## THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

## QUESTION I.

CHAPTER I.

WHEREIN THIS WHOLE CONTROVERSY IS DISTRIBUTED INTO ITS PARTICULAR QUESTIONS. W E will lay the foundation of this controversy in those words of Christ which are to be found in the fifth chapter of St. John’s Gospel at the thirty-ninth verse:

Ἐ ρευν ᾶ τε τ ὰ ς γραφ ὰ ς, S EARCH THE S CRIPTURES. Christ had been commended to the Jews by the testimony of John the Baptist. That testimony was most true and honourable; and could not be despised by the Jews themselves, amongst whom John lived in the highest respect and estimation. Yet Christ declares that he had others greater, more certain and more august than the testimony of John. He enumerates three of them: first, the works which he performed; secondly, his Father who had sent him; thirdly, the holy scriptures themselves, which he calls his witnesses. The Jews, indeed, thought honourably of the scriptures, and supposed that eternal life might be found in them. Nor does Christ blame in the least that judgment of theirs concerning the scriptures, but rather praises it. He bids them go on to “search the scriptures;” he inflames in every way their zeal for the scriptures, and sharpens their industry. For he exhorts them not only to read, but search and thoroughly examine the scriptures: he would not have them content with a slight perusal, but requires an assiduous, keen, laborious diligence in examining and investigating their meaning, such as those apply who search with anxious toil for treasures buried in the earth.

Now since Christ hath bid us search the scriptures without exception, not this part, or that part, or the other, it is manifest that in these words we are commanded to search the whole of scripture; not to confine ourselves to certain portions of it, while we despise or overlook the rest. All parts give plain testimony to Christ. But the scriptures are praised by the papists, as well as

highly esteemed by us; nor is there any controversy, whether the scriptures are to be searched. But concerning the due manner of searching them, and who they are to whom that care appertains, and concerning the scriptures themselves, which we all unanimously affirm should be searched, there is a most important controversy, which I shall now attempt to explain. In order to effect this clearly and methodically, I think it may be all divided into six questions, after the following manner.

We are commanded to search the scriptures: and for that purpose we must first understand, what are those genuine books of scripture, in searching and turning over which it behoves us to be occupied. The first question therefore shall be, Of the number of the canonical books of scripture.

We are commanded to search the scriptures: and therefore we must next consider, to whom this precept is addressed; whether only to the learned, and those skilled in the ancient languages, or to all the faithful. The second question therefore shall be, Of versions of the scripture and sacred rites in the vulgar tongue.

We are commanded to search the scriptures: whence it appears that the scriptures enjoy a very high dignity and authority, since Christ himself appeals and refers us to them. The third question therefore shall be, Of the authority of scripture; whether it have this so great credibility and dignity of itself, and from the Holy Ghost its author, or from the testimony of the church.

We are commanded to search the scriptures: whence some hope appears to be shewn that we shall come to understand them, and gain much profit by the search, if we do as we are commanded. Therefore the fourth question shall be, Of the perspicuity of scripture.

We are commanded to search the scripture; that is, to seek and investigate the true sense of scripture, since the scripture lies wholly in the meaning. Therefore the fifth question shall be, Of the interpretation of scripture; how it is to be interpreted, and who has the right and authority of interpretation.

We are commanded to search the scripture: and under the name of scripture the written word of God is plainly understood. Here then we must consider whether we are only bound to search the scripture, or whether, beside the scripture, something else be commended to our investigations. Therefore the sixth and last question shall be, Of the perfection of scripture; which I shall

## prove to be so absolutely complete that we should wholly acquiesce in it, and need desire nothing more, and that unwritten traditions are by no means necessary for us.

## These questions I purpose to treat in the order in which I have proposed them.

CHAPTER II.

CONCERNING THE STATE OF THE FIRST QUESTION .

## T HE books of scripture are called canonical , because they contain the standard and rule of our faith and morals. For the scripture is in the church what the law is in a state, which Aristotle in his Politics calls a canon or rule. As all citizens are bound to live and behave agreeably to the public laws, so Christians should square their faith and conduct by the rule and law of scripture. So, in Eusebius 1 , the holy fathers accuse Paul of Samosata of departing from the rule ( ἀ ποστ ὰ ς ἀ π ὸ το ῦ κανόος ), and becoming the author of an heretical opinion. So Tertullian, in his book against Hermogenes 2 , calls the scripture the rule of faith; and Cyprian says, in his discourse upon the baptism of Christ: “One will find that the rules of all doctrine are derived from this scripture; and that, whatever the discipline of the church contains springs hence, and returns hither 3 .” Chrysostom too, in his 13 th

1 [ ὅ που δ ὲ ἀ ποστ ὰ ς το ῦ κανόνος ἐ π ὶ κίβδηλα καί νόθα διδάγματα μετελήλυθεν, ο ὐ δ ὲ ν δε ῖ το ῦ ἕ ξω ὄ ντος τ ὰ ς πράξεις κρίνειν . H. E. VII. 30. T. 3. p. 391. ed. Heinich. Lips. 1828. But it is most probably the Creed that is there meant.]

2 [Whitaker most probably refers to the famous passage, c. xxii. “Adoro plenitudinem scripturae,” &c. cited below, Qu. 6. c. xvi., and produced also by Cosin (Scholastical History of the Canon, chapter 1 § 1.) in proof that the Church always regarded scripture as “the infallible RULE of our FAITH .” Some, however, suppose that Tertullian refers to scripture, and not the Creed, in these words: “Solemus haereticis compendii gratia de posteritate praescribere: in quantum enim veritatis regula prior, quae etiam futuras haereses praenuntiavit , in tantum posteriores quaeque doctrinae haereses praejudicabuntur.” Adv. Hermog. 1 ( Opp . P. IV. p. 1. ed. Leopold. Lipsiae, 1841.) For the Creed contains no prediction of heresies.]

3 [This treatise, falsely ascribed to Cyprian, may be found in the works of Arnold of Chartres (Carnotensis) subjoined to Fell’s Cyprian (Amstel. 1691). The passage cited is at p. 33: “Inveniet ex hac scriptura omnium doctrina-

## Homily upon 2 Corinthians calls scripture the exact balance, and standard, and rule of all things.” For the same reason Augustine affirms, that “whatever belongs to faith and moral life may be found in the scriptures 1 ;” and he calls the scripture the scales , in the following passage: “Let us not apply deceitful scales, where we may weigh what we wish, and as we wish; but let us bring God’s own scales from the holy scriptures,” &c.

## So Basil calls the sacred doctrine “the canon of rectitude and rule of truth,” which fails in no part of perfection: and Ruffinus, in his exposition of the creed, after enumerating the books of scripture, adds, “These are the books which the fathers included in the canon, and from which they willed that the assertions of our faith should be demonstrated 2 ;” and then he subjoins: “From these fountains of the divine word our cups are to be drawn 3 .” Aquinas too lays down, that “the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is called canonical, because it is, as it were, the rule of our intellect 4 .” Hence it plainly appears why the scriptures are called canonical ;—because they prescribe to us what we must believe, and how we ought to live: so that we should refer to this test our whole faith and life, as the mason or architect squares his work by the line and plummet. Hence, too, we may perceive that the scripture is perfect, since otherwise the title of canon or rule could hardly be applied to it; upon which point we shall have to speak under the sixth question.

## Now these books, which are called canonical, are comprised in the old and new Testaments, and are therefore styled Testamentary . So Eusebius calls these books ἐ νδιαθήκους 5 ; and Nicephorus often uses the same term. Some also call them διαθηκο -

rum regulas emanasse; et hinc nasci, et huc reverti, quidquid ecclesiastica continet disciplina.” But Arnold is not speaking of the whole scripture, but of the command to love God.]

1 [See these passages cited more fully below. Qu. 6. c. 16.]

2 [Haec sunt quae patres intra canonem concluserunt; ex quibus fidei nostrae assertiones constare voluerunt. Ad Calc. Opp. Cypriani, p. 26, ut supra.]

3 [Haec nobis a patribus, ut dixi, tradita opportunum visum est hoc in loco designare, ad instructionem eorum qui prima sibi ecclesiae ac fidei elementa suscipiunt, ut sciant ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi Dei haurienda sint pocula. Ibid. p. 27.]

4 [Doctrina apostolorum et prophetarum canonica dicitur, quia est quasi regula intellectus nostri. Thomae Aquin. in 1 Timothy 6 Lect. 1.]

5 [H. E. Lib. V. c. 25. ο ὐ κ ἐ νδιαθήκους μ ὲ ν, ἀ λλ ὰ κα ὶ ἀ ντιλεγομένους .]

γρά ϕ ους. The question, then, between us and the papists is, What books are to be esteemed canonical and testamentary. Concerning many, and indeed the principal ones, we are agreed: concerning some we are at variance. But, in order that the true state of this question may be understood, we must see, in the first place, what the council of Trent hath determined upon this subject. Its words are as follows: “The synod hath deemed it fitting that a catalogue of the sacred books should be subjoined to this decree, lest any should have occasion to doubt what books are received by it 1 .” Then it recites the books which are truly canonical, and are received by us without any hesitation. But it subjoins others which we do not acknowledge as canonical. Such are these six books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, two books of Maccabees. These are the books of the old Testament. Afterwards, it enumerates the books of the new Testament, all of which we receive without any controversy, although they were not always alike received in the church, as you shall hear in the sequel. Finally, the council concludes in these words: “Whoever does not receive these books entire with all their parts, as they are contained in the ancient Latin Vulgate, for sacred and canonical, let him be accursed 2 !” Here you have the decree of the Tridentine council, and the terrible sanction of that decree. From these premises it now appears that we are required by the Tridentine fathers, if we would escape their anathema, to receive as authoritative canonical scripture not only those six entire books which we have mentioned, but besides certain parts of and additions to the books, as Baruch, the Hymn of the three Children, the histories of Susannah and Bel and the Dragon, which are attributed to Daniel, and certain apocryphal chapters of the book of Esther: for it is thus that the Jesuits interpret the meaning of this decree. Now, therefore, the state of the question is this; whether these books, and these parts of books, should be received for sacred and canonical scriptures? They affirm: we deny. It remains that we should proceed to the discussion. I will first answer their arguments, and then proceed to the defence of our cause; which course I

1 [Sacrorum vero librorum indicem huic decreto adhibendum censuit, no cui dubitatio suboriri possit, quinam sint, qui ab ipsa synodo suscipiuntur. Concil. Trid. Sess. IV. Decret. 1.]

2 [Si quis autem hos libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit. . . . Anathema sit. Ibid.]

intend to follow throughout, because I deem it most suitable to the matter we have in hand, and I perceive that it hath been generally adopted by Aristotle. And since, as Nazianzen tells us, “every argument is designed either to establish our own opinion, or overturn the opposite 1 ,” I will choose first to overturn the opposite opinion, and then to establish my own.

CHAPTER III.

CONCERNING THOSE HERETICS WHO WERE GUILTY OF SACRILEGE AGAINST THE SACRED AND

CANONICAL SCRIPTURES. B UT, before I proceed, I deem it necessary for you to censure the madness of certain ancient heretics, who impiously removed some certain and undoubted parts of scripture from the sacred canon. Such heretics, indeed, there were in great numbers, as we read in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others. I shall not endeavour to go through them all, but will enumerate for you the principal.

First of all, the Sadducees received no scriptures but the five books of Moses 2 . This many suppose to have been the reason why Christ (Matthew 22.) refutes the Sadducees denying the resurrection, by the testimony of the Mosaic scripture. Simon, following in their steps, declared that the prophets were not at all to be regarded; as Irenaeus testifies 3 , Lib. I. c. 20. The Manichees rejected the whole old Testament, as proceeding from the evil God: for they imagined two gods, the one good and the other evil. Epiphanius has treated upon this subject, Haeres. 66. So Saturninus rejected the God of the Jews, and consequently the whole old Testament, as Irenaeus tells us, Lib. I. c. 22 4 . The impious Marcion insulted with a load of reproaches the God who is preached in the law and the prophets, and held that Christ had come to dis-

1 [Δ ιττο ῦ ὄ ντος λόγου παντ ὸ ς, το ῦ μ ὲ ν τ ὸ ο ἰ κε ῖ ον κατασκευάζοντος, το ῦ δ ὲ τ ὸ ἀ ντίπαλον ἀ νατρέποντος . Orat. xxxv. p. 562. A. Nazianz. Opp. T. 1. Colon. 1690.]

2 [This common notion is reasonably doubted by many. See Jortin’s Remarks, B. XI. Appendix 1, on the Sadducees, Vol. I. p. 439.]

3 [Prophetas autem a mundi fabricatoribus angelis inspiratos dixisse prophetias; quapropter nec ulterius curarent eos hi, qui in eum et in Selenen ejus spem habeant. P. 116. B . ed. Fevard. Paris. 1685.]

4 [Judaeorum Deum unum ex angelis esse dixit, et. . .advenisse Christum ad destructionem Judaeorum Dei . . . . . . Prophetias autem quasdam quidem

solve the law and the prophets, and the works of that God who made the world. This Irenaeus tells us 1 , Lib. I. c. 29. Such frantic men Christ himself expressly refutes by his own words, when he says, that he did not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17. This heresy Augustine also imputes to the Cerdonians, whom he affirms to hold the old Testament in contempt 2 , ( Ad Quod vult Deum, c. 21), and to the Severians, of whom he writes, “They condemn the resurrection of the flesh and the old Testament 3 ,” (ibid. c. 24.) Guido Cameracensis reckons this also amongst the heresies of the Albigenses. This heresy is refuted by Epiphanius, in the place which I have already cited, and most copiously by Augustine against Faustus the Manichee, and against the adversary of the law and the prophets.

The Ptolemaeans condemned the books of Moses 4 , as Epiphanius relates, Haeres. 33. The Nicolaitans and Gnostics ejected the book of Psalms from the sacred canon, as Philaster informs us, (in Lib. de Haer. c. 127); which heresy the Anabaptists have renewed in our times. But all these heretics are refuted by the clearest evidence of the new Testament.

Many formerly, as Philaster relates (in Cat. c. 132, 133), rejected the books of Solomon, and especially Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; because in the former Solomon seems to invite men to a life of pleasure, and in the latter, to relate certain amatory discourses between himself and Pharaoh’s daughter. But it is plain that these men fell into a manifest and impious error. For in Ecclesiastes Solomon does not allure men to enjoy the pleasures and blandishments of the world, but rather deters them from such pleasures, and exhorts them, with a divine eloquence, to

ab iis angelis qui mundum fabricaverunt dictas; quasdam autem a Satana, quem et ipsum angelum adversarium mundi fabricatoribus ostendit; maxime autem Judaeorum Deo. Ibid. p. 118, C.]

1 [Marcion . . . impudorate blasphemans eum qui a lege et prophetis annunciatus est Deus . . . Jesum autem [dicens] . . . venientem in Judaeam . . . dissolventem prophetas et legem, et omnia opera ejus Dei qui mundum fecit. Ibid. p. 129, A .]

2 [Resurrectionem mortuorum negat, spernens etiam Testamentum Vetus. Augustini Opp. T. VIII. col. 43, A. Paris. 1837.]

3 [Carnis resurrectionem cum Vetere Testamento respuentes. Ibid, C .]

4 [Π αρ ὰ γ ὰ ρ το ῖ ς ε ἰ ρημένοις κα ὶ τ ὸ ν νόμον το ῦ Θ εο ῦ τ ὸ ν δι ὰ Μ ωυσέως βλασ ϕ ημ ῶ ν ο ὐ κ α ἰ σχύνεται . Ed. Petav. Colon. 1682. T. 1. p. 216. See the curious epistle of Ptolemaeus to Flora, which he there subjoins, given also by Grabe, Spicil. 11. 69.]

despise and contemn the present world. Thus at the very commencement he exclaims, “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity:” in which words he declares that all those things which are sought after in this world, are uncertain, transitory, and fallacious. Whence it necessarily follows that those are mad who acquiesce in the enjoyment of such objects. And so (after having disputed through the whole book against those who pursue these pleasures so greedily, and desire to satisfy themselves with such goods, whatever they are) he at the close teaches that happiness consists not, as many suppose, in things of this kind, but in true piety, and thus concludes: “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole of man.” This is not the judgment of an Epicurus, but of a holy prophet, withdrawing foolish men from the pursuit of worthless objects, and recalling them into the true path of a pious and a happy life.

In the Song, if Solomon had wished to praise his wife, he would not have used such prodigious and absurd comparisons. For he compares her to the cavalry of Pharaoh, her head to Carmel, her eyes to fish-ponds, her nose to a tower, her teeth to a flock of sheep; and finally pronounces her whole person terrible as an army. Such things do not suit the daughter of Pharaoh and the bride of Solomon. They must, therefore, be referred to the mystic bride of another Solomon,—that is, to the Church of Christ, whose consummate union of faith and love with her spouse this whole book sets forth; as, indeed, all men of sound judgment have always determined. Nor is the fact, that none of the customary names of God occur in this book, any proof that it is not canonical. For, although such names are omitted, yet others are used of the same kind and importance, as shepherd, brother, friend, beloved, spouse, which were much more suitable to the style of such a piece: since he, whom the bride so often addresses under these names, is no other than Christ, at once the true Son of God, and the true God himself.

We care little for the impious Anabaptists, who reject this book with contempt; nor can we at all excuse Castalio 1 , if he really wrote

1 [I write the name thus in conformity with Whitaker’s usage; but the correct form is Castellio . See the curious history of the origin of the other form in Bayle, C ASTALIO , Rem. M. With respect to the imputation mentioned in the text, Varillas charges it upon Castellio more definitely, stating this injurious opinion of the Canticles to be avowed by him in his argument to that book. Bayle observes, that in five editions of Castellio’s bible which he

what some object to him;—that this book is nothing but a conversation which Solomon held with his Sulamith.

The Anabaptists are said, at the present day, to reject and ridicule the book of Job, and some have written that it is called by those heretics a Hebrew Tragi - Comedy. This they would seem to have learned from the wicked Jews: for certain rabbins, authors of the Talmudic fables, affirm 1 that it is a fictitious story, and no such man ever existed. The impudence of these persons is refuted by other testimonies of scripture. For, in Ezekiel 14:14, the Lord says: “If these three men were in the midst thereof, Noah, Daniel, and Job, &c.” Whence we perceive that Job must have really existed, as no one doubts that Noah and Daniel did. Paul too cites a clear testimony from this book (1 Corinthians 3:19): “He taketh the wise in their own craftiness;” which words we find, in Job 5:13, to have been pronounced by Eliphaz. The apostle James, also, hath mentioned this man, James 5:11. Hence it is manifest that this was a true history, and that the book itself is canonical, and that they who determine otherwise are to be esteemed as heretics.

Jerome, in the Proem of his Commentaries on Daniel 2 , relates that Porphyry the philosopher wrote a volume against the book of our prophet Daniel, and affirmed that what is now extant under the name of Daniel, was not published by the ancient prophet, but by some later Daniel, who lived in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. But we need not regard what the impious Porphyry may have written, who mocked at all the scriptures and religion itself,

examined, he could find no argument to that book whatever. However, in the London edition of the Latin bible (in 4 vols. 12mo. 1726), there is the following: “Colloquium Servatoris et Ecclesiae. Domestici in Ecclesiae (Ecclesia) hostes. Servator, lilium Columba. Solomo Christi Imago. Ad puellas vir, et ad virum puellae. Ecclesiae pulchritudo. Servatoris in Ecclesiam Studium. Ecclesia vinea copiosa.”]

1 [Nosti quosdam esse, qui dicunt Jobum nunquam fuisse, neque creatum esse; sed historiam ejus nihil aliud esse quam parabolam. Maimonides, Moreh Nevoch. par. III 3. c. 22. Compare Manasseh Ben Israel, de Resurr. Mort. p. 123.]

2 [Contra prophetam Danielem duodecimum librum scripsit Porphyrius, nolens eum ab ipso, cujus inscriptus est nomine, esse compositum, sed a quodam qui temporibus Antiochi Epiphanis fuerit in Judaea; et non tam Danielem ventura dixisse, quam illum narrasse praeterita. T. III. p. 1071, &c. ed. Bened.]

and whose calumnies were refuted by Eusebius, Apollinarius and Methodius 1 , as Jerome testifies in the above-cited place. So far concerning the old Testament.

The new Testament, also, was formerly assaulted in various ways by heretics and others. The Manichees shewed themselves no less impious and sacrilegious towards the books of the new Testament than they were towards those of the old. They were not afraid to say that the books of the apostles and evangelists were stuffed full of lies: which madness and frenzy of theirs Augustine hath most learnedly confuted in his thirty-second book against Faustus the Manichee.

Others received no gospel but that of Luke, and hardly any other part of the new Testament; as Cerdon and his disciple Marcion. Tertullian speaks of these towards the end of his Prescriptions 2 : “Cerdon receives only the gospel of Luke, nor even that entire. He takes the epistles of Paul, but neither all of them, nor in their integrity. He rejects the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse as false. After him appeared his disciple, Marcion by name, who endeavoured to support the heresy of Cerdon.” These men took away almost the whole contents of the new Testament.

The Valentinians admitted no gospel but that of John, as Irenaeus tells us 3 ; (Lib. III. c. 11.) which error the papists charge on Luther also, but most falsely, as they themselves well know. The Alogians 4 , on the contrary, rejected all John’s writings, and were so called because they would not acknowledge as God the Logos,

1 [Cui solertissime responderunt Caesariensis Episcopus. . . . . Apollinarius quoque . . . . . et ante hos, ex parte, Methodius. Ibid.]

2 [Solum Evangelium Lucae, nec totum recipit, Apostoli Pauli neque omnes neque totas epistolas sumit; Acta Apostolorum et Apocalypsin quasi falsa rejicit. Post hunc discipulus ipsius emersit, Marcion quidam nomine. . . haeresin Cerdonis approbare conatus est. c. 51. This piece, which forms the concluding part of the Prescriptions (from c. 45), seems the work of some later hand.]

3 [Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum, ex ipso detegentur nihil recte dicentes. p. 258, D .]

4 [Lardner, History of Heretics, chapter 23 (Works, 4to ed., Vol. IV. p. 690), considers the existence of such a heresy very doubtful; but I cannot see sufficient ground for all his suspicions. However, it is hard to believe that any men in their senses ever ascribed all John’s writings to Cerinthus, as Epiphanius seems to say, p. 424.]

whom John declares to be God in the beginning of his gospel. This is related by Epiphanius (Haer. Lib. I.), who gave them this appellation upon that account.

Irenaeus relates 1 (Lib. I. c. 26.), that the Ebionites received only the gospel according to Matthew, and rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law.

The Severians made no account of the Acts of the Apostles, as Eusebius informs us, Lib. IV. c. 27 2 .

The Marcionites rejected both epistles to Timothy, the epistle to Titus, and the epistle to the Hebrews, as Epiphanius records, Haer. 42. 3

Chrysostom and Jerome 4 , in the Preface to the epistle of Paul to Philemon, testify that it was by some not received as canonical; which conclusion they were led into by considering that human frailty could not bear the continual uninterrupted action of the Holy Ghost, and that the apostles must have spoken some things by a mere human spirit. Amongst these they classed this epistle, as containing in it nothing worthy of an apostolic and divine authority, or useful to us. Chrysostom 5 refutes this opinion, with much truth and beauty, in the Argument of this epistle, and teaches us that many noble and necessary lessons may be learned from it: first, that we should extend our solicitude to the meanest persons: secondly, that we should not despair of slaves, (and therefore, still less of freemen,) however wicked and abandoned: thirdly, that it is not lawful for any one to withdraw a slave from his master under pretence of religion: fourthly, that it is our duty not to be ashamed of slaves, if they be honest men. Who now will say that this epistle is useless to us, from which we may learn so many and

1 [Solo autem eo quod est secundum Matthaeum Evangelio utuntur, et Apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatam esse eum Legis dicentes. p. 127, C .]

