Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

ON THE SACRED AND CANONICAL BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

All the canonical books of the New Testament were handed down by the Apostles.

« The same arguments by which the divine testimony preserved by Tradition concerning the complete canon of the Scriptures of the Old Testament is demonstrated, demonstrate no less clearly that all the books of the New Testament enumerated in the Tridentine decree were consigned to the Churches by apostolic Tradition as sacred Scriptures. »

When we treated of the books of the Old Testament, we reduced the arguments to a twofold class, namely to ecclesiastical use and to express doctrine consigned in the catalogues of the Holy Scriptures; by the same we shall now demonstrate the apostolic Tradition as regards all the books of the New Testament comprehended in the canon of the Catholic Church.

There is no need to prove that the books of the New Testament taken universally, from the apostolic age in which they were written, were believed in the Church of God to pertain to inspired Scripture. For on this matter partly something has been said where we treated of inspiration (see th. II, n. III; th. VII, n. II, 2nd), and partly it is evidently clear from the manner in which, already at the beginning and in the middle of the second century, the books of the New Testament were read in the Churches together with the prophetic Scriptures; from the conjunction of the same books with the inspired books of the Old Testament (cf. Hug, Introduction, T. I, §§ 16, 17); from the manner in which the Fathers, indeed even the heretics themselves, always used these books; finally from express and universal doctrine. For without any controversy, so long as the Scriptures of the New Testament are so regarded in general, it was always an established thing among Christians which Athanasius states (in the Festal Epistle) concerning the books of the New Testament no less than concerning the Scriptures of the Old Testament, that they are « inspired Scripture, as those Fathers handed down who from the beginning had themselves seen and had been ministers of the word, » and which Augustine repeats against Faustus, bk. XI, ch. 5: « distinct from later books is the excellence of the canonical authority of the Old and New Testament, which, confirmed in the times of the Apostles through the successions of bishops and the propagations of the Churches, is as it were established on high in a certain seat, which every faithful and pious understanding serves. »

All this holds good not only of the Scriptures of the New Testament in general, but also in concreto of each and every one of those books of the New Testament which (unless perchance by sects declining to Jewish fables or the philosophizings of the Gentiles — Ebionites, Marcionites, Manichees and other Gnostics) were never called into doubt among Christians, and therefore (if you please) can be called protophanic. Concerning these books, namely, without special demonstration we can assume as evident from the general arguments just indicated that they were always and everywhere and by all numbered among sacred Scripture. But the anti-Christian and anti-critical rationalists, for whom the perpetual consensus of the whole Christian name concerning the public books of the Christian society does not suffice, are to be refuted not in this place but (as far as it is worth the labor) in the Introduction to the individual books.

But just as from the Old Testament, so also among the books of the New Testament there are some concerning which the ancients report that doubt was once raised, and which some innovators of the sixteenth century — after a full consensus concerning them all had long since obtained in the Church — attempted to call back into controversy, and with versatile ingenuity now judged them to be admitted, now to be rejected. In this number are six apostolic epistles, namely five of the so-called catholic epistles — of James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John — then the epistle to the Hebrews, and finally the Apocalypse. These, therefore, like those of the Old Testament which were once ἀντιλέγομενοι, we shall for brevity's sake call the deuterocanonical books, and we propose to demonstrate in the thesis by a twofold class of arguments that they were consigned to the Church by apostolic Tradition as pertaining to sacred Scripture.

I. Such is the most ancient use of the Church in receiving and frequenting these books that they are proved to have been handed down by the Apostles among the divine Scriptures and in the same authority as the protocanonical books.

1st. Its whole force as regards the deuterocanonical books of the New Testament is exerted by the argument furnished by the old ecclesiastical edition of the Scriptures — the Greek namely, but in particular the Latin and the Syriac. What we have said therefore concerning the books of the Old Testament (th. X, nn. II, III) is to be transferred hither.

a) The monuments of antiquity from which we can learn the order in which the books of the New Testament followed one another in the ecclesiastical and public edition — such as codices and catalogues of the books — all exhibit the deuterocanonical books inserted and mingled among the protocanonical, so as to demonstrate that all were held in altogether equal authority, and to exclude every indication of diverse dignity. Codices which do not contain only individual books or only the Gospels (called Evangelistaria) comprehend either all the books of the New Testament, or Acts with all the epistles and the Apocalypse (τὸ ἀποστολικόν), or the seven catholic epistles with the Apocalypse. Now in most the order is this, that after Acts and before the Pauline epistles are placed the seven catholic, and among these in the first place the epistle of James — which place, as Eusebius testifies (H.E. II. 23), it persevered in retaining at the very time when by some it was, with the other mentioned epistles, called into doubt. In the catalogues too of Athanasius, the Athanasian Synopsis, Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Cyril, the Council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Leontius, Damascene, Nicephorus, the first among the seven catholic is this of James. The last apostolic canon among the Greeks, and among the Latins the African Councils, Rufinus, Philastrius (haer. 60), Augustine and others place in the first place the two of Peter; Innocent I, however, the three of John.

Among the Pauline epistles, many codices — among which the most ancient, Vaticanus (B), the Paris Ephrem (C), and Sinaiticus — have that to the Hebrews placed after 2 Thess. and before the epistles to individual persons, to Timothy, Titus, Philemon. The same order is kept by the catalogues of Athanasius, the Athanasian Synopsis, the Council of Laodicea, John Damascene; likewise the Coptic and Armenian versions; indeed in the Sahidic version (of Upper Egypt) this to the Hebrews stood after 2 Cor., before the epistle to the Galatians (Hug, Introd., T. II, p. 476). These things evidently demonstrate that in public and ecclesiastical use those books which some contradicted were retained in the same authority of sacred Scripture with the rest, and that no account was taken of that contradiction.

b) In the old simple Syriac version (ܦܫܝܛܐ), as it now stands in the codices, there are indeed lacking four catholic epistles (2 Pet., Jude, 2 and 3 John) and the Apocalypse; but that they were in it originally and still in the fourth century is gathered from St. Ephrem, who, writing in Syriac and for Syrians, uses all these Scriptures no otherwise than the protocanonicals. The epistle of Jude he recites entire (sermon against impurity, Gr.-Lat. Works, T. III, p. 61); from 2 Peter he transcribes nearly the whole of chapter 2 (ibid., p. 60); elsewhere he cites the words: « Peter, the summit and head of the Apostles, cries out concerning that day, saying: the day of the Lord as a thief... in which the heavens shall be dissolved with fire, » 2 Pet. III. 10, 12 (Questions and Answers, Gr.-Lat. Works, T. II, p. 387; cf. T. II, Syr.-Lat., p. 342). The second and third of John he expressly adduces: « This saying is not mine but of John the Theologian thus speaking: everyone who departs and does not remain in the doctrine of God has not God, » 2 John 9 (Sermon on love of the poor, Gr.-Lat., T. III, p. 52); « Scripture says: I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth, » 3 John 4 (Sermon on the fear of God, Gr.-Lat., T. I, p. 76). To the Apocalypse he appeals: « John saw in his Apocalypse a great book, » etc. (Exegetical sermon on Ps. CXL. 3, T. II, Syr.-Lat., p. 332; likewise Gr.-Lat., T. II, pp. 194, 252, 253). The Syrian Church, then, had in its version made at the beginning of the second century all the books of the New Testament without distinction ¹; for no other Syriac version besides that old one is known down to the sixth century. What Cosmas Indicopleustes relates about the year 535, that « among the Syrians there are found only three epistles (of the catholic), namely of James, one of Peter, and one of John » (Galland, T. XI, p. 535), cannot be referred except perhaps to the old simple version in the state in which it was in the sixth century; for understood universally, the testimony of Cosmas would be manifestly false, since at that time not only the old simple but also another version already existed, instituted in the year 508 (the Philoxenian, i.e. prepared by order of Xenaias of Mabug, the Monophysite bishop), in which are all the books of the New Testament as in the canon of the Catholic Church ².

