Antithesis.
Antithesis.
§ 205. Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 7) and other Papists claim that the supplement to Esther containing the seven latter chapters is equally as canonical as the first nine. They employ especially the following arguments: [I] From the connection of this supplement with the genuine Book of Esther:
When the councils and fathers put Esther into the canon, they spoke about that volume that both they and the entire Church were using at that time. But now, at that time the universal Church was using sacred books according to that version that Jerome calls “common” [vulgatam], which is in the language and alphabet of the Greeks. Those seven chapters are not lacking in that version. Our witnesses are the Greek texts that bear the name of the seventy-two translators [i.e., the Septuagint].
We respond. (1) It is true that in the codex of the Bible that foreign and apocryphal appendix is joined to the genuine and canonical Book of Esther. It is obvious from the above, however, what sort of difference there is between the two, a difference that was not unknown to the majority of the fathers, especially to those who lived after Jerome’s version from the Hebrew was received.
(2) The argument, therefore, proceeds from the nondistributed to the distributed.40 It does not follow that if the fathers put the Book of Esther into the number of the canonical books that they also thought that those chapters in a different language, which clearly were of a different genus and not at all in harmony with the genuine Book of Esther, were canonical. Otherwise we would have to make the same claim of Jerome and Lyra, who place the Book of Esther into the canon yet do not claim that the appendix is canonical. By admission of Bellarmine himself, however, they reject it as corrupt.
(3) Therefore we press Bellarmine using his own hypotheses. In De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 20, § At de tertio, he fashions this objection for supporting the canonical authority of 3 Ezra: “In the Greek codices the third book is what is called 1 Ezra, but what we call 1 and 2 Ezra in the Greek is called 2 Ezra. Therefore it is likely that, when the old councils and fathers place the two Books of Ezra into the canon, they understand all three, using the expression ‘two books.’ You see, they were following the Septuagint version in which our three books are called the two Books of Ezra.” But he responds (§ Sequente ad alteram): “Even if in the Greek codices the two Books of Ezra are our three, it is still not a consequence that the old councils and ancient fathers who put the two Books of Ezra into the canon mean our three books with the expression ‘two books.’ You see, many of the ancients—such as Melito, Epiphanius, Hilary, Jerome, and Rufinus—in explaining the canon of the Old Testament, clearly followed the Hebrews, not the Greeks. And the Hebrews do not have a 3 Ezra.” This is also the answer we give to Bellarmine’s argument.
§ 206. [II] They argue from the fathers’ quotations. “The fathers count this book among the sacred books and draw some testimonies from those last chapters” (Chrysostom, Ad popul. Antioch., homily 3; Augustine, Epistle 199 ad Ediciam).
We respond. Neither the fathers’ quotation nor the general title “Sacred Scripture” grants canonical authority to either that supplement or the rest of the controversial books. As for the fathers’ quotation, how weak a support it supplies for canonical authority can be seen from the following. (1) The holy apostle quotes lines from Menander, Aratus, and Epimenides, yet one must not for that reason assign canonical authority to those heathen writers. In his Epistle, v. 14, Jude quotes the testimony of Enoch, which Bellarmine nevertheless admits “was taken from an apocryphal book” (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 18). On this point he also has the agreement of Jerome (Catalog., on the word Judas). (2) The Book of Hermas, or The Shepherd, is quoted and testimonies taken from it by Irenaeus (bk. 4, c. 37), Tertullian (De orat.), Clement of Alexandria (Stromat., bk. 7), Athanasius (De decretis synodi Nicenae), Eusebius (bk. 5, c. 8), Cassian (Collat., bk. 13, c. 12), and others, yet no synod put it into the canon. And with clear words Gelasius (Decretum de libris Ecclesiasticis, dist. 15, c. Sanct. Roman.) and Athanasius (Synopsis) reject it from the canon. Also, Athanasius (De decretis synodi Nicenae) and Theodoret (Histor., bk. 1, c. 18) say the same thing. They say that the Arians who were looking for testimonies from this book were seeking testimonies from a noncanonical book. Bellarmine repeats this in the same words in De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 20, § Nec minus. (3) In the same place, § At de tertio etc., he admits and acknowledges that 3 Ezra was cited by Athanasius (Contra Arianos, orat. 3), Augustine (De civ. Dei, bk. 18, c. 36), Clement of Alexandria (Stromat., bk. 1), the author of the Opus imperfectum in Matth. (Homily 1), and Cyprian (Epist. ad Pompejum). Yet Bellarmine correctly denies that that book is canonical. (4) The fourth Book of Ezra is quoted by Ambrose (De bono mortis, c. 10; bk. 2 on Luke; and Epistle 21 ad Hortatianum). (It is also quoted by Irenaeus, bk. 3, c. 25; Clement of Alexandria, Stromat., bk. 1; Tertullian, De habitu muliebri; Basil, Epistle ad Chilonem; Chrysostom, homily 8 on Hebrews.) Yet this book is undoubtedly not canonical, and these, too, are the words of Bellarmine (op. cit., § Postremo apocryphi).
