THE CANON OF THE MODERN CHURCH.
§ 1. The Protestant Canon.
LUTHER, thanks be to God, followed by the rest of the Reformers, reverted to the Hebrew Canon, detached the writings added to the Alexandrian and Latin versions from the Hebrew Books, and applied to the former the general name of Apocrypha, which, as already explained, was derived from Jerome. But the Lutheran bodies, following the example of the great Reformer, who set a high value upon some of the Apocrypha, have not been so rigorous in their rejection of these books as have been the Reformed' communions. No Puritans ' have gone further than the Presbyterians in their condemnation of the Apocrypha. In the Westminster Confession' we read as follows: The Apocrypha are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.' Dr. Payne Smith's words bring out the essential weakness of the, Apocrypha: All in them which is distinctive is at variance with Holy Scripture, and diverges into ideas and doctrines irreconcilable with the past and barren for the future.' With this compare the remarks of Taylor in his Work on Ancient Books: Bad imitations of the style of the Scriptures—some of the Old Testament, have been attempted... and are such as afford the most striking illustration that can be imagined of the difference in simplicity, dignity and consistency, which one should expect to find, severally, in the genuine and the spurious.'
But the use such books serve may not be so apparent. Taylor says: The preservation of these latter worthless productions to modern times, is an extraordinary fact, and it affords proof of a state of things, the knowledge of which is important in questions of literary antiquity—namely, that there were many copyists who wrote and went on writing mechanically whatever came in their way, without exercising any discrimination. Now there is more satisfaction in knowing that ancient books have come down through a blind and unthinking medium of this sort, than there would be in believing that we possess only such things as the copyists, in the exercise of an assumed censorship, deemed worthy to be handed down to posterity.'
Professor Robertson Smith rates the Apocrypha at their true value, which he says is simply that of documents for the history of the connection of the Old and New Testament.' This scholar aptly refers to Zech. 13 for a prediction of the near approach of a time when prophecy should have ceased' (cf. Josephus), and to the last verse of Malachi as affording no expectation of a succession of prophets such as is foretold in Deuteronomy.'
Anglicans generally have followed rather in the wake of Lutherans in respect of the Apocrypha. But in England, from the days of Tyndale, there has been a clear apprehension of the true difference between the two sets of Books. What Westcott says of the German Bible does not happily, apply to our own.
The Lutheran Church has no recognized definition of canonicity, and no express list of the Sacred Books. Usage alone has determined finally the subordinate position of the Apocrypha to the Old Testament.'
It may be well, however, to give the Title in the Lutheran Bible of these books: Apocrypha, that is, books which are not held of equal value with Holy Scripture, and nevertheless are useful and should be read.' Associated with lingering attachment to these books has sometimes been, as with Luther, a perhaps natural tendency to make light of inspired Scripture. It is a sad reflection that Rationalism has been fostered in the schools of the Reformation. Corruptio optimi pessima.' But the free examination to which the Hebrew Books have been subjected by German critics, from Semler to Wellhausen, has only assisted believers in cleaving fast to what in every particular has so well stood the test, that they can with the more intelligence be assured of the inspiration of Esther, Canticles and Daniel, as of that of Genesis, Joshua, or Isaiah. They read the Evangelical Prophet' as one undivided Book, and they value Scripture all the same, whether written by prophet, priest, or king.
§ 2. The Tridentine, or Modern Roman Catholic Canon.
Until the Church of Rome went so far as dogmatically to raise the Apocrypha to the same level as the Books of the Hebrew Canon, it would seem that Jerome's views retained some hold upon the more enlightened theologians of that communion. Westcott cites Cardinal Cajetan, Luther's opponent at Augsburg in '518, who in his Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament' (1532), inscribed to Clement VII, says, The language of Councils and Doctors must alike be revised by the judgment of Jerome.' But with ripening opposition to the Reform movement, the Council of Trent (1546) canonized all the contents of the Vulgate as now issued, including that is, the Apocrypha, with the exception of 3 and 4 Esdras (as they are usually called), and the Prayer of Manasses.
Although there are not wanting Romanist writers who distinguish between the First' and the Second' Canon, the Vatican Council of 1870 has confirmed the decree of 1546. Those that boast of having an historical Christianity, even they have to put themselves right with history! The inconsistencies of Rome are as extraordinary as her alleged miracles. At the outset of these dogmas' of the last Council, we meet with the astounding words, 'Pius episcopus servos servorum Dei,' of which the author of a recent Commentary on Matthew's Gospel of the Anglican School well says: The most outrageous violations of Church rule begin with the confession of its true principle.'
The third chapter of the Schema,' or draft decree, discussed in the second sitting, and bearing the title `De divine revelationis fontibus in S. Scriptura et Traditione,' was adopted on the 7th April, and being finally put to the vote on the 12th of the same month was, according to Dr. Manning (' True Story of the Vatican Council,' p. 95), carried by a large majority. The following are the material words of the decree in its definition of the Canon, as given by Friedrich: Iterum declaramus et definimus eosdem libros omnes cum omnibus suis partibus quemadmodum in decreto ceeumenici concilii Tridentini continetur prosacris et canonicis suscipiendos esse.' Then follow these words: Sacri autem et canonici credendi sunt non quod humana tantum ope scripti auctoritate tamen Ecclesice in canonem s. s. Scripturarum relati sint... sed eo quod Spiritu sancto inspirante conscripti fuerunt, ideoque sunt Scripturte divinitus inspiratee que habent Auctorem Deum,' the sense of which has been aptly given by Dr. Littledale as follows: The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament '—to speak alone of them—’are held as sacred and canonical, not because they have been approved by the Church's authority, but because having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church itself!' This Council seeks almost to excel that of Trent in its desire to break from the past; for in chapter 2, Wisdom (13:1-9) is appealed to in condemnation of Rationalism before the writings of any Prophet or Apostle. We may sorrow for Dr. Manning's congratulation of his Church. If the Vatican Council had met and parted without any act beyond this one decree, it would have applied a direct and searching P. 535. remedy to the intellectual aberrations of the nineteenth century.'
As far as we can ascertain, the new party called Old Catholics,' still adhere to the Tridentine Canon of Scripture.
§ 3. The Canon of the Greek Church.
The Greek Church seems still to follow the lax practice of the Greek Fathers. What Dr. Harold Browne says, in a well-known work, of the ancient Churches of the East, who with us reject the Apocrypha,' is likely to mislead. Since a synod held at Bethlehem in 1672, the Greek Church has consistently kept up the incorporation in the Bible of the Apocrypha: cf. Winer, Symbolik, i. The authorized edition of the Russian Bible contains these books, even 3 and 4 Esdras; and yet it is not correct to say, with De Wette, that the Greek Church (as a whole) has canonized the Apocrypha, for the Russian Longer Catechism does not recommend the reading of the old ecclesiastical books until it has distinguished clearly between them and the Hebrew Scriptures. Then it says of the former, They have been appointed of the Fathers to be read by proselytes who are preparing for admission into the Church.' The Catechism grounds this statement upon Athanasius, Ep. xxxix. It will be remembered that Cyril of Jerusalem gave happier advice to such so-called proselytes. Westcott says of the unsettled state of the Canon amongst even orthodox Orientals: In no one of the Eastern Churches was there any fixed judgment or consistent tradition as to its contents.'