The distribution of the books of the Old Testament into the Law, Psalms, and Prophets, was very ancient in their church. We have - mention of it Luke xxiv.44: Ta yeypayméva év ri Niup Maoéwe, xo. Tpo- enraic, xa) Vorwoig-—-“ That are written in the Law of Moses, and in
?Maimon. More Nebuch. p. ii. cap. lii.; Kimchi Preef. ad Ps.
30 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE [ EXERC. I.
the Prophets, and in the Psalms;” that is, in the whole canonical Seripture. And evident it is that this distribution is taken from the subject-matter of those principal parts of it. This reason of that distri- bution, which they have by tradition, they not knowing or neglecting, have feigned the rise of it in a different manner of revelation, and cast the particular books arbitrarily under what heads they pleased; as is evident from sundry of them which they reckon unto the D21n3, “Kethubim,” or “Hagiographa,” which are with them of least esteem. But we have a more sure rule, both overthrowing that feigned dis- tinction and perfectly equalizing all parts of divine Scripture, as to their spring and original. St Peter calls the whole, Mpogyrimiv Adyor, 2 Pet. 1.19, “The word of prophecy;” and Ipopyrefay, ver. 20, “ Pro- phecy:” and therefore it belongs not unto any peculiar part of it to be © given out by prophecy, which is an affection [that is, a property] of the whole. And St Paul also terms the whole Scripture, rpaga? wpo- gnrixai, Rom. xvi. 26, “ Prophetical scriptures,” or writings of the pro- phets. And when he demanded of Agrippa whether he believed the Scriptures, he did it in the same manner: Ivereders rors Tpopfrass; Acts xxvi. 27 ;—“ Believest thou the Prophets?” that is, the Scriptures writ- ten by the Spirit of prophecy, or by the inspiration rod év wbro% Tveb- paros Xpiorod, 1 Pet.i.11, of “the Spirit of Christ which was in them.” God of old spake év r0% xpopjress, Heb. i. 1, in his revelation of him- self unto them and in them, and equally spake, dic ordmarog ray cysaiv ray am aidvos spopnrav, Luke i. 70, unto them “by the mouth of his holy prophets from the beginning.” And thus not this or that part, “but réou Tpaga Seérvevoros, 2 Tim. iii. 16, “all Scripture was given by inspiration.” And herein all the parts or books of it are abso- lutely equal, and in the giving out of the whole, 2d Tlvedmwarog ayiou sAdAncay of dy101 Ocod &vdpwror, 2 Pet. i. 21, “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” So that whatever different means God at any time might make use of in the communication of his mind and will unto any of the prophets or penmen of the Scrip- ture, it was this S<orvevoria, and being acted by the Holy Ghost, both as to things and words, that rendered them infallible revealers of him unto the church. And thus the foundation of the canonical au- thority of the books of the Scripture is absolutely the same in and unto them all, without the least variety, either from any difference in kind or degree.
9. The same is their condition as to their being canonical; they are all equally so. Some of the ancients used that term ambiguously; and therefore sometimes call books canonical that absolutely are not so, as not being written by divine inspiration, nor given by the Holy Ghost to be any part of the rule of the church’s faith and obe- dience. Thus the Constantinopolitan council in Trulla’ confirms
1 Concil. Constan. in Trul, can. ii.
# SECT. 9.] - EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 31
the canons both of the synod of Laodicea and the third of Carthage, which agree not in the catalogues they give us of books canonical ; which, without a supposition of the ambiguity of the word, could riot be done, unless they would give an assent unto a plain and open con- tradiction. And the council of Carthage makes evident its sense in their appendix annexed to the one and fortieth canon, wherein they reckon up the books of the holy Scripture. “ Hoc etiam,” say they, “fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifacio, vel aliis earum partium episcopis, pro confirmando isto canone, innotescat, quia a patribus ista Accepimus legenda; liceat etiam legi passiones martyrum, cum. anniversarii dies celebrantur.” They speak dubiously concerning their own determination, and intimate that they called the books they enumerated canonical only as they might be read in the church; which privilege they grant also to the stories of the sufferings of the martyrs, which yet none thought to be properly canonical. The same Epiphanius’ testifies of the epistles of Clemens. But as the books which that synod added to the canon of Laodicea are rejected by Melito,* Origen, Athanasius,* Hilarius,’ Gregorius Nazianzen,° Cy- rillus Hierosolymitanus,’ Epiphanius,* Rufinus,? Jerome,” Grego- rius Magnus, and others; so their reading and citation is generally declared by them to have been only for direction of manners, and not for the confirmation of the faith: even as St Paul cited an iambic out of Menander, or rather Euripides, 1 Cor. xv. 33; an hemi- stichium out of Aratus, Acts xvii. 28; and a whole hexameter out of Epimenides, Titus i.12. ‘“ Nonsuntcanonici, sed leguntur catechu- menis,” saith Athanasius;—“ They are not canonical, but are only read to the catechumeni.” And Jerome saith, the church reads them “ad edificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dog- matum confirmandam,’—“for the edification of the people, but not - for the confirmation of any points of faith.’”” But although some books truly canonical ;were of old amongst some éy dugiAzxrw, as Epi- phanius” speaks,—doubted of; and some were commonly read that are certainly dréxpuga and rejectitious; yet neither the mistake of the former nor latter practice can give any countenance to an apprehen- sion of a second or various sort of books properly canonical. For the interest of any book or writing in the canon of the Scripture accru- ing unto it, as hath been showed, merely from its diwine inspiration, and being given by the Holy Ghost for a rule, measure, and standard of faith and obedience unto the church, whatever advantage or worth to commend it any writing may have, yet if it have not the proper-