"signs from heaven" to shut the mouths of cavillers. Our Lord says, "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God" (John vii. 17). 2. Professor Tyndall writes

"It is no departure from scientific method to place behind natural phenomena a universal Father, who, in answer to the prayers of His children, alters the current of phenomena. Thus far theology and science go hand in hand."

In these words he distinctly recognizes a peculiarity in the sequence of prayer and the answer to prayer which places it in an entirely different category from that to which physical causation belongs. The free will-power of our Father in heaven is interposed between prayer and its answer. Prayer acts directly upon our Father in heaven, disposing Him to attend to our wants in the exercise of His infinite wisdom and love. For this reason, prayer is often spoken of as a moral, not a physical, cause, although the answer to prayer may be in the form of a strictly physical effect. The experimental test proposed by Professor Tyndall, as has been well said,

"Is applicable only to natural order, and authorizes conclusions only in cases of strictly physical causation. That he should propose to apply it under distinctly foreign conditions, to a case involving free-will, to the moral order, was, if not mere frivolous mockery, a gross logical blunder. In the natural order, in a case of physical causation, the method named would furnish a crucial test; but, in the case proposed, it was crucial only in that it was devised to crucify the Lord afresh, and put Him to an open shame."-Professor N. K. Davis, in Christian Thought, vol. iii., p. 17.

3. In establishing the truths of science, careful observation is as often resorted to as experiment, and its results are as thoroughly accepted. In the case of moral causation, this method is fully open to us, and, when properly pursued, is as thoroughly scientific as the other.

By

APOSTOLIC ORIGIN OR SANCTION, THE ULTIMATE TEST OF CANONICITY. W. M. MCPHEETERS (The Presbyterian and Reformed Review).-It will be the specific object of this paper to offer some remarks upon Apostolic Origin or Sanction as an exclusive test of Canonicity. The statement and exposition of our position is not only naturally the first, but, in some respects, it is also the most important part of our task.

I. The first point claiming our attention in this discussion is the Nature and Origin of Canonicity. There are those who hold that the principle upon which the early Church determined the right of a book to a place in the Canon was fitness to edify. Of this fitness experience was the test, and the Church the judge. Without admitting the correctness of this statement we ask attention to what it involves. It implies that Canonicity, like the Presidency, with its accompanying authority, is conferred by suffrage. Hence those who hold this view will be found disposed to confound Canonicity with influence tending to edify, plus personal or ecclesiastical sanction. This leads them again to maintain that Canonicity is in some way or other correlated to the conviction that a certain writing does exert an edifying influence— so correlated that it cannot exist apart from such conviction. But, aware of the truth of the proverb, quot homines, tot sententiæ, those who hold this view frequently ground the conviction as to the edifying influence of the writing upon the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the heart, thus apparently hoping to secure unity for their Rule of Faith and Life.

We say, instead of looking upon Canonicity in any such light as this, it views it as a simple, original quality of certain writings, viz., authoritativeness. It regards this quality as being as truly simple and original as is spirituality, or "edifyingness," or any other. Moreover, it is an inherent and permanent quality. It is not conferred

by man; not even by the Apostles. It is not conferred by any testimony which the Holy Spirit may bear to them. It is stamped upon them by God. It belongs to them by Divine right, and not by mere suffrage. It does not wait upon conviction any more than does the right of Christ to reign. So the Scriptures are a Rule, and their authoritativeness remains, despite all the commotions of the passion-swept sea of opinion. They are as truly a Rule for those who reject them as for those who accept them.

This point, obvious as it will appear to many, is nevertheless of prime importance. In proportion as we grasp it firmly will we be in a position to apprehend the real issue joined when the question of the test of the Canonicity of a writing is raised. The question is not, How may the conviction of Canonicity be produced? Nor, What is necessary to give practical efficiency to the Canon? Nor, What is the essence of Canonicity? But the question is simply and solely, What conditions must hold in regard to a writing to ground not the conviction that it possesses this quality, but the possession of it. The answer is: In order to the possession of this quality a writing must have proceeded from some authorized exponent of the Divine authority, and expounder of the Divine will. This must be so: (1) because nothing can be a Rule that is not an expression of the Divine will; otherwise our faith would "stand in the wisdom of man"; and (2) because, if even the Divine will is to be expressed through a human writing, there must be a human author. Hence the ultimate and only valid test of the possession of such authority is the possession of such authorship. And, let it be carefully noted that this is true, however our conviction of the Canonicity of a writing may have been produced, whether by the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit or otherwise. For it is manifest that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is to the fact, merely to the fact, of the possession of authoritativeness by a writing. But we are seeking the ground upon which this fact itself rests. And there is but one ground upon which it can rest. For if the question be asked, Why does the Holy Spirit bear this testimony? the only answer must be, Because this writing proceeded from an authorized exponent of the Divine authority and expounder of the Divine will. If not, let some one frame another answer.

II. Resting upon these views as to the nature and origin of Canonicity, the theory we are expounding maintains that apostolic origin or sanction is the exclusive test of the possession of this quality.

