Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

The Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries exhibit deficient catalogues of the books of Scripture not as closed canons but as calling to be supplemented.

« With regard to the books of the Old Testament which are not extant in the Hebrew reckoning, the state of the question in the fourth and fifth centuries was this: 1st, several Fathers of that age indicate that there was some controversy about these books among Catholic teachers themselves; yet 2nd, no Father by a considered judgment ever denied that those books are to be reckoned among the sacred Scriptures; whence the deficient canons of the fourth and fifth centuries do not belong to denial but to the stage of inquiry before a definitive judgment, and have as their scope to embrace only the books admitted by all without controversy as divine, to exclude the certainly non-divine, to designate the controverted — canons which before the sifting of the matter were not closed, but were afterwards, once the matter was sifted, to be supplemented. »

In this thesis we declare the genuine sense of those Fathers who exhibit deficient canons of the Scriptures. And first we shall describe their testimonies themselves, from which it will be manifest that the opinion of those theologians cannot be proved who affirm that all these Fathers wished to report nothing else than, in a merely historical way, the canon of the Hebrews; since the very words of the Fathers most clearly exhibit the controversy that existed among Christians. Then, in the second place, we shall establish certain principles for understanding the true sense of those canons.

I. There are some Fathers who in reality report not the opinion of Christians but only of the Jews concerning the number of the books of Scripture, and who therefore in no way pertain to the present question, nor can they create any difficulty concerning the canon of the Church. First of all, besides Melito and Origen (th. XII, n. I), Epiphanius is to be set apart from the register of Fathers who could create difficulty; he professes, in Haeres. VIII, n. 6 and in the book De ponder. ac mensur., nn. 4, 22, 23, that he is describing the canon as received by the Jews. But in Haeres. LXXVI, confut. 5, T. I, p. 941, he only summarily names the twenty-seven books of the Old Testament, and with them the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and then in confusion "all the divine Scriptures universally." Hilary too is to be set apart: he does not treat directly of the canon of the Scriptures, but of the mystical signification and fullness of the number 22 according to the Hebrew letters, and on that occasion describes the 22 books of the Hebrews, as he had received from Origen how they are numbered among them. So far is he from the opinion that this were a full numbering of all the divine books, that, if the number of the Greek and Latin letters be assumed, he notes that the two books of Tobias and Judith can be added to those 22 to complete the number 24 (Hilar., praefat. in Pss., n. 15, T. I, p. 10).

There remain those who are thought to create the chief difficulty, from the fourth and early fifth century: Athanasius, in the festal letter, T. I, p. 961, ed. Maur., Paris 1698; Gregory Nazianzen, carm. 12, al. 34, T. II, p. 259, ed. Maur.; Amphilochius, in the iambics to Seleucus, ibid., p. 1103; Cyril of Jerusalem, catech. IV, n. 33 ff.; the Synopsis attributed to Athanasius (among his Works, T. II, p. 126); Apostolic Canon 85 (al. 84 or 76; Coteler., PP. App., T. I, p. 448; Hard., Concil. I, p. 30); the Council of Laodicea, can. 60 (Hard. I, p. 791); Jerome, Preface to the books of Solomon (cf. the Prologus galeatus, the Prefaces to Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Paralipomenon, the Prologue to Jeremias); Rufinus, De Symbolo, nn. 37, 38.

Since it matters to have their very words before our eyes, I shall transcribe the principal testimonies.

Athanasius, in the place cited, speaks thus¹. « Since I fear lest some ... hereafter begin to stumble upon the books called apocryphal, deceived by the likeness of their titles to the genuine books, ... I write to admonish, for the necessity and profit of the Church ... I shall use the form of the Evangelist Luke, saying with him: since some have attempted to draw up for themselves the things called apocrypha, and to mix these with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have full persuasion, as they handed down to the Fathers, who from the beginning were themselves eyewitnesses and ministers of the word; it has seemed good to me also ... to set forth in order the books set in the canon, both handed down and believed divine ... There are therefore of the Old Testament 22 books in all; for that there are so many letters too among the Hebrews is traditionally said, as I have heard. In order and by name they are severally as follows. First Genesis ... Judges and after him Ruth; again in order the four books of Kings, of which the first and second are reckoned into one book, the third and fourth likewise into one ... The twelve Prophets (the minor) reckoned into one book; then Isaias, Jeremias and with him Baruch; the Lamentations, the Epistle ... Thus far the books of the Old Testament are set forth. » He numbers, that is, all the protocanonical books, the book of Esther excepted and the book of Baruch added. Then he sets down the catalogue of all the books of the New Testament and concludes: « These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be filled with their utterances; in these alone the doctrine of piety is announced; let no one add to them, nor take anything away from them. Concerning these the Lord put the Sadducees to shame ... But for the sake of greater accuracy I necessarily add also in writing this: that there are also other books besides these, not indeed brought into the canon, but designated by the Fathers to be read by those newly approaching and wishing to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobias, and the teaching called of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But, beloved, while both those are in the canon and these are read, nowhere is mention made of the apocrypha; they are an invention of heretics ... that, by putting forward as it were ancient writings, they may have occasion to deceive the simple. »

