as it apparently is in an earlier chapter of the same book, although elsewhere it is spoken of as one of the Antilegomena.2

The importance of this passage of Eusebius can hardly be exaggerated. Eusebius had made the reception of the various books of the New Testament a subject of special inquiry; and the outcome of his researches was that he was aware of no doubts whatever as to the genuineness and authenticity of the great bulk of the books which have come down to us. Concerning seven books only, were doubts expressed by some of the authors whom he consulted. But for all these he was able to quote testimonies from earlier writers, and his deliberate judgment concerning them was that they were generally known and recognised.

It

There appear to be no formal catalogues of the Scriptures belonging to the third century. But of a second century list one precious fragment remains. is commonly known as the "Muratorian Fragment on the Canon," from its discoverer and first editor, Muratori. Its date, which is fixed by internal evidence, must be placed in the latter part of the second century. The beginning of the document is unfortunately lost, and in other parts it appears to be mutilated. But that if we possessed it entire we should find that the Gospels according to S. Matthew and S. Mark were recognised

1 III. iii. "Paul's fourteen epistles are well-known and undisputed (pódnλo kal oapels). It is not, indeed, right to ignore the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was disputed (åør‹λéyeσdai) by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul."

2 H. E. VI. xiii.

3 The fragment is printed in Westcott's History of the Canon, Appendix C, and in Routh's Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. i. p. 393.

Dr. Salmon seems to stand alone in assigning it to the third century, see the Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iii. p. 1002.

there can be no reasonable doubt-for the opening sentences of what remains assign the third place to the Gospel of S. Luke, and the fourth to that of S. John. Besides these the fragment mentions the Acts of the Apostles; thirteen Epistles of S. Paul; the Epistle of S. Jude; two (or three) Epistles of S. John; the Apocalypses of John and Peter, "which last some will not have read in the Church." There is no mention in the fragment of the Epistles of S. Peter, the Epistle of S. James, or (apparently) of that to the Hebrews.2 But as the MS is only a fragment, no great stress can be laid on these omissions, and we may feel sure that in its original form it must at least have included the first Epistle of S. Peter, as we never hear of doubts expressed elsewhere concerning the reception of this.

This is the earliest catalogue of the Scriptures that has come down to us. It proves conclusively two things first, that before the close of the second century a definite canon of the New Testament had been formed; and, secondly, that this was substantially the same as our own, although, as we have seen, so late as the fourth century, some hesitation was felt in various quarters concerning the canonicity of a limited number of the books.

4. Citations in early writers.—In order (1) to bridge over the interval between the latter part of the

1 "Though only two Epistles of John are here mentioned, the opening sentence of the First Epistle has been quoted in the paragraph treating of the Gospel; and it is possible that our writer may have read that epistle as a kind of appendix to the Gospel, and is here speaking of the other two."-Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iii. p. 1001. It is certainly hard to think that anyone could have accepted either the Second or Third Epistle without the other.

2 It has been suggested that the Epistle to the Hebrews may be referred to as the Epistle to the Alexandrians, which the writer speaks of as "forged under the name of Paul, bearing on " (or "in the interest of") "the heresy of Marcion."

"

second century and the apostolic age, and also (2) to establish the genuineness of of the "Antilegomena recourse must be had to the fourth branch of evidence.

To the same age as the writer of the Muratorian fragment belong Tertullian and Irenæus; both of whom bear witness to the acceptance by the Church of a definite " of Scripture.1 But earlier than about the year A.D. 170, although there is ample evidence of the existence of all or almost all the books, the indications of a definite collection of them are but slight. In this period the canon of the New Testament was only being gradually formed by the separation of the genuine and authentic writings of apostles and apostolic men from all others.

2

That a "fourfold gospel" was acknowledged at a comparatively early date is shown by the Diatessaron of Tatian (A.D. 150-160), the recent discovery of which has placed beyond dispute the fact that it was a harmony of our four canonical Gospels. Nor can there now be reasonable grounds for doubt that these four were known and used by Tatian's master, Justin Martyr (140), by whom they are spoken of as the " Memoirs of the Apostles," and said to have been written by "apostles and apostolic men." 3 To a still earlier date (circa 130) we are taken by the fragments which remain of the work of Papias of Hierapolis, one of which, preserved by Eusebius, describes the origin of Gospels attributed to Matthew and Mark, which it is only natural to identify with those which

1 On the evidence of Tertullian and Irenæus see Sanday's Gospels in the Second Century, ch. xiii.

2 See The Earliest Life of our Lord, by H. Hill; and Hemphill's Tatian's Diatessaron.

3 Apol. I. lxvi. lxvii.; cf. ch. xxxiii.; Dial. lxxxviii. c. etc. See on the evidence of Justin Martyr Westcott's Canon of the New Testament, p. 86, and for proof that Justin was acquainted with the Gospel of S. John, reference may be made especially to Ezra Abbot's Authorship of the Fourth Gospel.

certainly passed under these names later.1

a few years

This brings us very near to the date at which the Gospels were written, and when it is added that in the writings of the apostolic Fathers and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, there are many striking coincidences of language with passages found in all the four Gospels, we need not hesitate to set these down as proofs of their existence and acceptance by the Church, from the days of those who were themselves the pupils and companions of the apostles.

