Roman churches; for the right of private judgment and the universal priesthood of believers have maintained their ground with increasing vigour in Western Europe and America since the Reformation; yet it is no less true that the principle of traditionalism is ever at work in the chairs of theology and in the pulpits of the Church: so that in seeking for truth and in estimating what is binding on faith and conscience, even Protestants must distinctly separate the three things: Bible, symbol, and tradition; the Bible, the sole infallible norm; the symbol, binding those who hold to the body of which it is the banner; the tradition of any sect or school which demands at the most the respect, reverence, careful consideration, and the presumption in its favour on the part of the adherents of that sect or school. It is assumption for it to claim the same authority as Bible, Church, or Catholic tradition. It will be tested and tried, if worthy of consideration, and it must take its chances in the crucible.

It is of vast importance that we should make these distinctions on the threshold of the study of the critical theories; for there is no field in which modern, local, and provincial tradition has been more hasty in its conclusions, more busy in their formation, more dogmatic and sensitive to criticism, more reluctant and stubborn to give way to the truth, than in the sacred fields of the Divine Word. Thus criticism is confronted at the outset now as ever with two a priori objections.

1st. There are those who maintain that their traditional views of the Sacred Scriptures are inseparably bound up with their doctrine of inspiration; so that even if they should be in some respects doubtful or erroneous, they must be left alone for fear of the destruction of the doctrine of inspiration itself. This is true of those traditional theories of inspiration which in some quarters have expanded so as to cover a large part of the ground, and commit themselves to theories of text, and author, date, style, and integrity of writings, in accordance with a common, but, in our judgment, an injudicious method of discussing the whole Bible under the head of Bibliology in the prolegomena of the dogmatic system; but this is not true of the symbolical doctrine of inspiration, still less of the script

ural doctrine. The most that this objection can require of the critics is, that they should be careful and cautious of giving offence, or of needlessly shocking prejudice; that they should be respectful and reverent of the faith of the people and of revered theologians; but it is not to be supposed that it will make them recreant to their trust of seeking earnestly, patiently, persistently, and prayerfully for the truth of God. In fact, these school doctrines of inspiration have obtruded themselves in place of the symbolical and scriptural doctrine, and it is necessary to destroy these school doctrines in order to the safety of the biblical doctrine and the symbolical doctrine. However distressing this may be to certain dogmatic divines and their adherents, it affords gratification to all sincere lovers of the truth of God.

2d. There are those who claim that their traditional theory is the logical unfolding of the doctrine of the Symbols and the Scriptures. But this is begging the very question at issue, which will not be yielded. Why should dogmatic theologians claim exemption from criticism and the testing of the grounds of their systems? Such an arbitrary claim for deductions and consequences is one that no true critic or historian ought to concede for, by so doing, he abandons at once the right and ground of criticism, and the inductive methods of historical and scientific investigation; and sacrifices his material to the dogmatist and scholastic, surrendering the concrete for the abstract. The very sensitiveness to criticism displayed in some quarters justifies suspicion that the theories are weak and will not sustain investigation.

Traditional theories cannot overcome critical theories with either of these a priori objections of apprehended peril to faith or pretended logical inconsistencies with dogma, but must submit to the test of criticism. One of the most characteristic principles of Puritanism is that:

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to His Word or beside it in matters of faith and worship; so that, to believe such doctrine, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the

requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also." 1

Biblical Criticism bases its historic right on the principles of the Reformation and of Puritanism, and it finds no hindrance in the Catholic principle of the supremacy of Church tradition, for thus far these present no obstacles to criticism. It is the unchurchly, undefined, and unlearned tradition which presumes to obstruct the work of Biblical Criticism.

Recent critical theories arise and work as did their predecessors, in the various departments of the study of Holy Scripture. Here is their strength, that they antagonize modern traditional dogma with the Bible itself, and appeal from provincial school theology to Catholic credal theology. Unless traditional theories of inspiration can vindicate themselves on biblical grounds, meet the critics, and overcome them in fair conflict, in the sacred fields of the Divine Word, sooner or later traditional theories will be driven from the field. It will not do to antagonize critical theories of the Bible with traditional theories of the Bible; for the critic appeals to history against tradition, to an array of facts against so-called inferences, to the laws of probation against dogmatic assertion, to the Divine Spirit speaking in the Scriptures against external authority. History, facts, truth, the laws of thought, are all divine products, and most consistent with the Divine Word, and they will surely prevail.

