THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PROVED TO BE CORRUPT ADDITIONS TO THE WORD OF GOD. ARGUMENTS OF ROMANISTS INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS IN BEHALF OF THE APOCRYPHA, DISCUSSED AND REPUTED. BY JA_MES H. TJHORNWELL, PROCESSOR. 03" SACKED LITERATURE AND THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA COLLEGE. NEW-YORK : LEAVITT,TROW & COMPANY, ROBERT CARTER. BOSTON, CHARLES TAPPAN. — PHILADELPHIA, PERKINS & PURVE3. — -BALTIMORE, D. OWEN & SON. CHARLESTON, S. HART, SENIOR, D. W. HARRISON. — COLUMBIA, S. WEIR, MC CARTER & ALLEN. 1845. Entered, according to Act ot Congress, in the year 1844, By LEAVITT, TROW, & CO., In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New- York. 7 DBDTCATIOH REV. ROBERT J. BRECKENRIDGE, D. D., AN ORNAMENT TO HIS CHURCH, AND A BLESSING TO HIS COUNTRY, A STRANGER TO EVERY OTHER FEAR BUT THE FEAR OF GOD. THE BOLD DEFENDER AND UNTIRING ADVOCATE OP SmttJ, SLtoerts, an* 3&eUflfon, THIS BOOK, Which owes its existence to his instrumentality, IS now affectionately inscbibed by THE AUTHOR, PREFACE. The history of the present publication is soon told. Scne time in the year 1841 I wrote, at the special request of a friend in Baltimore, Rev. Dr. Breckenridge, a short essay on the claims of the Apocrypha to Divine Inspiration. This was printed anonymously in the Baltimore Visiter, as No. V. of a series of articles furnished by Protestants, in a controversy then pending with the domestic chaplains of the Archbishop of Baltimore. From the Visiter it was copied into the Spirit of the Nineteenth Century, some time during 1842. From the Spirit of the Nineteenth Century it was transferred, by the editor of the Southern Chronicle, a valuable newspaper pub- lished in this place, to his own columns, and without consult- ing me, or in any way apprising me of his design, he took the liberty, having ascertained that I was the author, to append my name to it. Seeing it printed under my name, and, as he might naturally suppose, by my authority, Dr. Lynch, a Ro- man Catholic Priest of Charleston, of reputed cleverness and learning, no doubt regarded it as an indirect challenge to the friends of Rome to vindicate their Mistress from the severe charges which were brought against her. He accordingly ad- dressed to me a series of letters, which the members of his own sect pronounced to be very able, and to which the follow- ing dissertations (for though in the form of letters they are really essays) are a reply. The presumption is that the full strength of the Papal cause was exhibited by its champion ; and that the reader may be able to judge for himself of the security of the basis on which the inspiration of the Apocrypha is made to depend, I have given the substance of Dr. Lynch's articles in the Appendix. This work, consequently, presents PREFACE. &. an unusually full discussion of the whole subject connected with these books. I have insisted largely upon the dogma of infallibility — more largely, perhaps, than many of my readers may think to be consistent with the general design of my per- formance — because I regard this as the prop and bulwark of all the abominations of the Papacy. It is the stronghold, or rather, as Robert Hall [expresses it, " the corner-stone of the whole system of Popery — the centre of union amidst all the animosities and disputes which may subsist on minor subjects ; and the proper definition of a Catholic is, one who professes to maintain the absolute infallibility of a certain community styling itself the Church." It is not for me to commend my own production, neither shall I seek to soften the asperity of criticism by plaintive apologies or humble confessions. In justice, however, I may state that the following pages were composed in the midst of manifold afflictions — some of the letters were written in the chamber of the sick and by the bed of the dying, and all were thrown off under a pressure of duty which left no leisure for the task but the hours which were stolen from the demands of nature. If, under circumstances so well fitted to chasten the spirit and to modify the temper, I could really harbor the ma- lignity and bitterness which, in certain quarters, have been violently charged upon me, I must carry in my bosom the heart of a demon and not of a man. " And here will I make an end. If I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I desired ; but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto." J. H. Thornwell. Columbia, S. C, July 12, 1844. CONTENTS. PAGE LETTER I. Severity of rebuke necessary in reproving error. — Mistaken notions of charity exposed. — The real character of Popery — shown to be Anti-Christian and dangerous — no bet- ter than Mahometanism. — The decree of the Council of Trent in reference to the Apocrypha, 9 LETTER II. Dr. Lynch's great argument in proof of the inspiration of the Apocrypha shown to be ambiguous. — The testimony of the Papacy, on moral grounds, entitled to no consid- eration, 26 LETTER III. Examination of the argument from the necessity of the case in favor of some infallible tribunal, shown to be presumptuous and weak, 36 LETTER IV. It is just as easy to prove the Inspiration of the Scriptures as the Infallibility of any Church, .v. 57 LETTER V, Historical difficulties in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, 72 LETTER VI. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility the Parent of Skepticism,. 89 LETTER VII. Papal Infallibility shown to be conducive to licentiousness and immorality, 105 LETTER VIII. Papal Infallibility proved to be the patron of Superstition and Will-worship, 116 LETTER IX. Papal Infallibility proved to be unfriendly to civil government,.... 143 LETTER X. Apocrypha not quoted in the New Testament, 162 LETTER XL Exclusion of the Apocrypha from the Jewish canon. — Definition of the term canon ; account of the manner in which it was formed. — The evidence necessary to make a book canonical. — The distinetion between not receiving and rejecting a book shown to be false 175 LETTER XII. Our Saviour approved the Jewish canon and treated it as complete. Sadducees vindi- cated from the charge of rejecting all the Old Testament but the Pentateuch. The real point which Papists must prove, in order to establish the inspiration of the Apocrypha, 1 89 9 CONTENTS. PAGE ! ETTER XIII. Mi Apocrypha by the Jews Faith of the Primitive Church not a standard tous 206 LETTER XIV. The existence of the Apocrypha in ancient versions of the Scriptures, no proof of inspi- ration. — Not quoted by the Apostolic Fathers, 215 LETTER XV. The application of such expressions as 'Scripture/ 'Divine Scripture,' by ancient writers to thr Apocrypha, no proof of inspiration, 231 LETTER XVI. lination of testimonies, 246 LETTER XVII. estimony of the writers of the third century considered — Cyprian, Hippolytus, Apos- tolic Constitutions, 266 LETTER XVIII. if the Fourth Century considered. — ouncil of Nice. — Councils of Hippo id ' irth tge. — Testimony of Augustine — Ephrem the Syrian — Basil — Chrysostom — br oa -,.'. 277 LETTER XIX. timony of the Primitive Church— The Canons of Melito, Oiigen, Athan- il Gregory Naz., Ferome, Ruffiuus, Council of Laodicea 310 « d i x, . 339 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. LETTER I. Severity of rebuke necessary in reproving error. — Mistaken notions of charity exposed. — Tho real character of Popery — shown to be Anti-Christian and dangerous — no better than Ma- hometanism: — The decree of the Council of Trent in reference to the Apocrypha. Sir : — If you had been content with simply writing a review of my article on the Apocrypha, without alluding to me in any other way than as its author, I should not, perhaps, have troubled you with any notice of your strictures, But you have chosen the form of a personal address ; and though the rules of courtesy do not require that anonymous letters should be answered, yet I find that your epistles are generally regarded as a challenge to discuss, through the public press, the peculiar and distinctive principles of the sect to which you belong. Such a challenge I cannot decline. Taught in the school of that illustrious phi- losopher who drew the first constitution of this State, I profess to be a lover of truth, and especially of the truth of God; and as I am satisfied that it has nothing to apprehend from the assaults of error, so long as a country is permitted to enjoy that " capi- tal advantage of an enlightened people, the liberty of discussing every subject which can fall within the compass of the human mind," (a liberty, as you well know, possessed by the citizens of no Papal State,) I cannot bring myself to dread the results of a controversy conducted even in the spirit which you ascribe to me. If, sir, my sensibilities were as easily wounded as your own, I too might take offence at the asperity of temper which you have, indeed, attempted to conceal by a veil of affected polite- ness, but which, in spite of your caution, has more than once 2 10 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE been discovered through the flimsy disguise. But, sir, the spirit of your letter is a matter of very little consequence to me. If the moderation and courtesy of the Papal priesthood were not so exclusively confined to Protestant countries, where they are a lean and beggarly minority, there would be less reason for ascribing their politeness to the dictates of craft instead of the impulses of a generous mind. It is certainly singular that Pa- pists among us should make such violent pretensions to fastidi- ousness of taste when the style of their Royal Masters — if the example of the Popes is of value — stands pre-eminent in letters for coarseness, vulgarity, ribaldry and abuse. Dogs, wolves, foxes and adders, imprecations of wrath and the most horrible anathemas, dance through their Bulls, "in all the mazes of met- aphorical confusion." If these models of Papal refinement are not observed in a Protestant State, men will be apt to reflect that an Order exists among you whose secret instructions have re- duced fraud to a system, and lying to an art. How you, sir, without " compunctious visitings of conscience," could magnify breaches of " the rules of courtesy" on the part of Protestants towards the adherents of the Papal communion, into serious evils which often required you " to draw on your patience," is to me a matter of profound astonishment. # Standing as you do * " Permit me to take this occasion of expressing once for all my regret at finding an essay from you so plentifully interspersed with the vulgar epithets, Papist, Romanist, and such manifestations of ill feeling as the expressions, vas- sals of Rome, and captives to the car of Rome, the assertion that our " credu- lity is enormous," and your mocking language concerning the awful mystery of transubstantiation, and the Church with which even in quotations I am unwil- ling to sully my pen. Believe me, reverend sir, such invectives contain no argument. They are unbecoming the subject, and I may presume to add, the dignified station you occupy. Your essay would have lost none of its weight, and to Catholics would have been infinitely less revolting, had they been omitted. Catholics are neither outcasts from society, nor devoid of feeling ; they are nei- ther insensible to, nor think they deserve, such words of opprobrium. It is true we have often to draw on our patience, for the rules of courtesy are frequently violated in our regard. Still it is painful to see a Professor descending from calm, gentlemanly and enlightened argument, to mingle with the crowd of those whose weapons are misrepresentations and abuse. I will not recur to this disagreeable topic, but will endeavor to write as if your arguments were unac- companied by what Catholics must consider as insults." — A. P. F. Letter I. APOCRYPIIA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 11 among the children of the Huguenots, whose fathers tested the liberality of Rome, and signalized their own heroic fortitude at the stake, the gibbet, and the wheel, were you not ashamed to complain of " trifles light as air/' mere " paper bullets of the brain, " while the blood of a thousand martyrs was crying to heaven against you ? Two centuries have not yet elapsed since the exiles of Languedoc found an asylum in this State. Who could have dreamed that, in so short a time, those who had pur- sued them with unrelenting fury at home, should have been found among their descendants, whining in deceitful strains about charity and politeness? They who, in every country where their pretended spiritual dominion has been supported by the props of secular authority, have robbed, murdered and plun- dered all who have been guilty of the only crimes which Rome cannot tolerate — freedom of thought and obedience to God — are horribly persecuted if they are not treated with the smooth hypocrisy of courtly address ! Did you feel constrained, sir, in the city of Charleston, where the recollection of the past can- not have perished, where the touching story of Judith Manigault must always be remembered, to make the formal declaration that "Catholics (meaning Papists) are not devoid of feeling ?" Were you afraid that the delight which you formerly took in sun- dering the tenderest ties of nature, tearing children from their parents, and husbands from their wives, and above all your keen relish for Protestant blood, coupled with the notorious fact that you have renounced your reason and surrendered the exercise of private judgment, might otherwise have created a shrewd suspi- cion that you possessed the nobler elements of humanity in no marked proportions 1 But I am glad to learn that you are neither " outcasts from society nor devoid of feeling ;" and I shall en- deavor to treat you in the course of this controversy as men that have " discourse of reason," though I plainly foresee, that your punctilious regard to "the rules of courtesy" will lead you to condemn my severity of spirit. It is a precious truth that my judgment is not with man. To employ soft and honeyed phrases in discussing questions of everlasting importance — to deal with errors that strike at the foundation of all human hope, as if they were harmless and venial mistakes — to bless where God curses, 12 ROMANIST ARGUxMENTS FOR THE and to make apologies where God requires us to hate, though it may be the aptest method of securing popular applause in a so- phistical age, is cruelty to man and treachery to heaven. Those who, on such subjects, attach more importance to the " rules of courtesy" than the measures of truth, do not defend, but betray the citadel into the hands of its enemies. Judas kissed his Master, but it was only to mark him out for destruction ; the Roman soldiers saluted Jesus — Hail King of the Jews ! but it was in grim and insulting mockery. Charity for the persons of men, however corrupt or desperately wicked, is a Christian virtue. I have yet to learn that opinions and doctrines fall within its province. On the contrary, I apprehend that our love to the souls of men will be the exact measure of our zeal in exposing the dangers in which they are ensnared.* It is only among those who hardly admit the existence of such a thing as truth — who look upon all doctrines as equally involved in uncertainty and doubt — among skeptics, sophists, and calculators, that a gene- rous zeal is likely to be denounced as bigotry, a holy fervency of style mistaken for the inspiration of malice, and the dreary indifference of Pyrrhonism confounded with true liberality. — Such men would have condemned Paul for his withering rebuke to Elymas the Sorcerer, and Jesus Christ for his stern denuncia- tions of the Scribes and Pharisees. Surely if there be any sub- ject which requires pungency of language and severity of rebuke, it is the " uncasing of a grand imposture;" if there be any pro- * " We all know/' says Milton, in a passage which I shall partially quote, " that in private or personal injuries, yea, in public suffering for the cause of Christ, his rule and example teaches us to be so far from a readiness to speak evil, as not to answer the reviler in his language, though never so much pro- voked ; yet in the detecting and convincing of any notorious enemy to truth and his country's peace, I suppose, and more than suppose, it will be nothing dis- agreeing from Christian meekness to handle such an one in a rougher accent, and to send home his haughtiness well bespurted with his own holy water. Nor to do this are we unauthorized either from the moral precept of Solomon, to answer him thereafter that prides himself in his folly ; nor from the example of Christ and all his followers in all ages, who, in the refuting of those that re- sisted sound doctrine and by subtle dissimulations corrupted the minds of men, have wrought up their zealous souls into such vehemencies as nothing could be more killingly spoken." — Animadversions upon the Demonst. Def. Pref, APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 12 per object of indignation and scorn, " it is a false prophet taken in the greatest, dearest, and most dangerous cheat — the cheat of souls." If I know my own heart, I am so far from entertaining vin- dictive feelings to the persons of Papists, thai I sincerely deplore their blindness, and would as cheerfully accord to them as any other citizens, who have no special claims upon me, the hospi- talities of life. It is only in the solemn matters of religion, that an impassable gulf is betwixt us. You apply, it is true, to the Papal community, throughout your letters, (I have three of them now before me,) the title of the Catholic Church; and perhaps one ground of the offence that I have given is to be found in the fact that I have not acknowledged, even indirectly, your arrogant pretensions. Sir, I cannot do it until I am prepared with you to make the word of God of none effect by vain and impious tradi- tions, and to belie the records of authentic history. I say it in deep solemnity, and with profound conviction, that so far are you from being the Holy Catholic Church, that your right to be re- garded as a Church of God at all in any just or scriptural sense, is exceedingly questionable. A community which buries the truth of God under a colossal pile of lying legends, and makes the preaching of Christ's pure Gospel a damnable sin — which annuls the signs in the holy sacraments, and by a mystic power of sacerdotal enchantment pretends to bestow the invisible grace — which, instead of the ministry of reconciliation, whose busi- ness it is to preach the word, cheats the nations with a pagan priesthood whose function it is to offer up sacrifice for the living and the dead — which, instead of the pure, simple, and spiritual worship that constitutes the glory of the Christian Church, daz- zles the eyes with the gorgeous solemnities of pagan superstition ; a community like this — and such is the Church of Rome — can be regarded in no other light than as " a detestable system of impiety, cruelty and imposture, fabricated by the father of lies." Like the " huge and monstrous Wen" of which ancient story * tells us, that claimed a seat, in the council of the body next to the head itself, the constitution of the Papacy is an enormous * See the story told in Milton, Reform, in Eng. b. ii. 14 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE excrescence which has grown from the Church of Christ, and which when opened and dissected by the implements of Divine truth, is found to be but a " heap of hard and loathsome unclean- ness — a foul disfigurement and burden." The Christian world was justly indignant with the fraternal address which English Socinians submitted "to the Ambassador of the mighty Emperor of Fez and Morocco" at the Court of Charles the Second * But their own spurious charity to Papists is a no less treacher- ous betrayal of the cause of truth. What claims have Roman Catholics to be regarded as Christians, which may not be pleaded with equal propriety in behalf of the Mahometans? Is it that Rome professes to receive the word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments ? The false Prophet of Arabia makes the same pretension. Assisted in the composi- tion of the Koran by an apostate Jew and a renegado Christian, he has given a lodgment to almost every heresy which had in- fected the Church of Christ in this rude and chaotic mass of fraud and imposture. Professing to receive the Bible, he makes it of none effect by his additions to its teaching. The real creed of Mahometans has no countenance from Scripture. It is on the ground that Mahomet makes void the word of God by his pre- tended Revelations, that he is treated by the Christian world as a blasphemer and impostor. Has not Rome equally silenced the oracles of God in the din and clatter of a thousand wicked tra- ditions? Her real creed — that which gives form and body to the system — which is proposed alike as the rule of the living and the hope of the dying — is not only not to be found in the Bible, but contradicts every distinctive principle of the glorious Gospel of God's grace. If Mahometans justify the heterogeneous addi- tions of their Prophet to the acknowledged revelation of Heaven, by pretending that the Bible is imperfect, and consequently, inade- quate as a rule of faith and practice, how much better is the con- duct of Rome in reference to the same matter? She may not assume with Mahomet that the Scriptures have been corrupted, but she does assume that the Scriptures are not what God de- clares that they are — able not only to make us wise unto salvation, * See Leslie's Socinian Controversy. For the authenticity of this address see Horsely's Tracts in controversy with Dr. Priestly. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 15 but to make " the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work."* Again, Rome's bulwark is tradition. Ma- homet, however, far outstrips her in this matter, and appeals to a tradition preserved by the descendants of Ishmael that reaches back to the time of Abraham. So also in the article of infallibility and authoritative teach- ing, the Arabian impostor and the Roman harlot stand on sim- ilar ground. The doctrines of the Koran are announced with no other evidence than the avzog etprj of the master — and the Edicts of Trent claim to bind the world, because they are the Edicts of Trent. In one respect the religion of Mahomet is purer than that of Rome — it is free from idolatry. There is in it no approximation to what Gibbon calls the " elegant mythology of Greece." Mahometanism and Popery are, in truth, successive evolutions in a great and comprehensive plan of darkness, conceived by a master mind for the purpose of destroying the kingdom of light, and perpetuating the reign of death. For centuries of ignorance and guilt, the god of this world possessed a consolidated empire in the unbroken dominion, among all the nations but one, of pagan idolatry. This was the grand enemy of Christ in the Apostolic age, When this fabric, however, in the provinces of ancient Rome tottered to its fall, with his characteristic subtlety and fraud, the Great Deceiver, according to the predictions of Prophets and Apostles, began another structure in the corruption of the Gospel itself, which should be equally imposing and more fatal, because it pretended a reverence for truth. Under the plausible and sanctimonious pretexts of superior piety and extra- ordinary zeal, the simple institutions of the Gospel were gradu- ally undermined — errors, one by one, were imperceptibly intro- duced — the circle of darkness continued daily to extend, until, in an age of profound slumber, through the deep machinations of the wicked one, the foundations of the Papacy were securely laid. The Temple of the Western Antichrist, erected on the ruins of Christianity in the bounds of the Roman See, and requir- ing, as it did, the corruptions of ages to prepare, cement, and * 2 Tim. 3. 17. 16 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE consolidate its parts, owes its compactness of form and harmoni- ous proportions to the profound policy and consummate skill of the enemy of souls. As left by the Council of Trent, the Papal Church stands completely accoutred in the panoply of darkness — the grand instrument of Satan in the West as Mahometanism in the East — to oppose the Kingdom of God.* The lights are now extinguished on the altar — those in her, but not of her, who have any lingering reverence for God are required to abandon her — her gorgeous forms and imposing ceremonies, are only the funeral rites of religion — the life, spirit, and glory have departed. Entertaining, as I do, these convictions in regard to the Papal community, I shall not pretend to sentiments which as a man I ought not to cherish, and as a Christian I dare not tolerate. Peace with Rome is rebellion against God. My love to Him, to His Church, His truth, and the eternal interests of men, will for- ever prevent me — even indirectly by a mawkish liberality which can exist only in words — from bidding God-speed to this Baby- lonish merchant of souls. But I wish it to be distinctly under- stood that my most unsparing denunciations of doctrines and practices which seem to me to lead directly to the gates of death, are not to be construed into a personal abuse of the Papists them- selves. Little as they believe it, I would gladly save them from the awful doom of an apostate church. With these general explanations of the spirit by which I am and shall continue to be actuated, I shall pass on to make a few remarks in vindication of the expressions at which you have taken offence, as indicating ill feelings on my part, and " with which even in quotations you are unwilling to sully your pen." These expressions, you will excuse me for saying, are perfectly proper. Protestants designate their own churches by terms descrip- tive of their peculiar forms of government, or the distinctive doctrines they profess. Some are called Presbyterians, and some Prelatists, some Calvinists, and others Arminians. You acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope — this is a distinctive feature of your system — where then is the ground of offence in * The doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin is supposed to be derived from the Koran. See Gibbon, p. 310, vol. vi. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 17 applying to you a term, or as you choose to call it, a " vulgar epithet," which exactly describes a characteristic principle of your sect ? Then again, as to the phrases " vassals of Rome," and " cap- tives to the car of Rome," they are really the least offensive terms in which your relations to the Papal See, as set forth in standard writers of your own Church, can be expressed. You must be aware, sir, or you would hardly venture to assume with so much confidence the air of a scholar, that the word vassal was employed by our earlier writers as equivalent to a man of valor, and was far from conveying a reproachful meaning. " The word," says Richardson, " is, indeed, evidently as much a term of honor as knighthood was." It is certainly a softer term than slave, which, according to Cicero's definition of servi- tude — " obedientia fracti animi et abjecti et arbitrio carentis suo"* — seems to be more exactly adapted to describe your state. Captivity to Christ is the glory of a Christian, and as the voice of Rome is to you the word of the Lord, I do not see why you should object to being called " captives to the car of Rome." I am afraid, sir, that the real harm of these words is not to be found in their vulgarity and coarseness, but in the unpalatable truth which they contain. If there were no sore, there would be no shrinking beneath the probe. As to my " mocking language concerning the awful mystery of transubstantiation," I am not yet persuaded that there is any other mystery in this huge ab- surdity, but "the mystery of iniquity. 5 ' To you, sir, it may be awful — so no doubt were calves and apes to their Egyptian wor- shippers. I. Your letters contain, or profess to contain, an explanation of what the Council of Trent actually did in regard to the Canon of Scripture — a vindication of its conduct, and a labored reply to my short arguments against the inspiration of the Apocrypha. In other words, they naturally divide themselves into three parts — a statement, the proof, and refutation — of each in its order. In your statement of what the Council did, you have given us a definition of the word Canonf which, as it adequately repre- * Cicero Paradoxon, v. i. t " A Canon I have always understood to be a list or catalogue, setting 2* 18 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE sents neither ancient nor modern usage — the term not being, as you seem to imply, univocal — may be regarded as an humbling confession of your own ignorance. If, sir, you " have always understood the word " in the sense which you assign to it, your acquaintance with the early Ecclesiastical writers is so manifestly limited as to create a very strong suspicion that, with all your parade of learning, you have been little more than the ferret and mouse-hunt of an index. As I shall have occasion, in an- other part of this discussion, to revert to this subject again, it will be sufficient for my present purpose to observe that, in the modern acceptation of the term, the Scriptures are not called canonical because they are found in any given catalogue, but because they are authoritative as a rule of faith. The common metaphorical meaning of the Greek word xavwv is a rule or measure. In this sense it is used by the classical writers of antiquity,* as well as by the great Apostle of the Gentiles. f Whether found in a catalogue or not, if the inspiration of a book can be adequately determined, it possesses, at once, canoni- cal authority. It becomes, as far as it goes, a standard of faith. And with all due deference, sir, to your superior facili- ties for understanding aright the decisions of your Church, you will permit me to declare that the Council of Trent, which you so much venerate, in pronouncing the Apocrypha canonical, either employed the term in the sense which I have indicated, and made these books an authoritative rule of faith, or was guilty of a degree of folly, which, with all my contempt for the character of its members, I am unwilling to impute to them. You inform us, sir, that a book is to be regarded as sacred because it is inspired ; but that no book, whatever be its origin, is to be received as canonical until it is inserted in some existing forth what books are inspired, not giving or dispensing inspiration to unin- spired books. A work to be entitled to a place in a Canon, must be believed to have been always inspired ; and if believed to have been inspired at any one period, it must be believed to have always been inspired. Until a Canon is formed, a catalogue of inspired books drawn up, manifestly though many works may be sacred because inspired, none can be canonical, because none can be inserted in a catalogue which does not yet exist." — Letter I. * Aristotle Polit. lib. ii. cap. 8. Eurip. Hec. 602. t Gal. 6. 16. Phil. 3. 16. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 19 catalogue. With this key to the interpretation of its language, the Council of Trent* has pronounced its anathema not only on the man who refuses to receive these books as inspired , but also on him who does not believe that they are found in a cata- logue. He is as much bound, on pain of what you interpret to be excommunication, to believe in the existence of a list of inspired books, as he is to believe in the Divine authority of the books themselves. It is not enough for him to know that the various documents which compose the Bible were written by men whose minds were guided by the Holy Ghost, — he must also know that a body of men in some quarter of the world has actually inserted the names of these books in a catalogue or list. " Risum teneatis, amici !" Now, sir, to borrow an illustration from your favorite quar- ter — suppose one of our slaves should be converted to Popery, that is, should receive as true all the dogmas that the Priests inculcate, and yet be ignorant that such a learned body as the Council of Trent had ever been convened, or, what is no un- common thing among you, be profoundly ignorant that such a book as the Bible exists at b\\, would he be damned? To say nothing of his not receiving the Scriptures under such circum- stances as sacred, he most assuredly does not receive them as canonical in your sense. He knows nothing of a list or cata- logue in which these books are enumerated. It is an idle equivocation to say that the curse has reference only to those who know the existence of the catalogue. In that case the sin which is condemned, is evidently a sheer mpossibility except to a man who was stark mad. To know that a catalogue is composed of certain books, and this is the only way of know- ing it as a catalogue, and yet not to believe that the books are in it, is a mental contradiction which can only be received by those whose capacious understandings can digest the mystery of transubstantiation. * " Now if any one does not receive as sacred and canonical those books entire with all their parts, as they have been usually read in the Catholic Church and are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition ; and shall knowingly and industriously contemn the aforesaid traditions : let him be anathema." Letter I. 20 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE According to your statement, the venerable Fathers assem- bled at Trent did three things: — 1. They decided what books were inspired — 2. They arranged them in a list — and 3. They excommunicated all those heretics who would not receive both books and list. In my humble opinion, however, the Holy Fa- thers declared what books they received as sacred and authorita- tive in matters of faith, and pronounced their curse upon those who did not acknowledge the same rule with themselves. I shall quote from the decree itself, in your own beautiful and accurate translation, a sentence which shows that your sense of the term canonical was foreign from their thoughts. " It has, moreover, thought proper to annex to this decree a catalogue of the sacred books, lest any doubt might arise which are the books received by this Council." You will find on recurring to the original, that the word which you have rendered catalogue is not canona, but indicem. Again, sir, as the Fathers are said to receive these books before their own list is made, how did they do it? — Evi- dently in the same way, unless there be one sort of faith for the people and another for divines, in which they required others to receive them, that is, as sacred and canonical. But the preced- ing part of the decree contains not a word about the existence of former catalogues, though it is particular to insert the inspi- ration of these books as well as of tradition as the ground of their reception, maintaining, at the same time, that they were, if not the rule, at least what is equivalent to it, the source (fontem) of every saving truth and of moral discipline. Hence in the sense of Trent to be sacred and canonical, " is to be inspired as a rule of faith." After this specimen of your skill in the art of definitions, we are not to be astonished at still more marvellous achieve- ments in the way of translation. The following words, clear and explicit in themselves, " pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur," I find are rendered by you in English, hardly less equivocal than the language of an ancient oracle.* * " Receives with due piety and reverence and venerates." The same blun- der is found in the translation of this decree prefixed to the Doway version of the Scriptures, APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 21 Sir, to say nothing of the obvious meaning of the words, as it might be gathered from a Lexicon, if you had read the debates of the Council even in your own Jesuit historian, Pallavicino* * " Deinde quo res per futuram Sessionem statuendae discutiuntur, idem Legatus exposuit : Optimum sibi factu videri, ut primo loco recenserentur ac reci- perentur libri Canonici sacrarum Literarum, quo certo constaret, quibus armis esset in haereticos dimicandum, et in qua basi fundanda esset Fides Catholi- corum ; quorum aliqui superare misere angebantur, cum cernerent in eodem libro a plurimis Spiritus digitum adorari, alios contra digitum impostoris execrari. Hoc statuto tria in peculiaribus coetibus proposita sunt. Primum, an omnia utriusque testament] volumina essent comprobanda. Alterum, an ea compro- batio per novum examen peragenda : tertium a Bertano ac Seripando proposi- tum, an expediret sacros libros in duas classes partiri : alteram eorum quae ad promovendam populi pietatem pertinent, et illius ergo solum ab Ecclesia re- cepti tamquam boni, cujusmodi videbantur esse Proverbiorum et Sapientiae libri, nondum ab Ecclesia probati tamquam Canonici, tametsi frequens eorum mentio haberetur facta apud Hieronymum et Augustinum, aliosque veteres auctores; alteram eorum, quibus etiam fidei dogmata innituntur. Sed ea divisio, tametsi ab aliquo auctore prius facta, et tunc a Seripando promota per libellum eruditissi- mum ea gratia conscriptum, quo cuncti libri Canonici rite experentur, uti reve- ra firmam rationem non praeferebat, ita nee sua specie Patres allexit, vix nacta laudato rem : quare nihil ultra de ilia disputabimus." Pallavicino, Hist. Cone. Trident, lib. vi. cap. 11. " How the business to be transacted by the approaching session should be dis- cussed, was explained by the same legate. It seemed to him most advisable that the canonical books of the Holy Scriptures should be in the first place enumer- ated and received, so that it might be certainly understood, with what weapons they were to fight the heretics, and on what basis the Catholic faith should be founded. In regard to this matter, some were miserably perplexed, since they perceived that, in the same book, many adored the hand of the Spirit, while others detected the hand of an impostor. Three propositions were before the com- mittees: 1. Whether all the books of each Testament should be approved. 2. Whether the approbation should be given upon a new examination to be gone through. 3. The third proposition was that of Bertan and Seripand, whether it would be better to distribute the sacred books into two classes, the first em- bracing those that were received by the church on account of their subserviency to the piety of the people, (of which sort were Proverbs and Wisdom,) but which were not allowed to be inserted in the canon, though frequently mentioned by Jerome, Augustine, and other ancient writers. The other class embracing those upon which the doctrines of the faith depend. This division, however, into two classes, though it had been previously made by a certain author, and was then learnedly promoted by Seripand in a work written with the view of setting all the books of the canon in their proper light, was supported by no good reason, and found so little favor that it obtained scarcely a single vote." 22 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE you would have learned, what you seem not now to know, that it was the intention of the Fathers in this famous decree to place the Apocrypha and unwritten traditions upon a footing of equal authority with the book which the Lutherans acknowledged as inspired. — Their object was to give their canon or rule of faith. Determined as the Pope and his legates were to suppress the Reformation, which had then been successfully begun, and to perpetuate the atrocious abuses of the Roman Court, they com- menced the work of death by poisoning the waters of life at the fountain. In the sentence immediately succeeding the anath- ema, we are given to understand that the preliminary measures in reference to faith were designed to indicate the manner in which the subsequent proceedings of the Council touching questions of doctrine and order should be conducted. They settled the proofs and authorities — to which in all their future deliberations they intended to appeal. As Luther was to be crushed, and as the armory of God's word furnished no weapons with which this incorrigible heretic could be convicted of error, a stronger bulwark must needs be raised to protect the abuses and cover the corruptions of the Church of Rome. You can- not be ignorant, sir, that much difficulty was felt by the Council in settling the list of Canonical books.* It was not prepared at once to outrage truth and history by making that divine, which * " Some thought fit to establish three ranks. The first, of those which have been always held as divine ; the second, of those whereof sometimes doubt hath been made, but by use have obtained canonical authority, in which num- ber are the six Epistles, and the Apocalypse of the New Testament, and some small parts of the Evangelists. The third, of those whereof there hath never been any assurance ; as are the seven of rhe Old Testament and some chapters of Daniel and Esther. Some thought it better to make no distinction at all, but to imitate the Council of Carthage and others, making the catalogue, and say- ing no more. Another opinion was that all of them should be declared to be in all parts, as they are in the Latin Bible, of Divine and equal authority. The book of Baruc troubled them most, which is not put in the number, neither by the Laodicians, nor by those of Carthage, nor by the Pope, and therefore should be left out, as well for this reason, as because the beginning of it cannot be found. But because it was read in the Church, the congregation, esteeming this a potent reason, resolved that it was, by the ancients, accounted a part of Jeremy and comprised with him." — Father Paul, pp. 142, 143. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 23 the Church of God had never received as the work of the Holy Ghost. But, sir, without the Apocrypha and unwritten tradi- tion, the Holy Fathers were unable to construct an embankment sufficient to roll back the cleansing tide of life which Luther was endeavoring to pour into the Augean stable of Papal impu- rity and filth. The awful plunge was consequently taken, and these spurious books and lying legends were made standards of faith of equal authority with God's holy word. Inspired Scrip- ture, apocryphal productions, and unwritten traditions were not only received with due piety and reverence, as you would have us to believe, but were received with equal piety and veneration, as the decree itself asserts. This, sir, is what Trent did — and until it can be shown that all these elements of Papal faith are really entitled to the same degree of authority and esteem — that they are all, in other words, equally inspired — my charge of intolerable arrogance remains unanswered against the Church of Rome. I said, and repeat the accusation, that she made that divine, which is notoriously human, and that inspired, which, in the sense of the Apostle, is notoriously of private interpre- tation. ;; I did not impeach the Council for having presumed to draw up a catalogue of sacred and canonical books — but I did impeach it and do still impeach it of one of the most awful crimes which a mortal can commit, in having solemnly declared " thus saith the Lord," when the Lord had neither spoken nor sent them. The insulted nations, heart-sick with abuses, were looking, with the anxiety of a dying man, for the sovereign rem- edy which it was confidently hoped would be prepared and administered by this long-looked for assembly of spiritual physi- cians ; but when the day of their redemption, as they fondly dreamed, had at length arrived, and the cup of blessing was put to their lips — behold ! instead of the promised cure, a deadly mixture of hemlock and nightshade ! Five crafty cardinals and a few dozen prelates from Spain and Italy, called together by the authority of the Pope, and acting in slavish subjection to his sovereign will, as if the measure of their iniquity was now full, and the hour of their final and complete infatuation had at length arrived, proceeded, with the daring desperation of men bereft of shame and abandoned of God, to collect the accumu- 24 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE lated errors of ages into one enormous pile, and to send forth, as if from the "boiling alembic of hell/' the blackening vapors of death to obscure the dawning light, to cover the earth with darkness, and involve the people in despair. Where were truth and decency, sir, when this miserable cabal * of scrambling politicians claimed to represent the universal Church ? Is it not notorious that when the canon of your faith was settled, even Papal Europe was so poorly represented that not a single deputy was found in the Council from whole nations that it assumed to govern? Its pretensions, too, to be guided by the Holy Ghost, when its whole history attests that the spirit of the Pope was the presiding spirit of the body, afford " damning * When we call to mind the arts and subterfuges by which the Court of Rome endeavored to evade the necessity of calling a Council — its long delays, while groaning Europe was clamoring for reform — its wily manoeuvres, when the necessity at last became inevitable, to have the Council under its own con- trol — the crafty policy by which it succeeded — when we look at these things, and whoever has read the History of Europe during that period cannot be ignorant of them — the language of the text " cannot be deemed too severe." The Council was evidently a mere tool of the Pope. The following extracts, one from Robertson, the other from Father Paul, (a Papist himself,) may be taken as an offset to the testimony of Hallam — and a flat contradiction to " A. P. F.'s" account of the learning of the body. " But whichever of these authors," says Robertson, referring to the histo- ries of Father Paul, Pallavicino and Vargas, " whichever of these authors an intelligent person takes for his guide, in forming a judgment concerning the Spirit of the Council, he must discover so much ambition as well as artifice among some of the members, so much ignorance and corruption among others ; he must observe such a large infusion of human policy and passions, mingled with such a scanty portion of that simplicity in heart, sanctity of manners, and love of truth, which alone qualify men to determine what doctrines are worthy of God, and what worship is acceptable to him, that he will find it no easy matter to believe that an extraordinary influence of the Holy Ghost hovered over this assembly and dictated its decrees." — Charles V. vol. iii. b. x. p. 400. " Neither was there amongst those Prelates any one remarkable for learn- ing : some of them were lawyers, perhaps learned in that profession, but of lit- tle understanding in religion ; few divines but of less than ordinary sufficiency ; the greater number gentlemen or courtiers ; and for their dignities some were only titular and the major part Bishops of so small cities, that supposing every one to represent his people, it could not be said that one of a thousand in Chris- tendom was represented. But particularly of Germany there was not so much as one Bishop or divine." — Father Paul, p. 153. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 25 proof " that it was given up to " hardness of heart and reprobacy of mind." You have favored us, sir, with an extract from Hallam, which I shall not crave pardon for asserting is entitled to about as much respect as his discriminating censures of Pindar's Greek. I am surprised, sir, that you should have ventured to commend the learning of the Fathers of Trent. The matter can easily be settled by an appeal to facts. Cajetan was reputed to be the most eminent man among them, " unto whom," says Father Paul, " there was no prelate or person in the Council who would not yield in learning, or thought himself too good to learn of him ;"* yet, with all his learning, he knew not a word of Uebreiv. What divine of the present day would be deemed a scholar at all, who could not read the Scriptures in the original tongues ? When the question of the authenticity of the Vulgate was under discussion in the Council, what a holy horror was displayed of Grammarians ! what shocking alarm lest the dignities of the Church should be given to Pedants, instead of Divines and Canonists ?f Sir — why this dread of the Hebrew and Greek originals if your pastors and teachers could read them ? Is it not a shrewd presumption that you made the Bible authentic in a tongue which you could read, because God |had made it authentic in tongues which you could not read 1 So much for the learning of these venerable men. II. Having sufficiently shown that your statement is a series of blunders, and your eulogy on the Council wholly unfounded, I pro- ceed to your proof. The point which you propose to establish is, that the Apocrypha were given by inspiration of God. You un- dertake to furnish that positive proof which I had demanded, and without which I had asserted that no moral obligation could exist to receive them. Before,, however, you proceed to exhibit your argument, you step aside for a moment to show us the extent of your learning in regard to the disputes which at various times have been agitated touching the books that should be received as inspired. Sir, the object of such statements is obvious — you wish to create the impression that the whole subject of the canon is in- volved in inextricable confusion, and that the only asylum for the * Page 145. t Father Paul, page 146. 26 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE doubting and distressed — the only place in which the truth can be found and perplexities resolved, is the bosom of your own com- munion. In your zeal, sir, to represent Protestants as without any solid foundations for their faith, it would be well to confine your- self to statements better supported than some that you have made. That the Sadducees, as a sect, rejected all the books of the Old Testament, with the exception of the Pentateuch, is certainly not to be received upon the conjectures of the Fathers against the violent improbabilities which press the assertion — improbabilities so violent that with all his regard for the Fathers, Basnage* has been compelled to soften down the proposition into the milder statement that this skeptical sect only attributed greater author- ity to the writings of Moses than to the rest of the canon. If by the Albigens.es you mean the Paulicians, you can know but little about them except what you have gathered from their bitter and implacable enemies. The documents of their faith have all per- ished. You cannot be ignorant, however, that Protestant divines have constructed a strong argument from the very nature of their origin, to rebut the assertion which you have ventured to assume as true. Really, sir, when I consider your wonderful ability in giving definitions and translating from Latin, and join to these your profound acquaintance with ecclesiastical antiquity, I may well tremble to encounter so formidable an opponent in the field of Dialectics. Upon this arena we are now to meet. LETTER II. Dr. Lynch's great argument in proof of the inspiration of the Apocrypha shown to be am- biguous. — The testimony of the Papacy, on moral grounds, entitled to no consideration. I come now, sir, to the examination of your argument for the inspiration of the Apocrypha, as well as of all the other books * Basnage Histoire des Juifs, torn. ii. pt. i. p. 325. — Brucker Crit. Hist. Phil. torn. ii. p. 721. See particularly Eichhorn who has clearly shown that the charge is unfounded. Einleit. 4th Edit. vol. i. p. 136. