This post is an excerpt from the forthcoming book Rome Examined: Examination of the Decrees of the Council of Trent. In this concise distillation of Chemnitz’s magisterial critique, we present his scriptural case against Rome’s decrees on tradition, justification, the sacraments, and papal authority—one section at a time. (Find all the excerpts here: https://wolfmueller.co/category/rome-examined/)
1:6: The Canonical Books or the Canon of Scripture
Three Chief Questions
[1] There are three questions, in particular, which belong here:
- Why is Scripture called canonical?
- From whence does it possess canonical status?
- Which books are canonical, and which are apocryphal?
1:6:1: The Designation of Scripture as Canonical
[3] The name canon is taken from biblical usage. In Galatians 6:16, Philippians 3:16, and Psalm 19:4, canon has the sense of the rule of faith, as it is the necessary guide for the building of the house of God. Because this rule of faith, to the extent that it is necessary and sufficient, was grounded in writing, Scripture is called canonical or the canon. If the church, according to Romans 4, desires to walk in the footsteps of the true faith, in order to be protected from the danger of perversion and distortion, then it needs a firm canon, rule and guide, within whose borders and boundaries it keeps in order not to fall into error.
[4] By designating Scripture as canonical, that which has been said thus far about the status, perfection, and sufficiency of Scripture becomes very clear. Varinus aptly says that the canon is like the pointer on a scale which indicates the balance between what rises and falls. Augustine uses this image excellently when speaking against the Donatists, “Let us not take a false scale and weigh out things as light or heavy as we wish, but rather let us take God’s scale and see how God rightly weighs” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, bk. 2, ch. 6).[1] This quote says well why Scripture is called canonical.
[6] Augustine elaborates further against the Manichaean Faustus (Contra Faustum, bk. 11, ch. 5): the canonical Scripture should guide us in our inexperience and weakness; all pious knowledge depends upon it in faith; from it, proof and judgment are taken.[2] Augustine also writes, “You oppose us with Cyprian’s letters and Cyprian’s view. But who does not know that the canon of Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments is a firmly closed entity? Who does not know that Scripture is so much more preferred to all later episcopal letters that no doubt may arise concerning it, whether its contents are true or false? The letters of bishops do not stand above the criticism of higher wisdom or weightier bishops’ voices or advisory councils” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, bk. 2, ch. 3).[3] Likewise, he writes in Contra Cresconium, bk. 2, ch. 32, “I do not consider myself bound on account of this letter. For the letters of Cyprian are not canonical for me, but rather I assess them according to the canon.”[4] In Letter 19 to Jerome, only the canonical books are considered above error.[5] In Letter 112 to Paulina, Augustine mentions that there can be reasons for belief alongside Holy Scripture that bear decisive weight for reason.[6] But here it must be observed that he has the area of worldly knowledge in mind and is not speaking about religious knowledge. He discusses natural belief in the reports of secular history, such as the founding of Rome or family chronicles about ancestors.[7] These rational judgments about credibility of worldly knowledge are not to be confused with the papal traditions regarding religious matters.
1:6:2: From Whence Scripture Obtains Its Canonical Authority
[7] Let us further inquire: From whence does Scripture obtain its canonical authority? The papists say from the church. Others say that the authority of the church is above Scripture because the true Scripture was first recognized by the church, to which the apocryphal gospels were presented for examination and rejection.[8] Still others engage in such shameless mockery by saying that if Scripture were abandoned by the authority of the church, they in themselves would be no more authoritative than the fables of Aesop.[9]
Therefore, the principle has been established that the tradition of the church, even without any testimony from Scripture, has the same authority as the canon, to which the church has accorded authority.
[9] Scripture, however, has its extraordinary authority from the very start due to its divine inspiration. The canonical authority of Holy Scripture thus points back:
- To the Holy Spirit, through whose inspiration it was composed;
- To the authors, to whom God Himself made clear testimonies of the truth available;
- To the original church, which is a witness to when those writings were published and recognized.
[11] Thus, the Old Testament canon can be recognized from New Testament quotations. The New Testament writings are authenticated by the self-testimony of the apostles Paul, Peter, and John.
[14] The ancient apostolic church has born witness to the genuine writings of the apostles. The subsequent period faithfully and consistently adhered to this testimony. Therefore, many alleged apostolic writings were rejected as spurious for the following reasons:
- Because their apostolic origin and apostolic attestation were not demonstrated;
- Because they advanced a strange unapostolic teaching.
With these considerations, the ancient church simply rejected some writings as false and spurious. Other writings for which completely certain and unanimous testimony of the apostolic church did not exist were not simply rejected but were distinguished and separated from the undisputed writings.
Eusebius presents three tiers of writings:[10]
- First, the undisputed genuine (or canonical) writings.
- Second, the writings which are doubted but not rejected and considered by many in the church to be useful. These are called Holy Books or Ecclesiastical Writings. Jerome calls them the apocrypha and says “The church reads them for the edification of the people, but not for the establishment and authentication of church doctrine.”
- To the third class Eusebius reckons the forged, spurious, and false writings which are simply to be rejected.
[15] Now the question is:
1. Can the post-apostolic or even the contemporary church regard such rejected writings as reliable? It is clear that it can not.
