Boultbee on Article VI: Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation

2. The enumeration of the Canonical books in this Article is as distinct as the assertion that they are to be accepted as the sole ground for the belief of all Articles of the Faith. But when we proceed to the basis of their canonicity here stated, we find ourselves by no means free from difficulty. We cannot allow that any distinction is intended between those Canonical books which constitute Holy Scripture, and Canonical books generally, as some have suggested. Holy Scripture and the Ca- nonical books are obviously one and the same. We have, there- fore, as the definition of a Canonical book, one * of whose au- thority was never any doubt in the Church.* How is this to be understood ? It is well known that doubts were entertained by some Churches in the first three centuries as to the canon- icity of several books of the New Testament. Accordingly they have been divided into the two classes derived from a passage in Eusebius : 6/xoXoyov/xcva, those generally received; and avriXeyofxera, those disputed by some Churches or indi- viduals. The latter class consisted of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of St. James, St. Jude, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John, and the Apocalypse. An accotmt of this may be fotmd in any introduction to the New Testament.^ The distinction was equally familiar in the age of the Eeformation. The Lutheran and Calvinistic divines freely discussed it ; and in our own country Tyndale (to go no ftirther) noticed it in his prologues. What, then, was meant by the definition of a Canonical book in our Article ? Some have thought that the Church here means the Church of England, as it does in some passages in the Formularies. This is scarcely probable, and leads to no result of any value. It seems more likely that our Reformers were distinguishing here between the Church Catholic, and particular portions or members of it. These last have often expressed doubts about

’ See also Paley’s ’ Evidences/ c. Ix. § 8.

V

the authority of certain portions of the Word ; but the Church as a whole, so &r as its collective judgment and general practice can be gathered, never doubted or varied the Canon. If this be so, our Church has given us as exact a definition of a Canonical book as probably could be conveyed in a few words. But the Church of the first three centuries never pro- nounced, or had an opportunity of pronouncing, its judgment on the subject. Hence the historical demonstration of the Canon of Scripture consists, in point of fact, of a collection of the testimony of individual divines and Churches to the re- ception of the several books from the first age of Christianity downwards. The hesitation of some as to a few of the books has been always justly thought to give the greater value to the final and all but general consent of the whole body. So that the less learned reader may rest satisfied with the result briefly, and somewhat boldly, expressed in our Article, that there has been unanimity from the first as to the authority of every portion of Holy Scripture. Not that every book came at once into the possession of every individual Church with full evidence as to its origin. But that after due communication of the several Churches which possessed the original apostolical writings, the whole Church came to a complete and early agreement ; and the hesitation which lingered here or there was very partial, arose out of imperfect information, and before long merged in the general consent. Paley remarks upon this: * When that diversity of opinion which prevailed, and prevails among Christians in other points, is considered, their concur- renee in the Canon of Scripture is remarkable, and of great weight, especially as it seems to have been the result of private and free enquiry.’

This subject may be illustrated by the following precept of Augustine^ : — * In Canonical Scriptures you must follow the judgment of the majority of Churches. You will prefer those received by all Catholic Churches to those which are not received by some ; but in those which are not universally received, you will prefer those which the major and graver part receive to those which are received by fewer Churches

’ * De Doctrind Christian&/ ii. 8.

■«*■ *

-:1>EFINITI0N OF THE CANONICAL BOOKS. 49

and those of minor authority. And if you find some received by the majority, and others received by the more authoritative Churches (though I do not think this case will ever occur), you may regard them as of equal authority.’

3. For the history and meaning of tlie word Canon reference may be made to Appendix A., to Westcott * On the Canon of the New Testament.’ Connected with a large family of words of which the English word cane is a member, it meant originally any kind of rule used in measuring. It occurs twice in the New Testament (Gal. vi. 16 and 2 Cor. x. 13-16). The word was used by the early Fathers generally, and in the fourth century was applied especially (as it still is) to the enactments of Sjmods. It is first found in the writings of Athanasius as applied to Holy Scripture. Westcott assigns to it a twofold meaning in that connexion, viz. : (1) that the Cano- nical books may be taken as meaning those which are defined to be Holy Scripture by a canon or rule of the Church, or (2) those which themselves are the canon or rule of £iith to the Church.

4. The use of the Apocryphal books is defined as being practical only, and not doctrinal.

5. The inspiration of Holy Scripture might have naturally found a place among the statements of this Article. But there was no controversy on this head at the time of the Eeformation, and thus all reference to it was omitted. It is, however, necessarily implied and assumed throughout the Articles. In particular, the expression * God’s word written’ (Art. XX.) may be noted.

