98 ORIENTATION.
Musculus mentions the seven Antilegomena, but includes them in the general catalogue of the New Testament; and Oecolampadius speaks of six Antilegomena (omitting the Hebrews), as holding an inferior rank, but nevertheless appeals to their testimony.’
Calvin had no fault to find with James and Jude, and often quotes Hebrews and Revelation as canonical books, though he wrote no commentary on Revelation, probably because he felt himself incompetent for the task. He is silent about Second and Third John. He denies, decidedly, the Pauline authorship, but not the canonicity, of Hebrews.” He is disposed to assign Second Peter to a pupil of Peter, who wrote under the auspices and by direction of the Apostle; but he guards in this case, also, against unfavorable inferences from the uncertainty of origin.®
Calvin clearly saw the inconsistency of giving the Church the right of determining the canon after denying her right of making an article of faith. He therefore placed the canon on the authority of God who bears testimony to it through the voice of _ the Spirit in the hearts of the believer. The eternal and inviolable truth of God, he says, is not founded on the pleasure and judgment of men, and can be as easily distinguished as light from darkness, and white from black. In the same line, Peter Vermilius denies that “the Scriptures take their authority from the Church. Their certitude is derived from God. The Word is older than the Church. The Spirit of God wrought in the hearts of the hearers and readers of the Word so that they recognized it to be truly divine.” This view is clearly set forth in several
1See Reuss, p. 315 sq. Eng. ed.
Τὴ the introduction to his Com. on Hebrews: “Ego ut Paulum auctorem agnoscam adduct nequeo.” His reasons are, the difference of style and of the docendi ratio, and because the writer counts himself with the disciples of the Apostles (2: 3); but nevertheless he accepts the book as inspired and canonical, because it more clearly than any other book treats of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. .
3In Argum. Ep. Sec. Petri, he notes “manifestum discrimen” between the first and second Epistle, and adds: “Sunt et alie probabiles conjecture ex quibus cotiigere licet alterius esse potius quam Petri,” but he sees in it “nihil Petro indignum”
§ 9. THE REFORMATION AND RATIONALISM. 39
Calvinistic Confessions.’ In its exclusive form it is diametrically opposed to the maxim of Augustin, otherwise so highly esteemed by the Reformers: “I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Church.”? But the two kinds of evidence supplement each other. The human authority of tradition though not the final ground of belief, is indispensable as an historical witness of the genuineness and canonicity, and is of great weight in conflict with Rationalism. There is no essential antagonism between the Bible and the Church in the proper sense of the term. They are inseparable. The Church was founded by Christ and the apostles through the preaching of the living Word of God, and the founders of the Church are also the authors of the written Word, which continues to be the shining and guiding © light of the Church; while the Church in turn is the guardian, preserver, translator, propagator, and expounder of the Bible.
3. The liberal views of the Reformers on inspiration and the canon were abandoned after the middle of the sixteenth century, and were succeeded by compact and consolidated systems of theology. The evangelical scholasticism of the seventeenth century strongly resembles, both in its virtues and defects, the catho-
1The Second Helvetic Confession, c. 1 and 2, and the Belgic Confession, art. 5, combine the testimony of tradition and that of the Holy Spirit, but lay chief stress upon the latter. So the Gallican Conf., art. 4: ‘““We know these books to be canonical and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the church (non tant par le commun accord et consentement de Veglise), as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books, upon which, however useful, we cannot found any articles of faith.” The Westminster Confession, ch. I. 4, sets aside the testimony of tradition, saying: “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.” The Scripture proofs given are, 2 Pet. 1: 19, 21; 2 Tim. 3: 16; 1 John 5: 9; 1 Thess. 2: 13; but they have no bearing upon the question of canonicity.
2“ Foo evangelio non crederem, nisi me moveret ecclesiae auctoritas,” Contra Ep. Fundam., c.5. A thoroughly Roman catholic principle in opposition to the Manichen heresy. But the testimony of the church is indispensable only in the history of the origin of the several books, and the formation of the canon.