Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

The apostolic Tradition concerning the canon of the sacred books is demonstrated from the constant and universal use of the Church

« If, in order to vindicate the definition of the Tridentine Fathers and to understand it more distinctly in its foundations, inquiry is made into the manner in which ecclesiastical preaching concerning the canon of the sacred books bore itself in different ages, it is established by most certain arguments: 1st, that besides the Scriptures of the Hebrew reckoning, the remaining books of the Old Testament comprehended in the Tridentine canon were received in the Christian Churches by an ecclesiastical use and universal custom reaching back to the apostolic times themselves; 2nd, that the said ecclesiastical custom is distinguished by such marks as to demonstrate that all these books were handed down by the Apostles to the Church as belonging to sacred Scripture. »

We premise a fact historically indubitable, which dogmatically contains in itself the whole truth that we enunciate in the thesis. A distinct exposition of this fact will therefore constitute the very demonstration of the thesis. It is an indubitable historical fact that for the first three centuries the reckoning of the Scriptures among the Christian Churches was in many respects different from the reckoning as it stood among the Jews; this diversity concerned not only detached passages but also ampler parts of books and entire books, just as the same difference still exists now. This use of the Churches, moreover, by the force of the assistance with which God stands by His Church, was believed by the Christian teachers to stand out with such authority that it seemed absurd to them to wish to learn the genuine canon of the Scriptures from the Jews. You have these things disputed at greater length in Origen, in the epistle to Africanus. Since Africanus had raised a doubt concerning the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel, Origen confesses (n. 2–6) both that these parts of Daniel and others in the book of Esther are not found among the Hebrews, and that in many other respects our books differ from those which the Jews have; indeed he acknowledges (n. 13) that even entire books, such as Tobias and Judith, which the Church uses, are not admitted by the Jews. But with regard to Christians, he declares it unheard of and intolerable, indeed that it would be a crime against the very promises made to the Church bought with the blood of Christ, to wish on that account to doubt concerning these parts of our Scriptures. « It is time then, he exclaims, if these things are not hidden from us, to abrogate the copies current in the Churches, and to prescribe by law to the brethren that, casting away the sacred books which they have in their possession, and flattering the Jews, they persuade them to impart to us books that are pure and contain nothing fictitious. Or were those bought with a price, for whom Christ died, no concern to the providence which in the sacred Scriptures gave edification to all the Churches of Christ? » (n. 4). Moreover, for polemical use, he says, one must know the differences between each canon, and he himself investigated this by a diligent comparison, « so that when disputing with the Jews we do not bring forward what is lacking in their copies, but at the same time make use of what they have in their possession, though it be lacking in ours » (n. 5).

Justin too, in the middle of the second century, shortly after the apostolic age, mentions these differences between the collection of the Scriptures as it stood in the Church's possession and that of the Jews, in the dialogue with Trypho the Jew (n. 71–73). For although there he treats directly of particular texts corrupted or curtailed by the Jewish teachers — since it was not his purpose to dispute concerning the diverse canon itself of the Scriptures — he nevertheless complains that some Scriptures have been altogether removed by the Jews, which are found in the copies of the Christians. But as for those Scriptures which are in the possession of Christians and not also among the Jews, he promises not to use them for his polemical purpose, in the same way as we saw Origen after Justin's time recommend. « That (the Jewish teachers) have altogether removed many Scriptures ¹ from the translation made under Ptolemy by the elders... I wish you to know. But since I know that these are denied by all of your race, I shall not entangle myself in questions of this kind; I shall conduct my disputations from those which are admitted even among you » (n. 71). In this place the accusation of the removal of many Scriptures is so general that it extends not only to particular texts but also to entire books, which — not comprehended in the Jewish canon — we shall presently prove most clearly to have been in the possession of the Churches, and — a difference between each reckoning of which Justin was certainly not ignorant — although in what follows he then adduces by way of example only particular texts, which he complains were corrupted by the Jews as prophetic of Christ the Saviour.