c) As regards the Latin versions made « in the first times of the faith, » they furnish an argument for the deuterocanonical books of the New Testament no less clear than for the books of the Old, that they were always held by the Church among the sacred Scriptures and received from the Apostles (see th. X, n. II). The Latin codices of the fourth century, which Augustine and the other Fathers used, and whose text Jerome restored to Greek fidelity, certainly contained all the books of the New Testament without distinction between the ὁμολογουμενους and the ἀντιλεγομενους. For from the canons of the African Councils, of Innocent I, and from the innumerable citations of the Latin Fathers it is evident that the deuterocanonical books were received in altogether equal authority with the protocanonical, and that all those which Origen and Eusebius indicated to be ἀντιλεγομενους were placed, without any indication of controversy, among the sacred and canonical Scriptures to be read in the Church, as far and wide as extended the use of the Latin codices. But those seven writings could not have been foisted at a later date, perhaps in the fourth century, into the public Latin version and edition of divine Scripture received in the whole Church of the West. Those writings, therefore, had passed in the first times of the faith, together with the other books, without any memory or mention of distinction, from the primitive collection of the apostolic age into this version destined for the use of the Roman Church, the mother and mistress, and of the other Churches of the West. And accordingly all those writings were contained among the Scriptures handed down in the beginning by the Apostles to the Church.

They could not, I say, have been foisted at a later date into the version among the Holy Scriptures. This is clear first of all from the very nature of the matter in question (see p. 424). Besides, Tertullian and the other writers of that century already at the beginning of the third century had the same parts of the sacred Scriptures in their Latin editions. The Fathers of the fourth century thereafter, and among them St. Jerome himself, who corrected the old version against the Greek codices of the greatest authority he could find, knew nothing else than that these books had always been in the Latin version mingled with the rest, and that no other books could have been so received among the Scriptures except those which the Apostles had handed down. This the Fathers testify in their canons, in which they enumerate all the books as canonical and received from the Apostles in no other way, surely, than as they were read in the Latin edition of the Churches themselves. « It was established by the Apostles and their successors, » says Philastrius, « that nothing else ought to be read in the Catholic Church except the Law and the Prophets and the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles and thirteen epistles of Paul and seven others — two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, one of James — which seven are joined to the Acts of the Apostles » (Philastrius, Haer. LX). Lest it be thought that the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse were lacking, let the sequel be read there: « The epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans... is not read in the Church, and if it is read by some, yet it is not read to the people in the Church, except the thirteen epistles of his and that to the Hebrews sometimes » ³ (Haer. LXI). What is to be thought concerning the Apocalypse he had already said before: « There are heretics who do not receive the Gospel according to John and his Apocalypse, and do not understand the power of Scripture » (Haer. XXXII) (Galland, T. VII, pp. 489, 494).

2nd. That all these books were received in the Church by public and universal use and custom long before Origen and Eusebius, and that the same public custom perdured even at the time when some controversy obtained, is demonstrated by the very state of the question as reported first by Origen in the third century and then more distinctly by Eusebius in the fourth.

a) The first among the ecclesiastical writers whose monuments at least survive to have composed, expressly and of set purpose, a catalogue of the books of the New Testament was Origen, hom. VII, n. 1, on Josue (cf. hom. XIII, n. 2, on Genesis), where he enumerates all without any distinction. These homilies survive indeed only from the version of Rufinus; yet the very manner of the enumeration of the books is such that this passage does not deservedly seem suspect of interpolation. « With the sacerdotal trumpet Matthew first sounded in the Gospel; Mark too, Luke and John sang with their individual sacerdotal trumpets. Peter also sounds with the two trumpets of his epistles; James too, and Jude. John nevertheless adds still to sound the trumpet through his epistles and the Apocalypse, and Luke in describing the Acts of the Apostles. But last of all coming, he who said: I think God has set forth us Apostles last, and thundering with the trumpets of his fourteen epistles, cast down the walls of Jericho... to the foundations. »

Nevertheless from Origen himself is derived the first notice that there were in the third century those who cast some doubt upon five of the catholic epistles; whence arose the distinction into ὁμολογούμενους and ἀντιλεγομένους books — a form of discerning the books of Scripture propagated from Origen to Eusebius and thence to others. But the very manner in which they report this distinction manifestly shows that all these books had long since been among the sacred Scriptures, and even then were held by most in the authority of the Scriptures; and that the contradictors did not oppose this authority with a settled judgment, but hesitated in doubt in the manner of inquirers.

The passage of Origen from the lost fifth tome on John is preserved to us partly by Eusebius (H.E. VI. 25) and partly in the Philocalia of Nazianzen and Basil, ch. 5. There, by way of objection against himself, being about to prove that not many books are to be written, he adduces the example of the Apostles, who wrote very little; and so he is concerned to diminish, as far as can be done, the number of the writings. « Paul... did not write to all the Churches he had taught; but even to those to whom he wrote, he traced very few lines. But Peter, upon whom as upon a foundation the Church of Christ is built... left one epistle only, which is in confessed agreement among all (μιαν ὁμολογουμενην). Grant indeed also a second, for concerning it there is doubt (ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν, ἀμφιβάλλεται γαρ). But what is to be said... of John? Who indeed left one Gospel... He wrote besides the Apocalypse... He wrote also a very brief epistle. Grant indeed also a second and a third, for not all say that these are genuine (ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην, ἐπεὶ οὐ πάντες φασὶ γνησίους εἶναι ταυτας). Yet both contain scarcely a hundred lines. » That the epistle of Jude is not necessarily to be admitted in everyone's judgment he indicates on Matthew (De la Rue ed., T. III, p. 814): « if anyone admits the epistle of Jude also, » etc.; and in nearly the same way he speaks of the epistle of James on John (T. IV, p. 318). Elsewhere, however, without any signification of an existing doubt he uses the same epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter, even with the express name of the Apostles: « Jude wrote an epistle of few lines indeed, but full of efficacious words of heavenly grace » on Matthew, T. III, p. 463 (cf. ibid. 607, 632, 693); « As James the Apostle says » on Romans, T. IV, p. 654, and often elsewhere; « Again Peter says: You are made, he says, partakers of the divine nature, » 2 Pet. I. 4, on Leviticus, hom. 4, T. II, p. 200. Concerning the epistle to the Hebrews, as a book of the Scripture of the New Testament, no controversy was known to Origen, but on account of the diversity of style from the other Pauline epistles he only indicates that it can be inquired who is the writer of the epistle. « The ancient men (οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες), » he says, « not rashly handed it down as Paul's; » that the thoughts and matter are certainly Paul's, but the diction is ascribed by some to Luke or Clement of Rome (in Eusebius VI. 25). Thus already the master of Origen, Clement of Alexandria (in Eusebius VI. 14), had explained the diversity of style, that Paul wrote the epistle in Hebrew, but Luke rendered it in the Greek tongue. Origen uses this epistle most frequently in his works with the express name of Paul, e.g. on John, tome II, n. 6 (T. IV, p. 60); tome X, n. 11 (ibid., p. 174); on Ps. IV. 7 (T. II, p. 572); on Ps. VIII. 6 (ibid., p. 584); on Lam. IV. 20 (T. III, p. 350).

