præscripto legis, in Prophetarum prædictis, in Psalmorum cantt bus, hoc est in omnibus canonicis Sanctorum librorum authoritatibush. Let them demonstrate their church, not by the rumours of the Africans, but by the prescription of the law, the predictions of the prophets, the songs of the Psalms, that is by the canonical authority of the holy books of the Scriptures. And he pursues the metaphor of a scale and a measure in many words elsewhere. And thus Aquinas himself confesseth the Scripture is called canonical, because it is the rule of our understanding in the things of God. And such a rule it is, as hath authority over the consciences of men, to bind them unto faith and obedience, because of its being given of God by inspiration for that purpose.

§ 6. Moreover, as the Scripture upon the accounts mentioned, is by way of eminence said to be canonical, so there is also a canon or rule determining what books in particular do belong to the holy Scripture, and are on that account canonical. So Athanasius tells us that by the holy Scripture he intends, Libros certo canone comprehensosi,-the books contained in the assured canon of it.' And Ruffinus having reckoned up those books, concludes, hi sunt quos patres intra Canonem concluserunt 3,——These are they which the fathers have concluded to be in the canon; that is, to belong unto the canonical books of Scripture. And Austin to the same purpose: Non sine causa, tam salubri vigilantia canon ecclesiasticus constitutus est, ad quem certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertinerent;-not without good reason is the ecclesiastical canon determined by wholesome diligence, unto which, certain books of the prophets and apostles should belong." About the assignation of this canon of the Scripture, or what books belonged unto the canonical Scripture, there have been some differences in the church, since the time of the synod of Carthage, confirmed by that in Trulla at Constantinople; the first church having agreed well enough about them, except some few persons, who hesitated in reference unto one or two of the books of the New Testament.

87. From this rise and use of the word, it is evident what is intended by the canonical authority of the Scripture, or of any particular book thereunto belonging. Two things are included in that expression. First, the spring and original of any book, which gives it authority; and Secondly, the design and end of it, which renders it canonical. For the first, it is required that it be ovveros, given by immediate inspiration from God; without this, no book or writing can by any means, any accepta

h August. de unitat. Eccles. cap. 16. cap. 6. Aquin. in 1 Tim. 6. lec. 1. Exposit. symb. Apostol.

i Lib. 2. de Bap. ad. Donat. j Athanas. in Synops. k Ruffin 1 August. ad Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 31.

tion, or approbation of the church, any usefulness, any similitude of style, or manner of writing to the books that are so, any conformity in matter or doctrine to them, have an interest in that authority that should lay a foundation for its reception into the canon. It is the impress of the authority of God himself on any writing, or its proceeding immediately from him, that is sufficient for this purpose. Neither yet will this alone suffice to render any revelation or writing absolutely canonical in the sense explained. There may be an especial revelation from God, or a writing by his inspiration, like that sent by Elijah unto Jehoram the king of Judah, 2 Chron. xxi. 12. which being referred only unto some particular occasion, and having thence authority for some especial end and purpose, yet being not designed for a rule of faith and obedience unto the church, may not belong unto the canon of the Scripture. But when unto the original of divine inspiration, this end also is added, that it is designed by the Holy Ghost for the catholic standing use and instruction of the church, then any writing or book becomes absolutely and completely canonical.

§8. The Jews of latter ages", assign some difference among the books of the Old Testament, as to their spring and origi nal, or manner of revelation, though they make none as to their being all canonical. The book of the law, they assign unto a peculiar manner of revelation which they call

or

mouth to mouth, or face to face, which they gather from Num. xii. 8. whereof afterwards. Others of them they affirm to proceed from or the gift of prophecy. Of this gift of prophecy they make many kinds or degrees, taken from the different means used by God in the application of himself unto them, belonging to the outgoiα of divine revelation mentioned by the apostle, Heb. i. 1. And they divide those books into two parts, namely the DWT D' or former prophets, containing most of the historical books after the end of the law; and the latter prophets, wherein they comprise the most of them peculiarly so called. The original of the remainder of them they ascribe unto 7pm or inspiration by the Holy Ghost, calling them peculiarly on written, by that inspiration; as though the whole canon and system of the books were not in the Scripture, or writing, and 9oTvUCTIN or di vine inspiration, the only means of their writing. But they do herein as in many other things.