The great majority of professional biblical scholars in the various universities and theological halls of the world, embracing those of the greatest learning, industry, and piety, demand a revision of traditional theories of the Bible, on account of a large induction of new facts from the Bible and history. These critics must be met with argument and candid reasoning as to these facts and their interpretation, and cannot be overcome by mere cries of alarm for the Church and the Bible, which, in their last analysis, usually amount to nothing more than peril to certain favourite views. What peril can come to the Holy Scriptures from a more profound critical study

1 Westminster Conf. of Faith, XX. 2; see also A. F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly: its History and Standards, London, 1883, pp. 8 seq., 465.

of them? The sword of the Spirit alone will conquer in this warfare. Are Christian men afraid to put it to the test? For this is a conflict after all between true criticism and false criticism; between the criticism which is the product of the evangelical spirit of the Reformation, and critical principles that are the product of deism and rationalism. Biblical criticism has been marching from conquest to conquest, though far too often at a sad disadvantage, like a storming party who have sallied forth from their breastworks to attack the trenches of the enemies of the Bible, finding in the hot encounter that the severest fire and gravest peril are from the misdirected batteries of their own line. We do not deny the right of dogmatism and the a priori method, within their proper spheres ; but we maintain the greater right of criticism and the inductive method in the field of the study of Holy Scripture and their far greater importance in the acquisition of true and reliable knowledge of Holy Scripture. If criticism and dogmatism are harnessed together, a span of twin steeds, they will draw the car of theology rapidly towards its highest ideal; but pulling in opposite directions they tear it to pieces..

CHAPTER V

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

THE first work of Biblical Criticism is to investigate the Canon of the Bible and to determine, so far as possible, the entire extent and the exact limits of Holy Scripture. This investigation is first of all an historical study. It is first necessary for us to know what writings have in fact been officially recognized as canonical in the different epochs in the history of Israel and the Christian Church. When we have all the historical facts before us, then we may by induction establish principles and rules for the critical investigation of the Canon and apply those rules for its final testing and verification. The term Canon was first applied to Holy Scripture by the Greek Fathers of the fourth Christian century.1 But the underlying conception of a sacred collection of literature, or books of divine authority, as the norm of religion, faith, and morals, is much more ancient. This conception is in some respects more fully expressed in the terms, "the Holy Scriptures," and "the Scriptures," 3 which, though most ancient, have continued to the present day as the most common and appropriate titles of the Bible. Still more ancient are the terms the Book or Books of the Law, the Law of Yahweh, the Law of God, the Law; and the Book of the Covenant, the Cove

1 Buhl, Kanon und Text des Alt. Test., Leipzig, 1891, s. 1; Holtzmann, Einleitung in d. Neue Test., 2te Aufl., 1886, s. 162 seq.

2 ypapal äyiai, Rom. 12; (τà) iepà yрáμμara, 2 Tim. 315; Josephus, Antiq. Jud., Procem 3; Philo, Legat. ad Caium, § 29, II. 574; ai iepal Biẞxo, Josephus, Antiq. Jud., Procem 4; 216, 20261, etc.; Philo, De Vita Mos., lib. 3, t. 2, p. 163 ; тà Bißλía Tà aya, 1 Macc. 129.

3 ai ypapai, Mt. 2229; John 539; Acts 172. 11; E, Dan. 92.

♦ Tà BIBλía Toû vóμov, 1 Macc. 156; the Book of the Law, Neh. 88; 2 Chr. 3415; the Law of Yahweh, Ezr. 719; 1 Chr. 1649; 2 Chr. 3525; the Law of God, Neh. 1029. 30; dvouos, John 1034; 1 Cor. 1421; 777, Neh. 1035. 37; cf. my article on in Robinson's Gesenius Hebr. Lexicon, new edition, B.D.B.