' \ 
 
^/jLo.'O'L 
 
 ^ PRINCETON, N. J. ^ 
 
 %. 
 
 Presented b^^ro- ~S~S) . \}'^ Cr.r\\ <Sj \ Q ,":i) ."D . 
 
 Di7)ision ... 
 
 C^ 
 
 Section <?S . T ^^ / 
 
II. A KECENTLY PROPOSED TEST OF CANONICITV.' 
 
 The work of the occupant of the chair of Biblical Literature is 
 in some respects an exceedingly humble one. It is that <>f "a 
 hewer of wood and drawer of water" for the chair ot" thcitlogy. 
 But its importance is none the less on that account, for even the 
 "queen of the sciences" owes her crown, her sceptre, and her 
 throne, to this "power behind the throne." For it deals with 
 the questions that lie at the foundation, as it were, of our system 
 of church government, at the foundation of our system of doc- 
 trine; yes, at the very foundation of the Christian religion. That 
 this is not the language of exaggeration is clear from the fact that 
 "the Bible," according to the famous saying of Chillingworth, "is 
 the religion of Protestants," and Biblical Literature deals directly 
 with the Bible. It examines its claims to be a revelation from 
 God; fixes the elements of which it is composed; traces the his- 
 tory of its human origin, its preservation and its circulation ; and, 
 to pass by other points, undertakes to determine the meaning of 
 its contents. The occupant of this chair thus, as it were, searches 
 out, quarries and chisels into shape the stones out of whii-ii the 
 tem})le of the Christian system is erecttcd. 
 
 Hence the vast inherent responsibility attaching to the duties 
 of this department. But if the inherent responsibilities are them- 
 selves great, they are greatly enhanced by the present trend of 
 theological discussion. One needs scarcely to i)c reminded that 
 the Bible itself, rather than this oi- that particular bildical doc- 
 trine, or system of doctrine, is the centre around which the theo- 
 logical thought of the day revolves. We have seen the claims of 
 almost every book of Scripture challenged, and its historic origin 
 questioned to a greater or less extent. Not only liavc we seen 
 the canonical authority of individual books discussed, but we have 
 
 ' Inftugnriil nildress by W. M. flld'hoctere, D. D., on tho oocnaion of bis iiistnlla- 
 tion fts Professor of Biblical Liternturo iu the Theoh)(,'ical Scmiuary nt Coliiiiibift^ 
 S. C, Miiy, 1890. 
 3 
 
34: THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 witnessed the reopening of such questions as tliese : What are the 
 essential elements of canonicity? And again, What is the ulti- 
 mate test of canonicity? 
 
 The last of these questions is so fundamental in its character, 
 of so great intrinsic importance, and withal one rendered so promi- 
 nent by recent discussion, that I hope it may furnish an appropriate 
 and interesting theme for this occasion. 
 
 The theme, therefore, to which, without further delay, I invite 
 attention is: A Recently Proposed Test of Canonicity. 
 
 Before proceeding to discuss it, I may be permitted to recall 
 a few definitions which are familiar to many of you, but may 
 be serviceable to some others. First, the term "canon" meant 
 originally a "reed." B}' an easy transition it came to mean a 
 "measuring-rod;" by another, equally easy, it came to mean a 
 " rule." Finally, it was to be applied to those writings which God 
 has given to be a rule of faith and life to his people. In this sense 
 it will be used in the following discussion. Canon, then, as thus 
 defined, is synonymous with the more familiar term. Scripture. 
 To say, therefore, that a book is entitled to a place in the canon 
 is equivalent to saying that it is entitled to a place in Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 Closely connected with the term canon are two others, which, 
 as they will occur frequently, may as well be defined here. They 
 are canomcity and canonical. By the former, or canonicity, is meant 
 that quality or characteristic of a writing which invests it with 
 authority as a rule of faith and life. And by canonical, the ad- 
 jective, is meant the possession of canonicity, or of a right to a 
 place in the canon. 
 
 It will be well, further, at this point to fix attention upon the 
 precise nature of the question to he considered. The question, 
 then, is not, what^ar e^ the elem ents of canonicity ? but, what are the 
 evidences that a writing claiming to be canonical does indeed pos- 
 sess tliat quality or those qualities wliich constitute it a rule of 
 faith and life ? We do not inquire at present what qual ity it is 
 that invests a writing with this peculiar dignity and supreme 
 authority, l)ut how can the claims of a writing to the possession 
 ^of this quality be tested? To discuss the question, what are the 
 
A RECENTLY PROPOSED TEST OF CANONIOITY. 35 
 
 essential elements of canonicity ? would consume time needlessly, 
 and would divert attention from the single issue now to be con- 
 sidered. It is admitted, then, at least so far as the present argu- 
 ment is concerned, that inspira tion is the essential element of 
 canouicity. It is admitted that it is the fact that a writing is in- 
 spired that constitutes it a rule of faith and life. And the simple 
 issue before us is, How can we assure ourselves that a given writ- 
 ing claiming canonical authority is inspired? What are the evi- 
 dences of the inspiration of a book ? Or, to state the case in con- 
 crete form, upon what grounds do we admit the inspiration of 
 Eccleaiastea, and deny the inspiration of Ecclesiastic us ? 
 
 Numerous answers have been returned to this question. They 
 may all, however, for present purposes, be reduced to three. 
 
 The first is tliat of the Romish church. It has been stated 
 thus by Dr. Lynch, a former Roman Catholic bishop of Charles- 
 ton : •' God has ordained that each Christian shall learn what books 
 are inspired from a body of individuals, to whom, in their collec- 
 tive capacity, ho has given authority to make an unerring decision 
 on that point." Stated in different terms his answer comes to this: 
 The Christian is obliged to recognize the canonical authority of 
 a certain writing because the (Romish) church says it is inspired. 
 According to this view, then, the possession oi proper ecclesiastical 
 sanction is the ultimate test of canonicity. The books which have 
 received such sanction are thereby invested witli canonical author- 
 ity. And to prove, in reference to any book, that it has received 
 the official sanction of the (Romish) church is to establish its ca- 
 nonicity. This, however, only pushes our question one step further 
 back. For we instinctively inquire: How does the church know 
 that a given writing is inspired ? The answer returned to tills query 
 is that, as God has given her "authority to make an unerring deci- 
 sion on tlie point," so he likewise gives lier that illumination and 
 special guidance of his Spirit that enables her io render such a 
 decision. In a word, the answer virtually given is : " Tlie churoh is 
 inspired." Now, a pertinacious Protestant would be likely to press 
 his inquiry by asking, "How nmy I know tiiat the church is in- 
 spired ? It cannot be because the Bible says so, for on this theory 
 I have none until she gives it to me, and I cannot receive it froua 
 
/, 
 
 36 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 her unless assured that she is herself inspired. How, then, may I 
 know that sndi is the case?" But as it is not my purpose to dis- 
 cuss Rome's test of canonicity, I will dismiss it with the single re- 
 mark, tliat she has always found it more convenient to gag than to 
 answer those w^ho have called in question her baseless and blas- 
 phemous pretensions. 
 
