Part the Second. On the Sources of Orthodox Theology
Brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
(2 Thess. 2:15).
That you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
(1 Tim. 3:15).
§ 108. The Concept of the Sources of Orthodox Theology, and Their Division
The doctrine of the Christian Faith, which forms the subject of Orthodox Theology, is contained in divine revelation, or the Word of God, which is, therefore, the source of Orthodox Theology, one and only. But since God Himself was pleased to communicate His revelation to us in a twofold manner—orally and in writing—and, having communicated it, entrusted it to His holy Church for safekeeping and for teaching to all, it may with equal justice be said that, in particular, the sources of Orthodox Theology are two: Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, and these, moreover, understood in no other way than according to the understanding of the Orthodox, that is, the true Church of Christ, the divinely-established guardian and interpreter of both. Hence the three sections of this second part of our Introduction:
I. on Holy Scripture,
II. on Holy Tradition, and
III. on the Orthodox Church, considered strictly only as the guardian and interpreter of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.315
And that the Orthodox Church herself does indeed regard the sources of the Orthodox faith in this way is evident:
1) From the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church. Here, in the answer to question 4 of the first part, we read: “an Orthodox Christian must accept as certain and indubitable (Council 6, canon 82) that all the articles of faith of the catholic and Orthodox Church have been handed down to her from our Lord Jesus Christ through His Apostles, expounded and confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils, and must believe in them, as the Apostle commands: therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or our epistle (2 Thess. 2:15). From which it is evident that the articles of faith derive their importance and firmness partly from Holy Scripture, partly from the tradition and teaching of the Church, and of the Councils and the holy Fathers. That is, the dogmas are of two kinds: some have been handed down in writing, and are contained in the theological books of Holy Scripture; others have been handed down orally by the Apostles, and these were explained by the Councils and the holy Fathers. Our faith is founded upon these two kinds of dogmas”. In the answer to question 96: “Although the Church is a creation of God, composed of men, yet she has for her Head Christ Himself, true God, and the Holy Spirit, who unceasingly teaches her and makes her, as the Apostle says, the bride of Christ, not having spot or wrinkle (Eph. 5:27), and the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and her dogmas and teachings proceed not from men, but from God. Therefore, when we say that we believe in the Church, we mean that we believe in the Scriptures handed down to her by God, and in her divinely-inspired dogmas. This very thing moves us to believe not only in the holy Gospel, received by the Church, as Christ commanded, saying: believe in the Gospel (Mark 1:15), but also in all the other Scriptures and conciliar decrees”.
2) From the Encyclical of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church concerning the Orthodox Faith. In the preface to this encyclical, it is said, among other things: “our dogmas and the teaching of our Eastern Church were already examined in ancient times, rightly and piously defined and confirmed by the holy Ecumenical Councils; it is not permitted to add anything to them, or to take anything away from them. Therefore those who wish to be in accord with us in the divine dogmas of the Orthodox faith must, with simplicity and obedience, without any investigation or curiosity, follow and submit to everything that has been defined and established by the ancient tradition of the Fathers, and confirmed by the holy and Ecumenical Councils, from the time of the Apostles and their successors, the God-bearing Fathers of our Church”. In article 2 of this encyclical: “we believe that the Divine and sacred Scripture is inspired by God; therefore we must believe it without question, and, moreover, not in some arbitrary manner of our own, but exactly as the catholic Church has explained and handed it down. For even the vain wisdom of heretics accepts the Divine Scripture, only interpreting it perversely. Therefore we believe that the testimony of the catholic Church has no less force than the Divine Scripture. Since the Author of both the one and the other is one and the same Holy Spirit, it makes no difference whether one learns from Scripture or from the universal Church. A man who speaks on his own authority may err, may deceive and be deceived; but the universal Church, since she has never spoken and does not speak on her own authority, but from the Spirit of God (whom she unceasingly possesses, and will have as her Teacher forever), can in no way err, nor deceive, nor be deceived; but, like the Divine Scripture, is infallible and possesses everlasting authority” (cf. art. 12).
3) From the Extended Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church. Here, to the question: “whence is the teaching of the Orthodox faith drawn?” — the answer given is: “from Divine revelation” (see the article on Divine revelation); to the question: “in what way is Divine revelation spread among men, and preserved in the true Church?” — the answer: “in two ways: through Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture”; to the question: “is there a faithful repository of Holy Tradition?” — the answer: “all the truly faithful, united by the Holy Tradition of the faith, collectively and successively, according to God’s ordinance, constitute the Church, which is the faithful repository of Holy Tradition, or, in the words of holy Paul, the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15)” (see the article on Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture); to the question: “what must be observed in reading Holy Scripture?” — the answer: “first, it must be read with reverence, as the word of God, and with prayer for its understanding; second, it must be read with a pure intention, for our instruction in the faith and encouragement to good works; third, it must be understood in accordance with the interpretation of the Orthodox Church and the holy Fathers” (see the article on Holy Scripture in particular, and compare with the article on the ninth article of the Creed—the answers to the question: “what does it mean to believe in the Church?” and to the question: “what important prerogative does the catholic Church possess?..”).
4) From the Rite of the Reception of Non-Orthodox Believers into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Eastern Church, where, of those receiving Orthodoxy, she requires, among other things, the following profession: “I truly and firmly accept the Apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and the other statutes, ordinances, and dispositions of the same Church; likewise I accept Holy Scripture, according to the understanding which the holy, Eastern Church, our mother, has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true understanding of the holy Scriptures.”316
SECTION I. ON HOLY SCRIPTURE
§ 109. The Concept of Holy Scripture, and the Composition of This Section
By the name Holy Scripture are understood the books (βιβλία — biblia) written by the Spirit of God through people sanctified by God, called Prophets and Apostles. In this concept of Holy Scripture there are evidently contained two distinct elements: the first, that the sacred books were written by known persons, Prophets and Apostles; and the second, that they were written precisely by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To unfold the first idea is to show the historical importance (or, more precisely, reliability) of the books of Holy Scripture; to unfold the second idea is to show their dogmatic importance. In this way, the full worth of Holy Scripture, as a source of Orthodox Theology, will be disclosed.
CHAPTER I. ON THE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE, OR RELIABILITY, OF THE BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
§ 110. The Point of View for the Subject of Investigation, and the Division of the Chapter
The question of a work’s historical reliability is composed of three separate questions. Attending to the work itself, one asks:
a) does it genuinely belong to the author, or the time, to which it is ascribed? — and if genuinely so —
b) has it come down to us in the same form in which it left the writer’s hands? Then, attending to the writer, one tries to determine:
c) could he have known the truth of what he relates, and did he convey it to us—that is, was he not somehow deceived himself, or did he have no motive to deceive others? But since the divinely-inspired writers wrote not of themselves, but from the Holy Spirit; since, even setting this thought aside for the moment, we have already had occasion317 to show that the sacred writers could, even by natural means alone, have fully known the events of which they tell, and had no motive to mislead others, and indeed speak only the truth: it remains for us here only to examine —
a) the authenticity of the holy books, and
b) their integrity.
In examining the historical reliability of Holy Scripture, it is natural to dwell first on the books of the Old Testament, and then on the books of the New Testament. In particular, we consider it necessary, in surveying the books of the Old Testament, to pay special attention to the reliability of the Mosaic Pentateuch, and, in surveying the books of the New Testament, to the reliability of the four Gospels: on the one hand, because, just as the Pentateuch contains, in a certain sense, the foundation of the whole Old Testament revelation and of all the Old Testament books, so too the four Gospels contain the foundation and beginning of the whole teaching and of the New Testament books; and, on the other hand, because it is precisely upon the reliability of the Pentateuch and the four Gospels that freethinkers chiefly attack.
I. ON THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS
§ 111. The Authenticity of the Mosaic Pentateuch: a) External Proofs318
The authenticity of the Mosaic Pentateuch is confirmed by every kind of proof of a work’s authenticity: direct—external and internal—and indirect.
To the external belong:
1) The numerous testimonies concerning Moses by pagan writers, some of which have not come down to us in their original form, but have been preserved only in fragments in Josephus, Justin, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras, and Eusebius, while others have come down to us in their original form. Thus —
Among Egyptian writers: the most ancient historian of his own country, Manetho, who lived 378 years before Christ, around the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, mentions Moses as the lawgiver of the Jewish people;319 Chaeremon, who flourished in the age of Augustus, mentions him as a sacred writer;320 Lysimachus,321 Apion,322 and Ptolemy of Mendes,323 who lived in the same age, mention him as the leader of the Jews who brought them out of Egypt.
Among Greek writers: Polemon, the Athenian philosopher (313 years before Christ), calls Moses the leader of the Jewish people;324 Eupolemus (around 200 years before Christ) calls him the wisest of men, who gave the Jews their writing;325 Diodorus Siculus (around 45 years before Christ) calls him the lawgiver of the Jews, who derived his laws from God Jehovah Himself,326 and also the leader of the colony that came out of Egypt—a leader who divided his people into 12 tribes, gave them a faith entirely different from the faiths of other peoples, and taught that the Deity could be represented under no human form at all;327 Nicolaus of Damascus, a contemporary of Diodorus, speaks of Moses as a Jewish writer and lawgiver;328 Strabo (born 50 years before Christ) speaks with particular praise both of him and of his religious teaching itself.329 In St. Cyril of Alexandria and Eusebius, certain other testimonies of Greek writers concerning Moses are also cited.330
Among Latin writers: in Trogus Pompeius (around 80 years before Christ), Moses is presented as the leader of the Israelites at their exodus from Egypt;331 in Tacitus, moreover, as the founder of new rites, differing from all others that had existed until then;332 in Juvenal (at the end of the first century after Christ), as the lawgiver of the Jews, who held his books in deep reverence, fulfilled his ordinances, and shunned foreign rites.333
We shall not even mention the testimonies of many other pagan writers—Egyptian, Syrian, Greek, and Roman—of the second, third, and later centuries of Christianity, which confirm the same truth.334
To understand the importance of the testimonies concerning Moses that we have adduced, one must take into consideration —
a) the isolation of the Hebrews from other peoples up to a certain time: this will very well explain to us why the most ancient pagan writers say almost nothing of the Jewish people and its divine lawgiver;
b) the great antiquity of Moses in comparison with these most ancient pagan writers, on account of which they are separated from the Jewish lawgiver by whole centuries,335 and consequently could not have been contemporary witnesses of him;
c) that the later pagan writers we have cited drew their accounts of Moses from still more ancient pagan accounts, preserved chiefly in Egypt, as Josephus himself already showed.336 And in particular it is known of Manetho that, in composing his Egyptian History, in which he plainly mentions Moses, he made use, by his own admission, of the sacred books of the Egyptians, which he traced to the deepest antiquity.337 Of Diodorus Siculus338 and Apion,339 who likewise confess that they learned of Moses from Egyptian elders and priests; and
d) finally, that these testimonies of pagan writers concerning Moses were drawn in no way from the sacred books of Israel, but from outside sources—as is evident partly from the already-mentioned admissions of Manetho, Diodorus Siculus, and Apion, and still more from the disagreement of all these pagan testimonies, sometimes extending to the utmost degree, with the Biblical narrative.
Bearing in mind this importance of the pagan testimonies concerning Moses, we can, for our purpose, draw from them, at the very least, that —
a) Moses truly existed,
b) gave the Israelites a Faith and laws, and
c) set all this down in writing, in a book. In which book, precisely? This will be reliably resolved by —
2) The testimonies of Jewish writers, and the constant, unanimous tradition of all the Jews, who held the authenticity of the Mosaic Pentateuch to be one of the fundamental dogmas of their faith. In all the books of the Old Testament, in order, and in the New Testament books written by persons of Jewish origin, and in all other Jewish writings, it is assumed as certain not only that Moses wrote the book of the law, but that this book is precisely the Pentateuch.
In the book of Joshua, at its very beginning, we read that God charged him: be strong and very courageous, to keep and do according to all that Moses my servant commanded you…, and do not let this book of the law depart from your mouth, but meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do all that is written (1:7–8). Here the whole Pentateuch is evidently meant, for taken separately, not one of its five parts contains the whole law. In the middle of the same book it is said that Joshua built an altar to the Lord God of Israel on Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, and as it is written in the law of Moses (Josh. 8:30–35): and indeed we find this precept written down in the book of Exodus (20:25) and in the book of Deuteronomy (20:25). And at the end of the book of Joshua it is related that he, having called together before his death all the sons of Israel, brought to their remembrance the wondrous history of their forefathers (23:24): this speech of his is, as it were, a summary of the whole Pentateuch.
In the books of Judges, Ruth, Kings, and Chronicles, either certain laws from the Mosaic Pentateuch are cited, or certain historical narratives contained in it are mentioned, or Moses and the law of Moses are even explicitly spoken of (Judg. 3:4; Ruth 4:7 and 12, cf. Deut. 25:7 and Gen. 38:29; 4 Kings 14:5, 6; 2 Chron. 24:9).
In the book of Ezra it is said that Jeshua, Zerubbabel, and their brethren, upon their return from the Babylonian captivity, built an altar to the God of Israel…, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God (Ezra 3:2), and when the temple was finished, they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses…, as it is written in the book of Moses (6:18). Upon comparing these passages with what is written in chapters 3 and 6 of Numbers, there can be no doubt which book of Moses is meant here.
In the book of Nehemiah, besides the fact that the law of Moses is mentioned more than once (8:1, 2, 14, and elsewhere), it is said that in this book of Moses it was found written: that the Ammonites and the Moabites should not come into the assembly of God for ever; because they met not the children of Israel with bread and water, but hired Balaam against them, to curse them (Neh. 13:1–2). This is indeed what is written in v. 3 of Deut. ch. 23 and in Num. ch. 23.
In the book of Tobit it is related that Tobias’s son, following his father’s instruction, took a wife of the seed of his fathers (4:12), according to the law of Moses (7:12). This law is set forth in v. 7 of Numbers ch. 26.
In the Psalms are found expressions from the Pentateuch; the whole history of Moses is retold, and his miracles and signs are recalled (Ps. 104–106; 113–114).
As for the prophetic books: in them the events described in the Pentateuch are very often mentioned (compare Ex. 14:21 and Is. 51:10; Is. 52:4 with Gen. 46:6; Mic. 6:4–5 with Num. ch. 22–24, and elsewhere), laws and other ideas evidently borrowed from the Pentateuch are cited (compare Jer. 34:14 with Ex. 21:2; Ezek. 4:6 with Num. 14:34; Ezek. 20:11 with Lev. 18:5; Obad. v. 10 with Gen. 27:42), and not infrequently the law of Moses is spoken of directly. Thus the prophet Baruch writes: the Lord has confirmed his word, which he spoke against us… to bring upon us great evil, such as has not been done under the whole heaven, as has been done in Jerusalem, according to what is written in the law of Moses, and so on (2:2–4). The prophet Daniel reasoned in exactly the same way in his own time: and the curse and the oath written in the law of Moses have come upon us…, as it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil has come upon us (Dan. 9:11 and 13). These calamities are indeed foretold in Deuteronomy chs. 27–29. Finally, the prophet Malachi closes his own prophecy and all the Old Testament prophecies with these words: remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel, the statutes and judgments (4:4).340
The same thing is found also in the books of the New Testament. For example, the Evangelists cite the words of Jesus Christ to the leper: go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them (Matt. 8:4): this law is found in ch. 14 of the book of Leviticus;—the Savior’s words to the Sadducees: have you not read in the books of Moses, at the bush, how God spoke to him, saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Mark 12:26): this passage is contained in the book of Exodus ch. 3, 6;—the words of the Pharisees and Sadducees to the Savior, pointing to two laws of Moses within the Pentateuch (cf. Mark 12:19 with Deut. 25:5; John 8:5 with Lev. 20:10). The Apostle James mentions that Moses has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath (Acts 15:21). The Apostle Paul speaks (2 Cor. 3:13–16) of the veil which Moses put over his face (Ex. 34:30), and of the Israelites’ reading of the law of Moses.341
It would be superfluous, after this, to adduce the countless testimonies to the authenticity of the Mosaic Pentateuch from the writings of Philo, Josephus, the Talmudists, and all the rabbis.
It remains to note that the testimony of the Jews to the authenticity of the Pentateuch, although a testimony from within, ought, in the eyes of every sound-minded person, to carry high importance, because:
a) it is the testimony of an entire people, passed down by unbroken tradition from generation to generation, and reaching back to the very time of Moses;
b) the writer of the Pentateuch is the most renowned figure in the whole history of the Hebrews, as their liberator from the Egyptian captivity and their lawgiver, whom they consequently could not but know better than anyone else;
c) his very book has at all times been held by them in the highest reverence and use, as the sacred code from which they learned their Faith, discovered the civil laws, the genealogies and rights of the various generations, the fate of their forefathers, and so forth;
d) for the sake of this book, out of devotion to the Faith and laws it contains, the Hebrews, throughout the centuries, consented to endure the contempt of the nations and even persecutions, but never consented to renounce it.
3) Finally, the testimony of the Samaritans,342 a testimony likewise of the greatest importance. It is known that this small sect, which still exists in Palestine to this day, preserves as its sacred book of the law the Mosaic Pentateuch, written in the ancient Hebrew letters used before the Babylonian captivity.343 It can in no way be admitted that the Samaritans borrowed the Pentateuch from the Jews, or the Jews from the Samaritans, after the Babylonian captivity: for
a) at the very first return of the Jews from this captivity, the Samaritans already presented themselves to them as fellow believers—consequently, they already possessed and knew their law;
b) from this very time, on account of the Jews’ refusal to allow the Samaritans to take part in building the second temple of Jerusalem, an irreconcilable national hatred flared up between the two peoples, reaching the highest degree (John 4:7–9), and this does not permit us to believe that either of these peoples could have borrowed the Faith from the other;
c) finally, in that case nothing would explain why the Samaritans, in accepting the Pentateuch from the Jews, did not wish to accept all the other sacred Jewish books already in existence at that time—which they indeed do not accept. When, then, and from whom did the Samaritans acquire the Pentateuch? Sacred history plainly tells us that they voluntarily accepted the Jewish Faith, though without abandoning their ancient one, as far back as the reign of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (some 200 years before the Jews’ return from captivity), from a certain Israelite priest (2 Kings 17:26–31; Ezra 4:2), who, having come to preach a new faith to them, could of course not have done so without bringing with him the book of the law; it also tells us that, even from the days of Esarhaddon, they, by their own account, offered sacrifices to the God of Israel (Ezra 4:2), which again presupposes the existence among them of the book of the law. It now also becomes understandable why the Samaritans have only the Mosaic Pentateuch, and none of the other sacred Jewish books: most probably, because the Israelite priest who enlightened them with his preaching brought with him only the Pentateuch, as the most essential book at the outset of his great task. He did not bring the other books, either because of the difficulty of copying them for himself quickly before setting out to preach, or perhaps because the Israelites themselves, having separated from the Jews, had given themselves over to idolatry and observed only the ceremonial law of Moses (1 Kings 12:28–33)—for which purpose the Pentateuch alone was entirely sufficient for them—and did not accept all the other sacred Jewish books, considering them unnecessary for their faith, and perhaps not even respecting them, as having appeared not long before and having been written by persons (for example, David, Solomon) whom they (the Israelites) did not respect.
But if the Pentateuch passed to the Samaritans from the Israelites, then whence did the Israelites themselves get it? Judging by the hatred that took hold between the Israelites and the Jews from the time of their division into two kingdoms, it cannot at all be admitted that either people, after this event, could have borrowed the Faith and the book of the law from the other. Consequently, the appearance of the Pentateuch must be assigned to the time when both these peoples still formed one people. To which time, precisely? It is known that the Pentateuch, by its very content, was quite unfavorable to the designs of Jeroboam, the first king of Israel, and likewise to the designs of the priests he chose, who were not descended from the tribe of Levi, as would have been required by the law of Moses. For this reason, of course, they would gladly have rejected this book at the very outset, had there not been, among their people, a deep conviction that the book belonged to the great lawgiver Moses. But could this conviction have become deeply rooted in the hearts of the Israelites, if the Pentateuch had appeared only a few decades before, for example, in the days of Solomon or David? Would not Jeroboam and the priests he chose, in that case, have tried by every means to expose before the people the novelty and the forgery of this book? And would not the Israelites have refused to honor it, upon learning that it belonged to the reigns of David or Solomon, toward whose institutions, following the example of their own kings, they held no respect at all? As for the most ancient Jewish history, from David even to the first successors of Moses, it presents to us nothing but times of disorder, altogether unfavorable to the forgery of such a book, which could have been accepted only by the common consent of the whole people. Thus the Pentateuch, still found today in the hands of the Samaritans, necessarily leads to the conclusion that this book owes its origin to Moses himself.
§ 112. b) Internal Proofs
The internal proofs of the authenticity of the Mosaic Pentateuch are:
1) its content. In the book of Genesis we read:
a) narratives—of the creation of the world and of the human race, of the flood and the dispersion of mankind, of the origin of the first states, of the beginnings of cities, of the locations of the regions of that time. And all these narratives not only do not contradict the most ancient historical traditions of the nations, but are even confirmed by these traditions, while imparting to them, for their part, due clarity, order, and completeness;
b) descriptions of the domestic life of the patriarchs, their altars, festivals, and burials, their weapons, manner of warfare, and other occupations. And again, descriptions entirely consonant with the customs of primeval mankind, of which traditions, though fragmentary, have been preserved in the memory of nations and in the writings of the most ancient pagan writers.344 All this shows the writer of the book of Genesis to have been a man who was still close to that primeval time of which he tells, and who made use of the most reliable guidance (such as the inspiration of the Holy Spirit indeed is) in depicting events so ancient. In the remaining four books of the Pentateuch, among other things, are found
a) accounts of Egypt, of its political structure and laws, of its local customs and of many of the smallest details (for example, Exod. 7:18; 8:22; 14:6). But it is precisely these details, mentioned as if in passing, and yet agreeing in every particular with the reliable accounts of Egypt given by the most ancient pagan historians and with the most recent discoveries of archaeology,345 that especially testify that the writer of the Pentateuch himself lived in this country, was trained in all the wisdom of Egypt, and in general had reliable means of knowing the truth. There are found
b) detailed descriptions, and even the names, of the places through which the Israelites journeyed from the time of their exodus from Egypt, the enumeration of each tribe, the names of their leaders and their genealogies, the calculation of the tabernacle’s dimensions, the enumeration of the materials used for its upkeep, the lamps, vessels, tables, and everything that served for the adornment of the tabernacle; the order of the sacrifices is depicted in detail, and the number, the very nature and quality of the offerings, the duties of the priests and Levites, their consecration, garments, and so forth, are all specified. All such details are entirely natural and understandable once we know that these books were written by the divine lawgiver of the Hebrew people. Such description of the places where the chief events of this people’s history took place was not without a wise purpose: it could impress the countless benefits of God toward them all the more deeply on the memory of the Jews. Such an enumeration of tribes and families was necessary, so that everyone might know his place during the journey. Such a precise specification of all the religious ordinances was likewise necessary, for they were only just then being introduced by God through Moses, and, being very numerous, could in no way have been accurately preserved and established among the people of Israel had they not been set down in writing. But if the writer of the Pentateuch was not Moses, but someone else, living at a later time, removed from the events described in the Pentateuch, when the Israelite faith with all its institutions already existed—then neither the cause nor the purpose of all these details of description is comprehensible.
2) Its arrangement. We shall not even speak of the Pentateuch’s general arrangement—of how natural it was for Moses, the first lawgiver and enlightener of the Hebrews, first to convey to them a notion of the origin of the world and of man, of the original fate of their forefathers and of all mankind, then to set before them the history of contemporary events: their miraculous deliverance from Egypt, their miraculous journey in the wilderness, the miraculous legislation at Sinai; further, to set forth in detail the very laws of this divine revelation—moral, ceremonial, and civil; and finally, as if in conclusion, once more briefly to repeat to the sons of Israel the whole will of God. Let us instead dwell on certain particulars of the Pentateuch. In it are found repetitions of the same ideas, and sometimes apparent contradictions, which a deceiver would have taken care to avoid for his purpose, and could have avoided with perfect ease. Very often the narratives are interrupted by long speeches and other digressions; the laws are set forth intermixed with events, and by no means in the order and strictness found in precise legal codes; in general, no deliberate concern for an artful arrangement and presentation of the subject matter is visible at all. All this had to be the case in the Pentateuch, if its writer was Moses. He described events as they occurred, and therefore it is natural that, in relating something, he should suddenly break off the narrative and insert his own address to the people, just as actually happened. It is likewise natural that he should make in the book the same frequent repetitions that actually occurred, and, in speaking of some occurrence, should set forth then and there the law to whose establishment that occurrence gave rise. Moses had no need to make artful transitions or any philosophical reflections in his book, in speaking with the Jews about events that had taken place before their own eyes, and wished only to impress these memorable events more deeply on their minds. Frequent repetitions of the same sayings, forceful addresses to the people, fatherly exhortations, reproaches and threats—all this was entirely fitting for Moses in actual reality, given his relations with the Hebrews, and is natural in his books.
3) Its style. According to the testimony of experts in the Hebrew language, the style of the Pentateuch bears upon it the stamp of the deepest antiquity; in it one finds not one of those new words, expressions, and turns of speech that came into use among the Hebrews from the time of David and Solomon; on the contrary, one finds archaisms which are already sought in vain in the later sacred books of the Jews. To prove this, it is enough to cite two commonly understood instances. It is known that in the Pentateuch the months of the year are called not by proper names, but by numbers, in the order of their sequence—that is, the first, the second, the third, and so on (Gen. 7:11; 8:4 and 5; Lev. 23:34), whereas in the books of Kings and later they already appear with proper names. In deep antiquity the months indeed were reckoned in this way, before they received fixed names. We also know that the five books of Moses never had, and do not have, among the Hebrews, proper titles, but are named by the first words with which each begins, such as: Berêschîth — in the beginning, Weêllè schemôth — these are the names, and so forth. A plain sign that these books were written at a time when the Hebrews did not yet have any other books: for names are given to books in order to distinguish one from another. And behold, the later Hebrew books are already designated by proper titles.
§ 113. c) Indirect Proof
Bearing in mind the direct proofs of the Pentateuch’s authenticity set forth so far—external and internal—we can, with a few new observations, easily present the indirect proof as well.
1) It is beyond doubt, by the testimony of pagans, Jews, and Samaritans, that Moses existed and gave the Hebrew people the book of the law. Consequently, if the present Pentateuch, ascribed to Moses, does not belong to him, then the genuine work of Moses has been lost by the Jews, and a forgery has been accepted in its place. But —
2) The genuine work of Moses could not have been lost, and was not lost. It could not have been lost because it had to remain constantly in the hands of the judges and Levites, as the sole code of political and religious laws, and consequently because everyone had the strongest motives to take care for its preservation. For, without the book of the law of Moses, neither the Levites, nor the judges, nor the people themselves could have fulfilled their religious and political duties. It was not lost: for, as we have seen, Jewish writers of every age, beginning with Moses himself, cite in their books passages from his Pentateuch, which means they made constant use of it.346
3) And for the forgery of the Pentateuch we can point to neither a time, in the whole history of the Hebrew people, nor a means.
It is indisputable that 250 years before Christ the present Pentateuch already existed: for it was then that the translation of the Seventy was made. In Ezra’s time it also existed: for he himself is presented as skilled in the law of Moses (Ezra 7:6). And from the time of Ezra an unbroken tradition concerning the Pentateuch, as well as the other sacred books, has been preserved among the Hebrews. It existed even before Ezra: for several decades before him, by his own testimony, Zerubbabel, with other countrymen, having returned from the Babylonian captivity, built an altar to the God of Israel, that they might offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses (Ezra 3:2). And the Samaritans asked Zerubbabel to allow them too to take part in rebuilding the temple, pointing out that they worshiped the same God as the Jews and in the same manner (Ezra 4:2)—which means they too possessed the Pentateuch of Moses.
We see the Pentateuch existing also in the days of Solomon, who built the house of the Lord, where worship according to the law of Moses began to be performed; and in the days of David, Saul, and Samuel, who, as their history shows, knew no other law than the law of Moses. The Pentateuch existed even before Samuel: for even then the Hebrews already had the ark of the covenant, which was in Shechem, they had the Levitical service, the tabernacle, and feasts celebrated at fixed times—and all this in accordance with the ordinances prescribed in the books of Moses. In a word: ascending step by step through the whole succession of periods of the history of the people of Israel, back to Moses himself, we everywhere find the law of Moses already in existence.
Still more improbable does the supposed forgery of the present Pentateuch, in place of some other work of Moses allegedly lost, appear, if we consider what would have been required of the forger for success in such an undertaking. He would have needed —
a) for this, to compose and forge not only the Pentateuch alone, but all the other books of the Old Testament as well—the historical, the didactic, and the prophetic: for in all of them there are clear references to the Pentateuch, laws are cited from it, and its miracles and other events set forth in it are recalled.
b) to convince all the Jews that the newly composed books were the very same ones that the Jews had held sacred from ancient times. To convince the judges that the laws contained in these books were the very ones by which judgment and justice had previously been administered in Israel. To convince the priests and Levites that the sacred rites and ceremonies prescribed by the forged books had previously been performed in the temple. To compel all the Jews to accept new, arbitrarily invented prophecies and psalms as ancient and sacred;
c) finally, in order to confirm the truth of the content of the forged Pentateuch, it would have been necessary to introduce many new institutions into the Jewish church and state, and pass them off as institutions of Moses. For example, to set apart, from the other tribes, the whole tribe of Levi for the sacred service of the altar, to establish the dignity of the high priesthood, passing by succession within the posterity of Aaron, and so forth, and to convince the sons of Israel that all this took its origin from their own divinely-inspired lawgiver himself. How many incongruities, difficulties, and even impossibilities are here!
If, after this, we gather together all the proofs of the authenticity of the Mosaic Pentateuch, then in this respect too it must be granted full preeminence over all the ancient books known among the various nations, which, moreover, are every one of them far more recent than the Pentateuch.
§ 114. The Integrity of the Mosaic Pentateuch
With no less thoroughness can the integrity of the Mosaic Pentateuch be shown. For no substantial corruption could have occurred in it, and indeed none has.
1) It could not have occurred. Let us only recall that this book was the foremost treasure of all the Jews, as the record, given by God Himself, of their faith, their legislation, their history, and other knowledge, and that it was in constant use especially among certain of the Jews. It is known, first, that Moses’s autograph, by his own command, was placed and constantly kept beside the ark of the covenant (Deut. 31:26); that Moses strictly forbade adding anything to his law, or taking anything away from it (Deut. 4:2); and that for the preservation of this law the whole tribe of Levi, numbering about 50,000 persons, was appointed. It is known, second, that from Moses’s autograph, by his own decree, a faithful copy was made for every new king or ruler, at the very time of his election, so that he might study the law and be guided by it (Deut. 17:18–19); and that similar copies had constantly to be in the hands of the Levites, who, otherwise, would not only not have known the doctrine of the faith, but would not even have known how to offer sacrifices and perform all the other rites of worship. Such copies were likewise necessary for the judges, who otherwise could not have known the civil laws of their fatherland, or administered judgment and justice. They were necessary also for the people themselves, so that they might conform to these laws in matters of faith and life, both public and domestic. How, then, after all this, can it be admitted that the Mosaic Pentateuch could have been substantially corrupted?
