What is the canon of Scripture?

Hence by canonical Scripture is to be understood, those writings which are stamped with Divine and infallible authority; and are distinguished from all others which are submitted to our judgement, and upon which we are free to pronounce an opinion. A canonical book is given to us, as containing the Word of God; i.e., the message or command which God sends to us; and is therefore entirely beyond our doubts or our opinions.

From this it follows that every canonical book must be recommended by some one, who carried the Divine authority along with him, — some one to whom Jehovah had actually appeared, and given the commission to execute his office. It is not, of course, needed that the writer should himself have received his mission from Jehovah; but some such an one must have seen and sanctioned the work. The books of the prophets in the Old Testament are all published, as containing the words which Jehovah spoke to the Prophets. And the other books received the sanction of such prophets, before they were accepted as containing the rule of faith, or as being canonical.

It is necessary to distinguish between the inspiration and the Canon of Scripture. 'Canon' as applied to Scripture and that first, by Christians, in the fourth century after Christ, means a rule (Heb. בְּלַל) or standard. In result it may and does coincide with inspiration. But the one is a question of reputation, determined by historical evidence for collective human judgment in the past upon the inspiration of these writings; to which standard, of course, ecclesiastical sentiment — shifting indeed with the times — attaches itself; the other is of positive divine authority, to which heart and conscience under moral conviction yield their assent. The ecclesiastical argument that our possession of the New Testament is a debt we owe to the historical Church, and that we must abide by traditional interpretation, rests upon a confusion of these two things. The credibility to which the Scriptures are entitled has been put for the responsibility we are under to listen to them; the lamp that bears the light for the light itself; the interpreter for the Book that gives him his employment. This argument has only to be shaped by a Jew into a weapon against the interpreters of Christianity, and the fatal error it covers must at once be felt by the most ardent opponent within the Church of the individual application of Scripture. A missionary of the Catholic type, even of the mild form called 'Anglican,' cannot in heathen lands, as in the England of the nineteenth century, appeal to the general acknowledgment rendered to the Scriptures. He can alone depend upon the innate power of either the Old or the New Testament to convict the conscience and to subdue the will of man. While, as Mr. Robertson Smith truly says, 'No man's spiritual life is so large, so perfectly developed, … that it can be used as a measure of the fulness of the Bible' — where the Canon comes in — nevertheless, as the same critic also remarks, a Christian's 'persuasion' of the truth of Scripture 'cannot be derived from external testimony.'

The Bible consists of two parts, the Old Testament containing thirty-nine books, and the New Testament containing twenty-seven books. Now, the first criticism that is sure to be raised is, "Why do you select these sixty-six books, and declare them to be direct communications from God, and yet rej ect the other books having similar claims — the Apocrypha — as entirely man-made?

At first sight the selection certainly seems arbitrary. It is asserted that Jerome in the fourth century separated the books in two series, and that his judgment has been accepted as correct through all subsequent time. Now we have ample testimony to the fact that the early Christian fathers and the early Christian church did not receive the books, which were thus separated from the canon before the date of Jerome's translations, in the preface to which he states that they do not form part of the Bible. Athanasius, Origen, Eusebius, Rufinus and others bear similar testimony. The Apostolic Constitutions, and early Christian testimony, pronounced against them. Christ Himself never used or quoted from them, as He did so often from the Old Testament.

In the case of the books of the Old Testament our inquiry is really enclosed within narrower limits than might at first sight appear: for the very greatest authority we could possibly have is that of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was indeed Jehovah incarnate. He frequently refers to the Old Scriptures, as containing the word of life; and as being a certain collection of books, then accounted sacred by the Jews. If we can ascertain what the recognised Canon of Scripture among the Jews was in his time, we know at once what we are to receive as canonical. Now there is no doubt whatever upon this point. We, and all reformed churches, are quite in agreement with the Jews here. It is a matter undisputed by any one, that those books of the Old Testament which we venerate as canonical, were the only Scriptures known to the Jews, when our Saviour preached in Judea.

The Roman Catholic Church receives as canonical, certain books which are rejected by the Reformers, and called by them The Apocrypha. This word signifies what is concealed, and seems originally to have been applied to those books which were not published and universally known as canonical Scriptures; but were confined to some few heretical congregations, known only to them, and concealed except from the initiated. And then it came to mean, as with us, specially those books sometimes classed as belonging to the Old Testament, but never received by the Jews as such. These books were appended to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, and thence transferred to the Vulgate or Latin translation made from the Septuagint. Some of these books, as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are in every way to be recommended, as containing wise and pious precepts, though not directly sanctioned by Divine authority. The books of Maccabees are good and reliable history. While others are mere extravagant romances, of no value whatever.

Now in regard to Jonah and his sojourn in the fish's belly, we ask, "From whom have we received the story? Who is the author of it?" In reality, everything turns upon this. I could believe the most extraordinary story if it were related to me by one in whom I had full confidence; while I might be dubious concerning the simplest narrative if brought to me by a person upon whose word I could not rely. Who, then, is the author of the story, of Jonah? The answer is really very simple — the Holy Spirit of God is the author of it (whoever the penman), as of all else in Scripture. This statement may evoke a smile on the part of some in these days of widespread unbelief, but it is true, nevertheless. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16). "Men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). These statements, while perfectly true of the whole canon of Scripture, have special reference to the Old Testament (and, let us remember, Jonah is an Old Testament book). The 39 books which begin with Genesis and end with Malachi were in the hands of the Jewish people in their complete form long before the Son of God entered the world. They never confounded the Apocrypha nor any other writings with the sacred books. The Lord Jesus frequently endorsed the Jewish canon in its threefold division, " the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms" (Luke 24:44), and has thus made Himself personally responsible for it before all the world.

