Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

The canons and the express doctrine of Christian antiquity exhibit the apostolic Tradition concerning all the divine books of the Old Testament.

«The meaning of this constant usage, by which the Church has always preserved all the books of Scripture with faithful custody, was declared more expressly by express doctrine and ecclesiastical preaching after controversies had arisen.

To this declaration belong in particular the recorded indices of the sacred books, conspiring with practical custom itself, by which the pastors and doctors of the Church, especially of the West, set forth more distinctly the Tradition concerning the extent of the sacred code, vindicated it into clearer light from the obscurity that might have threatened, and at last from the same apostolic Tradition defined by solemn judgment the received canon of the Scriptures. »

I. Among the canons proposed in the Western Church the Old Latin edition of Scripture itself is deservedly to be counted, in which it is established that all and only the books of the Tridentine canon were comprehended, the deuterocanonicals mixed with the protocanonicals, both from the express description of Cassiodorus (see above p. 419) and from the citations of the Latin Fathers of the III century, Tertullian, Cyprian and others whom we cited in the preceding thesis, and from the subsequent canons of the Western Church, which must undoubtedly be said to have had as a preset norm the ecclesiastical edition received everywhere and its public use. If now from these catalogues it is manifest that in the IV century, in the codices of all the Churches wherever the Latin tongue and the Latin version of Scripture widely extended, the deuterocanonical books were held mixed with the protocanonicals without any sign of distinction, this arrangement of the Scriptures is surely to be referred immediately to the very origin of the version, and mediately to the apostolic age. For neither would whole books have been inserted only later into Scripture customarily read publicly in the Church daily and most well known to all, nor could so grave an innovation have been made in any way without both Bishops and faithful demanding some account of so great a matter. If a Bishop in Africa was compelled by a tumult of the people to resume the old edition, because in Jerome's version one or two words were placed otherwise than the people had been accustomed to hear (Aug. ep. 71. n. 5. to Jerome), how much less could whole books have been introduced without pastors and peoples at least seeking the cause of this matter? And yet neither of when these books were joined with the rest in the edition of the Churches and in public use, nor of any antecedent controversy, does any memory exist. Without doubt therefore they were translated into the Latin tongue together with the protocanonicals as pertaining to one divine Scripture and handed to the Latin Churches «in the first times of the faith.» This being posited, the canon publicly and everywhere received, comprehending all our books, reaches to those very «first times of the faith» in which the Latin edition of Scripture was made for the Latin Church.¹ Moreover how could books other than those extant in the Greek edition of the Churches, from which all know that old Latin one flowed, both have been rendered into the Latin tongue among the divine Scriptures and publicly received? The same books therefore were all extant in the Church in the Greek edition in the very apostolic times. And that the Apostles themselves used the Greek edition is most evident from their own writings, while on the other hand no one can doubt that the primitive Church received from the Apostles themselves, together with the preaching, also the sacred Scriptures. The very collection of the Scriptures therefore, approved, consecrated, handed to the Churches by the Apostles, the first promulgators of divine revelation and of the faith, constitutes the first and fundamental complete canon of all the sacred books, from which as from a fountain have flowed, and to which as testimonies of Tradition are referred all the citations, definitions, enacted canons of subsequent ages, and finally the universal use of the same books in the whole Church as sacred Scriptures.

Since this tradition and commendation of the whole collection of the Scriptures came from the Apostles to the Churches as it were in a complex proposition, which contained implicitly the doctrine of the inspiration of the individual books, and was proposed more by use and practice than by express and insistent preaching concerning the individual books, hence it could happen, and we know it did happen, that in later times within the very bounds of the Church, from external causes of which we shall speak below, certain hesitations and doubts arose concerning those books of the Old Testament which learned men warned were not found in the canon of the Jews. Thus from the first stage of ecclesiastical custom founded in simple faith a transition was made to a second stage of some controversy and obscurity. Recall what we said in the Treatise on Tradition, th. XXIII.