The Athanasian Synopsis, in numbering the books, follows the genuine Athanasius himself. Some things, however, are to be observed severally concerning it. At the very outset it declares that the discourse is of the books of Scripture that are in the hands of Christians. « The whole Scripture of us Christians is divinely inspired; but it has not indefinite books; it has definite books, comprehended in a fixed canon. » It then numbers 22 books as Athanasius does, indicating the beginning of each, from which we see that the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel and Esther are not distinguished from the protocanonical parts; for the book of Daniel begins with the history of Susanna (Vulg., ch. XIII), the book of Esther with the dream of Mardochai (Vulg., ch. XI, v. 2); the former is placed wholly among the 22, the latter, as in Athanasius, wholly outside that number among the books « which are not indeed in the canon but are only read, » and « which are contradicted » (l. c., pp. 168, 201). There is nevertheless added the notice on p. 129 that « according to some of the ancients this book of Esther is reckoned among the canonical books among the Hebrews; » therefore, once it is admitted into the canon, the book of Ruth must be joined with the book of Judges, that the number 22 may remain. In the enumeration it does not name the book of Baruch, but in the analysis subjoined to the catalogue it reckons on p. 167, with Jeremias, « both Baruch and the Lamentations and the Epistle; » whence it becomes manifest that in the catalogue all these things are comprehended under the name of Jeremias.

After the books placed in the canon there follows a double further order, of both the Old and the New Testament: there are set down, namely, a) the books that are contradicted (ἀντιλεγόμενοι), b) the apocryphal.

To the controverted books, or ἀντιλεγομενους, belong « the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobias. With these are also numbered the following: the four books of Machabees, the Ptolemaics, the Psalms and Canticle of Solomon, Susanna. These are the controverted books of the Old Testament. » There follows the class of the apocrypha, among which are « the books falsely inscribed with the names of the prophet Sophonias, of Zacharias the father of John, of Baruch, of Habacuc, of Ezechiel, of Daniel » (ψευδεπιγραφα)².

Gregory Nazianzen and Amphilochius — if the poem to Seleucus is Amphilochius's and not itself Gregory's too — warn first of all, like Athanasius and the author of the Synopsis, that they are marking out the catalogue of the sacred books, that the faithful may be on guard against apocrypha: of those books, I say, which are now certainly known to be in the canon. Thus Gregory: « lest thou be deceived in mind by foreign books; for there are many corrupt figments under false titles; receive, friend, from me this number of books, which have been inserted by a definitive judgment » τον ἐγκριτον ἀριθμον. He numbers the same 22 as Athanasius, himself likewise omitting the book of Esther, and in the New Testament reckons all, the Apocalypse omitted. Then he concludes: « thou hast them all; if there is anything besides these, it is not among the genuine Scriptures » (οὐκ ἐν γνησιαις). In the poem to Seleucus there is the same numbering of the Scriptures; the book of Esther, however, is said to be placed by some in the canon as certain, τινες προσεγκρινουσι; among the books of the New Testament a controversy is indicated concerning the Epistles to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and concerning the Apocalypse; the Epistle of James, however, is numbered among the indubitable Scriptures. Conclusion: « this most certain canon shall have been of the divinely inspired Scriptures » οὕτος ἀψευδεστατος κανων ἂν εἴη των θεοπνευστων γραφων.