2 [Β λασ ϕ ημο ῦ νες δ ὲ Π α ῦ λον τ ὸ ν ἀ πόστολον, ἀ θετο ῦ σιν α ὐ το ῦ τ ὰ ς ἐ πιστολ ὰ ς μηδ ὲ τ ὰ ς πράξεις τ ῶ ν ἀ ποστολων καταδεχόμενοι . T. 1. p. 409.]

3 [ Ἐ πιστολ ὰ ς παρ’ α ὐ τ ῷ το ῦ ἁ γίου ἀ ποστόλου δέκα, α ἵ ς μόναις κέχρηται . §. 9. T. I. p. 309. D.]

5 [The best edition of Chrysostom’s admirable Commentary on the epistle to Philemon is that by Raphelius, subjoined to Vol. II. of his Annotationes Philologicae. Lugd. Bat. 1747. The reader will find the passage here referred to at pp. 28, 30, 32.]

such distinguished lessons? Forasmuch, therefore, as this epistle was both written by Paul, and contains in it such excellent instruction, it ought not by any means to be rejected.

Such, then, was the opinion, or rather the mad raving of the heretics concerning the sacred books. There were others also, who either rejected altogether certain books and parts of books of the new Testament, or else allowed them no great authority, whom it is not necessary to enumerate: for we must not spend too much time in recording or refuting such persons. But the Schwenkfeldtians 1 and Libertines, proceeding to a still greater length in their wickedness, despise the whole scripture, and insult it with many reproaches, holding that we should attend not to what the scriptures speak, but to what the Spirit utters and teaches us internally. Of these, Hosius Polonus writes thus, in his book concerning the express word of God: “We will dismiss the scriptures, and rather listen to God speaking to us, than return to those beggarly elements. One is not required to be learned in the law and scriptures, but to be taught of God. Vain is the labour which is expended upon scripture: for the scripture is a creature and a beggarly sort of element 2 .” Many passages of scripture condemn this monstrous heresy. Christ says: “Search the scriptures.” Paul says: “Whatsoever things were written of old time were written for our learning.” Romans 15:4. And elsewhere: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for reproof, and for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16. There are innumerable such testimonies, by which the authority of the scriptures is fully proved, and the blasphemy of these men refuted; against which our divines have also written many excellent discourses.

At the same time that we justly condemn the heresies which I have mentioned, we cannot but wholly disapprove the opinion of those, who think that the sacred writers have, in some places, fallen

1 [So called from Gaspar Schwenckfeldt, a Silesian knight, and counsellor to the Duke of Lignitz, who died in 1561. See an account of him in Mosheim, Cent. XVI. Sect. III. part II. c. 1, §§ 23, 24.]

2 [Nos. . .ipsas scripturas. . .facessere jubebimus, et Deum loquentem potius audiemus, . . . quam ad egena ista elementa nos convertamus. . . .Non oportet legis et scripturae peritum esse, sed a Deo doctum. Vanus est labor qui scripturae impenditur: scriptura enim creatura est, et egenum quoddam elementum.— Hos. Op. Col. 1584. De express. Dei Verbo. Tom. I. p. 624.]

into mistakes. That some of the ancients were of this opinion appears from the testimony of Augustine, who maintains, in opposition to them 1 , “that the evangelists are free from all falsehood, both from that which proceeds from deliberate deceit, and that which is the result of forgetfulness.” (De Cons. Ev. Lib. II. c. 12.) Consequently, Jerome judged wrong, if he really judged, as Erasmus supposes 2 , “that the evangelists might have fallen into an error of memory.” Erasmus himself, indeed, determines that it is neither impious nor absurd to think so; and allows it possible that Matthew, for instance, in that place of his 27th chapter, may have put the name of Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Upon which place Erasmus writes thus: “But although this were a slip of memory merely in the name, I do not suppose that one ought to be so over-scrupulous as that the authority of the whole scripture should seem invalidated on that account 3 . But it does not become us to be so easy and indulgent as to concede that such a lapse could be incident to the sacred writers. They wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as Peter tells us, 2 Peter 1:21. And all scripture is inspired of God, as Paul expressly writes, 2 Timothy 3:16. Whereas, therefore, no one may say that any infirmity could befall the Holy Spirit, it follows that the sacred writers could not be deceived, or err, in any respect. Here, then, it becomes us to be so scrupulous as not to allow that any such slip can be found in scripture. For, whatever Erasmus may think, it is a solid answer which Augustine gives to Jerome: “If any, even the smallest, lie be admitted in the scriptures, the whole authority of scripture is presently invalidated and destroyed 4 .” That form which the prophets use so

2 [Erasmus (loc. infra citat.) gives Jerome’s own words from his epistle de optimo genere interpretandi : Accusent Apostolum falsitatis, quod nec cum Hebraico nec cum Septuaginta congruat translatoribus, et, quod his majus est, erret in nomine: pro Zacharia quippe Hieremiam posuit. Sed absit hoc de pedissequo Christi dicere, cui curae fuit non verba et syllabas aucupari, sed sententias dogmatum ponere.—Epistle ci. T. II. p. 334. Antv. 1579.]

3 [Ceterum etiamsi fuisset in nomine duntaxat memoriae lapsus, non opinor quemquam adeo morosum esse oporteret, ut ob eam causam totius scripturae sacrae labasceret auctoritas.—Erasm. Annot. p. 107. Froben . Basil. 1535.]

4 [Si mendacium aliquod in scripturis vel levissimum admittatur, scripturae auctoritatem omnem mox labefactari ac convelli.—This is the quotation as given by Whitaker in his text. The following is probably the passage

often, “Thus saith the Lord,” is to be attributed also to the apostles and evangelists. For the Holy Spirit dictated to them whatever things they wrote; whose grace (as Ambrose writes, Lib. II. in Luc.) “knows nothing of slow struggles 1 .” Hence neither can that be tolerated which Melchior Canus has alleged, (Lib. II. c. 18. ad 6) in explanation of a certain difficulty in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 7:16; where Stephen says, that Abraham bought a sepulchre from the sons of Emmor, whereas Moses relates that the sepulchre was purchased by Jacob, not by Abraham. Canus thinks that Stephen might have made a mistake in relating so long a history, but that Luke committed no error, since he faithfully recorded what Stephen said 2 . But that answer draws the knot tighter, instead of loosing it: for Stephen was not only full of the Holy Ghost, but is even said to have spoken by the Holy Ghost. Acts 6:10. Stephen, therefore, could no more have mistaken than Luke; because the Holy Ghost was the same in Luke and in Stephen, and had no less force in the one than in the other. Besides, if we concede that Stephen mistook or was deceived, I do not see how he can excuse Luke for not rectifying the error. Therefore we must maintain intact the authority of scripture in such a sense as not to allow that anything is therein delivered otherwise than the most perfect truth required. Wherefore I cannot understand with what degree of prudence and consideration Jerome can have written that, which he says is to be noted, in his Questions upon Genesis: “Wherever the apostles or apostolical men speak to the people, they generally use those testimonies which had gotten into common use amongst the nations 3 .”

intended: Admisso enim semel in tantum auctoritatis fastigium officioso aliquo mendacio, nulla illorum librorum particula remanebit, &c. Epistle xix. Tom. II. p. 14.]

1 [Nescit tarda molimina Sancti Spiritus gratia, c. 1XIX. Ambros. Opp. T. V. p. 46. Paris. 1838.]

2 [Stephano id quod vulgo solet accidisse, ut in longa videlicet narratione, eademque praesertim subita, confuderit nonnulla et miscuerit, in quibusdam etiam memoria lapsus fuerit; . . . .Lucas vero, historiae veritatem retinere volens, ne iota quidem immutavit, sed rem ut a Stephano narrata erat exposuit.—Melch. Cani Loc. Theolog. fol. 89. 2. Colon. Agripp. 1585.]

3 [Ubicunque Sancti Apostoli aut Apostolici viri loquuntur ad populos, iis plerumque testimoniis abutuntur, quae jam fuerant in gentibus divulgata.—Hieron. Quaest. Hebr. in Genes. T. III. p. 468.]

CHAPTER IV.

WHEREIN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ADVERSARIES IS PROPOSED AND CONFUTED. H AVING now premised a brief explanation of these matters, we will come to the discussion of the cause and question proposed. And first, we shall have to treat of the six entire books, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of Maccabees, all together; and then, of those several books taken separately, as likewise of those fragments and parts of books, Esther, Baruch, &c.

Our adversaries have but one argument in behalf of these books, which is derived from the authority of certain councils and fathers. They allege, in the first place, the third council of Carthage, (in which Augustine himself bore a part,) can. 47 1 , wherein all these books are counted canonical. Should any one object, that this council was only provincial, not general, and that its judgment is, therefore, of less consequence; our antagonists proceed to shew, that this council was confirmed by pope Leo IV. (Dist. 20. C. de libellis), and also in the sixth general council held at Constantinople, which is called Trullan, can. 2. Hence they argue, that although the decree of the council of Carthage might not, perhaps, be strong enough of itself to prove this point, yet, since it is confirmed by the authority of this pope and of a general council, it hath in it as much efficacy as is required to be in any council. Besides, they adduce the council of Florence under Eugenius IV. (in Epistol. ad Armenos), that of Trent under Paul III. (session 4), and pope Gelasius with a council of seventy bishops 2 . Of fathers, they cite Innocent 1, who was also a pope, in his third Epistle to Exuperius of Tholouse; Augustine, Lib. II. c. 8. De Doctrina Christiana; Isidore of Seville, Etymolog., Lib. VI. c. 1. So that the argument of our opponents runs thus: these councils and these fathers affirm these books to belong to the sacred canon; therefore, these books are canonical. In order to make this argument valid, we must take as our medium this proposition: whatsoever these councils and these fathers determine is to be received without dispute. We may then add to it, But these councils and these fathers receive these books as canonical; therefore these books are truly canonical and

1 [ Mansi , Tom. III. p. 891.]

2 [Vide infra, or in Mansi, T. VIII. p. 146.]

divine: otherwise there will be no consequence in the reasoning. Now let us answer somewhat more clearly and distinctly.

In the first place, we deny the major proposition of this syllogism. We must not concede that whatever those councils determine, and whatever those fathers affirm, is always true: for it is the special prerogative of scripture, that it never errs. Therefore, it is manifest that nothing can be concluded from these testimonies which hath the force of a certain and necessary argument.

In the second place, the council of Florence was held one hundred and fifty years ago, and the council of Trent in our own times, and this latter for the express purpose and design of establishing all the errors of the popish church. These both were no legitimate councils of christian men, but tyrannous conventicles of antichrist, held for the object of opposing the truth of the gospel. How general that of Trent was, in its fourth session, may be appreciated from the number of the bishops who were present in that session. The legates, cardinals, archbishops, and bishops, who were then present, and who published this decree concerning the number of the canonical books, made in all about fifty; and those, almost to a man, Italians and Spaniards. Where the attendance was so thin, it was impossible that any general council could be held. Yet Alanus Copus (in Dialog. Quint, c. 16.) says, that there were fewer bishops in many famous councils than at Trent 1 . I allow this to be true of provincial synods; but no oecumenic council can be named, in which there was such a paucity and penury of prelates. These two councils, therefore, are to be wholly set aside from the dispute.

Thirdly, the council of Carthage was merely provincial and composed of a few bishops; and therefore hath no authority sufficiently strong and clear for confirming the point in question. Besides, our adversaries themselves do not receive all the decrees of this council. For the papists vehemently and contemptuously blame the injunction most solemnly expressed in can. 26 2 , that “the bishop of the chief see shall not be called high priest, or chief of the priests, or by any such title.” They cannot then bind us by an authority to which they refuse to be tied themselves.

But, they say, this Carthaginian synod was approved by the

1 [Sed nullam isti habent causam paucitatem istam contemnendi, cum rariore numero multa praeclara concilia sint habita.—Alan. Cop. Dialogi VI. Dial. v. c. 16. p. 487. Antv. 1573.]

2 [Ne primae sedis episcopus appelletur Summus Sacerdos, aut Princeps sacerdotum, aut ejusmodi aliquid. Labb. Concil. T. II. p. 1176.]

Trullan council of Constantinople, which was universal. Be it so. But, if this decree of the number of the canonical books was legitimately approved, then that also concerning the title of high priest was confirmed by the same sanction, which yet they will by no means concede. How, then, will they divide these things? I acknowledge, indeed, that this Trullan synod 1 was oecumenical. But the papists themselves doubt what should be determined of the authority of the canons which are attributed to this council. Pighius, in a treatise which he wrote upon this subject, calls the acts of this council spurious, and by no means genuine; which he seeks to prove by some arguments. Melchior Canus too (Lib. V. cap. ult.) declares that the canons of that council have no ecclesiastical authority: which is also the opinion of others. For there are some things in those canons which the papists can by no means approve; namely, that the bishop of Constantinople is equalled with the Roman, can. 36; that priests and deacons are not to be separated from their wives, can. 13; that the law of fasting is imposed on the Roman church, can. 55; and others of the same kind. There is one rule, also, which truth itself disapproves; that which forbids the eating of blood and things strangled, can. 67. It is, besides, a strong objection to the credit and authority of these canons, that eighty-five canons of the apostles are approved and received in them, can. 2. For pope Gelasius (in Gratian, Dist. 15. C. Romana Ecclesia) declares the book of the apostolic canons apocryphal 2 . And Gratian (Dist. 16 3 ) says, that there are only fifty

1 [Called Quini - sext from serving as a kind of supplement to the fifth and sixth general councils, with the latter of which it is, as here by Whitaker, commonly confounded. It was held in 691, and its claims to the character of an oecumenical Synod are generally denied by the Romanists; though principally, as it would appear, because its canons are repugnant to their system. See the article in Cave’s Historia Literaria, Concil. Constant. IV. anno 691.]

2 [Liber Canonum Apostolorum apocryphus: which clause is wanting in Justellus’ and two other MSS. The genuineness of this decree, which has been strongly impeached, is very learnedly defended by Mr. Gibbings, in his Roman Forgeries, p. 93, et seq. To his authorities from Isidore of Seville (p. 94) he may add another produced by Hody, p. 653, col. 70.]

3 [Isidorus scribit dicens, canones qui dicuntur apostolorum, seu quia eosdem nec sedes apostolica recepit, nec sancti Patres illis assensum praebuerunt, pro eo quod ab haereticis sub nomine apostolorum compositi dignoscuntur, quamvis in eis utilia inveniantur, tamen . . . . . . . eorum gesta inter apocrypha deputata. Dist. XVI. c. 1.]

canons of the apostles, and they apocryphal, upon the authority of Isidore, who hath related that they were composed by heretics under the name of the apostles. But this synod receives and confirms eighty-five canons of the apostles; whereas pope Zephyrinus, who was five hundred years older than that synod, recognises, as appears in Gratian 1 , no more than sixty. Pope Leo IX 2 ., who was three hundred and fifty years later than the synod, receives the same number exactly, as Gratian writes in the place just cited. The thing itself, indeed, shews that the canons ascribed to the apostles are spurious. For in the last canon the gospel of John is enumerated amongst the scriptures of the new Testament; which all agree to have been written when all or most of the apostles were dead. Yet they affirm that these canons were not collected by others, but published by the assembled apostles themselves. Thus Peiresius determines in the third part of his book concerning traditions 3 ; and so others. For, can. 28, Peter himself says, “Let him be removed from communion, as Simon Magus was by me Peter 4 .” If this canon, therefore, be true, Peter was present at the framing of it. But how could Peter, who was put to death in the time of Nero, have seen the gospel of John, which was first written and published in the time of Domitian? For the figment which some pretend, that Peter and the rest foresaw that gospel which John was afterward to write, is merely ridiculous. So in the last chapter all the apostles are made to speak, and the phrase occurs “the Acts of us the Apostles 5 .”

It is no less easy to refute the answer which others make, that Clemens published these apostolic canons. For how could Clemens,

1 [Ibid, c. 2.]

2 [Ibid, c. 3. The words are really Cardinal Humbert’s, taken from his Reply to Nicetas. See Canisius, Antiq. Lect. T. VI. p. 181. Gratian takes the liberty of attributing them to Leo, on the principle, that the words of the Legate are the words of his employer.]

3 [Peiresius Aiala, De Divinis, Apostolicis, atque ecclesiasticis Traditionibus. Paris. 1550.]

4 [ ἐ κκοπτέσθω παντάπασι κα ὶ τ ῆ ς κοινωνίας , ὡ ς Σ ίμων ὁ Μ άγος ὑ π’ [ ἐ μο ῦ ] Π έτρου . It is numbered 29 by Beveridge, and 30 by Whiston. The word in brackets is omitted by Dionysius Exiguus, who, I suppose, felt that it was a little too bad.]

5 [ κα ὶ α ἱ πράξεις ἡ μ ῶ ν τ ῶ ν ἀ ποστόλων . Beveridge here pronounces the word ἡ μ ῶ ν to be an interpolation; but, as it seems, without any sufficient grounds for such an opinion.]

whom Damasus 1 and Onuphrius 2 testify to have died in the time of Vespasian, have seen the gospel of John, which he wrote after his return from Patmos, during the reign of Trajan? For almost all authors say very plainly, that the gospel was written by John after his exile. So Dorotheus in the Life of John, the Prologue to John, Simeon Metaphrastes, Isidorus in his book of the parts of the new Testament, Gregory of Tours (Glor. Plurim. Mart. c. 30.), Huimo (Lib. III. de rerum Christianarum Memorabil.), Alcuin upon John, and innumerable other writers of great authority.

But the matter is clear enough of itself. For these canons of the apostles approve the constitutions of Clement and his two epistles. Yet the council of Constantinople, which hath received the canons of the apostles, condemns the constitutions of Clemens 3 , as, indeed, many others do also; concerning which book we shall speak hereafter. Besides, these canons of the apostles damage the papal cause: for they set down three books of Maccabees 4 , and omit Tobit and Judith 5 , and direct young persons to be instructed in the Wisdom of Sirach 6 , and make no mention of the Wisdom of Solomon. If these are the true and genuine canons of the apostles, then the papists are refuted in their opinion of the number of the canonical books of the old and new Testaments by the authority of the canons of the apostles. If they be not, as it is plain they are not, then the synod of Constantinople erred, when it approved them as apostolical. Yet these men deny that a general council can err in its decrees respecting matters of faith. Let the papists see how they will answer this. Certainly this Trullan synod approved the canons of the council of Carthage no otherwise than it approved the canons of the apostles. But it is manifest, and the papists themselves will not deny, that the canons of the apostles are not to be approved. Hence we may judge what force and authority is to be

1 [i.e. The Liber Pontificalis, which goes under his name: see the article Damasus (anno 366) in Cave’s H. L. and Pearson, de success, prim. Episc. Rom. Diss. II. c. 4. § 4–6.]

2 [Annotat. in Platinam. p. 13. Colon. Ilb. 1600.]

3 [Canon. II. Beveridge, Pandectae, Can. I. 158.]

4 [Μ ακκαβαίων τρία . C. 85. But Cosin (pp. 30–1) endeavours to shew that the canon in its original state made no mention of any books of Maccabees. Cf. Gibbing’s Roman Forgeries, p. 114.]

5 [Cotelerius, however, found one MS. with the clause ουδεθ ἕ ν , which, of course, he was glad enough to have any authority for inserting.]

6 [ μανθάνειν ὑ μ ῶ ν το ὺ ς νέους τ ὴ ν σο ϕ ίαν το ῦ πολυμαθο ῦ ς Σ ιράχ . Can. LXXXV.]

allowed to the canons of this council of Constantinople; and what sort of persons the papists are to deal with, who both deny that these canons have any legitimate authority, and yet confirm the sentence of the council of Carthage by the authority of these very canons. For so Canus (Lib. II. cap. 9) proves that the authority of the council of Carthage, in enumerating these books, is not to be despised, because it was approved by the general Trullan synod; yet the same man elsewhere (Lib. V. cap. 6. ad argument. 6.) makes light of the authority of these canons, and brings many arguments to break it down.

Fourthly, Gelasius with his council of seventy bishops recites but one book of Maccabees 1 , and one of Esdras. Thus he rejected the second book of Maccabees, which is apocryphal, and Nehemiah, which is truly canonical. Isidore, too 2 , confesses that there are but two and twenty books found in the Hebrew canon: and that their canon is the true one will be proved hereafter.

Lastly, before they can press us with the authority of councils, they should themselves determine whether it is at all in the power of any council to determine what book is to be received as canonical. For this is doubted amongst the papists, as Canus confesses, Lib. II. c. 8.

Let us come now to the minor premiss of the proposed syllogism. We allow that the council of Carthage, and Gelasius with his seventy bishops, and Innocent, and Augustine, and Isidore call these books canonical. But the question is, in what sense they called them canonical. Now, we deny that their meaning was to make these books, of which we now speak, of equal authority with those which are canonical in the strict sense; and the truth of this we will prove from antiquity, from Augustine, and from the papists themselves.

For, in the first place, if it had been decreed by any public judgment of the whole Church, or defined in a general council, that these books were to be referred to the true and genuine canon of the sacred books, then those who lived in the Church after the passing of that sentence and law would by no means have dissented from it, or determined otherwise. But they did dissent, and that in great numbers; and amongst them some of those whom the Church of Rome acknowledges as her own children.

1 [In Dominica prima mensis Septembris ponunt librum Machabaeorum: where, however, Ivo reads libros . Decret, P. I. Dist. xv. c. 3.]

2 [Offic. I. 12.]

Therefore, there was no such judgment of the Church publicly received.

Secondly, Augustine, in that same place, plainly indicates that he did not consider those books of equal authority with the rest. For he distinguishes all the books into two classes; some which were received by all the churches, and some which were not. Then he lays down and prescribes two rules: one, that the books which all the churches receive should be preferred to those which some do not receive; the other, that those books which are received by the greater and more noble churches should be preferred to those which are taken into the canon by churches fewer in number and of less authority. It will be best to listen to Augustine himself, whose words are these (Lib. II. c. 8. de Doct. Christ.) 1 : “Now, with respect to the canonical scriptures, let him follow the authority of the greater number of catholic churches; amongst which those indeed are to be found which merited to possess the chairs of the apostles, and to receive epistles from them. He will hold this, therefore, as a rule in dealing with the canonical scriptures, to prefer those which are received by all catholic churches to those which only some receive. But, with respect to those which are not received by all, he will prefer such as the more and more dignified churches receive, to such as are held by fewer churches, or churches of less authority.” Then follows immediately, “Now the whole canon of scripture, in which we say that this consideration hath place,” &c.