II. From this very danger of obscuration arose for the pastors and doctors of the Church the necessity, for the custody and explication of the deposit, now also to fortify by express doctrine and express decrees the Tradition received from the Apostles and from the antecedent Fathers, and to vindicate the value of ecclesiastical custom.

1°. Most celebrated is the Council of Hippo of all Africa held on the 8th day before the Ides of October in the year 393 (Hard. I. p. 882). A compendium of the canons of this synod was sent by the Bishops of the province of Byzacena to the III Council of Carthage (under Aurelius) in the year 397, in which they were read and again confirmed. In these Hippo statutes the XXXVIth decrees thus: « That besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures. » The canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paralipomenon, Job, the Davidic Psalter, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Hesdras, two books of Machabees. Of the New Testament four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John. So that the Church across the sea be consulted concerning the confirmation of this canon. The passions of the martyrs may also be read, when their anniversaries are celebrated » (Works of Leo M. ed. Ballerini T. III. p. 98 and in Mansi's Collect. T. III. p. 924). In the III Council of Carthage in the editions it is the same canon XLVII (Mansi ib. 891). The same decree in the same order of books was repeated in canon XXIX in the Council of Carthage of the year 419 (commonly called the VI), celebrated by about 218 Bishops before the legates of the Roman See, Philip and Asellus priests. Only the conclusion was changed in this manner: « Let this also be made known to our brother and fellow priest Boniface, Bishop of the city of Rome, or to other Bishops of those parts, for confirming this canon, since from the Fathers we have so received it to be read in the Church » (Dionys. Exig.: «from the Fathers we have received these to be read in the Church») Works of Leo M. l.c. p. 643.

About the time of the III Council of Carthage in the year 397, St Augustine (On Christian Doctrine bk. II. c. 8)² recorded the very same books as canonical, though in a slightly different order. After numbering the books of the Octateuch, four of Kings and two of Paralip., there follow « Job and Tobias and Esther and Judith and two books of Machabees and two of Esdras.... then the Prophets, among whom David one book of Psalms, three of Solomon, Proverbs, Canticle of Canticles and Ecclesiastes. For those two books, one inscribed Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are said to be of a certain similitude of Solomon; for Jesus Sirah³ is most constantly reported to have composed them, yet since they have merited to be received into authority, they are to be numbered among the prophetical. » Last there follow the 12 minor Prophets and the 4 major.⁴

« By these forty-four books the authority of the Old Testament is terminated; of the New, by four books of the Gospel (the individual Evangelists are named), fourteen epistles of Paul the Apostle (each is reviewed), two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, and one of James, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, and one book of the Apocalypse of John. In all these books those fearing God and meek in piety seek the will of God. »

2°. That the same canon flourished in the Roman Church, to which the African Fathers appealed, is established from the letter by which Innocent I in the year 405 answered the inquiries of Exsuperius of Toulouse. Thus reads ep. 6. c. 7 (ed. Coustant. p. 795): « Which books are received in the canon, the annexed brief (i. e. little index) shows: five books of Moses... five books of Solomon, the Psalter; likewise of histories, one book of Job, one book of Tobi, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Machabees⁵, two of Esdras, two books of Paralipomenon. Likewise of the New Testament » etc. But as the African Bishops appealed to the Tradition handed down by the antecedent Fathers, so the Pontiff at the very beginning of the letter protested that he teaches what is to be followed as « the preserved series of times would show. »

Pope Gelasius in the Council of seventy Bishops in the year 496, in the decree on the books to be received, enumerates the same, with none taken away and none added. From the diversity of the inscription of the codices it seems most probably to be gathered that the same decree was again issued by Pope Hormisdas (year 514 to 523), to whom it is attributed in the most ancient Urgell and Jura codex, in which it bears this prefixed title: « Here begins the decretal issued in the city of Rome by Pope Hormisdas. » In the text: « Concerning the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church receives, or after these what it ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament, which the holy and catholic Roman Church receives and honors, is this: of Genesis bk. I » etc. Nevertheless in most codices that decree is attributed to Gelasius and the Roman synod of 70 or 72 Bishops, and under his name it was received in the canonical collections of Burchard and Gratian.⁶ See Mansi Conc. T. VIII. p. 151 and Supplem. Concil. T. I. p. 355 sqq.; Jos. Blanchinus in Lives of the RR. Pontiffs T. IV. p. LXI; Hefele Hist. of Councils T. II. p. 597.