Cyril of Jerusalem, in exactly the same way as the Fathers hitherto commemorated, signifies these two things: namely, that in reckoning the catalogue of the sacred books he set before himself as scope to fortify the catechumens against apocrypha, and to number no others than the books admitted by the unanimous consensus of all. « Learn with diligence from the Church itself which are the books of the Old Testament and which of the New; and read nothing apocryphal. Thou who knowest not what is confessed among all, why dost thou labour in vain concerning doubtful things³? Read the divine Scriptures, those 22 books of the Old Testament translated by the Seventy-two interpreters ... Read these 22 books, but have nothing in common with apocrypha. These alone meditate with diligence, which we also read in the Church with full assurance (μετα παρρησίας). Much wiser and more religious than thou were the Apostles and the ancient Bishops, the rulers of the Church, who handed them down. Thou therefore, since thou art a son of the Church, remove not the landmarks. » There follows the reckoning of the books of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew mode of numbering; with Jeremias, however, he places as one book « Baruch and the Lamentations and the Epistle, » as we saw done by Athanasius. He numbers Esther among the 22 canonical books, and therefore, to preserve the number, joins Ruth with Judges into one. In the New Testament he places all except the Apocalypse. He concludes: « let all the rest stand outside in the second place, and what is not read in the Church, that read not even privately, as thou hast now heard. » Cyril indicates, that is, what other Fathers of that age distinctly teach: that there are three orders of books — in the first place the 22 from the Hebrew canon, in the second place the other books to be read, thirdly the apocrypha, which are not read in the Church and are not to be read even privately. What Touttée, the editor of Cyril's Works, says — that in the second place, ἐν δευτέρῳ, is the same as in no place — is both absurd of itself and in no way proved by the examples adduced by him, and is repugnant both to the doctrine of all the Fathers of that age and to the practice of all the Churches and to the opinion of Cyril himself, who in this very work of the catecheses uses the books placed outside the number 22 as sacred Scripture (see p. 412).

Jerome, in the Prologus galeatus, reckons only the books of the Old Testament that are still extant in the Hebrew text, all of which he had then already formed the plan of turning into Latin. « With these books, therefore, which survive in Hebrew, this prologue, » he says, « is as a helmeted beginning, that we may know that whatever is outside these is to be set among the apocrypha. Therefore the Wisdom commonly inscribed Solomon's, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias and the Shepherd⁴ are not in the canon. The first book of Machabees I found in Hebrew; the second is Greek, as can also be proved from its very style. These things being so, I beseech thee, reader, that thou deem not my labour a reproach of the ancients. » Those books, therefore, which are found among the Hebrew Scriptures, and in the reckoning even of the Hebrews, are said by St. Jerome to be in the canon; those, however, which are indeed in ecclesiastical use but outside that number, are said to be apocryphal — not absolutely, but by comparison with that canon, i.e., not comprehended in that number. That the name apocryphal must here be understood in this relative sense, with respect to the canon of the books that are admitted even by the Hebrews and nowhere called in doubt, is plain both from the context and from the added admonition, lest anyone deem this labour, in which he turns only the Hebrew books, a reproach of the ancients. For by these words it is sufficiently indicated that among Christians, from the earliest antiquity, this distinction among the books had not been acknowledged. The same is then plainly evident from the manner in which Jerome himself uses the books placed outside the Jewish canon (pp. 413 ff.), and finally from the express attestation by which the holy doctor himself confirms, in the prologue to the books of Solomon, that these books were in use in the Christian Church.

In this prologue to the books of Solomon he has at once before his eyes the canon of the Jews and the use of the Church, and tries to reconcile the discrepancy between the two. After indicating that the books of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom are not admitted among the Hebrew Scriptures, he subjoins the following. « As therefore the Church indeed reads the books of Judith and Tobias and of the Machabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so too it reads these two volumes for the edification of the people, not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas. If for anyone the edition of the Seventy interpreters is more pleasing, he has it from us, once emended; for we forge nothing new so as to destroy the old. » These books, that is, the Church has them all in its reading, since it received them all as handed down to it in the Greek Alexandrian ecclesiastical edition; yet it did not receive them in that canon which embraces only the Hebrew Scriptures. Further, from this very defect of the books in the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, questions arose at that time among some concerning their equal authority; whence Jerome (Prolog. in ll. Salom. iuxta LXX, T. X, p. 436) calls them doubtful books in comparison with the certain, such as the Hebrew Scriptures were. « In Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, » he says, « I have restrained my pen, desiring only to emend for you the canonical Scriptures, and to commend my zeal to the certain rather than to the doubtful. » Hence it came about that they could not everywhere and among all be adduced with equal confidence for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas. Augustine himself, who certainly held all these books in the canon of the African Church, nevertheless confesses, the question not yet being fully cleared, that « they are adduced against contradictors not with such firmness, which are not written in the canon of the Jews » (Civ. Dei XVII, ch. 20, n. 1); and he confesses this while at the same time attesting that the same books « merited to be received into authority from of old by the Church, especially the Western. »

