De Moor II:18: The Abiding Canonicity of the Old Testament, Part 2

As all the Canonical Books are always Canonical, so also they are equally Canonical, with no Dignity to be attributed to some above others, since all were Inspired by God with the same trustworthiness resulting.  Our AUTHOR advises that this is to be observed:

1.  Against the Socinians, sometimes making light of the Teachings of the Prophets, as if they had or have not the force of Precepts.  Thus Ostorodus,[1] Institutionibus, chapter XXX, page 221, with HOORNBEECK referring to it, Socinianismo confutato, tome II, book II, chapter II, part II, page 471:  “And this is to be considered, that when Solomon or Sirac” (thus he has a Canonical Author and an Apocryphal Author in equal rank) “say anything concerning manners that in the Law of Moses was not expressly prescribed or prohibited, it no more binds or obliges than the wise counsel and teaching of any other man:  if one should comply with it, he shall be reckoned to have done well and rightly; but if not, nevertheless he shall not be reckoned thereby to have sinned against the Law of Moses.”  Socinus has similar things on Matthew 5, operibus Socini, tome I, page 33b, 34a:  see HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismum confutatum, tome 2, book II, chapter II, part I, section III, pages 424-426.  To this also is that saying of GROTIUS able to be referrred, de Jure Belli et Pacis, book II, chapter XV, § 9, note 10:  “There are extant, even indeed in the writings of Solomon, not a few sentences concerning avoiding fellowship with the impious.  But these are admonitions of prudence, not precepts of Law:  and those admonitions, as do most matters of morals, have a great number of exceptions.”  This hypothesis of Grotius was marked with a grave censure by CLOPPENBURG, Disputatione III de Canone Theologiæ, § 8, opera, tome 2, page 20, admonishing, together with our AUTHOR on this passage, “The multiform παιδείας τρόπος, manner of divine instruction, does not cause the authority of Sacred Scripture to vary or make that lack uniformity; πολυτρόπως, in divers manners,[2] Scripture insinuates itself into souls:  for example, whether it speak in the Imperative mood, or in the optative mood, whether as Legislator, or as exhorter and adviser, giving counsel in cases of conscience.  Wherefore, they do not hold the Sacred Scripture in reverence, who, for instance, appear to receive nothing in the Old Testament for a commandment or precept of the Legislator that is not on record in words contained in the Law of Moses:  for example, the Maxims and sentences of Solomon concerning the avoidance of fellowship with the impious a Man of great reputation says that they are only Admonitions of Prudence, not precepts of Law, book II de Jure Belli et Pacis, chapter XV, §9.”  For our AUTHOR well observes that the Authority of the Divine Word is not changed by, α.  The Manner of Statement, with God Himself sometimes desiring, imploring, inviting, etc., by a wonderful φιλανθρωπίαν/philanthropy, which ought so much the more to compel man to obedience.  Thus, for example, God is found desiring, Deuteronomy 5:29; imploring, Micah 6:2-5; inviting, Isaiah 55:1-3; giving counsel, Revelation 3:18.  β.  Neither does the Person immediately speaking, when a man, even a completely ignoble man, change the Authority of the Divine Word, adds our AUTHOR:  so it is obviously whether God speaks immediately, or mediately through the mouth of Prophets:  whether the Lord Jesus spoke with His own mouth, or the Spirit of Christ speaks in the Apostles.[3]  The ignobility of the man speaking does not damage anything, because whom that divine inspiration does not find suitable, it makes suitable in this business; they, being moved by divine inspiration, spoke and wrote, 2 Peter 1:21.  Which was said against Castalio,[4] dialogue II de Electione, when he writes:  “I prefer to believe Jeremiah more than Paul, because God Himself speaks in Jeremiah, while Paul speaks from himself:”  on which CLOPPENBURG, Disputatione III de Canone Theologiæ, § 3, opera, tome 2, page 19, observes that Castalio imitates the Papists, and has the followers of the Remonstrants as guides.  But πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος, all Scripture is inspired, and everything that is θεόπνευστος/inspired has equal authority.

