Canon
CANON
The Greek word denotes, primarily, a straight rod; hence a rule or standard, by a reference to which the rectitude of opinions or actions may be decided. In the latter sense it is used in Gal 6:16 Phi 3:16 . In the same sense it was used by the Greek fathers. As the standard to which they sought to appeal on all questions was the will of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, they came naturally to apply this term to the collective body of those writings, and to speak of them as the canon or rule. Canon is also equivalent to a list of catalogue, in which are inserted those books which contain the inspired rule of faith.In order to establish the canon of Scripture, it must be shown that all the books are of divine authority; that they are entire and incorrupt; that it is complete without addition from any foreign source; and that the whole of the books for which divine authority can be proved are included. See BIBLE.
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
CANON (1)
A word used to denote the authorised catalogue of the sacred writings. “The Greek word” says Dr. Owen, “which gives rise to the term canonical, seems to be derived from the Hebrew kaneh, which in general signifies any reed whatever, 1Ki 14:15. Isa 43:3. and particularly a reed made into an instrument, wherewith they measured their buildings, containing six cubits in length, Eze 40:7.xliii. 16. and hence indefinitely it is taken for a rule or measure. Besides, it signifies the beam and tongue of a balance. Isa 46:6. ‘they weighed silver on the cane; that is, saith the Targum, ‘in the balance.’ This also is the primary and proper signification of the Greek word. Hence common, wherein it signifies a moral rule. Aristotle calls the law the rule of the administration; and hence it is that the written word of God being in itself absolutely right, and appointed to be the rule of faith and obedience, is eminently called ‘canonical.'”
The ancient canon of the books of the Old Testament, ordinarily attributed to Ezra, was divided into the law, the prophets, and the hagiographia, to which our Saviour refers, Luk 24:45. The same division is also mentioned by Josephus. This is the canon allowed to have been followed by the primitive church till the council of Carthage; and, according to Jerome, this consisted of no more than twenty-two books, answering to the number of the Hebrew alphabet, though at present they are classed into twenty-four divisions. That council enlarged the canon very considerably, taking into it the apocryphal books; which the council of Trent farther enforced, enjoining them to be received as books of holy Scripture, upon pain of anathema. The Romanists, in defense of this canon, say, that it is the same with that of the council of Hippo, held in 393; and with that of the third council of Carthage of 397, at which were present forty-six bishops, and among the rest St. Augustine.
Their canon of the New Testament, however, perfectly agrees with ours. It consists of books that are well known, some of which have been universally acknowledged; such are the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of St. Paul, first of St. Peter, and first of St. John; and others, concerning which doubts were entertained, but which were afterwards received as genuine; such are the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, that of Jude, and the Revelation. These books were written at different times; and they are authenticated, not by the decrees of councils or infallible authority, but by such evidence as is thought sufficient in the case of any other ancient writings. They were extensively diffused, and read in every Christian society; they were valued and preserved with care by the first Christians; they were cited by Christian writers of the second, third, and fourth centuries, as Irenxus, Clement the Alexandrian, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, &c.; and their genuineness is proved by the testimony of those who were contemporary with the apostles themselves. The four Gospels, and most of the other books of the New Testament, were collected either by one of the apostles, or some of their disciples and successors, before the end of the first century. The catalogue of canonical books furnished by the more ancient Christian writers, as Origen, about A.D. 210, Eusebius and Athanasius in 315, Epiphanius in 370, Jerome in 382, austin in 394, and many others, agrees with that which is now received among Christians.
See articles BIBLE, CHRISTIANITY, SCRIPTURES; Blair’s Canon of Scripture; Jones’s Canonical authority of the New Test.; Michaelis’s Lect. on the New Test.; Du Pin’s Canon of Script. 5: 1.; Pridaux’s Connections 5:1.; Dr. Owen on the Hebrews, Introd.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
CANON (2)
A person who possesses a prebend or revenue allotted for the performance of divine service in a cathedral or collegiate church. Canons are of no great antiquity. Paschier observes, that the name was not know before Charlemagne: at least, the first we hear of are in Gregory de Tours, who mentions a college of canons instituted by Baldwin XVI, archbishop of that city, in the time of Clotharius I. The common opinion attributes the institution of this order to Chrodegangus, bishop of Mentz, about the middle of the eighth century.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
CANON (3)
In an ecclesiastical sense, is a rule either of doctrine or discipline, enacted especially by a council, and confirmed by the authority of the sovereign. Canons are properly decisions of matters of religion, or regulations of the policy and discipline of a church made by councils, either general, national, or provincial; such are the canons of the council of Nice, of Trent, &c.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
canon
(Greek: kanon, rule)
A practical law or rule of guidance; a standard, or criterion; a catalog or list of such rules.
In art , an established rule.
In biblical usage, the official catalog of inspired writings known as the Old and New Testament See also: Canon of the Holy Scriptures .
In ecclesiastical usage, a short dogmatic definition, with an anathema attached, made by a general council; a rule of the Church. See also Canon Law ; Canon Law, New Code of .
The fundamental part of the Mass, coming after the Offertory. See also Canon of the Mass .
The rules of religious orders and the books comprising these rules.
The catalog of canonized saints.