 The next answer that we may profitably notice is that of a 
 long line of Protestant apologists and theologians. I cannot do 
 better than to give it in the very words of one among tlie most 
 illustrious of them all. I refer to the sainted and gifted Thorn- 
 well. He says : 
 
 " It is a favorite scheme of ttie papists to represent tlie settling of the canon as 
 a work of gigantic toil and formidable mystery. It evidently, however, reduces 
 itself to a simple question of fact : What books were written by men whose claims 
 to inspiration were either directly or remotely established by miracles ? It is a 
 question, therefore, of no more difficulty than the authenticity of the sacred books. 
 To illustrate the matter in the case of the New Testament : the churches that re- 
 ceived the Epistles from Paul could have had no doabt of their canonical authority, 
 because they knew that the apostle was supernaturally inspired as a teacher of the 
 faith. He produced in abundance the signs of an ajjostle. So also the writings 
 of the other apostles would be recognized by their contemporary brethren as the 
 word of the Lord. The books actually written by the apostles, or approved by 
 their sanction, would be known by living witnesses to the fact. The historical 
 proofs of this fact — that is, the testimony of credible witnesses — would be suf- 
 ficient in all future time to attest the iusiDiration of any given work. If a man, for 
 example, in the third century is doubtful of the Epistle to the Romans, all that is 
 necessary to settle his mind is to convince him that Paid actually wrote it. This 
 being done, its insj^iratiou follows as a matter of course." 
 
 Such is Dr. Thornweirs admiral)ly clear and strong statement 
 of tlie case from the ordinary standpoint of Protestants. Similar 
 language might be cited, were it necessary, from the writings of 
 Paley and Cosin, the Alexanders and the Hodges. 
 
 It is not my purpose now to show the correctness of this 
 answer. Let it sutJice to emphasize the following points: First, 
 according to this view the questions of origin and canonicity_are 
 inseparal)le. To prove the canonical autiiority of a writing we 
 must be able to trace it to men " whose claims to inspiration were 
 either directly or remotely established by miracles." And con- 
 versely, to trace a writing to such a source is to prove its canon- 
 icity. So that the ultimate test of canonicity, ac(;ording to this 
 
A RECENTLY PROPOSED TEST OF CANONICITY. 37 
 
 view, is not ecdesiastical sanction, but ((po stol.lc orif/ i/i or sanclion. 
 Secondly, it is important to note that it follows, from what lias 2- 
 
 been said, that the question of the canonicitj of a writing is purely 
 a historical question, to be settled by historical evidence. Third, -^ 
 
 it is fair to say by way of caution, that those who hold this view • 
 
 do not ignore the evidences of inspiration furnished by the con- 
 tents of a writing, nor do they ignore the testimony which the 
 Holy Spirit bears in the hearts of believers to the infallible truth 
 and divine authority of Scripture. On the contrary, they regard 
 both of tliesc as iiuportant independent lines of c orrob orative tea- njiMu, > 
 tinioiiy, calculated greatly to confirm the conviction produced by ^^^tJ^U^^-^ 
 the historical evidence, and in connection with it to beget a "full c^vU--^ A- 
 persuasion" of the canonical authority of a writing. But for valid i^-iW^x 
 reasons, as might be shown did time permit, they decline to find, /Uy/O^ 
 either in the contents of a writing or in any subjective impres- ^ ' 
 sions in reference to it, the ultimate test of its canonicity. And, ;, 
 not to dwell too long upon this tiieory, it is proper to observe, ^ 
 
 in the fourth place, the contrast between this view and that of ^• 
 Rome. The two have recently been declared to be identical ; but 
 in reality they are wide apart as the poles. There is a sense in 
 which i)oth may be said to appeal to the testimony of the church, 
 though this language, which is ambiguous and misleading, should 
 be avoided. But how different is the nature of the appeal in the 
 two cases. Romanists appeal to the church in her organized and 
 official capacity. Protestants appeal to the individuals who com- 
 pose the church, and appeal to them, not for their official sanction, 
 but for information upon a simple question of fact. Romanists 
 appeal to the church as a judge whose decision is final. Protest- 
 ants appeal to her members as credible witnesses. Romanists ap- 
 peal to her for an authoritative decision upon a question which 
 they are unal)le or indisposed to examine for themselves. Pro- 
 testants appeal to her members for evidence, whicli they weigh as 
 they would any other evidence. According to the Romish view, 
 the church collects the evidence and passes upon it, and declares 
 her judgment in tlu^ premises, from wiiich judgment there is no 
 appeal. According to the Protestant view, the persons who com- 
 pose the church may collect the testimony and perpetuate it from 
 
38 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 generation to generation, but each individual may and should pass 
 upon it for himself. To fail to see this distinction does not speak 
 well for one's mental acumen. To deny its existence argues ''in- 
 vincible ignorance." 
 
 There is a third answer to the question, What is the ultimate 
 test of canonicity ? to the consideration of which the remainder of 
 this paper will be devoted. The reasons for singling out this third 
 answer for special examination are several. First, There is at pres- 
 ent an effort being made in high quarters to give it wide-spread 
 currency. Second, It is not only intrinsically false, but is based 
 I upon principles which, if admitted, must be fatal to the Christian 
 'system. It looks like an attempt to derationalize religion in order 
 to make room for rationalism. It gilds the spire of the Christian 
 1 temple with a false glory, to dazzle the eyes, and to distract the atten- 
 'tion from the fact that it is busy sapping its foundations. Third, 
 This theory, tliough false, is specious. It seeks to adorn itself with 
 a show of humility, which is exceedingly fascinating. Then, too, 
 it looks like reverence personified. Finally: It is, let us not say 
 boastful and arrogant, but lofty in its claims. Probal>ly it would 
 be as well just here to state what these claims are. 
 
