The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 65
CHAP. LXV. Belief of the Fathers of the Latine or Weſtern Church about the Canonical books. And that the Cardinal doth not truly repreſent it.
CArdinal du Perron being caſt by the judgement of the Greek Church, hath recourſe to the Weſtern Church, ſaying that there was never any Latine Author that had taken the licence of overthrowing the authority of the book of Maccabees, before St. Hierom, and Ruffinus after him. The ſame he ſaith of the other books that are in queſtion. If he ſaith true, and if the Greek Church in ſuch an important point did differ from the Roman, it ſheweth that the Greek Church was not ſubject unto the Roman.
The Reader may alſo obſerve the Cardinals ſubtilty, to have recourſe to the Latin Church againſt the Greek, in a matter of which he knows that few Latin Fathers have written. Yet let us ſee what their ſenſe was.
Hierom in his Preface upon the Proverbs of Solomon ſpeaks thus.(a)Sicut ergo Judith & Tobiae & Maccabaeorum libros legit quidem Eccleſia, ſed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit; ſic & haec duo volumina, Sapientiam Solomonis & Jeſu filii Sirach, legat ad ae dificationem plebis, non ad authoritatem Eccleſiaſticorum dogmatum confirmandam. As the Church reads indeed the books of Judith, of Tobit, and of the Maccabees, but receiveth them not among the Canonical Scriptures: So let her read theſe two volumes for the edification of the Church, not to confirm the authority of the doctrines of the Church. Note that he ſets forth the belief of the Church of his time as well as his own. In the ſame place he ſaith that the inſcription of the book of the Wiſdom of Solomon is falſe. And in his Prologus Galeatus, (b)Sapientia quae vulgo Solomonis inſcribitur & Ieſu filii Sirach liber, & Iudith & Tobias & Paſtor non ſunt in Canone.The book of Wiſdom and that of Jeſus ſon of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Paſtor are not Canonical.
Ruffinus in the Expoſition of the Symbole ſpeaks thus,(c)Sciendum tamen eſt quod & alii libri ſunt qui non Canonici ſed Eccleſiaſtici à majoribus appellati ſunt, ut eſt Sapientia Solomonis, & illa Sapientia quae dicitur filii Sirach. Ejuſdem ordinis eſt libellus Tobiae, & Judith, & Maccabaeorum libri, &c. It muſt be known that there are other books which the Antients have not called Canonical but Eccleſiaſtical, as the Wiſdom of Solomon, and the other Wiſdom, which is ſaid to be of Jeſus ſon of Sirach. Of the ſame rank are the book of Tobit, Judith, and the books of the Maccabees. And in the New Teſtament the book that is called Paſtoral or Hermes, the Judgement of Peter. All which they would have to be read in the Church, but not to be alledged to confirm the authority of the faith. He ſpeaks as of a thing eſtabliſhed by the Antients, herein contradicting our Cardinal, who will perſwade us that Hierom and Ruffin are the firſt that have ſpoken ſo.
In vain ſhould one object here that Ruffinus is accuſed of hereſie by Hierom, who calls him a Scorpion; for there was a mortall hatred between Hierom and Ruffinus, and they have written grievous invectives the one againſt the other. Yet ſuppoſe that he was an heretick. It is enough that in this point he is with Hierom, and that none of the enemies of Ruffinus did ever taxe him for putting Tobias, Judith, and the Maccabees out of the rank of the Canonical books. That which grieveth moſt our Adverſaries, is, that Ruffinus puts the Maccabees and Judith in the ſame row as the book called Paſtor, which is a fabulous and ridiculous book.
Our adverſaries give us eight books of Apoſtolical Conſtitutions, which they ſay to be of Clement Biſhop of Rome, the next ſucceſſor to St. Peter: There in(d)In editione Latina Bovii Tomo Concil. 1. the ſecond book, chap. 61. there is a Catalogue of Canonical books, where neither Tobit, nor Judith, nor Eccleſiaſticus, nor Wiſdom, nor the Maccabees are found.
Tertullian is a hundred and fourſcore years more antient then Hierom. He ſaith in the fourth book of his verſes againſt Marcion, in the ſeventh chapter, that(e)Alarum numerus antiqua volumina ſignat, Eſſe ſatis circa viginti quatuor iſta. by the twenty four wings of the animals mentioned in the Revelation the twenty four antient volumes are deſigned. Others reckon but twenty two: for Hierom in his above mentioned Prologue ſaith that ſome did reckon four and twenty books of the Old Teſtament, becauſe they reckoned ſeparately the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and the Hiſtory of Ruth; ſaying that they repreſent the twenty four wings of the animals. It is clear that Tertullian did not acknowledge the books of the Maccabees for Canonical Scriptures, ſince in the third chapter of his book de corona militis, he puts prayers and offerings for the dead among the unwritten Traditions. For in the twelfth chapter of the ſecond of the Maccabees there is an example of it.
