William Whitaker · 4 of 89
Chapter III. Concerning Those Heretics Who Were Guilty of Sacrilege Against the Sacred and Canonical Scriptures
But, before I proceed, I deem it necessary for you to censure the madness of certain ancient heretics, who impiously removed some certain and undoubted parts of scripture from the sacred canon. Such heretics, indeed, there were in great numbers, as we read in Irenæus, Tertullian, Epiphanes, Augustine, and others. I shall not endeavour to go through them all, but will enumerate for you the principal.
First of all, the Sadducees received no scriptures but the five books of Moses. This many suppose to have been the reason why Christ (Matt. xxii.) refutes the Sadducees denying the resurrection, by the testimony of the Mosaic scripture. Simon, following in their steps, declared that the prophets were not at all to be regarded; as Irenæus testifies, Lib. I. c. 20. The Manichean rejected the whole old Testament, as proceeding from the evil God: for they imagined two gods, the one good and the other evil. Epiphanes has treated upon this subject, Heres. lxi. So Saturninus rejected the God of the Jews, and consequently the whole old Testament, as Irenæus tells us, Lib. I. c. 22. The impious Marcion insulted with a load of reproaches the God who is preached in the law and the prophets, and held that Christ had come to dissolve the law and the prophets, and the works of that God who made the world. This Irenæus tells us, Lib. I. c. 29. Such frantic men Christ himself expressly refutes by his own words, when he says, that he did not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil, Matt. v. 17. This heresy Augustine also to the Cerdonians, whom he affirms to hold the old Testament in contempt, (Ad Quod vult Dei, c. 21), and to the Severians, of whom he writes, “They condemn the resurrection of the flesh and the old Testament,” (ibid. c. 24.) Guido Cameracensis reckons this also amongst the heresies of the Albigenses. This heresy is refuted by Epiphanes, in the place which I have already cited, and most copiously by Augustine against Faustus the Manichean, and against the adversary of the law and the prophets.
The Ptolemæans condemned the books of Moses, as Epiphanes relates, Heres. xxxiii. The Nicolaitans and Gnostics ejected the book of Psalms from the sacred canon, as Philaster informs us, (in Lib. de Her. c. 127); which heresy the Anabaptists have renewed in our times. But all these heretics are refuted by the clearest evidence of the new Testament.
Many formerly, as Philaster relates (in Cat. c. 132, 133), rejected the books of Solomon, and especially Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; because in the former Solomon seems to invite men to a life of pleasure, and in the latter, to relate certain amatory discourses between himself and Pharaoh’s daughter. But it is plain that these men fell into a manifest and impious error. For in Ecclesiastes Solomon does not allure men to enjoy the pleasures and blandishments of the world, but rather deters them from such pleasures, and exhorts them, with a divine eloquence, to despise and contemn the present world. Thus at the very commencement he exclaims, “ of vanities, all is vanity:” in which words he declares that all those things which are sought after in this world, are uncertain, transitory, and fallacious. it necessarily follows that those are mad who acquiesce in the enjoyment of such objects. And so (after having disputed through the whole book against those who pursue these pleasures so greedily, and desire to satisfy themselves with such goods, whatever they are) he at the close teaches that happiness consists not, as many suppose, in things of this kind, but in true piety, and thus concludes: “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole of man.” This is not the judgment of an Epicurus, but of a holy prophet, withdrawing foolish men from the pursuit of worthless objects, and recalling them into the true path of a pious and a happy life.
In the Song, if Solomon had wished to praise his wife, he would not have used such prodigious and absurd comparisons. For he compares her to the cavalry of Pharaoh, her head to Carmel, her eyes to fish-ponds, her nose to a tower, her teeth to a flock of sheep; and finally pronounces her whole person terrible as an army. Such things do not suit the daughter of Pharaoh and the bride of Solomon. They must, therefore, be referred to the mystic bride of another Solomon,—that is, to the Church of Christ, whose consummate union of faith and love with her spouse this whole book sets forth; as, indeed, all men of sound judgment have always determined. Nor is the fact, that none of the customary names of God occur in this book, any proof that it is not canonical. For, although such names are omitted, yet others are used of the same kind and importance, as shepherd, brother, friend, beloved, spouse, which were much more suitable to the style of such a piece: since he, whom the bride so often addresses under these names, is no other than Christ, at once the true Son of God, and the true God himself.