3°. From the African Councils and the decrees of the Pontiffs the same catalogue of the Scriptures with the other statutes was received about the time of Pope Gelasius into those entitled « Constitutions of the Apostolic See » Works of St Leo ed. Baller. T. III. p. 98, and thence into other ancient collections of canons, of Dionysius Exiguus in saec. VI (Works of St Leo T. III. p. CLXXIV sq.), of Ferrandus of Carthage can. 228 likewise saec. VI; of Cresconius can. 299 at the end of saec. VII (Bibl. Max. PP. T. IX. p. 486. 494); then into the Spanish collection of saec. VII (Works of Leo p. CXCV sq.), of Burchard at the start of saec. XI, of Ivo in mid saec. XI, of Gratian in saec. XII. Since collections of this kind, especially the Dionysian and afterwards the Gratian, were widespread and at least to the Bishops and the whole Clergy most well known in the whole Western Church, it is plain that this very doctrine of the Councils and Pontiffs concerning the canon of the Scriptures was universal in the whole Church, at least the Latin of which we now speak. Hence in saec. VIII St Nicholas I the Pontiff appealed to the decree of Innocent I in such a way that, supposing it known everywhere and without controversy, from the very reception of the integral canon of the Scriptures through the whole Church commanded by Innocent, he drew an argument for the proof of another matter then at issue.⁷

4°. The Latin ecclesiastical writers who from saec. VI on in their exegetical, dogmatic, liturgical works recorded indices of the sacred books have the same full canon with no book taken away and none added, nor surely did they record anything but what in their time they found handed down in the Church by the forefathers. Thus catalogues of the sacred books were composed by Cassiodorus in saec. VI, divin. institut. cc. 1-9. 13. 14; Isidore of Seville in saec. VII, who thrice proposes the same, ed. Arevalo T. III. p. 241; T. V. p. 190; T. VI. p. 372; Ildephonsus of Toledo on the order of baptism c. 79 in Baluz's miscellany, T. VI. p. 57; Eugenius of Toledo (in Hodius l.c. p. 654).

Of saec. VIII is the decree of Leo III the Pontiff edited by Joseph Blanchinius in Vindic. canon. Script. p. CCCV: « All the divine Scripture of the holy canon is read from the beginning of the year to the end in the Church of St Peter in this order » etc. From mid October there are said to be read « the book of Solomon (by which were comprehended the five so-called sapiential books), and of Women (i. e. Ruth, Judith, Esther)⁸ and of Machabees and the book of Tobi until the Kalends of December ».⁹ Of the early IX century is the catalogue described in verses, and the codex of the Scriptures of Theodulf of Orleans in Works of Sirmond T. II. p. 1046. In the same century flourished Rhabanus Maurus, who bk. II. c. 53 on the instit. of Clerics testifies: « Lessons are pronounced in the Churches of Christ from the holy Scriptures.... These therefore are the books of the O.T. which the Princes of the Churches have handed down to be read and received for love of doctrine and piety. » There follows a catalogue comprehending all and only the books which we have in the Tridentine canon.