From these the state of the question in Origen's time easily appears: (α) all the books of the New Testament, the same which we still have in the canon, were kept in the third century among the sacred Scriptures received from the Apostles; (β) concerning the Apocalypse no controversy, and concerning the epistle to the Hebrews none as regards authority but only as regards the writer, had been heard down to these times (Origen died in the year 256); (γ) the five so-called deuterocanonical epistles of the seven catholic were likewise comprehended with the rest among the Holy Scriptures of the Church, and in common use were acknowledged as divine Scripture; yet there were not lacking some who called them into doubt.

b) But Origen made mention of this matter only in passing; Eusebius declares the state of the question more distinctly and expressly, not only of his own time but also of the preceding age. The chief passage is Ecclesiastical History, bk. III, ch. 25. He discerns four classes of books which in some way were said to pertain to the sacred Scripture of the New Testament. The term of comparison is sacred Scripture, not genuineness of the books in itself. For at the outset he distinguishes three classes: books in agreement among all (ὁμολογουμενους), those called into controversy (ἀντιλεγομενους), and spurious (νοθους) — inasmuch as either by the consensus of all they pertain to sacred Scripture, or some doubt of this dignity of theirs, or it is held certain by common sentence that they do not pertain to Scripture; the distinction, however, is not thence, that the writer to whom they are attributed is certain or uncertain. This is gathered not obscurely both from other things and from this, that among the spurious he places e.g. the Shepherd, whose author is Hermas; but other books foisted under the false names of the Apostles, e.g. the Gospel of Peter, he numbers not among the spurious but in the fourth class, of which I shall speak presently.

Now in the first class, as books received among the Scriptures by the consensus of all (ὁμολογουμενοι), are the four Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; the epistles of Paul (no exception made); 1 John; 1 Peter; « to these, if it seem good, the Apocalypse of John is to be added. »

In the second class are contained the books which are contradicted (ἀντιλεγόμενοι); these, however, taken generally, are divided into a twofold rank. The first rank alone constitutes the second class of books, and contains those which, although contradicted by some, are nevertheless acknowledged and approved by most as books of Scripture ⁴; or « those which are public among many in most Churches » (bk. III, ch. 31); those which « with the remaining books are public in most Churches » (bk. II, ch. 23); those which « with the remaining Scriptures are frequented » (bk. III, ch. 3).

This second class, then, according to Eusebius's testimony, comprehended the books which in public use and by most were acknowledged as parts of divine Scripture; nor were they distinguished from those of the first class except in that by some they were called into doubt — hence specifically called controverted (ἀντιλεγομενοι). He numbers in this second class the five catholic epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. Moreover that all these epistles were in one ecclesiastical collection with the protocanonical 1 Peter and 1 John — and so that the epistle of James held the first place — Eusebius himself manifestly indicates, II. 23: « Of this James, the brother of the Lord, it is said to be the first of the so-called catholic epistles... even that which is called Jude's is one of the seven which are called catholic » ⁵.

The third class is constituted by the books which indeed pertain to the generally so-called controverted; but they are in another rank, and altogether diverse from the books of the second class. By their specific name those of the third class are not called controverted, but spurious books (νόθοι) — i.e., although not pernicious, yet not only called into doubt and question, but by most, or at least by some, altogether excluded from the reckoning of the Scriptures (cf. bk. III, ch. 3); as are (by Eusebius's testimony) the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, the epistle current under Barnabas's name... « moreover, if it seem good, the Apocalypse of John, which some, as I have said, reject (from the number of the Scriptures), but others with deliberate judgment insert among the books received by universal consent » (ἐγκρινουσι τοῖς ὁμολογουμενοις). How these two statements concerning the Apocalypse could stand together will appear below.

The fourth class, finally, is composed only of books foisted by heretics under the name of the Apostles, pernicious books, « which are to be numbered not even among the spurious, but to be repudiated utterly as absurd and impious. »

Eusebius, then, (α) found the five catholic epistles in the public use of the Churches and in one collection with the protocanonical, and approved by most as pertaining to the sacred Scripture of the New Testament; (β) no one by definitive sentence denied that they pertain to the Scriptures — otherwise they would have had to be placed not in that second class but in the same rank with the Apocalypse; (γ) some cast no small doubt upon them, who yet could not disturb their public and common reception; (δ) concerning the epistle to the Hebrews there was no doubt deserving mention in the carefully instituted enumeration of the books which are in agreement among all and which are called into doubt by some (elsewhere, bk. III, ch. 3; bk. VI, ch. 20, he mentions some question of the Latins concerning this epistle, of which we shall speak afterwards); (ε) that the Apocalypse pertains to the sacred Scriptures some after Origen's age began to deny, and therefore according to the principle of order adopted by Eusebius it would have had to be placed in the third class. But that denial was of no authority, and unless restricted solely to heretics, was certainly of few among Catholics; whence, no account taken of that error, the book of the Apocalypse was reckoned among the Scriptures admitted by universal consent.

It is manifest, therefore, that even in the age of Origen and Eusebius all these books were by public use among the Holy Scriptures, and as such acknowledged and approved by most; and that the doubts are to be referred not to the Church but to the school and to the critical inquiry of some few doctors.

3rd. As regards the citations of the Fathers before the fourth century, there is some difference between the appeals to the catholic epistles and the frequentation of the epistle to the Hebrews and of the Apocalypse. That those epistles are not frequently cited by the ancients Eusebius remarks (bk. II, ch. 23); but in this very rarity of citations some in the third and fourth centuries fancied they found a reason why those could be called into doubt. Nevertheless there are at hand sufficiently many witnesses from the Fathers who from the apostolic age to the beginning of the fourth century appear to have had these epistles before their eyes as sacred Scriptures in their lucubrations, from the manner in which they either expressly appeal to them or manifestly allude to the texts of the same epistles.

We name for the epistle of James: Hermas, on account of the express and manifest allusions (Pastor, bk. II, mand. XII, nn. 4, 6; bk. III, sim. VIII, n. 6); Clement of Rome, ep. I to the Corinthians, nn. 10, 12, 31, cf. Jas. II. 21, 25; in the Syriac epistles to Virgins, ep. I, nn. 11, 12, cf. Jas. III. 1, 2, 5, 27; Irenaeus, bk. IV, ch. 16, cf. Jas. II. 23; Clement of Alexandria, who, as Eusebius testifies (VI. 14), expounded in the Hypotyposes even the controverted books, « Jude and the remaining catholic epistles » (την Ἰουδα και τας λοιπας καθολικας ἐπιστολας) ⁶. That by the name of catholic epistles the same seven are understood which we still have is clear from Eusebius, bk. II, ch. 23. Of Origen we have spoken above. Dionysius of Alexandria (On Martyrdom, ch. 6, p. 32, de Magistris ed.) expressly appeals to Jas. I. 13 as to Scripture. That in the Syriac version, at least of the second century, even as it now stands, this of James is contained with 1 Peter and 1 John, we have seen above, p. 483.

For 2 Peter, besides Clement of Alexandria and Origen, there can be adduced Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, bk. II, ch. 13, cf. 2 Pet. II. 19; Firmilian, ep. to Cyprian (among Cyprian's, 75, p. 144, Baluz ed.) ⁷; Novatian, On the Trinity, ch. 8, cf. 2 Pet. III. 10, 12. Those words, « the day of the Lord as a thousand years, » which in this form stand nowhere except 2 Pet. III. 8 (for far different is the conformation of the sentence in Ps. LXXXIX. 4), are cited already in the ep. of Barnabas, n. 15, then by Justin in the Dialogue with Trypho, n. 81, and by Irenaeus, V. 23.

