CANON (kin'iln). The Greek word Kapito, kw: am', denotes, primarily, a straight rod, and from this flow numerous derivative uses of it, in all of which the idea of stratkhtness, as opposed to obi: quilt% is apparent.
(1) Meaning of Term. Among the rest it is employed to denote a rule or standard, by a refer ence to which the rectitude of opinions or actions may he determined. In this latter acceptation it is used in the New Testament (comp. Gal. vi:i6; Phil. iii:16). In the same sense it is frequently used by the Greek fathers (Suicer, Thcs. Eccles in voce) ; and as the great standard to which they sought to appeal in all matters of faith and duty was the revealed will of God contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, they came insensibly to apply this term to the collective body of those writings, and to speak of them as the Canon or Rule In the same acceptation we shall use the term in this article.
(2) Authoritative. The Canon then may be defined to be 'The Authoritative Standard of Re ligion and Morals. composed of those writing; which have been given for this purpose by God to men.' A definition frequently given of the Canon is that it is 'The Catalogue of the Sacred Books,' while Semler (Von Freier 11 ntersuchim gert des Canons). Doederlein Theol Christ. tom. i. p. 83) and others, define it as 'The List of the Books publicly read in the meetings of the early Christians.' The former of these definitions, however, leaves out of sight the true meaning of the term Canon ; and the latter is doubly erroneous, as it not only omits the main characteristic of the Canon, its Piz me authority. but substitutes for this a characteristic which historically false, as the Canon was not at any time synonymous with the list of hooks read in public in the early churches.
(3) Individual Books. According to this defi nition, in order to establish the Canon of Scrip ture, it is necessary to show that all the books of which it is composed are of Divine authority; that they are entire and incorrupt ; that, having them, it is complete without any addition from any other source, and that it comprises the whole of those books for which Divine authority can be proved.
It is obvious that, if any of these four particulars be not true, Scripture cannot be the sole and supreme standard of religious truth and duty. If any of the books of which it is composed be not of Divine authority, then part of it we are not bound to submit to, and. consequently, as a whole, it is not the standard of truth and morals. If its separate parts be not in the state in which they left the hands of their authors, but have been mutilated, interpolated, or altered, then it can form no safe standard, for, in appealing to it, one can not be sure that the appeal is not made to what is spurious, and what, consequently, may be erroneous. If it require or admit of supplement ary revelations from God, whether preserved by tradition or communicated from time to time to the Church, it obviously would be a mere contra diction in terms to call it complete, as a standard of the Divine will. And if any other books were extant, having an equal claim, with the books of which it is composed, to be regarded as of Divine authority, it would be absurd to call it the sole standard of truth, for in this case the one class of books would be quite as deserving of our rever ence as the other.
(4) Evidence. Respecting the evidence by which the Canon is thus to be established, there exists considerable difference of opinion amongst Christians. Some contend, with the Catholics, that the authoritative decision of the Church is alone competent to determine the Canon; others appeal to the concurrent testimony of the Jewish and early Christian writers, and others rest their strongest reliance on the internal evidence fur nished by the books of Scripture themselves. We cannot say that we are satisfied with any of these sources of evidence exclusively. As Michaelis remarks, the first is one to which no consistent Protestant can appeal, for the matter to he deter mined is of such a kind that. unless we grant the Church to be infallible, it is quite possible that she may at any given period of her existence de termine erroneously, and one sees not why the question may riot he as successfully investigated by a private individual as by the Church.