The Word of God 
 In its Relation to the. Church 
 
 HV 
 
 The 1\i:v. Pkinc ipal I Ii.ndhI'Ison, D.I). 
 
 I paper read before the Montreal Clerical AsutciatioiK Decern! er jnl, 
 /S,^8^ aud.piililished hy request. 
 
 
 » < 1 
 
 
 
 J. i: nUVANT iS; CO. 
 
 64 BAY STKKKI, - TOKON lO, t)N l' 
 
»•••*•;: :•:••♦ ' ':"''- - : 
 
 , • . •« • ■ • 
 
The Word of God in its Relation 
 TO THE Church. 
 
 BY THE REV. PRINCIPAL HENDERSON, D.D. 
 
 A Paper read before the Montreal Clerical Association, December yd, 1888, and 
 
 published by request. 
 
 Such is the subject which has been assigned to me. It was previously 
 suggested to my own mind as suitable for various reasons : 
 
 I St. Because of the known existence of erroneous opinions on the 
 subject. 
 
 2nd. Because of the public evidence of this afforded at the late Man- 
 chester Congress, and at other times and places. 
 
 3rd. Because of the conviction that error in doctrine is as poison in 
 the spiritual system and leads to declension in practice ; it eats as with 
 a canker, and should not be allowed to eat its way on unchecked. 
 
 Mark carefully the import of the title, viz., the Word of God in its re- 
 lation to the Church. The subject is not, the Bible in its relation to 
 the Church, but the Word of God in relation to the Church ; for the 
 VV^ord of God, as such, has a wider logical extension than the Bible. The 
 Word of God is the expression of the will of the Almighty in either an 
 oral or a written form. The Bible, on the other hand, is the expression 
 of His will in a written form only. The Word of God existed from the 
 beginning, yea, rather before the beginning of all things, as the phrase 
 itself implies. The Bible, on the other hand, or the Word of God in a 
 written form, did not begin to exist until after the central point had 
 been passed in the history of the Old Testament Church, viz., until the 
 time of Moses. Nevertheless, that which gives the Bible its authority 
 is rot the fact that it was written, but the fact that it is the Word of God. 
 And the Word of God is not less the Word of God when ii comes to us 
 in an audible form and addresses itself to the ear, than when it comes 
 in a visible form and presents itself to the eye. Whether oral or written 
 
 57846 
 
it is equally Uie Word of (lod, and possesses an eciual autliority over the 
 faith and practice of men. " Hear ye the word of the Lord," said the 
 prophets of old when they dehvered by word of mouth ihe messages of 
 Jehovah ; and when an apostle was taking an affec tionate leave of his 
 converts and he knew tiiat they could no longer hear his voice, he said, 
 " I commend you to (lod and the word of his grace." 
 
 It is important to remember this distinction [)ecause that which is true 
 of the Word of (lod, which has the wider extension, is not necessarily 
 true of the Bible, which has the less ; c.,v., it may be true to say that the 
 Church was before the Bible, but it is not therefore true to say that the 
 Church was before the Word of (lod. Yet frecjuently, in controversy, 
 the two forms of expression are used indifferently, as if the extension of 
 the one was ecjual to that of the other. Hence much of the fallacious 
 reasoning on the subject, with all its attendant evils. 
 
 Note further, that the subject is not the Church in relation to the 
 Word of (lod, but the Word of ilod in relation to the Church. The 
 former, indeed, is intimately associated with the latter. So much so, 
 that the consideration of the former seems necessary to any adequate 
 treatment of the subject. For the present, however, suffice it to say, that 
 if the position of the Word of Cod in relation to the Church be estab- 
 lished, the position of the (Church in relation to the Word is partially 
 established also. 
 
 What then is the relation of the Word of (lod to the Church ? It 
 may be briefly expressed in two words : Primacy and supremacy. Pri- 
 macy in order of time, and consequent supremacy in order of authority. 
 