For the epistle of Jude there are among the witnesses, with the express name of Jude and of Jude the Apostle: Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, bk. III, ch. 8, p. 239; Stromata III, p. 431; VI, p. 647); the Muratorian Fragment (Galland, II, p. 208); Tertullian (On the Apparel of Women, bk. I, ch. 3); with the name of Scripture, the anonymous author of On the Lapsed, n. 16, to Novatian (among the Works of Cyprian, p. XVII).

That several epistles of John were together held among the Scriptures is declared by Irenaeus, bk. I, ch. 16, expressly citing 2 John and joining texts from the first and second, as if each were one epistle (bk. III, ch. 16, nn. 5, 7); Clement of Alexandria (Stromata II, p. 389), by whom « John in the greater epistle » is cited; the Muratorian Fragment, where it is said: « the epistle indeed of Jude and of the above-named John, two (sic), are held in the Catholic » ⁸. Dionysius of Alexandria cites all three (in Eusebius VII, ch. 25): « John prefixed his name neither to the Gospel nor to the catholic epistle; but not even in the second which is current ⁹ and the third — in brief, the name of John stands, but without the name is written presbyter. » Cyprian cites 2 John, To Quirinus, bk. II, ch. 27, p. 296; bk. III, ch. 78, p. 325 — and likewise Aurelius of Chullabi in the Council under Cyprian (among the Works of Cyprian, p. 337).

Concerning the epistle to the Hebrews, Origen is witness (in Eusebius VI. 25) that it was « handed down by ancient men as Paul's epistle. » After Origen, Eusebius testifies that it is in agreement in all the Churches of the East, among whom all « the fourteen epistles of Paul are public and manifest » (προδηλοι και σαφεις) (Eus. III. 3). Jerome repeats that it is received « not only by the Churches of the East, but by all the ecclesiastical writers of the Greek tongue from of old, as Paul the Apostle's » (ep. 129 to Dardanus, n. 3, T. I, p. 965). Indeed before Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and before him « the blessed elder, » who is believed to be Pantaenus, testified that the epistle is Paul's (Euseb. VI. 14). Irenaeus likewise used it (Eus. V. 26), and Roman Clement « inserted many sentences » from it in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (Euseb. III. 38; Jerome, On Illustrious Men, under the word Clement). Although, however, some — as Clement of Alexandria and Origen (Euseb. VI. 14, 25) and St. Jerome (ep. to Dardanus, l.c.) report — said that the Greek diction of the epistle is not Paul's but Luke's or Clement's or Barnabas's, yet there were none in the whole East down to the Arians (Theodoret, preface on Hebrews; Epiphanius, haer. LXIX, n. 27) who called the canonical authority of the epistle into doubt. In the West, in the third century, first on the occasion of the disputes with the Montanists, some doubt befell — or more truly some economy was applied in the use of the epistle — which could furnish to some an occasion of doubting concerning the epistle itself, as Eusebius (III. 3; VI. 20, 21) and from Eusebius St. Jerome (On Illustrious Men, under Paul and Caius; commentary on Is. VIII. 18, T. IV, p. 125), Philastrius (haer. LXI), Augustine (City of God XVI. 22; Unfinished Exposition on Romans, n. 11), and after them Primasius (preface on Hebrews) and Isidore (Etymologies VI, ch. 2; On Offices I, ch. 12) report. Of this doubt we shall speak below.

The Apocalypse, from the time when it was written down to the waning third century, the most ancient Fathers with unanimous consent testify to be the work of St. John the Apostle, pertaining to Scripture. On it as on the divine book of the Apostle commentaries were written by Melito (Euseb. IV. 26), Hippolytus (as the inscription on the Vatican statue, Jerome On Illustrious Men, James of Edessa in Ephrem's Syr. Works, T. I, p. 292, Andrew of Caesarea, Bibl. Max. PP., T. V, p. 590, testify). Papias, who perhaps had been a hearer of John himself, handed down this book « as divine and worthy of faith » (Andrew of Caesarea, on the Apoc., l.c.). Besides, expressly and with the express name too of John the Apostle and of divine Scripture, they cited the Apocalypse down to the age of Origen: Justin in the Dialogue, n. 81; Theophilus of Antioch (Euseb. IV. 24); Irenaeus IV. 20; V. 26, 30; Apollonius the Ephesian presbyter (Euseb. V. 18); the Church of Vienne in the ep. to the Churches of Asia, n. 15 (Galland, I, p. 704); the Muratorian Fragment; Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus II, n. 12, and elsewhere; Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 5; Cyprian, To Quirinus, and elsewhere often; the Roman Confessors in the ep. to Cyprian (among the Cyprianic, ep. 25, p. 36). Indeed Irenaeus, bk. V, ch. 30, appeals to codices already ancient in his time, and to the disciples as witnesses who « had seen John face to face. » But Origen, in that very place where he diligently records all the doubts which in his time existed anywhere concerning some books of the New Testament, places the Apocalypse with the Gospel and the first epistle, without any signification of controversy, among the works of John the Apostle concerning which there was unanimous agreement among all (Euseb. VI. 25; above, pp. 487, 488). The first who is found to have made mention of some controversy concerning this book, in the disputation with the millenarian Nepotians, is Dionysius of Alexandria, later than Origen (Eus. VIII. 25), of whom we shall speak below.

From the manner, therefore, in which the most ancient Fathers down to the waning third century used the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle, it is manifest — and from the manner in which they used the catholic epistles, as far as can be expected from the very character of these epistles and of the works of the Fathers, it appears — that all these books were received among the Holy Scriptures by universal custom from apostolic times.

II. The reception of all these books among the divine Scriptures, and the apostolic origin of the Tradition, is confirmed from express doctrine, as contained in the catalogues whose purpose was to consign the books numbered in the Church to the sacred Scriptures by unanimous and universal consent.

1st. All the canons of the Western Church which we mentioned (th. XI), without any indication of distinction, and mingling the deuterocanonical books with the protocanonical — to signify namely the identical authority of them all — comprehend all and only the books of the New Testament which we still have in the canon of the Catholic Church. Of this kind are the collection of the Scriptures such as is proved to have been in the very primitive Latin edition; then the canons of the African Councils and of Augustine, of Popes Innocent I, Gelasius I or Hormisdas, then the subsequent recensions, namely of Cassiodorus, Isidore, Ildephonsus, etc.; and from those patristic documents, the indices of the sacred books inserted from the sixth century into the corpus of Law or into the various collections of canons.

2nd. Indeed even those Fathers who in the East judged it necessary to declare in their catalogues some existing controversy as regards the books of the Old Testament, found so universal a consensus as regards the books of the New Testament that at least most did not think the controversy worthy of mention, and numbered all our books among those received by unanimous agreement and admitted by unanimous consent. Thus as regards the New Testament they report the full canon, as afterwards defined in the Council of Trent: Athanasius, the Athanasian Synopsis, Epiphanius (haer. LXXI, confut. 5, T. I, p. 941), Rufinus, Jerome (ep. 53, n. 8, to Paulinus), Leontius, Damascene ¹⁰ (ll.cc.).

