The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 67
CHAP. 67. Of the opinion of St. Auſtin concerning the Canonical books. And of the Canon of the third Council of Carthage, upon which the Cardinal grounds himſelf.
SAint Auſtin is the only of all the Fathers that ſpeaks of this matter with ſo much diverſity and contrariety, that it is impoſſible to draw any certainty from his aſſertions.
In the ſecond book of the Chriſtian Doctrine, chap. 8. he makes an enumeration of the Canonical books, where it is evident that he takes the word Canonical in another ſenſe then it is taken by the other Fathers, namely for the books which the Univerſal Chriſtian Church hath received for divine and ſacred, and for rules of the faith. But in that place he makes many ſorts of Canonical books, ſome of greater, ſome of leſſer authority, which nevertheleſs he calls Canonical. Theſe are his words.(a)In Canonicis autem Scripturis Eccleſiarum Catholicarum quamplurium authoritatem ſequatur, &c. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis ut cas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Eccleſiis Catholicis praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt. In cis vero quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponi eas quas plures gravioreſque accipiunt. The induſtrious ſeeker of Canonical Scriptures muſt keep this rule in matter of Canonical Scriptures; to prefer the Scriptures that are received by all the Catholick Churches to them which ſome Churches receive not. But as for thoſe that are received by all the Churches, let him make more of thoſe which more Churches and more honourable receive, then of thoſe that are received by Churches inferiour in number and authority. But if ſome Scriptures be found of which ſome be received by the more honourable Churches, and ſome be received by the greater number of Churches, although he cannot find that, yet I think that they muſt be held in the like authority.
Now let any man judge in what uncertainties this Father intangleth mens underſtandings; if ſo be that to know which are the Canonical Scriptures of great or ſmall authority, we muſt number and weigh the Churches. By his account, if of fifty Churches ten receive a book for Canonical, and fourty reject it, the book ſhall be Canonical, but of ſmall authority. But if twenty receive it, and thirty reject it, the authority thereof ſhall grow a little. And if a great and famous Church receives it, and ten little Churches reject it, there he leaves mens minds ballancing. At leaſt he ought to define what number of Churches is requiſite to make a book Canonical. No doubt but that diſcourſe of Auſtin is very much diſpleaſing to our Adverſaries. For why doth he not ſend them in that irreſolution unto the Pope and to the Roman Church, which in our dayes aſcribes to her ſelf the authority of defining the Canon of Scriptures? But in thoſe dayes they did not ſpeak ſo: And the Church of Africa, to which Auſtin did belong, was not ſubject unto the Roman. That good Biſhop in his reception did not receive from the Biſhop of Rome his letters of inveſtiture, and did not take an oath of allegiance to him. Beſides, if thoſe books which he ſaith to be of leſs authority be received as infallible, they are of ſoveraign authority: but if they hold them not for infallible, they are not Canonical.
Auſtin having given ſuch an uncertain rule to know the Canonical books, makes a Catalogue of them, and puts among them Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees; and no wonder, ſince that a book may be Canonical, it is enough in his account, that it be received by ſome few Churches, although the greateſt number of Churches reject them. And there again he plungeth mens underſtandings into a greater uncertainty, for while he makes that Catalogue, he doth not ſpecifie which of them are of greater, which of leſſer authority; and leaveth us to count the number, and weigh the quality of Churches.
But in other places he contradicts himſelf; for having ſaid in this place that the Wiſdom of Solomon and Eccleſiaſtious are Canonical; in other places he ſaith that they are not Canonical; as in the twentieth chapter of the ſeventeenth book of the City of God, where he ſpeaks thus; It is found that Solomon hath prophecied in his books; of which there are three which are received with Canonical authority, the Proverbs, Eccleſiaſtes, and the Song of Songs. But the other two, Wiſdom and Eccleſiaſticus, cuſtome hath obtained that they ſhould be called Solomons books, becauſe of ſome likeneſs of ſtile. But the moſt learned hold it for certain that they are none of his. Then he addeth, that the Occidental Church hath received them; Not then the Oriental. But Hierom, Ruffin, Hilary, Philaſtius and the Gallican Churches contradict him, as we have ſeen.
In the ſame chapter he alledgeth Eccleſiaſticus, then he addeth, as correcting himſelf, But the things that are not written in the Canon of the Jews, are not alledged with ſo much authority.