We care little for the impious Anabaptists, who reject this book with contempt; nor can we at all excuse Castellio, if he really wrote what some object to him;—that this book is nothing but a which Solomon held with his Sulamith.
The Anabaptists are said, at the present day, to reject and ridicule the book of Job, and some have written that it is called by those heretics a Hebrew Tract-Comedy. This they would seem to have learned from the wicked Jews: for certain rabbins, authors of the Talmudic fables, affirm that it is a fictitious story, and no such man ever existed. The impudence of these persons is refuted by other testimonies of scripture. For, in Ezekiel xiv. 14, the Lord says: “If these three men were in the midst thereof, Noah, Daniel, and Job, &c.” Whence we perceive that Job must have really existed, as no one doubts that Noah and Daniel did. Paul too cites a clear testimony from this book (I Cor. iii. 19): “He taketh the wise in their own craftiness;” which words we find, in Job v. 13, to have been pronounced by Eliphaz. The apostle James, also, hath mentioned this man, James v. 11. Hence it is manifest that this was a true history, and that the book itself is canonical, and that they who determine otherwise are to be esteemed as heretics.
Jerome, in the Proëm of his Commentaries on Daniel, relates that Porphyry the philosopher wrote a volume against the book of our prophet Daniel, and affirmed that what is now extant under the name of Daniel, was not published by the ancient prophet, but by some later Daniel, who lived in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. But we need not regard what the impious Porphyry may have written, who mocked at all the scriptures and religion itself, and whose calumnies were refuted by Eusebius, Apollinaris and Methodius, as Jerome testifies in the above-cited place. So far concerning the old Testament.
The new Testament, also, was formerly assaulted in various ways by heretics and others. The Manichean shewed themselves no less impious and sacrilegious towards the books of the new Testament than they were towards those of the old. They were not afraid to say that the books of the apostles and evangelists were stuffed full of lies: which madness and frenzy of theirs Augustine hath most learnedly confuted in his thirty-second book against Faustus the Manichean.
Others received no gospel but that of Luke, and hardly any other part of the new Testament; as Cerdon and his disciple Marcion. Tertullian speaks of these towards the end of his Prescriptions: “Cerdon receives only the gospel of Luke, nor even that entire. He takes the epistles of Paul, but neither all of them, nor in their integrity. He rejects the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse as false. After him appeared his disciple, Marcion by name, who endeavoured to support the heresy of Cerdon.” These men took away almost the whole contents of the new Testament.
The Valentinian admitted no gospel but that of John, as Irenæus tells us; (Lib. III. c. 11.) which error the papists charge on Luther also, but most falsely, as they themselves well know. The Alogians, on the contrary, rejected all John’s writings, and were so called because they would not acknowledge as God the Logos, whom John declares to be God in the beginning of his gospel. This is related by Epiphanes (Her. Lib. I.), who gave them this appellation upon that account.
Irenæus relates (Lib. I. c. 26.), that the Ebionites received only the gospel according to Matthew, and rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law.
The Severians made no account of the Acts of the Apostles, as Eusebius informs us, Lib. IV. c. 27.
The Marcionites rejected both epistles to Timothy, the epistle to Titus, and the epistle to the Hebrews, as Epiphanes records, Her. xlii.
Chrysostom and Jerome, in the Preface to the epistle of Paul to Philemon, testify that it was by some not received as canonical; which conclusion they were led into by considering that human frailty could not bear the continual uninterrupted action of the , and that the apostles must have spoken some things by a mere human spirit. Amongst these they classed this epistle, as containing in it nothing worthy of an apostolic and divine authority, or useful to us. Chrysostom refutes this opinion, with much truth and beauty, in the Argument of this epistle, and teaches us that many noble and necessary lessons may be learned from it: first, that we should extend our solicitude to the meanest persons: secondly, that we should not despair of slaves, (and therefore, still less of freemen,) however wicked and abandoned: thirdly, that it is not lawful for any one to withdraw a slave from his master under pretence of religion: fourthly, that it is our duty not to be ashamed of slaves, if they be honest men. Who now will say that this epistle is useless to us, from which we may learn so many and such distinguished lessons? Forasmuch, therefore, as this epistle was both written by Paul, and contains in it such excellent instruction, it ought not by any means to be rejected.