3rd. Among the remaining Fathers who, by reason of the doubt arisen, place some of these books outside the number of those received by universal consent (ὁμολογουμενων), there is none who does not retain at least one or another of them. Then in the books which they omit, most do not even agree among themselves. The epistle to the Hebrews all without exception place among the other epistles of Paul, if you except the Muratorian Fragment. Concerning Origen and Eusebius, the first reporters of some distinction, enough has been said above. Of the rest, Nazianzen, Cyril, the Council of Laodicea, the last apostolic canon, Nicephorus (transcribing Nazianzen — see pp. 458, 459, 474) have among the books received by common consent all the seven catholic epistles, and omit the Apocalypse alone. Three catholic epistles — 1 Peter, 1 John, James — are held among the universally received, the four remaining remitted with the Apocalypse to the controverted, by the edition of the simple Syriac version (perhaps from the fourth or fifth century — cf. above, p. 483), then by Amphilochius and the author of the Synopsis among the Works of Chrysostom, T. VI, p. 318. Two only — 1 Peter, 1 John — does Junilius Africanus place in the first rank, to which, he says, « very many add five others, which are called the canonical of the Apostles, that is, one of James, a second of Peter, one of Jude, two of John. » Concerning the Apocalypse, he says, « among the Orientals it is greatly doubted » (On the Parts of the Divine Law, bk. I, ch. 4, 6). The Muratorian Fragment ¹¹ reckons four Gospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, the Apocalypse of John, who is called the predecessor of Paul; of the catholic epistles, that of Jude and two of John. There are lacking, therefore, not only the epistles to the Hebrews, of James, 2 Peter, but also 1 Peter ¹², concerning which no one ever doubted. Whence, although in that document not a few things are obscure, and the particular scope itself for which the reckoning of the books is there instituted is not sufficiently clear, yet this is certain, that it was not the author's purpose — whoever he was — to designate distinctly and in an exclusive sense the catalogue of all the books which he found admitted among the Scriptures in the Catholic Church.

If now you compute these things together — that the Fathers from the second and third centuries, and still more frequently and expressly in the fourth and fifth, appealed to all the books of the New Testament as to divine Scripture without any distinction; that with the express doctrine, then, by which all the same books are numbered among the Scriptures received by unanimous consent in the Church, the universal ecclesiastical use most fully conspires; if moreover you keep before your eyes the rules according to which the scope and genuine sense of the Fathers in consigning deficient canons is to be explained (th. XIII, n. II) — it is manifest that all the books of the New Testament were always so received in the Church as sacred Scriptures as to be demonstrated to have been transmitted by apostolic Tradition. Indeed, for understanding the force of the demonstration, attention must be paid both in general to the principles by which the Church was ruled in guarding the deposit in every age (on Tradition, th. IX, n. I, 4th), and in particular to the solicitude with which the Scriptures were guarded « with the presbyters » of the Churches and read privately and publicly.

The origin of the doubts concerning the deuterocanonical books of the N. T. is explained.

« If any doubt concerning some books of the New Testament arose in the 3rd and 4th century, since those same books had already been received in the Church by manifest Tradition, it had its cause and origin in certain circumstances, so that it could neither interrupt the constancy of Tradition nor impair its certainty, and soon, already in the 5th century, it yielded entirely to universal agreement. »

We saw in th. X that the doubts concerning the deuterocanonical books of the O. T., which indeed had all together been handed down by the Apostles to the Church, had one and the same origin from the comparison of the Scriptures of the Church with the Hebrew reckoning. As for the books of the N. T., which the Apostles did not find already written but themselves wrote gradually in the course of a longer time (between the year 32 and 96 of the vulgar era), it is easily understood that they were not all handed down to all the Churches at once, and that several, more or fewer, could for some not very long time remain unknown to some Churches. But it is harder to explain how in the 3rd century, after the collection of the sacred Scriptures had long since been completed and confirmed by daily use, as is openly gathered from the very accounts of the doubts, the books of which we treat could nevertheless be called into controversy within the bounds of the Church. The declaration of the origin of the doubts will at the same time demonstrate their frail foundation, and thereby the firmness and certainty of Tradition will shine forth the more.

If those doubts recorded in the 3rd century are examined more deeply, it appears that their origin is to be traced chiefly to a double source: to the application of the negative criterion from the rarity of citations among the more ancient writers, and to the caution and a certain economy introduced on account of the abuse of the erring in the interpretation of the doctrine contained in the books. They applied the negative criterion chiefly to the Catholic epistles; the faulty or false interpretation of the doctrine of the books gave rise first to the less frequent use of the same in some Churches, and then to doubt concerning the writer and at last concerning the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Apocalypse. First, therefore, we shall speak of the Catholic epistles, then of the Ep. to the Heb. and of the Apocalypse.

I. Although those critical doctors of the 3rd and 4th century found all the Catholic epistles in one collection of the septenary number, and never disjoined, and saw without distinction this whole collection and the single epistles thereof in public use in the Churches, they nevertheless thought that Tradition was to be sought above all in the citations of the ancient writers; of which most diligent inquiry we have an example in Eusebius. But since moreover they took account only of express citations, where they found these to have been made rarely and by few, they judged this a sufficient reason not indeed for denying the genuineness and consequently the canonical authority of the book, but yet for doubting whether it were certainly established; and therefore they reckoned the book not in the first but in the second class among the ἀντιλεγόμενους. « It is to be known, says Eusebius of the Epistle of James, that it is suspected of supposition. » How can this suspicion fall upon an epistle which he himself confesses to be first in order among the Catholic? Behold the reason: « namely not many of the ancients have mentioned it, as neither that which is called Jude's, and it too is of the seven so called Catholic » Euseb. II. 23. But who does not see that this negative reason is of no value, if Tradition can be established otherwise also than from frequency of citations, and if the rarity of citations cannot be shown to have had its cause in ignorance of the books or in denial of their canonical authority?

1°. The negative argument, even if the hypothesis were most true, would effect only this, that Tradition could not be proved by express testimonies of the ancients, which certainly does not suffice to render it doubtful, if it is proved by other certain arguments and indications. But the public use of the Churches and the immemorial comprehension of these epistles among the sacred Scriptures — which use and which comprehension Eusebius himself attests — and hence the ever vigorous and constant persuasion of the Church, demonstrate the apostolic Tradition more effectively and more certainly than single citations found here and there in the writings of the ancients.

2°. The negative argument has absolutely no force, unless it be demonstrated that the circumstances were such, and such the character of the books in question, that the writers must necessarily have appealed to such a book, if they had acknowledged its authority. For unless the circumstances are so, nothing can ever be inferred from silence as to what the writer thought of the book and its authority. But in general such circumstances and such a character of a book can only very rarely be demonstrated; in particular, in the present case some of these books are so constituted that it would rather be vehemently to be wondered at if frequent citations of them occurred among the PP. of the first age. For how shouldst thou expect frequent necessity or opportunity of appealing to epistles consisting of altogether few verses, and moreover agreeing in matter and sentiments almost with other books, as are the Epistle of Jude coinciding with 2 Pet. II, and the two of John, of which the second almost in its entirety, the third insofar as it does not treat of private persons, agrees with the first Epistle of John?

3°. The hypothesis itself is not everywhere true, if it be not restricted to express citations alone but extended to the use of these epistles generally among the ancient Fathers. At least they so transferred matter and words from these epistles into their writings that from those Fathers the constant and common use of the Church from the apostolic age is confirmed (see above p. 491 sq.). So far is it that anything can be inferred from silence against the universal custom and the Tradition living in the practice of the Church.