Now if we investigate the use and currency, in the Christian Churches, of those books of the Old Testament which are lacking in the Hebrew canon, and which therefore (as I have already noted) we shall for brevity call deuterocanonical, it will easily appear that from apostolic times they were held in the register of the sacred Scriptures no less than the protocanonical books, and were employed as sacred Scriptures. We shall establish this by a threefold argument: 1st, from the manner in which all these books are cited by the holy doctors; 2nd, from the codices and versions; 3rd, from their public reading; from which, once demonstrated, 4th, it will follow of itself that in this universal ecclesiastical use nothing else is exhibited but the transmission and handing down of these same books from the Apostles to the Churches.

I. Down to the beginnings of the fourth century no controversy of any moment concerning these books appears ², but the deuterocanonical books are cited, just like the protocanonical, in exactly the same way without any distinction, so that it is manifest that all were held to be books of sacred Scripture and of one collection. For those ancient Fathers cite deuterocanonical texts intermingled with protocanonical ones, and cite them with the same solemn formulas: it is written, he says (φησι), according to that (κατα το), Scripture, sacred Scripture, divine Scripture, the Holy Spirit says in divine Scripture, prophecy says, the prophet says, the law says, God says.

a) The apostolic Fathers themselves, although in the few monuments that survive no abundance of citations can be expected, nevertheless adduce the deuterocanonical books no less than the protocanonical, enough for us to understand that these were equally in use and reckoned among the Scriptures — especially if we consider at the same time the solemn and most ample citations of the following age, of which we shall soon speak. Thus in Clement of Rome, ep. I to the Corinthians, are employed the deuterocanonical parts of Esther (n. 55); the book of Judith (ibid.); Wisdom (n. 27); then in ep. II to Virgins (n. 13), the book of Ecclesiasticus and the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel; in the ep. of Barnabas (n. 19), the book of Ecclesiasticus; in the ep. of Polycarp (n. 10), Tobias; in the Shepherd of Hermas, bk. III, similitude 9 (n. 23), Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.

b) The most frequent and solemn citations of the deuterocanonical books in the manner described, without any distinction from the protocanonical books, will meet the eye in all writers of the close of the second century and of the third, whose ampler works survive. If some are found cited more frequently than others, this comes not from a diverse authority of the books but from the diverse matter, by which they were more or less suited to citations for the Fathers' purpose. This diversity of books is intelligible enough of itself, and occurs no less in citing even the protocanonical books. Hence we find cited most frequently the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, less frequently the historical books of Tobias, Judith, Machabees — which (as we said) must be ascribed not to a diverse authority attributed to the books, but to diversity of subject-matter.

In the promiscuous manner indicated, all the deuterocanonical books occur cited in Clement of Alexandria: Wisdom more than twenty times, Ecclesiasticus fifty times and more, Baruch (under the name of Jeremias) four times ³, Tobias three times, Judith once, 2 Machabees once ⁴. In the same way the books are adduced in the Works of Origen (De la Rue ed.): Wisdom nearly twenty times, Ecclesiasticus more than seventy times, Baruch (under the name of Jeremias) five times, Tobias more than ten times, Judith three times, 1 Machabees once, 2 Machabees fifteen times. In both authors the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel and Esther are also cited together with the protocanonical books. Likewise citations of all the books occur in Tertullian (except Tob. and Esther); of all (except the book of Judith) in Cyprian; of all (except Ecclesiasticus and Esther) in the Works of Hippolytus (Fabricius ed. and in Gallandi's Library, vol. II). Cited are the books of Baruch, Tobias, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus by St. Melito (2nd cent.) in the Key to Sacred Scripture (if the work is genuine), first edited by Cardinal Pitra (Spicileg. Solesm., vol. III); the books of Wisdom, Baruch (under the name of Jeremias), the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel by St. Irenaeus; Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Tobias in the Works of Dionysius of Alexandria (de Magistris ed.); Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch (under the name of Jeremias) by Methodius; Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Tobias, Judith, the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel in the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, which by recent critics are judged written in the third century; Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs; likewise Wisdom in the disputation of Archelaus with Manes; likewise Ecclesiasticus by the anonymous author against Novatian (Galland. III, p. 376), by Peter of Alexandria in the Fragment on Easter (n. 5) ⁵ and by Alexander of Alexandria in the ep. to Alexander of Constantinople (n. 5); likewise 1 Machabees in the Second Council of Carthage of the year 253 (Hard. I, p. 152); likewise Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (each under the name of Solomon), Baruch (under the name of Jeremias) by Lactantius (Divin. instit. IV, n. 8, 13, 16), etc.