2. Can it reject the writings which possessed the earliest church’s testimony of authenticity? I can hardly believe anyone would say that.
3. Can it count the disputed writings among the canonical ones? The papists maintain this. But they must bring forth reliable historical witnesses, otherwise their judgment is arbitrary and presumptuous.
Pighius, however, ascribes to the church the power to confer canonical authority upon certain writings, which they do not have from themselves or from their authors. But then such authority could be given to Aesop’s fables! Not that I want to equate Holy Scripture with these fables, which is unthinkable. The church cannot make false writings true, uncertain ones certain, or unattested ones canonical. That is the point.
[16] Augustine more often argues about the fixing of the canon. See his writing Contra Faustum (bk. 11, ch. 2;[11] bk. 28, ch. 2;[12] bk. 32, ch. 21;[13] bk. 33, ch.6)[14] and The City of God (bk. 15, ch. 23).[15] He does not desire for the church to rule over Scripture, whether indirectly or directly. To be sure, he appeals to the testimony of the church. But how that is intended ought to be observed. Clearly Augustine does not attribute to the church the power to give this or that writing an actual unfounded canonical status.
The fundamental inspiration of the Holy Spirit who drove the prophets, apostles, and the apostles’ disciples to write is a topic unto itself. A different matter, however, is the testimony of the church concerning the credibility of these writings. Even in this attestation itself, the task of the original church, which passed judgment on these writings, is completely different than the task of the later church, which is to preserve that original testimony purely and to pass it down to posterity. Gerson also says in his book on the spiritual life (De vita spirituali,bk. 2, ch. 7) that the ancient church had a greater authority in these matters than the contemporary church. It is not in the purview of pope, council, or church to change the traditions of the evangelists and the apostles.
1:6:3: Canonical and Apocryphal Books
[18] The third question is: Which books belong to the canon? This involves the books which are in the so-called Vulgate. The ancient church clearly attests that of these books some belong to the canon, while others do not. The latter are the Apocrypha, according to the designation of Jerome. For thus he names the writings which are doubted.
[19] To the Old Testament Apocrypha belong Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira), Judith, Tobit, 3 Ezra and 4 Ezra, Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremiah, the Books of the Maccabees, and the additions to Esther and Daniel.
[20] Some of these books were written after the time of the prophets. Others indeed bear the names of the prophets but are not confidently attested. Therefore, they were removed from the canon. The one who wishes to make these books canonical, must establish their prophetic origin, which is impossible. Or one must put forward that it does not matter for Scripture whether they are divinely or humanly attested.
[21] As for the doubted books of the New Testament, Eusebius (bk. 3, ch. 25) counts the epistles of James and Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and the Revelation of John. Origen attests something similar,[16] according to the witness of Eusebius, as does Jerome in his catalogue, concerning the Second Epistle of Peter,[17] the Epistle of James,[18] and even the Letter to the Hebrews.[19]
[22] The reasons for such concerns are as follows:
- There lacks sufficient, reliable, certain, and unanimous witnesses to establish that these writings were testified as apostolic by the apostolic church.
- It could no longer be determined whether these writings were actually written by their presumed authors; in fact, they were considered forged.
- The opinions concerning the apostolic origins of these writings are divergent among the ancient witnesses. The matter remains undecided.
[23] Despite these clear witnesses, the high commanding Council of Trent threatens excommunication for those who do not accord the doubtful books with the same status as the genuine undisputed ones.
[25] The ancients were certainly justified in the principle according to which they only established their articles of faith from the canonical books. Therefore, no controverted point can be decided from the apocryphal books. Their teaching is to be interpreted in accordance with the canonical writings. The Council of Trent has abolished this division from the ancient church because it is too narrow.
[26] May the reader recall how much misfortune came over the church when the distinction between canonical, apocryphal, and forged writings was blurred. First, the latter came to be treated as equal to the former. Then material in support of tradition was taken from the forged books. Then in Gregory’s time the articles from councils were placed upon the same level as the Gospels. Finally, papal decretals became preferred to the apostolic Scriptures.
[27] One can thus see why the papists have caused such confusion. How necessary it is, therefore, to fight for the ancient division between the biblical books. They cite against us, however, passages from Augustine and Jerome. But Augustine means the same as we do albeit with a different way of speaking. For he does not divide, as did Eusebius and Jerome, according to three classes of writings, but rather just two, namely:
- Apocrypha, that is, false and forged writings;
- Those which are read in church, which he calls canonical.[20]
But I ask: Does Augustine ascribe to all the books which he calls canonical the same status? For this is the dispute. Augustine explicitly distinguishes, however, between those writings which have been universally recognized and those which have gained acceptance only among a part of the church. He gives preference to the first.[21]
Augustine only calls the Books of Maccabees canonical, for example, to avoid putting it on the same level as the spurious writings.[22]
Therefore, he maintains the ancient church’s division, and concerning the Apocrypha he means the same as Jerome, “The church reads them for the edification of the people, but not for establishing the doctrine of faith.” Thus, Jerome makes his view very clear. Furthermore, he says concerning the apocryphal books: “They are included in the collection of Scripture,” but of the recognized books, “They belong to the canon.”
