles which are not now in the canon. We have already referred to an epistle to the Corinthians, which St. Paul is supposed to have written to them, previously to the writing of those which we now possess. But it is by no means certain, or even probable, that St. Paul ever did write such an epistle; for not one ancient writer makes the least mention of any such letter, nor is there any where to be found any citation from it, or any reference to it. It is a matter of testimony, in which all the fathers concur, as with one voice, that St. Paul wrote no more than fourteen epistles, all of which we now have. But still, St. Paul’s own declaration stands in the way of our opinion: “I wrote to you in an epistle,” 1 Cor. v, 9, 11. The words in the original are, Ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιϛολῇ; the literal version of which is, “I have written to you in the epistle,” or “in this epistle;” that is, in the former part of it; where, in fact, we find the very thing which he says that he had written. See 1 Cor. v, 2, 5, 6. But it is thought by learned and judicious commentators, that the words following, Νυνὶ δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, “But now I have written unto you,” require that we should understand the former clause, as relating to some former time; but a careful attention to the context will convince us that this reference is by no means necessary. The Apostle had told them in the beginning of the chapter, to avoid the company of fornicators, &c; but it is manifest, from the tenth verse, that he apprehended that his meaning might be misunderstood, by extending the prohibition too far, so as to decline all intercourse with the world; therefore, he repeats what he had said, and informs them that it had relation only to the professors of Christianity, who should be guilty of such vices. The whole may be thus paraphrased: “I wrote to you above in my letter, that you should separate from those who were fornicators, and that you should purge them out as old leaven; but, fearing lest you should misapprehend my meaning, by inferring that I have directed you to avoid all intercourse with the Heathen around you, who are addicted to these shameful vices, which would make it necessary that you should go out of the world, I now inform you that my meaning is, that you do not associate familiarly with any who make a profession of Christianity, and yet continue in these evil practices.” In confirmation of this interpretation, we can adduce the old Syriac version, which, having been made soon after the days of the Apostles, is good testimony in relation to this matter of fact. In this venerable version, the meaning of the eleventh verse is thus given: “This is what I have written unto you,” or, “the meaning of what I have written unto you.” The only other passage in the New Testament which has been thought to refer to an epistle of St. Paul not now extant, is that in Colossians iv, 16: “And when this epistle is read among you, cause also that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” But what evidence is there that St. Paul ever wrote an epistle to the Laodiceans? The text on which this opinion has been founded, in ancient and modern times, correctly interpreted, has no such import. The words in the original are, καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε, “and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea,” Col. iv, 16. These words have been differently taken; for, by them some understand that an epistle had been written by St. Paul to the Laodiceans, which he desired might be read in the church at Colosse. Chrysostom seems to have understood them thus; and the Romish writers almost universally have adopted this opinion. “Therefore,” says Bellarmine, “it is certain that St. Paul’s epistle to the Laodiceans is now lost.” And their opinion is favoured by the Latin Vulgate, where we read, _eamque Laodicensium_, “that which is of the Laodiceans;” but even these words admit of another construction. Many learned Protestants, also, have embraced the same interpretation; while others suppose that St. Paul here refers to the epistle to the Ephesians, which they think he sent to the Laodiceans, and that the present inscription is spurious. But that neither of these opinions is correct, may be rendered very probable. That St. Paul could not intend, by the language used in the passage under consideration, an epistle written by himself, will appear by the following arguments: (1.) St. Paul could not, with any propriety of speech, have called an epistle written by himself, and sent to the Laodiceans, an epistle _from_ Laodicea. He certainly would have said, ϖρὸς Λαοδικείαν, [to Laodicea,] or some such thing. Who ever heard of an epistle addressed to any individual, or to any society, denominated an epistle from them? (2.) If the epistle referred to in this passage had been one written by St. Paul, it would have been most natural for him to call it his epistle; and this would have rendered his meaning incapable of misconstruction. (3.) All those best qualified to judge of the fact, and who were well acquainted with St. Paul’s history and writings, never mention any such epistle: neither Clement, Hermas, nor the Syriac interpreter, knew any thing of such an epistle of St. Paul. But it may be asked, To what epistle, then, does St. Paul refer? It seems safest in such a case, where testimony is deficient, to follow the literal sense of the words, and to believe that it was an epistle written by the Laodiceans, probably to himself, which he had sent to the Colossians, together with his own epistle, for their perusal.