The Roman Catholics include within the covers of their Bible the books commonly known as "The Apocrypha." These books were never received as canonical by the Jews; they do not afford the internal evidences of divine inspiration as do the books of "the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets"; they are never quoted either by the Lord Himself or the apostles: so that we have very good reasons for not regarding them as divinely given, however authentic as histories some of them may be.

Now there were in existence certain writings, known upon particular and specific evidence to have been written by men used of God to do so. By far the greater proportion of these writings are addressed to persons (often to assemblies of persons) with whom the writer was acquainted. No great number of books were ever promiscuously, and as having equal claims, submitted to the judgment of men, but certain particular writings possessed peculiar and notorious claims, from the time they were received — claims which were never detached from them. The evidence for their genuineness (I allude here to the outward evidence, which itself is logically decisive; but there is likewise an inward evidence of the divine origin of Holy Scripture, which is no less, nay, even more, decisive to those who, through the grace of God, are acquainted with it) was unofficial, but reliable human — i.e. personal — testimony, originated and maintained by divine Providence; and so clear and conclusive, that, with extremely few exceptions, to know that such writings existed was almost to know which they were, since the sacred writings created their own fame, as do all the works of God. (Psalm 145:10). As to the few exceptions, the same principle was involved of letting God's Word speak for itself, i.e., letting the claims of what really was God's Word be heard alone; whereas whatever difficulties there were, were produced by the folly and wickedness of men in regard to their own writings (the Apocrypha for instance — the apostolical constitutions, besides a swarm of evidently spurious gospels), which the Church encouraged and availed herself of, but which was permitted by God to a limited extent only, though quite far enough to manifest the unfaithfulness of the Church. The settling the Canon of Scripture was, on the part of the Church, simply an official and formal recognition of already established evidence, not the discovery, still less the creation, of evidence. The Holy Scriptures were written by inspiration, they were identified (so far as man had to do with it) by ordinary but adequate human testimony.

Let it be observed that the Roman Church does not deny the fact upon which the Reformers proceeded — viz., that these Apocryphal books were never received as canonical by the Jews. It will be seen, on reference to the preface of the Douay Bible — i.e., the English version of the Bible sanctioned by the Roman Church — that the canonicity of the Apocrypha is made to rest, solely on the dogmatic authority of the Church.

In the case of the New Testament, the whole of Christendom is agreed. All the books making up its canon were composed within the compass of a single generation; and therefore easily capable of being marked off from all other writings. Every single book of the New Testament was written either by an apostle, or in the case of two of the gospels, by immediate companions of apostles. And, as though to make assurance doubly sure, the life of St. John was extended over a long period, in order that no book might go out to the world, as canonical and inspired, but what he had sanctioned as such; and in this matter he exercised his Master's authority.

There were indeed some congregations at an early time, which had not known some of the books:— such as the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 2nd Epistle of St. Peter, the two shorter Epistles of St. John, and the Apocalypse: but, upon investigation, it is clearly seen that they never rejected these writings, but only that the writings had not at that moment reached them.

It is true that numerous Christian books were in circulation, even in the days of Luke, the writer of the third Gospel and of "The Acts" (Luke 1:1), some of them attributed to the Apostles and their companions, but they were not regarded as inspired, however highly esteemed otherwise. So numerous are the quotations from the New Testament in the writings of the fathers of the first seven centuries, that the whole of the New Testament might from thence be recovered, if needs be. We frankly admit, however, that certain Epistles, as Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation were not at first universally received as canonical, owing to the difficulty of communication existing in these early times. It was no easy matter then for Churches or individuals at a distance to hold mutual intercourse, and it must be borne in mind that Epistles were addressed to persons or assemblies in some instances 1000 miles apart; besides which the transcribing of accurate copies of the originals required time and care. These facts remembered, we are thankful for the extreme caution with which the canon of the New Testament was finally accepted.

When the 27 books of the New Testament were first collected, or the principle on which they were arranged, is of little consequence. It is just as evident on moral grounds that "The Revelation" forms a fitting conclusion to the New Testament, as that "Malachi" closes the canon of the Old; and this form of evidence is of far more value than any other, inasmuch as it searches the conscience and carries inward conviction to the soul. If, therefore, the last of the Hebrew prophets leaves Israel under the last pleadings of Jehovah's love till the advent of the Messiah in grace, so the last of the Apostles leaves the Church under the warning voice of the Spirit of God till the advent of Christ in glory. Malachi and Matthew bridge a period of four centuries and a half, the Spirit uniting them in one common testimony, "for the Scripture cannot be broken;" compare Mal. 3:1, Mal. 4:5, with Matt. 17:11-13. Again, Moses the lawgiver and John the Apostle stretch hands over the gulf of sixteen centuries, "for the Scripture cannot be broken;" compare Gen. 1 with Rev. 21. The Holy Bible may be likened to a noble bridge of 66 arches — only undermine one and the whole system of Revelation goes. Reader, hold fast the inspired Scriptures of our God.

The Hebrew Bible or Old Testament was completed with Malachi. Then about 284 B.C. the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Sacred Hebrew Books was begun, and finished about 130 years before Christ. But long after the Old Testament was complete in Hebrew, certain books were written by Jews in Alexandria and elsewhere — dates and names of authors being uncertain — which were bound up with the Septuagint. These books are termed The Apocrypha. They are useful as connecting links of history between the Testaments, but are utterly destitute of Divine authority, nor do the books themselves claim to be inspired. The difference between the Apocrypha and the Hebrew Bible as to character, style, and subjects are patent even to a child.