c) This indiscriminate use of the sacred books continued altogether the same in the fourth and fifth centuries, after some hesitation had arisen concerning the books not received among the Hebrews. Indeed, the ampler the monuments of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers surviving from this age, the more evidently is demonstrated the universal and constant authority of the deuterocanonical books as belonging to sacred Scripture, without any distinction having been made in public use between them and the protocanonical books. For it can safely be affirmed that, of all the Fathers whose writings survive in sufficient amplitude, there is none who did not employ the deuterocanonical books as sacred Scripture. Here we shall name only those Fathers who, as we shall see later, could be called into suspicion of a curtailed canon.

Athanasius cites the book of Tobias under the formula it is written together with protocanonical texts (Maur. ed., Paris 1698, vol. I, pp. 133, 305). Under the same formula — it is written, Scripture (ἡ γραφὴ) says — together with other protocanonical texts (pp. 11, 125), and to prove the divinity of the Holy Spirit (pp. 674, 675), he adduces the book of Wisdom. Then he cites Ecclesiasticus under the formula it was said by the Holy Spirit, according to that, sacred Scripture says (p. 183 ⁶ 272, 1204, 1210, 1214). To Baruch he appeals under the name of Jeremias (p. 188) and to the same text under the proper name of Baruch (p. 517); to the deutero parts of Dan. under the very name of Daniel (p. 417) and elsewhere.

Gregory of Nazianzus under one formula, Scripture says, adduces Wisdom together with a text of the Psalms (or. 28, al. 34, n. 8); under the formula he says (φησι) he cites Ecclesiasticus with Proverbs (or. 7, al. 10, n. 1); Baruch (ep. 102 to Cledonius, al. or. 51); the deuterocanonical parts of Dan. (or. 36, al. 27, n. 3).

Amphilochius cites Baruch under the name of prophet, and admits Ecclesiasticus as Scripture of the Old Testament (Galland. VI, p. 510).

Cyril of Jerusalem adduces Wisdom under the name of Solomon; by simple citation Ecclesiasticus and the deuterocanonical parts of Dan. (Catech. IX, n. 2; cf. n. 16; VI, n. 4; XVI, n. 31).

Epiphanius under the formulas divine Scripture (τὸ θεῖον γράμμα), Scripture, the Lord through Solomon, the most excellent of the prophets oft cites Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus; under the formula Scripture, the prophet says he several times adduces Baruch; of Judith he makes mention with other things and persons of Scripture, whose numbers he arranges there: « three women prophetesses: Mary, Deborah, Judith » (on the mystery of numbers, vol. II, p. 305).

Hilary cites Wisdom under the name of prophetic voice and prophet (in Ps. 135, n. 11; Trin. I, n. 7); under the formula he says (Scripture) and under the inscription of Solomon he adduces Ecclesiasticus (Prolog. in Pss., n. 20; in Ps. 140, n. 5); Baruch under the name of Jeremias (in Ps. 68, n. 19); Tob. (in Ps. 118, 2nd letter, n. 6; Ps. 129, n. 7); finally he cites the book of Judith as a book of the Law (in Ps. 125, n. 6); for there, promising testimony « from the Law and the Prophets and the Gospels and the Apostles, » from the Law he adduces no text but Judith XVI. 3.