4°. Moreover those very men who report the doubts arisen confess that the same epistles persevered in the public use of the Churches and were acknowledged by most, and they themselves use them as sacred and apostolic Scriptures. But no one ever reported or explained when, by whom, how books human, nay supposititious, could have been thrust into the divine Scriptures, and adopted among the Scriptures into the constant and public use of the Churches. And indeed such a use cannot be explained except from apostolic Tradition.

5°. Further, the genuineness of the Tradition is set beyond all doubt by the universal consensus of all the Churches in the time following. For already in the 4th and 5th century the catalogues, almost unanimous — except very few Eastern ones (of Amphilochius, of the Synopsis of Chrysostom) which follow Eusebius — have all the epistles among the ὁμολογούμενας, as we saw above pp. 495, 496. Henceforth indeed scarcely any traces of doubt appear, unless perhaps in the far East among the Syrians, whence Junilius Africanus (de Partibus divin. legis l. I, c. 6) had received from his master Paul of the school of Nisibis notice of some controversy regarding these five Catholic epistles — if indeed that be not rather a learned account of the animadversions of Origen and Eusebius than an exposition of the state of the question in the 5th century.

From what has been said it is already sufficiently established that the doubts regarding the Catholic epistles were not only not universal but were restricted to the school, which could neither disturb the use in the public life of the Church nor interpolate the constancy of Tradition.

II. Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews, Eusebius, bk. III, ch. 3; bk. VI, ch. 20, and from him St. Jerome (in Is. VIII, 18, T. IV, p. 125; ad Dardan., ep. 129, n. 3; de viris illustr., articles Paulus, Caius, and elsewhere); St. Augustine (Expos. in Rom. inchoata n. 11; Civ. Dei XVI, 22); then from them Primasius (preface to Heb., though not without irritation against the doubters, Bibl. Max. PP., T. X, p. 246); Isidore (Etym., bk. VI, ch. 2; de Offic., bk. I, ch. 12) report that it was received as Paul's by unanimous consensus among the Churches of the East indeed, yet not by all Westerners. Nay Jerome, in Is. and ad Dardan., ll. cc., says: this epistle « the Latin custom does not receive among the canonical Scriptures »; also according to Augustine's opinion, in Rom., l. c., because Paul's name is not prefixed, « some feared to receive it into the canon of the Scriptures. »

The matter is very strange; so many after Eusebius speak of men who contradict this epistle, and those men nowhere appear. They who narrate this receive it themselves without any doubt; there is no catalogue, whether Western or Eastern, which does not reckon it with the rest of Paul's epistles among the Scriptures received unanimously — with the sole exception of the Muratorian fragment, from which itself what its author thought is not clear; no Catholic writer can be brought forward whose works survive and can be examined by us, who called the canonical authority of the epistle into doubt¹; innumerable cite it, not only Easterners but Westerners in the age of Jerome and Augustine, without any doubt as a book of Scripture and as the epistle of Paul the Apostle. Thou wouldst almost suspect that Eusebius erred, and the rest simply repeated his narrative. Yet on closer inspection it cannot be denied that there was a foundation for this narrative; for it appears that in the 3rd and in places still in the 4th century, from which time the heresy of the Montanists and Novatians kept the Church harassed, the Western Fathers used this epistle cautiously. Cyprian never employs it in his writings; Tertullian himself, already a Montanist, although after the manner of his sect he strives to confirm error from it, yet ascribes it not to Paul but to Barnabas (de Pudicit., ch. 20). From this less frequent use, however, doubts could be induced, which yet must be said never to have spread except to few.

It is indeed established by the testimony of the ancients that the Novatians were wont to defend chiefly from Heb. VI, 4, 5, their error by which they asserted that certain sins were withdrawn from the power of the keys and irremissible. This is attested by Epiphanius, Haeres. LIX, n. 2; Jerome, against Jovin., bk. II, n. 3, T. II, p. 325; the author of the book de falsa et vera Poenit., ch. 3 (in the appendix to the Works of Augustine, T. VI); Theodoret, in h. l.; Marcus the Egyptian, opus. III, de Poenit. (Galland. VIII, p. 32); Eulogius of Alexandria (apud Photius, cod. 280). Concerning the Montanists, predecessors of the Novatians, St. Jerome, l. c., indicates the same, and indeed Tertullian, already a Montanist (de Pudicit., ch. 20), presses the same passage for the same error not without vehemence.

Now we see, first, that in the disputation with the Montanist Proclus this epistle « was not numbered » with the rest of Paul's epistles by the presbyter Caius, as Euseb., VI, 20, narrates; or, as St. Jerome expresses Eusebius's narrative more effectively, Caius said it « was not Paul's. » This economy other Catholics seem to have imitated. Certainly Philastrius asserts that it is read less frequently than the rest of Paul's epistles, and brings forward as reason for this the difficulty of some texts, and expressly mentions the danger of the Novatian heresy — which indeed is to be understood as possibly to be feared not from the words of the epistle but from the perverse interpretation of the heretics (Haeres. LX, LXI). « There are read, he says, thirteen epistles of Paul and to the Hebrews sometimes... Because it says Christ made in it (Heb. III, 2), hence it is not read; concerning penance likewise on account of the Novatians. » For the rest, those who deny that the epistle is Paul's Philastrius himself (Haeres. XXXII) counts among heretics; whence it is evident, as we said, that Philastrius ascribed the errors he indicates not to the epistle itself but to the wrestings of the heretics.

The whole history, then, can be reduced to about these heads. a) The most ancient Fathers who treated ex professo of the canonical books and expressly of this epistle teach that it was handed down to the Churches from the first antiquity (παρά τῶν ἀρχίων ἀνδρών Orig.) as a book of Scripture and an epistle of Paul. The Alexandrian doctors, as Clement and Origen, noticed some diversity from the other Pauline epistles, but seasonably reconciled it with the Tradition (above p. 493). b) In the Eastern Churches there was always unanimous consensus both concerning the canonical authority of the epistle and concerning Paul as writer, at least as to matter and sentiments. c) In the West it was always contained among the books of Holy Scripture, and in all Western catalogues equally as Eastern it was numbered among the canonical books. d) Yet on account of the abuse of the Montanists and Novatians, in the 3rd century some Western Catholic writers more willingly abstained from appeals to it; in places it was even read in the Church more cautiously. e) Hence some preferred to ascribe it to another than Paul, relying not on Tradition but on internal arguments; then some also called the canonical authority into question — who could have been neither many nor of great authority, since no writer survives who so thought, but this is handed down to memory solely by others. But such an economy, supervening afterwards from an external occasion, and the doubt of some, could certainly not disturb the apostolic Tradition and the common persuasion.

III. Above we saw that the Apocalypse, by a perpetual series of witnesses from the very disciples of John down to Origen, was held in the Church not only of the West but also of the East among the sacred books, and as the genuine Scripture of John the Apostle. Nor had anything of doubt among Catholics yet become known to Origen; otherwise he would not have placed it with the Gospel and the first epistle among the ὅμολογουμένους books and those received by unanimous consensus, but with the 2nd and 3rd epistles among the books concerning which there was doubt (see above p. 494).