 It claims, then, to represent the doctrine of the Reformers and 
 Puritans. It claims the sanction of the Westminster Confession. 
 It claims to be the doctrine of many of the most gifted and godly 
 modern scholars, such as Neander, Tholuck, Mtiller and Dorner. 
 It claims to furnish the only sure basis for certitude in regard to 
 the canon. It claims to put the humblest Christian above the need 
 of a "mediating priesthood of theologians," above the need of any 
 help from apologetics and polemics, above the reach of all cavils, 
 and I suppose one might add, above tlie need of all church history. 
 It claims as a peculiar merit that, while it enables the humblest 
 Christian to rest in the sweet assurance that he possesses the trnth 
 of God, it also enables the higher critic to go on in his destructive 
 and constructive work with the comfortable reflection tliat under 
 its aegis there will be none to molest or make him afraid. It 
 claims that it alone prevents the reason, the conscience and the re- 
 ligious feeling from being forced into conflict one with another, 
 and one or all with the Spirit of God. It claims to render the 
 
A RECENTLY PKOPOSEI) TEST OF CANONKMTV. 39 
 
 reason, conscience and religious feeling independent of " the exter- 
 nal authority of scholars and schools, of church or state, of tradi- 
 tion or human testimony, however extensive," ' with which it as- 
 serts they can never be satisfied, and to furnish them a divine au- 
 thority upon which to rest. It claims that it alone secures t<> the 
 individual Christian the inalienable and inestimable right of private 
 judgment, not only as regards the several doctrines of our faith, 
 but also as regards the source of these doctrines. This it does l)y 
 encouraging and enabling every Christian to make iiis own Bible. 
 These are unquestionably lofty claims, and may well arrest our 
 attention upon the theory in belialf of which they are made. Let 
 us then proceed to examine it. I will give it in the words of one 
 of its latest and ablest advocates. Dr. C. A. Briggs: 
 
 "The principles on which the canon of Scripture is to be determined are, 
 therefore, these: (1,) The testimony of the church, going back by tradition and 
 written documents to primitive times, presents probable evidence to all men that 
 the Scriptures, recognized as of divine authority and canonical by such consent, 
 are indeed what they are claimed to be. 
 
 " (2,) The Scriptures themselves, in their pure and holy character satisfying the 
 conscience; their beauty, majesty and harmony satisfying the a-sthctic taste; thoir 
 simplicity and fidelity to truth, together with their exalted conceptions of man, of 
 God and of history, satisfying the reason and the intellect ; their piety and devo- 
 tion to the one God, and their revelation of redemption, satisfying the religious feel- 
 ings and deepest needs of mankind— all conspire to convince more and more that 
 they are indeed sacred and divine books. 
 
 "(3,) The Spirit of God bears witness by and with the particular writing, or part 
 of ^\Titing, in the heart of the believer, removing every doubt, an<l a-ssuring the soul 
 of its possession of the truth of God, the rule and guide of life 
 
 "Thus the human testimony, the external evidence, attains its furthest iK)88ible 
 limit as probable evidence, bringing the inquirer to the Scriptures with a high and 
 reverent esteem of them, when the internal evidence exerts its powerful inlluence 
 upon his soul, and at length the divine testimony lays hold of his entire nature, and 
 convinces and assures him of the truth of God, and causes him to share in the con- 
 sensus of the Christian church. " ' 
 
 Such is the theory we arc now briefly to examine. One could 
 wish that it furnished less to support tiie sneer of tlie distiugui.shed 
 French diplomatist who said that language i.s designed to conceal 
 our thoughts. How mucli would it aid us in forming a judgment 
 of this theory had the writer just quoted stated "in a few plain 
 
 ' Briggp' Bihlirtd Study, p. i:»8. •' /W-/., pi'. i:«"', i:»7. 
 
40 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 words" what ho has hidden under many cloudy sentences. As it 
 is, we must carefully and patiently thread our way through a maze. 
 Still we need not despair of finding the clue to this laliyrinth. For- 
 tunately, what is dark or obscure in the above statement may be so 
 illuminated and explained by other statements from the same pen as 
 to enable us to fix with certainty the essential features of the theory. 
 
 First, then, let it be observed that this theory reduces the evi- 
 dence for the canonicity of any writing to three heads, namely, 
 that furnished by " the testimony of the church ;" that furnished 
 by the contents of the writing itself; and that furnished by the tes- 
 timony of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 It will simplify our investigation to dismiss at once from con- 
 sideration all that is so truly and eloquently said about the evidence 
 which the character of the contents may furnish for the canonicity 
 of a writing. We may dismiss this because it presents a view not 
 peculiar to this theory, but common to it and to that advocated by 
 Drs. Thorn well and Alexander. In a word, it is admitted on all 
 hands that this kind of evidence is at best only corroborative. It 
 may deepen, but it cannot of itself ground a conviction of the ca- 
 nonicity of a book. 
 
 It only remains, then, to consider the " testimony of the church" 
 and the testimony of the Spirit. Here we may very properly in- 
 quire into the meaning of the terms employed, and also into the 
 relative weight ascribed to each kind of testimony. 
 
 Let us turn, therefore, and examine what is meant by "the 
 testimony of the church," and what is said of it. 
 
 Now, as soon as we begin to try to fix the meaning of the ex- 
 pression "the testimony of the cluirch," we find that the words are 
 beset with an ambiguity which makes the use of them in the state- 
 ment under consideration scarcely less than criminal. The gravity 
 of the offence is not at all diminished by the fact that the expres- 
 sion seems to be borrowed from the Confession of Faith, and appar- 
 ently professes in this connection to echo the sentiments of that 
 venerable document. If we attend merely to the sound of the 
 words and their meaning as used in the Confession, we would 
 not uimaturally suppose that the phrase, "the testimony of the 
 church," referred to the consensus of opinion existing among 
 