Certain ecclesiastical persons. See Canons, Chapters of ; Canon Penitentiary ; Canons and Canonesses Regular ; Canons Regular of Saint Augustine ; Canons Regular of the Immaculate Conception ; Canons Regular of the Lateran .
In music, a composition consisting of the imitation or repetition of the same melody by one or more voices in turn, in such a manner as to produce harmony.
In printing, a size of type almost equal to four-line picar 48-point type; it is said to be so called because it was used for printing the Canon of the Mass and church books.
New Catholic Dictionary
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Canon
An ecclesiastical person (Lat. Canonicus), a member of a chapter or body of clerics living according to rule and presided over by one of their number.
Whether the title as applied to persons is derived from canon (Gk. kanón), a rule, or from the same term meaning a list of those who served a particular church, is much discussed. As however there are various kinds of chapters, each having its own specific rule, rights, and privileges, the most accurate definition of a canon is “a member of a chapter”. Some writers have derived the title from the canon or rule of community life that was followed by certain clerics and which distinguished them from others who did not live in community. “A canon is so called from the canon, that is from the regularity of the life which he leads” (Scarfantoni, ed. Lucca, 1723, I, 5). Opposed to this is the opinion that canons were so called form the fact that their names were inscribed on the lists of those who served particular churches for which they were ordained. (For the medieval use of the term see Ducange, Glossar. med et infimæ Latinitatis, s. v. Canonicus.) The latter appears to be the more logical derivation and is in accord with the arguments of Thomassinus and most other writers, who agree that our present cathedral chapters are the modern form of the ancient bodies of presbyters who in each particular church formed with the bishop the senate of that church [Thomassinus, “Vetus ac nova disciplina”, pt. I, bk. III, cc. vii-xi, and lxiii-lxx; Binterim, “Denkwürdigkeiten” (1826), III (2), 317-84].
HISTORICAL ORIGIN
It is not possible to say exactly when canons first had recognition as a body distinct from the rest of the clergy (cf. Amort, Vetus disciplina canonicorum regularium et sæcularium, Venice, 1747). In the very first ages of Christianity there is evidence that many churches had their own proper bodies of clergy, although it is not so clear that these clerics kept to any common rule of life (see CANONS AND CANONESSES REGULAR). At the same time there were many clerics who did live in common, e.g. the cenobites, and the term canon was applied to them as early as the fourth century; but it must not be inferred from this fact that the office of canon has its origin in those who followed the cenobitical Rule of St. Augustine (see AUGUSTINE, RULE OF SAINT). So far as the Western Church is concerned the first certain evidence is contained in the famous ecclesiastical constitution or ordinance of the Benedictine monk Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz (763). His “Regula vitæ communis” (rule of common life) was at once a restoration and an adaptation of the Rule of St. Augustine, and its chief provisions were that the ecclesiastics who adopted it had to live in common under the episcopal roof, recite common prayers, perform a certain amount of manual labour, keep silence at certain times, and go to confession twice a year. They did not take the vow of poverty and they could hold a life interest in property. For the text of the Rule of Chrodegang see Mansi, “Coll. Conc.”, XIV, 313; also Walter, “Fontes Jur. eccl.”, n. 6, and the edition of W. Schmitz (Hanover, 1891); cf. Ebner, in “Röm. Quartalschrift” (1891) v, 81-86. Twice a day they met to hear a chapter from the rule of their founder (see “Vita Chrodegangi”, in “Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.”, X, 552), hence the meeting itself was soon called chapter (capitulum) and the member capitularies (capitulares). The canons then as now formed the council of the bishop and assisted him in the ruling of his diocese. Those attached to the cathedral churches, being regularly models of the vita canonica, were soon known as canonici par excellence, and in time formed a special corporation, with all the rights proper to such bodies. From this period dates the daily recitation by the canons of the Divine Office or canonical hours (see BREVIARY). The Councils of Aachen (789) and Mainz (813) contain provisions regarding canons, and in 816 the Council of Aachen drew up a rule of 147 articles for the whole body of canons (Hergenröther-Kirsch, “Kirchengesch.”, 4th ed., Freiburg, 1904, II, 170-74; Heimbucher, “Orden und Kongregationen”, 2d ed., Freiburg, 1907, 3-21). In the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, laxity crept in; community life was no longer strictly observed; the sources of revenue were divided, and the portions allocated to the individual canons. This soon led to differences of income, consequently to avarice, covetousness, and the partial destruction of the canonical life (vita canonica). Various reforms were instituted by Nicholas II (1059) and Alexander II (1063). There were also reforms by Innocent II and the Council of Lateran (1139), and by Benedict XII (1339). [On the ruin of the earlier vita canonica see the complaints of Anselm of Havelberg (d. 1155), in P. L., CLXXXVIII, 1083, and of Gerhoh of Reichersberg (d. 169), in the fifth volume of Baluze’s “Miscellanea”, ed. Mansi (Lucca, 1761).] The development of the Church and the increase in the number of the faithful had rendered the one church of the bishop and his canons insufficient for the needs of the people; accordingly, side by side with those who followed the community life there were other clergy who served the filial churches and fulfilled the ordinary parochial duties. The bishops gradually derived greater assistance from these parochial clergy in the management of their dioceses, and such secular coadjutors were formally constituted as canons by the Council of Trent. (See “Analecta Jur. Pontif.”, 1863, VI, pp. 1657, 1795, 1978; “Les chapîtres des cathédrales dans le Concile de Trente”.) The legislation of the Council of Trent (Sess. V, XXII, XXIV) brought into uniformity the varying customs regarding the appointment, tenure, duties, etc., of canons; it also regulated their relations to the bishop in diocesan administration, and wherever the Catholic Church is now in full vigour the Tridentine constitutions are observed. In countries like England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and the United States, ecclesiastical government does not conform strictly to the disciplinary decrees of the Council of Trent; hence, though in such countries canons may be appointed, they have not the canonical rights or status that belongs to a canon in the full sense of the word. In England before the Reformation, many of the chapters were composed of Benedictine monks or of canons regular, but these were all secularized at the Reformation. At present the Protestant canons in the Church of England have little to do with the ruling of the diocese, and their chief obligation is that of residence.
