Holy Scripture. 11
The Demonstration of the Problem or Position The demonstration of the problem shall be shown in the following positions, which I have composed from the chiefest places of divinity now in controversy. And the scope of them all is this: to show and prove that the religion now professed at Rome is falsely called
Catholic. The sum of my demonstration tends to show that the chief and proper heads thereof either:
§ were not received from the times of Christ or His apostles, or § if they were received thence, yet not as articles of faith but only as opinions and probable conjectures, or § that in all places the purest churches never held them in the same sense that the papists held them in the Council of Trent.
Holy Scripture 1. The ancient and Christian church has acknowledged the Jews' canon of the Old Testament to be true and perfect, excluding wholly from it the Books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees. Testimonies: "Besides these," says Athanasius, in Synopsi, "there are other books of the Old Testament which are not canonical, but only read by the catechumens, as the book of Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, etc." "Of these," says Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 4, "read the 22 books, but meddle not with the Apocrypha. Meditate
diligently upon those Scriptures which the Church confidently reads and use no other. The apostles and bishops, at the first sowing of the Word, who left us these books, were far wiser, far holier than you are; therefore since you are a son of the church, do not break the bounds they have set you." "And as I said before, study the 22 books of the Old Testament. These are they," says Cyprian, or Ruffinus, in exp. Symb. of the Jews' canon, "which the fathers have put into the canon, by which we must lay the foundation of our faith. Yet note this, that there are other books also called by the fathers ecclesiastical, not canonical, and such is the Wisdom of Solomon, and another of Jesus Sirach, as also the books of Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees. In the New Testament, the book called Pastor. All which books they would have read in the church, but not used for confirming any point of faith." Epiphanius, lib. de pond. & mens., after he has reckoned up the canon, thus censures the books of the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus: "They are fit and profitable, but not reckoned among those which are approved by the church, and therefore they were neither laid up in Aaron, nor in the ark of the testament." The same words are in Damascene. And Nazianzen certainly determines the canon in his verses of the true books of Holy
Scripture. In English thus: "In our Old Testament two and twenty books are set, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet."
Look also in the same Nazianzen, his iambic poetry to Seleucus, on good education. Jerome says, in prolog Galeato, in lib. Reg., that the Wisdom of Solomon, Jesus Sirach, Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon. And in another place, Praef. in lib. Salo., "As the church reads the books of Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees, and yet does not allow them as canonical, so also we read these two (the books of Wisdom and Sirach) for the edifying of the people, but not for the confirmation of any ecclesiastical opinion." And in the third place,
Praef. in Esdram & Nehemiam, ad Dominionem & Rogatianum:
"What books soever are not from the Hebrews, and among the 24 old ones, are wholly to be rejected." This opinion of Jerome is followed by Lyra, in Prolog. in Apocryph., Dionysius Carthusianus, and Hugo
Cardinalis, Prol. in Josuam. "Let us take a testimony," says Gregory, in Job, lib. 19, c. 17, "out of the Maccabees, which although they are not canonical, yet were set forth to edify the church." "Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees," says Radulphus, in Levit. lib. 14, c. 1, "are not of any authority though they be read for the instruction of the Church."
"After the authentic books," says Petrus Cluniacensis, epist. 2, lib. 1, "there remain other six to be spoken of, viz., Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit,
Judith, and the two of the Maccabees; and these, though they could not attain to the credit and authority of the former, yet for their usefulness and good worth, they have deserved admittance by the church." Cajetan at the end of Esther says that seven chap.s of Esther, the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees are all apocryphal. Charles Sigonius, Com. in Severum
Sulpitium, denies the Maccabees to be canonical because of the dissonance of their style from the rest and seems to prefer the history of Justin before it.
Jerome says in Praefat. in Judith that the Nicene Council reckoned Judith among the Holy Scriptures; therefore that synod held all the rest of the Apocrypha as unworthy of allowance in the church. Yet it is not certain which Jerome affirms of this book, for his words are, we read the council to have reckoned it: "But Athanasius, present at that council, utterly refuses it." Also the Council of Laodicea, in canon 59, decreed that no part of the Old Testament should be read in the church, but only the Hebrews' canonical Scriptures. Indeed the Third
Council of Carthage, in the 47th canon, numbers all the aforenamed books among the Holy Scriptures. But I say that the catalogue of the
books of that council is either counterfeit or justly doubted, for: 1.
This canon which is reckoned for the 47th of this council, is in some books the 24th canon of another council under Boniface, as Surius will testify. 2. In this canon are allowed five books of Solomon, whereas there are not so many. 3. The canons in Trullo approve both the Laodicean Council and this one, which should not have been done if they had determined just contraries, the one making that apocryphal which the other makes canonical. 4. I think the Council of Carthage held all books canonical which the ancient fathers admitted to be read in the church.
