William Whitaker, "Disputations on the Holy Scripture Against the Papists," pages 53-57. William Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity, Cambridge University and Master of St. John's College.He was hostile to a growing sense of Arminianism, although formally, Arminianism would later gain visibility and traction, to some degree, on the Continent but notably through Laud in the English church.
This work deals with Scripture, the canon, authority, sufficiency and perspicuity in light of Trent and history.
The photo is the Cathedral associated with St. John's College, Cambridge University.
This work, we believe, will stand alongside Martin Chemnitz's towering work on the Council of Trent. We may have reason to believe that it will tower over Princeton's "Lion," B.B. Warfield, on the subject of Scripture from a Reformed perspective. We will hold that in suspension for now. He was a Prayer Book man, a Calvinist, and an Anglican of the first order magnitude. We believe he's better than Hooker.
In any case, this work still should be studied by any Reformed Churchman, especially Anglicans.
Available at, freely and downloadably:
http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&dq=william%20whitaker&ei=F3FOS_X-NpPuzQT98uzzCw&cd=1&id=PhYXAAAAIAAJ&as_brr=1&output=text&pg=PA42
-------------------
CHAPTER IV.
WHEREIN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ADVERSARIES IS PROPOSED AND CONFUTED.
Having now premised a brief explanation of these matters, we will come to the discussion of the cause and question proposed. And first, we shall have to treat of the six entire books, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of Maccabees, all together; and then, of those several books taken separately, as likewise of those fragments and parts of books, Esther, Baruch, &c.
Our adversaries have but one argument in behalf of these books, which is derived from the authority of certain councils and fathers. They allege, in the first place, the third council of Carthage, (in which Augustine himself bore a part,) can. 474, wherein all these books are counted canonical. Should any one object, that this council was only provincial, not general, and that its judgment is, therefore, of less consequence; our antagonists proceed to shew, that this council was confirmed by pope Leo IV. (Dist. 20. C. de libellis), and also in the sixth general council held at Constantinople, which is called Trullan, can. 2. Hence they argue, that although the decree of the council of Carthage might not, perhaps, be strong enough of itself to provo this point, yet, since it is confirmed by the authority of this pope and of a general council, it hath in it as much efficacy as is required to be in any council. Besides, they adduce the council of Florence under Eugenius IV. (in Epistol. ad Armenos), that of Trent under Paul HI. (sess. 4), and pope Gelasius with a council of seventy bishops5. Of fathers, they cite Innocent I., who was also a pope, in his third Epistle to Exuperius of Tholouse; Augustine, Lib. Ii. c. 8. Do Doctrina Christiana; Isidore of Seville, Etymolog., Lib. vi. c. 1. So that the argument of our opponents runs thus: these councils and these fathers affirm these books to belong to the sacred canon; therefore, these books are canonical. In order to make this argument valid, we must take as our medium this proposition: whatsoever these councils and these fathers determine is to be received without dispute. We may , then add to it, But these councils and these fathers receive these books as canonical; therefore these boc-ks are truly canonical and divine: otherwise there will be no consequence in the reasoning. Now let us answer somewhat more clearly and distinctly.
In the, first place, we deny the major proposition of this syllogism. "We must not concede that whatever those councils determine, and whatever those fathers affirm, is always true: for it is the special prerogative of scripture, that it never errs! Therefore, it is manifest that nothing can be concluded from these testimonies which hath the force of a certain and necessary argument.
In the second place, the council of Florence was held one hundred and fifty years ago, and the council of Trent in our own times, and this latter for the express purpose and design of establishing all the errors of the popish church. These both were no legitimate councils of christian men, but tyrannous conventicles of antichrist, held for the object of opposing the truth of the gospel. How general that of Trent was, in its fourth session, may be appreciated from the number of the bishops who were present in that session. The legates, cardinals, archbishops, and bishops, who were then present, and who published this decree concerning the number of the canonical books, made in all about fifty; and those, almost to a man, Italians and Spaniards. Where the attendance was so thin, it was impossible that any general council could be held. Yet Alanus Copus (in Dialog. Quint, c. 16.) says, that there were fewer bishops in many famous councils than at Trent. I allow this to be true of provincial synods; but no ececumenic council can be named, in which there was such a paucity and penury of prelates. These two councils, therefore, are to be wholly set aside from the dispute.
Thirdly, the council of Carthage was merely provincial and composed of a few bishops; and therefore hath no authority sufficiently strong and clear for confirming the point in question. Besides, our adversaries themselves do not receive all the decrees of this council. For the papists vehemently and contemptuously blame the injunction most solemnly expressed in can. 262, that " the bishop of the chief see shall not be called high priest, or chief of the priests, or by any such title." They cannot then bind us by an authority to which they refuse to be tied themselves.