At the start of saec. XII Honorius of Autun in the Gem of the Soul bk. III. c. 118, Bibl. Max. PP. T. XX. p. 1128, recorded the books of Scripture to be read in the divine offices, which are the same all and only comprehended in the Tridentine canon. From the same century we have in the Scholastic History of Peter Comestor the narration of all the books of Scripture. Where he begins to narrate the book of Josue, he recalls from St Jerome the division of the Hebrew canon into three orders with this annotation: « Job, David, three books of Solomon, Daniel, Paralipomenon, Esdras, Esther (namely pertain to the third order of the Hebrews). Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias Pastor¹⁰, of Machabees are apocryphal, since their author is unknown; but since there is no doubt of their truth, they are received by the Church. But if neither author nor truth were known, they would not be received, as the book of the Infancy of the Saviour and of the Assumption of the B. Virgin Mary » fol. 82 ed. Lyon 1542. Still more clearly he explains what he himself understands by the name apocryphal, at the start of the narration of the book of Tobias fol. 146. To his own remark that the book of Tobias is reckoned by the Jews among the apocrypha, by St Jerome among the hagiographa, he adds: « Recall what was said above at the start of Josue, that apocryphal is said either whose author is uncertain or whose matter is uncertain. But concerning the matter of this (book) it is plain and established. Hagiograph is interpreted holy Scripture, and thus any Scripture (i. e. any book pertaining to Scripture) can be called holy. »

Peter of Blois in this XII century enumerates first according to St Jerome the books of the Hebrew canon in the triple order of the Law, the Prophets and the hagiographa. But he warns of the fuller Christian canon: « The fourth order among us (Christians) of the O.T. is of those books which are not in the canon of the Hebrews. Of which the first is the book of Wisdom, the second Ecclesiasticus, the third Tobias, the fourth Judith, the fifth and sixth of Machabees, which though the Jews separate among the apocrypha, yet the Church of Christ both honors and preaches among the divine books. In the New Testament there are two orders » etc. On the division and writers of the sacred books (Bibl. Max. PP. T. XXIV. p. 1268). The same canon in saec. XIII Vincent of Beauvais (Specul. doctrin. bk. XVII. 33) and many others recorded down to the Council of Florence.

In this Council the Supreme Pontiff Eugene IV in the Bull or decree « Sing unto the Lord » declared to the Jacobites the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and among other heads there the most holy Roman Church is said to profess « one and the same God of the Old and New Testament, that is, the author of the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel, since by the same Holy Spirit inspiring the saints of both Testaments spoke, whose books it receives and venerates; which are contained under the following titles: Five of Moses » etc. There follows the enumeration of all the books in the same order as in the Tridentine Council¹¹ (Hard. IX. p. 1023).

5°. As regards the Greek Church, in saec. VII° the Trullan Council held by the Greeks as a continuation of the oecumenical V and VI received in can. 2°, with the statutes of other Councils and holy Fathers, also the one hundred thirty-five African canons, which thenceforth among the Greeks constitute part of the ecclesiastical law illustrated by the commentaries of their doctors Balsamon, Zonaras, Alexius Aristenus etc. Among those African canons the twenty-seventh puts that very decree of the Council of Carthage of the year 419 concerning the canonical Scriptures which we reported above (Beveridge's Pandects of the canons of the Greek Church T. I. p. 549). The Greeks therefore found the catalogue of the books of Scripture, in which there are enumerated all and only those still now comprehended in the Catholic canon,¹² in no way dissenting from the faith and practice of their Eastern Church. That in the same place in can. 2° there are also received the 85 apostolic canons and the 60th of Laodicea, in the 85th apostolic and 60th Laodicean of which another catalogue of the Scriptures is contained, is no contradiction, but only the explication or integration of one incomplete canon completed through another. Aptly to this matter Cassiodorus remarks in comparing canons of this kind with each other: the Fathers and Councils « said not contrary but diverse things, » since incomplete canons are not excluding but opportunely to be supplied (cf. Cassiod. instit. divin. litt. c. 14).