2. The book of Baruch has been held apocryphal, both by the fathers and councils, even to the year 1439, at which time the Florentine
Council canonized it. And yet did Driedo deny it to be canonical after this, D. dogm. Eccl., lib. 1, cap. 4.
3. Esther's last seven chap.s, Daniel's hymn of the children, the history of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, are all rejected as counterfeits by the fathers. Jerome, preface in Daniel, calls the history of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon fables, and says they bear not the authority of Holy Scripture. And so, he says, Eusebius,
Apollinaris, and Methodius do all judge.
The author of the book de mirabilibus scripturae, in Saint Augustine, lib. 2, c. 32, says that concerning the other den of lions and the transportation of Habakkuk, in the tale of Bel and the Dragon, nothing is put in this rank, because they are not contained in the divine Scriptures. And Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. lib. 1, cap. 8, rejects the seven chap.s of Esther and the history of Susanna as additions.
4. The word canonical is used by the fathers in two senses, namely, absolutely and respectively, ἁπλῶς and κατὰ τι. That which is absolutely canonical is the perfect rule both of faith and discipline.
Respectively canonical is that work wherein are contained some sentences taken out of the writings absolutely canonical, and some histories concerning the church of God, and are therefore allowed to be read in the church at public meetings. And in this sense, it is opposite only to profane and heathenish works. In this sense are these apocryphal books called canonical and divine, or of divine authority by Augustine, De Civitate Dei, book 18, chap. 36, with chap. 23, book 2, Contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, and Jerome, preface to Maccabees. And in this sense the Council of Carthage in the afore cited canon acknowledges all those for canonical
Scriptures, which, says it, "we have received from the fathers to be read in the church." And indeed, when the fathers cite these apocrypha, they do not allege them as properly canonical, but only as historical. Ambrose, book De Bono Mortis and book 2 on Luke, cites the 4 books of Ezra, yet who is he that holds this book for canonical?
So is the third of Ezra, and Hermes's book called Pastor, oftentimes alleged by the ancient writers, and yet are apocrypha. By the canons of the apostles, Canon 84, the 3rd book of the Maccabees is canonical, but not by the Council of Trent. Bellarmine says that the decrees of the popes are by Gratian called Holy Scriptures, but κατεγράφησαν, that is, absolutely to distinguish them from profane writings, and canonical to distinguish them from the fathers' holy works, which are neither rules for our faith, nor have power to bind us to believe them. "For although," quotes he, "the canons of popes and councils are distinguished from, and set after the Holy
Scriptures, yet in their kind, they both are and may be called holy and canonical writings", as Innocentius, chap. Cum Martha, extra de
Celebratione Missarum calls that sentence of Augustine's Holy Scripture: "he injures a martyr, that prays for a martyr." And in this sense Damasus calls the canons of the apostles canonical.
5. The ancient fathers, and the most learned of their successors, do hold the Hebrew and Greek text of the Holy Scriptures to be uncorrupted and pure. This not one denies. Jerome, in chap. 6,
Isaiah, derides them that say that the Hebrew books are corrupted.
The same father will have more credit given to the original than to the translator, Epistle to Lucinus de Optimo Genere Interpretandi, in chap. 3, Malachi, epistle to Augustine 89, preface to the Four
Gospels. Augustine also, De Civitate Dei, book 15, chap. 13, says, "that when a diversity is found in the books, trust that language from whence it is known to have been first translated." So says Ludovicus
Vives upon this place of Augustine. And Augustine himself in divers other places, namely, Epistle 108, Tractate 3 on John, De Doctrina
Christiana, book 2, chap. 11. Arias Montanus says plainly that the Jews never corrupted the Hebrew book which we now have, and if there were any change, yet was there not one word, one letter, one tittle, which was not kept in the treasury called Masorah, and therefore he calls that Masorah a faithful custody.
6. The fathers before Gregory I never used the vulgar translation, which is now said to be of Jerome's correction, by Damasus's command.
Tertullian against Marcion used it not (lib. 5, cap. 4, cap. 5, cap. 13); Cyprian used it not (Ad Quirinum, lib. 1, num. 12; lib. 2, num. 6, 7; lib. 3, num. 35); the Roman clergy contemporary with Cyprian used it not (Ep. 31); Arnobius used it not (Comment. in Psal., 67, 106.);
Hilary used it not (In Matth.); Ambrose used it not (Comment. in Luc., lib. 8.); Augustine used it not (Tract. in Joann., 44, 61; Tract. 10 in 1. Epist. John, Tract. 6 in 1. Epist. John, Tract. 7 in 1. Epist. John);
Optatus used it not (In Matth. 16); Fulgentius used it not (Ad Thrasimundum, lib. 1, cap. 5; lib. 2, cap. 18.); Primasius used it not;
Prosper used it not (De promiss., part. 3.); Leo the Great used it not (Fest. om sanct.).
