Ecumenical Christian Library

  • Loading…

V.20. Of Preaching by the public

159434 min read

XX. Other public readings there are of books and writings not canonical, whereby the Church doth also preach, or openly make known the doctrine of virtuous conversation; whereupon besides those things in regard whereof we are thought to read the Scriptures of God amiss, it is thought amiss1 that we read in our churches any thing at all besides the Scriptures. To exclude the reading of any such profitable instruction as the Church hath devised for the better understanding of Scripture, or for the easier training up of the people in holiness and righteousness of life, they plead2 that God in the Law would have nothing brought into the temple, neither besoms, nor flesh-hooks, nor trumpets, but those only which were sanctified; that for the expounding of darker places we ought to follow the Jews’ polity3, who under Antiochus, where they had not the commodity of sermons, appointed always at their meeting somewhat out of the Prophets to be read together with the Law, and so by the one made the other plainer to be understood; that before and after our Saviour’s coming they neither read Onkelos nor Jonathan’s paraphrase, though having both, but contented themselves with the reading only of scriptures; that if in the primitive Church there had been any thing read besides the monuments of the Prophets and Apostles4, Justin Martyr5 and Origen6 who mention these would have spoken of the other likewise; that the most ancient and best councils forbid any thing to be read in churches saving canonical Scripture only7; that when other things were afterwards permitted8, fault was found with it9, it succeeded but ill, the Bible itself was thereby in time quite and clean thrust out.

Which arguments, if they be only brought in token of the author’s good will and meaning towards the cause which they would set forward, must accordingly be accepted of by them who already are persuaded the same way. But if their drift and purpose be to persuade others, it would be demanded, by what rule the legal hallowing of besoms and flesh-hooks must needs exclude all other readings in the church save Scripture. Things sanctified were thereby in such sort appropriated unto God, as that they might never afterwards again be made common. For which cause the Lord, to sign and mark them as his own, appointed oil of holy ointment, the like whereunto it was not lawful to make for ordinary and daily uses10. Thus the anointing of Aaron and his sons tied them to the office of the priesthood for ever11; the anointing, not of those silver trumpets (which Moses as well for secular as sacred uses was commanded to make, not to sanctify12), but the unction of the tabernacle, the table, the laver, the altar of God, with all the instruments appertaining thereunto13, this made them for ever holy unto him in whose service they were employed. But what of this? Doth it hereupon follow that all things now in the church “from the greatest to the least” are unholy, which the Lord hath not himself precisely instituted? For so those rudiments they say do import14. Then is there nothing holy which the Church by her authority hath appointed, and consequently all positive ordinances that ever were made by ecclesiastical power touching spiritual affairs are profane, they are unholy.

I would not wish them to undertake a work so desperate as to prove, that for the people’s instruction no kind of reading is good, but only that which the Jews devised under Antiochus, although even that be also mistaken. For according to Elias the Levite15, (out of whom it doth seem borrowed) the thing which Antiochus forbade was the public Reading of the Law, and not sermons upon the Law. Neither did the Jews read a portion of the Prophets together with the Law to serve for an interpretation thereof, because Sermons were not permitted them; but instead of the Law which they might not read openly, they read of the Prophets that which in likeness of matter came nearest to each section of their Law. Whereupon when afterwards the liberty of reading the Law was restored, the selfsame custom as touching the Prophets did continue still16.

If neither the Jews have used publicly to read their paraphrasts, nor the primitive Church for a long time any other writings than Scripture17, except the cause of their not doing it were some law of God or reason forbidding them to do that which we do, why should the later ages of the Church be deprived of the liberty the former had? Are we bound while the world standeth to put nothing in practice but only that which was at the very first?

Concerning the council of Laodicea, as it forbiddeth the reading of those things which are not canonical, so it maketh some things not canonical which are18. Their judgment in this we may not, and in that we need not follow.

We have by thus many years’ experience found, that exceeding great good, not encumbered with any notable inconvenience, hath grown by the custom which we now observe. As for the harm whereof judicious men have complained in former times; it came not of this, that other things were read besides the Scripture, but that so evil choice was made. With us there is never any time bestowed in divine service without the reading of a great part of the holy Scripture, which we account a thing most necessary. We dare not admit any such form of liturgy as either appointeth no Scripture at all, or very little, to be read in the church. And therefore the thrusting of the Bible out of the house of God is rather there to be feared, where men esteem it a matter so indifferent19, whether the same be by solemn appointment read publicly, or not read, the bare text excepted which the preacher haply chooseth out to expound.