But again: it may be maintained, without any prejudice to the completeness of the canon, that there may have been inspired writings which were not intended for the instruction of the church in all ages, but composed by the prophets for some special occasion. These writings, though inspired, were not canonical. They were temporary in their design; and when that was accomplished, they were no longer needed. We know that the prophets delivered, by inspiration, many discourses to the people, of which we have not a trace on record. Many true prophets are mentioned, who wrote nothing that we know of; and several are mentioned, whose names are not even given. The same is true of the Apostles. Very few of them had any concern in writing the canonical Scriptures, and yet they all possessed plenary inspiration. And if they wrote letters on special occasions, to the churches planted by them; yet these were not designed for the perpetual instruction of the universal church. Therefore, Shemaiah, and Iddo, and Nathan, and Gad, might have written some things by inspiration which were never intended to form a part of the sacred volume. It is not asserted that there certainly existed such temporary inspired writings: all that is necessary to be maintained is, that, supposing such to have existed, which is not improbable, it does not follow that the canon is incomplete by reason of their loss.

The last remark in relation to the books of the Old Testament supposed to be lost is, that it is highly probable that we have several of them now in the canon, under another name. The books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, were, probably, not written by one, but by a succession of prophets. There is reason to believe that, until the canon of sacred Scripture was closed, the succession of prophets was never interrupted. Whatever was necessary to be added, by way of explanation, to any book already received into the canon, they were competent to annex; or, whatever annals or histories it was the purpose of God to have transmitted to posterity, they would be directed and inspired to prepare. Thus, different parts of these books might have been penned by Gad, Nathan, Iddo, Shemaiah, &c. That some parts of these histories were prepared by prophets, we have clear proof in one instance; for Isaiah has inserted in his prophecy several chapters which are contained in 2 Kings, and which, I think, there can be no doubt were originally written by himself. The Jewish doctors are of opinion that the book of Jasher is one of the books of the Pentateuch, or the whole law. The book of the wars of the Lord has by many been supposed to be no other than the book of Numbers. Thus, it sufficiently appears from an examination of particulars, that there exists no evidence that any canonical book of the Old Testament has been lost. To which we may add, that there are many general considerations of great weight which go to prove that no part of the Scriptures of the Old Testament has been lost. The translation of these books into Greek is sufficient to show that the same books existed nearly two hundred years before the advent of Christ. And, above all, the unqualified testimony to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, by Christ and his Apostles, ought to satisfy us that we have lost none of the inspired books of the canon. The Scriptures are constantly referred to, and quoted as infallible authority by them, as we have before shown. These oracles were committed to the Jews as a sacred deposit, and they are never charged with unfaithfulness in this trust. The Scriptures are declared to have been written “for our learning;” and no intimation is given that they had ever been mutilated, or in any degree corrupted. As to the New Testament, the same author proceeds: With respect to the New Testament, I am ready to concede, as was before done, that there may have been books written by inspired men that have been lost; for inspiration was occasional, not constant; and confined to matters of faith, and not afforded on the affairs of this life, or in matters of mere science. And if such writings have been lost, the canon of Scripture has suffered no more by this means, than by the loss of any other uninspired books. But again: I am willing to go farther, and say that it is possible (although I know no evidence of the fact) that some things, written under the influence of inspiration, for a particular occasion, and to rectify some disorder in a particular church, may have been lost, without injury to the canon. For, since much that the Apostles preached by inspiration is undoubtedly lost, so there is no reason why every word which they wrote must necessarily be preserved, and form a part of the canonical volume. For example: suppose that when St. Paul said, “I wrote to you in an epistle not to company with fornicators,” 1 Cor. v, 9, he referred to an epistle which he had written to the Corinthians, before the one now called the First; it might never have been intended that this letter should form a constituent part of the canon; for although it treated of subjects connected with Christian faith or practice, yet, an occasion having arisen, in a short time, of treating these subjects more at large, every thing in that epistle (supposing it ever to have been written) may have been included in the two Epistles to the Corinthians which are now in the canon.