Such, then, was the opinion, or rather the mad raving of the heretics concerning the sacred books. There were others also, who either rejected altogether certain books and parts of books of the new Testament, or else allowed them no great authority, whom it is not necessary to enumerate: for we must not spend too much time in recording or refuting such persons. But the Schwenkfeldtians and Libertines, proceeding to a still greater length in their wickedness, despise the whole scripture, and insult it with many reproaches, holding that we should attend not to what the scriptures speak, but to what the Spirit utters and teaches us internally. Of these, Vossius Prologus writes thus, in his book concerning the express word of God: “We will dismiss the scriptures, and rather listen to God speaking to us, than return to those beggarly elements. One is not required to be learned in the law and scriptures, but to be taught of God. Vain is the labour which is expended upon scripture: for the scripture is a creature and a beggarly sort of element.” Many passages of scripture condemn this monstrous heresy. Christ says: “Search the scriptures.” Paul says: “Whatsoever things were written of old time were written for our learning.” Rom. xv. 4. And elsewhere: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for reproof, and for instruction in .” 2 Tim. iii. 16. There are innumerable such testimonies, by which the authority of the scriptures is fully proved, and the blasphemy of these men refuted; against which our divines have also written many excellent discourses.
At the same time that we justly condemn the heresies which I have mentioned, we cannot but wholly disapprove the opinion of those, who think that the sacred writers have, in some places, fallen into mistakes. That some of the ancients were of this opinion appears from the testimony of Augustine, who maintains, in opposition to them, “that the evangelists are free from all falsehood, both from that which proceeds from deliberate deceit, and that which is the result of forgetfulness.” (De Cons. Ev. Lib. I. c. 12.) Consequently, Jerome judged wrong, if he really judged, as Erasmus supposes, “that the evangelists might have fallen into an error of memory.” Erasmus himself, indeed, determines that it is neither impious nor absurd to think so; and allows it possible that Matthew, for instance, in that place of his 27th chapter, may have put the name of Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Upon which place Erasmus writes thus: “But although this were a slip of memory merely in the name, I do not suppose that one ought to be so over-scrupulous as that the authority of the whole scripture should seem invalidated on that account.” But it does not become us to be so easy and indulgent as to concede that such a lapse could be incident to the sacred writers. They wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as Peter tells us, 2 Pet. i. 21. And all scripture is inspired of God, as Paul expressly writes, 2 Tim. iii. 16. Whereas, therefore, no one may say that any infirmity could befall the Holy Spirit, it follows that the sacred writers could not be deceived, or err, in any respect. Here, then, it becomes us to be so scrupulous as not to allow that any such slip can be found in scripture. For, whatever Erasmus may think, it is a solid answer which Augustine gives to Jerome: “If any, even the smallest, lie be admitted in the scriptures, the whole authority of scripture is presently invalidated and destroyed.” That form which the prophets use so often, “Thus saith the Lord,” is to be attributed also to the apostles and evangelists. For the Holy Spirit dictated to them whatever things they wrote; whose (as Ambrose writes, Lib. III. in Luc.) “knows nothing of slow struggles.” Hence neither can that be tolerated which Melchior Canus has alleged, (Lib. II. c. 18. ad 6) in explanation of a certain difficulty in the Acts of the Apostles, chap. vii. 16; where Stephen says, that Abraham bought a sepulchre from the sons of Emmor, whereas Moses relates that the sepulchre was purchased by Jacob, not by Abraham. Canus thinks that Stephen might have made a mistake in relating so long a history, but that Luke committed no error, since he faithfully recorded what Stephen said. But that answer draws the knot tighter, instead of loosing it: for Stephen was not only full of the Holy Ghost, but is even said to have spoken by the Holy Ghost. Acts vi. 10. Stephen, therefore, could no more have mistaken than Luke; because the Holy Ghost was the same in Luke and in Stephen, and had no less force in the one than in the other. Besides, if we concede that Stephen mistook or was deceived, I do not see how he can excuse Luke for not rectifying the error. Therefore we must maintain intact the authority of scripture in such a sense as not to allow that anything is therein delivered otherwise than the most perfect truth required. I cannot understand with what degree of prudence and consideration Jerome can have written that, which he says is to be noted, in his Questions upon Genesis: “Wherever the apostles or apostolical men speak to the people, they generally use those testimonies which had gotten into common use amongst the nations.”