[33] Apocrypha actually means those books about which Augustine says (City of Book bk. 15, ch. 23): “Their enigmatic and hidden origin was not clear to those through whose testimony we came to recognize the authority of the true Scriptures.” This explanation is fitting for the books which, to speak with Jerome, are indeed found in the usual editions of the Bible, but do not belong to the canon.
NOTES
[1] “Let us not bring in deceitful balances, to which we may hang what weights we will and how we will, saying to suit ourselves, “This is heavy and this is light;” but let us bring forward the sacred balance out of holy Scripture, as out of the Lord’s treasure-house, and let us weigh them by it, to see which is the heavier; or rather, let us not weigh them for ourselves, but read the weights as declared by the Lord.” – Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book II, Chapter 6, §9, NPNF1-04, pg. 584, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_De_Baptismo_Contra_Donatistas_Libri_Septem_[Schaff],_EN.pdf
[2] “As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: ‘And if ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.’ Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion.” – Augustine of Hippo, Contra Faustum Manichaeum (Reply to Faustus the Manichæan), Book XI, Chapter V, NPNF1-04, pg. 230-231, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_Contra_Faustum_Manichaeum_%5BSchaff%5D,_EN.pdf
[3] “You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?” – Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism Against the Donatists, Book II, Chapter 3, NPNF1-04, pg. 580, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_De_Baptismo_Contra_Donatistas_Libri_Septem_[Schaff],_EN.pdf
[4] “You inserted into your letter some words of Cyprian from his letter to Jubaianus, in order to show that he held the view that those who had been baptized in heresy or schism ought to be baptized again in the Catholic Church. I am not bound by the authority of that letter, because I do not regard the letters of Cyprian as canonical Scripture. Rather, I examine them in light of the canonical Scriptures, and whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures I accept with his praise; but whatever does not agree, I reject with his peace. And therefore, if you had cited from some canonical book of the Apostles or the Prophets the words which you mentioned as written by him to Jubaianus, I would have had no possibility of contradiction at all. But as it is, since what you quote is not canonical, by that same liberty to which the Lord has called us, I do not accept—though I cannot attain to his praise, though my writings cannot be compared with his many letters, though I love his genius, delight in his speech, admire his charity, and venerate his martyrdom—yet I do not accept that view which the blessed Cyprian held differently on the question of baptizing heretics and schismatics, because the Church does not accept it, for which Church the blessed Cyprian shed his blood. But since you say that he supported this opinion of his by legal proofs (i.e. by evidence from the Law), though he could not have confirmed those legal proofs, but rather whatever he rightly understood, he confirmed by them—then leave aside the writings of Cyprian and mention those same legal proofs which you say he used. If I do not show that these proofs in no way support your cause, you have won. Therefore, I do not accept this opinion of Cyprian—though I am incomparably inferior to Cyprian—just as I do not accept, nor imitate, that act of the Apostle Peter when he compelled the Gentiles to Judaize, though I am incomparably inferior to Peter. But you, who set before us the writings of Cyprian as though they were the foundations of canonical authority—whatever we can produce from Cyprian against you, you must yield, and it is right that, being defeated, you should be silent, and that at last you be converted from the error of your most destructive division to the unity of the Catholic Church.” – Augustine of Hippo, Contra Cresconium Grammaticum, Book II, Chapter 32, link: https://www.augustinus.it/latino/contro_cresconio/index2.htm
Lat.: “Verba eius ex epistola ad Iubaianum inseruisti litteris tuis, quibus ei placuisse monstrares, baptizandos eos esse in Ecclesia catholica, qui fuerint in haeresi vel schismate baptizati. Ego huius epistolae auctoritate non teneor; quia litteras Cypriani non ut canonicas habeo, sed eas ex canonicis considero, et quod in eis divinarum Scripturarum auctoritati congruit, cum laude eius accipio; quod autem non congruit, cum pace eius respuo. Ac per hoc, si ea quae commemorasti ab illo ad Iubaianum scripta, de aliquo libro Apostolorum vel Prophetarum canonico recitares, quod omnino contradicerem non haberem. Nunc vero quoniam canonicum non est quod recitas, ea libertate ad quam nos vocavit Dominus 76, eius viri cuius laudem assequi non valeo, cuius multis litteris mea scripta non comparo, cuius ingenium diligo, cuius ore delector, cuius caritatem miror, cuius martyrium veneror, hoc quod aliter sapuit, non accipio. Non accipio, inquam, quod de bapti zandis haereticis et schismaticis beatus Cyprianus sensit; quia hoc Ecclesia non accipit, pro qua beatus Cyprianus sanguinem fudit. Sed quia dicitis eum pro hac sententia legalia documenta firmasse: quamquam non ille documenta legalia firmare potuit, sed eis potius quaecumque recte sensit ipse firmavit: relinque ergo scripta Cypriani, et ea ipsa legalia documenta quibus eum dicis usum esse commemora. Si non ea demonstravero vestram causam nihil adiuvare, vicisti. Quapropter ita hoc Cypriani non accipio, quamvis inferior incomparabiliter Cypriano; sicut illud apostoli Petri quod Gentes Iudaizare cogebat, nec accipio, nec facio, quamvis inferior incomparabiliter Petro. Vos autem qui scripta Cypriani nobis tamquam firmamenta canonicae auctoritatis opponitis, quidquid de Cypriano contra vos proferre potuerimus, necesse est cedatis, et iustum est ut victi taceatis, ac vos aliquando ab errore perniciosissimae dissensionis ad unitatem catholicam convertatis.” – Augustine of Hippo, Contra Cresconium Grammaticum, Liber Secundus, Caput XXXII, link: https://www.augustinus.it/latino/contro_cresconio/index2.htm