Equally clear is the witness of citations from early writers for the remainder of the books which Eusebius ranked as "acknowledged," and although it is clear that

1 Eusebius, H. E. III. xxxix.; cf. Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 142 seq.

2 S. Matt. xx. 6 is actually quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, ch. iv., as Scripture, being quoted with the formula is yéypanтai. There is a possible allusion to the Four Gospels in the Pastor of Hermas, vis. iii. 13. With S. Matt. vii. 1, 2, and S. Luke, vi. 36-38, cf. Clement of Rome, Ad Cor. I. xiii., Ep. Polyc. ch. ii.; with S. Matt. xxvi. 24, and S. Mark xiv. 21, cf. Clement of Rome, Ad Cor. ch. xlvi.; with S. Matt. xxvi. 44, and S. Mark xiv. 38, cf. Polycarp, ch. vii.; with S. John vi. 32, 51, 53, vii. 38, cf. Ignatius, Ad Rom. vii.; with S. John x. 7, Ad Philad. ix. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles appears to borrow freely from S. Matthew's Gospel. It also has coincidences with S. Luke (see ch. i., ix.), and S. John.

3 From the Acts of the Apostles we have a clear quotation in Polycarp i., cf. Acts ii. 24; and coincidences with Clement of Rome, ch. ii. (cf. Acts xx. 35), and Ignatius, Ad Smyrn. iii.; cf. Acts x. 41.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians is expressly quoted as St. Paul's by Clement of Rome (ch. xlvii.), that to the Philippians by Polycarp, ch. iii. In Ignatius, Ad Ephes. ch. xii., there is a reference to "every epistle" of S. Paul's, which seems to imply a collection of them. Besides these there are numerous verbal coincidences so close as to be marked by Bishop Lightfoot as quotations. Thus for Romans see Ignatius, Ad Ephes. xix.; Polycarp, Ad Philip. vi. x.

1 Corinthians, Clement of Rome, xxxiv. Ignatius, Ad Ephes. xvi xviii.; Ad Rom. v.; Ad Philad. iii.; Polycarp, Ad Philip. iv. v. x. xi. 2 Corinthians, Polycarp, Ad Philip. ii. vi.

Galatians, Ignatius, Ad Ephes. xvi. Polycarp Ad Philip. iii. v.

the "disputed" books only gradually won their way to universal recognition, yet it is believed that the final judgment of the Church in each case was correct, and that their genuineness can be satisfactorily established both from external and from internal evidence. 1

The brief sketch which has here been given, slight as it is, will be sufficient to show the nature of the grounds on which the Church has accepted the Canon of the New Testament. It will have made it clear that the great majority of the books must have been received from the days of the apostles without question, but that seven were not universally received until the latter part of the fourth century. Turning now to the text of the Article to see what is said on the canon of the New Testament, we are met by a difficulty. No list of the books is given, as in the case of the Old Testament. But two distinct statements are made which it is not

Ephesians, Ignatius, Ad Polyc. v. Polycarp, Ad Philip. i, xii.
Philippians, Polycarp, Ad Philip. ix. xii.

Colossians, Ignatius, Ad Ephes. x.

2 Thessalonians, Polycarp, Ad Philip. xi. 1 Timothy, Polycarp, Ad Philip. iv. xii. 2 Timothy, ibid. v. ix.

Titus, Clement of Rome, ii.

1 Peter, Clement of Rome, xxx. (?) Ignatius, Ad Ephes. v. (?) Polycarp, Ad Philip. i. ii. v. vii. viii. x.

1 John, Polycarp, Ad Philip. vii.

1 Of the disputed books there is strong attestation to both the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of S. James in Clement of Rome. See ch. xxx. xxxvi. xliii. xlix. There are doubtful allusions to 2 Peter in the same epistle. For 2 and 3 John and S. Jude nothing earlier than the Muratorian Fragment can be quoted. But for the Apocalypse there is ample evidence in Justin Martyr (Dial. lxxxi.; cf. Apol. xxviii.), Hermas (Vis. ii. 4; iv. 2), and Papias (see Lightfoot, Supernatural Religion, p. 214). For 2 Peter the external evidence is weaker than for any other book of the New Testament. The "clear evidence begins with Origen, who, however, mentions that the epistle was doubted." See Sanday, Inspiration, p. 382, and on the whole subject of the Genesis of the New Testament, see ibid. Lectures, vi. vii.