The supposition that such corruption was produced by the Jews themselves is unreasonable. Neither a reason, nor a purpose, nor even a means for the supposed event can be conceived in its support. And if, somehow and for some reason, the Jews had committed this crime, then it would soonest be expected that they would have destroyed, in the Pentateuch, those passages where Moses speaks of the rebellions, idolatry, and other vices of the Jews, or prescribes for them very strict laws. Yet all such passages remain intact. Nor can it be admitted that pagans corrupted the Pentateuch: for how could they have done this? And having corrupted one, two, or even several copies, how could they have spread the corruption to all the other copies in the hands of the Hebrews? How could there have remained in the Pentateuch a doctrine of the one God, entirely pure, so utterly at odds with the beliefs of the pagans, along with the accounts of His miracles, of His special favor toward the Jews above all pagans, and so forth? Neither could the Samaritans nor the Christians have produced this corruption, even supposing in them (with no grounds at all) such an intention. For the Jews, as the bitterest enemies of both, would not have failed to reproach them for so great a crime—which, however, never happened.
2) For this reason the Mosaic Pentateuch has indeed been preserved in its full integrity and incorruption even to the present day. Of this we are sufficiently convinced already by those passages from the Pentateuch, or references to it,347 which are found in all the subsequent sacred books of the Jews. These are numerous and varied passages and references, embracing nearly the greater part of the Pentateuch, and touching upon the dogmas, the moral, ceremonial, and civil laws, and the history set forth in it. This means that the sacred writers themselves, at all times, loved to study this divine book, knew it perfectly, and that it appears, for all of them, despite the different periods of their lives, to be one and the same in its content.
Far more confirmatory of the Pentateuch’s integrity is the unanimous and constant testimony of all the Jews concerning it, who, throughout the centuries, preserved the book of the law of Moses with such reverence and in such completeness that, according to the account of some of them, they did not change a single word in this book.348 We have no grounds whatsoever to disbelieve the testimony of an entire people concerning that which took place among themselves, and which could truly have been known to them alone.
Finally, for the fullest conviction of the incorruption of the Pentateuch, certain scholars349 have taken particular care to collate and compare with one another all the manuscripts of the Pentateuch’s genuine text, even all the manuscripts of its ancient translations—such as the translation of the Seventy, of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, the Syriac translation, the Vulgate, and various copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch. And what came of all this? That no substantial difference was found between the ancient genuine copies, the ancient translations, and the present editions of the Pentateuch.350
§ 115. The Authenticity of the Remaining Books of the Old Testament
The authenticity of the remaining books of the Old Testament, like the authenticity of the Pentateuch, is proven by:
I. By external testimonies. Among the Jews we find, concerning these books, a tradition continuous in time and universal:
1) At present, in their canon,351 are contained the following books, which they acknowledge to be both divine and unquestionably authentic: 1) Genesis, 2) Exodus, 3) Leviticus, 4) Numbers, 5) Deuteronomy, 6) Joshua, 7) Judges, 8) the two books of Samuel (or the first two books of Kings), 9) the books of Kings (the third and fourth), 10) Isaiah, 11) Jeremiah, 12) Ezekiel, 13) the twelve minor Prophets, 14) Psalms, 15) Proverbs, 16) Job, 17) the Song of Songs, 18) Ruth, 19) Lamentations, 20) Ecclesiastes, 21) Esther, 22) Daniel, 23) Ezra and Nehemiah, 24) Chronicles. Into twenty-four parts the Hebrews now divide their sacred books, according to the number of letters of the Greek alphabet—although the total number of books is thirty-eight—just as they formerly reckoned twenty-two books among themselves, according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet, joining for this purpose the book of Ruth with the book of Judges, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah with the book of his prophecies. Besides this, the Hebrews divide all these sacred books into three more general sections, of which the first bears the name of the Law,352 the second is called the Prophets,353 and the third—the Writings, or the sacred writings, ἁγιόγραφα.354
2) The Jews held to this same canon also during the earthly life of the Savior, as is evident, on the one hand, from the contemporary testimonies of Philo and Josephus, who speak both of the twenty-two sacred Jewish books and of their division into the three sections indicated;355 and, on the other hand, from the testimonies of Jesus Christ Himself and His Apostles: for in the New Testament, besides the fact that three classes of Old Testament books are distinguished under the names of the law, the prophets, and the psalms (Luke 24:44), passages are cited from almost all these books.356
3) The Jews held to this same canon also 300 years before the Savior’s coming. For Jesus the son of Sirach, in his book, which, by every reckoning, appeared in Hebrew no later than 300 years before the birth of Christ,357 in praising the glorious men of Israel, and after naming Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, immediately mentions the twelve Prophets (Sir. 49:12), without enumerating them by name. This shows that the writings of the twelve minor Prophets had already been brought together into one collection and were known under the common name of the twelve, and that the present canon of sacred books already existed among the Jews at that time, in which, indeed, these twelve Prophets stand, under their common name, immediately after Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. It is known, besides, that 250 years before the Savior’s coming a translation of the Hebrew books into Greek was made by seventy-two Hebrew elders, chosen from all twelve tribes: and in this translation are included all the books found in the canon of the Jews.
4) By tradition, this canon goes back even to the time of Ezra, and is said to have been brought by Ezra himself into its present form—a tradition not only accepted, unanimously, by all Jews, then and now, but accepted also by the most renowned teachers of the Christian Church: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others.358 In confirmation of this tradition, one may still, even at the present time, point to the written testimonies of Josephus and the Talmud. Josephus mentions the custom of the Jews, by which their priests, at the conclusion of a lengthy war and of troubled circumstances in general, were accustomed to review the ancient writings, and as it were to issue a new edition of them—a task, however, permitted not to everyone, but only to prophets, who knew the most ancient events by inspiration from God (κατἀ τἠν ἑπίπυοιαν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ), and wrote the history of their own time with the utmost accuracy—and he adds, following this: “For this reason we do not have a countless multitude of books, mutually contradicting and refuting one another, but only 22 books, embracing all our history and justly held to be divine. Of these, five belong to Moses…; in the thirteen that followed Moses, the Prophets described the events of their own time from the death of Moses to the Persian king Artaxerxes, the successor of Xerxes; the remaining four books contain psalms in praise of God and the most useful rules of life. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day, although everything that has happened has likewise been set down in writing, these writings no longer enjoy the same esteem as the earlier books we have enumerated, because the succession of prophets has ceased (διὰ τὸ μὴ γενέσδαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχὴν)”359. From these words it is evident:
a) that, when the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity, it was natural, in consequence of the custom that existed among them, to make a review and, as it were, a new edition of the sacred books;
b) that such a task could have been accomplished only by some priest-prophet, or by several together, and
c) that the Jewish canon, existing to this day, was finally compiled at this very time, in the reign of Artaxerxes. To whom, then, can this task be ascribed with greater justice than to Ezra? He was released by Artaxerxes to Jerusalem precisely in order to restore the temple and everything pertaining to the Faith; he was a priest of God possessing the gift of prophecy, and, as history testifies, upon his return to his homeland occupied himself with nothing else but caring, with the utmost zeal, for the restoration among the Israelites of true worship and piety, teaching them the law of God, and was, without doubt, not without cause called a scribe of the book of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel (Ezra 7:10–12). It may, however, be supposed that Ezra did not alone accomplish the review of the sacred books, and, as it were, republish them. His helpers, in all likelihood, were the prophets still living at that time—Haggai and Zechariah, whose writings entered into his canon, as well as the prophet Malachi and Nehemiah (2 Macc. 2:13), who likewise still lived in the reign of Artaxerxes, in whose time the sacred canon was finally compiled, and who contributed their own books to it. As for the testimony of the Jewish Talmud concerning the origin of the canon: in one of its most ancient parts (of the Talmud), called the Chapters of the Fathers, we read, at the very beginning, the following: “Moses received the law from Sinai, and handed it down to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; the prophets to the members of the Great Synagogue”; in another place the Talmud states still more clearly and definitely that the canon of the sacred Jewish books was completed by the Great Synagogue,360 which, as is known, according to the teaching of the Talmudists, was formed precisely in the days of Ezra.
5) It does not at all follow from this, however, that before Ezra, and before the final formation of the canon, the Jews had no canon of sacred books among themselves, and made no use of them. The contrary is guaranteed by —
a) The above-mentioned testimony of Josephus concerning the custom of the Jewish priests and prophets, after every prolonged war, to review the ancient writings and, as it were, republish them—a custom which, by the time of Artaxerxes and Ezra, had already come to an end, and consequently had been formed and established in earlier times.
b) The fact that the most ancient Jewish sacred writers indeed attached their books to the Mosaic Pentateuch, which lay beside the ark in the tabernacle, and thus incorporated them into the sacred canon. Thus, of Joshua we read: and Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God (Josh. 24:26), that is, he attached his own writing to the Pentateuch (for the Jews had no other book of the law of God at that time), so that the book of Joshua, together with the books of Moses, formed one single copy, one canon. In just the same way, Samuel, having proclaimed the manner of the kingdom, wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord (1 Sam. 10:25). The expression in a book (basepher) shows that reference is being made here to a known, already existing book, to which the book of Samuel was only an addition, thereby enlarging the existing collection of the sacred canon; while the expression laid it up before the Lord plainly points to a similar placement of the Pentateuch beside the ark in the tabernacle.
c) References made by the later sacred books themselves to the earlier ones. Thus, the book of Joshua, or what is contained in it, is mentioned in the book of Judges. The events described in the book of Judges, as well as in the book of Joshua, are spoken of in the books of Kings and in the Psalms, and so on (which can easily be verified by a single glance at the parallel passages indicated in the Bibles). The second book of Chronicles, the book of Daniel, and the book of Ezra mention the prophecy concerning the seventy years’ Babylonian captivity, and ascribe this prophecy to Jeremiah (2 Chron. 36:20–21; Dan. 9:2; Ezra 1:1). Jeremiah himself testifies concerning Micah, who prophesied in the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah (Jer. 26:18), and cites plain passages from Habakkuk (compare Jer. 5:6 with Hab. 1:6 and 8; Jer. 12:1 with Hab. 1:13; Jer. 25:27 with Hab. 2:16).
d) Finally, traditions to the effect that the Jews, long before Ezra, possessed other sacred books besides the Mosaic Pentateuch. Thus, concerning the book of the prophet Isaiah, Josephus relates the following incident. The reason why Cyrus, king of Persia, allowed the Israelites to return to their native land, was Isaiah’s prophecy, which was explained to him and astonished him—a prophecy in which Isaiah, 210 years before this ruler’s birth and 140 years before the destruction of the first Jewish temple, foretold that God would one day raise up His anointed Cyrus, and that this very anointed one, by God’s inspiration, would rebuild the city of Jerusalem, and would return the captivity of God’s people (Is. 45:1–14). The opening words of Cyrus’s own decree on this occasion, preserved in the book of Ezra, sufficiently confirm the truth of Josephus’s account: all the kingdoms of the earth has the Lord God of heaven given me, says Cyrus, and he has charged me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judea (Ezra 1:2). Is it not natural to think that here — he has charged — points directly to the aforementioned prophecy of Isaiah, especially if the two passages are compared? For this reason Josephus gives the opening of Cyrus’s decree in the following form: “I believe that the almighty God, who gave me all the kingdoms of the earth, is the God of Israel; for He foretold my name through His prophets, and declared that I would renew His temple in Jerusalem.”361 And if all this is true, it means that the Jews, already in the time of Cyrus, that is, around 536 years before Jesus Christ, had in their hands, and acknowledged as authentic, the prophecies of Isaiah. Nor is this all: the tradition of the authenticity of these prophecies goes back even to the very time of their origin. For the Talmud plainly states that Hezekiah and his academy included the book of the prophet Isaiah among the sacred books;362 and it was in the reign of Hezekiah that Isaiah prophesied.
II. By internal testimonies. Upon the most attentive examination of the style and content of the Old Testament books, one cannot but admit that they were written by different persons, at different times, and are entirely consonant with the character and circumstances of precisely those persons and periods to which they are usually ascribed.
The style in all these books is found to differ, and bears upon it the imprint of different stages of development of the Hebrew language. Thus, in the book of the prophet Isaiah this language is pure, correct, and may be said to appear in all its perfection. In the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel it is already mixed with certain Chaldean turns of phrase, corresponding to the condition of the Jews at that time. In general, in the sacred books written shortly before and during the Babylonian captivity, the Hebrew style is not entirely pure, is less clear, and inclines toward decline. The book of the prophet Daniel is written partly in Hebrew (from the very beginning to verse 4 of the second chapter, and then from chapter 8 to the very end), and partly in Chaldean (from verse 4 of chapter 2 to the end of chapter 7). In exactly the same way, the first book of Ezra is written partly in Hebrew, partly in Chaldean (the latter from verse 8 of chapter 4 to verse 19 of chapter 6, and then from verse 12 of chapter 7 to verse 27 of the same chapter). A plain sign that these last two books were written by such persons, and for such readers, as were familiar with both languages; and such, indeed, were Daniel, Ezra, and the Jews of their time who were in the Babylonian captivity. We shall not even mention certain particular idioms of style found in some sacred books and not found in others, which plainly show a difference of writers.
The same variation appears in the content of the Old Testament sacred books. Each divinely-inspired writer has his own particular order of exposition, his own distinctive manner of describing events (for the spirits of the prophets, as the holy Apostle Paul testified, are subject to the prophets (1 Cor. 14:32); and God, in inspiring His messengers with supernatural revelation, did not, however, deprive them of their natural faculties for conveying this revelation to other people). Everywhere in these books one sees, as it were, a reflection of the customs of different ages, a reflection of the different political circumstances of the Jewish people, and not infrequently of neighboring peoples—and all this in complete conformity with the time of life and character of the sacred writers themselves. It is well known to everyone that the prophet Isaiah is distinguished by a particular loftiness of thought, and by clarity and precision in expressing it; the tone of the prophet Jeremiah, especially in his Lamentations, is tender and, as it were, mournful; the prophecy of Ezekiel is pervaded by mystery, full of symbols, comparisons, allegories, parables, descriptions, and personifications. Moreover, this same Ezekiel, for example, who lived in Arabia among the Chaldeans, depicts precisely those events that were contemporary with him. He presents Nebuchadnezzar as the conqueror of the Hebrews, sees Jerusalem destroyed, the temple defiled, the Jews carried into captivity and scattered among the nations; and, for the comfort of these unfortunate captives, he foretells to them another David, a new Jerusalem, a new temple, in which the Lord will establish His dwelling forever. The prophet Daniel displays a perfect knowledge of the customs and manners of Babylon, of the geography of that country, of the political and religious condition of its inhabitants, and depicts all this with the utmost precision.363 In general it may be observed that many of the Old Testament books, especially the historical ones, present themselves as a kind of diary. In them the order of time is observed, descriptions of places are found, the names and families of people are mentioned, the genealogies of generations, the successions of kings and high priests are traced; in a word, every kind of detail, often the smallest and seemingly most trivial, is noted. What, then, could more naturally explain this, than the fact that the Old Testament books truly originated at different times, and were written by persons who lived in those times, and knew those places, of which they speak with such precision?
III. By the impossibility of forgery. An impossibility both on the part of the person who might have resolved upon such an act, and on the part of the Jews, who would have had to accept, and still hold to this day, forged books as authentic and divine.
No deceiver, whatever his abilities, could possibly forge more than thirty books, so consonant with the characters and circumstances of different persons and different periods, books so unlike one another in subject matter, in tone of exposition, and especially in style, bearing as it does the indelible imprint of different stages in the development of the Hebrew language. And to suppose, for this purpose, many deceivers—whether contemporaries of one another, or living at different times—has not the slightest ground, and is plainly unreasonable.
Those persons to whom the Old Testament sacred books are ascribed, and especially the Prophets, were well-known and celebrated figures among the Jews. Acting in the name of Jehovah, they openly and boldly proclaimed the will of God. Hear the word of the Lord (2 Kings 7:1; Jer. 2:4), they cried, appearing everywhere, and each of their prophecies was, as it were, a public event, and powerfully aroused the attention of their fellow citizens; while certain predictions, touching upon the Jewish kingdom itself, produced great movements throughout the whole people. For this reason the memory of the Prophets and their prophecies passed among the Hebrews from generation to generation. How, then, could it come about that prophecies, invented and put forth under the names of Prophets known to all, were accepted by the Jews as genuine? This is all the more improbable in that the Jews were extremely discriminating and cautious in accepting books as divine books: for this they invariably required that a given book be entered into the sacred canon by some prophet. And for this reason they would not of themselves agree to include in this canon the books of Tobit, Judith, Jesus the son of Sirach, and the Maccabees, although they ascribe great importance to these books.364
§ 116. Their Integrity
“If anyone should say”, observes Blessed Jerome, “that the Hebrew books have been corrupted by the Jews, let him listen to how Origen answers this question in the eighth book of his commentaries on Isaiah: never did the Lord and the Apostles, who reproached the scribes and Pharisees for their other crimes, reproach them for this crime, which would have been the greatest of all. And if it be said that the Hebrew books were corrupted after the Savior’s coming and after the Apostles’ preaching, I cannot restrain my laughter at the thought that the Savior, the Evangelists, and the Apostles could have cited testimonies in the very form that the Jews were later to corrupt them.”365
To this well-grounded observation, whose force one cannot but feel at once, the following may still be added:
1) It is utterly improbable that the Jews could have corrupted their sacred books before the Savior’s coming: for they —
a) had, at that time, not the slightest motive to do so; on the contrary, they had every motive to guard these books with the utmost care, as monuments containing the sweet promises of the coming Deliverer, by which alone they could recognize Him. Besides this —
b) it is positively known from the testimonies of Philo and Josephus that the Jews were distinguished then, as they still are to this day, by the deepest reverence for their sacred books, so that they cherished a kind of religious veneration for every word and every letter of the Bible. And that, throughout the centuries, not one of them dared either to add anything to it, or to take anything away from it.366 This is why Trypho the Jew, in Justin’s well-known Dialogue, upon noticing that the latter suspects his countrymen of corrupting Holy Scripture, declares that this is a crime which, in the eyes of a Jew, is far graver than worshiping the golden calf, sacrificing children to idols, and murdering the Prophets. Finally —
c) a substantial corruption of the sacred books before the Savior’s coming, whether on the part of the Jews or of the pagans, cannot be admitted, if only from the thought of divine providence alone. If the chief purpose of these books was to prepare the human race to recognize and receive the Messiah, then this purpose could not have been fully achieved, had they been substantially corrupted. It is precisely to this special providence of God for the preservation of the Old Testament writings, so important for proving the divinity of the Christian faith, that the ancient defenders of Christianity not infrequently pointed.367
2) Equally unfounded is the notion that the Jews substantially corrupted the Old Testament books after Christ’s coming. This they could not have done
a) if only on account of their own dispersion, and, together with them, the dispersion of copies of the Bible, over almost the whole face of the earth;368
b) because many of the Jews, from the very beginning of Christianity, entered into the bosom of the Church of Christ and brought with them into it copies of the Hebrew Bible, which, of course, must have remained free of corruption, even if all the other copies, left in the hands of the Jews who did not believe in the Messiah, had somehow been maliciously corrupted by them;
c) because of the existence, among these Jews, of two mutually hostile sects—the sect of the Rabbanites, ardent devotees of tradition, and the sect of the Karaites, who strictly adhere to the letter of Scripture: had the Masoretes (the Rabbanites), as some suppose, indeed made important and substantial changes to the sacred text, the Karaites would never have agreed to accept these changes, and there would necessarily have been a difference between the copies of the two. But no such difference exists. Also worthy of note is
d) the fact that, had the Jews, out of hatred for the Christians, resolved to raise a sacrilegious hand against their own divine Bible, they would, without doubt, have corrupted first of all those striking prophecies which serve as one of the fundamental bases of our faith, and as the first proof of their unbelief and hardness of heart; but all such prophecies remain intact.369
II. ON THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS370
§ 117. The Authenticity of the Four Gospels: a) External Proofs
External proofs of the authenticity of the four Gospels consist of testimonies about them from the Orthodox teachers of the Church and from testimonies of her enemies, pagans and heretics. Both kinds of testimony are exceedingly numerous, and an unbroken chain of them could be traced through the whole series of centuries from the appearance of Christianity down to the present day. But there is no need for such an undertaking, because even the most obstinate opponents of the authenticity of our Gospels agree that from the beginning of the third century they have existed. It is therefore sufficient for us to present testimonies concerning the four Gospels belonging only to the first two centuries.
I. In the latter half of the second century the four Gospels undoubtedly existed and were universally known throughout the whole Christian world, in the East and in the West: for here and there we see the use of our Gospels not only within the Church herself, but also among her enemies.
1) Within the Church herself. Clement of Alexandria, who became head of the famous School of Alexandria in the year 189, cites numerous passages from all four of our Gospels371, as from writings whose divine authority is not subject to the least doubt, sometimes even naming the evangelists themselves372. To grasp the importance of this witness, one must take into account, first, that he was a disciple of Pantaenus and associated with the most ancient teachers of the Church, men of apostolic times, from whom, of course, he learned of the authenticity of the four Gospels. And second, that Clement, as a presbyter of Alexandria and as head of the school from which pastors went forth for the whole of that region, serves in the present case as a representative for us of the belief of the entire Alexandrian church concerning the Gospels—a belief his disciple Origen (who by his upbringing likewise belongs to the end of the second century) expressed still more definitely in these words: “concerning the four Gospels, I have learned by tradition that only these four are received without any contradiction by the whole Church of God under heaven, namely: the first Gospel was written by Matthew, the second… and so forth”373.
Athenagoras of Athens, in his Apology, published around the year 177, cites the exact words from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke374, and, as a teacher at that same School of Alexandria, presents further testimony concerning the belief of the Alexandrian church regarding the Gospels.
Theophilus of Antioch was so convinced of the divine authority and authenticity of the four Gospels that he wrote a commentary on them which, though it has not come down to us, was known to blessed Jerome, who cites from it an explanation of one parable375. Moreover, in his surviving work To Autolycus, Theophilus cites texts from the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, naming the last of these by name376. Being bishop of Antioch, Theophilus must have known and affirmed the belief of all the particular churches under his authority, and so in his voice we may hear the voice of the whole of western Christian Syria.
Tertullian (still before his own falling-away from Orthodoxy) speaks in the most definite manner of the four Gospels, asserting that they were written by the Apostles, or by disciples of the Apostles—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—and proving the importance of these Gospels, on the one hand, by the fact that they have existed in the apostolic churches continuously since the time of the Apostles themselves, and on the other, by the fact that from the time of their origin they have been acknowledged as authentic and divine both by the apostolic churches and by all the rest377. Tertullian, an African presbyter and the most celebrated scholar of his time, is without any doubt the most trustworthy witness in this matter to the belief of the African church, and even of all the rest.
Equally clear pronouncements concerning the four Gospels are found also in St. Irenaeus: “We have learned,” he says, “the economy of our salvation from no others than those through whom the Gospel came down to us, which they first proclaimed, and then, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the pillar and ground of our faith.” And having said this, the holy father lists the names of the Gospels themselves and of the evangelists in precisely the order in which they remain to this day378.
A little further on, in the same work, he affirms that the Gospels are neither more nor fewer than four. And he sees in this a mysterious correspondence to the four quarters of the world in which the Church has been planted379. More than this: according to the words of St. Irenaeus, such was the trustworthiness of all our four Gospels already in his own time, that even the heretics themselves bore witness to them, each striving to confirm his own teaching from passages in these Gospels380. Let us recall now that Irenaeus was a contemporary of the immediate disciples of the Apostles, from whom, as he himself confesses381, he loved to learn with great diligence, and was in particular for a long time the closest disciple of St. Polycarp, the nearest disciple of the evangelist John. Let us not forget, too, that Irenaeus, having left Asia, where his youth and years of formation had passed, visited, before arriving in Lyons, nearly half of the Christian world of that time, whereby he could readily learn all that was happening within it. Then, while still a presbyter, on certain matters of church business, he visited Rome, and ended his days in Gaul as bishop of Lyons. It is plain that he could have received his knowledge of the Gospels at second hand at the least, from men of apostolic times, and that his testimony vouches for the belief not only of the church of Lyons, but of the whole West, and even of almost the entire universal Church. And therefore it may with full justice be said: even had there been no other testimonies from the second century concerning our four Gospels, the testimony of Irenaeus alone could indisputably establish their authenticity.
One cannot, however, pass over in silence here two more Christian testimonies of that time concerning the Gospels, testimonies of a particular kind. The first is the Syriac translation of the four Gospels from the Greek original, known under the name of the “simple” translation (Peshitta), and dating back, at the very least, to the latter half of the second century382 (fresh proof of the belief in the authenticity of all the Gospels held by the Syriac church!). The second is the catalogue of sacred books discovered by Muratori in a manuscript of the Milan library, reckoned by its antiquity, as is supposed, to be no less than a thousand years old. This catalogue must be assigned to at least the second century. For the one by whom it was originally written says that the Book of Hermas was composed in his own time, under the Roman bishop Pius I. It follows, then, that the catalogue itself was drawn up either under Pius I himself, or, at the very latest, under his successor Anicetus, whom St. Polycarp visited. And this most ancient catalogue of sacred books likewise lists all our four Gospels383.
2) Among the enemies of the Church, namely: the pagan philosopher Celsus and the disciples of the heretic Valentinus.
From the numerous fragments of Celsus’s work against the Christians (written around the middle of the second century), preserved by Origen, it is evident that Celsus knew all our four Gospels. Thus, in one place he admits that he himself had seen among the Christian priests certain barbarous books in which the names of demons and stories of the blind were inscribed384; in another he says that he draws his objections against the Christians from their own writings — and Origen, refuting him, calls these writings our Gospels, and generally reproaches this philosopher for having read our Gospels without proper attention; in a third place Celsus mentions that it was precisely his own disciples who wrote the history of Jesus’s deeds385; finally, he even directly calls these writings the gospel (ἐυαγγέλιον), a name which shows that in Celsus’s day our Gospels not only existed but had already been brought together into a single body, or canon386. In particular, it is beyond doubt that Celsus knew:
1) The Gospel of Matthew: for he speaks of all the events described in the first two chapters of this Gospel, and passed over by the other evangelists, namely: the star that guided the Magi, their journey to Bethlehem, the gifts they brought to the Messiah who had been born, Herod’s persecution against Jesus, the appearance of the Angel to Joseph on this occasion, and Jesus’s sojourn in Egypt. He states, and himself admits, that he drew all this from the Christian Gospels387. Further, Celsus cites many of the precepts from the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount; he tells of the calling of the Apostles; he quotes the very words of the evangelist Matthew: “when they persecute you in this city, flee into another” (Matt. 10:23); he mentions the betrayal of Judas, the denials of Peter, the prayer of Jesus Christ in the garden of Gethsemane: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” (Matt. 26:39), the cup of vinegar and gall offered to the Savior during his sufferings, the darkness and the earthquake at the time of his death, and many other events, exactly as they are described by the evangelist Matthew388. Celsus knew
2) The Gospel of Mark: for, besides pointing to many events about which he could have gathered information from this as well as from the other Gospels, Celsus relates, in one of his objections, a particular detail whose basis he could have drawn only from the Gospel of Mark—namely, in asserting that the risen Savior was seen only by a single woman, frenzied and beside herself (πάροιστρος)389. Such an idea the objector could have grounded on nothing else than the passage in the evangelist Mark (16:5 and 8), found in none of the other evangelists—the passage where it is related that the women, having come to the Savior’s tomb and having beheld the Angel in the tomb, “were amazed” (ἐξεθαμβήθησαν) “and went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come upon them” (τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις). Celsus knew —
3) The Gospel of Luke: for in one place he complains of the pride of the Christian genealogists (τοὺς γενεαλογήσαντας) who trace the genealogy of Jesus back even to the first man, Adam390 — a detail belonging exclusively to the evangelist Luke (3:25-38); he also knew
4) The Gospel of John: for he points391 to the Christian teaching about the Word, who is the Son of God; to the fact that from the pierced side of the crucified Savior there flowed blood and water; he calls him “light,” “life,” and so forth—all details found only in the evangelist John.
Concerning the Valentinian heretics, St. Irenaeus remarked in general that they preferred the Gospel of John to the other Gospels (which, consequently, they also admitted), and the fragments cited by Irenaeus from the Valentinians’ writings fully confirm this conclusion392. One of the first disciples of Valentinus, Heracleon —
a) composed a commentary on the Gospel of John, many passages of which Origen has preserved;
b) also wrote a commentary on the Gospel of Luke, as may be conjectured on the basis of one lengthy fragment cited from this commentary by Clement of Alexandria;
c) finally, in his commentary on John, twice quotes the words of the evangelist Matthew, adding: “according to the Gospel.”393
Another, no less renowned disciple of Valentinus, Theodotus, admitted all four Gospels. In an extract from his writings, made by one of his devoted disciples and preserved at the end of the works of Clement of Alexandria —
a) many words of the Savior are cited with complete precision, exactly as they are set forth in the evangelists Matthew, Luke, and John;
b) it is related that the Savior sojourned in the wilderness, with those particulars found only in the evangelist Mark;
c) and three times occurs the expression: “the Apostle said,” before texts quoted from the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John394. The third, most renowned disciple of Valentinus, Ptolemy, in his letter to Flora, preserved by Epiphanius395, repeats many passages from the Gospel of Matthew and one from the Gospel of John, adding: “the Apostle said.” The fourth disciple of Valentinus, Mark, according to the testimony of St. Irenaeus, applied to his teaching about the aeons many passages from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and one from the Gospel of Mark396.
Taking together the testimonies we have adduced thus far, we must conclude that all our four Gospels existed and already formed a defined canon not only in the latter half of the second century, but in the first half as well: for, without question, a book from which passages are quoted in any writings must have been written before those writings, and in order for the Gospels to spread through all the Christian churches situated in Asia, Europe, and Africa, to be unanimously received by all Christians, and to become known even to the pagans themselves—for all this a considerable span of time was required.
II. But there are, besides, direct and trustworthy witnesses who clearly confirm that the four Gospels indeed existed already in the first half of the second century. Such are —
1) Among the ecclesiastical writers of that time: St. Justin the Martyr, St. Polycarp, and Papias.
The first —
a) in one of his Apologies speaks of the memoirs of the Apostles (ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων), which were read by the Christians in their sacred assemblies and commonly called the Gospels: and that St. Justin meant by this precisely our Gospels is vouched for by the very passage he cites there from these memoirs concerning the institution of the Eucharist, in words identical to those found in St. Matthew, Mark, and Luke397;
b) in all his writings assumes the Gospel history as beyond doubt, striving, for instance, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, to demonstrate the complete agreement of the Old Testament prophecies with the events of Christ’s life exactly as they are set forth by our evangelists;
c) finally, in various places throughout his writings, quotes numerous texts from all our four Gospels almost word for word398.
The circumstances of St. Justin’s life greatly enhance the importance of his testimony. Born at the beginning of the second century (in the year 103) in Palestine, he could without doubt have known many of those who had lived alongside St. Simeon, the disciple and close kinsman of the Savior himself, who was the second bishop of Jerusalem and suffered a martyr’s death in the year 107; he could also have known the disciples of St. John the Evangelist, who died around the year 100 of our era, and could have associated with both. Besides this, he undertook a journey to Rome, where he wrote his second Apology, dwelt for a long time in Alexandria, traveled through Asia Minor, and in Ephesus composed his Dialogue with Trypho. He thus visited all the most renowned Christian churches of that time—of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Ephesus, and Rome—and could himself, directly, learn what Gospels were in use in each of them.
St. Polycarp, an apostolic man, disciple of St. John the Theologian and bishop of Smyrna, in his Epistle to the Philippians, written around the year 107 (chapters 2 and 7), quotes passages from the Gospels of Matthew (5:3, 10; 6:13; 26:41), of Mark (14:38), and of Luke (6:37-38). And though he quotes not a single passage from the Gospel of John, he does quote (ch. 7) words from this Apostle’s first epistle (4:3). And it is universally accepted as certain that this epistle could have had no other author than the one who also wrote the Gospel of John. It should be recalled here that, besides the epistle, five fragments have come down to us from St. Polycarp in a sixth-century Latin translation, which the best critics acknowledge as authentic. In the third of these fragments the holy father gives us the most striking testimony that already in his own time all our Gospels were known under the names of the evangelists themselves, and, moreover, neither more nor fewer than four399.