Hilary Biſhop of Poitiers writ ſome fifty or ſixty years before Hierom. In his Prologue of the Pſalms he ſaith, The Law of the Old Teſtament is reduced to two and twenty books, that they may fit the number of the Hebrew letters. Then he makes the Catalogue of thoſe books where he puts none of thoſe that are queſtioned between us and our Adverſaries, and ſaith that this doctrine(f)Ita ſecundum traditiones veterum. comes from the Tradition of the Antients. Here Regourd doth contradict himſelf, choler having disjointed his memory.(g)In the fourth demonſtration, p. 354. & 355. He ſaith that Hilary receiving Daniel, Eſther, and Jeremiah, comprehends under Daniel the hymn of the three children, Suſanna, and the hiſtory of Bel; and under Eſther the ſix laſt chapters; forgetting that he had ſaid in the page before that Hilary makes the Catalogue of the books of the Old Teſtament according to the Canon of the Jews, who never received the book of Suſanna, nor the hiſtory of Bel, as alſo they never received more of the book of Eſther then is in the Hebrew.
Philaſtrius Biſhop of Brixia in Italy writ a little before Hierom about the year 380. In his book of hereſies, in the chapter of the Apocrypha he ſaith that it was commanded by the Apoſtles that nothing ſhould be read in the Church but the Law and the Prophets, and the Goſpels, &c. comprehending all the Old Teſtament under the Law and the Prophets. Now it was never heard that Judith, or Suſanna or the Maccabees ſhould be either the Law or the Prophets.
Auſtin is expreſs to this purpoſe in his ſecond book againſt Gaudentius, ch. 23. where he puts the Maccabees out of the rank of the Law and the Prophets, ſaying,(h)E… hanc quidem Scripturam quae appellatur Maccabaeorum, non habent Iudaei, ſicut Legem, Prophetas & Pſalmos quibus Deus teſtimonium perhibet. The Jews receive not that Scripture which is called the Maccabees as the Law, the Prophets and the Pſalms to which the Lord beareth teſtimony. Auſtin ſaith plainly that God beareth no teſtimony to the book of Maccabees as he beareth unto the Law and the Prophets. Then the Maccabees belong neither to the Law nor to the Prophets.
But the words of Philaſtrius are the moſt remarkable of all in the ninth chapter, where he ſpeaks of the hereticks Hermiotites and Prodianites. Among whoſe hereſies he puts this,(i)Hi Sapientiae libro utuntur Sirach illius qui ſcripſit poſt Solomonem, id eſt poſt mulla tempora librum unum Sapientiae. That they uſe the book of Wiſdom of that Sirach who long after Solomon writ a book of Wiſdom.
It was then a great neglience or overſight in the Cardinal to affirm that before Hierom none of the Latin or Occidental Church hath rejected the book of the Maccabees.
The Churches of Gaules, a little after Hieromes time, are witneſſes on our ſide. For in the ſeventh volume of the works of Auſtin, there is an Epiſtle of Hilary Biſhop of Arles to Auſtin; wherein Hilary ſaith that in Gaules they did not approve that he had uſed a text of Wiſdom, becauſe the book is not Canonical.(k)Illud etiam teſtimonium quod poſuiſti Raptus eſt ne malitia mutaret intellectum ejus, tanquam non Canonicum definiunt omittendum. They define (ſaith he) that this text muſt be omitted, becauſe it is not canonical. Now although thoſe Gaules diſſented from Auſtin in the point of predeſtination, ſaying that God hath nor predeſtinated unto ſalvation thoſe whom he foreſaw that they ſhould believe in Jeſus Chriſt. Auſtin on the contrary maintaining that God hath predeſtinated unto ſalvation thoſe unto whom he will give faith and repentance, and that the uſe of grace depends not from the free will of man, but from the abſolute Election of God; yet thoſe Gaules were accounted faithfull Chriſtians in their countrey, and are called by Proſper in the precedent Epiſtle, ſervants of Chriſt. Chryſoſtome hath ſpoken far harder then they in that matter, and is not therefore called an heretick. Theſe Gaules rejecting the book of Wiſdom, followed the belief of the Gallican Church. Wherefore alſo Hilary doth not reprove them. And Auſtin ſpeaks often as they do, as we ſhall ſee hereafter; although in the book of the predeſtination of Saints, diſputing againſt theſe Gaules, he indeavoureth to exalt that book of Wiſdom, being grieved that he had been reproved.