As canons regular became separated into different congregations they took their names from the locality in which they lived, or from the distinctive habit they wore, or from the one who led the way in remodelling their lives. Hence we have the White Canons of Prémontré; the White Canons of St. John Lateran; the Black Canons of St. Augustine; the Canons of St. Victor at Paris and also at Marseilles (Muratori, “Diss. de Canonicis”, in “Antiq. Ital. medii ævi”, V, 163; G. Pennoti, “Gen. hist. totius s. ord. clericor. canonicorum”, Rome, 1624; Ginzel, “Die canonische Lebensweise der Geistlichen”, Ratisbon, 1851).
KINDS OF CANONS
Canons are divided in the following manner: (1) Cathedral canons, who, attached to the cathedral church, form the senate or council of the bishop; collegiate canons, who perform the canonical office in the church to which they are attached, but are not connected by reason of their office with the government of the diocese. (2) Prebendary canons, who have a prebend or fixed income attached to the canonry; simple canons, who have no prebend. (3) Canons de numero, i. e. those of a church the number of whose canons can neither be diminished nor increased; (4) supernumerary canons, who are assistants to the canons de numero. The supernumerary canons are subdivided into three classes, viz. (a) those whom the Holy Father appoints and who will receive the first vacant prebend (expectant canons); (b) honorary canons (for these see the Constitution of Leo XIII “Illud est proprium”, 21 Jan., 1894, and the recent decree of the Congr. of Rites, 14 Nov., 1902), and (c) canons who are added on the founding of a new prebend. Formerly the chief distinction was that made between the secular and regular canons. Regular canons, as forming the council of the bishop, are now almost obsolete, and the special regulations by which they are bound, their rights, privileges, and duties, are treated fully in works on canon law. The special status of canons in English-speaking countries will be considered later.
MANNER OF APPOINTMENT
As only the Holy Father can erect a chapter, so also he alone has power to appoint the individual members of a chapter. This power may be, and in fact is delegated, and hence canons are appointed sometimes by the pope, sometimes by the bishop or the capitular body, sometimes by others to whom the right has been given. By the rules of the Roman Chancery all prebends which become vacant in curia (i. e. when one who holds a benefice dies in Rome) are reserved to the Holy See, also the appointment to a vacant prebend the former holder of which has been deprived of it by an act of the Holy See, the appointment of the first dignitary of each chapter, and to all other prebends which become vacant during the months of January, February, April, May, July, August, October, and November. Beyond this the law does not expressly state in whom resides the power to collate to cathedral canonries and prebends, but the general opinion is that the right is invested simultaneously in the bishop and chapter; therefore for a valid election the majority of the canons must agree with the bishop when a new appointment is made. Exceptions are made in the following cases: if from the foundation of the church or benefice the appointment belongs to a particular person; if there is an immemorial custom to the contrary; the appointment of the canon theologian and the canon penitentiary; the canons in France (Deshayes, Memento Juris Eccl., 3d ed., Paris, 1903). Appointment is practically always made by letter, and possession of a canonry cannot be obtained until the nominee presents his letter of appointment. The Council of Trent orders that on the day of taking possession, or at least within two months, the new canon is to make his profession of faith and also obedience to the bishop. This profession of faith is made to the bishop himself or, if he be absent, to the vicar-general or another delegated for this purpose. The profession of faith must be made in presence of the chapter, otherwise the new canon may be deprived of possession and the prebendal fruits and daily distributions.
QUALIFICATIONS
The Council of Trent says (Sess. XXIII, XXIV) that since the dignitaries of the cathedral were instituted to preserve and increase ecclesiastical discipline it is necessary that those who are appointed should excel in piety and be an example to others; likewise, as they are to assist the bishop in his office and work, only those should be appointed who are able to fulfil the canonical duties. The requisite qualifications are: legitimate birth, proper age, Sacred orders, fitting education, skill in Gregorian chant, known good character and repute. Moreover the council lays down that without these qualifications the appointment is of no effect. Before the candidate is admitted to his canonry not only the one who appoints but also the chapter has the right to examine and inquire whether the necessary qualities are present in the candidate.