Jerome is wont to create greater difficulty than all the other Fathers in this question, when, having the canon of the Jews before his eyes, he speaks of the books not received therein, as we shall see below. But the Tradition and custom of the Churches was firmer and more universal than that he himself could recede from it in the daily use of these books. Jerome therefore seems, with an eye to the Jewish canon, to have been privately less certain concerning the equal authority of the deuterocanonical books with the protocanonical; in use and practice, however, following the common custom of the Church, he makes no distinction between books of either order. And this itself is evident proof of the constant and universal custom of the Church, whatever may have been the private opinion of the holy doctor and his hesitation at a time when the matter had not yet been sifted on all sides and defined by the solemn judgment of the Church. It will therefore be worthwhile to have considered more diligently the manner in which the holy Father uses the deuterocanonical books.

First, he employs the book of Wisdom in his works at least 12 times, Ecclesiasticus at least 19 times, in those modes of citing which can be used only of books of sacred Scripture. For he cites each frequently under the formula it is written, together with texts from the protocanonical books, or after such texts under the formula in another place, or elsewhere it is said (ep. 66, n. 5, to Pammachius [Vallarsi ed.]; ep. 125, n. 19, to Rusticus; dialogue contra Pelag., bk. II, n. 11; in Ezech., vol. V, p. 207; in Is., vol. IV, pp. 27, 48) — and this to prove dogmas, just as, e.g., he proves the divinity of the Holy Spirit from the book of Wisdom equally as from other biblical texts (in Gal. III, vol. VII, p. 420). He cites Ecclesiasticus with Proverbs under one formula — we read in our books (in Is., vol. IV, p. 50); in the texts of this book he acknowledges a precept given to us (vol. III, p. 462; vol. IV, p. 55); indeed to the same Ecclesiasticus he appeals under the express appellation of holy Scripture and divine Scripture: « divine Scripture speaks » (ep. 118, n. 1, to Julian [vol. I, p. 786]); « with holy Scripture saying » (in Is., vol. IV, p. 57). Each book he adduces under the name of Solomon: Wisdom in ep. 58, n. 1, to Paulinus (« with Solomon testifying »), Ecclesiasticus on ch. X of Eccl. (vol. III, p. 472) ⁷.

The book of Judith he reckons as sacred together with the protocanonical Ruth and Esther: « Ruth and Esther and Judith are of such glory that they have given their names to sacred volumes » (ep. 65, n. 1, to Principia, vol. I, p. 372); he cites it again (ep. 79, n. 11, to Salvina, p. 504; and with some mark of doubt, ep. 54, n. 16, to Furia, p. 291; in Agg. I, vol. VI, p. 745). The book of Tobias he adduces (in Eccl. VIII, vol. III, p. 451); he testifies that it is in the Church's use, though it is not in the Jewish canon: « the book of Tobias, though it is not held in the canon, is yet employed by ecclesiastical men » (in Ion., vol. VI, p. 390). The deuterocanonical parts of Esther he uses no differently than the protocanonical (in Is., vol. IV, pp. 763, 774; in Ez., vol. V, p. 302; in Amos, vol. VI, p. 319); so too the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel (in Os., vol. VI, p. 75; in Nahum, ibid., p. 574). To the books of Machabees he appeals under the name of Scripture (in Is., vol. IV, p. 227; cf. in Dan., vol. V, p. 675).

Finally, in each preface to the books of Tobias and Judith he declares plainly enough the diversity of ecclesiastical custom and judgment from the Jewish canon concerning these books, which he himself had translated from Chaldaic into Latin at the bishops' request. « The studies of the Hebrews accuse us, he says in Tob., and impute it to us that these things are rendered for Latin ears against their canon. But judging it better to displease the judgment of the Pharisees and to serve the commands of the Bishops, I have done what I could. » And in Judith: « because this book is recorded to have been reckoned by the Nicene synod in the number of the holy Scriptures, I have assented to your request. » In the Apology against Rufinus he indignantly repels the accusation, as if he himself made little of the ancient edition of the Seventy interpreters — which had until then been read in the Churches — or rejected by name, in Daniel, what is not found in the Hebrew text (Apolog. contra Rufin., bk. II, n. 24, 33; vol. II, pp. 518, 527).

