Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

The origin of the doubts concerning the deuterocanonical books of the N. T. is explained.

« If any doubt concerning some books of the New Testament arose in the 3rd and 4th century, since those same books had already been received in the Church by manifest Tradition, it had its cause and origin in certain circumstances, so that it could neither interrupt the constancy of Tradition nor impair its certainty, and soon, already in the 5th century, it yielded entirely to universal agreement. »

We saw in th. X that the doubts concerning the deuterocanonical books of the O. T., which indeed had all together been handed down by the Apostles to the Church, had one and the same origin from the comparison of the Scriptures of the Church with the Hebrew reckoning. As for the books of the N. T., which the Apostles did not find already written but themselves wrote gradually in the course of a longer time (between the year 32 and 96 of the vulgar era), it is easily understood that they were not all handed down to all the Churches at once, and that several, more or fewer, could for some not very long time remain unknown to some Churches. But it is harder to explain how in the 3rd century, after the collection of the sacred Scriptures had long since been completed and confirmed by daily use, as is openly gathered from the very accounts of the doubts, the books of which we treat could nevertheless be called into controversy within the bounds of the Church. The declaration of the origin of the doubts will at the same time demonstrate their frail foundation, and thereby the firmness and certainty of Tradition will shine forth the more.

If those doubts recorded in the 3rd century are examined more deeply, it appears that their origin is to be traced chiefly to a double source: to the application of the negative criterion from the rarity of citations among the more ancient writers, and to the caution and a certain economy introduced on account of the abuse of the erring in the interpretation of the doctrine contained in the books. They applied the negative criterion chiefly to the Catholic epistles; the faulty or false interpretation of the doctrine of the books gave rise first to the less frequent use of the same in some Churches, and then to doubt concerning the writer and at last concerning the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Apocalypse. First, therefore, we shall speak of the Catholic epistles, then of the Ep. to the Heb. and of the Apocalypse.

I. Although those critical doctors of the 3rd and 4th century found all the Catholic epistles in one collection of the septenary number, and never disjoined, and saw without distinction this whole collection and the single epistles thereof in public use in the Churches, they nevertheless thought that Tradition was to be sought above all in the citations of the ancient writers; of which most diligent inquiry we have an example in Eusebius. But since moreover they took account only of express citations, where they found these to have been made rarely and by few, they judged this a sufficient reason not indeed for denying the genuineness and consequently the canonical authority of the book, but yet for doubting whether it were certainly established; and therefore they reckoned the book not in the first but in the second class among the ἀντιλεγόμενους. « It is to be known, says Eusebius of the Epistle of James, that it is suspected of supposition. » How can this suspicion fall upon an epistle which he himself confesses to be first in order among the Catholic? Behold the reason: « namely not many of the ancients have mentioned it, as neither that which is called Jude's, and it too is of the seven so called Catholic » Euseb. II. 23. But who does not see that this negative reason is of no value, if Tradition can be established otherwise also than from frequency of citations, and if the rarity of citations cannot be shown to have had its cause in ignorance of the books or in denial of their canonical authority?

1°. The negative argument, even if the hypothesis were most true, would effect only this, that Tradition could not be proved by express testimonies of the ancients, which certainly does not suffice to render it doubtful, if it is proved by other certain arguments and indications. But the public use of the Churches and the immemorial comprehension of these epistles among the sacred Scriptures — which use and which comprehension Eusebius himself attests — and hence the ever vigorous and constant persuasion of the Church, demonstrate the apostolic Tradition more effectively and more certainly than single citations found here and there in the writings of the ancients.

2°. The negative argument has absolutely no force, unless it be demonstrated that the circumstances were such, and such the character of the books in question, that the writers must necessarily have appealed to such a book, if they had acknowledged its authority. For unless the circumstances are so, nothing can ever be inferred from silence as to what the writer thought of the book and its authority. But in general such circumstances and such a character of a book can only very rarely be demonstrated; in particular, in the present case some of these books are so constituted that it would rather be vehemently to be wondered at if frequent citations of them occurred among the PP. of the first age. For how shouldst thou expect frequent necessity or opportunity of appealing to epistles consisting of altogether few verses, and moreover agreeing in matter and sentiments almost with other books, as are the Epistle of Jude coinciding with 2 Pet. II, and the two of John, of which the second almost in its entirety, the third insofar as it does not treat of private persons, agrees with the first Epistle of John?