DUTIES
The canon as a member of the chapter owes the bishop reverence in three ways: by conceding him the first place; by giving him assistance; by affording him escort. Conceding the bishop the first place has reference to chapter choir-processions and other public acts. The bishop also has the right to the assistance of two canons in the government of his diocese, and all canons are bound to be present when he celebrates pontifically in the cathedral church; on such occasions they must meet him at an appointed place, not, however, more than 160 yards from the church; and after the service they must conduct him to the church door. The obligation of a canon with regard to choir service consists in the public recitation of the Divine Office and being present at the Chapter Masses unless legitimately excused. There is the further obligation of residence by which no canon may be absent from his choir duties for more than three months in any year. As mentioned above, the canon must make his profession of faith within two months of his appointment; he is likewise bound, and may be compelled by penalties, to attend the regular meetings of the chapter, and, finally, he must attend the Advent and Lenten sermons under penalty of losing his distributions or that portion of his revenues dependent on his personal presence at the church offices.
RIGHTS (GENERAL)
The rights of the canons independently of the bishops are mainly concerned with matters that have reference to the administration of the chapter itself, e.g., the way in which the daily stipend is to be distributed; the order in which the canons are to be summoned to choir and chapter, etc., but they can do nothing to the disadvantage of the cathedral church or in contravention of ancient customs without the consent of the bishop. They could not, e.g., allow a canon more than three months’ non-residence, or exercise ownership over the property of the cathedral, or receive foundation Masses. There are, however, some things which, according to the canon law, the bishop cannot do without the consent of the chapter, and other things which he cannot do without the counsel of the canons. Consent means the approval by the major et sanior pars (a majority, provided it be made up of the more prudent members). Counsel means consultation with the chapter before action, to prevent precipitation on the part of the bishop. When this consultation is necessary (i. e. provided for by the law), the act would be invalid without it, but the bishop is not bound to follow the counsel of the chapter. The consent of the chapter is required in the following cases: for the alienation of immovable property of value belonging to the cathedral, the chapter, or the mensa of the bishop, i. e. his endowment; for conferring benefices the collation of which belongs to the bishop and chapter conjointly; for the suppression of canonries and the uniting of simple benefices on account of the smallness of the prebends; for uniting benefices for any other reason; for the increase or decrease of the number of the canons; for any proceedings seriously prejudicial to the canons or their successors; for the ordering of a special feast; for the surrogation of examiners or similar officers outside the time of synod. The counsel of the canons is required: when the bishop has to make pecuniary provision out of the income of the diocese in order to provide lectures in Scripture, theology, or grammar for the clergy; for dividing the prebends of the canons into subdiaconal, diaconal, and sacerdotal prebends; for decreeing processions; in making synodal decrees. It may be noted that lawful custom makes the bishop independent of the advice of his canons in the matter of synodal decrees (‘Ferraris, Bibl. Prompta, s. v. Capitulum., art. 2, n. 9). The special rights of canons are chiefly concerned with the government of the diocese on the death or translation of the bishop. As soon as the see becomes vacant all the ordinary episcopal jurisdiction passes to the chapter, and also all that by custom belongs to the bishop. The real privileges belong to the canons, but not the personal privileges. They also succeed to those powers which have been perpetually delegated. If the chapter be reduced to one, that one can elect a vicar capitular; but he cannot elect himself. While the see is vacant the canons cannot make any innovations, but within eight days of the vacancy they must meet for the purpose of electing one who is to rule the diocese in the name of the chapter. The election is secret and a bare majority suffices.
INSIGNIA
Canons when present in choir for the Divine Office must wear the canonical dress. The choir or canonical dress consists of a black cassock (without train) and the cotta or surplice. Additional articles of dress, e.g. the cappa or hooded cape and a cassock of different colour, e.g. purple, are not to be worn unless specially granted by the Holy See. If the canon be a bishop he should wear the rochet and mantelletta over his purple cassock. Special privileges of dress have been granted to many chapters by the Holy See either when the chapter was erected or afterwards by particular indult. In all cases the terms of the indult must be carefully observed. It is to be noted that canons are never allowed to wear over the cassock the rochet only. Generally speaking, the canonical dress may be worn at functions for which the surplice is not prescribed, but only in the cathedral church or when in another church the canons are present as a body (capitulariter), three canons being sufficient to represent the chapter in this way. Consequently the canons may not wear the choral dress in a diocese other than their own, nor may an individual canon wear his habit in a church which he is serving either permanently or for a time. The pileolus (skull cap) and biretta are not, strictly speaking, part of choir dress.
PRECEDENCE
If, as in many instances is the case, the prebends are distinct, the order of precedence is: dignitaries, canons of sacerdotal order, canons of diaconal order, and canons of subdiaconal order. The dignitaries take precedence among themselves according to statutes or well-established custom. If the remainder of the prebends are all of the sacerdotal order and all the holders are priests, they take precedence according to priority of taking possession of their canonries. The offices of canon theologian, canon penitentiary, etc., do not entitle the holders to any precedence. The precedence given to a vicar- general, if a canon, only belongs to him when wearing the dress proper to his office.
