DEUTERO-CANOXICAL
766
DEUTERO-CANONICAL
books of Esdras. These books were equally rejected 1 1829, i, 421 sq.) has maintained a somewhat
by the Church of Rome and by Luther, who did not | principle (see Ganssen's J%eopmetutia), The {jBth\
translate them. The Church of England further de- clares that ** all the books of the New Testament, as they are commanfy received, we do receive and account them canonical." The Church of England has herein followed the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. The phrase *'of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church,*' refers therefore more stricily to the books of the Old Testament than the New, for we have already seen that doubts €Ud exist respecting the Ax- TiLEOOMENA of the New Testament. In the first book of Homilies, published in 1547, and the second in 1560, both confirmed by the Thirty-fifth Article of 1562, the deutero-canonical boo^s are cited as ** Scripture,'* and treated with the same reverence as the other books in the Bible, and in the preface to the book of Common Prayer they are alluded to as being " agreeable to" the Holy Scriptures.
The Helvetic Confession, dated 1st of March, 1566, has the following expression respecting the apocry- phal books: "We do not deny tliat certain books of the Old Testament were named by the ancients apoc- ryphal, by others ecclesiastical, as being read in the churches, but not adduced for authority in matters of belief; as Augustine, in the 18th book of the CUy of Godj ch. xxxviii, relates that the names and books of certain prophets were adduced in the lx>olu of Kings, but adds that these were not in the Canon, and that those we have were sufficient for piety.*' The Confes- sion of the Dutch churches (dated the same year) is more full. After recounting the canonical books, ** re- specting which no controversy existed," it adds, " We make a distinction between these and such as art call- ed apocrypha], which may indeed be read in the Church, and prooft adduced from them, so fu* as they agree with the canonical Ixwks; but their authority and force are by no means such that any article of fiiith may be certainly declared from their testimony alone, still less that they can impugn or detract from the authority of the others." They add^ias their rea- son for receiving the canonical books, that "it is not so much because the Church receives them, as that the Holy Spirit testifies to our consciences that they have come from God; and chiefly on this account, be- cause they of themselves bear testimony to their own authority and sanctity, so that even the blind may see the frdfllment of all thUigs predicted in them, as it were with the senses."
The Westminster Confession proceeded on the same principle, but treated the books of the second canon with less ceremony. After enumerating the canonical books (ascribing thirteen epistles only to Paul), they proceed to say that ** books called Apocrypha, not be- ing of divine confirmation, are no part of the Canon of Scripture, and therefore of no authority in the Church of Gi>d, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings." And again : " The authority of Holy Scripture, tot which it ought to be believed and obeyed, depended not on the testi- mony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God, the author thereof, and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God. We may be moved and induced by the Church to a high and reverent es- teem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, etc., are arguments whereby it doth abun- dantly evidence itself to be the Word of God ; yet, not- withstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the in&Uible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, being witness by and with the Word in our hearts."
Luther (on 1 Cor. iii, 9, 10) had declared that the touchstone by which certain Scriptures should be ac- knowledged as divine or not was the following: " Do
they preach Jesus Christ or not?" And, among the ^Kichard Baxter, " I confess I could nev«r bout of set
modems, Dr. Twesten (VorUsus^en fiber die Dogmatik^
sion of Augsburg, dated in IbSL, oontauis no uu^ whatever on the Canon of Scripture ; nor do tbe U.^ therans appear to have any other canon than \js^ Bible. For the sentiments of the Greek OniRk b Ebdras; Esther; Hacca3EB«.
Iv We shall add a few words oo the gnoali li authorities adopted by diflBerent paitiee fior deai^ whether a work is canonical or not. Mr. Jefoin Jones furnishes us with three diAvvnt ricwt cate subject. " The first," he aays, '' is the opnuin<^t^ Papists, who have generally affirmed, in ihat versies with the Protestanta, that the anthorxtj ^O: Scriptures depends upon, or is derived frtnn, the pntr of their Church. By the authority of the Cfairt those authors plainly mean a power lodged ii ^ Church of Rome and her vyxkods, of what books are the word of God, than which can be more absurd or contrary to coounoii aease; k. if 80, it is possible, nay, it is easy for them to csab book which is not divine to be so.** And be saa- tains that '* it is possible, on this principle, that JExf' fables, or the infidel books of Odsits, Jolian, sad F^ phyry, might become a part of the New Testiae^^ But the fiict must not be lost sight of that the Quscl has never pretended to exercise a power of tliB ^ scription. Buhop Marsh, referring to this subject ^ serves : " That the Council of Trent assumed the prv ilege of raising to the rank of canonical aotheritr vbt was generally acknowledged to liare no such satii»> ity, is a charge which cannot be made withoot bps* tice ; the power of declaring «**ti^nlri'1 a bcok wl^ has never laid claim to that title is a power not cised even by the Church of Rome. In this reject t acts like other churches ; it sits in |ndgnieiit ee exxt* ing claims, and determines whether they are Tslid cr not." From certain expressions of divinea, wbo Inn asserted that the Scriptures would liave no antli^ whatever without the testimony <^ the Qturch, it k> been supposed that they ascribed to the Qnrdi u c' bitrary power over these divine books; BeUmsat therefore, has drawn a distinction between the objer- tive and subjective authority of the ScripUirci, tior authority in themselves, and that which they ftare m respect to us. Thus Augustine said that be vnU not believe the Gospel but for the anthority ti ik Church, adding, however, that the inritatioo «f 6t Church was but the first step to his complete iHnBOi- tion by the Spuit of God (Cbn^ssmw, ti, 8).