But let us here consider what the practice of our fathers before us hath been, and how far forth the same may be followed. We find that in ancient times there was publicly read first the Scripture20, as namely, something out of the books of the Prophets of God which were of old21; something out of the Apostles’ writings22; and lastly out of the holy Evangelists, some things which touched the person of our Lord Jesus Christ himself23. The cause of their reading first the Old Testament, then the New, and always somewhat out of both, is most likely to have been that which Justin Martyr and St. Augustin observe in comparing the two Testaments. “The Apostles,” saith the one, “have taught us as themselves did learn, first the precepts of the Law, and then the Gospels. For what else is the Law but the Gospel foreshewed? What other the Gospel, than the Law fulfilled24?” In like sort the other, “What the Old Testament hath, the very same the New containeth; but that which lieth there as under a shadow is here brought forth into the open sun. Things there prefigured are here performed25.” Again, “In the Old Testament there is a close comprehension of the New, in the New an open discovery of the Old26.” To be short, the method of their public readings either purposely did tend, or at the leastwise doth fitly serve, “That from smaller things the mind of the hearers may go forward to the knowledge of greater, and by degrees climb up from the lowest to the highest things27.”

Now besides the Scripture, the books which they called Ecclesiastical were thought not unworthy sometime to be brought into public audience, and with that name they entitled the books which we term Apocryphal. Under the selfsame name they also comprised certain no otherwise annexed unto the New than the former unto the Old Testament, as a Book of Hermes, Epistles of Clement, and the like. According therefore to the phrase of antiquity, these we may term the New, and the other the Old Ecclesiastical Books or Writings. For we, being directed by a sentence (I suppose) of St. Jerome, who saith, “that all writings not canonical are apocryphal28,” use not now the title “apocryphal” as the rest of the Fathers ordinarily have done, whose custom is so to name for the most part only such as might not publicly be read or divulged. Ruffinus therefore having rehearsed the selfsame books of canonical Scripture, which with us are held to be alone canonical, addeth immediately by way of caution, “We must know that other Books there are also, which our forefathers have used to name not canonical but ecclesiastical books, as the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Toby, Judith, the Maccabees, in the Old Testament; in the New, the Book of Hermes, and such others. All which books and writings they willed to be read in Churches, but not to be alleged as if their authority did bind us to build upon them our faith. Other writings they named Apocryphal, which they would not have read in churches. These things delivered unto us from the Fathers we have in this place thought good to set down.” So far Ruffinus29.

He which considereth notwithstanding what store of false and forged writings dangerous unto Christian belief, and yet bearing30 glorious inscriptions, began soon upon the Apostles’ times to be admitted into the Church, and to be honoured as if they had been indeed apostolic, shall easily perceive what cause the provincial synod of Laodicea31 might have as then to prevent especially the danger of books made newly Ecclesiastical, and for fear of the fraud of heretics to provide, that such public readings might be altogether taken out of Canonical scripture. Which ordinance respecting but that abuse that grew through the intermingling of lessons human with sacred, at such time as the one both affected the credit and usurped the name of the other (as by the canon of a later council32 providing remedy for the selfsame evil, and yet allowing the old ecclesiastical books to be read, it doth more plainly and clearly appear,) neither can be construed nor should be urged utterly to prejudice our use of those old ecclesiastical writings; much less of Homilies, which were a third kind of readings usual in former times, a most commendable institution, as well then33 to supply the casual, as now the necessary defect of sermons.

In the heat of general persecution, whereunto Christian belief was subject upon the first promulgation thereof throughout the world, it much confirmed the courage and constancy of weaker minds, when public relation was made unto them after what manner God had been glorified through the sufferings of Martyrs, famous amongst them for holiness during life, and at the time of their death admirable in all men’s eyes, through miraculous evidence of grace divine assisting them from above. For which cause the virtues of some being thought expedient to be annually had in remembrance above the rest, this brought in a fourth kind of public reading, whereby the lives of such saints and martyrs had at the time of their yearly memorials solemn recognition in the Church of God34. The fond imitation of which laudable custom being in later ages resumed, when there was neither the like cause to do as the Fathers before had done, nor any care, conscience, or wit, in such as undertook to perform that work, some brainless men have by great labour and travail brought to pass, that the Church is now ashamed of nothing more than of saints. If therefore Pope Gelasius35 did so long sithence see those defects of judgment even then, for which the reading of the acts of Martyrs should be and was at that time forborne in the church of Rome; we are not to marvel that afterwards legends being grown in a manner to be nothing else but heaps of frivolous and scandalous vanities, they have been even with disdain thrown out, the very nests which bred them abhorring them36. We are not therefore to except only Scripture, and to make confusedly all the residue of one suit, as if they who abolish legends could not without incongruity retain in the church either Homilies or those old Ecclesiastical books.

Which books in case myself did think, as some others do, safer and better to be left publicly unread; nevertheless as in other things of like nature, even so in37 this, my private judgment I should be loth to oppose against the force of their reverend authority, who rather considering the divine excellency of some things in all, and of all things in certain of those Apocrypha which we publicly read, have thought it better to let them stand as a list or marginal border unto the Old Testament, and though with divine yet as human compositions, to grant at the least unto certain of them public audience in the house of God. For inasmuch as the due estimation of heavenly truth dependeth wholly upon the known and approved authority of those famous oracles of God, it greatly behoveth the Church to have always most especial care, lest through confused mixture at any time human usurp the room and title of divine writings. Wherefore albeit for the people’s38 more plain instruction (as the ancient use hath been) we read in our churches certain books besides the Scripture, yet as the Scripture we read them not. All men know our professed opinion touching the difference whereby we sever them from the Scripture. And if any where it be suspected that some or other will haply mistake a thing so manifest in every man’s eye, there is no let but that as often as those books are read, and need so requireth, the style of their difference may expressly be mentioned, to bar even all possibility of error.