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 27 which you profess to receive as sacred and canonical. It is really a curious specimen of dialectic skill. I know of nothing fit to be compared with it in point of originality and power, but the famous oration of the Bishop of Bitonto, on opening the ven- erable Council of Trent, in which he predicted the most glori- ous results from a series of puns on the names and surnames of the presiding Cardinals,* or that still more remarkable specimen of ingenuity and acuteness by which your angelic doctor and eagle of divines so triumphantly proves that it is the duty of in- feriors to submit to their superiors in the Church from the very pertinent and conclusive passage, " the oxen were ploughing and the asses feeding beside them." No doubt your ambition is excited to rival these departed worthies of your sect ; to achieve for yourself a name which posterity shall not willingly let die; to become, in process of time, and your efforts give every promise of being crowned with success, " A second Thomas, or at once, To name them all, another Dunce." In appreciating the force and importance of your argument, it will be necessary to bear distinctly in mind that the conclusion which you aim to establish is not to be probably true, but infal- libly certain. You require of those who undertake to determine for themselves what books have been given by inspiration of God, to decide this matter with absolute certainty, or to renounce the exercise of their private judgments. In proposing, therefore, a * " We enter upon and commence this General Council lawfully assembled, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, by the sanction of the Apostolic See, and under the direction of these prelates, who stand conspicuous in this holy com- pany — a new Jerusalem, viz. Johanne Maria de Monte, whose looks and af- fections are continually directed upward to the mountain (montem) which is Christ, whence comes our strength. Marcello Politino, who formerly directed the efforts of his profound and impartial mind to the support of the Christian Commonwealth (politiae), whose corrupt morals have afforded our enemies an opportunity to attack us. Reginald Pole, more resembling an angel than an Englishman (non tam Anglo, quam angelo)." This extraordinary speech of the Bishop of Bitonto, in the midst of all its extravagance and blasphemy, contains one truth — a very just comparison of the Council of Trent to the Trojan horse. What could more forcibly illustrate the fraud, hypocrisy and mischievous designs of the Holy Fathers ? 28 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE " more excellent way," you could not think of substituting one which did not fulfil this high and important condition. Your conclusion, then, is not to be a matter of opinion but infallible truth, and if your arguments do not establish beyond the possi- bility of a reasonable doubt the inspiration of the Apocrypha, they fall short of the purpose which you have brought them for- ward to sustain. Your proposition consequently is that there is infallible evidence that the Apocrypha were given by inspiration of God — or to state it in another form, that the Apocrypha were inspired, is infallibly and absolutely certain. Your general argu- ment may be compendiously expressed in the following syllo- gism : Whatever the pastors of the Church of Rome declare to be true must be infallibly certain : That the Apocrypha were inspired the pastors of the Church of Rome declare to be true : Therefore it must be infallibly certain. In other words, the Council of Trent did not err in this par- ticular case, because it could not err in any case. It is the argu- mentum a non posse ad non esse, which is then only logically sound when the non posse is sufficiently established. Since the whole weight of your reasoning rests upon the truth of your ma- jor proposition, you have very judiciously employed all your re- sources in fortifying it. Still, sir, after all your care, it is sig- nally exposed to heretical assaults. In the first place, you must be aware that your argument is vitiated by that species of paral- ogism which logicians denominate ambiguity of the middle. What is the precise extension of the words " pastors of the Church of Rome ?" They may be understood either universally, particularly, or distributively ; and you will excuse me for saying, that in the course of your first letter you have either employed them in each of these different applications or I have been wholly unable to apprehend your meaning. At one time it would seem that you mean the whole body of your priesthood collected to- gether in a grand assembly. You speak of a body of individuals, to whom, in their collective capacity, God has given authority to make an unerring decision." Then, again, you inform us that the " pastors of the Catholic Church" (meaning, of course, the APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 29 Church of Rome) " claim to compose it." In addition to this you speak of a single priest " presenting himself to instruct a Christian or an infidel" as a member of the body — whence the inference is natural and necessary, that every priest is a member of the body. From a comparison of these various passages in your first letter, it would evidently appear that you employed the words " pastors of the Church of Rome " in your major pro- position in their fullest extension. If, then, you meant an assembly composed of all the pastors of the Church of Rome, the Council of Trent, which comprised only a small portion of your teachers, has not manifestly the shadow of a claim to the precious virtue of infallibility. In this case your major might be true, and yet your minor would be so evidently false as to destroy completely the validity of your conclusion. A body consisting of all the pastors of the Church of Rome never has met, never will meet, and, from the nature of the case, never can meet; and an infalli- bility lodged in such an assembly for the guidance of human faith or the regulation of human practice, is just as intangible and worthless as if it were lodged with the man in the moon. Still, whether this infallible tribunal were accessible or not, your argument would be a contemptible sophism. It would stand pre- cisely thus : — Whatsoever all the pastors of the Church of Rome in their collective capacity declare, must be infallibly certain. That the Apocrypha were inspired, some of the pastors of the Church of Rome collected at Trent declared. Therefore it must be infallibly certain. An infallible con- clusion, undoubtedly ! But, sir, the words may be taken particularly. If, however, they are to be taken in a restricted sense, you should have told us precisely what limitation you intended to prefix ; otherwise your reasoning may be still vitiated by an ambiguous middle. Without such an explanation, we have no means of ascertaining whether the words as employed in the minor coincide, as they should do, with the same words as employed in the major. You should have told us under what circumstances infallibility at- taches to some pastors of the Church of Rome, if you indeed intended to limit the phrase. That you have occasionally used it in a limited sense, is evident from the fact, that you attribute 30 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE infallibility to the Council of Trent, which was certainly a small body compared with all the pastors of your entire Church. Are you prepared to say that any number of Popish pastors, met un- der any circumstances, shall be infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost in all their decisions, concerning doctrine and practice? — that even the same number which met at Trent, collected to- gether by accident, or merely by mutual consent, would be pos- sessed of the same exemption from all possibility of error which you ascribe to Trent? If you are not prepared to make this assertion, your major proposition is not absolutely true, but only under special limitations. These limitations are not even stated, much less defined, and while your leading proposition is left in this unsettled condition, what logician can determine whether your argument be any thing more than a specious fallacy? Cer- tain it is, that it can never be regarded as conclusive, until you show that all those conditions were fulfilled in the Council of Trent, which are necessary to secure infallibility to " some of the pastors" of the Church of Rome. Where, sir, in all your letters have you touched this point ? What was there that dis- tinguished the Fathers of Trent from an equal number of Bishops and Divines met together upon their own responsibility in such a way as to make the former infallible, and the latter not? Was it the authority of the Pope? Then, sir, your argu- ment was not complete until you had proved, with absolute cer- tainty, that a Papal Bull secures the guidance of the Holy Ghost! Was it the concurrence of the Emperor? This matter is no- where established. Was it both combined ? What was it, sir ? Reasoning to you, sir, is evidently a new vocation. You have been hi the habit of trusting so implicitly to the authority of others in the formation of your creed, that your first efforts at ratiocina- tion are as awkward and ridiculous, as the rude motions of an infant just learning to walk, or of a bird just learning to fly. Let me remind you, sir, that as you aim at an infallible conclusion, every step of your argument must be supported by infallible proof There must be no hidden ambiguities — no rash assump- tions — no precipitate deductions. In so solemn a business, you should construct a solid fabric, able to support the enormous weight which you would have us to rest upon it. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 31 There is still another meaning, which your major proposition may bear. You may have employed the words " pastors of the Church of Rome" in a distributive sense, and then you would distinctly inform us that every priest belonging to your sect, shall infallibly teach the truth. The application of your argu- ment to the condition of the ignorant and unlearned, absolutely requires this sense. According to you, every man, no matter what may be his condition or attainments, may have infallible evidence on the subject of the canon. Where is he to find it? In the instructions of the priest, who informs him what books were inspired, and what books arose from " private interpretation V* The testimony of the single, individual priest, is all the evidence that he does or can have. If, then, he has infallible evidence, the testimony of the priest, which is his only evidence, must be infallible, and consequently the priest himself must be infalli- ble too, or incapable of teaching error. It is not enough that the water should be pure at the fountain, it must also be pure in the channels through which it is conveyed. The Council of Trent may have been infallible, but if it has only fallible expounders, the 'people can have nothing hut fallible evidence. According to you, however, the people do have infallible evidence — therefore, the Council must have infallible expounders — therefore every pastor must be individually, infallible.* While your argument, * " Though there have been infinite disputes as to where the infallibility resides ; what are the doctrines it has definitively pronounced true, and who, to the individual, is the infallible expounder of what is thus infallibly pronounced infallible ; yet he who receives this doctrine in its integrity, has nothing more to do than to eject his reason, sublime his faith into credulity, and reduce his creed to these two comprehensive articles : ( I believe whatsoever the Church believes ;' ' I believe that the Church believes whatsoever my father-confessor believes that, she believes.' For thus he reasons : nothing is more certain than whatsoever God says is infallibly true ; it is infallibly true that the Church says just what God says ; it is infallibly true that what the Church says is known ; and it is also infallibly true that my father-confessor, or the parson of the next parish, is an infallible expositor of what is thus infallibly known to be the Church's infallible belief, of what God has declared to be infallibly true. If any one of the links, even the last, in this strange sorites, be supposed unsound, if it be not true that the priest is an infallible expounder to the individual of the Church's infallibility, if his judgment be only ' private judgment,' we come back 32 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE however, indispensably requires this sense, you seem to disclaim it in those passages of your letters, which speak of a body of in- dividuals in their collective capacity, as the chosen depositories of the truth of God. How, I beseech you, is a poor Protestant heretic, with no other helps but his grammar and lexicon, and no other guide but his own reason, to detect your real meaning in this mass of ambiguity and confusion ? I would not misrep- resent you, and yet I confess that I do not understand you. I can put no intelligible sense upon your words, which shall make all the parts of your letter consistent with themselves. You seem to have shifted your position, as often as you added to your paragraphs. We have no less than four distinct propositions covertly concealed under the deceitful terms of your major premiss : 1. Whatsoever all the pastors of the Church of Rome declare, must be infallibly true. 2. Whatsoever some of the pastors of the Church of Rome, under certain special limitations, declare, must be infallibly true. 3. Whatsoever some of the pastors of the Church of Rome under any circumstances declare, must be infallibly true. 4. Whatsoever any priest or pastor of the Church of Rome declares, must be infallibly true. Until, sir, you shall condescend to throw more light upon the intricacies of your style, your leading proposition must stand like an unknown quantity in Algebra ; and for aught that appears to the contrary the letter X might have been just as safely and just as definitely substituted. Those who look for an infallible conclusion in this exquisite specimen of reasoning, must not be surprised if they meet with the same success which rewards the easy credulity of a child in seeking for golden treasures at the foot of the rainbow. Thousands have fully believed that they were there, but none have been able to reach the spot. The infallibility of testimony which you attribute to the pastors of the Church of Rome, you endeavor to collect from two general propositions, which it is necessary to your argument to at once to the perplexities of the common theory of private judgment." — Edin- burgh Review, No. 139, Amer. reprint, p. 206. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 33 link together as antecedent and consequent. First you inform us that God must have " given authority to a body of individu- als in their collective capacity to make an unerring decision upon the subject " of the canon ; and then you infer that, if such a body exists at all, it must be composed of the pastors and teachers of the Church of Rome. Until you can show that the antecedent in the proposition is necessarily true, and the consequent just as necessarily connected with it, you must acknowledge, sir, that you have failed in presenting to your readers what your extravagant pretensions require, an infalli- ble conclusion. You must show, according to the process of argument which you have prescribed for yourself, not only that an infallible body exists, but that it is and can be composed of no other elements but those that you embrace under the dark and unknown phrase, " Pastors of the Catholic Church." Deficiency of proof on either of these points is fatal to your cause. It is not a little remarkable, in the history of human paradox, contradiction and absurdity, that absolute infallibility should be claimed for the testimony of those, who, if tried by the ordinary laws which regulate human belief, would be found destitute of any decent pretensions to the common degree of credibility. You have presented the pastors of the Church of Rome before us distinctly in the attitude of witnesses. Their power in regard to articles of faith is simply declarative ; they can only trans- mit to others, pure and uncorrupted, that which they received at the hands of the Apostles. They can add nothing to it; they can take nothing from it ; and whatever they may declare to be the truth of God according to the original preaching of the Apos- tles, we are bound to receive upon their testimony. Whatso- ever they declare or testify to be true, according to your state- ment, must be infallibly certain. Now the credibility of a wit- ness depends as much upon his moral integrity as upon his means and opportunities of knowledge. He must not only know the truth, but be disposed to speak it. As, too, our assent to testimony is ultimately founded upon our instinctive belief that every ef- fect must have its adequate cause, when existing causes can be assigned which are sufficient to account for the deposition of a 3 34 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE witness, apart from the truth of his declarations, we are slow to rely on his veracity. In other words, when he is known to be under strong temptations to pervert, conceal, or misstate facts, we proportionally subtract from the weight of his evidence ; and if it should so happen that he had ever been previously detected in a lie, few would be inclined to receive his testimony. If these remarks be just, whoever would undertake to establish the credibility of your pastors, must prove that they are possessed of such a degree of moral honesty as to constitute a complete ex- emption from all adequate temptations to bear false witness, To prove their knowledge of the subject is not enough — their integrity must also be fully made out. Any abstract argu- ments, however refined and ingenious, would be liable to a pal- pable reductio ad absurdum, if after all their extravagant preten- sions, it should be ascertained from undeniable facts that your priesthood has ever been found destitute of those sterling moral qualities which lie at the foundation of all our confidence in tes- timony. Has it ever been shown, sir, that the Bishops of your Church have never been exposed, from their lordly ambition and in- domitable lust, to adequate motives for bearing record to a lie ? Has it ever been proved that the purity of their manners and the sanctity of their lives have always been such as to render them the most unexceptionable witnesses in the holy subject of religion? How will you dispose of the remarkable testimony of Pope Ad- rian VI., who confessed through his Nuncio to the Diet of Nurem- berg, that the deplorable condition of the Church was " caused by the sins of men, especially of the Priests and Prelates?" What say you, sir, to that admirable commentary on the honesty and integrity of your pastors, the " Centum Gravamina' 5 of the same memorable Diet, which was carefully and deliberately drawn up with a full knowledge of the facts, and despatched with all possible rapidity to Rome? Do the records of the past furnish no authenticated instances in which your infallible pas- tors have either testified to falsehood themselves or applauded it in others? Sir, if all history be not a fable, the priesthood of Rome, taken as a body, can yield in corruption, ambition, tyranny and licentiousness, to no class of men that ever cursed the earth. If infallible honesty can be proved of them ; if the Holy Spirit APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 35 has, indeed, been a perpetual resident in this cage of unclean birds; if the ordinary credibility which attaches to a common witness can be ascribed to them, where their pride, ambition, or interest is involved, then all moral reasoning falls to the ground, the measures of truth are deceitful, and we may quietly renounce the exercise of judgment, and yield to the caprices of fancy. No, sir, instead of being the temple of the Lord, the habitation of the Holy One of Israel, your dilapidated Church is a dreary spectacle of moral desolation, peopled only by wild beasts of the desert, full of doleful creatures, owls, satyrs and dragons.* Tried, sir, in^the scale in which other witnesses are tried, you will be found deplorably wanting. Your temptations to du- plicity are too strong, and your weight of moral character too small, to command the least respect for your testimony. Hence, you very wisely evade all moral considerations, and resolve your boasted infallibility, not into your own attachment to the truth, but into a stern necessity, to which God subjects you by his guardian Providence and the irresistible operations of his Spirit, of uttering whatever he shall put into your mouth, as Baalam's Ass, through his power, overcame the impediments of nature and spoke in the language of men. Whether you have succeeded in de- monstrating by infallible evidence, that you are the subjects — the- passive and mechanical subjects — of such an uncontrollable af- * " Without entering into the mazes of a frivolous and unintelligible dispute about words, it is sufficient to remark, that the supernatural and infallible guidance of a Church, which leaves it to stumble on the threshold of morality, to confound the essential distinctions of right and wrong, to recommend the vio- lation of the most solemn compacts, and the murder of men, against whom not a shadow of criminality is alleged, except a dissent from its dogmas, is nothing worth ; but must ever ensure the ridicule and abhorrence of those, who judge the tree by its fruits, and who will not be easily persuaded that the eter- nal fountain of love and purity inhabits the breast, which i breathes out cruelty and slaughter.' If persecution for conscience' sake, is contrary to the princi- ples of justice and the genius of Christianity ; then, I say, this holy and infalli- ble Church was so abandoned of God, as to be permitted to legitimate the foul- est crimes — to substitute murders for sacrifice, and to betray a total ignorance of the precepts and spirit of the religion which she professed to support ; and whether the Holy Ghost condescended, at the same moment, to illuminate one hemisphere of minds so hardened, and hearts so darkened, may be safely left to the judgment of common sense." — HalVs Works, vol. iv. p. 249. SO ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE flatus from above, as may entitle you to a credit which your hon- esty and integrity would never warraant, remains now to be in- quired. LETTER III. Examination of the argument from the necessity of the case in favor of some infallible tribunal, shown to be presumptuous and weak. In resuming now the analysis of your argument, it may be well to repeat that the ultimate conclusion which you propose to reach is, the infallibility of Rome as a witness for the truth. This point you endeavor to establish by showing, in the first place, that there must be some " body of individuals to whom, in their collective capacity," God has graciously vouchsafed the precious prerogative which you claim for your pastors. Accord- ing to you the whole question of the truth of Christianity turns upon the existence of an infallible tribunal on earth, from which men may receive unerring decisions in matters of faith, and with- out which the overwhelming majority of the race must be aban- doned to hopeless and complete infidelity.* If there were, in- deed, no escape from the dilemma to which you have attempted to reduce us, the means of salvation would be hardly less fatal than the dangers from which they are appointed to rescue us. But it may yet be found, sir, that a merciful God has dealt more gently with his children than to commit their fate to the teach- ings of a body " whose garments are dyed in blood," whose * " Does there exist a body of men clothed with this authority, guaranteed by such a divine promise from error ] Has it made a declaration setting forth, in pursuance of that authority, what works are truly inspired ? You, reverend sir, are forced to the alternative of either answering both questions in the affirmative, or of saying that the overwhelming majority of Christians are sol- emnly bound to reject the Scriptures ; and if they have admitted them, it was in violation of the will of God, and of their solemn duty. From this dilemma, there is no escape." — Letter I. " Unaided reason almost assures me, this is the course the Saviour would adopt."— Letter I. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 37 whole career on earth, like the progress of JoePs locusts, has been marked by ruin, and which, if its future blessings are to be collected from its past achievements, can give us nothing but wormwood and gall, a stone for bread and a serpent for a fish. The friends of liberty and man, if reduced to the deplorable al- ternative of reaching the sacred Scriptures only on condition of submitting to a bondage more grievous than that from which the groaning Israelites were delivered by a strong hand and an out- stretched arm, would, in all probability, prefer the frozen air of infidelity, to the deadly miasma of Rome. But, sir, I am per- suaded that no such dilemma, so fatal in either horn, exists in reality ; and that there is a plan by which we may be rescued at once from the gloomy horrors of skepticism, and the despotic cruelty of Rome. To you, sir, it is utterly inconceivable that the infinite God, whose judgments are unsearchable and his ways past finding out, should have been able to devise, in the ex- haustless resources of his wisdom, any plan of authenticating the record of his own will, but that which you have prescribed. You undertake to prove that there must be a body of individuals authorized to make an unerring decision upon the doctrines of religion as well as the truth and inspiration of the Scriptures, from the absolute impossibility that any other scheme could be efficient or successful.* What is this but to limit the Holy One of Israel ? You would do well to remember that the pur- poses of God are not adjusted by the measures of human prudence or of human sagacity. As the heavens are high above the earth, so His thoughts are high above our thoughts, and his ways above our ways. In his hands broken pitchers and empty lamps are capable of achieving as signal execution, as armed legions or chariots of fire. To judge, therefore, of the schemes of the Eternal, by our own conceptions of expediency or fitness — to * " The fourth method alone is, therefore, both practicable in the ordinary condition of the Christian world, and efficient. * * * * * After thus establishing the absolute necessity of admitting that authority which you impugn, and showing the frightful consequences of a contrary course — consequences from which, I am certain, you will shrink — I might rest satisfied that' I have fully answered your essay, and proved, by clear and cogent arguments, the inspira- tion of those works against which it is directed." — Letter I. 38 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE bring the plans of Him who is wonderful in counsel, and whose government is vast beyond the possibility of mortal conception, to the fluctuating standard of the wisdom of this world, is to be guilty of presumption, equalled by nothing but the transcendent folly of the effort. A sound philosophy as well as a proper rever- ence for God would surely dictate that His appointments must always be efficacious and successful, simply because they are His appointments. We are not at liberty upon matters of this sort to indulge in vain speculations a priori, and pronounce of any measures, that they cannot be adopted, because they seem ill-suited to their ends. It is true wisdom to believe that He who originally established the connection of means and ends, can accomplish His purposes by the feeblest agents, the most un- promising arrangements, or by no subsidiary instruments at all. Plausible objections avail nothing against divine institutions. Whatever does not contradict the essential perfections of the Deity, nor involve a departure from that eternal law of right which finds its standard in the nature of God, is embraced in that boundless range of possibilities which infinite power can ac- complish by a single act of the will. Any argument, therefore, which bases its conclusion upon the gratuitous assumption that the wisdom of God and the conceptions of man shall be found to harmonize, is built upon the sand. To you, sir, the theory of private judgment may be encumbered with difficulties so insur- mountably great as to transcend your ideas of the power of God : you can perceive no wisdom in a plan on which priests are not tyrants, and the people are not slaves. But your objec- tions are hardly less formidable than those of Jews and Greeks to the early preaching of the cross. Still, sir, Christ crucified was the power of God and the wisdom of God. In your attempt to fathom the counsels of Jehovah by arbitrary speculation, and to settle with certainty the appointments of his grace, may we not detect the degrading effects of a superstition which tolerates those who acknowledge a God in a feeble mortal, and finds objects of worship in departed men? Certain it is that your reasoning involves the tremendous conclusion that the great, the everlast- ing Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, is altogether such an one as we ourselves. Do you not tell us, in effect, that APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 39 God could not have given satisfactory evidence of the truth and inspiration of his own word, without establishing a visible tri- bunal protected from error by his special grace ? And that he is thus limited in his resources, thus necessarily tied up to the one only plan which the pastors of Rome have found so prodigiously profitable to them, according to your reasoning, must be re- ceived as an infallible truth, just as absolutely certain as an axiom in creometry. The argument by which you reach this stupen- dous conclusion, has been wonderfully labored ; but when weighed in the balances of logical propriety, it is found as wonderfully wanting ; and it becomes a matter of astonishment how any hu- man being who " bore a brain" could ever have been so egre- giously duped as to have mistaken such a tirade of folly for le- gitimate reasoning. I shall now proceed, in all candor and fidelity, to expose the " nakedness of the land." With a self-sufficiency of understanding which never betray- ed itself in such illustrious men as Bacon, Newton, Locke, or Boyle, you undertake to enumerate all the possible expedients by which God could ascertain his creatures of the inspiration of his word. These you reduce to four* and as the first three, according to you, are neither " practical nor efficient," the fourth * " Now, reverend sir, there may be many ways of seeking to ascertain the fact of the inspiration of any writer or writers. They may, however, be all re- duced to the jour following methods : "1. Is every man, no matter what be his condition, to investigate by his own labor and research, and duly examine the arguments that have been or can be alleged for and against the several books, which, it is asserted, are inspired ; and, on the strength of that examination, to decide for himself with abso- lute certainty, what books are and what are not inspired ? " 2. Is every individual to receive books as inspired, or to reject them as un- inspired, according to the decisions of persons he esteems duly qualified by erudition and sound judgment, to determine that question accurately ? "3. Must he learn the inspiration of the Scriptures from some individual, whom God commissioned to announce this fact to the world 1 11 4. Must he learn it from a body of individuals, to whom, in their collec- tive capacity, God has given authority to make an unerring decision on the sub- ject?***** " To some one of these four methods eve?~yplan of proving the inspiration o^* the Scriptures can be reduced." — Letter I. 40 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE remains as a necessary truth. In the species of argument * which you have thought proper to adopt, the validity of the reasoning depends on two circumstances : 1st. All the possible supposi- tions which can be conceived to be true must be actually made ; and 2d, Every one must be legitimately shown to be false, but the one which is embraced in the conclusion. If all the others have been refuted, that must be true, provided, from the nature of the subject, some one must necessarily be admitted. In the present case it is freely conceded that there is some way of settling the can- on of Scripture, and hence your argument proceeds upon a legiti- mate assumption.! 1. Now, sir, the first question which arises upon a critical review of your argument is : Do your four schemes completely exhaust the subject ? Are these the only conceivable plans by which the inspiration of the Scriptures could be satisfactorily es- tablished ? If not — if there indeed be other methods which you have not noticed — other schemes which you have suppressed or overlooked — some one of these may be the truth, and your infalli- ble conclusion consequently false. In Paley's celebrated argu- ment for the benevolence of God, if he had simply stated that the Deity must either intend our happiness or misery, and had omit- ted entirely all notice of the third supposition, that he might be indifferent to both — the conclusion, however true in itself, would * The argument ^of " A. P. P." is a destructive disjunctive conditional. It may most conveniently be expressed in two consecutive syllogisms . A man must either judge for himself concerning the inspiration of the Scrip- tures, or rely on the authority of others. He cannot judge for himself, there- fore, he must rely on the authority of others. This is the first step. If he must rely on authority, it must either be the authority of uninspired individuals, of a single inspired individual, or an inspired body of individuals. It cannot be the first two ; therefore, it it must be the last. Now, accord- ing to the books, this species of syllogism must contain in the major all the suppositions which can be conceived to be true, then the minor must remove or destroy all but one. That one, from the necessity of the case, becomes es- tablished in the conclusion. The argument in question, violates both rules, and therefore, upon every view of the subject, must be a fallacy. t " We cannot be called on to believe any proposition not sustained by ade- quate proof. When Almighty God deigned to inspire the words contained in the Holy Scriptures, he intended they should be held and believed to be inspired. Therefore, tkere does exist some adequate proof of their inspiration." — Letter I. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 41 not have been logically just. Without pretending that I am ca- pable of specifying all the methods by which God might authen- ticate his own revelation, I can at least conceive of one, in ad- dition to those enumerated by you, which might have been adopt- ed, which may therefore possibly be true, and which, until you have shown it to be false, must hold your triumphant conclusion in abeyance. It is possible that God himself, by his Eternal Spirit, may condescend to be the teacher of men, and enlighten their understandings to perceive in the Scriptures themselves infalli- ble marks of their divine original. That you should so entirely have overlooked this hypothesis — which must be overthrown be- fore your argument can stand — is a little singular, since it is distinctly stated in the very chapter of the Westminster Confes- sion to which you have alluded.* "The heavens,"we are told, " declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world, are clearly seen ; being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead. ,? If the material workmanship of God bears such clear and decisive traces of its divine and eternal Author, as to leave the atheist and idolater without excuse, who shall say that the Word which he has exalted above every other manifestation of his name, may not proclaim with greater power and a deeper emphasis, that it is indeed the law of his mouth ? Who shall say that the composition of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures, may not be distinguished by a majesty, grandeur, and supernatu- ral elevation, which are suited to impress the reader with an irresistible conviction, that these venerable documents are the true and faithful sayings of God ? Is there any absurdity in asserting with a distinguished writer, that " the words of God, now legible in the Scriptures, are as much beyond the words of men, as the mighty works which Christ did, were above their works, and his prophecies beyond their knowledge V Jehovah has left the outward universe to speak for itself. Sun, moon and * " Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine au- thority thereof, (Holy Scriptures,) is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts." — Westminster Conf. chap. i. 55. 3* 42 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE stars, in their appointed orbits, proclaim an eternal Creator, and require no body of men, " of individuals in their collective capaci- ty," to interpret their voice, or to teach the world that " the hand which made them is divine." Why may not the Scriptures, brighter and more glorious than the sun, be left in the same way, as they run their appointed course, to testify to all that their source " was the bosom of God, and their voice the harmony of the world?" Is not the character of God as clearly portrayed in them, as in the mute memorials of his power which exist around us and above us ? Why should an infallible body be required to make known the Divine original of the Bible, when it is not necessary to establish the creation of the heavens and the earth? It is then a possible supposition, that the word of God may be its own witness; that the sacred pages may themselves contain infallible evidence of their heavenly origin, which shall leave those without excuse, who reject or disregard them. They may contain the decisive proofs of their own inspiration, and by their own light, make good their pretensions to canonical authority. The fact that multitudes who hold the Bible in their hand, do not perceive these infallible tokens of its supernatural origin, is no objection, upon your own principles, to the existence of such irrefragable evidence. The reality of the evidence is one thing — the power of perceiving it is quite another. It is no objection to the brilliancy of the sun, that it fails to illuminate the blind. Such is the deplorable darkness of the human understanding, in regard to the things that pertain to God, and such the fearful alienation of men from the perfection of his character, that though the light shines conspicuously among them, they are yet unable to comprehend its rays. Hence to the production of faith, in order that the evidence, the infallible evidence which actually exists, may accomplish its appropriate effects, the " Eternal Spirit, who sends forth his cherubim and seraphim to touch the lips of whom he pleases," must be graciously vouchsafed to illuminate the darkened mind, and remove the impediments of spiritual vision. The infallible evidence is in the Scriptures ; the power of perceiv- ing it is the gift of God. Your own writers, sir, acknowledge, and you among the number, that the infallible evidence which your Church professes to present, cannot produce faith without God's APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 43 grace; so that evidence may be infallible and yet not effectual, through the folly and perverseness of men. Bellarmin declares that " the arguments which render the articles of our faith credi- ble, are not such as to produce an undoubted faith, unless the mind be divinely assisted.* And you have told us that the teach- ing of your pastors meets with a firmer and readier asssent among minds that have been touched by the Spirit of God.f Now sir, if your infallible evidence can yet be ineffectual, through the blindness and wickedness of men, you cannot say that the Scriptures are not infallible witnesses of their own au- thority, because all who possess them do not receive their testi- mony. In either case the illumination of God's Spirit is the means by which faith is really produced. According to you, it inclines the understanding to receive the teaching of the pastors of your Church — according to the doctrine of the Westminster divines; it enlightens the mind to perceive the impressions of Jehovah's character and Jehovahs hand, in the sacred oracles themselves. There is, then, evidently, a fifth supposition by which an humble inquirer after truth may be assured of the divine inspi- ration and canonical authority of the Holy Scriptures. God, himself, may be his teacher, and the illumination of his Spirit may be the means by which, from infallible evidence contained in the books themselves, their divine inspiration may be cer- tainly collected. Whether true or false, right or wrong, this has been the doctrine of the Church of God from the beginning.^ * " Argumenta quae articulos fidei nostras credibiles faciunt non talia sunt ut fidem omnino mdubitatam reddant, nisi mens divinitus adjuvetur." — Be Grat. et Lib. Arb. lib. vi. cap. 3. t " We should ever bear in mind, too, that if this be the method adopted by- Almighty God ; if in reality, as the hypothesis requires, he speaks to that indi- vidual through this teacher, His divine grace will influence the mind of the novice to yield a more ready and firm assent, than the tendency of our nature, and the unaided motives of human authority would produce." — Letter I. t Asa specimen of what have been the sentiments of distinguished writers, I give a. few extracts, selected from the midst of many others equally striking, which may be found arranged in Owen's admirable Discourse on the Reason of Faith. — Works, vol. hi. p. 359, seq. The following passage from Clemens Alexandrinus is remarkable, as asserting at once the sufficiency of Scripture and the right of private judgment in opposition to all human authority ; 44 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE And before you can hope to overthrow it, you must be prepared to prove, what, I think, you will find an irksome undertaking, that the Scriptures do not bear any signs or marks characteristic of their author, and that God's grace will not be vouchsafed to Ov yap cnr\(og ano^aivofxevoig avdpomoig irpoo-e^oiixev oig Kai avTano^aiveOai en tcrjg ehvTiv. Et <$' ovk apx ei ^ ovov oinXug eineiv to 6oi;av, aWa nivTwo-acrdai Set to \e^dev' ov ty)v s| avdpo)7T(x)v ava[x£vo[A£v jxapTvpiav, a\*\a ty\ tov K.vpiov (poivri niaTOV^eda to ^tov- usvov. 'H naaow anoSei^ewv e%eyyvoTepa [xaWov tie rj J fxove anoSei^ig ovaa Tvy^avei. OvTOig ovv Kai fj/Aeig an avTaiv nepi uvtgiv twv ypafojv TeXeiwg anode iKvvvTeg eic niaTeog 7rei9o[xe9a anoSeiKTiKug. — Strom, lib. vii. cap. 16. "For we would not attend or give credit simply to the definitions of men, seeing we have a right also to define in contradiction unto them. And as it is not sufficient merely to say or assert what appears to be the truth, but also to beget a belief of what is spoken, we expect not the testimony of men but confirm that which is inquired about with the voice of the Lord, which is more full and firm than any demonstration ; yea, which rather is the only demonstration. Thus, we, taking our demonstra- tion of the Scripture out of the Scripture, are assured by faith as by demon- stration." Basil on Psalm 115, says: — TliaTig^ ov% J h yeofxeTpixaig avayKaig. aW n raig tov nvevjxaTog evepyeiaig eKyivo^eurj. " Faith is not the effect of geometrical demon- strations, but of the efficacy of the Spirit." Nemes.de Horn. cap. 2. — H tcov Oeiwv Xoyiuv SiSaaKa'Xia rtt nioTov act? eavTrjg e^ovaa Sia to deonvevaTov eivai. " The teaching of the divine oracles has its credibility from itself, because of their divine inspiration." The words of St. Austin (Conf. lib. ii. cap. 3) are too well known to require to be cited. The second Council of Orange, in the beginning of the sixth century, in its 5th and 7th canons is explicit to my purpose. Fleury, b. xxxii. 12. — Si quis sicut augmentum ita etiam initium fidei, ipsumque credulitatis affectum, non per gratiae donum, id est, per inspirationem Spiritus Sancti, corrigentem volun- tatem nostram ab infidelitate ad fidem,ab impietate ad pietatem, sed naturaliter nobis inesse dicit, apostolicis dogmatibus adversarius approbatur. Si quis per naturae vigorem bonum aliquod quod ad salutem pertinet vitae eeternae cogitare ut expedit aut eligere, sive salutari, id est, evangelicae praadicationi consentire posse affirmat absque illuminatione et inspiratione Spiritus Sancti, qui dat om- nibus suavitatem consentiendo et credendo veritati, haeretico fallitur spiritu. " If any one say that the beginning or increase of faith and the very affection of belief is in us, not by the gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit correcting our will from infidelity to faith, from impiety to piety, but by nature, he is an enemy to the doctrine of the Apostles. If any man affirm that he can by the vigor of nature think any thing good which pertains to salvation as he ought, or choose, or consent to saving, that is, to evangelical preaching without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all the APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 45 the humble inquirer to enable him to perceive, according to the prayer of the Psalmist, " wondrous things out of his law." — Unless you can disprove this fifth hypothesis, and show it to be what you have asserted of three that you have named, neither " practicable nor efficient," your triumphant argument vanishes into air ; it violates the very first law of that species of complex sweet relish in consenting to and believing the truth, he is deceived by an he- retical spirit.'' Arnobius advers. Gentes, lib. 3, c. l,says : " Neque enim stare sine asserto- ribus non potest religio Christiana ] Aut eo esse comprobatur vera, si adstipu- latores habuerit plurimos, et auctoritatem ab hominibus sumpserit 1 Suis ilia contenta est viribus et veritatis propria? fundaminibus nititur nee spoliatur sua vi, etam si nullum habeat vindicem, imrrio si linguae omnes contra faciant con- traque nitantur et ad fidem illius abrogandam consensionis unitse animositate conspirent." " Shall it be said that the Christian religion cannot maintain itself, without the aid of men to vindicate its truth 1 Or shall its truth be said to depend on the warranty and authority of man? No, Christianity is sufficient for itself, in its own inherent strength, and stands firm upon the ba- sis of its own inherent truth ; it could lose none of its power, though it had not a single advocate. Nay, it would maintain its ground, though all the tongues of men were to contradict and resist it, and to combine with rage and fury to eifect its destruction." The great Athanasius (Orat. Cont. Gent. c. 1) says: A.vrapK£ig eiaiv ai ayiai xai Osottvevstoi ypa for we have to receive it on authority, that my " ar- gument is valueless and crumbles under its own irresistible weight.' , Unquestionably, sir, your readers must admit your unrivalled ability in reasoning, and I have no doubt the unanimous voice of posterity will accord to your extraordinary skill, a distinction hardly inferior to his who concentrated all the powers of his mind * " With these prefatory observations, I take up your argument as simply stated above, and meet it by answering, that when the Jewish synagogue did not admit those works into the canon, it was because of the want of proof of their inspiration, and perhaps want of authority to amend an already duly es- tablished canon, and that, therefore, they were not. guilty of the heinous sin you lay at their door." — Letter II. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 179 upon the recondite process of extracting sunbeams from cucum- bers. You exhibit the tact of a practised logician in evading the point of my argument, and like an artful pupil, when the question proposed by the master is too hard, you answer another. You are aware, sir, that the very existence of your cause de- pends upon the truth of my consequent, and accordingly what- ever of reasoning there is in your essay, is devoted to the proofs by which my minor proposition was established. You deny, in other words, that Jesus Christ or his Apostles ever treated the Jewish canon as possessed of divine authority, or even referred to it at all. In refuting this extravagant assertion, I must cor- rect a series of errors, (into one of which you were led by Du Pin,) which tinge your whole performance, and which, when once detected, leave in a pitiable plight, nine-tenths of your sec- ond epistle. Your fundamental error consists in your restricted application of the term canon to a mere catalogue or list. The common metaphorical meaning of the Greek word kanon, as I have already had occasion to remark, is a rule or measure. In this sense it is used by the classical writers of antiquity, as well as by the great Apostle of the Gentiles. The subordinate mean- ings which we find attached to it in Suicer and Du Fresne may be easily deduced from its original application to a rule or measure. In the early ecclesiastical writers, it is sometimes employed, as Eichhorn properly observes, to designate simply a book, and particularly a book that served in general for the use of the church. The collection of hymns which was to be sung on fes- tivals, and the list of members who were connected with the church, received alike this common appellation. Again it was applied to the approved catalogue of books, that might be read in the public assemblies of the faithful, for instruction and edifi- cation ; and in modern times it is used to designate those in- spired writings which constitute the rule of faith.* The Scrip- tures, therefore, are said to be canonical, not because their various books are numbered in a list, or digested into any particular order, but because they are authoritative standards of divine truth; * Eichhorn's Einleitung, vol. i. cap. 1, § 15, pp. 102-3, The text is almost a literal translation of the passage. 180 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE and the whole collection of sacred writings is called by pre-emi- nence, the canon, not because it is a collection, but because, in embodied form, it presents the entire rule of faith* It is inspi- ration, therefore, and that alone which entitles a book to be re- garded as canonical, because it is inspiration alone that invests it with authority to command our faith. If there were but one inspired book on the face of the earth, that book would be the cation — though it would be perfectly absurd to talk of a catalogue or list of one book. Accordingly, the distinguished German critic to whom I have already referred treats canonical and in- spired as synonymous terms. The Jews, it is important to state, did not apply the term canon to the collection of their sacred writings. They described the books themselves in terms * " The infinitely good God, having favored mankind with a revelation of his will, has thereby obliged all those who are blessed with the knowledge thereof, to regard it as the unerring rule of their faith and practice. Under this character, the Prophets, Apostles, and other writers of the sacred books, pub- lished and delivered them to the world ; and on this account they were dignified above all others with the titles of the canon and the canonical. The word ca- non is originally Greek, and did, in that language, as well as in the Latin after- wards, commonly denote that which was a rule or standard, by which other things were to he examined and judged. And inasmuch as the books of in- spiration contained the most remarkable rules, and the most important direc- tions of all others, the collection of them in time obtained the name of the canon, and each book was called canonical." — Jones' new and full Method for settling the Canon, &c. pt. 1, c. 1, p. 19, vol. i. See also Lardner's Supple, chap. 1, § 3, vol. v. p. 257 of Works. See also Chalmers' Evidences of Christianity, Book iv. chap. 1. Owen on Hebrews, Ex- ercit. i. § 2. That the definition which has been given in the text is abundantly confirmed by approved Papal authorities, the following extracts will place be- yond question. Ferus says — Scriptura dicitur canonica, id est, regularis, quia a Deo nobis data vitas et veritatis regula, qua omnia probamus et juxta quam vivamus. Jacobus Andradius says — Minime sibi displicere eorum sententiam, qui canonicos ideo appellari dicunt (Scripturse) libros quia pietatis et fidei etre- ligionis canonem, hoc est, regulam atque normam e coelis summo Dei beneficio ad nos delatam continent amplissimam. Nam cum omnipotentis Dei incorrup- tissima et integerrima voluntas humanarum esse debeat actionum et voluntatum norma : merito sana a canone et regula nomen accipere ii codices debuere, qui- bus Divina mysteria atque voluntas comprehensa. And Bellarmin, whom Ray- nold styles the Prince of Jesuits, affirms — Remnitium recte deduxisse ex Augus- tino, libros sacros Scriptural ideo dictos canonicos, quod sint instar regular. These extracts maybe found in Raynol. Censura. vol. i. p. 61. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 181 expressive of their divine origin — arranged them in convenient general divisions, but did not confine themselves to any one specific enumeration. The books were computed indiscrimi- nately so as to suit the number of letters either in the Hebrew or Greek alphabets. The Jews knew nothing of the magic of a list. Philo and Josephus, for instance, never speak of the canon — but of the " compositions of their prophets " — their " sacred books" — " the oracles of God/' using such terms as denoted in- spiration. This was the only canonical authority of which they dreamed. This it was that distinguished their books from the works of the Gentiles, and exalted their faith above the deduc- tions of a fallible philosophy. If, then, canonical and inspired, as applied to the Scriptures, are synonymous terms, to insert a book in the canon, is simply to be convinced of its divine inspi- ration. The very evidence which proves it to come from God, makes it canonical. In other words, the proofs of inspiration and the proofs of canonical authority are one and the same thing. Hence instead of requiring some great and imposing assembly, like the cheneseth hagadolah of the Jews, or your own favorite Council of Trent, to settle the canon of Scripture, it is a work which every one must achieve for himself. The external proofs of inspiration, which consist in the signs of an apostle or a prophet, found either in the writer himself, or some one com- missioned to vouch for his production, are as easy and obvious as the external proof that any body of men are supernaturally guarded from error.* The contemporaries of Moses would know, from the miracu- lous credentials by which his commission was sustained, that his compositions were the supernatural dictates of God. They would consequently be a canon to his countrymen. As other prophets successively arose, their instructions, supported by simi- * " The inspiration of a writer," says Jahn, " can only be proved by Divine testimony. Nevertheless nothing more can be required than that a man who has proved his Divine miracles or prophecies should assert that the book or books in question are free from error." Introduct. O. T. cap. 2, p. 35, Turner's Translation. The reader will find this subject very clearly presented in Sermon xxiii. of Van Mildert's Boyle Lectures. 182 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE lar credentials, would receive a similar distinction. The canon in this way would be gradually enlarged. Writers might be found who gave no external proofs themselves that they wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and yet their writings might be authenticated by those who were unquestionably possessed of the prophetic spirit, and on this account these compositions would also be added to the existing canon. We read in the Scriptures that " all Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the Lord." (1 Sam. iv. 20.) How did they know it? There was no great synagogue to publish the fact or authenticate its truth. There was no great council to settle the matter by an infallible canon — but there was something better and higher: "The Lord was with him," and attested by miracles the supernatural character of his servant. Now precisely in the same way could the claims of every other prophet be established ; and the evidences of divine inspiration be speedily and extensively diffused. The sacred books, circulated among the people, as well as preserved in the Library of the Temple* by the Priests, would have every moral protection from corruption, forgery, or frauds. The inno- vations of the Priests would be speedily detected by the people, and the changes of the people just as readily exposed by the Priests. In the multitude of copies, as in the multitude of coun- sellors, there would be safety. t To this must be added the sleepless providence of God, which would preserve his word, which he hath exalted above every other manifestation of his name,, amid all the assaults of its enemies, and transmit it to future generations unimpaired by the fires of persecution, as the burning bush was protected from the flame.f * The existence of such a Temple Library will hardly be disputed by any sober critic. Traces of it may be found before the captivity in Deut. xxxi. 26, Joshua xxiv. 26, 1 Samuel x. 25. After the captivity, the evidence is com- plete. Josephus Antiq. 1. iii. c. i. § 7 ; 1. v. c. i. § 17. De Bello. Jud. 1. vii. c. 5, § 5. See also Eichhorn Einleit. vol. i. §3. t This subject is ably discussed by Abbadie in a short compass. See Christ. Relig. vol. i. §3, c. 6. I Upon the manner in which the canon was gradually formed, and for a full and satisfactory explanation of the doubts which existed in the primitive church in reference to some of the books of the New Testament, see Lancaster's Bamp- ton Lectures. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 183 It is a favorite scheme of the papists to represent the settling of the Canon as a work of gigantic toil and formidable mystery. It evidently, however, reduces itself to a simple question of fact — what books were written by men whose claims to inspiration were either directly or remotely established by miracles? It is a question, therefore, of no more difficulty than the authenticity of the sacred books. To illustrate the matter in the case of the New Testament. The churches that received the Epistles from Paul could have had no doubts of their canonical authority, be- cause they knew that the Apostle was supernaturally inspired as a teacher of the faith. He produced in abundance the signs of an apostle. So also the writings of the other apostles would be recognized by their cotemporary brethren as the Word of the Lord. The hooks actually written by the Apostles, or approved by their sanction, would be known by having witnesses of the fact. The historical proofs of this fact, that is, the testimony of credible witnesses, would be sufficient, in all future time, to attest the inspiration of any given work. If a man, for example, in the third century, is doubtful of the Epistle to the Romans, all that is necessary to settle his mind is to convince him that Paul actu- ally wrote it. This being done, its inspiration follows as a mat- ter of course. If a book, on the other hand, which pretended to be inspired, could produce no adequate proofs of apostolic origin or apostolic sanction, its claims would have to be rejected, unless its author could exhibit, in his own person, the signs of a heavenly messenger. The congregations in possession of inspired records were accustomed, as we gather from the apostles themselves, to transmit their treasures to the rest of their brethren, so that, in process of time, this free circulation of the sacred books would put them in the hands of all the portions of the church ; and as each church became satisfied of their apostolic origin, it received them likewise as canonical and divine, and, in this way, a com- mon canon was gradually settled. The idea that a council, or any mere ecclesiastical body, could settle the canon, is perfectly preposterous. To settle the canon, is to settle the inspiration of the sacred books — to settle the inspiration of the sacred books is to prove that they were written by divine prophets — and to prove this fact, is to prove either that the prophets themselves 184 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE established their pretensions by miraculous achievements, or were sanctioned by those who were already in possession of supernat- ural credentials. Now what can a council do in a matter of this sort, but give the testimony of the men who compose it? Its authority as a council is nothing — it may be entitled to defer- erence and respect as embodying the testimony of credible wit- nesses. Every thing, however, will depend upon the honesty, accuracy, fidelity, and opportunities of the individual members who constitute the Synod. Having now shown what a canon is, how a book is deter- mined to be canonical, and how the canon was gradually col- lected, little need be said in refutation of your extravagant ac- count of the origin and settlement of the canon of the Jews. 1 could have predicted beforehand, from your known parti- ality for Synods and Councils, that you would have found in the great synagogue of Ezra, an adequate tribunal for adjusting the rule of faith. You would never, at least, have rested in your in- quiries, until you had met with some body of men in whose deci- sion your papal proclivity to confide in the authority of man, might be humored or indulged. As to the wolf in the fable, no possible combination of letters could be made to spell any thing but agnus, so your inherent love for a Council would lead you to embrace any floating tradition by which you could construct a plausible story, that such a tribunal had settled the canon of the Jews. But, sir, where is the proof that this great synagogue ever existed ? The first notice which we have of it, is contained in the Talmud, a book which began about^e hundred years after this synagogue is said to have perished. You are more modest, how- ever, than some of your predecessors. Genebrard, not content, like yourself, with a single Council, has fabricated two other Synods to complete the work which Ezra had begun.* By one of these imaginary bodies the books of Tobias and Ecclesias- ticus were added to the canon, and by the other, the remaining works of the Apocrypha. The great synagogue, which you have endorsed, was a regular ecclesiastical body, in which might be dis- cerned, to use your own words, " a general council of the churchy * Hettinger, Thesaur. Phil. lib. i. c. i. quest. 1. p. 110. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 185 in the old laiv, claiming and exercising by the authority of God the power of teaching the faithful what were the inspired books" Beyond the traditions of the Rabbins, what evidence are you able to produce, that a body, so evidently extraordinary as this is re- ported to have been, is any thing more than a fiction 1 You are probably aware, sir, that Jahn pronounces the story to be a fable, in which he is confirmed by what in a question of literary criti- cism is still higher authority, the opinion of Eichhorn. # We are not wanting in Jewish writers from the period of Ezra, to the advent of Christ, and the compilation of the Talmud, and it is certainly astonishing, if the synagogue had been a historical entity of so much importance as the traditions of the Rabbins ascribe to it, that some authentic notice has not been taken of its history, organization, and proceedings. How, sir, will you explain this wonderful phenomenon 1 Then, again, the one hun- dren and twenty men who composed this assembly, are said all to have nourished at the same time, and so Daniel and Simon the Just are made cotemporaries, although there could have been, according to Prideaux, little less than two hundred and fifty years between them. The whole story is so ridiculous and absurd as to carry the stamp of falsehood upon its face. It no doubt arose from the fact that Ezra was assisted in restoring the constitution of the Jewish state, and publishing a correct edition of the Scrip- tures, (of the canon as already existing,) by the " principal elders, who lived in a continual succession from the first return * The Jews attribute the establishment of their canon, to what they call the Great Synagogue, which during more than two hundred years, from Zerub- babel down to Simon the Just, was composed of the prophets and most eminent men of the nation. But the whole story respecting this synagogue, which first occurs in the Talmud, is utterly unworthy of credit. It is evidently a fictitious representation of the historic truth, that the men who are said to have consti- tuted the synagogue, were chiefly instrumental in the new regulation of the state, and in the constitution of the Jewish church, and consequently, in the col- lecting and fixing the holy books upon which this constitution was established." — Jahn's Introd., Turner's Trans, p. 45. See also Eichhorn's Einleit. vol. i. § 5. An account of this great synagogue may be found in Bartolocci Bibliotheca Rabbinica, vol. iv. p. 2, on the word " Cheneseth Hagadolah " Buxtorf Tiberias, c. x. xi. Leusden, Philol. Heb. Dissert, ix. §4, p. 73. 9* 186 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE of the Jews after the Babylonish captivity, to the death of Simon the Just."* That Ezra could not have settled the canon of Scripture, is clear from the fact, that most of the books already existed, and were known to be the compositions of prophets. There is no evidence that he furnished additional proof of the inspiration of Moses, David, or Isaiah, and yet this he must have done if he made them canonical. f The truth is, he did nothing more in reference to existing books than discharge the duties of a critical editor. His labors were precisely of the same hind as those of Griesbach, Knapp, and Mill. He might have been guided by inspiration in executing these functions, for he was confessedly an inspired man, but the ancient books which he published were just as canonical before he was born, as they were after he was dead. " What authority," you state with ineffable simplicity, " they (the Jews) thought necessary and sufficient to amend the canon, I have never met laid down by any of them. Nor do they treat of the evidence sufficient to establish the inspiration of a book." The authority, it is plain, is the evidence of inspiration, and that, in its external division, is the exhibition of miraculous creden- tials. Whoever claimed to be inspired, and sustained his pre- tensions by signs and wonders, which none could do unless God were with him, was in fact inspired, and whatever he wrote under the influence of inspiration, belonged of necessity to the canon.\ * In addition to the authority of Jahn, see also Prideaux, vol. i. p. 359. Knapp's Lectures, vol. i. art. i. §4, p. 81. t " But the great work of Ezra, was his collecting together and setting forth a correct edition of the Holy Scriptures, which he labored much in, and went a great way in the perfecting of it. This both Christians and Jews give him the honor of, and many of the ancient Fathers attribute more to him, in this parti- cular, than the Jews themselves. For they hold that all the Scriptures were lost and destroyed in the Babylonish captivity, and that Ezra restored them ail again by Divine inspiration. Thus saith Irenaeus, and thus say Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Basil, and others. But they had no other foundation for it, than that fabulous relation which we have of it in the 14th chapter of the second Apocryphal book of Esdras, a book too absurd for the Romanists them- selves to receive into their canon." — Prideaux, vol. i. p. 368. X " In the ense of a person, claiming to be commissioned with a message APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 18? Your distinction, accordingly, between not inserting a book really inspired in a canon, and rejecting it from a canon through defect of proof or want of authority, is wholly gratuitous and ab- surd. As the only way in which a book can be inserted into the canon, is to acknowledge its Divine authority as a rule of faith ; that is, to receive it as inspired, so the only way of rejecting it, is to deny or not be convinced of its inspiration. A book can- not be rejected after its inspiration is established ; we may refuse to obey its instructions, but if we know it to be inspired, it must be regarded as speaking with authority. "Whether we hear, or whether we forbear, it still is entitled to be considered as a rule. Those that would not submit to the government of Christ, were still treated and punished as his subjects. His right of dominion was not at all impaired by their disobedience. You are quite mistaken, therefore, in supposing that the charge of rejecting the Apocrypha from the canon cannot be sustained against the Jews, unless they had proof that these from God, the only proof which ought to be admitted is miraculous attestation of some sort. It should be required that either the person himself should work a miracle, or that a miracle should be so wrought in connection with his minis- try, as to remove all doubt of its reference to him and his message. The mir- acle, in these cases, is, in fact, a specimen of that violation of the ordinary course of nature which the person inspired is asserting to have taken place in his appointment and ministry ; and corresponds to the exhibition of specimens and experiments which we should require of a geologist, mineralogist, or chem- ist, if he asserted his discovery of any natural phenomena, especially of any at variance with received theories." — Hinds on Inspiration, pp. 9, 10. " The Bible is said to be inspired in no other sense than the government of the Is- raelites might be termed inspired — that is, the persons who wrote the Bible, and those who were appointed to govern God's people of old, were divinely commissioned and miraculously qualified, as far as was needful, for their respec- tive employments. This being so, the inspiration of Scripture is not, by the strict rule of division, opposed to the inspiration of persons, but forms one branch of that multifarious ministry in which those persons were engaged. *. The proof requisite for establishing the divine authority of any writings, when, as in the case of the Bible, the testimonial miracles of the authors can be no longer witnessed, is either 1, That some miracle be implied in the authorship, or 2, That there be satisfactory testimony that the writers were persons who performed miracles, or 3, That there be satisfactory testimony that the writings were recognised as works of inspiration by persons who must have been assured of this on the evidence of miracles." — Ibid. p. 27. 28. 188 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE books were inspired, and possessed a tribunal whose function it was to insert them into the canon. They were rejected from the canon, from the very nature of the case, if they were not believed to be inspired* * I find that Raynold in his admirable work, Censura Librorum Apocry- phorum, has taken the same view. In rebutting the very distinction of A. P. F. which, in the days of this great scholar, was urged by Canus and Sixtus Senen- sis, he thus proceeds : " Concidit ergo alteram exceptionis Sixti membrum : nunc ad alteram, quod ita habet : Etsi non receperunt in canonem, tamen non rejecerunt ; aliud enim ncn recipere, aliud rejicere. At idem plane est ad id de quo agimus, non accipere et rejicere. Nam mutemus verba prioris ratiocinationis nostrae, et dicamus: Si quae unquam ecclesia verum et cerium testimonium dare potuit de Libris canonicis Sacrae Scripturae, de Libris certe Veteris Testamenti vetus Ecclesia Judaica potuit. At ea hos, qui sunt in controversia, libros in canonem non recepit. Ergo recipiendi non sunt. Quid jam lucratus est Canus ? Nobis satis probasse non esse recipiendo, quod enim Christus apud Matthaeum dicit, qui vos recipit, me recipit, id apud Lucam sic effertur, qui vos rejicit, me rejicit, et alibi qui non colligit mecum spargit : hie non recipi est rejici, ut in virtutis via regreditur, quicunque non progreditur, in Apocalypsi, finis erunt canes, et venefici, et scortatores, et homicidcB, et idolatrcB, et quisquis amat, et committit mendacium. Quid his proderit non rejici, si non recipiantur? Verum est ista distinctio adhuc plenius refutetur, ego non modo hos receptos, hos libros sed et rejectos fuisse docebo. Quid est enim rejicere, nisi negare esse canonicos ? Quid non recipere, quam (ut levius in Cani gratiam interpreter) dubitare num sint recipiendi ]" — Cens. Lib. Ap. vol. i. p. 86. Pra elect ix. M One member of the exception of Sixtus has fallen ; now for the other, which is this ; * although they (the Jews) did not receive these books into the canon,^they did not reject them : — not to receive and to reject, are different things. They are evidently the same, however, in the matter of which we are treating. For let us change the form of expressing our first argument, and say if any Church could give a true and certain testimony concerning the canonical books of Holy Scripture, particularly the books of the Old Testament, it was the ancient Church of the Jews. But this Church did not receive into its canon the disputed books, therefore they ought not to be received. What, now, has Canus gained ? It is enough, to prove that they ought not to be received. Christ, in Matthew, says, whoso receiveth you, receiveth me ; the same idea is expressed in Luke, whoso rejecteth you, rejecteth me, and else- where, he that ga there th not with me, seattereth. In these passages, not to be received and to be rejected, are the same thing, as he who goes backward in the path of virtue does not go forward ; and, as in the Apocalypse, without are dogs, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and murderers, and idolaters, and who- soever loveth and maketh a lie. What will it profit these not to be rejected if APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 189 All your blunders upon this subject have arisen from the am- biguity of the word canon, and from the preposterous idea, that there is something peculiarly mysterious and profound in making a collection of sacred works. It seems never to have entered your head that there is nothing more wonderful or abstruse in gathering together the accredited writings of the Holy Ghost, than in making a collection of the acknowledged publications of a human author. The difficulty of the subject is not in the col- lection, but in the proof that the separate pieces, in either case, are genuine. Inspiration is the mark of a genuine work of the Spirit, and miracles are the infallible marks of inspiration. These preliminary suggestions in reference to the nature and authority of the canon, furnish the keys to a satisfactory solution of all your difficulties. Your refutation of the minor proposi- tions of my argument, will be found so essentially wanting in every element of strength, that it may safely be pronounced as worthless as you have represented my own to be, and will assur- edly " crumble under its own irresistible weight." LETTER XII. Our Saviour approved the Jewish canon and treated it as complete. Sadducees vindicated from the charge of rejecting all the Old Testament but the Pentateuch. The real point which Papists must prove, in order to establish the inspiration f the Apocrypha. That the Jewish canon was not defective, was made to ap- pear from the silence of Christ, in reference to any omission impairing its integrity ; from His recorded conversations, in which he evidently sanctioned it as complete ; and from the in- structions of His apostles, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. they are not received ] But that this distinction may be yet more fully re- fated, I will not only show that these books were not received, but that they were positively rejected. For what is it to reject but to deny that they are canonical? And what not to receive, but to doubt whether they should be received V 191) ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE Your reply to these several distinct proofs of ray minor pro- position, I shall now examine in the order which seems to me to be most convenient for fully presenting the subject. First, then, you deny that our Saviour, or His apostles, ever referred to the canon of the Jews at all, and, in order to give some semblance of truth to this gross and palpable falsehood, you avail yourself of the ambiguity of a term, and endeavor to " embosk in the dark, bushy, and tangled forest" of verbal technicalities. * It is freely conceded that our Saviour nowhere enumerates, by their specific names or titles, all the books which compose the Jewish Scriptures. He never pretended, so far as it appears from the sacred records, to give an accurate list or for- mal catalogue of all the inspired writings which the Jews received as the infallible standard of supernatural truth. But what is this to the point ? Even if we take canon in your own arbitrary sense of it, you have grossly failed to sustain your monstrous hy- pothesis. It is certainly one thing to refer to a canon, and quite a different thing to enumerate all the books which compose it. Such general terms as the Works of Homer, the Works of Plato, or the Works of Cicero, evidently embrace a complete collection of their various performances ; and to refer to them under these titles, is to refer to the catalogue or list of their literary labors. If the question were asked, what were the works of Homer, could it be answered in any other way than by enumerating the specific books of which he was supposed to be the author ? Now if the Jews applied any general and comprehensive titles to the whole body of their sacred writings, and if our Saviour refered to these documents, under those titles, he referred, un- questionably, to the catalogue or list of their divine composi- tions, that is, in your own sense, he referred unquestionably to the * " You have entirely forgotten or omitted to allege, or even by note to refer to a single passage of the New Testament, wherein the Saviour or the Apostles speak at all of the canon of the Jews. They refer to the Scriptures generally, and to particular books, they quote from them, but there is not in the whole New Testament a single passage showing that Christ and His Apostles ever referred to the canon catalogue or list of inspired books held among the Jews, much less treated that catalogue as complete and containing the whole of God's revelation as far as then made. — Letter II APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 191 # canon of his countrymen. Have you yet to learn, sir, that the phrases " Scriptures," " Holy Scriptures," " Sacred Books," and such like expressions, which are continually occurring in Philo and Josephus, were the common and familiar designations of those works which were believed to have proceeded from the Spirit of God ?* Have you further to learn that the division of their sacred books into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the rest of the books, was an ancient classification It Certainly, sir, there is as much evidence of these facts, as of the existence of an infallible " council of the church in the old law," in the days of Ezra. If, now, our Saviour or his apostles ever referred to the inspired documents of the Jewish faith, under the general and comprehensive title of the " Scriptures," or under the three- fold division of their books which ancient usage had sanctioned, he referred, beyond all question, to their canon, in the sense of a catalogue or list of their divine compositions. That they did refer, however, to the Scriptures generally, you yourself admit. How, then, can you deny the obvious conclusion, without main- taining that the general does not include the particulars, the whole is not composed of its parts ? Homer sometimes nodded ; and you, too, in a moment of unlucky forgetfulness, have virtually acknowledged that there can be a reference to a canon, when the name itself is not mentioned, and when there is no complete enumeration of the specific books which constitute the list. You have appealed to a writer, who, from the passage quoted, would evidently appear to be Flavius Josephus, though, in the plenitude of papal authority and sacerdotal learning, you have reversed his name, for the purpose of showing " what were the ideas of the Jews," on the subject of their national canon. What evidence have you, sir, that will not as clearly apply to the case of Christ and his apostles, that Josephus, in the cele- * Hottinger, Thesaur. Phil. lib. i. c. 2, § 3. Leusden, Phil. Heb. dissert, i. § 1. Eichhorn, Einleit. c. i. § 6. Jahn, Introd. Prelim. Observ. § 1. t That this was an ancient division may be gathered from the fact that it appears to have been of long standing in the time of Jesus the Son of Sirach. We find it in his Prologue. See Leusden. Phil. Heb. Dissert, ii. § 1. Hot- tinger, Thesaur. Phil. lib. ii. c. i. § 1. Eichhorn, Einleit. c. i. § 6. Jahn, pt. i. § 103. 192 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE brated passage to which you allude, refers to the canon, since he only mentions the general division of the sacred books into three leading parts, and mentions the number, not the names of the works that belong to each division?* The same divisions are mentioned by our Saviour (Luke xxir. 44), " All things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me," and yet you deny that in this passage of Luke, or in any other passage of the New Testament, there is any reference at all to the canon of the Jews. I am at a loss to understand how a reference to a general classi- fication, when found in Josephus, should be a reference to the canon, but when found in the mouth of our Saviour, should be entirely different. It is vain to allege that because Josephus mentions the number of books in each department, that this is equivalent to the mention of a canon. The number of books may be gathered from the catalogue, but it is no more the cata- logue itself, than the general heads under which the list is arranged. If I should say that there are twenty thousand vol- umes in the library of the South Carolina College, would that be the same as a list of the books? If I should say that the books which it contains might be conveniently arranged under the four departments of Law, Divinity, Philosophy, and Belles Lettres, and that each department contained five thousand vol- umes, would that be equivalent to a catalogue of the Library ? It is perfectly plain, sir, that Josephus no more gives us a list of the sacred writings of the Jews, which, with you, is the only * This passage occurs in Josephus contra Ap. lib. i. § 8. It may be thus rendered : " For we have not innumerable books which contradict each other ; but only twenty-two, which comprise the history of all times past, and are justly held to be divine. Five of these books proceed from Moses ; they contain laws and accounts of the origin of men, and extend to his death. Accordingly they include not much less than a period of three thousand years. From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who, after Xerxes, reigned over the Persians, the prophets who lived after Moses, have recorded, in thirteen books, what happend in their time. The other four books contain songs of praise to God, and rules of life for man. — Since Artaxerxes up to our time, every thing has been recorded ; but these writings are not held to be so worthy of credit as those written earlier, because after that time there was no regular succession of prophets !" APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 193 way of referring to their canon, than Christ and his apostles, — and there is no line of argument by which you can show that he refers to the canon, in the passage which you have extracted from his works, that will not also show that Christ himself refers to it in the passage recorded by Luke. You yourself, then, being judge, your broad and unqualified assertions, that " there is not in the whole New Testament a single passage, showing that Christ and his apostles ever referred to the canon, catlaogue, or list of inspired books held among the Jews/' is a pure fabrication of the brain. — Your imagination was evidently commencing that grand process of unreal formations, which finally resulted in the stupendous creation of a " general council of the church in the Old Law, claiming and exercising, by the authority of God, the power of teaching the faithful what were the inspired books/' I tremble for history when your mind is in travail. Laboring mountains producer mouse, but laboring priests bring forth facts from the womb of fancy — are delivered of gods in the shape of bread, and produce Redeemers in the form of saints. If, upon your own hypothesis, that a canon and list of inspired books are synonymous terms, your position is grossly and palpa- bly false, how triumphant becomes its refutation upon the true view of the case, that the canon of the Jews was their authorita- tive standard of faith ! What Philo and Josephus denoted by the terms " Scriptures," " Holy Scriptures," " Sacred Books," " Oracles of God," and such like expressions, was precisely the same thing which is now denoted by the compendious appella- tion canon. This word was not, at that time, in use in reference to the sacred books; but in those connections in which we would naturally use it, they always employed some phraseology which indicated the divine authority of the books. All books which were written by prophets or inspired men belonged to the class of Holy Scriptures, and those which were destitute of any satisfac- tory claims to a supernatural origin were ranked in a different category. As then the Jews evidently meant by the Scriptures pre- cisely what we mean by the canon or canonical books, our Sa- viour's references, as also those of his apostles, to the Jewish rule of faith under this general designation, were references to 194 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE the national canon. Wherever the word occurs in allusion to the sacred books, the corresponding term canon may be safely substituted and not the slightest change will be made in the mean- ing. With these explanations I now proceed to show that our Saviour did quote, approve, and sanction as complete, the inspired rule of faith which the Jews in his own day professed to acknow- ledge.* 1. First he appealed to it under its ancient division into three general departments, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, Luke xxiv. 44. This, according to Leusden, was the first general partition of the sacred books. What in this category is called Psalms, the first book of a class being put for the whole class, was subsequently denominated Hagiographa — the phrase employ- ed by the Jews (Ketubim) being less definite and precise. The books of this third division, as would appear from the term Ketu- bim itself, were usually described by a periphrasis, as there was no general name which exactly comprehended them all. Hence in the former Prologue of Jesus the grandson of Sirach, they are simply mentioned under the vague title of the " rest of the books." Josephus also applies to them a similar appellation. The Psalms being the first in order under the general class of Hagiographa, our Saviour in conformity with the Jewish method of citation, mentions them as including the rest of the Ketubim. f It appears, too, that Jesus was accustomed to introduce repeated allusions to the books of the Old Testament under a two-fold di- vision — which not unfrequently occurs in the remains of the Fa- thers — the Law and the Prophets.f (Matt. v. 17, vii. 12, xi. 13, xxii. 40. Luke xvi. 16.) Not only did Christ and his apostles appeal to the canon of * In my original essay, I made no special references to show that Christ and his Apostles had quoted and approved the Jewish canon, because I never dreamed that any human being would think of denying so plain a proposition. It appeared to me like proving that the sun shines at noonday. t The Psalms of our Saviour's arrangement and the Hagiographa of later classifications are evidently the same. There being no single word by Which all the books of this class could be denoted, led, necessarily, to a periphrastic description, or to the mention of a single book as a reference to the series. t Suicer on the word ypouprj, § 7. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 195 the Jews in a general way, but they appealed to it as possessed of divine authority. They made a broad distinction between it and all the writings of man. Paul says expressly, in evident al- lusion to the sacred books of his nation, " All scripture is given by inspiration of God." (2 Tim. iii. 16.) Peter declares that " prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Our Saviour refers the Jews to the Scrip- tures which they were in the habit of reading as containing the words of everlasting life, for a satisfactory defence of his own snpernatural commission. Then, again, particular passages are repeatedly introduced as theipsissima verba of the Holy Ghost.* These facts incontestably prove that the Jewish canon was sanc- tioned by Christ, approved by his apostles, and commended to the church as the lively oracles of God. The estimate which Christ and his apostles put upon the Scriptures of the Old Testament, may be gathered from the fact that they uniformly treat Christianity as only a development of Judaism. It was a new dispenation of an old religion. Hence, in their arguments with Jews and Gentiles, in their instructions to all classes and conditions of men, they refer to the Scriptures, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, for a divine confirmation of all the doctrines which they taught. The New Testament is only an inspired exposition of the principles contained in the Old. Every doctrine which Christ or his Apostles announced may be found in the existing canon of their day. Whatever changes they made, or novelties they taught, respected the organization and not the essence of the church. Hence the primitive Chris- tians, even before a single gospel or epistle had been indited, had a written rule of faith. They were never for a moment, as * The following passages show the light in which the Jewish canon was held by the writers of the New Testament. I have before me a list of direct quotations made from the Old Testament by the writers of the New, amounting to about 272. Yet there is no reference to the Jewish canon ! Matt. xi. 13, xv. 3-6, xix. 2-6, xxii. 31-43, xxvi. 54. Luke xvi. 16,29,31, xviii. 31, xxiv. 25-27, 44-46. Mark vii. 9, 13. John v. 39, 46, x. 34. Acts iii. ]8, xxviii. 25. Rom. i. 2, iv. 2-24. Gal. iii. 8, 16. Heb. iii. 7, xii. 27. 1 Pet.i. 11. 2Pet.i. 21. 196 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE the papists pretend, left to oral tradition for the doctrines of their creed. But the Jewish canon was also held to be complete. In the original essay this point was presented as a legitimate and obvi- ous inference from the silence of the Saviour in reference to any defects in the sacred library of his countrymen. Now the strength of this argument must depend on the strength of the presumption, that, if such defects in reality existed, the Messiah would have felt himsejf bound to correct and remove them. Ac- cording to the hypothesis of Rome one fifth of the revelation of God was deprived of that equal veneration and authority to which it was justly entitled with the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Now the question is, whether that great Prophet of the church, u who was clad with zeal as a cloak" — who came to magnify " the Law and make it honorable," and who expressly declared that he had " not refrained his lips " from speaking righteous- ness in the great congregation, nor concealed from it the truth and loving-kindness of the Lord ; the question is whether such a prophet would suffer so large a part of the light of revelation to be extinguished without uttering a single word in its defence. Upwards of fourteen hundred years before he was born, his Fa- ther had distinctly announced, u I will put my words in his mouth, and lie shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." He came then, not only as a Priest and King, but also as a teacher — a teacher of God's truth — and yet permitted a body of that truth almost equal in bulk to the whole New Testament to be " buried in the dust of death." If he raised no warning voice, no cry of expostulation — if he stood silent by when such violence was done to the sacred records of the faith, how could he say, " Thy law is within my heart, lo, I have not refrained my lips, Oh Lord, thou knowest "? The Jews had excluded the Apocrypha, either wil- fully or ignorantly — if wilfully, they were guilty of a fraud, and that fraud ought to have been rebuked — if ignorantly, they were involved in a great calamity, and their illustrious prophet would not have left them in their darkness and error. So that upon every view of the subject the silence of Christ is wholly unaccountable, if these books were really inspired. It becomes simple and nat- ural upon the supposition that they were merely human produc- APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 197 tions. He would have, in that case, no more occasion to mention them than to mention the writings of the Greek philosophers. Now, sir, what is your answer to this plain argument from the silence of Christ 1 Why, you tell us, in your third distinc- tion, that it is not so perfectly certain that Christ observed any such silence as I have attributed to him. You inform us — in conformity with the testimony of John, for that is the ouly pas- sage which bears upon the point — that Jesus did a great many things which are not recorded ; therefore he must also have said a great many things which have not been preserved. I confess that 1 do not exactly perceive the consequence. But let that pass. Let us admit that he may have said as well as done a great many things which have never been written, is it likely that the Apostles and Evangelists would have omitted what their master had taught in reference to a subject so vastly important as the very constitution of his church? No history perhaps records all the sayings and doings of the continental congress — but that certainly would not deserve the name of a history that should neglect to make the most distant reference to the Declaration of Independence 1 Whatever other things the sacred writers have passed in silence and neglect, we may feel perfectly certain that they have not concealed or suppressed the instructions of their master in regard to so fundamental a matter as the rule of faith. The very same arguments that render it improbable that our Sav- iour would have failed to correct the defects of the Jewish can- on, if any defects had existed, render it also improbable that his biographers would have neglected to record the substance, at least, of what he had taught upon the subject. If we grant, how- ever, that their silence is no proof of their master's silence, you have gained nothing.* You have only avoided one difficulty by plunging into another. You would have the silence of the Apos- tles and Evangelists to explain, instead of the silence of Christ. — For this and all other difficulties, however, you have a stereo- typed solution at hand. What Christ did not choose to do in per- son upon earth, and what his apostles failed to perform, however clearly within the compass of their sacred commission, may yet be accomplished by a standing tribunal — a general council of the church, like the fictitious synagogue of Ezra, " claiming and 198 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE exercising, by the authority of God, the power of teaching the faithful what were the inspired works." But as every falsehood accumulates additions in its progress — vires acquirit eundo — so your infallible body possesses some larger powers in your second letter than it was represented to possess in your first. You have brought it so often before the public, and exposed it to view in such tattered apparel, that it has finally lost its modesty, and be- gins to speak more "swelling words of vanity" than it dared to utter at its first appearance. In your first letter, councils could do no more, on the head of doctrine, than merely declare and define what had always been the faith of the church. They pos- sessed no power to make new articles of faith, they could only an- nounce with infallible certainty what had always been the old. In your second letter, these councils rise a step higher, and be- come prophets themselves, intrusted with new revelations which neither Christ nor his Apostles had ever communicated to the church. It seems that it is a matter of no sort of consequence whether Christ or his Apostles in their own persons had ever tes- tified to the inspiration of the Apocrypha — that is, had ever taught that the Apocrypha were inspired — an infallible council could subsequently teach it for them. How? If Christ and his Apostles had never taught it, the members of the council could not receive it from tradition — they must therefore ascertain the fact by immediate revelation* What your councils will become next, it is impossible to augur — they already claim to be the voice of the Lord — they will perhaps aspire to be God himself. I shall add nothing here to what I have already said touching your pretensions to infallibility. My previous numbers are a full refutation of this stupendous folly. • You are extremely unfortunate in your attempt to refute from analogy my obvious inference from the silence of the Sa- * " Suppose those works inspired, as I contend they are, but not admitted at the Saviours time into the Jewish canon, it was not, strictly speaking, neces- sary that either Christ or his apostles should testify personally to their inspira- tion. If the Saviour established a body of men, who, by his authority, and under the guidance of his Holy Spirit of truth, were to decide that question, which, as I showed in Letter I, we are necessarily bound to admit, the decision of such a body at any subsequent period would be amply sufficient/' — Letter II. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED 199 viour. You appeal to the case of the Sadducees and Samaritans, who, according to you, denied all the books of the Jewish canon, but the five books of Moses, and yet were not rebuked by the Saviour for their wicked infidelity. Now, sir, that the Sadducees denied the divine authority of the prophets and Ketubim, I think it will be difficult for you or any other man to prove. It has been supposed that because our Saviour refutes their skeptical opinions in regard to the resurrec- tion of the dead, by a passage extracted from the Pentateuch, therefore they denied the inspiration of any other books. But it will be seen, by inspecting the context, that they had drawn their cavils from a distinctive provision of the Jewish law. They had virtually asserted that the Pentateuch denied the resurrec- tion, since, in a given case, its peculiar requisitions, according to their view, would introduce confusion and discord into the future state. Their difficulties were met, by correcting their misapprehensions in regard to the nature of the future life, and by distinctly showing that Moses had taught the doctrine which they supposed he had condemned. Among the fathers, Origen, Tertullian, Jerome, and Athanasius, have endorsed this calumny upon the faith of the Sadducees It was first called in question by Drusius, and subsequently refuted with such triumphant suc- cess by Joseph Scaliger, that Bishop Bull pronounces his argu- ment to be decisive of the question. That must be a bad cause, in a matter of literary criticism, which such men as Scaliger, Spanheim, Pearson, Bull, Jortin, Waterland, and Eichhorn, to say nothing of Brucker, Buddaeus, and Basnage, unite to con- demn : and yet all these men are found arrayed against the pa- tristic opinion, that the Sadducees rejected the Prophets and the Psalms.* It is universally acknowledged that the Samaritans denied the divine authority of the whole Jewish canon, with the excep- tion of the Pentateuch, but it is not so clear that the Saviour failed to rebuke them. You are probably aware, sir, that distin- guished commentators, both in ancient and modern times, have * Brucker, vol. ii. p. 721. Pearson, Vindicat. Ignat. pt. 1, c. 7, p. 467. Bull, Harm. Apost. Diss. Post. 10, 14. 200 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE regarded John iv. 22, as a pointed reproof of Samaritan infidel- ity ; and it was incumbent upon you to prove that this common interpretation was erroneous before you could confidently as- sume, that the whole matter was permitted to pass sub silentio by Christ. * Again, it was hardly necessary to rebuke the Sa- maritans, as our Saviour's notorious concurrence in the faith of the Jews was an open, public, and sufficient condemnation of the errors and defects of this remarkable people. The inconsistency of the various solutions which you have suggested to the palpable difficulty arising from the silence of Christ, affords an amusing illustration of human imbecility and folly. First, it was not so absolutely certain that Christ was silent, since he performed many signs and wonders, which have never been committed to written records. Then, again, he could afford to be silent, as he had established an infallible tri- bunal, abundantly competent to supply all his deficiencies, and teach the faithful to the end of time. In an analogous case, that of the Sadducees and Samaritans, he probably was silent, as there is no evidence whatever that he rebuked the former for a sin which they never committed, arid very strong evidence that he reproved the latter for an omission of which they were un- doubtedly guilty. So you seem to oscillate between a denial and admission of the silence of Christ. Like a man walking upon ice, you tread with wary steps, lest your next movement should ingulf you. Finally, however, after all your vibrations, you " screw your courage to the sticking place," and settle down in grim despair upon a probable solution, by which you seem deter- mined to abide. You stoutly deny that Christ was silent in the matter, and promise to prove, though papal promises are sel- dom redeemed, " that Christ and his apostles did take some steps, not indeed to insert those books in the Jewish canon, but to give them to the Christians as divinely inspired works. " Apart from the lying testimony of an infallible church, the only proof which you present, in your second letter, of this miserable fiction, is drawn from the assumption, that, in the New Testa- * Such is the interpretation put upon this passage by Ammonius, Grotius, Lampe, Tholuck, and others. Tholuck's comment is specially deserving of notice. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 201 ment, quotations are made from the Apocryphal writers, and from the admitted fact, that these books were early embodied in the Septuagint. The first position you have entirely failed to substantiate. There is no proof whatever, that a single passage from any of the books of the Apocrypha, is introduced into the documents which compose the New Testament. The passage, Rom. xi. 34, which of all others seems to be most analogous to a corresponding text in the book of Wisdom, (ix. 31,) is confessed by several of the Fathers, Tertullian, Basil and Ambrose, as well as by modern authors of the papal sect, to have been borrowed from the canonical prophet Isaiah,* xl. 13. If, however, it could be proved that the Apocrypha were quoted by Christ and his apostles, this would not establish their divine inspiration, unless it could also be shown that every book quoted in the New Testa- ment, was, on that account, inspired. I can conceive of no other major proposition which would answer the ends of the argument. But surely, sir, you would not hazard a statement like this ! It is more than Trent would dare to assert, that the heathen poets, whose verses are found in the epistles of Paul, were holy men of Greece, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It is an old logical maxim that an argument which proves too much, proves in reality nothing. Your reasoning from the second fact is easily set aside. You proceed on the assumption, for which you quote the authority of Walton, that in the time of Christ and his apostles, the Septua- gint contained the Apocrypha.t You then infer, that " if those * See No. X. of this series of Letters. t I have seen no reason, since writing my original essay, to change the opinion which I then expressed, that the Septuagint, in the time of Christ, did not contain the Apocrypha. If these documents were in the hands of the apos- tles, why were they never quoted 1 How does it happen that not a single allu- sion is made to them, nor a single passage extracted from them 1 But the sub- ject is too unimportant to spend much time upon it. I shall just observe, that I am sustained in my opinion by Eichhorn, as well as Schmidius. The passage from Walton proves nothing as to the time when the union betwixt the Septua- gint and Apocrypha took place. A, P. F.'s eulogy upon Walton's competency to settle a question of this sort, is not a little amusing, since, probably, the most exceptionable part of his famous Prolegomena is in relation to the origin of the 10 202 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE books were uninspired, the Saviour and his apostles were cer- tainly bound positively to reject them." Now, as I have already shown from the very nature of the case, to insert a book into the canon is to receive it as inspired ; to reject a book is not to be persuaded or convinced of its divine inspiration, or to pronounce it uninspired. As there is no evidence that a single man, woman or child, in the whole land of Judea, looked upon the Apocrypha as inspired productions, what need was there that Christ should positively assert what no one thought of denying? His silence was conclusive proof that he acquiesced in the popular opinion. It was, beyond all controversy, the positive rejection, for which you so earnestly plead. You have admitted that the Jews had no satisfactory evidence that the Apocrypha were inspired ; that they were excluded from the Jewish canon, and, of course, a complete separation, as to authority, was made between them and the sacred books ! Every end was consequently answered which could have been effected by the most pointed denunciation of these books. There was no need for Christ to speak, unless he intended to add these works to the sacred canon. Then it would have been necessary to show the Jews their error in refusing to admit the divine author- ity of Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom. The truth is, you have been led into this foolish argument by the ambiguity of the sentence, that the Septuagint contained the Apocrypha. You evidently treat the phrase as conveying the idea, that whatever books were inserted in that version, were possessed of equal authority. The only meaning, however, which the words can consistently bear, is, that wherever there were copies of the Greek version of the Old Testament, there were also copies of the Greek documents which we now style the Apocrypha. They usually went to- gether, and that, for the purpose of presenting in regular series, the remarkable history of God's chosen people. In this way a complete collection was made of Jewish literature, inspired and uninspired. The line was clearly drawn between the divine and human ; but as they both met in the common point of Jewish Septuagint. He ought not to be read upon this point, without Hody at hand to correct his partiality for the fable of Aristaeus. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 203 history, they were united together in one collection. Thus much might have been gathered from the famous passage of Josephus, which was evidently before your eyes. " We have not," says he, " innumerable books which contradict each other, but only twenty-two which comprise the history of all times past. " * * * " Since Artaxerxes, up to our time, every thing has been re- corded." In the eyes of Josephus, then, both the canonical and Apocryphal books contained the history of his nation, and there- fore, had a common quality, which might serve as a bond of union, but the difference between them lay in this : the twenty-two books were "justly held to be divine" — those composed since the time of Artaxerxes, " were not so worthy of credit, because, after that time, there was no regular succession of prophets" or inspired writers. Another circumstance which undoubtedly con- tributed in no small degree to the popularity of those works, was their singular adaptation to the religious spirit of the age. The Jews, like the papists, had obscured the revelation of God, and trusting in the vain traditions of man, had mistaken superstition for piety, and sentiment for grace Hence they would be likely to regard (particularly the Hellenist) these Apocryphal docu- ments with the same sort of veneration with which we now con- template the monuments of illustrious teachers of the truth. It is, certainly, no commendation of these books, to say that they were written with that subordinate degree of inspiration, which the Jews denominate the " daughter of the voice."* The stories of the Rabbins concerning this singular method of super- natural communication, reveal a degree of superstition, and be- tray a foudness for magical delusion, which sufficiently illustrate the real source of their famous "bath quol." In attributing to the writings of the Apocrypha this peculiar species of inspiration, a suspicion is naturally awakened, that much of the esteem in which they were held, may be ultimately traced to their own pat- ronage of something not very remote from the black art. A strong inclination to credulity and magic was, according to Light- foot, a characteristic of the Jews under the second temple, and I * For an account of this species of inspiration, see Witsii Opera, vol. i. lib, i. c. 3. Lightfoot on Matt. iii. 17. 204 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE know of nothing better suited to a humor of this sort, than the book of Tobit, unless it be the Arabian Nights. You seem to think that if these books were not admitted into the Septuagint until after the time of Christ, it must have been done with the sanction of the apostles, in such a way as to imply that they were divinely inspired.* This would follow only upon the hypothe- sis, that when admitted they were admitted as inspired. If they were introduced into connection with the Septuagint, simply as histor- ical works, covering an interesting period of the Jewish annals, or as moral compositions pervaded by an elevated tone of reli- gious sentiment, there would be no more objection to incorpo- rating them with the Septuagint, than to placing them on the same shelf in a book-case. The apostles, I presume, would not have objected to their followers, that they studied the writings of the heathen philosophers, provided they did not make Plato and Aristotle arbiters of their faith. It was not the perusal of the books, or the places in which they were found, that could make a matter of exception. So long as they were treated simply as human compositions , possessed of no divine authority, and to be ultimately tried in all their doctrines by the sacred canon, the apostles would hardly object to the study of them. It was no part of their creed to denounce freedom of inquiry ; on the other hand, they inculcated the noble and generous maxim, " prove all things, hold fast that which is good." Paul did not hesitate * a I believe with Walton, that the Septuagint, as that collection was called, contained those books before the coming of the Saviour. You think this, if true, strengthens your argument. I think not. If those books, thus united, were uninspired, the Saviour and the apostles were certainly bound positively to reject them, not to suffer the unnatural union to pass into the church." * * But you do not believe that the Septuagint, at the Saviour's time, contained the Apocrypha. Rev. sir, a more disastrous avowal you could not have made. The union, then, took place in the church, necessarily under the eyes and with the approbation of the apostles, and their immediate, most faithful disciples. These books are quoted and referred to as divinely inspired Scripture. I could not desire a stronger case. Before the apostles, the contested books were not inserted. Immediately afterwards we find them already inserted. A change has taken place. It could only be effected by, it could only be attributed to, the Saviour and his apostles. Therefore they DID leave these works to the Chris- tian world as INSPIRED."— Letter II. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 205 to quote the heathen poets ; and if the Hellenistic Jews and the early Christians could not place the Apocrypha by the side of their canonical books without sanctioning the inspira- tion of the former, how could Paul weave whole sentences of heathen poetry into his own divine compositions, without, at the same time, endorsing the supernatural inspiration of Aratus, lUenander, and Euripides? The argument from the Septuagint's containing the Apocrypha, is so evidently preposterous, that it need be pressed no farther. Let it lie in its glory, and let peace be with it. The whole matter in dispute betwixt us, is brought down at last to this plain issue. The Apocrypha must be rejected from the sacred canon, and treated simply as human compositions, un- less it can be shown, that Christ and his apostles did sanction their divine inspiration, and authorize their use as standards of faith. Up to the time of Christ, there was no satisfactory proof that they constituted any part of the oracles of God. Whatever evidence, therefore, now exists of their supernatural character, must have been developed in the age of the Apostles. Their inspiration must have been approved by men who gave unques- tionable evidence that they spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This is the proof which the case demands ; and if you fail to produce it, you are only spending your strength for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which satisfieth not. LETTER XIII. Rejection of the Apocrypha by the Jews. — Faith of the Primitive Church not a standard to us. To you and all your predecessors in this field of controversy, the conduct of the Jewish Church to whom were committed the oracles of God in regard to the Apocrypha, has been so serious- ly embarrassing that your efforts to explain it in consistency with your own views of their divine original, are a powerful illustra- tion of the desperate expedients to which men may be driven by 206 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE extremity of circumstances, who are resolved not to receive the truth. The rule of Augustine is so palpably just, that the author- ity of a book must depend on the testimony of contemporary witnesses, that the absence of all such testimony, in the present case, or of any testimony at all for a long series not of years alone, but of centuries, is felt to be a huge impediment to your cause. As ycu cannot suborn the ancient people of God to give the least countenance to your vain and arrogant pretensions, you expend all your ingenuity upon fruitless and abortive efforts to reconcile the exclusion of the Apocryphal books from the Jewish canon with your modern hypothesis of their divine inspiration. The Jesuits cannot disguise their spleen at the stubborn and intracta- ble conduct of the sons of Abraham. In the true spirit of some of the venerable Fathers of Trent, Bellarmin speaks of the Jew- ish synagogue with great contempt, representing it to be, from its very name, a collection of cattle rather than men. And Campi- anus, his inferior in learning, though his superior in elegance, treats its canon as a mere grammatical affair, dependent upon the characters of the Hebrew alphabet, and incapable of being in- creased after the books had reached the charmed number of the letters. Others again have endeavored to show that the Jews, as a body, always entertained a profound respect for these disputed documents, and that some of the nation actually received them as divinely inspired. f But of all the theories which have ever been invented, that which you have borrowed and endorsed from Mel- * The spirit of the Fathers of Trent may be gathered from the following extract : " To these reasons, which the major part applauded, others added also, that if the Providence of God hath given an authentical Scripture to the Synagogue, and an authentical New Testament to the Grecians, it cannot be said without derogation, that the Church of Rome, more beloved than the rest, hath wanted this great benefit, and therefore, that the same Holy Ghost who did dictate the holy Books, hath dictated also that translation which ought to be accepted by the Church of Rome."— Father Paul, p. 147. For a full and able refutation of Campianusand Bellarmin upon this subject, see Rainold. Cens. Lib. Apoc. Tom. i. p. 96, &c. t This opinion is attributed by Melchior Canus to Cochlaeus, but the per- sons among the Jews who did receive these books have never been brought to light APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 207 chior Canus is beyond controversy the most unfortunate.* It turns upon a distinction which I have already shown to be false, which Bellarmin himself saw to be untenable, and consequently passed without discussion, and which, as presented by you, is ab- solutely fatal to your cause. You deny that the Jews rejected the Apocrypha, because they had no satisfactory evidence that the books were inspired, or possessed no tribunal competent to enlarge the extent of the canon. They did not receive them, you admit, but as no body commissioned to pronounce an authorita- tive judgment, probably existed, there could be no rejection in the case. You lay greatstress upon the arbitrary distinction of Canus, that there is avast difference between not receiving a book as di- vine, and positively rejecting it as a human composition. Now, sir, you have only to turn to your second letter to per- ceive what you regarded as satisfactory proof, that in the days of Ezra an infallible tribunal existed, a council of the church, in the Old Law commissiond by God for the express purpose of teach- ing the faithful what were the inspired books. In your first and subsequent letters, conclusive evidence is furnished of your firm conviction, that many of these Apocryphal books were written before the time of the great synagogue, and consequently must have been in existence at the period of Ezra. You attribute, for instance, the book of Wisdom to Solomon ; Baruch, according to you, was originally an integral portion of Jeremiah, and the internal evidence is strong, that the book of Tobit was written some six or seven hundred years before the advent of Christ. Then again, the song of the three children, the history of Susan- nah, together with the story of Bel and the Dragon, you represent as having been originally parts of Daniel. The additions, too, to the book of Esther you make to be a portion of the book itself. From these statements it is evident that when the Jewish canon was settled, some of the Apocryphal books were in being. Here, * " Aliud est enim non accipere, aliud rejicere. Certe Judaei intra suum can- onem hos libros publica authoritate minime receperunt, tametsi non nulli ex illis, sacros et Divinos esse crediderint." — Lib. ii. cap. x. It is one thing not to receive, and another to reject. Certainly the Jews did not receive these books into their canon, and yet some of them believed them to be sacred and divine. 208 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE then, is a curious question ; if a body specially commissioned to teach the faithful what where the inspired books, should omit to enumerate among them any that were truly inspired, would not such omission be exactly tantamount to positive rejection ? It would be vain to say that no sufficient evidence existed that the omitted books were really inspired. The very object of appoint- ing such a body is to afford that evidence ; neither can it be pre- tended that the books, though in being at the time, might be unknown to the tribunal, since according to the very terms of its commission, it was authorized to pronounce with infallible cer- tainty what books were inspired. Hence, such a body must have known all the inspired books that were extant at the time, and its failure to insert any book in the canon, becomes, by conse- quence, a damning proof of its human and earthly origin. Now if an infallible council settled the canon of the Jewish Church, and such, we have seen, is your hypothesis ; if at the time when the canon was settled, Baruch, Wisdom, and Tobit, the additions to Daniel and the additions to Esther, were extant ; if it is unde- niably certain that these compositions were not inserted, is not the conclusion irresistible that they were rejected by a body com- petent to determine their character ? Will you be pleased to ex- plain upon any other hypothesis how it happened that if Baruch was an integral portion of Jeremiah, the great synagogue separat- ed it from the rest of the book ? Let me ask you again, if Wisdom were written by Solomon, and was, as you say, truly inspired, why did it not receive at the hands of the council the same treatment with Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles ? How comes it that the song of the three children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, did not pass into the canon with the rest of Daniel? Why were the additions to the book of Esther ex- cluded, and why was Tobias, your darling Tobias, prevented from being enrolled among the authoritative documents of faith ? One of two things is intuitively evident, either the tribunal w 7 hich settled the canon of the Jews was not competent to teach the faithful what were the inspired books, or Baruch, Wisdom, and Tobit, were rejected. If you accede to the first proposition, you contradict your repeated declarations that the Jews did not reject the Apocrypha, since, according to this view, they must APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 209 have rejected some of them. So that self-contradiction awaits you whichever horn of the dilemma you choose to adopt. If, however, you admit what upon the preceding statement of the case cannot be consistently denied, that any portion of the Apocrypha was rejected, then, according to your own hypothe- sis, you have the testimony of an infallible body against the inspiration of the rejected portion. This reduces you to a still more deplorable dilemma; and how you will extricate yourself, it is impossible for me to determine. On the one hand, the great synagogue of Ezra stares you in the face, pronouncing with infallible certainty that certain books are not inspired ; on the other, you are damned by the Council of Trent, if you do not receive it as infallible truth that these same books are in- spired. " When Greek meets Greek, then comes the tug of war." My object in exposing the suicidal character of your argu- ment, is simply to show, that upon every view of the case the testimony of the Jewish Church is clear and decided against the inspiration of the books whose divine authority you have un- dertaken to defend. That testimony you cannot evade. Your nice distinctions are wholly ineffectual, and if you cannot rebut the decision of the Jewish Church by the authoritative instruc- tions of Christ or his apostles, your cause is hopeless. Let the reader, then, bear distinctly in mind, that what you are required to prove is the historical fact, that our blessed Saviour, or his inspired Apostles, committed the Apocrypha to the Christian Church as infallible standards of faith. Up to the time of Christ, we find them treated as human compositions ; and we must continue to regard them in the same light, unless it can be shown that our great prophet has otherwise instructed the church. In your pretended refutation of the second argument of my original essay, you undertake the hopeless task of proving that the Primitive Church received these books from the hands of the apostles, as inspired productions. Your reasoning, if a series of assumptions can be called reasoning, may be reduced to the following syllogism : Whatever books the Primitive Church received as inspired, must have been received upon the authority 10* 210 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE of Christ and his apostles. The Apocrypha were received by the Primitive Church as inspired ; therefore, they must have been received upon the authority of Christ and his apostles. The testimony of the Primitive Church is consequently your medium of proof; a testimony, in this case, which, as we shall subsequently see, is not pointed and direct, but only mediate and inferential. This argument or syllogism is grossly at fault in two partic- ulars. In the first place, the major proposition is not logically necessary, and you have not attempted to show the connection between the subject and predicate. For aught that appears to the contrary, the primitive Christians might have received books as inspired without the sanction of Christ or his apostles. Cer- tain it is that you have nowhere proved that they could not have done it. You tell us that, " if they united in receiving those works as inspired, then is our (the Papal) cause fully sustained; for they would not have thus united unless they had been taught by the apostles that these books formed a part of the word of God." How does it appear that they would not have united ex- cept upon the specified condition? All that I can find in the shape of proof is, " that they were tried in the furnace of perse- cution, and laid down their lives by thousands, rather than swerve one jot or tittle from the truth handed down to them !" That they were exposed to dangers, sufferings, and death, is evident, but that this proves any thing more than the sincerity of their convictions, I am utterly unable to perceive. We may grant that they would not have added to the sacred canon books which they did not believe to be inspired ; but then the question is, whether their belief was always founded on apostolic teaching? Might they not be mistaken as to what Christ and his apostles had actually taught? If they were fallible, liable to be misled by designing men, the crafts of the devil, or the deceitful workings of their own hearts, they might have been perfectly sincere, and yet have received error in the place of truth. Even in the days of the apostles, and among the congregations collected by their labors, the mystery of iniquity had begun to work; and none can read the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians without being deeply convinced that the faith of professing Christians was not always APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 211 adjusted to the standard of inspired instruction. Paul admon- ishes the Ephesian Elders, that even among themselves should men arise speaking perverse things to draw disciples after them ; and the exhortations to the seven churches of Asia reveal any thing but a necessary connection between the actual belief of the people, and the lessons which they had received from in- spired teachers. The faith, consequently, of the primitive Christians, is an exceedingly uncertain medium through which to arrive at the doctrines of Christ and his apostles; and yet, un- less there be an exact correspondence between them — unless the one answers to the other, as an image corresponds to its original, the seal to its impression, the purpose of your argument is not answered. You infer that such must have been the doctrine of Christ, because such was the faith of the church. Now if there be any possibility of error or deception on the part of the church, the force of your conclusion is proportionably weakened. It may be true, as a matter of fact, that the primitive church did not receive any other canon but that of Christ and his apostles ; but then, in order to determine this point, it must be previously known what books our Saviour received, and what books the primitive church received. When the documents included in their repective canons are fully ascertained, and each canon be- comes consequently known, we can then compare them, and pro- nounce upon their mutual agreement or discrepancy. But if one of the canons be unknown s I see no clew by which a knowledge of the other will enable us to resolve our difficulties. It is true that the canon of Christ and his apostles ought to be the canon of the Christian Church, but he who could reason from right to reality, from what should be to what is, will find himself halting on many a lame conclusion. Now in the present case, your pro- fessed object is to ascertain what books Christ and his apostles delivered to the church as the word of God : this is the unknown fact to be settled. You attempt to settle it by appealing to the faith of the primitive Christians. Your argument, of course, depends on the assumption that the primitive Christians believed nothing but what Christ and his apostles actually taught ; and of this assumption, the only proof which you furnish, goes no further than to establish the sincerity of the primitive disciples: 212 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE a point which can answer your purpose only on the gratuitous hypothesis, that none can be in error and at the same time sin- cere, or that none can be deceived without being also necessarily hypocrites. When you shall have succeeded in proving that honesty and mistake are incompatible terms, mutually contradic- tory and destructive of each other, then, and not till then, your argument will have something oflogical coherence. To put the weakness of your reasoning in a clearer light : if it were admit- ted, which, however, cannot be done consistently with truth, that the early Christians did, in fact, believe that the Apocry- phal books were inspired, this would be a moral phenomenon demanding explanation. In all reasoning upon testimony, the principle of cause and effect lies at the basis of the process. A witness simply puts us in possession of the convictions of his own mind. These convictions are an effect, for which the constitu- tion of our nature prompts us to seek an adequate cause, and when no other satisfactory solution can be given but the reality of the facts to which he himself ascribes his impressions, then we admit the existence of the facts. But if any other cause can be assigned, the testimony should not command our assent. If a man afflicted with the jaundice should testify that the walls of , a, house were yellow, we might be fully persuaded of the sincerity of his own belief; but as an adequate cause, apart from the reality of the fact, could be assigned for his conviction, we should not feel bound to receive his statement. Two questions, conse- quently, must always arise in estimating the value of testimony; the first respects the sincerity of the witnesses : do they, or do they not express the real impressions that have been made upon their own minds? The second respects the cause of these con- victions : are there any known principles which can account for them without an admission of the facts to which the witnesses attribute them ? When we are satisfied that the witnesses are sincere, and that no causes apart from the reality of the facts can be assigned in the case, then the testimony is entitled to be received without hesitation. Such being the laws which regu- late the value of testimony, you were bound, after having shown that the primitive Christians believed the Apocrypha to be in- spired — you were bound to show, in addition, that no other as- APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 213 signable cause could satisfactorily account for this belief, this moral effect, but the authority of Christ and his apostles. In the mean time, it may be well to apprize you of the fact, that the actual faith of the primitive church, as such, is not received by Protestants as an authoritative standard of truth. There is always a previous inquiry into the grounds of that faith, and if they should be found weak, futile, or insufficient, thinking men feel no more obligation to reason badly, because good men before them have done so, than to disregard any of the sacred principles of justice, because distinguished saints have fallen into grievous sins. The Church of Jesus Christ, in the present day, does not believe in the Divine authority of those books which it admits to be canonical, because the ancient church regarded them in the same light ; but because there is satisfactory evidence that they were composed by men who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The esteem in which they were held by the first Christians, amounts to nothing more than a presumption that there was sufficient proof of their supernatural origin ; but that proof itself and not the effect which it had on the minds of others, must be the ultimate his- torical grounds of faith. Historical testimony puts us in posses- sion of this proof; it lays before us the facts upon which the primitive Christians formed their judgment, and puts us as nearly as possible in the same relative situation with themselves, so that we can form an opinion upon the same evidence which was first submitted to their understandings. History bridges over the chasm of time, and makes us contemporary with the events which it sets in order before us. Hence it is absolutely false to say that the church now receives any document as inspired, because the church anciently received it ; the church now has the same facts in history, which the church anciently saw and heard, and consequently founds its judgment upon the same data. The only difference is in regard to the medium through which the knowledge of the facts is reached ; but the ultimate ground of faith is the same in both cases. If, for example, I were asked, why I received the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, as an inspired composition, I would answer, not because the primitive church received it — that would only create a presump- 214 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE tion in its favor ; but because there is satisfactory proof that Paul wrote it, and equally conclusive evidence that Paul attested by miracles his supernatural commission as a teacher of the faithful. Now, Sir, if you could adduce any adequate historical testimony that Christ and his apostles gave their sanction to the Apocrypha as inspired compositions, you would then be able to adduce a sufficient ground of faith. I have already admitted, that wherever a document can be shown to have been written by persons empowered to achieve miracles as the proofs of their commission, or wherever a document can be shown to have received the approbation and sanction of those who were super- naturally commissioned, the historical evidence of its inspiration is complete. If you could, therefore, produce from the sacred Scriptures, or from any contemporary writers worthy of credit, direct statements of the fact, or of other facts necessarily involv- ing it, that Christ and his apostles delivered to the Church the documents in question as the word of God, you would then allege something to the purpose. But, sir, not a particle of such testimony have you been able to adduce. You have sim- ply inquired what the primitive Church believed; and without pausing to investigate the grounds of its belief, or the possibility of mistake, you have boldly assumed that it could believe nothing but what it had received upon inspired authority. But, in the second place, your syllogism is just as faulty in the minor, as it is in the major proposition. It so happens, as a matter of fact, that the primitive Christians did not receive any other canon but that of the Jews, which was also the canon of Christ and his apostles. They might have received another, so that their endorsement of a book is no necessary proof of its Divine authority ; but as it is historically true that they did not, your minor proposition is utterly without support, and my ori- ginal assertion, that the unbroken testimony of the Church for four centuries is against the inspiration of the Apocrypha, re- mains unshaken, notwithstanding your multiplied quotations and elaborate trifling in attempting to refute it. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 215 LETTER XIV. The existence of the Apocrypha in ancient versions of the Scriptures, no proof of inspiration. — Not quoted by the Apostolic Fathers. That the primitive church ascribed to the Apocrypha the same canonical authority which they were accustomed to attrib- ute to Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, you endeavor to col- lect from the facts, that these books were embodied in all the ancient versions of the Bible, and quoted by the fathers, and not only quoted, but quoted distinctly as sacred Scripture. " The manner," you inform us, " in which the Christians of the first four centuries acted in regard to these writings, shows that they were left to them by the apostles as inspired." The first peculi- arity in their manner of acting which discloses the sentiments of the primitive disciples, is to be found in the circumstance, which you have gratuitously assumed, that " all these books, or parts of boohs, were contained in the Old Testament as used by the early Christians in the infancy of the church. i} I shall not here interrupt the tenor of the argument to expose the rashness of your inferences on the subject of some of these ancient versions. It is enough for my present purpose to ob- serve, that, upon the supposition that the facts are precisely as you have stated them to be, the conclusion by no means follows which you were anxious to deduce. You have already expressed the opinion, that antecedently to the advent of the Saviour, when there was no satisfactory proof of their Divine inspiration, and no tribunal commissioned to enlarge the dimensions of the canon, and when, of course, they could not have been received as any portion of the rule of faith, these very books were yet embodied in the version of the Seventy. How does it happen that the Hel- lenistic Jews could incorporate into their translation of the ca- nonical books, others which they were known not to receive as inspired, while the same privilege is denied to the Christian church? What is there in the change of dispensation that shall make it a certain proof after the advent of Christ, that a work is believed to be inspired if found in justaxposition to those which are confessed to be Divine, when the same collocation, under 216 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE the previous economy carried no such inference along with it? I had always supposed that the major proposition of an argument should be universally true, and that when any particular case was adduced which proved an exception to its general applica- tion, the argument ceased to be conclusive. Reasoning is only a felicitous method of applying to the parts, that which is con- fessed to be true of the whole, and when it is found from experi- ence, or any other source of information, that the process of arrangement has been wrong, and that the separate elements do not possess the properties which constitute the class, the leading proposition becomes false, and the argument is said to be re- futed. In the present case, you evidently reason on the princi- ple that whatever books are embraced in the same volume with those which are confessedly inspired, must be believed by those who sanction the combination, to be inspired also. Now, to assert that there are numerous instances in which such a mixture of the human and Divine has been sanctioned, as the proposition supposes to be impossible, is to accumulate refutations on each other. In addition to the case of the Jews, which has already been adduced, the Greeks to this day reject the Apocrypha from the canon, although they give them a place in their copies of the Scriptures. Who believes that because these books are found in the authorized English translation of the Bible, there- fore the Church of England receives them as inspired ? or that the large body of Protestant churches who adopt that translation, defer to their authority as supreme 1 There can be little doubt that the incorporation of the Apocrypha with the Septuagint, was the real cause of their being subsequently embraced in the later translations of the Scriptures. The old Italic version was made from that of the Seventy, and, of course, contained precisely the same books with the original from which it was made. The Hebrew Scriptures were " quite inaccessible/' says Bishop Marsh, " to Latin translators in Europe and Africa, during the first three centuries. In those ages the Jews themselves who in- habited Greece, Italy, and Africa, read the Old Testament in the Greek version. Thus the Greek Bible became to the Latin Christians a kind of original, from which they derived their own APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 21? translations of the Scriptures. ; ' # If the Peschito version was, as it is said to have been, made directly from the Hebrew, it could not originally have contained the Apocrypha; these books must have been subsequently added from the Greek copies in which they were circulated. Whatever currency, consequently, these spurious documents obtained among the early Christians, is due to the Septitagint ; and as upon your own hypothesis their insertion in that version took place previously to the advent of Christ, when the books were confessed not to be inspired, we must look for other motives besides an appeal to Divine authority for the amalgamation of human and Divine in the same volume. If, however, you prefer the hypothesis, that the mixture in ques- tion was made subsequently to the incarnation of the Saviour, after the apostles and apostolic fathers had fallen asleep, the phe- nomenon can be satisfactorily explained, without resorting to the fiction of inspiration. There are obvious considerations, apart from any convictions of Divine authority, that would lead the Christians, especially of the third century, as well as the Jews, to a diligent study of these books. They do not seem to have been much in vogue in the Christian church for the first two centuries after Christ. We find scarcely any allusion to them in the Apostolic Fathers, no quotations in Justin Martyr, and no certain proof that they were generally read. But a mystic spirit soon corrupted the piety of the church ; a spirit of dreamy superstition, similar to that which Lightfoot attributes to the Jews of the second Temple, which these books were well adapted to foster, and which, as it gained ground, would prompt its victims to regard their follies as signal illustrations of piety. This congeniality with a false spirit of religion, coupled with their relations to the history of God's an- cient people, would give them a popularity which some of them certainly did not deserve; they would be regarded with that sort of religious veneration with which the Christians of the present day contemplate the works of distinguished Divines, and would be bound up in the same volume with their Bibles, for conve- nience of reference, just as the Scotch combine in the same * Marsh, Comp. View, p. 99. 218 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE book, the Scriptures of God and the metrical version of the Psalms by Rous. It may be well to observe, moreover, that this argument from ancient versions proves entirely too much ; it proves, if it prove any thing, that the books which Rome herself rejects as Apocry- phal, must be a part of the canon. The third and fourth books of Esdras, together with the prayer of Manasses, are actually em- bodied in that very translation of the Bible, which the Council of Trent pronounces to be authentic* The fourth book of Esdras, though not found in the Septuagint, is found in existing manu- scripts of the Vulgate. The third book of Esdras occurs in the principal copies of the Septuagint, with the exception of the Complutensian edition and those which are derived from it. The prayer of Manasses is inserted in manuscripts of the Vulgate, at the end of Chronicles, and is certainly found in some editions of the Septuagint. The third book of Maccabees, too, is to be found in the most ancient manuscripts of the Septuagint now extant. Why, then, are not these books canonical ? They are introduced into approved copies of the Bible; they occur in translations which the early Christians were accustomed to con- sult; and if they could be embodied in the same volume with the canonical Scriptures, without being received as inspired, I see not why the same privilege might not be extended to Wisdom, Tobit, and Judith. Dismissing, therefore, your argumsnt from the case of the ancient versions, as less than nothing and alto- gether lighter than vanity, I proceed to that upon which Bel- larmin rests the strength of your cause: the quotations from the Christian fathers. It is to be regretted that you have not, like this distinguished Jesuit, precisely specified the point upon which the discussion should be made to turn. I am at a loss to under- stand whether you regard a quotation, though unaccompanied with any expressions of respect that would seem to imply inspi- ration, as sufficient proof, or whether you design to confine the argument to those allusions in which the Apocrypha are said to be Divine. You are just as profuse in bringing forward instances in which there is nothing stronger than a mere accommodation of * Marsh, Comp. View, pp. 108, 9 (note). APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 219 the words of the Apocrypha, as in adducing passages which seem to invest them with a sacred authority. Bellarmin, on the other hand, restricted the argument to those quotations in which these works are cited as Divine* I have already shown that mere quotations can prove nothing but the existence of a book, and to accommodate a passage is only to endorse the particular senti- ment which it contains, without any necessary approbation of the work itself. To prove that the Fathers quoted the Apocrypha, is a very different thing from proving that they believed these documents to be infallible standards of faith. Paul quoted the heathen poets, and the ancient infidels quoted, in scorn, the canonical Scriptures. It is, therefore, truly unfortunate for your cause that you have loaded your articles with numerous extracts which, if they were faithfully given, which in many cases they are not, from the original works of the Fathers, would prove nothing more than that they had read the books which Rome pronounces to be inspired, and adopted from them sentiments and opinions which they deemed to be applicable to their own purposes. By the same method of reasoning, there is hardly a Protestant writer of any note, who might not be convicted of acceding to the authority of the Romish canon. If you will turn to the works of Bishop Butler, and consult his fourth sermon upon the government of the tongue, in the very small compass of that single discourse, you will find more extracts from the Apocryphal books than you have been able to collect from all the writings of the apostolic Fathers. The fifth sermon concludes as the fourth had done, with a passage from the son of Sirach ; and the sixth almost opens with one. In the sermons of Donne, Barrow, and Jeremy Taylor, we find all classes of books, heathen and Chris- tian, gay and grave, lively and severe, indiscriminately quoted in the margin ; and yet these men would have thought it a most preposterous conclusion, that because they enriched their own * Disputat. de cont. lib. i. c. x. vol. i. p. 42. His words are, " Apostoli enim poterant sine aliis testimoniis declarare libros illos esse canonicos, quod et fecerunt : alio qui numquam Cyprianus et Clemens et alii quos citabimus, tarn constanter dixissent eos esse Divinos." 220 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE compositions, plenis manibus, with the spoils of others, therefore they believed in the Divine inspiration of Aristotle and Tully, Lactantius and Origen, Euripides and Horace. Even the hum- ble writer of these lines could not escape the imputation of Romanism, if to quote a book and to believe it inspired are necessarily connected. In my own published sermons upon the Vanity and Glory of Man, written long after my essay on the Apocrypha had been anonymously committed to the press, an extract is made from the book of Wisdom ; and in my unpublished lectures upon the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, the splendid Apocryphal passage on the same subject, is introduced with com- mendation and applause. If bare quotations are to be regarded as satisfactory proofs of a supernatural origin, the cause of Rome can be sustained by " reasons as plentiful as blackberries." It is evident, however, that quotations themselves can prove nothing to the purpose; it is the manner in which the quotations are made, and the ends to which they are applied. If the Apocry- pha are not quoted as infallible standards of faith, of equal au- thority with Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, or if there are not circumstances attending the quotations which show indispu- tably that the writers regarded them as the word of God, from whose decision there was no appeal, nothing can be gathered from the fact, in behalf of these works, which could not also be collected from similar quotations in behalf of the heathen philoso- phers and poets. Why the ancient Fathers should be denied the privilege conceded to all writers, of adorning their compositions with elegant expressions or judicious sentiments, which might chance to strike them in the compass of their reading, it is diffi- cult for me to comprehend. It is certainly ridiculous to say that because a man writes upon religious subjects, he shall not lay all the resources of his knowledge under tribute to supply him with apt similitudes, or fitting illustrations. Surely he is permitted to bring the treasures of his learning to the feet of his Redeemer, and to honor his master with the spoils which he has gathered in his literary excursions. From the apostolic fathers you have pretended to present us with nothing but quotations, unaccompanied with a single expres- sion that indicates the light in which the original works were APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 221 regarded. If, therefore, your extracts had been accurate, you would have gained nothing but the gratification of an idle vanity in the display of your learning. But by some strange fatality of blundering, which seems like an evil genius to attend you, you have.only exhibited your ignorance of the Fathers and the tongues in which their works were written. That the reader may be able to form an adequate estimate of the nature and value of your ser- vices as a literary critic, I shall examine your extracts from the apostolic Fathers with a degree of attention which they do not deserve. And first from Barnabas : Asyu yaq o nqo^priTr^ em tov Icrgmjl ' ovai %r\ ipv%r] aviwv on ($s- fiovlEWTai (SovXqv novi}Qav v.axf savTcav emovTsg' drjcrcopsv tov dixatov, otl dvaxgridToq rjfiiv evti. But what saith the Prophet against Israel : Woe be to their sons, because they have taken wicked counsel against themselves, saying, let us, therefore, lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn. — Barnab. Epist. § 6. " This passage/' you tell us, " is composed of two texts, Isaias iii. 9, * Woe to their soul, for evils are rendered to them,' and Wisdom ii. 12, ' Let us, therefore, lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn.' Here St. Barnabas quotes in the same sentence, and as of equal inspired authority, the book of Isaias contained in the canon of the Jews, and that of Wis- dom ; one of those you boldly declare to be of no more authority than Seneca's letters or Tully's Offices." Will the reader believe, after this confident statement, that the whole passage as quoted by Barnabas occurs almost verbatim in the book of Isaiah as found in the version of the Seventy? This, as we have already seen, at a very early period supplanted the Hebrew originals, and became itself the source of appeal and the fountain of authority. This venerable translation Barnabas used, and from it has intro- duced the text which you have attributed to the book of Wisdom, but which is not there to be found. In your fourth letter you seem to be sensible that you had gone a little too far in relation to this passage ; and if you had generously and magnanimously confessed your fault, I should have passed the matter over with- out any notice. If you had not obliquely insinuated a doubt whether Barnabas drew from the Septuagint or not, when the thing is as plain as any thing of that sort can possibly be made, 222 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE I should have given you credit for an honesty and candor to which I am afraid your lame apology shows you not to be entitled. " Candor," you tell us, with a ludicrous gravity, when you were about to act with a very questionable regard to its precepts, " re- quires that I should make a remark on a passage in my last let- ter." The passage to which you refer is the one before us — now what is the remark ? "I did not at that moment (when writ- ing the letter) recollect that the passage from Isaias was one in which the translation of the Septuagint varies from the Hebrew as we have it now. St. Barnabas does not quote the Septuagint exactly, but he approaches so nearly as to make it possible, nay, probable, that the difference resulted from a varying reading of the Text." I shall now give the passage as found in the Septu- agint : Ovat %r\ ipv/rj avToov, dtoTi ft8(3ovXsvvTcu (jovlrjv ttovijqciv xatf sav- tcov, siTrovisg* dqcrwfisv tov dixcaov, oti dv7 £otco rj %£ip gov exTeTapEvr) eig to Xa/?£tj/, Kai ev tco anooiSovai GWEGTaX^err]. The version of Ecclesiasticus is in these words : " Strive for justice for thy soul, and even unto death fight for justice, and God will overthrow thy enemies for thee. Be not hasty in thy tongue; and slack and remiss in thy works. Let not thy hand be stretched out to receive, and shut when thou shouldst give." I have given the Italics as found in A. P. F.'s citation. 22i ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE slow to discern quotations from the canon among those whom they honor. It will be perceived, upon consulting the original, that your translation of Barnabas and the Doway version of Ecclesiasticus, which you have copied without change, are neither of them con- sistent with the original text. According to you there are three coincidences in these passages, which show that the one must have been taken from the other. The first, which you have ital- icized, is the exhortation to strive; but unfortunately no such ex- hortation is found in Barnabas. The good Father is insisting upon the duties of benevolence, charity, and temperance, and in the passage before us exhorts his readers to cultivate chastity, even beyond the resources of their natural strength. There is nothing in the Greek that can, by any possibility, be made to correspond with the sentence in your version : "strive with thy soul for all thy might." The conjectural reading of Cotelerius, which you seem to have followed, vtisq ir^ ipv/rjg gov aywvsvaeig, is liable to serious objections. In the first place, the word ayowevasig, which that critic would substitute for the received reading, ayvevasig, be- longs to no language under the sun — most certainly it is not Greek — it is justified neither by the usage of the classics, the authors of the Septuagint, nor the writers of the New Testament. The legitimaate word to express the idea of striving, is aycon^oj. In the second place, the new reading gives a sense wholly un- suited to the connection in which the passage is found. It occurs among a series of earnest exhortations to specific duties. It is preceded by solemn admonitions against severity to servants, avarice and volubility, and succeeded by directions equally defi- nite and precise. Now to introduce an abstract proposition, which covers a multitude of duties, in the midst of specific, defi- nite and precise instructions, is, to say the least of it, exceedingly awkward. The old reading, which makes the passage an ex- hortation to the practice of chastity, suits the nature of the con- text, and, on that account, is to be decidedly preferred. In the third place, there is no need of emendation. The preposition seems to be used in its common acceptation, when followed by the accusative, of excess, and yvyrp may be regarded as a com- APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 225 pendious expression for the powers of the man. This word is frequently used to designate the whole man, and in such con- nections is equivalent to av&Qconog, and every Greek scholar knows that vjisq av&Qwrrov may be properly rendered " beyond human strength" (Viger De Idiotismis, c. 9, § 9, Reg. 1. Turned into English, and substituting the imperative for the future, the passage in Barnabas, upon which you found your first coincidence, is simply this : " As far as you are able, beyond your strength, cultivate chastity." Employ not only your natural re- sources — these alone are not to be trusted, but seek a strength beyond your own, even the all-sufficient grace of God. What now in the corresponding passage says Jesus the son of Sirach ? " Strive for truth even unto death :" a marvellous coincidence with the exhortation to purity ; an extraordinary quotation, when there is not a single word in the two clauses alike. One is ex- horting to stability of opinion, and the other to innocence of life. The next coincidence is the exhortation in relation to the tongue. In the clauses containing this advice, the principal words, as found in Greek, are widely different in their meaning. Barnabas uses a word (Ttgoylowaog) which denotes excessive volubility, and he gives advice, therefore, precisely similar to that recorded in the first chapter and nineteenth verse of the epistle of James : " Be slow to speak." The son of Sirach, on the other hand, is exhorting to civility of speech, and uses expressions which, when literally translated, amount to this : " Be not rough with your tongue." The Latin version surely should not supersede the Greek, and I know of no copies of the Septuagint that give the reading ja%vg which the Latin translators seem to have followed,* though some copies do give S-gacrvg. Either of these readings harmonizes exactly with the succeeding verse : " Be not as a lion in thy house nor frantic among thy servants." This sen- tence illustrates what he means by being u rough-tongued ;" it is to betray the fury and ferocity of the lion among those who are dependent upon us. The coincidence, then, in this passage * I say, seem to have followed, because the phrase adopted by the Vulgate . citatus in lingua, is evidently susceptible of a rendering consistent with the common reading : " Be not violently excited in thy tongue or speech." - 11 226 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE between Barnabas and Ecclesiasticus, is just the coincidence be- tween an admonition not to be loquacious or excessively talka- tive, and an admonition to overcome acerbity of speech. One says, in effect, " be silent" the other says, " be gentle" It is very obvious that the sentiment in Barnabas was suggested by the passage in James upon the same subject. The last coincidence which you notice, is in reference to what is said of illiberality or avarice ; and here I freely admit that there is a coincidence both of expression and sentiment, but a coincidence just of that sort which betrays no marks of design. It is a repetition in both cases of one of those common maxims which are to be found in all writers upon morals. The sentiment is evidently the same with that which Paul attributes to the Sa- viour, in Acts xx. 35, and which is likewise suggested by nu- merous passages in the heathen pages of antiquity. Barnabas says, " Extend not thy hand to receive — close it not to give." Our Saviour says, it is more blessed to give than to receive. In almost precisely the same words, Artemidorus says, li To give is better than to receive" (Oneirocr. iv. 3). ^Elian says, " It is bet- ter to enrich- others than to be rich ourselves" (H. V. xix. 13), and a similar sentiment occurs in Aristotle, Nichom. iv. 1* Coincidences of this sort, evidently show, that such aphorisms must be regarded as the spontaneous suggestions of .the mind to those who observe, with the eye of the moralist, the vicissitudes of men and manners. The same process of thought by which they become the property of one understanding, renders them the possession of others. They belong to those common topics which, whoever attempts to discuss, will, according to Johnson, " find unexpected coincidences of his thoughts with those of other writers," growing out of the very nature of the subject, and implying no design to imitate or adopt. The next passage with which you favor us, is taken from a part of the Epistle of Polycarp to trfe Philippians, which is now preserved only in a Latin translation. We cannot consequently * For many striking illustrations of the same sentiment to be found in va- rious authors, the reader is referred to Kuinoel, Wolfius and Wetstein,on Acts xx. 35. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AM) REFUTED. 227 determine with certainty, what precisely were the words which the Father employed. You seem to be quite certain that he had his eye upon Tobit xii. 9 — " For alms delivereth from death." The whole passage to which you refer in Polycarp, is in these words : "Quum notestis benefacere polite deferre : quia eleemo- syna de morte liberat. Omnes vobis invicem subjecti estote : conversation em vestram irreprehensibilem habentes in gentibus."* In commenting upon this extract, you inform us that " St. Poly- carp, like St. Barnabas, quotes in the same breath an author/' whom all admit to be inspired (1 Peter ii. 12), and another whom Protestants reject (Tob. xii. 9). If we admit, in the first place, that Polycarp quoted from Tobias, it will by no means follow that he regarded the book as inspired or canonical. He simply accommodates a sentence which suited his present purpose, just as Paul adopted from Me- nander the memorable aphorism, " evil communications corrupt good manners." But, in the second place, the passage in Tobit is itself a quotation — a literal quotation from the tenth chapter and second verse of the book of Proverbs, where it is rendered in our English version, " righteousness delivereth from death." The coincidence of the sentiment in the contexts, creates a pre- sumption that the one passage was suggested by the other. Sol- omon's context is, "treasures of wickedness profit nothing;" and that of Tobit is, " it is better to give alms than to lay up gold." Solomon adds, " righteousness delivereth from death ;" and Tobit adds that " alms deliver from death." Now the He- brew word which Solomon employs for righteousness (n£^) is not unfrequently rendered by the Seventy, elsrjfiocrvvri (alms), the very word which is found in the Greek translation of this passage of Tobit. If, then, Tobit was originally written in Hebrew, as was doubtless the case, there being Hebrew copies extant in the time of Origen, the probability is that the same word which occurs in Proverbs, was used in this place. The Jews were ac- customed to interpret the passage in Solomon precisely as it has * The passage may be thus translated : " When it is in your power to do good, defer it not, for alms delivereth from death. Be ail of you subject one to another, having your conversation honest among the Gentiles." 228 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE been rendered by the Greek translators of Tobit (Rosenmuller in Prov. x. 2). Hence, in the original, this text of Tobit was in all probability an exact quotation from the corresponding text in Proverbs. It is worthy of remark, that there are several Hebrew copies of Tobit extant at this day, translated, it is generally sup- posed, from the Greek. Two of these have been published, one by Sebastian Munster, and another by Paul Fagius. Huetius possessed another, in manuscript, differing somewhat from both, but according more closely with that of Munster. The editions of Munster and Fagius were reprinted in the London Polyglott, and may be found in the fourth volume of Walton, with the Latin translations of these distinguished scholars annexed. Both these copies, in the passage before us, concur, literatim et punctuatim, with the passage in Proverbs, which is certainly a strong pre- sumption that Solomon's Hebrew and Tobit's Greek (or rather his translator's) are precisely equivalent. Now the question is, which did the Father quote, the Sep- tuagint translation of Solomon, or the Greek translation of To- bit, since both were versions of the same original? Your answer is, that he quoted Tobit. How can that be known ? His own Greek is lost, and we have no means of ascertaining what word he used. If he employed the term dixaioavvi] (righteousness), then Solomon, as found in the LXX, was quoted ; if he employed eXerj^oavvrj (alms), then the Greek version of Tobit was quoted. How shall we determine which word was employed 1 The Latin translation affords no certain clew, since either term might be rendered eleemosyne, both corresponding as they do to the He- brew, and the one always, and the other frequently, meaning the same thing as eleemosyne. Your next passage is from the first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, which, you say, is compounded of Wisdom xi. 22 and xii. 12. There is, however, an exact agreement in sense, although not a verbal correspondence, between this passage and Daniel iv. 35, (32 in LXX) and Burton is of opinion that Clement had speecially in his eye, Isaiah xlv. 9, and Rom. ix. 19, 20. The idea is one continually occurring in the canonical Scriptures, and I think it doubtful whether the Father had any particular passage in his APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 229 mind ; for his words exactly tally with no one text or combina- tion of texts in the Scriptures. I shall present, however, Cle- ment, Wisdom, and Daniel, that the reader may judge for him- self whether the Father had not as much reference to Daniel as to Wisdom ; and as, in this case, I do not object to your transla- tion, I shall dispense with the original. Clement says: " Who shall say to Him, what dost thou, or who shall resist the power of His strength V Wisdom : " For who shall say to thee, what hast thou done ; and who shall resist the strength of thy arm." Daniel says: " He doeth according to His will, in the army of Heaven and among the inhabitants of earth, and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, what dost thou?" The coincidence with Daniel is more striking from the suc- ceeding sentence in Clement — " When He wills and as He wills, He has done all things, and none of His decrees shall pass away." Your last reference to the Apostolic Fathers is peculiarly unfortunate. You appeal to the abstract which Clement has given us of the history of Judith in the fifty-fifth section of his epistle, and would insinuate the belief that there was something in the passage to favor the idea that the book was inspired. But what is the fact? The history of Judith is commended as a laudable example in the same connection with the story of CEdi- pus, and the heathen accounts of such devoted men as Codrus, Lycurgus, and Scipio Africanus. A wonderful proof of inspira- tion, truly ! Clement, no doubt, believed the authenticity of the book, but that is a very different matter from its divine inspira- tion. The only passage in the reference of Clement upon which you fasten as a quotation from Judith, happens very strangely not to be one.* If you will turn to the originals, you will find * I shall give the whole passage as it appears in Archbishop Wake's trans- lation : " Nay, and even the Gentiles themselves have given us examples of this kind : for we read how many Kings and Princes, in times of pestilence, being warned by their oracles, have given up themselves unto death, that by their own blood they might deliver their country from destruction. Others have forsaken their cities that so they might put an end to the seditions of them. We know 230 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE that the words translated " deliver " are very different in Judith and Clement, and the epithet with which Judith distinguished the Lord is omitted by the Father, and the name of Holofernes is not mentioned in Judith, though it is in Clement. There is nothing, I may add, in the account which Clement gives of Es- ther, that can be remotely] tortured into proof that he deemed the Apocryphal portions to be inspired. He appeals to her his- tory simply as true, and intimates nothing of the origin of the book. Such then are your abortive efforts to find a tradition in the Apostolic Fathers that Christ and his apostles delivered the Apoc- rypha to the Christian church as the oracles of God. If the apostles, in their own writings, said nothing on the subject, this is the age and these the men upon whom, according to Bellar- min himself, we must rely. Contemporary writers or the next generation, this wily Jesuit admits, are the legitimate witnesses of the authenticity of facts. HeTe, after the apostles had fallen asleep, and the last of those who had seen or been taught by them is gathered to his fathers, there remains not a single inti- mation, not a distant hint, not even a remote insinuation, that these spurious documents which Rome has canonized, are part and parcel of our faith. Who now shall tell us what Christ and his apostles had taught? Who shall be able to penetrate the past, when the only light which could guide us, is withdrawn for- ever ? What witnesses shall we evoke, when those alone who how many among ourselves, have given up themselves unto bonds, that thereby they might free others from them ; others have sold themselves into bondage, that they might feed their brethren with the price of themselves ; and even many women, being strengthened by the grace of God, have done many glori- ous and manly things on such occasions. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, desired the Elders that they would suffer her to go into the camp of their enemies, and she went out exposing herself to danger for rhe love she bare to her country and her people that were besieged ; and the Lord delivered Holo- fernes into the hands of a woman. Nor did Esther, being perfect in faith, ex- pose herself to any less hazard, for the delivery of the twelve tribes of Israel in danger of being destroyed ; for by fasting and humbling herself, she entreated the great Maker of all things, the God of spirits, so that beholding the humility of her soul, he delivered the people for whose sake she was in peril."— Wake's Apostol Fathers, pp. 202-3. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 231 were competent to testify, have kept the silence of the grave ? It is perfectly plain that if, up to the commencement of the second century, nothing is known about any such instructions on the subject of the Apocrypha, as you attribute to Christ, nothing can be satisfactorily ascertained afterwards. The witnesses are too far removed from the facts. That nothing was known, however, when the last of the Apostolic Fathers was called to his reward, must be assumed as true, until it is proved to be false. The silence of these men is death to your cause. In vain have you endeavored to make them break that silence ; your feeble efforts have only recoiled in deep and indelible disgrace upon your own character as a scholar and a critic. LETTER XV. The application of such expressions as ' Scripture,' 'Divine Scripture,' by ancient writers to the Apocrypha, no proof of inspiration. The only plausible argument, in support of your proposition that the primitive church received the Apocrypha as inspired, is derived from the fact that the early Fathers, in introducing quotations from these disputed books, not unfrequently applied to them the same expressions with which they were accustomed to distinguish the canonical records. Upon this point, as I have hinted already, Bellarmin principally dwelt. He refers, as you have done in your fourth and succeeding letters, to passages of the ancient writers in which they not only accommodate the lan- guage of the Apocrypha, but also denominate it scripture, some- times without any qualifying epithet, and sometimes with the titles, in addition, sacred, holy, or divine. To infer from a circumstance, like this, that they regarded these works as pos- sessed of the same authority with Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, or the acknowledged compositions of the Apostles and Evangelists, is to be guilty of a gross paralogism. Those who reason in this way, manifestly take for granted, that the term 232 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE scripture is exclusively applicable to inspired compositions ; but where is the evidence of this fact ? It is freely conceded that this is a common and familiar designation of the canonical books, but it by no* means follows, that it is restricted in its usage exclusively to them. To say that because all inspired writings are scripture, therfore all scripture must also be neces- sarily inspired, is to assume as true, what will be found, with a single exception, to be invariably false, that the simple converse of an universal affirmative proposition is equivalent to the original statement. Your reasoning, if I understand it, is this : the primitive church believed the Apocrypha to be inspired, because the Fathers quoted them as scripture, — and all scripture must be inspired, because all books confessedly inspired, are denominated scripture. This burlesque upon logic cannot be more happily illustrated than by a parallel case. He who should ascribe^ to the beasts of the field the distinctive excellences of men, because beasts and men are alike said to be subject to decay, would reason precisely as you do in deducing the Divine authority of the books in question, from the application to them of the same titles which are given to the sacred canon. When your argument is stated in the form of syllogism — which, after all, is the real test of conclusive reasoning — it will be found to contain the miserable fallacy of an undistributed middle. The inspired books are called scripture ; the Apocrypha are called scripture; therefore the Apocrypha are inspired. Before you were at liberty to draw the triumphant conclusion, which you seem to think you have legitimately reached, it was evi- dently incumbent upon you to prove, (for this was the major proposition which the case required,) that whatever is called scripture, or Divine scripture, must have been written under the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit. This is unquestionably the basis of your argument ; and in pity to the cause which you had undertaken to sustain, you should have placed it upon grounds less treacherous and deceitful than its being the con- verse of a statement universally acknowledged to be true. Why, therefore, did you not manfully meet the point, and prepare the way for your multiplied quotations, by showing, at the outset, what is certainly far from evident, that scripture and inspiration APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 233 were coextensive in their import? It is not a little remarkable that you should have expended so much labor in evincing that the Apocrypha were often characterized by this appellation, and yet have passed in profound silence the other proposition which was equally important, that all books so denominated must be inspired. Believe me, sir, it was a most unfortunate oversight ; it leaves your conclusion halting upon a single premiss : about as good a support as a solitary crutch to a man destitute of legs. All that your extracts are capable of proving, may be fully granted ; that the books in question were often distinguished by the title of scripture ; but it is a broad leap from an ambiguous expression of this sort, to the conclusion which you have collected. There are several considerations which indisputably show that such appellations as scripture, divine scripture, &c, were generic terms, as used among the Fathers, having a much larger extension than your argument seems to suppose. While they included as a part of their mean- ing those works which were acknowledged to be the offspring of the Holy Ghost, they were also applied to other departments of composition, in which no other spirit was conceived to predom- inate but the spirit of devotion. Scripture itself is synonymous with writing, and is, consequently, an appropriate term for designating any thing recorded with the pen. The epithets, sacred, holy, and divine, not unfrequently imply what is suited to produce, to stimulate or quicken the devout affections of the heart; and the whole phrase, divine scripture, Pwas employed among the ancients to denote that peculiar class of composition, which we denominate religious, in opposition to profane. Even in our own tongue, the word scripture, contrary to its present acceptation, was used among the earlier writers with a latitude of meaning analogous to that which obtained in the language from which it was derived. It was not only applied to any written document whatever, whether sacred or profane, but was even extended to inscriptions on a tomb* The Greek word yoacpi] was, perhaps, more general than the English term zvriting, as it embraced not only the work of the scribe, but the per- * See Richardson's Dictionary, word Scripture, 11* 234 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE formance of the painter. We are so accustomed, however, to the definite and restricted application of the word scripture, and particularly the plural, scriptures, to the inspired records of our faith, that we experience no little difficulty in divesting ourselves of this association, when the term is mentioned, and in going back to the thoughts and feelings of an age when it suggested nothing so peculiar, emphatic, and precise. The Christian Fa- thers themselves seem to have labored under a measure of em- barrassment in selecting, from the general and extensive phrases which were best adapted to the purpose, appropriate titles of distinction and respect for the sacred volume. If there had been any one phrase which the usage of the language would have authorized them to adopt as a specific and exclusive name for their inspired documents, they would hardly have accumu- lated so many titles as are found scattered through their writings. The definite word would have been uniformly, at least generally, adopted. But no such definite appellation existed, and they were obliged to employ generic terms in a peculiar and em- phatic sense, when they appealed to their rule of faith. Some- times the sacred canon was denominated the Holy Scriptures ; sometimes the Oracles of the Lord ; sometimes Divine Scriptures, Divine Oracles, Divinely Inspired Scriptures, Scriptures of the Lord, the True Evangelical Canon, the Old and New Testament, the Ancient and New Scriptures, the Ancient and New Oracles, Books of the Spirit, Divine Fountains, Fountains of the Divine Fulness.* In this abundance of phrases, and only a part is given, there is an obvious effort to convey a precise idea by terms which were felt to be general ; a constant endeavor to limit, in a particular case, what, according to the laws of the language, was susceptible of a larger extension. Hence, while it is true that such phrases were pre-eminently applied to the word of God, we must know that a given book is the word of God before we can determine whether these titles are bestowed on it in the restricted and emphatic sense, or in their usual and wider signi- fication. That the Fathers were accustomed to use them in * See a collection of these titles in Paley's Evidences of Christianity, pt. i. chap. 9. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 235 both applications, it requires but little acquaintance with their writings to be assured. Eusebius testifies that Irenaeus, whom you have represented as endorsing the Apocrypha, cited as scripture one of the weak- est performances of ecclesiastical antiquity — the Shepherd of Her- mas. His words are worthy of being fully exhibited : " Nor did he (Irenaeus) only know, but he also receives the scripture of the shepherd, saying: Well therefore spake the scripture, which says: ' First of all, believe there is one God, who created and formed all things, and what follows.' "* Here it is evident, that scripture means only a written document, and has no reference whatever to any impression of supernatural origin. The mean- ing of Irenaeus, as Lardner very justly expounds it,f is exactly this : " Well spake that writing, work or book, which says." " It is certain," continues the author of the credibility, " that Iren- aeus himself had so used this word ygacprj or scripture." Giving an account of the Epistle of Clement, written to the Corinthians jn the name of the church of Rome, he says : " The church of Rome sent a most excellent scripture (that is, Epistle) to the Corinthians." And afterwards, " from that scripture one may learn the Apostolical tradition of the church." Eusebius himself uses the term sntdTob] as synonymous with ygacprj. " Polycarp," says he, " in his scripture to the Philippians, still extant, has made use of certain testimonies taken from the first Epistle of Peter. "| Among the Apocryphal books of the New Testament, which he utterly rejects from any reasonable claim to inspired authority, he mentions the scripture of the acts of Paul. Clemens of Alexandria, § who figures largely in your pages, applies the term scriptures to the compositions of the heathen authors, with which Ptolemy adorned his library, as well as to the sacred and canonical books. || If the word were not confessedly general and indefinite, no- thing could be inferred from it as a term of reference, after the Apocrypha had become incorporated into the sacred volume, and but few references were made to them before, and had begun to * H. E- lib. v. c. 8. t Works, vol. ii. p. 186 (London Ed. 1831). \ H. E. lib. iv. c. 14. 6 H. E. lib. iii. c. 25. || Strom. 1, 236 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE be used as a means of instruction in the congregations of the faithful. They would naturally receive the same titles which belonged to the collection as a whole. The name of the volume would be adopted for the convenience of citation, and nothing could be deduced from a quotation of this sort, but the existence of the book in the specified volume. Nothing is added to the strength of the argument by citing passages from the Fathers in which the Apocrypha are denomi- nated sacred or divine scripture. To say nothing of the fact that such quotations occur, for the most part, after the custom to which allusion has just been made obtained extensive preva- lence, there is abundant evidence that this, and equivalent phra- seology, were often employed to convey the idea of religious lit- erature. Divine scripture, in numerous instances, means pre- cisely the same thing as an (i edifying book" or a composition upon religious subjects. Dionysius, surnamed the Areopagite, quoting a passage from the Epistles of Ignatius, styles him the Divine Ignatius. * Polycrates, the metropolitan Bishop of Ephe- sus, said of Melito, that " he was governed in all things by the Holy Ghost. "f Cyril, appealing to a decree of the Council of Nice, calls it a divine and most lioly oracle, and speaks of its decisions as divinely inspired. \ Melchior Canus admits that Innocent III. pronounced the words of Augustine to be holy scripture, just as the Pontifical laws are called holy to distinguish them from the statutes of Princes. § So, too, the decrees of councils and the de- cisions of the church were called holy and divine, because they related to the subject of religion. But what places it beyond all doubt, that the honorable Epi- thets with which the Fathers adorn the Apocrypha were not in- tended to convey the idea of inspiration, is, that in some instan- ces those very writers who reject them from the canon, yet quote them under the same titles. Origen, who in professedly enumer- ating the books which constituted the rule of faith, excluded the Apocrypha from the canon, did not scruple to refer to the Wis- dom of Solomon and of Sirach, to the books of Maccabees, Tobit, * De Div. Nom. cap. iv. lect. 9. t Euseb. H. E. lib. v. c.24. t De Trinitat. lib. i. § Rainokl, Censura Librorum Apocry. vol. i. p. 67. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 237 and Judith, as scriptures or the divine word (&eiog loyoq)* Je- rome, whose testimony is as explicit as language can make it, cites a passage from the book of Ecclesiasticus, and calls it di- vine scripture.i Now when we compare his statement concern- ing this book and that of Wisdom, that they should be read for popular edification in life and manners, and not for the establishing of any doctrine in the church, we understand at once what mean- ing to attach to his laudatory notice of Ecclesiasticus. Epi- phanius, as Bellarmin admits, acknowledged no books but those which were found in the Hebrew canon, and Rome herself does not pretend that the apostolical constitutions are the inspired word of God. Yet, Epiphanius quotes them as Divine scrip- ture,\ a clear and triumphant proof that this phrase was by no means equivalent to inspired writings. One of the clearest pas- sages for illustrating the meaning of this phrase, is found in his disputation against ^Etius.§ He there enumerates the books which constitute the Hebrew canon, then the writings of the New Testament ; and having completed his account of the books that were inspired, he mentions Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and such like books as Divine scriptures. His object was to show that iEtius could defend his heresies neither from the books which the church admitted as inspired, nor from those other writ- ings upon religious subjects which were allowed to be read for the purpose of personal improvement. The very structure of the passage shows that he made a marked distinction between the Apocrypha and canonical books, though both were equally denominated Divine scripture. Cyprian, too, quotes the Apoc- rypha as sacred scripture, but at the same time he shows une- quivocally that he did not regard them as an authoritative stand- ard of faith. Having on one occasion cited a sentence from the book ofTobit, he proceeds to confirm it by the " testimony of truth" that is, by a passage from the Acts of the Apostles, a ca- nonical book, evidently implying, that though the Apocrypha were Divine scripture, they were not on that account, the word of God. || This same Father also cites the third and fourth books of * De Princip. ii. 1, opp. 1, p. 79. Cont. Cels. viii. opp. 1, p. 778, &c. t Epist. 34 ad Julian. J Haeres 80. § Hreres 75. Cont. Mt. || De Oper. et Eleemos. 238 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE Esdras ; and the argument is just as strong that he regarded them as inspired, though Rome rejects them, as it is in favor of the books in question. There is another circumstance which, to my mind, settles the matter, that the ancients used the expressions which they apply to the Apocrypha, without intending to commend those documents as inspired. They make a distinction in the authority which w T as due to books that they expressly honored as Divine. It is evideut, that all truly inspired writings, Trent itself being witness, must be received with equal veneration and piety. There may be a difference in the value of the truths which are communicated in different books, but there can be no difference in authority when all proceed from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness neither shadow of turning. Inspiration secures a complete exemption from error, and the Divine testi- mony is entitled to the same consideration whether it be inter- posed to establish a primary or a secondary principle. When- ever God speaks, no matter what may be the subject on which He chooses to address us, His voice is entitled to absolute obe- dience, and we arenas much bound to believe what seems in itself to be of subordinate importance when He proclaims it, as we are to receive the weightier matters of the law. All inspired scripture, therefore, stands on the same footing of authority.* When, there- * This is well expressed by Bishop Marsh, Comp. View, p. 90. His words are as follows : " But it is really absurd to talk of a medium between canonical and unca- nonical, or of degrees of canonicity. Let us ask, what the church of England understands by a canonical book. This question is answered in the sixth ar- ticle. It is a book to which we may appeal in confirmation of doctrines. It belongs to the canon, or to the rule of faith. And the very same explanation is given in the corresponding decree of the council of Trent, namely : that which passed at the fourth session. For, after an enumeration of the books called sacred and canonical, (sacri et canonici,) the decree concludes with the observation, that the authorities above stated are those which the council pro- poses to use in confirmation of doctrines (in confirmandis dogmatibus). Every book, therefore, must either be, or not be, acknowledged as a work of authority for the establishment of doctrines. Between its absolute rejection and its ab- solute admission, there is no medium. When the question relates to the estab- lishment of doctrines, a book must have full authority for that purpose, or its APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 239 fore, a writer treats one book as of less authority than another, it is equivalent to saying that the subordinate book is not inspired. Now the Fathers did treat books which they pronounced to be sacred and Divine, as of inferior authority, and, therefore, sacred and Divine with them must have been something very different from inspiration. Junilius, in his Treatise de Partibus Divines Legis, in speaking of the " authority of the Divine books" ex- pressly declares that " some are possessed of perfect authority, some middle, and some, of none at all." It is impossible that any Christian man, who had the least reverence for the testimony of God, could say of what He had revealed by His Spirit, that it possessed no authority at all. And yet Junilius, a Christian bish- op in the sixth century, asserts this of books, which, in his day, were received as holy and Divine. The conclusion is unavoida- ble, that in such connections, these words mean something very different from inspired. The testimony of Augustine is equally explicit in the matter. He was a member of that council of Carthage which is sup- posed to have canonized the Apocryphal books, and of course received them as Divine scripture. Speaking of the books of Maccabees, however, he justifies their reception by the church, chiefly on account of the moral tendency of the history. * It is plain authority is worth nothing. And hence, the council of Trent, very consistently, ascribed equal authority to them all. No writer, therefore, belonging to the church of Rome, could represent their authority as unequal, without impugning that decree of the council of Trent." To the same purport is the following declaration of Lindanus in Panoplia Evang. as quoted by Rainold, Cens. Lib. Apoc. vol. i. p. 203. " Eos impio se sacrilegio contaminare, qui in Scripturarum Christianarum corpore,quosdam quasi gradus authoritatis conantur locare quodunam,eandem- que spiritus sancti vocem impio humanes stultitise discerniculo audent in varias impares discerpere ac distribuere authoritatis classes." They pollute themselves with impious sacrilege, who attempt to establish, in the body of the Christian Scriptures, certain different degrees of authority. That one and the same voice of the Holy Spirit they dare, by impiou^ petty distinctions of human folly, to distribute into various and unequal classes of authority. * Augustine says : " Hanc Scripturam quse appellatur Macchabseorum, non habent Judsei sicut Legem et ProphetasetPsalmos quibus Dominus testimonium perhibit. Sed rcccpta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur et audiatur. 240 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE that he could not have regarded them as inspired, since their inspiration would have been the strongest of all possible reasons for receiving them. He receives them only because they might be profitably read and heard, and they were Divine in no other sense than as being subservient to the purpose of edification and improvement. As, now, such phrases as Divine scripture are confessedly ambiguous, as a meaning may be put upon them justified by the nature of the words and by ancient usage, quite distinct from that of inspiration ; it certainly devolves upon those who adduce the adoption of such expressions by the ancient Fathers as sus- taining the decision of the council of Trent, to prove unanswer- ably that Divine scripture and inspired scripture are uniformly used as synonymous terms by the early writers, or their whole ar- gument falls to the ground. It is one thing to assert that books are Divine, in the sense that they may be profitably read or de- voutly studied ; it is quite another to affirm that their authors wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The issue betwixt us and Rome is on the point of inspira- tion. She affirms that God is the author of these books, and we deny it. The question is not whether the primitive churches read them or not, whether the early Fathers quoted them or not, or whether they regarded them as instructive or not, or whether they pronounced them Divine or not ; the question is, was God their author? And while this is the issue, the Romanist only exposes himself and his cause to contempt, by elaborate proofs of what no Protestant would deem it of any importance to dis- pute with him. It would be well for you to bear in mind, what you will find strikingly illustrated in the offices of Tully,* the marked differ- ence between the looseness of popular language and the accura- cy of scientific disquisition. As the primitive church entertain- ed no doubts of the exclusive claims of the Hebrew canon, as maxime propter illos Macchabasos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri rnartyres a perse- cutoribus tarn indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt." — Cont. Gavdent. Donai, Lib. i. c.31. * De Off. lib. ii. c. 10, APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 241 this was a settled matter, there was no danger of being misunder- stood in employing words in a general sense, which had a pecu- liar and emphatic application only to a particular class of books. They were not likely to mislead, any more than to cite the Apocrypha now as belonging to the Old Testament, would be construed into a recognition of their Divine authority, or to speak of Watts, Hervey, Owen and Newton as holy men, illustrious di- vines and spiritual writers, would be regarded as tantamount to the assertion that they were supernaturally inspired. All the epithets with which we distinguish the sacred scriptures have a loose and popular as well as a strict and scientific sense ; and hence, the mere use of the words determines nothing as to the charac- ter of the writings. An argument constructed upon this founda- tion, would prove too much even for Rome : it would authorize Barnabas, Clement, Ignatius, the Apocryphal book of Isaiah, the book of Henoch, and the third and fourth books of Esdras, the writings of Augustine, the canons of councils and the decrees of Popes, to claim a place in the same category with Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms, Evangelists and Apostles. All these re- jected documents were quoted by the Fathers, quoted distinctly as scripture, in some instances, as Divine, scripture, and what is still more remarkable as Divinely inspired scripture. This is the language which Nicholas* employs in regard to the Fathers, and which Cyrilt applies to the council of Nice. It may be, therefore, regarded as indisputably settled, that Divine scripture, and such like expressions, were not equivalent to a proper name for the canonical books. If, therefore, we wish to ascertain what were the sentiments of the primitive church in relation to the extent of the canon, we must appeal to more definite sources of information, than a col- lection of passages which may be just as accurately interpreted to mean that the disputed books were religious in opposition to profane, as that they were inspired in opposition to human. Loose and popular expressions are not the proper materials for an argument of this sort. Incidental statements, occasionally * Epist. ad Michael. Imp. (Rainold. vol. i. p. 201.) t De Trinitate, Lib. i. (Rainold. vol. i. p. 201.) 242 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE dropped in the midst of discourses upon other matters, do not constitute the testimony of the primitive church. That should, manifestly, be sought in those places of the ancient writers, in which they were professedly treating of the standard of faith, and avow it as their design to set forth the books which were re- ceived as supernaturally inspired. We have numerous passages in which these books are the subject of discussion ; we have di- vers catalogues, made by different writers and at different times, during the first four centuries, of all the documents which the church received as the rule of faith, in different forms and un- der different circumstances ; the whole matter is repeatedly brought before us, we have line upon line, precept on precept, here a little and there a little ; and in such passages, and such pas- sages alone, I insist upon it, is the testimony of the primitive church to be sought. In those parts of the Patristical remains where it is the express purpose of the writer to declare what books were believed to be of God, we may expect precision, ac- curacy and care. The witness is put upon the stand, answers, as it were, under oath, and guards his phraseology, provided he be honest, so as to convey an adequate impression of the truth. The astronomer speaks in popular language of the sun's rising and setting, and pursuing his course through the heavens, and yet it would be preposterous to charge him with denying the elemen- tary principles of his science or teaching a system that has long been exploded, because he had employed expressions, which, though sufficiently exact for the ordinary intercourse of life, were not philosophically precise. So, in a loose and familiar ac- ceptation, the primitive Fathers speak of the Apocrypha, as Di- vine scripture, intending to convey no other idea but that they belonged to a class of religious literature, and might be profita- bly studied for personal improvement, and it is equally preposter- ous from such general expressions, to infer that they taught the supernatural inspiration of the books. For the real opinions of the astronomer, you would appeal to his language when he was professedly treating of the heavenly bodies ; then you would ex- pect him to weigh his w T ords, to avoid the looseness of popular discourse, and to employ no terms which were not sufficiently just. So for the real opinions of the Fathers upon the subject of APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 243 the canon, we should appeal to their statements when they pro- fessedly give us an accurate account or formal catalogue of the inspired works. Then we should expect them to use terms in a strictly scientific sense; and if, in such connections, th^. Apocrypha were ever introduced as a part of the word of God, there would be something like testimony in behalf of the preten- sions of Rome. But it is worthy of remark, that, in every case in which the ancient writers used the terms scripture, and Divine scripture, in their restricted and emphatic application, in all instances in which they are professedly treating of the canon of inspiration, they never extend them to the Apocrypha. In none of the catalogues which they have given us of the books which God has graciously imparted as the rule of faith, are these spurious records to be found. The voice of Christian antiquity accords with the voice of the Jewish church, and both combine to condemn the arrogance and blasphemy of Trent. Nothing, sir, can reveal more clearly the desperate extremi- ties to which you are driven in support of a sinking cause^ than that, instead of giving those plain, pointed and direct statements which the Fathers themselves intended to be, and which common sense suggests must be, their testimony upon the subject, you hunt up and down through all the remains of antiquity, and pre- serve your soul from absolute despair by seizing, here and there, upon a few popular expressions, which, by being tortured into a special and restricted sense, may be made to look with some de- gree of favor on your claims. You never seem to be aware of the egregious absurdity of bending the accurate to the loose, in- stead of the loose to the accurate. Upon the same principle, if you should meet with a passage in the private and confidential letter of a man of science, in which he employed the language of the vulgar, you would at once construe it into the true expo- sition of his system, and make his philosophical treatises succumb to his popular expressions. There is an apparent discrepancy, and that must be reconciled by torturing philosophy and dignifying the dialect of the vulgar. If, sir, there existed an apparent inconsistency between the statements of a witness, publicly given, when he stood forth in the face of the world to make his deposition, and incidental ex- 244 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE • pressions, touching the matter in dispute, dropped from him in the course of conversation upon other subjects, would you feel bound, if you regarded him as a man of veracity who would not really contradict himself, to explain his professed testimony by his loose conversation, or to reconcile his loose conversation with his pro- fessed testimony ? Which would you regard as the standard by which the other was to be measured ? Which, in other words, would be what might be properly called his testimony ? It is certainly the dictate of common sense to explain the loose by the accurate. Cicero, in one of his philosophical treatises, in conformity with the example of illustrious predecessors, maintained that he who possessed one of the virtues must necessarily possess them all. In a popular work, he subsequently remarked that a man might be just without being prudent. Here appeared to be a discrepancy, and upon your principles of criticism, the true method of explaining it was to deny that he held prudence to be a virtue. The philosopher, however, has solved the difficulty himself, by assuring us that there was no real inconsistency, since, in the one case, the terms were employed with precision and accuracy, and in the other, with popular laxness. " Alia est ilia," says he, and it would be well for you to remember the re- mark, " cum Veritas ipsa limatur in disputatione, subtilitas : alia, cum ad opinionem communem omnis accommodatur oratio." If the plain and obvious principles, which I have briefly sug- gested, be applied to the criticism of the ancient documents which have survived the ravages of time, we shall find that there is not a single record of the first four centuries, which sustains the decision of Trent. The unbroken testimony of that whole period is clearly, decidedly, unanswerably, against that unparal- leled deed of atrocity and guilt. And how else can it be regard- ed but as a downright insult to the understandings of men, when the formal catalogues of the primitive church are produced, when the passages are brought forward in which the best and noblest champions of the faith undertake professedly to recount the books of the canon, when they come forward for the express purpose of bearing testimony in the matter before us, how else can it be regarded but as a downright insult to the understand- APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 245 ings of men, to tell us that this is not the voice of antiquity, that these recorded statements are not the true statements of the case, because it so happens that other books besides those included in the lists of inspiration, were not treated as absolutely heathenish and profane. For this, as we have seen, when fairly interpreted, is the real amount of the testimony in favor of the Apocrypha. The ancient church treated them as religious and edifying books, just precisely as the modern church regards the composi- tions of Howe, Owen and Scott. Therefore, we are gravely told, they must be inspired. When I reflect upon your whole course of argument upon this subject, I can hardly persuade myself that you are able to peruse your own lucubrations without losing your gravity. You set out with the purpose of proving that Christ and his apostles had delivered the Apocrypha to the Christian church as inspired documents. This was a perfectly plain and intelligible proposition; it respected a simple matter of fact, the legitimate proof of which was credible testimony, and we had a right to expect that you would produce some record of the apostles, in which it was directly stated, or some authentic evidence from those who were cotemporary with them, that such was the case. But these reasonable expectations are excited only to be blasted. Nothing of the sort appears in any part of your letters ; but as if in mockery of our hopes, you put us off with a series of quota- tions, which, allowing them all the weight that can possibly be given to them, prove nothing more than the existence of the books in the apostolic age. Then we are to infer, it would seem, that Christ and his apostles delivered the Apocrypha to the Christian church as inspired, because the books existed in the apostolic age. But hold ! You have, perhaps, some stronger reasons in reserve. The primitive church believed them to be inspired ; therefore, beyond all question, they must be inspired. Now, granting what I am unable to perceive, the legitimacy of your therefore, in the present case, how does it appear that such was the faith of the primitive church? This point, you inform us, is as clear as noonday, for the Fathers of the ancient church actually quoted these very books, and pronounced them to be useful and edifying compositions. This is demonstration plain 246 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE and irrefragable as holy writ, and he who cannot see the proofs of inspiration in conduct of this kind, must be a stubborn and refractory spirit that deserves the damnation which Trent has denounced. The substance of your letters may be embodied in the following beautiful sorites : The Apocrypha were quoted by the primitive church. Whatever it quoted it believed to be inspired. Whatever it believed to be inspired, it had received from the hands of Christ and his apostles. Therefore the Apocrypha were delivered to the church by Christ and his apostles as inspired documents. LETTER XVI Examination of Testimonies. That the reader may distinctly apprehend how slender is the basis upon which the church of Rome has erected her porten- tous additions to the Scriptures, I proceed to examine, in detail, the various testimonies upon which you have relied to prove the inspiration of the Apocrypha. This task, it is true, is, in a great degree, unnecessary, since it has already been conclusively de- monstrated that your method of procedure is deceitful and falla- cious. But as in the weakness of your attempted refutation, you have only shown the strength of the position, that within the pe- riod embraced in this discussion, the first four centuries of the Christian era, not a single writer can be found who regarded these documents as the word of God, it may be of service to the interests of righteousness to cross-examine your witnesses one by one, and to show, as the result, that upon the subject of the books of the canon, the voice of antiquity is harmonious and clear. Still, however, it deserves to be remarked, that if you had been as successful as you evidently hoped to be, in establishing the fact that the primitive Fathers, to whom you have appealed, co- APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 247 incided upon this point with the Council of Trent, your original proposition would not have been sustained. Your purpose was to prove that Christ or his apostles had given to the Christian church the authority, of which, according to you, the Jews were not possessed, to insert these books into the sacred canon. It was testimony in behalf of this fact, of which you were in quest, and such testimony you cannot surely pretend to have produced in the beggarly quotations with which you have amused us. Since, however, you have failed, signally failed, as a slight inves- tigation will render indubitable, in your laborious endeavors to prove that the canon of the Fathers was the same with the can- on of Rome, how disgraceful and overwhelming must be your defeat whenever you shall condescend to undertake the discus- sion oT the other, your main and leading proposition ! 1. The first writer of the second century to whom you have appealed, is Justin Martyr. You produce a passage from the first Apology, which Justin himself professes to have borrowed from the books of Moses, but which you are certain, in defiance of his own unequivocal assertion, must have been condensed from a corresponding passage in the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach. It is not, therefore, a question between you and me, but a question between you and the father himself, whether or not he has quoted the Apocrypha. In the midst of proof of the moral agency of man and a consequent refutation of the dangerous and absurd pretensions of libertines and fatalists, Justin observes : " The Holy Prophetic Spirit taught us these things, having said through Moses, that God spoke thus to the first formed man : Be- hold, before you are good and evil, choose the good."* " It might seem," you inforrn us in your curious and amusing criti- cism upon this passage, "that St. Justin thought that Moses de- clares God spoke thus to Adam ; but in his writings he appears too well acquainted with the Scriptures and to have studied the account of the creation too accurately, to commit such a mistake. I have not the means," you continue, " of discovering whether * EJ«<5a>£ Kai rj^ag ravra tj ayiov irpo^riKOv nvs:vj.ia Sia IS/loocecog (pqaav rw irpurto -ir\aaO£VTi avOputno eipricrOaL airo rov Oecv ovrcoc, tSov irpo irpoacoTrov gov to ayadov Kai to kglkov- £kX^riw (xapTW tov airocrroXiicov Bapvafiap, &c. It is remarkable that in this passage, as the context will show, Barnabas seems to be quoted to prove a doctrine. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 255 seem to be equivalent to pronouncing him inspired, It was an office furnished with the gift of supernatural wisdom and infalli- ble knowledge ; and yet Clement does not scruple to distinguish " the fellow-laborer of Paul" with this high title of authority. Did Clement believe that Barnabas was actually inspired? Let a single fact answer the question. He contradicts * the exposi- tion which Barnabas had given of the Mosaic prohibition — " thou shalt not eat of the hyena nor the hare," — which, says Cotele- rius, " he would by no means have done, if he had believed that Barnabas was entitled to a place in the canon." The epithet apostle — the distinguishing title of the inspired founders of the church — must consequently have been applied to him in an inferior and subordinate sense. To me it seems self- evident, that to call a book scripture, is no stronger proof of in- spiration than to affirm that it was written by an apostle. In fact, it is much more likely that such a general term as scripture, in its own nature applicable to every variety of composition, should be promiscuously employed, than that an official designa- tion of the highest rank should be attributed to those who posses- sed none of the extraordinary endowments that give a right to the title. As then uninspired men among the ancient writers were unquestionably denominated apostles, it is not incredible that uninspired books should have been in like mannner denominated scripture. * " There is no inconsiderable proof to be made out of the works of Clemens Alexandrinus himself, that he did not look upon this Epistle (Barnabas's) as having any manner of authority, but on the contrary took the liberty to contra- dict and oppose it. One instance will be sufficient. In Paedag. Lib. ii. c. 10, p. 188, he cites the explication of Barnabas on that law of Moses — thou shalt not eat of the hyena nor the hare — that is, not be like those animals in their lascivious qualities. He does not, indeed, name Barnabas as in other places ; but nothing can be more evident than that he refers to the Epistle of Barnabas, ch. x. After which he adds, that though he doubted not but Moses designed a prohibition of adultery by prohibiting these animals, ov fxev ra rrjSe efyyrjaei row (7Vjji0o\iKCi)g siprjusvojv cvyKoTiOefxaiy yet he could not agree with the symbolical explication some gave of the place, viz., that the hyena changes its sex yearly. and is sometimes male, and sometimes female, as Barnabas. After which he largely disputes the fact." Jones on Can. Part iii. c. 40. 256 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE 2. Clement of Rome is also quoted* in the Stromata, and quoted as an apostle. Upon your principle of reasoning, accord- ingly, his Epistle to the Corinthians ought to be inserted in the sacred library of the church. 3. But how will you dispose of the Shepherd of Hernias? It was evidently a favorite with Clement, and is sometimes describ- ed in language which, if you had found it in connection with Wisdom, and Tobias, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch, you would per- haps have paraded as triumphant proof of their Divine authority. Let me call your attention to two remarkable passages. In the twenty-ninth chapter of the first book of Stromata, a quotation is introduced from the Shepherd in these words :t " Divinely, therefore, says the power which speaks to Hernias by revelation." Again, at the close of the first chapter of the second book,f an- other quotation is introduced in terms almost as strong : " The power that appeared in vision to Hernias, says." Now here is a power which speaks divinely, reveals things in visions, and per- forms the offices in regard to Hermas which are described in the same words with the supernatural communications of the Holy Ghost to the prophets. Did Clement mean to assert that the Pastor of Hermas was an inspired production ? Most unquestion- ably not ;§ and yet he has employed no language in reference to any of the books of the Apocrypha, which is more explicit, more pointed, or more decided than the commendations lavished on the Shepherd. You say that Wisdom must be inspired, because Cle- ment calls it divine Wisdom, but Hermas, also, according to him, speaks divinely. Nay the argument for Hermas is far more powerful. He not "only speaks divinely, he speaks by revelation, * Strom. Lib. i. C. 7 : Avtiko. b KX^cv? tv rrj irpos K.opiv9tovs cthotoXij, Kara "Xe^iVj opa/Aari to) Ep/m r} Swapis, ri (pavenra. § That the Shepherd of Hermas never was received as canonical, may be gathered from the following testimonies: Euseb. H. E. Lib. iii. c. 3, 25 ; Ter- tull. de Oratione c. 12 ; Origen Horn. viii. in Numeros, x. in Jos., i. in Psalm. 37 ; Athanasius de Decret. Nicaenae Synod, in Epistola Pasch. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 257 he declares things which have been opened in visions, and re- ceives communications from the lips of an angel, like Daniel in his prophecy and John in the Apocalypse. 4. The Preaching of Peter, a document which Clement must have known to be apocryphal, he not only cites, but cites dis- tinctly under the name of the Apostle. His most usual form of quotation is, " Peter says in the Preachings," or simply, " Peter says," when there had been a previous mention of the book.* Now upon the same principles of criticism from which you have inferred that Clement received Wisdom as the work of Solomon, it must also be maintained that he regarded the Preaching as a genuine production of the Apostle. The argument is just as strong in the one case as it is in the other. Because a passage is introduced from Wisdom, and treated without scruple as a say- ing of Solomon, you boldly conclude that Solomon was declared to be the author of the book, but precisely the same is done in reference to Peter and the apocryphal work which bears the title of his Preaching. I presume, however, that you will not think of contending that the holy Father looked upon the Preaching as a part of the canon, which he certainly must have done if he be- lieved it to be composed by one of the original Apostles. His meaning, you would probably inform us, is evidently nothing more than this, " Peter is represented as saying" in a book which is known by the title of his Preaching. On the same ground it may be said, that in similar quotations from Wisdom all that the father intended to assert was, that Solomon is represented to have said in a book which is distinguished by his name. In other words, in both instances the documents are quoted accord- ing to their titles. 5. If the principle be true which you have assumed as the basis of your argument throughout this discussion — if the princi- ple be true that whatever books are quoted by the Fathers in the same way with the canonical Scriptures, must themselves be in- spired, then the Fourth Book of Esdras, which Rome rejects, * Tlerpos tv to) KTjpvyfxarL \riyet. Strom, vi. c. 5. Again, in the same chap- ter, referring to the same book — avrog Stacraiprjaei Herpog. Two other references are in the same chapter, besides various others in the first and second books. 12* 258 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE and Bellarmin declares to be disfigured with fables, the dreams of Rabbins and Talmudists, deserves to be inserted in the Sa- cred Library. In the sixteenth chapter of the third book of Strom- ata, you will find a passage from this miserable work, standing, in your view, upon consecrated ground, (for you frequently in- sist on it as a matter of some moment, when a text from the Apoc- rypha is introduced in connection with one from the canon,) with Jeremy on one hand and Job on the other. Nay, it would seem, if we confine ourselves simply to the language, that Esdras was regarded as a fit companion for these venerable men. His book is quoted as the work of a prophet — " says the Prophet Esdras. " I shall present the reader with a free translation of the whole passage :* '" Cursed be the day wherein I was born, let it not be blessed, 5 says Jeremiah. He does not mean absolutely to say that his gen- eration should be cursed, but to express his affliction on account of the sins and disobedience of the people. He adds, therefore : ( Wherefore was I born to see labors and sorrows, my days have been in perpetual reproach.' In fact, all faithful preachers of the truth, on account of the disobedience of their hearers, have been exposed to persecution and to peril. ' Why ivas not my mother's womb my sepulchre, that I might not have seen the travail of Jacob and the toil of the stock of Israel? 1 says the prophet Esdras." The text may be found in the fourth book of Esdras, chapter v. 35. Now, sir, is the fourth book of Esdras inspired ? Listen to Cardinal Bellarmin : " The third and fourth books of Esdras are apocryphal ; and although they are cited by the Fathers, yet, without doubt, they are not canonical, since no council has ever referred them to the canon. The fourth book is found neither in Hebrew nor Greek, and contains (chap, vi.) certain * The original is as follows : TLmKarapaTog 6s tj rjpEpa, ev ?7 erty^Brjv. kcli {xrj £av yrjv ava^evyvvai. 6t ov yivsrai 77 a7ro\vrpcocis eai Artou Kai tiov OeoTTvevaroJv avayvoypia/jLog kizi avaKaivianos "Soyitov. I. 16. Irenaeus also endorsed the same story. Contra Hares, Lib. iii. e. 21. Cf. Euseb. H. E. v. 8. t Strom, i. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 5. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 263 can be necessarily inferred that he believed these works, however freely he might use them, to be entitled to equal veneration and respect with the undisputed canon of the Jews. If he appeals to Wisdom and Baruch under the names respectively of Solomon and Jeremiah, it is only in consequence of the title of the books. There is, in fact, as much evidence that he deferred to the fourth book of Esdras as canonical authority, as you have been able to adduce in favor of the documents which Rome has appended to the word of God. In the Treatise De Cultu Femi- narum, there occurs in the third chapter an evident allusion to the apocryphal story, which the fathers seem to have received without suspicion, of the miraculous restoration of the Jewish books, after the return from the Babylonian captivity, by the agency of Esdras. " Omne instrumentum " is the language of Tertullian, " omne instrumentum Judaicae Literature per Esdram constant restauratum." Every instrument of Jewish Literature was restored by Esdras, The expressions, oculi Domini alti, which may be found near the beginning of the Tract De Prescriptione Haereticorum, seem to have been suggested by a corresponding phrase in the eighth chapter of the fourth book of Esdras, Domine cujus oculi elevati (v. 20). Very nearly an exact quotation from this same fabu- lous production, is introduced again in the sixteenth section of the fourth book of the Work against Marcion, Loquere in aures audientium. It is susceptible of the clearest proof, that Tertullian did not scruple to refer to a book as scripture, which he knew at the time not to be inspired. So that if your argument had been even stronger than it is — if you had produced, as you have not, cita- tions from his writings, in which this distinguished father applies to the Apocrypha the usual appellations of the canonical books, your conclusion could not have followed from your premises. On two separate occasions, Tertullian denominates the Pastor of Hermas scripture, and yet, in one of the instances, in the very connection in which he refers to it under this honorable title, he distinctly testifies that it possessed no Divine authority, but was universally rejected as apocryphal and spurious.* So, again, * The second passage from Tertullian I shall insert entire. Sed cederem tibi, 264 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE in the seventeenth chapter of his Dissertation upon Baptism, he speaks of a composition which he declares to be spurious, as the scripture which an Asiatic Presbyter had forged under the name of Paul.* The author of the Poetical Books against Marcion, which pass under the name of Tertullian, seems to have entertained not the slighted suspicion that this " Prince of the Latin Church " called into question the integrity or completeness of the Hebrew canon. He informs us that the twenty-four wings of the Elders in the Apocalypse, were symbolical representations of the twenty- four books which compose the Old Testament. The number twenty-four being doubtless made, as we iearn from Jerome that it was sometimes done, by separating Lamentations from the prophecy of Jeremiah, and Ruth from the book of Judges." " Alarum numerus antiqua volumina signat, Esse satis certa viginti quatuor ista Quae Domini cecinere vias et tempora pacis." Carm. Advers. Marc. lib. iv. It may be gathered as an important inference from the exam- ination which has just been instituted into the leading documents si Scriptura Pastoris, quae sola mcechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset in- cidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclessiarum vestrarum inter apocrypha et falso judiearetur.— De Pudicit. c. 10. Tertullian wrote thiswhen he was a Montan- ist. That, however, is of no importance, since the critical purpose for which it is adduced is to show that he may call a book scripture and yet believe it to be apocryphal. The passage may be thus turned into English : " But I would yield the point to you, if the scripture of the Shepherd, which is favorable to adulterers, deserved to be placed in the Divine Testament ; if it were not reckoned apocryphal and spurious by every assembly even of your own churches." * Quod si Pauli perperam Scriptura legunt, exemplum Theclse ad licentiam mulierum docendi tingendique defendunt, sciant in Asia Presbyterum, qui earn Scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque con- fessum, id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco discessisse. But if any read the writ- ings falsely attributed to Paul, and defend the right of women to preach and baptize by the example of Thecla, let them know that the Asiatic Presbyter who forged that scripture, adorning his performance with the title of Paul, having been convicted of the thing, and having confessed that he did it out of love to Paul, left his place." APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 265 of the second century — that all writings, professedly religious, whether human or supernatural in their origin, were referred by the fathers to a common class, and embraced under a common appellation. This was done in order that a broad line might be drawn between the monuments of pagan literature and the pro- ductions of those who sought to be governed by the fear of God. The sacred and profane were not to be promiscuously blended or confounded — the acknowledged compositions of the sons of light, uninspired though they might be, were not to be included in the same category with the vain discussions and false philo- sophy of the children of darkness. They belonged to a different department of thought — a department possessing much in com- mon with those Divine books which the Spirit had given as a rule of faith. Whatever was written with a pious attention and promised to promote holiness of life, was consequently ranked in the same class with the inspired Scriptures to distinguish them effectually from the whole body of heathen literature. When the fathers, therefore, use such terms as you have insisted to be a proof of inspiration, they meant no more than that the writings which they quote were suited to develope the graces of the Spirit, and to quicken diligence and zeal. They were religious books, religious in opposition to profane, books which might not only be perused without detriment, but studied with positive advan- tage. Divine Scripture and such like expressions, were terms, to speak in logical language, denoting a subaltern genus which embraced under it two distinct species, inspired and uninspired productions. These species were distinguished from each other by the difference of their origin ; but as they agreed in the com- mon property of being subservient to the interests of piety, and by this common property were alike removed from all other works, they received, in consequence, a common name. There must have been some phraseology by which even an uninspired literature that the faithful might commend, could be discrimi- nated from heathen letters ; and as the leading difference be- tween them was, that one was Divine in its tendencies and ob- jects, while the other was sensual, earthly, and devilish, no terms could possibly have been selected more appropriate, than those which were actually applied by the early fathers toHermas, Bar I 266 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE nabas, and Clement, as well as to Wisdom, Tobit, and Baruch. Let the reader then bear in mind that, according to the usage of the primitive church, Divine Scripture was a generic term, in- cluding in its meaning whatever might be profitably read — what- ever was fitted to foster devotion, and to inspire diligence in the Christian life, and the language of the fathers will present no dif- ficulty. LETTER XVII. Testimony of the writers of the third century considered— Cyprian, Hippolytus, Apostolical Constitutions. The same erroneous principles of criticism, which betrayed at once the weakness of the cause and the ignorance of the advocate, in your appeal to the writings of the second century, have signally misled you in the inferences which you have drawn from what you call the testimony of the third century. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, with whom you commence your account of this period, and to whom you seem willing to defer with abso- lute submission, will be found, I apprehend, when so interpreted as to be consistent with himself, to afford no more countenance to the adulterated canon of Rome than his celebrated master, Tertullian.* It deserves to be remarked, though I shall not insist upon the fact in the argument, that several of the passages which you have culled from the writings of this distinguished father, are taken from a treatise upon which, in the judgment of scholars, no certain reliance can be placed. The Testimonies against the Jews to Quirinus, even by those who allow it to be genuine, is yet acknowledged to be so largely corrupted, that it is impossible to distinguish what is truly Cyprian's from what has been subsequently added by others. f A work of this sort * Nunquam Cyprianum absque Tertulliani lectione unam diem praeterisse, ac sibi crebre dicere solitum ; Da magistrum Tertullianum significans. — Vita perJac. Pamilium. * Stephen Baluze had paid great attention to the study of Cyprian, and APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 267 should evidently " be quoted," as Lardner has justly observed, " with some particular caution ;" you, however, have used it as freely, certainly with as little appearance of suspicion, as if you had been perfectly assured that|every sentence, line, and word, stood precisely as they came from the hands of the venerable bishop of Carthage. 1. Your favorite Tobias is the first book which you attempt to canonize by the assistance of this father, and verily, you could not, in the whole range of the Apocrypha, have selected a work more admirably adapted to furnish a complete refutation of your whole process of argument. It is admitted that Cyprian has repeatedly quoted this document, and, in some instances, quoted it as Divine Scripture. But that this does not amount to an admission of its canonical authority — that it implies no more than that the work was historically true in its statements, and suited to promote the purposes of piety, is plain from the fact, that while he acknowledges it to be Divine Scripture, he virtually asserts that it was not inspired. He draws a broad possessed twenty-one manuscripts of this particular treatise. His opinion, there- fore is entitled to great weight. " If," says he, " there are any passages in the writings of Cyprian, of which it cannot be certainly said that they belong to him, that can be chiefly asserted of the books of Testimonies to Quirinus. Several manuscripts have more than the common editions, some less. Since, there- fore, it is impossible to distinguish what is truly Cyprian's from what has been subsequently added by his admirers, we have retained what we found in an- cient manuscript copies. Only the two first books exist in the Spirensian edi- tion, the old Venetian, and in that which Rembold edited. Erasmus published the third from a written codex of the monastery of Gamblour. I have twenty- one ancient copies of these books, of which, however, only five have the two first books." Si qua sunt loca in operibus sancti Cypriani, de quibus pronuntiari non pos- sit ea certe illius esse,idvero inprimis asseri potest de libris Testimoniorum ad Quirinum. Plures enim codices plus habent quam vulgatae editionis, alii minus. Itaque, quoniam impossibiie est discernere ea quae vere Cypriani sunt ab iis quae post ilium a studiosis addita sunt, nos retinuimus ea quae reperta nobis sunt in antiquis exemplaribusmanuscriptis. Porro duo tantmn priores libri extant in editione Spirensi, in veteri Veneta, et in ea quam Remboldus procuravit. Eras- mus tertiam emisit ex codice scripto monasterii Gemblacensis. Habui autem unum et viginti exemplaria Vetera horum librorum, quorum tamen quinque ha- bent tantum libros duos priores. — Baluz. Not. ad Cyprian, p. 596, as quoted in Lardner, vol. Hi. pp. 17, 18. (marg.) 268 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE distinction between it and the unerring testimony of revealed truth ; and although he was willing to accommodate its senti- ments, breath its devotion, and commend its morality, he was too well acquainted with its nature and origin, to depend upon it for a proof of doctrine. Accordingly in the Treatise de Opere et Eleemosynis, having cited and briefly expounded the passage, "prayer is good with fasting and alms" (Tob. xii. 8), he pro- ceeds :* " The angel Raphael reveals, and manifests, and confirms the truth that our petitions are rendered effectual by alms — that our lives are redeemed from peril by alms — and that by alms our souls are delivered from death. Nor do we allege these things, dearest brethren, so as not to prove what the angel Ga- briel has said by the testimony of truth. In the Acts of the Apostles the truth of the fact is established ; and that souls are delivered by alms, not only from the second, but also from the first death, is confirmed alike by fact and experience." He then appeals to the history of Tabitha, and to divers passages in the canonical Scriptures, as the proof of what he had cited from the book of Tobit. What is this but a virtual declaration that this document, however valuable on other accounts, was no part of the rule of faith, and could not be adduced to bind the con- science with the authority of God? Cyprian appeals to it, but instead of relying upon it, as he does upon the Acts, Gospels, Genesis, and Proverbs, proceeds to confirm the sentiment which he had quoted, by what he denominated the testimony of truth. This phrase, if we may judge from the connection, evidently means the testimony of Him who cannot lie ; who, embracing the past, the present, and the future in a single glance of unerring intuition, is emphatically the Father of lights. His law, accord- ing to the Psalmist, is the fountain of truth, and His testimony must be regarded as the seal of truth. When Cyprian, there- fore, applies this expression, as he unquestionably does in the * Revelat angelus et manifestat, et firmat eleemosynis vitam de periculis redemi : eleemosynis a morte animos liberari. Nee sic, fratres charissimi, ista proferrimus, ut non quod Raphael angelus dixit veritatis testimonio comprobe- mus. In Actibus Apostolorum facti fides posita est, et quod eleemosynis non tantum a secunda, sed a priora morte animae liberentur, gestae et impletae rei probadone compertum est. — Dicei Cypriani, de Opere et Eleemosynis. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. present instance, to the plain declarations of the Acts, the Gos- pels, Genesis, and Proverbs, he can mean nothing less than that these books are to be received as authoritative standards of faith ; and when he distinguishes the teaching of Tobit, as we see that he has done, from the testimony of truth, what other idea can be conveyed but that this work is not entitled to a place in the category of inspired Scriptures ? We have, conse- quently, his own statements against your inference. You main- tained that he deferred to Tobit with the same submission, veneration, and respect which he awarded to the books that are not disputed ; he, on the other hand, assures us that while he believed it to be Divine Scripture, a godly and edifying book, he still regarded it merely as a human production, which, so far from being competent to regulate our faith, needed itself to be confirmed by a higher sanction than the authority of its author — even the testimony of essential truth. 2. You next attempt to show that Cyprian received Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as inspired compositions; and your proof is derived from the fact that he repeatedly quotes them under the name of Solomon, and through Solomon attributes them to the Holy Spirit. He seldom speaks of them absolutely and without qualification [as the testimony of God, but whenever he alludes to them as the work of the Sprit, it is plainly on [the supposition that they were actually written by Solomon. In other words, the evidence is precisely the same that he held them to be Solomon's, as that he held them to be supernaturally inspired. He introduces, for instance, a passage from the third chapter of Wisdom — the first upon your list — in these words :* " By Solomon the Holy Spirit hath shown and forecautioned us, saying' 7 — and again,f " Thus also the Holy Spirit teaches us." So too Ecclesiasticus is quoted in these words :$ " Solo- mon also, guided by the Holy Ghost, testifies and teaches." It is evident from these passages — and they are the strongest * Per Salomonem spiritus sanctus ostendit et precarit, dicens. — De Exhort. Mars. c. 12. t Sed et per Salomonem docet spiritus sanctus. — De Mortalitate t Sed et Salomon in spiritu sancte constitutus testatur et docet. — Epist 64. 270 ROMANTST ARGUMENTS FOR THE which can be produced — that it is only a conditional inspiration which Cyprian attributes to Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom. If he believed that they were written by Solomon, then he unquestion- ably received them as inspired. Now you have confidently as- serted the consequent of this proposition, but have nowhere condescended to furnish us with any portion of the evidence by which the antecedent is established. Every Protestant is willing to concede that if these books were the productions of Solomon, they deserve to be inserted in the sacred canon. But the real question is, whether or not Solomon was their author. If there is no satisfactory evidence that Cyprian believed them to be his, then there is no satisfactory evidence that he believed them to be inspired. They came from God, in the view of this father, only on the supposition that they came from Solomon. But where is the proof that Cyprian believed them to have been writ- ten by him? On this point, which is vital to your argument, you have left us completely in the dark. If it can be shown, how- ever, that he did not believe that Solomon was their author, then he furnishes no testimony whatever in behalf of their inspiration ; since we can never reason in hypothetical propositions, from the removal of the antecedent to the establishment or removal of the consequent. Cyprian says that they were inspired if Solomon wrote them ; but where does he say that Solomon wrote them ? Unless he has said so, your conclusion is drawn from no premi- ses which he has supplied. Now I maintain that there is satis- factory evidence that neither Cyprian nor any other intelligent father really believed that Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus were the compositions of Solomon. Augustine has distinctly informed us that, though they were usually ascribed to him, it was not because they were reputed to be his, but because they were imitations of his style. In the twentieth chapter of the seventeenth book of the Treatise de CivitateDei, after having mentioned the three books, Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus and Canticles, which were universally acknowledged to have been written by Solomon, he adds :* " Two * Prophetasse etiam ipse reperitur in suis libris, qui tres recepti sunt in auc- toritatem canonicam, Pro verba, Ecclesiastes, et Can ti cum Canticorum. Alii vero duo, quorum unus Sapientia, alter Ecclesiasticus dicitur, propter eloquii nonnullum similitudinem, ut Salomonis dicantur ; obtinuit consuetudo: non APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 271 other books, one of which is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesias- ticus, have also from custom, on account of some similarity of style, received their titles from the name of Solomon. That they are not his, however, the more learned entertain no doubt." So also in his Speculum de Libro Sapientia :* "Among these," that is, the books written before the advent of Christ which the Jews rejected from the canon, but which the Christian church treated with respect," " among these are two, which by many are called by the name of Solomon, on account, as I suppose, of a certain similarity of style. For that they are not Solomon's, admits of no question among the more learned. It does not in- deed appear who was the author of the book of Wisdom, but that the other, which we call Ecclesiasticus, was written by a Jesus who was surnamed Sirach, must be acknowledged by all who have read the book through." If now Cyprian were among the more learned doctors of the church — and you have given him a distinguished place in your introductory eulogium on his character — he did not believe, ac- cording to the testimony of Augustine, that these disputed books were written by Solomon ; and, therefore, there is not a particle of evidence that he held them to be inspired. In fact, it is alto- gether incredible that any critic of ordinary intelligence could be persuaded that an inspired man was the author of a work which not only bore upon its face the name of another individu- al, but contained in its preface a satisfactory account of its origi- nal composition in one language and its subsequent translation into another. Here is a book which professes to have been written by one Jesus. The proof of its inspiration turns upon autem esse ipsius, non dubitam doctiores. — S. Augustini Episcopi de Civitate Dei, liber xvii. cap. 20. * Sed non sunt omittendi hi, quos quidem ante Salvatoris adventum con- stat esse conscriptos, sed eos non receptos a Judaeis, recipit tamen ejusdem Sal- vatoris Ecclesia. In his sunt duo quis Salomonis a pluribus apellantur, propter quamdam, sicut existimo eloquii similitudinem. Nam Salomonis non esse, nihil dubitant quique doctiores. Nee tamen ejus qui Sapientiae dicitur, quisnam sit auctor apparet. Ilium vero alterum, quern vocamus Ecclesiasticum, quod Jesus quidarn scripserit, qui cognominatur Sirach, constat inter eos qui eundem librum totum legerunt,— S. Augustini Episcopi Speculum de libro Ezechielis. 272 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE the fact that it was not written, as it professes to be, by Jesus, but by Solomon — that is, it can only be proved to be inspired, bybeing proved to open with a lie — in other words, it is shown to be the testimony of infallible truth by being shown to contain a pal- pable falsehood. The ridiculous evasion of Bellarmin, that Je- sus diligently collected and reduced into a volume the maxims of Solomon, so that Ecclesiasticus might with propriety be at- tributed to each,* is refuted by the Prologue which is prefixed to the book. It is there stated that the original author/' when he had much given himself to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and other books of our (Jewish) fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, wa^drawn on also himself to write some- thing pertaining to learning and wisdom. " This looks very lit- tle like collecting and digestingfthe maxims of Solomon. Eccle- siasticus evidently purports to be an original work, suggested, not by the study of Solomon alone, but by the whole canon of the Jews. It is true that it is an imitation, and in many instan- ces a very successful imitation, of the pointed and sententious style of the wise monarch of Israel. Besides the similarity of style, which was perhaps the origin- al ground for altributing this work to Solomon, two other rea- sons may be assigned for quoting both it and Wisdom under his name, as we see that Cyprian has done. In the first place it was a rapid and convenient mode of reference. The name of Solomon was a part of the professed title of the book of Wisdom, but as it was notorious that he was not the author of it, it would have been silly hypercritical nicety always to have resorted, in refer- ring to it, to the awkward periphrasis — the author of the book called the Wisdom of Solomon. To quote it by its title implied no belief that its title was just. Clemens Alexandrinus appealed to the fourth book of Esdras under the name of the Prophet Ezra. Baruch is frequently cited under the name of Jeremiah : and the Preaching of Peter was accommodated by Clement under the name of the Apostle. * At Epiphanius in haeresi Anomaronim, et alii nonnulli auctorem libri hu- jus Jesum Sirach esse volunt. Respondeo, facile potuisse fieri, ut Jesus Sirach sententias Salomonis a se diligenter collectas in unum volumen redegerit, ita uterque, auctor dici poterit. — Be Verbo Dei, lib. i. cap. 14. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 273 As the book of Ecclesiasticus, on account of its striking anal- ogy to the compositions of Solomon, was in all probability de- signated by his name — just as we call a great poet a Homer, or a great conqueror another Alexander — the fathers would feel no hesitation in adopting a common and popular title, especially when the work itself contained an effectual antidote against all er- roneous impressions. " In the gospel of Luke/' says Rainold,* " Christ is called the son of Joseph, as likewise in the gospel of John. Luke, however, elsewhere explains it, saying that Christ was the son of Joseph, as it was supposed, and Philip says to Nathanael, we have found Jesus the son of Joseph of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets have written. Yet Moses in the Law adumbrated Christ by Melchisedec, without father as a man, without mother as God : and Isaiah, the prince of pro- phets says, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son. Hence it is evident that Christ as a man had no father ; and so Philip might have known that Joseph was not, in reality, the father of Jesus. If he did know it, he used the phrase only for convenience of reference. But if Philip were ignorant of the fact, the blessed Virgin certainly knew that Jesus had been con- ceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, and yet she says, in the gospel of Luke : Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. Though she knew that Joseph was not the father of Christ, yet she calls him his father : in the first place, because * Apud Lucam Christus Josephi filius dicitur, similiter et apud Johannem. Quanquam Lucas alibi id explicat, dicens Christum fuisse filium Josephi ut pu- tabatur, et Philippus ad Nathanaelem invenimus (inquit) Jesum filium Joseph, de quo scripsit Moses in lege adumbravit Christu per Melchisedecum sine patre ut hominem, sine matre ut Deum. Et prophetarum princeps Esaias, Ecee, (inquit) virgo concipiet et pariet filium, unde patet Christum ut hominem non habuisse patrem, adeoque poterat Phillippus prius intellexisse. Josephum non fuisse vere patrem Jesu. Si intellexerit ergo ad commoditatem significationis sic loquutus est, sed ignoravit id Philippus, sciebat certe beata virgo eum a spiritu sancto con- ceptum esse ipsa, tamen apud Lucam, Ecce (inquit) pater tuus ego cruciati quaere- bamus te. Cum sciret non fuisse Josephum Christi patre, appellat tunc Josephum patrem, primo quia sic putabatur esse, secundo propter reverentiam, quausus est Christus erga Josephum, tanquam patrem, eodem modo verisimile est patres, cum citarint libros Sapientiae et Ecclesiastici sub nomine Salomonis, usos esse eo nom- ine, non quod Salomonis esse putarint,sed significandi commoditatem sequutos, appellationem vulgo usitatam retinuisse. — De Libris Apocryphis y Proelectio xix. 13 274 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE he was reputed to be so, and in the second, on account of the filial reverence with which Christ uniformly treated Joseph. In the same way it is likely that the fathers, in citing the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus under the name of Solomon, did so, not because they imputed them to him, but for convenience of reference they retained a common and popular designation." To this may be added, as the same learned writer has intima- ted, that they used the name of Solomon to conciliate greater reverence and esteem for the sentiments which they had chosen to accommodate. These books were so strikingly analogous to those of Solomon, that they might be studied, in the opinion of the fathers, with safety and advantage. Their authors, whoever they were, breathed the spirit of devotion, and hence their pro- ductions were applauded, as the modern church warmly com- mends Owen, Charnock, and Scott. Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, and Judith, were regarded as good elementary works of re- ligion, which might be placed with success in the hands of novices, to prepare them for the higher mysteries of the faith. Such, at least, is the testimony of Athanasius.* In his famous Festal Epistle, after having given a catalogue of the inspired books of the Old and New Testament, he adds : " There are also other books beside these, not indeed admitted to the canon, but ordained by the Fathers to be read by such as have recently come over (to Christianity), and who wish to receive instruction in the doctrine of piety — the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, the Doctrine of the Apostle, as it is called, and the Shepherd. " But whether the explanations which have been given of the manner in which the Fathers quote Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus be satisfactory or not, one thing is absolutely certain — that their ascribing them to Solomon, in incidental references, is no proof whatever that they really believed them to be his. Bellarmin appeals to Basil as having cited Ecclesiasticus in this way, and * Eoti koli srspa Pi0\ia tovtu)v s^oyOev, ov Kavovi^ofieva jxev, T£TV7ra)fx£va 6e napa tmv 7Tarepo)v avayiv(d(TK£cdai tois apri 7rpoa£p^o[X£vois kui /3ov),Ofj£vois Karrj^EicrOai rov rrjs evvcfieias \oyov HtO(pia EoAojucovros - , kcu aocpia Hipa^, kcli Kadrjp, kcli IovSeQ^ kcii To/?taj, teat diSa%r] KaXovfxevri twv Airoaro'Xojv, kcli o TtoiyLr\v. Athanasius, JEpistola Festalis, Opp. i. p. 961, ed. Bened. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 275 yet Basil unequivocally asserts that only three boohs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, were written by Solomon : Jerome, too, has been guilty of the same method of citation, and has just as strongly affirmed that no other books can be properly ascribed to Solomon, but those which are found in the Jewish canon.* It is unnecessary to adduce more examples. One single instance is sufficient to maim a conclusion drawn from the only circum- stance which can be tortured into any thing like evidence that Cyprian or any other Father imputed the documents in question to the pen of Solomon. It will now be remembered that the leading proposition of your argument was this — if Cyprian be- lieved that Solomon was the author of Ecclesiasticus and Wis- dom, he believed them to be inspired. It was incumbent on you to prove the antecedent, which you have not so much as attempt- ed to do. I, on the other hand, have shown that it is false ; or, at least, that there is not a particle of evidence in its favor. The argument then stands in this way : If Cyprian believed that Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom were written by Solomon, he believ- ed them to be inspired. But he did not believe that they were written by Solomon. Here in my opinion the syllogism halts — claudicat consecutio — and Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are left precisely where they were before you appealed to the testimony of Cyprian. The claims of Baruch and the additions to Daniel, to a place in the canon, you endeavor to vindicate by the same process of argument which we have seen to be worthless in the case of * Ita videtis judicia cani posse negati consequutionem illius argument!* patres hos libros a Salomone scriptos putarunt ergo sunt ah eo scripti. Nunc istius enthymematis antecedens examinemus. Patres existimarunt hos libros a Salomone scriptos, ad quod confiraiandum primum enthymema pertinet, patres citarunt hos libros sub nomine Salomonis, ergo existimarunt ab eo scriptos, hie quoque claudiat consequutio, in illis enim qui librum Sapiential sub Salomonis nomine citarunt, fuit Basilius, qui tamen aperte inficiatur eum a Salomone scrip- turn. Ubi tres oranino sacros libros Salomoni adscribit, rpeis naaas eyvoy/xev e EaXo/xcuj/ro? rag rrpay pars tag. Hieronymus etiam ex eorum numero est, qui eccle- siasticum sub nomine Salomonis citant. At alius est idem Hieronymus, ubi tres libros a Salomone scriptos decit Fertur (inquit) alius qui a Siracide scriptus est, Salomonis ; adhuc alius \pev6emypafos, qui Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur. De Libris Apocryphis, Pralectio xviii. 276 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom. Because Cyprian has quoted the one under the name of Jeremiah, and the other under the name of Daniel ; that is, because he has referred to the books by their notorious and ordinary titles, you would have us to believe that he really looked upon these venerable prophets as the authors of the documents in question. The futility of such reasoning has already been sufficiently exposed : and, therefore, without far- ther ceremony, we may dismiss the testimony of Cyprian in behalf of these works, as having no existence but in your own mind. 4. His quotations from the Maccabees are no more remarkable than a quotation which he has made from the third book of Es- dras : and if his conviction of the historical credibility of the narrative in the one case is sufficient to canonize the books, his full and cordial accommodation of a sentiment in the other, must be equally valid for the same purpose. The truth is, the argument is stronger in behalf of Esdras, since Cyprian not only quotes it, but quotes it in the very same form in which Christ and his Apostles were accustomed to cite the writings of the Old Testament. " Custom without truth, " says he,* "is only an- tiquity of error : wherefore, having abandoned error, let us follow truth, knowing that truth says in Esdras — as it is written — 'truth endureth and is always strong: it liveth and conquered for evermore.' " II. In what you call the testimony of Hippolytus and Dionysi us, you have presented us with nothing which requires an answer. They quote and comment on passages contained in the disputed books ; but I have yet to learn that any thing can be gathered from a fact of this sort, but the existence of the works in the age of the writers, and the knowledge and probable approbation of their contents. But you were truly bold to insist on what is called the Apostolical Constitutions as evidence in your favor. It is true, that the Apocrypha are quoted in this collection, but it is not true that the citations which occur imply that there was * Nam consiietudo sine veritate, vetustas erroris est : propterea quod relicto errore sequamur veritatem, scientes quia et apud Esdram Veritas dicit, sicut scriptum est : Veritas et manet et invalescit in seternum, et vincit et obtinet in saecula saeculorum. Epistola 74. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REPUTED. 277 any Divine authority in the writings from which they were made. On the contrary, we have in the fifty-seventh chapter of the second book a catalogue or list of the books which were di- rected to be read in the churches : and not a syllable is whis- pered concerning Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, or any of the works which Rome has added to the canon — a pregnant proof that to quote a book and to believe it inspired are two very different things. The only books which are mentioned in con- nection with the Old Testament, are the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles — the return from Babylon by Ezra — that is, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, David, Solomon, Job and the sixteen Prophets.* Here, then, is the canon of the Apostoli- cal Constitutions ; and though it is a document which is notori- ously spurions,f yet as you have chosen to appeal to its author- ity, I hope that, in this matter, you will abide by its decision. LETTER XVIII. Testimony of the Fourth Century considered. — Council of Nice. — Councils of Hippo and Carthage. — Testimony of Augustine — Ephrem the Syrian — Basil — Chrysostom — Ambrose. You open the testimony of the fourth century with the Coun- cil of Nice. It is wholly immaterial to the argument whether I despise its decisions^ or reverence its decrees, since the only ques- * AvayivcocTKEroi ra Mcoo-ews k/? Kat tov T>o\o{xoivog /cat ra tuv EKKaiScKa -TrpocpaTcov' ava Svo Se yevofjievojv avayvGHTfiCLTajv, erepog rig tov AatfiS ipa^\cTG) vfxvovg. " Let him (the reader) read the books of Moses, and of Joshua the son of Nun, the books of Judges, Kings, and Chronicles, and those concerning the return from the captivity ; and beside these, the books of Job, Solomon, and the sixteen prophets ; and two readings having been made, let another chant the Psalms of David." t For a clear and satisfactory dissertation upon the value of the Apostoli- cal Constitutions, see Lar drier, vol. iv. p. 194, et seq. t u As this maybe one of the Councils you so unremittingly despise." A. P. P., Letter VIL 27& ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE tion before us has reference to the canon, which, whether right or wrong, it believed to be Divine. I may observe, however, that while I embrace its admirable creed with cordial acquies- cence, I cannot but regret that so distinguished and venerable a body should have sanctioned the principle of religious persecu- tion, and indirectly, if not positively, endorsed the odious doc- trine, that pains, penalties, and civil disabilities were appropriate instruments for promoting uniformity of faith. The age of Con- stantine is, no doubt, a period in the history of the church upon which Romanists love to linger. Then were laid the founda- tions of that secular authority and that joyous and imposing pomp of ceremonial which subsequently enabled the Man of Sin to tread upon the necks of kings, to bind their nobles with fet- ters of iron, and to banish all that was pure and spiritual from the temple of God. " Ah, Constantine ! of how much ill was cause, Not thy conversion, but those rich domains That the first wealthy pope received of thee." 1. But discarding all discussion of the merits of the Council, and of the peculiar corruptions of the age in which it was con- vened, let us confine ourselves to the matter in hand ; and en- deavor to ascertain whether the wickedness and folly, in refer- ence to the Scriptures, were perpetrated at Nice, which, upwards of twelve hundred years afterwards, formed a fit introduction to the atrocities of Trent. To discover the opinions of a council, the sim plest method is to appeal to the acts, the authentic proceedings of the body itself: but as in the creed, canons, and synodical epis- tle, the only clear and unquestionable monuments of the doings of Nice that have survived the ravages of time, not a single hint is given touching the books which the Fathers received as in- spired, you have been obliged to resort to collateral and indirect evidence, and that of the vaguest kind. The testimony upon which you have relied, is a passage of Jerome, and a few quota- tions found in the work of an obscure scribbler, Gelasius Cyzi- cenus. In replying to your arguments, I shall reverse the order in which you have marshalled your witnesses, and begin with Gelasius. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 279 This writer has given us a history of the Council of Nice, written a hundred and fifty years after the body had been dis- solved, collected from documents of which nothing is known with certainty, and consequently nothing can be pronounced with con- fidence. He pretends to have preserved the discussions and de- bates which transpired in the Synod betwixt the orthodox and the Arians ; but speeches reported under such circumstances are evidently entitled to small consideration.* Worthless, how- ever, as his history is, you have appealed to it as possessing, upon this subject, " some value." " At the time," you inform us, ( ' when Gelasius wrote, there were many monuments of the Coun- cil of Nice still extant, which have since perished. The senti ments of the Fathers could be easily ascertained, and it is utterly incredible that if they were unanimously opposed to the inspira- tion of any books of the Old Testament save those in the Jewish canon, he would have dared them to assert the contrary, or to put in their mouths expressions directly opposed to what they would have used." Let this be granted, and where is the proof that Gelasius attributed to the orthodox any sentiments, or "put into their mouths " any speeches inconsistent with a cordial re- jection of the whole Apocrypha from the list of inspired compo- sitions ? In the passages which you have adduced, he simply represents the Fathers as quoting the book of Baruch under the name of Jeremiah, and the book of Wisdom under the name of Solomon. Now it is perfectly conceivable that they might have appealed to these works, in their arguments against the Arians, as setting forth the sentiments of God's ancient and chosen peo- ple, upon the matter in dispute, without implying, or intending to imply, that their declarations were to be received as authoritative statements of truth. Their object might have been to show that the church, under the former dispensation, was as far removed from Arianism, as under the latter. These books were legiti- mate sources of proof as to the actual creed of the Jews, or at least a part of the nation, in the age of the writers, and there was * The reader may form some conception of the value of this historian from the " admonitio ad Lectorum" prefixed to his work in Labbaeus and Copart, vol. ii. p. 103. 280 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE consequently no impropriety in using them, as a probable expo- sition of the national faith. In fact, they have been used in mod- ern times for precisely the same purpose, in the able work of Allix, entitled The Judgment of the Jewish Church against the Unitarians. " We make use of their authority," says he, "not to prove any doctrine which is in dispute, as if they contained a Divine Revelation, and a decision of an inspired writer, but to witness what was the faith of the Jewish Church in the time when the authors of those Apocryphal books did flourish."* It is hence, by no means, certain that the Fathers of Nice, if indeed they quoted the Apocrypha at all, intended to sanction the inspiration of the works. That they referred to Baruch under the name of Jeremiah, and to Wisdom under the name of Solomon, proves no more than that these were the ordinary and familiar titles of the books. If, however, you insist on the pro- position that nothing was quoted against the Arians which was not regarded by the council as inspired, and admit that Gelasius is a fit witness of what was quoted, your argument will prove a little too much. This writer testifies that the Fathers cited two grossly spurious documents — not only cited them, but cited them as Scripture, and cited them apparently to prove a doctrine. In the eighteenth chapter of the second book of his history, he ex- hibits at length the reply of the bishops to the Arian exposition of Proverbs viii. 22 : " The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before his works of old." In the course of the reply, which was intrusted to Eusebius, these words occur.* " Enough has been said, as it appears to me ; and the proofs have clearly * See Allix's Judgment of the Jewish Church, &c., c. v. p. 53. * Ikclvo. eivai [xoi Sokei to. Xe^devra. /cat at (nro3ei%£is -naptarriaav, a) (f>i\ocoapva(3a nut KA£/.