A RECENTLY PROPOSED TEST OF CANONICITY. 4rl 
 
 •ecclesiastical persons, or to the consensus of the official decisions 
 of ecclesiastical courts and councils. But the sound hero is evi- 
 dently misleading. This phrase, as used in the passage cited above, 
 was designed, as will appear when we examine it in the light of 
 other statements from the same pen, to include all historical evi- 
 dence coming to us through ecclesiastical channels. Things so 
 different should not be confounded. An opinion is one thing, 
 evidence is another and quite a different thing. The former is 
 the answer to the question, What do you think,? The latter to 
 the question. What do you knoiv f When we ask for the opinion 
 of another with a view to making that a rule of conduct for our- 
 selves, we virtually hold our own judgment in abeyance and act 
 upon that of another. When we ask for evidence, it is with a view 
 to forming an intelligent and independent opinion for ourselves. 
 To turn to ecclesiastical persons or councils for their opinion 
 might look like we stood at their bar and recognized in them some 
 right to impose their opinions upon us. But to collect the evidence 
 furnished by ecclesiastical persons or councils is to seat ourselves 
 upon the judgment seat and call them before our bar to be ex- 
 amined and cross-examined as witnesses. To be controlled by the 
 opinions of ecclesiastical persons or councils, no matter how per- 
 fect the unanimity or how great the antiquity of such opinions, 
 might squint towards a surrender of tlie right of private judgment; 
 but to demand evidence is usually and properly regarded as an as- 
 sertion of this valued right. I say again, then, that things so dif- 
 ferent as a mere conseiisiis of opinion and historical evidence ought 
 not to have been confounded. If one did not feel that the distinc- 
 tion between them was too important to have been intentionally 
 obscured, he would be apt to say that it is too palpaljle to luive 
 been unintentionally obscured. However this may be, the fact is 
 that it has been obscured. Hence the importance of noticing 
 the fact that the phrase, '"tlie testimony of the church," as used 
 by Dr. Briggs, covers and was designed to cover all historical 
 evidence coining/ to us through eccle,siasticul channels. It would 
 have been clearer, then, had the paragraph (pioted read: His- 
 torical evidence, "going back by tradition and written documents 
 to primitive times, presents probable" proof "to all men that the 
 
42 THE PKESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 Scriptures" are "of divine anthority and canonical." For, as we 
 will see, this is the real position of this theoi-y. 
 . The next point in this connection is the weight allowed in thi& 
 
 ^T; statement to historical testimony. It is said to furnish '■^ pi'ohcihle^ 
 ^'■'"^ \ evidence" of canonicity, nothing more. This is not only the 
 furthest actual, but the " furthest possible limit " to which " human 
 ,■ testimony" can attain. It may confirm us in convictions other- 
 :' wise produced, but it is in itself powerless to produce conviction. 
 •^ If left to this we could not be sure of the canonicity of a single 
 L JMh^ ^ok in the Bible . 
 
 ^ o^^ . rjij^.g |g surely a startling position. It simply amounts to this, 
 that no line of historical evidence, however complete, can establish 
 the canonicity of a writing. It may extend back to the times of 
 the apostles, it may connect a writing with one of these authorized 
 and inspired founders and expounders of the Christian system, 
 but it will be of no avail so far as establishing its claim to be a 
 rule of faith and life. It follows from this that the questions of 
 canonicity and authorship are not only distinct, but wholly dis- 
 severed from each other. To prove that a given writing is the 
 official production of an inspired man does not prove that it is in- 
 ' spired and canonical. 
 
 If any one questions the correctness of this construction put 
 upon the language we have been passing under review, it can be 
 abundantly confirmed. Thus Dr. B, B. Warfield says: "It is also 
 clear that prophetic and apostolic origin is the very essence of the 
 authority of the Scriptures."^ Upon which the writer before 
 quoted comments as follows : " If this is the ' very essence of the 
 authority of the Scripture,' that essence is not strong enough to 
 sustain the strain of criticism, and to bear the weight of a world 
 demanding infallible evidence for its faith." ^ Now this criticism 
 is equivalent to a strong denial of the assertion that "prophetic 
 and apostolic origin is the very essence of " canonicity. 
 Again, Dr. Alexander says: 
 
 "As to the proper method of setthng the cauou of the New Testament, the 
 same course must be pursued as was done in respect to the Old. We must have 
 
 ' Presbyterian Review, Vol. X., p. 506, quoted in Whitlier, p. 87. 
 2 Whither, p. 87. 
 
A RECENTLY PROPOSED TEST OF CANONICITY. 43 
 
 recourse to autheutic history, and endeavor to ascertain what books were received 
 as genuine by the primitive church and early fathers. The contemi)orarie8 aad 
 immediate successors of the apostles are the most competent witnesses in this case. 
 If among them there is found to have been a general agreement as to what books 
 •were canonical, it will go far to satisfy us respecting the true canon, for it cannot 
 be supposed that they could easily be deceived in a matter of tliis sort. A general 
 consent of the early fathers and of the primitive church, therefore, furnishes con- 
 clusive evidence upon this point, and is that species of evidence which is least liable 
 to fallacy or abuse. The learned Huet has therefore a.ssumed it as a maxim, 
 ' TJiat every book is genuine wJdch was esteemed genuine by Viose who lived nearest to 
 the time when it was written and by the ages following in a continued series.' " 
 
 It is not for me to pause here to point out the correct inter- 
 pretation of Dr. Alexander's language. Its general meaning is 
 manifest and manifestly sound. But Dr. Briggs, commenting on 
 this, says: 
 
 "Dr. A. Alexander tlnis gave himself unreservedly into the hands of the 
 learned Jesuit without seeing the trap into which he had fallen. Those following 
 him have all fallen into the same error. They have abandoned the jirinciple of 
 the Scriptures as maintained by Luther, Calvin, Knox, Cartwright, the Reformed 
 Confessions, and the Westminster divines, and have tried to find the rock of our 
 faith in the shifting sand of human tradition. " 
 
 Without pausing to bemoan the blindness of Dr. Alexander or 
 to admire the penetration and fairness of his critic, it is enougli to 
 say that tliis criticism is tantamount to the assertion that no line 
 of historical evidence, even though it reach back to the very days 
 of the apostles, can be conclusive as to the canonicity of a given 
 writing. Such evidence, in the estimation of our critic, furnishes 
 no more stable foundation for confidence in the canonicity of a 
 book than shifting sand furnishes for the foundation of a house. 
 
 One more quotation from Dr. Briggs' own pen. Ho says: 
 
 ' ' The question as to the atithenticity of the Bible is whether God is its author ; 
 whether it is inspired. This cannot be determined by the higher criticism in any 
 way, for the higher criticism has only to do with humiiu authorship, and has nothing 
 to do with the divine authorship, which is determined on different principles. " ' 
 
 Now it must follow from this that tiie answer to the (|ue8tion, 
 Who was the hnman author of this writing? gives no light m to 
 whether or not it is of canonical autliority. To prove that the 
 inspired Apostle Paul was the author of the E[)istle to the Romans 
 
 ' Biblical Study, p. 228. 
 