From what has been said it is clear that the books are called apocryphal by Jerome in the Prologus galeatus in a far different sense than in several other places, where he plainly repudiates apocryphal Scriptures. When in the Prologue to Matthew (T. VII, p. 6) he calls « the dirges of the apocrypha, to be sung to dead heretics rather than to living churchmen, » he treats of the apocrypha of the Gospel; when in Is. LXIV, 4 (T. IV, p. 761) and against Rufinus, bk. II, n. 25 (T. II, p. 619), he commands: « let the dotings of the apocrypha be silent, » he has in view apocryphal books such as were the « Ascension of Isaias » and the « Apocalypse of Elias. »

In like manner he speaks of Pseudo-Esdras in the Prologue to Esdras and against Vigilantius, n. 7; of the Gospel of James against Helvidius, n. 8; of the apocryphal books inscribed with the names of Patriarchs and Prophets against Rufinus (T. II, p. 523), against Vigilantius in the place cited, in Eph. V, 30 (T. VII, p. 659). Plainly, therefore, he erred who said that all these reprehensions of the apocrypha pertain also to those things that are called apocryphal in the Prologus galeatus (Tübingen Quarterly, 1839, p. 291).

Thou seest that with St. Jerome, in nearly the same way as with the other Fathers of this age and opinion, three classes of books are distinguished: those that are in the Hebrew canon and certain to all; those that are read and are in ecclesiastical use, but are not in the Hebrew canon, and for this reason doubtful and, by comparison with the Hebrew canon, apocryphal; finally those that certainly do not pertain to the Scriptures, but are apocryphal to be repudiated.

Rufinus has the same things as the Greek Fathers cited a little before and as Jerome. First he says that he wishes to enumerate « the volumes of the New and Old Testament which, according to the Tradition of the forefathers, are believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit himself and handed down to the Churches of Christ; » which assertion, prefixed to the enumeration of the double order of books handed down to the Church, seems to pertain altogether to each order. There follows the catalogue of the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, and, with none removed, of all the books of the New Testament, with the conclusion: « These are the things which the Fathers have concluded within the canon, and from which they wished the assertions of our faith to stand. » The Fathers here named cannot be others than those of the fourth century whom we have named. Rufinus proceeds: « It is to be known, however, that there are also other books which were called by our forefathers not canonical but ecclesiastical, that is, the Wisdom called Solomon's, and the other Wisdom called of the son of Sirach ... Of the same order is the little book of Tobias, and Judith, and the books of the Machabees ... All these they wished indeed to be read in the Churches, yet not to be brought forward for confirming the authority of the faith from them. But the rest of the writings they named apocryphal, which they did not wish to be read in the Churches. »

Where, before Rufinus, the controverted books were called « ecclesiastical » by our forefathers in this express name, by way of distinction from the canonical books set outside controversy, does not appear. Rufinus seems to have had before his eyes the distinction of Eusebius, a writer very well known to him, whose history he had turned into Latin; from Eusebius, therefore, the explanation of this appellation must be sought. He distinguishes the canonical Scriptures, which were never called into controversy, and the Scriptures concerning which there is doubt on the part of some, which nevertheless « are public in very many Churches, » « are approved by very many, » which « are known to very many ecclesiastical men » (Euseb., H. E., bk. III, chs. 25, 31). The distinction of Rufinus into canonical and ecclesiastical books thus comes back to that other one, into the ὁμολογουμενους books, concerning which there never was any doubt, and into the ἀντιλεγομενους books, which, though they were in public use as sacred Scripture, were nevertheless called into question by some.

There remain the two canons, the Laodicean 60th and the last among the apostolic. The Laodicean — whether it be genuine of this Council, celebrated after the middle of the fourth century, or be supposititious to it⁵ — differs in nothing from what we have adduced from the other Greek Fathers of this age. First, that is, the apocryphal books are severely proscribed; then are reckoned the books « which ought to be read of the Old Testament, » 22 according to the Hebrew numbering. It joins, however, as we saw done in Athanasius and Cyril, in one book with Jeremias « Baruch and the Threni and the Epistles. » In the New Testament, in agreement with Gregory Nazianzen and Cyril of Jerusalem, it reckons all except the Apocalypse.