[1 This common notion is reasonably doubted by many. See Jortin’s Remarks, B. XI. Appendix I, on the Sadducees, Vol. I. p. 439.]
[2 Prophetas autem a mundi fabricatoribus angelis inspiratos dixisse prophetias; quapropter nec ulterius curarent eos hi, qui in eum et in Selenen ejus spem habeant. P. 116. B. ed. Fevard. Paris. 1685.]
[3 Judæorum Deum unum ex angelis esse dixit, et... advenisse Christum ad destructionem Judæorum Dei....Prophetias autem quasdam quidem ab iis angelis qui mundum fabricaverunt dictas; quasdam autem a Satana, quem et ipsum angelum adversarium mundi fabricatoribus ostendit; maxime autem Judæorum Deo. Ibid. p. 118, C.]
[4 Marcion... impudorate blasphemans eum qui a lege et prophetis annunciatus est Deus... Jesum autem [dicens]... venientem in Judæam... dissolventem prophetas et legem, et omnia opera ejus Dei qui mundum fecit. Ibid. p. 129, A.]
[5 Resurrectionem mortuorum negat, spernens etiam Testamentum Vetus. Augustini Opp. T. VIII. col. 43, A. Paris. 1837.]
[6 Carnis resurrectionem cum Vetere Testamento respuentes. Ibid, C.]
[7 Παρὰ γὰρ τοῖς εἰρημένοις καὶ τὸν νόμον τὸν διὰ Μωυσέως βλασφημεῖν οὐκ αἰσχύνεται. Ed. Petav. Colon. 1682. T. I. p. 216. See the curious epistle of Ptolemæus to Flora, which he there subjoins, given also by Grabe, Spicil. II. 69.]
[8 I write the name thus in conformity with Whitaker’s usage; but the correct form is Castellio. See the curious history of the origin of the other form in Bayle, CASTALIO, Rem. M. With respect to the imputation mentioned in the text, Varillas charges it upon Castellio more definitely, stating this injurious opinion of the Canticles to be avowed by him in his argument to that book. Bayle observes, that in five editions of Castellio’s bible which he examined, he could find no argument to that book whatever. However, in the London edition of the Latin bible (in 4 vols. 12mo. 1726), there is the following: “Colloquium Servatoris et Ecclesiæ. Domestici in Ecclesiæ (Ecclesia) hostes. Servator, lilium Columba. Solomon Christi Imago. Ad puellas vir, et ad virum puellæ. Ecclesiæ pulchritudo. Servatoris in Ecclesiam Studium. Ecclesia vinea copiosa.”]
[9 Nosti quosdam esse, qui dicunt Jobum nunquam fuisse, neque creatum esse; sed historiam ejus nihil aliud esse quam parabolam. Maimonides, Moreh Nevoch. par. III. c. 22. Compare Manasseh Ben Israel, de Resurr. Mort. p. 123.]
[10 Contra prophetam Danielem duodecimum librum scripsit Porphyrius, nolens eum ab ipso, cujus inscriptus est nomine, esse compositum, sed a quodam qui temporibus Antiochi Epiphanis fuerit in Judæa; et non tam Danielem ventura dixisse, quam illum narrasse præterita. T. III. p. 1071, &c. ed. Bened.]
[11 Cui solertissime responderunt Cæsariensis Episcopus..... Apollinarius quoque..... et ante hos, ex parte, Methodius. Ibid.]
[12 Solum Evangelium Lucæ, nec totum recipit, Apostoli Pauli neque omnes neque totas epistolas sumit; Acta Apostolorum et Apocalypsin quasi falsa rejicit. Post hunc discipulus ipsius emersit, Marcion quidam nomine... hæresin Cerdonis approbare conatus est. c. 51. This piece, which forms the concluding part of the Prescriptions (from c. 45), seems the work of some later hand.]
[13 Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum, ex ipso detegentur nihil recte dicentes. p. 258, D.]