I. Early History. —The earliest body known to us of purely church law is the spurious work called the Apostolic Constitutions (διδασκαλία των αποστόλων, Constitutiones Apostolorum), which originated in Syria. Its eight books, uf which the first six date from the end of the 3d century, and the two remaining ones from the first quarter of the 4th century, contain a variety of moral and liturgical precepts, and regulations on ecclesiastical discipline, bearing to proceed from the apostles themselves. As a supplement to the eighth book there appeared also in Syria, about the beginning of the 6th century, a collection of eighty-five disciplinary regulations under the name of the Apostolic Canons (κανόνες τών αποστόλων, Canones Apostolorum). The Council in Trullo (692) sanctioned the Constitutions as law for the Greek Church, but rejected the Canons. The Latin Church adopted neither, but subsequently fifty of the Canons found their way into the Western collections. Though not what they profess to be, these writ ings are instructive on early ecclesiastical usages and discipline.

Editions :— The Apostolical Constitutions, edited by Dr James Donaldson for Clark’s Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Edinr. 1870; Ueltzen, Constitutiones Apostolicae (Greek text), Suerini, 1853; The Apostolical Canons, in Greek, Latin, and English, with notes, edited and translated by the Rev. Thos. MacNally, London, 1867; Bunsen, Analecta Aìitcnicoena, London, 1854, vol. ii.;.

In the 4th and 5th centuries collections which have not come down to us were made of the canons of the Eastern councils of Antioch, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Nicaea, Sardica, Gangra, Laodicaea, Ephesus, Constantinople, and Chalcedon. (See the Codex Canonum Ecclesioe Universae of Justellus, Paris, 1610.) Joannes Scholasticus, patriarch of Constantinople in the reign of Justinian (564), reduced these and other canons into a systematic work divided into fifty books. A little later this was digested with corresponding fragments of the civil law relating to ecclesiastical affairs into a code called, from its combination of civil and ecclesiastical enactments, a Nomocanon. Of later compilations of the same description the most widely-known was the Nomocanon of the patriarch Photius (883). A most important consolidation of Greek canon law was effected in the year 692 by the labours of the Council in Trullo (Concilium Trullanum, from Trullus, the hall in the imperial palace at Constantinople in which they sat, also called Concilium Quinisextum, from its being considered supplementary to the 5th and 6th general councils). They drew up an authoritative list of the subsisting laws of the church, comprising the Apostolic Canons, the canons of the ten councils mentioned above, those of several synods held at Carthage, and one at Constantinople (394), and the decisions of twelve Eastern patriarchs and prelates from the 3d to the 5th century. They added 102 canons of their own, and this code, with the addition of 22 canons of the Seventh (Ecumenical Council held at Nicaea in 787, was the leading authority in the Greek Church till the middle of the 9th century. (For the later ecclesiastical literature of the East see Zachariae, Historoe Juris Groeco-lìomani Delineatio, Heidelberg, 1839; and Mortreuil, Histoire du Droit Byzantin, Paris, 1843-46).

Translations from the Greek collections gradually came into circulation among the Western clergy. The best known are two that date from the 5th century,—the Versio Iiidoriana, originating in Spain, and the so-called Prisca (sc. Canonum Translatio), which came from Italy. The Latin Church was thus enabled to add to the canons of African, Italian, French, and Spanish provincial councils those of the oecumenical councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, and of numerous Oriental synods. About the same time a new source of church law rose into importance in the letters addressed by the popes to the bishops of the various dioceses in answer to requests for advice on points of ecclesiastical management. Such letters were called epistolas decretales, or shortly decretales, sometimes constituta decretalia or decretalia. Being communicated by the bishops to whom they were addressed to the neighbouring dioceses they ruled similar cases occurring there. They were regarded as of equal authority with the canons of councils, and soon proved the most prolific source of canon law.

Both classes of material contributed to the collection formed (in two separate parts afterwards conjoined) about the beginning of the 6th century by a learned Scythian monk Dionysius, surnamed Exiguus from the epithet he modestly applies to himself in the preface. The first part contains a translation of the Apostolic Canons, and of the canons of the councils of Nice, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicaea, and Constantinople, those of Chalcedon and Sardica in the original Latin, and the acts of the synod of Carthage (419) and other African synods. The second part is made up of papal decretals from Pope Siricius (385) to Anastasius II. (498), arranged in chronological order. Though never formally authorized, this collection, from its clear arrangement, the fidelity of its translations from the Greek, and the general authenticity of its contents, obtained speedy acceptance, and long maintained its ground against later compilations.