 The supremacy of the Word of (lod is the doctrine of the Church of 
 England. Intimations of this are given in the Preface to the Prayer 
 Book, entitled "Concerning the Service of the Church," where the prom- 
 inence given to the Word of (lod in the services of the Church is re- 
 markable, especially when we remember the date at which the preface 
 was composed, viz., 1549. An almost exclusive emphasis is laid there 
 on the reading of Holy Scripture and on the singing or saying of Psalms 
 as means of grace and edification. We find there that nothing is or- 
 dained to be read in the service but " the very pure Word of C'od, the 
 Holy Scriptures, or that which is agreeable to the same." "We firi_ there 
 that the object intended is "that the people by daily hearing of Holy 
 Scripture read in the church might continually profit more and more in 
 
— 3— 
 
 the knowledge of God and l)e the more inflamed with the love of His 
 true religion." Only incidentally or by implication is any reference 
 made to other i)arts of Divine service, such as prayer or the administra- 
 tion of the sacraments. 
 
 The same prominence is given to the Word of ( lod in many of the 
 Prayers ; e.g., in the prayer for the Church militant, in which we are 
 taught to pray for ('hristians in general " that they may agree in the 
 truth of the Holy Word"; for "bishops and curates, that they may set 
 forth the true and lively Word and rightly and duly administer the holy 
 sacraments"; and for the congregation present, "that they may hear and 
 receive the Holy Word." 
 
 The same appears in the Ordinal for deacons and priests. To the 
 candidates for the priesthood the bishop says, " 13e thou a faithful dis- 
 penser of the Word of God and of His holy sacraments," and "Take thou 
 authority to preach the Word of God and administer the holy sacraments." 
 
 These are clear intimations ; but there are decided proofs in the 39 
 Articles which teach us that the Church of England refuses to accept 
 any doctrine upon any authority whatever except that of the Word of 
 God. This is generally stated in the 0th Article, which says "that what- 
 soever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be re- 
 quired of any man." The Church of England receives nothing on the 
 authority of the Church alone— not even the Creeds, for they are re- 
 ceived because " they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy 
 Scripture." Even if she would she could not receive them on any formal 
 warrant of the Church universal, for they have not all been so authorised. 
 Nor any decisions of CJeneral Councils, for the Church of England asserts 
 her right to exercise an independent judgment even of General Councils. 
 This is evident not only from her action in reference to the Creeds, but 
 also from the explicit statement of the 21st Article, "that things ordained 
 by.(ieneral Councils have neither strengm nor authority unless it may 
 be declared that they be token out of Holy Scripture." 
 
 The basis on which this doctrine rests is a strong one. The ^Vord 
 of God, as such, is supreme — 
 
 I St. By right of primogeniture. 
 
 2nd. By right of inspiration. 
 
 3rd. By right of creation. 
 
 4th. By the fact that the Word is the rule of the Church's faith and 
 practice. 
 
~4— 
 
 5th. By the fact that it is not only the rule hut the judge. 
 
 6th. Hy the absurdity of the opposite supposition. 
 
 7th. Hy the testimony of history. 
 • I St. Hy right of primogeniture. The nature of the case requires it. 
 The Word of Clod is the first product of the Divine activity, and must 
 always remain the first. l-A'en if it he supposed that the NVord of (Jod 
 could dethrone itself from its position in favour of the (Jhurch, the pri- 
 mary supremacy of the Word of Ood would still remain untouched, for hy 
 supposition the lower position would be assumed by its own act, and 
 the Church would hold the superior position hy the act of the Word. 
 
 Notwithstanding, it is argued by some that the Church existed before 
 the Word. 'I'he \Vord, it is said, was spoken to the Church ; hut how, 
 it is asked, ("ould the Word have been spoken to the Church if there 
 had been no Church previously existing to which the Word could he 
 addressed? Does not the very act of the committal of the Word to 
 the Church imply the pre-existence of the Church ? 
 