The distribution of the books of the Old Testament, into the law, psalms, and prophets, was very ancient in their church. We have mention of it, Luke xxiv. 44. ra yeygaμEVA EV SW YOU W Mariwg, xxi węobntais, xxi Paduois, that are written, in the law of

m Maimon. More, Nebuch. p. 2; c. 52. Kimchi Præf. ad Psal.

Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, that is, in the whole canonical Scripture. And it is evident that this distribution is taken from the subject-matter of those principal parts of it. This distribution they have by tradition, but not knowing, or neglecting the reason of it, they have feigned the rise of it in a different manner of revelation, and cast the particular books arbitrarily under what heads they pleased. This is evident from sundry of them which they reckon unto the na Cethubim, or Hagiographa, which are with them of least esteem. But we have a more sure rule, both overthrowing that feigned distinction, and perfectly equalizing all parts of divine Scripture as to their spring and original. St Peter calls the whole you gobtixor, 2 Pet. i. 19. the word of prophesy; and goonteiαy, ver. 20. prophesy, and therefore it belongs not unto any peculiar part of it, to be given out by prophesy; which is a property of the whole. And St Paul also terms the whole Scripture reapa Tolixa Rom. xvi. 26. prophetical Scriptures, or writings of the prophets. And when he demanded of Agrippa whether he believed the Scriptures, he doth it in the same manner, TEVEIS TOIS #goṚntais, Acts xxviii. 23. believest thou the prophets? that is, the Scriptures, written by the spirit of prophecy, or by the inspiration το εν αυτοις πνευμαίος. Χριστου, 1 Pet. i, 11. of the Spirit of Christ that was in them. God of old spake, EV TOLS TROPHTAIS, Heb. i. 1. in his revelation of himself unto them and in them, and equally spake, δια στόματος των άγιων των απ'

vos xeonτav, Luke i. 70. unto them, by the mouth of his holy prophets from the beginning. And thus, not this, or that part, but waσa yeaon SeaTVEVOTOS, 2 Tim. iii. 16. all Scripture was given by inspiration. And herein all the parts, or books of it are absolutely equal. And in the giving out of the whole, πνεύμαλος άγιου ελάλησαν οι άγιοι Θεου ανθρωποι, 2 Pet. i. 21. holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So that whatever different means God at any time might make use of, in the communication of his mind and will unto any of the prophets or penmen of the Scripture, it was this over, and being acted by the Holy Ghost, both as to things and words, that rendered them infallible revealers of him unto the church. And thus the foundation of the canonical authority of the books of the Scripture, is absolutely the same in and unto them all, without the least variety, either from any difference in kind or degree.

89. The same is their condition as to their being canonical: they are all so equally. Some of the ancients used that term ambiguously, and therefore sometimes call books canonical, that absolutely are not so, as not being written by divine inspiration, nor given by the Holy Ghost to be any part of the rule of the church's faith and obedience. Thus the Constantinopolitan

Council in Trulla" confirms the canons both of the synod of Laodicea, and the third of Carthage, which agree not in the catalogues they give us of books canonical; which, without a supposition of the ambiguity of the word, could not be done, unless they would give an assent unto a plain and open contradiction. And the council of Carthage makes evident its sense in their Appendix annexed to the one and fortieth canon, wherein they reckon up the books of the Holy Scripture. Hoc etiam (say they) fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifacio, vel aliis earum partium Episcopis, pro confirmando isto canone, innotescat, quia a patribus ista accepimus legenda; liceat etiam legi passiones martyrum cum anniversarii dies celebrantur. They speak dubiously concerning their own determination, and intimate that they called the books they enumerated canonical, only as they might be read in the church; which privilege they grant also to the stories of the sufferings of the martyrs, which yet none thought to be properly canonical. The same EpiphaniusP testifies of the epistles of Clemens. But as the books which that synod added to the canon of Laodicea, are rejected by Melito, Origen, Athanasius', Hilarius, Gregorius Nazianzen1, Cyrillus Hierosolimitanus", Epiphanius, Ruffinus", Hierome, Gregorius Magnus, and others; so their reading and citation is generally declared by them to have been only for direction of man, ners, and not for the confirmation of the faith. Thus St Paul cited an Iambic out of Menander, or rather Euripides, 1 Cor. xv. 33. an Hemistichium out of Aratus, Acts xvii. 28. and a whole Hexameter out of Epimenides, Titus i. 12. Non sunt canonici, sed leguntur Catechumenis, saith Athanasius. They are not canonical, but are only read to the Catechumeni.' And Hierome, the church reads them ad ædificationem plebis, non ad authoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam:- for the edification of the people, but not for the confirmation of any points of faith.' But although some books truly canonical were of old amongst some site, as Epiphanius speaks, doubted of; and some were commonly read that are certainly ATGgupa, apocryphal, yet neither the mistake of the former nor latter practice, can give any countenance to an apprehension of a second, or various sort of books properly canonical. For the interest of any book or writing in the canon of the Scripture accrues unto it, as hath been shown, merely from its divine in

