mer is a matter of every-day experience, and has been seen times without number in all ages of the Church; but the latter has never been verified, indeed is incapable of verification. Most candid men would agree with Richard Baxter, who said ("Saint's Rest," Preface to Part II.): "I confess for my own part I could never boast of any such testimony or light of the Spirit, nor reason neither, which, without human testimony or tradition, would have made me believe that the Book of Canticles is canonical, and written by Solomon, and the Book of Wisdom apocryphal, and written by Philo, as some think. Nor could I have known all or any historical books, such as Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, etc., to be written by divine inspiration, but by tradition. Nor could I know any or all of those books to be God's word, which contain mere positive constitutions, as Exodus, Leviticus, etc., were it not for the same tradition."

The same point has been expressed in this way, by an American divine of the last generation: "Suppose that a thousand books of various kinds, including the canonical, were placed before any sincere Christian, would he be able, without mistake, to select from this mass the twentyseven books of which the New Testament is composed, if he had nothing to guide him but the internal evidence? Would every such person be able, at once, to determine whether the book of Ecclesiastes, or of Ecclesiasticus, belonged to the canon of the Old Testament, by internal evidence alone? It is certain that the influence of the Holy Spirit is necessary to produce a true faith in the word of God; but to make this the only criterion by which to judge of the canonical authority of a bock, is liable to strong objections." The truth is, that, while

*The late Archibald Alexander, D.D., in his work, "The Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained."

professing to base the acceptance of the Canon upon a divine foundation, it really puts it upon one that is essentially human, and therefore variable and uncertain, because men differ so widely in their states of mind at different times and places.

The Reformers were illustrious servants of God, and accomplished a most important work in His service. But even they did not learn "all the truth." Almost without exception they maintained that it was the duty of the civil magistrate to uphold and defend the interests of religion, and yet now it is one of the commonplaces of Christians that the alliance of Church and State is injurious to both. It is not presumptuous, therefore, to challenge any one of their opinions, and subject it to a close examination in the light of Scripture, reason, and experience. The test of canonicity which they felt themselves constrained to adopt in their controversy with Rome, is, we think, open to very grave objections.

1. It needlessly disparages the principle of exercising faith upon adequate evidence, by which we arrive at the knowledge of the existence of God (a point which is assumed in the Scriptures, as indeed it must be in whatever claims to be a revelation from heaven), and by which the whole business of life is carried on. If such faith be stigmatized as merely human, and therefore imperfect and unsatisfactory, what else is this but a reflection upon Him who so constituted us that our lives are governed by con clusions drawn from probable evidence,-e. g., as to the facts of history, the laws of the land, the existence of persons or places we have never seen, etc. The objective evidence in favor of the Canon, as furnished in the writings of the primitive believers, in the general voice of Christendom, in the confessions of acknowledged heretics, and in the attacks of pagan opposers of the truth, is a solid basis of faith, which it is very unwise either to depreciate

or to ignore. As Dr. William Cunningham says: "The evidence of the Canon,-i. e., the proof of the canonical authority of the particular books of Scripture,—is analogous to the evidence of the truth of Christianity. They are both, in a sense, matters of fact, and to be investigated and decided, in the first instance, upon the ordinary principles and grounds applicable to matters of fact" ("Theological Lectures," p. 444). Any theory which sets aside this method of arriving at truth as invalid or untrustworthy, weakens the foundations of all faith, and plays into the hands of the adversary.

2. Practically, this rule makes each individual believer the framer of his own Canon, for it says that the divine authority of Scripture is self-evidencing, only a man must be renewed to see and feel this evidence. But all truly regenerate men are not equally enlightened, and it is quite conceivable that a difference in the degree of their spiritual perception would make a difference in the number of the books they would receive. Personal conviction, on the divina fides theory, is all in all, and where this fails, divine authority and binding obligation fail with it, for each man has a right to appeal to the witness of the Spirit in his own heart. Others may differ from him, but this fact gives them no right to dictate to him. So that, in its ultimate result, this theory really sets up the intuitions of man above what is claimed for the written revelation of God. Such a result was not contemplated by its framers, and would have been rejected by them with horror, yet it is a legitimate outcome of the principle.

3. The theory, again, denies any certain Bible to the unregenerate. The evidence for the Canon is, indeed, abundant and clear, but he, in the nature of the case, is unable to see it. His spiritual eyes have not been clarified by grace, and all the abundant indications of the

divine origin and claims of the Bible are to him just as though they did not exist. Surely, this is not in accordance with fact. There are now, as for a long time there have been, many persons destitute of a saving interest in Christ, and yet intellectually convinced that the common Bible is what it claims to be. Such persons have no difficulty at all with the Canon. Whether from early training, or reflection, or observation, or the operations of natural conscience, they have become perfectly satisfied that the Scriptures are a revelation from God, and worthy of all acceptation, although they do not personally accept and confess the Lord Jesus; surely, one has no right to say that these persons are not believers in the Canon. And if we do say it, at what a sore disadvantage are we placed when pressing upon them the claims of the Gospel! All that is necessary for them to say in reply to the most urgent appeal, would be to affirm that they, not having the testimony of the Holy Ghost in their hearts to the divine authority of the Canon, had not, and could not have, any reason to accept a conclusion which can be reached only in this way.

It was an error in the same direction when Coleridge made it a test of the divine word whether it appealed to his moral and spiritual nature with sufficient force. "Whatever finds me," he said, "bears witness for itself that it has proceeded from a Holy Spirit." But this subjects the divine to the human, and makes every man a judge in his own case. Is a doctrine, a precept, a sentiment, a narrative unwelcome to him? Then all that it is necessary for him to say is, that he does not feel it, it does not find him. But the fault may be his own. IIe is so depraved or perverted, so sensual or worldly-minded, that the truth has no power over him, and thus sin becomes its own excuse. This is the inevitable difficulty whenever the Bible is to be tried simply by a subjective

test. Such tests have their use in particular instances, and often render a strong confirmation to a believer's faith, but they cannot of themselves furnish the basis of decis ion, and settle the question once for all.

The divina fides theory was, as has been said, adopted by all, or nearly all, the Reformers, and incorporated more or less distinctly into all the confessions of the sixteenth century. But it by no means continued to have the same acceptance in subsequent times. Stillingfleet ("Origines Sacræ," ii. 8) maintains, distinctly in opposition to any such requirement, that, "where there is any infallible testimony, there is sufficient rational evidence going along with it, to make it appear that it is from God." The judicious Hooker expresses himself to the same effect in his "Ecclesiastical Polity," Book 3, chap. viii. (ad finem). I have already cited the opinion of Baxter, and of Principal Cunningham, the latter of whom also says that "the sentiments of Baxter on this subject are quoted and sanctioned by Dr. Chalmers." In Principal Hill's "Lectures in Divinity," the Canon is treated, but not a word is uttered regarding the divine-faith theory. In the "Lectures" of Dr. John Dick, it is expressly repudiated. He does not deny that men may have the witness in themselves of the truth of the Gospel. "But observe," he adds, "that this evidence could go no farther than to satisfy them that those doctrines and promises were from God, by which they were enlightened, sanctified, comforted, and inspired with more than human courage, and with the triumphant hope of immortality. How could it convince them that all the books of the Bible are divine? How could it enable them to distinguish, as the French Church pretends, between the canonical and the apocryphal books?"

Contemporary writers on dogmatics hold the same view. Thus, Van Oosterzee ("Christ. Dogm.," i. 174),