The last among the so-called apostolic canons — and, as more recent scholars agree, added to the rest last even in time — is of no authority, whether regarded dogmatically or historically. It has no dogmatic authority: for in the first place these apostolic canons, if not by Gelasius, certainly by Pope Hormisdas (in the Decree concerning books to be received), were reckoned among the apocryphal books. Besides, although the first fifty, rendered into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus, were gradually received even in the Western Church, the latter thirty-five were never admitted. It is of no authority historically, at least if it be taken as a reckoning of the books of sacred Scripture, and much more if it be understood as a full reckoning. For in this canon there are many things altogether singular, never seen in any other catalogue of the sacred books, which must be attributed to the special circumstances or singular genius of its author, whoever he was. Of this sort are: that, although it omits the other deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, it yet sets down three books of Machabees, and according to some codices also Judith in the midst of the protocanonical books; that outside the number of the protocanonical books, where others set the deuterocanonical books among the books to be read, it mentions only the book of Ecclesiasticus, omitting even the book of Wisdom — an unheard-of licence. Most strange of all is that among the books of the New Testament, and that before the protocanonical book of Acts, it sets the two Epistles of Clement and the eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions.

For the rest, the Greeks themselves, who received this canon too in their Trullan Council as proceeding from the Apostles, seem to have understood it not as a reckoning of the books of divine Scripture alone, but as a catalogue of the books commended, whether from the books of Scripture or from others of the greatest authority, before the rest for reading; certainly they never held it as a full canon of the books of Scripture. For not only did they in the Trullan Council itself receive from the African synods the books passed over in this apostolic canon (above, p. 435); but they also expressly rejected the Apostolic Constitutions as interpolated by heretics, and neither these nor the Epistles of Clement did the Greek Church ever hold as parts of sacred Scripture.

II. With all the divergent catalogues of the books in the hands of the Eastern teachers of that time expounded — which catalogues neither agree among themselves, nor accord with the canon of the Western Church nor with the common use of the whole Church — now at last there arises for us the opportunity, indeed the necessity, of comparing these deficient canons with the constant practice of the whole Church, these teachers themselves not excepted, in the use of the sacred books, and likewise with the unanimous doctrine of the Western Church and with the subsequent universal consensus. For from this comparison there will follow certain principles, without which the true sense of those same divergent canons cannot be understood and vindicated.

1st Principle. By the name canon and by the name canonical books those Fathers understood the index of those books, and those 22 books of the Hebrews, which even then were confessed among all, and concerning which no question had been raised (ἔμολογούμενοι). Hence the books which had then begun to be called into controversy (ἀντιλεγόμενοι) were indeed to be set outside the canon in this understood sense; yet it was not therefore simply denied that they pertain to divine Scripture; but it was only indicated that a question had been raised concerning them, and consequently that they do not pertain to the books whose equal authority with the rest was established among all beyond controversy⁶.

This sense of the canons is proved in many ways. For a) Eusebius, who more expressly than the rest declared the sense of the division of the books into ὁμολογουμενους and ἀντιλεγομενους, and after whom the rest followed that division, holds these two as synonymous: that a book be canonical, or be confessed among all; and likewise that a book be outside the canon, and be indeed approved and acknowledged by many, but nevertheless called into controversy by some. Thus in bk. III, ch. 3, he promises the testimonies of the ancients « concerning the Scriptures that are canonical and confessed among all » (περι των ἐνδιαθηκων και ὁμολογουμενων γραφων); in the same place he says that the second Epistle of Peter is « not canonical, yet, as profitable, is frequented by many with the rest of the Scriptures; » in bk. III, ch. 25, he sets in mutual opposition « the Scriptures confessed among all, and other non-canonical ones that are contradicted, but which nevertheless are acknowledged by very many ecclesiastical men; » in the same place he mentions Scriptures « that are contradicted, but which nevertheless are approved by very many » (cf. ch. 31). On the contrary, the apocryphal books in the same place, ch. 3, are writings « which we know in no way to have been handed down among Catholics » οὐδ' ὅλως ἴσμεν ἐν καθολικοῖς παραδεδομένα.

