A Defense of the Catholic Faith, Book 2 · Article 5
ART. V. Touching the Canonicall and Apocryphall bookes of Scripture.
The KINGS Confeſſion. In expoſit Symboli.BVt euen for the Apocrypha; I hold them in the ſame account that the Auncients did. They are ſtill printed and bound with our Bibles, and publikely read in our Churches. I reuerence them as the writings of holy and good men: but ſince they are not found in the Canon, we account them to be ſecundae lectionis, or ordinis (which is Bellarmines owne diſtinction) and therefore not ſufficient whereupon alone to ground any article of faith, except it be confirmed by ſome other place of Canonicall Scripture; Concluding this point with Ruffinus (who is no Noueliſt, I hope) that the Apocryphall bookes were by the Fathers permitted to be read; not for confirmation of Doctrine, but only for inſtruction of the people.
Here Coeffeteau begins to put himſelfe into the field,In expoſit. Symb. we expected him long agoe. He bringeth only two teſtimonies of the auncients, and they are both falſe, howbeit not through his fault, for the falſification was made by others before him; The firſt teſtimony is of S. Auſten in his ſecond booke of Chriſtian Doctrine cap. 8. where he maketh an enumeration of the Canonical bookes almoſt agreeably to the Councell of Trent. To this teſtimony hee adioyneth the third Councell of Carthage, which alſo putteth Iudith, Tobie, the booke of Wiſedome, Eccleſiasticus, and the Machabees, among the Canonicall bookes. He ſaith that it is not iuſt nor fit to alleage the opinions of particulars, where queſtion is of the publike faith teſtified & auouched by this Councell.
In ſaying ſo little as this he ſpendeth three leaues, Anſwere. and yet he contradicteth himſelfe, and condemneth himſelfe of iniuſtice by alleaging S. Auſtin who is but one particular. If he ſay, that S. Auſtin doth but report that which was the common beleefe? I anſwere that thoſe particular witneſſes whom he reiecteth doe report the ſame alſo. Againe,*Tenebit hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis, vt eas quae ab om nibus recipiuntu, Eccleſijs Catholicis, praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt. it is falſe that S. Auſten doth relate the common beleefe, for a little before he had ſaid, that there are ſome books among the Canonicall, which were not receiued for ſuch, of al the Churches. Moreouer, Coeffeteau hereby contradicteth the Church of Rome, who doth not hold the Councels of Carthage for generall Councels, nor their Canons for the publike beleefe of the vniuerſall Church.
1. To cleare this matter then, the Reader ſhall obſerue firſt, that theſe bookes, to wit, Tobie, Iudith, the booke of Wiſdome, Eccleſiaſticus, the Machabees, they are not found in the Hebrew tongue, and conſequently they are not in the originall of the old Teſtament, wherein there are but two and twenty bookes.
2. Secondly, we ought alſo to know that the Church of the old Teſtament neuer acknowledged theſe bookes, nor receiued into the Church,See Euſebius, lib. 8. of his Storie, cap. 10 as witneſſeth Ioſephus in his firſt booke againſt Appion.
3. Thirdly, it is alſo very conſiderable that Ieſus Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles, who alleaged vponupon eueryevery purpoſe Texts and paſſages out of the old Teſtament, neuer named any of thoſe bookes, nor neuer drew quotation out of any of them.
4. Fourthly, the chiefe and principall is, that in theſe bookes there be many faults, aſwell in the Doctrine as in the Storie, whereof*In my booke intituled the waters of Siloé, cap. 6. we hauehave elſewhere produced many proofes. But let vsus heare the teſtimony of the auncients.
S. Hierome in his preface vponupon the bookes of Salomon, ſpeaketh of Eccleſiaſticus and of the wiſdome of Salomon; aSicut ergo Iudith & Tobie & Machabaeorum, libros legit quidē Eccleſia, ſed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas nō recipit, Sic & haec duo volumina legat ad aedificationem pl…bis, non ad authoritatem Chriſtianorum dogmatum confirmandam.As then the Church doth reade indeede, the bookes of Iudith, of Tobie, and the Machabees, but doth not receiue them among the Canonicall Scriptures, ſo let it alſo reade theſe two volumes for the edification of the people, but not to confirme the faith of the Church. He ſaith the ſame in his Prologus Galcatus, and marke by the way, that he ſaith that it is the beleefe of the Church.
