CANON
278
CANON
(365) had considered (he question of the Canon.
This Roman synod must have devoted" itself specially
to the matter. The result of its deliberations, presided
over, no doubt, by the energetic Damasus himself,
has been preserved in the document called " Decretum
Gelasii de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris", a
compilation partly of the sixth century (Turner, in
"Journal of Theo'logical Studies", I, 1900), but con-
taining much material dating from the two preceding
ones. " The Damasan catalogue presents the complete
and perfect Canon which has been that of the Church
Universal eversince. TheN T. portion bears the marks
of Jerome's views (cf. Zahn, "GrundrissderGeschichte
d. neutest. Kanons", in loco). St. Jerome, always
prepossessed in favour of Oriental positions in matters
Biblical, exerted then a happy influence in regard to
the N. T. ; if he attempted to place any Eastern re-
striction upon the Canon of the O. T. his effort failed
of any effect. The title of the decree — "Nuncvero
de scripturis divinis agendum est quid universalis
Catholica recipiat ecclesia, et quid vitare debeat" —
proves that the council drew up a list of apocryphal
as well as authentic Scriptures. The Shepherd and
the false Apocalypse of Peter now received their
final blow. "Rome had spoken, and the nations of
the West had heard" (Zahn). The works of the
Latin Fathers of the period — Jerome, Hilary of
Poitiers, Lucifer of Sardinia, Philaster of Brescia —
manifest the changed attitude toward Hebrews,
James, Jude, II Peter, and III John.
(c) Fixation in the African and Gallican Churches. — It was some little time before the African Church perfectly adjusted its N. T. to the Damasan Canon. Optatus of Mileve (370-85) does not use Hebrews. St. Augustine, while himself receiving the integral Canon, acknowledged that many contested this Epistle. But in the Synod of Hippo (393) the great Doctor's view prevailed, and the correct Canon was adopted. However, it is evident that it found many opponents in Africa, since three councils there at brief intervals — Hippo, Carthage, in 393; Third of Carthage in 397; Carthage in 419 — found it necessary to formulate catalogues. The introduction of He- brews was an especial crux, and a reflection of this is found in the first Carthage list, where the much vexed Epistle, though styled of St. Paul, is still num- bered separately from the time-consecrated group of thirteen. The catalogues of Hippo and Carthage are identical with the Catholic Canon of the present. In Gaul some doubts lingered for a time, as we find Pope Innocent I, in 405, sending a list of the Sacred Books to one of its bishops, Exsuperius of Toulouse.
So at the close of the first decade of the fifth cen- tury the entire Western Church was in possession of the' full Canon of the N. T. In the East, where, with the exception of the Edessene Syrian Church, approxi- mate completeness had long obtained without the aid of formal enactments, opinions were still somewhat divided on the Apocalypse. But for the Catholic Church as a whole the content of the N. T. was defin- itely fixed, and the discussion closed.
The final process of this Canon's development had been twofold: positive, in tin- permanent consecration of several writings which had long hovered on the line between canonical and apocryphal; and negative, by the definite elimination of certain privileged apocry- pha that had enjoyed here and there a canonical or quasi-canonical standing. In lie' reception of the disputed books a growing conviction of Apostolic authorship had much to do. but the ultimate criterion had been their recognition as inspired by a great and ancient division of the Catholic Church. Thus, like Origen, St. Jerome adduces the testimony of the an- cients and ecclesiastical usage in pleading the cause of the Epistle to the Hebrews (De Viris Illustribus, lix) Then' is no sign that the Western Church ever positively repudiated any of the N. T. deuteros; not
admitted from the beginning, these had slowly ad-
vanced towards a complete acceptance there. On the
other hand, the apparently formal exclusion of Apoc-
alypse from the sacred catalogue of certain Greek
Churches was a transient phase, and supposes its
primitive reception. Greek Christianity everywhere,
from about the beginning of the sixth century, prac-
tically had a complete and pure N. T. Canon. (See
Hebrews, Epistle to; St. Peter, James, Jude,
John, Epistles of; Apocalypse.)
(4) Subsequent history oj the N. T. Canon.
(a) To the Protestant Reformation.— The N. T. in its canonical aspect has little history between the first years of the fifth and the early part of the six- teenth century. As was natural in ages when ec- clesiastical authority had not reached its modern centralization, there were sporadic divergences from the common teaching and tradition. There was no diffused contestation of any book, but here and there attempts by individuals to add something to the re- ceived collection. In several ancient Latin MSS. the spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans is found among the canonical letters, and, in a few instances, the apocry- phal III Corinthians. The last trace of any Western contradiction within the Church to the Canon of the N. T. reveals a curious transplantation of Oriental doubts concerning the Apocalypse. An act of the Synod of Toledo, held in 633, states that many con- test the authority of that book, and orders it to be read in the churches under pain of excommunication. This opposition in all probability came from the Visi- goths, who had recently been converted from Arian- ism. The Gothic Bible had been made under Orien- tal auspices at a time when there was still much hos- tility to Apocalypse in the East.
(b) The New Testament and the Council of Trent (1546). — This oecumenical synod had to defend the integrity of the New Testament as well as the Old against the attacks of the pseudo-Reformers. Luther, basing his action on dogmatic reasons and the judg- ment of antiquity, had discarded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse as altogether uncanonical. Zwingli could not see in Apocalypse a Biblical book, fficolampadius placed James, Jude, II Peter, II and III John in an inferior rank. Even a few Catholic scholars of the Renaissance type, notably Eras- mus and Cajetan, had thrown some doubts on the canonicity of the above-mentioned Antilegomena. As to whole books, the Protestant doubts were the only ones the Fathers of Trent took cognizance of; there was not the slightest hesitation regarding the authority of any entire document. But the deu- terocanonical parts gave the council some concern, viz., the last twelve verses of Mark, the passage about the Bloody Sweat in Luke, and the Perieope Adulterce in John. Cardinal Cajetan had approvingly quoted an unfavourable comment of St. Jerome regarding Mark, xvi, 9-20; Erasmus had rejected the section on the Adulterous Woman as unauthentic. Still, even concerning these no doubt of authenticity was ex- pressed at Trent; the only question was as to the manner of their reception. In the end these portions were received, like the deuterocanonical books, with- out the slightest distinction. And the clause "cum omnibus suis partibus" regards especially these por- tions. — For an account of the action of Trent on the Canon, the reader is referred back to the respective section of this article: II. The Canon of the Old Testa- ment in the Catholic Church.
The Tridentine decree defining the Canon affirms the authenticity of the books to which proper names are attached, without however including this in the definition. The order of books follows that of the Bull of Eugenius IV (Council of Florence), except that Acts was moved from a place before Apoca- lypse to its present position, and Hebrews put at the end of St. Paul's Epistles. The Tridentine order
