dependent on that authority. This statement is too plain to be denied. But the question to be settled is this; can works of questionable inspiration at one period, and consequently of possibly questionable authority, eventually be looked upon as certainly divine, and absolutely true? That the Fathers of the Church thought they could, is plain from what has been already stated. Cyril and Origen, Ambrose and Augustine, and afterwards provincial, national, and œcumenical Councils, asserted and openly this proposition; and admitted as divine, writings which at a former period had been doubted of, and even partially denied, according to their own shewing. But was St. Jerome, too, of this same opinion? Assuredly he was; for in his observations on St. James' Epistle he makes use of the following language. "James wrote but one Epistle which is one of the seven Catholic Epistles; which too, is said to have been published by another in his name, but has, gradually, in process of time, acquired authority.” And his observations bearing on this point are even more conclusive in his remarks on the Epistle of St. Jude. "Jude has left a short Epistle, which, because of a quotation from an apocryphal book of Enoch, is rejected by many; however it has, by length of time and custom obtained authority, and is reckoned amongst the Holy Scriptures." 2 Whatever may have been the earlier opinions of St. Jerome in regard of several of the deuterocanonical writings, it would seem that in his later years he adopted the common belief relative to the canon of sacred Scripture. Assuredly he,3 who stated what is mentioned 1 De V. I. c. ii. 3 Præf, in lib. Sal. 2 De V. I. c. iv. in the book of Homilies, did not hesitate eventually either to entitle the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,5 and Machabees, divine Scripture, or Scripture, or to appeal to them in proof of those dogmas which he was anxious to establish. These observations will enable the reader to form a more correct notion of St. Jerome's opinions than could have been derived from the mere words of the sixth Article. If we turn from St. Jerome to the catalogues of the sacred writings framed during the earlier ages of Christianity, we shall feel equally convinced of the futility of the statement made by Protestants, that the canon of the Anglican Church is identical with that of primitive Catholicism. 1° Melito, whose object it was simply to state which were the works universally admitted, omits altogether the books of Esther and Nehemias. 2° Though Origen presents to us a catalogue of the Jewish books, he at the same time, as we have already seen, strenuously maintains the divinity of other books and parts of books, which were rejected by the Jews.8 3° The Fathers at the Council of Laodicea, admit Baruch and make no mention of the Apocalypse. 4° St. Cyril of Jerusalem includes Baruch and excludes the Apocalypse. 5° St. Gregory of Nazianzum omits, like Melito, Esther from his list. 6° The author of the Synopsis likewise omits Esther, whilst he admits Baruch. 7° Epiphanius receives Baruch. 8° The Apostolical Canons enumerate Judith, three books of 4 Comm. in Hier. c. xviii, t. ii, p. 587. 5 Epist. xxxiii, ad Julian. 6 Comm. in Isai. c. xxii, t. ii, p. 131. 7 See Eusebius, H. E. 1. iv, c. 26. 8 See his Epistle to Africanus already cited. Machabees, with the addition of the Wisdom of Sirach for the younger people. The reader will not fail to remember the proofs already given in detail, of these discrepancies. To sum all up in one word Melito, and the Council of Laodicea, and the Apostolical Constitutions, and Origen, Epiphanius, and St. Gregory of Nazianzum, present to us catalogues all differing from that which the Anglican system, and the fautors of Anglicanism,1 assume to be truly divine. And since, it is customary with modern writers to state that the divinity of the Protestant Canon of the Old Testament is established by constant references in the New Testament to the inspired writers of the former Law, it may be as well to observe, that there are at least eleven of the protocanonical writings to which such an assertion is inapplicable; for neither Judges, nor Ruth, nor the Paralipomena, nor Esdras, nor Esther, nor Ecclesiastes, nor the Song of Songs, nor Abdias, nor Sophonias, nor the first or fourth book of Kings are once referred to, throughout the entire of the New Testament; whilst several of the deuterocanonical writings are not indistinctly referred to, as the reader has already seen. From what has been said, it follows: 1° That the Protestant canon has no support from antiquity, as a fair representation of the belief of the Christian Church of the number of the sacred writings. 2° That it is in direct opposition to all the opinions entertained by the Fathers, whether we consider them individually, or as representa 1 See the unscholarlike observations of Burnet and Pretyman, on the Sixth Article. It really appears wonderful to me, how such writers could have ever obtained a reputation among even their own party; for their writings are full of inaccuracies and palpable misstatements. tives of the various sections of the Church of which they were the leaders and distinguished guides. 3° That the principles, advocated in all former ages, justify the present canon of the Catholic Church-for the Fathers readily accepted as divine whatever consentient testimony evidenced to be such; and 4° That the only way of arriving at certainty in a matter of this importance, is an unhesitating reliance on that teaching authority, which Christ himself established, and blessed, and secured against error, in order that men might believe and no longer "be tossed about by every wind of doctrine." 264 Chapter the Ninth. The Solibiblical principle-its difficulties and CONTENTS. The Solibiblical principle false-opposed to the teaching of Christ, his Apostles, and the Church of all ages, and in direct opposition to the antisymbolical origin and character of the Sacred writings.-Mode of acting of Christ, the Apostles, and the Church.-How many Apostles wrote, and why they wrote.-The generative principle of faith in the Apostolic and after times.-Testimonies of the Fathers on this head. The Solibiblical principle unavailable for more than 1400 years.—The Scriptures decide nothing about their own meaning-this evidenced by the Sects which pretend to believe the Bible.-Selden's observations and Henry the Eighth's restrictions.-The Scripture full of difficulties— cause of this.--Proposed limitation of this principle.-Useless as a principle of faith and unjust in Anglicanism.—Examination of the texts ordinarily adduced in favour of the Bible being the only " Rule of Faith." -The Biblical system justly opposed by Catholics.—It is irreconcilable too with numerous tenets believed in by the English Church.-Instances in proof.-Motives of the adherence of Catholics to the authority of the Church. WHAT St. Hilary observes with regard to the Scriptures is very true: "Apices sine crimine sunt, sensus in crimine." The original text is true; but can as much be 1 L. ii, de Trinit. |