 To this it may be replied. Undoubtedly. The Word spoken to the 
 Church implies the pre-existence of the Church, but the question is not 
 whether the Church existed before the Word was spoken to it, hut 
 whether the Word existed before the Church at all or not ; and the 
 answer is, that it lived and energi/ed long before the date of the birth 
 of the Church in the persons of Adam and I'^ve. It came into being 
 when first the voice of the Almighty exerted itself to action. As the 
 Word of Cod it bears the closest and most unchangeable relationship to 
 Him. It is so close that nothing can intervene between God and His 
 Word. With as much reason might it be said that the Church existed 
 before God himself as that it existed before His Word. Therefore, 
 not the Church only, but everything must he posterior to the Word. 
 Nothing anterior in any case. If this be true, with reference to what 
 occurred at the birth of the Church, much more is it true with reference 
 to what took place at any subsequent period, ^.,jf , at the birth or during 
 the infancy of the Christian Church. If it be said, for example, " that 
 the Christian Church existed before the New Testament Scriptures were 
 written, that the Church superintended the formation of the New Tes- 
 tament canon, that it selected some books and rejected others, and that 
 it sent forth those approved with the seal of its authority, therefore, 
 the authority of the Word of God depends on the authority of the 
 
— 5— 
 
 Churcli, so far at It-ast as the New 'I'estanicnt Scripliires are concerned," 
 the answer is, even admitting tlie validity of the arguments adtluced, 
 the conckision does not follow, i'lie Christian Church may have existed 
 before the New Testament Scri[)tures were written, hut it does not fol- 
 low from tiiis that il existed befcjre the Word of (lod. The Word of 
 Ciod orally delivered is as much the Word of (lod and possesses as 
 much authority as the Word of (lod written ; and the oral teaching 
 of the apostles, being the unwritten form of the Word of (lod, was the 
 rule and guide of the CJhurch before it was reduced to a written form : 
 for the Word written is the oral teaching reduced to writing. I'his 
 Word called the (lluirch into being. Where was the Christian Church 
 before the Word was preached by St. Peter on the day of Pentecost ? 
 Where was it before .Andrew and Pettr and I'hilip and Nathaniel, etc., 
 were called to the Saviour's side ? Will any one venture to say that it 
 was in the human form of the Saviour himself? This will scarcely 
 avail, for it is possible to go further still and say the Word of (lod existed 
 even in a written form before the Incarnation of the i'ersonal Word. 
 It was visible in the Old 'I'estament Scriptures which were the founda- 
 tion of the Christian Church. They were the agency made use of by 
 Christ and His apostles in its formation and defence ; and therefore the 
 apostle s[)eaks of the Church as '' built upon the foundaticMi of the 
 apostles and proi)hets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner 
 stone." Consetiuenlly the validity of the arguments referred to above 
 cannot be admitted. I'he (Christian Church existed before the New 
 Testament Scriptures, but not before the Old 'I'estament Scriptures on 
 which it was founded; and as regards the formation and authorization of 
 the New Testament Scriptures by the Church, that is of an historical 
 character. It will be treated when we come to consider the historical 
 testimony on the subject. 
 
 2nd. by right of inspiration or {li\inity ; for it is not only the Word 
 with which we have to deal, but the Word of (lod. This gives it a 
 supremacy which it would be blasphemous to dispute. It is to us as 
 God himself, but such language cannot be legitimately used with refer- 
 ence to the Church. 
 
 3rd. by right of creation. The Word of (lod ii the creator of the 
 Church, and therefore must be su[)reme. It created the Church of the 
 angelic hosts above and the Church of the redeemed on earth below. 
 
— 6— 
 
 It created everything without exception, material or s|)iritual. '* By the 
 word of tlie I,ortl were the heavens made and all the hosts of them by 
 the breath of His mouth ;" and "Of His own will begat He us by the 
 word of truth that wc siiould be a kind of first-fruits of His creatures." 
 
