William Whitaker · 6 of 89

Chapter V. Wherein Reasons Are Alleged Against the Books of the Second Kind

FORM the first argument thus: These books, concerning which we contend, were not written by prophets: therefore they are not canonical. The entire syllogism is this, All canonical books of the old Testament were written by prophets: none of these books was written by any prophet: therefore none of these books is canonical. The parts of this syllogism must be confirmed.

The major rests upon plain testimonies of scripture. Peter calls the scripture of the old Testament, “The prophetic word,” 2 Pet. i. 19; (for it is evident from Luke ii. 4, that λόγος means scripture,) and “prophecy,” ibid. ver. 20. Paul calls it, “the scriptures of the prophets.” Rom. xvi. 26. Zacharias the priest says, “As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began.” Luke i. 70. Where he means that God had spoken in the prophetic scriptures. So Abraham says to the luxurious man, “They have Moses and the prophets,” that is, the books of scripture. Luke xviii. 39. And elsewhere Luke says: “Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” Luke xxiv. 27; so Rom. i. 2. Here we see that all the scriptures are found in the books of Moses and the prophets. The apostle to the Hebrews says: “God spake in divers manners by the prophets.” Heb. i. 1. Therefore the prophets were all those by whom God spake to His people. And to this refers also the assertion of the apostle, that the Church is built “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Eph. ii. 20. This foundation denotes the doctrine of the scriptures, promulgated by the prophets and apostles. Christ says: “All things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me:” and then follows immediately, “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.” Luke xxiv. 44, 45. Paul asks king Agrippa, “Believest thou the prophets?”—that is, the scriptures. Acts xxvi. 27. And when he dealt with the Jews at Rome, he tried to convince them “out of the law of Moses and the prophets.” Acts xxviii. 23.

From these testimonies we collect that the assertion in the major is most true;—that the whole scripture of the old Testament was written and promulgated by prophets. And there are many other similar passages from which it may be concluded, that there is no part of the old Testament which did not proceed from some prophet. But we must remark, that the entire old canonical scripture is sometimes signified by the name of the prophets, sometimes of Moses and the prophets, sometimes of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms. So Augustine, in his discourse against Cresconius the grammarian; “Not without cause was the canon of the church framed with so salutary a vigilance, that certain books of the prophets and apostles should belong to it.” Lib. iii. cap. 31. And in another place: “Let them shew us their church, not in the rumours of the Africans, but in the injunction of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the Psalms; that is, in all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.” De Unit. Eccles. c. 16. And elsewhere: “Read this in the law, in the prophets, in the Psalms.” We have said enough in confirmation of the major; let us now proceed to the minor.

That these books, against which we are disputing, were not written, or set forth to the church, by prophets, is exceedingly clear and certain. For, in the first place, all confess that Malachi was the last prophet of the Jews, between whom and John the Baptist no prophet whatever intervened. But most of the authors of these books undoubtedly lived after Malachi. This is manifest in the case of the writers of Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees; and even our adversaries themselves are not able to deny it. Besides, those books were not written in the prophetic tongue, which was the language of Canaan and the proper language of the church. But if prophets, who were the teachers and masters of the Israelitish church, had written those books, they would have used, in writing them, their native and prophetic language, not a language foreign and unknown to the church; which no right-minded person will deny. Now that most of them were written not in Hebrew but in Greek, the Fathers affirm, and the papists concede, and the thing itself proves fully: concerning the rest, we shall see in the sequel. Finally, if these books had been written by prophets, then Christ would have used them as his witnesses. But neither Christ nor his apostles ever made any use of their testimony. This is what Augustine says of the books of Maccabees: “The Jews do not esteem this scripture as the Law and the Prophets, to which the Lord bears testimony as his witnesses.” (Contra Gaudent. Epistle. Lib. ii. cap. 23.) Christ bears no testimony to these books as his witnesses. Therefore they are not sufficient or fully credible witnesses of Christ. But this they would be if they were prophetic. For all the canonical and prophetic scriptures testify of Christ; and to them as his witnesses Christ bears distinguished testimony, when he says, “Search the scriptures,” and when he cites so many testimonies from those books. So Jerome: “We must have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text both the Lord speaks, and his disciples choose their examples.” But that these books are not prophetical, we shall hereafter prove still more clearly.

The second argument. These books were not received by the church of the Israelites; therefore they are not canonical. The syllogism may be framed thus: The ancient church of the Hebrews received and approved all the books of the old Testament. That church did not receive these books; therefore they are not canonical.