44 THE PKESBVTEKIAN QUARTKKLY. 
 
 does not upon this theory prove that Romans is of "divine authority 
 and canonicah" 
 
 Both of the points just made will stand out more clearly, if 
 possil)le, when we examine the doctrine of this theory in regard to 
 the testimony of the Holy Spirit and its relations to the evidences 
 of canonicity. This we must now proceed to do as briefly as possible. 
 In laying down "the principles on which the canon of Scrip- 
 ture is to be determined," Dr. Briggs, having relegated the evidence 
 for canonicity derived from the contents of the writing and from 
 "human testimony" to the category of merely "probal)le evi- 
 dence," adds: "The Spirit of God bears witness by and with the 
 particular writing, or part of writing, in the heart of the believer, 
 t removing every doubt and assuring the soul of its possession of 
 the truth of God, the rule and guide of life." ^ 
 
 One may, I hope, without impropriety express the wish that 
 there was a less manifest ambiguity about these words. This 
 would tend greatly to the comfort of the reader, to say nothing 
 about the credit of the writer. I venture to offer the following as 
 a just summary of the teachings of this paragraph, viz. : It teaches, 
 (1,) That the testimony of the Spirit to the inspiration of a writ- 
 ing is the ultimate test of its canonicity; (2,) That this testimony 
 is not outward, in the form of miracles, but wholly inward, purely 
 and entirely subjective ; (3,) That in the case of one and the same 
 writing, this testimony may be given to parts of it and withheld 
 from other parts of it; (4,) That this testimonj^ is invariably lim- 
 ited in its power and influence to single individuals ; (5,) That it 
 lis given only to believers, who alone, therefore, have sufficient rea- 
 Isons for accepting the statements' of Scripture as true and of bind- 
 ' ing authority — from which tlie necessary inference is, that to ex- 
 pect others who have no satisfactory evidence of the divine au- 
 thority and canonicity of Scripture to receive and obey them as a 
 rule of faith and life would be not only most unreasonable, but un- 
 just; (('),) That this testimony is delivered '■'■by and with the particu- 
 lar writing or part of writing" that may be under consideration ; (7,) 
 That it is not only an ultimate, but also the sole, test of canonicity. 
 Such is the doctrine of this paragraph. Passing by, for the 
 
 ' Biblical Study, p. 136. 
 
A BEOENTI>Y PKOPOSED TEST OF CANONIClTT. 45 
 
 present, some of its feutures, we may embody in the tollowing 
 proposition so much of it as it is necessary for us to consider at 
 this stage of our discussion, viz., The ultimate, only and alone test 
 of tlie canonicity of a writing as a whole, or any part tliereof, is that 
 testimony which the Holy Spirit may inwardly deliver to its in- 
 spiration. That this is the only correct interpretation (»f tliis para- 
 graph is manifest, first, from the connection in which it occurs. 
 The oliject of the statement as a whole is professedly to lay down 
 principles for the determination of the canon of Scripture. This 
 being true, we have but three alternatives among which to choose: 
 either (a,) the writer forgot the very thing he started out to do, 
 and has laid down no test, which may be dismissed; or (h,) the 
 test laid down is complex and not simple, which, as we will see, is 
 excluded by other statements ; or (c,) the test is simple, and consists 
 in the single princij)le just announced. That the last is tlie true 
 and only interpretation is manifest, in the second place, from what 
 is said on this point in other connections. Let the following, 
 from among other statements that might be quoted, serve as an 
 illustration. 
 
 Dr. Archibald Alexander, with his usual sobriety and discrim- 
 ination, says: "It is certain that the influence of the Holy Spirit 
 is necessary to produce a true faith in the word of God ; but to 
 make this the only criterion by which to judge of the canonical 
 authority of a book is certainly liable to strong obje(;tions.'" ' Upon 
 this the following: comment is made bv the writer whose test of 
 canonicity we are examining : " In this passage Dr. Alexander 
 throws himself against the Gallican Confession, as he acknow- 
 ledges; but he probably did not realize that he was going against 
 the unanimous testimou}'' of tlie Reformed Confessions, the West- 
 minster standards, and the entire body of Continental Protestants 
 and British Puritans; and certainly he did not apprehend the 
 peril of his departure from the fundamental principle of the Re- 
 formation."^ Now, admitting the justice of the concessions so 
 generously made here to Dr. Alexander's ignoraiu^e, and trying to 
 preserve due composure under the alarming tone of bravado which 
 
 ' Carum of Vie Old arid New Testaments, pp. 114-116, cited in Whitiier, p. 78. 
 ^Whither, p. 78. 
 
46 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 pervades this passage, you will observe that this language is equiv- 
 alent to a strong affirmation that " the only criterion by which to 
 judge of the canonical authority of a book" is the testimony of 
 the Holy Spirit to its inspiration. 
 
 We have now passed under a careful review the several parts 
 of this theory. If our examination has been prolonged, it has 
 been due to the character of the witness with whom we have 
 had to deal. He has shown himself to be an apparently reluc- 
 tant witness. A close cross-examination has been necessary, there- 
 fore, to compel him to lay aside his reluctance and to testify to 
 the real nature of his theory. If the attempt has been success- 
 ful, two considerations will go far to compensate us for the time 
 it has taken : First, We niay feel sure that our view of the theory 
 is correct, inasmuch as it has been derived from the statements of 
 
 I one of its advocates; and, second. We need not tarry long upon 
 its refutation, for this is one of those cases where a clear state- 
 
 ' ment of a theory is almost equivalent to a refutation of it. 
 
 Our examination, then, has shown that the leading features of 
 this theory may be reduced to three. Of these two are negative in 
 character, and one positive. The negative features may be thus 
 stated : 
 
 1. No kind or amount of human testimony can establish the 
 canonicity of a writing. 
 
 2. The inspiration of a writing would not be established even 
 , if it should be proven to be the official production of an inspired 
 j :man. 
 
 I I The positive thus : The ultimate, only and alone test of the 
 ' canonicity of a writing, or of any part of it, is the testimony of 
 
 the Holy Spirit to its inspiration ; which testimony is delivered in 
 , the heart of the believer. 
 
 The first stricture which I have to offer upon this theory is, 
 that, let its advocates deny and attempt to disguise the fact as they 
 may, it is nevertheless true that this doctrine of canonicity is lia- 
 ble to all the objections of mysticism, and, like mysticism, must 
 sooner or later lead to fanaticism. It is simply another illustra- 
 tion of the saying that extremes meet. Here we have rationalism 
 run to seed in irrationalism. Let us see. What is the evidence 
 