STATUS OF CANONS IN ENGLAND
The following is a summary of the legislation of the synods of Westminster. The chapter consists of ten canons and one dignitary who is called the provost. (In some dioceses the number of canons has been increased.) A canon theologian and a canon penitentiary must be appointed, by concursus, for each chapter, but there is no distinction into sacerdotal, diaconal, and subdiaconal canons. The pope appoints the provost, and he also nominates to canonries becoming vacant in January and the alternate months of the year. In February and the other alternate months the appointments belong in turn to the bishop and the chapter. The canons do not actually make the appointment, but they send in to the bishop a list of three names and the bishop may choose one of three. By a recent decree of Propaganda (2 April, 1903) three honorary canons are allowed to each diocese, and in certain dioceses special indults have been granted with regard to the choir dress and the times when it may be worn. The canons meet once a month, and their choir obligations are limited to a portion of the Office on the day of meeting. Regarding the election to a vacant bishopric, the canons in England have only the right to make a recommendation of three candidates whom they deem to be suitable (cf. decrees of Cong. of Propaganda, 5 Apr., 1851; 21 Apr. 1852; 21 Jan., 1855, and “Collect. S. Cong. de Prop. Fide”, Rome, 1906). In Ireland, as in Scotland and other countries where the law of the Church is not in full vigour, the powers and duties of canons are much restricted, in fact their status is mainly honorific, although in some isolated dioceses a near approach is made to the legislation which governs canons in England. For the status of canons in the ecclesiastical province of Quebec, see Gignac, “Compendium juris. eccl. ad usum cleri Canadensis” (Quebec, 1901), De Personis, Nos. 493-94.
In addition to the special members of a chapter already mentioned there are usually appointed the following, in order to secure well-ordered services: precentor, sacristan, cancellor, succentor, punctator, hebdomadarian. All these are not necessarily included in every chapter; the actual arrangement is a matter for local convenience and custom. (See CHAPTER, VICAR CAPITULAR, CANONS AND CANONESSES REGULAR.)
———————————–
The Synods of Westminster (1852, 56, 59, 73; cf. Coll. Lacensis, III, 895); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s. v. Chapter; BARBOSA, De canonicis et dignitatibus (Lyons, 1700); DE HERDT, Praxis capitularis (Louvain, 1895); BOUIX, De capitulis (Paris, 1862); FAGNANI, Jus canonicum (Rome, 1659); FERRARIS, Prompta Biblioth. (Paris, 1884), s. v. Capitulum; IDEM, Theoria et praxis regiminis diœcesani, præsertim sede vacante (Paris, 1876); VAN ESPEN, Jus eccl. univ., Pt. I, tit. vii-xii, De instituto et off. canonicorum (Cologne, 1748), II, 103-60; REIFFENSTÜL, Jus canonicum universum (Munich, 1702); ZITELLI, Apparatus juris ecclesiastici (Rome, 1903); SCHNEIDER, Die bischöflichen Domkapitel, ihre Entwicklung und rechtliche Stellung im Organismus der Kirche (Mainz, 1885); HERGENRÖTHER-HOLLWECK, Lehrbuch d. can. Rechts (Freiburg, 1905), 323 sqq.; LAURENTIUS, Inst. jur. eccl. (ibid, 1903), 145 sqq.
DAVID DUNFORD. Transcribed by WGKofron In memory of Fr. John Hilkert, Akron, OhioFidelis servus et prudens, quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IIICopyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Canon (1)
(Gr. kanon, rule, law, guide).
In music, the strictest of all contrapuntal forms. It consists in the imitation or repetition of a given melody or theme in its exact melodic progression and in thy same rhythmical form by one or more voices, not simultaneously, but one after another, at a half, whole, or two, measure distance, on any of its intervals. The word canon was originally applied to the law according to which the various voices were expected to imitate the typical melody (proposta, guida), these imitations not being written out in notes. It was during the great period of the Netherlands School (1450-1550) that the canon so a contrapuntal art-form received its greatest development and perfection, but it remained for the Roman, or Palestrina, School to give it its most complete application–to make it the vehicle for the highest ideals. On account of the placidity and repose resulting from extreme regularity, this form was employed by predilection in the finales of compositions for the Ordinary of the Mass. There are also instances, however, where the canon form is rnade use of throughout all the five numbers of the mass. Examples of this will be found in Palestrina’s mass, “Ad caenam Agni providi” (Complete Works, X), and in the same master’s five-part mass, “Repleatur os meum laude” (op. cit., XVII, 17, p. 105).
