Third, that the fathers cite testimonies from these books.
Third, that the fathers cite testimonies from these books.
§ 107. [III] They argue from the fathers’ use of these books as proof [allegatio]. “The fathers not only use the controversial books as proof [allegant] but also call them sacred and divine. Therefore they must not be excluded from the canonical books.”
We respond. (1) One must distinguish between a bare citation and a citation as of a principle taken from canonical books. One cannot demonstrate the canonical authority of a book from a bare citation of the fathers unless one proves that it was quoted [allegatus] as canonical and unless each and every requirement of a canonical book belongs to it. The fathers also quote 3 and 4 Ezra, the Book of the Shepherd, etc., which the Papists themselves acknowledge are not canonical.
(2) The title “Holy and Divine Scripture” is taken either properly and specifically for the canonical books or improperly and broadly for any book contained in the codex of the Bible and read in the Church for the edification of behavior. When the fathers call the controversial books “sacred and divine Scripture,” they are using this title in the broader and improper sense. They call them sacred books not because they are entirely equating them with the canonical books but: with regard to time and that occasion, because they received the volume of the Bible that was enlarged by the Hellenistic Jews; with regard to the theme, which is about sacred matters; and with regard to use, for one may take examples of virtues from them. Thus they call 3 and 4 Ezra “sacred and divine,” though the Papists nevertheless exclude them from the canon. Bellarmine (De conc., bk. 2, c. 12, § Dico secundo) cannot repudiate this distinction because on the basis of the same principle he excuses Gratian for saying that papal decretals were sacred and canonical.
(3) One can note here the reason for which some fathers, especially in the Western Church, called those controversial books sacred, divine, and canonical and thus did not observe carefully the distinction between biblical books by which they are separated into canonical and apocryphal books. The Greek version of the Seventy Translators [the Septuagint] was regarded as almost the original version by them; the Hebrew text was unknown to most. Therefore because these controversial books were connected to the rest of the canonical books in the version of the Seventy Translators, they judged they were no less canonical than the rest. From that, it happened that when Jerome translated the Bible from Hebrew, the distinction of canonical from apocryphal books again emerged into the light. It happened that in the Western Church those books were read publicly, and from that they drew some authority; in the Eastern Church, however, they were not read forth.