of historical tradition, the Council of Carthage possessed an advantage in this respect, to which the Council of Laodicea had no claim whatever. Accordingly we find that this Council extended the list of canonical books, by adding those whose authenticity had been fully ascertained by inquiries made among the other Churches; and the 47th canon of the Council of Carthage contains precisely the same books which the Council of Trent received about twelve hundred years after. It is to be remarked, that the acts of the national synod of Africa were afterwards confirmed by an Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople

In a few years after the Council of Carthage, Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, wrote to Innocent the First, in order to learn what were the canonical books; and the Pope in his answer gives the very same list which had been approved of at Carthage, and which we receive at the present day. And Pope Gelasius, towards the close of the fifth century, having assembled a Council of seventy bishops, published the same canon which Innocent had previously settled. Thus we find that the tradition of the Western Church on this subject was complete, so early as the beginning of the fifth century.

The decisions of the Council of Carthage, of Innocent the First, and of the Roman Council under Gelasius, seem to have produced unanimity on this subject in the Western Church; for we do not find that any other Council thought it necessary to publish any list of the canonical books, until the Council of Florence assembled in the early part of the fifteenth century. In the interim, a few divines occasionally expressed a doubt of the perfect canonicity of some of the books, and by doing so at that time, they did not thereby break the unity of the Church; for though the Fathers of the preceding Councils had published their de

cisions on this point for the instruction of the faithful, they had not published them in such a form as to oblige all Christians to believe them under pain of sin. It was sufficient to let the people know what books the Church approved of; but it was not as yet necessary to render it imperative on all to believe in their divine origin, particularly as those who doubted of their perfect canonicity had no doubt of the propriety of reading them with all the attention and respect that was due, as well to their venerable antiquity, as to the holy doctrine which they contained.

The Council of Florence is considered by Catholics as Ecumenical, and was assembled by Eugene the Fourth for the purpose of effecting a reconciliation between the Eastern and Western Churches. Besides the Pope and the Bishops of the Latin Church, it was also attended by the Emperor of the East, by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and by many other bishops and abbots of the Greek Church. The principal points of difference between the Greeks and Latins were discussed with great energy during twenty-five sessions; and we may conclude that there was no difference as to the canonical scriptures, from the fact of there having been no discussion whatever on this point. It would have been, therefore, unnecessary for the Council to have come to any decision on the subject, were it not that towards the close of their proceedings, a number of deputies arrived from the Armenians, who then formed a large schismatical Church. The patriarchs of these people came in order to have their Church once more united to the great body of Christianity; and this having been accomplished, the Council ordered a decree to be drawn up for their instructions. In this document we find a list of the canonical books, which corresponds

precisely with the list which had been published by the Council of Carthage, and which has since been republished by the Council of Trent. The Council did not think it necessary to frame this list in such a way as to render the belief of its accuracy a necessary article of faith.

It is known that many of the Greeks who attended the Council, relapsed into schism after returning into their own country; and that they are still separated from the unity of the Catholic Church. It is, however, very remarkable, that though they differ from us in other points, and though they deny the supremacy of the Pope, they continue to preserve the same canon of Scripture which we possess; and our adversaries have never been able to prevail upon the Greeks to conform to the Protestant doctrine in this, or indeed in any other point. This coincidence could not have arisen from any influence we had over them, nor for any love they bear towards our Church, for though they approach much nearer to the Catholic faith than any other sect, it is quite notorious that a strong aversion for the Western Church is a very general feeling among them. How then does it happen that they receive the same canonical scriptures? From the fourth to the ninth century we find nothing but jealousy and dislike on their part towards the Latin Church. From the ninth century to the present day, the two Churches have been openly opposed to each other; and most certainly the Greek Church would not willingly agree with us in the canon of the Scripture, if they could at all avoid doing so. But the force of truth is too great, they cannot reject those books which their own most ancient tradition obliges them to receive.

The early reformers rejected or admitted as it best suited

their purposes; at least, they seldom rejected a book until it had been quoted against them. When the epistle of Saint James was quoted against Luther, he called it an 66 epistle of straw;" and when a verse of the epistle to the Hebrews was objected to Calvin, he answered the objection by rejecting the entire book. Sometimes, indeed, they were condescending enough to admit the authority of the book; but Luther had always in reserve a most amusing rule for interpreting the Scripture backwards, which served as an infallible recipe for answering all objections. He prescribes as follows: "Let this be your rule; when the Scripture commands you to do a good work, understand it in this sense, that it forbids you to do a good work, because you cannot do any good work."

Luther refused to receive some of the Catholic epistles, the Church of England receives them all ;-Calvin rejected the Apocalype and the epistle to the Hebrews; the Church of England, and even the Scotch Calvinists, have adopted into the canon both of these books.

The following is the authentic declaration of the Established Church on the canon of the Scripture :-" In the name of the Holy Scripture, we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." (Art. 6th of the 39.) On this rule for deciding the canon of scripture, I have but two observations to make. First, the rule is not a good one. 2d. The Established Church has notoriously and in many instances departed from the very rule which they have themselves established.

First, the rule is not good, because the doubts that may have existed of the canonicity of any book is not a sufficient reason for rejecting it. I have shown in the second section that the state of the Church for the first three cen

turies enabled us to explain most clearly the cause of these doubts, and that the impossibility of establishing any extensive communication between the different churches, rendered doubts almost unavoidable. A question on this subject is often proposed by Catholic theologians :"Whether a book of Scripture which had been once rejected by the Church, could afterwards be received by the same Church?" To this the answer is perfectly plain :— If they could declare that any particular book was not divinely inspired, and that it was only the work of man, that book could never afterwards be received; because, as the decision of the Church must be always true, so her doctrine must necessarily be immutable. But if the Church should think that the inspiration of any book was doubtful, and should on account of that doubt decline inserting it in the canon, the same book may be afterwards received, provided that the doubt be removed, and that the Church becomes certain of its inspiration.

For instance, the Council of Laodicea would not receive the Apocalypse, but when the tradition became better known, the Councils of Carthage, Rome, Florence, and Trent received it; and the great Sir Isaac Newton says, "that there is not one book in the Bible which has a more complete chain of evidence to prove its canonicity." -Yet this book we should reject, according to the rule laid down by the Established Church; for there have been doubts of it in the Church, and at one time, very serious doubts indeed. Therefore, in the first place, the rule adopted by the Established Church is in its own nature

erroneous.

2nd. The Established Church has in many instances notoriously violated the very rule it has adopted on this subject. It is scarcely necessary to prove this, for every