Certainly the Greek Church even schismatical still now keeps the same books all in its canon. Hence in saec. XVII we see Cyril Lucar, who by rejecting the deuterocanonical books wished to gratify the Protestants, condemned also for this error in synods convened by the schismatical patriarchs Parthenius of Constantinople, Dositheus of Jerusalem, Macarius of Antioch. The sentence of these synods was thus: « The Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobias, the history of the dragon, the history of Susanna, the Machabees, the Wisdom of Sirach with the other genuine books of Holy Scripture we judge to be numbered as genuine parts of the same Scripture. Since what the Gospels..... ancient custom or rather the Catholic Church handed down, these too it undoubtedly handed down as parts of Holy Scripture » (Hard. XI. p. 258). See also the attestations in the work « Perpetuity of the Faith Defended » T. III. p. 462. 463. 464. 465. 547.

That the other nations of the East, long since sundered from the Catholic Church, are in the same mind can be proved, as far as the ignorance prevailing among those peoples permits. The Syrians and Chaldeans receive the deuterocanonical books (Assem. Bibl. Or. T. III. p. 5-7; IV. p. 236; Hard. Conc. T. X. p. 306; Perpetuit. of the faith defended T. III. p. 551; Hodius l.c. p. 650); the Ethiopians or Abyssinians (Ludolph. Histor. of Ethiopia bk. III. c. 4, which Fabricius in the book « Light of the Gospel » p. 717 and Hodius l.c. p. 650 likewise describe from Ludolf)¹³; the Armenians (Perpetuit. of the faith defended T. III. p. 560. 566, where are reported the testimonies of the Monophysite Bishops in Cilicia and in Persia).

III. If we now compare together what has been said in this and in the preceding thesis, the conclusion of the whole demonstration is evident. The so-called deuterocanonical books of the O.T. were all from the most ancient times and from the apostolic age itself not merely annexed as an appendix, but mixed without distinction with the protocanonical books of Scripture. In the whole Church both in the East and in the West, in every age there was a public, most ample, constant and daily use of these books as Holy Scripture without any discrimination from the protocanonical books. In the West this public custom and persuasion was confirmed expressly and by explicit declarations by the Pontiffs and Councils as Tradition propagated from the origin of the Christian thing and from the apostolic age; and this was done when somewhere a theory dissonant from that public use seemed to be introduced, and was done through declarations wholly agreeing with that universal and perpetual practice and persuasion. But as all these books were mixed with the rest in the editions of the Scriptures, so in the Western Church no controversy of any moment was ever moved concerning them. For St Jerome, Rufinus and Hilary in this matter, as I said elsewhere, look rather to the Eastern doctors. In the East some hesitation did arise in the IV century and held for some time afterwards; yet the public practice of the Eastern Church too persevered always the same, until from the evidence of the public use and from the necessity of reconciling doctrine with that public custom every doubt ceased in the Eastern Churches too. Now that books thus always held in the Church among the Scriptures and hence as divine books were, even if the argument be viewed historically alone, handed down by the Apostles is demonstrated as morally certain, because such a perpetual, universal and constant practice and persuasion can have its origin from nowhere else than apostolic Tradition. But if Tradition be viewed in the Catholic sense, namely the office of infallibly guarding the deposit of faith under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, it is absolutely repugnant that books preserved in this manner, held in veneration, used, declared divine in the universal Church, were not handed down by the Apostles as sacred Scripture. As to method therefore and the value of the demonstration, the Christian Tradition is well to be distinguished from the history of the canon of the books in the Old Testament among the Jews.

1°. It is demonstrated not from the history of the Jewish canon but from Christian Tradition that in the collection of the Scriptures which the Apostles consigned to the Churches as a complex of inspired books and as the written word of God, all those books were comprehended which the Church from the apostolic age has read among the Scriptures and which it still has defined in its canon. That very consignment and Tradition of Scripture through the Apostles contained the revelation of the Holy Spirit through His heralds that all these books are divinely inspired Scriptures and the written word of God. This apostolic revelation and Tradition does not necessarily suppose a revelation and Tradition already pre-existing among the Jews in the Old Testament. For since the Apostles were infallible not only in proposing and declaring revelation already made in the Old Testament, but through them Christ and the Holy Spirit also completed revelation, and thus they were also promulgators of new revelations which had not been made in the O.T., therefore from the doctrine that the Apostles handed down all these books as sacred Scripture it cannot be certainly inferred that already in the O.T. all these books had been proposed to the Jews as divine and believed by them as divine.

