The By-Way, Treatise · Section 6
SECT. VI. Our Aduerſaries pretences from the authorities of Fathers, and Councels, to prooue the Apocryphall bookes Canonicall, anſwered.
THe former Teſtimonies are ſo true, and pregnant in our behalfe, that our learned aduerſaries are inforced to confeſſe, that moſt of thoſe Authours did reiect the bookes in queſtion for Apocryphall. To ſay nothing of the Trent Anathema, layd vponupon thoſe reuerend Fathers, and learned Doctors, of the ancient and moderne Churches, who reiected thoſe bookes in all ages; let vsus weigh their chiefeſt reaſons and arguments for defence of their cauſe, and it will appeare, there are no ſolid and certaine authorities, to proue the Apocryphall books in queſtion for canonicall:Bell. lib. 1. de verbo Dei c. 12. To inſtance in particulars: Bellarmine ſaith, the booke of Iudith was held by Hierome for Canonicall; and withall pretended this reaſon for it, This booke hath a ſingular teſtimony from the famous and firſt generall Councell of Nice. It is true, that both contending parties ſubſcribe to this firſt and beſt Councell of Nice; but I pray where is that Canon to be found? and ſure I am there is no ſuch teſtimony extant,Aſſeruit eſse Apocryphū. Salm. Com. in Hebr. diſp. 2. Acoſt. lib 2. de Chriſto Reuel c. 13. Quod mihi dubituntis ſuſpicionem ſubindieare videtur, nā Nicena Synodus olim hunc librū in Canonem redegerat cur annis 80 poſt non accenſet eum Synodꝰ Laodicena? cur Nazianzenus, eius non meminit? quid ſibi vult quod idem &c. Lind. Panopl lib. 3. cap 3. as is pretended by the Cardinall: nay more, Salmeron his fellow Ieſuite proteſteth, Saint Hierome affirmed the booke of Iudith Apocryphall. And Acoſta the Ieſuite profeſſeth, (è Canone exemit) hee exempted it out of the Canon: and as touching the Councell of Nice, their owne Lindanus proclaimeth, that this aſſertion giues him great cauſe of doubting: for if the Nicene Councell did anciently reckon the booke of Iudith in the Canon, why did not the Councell of Laodicea reckon it? why did not Nazianzene make mention of it? what meant hee to ſay, the Church at that time did reade the bookes of Iudith, Tobie, and the Maccabees, but did not receiue them amongst the Canonicall Scriptures.
Againe, looke vponupon the Councell of Laodicea, called in the yeare 364, there you ſhall finde the booke of Iudith, Bin. Not. in Concil. Rom ſub Sylueſt.by the teſtimony of Binius himſelfe, reiected for Apocryphall, and this Councell is confirmed by the ſecond Canon, of the ſixt Generall Councell of Trullo; which the Fathers of that Councell would neuer hauehave done, if the firſt Generall Councell of Nice had decreed the contrary.
I proceed to the examination of the chiefeſt ground and principall cauſe of their Trent Decree; The third Councell of Carthage, called in the time of Siricius Biſhop of Rome, about the yeere 399,Placuit vt praeter ſcripturas Canocas nihil in Eccleſiâ legatur ſub nomine diuinarum ſcripturarū: ſunt autem Canonicae Scripturae, Tobias, Iudith, Heſter, Eſdrae libri duo Machabeorū libri duo. Conc. Carth. 3. circa tempora Syri…ij Canone 47. touching the Apocryphall bookes, makes this declaration; It pleaſeth vsus, that nothing be read in the Church, beſides the Canonicall Scriptures: and there they publiſh for the Canonicall bookes, Tobie, Iudith, Hester, Eſdras, and the two bookes of Maccabees: And to this Councell (ſay the Romaniſts) Saint Auſten ſubſcribed. This teſtimony I confeſſe, is extant in the 47. Canon of this Councell; but giuegive mee leaue to tell you, the Church of Rome doth not generally avowe that Canon of that Councell. It is the confeſſion of Cardinall Baronius; Haud omnes, Haudomnes Canones in hâc Synodo ſanciti probantur, ſed diuerſisaliis cōciliis Carthaginenſibus, vt inter alios iſte, quo ſacrorū librorū certus numerꝰ definitur. Baron. An. 397. nū. 46. Canones 50. quorū tituli hîc aſsignā tur non omnes in hâc Synodo, ſed diuerſisaliis cōciliis Carthaginēſibꝰ ſanciti probātur inter alios 19.30. et 47. which laſt Canon is the Canō in queſtion. Bin. in Cō cil. Carth. 3.