I cannot but bring here a text of Gregory the I. although he lived towards the end of the ſixth age; That Gregory, of all the Biſhops of Rome the moſt eſteemed, in the nineteenth of his Morals, chap. 17. before he alledged a text of the Maccabees, made a preface of excuſes for uſing a text that was not Canonical.(l)Qua de re non inordinate agimus ſi ex libris licet non Canonicis, ſed tamen ad aedificationem Eccleſiae editis, teſtimonium proferamus. Of which thing (ſaith he) we do not treat without order and reaſon, if we bring a teſtimony from books that are not Canonical, but have been publiſht for the edification of the Church. Then he adds the text of the Maccabees, where Eleazar put himſelf to death, going under an Elephant, to deſtroy thoſe that rid upon him. Upon which place Ambroſius Catharinus, a man of great learning and reputation among our Adverſaries, ſpeaks in this manner,(m)Cathar. Opuſc. de lib. Canonicis, col. 302. B. Gregorius authoritate (ut opinor) Hieronymi motus videtur concedere illos non eſſe Canonicos. St. Gregory moved (as I think) by the authority of St. Hierom, ſeems to grant that theſe books are not Canonical.
Cardinal du Perron bends here all his wit to avoid that blow. He ſaith that Gregory was yet but a Deacon when he writ that book. But if herein he ſpake amiſs, why did he not correct that fault when he was made a Biſhop? Why would he ſuffer that to remain among his works?
He ſaith(n)Du Perron. p. 441. alſo that the firſt draught of that Comment was made in the Eaſt, intimating that he perfected it, and writ it fair when he was returned to Rome. But what is that to the purpoſe? Was Gregory an hypocrite, writing among the Grecians againſt the ſenſe of the Roman Church?(o)Baron. an. 586 §. 25. & An. 593. §. 72. Greg. l. 4. Ep. 46. Indict. 13. And if he writ there but the rough draught of the book, it is like that the Grecians did not ſee it.
But acknowledging that theſe two anſwers have but little colour, he finds out a third ſhift, which overthrows the two former. He ſaith that Gregories words muſt be expounded, as ſuppoſing, not granting; as if he ſaid; Suppoſe that the books were not Canonical, yet they have been written for the edification of the Church. There is in the Latin, Si ex libris licet non Canonicis, ſed tamen ad aedificationem Eccleſiae editis teſtimonium proferamus. One would think that the Cardinal had more skill in the Latin tongue, then to tranſlate licet non Canonicis, ſuppoſe that they were not Canonical: for licet ſignifieth although, not ſuppoſe. Beſides the Cardinal adds the word were, which is not in the Latin. Then by that expoſition he overthrows the ſenſe of Gregory: For if Gregory declareth by theſe words that he holds the books of Maccabees to be Canonical (as the Cardinal will have it) to what purpoſe ſhould he make excuſes for alledging them?
Here(p)Demonſtr. 4. p. 350. Regourd rejecteth the Cardinals opinion, and finds another ſolution which is no better. He ſaith that Gregory underſtands that the Maccabees are not Canonical according to the Canon of the Jews, although they be Canonical according to the Canon of the Chriſtian Church.
But that is ſpeaking againſt conſcience; for why ſhould Gregory forſake the Canon of the Chriſtians to comply with the Canon of the Jews? Would he have made excuſes before he alledged a text of the Maccabees, if the Chriſtians received that book for Canonical? Would he excuſe himſelf to the Chriſtians for believing as they do? Or would he excuſe himſelf to the Jews whom he did not fear? Doth he make any mention of the Jews or of their Canon? Nay, doth he not directly ſay that the Maccabees are not Canonical? Who ſeeth not that he makes excuſes to the Chriſtians for uſing a book which they approved not? As indeed to mitigate them, he addeth, that although the book be not Canonical, yet it was written for the edification of the Church: which may be ſaid of many books which are not Canonical.
The book of the wonders of Scripture which is found in the third Tome of St. Auſtin in the ſecond book, chap. 33. ſpeaks thus,(q)De lacu vero & Abacak tranſlato in Belis & Draconis fabula in hoc ordine non ponitur, quod in authoritate divinae Scripturae non habetur. That which is related the ſecond time of the [Lions] den, and of the tranſportation of Habacuk, in the fable of Bel and the dragon, is not put in this rank, becauſe it is not held to have the authority of divine Scripture.