The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 66
CHAP. 66. Confutation of the Cardinals ſhifts.
ALL that the Cardinal oppoſeth to all that was ſaid before,Pag. 441. is ſo weak that it may be thrown down with blowing upon it.
He ſaith that Cyprian calls the Maccabees divine Scriptures. That Ambroſe alledging the Maccabees crieth out, Moſes ſaith as it is written in the book of the Maccabees. That Lucifer Biſhop of Sardinia calls the Maccabees the holy Scripture. But none of theſe calls the Maccabees Canonical. He ſaith alſo that the Fathers often alledge theſe books ſaying, It is written. But who knows not that the ſame Fathers often alledge books as ſacred which never were held Canonical? Irenaeus in the fourth book chap. 37. alledging the book of Paſtor, otherwiſe called Hermes, ſaith, Bene pronuntiavit Scriptura, Scripture hath well pronounced. Clemens Alexandrinus 1. Stromaton, towards the end of the book, alledging the ſame book, brings forth a place of the ſame, which he ſaith to be divinely revealed. The like is found in Athanaſius in the book of the Incarnation of the Word. Among the Popes Decretals, the firſt of Pope Pius the firſt ſpeaks thus,(a)Iſtis temporibus Hermes Doctor fidei & Scripturarum effulſit. In that time Hermes a Doctor of the faith and of the Scriptures did ſhine among us. And upon that he relates the fable of an Angel appearing to Hermes in a Shepherds habit. Yet he calls that Scripture. Pope Gelaſius (b)Diſt. 15. Can. Sancta Romana.puts that book of Hermes among the Apocrypha. (c)Gelas. Cyſicen. Concilii Niceni l. 2. c. 18. p. 546. foreign.The Fathers of Nice in full Council alledging the book of the Aſſumption of Moſes, ſay, We ſhall propound that which is in Scripture. Ambroſe in his book of the good of death, chap. 10. alledgeth the third book of Ezra; and ſo doth Auſtin in the ſixth chapter of the fourth book to Bonifacius. Yet the Roman Church puts that book among the Apocrypha.
Then he ſaith that Hierom hath alſo doubted of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews. But though it were ſo (for we could prove the contrary) what doth that to invalid that which he ſaith that the Church did not receive Tobit, Judith, the Maccabees, &c. among the Canonical books? Our diſpute is only of the books of the Old Teſtament.
Page 442.He adds that Hierom hath been induced to do this, by the Jews among whom he dwelt, which is a conjecture without proof, and a crime of diſloyalty and prevarication againſt the Chriſtian Church, charged upon St. Hierom. Yea he goeth ſo far as to ſay that Hierom had given money to the Jews to be helped by them in the Edition of his Bible. Page 443.Whence he will infer that Hierom endeavoured to pleaſe the Jews, ſworn enemies to Chriſt, becauſe he had need of their help in his labour.
Page 443.He ſaith alſo that Hierom being ſince more exactly inſtructed of the true ſenſe of the Church, changed his opinion, and retracted both in general and in particular what he had ſaid in three Prologues. And thereupon he brings ſome places of Hierom, which he will have us rather to regard. But there is nothing ſo authentical in all his works, as his Prefaces preſixed before the holy Scripture, where he declareth that ſuch is the ſenſe of the Church. Yet let us ſee theſe places.
Hierom having ſaid in his Prefaces before Daniel, that the(d)Suſanne Beliſque ac draconis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico. fables of Suſanna, and Bell, and the Dragon, are not in the Hebrew, and that theſe books have not the authority of holy Scriptures, and being reproved for it by Ruffinus, he excuſeth it in his ſecond Apology againſt Ruffinus, ſaying, that he did not ſpeak his ſenſe, but what the Jews ſaid. But he doth not retract what he had ſaid in his Prologus Galeatus, that all that is beſides the two and twenty books of the Hebrew Bible muſt be accounted Apocrypha. Nor what he had ſaid in the Preface before the books of Solomon, that the Church receiveth not the books of Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees for Canonicäl.
He brings a ſecond teſtimony of Hieroms Preface upon Tobit, That the Hebrews cut off the book of Tobit from the divine Scriptures. But I ſee not in that any retractation. There is none of us but may ſay as much.
The Cardinal adds a third place maliciouſly clipt and corrupted. He alledgeth theſe words out of the ſame Preface, The jealouſie of the Hebrews doth accuſe us, and imputes to us that againſt their Canon we transferr the book of Tobit to Latine ears. But I judge it better to be diſpleaſing to the judgement of the Phariſees, and to be obedient to the commandment of Biſhops. By theſe words ſo clipt, one may underſtand Hieroms meaning to be that by receiving the book of Tobit into the Canon, he would diſpleaſe the Jews to obey the Biſhops: But Hierom had ſaid a little before that the Biſhops preſt him earneſtly to tranſlate the book of Tobit into Latin. Then he addeth, that the Jews were diſpleaſed at that tranſlation, but that it was better to diſpleaſe them, obeying the Biſhops who had deſired him to beſtow his labour upon it. That thoſe Biſhops ſhould hold that book of Tobit for Canonical, he doth not mention at all.