It is printed in the Codex Canonum Fetus Ecclesioe Romance of Franc. Pithoeus, Paris, 1687, fol. A copy of it, containing some additional matter, and known as the Collectio Dionyso-Hadriana, was presented to Charlemagne during his first visit to Rome in 774 by Pope Hadrian I., and was sanctioned by the synod of Aix-la-Chapelle (8^02) as the codex canonum for the Frankish empire. A collection of 232 African canons may also be mentioned, called the Breviatio Canonum, published by the Carthaginian deacon, Fulgentius Ferrandus, about the year 547. It formed the basis of the Concordia Canonum, a more complete work, by the African bishop Cres-conius (690). A similar collection had been made about 580 by the Spanish bishop Martin of Braga (Martinus Bracarensis).

In Spain a large body of law had accumulated in the canons of the numerous councils which followed that of Elvira (305), the earliest known to us. A collection of native and foreign canons was in circulation there in the 6th century, and after being added to at various times was generally received towards the close of the next century. It was called the Hispana (sc. Collectio) from the country of its origin, and being erroneously attributed to Bishop Isidore of Seville, who died in 636, also acquired the name of Collectio Isidoriana. Like the Dionyso-Hadriana it is divided into two parts,—the first containing a classified series of Greek, African, French, and Spanish canons, and the second the decretals from Pope Damasus (366) to Gregory the Great (604).

The Frankish clergy used, besides the Dionyso-Hadriana, the original work of Dionysius Exiguus, as well as a collection of Greek and African canons, Papal decretals, imperial constitutions, <fcc., which was produced in Gaul about the beginning of the 6th century, and is known to us as QuesneΓs Codex Canonum from the name of its first editor (Paris, 1675). The different ecclesiastical provinces possessed in addition the canons of their own particular synods, and Papal decretals addressed to the bishops within their bounds; and many Frankish prelates were in the habit of drawing up fortheir subordinate clergy short compendiums of canon law, in which they inserted any particular regulations the local circumstances demanded. These so-called Capitula Episcoporum are printed in vols, xiii,-xv. of Mansi’s Sacrorum Conciliorum Collectio.

The Hispana got into circulation among the Franks in a more or less corrupt form. One edition, which appeared about the middle of the 9th century, has become celebrated in church history as the Collectio Pseudo-Isidoriαna or False Decretals. Everything connected with this collection, its date, its author, its subject-matter, its purpose, has formed the subject of controversy, giving rise to a con siderable literature. We must here confine ourselves to the results of the latest criticism.

The following particulars seem to be settled. The wo*∙k, which is divided into three parts, was compiled by a single author, a Frankish ecclesiastic, between the years 840 and 860. From his styling himself in the preface Isidorus Mercator, Bishop Isidore of Seville was mistakenly supposed to be the author, and hence the name Pseudo Isidore. After the preface, and some minor apocryphal documents, the first part contains fifty of the Apostolic Canons extracted from the Hispaηα, and sixty spurious decretals of the popes from Clement I (101) to Melchiades (314), chronologically arranged. The second part consists chiefly of canons taken from the Hispana. The author has also used the latter as the substratum of the third part, but has interpolated thirty five fictitious decretals. A supplement is appended to some of the manuscripts containing, with a few unimportant pieces, a series of brief regulations regarding processes against bishops. These are the so-called Capitula Angilramni (a bishop of Metz), which are now thought to be older than the main collection.

No suspicion attached to the Pseudo Isidore at the time of its appearance. On the contrary, it was everywhere accepted without question till Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa, in the 15th century, expressed doubts of the genuineness of some of its contents. During the next hundred years the untrustworthy nature of the book (printed by Merlin in his Concilia Generalia, Paris, 1523) was irrefragably demon, strated by the labours of Erasmus, the Magdeburg Centuriators, and especially the Calvinistic pastor, David Blondel. It was subjected to the fierce attacks of the Protestant Reformers, who approached the question less in a scientific spirit than with a desire to reveal the iniquities of the Church of Rome They maintained with much acrimony that the work was a deliberate forgery, undertaken by command, or at least with the connivance, of the Pope, to exalt his temporal and spiritual power. In modern times the controversy has been carried on chiefly by lawyers, and, the theological dust having subsided, it has become easier to define the limits within which lie the only probable views as to the sources and object of the work. It is to be regretted that some symptoms have recently appeared of a revival of the former bitter feeling in con nection with the Old Catholic movement in Germany. (The Pope and the Council, by Janus, 3d. ed., London, 1870).