But, they say, this Carthaginian synod was approved by the Trullan council of Constantinople, which was universal. Be it so. But, if this decree of the number of the canonical books was legitimately approved, then that also concerning the title of high priest was confirmed by the same sanction, which yet they will by no means concede. How, then, will they divide these things ? I acknowledge, indeed, that this Trullan synod3 was oecumenical. But the papists themselves doubt what should be determined of the authority of the canons which are attributed to this council. Pighius, in a treatise which he wrote upon this subject, calls the acts of this council spurious, and by no means genuine; which he seeks to prove by some arguments. Melchior Canus too (Lib. v. cap. ult.) declares that the canons of that council have no ecclesiastical authority : which is also the opinion of others. For there are some things in those canons which the papists can by no means approve ; namely, that the bishop of Constantinople is equalled with the Roman, can. 36; that priests and deacons are not to be separated from their wives, can. 13; that the law of fasting is imposed on the Roman church, can. 55; and others of the same kind. There is one rule, also, which truth itself disapproves; that which forbids the eating of blood and things strangled, can. 67. It is, besides, a strong objection to the credit and authority of these canons, that eighty-five canons of the apostles are approved and received in them, can. 2. For pope Gelasiua (in Gratian, Dist. 15. C. Romana Ecclesia) declares the book of the apostolic canons apocryphal*. And Gratian (Dist. 165) says, that there are only fifty canons of the apostles, and they apocryphal, upon the authority of Isidore, who hath related that they were composed by heretics under the name of the apostles. But this synod receives and confirms eighty-five canons of the apostles; whereas pope Zephyrinus, who was five hundred years older than that synod, recognises, as appears in Gratian1, no more than sixty. Pope Leo IX2., who was three hundred and fifty years later than the synod, receives the same number exactly, as Gratian writes in the place just cited. The thing itself, indeed, shews that the canons ascribed to the apostles are spurious. For in the last canon the gospel of John is enumerated amongst the scriptures of the new Testament; which all agree to have been written when all or most of the apostles were dead. Yet they affirm that these canons were not collected by others, but published by the assembled apostles themselves. Thus Peiresius determines in the third part of his book concerning traditions3 ; and so others. For, can. 28, Peter himself says, " Let him be removed from communion, as Simon Magus was by me Peter4." If this canon, therefore, be true, Peter was present at the framing of it. But how could Peter, who was put to death in the time of Nero, have seen the gospel of John, which was first written and published in the time of Domitian? For the figment which some pretend, that Peter and the rest foresaw that gospel which John was afterward to write, is merely ridiculous. So in the last chapter all the apostles are made to speak, and the phrase occurs " the Acts of us the Apostles."
It is no less easy to refute the answer which others make, that Clemens published these apostolic canons. For how could Clemens, whom Damasus6 and Onuphrius7 testify to have died in the time of Vespasian, have seen the gospel of John, -which he wrote after his return from Patmos, during the reign of Trajan ? For almost all authors say very plainly, that the gospel was written John after his exile. So Dorotheus in the Life of John, the Prologue to John, Simeon Metaphrastes, Isidorus in his book of the parts of tho new Testament, Gregory of Tours (Glor. Plurim. Mart. c. 30.), Huimo (Lib. in. de rerum Christianarum Memorabil.), Alcuin upon John, and innumerable other writers of great authority.
But the matter is clear enough of itself. For these canons of the apostles approve the constitutions of Clement and his two epistles. Yet the council of Constantinople, which hath received the canons of the apostles, condemns the constitutions of Clemens, as, indeed, many others do also; concerning which book we shall speak hereafter. Besides, these canons of the apostles damage the papal cause: for they set down three books of Maccabees9, and omit Tobit and Judith10, and direct young persons to be instructed in the Wisdom of Sirach11, and make no mention of the Wisdom of Solomon. If these are the true and genuine canons of the apostles, then the papists are refuted in their opinion of the number of the canonical books of tho old and new Testaments by the authority of the canons of the apostles. If they be not, as it is plain they are not, then the synod of Constantinople erred, when it approved them as apostolical. Yet these men deny that a general council can err in its decrees respecting matters of faith. Let the papists see how they will answer this. Certainly this Trullan synod approved the canons of the council of Carthage no otherwise than it approved the canons of the apostles. But it is manifest, and the papists themselves will not deny, that the canons of the apostles are not to be approved. Hence we may judge what force and authority is to boallowed to the canons of this council of Constantinople; and what sort of persons the papists are to deal with, who both deny that these canons have any legitimate authority, and yet confirm the sentence of the council of Carthage by the authority of these very canons. For so Canus (Lib. it. cap. 9) proves that the authority of the council of Carthage, in enumerating these books, is not to be despised, because it was approved by the general Trullan synod; yet the same man elsewhere (Lib. v. cap. 6. ad argument. 6.) makes light of the authority of these canons, and brings many arguments to break it down.