cap. 26. lib. 6. cap. 25. in Psal.

o Concil. Cartha. 3. cap. 47. q Euseb. lib. 4. s Hilar. Præfat. v Epiphan. x Hieron. Præf. Galeat, ad y Epiphan. Hæ. 8.

n Concil. Constan. in Trul. can. 2. Cod. can. 20. p Epiphan. Hær. 30. cap. 15. r Athanas. in Synops. t Nazian in Carmin. u Cyril Catech. 4. w Ruff. Exposit. Symb. Paulin, Hieron. Præf. in lib. Solom.

Hæ. 8.

spiration, and from being given by the Holy Ghost for a rule, measure, and standard of faith and obedience unto the church. Therefore, whatever advantage or worth to commend it any writing may have, yet, if it have not the properties mentioned of divine inspiration and confirmation, it differs in the whole kind, and not in degrees only, from all those that have them. It cannot then be any part regula regulantis, but regulatæ at the best, not having aνTOTIσTian, or a self-credibility on its own account, or avessia, a self-sufficing authority, but is truth only materially by virtue of its analogy unto that which is absolutely, universally, and perfectly so. And this was well observed by Lindanus, Impio (saith he) sacrilegio se contaminant, qui in Scripturarum christianarum corpore, quosdam quasi gradus conantur locare, quod unam eandemque Spiritus Sancti vocem, impio humanæ stultitia discerniculo audent in varias impares discerpere, et disturbare autoritatis classes". They defile themselves with the impiety of sacrilege, who endeavour to bring in, as it were, divers degrees into the body of the Scriptures; for by the impious discretion of human folly, they would cast the one voice of the Holy Ghost into various forms of unequal authority.' As then whatever difference there may be as to the subject matter, manner of writing, and present usefulness, between any of the books, which being written by divine inspiration, are given out for the church's rule; they are all equal as to their canonical authority, being equally interested in that which is the formal reason of it; so whatever usefulness or respect in the church any other writing may have, it can in no way receive an interest in that, whose formal reason it is not concerned in.

§ 10. In the sense explained, we affirm the Epistle to the Hebrews to be canonical, that is, properly and strictly so, and of the number of the books which the ancients called, yola, ενδιαθη και καθολικά, αναμφίλεκτα, and όμολογουμενα, every way genuine and catholic. In confirmation whereof, we shall first declare by whom it hath been opposed or questioned; and then what reasons they pretend for their so doing; which, being removed out of our way, the arguments whereby the truth of our assertion is evinced, shall be insisted on.

§ 11. We need not much insist on their madness, who of old, with a sacrilegious licentiousness, rejected what portion of Scripture they pleased. The Ebionites not only rejected all the epistles of Paul, but also reviled his person as a Greek and an apostate, as Irenæus and Epiphanius inform us. Their folly and blasphemy was also imitated and followed by the Helescheitæ in Eusebius. Marcion rejected in particular this

a

a Irenæus, lib. 1. cap. 2.

c Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 2. 1.

z Lindan. Panopl. Evang. lib. 3. cap. 4. Epiphan. Hær. 30. cap. 25.