A contemporary of St. Polycarp, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (who tells the following about himself: “whenever I met anyone who had been a companion of the elders, I would inquire carefully after their words—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and what Aristion and the elder John, also disciples of the Lord, were saying”),—this same Papias, in that same work of his, according to the testimony of Eusebius, clearly transmitted from the elders, and especially from his own teacher, the elder John, the account that Matthew wrote one Gospel in the Hebrew language, and Mark, the companion of the Apostle Peter, wrote another, and he cites texts from the first epistle of John—thereby, like St. Polycarp, bearing witness also to the Gospel of John400.
2) But if, owing to the loss of many Christian writings of the first half of the second century (for instance, some of the writings of St. Justin and of Papias), few testimonies of the Church herself concerning our four Gospels have come down to us from that time—quite clear testimonies concerning them have, on the other hand, been preserved from the enemies of the Church, the heretics, and are, consequently, all the more weighty testimonies.
Tatian, who had been a disciple of St. Justin, and afterward became the head of the sect of the Encratites, or Severians,
a) before his own falling-away from Orthodoxy, wrote a Discourse to the Greeks, in which he quotes two exact passages from the Gospel of John401;
b) but after his falling-away—composed his own Diatessaron (διὰ τεσσάρων), in which, bringing together texts from all our four Gospels, he sought to arrange these texts so as to produce a continuous history of Jesus Christ. And he made no additions of his own to them, but only maliciously omitted everything contrary to his own errors, and in particular everything relating to the genealogy of the Savior and his descent from David. As to the authenticity of this work of Tatian’s —
a) it is vouched for by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Theodoret: the testimony of the last of these is the more remarkable in that he, having become a Syrian bishop, himself found in his diocese more than two hundred copies of this book, which was used not only by the followers of Tatian, but, through the cunning of the heretics, even by some of the Orthodox; and consequently he himself could see and judge whether the heretical Diatessaron was indeed drawn from our four Gospels, as he relates: otherwise, of course, he would not have affirmed this before his contemporaries402;
b) it is vouched for, further, by an ancient Syriac writer, who says the following: “Tatian, the disciple of Justin the martyr and philosopher, composed one Gospel out of four, and called it Diatessaron; the opening words of this work are: In the beginning was the Word”403;
c) finally, it is vouched for also by the fact that the followers of Tatian did indeed accept our Gospels, as well as the Law of Moses and the books of the Prophets, rejecting only the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of St. Paul the Apostle404. What further proof, then, could be required that in the first half of the second century all our four Gospels existed, and existed in a defined canon, if a disciple of St. Justin unquestionably made use of them as apostolic writings?.. So important a truth for a Christian the disciple would, without doubt, not have accepted had his teacher not accepted it. And so, if the testimonies concerning the four Gospels drawn from the few surviving writings of St. Justin himself do not seem altogether conclusive (whereas in his lost works, perhaps, the most precise and complete testimonies were to be found)—is not the voice of the disciple sufficient surety for him?..
How Marcion—another heresiarch famous at that time—regarded our four Gospels is well enough known from the refutations of him by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian. The former says that Marcion, while receiving with respect the one Gospel of Luke, reviled the other three, not at all because he did not acknowledge them as authentic, that is, as originating from the Apostles and their disciples, but only because, as he supposed, the Apostles, not having understood Christ’s teaching, had mixed into it, in these Gospels, much of the Old Testament Jewish teaching (of which Marcion was an enemy), whereas the evangelist Luke (in whom Marcion thought to find confirmation of his own ideas), having written under the immediate supervision of St. Paul the Apostle, had escaped this fault405. The latter (Tertullian) reminds Marcion that he himself had once believed the account of the evangelist Matthew concerning the manger of the Savior and the adoration of the shepherds and the Magi, as he himself confessed in one of his letters406. He rebukes the heretic for having rejected the Gospels that plainly condemned him, and for having damaged even the one he did accept, whereas the Gospel of John alone could overthrow his false teaching407. Finally, wishing to prove to his adversary that the Gospel received by the Church is true and unaltered, while, on the contrary, his own Gospel—Marcion’s Gospel—is untrue and altered, the renowned teacher points out that the former is older than the latter, was received up to a certain time by Marcion himself, and derives its origin uninterruptedly from the Apostles themselves in all the apostolic churches and the rest408. It cannot fail to be noticed that, had Marcion not believed the Gospels he rejected to be of apostolic origin, would he not have availed himself of this plausible means of justifying himself? And Tertullian, who examined in order all of Marcion’s justifications, would he really have passed over this one, and failed to give a full answer to so important a question? On the other hand, had our four Gospels not truly been unanimously received by the whole Church in Marcion’s day, how would Tertullian have dared to set against him, in this connection, the testimonies of the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Romans, and the churches of Asia founded by St. John? And had it not also been known at that time that our Gospels were preserved in the apostolic churches precisely from the time of the holy Apostles themselves—could the most celebrated Christian scholar have set even this against the learned heretic?
Just so, too, with regard to the third heresiarch, Marcion’s contemporary, Valentinus, who appeared with his false teaching around the year 134, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius testify that this heretic only distorted the meaning of our Gospels, and by no means rejected them409.
Even more remarkable here are the ancient reports concerning Basilides and Carpocrates, heresiarchs who lived very close to the times of the Apostles themselves. The teachers of the Church who refuted the errors of Carpocrates nowhere reproach him for rejecting the authenticity of our Gospels; on the contrary, they affirm that the followers of this heretic sought to found even their own opinions on Gospel texts410. And Basilides, according to the words of his contemporary Agrippa Castor, who wrote refutations against him411, composed as many as twenty-four books on the Gospel (τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον). This expression, used by Agrippa and afterward by Eusebius without any particular remark, undoubtedly signifies for them what it signified generally and always among Christians, that is, the entire fourfold Gospel received by the Church. Otherwise, had the reference been to some spurious Gospel, or one corrupted by the heretics, Agrippa and Eusebius would not have used, contrary to universal custom, the Church’s sacred expression τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον without a suitable qualification. We pass over in silence the fact that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Epiphanius, who wrote against the followers of Basilides, nowhere reproach them for rejecting the authenticity of our Gospels.
III. Finally, there are sufficient grounds for asserting that already in the first century our Gospels were known, each from the time of its own composition, with the exception of the Gospel of John, which appeared toward the end of that century (around the year 98).
Such a conclusion already follows from what has gone before. It cannot be that the writers of the first half, even the first quarter, of the second century, whether favorable or unfavorable to the Church, should have agreed together, and without any cause, to acknowledge certain writings as belonging to the Apostles themselves, had they not received this tradition from their own teachers, their fathers, and their forebears… Still less credible would it be that these writings, of which up to that point no one had heard anything, should suddenly have been received by the whole Church, then already scattered across various countries of the world, and should have become the rule of universal Christian belief. No—if at the beginning of the second century our Gospels were regarded with such reverence, that reverence, without doubt, had passed down from the first century.
From the apostolic men of the first century only a few, and those brief, epistles have come down to us; happily, even in these few but precious monuments there is no small number of testimonies concerning our four Gospels.
St. Ignatius the God-bearer, bishop of Antioch (†107), who personally knew many of the Apostles and spent the greater part of his life with St. John the Theologian —
a) mentions the division of Holy Scripture into the Gospel (which, therefore, already existed), the Apostles, and the Prophets412;
b) urges those believers who said, “if I do not find it in the archives, I will not believe the Gospel,” to hold fast to the teaching of Christ413;
c) expresses the thought that the Gospel contains the accounts of the Savior’s coming, suffering, and resurrection414;
d) and, finally, quotes passages from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke415, though without mentioning the source from which he draws them.
In the Epistle of St. Barnabas, written around the year 76, are found two exact passages from the Gospel of Matthew, namely: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance”416 (Epist. cap. 5 — Matt. 9:13); “many are called, but few are chosen” (ibid. c. 4 — Matt. 22:14), and one passage from the Gospel of Luke: “give to everyone who asks of you”417 (ibid. c. 19 — Luke 6:30). But most remarkable of all is that, in quoting the words “many are called…,” the apostolic man added: “as it is written”418, and thus testified that he drew these words not from any oral tradition, but from a written one.
Finally, St. Clement of Rome, who lived and associated with many of the Apostles, especially with Peter and Paul —
a) in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, quotes, though not verbatim, many sayings of the Savior found in our first three Gospels, and in quoting them invites the Christians merely to recall these sayings—which plainly presupposes that they, and consequently the Gospels, were already known to the believers419;
b) in his second Epistle to the Corinthians, besides quoting passages from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke420, uses in one instance the expression: “Scripture says”421, and in another: “the Lord says in the Gospel”422, though he does not everywhere present the very texts letter for letter.
Fairness requires that we note,
1) that many writings of the first century have not come down to us423, and among them even some of the writings of the apostolic men, for instance of St. Clement and St. Ignatius the God-bearer, as the surviving fragments of them show424: and in these writings there might have been full and precise testimonies concerning our holy Gospels;
2) that if the apostolic men, in their writings that have come down to us, when quoting passages from the Gospels, for the most part do not point directly to the Gospels themselves: it by no means follows from this that these passages are drawn from some other source: for —
a) these holy fathers act in exactly the same way, for the most part, when quoting texts from the Old Testament books, which unquestionably existed at that time;
b) we ourselves very often do the same, though no one would conclude from this that we are quoting from something other than Scripture;
c) in some instances, as we have seen, the apostolic men clearly stated that they were drawing their words from Scripture, or from the Gospel;
3) if, finally, these venerable men repeat passages from our Gospels, for the most part, not word for word: this is, without doubt, because they cited the texts not directly from the sacred manuscripts, but from memory, as St. Justin did in the second century, and as many Christian writers have done, and still very often do, at all times.
So then, here before us, from the first two centuries of Christianity alone, are more than twenty witnesses confirming the authenticity of our four Gospels: eleven of them belong to the number of Orthodox Christians, ten to the number of the Church’s enemies.
Of the first group, five, namely: St. Barnabas, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius the God-bearer, St. Polycarp, and Papias, being immediate disciples and apostolic men, could have learned of the authenticity of the Gospels at first hand, from the Apostles themselves, and are, consequently, witnesses of the greatest weight. Now among these alone, if not in each one individually, then taken together, we find
1) clear passages from all our Gospels: most of all from the Gospel of Matthew425, which, having appeared before the others, had time to spread more quickly among the Christians; then from the Gospel of Luke426; further from the Gospel of Mark427; and, finally, from the Gospel of John, which, being written only toward the end of the first century, is quoted by St. Polycarp alone, and could not even have been known to the other apostolic men who lived before that time;
2) we not infrequently meet with statements that they draw these passages not from oral tradition preserved in the Church since the time of the Savior, but precisely from the Scriptures, or, still more directly, from the Gospel428;
3) finally, we meet with the very names of all four Evangelists, and a clear indication of the number of the Gospels429. The remaining six Christian writers are nearly all disciples of the apostolic men, or, at the very least, had occasion to associate closely with them. They could, consequently, have heard of the authenticity of the four Gospels at second hand, and by no means further removed than at third hand: which again makes them witnesses of great weight. These witnesses not only all together, but even each one individually—some, for instance St. Clement of Alexandria and St. Justin, quote numerous passages from all our Gospels with direct reference to the Gospels, while others, such as St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, moreover speak of the fourfold number of the Gospels and directly name their writers.
As for the testimonies to the authenticity of the four Gospels from the enemies of the Church, better testimonies could not be wished for:
a) if only because these are the testimonies of enemies;
b) of enemies, not infrequently very learned ones (such as Celsus), who lived very close to the beginning of Christianity, and who, consequently, had every opportunity to expose the Christians in a forgery of the Gospels, had such a forgery existed;
c) of enemies, the greater part of whom—nearly all the heretics—cherished a respect for our Gospels, for one of them or even for all, though they allowed themselves to distort them;
d) finally, on account of the precision, fullness, and definiteness of these testimonies: thus Celsus clearly mentions the sacred Christian books, calls them the Gospel, and quotes passages from all four Evangelists; Heracleon composed commentaries on the Gospels of John and Luke; Tatian composed his own Diatessaron out of all our Evangelists, and so forth430.
§ 118. b) Internal Proofs
Examining our Gospels as to their content, we not only find nothing in them that would contradict their authenticity, but, on the contrary, find a complete correspondence:
I. with the characteristics of the writers to whom they are ascribed,
II. with the time in which these writers lived, or in which the events they describe took place, and
III. with the locality in which the former lived, or in which the latter took place.
I. The Evangelists cannot fail to be recognized here at first glance. The Greek language in which the Gospels are written431, as those who have examined it attentively acknowledge, is not a purely Greek language, but, in the meaning of many words, in whole expressions and turns of phrase, bears the ineffaceable stamp of the Hebrew language, and testifies that the writers of the Gospels were by origin Hebrews. Such precisely were the holy Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This complete artlessness and simplicity in the depiction of events, which is noted in the Gospels, these frequent references to the sacred books of the Jews, to persons and events from their history, show that the writers of the Gospels were entirely unacquainted with the secular learning of the Greeks and with their artful historical method, were not rich in worldly knowledge, and knew only the one Hebrew Bible. Such precisely were the holy Evangelists. Finally, this naturalness and vividness with which the events are described in the Gospels involuntarily compel us to suppose that the writers themselves were eyewitnesses of everything they describe, or, at the very least, had heard of it from eyewitnesses. Such precisely were the holy Evangelists.
II. The Gospels contain, chiefly, the history of the earthly life and acts of the Lord Jesus; but, in setting down this history, the Evangelists quite naturally left also a brief sketch of the state of Judea at that time, which was the theater of the Savior’s acts. It is true that they touch upon this subject unintentionally, in passing, and sometimes mention the most trifling details; but it is precisely these details, confirmed with complete precision by the testimonies of the non-Christian historians of that time432, that serve as a striking proof of the authenticity of the Gospels.
1) The Evangelists have left us a brief sketch of the ecclesiastical state of the Jewish people in the days of the earthly life of Christ the Savior.
They portray the Jews, on the one hand, as very devoted to their sacred books and zealous in the fulfillment of the ceremonial laws, especially the law of the Sabbath. But, at the same time, they speak of them as people slavishly attached only to the letter of Scripture and utterly neglectful of its spirit—as a people found at almost the last extreme of moral corruption. And one need only read attentively the work of the Jewish historian of that time, Josephus, On the War of the Jews, to be convinced of the striking fidelity of this picture.
The Evangelists mention the Pharisees and Sadducees as the two chief sects then existing within the Jewish church, and the Samaritans, toward whom the Jews constantly cherished an implacable hatred: but, what is especially remarkable, they present to us Jesus Christ dealing with all these sectarians in a manner perfectly fitting, fully corresponding to the principles and errors of each sect. Thus, when He converses with the Pharisees, He exposes their hypocrisy, their pride, their vainglory in the way they performed their fasts and gave their alms, their excessive attachment to the traditions of the fathers, which they preferred even to the Law itself, and so forth. On the other hand, turning His speech to the Sadducees, He speaks in a wholly different tone: He sees in them men coarse and given over to the flesh, who, holding to the letter of Scripture, do not grasp its spirit, and deny the resurrection of the dead. With the Samaritans He speaks differently still: exposing their ignorance and schism, He lets them know that salvation is to come from Judea. All this is the most exact portrayal of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Samaritans in the days of the Savior’s earthly life, according to the testimony of Josephus and other contemporary accounts.
According to the account of the Evangelists, the Jewish high priest who conducted the trial of Christ the Savior was named Caiaphas, and he presided over the church at the very time when the ruler of Judea was Pontius Pilate. And St. Luke relates that at one and the same time two different persons, Annas and Caiaphas, bore the title of high priest—further events, of which Josephus confirms both the first and the last.433
2) We find in the Gospels a brief sketch also of the political state of Judea in the time of the Savior.
The Jews were then, according to the account of the Evangelists, under the yoke of the Romans, which weighed heavily upon them, as they sighed for their lost freedom; this is shown already by the one question craftily put to the Savior by certain of the Pharisees: “is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” (Luke 20:22)—a question which, being put as it was, precisely fixes the time in which Christ lived: for a little earlier or a little later this question would have had no meaning at all. In particular, the Evangelists tell us of the rulers of Judea who reigned in the Savior’s time: Herod the Great, his successor Archelaus, and the other Herod, who kept Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. They also mention Pontius Pilate, who governed Judea at the very time when Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3:1). All these events and persons did indeed exist in precisely this form, as Josephus also attests.434
In the account of the Evangelists it is not infrequently assumed that among the Jews at that time, besides their own native laws and customs, certain Roman laws and customs were also in use. For example:
a) The words of the Savior: “Come to terms with your accuser quickly, while you are still on the way with him, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Truly I say to you, you will not come out from there until you have paid the last kodrant” (Matt. 5:25-26). These words point to a Roman law then in use in Judea, by which a creditor had the right to seize his debtor and bring him before the judge, and, if the debtor did not manage to come to terms with his opponent along the way, the judge sentenced the guilty party to a fine, which he was obliged to pay at once. Otherwise he was thrown into prison, from which he could not come out until he had paid to the last kodrant.435 This same Roman law is pointed to also by the Savior’s parable of the two debtors (Matt. 18:23), in its final part (verses 28 and 30).
b) According to the words of the Evangelists, Jesus Christ was struck with a reed before He was crucified on the cross. This cruel custom, practiced upon those condemned to crucifixion, was indeed in use among the Romans, as Titus Livius and Josephus attest.436
c) The Savior himself was compelled to carry the cross on which he was to suffer, as it is written in the Gospel. Plutarch says that this custom still held force among the Romans even in his own time.437
d) By Pilate’s order, the Evangelists say, an inscription was made on the Savior’s cross in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin: “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” Suetonius and Dio Cassius attest that it was the custom among the Romans to fasten near the condemned man an announcement of the cause of his execution; and Josephus adds that the rulers of Judea usually made this announcement in several languages.438
e) St. John the Theologian relates that, at the request of the Jews, Pilate ordered the legs of the robbers crucified with Jesus to be broken (John 19:31-32). The pagan writer Aurelius Victor, in praising the decree of the great Constantine that abolished capital punishment, mentions the breaking of the legs to which crucified men were subjected.439
From the Gospel narrative we see that among the Jews at that time three kinds of coin were in circulation, namely: the Hebrew shekel, the Greek didrachma, and the Roman denarius. This corresponds exactly to the time of the Savior’s earthly life, when Judea, having not long before been under the dominion of the Greeks and having adopted from them, along with certain laws, their coinage, now bore the yoke of the Romans, who likewise imparted to it some of their own institutions and coinage. And the very use of all these coins among the Jews, as it is represented in the Gospel narrative, corresponds exactly to the origin of the coins, or their purpose. Thus, payment for anything disbursed from the treasury of the temple was made in the ancient Jewish coinage (Matt. 26:15). The taxes introduced in Judea before the Roman dominion over it were paid in Greek coinage—for instance, the poll tax (Matt. 17:24, cf. Josephus, On the War of the Jews, book VII, ch. 6). But in public affairs, in the payment of wages, in buying and selling, only Roman coins were used (Matt. 10:29; 20:2; Mark 14:5; Luke 12:6; John 6:7; 12:5), and it was in these that all the new taxes introduced by the Romans were also paid (Matt. 12:19; Mark 12:15; Luke 20:24).
III. Still more astonishing are certain topographical details found in the Gospels, and fully confirmed by non-Christian writers. It will suffice to present a few of these details.
According to the words of the Evangelist John, Pilate, while trying the Savior in the praetorium, when he heard the cries of the Jews, “brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat, at a place called the Lithostroton” (John 19:9-13), which, consequently, must have stood not far from the praetorium, Pilate’s residence. And indeed, Josephus, relating that the Romans made their assault upon the temple from the direction of the fortress of Antonia, mentions the Lithostroton as an outer feature of the temple, situated close by this fortress.440 And Philo, in one place, remarks in passing that the praetorium, the residence of the Roman governor, was located in the palace of Herod, which, as is known, stood adjacent to the temple and the fortress of Antonia, to the northwest.441
The cities of Jericho and Capernaum are presented in the Gospel as places where tolls and taxes were collected (Luke 19:1-2; Matt. 17:24; Luke 7:1). But it is historically known that the richest of Judea’s products, the balsam tree, which formed the most important article of trade, grew in the environs of Jericho, and that the government levied a toll on this product; hence it was quite natural that there should have been a customs-house at Jericho.442 It is also known that the Phoenicians, and especially the Arabs, when they brought their goods into Palestine by way of the river Jordan, passed along this river, first of all, by Capernaum;443 which means that here too there naturally had to be a customs-house for the collection of tolls on the right to trade.
St. Luke (7:1-11) relates that the Savior, having gone out from Capernaum of Galilee, came to the city of Nain; then, journeying not far from the Jordan, where John had baptized (verses 18-19), he reached the environs of Jerusalem. This same road from Galilee to Jerusalem is also marked out by Josephus, who attests that when the Galileans customarily went up to the holy city for the feast days by way of Samaria, they had to pass through Nain, which lay along the way.444
The Evangelists mention the Samaritan city of Shechem, or Sychar (John 4:5), which in the Savior’s day did indeed bear this name, but which shortly afterward began to be called Mabartha, or Mamortha, and soon after that, Neapolis, as is evident from medals struck after the destruction of Jerusalem;445 they also mention Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27), which in the days of the Savior and the Apostles did indeed bear precisely this name, but which had earlier been called Paneas, and afterward, on coins and in books, Caesarea Paneas (Καισαρεία πρὸς Πανεῖον).446 But what is still more remarkable—St. John speaks of Philip, “who was of Bethsaida of Galilee” (12:21): this city, in John’s day, was indeed called Bethsaida and was reckoned to Galilee; but very soon afterward it lost its ancient name, and was first called Caesarea, and then Julias, after Julia, the daughter of Augustus; under the reign of Tiberius it was again called Caesarea, and after his death, once more Julias, and was no longer reckoned to Galilee.447 Could precision be more astonishing?..
However few the examples of topographical precision we have presented from the four Gospels, even these can serve as a most convincing proof of their authenticity to any impartial inquirer. He will readily grasp the full force of this proof when he recalls:
a) with what swiftness the face of the earth changes, whether through the activity of men or the workings of nature: cities are destroyed or lose their ancient names, deserts become inhabited and inhabited places turn to desert, rivers dry up or take on a new course, and roads of travel are laid out through new places;
b) how difficult it was, in ancient times, when the use of geographical maps was unknown, for a writer, even one not very far removed in time from the events he described, to assign these events precisely to the places where they occurred, and to describe with precision the state of those very places at the time of these occurrences. Even the best of the ancient historians did not escape gross errors in this respect, when relating events of preceding centuries;448
c) and especially, how difficult it was for a later writer to preserve this precision in depicting the state of Palestine in the days of Jesus Christ: how many religious and political upheavals it underwent around that time! Having been repeatedly divided among Roman procurators, Herods, and the governors of Syria, and each time in a new and particular way—the victim of tyrants who, at mere whim, changed the names of its cities, or, in their fury, reduced them to heaps of ruin—conquered in turn by Pompey, oppressed by Herod, laid waste by Titus, and almost annihilated by Hadrian, who destroyed in it as many as fifty cities and nine hundred and eighty-five villages449 — the holy land seemed to change its appearance and condition almost daily. Could a deceiver, even a whole century after the Gospel events, have depicted them with the complete topographical precision found in our four Gospels?
§ 119. c) Indirect Proofs
We shall see the impossibility of deception and forgery in our four Gospels still further from the following considerations:
1) Each of the holy Gospels, without question, was of the greatest importance to the ancient Christians from the very moment of its appearance: consequently, each was all the more bound to draw the universal attention of these Christians, and it was all the more impossible for any deception to remain hidden under such circumstances. Toward the persons under whose names the Gospels appeared, the Christians likewise cherished the deepest reverence, and consequently had a further motive to examine with the utmost care whether the writings ascribed to these persons truly belonged to them—and a further opportunity to expose the forgery, had one indeed existed.
2) The difficulty of deceiving an entire community in so vital a matter grows still greater when that community is scattered across various countries of the world, separated from one another by vast distances: for in that case it is no longer one, but several communities that must be led into the deception. Such indeed was the Christian community: the Apostles themselves had already spread it through Greece and Italy, through Asia Minor, Egypt, and other lands, founding, moreover, several separate churches in each land. How, then, could it have been possible to persuade all these churches equally that certain writings, of which they had previously heard nothing, had originated from the very God-inspired preachers of the holy faith? How could it have come about that all the Christians of the various countries of the world, without the slightest disagreement, could at one and the same time have accepted as true a deception which it would have been so easy, and so important, for them to expose?
3) This deception appears wholly improbable when we recall that within the bosom of Christianity, from its very beginning, there existed many heretical societies, which cherished an implacable enmity against the Church, which, for her part, subjected them to strict condemnation. Under such circumstances the supposed forgery of the Gospels could in no way have taken hold, either in the Church or in any heretical society: for the one side would not have failed to expose the other, which, whether deliberately or through carelessness, had fallen into so gross an error. But history says nothing of any such exposures. Still less could this deception have been accepted as truth by both opposing sides at once: for that would have required either that one side forcibly impose its conviction upon the other, or that both sides voluntarily agree to be deceived. And yet it is beyond doubt that the authenticity of our four Gospels was unanimously admitted not only by the Orthodox Christians, but by all the heretical societies that arose within the primitive Church.450
4) Finally, one cannot even point to a time when the forgery of the Gospels could have taken place. If it is said that this could have happened during the Apostles’ own lifetime: then it must have been either without their knowledge, or with their consent, or against their will and their protests. But all these suppositions fall away of themselves. If it is claimed that the forgery was carried out after the Apostles’ death: then it must have been either in the time of their immediate disciples, or at a later time. But the first is impossible: for how could one suppose that the disciples of the Apostles, who had associated with them for so long and knew them so well, could have accepted as the writings of their divine teachers works unknown to them? The second, too, is impossible: for we find passages from all our Gospels, and even testimonies concerning them, already in the writings of the apostolic men themselves.
Having now gathered together in our minds the whole series of proofs we have presented for the authenticity of the four Gospels, we may say without hesitation to any right-thinking person, together with one of the most renowned teachers of the Church: “if, even with such manifest certainty of the Gospel, one should still doubt its authenticity—then what book, pray, would you name that an unbeliever would not call spurious?”451
§ 120. The Authenticity of the Remaining New Testament Books
The authenticity of the remaining books of the New Testament, like the authenticity of the four Gospels, is confirmed by:
I. External Proofs. Concerning all these books there is testimony from the most ancient Christian writers. Thus —
1) To the Book of Acts of the Apostles the following bear witness:
a) St. Irenaeus, who in one place says that the writer of this book was Luke, the inseparable companion of the Apostle Paul, and in another relates the history of Paul’s conversion in precisely the words in which it is depicted in the Acts of the Apostles452;
b) Tertullian, who, quoting numerous passages from the Book of Acts, calls it now Acta Apostolica or Apostolorum Acta, now Instrumentum actorum, now Commentarius Lucae453;
c) Clement of Alexandria, who likewise not only quotes many passages from this book, but also calls it directly Πράξεις τῶν Ἀποστόλων and ascribes it to the evangelist Luke454, and —
d) many other later writers455.
2) From the catholic Epistle of the Apostle James the following passages occur:
a) in St. Clement, pope of Rome, namely: concerning true wisdom (James 3:13), that “the Lord resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6), concerning the justification of Abraham and Rahab by works and not by faith alone (James 2:21, 23, 25)456;
b) likewise in St. Irenaeus—concerning the justification of Abraham, in that he “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, and he was called the friend of God” (James 2:23)457;
c) in St. Ephrem the Syrian, who even names the writer of this epistle, the Apostle James458.
3) From the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter passages are quoted in St. Barnabas459, St. Clement of Rome460, St. Ignatius461, Papias462, St. Polycarp463, St. Irenaeus464, Clement of Alexandria465, Tertullian466, and Origen467. We need not even mention Eusebius, who attests that the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter was unanimously received by all the churches468.
4) The Second Epistle of the Apostle Peter is mentioned in Justin469 and Irenaeus470, and is clearly ascribed to the Apostle Peter by Origen, Hippolytus, Methodius, Rufinus, Jerome, Athanasius the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, Chrysostom, and many others471.
5) The First Epistle of St. John the Theologian, according to the testimony of Eusebius, was unanimously acknowledged as authentic by all the ancients472, and is indeed frequently quoted in the writings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyprian, and many other writers of the first centuries of Christianity473.
6) The Second and Third Epistles of St. John are quoted as authentic in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Athanasius the Great, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, and others474.
7) The Epistle of the Apostle Jude—in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, and others475.
8) To the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle the following bear witness: Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, and very many others476.
9) Finally, the Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian was acknowledged as authentic by: Papias, Irenaeus, Justin, Melito of Sardis, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome, and others477.
II. Internal Proofs. None of these New Testament writings contains anything incongruous either with the time to which they belong, or with the persons to whom they are ascribed. On the contrary, both in style and in content they fully befit those Apostles whose names they bear.
Thus, for example, the language in which the Book of Acts of the Apostles is written bears a striking resemblance to that in which the Gospel of Luke is written. The language of the Epistles of St. John the Theologian is identical to the language of his Gospel; and in general the language of the Epistles of James, Peter, John, Jude, and Paul, though it is Greek, is not free of Hebrew turns of phrase, and points directly, in these writers, to men who came from the Jewish people.
In their content, almost all these writings are doctrinal in character. But the teaching set forth in them fully befits disciples of Christ possessing within themselves the Spirit of God: so closely does it agree with the teaching of Christ the Savior Himself as set forth in the Gospels, and so plainly does it surpass every merely human teaching! Some of these writings, by their very content, clearly presuppose that they were written before the destruction of Jerusalem: thus, in the Epistle to the Hebrews many ordinances of the ceremonial law are enumerated in detail, and the priests and Levites are spoken of as actually ministering at the temple; in the Epistle to the Galatians the writer takes up arms against false teachers who wished to join to the Christian faith the observance of the Mosaic ceremonial law, which was possible only in connection with the Temple at Jerusalem. As for the historical book in particular—the Acts of the Apostles: in it we meet a countless multitude of details astonishingly in agreement with the circumstances of the time in which this book was written. For example, in the Acts of the Apostles —
a) it is related that Peter and John went up together into the sanctuary for prayer at the ninth hour (3:1): and Josephus, for his part, notes that the Jewish priests performed their service at the temple twice a day, in the morning and at the ninth hour478;
b) the Jewish high priest is presented as belonging to the Sadducean sect (5:17): however unparalleled and astonishing such a circumstance may be, it is nonetheless confirmed with precision by Josephus479;
c) it is said that the prophet Agabus foretold a famine, which did indeed follow in the days of Claudius Caesar (11:27-28): this same famine under Claudius is mentioned by this same Josephus480;
d) it is written that the Apostle Paul found in Athens an altar with the inscription: “to the unknown God” (17:23): concerning this altar to an unknown god, and even concerning the many altars to unknown gods in Athens, Diogenes Laërtius481, Pausanias482, and Philostratus483 bear witness;
e) mention is made of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by the emperor Claudius (18:2): Suetonius says the very same thing484, and so on.
III. Indirect Proofs. One cannot point to a time when the forgery of the New Testament books following the four Gospels could have taken place. Shall we say that it took place in the second century? But it is known that the greater part of these books, in fragments, are already quoted by the apostolic men who lived in the first century, and that in the second century all these books are already quoted, moreover by writers who lived in different parts of the world, and are, consequently, already presupposed to have spread throughout the whole Church. Shall we say that the forgery was carried out toward the end of the first century, when not only the immediate disciples of the Apostles were still living, but even some of the Apostles themselves, for instance John the Theologian? But what could be more unrealizable than such a supposition?