Let us notice first the exact contents and limitations of this statement, and then the grounds for it. It is not maintained that all the writings of the Apostles were characterized by Canonicity. Nor is it said that writings from no other source possess this quality. It is only said that the apostolic writings of Apostles, or the writings of others which had received apostolic sanction, possessed it. We use the adjective "apostolic" in its strict technical sense, as expressing the official action of the Apostles. The grounds for this position are two. 1. The Apostles were the authorized exponents of the Divine authority and expounders of Divine will. 2. They were quoad the matter in hand, the only authorized exponents of the Divine authority and expounders of the Divine will.

Pardon us, if we rehearse as briefly as we can the proof of our first proposition. Much depends upon feeling the full force of all that it involves. The claim just made for the Apostles then rests: 1. Upon their official character and position. In estimating these we must remember, (1) that their number was limited; (2) that they were appointed directly by Christ; (3) that their relations to the Church, their functions, and their authority were absolutely unique; (4) that they were without associates or successors. 2. The claim made for them is further established by the fact that they

acted and spoke under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit, and in terms that would have been little short of blasphemy upon any other supposition than the justice of the claim we have made. 3. The ultimate foundation of this claim is the miracles wrought by them. No man could have done their works except God were with him. This language may grieve the naturalism of the nineteenth century; even so, it must grieve, so far as we are concerned, until it comes to a sounder mind. In a word, it seems as if Christ in re-organizing His Church under the New Dispensation -appointed a committee of her members, authorized them to act as His agents, vested them with His authority, and instructed them to draw up a constitution for His Church. This committee performed its work under the constant and immediate presidency of the Holy Ghost. Its deliverances were ratified and authenticated to the Church by having attached to them the seal of the Godhead in the shape of miracles.

Who will dare affirm that to prove that a writing was thus originated and authenticated is not a valid test of its Canonicity?

It may be said that the validity of apostolic origin or sanction as a test of Canonicity is granted, but that its exclusive validity is challenged. If so, it must be on the ground that there were other authorized exponents of the Divine authority and expounders of the Divine will. For, as we have seen, such authorship is a sine quâ non to the Canonicity of a writing. But if there were such, who were they? When and where did they live? What evidence did they adduce in support of such high pretensions? But it may be said that as a matter of fact the Holy Spirit testifies to the Canonicity of certain writings the apostolic origin or authorization of which cannot be established by satisfactory evidence. The implication is that there is some sort of evidence, however unsatisfactory it may be esteemed, to connect every writing of either Testament having any claims to Canonicity with the Apostles either as its authors or endorsers. The question is, What kind and amount of evidence must be produced in such a case to be satisfactory to sound reason? Both of these points will receive our attention in due time. For the present it will be enough to ask whether it is more probable that men co-ordinate in authority and qualification with the Apostles should have lived and died without leaving name, trace, or memorial behind, except an anonymous writing, or that the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the Canonicity of such writing which some saint of to-day supposes that he enjoys is a delusion. The fact is that we would feel little interest in or concern about this fanciful and mystic way of dealing with the question of Canonicity, were it not for the fact that its advocates ignore the palpable and vital distinction between the ground of the Canonicity of a writing and the ground of their conviction of its Canonicity. Let it once be admitted that the writing comes by its Canonicity, not by virtue of its supposed or real tendency to edify, nor by virtue of any personal or ecclesiastical suffrage, nor by virtue of any testimony of the Holy Spirit, real or supposed, but simply and solely from having proceeded from some authorized exponent of the Divine authority and expounder of the Divine will-we say let this once be admitted, and mystics and Christian irrationalists will either have to quit the camp or else confess that the authority of Scripture rests upon a rational, provable, historical basis which has miracles for its corner-stone.

III. A natural and proper way, if not, indeed, the shortest, surest, safest, most satisfactory way to beget a rational conviction of the Canonicity of a writing, is to adduce suitable historical evidence that it proceeded from, or was sanctioned by, the Apostles as a Rule of Faith and Life.

It will be important for the reader to note some things which are not said or

implied in this proposition. 1. It is not said or implied that it is only by an examination of the historical evidences that a conviction, a legitimate, well-grounded conviction of the Canonicity of a writing can be produced. It is simply asserted that such an examination is a natural and proper way of arriving at such a conviction. That it may be and often is otherwise produced is granted. For as has been shown, while the basis of our conviction of the Canonicity of a writing may vary, the basis of its Canonicity is invariable, and is invariably apostolic in origin or sanction. Competent testimony may ground my conviction of the Canonicity of a writing, but such testimony presupposes the fact of Canonicity, which fact must therefore rest upon its own proper ground. 2. It is not said or implied that the conviction of Canonicity produced by an examination of the historical evidences will be practically operative and productive of ethical and spiritual results. This may or may not be the case. Conduct does not always follow convictions. 3. It is not said or implied that a conviction of Canonicity thus originated may not be otherwise confirmed and strengthened and endued with power to bend the will and determine the conduct. The authority of a Rule is one thing, the recognition of that authority is another, and actual obedience to it is still a third. And it is simply preposterous to make the first depend upon either of the last two. 4. It deserves to be noticed, also, that the expression historical evidence, as used in this proposition, has a definite, well-defined meaning. It does not mean a consensus of ecclesiastical opinions, "testimonies" or decisions, whether these were given privately or publicly, individually or collectively, personally or officially. By evidence is meant evidence proper, as distinguished from opinions or declarations from whatever source proceeding, or by whatever authority backed. It is used as it would be in a court of justice.

