Doct. Christ. Lib. II. c. 8.); which error he retracts, Retract. Lib. II. c. 4.3 Yet he allegeth an excuse, which is neither unhandsome nor trifling, for attributing five books to Solomon; that "these books may be all called Solomon's, from a certain likeness which they bear." Hence, however, it appears that Augustine was in a great mistake when he thought, first, that these two books were written by Solomon, and then, that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Indeed, Augustine himself testifies that these books were by no means received in all churches (De Civit. Dei. Lib. XVII. c. 20.); where he says that these books were especially received as authoritative by the Western church. To this Western church Augustine and Innocent belonged. For the oriental church never allowed to these books such great authority. But the mistake of counting Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus amongst the books of Solomon, although it is a very gross one, was yet, as we read, entertained and received by many. For pope Marcellinus, in an epistle to Solomon, adduces a testimony from Ecclesiasticus, as from Solomon; and likewise pope Sixtus II. in an epistle to Gratus: which shews sufficiently that these persons must have thought that Solomon was the author of this book. know, indeed, that these epistles were not really written by Marcellinus or Sixtus, but are falsely attributed to them: yet still, by whomsoever written, they indicate that this opinion was a com

mon error.

I

Thirdly, the papists themselves understand and interpret Augustine and the rest in the same manner as we do. For so many persons after Augustine and after those councils would never have denied these books to be canonical, if they had not perceived the reasonableness of this interpretation. If then they blame our judgment, let them at least lend some credit to their own companions and masters. I will bring forward no man of light esteem, no mean or obscure doctor, but a distinguished cardinal,—that special pillar of the popish church, Cajetan, who assuredly excelled all our Jesuits in judgment, erudition, and

[3 In secundo sane libro (de Doc. Christ.) de auctore libri, quem plures vocant Sapientiam Salomonis, quod etiam ipsum, sicut Ecclesiasticum, Jesus Sirach scripserit, non ita constare sicut a me dictum est postea didici, et omnino probabilius comperi non esse hunc ejus libri auctorem. Ib. T. I.

86, 87. D. A.]

[4 Eos tamen in auctoritatem maxime occidentalis antiquitus recepit ecclesia. Ut supra, 765.]

66

authority. I will recite his words, because they are express and should always be in remembrance. Thus, therefore, writes Cajetan at the end of his commentary upon the History of the old Testament: "Here," says he, we close our commentaries on the historical books of the old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find any where, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage1." Thus far Cajetan; in whose words we should remark two things. First, that all the statements of councils and doctors are to be subjected to the correction of Jerome. But Jerome always placed these books in the apocrypha. Secondly, that they are called canonical by some councils and Fathers, and customarily received in the canon of the bible, because they propose a certain rule of morals. There are, therefore, two kinds

[ Hoc in loco terminamus commentaria librorum historialium veteris Testamenti. Nam reliqui (videlicet Judith, Tobiæ, et Machabæorum libri) a Divo Hieronymo extra Canonicos libros supputantur, et inter Apocrypha locantur cum Sapientia et Ecclesiastico, ut patet in prologo Galeato. Nec turberis novitie, si alicubi reperies libros istos inter canonicos supputari, vel in sacris Conciliis vel in sacris Doctoribus. Nam ad Hieronymi limam reducenda sunt tam verba Conciliorum quam Doctorum, et juxta illius sententiam ad Chromatium et Heliodorum episcopos libri isti (et si qui alii sunt in Canone Bibliæ similes) non sunt canonici, id est, non sunt regulares ad firmandum ea quæ sunt fidei: possunt tamen dici canonici, id est regulares ad ædificationem fidelium, utpote in Canone Bibliæ ad hoc recepti et auctorati. Cum hac distinctione discernere poteris dicta Augustini, et scripta in Provinciali Concilio Carthaginensi. In ult. C. Esther, ad fin.]

of canonical books: for some contain the rule both of morals and of faith; and these are, and are called, truly and properly canonical: from others no rule, but only of morals, should be sought. And these, although they are improperly called canonical, are in truth apocryphal, because weak and unfit for the confirmation of faith. We may use, if we please, the same distinction which I perceive some papists themselves to have used, as Sixtus Senensis (Bibliothec, Lib. 1.), and Stapleton (Princip. Fid. Doctrin. Lib. Ix. c. 6), who call some books Proto-canonical, and others Deutero-canonical. The proto-canonical are those which are counted in the legitimate and genuine canon, i. e. of the Hebrews. These Jerome's accurate judgment hath approved; these our churches acknowledge as truly canonical. The Deutero-canonical are they which, although they be sometimes called canonical in the sense just now explained, are yet in reality apocryphal, because they do not contain the combined rule of faith and morals2. The papists are greatly incensed against their partner Cajetan, on account of this most solid sentence; and some even vituperate him. Canus says, that he was deceived by the novelties of Erasmus. Let us leave them to fight with their own men. This is certain, that there never was a papist of more learning and authority than Cajetan, whom the pope sent into Germany to oppose Luther. This testimony should be a weighty one against them. Let them shake it off as they best can: and yet they never can shake it off, since it is confirmed by solid reason.

