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

The original article of 1553 contained only the first paragraph of our present one, and that in a slightly different form: “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation : so that whatsoever is neither read therein, nor may be proved thereby, although it he some time received of the faithful as godly, and profitable f(yr an order and comeliness : yet no man ought to be constrained to believe it as an article of faith or repute it requisite to the necessity of salvation.” The words in italics were omitted in 1563, and the language of the following sentence slightly changed. At the same time Archbishop Parker added the remaining part of the article, with the exception of the complete list of the books of the Apocrypha, which was only added at the final revision in 1571, when the present title was

prefixed, and one or two trifling verbal changes introduced into the article itself.^

Very similar language to that employed in the first paragraph of the article is found in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, in which, after a list of the canonical books of both Testaments, we read as follows : ” Haec igitur generatim est sancta Scriptura, qua omnia creditu ad salutem necessaria, plene et perfecte contineri credimus, usque adeo ut quicquid in ea non legitur nee reperitur, nee denique ex eadem aut consequitur, aut convincitur, a nemine sit exigendum ut tanquam articulus fidei credatur.” ^

The wording of the second paragraph on the canonical books is traced entirely to the Confession of Wurtemburg, while that on ” the other books ” follows very closely the statement of St. Jerome to which it expressly refers us :

“Sicut ergo Judith, et Machabaeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia sed eos inter canonicas Scripturas non recepit: sic et hsec duo volumina [sc. Ecclesiasticus et Sapientia] legat ad tedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam.” *

The object of this article is to state the exact position taken up by the Church of England with regard to the use and exterit of Holy Scripture, in the face of two opposite errors which she was called upon in the sixteenth century to oppose. .

1. The opinion of some among the Anabaptists or “Anti-book religionists,” who were described in the

^ The only books of the Apocrypha mentioned in 1563 were 3 and 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees. In 1553 and 1563 the title was, Diviiux Scripturcc doctrina sufficit ad salutem — “The doctrine of Holy Scripture is sufficient to salvation.”

• Ik Summa TrinitaU et Fide Catliolica^ ch. ix.

’ Prologus in Libros Salom,

Nineteenth Article of 1553 as those who “affirm that Holy Scripture is given only to the weak, and do boast themselves continually of the Spirit, of whom (they say) they have learnt such things as they teach, although the same be most evidently repugnant to the Holy Scripture.” ^ 2. The teaching of the Church of Kome, which places tradition on a level with Holy Scripture as a source of doctrine, and regards as canonical all those books which the Church of England relegates to an inferior position in the Apocrypha, with the exception of the Third and Fourth Books of Esdras,^ and the Prayer

of Manasses.

The principal subjects which require consideration in connection with this article are the following : —

1. The position of Holy Scripture as the sole source of necessary doctrine.

2. The canon of Scripture.

3. The position of ” the other books.”

I. TJie Position of Holy Scripture as the Sole Source of

Necessary Doctrine.

On this subject the statement of the article is, so far as it goes, clear enough. Holy Scripture

1 To much the same effect we read in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiastiearum: ” In quo genere teterrimi illi sunt (itaque a nobis primum uominabuutur) qui sacras Scripturas ad infirmorum tantum hominum debilitatem ablegant et detrudunt, sibi sic ipsi interim pnefidentes, ut earum authoritate se teneri non putent, sed peculiarem quendam spiritum jactant, a quo sibi omnia suppeditari aiunt, quaecunque decent et faciunt.” — De Hccrcs. ch. iii.

« Or, as they are called in our Bibles “the First and Second Books of Esdras.” The titles given to the books in the Sixth Article are mainly drawn from the Vulgate, in which Ezra and Nehemiah appear as the ** First and Second Books of Esdras,” and the apocryphal books are consequently enumerated as the ’* Third and Fourth.” In our English Bibles the titles are drawn from the Hebrew, and so Ezra and Nehemiah appear under their own names, and consequently the apocryphal books of Esdras become the “First and Second.”

contains all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite necessary to

salvation. The meaniug of this statement is perfectly plain. It ” only implies the historical fact that the same body of saving truths which the apostles first preached orally, they afterwards, under the inspiration of God the Holy Ghost, wrote in Holy Scripture, God ordering in His providence that, in the unsystematic teaching of Holy Scripture, all should be embodied which is essential to establish the faith.” ^ It equally condemns any theory which would regard Holy Scripture as given ” only to the weak,” and as unnecessary for the ” enlightened Christian,” and, on the other hand, any view which would base necessary doctrine not ultimately on the written word, but on the traditions or teaching of the Church.

The statements of the article may be illustrated from the promise required from all the clergy before their ordination to the priesthood.

The bishop. — Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation, through faith in Jesus Christ ? and are you determined, out of the said Scriptures, to instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach nothing, as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture ?

Answer. — I am so persuaded, and have so determined by God’s grace.

The statement of the article, like the question addressed to the clergy, refers only to necessary doctrine ; and it will

be noticed that the article is absolutely silent on the question who is to decide what may be proved from Holy Scripture, and fails to state with whom the power resides to enforce anything to be believed as an article of faith. For the teaching of the Church of England on these very important subjects we must turn to Article XX., where we are expressly told that * the Church … hath authority in controversies of faith,’ and where it is evidently implied that it rests with the Church to decide what may be proved from Scripture, and thus be required to be believed as an article of faith. The consideration of this subject is therefore postponed, and will be taken later on in connection with Article XX. It will be sufficient here to have thus reminded the reader that the teaching of this Sixth Article requires to be supplemented by the later one, if the position taken up by the Church of England is to be properly understood and appreciated.

The subject of the authority to be assigned to the Holy Scriptures was considered by the Church of Kome at the fourth session of the Council of Trent, which was held in April 1546, some years before the Anglican Articles were drawn up. The decree was, therefore, before the compilers of the Edwardian as well as the Elizabethan series. It runs as follows : —

” The sacred and holy (Ecumenical and General Synod of Trent … keeping this always in view that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the gospel should be preserved in the Church, which (gospel) before promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth and then commanded to be preached by His apostles to every creature, as the fountain both of every saving truth and also of the discipline of morals ; and perceiving that this truth and discipline is contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which,

^•im 0Jt’

received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates, with equal affection of piety and reverence, all the hooks both of the Old and also of the Neto Testament — seeing that one God is the author of both — as also the said traditions, both those aj)pertaining to faith as well as those appertaining to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by a continuous succession in the Catholic Church.” ^

The terms of this decree are not altogether free from ambiguity, for the assertion that the ” truth and discipline are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions” is capable of bearing two widely different interpretations. It may be taken to mean that the whole faith is contained in the Scriptures, and is also taught by tradition ; and if it be taken in this way, there is nothing in it to which any Anglican need take exception. But, on the other hand, it may mean that Scripture alone is the source of some part of the faith, and tradi-

^ “SacrosanctaCEcumenica et generalis Tridentina Synodus … hoc sibi perpetuo ante oculos proponens ut sublatis erroribus puritas ipsa Evangelii in Ecclesia conservetur ; quod promissum ante per prophetas in Scripturis Sanctis Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei Filius, proprio ore primum promulgavit ; deinde per suos Apostolos, tanquam fontem omnis et salutaris veritatis et morum disciplinae, omni creatuwe prsedicari jussit ; perspiciensque banc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ipsius Christi ore ab apostolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis apostolis, Spiritu Sancto dicUnte, quasi per manus traditae, ad nos usque pervenerunt, orthodoxorum Patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tarn Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nee non traditiones ipsaa, turn ad fidem turn ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas et continua successione in Ecclesia Catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur.”— CVwic. TridaU. Seano Quarta. Decretum de Canonieis Scripturis,

tion alone the source of some other part, and this, of course, is a position to which an Anglican could by no means subscribe. This ambiguity is not altogether removed when we turn from the decree of Trent to the writings of representative divines of the Eoman communion, for while Cardinal Wiseman asserts that ” there is no other groundwork whatever for faith except the written word of God,” and Cardinal Newman uses language to much the same effect ; on the other hand, Moehler tells us that “it is asserted by the Catholic Church that many things have been delivered to her by the apostles which Holy Writ either does not at all comprise or at most only alludes to,” and Perrone is equally emphatic in laying down that there are some dogmatic traditions which are a Scriptura plane distincta, as well as those explanatory and interpretative traditions which he calls inhcesivce et declarativce.* These quotations may serve to show the real difficulty that there is in stating precisely what the Church of Rome stands committed to. But we shall not probably be wrong if we assert that though the majority of Eoman divines would welcome support and illustration from Scripture for all articles of faith, including the most recent developments, namely, the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Mary, and that of the papal infallibility, yet they would make the basis on which these doctrines rest the teaching of the Church. Anglicans, on the other hand, while always looking for support and illustration from ” hermeneutical tradition,” maintain that in the last resort Scripture is the sole source of the faith. The Church of England has most certainly never

• *’ Letter to Dr. Pusey on the Eirenicon,” p. 14, quoted in Bp. Forbes on the Articles, p. 97. Cf. Development, ch. vii. 1, sec. 4.