The idea is exploded that the False Decretals were the invention of their author’s brain, fabricated for purposes of Papal aggrandizement. Many of the apocryphal portions (the Apostolic Canons, &c.) had been for centuries in circulation as genuine. Of the decretals a considerable number are authentic, though antedated and ascribed to early popes to give them the authority of antiquity, while others embody the traditional contents of actual but lost decretals. The sources from which the compiler principally borrowed his materials were the Bible, the fathers, genuine canons and decretals, Roman law from the West Gothic Breviary of Alaric, the works of Rufinus and Cassiodorus on ecclesiastici 1 history, and the biographies of popes in the Liber Pont>ficahs. It is now admitted by Protestant writers that the compilation was produced in the interest not of the Pope but of the bishops, in order, by protecting them from the oppression of temporal princes on the one hand and ecclesiastical councils on the other, to correct some abuses prevailing among the Franks. The tendency of the authorities collected, was to support a right of appeal to the Pope in every causa major, i.e., process where a bishop was concerned, and to make the permission of the Pope a necessary preliminary to the assembling of a provincial council. This arrangement did not really secure the independence of the episcopate. It merely shifted the supreme control from a body of men to a single individual, in accordance with the constitutional ideas of the Middle Ages.

It is still a matter of controversy how far the course of ecclesiastical history has been influenced by the False Decretals. On the one hand it is maintained, chiefly by Roman Catholic writers, that they effected no essential alteration on the previous constitution or discipline of the church, that they merely gave the form of enactment to the prevailing ideas of the time on church government, and that the latter would have developed in the same direction had no such compilation ever appeared. It is argued reasonably enough that if any great innovation had been introduced the genuineness of the work would not have remained so long unchallenged. Some Protestant writers on the other hand assert that the Papal claim to absolute supremacy, over councils and hierarchy within the church and the laity without, was a pretension unknown till the 9th century, and entirely based upon the False Decretals. The truth probably lies between the two views. The influence of the Pseudo-Isidore has been greatly overrated. But it cannot be denied that the embodiment in a definite shape of the indistinct but yet perceptible tendency of church development in the 9th century was of considerable service to the popes during the struggle of the Hildebrandine era. (The latest and best edition of the False Decretals is Decretales Pseudo-1 sidor lance et Capitula Angilramni, by Hinschius, Leipsic, 1863.)

Other sources of church law prior to the Decretum of Gratian may be mentioned. Many laws on the rights and duties of the clergy were contained in the different compilations of Roman law (Theodosian and Justinian codes, Julian’s Epitome of the Novels, and the Breviary of Alaric) and the Leges Barbarorum (especially the Lex Ripuaria Bajuvariorum and Alamannorum). Of a similar character were some of the capitularies of the Frankish kings, a collection of which in four books was made by the Abbot Ansegisus of Fontanella in 827, and officially promulgated. A more important collection from an ecclesiastical point of view was that of Benedict, a deacon of Mainz (Benedictus Levita), who, by order of Bishop Otgar of Mainz compiled a supplement to Ansegisus in three books about the year 850. In addition to capitularies the work comprises extracts from the above-named Roman and German sources, from the Bible, penitential-books, the fathers, and other ecclesiastical writers, as well as canons copied apparently from the Hispana and Dicηyso-Hadriana It resembles the Pseudo-Isidore in containing much apocryphal matter in the form of false capitularies directed to ths removal of certain grievances of the Frankish episcopate. Being circulated as a supplement to Ansegisus it gained a considerable reputation, but was never officially recognized. The libri poenitentiales, or manuals of penance, are of importance as the foundation of the criminal branch of the canon law. The earliest ones of any note in the Western Church originated in England and Ireland, as for instance the Liber Davidis (Irish) of the 4th century, the penitential of Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, in the 7th century, and in the 8th those of the Venerable Bede and of Egbert, archbishop of York. The Irish church-discipline was introduced among the Franks, by whom the Poenitentiale Columbani and the Canones and Judicia Cummeani (two Irish missionaries) were extensively used. (Consult Jacobson in Herzog’s Real - Encyclopädie, art. “Bussbücher.”) The development of church-law was further influenced by the Ordines Romani, or books of ritual, the Ordines Judiciorum, or rules of procedure in the ecclesiastical courts, and the collections of formula; or precedents used in the preparation of formal or official documents, notably the Liber Diurnus, a pontifical collection of the 8th century.