 4th. It is the rule of faith and practico to the Church. This natur- 
 ally suggests the consideration of the co-ordinate authority of tradition ; 
 but I trust it is unnecessary to give detailed evidence on this point. It 
 is enough to say that the Word of (lod alone was the Patriarchal rule. 
 It was the Mosaic rule. It was the Prophetic rule. It was the A[)OS- 
 toli<- rule. It is the rule of the (.'luirch of I'aigland, as [)roved by her 
 6th .Article. 
 
 5th. It is not only the rule, but the judge of the (Jhurch. It "is a 
 discerner of the thoughts antl intents of the heart "— /t/-///XvM-, one who 
 sits in judgment on. It exercises here a judicial supervision over all 
 the sources of human action and all the realms of human thought and 
 affecti(jn. It will also do the .same hereafter ; for the Saviour saith, " He 
 that rejecteth Me and receiveth not my words hath One that judgeth 
 him. The word that I have spoken the same shall judge him at the 
 last day." No such office as this is any where revealed as belonging to 
 the C'hurch in relation to the Word. 
 
 6th. On account of the absurdities involved in the opposite supposi- 
 tion. I'or to suppo.se that the Church existed before the Word, is to sup- 
 pose that the Church could exist before that which created it ; and to 
 suppose that it existed before the Word was spoken to it is to suppose 
 that it could exist without a creed ; but a creedless Church, like a soulless 
 man, is a contradiction in terms. 
 
 7th. Hy the testimony of history. It is said " that we receive the 
 Scriptures on the authoritative testimony of the Church, and the auth- 
 ority of the Church being the foundation of that of Scripture, must be 
 held to be paramount." To which we reply in general, the assumed 
 fact is false, and even if it were not false, the conclusion would not fol- 
 low. As some one has said, " The witness who proves the identity or 
 primogeniture of a prince does not thereby accjuire a right to govern the 
 kingdom or even to interpret the will of the prince." 
 
 More particularly we analyze the sentence and see what are the state- 
 ments' involved. They are :ist. That we receive the Scriptures. 2nd. 
 'I hat we receive them on testimony. 3rd. That we receive them on the 
 
— 7— 
 
 .iv\v\M)ritative tfstiiuony of the ( luirch. 4tli. I'hat wc receive them o 
 the testimony of the ( "hiinh alone. Are these statements true ? The 
 first statement is •' tliat we receive them.' Ihit who are the parlies de- 
 noted by the pronoun "we"? They must be either persons outside the 
 (!hurch, "which is the blessed company of all faithful people," or they 
 must be insiile and «-onse(iuently members of the same. They cannot 
 be outside, for persons outside do not receive the .Scriptures. They 
 must, therefore, be inside, and the pronoun " we " must stand for " we,' 
 the members of the Church. We receive the Scriptures. ,\nd from 
 whom do we receive them ? l-'rom the (!hurch, it is said. If S(j, we 
 receive them from ourselves, and how much authority does that confer ? 
 Does this make that to be the Word of (lod whieh was not the Word of 
 ( lod before ? Is nol the case [)recisely the same as that of the discovery 
 of a treasure hid in the field, or the rece|)tioii (jf a nugget of gold or 
 silver, or a precious stone ? Ihese objects possess their respec live tjuali- 
 ties independently o: Our knowledge of them or testimony to them, and 
 so it is with the W Ord of (lotl. We see it with our eyes and we hear 
 it with our ears, and we recogni/.e it as having authority over us in some 
 such way as I'eter and .Andrew re< ogni/ed the authority of the Lord 
 jesus when He said unto them " Follow Me," and they followed Him. 
 We bear witness to it, but we neither tldnk that our testimony imparts 
 any additional value to the Wortl of (lod nor ihat the powers which we 
 |)ossess of recognizing it to be the Word of (lod are neces.sarily (tiiough 
 they may be actually), restricted to any special class or confined to any 
 limited number. 
 