In the last years of Origen, Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, contending that the Scriptures are everywhere to be understood not in a tropical but in an immediate sense, asserted from the Apocalypse the doctrine of the millennial kingdom, having also written a book « against the Allegorists. » Since many in the Arsinoitic prefecture embraced the doctrine of Nepos, and soon after Origen's death the matter verged toward open schism and defection of the Churches (Origen's death occurred in the year 256, the Nepotian schism about the year 264), Dionysius, Origen's successor in ruling the catechetical school and afterwards Bishop of Alexandria, to recall these men from error wrote against Nepos two books « on the Promises, » in the 2nd of which he treated of the Apocalypse. He admitted it indeed as the book of a « prophet » and of a man « holy and divinely inspired » ²; yet from internal arguments, from style and tenor of discourse, by comparison with the Gospel and epistles of John, he judged it to be of another John, not the Evangelist. As to the doctrine of the book, however: « a certain hidden, he says, and altogether admirable sense of the several things I judge to lie concealed. For although I myself do not understand, yet I assume that a deeper sense underlies the words; and these I measure and estimate not by my own judgment, but lending greater faith, I judge them to be more sublime than to be grasped by me. » Dionysius himself, then, agrees with the rest concerning the inspiration and divine authority of the book, doubting only concerning the human writer of the book, who he was. Nay, just as regarding the doctrine of the book he confuted the opinion of Nepos, so concerning the writer and the divinity of the book he wrote the things we have commemorated against the calumniators of the book. For a little before the words cited he narrates thus: « Some of those who were before us (τῖνες τῶν πρό μου), repudiated this book utterly and refuted it, refuting its several chapters and seeking to show it to be without sense and ratiocination (ἀσύλλογιστον)... That no one, not only of the Apostles but of the saints and men of the Church at all, is the author of this writing; that Cerinthus affixed the name of John... to his own work » (apud Euseb., bk. VII, chs. 24, 25).

This was the first heard against the Apocalypse not merely doubt, but full denial and atrocious calumny. Now I say that these calumniators were not men of the Catholic Church but heretics; nevertheless this narrative of Dionysius was the sole reason for Eusebius why he signified that the Apocalypse was not certainly and necessarily to be placed among the ὁμολόγουμενους books (bk. III, ch. 25).

They cannot be Catholics, for such a sentence of Catholics Origen, to say nothing of other reasons, could not have been ignorant of; and if he had known it, he could not have numbered the Apocalypse with the Gospel and the first epistle among the books received by unanimous consensus, in that place where he is wholly engaged in indicating all the doubts that in any way existed concerning the books of Scripture (p. 494). Epiphanius (Haeres. LI, nn. 3, 32 sq.) describes heretics by the name of Alogi (των ἀλογων), who, rejecting all the writings of St. John, ascribed the Apocalypse expressly to Cerinthus, and refuted it as absurd chapter by chapter. Now this narrative of Epiphanius plainly coincides with what Dionysius reports of some who before his age utterly repudiated the Apocalypse, refuting its several chapters as writings without sense and reason. We shall therefore judge that these Alogi, or heretics like them, not men of the Catholic Church, were indicated by Dionysius as repudiators of the sacred book (see Hug, Introduct., T. II, § 184).

The second point which I stated, that Eusebius followed solely this narrative of Dionysius, is altogether evident. For a) in that place where, describing the books of the N. T., he says that the Apocalypse can be placed either among those received by unanimous consensus (ὁμολογουμενους) or among the spurious: « which some repudiate, but others definitively place among those received by unanimous consensus » — in that very place, I say (bk. III, ch. 25), he promises to set forth elsewhere « what the ancients thought concerning it. » But in no other place does he set forth anything concerning the sentence of the ancients about the Apocalypse, except in these chapters 24, 25 of bk. VII, where he reports the narrative of Dionysius. This narrative alone, therefore, contains that sentence of the ancients which was his foundation for affirming that the Apocalypse is reckoned by some among the certainly non-divine and spurious books. b) Only from the narrative, as it stands in Dionysius, can that indeed strange affirmation of Eusebius be explained, when he says the book is to be placed not in the second class among the doubtful, but either in the first among the certain or in the third among the spurious. For this it is necessary that he found no one doubtful concerning the authority of the book, but most asserting it certainly divine, and some utterly rejecting it in altogether the manner found in the narrative of Dionysius. In this Eusebius was deceived, in that he thought those some to have been Catholics.

After Eusebius, in the 4th and 5th century we find it narrated repeatedly that among Easterners the Apocalypse is not received, in nearly the manner in which Westerners were said not to have admitted the Epistle to the Hebrews. « But if the custom of the Latins does not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews among the canonical Scriptures, says St. Jerome, neither do the Churches of the Greeks receive the Apocalypse of John with the same freedom; and yet we receive both, following not the custom of this time but the authority of the ancient writers » (ep. 129, n. 3, ad Dardan.). In fact in some Eastern catalogues of that age it is omitted, or placed among the ἀντιλεγομενους books (above p. 495). Some Fathers too, as Cyril of Jerusalem, abstain from its citations. Nevertheless not only Westerners but also many catalogues of Easterners at the same time continue to reckon it among the ὁμολογουμενους, with no account taken of the doubt brought in, and Greek PP., most in number, weightiest in authority, of the 4th century, employ it without any sign of controversy as a book of Holy Scripture and a book of John the Apostle — so that just as Philastrius in the West (Haeres. XXXII) so Epiphanius in the East (Haeres. LI) knew no other assailants of the Apocalypse than heretics.

Although, therefore, in the 4th century in the East there was not the same unanimous consensus as in the time before the Nepotian schism, yet hesitations of this kind, superinduced late from elsewhere and not from Tradition, could not shake the constancy of Tradition; whence, as concerning the rest of the books of the N. T., so also regarding the Apocalypse after the 5th century no further traces of dissension are found.

It is declared what St. Jerome said concerning the custom of not receiving the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse.

« What St. Jerome says, ep. to Dardanus, n. 3: « if the custom of the Latins does not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews among the canonical Scriptures, neither do the Churches of the Greeks receive the Apocalypse of John with the same freedom »; neither did the holy doctor himself say it, nor can it, the monuments inspected, be understood of a common and public custom, but both as regards the epistle and as regards the Apocalypse it must be taken in a restricted sense, of private doubts. »

I. The « Latin custom » in the time of St. Jerome — or as he has it in Is. VIII, 18, the « Latin custom » — which did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews, a) cannot be understood as common and public; but it was a private doubt of some. Nay b) among these very men most are to be thought to have disputed rather concerning the writer than concerning the divine authority of the epistle.

