authorship, but not the canonicity, of Hebrews.^34 He is disposed to assign Second Peter to a pupil
of Peter, who wrote under the auspices and by direction of the Apostle; but he guards in this case,
also, against unfavorable inferences from the uncertainty of origin.^35
Calvin clearly saw the inconsistency of giving the Church the right of determining the canon
after denying her right of making an article of faith. He therefore placed the Canon on the authority
of God who bears testimony to it through the voice of the Spirit in the hearts of the believer. The
eternal and inviolable truth of God, he says, is not founded on the pleasure and judgment of men,
and can be as easily distinguished as light from darkness, and white from black. In the same line,
Peter Vermilius denies that "the Scriptures take their authority from the Church. Their certitude is
derived from God. The Word is older than the Church. The Spirit of God wrought in the hearts of
the bearers and readers of the Word so that they recognized it to be truly divine." This view is
clearly set forth in several Calvinistic Confessions.^36 In its exclusive form it is diametrically opposed
to the maxim of Augustin, otherwise so highly esteemed by the Reformers: "I should not believe
the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Church."^37 But the two kinds of evidence
supplement each other. The human authority of tradition though not the final ground of belief, is
indispensable as an historical witness of the genuineness and canonicity, and is of great weight in
conflict with Rationalism. There is no essential antagonism between the Bible and the Church in
the proper sense of the term. They are inseparable. The Church was founded by Christ and the
apostles through the preaching of the living Word of God, and the founders of the Church are also
the authors of the written Word, which continues to be the shining and guiding light of the Church;
while the Church in turn is the guardian, preserver, translator, propagator, and expounder of the
Bible.
- The liberal views of the Reformers on inspiration and the canon were abandoned after
the middle of the sixteenth century, and were succeeded by compact and consolidated systems of
theology. The evangelical scholasticism of the seventeenth century strongly resembles, both in its
virtues and defects, the catholic scholasticism of the Middle Ages which systematized and contracted
the patristic theology, except that the former was based on the Bible, the latter on church tradition.
In the conflict with Romanism the Lutheran and Calvinistic scholastics elaborated a stiff, mechanical
theory of inspiration in order to set an infallible book against an infallible pope. The Bible was
identified with the Word of God, dictated to the sacred writers as the penmen of the Holy Ghost.
(^34) In the introduction to his Com. on Hebrews: "Ego ut Paulum auctorem agnoscam adduci nequeo." His reasons are, the difference
of style and of the docendi ratio, and because the writer counts himself with the disciples of the Apostles (Heb. 2:3); but nevertheless he
accepts the book as inspired and canonical, because it more clearly than any other book treats of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ.
(^35) In Argum. Ep. Sec. Petri, he notes "manifestum discrimen" between the first and second Epistle, and adds: "Sunt et aliae probabiles
conjecturae ex quibus colligere licet alterius esse potius quam Petri," but he sees in it, "nihil Petro indignum"
(^36) The Second Helvetic confession, c. 1 and 2, and the Belgic Confession, art. 5, combine the testimony of tradition and that of the
Holy Spirit, but lay chief stress upon the latter. So the Gallican Conf., art. 4: "We know these books to be canonical and the sure rule of
our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the church (non tant par le, commun a ord et consentement de l’eglise), as
by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books, upon
which, however useful, we cannot found any articles of faith." The Westminster Confession, ch. I. 4, sets aside the testimony of tradition,
saying: "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man
or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."
The Scripture proofs given are, 2 Pet. 1:19, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess. 2:13; but they have no bearing upon the question of
canonicity.
(^37) "Ego evangelio non crederem, nisi me moveret ecclesiae auctoritas," Contra Ep. Fundam., c. 5. A thoroughly Roman catholic
principle in opposition to the Manichaen heresy. But the testimony of the church is indispensable only in the history of the origin of the
several books, and the formation of the canon.