———————————–
JOSEPH OTTEN Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IIICopyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Canon
(from , or canna1 a straight reed used for ruling lines), in ecclesiastical usage, is (1) A rule (Gal 6:6) ordained by the Fathers; a constitution of the Church. (2) The creed, as the criterion for distinguishing a Christian; the “rule of faith” of Tertullian, Irenueus, and Jerome. (3) A clerk who observes the apostles’ rule, or fellowship (Act 2:42); one borne on the list, or canon of a cathedral or collegiate church, as the term is used by the councils of Nice and Antioch, and bound to observe its: statutes or canons, and the rule of a good and honest life. Hence, in later times, when the names of benefactors were inserted in the rolls or canons of numberless communities, the popes confined the term canonization to those whom they admitted to the title of saint. The word is one of rank and precedence, and should be prefixed in addressing a prebendary. Canons are primarii among all others of the clergy of the city or diocese. The name is attributed to pope Pelagius or Gregory, and was certainly common in the reign of Charlemagne; in the 6th century it designated all clergy on the Church register affording a perfect example of liturgical obedience, and receiving a canonical portion a regular annual pension -out of its revenues. This list is called Album by Sidonius Apollinarius; Matricula by the Council of Nice; and by Augustine the Table of Clerks.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Canon (2)
is the name of a Japanese god, who, as represented in their temples, presided over the waters and the fish. His votaries exhibited him with four arms, and the lower part of his body swallowed by a large sea-monster; his head crowned with flowers; holding in one hand a sceptre, in another a flower, a ring in the third, and having the fourth: closed, with the arm extended.’ Over against him stood the figure of an humble penitent, one half of whose body was concealed within a shell. The temple was adorned with arrows and all sorts of warlike instruments.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Canon
This word is derived from a Hebrew and Greek word denoting a reed or cane. Hence it means something straight, or something to keep straight; and hence also a rule, or something ruled or measured. It came to be applied to the Scriptures, to denote that they contained the authoritative rule of faith and practice, the standard of doctrine and duty. A book is said to be of canonical authority when it has a right to take a place with the other books which contain a revelation of the Divine will. Such a right does not arise from any ecclesiastical authority, but from the evidence of the inspired authorship of the book. The canonical (i.e., the inspired) books of the Old and New Testaments, are a complete rule, and the only rule, of faith and practice. They contain the whole supernatural revelation of God to men. The New Testament Canon was formed gradually under divine guidance. The different books as they were written came into the possession of the Christian associations which began to be formed soon after the day of Pentecost; and thus slowly the canon increased till all the books were gathered together into one collection containing the whole of the twenty-seven New Testament inspired books. Historical evidence shows that from about the middle of the second century this New Testament collection was substantially such as we now possess. Each book contained in it is proved to have, on its own ground, a right to its place; and thus the whole is of divine authority.
The Old Testament Canon is witnessed to by the New Testament writers. Their evidence is conclusive. The quotations in the New from the Old are very numerous, and the references are much more numerous. These quotations and references by our Lord and the apostles most clearly imply the existence at that time of a well-known and publicly acknowledged collection of Hebrew writings under the designation of “The Scriptures;” “The Law and the Prophets and the Psalms;” “Moses and the Prophets,” etc. The appeals to these books, moreover, show that they were regarded as of divine authority, finally deciding all questions of which they treat; and that the whole collection so recognized consisted only of the thirty-nine books which we now posses. Thus they endorse as genuine and authentic the canon of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint Version (q.v.) also contained every book we now have in the Old Testament Scriptures. As to the time at which the Old Testament canon was closed, there are many considerations which point to that of Ezra and Nehemiah, immediately after the return from Babylonian exile. (See BIBLE, EZRA, QUOTATIONS.)
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
CANON
According to the words early usages, a canon was a rule, standard, measure or list. According to popular Christian usage, the canon of Scripture is that collection of writings that the church acknowledges as the authoritative Word of God. In other words, it is the list of books that make up the Bible. It consists of the Old Testament canon, which had become established during the centuries before the time of Christ, and the New Testament canon, which became established during the early centuries of the Christian era.
Canonical books are those acknowledged as being written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (see INSPIRATION). Non-canonical books are religious books of the biblical era that are not acknowledged as being the inspired Word of God and have therefore not been collected in the Bible. They may be useful, and may even be referred to by the writers of the Bible (e.g. Num 21:14; Jos 10:13; 1Ch 29:29; Jud 1:9; Jud 1:14), but they have no divine authority.
Israelite writers
From the beginning of their history as a nation, Israelites kept written accounts of their law and significant events in their history (Exo 24:4; Num 33:2; Jos 24:26; 1Ki 11:41). Some of these writings were regarded as sacred and were kept at Israels sanctuary (Deu 31:24-26; 2Ki 22:8). Others were used as sources of information for the writing of books that later became part of the Bible (1Ki 14:19; 1Ki 15:7; 2Ch 9:29; 2Ch 12:15; 2Ch 20:34).
While some people made written records of laws and events, others made collections of proverbs and psalms (1Ki 4:32; Psa 72:20; Pro 25:1). In addition prophets often wrote down their messages (Isa 30:8; Isa 34:16; Jer 36:2; Jer 51:60) and people who recognized these messages as Gods Word quoted them as authoritative (Jer 26:17-18; Dan 9:2).
The Old Testament collection
Under the guiding control of God, a recognized body of sacred writings was growing up in Israel. However, the formation of an official canon was not something that people planned. No person or group of persons decided to make an Old Testament canon. From the time of Moses people had clearly recognized certain writings as being the voice of God speaking to them, and as the years passed the collection of authoritative books grew. No one gave the books their authority. The books had authority within themselves, and people could do no more than acknowledge this.
No one knows for certain when the collection of sacred writings that we call the Old Testament was completed, but there are good reasons for thinking that Ezra and Nehemiah helped shape it towards its final form. They had come to Jerusalem in 458 and 445 BC respectively (Ezr 7:1-10; Neh 2:1-8), and played an important part in establishing the sacred writings as the basis of Israels religious life in the post-captivity period (Neh 8:1-3; Neh 8:8; Neh 9:1-3). Leaders of following generations probably completed the work that Ezra and Nehemiah had begun.