Fourthly, Gelasius with his council of seventy bishops recites but one book of Maccabees1, and one of Esdras. Thus he rejected the second book of Maccabees, which is apocryphal, and Nehemiah, which is truly canonical. Isidore, too*, confesses that there arc but two and twenty books found in the Hebrew canon: and that their canon is the true one will be proved hereafter.
Lastly, before they can press us with the authority of councils, they should themselves determine whether it is at all in the power of any council to determine what book is to be received as canonical. For this is doubted amongst the papists, as Canus confesses, Lib. ii. c. 8.
Let us come now to the minor premiss of the proposed syllogism. We allow that the council of Carthage, and Gelasius with his seventy bishops, and Innocent, and Augustine, and Isidore call these books canonical. But the question is, in what sense they called them canonical. Now, we deny that their meaning was to make these books, of which we now speak, of equal authority with those which are canonical in the strict sense; and the truth of this we will prove from antiquity, from Augustine, and from the papists themselves.
For, in the first place, if it had been decreed by any public judgment of the whole Church, or defined in a general council, that these books were to be referred tp the true and genuine canon of the sacred books, then those who lived in the Church after the passing of that sentence and law would by no means have dissented from it, or determined otherwise. But they did dissent, and that in great numbers; and amongst them some of those whom the Church of Rome acknowledges as her own children.
Therefore, there was no such judgment of the Church publicly received.
Secondly, Augustine, in that same place, plainly indicates that he did not consider those books of equal authority with the rest. For he distinguishes all the books into two classes ; some which were received by all the churches, and some which were not. Then he lays down and prescribes two rules: one, that the books which all the churches receive should be preferred to those which some do not receive; the other, that those books which are received by the greater and more noble churches should be preferred to those which are taken into the canon by churches fewer in number and of less authority. It will be best to listen to Augustine himself, whose words are these (Lib. n. c. 8. de Doct. Christ.)3: "Now, with respect to the canonical scriptures, let him follow the authority of the greater number of catholic churches; amongst which those indeed are to be found which merited to possess the chairs of the apostles, and to receive epistles from them. He will hold this, therefore, as a rule in dealing with the canonical scriptures, to prefer those which are received by all catholic churches to those which only some receive. But, with respect to those •which are not received by all, ho will prefer such as the more and more dignified churches receive, to such as are held by fewer churches, or churches of less authority." Then follows immediately, " Now the whole canon of scripture, in which we say that this consideration hath place," &c.
Hence, then, I draw an easy and ready answer. We, with Jerome and many other fathers, deny these books to be canonical. Augustine, with some others, calls them canonical. Do, then, these fathers differ so widely in opinion? By no means. For Jerome takes this word "canonical" in one sense, while Augustine, Innocent* and the fathers of Carthage understand it in another. Jerome calls only those books canonical, which the church always held for canonical; the rest he banishes from the canon, denies to be canonical, and calls apocryphal. But Augustine calls those canonical which, although they had not the same perfect and certain authority as the rest, were wont to be read in the church for the edification of the people. Augustine, therefore, takes this name in a larger sense than Jerome. But, that Augustine was not so minded as to judge the authority of all these books to be equal, is manifest from the circumstance that he admonishes the student of theology to place a certain difference between the several books, to distinguish them into classes, and to prefer some to others. If his judgment of them all was the same, as the papists contend, such an admonition and direction must appear entirely superfluous. Would Augustine, if he held all the books to have an equal right to canonicity, have made such a distribution of the books? Would he have preferred some to others? Would he not have said that they were all to be received alike ? But now, Augustine does prefer some to others, and prescribes to all such a rule for judging as we have seen. Therefore Augustine did not think that they were all of the same account, credit, and authority; and, consequently, is in open opposition to the papists. All this is manifest. It makes to the same purpose, that this same Augustine (de Civit. Dei, Lib. xvn. c. 20.) concedes, that less reliance should be placed upon whatever is not found in the canon of the Jews1. Whence it may be collected tliat, when Augustine observed that some books were not received by all, or the greatest and most noble churches, his remark is to be understood of those books which are not contained in the Hebrew canon: and such are those which our churches exclude from the sacred canon.