Nor can any method be conceived by which this forgery could have been carried out. It would have been necessary to deceive not one or two or three persons, but entire Christian communities, to whom the greater part of these New Testament writings were directly addressed and originally sent. And, following this, it would have been necessary to deceive the whole Church and to persuade all the faithful that certain books, which the Apostles had never written, had been written by the Apostles. Is it conceivable that the first Christians should have been left by the Apostles and their immediate disciples in such ignorance concerning the true apostolic writings, and that, for instance, the Roman or Corinthian Christians and others should have agreed to say that they had received certain epistles from this or that Apostle, when they had received no such thing at all?.. It would have been necessary, moreover, to bring into agreement on this point all the divergent Christian sects that had arisen from the earliest centuries and that delighted in exposing one another for every innovation or departure from Christian truth, whether real or merely supposed. And yet history assures us that these sects did indeed agree among themselves as to the authenticity of the New Testament books, however much they disagreed as to their inner worth. How, then, could this have come about?
§ 121. The Integrity of the Four Gospels and of the Remaining New Testament Books
The integrity both of the four Gospels and of all the remaining books of the New Testament is confirmed by:
1) The agreement of all the ancient translations of these books, namely: the Syriac, the Italic, the Arabic, the Ethiopic, the Coptic, the Armenian, the Persian, the Gothic, and others. Among them no essential difference of content is found that would harm the truth.
2) The collation of numerous ancient manuscripts, which has been carried out with the greatest care by certain scholars485, and as a result of which only so-called variant readings have been found, in no way touching the substance of the sacred truths486.
3) Passages from these sacred books, occurring in the countless writings of the ancient holy fathers, who, especially in their commentaries, their dogmatic works, and their homilies, have as it were transcribed the whole New Testament, so that, if by some chance (let us suppose the impossible) the New Testament books had been utterly lost, we could recover them again merely by collating and arranging in order all the passages from them found in the writings of the fathers—a plain proof that our present copies of the New Testament, again excepting only the variant readings, agree completely with the most ancient copies used by the first teachers of the Church.
4) Finally, by the impossibility of any substantial corruption in these books. For —
a) It is certain that, in the first centuries of Christianity, the very autographs of the Evangelists still existed in the apostolic churches487, as did those of the other Apostles488; and, consequently, it was very easy to correct any corruption that might have crept in—whether intentionally or unintentionally—into the countless copies made from the apostolic writings for use among the Christians, and every believer who had read or heard the autographs of the Apostles could be a direct witness against any corruption he might notice in the copies.
b) This corruption could not be, and indeed was not, tolerated by the zealous pastors of the Church, who had received from the Lord the charge of guarding the sacred deposit of the faith. It is known that in the first centuries of Christianity the heretics, in order to bolster their errors, more than once attempted to alter certain passages of our Gospels. But as soon as they began to circulate their corrupted copies, they were immediately exposed by the Orthodox teachers (such, especially, were Irenaeus and Tertullian, before his own fall…). So that the heretics of later times no longer dared imitate their ancient predecessors, and, to support their errors, distorted only the meaning of the sacred New Testament books, without ever corrupting the text itself. And it is remarkable that the heretics, while constantly being exposed by the Church for corrupting the sacred text, never once accused the Church herself of this crime—with the sole exception of the Manichaeans, in the days of blessed Augustine, who, however, called upon them in vain to prove this slander.
c) Every attempt to corrupt the Gospels, as well as the other New Testament books, would also have been hindered by the fact that they were very well known to the Christians, and were in constant use489. Already in the days of St. Justin it was the custom in the churches, at the public services to which, according to the holy martyr’s own words, the Christians of the surrounding towns and villages would gather, to read the memoirs of the Apostles. And the more widely known any given book is, the harder and more impossible it becomes to corrupt it deliberately.
d) The very great reverence of the Christians, both for the Gospels and for the other New Testament books, is a fresh guarantee that no substantial corruption could have taken place in them. This reverence extended so far that, when, by the order of Diocletian, the sacred books were seized from the Christians to be burned, many chose rather to become martyrs than to hand over what was demanded. And those who, out of fear of punishment, did hand over the books, were not received back into church communion except after a long period of penance; or again, as Sozomen attests, when a certain bishop of the fourth century, delivering a homily to the people in church, altered but a single word of the Savior’s in the sacred text, all his hearers were thrown into agitation, and this bishop was immediately called to account by another bishop then present in the church. The translation of the New Testament books made by blessed Jerome was for a long time not received in the West, because, as blessed Augustine attests, in certain places this translation did not agree, in its wording, with the ancient Old Latin translation to which the Christians had grown accustomed.
e) Since all the manuscript copies of the New Testament, both in the original text and in the translations, are entirely alike in content, except for the variants already mentioned—to admit that the four Gospels, and the New Testament generally, had been substantially corrupted would mean admitting that every one of these copies, down to the last, had been corrupted in exactly the same places, in exactly the same way: a case wholly impossible! Could copyists of different places and times somehow accidentally have introduced the very same errors into their copies, or could they somehow have deliberately agreed together to do so?..
CHAPTER II. ON THE DOGMATIC IMPORTANCE OF THE BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
§ 122. The Concept of This Importance, and the Division of the Chapter
The dogmatic importance of the books of Holy Scripture consists in this, that these books, as the Orthodox Church teaches, were written by inspiration from the Holy Spirit, and consequently contain within themselves not the word of man, but, in truth, the word of God. In this respect, however, the Church draws a certain distinction among them, calling some books canonical (βιβλία κανονικὰ, κανονιζόμενα), and others non-canonical (ὀυ κανονιζόμενα, μὴ κεκανονισμενα, ἀκανόνιστα)493. By the former are meant those books which, by tradition from the messengers of God themselves, have been received by the Church into the canon (κανὼν — register, catalogue) of books God-inspired, and are set before the faithful by her as the unchanging rule of truth (κανὼν τῆς ἀληθέιας), in the expression of St. Isidore of Pelusium494; or, let us say in the words of St. Athanasius the Great — such books as are received into the canon, handed down, and believed to be divine, which are the sources of salvation, so that by the words contained in them the one who thirsts may quench his thirst, in which alone the teaching of piety is proclaimed, and to which no one may add, nor take anything away from them495. By the name of non-canonical books, on the other hand, are meant, by the testimony of this same renowned teacher of the Church, books not brought into the canon of God-inspired writings, but appointed by the Fathers to be read to new converts and to those wishing to be instructed in the word of piety496 — books edifying and good, as St. John of Damascus says, but not included in the number, that is, in the canon497. On this account the present chapter must be divided into three sections:
I) On the Inspiration of the Books of Holy Scripture,
II) On the Canonical Books of Holy Scripture, and
III) On the Non-Canonical Books.
I. ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
§ 123. The Inspiration of the Books of the Old Testament
Sufficient grounds for believing in the inspiration of the canonical books of the Old Testament were possessed by the Jews as well, and we Christians possess still greater grounds for believing it.
I. For the Jews these grounds were the following:
1) The worth of the very content of these books. In them, as we have seen, so lofty a teaching of faith is set forth, such purest rules of morality, such perfect ceremonial and civil laws, that the Jews, in making use of these books, could not, on this ground alone, fail to be convinced of their more-than-human, divine origin. Moreover, among the other truths, the Old Testament contains prophecies as well, many of which were fulfilled before the very eyes of the Jews themselves, and presented to them a fresh, striking proof of the divine origin of their sacred writings.
2) Certain fairly clear testimonies to this from the sacred books themselves. Here belong, first, all those passages where it is said that God Himself —
a) commanded this or that messenger of His to write something, for instance Moses: “the Lord said to Moses: write this as a memorial in a book, and recite it in the hearing of Joshua, for I will utterly wipe out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Exod. 17:14; cf. 31:18; 32:15-16; 34:1 and 27-28; Deut. 9:10-11; 10:1 and 2; 31:19); or Isaiah: “take for yourself a great new scroll, and write on it with an ordinary pen concerning the swift plunder soon to come, for it draws near” (8:1);
b) commanded specifically that His own words or revelations be written down, for instance Moses: “write these words down for yourself, for by these words I have made a covenant with you, and with Israel” (Exod. 34:27); Jeremiah: “write in a book all the words that I have spoken to you” (Jer. 30:2); Ezekiel: “son of man, record for yourself the name of this very day, on which the king of Babylon has set himself against Jerusalem; and speak a parable to the rebellious house, and say to them: thus says the Lord Adonai” (24:2-3); Habakkuk: “write the vision, and inscribe it plainly on tablets, that whoever reads it may run with it” (2:2)—and it is further to be noted that
c) the messengers of God did indeed write books at the word of the Lord (Num. 33:2), and set down in them the words of the Lord (Exod. 24:4). Second—all those passages where the sacred writers, on beginning to set forth their teaching, or a prophetic discourse, or a narrative, or something else, cry out: “hear the word of the Lord” (Ezek. 6:3; Hos. 4:1), “hear the word of the Lord Adonai” (Ezek. 25:3, and others); or: “and the word of the Lord came to me…” (Ezek. 21:1 and 8; Zech. 6:9; 8:18, and others), “the word of the Lord came to Zechariah son of Berechiah” (Zech. 1:1), “the word of the Lord that came to Joel” (Joel 1:1); or: “so says the Lord Adonai” (Ezek. 2:4, 11; Isa. 50:1, and others), “thus says the Lord Adonai” (Ezek. 23:32, and others), “thus says the Lord of Hosts” (Hag. 1:2; Mal. 1:4); or: “the burden of the word of the Lord upon Israel by the hand of His angel” (Mal. 1:1), “the word of the Lord that came by the hand of Haggai the prophet, saying…” (Hag. 1:3). Such passages are without number in the sacred Scripture, and the Jews could not but believe them, knowing that this was how the true messengers of God themselves testified of themselves—messengers who had confirmed their divine commission by miracles and prophecies. Finally, third, belong all those passages where —
a) either the sacred writers themselves speak of their own inspiration, for instance Moses: “and now go, and I myself will open your mouth and instruct you in what you are to say” (Exod. 4:12); Jeremiah: “and the Lord stretched out His hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me: behold, I have put My words into your mouth” (1:9); David: “my tongue is the pen of a swift scribe” (44:2);
b) or other sacred writers relate a similar thing of them, for instance, in the Second Book of Kingdoms it is written of David that he testified of himself: “the Spirit of the Lord spoke through me, and His word was upon my tongue” (23:2);
c) or it is remarked in general that this or that book was written by prophets, men who saw, who foresaw (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 26:22). It cannot be denied that all the passages we have pointed out are not fully decisive or complete: they concern only some, not all, of the books of the Old Testament, and moreover concern, for the most part, not whole books, but only certain parts within them, greater or lesser; and consequently, on the basis of these passages alone, it would still be difficult, if not altogether impossible, to arrive at full assurance of the inspiration of all the biblical books in general. But the Jews had yet a third means to this end, namely:
3) Sacred tradition—from the very lips of the messengers of God. By simple reasoning it is improbable that a true messenger of God, having attested to himself by miracles and prophecies, should, in handing his book to the Israelites, not himself have instructed them plainly whether this was a divine book or an ordinary, human one, so as to guard them, either way, from a gross error. Still more improbable is it that later messengers of God, seeing the Jews wrongly (let us suppose this) honoring their sacred books, already extant, as God-inspired books, should not have corrected the erring people’s mistake. And yet the Jews constantly believed that all their canonical books were of divine origin: “The prophets wrote them,” says Josephus, “by inspiration from God (κατὰ τὴν ἐπίπνοιαν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ…); we hold them, in truth, to be divine (θεῖα τὰ δικαίως πεπιστευμένα), and this is why, notwithstanding so vast a stretch of time, no one among us has ever dared to add anything to the sacred books, or take anything from them, or make in them the slightest alteration: for in the heart of every Jew, from his earliest infancy, is rooted the conviction that these books must be regarded as divine ordinances (Θεοῦ δόγματα), that they must be followed without ceasing, and that for their sake one must lay down one’s very life, should necessity so require.”499 Such lofty pronouncements concerning the books of the Old Testament we find also in another renowned Jew, Philo, who calls them now the word of God, now divine Scripture, now the writings of the prophets, and observes that the prophets said nothing of their own accord, but were only interpreters of God’s promptings, that God made use of their organs as instruments, and that the prophets, in the moments of divine inspiration, became strangers to everything external, becoming instead the vessel of the one Spirit of God (τοῦ Θεοῦ πνεύματος), who filled their soul, moved the organs of their voice, and gave them the power to express clearly and distinctly that of which they were to prophesy.500 Finally, both Jewish Talmuds and all the rabbis unanimously affirm in their writings that such, indeed, was the belief of all the ancient Jews concerning the sacred books. Not only the Palestinian Jews, but also those of Alexandria, and the Samaritans, and all three principal sects that existed in the days of the Savior within the Jewish church, held it as an undoubted dogma that the books of Holy Scripture were God-inspired. How, then, is such a constant, unanimous, and deep conviction of the whole Hebrew people in the inspiration of their sacred books best to be explained, if not by oral instruction from the messengers of God themselves—that is, by Holy Tradition—when, as we have seen, the grounds for such a conviction found in Scripture alone are still not fully decisive or complete?
II. For us Christians, besides all the grounds already pointed out, on which the Jews based their faith in the inspiration of the Old Testament books, there are still other, weightier grounds:
1) Our Lord and Savior Himself, having appeared on earth at a time when this belief among the Jewish people, as is evident from the contemporary testimonies of Josephus and Philo, was so universal and undoubted, not only did not rebuke the sons of Israel for it, not only in no way indicated that He, at least, did not share it with them, but, on the contrary, showed the fullest reverence for the Old Testament books, as sacred, divine books. He —
a) appealed to them, like all the Jews, to confirm certain truths—for instance, the truth of the resurrection of the dead (Matt. 22:31), and even the weightier truth of His own divine mission: “examine the Scriptures,” He said to the Israelites, “for you suppose that in them you possess eternal life, and it is these very Scriptures that bear witness concerning me” (John 5:39); “had you believed Moses, you would believe me as well, for it was of me that he wrote” (v. 46); and to His disciples going to Emmaus, “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he set forth to them the meaning of everything the Scriptures said concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). He —
b) not infrequently spoke of these writings in a manner in which only the word of God, and by no means of man, can be spoken of, for instance: “Scripture cannot be set aside” (John 10:35); “everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44; cf. Matt. 26:54); “truly I tell you: until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not a single stroke, will pass from the Law until all things come to pass” (Matt. 5:18). He even, in quoting certain passages from the Old Testament —
c) added: “that which was spoken by God” (Matt. 23:31), “God commanded” (Matt. 15:4), and thereupon rebuked the Jews: “you have nullified the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition” (v. 6), “setting aside the word of God through the tradition you have handed down” (Mark 7:13), and, in particular, remarked of David at one point: “he” (David) “said, by the Holy Spirit: the Lord said to my lord, sit at my right hand” (Mark 12:36).
Following the example of their divine Teacher, the holy Apostles likewise:
a) quoted many passages from the Old Testament books, to confirm or expound New Testament truths (Acts 3:17-25; James 1:10-12, 19; 2:1-4, 10, 11, 23, 26; 4:6; Jude 1:5, 12, 16, and many others, especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews);
b) called these books holy writings (Rom. 1:2), sacred writings (2 Tim. 3:15), the prophetic word (2 Pet. 1:19), the utterances of God (Rom. 3:2);
c) sometimes expressed themselves so as to say that it was the Holy Spirit Himself who spoke through the mouth of this or that Old Testament writer (Acts 1:16; 28:25; Heb. 3:7), and
d) finally, clearly attested to the inspiration of the whole Old Testament in general: “no prophecy of Scripture,” said the holy Apostle Peter, “arises from one’s own interpretation. For prophecy never came about by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (ὑπὸ πνεύματος άγίου φερόμενοι) (2 Pet. 1:20-21). “From your infancy you have known the sacred writings” (ίερὰ γράμματα), said another Apostle to his beloved disciple Timothy, “which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every Scripture is God-breathed” (θεόπνευστος) “and useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:15-17).
In consequence of this clear teaching, faith in the inspiration of the Old Testament Scripture began in the Church of Christ from her very foundation, entered, as an essential article, into all the ancient creeds, and found expression in the testimonies of the teachers of the Church, which we shall see further on.
§ 124. The Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament
Although nowhere in Holy Scripture is it stated in so many words, as it is stated of the Old Testament books, that the New Testament books likewise are God-inspired: nevertheless this truth is no less certain.
1) Of the eight New Testament writers, five—Matthew, John, James, Peter, and Jude—belonged to the number of the Twelve Apostles, who were vouchsafed by the Lord first the promise of the sending down of the Holy Spirit upon them, and then the very fulfillment of this promise. In what, then, did these promises consist, and, accordingly, their corresponding fulfillment?
a) “And I will ask the Father,” the Savior said to His disciples, “and He will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you forever—the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him and does not know him; but you know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you” (John 14:16-18). If, then, the Holy Spirit, according to this promise, truly abode with the Apostles, and abode with them forever, always, unceasingly, how can we suppose that He would have left them only in those weightiest moments, when they were writing their books?
b) “The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything, and will bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (v. 26). How, then, can we suppose that this new heavenly Instructor would have left them without His teaching only at the very time when they were setting down their preaching in writing? If in such instances they could have erred, how would the Savior’s word have been fulfilled: “he will teach you everything”?
c) “When they hand you over, do not be anxious about how or what you will say, for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking in you” (Matt. 10:19-20); “I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to resist or gainsay” (Luke 21:15): if, then, the Savior promised to give His disciples a mouth and wisdom even for the time when they would bear witness to their preaching before their judges and persecutors, could He have left His holy evangelists without such supernatural aid at the very time when they were committing this same preaching to writing, for the instruction and guidance of all ages and peoples?
2) The three remaining New Testament writers, Paul, Mark, and Luke, were not among the number of the Twelve Apostles. But we are convinced of the inspiration of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul from the fact —
a) that he was chosen and called to the apostolic ministry by Jesus Christ Himself (Acts 9:3-6 and 15; cf. Gal. 1:1; Rom. 1:1 and 5);
b) that he received his knowledge of the faith of Christ not from men and not through his own instruction, but through a revelation of Christ: “I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel preached by me is not according to man; for I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11-12);
c) that he himself traced his wisdom and his preaching to the Holy Spirit: “we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God foreordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age understood—but God has revealed it to us through His Spirit; for we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God; and these things we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:7, 8, 10, 12-13)—that he himself called his own preaching, or his own word (understood as both spoken and written), not a human word, but, in very truth, the word of God: “we thank God without ceasing, that when you received the word of God’s message which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it truly is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13);
d) finally, from the fact that another Apostle, namely Peter, who was one of the Twelve, in his own epistle, speaking of the day of the last judgment, even appeals to St. Paul’s teaching on this subject, and notes that Paul wrote “according to the wisdom given him” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; cf. Heb. 9:26; 10:25).
As for the inspiration of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, as well as of the Acts of the Apostles, written by the latter, we are convinced of it from the undoubted apostolic tradition, on the basis of which all these writings, from the very first centuries of Christianity, have been constantly reckoned among the canonical, that is, God-inspired, writings of the New Testament, on an equal footing with all the rest. In particular, from this tradition we learn:
a) that Mark, the companion of Peter (1 Pet. 5:13), who wrote his Gospel at the insistent request of the Romans, set down in it not his own teaching, but the God-inspired teaching delivered at Rome by the Apostle Peter, who, moreover, learning of this by a revelation from the Holy Spirit, himself confirmed this Gospel by his own authority for use in the Church501;
b) that Luke, the companion of Paul (Acts 16:10-20), likewise committed to writing not his own Gospel, but the Gospel orally preached by Paul, who had within him the Spirit of God502;
c) and that the Apostle John, who lived longer than the other Evangelists, having read all three Gospels—of Matthew, of Mark, and of Luke—equally approved them and confirmed the truth of their content by his own testimony503.
3) However, not with respect to the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Acts of the Apostles alone, but with respect to all the books of the New Testament, it must be remembered that the teaching of their inspiration rests chiefly upon sacred tradition, which has been preserved unbroken from the Apostles themselves in the Church, and continues to be preserved there still. Clear traces of it are found in the writings of St. Clement of Rome, Ignatius the God-bearer, Athenagoras, Justin the Martyr504, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Origen, Gregory of Neocaesarea, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary505, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and a countless multitude of other teachers of the Church of the fourth and all succeeding centuries506.
4) Finally, a most weighty proof of this same truth is furnished by the most exalted and, in every respect, most perfect teaching of the New Testament writings, which could have been devised of themselves neither by the Apostles, simple and unlearned men, nor, indeed, by any human mind whatsoever. This teaching bears upon itself the ineffaceable stamp of its divine origin507.
II. ON THE CANONICAL BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
§ 125. The Canonical Books of the Old Testament
The Old Testament canon, held at the present day by the Orthodox Church508, is composed of the following books:
1) the Book of Genesis,
2) Exodus,
3) Leviticus,
4) Numbers,
5) Deuteronomy,
6) the Book of Joshua,
7) the Book of Judges, and together with it, as it were its appendix, the Book of Ruth,
8) the First and Second Books of Kingdoms, as two parts of a single book,
9) the Third and Fourth Books of Kingdoms,
10) the First and Second Books of Chronicles,
11) the First Book of Ezra, and the second of the same, or, by its Greek title, the Book of Nehemiah,
12) Esther,
13) the Book of Job,
14) the Psalter,
15) the Proverbs of Solomon,
16) Ecclesiastes, of the same,
17) the Song of Songs, of the same,
18) the Book of the Prophet Isaiah,
19) of Jeremiah,
20) of Ezekiel,
21) of Daniel,
22) of the Twelve Prophets.
This same canon was held also by the Old Testament church, to which, before the Messiah’s coming, “the utterances of God were entrusted” (Rom. 3:2). It held this canon, as is evident:
a) from the testimony of Josephus, who mentions precisely only 22 divine books, and says that five of them were written by Moses, thirteen by the Prophets from the time of Moses to the Persian king Artaxerxes, and the remaining four contain hymns to God and the most useful rules of life509;
b) from the testimony of certain ancient Christian teachers—Melito, Origen, Jerome—who took particular pains to learn from the Jews about their sacred canon, and always found it to consist of only the 22 books enumerated510;
c) from the constant tradition existing among the Jews, who to this day hold this same canon inviolably511;
d) it is evident, finally, from the very method of counting these books, preserved in the Orthodox Church. She still today counts them as 22, just as the ancient Jews counted them, corresponding to the number of letters in their alphabet, combining for this purpose two or even several books under a single number, whereas all the Old Testament books taken separately, received by her as canonical, number 38.
This same canon was likewise constantly held by the whole ancient Christian Church, having received it from the Old Testament church. Witnesses to this are very numerous:
1) Melito, bishop of Sardis (end of the 2nd century), traveled expressly through the East with a sincere desire to learn accurately the canon of the Old Testament books, and sets it forth in the following form: “the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth; the four books of Kingdoms; the two books of Chronicles; the Psalms of David; the Proverbs of Solomon, or Wisdom; Ecclesiastes; the Song of Songs; Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve Prophets in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra.”512
2) Origen (beginning of the 3rd century) begins his catalogue with the following words: “it should be known that the books of the Old Testament, as handed down by the Hebrews, are twenty-two,” and then, having enumerated these books, concludes: “outside their number (ἔξω δὲ τούτων) stand the books of the Maccabees.”513
3) St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th century) urges in his Catechetical Lectures: “read the 22 books, and touch not the Apocrypha.”514
4) Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century), speaking of Melito’s catalogue, remarks on his own account that in this catalogue Melito enumerates all the books of the Old Testament that are received by common consent.515
5) St. Athanasius of Alexandria (4th century), in his Festal Letter, and in the Synopsis of Holy Scripture usually ascribed to him, having enumerated only the 22 canonical books, clearly distinguishes them from the non-canonical books.516
6) St. Gregory the Theologian (4th century), and
7) St. Amphilochius (4th century), enumerating only the 22 books of the Old Testament, do not so much as mention the rest.517
8) The Council of Laodicea, held in 364, having said in its 59th canon that “it is not fitting to recite in church unconsecrated psalms, or books not defined by rule (ἀκανόνιστα), but only the canonical books (μόνα τὰ κανονικὰ) of the Old and New Testament,” continues in the following (60th) canon: “these are the books of the Old Testament that are fitting to be read:
a) Genesis of the world,
b) Exodus from Egypt,
c) Leviticus,
d) Numbers,
e) Deuteronomy,
f) Joshua,
g) Judges, Ruth,
h) Esther,
i) the First and Second [Books] of Kingdoms,
j) the Third and Fourth [Books] of Kingdoms,
k) the First and Second [Books] of Chronicles,
l) the First and Second [Books] of Ezra,
m) the Book of the hundred and fifty Psalms,
n) the Proverbs of Solomon,
o) Ecclesiastes,
p) the Song of Songs,
q) Job,
r) the Twelve Prophets,
s) Isaiah,
t) Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle,
u) Ezekiel,
v) Daniel.”
9) St. Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus (4th c.), speaks three times in his writings of the canonical books of the Old Testament, and each time counts them as only 22, remarking of the rest: “although they are useful and edifying, they are not to be reckoned among the number of the sacred books.”518
10) Blessed Jerome (4th c.), having translated from the Hebrew the books that stood in the Jewish canon, remarks of the rest: “they are not found in the canon, and must be reckoned among the apocryphal.”519
11) Hilary, bishop of Poitiers (4th c.), likewise enumerates the 22 canonical books of the Old Testament, adding: “but some, having added to these also the books of Tobit and Judith, wish to count all the books as 24, according to the number of the letters of the Greek alphabet.”520
12) Rufinus (4th c.) clearly distinguishes the 22 canonical books from the non-canonical books of the Old Testament, which he calls ecclesiastical.521
To all these ancient witnesses may be added yet witnesses of later times, for instance:
13) Leontius of Byzantium, at first an advocate, then a monk (6th c.),522
14) St. John of Damascus (8th c.),523
15) St. Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople (9th c.),524
16) Metrophanes Kritopoulos, who had been protosyncellus to the patriarch in the church of Constantinople, and afterward patriarch of Alexandria (17th c.),525 — all of whom speak only of the 22 canonical books of the Old Testament, and demonstrate beyond dispute how strictly the Eastern Church has held to this teaching in every age.
If, indeed, in the 85th Apostolic Canon certain non-canonical books are mentioned alongside the canonical, namely the three books of Maccabees and the Book of the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach: it should be understood that this canon speaks of books revered and holy, not of canonical books; and both canonical and non-canonical books of Holy Scripture, and even certain others held in honor by the Christians, could equally be called revered and holy. This is precisely why, alongside the biblical books, this same canon also mentions two epistles and the ordinances composed by Clement.526
Even if, among certain teachers of the Church in the West—such as blessed Augustine (5th c.), Pope Innocent (5th c.), Pope Gelasius (494)527, and at the Council of Carthage itself (397)528 — the non-canonical books are named directly as canonical, alongside the 22 that stood in the Jewish canon: this too need not perplex us. For —
a) blessed Augustine himself has left us every means of understanding in what sense he used the word canonical in this case. Having said in one place that although the Jews did not count the books of Maccabees as canonical books, the Church nevertheless counts them as canonical,529 he explains his thought elsewhere in this way: “the writing called Maccabean the Jews did not hold in the same regard as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, but the Church has judged this writing not without benefit, if it is read and heard with sound understanding.”530 A plain sign that blessed Augustine used the word canonical in a sense broader than that in which it is taken in the strict sense. By canonical books he meant, in general, books appointed or confirmed by the canons or rules of the Church for the pious reading of the faithful—a description that could rightly apply not only to the strictly canonical books, but to the non-canonical ones as well.531 It is natural to suppose that the term canonical books was sometimes used in this same broader sense generally in the church of Carthage as well, in which Augustine was then one of the most renowned hierarchs. And, consequently, that it was used in this sense also at the Council of Carthage. This latter supposition is the more probable in that the (33rd) canon of this council speaks precisely of books canonical, that is, defined by canon, for reading in church: “it has been decreed that nothing shall be read in church under the name of the divine Scriptures, except the canonical Scriptures; and the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis…”532 Even if, moreover —
b) suppose that the aforementioned teachers and the council did call the non-canonical books canonical in the stricter, more commonly received sense—even then we need not waver, when we take into account: first, how small the number is of those teachers who held this opinion, compared with the number of those who have left us testimonies to only 22 canonical books of the Old Testament, as received by the Church. And, second, when we observe that this small number of teachers of the first kind belonged, every one of them, to only two particular churches, that of Carthage and that of Rome—whereas among the witnesses of the latter kind are found the most renowned representatives of the whole Church, both Eastern and Western (Jerome, Hilary, Rufinus). And blessed Augustine himself gave the excellent counsel that, in such disagreement over the canon of books, preference ought to be given to the voice of the majority of witnesses and the voice of the whole Church, rather than to that of particular churches.533
Finally, it is of no real importance at all that in certain ancient translations of Holy Scripture—for instance, the Italic—the canonical and the non-canonical books are bound together. So, too, they are still bound together to this day in the Orthodox Church, which, nevertheless, distinguishes between them. They are bound together for the purpose of having, in a single collection, all the books—both the God-inspired ones, and those which, though they do not possess such importance, have nonetheless from ancient times been held by the Church in greater honor than any merely human books, and have been received by her for the edifying reading of the faithful, as good and useful books.
As for the origin of the Old Testament canon: let us first observe that the right to declare any books to be God-inspired, that is, canonical, belonged among the Jews, according to the testimony of Josephus534 and Eusebius Pamphili,535 not to the whole nation, but only to its pastors, and especially to that small number who themselves possessed the Holy Spirit within them. This being so, we may now say that the beginning of the Hebrew canon is contemporary with the very beginning of the God-inspired books themselves. Moses was the first, having written his own books, to publish them as divine books, ordering them placed in the sanctuary beside the ark, and to be read to the Israelites from time to time. So too, afterward, did Joshua, of whom it is said: “and he wrote these words in the book of the law of God” (Josh. 24:26), that is, he added his own writing to the Pentateuch; so too did Samuel, who “wrote” the ordinances of the kingdom “in a book, and laid it up before the Lord” (1 Sam. 10:25); so too, without doubt, did the later sacred writers, though no testimonies of this have been preserved in their books. The Old Testament canon received its final formation (that is, these sacred books were, for the last time, gathered together, examined, and published as divine) already in the days of Ezra, and by Ezra himself, probably with the assistance of Nehemiah (2 Macc. 2:13) and certain of the Prophets then living. This is confirmed by the tradition of the Jews preserved in the Talmud, by the testimony of Josephus, and was accepted by the most renowned Fathers of the Church.536 From that time on, no more Prophets arose among the Jewish people—Prophets who alone had the right to pronounce judgment on the canonical books.537
§ 126. The Canonical Books of the New Testament
The Orthodox Church recognizes as canonical books of the New Testament the following 27: the four Gospels—of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, and of John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven catholic epistles—of James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul—to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, and to the Hebrews; and the Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian.538
These same books are enumerated as the canonical books of the New Testament by the ancient teachers of the Church, both in the East and in the West.