It seems clear that the Jewish canon (i.e. our Old Testament) was firmly established by the time of Christ (Mat 21:42; Luk 24:27; Joh 5:39). Towards the end of the first century AD a council of Jewish leaders confirmed that Jews recognized these books, and no others, as canonical. (For the composition of the Old Testament see SCRIPTURES. For the authority of the Old Testament canon that Jesus and New Testament writers acknowledged see INSPIRATION.)
Apocryphal writings
The third and second centuries BC produced many new Jewish writings. Some of these were vividly written and therefore were very popular, particularly in an age when great changes were occurring in the Jewish world. But their popularity did not give them authority, and they were never accepted into the Jewish canon.
These non-canonical books are in two groups. One group is known as the Apocrypha (literally, hidden, but meaning disapproved or outside; i.e. outside the canon). The other group is known as the Pseudepigrapha (meaning written under a false name). In popular usage, Apocrypha often refers to the two groups together. Early Christians may have read the books (e.g. Jud 1:9; Jud 1:14), but they did not regard them as Scripture.
Early Christian writings
In the early days of the church, the Bible that the Christians used was what we call the Old Testament (Luk 24:27; Luk 24:44; Act 8:32; Act 17:2; Act 17:11; Rom 1:2; Rom 4:3; Rom 9:17; 2Ti 3:15-16). But with the coming of Jesus, Christians saw that Gods revelation did not end with the Old Testament.
Jesus had promised the apostles that after he returned to his Father, the Holy Spirit would come to indwell them, enabling them to recall, interpret and apply his teachings (Joh 14:25-26; Joh 16:13-15). The writings of the New Testament are part of the fulfilment of that promise. Apostles had God-given authority, and Christians recognized their teachings and writings as having the same authority as the Old Testament Scriptures (1Co 14:37; 1Th 5:27; 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:14; 2Pe 3:2; Rev 1:1-3).
A growing collection
As the writings of the apostles circulated, they gradually grew into a new collection in addition to, yet equal to, the Old Testament collection (2Pe 3:15-16). It seems that when the early Christians evaluated the worth of the writings available to them, an important consideration was whether those writings came from the apostles or those who had the apostles approval. The Gospels, the letters of Paul, the book of Acts, and the letters 1 Peter and 1 John were accepted everywhere as authoritative from the time they began to circulate.
During the latter part of the first century and the early part of the second, a number of other Christian writings were circulating widely. Some of these were useful, but they were not accepted by the churches as authoritative. In time Christians in general acknowledged that these writings were not inspired Scripture, with the result that they were excluded from the developing New Testament canon.
On the other hand people in some regions took longer to accept all the writings that are now part of the New Testament. Although a particular church or group of churches may have accepted an apostolic letter as having authority for them, churches elsewhere may not have immediately seen the relevance of the letter for all churches. No doubt there were many letters which, though having apostolic authority, were not preserved (1Co 5:9; cf. 1Th 3:17). Also, letters that were very short or of uncertain authorship usually took longer to become widely known.
Completion of the canon
By the middle of the second century, churches in some places had a collection of books approximately equal to the present New Testament. But in other places people still had doubts about a small minority of books.
The damaging activity of false teachers was one factor that prompted church leaders to consider more closely which books were to be regarded as canonical and which were not. Church Councils met to discuss the matter at length, and by the end of the fourth century there was general agreement that the New Testament canon consists of the twenty-seven books that we recognize today.
Church Councils may have performed a useful service, but they could give no authority to the biblical books. The authority lay within the books themselves. They were the living Word of God (Joh 7:17; 1Th 2:13), and the Councils could do no more than acknowledge that authority. They did not create the canon, but merely acknowledged that Christians and churches everywhere recognized the books as being Gods inspired and authoritative Word.
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Canon
Canon. This word was frequently employed to denote a rule or standard, by a reference to which the rectitude of opinions or actions may be determined; and as the great standard in all matters of faith and duty was the revealed will of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the term came insensibly to be applied to the collective body of those writings which were designated the Canon or Rule.
The Canon then may be defined to be ‘The Authoritative Standard of Religion and Morals, composed of those writings which have been given for this purpose by God to men.’
According to this definition, in order to establish the Canon of Scripture, it is necessary to show that all the books of which it is composed are of divine authority; that they are entire and incorrupt; that, having them, it is complete without any addition from any other source; and that it comprises the whole of those books for which divine authority can be proved. It is obvious that, if any of these four particulars be not true, Scripture cannot be the sole and supreme standard of religious truth and duty.