 It will be lo little purpose to .say that we, the Church of the present 
 day, receive them from the Church of any former time, for the Church 
 is one and undivided as the waters of an everflowing stream ;and so far 
 as authority derived to the Scriptures from the Church is concerned, 
 no material change takes place by the addition of Church members, 
 subse(iuently to the date of the first authorization, except it be simply 
 in the way of additional testimony ; from which it would follow that the 
 strongest link in the chain of testimony is to be found in the latest link 
 rather than the earliest, and therefore the testimony proceeds in a higher 
 degree from us than from any of our uninspired ancestors in the faith, 
 'i'his may be true also on other grounds, for it is open to (juestion 
 whether we are not in many respects in as g6od a position, if not better. 
 
— 8— 
 
 to testify to the genuineness and authenticity of the Word of (lod as any 
 of our predecessors, excepting only those to whom they were originally 
 addressed. 
 
 The second statement is " That we receive them on testimony." To 
 this there is no objection. But on what testimony ? We shall see pre- 
 sently. 
 
 The third statement is " That we receive them on the authoritative 
 testimony of the Church." Is this true ? 1 )oubtless many will be sur- 
 prised to hear the truth of the statement (juestioned, so generally is it 
 believed that it can not be otherwise. But when the light of history is 
 thrown upon it, it will be seen that it is wholly taken for granted. The 
 popular impression seems to be that the Church in synod assembled 
 gave a formal decision on the subject, and that such decision is authori- 
 tatively i)inding on all. U so, when did the Church as a whole assemble 
 in General Council for this purpose (for no decision of any section 
 of the Church can be binding on the whole), and what was the decision 
 given ? Individual persons have borne witness, and local and provin- 
 cial synods have done tlie same, i)ut no (Icneral Council has ever done 
 so in Old Testament times. The (luestion cannot even arise with refer- 
 ence to the Old Testament, though the Old Testament forms the major 
 part of the whole. Nor has any (ieneral Couiicil done so in New Testa- 
 ment times for the first four hundred years of the Christian era. Dur 
 ing all that time it was never done. There is no evidence to shosv that 
 the thought of doing so was ever entertained. It is, moreover, a histori- 
 cal fact, that for the first three hundred years of tlie Christian era there was 
 never an opportunity of doing so. No (leneral Council was held after 
 Apostolic tunes till A.D. 325, and there the ([Ucstion was not in dispute. 
 That Council " had before its eyes the books of the Evangelists, .\poslles 
 and Prophets, and its decisions were founded on the written Word of 
 Inspiration." Constanline, in his speech to the Nicene I'athers, said : 
 '' They have the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in writing, for," he added, 
 " the books of the l:^vangelists and Apostles, and the oracles of the an- 
 cient Prophets teach us clearly and tht^rougiily what we ought to believe 
 concerning (iod. Wherefore," he cont'nued, " let us lay aside all hostile 
 contention and let us decide our controversies from the divinely in- 
 spired books." Hence it appears that the Xicene Council did not settle 
 the Canon. But if not, when and by whom was it done? Not by the 
 
Church before that date. Shall we then say that it was done afterwards ? 
 Even granting that it was, it could have been done only in confirmation 
 of what had been accepted from the beginning. 'I'he Councils of I,ao- 
 dicrea and Carthage are the most ancient in which we find a catalogue 
 of the books of the New 'J'estament, but the decrees of these Councils 
 on this subject are merely recording -not creative decrees. In Canon 
 forty-seven of the Council of Carthage we find these words : " Item 
 placuit lit pneter Scriptural Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub 
 homine divinarum Scripturarum. Sunt autem Canonicce Scripturit." 
 " It is also our pleasure that nothing be read in the Church under the 
 title of the Divine Scriptures except the Canonical Scriptures, and the 
 Canonical Scriptures are." Here follows a list identical with our own. 
 The Council, therefore, did not enact anything new. It simply declared 
 what was old, and it added, " Let this be made known for the purpose 
 of confirming the Canon, because we have received from our fathers that 
 those books must be read in the Church." The Council of Carthage did 
 what the Church of England did in the i6th century, when she pub- 
 lished a list of the Canonical books of the Old Testament in her 6th 
 Article. And as she did not pretend thereby to give any new authority 
 • to those books, but only affirmed what the Church had believed from 
 the beginning, so also was it with the Council of Carthage. It may 
 well be supposed that after the lapse of 400 years, the freshness and 
 strength of the conviction as to the basis of the Canon began to wear 
 away, and thus it became necessary to confirm in the minds of the 
 weak and ill informed what had been established and settled long before, 
 yet not, observe, h\ any formal action of the Church. 
 