It being then known that we hold not the Apocrypha for sacred (as we do the holy Scripture) but for human compositions, the subject whereof are sundry divine matters; let there be reason shewed why to read any part of them publicly it should be unlawful or hurtful unto the Church of God. I hear it said that “many things” in them are very “frivolous,” and unworthy of public audience; yea many contrary, “plainly contrary to the holy Scripture39.” Which hitherto is neither sufficiently proved by him who saith it, and if the proofs thereof were strong, yet the very allegation itself is weak. Let us therefore suppose (for I will not demand to what purpose it is that against our custom of reading books not canonical they bring exceptions of matter in those books which we never use to read) suppose I say that what faults soever they have observed throughout the passages of all those books, the same in every respect were such as neither could be construed, nor ought to be censured otherwise than even as themselves pretend: yet as men through too much haste oftentimes forget the errand whereabout they should go; so here it appeareth that an eager desire to rake together whatsoever might prejudice or any way hinder the credit of apocryphal books, hath caused the collector’s pen so to run as it were on wheels, that the mind which should guide it had no leisure to think, whether that which might haply serve to withhold from giving them the authority which belongeth unto sacred Scripture, and to cut them off from the canon, would as effectually serve to shut them altogether out of the church, and to withdraw from granting unto them that public use wherein they are only held as profitable for instruction. Is it not acknowledged40 that those books are “holy,” that they are “ecclesiastical” and “sacred,” that to term them “divine,” as being for their excellency next unto them which are properly so termed, is no way to honour them above desert; yea even that the whole Church of Christ as well at the first as sithence hath most worthily approved their fitness for the public information of life and manners; is not thus much I say acknowledged, and that by them, who notwithstanding receive not the same for “any part of canonical Scripture,” by them who deny not but that they are “faulty,” by them who are ready enough to give instances wherein they seem to contain matter “scarce agreeable with holy Scripture?” So little doth such their supposed faultiness in moderate men’s judgment enforce the removal of them out of the house of God, that still they are judged to retain worthily those very titles of commendation, than which there cannot greater be given to writings the authors whereof are men. As in truth if the Scripture itself ascribing to the persons of men righteousness in regard of their manifold virtues, may not rightly be construed as though it did thereby clear them and make them quite free from all faults, no reason we should judge it absurd to commend their writings as reverend, holy, and sound, wherein there are so many singular perfections, only for that the exquisite wits of some few peradventure are able dispersedly here and there to find now a word and then a sentence, which may be more probably suspected than easily cleared of error, by us which have but conjectural knowledge of their meaning.

Against immodest invectives therefore whereby they are charged as being fraught with outrageous lies41, we doubt not but their more allowable censure will prevail, who without so passionate terms of disgrace, do note a difference great enough between Apocryphal and other writings, a difference such as Josephus and Epiphanius observe: the one declaring that amongst the Jews books written after the days of Artaxerxes were not of equal credit with them which had gone before, inasmuch as the Jews sithence that time had not the like exact succession of Prophets42; the other acknowledging that they are “profitable43,” although denying them to be “divine” in such construction and sense as the Scripture itself is so termed. With what intent they were first published, those words of the nephew of Jesus do plainly enough signify, “44After that my grandfather Jesus had given himself to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein sufficient judgment, he purposed also to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom, to the intent that they which were desirous to learn, and would give themselves to these things, might profit much more in living according to the Law.” Their end in writing and ours in reading them is the same. The books of Judith, Toby, Baruch, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, we read, as serving most unto that end. The rest we leave unto men in private.

Neither can it be reasonably thought, because upon certain solemn occasions some lessons are chosen out of those books, and of Scripture itself some chapters not appointed to be read at all, that we thereby do offer disgrace to the word of God, or lift up the writings of men above it. For in such choice we do not think but that Fitness of speech may be more respected than Worthiness. If in that which we use to read there happen by the way any clause, sentence, or speech, that soundeth towards error, should the mixture of a little dross constrain the Church to deprive herself of so much gold, rather than learn how by art and judgment to make separation of the one from the other? To this effect very fitly, from the counsel that St. Jerome giveth Læta45, of taking heed how she read the Apocrypha, as also by the help of other learned men’s judgments delivered in like case, we may take direction. But surely the arguments that should bind us not to read them or any part of them publicly at all must be stronger than as yet we have heard any.