From all this it is clear that Jerome found these deuterocanonical books consecrated by the use and custom of the Church and received among the sacred Scriptures. Since, however, on the other hand he saw that they are not found in the Hebrew canon, hence arose some fluctuation in his private opinion, when the solemn judgment of the Church had not yet been passed. For confirmation of this explanation note that the 53rd epistle to Paulinus, dating from no later than 394, and the prefaces to the books of Kings (the galeate prologue), to the books of Solomon, to Esdras — from which places the greater difficulties are drawn — were published by Jerome before 393 (see the preface of the Benedictines to St. Jerome's Library, Vallarsi ed., vol. IX, p. 21). The doubts of the holy doctor, then, or at least his difficult modes of speaking concerning the deuterocanonical books, belong to the time when the canon comprehending all these books had not yet been issued by the Hippo Council of all Africa (393) and by Carthage (397), or had not yet come to Jerome's knowledge. But the magnificent commendations of these same books as belonging to sacred Scripture, which we have recited from Jerome, are found all or nearly all in books he wrote some time after that Council was held, when the proposed canon of the Scriptures could already have become known to him. For the epistles were given: to Paulinus (58th) in 395; to Pammachius and to Principia in 397; to Salvina in 399; to Julian in 406; to Rusticus in 411; the Commentaries on Is. were not finished before 410, after them the others on Ezech. were published; on Jonas he wrote in 397; on Osee in 406; against Rufinus in 402; against the Pelagians in 415.

We continue with the still remaining writers about whom doubt could be raised.

Of Rufinus few works written on his own account survive, but there survive renderings of many Works of Origen, in which the deuterocanonical Scriptures are held in the same register as the protocanonical. In his own Works he cites Ecclesiasticus under the formula « holy Scripture's sentence it is, » « Scripture says » (on the benediction of the patriarchs, pp. 38, 46, Vallarsi ed.). In the very exposition of the creed, from which difficulty is wont to be raised, he cites Baruch the prophet (n. 5), and a sentence compounded from Wisdom and the protocanonical Dan. under the formula: « the prophets preached » (n. 46). The deuterocanonical parts of Daniel he defends on set purpose as sacred Scripture (bk. II, n. 33, 35).

Leontius of Byzantium cites Ecclesiasticus — « as Scripture says, » — and Baruch under the name of Jeremias (Galland. XII, pp. 630, 664).

John Damascene in the Sacred Parallels enumerates most frequently, with the other books, as belonging « to the ancient Scripture of the sacred oracles » (vol. II, p. 279), the books of Wisdom (under the name of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the deutero parts of Daniel. Expressly as divine Scripture (ἡ θεῖα γραφή) are cited Wisdom (On the Orthodox Faith IV, ch. 15) and the books of Mach. (sermon on the departed, n. 3, vol. I, p. 585).

Among the other western and eastern Fathers of diverse Churches the use and citations of these books are still more frequent (cf. the celebrated Vincenzi, sess. IV, Trid. Conc. vindicata). It suffices us to have named those whom below we shall see to have raised a question concerning the canonical authority of these same books. Of the rest I adduce one more witness of the fourth century for the Syrian Church: St. Ephrem. In the Works which we have only in Greek and Latin, he oft cites, under the formula it is written, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the deutero parts of Dan.