[…]

underrated the importance of the appeal to antiquity. The very same canon of the Convocation of 1571, which imposes subscription to the Articles on the clergy, requires all preachers to ” see that they never teach aught in a sermon, to be religiously held and believed by the people, except what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, and what the Catholic Fathers and ancient bishops have collected from the same doctrine.” ^ But it is one thing to use tradition as a help towards arriving at the true sense of Scripture, and quite another thing to make it a source of Christian doctrine. All the articles of faith are not expressly set down in Scripture in so many words, but there can be no hesitation in asserting that they “may be proved thereby.” This, however, immediately opens out the question, How are we to know in what sense the words of Scripture are to be understood? And here, without anticipatmg what must be said on this subject under the Twentieth Article, it may be pointed out that the value of tradition, where it can be ascertained, is enormous, as showing how the words of Scripture have ever been understood by the Church. So much it seemed necessary to say here, in order to make it clear that the Sixth Article is not meant in any way to cast a slight upon tradition and the appeal to antiquity. It is only designed to protect jealously the rightful position of the Scriptures, as containing, though in an informal way, the “faith once for all delivered to the saints,” ^ and to guard against any additions or accretions to the original deposit committed to the care of the Catholic Church.

»The Canon Cancumatores. “Imprimis vcro vidcbunt, ne quid unquam doceant pro concione, quod a populo religiose teneri et credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrince Veteris aut Novi Testament!, quodque ex ilia ipsa doctrina Catholici patres, et vetcres Epiacopi coUegerunt”— Cardwell’s Synodaliat vol. i. p. 126.

[…]

We have next to consider the arguments in favour of the position thus maintained in the article.

(a) And, first, how far can it he proved from Scripture ? It must be confessed that the texts which are sometimes quoted in support of the “sufficiency of Holy Scripture ” are in themselves extremely inconclusive, e.g. ” the law of the Lord is perfect” (Ps. xix. 7); “the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation” (2 Tim. iii. 15); “if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book” (He v. xxiL 18). Of these passages the first, if it were (as it manifestly is not) capable of being used as formal proof, would prove too much, for ” the law,” if taken of the written word, could not be strained to mean more than the Pentateuch. The second obviously refers only to the Old Testament, with which alone Timothy could have been familiar from his childhood ; while the third has no reference to any portion of Holy Scripture, except the Apocalypse, to which it is appended. It will be wise, therefore, not to rely on isolated and detached passages in endeavouring to establish the statement of the article, but to be content with an indirect rather than a direct scriptural proof. That Holy Scripture ” contains all things necessary to salvation ” is nowhere laid down directly in the Bible, but it appears to be a fair and reasonable inference from the general teaching of Scripture with regard to the final character of the revelation made in the New Testament, as well as from the fact that the Scriptures were in the providence of God committed to writing.

There are frequent indications in Scripture that the written law has a security which is wanting in the case of oral tradition. S. Luke’s Gospel was written expressly in order that Theophilus might know the certairUy of the things in which he had previously been orally instructed

(S. Luke i. 4). S. John’s Gospel was also written for Christians who must have received much oral teaching, and yet he gives this as his reason for writing : ” That ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in His name ” (S. John

XX. 31).

Again, the severity with which our Lord denounces the Jews for ” making the word of God of none effect through their traditions,” and the way in which He sets aside the accretions which they had allowed to grow up around the written law (see especially S. Mark vii. 1-13) supply us with a warning against trusting to oral tradition ; while, on the other hand, the constant habit of our Lord Himself, and His apostles after Him, of appealing to the written Scriptures of the Old Covenant, using these as ” proof,” and commending those who ” searched ” them {e.g. the Berceans, Acts xvii. 11), leads us to conclude that, in the absence of express statement to the contrary, the same method is to be followed, now that there is committed to the care of the Church a ” New Testament ” corresponding to the Old.

That the revelation made in Christ was final is assumed throughout the New Testament. Had it not been so, it is hard to understand how the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews could have written the opening verses of his epistle as he did (Heb. i. 1-3), or how S. Jude could have employed the striking phrase already quoted, and have spoken of ” the faith ” as ” once for all committed to the saints” (ver. 3). No writer of the New Testament ever gives us the slightest ground for looking for any further revelation. And if the final revelation was made in Christ, and the Scriptures were written for the purpose of preserving an authentic record of that revelation, it seems impossible to believe that any necessary doctrine can be omitted from them. It

»»- H 1^ I

MM*

t^i^tmrni

t^^mmmr^mrt-y

has been pertinently remarked, in illustration of this, that ” if a legislator desires to commit his laws to writing, in order that an authentic record of them may remain to all future times, it is not to be supposed that he will omit a portion of them. He will indeed provide some mode of interpreting and executing those laws, but he will not designedly leave any portion of them out of the record.” ^

(6) Thus the teaching of the article rests ultimately on the Scriptures themselves. But in support of it an appeal may safely be made to the general consent of Christians and the authority of the Fathers. That the Fathers appeal freely to tradition is undeniable, but it will be found that their appeals to it are of two kinds — (1) referring to matters of custom and ritual, where they appeal to it precisely as an Anglican would do, independently of Scripture, and (2) referring to doctrine y where they appeal to it not as teaching truths which are nowhere contained in Scripture, but as illustrating and determining the sense of Scripture.^ While on the other hand, they constantly appeal to Scripture in such a way as to show that they regarded it as the sole ultimate source of all necessary doctrine.

Catenae of passages from patristic writings, asserting the sufficiency of the Scriptures have been so frequently compiled, and are so easily accessible, that it is not pro-

• Palmer’s Treatise on the Church, pt. iii. ch. i.

^ In the passages of Irenaeus and TertuUian referring to the Kavu¥ rrji mXri$€ias, or regula fidei, tlie allusion is not to any authority independent of Scripture, but to the Creed, which summarises the principal doctrines of Scripture (see Irenaeus, I. i. III. ii-iv; TertuUian, De Prcescript. xiii. xiv.), while the famous passage, in which TertuUian rhetorically maintains that “no appeal must be made to the Scriptures, on them no contest should be instituted,” is easily explained by the fact that he was writing against heretics who perverted the Scriptures, nor does it in any way imply that tradition handed down matters of faith not contained in the Scriptures. — See Prcescript. xix.

posed to add another to the number here. Reference is made in the footnote to standard works on the subject,^ and it will accordingly be sufficient here to quote but two passages from representative writers of the East and West, and to add to them a striking passage from a third writer of repute, which admirably sets forth the true relation of tradition to Scripture.

Of the views of the Eastern Fathers S. Athanasius (c. A.D. 318) may be taken as the exponent, and he tells us distinctly that ” the holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves to the declaration of the truth.” ^ For the West no better spokesman can be found than S. Augustine (a.d. 430). In his work On Nature and Grace he is compelled to reply to objections to his teaching drawn by Pelagius from quotations out of ” certain treatises of Catholic writers,” and in answer to this he says boldly that in writings of such authors he feels himself free to use his own judgment, ” owing un- Jiesitativg assent to nothing hut the canonual Scriptures” ’ The third quotation shall be drawn from the writings of S. Vincent of Lerins (a.d. 450), himself the author of the famous canon of truth, quod uhique, quod semper,

quod ah omnibus.

At the beginning of his Commonitorium he writes as follows : ” Inquiring often with great earnestness and attention of very many excellent, holy, and learned men, how and by what means I might assuredly, and as it

[…]

»2)« Natura et Cfraiia, ch. Ixi: “Maxime quoniam me, in hujusmodi quorum libet hominum scriptis liberum (quia solis Canonicis debeo sine uUa recusatione consensum) nihil movet quod de illius scriptis, cujus nomen non ibi inveni, ille posuit,” etc.

were by some general and regular way, discern the true Catholic faith from false and wicked heresy, to this question I had usually received this answer from them all, namely, that whether I or any other desired to find out the fraud of heretics daily springing up, and to escape their snares, and willingly would continue in a sound faith, himself safe and sound, he ought in two ways by God’s assistance to defend and preserve his faith, namely, hy the authority of the law of God, and secondly, hy the tradition of the Catholic Church.