Much less can one claim canonical authority for those apocryphal books from the general title “Sacred Scripture.” (1) Origen calls the Book of Hermas, or The Shepherd, “divinely inspired” (
) (bk. 10, on the Epistle to the Romans). Eusebius judged it “a useful book” (Hist., bk. 3, c. 3), as did also Rufinus (Symb.) and Jerome (De scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis). Yet no synod put it into the canon, and Gelasius with clear words rejects it from the canon. Again, these are Bellarmine’s words (op. cit., § Nec minus). (2) In De bono mortis, c. 10, Ambrose calls the fourth Book of Ezra “divine.” Yet Bellarmine does not for this reason count it among the canonical books. (3) Bellarmine argues (De concil., bk. 2, c. 12, § Dico secundo): “The decrees of the popes are called ‘Sacred Scripture’ to distinguish them from secular writings, and ‘canonical’ to distinguish them from the writings of the fathers that are not rules and do not have the authority to obligate.” Then he immediately adds: “The canons of popes and councils in their own way are and can be called sacred and canonical writings.” This he proves from the Seventh Council, act. 3, etc.; Cum Martha Christ. de celeb. Miss. But if the supplement to Esther or the other controversial books can be said to have been taken into the canon because of such a title, we shall have to pass the same judgment concerning the decrees of popes and councils.
§ 207. [III] From the demonstration of Origen: “Origen, Epistle ad Julium Africanum, demonstrates that this part of the Book of Esther that we do not find in the volumes of the Hebrews is sacred and canonical.”
We respond. (1) He says that that supplement is in the Septuagint and that it is read in the churches, but nowhere does he state that it is canonical. (2) It is certain that Origen followed the canon of the Hebrews, according to Eusebius (Hist., bk. 6, c. 24), but that appendix is not in the canon of the Hebrews. (3) For this reason, Sixtus Senensis (Biblioth., bk. 1, p. 27) draws a totally contrary conclusion from that letter of Origen. He says, “In his letter to Julius Africanus, Origen rejects these same additions.” (4) However much Bellarmine may otherwise attribute to Origen, it appears from this that he lists him in “the catalog of heretics” (De notis eccles., bk. 4, c. 9, § 21). In De purgatorio, bk. 2, c. 8, art. 16, he brings up the vision from the book that is entitled Pratum spirituale, c. 25, in which “Origen was seen being tormented in the fire along with Arius and other heretics.” He also adds: “The Pratum spirituale is quoted in the Seventh General Council, lest anyone decide this book should be rejected.”
§ 208. [IV] From its reading in the Church. “Some things from the supplement are read in the Church.” We respond. We do not deny that in the Western Church those controversial books were generally read for the edification of the people. But canonical authority is not added to them because of this, for they were read for instruction of behavior, not for the confirmation of doctrine. In his preface to the Books of Solomon, Jerome defines the apocryphal books in this way: “They are not in the canon; nevertheless they are read in the Church to edify the people.” Those things that are added at the end about the Councils of Florence and Trent do not bother us. (1) You see, the Council of Florence convened scarcely two hundred years ago and that of Trent was publicized within the memory of our fathers. Was the canon incomplete in the Church for so many centuries? (2) In the book that contains the reasons for refusing the Council of Trent,41 it was proved with many arguments that that council “was not general, not free, and not Christian.” (3) This is not the one and only error of the Council of Trent: that it wanted to gain authority for the apocryphal books to confirm papal dogmas. One should see Chemnitz’s Examen about this matter. (4) In the fourth session of that council, in which the decree regarding the canon was published, the legates, cardinals, archbishops, and bishops who were present and published the decree about the number of canonical books were about fifty in all, and they were almost all Italian and Spanish. How, then, was this the sanction of a general and ecumenical council?