[5] “For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason.” – Augustine of Hippo, Letter LXXXII (to Jerome), §3, NPNF1-01, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.LXXXII.html
[6] “Since, therefore, we do not see God with the eyes of the body, as we see either heavenly or earthly bodies, or with the gaze of the mind, as we see those things some of which I mentioned above, things that you see most certainly within yourself, why do we believe that he is seen if not because we place our faith in the scripture where we read, Blessed are the clean of heart because they will see God (Mt 5:8), and any other passages that were written down by divine authority to this effect? For we consider it wrong not to believe this authority, whereas we have no doubt that to believe it is a matter of piety. Therefore, hold on to this distinction. Accordingly, if in the course of the discussion I call your attention to something that you see with the eyes of the flesh or that you perceive or recall that you have perceived with any other sense, as we perceive colors, sounds, smells, tastes, and warmth or anything else we perceive through the body by seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching, or if I call your attention to something that you see with the gaze of the mind, as you see your life, willing, thought, memory, understanding, knowledge, faith, and anything else you see by the mind and do not doubt that it is true, not merely by believing, but by clearly seeing, you should judge that I have clearly shown this. But if I do not show you something so that you hold it as seen and perceived by a sense of the body or of the mind, and if I nonetheless say something that must be either true or false but does not seem to fall into either of those two kinds, it remains for you only to believe or not to believe it. But if it is supported by the clear authority of those divine scriptures, namely, those that are called “canonical” in the Church, it must be believed without any doubt. But you may believe or not believe other witnesses or testimonies by which you might be persuaded to believe something to the extent that you consider that they have or do not have sufficient weight to produce faith.” – Augustine of Hippo, Letter 147 (to Paulina), §3-4, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, tr. Roland Teske, NY: New City Press (2003), Part II – Letters, Vol. 2: Letters 100-155, pg. 321, link: https://wesleyscholar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Augustine-Letters-100-155.pdf
[7] “For, if we did not believe any of those things that we did not see, that is, that we did not perceive directly at the present moment by either the mind or the body and that we did not learn from the holy scriptures either by reading or by hearing, how would we know that there are cities where we never were or that Rome was founded by Romulus or—to speak of more recent events—that Constantinople was founded by Constantine? How, finally, would we know the mothers who bore us and the fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors who begot us? Of course we know very many such things, yet we have not learned them either as present to any sense, like the sun or like the will of our mind, or by the authority of the canonical writings, as we know that Adam was the first human being or that Christ was born in the flesh, suffered, and rose. Rather, we have learned these things from the reports of others about whose testimony we have thought that we should have no doubt, at least in this sort of matter. For, if in these matters we make a mistake somewhere by believing that something is true that is not or that something is not true that is, we judge that there is no danger, if it is not against that faith by which piety is informed. This introduction of mine does not yet examine the question you posed, but it prepares you and others who will read these ideas as to what sort of judge you ought to be of my writings or of those of any others. In that way you will not either suppose that you know something that you do not know or rashly believe something that you have not perceived either by the senses of the body or by the gaze of the mind in a direct vision of the very thing to be known or something that you have not learned must be believed by the authority of the canonical scriptures, even if it was not present to the senses of either the mind or the body.” – Augustine of Hippo, Letter 147 (to Paulina), §5, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, tr. Roland Teske, NY: New City Press (2003), Part II – Letters, Vol. 2: Letters 100-155, pg. 321-322, link: https://wesleyscholar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Augustine-Letters-100-155.pdf
[8] Here, apocryphal gospels refer to texts such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Peter, etc.