A RECENTLY I'KOPOBED TEST OF OANONICITY. 47 
 
 of canonicity upon which we are invited to repose cnir ftiitli ? Is it 
 not, after all that can be said, simply and solely a subjective im- 
 pression produced upon the mind of tlie inquirer? This subjec- 
 tive impression, it is true, purports to be from the Holy Spirit. 
 But what is there to certify the inquirer that he is not the dupe 
 of a heated or disordered fancy, or, worse still, of a wicked spirit ? 
 It may be said that the Holy Spirit is just as able to assure indi 
 viduals now that he is speaking to them as he was to do the same 
 in the case of apostles and prophets. This is granted. But how 
 did he assure apostles and prophets that he spoke to and by tliem? 
 Was not the internal voice invariably confirmed and corroborated 
 by some external sign ? Moses first sees the bush burning with- 
 out being consumed, hears an audible voice, witnesses a number 
 of miracles, and then, and not until then, he goes to Israel and 
 to Pharaoh, and says, " Thus saitli the Lord." Paul speaks of the 
 signs of an apostle. These were doubtless signs to tlie apostle 
 himself as much as to otliers. It seems perfectly safe to say that 
 in every case wliere the Holy Spirit spoke, in this special way, to 
 one or by one, his voice was either preceded, accompanied or fol- 
 lowed by miraculous evidence addressed to the senses. It seems 
 safe to say, that wherever communication is opened <Ie novo be- 
 tween God and a man there is a necessity for miracles. As soon 
 as we come into possession of God's written word this necessity in 
 a manner ceases; for in the word itself we have the safeguard 
 we need. By it we can try the spirits whether they be of God. 
 It may be granted, then, that the Spirit who gave the word is able 
 to bear such testimony to it as his word as will leave no sliadow 
 of doubt upon the mind. The question is not wliat the Spirit v.-aw 
 do, but what he does. It would be preposterous to assert that, in 
 addition to witnessing to the word in the heart, he works miracles 
 in order to assure men of the canonicity of this, that or the other 
 book of Scripture. But without these miracles, how can men be 
 assured that they are not following an igtiis fatuusf Let us sup- 
 pose that some one has deposited five thousand dollars in bank to 
 the credit of Mr, A. B,, an individual not personally known to any 
 of the oflBcials of the bank. Shortly after it has l)ecn deposited, in 
 steps a man, wlio draws a clieck in these terms: " Pay to self or 
 
48 TETE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 order," and signs it "A. B." He steps up to the desk and passes 
 his paper over to the cashier. The cashier, of course, will wish the 
 signature identified. Suppose, now, the man who has just drawn 
 the check says, " I will identify it." Would not the cashier very 
 promptly respond, " But, my dear sir, who will identify you ? " We 
 are told by the advocates of this theory that the Spirit of God will 
 identify his own writings. But, we make bold to ask, who will 
 identify the one claiming to be the Spirit of God ? Reason de- 
 mands that when we have so much at stake we should only act 
 under the protection of every possible safeguard. The Scriptures 
 recognize and ratify this demand ; but the theory we are consid- 
 ering utterly ignores it. To all intents and purposes it makes the 
 whole Bible, and each part of it, a new revelation to eacli indi- 
 vidual. The authority of this stupendous revelation rests solely 
 upon a subjective impression, for the Holy Spirit no longer ac- 
 companies the word with " signs and wonders following." The 
 fruit of such pernicious doctrine it is easy to see. 
 
 It may be proper to add at this point, that the writer is not 
 alone in seeing the virus of mysticism in this theory. Long ago 
 the venerable Dr. Archibald Alexander uttered his warning 
 against even that modified form of the theory which appears in 
 the Galilean Confession, and based that warning upon the inl^er- 
 ent tendency of the theory to the errors of mysticism. Later, this 
 is the view of the theory which has arrested the attention of 
 the clear and vigorous mind of Francis L. Patton, president of 
 Princeton College, who says of it : " It does not tend in the 
 slightest degree to reconcile us to these opinions to say that the 
 Reformers entertained them. It would not be strange if, in their 
 opposition to the claims of the church of Rome, they went to the 
 opposite extreme and were in danger of falling into the errors of 
 the mystics." 
 
 It has been alleged, however, that the theory is clearly dis- 
 tinguished from mysticism and guarded against error from that 
 quarter by the fact that the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit 
 is delivered " by and with the particular writing or part of writ- 
 ing" which happens to l)e under investigation. 
 
 {a.) My first comment upon this position is, that its plausibility 
 
A RECFINTLY PKOP(»SEn TKST OF CANOMCII'V. 49 
 
 lies wildly in the fact that the languas^e used is similar in xmiul 
 to language used in the Confession of Faith, in a materially differ- 
 ent connection and with a totally different sense. The advocates of 
 this theory will find that the mere form of sound words will fail to 
 hide its nakedness and ugliness from thoughtful minds. 
 
 (h.) My next comment is, that the terms used, when viewed in 
 the coimection in which they are used, are confused and confusjui;. 
 They convey no very distinct idea of any kind. Let it he re- 
 membered that the question to be decided is: Is this particidar 
 writing inspired? And we are told that the Spirit establishes its 
 inspiration by testifying "by and with" the writing itself. But 
 if the writing is the channel through which the testimoii}' of the 
 Spirit is delivered, then surely it would seem to be necessarv in 
 some way to connect the channel tln-ough which the testimonv 
 comes with the source from which the testimony is said to pro- 
 ceed. If A. B., being unable to attend court, sends a written de- 
 position, before it can be received in evidence the court must be 
 certified that it proceeds from A. B. If it l)e said that A. B. is 
 surely competent to certify that a certain document proceeded 
 from him as its author, this is granted. But observe, this impHes 
 that A. B. himself is present and has been duly identified. If so, 
 then the question might arise, why testify by and with the writing 
 when he is on hand to speak for himself to all points mentioned 
 in the document? Moreover, let it be carefully observed tiiat in 
 this case we would not have two independent converging mutually 
 corroborative lines of testimony resulting in cumulative evidence, 
 but a mere repetition of testimony. 
 
 (c.) But we are told, i)y way of explaining the terms, that " It 
 is one thing to say that the Spirit teacheth us by the Scripture, 
 and anotlier thing to pretend the Spirit's teaching l)esides, beyond, 
 or contrary to the Scripture; the one is a divine truth, the other 
 is vile ?nofiia>iii</jiy 
 
 Upon this I remark first, that it is ditKcult to see how the 
 Spirit can teach us by the Scripture before we are in possession of 
 the Scripture. Tiie very core of onr inquiry is, Is this writing 
 Scripture? Until this is settled tiie Holy Spirit has no Scrijiture 
 with which to teach us anything. In a word, tlie naked testimony 
 
 4 
 
50 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 of the voice claiminoj to be the voice of the Spirit must establish 
 the fact that certain writings are Scripture before the Spirit is in 
 a position to teach anything by the Scripture; otherwise he has 
 no Scripture by wliich to teach. 
 