Hence, then, I draw an easy and ready answer. We, with Jerome and many other fathers, deny these books to be canonical. Augustine, with some others, calls them canonical. Do, then, these fathers differ so widely in opinion? By no means. For Jerome takes this word “ canonical ” in one sense, while Augustine, Innocent, and the fathers of Carthage understand it in another. Jerome calls only those books canonical, which the church always held for

canonical; the rest he banishes from the canon, denies to be canonical, and calls apocryphal. But Augustine calls those canonical which, although they had not the same perfect and certain authority as the rest, were wont to be read in the church for the edification of the people. Augustine, therefore, takes this name in a larger sense than Jerome. But, that Augustine was not so minded as to judge the authority of all these books to be equal, is manifest from the circumstance that he admonishes the student of theology to place a certain difference between the several books, to distinguish them into classes, and to prefer some to others. If his judgment of them all was the same, as the papists contend, such an admonition and direction must appear entirely superfluous. Would Augustine, if he held all the books to have an equal right to canonicity, have made such a distribution of the books? Would he have preferred some to others? Would he not have said that they were all to be received alike? But now, Augustine does prefer some to others, and prescribes to all such a rule for judging as we have seen. Therefore Augustine did not think that they were all of the same account, credit, and authority; and, consequently, is in open opposition to the papists. All this is manifest. It makes to the same purpose, that this same Augustine (de Civit. Dei, Lib. XVII. c. 20.) concedes, that less reliance should be placed upon whatever is not found in the canon of the Jews 1 . Whence it may be collected that, when Augustine observed that some books were not received by all, or the greatest and most noble churches, his remark is to be understood of those books which are not contained in the Hebrew canon: and such are those which our churches exclude from the sacred canon. Let it be noted too, that in the council of Carthage, and in the epistle of pope Innocent, five books of Solomon are enumerated; whereas it is certain that only three are Solomon’s. So, indeed, Augustine himself once thought that the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus were Solomon’s, though he afterwards changed (but without correcting) that opinion. For in the same place of his City of God he thus speaks of those books: “Learned men have no doubt that they are not Solomon’s 2 .” This was one error in Augustine. Another, and no less one, was supposing that the book of Wisdom was written by Jesus the son of Sirach (de

Doct. Christ. Lib. II. c. 8.); which error he retracts, Retract. Lib. II. c. 4. 1 Yet he allegeth an excuse, which is neither unhandsome nor trifling, for attributing five books to Solomon; that “these books may be all called Solomon’s, from a certain likeness which they bear.” Hence, however, it appears that Augustine was in a great mistake when he thought, first, that these two books were written by Solomon, and then, that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Indeed, Augustine himself testifies that these books were by no means received in all churches (De Civit. Dei. Lib. XVII. c. 20.); where he says that these books were especially received as authoritative 2 by the Western church. To this Western church Augustine and Innocent belonged. For the oriental church never allowed to these books such great authority. But the mistake of counting Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus amongst the books of Solomon, although it is a very gross one, was yet, as we read, entertained and received by many. For pope Marcellinus, in an epistle to Solomon, adduces a testimony from Ecclesiasticus, as from Solomon; and likewise pope Sixtus II. in an epistle to Gratus: which shews sufficiently that these persons must have thought that Solomon was the author of this book. I know, indeed, that these epistles were not really written by Marcellinus or Sixtus, but are falsely attributed to them: yet still, by whomsoever written, they indicate that this opinion was a common error. Thirdly, the papists themselves understand and interpret Augustine and the rest in the same manner as we do. For so many persons after Augustine and after those councils would never have denied these books to be canonical, if they had not perceived the reasonableness of this interpretation. If then they blame our judgment, let them at least lend some credit to their own companions and masters. I will bring forward no man of light esteem, no mean or obscure doctor, but a distinguished cardinal,—that special pillar of the popish church, Cajetan, who assuredly excelled all our Jesuits in judgment, erudition, and

1 [In secundo sane libro (de Doc. Christ.) de auctore libri, quem plures vocant Sapientiam Salomonis, quod etiam ipsum, sicut Ecclesiasticum, Jesus Sirach scripserit, non ita constare sicut a me dictum est postea didici, et omnino probabilius comperi non esse hunc ejus libri auctorem. Ib. T. 1. 86, 87. D. A .]

authority. I will recite his words, because they are express and should always be in remembrance. Thus, therefore, writes Cajetan at the end of his commentary upon the History of the old Testament: “Here,” says he, “we close our commentaries on the historical books of the old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find any where, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage 1 .” Thus far Cajetan; in whose words we should remark two things. First, that all the statements of councils and doctors are to be subjected to the correction of Jerome. But Jerome always placed these books in the apocrypha. Secondly, that they are called canonical by some councils and Fathers, and customarily received in the canon of the bible, because they propose a certain rule of morals. There are, therefore, two kinds

of canonical books: for some contain the rule both of morals and of faith; and these are, and are called, truly and properly canonical: from others no rule, but only of morals, should be sought. And these, although they are improperly called canonical, are in truth apocryphal, because weak and unfit for the confirmation of faith. We may use, if we please, the same distinction which I perceive some papists themselves to have used, as Sixtus Senensis (Bibliothec, Lib. I.), and Stapleton (Princip. Fid. Doctrin. Lib. IX. c. 6), who call some books Proto - canonical, and others Deutero - canonical. The proto-canonical are those which are counted in the legitimate and genuine canon, i.e. of the Hebrews. These Jerome’s accurate judgment hath approved; these our churches acknowledge as truly canonical. The Deutero-canonical are they which, although they be sometimes called canonical in the sense just now explained, are yet in reality apocryphal, because they do not contain the combined rule of faith and morals 1 . The papists are greatly incensed against their partner Cajetan, on account of this most solid sentence; and some even vituperate him. Canus says, that he was deceived by the novelties of Erasmus. Let us leave them to fight with their own men. This is certain, that there never was a papist of more learning and authority than Cajetan, whom the pope sent into Germany to oppose Luther. This testimony should be a weighty one against them. Let them shake it off as they best can: and yet they never can shake it off, since it is confirmed by solid reason.

Thus we have seen how weak their argument is. They have none better: for they have none other. Now, since we have answered them, we will proceed to the confirmation of our own cause.

CHAPTER V.

WHEREIN REASONS ARE ALLEGED AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THE SECOND KIND. I FORM the first argument thus: These books, concerning which we contend, were not written by prophets: therefore they are not canonical. The entire syllogism is this. All canonical books of the old Testament were written by prophets: none of these

1 [A difference of authority is owned also by Lamy. App. Bibl. L. II. c. 5. p. 333. Lugd. 1723; and Jahn, Einleitung ind. A. T. Vol. 1. p. 141.]

books was written by any prophet: therefore none of these books is canonical. The parts of this syllogism must be confirmed.

The major rests upon plain testimonies of scripture. Peter calls the scripture of the old Testament, “The prophetic word,” 2 Peter 1:19, (for it is evident from Luke 3:4, that λόγος means scripture,) and “prophecy,” ibid. verse 20. Paul calls it, “the scriptures of the prophets.” Romans 16:26. Zacharias the priest says, “As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began.” Luke 1:70. Where he means that God had spoken in the prophetic scriptures. So Abraham says to the luxurious man, “They have Moses and the prophets,” that is, the books of scripture. Luke 18:39. And elsewhere Luke says: “Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” Luke 24:27; so Romans 1:2. Here we see that all the scriptures are found in the books of Moses and the prophets. The apostle to the Hebrews says: “God spake in divers manners by the prophets.” Hebrews 1:1. Therefore the prophets were all those by whom God spake to His people. And to this refers also the assertion of the apostle, that the Church is built “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Ephesians 2:20. This foundation denotes the doctrine of the scriptures, promulgated by the prophets and apostles. Christ says: “All things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me:” and then follows immediately, “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.” Luke 24:44, 45. Paul asks king Agrippa, “Believest thou the prophets?”—that is, the scriptures. Acts 26:27. And when he dealt with the Jews at Rome, he tried to convince them “out of the law of Moses and the prophets.” Acts 28:23.

From these testimonies we collect that the assertion in the major is most true;— that the whole scripture of the old Testament was written and promulgated by prophets. And there are many other similar passages from which it may be concluded, that there is no part of the old Testament which did not proceed from some prophet. But we must remark, that the entire old canonical scripture is sometimes signified by the name of the prophets, sometimes of Moses and the prophets, sometimes of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms. So Augustine, in his discourse against Cresconius the grammarian: “Not without cause was the canon of the church framed with so salutary a vigilance, that certain books of the prophots and apostles should belong to it 1 .” Lib. II. cap. 31. And in another place: “Let them shew us their church, not in the rumours of the Africans, but in the injunction of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the Psalms; that is, in all the canonical authorities of the sacred books 2 .” De Unit. Eccles. c. 16. And elsewhere: “Read this in the law, in the prophets, in the Psalms 3 .” We have said enough in confirmation of the major; let us now proceed to the minor.

That these books, against which we are disputing, were not written, or set forth to the church, by prophets, is exceedingly clear and certain. For, in the first place, all confess that Malachi was the last prophet of the Jews, between whom and John the Baptist no prophet whatever intervened. But most of the authors of these books undoubtedly lived after Malachi. This is manifest in the case of the writers of Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees; and even our adversaries themselves are not able to deny it. Besides, those books were not written in the prophetic tongue, which was the language of Canaan and the proper language of the church. But if prophets, who were the teachers and masters of the Israelitish church, had written those books, they would have used, in writing them, their native and prophetic language, not a language foreign and unknown to the church; which no right- minded person will deny. Now that most of them were written not in Hebrew but in Greek, the Fathers affirm, and the papists concede, and the thing itself proves fully: concerning the rest, we shall see in the sequel. Finally, if these books had been written by prophets, then Christ would have used them as his witnesses. But neither Christ nor his apostles ever made any use of their testimony. This is what Augustine says of the books of Maccabees: “The Jews do not esteem this scripture as the Law and the Prophets, to which the Lord bears testimony as his witnesses 4 .” (Contra Gaudent. Epistle

1 [Neque enim sine causa tam salubri vigilantia canon ecclesiasticus constitutus est, ad quem certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertineant. Aug. Opp. T. 9. 668, 669. D. A .]

3 [Lege hoc mihi de Propheta, lege de Psalmo, recita de Lege. August. de Pastoribus, c. 14.]

Lib. II. cap. 23.) Christ bears no testimony to these books as his witnesses. Therefore they are not sufficient or fully credible witnesses of Christ. But this they would be if they were prophetic. For all the canonical and prophetic scriptures testify of Christ; and to them as his witnesses Christ bears distinguished testimony, when he says, “Search the scriptures,” and when he cites so many testimonies from those books. So Jerome 1 : “We must have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text both the Lord speaks, and his disciples choose their examples.” But that these books are not prophetical, we shall hereafter prove still more clearly.

The second argument. These books were not received by the church of the Israelites; therefore they are not canonical. The syllogism may be framed thus: The ancient church of the Hebrews received and approved all the books of the old Testament. That church did not receive these books; therefore they are not canonical.

The major proposition is certain, and may be easily demonstrated. For, first, if that church had rejected a part of the Lord’s Testament,—especially so large a part,—she would have been guilty of the highest crime and sacrilege, and would have been charged with it by Christ or his apostles. For, since the Jews were blamed for putting wrong senses upon the scripture, they would never have escaped still greater and sterner reprehension, if they had taken away the scripture; forasmuch as it is much more wicked and impious to take away books of scripture than to interpret them ill in certain passages. But neither Christ, nor his apostles, nor any others, ever accused the Jews of mutilating or tearing to pieces their canon of the sacred books. Nay, the ancient Israelitish church both received all the canonical books, and preserved them with the greatest care and faithfulness. On which point read what Josephus writes, in Eusebius, Lib. III. cap. 10 2 . This is also confirmed by the authority of scripture itself. For the apostle says, that to the Jews were committed and delivered in charge the oracles of God,—that is, the scriptures. Romans 3:2. Whence we learn, that the excellent treasure of the sacred scripture was deposited by God with the church of the Jews, and by it received and guarded: which diligence and fidelity of the Jews,

Judaei sicut Legem et Prophetas et Psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet ut testibus suis (Lib. I. § 38.) Aug. Opp. T. 9. 1006. c.]

2 [Contra Apion. L. 1. c. 8. Vide infra.]

in preserving the sacred books, Augustine (Epistle 3, and 59.) and all the other Fathers celebrate. Besides, if so many canonical books had been (not only not received, but) rejected by the ancient church of the Jews, it would follow that many canonical books were never received by any church: for before Christ there was no other church but that of the Jews. If then we grant that that church, which was the whole and sole church at that particular time, could have rejected canonical books, then it is evident that the church may err, which the papists will not be willing to allow. Yet is it not a great error, not only not to acknowledge and receive sacred books, but to repudiate and eject them from the canon of the inspired writings? But the whole Jewish church rejected these books: which was our assumption in the minor, and may be confirmed by the confession of all the fathers, and even of the papists themselves. For every one understands that these books were never received into the Hebrew canon.

As to Bellarmine’s pretence (Lib. I. cap. 10), that these books have the testimony of the apostolic church, and that the apostles declared these books canonical, whence does its truth appear? The apostles never cite testimonies from these books, nor can anything be adduced to shew that any authority was attributed to them by the apostles. Indeed when Cajetan affirmed, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 12., that only to be sacred and divine scripture which the apostles either wrote or approved, he was blamed by Catharinus (Annot. Lib. I.) on that account; and Catharinus lays it down in that place, that the church receives certain books as canonical which certainly were neither written nor approved by the apostles. The allegation of Canus, that these books were neither received nor rejected 1 , is merely ridiculous. For, surely, if the Jews did not receive these books, what else was this but rejecting them utterly? He who does not receive God rejects him: so not to receive the word of God, is to refuse and reject it. “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” Luke 11:23. Besides, how could that church either receive or rather not reject books written in a foreign tongue?

The sum of both arguments is this: These books are not written by prophets, nor received by the Israelitish church. Therefore they are not canonical.

The third argument. Certain things may be found in these

1 [Negamus hos libros a synagoga esse rejectos. Aliud est enim non recipere, aliud vero rejicere.—Melch. Cani Loc. Theol. Lib. II. cap. 11. p. 45 a. Colon. Agrip. 1585.]

books which prove them not to be canonical. This argument is very strong, as derived from the nature and genius of the books themselves: and the conclusion will appear with fuller evidence in the sequel of this discourse, when we come to the particular examination of the several books; whence it will be sufficiently manifest that none of those now called in question have any just claims to be considered as canonical.

CHAPTER VI.

WHEREIN THE TRUTH OF OUR CAUSE IS ILLUSTRATED BY OTHER TESTIMONIES. L ASTLY, it is clear from the testimonies of councils, fathers and writers, that these books deserve no place in the true canon of scripture. Which argument, though it be merely human, yet may have force against them who themselves use no other in this cause.

The synod of Laodicea (c. 59 1 ) forbids the reading of any non-canonical books in the church, and allows only “the canonical books of the old and new Testament” to be used for that purpose. Then those are enumerated as canonical, which our churches receive; not Tobit, nor Judith, nor the rest. There is, indeed, a clear error in this council. For Baruch is coupled with Jeremiah, (which former perhaps they thought to be a part of the latter,) and the epistles of the prophet Jeremiah are mentioned 2 , whereas there is but one epistle of Jeremiah in the book of Baruch:— unless, perhaps, there may here be a fault in the Greek book, since these words are omitted in the Latin. There is another error with respect to the Apocalypse, which these fathers have not placed in the catalogue of the books of the new Testament. And it is certain that many in the church doubted for a long time concerning that book 3 . However, in the judgment of those fathers,

1 [ δτι ο ὐ δε ῖ ἰ διωτικο ὺ ς ψαλμο ὺ ς λέγεσθαι ἐ ν τ ῇ ἐ κκλησί ᾳ , ο ὐ δ ὲ ἀ κανόνιστα βιβλία, ἀ λλ ὰ μόνα τ ὰ κανονικ ὰ τ ῆ ς καιν ῆ ς κα ὶ παλαι ᾶ ς διαθήκης . Mansi, T. 2. p. 574.]

2 [ Ἰ ερεμίας , Β αρο ὺ χ , θρ ῆ νοι κα ὶ ἐ πιοτολαί . Can. 60. ibid.]

3 [It is to be observed that Canon 60 professes only to give a list of those books δσα δε ῖ ἀ ναγιν ώ σκεσθαι — i.e. in the Church. Hence Cosin (Hist. of the Canon, p. 60.) supposes the Apocalypse to be left out, not as uncanonical, but us unfit for popular instruction on account of its mysterious obscurity; for which reason, he observes, it is omitted likewise in the Calendar of Lessons read in the Church of England, though received in our Canon.]

these books of the old Testament, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and the two books of Maccabees, are not canonical. We form the same judgment of those books. The papists object, that the canon of scripture was not then settled; consequently, that they might leave these books out of the canon of scripture, but we cannot claim a similar right after this canon of scripture hath been defined by the church. But this is too ridiculous. For who can, without great impudence, maintain that there was no certain canon even of the old Testament for four hundred years after Christ; until, forsooth, the time of the council of Carthage? Was the church so long ignorant what books pertained unto the canon of scripture? A pretence at once false and impious! On the contrary, the fathers who lived before that council testify that they very well knew and understood what books were divine and canonical, as shall presently appear. Besides, that council of Carthage could not determine anything about the canon of scripture, so as to bind the whole church, since it was only a provincial one.

But (it will be said) the universal Trullan synod determined that these books should be received into the canon, and denned this matter by its authority. If we ask, how we are to understand that this is so? they answer, from its approving the acts of the council of Carthage. But that is not enough to make this a clear case. For (besides that we have already sufficiently obviated the force of this argument), in the first place, the Trullan synod does, in the very same place and canon, approve also the acts of the council of Laodicea. If that canon, therefore, of the Trullan synod be genuine, the Laodicene and Carthaginian decrees concerning the canonical books do not contradict each other. Consequently, although these books be called in a certain sense canonical by the council of Carthage, yet they are in strictness uncanonical, as they are pronounced to be by the council of Laodicea. But if the judgments of these councils be contradictory, the Trullan synod failed in prudence when it approved the acts of both.

Secondly, the Trullan synod was held six hundred years after Christ. Now, was the canon of scripture unknown, or uncertain, or unapproved for so many ages? Who in his right senses would choose to affirm this?

Thirdly, the later church did not judge that the canon of scripture was in this way determined and defined by these councils; which may easily be understood from the testimonies of those writers who flourished in the church after those councils, as you shall hear presently. First of all, therefore, I will adduce the

testimonies of the ancient fathers, then of the later, from which the constant judgment of the church concerning these books may be recognised. And although it may be somewhat tedious to go through them all, yet this so great multitude of witnesses must needs possess the greater authority in proportion to their numbers.

Melito of Sardis, as Eusebius tells us, (Lib. IX. cap. 26) testifies that he went into the East 1 , and learned with exact accuracy all the books of the old Testament. He, therefore, considered the matter by no means doubtful; which would have been impossible without a fully ascertained knowledge of the canon. Now this Melito, who took so much pains in determining these books, recites precisely the same books of the old Testament as we do, with the single exception of the book of Wisdom. There are some, indeed, who think that this Wisdom of Solomon, which Melito mentions, is the book of Proverbs itself: but I do not agree with them 2 , for no cause can be given why the same book should be twice named. But though he might have mistaken in one book, he could not have mistaken in all, especially when using such diligence as he professes himself to have used. The error arose from the circumstance, that this book was in the hands of many, and was more read and had in greater esteem than the rest. Indeed, I acknowledge that of all Apocryphal books most respect was always exhibited towards this one: and this is the reason why Augustine seems to defend its authority 3 (Lib. de Praed. Sanct. c. 14); from which defence it is evident that this book was publicly read in the church, and that the church thought very honourably of its character.

1 [ ἀ νελθ ὼ ν ο ὐ ν ε ἰ ς τ ὴ ν ἀ νατολ ὴ ν. . .κα ὶ ἀ κριβ ῶ ς μαθ ὼ ν τ ὰ τ ῆ ς παλαι ᾶ ς διαθήκης βιβλία κ. τ. λ . p. 403. T. 1. ed. Heinichen. Lips. 1827.]

2 [The clause in question is Π αροιμίαι ἡ κα ὶ Σ ο ϕ ία , or, according to Stephens, ἡ Σ ο ϕ ία ; and the question, whether we should not rather read ἥ or ἤ . ἥ is the reading of six MSS. confirmed by Nicephorus and Rufinus (who translates quae et Sapientia ), and adopted by Valesius. Stroth and Heinichen agree with Whitaker in preferring ἡ , in which I think them undoubtedly wrong, because when the title of a book is given in an index or catalogue, the article is hardly ever prefixed, and in this catalogue in particular never. In reply to Whitaker’s objection, I suppose it is sufficient to say that the Book of Proverbs is twice named, because it had two names . “Certe,” says Valesius, “veteres poene omnes proverbia Salomonis Sapientiam vocabant, interdum et Sapientiam panareton.” Of. Euseb. H. E. 4:22.]

3 [Quae cum ita sint, non debuit repudiari sententia libri Sapientiae, qui meruit in ecclesia Christi de gradu lectorum ecclesiae Christi tam longa annositate recitari; et ab omnibus Christianis, ab episcopis usque ad extremos laicos fideles, poenitentes, catechumenos, cum veneratione divinae auctoritatis audiri.—Aug. Opp. T. 10. 1370. C .]

Origen (in Eusebius, Lib. VI. c. 25) enumerates the same books as are acknowledged by our churches to be canonical, and says, that the testamentary books of the old Testament are two and twenty, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet 1 . And many others after him have made the same remark. Now, if the canonical books agree in number with the Hebrew letters, as these fathers determine, then it is certain that no place is left in the sacred canon for those books concerning which we now dispute; otherwise there would be more canonical books than Hebrew letters. But those books which we concede to be truly canonical correspond by a fixed proportion and number to the elements of the Hebrew alphabet.

Athanasius says, in his Synopsis: “Our whole scripture is divinely inspired, and hath books not infinite in number, but finite, and comprehended in a certain canon.” There was, therefore, at that time a fixed canon of scripture. He subjoins: “Now these are the books of the old Testament.” Then he enumerates ours, and no others, and concludes: “The canonical books of the old testament are two and twenty, equal in number to the Hebrew letters.” But, in the meanwhile, what did he determine concerning the rest? Why, he plainly affirms them to be uncanonical. For thus he proceeds: “But, besides these, there are also other non-canonical books of the old Testament, which are only read to the catechumens.” Then he names the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit. “These,” says he, “are the non-canonical books of the old Testament 2 .” For Athanasius makes no account of the books of Maccabees. He does not mention Esther in the catalogue, but afterwards remarks, that this book belongs to another volume;—perhaps to Ezra, by whom Isidore and others say that book was written. And some fathers, when enumerating the books of scripture, do not mention this by name, either because they thought it part of some other book, or esteemed it apocryphal on account of those apocryphal additions of certain chapters.

1 [ ο ὐ κ ἀ γνοητέον δ ε ἶ ναι τ ὰ ς ἐ νδιαθήκους βίβλους, ὡ ς Ἑ βρα ῖ οι παραδιδόασιν, δύο κα ὶ ε ἴ κοσι, ὅ σος ὁ ἀ ριθμ ὸ ς τ ῶ ν παρ’ α ὐ το ῖ ς στοιχείων ἐ στίν .]