Sciendum tamen eſt quod & alij libri ſunt qui non Canonici ſed Eccleſiaſtici a maioribus appellati ſunt. vt eſt Sapiētia Solomonis Eccleſiaſticus, libellus Tobiae Iudith & macabaeo rum…libri. —quae omnia legi quidem in Eccleſiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad authoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Praeter iſtos ſunt ad…uc alij eiuſ dem veteris inſtrumenti libri non Cononici, qui Catechumenis tantum leguntur Sapientia Solomonis &c.Amongſt the workes of S. Cyprian, there is a Treatiſe (which ſeemeth rather to be the worke of Ruffinus) touching the expoſition of the Creede. There he reckoneth vp the bookes of the old and the new Teſtament. Then he addeth: * Theſe are then the bookes which the Fathers hauehave included in the Cannon or Rule, and from which are drawne the proofs of our faith. Notwithſtanding we muſt know that there are other bookes which the auncients hauehave not called Canonicall, but Eccleſiaſticall bookes, as is the wiſdome of Salomon, Eccleſiaſticus, Tobie, Iudith, and the bookes of the Machabees▪ Then he addeth. All which they would ſhould be reade in the Church, but that they ſhould not be produced to confirme the authority of the faith.
S. Athanaſius in his booke intituled Synopſis, nameth al the bookes of the old Teſtament according to the Hebrew Bible. Then he addeth: Beſides theſe, there are yet other bookes of the old Testament not Canonicall, which are not read but to the Catechumeni or Nouices, newly taught and catechized, ſuch are the wiſdome of Salomon, the wiſdome of Ieſus, the Sonne of Syrach, Iudith, Tobit, &c.
Melito Biſhop of Sardi, as witneſſeth Euſebius in his fourth booke of his Hyſtorie and the fiue and twentith Chapter; Origen in Euſebius ſixt booke and foure and twentieth chapter: S. Hilary in his Preface vponupon the Pſalter: S. Gregory Nazianzen in his verſes of the holy Scripture: Euſebius, lib. 3. of his ſtory, cap. 10. Epiphanius in his booke of meaſures: Damaſcene himſelfe, though long after, in his fourth booke of the Orthodoxe faith, cap. 18. And diuers other Fathers make an enumeration of the bookes of the olde Teſtament: and yet do they not put in neyther Iudith nor Tobite, nor Eccleſiaſticus, nor the booke of VViſedome▪ nor the Maccabees; But rather all with one conſent and accord ſay, that there are but two and twenty bookes in the olde Teſtament, as many as there bee letters in the Hebrew Alphabet.
And yet further to conuince Coeffeteau, let vsus heare the very iudgement of him whom they moſt honour of all the Popes: And this is Gregorie the firſt, in his twenty ſixe booke of morals vponupon Iob, cap. 29. where being deſirous to alleadge the booke of Maccabees in the fact of Eleazar, he excuſeth himſelfe in theſe wordes: Of which thing we ſpeake not out of reaſon, Qua de re non inordinatè agimus ſi ex libris & ſi non Canonicis, ſed ad Eccleſiae aedificationem ſcriptis teſtimonia proferimus.if we produce the teſtimonies of bookes not Canonicall, but written for the edification of the Church. This ought to ſuffice to repreſent what was the heleefe of particular men, who being aſſembled together are equiualent to a generallity. Howbeit for the more ſtore and the better ſupply, let vsus heare the Councels.
The Councell of Laodicea, which was almoſt about the ſame time, with the firſt Nicene Councell, ſetteth ouer the laſt Canon, this inſcription foreign. That is to ſay, How many bookes there be of the olde Teſtament that men ought to reade. Then it reckoneth vp the number of them as farre as two and twentie, Geneſis, Exodus, Leuiticus, Numbers, Deuteronomie, Ioſhua, Iudges, Ruth, Heſter, the Kings or Samuel, two bookes; of Kings two bookes; Paralipomena or the Chronicles, Eſdras, Pſalmes, Prouerbs, Eccleſiaſtes, Canticles, Iob, the twelue Prophets, Eſay, Ieremy Baruch, or the Lamentations and Epiſtles, Ezechiel, Daniel. But of Tobie or Iudith, or the Maccabees, &c. there is no newes. Aboue all it is a thing to be be noted, that this Councell of Laodicea is confirmed by the ſixt generall Councell:foreign. at the end of which Councell, the Fathers aſſembled together in the Palace, made one hundred and three Canons, in the ſecond of which it is ſaid, We doe confirme and ratifie the ſacred Canons, made by our holy Fathers at Laodicea of Phrygia. And this was now in the yeare of Ieſus Chriſt, 684.
I adde the fourth Councell of Carthage, which in the Tomes of the Latin Councels, which are horribly mangled and falſified, hath beene very ill handled. For we hauehave not theſe Councels in Latine, but by the meanes of the Church of Rome, who hath deliuered them vntounto vsus, ſuch as ſhe would her ſelfe. But ſhe hath not had that power ouer the Greek Coppies, where there is no ſpeech at all of the Maccabees. Reade the Greeke Canons of the Councels, printed at Paris in the yeare 1540. with a Praeface of Iohn du Tillet, and the Canons of Balſamon, and you ſhall finde that which I ſay to be true But Coeffeteau being content to write, as Hunters breake their Faſt, that is, tumultuarily and in haſt, hath not had this curioſity.