He brings two places more of Hierom, whereby he ſets Judith among the ſacred books, and ſaith that the Council of Nice hath received it among the Holy Scriptures.
For anſwer I have already proved by expreſs texts that the Fathers will often attribute the title of ſacred books to books not Canonical, and ſuch as the Roman Church holds for Apocrypha. And as for that he ſaith that Hierom in his Preface upon Judith ſaith that the Council of Nice received the book of Judith among the Canonical books, he makes Hierom ſay more then he doth; for he doth not directly affirm that, but only relates it upon the faith of another; thereby acknowledging that himſelf had read no ſuch thing, nor found it in the Council of Nice. Theſe are his words,(e)Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter hagiographa legitur, cujus authoritas ad roboranda illa quae in contentionem veniunt minus idonea judicatur, &c. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero ſanctarum Sc…ipturarum legitur computaſſe, acquievi poſtulationi veſtrae. Among the Hebrews the book of Judith is read among the Hagiographa, a book whoſe authority is judged not to be very fit to confirm the things that are in controverſie. Yet being written in Chaldean, it is put among the hiſtories. But becauſe it is read that the Council of Nice hath counted it among the holy Scriptures, I have condeſcended to your requeſt. He had read ſome Author that related that this had been ſaid in the Council. But how little credence he gives to that Author, it appeareth in that he ſaith that this book is held to be of ſmall authority to decide controverſies. When Hierom writ ſo many times that the book of Judith was not Canonical, had he not read the Council of Nice? I could produce a multitude of antient witneſſes that ſay that the Council of Nice made but twenty Canons, whom we have entire to this day; in which there is not one word of Judith. The Reader may ponder theſe words of Hierom upon the firſt of Haggai. (f)Et in Judith, ſi quis tamen librum vult recipere mulieris.As it is written in Judith, yet if any will receive the book of a woman. And in the eleventh Epiſtle to Furia. (g)Legimus in Judith (ſi cui tamen placet volumen recipere) viduam confectam jejuniis, &c.We read in Judith (if any will receive that volume) that a widow, &c. Which is more, in the ſaid preface upon Judith he ſaith that(h)Libri Judith authoritas ad roborandailla quae in contentio nem vemunt, minus idonea judicatur. the authority of the book of Judith is judged not to be very meet for confirming the emergent doubts, &c.
Finally the Cardinal alledgeth a place of Hierom in the laſt chapter of the book of the Eccleſiaſtical writers, that ſaith that Scripture relateth how Alexander came out of the land of Kittim; That taken out of the beginning of the Maccabees. But Hierom ſaith not that the Maccabees are Canonical. Pope Nicolas the firſt in his Epiſtle to the Emperour Lewis ſpeaks thus:(i)In Scripturis narratur Conſtantinus Imperator diviſſe. In the Scriptures it is related that the Emperour Conſtantine hath ſaid, &c. He takes the word of Scripture for writings & hiſtories.
(k)Pag. 345.The Jeſuite Regourd is ſtorming about that queſtion with much impatience; But in the end, truth fetcheth that confeſſion from him, That St. Hierom deemed not that in his time the Church had as yet inſerted thoſe books in the rank of the Canonical books. But it is not credible that Hierom was deceived in that point, and that he ſhould be ignorant what books were at that time received in the Church for Canonical. And if he was overſeen in this matter, at leaſt he ought to have given order that his Preface ſet in the front of the Bible, (where he declareth all theſe books to be Apocrypha) ſhould be corrected. The ſame Jeſuite to make the Reader merry, ſaith that Hierom having omitted the book of Judith, received it ſince after the deciſion of the Council of Nice: as if Hierom had written his firſt works before the Council of Nice, which ſate before Hierom was born, or at leaſt when Hierom was in his firſt infancy; ſo ignorant is that Jeſuite in hiſtory. Beſides, the Council of Nice made no deciſion upon that.
From Hierom the Cardinal paſſeth to Hilary, who in his Prologue upon the Pſalms excludeth the Maccabees, Judith, &c. from the Catalogue of the Canonical books. He upbraids Hilary that he hath taken that from Origen, and hath tranſlated it. But it is all one, ſince he approveth the doctrine of Origen. He ſaith alſo that when Hilary ſaid that herein he followed the doctrine of the Antients, by the Antients he underſtands the Jews. That ſhift is ridiculous, and of that there is no trace in Hilary. The Chriſtians never ſpeak ſo, and acknowledge not the Jews in the time of the Maccabees for their Fathers or Elders. If Hilary hath taken that from Origen, is it not evident that Origen is one of thoſe Elders whom he hath followed?