<£vro? Kai lovSa. Eusebii Pamphili Historiae Eccles. lib. vi. 13. t Hue usque Divinae Scripturae Hebraec-rum Annales temporum continent. Ea vero quae posthaec apud eos gesta sunt, exhibeo de Libro Maccabaeorum, et Josephi, et Afrieani scriptis. — Euseb. Chron. 1, 2, juxta versionem S. Hieron. t Qv ov *a0' rj[juv Svvarov Et-aKpiffafadailra yivr]rco i [xr)Ss (pspecdai Beiav pifiXov f| extivov. Kai ^XP 1 T0)V T0L ^wt"^ 00 ? X9 0v0iv ' Euseb. Demon. Evang. Lib. viii. § Et miror quosdam, &c., cum et origines et Eusebius et Apollinarius alii- que Ecclesiastici viri et Doctores Graeciae has visiones non haberi apud Hebrasos fateantur, nee de debere respondere Porphyrio pro his quae nullam scriptural sacrae auctoritatem praebeant — S. Hier. Proem. Com. in Daniel. || Athanastius as above. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 285 Betwixt the Synod of Nice and Jerome, we have a succession of distinguished writers, Epiphanius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, Nazianzen, and Amphilochius, together with the Council of La- odicea, all, as we shall subsequently see, concurring, not in the rejection of Judith only, but of the whole Apocrypha, from any pretensions to canonical authority. None seem to have known or ever to have heard that any such event took place at Nice as Jerome says had been somewhere read to have happened. Is it credible, that if Nice had canonized Judith, all of these writers, some of whom were members of the body, should have been pro- foundly ignorant of the fact ? How comes it that not one of them has alluded to it, but that all have spoken as if no such event had ever taken place? I cannot better express this argument than in the words of a distinguished papist, Lindanus, the Bish- op 6f Rurmonde:* "If the Nicene Council held the book of Judith and the other books of that rank to be canonical, why did the Council of Laodicea, eighty years afterwards, omit it? And why did Nazianzen make no mention of it? St. Hierome seems to me to speak as one thdXdoubted of it, unless a man might think * Si enim Nicena synodus librum Judith cum aliis in canotiem redegerat, cur annis 80, post eum non accensit Laodicena 1 Cur Nazianzenus ejus non meminit? sed legitur computasse (ait Hieronymus) qui mihi dubitantis sus- picionem subindicare videtur. Nisi fortasse quis opinetur hunc de libris canon- icis Nicenum canonem una cum plurimis aliis, minimum (uti equidem arbitror) 47. Teste Divo Julio primo Romano ; hsereticorum fraude fuisse accisum , atque sublectum Ecclesias. Cui ne sufTragemur,cogit pia de sanctissimis patri- bus in concilio Laodiceno congregatis, existimatio. Non illos ea aetate, qua canonum scientia imprimis ornabat Episcopos, tarn fuisse sui et nominis et of- ficii oblitos, ut illos aut nescierint, aut desideratos non requisierint. Ad haec si vere legitur quod ait Hieronymus legi, librum Judith, concilium Nicaenum inter canonicas computasse ; quid sibi vult quod idem praefatione in libris salomonis scribit. Ecclesiam libros Judith, Tobiae, Maceaebeorum legere quidem, sed inter canonicas scripturas non recipere, hue usque Lindamus dubitantes instar, subjungit definientes more, verum nihil hac de re in concilio Niceno fuisse de- finitum, ut existimem invitat quod hunc Laodicenum de scripturis canonicis canonem, una cum reliquis, synodus Constantinopolitana sexta in Trullo appro- barit, quod minime videtur fuisse factura, si designatum a 318, illis patribus Nicenis doclessimus juxta ac sanctissimis Laodiceni aut non recipissent, aut de- curtassent sacrarum scripturarum canonem. — Rainoldus de Libris Apocryphis, Pr&lectio. xv. 286 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE that this and many more decrees besides, which the Council of Nice made, were afterwards pared away from it by fraudulent heretics : whereunto I cannot give my consent for the religious honor that I bear to the fathers of Laodicea, who in that age, when Bishops knew the canons of the church best, and when it was their great commendation to be skilful in them, could not be so far negligent, both of their credit and their duty, as neither to know them if they were extant, nor to seek after them if they were lost. Besides, if that were true, which, St. Hierome says, was read of the Book of Judith, that the Nicene Fathers took it into the canon, how shall we construe that which he writes in his preface before the books of Solomon, ' that though the church indeeds reads the history of Judith and Tobit, &,c, yet it doth not receive them into tbe number of Canonical Scrip- ture?' But that the Nicene Council determined nothing in this matter, I am the rather induced to believe, for the Sixth General Council at Constantinople approved the canon of Laodicea, which it would never have done, if the Fathers that met there had either rejected or mutilated the canon of Nice." The reasoning of the Bishop, coupled with the considerations which have already been adduced, seems' to be conclusive. The first General Synod of the Christian church, whatever other fol- lies it was permitted to perpetrate, was kept, in the merciful providence of God, from corrupting those records of eternal truth from which its sublime and memorable creed may be most tri- umphantly deduced. A pure faith has nothing to apprehend from unadulterated Scriptures. II. It is unnecessary to notice what you have said of the Pro- vincial Synod at Alexandria, held in the year 339, or of the General Council at Constantinople, convened in 381. The prin- ciples of criticism, which have been repeatedly developed in the course of this discussion, furnish an abundant explanation of the real value of the quotations on which you have relied. In regard to Gregory Nazianzen, in particular, through whom you have rep- resented the Council of Constantinople as endorsing the books of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, I shall have occasion, hereafter, to show, that you have been grossly seduced into error. His testimony is clear and explicit, for the Jewish canon ; and if he APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 287 has quoted — as I am willing to admit that he has done — if he has quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture, or Divine Scripture, this fact only strengthens the position that such expressions were generic terms, comprehending the entire department of religious literature whether inspired or not. III. I come now to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, which, as their testimony on this subject is one, I shall treat as one ; and as my object is not to puzzle but convince, I shall take no advantage of the difficulties which press the Roman Doc- tors in determining which of the Carthaginian Councils it was that enacted the famous decree touching the canonical books of Scripture. That decree is usually printed in the collections, as the forty-seventh canon of the third Council of Carthage, held in the year 397, and, so far as the writings of the Old Testament are concerned, is in these words :* " Moreover it is ordained that nothing beside the canonical Scriptures be read in the church under the name of Divine Scripture ; and the canonical Scriptures are these : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, Four Books of the Kingdoms, two Books of Chronicles, Job, David's Psalter, Five Books of Solomon, the Books of the Twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Two Books of Esdras, Two Books of the Maccabees. " Now the question is, what are we to understand by the phrase, "canonical Scriptures, " as used in this decree? If it is synonymous with inspired Scriptures, then indeed you have produced a witness that the Apocrypha are entitled to Di- vine authority. If, on the other hand, it means something else, something quite distinct from inspired Scripture, then * Item placuit, ut praeter scripturas canonicas, nihil in ecclesia legitur sub nomine divinarum scripturarum. Sunt autem canonicae scripturae, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesus Nave, Judicum, Ruth, Reg- norum libri quatuor, Paralipomenoni libri duo, Job, Psalterium Davidicum, Sal- omonis libri quinque, libri duodecim Prophetarum, Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Danie), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Esdrae libri duo, Machabaeorum libri duo. Novi autem Testamenti Evangeliorum libri quatuor, Actuum Apostolorum liber unus, Pauli apostoli epistolas tredecim, ejusdem ad Hebraeos una, Petri apostoli duae, Joannis apostoli tres, Judae apostoli una, Jacobi una, Apocalypsis Joannis liber unus. — Concilium Carthagin, iii. cap. 48. 288 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE your cause, condemned by the voice of three centuries, is left without even the African protection which you had vainly hoped to find in the close of the fourth. Nay, if it could be proved that the Council of Carthage intended in this canon, to enumer- ate the books which were held to be inspired, the only protec- tion which Rome could receive from it is the " protection which vultures give to lambs. " It is as much the interest of Papists as of Protestants to find a meaning which, without doing violence to the terms that are employed, shall be consistent with itself, and with the known opinions of the age, and at the same time exonerate the fathers from the charge of ignorance, folly, and wickedness, to which, if it was their purpose to draw up a list of the writings that had been given by inspiration of God, they are in some degree exposed. It cannot be denied that they were foolish, ignorant, and wicked, if they pronounced any book to be inspired without sufficient evidence; and it is equally indisputa- ble that no such evidence could have been possessed in behalf of any work which the Church, in every age before and after this provincial Synod, has concurred in rejecting as Apocryphal. And yet a book which, in the papal editions of the Bible, is placed, by authority, extra seriem canonicorum librorum, which has evidently no claims to inspiration, and which the Christian world, according to the showing of Romanists themselves, has never received as the word of God, is inserted by Carthage in its list of canonical books. Who can believe, who can even con- ceive, that it was the intention of the Fathers to outrage the sen- timents of the rest of Christendom, and to incur the awful male- diction of those who add to the words of Divine Revelation ? To have perpetrated a deed of this sort, amid the light with which they were surrounded, a light so bright, that it has penetrated even to the darkened chambers of the papacy, would have mani fested a degree of impiety and blasphemy, which we cannot attribute to a body of which Augustine was a member. You, however, in the interpretation which you have given of their for- ty-seventh canon, have charged it upon them. It is susceptible of the clearest proof, that the two books of Esdras, which they have mentioned in their list, include the third. What, in the APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 289 Latin, Bellarmin himself admits,* is denominated the third book of Esdras, is, in the Greek copies of the Bible, entitled the first. What is, in the Latin, the Jirst and second, constitute in Greek but one volume, and are styled the second book of Esdras. So that, according to the Greek numeration, the first and second books of Esdras comprehend the Apocryphal third. Bellarmin has again informed us,* that at the time when the Council of Carthage was convened, the universal Church used that transla- tion of the Bible which Jerome was accustomed to call the Vul- gate, and which was made from copies of the Septuagint, includ- ing the additions of the Hellenistic Jews. Hence, the Bibles of the Fathers at Carthage, under the name of two hooks of Es- dras, embraced not only Nehemiah and Ezra, but that very third book of Esdras which Rome declares to be Apocryphal. :j: Now * Nee minor est difficultas de lib. iii. Esdrae ; nam in Graecis codicibus ipse est, qui dicitur primus Esdrae, et qui apud nos dicuntur primus et secundus, in Graeco dicuntur secundus Esdrae. Quo circa versimile est, antiqua concilia et patres, cum ponunt in can one duos libros Esdrse, intelligere nomine duorum lib- rorum omnes tres. Sequebantur. enim versionem septuaginta interpretum, apud quos tres nostri duo libri Esdrae nominantur. — Bellar. de Verio Dei, lib. i. cap. 20. t Utebatur autem eo tempore universa Ecclesia libris sacris juxta earn edi- tionem, quam S. Hieronymus praesatione in librum Esther, et saepe alibi, vul- gatam appellare solet, quae, ut ipse ait, Graecorum lingua et Uteris continetur. — Bellar. de Verbo Dei, lib. i. cap. 7. t As the following extract so ably refutes Bellarmin's evasions, the reader, I hope, will excuse its length : — Potest autem id videri falsum, Aug-ustinum scilicet et Carthaginensi concil- ium adnumerasse tertium Esdrae canonicis, cum duos tantum ejus libros in ca- none consignando nominent, sed si penitus introspicere volueritis, sub duorum nomine tertium quoque comprehendi intelligeris. Quod ut vobis planum fiat, principio notandum secus collocari libros Esdrae in Graeca editione quam in La- tina. Qui enim Latinis tertius, is est Graecis primus, qui Latinis primus et se- cundus, ii Graecis in unum volumen compinguntur, cui nomen Esdrae quod vero primum et secundum Esdrae unum Graeci numerent, ut Hieronymus docet, inde fieri id potuit, quia Hebrari sic numerant. Quod tertium Esdrae praefii- gant, inde videtur effectum, quia ille liber historiam paulo alius repetit. Fuisse autem primum Graecis, qui est Latinis tertius, manifestum est, quod si teste opus sit, fidem faciat Athanasius, qui in enumeratione librorum duos Esdrae nominat, priorem cujus initium est, et obtulit Josias Pascha, etc., et posteriorem, cujus initium esse dicit in anno primo Cyri, Regis Persarum, etc., quae duo cum sint 290 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE my argument is briefly this : if the Carthaginian Fathers in- tended to settle the canon of inspiration, they were guilty of great folly and wickedness ; but the character of the men, particu- larly of Augustine, shows that they were not liable to such a initia tertii et primi libri, clarissimum inde est, tertium ab eo primum numera- tum, secundum et primum ut secundum. Nam in quod Latinis Athanasii ex- emplaribus in margine adscripsit nescio quis (atqui hoc principium est capitis trigesimiquinti paralipomenon) per imperitatem factum est. Non enim ani- madvertit ille quisquis fuit, eadem verba exordiri tertium Esdrae, sed animad- vertere id debuerat, atque errorem suum corrigere ex eodem capite, ubi Athan- asius agens de primo Esdrae, enumerat ea prope omnia, quae sunt in tertio Es- drae, adscripsit autem ille idem (ut videtur) hsec haberi capite tertio et quarto libri secundi. Id eo modo observatum est in Graecis Bibliorum editionibus ; nominatum in ea quae Venetiisex Aldi officina exivit, ubi cum duo tantum habeantur libri Es- drae, primus exorditur, quomodo noster tertius, secundus iisdem plane verbis, quibus Latina editio primum Esdrae inchoat. Ita manifestum est et antiquitus Athanasii tempore, et ab ejus seculo in Graecis editionibus veteris. Testamenti duobus Esdrae libris tertium comprehendi. In quo obiter notandum, doctissi- mos viros Franciscum Vatablum, Franciscum Junium,et Franciscum Lucam, eo parum animadverto, existimavisse tertium Esdrae Greece non extare. Vatablus quidem tertium Esdrae Greece nee sibi contigisse dicit videre, nee cuiquam quod sciat alteri. Quomodo etiam Junius, Herae libros duos, neque Hebraeice, neque Graece vidi (in quit ille) aut fuisse visos memini legere. Franciscus Lu- cas, paulo asseverantius tertium Esdrae nullo alio sermone extare ait praeterquam Latino. In quam ille opinione inductus erat eo, quod neque in complutensibus exemplaribus, neque in Bibliis sequitur Nehemiam, sed in earn partem rejicitur, ubi Apocryphi ponentur. Hoc tandum Lucas vidit, et agnovit, et confessus est se deceptum, etc., sed quod ad rem praesentem facit, affirmat ibi Lucas, tertium Esdrae Latinorum, esse primum Graecis. Atque hoc est, quod primum observa- tum volui, proximo loco animadvertere deletis Augustinum et patres Cartha- ginenses in canone consignando, et alios in disputationibus fuit translatione Latina e Graeca 70, editione versa, uti consuevisse, quod ipse planum facit ubi citato illo loco. Etformavit Deas hominem pulverem de terra : subjungit, sicut Graeci codices habent, unde in Latinam linguam scriptura ipsa conversa est. Man- ifestos autem id dicit, ubi rem ex professo disputat. Nam cum fuerint (inquit Augustinus) et alii interpretes, etc., hanc tamen, quae septuaginta est, tanquam sola esset, sic recipit Ecclesia, eaque utuntur Graeci populi Christiani, quorum plerique utrum alia sit aliqua ignorant. Ex hac 70, interpretatione etiam in Latinam linguam interpretatum est, quod Ecclesiae Latinae tenent, quamvis non demerit ternporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus homo doctissimus, et omnium trium linguarum peritus, qui non ex Graeco, sed ex Hebraeo in Latinum eloqui- um easdem scripturas convertit, ac qui sequuntur. Ex ut disertis verbis Augus- APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 291 charge ; therefore, they did not intend to determine the canon of inspired books. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact, that the decree itself was conditional ; the church beyond the sea, as we gather tinus non solum se usum ilia Septuaginta interpretum versione significat, sed et earn perinde quasi sola esset, ab Ecclesia receptam, et Ecclesiam Latinam, quod tenet id ex ilia interpretatione tenere, adeo ut quamvis, Augustini tempor- ibus Hieronymus summa fide ex Hebraicis fontibus converteret, Ecclesia tamen praeferret earn editionem, quae ex Graeca 70. Latina facta est. Id quod et loco superiore docuit Augustinus, et praecipue in Epistolis, ubi ad Hieronymum sic scribit. Ego sane te mallem Graecas potius canonicas nobis interpretari scrip- turas, quae 70, interpretum authoritate perhibentur. Perdurum erit enim, si tua interpretatio per multas Ecclesias frequentius ceperit lectitari, quod a Graecis Ecclesiis Latinae Ecclesiae dissonabunt, etc., et alibi petit a Hieronymo, ut in- terpretationem suam Bibliorum e 70, mittat. Ideo autem (inquit) desidero interpretationem tuam de 70, ut et tanta Latinorum, qui qualescunque hoc ausi sunt, quantum possumus imperitia careamus : et hi qui me invidere putant utili- bus laboribus tuis, eandem aliquando si fieri potest, intelligant, propterea me nolle tuam ex Hebraeo interpretationem in Ecclesiis legi. Ne contra Septua- ginta auctoritatem, tanquam novum aiiquid proferentes, magno scandalo pertur- bemus plebes Christi, quarum aures et corda illam interpretationem audire con- sueverunt, quae ab apostolis approbata est. Denique in libris de Doctrina Chris- tiana, vult ille Latinos codices veteris testamenti, si necesse fuerit, Graecorum auctoritate emendandos et eorum potissimum, qui cum 70 essent, ore uno inter- pretate esse perhibentur, etc., locus consuiatur. Neque vero haec Augustinus solum luculente testatur, sed et reliqui scriptores, qui in eum commentarios scripserunt, vel de eo loquuti sunt. In quibus Ludovicus vires in praefatione comment, ait Augustinum versonem 70, interpretum ubique adducere. Et in ipsis commetariis ostendit (inquit) olim Ecclesias Latinas usas interpretatione Latina ex 70, versa, non hac Hieronymi, ut mirer esse qui tantum nefas existi- ment translationes attingi, modo sobrie ac prudenter fiat. Sixtus Senensis duas fuisse docet in Ecclesia Latinas editiones V. T. no- ram scilicet ac veterem. Vetus decidem (inquit ille) vulgatae et communis nomen accepit, turn quia nullum certum haberet auctorem, turn quia non de He- braeo fonte, sed de koivtj, vel de Septuaginta interpretatione sumpta esset, quern admodum August 18, De Civit. Dei, c. 43, et Hieronymus in praefatione Evan- geliorum testantur, cujus lectione usa est Ecclesia longe ante tempora Hierony- mi, ac etiam multo post, usque ad tempora Gregorii Papae. Nova vero a Hie- ronymo non de Graeca, sed de Hebraica veritate in Latinum eloquium versa est : qua Ecclesia usque, ab ipsis Gregorii temporibus, una cum veteri editione usa est. Utriusque enim Gregorius in praefatione moralium meminit, inquiens : Novam translationem deferro, sed cum probationis causa me exigit, nunc veter- em, novam pro testimonio assumo : ut quia sedes Apost. cui aut hore Deo prae- 292 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE from an ancient note, was to be consulted for its confirmation^ The Council of Carthage, then, received the books mentioned in its list as canonical, provided the transmarine churches would fideo utraque utitur, mei quoque labor studii ex utroque fulciatur. Haec apud Sixtum, unde liquet longe ante tempora Hieronymi, ad usque Gregorium, (quasi ad 600 annos) in usu fuisse translatione Latinam e Graeca 70. Adeoque recte colligi Augustinum et Carthageniensis concilii patres editionem illam Graecam 70, sequutos esse. Quid quod Bellarminus ipse hoc agnoscit, veteres sequutos esse versionem septuaginta 1 apud quos (inquit) qui nobis Esdrae tertius est, fuit primus, siccine 1 quomodo ergo te expedies e laqueo rationis nostrae 1 conatur ille quidem expedire se, sedhaeret ut mus in pisa. Majorem revera ait esse dif- ficultatem de tertio, Esdrae quam de quarto. Sed respondet, etsi duo libri Graec- orum sint nostris tertius, non tamen sequi patres antiquos cum duos Esdrae in canone ponant, nostras tres intellexisse, quid ita? quatuor nimirum rationes ad- hibet e quibus pleraeque non attingunt nostram sententiam, certe nullae labe- factant. Prima ratio haec est. Quia Melito, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Hieronymus, Ruffinus, aperte sequuti sunt Hebraeos, qui tertium Esdrae non agnoscunt, quid turn ? Ergone Augustinus cum duos Esdrae accenseat, non intellexit nostras tres ? quia scilicet. Melito, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Hieronymus, Ruffinus, aperte se- quuti sunt Hebraeos. Ergo Augustinus non est sequutus editionem Graecam Septuaginta ? perinde ratiocinatur ac siquis diceret Socrates, Plato, veteres aca- demici vocarunt Deum ideam boni, etc. Ergo ac Aristoteles et Peripateti- corum schola sic vocavit, si nondum appareat hujus rationis infirmitas, at fa- cimile apparebit in ratione simtli quam adjungam. Melito, Epiphanius, Hil- arius, Hieronymus et Ruffinus rejecerunt e canone sacrarum Scripturarum libros Sapientiae, Ecclesiastici, Tobiae, Judith, etc., ergo et Augustinus hos rejecit, et concilium Carthaginensi, haec nisi ratio firma sit, videtis quam infirma sit altera. Secunda Bellarmini ratio ea est a precibus publicis et usu Ecclesiastico of- ficii. Quia jam diu nihil legitur ex illo libro in officio Ecclesiastico, quid inde ? An ergo Augustinus cum duos Esdrae libros in canone numeraret, non intellexit nostras tres ? aut Augustini tempore a patribus Carthaginensibus non habeba- tur tertius Esdrae in canonicis 1 perinde hoc est ac siquis ita ratiocinetur. Ex- ulat jam diu papatus ex Anglia, ergo Henrici VI. tempore exulavit. Imo ab- surdior ilia ratio quam haec, quo proprius abfuit ab aetate nostra Henrici VI. Reg- num, quam Augustini temporae, cum ille ab hinc non ultra 100 annos floruerit, ab Augustino ultra 1000 effluxerint, quo temporis decursu multa mutari pote- rant, Bellarminus enim ipse fatetur, Augustini tempore monachos tonderi solitos fuisse, suo vadi, potuit tamen simili ratione uti. Jamdiu in usu fuit, ut rede- rentur monachi, ergo August, tempore non solebam tonderi. Sed fortasse tertia ratio subtilior, que ab auctoritate Gelasii ducitur. Is nam- que unum tantum Esdrae librum in canone ponit, id est (inquit Bellar.) nostros uos, optime, conceditur enim, postea rem penitus introspiciemus, et videb> APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 293 consent. Surely it could not mean that these books are inspired, provided the transmarine churches will agree that they are so. The evidence of their inspiration was either complete to the Coun- cil, or it was not. If it was complete, they were bound, as faithful ministers of Christ, to say unconditionally and absolutely that these books belong to the rule of faith. Under such cir- cumstances, to have enacted a conditional decree, was treason against truth, and impiety to God. Why consult the church beyond the sea, in regard to a matter which was unquestioned and notorious ? If, on the other hand, the evidence was not complete or satisfactory, in regard to the inspiration of the books, why make a canon, until doubts were settled, and difficulties resolved 1 If the object of appealing to the transmarine churches was to obtain more light, why did the Fathers undertake to act until the light had been supplied 1 It cannot be pretended that their intention was to procure the confirmation of the Holy See. It is not the Pope alone, nor a general Council that they proposed to consult — it was the church beyond the sea — transmarina ec- clesia — the Bishop of Rome, or the other Bishops of those parts, and if every Bishop and Doctor connected with this church, with Boniface himself at their head, had been assembled in coun- cil, and had given their decision, their voice would have been only the voice of a Provincial Synod, and, therefore not entitled to be received, according to your doctrine, as the infallible dic- mus utrum unum ille tantum numeret. Interim concedant Gelasium, qui vixit centum annos post Aug. et Carthag. Cone, unum tantum Esdrae lib. in canone posuisse, quid vero hoc ad August, et Carthag. patres 1 An deinde illi non nu- merarunt duos 1 an duorum nomine nostros tres non significarunt 1 Quid ni ergo sic ratiocinent M. Crassus partib. optimatum favit, ergo C. Marius non fuit popularis ] Haec argumenta si in nostris scholis supponerentur, credo vide- rentur a pueris, verum cum superuntur a Jesuitis, quodam ni fallor Kpvxf/ecos arti- ficio insolubilia habebuntur. Verum enim vero fortassis artificio Rhetorum firmissimam rationem pos- tremo loco reservavit. Ea erit palmaria. Namque Hieronymus (inquit Bel- larminus) aperte docet, tertium EsdraB non modo non apud Hebraeos haberi, sed neque apud Septuaginta. An id aperte docet Hier. 1 eo certe delapsum esse Bell, miror, consulite Hieron, (videbitis eum non modo aperte docere, quae ei affingit Bellar. : sed nee omnino, imo contrarium statuere, qui consensu anti- quorum, qui testimoniis, e tertio Esdrae persaepe usi, postea mihi pluribus erit confirmandum.) — Eainoldus, de Libris Apocryphis, Tralectio xxviii. 294 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE tate of the Holy Ghost. The conduct of the Carthaginian Fa- thers, in passing a conditional decree, if their design was to settle the canon of inspiration, is wholly inexplicable. They virtually say, we have satisfactory evidence that these books are inspired, and yet it is not satisfactory. Such egregious trifling cannot be imputed to them, and therefore, some interpretation must be evi- dently put upon the canon, which shall justify their appeal to a foreign church. No better way is left us of arriving at a just conception of this matter, than by considering the testimony of Augustine, who was himself a member of the Council, and who may be presumed to have known the real intentions of the body. His opinions may be taken as a true exponent of the opinions of the African church. This illustrious advocate of the doctrines of grace, has given us a list of the canonical Scriptures which coincides pre- cisely with the catalogue of Carthage ;* and yet there is abun- dant proof that several of the books which are mentioned in his list, Augustine did not believe to be inspired. * Totus autem canon Scrip turarum, in quo istam considerationem versan- dam dicimus, his libris continetur. Quinque Moyseos, id est Genesi, Exodo, Levitico, Numeris, Deuteronomio ; ac uno libro Jesu Nave, uno Judicum, uno libello qui appellatur Ruth, qui magis ad Regnorum principium videtur pertinere ; deinde quatuor Regnorum et duobus Paralipomenon, non consequentibus, sed qua- si a latere adjunctis simulque pergentibus. Hasc est historia, qua? sibimet annexa tempora continet, atque ordinem rerum : sunt aliae tamquam ex diverso ordine, quae neque huic ordine, neque inter se connectuntur, sicut est Job, et Tobias, et Esther, et Judith, et Machabaeorum libri duo, et Esdrae duo, qui magis subsequi videntur ordinatam illam historiam usque ad Regnorum vel Paralipomenon ter- minatam deinde prophetae, in quibus David unus liber Psalmorum, et Salmonis tres, Proverbiorum, Cantica Canticorum, et Ecclesiastes. Nam illi duo libri, unus qui Sapientia, que alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur, de quodam simili- tudine Salomonis esse dicuntur : nam Jesus Sirach eos conscripsisse constan- tissime perhibetur, quitame quoniam in auctoritatem recipi meruerunt, inter pro- pheticos numerandi sunt. Reliqui sunt eorumlibri, qui proprie prophetae appellan- tur, duodecim prophetarum libri singuli, qui connexi subimet, quoniam numquam sejuncti sunt, pro uno habentur : quorum prophetarum nomina sunt haec, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Michceas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias : deinde quatuor prophetae sunt majorum voluminum, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel ; his quadraginta quatuor libris ; Testamenti veteris terminatur auctoritas. — S. Augustini Episcopi de Doctrina Christiana, lib. ii. cap. 8. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 295 In the twenty fourth chapter of the seventeenth book of his City of God, he remarks* " that in all the time after their re- turn from Babylon, till the days of our Saviour, the Jews had no prophets after Malachi, Haggai, and Zechariah, who prophesied at that time, and Ezra ; except another Zachariah, father of John, and his wife Elizabeth, just before the birth of Christ; and after his birth, old Simeon and Anna, a widow of a great age ; and John last of all." Again,f " From Samuel the prophet to the Babylonish Captivity, and then to their return from it, and the rebuilding of the Temple after seventy years, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, is the whole time of the Prophets. " To ascertain his idea of a prophet and of a prophetic composi- tion, let us turn to the thirty-eighth chapter of the eighteenth book of the same treatise.^ It is there stated as a probable explanation of the fact, that some books which were written by prophets were excluded from the canon, " that those to whom the Holy Spirit was accustomed to reveal what ought to be re- ceived as authoritative in religion, wrote some things as men of historic investigation, and others as Prophets, of Divine inspira- tion : the two were kept distinct that the former might be attri- buted to the men themselves, the latter to God, who spoke through the prophets." A prophet, then, is a person "to whom * Toto autem illo tempore, ex quo redierunt de Babylonia, post Malachiam, Aggorum et Zachariam, qui turn prophetarerunt et Esdram, non habuerunt prophetas usque ad Salvatoris adventum, nisi aliam Zachariam patrem Johan- nis, que Elisabet ejus uxorem, Christi nativitate jam proxima ; et eo jam nato, Simeonem senem, et Annam viduam jamque grandeevam et ipsam Johannem novissimum.— S. Augustini Episcopi de Civitate Dei, lib. xvii. cap. 24, t Hoc itaque tempus, ex quo sanctus Samuel prophetare ccepit, et dein- ceps donee populus Israel captivus in Babyloniam ducereter, atque inde se- cundum sancti Jeremiee prophetiam post septuaginta annos reversis Israelitis Dei domus instauraretur, totum tempus est Prophetarum. — Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. xvii. c. 1. t Cujus rei, fateor causa me latet ; nisi quod estimo, etiam ipsos, quibus ea quae in auctoritate religionis esse debent, sanctus utique spiritus revelabat, alia sicut homines historica diligentia, alia sicut prophetas inspiratione divina scri- bere potuisse ; atque haec ita fuisse distincta, ut ilia tamquam ipsis, ista vero tamquam Deo per ipsos loquenti, judicarentur esse tribuenda ac sic ilia pertine- rent ad ubertatem cognitionis, haec ad religionis auctoritatem. — Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. xviii. c. 38. 296 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE the Holy Spirit is accustomed to reveal what ought to be re- ceived as authoritative iti religion " — he is a man who speaks by " Divine inspiration," and does not depend upon his diligence and industry for the truths which he communicates. He is not merely an individual who foretells the future, — he may write a history, but he must depend for his facts, not upon historical % research, but the instructions of the Spirit. In other words, Augustine plainly treats prophet and inspired man as terms of equivalent extension. When, therefore, he says, that from Ezra to Christ, no prophet appeared among the Jews, he unquestion- ably means that the gift of inspiration was withdrawn, and that, consequently, no works written during that period were entitled to be received as of authority in religion. Now it is notorious that a large portion, if not all, of the Apocrypha was written during this very period, in which, as it is piteously lamented in the Maccabees, " a prophet was not seen among them." There- fore, according to Augustine, a large portion of the Apocrypha is not inspired. In addition to this, there are several passages in his works, in which he evidently treats the Hebrew canon as complete. In his commentary on the fifty-sixth Psalm,* he observes, " that all the books in which Christ is the subject of prophecy, were in the possession of the Jews : we bring our documents from the Jews that we may put other enemies to confutation : the Jew car- ries the book from which the Christian derives his faith. The Jews are our librarians." Again, he says, in another disserta- tion :f " The Jews are the escritoirs of Christians, containing the law and the prophets, which prove the doctrines of the church." And in another place he expressly says that the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms comprehended " all the canonical authorities * Propterea adhuc Judsei sunt, ut libros nostros portent ad confusionem suam. Quando enim volumus ostendere paganis prophet atum Christum, pro- ferimus paganis istas litteras. Quia omnes ipsae litterae, quibus Christus pro- phetatus est, Judaeos sunt, omnes ipsas literas habent Judaei, proferimus codi- ces ab inimicis, ut confundamus alios inimicos. Codicem portat Judaeus, unde credat Christianus librarii nostri facti sunt. — Aug. in Psa. lvi. t Et quid est aliud hodie que gens ipsa Judaeorum, nisi quaedam seriniaria Christianorum, bajulans legem et prophetas ad testimonium assertiones Eccle- iae. — Aug. lib. xii. contra Faust, cap. 13. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 297 of the sacred books."* It is notorious however, that the Jews rejected the Apocrypha — that these were documents which they refused to carry, and if Augustine received as inspired no other works but those which were acknowledged by the Hebrew na- tion, it is demonstrably certain, that he could not have admitted any part of the Apocrypha into the sacred canon. We may come down, accordingly, to particular books, and show that some of them are, by him, expressly and unequivocally excluded. The book of Judith, he informs us, possessed no canonical authority among the Jews.f Of the Maccabees he says,| " The Jews do not receive the Scripture of the Maccabees, as they do the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which our Lord bears testimony. But it is received by the Church not unprofitably, if it be read and heard soberly, especially for the sake of the history of the Maccabees, who suffered so much from the hand of persecutors, for the sake of the Law of God." Whatever the reception was, which the church gave to these books, Augustine justifies it, not on account of their Divine authority, but chiefly or especially on account of the moral tendency of the history. It is plain that he could not have regarded them as inspired, since their inspiration would have been the strongest of all possible reasons for receiv- ing them. We defer to the instructions of an inspired composi- tion, not because its lessons are useful, but we know that its les- sons must be useful because it is inspired. Speaking, in another place, of these same books, he says,§ " The account of these * Demonstrant Ecclesiam suam in prescripto Legis, in Prophetarum pre- dicts, in Psalmorum Cantibus, hoc est, in omnibus canonicis sanctorum libro rum actoritatibus. — Aug. de Unit. Eccl. c. 15. t Per idem tempus etiam ilia sunt gesta, quae conscripta sunt in libro Ju- dith, quern sane in canone Scrip turarum Judaei non recepisse dicuntur. — Aug. de Civ. Dei. lib. xviii. c. 26. t Et hanc Scripturam, quae appellatur Macchabaeorum, non habent Judaei, sicut Legem et Prophetas et Psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet ; sed recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur et audiatur, maxime propter illos Macchabaeos, qui pro Dei lege, sicut veri martyres, a persecutori- bus tarn indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt, &c. — Contr. Gaudent. Donat. l,i. cap. 31,n.38. T. ix. § Quorum supputatio temporum non in scripturis Sanctis, quae canonicae ap- pellantur, sed in aliis invenitur, in quibus sunt et Macchabaeorum libri, quos non Judaei, sed Ecclesia pro canonicis habet, propter quorumdam Martyrum pas- 14 298 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE times is not found in those holy Scriptures which are called ca- nonical, but in other works, among which also are the books of the Maccabees which the Jews do not, but which the church does, esteem to be canonical, on account of the violent and ex- traordinary sufferings of certain Martyrs, who, previously to the advent of Christ in the flesh, contended even unto death for the Law of God, and endured grievous and horrible calamities." Here ao-ain these books are canonical among Christians, not be- cause they are inspired, but on account of the examples of he- roic martyrdom with which they are adorned. The language of this passage is remarkable. The Maccabees are first carefully distinguished from those Divine Scriptures which are called ca- nonical, and then it is immediately added that the church receives them as canonical. Here, then, is either a contradiction, (for it is preposterous to limit the first clause so as to make Augustine assert that these books did not belong to the Scriptures called canonical by the Jews — his words are absolute and general,) or the term canonical is used in two distinct and separate senses, in owe of which it might be universally affirmed that the Macca- bees were not canonical ; in the other, that they were canonical in the Christian, though not in the Jewish Church. I might also show, but I do not wish to protract the argument, that Augustine rejected Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom from the list of inspired compositions.* If, as we have seen, Augustine did not receive the Apocrypha as any part of the Word of God, what did he mean by canonical Scriptures in the catalogue to which we have already referred ? I answer, without hesitation, books which might be profitably read in the churches for the public instruction of the faithful. That some of the ancient churches had a canon of reading distinct from the canon of inspired writings, may be gathered from the testimony of Athanasius, Jerome, and Ruffinus. The passage from Athanasius is quoted in another part of this discus- sion. Jerome says,f " As, therefore, the church reads the books siones vehementes atque mirabiles, qui ante quam Christus venisset in carnem usque ad mortem pro Dei lege certaverunt, et mala gravissima atque horribilia pertulerunt. — Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. xviii. c. 36. * See Cosin's Scholastical Hist. Canon under Augustine. t Sicut ergo Judith, et Tobiae, et Macchabgporum libros legit quidem Ec- APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 299 of Judith, Tobias, and Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads these two volumes (Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, but not for authority to prove the doctrines of religion." Ruf- fin says,* " It ought, however, to be known, that there are also other books which are not canonical, but have been called by our forefathers, ecclesiastical ; as the Wisdom of Solomon, and another which is called the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, and among the Latins is called by the general name of Ecclesiasti- cus : by which title is denoted, not the author of the book, but the quality of the writing. In the same rank is the book of Tobit and Judith, and the books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament is the book of the Shepherd, or of Hermas, which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter. All which they would have to be read in the churches, but not to be al- leged by way of authority, for proving articles of faith." Now the preface to Augustine's catalogue shows conclusively that he was not answering the question, what books were inspired, but another question, what books might be read.f He first di- clesia, sed eos inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit, sic et haec duo volumina (Sapientiam et Ecclesiasticum) legit ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctorita- tem Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirm andam. — Hieron. Prcefat. in. Libros Salomonis. * Secundum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non eanonici, sed Ec- clesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt, ut est sapientia Salomonis, et alia sapien- tia, quae dicitur filii Sirach. Ejusdem ordinis est libeilus Tobiae, et Judith, et Maccabaeorum libri. In Novo vero Testamento libeilus, qui dicitur Pastoris sine Hermatis, qui appellatur Duae Viae, vel judicium Petri ; quae omnia legi qui- dem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei con- firmandam. — Ruffin. in Symbolo ad Calcem Cypriani. Oxon. p. 26. t Erit igitur Divinarum Scripturarum solertissimus indagator, qui primo totas legerit, notasque habuerit, et si nondum intellectu, jam tamen lectione, dum laxat eas quae appellantur canonicae. Nam ceteras securius leget fide veri- tatis instructis, ne praeoccupent imbecillem animum, et periculosis mendaciis atque phantasmatis eludentes, praejudicent aliquid contra sanam intelligentiam. In canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclaesearum Catholicarum quam plurimum auc- toritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illae sint, quae Apostolicas sedes habere et Epistolas accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis canon- icis, ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis Catholicis praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt : in eis vero quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque auctorita- 300 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE vides the Divine Scriptures into two general classes : those which were, and those which were not canonical, and gives the general advice, that he who would make himself skilful in the Scriptures, should confine his reading to those which were canonical. Then he draws a distinction between the canonical books themselves, and shows that some, even of this class, were entitled to much more deference and respect than others. He directs his diligent in- quirer, " to prefer such as are received by all catholic churches, to those which some do not receive ;" and with regard to such as are not received by all, he advises him " to prefer those which are received by many and eminent churches, to those which are received by few churches, and of less authority.'' Now, Trent itself being witness, all inspired Scripture is entitled to equal veneration and respect. No matter if every church under heaven should agree to reject it, the obligation, supposing its inspira- ration to be known, would still be perfect to receive and obey it. Its authority does not depend upon the numbers who submit to it, but upon the proofs that it came from God. These proofs can neither be increased nor diminished by the multitude or pau- city of those who are convinced by them. If they should be con- fined to a single church, and that church should proclaim them to a faithless world, the world would be as strongly bound to listen and believe, as though a thousand sees had joined in the act. From the nature of the case, evidence perfectly conclusive of their Divine inspiration must, in regard to some of the Epis- tles, have existed, at first, only in a single congregation ; and even while other churches had not yet received them, their au- thority was just as perfect and complete as it afterwards became, when all Christendom confessed them to be Divine. It is conse- quently preposterous to measure the authority of inspired Scrip- ture by the number, dignity, and importance of the churches that acknowledge its claims. But if the question be, what books, in the estimation of those who are competent to judge, may be safely read for practical improvement, then the rule of Augustine tis Ecclesiae tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi, quamquam hoc facile invenire non possit, aequalis tamen auctoritatis habendas puto. — Aug. de Doctrina Christ, lib. ii. c. 8. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 301 is just and natural. You must inquire into the experience of the Christian world, if you wish to ascertain the works which God has eminently blessed to the comfort, holiness, stability, and peace of his chosen children. It seems, as we gather from •Augustine's Preface, that there were works in circulation under the title of Divine Scriptures, abounding in falsehoods perilous to the soul, which could not, therefore, be read with safety or with profit. In contradistinction from these dangerous books, those which might be read with security and advantage, were pronounced to be canonical, and his whole purpose was to fur- nish a catalogue of safe religious works, in order to guard against the hazard and detriment to which the minds of the ignorant and unskilful would be otherwise exposed. By canonical, therefore, he means nothing more than useful or expedient as a rule of life. The word will evidently bear this meaning. It is a gen- eral term, and, in itself considered, expresses no more than what is fit to be a rule, without any reference to the authority which prescribes it, or the end to which it is directed. In its applica- tion to the inspired Scriptures, it conveys the idea of an authori- tative rule or standard of faith, simply because they can be a rule of no other kind. But there is nothing in the nature of the term itself, which prevents it from being used to signify a rule for the conduct of life, collected either from the experience of the good, the observation of the wise, or the reasoning of the learned. In this sense, an uninspired composition may be eminently canoni- cal — it may supply maxims ofprudence for the judicious regula- tion of life, which, though they are commended by no divine authority, are yet the dictates of truth and philosophy, and will be eagerly embraced by those who are anxious to walk circum- spectly, and not as fools. We do no violence, then, to the lan- guage of Augustine, when we assert that by canonical books, which he opposes to those that were dangerous and deceptive, he meant books which were calculated to edify by the useful rules which they furnished, without any reference to the sources, whether supernatural or human, from which they were derived. This interposition is strikingly confirmed by the grounds on which, as we have already seen, Augustine admitted the Maccabees to be canonical. It also reconciles the apparent contradiction, when 302 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE in the same sentence he declares them to be and not to be ca- nonical. They are not canonical in the same sense in which the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms were canonical, but they were canonical in a subordinate sense, as stimulating piety by praise-worthy examples. Having ascertained the opinions of Augustine, we are now prepared to inquire into the meaning of the Council of Carthage. It seems from the testimony of Ruffinus, that the African Churches were accustomed to read other books for the public instruction of the faithful, such for instance, as the Shepherd of Hermas, beside those which were held to be inspired. As many works were published under fallacious and deceitful titles, and were current under the name of Divine Scriptures, it was thought proper, in order to guard the Churches against every composi- tion of this kind, to draw up a list containing all the works which might be safely and profitably read. To furnish a catalogue of this sort was, I apprehend, the sole design of the forty seventh can- on. And for the purpose of securing uniformity in the public worship of God, it was wise and judicious to consult the church- es beyond the sea. This interpretation, which the language will obviously bear, saves the council from the folly, wickedness and disgrace of pronouncing the third book of Ezra to be inspired, and of contradicting the testimony of all the past ages of the Church on the subject of the sacred canon. That this was the meaning, is distinctly intimated in the very phraseology of the Council itself. " It is ordained that nothing but the canonical Scriptures be read in the church, under the name of Divine Scrip- tures.^ It is not said, nothing shall be received as inspired by the faithful, but nothing shall be read. Then in the close of the canon, as if to put the matter beyond the possibility of doubt, it is added: "For the confirmation of this canon, our brother and fellow priest Boniface, or the other bishops of those parts, will take notice that we have received from our fathers these books to be read in the churches. The sufferings of the martyrs may also be read when their anniversaries are celebrated."* This paragraph * Item placuit, ut praeter Scripturas canonicas, nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum, sunt autem canonicae Scripturas, Genesis, Ex- APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 303 explains the decree. We see from Athanasius, Jerome, and Ruf- finus what they received from the fathers : and they expressly incorporate uninspired legends, the sufferings of the martyrs, among the books that may be read, showing that their object was to regulate the public reading of the church, and not to deter- mine the canon of inspiration. This, accordingly, is the interpretation which distinguished Romanists have themselves put upon the language of the Council. Cardinal Cajetan, at the close of his commentary on the historical books of the Old Testament, observes :* " And here we close our commentaries of the historical books of the Old Testament. For the others (Judith Tobit and Maccabees) are not reckoned by St. Je- rome among the canonical books, but are placed among the Apoc- ryphal, together with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Let not the novice be disturbed if, in other odus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesus Nave, Judicum, Ruth, Regno- rum libri quatuor, Paralipomenon libri duo, Job, Psalterium Davidicum, Salo- monis libri quinque, libri duodecim Prophetarum, Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Esdrae libri duo, Macchabaeorum libri duo. Novi autem Testamenti, Evangelicorum libri quatuor, Actuum Apostolorum liber unus, Pauli Apostoli Epistolse tredecim, ejusdem ad Haebreos una, Petri Apostoli duae, Johannis Apostoli tres, Judse Apostoli una, et Jacobi una, Apocalypsis Joannis liber unus. Hoc etiam fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifacio, vel aliis earum partium Episcopis pro confirmando isto canone, innotescat, quia a patribus ista accipi- mus in Ecclesia legenda. Liceat etiam legi passiones martyrum, cum anniver- sarii dies eorum celebrantur. — Coun. Carth. iii. c. 47. * Et hoc in loco terminamus commentaria Librorum Historialium V. T. Nam reliqui (viz., Judith, Tobia, et Maccab. libri,) a S. Hieronymo extra ca- nonicos libros supputantur, et inter Apocrypha locantur, cum libro Sapientiae, Ecclesiastico, ut patet in prologo Galeato. Nee turberis, Novitie, si alicubi re- pereris 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 Chrom. et Heliod. Episcopos, libri isti (et si qui alii sunt in canone Bibliae similes) non sunt canonici, hoc est, non sunt Regulares ad firmandum ea quae sunt Fidei ; possunt tamen dici canonici, hoc est, Regulares ad aedificationem fidelium, utpote in canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti et authorati. Cum hoc enim distinctione discernere poteris et dicta Augustini in 2 de Doctr. Christiana, que scripta in Cone. Flor. sub Eug. 4, scripta que in provincialibus Conciliis Carthag. et Laodic. et ab Innocentio, ac Gelasio Pontificibus. — Cajetan in lib. Esther, sub finem. 