[9] “The Scriptures have only as much force as the fables of Aesop, if destitute of the authority of the Church.” – Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Confutatio Prolegomenon Brentii, Opera, 1.530. English translation from Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Gige, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1992-1997), 1:86 (2.6.2)
[10] “One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures. The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them. But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings, as well as in regard to those which are not of this class. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders. Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place. In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul, I have not found them among the undisputed writings. But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it. This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as well as those that are not universally acknowledged.” – Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapter III, §1-7, NPNF2-01, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201/npnf201.iii.viii.iii.html
“Let us now point out the undisputed writings of this apostle [i.e. John]. And in the first place his Gospel, which is known to all the churches under heaven, must be acknowledged as genuine. That it has with good reason been put by the ancients in the fourth place, after the other three Gospels, may be made evident in the following way. Those great and truly divine men, I mean the apostles of Christ, were purified in their life, and were adorned with every virtue of the soul, but were uncultivated in speech. They were confident indeed in their trust in the divine and wonder-working power which was granted unto them by the Saviour, but they did not know how, nor did they attempt to proclaim the doctrines of their teacher in studied and artistic language, but employing only the demonstration of the divine Spirit, which worked with them, and the wonder-working power of Christ, which was displayed through them, they published the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven throughout the whole world, paying little attention to the composition of written works. And this they did because they were assisted in their ministry by one greater than man. Paul, for instance, who surpassed them all in vigor of expression and in richness of thought, committed to writing no more than the briefest epistles, although he had innumerable mysterious matters to communicate, for he had attained even unto the sights of the third heaven, had been carried to the very paradise of God, and had been deemed worthy to hear unspeakable utterances there. And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry. And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and indicated this in the beginning of their account. For Matthew, after the forty days’ fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: ‘Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.’ Mark likewise says: ‘Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee.’ And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, ‘adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in prison.’ They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: ‘This beginning of miracles did Jesus’; and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Ænon near Salim; where he states the matter clearly in the words: ‘For John was not yet cast into prison.’ John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time. One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit. These things may suffice, which we have said concerning the Gospel of John. The cause which led to the composition of the Gospel of Mark has been already stated by us. But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states himself the reasons which led him to write it. He states that since many others had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles. So much for our own account of these things. But in a more fitting place we shall attempt to show by quotations from the ancients, what others have said concerning them. But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times. But the other two are disputed. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided. But at the proper time this question likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients.” – Eusebius, Church History, Book XXIII, Chapter 24, §1-19, NPNF2-01, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201/npnf201.iii.viii.xxiii.html
“Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels;779 following them the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers—we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious. Let us now proceed with our history.” – Eusebius, Church History, Book XXIII, Chapter 25, §1-7, NPNF2-01, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html
[11] “As I said a little ago, when these men are beset by clear testimonies of Scripture, and cannot escape from their grasp, they declare that the passage is spurious. The declaration only shows their aversion to the truth, and their obstinacy in error. Unable to answer these statements of Scripture, they deny their genuineness. But if this answer is admitted, or allowed to have any weight, it will be useless to quote any book or any passage against your errors. It is one thing to reject the books themselves, and to profess no regard for their authority, as the Pagans reject our Scriptures, and the Jews the New Testament, and as we reject any books peculiar to your sect, or any other heretical sect, and also the apocryphal books, which are so called, not because of any mysterious regard paid to them, but because they are mysterious in their origin, and in the absence of clear evidence, have only some obscure presumption to rest upon; and it is another thing to say, This holy man wrote only the truth, and this is his epistle, but some verses are his, and some are not. And then, when you are asked for a proof, instead of referring to more correct or more ancient manuscripts, or to a greater number, or to the original text, your reply is, This verse is his, because it makes for me; and this is not his, because it is against me. Are you, then, the rule of truth? Can nothing be true that is against you? But what answer could you give to an opponent as insane as yourself, if he confronts you by saying, The passage in your favor is spurious, and that against you is genuine? Perhaps you will produce a book, all of which can be explained so as to support you. Then, instead of rejecting a passage, he will reply by condemning the whole book as spurious. You have no resource against such an opponent. For all the testimony you can bring in favor of your book from antiquity or tradition will avail nothing. In this respect the testimony of the Catholic Church is conspicuous, as supported by a succession of bishops from the original seats of the apostles up to the present time, and by the consent of so many nations. Accordingly, should there be a question about the text of some passage, as there are a few passages with various readings well known to students of the sacred Scriptures, we should first consult the manuscripts of the country where the religion was first taught; and if these still varied, we should take the text of the greater number, or of the more ancient. And if any uncertainty remained, we should consult the original text. This is the method employed by those who, in any question about the Scriptures, do not lose sight of the regard due to their authority, and inquire with the view of gaining information, not of raising disputes.” – Augustine of Hippo, Contra Faustum Manichaeum (Reply to Faustus the Manichæan), Book XI, Chapter 2, NPNF1-04, pg. 227-228, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_Contra_Faustum_Manichaeum_%5BSchaff%5D,_EN.pdf