 But, in the second place, if those who offer this explanation 
 mean that the Spirit does not deliver liis testimony apart from, or 
 independently of, the particular writing or part of writing which 
 happens to l)e under examination, then I remark that they have 
 deceived themselves with a bald and meaningless truism. For, as 
 a matter of course, if the Spirit testifies to a writing, then the writ- 
 ing itself must be before tlie eye of the l)ody or that of the mind. 
 And if they mean that he testifies simply and solely by the written 
 words themselves as opposed to a voice, or vision, or mere inward 
 impression, however produced, then I reply that there is no evi- 
 dence that the Spirit of God is testifying at all. They have in 
 effect fallen back upon the internal evidence presented by the 
 writing itself, which evidence they formerly rejected. The fact 
 is that, let them twist and squirm as tliey may, let them use lan- 
 guage as a means of concealing their meaning as much as they may, 
 they will after all find themselves compelled to rest, even by their 
 own showing, under the charge of "vile inontaniam.^'' 
 
 3. But, again, it will help us to form a just estimate of this 
 theory if we consider briefly some of the consequences which 
 naturally and necessarily flow from it. Let it be remembered, 
 then, that according to the doctrine we are considering, the ques- 
 tion of origin, or authorship, is wholly distinct from that of 
 canonicity. The fact that the apostolic authorship of a writing is 
 proved by a chain of unimpeachable historical witnesses settles 
 nothing. It is, therefore, not only needless, but useless, to asso- 
 <;iate any book by a chain of historical evidences with Ciirist or 
 the apostles. Their imprimatur is worthless. It may secure for 
 a writing reverent esteem, but can invest it with no authority. A 
 book having no connection whatever with the authorized and in- 
 spired founders and expounders of the Christian system may never- 
 theless become a rule of faith and life to those living under that 
 system. And, on the other hand, a book proved by the most un- 
 •questionable evidence to have proceeded from John or Paul, and 
 
A RECENTLY PROPOSED TK8T OF CANONICrrr 51 
 
 claiming upon its face to he a rule of faith and life, has not neces- 
 sarily any authority wliatever. If this be denied, it can only be 
 upon the ground that tlie Holy Spirit will in every such case as 
 that first mentioned refuse to testify by and with the writing in 
 the heart of the believer, and in every sucl: case as last-mentioned, 
 will invariably testify by .and with the writing. But to say this 
 is simply to surrender the theory. If, on the contrary, the conse- 
 quence be admitted, then the theory may l)e sulgected to a simple 
 and decisive test. Doubtless it was just as true for the Galatians 
 as it is for us that authorship could not determine canonicity. Let 
 us ask, then, when Paul's letter came to them duly attested, did it, 
 or did it not, demand and deserve their immediate acceptance and 
 obedience ? Did they have to wait for a special, direct, superna- 
 tural, miraculous confirmation of its autliority l)y the Holy Spirit? 
 If Paul's name as an inspired apostle was a sufficient guarantee of 
 the canonicity of the epistle in the first instance, then how can ' 
 the mere lapse of time have affected its sufficiency as a guarantee' 
 to us ? 
 
 But further, in this same connection, let it be remembered, 
 that according to the view we are examining there is no process 
 by which the canonicity of a writing as a whole can be estab- 
 lished. So jealous are its advocates for the right of private judg- 
 ment, and withal so humble and devout is their temper of mind, 
 that they must l)e certified l)y the Holy Spirit of the canonicity, 
 not of the writing as a whole merely, but also of its several parts. 
 They do not believe in the inerrancy of the very autograph which 
 came from the hands of the apostles. Hence they need a special 
 revelation in connection with each paragraph and every sentence. 
 They do not believe in verbal inspiration. Hence the Holy Spirit 
 must disentangle the thought from the words, and certify to them 
 that such and such disembodied thoughts, so to speak, were de- 
 signed when the writer used such and such words. Let us see, 
 then, whereunto this doctrine if athuitted must grow. Here we 
 have the Epistle to the Romans. It is all from «>no hand. It 
 claims to be sanctioned in every i)art by one authority. But, not- 
 withstanding these facts, it would be entirely possible upon this 
 theory that the Holy Spirit might certify chapters i.-viii., and 
 
52 THE PRESBITERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 decline to certify chapter ix. If this is denied, it is hard to see 
 upon what ground. It cannot be upon the ground that tlie Holy 
 Spirit will always bear witness by and vvitli what he himself has 
 in the first instance inspired ; because this assumes that tliis 
 chapter was in the first instance inspired by the Holy Spirit. 
 This, however, is the point in question. But if it be admitted 
 that chapter ix. is not canonical, or might not receive the attesta- 
 tion of the Spirit, then observe what follows. Paul unquestion- 
 ably regarded himself as speaking under the inspiration of the 
 Spirit in the ninth chapter as truly as in chapters i.-viii. But he 
 was mistaken, or may have been mistaken. And if he may have 
 been mistaken in regard to the ninth chapter, why may he not 
 have been mistaken in regard to chapters i.-viii. ? And if he was, 
 or may have been, mistaken, notwithstanding all the evidence tliat 
 he had that he was truly under the guidance of the Spirit, what 
 guarantee can we have that we are not ujistaken when we fancy 
 we hear the voice of the Spirit in our hearts bearing witness by 
 and with a particular wi-iting, or part of writing ? This theory is 
 a road losing itself in intellectual quagmires and swamps, where 
 the traveller may temporarily rejoice in the light of a jack-a- 
 lantern, but must eventually land in a bog. 
 
 4. But the radical and revolutionary character of the theory 
 will probably appear most clearly when it is shown that it invali- 
 dates the miraculous and historical evidence upon which the Chris- 
 tian system has l)een supposed to rest. Let us examine this alle- 
 gation. 
 
 It has been the boast of a long line of Christian apologists that 
 it is a distinguishing feature and a distinguishing excellency of 
 Christianity, as contrasted with all other religions, that every one 
 of its leading doctrines is so rooted in a historical fact that to es- 
 tablish the fact is to estal)lish the doctrine. Thus, given the facts 
 of Christ's life, and we have of necessity the doctrine of the incar- 
 nation ; given the facts of his death, and we have of necessity the 
 doctrine of the atonement; given the fact of his resurrection, and 
 we have the doctrines of his divinity and of the trinity. Now, it 
 will be observed, that the inspiration of the writings of the apostles, 
 for instance, is as much a doctrine of Scripture and of the Chris- 
 