6. This Article has been considerably altered from the Fifiih Article of 1552, which asserted the sufl&ciency of Holy Scripture for salvation, but did not enumerate or define the Canonical books. The clause which defines the Canonical books was derived from the Wurtemburg Confession in 1563.

7. The Ten Articles of Henry VIIL, 1536, had defined the rule of faith to be the Bible and the three Creeds, inter- preted literally, and as * the holy approved doctors of the Church do entreat and defend the same.’ We need scarcely say that this possesses no authority. It has only historical

G

value, as showing the progress of doctrine during the successive stages of the Eefbrmation.

The Pkoof from Scriptuke.

Passages bearing on this Article may be arranged in the foUowing manner :— •

1. Texts which imply or assert the Inspiration of Scripture,

such as these :

• All Scripture is given by inspiration of God ’ (2 Tim. iii. 16),

• Which He promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures ’ (Rom. i. 2).

• The oracles of God ’ (Rom. iii, 2).

’ One jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law^ tiU aU be iulfiUed ’ (Matt. v. 18).

• The Scripture cannot be broken ’ (John x. 85).

• In the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth ’ (1 Cor. ii. 13).

• The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue ’ (2 Sam, xxiii. 2).

• Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth ’ ( Jer. i. 9).

• Which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before’ (Acts i. 16).

’ If any man shall add, … and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,’ &c. (Rev. xxii. 18,19).

• No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpreta- tion : for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man : but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ’ (2 Pet. i. 20, 21).

2. Texts appealing to the Scripture as authoritative ; for

example :

• What things soever the law saith ’ (Rom. iii. 19). ’ What saith the Scripture ? ’ (Rom. iv. 3).

• The Scripture saith ’ (Rom. ix. 17).

• The Scripture foreseeing ’ (Gal. iii. 8).

• That the Scripture mifiht be fulfilled ’ (John xix. 28, 36).

• As the Scripture hath said ’ (John vii. 88).

’ This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before ’ (Acts i. 16)

• Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith ’ (Heb. iii. 7).

• David himself said by the Holy Ghost ’ (Mark xii. 36).

3. Forms perpetually recurring, such as these :

4. Duties which we owe to the Scripture*

Search the Scriptures (John v. 39).

Meditation therein (Ps. cxix. 15).

Love (Ps. cxix. 97).

Obedience (Rom. xvi. 26).

They must be taught (Deut. vi. 7).

They must be used against our spiritual enemies (Eph.vL 17 >.

5. Effects of Scripture on the Believer,

It makes wise irnto salvation (2 Tim. iii. 15).

It perfects, thoroughly furnishing unto all good works (2 Tim. iii. 17). - It converts the soul (1 Pet. i. 23).

It causes growth in grace (1 Pet. ii. 2).

It sanctifies (John xvii. 17).

The Doctrine of the Roman Church.

The doctrine of the Roman Church on the authority of Scripture is laid dovra in the decree of the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent. The following extracts contain those portions which bear most closely on the present subject.

The Council declared that ’ the truth and discipline ’ given by Christ and £[is Apostles ^ are contained in books writtea and in unwritten traditions, which having been received from the mouth of Christ Himself by the Apostles, or at the dicta- tion of the Holy Ghost from the Apostles themselves, and transmitted as it were by hand, have come down to us.’ That the Council, therefore, * following the example of the Orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with equal pious affection the

e2

C2 ARTICLE VI.

books both of the Old and New Testament, and the traditions themselves, •whether pertaining to feith or manners, as having been orally dictated by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by continuous succession in the Church Catholic’

An enumeration of the Canonical books follows, including a large portion of those which the Church of England pro- nounces apocryphal. The Council then decrees that the •Vulgate shall be taken pro authentica in all public services, and that no one shall on any pretext presume to reject it. Further, that no one shall dare to interpret Scripture against that sense which holy Mother Church holds, or against the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even if the interpretation is not meant for publication. It next decrees restraints upon printers, and the necessity for an edition of the Vulgate to be printed quam einendatissime. With respect to the use of the Bible by private persons, the Council decreed (De libris pro- Jiibitis) that * he who shall presume to read or to have a Bible without a license, may not receive absolution until he has surrendered the Bible.’ Much stronger expressions have been used by individual popes or divines, but the above is sufficient as setting forth the unquestionable law of the Roman Church.

The Doctrine of the English Church.

