William Whitaker · 3 of 89

Chapter II. Concerning the State of the First Question

The books of scripture are called canonical, because they contain the standard and rule of our faith and morals. For the scripture is in the church what the law is in a state, which Aristotle in his Politics calls a canon or rule. As all citizens are bound to live and behave agreeably to the public laws, so Christians should square their faith and conduct by the rule and law of scripture. So, in Eusebius¹, the holy fathers accuse Paul of Samosata of departing from the rule (ἀποστὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ κανόνος), and becoming the author of an heretical opinion. So Tertullian, in his book against Hermogenes², calls the scripture the rule of faith; and Cyprian says, in his discourse upon the baptism of Christ: “One will find that the rules of all doctrine are derived from this scripture; and that, whatever the discipline of the church contains springs hence, and returns hither³.” Chrysostom too, in his 13th Homily upon 2 Corinthians calls scripture the exact balance, and standard, and rule of all things.” For the same reason Augustine affirms, that “whatever belongs to faith and moral life may be found in the scriptures⁴;” and he calls the scripture the scales, in the following passage: “Let us not apply deceitful scales, where we may weigh what we wish, and as we wish; but let us bring God’s own scales from the holy scriptures,” &c.

So Basil calls the sacred doctrine “the canon of rectitude and rule of truth,” which fails in no part of perfection: and Ruffinus, in his exposition of the creed, after enumerating the books of scripture, adds, “These are the books which the fathers included in the canon, and from which they willed that the assertions of our faith should be demonstrated⁵;” and then he subjoins: “From these fountains of the divine word our cups are to be drawn⁶.” Aquinas too lays down, that “the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is called canonical, because it is, as it were, the rule of our intellect⁷.” Hence it plainly appears why the scriptures are called canonical;—because they prescribe to us what we must believe, and how we ought to live: so that we should refer to this test our whole faith and life, as the mason or architect squares his work by the line and plummet. Hence, too, we may perceive that the scripture is perfect, since otherwise the title of canon or rule could hardly be applied to it; upon which point we shall have to speak under the sixth question.

Now these books, which are called canonical, are comprised in the old and new Testaments, and are therefore styled Testamentary. So Eusebius calls these books ἐνδιαθήκους⁸; and Nicephorus often uses the same term. Some also call them διαθηκογράφους. The question, then, between us and the papists is, What books are to be esteemed canonical and testamentary, Concerning many, and indeed the principal ones, we are agreed: concerning some we are at variance. But, in order that the true state of this question may be understood, we must see, in the first place, what the council of Trent hath determined upon this subject. Its words are as follows: “The synod hath deemed it fitting that a catalogue of the sacred books should be subjoined to this decree, lest any should have occasion to doubt what books are received by it⁹” Then it recites the books which are truly canonical, and are received by us without any hesitation. But it subjoins others which we do not acknowledge as canonical. Such are these six books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, two books of Maccabees. These are the books of the old Testament. Afterwards, it enumerates the books of the new Testament, all of which we receive without any controversy, although they were not always alike received in the church, as you shall hear in the sequel. Finally, the council concludes in these words: “Whoever does not receive these books entire with all their parts, as they are contained in the ancient Latin Vulgate, for sacred and canonical, let him be accursed¹⁰!” Here you have the decree of the Tridentine council, and the terrible sanction of that decree. From these premises it now appears that we are required by the Tridentine fathers, if we would escape their anathema, to receive as authoritative canonical scripture not only those six entire books which we have mentioned, but besides certain parts of and additions to the books, as Baruch, the Hymn of the three Children, the histories of Susannah and Bel and the Dragon, which are attributed to Daniel, and certain apocryphal chapters of the book of Esther: for it is thus that the Jesuits interpret the meaning of this decree. Now, therefore, the state of the question is this; whether these books, and these parts of books, should be received for sacred and canonical scriptures? They affirm: we deny. It remains that we should proceed to the discussion. I will first answer their arguments, and then proceed to the defence of our cause; which course I intend to follow throughout, because I deem it most suitable to the matter we have in hand, and I perceive that it hath been generally adopted by Aristotle. And since, as Nazianzene tells us, “every argument is designed either to establish our own opinion, or overturn the opposite¹¹,” I will choose first to overturn the opposite opinion, and then to establish my own.

[1 Ἀποστὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ κανόνος ἐπὶ κίβδηλα καὶ νόθα διδάγματα μετελήλυθεν, οὐδὲν δεῖ τοῦ ἔξωθεν ἁγίου τὰς πράξεις κρίνειν. H. E. vii. 30. T. 3. p. 391. ed. Heinichen. Lips. 1828. But it is most probably the Creed that is there meant.]

[2 Whitaker most probably refers to the famous passage, c. xxii. “Adoro plenitudinem scripturæ,” &c. cited below, Qu. 6. c. xvi., and produced also by Cosin (Scholastical History of the Canon, chap. i. §. I.) in proof that the Church always regarded scripture as “the infallible route of our FAITH.” Some, however, suppose that Tertullian refers to scripture, and not the Creed, in these words: “Solus hereticis compendii gratia de posteritate præscribere: in quantum enim veritatis regula prior, quæ etiam futuras hæreses prænuntiavit, in tantum posteriores quæque doctrinæ hæreses præjudicabuntur.” Adv. Hermog. I. (Our. P. iv. p. I. ed. Leopold. Lips, 1841.) For the Creed contains no prediction of heresies.]

[3 This treatise, falsely ascribed to Cyprian, may be found in the works of Arnold of Chartres (Carnotensis) subjoined to Fell’s Cyprian (Amstel. 1691). The passage cited is at p. 33: “Inveniet ex hac scriptura omnium doctrinarum regulas emanasse; et hinc nasci, et huc reverti, quidquid ecclesiastica continet disciplina.” But Arnold is not speaking of the whole scripture, but of the command to love God.]

[4 See these passages cited more fully below. Qu. 6. c. 16.]

[5 Hæc sunt quæ patres intra canonem concluserunt; ex quibus fidei nostræ assertiones constare voluerunt. Ad Calc. Opp. Cypriani, p. 26, ut supra.]

[6 Hæc nobis a patribus, ut dixi, tradita opportunum visum est hoc in loco designare, ad instructionem eorum qui prima sibi ecclesiæ ac fidei elementa suscipiunt, ut sciant ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi Dei haurienda sint pocula. Ibid. p. 27.]

[7 Doctrina apostolorum et prophetarum canonica dicitur, quia est quasi regula intellectus nostri. Thomæ Aquin. in I Tim. vi. Lect. I.]

[8 H. E. Lib. v. c. 25. οὐκ ἀντιλεγομένους ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνδιαθήκους.]

[9 Sacrorum vero librorum indicem huic decreto adhibendum censuit, ne cui dubitatio suboriri possit, quinam sint, qui ab ipsa synodo suscipiuntur. Council. Trid. Sess. iv. Decretal. I.]

[10 Si quis autem hos libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit.... Anathema sit. Ibid.]

[11 Διττὸς ἂντίπαλον λόγον κατασκευάζοντος, τοῦ μὲν τοῦ ὄντος, τοῦ δὲ τοῦ ἀνατρέποντος. Orat. xxxv. p. 562. A. Nazianz. Opp. T. 1. Colon. 1690.]