 Suppose, however, the Council of Carthage had intended to enact 
 something new. instead of confirming what was old. The acts of the 
 (Council itself show how unsafe it would be to rest upon its testimony 
 with reference to such a subject, and by parity of reason, on the testi- 
 mony of any Council com[)osed only of fallible men. It is a fact that 
 its members, among whom was ihe great Augustine, were guilty of a 
 serious error on this very sul)ject, for they certainly did err when they 
 ascribed the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus to King Solomon, 
 whereas they were not written till 700 years after Solomon's death. 
 
 On these grounds it is concluded that there is absolutely no founda- 
 tion whatever of a historical character for the statement that we receive 
 
lO — 
 
 the Word of (iod from the Church in any authoritative sense, i.e., it was 
 never formally received from the Church as the result of any authorita- 
 tive conciliar action. The Church as a whole, for the first 300 years of 
 the Christian era, (and it is a most remarkable Providential fact), never 
 took any formal steps whatever towards the formation of the New Tes- 
 tament Canon, and for the best of reasons, viz., because it was in the 
 beginning unnecessary. It would have been not only superfluous, but 
 a high presumption to make the attempt. It would have been indica- 
 tive of an impossible ignorance of the true facts of the case. 
 
 This was evidently the view of St. Augustine, who says : " In the 
 Canonical Scriptures you must follow the judgment ot the majority of 
 the Churches." He says also, "Those which are canonical were re- 
 ceived in the beginning." This was the view of Paley who says : 
 "When that diversity of opinion which prevails among Christians on 
 other points is considered, their concurrence in the canon of Scripture 
 is remarkable and of great weight, especially as it seems to have been 
 the result of private and free enquiry." It was the view of the late 
 Bishop Wordsworth, of Lincoln, who says: "The Inspiration of the 
 New Testament was recognized as soon as it was written." It is the 
 view of Canon Westcott, who says that the " canon was fixed by usage 
 rather than by law." It was the view of the late Dean of Ripon, Dr. 
 McNeile, who said, "The Church of England when asked how she 
 knows the inspired Scriptures from other books, and how she can be 
 assured of the correct canon, except by the authority of the Church, re- 
 plies : first, I know nothing of a Church or what a Church is, or if 
 there be a Church, except from these books; and secondly, I know these 
 books on the testimony of men who were competent as witnesses to dis- 
 tinguish in their own days between the genuine writings of the Apostles 
 attested by miracles, and the spurious imitations of the same." 
 
 The fourth statement is, " That we receive them on the authoritative 
 testimony of the Church alone." In reply to this we say that if we do 
 not receive them on the authoritative testimony of the Church at all, 
 much less can we receive them on the testimony of the Church alone. 
 But how such /. statement could ever be made in the presence of his- 
 torical facts is'a marvel. The bitterest foes of the Christian faith have 
 been converi/^d by God, both in ancient and modern times, into witnesses 
 to the Word of God. Such men as Antiochus and Diocletian have 
 
— II 
 
 borne important testimony to the inspiration and canonicity of the 
 Holy Scriptures. The rejection and mutilation of the Scriptures by 
 heretics has also given occasion for the vindication and manifestation of 
 the Scriptures. And if all this be true, it may hence be gathered what 
 a slender foundation there is for the assertion so confidently made by 
 so many in our day that the canon of the New Testament was not set- 
 tled till the end of the 4th century. It would be as near the truth to 
 say that it was never unsettled till then. 
 