&c. Not all the Canons of this Councell are establiſhed, but they are allowed in diuers other Councels of Carthage, as namely, that Canon wherein the number of ſacred bookes were defined. And Binius the publiſher of the Councells, makes the like acknowledgment, that the 50 Canons, which were intituled to that Councell, were not all confirmed by it, but by other Councells of Carthage, (as namely) the 47 Canon: and that which argues ſuſpition of a forged Canon, the bookes of Maccabees, which are inſerted in the Latine copie of that Councell, are not to bee found in all, or any of the ancient Greeke copies or Manuſcripts.Hic Canon Carthaginenſis Concilii extat in collectione Canonū Creſconii Africani Epiſcopi nondū edita ſed ibi Machabee. rū libri non recenſentur ne in omnibꝰ Gracis codicibus editis, & Mſs. Chriſt. Iuſtellus obſeru. & Not. in Cod. Canonū Eccle. Africanae. Bell. de Roman. Pont. lib. 2. ca. 31. Quintum. Bell. de Cō cil. author. lib. 2. cap 8. Decimo. Neither is this Councell of that authoritie as the Romaniſts themſelues pretend: for when our learned Proteſtants doe otherwiſe produce this Councell againſt the head of their Church, Bellarmine makes anſwere, This Prouinciall Councell ought not to bind the Biſhop of Rome, nor the Biſhops of other Prouinces. If wee oppoſe againſt it the Councell of Laodicea, which decreed thoſe bookes for Apocryphall: Bellarmine makes anſwere, The Councell of Carthage is of greater authoritie then that of Laodicea, becauſe it is later, and becauſe it was Nationall; but the Councell of Laodicea was prouinciall. In the one place, when it ſeemingly makes for him, hee termes it a Nationall Councell, in the other, when it plainely makes againſt him, hee termes it Prouinciall. But, Oportet eſſe memorem, Falſehood had need hauehave a good memory. It is vſuall with Bellarmine, with Canus, with Coſterus, and the beſt learned Romaniſts, to excuſe, Saint Hierome, Saint Auſten, Saint Gregorie, and many others, which denied the Apocrypha for part of the diuine Canon, with this generall Anſwere: It was no ſinne, Bell de verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 10.no hereſie in them to reject thoſe bookes, becauſe no Generall Councell in their dayes had decreed any thing touching them. If therefore no Generall Councell had decreed the true Canon of Scripture in their dayes, how comes it to paſſe, that Bellarmine cites the Councell of Nice for the booke of Iudith? Why doe the Romaniſts claime the antiquitie of their Canon from the Councell of Carthage? Why doe they profeſſe in honor of that Councell, that it was generally receiued, and that S. Auſten ſubſcribed to it: when as that Canon touching the Apocryphal Scriptures was not decreed, nor confirmed by that Councell by their owne confeſſions? But admit the Councell of Carthage had decreed it, yet can any man prooue that the Church at that time did receiue the bookes of Iudith, of Heſter, of the Maccabees, and the reſt, for the rule of faith? Shall we thinke that Saint Auſten maintained the Canon of Scriptures contrary to Saint Hierom? muſt wee beleeue that the Councell of Carthage, within leſſe then thirtie yeeres did decree contrary to the Councell of Laodicea? nay more, is it ſo much as probable, that both thoſe Councells ſhould bee confirmed by one and the ſame generall Councell of Trullo; and yet one ſhould decree a contrary Canon of Faith againſt the other? And as touching Saint Austens ſubſcription to that Councell, it is a ſufficient allegation againſt it, that the 47 Canon was neuer decreed in that Councell; and the rather it appeares by this, for that St. Auſten did not allowe the booke of Iudith, of Wiſdome, of Eccleſiaſticus, and the Maccabees for Canonicall, (all which are expreſſely decreed in the Councell of Carthage for Canonicall.) Touching the booke of Iudith, St. Aug. de Ciuit. Dei. lib. 18. c. 26. & l. 17. c. 20he tells vsus, the Pewes neuer receiued it in to the Canon of Scriptures; & withal there he profeſſeth, that the Canon of the Iewes was moſt authentical. Touching the bookes of Wiſedome and Eccleſiasticus, hee tells vsus, Solomon was a Prophet, as his workes (namely) the Prouerbes, the Canticles, and Eccleſiaſtes doe witneſſe, all which are Canonicall, Auguſt. de Ciuit. Dei. lib. 17. c. 20.but Eccleſiaſticus, and the booke of Wiſedome, were onelyonly called his for ſome likeneſſe of ſtile: but all the learned affirme them none of his: yet the Weſterne Churches held them anciently of great authoritie. And