2 [ π ᾶ σα γρα ϕ ὴ ἡ μ ῶ ν Χ ριστιαν ῶ ν Θ εόπνευστός ἐ στιν, ο ὐ κ ἀ όριστα δ ὲ , ἀ λλ ὰ μ ᾶ λλον ὡ ρισμένα κα ὶ κεκανονισμένα ἔ χει τ ὰ βιβλία. Κα ὶ ἔ στι τ ῆ ς μ ὲ ν παλαι ᾶ ς διαθήκης τα ῦ τα. . . . . . ἐ κτ ὸ ς δ ὲ τούτων ε ὶ σ ὶ πάλιν ἕ τερα βιβλία τ ῆ ς α ὐ τ ῆ ς παλαι ᾶ ς δαθήκης, ο ὐ κανονιζόμενα μ ὲ ν, ἀ ναγινωσκόμενα δ ὲ μόνον το ῖ ς κατηχουμένοις . . . .τοσα ῡ τα κα ὶ τ ὰ μ ὴ κανονιζόμενα .—Athanas. Opp. 2. 126, sqq. ed. Bened.—The Synopsis is the work of an uncertain author, falsely ascribed to Athanasius.]

Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, speaks thus in the Prologue to his Exposition of the Psalms: “The law of the old Testament is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond with the number of the letters 1 .” By the term “the Law” he denotes the whole scripture of the old Testament.

Nazianzen, in his verses on the genuine books of sacred scripture, fixes the same number of the books of the old Testament. These are the lines of Nazianzen, in which he declares that he counts twenty-two books in the canon,—that is, so many in number as the Hebrew letters:

Ἀ ρχαόυς μ ὲ ν ἔ θηκα δύο κα ὶ ε ἴ κοσι βίβλους ,

Τ ο ῖ ς τ ῶ ν Ἑ βραίων γράμμασιν ἀ ντιθέτους 2 .

He omits mentioning Esther; the reason of which we have before explained.

Cyril of Jerusalem, in his fourth catechetical discourse, hath written many prudent and pious directions upon this matter. “Do thou,” says he, “learn carefully from the church what are the books of the old Testament. Read the divine scriptures, the two and twenty books 3 .” Thus he shews that there were no more than twenty-two divine books. Then he enumerates the same books as are received by us for canonical, save that he includes in that number the book of Baruch, because he took it (though wrongly, as we shall prove anon) for a part of the book of Jeremiah. Now if any shall affirm that nevertheless there are other canonical

books besides these, Cyril will refute him with this splendid objurgation: Π ολ ὺ σο ῦ

Φ ρονιμώτεροι ἦ σαν ο ἱ ἀ πόστολοι κα ὶ ο ὁ ἀ ρχα ῖ οι ἐ πίσκοποι , ο ἱ τ ῆ ς ἐ κκλησίας

προστάται, ο ἱ ταύτας παραδόντες. As if he had said, “Who art thou, that thou shouldest make these books canonical? The apostles, the ancient bishops, the governors of the church, were much wiser than thou art, who have commended these books alone to us as canonical, and no others.” What now becomes of those who say, that these books were approved by the apostles and the apostolic churches?

Epiphanius (Haer. 7. contra Epicuraeos 4 ) counts twenty-seven

2 [Carm. 33. L. 28. p. 98. T. 2. Opp. Nazianz. Colon. 1690.]

3 [Φ ιλομαθ ῶ ς ἐ πίγνωθι παρ ὰ τ ῆ ς ἐ κκλησίας πο ῖ αι μέν ε ἰ σιν α ἱ τ ῆ ς παλαι ᾶ ς διαθήκης βίβλοι . . . . ἀ ναγίνωσκε τ ὰ ς θείας γραφ ὰ ς, τ ὰ ς ε ἴ κοσι δύο βίβλους τ ῆ ς παλαι ᾶ ς διαθήκης .—Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. 4:33. p. 67. ed. Tuttei.]

4 [Opp. 1. p. 19. ed. Petavii.]

books of the old Testament, which he says were delivered by God to the Jews; or

rather, as he subjoins, twenty-two: ὡ ς τ ὰ παρ’ α ὐ το ῖ ς στοιχε ῖ α τ ῶ ν Ἑ βραϊκ ῶ ν

γραμμάτων ἀ ριθμούμεναι. For so he determines that the genuine books of the old Testament are equal in number to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. But some books (as Epiphanius says) are doubled. Hence arises that variety in the sum; being counted when doubled, twenty-two, and, taking each book severally, twenty-seven. Then he adds, “There are also two other books which are doubtful,—the Wisdom of Sirach and that of Solomon, besides some others which are apocryphal 1 .” He calls some dubious, some merely apocryphal. The same author writes, in his book of Weights and Measures 2 , that the Jews sent to king Ptolemy twenty-two books transcribed in golden letters, which he enumerates in a previous passage; although Josephus, in the beginning of his Antiquities, relates that only the five books of Moses were sent 3 . In this place he writes thus of those two books, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, which he had in the former citation called dubious: “They are indeed useful books, but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the ark of the covenant 4 .” Which is as much as to say plainly, that they are not to be counted canonical.

Ruffinus, in his Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, says, that he intends to designate the volumes of the old and new Testaments, which are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost himself; and then he enumerates our books in both Testaments, subjoining: “But it should be known that there are other books also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiastical, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees. “These,” says he, “they would have to be read in churches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for confirming the authority of faith 5 .” The papist Pamelius praises this

1 [ ε ἰ σ ὶ δ ὲ κα ὶ ἄ λλαι δύο βίβλοι παρ’ α ὐ το ῖ ς ἐ ν ἀ μ ϕ ιλέκτ ῳ , ἡ σο ϕ ία το ῦ Σ ιρ ὰ χ κα ὶ ἡ το ῦ Σ ολομ ῶ ντος χωρ ὶ ς ἄ λλων τιν ῶ ν βιβλίων ἐ ναποκρύ ϕ ων . Ib. C .]

2 [Opp. 2. p. 100. De Pond, et Mens. cc. 22, 23.]

3 [ α ὐ τ ὰ μόνα τ ὰ το ῦ νόμου παρέδοσαν ο ἱ πεμ ϕ έντες ἐ π ὶ τ ὴ ν ἐ ξήγησιν ε ἰ ς Ἀ λεξάνδρειαν . Prooem. § 3, p. 3. ed. Havercamp.]

4 [ χρήσιμοι ἰ μέν ε ὶ σι κα ὶ ὠ ϕ έλιμοι, ἀ λλ’ ε ἰ ς ἀ ριθμ ὸ ν ῥ ητ ῶ ν ο ὐ κ ἀ να ϕ έρονται δι ὸ δ ὲ ἐ ν τ ῷ Ἀ αρ ὼ ν ἀ νετέθησαν, ο ὔ τε ὲ ν τ ῇ τ ῆ ς διαθήκης κιβωτ ῷ . Ib, p. 162. The passage is corrupt, and should probably be read— δι ὸ ο ὐ δ ὲ ἐ ν τ ῆ τ ῆ ς διαθήκης κιβωτ ῷ τ ῷ Ἀ ρ ὼ ν [ חךא ] ἀ νετέθησαν .]

5 [Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non canonici, sed ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt: ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sabook, but blames this single passage in it; which yet did not deserve reprehension, since it is both true and accordant with innumerable judgments of the ancient fathers. He would not even have praised it, if he had not seen it praised by many, who yet are far from blaming that in it which he disapproves. That exposition was really made by Ruffinus, though it was attributed to Cyprian.

I come now to Jerome, who most plainly of all rejects these books from the canon, and argues strenuously against their canonical authority, and shews himself a most vehement adversary of these books. It would be tedious to review all his testimonies. In the Prologus Galeatus to Paulinus, “As,” says he, “there are two and twenty letters, so there are counted two and twenty books.” Then he adds: “This Prologue to the scriptures may serve as a sort of helmed head-piece for all the books which we have translated from the Hebrew into Latin, to let us know that whatever is out of these is to be placed amongst the Apocrypha. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon 1 .” Testimonies of the same sort occur everywhere in his books.

Gregory the Great, in his Commentaries on Job (Lib. XIX. cap. 16), expressly writes that the books of Maccabees are not canonical 2 ; and there is no doubt that he thought the same of the other books also.

To these authorities of the ancient fathers, I will subjoin the testimony of Josephus, which exactly agrees with them, as it lies in his first book against Apion the grammarian, and is transcribed by Eusebius in the tenth chapter of the third book of his Ecclepientia, quae dicitur Filii Sirach. . . Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobiae et Judith et Maccabaeorum libri. . . .Quae omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Exposit, in Symb. Apost. in Append, ad Cyprian, ed. Fell. p. 26.]

1 [Quomodo igitur 22 elementa sunt. . .ita 22 volumina supputantur. . . .Hic prologus scripturarum quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris, quos de Hebraeo vertimus in Latinum, convenire potest, ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra hos est inter Apocrypha esse ponendum. Igitur Sapientia quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Jesu filii Sirach liber, et Judith et Tobias et Pastor non sunt in canone.—The prologues of Jerome, being to be found in every common copy of the Vulgate and in a thousand other shapes, are not generally referred to by the page in these notes.]

2 [De qua re non inordinate agimus, si er libris, licet non canonicis, tamen ad aedificationem ecclesiae editis, testimonium proferamus. P. 622, A. B .] Paris. 1705.]

siastical History: “We have not innumerable books, inconsistent and conflicting with each other; but two and twenty books alone, containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed worthy of the highest credit. Of these, five are by Moses; embracing the laws, and delivering down a narrative from the origin of the human race until his own death; which is a period of nearly three thousand years. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets after Moses have written accounts of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to God and moral admonitions to man. It is true, that from the time of Artaxerxes to our own particular accounts have been written of the various events in our history: but these latter have not been deemed worthy of the same credit, because the succession of the prophets has not been regularly and exactly maintained in that interval 1 .”

Assuredly it is plain enough from this testimony of Josephus, what was the judgment of the Israelitish church concerning these books; and the testimonies which have been alleged from so many fathers, distinguished both by antiquity and sanctity, evince with the highest certainty that the opinion of the Christian church also could not have been different.

Hitherto, therefore, we have proved by the clearest testimonies of the fathers that these books, about which we contend, are not canonical, but apocryphal; for so they are expressly called. Therefore these fathers plainly agree with us, and confirm our sentiments by their suffrages.

But perhaps the papists may have an answer to allege suffi-

1 [ ο ὐ γ ὰ ρ μυριάδες βιβλίων ε ἰ σ ὶ παρ’ ἡ μ ῖ ν, ἀ συμ ϕ ώνων κα ὶ μαχοένων· δύο δ ὲ μόνα πρ ὸ ς το ῖ ς ε ἴ κοσι βιβλία, το ῦ παντ ὸ ς ἔ χοντα τ ὴ ν ἀ ναγρα ϕ ὴ ν, τ ὰ δικαίως θε ῖ α πεπιστευμένα. Κ α ὶ τούτων πέντε μέν ἐ στι τ ὰ Μ ωυσέως, ἅ τούς τε νόμους περιέχει, κα ὶ τ ὴ ν τ ῆ ς ἀ νθρωπογονίας παράδοσιν μέχρι τ ῆ ς α ὐ το ῦ τελευτ ῆ ς Ο ὗ τος ὁ χρόνος ἀ πολείπει τρισχιλίων ὀ λίγον ἐ τ ῶ ν. Ἀ π ὸ δ ὲ τ ῆ ς Μ ωυσέως τελευτ ῆ ς μέχρι τ ῆ ς Ἀ ρταξέρξου το ῦ μετ ὰ Ζ έρξην Π ερσ ῶ ν βασιλέως ἀ ρφ ῆ ς, ο ἱ μετ ὰ Μ ωυσ ῆ ν προ ϕ ῆ ται τ ὰ κατ’ α ὐ το ὺ ς πραχθέντα συνέγραψαν ἐ ν τρισ ὶ κα ἱ δέκα βιβλίοις. Α ἱ δ ὲ λοιπα ὶ τέσσαρες ὕ μνους ε ἰ ς τ ὸ ν Θ ε ὸ ν κα ὶ το ῖ ς ἀ νθρώποις ὑ ποθήκας το ῦ βίου περιέχουσιν. Ἀ π ὸ δ ὲ Ἀ ρταξέρξου μέχρε το ῦ καθ’ ἡ μ ᾶ ς χρόνου γέγραπται μ ὲ ν ἕ καστα·πίστεως δ ὲ ο ὐ χ ὁ μοίας ἠ ξίωται το ῖ ς πρ ὸ α ὐ τ ῶ ν δι ὰ τ ὸ μ ὴ γενέσθαι τ ὴ ν τ ῶ ν προ ϕ ητ ῶ ν ἀ κριβ ῆ διαδοχήν. Δ ῆ λον δ’ ἐ στ ὶ ν ἔ ργ ῳ π ῶ ς ἡ με ῖ ς το ῖ ς ἰ δίοις γράμμασι πεπιστεύκαμεν· τοσούτου γ ὰ ρ α ἰῶ νος ἤ δη παρωχηκότος, ο ὔ τε προσθε ῖ ναί τις ο ὐ δ ὲ ν, ο ὔ τε ἀ ϕ ελε ῖ ν α ὐ τ ῶ ν ο ὔ τε μεταθε ῖ ναι τετόλμηκεν . κ. τ. λ. Contra Apion. L. 1. c. 8.]

cient to shew that these testimonies avail us nothing. Indeed I will not dissemble their answer, nor conceal any thing from you that I know. Well then, in order to break the force of these testimonies and overturn our argument, some of them bring two objections: the first, that these fathers spoke of the Jewish, not of the Christian canon: the second, that the canon was not yet fixed; wherefore those fathers are not to be blamed for determining otherwise concerning the canon than the church afterwards defined, while we, nevertheless, are precluded from a similar liberty. Let us briefly obviate both objections.

First of all, these fathers whom I have cited do speak of the canon of Christians, as any one who looks at their words themselves will readily perceive. The synod of Laodicea prescribes what books should be read as canonical in the churches. Melito declares that he had taken pains to find out what books should be received; and this he did surely not for the sake of the Jews, but for his own. Athanasius says that those books which he calls uncanonical were wont to be read only to the catechumens. Now the catechumens were Christian catechumens. Cyril forbids the reading of those books which he calls apocryphal, and says that the apostles and old bishops and masters of the church had taken no other books into the canon than those which are received by us. Who does not see that he is speaking of the Christian canon? Although perhaps Cyril was too vehement in forbidding these books to be even read: for the other fathers, although they determine them to be apocryphal, yet permit their perusal. Ruffinus says, that those only which our churches also receive were received into the canon by the ancients (who doubtless were Christians), but that the rest were called by those same ancients, not canonical, but ecclesiastical. So Jerome, writing to Paulinus a Christian bishop, makes none others canonical than we do, and briefly describes the contents of these books, and of no others. Therefore he acknowledged no other canon of the sacred books than we do now. In his preface to the books of Chronicles he writes in these plain words: “The church knows nothing of apocryphal writings; we must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the Lord speaks, and his disciples choose their examples 1 .” “What is not extant with them is to be flung away from us 2 ,” says Jerome,

2 [Quae non habentur apud illos, procul abjicienda sunt.]

in his preface to Ezra and Nehemiah. And elsewhere, in his preface to the books of Solomon, he hath these words: “As therefore the church, while it reads Judith and Tobit and the books of Maccabees, yet receives them not amongst the canonical scriptures; so she may read these two volumes also [the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach] for the edification of the people, not for confirming the authority of articles of faith 1 .” Plainly Jerome speaks of the Christian church, and determines that the canon of the old Testament is no other with Christians than it was with the Hebrews. They are absurd, therefore, who imagine a double canon. Again, in his first book against the Pelagians, he blames a heretic for citing testimonies from the Apocrypha, when proposing to prove something about the kingdom of heaven.

In the next place, whereas they say that the canon of scripture was not then fixed, it is but fair that they should speak out, and teach us when afterwards it was fixed. If it be said, in the council of Florence or of Trent, these are but modern; and, I am very sure, they will not affirm that it was fixed so late. If in the council of Carthage, that council of Carthage was not general. If in the Trullan, those canons are censurable in many respects, even in the opinion of the papists themselves, as we have shewn clearly above. Will they concede then, either that there was no definite canon of scripture for six hundred years after Christ, or that these books were not received into the canon for so many ages? This indeed would be sufficient to overturn the authority of the books. Let them answer, therefore, and mark the precise time, that we may understand when the canon of scripture was at length defined and described. If they can name any general council in which is extant the public judgment of the church concerning the canonical books, let them produce it. Except this Trullan council, they have absolutely none at all. And this Trullan does not precisely affirm these books to be canonical, but only confirms the council of Carthage; which is of no consequence, since it also confirms the council of Laodicea, and the papists themselves deny all credit to the Trullan canons. Thus they are left without defence on any side. However, that you may the better see how empty that is which they are wont to urge about the Trullan synod; I will now shew, by the most illustrious and certain testimonies of those men

who have governed and taught the church of Christ in more recent times, that since that council these books were nevertheless not held to be canonical in the church.

Isidore, who lived almost in those very times, says (in Lib. de Offic.) that the old Testament was settled by Ezra in two and twenty books, “that the books in the law might correspond in number with the letters 1 . John Damascene (Lib. IV. c. 18.) says: “It must be known that there are two and twenty books of the old Testament, according to the alphabet of the Hebrew language 2 .” Thus Damascene agrees with those ancient doctors concerning the number of the canonical books of the old Testament. The Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach he praises indeed, but puts them out of the canon: the rest he does not even mention. Yet he lived, as every one knows, after the Trullan Synod. So Nicephorus (apud Cyrum Prodromum in versibus):

τ ῆ ς μ ὲ ν παλαι ᾶ ς ε ἰ σ ὶ ν ε ἴ κοσι δύο.

“There are two and twenty books of the old Testament.” Likewise Leontius determines, in his book of Sects (Acts 2), that there are no more canonical books of the old Testament than the twenty-two which our churches receive. Thus he speaks: “Of the old Testament there are twenty-two books.” Then he goes through all the books of the old and new Testaments in order, and finally subjoins, “These are the books, old and new, which are esteemed canonical in the church 3 .” Rabanus Maurus (De Inst. Cler. c. 54) says, that the whole old Testament was distributed by Ezra into two and twenty books, “that there might be as many books in the law as there are letters 4 .” Radulphus (Lib. XIV. in Lev. c. 1.): “Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, although they be read for instruction in the church, yet have they not authority 5 .” Therefore they are not canonical. Hugo S. Victoris (Prolog. Lib. I. de Sacram. c. 7) says, that “these books are read indeed, but not written in the body of the text or in the authoritative canon; that is, such as the book of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon,

1 [Ut tot libri essent in lege, quot et literae habentur.—Isid. de Eccl. Offic. Lib. I. c. 12.]

2 [ ἰ στέον ὡ ς ε ἴ κοσι κα ὶ δύο βιβλοι ε ἰ σ ὶ τ ῆ ς παλαι ᾶ ς διαθήκης κατ ὰ τ ὰ στοιχε ῖ α τ ῆ ς Ἑ βρα ἶ δος ϕ ων ῆ ς .]

3 [ τα ῦ τ ά ἐ στι τ ὰ κανονιζόμενα βιβλία ἐ ν τ ῇ ἐ κκλησί ᾳ , κα ὶ παλαι ὰ κα ὶ νέα .]

4 [Ut tot libri essent in lege, quot habentur et literae.—Rab. Maur. de Instit. Cleric. Lib. II. c. 54.]

and Ecclesiasticus.” Again, (Didascal. Lib. IV. c. 8) “As there are twenty-two alphabetic letters, by means of which we write in Hebrew, and speak what we have to say, and the compass of the human voice is included in their elementary sounds; so twenty-two books are reckoned, by means of which, being as it were the alphabet and elements in the doctrine of God, the yet tender infancy of our man is instructed, while it still hath need of milk 1 .” Twenty-two letters form the language, and twenty-two books the faith. The same is the opinion of Richardus de S. Victore, (Exception. Lib. II. c. 9). For, after telling us that there are twenty-two canonical books of the old Testament, he presently subjoins: “There are besides other books, as the Wisdom of Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and the book of Judith and Tobit, and the book of Maccabees, which are read indeed, but not written in the canon 2 .” In which words he plainly denies them to be canonical. And presently after, in the same place: “In the old Testament there are certain books which are not written in the canon, and yet are read, as the Wisdom of Solomon, &c.” So Lyra, (Prolog. in libros Apocryph.); Dionysius Carthusianus, (Comment. in Gen. in princip.); Abulensis, (in Matthew c. 1); Antoninus, (3 p. Titus 18. c. 5). Cardinal Hugo, in his Prologue to Joshua, calls Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus, apocryphal; and says that the church does not receive them for proof of the faith, but for instruction in life. These are his lines; in metre, poor enough; in sense, excellent.

But, in what sense the church always received them, the same author explains elsewhere (in Prol. Hieron. in Lib. Regum) 3 : “Such the church receives not for proof of the faith, but for instruction

2 [Sunt praeterea alii libri, ut Sapientia Salomonis, liber Jesu Filii Sirach, et Liber Judith, et Tobias, et liber Machabaeorum, qui leguntur quidem, sed non scribuntur in Canone.—Opp. p. 320. Rothomag. 1650.]

3 [Tales recipit ecclesia, non ad probationem fidei, sed ad morum instructionem.—Opp. Venet. 1703. T. 1. p. 218. 2.]

in morals.” Which other fathers also had said before him. The Gloss upon Gratian’s decree (Dist. 16) affirms that the Bible has some apocryphal books in it. Erasmus in many places maintains the same opinion, and Cardinal Cajetan most expressly. Now all these flourished after the Trullan synod, and some of them after the Florentine; and the church of Rome acknowledges them all as her sons and disciples; except perhaps Erasmus, whom she hath expelled, as he deserves, from her family: although Leo the Tenth called even him, in a certain epistle, his most dearly beloved son 1 . Antonio Bruccioli, an Italian, translated the old Testament into the Italian language 2 , and wrote commentaries upon the canonical books, but omitted the apocryphal. Even since the council of Trent, Arias Montanus, who was himself present in that synod, and published that vast biblical work, and is called by Gregory XIII. his son, in an edition of the Hebrew Bible with an interlinear version declares that the orthodox church follows the canon of the Hebrews, and reckons apocryphal the books of the old Testament which were written in Greek.

Thus, therefore, I conclude: If these books either were canonical, or so declared and defined by any public and legitimate judgment of the church; then these so numerous fathers, ancient and modern, could not have been ignorant of it, or would not have dissented, especially since they were such as desired both to be, and to be esteemed, catholics. But these fathers, so numerous, so learned, so obedient to the godly precepts of the church, were not aware that the church had decreed any such thing concerning the canon of scripture, and openly pronounced these books to be apocryphal. Therefore these books are not canonical, and were never inserted in the sacred canon of scripture by any legitimate authority or sanction of the church. Whence it follows that our church, along with all other reformed churches, justly rejects these books from the canon; and that the papists falsely assert them to be canonical. If they demand testimonies, we have produced them. If they ask for a multitude, they ought to be content with these which are so many, and may well satisfy their desires with them.

1 [See Leo’s Epistle “Dilecto Filio Erasmo Roterod.” prefixed to Erasmus Greek Testament, Basil. 1535.]

2 [The first edition was printed in 1530. There were three others printed in his life-time, in 1539, 1540, 1541. See an account of him in Simon, Hist. Crit. p. 333.]

CHAPTER VII.

