The arguments of the Papists: First, that the apostles declared that these books were canonical.
The arguments of the Papists: First, that the apostles declared that these books were canonical.
§ 104. Here are the stronger arguments of the Papists by which they want to prove that those controversial books are canonical: (I) From the declaration of the apostles. “The apostles declared that they are canonical.” Bellarmine, De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 10, § Jam haec tria: “Even if there were no testimonies about these books from the synagogue of the Jews, nevertheless there are [testimonies] from the apostolic Church, and this is enough. For without other witness the apostles could declare that those books were canonical. This they did. Otherwise Cyprian and Clement and others would not have said so firmly that they were divine.”
We respond. They are asserting this freely and without witness. (1) The apostles did not use the witness of those books to confirm doctrines. Rather, they referred the Old Testament books to two classes: to the Law and the Prophets, that is, to the Mosaic and prophetic books (Acts 26:22; Rom. 3:21). Those controversial books, however, are neither Mosaic nor prophetic.
(2) The apostles never reproached the Israelite church in their talk or writings with the charge of excluding truly canonical books. On the contrary, they rather gave that church this praise: that “they were entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2). Therefore they did not acknowledge canonical books of the Old Testament other than those the Israelite church considered canonical. Hence the canonical authority of those controversial books would have to be demonstrated from the testimony of the Israelite church. Yet it is evident that she never acknowledged those controversial books as canonical.
(3) Catharinus himself acknowledges that the apostles did not declare that those books were canonical. In his Annotat. in epist. Corinth., bk. 1, he scolds Cajetan because he had claimed that “that writing alone was sacred and divine that the apostles either wrote or approved.” He also adds: “The Church accepts some books as canonical which, it is evident, the apostles neither wrote nor approved.”
(4) There is no strength in the argument by which Bellarmine tries to prove that the apostles declared these books to be canonical. He says, “Had not the apostles claimed that these books were canonical, Cyprian, Clement, and others would not have said so firmly that they were divine.” We, however, draw a far more accurate conclusion. If the apostles had declared that these books were canonical, the fathers whom we quoted in great number earlier would never have excluded them so firmly from the canon. Even if Cyprian, Clement, and a few others were to stand on the side of the Papists in this question, we could oppose to them the cloud of witnesses we adduced earlier. But there is no need for them to contend with each other here, because those whom Bellarmine cites on behalf of his opinion are using the expression “divine and Holy Scripture” in a broader sense, as we shall explain more clearly than light a little later.
(5) Bellarmine argues in the aforementioned book that “the Church can declare a book to be canonical that was not [formerly] considered canonical on the basis of three reasons especially: First, on the basis of testimonies of the ancients. Second, on the basis of the similarity of the doubtful books to those that are not doubtful. Third, on the basis of the common sense and taste, as it were, of Christian people.” None of these reasons, however, is possible in relation to the controversial books. First, they can bring out no harmonious testimony of the ancients about those books. Second, that similarity is not enough for a noncanonical book to be taken into the canon. After all, whatever books have the same truth, they do not immediately have equal authority. The Prayer of Manasseh contains nothing false nor wicked, yet the Papists exclude it from the canon. Furthermore, there is a great dissimilarity between those books that are controversial and those that are not. You see, the former either contain something false or corrupt (and once this charge has been examined, they are repugnant to the canonical books), or they strike against historical or chronological truth, or they contradict themselves, as we shall show later in the specific examination of them. Nothing of all this, however, can be affirmed or pointed out about the truly canonical books. Third, neither the taste nor common sense of Christian people can be demonstrated concerning these books. That is merely throwing words around.