IV. It will be proper to observe that this mode of establishing Canonicity has the following considerations to commend it, viz. :

1. It is the natural method. It would be used to establish the Canonicity of any other written rule, as, for instance, that of the Rule under which the Order of Jesuits lives to-day. Let us suppose a question springing up in that Order as to its Rulehow would it probably be settled? Would it not be by tracing the present Rule back, by a chain of historical evidence, to the founder of the Order? True, a novice might, and probably would, accept it merely upon the testimony of his superiors. But it is very evident that its authoritativeness would in no proper sense be derived from their testimony or be dependent upon it. It is evident, further, that such testimony upon their part would imply that they had evidence that it proceeded from the founder of the Order. In other words, there must sooner or later be a recourse to the historical evidence. Such evidence must furnish the basis for all reliable testimony.

The same is true of the Scriptures. Men may, and many do, accept these as an authoritative Rule upon the testimony of particular Churches, or even it may be upon that of individuals. But this testimony itself, if it is worth anything, presupposes the existence of historical evidence connecting these writings with the "Apostles and Prophets" upon whom the Church is built. How can any individual or Church testify that certain writings were designed by Christ to be a Rule for His Church, unless such writings, which are human productions, can be connected with human agents authorized to represent Christ and frame such a Rule? If it be said that the testimony of the individual is based upon the testimony of the Holy Spirit, many legitimate questions arise. But we repress them, and content ourselves with remarking, with all reverence, that the testimony of the Holy Spirit, no less than that of a Church, or of an individual, rests upon historial evidence. For the Rule is a human writing. It must, therefore, have had a human author. And if there is no evidence

to show that it proceeded from one authorized to give a Rule, there is and can be no ground upon which any being can testify that it is a Rule. Granted that the Holy Spirit may have evidence of authorship that is not accessible to us, this does not invalidate the reasonableness, but rather the practicability of our method. This, however, is a matter for separate consideration.

2. It is the method suggested, if not appointed, in the Scriptures themselves. Paul evidently assumes in Gal. vi. 16 that evidence of apostolic authorship establishes Canonicity. In 2 Thess. iii. 17 he seems to assume that nothing else will establish it. In Galatians he says, "as many as walk by this rule (7 κavóvi) peace upon them and mercy." But the Canonical character of the epistle has nothing upon which to base itself except its apostolic authorship. In 2 Thessalonians his language is, "The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is the sign in every epistle." This implies that Paul recognized the fact that the Churches must be able to connect his writings with himself in order that those writings might come to them with the authority of a Rule. Nowhere does he appeal to any inward testimony of the Spirit either as the ground or the evidence of the authority of his letters. Nor is the force of this Scriptural argument impaired by the presence of anonymous writings in Scripture. It still remains true that the Scripture, where it does speak, endorses our method. It contains no hint even of any other.

3. It was the method adopted by the early Church in forming the Canon as we now have it. The writer is aware that there are authorities in abundance who affirin the contrary. If he sets aside their affirmations, it is not because he respects their opinions less, but their facts more. What are the facts, then? Briefly these. There is no book in our New Testament to-day which has not from the earliest times rightly or wrongly been connected with an Apostle, either as its author or sponsor. Many books besides those actually in the Canon sought a place in it and were refused. The New Testament we have to-day represents the mature judgment of the early Church as to what books are entitled to be regarded as the Church's Rule of Faith and Life. It may be said that our statement is not correct, if by "early Church" is meant the Church of the second century. It is sometimes alleged that during that century, and possibly the early part of the third century, books such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the like, were admitted to the Canon. We have never seen reason to believe the correctness of this allegation. Surely, those are easily convinced who accept it merely because books like the Shepherd of Hermas were sometimes read in the churches, or referred to in glowing, rhetorical language, or even bound in the same volume with books now regarded as Canonical. But at present we do not care even to challenge its accuracy. We wish to note a single fact, and to raise two questions. The fact is, that this book, and others alleged to have once had a place in the Canon were subsequently ejected. And so our statement that the New Testament of to-day represents the mature judgment of the early Church as to what books are entitled to a place in the Canon is simply confirmed by the objection. The questions we would raise are: (1) If books like the Shepherd of Hermas were admitted, as is asserted, to a place in the Canon-Why were they admitted? (2) Why were they subsequently ejected? These, rather than their alleged admission, touch our present contention at its centre. Dr. S. Davidson may answer our first question. He is writing of the Church of the second century, and says, "The exact principle that guided the formation of the Canon in the earliest centuries cannot be discovered. Definite grounds for the reception or rejection of books were not very clearly apprehended. The choice was determined by considerations, of which apostolic origin was chief" (italics ours), "though this itself was insufficiently attested, for, if it be asked whether all the New