In the East:
1) Origen, in his Seventh Homily on the Book of Joshua, names the four Gospels, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; the Epistle of James; the Epistle of Jude; the two Epistles of Peter; the Epistles (without specifying their number) of John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; and the Apocalypse of John the Theologian—although in other places in his writings, regarding the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, while agreeing to receive them as canonical, he himself notes that these epistles are not yet received by all, that there is still disagreement concerning them.539
2) Eusebius likewise enumerates all the books of the New Testament, and, though, following Origen’s example, he divides them into two classes—those received by all (ὁμολογούμενα) and those still subject to doubt (ἀντιλεγόμενα)—assigning to the latter the Epistles of James, of Jude, the Second of Peter, the Second and Third of John. He nevertheless says of the latter that they are acknowledged by the greater part of the Church’s teachers (παρὰ πλείστοις τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν γιγνωσκομένας), that they are proclaimed by many in very many churches (ἐν πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις παρὰ πολλοῖς δεδημοσιευμένα).540
3) St. Athanasius the Great already enumerates all the books of the New Testament without the least doubt or distinction, and, in his Festal Letter and in the Synopsis, concludes the latter with these words: “behold the number and the names of the canonical books of the New Testament! These are, as it were, the first fruits, the anchors, the pillars of our faith: for they were written and set forth by the very Apostles of Christ the Savior, who conversed with Him and were taught by Him.”541
4) St. Cyril of Jerusalem enumerates the New Testament books likewise without the least remark as to any distinction among them within the Church, and equally approves them for reading to his hearers.
5) St. Amphilochius again mentions the disagreements concerning certain epistles, but mentions them only historically, and, having enumerated all the books of the New Testament, concludes his reckoning with these words: “let this be the most unerring canon of the God-inspired writings.”
6) Leontius of Byzantium divides the books of the New Testament into six books (εἰς ἓξ βιβλία), of which the first consists of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the second of the Gospels of Luke and John, the third of the Acts of the Apostles, the fourth of the seven catholic epistles, the fifth of the fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul, and the sixth of the Apocalypse.
7) St. John of Damascus, in his Theology, likewise enumerates the books of the New Testament, every one of them.542
In the West:
1) The Fathers of the Council of Carthage, held in 318, enumerate all the books of the New Testament in the 33rd canon543;
2) Rufinus—every one of them;
3) blessed Augustine—all;
4) Popes Innocent and Gelasius—all;
5) Cassiodorus, at the end of the 6th century—all.544
There are, it is true, two or three ancient catalogues in which certain of the New Testament books are not mentioned, namely: the Apocalypse is not mentioned in the catalogues of the Council of Laodicea (canon 60) and of St. Gregory the Theologian; and the Epistles of James, both of Peter, and one of John are not mentioned in the Muratorian catalogue545 — but this is, of course, because concerning these books, as Origen and Eusebius attest, disagreements long existed among the teachers of the Church. And the existence of such disagreements, up to a certain time, was then natural and unavoidable. It must be remembered that the apostolic writings, written to particular churches, or even to the whole Church, could not all at once spread everywhere and become known to all the faithful; but some spread very quickly through the whole universal Church (which must especially be said of the four Gospels), while others, on the contrary, did not; and of the latter, some (namely all those subject to disagreement) reached certain places earlier, other places later, still others later still546, while to a fourth group, even if they arrived fairly early, they arrived without sufficient proof of their authenticity. On the other hand, the fathers and teachers of the first centuries of Christianity could not but exercise particular caution in discerning the writings that appeared under the names of the Apostles. The very sanctity of the matter demanded this: the more important a thing is, the more distrustfully its authenticity is examined; and what could have been more important to the Christians than the apostolic writings? This was demanded still more by the appearance, in those times, of many spurious writings547, put forth under the names of the Apostles. Consequently, if some of the ancient Orthodox pastors expressed doubt concerning this or that apostolic writing, this, besides being unavoidable, stands also as a monument to their prudent discernment in so weighty a matter.
III. ON THE NON-CANONICAL BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
§ 127. The Enumeration of These Books, and Their Importance
There is not a single non-canonical book among the books of the New Testament; non-canonical books exist only among the books of the Old Testament, and they are precisely the following:
1) the Book of Tobit,
2) Judith,
3) the Wisdom of Solomon,
4) the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach,
5) the Second and Third Books of Ezra,
6) all three books of Maccabees.548
Just as certain as it is that these books were never counted by either the Jews or the Christians on an equal footing with the canonical books, so too is it equally certain that among both peoples they have always enjoyed great honor.
The Jews, as is known, in the last period before the coming of the Messiah, were divided into two groups: the Palestinian Jews (whose center was Jerusalem), who spoke the native tongue and made use of the Hebrew Bible, and the Alexandrian Jews, who used the Greek language and read the Bible in the translation of the Seventy Interpreters. Both alike honored the non-canonical books, though less than the canonical.
I. Concerning the Palestinian Jews this is known:
1) From the testimony of Josephus, who had been a priest in Jerusalem. Having said that among the Jews only the Prophets had the right to publish writings concerning the faith, and that such most trustworthy persons, in the period from Moses to the Persian king Artaxerxes, set down the whole history of the Hebrew people in 22 God-inspired books, Josephus adds: “moreover, everything that has occurred from the reign of Artaxerxes down to our own days has likewise been committed to writing; but these writings are not held in the same regard” (πίστεως δὲ ὀυκ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται) “as those mentioned before, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased” (διὰ τό μὴ γενέσθαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχὴν).549 From this it is evident that the non-canonical books, too, enjoyed honor among the Jews, though a lesser honor than the God-inspired canonical books. It is also evident why the former did not possess an importance equal to that of the latter—because they were written during the remaining four hundred years before the birth of Christ, when there were no longer any Prophets in Judea, and after the canon of the sacred Old Testament books had already received its final formation from Ezra and the last Prophets, who lived in the days of the Persian king Artaxerxes.
2) From the honor which the ancient rabbis, or ancient Hebrew sages, showed to the non-canonical books. From all these books they quoted passages in their writings; some books, for instance the Book of Jesus, son of Sirach, they even assigned to the second-rank hagiographa, and some they ascribed directly to God-inspired writers—namely the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, to Solomon himself.550
3) Finally, from the testimony of Origen, at least in regard to the books of Tobit and Judith—Origen asserts that although the Jews did not include these books in their canon, neither, however, did they assign them to the apocrypha.551
II. As for the Alexandrian Jews, it will suffice merely to repeat that they made use not of the Hebrew Bible, but of the translation of the Seventy. In this translation, already before the Savior’s coming, the non-canonical books had been joined to the canonical, as an addition, and together they usually formed a single codex. And the Jews, making use of it, reading the non-canonical books together with the canonical both in their homes and even in the synagogues, thereby plainly showed that they honored the non-canonical books, at least as sacred, edifying, pious books, even if not on an equal footing with the canonical—honoring them, consequently, above all merely human books.552
The honor which the Christian Church had, and has, for the non-canonical books, is evident:
1) From the fact that, just as she received them at the outset, so from that time she has always held, and still holds, these books in a single codex together with the canonical books; she appointed the former for the edifying reading of catechumens and the faithful, not only in homes but also in churches, for which reason they came to be called ecclesiastical; and sometimes, for this same purpose, she even listed them in her canons (rules) alongside the canonical books—for instance, in the 85th Apostolic Canon and the 33rd canon of the Council of Carthage.
2) From the general judgments concerning these books given by the ancient teachers of the Church. St. Athanasius says that they were appointed by the Fathers to be read to new converts and to those wishing to be instructed in the word of piety; St. Epiphanius calls them useful and beneficial (χρήσιμοι καὶ ὠφέλιμοι); St. John of Damascus, edifying and good.553
3) Finally, from the fact that these books were made use of by the most renowned teachers of the Church themselves, who quote from them numerous passages in their own writings, not infrequently adding: “Scripture says,” “sacred Scripture says.” For example:
a) texts are quoted from the Book of Tobit by: Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian554, Origen555, Ambrose556, Augustine557;
b) from the Book of Judith: Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, and others558;
c) from the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Hilary.559
However much the Orthodox Church has honored and does honor the non-canonical books, it must not be forgotten that she has always distinguished them from the canonical books. This distinction consists in this: that the latter, as she teaches, were written by inspiration from the Holy Spirit, and in the proper sense constitute God-inspired Scripture, whereas the former do not possess this weighty privilege, and serve only as, so to speak, an addition to the God-inspired Scripture, as books good, edifying, sacred.
SECTION II. ON SACRED TRADITION
§ 128. The Necessity of Another Divine Source of the Christian Faith Alongside Holy Scripture, and the Concept of Holy Tradition
Holy Scripture, granted to us by God as the first and chief source of revealed faith and theology, by its very nature compels us to desire also another aid, equally divine, in this weighty matter. For in order that we may properly appropriate to ourselves the teaching contained in Holy Scripture, it is essential for us:
1) First to be convinced that the books of Holy Scripture are indeed authentic and constitute that very canon which came from the hands of the sacred writers, and, on the other hand, that they are truly God-inspired. Ordinary human testimony, mere historical belief, in which room always remains for doubt and wavering, is insufficient in the present case: because our whole Christianity must rest upon this unshakable truth. And consequently, there is needed here a testimony on which we could fully rely—a divine testimony.
2) Following upon this, it is equally necessary for us that, in the very reading of Holy Scripture, we should everywhere find only its true meaning, and not a false one, and, moreover, that we should be convinced of this fully and decisively—that is, by a testimony not human, but divine—that we indeed do not err, and rightly understand the Word of God. Otherwise, what would our faith be?
The question arises: who, then, can be our reliable guide in so weighty a matter? Who can satisfactorily fulfill both these conditions for us? Wrong-thinking Christians have devised three principles for this: some point to reason, others to Holy Scripture itself, and still others to an inner illumination from the Holy Spirit. But such a guide cannot be recognized in:
1) Human reason, left to itself alone.
Reason, in the first place, is not capable of determining the canon of the sacred books with unimpeachable precision and finality, because the historical testimonies concerning the canon, on the basis of which alone such a determination by reason is possible, are not sufficiently satisfactory. The ancient catalogues of the sacred books, belonging not only to individual teachers of the Church but even to whole particular churches, as we have seen (§ 125), do not fully agree with one another—and those books which in some catalogues are reckoned among the canonical are sometimes not mentioned at all in others, and in still others are even numbered among the non-canonical. Consequently, here it is possible to decide the question only with greater or lesser thoroughness and proximity to the truth, but it is impossible to decide it in such a way that no room remains for any doubts or disputes whatsoever. Every kind of abuse is possible here, depending on the aims and intentions of each scholar.560 And the example of Luther, who did not hesitate to exclude from the canon books not mentioned in certain ancient catalogues (from the New Testament, namely, the Epistles of James, the Second of Peter, the Second and Third of John, that of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse)561 — and, above all, the example of the rationalists, who in the end went so far in their disputes over the canonical standing of the sacred books that not a single book remained that was not rejected by one or another of them, or unanimously acknowledged by all as canonical—these serve as striking proofs of this truth.
Reason, in the second place, is not capable of testifying unimpeachably to the God-inspiredness of the sacred books: for what, in this matter, can it point us to? To the inner excellence of the teaching contained in them? But from this we can conclude only with probability, and by no means with certainty, as to their divine origin; and, besides, this very excellence of teaching is, for very many people, still a matter of dispute. To the testimonies of Holy Scripture concerning its own inspiration? But here too only probability is possible: for these testimonies, as we have seen (§§ 123 and 124) —
a) are not sufficiently clear and definite;
b) concern not the whole of Holy Scripture, but only either the Old Testament alone, or certain books, or even isolated passages within this or that book;
c) remain subject to various interpretations and disputes562, and
d) generally cannot, in the strict sense, carry a force of conviction for everyone, being, as they are, Scripture’s testimony to itself. Or shall reason point to the historical testimonies of the ancients concerning the inspiration of the sacred books? But it is known that the ancient testimonies on this subject are of two kinds: the testimonies of Orthodox Christians, who did indeed call the books of Holy Scripture God-inspired, and the testimonies of heretics, which are not infrequently opposed to the former. Why, then, would the mind prefer one of these testimonies to the other—the mind, let us not forget, guided in its inquiries by no higher authority whatsoever?
Finally, reason, subject to no higher authority, but left to itself alone, is decidedly incapable of being for us a correct and fully reliable interpreter of Holy Scripture: on the contrary, in this case the very opposite would have to occur. For —
a) in experience there exist only individual human minds, which, besides the general principles implanted in them, also have their own particular (subjective) principles and convictions. They not infrequently have their own particular aims which they pursue, particular motives by which they are guided in their actions. Consequently, everyone would then begin to explain Holy Scripture in his own way, according to the measure of his own powers and understanding, and sometimes according to his own impure designs and intentions—and interpretations of Scripture would necessarily turn out to be almost as numerous as there are individual minds563;
b) it is known that the convictions even of individual minds change very frequently, and that what one man held to be truth yesterday, he today already holds to be falsehood: consequently, one’s own interpretations of Holy Scripture would then also have to vary from time to time;
c) finally, the mind of itself can explain, in one way or another, without doubt, only those truths in the Bible which are comprehensible to it: how, then, will it explain truths that are incomprehensible? And what guarantee is there that its explanation is correct? Rather, as the experience of the rationalists has also shown, the mind will reject these incomprehensible truths, and interpret them in its own way, in a figurative sense, admitting nothing mysterious. Our words do not mean that reason in general ought to take no part whatsoever in the interpretation of Holy Scripture, that its participation is inevitably harmful. On the contrary, reason both can and ought to take part in this, but only by submitting, in its interpretations, to another, higher authority.564 And the participation of reason can then be for us not only quite useful, but at times even necessary, especially in disputes with opponents. But we are speaking properly of a reason not subject to this higher authority, and guided in its inquiries by the one principle of its own arbitrary will (liberi arbitrii): such reason cannot be accepted as a reliable and sole guide in the interpretation of Holy Scripture.
2) Nor can it be found in Holy Scripture itself alone, as those wish who assert that the Word of God must be explained by the Word of God, and its obscure passages by its clearer ones. For Holy Scripture itself —
a) nowhere determines either the canon, or the authenticity, of the books composing it;
b) even its own testimonies to its inspiration, let us repeat once more, concern only either the Old Testament alone, or only certain books, or even only certain isolated passages within them, and do not clearly concern the New Testament, do not concern the whole of Holy Scripture. Moreover, as Scripture’s testimony to itself, they cannot carry their proper weight or the full force of conviction;
c) finally, it must be remembered that Holy Scripture is precisely Scripture, and not some living being possessing hearing and speech. It cannot hear our questions as to how we are to understand this or that passage in it, nor can it answer us, or resolve our perplexities. This means that the resolving of these perplexities, in explaining Holy Scripture on the basis of Holy Scripture itself, will once again be left to us. And it will depend on us to choose this or that passage for the purpose, to call it the clearer one, and then to interpret it as we please—while others will point to other passages, clearer in their opinion, and explain them in their own way.565 It is plain that here too the principle of explaining Holy Scripture will remain this same reason of ours, and not Holy Scripture at all, and that here too every kind of abuse is possible. We do not mean to say by this that Holy Scripture cannot and ought not to be explained by Holy Scripture itself, its obscure passages by its clearer ones. No—this is one of the essential, though partial, rules of sound biblical hermeneutics, which can have a very broad and most useful application, provided only that, to prevent abuses, it is itself made subject to another, reliable, unimpeachable principle (which we are still in search of). We assert only that this rule of interpreting Holy Scripture cannot be recognized as the chief, fundamental, infallible, and fully trustworthy rule, to which all the others ought to be subordinated.
3) Nor, finally, in an inner illumination from the Holy Spirit, or an inner voice sounding in the heart of each believer, as many sectarians within the bosom of Protestantism teach. This principle of sacred hermeneutics appears, in its essence, to be the very best: for who can testify to us more reliably concerning the canon and the inspiration of Holy Scripture, who can show us more precisely its true meaning, than the Holy Spirit, the true Author of Holy Scripture? But the trouble is that, in application, this principle proves extremely inconvenient and unreliable: the inner illumination or anointing from the Holy Spirit, of which true believers are indeed made worthy (1 John 2:27), is a mysterious action, hidden from all outside observers. And so, to prevent every kind of deception, only one means would here be possible: if those who claimed to have been made worthy of such illumination were to confirm their words with genuine miracles (which, however, they do not in fact demonstrate). Otherwise abuses are unavoidable: this principle opens the very widest door to every kind of license in the interpretation of Holy Scripture, and to endless disputes. For anyone, at his own pleasure, can pass off (as sectarians not infrequently do) his own ravings as inspirations from the Holy Spirit, all the while brazenly straining to confirm his fantasies with biblical texts. On the other hand, these people, in fact, by their own experience, thoroughly refute the very thing they preach: there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of truth, cannot contradict Himself; and yet the sectarians, who assert that they explain Holy Scripture under the Holy Spirit’s own guidance, disagree among themselves in the extreme; and not infrequently what one of them puts forth as truth, another rejects as error.566 A plain sign that they are guided not at all by the Holy Spirit, but again by their own reason, by their own particular (subjective) convictions and aims. One final remark: that, given over exclusively to this principle, it is easy to arrive at the complete rejection of Holy Scripture altogether: for if the Holy Spirit Himself inwardly teaches us the truth necessary for salvation, what need then have we of the outward aid of the Bible? And this is indeed precisely what happened with the Anabaptists and the Swedenborgians.567 We do not, however, deny in the least that, as in every good work, so also in the appropriation of revealed teaching, the Christian stands in need568 of the assistance, instruction, and guidance of the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:27, and others); we say only that inner illumination from the Holy Spirit, when taken as the exclusive principle of sacred hermeneutics, is, for the reasons set forth above, insufficient for the purpose.
If, then, none of those aids which heterodox Christians make use of, for appropriating to themselves the divine revelation contained in Holy Scripture, can be called fully reliable—where, then, shall we, as Orthodox Christians, find for ourselves this necessary aid? According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, it has been granted to the faithful by God Himself, in another source of the Christian faith, sacred Tradition.569
By the name of sacred Tradition is meant the Word of God, not committed to writing by the God-inspired writers themselves, but delivered orally to the Church, and continuously preserved in her ever since.570 In order now truly to justify the thought we have expressed concerning this divine source, in relation to Holy Scripture, we must show —
a) that sacred Tradition indeed must be received as a source of the Christian faith and of Orthodox theology;
b) that it could be, and indeed has been, preserved to us in its entirety;
c) then point out the marks by which the apostolic traditions can be unmistakably recognized even at the present day;
d) finally, determine the very importance and use of this source.
§ 129. Holy Tradition Must Be Recognized as a Source of the Christian Faith
That not Holy Scripture alone was at the beginning, and must now be recognized, as a source of the Christian faith, but sacred Tradition together with it—this is evident:
1) From the history of the first preaching and existence of the Christian faith. This history shows that —
a) Christianity was, at first, spread in a twofold manner: chiefly through the spoken word, and only in part through writing. The Savior Himself, the first Teacher of the heavenly faith, wrote nothing about it; many of the holy Apostles likewise spread it only orally to the very end of their lives, leaving behind no writings of their own. Only some of the first preachers of the Gospel, besides the spoken word, made use also, from time to time, of writing for this purpose.
b) The Apostles who did leave writings behind did not set down everything in them. “There is a teaching,” says one of our own native hierarchs, “written by the Apostles in their epistles, and there is a teaching orally delivered by them to their disciples and followers. John the Theologian writes at the end of his Gospel: ‘and there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written’ (21:25). This means that there were a great many events in the earthly life of Jesus Christ which, on account of their very number, the Apostles could not write down in detail, but which they surely related and told to their followers by word of mouth. The same must be said of the teaching of Jesus Christ. For forty days after His resurrection He taught the Apostles concerning the things of the faith and of the kingdom of God; but this teaching is nowhere written down in the sacred books, and was surely handed down by the Apostles orally to their disciples. The Apostle Paul likewise says that for three years, night and day, he did not cease teaching, with tears, the Ephesian presbyters, ‘every one of them’ (Acts 20:31); and this teaching, without doubt, was not all written down, but could have passed on by word of mouth from one to another down to our own time.”571
c) The Apostles, in writing their epistles to the Christians, sometimes left certain things for a future oral conversation with these Christians, which was to supply what had been left unsaid in writing. “I had many things to write to you, and I was not willing to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you, and to speak mouth to mouth,” says St. John the Theologian in his second epistle (v. 12); “I had many things to write,” he repeats also in his third epistle, “but I am not willing to write to you with ink and pen; but I trust to see you shortly, and we shall speak mouth to mouth” (vv. 13-14). St. Paul expresses himself similarly in one place: “and the rest I will set in order when I come” (1 Cor. 11:34).
d) Finally, the apostolic epistles, written in different places and to different particular churches, or even to particular individuals, did not become universally known throughout the whole Church of Christ very quickly, and even in Irenaeus’s day (the latter half of the second century) there were whole nations, converted to Christianity, that possessed no sacred writings of their own at all, but were content with tradition alone. “If,” asks the holy father, “the Apostles had left us no writings of their own—would it not still have been necessary to follow the order of tradition, which they left to those to whom they entrusted the churches? Many barbarian nations follow this order—nations which, having come to believe in Christ, possess salvation written on their hearts by the Spirit, without paper and ink, and carefully guard the ancient tradition… Such people, who have come to believe without Scripture, though, in our own tongue, they are called barbarians, yet as regards their way of thinking, their morals, and their manner of life, are, by reason of their faith, exceedingly wise, and please God, passing their lives in all righteousness, purity, and wisdom. Should anyone begin to preach to them some heretical false teaching, they would at once stop their ears, and flee far off, unwilling even to hear such blasphemous talk. Thus they, resting upon the ancient apostolic tradition, do not so much as admit into their thoughts any heretical folly.”572
2) From the example and the perfectly clear statements, and even commands, of the sacred writers themselves. “If oral Tradition were contrary to the Christian faith,” let us say in the words of that same native hierarch, “the Apostles, without doubt, would themselves not have believed it, and would have forbidden us Christians to believe it. But, on the contrary, Luke the Evangelist was not himself a disciple of Christ, yet he wrote an entire Gospel according to the oral tradition received from the disciples of Christ. Read (Luke 1:1): since indeed many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the matters that have been accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it has seemed good to me as well… and so forth. The Apostle Jude believed the tradition concerning the Archangel Michael, who disputed with the devil over the body of Moses (v. 9); yet nowhere in the sacred books is this written. The Apostle Paul likewise believed that the Lord Jesus had said: it is a greater blessedness to give than to receive (Acts 20:35); yet these words are nowhere written down word for word in the Gospels, but he must have heard them from the lips of some disciple of Christ.”573 On the other hand, St. Paul, who wrote more than all the Apostles, says: “brethren, stand firm, and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by our letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). What is important here —
a) is that the Apostle directly and decisively commands the Christians to hold fast, among other things, to oral traditions as well;
b) that he commands this at a time when the believers already had his own writings in hand: for he says this in his second epistle to the Thessalonians;
c) that he commands them to hold to the traditions in exactly the same way as to the writings, with equal reverence, firmness, and constancy, forsaking neither the one nor the other source of saving doctrine, but holding both together, inseparably. “I commend you, brethren, that you remember me in everything, and hold fast the traditions just as I delivered them to you,” wrote this same Apostle in his first epistle to the Corinthians, evidently meaning traditions not written but purely oral (1 Cor. 11:2). “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from profane chatter and the contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Tim. 6:20); “hold to the pattern of sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13)—“and what you heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to faithful men, who will be capable also of teaching others” (2:2): here are yet further commands of this same Apostle concerning oral traditions.
3) From the unbroken, unanimous teaching and example of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church. Thus, among the men of the first century:
a) St. Ignatius, according to the testimony of Eusebius, urged the faithful to guard themselves against the perverse opinions of the heretics…, and to hold firmly to the apostolic tradition574;
b) St. Polycarp handed down to the faithful the very words spoken by the Lord, which he had heard directly from the Apostles, and, in general, delivered to the Church what he himself had received from the Apostles575;
c) while Hegesippus took special pains to gather the apostolic traditions together into one, and set forth many of them in five books (ὑπομνήμασι), which, unfortunately, have not come down to us.576
In the second century —
a) St. Irenaeus wrote: “all who wish to know the truth ought, in every church, to have recourse to the apostolic tradition, made known throughout the whole world,”577 and he himself, in contending with the many heretics, sought to refute them not only from Scripture, but chiefly from tradition:578
b) Tertullian likewise not only enjoined that men hold fast to the apostolic traditions, but constantly adduced them as testimony against the heretics, as his whole body of writing shows.579
In the third century —
a) Origen enjoined: “let the ecclesiastical tradition, handed down through the order of succession from the Apostles, and remaining even to this day in the churches, be preserved; that alone is to be believed as truth which in no way disagrees with the ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition”580;
b) St. Cyprian said: “it is easy for pious and simple souls to avoid error and find the truth: for as soon as we turn to the source of divine tradition, error vanishes.”581
In the fourth century we likewise hear:
a) from St. Epiphanius: “it is necessary also to hold to tradition, for it is not possible to find everything in the writings alone; the most holy Apostles left some things in Scripture, others in tradition—which very thing Paul himself affirms: even as I delivered to you” (1 Cor. 11:2)582;
b) from St. Basil the Great: “of the doctrines and proclamations preserved in the Church, some we have from written instruction, and some we have received from apostolic tradition, handed down to us in a mystery; and both the one and the other have the same force for piety, and no one, even one but little versed in the ordinances of the Church, will gainsay this: for if we should undertake to reject the unwritten customs as though they carried no great weight, we would unwittingly do harm to the Gospel in its chief matters, or rather would reduce the preaching to a bare name, without the thing itself”583;
c) from St. Chrysostom: “they [the Apostles] did not hand down everything through Scripture, but much also without writing; yet both the one and the other are equally worthy of belief; therefore we hold tradition, too, to be worthy of belief: it is tradition—seek nothing further.”584 To adduce, after this, a whole series of further patristic testimonies would, without any doubt, be superfluous.585
4) Finally, from the example of the whole universal Church, gathered, in the persons of her pastors, at the ecumenical Councils. It is known that at these Councils heresies were exposed and the dogmas of Orthodoxy confirmed on the basis not of Scripture alone, but together with tradition as well—sometimes, indeed, chiefly on the basis of tradition. This was precisely the practice of the Council of Nicaea586, the Council of Constantinople587, the Council of Ephesus588, of Chalcedon589, of Trullo590, and Nicaea II. “We preserve,” say the fathers of this last ecumenical council at the very outset of their dogmatic definition, “we preserve, without any innovation, all the ecclesiastical traditions established for us, whether in writing or without writing… This being so, walking, as it were, along the royal road, following the God-inspired teaching of our holy Fathers and the tradition of the catholic Church… we define…” and so forth.
§ 130. Holy Tradition Could Be, and Indeed Has Been, Preserved to Us in Its Entirety: a) It Could Be Preserved
That sacred Tradition could have been wholly preserved in the Church down to our own days is evident:
1) In part already from the very manner in which the traditions were disseminated—their universality and their reach among the whole people. The holy Apostles preached the revealed teaching not merely in a few places, not before merely a few persons, and by no means in secret. On the contrary, they carried it through all the countries of the world of that time, proclaimed it in every tongue, with the utmost clarity (Matt. 10:27), and, as the very purpose of their preaching required, sought to deliver the divine truths to every single person desiring salvation. Under such circumstances, for any apostolic tradition—especially any weighty one—to become lost or corrupted throughout the whole Church, throughout the whole Christian world, was plainly impossible. “Whoever wishes to know the truth,” said St. Irenaeus, “may discern in every church the apostolic tradition, made known throughout the whole world.”591
2) Far more from the zealous devotion of all Christians to the teaching delivered to them by the Apostles—a devotion which St. Paul so highly praises in the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:2; cf. 1 Thess. 1:8; Col. 1:4, 6; Rom. 1:8). To such solicitous care for the preservation of the orally delivered apostolic teaching, the Christians were naturally moved by:
a) the very worth of this teaching itself, in which they beheld the Word of God;
b) the injunctions of the holy Apostles to stand fast and hold to the traditions (2 Thess. 2:15), together with their severe warnings against those who opposed them: “though we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you a gospel other than the one we proclaimed to you, let him be accursed,” wrote St. Paul to the Galatians; “as we have said before, I say again now: if anyone proclaims to you a gospel other than the one you received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9);
c) the sheer necessity of the traditions: for at first there were as yet no apostolic writings at all, and even after these writings had appeared, before they had been brought to general knowledge, many particular churches made use of, and could exist by, the apostolic traditions alone.592
3) Still more from the duty, and at the same time the zeal, of the heads of the churches for the preservation of Holy Tradition. It was they, above all, in keeping with their very calling to shepherd the Church of the Lord and God (Acts 20:28), whom the holy Apostles sought to instruct and confirm in the truths of the faith (v. 27), just as they themselves had earlier been instructed by the heavenly Teacher in preference to all other people (John 17:6, 8). It was the pastors of the Church whom the holy evangelists especially enjoined to hold fast to the trustworthy word as taught (Titus 1:9), to hold the pattern of sound words… and to guard the good deposit entrusted to you, through the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 1:13-14). It was they, finally, whom the Apostles charged to entrust the teaching heard among many witnesses to their own future successors as well — to faithful men, who would be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2). “If the Apostles knew hidden mysteries,” writes St. Irenaeus, “which they revealed only to the perfect, and not to all people: then it was above all to those persons to whom they entrusted the very churches that they communicated these mysteries. For the Apostles wished that those whom they left as their successors, and to whom they handed over their own ministry of teaching, should be men of the greatest perfection and blamelessness in every respect: since upon the unerring conduct of these persons a great good was bound to depend, and upon their erring conduct, the greatest evil.”593 And history testifies that the worthy successors of the Apostles fully corresponded to their calling. “What they found in the Church,” says one renowned teacher, “that they held fast; what they themselves had been taught, that they taught; what they had received from the fathers, that they handed down to their children also.”594
4) Especially from the fact that the sacred traditions quite early began to be committed to writing by many teachers of the Church, and thus, with the fullest reliability, to be handed down from generation to generation in the ages that followed.595
5) Finally, from the fact that the Church received many traditions from the Apostles in her very practice, which, for the preservation of truths, is by no means less reliable than the written word. The structure of the divine services, especially of the Liturgy, at least in its principal parts, the manner of celebrating all the most holy sacraments, and certain prayers, without any doubt, took their beginning from the Apostles. Following this, the successors of the Apostles, having received the right and the duty to order all things in the Church decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40), likewise took care to perpetuate for all succeeding generations, in this same ecclesiastical practice, many truths delivered by the Apostles, through the institution of feasts and rites.
§ 131. b) Holy Tradition Has Indeed Been Preserved to Us in Its Entirety
We can now determine the very sources through which the apostolic traditions have come down to us. These are —
1) The ancient creeds, which, as the pattern of sound words, as the first necessity for believers, without doubt appeared already from the times of the Apostles themselves and existed continuously in all the churches from the very time of their founding. Of such creeds, in use among the Christians during the first three centuries before the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, quite a considerable number are known, and all of them, entirely alike in spirit, though often differing in wording, contain the chief articles of dogmatic teaching that later entered into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.596
2) The Canons of the Holy Apostles. The reverence with which these canons were used already in the first centuries of Christianity—used, moreover, not in any one local church, but throughout the whole universal Church—a reverence extending so far that the Councils themselves, both local and ecumenical, made them the foundation of their own decrees and were guided by them as by a law possessing universal and unimpeachable binding force—all this places the divine authority of the Apostolic Canons beyond all doubt. But it is likewise certain that the holy Apostles did not deliver them to the Church in writing (otherwise they would from the very beginning have entered into the canon of the New Testament books), but orally. These canons were written down and reduced to their present order either by the apostolic men themselves, or by their nearest successors.597 Eighty-five Apostolic Canons are known, and they contain the traditions of the Apostles concerning, chiefly, ecclesiastical governance and good order.
3) The definitions and canons of the Councils:
a) local [councils], to which, per the 37th Apostolic Canon, bishops from various places gathered twice yearly to deliberate on matters of faith and piety, and brought with them, preserved in their own churches, this or that tradition; but especially —
b) the ecumenical Councils, where the whole Church of Christ, the guardian of the traditions, gathered in the persons of her own primates. This source is the more precious in that the Councils, as we have noted, in their deliberations indeed always had recourse not only to Scripture, but to Tradition as well. And in the definitions and canons of these Councils there have come down to us traditions not only dogmatic, but moral and ritual as well, and, in general, concerning every matter of the Christian faith and of the Church.