2.  The Equal Authority of the entire Canon is likewise to be maintained against the many Papists that divide the Sacred Books into Proto-canonical and Deutero-canonical, and among the latter they number the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, and Mark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.  The Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament will be discussed at length next, § 19, 20.  Concerning the Pericopes and Books of the New Testament here enumerated, consult what things were said in § 13, where these were occurring as ἀντιλεγόμενοι, disputed Books.  Concerning Mark 16, and the beginning of John 8, see in addition GERHARD’S Confessionem catholicam, tome 2, book II, special, part I, article I, chapter II, thesis 3, pages 115-117.  On the Beginning of John 8, see also our AUTHOR, Exercitationibus Textualibus, Part V, Exercise XXXVIII, § 1; and especially GOMARUS, opera, part I, pages 415-419.

But in a twofold sense this title of Proto-canonical and Deutero-canonical Books is able to be explained, namely, concerning Books that were received into the Canon earlier or later; or that in the Church were held to be of a greater or lesser authority.  With respect to the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, these two reasons why they might be called Deutero-canonical concur:  for the title of Deutero-canonical here shall mark Books of this sort, which are not only of a secondary authority, but which at the time of the first collection of the Canon by Ezra were not yet received into the Canon, or were not yet even written at that time; but which were admitted at a later time, when in a Synod convoked the Canon might again be reviewed.  Thus Genebrard devises a threefold arrangement of the Canon of the Old Testament, namely, the first in the time of Ezra, who received into the Canon the twenty-two Books read in today’s Hebrew Bible.  He maintains that a second, more than two hundred years later than that first, was made by a Synod gathered at Jerusalem for the translation of the Scriptures, in the time of Eleazar the High Priest;[5] when Tobit and Ecclesiasticus appear to have been added to that former Canon.  Finally, third, in a Synod assembled to approve the Pharisees in the time of John Hyrcanus,[6] he maintains that the former Canons were confirmed, in particular the books of Judith, Tobit, and others, and the Books of the Maccabees and 3 and 4 Ezra were added in turn.  Which, as they are the mere fabrications of Genebrard’s mind, so, by this his impudence, as RIVET says, Isagoge ad Scripturam Sacram, chapter VII, § 7, opera, tome 2, page 879, it happened that not even among his own is credence given to him:  compare GERHARD’S Confessionem catholicam, book II, special, part I, article I, chapter I, tome 2, page 25.  Nevertheless, something similar pleases Guillaume Baile in his Catechismo Controversiarum:  see HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum philologicum, pages 110-112.  But, with respect to the Pericopes and Books of the New Testament cited, these especially are called Deutero-canonical, for, even if they might now pertain to the Canon, yet formerly they did not rise by authority to the Canonical Books of the first Order, on account of the doubt of various men concerning these, until, with this hesitation of some ceasing, they were received by the universal Church.

To uphold this authority of diverse ranks and degrees among the Canonical Books, COTELIER, in his notis ad Clementis Romani Epistolam priorem ad Corinthios, § 28, makes use of the authority of AUGUSTINE, book II de Doctrina Christiana, chapter VIII, § 12, where he maintains that the skillful searcher of the divine Scriptures gives priority to those things in the Canonical Scriptures that are received by all the Catholic Churches, before those things that some do not receive:  but, in the case of those things that are not received by all, he wishes those things to be given priority that more and weightier Churches receive, before those things that Churches fewer and of lesser authority hold:  see his opera, tome 3, part 1, column 18, where in the next place, § 13, the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments, together with the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, which the Papists receive, are enumerated, as together making up the entire Canon of the Scriptures, in which, says he, the consideration previously mentioned is to be continually kept in view.

SIXTUS SENENSIS, Bibliotheca Sancta, book I, section I, pages 1, 2, according to his own conception, clearly explains this distinction of Books into Proto-canonical and Deutero-canonical.  “The Canonical Books,” says he, “both of the Old and the New Testament are distinguished in two related orders, of which one is prior, the other is posterior; prior and posterior, I say, not with respect to authority, or certainty, or dignity (for both receive their excellence and majesty from the same Holy Spirit), but with respect to recognition and time; in which two matters it happens that, as one order precedes, the other follows.

“Canonical Books of the first order, which it is suitable to call Proto-canonical, are books of undisputed trustworthiness, that is, concerning the authority of which there has never been any doubt in the Catholic Church, or controversy, etc.