** Here some one, perhaps, may ask, seeing the canon of Scripture is perfect, and of itself most abundantly sufficient for all things, what need is there to join to it the authority of the ecclesiastical interpretation ? The reason is this, that the Scripture being of itself so deep and profound, all men do not understand it in one and the same sense, but divers men diversely, this man and that man, this way and that way, expound and interpret the sayings thereof, so that to one’s thinking, so many men, so many opinions almost may be gathered out of it … and therefore it is most necessary, because of the vagaries of errors so various, that the line of expounding the prophets and apostles be drawn according to the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic sense.” ^

Again, at the end of the same treatise he sums up its teaching: “We said above that this has always been, and even at this day is, the custom of Catholics to try and examine the true faith by these two methods : first, by the authority of the divine canon ; secondly, by the tradition of the Catholic Church; not because the canonical Scripture is not as to itself sufficient for all things, but because very many, expounding God’s word at their own will, do thereby conceive divers opinions and errors. And for this cause it is necessary that the

• Commonitoriuin^ ch. ii

interpretation of the heavenly Scripture be directed according to the one only rule of the Church’s understanding ; only, be it observed, especially in those questions upon which the foundations of the whole Catholic doctrine depend.” ^

These two arguments — (a) the general teaching of Scripture, its nature and end, and (6) the general consent of the Church and the authority of the Fathers are, it is believed, fully sufficient, when carefully considered and weighed, to establish the truth of the statement made in the first part of the article, that ” Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite necessary to salvation.” A few words may, however, be added on the argument, sometimes alleged, that Scripture proves its own insufficiency by its statements in the following passages : ^

2 Thess. ii. 1 5 : ” Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions {irapahoaeL^, Vulg. traditiones) which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle.”

1 Tim. vi. 20. : “0 Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust ” (rrjv irapaOrjK’qv),

2 Tim. i. 13: ” Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.”

Acts i. 3: “Christ showed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”

^ Cominonitorium, ch. xxix.

St. John XXL 25 : “There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”

In answer to the argument drawn from the occurrence of these passages in the New Testament it may be observed that the last two cited might equally well be urged on behalf of the insufficiency of tradition ; since no one has ever pretended that tradition has handed down every word which our Lord uttered, or even all that He uttered during the great forty days. The passages, however, plainly do not touch the question whether the whole of revealed truth necessary to salvation has or has not been committed to writing.

With regard to the passages from the epistles, it is sufficient to point out that the short epistle in which the first of them occurs, certainly does not contain the whole truth, and the ” traditions ” to which the apostle refers may perfectly well be understood as comprising the main articles of faith which are committed to writing in other parts of the Scripture ; while the two passages in the Epistles to Timothy evidently refer to some definite form of words or summary of the articles of faith, such as that found at a later date in the creed of the Church, but it does not in the very least follow that the doctrines contained in it are not also comprised in Holy Scripture.

There is, then, no valid argument to be drawn from Scripture itself against the position maintained in our article ; nor have any other satisfactory arguments been put forward by Romanists on behalf of the view that tradition is, apart from Scripture, a source of necessary doctrine. The following weighty words from two of the ablest Anglican divines of the first half of the present century seem to put the whole matter on its right footing, and will form a suitable close to this discussion.

1. On the sufficiency of Scripture. — ” While it is certainly true that it was not by Scripture that these Christian truths were delivered to the churches by the apostles, nor are they ordinarily thus learnt in the first instance by any ; yet in that sole inspired record, of which the Church was the early recipient and constant guardian, it is her belief and affirmation that the whole body of life-giving doctrine is essentially contained ; that the Spirit of God has provided that no saving truth should be there wanting. And however some important accessory facts may have been left to be proved altoge^^er from minor ecclesiastical sources (such as the determination of the canon of Scripture itself, the apostolic observance of Sunday as the Lord’s Day, that of the Christian Pascha and Pentecost, etc.), yet with matters of doctrine, properly so called, this has never been the case ; whatever claiming to be such a integral part of the faith once delivered to the saints, cannot be proved by sure warranty of the Christian Scriptures is by that circumstance alone convicted of novelty and error.” ^

2. On tradition. — ” If we mistake not the signs of the times, the period is not far distant when the whole controversy between the English and Eomish Churches will be revived, and all the points in dispute again brought under review. Of these points none is more important than the question respecting tradition ; and it is, therefore, most essential that they who stand forth as the defenders of the Church of England should take a correct and rational view of the subject — the view, in short, which was taken by our divines at the Reformation. Nothing was more remote from their intention than indiscriminately to condemn all tradition. They knew that in strictness of speech Scripture is tradition, written tradition. They knew that, as far as external evidence

is concerned, the tradition preserved in the Church is the only ground on which the genuineness of the books of Scripture can be established… . What our reformers opposed was the notion that men must, upon the mere authority of tradition, receive as necessary to salvation doctrines not contained in Scripture. Against this notion in general, they urged the incredibility of the supposition that the apostles, when unfolding in their writings the principles of the gospel, should have entirely omitted any doctrines essential to man’s salvation. The whole tenor, indeed, of those writings, as well as of our blessed Lord’s discourses, runs counter to the supposition that any truths of fundamental importance would be suffered long to rest upon so precarious a foundation as that of oral tradition. With respect to the particular doctrines, in defence of which the Roman Catholics appeal to tradition, our reformers contended that some were directly at variance with Scripture ; and that others, far from being supported by an unbroken chain of tradition from the apostolic age, were of very recent origin, and utterly unknown to the early Fathers. Such was the view of this important question taken by our reformers. In this, as in other instances, they wisely adopted a middle course; they neither bowed submissively to the authority of tradition, nor yet rejected it altogether. We in the present day must tread in their footsteps, and imitate their moderation, if we intend to combat our Roman Catholic adversaries with success. We must be careful that, in our anxiety to avoid one extreme, we run not into the other, by adopting the extravagant language of those who, not content with ascribing a paramount authority to the written word on all points pertaining to eternal salvation, talk as if the Bible — and that, too, the Bible in our English translation — were, independently of all external aids and evidence, sufficient to prove its

own genuineness and inspiration, and to be its own interpreter.” ^

II. The Carwn of Holy Scripture,

There are so many different topics claiming attention under this head that it will be convenient to subdivide it and consider the following points separately : —

(a) The meaning of the terms canon and canonical.

{h) The method of determining what books are canonical.

(c) The question at issue between England and Rome concerning the canon of the Old Testament.

{d) The canon of the New Testament.

(a) TJie meaning of the terms canon and canonical. — The Greek word Kavtcv means primarily a straight rod, and so generally a carpenter’s rule. Hence it is applied metaphorically, like the Latin regula and norma to anything which serves to regulate or determine other things, i.e. a rule or standard. In this sense it is used by S. Paul in 2 Cor. x. 13, 15, 16 and Gal. vi. 16, as by other early Christian writers, such as S. Clement of Rome. But it very soon came to have a definite meaning stamped upon it in the Church as the ” rule of truth or faith ” (6 Kavwv TY) ak’qOeiaj t9 irlcretos:), i.e. that by which the faith of Christians was regulated, the standard by which their orthodoxy was measured; and so it is applied especially to the creed as containing this rule or standard. From this the transition is natural to that use of the word which is very familiar to us in the expression

2 In Phil. iii. 16 it is an interpolation. In the Septuagint the word is only found three times, namely, in Micah vii. 4 ; Judith xiii. 6 ; 4 Maccabees, vii. 21 ; Aquila has it also in Job xxxviii. 5 ; Ps. xviii. (xix. ) 5.

• Clem. Rom. Ad Cor. i. i. vii. xli.

[…]

” Canons of Councils,” namely, decisions on particular points which were thus ruled by the Church. The substantive Kavoav being so used, the adjective KavoviKo and the verb Kavovi€cv also came into familiar use in connection with what was so ruled. And it is in these derivatives that we meet with the earliest application of the word to the Scriptures, the books of which are spoken of by so early a writer as Origen, if we may trust the Latin translation of his works, as Scriptural Canonicce, Canonizatce Scripturce, and Lihri CaTwnizati i.e. the books which have been admitted by rule. Not till towards the close of the fourth century does the substantive ” canon ” occur of the Holy Scriptures, but from its appearance then, in a number of different writers, it must already have been a recognised term for some little time. The earliest instance of its occurrence that has been traced is in the catalogue of the Scriptures by Amphilochius circa 380). After giving a list of the books this writer proceeds to say, ” This would be the most unerring rule Kavoiv) of the inspired Scriptures,” i.e. the standard or measure by which all books claiming divine authority might be tested. Hence the word came to be used of the whole collection of hooks thus admitted by rule — the books accepted by the Church were said to be ” in the canon.” So the phrase is used by Rufinus and other writers of the close of the fourth century. And, finally, the adjective ” canonical ” was used no longer in a passive sense, meaning that the books were authorised or ruled to be accepted by the Church, but rather in an active sense, of the same books, regarded as authoritative or giving the rule of faith, the sense in which the term is

» Origen, Dt Principiis, iv. 33 ; Com. in MaU. § 28 cf. § 117. The phrase haheri in canone also occurs in the Latin translation (Prol. in Cant. ), but it is thought to be only the translator’s version of Kavovi^effdai.