It is very conſiderable, that in that place he doth not only put the Wiſdom of Solomon and Eccleſiaſticus out of the rank of the Canonical books, againſt that which he had ſaid in the ſecond book of the Chriſtian doctrine, chap. 8. but alſo by ſaying that the book of Wiſdom is not of Solomon, he accuſeth the Author of untruth, who ſaith himſelf to be Solomon: For ſo he ſpeaks to God, chap. 9. ver. 7, 8. Thou haſt elected me to be King of thy people. Thou haſt told me that I ſhould build thee a Temple in thy holy mountain.
He giveth the like uſage to Eccleſiaſticus, which he puts among the Canonical books in the ſecond book of the Chriſtian doctrine, chap. 8. and yet in another place he fights againſt that book, and confutes the doctrine of the ſame. For whereas the ſaid book chap. 46.21. affirmeth that Samuel hath prophecied after his death, and lift up his voice out of the earth, though this was done by a witch and by the power of the Devil; Auſtin diſputes againſt it in the ſecond book of queſtions to Simplician, in the third queſtion; declaring it a very improper thing to put the ſpirits of the Saints in the power of Devil, and maintaining that it was not Samuel that ſpake to Saul, but the Devil in the form of Samuel; (b)In hoc facto poteſt eſſe alius facilior intellectus & expeditior exitus, ut non recte ſpiritum Samuelis exitatum à requie ſua credamus, ſed aliquod phantaſma & imaginariam illuſionem Diaboli, &c.In this buſineſs (ſaith he) there may be a more eaſie intelligence, and a readier way to come out of it, which is to believe that it was not truly the ſpirit of Samuel that was drawn out of his reſt, but rather that it was ſome apparition and imaginary illuſion made by the Devils machinations, which the Scripture calls with the name of Samuel, becauſe they uſe to call images with the name of things whereof they are images. And a little after he concludeth thus, Let us rather think that ſuch a thing was done by the malicious miniſtery of the witch.
The ſame he ſaith in the ſixth queſtion of Dulcitius where he approveth and confirmeth that which he had ſaid in his queſtions to Simplician. About that, See the Canon Nec mirum, in the fifth queſtion of the twenty ſixth Cauſe, where the doctrine of Eccleſiaſticus is confuted at large: And the book of the Queſtions of the Old Teſtament in the twenty ſeventh queſtion, where Auſtin among other things ſaith that(c)Putans Samuelem, adoravit Diabolum. Saul worſhipped the Devil, thinking him to be Samuel.
It is this Fathers cuſtome when his Adverſaries object unto him ſome place out of the Apocrypha, to anſwer with weakning their authority. As in the ſecond book againſt Gaudentius, chap. 23. the Donatiſts, Circumcellions, who would kill and caſt themſelves headlong, defended themſelves with the example of Razias who killed himſelf, 2 Mac. 14. Auſtin anſwereth them,(d)Et hanc quidem Scripturam quae appellatur Maccabaeorum, non habent Judaei ſicut Legem, & Prophetas, & Pſalmos, quibus Dominus teſtimonium perhibet. The Jews receive not that Scripture which they call Maccabees, as the Law, the Prophets, and the Pſalms, to which the Lord beareth teſtimony. Thereby declaring that the Maccabees are books unto which the Lord doth not bear teſtimony. Thus in the ſecond book of the Retractations ch. 20. retracting that which he had ſaid after the book of Wiſdom, That(e)Wiſd. 16. Manna had a taſte in the mouth according to every mans will, he ſaith this,(f)Non mihi occurrit unde poſſit probari ni…i in libro Sapientiae quem Judaei non recipiunt in authoritatem Canonicam. I remember not that this can be proved but by the book of Wiſdom which is not received among the Jews in a Canonical authority. If Auſtin had received the book of Wiſdom among the Canonical books, he would not have retracted that which he had alledged out of that book. And in the book of the care which muſt be had of the dead, chap. 15. he alledgeth Eccleſiaſticus, which ſaith that Samuel prophecied after his death: then he addeth(g)Huic libro ex Canone H…braeorum qui in ei non eſt contradicitur. This book is contradicted out of the Canon of the Hebrews, becauſe it is not found in it. He ſaith not that the Hebrews contradict it, but that others contradict it by the Canon of the Hebrews, ſhewing that Chriſtians contradict it, becauſe they adhere to the Canon of the Hebrews.