Let it be noted too, that in the council of Carthage, and in the epistle of pope Innocent, five books of Solomon are enumerated; whereas it is certain that only three are Solomon's. So, indeed, Augustine himself once thought that the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus were Solomon's, though he afterwards changed (but without correcting) that opinion. For in the same place of his City of God he thus speaks of those books: " Learned men have no doubt that they are not Solomon's." This was one error in Augustine. Another, and no less one, was supposing that the book of Wisdom was written by Jesus the son of Sirach (de Doct. Christ. Lib. ir. 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. I 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 common error.
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
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 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. i.), 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 morals. 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.
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 books was written by any prophet: therefore none of these books is canonical. The parts of this syllogism must be confirmed.
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 Xo'yoy 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 prophets and apostles should belong to it1." Lib. 11. 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: " Head this in the law, in the prophets, in the Psalms3." 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, wo 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."
The second argument. These books were not received by the church of the Israelites; therefore they are not canonical. The syllogism may be framed thus: The ancient church of the Hebrews received and approved all the books of the old Testament. That church did not receive these books; therefore they are not canonical.
The major proposition is certain, and may be easily demonstrated. For, first, if that church had rejected a part of the Lord's Testament,—especially so large a part,—she would have been guilty of the highest crime and sacrilege, and would have been charged with it by Christ or his apostles. For, since the Jews were blamed for putting wrong senses upon the scripture, they would never have escaped still greater and sterner reprehension, if they had taken away the scripture; forasmuch as it is much more wicked and impious to take away books of scripture than to interpret them ill in certain passages. But neither Christ, nor his apostles, nor any others, ever accused the Jews of mutilating or tearing to pieces their canon of the sacred books. Nay, the ancient Israelitish church both received all the canonical books, and preserved them with the greatest care and faithfulness. On which point read what Josephus writes, in Eusebius, Lib. in. cap. 102. This is also confirmed by the authority of scripture itself. For the apostle says, that to the Jews were committed and delivered in charge the oracles of God,—that is, the scriptures. Rom. iii. 2. Whence we learn, that the excellent treasure of the sacred scripture was deposited by God with the church of the Jews, and by it received and guarded: which diligence and fidelity of the Jews, in preserving the sacred books, Augustine (Ep. 3, and 59.) and all the other Fathers celebrate. Besides, if so many canonical books had been (not only not received, but) rejected by the ancient church of the Jews, it would follow that many canonical books were never received by any church: for before Christ there was no other church but that of the Jews. If then we grant that that church, which was the whole and sole church at that particular time, could have rejected canonical books, then it is evident that the church may err, which the papists will not be willing to allow. Yet is it not a great error, not only not to acknowledge and receive sacred books, but to repudiate and eject them from the canon of the inspired writings ? But the whole Jewish church rejected these books: which was our assumption in the minor, and may be confirmed by the confession of all the fathers, and even of the papists themselves. For every one understands that these books were never received into the Hebrew canon.
As to Bellarmine's pretence (Lib. i. cap. 10), that these books have the testimony of the apostolic church, and that the apostles declared these books canonical, whence does its truth appear ? The apostles never cite testimonies from these books, nor can anything be adduced to shew that any authority was attributed to them by the apostles. Indeed when Cajetan affirmed, in his commentary on 1 Cor. xii., that only to bo sacred and divine scripture which the apostles either wrote or approved, he was blamed by Catharinus (Annot. Lib. i.) on that account; and Catharinus lays it down in that place, that the church receives certain books as canonical which certainly were neither written nor approved by the apostles. The allegation of Canus, that these books were neither received nor rejected3, is merely ridiculous. For, surely, if the Jews did not receive these books, what else was this but rejecting them utterly ? He who does not receive God rejects him: so not to receive the word of God, is to refuse and reject it. " He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth." Luke xi. 23. Besides, how could that church either receive or rather not reject books written in a foreign tongue ? The sum of both arguments is this: These books are not written by prophets, nor received by the Israelitish church. Therefore they are not canonical.
The third argument. Certain things may be found in these books which prove them not to be canonical. This argument is very strong, as derived from the nature and genius of the books themselves: and the conclusion will appear with fuller evidence in the sequel of this discourse, when we come to the particular examination of the several books; whence it will be sufficiently manifest that none of those now called in question have any just claims to be considered as canonical.
No comments:
Post a Comment