The major proposition is certain, and may be easily demonstrated. For, first, if that church had rejected a part of the Lord’s Testament,—especially so large a part,—she would have been guilty of the highest crime and sacrilege, and would have been charged with it by Christ or his apostles. For, since the Jews were blamed for putting wrong senses upon the scripture, they would never have escaped still greater and sterner reprehension, if they had taken away the scripture; forasmuch as it is much more wicked and impious to take away books of scripture than to interpret them ill in certain passages. But neither Christ, nor his apostles, nor any others, ever accused the Jews of mutilating or tearing to pieces their canon of the sacred books. Nay, the ancient Israelitish church both received all the canonical books, and preserved them with the greatest care and faithfulness. On which point read what Josephus writes, in Eusebius, Lib. iii. cap. 10. This is also confirmed by the authority of scripture itself. For the apostle says, that to the Jews were committed and delivered in charge the oracles of God,—that is, the scriptures. Rom. iii. 2. Whence we learn, that the excellent treasure of the sacred scripture was deposited by God with the church of the Jews, and by it received and guarded: which diligence and fidelity of the Jews, in preserving the sacred books, Augustine (Ep. 3, and 59.) and all the other Fathers celebrate. Besides, if so many canonical books had been (not only not received, but) rejected by the ancient church of the Jews, it would follow that many canonical books were never received by any church: for before Christ there was no other church but that of the Jews. If then we grant that that church, which was the whole and sole church at that particular time, could have rejected canonical books, then it is evident that the church may err, which the papists will not be willing to allow. Yet is it not a great error, not only not to acknowledge and receive sacred books, but to repudiate and eject them from the canon of the inspired writings? But the whole Jewish church rejected these books: which was our assumption in the minor, and may be confirmed by the confession of all the fathers, and even of the papists themselves. For every one understands that these books were never received into the Hebrew canon.

As to Bellarmine’s pretence (Lib. i. cap. 10), that these books have the testimony of the apostolic church, and that the apostles declared these books canonical, whence does its truth appear? The apostles never cite testimonies from these books, nor can anything be adduced to shew that any authority was attributed to them by the apostles. Indeed when Cretan affirmed, in his commentary on I Cor. xii., that only to be sacred and divine scripture which the apostles either wrote or approved, he was blamed by Catharinus (Not. Lib. i.) on that account; and Catharinus lays it down in that place, that the church receives certain books as canonical which certainly were neither written nor approved by the apostles. The allegation of Canus, that these books were neither received nor rejected, is merely ridiculous. For, surely, if the Jews did not receive these books, what else was this but rejecting them utterly? He who does not receive God rejects him: so not to receive the word of God, is to refuse and reject it. “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” Luke xi. 23. Besides, how could that church either receive or rather not reject books written in a foreign tongue?

The sum of both arguments is this: These books are not written by prophets, nor received by the Israelitish church. Therefore they are not canonical.

The third argument. Certain things may be found in these books which prove them not to be canonical. This argument is very strong, as derived from the nature and genius of the books themselves: and the conclusion will appear with fuller evidence in the sequel of this discourse, when we come to the particular examination of the several books; whence it will be sufficiently manifest that none of those now called in question have any just claims to be considered as canonical.

[1 Que enim sine causa tam salubri vigilantia canon ecclesiasticus constitutus est, ad quem certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertineant. Aug. Opp. T. 9. 668, 669. D. A.]

[2 Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumoribus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum,...sed in praescripto Legis, in Prophetarum praedictis, in Psalmorum cantibus... hoc est, in omnibus canonicis sanctorum librorum auctoritatibus. Ibid. 585. A.]

[3 Lege hoc mihi de Propheta, lege de Psalmo, recita de Lege. August. de Pastoribus, c. 14.]

[4 Et hanc quidem scripturam, quae appellatur Machabaeorum, non habent Judaei sicut Legem et Prophetas et Psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet ut testibus suis (Lib. I. §. 38.) Aug. Opp. T. 9. 1006. c.]

[5 Ad Hebraeos revertendum, unde et Dominus loquitur, et discipuli exempla praesumunt. Proleg. in Paralip.]

[6 Contra Apion. L. I. c. 8. Vide infra.]

[7 Negamus hos libros a synagoga esse rejectos. Aliud est enim non recipere, aliud vero rejicere.—Melch. Cani Loc. Theol. Lib. I. cap. 11. p. 45 a. Colon. Agrip. 1585.]