In paraenesis 39 (among the works edited by Vossius, vol. II, p. 175) he cites the book of Tobias. On Ezech. (vol. II of the Syr.-Lat. Works, p. 193) he introduces Judith. In his testament (Syr.-Lat. Works, vol. I, p. 401 — the passage stands more expressly in Assemani's Bibl. Orient., vol. I, p. 143), he employs 2 Machabees to prove the dogma of offering sacrifices and suffrages for the departed, and expressly testifies that these books are read among the Syrians among the Scriptures. He says to his Syrians: « if the sons of Mathathias, who celebrated feasts and commemorations only in figure, as you have read in the Scriptures (2 Mach. XII. 43) ⁸, expiated by oblations the debts of those who had fallen in battle... how much more shall the priests of the Son of God expiate the debts of the departed by their oblations? » Likewise he introduces 1 Mach. (Syr.-Lat. vol. II, p. 228); 2 Mach. (ibid., p. 308) ⁹. In the fourth century, therefore, the Syrians had in their ecclesiastical version not only those books which still now are found in the Peschito or so-called simple version ¹⁰, but also the deuterocanonical books, which the other Churches had and have.

II. The use of the deuterocanonical books, so constant and universal even at the time when some doubts seemed to be introduced, and among all those very teachers who record these doubts, already of itself manifestly demonstrates that these books were held, by the public custom of the Churches, with the other books in the collection of the sacred Scriptures, and reckoned among the Scriptures. The same is established by argument drawn from ecclesiastical codices and versions.

It is certain that the codices of the Scriptures were most diligently guarded by public authority in the Churches; hence are mentioned the archives ¹¹ of the Church by Ignatius (ep. to the Philadelphians, n. 8); the digests of the Church by Tertullian (cont. Marc. IV, ch. 3); the copies of the Church by Origen (ep. to Afric., n. 4); the apparatus of copies of the divine Scriptures, most necessary to the Church, by Constantine the Great (in Euseb., Life of Constantine, bk. IV, ch. 36); the libraries of the Churches by Jerome (ep. to Augustine, among the Augustinian epp. 75, n. 19). Now in these public and ecclesiastical collections of the sacred Scriptures, both of the east and of the west, were contained all the books which the Catholic Church still now preserves, and which it again defined at Trent and the Vatican as belonging to the inspired Scriptures. For besides the use and manner of citing of all the Fathers of which we have spoken, and besides the ecclesiastical catalogues or canons of the Scriptures of which we shall speak afterwards, this is established from monuments by which the very ecclesiastical edition of the Scriptures is immediately presented and its character and as it were face exhibited, such as it was from most ancient times.

Cassiodorus (Institut. divinar. litt., ch. 12–14) describes a threefold division of the books of Scripture. The third is « according to the ancient translation, » which among other codices he bequeathed to his monastery of Vivarium « in a larger codex... in which the translation of the Old Testament by the seventy Interpreters is contained in forty-four books; to which are subjoined twenty-six books of the New Testament, making together seventy books. » The order of the O.T. books according to this « ancient translation » he describes thus: « It is divided into Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue Nave, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paralipomenon, one book of the Psalter, five books of Solomon — that is, Proverbs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles — the Prophets, that is, Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Amos, Micheas, Joel, Abdias, Jonas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sephonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias who is also Angel, Job, Tobias, Esther, Judith, two of Esdras, two of Machabees. » In the « ancient translation » and edition of Scripture, therefore, the deuterocanonical books were held not as merely appended by chance, but intermingled without any distinction with the protocanonical — the very thing observed in all the catalogues adduced below, and in the codices that still survive.

The Greek codices either present the collection of the whole of Scripture or are fragmentary, containing only some books. Among the former none exists that has only the protocanonical books; but all contain the deuterocanonical also, intermingled. The most ancient are Vaticanus (B among critics) and Alexandrinus (in London, A among critics), and Tischendorf's Sinaiticus, which all contain our books ¹², except that besides they have the apocryphal 3 Esdr. (there 1.

Esdr.), and Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus 3 and 4 Mach. In Vaticanus, however, just as at the beginning nearly the whole book of Genesis has perished through age, so at the end the books of Mach. are lacking. The fragmentary codices — among which the most ancient are the Parisian (called of Ephrem, C) and Tischendorf's Friderico-Augustanus — if they contain several books, join with the books of Solomon nearly always Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus; among the historical books they mingle with the protocanonical all or at least some of the deuterocanonical — Tob., Judith, and (mostly, unless mutilated) Mach.; among the Prophets they join Baruch with Jeremias.