This Article draws a great distinction between things neces- sary for salvation, and things practically beneficial, but not essential. This distinction is the main subject of the second book of Hooker’s * Ecclesiastical Polity.’ He defends it against some extreme Puritans, who demanded Scripture authority for every act of life, and for all the minutiae of Church order. The concluding paragraph of that book draws the distinguishing line with admirable clearness : — * Two opinions there are concerning sufficiency of Holy Scripture, each extremely opposite unto the other, and both repugnant unto truth. The schools of Rome teach Scripture to be jnsufficient, as if, except traditions were added, it did not con- tain all revealed and supernatural truth, which absolutely is necessary for the children of men in this life to know, that

they may in the next be saved. Others, justly condemning this opinion, grow likewise imto a dangerous extremity, as if Scripture did not only contain all things in that kind neces- sary, but all things simply, and in such sort, that to do any- thing according to any other law were not only tmnecessary, but even opposite unto salvation, unlawful, and sinful. Whatsoever is spoken of God, or things appertaining to God, otherwise than the truth is, though it seem an honour, it is an injury. And as incredible praises given unto men do often abate and impair the credit of their deserved commendation ; so we must likewise take great heed, lest, in attributing imto Scripture more than it can have, the incredibility of that do cause even those things which it hath most abundantly to be less reverently esteemed.’

The sufficiency of Holy Scripture for salvation (as taught in this Article) was a universal article of faith in the first four centuries. This has been abundantly demonstrated by over- whelming collections of quotations from aU the primitive writers. The citations in Paley’s * Evidences,’ chap. ix. §§ 1, 9, are naturally those which first come before the attention of the student. And these will give him a fair impression as to the usual manner in which the authority and use of the Holy Scripture are handled by the Fathers. But a complete and masterly investigation of this subject will be found in the tenth chapter of the * Divine Rule of Faith and Practice,’ by the late Dean Goode. The general result of that investigation may be summed up in the following well-known quotation &om Augustine : — * If it is established by the clear authority of the divine Scriptures, those I mean that are called Canonical in the Church, it is to be believed without any doubt. But other witnesses or testimonies which are used to persuade you to believe anything, you may believe or not, just as you shall see that they have or have not any weight giving them a just claim to your confidence.’ *

For a further declaration of the mind of the Church of England on this subject the First Homily may be consulted. It is in entire harmony with this Article, as may be inferred

‘AdPaiUin.‘Ep. 147.

frotn the following citation : — * Let us diligently search for the well of life in the books of the Old and New Testament, and not run to the stinking puddles of men’s traditions, devised by men’s imaginations for our justification and sal- vation.*

It is unnecessary to refer to the Confessions of other Pro- testant Churches, as they are notoriously one with the English Church on this head. Much obloquy has been thrown on the word Protestant of late, as if it were a mere negation implying no positive truth’. It may, therefore, be useful as well as interesting to quote the following passage from the original Protest presented to the diet at Spires, 1529, by the Lutheran princes of Germany, from which the name Pro- testant was derived : — ’ Seeing that there is no sure doctrine but such as is conformable to the Word of God ; that the Lord forbids the teaching of any other doctrine ; that each text of the Holy Scripture ought to be explained by other and clearer texts ; and that this holy book is, in all things necessary for the Christian, easy of understanding, and calcu- lated to scatter the darkness ; we are resolved, by the grace of God, to maintain the pure and exclusive teaching of His only Word, such as it is contained in the Biblical books of the Old and New Testament, without adding anything thereto that may be contrary to it. This Word is the only truth; it is the sure rule of all doctrine and of all life, and can never fail or deceive us. He who builds on this foundation shall stand against all the powers of hell, whilst all the human vanities that are set up against it shall fall before the face of God.

• For these reasons we earnestly entreat you to weigh care- ftdly our grievances and our motives. If you do not yield to our request, we protest by these presents before God, our only Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Saviour, and who will one day be our Judge, as well as before all men and all creatures, that we, for us and our people, neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatsoever to the proposed decree, in anything that is contrary to God, to His Holy Word, to our right con- science, to the salvation of our souls, and to the last decree of

Spires.’ [This decree had given liberty of worship to each German State.]

Those who read this noble Protest and compare the doc- trines of the Church of England and the Church of Home on the rule of &ith, as given above, can say whether the Church of England is Protestant or no. They may also decide whether Protestantism is a bare negation or the assertion of a living principle, the absolute supremacy of the Word of God, and the right of all men to search that Word. Other Articles protest against individual Roman errors. This Article is the fundamental one which stamps the Church of England as essentially Protestant.

The History of the Canon.

The historical testimony to the Canon of the New Testa- ment requires to be stated first. The ninth chapter of Paley’s * Evidences ’ contains a clear summary of that testimony. As this work is required to be read by nearly all theological students, it is judged inadvisable to burd6n them at this stage with any different arrangement. Paley divides the proof tmder the following eleven sections : —

I. That the historical books of the New Testament, mean- ing thereby the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted or alluded to by a series of Christian writers, beginning with those who were contemporary with the Apostles, or who immediately followed them, and proceeding in close and regular succession ik)m their time to the present.