Thus we have seen how weak their argument is. They have none better for they have none other. Now, since we have answered them, we will proceed to the confirmation of our own cause.

CHAPTER V.

WHEREIN REASONS ARE ALLEGED AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THE SECOND KIND.

I FORM the first argument thus: These books, concerning which we contend, were not written by prophets: therefore they are not canonical. The entire syllogism is this. All canonical books of the old Testament were written by prophets: none of these

[2 A difference of authority is owned also by Lamy. App. Bibl. L. II. c. 5. p. 333. Lugd. 1723; and Jahn, Einleitung ind. A. T. Vol. 1. p. 141.]

[WHITAKER.]

4

books was written by any prophet: therefore none of these books is canonical. The parts of this syllogism must be confirmed.

66

The major rests upon plain testimonies of scripture. Peter calls the scripture of the old Testament, "The prophetic word," 2 Pet. i. 19, (for it is evident from Luke iii. 4, that λoyos means scripture,) and "prophecy," ibid. ver. 20. Paul calls it, "the scriptures of the prophets." Rom. xvi. 26. Zacharias the priest says, "As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began." Luke i. 70. Where he means that God had spoken in the prophetic scriptures. So Abraham says to the luxurious man, "They have Moses and the prophets," that is, the books of scripture. Luke xviii. 39. And elsewhere Luke says: Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke xxiv. 27; so Rom. i. 2. Here we see that all the scriptures are found in the books of Moses and the prophets. The apostle to the Hebrews says: "God spake in divers manners by the prophets." Heb. i. 1. Therefore the prophets were all those by whom God spake to His people. And to this refers also the assertion of the apostle, that the Church is built "upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." Eph. ii. 20. This foundation denotes the doctrine of the scriptures, promulgated by the prophets and apostles. Christ says: "All things must be fulfilled which are written. in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me:" and then follows immediately, "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." Luke xxiv. 44, 45. Paul asks king Agrippa, "Believest thou the prophets?"—that is, the scriptures. Acts xxvi. 27. And when he dealt with the Jews at Rome, he tried to convince them "out of the law of Moses and the prophets." Acts xxviii. 23.

From these testimonies we collect that the assertion in the major is most true;-that the whole scripture of the old Testament was written and promulgated by prophets. And there are many other similar passages from which it may be concluded, that there is no part of the old Testament which did not proceed from some prophet. But we must remark, that the entire old canonical scripture is sometimes signified by the name of the prophets, sometimes of Moses and the prophets, sometimes of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms. So Augustine, in his discourse against Cresconius the grammarian: "Not without cause was the canon of the church framed with so salutary a vigilance, that certain books of the pro

phets and apostles should belong to it." Lib. II. cap. 31. And in another place: "Let them shew us their church, not in the rumours of the Africans, but in the injunction of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the Psalms; that is, in all the canonical authorities of the sacred books2." De Unit. Eccles. c. 16. And elsewhere: "Read this in the law, in the prophets, in the Psalms 3." We have said enough in confirmation of the major; let us now proceed to the minor.

That these books, against which we are disputing, were not written, or set forth to the church, by prophets, is exceedingly clear and certain. For, in the first place, all confess that Malachi was the last prophet of the Jews, between whom and John the Baptist no prophet whatever intervened. But most of the authors of these books undoubtedly lived after Malachi. This is manifest in the case of the writers of Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees; and even our adversaries themselves are not able to deny it. Besides, those books were not written in the prophetic tongue, which was the language of Canaan and the proper language of the church. But if prophets, who were the teachers and masters of the Israelitish church, had written those books, they would have used, in writing them, their native and prophetic language, not a language foreign and unknown to the church; which no right-minded person will deny. Now that most of them were written not in Hebrew but in Greek, the Fathers affirm, and the papists concede, and the thing itself proves fully concerning the rest, we shall see in the sequel. Finally, if these books had been written by prophets, then Christ would have used them as his witnesses. But neither Christ

nor his apostles ever made any use of their testimony. This is what Augustine says of the books of Maccabees: "The Jews do not esteem this scripture as the Law and the Prophets, to which the Lord bears testimony as his witnesses." (Contra Gaudent. Epist.

[1 Neque enim sine causa tam salubri vigilantia canon ecclesiasticus constitutus est, ad quem certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertineant. Aug. Opp. T. ix. 668, 669. D. A.]

[2 Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumoribus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum,...sed in præscripto Legis, in Prophetarum prædictis, in Psalmorum cantibus... hoc est, in omnibus canonicis sanctorum librorum auctoritatibus. Ibid. 585. a.]

[3 Lege hoc mihi de Propheta, lege de Psalmo, recita de Lege. August. de Pastoribus, c. 14.]

[4 Et hanc quidem scripturam, quæ appellatur Machabæorum, non habent