[14 Lardner, History of Heretics, chapter 23 (Works, 4to ed., Vol. IV. p. 690), considers the existence of such a heresy very doubtful; but I cannot see sufficient ground for all his suspicions. However, it is hard to believe that any men in their senses ever ascribed all John’s writings to Cerinthus, as Epiphanius seems to say, p. 424.]
[15 Solo autem eo quod est secundum Matthæum Evangelio utuntur, et Apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatam esse eum Legis dicentes. p. 127, C.]
[16 Βλασφημοῦντες δὲ τὸν ἀπόστολον, ἀθετοῦσιν αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐπιστολάς, μηδὲ τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων καταδεχόμενοι. T. I. p. 409.]
[17 Τὰς τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου δέκα ἐπιστολὰς παρ’ αὐτοῦ, αἷς μόναις κέχρηται. §. 9. T. I. p. 309. D.]
[18 Volunt aut epistolam non esse Pauli, quæ ad Philemonem scribitur; aut etiam si Pauli sit, nihil habere quod ædificare nos possit. — Hieron. præf. in Ep. ad. Philem. T. IV. p. 442.]
[19 The best edition of Chrysostom’s admirable Commentary on the epistle to Philemon is that by Raphelius, subjoined to Vol. II. of his Annotationes Philologicæ. Lugd. Bat. 1747. The reader will find the passage here referred to at pp. 28, 30, 32.]
[20 So called from Gaspar Schwenckfeldt, a Silesian knight, and counsellor to the Duke of Lignitz, who died in 1561. See an account of him in Mosheim, Cent. XVI. Sect. III. part II. c. 1, §§ 23, 24.]
[21 Nos... ipsas scripturas...facessere jubebimus, et Deum loquentem potius audiemus,...quam ad egena ista elementa nos convertamus....Non oportet legis et scripturæ peritum esse, sed a Deo doctum. Vanus est labor qui scripturæ impenditur: scriptura enim creatura est, et egenum quoddam elementum. — Hos. Op. Col. 1584. De express. Dei Verbo. Tom. I. p. 624.]
[22 Omnem autem falsitatem abesse ab Evangelistis decet, non solum eam quæ mentiendo promitur, sed etiam eam quæ obliviscendo. — Aug. Opp. T. 3. P. 2. 1310. B.]
[23 Erasmus (loc. infra citat.) gives Jerome’s own words from his epistle de optimo genere interpretandi: Accusent Apostolum falsitatis, quod nec cum Hebraico nec cum Septuaginta congruat translatoribus, et, quod his majus est, erret in nomine: pro Zacharia quippe Hieremiam posuit. Sed absit hoc de pedissequo Christi dicere, cui curæ fuit non verba et syllabas aucupari, sed sententias dogmatum ponere. — Epistle ci. T. II. p. 334. Antv. 1579.]
[24 Ceterum etiamsi fuisset in nomine duntaxat memoriæ lapsus, non opinor quemquam adeo morosum esse oporteret, ut ob eam causam totius scripturæ sacræ labasceret auctoritas. — Erasm. Annot. p. 107. Froben. Basil. 1535.]
[25 Si mendacium aliquod in scripturis vel levissimum admittatur, scripturæ auctoritatem omnem mox labefactari ac convelli. — This is the quotation as given by Whitaker in his text. The following is probably the passage intended: Admisso enim semel in tantum auctoritatis fastigium officioso aliquo mendacio, nulla illorum librorum particula remanebit, &c. Epistle xix. Tom. II. p. 14.]
[26 Nescit tarda molimina Sancti Spiritus gratia, c. XIX. Ambros. Opp. T. V. p. 46. Paris. 1838.]
[27 Stephano id quod vulgo solet accidisse, ut in longa videlicet narratione, eademque præsertim subita, confuderit nonnulla et miscuerit, in quibusdam etiam memoria lapsus fuerit;....Lucas vero, historiæ veritatem retinere volens, ne iota quidem immutavit, sed rem ut a Stephano narrata erat exposuit. — Melch. Cani Loc. Theolog. fol. 89. 2. Colon. Agripp. 1585.]
[28 Ubicunque Sancti Apostoli aut Apostolici viri loquuntur ad populos, iis plerumque testimoniis abutuntur, quæ jam fuerant in gentibus divulgata. — Hieron. Quæst. Hebr. in Genes. T. III. p. 468.]