304 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE places, he should find that these books were counted among the canonical, either by holy councils or holy doctors. For to the rule of Jerome, the words as well of councils as of doctors must be reduced. And according to his opinion, these books and all similar ones in the canon of the Bible, are not canonical, that is, are not regular (or to be used as a rule) for confirming articles of faith : though they may be called canonical, that is, regular (or may be used as a rule) for the edification of the faithful, and are received and authorized in the canon of the Bible only for this end ;" and with this distinction, he informs us, we are to understand St. Austin and the Council of Carthage. So that, upon the showing of one of the Trent doctors— a man who was reputed to be the very prince of Theologians— the Council of Car- thage makes nothing in your favor. It was not treating of the canon of inspiration, but of the canon for public reading.* III. Passing over your citations from Pope Siricius and Julius Firmicus Maternus as presenting nothing worthy of a reply, I shall make a few remarks upon Ephrem the Syrian,^ Prophet of the whole world and the Lyre of the Holy Ghost. That he has quoted the Apocrypha, admits of no question— that he believed them to be inspired, is quite a different matter, and one, in reference to which you have produced not a particle of proof. There are two facts, however, which you have thought proper to pass without notice, that create a very strong presump- tion, if they do not amount to a positive proof, against the position which you have undertaken to sustain. 1. Ephrem repeatedly asserts that Malachi was the last of the prophets.f Therefore no books written subsequently to his time, could have been inspired; and therefore nearly the whole of the Apocrypha must be excluded from the canon. * See Bingham's Origines Ecclesiast. lib. xiv. c. 3, § 16. t Judseorum sacrificia prophetes declarant immunda fuisse. Quae ergo Esaias hoc loco hominum canumve cadaveribus aequiparat, Malachias, Prophe- tarum ultimus, animalium retrimenta vocat, non offerenda Deo, sed offerentium in ora cum approbation rejicienda. (Malach. ii. 3.)— Comment, in Es. lxvi. 3, T. ii. Syr. p. 94. C. D. Malachias, omnium Prophetarum postremus, populo commendat legem, et legis coronidem Joannem, quern Eliam cognominat.— Comm. in Malach. iv. 4, ib. p. 315, c. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 305 2. Ephrem, though he commented upon all of the canonical, wrote no commentary upon any of the Apocryphal books.* Why does he omit Baruch, in commenting upon Jeremiah ; and why omit the Song of the Three Children, the story of Susan- nah, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, if he believed that these works were parts respectively of Jeremiah and Daniel, and entitled to equal authority with the rest of the books % Asseman informs usf that the corrupt additions to Daniel were not contained in the vulgar Syriac Bible, though they were subsequently added from Greek copies, and your own citations abundantly prove that they were known to Ephrem. He must, therefore, have passed them over by design. His references to them show that he held them to be historically true, and practically useful. Why, then, sever them, in his commentaries, from the books to which they were generally attached, and of * Hebedjesu Chaldaeus, e Nestorianorum secta Episcopus Solensis, in cata- logo Scriptorum Syrorum, num. 51. Ephraemi opera enumerat, his verbis: Ephraem magnus, qui Syrorum Propheta cognominatus est, edidit commentaria in libros Genesis, Exodi, Saeerdotum, (Levitici,) Josui filii Nun, Judicum, Sam- uelis, (primum et secundum Regum), in Lib rum Regum (tertium et quartum), Davidis, (Psalmorum), Isaiae, Duodecim, (minorium Prophetarum, Jeremiae, Ezechielis,etBeati Danielis. Habet etiam Libros, et Epistolas de Fidei, et Ec- clesia. Edidit quoque Orationes Metricas, Hymnos, et Cantica : Cantusque omnes Defunctorum : et Lucubrationes ordine Alphabetico : et Disputationem adversus Judseos : nee non adversus Simonem, et Bardesanem, et contra Mar- cionem, atque Aphitas : demum solutionem impietatis Juliani. Ubi Hebedjesu ea dumtaxat Ephraemi opera recenset, quae ipse legit, vel ad manus habuit. Nam Ephraemum alia plura edidisse, quam quae hie numerantur, certum est ex auctoribus supra relatis, et ex codice nostro Syriaco iii. in quo habentur commen- taria ejusdam in numeros, in Deuteronomium. — Assent. Biblio. Orien. vol. i. p. 58. t Quae D. Hieronymus ex Theodotione transtulit Danielis capita, nimirum Canticum trium puerorum, cap. 3, a vers. 24, ad vers. 91, Historian! Susannae, Bel idol, et Draconis, atque Danielis in locum leonum missi, cap. 14, ea et Eph- raem Hebrsecum Textum sequutus, inhisce commentariis tacitus praeteriit. Haec enim in vulgata Syrorum versione haud extabant ; licet postea ex Graecis exem- plaribus in sermone Syriacum a recentioribus Interpretations conversa fuerint. — Assem. Biblio. Orien. vol. i. pp. 72. And yet Gregory Nyssen, as cited by Asseman, torn. i. pp. 56, says that Ephrem commented upon the whole Bible ! Could these additions to Daniel, then, have been a part of it ? 14* 306 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE which they were supposed to be a part ? I know of but one answer that can be given, and that is, that he followed the He- brew canon. IV. Your appeal is just as unfortunate to the great Basil, Bishop of Caesarea. Several of you citations are taken from that portion of the Treatise against Cunomius which is not uni- versally admitted to be genuine. The last two books have been called into question. Still, upon the principles which have been repeatedly explained, the strongest quotations which you have been able to extract from the writings of this father, do not establish the divine authority of those books of the Apocry- pha which he chose to accommodate. We have, however, positive evidence that he admitted as inspired only the books which were acknowledged by the Jews. In the Philocalia, or hard places of Scripture, collected by him and Gregory Na- zianzen, out of Origen's works, he proposes the question,* " Why were only twenty-two books divinely inspired V He then goes on to tell us that, " as twenty-two letters (the number of the Hebrew alphabet) form the introduction to Wisdom, so twenty-two books of Scripture are the basis and introduction of Divine wisdom and the knowledge of things." Again, in the second book against Cunomius, having quoted the passage in the eighth chapter of Proverbs, " The Lord pos- sessed me in the beginning of his days," Basil observes t that, " It is but once found in all the Bible," as Eusebius had done before. And yet, if Ecclesiasticus is a part of the Bible, the statement is false, for substantially the very same thing is de- clared in the ninth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter of Eccle- siasticus. In fact, Bellarmin has represented Basil J as quoting it in the fifth book against Eunomius, from Ecclesiasticus, and ** Quare 22 Libri Divinitius inspirati ? Respondeo, quoniam in numerorum loco, &c. Neque enim ignorandum est quod V. T. libri (ut Hebrsei tradunt) viginti et duo, quibus sequalis est numerus Elementorum Hebraeorum, non abs re sint ut enim 22 Literae introductio ad sapientiam, etc., ita ad sapientiam Dei, et rerum notitiam fundamentum sunt et Introductio Libri Scripturae duo et vi- ginti. — Philoc. c. 3, as quoted by Cosin. t A7ra| ev navais raig ypatyaiq eiprjrai' J^voiog cktlcts pe. S Bas. Adv. JBunom. X Bellar. de Ver. Dei. lib. i. c. 14. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 307 because the Father there attributes it to Solomon, the Jesuit has inferred that he ascribed the Wisdom of Sirach to the Monarch of Israel. It is plain, however, that Basil had reference to Proverbs, and Proverbs only. V. Your next witness is Chrysostom, who, you have suc- ceeded in proving, held the Apocrypha to be Scripture, and, if you please, Divine Scripture ; but you have nowhere shown that he believed them to be inspired. On the contrary, he himself affirms in his homilies on Genesis, * that " all the inspired books of the Old Testament were originally written in the Hebrew tongue" How many of those in dispute were written in this language 1 Again, in another place, f he acknowledges no other books but those which Ezra was said to have collected, and which were subsequently translated by the seventy-two Elders, acknowledged by Christ, and spread by his apostles. But, according to your own account of the matter, Ezra collected only the books which the Jews received. Therefore Chrysos- tom admitted none but the Hebrew canon. If he sometimes quoted Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, or any other books of the Apocrypha, as the word of God, it is evidently in the same loose way, and on the same principle on which these works were ascribed to Solomon or others of the ancient prophets. Their sentiments were approved, and their doctrine supposed to be consistent with Scripture. VI. In regard to Ambrose, bishop of Milan, all that I shall say is, that the same process of argument by which you would make him canonize the books that Rome acknowledges, will also make him canonize a book which Rome rejects, which, ac- cording to Sixtus of Sienna, no father had ever received, and which, according to Bellarmin, is disfigured with idle fables — the dreams of Rabbins and Talmudists. * Uaaai ai dsiai 0l@\oi rrjs TraXouas AiadrjKris rrj E/fyoueoi/ y\o)rrr) e£ ap^Vi caav a-vi'Tedeifxevaij kcli tovto nav-eg av rjuiv cvvo^.o\oyr]aai£v . Chrys. in Genes. Horn. 4. T Erspa) xaXiv avSpt davj-iaarco evsTrvsvcsv, cjare avras EKQsadcu, rco ILaSpa Xeyto^ Kdi oltto Xeupavwv avvredrjvai eixoirjye. Mera Se tovto oiKOvo^rjcrev epfxrjvevOrjvai avras wrro roiv e(36onr}Kovra' rjpixrjvevnau exeivoi. Tlapeysvero o XptGTOfj Several avrag, 01 cnro- otoXoi £ig -rravTas avrag Siacnrstpovari^ a-qjxeia eiroiTjae kcli davfiara o XpurTOS. Chrys. in Hebr. Horn. 8. 308 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE His language is just as strong, pointed, and precise, in refer- ence to the fourth book of Esdras, as it is in reference to Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, or Judith. In his book de Bono Mor- tis, having quoted the thirty-second verse of the seventh chapter of the fourth book of Esdras, Ambrose adds in the next chapter ;* " We do not fear that end due to all, in which Esdras finds the reward of his devotion — God saying to him, &c," and again, " Esdras revealed according to the revelation imparted to him," and still again, " Who was the elder, Esdras or Plato 1 For Paul followed the sayings of Esdras and not of Plato." Now if Ambrose could treat Esdras as a prophet, who received a reve- lation to be communicated to others, and yet not really believe him to be inspired — if his language, in this case, must be under- stood in a subordinate and modified sense, why not understand him in the same way when he applies a similar phraseology to the other books of the Apocrypha? Ambrose, if strictly inter- preted, proves too much even for the Jesuits. They are obliged to soften his expressions, and in doing so, they completely destroy the argument by which they would make him canonize the books which Trent has inserted in the Sacred Library. As to his quoting Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus under the name of Solomon, that proves nothing, since he has distinctly informed us f that Solomon was the author of only three books, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Canticles. VII. It is unnecessary to dwell upon your citations from Paulinus of Nola, as they involve only the same argument which has been so frequently refuted, and the testimony of Augustine, your last witness, has been abundantly considered already. * Non vereamur ilium debitum omnibus finem, in quo Esdras remunera- tionem suae devotionis invenit, dicente ei Domino. Quis utique prior, Esdras, an Plato] namPaulus Esdrae,non Platonis sequutus est dicta. Esdrae revela- vit secundum collatam in se revelationem, justos futuros cum Christo, futures et cum Sanctis. t Unde et Salomonis tres libri ex plurimis videntur electi : Ecclesiastes de naturalibus, Cantica Canticorum de mysticis, Proverbia de moralibus. In Ps. xxxvi. pr. t. i. p. 777. Quid etiam tres libri Salcmonis, unus de Proverbiis alius Ecclesiastes, tertius de Canticis Canticorum, nisi trinae hujus ostendunt nobis Sapientiae sanctum Salomonem fuisse solertem 1 — In Lucam, pr. t. i. p. 1262, A. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 309 It now remains to sum up the result of this whole investiga- tion. You undertook to prove that Rome was not guilty of arro- gance and blasphemy in adding to the word of God — in other words, you undertook to prove that the Apocrypha toere inspired. For this purpose you brought forward four arguments, which I shall collect in the syllogistic form. 1. The first was, Whatsoever Rome, being infallible, de- clares to be inspired, must be inspired. Rome declares that the Apocrypha are so. Therefore, the Apocrypha must be inspired. In a series of Essays I completely and triumphantly refuted the major, so that this argument, which was the key-stone of the arch, fell to the ground. 2. Your second was, Whatsoever books Christ and his apos- tles quoted, must be inspired. Christ and his apostles quoted the Apocrypha. Therefore the Apocrypha must be inspired. Both premises of this syllogism were proved to be false, so that it is not only dead, but twice dead, plucked up by the roots. 3. Your third was, Whatever books were incorporated in the ancient versions of the Bible, must be inspired. The Apocrypha were so incorporated. Therefore the Apocrypha must be inspired. The major was shown to be without foundation, and contra- dicted by notorious facts. 4. Your fourth and last was, Whatever the Fathers have quoted as Scripture, Divine Scripture, &x., must be inspired. They have so quoted the Apocrypha. Therefore the Apocrypha must be inspired. Here again the major- was shown to be false, as these were only general expressions for religious literature, whether inspired or human. The result, then, of the whole matter is, that in three instances your conclusion is drawn from a single premiss, and in one case from no premises at all. Upon this foundation stand the claims of the Apocryphal books to a place in the canon. 310 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE LETTER XIX. The real Testimony of the Primitive Church. — The Canons of Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril. Gregory Naz., Jerome, Ruffinus, Council of Laodicea. Having now shown that Rome has utterly failed in producing a particle of proof in favor of her adulterated canon, I proceed to vindicate my original assertion, that, for four centuries, the unbroken testimony of the Christian church is against the inspi- ration of the Apocryphal books. During all that period there is not only no intimation of what you have asserted to be true, that Christ and his apostles delivered them to the faithful as a part of the divine Rule of Faith, but there is a large amount of clear, positive, and satisfactory evidence that no such event could possi- bly have taken place. The testimony of the primitive church presents itself to us under two aspects : It is either negative, consisting in the ex- clusion of the disputed books from professed catalogues of Scrip- ture ; or positive, consisting in explicit declarations on the part of distinguished Fathers, that they were not regarded as inspired. These two classes of proof I shall treat promiscuously, and ad- duce them both in the order of time. I. Little more than half a century after the death of the last of the apostles, nourished Melito, bishop of Sardis, one of the seven churches to which John, in the Apocalypse, was directed to write. Such was the distinguished reputation which this good man enjoyed, that Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, says of him that he was guided in all things by the Holy Ghost; and Tertullian not only praises " his elegant and oratorical genius," but adds that " he was esteemed by many as a prophet." The recorded opinions of such a man, living near enough to the times of the apostles to have conversed with those who had lis- tened to the divine instructions of John, though not to be re- ceived as authority, are certainly evidence of a very high charac- ter. It so happens, in the providence of God, that we have a cat- alogue of the sacred books drawn up by him for his friend One- simus, which he professes to have made with the utmost accuracy, APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 311 after a full investigation of the subject. I shall suffer him to speak for himself. " Melito sends greeting to his brother Onesi- mus. Since in thy zeal for the word, thou hast often desired to have selections from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and the whole of our faith, and hast also wished to ob- tain an exact statement of the ancient books, how many they were in number, and what was their arrangement, I took pains to effect this, understanding thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire of knowledge in respect to the word, and that, in thy devotion to God, thou esteemest these things above all others, striving after eternal salvation. Therefore, having come to the East and arrived at the place where these things were preached and done, and having accurately learned the books of the Old Testament, I have subjoined a list of them and sent it to thee. The names are as follows : of Moses, five books : namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy : Joshua, son of Nun, Judges, Ruth : four books of kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, which is also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Job: of Prophets, the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, writings of the twelve pro- phets in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra, from which I have made selections, distributing them into six books."* This testimony, you inform us,f " corroborates the fact," * MeXtrcoj/ Qvrjaifxo) ro> af)£X(pM y^aipeiv' ETTEiSr] TroXXaKig e^ioiaag GirovSr] tt) irpog tov Xoyov xpoinevos yeveudat goi £KXoyag f ek t£ tov vopov kcli tcov 7rpo, AavirjX, Ie^ekitjX, Ecrjpas', e£ ojv kcli £KXoyu)S ettoit]- Gajxrjv, sis £K,8i(3\ia SieXuv. Melito's Letter to Onesimus, Euseb. B. iv. c. 26. t " His testimony corroborates the fact, otherwise clearly proven, that at his day the practice of the Christian world was at variance with the opinion which he advanced." — A. P. F., Lett. xiii. 312 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE that in the age of Melito, " the practice of the Christian world was at variance with the opinion which he advanced. " In other words, I understand you to assert, that the Epistle itself furnishes satisfactory proof, that at the period in which it was written, a different canon of the Old Testament was generally received from that which is presented in it. But, sir, in what part of the letter can this corroborating evidence be found 1 Melito evidently writes with the confidence of a man who knew that he was pos- sessed of the truth. He professes to give an exact statement of the names, number, and arrangement of the sacred books, and no- where does he drop the most distant hint that opposing senti- ments were held upon the subject, or that any other works had ever been commended by any portion of Christendom as entitled to equal veneration with those which he had enumerated. How then does " his testimony corroborate the fact, that at his day the practice of the Christian world was different from the opinion which he advanced ?" Will the reader believe it ?* Because he investigated the subject and formed his conclusion from person- al examination, it is confidently inferred that the whole matter must previously have been involved in uncertainty or doubt. Sir, you have forgotten your chronology. That was an age of private judgment : the Son of Perdition had not then enslaved the understandings of men. Priestly authority was not received as a substitute for light, and the mere dicta of ghostly confessors were not regarded as the oracles of God. The easy art of be- lieving by proxy, which must always result in personal damna- tion, was then wholly unknown. Tremblingly alive to the im- portance of truth, and deeply impressed with the dangers of de- lusion, the faithful of that day felt the responsibility that rested upon them to " try the spirits, to prove all things, and hold fast that which was good." Hence Melito determined to be guided * " Melito, according to his own statement, came to the conclusion set forth in his letter, after he had travelled into Palestine, and had there investigated the question. From this we are forced to infer, that he had not been taught in his youth at Sardis, and that it had not been made known to him, even in his ma- turer years, while he was a priest, and perhaps the Bishop of that church. It was precisely by his inquiries in Judea that he was led to the opinion which he finally adopted." — A, P. i 7 ., Lett. xiii. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 313 only by evidence ; and, acting in obedience to the apostolic in- junction, wisely resolved to investigate the subject, and to form his opinions upon accurate research. He accordingly visits the country whence the Gospel had sprung, traverses the region where Jesus had labored, converses with the churches in which apostles had taught, and ascertained the books on which they were relying for the words of life. As you are perfectly confident, however, that the testimony of Melito, commended as it is by his diligence and care, must be worthless because it is unfavorable to the interests of Rome, you invent three hypotheses,* by means of one of which you hope to obviate its natural result. It was either his object, according to you, to publish the canon of the churches in Palestine, or to give that of the Jewish Synagogue, or to express his own private opinion that Christians should receive no other books of the Old Testament but those which were acknowledged by the Jews. If mere conjecture is to settle the matter, it is just as easy to make a fourth supposition ; that his real design was to compare the faith of Asia and Palestine, and to give the canon of the Chris- tian world, so far as he was able to ascertain what it was. Let us, however, test the value of your three evasions. 1. If it were the object of Melito to state the books which the churches of Palestine believed to be inspired, we may re- gard it as settled that they received none but those which are contained in his list. Then, of course, they rejected the Apoc- rypha. Now these churches were planted by the hands of the Apostles, they were the first fruits of the Christian ministry, and here, if any where, we should expect to find an accurate know- ledge of the books which the Apostles had prescribed as the rule of faith. Strange, very strange, if within sixty years after the last of the sacred college had fallen asleep, so little regard was paid to their instructions in the scene of their earliest labors, that six entire works, together with divers fragments of others, * " If on the other hand, Melito, disregarding the practice of the church, even in Palestine^ and, seduced by peculiar views on the authority and sanctions of the Jewish canon, as opposed to the usage of the church, intended in his letter to give us the Books contained in the Jewish canon, manifestly his testimony does not touch the point before us at all." — A. P. F., Lett. xiii. 314 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE had been ruthlessly torn from the inspired volume, as delivered to these churches by their venerable founders ! To say, as you have done, * that the Apostles, in tenderness to their early pre- judices, permitted the Hebrew Christians to retain the canon of the Jewish church, to the exclusion of the Apocrypha, is to con- tradict what you have elsewhere said, that the Jews themselves entertained a profound respect for the disputed books, and would have admitted them into their sacred library, if they had had the authority of a prophet. These Jewish prejudices, consequently, are a desperate expedient, invented solely for the purpose of re- conciling the notorious faith of the churches in Judea, with what Rome chooses to represent as Apostolic teaching. You tell us in one breath that the Apostles delivered the Apocrypha to the primitive Christians as inspired, and then in the very next, declare that they did not deliver them to the churches in Judea, because the stiff-necked children of Abraham would not receive them. But when the question was, Did the Jewish Church re- ject the Apocrypha, from the sacred canon, we were then in- formed that this was not the case — that it was a great admirer of the contested books, and would cheerfully have received them, if it had been commissioned by a proper tribunal. It is cer- tainly not a little singular that the Jews should be so warmly at- tatched to the books as to be willing to canonize them upon suf- ficient authority, and yet so violently prejudiced against them, that the whole College of Apostles could not subdue their oppo- sition. I have no knack at explaining riddles, and must there- fore leave these high mysteries to those who can swallow tran- substantiation. In the meantime I may be permitted to remark that the Apostles were not in the habit of surrendering truth to prejudice ; and if the churches of Palestine knew nothing of their having endorsed the Apocrypha as inspired, the presump- tion is irresistible, that no such thing ever took place. What * " The fact that a small portion of the universal church, converts from Ju- daism, should cling to the observances of those ancestors whom they revered, and whom every hill and dale recalled to their minds, does not condemn other churches which, untrammelled by any such restrictions, unswayed by any such motives, walked boldly under the guidance of the Apostles." — A. P. F., Lett. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 315 they preached to the Gentiles, they preached first to the Jews ; and as to all the world they had proclaimed one Lord and one baptism, so they had likewise proclaimed only one faith. 2. Your second hypothesis, that Melito intended to state the canon of the Jewish synagogue, and not of the Christian church- es, is contradicted by his own words. How could the zeal ©f Onesimus in the faith be an inducement to give him only a part of its standard ; and how would he be assisted in acquiring knowledge, by being led into serious error ? Onesimus desired an exact statement of the Books of the Old Testament. But ac- cording to you, Melito furnishes him only with those books which the Jews received, and consequently omitted an important por- tion of the whole Old Testament. Yet Melito himself says that he had fully complied with the request of his friend. So that either your supposition must be false, or the good Bishop, who, Polycrates says, was guided in all things by the Holy Ghost, was guilty of a falsehood. 3. Your third hypothesis, that he only intended to express his private opinion in opposition to the prevailing practice of the church, as to the books which ought to be received, hardly de- serves a serious notice. That a man should travel from Sardis to Jerusalem, to ascertain the documents which the Apostolic churches held to be inspired ; then give the result of his inqui- ries with the strongest expression of confidence, when his con elusions were notoriously at variance with the faith of the chur- ches on which he had relied — in other words, that he should en- tertain so much respect for the opinion of the Hebrew and East- ern churches, as to make a long journey for the purpose of con- sulting them, and after all pay no attention to their opinions at all, is a proposition too monstrous to be deliberately maintained. I do not deny that Melito has given us his private opinion, but I do deny that he has given an opinion peculiar to himself. His own statement is certainly worthy of credit — his object was to give, (and he professes to have done it,) an exact account of the names, number, and arrangement of the books of the Old Testa- ment. He fabricated no new canon for himself, but recorded the books, and all the books, which the churches of the East believed to be inspired. From Jerusalem to Sardis, consequent- 316 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE ly, in all the churches planted by Apostles, there was but one voice, about the middle of the second century, as to the docu- ments which compose the Old Testament; and that voice which may almost be regarded as a distant echo of the preaching of the twelve, condemns the canon of Trent. As to the objection that Melito has omitted the Book of Es- ther, I reply in the words of Eichhorn :* " It is true," says he, " that in this catalogue Nehemiah and Esther are not mentioned ; but whoever reads the passage and understands it, will here dis- cover both of them. Melito here arranges the books of the Old Testament manifestly according to the time in which they were written, or in which the facts which they record, occurred. Hence he places Ruth after the book of Judges, Daniel and Ezekiel towards the end of his catalogue, and Ezra last of all, because he wrote after the Babylonian captivity ; and accordingly as he comprehended the Books of Samuel and Kings under the general appellation Books of Kings, because they related to the history of the Hebrew kingdom from Saul to Zedekiah, or until the Babylonian captivity, in the same manner he appears to com- prise under the name of Ezra all historical books, the subjects of which occur in the times subsequent to the Babylonian captivity. As it is very common to include Ezra and Nehemiah in one book, why might not even Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, also have been regarded as a whole? If we add to this conjecture, that Nehemiah and Esther, according to Josephus, must have been parts of the canon, and that Fathers of authority, such as Origen and Jerome, expressly enumerate both in it, no impartial inqui- rer can well doubt that even Melito does not reject from the canon of the Old Testament the two books mentioned.'' To this it may be added that, according to any of your three hypotheses which have just been considered, Esther must have been included. If Melito intended to state the canon of the Hebrew Christians, and that, as you have said, coincided with the canon of the Jewish church, this book was confessedly a part. It was also acknowledged by the Jewish Synagogue, and anypri- * Vide Eich. Einleit. xli. t Vide Cosin, Scholast. Hist. Can. pp. 33. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 317 vate opinions in opposition to the practice of the Christian church, which Melito might have been induced to form from his intercourse with the Jews, could not have led him to reject its authority. Your conjecture that he forgot to mention it, is, when we consider his pretensions to accuracy, wholly incredible. As therefore it must have been included, the account which Eichhorn has given of the matter is probably the true explanation. In this opinion he is sustained by Cosin, a man as learned as himself. II. The next writer to whom I shall appeal, and you have pro- nounced his eulogy, is Origen. Eusebius says of him, that, " in expounding the first Psalm, he has given a catalogue of the sa- cred Books in the Old Testament, writing as follows :* " Let it not be unknown that the canonical books, as the Hebrews trans- mit them, are twenty-two; for such is the number of letters among them." A little further on, he adds, " These are the twenty-two books of the Hebrews : the Book called Genesis with us, but among the Hebrews, from the beginning of the Book, Bereshith, which means, In the Beginning : Exodus, Valmoth, that is, These are the Names : Leviticus, Vaikra, And he Called : Numbers, Ammisphekodeum : Deuteronomy, Ellahhaddebarim, These are the Words : Jesus, the Son of Nave : Joshua Ben Nun : Judges, Ruth, with them united in one book called So- * Toi/ fi£v roiys 7rpQ)Tov E&yovjjiEvog "^aAjuaw, ekBegiv TTETtoirjrai (Q,pij£VT]g} tov to)v tepoiv ypafcov rm naXaiag SiaOrjKrig KaraXoyov , coSe nug ypcKpcov Kara Xe£lv' ovk ayvorjreov <5' eivai rag Ev6taQr}Kovg fiifiXovg, a>? JL0paioi Trapadidoaaiv, 8vo kcli eikogl' ocog o apiOjxog toiv irapa avroig gov^eicov egtiv' eira fxsra riva, erutyepsi Xsyoiv. eicri 6e at eiKoai Svo (3i@Xoi Ka6' Rfipatovg atSe' j? rrapa rifxoov TsvEGig ETziyeypajjifxsvrj. napa Se ILfipaioig airo rrjg ap^rjg rr]g PifiXov ftprjaid, oirep egtiv ev apyr\' E|ocW, ovaXecfJiud, oirep egti ravra ra ovofj.ara' Aevitikov, ovupi, xai ekoXsglv' A.ptd[xot afi/jisacbeKoSeifJi A£VTEpovo[JLiov, eXXe aSSsPapip. ovtol oi Xoyoi' Irjaovg viog Nau/7, Iojgve /3ev Now' Kptrcu, Pot>0, nap 1 avroig ev evi caxirrt/i. ^aGiXuwv 7rpa>TJ7, fcvTEpa, Trap' avroig ev Ea//- 0U/7A, dEoxXrirog' j3aai\£icov rpri^ TEraprri, ev evi ova^cAe^ AafiiS. OTrsp egti fiaGiXsia AafiiS. TlapaXEiTToixEvoiv TrpwTr], SwrEpa, ev evi, difipr) aiapin, oTttp egti \oyoi rjnEpoyv* ~E,Gdpag irpa)Tog Kai SEvrspog ev vi y E£pa, o egti 0or]9og- 6i/3Xog ^aXficov GE(p£p OiXXip. JuoXoixcovrog TYapoiniai {jligXojO, E^c/cXnciaoTT??, kojeXeO' A-Gpa Ao^araw, Gip aGGipifx. Hcaia?, lEGaia, lEpfiiag gvv Qprjvoig tcai rr\ ettigtoXt} ev evi, IpEfxia. AavirjX, AavtrjX. Ie^ekitjX, Iee^ktiX. loo/?. Ea-0?7p, Eo-fl^. c|a> 6e tovtcov egti ra Maua/?a«a, anEp EitiyEy- pairrat T,apj3r}6 /3paiois eivai napaSeSjrai. rrj fis ra^at koli too ovofxan eqtiv exaarov QVTUiS' TlpOJTOV YeVEGIS, £IT(X E|oOOf, EITOL A.EVITIKOV, KCU [XETO. TOVTO ApidfiOl, KCll Aot- ttov T) AevTepovojxioV e^rjs Ss rovroig ectiv o \t}gov tov Navrj, kul ~K.pirai. Kai fiera tovto r} Pov0. Kat rra\tv s^rjs ftaaiXeiojv TEaaapa /?t/?Ata* Kai tovtojv to jxev irpoiTOv koli SeVTEpOV EIS EV fil/3\lOV CCpiOfjlEl' TO 6e TpiTOV Kai TETCipTOV O/XOKxiS SIS EV . Mera $£ tclvtcl Tlapa\£iirouEva a koli /?' Ofioioog £ig ev fiifiXiop -rraXiv apiBuovnEva Etra EcrJjOa? a' Kai /?' ofxoiwg Eig ev. Mera Se Tavra fiifiXos tyaXfxcov, Kai E^rjs Jlapoifjuai. Etra jLiKKXrjviacrrris Kai Aoy/a Ao-fxaTOiv. TLpos tovtois eotl Kai Iw/?, /cat Xoiirov \\potyr\rai 01 fiEv ScodEKa eis ev @i/3\iov apid[jiovfx£voi. Rira Htratac;, Ispsfxias Kai aw avru) Bapov%, Qprjvoi, Kai E7rtoroX)7, Kai /ur' avTov E^e/ctTjA Kai AaviiqX. A^pi tovtiov Ta tyis naXaiag SiadrjKrjs lo-raTai. Athanas. Opp. torn, ii. p. 38. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 321 second of the Remains, or Chronicles, are in like manner ac- counted one book ; then the first and second of Esdras, also reck- oned one book ; after them the book of the Psalms ; then the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; beside these there is Job, and at length the Prophets : the twelve are reck- oned one book ; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, and with him, Baruch, the Lamentations, the Epistle ; and after them Ezekiel and Daniel. Thus far the books of the Old Testament. ,; Hav- ing given the Canon of the New Testament, he proceeds : " For the sake of greater accuracy, I will add — and the addition is ne- cessary — that there are also other books, beside these, not in- deed admitted into the canon, but ordained by the Fathers to be read by such as have recently come over to us, and who wish to receive instruction in the doctrine of piety — the Wisdom of Solo- mon, the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, the Doctrine of the Apostles, as it is called, and the Shepherd." To the same purpose is the account which is given in the Synopsis of Scripture, which is usually quoted under the name of Athanasius * " All the Scripture of us Christians is divinely inspired. It contains not indefinite, but rather determined and canonized books. These belong to the Old Testament." Then follows the same enumeration which has just been extracted from the Paschal Epistle. It is afterwards added : " But beside these, there are other books of the same Old Testament, not canonical, but only read by (or to) the Catechumens. Such are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit. These are not canonical" The canonical book of Esther, though not particularly num- bered in these catalogues, is included under the general name of Ezra. The additions to it, however, are expressly mentioned * Ilao-a ypcupri nptov xpioriavuv Oeoirvevarog £Q(f)ia LoXofxwvTog, Hocpia Irjvov viov Zipax, EaQrjp' IovSlO, TwjSir. Toaavra koli ra jxrj Kavovi$opeva. Tiveg [xevroi 7U>v TxakaiLov zipr\Ka.ai KavovifrvOat Trap' E/3patoig Kai ty}v Eadnp' Kai rrjv jxsv Pov9, fxcra roiv Kpirav svovpstnjv, sis ev fiiffXtov apiOpEiadai rr t v Se Evdnp eiS erepov ev. K ai ovrcj iraXiv eig elkogi Svo avfinXripovaQai rov apiQpLov rm Kavofii^ofievbiii Trapq avroig /3i/3Xiojv — Athan. Opp. ii. p. 126, seq, 15 322 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE lind repudiated. For the Esther which is proscribed by name, is not the book which the Jews received, but the one which opens with the dream of Mordecai. In this Synopsis, Athana- sius not only gives a list of the books, but inserts the sentence with which each of them begins, in order that they might be easily identified, and he expressly tells us that the Esther which he means, commences in the manner which has just been speci- fied:- We are, therefore, at no loss to determine what he in- tended to condemn and repudiate under the title of Esther. The name of Baruch occurs in these catalogues, as it does also in those of Cyril and the Council of Laodicea, but it is only a fuller expression for the book of Jeremiah. " For Baruch's name," says Bishop Cosin,* " is famous in Jeremy, whose disciple and scribe he was, suffering the same persecution and banishment that Jeremy did, and publishing the same words and prophecies that Jeremy had required him to write, so that in several rela- tions a great part of the book may be attributed to them both. And very probable it is, that for this reason the Fathers that fol- lowed Origen, did not only, after his example, join the Lamenta- tions and the Epistle to Jeremy, but the name of Baruch be- sides ; whereby they intended nothing else (as by keeping them- selves precisely to the number of twenty-two books only is clear) than what was inserted concerning Baruch in the book of Jere- my itself."* IV. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers in France, thus enumerates the * Vide Cosin. Scholast. Hist. pp. 59. t Et ea causa est, ut in viginti duos libros lex Testament! veteris depute- £ur, ut cum literatum numero convenirent. Qui ita secundum tradition es ve- terum deputantur, ut Mosis sint libri quinque ; Jesu Naue sextus ; Judicum et Ruth septimus ; primus et secundus Regnorum in octavum, tertius et quartus in nonum ; Paralipomenon duo in decimum sint, sermones dierum. Esdrae in undecimum ; Liber Psalmorum in duodecimum ; Salomonis Proverbia ; Ecclesi- astes ; Canticum Canticorum in tertium decimum, et quartum decimum, et quintum decimum ; duodecim autem Prophetae in sextum decimum ; Esaias deinde et Jeremias cum Lamentatione et Epistola ; sed et Daniel, et Ezechiel, et Job, et Hester, viginti et duum librorum numerum consumment. Quibus- dam autem visum est, additis Tobia et Judith viginti quatuor libros secundum numerum Grsecarum literarum connumerare. — Hilari. Prologo in Psalmos, n. xv. p. m. 9. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 323 books of the Old Testament, which he assures us, according to the tradition of the ancients, amounted to twenty-two. " Five of Moses; Joshua the son of Nun, the sixth; Judges and Ruth, the seventh ; first and second Kings, the eighth ; third and fourth Kings, the ninth ; two books of Chronicles, the tenth ; Ezra, the eleventh ; Psalms, the twelfth ; Ecclesiastes and Canticles, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth; the Twelve Prophets, the sixteenth; then Isaiah, and Jeremiah together with his Lamen- tations and his Epistle : Daniel, and Ezekiel, and Job, and Esther make up the full number of twenty-two books." V. Contemporary with Athanasius and Hilary was Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, a prominent member of the second general council of Constantinople. His opinions of the canon may be gathered from the following passage:* " Learn diligently from the Church what are the books of the Old Testament, and what of the New, but read me none of the Apocryphal. For if you do not know the books acknowledged by all, why do you vainly trouble yourself about the disputed books ? Read then the Di- vine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, which have been translated by the seventy-two interpreters. Of the Law, the first are the five books of Moses : then Jesus the son of Nave ; and the book of Judges with Ruth which is numbered the seventh : then follow other historical books, the first and second * QiXopaOwg emyvwQi irapa rrjg eKK^rjaiag, iroiai pev ziaiv ai rrjg naXaiag SiaOrjKrjs /?i/?Xof, rroiai Ss rrjg xaivns Kai poi prjSev tcjv cnroKpvipcov avayivioaKe. O yap ra irapa iraaiv opoXoyovpeva prj eiScog, ri vrepi ra ap7, Kai ro)v Kpirwi/ psra rr\g ~Pov6 fiifiXi- ov £@Sopov apiOpovpwov, riov Se Xoitcwv laropiKOdv fitfiXicov. irpwrr) Kai Sevrepa tcjv Bao-iXacoy pi a nap' JLfipaioig eari fiiQXog • pia 6s Kai r\ Tpirrj Kai 77 Teraprr] • opoiaig Se nap 1 avroig Kai toiv HapaXenropevuv t) irpoirr) Kai r\ Sevrepa pia Tvy%av£i fiifiXog, Kai tov JLvSpa r/ irpcorri Kai rj Sevrepa pia XsXoyiarai. SwAsKaTri fiifiXog r) ILcrOrjp. Kat ra pev KxropiKa ravra. Ta 6s aroi^-qpa rvy^avei -evrrj ' la>/?, Kai QiBXog 'tyaXpiov, ko.i Uapoi- piai, Kai ^iKK\r]tjia? UavapETog Xeyo- [XEvr), Kai r\ tov \naov tov viov Htpax, EKyovov Se tov Irjorov, tov Kai Tt\v 51o(piav, Efipaiari ypaipavTog rjv EKyovog aVTOV Irjaovg £p[xr]v£vcag cXXr/i/tcrrt EypaxpE, Kai avTai ^prj(7i[jioi /xev Eiai, Kai GxpEXijxoi, aXX' eig apiOfAov prjTwv ovk avav irpoiTOS "/ !&>/?, Ewtra AaviS ' £ira rp£ig Ho\ojjiu)VTiai } TLiKKXrjcriacTrig, A^a, kcu Tlapoifjiiai. Kat Ftvd 1 OfXOlUg TTV£V(XaTO$ TTPO(f)f)TlKQV, 326 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE There are twelve historical books of the most ancient Hebrew wisdom : the first Genesis ; then Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the next Joshua, the Judges, Ruth, the eighth; nintlf and tenth the acts of the Kings, and then the Remains and Esdras the last. Then the five books in verse, the first Job, next David, then the three books of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song, and the Proverbs. The prophetic books are five ; the twelve Prophets are one book, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Jonah, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, all these make one book : the second is Isaiah, then Jeremiah, Eze- kiel and Daniel : which make twenty-two books, according to the number of the Hebrew letters. " VIII. To the same purport is the Poetical canon of Amphi- lochius, the intimate friend of Gregory and Basil, given in a let- ter which he wrote to Zeleuchus, exhorting him to the study of piety and learning. IX. The testimony of Jerome is clear, pointed and explicit. In his famous Prologus Galeatus, he says :* " The language of Mtay /xev eiaiv eg yparat Dom. c. 14. " xiv. De Op. et Eleemos. c.8 " xiv. Epist. 40. " xiii. Test, ad Q,uir. 1. ii. c.6. Bar. iii. 36U*38,'as Jer. De Orat. Dom. c. 2. " vi.5. Test, ad Gluir. 1. iii. c.4 2 Mac. ix. 12. ii. 62, 63. " lib. iii. c. 17. 2 Mac. vi. 30. vii. 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19. " lib iii. c. 3. 1 Mac. ii. 60. Exhort ad Mort. c. 12. 2 Mac. vi. and vii. HTPPOLYTUS. Cont. Noe't. c. 2. Baruch iii. 36-38. DIO\YSIUS OF AL- EXANDRIA. Epist. ad Germ. Tobit xiii. 7. Cont. Paul. Samosat Wisdom i. 5, 6. APOST. CONSTI- TUTIONS. Lib. ii. c. 37,49,51. Daniel xiii. Lib. viii. c. 1. " xiv. Lib. vi. c. 19. Baruch iii. 36-38. Lib. vii. c. 23. " iv. 4. Lib. vi. c. 29. Wisdom iii. 1. Lib. iii. c. 7. Judith. Lib. v. c. 19. ci POPE SIRICIUS. Epist. ad Himmer. c. 7. Wisdom i. 4. JULIUS FJRMICUS Wisdom xv. 15-17 as MATERNUS. Solomon's. Baruch vi. 5-9. as Jer. u «' vi. 21, 25, 30, 31, 64 ; 50, and 57. EPHREM, THE SY- RIAN. De Evers. superb. Daniel ix. 7. 416 APPENDIX. Name and Works of Apocryphal passages Those quoted as the Fathers. which are simply quo- ted. 1 Scripture, or Divine Scripture. Allusions to Apocry. EPHREM, THE SY- RIAN. De virtut. c. 3. Daniel iii. 40. De Humil. c. 9. " iii. 39. Parsens. 9. " iii. 50. De orat. " iii. 33. De paenit. c. 23. Daniel iii. Parsen. ad monegit, c. 14, 11. Daniel xiii. 52. Epist. ad Joan. Daniel xiii. De muliere. " xiii. De Rect.viv. Nat. c.85 " iv. 32- -36. De Patient. &c. " iv. 32— 3e In D Basylium. Tobit xii. 7. Serm. Cont. Jude. Baruchix.4&20.iii.38 De Timore Dei. Wisdom iv. 12. De Certam. &c. c. 8. Wis. iv. 7,8. 9. v. 1—16 Advs. Levit. " iii. 1, 6. 9. De Humil. c. 94. " ii.21,22. Paraen, 39. Wisdom vi. 9. Exhort 40. " i. 12. " 46. Wisdom xv. 12. De Patient. " v. 18—24. ^ De virt. et. vit. c. 8. Ecclus. ii. 15. De i imore Dei. Ecclus. xxxii. 1. viii. 6, 7. xxxi. 5. " xxv. 13 ii\ 7. xviii. 30 and 31. cc Ecclus. vi. 18. Eccl.xi. 5. iv.7.vii.40. De Panop. &c. " vi. 30. De cast. Ecclus* Yv.*25, 26. Neerosima. can. 15. 2d Mac. vi. Testamentum. " vi. BASIL THE GREAT Cont. Eunom. lib. 5, c. 15, $ 2. Cont. Eunom. c.14, § 2. Wisd. i. 4. Wisdom i. 7. " c 2. Wis. ix. 1,2, as Sol. C( Wisdom i. 7. Epist. 8, $ 12, and 11. Wis. i. 4, 7. Horn. 12. M i. 4, as Solomon's " 14. " vi. 7. De Sane. Spir. c. 23, § 54. Wisdom i. 7. Horn. 12, § 13. Daniel xiii. 50. Horn, in 40 mart. § 6. " iii. 40. Epist. 243, § 43. " iii. 38, 39. Cont. Unam. lib.2. § 19 Esther xiv. 11. " " " 4.c. 3. Baruch iii. 32, as Jer. De Sane. Spir. c.8. § 19 Judith ix. 4. Epist 6. 2d Mac. viu Horn. Deut. c. 5, 9. Ecclus. ix. 20. Hexaem. Horn. 6, 910. ,k xxvii. 12. Capit. Glues. 104. Ecclus. xxxii. 22. CHRYSOSTOM. Ad Viduam Jun. Ecclus. xviii. 26. xi. 5 Horn, de Lat. " xix. 16. Serm. 8. Cont. Jude. " ii. 1—5. Serm. de Lat. Ecclus. ii. 1, 2. Exhort. 2 ad. Theod. " v. 8. Horn. 18. ad pop. anth " xiv. 2. 1 APPENDIX. 417 1 Name and Works of Apocryphal passages Those quoted as the Fathers. which are simply quo- Scripture, or Divine Allusions to Apocry. ted. Scriptures. CHRYSOSTOM. De Fato. Ecclus. xv. 17 and 15. Horn. 15. ad pop. anth. Ec. i. 20. ix. 10, as Sol. Serm. 1 in Act. Apost. Ecclus. xvi. 3. De virginitat. c. 22. Wisdom v. 36. Serm. in Calendas. " iii. 1. Horn, in Gen. 11. Wisdom xiv. 3. Psalm 109. " xvi. 28. Horn, in Matt. 27. " vi. 7. Horn, in Ept. Heb. 7. " iv. 8, 9. Nous. Anom. 5. Baruch iii. 36, 37, 38. Cont. Jude et Gent. " iii. 36, 37, 38. Horn. 3. ad pop. anth. Esther xiv. 13. Horn. 60. in Joan. Judith mentioned. Horn. 13. in Epis. Heb. Tobit iv. 7. Horn. 9. do " iv. 11. Horn. 5. Nous. Anom. Daniel iii. 23. Cont. Jude et Gent. " iii. 38. Horn, in Pentecost, 1. " iii. 38. Horn. 15. in 1st Cor. Daniel xiii. 52. Horn. 18. do Daniel iii. 29, 30. Horn. 2. in Philem. " iii. 29, 30, 39, 32. xiv. 37. AMBROSE. Hexaem. Lib. 4. c. 8. Ecclus. xxvi. 12. In Noach, &c. c. 35. il xxxii. 13. In Naboth. c. 8. " iv. 8-. Tract, de 42. " ii. 5. Psalm 118. Wisdom i. 6. Jacob, c. 8. Wis. iv. 8, 9. xiv. 7, 8. Joseph. Wis. ii. 12, as Sol. Psalm 43. Wis. vii. 7, do Hexaem. Lib. 3. c. 14* Baruch iv. 26. v. 27, as Jeremiah. In Tobit. Ba mcn iii. 24, 25. Cain et Abel, c. 9. " iii. 1. 42 Mans. " iii. 29, 30. Hexaem. Lib.ii. c. 4. Dan. iii. 56, 68, 67, 74. De officii?. Lib. ii. c. 9. Ref to story of Susann. Joseph c. 5. ii ii Jacob. Lib. i. c. 8, Ref. to Bel and Dragon do Lib. ii. c. 9. a «( Elias, c. 9. Judith viii. 6. De officiis, c. 13 & 14. Ref. to Judith. Jacob. Lib. ii. c. 9. | 2d Mac. 6 and 7 cap. De officiis, Lib. ii. e. 29 « 3. PAULINAS OF NOLA. Exhort, ad celant. Eccl.iv.25— 28.x xvi ii. 28, 29.-3 ch. 20 v. Epist. ad pamach. 37. Ec. xxxviii. 16. xvii. 18 do 30. Ec. vii. 16. Wis. viii. 1 do 32. Ec. xix. 15. do 39. Ec. v. 8. do 37. Wisdom iv. 7. Baruch ;:; iq iq iii. 18, 19. fjl* The somewhat numerous errata noted below, are to be accounted for partly from the author's distant residence from the place of printing, which prevented him from revising the proofs ; but mainly, from the obscurity and incorrectness of the manuscript. They occur mostly in the Latin and Greek quotations in the Notes, many of which it was impossible to verify on the spot, and have sel- dom any important bearing on the sense. ERRATA, Page 12, last line in note, read Remonst. for Demonst. '' 21, fifth line of note, read super ea re for superare. " " first line of note, read discuterentur for discutiuntur. " " fourteenth line of note, dele facta u " " " " insert Sanctum after apud. " u seventeenth line of note, read expenderentur for experentur. M " twenty-eighth line of note read detested for detected. " 40, first line of note read A. P. F„ for A. P. P. '* 41, Note, for Westminster Conf. chap. i. 55, read chap. i. § 5. u 44, first line of note, for avrairotyaivsOai read. avrairocpaiveaOai. " 55, fifth line of note, read tout for tous. u c * eighth line of note, read constitue for constitute. M " tenth line of note, read, appartient exclusivement for appartiens ezdusivemem. " " thirteenth line of note, read maniere par for maniere pas. " " fourteenth line of note, read elle for cette. " " fifteenth line of note, read dans for sans. 11 " twenty-sixth line of note, read cet for ses. " ll thirtieth line of note, read n'en for y en. 11 li thirty-second lint of note, read primauie for primante* 11 " fourth line from bottom, read celle-ci for celle ce. u " " " " read rejeter for rejiter. " " third line from bottom, insert nier after sans. " " second line from bottom, read qui for que. " 63, line 22, dele the last word, their. " . 95, second note, thirteenth line from bottom, read gratia for gratia. " " twelfth line from bottom, read voluerunt for voluerant. " " sixth line from bottom, read omnis for omsis. " 96, fourth line, read dialectics for dialects. " 118, first Latin note at star, read aliquid for allquid. ^ 124, seventh line of note, read ayvoovvres for ayvovvres. * ' u ;t '* *' KarayyeWo^ev for Karaye'Xousv. " " eighth line, read rs^eicoaeig for rsXeicoaag. u " fourteenth line, read est eucharistiu for et eucharistia. " " eighth line from bottom, read dubitarunt for dubitant. « " superstitionum for supersitionem. " " " " " epoptis for epoptes. " cc seventh line from bottom, read eum for sum. " " third line from bottom, read deitati for deitate. ?' 125, second line of note, read mysteriis for mysteries. '* " seventeenth line of note, read arcana for arcano. " " twenty-second line of note, read se for es. " 130, the first note there should have embraced the one which follows the extract from Calvin's Institutes on page 131, beginning, "The Apostles are addressed," &c. " 133, note, sixth line from bottom, tbere should be quotation marks after the word Bish- ops, thus, bishops," and the next sentence should begin a paragraph. u 134, the star in the text should be a section, as it does not correspond to the note. " 145, note at star, dele to effort. i( 146, note, eighth line from bottom, read reddidit for reddidat. " " last line, read pr&stiterint for prcestitirent. " 147, second line of note, read vero for viro. " " note at star, first word, for assequitur read assequetur. " " same note, last word, for potestatis, read potestates. 149 that no';e exhibits the opinions of Aquinas, iEgidiua and Cajetan, as given by Bellarmin. 152, note, third line, read imperator for imperatur, and put a comma between it and the preceding word. " note, seventh line, read fieri permiserint for geri permiscerint. " " leaidfeudalia for fudalia. || " note, thirteenth line, read suaserint for suasderint 153, note at star, second line, read detinentes for destinentes. " " " read fidelitatis for fidelitates.. J third line, read servus for servius. | " fourth line, read cadit for cadat. 154, note, first line, read Presbyterum, for Presbyterium. D ERRATA. P$ge 154, third line, read crimine for cnmina. " 180, note, third line from bottom, read Kemnitium for Remnitium. " 188, note, twelfth line, read recipiendos, for recipiendo. " 223, note beginning Ecclesiasticus, fill the blank with aytovtcat. " 252, note, first line, read exscribentes, for enscribentes. " 259, Greek note, fourth line, read kouucotikhs for KOfiuururis. 4< " " " " read £kto<; for kyjtos . " " fifth line, read ay%ouevov for aX^oaevov. " " {i read Pmotikov for pporixuv. " " sixth line, read ^? f or res, and Trpo