We say, then, that it may be known which books are canonical, and which are not, otherwise than by the church ; for the church her- self knows them otherwise than by herself, or her own authority. When she declares them to be canonical, she believes them to be canonical; and her believing them to be canonical is antecedent to her declaring them to be so. She must learn herself, before she can teach others: she believes them, therefore, to be canonical, because she sees the stamp of God upon them, and that they are such as can be of none but God. The same way, likewise, private believers may know them. And when the church sees this stamp of God upon a book, she thence concludes it to be divine, and then declares it to be so.
Except. " Bvit how, then, comes it to pass, that some books of canonical Scripture were not so soon received as others, if all have such an impress of divinity upon them?"
Ans. I answer, that these notes of divinity, which are sufficient in all the several books of Scripture to demonstrate them to be of God, yet may be more clear and illustrious in some than in others ; as God's power and wisdom may be more apparent and conspicuous in
' Camero. VOL. VIII. 34
5oO AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURK
some of Lis works tlian in others of them. Or else it may be from the different degTees of ilkimination afforded to different persons, and in different ages. When some doubted of some books of Scripture, all did not; and they that did not, had a greater measure of the Spirit, as to that at least, than others had.
Now, to their particular proofs of the minor proposition in their arguments, we answer particularly, —
1. That those books annexed by the Papists to the Old Testament, and called by them " deutero-canonical," and by us no better still than " apoci-yphal," such as the books of Maccabees, Esdras, Tobit, etc., never were received into the canon by the ancient church, nor can they produce the decree of any one ancient council wherein they were owned ; as for modem councils, we matter them not. They say that these books were doubted of at first, and afterward received. Be- like, then, the church at first did not know them to be the word of God ; and if she be the bride of Christ, who best of all knows the Bridegroom's voice, how came she for so long time not to know it? Here, certainly, in spite of infallibility, the church must be in an error ; for if she doubted of the divinity of these books, when yet they were really divine, she erred in so doubting ; and if she did know them to be of God, and yet did not receive them, she was more than erroneous ; tliat is, she was plainly rebellious. As for the Epistle to the He- brevv^s, the second of Peter, and those others which we all oavu as canonical, though some particular persons or churches might doubt of their authenticness, yet it doth not appear that all ever did. Some of the Papists themselves confess that the EpivStle to the Hebrews was generally acknowledged, unless by two or three of the Latin fathers ; and Jerome reckons both that and the Revelation as generally acknowledged for canonical.^ However, when these books were OAvned as canonical, it was not on the bare authority of the church. For how came the church herself to acknowledge them? How came she to know that they were written by inspiration? Did she believe it on her own credit? or did she not rather receive them as canonical because she found them canonical, perceiving the stamp of God upon them? And surely the same reason might make us receive them, though the church had not testified concerning them.
2. To the second thing they allege concerning the Revelation of Paul, the Gospel of Peter, etc., or any book written by philosophers or l)y heretics, I answer, that if the church did reject them, she did do but her duty; and it will not follow from her rejecting them, that
' Speaking of both: " Et tamen nos utramqiio suscrjnmus, nocmaquam liiijus teinjioris coiisuL'tii(lineni, scd vetoniin Scriptorum authoritatcm soinientcs, qui likMuinquo utriiisqiio iitimtiir tcstiinoiiiis, iion ut iiitcrduin de apocryphis facere toluiit," etc. — Kpist. ad. Dardaii.
AUTIIORITY OF THE SCRIPTURE. 531
there was no other way of knoAvmg them not to be canonical, beside the church's disowning them. For upon what grounds did the church disown them? upon her own authority? Then she rejected them, be- cause she rejected them! — judged them not to be canonical, because she judged them not to be canonical ! If she did disown them, because she saw not that dignity and excellency in them which she saw in the books of the Old and New Testament, and which might persuade that they were of God ; surely, then, it was not merely the church's authority which made them not to be canonical; — and on the same grounds that the church rejected those books we likewise may do it. Sure I am, Eusebius reckons those books not only " as forged," but as something worse, — that is, "absurd and impious."^