b) That the names canon and canonical Scripture were customarily used even by the Latin Fathers of that age in the stricter signification, of the books that are in the Hebrew canon — without its therefore being understood that canonical authority among Christians was denied to the other books — is manifest from St. Augustine (Civ. Dei XVIII, ch. 36). « With the temple restored, » he says, « there were not kings but princes down to Aristobulus, the reckoning of whose times is found not in the holy Scriptures that are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Machabees, which not the Jews but the Church holds as canonical. »

c) Those same Eastern Fathers declare that in the first order — which, after the archetype of the Hebrew reckoning exhibited by Origen, they call the canon — they wished to comprehend only those books which had been called into question by no one: « concerning which there is full persuasion, » as Athanasius says; « which are confessed among all (ὁμολογούμενοι), » as is found in Cyril and in the Athanasian Synopsis; « which have been inserted by definitive judgment » (ἔγκριτοι)⁷, as in Nazianzen; « whose canon is most certain, » as in Amphilochius; books that are certain in opposition to the doubtful, as in Jerome.

d) The matter is set beyond all doubt by the manner in which all these Fathers used the books they set outside the canon, as pertaining to sacred Scripture by the common persuasion of the Church. See above, th. X. The 2nd Principle follows from the foregoing. Canons of this kind have indeed the purpose of excluding the apocryphal books from the register of the sacred Scriptures; but the books of the second order, the ἀντιλεγόμενους, the ecclesiastical and those read in the Church, they by no means exclude as by a certain and definitive judgment not pertaining to sacred Scripture. The excluding locutions added to the books comprehended in the solemn number of the twenty-two — when it is said that « in these alone is the doctrine of piety, » that « these alone are the genuine Scripture, » that « these alone are to be read by the faithful » — must therefore be understood in opposition to the apocryphal books, not to the books of the second class, which, the question not yet sifted, were doubtful⁸.

This is established a) from the very nature of the diversity between books certainly divine, books doubtful — or rather, held divine by common ecclesiastical custom, yet called in doubt by some — and books certainly not divine. It is established b) from the practice of these same Fathers, who most frequently used these books as divine Scriptures, no otherwise than the protocanonical. It is established c) from the express declaration of the Fathers in these very catalogues, in which they say that the scope set before themselves is to fortify the faithful against the apocryphal books thrust upon them on all sides by heretics.

Wherefore between the complete canon and those deficient canons there is no opposition of contradiction, but only of diversity — as between the perfect and what is to be perfected and in its own time to be supplemented. Thus Cassiodorus, having commemorated the diverse incomplete indices of Hilary, Epiphanius, Jerome, Rufinus on the one part, and the complete canon of the ecclesiastical codices and of Augustine on the other, most truly observes: « The Fathers said things not contrary but diverse, so that they seem not to impugn but rather to expound one another; » as also between the definitions of Councils there is diversity but no contradiction (Divin. institut., ch. 14). Likewise without contradiction could the Trullan Council receive, and the Greeks after it insert into their Corpus of Law, in one series, diverse canons — the incomplete one of the Council of Laodicea and the complete one of the African Councils (in the Nomocanon of Photius, in Mai, Spicil. Rom., T. III, P. II, p. 131) — namely, that the one might be supplemented by the other. The 3rd Principle likewise follows from the first. When some Fathers, as Jerome and Rufinus, say that these books of the second order are indeed read for the edification of the people, yet are not to be brought forward for confirming the authority of the faith, this must be understood as said not because their inferior authority already stood established, but because at that age it was not yet established to all that their authority was equal with the rest of the books of Scripture. Those books were therefore even then sufficiently confirmed by the universal practice of the Church that they could safely be brought forward to the faithful as sacred Scripture and utterances of God and oracles of the Holy Spirit; yet they were not among all so far outside controversy that they could polemicly be employed with the same firmness even against contradictors. This sense is plain both from the proper nature of a book that has been called into question whether it be certainly a book of inspired Scripture — and is therefore ἀντιλεγόμενος or controverted — and most evidently from the manner in which those same Fathers used these books even for confirming dogmas. Cf. above, pp. 412, 414, 417.

