CANON, BUDDHIST. There are three collections of Buddhist sacred writings. We find (1) a Canon of the Southern Buddhists comprising books written in the Pali language; (2) a Canon of the Northern Buddhists, comprising books written in Sanscrit; and (3) a Canon of the Chinese Buddhists, comprising books written in Chinese. As regards the fundamental features, the main divisions, and the most important books, the Canon is much the same everywhere; but there are great differences in details, and in the Canons of the Northern and Chinese Buddhists many later texts and comment aries have been introduced. In any case, there is not the same unity among the Northern Buddhists as there is among the Southern. It is incorrect to speak, as is so often done, of Northern and Southern Buddhism as the only two great divisions into which Buddhism had been divided. There was a unity in Southern Buddhism; but there has been no such unity in Northern Buddhism. We may talk, indeed, of Northern Buddh isms; but it would be better to keep the Buddhism of each of the northern countries in which it has been adopted separate and distinct, both in our thoughts and our language " (T. W. Rhys Davids). Of the later books admitted into the Northern Canon (e.g. by the Buddhists of Nepaul), one is called " The Lotus of the true Law " and is a kind of mystery play (Sacred Books of the East, xxi.); the other is called " Lalita-Vistitra " and is an account of the birth and trials of the Buddha. The sacred collection of the Sikhs is called the " Adi Granth " (q.v.). That of the Joins includes the " Gaina Sutras " (Sacred Books of the East, xxii.). The Southern Canon, however, must be taken as the original model. " Scholars generally agree that the canon of the so-called Southern Buddhism (prevailing in Ceylon, Burma, Siam), on the whole, presents the most original aspect of the sacred books " (H. Hackmann). In this Canon there are three principal divisions. It is there fore called the " Tipitaka " (Sanscrit, Tripit aka) or " The Three Baskets." (1) The first division is called the Vinayapitaka. It deals with the organization of the monastic life. There are three works in this division. (a) Suttavibbanga. This gives the precepts con cerning monastic penances. (b) The Khandhak-as. There are two books: the Mahavagga and the Cullavagga. These give rules as to admission into the Order (Pati mokkha), and as to dress, dwelling, etc. (c) Parivara. This is a kind of appendix of later date giving details about the life of the community. (2) The second division is called the Snttapitaka. It deals with the Buddha's doctrine of salvation. There are four works in this division. (a) Dighanikaya. Longer discourses of the master. (b) Majjhimanikaya. Discourses of medium length. (c) Anguttaranikaya. Discourses " arranged after numbers " (Hackmann). (d) Samyuttanikftya. Discourses arranged in groups. There is an appendix to this divigion called Khuddakanikaya, " a collection of different materials, sayings of the Buddha, songs, tales, legends, and the like." There are fifteen books, " some of which belong to the best-known and most impressive works of the Buddhist literature. They in clude the Dhammapada, a kind of hymn-book, which has been considered perhaps the most sacred and popular book of the Buddhist Bible (see Sacred Books of the East, a.); the Jhtaka which gives legends concerning five hundred and fifty previous existences of the Buddha; the Apadana which gives stories of the saints; the Buddhavamsa which deals with twenty-four previons Buddhas; and the Cariyhpitaka which treats of thirty four previous incarnations of the Buddha." (3) The third division is called the Ahhidhammapit aka. It discusses " the psychological prolegomena of the Buddhist ethical system " (Hackmann). There are seven works in this division. (a) Dhammasamgani. This describes states or phenomena. (b) Vibhanga. This is a continuation. (c) KathAvatthu. This refutes two hundred and fifty-two heresies. (d) Puggalapafifiatti. This divides men into classes from the ethical stand point. (e) Dhatukatha, (f) Yamaka, and (g) Patth&na are smaller treatises. The books included in the Southern Canon seem to have been committed to writing by about the beginning of the first century B.C. Earlier collections were recognised as authoritative in the time of Asoka (c. B.C.). See H. Hackmann: Max NIliller, Sacred Books of the East; T. W. Rhys Davids. CANONICAL HOURS. Hours or times of prayer, which were prescribed by rule or canon. They were observed by the early Christians. In the days of per secution, there were Nocturns or Vigils, prayers at night. The early morn'ng prayers were called Lauds. The following are the names of the canonical hours. 1. Matins, in Old English " Uhtsang," at break of day. 2. Prime, or " Primesang," at the first hour of the day, 6 a.m. 3. Tierce, or tindersang," at 9 a.m. 4. Seat, or " Midday Sang," at 12. 5. Nones. or " Noon-Sang," at 3 p.m. 6. Vespers, or " Evensong," public evening service. 