[12] “You are always answering arguments which no one uses, instead of our real arguments, which you cannot answer. No one says that Christ could not die if He had not been born; for Adam died though he had not been born. What we say is, Christ was born, because this is said not by this or that heretic, but in the holy Gospel; and He died, for this too is written, not in some heretical production, but in the holy Gospel. You set aside argument on the question of the true account to be given of Jesus, and refer to what He says of Himself, and what His apostles say of Him; and yet, when I begin to quote the Gospel of His apostle Matthew, where we have the whole narrative of Christ’s birth, you forthwith deny that Matthew wrote the narrative, though this is affirmed by the continuous testimony of the whole Church, from the days of apostolic presidency to the bishops of our own time. What authority will you quote against this? Perhaps some book of Manichæus, where it is denied that Jesus was born of a virgin. As, then, I believe your book to be the production of Manichæus, since it has been kept and handed down among the disciples of Manichæus, from the time when he lived to the present time, by a regular succession of your presidents, so I ask you to believe the book which I quote to have been written by Matthew, since it has been handed down from the days of Matthew in the Church, without any break in the connection between that time and the present. The question then is, whether we are to believe the statements of an apostle who was in the company of Christ while He was on earth, or of a man away in Persia, born long after Christ. But perhaps you will quote some other book bearing the name of an apostle known to have been chosen by Christ; and you will find there that Christ was not born of Mary. Since, then, one of the books must be false, the question in this case is, whether we are to yield our belief to a book acknowledged and approved as handed down from the beginning in the Church founded by Christ Himself, and maintained through the apostles and their successors in an unbroken connection all over the world to the present day; or to a book which this Church condemns as unknown, and which, moreover, is brought forward by men who prove their veracity by praising Christ for falsehood.” – Augustine of Hippo, Contra Faustum Manichaeum (Reply to Faustus the Manichæan), Book XXVIII, Chapter 2, NPNF1-04, pg. 451-452, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_Contra_Faustum_Manichaeum_%5BSchaff%5D,_EN.pdf
[13] “We can now answer the question, how we know that these books were written by the apostles. In a word, we know this in the same way that you know that the books whose authority you are so deluded as to prefer were written by Manichæus. For, suppose some one should raise a question on this point, and should contend, in arguing with you, that the books which you attribute to Manichæus are not of his authorship; your only reply would be, to ridicule the absurdity of thus gratuitously calling in question a matter confirmed by successive testimonies of such wide extent. As, then, it is certain that these books are the production of Manichæus, and as it is ridiculous in one born so many years after to start objections of his own, and so raise a discussion on the point; with equal certainty may we pronounce it absurd, or rather pitiable, in Manichæus or his followers to bring such objections against writings originally well authenticated, and carefully handed down from the times of the apostles to our own day through a constant succession of custodians. We have now only to compare the authority of Manichæus with that of the apostles. The genuineness of the writings is equally certain in both cases. But no one will compare Manichæus to the apostles, unless he ceases to be a follower of Christ, who sent the apostles.” – Augustine of Hippo, Contra Faustum Manichaeum (Reply to Faustus the Manichæan), Book XXXII, Chapter 21-22, NPNF1-04, pg. 474-475, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_Contra_Faustum_Manichaeum_%5BSchaff%5D,_EN.pdf
[14] “You are so hardened in your errors against the testimonies of Scripture, that nothing can be made of you; for whenever anything is quoted against you, you have the boldness to say that it is written not by the apostle, but by some pretender under his name. The doctrine of demons which you preach is so opposed to Christian doctrine, that you could not continue, as professing Christians, to maintain it, unless you denied the truth of the apostolic writings. How can you thus do injury to your own souls? Where will you find any authority, if not in the Gospel and apostolic writings? How can we be sure of the authorship of any book, if we doubt the apostolic origin of those books which are attributed to the apostles by the Church which the apostles themselves founded, and which occupies so conspicuous a place in all lands, and if at the same time we acknowledge as the undoubted production of the apostles what is brought forward by heretics in opposition to the Church, whose authors, from whom they derive their name, lived long after the apostles? And do we not see in profane literature that there are well-known authors under whose names many things have been published after their time which have been rejected, either from inconsistency with their ascertained writings, or from their not having been known in the lifetime of the authors, so as to be banded down with the confirmatory statement of the authors themselves, or of their friends? To give a single example, were not some books published lately under the name of the distinguished physician Hippocrates, which were not received as authoritative by physicians? And this decision remained unaltered in spite of some similarity in style and matter: for, when compared to the genuine writings of Hippocrates, these books were found to be inferior; besides that they were not recognized as his at the time when his authorship of his genuine productions was ascertained. Those books, again, from a comparison with which the productions of questionable origin were rejected, are with certainty attributed to Hippocrates; and any one who denies their authorship is answered only by ridicule, simply because there is a succession of testimonies to the books from the time of Hippocrates to the present day, which makes it unreasonable either now or hereafter to have any doubt on the subject. How do we know the authorship of the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and other similar writers, but by the unbroken chain of evidence? So also with the numerous commentaries on the ecclesiastical books, which have no canonical authority, and yet show a desire of usefulness and a spirit of inquiry. How is the authorship ascertained in each case, except by the author’s having brought his work into public notice as much as possible in his own lifetime, and, by the transmission of the information from one to another in continuous order, the belief becoming more certain as it becomes more general, up to our own day; so that, when we are questioned as to the authorship of any book, we have no difficulty in answering? But why speak of old books? Take the books now before us: should any one, after some years, deny that this book was written by me, or that Faustus’ was written by him, where is evidence for the fact to be found but in the information possessed by some at the present time, and transmitted by them through successive generations even to distant times? From all this it follows, that no one who has not yielded to the malicious and deceitful suggestions of lying devils, can be so blinded by passion as to deny the ability of the Church of the apostles—a community of brethren as numerous as they were faithful—to transmit their writings unaltered to posterity, as the original seats of the apostles have been occupied by a continuous succession of bishops to the present day, especially when we are accustomed to see this happen in the case of ordinary writings both in the Church and out of it.” – Augustine of Hippo, Contra Faustum Manichaeum (Reply to Faustus the Manichæan), Book XXXIII, Chapter 6, NPNF1-04, pg. 479-480, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_Contra_Faustum_Manichaeum_%5BSchaff%5D,_EN.pdf
