Another principle was that adopted by all tbe in- formed communions (except the Ang^liam Chared), viz., to use Mr. Joneses words, that **<Aer« vt mtari or nmate evidences in (he Scripture*^ wkich^ ef^k the iUumimation or testiwumy of the ffofy SpiriL, an d- only true proofs of their beiag the Word qfGoi; «. w use the words of the French refonoed comanmin a its Confession, which harmonise with the netbf^ adopted by the Scotch and Belgian commnnioBi, tht: upon the internal persuasion of tlie Spirit thegiamtk Canonical from Ecdesiastictd^ i. e. ApoeryjAd fceb. This method Mr. Jones thinks to be of a very extzttt- dinary nature. '* Can it be supposed, " he saks, '^tte out often thousand books, private Christians, er ercn our most learned reformers, shoold by any iateml evidence agree precisely on the number of tvcsti^ seven, which are now esteemed canonical, ml^aaA thereto by some characters those books contsia, d their being written by the inspiration of the Beh Ghost?" This he conceives to be folly and madiim. and an assumption of ** immediate inspiratioBL** ''It first supposes the books to be inspired, and then pnm* that they are so because they are so." This is osh* an argument, says bishop Burnet, to him that feds H, if it be one at alL * ^ For my part,** said the oelebntui
such testimony or light of the Spirit^ nor reason bo-
DEUTERO-CANONICAL
767
DEUTERONOMY
er, ivbich, without hunum testimony, would have ade me believe that the book of Canticles is canoni- il and written by Solomon, and the book of Wisdom Kxrr^'phal and written by Philo. Kor oonld I have ciovrn any historical books, such as Joshua, Judges, uth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, etc. » be written by divine inspiration, but by tradition, etc Tlie third metliod is that approved of by Mr. Jones, iz. ^at tradition, or the testimony of the ancient hristians, preserved in their writings, is the best tetbod of determining this subject. "This,'* adds Ir. Jones, '*is the method the first Christians con- tan tly made use of to prove, against the heretics, the rutb of the sacred books, viz. by appealing to that cer- ain and undoubted tradition which assured them they rere the writings of the persons whose names they »ear. Thus we knew that OvidfVirgil, or Livy wrote he books under their names." To this, we think, night have been added internal evidence and the ap> >lication of critical skill. The chief objection which las been urged against this .method is, that it leaves the canonicity of each book to the decision of every private individual, which is inconsistent with the idea >f a cojMm. Certain it is that the ancient Church, in (lecidin>; on the present Canon, exhibited a wonderful theolo^cal tact, as the books which it has handed down as canonical, and these alone, are generally the same which, after having undergone the strictest ordeal that the learning and acumen of modem times have been enabled to apply to them, are acknowledged by the best critics to be authentic. In fact, the Church has adopted the same methods for this purpose which Mr. Jonea has considered to be the only ones satisfactory to private individuals. Christians are thus in posses- sion of the highest degree of satisfaction. Mr. Gaus- sen (^T^heopneusHa^ p. 840) admits that the principle laid down by the reformed churches is untenable, and he substitutes for it "for the Old Testament, the Tes- timony of the Jews, and for the New, the Testimony of the Catholic Church ; by which he understands, the general consent, in regard to the former, of all Jews, Egyptians and Syrians, Asiatics and Europeans, an- cient and modem, good and bad ;" and by the testi- mony of the Catholic Church he understands ^'the universal consent of ancient and modem churches, Asiatic and European, good and bad : that is, not only the sections which have adhered to the Beformation, but the Greek section, the Armenian section, the Syr- ian section, the Boman section, and the Unitarian sec- tion." And hi p. 842, 845, he ascribes entire in&Uibil- ity to both Jewish and Ctiristian churches in respect to the Canons of Scripture. ** The Jews could not in- troduce a human book into the Old Testament, and neither the Council of Trent, nor even the most cor- rupt and idolatrous churches, could add a shigle apoc- ryphal book to the New It was not m their
power not to transmit them intact and complete. In tpiie o/thenuelves it was so ordered," etc
The question, however, in dispute is not so much with regard to ^e Jewish Canon, regarding which no controversy exists, as whether there is or is not suffi- cient testimony to the fact how fax our Saviour and his apostles gave the stamp of their authority to any books not contained in this Canon. We have no cer- tain evidence as to the authority on which, or the time when, the Jewish Canon was collected (see Ezba), or of the cause of its closing, and our best evidence in fii^ vor of the canonicity of the Hebrew Scriptures rests on the authority of Christ as contained in the Scrip- tures of the New Testament. (Comp. hi addition to the works already cited, Vicenzi's IntroducHo m Scrip, Deutero-canon, Rome, 1842 ; Keerl, Die Apohryphen- frage au/t Neue beleuchtet, Lips. 1866; Stier, Letttes Wort Hber die Apobyphen, Lpz. 1866 ; Stowe, in the BibHoth, Sacrct^ April, 1864. Wahl has published an excellent Clavia Librorum V, T, Apoc. philological lips. 1863).— Kitto, 8. V. See Cano^i.