7. Compline, or " Night-sang." the closing service (Latin cotnplerc, to finish) of the day. See W. R. W. Stephens, Common Prayer, 1901; Prot. Dice. CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. The sacred writings of the earliest Christians were the canonical writings of the Old Testament. The authoritative words of their own Christian prophets at first circulated orally. The earliest written documents were letters written by the Apostle Paul to Churches which be had founded and which were in need of guidance. As in the case of the Old Testament the need for a sharply defined collection of sacred writings did not arise until other writings began to compete with those of the Church. This would not happen for some time. As Gregory says, at least in many districts, well on into the second century the word was still preached by wandering preachers. the Apostles. '• Little by little it will have become known that the Gospels had been written. These Gospels will at first have been circulated in the im mediate neighbourhood of the place in which each was written, and then have soon struck the great lines, if they were not already on one of them, and have reached Rome and Jerusalem and Alexandria. Wherever a Gospel was received, Christians will have compared its tenor with that which they had heard by word of mouth_ But for a while the living voice of the evangelising preacher will have been preferred to the dead letter in the book. Many Churches will for a long while have had no Gospel or only one Gospel, and only after much waiting have gotten more. Church after Church, group after group of Christians had then a Gospel and an Epistle or two, a few Epistles. The tendency of the intercourse between the Churches was towards an in crease in the collection of books; now one now another new one was added by friends to the old and treasured store of rolls." In course of time a fairly larae number of hooks would be known to all the Churches alike, though some of them might not be held in equal esteem everywhere. Clement of Rome, writing in the post Apostolic age, seems to be acquainted with nearly all of the books of our New Testament. We know that some of these books were already being made use of by unorthodox teachers (e.g.. Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Basilides). Basilides himself wrote twenty-four books on the Gospel. The Church Father Polyearp, according to Gregory, had in his hands all the Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of Peter, the First Epistle of John, the Gospel of Matthew, and probably all the four Gos pels. The Gnostic Valentinus (first half of second cen tury) seems to have been acquainted with most of the books of the New Testament. The Gnostics had also books of their own, such as the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Perfection, the Gospel of Eve. Marcion, who left the Church and about the year 144 founded a Church of his own, set up his own canon of New Testament writings. He accepted only the Gospel of Luke, and ten Epistles of Paul (Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thes salonians, Ephesians [Laodiceans], Colossians, Philip pians, Philemon). Melito, Bishop at Sardes (fl. 176
A.D.), seems to quote all the books of the New Testa ment, except the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Second and the Third Epistle of John. Tatian, who severed his more direct connection with the Church about 172 or 173, in compiling his Diatessaron made use of the four Gospels. He seems also to have known most of the books of the New Testament. The Mura torian fragment belongs according to Gregory to about 170 A.D. It contains (as far as it has been preserved) a list of the books of the New Testament. " We have the four Gospels. Acts, the Epistles of Paul, the Epistles of John, Jude, the Revelation. So far as the fragment goes, it brings neither James nor the Epistles of Peter nor Hebrews. Of course, in the case of a copyist who was so extremely careless, there remains the possibility that in some place a line or several lines have been omitted. These Epistles are, however, Epistles that would be likely at first to be read more in the East than in the West." The Epistle to the Hebrews seems, however, to have been known at Rome as early as about 95 A.D. " There may have been some special reason for its omission in this fragment. Perhaps the author of the fragment thought, as Tertullian did, that Hebrews was written by Barnabas, and he may not have been inclined to put it into the list on that account" (Gregory). Irenaeus, in his great work on the Heresies, written between about the years 181 and 189, made use of the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the First Epistle of Peter, the First Epistle of John, the Book of Revela tion, and all the Epistles of Paul except Philemon. He speaks of the Scriptures as having been handed down without corruption. Clement of Alexandria, according to Eusebius (H.E. vi. 14) made comments on all the Scriptures, including the books spoken against (Antileg °Plena), the Epistle of Jude and the rest of the Catholic Epistles. The Epistle to the Hebrews he regarded as the work of Paul. Tertullian does not seem to know anything of the Epistle of James, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and the Third Epistle of John. He knows of the Book of Revelation, and ascribes it to the Apostle John. He knows also of the Epistle to the Hebrews. This be ascribes to Barnabas. Origen accepts most of the books of the New Testament, in cluding the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Book of Revelation. His testimony as to the Epistle of James, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and the Third Epistle of John is somewhat uncertain. Dionysius of Alexandria (died about 265 A.D.) accepts the Epistle of James, the Second and the Third Epistle of John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Book of Revelation he ascribes to an unknown John. The only books of the New Testament that he does not seem to accept are the Epistle of Jude and the Second Epistle of Peter. Cyprian of Carthage (died 25,8 A.D.) does not seem to have known of the Epistle of James, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and the Third Epistle of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the third century A.D., therefore, it cannot be said that our books of the New Testament were canonized, that is to say recognized as a whole as canonical. It is even possible that other works were considered of equal authority. Oscar Holtzman (Life of Jesus) thinks that the Gospel of the Hebrews was assigned a rank equal to that of the Gospels of Luke and John. We next come to Eusebius, who wrote his Church History between about the years 305 and 325 A.D. He divides the writings of the three first centuries into three classes (H.E. 111. 25). These are : (1) the acknowledged books, the four Gos pels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John, the Epistle of Peter, and perhaps (" if that appears perhaps just ") the Revelation of John; (2) the disputed books, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second Epistle of John, the Third Epistle of John, and the spurious books, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Teachings of the Apostles, and perhaps the Revelation of John and the Gospel according to the Hebrews; heretical books, the Gospel of Peter, Thomas, Mathias and others, the Acts of Andrew, John, and others. The Epistle to the Hebrews is included among the Epistles of Paul. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lect ures. written about 346 A.D., recommends a study of the four Gospels, the Acts of the Twelve Apostles, the Seven Catholic Epistles of James and Peter, John and Jude, and the fourteen Epistles of Paul. The Book of Revelation is not recommended. The next landmark in the history of the Canon is supposed to be the Council of Laodicea held in 363 A.D. The last canon gives a list of " canonized " books which includes all the books of our New Testament except the Book of Revelation. But the list seems to have been a later addition. The first complete list of New Testament books regarded as inspired scripture is given by Athanasius of Alexandria (367 A.D.). Later, we find Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium in Lycaonia, rejecting the Book of Revelation and doubting the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second Epistle of John, the Third Epistle of John, and the Epistle of Jude. At the third Council of Carthage, held 397 A.D. a list of canonical books was drawn up cor responding to our list. and it was settled that " apart from the Canonical Scriptures nothing is to be read in Church under the name of Divine Scriptures." But the books were still far from being accepted universally. It is doubtful whether John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.), Bishop of Constantinople, accepted all of them. Junilius (died after 550 A.D.) states that the Book of Revelation was questioned among Orientals. He himself does not seem to have accepted all the Catholic Epistles. August ine, who became assistant Bishop of Hippo in 395 A.D., says that the Christian reader should place in the front rank those Canonical Scriptures which are received by all Catholic Churches, in preference to those which some do not receive. " Among those, moreover, which are not received by all, let him prefer those which more and more important Churches accept to those which fewer and less authoritative Churches hold. Should he, however, find some to be held by very many and others by very weighty Churches. although this cannot easily happen, yet I think that they are to be regarded as of equal authority " (after Gregory). On April 8, 1546, the Council of Trent recited a " catalogue of the sacred books," including those of the Apocrypha, and decreed that " if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, these same books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition," he should be anathema. The sixth article of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England says: " In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." It then gives a list of the Old Testament books. There is no list of the New Testament books. In place of It we read : " All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them Canonical." It is then stated that the other books (the Old Testament Apocrypha) are read simply for example of life and instruction of manners, and a list is added. It has been suggested that a distinction is here drawn between the " Canonical " books and such " Canonical books as have never been doubted in the Church," and that the framers of the Article on a point on which scholars were greatly divided wished to leave the judgment free. See the separate articles on the books of the New Testament; articles on Canon and Bible in the Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias; C. R. Gregory: J. Moffatt, lntrod.