6. The judgment of the Greek Church in the case of the 0. T. was seen to be littl^ more than a reflec- tion of the opinions of the West. The difRarence be- twlbn the Boman and Beformed churches on the N. T. were less marked ; and the two conflicting Greek con- fiAsions confirm, in general terms, without any distinct enumeration of books, the popular Canon of the N. T, (Cyr. Luc. Conf. i, p. 42; Dosith. Con/est, i, p. 467). The Confession of Metrophanes gives a complete list of the books, and compares their number— 4hirty-three —with the years of the Savior's life, that ''not even the number of the sacred books might be devoid of a divine mystery" (Bietroph. Critop. Conf, ii, 105, ed. Kimm. et Weissenb.). At present, as was already the case at the close of the 17th centuiy (Leo Allatius, ap. Fabric. Bibl, Grac, v, App. p. 88), the Antilegomena are reckoned by the Greek Church as equal in canon- ical authority in all respects with the remaining books (Caiechitm, nt sup.).
V. Authority of the preeent Canon of Scriptwre.—l, The assaults which have been made, especially during the present century, upon the authenticity of the sep- arate books of the O. and N. Test, are noticed under the special articles. The general course which they have taken is simple and natural. Semler (JJntermch. d Kcoi, 1771-5) first led the way toward the hiter sub- jective criticism, though he rightiy connected the form- ation of the Canon with the formation of the Catholic Church, but without any clear recognition of the provi- dential power which wrought in both. Next followed a series of special essays, in which the several books were discussed individually, with little regard to the pkoe which they occupy in the whole collection (Schleier- macher, Bretschneider, De Wette, etc). At last an ideal view of the early history of Christianity was used as the standard by which the books were to be tried, and the books were regarded as results of typical forms of doctrine, and not the sources of them (F. C. Baur, Schwegler, Zeller). All true sense of historic evidence was thus lost. The growth of the Church was left ,
without ez^anation, and the original relatkms and or- ganic unity of the N. T. were disregarded.
2. In order to establish the Canon of Scripture, it is necessary to show that all the books of which it b com- posed are of divine authority ; tliat they are entire and inooiTupt ; that, having them, it is complete without any addition frt>m any other source ; and that it com^ prises the wiiole of those bo<^ for which divine an^ thority can be proved. It Is obvious that, if any of these four particulars be not true, Scripture cannot be the edU and supreme standard of religious truth and duty. If any of the books of which it is composed be not of divme authority, then part of it we are not bound to submit to, and consequentiy, a$ a wMe, it is not the standard of truth and morals. If its separate parts be not in the state in which they left the bands of their authors, but have been mutilated, interpolated, or altered, then it can form no safe standard; for, in iq)pealing to it, one cannot be sure that the appeal is not made to what is spurious, and what, consequentiy, may be erroneous. If it require or admit of snp|de- mentary revelations from God, whether preserved bj tradition or communicated ftt>m time to time to the Churcli, it obviously would be a mere contradiction in terms to call it completef as a standard orthe divine will. And if any^oliier books were extant, having an equal claim, with the books of which it is ocHnposed, to be regarded as of divine authority, it would be ab- surd to call it the sole standard of truth, for in this case tlie one dass of books would be quite as deserv- ing of our reverence as the other.
8. Bespecting the evidence by which tiie Canon is thus to be established, there exists considerable difier- ence of opinion among Christians. Some contend, with the Bomanists, that the authoritative decision of the Church is alone competent to determine the Canon ; others appeal to the concurrent testimony of the Jew- ish and eariy Christian writers ; and others rest tbdr strongest reliance on the internal evidence frimished by the boolcs of Scripture themselves. We cannot say that we are satisfied with any of tliese sources of evi- deuce exclusively. As Michaelis remarks, the first b one to which no consistent Protestant can appeal, for the matter to be determined b of such a kind that, unless we grant the Church to be infollible, it b quite possible that she may, at any given period of her ex- btence, determine erroneously ; and one sees not why the question may not be as successAilly investigated by a private individual as by a Church. The concur- rent testimony of the ancient witnesses b invaluable as for as it goes ; but it may be doubted if it be suffi- cient of itself to eettle thb question, for the question b not endrely one of fects, and testimony b good proof only tor facte. As for the internal evidence, one needs only to look at tiie havoc which Semler and hb school have made of the Canon, to be satisfied that where dogmatical considerations are allowed, to determine exclusively such questions, each man will extend or curtail the Canon so as to a(]yust it to hb own precon- ceived notions. As the question b one partiy of foct and partiy of opinion, the appropriate grounds of de- cision will be best secured by a combination of authen- tic testimony witii the evidence supplied by the books themselves. We want to know that these books were really written by the persons whose names they bear ; we want to be satisfied that these persons were com- monly reputed and held by tiieir contemporaries to be assisted by the Divine Spirit in what they wrote ; and we want to be sure that care was taken by those to whom their writings were first addressed, that these should be present entire and uncormpt. For all thb we must appeal to the testimony of competent wit- nesses as the only suitable evidence for sudi matters. But, after we have ascertained these points affirmative- ly, we still require to be satisfied thi^ the books them^ selves contain nothing obviously incompatible with the ascription to their authors of the divine assbtance, but,