1°. As regards the extent of that negative custom, a) Jerome himself, in the same place, ep. ad Dardan., where he mentions the contrary custom of the Latins, at the same time testifies that the same epistle « is daily celebrated by the reading of the Churches. » The holy doctor therefore opposes the public custom of the Churches to the private custom of certain Latins. b) Jerome does not simply affirm that it is the custom of the Latins not to receive the epistle among the canonical Scriptures; but he speaks as it were conceding and transmitting an argument drawn from the Latin custom, which Eusebius first asserted (bk. III, 3; VI, 20), if it in any way exists. That both things we say are evident from a plain inspection of Jerome's passage. « This must be said to our men, that this epistle which is inscribed to the Hebrews is received as Paul the Apostle's not only by the Churches of the East but by all the ecclesiastical writers of old of the Greek tongue, although most judge it (as to diction) to be Barnabas's or Clement's; and that it matters not whose it is, since it is of an ecclesiastical man, and is daily celebrated by the reading of the Churches. But if the custom of the Latins does not receive it among the canonical Scriptures, neither do the Churches of the Greeks receive the Apocalypse of John with the same freedom; and yet we receive both, by no means following the custom of this time (which, if it in any way exists, was neither perpetual nor is universal), but the authority of the ancient writers, who for the most part employ the testimonies of each — not as they sometimes do concerning apocrypha... but as canonical and ecclesiastical. » c) Among so many Latin ecclesiastical writers of the 4th and early 5th century down to the year 414 in which Jerome wrote the ep. to Dardanus, none is found who doubted concerning the Ep. to the Heb.; all the notable writers and Bishops of diverse Latin Churches, Pontiffs, Councils cite it undoubtingly as the epistle of Paul and as Holy Scripture, and in catalogues place it with the rest of Paul's epistles among the canonical Scriptures. So Lucifer of Cagliari (de non conven. cum haeret. Bibl. Max. PP. T. IV. p. 224.); Hilary of Poitiers (in Ps. 129. n. 7.); Marius Victorinus Afer (contra Arium l. I. B. M. PP. T. IV. p. 264; l. II. p. 272.); Ambrose of Milan (de Poenitent. l. II. c. 2.), even treating against the Novatians; Pacian of Barcelona (ad Sympron. ep. 3. n. 13.); Faustinus the Roman presbyter (contr. Arian. often Bibl. Max. T. V. p. 645. sq.); the same Faustinus and Marcellinus, Roman presbyters (in libello ad Theodos. ibid. p. 659.); Philastrius of Brescia (Haeres. 61.); Gaudentius, Philastrius's successor (de Pasch. B. M. T. V. p. 945.); Chromatius of Aquileia (de octo beatitud. ib. p. 979.); Rufinus of Aquileia (in Symbol. n. 37.); Augustine and Jerome himself most frequently; the Councils of Hippo and Carthage III; Innocent I the Pontiff. Among these monuments the Council of Hippo and that of Carthage, St. Innocent I, Rufinus, Augustine describe ex professo the catalogue of the canonical Scriptures received from the elders, and among these Scriptures either simply place 14 epistles of Paul, or distinctly testify that the Epistle to the Hebrews is among the rest of Paul's and is read in the Church (the African Councils). Evidently, therefore, that « Latin custom » of not receiving the Ep. to the Heb. must be said to have been restricted to few. In the same way, or rather as a version and report from Eusebius, must be taken what Jerome has in the book de viris illustr., article Caius: « but even among the Romans to this day it is not held as Paul the Apostle's. » Eusebius said it a little more mildly: « down to now by certain of the Romans ¹ it is not believed to be the Apostle's » bk. VI, ch. 20.

2°. Among those doubters themselves at least most must be said to have raised the question not so much concerning authority as concerning the writer. For a) although St. Jerome and St. Augustine sometimes mention also doubts concerning reception among the canonical Scriptures, yet in other places the same (Hieron., de vir. illustr., articles Paulus and Caius; Aug., Civ. Dei XVI, 22) and several other writers — Philastrius, Primasius, Isidore — make mention only of the controversy concerning the writer (in the places cited above p. 493). Further b) the reasons the Westerners brought forward, from Paul's name not being prefixed, from the more ornate style, and the writers of the epistle they conjecturally proposed, agree entirely with what the Alexandrians Clement and Origen had already said (above p. 493). But those Alexandrians were certainly in doubt not concerning authority, but concerning the writer alone. Therefore the same must be thought concerning at least most of the Latins who followed in their footsteps.

II. What St. Jerome seems at first sight to say concerning the custom of the Greek Churches as regards the Apocalypse must also be greatly restricted. That down to Origen there was no doubt concerning this book neither in the East nor in the West has been demonstrated above (p. 493 sq.). Concerning the consensus of the Western Church even St. Jerome himself confesses there can be no question. Indeed, just as before the age of Dionysius of Alexandria, in which the first mention of any controversy occurs, so also after it no one was found in the West who raised a doubt. The Fathers of the Roman and other Churches of Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, the Councils and the lists of the holy books continued to testify that the Apocalypse is among the divine Scriptures and is John the Apostle's. From the age of Dionysius to that of Jerome we have as witnesses Cyprian, synchronous with Dionysius (ad Quirin. and often elsewhere), the Roman Confessors (ep. 26 among Cypr.), Victorinus of Pettau (Galland., T. IV, p. 52), Hilary (Prolog. in Pss.; comment. on Ps. 1 and 140, etc.), Pacian (Galland. VII, pp. 264, 270, 273), Ambrose (de Poenit., bk. I, ch. 9; de Virgin., bk. I), Faustinus the Roman presbyter (contr. Arian., ch. 3), Augustine and Jerome (often), Orosius (Apolog. cont. Pelag.), all the Latin canons of the Scriptures, as many as are extant.

But even in the Eastern Church, of which we now treat, at the same time not only did no contrary custom prevail, but on the contrary the weightiest Fathers from diverse Churches no less persevered in agreement with their predecessors. Among the Eastern PP. who after St. Dionysius down to the times of St. Jerome use the Apocalypse as a divine book, even with the express name of John the Apostle, are to be reckoned Methodius (Conviv. virg., Galland. III, p. 677; apud Phot., codd. 234, 237; apud Andrew of Caesarea, B.M.T.V., p. 590); Gregory Nazianzen (or. 29, al. 35, n. 27, and apud Andr. of Caesarea, l. c.), although he himself in the catalogue, where his set purpose was to describe only the ὁμολογούμενους books, omits the Apocalypse; Caesarius, Gregory's brother (dial. I, n. 29, Galland. VI, p. 19, if Caesarius be the author); Basil (cont. Eunom., bk. II, n. 14; bk. IV, n. 2) ²; from the Alexandrian patriarchate, whence the first mention of any controversy concerning this book was heard, Athanasius (more frequently, e.g., cont. Arian., or. II, n. 23; or. IV, n. 28; ad Serapion., ep. II, n. 2; in the festal letter he places the Apocalypse with the rest of the books of the N. T. among the canonical Scriptures without sign of controversy arisen); Didymus of Alexandria (Trin., bk. I, ch. 15; and in Corderius's catena on 1 John and on Ps. 50); Marcus Diadochus (cont. Arian., Galland., T. V, p. 243); Macarius of Egypt (hom. 27 and 30, ibid., T. VII, pp. 103, 117); not to be omitted, although later than Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria (de ador. in spiritu, T. I, p. 188; Glaphyr. in Exod., ibid., p. 233, and apud Andr. of Caesarea, l. c.); then from the island of Cyprus Epiphanius (Haeres. 51, n. 32 sq., refuting ex professo the Alogi who rejected the Apocalypse; Haeres. 76, confut. 5, T. I, p. 941, where he places the Apoc. in the canon with the rest of the books of the N. T.; he has frequent citations with the express name of John); in Syria St. Ephrem (T. II, syr., p. 332; T. II, graec., pp. 194, 252, 253, etc.).

From this series of witnesses it is manifest that the Apocalypse, even after the age of Dionysius and Eusebius, remained expressly in the Alexandrian Church among the Scriptures received by common consensus as a canonical book and written by John the Apostle; and likewise in the other Eastern Churches continued to be in public use, nor did witnesses of apostolic Tradition ever fail even in the Churches of the Greeks. Nevertheless we confess that some Eastern Fathers after Eusebius both thought the doubt arisen in places should be indicated in catalogues, and therefore did not place the Apocalypse among the books admitted by universal consensus (above p. 495), and on account of the controversy raised and for polemic reasons abstained from its citations — among whom are St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. John Chrysostom. Only under this qualification can be understood the freedom with which the Churches of the Greeks, before an express definition of the question had been given or had become known to them, are said not to have received the Apocalypse of John.