3°. The hypothesis itself is not everywhere true, if it be not restricted to express citations alone but extended to the use of these epistles generally among the ancient Fathers. At least they so transferred matter and words from these epistles into their writings that from those Fathers the constant and common use of the Church from the apostolic age is confirmed (see above p. 491 sq.). So far is it that anything can be inferred from silence against the universal custom and the Tradition living in the practice of the Church.

4°. Moreover those very men who report the doubts arisen confess that the same epistles persevered in the public use of the Churches and were acknowledged by most, and they themselves use them as sacred and apostolic Scriptures. But no one ever reported or explained when, by whom, how books human, nay supposititious, could have been thrust into the divine Scriptures, and adopted among the Scriptures into the constant and public use of the Churches. And indeed such a use cannot be explained except from apostolic Tradition.

5°. Further, the genuineness of the Tradition is set beyond all doubt by the universal consensus of all the Churches in the time following. For already in the 4th and 5th century the catalogues, almost unanimous — except very few Eastern ones (of Amphilochius, of the Synopsis of Chrysostom) which follow Eusebius — have all the epistles among the ὁμολογούμενας, as we saw above pp. 495, 496. Henceforth indeed scarcely any traces of doubt appear, unless perhaps in the far East among the Syrians, whence Junilius Africanus (de Partibus divin. legis l. I, c. 6) had received from his master Paul of the school of Nisibis notice of some controversy regarding these five Catholic epistles — if indeed that be not rather a learned account of the animadversions of Origen and Eusebius than an exposition of the state of the question in the 5th century.

From what has been said it is already sufficiently established that the doubts regarding the Catholic epistles were not only not universal but were restricted to the school, which could neither disturb the use in the public life of the Church nor interpolate the constancy of Tradition.

II. Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews, Eusebius, bk. III, ch. 3; bk. VI, ch. 20, and from him St. Jerome (in Is. VIII, 18, T. IV, p. 125; ad Dardan., ep. 129, n. 3; de viris illustr., articles Paulus, Caius, and elsewhere); St. Augustine (Expos. in Rom. inchoata n. 11; Civ. Dei XVI, 22); then from them Primasius (preface to Heb., though not without irritation against the doubters, Bibl. Max. PP., T. X, p. 246); Isidore (Etym., bk. VI, ch. 2; de Offic., bk. I, ch. 12) report that it was received as Paul's by unanimous consensus among the Churches of the East indeed, yet not by all Westerners. Nay Jerome, in Is. and ad Dardan., ll. cc., says: this epistle « the Latin custom does not receive among the canonical Scriptures »; also according to Augustine's opinion, in Rom., l. c., because Paul's name is not prefixed, « some feared to receive it into the canon of the Scriptures. »

The matter is very strange; so many after Eusebius speak of men who contradict this epistle, and those men nowhere appear. They who narrate this receive it themselves without any doubt; there is no catalogue, whether Western or Eastern, which does not reckon it with the rest of Paul's epistles among the Scriptures received unanimously — with the sole exception of the Muratorian fragment, from which itself what its author thought is not clear; no Catholic writer can be brought forward whose works survive and can be examined by us, who called the canonical authority of the epistle into doubt¹; innumerable cite it, not only Easterners but Westerners in the age of Jerome and Augustine, without any doubt as a book of Scripture and as the epistle of Paul the Apostle. Thou wouldst almost suspect that Eusebius erred, and the rest simply repeated his narrative. Yet on closer inspection it cannot be denied that there was a foundation for this narrative; for it appears that in the 3rd and in places still in the 4th century, from which time the heresy of the Montanists and Novatians kept the Church harassed, the Western Fathers used this epistle cautiously. Cyprian never employs it in his writings; Tertullian himself, already a Montanist, although after the manner of his sect he strives to confirm error from it, yet ascribes it not to Paul but to Barnabas (de Pudicit., ch. 20). From this less frequent use, however, doubts could be induced, which yet must be said never to have spread except to few.

It is indeed established by the testimony of the ancients that the Novatians were wont to defend chiefly from Heb. VI, 4, 5, their error by which they asserted that certain sins were withdrawn from the power of the keys and irremissible. This is attested by Epiphanius, Haeres. LIX, n. 2; Jerome, against Jovin., bk. II, n. 3, T. II, p. 325; the author of the book de falsa et vera Poenit., ch. 3 (in the appendix to the Works of Augustine, T. VI); Theodoret, in h. l.; Marcus the Egyptian, opus. III, de Poenit. (Galland. VIII, p. 32); Eulogius of Alexandria (apud Photius, cod. 280). Concerning the Montanists, predecessors of the Novatians, St. Jerome, l. c., indicates the same, and indeed Tertullian, already a Montanist (de Pudicit., ch. 20), presses the same passage for the same error not without vehemence.