2°. Yet if we view not only the dogmatic foundation on which the Christian demonstration properly rests, but also examine historically in this doctrine what was the relation of the apostolic preaching in this head to the antecedent Tradition among the Synagogue, a) it is certain that the same deuterocanonical books were known to the Jews and among them in great authority, whereby a way was as it were prepared beforehand for the apostolic revelation concerning their inspiration. See above p. 319 the testimony of Josephus concerning the books written after Artaxerxes, and the honorific sentences of the Jews concerning each of these deuterocanonical books in Joseph de Voisin in the Observations on the Dagger of Faith ed. Paris 1651 p. 102-105. The holy Fathers too recall these books as known to the Jews and held in veneration. Thus Origen had found among the Jews the books of Machabees under the name Sarbat Sanbaneel¹⁴ (in Euseb. VI. 25); Epiphanius the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus (haeres. VIII. n. 6. cf. Isidore on div. Offices bk. I. c. 12); Jerome the books of Tobias and Judith (Prolog. on those books, cf. Hilar. Prolog. on Pss. T. I. p. 10). The author of the Apost. Constitutions testifies that in his time the book of Baruch was customarily read in the synagogues (Constit. Apost. bk. V. c. 20, Coteler. T. I. p. 324). See Malou on the Reading of Scripture in the vulgar tongue T. II. p. 32-51.

b) Nay it is probable that all these books were held by the Hellenist Jews in the time of Christ and the Apostles among the Scriptures together with the other books, and hence were handed to them as divine. That the Hellenist Jews read the Scriptures in the Alexandrian Greek edition at least until the version instituted by Aquila in the II Christian century is not doubtful.¹⁵ And in this edition, as far as the monuments reach, the deuterocanonical books are found (as we have demonstrated) not merely added but intermixed with the protocanonical books. It must indeed be confessed that these monuments strictly prove only that intermixture in the editions of Christians, and so it may have proceeded from the Apostles or from Christians out of apostolic doctrine. Since however no vestige exists of an Alexandrian edition containing only the protocanonical books, and since the Christian Tradition itself is such as rather to persuade that the Apostles found all these books already contained in their copies, the probability of this view defended by several recent Catholics cannot be denied. If the Apostles handed to the Churches Greek copies with the deuterocanonical books already before intermixed as the codex of the books of Scripture, no other explicit and distinct doctrine of the Apostles concerning each of these books was necessary. Then too what we said above of this Tradition as in a way implicit and first preserved rather by use and practice is more easily understood, and thence of the controversy that followed in later time within the very bounds of the Church.

Though these things be so, yet that remains ratified and firm, that the demonstration of the canon of the Scriptures in no way depends on this historical hypothesis; and surely they are most gravely deceived who affirm that the books of the O.T. could have been handed to Christians only by the old Synagogue, and are to be received only from the tradition and sentence of the Synagogue.

Corollary 1. Far different was the condition of the doctrine concerning the deuterocanonical books in the Christian Church even in that stage in which full agreement did not obtain, than in the Old Testament before the preaching of Christ and the Apostles. In the O.T. the proposition of the divine testimony either did not exist, or certainly was to be completed and confirmed by a new revelation; in the N.T. the revelation already made and always preserved in the Church was only to be proposed more explicitly by the Church itself under the direction of the Holy Spirit and to be preached more insistently. See on Trad. th. XXII. n. II; th. XXIII. n. I; th. XXV.