← Of preaching, by reading publicly the books · Contents · Of preaching by Sermons, and whether Sermons →

Footnotes

  1. [See T. C. i. 157. Def. 715 … 721. T. C. ii. 392 … 402.] ↩

  2. T. C. lib. i. p. 196. [157, 158.] “Neither the Homilies, nor the Apocrypha, are at all to be read in the church. Wherein first it is good to consider the order which the Lord kept with his people in times past, when he commanded, Exod. xxx. 29, that no vessel nor no instrument, either besom or flesh-hook or pan, should once come into the temple, but those only which were sanctified and set apart for that use. And in the book of Numbers he will have no other trumpets blown to call the people together, but those only which were set apart for that purpose. Numb. x. 2.” ↩

  3. T. C. lib. i. p. 194. [158.] “Besides this, the polity of the Church of God in times past is to be followed [herein; that for the expounding of darker places, places of more easiness ought to be joined together; as in the persecution of Antiochus, where they could not have the commodity of preaching, the Jews did appoint at their meetings always a piece of the Law to be read, and withal a piece of the Prophets which expounded that piece of the Law, rather than to bring in interpretations of men to be read. And because I am entered into that matter, here cometh to be considered the practice also of the Church, both before our Saviour’s coming and after, that when the churches met together there is nothing mentioned but the reading of the Scriptures: for so is the liturgy described in the Acts. And it is not to be thought but that they had those which made expositions of the Law and the Prophets. And besides that they had Onkelos the Chaldee paraphrast, both Galatine and Rabbi Moses surnamed Maymon write that Jonathan another of the Chaldee Paraphrasts flourished in our Saviour Christ’s time: whose writings and paraphrases upon the Scriptures are esteemed comparable in that kind … . with any which have laboured that ways. And if any men’s writings were to be read in the Church, those paraphrases which in explaining the Scripture go least from it, and which keep not only the number of sentences but almost the very number of words, were of all most fit to be read in the Church. Seeing therefore, I say, the Church of God then abstained from such interpretations in the Church, and contented itself with the Scriptures, it cannot but be a most dangerous attempt to bring any thing into the Church to be read besides the word of God. This practice continued still in the Churches of God after the Apostles’ times, as may appear by the second Apology of Justin Martyr, which sheweth that their manner was to read in the church the monuments of the Prophets and of the Apostles; and if they had read any thing else, it is to be supposed that he would have set it down, considering that his purpose there is to shew the whole order which was used in the churches then. The same may appear in the first homily of Origen upon Exodus, and upon the Judges.”] ↩

  4. Acts xiii. 15; xv. 21. ↩

  5. Justin. Apol. 2. [τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τω̑ν Ἀποστόλων, ἢ τὰ συγγράμματα τω̑ν Προϕητω̑ν ἀναγινώσκεται. p. 98, ed. Colon. 1686.] ↩

  6. Origen. Hom. 1. super Exod. [t. ii. 129. D. “Hic sermo qui nunc nobis ex divinis voluminibus recitatus est.”] … et in Judic. [ibid. 458. E. “Lector præsentis lectionis ita legebat,” &c. et 461. E. Recitatus est nobis etiam Jesu obitus.”] ↩

  7. Concil. Laod. (320?) c. 59. [ὄτι οὐ δει̑ ἰδιωτικοὺς ψαλμοὺς λέγεσθαι ἐν τῃ̑ ἐκκλησίᾳ, οὐδὲ ἀκανόνιστα βιβλία, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ κανονικὰ τη̑ς καινη̑ς καὶ παλαια̑ς διαθήκης. tom. i. col. 1507.] ↩

  8. Concil. Vas. 2. (Vaison, 529.) [or 3. can. 3. “Hoc etiam pro ædificatione omnium Ecclesiarum, et pro utilitate totius populi, nobis placuit, ut non solum in civitatibus, sed etiam in omnibus parochiis, verbum faciendi daremus presbyteris potestatem: ita ut si presbyter, aliqua infirmitate prohibente, per se ipsum non potuerit prædicare, Sanctorum Patrum Homiliæ, a Diaconibus recitentur.” t. iv. 1680. ad 529.] ↩

  9. Concil. Colon. [ad 1536.] pars ii. [cap. 6. “Cum olim a sanctissimis patribus institutum sit, ut solæ Scripturæ sacræ in Ecclesia recitarentur, nescimus qua incuria acciderit, ut in earum locum successerint alia cum his neutiquam comparanda, atque interim historiæ Sanctorum tam inculte ac tam negligenti judicio conscriptæ, ut nec auctoritatem habere videantur, nec gravitatem. Deo itaque auctore, deque consilio capituli nostri, et theologorum aliorumque piorum virorum, reformationem breviariorum meditabimur.”] ↩

  10. Exod. xxx. 25, 32. ↩

  11. Exod. xl. 15. ↩

  12. Numb. x. 2. ↩

  13. Exod. xxvii. 3; xxx. 26-28. ↩

  14. T. C. lib. i. p. 197. [158.] “The Lord would by these rudiments and pædagogy teach, that he would have nothing brought into the Church but that which he had appointed.” ↩