7. Gregory often follows that translation, even the errors of those who copied it out, as Luke 15, overturned the house, for overturned
(hom. 34, in Evangel.). Therefore the Latin translation attributed to Jerome had not then gained footing, neither was it preferred in the Roman Church before others, until about the time of Gregory the Great, who in that respect, in the 20 books of his morals, cap. 23, terms that translation new. Neither does he in all things follow it, for in his 1st book of morals, c. 19, he reads not She shall bruise, but, She shall watch. And after Gregory's time, that alone was not received, for Bede, Gildas, and others followed other translations now and then. And Bernard, Serm. in Cant. 24, reads in Genesis 4, If you offer rightly, and do not divide rightly, according to the Septuagint. It was not therefore only and wholly approved of, for the space of one thousand years after Christ, neither can it be shown by any decree of the church that the Latin edition should be held for authentic before the late Council of Trent.
8. It is probable that the vulgar translation which is made authentic among the Catholics is not that which Jerome at Damasus's appointment did correct, for there are many errors in this which Jerome did correct. The name of Isaiah, in chap. 1, verse 2 of Mark's
Gospel, in the vulgar edition, Jerome thinks was added by some copier's negligence, in his Commentary on Matthew chap. 3. And upon the 6th chap. of Matthew, he corrected the word (exterminant) which the vulgar translation keeps. And whereas the vulgar edition has Matthew 16:23, vade post me, Jerome says, vade retro me. Again, in the Epistle to the Galatians, chap. 1, they say, Expugnabam illam, but he says, in his Commentary there, Devastabam illam. And in the same chap. they say acquievi, he says, contuli. And upon the 3rd
chap., "It is written," quotes he, "in certain books, Quis vos fascinavit non credere veritati? but because this is not in Origen's copy, we let it pass." In the 5th chap., the vulgar says, Evacuati estis à Christo, he says, à Christo opere cessastis, justly reprehending the former interpretation. Yea, Augustine himself, though he so greatly commends the translation of Jerome in his 10th epistle, yet in more than 500 places he does not follow this edition.
9. What the fathers have spoken concerning the church's allowance of the Scriptures does not belong to the church that now is. That place of Augustine, Contra epistolam fundamenti, chap. 5: "I would not believe the gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me," Gerson of Paris, in his book on the spiritual life, lecture
2, Corollary, holds not to be meant of "any church, but only of the primitive church which saw Christ's person, or His apostles, and could bear record of their doctrine and writing." "That which is spoken of the church's approbation of the Scriptures," says
Durandus, book 3, dist.n 24, question 1, "is meant of that church only which was in the apostles' time, who were full of the Holy Ghost, and besides saw Christ's miracles and heard His doctrine, and therefore were convenient witnesses of all things that He either did or said, so that the Gospels which that church then received cannot be by us now refused, because of the diversity of the cause. Whosoever thinks otherwise is a heretic, of what state or condition soever he be."
What ground had Cusanus then for his assertion to the Bohemians, Epistle 2, namely, that "the authority of the Scriptures depends upon the approbation of the present church, and they have no more power to loose and bind than the church will give them." And that speech of Bellarmine is a foundation of atheism: "If," quotes he, De effectu sacramentorum, book 2, chap. 25, "we should take away the authority and credit of this present church and Council of Trent, the
decrees of all other councils, nay even Christian faith itself might be called in question." Again, "The credit and certainty of all opinions and doctrines depends upon the authority of the present church."
10. The canonical Scripture is a principle of divinity deserving credit of itself, and therefore not demonstrable by any other exterior principle. "The principles of divinity," says Petrus de Alliaco, in book
1 of Sentences, question 1, article 3, "are the very truths of the sacred canon. Moreover, the final resolution of theological discourse appertains unto them, and from them the conclusions of all divinity are drawn." "God's will," says Joachim Abbas, in his Apocalypse commentary, "is that we, acknowledging the letter of both the Testaments, presume not upon any other relation or opinion further than the written Word."
11. The Holy Scriptures, in all such things as are necessary for our salvation, do manifestly, truly, and infallibly explain and open themselves, serving for both gloss and text. "The regular and diligent interpretation according to Scripture," says Irenaeus, lib. 4, cap. 63,
"is without danger of error or blasphemy." "Our meanings and allegations," says Origen, in Jeremiah, hom. 1, "without these witnesses, the Scriptures, have not any credit. And whereas it is said,
'In the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word stand,' this rather belongs to the proof of the interpreter, than to any certain number of men whosoever, that I may confirm the word of my understanding, taking the two witnesses to be meant of the Old and New Testament, and the three to be spoken of the gospel, the prophet, and the apostle; for so shall every word be confirmed." "The Scripture expounds itself," says Chrysostom, Homily 13, in Genesis,
"and suffers not the hearer thereof to err." So says Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, lib. 2, cap. 6 and 26, 27, 28. And so Clement also, "For you ought not," says he, Epist. 5, and he is cited dist. 27, c.