OF THE BOOK OF BARUCH. O RDER requires that we should now treat particularly of these several apocryphal scriptures: and first of those which are counted parts of the canonical books. Here, in the first place, what is commonly called “the book of Baruch” claims an examination. To confirm the authority of this book, our opponents avail themselves of four arguments. The first is, that there is a quotation made from the last chapter of Baruch in 2 Maccabees chapter 2. The second, that the councils of Florence and Trent place this book by name amongst the canonical scriptures. The third, that the church takes some lessons from this book in her anniversary offices. The fourth, that many fathers produce testimonies from this book as canonical. From these premises Bellarmine concludes that this book is truly canonical (Lib. I. c. 8). To these we can answer briefly: for the arguments are, as you see, altogether slight ones, and require no very long reply. Thus, therefore, I answer them severally.

To the first: The second book of Maccabees is apocryphal; as I shall hereafter prove by demonstrative arguments. Now one apocryphal book cannot confirm by its testimony the authority of another apocryphal book. Therefore this is no argument.

To the second: We care nothing for those councils. They were popish and altogether antichristian assemblies. The papists may attribute as much weight to those councils as they please: we refuse to be pressed or bound by any such authority.

As to what is objected in the third place,—although the church used to read, and still does read, certain parts of this book, yet it by no means hence follows that the book is in the genuine and strict sense canonical. For we have shewn above, from Jerome and other fathers, that the church was wont formerly to read books not canonical, for the benefit of the people in forming their morals, but not for confirmation of the faith. Besides, what church is it whose example they object to us as an argument? For we are so far from recognising in the custom of the Roman church the force of so great an argument, that we count it a matter of very slight importance.

To the last: I acknowledge that some testimonies are cited from this book by the fathers; and I add too that some of them

believed this piece to be a part of Jeremiah. And, in truth, this book does seem preferable to the rest of the apocrypha: for everything in it, whether we consider the matter or the style, appears more august and suitable to the sacred character than in the other books. Nevertheless, the book is apocryphal, as you shall hear. There is no consequence in this reasoning: Some fathers thought this book a part of Jeremiah, therefore it is a part of Jeremiah. For those fathers were in error, as is manifest. Nor is there force in this inference: Some fathers cited testimonies from this book, therefore the book hath canonical authority. For testimonies are often alleged from other books also, which are by no means to be esteemed canonical. Irenaeus cites the book of the Shepherd (as Eusebius relates, Lib. V. c. 8) 1 ; but I suppose he did not deem that book part of the canonical scriptures. Yet, alleging a passage from it, he hath used the expression, “Well spoke the scripture which says, &c.” And Eusebius writes of him, “He receives the scripture of the Shepherd.” And Nicephorus also attests the same, Lib. IV. c. 14. In like manner Athanasius, in his third oration against the Arians, produces something from the book of Baruch: but the same writer does also, in the same oration, bring forward a testimony, to prove that the word is God, from the third of Esdras, which book our adversaries confess to be apocryphal. Testimonies out of this third book of Esdras are used also by Cyprian (Epistle 74.) 2 ; by Augustine (Vet. ac Nov. Test. Quaest. 109 3 , and Civit. Dei. Lib. XVIII. c. 36) 4 ; and Ambrose (De bono Mortis, c. 10), in order to prove that souls are not extinguished with the body 5 . Now this book of Esdras is not canonical, as the papists themselves allow; so that it is manifest that the cause is not concluded by this argument.

1 [Ο ὐ μόνον δ ὲ ο ἶ δεν, ἀ λλ ὰ κα ὶ ἀ ποδέχεται τ ὴ ν το ῦ Ποιμένος γρα ϕ ὴ ν, λέγων· “Καλ ῶ ς ο ὖ ν ε ἷ πεν ἡ γρα ϕ ὴ ἡ λέγουσα, κ. τ. λ.” T. 2. p. 54. ed. Heinich.]

2 [Scientes quia et aptid Esdram veritas vicit, sicut scriptum est, veritas manet et invalescit in aeternum. p. 215. ed. Fell.]

3 [Et audi Zorobabel, qui super omnia ait veritas .—Aug. Opp. T. 3. p. 11. 2980, A. The reference is 3 Esdras 3:12. But this is not a genuine piece: see the admonition prefixed by the Benedictines.]

4 [Nisi forte Esdras in eo Christum prophetasse intelligendus est, quod. . . . . .veritatem super omnia demonstravit esse victricem.—Ibid. T. 7. 833. A. B .]

5 [De quo tibi Esdrae librum legendum suadeo, qui et illas philosophorum nugas despexerit; et abditiore prudentia, quam collegerat ex revelatione, perstrinxerit eas substantiae esse superioris.—Epist. Class, 1. Ep. 34. n. 2. T. 8. p. 433. Paris. 1839.]

The papists object, that these books of Esdras are not cited by those fathers as sacred and canonical, but that the book of Baruch and the rest are cited and mentioned by them in such a manner as to shew that they thought them to be truly canonical. Therefore there is no analogy between the two cases. I answer, that they are indeed styled by them sacred, and scriptures, but in a certain general sense. For most of them did not suppose that the books were sacred in such a sense as to leave no difference between them and the books which are truly divine and canonical. This John Driedo, one of the chief popish writers, expressly testifies in the case of this very book of Baruch. For thus he writes (de Cat. Script. Lib. I. c. 4. ad Difficult. 11): “So Cyprian, Ambrose, and the other fathers cite sentences from the book of Baruch, and from the third and fourth of Esdras, not as if they were canonical books, but as containing salutary and pious doctrines, not contrary, but rather consonant to our faith 1 .” A papist answers the objection of the papists: for in these words he denies that the book of Baruch is either canonical, or cited as such by those fathers. Melchior Canus too (Lib. XII. c. 6) writes thus of this same book: “For, as we have shewn in the second book, the church hath not placed the book of Baruch in the number of the sacred writings so certainly and clearly, as to make it a plain catholic verity that it is a sacred piece, or a plain heresy that it is not. That book, therefore, or any other, which may be called in question without heresy, can not produce certain and evident verities of the catholic faith 2 .” From this testimony of Canus I collect, in the first place, that the book of Baruch is not clearly canonical: in the next, that we may deny its canonicity without heresy: lastly, that no firm and evident verity of the catholic faith can be derived from this book;—an evident proof that the book itself is apocryphal, since all canonical books are fit to produce certain and evident verities of the catholic faith.

Aquinas, however, in his Commentary upon Jude, says, that it

1 [Sic Cyprianus, Ambrosius, ceterique patres citant sententias ex libro Baruch, et 3 et 4 Esrae, non tanquam ex canonicis libris, sed tanquam ex libris continentibus quaedam pia, juvantia et non contraria, sed consona potius fidei nostrae.—Opp. Lovan. 1550. T. 1. p. 22.]

2 [Nam, ut in secundo libro docuimus, libellum Baruch non adeo explorate et firmiter in sacroram numero ecclesia reposuit, ut aut illum esse sacrum fidei catholicae veritas expedita sit, aut non esse sacrum haeresis expedita sit. Libellus ergo iste, sive quilibet alius, qui in quaestionem citra crimen haereseos vocari possit, non efficit certas atque constantes catholicae fidei veritates.—Opp. Colon. Agripp. 1605. p. 588.]

is “lawful to derive a testimony to the truth from an apocryphal book,” since Jude the apostle hath cited a passage from the apocryphal book of Enoch 5:14. But, although I by no means deny that it is just as much lawful to quote a passage from an apocryphal book, as from a profane author,—as Paul cites an Iambic line from Menander, 1 Corinthians 15:33, a hemistich from Aratus, Acts 17:28, and an heroic verse from Epimenides the Cretan, Titus 1:12; yet I do not think that this passage, which Jude recites, is taken from an apocryphal book, because Jude uses the term

προε ϕ ήτευσε, “he prophesied.” Consequently, he hath adduced this as a prophetical testimony: unless, perhaps, he used the word prophet here in the same sense as Paul when he called Epimenides a prophet; though, indeed, he does not style him a prophet simply, but a prophet of the Cretans.

We have now sufficiently shaken the authority of this book. For I ask, who wrote it? Either Baruch himself, or Jeremiah, is counted the author of the book. But neither of them could have written it; as is clear from hence—that it was written in Greek, not in Hebrew, as Jerome tells us, and as the book itself shews. For Jerome says, in the preface to Jeremiah 1 , that this book is not read by the Hebrews, nor extant amongst them, and that it was therefore wholly omitted by him. But if it had been written by that Baruch, or by Jeremiah himself, it would doubtless have appeared in Hebrew, not in Greek: for Jeremiah spoke in Hebrew, and published his prophecies in the Hebrew language; and Baruch was Jeremiah’s scribe, and committed many things to writing from Jeremiah’s lips, as we find in Jeremiah 36:4. Besides, the very phraseology and diction is Greek, not so condensed, nervous, sedate, and majestic as the style of scripture is wont to be. In the Epistle of Jeremiah, which is recited in Chapter 6., the expression, “Ye shall be there seven generations,” (5:2), is new and foreign to the Hebrew idiom: for in the Hebrew books the term “generation” is never used to designate a period of ten years, as Francis Junius hath correctly observed. Whoever wrote this book was a Greek, or wrote in Greek. Consequently he was neither Baruch nor any other of the prophets. Thus we prove by inevitable deduction that this book must be necessarily esteemed apocryphal.

CHAPTER VIII.

OF THE SEVEN APOCRYPHAL CHAPTERS OF ESTHER. S O much of Esther as is Hebrew, that is, canonical, we receive; and therefore we raise no question concerning those ten chapters which are contained in the Hebrew books. The whole question and controversy is concerning those seven last chapters, which are of a different family and stamp, as we shall easily make appear. The papists will have those seven chapters joined to the rest, without any distinction in point of authority, because the Tridentine council, which has more weight with them than all reason and scripture together, commands those books to be received with all their parts. Their arguments are nearly the same as were alleged for the book of Baruch. Some passages from these chapters are read in the offices of the church, and the fathers sometimes adduce testimonies from them: the little force of which kind of reasoning we have already sufficiently exposed. They say besides that Josephus (Antiq. Lib. X. cap. 6 1 ) mentions two epistles of Ahasuerus, which are found in these last chapters and not in the previous ones. These are the arguments of our opponents.

I do not choose to reply again to what has been already refuted. But I will observe that the argument which rests upon the authority of Josephus is inconclusive. For, in the first place, what if Josephus took something from these chapters, to enlarge or illustrate his history? must he therefore have deemed these chapters to appertain to the canonical scripture? But, concerning this whole matter, let Lyra answer for me, who, in the close of his commentary upon this book, makes use of the following expressions 2 : “The rest which comes after I do not intend to explain, because it is not in the Hebrew, nor belongs to the canonical scripture, but rather seems to have been invented by Josephus and other writers, and afterwards inserted in the vulgar edition.” Josephus, therefore, did not take those things from any canonical book, but was himself the first writer of them; and others afterwards, read-

1 [The reference should be 11. c. 6. § 12. pp. 575, 576. Haverc.]

2 [Cetera quae sequuntur non intendo exponere, quia non in Hebraeo sunt, nec de scriptura canonica, sed magis videntur a Josepho et aliis scriptoribus conficta, et postea editioni vulgatae inserta.—Nic. Lyrani Comment. Antwerp. 1634. in fin . Estheroe .]

ing them in Josephus, copied them into the Bible. But although they were, as Lyra says, inserted in the vulgar edition, it does not therefore follow that they were ever allowed a canonical authority. Sixtus Senensis (Lib. I.) approves and follows the opinion of Lyra 1 . Lastly, it is certain that Josephus’s own judgment concerning the canonical books was no other than that of Jerome, as appears from his first book against Apion. There he determines that no books are canonical, but such as were written by prophets of ascertained authority. Now these chapters were not written by any prophet, which I will prove by the following arguments.

In the first place, the matters related in the former chapters are told over again in these following ones; which repeated narration of the same events sufficiently shews that all were not written by the same person. For there was no reason whatever for his telling the same history twice over. Nor would the same author have written the latter part in a different language from the former. But if he were another person, why yet, if he were a prophet, did he not use the Hebrew tongue, the proper language of prophecy? Learned men make either Ezra, or Joachim the priest, or Mordecai himself, the author of this book, and recognise no other than these.

Secondly. There are many incongruities and inconsistencies, which it is impossible to reconcile, in these chapters, of which I will produce some specimens. First, in chapter 1:2, Mordecai is said to have dreamed of the two eunuchs who conspired against the king, in the second year. See also chapter 12:1. But in the second chapter, which is canonical, verse 16, we read that this conspiracy took place in the seventh year of Ahasuerus. Bellarmine answers, that the narrative of the plot which is contained in chapter 12. belongs to the beginning of the book; but that what we read to have occurred in the second year in chapter 11. is not to be understood of the plot, but of the dream of Mordecai: for that the plot was laid in the seventh year, as we are told in the second chapter. But all this is said without proofs, and in spite of the plain declaration of the book itself. For at the close of chapter 11. Mordecai says that, when he arose, he pondered many thoughts in his mind concerning that dream, until the night, ( ἕ ως τ ῆ ρ νυκτ ό ς ); and that then, as he rested in the court with the two eunuchs, he

1 [Even in our own times, notwithstanding the stringent declaration of the council of Trent, this seems to have been the opinion of some respectable Roman Catholic divines, e. g. John in his Einleitung in A. T.]

detected their conspiracy. There was not therefore an interval of five years between the dream of Mordecai and the plot of the eunuchs, as Bellarmine fancies, but only of one day, if there be faith in the book itself.

Secondly, the narrative in this book was written many years after the death of Mordecai. For, in chapter 11. 1 mention is made of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, who assuredly lived after the times of Mordecai and of the prophets. Nor can one well understand what the meaning of that passage is intended to be. Lysimachus of Jerusalem, the son of Ptolemy, is said to have “interpreted the present epistle of Phurim,” which Dositheus and his son Ptolemy brought in the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra. Bellarmine says it may be answered, that the first author of this book, who wrote the history of Esther in Hebrew, drew up only the sum of the story, and that this Hebrew narrative has come down to us; that then, at some other time, the history was written more copiously by some other person, and translated into the Greek language by Lysimachus, as is indicated in chapter 11.; and that not the original book of this later author, but only a translation of it, is now extant.

But, in the first place, Lysimachus is not here said to have translated any Hebrew book into the Greek tongue, but only the epistle of Phurim. And, in the next place, if the assertion that the later author wrote this history more copiously than the former were true, then this history, of which a translation only hath survived, could not be that which the later author wrote: for it is shorter than the Hebrew history, and does not give the series of the narrative at all so fully, as every one may readily perceive. Lastly, who translated this Greek translation of Lysimachus into Latin? Jerome found a certain Latin translation, and subjoined it to his version, though containing, as he tells us, some things which were extant neither in the Hebrew, nor in the text of any other interpreter. Yet this vulgar translation, which Jerome deemed utterly unfaithful, is in the highest sense authentic and canonical with the papists.

1 [The passage referred to is plainly a scholium, or marginal note, as follows: ἐ το ῦ ς τετάρτου βασιλεύοντος Π τολεμαίου κα ὶ Κ λεοπάτρας ε ἰ σήνεγκε Δ οσίθεος , δς ἔ ϕ η ε ἶ ναι ἱ ερε ὺ ς κα ὶ Λ ευίτης , κα ὶ Π τολεμα ῖ ος ὁ υ ἱὸ ς α ὐ το ῦ , τ ὴ ν προκειμένην ἐ πιστολ ὴ ν τ ῶ ν ϕ ρουρα ὶ , ἤ ν ἔ ϕ ασαν ε ἶ ναι κα ὶ ἡ ρμηνευκέναι Λ υσίμαχον Π τολεμαίου τ ὸ ν ἐ ν Ἱ ερουσαλήμ . Compare Ussher de LXX. Int. p. 22, and Valckenaër de Aristobulo Judaeo, p. 63, who supposes this Lysimachus to have been the author also of what is called the Third Book of Maccabees.]

Thirdly, this pretended author tells us, chapter 12:5, that a reward was given by the king to Mordecai for his information; whereas, in chapter 6:3 of the true history, we read that no reward was bestowed upon him. Bellarmine, however, replies that there is no difficulty here; since in chapter 12. that magnificent reward is meant which he afterwards received. But any one who reads the place itself will see, that this interpretation can by no means stand. For in this twelfth chapter Haman is said to have plotted mischief against Mordecai, after the gifts were bestowed upon him; which cannot be understood of those most distinguished honours and gifts with which the king graced him after he had read the annals. For that very morning, as we read in chapter 6., Haman was in attendance to settle with the king about hanging Mordecai; and that very day Mordecai was raised to the highest dignity, and loaded with royal favours. Nor could Haman, after that, attempt anything against him: for Mordecai was then in the highest favour with the king, and Haman himself was presently hanged upon that same day. Therefore here there must be some falsehood upon the other side.

Fourthly, in chapter 12:6, Haman is said to have been enraged against Mordecai on account of the eunuchs whom Mordecai accused, and whom, upon being arraigned of treason, and convicted by Mordecai’s evidence, the king had punished capitally. But it is incredible that Haman, who had received such honour and dignity from the king, should have favoured the treason of the eunuchs; and nothing of the kind is found in the true history, but, on the contrary, a very different cause of his offence and anger is assigned, chapter 3.

Fifthly, in chapter 15:7, this author says that, when Esther came into the king’s presence, the king looked upon her with so angry a countenance, that she fainted through fear. On the contrary, chapter 5:2, she is said to have obtained great favour on coming in to the king.

Sixthly, in chapter 16:10, Haman is called a Macedonian; but in chapter 8:3, we find him to have been an Agagite, that is, of the race of Amalek.

Seventhly, Haman is not only said (chapter 16.) to have been a Macedonian himself, but also to have designed, after removing Mordecai and Esther, to lay violent hands upon the king, in order to transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians. But, first, how could Haman have transferred the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians, if he had succeeded ever so well in putting the king to death? For the kingdom of the Macedonians was at that time little or nothing. Besides, the true history contains not a trace of the story told in chapter 16., that he plotted against Mordecai and Esther, in order that, by their destruction, he might the more easily attack the king, and transfer the kingdom to the Macedonians. For he was not aware that the queen was a Jewess, or related to Mordecai; and he devised all sorts of mischief against Mordecai, not to open himself a way to the kingdom, but simply to satisfy his malice. For Mordecai was not, in the beginning, when Haman first conceived this grudge against him, in any station of authority, so as in any way to eclipse his splendour. But if any one choose to say that Mordecai’s information was the means of saving the king from assassination, and that thus an obstacle was set in the way of Haman’s ambition, and it was this which kindled such a blaze of hatred; he must be given to understand that he contradicts the sacred narrative. For that conspiracy of the eunuchs and the information of Mordecai took place before Haman had acquired so much favour and power in the royal court, as is manifest from the second chapter and the beginning of the third.

All these things are of such a nature, that they can by no means stand together or be reconciled with each other: whence it follows, that the authority of these chapters must needs fall to the ground. And rightly is it ordered that these chapters are not read in our church.

Thirdly. These chapters are not written in Hebrew. For Jerome says that he had marked these chapters with an obelus set before them; which is the mark by which he is wont to indicate apocryphal additions. For the pretence of some that they were once in the Hebrew text, but have now dropped out of it, is easily refuted by what we have observed already. Jerome had no suspicion of this, and the style cries out against it, and reason proves the contrary. For how could they have been better preserved in the Greek than in the Hebrew? or what need is there to give any credit to mere fictions and conjectures of this nature?

Fourthly. Besides other authors, and some papists also, whom I have already alleged, Sixtus Senensis, who wrote his Bibliotheca after the council of Trent, in the first book of that work asserts these chapters to be apocryphal; a concession which he never would have made, unless overcome by the very force of truth, since he labours so energetically to maintain the credit of the other

apocryphal pieces. Nor did the Tridentine decree, requiring the books there mentioned to be received with their parts, avail to turn him from his opinion. For he contends that this is no native and genuine part of the Book of Esther, but that in these chapters all is supposititious. He writes in plain words, that “by reason of these strips appended, inserted by the rashness of certain writers from various quarters 1 ,” it had come to pass that it was late ere this book acquired a canonical authority amongst Christians. So clearly did pious men see these to be fabulous, that they threw a shade of suspicion over even the canonical portions. And though this papist, Sixtus, is blamed by the Jesuits, yet is he not refuted. But let us leave them to quarrel amongst themselves.

CHAPTER IX.

OF THE APOCRYPHAL PARTS OF DANIEL. T O confirm the authority of these parts, the papists can allege no peculiar argument. For their allegation, that the fathers quote testimonies from these chapters as well as from the others, and call them testimonies of scripture, is devoid of strength. They do indeed quote them, and call them scriptures; but they do not affirm them to be canonical scriptures, such as the Books of Moses and the prophets. They are styled scriptures, because they used to be publicly read in the church, that the people might thence take noble examples of morals, and were preferred (as Augustine says in a certain place) to the treatises of all other discoursers 2 . But this is far from proving the authority of these portions equal to that of the remainder of the book, which is truly canonical. Now, therefore, let us say a few words of that Hymn of the three children which is commonly placed in, and reckoned to the end of the third chapter; and of the History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, which are joined in the vulgar Bibles with the prophecy of Daniel, and counted a part of it. These pieces I will prove to be spurious and apocryphal by sound and cogent arguments.

1 [Propter has appendicum lacinias hinc inde quorundam scriptorura temeritate insertas.—p. 20. Paris. 1610.]

2 [Qui sententiis tractatorum instrui volunt, oportet ut istum librum sapientiae . . . . . omnibus tractatoribus anteponant.—August. de Praedest. Sanct. Lib. I. c. 14.]

First, then, let us hear Jerome expressly pronouncing his judgment concerning these portions. Thus he speaks, in his proem to Daniel, and in the preface of his commentary upon that prophet: “Daniel, as it stands in the Hebrew text, has neither the History of Susanna, nor the Hymn of the three children, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon; which we, considering that they are now dispersed over the whole world, have subjoined with an obelus prefixed, and [as it were] striking them through, lest the ignorant should think that we had cut off a great part of the volume 1 .” From these words of Jerome we collect: 1. That no part of these pieces was found in the Hebrew, which sufficiently proves them to be spurious. 2. That they seemed to Jerome to deserve the stroke of that obelus by which he uses to distinguish the apocryphal from the canonical passages. 3. That, nevertheless, they were in use and read every where. 4. That he would himself have omitted them, but that he feared the calumnies of certain persons. 5. That it was the unlearned who supposed that these were really any parts of Daniel.

Secondly, John Driedo (de Catal. Scripturae, Lib. I. cap. ult.) does not say that this history is canonical, but only that it is not to be despised; and that he who believes these things to be all true, falls into no pernicious error; “even as we read,” says he, “the acts of the martyrs, from which we do not derive arguments for matters of faith 2 .” You see what distinguished and honourable opinions the papists themselves entertain of this history. We ourselves can not think more lowly than they do of this class of writings. But that learned theologian saw that it was impossible to frame any more exalted judgment of these fragments, since they are not found in the Hebrew and sacred volumes of the scripture, but are derived from the Greek translation of the worthless and perfidious Theodotion.

Thirdly, that Paronomasia, of which Jerome speaks in the preface to Daniel, ἀ π ὸ

το ῦ σχίνου σχίσει, ἀ π ὸ το ῦ πρίνου πρίσει 3 ,

1 [Apud Hebraeos nec Susannae habes historiam, nec hymnum trium puerorum, nec Belis draconisque fabulas: quas nos, quia in toto orbe dispersae sunt, veru  anteposito, eoque jugulante, subjecimus, ne videremur apud imperitos magnam partem voluminis detruncasse.—Hieron. Opp. T. 9. 1362. ed. Vallars. Veronae. 1738.]

