I now make four further points: (c) The authors or writers of the Bible were every one members of the Church, either Jewish or Christian. (d) Not by any express order of the Church at any time, but by the gradual use and custom of the Church the thirtynine books of the Old Testament, and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were accepted as Holy Scripture, and as the written Word of God. (e) Certain books, called Apocryphal, were in Old Testament times, and also in New Testament times, in this way shut out, and are not included in the Bible. See Chapter III. (f) Certain other books, called "The Apocrypha," though not accounted canonical, are included in the collection of sacred writings, known as the Bible.1 All this was done by the Church acting, as we believe, under the guidance of God the Holy Ghost Who is Himself the Author and Inspirer of God's Word. The Jewish Church was at work for hundreds of years before all the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament were written, or accepted as the Word of God and Holy Scripture. The Christian Church was at work for many years before even the earliest book of the New Testament was written, and she was working and teaching all the while.2 Professor Green (No. 72, pages 109-110) says: "It must be remembered that the canonization of the books is not to be confounded with their creation. Books were not made canonical by the act of some public authority, such as a decision rendered in their favour by an assembly of scribes or 1. The Roman Church incorporates some of the Books of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament with the 39 Books of the Old Testament and counts them all Canonical. This is explained below. (See Chapters IV. and XIV.) 2. The chronological dates given in many editions of the Bible, the Page Headings, the Chapter Headings, the division into Chapters and Verses and the Marginal Notes and References are no parts of the Bible itself. doctors, or a General Council of the nation. This would be to attribute to the Jewish Church in its organized capacity a power which even Bellarmine, disposed as he was to magnify ecclesiastical prerogatives to the utmost, did not venture to claim for the Christian Church. The Canon does not derive its authority from the Church whether Jewish or Christian. The office of the Church is merely that of a custodian and a witness. The collection of the Canon is simply bringing together into one volume those books whose sacred character has already secured general acknowledgment and the universal acceptance of the collection at the time, and subsequently, shows that it truly represents the belief of the Jewish people formed when they were still under prophetic guidance." Cf. :-Keil, cited by Professor Green in note, page 10; also Green, No. 72, page 106. Bishop Westcott, No. 112, pages 292, 293, 297, 300; No. III, pages 1, 2, 3. Professor Moore, No. 90, pages 43, 44, 78; also on various points, pages 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 19, 25, 26, 32, 34, 35, 117, 118. In the Church Standard of March 26th, 1904, there is a review or notice of Professor Moore's book, No. 90. The view of the present writer is entirely maintained by the Standard. The reviewer admits that the professor also holds and states that view, as he does most strongly and clearly; and yet the professor in one passage (page 33) seems to clothe the councils with a larger sphere of action than they really contemplated on this subject. The legislation of the Councils on the Canon of Scripture was "declaratory," not primarily "legislative." The Standard writes as follows: "The idea of the author is unquestionably true in this re 3. While I have higher views than the Professor as to the relation between the Church and the Canon of Scripture, I cite his words in proof of my statement that the Canon was not directly formed by any Council of the Church or by any specific act of the Church at a particular and definite time. spect, that however divine the process may have been by which these great things were settled, it was undoubtedly a natural process, and natural because divine. He says with truth that 'it has been common to assume that the Bible made the Church'; while the truth is 'that the Church made the Bible.' That is a tremendous fact to start with. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the writers of the New Testament ever supposed that he was writing part of a new Bible that would come to be of even more authority than the law and the prophets of the ancient dispensation. As Dr. Moore says, "The expectation of the end of the world in the lifetime of men then living, an expectation which Paul undoubtedly shared, was not just the thing to put men upon writing memorials of the past or regulations of a future which was not to be.' Yet, under the guidance of God, the documents of the New Testament were actually written, and Dr. Moore sets himself to explain how these occasional and fragmentary documents came at length to occupy the place of Canonical Scriptures. We should not greatly differ from his view of the way in which that process went on to completion; but we think that a little more careful study would convince him that one statement at least is almost absolutely destitute of foundation. It is a fact that councils of the Church had little or nothing to do with the settlement of the Canon, except in the way of recognizing the settlement which had been made, and just so far as it had been made, by the unconscious, but decisive, verdict of the Church. Yet Dr. Moore says: 'It is finally the period (the fourth century) in which our matter becomes the subject of decrees of councils, in which decrees it is intended that the orthodox opinion shall be settled beyond all possibility of dispute.' We doubt whether a more utterly misleading statement could well be made on that subject." See Chapter II. as to the decrees of early Councils. Cf. Moore, No. 90, pages 37, 38, 51, 137, 154, etc., 157, 161. II. A SHORT STATEMENT AS TO THE SIXTY-SIX BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. (IN TWO SECTIONS.) SECTION 1. The Thirty-nine Books of the Old Testament. HE Jews took extraordinary pains in copying and preserving the Scriptures of the Old Testament. T They had exactly the same books in their Bible as those which we now have in what we call the Old Testament. No. VI. of the XXXIX. Articles of the Church of England and of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (as found in the Prayer Books of these two Churches) is generally accepted by Christians as representing their unanimous conclusions as to the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament. It is as under: "Article VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. "Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books. "Genesis, "Exodus, "Leviticus, "Numbers, "Deuteronomy, "Joshua, "Judges, "Ruth, "The First Book of Samuel, "The Book of Job, "The Psalms, "The Proverbs, "Ecclesiastes or Preacher, "Cantica, or Songs of Solomon, "Four Prophets the greater, "Twelve Prophets the less. "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: "The Third Book of Esdras, "The Fourth Book of Esdras, "The Book of Tobias, "The Book of Judith, "The rest of the Book of Esther, "The Book of Wisdom, "Jesus the son of Sirach, "Baruch the Prophet, "The Song of the Three Children, "The Story of Susanna, "Of Bel and the Dragon, |