Wherefore in the fore-alledged place againſt Gaudentius, after he hath ſaid that the book of the Maccabees is none of thoſe to which the Lord bears teſtimony, he addeth, that yet it is not unprofitably received, ſo that it be read ſoberly; which is a commendation bordering upon blame, to ſay that the book is not altogether unprofitable, and that one hath need to read it ſoberly, that is, that one muſt not adhere too much unto it.
So much is ſufficient to ſhew that when Auſtin in the ſecond book of the Chriſtian doctrine put Judith, Wiſdom, and the Maccabees among the Canonical books, he meant thoſe Canonical books which he ſaith to be of ſmall authority. Obſerve alſo that Auſtin writ the books of Chriſtian doctrine being yet young, and newly received to the Epiſcopal Office; as one may ſee by his books of Retractations, where he makes a review of his books according to the order of the time in which he writ them. In the ſecond book of his Retractations, chap. 4. he hath put his books of Chriſtian doctrine. But in chap. 43. he ſpeaks of his books of the City of God as made a long time after. There he puts clearly Wiſdom and Eccleſiaſticus out of the number of Canonical books, correcting what he had ſaid in the ſecond book of the Chriſtian doctrine. In the ſame fourth chapter of the ſecond book of his Retractations, he retracteth himſelf for attributing the books of Wiſdom and Eccleſiaſticus unto Solomon, having ſince that time got better information.
I find a place of Auſtin in the thirty ſixth chapter of the eighteenth book of the City of God, of which it is hard to judge. For in the ſame place he ſaith that the books of Maccabees are neither holy nor Canonical Scriptures, and yet he ſaith that the Church holds them for Canonical. The ſupputation of theſe times (ſaith he) is not found in the holy Scriptures which they call Canonical, among which the Maccabees are not. There can be nothing more expreſs. But the following words contradict it; which not the Jews but the Church hold for Canonical, a ſentence which hath alwayes been unto me ſuſpected of falſification.
We muſt not diſſemble that the Gallican Churches diſliked that Auſtin ſhould uſe in his writings teſtimonies of books not Canonical,(h)See the place of Hilary above, chap. 56. as Hilary Biſhop of Arles teſtifieth in his Epiſtle to Auſtin. When all is ſaid, of what weight is Auſtin authority againſt the conſent of ſo many Fathers more antient then he, whom we have produced before? and againſt the authority of the Church of the Old Teſtament? and againſt the word of God? and againſt himſelf, ſeeing that he contradicts himſelf as I have ſhewed by many proofs?
It remains now to ſpeak of the Canon of the third Council of Carthage, which is the twenty fourth Canon in the Code of the African Church. About that Canon there is a diſſent between the Greek and the Latin Copies. For in the Latin the books of the Maccabees are put among the Canonical books, but in the Greek they are omitted, and put out of the roll of the Canonical. Whereupon(i)Chap. 50. book 1. in the beginning. page 346. M. du Perron goeth about to prove that the Latin copies are to be preferred before the Greek, calling in contempt the Code of the African Church a Rapſody, becauſe it is gathered out of the Canons of ſeveral Councils of Africa. I could demonſtrate by a multitude of proofs, that hardly ſhall one find a book in the whole world more ſwarming with falſifications and corruptions then the Latin Tomes of Councils; the firſt eſpecially, where that Canon is found. Beſides that(k)Pag. 436. M. du Perron overthrows with his own hand all that he alledgeth for the Latin Copies, acknowledging that there are vices in the Latin, which he imputeth to the Copiſts or transſcribers, preferring the Greek Copies before the Latin, as for certain Epiſtles (of which we ſhall ſpeak in the right place) becauſe he holds the Greek Copies of thoſe Epiſtles to be more favourable to him. But that diſpute is uſeleſs, ſince we have thoſe two things granted, the one that the contrariety of the Copies makes this Canon doubtfull; The other, that though we would receive that Canon ſuch as it is found in the Latin Copies, yet the authority of a Council of Carthage held within the fifth age is not ſufficient to overthrow a Council of Laodicea more antient by two hundred years, and approved by the Univerſal Councils, or to outweigh the general conſent of ſo many Fathers both Greek and Latin, which we have produced; Much leſs to be oppoſed to the word of God, and to make fables to become true hiſtories.