 From whom, then, did we receive the Word of (lod, and how and 
 when was the Canon settled ? ^Vhy do we receive such and such books 
 and none but them ? The answer is : First, we received the Word of 
 Clod from Clod himself, through inspired men specially commissioned 
 ■for the purpose — not from the Church — just as the Israelites of old re- 
 jceived revelations from (Jod himself, through the profihets, and not 
 from the Jewish Church. 
 
 Second, we receive them on the testimony of (iod, from whom we 
 received them. Christ testified directly to the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures when He was on earth. He testified indirectly through His 
 inspired messengers to the Scriptures of the New Testament. 
 
 Note this apostolic testimony both as to its nature and its extent. It 
 is important in both aspects, and in the latter it is much more com- 
 plete than many suppose. As to its nature, the apostolic testimony is 
 the testimony of God, not the testimony of the Church. As to its 
 extent, there is good reason for believing that St. John testified to the 
 canon of the New Testament as a whole. It is recorded of him that he 
 formally approved of the I'our (iospels and the Acts of the Apostles, 
 and rejected a boqk entitled " The Acts of the Apostles " as spurious. 
 if he were the angel of the Church at Ephesus this record seems to be 
 supported by the testimony of Scripture. In Rev. ii. 2 it is said of that 
 angel, " Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles and are not, 
 and hast found them liars." If, on the other hand, St. John was not 
 the angel of the Church at Ephesus, the passage teaches that some one 
 in that Church, competent to do so, undertook that otifice and dis- 
 charged its duties in such a way as to call forth the commendation of 
 God the Holy Spirit. It should be remembered also that St. Peter 
 Canonizes all the writings of St. Paul, though he does not mention them 
 by name, and St. Peter quotes from the epistle of St. Jude. At least 
 
12 — 
 
 there is more reason for thinking so than that St. Jude quoted from St. 
 Peter. 
 
 Thirdly, we receive them on the testimony of the individuals or the 
 Churches to whom they were sent. 'I'his testimony is of the very high- 
 est iiii|)ortan("e. It comes naturally next in order to that of the apostles, 
 and to many minds, perhaps, the negative form of the argument drawnthere- 
 from may cairy more weight than the positive. These individuals and 
 Churches did not repudiate the writings which were sent to them. On the 
 contrary they accepted them as a matter of course and acted accordingly. 
 'I'he different parts of the Christian Church canonized the different por- 
 tions of the New Testament Scriptures as soon as they received them. 
 C)l)serve, as soon as they received them. They were, therefore, canon- 
 ized from the very beginning. Those to whom they were written caused 
 them to l)e read in pul)lic and formed catalogues of them. They had 
 no doubt of their apostolic origin, which was the only thing necessary 
 to be proved. They were no more in doubt on this point than we are 
 when we receive a letter from a well known friend, a beloved pastor. 
 Those at a distance from the parties who first received the epistles did 
 not perhaps acknowledge them at first. This was owing to the want of 
 information arising from lack of intercourse between the Churches, but 
 when the necessary information was supplied, the reception followed. 
 AccejJt this view and it removes many difficulties. It affords a satisfac- 
 tory ex[)Ianation of the absence of any formal attempt on the part of the 
 Church to settle the canon of Scripture. It shows ground for the 
 extraordinary unanimity with which the canonical books were every- 
 where received. It establishes a harmony between the Old and New 
 Testament .Scriptures as regards tlie mode of their reception, and it is the 
 only explanation which will satisfactorily meet the requirements of the 
 case. It affords a much more satisfi.ictory basis of canonicity than any 
 whicli could be furnished by conciliar action. It i>roves that the con- 
 viction of the apostolic origin of the books was so general that conciliar 
 action was not necessary. It was only m subsecjuent ages that the 
 (juestion began to be entertained. 
 