“Canonical Books of the second order, which were formerly called Ecclesiastical, but now are called Deutero-canonical, are those concerning which, because they came to the notice of the entire Church, not immediately after the times of the Apostles, but long after, among Catholics there was ever a doubtful opinion:  as they are in the Old Testament, the books of Esther, Tobit, Judith, and Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremiah, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, the prayer of Azariah, the hymn of the three boys, the history of Susanna, the history of Bel, 1 and 2 Maccabees; similarly also in the New Testament, the last chapter of Mark, the history of Luke concerning the bloody sweat of Christ and the appearance of the Angel,[7] John’s history concerning the adulterous woman, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, John’s Apocalypse, and other Books of the same sort, which formerly the ancient Fathers of the Church held as Apocryphal and not Canonical:  and at first they permitted those to be read among Catechumens alone, who were not yet ready for Canonical reading, as Athanasius testifies in his Synopsi; then, with time advancing, as Ruffinus in his Symbolo writes, they allowed them to be read among all the faithful, not for the confirmation of doctrines, but only for the instruction of the people:  and, because they were read publicly in the Church, they called them Ecclesiastical:  but at length they wanted them to be received among the Scriptures of indisputable authority:”  compare GERHARD’S Confessionem catholicam, tome II, page 19-23.

To state the matter briefly:  α.  The Doubt of some concerning the Books, which others held as Canonical, either had a foundation, or it did not.  If for just reasons there was doubt, and a certain Books was not actually θεόπνευστος/inspired; then it is to be altogether removed from the Canon, and all Canonical Authority is to be denied to it.  But if some have doubted without cause, this cannot at all diminish the Canonical Authority of that Book.  And thus that division of the Books of Scripture into Proto-canonical and Deutero-canonical collapses.  For, β.  as our AUTHOR observes, the appellation of Canon, when it is extended by the Fathers to those things that were read in the Church, does not have regard to the present signification of Canon.  Thence the Fathers appear sometimes to talk over one another, and one appears to extend the Canon more broadly than the other, because the later speaks of the Canon of θεοπνεύστου/ inspired Scripture, the other of the Canon of Books to be read in the Church; unto which the various Apocryphal books also was pertaining, but which were read for the edification of the common people only, but not to confirm the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines, as JEROME has it in his Præfatione in Proverbia Salomonis, opera, tome 3, pages 25, where he desires Ecclesiasticus of Sirach, and another pseudepigraph, which is entitled the Wisdom of Solomon, to be held in the same rank as Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees, which the church does indeed read, but does not receive among the Canonical Scriptures.  Thus AUGUSTINE, book II de Doctrina Christiana, chapter VIII, § 13, page 302, extends more broadly the appellation of Canonical Scripture than Jerome, not only to the θεοπνεύστους/inspired Books, but also to those read in the Church, yet not received by all:  compare RIVET, Isagoge ad Scripturam Sacram, chapter VII, § 31-38, pages 884-886, opera, tome 2.  But in this sense the distinction of Proto-canonical and Deutero-canonical Books is applied inconsistently; for thus the language of Canon and Canonical is taken in one sense when it is attributed to the Proto-canonical Books, but in another sense when it is used of the Deutero-canonical Books; Ecclesiastical reading is not able to confer Divine and Normative authority upon any Book, concerning which alone is our disputation, when we treat of Canonical Books.

Concerning the division into Proto-canonical and Deutero-canonical Books, see the inquiry of CHAMIER, Panstratia Catholica, tome I, book VII, chapter VII.

[1] Krzysztof Ostorodt (c. 1560-1611) was a Polish Socinian.  He was sent as a missionary to the Netherlands (1598); in Leiden he stirred up great controversy by his success in converting the students of the University.

[2] Hebrews 1:1.

[3] See 1 Peter 1:11.

[4] Sebastian Castalio (1515-1563) distinguished himself as a scholar by means of his linguistic talents, evident in his Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testamentum.  After a period of working closely with Calvin, the two fell into controversy.  Castalio was inclined towards Pelagianism, and his views were influential in the development of Socinianism.

[5] Eleazar served as High Priest from about 260 to 245 BC.  He is mentioned in the Letter of Aristeas as sending the seventy-two scholars to Ptolemy II Philadelphus for the translation of the Scriptures.

[6] John Hyrcanus (164-104 BC) served as Jewish High Priest from 134 to 104 BC, succeeding his father, Simon Maccabæus.  He took advantage of a weakening Seleucid Empire to expand Jewish territory.

[7] Luke 22:43, 44.