[15] “Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority. We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission. So that the writings which are produced under his name, and which contain these fables about the giants, saying that their fathers were not men, are properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine; just as many writings are produced by heretics under the names both of other prophets, and more recently, under the names of the apostles, all of which, after careful examination, have been set apart from canonical authority under the title of Apocrypha. There is therefore no doubt that, according to the Hebrew and Christian canonical Scriptures, there were many giants before the deluge…” – Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book XV, Chapter 23, NPNF1-02, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102/npnf102.iv.XV.23.html
[16] “In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.’ And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.” “In the fifth book of his Expositions of John’s Gospel, he speaks thus concerning the epistles of the apostles: “But he who was ‘made sufficient to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit,’ that is, Paul, who ‘fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum,’ did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he wrote he sent but few lines. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,’ has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful. Why need we speak of him who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus, John, who has left us one Gospel, though he confessed that he might write so many that the world could not contain them? And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third; but not all consider them genuine, and together they do not contain hundred lines.” In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it: “That the verbal style of the epistle entitled ‘To the Hebrews,’ is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself ‘rude in speech’ that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.’ Farther on he adds: “If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.” But let this suffice on these matters.” – Eusebius, Church History, Book VI, Chapter XXV, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 1, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201/npnf201.iii.xi.xxv.html
[17] “Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion—the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia—pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. He wrote two epistles which are called Catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him. Then too the Gospel according to Mark, who was his disciple and interpreter, is ascribed to him. On the other hand, the books, of which one is entitled his Acts, another his Gospel, a third his Preaching, a fourth his Revelation, a fifth his ‘Judgment’ are rejected as apocryphal.” – Jerome of Stridon, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter I, NPNF2-03, pg. 624, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0347-0420,_Hieronymus,_De_Viris_Illustribus_Liber_Ad_Dextrum_[Schaff],_EN.pdf
[18] “James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book, after our Lord’s passion at once ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles and even this is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority.” – Jerome of Stridon, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter I, NPNF2-03, pg. 624-625, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0347-0420,_Hieronymus,_De_Viris_Illustribus_Liber_Ad_Dextrum_[Schaff],_EN.pdf
[19] “He [i.e. the apostle Paul] wrote nine epistles to seven churches: To the Romans one, To the Corinthians two, To the Galatians one, To the Ephesians one, To the Philippians one, To the Colossians one, To the Thessalonians two; and besides these to his disciples, To Timothy two, To Titus one, To Philemon one. The epistle which is called the Epistle to the Hebrews is not considered his, on account of its difference from the others in style and language, but it is reckoned, either according to Tertullian to be the work of Barnabas, or according to others, to be by Luke the Evangelist or Clement afterwards bishop of the church at Rome, who, they say, arranged and adorned the ideas of Paul in his own language, though to be sure, since Paul was writing to Hebrews and was in disrepute among them he may have omitted his name from the salutation on this account. He being a Hebrew wrote Hebrew, that is his own tongue and most fluently while the things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek and this is the reason why it seems to differ from other epistles of Paul. Some read one also to the Laodiceans but it is rejected by everyone.” – Jerome of Stridon, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter V, NPNF2-03, pg. 628, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0347-0420,_Hieronymus,_De_Viris_Illustribus_Liber_Ad_Dextrum_[Schaff],_EN.pdf
[20] For Augustine, Apocrypha refers to spurious writings, like the apocryphal Gospels. For Jerome, Apocrypha refers to antilegomena.
[21] Chemnitz is not alone in this analysis of Augustine. Other scholars specializing on the Biblical canon have said similar things:
“We allow that the council of Carthage, and Gelasius with his seventy bishops, and Innocent, and Augustine, and Isidore call these books canonical. But the question is, in what sense they called them canonical. Now, we deny that their meaning was to make these books, of which we now speak, of equal authority with those which are canonical in the strict sense; and the truth of this we will prove from antiquity, from Augustine, and from the papists themselves. For, in the first place, if it had been decreed by any public judgment of the whole Church, or defined in a general council, that these books were to be referred to the true and genuine canon of the sacred books, then those who lived in the Church after the passing of that sentence and law would by no means have dissented from it, or determined otherwise. But they did dissent, and that in great numbers; and amongst them some of those whom the Church of Rome acknowledges as her own children. Therefore, there was no such judgment of the Church publicly received. Secondly, Augustine, in that same place, plainly indicates that he did not consider those books of equal authority with the rest. For he distinguishes all the books into two classes; some which were received by all the churches, and some which were not. Then he lays down and prescribes two rules: one, that the books which all the churches receive should be preferred to those which some do not receive; the other, that those books which are received by the greater and more noble churches should be preferred to those which are taken into the canon by churches fewer in number and of less authority. It will be best to listen to Augustine himself, whose words are these: “Now, with respect to the canonical scriptures, let him follow the authority of the greater number of catholic churches; amongst which those indeed are to be found which merited to possess the chairs of the apostles, and to receive epistles from them. He will hold this, therefore, as