  15. Elias Thesb. (1472-1549, v. Biog. Univ.) in verbo Patar. [“Opusculum Recens Hebraicum a doctissimo Hebræo Elia Levita Germano Grammatico elaboratum, cui titulum fecit הִּשְׂבִּי, i. e. Thisbites, in quo 712 vocum, quæ sunt partim Hebraicæ, Chaldaicæ, Arabicæ, Græcæ et Latinæ, quæque in Dictionariis non facile inveniuntur, et a Rabbinis tamen Hebræorum in scriptis suis passim usurpantur, origo, etymon, et verus usus docte ostenditur et explicatur: per Paulum Fagium, in gratiam studiosorum Linguæ Sanctæ, Latinitate donatum.” Isnæ in Algavia, 1531. (Isny in Algau, Suabia.) The place quoted occurs in the explication of the root פָםַר “dimisit.” “Thus,” says the Lexicographer, “the man who is summoned last to the reading of the Law on the Sabbath is called מַפְםִיר ‘the Dismisser;’ and he pronounces the Haphtarah, i. e. second Lesson. And here let me set down what was the occasion of the Haphtarah. According to what I have found written, the wicked Antiochus King of Greece forbade Israel to read in the law publicly. What did the Israelites? They took one section from the Prophets, the matter of which resembled the matter which was written in the section appertaining to that Sabbath. For instance on the Sabbath of Bereschith,” (i. e. “In the beginning”) “they read, Thus saith God the Lord which created the heavens,” &c. (Is. xlii. 5.) “And for the section of Noah they read as a lesson, ‘As the waters of Noah so is this to me.’ ” (Isai. liv. 9.) “And so throughout, section by section. And even now that the decree has ceased, that custom has not ceased, but even at this day they read the Sections of the Prophets after reading of the Law, and it is called the Haphtarah, i. e. Dismission.” (Vid. Prideaux, Connect. p. ii. b. iii. An. A. C. 167.)] ↩

  16. Acts xv. 21; xiii. 15. ↩

  17. T. C. lib. i. p. 197. [158.] “This practice continued still in the churches of God after the Apostles’ times, as may appear by the second Apology of Justin Martyr.” Idem, p. 198. [159.] “It was decreed in the council of Laodicea, that nothing should be read in the church but the canonical books of the Old and New Testament. Afterward, as corruptions grew in the Church, the reading of Homilies and of Martyrs’ lives was permitted. But besides the evil success thereof, that use and custom was controlled, as may appear by the council of Colen, albeit otherwise popish. The bringing in of Homilies and Martyrs’ Lives hath thrust the Bible clean out of the church, or into a corner.” ↩

  18. The Apocalypse. [Can. 60 Ὅσα δει̑ βιβλία ἀναγινώσκεσθαι τη̑ς παλαια̑ς διαθήκης. i. 1507. It seems hardly correct to say that the Apocalypse is omitted as uncanonical. The word ἀναγινώσκεσθαι rather refers to public reading in the church: by which construction the judgment of the Fathers of Laodicea might be much the same as that of the Church of England. (But comp. Can. 59.) In the version under the name of Isidorus Mercator, the canon is headed, “Quæ autem oporteat legi, et in auctoritatem recipi, hæc sunt.”] ↩

  19. T. C. lib. ii. p. 381. “It is untrue that simple reading is necessary in the church. A number of churches which have no such order of simple reading, cannot be in this point charged with breach of God’s commandment, which they might be if simple reading were necessary.” (By simple reading, he meaneth the custom of bare reading more than the preacher at the same time expoundeth unto the people.) ↩

  20. “Coimus ad divinarum literarum commemorationem.” Tertull. Apol. p. 692. [c. 39.] ↩

  21. “Judaicarum historiarum libri traditi sunt ab Apostolis legendi in Ecclesiis.” Origen. in Jos. Hom. 15. [init. t. ii. 431.] ↩

  22. Πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἢ ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τω̑ν Ἀποστόλων ἢ τὰ συγγράμματα τω̑ν Προϕητω̑ν ἀναγινώσκεται. Justin. Apol. 2. p. 162. [98.] “Factum est ut ista die Dominica, prophetica lectione jam lecta, ante altare adstante qui lectionem S. Pauli proferret, beatissimus antistes Ambrosius,” &c. Sulpit. Sever. lib. iii. de Vita S. Mart. [rather Greg. Turon. de Mirac. S. Mart. lib. i. c. 5, col. 1006. ed. Ruinart.] ↩

