books, those which were recognized as authoritative, which were used for the purposes of worship, and those which were apocryphal, and not so used; and accordingly the Church of England says, when it speaks of Scripture, 'What we mean by the word Scripture is, those books which are canonical,' i. e. those books which never were doubted; we confine ourselves, in defining the word Scripture, to the canonical books, as contradistinguished from the apocryphal books. Then comes a list of the canonical books. But there is this remarkable expression: 'Of whose authority there never was any doubt in the Church.' Not a word as to the source of the authority; but simply the words which I have read. Their obvious import is to denote what books are meant, without defining the degree of authority which belongs to them. There are some books of whose authority there never was any doubt in the Church, and those are included; there are other books whose authority has been doubted, those are excluded. What the authority might have been, how far it extended, upon what it was based, the Article does not determine; nor is there one single word about it to be found in any of the formularies of the Church." According to this statement, Mr. Stephen's client is more orthodox than the Jews, the early Church, and the Church of England.

The former professes to hold "the Divine authority of Scripture in the strongest sense;" but, according to Mr. Stephen, the authority ascribed to it by the ancient Jews and early Christians was only indefinite, an authority in some shape or other; and the Church of England receiving the Scriptures with this indefinite authority, left the authority as undefined and vague as she found it. So that, although engaged in an important controversy as to the authority of Scripture, and intending to define the rule of faith and the standard of doctrine, she has really defined neither the one nor the other, and no where said one word about the Divine authority of the Scripture. The extravagance of the assertion might serve as its confutation. It has, however, been confuted in what has been said on the title of the Sixth Article, and the meaning of the phrase "the Holy Scriptures; " and its falsehood will appear still more clearly from the consideration of the word "canonical."

9. In treating of this word, Mr. Stephen says, "That from the earliest times, and certainly from the time of Ezra, if not before, there was in the Christian Church, and before that in the Jewish Church, a collection of sacred books, to which authority in some form or shape—a most indefinite form and shape-was ascribed."

D

Here, then, it is admitted that there was a known and definite canon of Scripture; but it is asserted that, from the beginning, the authority ascribed to the books of which it was composed was undefined; in fact, that the ascription of Divine authority was unknown. This is, of course, an important link in Mr. Stephen's argument. If neither the Jews nor the early Christians held the Divine authority of the Scripture, then it is possible that the Church of England, receiving its canon from these sources, may also have received the vague and undefined notion concerning its authority. But, if this theory be false; if, on the contrary, the Jews and early Christian Church held strong and definite views on the subject, and believed in the Divine authority of canonical Scripture; then it is highly probable that the Church of England, along with the canon, also received their doctrine concerning its authority, and embodied it in its Articles. That this is the fact will appear from unambiguous witnesses, who testify that the canon was founded on the principle of admitting only those books that were inspired, and therefore of Divine authority.

For the faith of the ancient Jews, the wellknown passage of Josephus against Apion (i. 8) furnishes unequivocal testimony:

"We have not an innumerable multitude of

books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books which are justly believed to be Divine (feîa), the records of all past time; and of those, five are those of Moses, which contain both the laws and the tradition of the origin of mankind till his death. This period of time falls but little short of 3000 years. But as to the time from the death of Moses until the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their time in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and for men precepts of life. From Artaxerxes to our own time, our history has been written very particularly, but hath not been esteemed worthy of like faith with the former, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time. And how firmly we have believed the books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for though so many ages have passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to the Jews, even from their very birth, to consider them as precepts (Sóyμara) of God, and to adhere to them, and, if necessary, to die for them."

Here the authority ascribed to the canonical

books is the very opposite of indefinite. They are regarded as written by prophets, that is, inspired men. They are distinguished from all others not so written. They are sacred and inviolable, in which no man would dare to make a change. They are so firmly believed, that for them Jews would willingly die. They are of such supreme authority as to deserve faith and obedience in life and in death.

The same authority is ascribed to them by the writers of the New Testament, who, even if their inspiration be denied, must yet be received as witnesses of the Jewish faith in the Divine authority of Scripture, and the connecting link between the Jewish and Christian Churches. They testify as to the same canon, known to Josephus, and ascribe to that canon the same authority. In Matt. v. 18 our Lord vouches for the authority of every tittle of the law. In Luke xvi. 29. 31, He says men must perish if they hear not the law and the prophets. In John x. 35, He makes Scripture the Word of God, and adds that "the Scripture cannot be broken." St. Paul declares that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God;" and St. Peter that "prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." According to these statements, Scrip