[…]

■t^mtm

VT» ‘li

familiarly used by us when we speak of a book as ” canonical ” — the ” canonical books ” being those books to which the ultimate appeal lies in matters of necessary doctrine, and the ” Canon of Scripture ” representing the collection of such books, It is probably owing to their use in the writings of Jerome and Augustine ^ that both terms ” canon ” and ” canonical ” passed into the common language of Western Christendom.^

(&) The Tnethod of determining what hooks are canonical. — On this matter the language of the article is perfectly

clear. 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. The Church of England appeals to the historical evidence of reception by the visible Church, which, as Article XX. states, is ” a witness and keeper of Holy Writ.” This method of determining the canonicity of the books is in complete accordance with the general appeal which the Church of England makes to antiquity. It stands in sharp contrast to the method adopted by most of the Protestant communities in the sixteenth century, who preferred to base their acceptance of the books of Scripture on the “inner witness of the Spirit,” ^ a witness which, however comforting and assuring to the believer who is conscious of

[…]

« See on this subject Westcott’s Bible in tJic Church, p. 110, and Bishop Ellicott’s New Testament for English Jieaders, vol. i. p. xii.

[…]

feeling it in himself, is yet scarcely likely to convince any who still need convincing, and which is practically useless as a test for deciding what books are to be accounted canonical. Indeed, as Alford points out, ” any reasoning must be not only in itself insufficient, but logically unsound, which makes the authority of a book which is to set us our standard of doctrine, the result of a judgment of our own respecting the doctrine inculcated in it.” ^ But the question may be, and has been, raised. How does this appeal to the authority of the Church in settling what is Holy Scripture agree with the teaching of the article itself that Holy Scripture ” contains all things necessary to salvation ? ” The question was one which was apparently often put to the Anglican apologists in the sixteenth century. Accordingly, it is touched upon by Hooker in the first book of the Ecclesiastical Polity, ” It may be, and oftentimes hath been, demanded, how the books of Holy Scripture contain in them ail necessary things, when, of things necessary, the very chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteem holy ; which point is confessed impossible for Scripture to teach.” The question thus fairly proposed by Hooker is by him as fairly answered. After pointing out that in every art or science something must be taken for granted to start with, he proceeds as follows : — ” Albeit Scripture do profess to contain in it all things which are necessary to salvation ; yet the meaning cannot be simply of all things which are necessary, but all things that are necessary in some certain kind or form ; as all things which are neces-

credimus, quae in illis continentur. Idque non tam quod ecclesia illos pro canonicis recipiat et comprobet ; quam quod Spiritus Sanctus nostris conscientiis testetur illos a Deo emanasse ; et eo maxime quod ipsi etiam per se sacram banc suam authoritatem et sanctitatem testentur atque comprobent ; quumetipsi caeci rerum omnium, quae in illis scriptispraedictaefuerunt, impletiouem et executionem clare conspicere et veluti sensibus percipere possint.’* ^ Greek Testament, vol. iv. p. 85.

sary, and either could not at all or could not easily be known by the light of natural discourse ; all things which are necessary to be known that we may be saved ; but known with presupposal of knowledge concerning certain principles whereof it receiveth us already persuaded, and then instructeth us in all the residue that are necessary. In the number of these principles one is the sacred authority of Scripture. Being therefore persuaded by other means that these Scriptures are the oracles of God, themselves do then teach us the rest, and lay before its all the duties which God requireth at ovr hands as necessary to salvation!* ^ In other words, while Holy Scripture contains everything essential that is a matter of revelation, in order to discover in what books this revelation is contained we have recourse to ordinary historical evidence, and inquire what books have been accepted without doubt by the Church, (c) The question at issue between England and Rome concerning the canmi of tlie Old Testament — Of the canonical books of the Old Testament, the article gives a complete list. There is, therefore, no room for doubt what is the mind of the Church of England on this point. For the view taken by the Koman Church, the decree of the Council of Trent is equally explicit. After the passage with regard to the authority of Scripture and tradition already cited, the decree proceeds to say that ” it has been thought meet that a catalogue of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest doubt should arise in anyone’s mind as to which are the books received by the Synod.” [Then follows the list, including Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees.] ** But if anyone 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, and knowingly

^ Ecclesiastical Polity, hV. i. ch. xiv. § 1.

and deliberately despise the traditions aforesaid, let him be anathema.” The words placed in italics show us that we are intended to add to the books counted as canonical by the Church of Rome those additions to the books of Esther and Daniel which are found in the Septuagint and Vulgate, but which, as having no place in the Hebrew text, are relegated to a position in the Apocr3rpha by the Church of England, under the titles of The Rest of the Book of Esther, Bel and the Dragon, The Story of Susanna, and the Song of the Three Children.

Here, then, is a clear and decided difference between England and Home, the latter counting as canonical almost all those books which the Church of England uses ” for example of life and instruction of manners,” but refuses to ” apply them to establish any doctrine.”

The origin of this difference lies far back, and must be sought in the Greek version of the Scriptures of the Old Covenant, to which were appended various books (some translations from the Hebrew, others originally written in Greek), which were certainly not regarded as sacred by the Jews of Palestine, and probably not even by those of the dispersion. That the Jewish Church has never admitted into the canon those books to which we refuse a place in it, may be proved with abundant evidence. Josephus (A.D. 70), who is our earliest direct witness on the subject, reckons up the ” two and twenty books which are justly believed to be divine ; five books of Moses, thirteen of the prophets extending to the reign of Artaxerxes, and four which contain hymns and directions of life ” ; 1 while of later books he says that they are not esteemed worthy of the same credit, ” because the accurate succession of the prophets was not preserved.” The witness of the Talmud (ad. 500) is to the same

Contra Apion. 1, § 8. The thirteen prophets must be Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra with Nehemiah, Esther, Job,

efifect,^ while Philo supplies indirect evidence that the Jews of the dispersion agreed with their brethren in Palestine in this matter.^ In the New Testament, though there are occasionally striking coincidences of language and thought with some of the books of the Apocrypha, yet there is not a single direct and acknowledged quotation from any one of them, while quotations from, and references to, almost all the books of the Hebrew canon abound.^ Against this there is nothing to be set on the other side, and so we may conclude that there can be no reasonable doubt that at the beginnmg of the Christian era the Jewish canon contained the same books which it does at the present day, namely, those enumerated as canonical in our Articles, and none others.* In the Christian Church our earliest witnesses all point to this list, and to this alone, as formally and distinctly recognised. But at the same time it needs very little

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the minor prophets. The four others are Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. Other Jewish authorities generally reckon those in italics not among the prophets, but among the ” Hagiographa,” the third class of Josephus. ^ Baba Bathra, fol. 146.

• ” His language shows that he was acquainted with the Apocryphal books, and yet he does not make a single quotation from them, though they offered much that was favourable to his views. On the other hand, in addition to the law, he quotes all the books of ’ the prophets,’ and the Psalms and Proverbs from the Hagiographa, and several of them with clear assertions of their * prophetic ’ or inspired character. Of the remaining Hagiographa (Nehemiah, Ruth, Lamentations, First and Second Chronicles, Daniel, Ecclesiastes, Canticles) he makes no mention, but the first three may have been attached, as often in Hebrew usage, to other books (Ezra, Judges, Jeremiah), so that four writings alone are unattested by him. “—Smith’s Dictumary of the Bible, vol. i. p. 504 (Ed. 2). ^

3 The only books of the Old Testament to which the New gives no direct attestation are Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

research to discover that quotations from the Apocrypha are abundant in the writings of the Fathers, from the earliest days. This, however, is easily accounted for. The Fathers were, with scarcely an exception, ignorant of Hebrew, and dependent on the Septuagint Version for their knowledge of the Scriptures of the Old Covenant. In this version, as we have seen, the books of the Apocrypha found a place. It was, therefore, only natural that the Fathers should fall into the habit of employing and quoting all the books in the collection with which they were familiar, and thus should gradually lose their sense of the distinction between the books of the Hebrew canon and the additions of the Septuagint. The ” old Latin version ” was made from the Septuagint, and consequently included the additional books. Hence the confusion passed over into the Western Church. But in spite of this growing recognition of the books of the Apocrypha, and the popular use of them, it remains that during the first four centuries every Father who gives a deliberate judgment on the subject, and has the slightest claim to occupy a representative position, accepts the Hebrew canon alone. In its behalf may be quoted the testimony of the Syriac (Peschito) version which is limited to the books of the Hebrew canon; the witness of Melito of Sardis (a.d. 180), who made the number of the books of the canon a subject of special inquiry;! Origen (220) ;« Cyril of Jerusalem (348) ;»

• See Eusebius, H. E. IV. xxv. Origen gives the Hebrew canon exactly as we have it.