Hence it is no wonder that even those Fathers who themselves held these books without doubting among the Scriptures nevertheless commended some caution in their polemical use, so long as the matter was not yet everywhere cleared and no solemn judgment had been passed upon it. Thus Augustine confesses, as we saw a little before, that « what is not written in the canon of the Jews is adduced against contradictors not with such firmness » (Civ. Dei XVII, ch. 20, n. 1)⁹. In that very place (On Christian Doctrine, bk. II, ch. 8, n. 12), where he exhibits the canon of the sacred books according to the consensus of the Churches of Africa, indeed of the whole Latin Church, he at the same time indicates that the consensus concerning all the books is not everywhere equal, and therefore, so long as that state of the question remains, some discrimination is to be observed in the polemical and dogmatic use of the « canonical Scriptures »: that the diligent searcher « prefer those received by all Catholic Churches to those which some do not receive; but among those not received by all, prefer those which the more numerous and weightier receive, [and postpone] those held by fewer Churches and of lesser authority. »

St. Augustine by the name canonical Scripture never understood anything else than the divinely inspired books, and therefore of altogether divine authority, in which there cannot be degrees, so that one book of canonical Scripture be deemed of greater, another of lesser authority. God himself, he says, « founded the Scripture which is called canonical, of the most eminent authority » (Civ. Dei XI, 3). « Thus do all things agree among themselves in canonical authority, that they are believed, as uttered as it were with one mouth, with most just and most prudent piety » (against Faustus XI, chs. 5, 6; cf. ep. 82 [al. 19], n. 3, to Jerome).

When therefore, from the place cited (On Christian Doctrine II, ch. 8, nn. 12–14), the third difficulty is opposed — that Augustine among the very books he calls canonical discerns some of greater, some of lesser authority — the reply must be given by distinguishing. That he acknowledges a discrimination in the inherent authority of the canonical books, so as to have thought some of them to be of lesser authority and yet to be able to be called canonical books — I deny. The reason for the denial is established from what was said a little before. That he indicates a discrimination in the manner in which the canonical books become known — I subdistinguish: as though to Augustine himself all the canonical books he enumerates had not become sufficiently known as canonical, or the Tradition of the Churches of Africa and of the whole Western Church were not consentient and constant — I deny; that Augustine indicates, historically and for polemical use, a discrimination in the manner in which some books became known by the consensus of all, others not without the still then obtaining contradiction of some — I concede.

The reason for this denial and concession is plain from the very reading of Augustine's place. He admonishes first of all that the diligent searcher of the divine Scriptures read the whole Scriptures — « those at least which are called canonical. » He then sets forth the whole canon of the Scriptures, embracing all and only those books which we still have now in the canon of the Catholic Church. He concludes: « in all these books those who fear God and are meek in piety seek the will of God. » Augustine therefore testifies that all these books are set in the canon of the Church, that they are canonical Scriptures — which appellation is not ambiguous, but with a fixed and rated signification designates « Scriptures of the most eminent authority, » as is established from what was said. Nevertheless, because the holy teacher knew that doubts had been stirred up in places concerning some of these books, whether they be canonical Scriptures, he neither wished nor was able to condemn, as heretical, that hesitation and dissension so long as it was tolerated in the Church. Whence, in that state of the question, it had indeed to be confessed that the books elsewhere less certain « are adduced against contradictors not with such firmness. » On this matter the diligent searcher of the Scriptures had to be admonished and taught: « He will therefore hold this measure in the canonical Scriptures, that he prefer those received by all Catholic Churches to those which some do not receive, » etc.

From this context it is at the same time plain that in this place, as elsewhere (against the Epistle of Manichaeus, n. 6, and often against Faustus), there is established by Augustine the principle that the canonical Scriptures are to be known and received only by the authority of the Catholic Church. With this principle of Augustine and of the rest of the Fathers once admitted, every doubt concerning the deuterocanonical books was long ago removed and the case finished; would that error too might sometime be finished. Cf. th. IX, n. I.