Hence all the ancient ecclesiastical versions and editions of the Scriptures, which flowed from the Greek edition, contain in the same way the deuterocanonical books intermingled without distinction with the protocanonical; so the Ethiopic version (4th cent.) ¹³, the Armenian (5th cent.), the Syriac hexaplar ¹⁴, (derived from Origen's hexaplar edition), and the Slavonic too as preserved by the schismatics ¹⁵.

In the ecclesiastical Latin version, made « in the first times of the faith » (as Augustine says) from the Greek LXX, it is established that all the books existed without distinction of a double order; indeed this Latin version is called by the ancients (Jerome, Augustine, Cassiodorus) itself the version « of the Seventy interpreters, » from its exemplar, from which it had been rendered. From it those books which are not extant in Hebrew, and were therefore omitted by St. Jerome in his translation (Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, 1, 2 Machabees), were received into the Hieronymian Vulgate as soon as this began by common use to be the ecclesiastical edition.

Hence the codices containing the Hieronymian edition — both the most ancient before Alcuin's recension and those following that recension — have all our books, except that in some the book of Baruch is lacking. This ἀνομαλία, repugnant to the custom of the Fathers and the Greek codices, indeed of the whole Church, I know not how it can be explained, unless because the copyists held the book (like many Fathers) as part of Jeremias, which, since they did not find it in Jerome's holy library, they too omitted — what in the case of other books, integral and self-consistent, such as Wisd., Ecclus., Mach., they did not dare. The most ancient codices of all of this Latin edition are Amiatinus (in the Laurentian at Florence), written in the 6th century, Toletanus, Cavensis (of the monastery of the Most Holy Trinity of Cava in the Neapolitan kingdom), St. Paul's (on the Ostian Way), Vallicellanus. (See the celebrated P. Vercellone in the Biblical Apparatus to the various readings of the Vulgate, ch. 2, pp. 83 sqq.)

III. It is established that from the apostolic age itself books of the Old and New Testament were customarily read in the public assemblies of Christians (Justin, apol. I, n. 67; Tertull., apologetic., ch. 39; Apostolic Constitutions, bk. II, ch. 57; Galland. III, p. 76). Although other books too were read, such as acts of Martyrs, epistles of Pontiffs and of the holy Fathers (cf. Euseb., H. E., bk. IV, ch. 23, at the end), the reading of the books of Scripture was altogether distinct, so that such public reading must be held as a public acknowledgment and profession by which the Church declared that the books customarily so read were and were to be received among the sacred Scriptures. Thus already in the Muratorian fragment (n. 4) it is said of the Shepherd of Hermas: « it ought indeed to be read, *but it cannot be published in the Church to the people neither among the Prophets, complete in number, nor among the Apostles to the end of time » (Galland. II, p. 208). In the Council of Hippo of 393, in Carthage III of 397, and thence in the canons of the African Church, it is prescribed: « that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures... It shall also be lawful for the passions of the Martyrs to be read, when their anniversaries are celebrated » (Hard. I, p. 968). Of this decree opportune mention is made in Augustine (ep. 64, al. 235, n. 3, to Quintianus the Bishop, written in 401): « Do you yourselves, he says, first not bring the Church into scandal by reading among the peoples Scriptures which the ecclesiastical canon has not received... I wonder at your prudence, that... you did not remember what was instituted in the Council, which are the canonical Scriptures which ought to be read among the people of God. » He then teaches that for the reading of the sacred Scriptures a proper order of ecclesiastical readers was appointed, to which those do not belong to whom is committed in the Church even the reading of other books that are not canonical. According to this principle he proves the canonical authority of the book of Wisdom by a double argument: from the use, namely, of the treatise-writers who were nearest to the times of the Apostles, and from the reading of this same book from the readers' step in the Church: « The sentence of the book of Wisdom ought not to have been repudiated, which merited in the Church of Christ to be recited from the step of the readers of the Church of Christ with so long an antiquity of years, and to be heard by all Christians, from the Bishops to the lowest ranks of faithful laity, penitents, catechumens, with veneration of the divine authority » (On the Predestination of the Saints, n. 27, 28).