’ Catech. iv. § 35. Cyril includes Baruch in the canon, taking it as an appendix to Jeremiah ; otherwise his list of the Old Testament coincides exactly with our own.

Athanasius (367); Gregory Nazianzen (390) in the East; and of Hilary of Poictiers (368) ;3 Rufinus (390)* and Jerome (430) in the West. Especially important is the testimony of the last-mentioned writer. He gives a complete and accurate list exactly coinciding with our own, and ends by saying, ” Whatever is without the number of these must be placedamong the Apocrypha.” Contemporary with Jerome was Augustine, and it is to his varying and uncertain language that the claim of the Apocrypha to be ranked as canonical must be traced. Not only does he freely quote (as others had done before him) books of the Apocrypha as Scripture, but (as others had not done before him) when formally enumerating the books contained in the canon of Scripture he includes these books among them without drawing any clear distinction between them,* although else-

1 Festal Epistles, No. xxxix. Like Cyril, Athanasius includes Baruch, but he expressly excludes Esther from a place among the canonical books.

2 Carmina, xii. 13. Esther is not mentioned in this list.

3 Prologus in Psalmos, § 15. Hilary’s list is identical with our own, though he mentions that some added to it the books of Tobit and Judith.

• In Symbolum Apostolorum, § 37. The li«t is exactly the same as ours, and expressly says that Tobit, Judith, etc., are ” not canonical, but ecclesiastical.”

5 Prologus Galeatus.

« No reference is made in the text to the Fifty-ninth canon of the Council of Laodicaia (a.d. 363), which is often quoted as determining the canon of Scripture ; because there appear to be very strong grounds for questioning the genuineness of that part of the decree which contains the list of the books. See Westcott (hi the Canon, p. 498. Hefele, however, accepts it as genuine {History of the Councils, vol. ii. p. 322 seq., English translation). The list given in it is, however, exactly the same as our own. It ought to be added that many of the authorities quoted in the previous notes as accepting the Hebrew canon rather than the enlarged one of the Septuagint as authoritotive, yet make use of the other books, and cite them from time to time as Scripture. This was under the circumstances only natural, and the same thing is equally true of our reformers. Habit and custom were often too strong for them. Hence the Apocrypha is freely quoted as ” Scripture ” and ” the word of God ” in the Homilies, and yet distinctly separated off from the canonical books of Scripture in the article. 7 J)e Doctrina Christiana II. viu. ; Totus autem Canon Scripturarum

where he seems occasionally to use language which implies that he recognised a distinction ; ^ from which it has been inferred that possibly he really differed from Jerome only in language. Be this as it may, there is no doubt that the Council of Carthage (a.d. 397), at which Augustine himself is thought to have been present, recognised and adopted the enlarged canon of the Septuagint, including

… his libris continetur; quinque Moyseos, id est Genesi, Exodo, Levitico, Numeris, Deuteronomio ; et uno libro Jesu Nave, uno Judicum, uno libello qui adpellatur Ruth, qui magis ad Regnorum principium videtur pertinere ; deinde quatuor Regnorum, et duobus Paralipomenon, non consequentibus sed quasi a latere adjunctis, simulque pergentibus. Hsec est historia quae sibimet adnexa tempora continet atque ordinem rerum. Sunt aliae tanquam ex diverso ordine, quae neque huic ordini neque inter se connectuntur, sicut est Job et Tobias, et Esther, et Judith et Machahxorum libri duo, et Esdrae duo, qui magis subsequi videntur ordinatam illam historiam usque ad Regnorum vel Paralipomenom terminatam. Deinde Prophetae, in quibus David unus liber Psalmorum, et Salomonis tres : Proverbiorum, Cantica Canticorum, et Ecclesiastes. Nam illi duo libri, unus qui Sapientia, et alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur, de quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur ; nam Jesus Sirach eos conscripsisse constantissime perhibetur ; qui tamen, quoniam in auctoritatem recipi meruerunt, inter propheticos numerandi sunt. Reliqui sunt eorum libri qui proprie prophetae adpellantur duodecim prophetarum libri singuli, qui connexi sibimet, quoniam nunquam sejuncti sunt, pro uno habentur, quorum prophetarum nomina sunt haec : Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Michaeas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachi; deinde quatuor prophetae sunt majorum voluminum : I^aias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezekiel. His quadraginta quatuor libris testamenti veteris terminatur auctoritas.” The books of the Apocrypha are italicised in this list. It will be noticed that there is no mention of Baruch. This probably does not indicate rejection, but may be accounted for by supposing that it was reckoned along with Jeremiah. Cf. Be Civitate Dei, xviii. 33, c. Faustum, xii. 43. ^ In Contra Gaudentium, i. 38, Augustine speaks of the books of the Maccabees ” as received by the Church not without profit, if they be read with sobriety.” In the De Civitate Dei, xviii. 36, he says that a reckoning is found “not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees — which the Church and not the Jews account canonical, on account of the wonderful sufferings of the martyrs, etc.” He thus draws a distinction between the books recognised by both the Jewish and the Christian Church, and those held in honour by the Christians only. Cf. Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. p. 606.

the books of the Apocrypha.^ The same is true of the decretals which bear the names of Innocent, Damasus, and Gelasius, and of many later writers, so that it may fairly be said that from the fifth century onwards, at least in the Western Church, the distinction between the two classes of books was generally obliterated. Nevertheless it has been pointed out with truth that in spite of this wide recognition of the Apocrypha as canonical ” a continuous succession of the more learned fathers in the West maintained the distinctive authority of the Hebrew canon up to the period of the Reformation,” and ” repeat with approval the decision of Jerome, and draw a clear line between the canonical and apocryphal books.”^ It was thus reserved for the Council of Trent in 1546 to decide finally against this continuous stream of testimony, and, in giving its verdict against all the more critical of the Fathers, to stereotype the confusion which could never have arisen except in an age devoid of the first principles

of criticism.*

It is remarkable that notwithstanding the decision of the Council of Trent taken so early to include the Apocrypha among the canonical books, Cranmer was content

3 Of the distinction which is drawn by some Roman divines between Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical books, the latter having only an ethical authority, there is not the shadow of a trace in the Tridentine decree.

to issue the Anglican Articles in 1553 without any reference whatever to the question, for the list of books was, as has been already mentioned, not inserted until the revision by Parker in Elizabeth’s reign. The omission in the earlier series is not easy to account for. That it cannot have been due to any hesitation felt by the Reformers is shown by the separation of the Apocrypha from the other books in the English Bibles published in the reign of Henry VIII. They are so separated in the edition of Coverdale (1535), and in the ” Great Bible” of Cranmer (1539, 1540), and in both are described as ” Apocrypha,” for though the latter, by a curious blunder, has ” Hagiographa ” on the title-page of the section containing them, yet the running heading at the top of each page is ” Apocrypha.” Moreover, the Reformatio Legum Ecclcsiasticarum devotes a section to the subject, and carefully distinguishes them from the books of the Hebrew canon, styling them ” sacred but not canonical,” assigning to them the very same position which was subsequently given to them in the Articles.^

It may be well to add a few words on the view taken by the Eastern Church on the canon of the Old Testament, although it is by no means clear what is binding on members of that communion, owing partly to the absence of authoritative symbolical books, and partly to the fact that conflicting judgments on this subject may be quoted. The Confession of Cyril Lucar in the seven-

• Ref. Legum Eccl. ” De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, ” ch. 7. Libri sacri nan tamen Canonici. Liber vero qui Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur, Ecclesiasticus, item Judith, To])ias, Baruch, tertius et quartus Esdrae. libri Machabaeorum, cum Apocryphis Hester et Danielis, leguntur quidem a fidelibus et in ecclesia recitantur, quod ad (edificationem plebis plurima in illis valeant, quibus tamen non tantum authoritatis tribuitur, ut fidei nostne dogmata ex ipsis solis et separatim citra alios indubitatae Scripturae locos coustitui, constabilirique, vel possint, vel debeant. Sunt ergo et cum judicio et sobrie isti turn audiendi turn legendi.