  23. Vid. Concil. Vasens. (Vaison) ii. habitum an. D. 444, to. Concil. ii. pag. 19. [p. 20, ed. Nicolin. Venet. 1585. He seems to refer to the canon quoted above, (p. 71, note 5,) in that edition the second: which after permitting the deacons to read homilies from the Fathers, adds, “Si enim digni sunt diaconi quæ Christus in evangelio locutus est legere; quare indigni judicentur sanctorum Patrum expositiones publice recitare?”] Item Synod. Laod. c. 16. [ἐν σαββάτῳ, εὐαγγέλια μετὰ ἑτέρων γραϕω̑ν ἀναγινώσκεσθαι. t. i. 1500.] Cypr. lib. ii. ep. 5. [al. t. ii. p. 75. “Placuit ut ab officio lectionis incipiat: quia et nihil magis congruit voci, quæ Dominum gloriosa prædicatione confessa est, quam celebrandis divinis lectionibus personare; post verba sublimia, quæ Christi martyrium prolocuta sunt, Evangelium Christi legere, unde martyres fiunt.”] Et lib. iv. ep. 5. [al. t. ii. 77. “Hunc … quid aliud quam super pulpitum, i. e. super tribunal Ecclesiæ, oportebat imponi, ut loci altioris celsitate subnixus, et plebi universæ pro honoris sui claritate conspicuus, legat præcepta et Evangelium Domini, quæ fortiter ac fideliter sequitur? vox Dominum confessa in his quotidie, quæ Dominus locutus est, audiatur?”] Ambros. lib. i. Offic. c. 8. [“Dum legimus hodie Evangelium, (quasi adhortaretur ad scribendum) Spiritus Sanctus obtulit nobis lectionem, qua confirmaremur,” &c.] et Epist. 75. [ed. Bened. 80. “Audisti, frater, lectionem Evangelii, in qua decursum est,” &c.] et lib. de Helia atque Jejunio, cap. 20. [t. i. 559. A. “Audistis hodie in lectione decursa quid Legio dixerit.”] ↩

  24. Just. quæst. 101. [p. 456, ὣς ἐμάνθανον οἱ Ἀπόστολοι, πρω̑τον μὲν τὰ του̑ νόμου, ὕστερον δὲ τὰ εὐαγγέλια, οὕτως καὶ ἡμα̑ς ἐδίδαξαν… τί γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόμος; εὐαγγέλιον προκατηγγελμένον· τί δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον; νόμος πεπληρωμένος.] ↩

  25. August. quæst. 33. in Num. [§ 1. t. iii. 541. “Eadem quippe sunt in vetere et novo; ibi obumbrata, hic revelata; ibi præfigurata, hic manifestata.”] ↩

  26. [Id. de Catech. Rudib. § 8. “In Veteri Testamento est occultatio Novi, in Novo Testamento est manifestatio Veteris.” Compare “Quæst. 73, in Exod. “Multum et solide significatur, ad Vetus Testamentum timorem potius pertinere, sicut ad Novum dilectionem; quanquam et in Vetere Novum lateat, et in Novo Vetus pateat.”] ↩

  27. Walaf. Strab. de Rebus Ecclesiast. cap. 22. (Walafrid Strabo, 807-849, Abbot of Reichenau.) [in Biblioth. Patr. Colon. Agrip. t. ix. pars 1, 960. C. “Lectiones Apostolicas, vel Evangelicas, quis ante celebrationem sacrificii primum statuerit, non adeo certum est. Creditur tamen a primis successoribus Apostolorum eandem dispositionem factam, ea præcipue causa, quia in Evangeliis eadem sacrificia celebrari jubentur, et in Apostolo, qualiter celebrari debeant, docetur: et ut ante sanctissimæ actionis mysterium, ex Evangelio salutis et fidei suæ recognoscerent fundamentum, et ex Apostolo ejusdem fidei et morum Deo placentium caperent instrumentum. Anteponitur autem in ordine quod inferius est dignitate, ut ex minoribus animus audientium ad majora sentienda proficiat, et gradatim ab imis ad summa conscendat.” This was written about ad 842. Cave, Hist. Litt. i. 533.] ↩

  28. Hieron. in Prolog. Galeat. [“Hic prologus Scripturarum, quasi galeatum principium, omnibus libris quos de Hebræo vertimus in Latinum convenire potest: ut scire valeamus quicquid extra hos est in Apocryphis esse ponendum.” t. iii. 17.] ↩

  29. Ruffinus (345-410) in Symbol. Apost. [§ 38.] apud Cypr. [p. 26. ad calc. ed. Fell. “Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non Canonici, sed Ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt: ut est Sapientia Solomonis, et alia Sapientia quæ dicitur filii Syrach, qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur; quo vocabulo non auctor libelli, sed Scripturæ qualitas cognominata est. Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobiæ, et Judith, et Maccabæorum libri … In Novo vero Testamento libellus qui dicitur Pastoris sive Hermatis, qui appellatur Duæ Viæ, vel Judicium Petri: quæ omnia legi quidem in Ecclesia voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Cæteras vero Scripturas Apocryphas nominarunt, quas in ecclesiis legi noluerunt. Hæc nobis a Patribus, ut dixi, tradita opportunum visum est hoc in loco designare.”] ↩