4) The ancient liturgies. Of such liturgies, used, or still used to this day, in the various churches of the East and West, there are a great many598, and many of them, known under the names of the Apostles and of apostolic men, go back to time immemorial, or even to the times of the Apostles themselves—such, for instance, as the liturgy of the holy Apostle James. These liturgies may be reckoned among the most important repositories of apostolic tradition and of the true belief of the primitive Church, judging both by the antiquity of their origin and by their lofty purpose and use within the Church. At the very least, in those features of doctrine on which all these ancient liturgies entirely agree with one another, their voice must carry unimpeachable force. And such features are quite numerous: thus, in all the liturgies the dogmas of the Most Holy Trinity, of the divinity of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit, of the true incarnation of God the Word, of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God, of the necessity of grace, of the true change or transubstantiation of the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist, of the invocation of the Saints, and so forth, are confessed.599
5) The most ancient acts concerning the Christian martyrs, such as: the acts of St. Ignatius the God-bearer, of St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and of many others, written by contemporaries of these men, and even by eyewitnesses of their martyrdoms.600 Going to a voluntary death for the name of Christ, the holy martyrs confessed their faith clearly and openly before their tormentors, and not infrequently explained to them, in considerable detail, various truths of Christianity. These confessions and explanations were, without doubt, of the utmost sincerity and truthfulness. And so, having been recorded by direct eyewitnesses, they now serve as a precious monument of the Church’s belief at that time, and of the apostolic tradition then in use within her. This is all the more certain in that, in ancient times, the acts of the martyrs did not come into use among the faithful until after prior examination and approval by the local bishop, and were read in the public assemblies of the Christians likewise under the oversight of the heads of the churches, who could not allow anything at variance with the Church’s common belief to creep into these acts.601 Among the other confessions found in such acts, we find the clearest confessions of the Most Holy Trinity, of the divinity of Jesus Christ, of the invocation of the Saints, and so forth.
6) The ancient ecclesiastical histories, among which the history of Eusebius Pamphili, who made use of the most ancient and reliable documents, deserves especial regard. Here are gathered many traditions of apostolic times—not only purely historical, ritual, and similar traditions, but dogmatic ones as well, such, for instance, as the tradition concerning the canon of the sacred books of the Old and New Testament.
7) In general, the writings of all the ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church. They wrote either private confessions, to bear witness to their own faith before the Church (such as the expositions of faith by St. Athanasius the Great, Pope Pelagius, and many others), or explanations of the truths of the faith, for the thorough instruction of Orthodox Christians (such as the Catechism of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the Theology of St. John of Damascus, countless church homilies, commentaries on the books of Holy Scripture, and so forth), or, finally, refutations against pagans, heretics, and schismatics, equally numerous and varied. In all these cases the ancient pastors naturally had to conform unfailingly to the apostolic traditions then preserved and in use in the Church; and they may therefore rightly be called witnesses to these traditions, and to traditions of every kind—dogmatic, ritual, and historical alike. In all their forms, the patristic writings are the richest source of Tradition.602
8) Finally, the whole ancient practice of the Church, to which belong
a) the sacred seasons: the fasts, the Sundays and feast days;
b) the sacred places: the arrangement of churches with all its particulars; and
c) the sacred acts, rites, and ceremonies. And since the manner of hallowing the seasons and of performing the sacred rites is set forth in the liturgical books, to this same category must also be assigned —
d) these very books, that is, the church service-orders.603
But, without any doubt, not everything contained in the sources or repositories of apostolic tradition we have enumerated is, for that very reason, apostolic Tradition itself; on the contrary, they contain a very great deal that can by no means be called by this name. True apostolic Tradition must have its own particular marks, by which we might distinguish it from every other truth, from every error, and, in particular, from every false tradition.
§ 132. The Marks of Sacred, or Apostolic, Tradition
These marks are usually divided into internal and external.
I. Among the internal belong:
1) that Apostolic Tradition should be consistent with itself, that is, contain no internal contradiction—a mark common to all truths, but necessary in Apostolic Tradition as well, to distinguish it, in general, from the many errors, and, in particular, from certain false traditions.
2) That it should be consistent with other Apostolic traditions already known and undoubted; for the Apostles themselves could not contradict themselves—a further mark, necessary in tradition for this same purpose.
3) Finally, that it should be consistent with Holy Scripture, for the author of both is one and the same—the Holy Spirit. The holy Church herself points to this mark, when she teaches us in the Orthodox Catechism: “tradition must be observed, that is consonant with divine revelation and with Holy Scripture.”604 And in the Rite of Orthodoxy she pronounces, among other things: “to those who reject the Councils of the holy Fathers and their traditions, consonant with divine revelation and piously preserved by the Orthodox catholic Church, anathema.”605 But since the holy Church herself teaches us that “to her alone belongs the right to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,”606 and that she alone is infallible in this matter,607 it is evident that, according to the spirit of her own teaching, the final decision of the question—whether a given tradition is consonant with Holy Scripture or not—belongs not to private persons, but to her alone. This is precisely why the Rite of Orthodoxy adds: “to those who reject the traditions consonant with divine revelation and preserved by the Orthodox catholic Church, anathema.” However important this mark may be, it, like the two preceding it, enables us to distinguish true Apostolic tradition only from errors and false traditions, and nothing more: for all truths, whether of divine or of human origin, not only can but must necessarily be consonant with Holy Scripture.
Consequently, all the internal marks of Apostolic Tradition we have set forth are only negative, not positive: by them we may always recognize what cannot be called Apostolic Tradition, but we shall not thereby learn what should be so called. Here, then, the external marks of Apostolic Tradition come to our aid—marks drawn from external testimonies, which positively determine the character of truly apostolic traditions.
II. According to these external marks:
1) Only that can be recognized as truly Apostolic Tradition which can be traced back to apostolic times, and which, from the very beginning (in the 1st and 2nd centuries), was in use in the churches founded directly by the Apostles. St. Irenaeus and Tertullian pointed to this mark of traditions. “If any dispute should arise concerning something,” says the former, “would it not be necessary to have recourse to the most ancient churches, in which the Apostles themselves were present, and to receive from them whatever is certain and plainly clear regarding the present matter in dispute?”608 “Only that tradition,” says the latter, “is to be recognized as Apostolic which is held today in the churches founded by them.”609 But it is plain that this mark, readily applicable in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian, is today, on account of our distance from apostolic times and the loss of many writings of the first teachers of the Church, alone insufficient for determining all the Apostolic traditions. And so it is enough for our conviction of the truth if —
2) something is unanimously handed down to us as Apostolic Tradition by all, or even only by many, teachers of the Church of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries: for these teachers could base their statements on the testimonies of still more ancient teachers, whose writings were then still intact, and they themselves were, moreover, close to apostolic times, and expressed, as Augustine observes, only what they found in the Church.610 “What is found to be one and the same among many,” says Tertullian, “was not invented, but handed down.”611 “What all, or many, hold, keep, and pass on with one accord, openly and constantly, as though by some prior agreement of their teachers,” says Vincent of Lérins (a 5th-century teacher), “this must be considered fully trustworthy and beyond doubt.”612
3) Finally, that must without dispute be recognized as Apostolic Tradition which the whole universal Church has held and still holds, and which, meanwhile, cannot be found in Holy Scripture at all—or, at least, not in precisely the form in which it is held by the holy Church. “Truth is not to be sought from others,” writes St. Irenaeus, “but is to be learned within the Church, into which, as into a rich treasury, the Apostles have deposited everything that is true… And therefore the Tradition of truth which the Church holds must be loved and received with all diligence.”613 “What the whole Church holds,” remarks blessed Augustine, “and what, without any conciliar decree, has always been held within her, this we most justly regard as having been handed down from the Apostles.”614 Let us recall too the words of the Rite of Orthodoxy: “to those who reject… the traditions… piously preserved by the Orthodox catholic Church, anathema.”
§ 133. The Importance and Use of Holy Tradition
From the very concept of sacred Tradition, as the oral Word of God, it follows necessarily that, in its dignity, it is entirely equal to the written Word of God. This equal honor of both sources of the Christian faith, which contain within themselves one and the same divine revelation —
1) was clearly attested to by St. Paul the Apostle, when he enjoined the Christians to hold equally to both, without drawing between them the slightest distinction: “brethren, stand firm, and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by our letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).615
2) It was clearly confessed by the holy Fathers of the Church, for instance:
a) St. Basil the Great: “of the doctrines and proclamations preserved in the Church, some we have from written instruction, and some we have received from apostolic tradition, handed down to us in a mystery; and both the one and the other have the same and self-same force for piety, and no one, even one but little versed in the ordinances of the Church, will gainsay this”616,
b) St. Chrysostom: “they [the Apostles] did not hand down everything through the epistle, but much also without writing: but the one and the other are equally worthy of belief; therefore we hold tradition, too, to be trustworthy: it is tradition—seek nothing further.”617
3) Finally, the whole Church herself clearly attested to it, when, not only at local, but also at ecumenical Councils, she was guided, in defining and confirming dogmas, with equal reverence by both Scripture and Tradition (see § 129).
As for the use of Holy Tradition: in this respect it must be said that sacred Tradition fully satisfies those conditions which we pointed out when speaking of the necessity of a Divine source of the Christian faith, alongside Holy Scripture (§ 128). Namely:
I. Holy Tradition is absolutely necessary for the unimpeachable resolution of questions concerning the authenticity of the canon and the inspiration of the sacred books: none of these questions, as we have seen (§ 128), can be resolved with full satisfaction either by reason or by Holy Scripture itself; all of them, let us add here, have indeed, from the very beginning of Christianity, been resolved chiefly on the basis of Holy Tradition. Thus —
a) Origen, in beginning to enumerate the books composing the Old Testament canon, remarks: as handed down by the Jews…; and, turning to the New Testament books, begins: “concerning the four Gospels, received without contradiction throughout the whole Church, I have learned the following from tradition…”618;
b) the Fathers of the Council of Carthage, having enumerated the canonical and God-inspired books of Holy Scripture, conclude: “for we have received from the fathers that these books are to be read in church” (canon 33);
c) Rufinus, in a similar case, says: “we have thought it timely to enumerate them (the sacred books), as handed down to us from the fathers, which we have received from the monuments of the fathers”;
d) Pope Innocent I states that he wishes to set forth the canon of the God-inspired writings, “following the tradition (secundum traditionem) preserved in the Roman church from the very times of the Apostles themselves”619;
e) St. Cyril of Jerusalem and Eusebius likewise based themselves in this matter solely upon sacred Tradition.620
II. Holy Tradition is absolutely necessary for the correct and infallible understanding of the very truths contained in Holy Scripture. And —
1) It is necessary for the precise determination and explanation of those truths which are not expressed with full completeness in Holy Scripture, but are found only in the form of hints, or are contained in other truths as in their own first principles, from which they can be deduced only by inference. Such are the truths: concerning the descent of Jesus Christ into hell, the ever-virginity of the Mother of God, the veneration and invocation in prayer of Angels and Saints, the veneration of holy relics and icons, the state of souls after death until the universal judgment, the commemoration of the departed, the sevenfold number of the sacraments, the baptism of infants and the unrepeatability of baptism, the celebration of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments.621 We now deduce these dogmatic truths as consequences from certain passages of the Bible, and consider them important. But why? Because in the Church there is, concerning these truths, a reliable Tradition going back to apostolic times themselves. And, without holding to tradition, we —
a) would either not deduce these dogmas from Holy Scripture at all, as the Protestants do, who, though they make use of the very same sacred codex that we do, yet, rejecting dogmatic traditions in general, reject these dogmas as well, striving at the same time to prove the injustice of our own deductions;
b) or would even reject the enumerated dogmas, on the basis of other passages of Holy Scripture—of which too we find living testimony among these same Protestants. They do not acknowledge, for instance, the dogma of the veneration of Angels and Saints, not only because there is supposedly no basis for this truth in Holy Scripture, but still more because, as it seems to them, there are passages in Scripture that entirely overthrow it;
c) or would deduce them, just as we do now, but would not regard our deductions as dogmas, but as mere opinions, which one may hold or not hold as one pleases;
d) finally, even if we did deduce all the aforementioned truths from Holy Scripture properly, and ourselves acknowledged them as dogmas—our own private regard for them would still not communicate to these truths, in the eyes of others, the necessary binding force… Apostolic tradition alone, as divine, determines and confirms these dogmas unimpeachably for all believers.
2) It is necessary for the precise determination and explanation even of those truths which are set forth in Holy Scripture in full. For —
a) although we can explain these truths ourselves, directly from Holy Scripture, yet in our explanation there will always remain room for doubt as to whether we have correctly understood what we are explaining;
b) these truths, when determined and explained without the guidance of Holy Tradition, have always been subject to countless disagreements, according to the whim of individuals622, and it is often altogether impossible to put an end to such disagreements until sacred Tradition, possessing divine authority, is called upon for aid. How natural it is, in explaining Holy Scripture, to have recourse to sacred Tradition, may be understood:
a) From the fact that the holy Apostles set forth their teaching in writing, at first, for people to whom this same teaching had already been delivered orally, in all clarity, precision, and fullness, and to whom, for this reason, they enjoined equal adherence to both Holy Scripture and sacred Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Consequently, if the oral tradition of the Apostles served as a necessary aid to the proper understanding of their writings for the first Christians, then, having been preserved unimpaired in the holy Church down to the present day, should it not serve the very same purpose for us as well?
b) From the fact that both the Savior Himself, especially after His resurrection before His disciples (Luke 24:27), and the holy Apostles (Acts 2:25-32, and others) before all the believers, did indeed explain the Old Testament writings, pointing out the true meaning of the promises, prophecies, and prefigurations found there. And some of the Apostles—for instance, Peter, who read the epistles of the Apostle Paul, and found in them certain things hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:16), and John the Theologian, who lived longer than all the Apostles and, as tradition tells us, examined and confirmed all their writings—without any doubt, on occasion, explained the books of the New Testament to the Christians as well. If, then, the oral explanations of Holy Scripture, which proceeded from the Lord Himself and His disciples, have been preserved and have come down to us intact—what right have we to depart from these traditions?
3) Thus does the holy Church herself regard sacred Tradition: “even now,” she enjoins us, “Tradition is needed as a guide to the correct understanding of Holy Scripture, for the correct performance of the sacraments, and for the observance of the sacred rites in the purity of their original institution.”623 So has she regarded sacred Tradition always as well—which can be seen:
a) from the testimony of certain of her individual teachers, and
b) from the testimony of the Councils.
a) From the teachers: St. Irenaeus flatly denies that “those who do not know the tradition could find the truth from the writings [alone].” Clement of Alexandria teaches that “those who interpret the writings contrary to the tradition of the Church have lost the rule of truth.” Origen says that we “must not depart from the original and ecclesiastical tradition, nor believe [the writings] in any other way than as the churches of God have handed them down to us through succession,” and that “that alone must be acknowledged as true which in no way disagrees with the ecclesiastical tradition.” St. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, according to the testimony of Rufinus, in explaining the divine writings, sought to be guided not by their own private reasoning, but by the traditions of their forefathers. St. Cyprian says: “if we turn to the source of divine tradition, human error will cease.”
b) From the holy Councils: the Sixth Ecumenical Council (in 680) condemned the Origenists precisely because they (as the letter of Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, read and approved at the 13th session, showed) had dared to interpret the writings contrary to the tradition of the forefathers; while the Fifth-Sixth, or Trullan, Council (in 691), by its 19th canon, decreed: “the heads of the churches must, every day, and especially on Sundays, instruct the whole clergy and people in the words of piety, drawing from the divine Scripture the meanings and reasonings of truth, and not overstepping the limits already fixed and the tradition of the God-bearing Fathers; and if a word of Scripture is examined, let them explain it in no other way than as the luminaries and teachers of the Church have set it forth in their own writings, and let them be satisfied with these rather than with the composition of their own words, lest, from lack of skill in this, they should stray from what is fitting.”
III. To all this must be added that sacred Tradition is absolutely necessary for the determination and confirmation of many historical and ritual truths, which are contained in it alone, and are not mentioned at all in Holy Scripture—truths concerning various aspects of ecclesiastical structure, good order, and divine worship, such as: the institution of certain feasts and fasts, the use of priestly vestments, the arrangement of churches, the conduct of clergy and laity, and so forth. The existence of traditions of this historical and ritual kind has always been admitted not only by Orthodox Christians, but by the Protestants themselves. And it is all the more necessary for us to mention these traditions here, in that there exist whole branches of Orthodox theology—such as ecclesiastical Archaeology and canon Law—which are founded chiefly upon them, and for which, consequently, sacred Tradition, apostolic and ecclesiastical, serves as the chief source.
SECTION III. ON THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AS GUARDIAN AND INTERPRETER OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AND SACRED TRADITION
§ 134. Connection with What Precedes, and the Parts of the Present Section
In order to be fully convinced of the authenticity, canon, and inspiration of the sacred books, and to understand and interpret Holy Scripture correctly, it is necessary, as we have seen, to hold to Holy Tradition; and in order to be convinced of the authenticity and integrity of Holy Tradition itself, and to be able to distinguish true apostolic traditions from false ones, it is necessary, as we have likewise already noted, to follow the testimony of the Orthodox Church. The conclusion from this is evident: it follows that the Orthodox Church is the true guardian of the whole of divine revelation, that is, not only of sacred Tradition, but, through Tradition, of Holy Scripture as well. The question now arises:
I) is this indeed just—did the Lord and Savior Himself indeed appoint His Orthodox Church to be the guardian and interpreter of His divine Word? And if this is just:
II) is this guardian and interpreter so reliable that she herself could not err, and could not lead us into error? If this too is beyond doubt—further, unavoidable questions arise:
III) where, then, is this Orthodox Church, to whose guidance we could confidently entrust ourselves, and
IV) where precisely can we hear the voice of her teaching, which we could take for our own guidance in appropriating divine revelation?
I. THE ORTHODOX CHURCH HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO BE THE GUARDIAN AND INTERPRETER OF DIVINE REVELATION
§ 135. The Unfolding of This Truth, and, Beforehand, the Concept of the Church
Before we proceed to unfold this truth, it is necessary for us to establish the concept of it.
I. The Church of Christ is the society of believers in Jesus Christ: in this all are agreed (see § 16). But some Christians teach that the Church is a society in which two classes of members exist: first, the God-instituted hierarchy (the sacred order), or the class of pastors, to whom the Lord Himself entrusted the keeping of His divine Word, and to whom He gave the right to explain and preach it to others; and, second, the class of the shepherded, who do not possess this right, but are obliged to learn the faith from their pastors and to make use of divine revelation under their guidance. Others, on the contrary, assert that no such division of members ought to exist in the Church, that there is no God-instituted hierarchy, that all believers are equal to one another, that all possess the same right to teach, that all can directly, without any outside guidance whatsoever, make use of the Word of God, explain it according to their own utmost understanding, and thus build up their own faith and salvation. We, as children of the Orthodox Church, hold to the first view, and so, when we say that the Church has been appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of divine revelation, we mean, properly speaking, only the teaching Church, that is, the sacred hierarchy.630 Consequently, to confirm this view, we must show that Christ the Savior indeed instituted within His Church a special order of men, whom alone He empowered to be the guardians and interpreters of His divine Word for all who seek salvation, and to whom alone—by no means to all believers—He granted this right.
II. In this we are convinced —
1) From the history of the Savior Himself. For the present purpose, it presents to us the following three undoubted truths:
a) Having appeared on earth to accomplish the great work of our redemption, the Savior at first ascribed to Himself alone the right to teach people the true faith, a right received by Him from the Father: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,” He says, “for He has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor; He has sent me to heal those crushed in heart, to proclaim release to those held captive and sight to the blind, to set free those who are crushed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19), and, going through cities and villages preaching the Gospel, He added: “for this I was born, and for this I came into the world…” (John 18:37), “for this I have been sent” (Luke 4:43), while at the same time commanding the people and His disciples: “but you are not to be called teachers: for you have one teacher, Christ…, nor are you to be called guides: for you have one guide, Christ” (Matt. 23:1, 8 and 10).
b) Then He handed over His own divine right of teaching to His disciples, the twelve and the seventy, whom He Himself expressly chose for this great ministry from among all who heard Him (Luke 6:13; cf. 10:1 and following)—entrusting it to them at first only temporarily, still in the days of His earthly life, when He sent them to preach the Gospel of the kingdom only to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-16 and following), and then permanently, after His resurrection, when, having Himself accomplished the whole of His work on earth, and departing to heaven, He said to them: “as the Father sent me, so I send you” (John 20:21), “go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:18). And, moreover, He very clearly, and with terrible threats, bound all people, present and future Christians alike, to receive the teaching of the Apostles and to obey them: “he who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10:16. See also Matt. 10:14; 18:15-19; Mark 16:16).
c) Finally, at that very same time when the Lord handed over His divine right of teaching to the Apostles, He expressed the desire that this right should pass directly from the Apostles to their successors as well, and that, passing on from these successors from generation to generation, it should be preserved in the world until the very end of the world. For He said to His disciples: “go into all the world, and proclaim the gospel to every creature—go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all that I have commanded you: and behold, I am with you all the days, even to the end of the age” (Mark 16:15; Matt. 28:18-20). But these disciples, without doubt, could not live until the end of the age, and, though they could preach the Gospel to all the nations then contemporary with them, they could not preach it to the peoples of succeeding ages. Consequently, in the persons of His Apostles, the Savior sent forth to the work of universal preaching, and likewise assured of His own presence, all their future successors as well: this is not a mere conjecture of the mind, but the positive teaching of one of the Apostles themselves, who says that Christ Himself gave to His Church not only apostles, prophets, evangelists, but also pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11).
2) From the history of the holy Apostles. The Apostles, without doubt, knew the will of their Lord best of all; they were guided by His Spirit, and, as in everything else, so here too, they undoubtedly conformed themselves entirely to it. How, then, did the Apostles act? They —
a) constantly retained for themselves the right of teaching, received by them from the Lord (Acts 5:42; 6:1-5), notwithstanding all the threats of their enemies (Acts 4:19; 5:28 and 29), and each testified of himself: “if I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no grounds for boasting, for necessity is laid upon me; woe is me if I do not proclaim the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16);
b) they then handed over their divine right to their own successors, the bishops and presbyters, whom they themselves chose and appointed (Acts 14:23; 20:28), enjoining them to teach in season and out of season, with all patience and insistence (2 Tim. 4:2-5; 1 Tim. 4:6, 14);
c) they likewise enjoined these expressly chosen and consecrated persons (Acts 20:28) to hand over their divine authority of teaching to still other, similarly chosen and prepared persons (2 Tim. 2:2; Titus 1:5 and 9), as their own successors;
d) and, on the other hand, forbade the seizing of this authority by persons not called to it: “how shall they preach, unless they are sent?” asks the great teacher of the nations (Rom. 10:15). “Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers?” (1 Cor. 12:29)—and answers in another epistle: “no one takes this honor upon himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was” (Heb. 5:4), and
e) charged and exhorted all believers in general: “obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls, as those who must give account” (Heb. 13:17, and others).
3) From the whole subsequent history of Christianity. As the Apostles taught, so afterward taught the apostolic men as well, who, without doubt, knew the will of their teachers best of all—such as St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius the God-bearer631; so too taught the pastors who came after them: Cyprian632, Gregory the Theologian633, Chrysostom634, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great635, the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (in canon 64), and others. All of them unanimously affirmed that the pastors of the Church are the true successors of the Apostles, and that they alone have received, through succession from the Apostles, the lawful authority and duty to be the guardians and interpreters of divine revelation, while all the laity must obey the voice of their pastors and have no right to teach. “It is not fitting for a layman,” says precisely the 64th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, “to speak a word publicly, or to teach, and thus assume for himself the dignity of a teacher, but to obey the order handed down from the Lord, to open his ear to those who have received the grace of the teaching word, and to be instructed by them in divine things. For in the one Church God has made different members, according to the word of the Apostle (1 Cor. 12:27), which, in explaining, Gregory the Theologian clearly shows the order existing among them, saying: let us honor this order, brethren, let us keep it. Let this one be the ear, and that one the tongue: this one the hand, and another something else. Let this one teach, that one learn. And after a few more words he goes on to say: let the one who is taught be in submission, let the one who distributes, distribute with gladness, let the one who serves, serve with zeal. Let us not all be the tongue, even though this is the readiest of all members, nor all be apostles, nor all prophets, nor all interpreters. And after some further words he says again: why do you make yourself a shepherd, when you are a sheep; why do you become the head, when you are the foot. Why do you attempt to command an army, having been placed in the ranks of the soldiers. And in another place wisdom commands: “be not rash in your words” (Eccl. 5:1): “do not, being poor, vie with the rich” (Prov. 23:4): do not seek to be wiser than the wise. And should anyone be found transgressing the present canon, let him be excommunicated from church communion for forty days.”
It is understandable, after this, in what sense above all the word Church must be understood, when speaking of her infallibility in the matter of teaching. Infallible, without doubt, is the whole Church of Christ in general, consisting of pastors and the shepherded. But since the guarding, preaching, and interpreting of divine revelation to the people is entrusted properly to the order of pastors636; since the shepherded are obligated unswervingly to follow, in this holy matter, the voice of their God-appointed guides (Eph. 4:11-15; Acts 20:28; Heb. 5:4, 13 and 17): it is evident that, in unfolding the teaching on the infallibility of the Church, one must have chiefly in view the teaching Church637, joined, however, inseparably to the taught Church.638 “The Holy Spirit teaches the Church through the holy Fathers and teachers of the catholic Church,” say the Orthodox Eastern Patriarchs, “the Church is instructed by the Life-giving Spirit, but not otherwise than through the mediation of the holy Fathers and teachers… The catholic Church cannot err or go astray, and pronounce falsehood in place of truth: for the Holy Spirit, always working through the faithfully-serving Fathers and teachers of the Church, preserves her from every error.”639 This, however, will become clearer from what follows.
II. ON THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH
§ 136. Proofs of the Infallibility of the Church
I. For anyone who believes in the divinity of revelation, the teaching on the infallibility of the Church must be beyond doubt. For in the Word of God:
1) To sayings of the first kind belong above all —
a) The Savior’s words on the Church’s inexhaustibility and invincibility: “I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This invincibility of the Church would plainly be impossible, if the Church were not exempted from every possibility of erring in the doctrine of the faith. For her deviation from the truth of doctrine would necessarily entail also deviations in the sacred rites, in governance, and in everything else; and all this would incontestably testify that the gates of hell had prevailed against the Church, and that she was no longer the Church of Christ, pure and holy.
b) The words of St. Paul the Apostle on the appointment of the teaching Church, or the teachers of the faith: “And he gave some to be apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ…, that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the craftiness of deceitful scheming” (Eph. 4:11-15). That is, the appointment of teachers of the faith within the Church consists, among other things, in this: that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men. How, then, could this lofty purpose of the teaching Church be achieved, if even the whole of her were not exempted from the possibility of erring?
c) The words of this same Apostle concerning the Church, where he directly and clearly calls her the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:14-16). That you may know, wrote the teacher of the nations to his beloved Timothy, how one ought to conduct oneself in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And confessedly great is the mystery of piety: God was manifested in the flesh… (ἵνα εἰδῇς, πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ Θεοῦ ἀναστρέφεσθαι, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ ζῶντος, στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας. Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον. Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη). It must be observed:
aa) That the pillar and ground of the truth, in the passage before us, denotes not the great mystery of piety, as some suppose, but precisely the Church: this is evident, first, from the Greek reading of the passage in question, where, after the words Θεοῦ ζῶντος, στύλος follows directly without the article, whereas after the words καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστί the article τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας is placed, which, as those versed in the Greek language observe, marks a new subject; second, from the very expression στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα: in parallel passages of the Bible a similar thing is said of the Church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20); finally, from the testimony of the ancient teachers of the Church—Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, and others—who read the passage under discussion in the most ancient manuscripts precisely as we read it.640
bb) That the Church of which the Apostle speaks here is not the particular church of Ephesus, but the Church of Christ in general. For to her alone belongs the name Church of the living God, and she alone is likened in Holy Scripture to the house of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:16); and
cc) that by the word truth, of which the Church is here called the pillar and ground, must be understood the whole of Christian teaching, according to the usage of this word in Holy Scripture (John 1:17; 14:16; Gal. 3:1; 5:7, and others), and not some particular truth.
2) To sayings of the latter kind must be assigned the passages expressing the closest relation of the Lord Jesus Himself and of the Holy Spirit to the Church, and especially to the teaching Church. Such are —
a) All those passages in which the Lord is called the Head of the Church. Him (that is, Jesus Christ), says the holy Apostle, God the Father gave to be head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all (Eph. 1:22-23; see also Eph. 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18). If, then, the Savior, as the true Head of the Church, is always present to His body, unceasingly gives it life, and Himself invisibly governs it, it cannot be that He should allow His whole Church to depart from the truth and to err—He who is the very truth itself (John 14:6). Such a departure could occur either without His knowledge, or with His knowledge and consent: but both alike are absurd.
b) Passages where the Savior is called the supreme Ruler of the Church, to whom it belongs to reign, until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25). And to attain this end, it is necessary for the Lord to keep His kingdom of grace, that is, the Church, from errors of faith, in consequence of which this kingdom might, little by little, inevitably be destroyed; and then He would be conquered by His enemies, rather than Himself conquering them.
c) The promise which the Savior uttered to His disciples before His ascension into heaven, sending them out to preach to the whole world: and behold, I am with you all the days, even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:20). This promise applies also to all the bishops and pastors of the Church: for the duty of spreading and preserving Christ’s teaching was laid not on the Apostles alone, but on all their successors as well; and it is precisely for this purpose, as the whole structure of the passage shows, that the promise in question was given. This is likewise evident from the very expression to the end of the age, which in Holy Scripture denotes the end of the Christian economy (Matt. 13:40 and 49; 1 Cor. 15:25).
d) Another promise of Christ the Savior to His disciples: and I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you forever…, he will teach you everything, and will bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (John 14:16, 26). The words that he may be with you forever already show that the Savior, in uttering this promise, had in view not the Apostles alone, but their successors as well in the work of preaching the holy faith. And if we recall that the Apostles themselves attributed this special assistance of the Holy Spirit not to themselves alone, but, in general, to the pastors of the Church whom they themselves appointed (2 Tim. 1:14; Acts 20:28): in that case this truth will present itself to us in its full light.