laſtly, touching the bookes of Maccabees, hee declareth by pregnant and ſeuerall reaſons, that they are Apocryphall; Firſt, by way of diſtinction hee tells vsus, this reckoning is not found in the Canonicall Scriptures, but in other bookes, which the Church receiueth for Canonicall Secondly, hee tells vsus, they are accounted Canonicall for the ſuffering of holy Martyrs; whereas the Canonicall bookes are ſimply and abſolutely of themſelues and for themſelues Canonicall. Thirdly, hee tells vsus, the Church did receiue them not vnprofitably, which is as poore a teſtimony as hee could hauehave giuen of his own works. Fourthly, they are receiued (with this condition) if they be ſoberly read in the Church. And laſtly, hee giueth this ſpeciall reaſon in behalfe of the true Canon of Scripture; Chriſt giueth his Teſtimonie to thoſe bookes, as namely, to the Law, to the Prophets, to the Pſalmes, becauſe all they beare witneſſe of him: but the Apocryphall bookes, neither witnes any thing of Chriſt, neither are they conteined vnderunder all, or any of thoſe bookes, which Chriſt himſelfe diuided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Pſalmes.
It is true,Proto canonici. Deuterocanonici. there was Canon Eccleſiaſticall, wherein all, or moſt part of the Apocryphall bookes, which are now read and receiued in our Churches, were anciently read for example of life, and inſtruction of manners, and for that cauſe were commonly called Canonicall: and in this manner Saint Auſten ſpeaking of th… Maccabees, tells vsus,Hos libros non Iudai, ſed Eccleſia habet pro Canonicis. Aug. de ci uit. Dei lib. 18. cap. 36. Theſe books the Church did account Canonicall, which the Iewes did not: yet withall he profeſſeth in the ſame Tract, that thoſe bookes which were not in the Iewes Canon, and yet were receiued of the Church for Canonicall, were of leſſe force and authoriritie; when as it cannot bee denied, that all the bookes truely and diuinely Canonicall, were alwayes reputed of equall force and authoritie. Againe, there was Canon diuinus, Aug de Ciuit. Dei. lib. 17 cap. 20.a diuine Canon, which was held the rule of Faith, wherein was numbred onelyonly the twentie two bookes of Scripture committed to the Iewes; and this Canon, St. Auſten (who termed the bookes of Maccabees Canonicall) doth diſtinguiſh from the Canon Eccleſiaſticall, and giues his very inſtance in the bookes of Maccabees: In Machabaeorum libris etſi aliquid Mirabiliū de diuini Canonis Mirabilibus exiguā expoſitionē tangeremus. Aug. de Mirabil. ſacrae Scrip. lib. 2. cap. 34.There may be ſomething (ſaith he) found in the books of Maccabees, worthy to bee ioyned with the number of thoſe miracles; yet hereof will wee hauehave no care, for that we intend the miracles, Diuini Canonis, which are conteined in the diuine Canon. And thus he diſtinguiſhed the bookes of Maccabees, which he termed Canonicall, for inſtruction of life, from the diuine Canon of Scriptures,Canon Morū, Canon Fidei. Caiet. which were receiued for confirmation of faith: and that diuine Canon onelyonly, hee acknowledgeth to be giuen by inſpiration from God, and to bee of moſt certaine credit and higheſt authority in the Church; and for that cauſe hee giues this further rule,Bell de verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 10. The bookes which were receiued of all Churches (ſuch as were in the diuine Canon among the Iewes) were of greateſt authoritie, and ought to bee preferred before thoſe which were not generally receiued of the all Churches: Diuum Auguſtinū fuiſſe certiſſimū omnes libros Canonico…eſse infallibilis veritatis, ſed nō fuiſſe aequè certum de omnibus libris quos enumerauerat qui eſsēt canonici, na ſi ità ſentiebat, rem nō fuiſſe adhuc à generali Concilio definitam et proptereà potuiſſe ſine labe haereſios quoſdālibros ab aliis non recipi. Idē ibidem.and thereupon, Bellarmine confeſſeth, by way of ſolution; That Saint Austen was most certaine, that all Canonicall bookes were of infallible truth, but was not alike certaine, that all the bookes of Scripture were Canonicall: for if he did think ſo, yet hee knew the poynt was not as yet defined by a generall Councell; and therefore without any ſtaine of hereſie, ſome books might not bee receiued of ſome perſons for Apocryphall.