The Pseudo-Isidore continued to be the chief repertory of canon law till the time of Gratian; but many other collections more or less corrupt, differing from the earlier ones in their arrangement according to systematic instead of chronological order, were made during these three centuries. It will be sufficient to name the following, as they seem to have been used by Gratian in compiling his great work :—1. A collection of the 9th century, dedicated to Archbishop Anselm (II.) of Milan (Collectio Anselmo Dedicata), based mostly on the Hispana, and interesting as the first work of authority containing extracts from the Pseudo-Isidore ; 2. The Libri Duo de Synodalibus Causis et Disciplinis Ecclesiasticis of the 10th century, by Regino, abbot of the monastery of Prüm in the Eiffel, drawn from Frankish and German sources; 3. The Collectarium or Decretum of Bishop Burchard of Worms, in twenty books, compiled in the 11th century;. The Pannormia of Bishop Ivo of Chartres, dating from the 12th century, and another work by the same author known as the Decretum; 5. The Liber de Misericordia et Justitia of Algerus of Liège, composed between 1120 and 1128.

II. The Corpus Juris Canonici. —The manuals of church law above referred to had not only become embarrassing by their number but laboured under defects that seriously impaired their practical utility. They contained much that was obsolete and much that was contradictory, many of them mixed up civil with church law, and their arrangement was unmethodical and cumbrous. These faults were to some extent remedied in the great collection that was formed between the middle of the 12th and the end of the 16th centuries, and became the recognized canon law code. The Corpus Juris CanoΛici, as it was called, consists of six portions, which may be classed under two heads, the Decretum and the Decretals.

1. The Decretum Gratiani. Up to this time canon law was regarded as a branch of theology, and was studied only in the seminaries attached to cathedrals or monasteries. Gratian, a Camaldolensian monk of Bologna, first taught it as a separate science towards the middle of the 12th century. The school of Roman law founded in that city thirty or forty years before by Irnerius was then flourishing, and Gratian, living within the sphere of the new movement, became ambitious of introducing a similar scientific cultivation of canon law. He selected the whole subsisting law of the church from among the mass of canons, decretals, writings of the fathers, and ecclesiastical historians, ⅛c., and digested it into the systematic work since called after him the Decretum Gratiani, which soon superseded all preceding compilations. It was early known by the name of the Concordia Discordantium Canonum, from an expression in one of the author’s notes (“auctoritatum dissonantia ad concordiam revocari ”); but whether Gratian himself made use of either name is uncertain. The work consists of three parts (partes). The first, treating of the sources of canon, law and of ecclesiastical persons and offices, is divided according to the method of Paucapalea, Gratian’s pupil, into 101 distinctiones, which are subdivided into canones. The second part consists of 36 causoe (cases proposed for solution), subdivided into quaestiones (the several questions raised by the case), under each of which are arranged the various canones (canons, decretals, <fcc.) bearing on the question. But causa xxxiii. quoestio 3, headed Tractatus de Poenitentia, is divided like the main part into seven distinctiones, containing each several canones. The third part, which is entitled De Consecratione, gives, in five distinctiones, the law bearing on church ritual and the sacraments. The following is the method of citation. A reference to the first part indicates the, initial words or number of the canon and the number of the distinctio, e.g., can. Propter ecclesiasticas, dist. xviii. or c. 15, d. xviii. The second part is cited by the canon, causa, and quaestio, e.^.,can. Si quis suadente, C. 17, qu. 4, orc. 29, C. xvii,qu. 4. The treatise De Poenitentia, forming the 3d quoestio of the 33d causa of the second part, is referred to as if it were a separate work, e.g., c. Principium, D. ii. de poenit. or c. 45, D. ii. de poenit. In quoting a passage from the third part the canon and distinctio are given, e.g., c. Missar....