II. And it must be noted that this teaching on the infallibility of the Church is not some new teaching, unknown to the Christians of old. No—it is as ancient as the Church herself: this teaching was unanimously proclaimed to the faithful, in every age, by the Christian pastors and teachers. Thus —
St. Ignatius the God-bearer says: “for this reason the Lord received the anointing upon His head, that He might impart to the Church incorruptibility (ἀφθαρσίαν).”641
St. Irenaeus: “Truth is not to be sought from others, but is to be learned from the Church, into which, as into a rich storehouse, the Apostles have deposited everything that is true. Here let whoever wishes draw for himself the life-giving drink. Here is the door of life; all others are thieves and robbers, and therefore they must be shunned, while what proceeds from the Church must be loved, and the tradition of truth (veritatis traditionem) received from her.”642 “Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God also; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every grace, for the Spirit is truth.”643 “The Church everywhere proclaims the truth, and she is the seven-branched lampstand, shining with the light of Christ.”644
Origen: “those must not be heeded who say: here is Christ, but point to him outside the Church—which is filled with splendor from east to west, filled with true light, and is the pillar and ground of the truth, and in which is the perpetual presence of the Son of man, saying to all and everywhere: behold, I am with you all the days, even to the end of the age.”645
St. Cyprian: “the true, saving, and holy water of the Church” (thus does the holy father call her teaching) “cannot be altered or corrupted, even as the Church herself is uncorrupted (incorrupta), pure, and chaste”; and elsewhere: “those who have fallen away from Christ will perish through their own fault, but the Church, which believes in Christ, and holds fast what she has once known, will never wholly fall away from Him (nunquam ab eo omnino recedere).”646
St. Alexander of Alexandria: “(we confess) one catholic and Apostolic Church, ever unconquered, though the whole world should arm itself against her, and victorious over every impious uprising of the unorthodox.”647
Theophilus of Alexandria: “God grants His Church, in every age, one and the same grace, that the whole body may be preserved, and that in nothing should the poison of heretical dogmas gain the upper hand.”648
St. Chrysostom: “by the mountain (the Prophet) means the Church, and the invincibility of her dogmas.649 In truth, the Church is a mountain in firmness, strength, and indestructibility: for as a mountain cannot be shaken, so neither can the Church of God.650 The Church is not bound by the character of the times, but is governed by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and therefore does not grow old, nor grow weak, nor is overcome, however hard pressed by many.”651
St. Isidore of Pelusium: “by the gates of hell the Word of God meant the assemblies of the godless and the blasphemies of the heresies, all of which the Church of God resists, herself conquering them, but never being conquered by them (οὐ κατακυριεύεται).”652
Blessed Augustine: “the Church shall never depart from the truth, to the ages of ages: for she is the foreordained pillar and ground of the truth.”653
St. Cyril of Alexandria: “the Church is wholly invincible (ἀκλόνητος παντελῶς), having Christ as her foundation and unshakable support.”654
Exactly the same testimonies concerning the infallible teaching authority of the Church are found also in very many other teachers: in Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius and Basil the Great655, Ambrose656, Epiphanius657, Jerome658, in our own Metropolitan Philip659, St. Demetrius of Rostov, and others.660
§ 137. Explanation of the Concept of the Infallibility of the Church
From everything said thus far concerning the infallibility of the Church, it emerges that —
1) The author and sole source of the Church’s infallibility is the three-hypostatic God: the heavenly Father, who sanctifies Christians in His truth (John 17:17); the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who promised to remain with His followers all the days, even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:20); and the Holy Spirit, who guides them into all truth (John 16:13). Consequently, it is not, properly speaking, the people who compose the Church—the body of Christ—but, let us repeat, the three-hypostatic God Himself, or more precisely the Lord Himself, the Head of the Church, who, by the power of His all-holy Spirit, preserves within her, in all purity and integrity, His divine teaching, and guards her from error.
2) The instrument through which the Holy Spirit teaches the Church and guards her from every error is the successors of the Apostles, the pastors and teachers of the Church (Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, art. 12), and, moreover, not any single pastor, or even only some of them, but all together, that is, the whole teaching Church.
I) They are the pastors of the Church. For:
a) it is precisely they who, among other purposes, were raised up in the Church by the Lord for the very purpose of teaching others the faith, so that believers should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14); the pastors have been entrusted to guard, preach, and interpret divine revelation, while the shepherded are bound to obey the voice of their pastors and have no right to teach (§ 135)—so that a departure from the truth by all the pastors would necessarily and inevitably be followed by a departure from it by the whole flock as well, that is, by the whole Church. Let us recall too that
b) all the passages of Scripture we have examined, in which the Savior speaks of aid from on high, of His own assistance and that of the Holy Spirit, apply most directly to the holy Apostles. And, through them, directly to their successors, the pastors as well (see, in § 135, the explanations on the words: behold, I am with you…, and He will give you another Comforter…). This is precisely how all Christian antiquity regarded the pastors as well: “We are the successors of the Apostles, governing the Church of God with that same authority,” St. Cyprian greeted the bishops at the Council of Carthage.661 “Among us the place of the Apostles is occupied by the bishops,” said another renowned teacher of the Church.662 “One must obey the pastors who are in the Church,” wrote St. Irenaeus still earlier, “who have succession from the Apostles, and who, by the good pleasure of the Father, have received, together with the succession of the episcopate, the sure gift of truth.”663
II) They are all the pastors together, that is, the whole teaching Church. For:
a) it is not any particular church, but the universal Church, that is called in the Word of God the pillar and ground of the truth, and it was of her that the Savior said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her;
b) whereas, in respect of particular pastors and teachers, it is clearly said in Holy Scripture that they can err in the faith: “and from among your own selves,” remarked the holy Apostle to the pastors of the church of Ephesus, “men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:30). In like manner, too —
c) particular churches, according to the revelation given to John the Theologian (Rev. 2:5) and according to the testimony of history, can fall away from the truth of Christ: in them the lampstand can be removed from its place. Consequently, if, in the matter of the doctrine of the faith, the true representative of the whole Church is indeed the teaching Church, or the primates of the Church: then it follows that not each one of them separately, but only all of them together, can be recognized as free from the danger of falling into error. And this truth —
d) the whole Church has constantly recognized, in that, in the weightiest matters touching the holy faith, she has had recourse to the ecumenical Councils. This is why “we” (let us say in the words of the most holy Eastern Patriarchs) “are not only convinced, but also, without doubt, confess it as a firm truth, that the catholic” (and not any particular one) “Church cannot err or go astray, and pronounce falsehood in place of truth. For the Holy Spirit, always working through the faithfully-serving Fathers and teachers of the Church, preserves her from every error” (Encyclical on the Orthodox Faith, art. 12).
3) The object of the Church’s infallibility comprises all the truths of the Christian faith in general, contained in revelation, that is, both in Holy Scripture and in sacred Tradition. For:
a) the Savior promised to remain with the preachers of the Gospel all the days, even to the end of the age, and, consequently, to be their constant, invisible guide, having commanded them precisely to teach the world to keep all that He had commanded (Matt. 28:20);
b) so too, concerning the Holy Spirit, the new heavenly Instructor, who, having descended, according to the Savior’s promise, upon the Apostles, has ever since abode in the Church forever and guards her from every error, the Savior said to His disciples: the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything, and will bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (John 14:26). It would therefore be unjust to expect infallibility from the Church even in all those truths which have no basis at all either in Holy Scripture or in sacred Tradition, and which do not pertain to the essence of the Christian faith—such, for instance, as philosophical or historical truths, and, in general, such truths for which the only basis can be the testimonies or reasonings of men, and not divine revelation.
4) And, consequently, the infallibility of the Church consists in this: that the Lord Jesus, having entrusted to the order of pastors the guarding and preaching of divine revelation, never, by the grace of His all-holy Spirit, permits, and never will permit, all of them together to depart from the truth in this great matter, and, through the pastors, of course, will not permit their whole flock to depart from it either. Thus it is by no means ascribed to the Church that she receives any new revelations whatsoever from God; it is said only that she preserves, in all its fullness and truth, the revelation formerly bequeathed to her. And, consequently, there is by no means ascribed to her the gift of inspiration (inspiratio), which the holy Apostles possessed, but only the accompanying presence of the Holy Spirit (assistentia), which guards her from error.
§ 138. The Ways in Which the Church Expresses Her Infallibility
If the Holy Spirit teaches the catholic Church and guards her from errors in no other way than through the mediation of the faithfully-serving Fathers and teachers (bishops and pastors in general): then the sole means for expressing, when needed, the infallible testimony of the Church concerning this or that revealed truth is the unanimous agreement, in respect of this truth, of the whole teaching Church, upon which the agreement of all the faithful must then naturally follow. For the teaching Church to express such agreement, two means are possible: the primates of the particular churches can express it by expressly gathering together, all as one, at an ecumenical Council; but they can also express it without gathering at Councils, but rather by means of mutual communications, each remaining in his own place, under the ordinary condition of the Church (in statu quo).
§ 139. The Infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils
The infallibility of the ecumenical Councils in their definitions concerning the truths of divine revelation —
I. Is directly evident from the fact that these Councils represent the whole Church of Christ in general. For at them there are present the bishops (together with the other pastors), so far as possible, of all the local churches. And it is known, from the mutual relation of bishops and their flocks, that “the bishop,” as St. Cyprian says, “is in the church, and the church is in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church.”664 This is why even Tertullian, in his own time, called the Councils, composed of pastors from everywhere, the representatives of the whole Christian world;665 blessed Augustine likewise affirmed that the judgment of a full Council is the agreement of the whole Church;666 and the First Ecumenical Council itself concluded its own creed with the following words: these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.667 And therefore, to admit the fallibility of the ecumenical Councils is to admit the fallibility of the whole Church.
II. Is explained by the fact that the Lord Jesus Himself, with the Holy Spirit, was present at the Councils. We base this our belief:
a) on the Savior’s promise to the Apostles, and, in their persons, to their successors as well: and behold, I am with you all the days, even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:20). How, then, is it possible to suppose that He would have left the teachers of the faith only in those very days when they gathered at Councils, and when His assistance was most necessary to them? —
b) on His other promise: where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them (Matt. 18:20). How, then, could it be that He was not present at the ecumenical Councils, where there gathered not two or three, but whole assemblies of pastors, so far as possible, from the whole world—and gathered precisely for the glory of His name, for the defense of His holy faith, for the explanation and definition of dogmas concerning, above all, His own Person, for the establishment and confirmation of His Church and of the eternal salvation of souls redeemed by His priceless blood?668 We base it —
c) finally, on His third promise: and I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you forever…, he will guide you into all truth (John 14:16; 16:13). But nowhere, and never, was it more necessary for the pastors of the Church to be guided into all truth by the Spirit of truth than at the ecumenical Councils. For here, so far as possible, all the supreme pastors of the Church gathered together. Consequently, had they all here departed from the truth and erred, the whole universal Church would then have erred as well. Here, moreover, were examined truths that may be called foundational among all the other truths of Christianity, and with whose fall the whole of Christianity would have fallen as well.
III. And this faith in the infallibility of the ecumenical Councils, this faith in the invisible presence at them of the Lord Himself with the Holy Spirit, the Orthodox Church has always held and confessed, as can be seen:
1) From the testimonies of her individual teachers of various places and times, for example:
a) St. Athanasius: “the Word of God, through the ecumenical (Nicene) Council, abides forever”669;
b) St. Basil the Great: “confess the faith set forth by our Fathers who assembled at Nicaea, and reject not a single one of the Nicene expressions, but know that these three hundred and eighteen fathers spoke this not without an unmistakable agreement, and not without the prompting of the Holy Spirit”670; and further: “where spiritual men take the lead in deliberations, and the people of the Lord follow them by unanimous verdict, will anyone doubt that the council is formed in communion with our Lord Jesus Christ, who poured out His blood for the churches?”671;
c) St. Gregory the Theologian: “at the holy Council in Nicaea, among that number of chosen men whom the Holy Spirit gathered together as one, he” (St. Athanasius the Great), “so far as it depended on him, put an end to the malady”672;
d) St. Ambrose: “I follow the definition of the Council of Nicaea, from which neither sword nor death can separate me”673;
e) St. Cyril of Alexandria: “with them” (the Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea), “in very truth, there sat also Jesus Christ Himself, who once said: where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them…; how, then, can it be doubted that He invisibly presided at this holy and great Council, when here, for the world, was laid the immovable and unshakable foundation, the confession of the pure and blameless faith?” — and elsewhere: “the Holy Spirit Himself inspired the truth in them” (that is, in the Fathers of the Council) (Matt. 10:20); “for it was not they themselves who spoke, but the Spirit of God and the Father spoke in them”674;
f) St. Gregory the Great: “I confess that I receive and revere the four Councils in exactly the same way as the four books of the Holy Gospel”675;
g) Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (806-815): “I reverently honor and receive the seven holy and ecumenical Councils, and all the supernatural dogmas and definitions established and confirmed at them by our holy and divine Fathers.”676
2) From the testimonies of the ecumenical Councils themselves, which affirmed that they are gathered together with the Holy Spirit (Council of Ephesus, canon 7); that the Lord Jesus Himself is invisibly present in their midst, as the Head of the Council677, in token of which the Gospel was customarily placed in the midst of the Council upon a special elevated stand678; that their pious pronouncements are uttered from the Spirit (Sixth Ecumenical Council, canon 1); that the Councils established all things at the prompting of the Holy Spirit (Seventh Ecumenical Council, canon 1)—and their own decrees, beginning them, after the example of the Apostolic Council, with the words it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, called now sacred and divine canons (Sixth Ecumenical Council, canon 2, and Seventh Ecumenical Council, canon 1), now immutable ordinances. Thus, concerning the Creed of the First Ecumenical Council, the Fathers present at the Second decreed: “let not the Creed of Faith of the 318 Fathers who were at the Council in Nicaea, which is in Bithynia, be set aside, but let it remain immutable” (canon 1). The very same thing, concerning the definitions of the Council of Nicaea, was likewise decreed, in its seventh canon, by the Third Ecumenical Council; it was then repeated, in its first canon, by the Trullan Council, now concerning all the Councils that had preceded it. Finally, the Seventh Ecumenical Council says: “the canons and ordinances set down by the former ecumenical Councils remain unbroken and unshaken…; we receive the divine canons with delight, and hold entire and unshaken the ordinance of these canons, set forth by the all-praised Apostles, the holy trumpets of the Spirit, and by the six holy ecumenical Councils, and by those gathered locally for the promulgation of such precepts, and by our holy Fathers. For all of them, having been enlightened by one and the same Spirit, established what is profitable” (canon 1).
3) From the practice of the Orthodox Church. She:
a) has honored the memory of all seven ecumenical Councils with special spiritual observances679;
b) in her hymns magnifies them as seven pillars, on which the truth of her Orthodoxy stands immovably against every heresy680, and, moreover, confesses: “the seven spirits that rested upon Christ, Isaiah spoke of this: upon the seven Councils Christ rested, with the Father and the Divine Spirit”681;
c) requires faith in all the decrees of the Councils, both ecumenical and the local ones she has received, from every person entering into the number of her members682; and
d) has decreed that confession of this faith be read in the Episcopal Oath, as one of the chief articles of Orthodoxy.683
The definitions of particular, or local, Councils, though they cannot be considered infallible, nonetheless possess great importance for the local churches whose bishops were present at those Councils. But if these definitions are examined and confirmed by an ecumenical Council and received by the whole Church, in that case they acquire for us an importance equal to that of the ecumenical Councils’ own definitions. This is why our Orthodox Church believes that “everything that the holy Fathers decreed at all the ecumenical (seven) and local (nine) Orthodox Councils, wherever they may have been convened, proceeds from the Holy Spirit, just as the Apostles said at their own Council: it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”684
§ 140. The Infallibility of the Church in Her Ordinary Condition (in statu quo…)
It must also be admitted that the unanimous teaching of all the hierarchs and pastors of the Church in general, even should they not be convened at a Council, but remain each in his own place, and, consequently, the unanimous belief of the whole Church concerning the truths of divine revelation, is equally infallible as the definitions of the ecumenical Councils. For this proposition too —
1) Is a necessary consequence of our faith in the infallibility of the Church. And the Savior promised His own invisible presence and the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the teaching Church not at Councils alone, but precisely in that form in which He instituted her. And, in instituting this Church, He appointed her members to be scattered across the whole earth: go into all the world, proclaim the gospel to every creature; go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, He said to the holy Apostles, and, in their persons, to all their successors as well.
2) Is reinforced by the constant belief and practice of the Church. The ancient teachers regarded the unanimous testimony of all the particular churches as decisive proof of the truth of any given teaching, and affirmed that there is no better or more effective way to confound heretics than to set against them the authority of the universal Church, in her ordinary condition: “the Church,” says St. Irenaeus, “since she received the teaching of Christ, though scattered throughout the whole world, zealously guards it, as though inhabiting a single house. She believes in accord with the Apostles, as though possessing one soul and one heart, and unchangingly proclaims, explains, and teaches her faith, as though possessing but one mouth.”685 “It is known,” says Tertullian likewise, “that any teaching which agrees with the belief of the original (matricibus et originalibus) apostolic churches must be held for truth, in the full assurance that the Church received this teaching from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God.”686 This is why, on the basis of just such universal agreement of the particular churches, already in the first three centuries, before the ecumenical Councils had begun, the heresies of the Ebionites, the Marcionites, Paul of Samosata, and others were already condemned and unanimously rejected, and the universal Church remained infallible. “Is it really still necessary to convene a Council,” says blessed Augustine, discussing the heresy of the Pelagians, “to expose so manifest a ruin? As though no heresy had ever been condemned without the calling of a Council—when, on the contrary, very few heresies are known for whose exposure such a necessity arose, while many, and indeed by far the greater number, were, wherever they appeared, subjected in those very places to just exposure and condemnation, and word of it was already sent from there to all the other churches, as a warning.”687
How, then, is one to learn the agreement or disagreement of all the particular churches concerning this or that revealed truth? This can be learned:
a) from the symbolic books received in those churches, from their established belief and constant practice; or one may —
b) request, should the need arise, written answers to the questions proposed, from all the primates of the particular churches.
§ 141. The Importance of the Teaching of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church
I. It is now not difficult to determine the importance of the teaching of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church with respect to the truths of the Christian faith. This importance can be expressed in the following proposition: “the unanimous agreement of all the Fathers and teachers of the Church in the teaching on the subjects of divine revelation, or the Christian faith, is an undoubted mark of truth.” For —
1) the holy Fathers and teachers, who lived in various places and at various times, are representatives of their particular churches. And, consequently, the unanimous agreement of all the Fathers and teachers expresses the unanimous agreement of all the particular churches in which they were primates, that is, of the universal Church—and, moreover, not at one time only, but at various times.
2) The concordant testimony of all the Fathers and teachers, as we have seen (§ 132), is an unimpeachable proof of Apostolic tradition, that is, that the teaching thus affirmed by them without doubt traces its origin to the Apostles themselves.
3) To this must be added the special antiquity of some of the Fathers, the zeal of all of them for Orthodoxy, and the abundance of the spiritual gifts they possessed. Some of the holy Fathers were direct disciples of the Apostles. St. Paul instructed Hermas and Dionysius the Areopagite in the faith; St. John the Theologian instructed Ignatius and Polycarp; Barnabas and Clement were, moreover, fellow-workers of the Apostles. “And the Apostles,” as Irenaeus attests, “if they possessed certain hidden mysteries, which they not infrequently revealed only to the perfect—imparted these mysteries especially to those to whom they entrusted the churches themselves. For they desired to render perfect, and blameless in every respect, their future successors, appointing them to the teaching office.”688 The apostolic men, following the example and injunction of their divine teachers, handed down the whole apostolic teaching to their own disciples and successors, such as Pantaenus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and the rest; these, in turn, to their own, and so on.689
The zeal for Orthodoxy of the holy Fathers is known from their individual biographies, from the history of the Councils, and, in general, from the history of the whole Church. Countless proofs testify that these renowned pastors held it their most essential duty to guard the Orthodox faith and to sacrifice everything for it: “I have resolved to allow myself no rest, and to endure anything for the faith of Christ,” wrote St. Cyril of Alexandria, at the appearance of the Nestorian heresy.690 “I gladly forget wrongs and slanders,” he says in another of his letters, “God will be their judge! Let only the faith be preserved. But should anyone betray the faith, we must not alter our conscience, even should our very lives be threatened.”691 “Neither persecutions, nor torments, nor the threats of Emperors,” wrote the Fathers of the First Council of Constantinople to the Western bishops, “nor the cruelty of rulers, nor any other calamity or oppression from the heretics, can turn us aside from the Orthodox faith defined at the Council of Nicaea—which faith we counsel you, and all the faithful, to follow.”692 And we know, indeed, that some of the holy Fathers, for their zeal for Orthodoxy, were sent into exile (for instance, St. Hilary, St. Chrysostom); others were deprived of their episcopate (for instance, St. Gregory of Nyssa, for eight years, until the death of Valens); still others endured persecution their whole life long (St. Athanasius); a fourth group even tasted a martyr’s death (St. Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Cyprian, Irenaeus).
The abundance of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:3-14; cf. 1 John 2:20), which the holy Fathers of the Church possessed, is likewise known from the history of their lives, and attested by the holy Church herself, who has adorned them with the titles divine, God-bearing, God-wise, God-speaking,693 and, besides this, calls some of them great, others wonderworkers, others golden-mouthed, and so forth.
4) This same importance the whole Church clearly ascribed to the teaching of the Fathers, when, at the ecumenical Councils, in her deliberations on matters of dispute, she always had the custom, after Holy Scripture, of having recourse to the unanimous agreement of these ancient renowned teachers of hers, and followed it in her definitions. The Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, begins its dogma thus: following the divine Fathers, we all with one accord teach.694 The Fifth Ecumenical Council expresses its confession thus: “we follow, in all things, the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church of God as well: Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo, and we receive everything that they wrote on the Orthodox faith and for the condemnation of heretics. We receive also the other holy and Orthodox fathers, who to the end of their lives proclaimed the right faith without reproach in the holy Church of God.”695 The Sixth Ecumenical Council confirmed the dogma of the two wills and operations in Jesus Christ, likewise according to the teaching of our holy Fathers.696 Finally, the Seventh Ecumenical Council too confirmed its dogma, following the God-speaking teaching of the holy Fathers.697
5) This same importance was ascribed to the concordant teaching of the Fathers by particular renowned pastors of the Church as well, for example:
a) St. Cyril of Alexandria: “all who possess sound judgment strive to follow the teaching of the Fathers: for they themselves too were instructed by the apostolic and evangelical tradition, and expounded the teaching of the faith from the holy Scriptures with complete correctness, without error or fault, having been lights in the world”698;
b) Vincent of Lérins, a respected writer of the 5th century (around 460), who lays down this rule concerning the use of patristic testimony: “what all, or many, hold, keep, and pass on with one accord, openly and constantly, as though by some prior agreement of their teachers, must be considered fully trustworthy and beyond doubt.”699 Let us recall too that many holy Fathers had the custom of proving Christian truths by a chain of testimonies drawn from the writings of earlier holy Fathers—for instance, St. Athanasius the Great, when he wrote against the Arians on the consubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father700; St. Basil the Great, in his book on the Holy Spirit against Macedonius701; St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his work against Nestorius702; blessed Theodoret, in many of his writings703; St. John of Damascus likewise in many, especially in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith and in his Discourses on the Holy Icons.
II. But, in thus ascribing full authority to all the Fathers and teachers together, when they concordantly affirm something in the teaching on the subjects of divine revelation, we must bear in mind:
1) that no such authority whatsoever may be ascribed to each Father taken separately. For all their holiness, for all the abundance of their spiritual gifts, the holy Fathers were not God-inspired, as were the holy Prophets and Apostles, and therefore the patristic writings must never be equated with the canonical books of Holy Scripture. The holy Fathers were not infallible each one separately; on the contrary, they could err, and some indeed did err, whereas the holy Prophets and Apostles were infallible each one separately, and set forth for us, in their God-inspired writings, only the one pure truth. “We must by no means,” says blessed Augustine on this occasion, “regard the reasonings of certain men, even Orthodox and praiseworthy ones, on the same level as the canonical Scriptures. Nor should we suppose that it is not permitted us, while showing due respect to these persons, to decline, and even to reject, certain things in their writings, should we come to know with certainty that they thought otherwise than the truth requires, as that truth has been understood either by others, or by ourselves with God’s help. This is how I regard the writings of others; this is how I wish my own to be regarded.”704
2) that no such authority whatsoever may be ascribed to the Fathers and teachers in those instances where they disagree among themselves; on the contrary, the voice even of the Fathers themselves must then be tested by the voice of the universal Church. This is sufficiently well known to everyone from the practice of the Councils.
3) that no such authority whatsoever may be ascribed to the holy Fathers and teachers when they discourse on matters that do not concern divine revelation. It is known that many renowned teachers of the Church—for instance, blessed Augustine, St. John of Damascus—not infrequently wrote on truths that do not pertain at all to the essence of the Christian faith, and are not contained in revelation. Such are their writings on philosophy, history, grammar, astronomy, and other natural sciences, on music, poetry, and so forth. In all writings, or even isolated thoughts, of this kind, the holy Fathers appear not as teachers of the Church, but as ordinary scholars, and could err just as all men err. These subjects, as we have already noted (§ 137), do not belong to the sphere of those matters in respect of which infallibility is ascribed to the universal Church herself.
III. One must not be scandalized by the occasional disagreement one meets with, on the part of this or that ancient, respected teacher of the Church, concerning certain revealed truths, with the unanimous teaching of all the other pastors; rather, this disagreement must be regarded as the teacher’s own private opinion: “everything,” remarks Vincent of Lérins, who discoursed at length on this very subject, “everything that any saintly and learned man, whether bishop, confessor, or martyr, thought contrary to all the rest, or even in contradiction to all—all such must be assigned to personal, private, hidden opinions, and distinguished from the authority of the common, public, and universal belief.”705 Truly regrettable are those among the Christians themselves who deliberately collect the various unintentional errors of the ancient renowned pastors and Fathers of the Church, thereby making themselves like Ham, who, having seen the innocent nakedness of his father, not only failed to cover it, but, to mock him, even told his brothers of it. This same judicious writer (Vincent of Lérins) observes that, in order to ascertain the concordant teaching of the Fathers, there is no need to gather the testimonies of every single one of them, but it suffices to adduce the testimonies of many of them. And in confirmation of his thought he points to the example of the ecumenical Council of Ephesus, which recognized as the unanimous agreement of all the Fathers the testimonies of only ten of the most renowned among them, as representatives of the whole Church.706 And one cannot but agree with such a remark. For not all the Fathers had occasion to write on every revealed truth, and many of their writings have not come down to us. Finally, it must be remembered that the canons of the holy Fathers, recognized and confirmed by the ecumenical Councils, possess for us an importance equal to that of the canons of these Councils themselves.707
III. ON THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
§ 142. Connection with What Precedes, and the Divisions of the Present Inquiry
Now that we have unfolded the truth that the holy Church has been appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the Word of God for all people, and that this teacher of the faith is infallible, and, consequently, wholly reliable, it would remain for us only to say: therefore, it is the duty of every believer to entrust himself wholly to this infallible guide… But the question arises: where, then, is this true Church of Christ, to whom we could entrust ourselves entirely? At the present day there exists on earth not one, but several Christian Churches, or communities, of which, moreover, each calls only itself the true Church, and all the rest false. To say that all of them are true is, without doubt, impossible: for truth is one, and these churches and communities differ from one another in many respects, and mutually exclude one another. To say that all of them are false is likewise impossible: for the Church of Christ, as we have seen (§ 136), is infallible, inexhaustible. Consequently, it must necessarily be admitted that one of the churches now existing, and only one, must without fail be the true, Orthodox one. Which one, then, precisely?
In order to preserve impartiality in resolving so weighty a question, we shall not directly and deliberately set out to prove the Orthodoxy of our own Church, but shall first examine the various principles which the theologians of the chief Christian confessions employ in judging this matter, and shall show which among them is the best principle. We shall then apply, or show how to apply, this principle not to our own Church alone, but to all the rest as well. Following upon this, the consequences concerning the truly Orthodox Church of Christ will of themselves become evident.
§ 143. The Principle for Judging the Orthodox Church
The chief and most commonly used of the principles on the basis of which one usually attempts to prove the truth, or Orthodoxy, of some church, are the following:
First: “the true Church is that to which the properties indicated in the words of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed fully belong: I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” This principle is employed chiefly by the theologians of the Roman church708, and sometimes by our own as well.709
Second: “the true Church is that in which the pure preaching of the Word of God and the correct administration of the sacraments are preserved.” This principle is held by the Protestants.710
Third: “the true Church is that which rightly and unchangingly preserves the infallible teaching of the ancient universal Church, and remains faithful to it in everything.” This principle has been stated and expounded by some of our own theologians711, and is plainly indicated by the very name our Church has been accustomed to use to distinguish herself from the rest—the Church Orthodox, that is, the rightly-believing Church.
I. At first sight, one cannot but recognize the merit of the first principle. It appears just: the properties of the Church indicated in the Creed can indeed be ascribed only to the one true Church among all the churches now existing. But when? Only when it has first been proved, by some other means, that a given church is indeed the true one—and by no means the reverse. That is, it is by no means possible to prove, directly on the basis of the properties of the Church indicated in the Creed, the Orthodoxy of any church now existing. Why? Because:
a) the properties in question do not, for this purpose, constitute a wholly clear and definite principle: the Creed says that the true Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic; but how each of these properties is to be understood is not defined. This is why Roman writers explain these properties in their own way, in order to prove by them the truth of their own church. We explain them somewhat differently712, in order to prove the truth of our own Church. The followers of other confessions can explain them differently still, each according to his own predetermined aim. This principle:
b) is not the final, fundamental principle, but itself presupposes yet another, further, and unknown one. The Papists, for instance, say: the Roman church is holy, catholic, and apostolic, among other reasons, because it supposedly holds the holy, catholic, and apostolic teaching. We say the very same thing of our own Church, and point to the very same reason… But the question arises: how is it known that their Church, or ours, holds such teaching? What principle is there for judging this? And is it possible, without this further, here-unnamed principle, to pronounce anything decisive on the disputed matter? In applying the principle drawn from the properties of the Church indicated in the Creed, it is in no way possible —
c) to preserve complete impartiality, because here the determining of the principle’s meaning and its application to the matter is left to the will of each individual investigator, who already belongs to some particular church or Christian community, and is, consequently, more or less predisposed in its favor. And therefore —
d) with this principle it is impossible to put an end to disputes over the Orthodoxy of the churches: for everyone, of course, will insist on the correctness of his own explanation of the properties of the true Church, so as to apply them more conveniently to his own church alone—as experience itself attests.
II. At first sight, too, the Protestant principle appears just: one could hardly refuse to call true that church of which it had been proved that in it the pure, true preaching of the Word of God and the lawful administration of the holy sacraments are indeed preserved. But how do the Protestants themselves explain this principle? And, first, what do they mean by the Word of God, and by the pure preaching of this Word? The Word of God, according to their teaching, is Holy Scripture alone, and the pure preaching of God’s Word is the interpretation of Holy Scripture—guided by Holy Scripture itself, or, more precisely, according to the free understanding of each individual interpreter. Second, to whom is it left to judge whether, in this or that church, the pure preaching of the Word of God and the lawful administration of the sacraments are preserved? It is left to the arbitrary judgment of each individual, on the basis of Holy Scripture. If this is so, then —
a) this principle is not true in itself: for the Word of God is contained not in Holy Scripture alone, but in Holy Tradition as well (§ 129); and the true interpretation of Holy Scripture is not whatever each person may construct according to his own private understanding of Scripture (§ 128), but that which agrees with Holy Tradition, preserved in the Church (§ 133), which has been appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of both (§ 135);
b) it is also entirely inconvenient in application: for this principle in no way prevents the possibility of partiality, when each person will decide the question in his own way; it in no way affords the possibility of settling the dispute conclusively, for this same reason.