a rule in dealing with the canonical scriptures, to prefer those which are received by all catholic churches to those which only some receive. But, with respect to those which are not received by all, he will prefer such as the more and more dignified churches receive, to such as are held by fewer churches, or churches of less authority.” Then follows immediately, “Now the whole canon of scripture, in which we say that this consideration hath place,” &c. Hence, then, I draw an easy and ready answer. We, with Jerome and many other fathers, deny these books to be canonical. Augustine, with some others, calls them canonical. Do, then, these fathers differ so widely in opinion? By no means. For Jerome takes this word “canonical” in one sense, while Augustine, Innocent, and the fathers of Carthage understand it in another. Jerome calls only those books canonical, which the church always held for canonical; the rest he banishes from the canon, denies to be canonical, and calls apocryphal. But Augustine calls those canonical which, although they had not the same perfect and certain authority as the rest, were wont to be read in the church for the edification of the people. Augustine, therefore, takes this name in a larger sense than Jerome. But, that Augustine was not so minded as to judge the authority of all these books to be equal, is manifest from the circumstance that he admonishes the student of theology to place a certain difference between the several books, to distinguish them into classes, and to prefer some to others. If his judgment of them all was the same, as the papists contend, such an admonition and direction must appear entirely superfluous. Would Augustine, if he held all the books to have an equal right to canonicity, have made such a distribution of the books? Would he have preferred some to others? Would he not have said that they were all to be received alike? But now, Augustine does prefer some to others, and prescribes to all such a rule for judging as we have seen. Therefore Augustine did not think that they were all of the same account, credit, and authority; and, consequently, is in open opposition to the papists. All this is manifest. It makes to the same purpose, that this same Augustine (de Civit. Dei, Lib. xvii. c. 20.) concedes, that less reliance should be placed upon whatever is not found in the canon of the Jews. Whence it may be collected that, when Augustine observed that some books were not received by all, or the greatest and most noble churches, his remark is to be understood of those books which are not contained in the Hebrew canon: and such are those which our churches exclude from the sacred canon.” – William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, against the Papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, by William Whitaker, translated and edited for the Parker Society by the Rev. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge, 1849), pp. 44-46, link: https://www.bible-researcher.com/augustine.html
“The real divergence as to the contents of the Old Testament Canon is to be traced to Augustine, whose wavering and uncertain language on the point furnishes abundant materials for controversy. By education and character he occupied a position more than usually unfavorable for historical criticism, and yet his overpowering influence, when it fell in with ordinary usage, gave consistency and strength to the opinion which he appeared to advocate, for it may be reasonably doubted wbether he differed intentionally from Jerome except in language. In a famous passage (de Doctr. Christ. ii. 8 (13)) be enumerates the books which are contained in “the whole Canon of Scripture,” and includes among them the Apocryphal books without any clear mark of distinction. This general statement is further confirmed by two other passages, in which it is argued that he draws a distinction between the Jewish and Christian Canons, and refers the authority of the Apocryphal books to the judgment of the Christian Church. In the first passage he speaks of the Maccabaean history as not “found in the Sacred Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees, which the Church, and not the Jews, holds for canonical, on account of the marvellous sufferings of the martyrs [recorded in them] …” (quorum supputatio temporum non in Scripturis Sanctis, quae Canonicae appellantur, sed in aliis invenitur, in quibus sunt et Machabaeorum libri, quos non Judaei, sed ecclesia pro Canonicis habet … De Civ. xviii. 36). In the other passage he speaks of the books of the Maccabees as “received (recepta) by the Church, not without profit, if they be read with sobriety” (c. Gaud. i. 38). But it will be noticed that in each case a distinction is drawn between the “Ecclesiastical” and properly “Canonical” books. In the second case he expressly lowers the authority of the books of the Maccabees by remarking that “the Jews have them not like the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets to which the Lord gives His witness” (Aug. l. c.). And the original catalogue is equally qualified by an introduction which distinguishes between the authority of books which are received by all and by some of the Churches; and, again, between those which are received by churches of great or of small weight (de Doctr. Chr. ii. 8 (12)) so that the list which immediately follows must be interpreted by this rule. In confirmation of this view of Augustine’s special regard for the Hebrew Canon, it may be further urged that he appeals to the Jews, “the librarians of the Christians,” as possessing “all the writings in which Christ was prophesied of” (In Ps. xl., Ps. lvi.), and to “the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets,” which were supported by the witness of the Jews (c. Gaud, l. c.), as including “all the canonical authorities of the Sacred books ” (de Unit. Eccles. p. 16), which, as he says in another place (de Civ. xv. 23, 4), “were preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the care of the successive priests.” But on the other band Augustine frequently uses passages from the Apocryphal books as coordinate with Scripture, and practically disregards the rules of distinction between the various classes of sacred writings which he had himself laid down. He stood on the extreme verge of the age of independent learning, and follows at one time the conclusions of criticism, at another the prescriptions of habit, which from his date grew more and more powerful.” – B.F. Westcott, “Canon of Scripture,” in vol. 1 of Dr. William Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible: Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History; revised and edited by Professor H.B. Hackett, D.D., etc. (Cambridge, 1881), pp. 362-3. Link: https://www.bible-researcher.com/augustine.html
[22] “After these three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, during the same period of the liberation of the people from the Babylonian servitude Esdras also wrote, who is historical rather than prophetical, as is also the book called Esther, which is found to relate, for the praise of God, events not far from those times; unless, perhaps, Esdras is to be understood as prophesying of Christ in that passage where, on a question having arisen among certain young men as to what is the strongest thing, when one had said kings, another wine, the third women, who for the most part rule kings, yet that same third youth demonstrated that the truth is victorious over all. For by consulting the Gospel we learn that Christ is the Truth. From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the law of God even unto death, and endured most grievous and horrible evils.” – Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book XVIII, Chapter 36, NPNF1-02, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVIII.36.html