The term was not introduced till the 12th century. The first person who availed himself of it was Udalric, bishop of Constance, in his letter to Pope Calixtus II. relative to the canonization of Bishop Conrad. The act, however, dates from a much more remote antiquity. The ceremony was originally only a commemoration of the martyrs, whose assistance was invoked in the name of the church militant to which they had belonged. Originally bishops decided whether or not the candidate had fairly vindicated his claim to the honour; but they only acted as the organ of public opinion. Orthodoxy was certainly considered of great importance, as may be seen from the fact of the exclusion of Origen and Tertullian, those great though erratic geniuses of the early church, from the title. As soon as the power of Rome was once more upon the ascendant in Europe, the popes naturally appropriated to themselves the important privilege of canonization. None but martyrs were at first admitted into the category of saints, but in course of time the privilege was extended to some of those pious men who, without having sealed their testimony with their blood, had evinced the sincerity of their belief by the purity of their practice. In later times, however, the Pope assumed the right of admitting into the sacred catalogue potentates whose claim seems to have largely consisted in their support of his temporal interests. Notable instances of this are the names of the emperor Henry I., canonized by Eugenius III., and Edward the Confessor of England, canonized by Alexander III.

So long as the right of according the honours of canonization was vested in the bishops, there was no public guarantee that it had been exercised with rigour or discretion. But when it passed into the hands of the popes, means were taken to prevent any but really meritorious persons from being enrolled in the holy category. Even then, however, a very simple ordeal sufficed. A few miracles reported to have happened at a tomb were enough to give its inmate a claim to have his name inscribed in the canon of the mass among the number of the happy. A Roman Catholic writer, the editor of Butler’s Lives of the Saints (ed. 1866) states that “the proceedings of a beatification or canonization are long, rigorous, and expensive.” It has been asserted that the discovery of the last-named feature of the process prevented the somewhat parsimonious Henry VII. of England from carrying out his desire for the canonization of King Henry VI.; Bacon, however (History of Henry VJI.), inclines rather to the belief that the obstacle here was the pope’s fear it would “diminish the estimation of that kind of honour” to give it to such “a simple man.” At a later period, when the ceremony was only performed after a considerable lapse of time, reasons were always hard to be found why the saintly candidate should be rejected. In modern times the court of Rome has shown itself extremely averse to promiscuous canonization; and since the days of Benedict XIV., the promoter of the faith, popularly known as the advocatus diaboli, or devil’s advocate, has exercised extreme severity in sifting the claims of aspirants. It is further necessary that a period of a hundred years should elapse between the death of the saint and his admission into the calendar. But the more pious men of every country in Europe have of late evinced so little ambition to secure this posthumous compliment, that it may now be considered to have gone fairly out of fashion. It is also probable that the far more stringent rules of evidence and the growth of physical science have tended to render proof of the supernatural much more difficult than it seemed to be to our mediaeval forefathers. It may be observed that the Lutheran divines of the century after the Reformer’s decease frequently refer to him as B. (i.e., Beatu«) Lutherus.

On the day of canonization the Pope and cardinals officiate in white; while St Peter’s church is illuminated and hung with rich tapestry, upon which the arms of the Pope, and of the prince or state requiring the canonization, are embroidered in gold and silver.

Beatification, which frequently precedes canonization, gives an inferior status to the deceased person, and appears rather to recommend him as a fit object for the cultus of his co-religionists than to enjoin it.

See Du Cange Glossarium, s. v. “Canonizare,” and the references there given to St Augustine on St John, ths Bull of Pope John XV., and (for the ceremonies) to th© Ceremonialβ Romanum, lib. i. sect. 16. Compare Milman, Lat. Christianity, bk. xiv. chap il, and preface to Forbes’s Kalendlar of Scottish Saiιds, 1872. For the Roman Catholic statement of the case see Alban Butler’s Lives of the Saints, preface to edition of 1866, and an Essay on Beatification, Canonization, &c., by F. W. Faber (London, 1848). But the great authorities on the subject to which all Roman Catholics refer are the decrees of Pope Urban VIII., and a treatise on the entire subject by Pope Benedict XIV.