Since therefore the pretended Canon of the Nicene Councell is not extant, ſince their ſuggeſted Canon of the third Councell of Carthage, by their owne confeſſions, is not confirmed in that Councell; ſince the bookes of Maccabees, which are ioyned with the Apocryphall bookes, in the Latine copies are not to bee found in the Manuſcripts of the ancient Greeke coppies: nay more, ſince contrariwiſe, wee hauehave the teſtimonie of Chriſt and his Apoſtles for the intire Canon comprehended in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Pſalmes: ſince we hauehave the Councell of Laodicca, in the Primitiue Church, generally receiued, and aftewards confirmed by a general Councel; ſince wee hauehave the conſent of the ancient Fathers, and the ample teſtimonies of Biſhops and Cardinals, and learned Writers, in the boſome of the Roman Church, who witneſſe with vsus the Antiquity and Vniuerſality of our Canon in all ages; I hope wee may with good reaſon reiect the Apocryphall Scriptures, as often as they are produced againſt vsus for Freewill, for Purgatory, for Prayer for the dead, for Invocation of Saints, for Worſhipping of Angells, and the like: theſe things I ſay rightly conſidered, and patiently heard on both ſides, I ſhall appeale to their owne learned Cardinall Cajetans confeſſion, who concludes for the antiquitie of our doctrine, and the Vniuerſalitie of the Iewes Canon,Duas maximas vtilitates ex Iudaeorū obſtinacia percipimꝰ:—altera eſt fides librorū ſacrorum. Si enim omnes conuerſi eſſent ad Chriſtū putaret iam mundus Iudaeorum ad inuentionē fuiſſe — quod fuerit promiſſ…s Meſsiis, ſed vbi inimici Chriſti Iudai perſeuerant et teſtantur nullos alios apud Patres fuiſſe libros canonicè ſacro…niſi iſtos. Cajet. Cōment. in Rom c 11. Bell. de verbo Dei. lib. 1. cap. 2. with one and the ſame reaſon: All Christians receiue a double benefit by the Apoſtacie and obſtinacie of the Iewes; one is to know which are the true bookes of the Olde Testament: for if all the Iewes had beene converted to the faith of Christ, then would the world hauehave ſuſpected that the Iewes had invented thoſe promiſes which are of Christ the Meſsias: but now for as much as the Iewes are enemies vntounto Christ, they beare witneſſe vntounto vsus, that there are no bookes Canonicall, but thoſe onelyonly which the Iewes themſelues acknowledged to bee Canonicall.
To conclude therefore this firſt poynt, ſince the Scripture is the most certaine and ſafest rule of Faith, by our aduerſaries owne confeſſion, ſince the Canonicall bookes of Scripture, (which are the onelyonly rule of Faith) are conteined in the Law, in the Prophets, and the Pſalmes, vnderunder all or any of which the Apocryphall bookes are not conteined, I ſay, to leaue this certaine and ſafe way, and receiue Apocryphall additions to that Word,Deut. 4.2. &c. 12.32. Prou. 30.6. Reuel. 22.18 when it is ſtrictly forbidden by God himſelfe: Thou ſhalt not adde to this Word; this is Via dubia, a doubtfull and vncertaine way; this is Via Deuia, a wandring and By-way.
But becauſe our aduerſaries inſiſt vponupon an other ground, (viz.Nō aliundè nos habere Scripturam eſſe diuinā, et qui ſunt libri ſacri, quā ex Traditioniꝰ nō ſcriptis. Bel. de verb. Dei lib. 4. c. 4.) That by no other meanes wee can know the Scriptures to be diuine, nor the bookes to bee holy and (Canonicall) but onelyonly from vnwritten Tradition, I will leaue them to their Apocryphall Scriptures, and purſue them in their vnwritten traditions in the next place.