Now we see, first, that in the disputation with the Montanist Proclus this epistle « was not numbered » with the rest of Paul's epistles by the presbyter Caius, as Euseb., VI, 20, narrates; or, as St. Jerome expresses Eusebius's narrative more effectively, Caius said it « was not Paul's. » This economy other Catholics seem to have imitated. Certainly Philastrius asserts that it is read less frequently than the rest of Paul's epistles, and brings forward as reason for this the difficulty of some texts, and expressly mentions the danger of the Novatian heresy — which indeed is to be understood as possibly to be feared not from the words of the epistle but from the perverse interpretation of the heretics (Haeres. LX, LXI). « There are read, he says, thirteen epistles of Paul and to the Hebrews sometimes... Because it says Christ made in it (Heb. III, 2), hence it is not read; concerning penance likewise on account of the Novatians. » For the rest, those who deny that the epistle is Paul's Philastrius himself (Haeres. XXXII) counts among heretics; whence it is evident, as we said, that Philastrius ascribed the errors he indicates not to the epistle itself but to the wrestings of the heretics.

The whole history, then, can be reduced to about these heads. a) The most ancient Fathers who treated ex professo of the canonical books and expressly of this epistle teach that it was handed down to the Churches from the first antiquity (παρά τῶν ἀρχίων ἀνδρών Orig.) as a book of Scripture and an epistle of Paul. The Alexandrian doctors, as Clement and Origen, noticed some diversity from the other Pauline epistles, but seasonably reconciled it with the Tradition (above p. 493). b) In the Eastern Churches there was always unanimous consensus both concerning the canonical authority of the epistle and concerning Paul as writer, at least as to matter and sentiments. c) In the West it was always contained among the books of Holy Scripture, and in all Western catalogues equally as Eastern it was numbered among the canonical books. d) Yet on account of the abuse of the Montanists and Novatians, in the 3rd century some Western Catholic writers more willingly abstained from appeals to it; in places it was even read in the Church more cautiously. e) Hence some preferred to ascribe it to another than Paul, relying not on Tradition but on internal arguments; then some also called the canonical authority into question — who could have been neither many nor of great authority, since no writer survives who so thought, but this is handed down to memory solely by others. But such an economy, supervening afterwards from an external occasion, and the doubt of some, could certainly not disturb the apostolic Tradition and the common persuasion.

III. Above we saw that the Apocalypse, by a perpetual series of witnesses from the very disciples of John down to Origen, was held in the Church not only of the West but also of the East among the sacred books, and as the genuine Scripture of John the Apostle. Nor had anything of doubt among Catholics yet become known to Origen; otherwise he would not have placed it with the Gospel and the first epistle among the ὅμολογουμένους books and those received by unanimous consensus, but with the 2nd and 3rd epistles among the books concerning which there was doubt (see above p. 494).

In the last years of Origen, Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, contending that the Scriptures are everywhere to be understood not in a tropical but in an immediate sense, asserted from the Apocalypse the doctrine of the millennial kingdom, having also written a book « against the Allegorists. » Since many in the Arsinoitic prefecture embraced the doctrine of Nepos, and soon after Origen's death the matter verged toward open schism and defection of the Churches (Origen's death occurred in the year 256, the Nepotian schism about the year 264), Dionysius, Origen's successor in ruling the catechetical school and afterwards Bishop of Alexandria, to recall these men from error wrote against Nepos two books « on the Promises, » in the 2nd of which he treated of the Apocalypse. He admitted it indeed as the book of a « prophet » and of a man « holy and divinely inspired » ²; yet from internal arguments, from style and tenor of discourse, by comparison with the Gospel and epistles of John, he judged it to be of another John, not the Evangelist. As to the doctrine of the book, however: « a certain hidden, he says, and altogether admirable sense of the several things I judge to lie concealed. For although I myself do not understand, yet I assume that a deeper sense underlies the words; and these I measure and estimate not by my own judgment, but lending greater faith, I judge them to be more sublime than to be grasped by me. » Dionysius himself, then, agrees with the rest concerning the inspiration and divine authority of the book, doubting only concerning the human writer of the book, who he was. Nay, just as regarding the doctrine of the book he confuted the opinion of Nepos, so concerning the writer and the divinity of the book he wrote the things we have commemorated against the calumniators of the book. For a little before the words cited he narrates thus: « Some of those who were before us (τῖνες τῶν πρό μου), repudiated this book utterly and refuted it, refuting its several chapters and seeking to show it to be without sense and ratiocination (ἀσύλλογιστον)... That no one, not only of the Apostles but of the saints and men of the Church at all, is the author of this writing; that Cerinthus affixed the name of John... to his own work » (apud Euseb., bk. VII, chs. 24, 25).