t i

beenth century assigns an inferior rank to the additions of the Septuagint, and the same view is taken in the Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus put forth in 1625, especially for the information of the reformed bodies. ” As to the other books which some would combine together with Holy Scripture, such as Tobit and the like, we do not hold that they are to be rejected, for they contain much that is moral and worthy of all praise. But as canonical and authentic they were not formerly received by the Church of Christ … wherefore we do not seek to establish our dogmas by them, but from the three and thirty canonical and authentic books which we call the inspired and Holy Scripture.” ^ This judgment is repeated with approval by later writers, and probably represents the general opinion in the Greek Church ; but on the other hand the Synod of Jerusalem (a.d. 1672), held « against the Calvinists,” and violently hostile to Cyril Lucar, pronounced that the books which he had foolishly, ignorantly, or maliciously called Apocrypha, were to be received with the other genuine books of Holy Scripture, and to be acknowledged as ” Canonical and Holy Scripture.” ’

The “Longer Catechism of the Russian Church follows S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Athanasius, and S. John Damascene, in adopting the Hebrew canon, quoting S. Athanasius expressly as saying that the books which ” do not exist in the Hebrew ” are ” appointed by the Fathers to be read by proselytes who are preparing for admission into the Church” ;3 and we are told that ” the officially-printed Russian Bibles contain the apocryphal

[…]

Sytnholid, p. 467. it. r> \xr

[…]

Blackmore, p. 38.

books, with a note to the effect that they are taken from the Greek version or are not found in the Hebrew text.” ^ (d.) The canon of the New Testament. — It is obvious that in the very limited space which alone can be devoted to the subject in a work of this character, it is impossible to do more than give the briefest summary of the evidence which has led the Church to accept the canon of the New Testament as it has come down to us. Fuller details must be sought in such works as Bishop Westcott’s History of the Carton of the New Testament, or Dr. Salmon’s Introduction to the Neio Testament. All that can be attempted here is to indicate the main outlines of the evidence, which may be summed up under four different heads, namely, the witness of (1) MSS., (2) Versions, (3) formal catalogues of the books, and (4) citations in early ecclesiastical writers. These four distinct branches of evidence all combine to establish the fact that the books of the New Testament, which we receive to-day, have come down to us from the days of the apostles ; that, with the partial exceptions noted below, they have been recognised as sacred by the Church from the beginning ; and that in very early days they were formed into a definite collection, so as to constitute a “New Testament ” corresponding to the ” Old.”

1. Manuscripts. — The total number of manuscripts of the Greek Testament that are known to exist and have been examined with more or less care, amounts to something like twelve hundred. They are divided into two classes, known respectively as “uncial” and ” cursives.” The former class, written in capital letters, comprises all the more ancient among them, ranging from the fourth to the tenth century. The ” cursives ” are written in a small running hand, which began to come into use about the ninth century, and include the great

[…]

bulk of the existing MSS. from that date to the sixteenth.

The oldest MSS. are the four great Bibles of the fourth and fifth centuries, containing the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, as well as the original Greek of the New. These are known to scholars under the following titles : —

L Codex Vaticanus (B), in the Vatican Library at Rome, containing all the books of the New Testament except the later chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and the Revelation of S. John.

iL Codex Sinaiticus (k), discovered by Tischendorf in the convent of S. Catherine at Mount Sinai in 1859, now at St. Petersburg. This contains all the books of the New Testament without exception.

Both of these MSS. are unhesitatingly assigned to the middle of the fourth century.

iii. Codex Alexandrimis (A), in the British Museum. This, like the Sinaitic MS., contains every book of the New Testament, though several leaves are wanting at the beginning of S. Matthew’s Gospel, as well as two or three in other parts of the volume.

iv. Codex Ephraemi (C), at Paris. This MS., in which the works of an eastern Father, Ephraem the Syrian, have been written over the Greek text of the Scriptures, is in a very fragmentary condition ; but sufficient remains to show us that it also originally contained the whole New Testament. Together with Codex Alexandrinus it is set down as belonging to the fifth century.

Of later MSS. there is no need to give any account here. While to the textual critic many of them are of the highest value, they can scarcely be said to add materially to the evidence for the point that is here under consideration. But the existence of these four MSS. just enumerated is of itself sufidcient to establish the existence

of the New Testament as a collected whole — a definite Canon — placed on a footing of equal authority with the Old Testament, some time before the date to which the earliest of them is assigned. And it may be added that the fact that there are such a number of MSS. remaining, many of them belonging to an early date, enables us to place far greater reliance on the correctness of the text of the New Testament than we can do on the text of any of the great classical writers of antiquity, whose works often rest on the evidence of one or two MSS., and those of a comparatively recent date.

2. Versions.— While the MSS. of the Greek Testament thus testify to the existence of the collection before the middle of the fourth century, we are enabled, by the aid of the versions, to prove its acceptance by the Church some two centuries earlier stiU. For we find that before the second century had come to a close the books of the New Testament had been already translated into the vernacular in more than one country. The two oldest and most important versions or translations known to us are the Old Latin and the Syriac. Of these the former was in use in North Africa, probably in the days of TertuUian (A.U. 200), and certainly a considerable time before the days of S. Cyprian, by whom it is frequently quoted some fifty years later. It is, perhaps, scarcely correct to speak of the Old Latin as a single version. The MSS. of it which remain fall into distinct groups, from which scholars have concluded that besides the African text, used by Cyprian and others, there was another current, generally known as the European, which may have been originally an independent version.^ Should

iFrom the European was probably formed the Italic, the third form in which the Old Latin is known to us. On these versions and their relation to each other see Scrivener’s IiUrodudion to the Cntuiam of the New Testament, vol. ii. ch. iii. (Ed. 4).

this prove to be correct it will supply us with a fresh evidence to the existence and widespread use of the books of the New Testament in early days.

No complete Old Latin version remains to us. It has come down in a partial and fragmentary form in the existing MSS. ; but enough remains to enable us to state with certainty that the version contained all the books of our present canon, except the Epistle of S. James, the Second Epistle of S. Peter, and (at least in the first instance) the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Still older, perhaps, than the Old Latin is the original Syriac translation. The Peshito or Simple version is the Vulgate of the Syriac Church, and of itself can claim a high antiquity, although its actual date in the revised form in which it has come down to us is hard to determine. It has been placed by some scholars as early as the end of the second century ; by others some time later. But portions of a still more ancient Syriac version have lately come to light. In 1842 a few fragments of a MS. of the fifth century were brought to England, and found to contain a limited number of passages from each of the four Gospels in a Syriac translation, different from that previously known. These were edited by Dr. Cureton, from whom the version is known as the Curetonian Syriac. It is thought to contain an older unrevised text, and to be not later than the middle of the second century. Since Cureton’s day a second MS. of a recension of the same version has been discovered at Mount Sinai.^ which, happily, contains the whole of the Gospels. Whether this oldest Syriac version ever contained more than this it is impossible at present to determine. But in its revised form in the Peshito the canon of the Syriac Church comprises the

^ In 1892 by Mrs. Lewis, by whom an English translation of the Gospels has been published (1894).

whole of the New Testament except 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse.

A third group of versions must also be mentioned, namely, the Egyptian. Of these there are various forms known to us, now generally termed […] Sahidic ” (or ” Thebaic ”), and ” Bashmuric,” as well as fragments in other dialects. The early history of these is very obscure, but it has been said by a competent authority that we ” should probably not be exaggerating if we placed one or both the Egyptian versions, the Boharic and Sahidic, or at least parts of them before the close of the second century.”^ Nor is there room for doubt that these versions contained the whole of the books of our present canon with the exception of the Apocalypse.

3. Catalogues. — Besides MSS. and versions, a third important branch of evidence is furnished by the formal lists of the books of Scripture drawn up in the early centuries. Of these several have come down to us from the fourth century, when the canon of Scripture was made a special subject of inquiry and was finally settled in the Church. The list of the books of the New Testament, exactly as we have them at present, was definitely ratified at the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397). The catalogues given by Eufinus (390) in Italy, by Gregory Nazianzen * (389) and Amphilochius (circa 380) in Asia Minor, by Athanasius (367) in Alexandria, and Cyril of Jerusalem (348) in Palestine supply further evidence reaching back to the first half of the same century. In these the only book concerning the acceptance of which there is any hesitation expressed is the Apocalypse. While it is definitely recognised as canon-

• C(mc. Carth. Canon xxxix.

[…]

ical by Rufinus and Athanasius, it is passed over in silence by Cyril,^ and expressly rejected by Gregory Nazianzen and Amphilochius.

