It is almost unnecessary to point out the exact agreement of these sentiments with the seventh and fourteenth articles of the Church of England, and how impossible it must be for a person holding them to think that we can do any thing whatever beyond what Christ has a right to expect from us. It is manifest that he would not have thought that any degrees of Christian holiness are really at our option, whether we shall seek them or not; but that every person who, having any degree of perfection, or any means of advancement placed before him, knowingly neglects it, becomes thereby unworthy of him who has given him liberty, and hazards his salvation : in short, that "to whom much is given, of him will much be required."

4 IV. xiii. 2.

CHAPTER VIII.

ON THE CANON, GENUINENESS, VERSIONS, USE, AND VALUE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

UNNATURAL as it may appear, it is notwithstanding true that we find much less clear ideas in regard to the canon of Holy Scripture in the earlier ages than in the later. The word scripture was used, as we shall see, in a latitude with which no church or party in later times has used it.

Irenæus quotes all the books which we of the Church of England esteem canonical, except Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, and Haggai. But the mere circumstance of his not citing them cannot, of course, imply any doubt as to their inspiration or canonicity. He had no occasion to do so for the purposes of his argument. It is only wonderful that he thought himself obliged to quote so largely upon such a subject.

But besides the writings which we esteem canonical, he quotes others which we reject from the

canon.

4

3

He not only repeats sentiments from them, as when he introduces a sentiment which occurs in the book of Wisdom', or the story of Susanna 2, without, however, mentioning the books themselves; he also quotes the story of Bel and the Dragon as truly relating the words of the prophet Daniel, and the book of Baruch as truly recording those of Jeremiah, and uses the latter as inspired. In short, Irenæus quoted from the Septuagint version of the Scriptures; and he consequently read the stories of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as part of the book of Daniel, and the book of Baruch as a continuation of that of Jeremiah. There is, in fact, great reason to think that he believed in the inspiration (in some sense) of the whole of the books contained in that version. But if so, that does not prove (as we shall see presently), that they were all esteemed by the Church as canonical.

1 IV. xxxviii. 3. ̓Αφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. Quoted from Wisdom vi. 19, 20.

2 IV. xxi. 2. Deus

- qui est absconsorum cognitor. Quoted

from Daniel xiii. 42. in the Septuagint version.

3

3 IV. v. 2. Quem et Daniel propheta, cum dixisset ei Cyrus rex Persarum, "Quare non adoras Bel?" annunciavit, dicens, "Quoniam non colo idola manufacta, sed vivum Deum, qui constituit cœlum et terram, et habet omnis carnis dominationem."

4 V. xxxv. 1. Et quotquot ex credentibus ad hoc præparavit Deus ad derelictos multiplicandos in terra, et sub regno sanctorum fieri, et ministrare huic Hierusalem, et regnum in ea, significavit Jeremias propheta; "Circumspice," dicens, &c. and then he quotes a passage from the book of Baruch, extending from ch. iv. 36. to the end of ch. v.

But then there is a circumstance which must prevent the Church of Rome from appealing to him with success in support of the canonicity of any of the books of the Apocrypha; and that is, that he quotes, under the express name of Scripture, a work which the whole Church, from not long after his time, has agreed to regard as merely human, if not altogether spurious-I mean the Shepherd of Hermas. It is true that he is not singular in so speaking; for Clement of Alexandria directly ascribes inspiration to Hermas. And yet Tertullian, who was contemporary with Clement, affirms' that the Italian Churches had in express councils declared his book apocryphal.

I argue thus on the supposition that his single authority is appealed to. If he is adduced, with other writers of his age, to show that the Church acknowledged the apocryphal books as canonical, then one reply is, that even if this were true of the

* IV. xx. 2. Καλῶς οὖν εἶπεν ἡ γραφὴ, ἡ λέγουσα· Πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἔστιν ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα. This is quoted from the first commandment in the abovementioned work.

* Strom. I. xxix. § 181. Θείως τοίνυν ἡ δύναμις ἡ τῷ Ερμα κατ' ἀποκάλυψιν λαλοῦσα.

"De Pudicitia, 10. Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, quæ sola mochos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi; si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum (he is addressing the Bishop of Rome) inter apocrypha et falsa judicaretur.

Church of that age, we are not bound by the decision of a single age. Massuet, indeed ', reasons as though the canonicity of the books the Church of Rome receives were established by the authority of “ all churches, or at least the greater part of them, and those of distinguished rank." Now it so happens that we have quite a chain of evidence on the opposite side. Melito ', contemporary with Irenaeus, after diligent inquiry in Palestine, reckons up, as canonical, the same books of the Old Testament which we acknowledge, and no others: for the Σου φία", which (according to one reading) comes in after the Proverbs, is merely another name for that book; and Ezra, it is well known, included Nehemiah and Esther. Origen', in the middle of the third cen

8 Dissert. III. § 4.

* Euseb. Hist. Eccl. IV. xxvi. 6. “ Ακριβῶς μαθὼν τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βιβλία, ὑποτάξας ἔπεμψά σοι. ὧν ἐστι τὰ ὀνόματα Μωϋσέως πέντε· Γένεσις, Ἔξοδος, Λευϊτικὸν, ̓Αριθμοί, Δευτερονόμιον Ἰησοῦς Ναυῆ, Κριταὶ, Ρούθ· Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα, Παραλει πομένων δύο Ψαλμῶν Δαβίδ, Σολομῶνος Παροιμίαι (ἢ καὶ Σοφία), Ἐκκλησιαστὴς, Ασμα ασμάτων, Ἰώβ· προφητῶν, Ἡσαΐου, Ἱερεμίου· τῶν δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλῳ Δανιὴλ, Ἰεζεκιὴλ, Εσδρας.” 10 Some copies, instead of ἢ καὶ Σοφία, read ἡ Σοφία.

1 Euseb. Hist. VI. xxv. 1. Τὸν μέντοιγε πρῶτον ἐξηγούμενος ψαλμὸν, ἔκθεσιν πεποίηται τοῦ τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης καταλόγου, ὧδέ πως γραφῶν κατὰ λέξιν· Οὐκ ἀγνοητέον δ ̓ εἶναι τὰς ἐνδιαθήκους βίβλους, ὡς Ἑβραῖοι παραδιδόασιν, δύο καὶ εἴκοσι· ἡ παρ' ἡμῖν Γένεσις ἐπιγεγραμμένη, . . . . "Εξοδος, Λευϊτικόν, . . . ̓Αριθμοί, Δευτερονόμιον . . . . Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυῆ,

.....