Finally the Cardinal ſhuts up his diſcourſe with four warnings. The firſt is,Page 441. & ſeq. that the Synopſis is not of Athanaſius. To which we have already anſwered.
The ſecond warning is, that many Fathers of the Greek Church make Catalogues of the Canonical books, in which Judith, Tobit, Eccleſiaſticus, Page 444.Wiſdom (which he calls poſthumous books) are omitted; And that nevertheleſs there is not one of thoſe books but was uſed by the Fathers in quality of a ſacred book. And upon that he brings many places of Greek Fathers who alledge thoſe books, and yet call them not ſacred. All that is to no purpoſe; for alledging a book is not receiving it for Canonical. For then we ſhould ſay that Menander, Aratus and Epimenides alledged by St. Paul are Canonical Authors. We have ſhewed alſo that Fathers will alledge the book of Paſtor, and the third and fourth of Ezra with the like reſpect, although they be Apocrypha. We have ſhewed alſo that this Elogie of ſacred books is taken ſometimes largely, and is attributed alſo unto books not Canonical. And what reaſon or ſincerity is in this, after a Father hath expreſly declared that ſuch and ſuch books are not Canonical (of which we have brought many teſtimonies) to go about to overthrow that duplicate page duplicate page affirmation by ſome other places where thoſe books are only alledged, but not called Canonical?
The Cardinal hath an eſpecial flie trick about the book of the Maccabees. For that word of Maccabees is taken three wayes;Page 446. ſometimes for the Maccabees, ſometimes for Judas Maccabeus and his brothers, ſometimes for the ſeven children martyred by Antiochus; Joſephus calls them ſo, and hath made an expreſs book of them, that bears that title. M. du Perron makes uſe of that ambiguity to deceive. Origen in the eighth book againſt Celſus ſaith that the Hiſtory of the Maccabees is atteſted by the teſtimony of two whole Nations, where by the hiſtory of the Maccabees he underſtands, not the books intituled the Maccabees, as M. du Perron takes it, but the things happened in the time of Juda Maccabeus and his brethren. He adds that Chryſoſtome upon Pſal. 43. ſaith, that David in that Pſalm hath propheſied the things that were to happen in the time of the Maccabees.
And Theodoret ſaith the like upon Romans 8. Thoſe places ſay only that God had foretold the afflictions of the Church that were to come in the time of the Maccabees, that is of Juda and his brethren, but ſpeak not of the books of Maccabees, nor of their authority.
His third warning, is that the Fathers followed according to the exigence of their purpoſe, ſometimes the primitive ſupputation of the Jews which is the Canon of the Hebrews, ſometimes the acceſſory ſupputation of the Chriſtians. But he confirms this with no example, but that of Origen (whom he uſeth to revile as a Father of errours, and an Author of no authority) and Epiphanius; Of the teſtimonies of theſe two Authors we have ſpoken before, and we need not repeat them here. After all, what is following the Canon of the Hebrews, but following the truth of the Hebrew Bible, and about the number of the books of the Old Teſtament following the Church of the Old Teſtament, to which the Oracles of God have been committed! How can it be that a book that was not divine nor Canonical under the Old Teſtament, ſhould become ſuch under the New Teſtament?
But that ſhift is clearly confuted by Hierom in his Preface upon Daniel, where he ſaith that Porphyrius, the capital enemy of Jeſus Chriſt, to invalid the certainty of the Prophecies of Daniel, objecteth that Daniel by the Greek clinches upon names of trees, falſely preſuppoſeth that they ſpoke Greek in Babylon. To which Hierom anſwers,The text of Hierom we have before ſet in the Margent, chap. 65. that the book of Suſanna and the hiſtory of Bel are fables, and have not Daniel for their Author, but a certain Habacuk a Levite, and that he had cut off that book long before from the Canon, ſetting a black mark upon it, joining himſelf with the Greek Doctors, who think not themſelves obliged to anſwer Porphyrius for thoſe books, becauſe they are not in the Hebrew, and have not the authority of holy Scriptures: openly declaring that the books that are not in the Hebrew, are none of the holy Scriptures of the Old Teſtament.