  30. Vide Gelas. Decret. tom. Concil. 2. p. 462. [t. iv. 1264. ad 494.] ↩

  31. Circa an. Dom. 366. ↩

  32. Concil. Carthag. iii. c. 47. “Præter Scripturas canonicas nihil in ecclesiis legatur sub nomine divinarum scripturarum.” Circa an. Dom. 401. [“Placuit, ut præter Scripturas canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum scripturarum … … Liceat etiam legi passiones martyrum, cum anniversarii dies eorum celebrantur.” t. ii. p. 1177. ad 397.] ↩

  33. Concil. Vasen. ii. habitum an. Dom. 444. tom. Concil. ii. p. 19. “Si presbyter aliqua infirmitate prohibente per seipsum non potuerit prædicare, sanctorum Patrum Homiliæ a diaconibus recitentur.” [Labb. Concil. t. iv. 1680. He makes it the third Council of Vaux, (Vaison,) and refers it to ad 529.] ↩

  34. Concil. Carthag. iii. can. 13. [Labb. t. ii. 1644. Concil. vulgo dict. Afric. seu Collectio variorum Canonum. Capit. 13.] et Greg. Turon. de Gloria Mart. cap. 86. [p. 818, ed. Ruinart. “Dies passionis erat Polycarpi … . . Lecta igitur passione cum reliquis lectionibus, &c.”] et Hadrian. Epist. ad Carol. Magn. [Concil. t. vi. p. 1763. The Pope recommends certain envoys of his to the Emperor: “quibus et in omnibus credere debeatis, et solita benignitate eos suscipere jubeatis; pro amore fautoris vestri beati Petri Apostoli: ut dum ad nos reversi fuerint cum effectu causæ, ante confessionem ipsius Dei Apostoli, … pro vestra sospitate … … fundere valeamus preces.”] ↩

  35. Gelas. circa an. Dom. 492. Tom. Concil. ii. p. 461. [t. iv. 1263. Among the writings which the church of Rome “suscipi non prohibet,” are reckoned “Gesta Sanctorum Martyrum, qui multiplicibus tormentorum cruciatibus, et mirabilibus confessionum triumphis irradiant. Quis ita esse catholicorum dubitet, et majora eos in agonibus fuisse perpessos, nec suis viribus, sed gratia Dei et adjutorio universa tolerasse? Sed ideo secundum antiquam consuetudinem singulari cautela in sancta Romana Ecclesia non leguntur, quia et eorum qui conscripsere nomina penitus ignorantur; et ab infidelibus aut idiotis superflua, aut minus apta, quam rei ordo fuerit, scripta esse putantur: … . . sicut Georgii, aliorumque hujusmodi passiones, quæ ab hæreticis perhibentur compositæ. Propter quod, ut dictum est, nevel levis subsannandi oriretur occasio, in sancta Rom. Ecclesia non leguntur.”] ↩

  36. Concil. Colonien. celebrat. an D. 1536. par. ii. cap. 6. [vid. supra, p. 71.] Melch. Can. (Melchior Canus, 1523-1560, Spanish Dominican. “Il contribua beaucoup à faire vannir des écoles une foule de questions vaines.” Biog. Univ. 1886.) Locor. Theol. lib. xi. [p. 650. ed. Lovan. 1569. “Dolenter hoc dico potius quam contumeliose, multo a Laertio severius vitas Philosophorum scriptas, quam a Christianis vitas Sanctorum; longeque incorruptius et integrius Suetonium res Cæsarum exposuisse, quam exposuerint Catholici, non res dico imperatorum, sed martyrum, virginum, et confessorum.”] Viv. [Lud. Vives (Ludovicus Vives, 1492-1540, a Spanish scholar, friend of Erasmus, for a time in England, tutor to Princess Mary. 1886.)] de Trad. Disc. lib. v. [“Dolorem … . cepi animo maximum, … … . Acta Apostolorum, Martyrum, denique Divorum nostræ religionis, et ipsius sive crescentis Ecclesiæ sive jam adultæ, operta maximis tenebris fere ignorari, tanto sive ad cognoscendum sive ad imitandum quam ducum aut philosophorum fructuosiora. Nam quæ de iis scripta præter pauca quædam multis sunt commentis fœdata, dum qui scribit affectui suo indulget, et non quæ egit Divus, sed quæ egisse eum vellet exponit; ut vitam dictet animus scribentis, non veritas. Fuere qui magnæ pietatis loco ducerent mendaciosa pro religione confingere: quod et periculosum est, ne veris adimatur fides propter falsa; et minime necessarium; quoniam pro pietate nostra tam multa sunt vera, ut falsa, tanquam ignavi milites atque inutiles, oneri sint magis quam auxilio.” Op. p. 510. ed. 1535.] ↩

  37. “In errorum barathrum faciliter ruunt, qui conceptus proprios patrum definitionibus anteponunt.” c. un. de relig. do. in Extra. [i. e. capite unico (Tituli VII.) de Religiosis Domibus, in Extravagantibus (Joannis xxii.) Corp. Juris Canon. t. iii. App. 74. Lugd. 1584.] ↩