Respecting the evidence by which the Canon is thus to be established, there exists considerable difference of opinion amongst Christians. Some contend, with the Catholics, that the authoritative decision of the Church is alone competent to determine the Canon; others appeal to the concurrent testimony of the Jewish and early Christian writers: and others rest their strongest reliance on the internal evidence furnished by the books of Scripture themselves. We cannot say that we are satisfied with any of these sources of evidence exclusively. As Michaelis remarks, the first is one to which no consistent Protestant can appeal, for the matter to be determined is of such a kind, that, unless we grant the Church to be infallible, it is quite possible that she may at any given period of her existence determine erroneously; and one sees not why the question may not be as successfully investigated by a private individual as by the Church. The concurrent testimony of the ancient witnesses is invaluable so far as it goes; but it may be doubted if it be sufficient of itself to settle this question, for the question is not entirely one of facts, and testimony is good proof only for facts. As for the internal evidence, one needs only look at the havoc which Semler and his school have made of the Canon, to be satisfied that where doctrinal considerations are allowed to determine exclusively such questions, each man will extend or extruncate the Canon so as to adjust it to the Procrustean couch of his own preconceived notions. As the question is one partly of fact and partly of opinion, the appropriate grounds of decision will be best secured by a combination of authentic testimony with the evidence supplied by the books themselves. We want to know that these books were really written by the persons whose names they bear; we want to be satisfied that these persons were commonly reputed and held by their contemporaries to be assisted by the divine spirit in what they wrote; and we want to be sure that care was taken by those to whom their writings were first addressed, that these should be preserved entire and uncorrupt. For all this we must appeal to the testimony of competent witnesses, as the only suitable evidence for such matters. But after we have ascertained these points affirmatively, we still require to be satisfied that the books themselves contain nothing obviously incompatible with the ascription to their authors of the divine assistance, but, on the contrary, are in all respects favorable to this supposition. We want to see that they are in harmony with each other; that the statements they contain are credible; that the doctrines they teach are not foolish, immoral, or self-contradictory; that their authors really assumed to be under the divine direction in what they wrote, and afforded competent proofs of this to those around them: and that all the circumstances of the case, such as the style of the writers, the allusions made by them to places and events, etc., are in keeping with the conclusion to which the external evidence has already led. In this way we advance to a complete moral proof of the divine authority and canonical claims of the sacred writings.
The books specified as canonical in the 6th Article of the Church of England, and the 1st of the Confession of the Church of Scotland, are received as such by the majority of Protestants. To these the Church of Rome adds, as part of the Old Testament, ten other books, or parts of books, which Protestants reject as Apocryphal [APOCRYPHA]. For the evidence in support of the genuineness and divine authority of those books universally regarded by Christians as canonical, taken individually, we may refer to the articles we find them in use almost on all in this work under the titles of these books respectively.
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Canon
(Gr. kanon, rule) A term reminiscent of the arts and crafts, sometimes applied, since Epicurus who replaced the ancient dialectics by a canonics (kanonike), to any norm or rule which the logical process obeys. Thus John Stuart Mill speaks of five experimental methods as being regulated by certain canons. Kant defined canon as the sum total of all principles a priori of the correct use of our powers of knowledge. See Baconian method, Mill’s methods. — K.F.L.
Fuente: The Dictionary of Philosophy
Canon
a word used to denote the authorized catalogue of the sacred writings. The word is originally Greek, , and signifies a rule or standard, by which other things are to be examined and judged. Accordingly, the same word has been applied to the tongue of a balance, or that small part which, by its perpendicular position, determines the even poise or weight, or, by its inclination, either, way, the uneven poise of the things which are weighed. Hence it appears, that as the writings of the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists contain an authentic account of the revealed will of God, they are the rule of the belief and practice of those who receive them. Canon is also equivalent to a list or catalogue, in which are inserted those books which contain the rule of faith.
For an account of the settling of the canon of Scripture, see Bible. The following observations of Dr. Alexander, in his work on the canon, proving that no canonical book of the Old or New Testament has been lost, may here be properly introduced.No canonical book of the Old Testament has been lost. On this subject, there has existed some diversity of opinion. Chrysostom is cited by Bellarmine as saying, that many of the writings of the prophets had perished, which may readily be proved from the history in Chronicles. For the Jews were negligent, and not only negligent, but impious; so that some books were lost through carelessness, and others were burned, or otherwise destroyed. In confirmation of this opinion, an appeal is made to 1Ki 4:32-33, where it is said of Solomon, that he spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. All these productions, it is acknowledged, have perished. Again, it is said in 1Ch 29:29-30 : Now, the acts of David the king, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer; with all his reign, and his might, and the times that went over him, and over Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the countries. The book of Jasher, also, is twice mentioned in Scripture. In Jos 10:13 : And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves on their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? And in 2Sa 1:18 : And he bade them teach the children of Israel the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.
The book of the wars of the Lord is referred to in Num 21:14. But we have in the canon no books under the name of Nathan and Gad, nor any book of Jasher, nor of the wars of the Lord. Moreover, we frequently are referred, in the sacred history, to other chronicles or annals, for a fuller account of the matters spoken of, which chronicles are not now extant.
And in 2Ch 9:29, it is said, Now, the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer, against Jeroboam, the son of Nebat? Now, it is well known that none of these writings of the prophets are in the canon; at least, none of them under their names. It is said, also, in 2Ch 12:15, Now, the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer, concerning genealogies? Of which works nothing remains under the names of these prophets.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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, 1Co 5:9, 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.
1. 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.
2. 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, 1Co 5:9; 1Co 5:11. The words in the original are, : 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 1Co 5:2; 1Co 5:5-6. But it is thought by learned and judicious commentators, that the words following,
, 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 did 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 Col 4:16 : 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,
, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea,
Col 4:16. 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, , [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.