Corollary 2. The Catholic doctrine concerning the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books is absurdly impugned by Protestants with testimonies of the Jews by which they contend to prove that prophecy and the Holy Spirit were withdrawn under the second temple.

For a) there is no dogmatic authority of these testimonies, as is evident of itself. We do not prove the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books by the authority of the old Synagogue, much less do we require testimonies of the Jews after they ceased to be the people of God; but from the perpetual Christian Tradition we demonstrate it to have been revealed by Christ or by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles. Those testimonies of the Jews concerning the cessation of prophecy, if they were to be understood of the cessation of the gift of inspiration, and if they merited historical faith concerning the sentences of Jewish antiquity, could only prove that the Synagogue of the O.T. was in this opinion, and hence that the inspiration of the books written under the second temple was not known to it; but in no way could they prove that inspiration did not exist or was not revealed to the Church by Christ and the Apostles.

b) The testimonies of the Jews, insofar as they merit historical faith, if rightly examined, prove the contrary; they demonstrate namely the persuasion of the Synagogue and the very fact of the charisms of prophecy and of continuous revelation enduring even under the second temple; nay the same is demonstrated by evangelical testimonies.

Josephus recalls altogether many who enjoyed the gift of prophecy and divine addresses. John Hyrcanus son of Simon is said to have obtained the three greatest things, « principate, high priesthood, and prophecy » on the War bk. I. c. 2. n. 8 (ed. Havercamp); the same is narrated to have received divine responses in the temple, Antiq. bk. XIII. c. 10. n. 3. In general such responses to priests are said to have ceased only two hundred years before Josephus wrote his history, therefore about a hundred years before Christ, Antiq. bk. III. c. 8. n. 9.¹⁶ Others distinguished by the gift of prophecy are recalled under the second temple, e.g. Judas the Essene, « who in his predictions never failed or lied » on the War bk. I. c. 3. n. 5; Samaia Antiq. bk. XV. c. 1. n. 1; Manahem ib. c. 10. n. 5; several of the Essenes (on the War bk. II. c. 8. n. 12), according to the persuasion of the people also the Pharisees Antiq. bk. XVII. c. 2. n. 4. Miracles and supernatural apparitions are narrated in the books of Machabees. Philo was so persuaded of the continuance of the charisms and namely of inspiration for writing that he even believed the LXX interpreters to have been inspired (see above p. 324). The Talmudic and Rabbinic writers themselves are unanimous in asserting the degree of prophecy and divine manifestation in the times of the second temple, which they call « the daughter of the voice »; cf. Treatise on Trad. p. 311 note, and Malou on the Reading of Scripture in the vulgar tongue T. II. p. 42 sq.

In the Gospel itself, to say nothing of Zachary and Elizabeth, Lk. I, there is recalled Simeon a just man, « and the Holy Spirit was in him... and he had received an answer from the Holy Spirit... and he came in the Spirit into the temple »; likewise « Anna the prophetess » Lk. II. 25. 36. Nay it is indicated that the extraordinary charism remained for certain junctures connected with the ordinary ministry of the priesthood, Jn. XI. 51.

c) Finally if there are any testimonies by which it is affirmed that no prophets were sent any more after Zachary, Aggeus and Malachy, they cannot be understood of the extraordinary charism of revelation, prophecy and inspiration taken generally, but must be understood of the public office divinely enjoined on those older prophets of admonishing, confirming, chastising and ruling the people of God with rewards and punishments foretold. In which sense not only did Josephus against Apion II. 8 say that « the succession of prophets after Artaxerxes was not patent and accurate, » but also 1 Mach. IX. 27 seems to indicate the same, where after the death of Judas and Jonathan it is said there was « a tribulation such as there was not from the day that no prophet was seen in Israel » (cf. Joseph. Antiq. bk. XIII. c. 1. n. 1). For the rest all those Protestants must confess that the charism of inspiration endured under the second temple who both concede that the protocanonical books are inspired and at the same time confess that some of the Psalms were written in this age and not before the Machabean times.