  38. Hieron. Præf. ad Libros Salom. [iii. 25. “Sicut Judith et Tobit et Machabæorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sed eos intra canonicas Scripturas non recipit; sic et hæc duo volumina (Sapientiam et Ecclesiasticum) legat ad ædificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam.”] Aug. de Præd. Sanct. lib. i. c. 14. [t. x. 807. “Non debuit repudiari sententia Libri Sapientiæ, qui meruit in Ecclesia Christi de gradu Lectorum Ecclesiæ Christi tam longa annositate recitari, et ab omnibus Christianis, ab Episcopis usque ad extremos laicos, fideles, pœnitentes, catechumenos, cum veneratione divinæ auctoritatis audiri.”] Præf. Gloss. ord. (Glossa ordinaria, by Walafrid Strabo, 807-849.) [Lugd. 1589, t. i. “Boni et utiles sunt, nihilque in eis, quod canonicis obviet, invenitur; ideo Ecclesia eos legit, et permittit, ut ad devotionem et ad morum informationem a fidelibus legantur; eorum tamen auctoritas,” &c. (as in the subsequent quotation from St. Jerome)] et Lyr. (Nicolas de Lyra, Franciscan commentator, † 1341.) ad Prol. Hieron. in Tob. [Ibid. t. ii. 1495. “Postquam, auxiliante Deo, scripsi super libros sacræ Scripturæ canonicos, … . de ejusdem confisus auxilio super alios intendo scribere, qui non sunt de canone, sc. lib. Sapientiæ, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias, et Libri Machabæorum, &c… . . Hi libri recepti sunt ab Ecclesia, ut ad morum informationem in ea legantur: tamen eorum auctoritas ad probandum ea quæ in contentionem veniunt minus idonea reputatur: ut dicit Hieron. in Prol. super Judith.”] ↩

  39. T. C. lib. ii. p. 400, 401. [Anonym. apud Sarav. Ep. ad N. quendam. Art. 1. “Durum videtur illorum pleraque (ne quid gravius dicam) inepta, legenda proponi.”] ↩

  40. Harm. Conf. [Confess. Helv. sect. 1. “Nihil dissimulamus, quosdam Vet. Test. libros a veteribus nuncupatos esse Apocryphos, ab aliis Ecclesiasticos, utpote quos in ecclesiis legi voluerunt quidem, non tamen proferri ad authoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam.” Sylloge Confess. sub Temp. Reform. Eccles. Oxon. 1804. p. 17.] Bel. Con. (Belgica Confessio) art. 6. [“Differentiam constituimus inter libros istos sacros, et eos quos Apocryphos vocant: utpote quod Apocryphi legi quidem in Ecclesia possint, et fas sit ex illis eatenus etiam sumere documenta, quatenus cum libris Canonicis consonant; at nequaquam ea est ipsorum auctoritas et firmitudo, ut ex eorum testimonio aliquod dogma de Fide et Religione Christiana certo constitui possit: tantum abest ut aliorum auctoritatem infringere vel minuere valeant.” Ib. p. 293.] Lubert. (Sibrand Lubert, a Protestant controversialist, of Franeker in Friesland: de Principiis Christianorum dogmatum, contra Bellarminum. Franekeræ, 1591.) 1886. de Princip. Christ. Dogm. lib. i. c. 5. [c. 4. “Manifestum est, Ecclesiam habuisse eos libros pro sanctis, sacris, et Ecclesiasticis, neque tamen pro Canonicis agnovisse.” c. 5. “Hi libri non sunt Canonicis libris conformes. Unum enim librum ex his Hieronymus dicit vitiosum esse, alterum fabulosum. At vitiosum et fabulosum non est veritatis regulæ conforme. Præterea in singulis libris ostendemus, eos non esse canonicis conformes.”] ↩

  41. The libel of Metaphys. Schoolp. art. 34. ↩

  42. Joseph. cont. Apion. lib. i. [§ 8. Ἀπὸ δὲ Ἀρταξέρξου μέχρι του̑ καθ’ ἡμα̑ς χρόνου γέγραπται μὲν ἕκαστα· πίστεως δὲ οὐχ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τοι̑ς πρὸ αὐτω̑ν, διὰ τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι τὴν τω̑ν προϕητω̑ν ἀκριβη̑ διαδοχήν.] ↩

  43. Epiphan. in Ancyret. [de Ponderibus, &c. § 4.] Χρήσιμοι μέν εἰσι καὶ ὠϕέλιμοι, ἀλλ’ εἰς ἀριθμὸν ῥητω̑ν οὐκ ἀναϕέρονται. [t. ii. 162.] ↩

  44. Præf. ad lib. Eccles. ↩

  45. [Opp. i. 57. Quoted by T. C. ii. 401. “Caveat omnia apocrypha. Et siquando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem, sed ad signorum reverentiam legere voluerit: sciat non eorum esse, quorum titulis prænotantur, multaque his admixta vitiosa, et grandis esse prudentiæ, aurum in luto quærere.”] ↩

Backlinks