Partly to indicate this ambiguity, which once existed among the Eastern teachers, partly in the sense in which Augustine in the place cited above set apart the books of Machabees from the canonical Scriptures, Gregory the Great could still (Moral., bk. XIX, ch. 21, n. 34), citing the deed of Eleazar from 1 Mach. VI. 46, distinguish the same books of Mach. from the canonical Scriptures, where he says: « we do not act out of order if from books, though not canonical, yet published for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. » Certainly in the Roman Church, especially after the decrees of Innocent, Gelasius, Hormisdas, there could be doubt for no one that the books of Mach. are among the canonical books of the Church.¹⁰ Leontius indeed reckons all the books of the New Testament; but of the Old Testament only the 22 that are among the Hebrews, omitting with Athanasius, Nazianzen and others the book of Esther. But he sufficiently indicates his plan: to enumerate not all the Scriptures of the Christians, but in the Old Testament only the books admitted also by the Hebrews. For he reports this canon where he attacks the confutation of the Jews, thus concluding the reckoning: « These books of the Old Testament the Hebrews all receive. These things being so, it is fitting first to set forth the dogmas of the Hebrews, » etc.

Damascene nearly transcribes the words of Epiphanius, where the latter (De ponder. et mensur., n. 4) reckons the books which the Jews admitted into the ark — or, as Tertullian says, into their own bookcase. Likewise Nicephorus took the books of all three classes of the Old Testament — the κεκανονισμενους, ἀντιλεγομενους, ἀποκρυφους — from the Athanasian Synopsis; in the New Testament, however, he transcribed the catalogue of Nazianzen, of Cyril, and of the Laodicean Council, in which the Apocalypse is omitted. Neither Damascene, therefore, nor Nicephorus — who both wrote after the Trullan Council — can be deemed to exhibit the state of the question as it was in the Greek Church of the eighth and ninth centuries. But the one reckons from Epiphanius the books as they are among the Hebrews; the other historically reports the division of the books as it had been registered by those teachers in the fourth and fifth centuries. For who — to say nothing of other things — would persuade himself that still in the ninth century the Apocalypse was called in doubt, or rather was not even numbered among the doubtful books? Because, namely, Nicephorus did not find it in the deficient catalogues of the fourth century which he transcribes, he himself, a faithful historian, omits it too; as conversely in the Old Testament he describes all the books as he found them in his author marked as controverted or apocryphal — although among these there are some monsters of names, about which in the ninth century no one was any longer solicitous.

II. The manner of thinking and speaking of the older Scholastics and of the writers of the middle age, as regards this head of doctrine, demands some special explanation. That in general they clung to the universal use of the Church and to the explicit teaching, as it was explicitly proposed in the African Councils, by St. Augustine and other Fathers, and in the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, we have already shown in thesis XI. Nevertheless it came about, chiefly by the authority of St. Jerome, that many followed his manner of speaking of the canon as the complex of only those books which had been admitted even by the Hebrews. But thenceforth some several masters, in their lucubrations and within the confines of the school — where they aimed at distinguishing what, strictly speaking, already pertained to the defined dogmas of the faith, and what, though common doctrine, did not reach this supreme grade — showed themselves hesitant concerning the very equal authority of these books with the canonical books of the first order, down almost to the times of the Council of Trent. But after the Tridentine decree, and still more after its solemn declaration in the definition of the Vatican Council (Const. I, ch. 2, can. 4), there can among Catholics no longer be any place for doubt.

Those writers of the middle age, therefore, who seem still to number outside the canon the books not admitted among the Hebrews, depend almost solely on the judgments of St. Jerome, to whose prologues most expressly appeal, where the holy teacher called these books apocryphal, not to be brought forward for confirming the dogmas of the faith. Those masters, however, can be divided into a double class.

1st. For the most part, what they read in St. Jerome they combined with the common doctrine and practice of the Church in such a way that by the name canon, according to the genuine sense of Jerome and of the other Fathers, they understood the canon of the books that are also in the hands of the Jews; whence they rightly taught that the other books, though not in the canon, had nevertheless been received by the Church among the sacred Scriptures.

Thus in the twelfth century Peter of Blois, cited above, p. 434.

Peter of Cluny, surnamed the Venerable, distinguishes indeed the manner of proving the books of the Scripture of the Old Testament: that those which were in the canon of the Jews are demonstrated not only by the Tradition of Christians but also by the codices and testimony of the Jews, while the others are demonstrated by the authority of the Church. The former « not only with Christians but with the very Jewish writings bearing witness ... are of equal authority ... There remain after these authentic [books] of the Church; yet they were not among the twenty-two in the Hebrew canon, » whence Gregory, still discharging the office of Apocrisiarius at Constantinople when he wrote these things, could have before his eyes the distinction of the Easterns, of Jerome and Rufinus, and use the name canonical book in the sense in which it had been used by them.