A RECENTLY PKOPOSED TEST OF CANONICITY. 53 
 
 tinn bystuin as any of those just named. What, then, are the his- 
 torical facts in wliicli this doctrine roots itself? The answer ordi- 
 narily has been, the fact that those who wrote them and claimed 
 for tliem inspiration did works " which no man could do except 
 God were with him." The inspiration of tlie writings, therefore, 
 follows as a necessary inference from the inspiration of the writers ; 
 and that, in turn, follows necessarily from the miracles they 
 wrought. Paul's epistles rest their authority upon his authority 
 as an apostle, and this, in turn, rests upon the signs of an apostle 
 which he wrought wherever he went. If, then, neither canonicity 
 nor inspiration can he established b^' external evidence, it nuist be 
 either because we have no sntficient, satisfactory historical evi- 
 dence coimecting these writings with the authorized and inspired 
 founders and expounders of the Christian system ; or because there 
 is no sufficient evidence that the writers did work miracjes; or 
 because miracles do not furnish satisfactory evidence of a divine 
 commission. To accept either of the foruier alternatives is to 
 make shipwreck of the Christian system, by asserting that the 
 facts upon which it professes to rest are incapable of being veri- 
 fied. To accept the last alternative is to make shipwreck of it 
 again, by asserting that, granting the facts, they furnish no ground 
 for the doctrines of the system. In a word, if it be impossible to 
 establish the inspiration of a writing by any kind or amount of 
 external evidence, then it is impossible to establish the inspiration 
 either of a writing or a writer by miracles, for they unquestion- 
 ably fall in the category of external evidence. 
 
 There are other points in coimection with the theory we have 
 been considering which might be noted, l)ut which must be passed 
 by in order that we may glance at the attempt that has been made 
 to foist it upon the Confession of Faith. 
 
 This attempt derives all of its plausil»ility from the mere sound 
 of the language used by the Confession, in utter disregard of its 
 connection and manifest sense. The language referred to is as fol- 
 lows : "Yet, notwithstanding our full persuasion and assurance of 
 the infallil)le truth and divine authority thereof,'' i. e., of the Scrip- 
 tures, " is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing wit- 
 ness by and witli tlie word in our hearts." Does the Confession 
 
54: THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 then commit itself to the doctrine that the canonicity of a writing 
 cannot be established by any kind or amount of external evidence? 
 Does it teach that the ultimate test of canonicity is the testimony of 
 the Holy Spirit by and with the particular writing or part of writ- 
 ing which happens to be under consideration? Not at all. The 
 question of canonicity, properly speaking, was not before the minds 
 of the framers of the Confession when they wrote these words, 
 Canonicity is an intrinsic quality of certain writings. It belongs 
 to them, whether those to whom they come will hear or whether 
 they will forbear. Our full persuasion and assurance of the infal- 
 lible truth and divine authority of a writing, however much it may 
 affect our conduct and concern our welfare or our woe, has nothing 
 to do with its canonicity. This, as the Confession says in the para- 
 graph just preceding tliat from which the words above quoted 
 were taken, depends upon the authority with which God has in- 
 vested it. The question as to wliether God has or has not in- 
 vested a writing with authority as a rule of faith and life is by no 
 means identical with the question, How do men come to a full 
 persuasion of the infallible truth and divine authority of this rule ? 
 It is a question which rests upon its own proper and independent 
 evidence : evidence which would hold were all men to refuse to 
 recognize the infallible truth and divine authority of the rule; 
 evidence which would compel the assent of the understanding, 
 and bring the conscience under obligations, even though it failed 
 to secure the confidence of a corrupt heart and the obedience of a 
 ^rebellious will. Now, any one who will read the Confession care- 
 fully will find that it is dealing, not with a question of Christian 
 evidences, but with a question of Christian experience; not with 
 the question. What is there to show that this writing has been in- 
 vested by God with authority as a rule of faith and life? but, 
 How is its acceptance at the hands of man secured? To this the 
 answer is, its full and complete acceptance is only secured by an 
 inward operation of the Spirit, persuading and enabling the heart 
 and will to yield to the overwhelming external evidence furnished 
 , by the origin and contents of the books. The case may be illus- 
 itrated by what we speak of as historical and saving faith. Surely 
 no one will make Christ's claims as prophet, priest and king de- 
 
A KECENTLY PROPOSED TEST OF CANONICITY. 55 
 
 pend upon "the inward work of the Holy Spirit." These claims 
 rest upon their own proper evidence. This evidence may, and fre- 
 quently does, compel the assent of the understanding, even when 
 the person so convinced refuses to l)elieve with the heart. How 
 great a perversion would it be of the teachings of the Confession 
 to say that, because it declares that " faith is a saving grace," there- 
 fore it teaches that the validity of Christ's claims rests upon an 
 inward operation of the Holy Spirit. It is equally perverse to 
 wrest the language we have been considering into meaning that 
 the only evidence of the canonicity of a writing is the testimony 
 of the Holy Spirit by and with it in the heart. 
 
 But it is time to leave this theory. Taking a parting glance 
 at it as we turn away, we find that its claims are in curious con- 
 trast with its real character. For instance, it poses as the perse- 
 cuted and disowned heir of our Puritan fathers and the Reformers. 
 Doubtless, could they rise from their graves, they would be sur- 
 prised at the company this descendant of theirs is keeping. It 
 claims to do special honor to the Holy Spirit, and yet it opens the 
 door of the heart for every lying spirit that may (;hoose l)lasphem- 
 ously to impersonate him. It pretends to stand alone in recogniz- 
 ing the claims of the reason and religious feelings. But it de- 
 prives the former of its primary, proper, and well-nigh sole func- 
 tion in matters of religion, by refusing to permit it to sift the his- 
 tori(!al evidences of Christianity, and making it the dupe of every 
 inner voice or lijjht which human fanaticism or Satanic; cutmiui' 
 may ascribe to the Holy Spirit, and at the same time it deprives 
 the religious feelings of their only norm and safeguard, by virtu- 
 ally making them sit in judgment upon the claims of the w<u-d. 
 It professes to give the only ground for certitude in regard to tiie 
 canon, but as a matter of fact invests every book and every para- 
 graph of Scripture, from the first chapter of Genesis to the twenty- 
 second chapter of Revelation, in uncertainty. It professes to be the 
 great l)ulwark and protection of the Cliristian system, when, in fact, 
 it saps the system at its foundations, by calling into (jucstion the 
 validity of the liistorical and miraculous testin)ony upon which it 
 rests, and 8ul)Stitnting for these a line of evidence which at best must, 
 in the end, rank it, among intelligent men, along with the systems of 
 Swedenborg and Joe Smith. Wim.iam M.^oPukktkrs. 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,MiliLT^ 
 
 
 
 
 OtS- *i 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .\>^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■< JT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ *yr ;:,•• 
 
 
 
 
 ""■.Ailt^ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iiliiiiSil