Now the Councils and Fathers of the Church, especially of the west ¹⁶, enumerate among the books which they testify to have « received to be read from the Fathers » all and only those which the Council of Trent comprehended in its canon, as is plain from the cited decrees of the African Councils and from the other canons of which we shall speak presently.

From the manner, then, in which the Fathers and teachers appealed to the deuterocanonical books no less than to the protocanonical in every age, from the very complexion of the ecclesiastical editions as the codices and ancient versions exhibit them, and finally from the public reading of these books in the Church as belonging to the divine Scriptures, it is concluded that all these books from most ancient times were held among the sacred Scriptures by a constant use and custom in the universal Church.

IV. Moreover the marks of this custom are such as to demonstrate it to be derived from apostolic Tradition. For a) the use of these books as belonging to the Scriptures is not only that of private men, but the public use of the Church herself. b) It is a use perpetual in time, universal in place or extension, constant and uniform in frequency. For from apostolic times to the 4th century we see these books reckoned among the Scriptures with the other protocanonical books and employed as Scriptures, comprehended in codices intermingled with the other books, with no trace of controversy until that 4th-century time; then, when from external causes — of which we shall soon speak — some hesitation arose among particular teachers, the same public use perseveres, so that those very teachers neither wished nor were able to depart from the common and public custom. The same regard for the books we find, at least by moral estimation, in all the Latin, Greek, Syrian, Ethiopic, Armenian Churches. Finally, it is not a question of single acts alone but of a custom which from the very nature of the case manifested itself in continuous and daily exercise. c) It is a use which, unless it rested on apostolic Tradition, would have been some great and universal abuse and error concerning the very sources of divine revelation. For it is not such a thing as could have been instituted by the Church at a later time, but one which, once handed down by the Apostles, could and had to be guarded and preserved by their successors (cf. th. VII). Lastly, d) it is such a use as, when controversy arose, was not only not broken but confirmed, when, the state of the question being more lucidly perceived, the controversy itself at length issued in universal agreement and manifest preaching of the truth. And these are the very marks of apostolic Tradition. By this apostolic Tradition, therefore, the documents which exhibit the universal use of all these books as books of Scripture demonstrate that all the books we have in the canon were consigned to the Church. Cf. Treatise on Tradition, th. I, V, VIII, IX, XIV, XXIII, XXIV.

Scholion. That some books which are not in the canon of the Catholic Church — as 3 Esdras, 3 Machabees, 4 Esdras and 4 Machabees from the Old Testament ¹⁷; and from the New Testament the Shepherd of Hermas and the epistles of Barnabas and Clement — are commemorated by some Fathers as sacred books, or were even contained in some codices of sacred Scripture, is far different from that universal and constant use which we have demonstrated for the canonical books. For a) a universal custom of reckoning those mentioned books with the Scriptures never obtained, but it belonged to some particular teachers or some particular Churches. Hence in that canon which among the ancient canons is the fullest of all — in the canon, namely, of the western Church, where it was the mind of the Councils and Pontiffs to consign the very apostolic Tradition concerning the books of the sacred Scriptures, and in the ecclesiastical codex of the Latin version in use, as is gathered from those very canons, from the first times of the faith ¹⁸ — none of those books appears ¹⁹; in the eastern canons one or another sometimes has place among the ἀντιλεγομενους books, mostly among the ἀποκρυφους. b) In the progress of time, as questions concerning the canon of the sacred books were more and more sifted under the direction and assistance of the Holy Spirit, that opinion not only did not obtain the strength of universal custom, but was utterly extinguished in the Catholic Church; indeed it fell into desuetude even in the schismatic eastern Church, if you except the 3rd book of Machabees.