3 [Audivi ego quendam de praeceptoribus Judaeorum, quum Susannae derideret historiam, et a Graeco nescio quo diceret esse confictam, illud opproves that this little story was not written in Hebrew, but in Greek. Daniel asked one of the elders, under what tree he had found Susanna with her paramour. He answered, under a mastick tree, σχίνου . Then Daniel forthwith, alluding to the

name of the tree, subjoins, σχίσει σε ὁ Θ εός. Afterwards he comes to the other, and asks him under what tree he had seen Susanna committing so foul a crime? He mentions a different tree, and says that it was under a holm-oak, πρίνου. Then

Daniel, using a similar play upon the name, brings in his judgment, πρίσει σε ὁ Θ εός. This Greek etymology (for so Jerome calls it) shews that the history itself was written in the Greek language: for you will find no allusion of the kind in the corresponding Hebrew names and verbs. Therefore it was not written by Daniel, or any prophet.

The papists object, that this argument was long ago answered by Origen in his Epistle to Julius Africanus, mentioned by Eusebius 1 , who alleges that there were words in the Hebrew which contained plainly such an allusion, but that the Greek interpreter had changed the names to preserve the paronomasia. But nothing can be slighter or more futile than that conjecture. For, in the first place, though I confess that Origen did write about this matter to Julius Africanus, yet what he wrote is not known. For the piece upon that subject which hath lately appeared hath not yet gained any clear credit 2 .

I ask, in the next place, what are those Hebrew names of trees which will yield this allusion? a question which must needs bring them to a stand.

Thirdly, the Holy Spirit does not use to affect this change of names, or put a force upon the truth of things, or alter their denominations, especially seeing that the refutation of the charge depends upon the very diversity of the names. For if they answered that they had seen Susanna under an oak or a fig, the story should not have been told as if they had said a mastick or a holm-tree, since that is not true in fact. Effectually to discover the falsehood of these calumnies of the elders, the very names of the trees should have been preserved.

ponere quod Origeni quoque Africanus opposuit, etymologias has ἀ π ὸ το ῦ σχίνου σχίσαι κα ὶ ἀ π ὸ το ῦ πρνου πρίσαι, de Graeco sermone descendere.—Opp. T. 9. 1364.]

1 [Hist. Eccl. 6. c. 31.]

2 [All doubts, however, were very soon removed by its publication in Greek by Haeschelius. August. Vindel. 1602.]

Fourthly, I cannot understand how it should be taken for a solid proof of the falsehood of the charges, that because different trees were named by the elders, therefore it should be evident that Susanna was undeservedly accused. They might have said that they had not specially observed what kind of tree it was, and so might easily have been mistaken. They who were so wicked in devising the charge would not have been so stupid in proving it.

Lastly, when they object to us in this cause so often the authority of Origen, let them attend to what Jerome hath written of him in the preface to Daniel. “I wonder,” says he, “that some querulous persons should be indignant at me, as if I had mutilated the book; whereas Origen, and Eusebius, and Apollinarius, and other ecclesiastical men and the doctors of Greece, confess, as I have said, that these visions are not extant in the Hebrew, and declare that they are not bound to answer Porphyry in defence of things which have no authority of sacred scripture 1 .” If that be true which Jerome writes of Origen, they have no reason to call Origen a patron of this history. For Origen together with the other Greek doctors expressly affirmed, if we believe Jerome, that these pieces were not extant in the Hebrew, nor possessed the authority of sacred scripture.

In fine, the papists cannot agree amongst themselves who that Daniel was who was thrust into the lion’s den for slaying the dragon and destroying Bel, and was suffered to remain there six days. Bellarmine, after carefully weighing the whole matter, at length arrives at the conclusion, that this Daniel was not the same person as the distinguished prophet, but a different one. For the great prophet Daniel was of the tribe of Juda, as is manifest: but the Seventy, as Jerome testifies in the preface to Daniel, make that Daniel who had intercourse with Cyrus, a priest of the tribe of Levi; and the more learned papists think that this was the same Daniel who destroyed Bel and the dragon, and was preserved six days in the den of lions. Thus these things cannot be speciously defended, without introducing a second Daniel contrary to the common and general opinion. But what proof have we of the existence of such a Daniel? What credit

1 [Et miror quasdam indignari mihi, quasi ego decurtaverim librum: quum et Origenes, et Eusebius, et Apollinarius, aliique ecclesiastici viri et doctores Graeciae has, ut dixi visiones non haberi apud Hebraeos fateantur, nec se debere respondere Porphyrio pro his quae nullam scripturae sanctae auctoritatem praebeant.—Hieronym. Opp. T. 5. 619.]

do the stories which the Seventy tell about this matter deserve? And if what is told in this fourteenth chapter was not done by that great Daniel, but by some other, why is it made a part of that Daniel? why said to be his, and attributed to him? Let all, therefore, understand that the Daniel who subverted Bel, burnt the dragon, and remained six days in the den, was not that great Daniel whose prophetic book is extant, and worthy of all authority, and that by the confession of the papists themselves, but some other unknown, unheard of, and uncertain Daniel. But we have hitherto never heard of more prophets of the name of Daniel than one, and may therefore dismiss this second Daniel without further ceremony.

CHAPTER X.

OF THE BOOK OF TOBIT. A FTER having proved that those fragments which are stuck upon certain canonical books should be cut off, and plucked out from the body of sacred scripture, it follows now that we should treat of those six entire apocryphal books.

And first let us consider the book of Tobit, for the authority of which the papists adduce no special argument whatsoever. For, though it be quoted by the fathers, it does not thence follow that it is a canonical book, as we have already clearly proved: and as to its being called “divine” by Ambrose, the meaning is not to teach us that the book is undoubtedly canonical and equal in every respect to those which really form part of the canon, but that it is a book by no means to be despised or esteemed lightly. For although it is not truly canonical, yet it may be styled divine, as it was wont to be read in the church, and was joined with the canonical books in one volume, so as commonly to pass under the name of scripture. For that it is not properly canonical, we have shewn by many testimonies of the fathers, and can demonstrate by plain arguments. But here consider how the papists run into a clear contradiction. Bellarmine confesses that Jerome rejects this book, and the rest which are involved in the present controversy, from the canon of scripture; and pretends that it is no wonder he should do so, since no general council (which hath the regular privilege of determining and defining what should be deemed the canon of scripture) had decreed the canonicity of these books. Yet, in the

meanwhile, the papists bring testimonies from Irenaeus, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, to prove these books canonical. But how or by what authority could those fathers affirm these books to be canonical, when that matter was not yet certain and clearly known, being as yet not decided by any general council? Therefore, either this is not the exclusive prerogative of a general council, or those fathers followed opinion rather than judgment and reason, when they received (as our opponents imagine) these books for canonical, which the church had not yet approved by its sanction and testimony.

Let us now bring forward some objections against the authority of this book. And first, Jerome witnesses the judgment which the church of old passed upon this book. For he says, in the preface to the books of Solomon, that the church does not receive the book of Tobit into the canonical scriptures 1 . Therefore the catholic church (of which Jerome speaks) hath judged this book not to be canonical. And, in the prologue to the book of Tobit 2 , he wonders at the importunity of those by whom he had been induced to translate into the Latin tongue this book, which the Hebrews had cut off from the list of the divine scriptures, and which was only to be read in the Chaldee, a language with which he was unacquainted. Wherefore he confesses that he had availed himself of the assistance of another, and had rendered in Latin words that which some unknown interpreter, skilled both in the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, had dictated to him in Hebrew. So that Jerome hath rather translated some other person’s version of this book than the book itself. Besides, the book is now extant only in Greek and Latin, and it is wholly uncertain in what language it was originally written. Jerome writes that he had seen a Chaldaic copy of it, but attributes to it no sort of authority. And the present copies of the book are exceeding various and corrupt, as may be easily detected by a collation of them. What more do we

1 [Judith, et Tobi, et Machabaeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia, sed inter canonicas scripturas non recipit. Hieronym. Opp. T. 9. 1296.]

2 [Mirari non desino exactionis vestrae instantiam: exigitis enim ut librum Chaldaeo sermone conscriptum ad Latinum stylum traham, librum utique Tobiae, quem Hebraei de Catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantcs, his quae Apocrypha memorant, manciparunt . . . . . . Utriusque linguae (Hebraeae et Chaldaeae) peritissimum loquacem inveniens, unius diei laborem arripui; et quidquid ille Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego, accito notario, sermonibus Latinis exposui.—Opp. T. 10. 293. The common reading is Hagiographa for Apocrypha : but the correctness of the latter is so evident, that it is admitted by the Benedictines and Vallarsius.]

want? The book may speak for itself, the whole character of which shews, as clear as the light, that it hath no claims to canonicity.

CHAPTER XI.

OF THE BOOK OF JUDITH. O UR adversaries snatch up an argument from Jerome in favour of this book, which goes under the name of Judith. For Jerome tells us, in the preface to the book of Judith, that this book was counted in the sacred scriptures by the Nicene synod 1 . Therefore, say they, Jerome himself testifies that this book at least is canonical. But this testimony injures our opponents’ cause more than it helps it. For first, if that synod received this book into the number of the sacred scriptures, it affected those others, which it omitted, with no slight prejudice. For if, as these men will have it, it determined this book to be canonical, why did it not comprehend the others also in the same decree, if they be really canonical?

Secondly, Jerome’s words are, “ We read that the synod of Nice counted this book in the number of sacred scriptures.” But where this is read, he tells us not. And if the Nicene synod had determined the canonicity of this book, the council of Laodicea, which was held a short time after that of Nice, would not have left it in the Apocrypha. And Erasmus hath rightly noted, that Jerome does not himself affirm that this book was counted sacred scripture by the council of Nice.

Thirdly, “To be canonical scripture ” is one thing, and “to be counted in the number of sacred scripture ” is another thing. For those pieces which are read along with the sacred scriptures for the edification of the people, although not for confirmation of doctrines, are counted in the number of sacred scriptures. And

1 [Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero sanctarum scripturarum legitur computasse, &c.— Opp. T. 10:22. Most critics suppose that the council of Nice in some of their documents had quoted some testimony from the book of Judith: but Vallarsius thinks it more probable that Jerome alludes to some spurious index of the scriptures, forged under the name of that council. He appeals, very properly, to Cassiodorus, Instit. Divin. Lit. c. 14, to shew that such indexes existed, and passed under the names of the councils of Nice and Chalcedon.]

that this was the mind and meaning of Jerome, is plain from Jerome’s own words in the preface to the Proverbs. “The church,” says he, “reads this book, but does not receive it amongst the canonical scriptures 1 .” Although, therefore, this book be read, and counted in the number of sacred scriptures, yet is it not received amongst those scriptures which are canonical and sacred in the highest sense. This Jerome asserts in plain words; but this he would never have asserted, if the council of Nice had determined this book to be canonical. Nay, in this very preface Jerome shews this book not to be canonical by two arguments:—first, because the Hebrews esteem it apocryphal, and unfit for confirming anything which may be called in question 2 : secondly, because the book was written in the Chaldee language, and the copies of it grossly corrupted and depraved. For which reason Jerome, in translating it, gave the general sense rather than the exact meaning of each word, and only rendered into Latin what he found uncorrupted in the Chaldee 3 . Now, however, even those Chaldee copies themselves have perished; and the Greek ones differ widely from Jerome’s version. Besides, Josephus, in his commentaries upon the Jewish antiquities, does not touch at all upon this story of Judith,—a sufficient proof that Josephus did not consider it canonical.

But now let us estimate the authority of this book by the evidence of the book itself, and briefly examine what the times were of which it professes to be the history. For the opinions of authors upon this subject are various; nor is it needful that we should enumerate them particularly. Let us hear, then, the determinations of those who at present sway the Romish schools. Sixtus Senensis (Lib. VIII. Haer. 11) writes, that he who is called Nabuchodonosor was Ahasuerus, the son of Darius Hystaspes, and that he reigned in Babylon after Cyrus was slain. But no Persian emperor was called Nabuchodonosor; and the Persian kings fixed the seat of their empire not at Nineve but at Babylon.

1 [Vide supra, p. 81.]

2 [Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter Apocrypha legitur: cujus auctoritas ad roboranda illa quae in contentionem veniunt minus idonea judicatur. Chaldaeo tamen sermone conscriptus, inter historias computatur.—Opp. T. 10. p. 22.]

3 [Magis sensum e sensu, quam ex verbo verbum transferens. Multorum codicum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi: sola ea, quae intelligentia integra in verbis Chaldaeis invenirc potui, Latinis express. Ibid.]

But he who sent Holofernes with an army to subdue the world, is called in the first chapter of this book Nabuchodonosor, and is said to have reigned at Nineve. There are many other incongruities besides, so that Bellarmine refers this history to the times of Manasseh, whom Nabuchodonosor took captive, brought to Babylon, and after a long while set at liberty. He supposes, therefore, that these events happened a little after the return of Manasseh, following Melchior Canus, (Lib. II. c. 16): which opinion (although repugnant to that of all his predecessors, as Eusebius in his Chronicon, Augustine, Philo, Bede, Lyra, Driedo and others,) seems yet much more probable than that of the rest, since it is certain that there was no Nabuchodonosor in existence after the Babylonian captivity. But now let us sift this hypothesis, and prove that these things could not have been done even in the time of Manasseh.

First, in the beginning of the fifth chapter, when Holofernes perceives that the Jewish people were meditating and preparing war, he convokes all his officers and asks them what people this was, and who was their leader. But if Manasseh had been only a short time before taken captive by the king of the Chaldeans, and carried into Babylon, neither Holofernes nor the Chaldeans could have been so ignorant who was their king as to be forced to seek and obtain information upon this subject from Achior the Ammonite. For they are made to inquire concerning the people, the country, the cities, the power of the inhabitants, their mode of warfare, their leader and king, as if they had never heard of such a nation as the Jews. But the Chaldeans had before then made war upon this people, wasted Judaea, taken Jerusalem, and carried away with them Manasseh into Babylon. Therefore these things about which they now inquire could not have been unknown to them.

Secondly, when Holofernes came into Judaea, the temple was overthrown. For

these are the very words of Achior, in the Greek text: Ὁ να ὸ ς το ῦ Θ εο ῦ α ὐ τ ῶ ν

ἐ γενήθη ε ἰ ς ἔ δα ϕ ος κα ὶ α ὶ πόλεις α ὐ τ ῶ ν ἐ κρατήθησαν. “The temple of the Jews at Jerusalem was overturned and rased to the ground, and their cities occupied.” But in the captivity of Manasseh there was no subversion of the temple, nor was the temple levelled to the ground before the reign of Zedekiah, in which (as everybody knows) the great captivity took place.

Thirdly, if these things had happened in the time of Manasseh and after his return, the Jewish people would not have treated the messengers of the king of Babylon so shamefully, or dismissed

them so ignominiously, as we are told they did in the first chapter. For the Jews had then experienced both the power and the clemency of the Babylonians.

Fourthly, in the history of the Kings, in which the acts of Manasseh are written, we read nothing of this kind about Holofernes; which being a thing of such a remarkable character, it is surprising that the Holy Spirit should have omitted to mention it.

Fifthly, in the last chapter we read that Judith lived more than 105 years, and that while Judith lived, after this victory no enemy troubled Israel. This peace, therefore, lasted many years. But now, when Holofernes was in Judaea, Judith had not passed the flower of her age; for she was very beautiful, and she pleased Holofernes, and is called a girl, chapter 12: so that, after this victory, there must have been peace for near a hundred years. For the peace is said to have subsisted many years, both during her life and after she was dead. But Amon succeeded Manasseh, and reigned two years; Josiah succeeded Amon, and held the sovereignty thirty-one years. After the death of Josiah, a mighty mass of trouble fell upon the state, which could not be allayed until it was entirely subverted, and the people carried into captivity. How can we assign that long peace to such times as these?

Sixthly, I should wish to know, (for I am by no means disposed to think it,) whether there was any Nabuchodonosor in Manasseh’s time. For Nabuchodonosor the first, whose son was the second and great Nabuchodonosor, began to reign with Josiah, who was 33 years later than Manasseh. Before him, if we believe history, no Nabuchodonosor reigned either at Nineve or Babylon. For, as to the allegation that all the kings of the Babylonians were called Nabuchodonosor, I grant it to have been so after that great Nabuchodonosor, whose greatness was the cause that this name became hereditary in the line of Babylonian kings: but there is no evidence that they all went by that name before him.

We have now shewn plainly enough that this history does not suit the times of Manasseh. And the argument which led Bellarmine to cast it in those times is utterly destitute of force. Eliakim, says he, was at this time high priest, as he is called in the fifteenth chapter of Judith; and in the time of Hezekiah there was a certain Eliakim priest, the son of Hilkiah. But Bellarmine did not observe that that Eliakim, who is mentioned in the history of Hezekiah, was not a priest, but a certain officer, of the tribe of Judah and the family of David, as appears from Isaiah 22 and

2 Kings 18. For he succeeded Shebna, who was either the royal scribe, as some render it, or the chancellor, as others, or the master of the royal household, as others; but who neither was, nor could have been, a priest. Josephus, in the last book of his Jewish antiquities, gives a list of all the pontiffs of the Jews, from Aaron down to the last, yet names no Eliakim or Joakim about these times. You see what sort of foundation Bellarmine had for his opinion concerning the history of Judith.

Genebrard, in his Chronology, (Lib. II. anno mundi 3560 1 ) assigns the date of this history otherwise, but much more rashly. For he says this was the same Nabuchodonosor, who subdued Zedekiah, took Jerusalem, and carried the people into captivity; that he sent Holofernes into Judaea in the 13th year of his reign, and in the 19th transferred the remainder of the Jews to Babylon. But Genebrard hath not made a correct distribution of the times. For how can it be truly said that Judith lived so long after that calamity, and that peace subsisted during her life and a long time after it? Or how could the Chaldeans have failed to be thoroughly acquainted with the people and king of the Jews, when Nabuchodonosor had, but a little before, made Zedekiah himself king of the Jews? No time, therefore, can be found, which suits with these transactions. For it is manifest that none of these three opinions is true, and our adversaries can invent none truer than these.

CHAPTER XII.

OF THE BOOK OF WISDOM. W E have now to treat of those two books, whereof one is called the Wisdom of Solomon, the other Ecclesiasticus; which pieces we deny not to be replete with very beautiful admonitions, precepts, and sentiments, yet maintain to be deservedly placed amongst the apocryphal scriptures by our churches. Besides the common arguments, which we have often answered already, our adversaries allege one peculiar to the case of that book which is called the Wisdom of Solomon. They pretend that the apostle Paul hath used the testimony of this book, Romans 11:34,

where he says, Τ ίς ἔ γνω νο ῦ ν Κ υρίου , ἢ τίς σύμβουλος α ὐ το ῦ ἐ γένετο ; “Who

1 [p. 236. Paris. 1600.]

hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?” Likewise that the expression, Hebrews 1:3, “Who, being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,” is borrowed from the seventh chapter of this book.

As to the first place, I answer: The apostle does not intimate that he is there citing any testimony. For there is no consequence in the reasoning, that, because similar words to those are found in this place, therefore the apostle quoted this place. And even if the apostle recited the words of some prophetic scripture, or alluded to some scripture, we are not therefore obliged to suppose that it was to this place in Wisdom. For the same sentiment is found in Isaiah 40:13, in these words: “Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or, being his counsellor, hath taught him?” &c. Thus Thomas Aquinas, in his fifth lecture upon Romans 11 says, that the apostle here brings in the authority of Isaiah 1 . So also Cajetan, and our countrymen the Rhemist interpreters, in their English version. Add to this, that, whereas there have been various indexes of testimonies cited out of the old Testament in the new, drawn up by many persons, and placed in various editions of the Bible, no one of these exhibits any testimony from this book of Wisdom, and all refer this citation by name to Isaiah 2 .

As to the second place, the apostle makes no citation, as is evident. For what though some words be found in the book of Wisdom not unlike those wherein the apostle describes the person of Christ? For indeed it cannot be said that the words are identically the same, but only that they are similar. So that this argument has but weak force to prove the canonical authority of this book. But now we, on the other hand, will produce some considerations which may shew that the book is apocryphal. We concede indeed, with Epiphanius, that it is a useful book; but we add also with Epiphanius, that “it is not referred to the number of the canonical scriptures:” which assertion he extends also to the following one.

First, this book, as all allow, was written in Greek, and that, as hath already been proved, is sufficient to exclude it from the canon.

Secondly, Jerome, in the Preface to Proverbs, says of these two books, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus: “These two volumes one may read indeed for the edification of the people, but not to

1 [T. 16. p. 37. 2. Opp. Venet. 1593.]

2 [It is in fact the Sept. translation of that passage, with only the variation of ἧ for καί .]

confirm the authority of the dogmas of the church 1 .” “Where also he calls the book pseudepigraphal 2 , so as that, although it goes under the name of Solomon, it is not to be supposed to be really his; and observes that it “savours of Grecian eloquence.”

Thirdly, most of the ancients determine that this book was written by Philo, who certainly neither was a prophet, nor could have written a canonical book of the old Testament. For he lived after Christ in the time of Caligula, before whom he discharged his celebrated embassy on behalf of the Jews. But then the time of the old Testament had already passed; and Christ says, “The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist.” For the conjecture of some, and Bellarmine among the rest, that there was some other Jewish Philo, is grounded upon no testimony of antiquity, and is rejected by Sixtus Senensis, (Lib. VIII. c. 9), and is at variance with the general opinion of the doctors. For thus writes Bonaventura in his Commentary upon this book: “The first efficient cause, in the way of a compiler, was Philo the wisest of the Jews 3 .” So that he determines it to have been written by Philo, not by Solomon. But by what Philo? By any other than him who

flourished after Christ, and wrote so many pieces with so much eloquence? of

whom some one said, ἦ Π λάτων ϕ ιλωνίζει, ἦ Φ ίλαω πλατωνίζει 4 . Bonaventura subjoins, “who lived in the times of the apostles.” It is evident therefore what Philo he supposed the author of this book. For he recognised no other Philo; and he tells us that the same was said by Rabanus. For Josephus, in his first book against Apion, names a certain older Philo, but one who was a Gentile and a philosopher, not a Jew or conversant with the scriptures 5 . Wherefore, since this book was

1 [Haec duo ecclesia legat ad edificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam. T. 9. 1296.]

2 [Alius ψευδεπίγρα ϕ ος , qui Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur . . . . . . . . . et ipse stylus Graecam eloquentiam redolet; et nonnulli veterum scriptorum hunc esse Judaei Philonis affirmant. T. 9. 1295.— Hence some have endeavoured to explain how it came to be attributed to Solomon, Philo’s name in Hebrew being Jedidiah.]

3 [Proxima causa efficiens per modum compilantis fuit Philo sapientissimus Judaeorum, qui temporibus apostolorum fuit. Opp. T. 1. p. 341. Lugd. 1668.]

4 [Hieronym. in Catal. sub voc. P HILO. Photius. Cod. CV. Suidas, Voc. Φίλων , &c.]