By the way we will obſerve a notorious ignorance of the Cardinal. In the fiftieth chapter of the firſt book,Page 446. of the firſt Edition. he ſaith that the ſame Greek Authors ſpeaking of the books of the Old Teſtament, would follow according to the exigence of their purpoſe, ſometimes the primitive ſupputation of the Jews and the Rabbinical tradition of the Canon of Ezra, and of the books incloſed in the Ark, &c. ſometimes the acceſſory ſupputation of the Chriſtians. His calling the enumeration of the Canonical books a ſupputation, is a light fault. But it is intolerable that he ſhould call it in contempt, a Rabbinical ſupputation, and would make us believe that the books of the Canon of Ezra (ſo he calls in contempt the books of the Hebrew Bible) were incloſed in the Ark of the Covenant. For not only that Ark was no more in the time of Ezra, but even while the Ark was, and in all the time from Moſes to the deſtruction of the Temple, it will not be found that ever the ſacred books were put within the Ark. Scripture is expreſs upon that 1 Kings 8.9. There was nothing within the Ark but the two Tables of ſtone which Moſes put there at Horeb. The ſame is ſaid, 2 Chron. 5.10. That which the Apoſtle ſaith, Heb. 9.4. that in the Ark there was a pot of gold which had Manna, and the rod of Aaron, doth not contradict this: For the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the time of Moſes. But in the time of Solomon that Manna and that rod were no more in the Ark, nor neer it, being (as is likely) corrupted by the length of time. The Cardinal putting the books of the Canon of Ezra in the Ark was deceived by Epiphanius, who ſaith ſo much in the book of meaſures and weights. How could the books of the Canon of Ezra have been put in the Ark, ſeeing that in Ezra's time the Ark was no more?
The Cardinal ſheweth how little his skill was in Hebrew, alledging a place of Origen taken out of Euſebius in the ſixth book of his hiſtory, chap. 19. where Origen ſaith that the Hebrews called the books of Maccabees, Sarbit Sarbaneel, that is, the Scepter of the Prince of Gods children. He that at the leaſt occaſions ſtrives to ſet out proofs of his great learning, ought to have redreſt that wronged place, and given notice to the Reader that he muſt read Sar bene el, and not make of three words one, and not put bane for bene.
His fourth and laſt obſervation is,Page 448. that of thoſe very Fathers that make a Canon or Catalogue of the books of the Old Teſtament where the Maccabees are paſt over in ſilence, there is not one that giveth a perfect Canon or Catalogue, and that there is alwayes ſome defect, even by the judgement of the Miniſters of Geneva. That Melito omits the book of Heſter; Cyrillus, the Revelation. The Synopſis attributed to Athanaſius, the book of Eſther. Nazianzen, Eſther and the Revelation. That Amphilochius queſtions the ſame two books. That Joſephus omitteth the book of Job. All theſe the Cardinal brings to no purpoſe. For as for the Revelation, it is a book of the New Teſtament: But the queſtion is of the books of the Old. As for the book of Eſther, I ſuppoſe that Melito or Euſebius have left it out, only out of forgetfulneſs; And that Athanaſius putting Eſther among the not Canonical, by Eſther meant the reſt of Eſther. As for Joſephus he was a Jew, not a Chriſtian; Now we have to do here only with the belief of the Antient Chriſtians. In that the Cardinal ſaith that of the Fathers that follow the Canon of the Hebrews there is not one that gives a perfect Canon, and that there is alwayes ſome defect, his memory failed him. For in the Catalogue of the books of the Old Teſtament which Hierom gives us, no book is omitted, nor in that of Ruffinus, nor in that of Hilary, nor in that of Cyrillus of Jeruſalem, who only adds to the Canon a little Epiſtle of Baruch. The ſame I ſay of Epiphanius in the hereſie of the Epioureans, and of Damaſcenus; and ſo in many, little or no defect will be found.
He adds that St. John relates that our Saviour was preſent at the Feaſt of the dedication in winter,John 10. the inſtitution whereof is related in the only hiſtory of the Maccabees. For (ſaith he) the hiſtory of the winter dedication was neceſſary to ſalvation, becauſe without it the ordinary ſacrifices could not be lawfull, and by conſequent it had need of the atteſtation of a Canonical writing. I anſwer, that St. John alledgeth not the Maccabees, and takes them not for witneſſes. Only he ſaith that Chriſt was in the Temhle at that Feaſt, without either approving or diſproving the inſtitution thereof. Beſides it is ſomewhat a hard ſentence, to pronounce that without the knowledge of the inſtitution of a Feaſt a man could not be ſaved.
With the like abſurdity, to prove that the books of Maccabees are Canonical,Page 449. he ſaith that the Apoſtle to the Hebrews ſaith, the Martyrs were tympanized (our Engliſh verſion tranſlates it, were tortured, Heb. 11.35.foreign.) and that he took that word of tympanizing from the ſecond of the Maccabees. And that (ſaith he) not in matters known by natural light, or manners; but in matter of faith. I wonder at ſuch an impertinent reaſon. For that certain Martyrs have been tympanized, is not a point of faith, but an hiſtory. If a word which St. Luke or St. John uſeth, is found in ſome Pagan Author, it followeth not that ſuch a Pagan book is Canonical, although both ſhould relate the ſame hiſtory. And if any had alledged in the margent of St. Luke ſome Pagan author, he had not thereby declared that be holds the book for Canonical.