This was the first heard against the Apocalypse not merely doubt, but full denial and atrocious calumny. Now I say that these calumniators were not men of the Catholic Church but heretics; nevertheless this narrative of Dionysius was the sole reason for Eusebius why he signified that the Apocalypse was not certainly and necessarily to be placed among the ὁμολόγουμενους books (bk. III, ch. 25).

They cannot be Catholics, for such a sentence of Catholics Origen, to say nothing of other reasons, could not have been ignorant of; and if he had known it, he could not have numbered the Apocalypse with the Gospel and the first epistle among the books received by unanimous consensus, in that place where he is wholly engaged in indicating all the doubts that in any way existed concerning the books of Scripture (p. 494). Epiphanius (Haeres. LI, nn. 3, 32 sq.) describes heretics by the name of Alogi (των ἀλογων), who, rejecting all the writings of St. John, ascribed the Apocalypse expressly to Cerinthus, and refuted it as absurd chapter by chapter. Now this narrative of Epiphanius plainly coincides with what Dionysius reports of some who before his age utterly repudiated the Apocalypse, refuting its several chapters as writings without sense and reason. We shall therefore judge that these Alogi, or heretics like them, not men of the Catholic Church, were indicated by Dionysius as repudiators of the sacred book (see Hug, Introduct., T. II, § 184).

The second point which I stated, that Eusebius followed solely this narrative of Dionysius, is altogether evident. For a) in that place where, describing the books of the N. T., he says that the Apocalypse can be placed either among those received by unanimous consensus (ὁμολογουμενους) or among the spurious: « which some repudiate, but others definitively place among those received by unanimous consensus » — in that very place, I say (bk. III, ch. 25), he promises to set forth elsewhere « what the ancients thought concerning it. » But in no other place does he set forth anything concerning the sentence of the ancients about the Apocalypse, except in these chapters 24, 25 of bk. VII, where he reports the narrative of Dionysius. This narrative alone, therefore, contains that sentence of the ancients which was his foundation for affirming that the Apocalypse is reckoned by some among the certainly non-divine and spurious books. b) Only from the narrative, as it stands in Dionysius, can that indeed strange affirmation of Eusebius be explained, when he says the book is to be placed not in the second class among the doubtful, but either in the first among the certain or in the third among the spurious. For this it is necessary that he found no one doubtful concerning the authority of the book, but most asserting it certainly divine, and some utterly rejecting it in altogether the manner found in the narrative of Dionysius. In this Eusebius was deceived, in that he thought those some to have been Catholics.

After Eusebius, in the 4th and 5th century we find it narrated repeatedly that among Easterners the Apocalypse is not received, in nearly the manner in which Westerners were said not to have admitted the Epistle to the Hebrews. « But if the custom of the Latins does not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews among the canonical Scriptures, says St. Jerome, neither do the Churches of the Greeks receive the Apocalypse of John with the same freedom; and yet we receive both, following not the custom of this time but the authority of the ancient writers » (ep. 129, n. 3, ad Dardan.). In fact in some Eastern catalogues of that age it is omitted, or placed among the ἀντιλεγομενους books (above p. 495). Some Fathers too, as Cyril of Jerusalem, abstain from its citations. Nevertheless not only Westerners but also many catalogues of Easterners at the same time continue to reckon it among the ὁμολογουμενους, with no account taken of the doubt brought in, and Greek PP., most in number, weightiest in authority, of the 4th century, employ it without any sign of controversy as a book of Holy Scripture and a book of John the Apostle — so that just as Philastrius in the West (Haeres. XXXII) so Epiphanius in the East (Haeres. LI) knew no other assailants of the Apocalypse than heretics.

Although, therefore, in the 4th century in the East there was not the same unanimous consensus as in the time before the Nepotian schism, yet hesitations of this kind, superinduced late from elsewhere and not from Tradition, could not shake the constancy of Tradition; whence, as concerning the rest of the books of the N. T., so also regarding the Apocalypse after the 5th century no further traces of dissension are found.