5 [ Ὁ μέντοι Φ αληρε ὺ ς Δημήτριος κα ὶ Φ ίλων ὁ πρεσβύτερος κα ὶ Ε ὐ πόλεμος ο ὐ πολ ὺ τ ῆ ς ἀ ληθείας διήμαρτον· ο ἷ ς συγγινώσκειν ἄ ξιον· ο ὐ γ ὰ ρ ἐ ν ῆ ν α ὐ το ῖ ς μετ ὰ πάσης ἀ κριβείας το ῖ ς ἡ μετέροις γράμμασι παρακολουθε ῖ ν .—Josephus, c. Apion. Lib. I. c. 23. p. 458. ed. Haverc.]

written by that Philo the Jew in the time of the apostles, it cannot be by any means canonical. For if Philo were a true prophet, or imbued with the prophetic spirit, why did he not receive Christ? Why not believe the gospel? Why was he a stranger to the apostles? Why are not his other books had in similar honour? Certainly none of the ancients ever said that this Philo was a Christian. How then, after Christ, should a man who was not a Christian have written a book worthy to be classed amongst the canonical books of the old Testament? But the most learned of the papists themselves allow that the book was not written by Solomon, so that that point needs not our confirmation. For if Solomon had written this book, it would not have been written in Greek but in Hebrew, as the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song. But, as to the notion of some, who make Solomon the author of this book, because Solomon is introduced in chapter 9. making prayers and vows, it has no argumentative validity whatsoever. For that might have been done in the way of imitation by the writer whoever he might be: so that they who argue thence that Solomon must have been the writer himself, are grievously deceived. Jodocus Clitovaeus and Sixtus Senensis are chargeable with this ignorance and error. But, with better reason, John Driedo (Lib. I. c. 4, ad 4 m. difficult. 1 ) concludes that this book was not written by Solomon, and says that the manner of scripture requires, that he who speaks should speak in the person of another. So John Capistranus, in the preface to his Speculum Cleritorum, says that Philo speaks in the person of Solomon 2 .

Fourthly, the church in old times judged no otherwise of this book than Jerome and we do; and this may be collected even from Augustine, whom our adversaries name upon their side. For in his book de Praedestinatione Sanctorum, c. 14, when he had cited a testimony from the book of Wisdom, chapter 4, “Speedily was he taken away, lest that wickedness should alter his understanding;” many pious and catholic brethren cried out against him that the book was not canonical 3 . Andradius, in his Defence of the Council of Trent, (Lib. III.) attacks Chemnitz for using this place and testimony out of Augustine with many reproaches, in which attack

1 [pp. 41. 42. De Eccl. Script. Lovain. 1533.]

2 [Et cum Philone in persona Salomonis divinum presidium . . . . invocabo. p. 2. Venet. 1580.]

3 [Quod a me quoque positum fratres istos ita respuisse dixistis, tanquam non de libro canonico adhibitum.—Opp. T. 10. p. 807. Par. 1690.]

Bellarmine also joins (Lib. I. c. 12), but unreasonably. For, whatever may have been Augustine’s own opinion of this book, yet it is evident that others did not think it canonical, and that their judgment was the received opinion of those churches. Nor does Augustine contend very anxiously or earnestly for the authority of the book: he only says that it is not “to be despised,” since it had been so long read with great reverence in the church, and that it was “to be preferred to all the treatises of discoursers 1 ;” which may perhaps be conceded to him. But if Augustine had thought that the book was certainly canonical, he would never have been so slack and cool in defending its authority, but would have blamed with much severity those who rejected the book as utterly without claims to a place in the canon. In truth, what he hath written upon this subject is much more intended to screen himself from odium than to fortify the authority of this book. But we understand already that the book is not canonical, and we want nothing more.

CHAPTER XIII.

OF THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTICUS. O UR adversaries can allege no special argument in behalf of this book; and we need not repeat our answers to the common ones. Let us, on our side, bring some proofs to shew that the book is not canonical. First, we may collect that this book is not canonical from the fact of its having been written in Greek, upon the principles already explained. The grandfather of Jesus had written some things in Hebrew, which this Jesus translated into the Greek language, as we read in the prologue 2 . But the Hebrew original itself, when it was extant, never possessed a prophetic credit or authority, and hath now entirely disappeared; so that now nothing remains but Jesus’ Greek version, which is full of many faults and blemishes. Nor was this Jesus anything more than a mere translator.

Secondly, how highly this translator thought of himself and his own version, appears plainly from his own words and confession in the prologue. He says, that the Hebrew cannot be exactly rendered into Greek: (why so?) and he asks pardon, if he should

1 [Vide supra, p. 76.]

2 [ Ὁ πάππος μου Ἰ ησο ῦ ς . . . . προήχθη κα ὶ α ὐ τ ὸ ς συγγράψαι τι τ ῶ ν ε ἰ ς παιδείαν κα ὶ σο ϕ ίαν ἀ νηκόντων . Prolog, in Sapient. Jesu fil. Sirach.]

seem in some places to fail of an adequate power of expression 1 . By all which he sufficiently proves that he is neither a prophet nor endowed with a prophetic spirit. For the Holy Spirit asks pardon of no one, hesitates not in the choice of words, and ever reaches the mark he aims at; especially if the writer apply due diligence, as this author professes that he hath.

Lastly, what is written of Samuel in this book, chapter 49 2 , is taken variously and doubtfully by many, as we see from Augustine (ad Simplicianum, Lib. II. quaest. 3, and de Cura pro mortuis, cap. 15). For the passage, 1 Samuel 28, is rather to be understood of a diabolical spectre; since the souls of the saints cannot be evoked by magical arts or incantations. Wherefore Augustine (De Doctr. Chr. Lib. II. c. 23 3 ) says, “that the image of the dead Samuel gave a true prediction to Saul.” Where he indicates that it was not Samuel himself, but an image or semblance of Samuel, that conversed with Saul. The same father, in his book de Octo Dulcit. Quaest. (quaest. 6), after disputing somewhat on the other side of this question, at last subjoins: “However there is in this matter a readier way of escaping difficulty, and more easy view of the meaning of the passage, if we suppose that it was not really the spirit of Samuel that was roused from its repose, but some phantom and imaginary illusion produced by diabolical devices: which the scripture therefore calls by the name of Samuel, because images are wont to be called by the names of those things of which they are images.” And so in the sequel he concludes that “the scripture says that Samuel appeared, even though, perchance, it was the image of Samuel shewn by the devices of him who transforms himself into an angel of light, and his ministers as the ministers of righteousness 4 ” Likewise in his treatise de Mirabilib. Scripturae

1 [Π αρακέκλησθε . . . . συγγνώμην ἔ χειν ἐ ϕ ’ ο ἶ ς ἅ ν δοκ ῶ μεν τ ῶ ν κατ ὰ τ ὴ ν ἑ ρμηνείαν πε ϕ ιλοπονημένων τισ ὶ τ ῶ ν λέξεων ἀ δυναμε ῖ υ· ο ῦ γ ὰ ρ ἰ σοδυναμε ῖ α ὐ τ ὰ ἐ ν ἑ αυτο ῖ ς Ἑ βραϊστ ὶ λεγόμενα, κα ὶ ὅ ταν μεταχθ ῇ ε ἰ ς ἑ τέραν γλ ῶ σοαν . Ibid.]

2 [46:20. Κ α ὶ μετ ὰ τ ὸ ὑ πν ῶ σαι α ὐ τ ὸ ν ἐ προ ϕ ήτευσεν . The Church of England omits this verse in reading Ecclus. 46 as the evening lesson for November 16.]

3 [Non enim, quia imago Samuelis mortui Sauli regi vera praenuntiavit, propterea talia sacrilegia, quibus imago illa praesentata est, minus exsecranda sunt.]

(Lib. II. c. 11),—if that book deserves to be reckoned a genuine piece of Augustine’s—he writes in this manner: “Whence from the fact itself we may the more readily understand that this was not the prophet Samuel, but that the devil, who transforms himself into an angel of light, is considered in the phantastic form of Samuel. This appears from his discourse, since he tells Saul, who was an execrable man, ‘Thou and thy sons shall be with me.’ Surely, if it had been the true Samuel who was here exhibited, he would never have said that this unjust king would be a participator of his reward after death 1 .” And most plainly in his book of Questions on the old and new Testaments, in the seven and twentieth question, he determines thus: “I deem it a most unworthy act to repose belief in this narrative in the strict literal sense of it. For how is it possible that a man holy in his birth and righteous in his actions when alive should be dragged up by magic arts? or, if not dragged up, should have consented to them? Either alternative we can not without absurdity believe of a just man 2 .” To say that the soul of the holy prophet was troubled by the spells of witches, even Isidore himself detests as impious, as we see in Gratian (26 quaest. 5. cap. Nec . Mirum .); and he says that this was “a piece of Satan’s jugglery 3 .” Augustine too, in his book de Cura pro Mortuis (c. 15. 4 ), bears witness that many thought that it

rerum nominibus appellari quarum imagines sunt. . . . Non mirum est quod scriptura dicit Samuelem visum, etiam si forte imago Samuelis apparuit machinamento ejus qui transfigurat se velut angelum lucis, et ministros suos velut ministros justitiae.—The treatise De 8 Dulcitii quaestionibus is the fourth piece in T. 6. of the Benedictine edition, Paris, 1679.]

1 [Unde non hunc esse Samuelem illum Prophetam per factum facilius intelligitur, sed diabolus qui se transfert in angelum lucis, in phantasia Samuelis consideretur. Quod ex sermonibus ejus recte dignoscitur, quoniam funesto Sauli dicebat, Tu et filii tui mecum eritis. Etenim si verus hic Samuel ostensus esset, nullo modo iniquum regem consortem sui meriti post mortem diceret.—This spurious work is to be found in the Appendix to Part 1 of T. 3. of the Benedictine edition. The author is supposed to have been an Irish monk, named Augustine.]

2 [Indignum facinus sestimo, si secundum verba historiae commendetur assensus. Quomodo enim fieri potuerat, ut arte magica attraheretur vir et nativitate sanctus et vitae operibus justus? aut, si non attractus est, consensit? quod utrumque de viro justo credere absurdum est.—This is also a spurious piece; it is the third in the Appendix referred to in the last note.]

3 [Porro autem hoc est praestigium Satanae. Decreti Pars Secund. Caus. 26. Quaest. 5. c. 14.]

4 [It is the nineteenth piece in Tom. 6 of the Benedictine edition.]

was not Samuel himself, but an evil spirit. And concerning the book of Ecclesiasticus his expression is 1 : “But if this book be objected to on account of the Hebrew canon which does not give it a place, what shall we say of Moses?” He concedes therefore that this book is open to objections. So Aquinas (1 p. 89. 4. 8. Article ad 2 m.) gives three answers to this place: 1. That Samuel appeared by a divine revelation. 2. Or, that the apparition was produced by demons. 3. Or, that the authority of Ecclesiasticus must not be admitted by reason that it is not esteemed by the Hebrews a portion of the canonical scriptures.

CHAPTER XIV.

OF THE BOOKS OF MACCABEES. B ESIDES those common pleas, upon which we have already said enough and answered sufficiently, our opponents adduce two arguments to establish the authority of these books. The first is, that they are placed by Clement in the canon of sacred scripture, as appears in the last of the apostolic canons. The second is the testimony of Augustine, in his City of God, (Lib. XVIII. c. 36), which is to this effect: “These books not the Jews, but the Church hold to be canonical 2 .” A similar testimony is found also in his second book against the Epistles of Gaudentius, cap. 23 3 . Hence they conclude that these books are truly and properly canonical. I proceed to return a brief answer to both allegations.

To the former I reply, in the first place, that we have already shewn what should be thought of that book of apostolic canons, and have stripped it of the name and authority of the apostles 4 . In the second place, I am surprised that Bellarmine should choose to avail himself of such a witness, whose evidence he must know

2 [The whole passage upon which Whitaker reasons in his reply is as follows: Ab hoc tempore apud Judaeos restituto templo non reges sed principes fuerunt, usque ad Aristobulum: quorum supputatio temporum non in scripturis sanctis, quae canonicae appellantur, sed in aliis invenitur; in quibus sunt et Machabeorum libri; quos non Judaei , sed ecclesia pro canonicis habet propter quorundam martyrum passiones vehernentes atque mirabiles.]

3 [It is the last piece in T. 9. of the Benedictine edition, where this passage stands. Lib. I. § 38. p. 655.]

4 [Supra, p. 42.]

very well to make much more against the cause which he defends than it weighs in favour of these particular books. For, except these books of Maccabees, that apostolical canon recites none of all those pieces which our churches hold apocryphal, amongst the canonical books of the old Testament. If, therefore, this apostolical canon hath made these books canonical, it hath certainly left the rest in the class of apocryphal and spurious. Let the papists consider, whether they would choose that these books should be received on condition that all the others be excluded. Besides, in this apostolical canon three books of Maccabees are recited, whereas the papists allow only two of them to be canonical 1 . If then they rely on the authority of these canons to prove the canonicity of two books, what are they to determine concerning the third? They must consequently give up the argument derived from these canons, and Bellarmine hath acted discreetly in omitting it in the edition published by Sartorius.

I come now to the testimonies of Augustine. And, first, to the former from the City of God, Lib. XVIII. c. 36. How Augustine calls these and the other books canonical, by a certain common use of that term in a loose sense, hath been already explained. The Jews did not hold these books canonical; for they were of no account whatever amongst them. But the christian church may be said to hold them canonical, forasmuch as they are read in the church, and held in some value, although they are not admitted to an equal authority and credit with the rest. This we may learn from Augustine himself, who writes thus in that very same passage: “The calculation of which times is not to be found in the sacred scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, amongst which are also the books of Maccabees.” Then follow the words upon which the argument is founded. Now in these words of Augustine two things present themselves which deserve notice. The first, that these books are not, in truth and fact, sacred and canonical. The other, that they are nevertheless held canonical in the church,—that is, read publicly, set forth, and esteemed of great value in the church. Augustine subjoins the reason when he says, “on account of the violent and admirable sufferings of certain martyrs.” Does he not in these words sufficiently shew that Christians were led to ascribe so much importance to these books on this account, because in them mention was made of cer-

1 [There is some reason for believing the words Μ ακκαβαίων τρία to be an interpolation. See Cosin’s Scholast. Hist. p. 30. Beverege’s Annotations, pp. 5, 39, and Gibbings’s Roman Forgeries, pp. 113, 114.]

tain martyrs who fell in the cause of religion with the utmost fortitude and constancy? On this account Nazianzen hath pronounced a most beautiful panegyric upon that mother and her seven sons 1 . But in what sense can it be said that a book is held canonical on account of this or that? For a book which is truly canonical is to be received absolutely and entirely, not on account of this or that part or reason. Augustine says, in the City of God, Lib. I. c. 20: “Nor is it in vain, that nowhere in the sacred canonical scriptures do we find any divine precept or permission to take away our own lives 2 .” In these books if not a precept, at least a permission for a man to take his own life, is to be detected. For in 1 Maccabees chapter 6 Eleasar is praised for voluntarily rushing upon death. And in 2 Maccabees chapter 14, the fortitude of Razis is commended, who laid violent hands upon himself. Yet Razis deserved no praise for his fortitude. For this was to die cowardly rather than courageously, to put himself voluntarily to death in order to escape from the hands of a tyrant. The Holy Spirit judges not of valour by the same measures as profane men, who extol Cato to the skies for committing suicide lest he should fall into the power and hands of Caesar: for he either feared, or could not bear to see him, or sought to catch renown by an act of such prodigious horror. Thus he was crushed and extinguished either by despair, or grief, or some other perturbation of mind; any of which motives are foreign from true fortitude. Rightly, therefore, did Augustine deny those books to be canonical, in which such a crime is narrated with some commendation by the authors.

The second testimony of Augustine occurs Lib. II. c. 23; where also Augustine opposes our adversaries more than he favours them. For he requires that “the book should be read and heard with sobriety.” Say you so? What, I pray, do these words mean, “not unprofitably, if done soberly?” Is there ground to fear that scripture may be read unprofitably? And what is this sobriety which he demands in the perusal of these books? Every thing, indeed, should be read soberly; no one doubts that; and rashness should always be avoided. But if Augustine had meant that sobriety which is everywhere required in all scriptures, he would not have peculiarly prescribed that caution to the readers of this

1 [Inter Opp. Gregorii Nazianzen. T. 1. p. 397. Colon . 1690.]

book. The meaning, therefore, is, that there are some things in the book which, if they be examined by the strict rule of faith, cannot be defended, and therefore are not fit models for imitation; and that consequently the book requires to be read soberly. This is moreover to be noted, that Augustine writes in that same place, that Christ does not bear testimony to these books as his witnesses; which sufficiently shews that Augustine did not deem these books truly canonical.

These matters being thus explained, let us now adduce our arguments against the authority of these books.

First, Jerome, in his catalogue of illustrious men 1 , and in his second book against Pelagius 2 , says that Josephus was the author of these books. Now Josephus was no prophet, and lived after Christ and beyond the limits of the old Testament; for which reasons he could not have written any book belonging to the canon of the old Testament. Others, although they do not think Josephus the author of these books, yet allow that the chronology in them was supplied by Josephus; in consequence of which the books became apocryphal, because the dates in these books do not agree. So the popish writer Annius 3 delivers his opinion, upon the Second book of Philo’s Chronology.

Secondly, these books are expressly styled apocryphal by Gregory the Great, who was Pope of Rome, in his Morals, Lib. XIX. c. 16. These are his words: “We shall not transgress the due bounds of order, if we produce a testimony upon this subject from books, not indeed canonical, yet set forth for the edification of the Church 4 .” Then he cites a passage from the Maccabees. Therefore, before Gregory, that is, within six hundred years after Christ, the Church did not esteem the Books of Maccabees canonical.

1 [Alius quoque liber ejus, qui inscribitur περ ὶ α ὐ τοκράτορος λογισμο ῦ , valdc elegans habetur, in quo et Machabaeorum sunt digesta martyria. Cap. 13. Opp. T. 2. 837.]

2 [Unde et Josephus, Machabaeorum scriptor historiae frangi et regi posse dixit perturbationes animae, non eradicari. Ibid. 735.—The reader must be reminded, that neither this, nor the preceding passage, mean anything like what Whitaker supposes; the piece attributed to Josephus being, not the books of Maccabees commonly so called, but a discourse or oration on the Maccabees, which may be found in his works.]

3 [Josephus tempora adjiciens apocryphas reddidit. Annii Viteberg. Antiquitt. ap. Ascenscium. 1512. Fol. 101.]

Hence we see clearly what we should think of pope Innocent and Augustine. They call these books canonical; Gregory denies them to be such. They and he, therefore, without doubt used that term in different senses. The same judgment on these books is passed by Eusebius (Lib. de Temp.) 1 , Richard of S. Victor. (Except. Lib. II. c. 9) 2 , and Occam (3 Part. Dial. Tract, 1. Lib. III. c. 16) 3 .

Thirdly, in 2 Maccabees chapter 12, Judas Maccabaeus is praised for offering sacrifice for the dead. Whereas he really deserved no praise on that account, since God had commanded the making of no such sacrifice. Now, whatever is done in religious service without divine precept, is displeasing to God, and deserves not praise, but blame; and all sorts of will-worship were ever condemned in scripture. But upon this whole matter and argument we shall have to speak hereafter.

Fourthly, that sacrifice was offered for men who had brought themselves under the guilt and pollution of idolatry and sacrilege, and had perished in that crime, as we read in the twelfth chapter. For the soldiers of Judas had plundered some things consecrated to the Jamnite idols, and had hidden these offerings under their clothes; which, when they were slain, were discovered under their vesture. And this author says it was a clear case that they had fallen on account of that crime. Now the papists themselves allow that no sacrifice should be offered for persons guilty of such idolatry and sacrilege: for this was a mortal sin; and they tell us themselves that for those who are certainly in mortal sin, as the author affirms these men to have been, no sacrifice should be made. For—as to the pretence which Bellarmine has borrowed from Lyra, that Judas piously supposed that they had repented of their sin in the very article of death—not to mention that it rests wholly upon a dim surmise, yet, however probable it may have been that they had grieved in death for their offence, a public sacrifice should never have been offered for persons of this sort, who had polluted themselves with idolatry, unless there were certain proof of their true repentance.

1 [Machabaeorum Historia hinc supputat regnum Graecorum. Verum hi libri inter divinas scripturas non recipiuntur. P. 348, ed. Majo. et Zohrab. Mediol. 1818.]

2 [Alii non habentur in canone, tamen leguntur. Hi sunt . . . . . Libri Machabaeorum. Deinde sanctorum patrum scripta, &c. Opp. Ven. 1592. p. 331.]

3 [Secundum Hieronymum . . . . Libri . . . . Machabaeorum . . . . non sunt recipiendi ad confirmandum aliquid in fide. Dialog. Guil. Ockam. Lugd. 1495. Fol. 212:2.]

Fifthly, the Holy Spirit is not accustomed to epitomize the history of a profane author. But the Second Book of Maccabees, as we read in chapter 2, is a contraction of the five volumes of Jason of Cyrene, comprising in one little book what Jason had minutely detailed in five. Who that Jason was is uncertain. A prophet he was not: that no one ever said, or could say. Consequently this synopsis of Jason’s history, composed in such a manner, cannot be counted part of the canonical scriptures.

Sixthly, in 2 Maccabees chapter 2 we have a long narrative about the sacred fire, the ark, the tabernacle, and the altar, which are said there to have been hidden in a certain mountain and laid up by Jeremiah. Now there is not a word of all this in Jeremiah himself. And this author adds, that God had promised that he would shew them, when he had collected the people. But, after the Babylonian captivity, the Jews neither had nor found that ark, that tabernacle, nor that altar, nor did God, after that event, shew these things to any one. The papists object, that this is not to be understood of the return under Cyrus, when that remnant of the Jews was collected, but of the advent of Christ, when the whole people shall be collected, or of the conversion of the Jews a little before the end of the world. But this is an utterly vain conjecture. For what reason is there why these things should be shewn to the Jews at such a period? Or who does not feel the absurdity of so ridiculous a figment? However, if we consult the sacred history, we shall find that this which is told of Jeremiah is contrary to the truth of facts. For Jeremiah was in prison until the destruction of the city. Jeremiah chaps. 37 and 38: so that he could not take these things away and hide them, while the city and temple stood; nor would the priests and princes have permitted it. But, after the taking of the city, the Chaldeans fire the temple, plunder all its valuables, whether gold, or silver, or brass, and carry them off with themselves, as we read 2 Kings 25, and in the last chapter of Jeremiah. Jeremiah, therefore, had no opportunity of taking away the ark of the Lord, and the altar of incense, which were overlaid and covered entirely within and without with pure gold, Exodus 25:11. Besides, where are those records of Jeremiah to be found, which are mentioned in the beginning of this chapter?