For the earlier part of the fourth century we have a still more important witness in the list of the books given by Eusebius in the third book of his Ecclesiastiml History? in which he sums up the results of his investigation on the subject of the canon. In this he tells us that all the books for which any claim to divine authority has been made may broadly be divided into two classes — (1) the acknowledged books (ofioXoyovfieva), and (2) those which were disputed (avriXeyofieva). In the first class (which he elsewhere describes as ” canonical and acknowledged ”) ^ he places the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of S. Paul, the First Epistle of S. Peter, and the First of S. John, and (with some hesitation) the Apocalypse. In the second class he finds it necessary to make a subdivision, (a) Some of the disputed books, or Antilegomena, were nevertheless “recognised by most,” and these form a separate class, including the Epistles of S. James and S. Jude, 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter. (6) The remaining Antilegomena are set aside as spurious (voda), e.g, the Acts of Paul, the Pastor of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called ” Teaching of the Apostles,” and the Revelation of S. John, ” which some reject, but others class with the acknowledged books.” Nothing is said expressly in this passage concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews. But as there is no mention of it among the disputed books it may be supposed to be included among the Epistles of S. Paul,

1 As it is also in the list appended to the fifty -ninth canon of the Council of Laodicea.

2 Eusebius, ff. E. III. xxv.

[…]

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

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

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

1 III. iii. “Paul’s fourteen epistles are well-known and undisputed {TpddrjXoi Kal <ra<t>€ls). It is not, indeed, right to ignore the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was disputed {dyTiKiyeadai) by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.”

« H. E. VI. xiii.

’ The fragment is printed in Westcott’s History of the Canon ^ Appendix C, and in Routh’s RelinuuB Sturce^ vol. i. p. 393.

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

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

4. Citations in early writers— In order (1) to

bridge over the interval between the latter part of the

« It has been suggested that the Epistle to the Hebrews may be referred to as the Epistle to the Alexandrians, which the ^vriter speaks of as “forged under the name of Paul, bearing on” (or “in the interest of”) *’ the heresy of Marcion.”

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

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

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

’ On the evidence of Tertullian and Irenaeus see Sanday’s Gospels in the Second Century, ch. xiii.

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

» Apol. I. Ixvi. Ixvii. ; cf. ch. xxxiii. ; Dial. Ixxxviii. c. etc. See on the evidence of Justin Martjrr Westcott’s Canon of the New TestamerU, p. 86, and for proof that Justin was acquainted with the Gospel of S. John, reference may be made especially to Ezra Abbot’s Authorship of the Fourth Chapel,

certainly passed under these names a few years

later.^

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

Equally clear is the witness of citations from early writers for the remainder of the books which Euscbius ranked as […] and although it is clear that

1 Eusebius, H, E. III. xxxix. ; cf. Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural

Religion^ p. 142 seq.

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

(see ch. i., ix.), and S. John.

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

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

1 CarinthiaiiSy Clement of Rome, xxxiv. Ignatius, Ad EpJies. xvi. xviii.; Ad Earn, v.; Ad Philad. iii.; Polycarp, Ad Philip, iv. v. x. xi.

2 CarirUhianSt Polycarp, Ad Philip, ii. vi.

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

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

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

Ephesians, Ignatius, Ad Polyc. v. Polycarp, Ad Fhilip. i. xii.

Philippians, Polycarp, Ad Philip, ix. xii.

Colossiaiis, Ignatius, Ad Ephes. x.

2 Thessalonians, Polycarp, Ad Philip, xi.

1 Timothy, Polycarp, Ad Philip, iv. xiL

2 Timothy, ibid. v. ix. Titus, Clement of Rome, ii.

1 FeUr, Clement of Rome, xxx. (?) Ignatius, Ad EpJies. v. (?) Polycarp, Ad Fhilip. i. ii. v. vii. viii. x.

1 John, Polycarp, Ad Fhilip. vii.

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

altogether easy to reconcile with each other. It is first

stated that in the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church ; and finally, at

the close of the article, there is another statement on

the subject, saying that all the books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account canonical. Now there is

no question that at the date at which the article was drawn up all the Antilegomena were “commonly received,” and therefore to judge by the last paragraph of the article they ought to be received now, whereas if the terms of the earlier statement be interpreted strictly they should be excluded, for most certainly doubts have been expressed concerning their authority in the Church. It is hard to find a satisfactory explanation of this ambiguity. A suggestion has been made that it was of set purpose that the terms of the article were not made more precise. There certainly was at that time an inclination in some quarters to form a ” canon within a canon,” or even to reject one or two of the books of the New Testament altogether. Luther, for instance, finding that S. James’ language on justification by works was scarcely in harmony with his own theory on the subject was at one time disposed to reject this epistle,^ while

1 “With bold self-reliance he created a purely subjective standard for the canonicity of the Scriptures, in the character of their “teaching of Christ,” and while he placed the Gospel and First Epistle of S. John, the Epistles of S. Paul to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and the First Epistle of S. Peter, in the first rank, as containing the “kernel of Christianity,” he set aside the Epistles to the Hebrews, S. Jude, S. James, and the Apocalypse at the end of his version, and spoke of them, and of the remaining Antilegomena with varying degrees of disrespect, though he did not separate 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John from the other […] ilu Bible, vol. i. p. 518. For Luther’s

others among the foreign reformers were anxious to place the Antilegomena on a lower level than the rest of the books. It is possible, therefore, that the article was left as it now stands, in order to give some latitude for subscription, so that those scholars who were led to place any of the Antilegomena on a lower level of authority might be able to shelter themselves behind the conflicting terms of the article. “A distinction,” says Bishop Westcott, “remains between the ‘canonical’ books, and such * canonical books as have never been doubted in the Church,’ and it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the framers of the Articles intended to leave a freedom of judgment on a point on which the greatest of the continental reformers, and even of Komish scholars (Sixtus Sen. Biblioth. s. ii 1 ; Cajetan, Free/, ad Epp., ad Heir., Jajc,, 2, 3 John, Jude) were divided.”^ This view is possible, but it is perhaps over-subtle, and moreover it would involve the admission that the Antilegomena, though ” canonical,” are not included in what the article calls ” Holy Scripture,” for 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 ; and it has been proposed to understand “the Church” in the clause just quoted as referring to the Church universal. It is on the whole true, even of the Antilegomena, that though their authority has been questioned in particular parts of the Church, yet, so far as we know, there has never been any doubt about their authority in the Church as a whole}

language on the Epistle of S. James, which he actually described as a “right strawy epistle,” see Huther’s Comimntary on St. James (E. T.), p. 25.

• “Some of them, as, for instance, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse— have been the subject of much doubt in the East and West, as the case may be. But the article asserts that there has been no doubt

According to Eusebins they were “recognised by most” of the writers whom he consulted, and so the words of the article might fairly be taken to cover them all.

III. The Position of ” the other Books”

Under this head it will be well to consider separately—

(a) The meaning of the term ” Apocrypha.”

fb) The position assigned to the Apocrypha by the

Church of England, and the arguments by which it

may be supported.

(a) The meanvng of the term Apocrypha.— The adjective a’rr6Kpv<o is used in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament and m the New Testament m its ordinary classical sense of ” hidden ” or ” secret (see S. Luke viii 17 Col. ii. 3, and cf. Ecclus. xxui. 19). From this meaning it was employed even in pre-Christian tunes by teachers who claimed a higher ” esoteric wisdom which they embodied in secret, i.e. apocryphal writings. The plan of embodying teaching in such ” secret books which might not be openly read and used was one against which the Church set her face from the begmnine. But it was the plan adopted by many of the heretical sects, and hence the word apocryphal as applied to their writings rapidly came to be a word of reproach, and to denote the ideas of spurious and heretimL It has been thought that this reference of the word was facilitated by an analogous use of a Hebrew word with

about them in the Church Catholic ; that is. at the very first time that thrCalhoUc or whole Church had the opportunity of fonmng a judgmen on the subject, it pronounced in favour of the canonical books. The Epile to the kebr!ws was doubted by the West, and the Apocalypse by rfCt only while those portions of the Church investigated separately t::Xy till Zy compared notes, interchangedsentiments. and formed a united 3udgment.”—J. H Newma in TradjaV- 6. Beprint of 1865. ’ Cf. 2 Esdras xu. 37, 88, xiv. 44.

much the same meaning. The late Hebrew or Aramaic term Genuzim ( = hidden) was applied by the Jews originally to the worn-out copies of the Scripture rolls, which were no longer suitable for use in the synagogue, and were therefore withdrawn and consigned to a special chamber, known as the Genizah. It thus came to denote that a book was for some cause or other unfit for public reading.! How far it was as a translation of Genuzim that Apocryphal came into familiar use in the Christian Church it is hard to say, but it is certain that durmg the second century it was employed as a term of reproach, as described above. In this way it is used by such early writers as Irenaeus,2 Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria;* and this sense has attached to the adjective apocryphal ” ever since, so that by the term Apocryphal Gospels are denoted the spurious Gospels forged by heretics, and rejected by the Church. This appears to be the invariable use of the word till well on in the fourth century. Before this time it was never applied to those books which were ” read in the Church for example of life and instruction of manners.” These were ordinarily termed Ecclesiastical, and were carefully distinguished from the discredited Apocryphal works. Eufinus writing towards the close of the fourth century describes very clearly the practice of an earlier age. After enumerating the books of the Hebrew Bible and of the New Testament, he says : These are the books which the Fathers included in the canon, and from which they wished the assertions of our faith to be established.” He then adds the following : But you must know that

» See Sanday, Irufpiratimi, p. 105, and cf. Wildeboer, Th^ Origin of the Canon 0/ the Old TestamaU, p. 91. Buhl, Canon and Text of tJie Old TestameTit, p. 66. ”^

2 Adv, ffcer. bk. I. ch. xiii.

• De Pudic, ch. x. xx ; De Anima, ch. ii.