It remaineth to examine the place of S. Auſtin, of which eueryevery one that hath a quicke ſmell, will acknowledge the corruption and falſification: Firſt of all, becauſe it is not credible that this holy Perſonage would oppoſe himſelfe ſingle to the whole Church of his time, and to all the Doctors that went before him, and namely to the Councell of Carthage, whereat himſelfe had beene a preſent aſſiſtant. Secondly, becauſe it is not credible that S. Auſtin would contradict himſelfe: for in the ſixe and thirty Chapter of the eighteenth booke of the Citie of God, he ſpeaketh thus: The ſupputation of theſe times (ſince the building vp of the Temple) is not found in the holy Scriptures, which are called Canonicall, but in other bookes, among which are the Maccabees. Is it poſſible to ſay in more plain and expreſſe termes, that the Maccabees are not holy Scriptures nor Canonicall bookes? But heere wee admire a pretty pleaſant folly and ſtupidity of a taile handſomely faſtened and ſowed on by ſome Monke: for after all this, they make S. Auſtin to adde, Which bookes not the Iewes, but the Church boldeth for Canonicall O groſſe Impoſture! After that hee had ſimply ſet downe that the Maccabees are not holy nor Canonicall Scriptures, would hee ſay that the Church receiueth them for Canonicall? By the ſame fraude, this other place of S. Auſtin which Coeffeteau alleadgeth, hath beene falſified. Let vsus adde hereunto that S. Auſtin, cap. 23. of his ſecond booke againſt Gaudentius, anſwereth thus vntounto Gaudentius, who ſerued himſelfe with the example of Razis, who killed himſelfe, whereof mention is made in the ſecond booke of the Maccabees. The Iewes do not hold this booke in the ſame rancke with the law, the Prophets, and the Pſalmes to which Ieſus Chriſt beareth witneſſe, is they that beare record of him. But this booke is receiued by the Church, not vnprofitably, if men read it ſoberly: principally becauſe of the ſufferings of certaine Martyrs. Who feeth not that he doth weaken the authority of theſe bookes, in that Ieſus Chriſt doth giuegive no teſtimony vntounto them? And if theſe bookes hauehave not beene reckoned for holy Scripture, amongſt the faithfull of the olde Teſtament, I maruell when they became holy Scripture?
It is alſo a poynt very conſiderable, that in this place of S. Austin produced by Coeffeteau, Eccleſiaſticus is put among the Canonicall bookes; in which booke it is ſaid, cap. 46. Samuel propheſied after his death, and declared vntounto King Saul his death, lifting vp his voyce out of earth. An opinion which S. Auſtin doth condemne in his booke of Queſtions on the old Teſtament, in the 27 Queſtion, ſaying,Porrò autem hoc eſi praeſtigium Satanae quo vt plurimos fallat etiam bonos ſe in poteſtate habere confingit. that it is a great indignity to beleeue it, and maintaineth that it was an illuſion of Satan, who to deceiue many, faineth to hauehave good men in his power. And in his booke of the care that men ought to hauehave of the dead: after hauing ſpoken doubtfully, he ſaith, that men*Huic libro ex Hebraeorum Canone, quia …n eo non eſt, contradic…tur. controule the booke of Eccleſiaſticus, becauſe it is not in the Canon of the Hebrews. And in his booke of the eight Queſtions to Dulichius, Quaeſt. 6. he canuaſſeth this Queſtion by way of Probleme, leaning notwithſtanding to the opinion, that it was a meere fantaſme or vaine apparition. See hereupon the Canon Nec mirum in the Cauſe 26. Queſt 6. where alſo S Auſtin is alleadged; maintayning that this was done by enchantment: Whence I conclude,Caietan. in fin-Commenta…orū ad Hiſtoriam vet. Teſt. Ne turberis, No uities ſi alicubi reperis libros iſtos inter Canonicos ſupputari, vel in Sacris Con cilijs vel in Sacris Doctoribus, Non. n…ſunt Canonici, id eſt, regalares ad probandum ea quae ſunt fidei, poſſunt tamen Canonici dici ad aedificationem fidelium. that S. Auſtin ſhould contradict himſelfe, if after hauing refuted the opinion of Eccleſiaſticus, he ſhould afterwards put him in the role of the Canonicall bookes.
Theſe falſhoods hauing not beene acknowledged by Cardinall Caietan droue him to finde out another euaſion. Be not aſtoniſhed or troubled, O thou who art but a Nouice in Diuinity, if ſomtimes thou find eyther in the Councels or in the Doctors, theſe bookes to be counted among the Canonicall. For they are not Canonicall to proue the points of faith; Notwithſtanding they may be called Canonicall for the edification of the faithfull.