Seventhly, there are many things in these books irreconcilable and contradictory, such as the following examples which I shall proceed to specify. In the first place, these books are not agreed about the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was a most bitter enemy

of the Jews. For in 1 Maccabees 6:8 and 16, Antiochus is said to have died of mental anguish upon the receipt of evil tidings, and to have died at Babylon in his bed; at which time also he gave his son in charge to Philip, whom he set over the kingdom. But in 2 Maccabees 1:16, he is beheaded and cut in pieces in the temple of Nanaea. So that we have now been told of two deaths of Antiochus, since the manner of dying on these two occasions is different. But this author tells us further of a third death of the same man Antiochus, 2 Maccabees chapter 9; where he writes that he died far away in the mountains of an internal pain in the bowels, out of which worms were seen to crawl, and a horrible stench issued through almost the whole army. One man could not have died so many and such different deaths. The papists however set up some pretences. Canus says (Lib. II. cap. 11 ad quartum) that it is not the same Antiochus. But the history itself refutes him at once; and Bellarmine was compelled to allow that the person meant was one and the same. He endeavours to reconcile the accounts thus: Antiochus lost his army in the temple of Nanaea, on the road he fell from his chariot, afterwards he was carried to Babylon and breathed his last. They confess therefore that Antiochus died at Babylon, as is related in the first book: and, indeed, the first book deserves more credit than the second. Now read what is related in the second book concerning the death of Antiochus in the places already cited. In chapter 1 we read, that the leader himself was stoned by the priests, and cut in pieces, and his head thrown out to those who were outside. Now this leader is called Antiochus. Antiochus, therefore, perished in this temple, unless a man who hath been stoned, and cut to pieces, and beheaded, can escape alive. Let us now go on to chapter 9. There we shall find that this murderer and blasphemer, whilst in a transport of fury he was marching from Persia towards Jerusalem, in a remote and mountainous region exchanged a miserable life for a deplorable death. If he died at Babylon, he did not die in the country, nor in a mountainous region. Nor can both narratives possibly be true.

In the next place, Judas is said, 1 Maccabees 9:3, to have been slain in the year 152 of the reign of the Seleucidae. But in 2 Maccabees 1:10 he writes in the year 188 1 letters to Aristobulus the master of Ptolemy,—that is, 36 years after his death.

1 [In the common text indeed the date stands thus: but one of Mr. Parson’s MSS. reads τεσσαρακοστο ῦ for ὀ γδοηκοστο ῦ . The difference is very slight between ρωή and ρπή : and the latter doubtless is the true reading.

In the third place, Judas is said, 1 Maccabees 4:36, to have purified the temple before the death of Antiochus, after Lysias had been routed. But in 2 Maccabees, at the commencement of chapter 1. this purification of the temple is said to have been made after the death of Antiochus. For it is the same purification, as our adversaries allow.

In the fourth place, according to 2 Maccabees 10., Antiochus Eupator, the son of Epiphanes, upon his accession to the throne, confided the administration of affairs to Lysias. But, according to 1 Maccabees 11., Lysias was long before in charge of that administration, and educated king Antiochus, and gave him the name of Eupator.

Eighthly, the second book shews that it is written by a human spirit. For, in the first place, at the end of the book the author begs pardon of his readers, which is altogether alien from the Holy Ghost; since he always writes the truth, and writes it as it ought to be written, erring neither in the matter nor in the manner, and standing in no need of our indulgence.

They object that Paul used a similar excuse, when he confesses himself to have been “rude in speech,” 2 Corinthians 11:6. I reply: Paul never excused himself for writing poorly or slenderly, or accomplishing less than he proposed. But this author acknowledges the poorness and slenderness of his composition; and therefore, impelled by the sense of his own weakness, could not help imploring the humane indulgence of his readers. Paul never did this, nor any prophet or apostle.

For, as to Paul’s calling himself rude in speech, ( ἰ διώτην λόγ ῳ ), it is spoken in the sense and style of the false apostles, who, puffed up with a certain empty shew of eloquence, despised the apostle as rude and unskilful in discourse. In those words, therefore, he did not describe himself such as he really was, but such as he was represented by certain false apostles. For the apostle was lacking in no commendable part of true, simple, holy and divine eloquence, fit for so great a (cont.)

(cont.) For had the letter been written after 170, it would have been dated from the era of Liberty, 1 Maccabees 13:14. Still the difficulty remains, how an event could be spoken of as passed in 148, which the first book of Maccabees (6:14) tells us did not occur till 149. But Basnage (Hist. of the Jews, B. 2. c. 1. § 20) long ago observed, that the years are counted differently in the two books of Maccabees. The first, following the Jewish mode, begins the year in March: the second in September. Thus the first makes Eupator declare war in 150, while the second dates the same event in 149. I wonder that Valckenaer did not remember this. See his dissertation de Aristobulo Judaeo , pp. 40, 41.]

teacher and apostle: but, because these pretenders called him ἰ διώτην λόγ ῳ , he acknowledges that, in their way of thinking, and judged by their model and

standard, he was an ἰ διώτης. For this is that eloquence which he calls “wisdom of

words” ( σο ϕ ίαν λόγου ), 1 Corinthians 1:17, and “words which man’s wisdom

teacheth” ( διδακτο ὺ ς ἀ νθρωπίνης σο ϕ ίας λόγους ), 1 Corinthians 2:13, and

“excellency of speech” ( ὑ περοχ ὴ ν λόγου ), 1 Corinthians 2:1; and which St. Peter

calls “cunningly-devised fables” ( σεσο ϕ ισμένους μύθους ), 2 Peter 1:16. So

OEcumenius interprets the apostle: Λ όγον λέγει τ ὸ ἐ γγεγυμάσθαι τ ῇ ἑ λληνικ ῇ σοφί ᾳ. “He means by speech the being exercised in the wisdom of the Greeks.” To a similar purpose Aquinas upon that place: “Because the apostle proposed the faith plainly and openly, therefore they said that he was rude in speech 1 .” So Lyra: “He says this to refute the saying of the false apostles, who despised his doctrine, because he spoke plainly and coarsely. Therefore he tells them that he did this not from lack of knowledge, but because, as times then were, it was not expedient for the Corinthians to have subtle questions preached to them 2 .” The same is the opinion concerning this place expressed by Catharinus archbishop of Campsa: “I do not think,” says he, “that Paul confesses himself to have been really rude in speech, since he was an excellent preacher. But he seemed so to those according to whose opinions he is speaking, because his style had a spiritual simplicity, and was not redolent of their secular and affected eloquence 3 .” For what Canus says, (Lib. I. c. 11, on the fourth head,)—“There is no reason why the Holy Ghost should not assist an author who yet speaks modestly in a human manner 4 ,”—is an insult to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit ever teaches us modesty; but meanwhile ever speaks and

1 [Apostolus proposuit eis fidem non in subtilitate sermonis, sed . . . . . . plane et aperte; ideo isti dicebant eum imperitum esse sermone.—In 2 Corinthians 11. Lect. 2. Comm. p. 140. Ant. 1569.]

4 [Nihil impedit ut Spiritus Sanctus scriptori assistat, qui in quibusdam tamen, humano more, ex modestia loquitur.]

writes in a way that cannot be excelled by any one possessed of a mere human spirit.

In the second place, this author speaks of the labour of making this epitome as troublesome, and full of toil and difficulty, 2 Maccabees 2. But nothing is so difficult as to give any trouble to the Holy Spirit: for the Holy Spirit is God, and labours under no human weakness, and possesses infinite wisdom and power. Bellarmine, indeed, objects, that, although God ever assists all the sacred writers, yet the mode is different in the case of the historians from what it is in the case of the prophets. The prophets had no other trouble than that of dictating or writing, since God inspired them with a knowledge of all that they were to write or dictate; as we read of Baruch writing things down from the lips of Jeremiah. But the historians underwent much labour in searching and thoroughly examining their subject, as Luke declares of himself, chapter 1:3. I confess, in reply to this, that those who published histories used diligence and industry: for the Holy Spirit does not make men lazy, or slothful, or negligent. So Luke thoroughly investigated, and knew accurately, and wrote most truly, all things pertaining to his subject. But I absolutely deny that this writing was troublesome or difficult to Luke, because nothing can be troublesome to the Holy Spirit; and Luke, when he wrote his narrative, had the Holy Spirit as much as John when he wrote the Apocalypse. “The Holy Ghost,” as Ambrose says, “knows nothing of slow efforts 1 .” Besides, how could the task of making a short epitome of five books by Jason of Cyrene have been so troublesome to the writers of the Maccabaean history? Certainly it is very easy to take out of another work what we choose, and to omit what we choose not. The mind, the spirit, the genius, the confession, the history are here all human.

CHAPTER XV.

OF THE BOOKS ALLOWED BY THE PAPISTS TO BE APOCRYPHAL. W E have now spoken of those apocryphal books of the old Testament, which the papists maintain to be canonical, and have shewn them to be truly apocryphal. It remains now that we

1 [Vide supra, p. 38.]

come to those apocryphal pieces of the old Testament which are judged apocryphal by the papists themselves. Concerning these there is no dispute between us and them. Nevertheless, I will give a brief enumeration of them, so as to let you understand what and of what sort they are. They are these: The third and fourth books of Esdras: the third and fourth of Maccabees; whereof the third is found in some copies of the Bible, and the fourth is mentioned by Athanasius in his Synopsis. To these must be added the prayer of Manasseh, which is set after the books of Chronicles: the 151st Psalm: the Appendix to the book of Job in the Greek copies. There is also a little preface to the Lamentations of Jeremiah, which is apocryphal. All these are conceded to be apocryphal parts of the old Testament, because not found in the Hebrew text, nor reckoned in the canon by any council or pope. The third book of Maccabees, however, is counted in the canon by Clement 1 , whom some suppose to have collected the canons of the apostles, and who was a sovereign pontiff; upon which difficulty they know not what to say.

The fourth book of Esdras, chapter 6, contains some fables about the two fishes, Enoch and Leviathan, which are pretended to be of such vast and prodigious magnitude, that no waters can contain them. There are many things of the like stamp in these books, fit to please and feed human curiosity, but discordant from all sound and solid instruction. Such is the fiction in chapter 4, that the souls of the righteous are kept in certain subterranean cells until the number of the righteous shall be complete, and that then they will no longer be able to retain them, even as the womb cannot hold the foetus beyond the ninth month. Such also is the story, chapter 14, that the sacred books were lost in the captivity, and restored to their integrity by Ezra, after a retirement of forty days. For if these books had been lost, and written anew by Ezra, their language would be Chaldee, and not Hebrew; upon which point we shall speak hereafter. But these are false and incredible figments, rejected even by the papists, who yet generally are wont to entertain such fables with wonder and veneration. Indeed Genebrard, in his Chronology (anno mundi 3749), calls both these books canonical; which may well excite astonishment, as being not only repugnant to right reason and the common opinion of the doctors, but also made in contradiction to the authority of the council of Trent. Genebrard, however, builds his cause upon the

1 [Vide supra, p. 94.]

same reasons by which Bellarmine, as noticed above, seeks to prove the canonicity of Tobit, Wisdom, and the rest. Genebrard shews that these books are cited by ancient fathers, and that the Church is wont to read portions of them upon her sacred anniversaries. All this is perfectly true, since in the third week of Pentecost, and the commemorations of Martyrs, lessons are taken from the fourth of Esdras. Therefore either this argument, which Bellarmine hath hitherto used so often, does not prove the matter proposed, or these books of Esdras must come in as canonical on the same plea: which yet the Jesuits would be so far from granting, that they would oppose it as grossly erroneous. However Genebrard does not stand alone in this mistake. For John Benedictus also, in the beginning of his bible, places the third and fourth of Esdras in the number of those books which, although not contained in the Hebrew canon, are yet received by the christian Church. In like manner Renatus Benedictus in his Stromata Biblica, Lib. I. c. 9, counts the third and fourth of Esdras among the canonical books.

The prayer of Manasseh is extant neither in Hebrew, nor in Greek; and although it seems pious, yet I cannot understand how that passage can be defended where he says, “Thou hast not appointed repentance to the just, as to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned against thee;” unless we suppose, indeed, that this is only said comparatively. For they too had sinned, and stood in need of repentance.

Psalm 151. is found in the Greek, but not in the Hebrew copies. It contains thanks to God for the victory over Goliah, and was translated by Apollinarius in his Metaphrase 1 . However it was always esteemed apocryphal. The appendix to the Book of Job 2 is condemned by Jerome, as translated only out of the Syriac tongue, and not found in the Hebrew, and because Job is there said to have been the fourth from Esau, whereas he was of the race of Uz, who was the son of Nahor. So Jerome in his Questions and traditions upon Genesis 3 . In his Epistle to Evagrius, however, (Quaest. 126) he says that Job was more probably descended from Esau, yet affirms that the Hebrews think otherwise.

All these the papists allow to be apocryphal; and they may as well add to them what we esteem apocryphal also. For the arguments, as you have already seen, are

1 [Fabricius, Cod. Pseud. V. T. T. 2. p. 907.]

2 [Ibid. p. 793.]

3 [Hieronym. Opp. T. 3. p. 339.]

no less valid against the latter than against the former. Hence too it appears evidently, that it is not everything that is read in the Latin bibles that can claim canonical authority, since many apocryphal pieces are found there. But from this it arose that the apocrypha, being bound into one volume with the canonical scriptures, obtained by degrees more and more credit and authority, and at last were esteemed even canonical themselves.

CHAPTER XVI.

OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. I T follows that, in the next place, we should speak of the books of the new Testament. But I will omit this portion of the subject, inasmuch as it involves no controversy between us and the papists. For we acknowledge without any exception those same books as they judge to be canonical. Those books of the new Testament which the council of Trent hath enumerated, those all, and those only, our church receives. If Luther, or some of Luther’s followers, have thought or written otherwise concerning some of them, as the Epistle of James or that of Jude, or some other pieces, they must answer for themselves: their opinions are no concern of ours, nor is it incumbent upon us to defend them, since we are, in this respect, no followers of Luther, and submit to the direction of better reason. However the persons just mentioned can produce in their behalf the judgment and example of the ancient christian Church and of certain fathers. For it is sufficiently known, that in old times some christian churches and fathers, distinguished for their piety and their learning, removed from the canon all those books which Luther called in question. There is, therefore, no just cause why our adversaries should inveigh so vehemently and with such acrimony against Luther on this account, since he hath erred no more in this respect than several catholic churches and some holy fathers formerly, and even some very distinguished papists at the present day. Cajetan openly rejects all the following:—the Epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews (which Luther certainly never disputed), the history of the woman taken in adultery, John 8., the last chapter of Mark, and throughout the gospels and other books several passages about which it never entered into the mind of Luther to entertain a doubt. However

all who doubted about some canonical book were not, in former times, therefore reputed heretics. But I will not pursue this subject farther, since it hath no connexion with our cause. Let them attack others, but not from henceforth molest us.

Thus, then, we doubt not of the authority of any book of the new Testament, nor indeed of the author of any, save only the Epistle to the Hebrews. That this epistle is canonical, we all concede in the fullest sense; but it is not equally clear that it was written by the apostle Paul. Some judge it to be Paul’s, others think otherwise. This was a questionable point in the earliest period of the Church. Eusebius (Lib. III. c. 3) writes 1 that the church of Rome denied this Epistle to be Paul’s; but now that church hath changed its opinion, and attributes the authorship to Paul. Jerome, in his Catalogue under the Article P AUL, hath these words: “The Epistle called that to the Hebrews is not thought to be his, on account of the difference of the style and diction 2 .” He writes to the same effect in his Epistle to Paulinus, and upon the 13th chapter of Jeremiah. Tertullian ascribes it to Barnabas 3 . Some to Luke the Evangelist, as Jerome testifies. So Caius, an ancient and learned writer, enumerates no more than thirteen epistles of Paul, as Jerome tells us in the Catalogue. “In the same volume,” says he, “enumerating only thirteen epistles of Paul, he says that the fourteenth, which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not his. Yea, and amongst the Romans, even to this day, it is not looked upon as the work of the Apostle Paul 4 .” Eusebius also hath mentioned this Caius, Lib. VI. c. 16. Hence it appears clearly, that many in former times thought this epistle not to have been written by Paul.

But now, if I were to seek to mention all who attribute this epistle to the apostle Paul, I should never find an end. Jerome, in his epistle to Dardanus, says, that almost all the Greek authors affirm it to be Paul’s 5 ; and of this mind is Origen (in Eusebius, Lib. VI. c. 18),—Clemens Alexandrinus (in Eusebius, Lib. VI. c. 11),

1 [ ὅ τι γε μ ὴ ν τιν ὲ ς ἠ θετήκασι τ ὴ ν πρ ὸ ς Ἑ βραίους , πρ ὸ ς τ ῆ ς ‘Ρ ωμαίων ἐ κκλησίας ὡ ς μ ὴ Π αύλου ο ὖ σαν α ὐ τ ὴ ν ἀ ντιλέγεσθαι ϕ ήσαντες, ο ὐ δίκαιον ἀ γνοε ῖ ν .—Eccl. Hist. T. 1. pp. 189, 190. ed. Heinrich.]

2 [Epistola quae fertur ad Hebraeos non ejus creditur, propter styli sermonisque dissonantiam.—Opp. T. 2. p. 823.]

3 [De Pudicitia. c. 20. Extat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos.]

5 [T. 2. p. 608, alias Ep. 129.]

Eusebius himself (Lib. II. c. 3),—the council of Laodicea (c. 59) 1 ,—Athanasius, in the Synopsis and elsewhere,—Irenaeus 2 , Cyril (Thesaur. Lib. XII. c. 9),—Chrysostom upon the epistle, and Nazianzen in many places. Theophylact wonders at the impudence of those who deny it. Damascene cites a testimony from it as a work of Paul’s 3 . Even the more celebrated of the Latins hold the same language. Augustine, de Doctr. Christ. Lib. II. c. 8, and many other places. Ambrose wrote commentaries upon this, as one of Paul’s epistles, and calls it a work of Paul’s, in commenting upon Psalm 119. 4 So also Gregory the Great, Moral. Lib. V. cap. 3. And the apostle Peter seems to testify that this is an epistle of Paul’s, in these words, 2 Peter 3:15,—“As our brother Paul hath written to you.” Now they were Hebrews: for it was to Hebrews that Peter wrote, as is plain from the inscription of his first epistle; and it was to the same persons that the second also was sent, since he says, “This second epistle I now write unto you.” chapter 3:1.

This, however, I leave to the judgment of the reader, without determining anything absolutely one way or other. I know that some allege reasons to shew that this cannot possibly be an epistle of Paul’s. But I perceive that these have been opposed and refuted by others, as Illyricus, Hyperius, &c. We need not be very earnest in this debate. It is not a matter of necessity, and the question may well be left in doubt, provided that, in the meanwhile, the authority of the epistle be allowed to remain clear and uncontested. Jerome, in his epistle to Dardanus, hath sagely reminded us, that it makes no great matter whose it is, “since it is certainly the work of an ecclesiastical man, and is continually used every day in the reading of the churches 5 .” Gregory, in like manner, wrote excellently well of the author of the book of Job, when, in the preface to his commentary upon that book, cap. 10, he answers the inquiries put to him upon that subject: “Who wrote these things, it is superfluous to ask, if only we believe faithfully that the Holy Spirit was the author of the book. He himself, therefore, wrote these things, since he dictated them to be

1 [Mansi, T. 2. p. 574.]

2 [It seems a mistake to say that Irenaeus cites this epistle as Paul’s. Stephen Gobar (apud Photium cod. 222 p. 904) affirms the contrary.]

3 [De fide Orthodox. Lib. IV. c. 17. T. 1. p. 283.]

4 [See also in Job. Lib. XVII. c. 23, p. 546, E .]

5 [Et nihil interesse cujus sit, quum ecclesiastici viri sit, et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione celebretur. ut supra , p. 106. n. 5.]

written. If we read the words in some letter which we had gotten from some great man, and raised the question, what pen they were written with; it would surely be thought ridiculous that we should be curious not to know the author and understand his meaning, but discover what sort of pen it was with which their characters were traced 1 .” Since, then, we perceive that the Holy Ghost is the author of this epistle, it is superfluous to inquire so anxiously and curiously about the pen, and rash to affirm anything without certain evidence.

Apocryphal, by the confession and in the opinion of all, are those numerous spurious gospels under the names of Thomas, Andrew, Nicodemus, the Nazarenes, &c., whereof we read in Gratian, Dist. 15. c. Sancta Romana. These are not now extant, although they were formerly read and highly esteemed by many. But the Lord provided for his church that, while the true gospels were constantly preserved, those fictitious ones should perish utterly. Besides, that piece which goes about under the title of the Epistle to the Laodiceans, is likewise apocryphal; of which Jerome writes in the catalogue under the article P AUL: “Some read the epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is universally exploded 2 .” And the fathers of the second Nicene council, Acts 6, say: “Amongst the epistles of the apostle there is one which goes under the title of that to the Laodiceans, which our fathers have rejected as spurious 3 .” I know not whence the notion of such an epistle originated, if it were not from the error and fault of the Latin version, Colossians 4:16. For the Vulgate reads there, et illa quae est Laodicensium, as if there had been some epistle written to the Laodiceans by Paul. The Latin words are ambiguous, and may be understood in such a sense. But the Greek text immediately removes this

suspicion, κα ὶ τ ὴ ν ἐ κ Λ αοδικείας. Therefore this epistle which Paul here mentions, whatever it was, was not written to the Laodiceans, but from the Laodiceans; which all the Greek expositors have observed.

2 [Legunt quidam ad Laodicenos, sed ab omnibus exploditur. T. 2. p. 823.]

3 [ πλαστ ὴ ἐ πιστολ ὴ . . . ἥ ν ο ἱ πατέρες ἡ μ ῶ ν ἀ πεδοκίμασαν .—Concil. Labb. et Cossart. T. 7. p. 475.]

There is also a book of Hermas, called the Shepherd, which Jerome speaks of in the catalogue, under the article H ERMAS. The papists concede this also to be apocryphal, yet so as to be capable of being made and adjudged to be canonical by the church. For so Stapleton writes of this book, Doctrinal. Princip. Lib. IX. cap. 14, and he says as much of the Clementine Constitutions. Nor should this surprise us, since Gratian, upon the foot of a passage from Augustine (which, however, he hath most shamefully and foully corrupted), asserts that the decretal epistles are to be reckoned a part of the canonical scriptures, Dist. 19 1 . Which intolerable falsification of this compiler Alphonsus de Castro (contra Haer. Lib. I. c. 2), and Andradius (Def. Trident. Lib. III.) acknowledge and condemn. Yet there are still some papists who persist in the same impudent blasphemy. For one Alphonsus de Guerero adduces the evidence of this place to prove that the decretal epistles of the Roman pontiffs are equal to the sacred scriptures; whose words stand as follows in the Thesaurus Christianoe Religionis, cap. 3. Numbers 5: “Also decretal epistles have the force of authority, and decretal epistles are reckoned part of the canonical scriptures 2 .” Also John Turrecremata, (de Ecclesia. Lib. IV. p. 2. c. 9), and Cajetan, in his book de Primatu Papae, make use of this corrupt place in Gratian to prove the authority and primacy of the Roman pontiffs. Thus the volume of the new Testament will be augmented by a glorious accession, if all the decretal letters of the popes are to be counted amongst the sacred scriptures. But look yourselves at the passage in Augustine, de Doctr. Christ. Lib. II. c. 8, and see there the manifest ignorance or manifest fraud of Gratian. For Augustine says not a word of decretal epistles, or Roman pontiffs, and the scope of the whole place is directed quite another way.

But we have now finished the first question which we proposed concerning the canonical books.

1 [100:6. In Canonicis . Where the Roman editors, having cited the passage as it really stands in Augustine, very fairly add: “Quae quidem B. Augustini sententia non ad decretales Romanorum pontificias, sed ad canonicas et sacras scripturas referenda est.”]

2 [Et decretales epistolae vim auctoritatis habent, et in canonicis scripturis decretales epistolae connumerantur. Ap. Roccaberti, Bibl. Max. Pontif. T. 2. p. 15. Romae, 1698.]