• Strom. I. xix. 69.

there are other books which were called by our ancestors not Canonical but Ecclesiastical ; that is, that which is called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another which is called the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, which book is called among the Latins by the descriptive name Ecclesiasticus, by which term not the author of the book but the kind of the writing is designated. And of the same order is the Book of Tobit, and Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. And in the New Testament, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Two Ways, and the Judgment of Peter, all of which they wished to be read indeed in Church, but not to be brought forward for confirming the authority of the faith from them. But the rest of the writings they termed Apocryphal, which they would not have read in Church.” ^ In the fourth century, however, a wider meaning was given to the word ” apocryphal.” S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetkal Lectures contents himself with a twofold division of the books — (1) the canonical ones, which alone he would have read in Church, and (2) the apocryphal ones, against which he urgently warns his hearers.^ Since the canonical books, of which he gives a list, embrace only those of the Hebrew canon, it is manifest that ” apocryphal ” is used by him in the sense of ” withdrawn from public reading,” and indicates nothing as to the character of the books to which it was applied. Practically it becomes the equivalent of ” non-canonical.” In this use of the word Cyril is followed by S. Jerome at the end of the century. In his famous ” Prologus Galeatus,” the preface to his new translation of the Scriptures, he gives a list of the books of the Hebrew Canon, after which he says: ” Quicquid extra hos est, inter Apocrypha esse ponendum. Igitur Sapientia, quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Jesu filii Syrach liber, et Judith, et Tobias,

et Pastor non sunt in Canone” ^ Here, exactly as in S. Cyril, the word means nothing more than non-canonical, and includes the books which had been usually termed Ecclesiastical, as well as those spurious and rejected ones to which the term had commonly been applied. It is probably from this passage of S. Jerome that the substantive Apocrypha has been formed, as the title of that collection of books which the Church of England declines to regard as canonical, but reads in the Church for example of life and instruction of manners.

The following table will serve to illustrate what has been said, and will help to make clear the varying sense of the word : —

Hebrew Books regarded by the Jews as Authoritative.

Greek Books, not regarded by the Jews as Sacred,

but read publicly by the Church.

Spurious and

Rejected

Books.

The Early Church

Canonical

Ecclesiastical

Apocryphal

S. Jerome (after S. Cyril)

Canonical

Apocryphal

The Church of England

Canonical

The Apocrypha

Apocryphal

The Church of Rome Canonical

Apocryphal

InSymb, §38.

« St. Cyril, CaUch, iv. 35,

(b) The position assigned by tJie Church of England to the Apocrypha, and tlie arguments by ivhich it may be supported. — It will be evident from what has been

«• -•-•—• - ^ -

ff ’

already said that the position assigned to these books by the Church of England is precisely that given to them by

the early Church. ” The other books (as Hierome saith), the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners ; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. The statement of Jerome upon which this is based has been already quoted, as also the very similar language of Eufinus. The practice of the Church of England has been objected to on two opposite grounds. Romanists, who have obliterated the distinction between these books and those of the Hebrew canon, maintain that we do not assign proper honour to them. Protestants have complained that we show them too much respect. The sketch of the history of the canon of the Old Testament given in an earlier section will show the grounds upon which the practice of the Church of England may be justified as against Roman objections. Our contention is that the position which we assign to these books is identical with that given to them in the primitive Church. In reply to the objection brought from the opposite quarter we cannot do better than follow the guidance of Richard Hooker, who was called on to defend the practice of the Church against the Puritans, who wished to do away with the use of these books altogether. He meets the objection — (1) by the appeal to the practice of antiquity ; (2) by showing that since we make clear that there is a real distinction between these books and the canonical ones, no confusion between the two can arise ; (3) by pointing out ” the divine excellency of some things in all, and of all things in certain of those Apocrypha ” ; and (4) by the pertinent question : ” If in that which we are to read there happen by the way any clause, sentence, or speech that soundeth towards error, should the mixture of a little dross constrain the Church to deprive

hei-self of so much gold, rather than learn how by art and judgment to make separation of the one from the other ? ” 1

’ Hooker, Eccl. Polity^ bk. v. ch. xx. It may be added that in Hooker’s day the defence of the practice of the Church was harder than it is in our own. Bel and the Dragon, and Susanna and the Elders, were scarcely edifying, nor was all of Tobit suitable for public reading in Church. That there was some ground for the Puritan objections was admitted shortly after Hooker wrote, for in the revision of the Prayer Book made after the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, Bel and the Dragon and Tobit v. vi. and viii. were omitted from the daily lessons. Most unwisely, as it seems, they were restored after the Savoy Conference in 1662, and remained in use among the daily lessous until the revision of the Lectionary in 1871. This revision materially reduced the number of lessons from the Apocrypha, and at the present day nothing is read except from Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Barueh.

Notes

• Pusey, The Truth and OJice of the English Churchy p. 40.
• Lectures, ch. iii. p. 60.
• Usher’s Answer to a Jesuit, ch. ii. Taylor’s Dissuasive from Popery, pt. ii. bk. i. § 2. Palmer’s Treatise on the Church, pt. iii. ch. i. Browne on the Articles, p. 140 seq. ; and cf. Gore’s Roman Catholic Claims, p. 60.
• Other arguments such as these, that “tradition was the original rule,” and that “Scripture is obscure and liable to be misunderstood,” are plainly beside the mark when the Anglican position is rightly understood. Answers to them may, however, be found in Palmer’s Treatise on the Churchf pt. iii. ch. i., and Browne on the Articles^ p. 136 seq.
• W. H. Mill, Five Sermons on the Temptation^ Serm. i. p. 16.
• Bishop Kaye, Tcrtullian, pp. 299-304.
• For the history of the gradual growth of the Jewish canon, and of the doubts which existed in early days among Jewish doctors as to the canonicity of a few of the books, namely, Esther, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes, reference may be made to Professor Ryle’s History of tht Canon of the Old Testament. Cf. also the Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. p. 608.
• See Eusebius, ff. E. IV. xxvi. Melito does not mention Esther separately, but the suggestion has been made that it may have been reckoned with Ezra, as Nehemiah almost certainly was. See Routh, Reliquiae Sacroe, vol. i. p. 136.
• C<mc. Garth, iii. Canon xxxix., repeating the decree of the Council of Hippo, A.D. 393. See Hefele, History of Councils, vol. u. p. 400, English Translation.
• Bp. Westcott in SmitVs Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. p. 507 (Ed. 2). The whole article should be consulted. Among the later ^Titers who are there noted as drawing a distinction between the canonical books and the Apocrypha are S. Gregory the Great, Bede, Nicholaus de Lyra, Cajetan, and Ximenes. The last mentioned in the preface to the great CoinpliUensian Polyglot, published in 1517, describes the books of which he can only print a Greek and not a Hebrew text, as ” the books outside the canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than to confirm the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.”
• Scrivener, op. cU. vol. ii. p. 98.
• Carm,ina, § 1, xii. 5. ^ Ep. Fesl. xxxix.
• Dr. Salmon seems to stand alone in assigning it to the third century, see the Dictionary of Christian Biography ^ vol. iii. p. 1002.
• “Though only two Epistles of John are here mentioned, the oi>euing sentence of the First Epistle has been quoted in the paragraph treating the Gospel ; and it is possible that our writer may have read that epistle as a kind of appendix to the Gospel, and is here speaking of the other ty^o.”— Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iii. p. 1001. It is certainly hard to think that anyone could have accepted either the Second or Third Epistle without the other.
• Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. p. 518.
• There is this difference between the use of the word in Jerome and Cjrril. Jerome distinctly applies it to books which were publicly read in church, while Cyril would apparently have none but the canonical books read, and therefore with him the term “apocryphal” very fairly corresponds to the Hebrew Genuzim. Cf. also the use of the word in Origen’s “Letter to Africanus,” Opera, vol. i. p. 12 scq.