II. That when they are quoted, or alluded to, it is with peculiar respect, as books mi generis ; as possessing an authority which belonged to no other books, and as conclusive in all questions and controversies among Christians.

III. That tliey were, in very early times, collected into a distinct volume.

rV, That they were distinguished by appropriate names and titles of respect.

V. That they were publicly read and expounded in the religious assemblies of the early Christians.

VI. That commentaries were written upon them, harmonies formed out of them, different copies carefully collated and versions of them made into different languages.

VII. That they were received by Christians of various sects, by many heretics, as well as Catholics, and usually appealed to by both sides in the controversies which arose in those days.

VIII. That the four Gospels — the Acts of the Apostles, thir- teen Epistles of St. Paul, the First Epistle of St. John, and the First of St Peter — ^were received without doubt by those who doubted concerning the other books which are included in our present Canon.

IX. That the Gospels were attacked by the early adver- saries of Christianity, as books containing the accounts upon which the religion was founded.

X. That formal catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published ; in all of which our present sacred histories are included.

XL That these propositions cannot be affirmed of any other books claiming to be books of Scripture ; by which are meant those books which are commonly called Apocryphal Books of the New Testament.

These eleven * allegations ’ are supported by copious quota- tions from the early writers of Christianity, which Paley has selected from the results of Lardner’s investigations. Few memories can retain even specimens of such an array of cita- tions. But Paley’s admirable arrangement of the eleven alle- gations may be remembered. They are capable of being simply stated to any thoughtful person, as propositions capable of distinct historical proof. And the unprejudiced mind of such a person will usually acknowledge that if the history of the reception of the Canon of the New Testament rests on such a basis, partial objections and minor difficulties need not disturb his faith. For a more detailed discussion of the whole question, Westcott * On the Canon of the New Testa- ment ’ may be consulted.

The authority of the New . Testament having been thus assumed, the authority of the Old Testament over Christians

follows, as being proved from the New Testament. Our Lord and His Apostles quote it, and refer to it continually, as the one absolute authority in all controversy, and they treat it as wholly inspired. This will be found borne out by an ex- amination of their modes of quotation and reference, and the names and epithets which they apply to the Old Testament. No portion is excepted or subordinated. The whole of what was then held by the Jews as Scripture is endorsed ; indeed, all the books, except six, are expressly quoted or referred to.

To know, therefore, what are the Canonical books of the Old Testament thus received by our Lord, the simple historical enquiry is needed — ^What books were at that time included in the Jewish Canon ? The evidence is most clearly presented in an ascending order : —

1. The Hebrew Canon of the Modern Jews is the same as ours.

2. The Talmud, which was in process of compilation from about A.D. 150 to A.D. 600, recognises the same. There are also Targums belonging to those and earlier times, of our Canonical books, and of no others.

3. IxL the fourth century Jerome enumerates the same books as belonging to the Hebrew Canon.

4. Li the third century Origen does the same.

5. In the second century Melito, Bishop of Sardis, gives the same testimony.

6. Josephus, in the first century, speaks of the books as Jerome did. He, moreover, says (evidently alluding to the Apocrypha) that * books written since Artaxerxes Longimanus had not the same credit as those before that time, because the succession of prophets had fiiiled.’

7. Philo’s testimony is similar, but not so precise in detail. Hence it is concluded that what our Lord and the Apostles

sanctioned as Holy Scripture was the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, as its books are enumerated in this Article.

But the version in almost universal use in the Early Church was that of the LXX.

This contained the Apocryphal books inserted by Alexan- drian Jews.

There was scarcely any knowledge of Hebrew among Christians after the first century, and the whole of the LXX. was almost indiscriminately quoted by many early Christian writers. Yet it has been shown by many passages quoted in works on this subject that the Church in general, and her leading divines in particular, never lost sight of the distinction between the Canonical and Apocryphal books.

We may now thus sum up our reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha : —

1. We receive the Jewish Scriptures on the authority of Christ and His Apostles.

2. We have seen what books the Jewish Scriptures of that age included.

3. Therefore the Apocrypha stands excluded, as being outside that catalogue, and, therefore, destitute of that authority.

Finally, if in the face of such a weight of primitive testi- mony the Council of Trent presumed to decree the reception of a large portion of the Apocrypha, it must be deemed the very arrogance of authority.

Notes

• Thus saith the Lord ; ’ * The Lord hath spoken ; ’ * The voice- of the Lord ; ’ * The word of the Lord by the mouth of; ’ &c.
• . Also (though not without some confusion), it stands excluded by the testimony of the Early Church; and in particular by that of Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Jerome, the Council of Laodicaea, &c.