 Fourth, we receive them on the testimony of the books themselves. 
 This may be objected to on the ground that the Word cannot bear 
 witness to itself. Hut what saith Reason ? If gold can bear witness to 
 itself, or snow or fire, or any natural product, why not the Word also ? 
 
— 13— 
 
 And what saith Scripture? This objection was made b;, ihe Pharisees 
 to the Saviour himself, John viii. 13, "Thou bearest record of thyself, 
 thy record is not true." But He replied, "Though I bear record of 
 myself, yet my record is true," and so say we of the testimony of the 
 Word itself, which is a testimony of various kinds, and very explicit on 
 one or two [)oints ; c.j^., the Scriptures always speak in the name of 
 (lod, and command men everywhere to receive them as the Word 
 of (lod. They never say that they came /row the Church, but 
 on the contrary were given ^0 the Church. 'I'hey were rrw/mitted 
 to the care of the Church. They were not j/z/miitted to her for appro- 
 val or otherwise. As it is written, " Unto them were committed the 
 oracles of Cod." "We were allowed of (iod to be put in trust of the 
 Ciospel ; " and " The glorious Cospel which was committed to my trust.' 
 But we do not stop here ; we examine the books for ourselves and the 
 more we examine them the more " our faith in their inspiration grows. 
 The more we are convinced by the harmony of their parts with each 
 other and with the Old Testament ; by the nature of their contents 
 which are many of them not discoverable by man ; by the beauty and 
 dignity of their composition ; by the nobleness and loveliness of their 
 morality ; by the mysterious sublimity of their doctrines, and by their 
 marvellous adaptation to the nature and needs of man, that the Scrip- 
 tures are not the words of man but of Cod, and that they are the full 
 and sufficient deposit of that divine revelation and supernatural truth," 
 to which the Church owes her existence and allegiance, and on which 
 depends her future preservation to the end of time. 
 
 Fifth, we receive them on the testimony of their works. For as 
 Jesus said of His works, so also say we of the works of the Word of 
 Cod, "The works that I do, they bear witness qf me, and though ye 
 believe not me believe the works, that ye may know and believe that 
 the Father is in me and I in Him." And if we trace them back to 
 their ultimate source, what works are there in the world of a moral or 
 spiritual nature which the Word of Cod in some form or other did not 
 originate ? What triumphs has it not accomplished as the sword of the 
 Spirit ? Has it not made the wilderness to blossom as the rose, and the 
 waste places of Zion to become as the garden of the Lord ? How often 
 do we find illustrations of this kind on the pages of history ? How 
 often has the Word, the //V'«C ^Vord di.^pellcd the meal and religious 
 
 
 ft it t • a 
 " •* o J p ^ 
 
 • > V )) II 
 
— 14- 
 
 dfirkness which has brooded long over heathen and professedly Chris 
 tian lands ? How often has this been the case when the Church which \ 
 had forsaken the Word or made it of none effect had proved itself 
 utterly powerless to act ? How often has it aroused the sleepy among i 
 the sons of men ? and clothed the naked, and restored oight to the l 
 blind ? How often has it made the lame to walk, and the deal to hear, | 
 and the dumb to sing? Y^ea, more ! How often has it imparted life \ 
 to those that were dead, and adorned them with a glory and a beauty j 
 not their own ? What is the state of the Church of England at the t 
 present day but an illustration of this truth ? If this be so, we ask, ' 
 could the Church have effected this without the Word? If not, could j 
 the Word without the Church have done so ? If so, then where does ; 
 the supremacy lie ? Objections can be urged to this view of the subject, \ 
 but they can also be answered. However, it is impossible to enter on : 
 this part of the subject now. For the present I shall refer you to the -j 
 words which teach us that the Church is built on the foundation of the I 
 apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner- \ 
 stone. i 
 
 .J 
 
 .1; 
 
 
 • . • . 1 » • ' 
 
 ; . •*, •.i.i*' 
 
 ^ 
 
•T*