III. Quite different is this last principle: it is not only free of the defects found in the two principles examined, but, on the contrary, possesses all the properties of a true principle. It is, in the first place, entirely clear and definite. When it is said that the Orthodox Church is that which rightly and unchangingly preserves the infallible teaching of the ancient universal Church, no room whatsoever is left for the questions: what, then, does this infallible teaching mean, and where shall we find it? It exists in the universally known dogmatic definitions of the ecumenical Councils and in the unanimous teaching of all the holy Fathers of the Church. No room whatsoever is left for arbitrary, deliberate reinterpretation of this teaching; all the dogmatic definitions of the ecumenical Councils are so precise and exact even in their wording, and the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers on any given subject can never bear more than one meaning. In the second place, it is the most fundamental principle, and the one of greatest importance for all. To determine the true meaning of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition unerringly and unimpeachably, to resolve conclusively questions touching the matters of the faith—there is, as we have seen, no other means than the voice of the universal Church, which the Lord Himself appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of His Word (§§ 128, 135-138). Consequently, to her alone belongs the right to appear as the supreme judge also in deciding the question of the Orthodoxy of this or that particular church; and if we reject the voice of such a judge, we shall find no higher or better tribunal on earth. And this importance, this infallibility of the universal Church, we ourselves acknowledge, and the Roman Catholics acknowledge as well. The Protestants, too, ought to acknowledge it, as indeed some of them did at the beginning, at least in applying their thought to the ancient universal Church. For the teaching on the infallibility of the Church is very clearly grounded in Holy Scripture itself (see § 136), which the Protestants accept, and must necessarily be admitted by every Christian who believes at all in the divinity of Christ the Savior and in the divine origin of His faith. This principle, finally, is the most reliable in application. Here there can be no partiality toward any particular church, for the judges will not be representatives of these very churches, but the ancient universal Church, with her unchanging, strictly defined teaching, will be the judge. Here there opens the full possibility of hearing a final verdict, to which all believers must submit, since it is pronounced by a judge authorized for this by God Himself, and an infallible judge.
Let us now state this principle distinctly. Its essence is as follows: “only that church can be called Orthodox which rightly and unchangingly preserves the infallible teaching of the universal Church, and, consequently, remains faithful to it in everything.” But —
1) it is known that the universal Church expressed her infallible voice concerning all the chief articles of the faith at the ecumenical Councils, chiefly in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and other dogmatic definitions concerning doctrines subjected to conciliar examination on the occasion of heresies, and that this Creed and these dogmatic definitions she then bequeathed to all future generations as an inviolable and unchangeable rule of faith.713 From this follows the first particular principle: “the name of the Orthodox Church must belong only to that one of the churches now existing which has preserved this most sacred rule in its entirety, without the slightest addition or subtraction; while all those churches and Christian communities which have departed, even in one point, still more in many, of the fundamental articles of the faith set forth in it, have already gravely erred, and are not Orthodox.”
2) it is known that, concerning all the remaining dogmas about which there was no occasion to deliberate, or even to touch upon, at the ecumenical Councils, the universal Church expressed her infallible voice in the concordant teaching of all her renowned Fathers and teachers. And this Faith of the Fathers she likewise bequeathed to all future generations as inviolable and unchangeable.714 From this follows the second particular principle: “only that one of the churches now existing which can, and rightly does, ground all the dogmas it proclaims on the concordant belief of the Fathers, or of all ancient Christendom, is truly the Orthodox Church. But churches and Christian communities that confess certain new dogmas, of which sacred Christian antiquity never even heard, dogmas disagreeing with the teaching of the ancient teachers, and even contradicting it, certainly do not deserve the name of Orthodox churches.”
One could point also to a third means for resolving the question of which of the present-day churches is the Orthodox Church: this a new ecumenical Council would have every right to decide, were one expressly to be convened, and it would, without doubt, decide it infallibly. But there is no need at all to resort to such a means: a new ecumenical Council, truly lawful, cannot decide the matter contrary to the ancient ecumenical Councils and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, for there and here the author of infallibility is one and the same, the Holy Spirit. Consequently, whichever of the churches now existing should be found in the right before the tribunal of the ancient ecumenical Councils and the holy Fathers, that church, without question, would be found in the right before the tribunal of a new ecumenical Council as well. And a church found in the wrong before the tribunal of the ancient ecumenical Councils and the holy Fathers, a new ecumenical Council would never vindicate, would never call true, or Orthodox.
§ 144. Application of the Chosen Principles to the Eastern Orthodox Church
The application of the first principle alone already clearly demonstrates the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the non-Orthodoxy of all the rest. For, of all the churches now existing, she alone, in keeping with the bequest of the universal Church, has preserved in its entirety, without the slightest alteration, addition, or subtraction, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and all the dogmatic definitions in general of the seven ancient ecumenical Councils. Whereas among the rest of the churches there is not one that has not altered this sacred Rule of Faith.
In proof of the constant, most perfect reverence of the Eastern Orthodox Church for the seven ecumenical Councils and their dogmatic definitions, it will suffice to point (beginning from the time when, upon the separation of the Roman patriarchate from her, she alone remained the guardian of ancient Orthodoxy):
1) To the Creed delivered to us by the Greeks already at the very beginning, at the baptism of the great prince Vladimir, where this reverence is plainly bequeathed.715
2) To the series of Confessions read by the pastors of the Eastern Church at the Councils, such as, for instance, the Confession of St. Gregory Palamas, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, read at the Council of Constantinople in 1350, in which this same reverence is expressed.716 Or the Confession of St. Mark of Ephesus, composed by him at Florence, on the occasion of the Council held there, containing, among other things, the following memorable words: “Following in all things the seven holy ecumenical Councils and the God-wise Fathers who shone at them, I believe in one God the Father Almighty, and so forth. This sacred teaching, this Creed, composed at the first and second Councils, sealed and confirmed by the rest, I receive and hold with my whole soul, accepting and maintaining, besides the aforesaid seven Councils, also the last one, convened by the pious Basil, Emperor of the Romans, and the most holy Patriarch Photius, and called the eighth ecumenical, at which, in the presence of the legates of John, blessed pope of ancient Rome—Paul and Eugenius, bishops, and Peter, presbyter and cardinal—the Seventh Ecumenical Council was confirmed and approved, it was determined to be in accord also with the Councils that came before it, the most holy Photius was restored to his throne, and those who dared to make any addition, subtraction, or complete alteration to the aforesaid Creed were condemned and given over to anathema, just as at the ecumenical Councils that preceded it. If anyone, it is said there, dares to write another (Creed), or to add anything to it, or to take anything from it, and to call this a definition of faith (ὅρος), let him be condemned and cut off from every Christian communion! The same is said also by Pope John, in his letter to the most holy Photius, and with still greater detail and clarity, concerning any addition to that Creed. This Council also set forth canons, which may be found in all the canonical books. Thus, by the definition of this Council, as of those that preceded it, the sacred Creed must be kept inviolate in the form in which it was published. And I, receiving those whom the aforesaid Councils receive, and rejecting those whom they reject, will never receive into communion those who have dared to attach to the Creed a new teaching concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, so long as they hold to that teaching.”717
3) To the series of Confessions customarily read by our own hierarchs before their consecration to the episcopal rank: “I accept,” they said, “and confess the exposition (of the faith) of the seven ecumenical Councils, and I resolve to love and observe the canons and ordinances established by them, in whatever measure our sacred Fathers, at various times and years, have set them forth, and I accept all those whom they accepted, and I reject all those from whom they turned away. I likewise confess to preserve the peace of the Church, and in no manner whatsoever to think contrary to it throughout the whole of my life, in all things following and obeying the holy Apostles and the seven ecumenical Councils.”718
4) To the answering letters of certain Eastern Primates to those of contrary mind, occasioned by their questions—such as the letter of the most holy Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Lutherans, in which the seven ecumenical Councils are laid down as the foundation of the whole of Orthodox teaching719; and the letter of all the Eastern Patriarchs and clergy, in 1723, to the church of Great Britain, which begins thus: “Our dogmas and the teaching of our Eastern Church have already, from ancient times, been examined, rightly and piously defined, and confirmed by the holy and ecumenical Councils; it is not permitted to add to them or to take anything from them. Therefore, those who wish to be in accord with us in the divine dogmas of the Orthodox faith must, with simplicity, obedience, and without any inquiry or curiosity, follow and submit to everything that has been defined and decreed by the ancient tradition of the Fathers, and confirmed by the holy and ecumenical Councils, from the time of the Apostles and their successors, the God-bearing Fathers of our Church.”720
5) To the Rite of Confession, which all who enter into the bosom of the Orthodox Church are obliged to pronounce: “and likewise all the rest,” says the new convert, “that has been delivered, established, and expounded by the holy Fathers at the holy seven ecumenical and local Councils, I accept and confess without any doubt whatsoever.”721
6) Finally, to the Orthodox Confession of the canonical and apostolic Eastern Church, where in one place we read: “the articles of the catholic and Orthodox faith, according to the Creed of the First Council of Nicaea and the Second of Constantinople, are twelve. In them everything belonging to our Faith is set forth so clearly that we must believe neither more, nor less, nor otherwise than in accord with the understanding of those Fathers”722; and in another place: “it must be believed that everything the holy Fathers decreed at all the ecumenical and local Councils, wherever they may have been convened, proceeds from the Holy Spirit.”723
And it must be observed that all this is kept not in confession alone, but in deed as well: no one, and in no way, can convict the Eastern Orthodox Church of having allowed even the slightest alteration in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed or in the other dogmatic definitions of the ecumenical Councils. On the contrary, even the Christians who differ from us in belief involuntarily render her this honor, and regard it as her distinguishing character, though sometimes, in their view, as a reproach to her.724
§ 145. Application of the Same Principles to Other Churches
and Christian Communities
As for the other confessions, nothing similar can be said of them: for all these confessions have, to a greater or lesser degree, altered the dogmatic definitions and canons of the ecumenical Councils, and departed from the truth of Orthodoxy.
To confirm this thought, we have no need to go through the various Christian churches or communities existing in the East, separately from the Orthodox Church, which to this day hold to certain ancient heresies already condemned by the ecumenical Councils. We mean, first, the Nestorians, condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council, who now live in Mesopotamia, chiefly along the river Tigris, in India, Persia, and Kurdistan; and, second, the Monophysites, condemned by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, who now form two churches in Africa—the Coptic and the Abyssinian—and two in Asia—the Syro-Jacobite, along the river Euphrates, and the Armenian. Let us, therefore, turn directly to the churches of the West.
I. Of these, before all others, the Roman church has departed from the dogmatic definitions of the ancient ecumenical Councils. For —
A) Contrary to the plain prohibition of these Councils against altering, in any manner whatsoever, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, she altered it, inserting into the article on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father the addition: “and from the Son (Filioque).” All the justifications that her defenders have been able to devise on this occasion, in defense of the Roman church, come down to the following two. The first: that the 7th canon of the Third Ecumenical Council, afterward confirmed by the subsequent Councils, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth, forbids, properly speaking, only the composing of creeds contrary to, or different from, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed—and, consequently, forbids the inserting into this Creed of false additions, disagreeing with it, but by no means true additions, which could serve merely as an explanation of it—such as, indeed, the addition Filioque truly is. The second: even granting that the canon in question strictly forbids making any kind of alteration or addition whatsoever to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, this prohibition, of course, falls only upon private persons, but by no means upon the whole Church, nor upon the ecumenical Councils; and the addition Filioque has been confirmed at ecumenical Councils. These are justifications that would be entirely sufficient for their purpose, were they to prove just. But the whole matter is that both of them are unjust.
1) The first is unjust: namely, that the Council of Ephesus forbade making only false, and not every kind of, addition to the Nicene Creed. Who could have interpreted the canon of the Council of Ephesus now under our consideration better than St. Cyril of Alexandria, who presided at it? And here is how he interprets this canon in his letter to John, Patriarch of Antioch: “we do not permit, under any pretext whatsoever, that the faith—or, what is the same thing, the Creed composed once by the holy Fathers at Nicaea—be distorted by anyone; we do not permit either ourselves or others to alter even a single word contained in it, or even to omit a single letter—remembering the words of him who said: do not transgress the ancient boundaries which your fathers have set.” And it must be added that this letter of St. Cyril was read and approved afterward at the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Who could have understood the sense of the canon of the Council of Ephesus now under our consideration more infallibly than the subsequent ecumenical Councils themselves, which confirmed it? Meanwhile, the ecumenical Councils themselves understood and respected the prohibition set forth in this canon so strictly that they did not even permit themselves to insert into this Creed their own dogmatic definitions—entirely true, and indeed serving only to explain the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed—but published them separately, though they could have inserted them, had they wished, being of equal authority with the Council of Ephesus. We point also to the confession of the Orthodox faith of the Emperor Justinian, written against the Three Chapters, where he says: “the holy Fathers, who assembled at Ephesus against the impious Nestorius, and the holy Fathers, who assembled afterward at Chalcedon against the impious Eutyches, anathematized those who set forth, for those approaching baptism, or converting from any heresy, some other definition of the faith, or another Creed, than the one delivered by the 318 holy Fathers (of the Council of Nicaea) and expounded by the 150 holy Fathers (of the Council of Constantinople).” We call, on the other hand, as witnesses to our opinion, certain respected Western writers or pastors themselves, such as:
a) Pope Agatho (679), who, in his letter to the Emperor Constantine, afterward read at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, says: “with simplicity of heart and with the firmness delivered to us by the Fathers of the faith, we observe everything that has been rightly defined by our holy and venerable predecessors and by the five ecumenical Councils. Desiring always the one chief good, and being concerned about but one thing—that nothing of what has been rightly defined be altered, diminished, or increased, but that it be kept inviolate in the very same words and in the very same sense.”
b) The renowned Alcuin, who, when a dispute arose in the West over the addition to the Creed of Filioque, already existing in the Spanish church, wrote to the brethren of Lyons: “Most beloved brethren, with all your strength beware of the new Spanish teaching; in your belief follow in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, and remain in most holy union with the Church: for it is written, do not transgress the boundaries set by the Fathers, and add nothing new to the Creed of the catholic Church; do not follow traditions hitherto unheard of.”
c) Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia, who at the Italian Council (in 791) decisively rejected this addition, saying: “on account of the various errors of heretics and the diverse conjectures of the ignorant, I consent to confess and to teach only that faith which has been delivered to all ages by the holy Fathers. I know that in certain conciliar scrolls it is decreed” (he means the canon of the Council of Ephesus) “that, to forestall new and manifold heresies, no one should be permitted to compose or to teach another Creed. Therefore let the intention to compose and teach the Creed, or the faith, otherwise than they” (the holy Fathers) “established it, be far from us, far from the heart of every believer. But we determine only to explain, in accordance with their meaning, that which, on account of its brevity, simple and unlearned people do not understand properly—retaining, nevertheless, this same text of the Creed… For to add anything to what the holy Fathers piously bequeathed, or to take anything away, is already incompatible with the faith.” We call as witnesses:
d) Pope Leo III, who, when the envoys of the Council of Aachen (809) proposed to him that “and from the Son” be inserted into the Creed, not only did not consent to this, but even ordered the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, without any addition, to be engraved on two silver tablets, with the inscription: haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae religionis. And to the envoys’ remark that, in this way, a true, and not a false, addition would be made to the Creed, he replied: “the Fathers did not decree that whoever thinks rightly may make an addition, while whoever does not think rightly may not; rather, they said that no one may do this.” Finally, we point to:
e) The whole Council of pastors, held at Constantinople under the Emperor Basil and Patriarch Photius (867) and long considered in the East to be the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which did indeed represent the whole universal Church, since at it, besides a great multitude of bishops, all the ecumenical Patriarchs, and the pope himself, were present in the persons of their legates. And it was here, once more, before the eyes of the whole world, as though expressly against the Latins, who had already by then admitted Filioque, that the universal Church repeated, with all definiteness, the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus concerning the unalterability of the Creed: “We confess with mind and heart,” said the Fathers of this Council, having mentioned the immutability of the definitions of all the seven previous ecumenical Councils, “and we proclaim aloud to all and everywhere the pattern of the purest Christian faith, which has come down to us from our forefathers, taking nothing away, adding nothing, altering and perverting nothing. For such subtraction and addition, even should it not raise up any heresy by the wiles of the evil one, causes an unintended and unpardonable offense to the Fathers, who are blameless in all things. Still more ruinous than this is it, if we substitute counterfeit words for the definition of the Fathers. Wherefore this holy Ecumenical Council, receiving, by divine inspiration and with right thinking, the original definition of the faith, and laying in it the firm foundation of salvation, proclaims that all should likewise think and confess: I believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible, and so forth” (the whole Creed to the end). “All of us think thus; in this confession we were baptized; through it the word of truth renders every heresy weak and powerless. Those who think thus we number among brothers, fathers, and fellow-heirs of the heavenly fatherland. But if anyone should dare to draw up another pattern of faith besides this holy Creed, which has come down to us from the beginning from the blessed and holy Fathers, should dare to call something of his own a definition of the faith, and to disparage the dignity of the confession of those God-enlightened men, incorporating into it his own inventions and putting it forth to the faithful, or to those newly converted from some heresy, as the common teaching of the faith, or should boldly attempt to corrupt, with counterfeit words, additions, and subtractions, the antiquity of this holy and venerable pattern of faith—then, by the definition proclaimed now, as also before us, by the holy Ecumenical Councils, if such a one holds sacred orders, we subject him to utter deposition, and if he is a layman, to anathema.” At this Council, we repeat, the legates of Pope John VIII were also present, whom he himself mentions, and even names; and they too, for their part, on this occasion, gave the following voice: “it is right that no other definition of the faith (ὅρος) should henceforth be composed.”
Unjust, in particular, is the notion that the addition Filioque is a true, and not a false, addition: here it is enough to note that the ancient universal Church knew and acknowledged no such truth whatsoever, as our renowned theologians, Adam Zoernikav and Theophan Prokopovich, have incontestably shown. Whereas Western writers, for all their efforts, are scarcely able to gather ten or twenty patristic passages, and those rather unclear and indefinite, in defense of their addition—of which, moreover, the greater part, if not all, have been deliberately corrupted—our aforementioned writers have adduced, from the ancient Fathers, whole hundreds of passages entirely opposed to this addition. And from Augustine alone, whom the Latins regard as the chief defender of their teaching, they have adduced more than fifty. And what sort of passages? Some of them clearly express the thought that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, making no mention whatsoever, in doing so, of the Son. Others say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and reject procession from the Son as well. Others still, finally, are silent about this procession—and from the Son—in circumstances in which they could not possibly have been silent, had the writers of these passages believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from other than the Father alone. Unjust, too, is the notion that this supposedly true addition serves only as an explanation of the article of the Creed on the procession of the Holy Spirit. To say: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, that is, from the Father and the Son, is contrary to every rule of sound reasoning, when it is known that the Father and the Son are two Persons in God, distinct from one another.
2) Equally false is the second justification of the Western writers, that the addition to the Creed, Filioque, was unanimously confirmed by Latins and Greeks alike at two ecumenical Councils, the Second of Lyons in 1274 and that of Florence in 1437. Neither of these Councils was in the least ecumenical: for they took place in a wholly unlawful manner and were received neither at the time, nor afterward, by the whole Orthodox Greek Church, but were accepted, at the outset, on the Greek side, only by a very few betrayers of Orthodoxy, and that, for the most part, under compulsion.
At the Council of Lyons, the chief actor on the Greek side was the Emperor Michael Palaiologos, who, having usurped the throne from its lawful heir, John Laskaris, was compelled, given the straits of his own circumstances and those of his empire, to promise the pope under oath to subject the Eastern Church to him. To achieve his purpose, he took timely care to depose, by force and deceit, the Orthodox Patriarchs Ambrose, Germanus, and John, who would not consent to the betrayal of Orthodoxy. And, setting out for the Council, he took with him only his own accomplices, of whom even the most learned, Bekkos, he could scarcely draw over to his side and compel to union with the Romans—by imprisonment and the promise of the patriarchal throne. And this supposed union ended thus: the Emperor, who died soon after, was not deemed worthy of burial by the Orthodox Church; Patriarch Bekkos was again cast into prison; and the Council of Constantinople, in 1285, pronounced anathema upon the pope and upon all the Latin decrees.
At the Council of Florence, certain of the Greeks present (numbering 12, or, according to others, 17) consented to the union of the churches and to the acceptance of the Roman addition to the Creed. But why did they consent? On the one hand, they were compelled to this by the will and authority of the Emperor, who, wishing to aid his fatherland, then in extreme peril, strove by every means to persuade his pastors to submit to the pope, who had promised to extend a helping hand only on this condition. On the other hand, they were still more compelled by the cunning of Pope Eugene IV, who, having undertaken from the very start to provide for the Greeks’ maintenance at his own expense, when he observed their inflexibility, ordered so meager an allowance to be given them that they were reduced to the utmost poverty, and had no means at all of returning to their homeland unless they consented to the required submission to the Roman pontiff. But some, and indeed the most important, of the Greek pastors, notwithstanding all these pressures, did not sign the definitions of the Council of Florence—namely: Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople, who did not live to see the matter concluded; the renowned Mark, Metropolitan of Ephesus, who, besides holding a place among the patriarchal legates, representing the person of the Patriarch of Antioch, was chosen by the Greeks as exarch of the Council, and was, therefore, as Balsamon says, regarded as the mouth of all the Greeks; the legate of the see of Jerusalem, Dionysius, bishop of Sardis, who died still at Ferrara; Gregory, Metropolitan of Georgia, and the bishop of Stavropol, who fled from the Council; Sophronius of Anchialus; two further bishops, Isaac and Sophronius; and our own bishop of Suzdal, Abraham. Finally, when the Eastern Patriarchs—of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria—heard of such an outcome of the Council of Florence, they hastened to convene their own Council in 1443, at which they rejected the Council of Florence and excommunicated all its adherents. The definitions of this Council were likewise rejected at that time in Constantinople, in Russia, in Georgia, in Moldavia, and in the other Orthodox lands.
B) The Roman church has devised a new dogma of the papal primacy—of his supreme authority, as vicar of Christ, over the whole Church and all her hierarchs—a dogma manifestly contrary to many canons of the ecumenical Councils, namely:
a) to the sixth canon of the First Ecumenical Council, which confirms the ancient equality of all the bishops of the chief cities of the Roman Empire—namely, of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch—and their complete independence from one another within their own respective districts: “let the ancient customs prevail,” the canon states, “which have obtained in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, so that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these—since this is customary also for the bishop of Rome. Likewise also at Antioch, and in the other provinces, let the prerogatives of the churches be preserved. And, in general, let this be known: that if anyone be made a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great Council has decreed that such a one ought not to be a bishop.”
b) to the third canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, which reads: “let the bishop of Constantinople have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because that city is New Rome”—and, consequently, clearly expresses that the bishop of Rome possessed in the Church a primacy of honor only, not of authority, and possessed it, properly speaking, on account of the location of his see, that is, on account of ancient Rome.
c) to the twenty-eighth canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which defines this same thought still more precisely—that the see of Rome possessed its prerogatives only on account of the imperial city. It further attests that these prerogatives were fittingly given to the bishop of Rome by the Fathers, and by no means handed down by St. Peter the Apostle; and, finally, it grants equal prerogatives to the see of Constantinople as well, as New Rome. “Following in all things the definitions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, just read, of the hundred and fifty God-beloved bishops who assembled at the Council in the days of Theodosius of pious memory, in the imperial city of Constantinople, New Rome, we ourselves also define and decree the very same thing concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of this same Constantinople, New Rome. For to the see of Old Rome the Fathers fittingly gave its prerogatives, since that was the imperial city. Moved by this same consideration, the hundred and fifty God-beloved bishops granted equal prerogatives to the most holy see of New Rome, rightly judging that the city honored with the imperial power and the senate, and enjoying equal prerogatives with the ancient imperial Rome, should also be magnified as she is in ecclesiastical affairs, being second after her.”
d) to the thirty-sixth canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which repeats these very same decrees concerning the equal prerogatives of the see of Constantinople with the see of ancient Rome: “renewing the legislation of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers who assembled in this God-protected and imperial city, and of the six hundred and thirty who assembled at Chalcedon, we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal prerogatives with the see of ancient Rome, and shall, like her, be magnified in ecclesiastical affairs, being second after her. After her, the see of the great city of Alexandria shall be reckoned, then the see of Antioch, and after this the see of the city of Jerusalem.”
e) to the eighth canon of the Third Ecumenical Council, which, confirming the rights of independence of bishops and metropolitans within their own provinces, directly opposes any such power and dominion in the Church as the Romans now ascribe to their bishop: “let not the canons of the Fathers be transgressed; let not the arrogance of worldly power steal in under the guise of sacred ministry; and let us not, little by little and imperceptibly, lose that freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator of all mankind, bestowed upon us by His own blood. It is, therefore, the pleasure of the holy and ecumenical Council that every province shall preserve, pure and unhindered, the rights that belonged to it from the beginning, according to the custom that has long since prevailed.”
There is no need to speak of the other departures of the Roman church from ancient universal Orthodoxy: it is enough to have pointed out these two, as the chief ones, of which the one plainly violates the ancient Creed, and the other, the ancient constitution of the Church, as both were confirmed at the ecumenical Councils.
II. Following the Roman church, the Protestants (Lutherans and Reformed), who separated from her, have likewise departed from the immutable teaching of the ancient ecumenical Councils—only they have departed far more. For:
a) besides the fact that they too contain the unlawful addition to the Creed, Filioque, they —
b) have entirely rejected, contrary to the teaching of the ecumenical Councils, sacred Tradition, as one of the sources of the Christian faith;
c) have rejected the divinely-established character of the church hierarchy, and, following upon this, the authority of the Church herself as the infallible teacher of the faith, the authority of the holy Fathers and of the ecumenical Councils themselves; and, having rejected one of the sources of Christian teaching and the guidance of the divinely-instituted guardian and interpreter of divine revelation, they have inevitably —
d) rejected or distorted many other dogmas as well, chiefly those resting on Tradition, such as: the veneration of icons, contrary to the dogmatic definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council; the veneration and invocation of the Saints and Angels; prayers for the departed; likewise certain of the sacraments: chrismation, confession, marriage, and the Eucharist itself, and so forth. To judge the teaching of the Protestant communities on the basis of the principle we have chosen is by no means unjust. For the infallibility of the universal Church in the matter of doctrine, and, consequently, the infallibility of the ecumenical Councils as well, can be clearly proved (§§ 136 and 139) even from Holy Scripture, which the Protestants themselves accept as a source of the faith. It can be proved, indeed, even from the simple reasonings of reason itself, provided only that reason believes in these two truths: in the divinity of the Founder of the Church, the Lord Jesus, and in the divine origin of His faith.
III. Still more, finally, have many communities departed from the teaching of the ecumenical Councils—communities that arose still later, within the very bosom of Protestantism itself (the Quakers, Anabaptists, Swedenborgians, Socinians, and others), which have distorted and perverted almost all the dogmas of the ancient Church already. And of these, moreover, some reject not only sacred Tradition, but even the importance of Holy Scripture itself, acknowledging as the source of the Christian faith only an inner illumination from the Holy Spirit, or reason itself; while others do not even accept the dogma of the divinity of the world’s Redeemer, and consequently are not worthy even to be called Christian.
When, then, it is evident from the application of the first principle alone that, of all the churches now existing, the Eastern Orthodox Church alone remains on the ancient, unshaken foundation, while all the rest have, to a greater or lesser degree, shifted from it: there is no longer any particular need to apply here, in its full extent, the second principle as well—that is, to go through in detail all the individual dogmas of the various Christian confessions now existing and to test whether these dogmas agree with the unanimous teaching of the ancient Fathers. For even if it should turn out (which, however, cannot be the case) that, in the churches that have already departed from the infallible teaching of the ecumenical Councils, all the individual dogmas were indeed in agreement with the ancient patristic Faith—this alone would not restore to these churches the right to be called Orthodox. And, on the other hand, to suppose that there might be found, in the Orthodox Church, dogmas not in agreement with the ancient teaching of the Fathers, is altogether impossible, since it is known that she alone remains faithful today to the ancient ecumenical Councils, and is, consequently, the sole representative of the true universal Church of Christ, which is infallible. That is, to admit such a supposition is to reject the infallibility of the Church. We consider it superfluous, however, to demonstrate here in detail the application of this second principle; in its proper place it will be, and must be, carried out. Two special theological disciplines must serve as this application:
a) on the positive side, the whole of Dogmatic Theology, whose object is to show the agreement of all the dogmas held by the Orthodox Church with the ancient teaching of the holy Fathers, or of the universal Church,
b) on the negative side, the whole of Polemical Theology, whose essential task is to show that those supposed dogmas by which the other confessions differ from us are not in agreement with the teaching of the universal Church.
§ 146. Consequences from the Teaching Set Forth Concerning the Orthodox Church: a) Concerning the Orthodox Church Herself
From the teaching on the actual Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church it follows, concerning this Church herself, that she justly appropriates to herself the names: one, holy, catholic (catholic) and apostolic Church.725 For the ecumenical Council, of course, defined by these names the properties of the Church of Christ, in distinction from every false and heretical body. And the sole representative of this Church at the present time is the Eastern Orthodox Church.
§ 147. b) Concerning the Relation of Believers to Her
If, by the will of the Lord, our instructress in the matter of the faith must be His true, that is, His Orthodox Church, to whom alone He entrusted, for perpetual keeping and interpretation to mankind, His divine teaching, contained both in Scripture and in Tradition; and if, moreover, this teacher of the faith is an infallible teacher: then it follows that all Christians are equally obligated to learn their faith from the Orthodox Church, and to follow her guidance with filial submission.726 In particular, they are obligated —
1) to acknowledge, without doubt, precisely those divine sources of Christian teaching which she acknowledges: first, precisely those books of Holy Scripture which she receives727, saying, in the words of blessed Augustine: “I would not have believed the Gospel, had not the voice of the catholic Church persuaded me to it”728; and, second, precisely those apostolic traditions which she holds, bearing in mind the words of confession on this subject which every convert to Orthodoxy pronounces at her requirement: “all the Apostolic and holy patristic traditions, which the holy, catholic, and ecumenical Church holds, I believe, confess, and accept to be holy and profitable for the soul.”729
2) to understand divine revelation, that is, both Holy Scripture and sacred Tradition, without doubt, exactly as she understands it: “we must believe the divine and holy Scripture,” say the Eastern Patriarchs, “unquestioningly, and, moreover, not in any way each according to his own private judgment, but precisely as the catholic Church has explained and handed it down.”730 “Likewise the holy Scripture,” confess those of other faiths, on entering into the bosom of Orthodoxy, “according to the understanding which the holy, Eastern Church has held and holds—to whom alone it belongs to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the holy Scriptures—I accept.”731 They must also believe Tradition unquestioningly, and in no other way than according to the understanding and explanation of this same holy teacher of the faith: for it is known that not writings alone, but traditions too, can be perversely interpreted at will—for instance, the traditions concerning the veneration of holy icons and relics, the invocation of Angels, and others. To avoid this, as the holy Church herself enjoins—“nothing may be added to, or omitted from, the Holy Tradition of our Orthodox faith”732 — one must hold the traditions in precisely that form and sense in which they are held by the Church.733
A remark is necessary here: in the article on the importance and use of sacred Tradition (§ 133), it was shown, among other things, that Holy Scripture must be explained in accordance with sacred Tradition… But since Tradition does not possess, so to speak, an independent existence (as Holy Scripture does), but is entirely contained in the writings and practice of the Orthodox Church, and is, as it were, fused with her teaching; since, consequently, the very importance of Tradition rests solely on the authority of the Church; and since, finally, Tradition itself, like Scripture, we must understand according to the understanding of the Orthodox Church as well: it follows that the proposition, Holy Scripture must be explained in accordance with sacred Tradition, and the other, Holy Scripture must be understood according to the explanation of the Orthodox Church, are one and the same. This is confirmed also by the testimonies of the teachers of the Church presented in that article, who call Tradition ecclesiastical, likewise by the canon of the Trullan Council, which decrees that Scripture is to be explained in no other way than as the luminaries and teachers of the Church have set it forth. And, finally, by the dogma of the 367 holy Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council on the veneration of icons, which begins thus: “we preserve, without any innovation, all the ecclesiastical traditions established for us, whether in writing or without writing,” and ends with these words: “thus is confirmed the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is, the tradition of the catholic Church, which has received the Gospel from one end of the earth to the other.”
§ 148. c) Concerning the Use by Believers of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition
However, from what has been said —
1) it by no means follows that the believers themselves, who do not belong to the members of the teaching Church, have no right to make use of divine revelation, to read Holy Scripture and the sacred Traditions contained in the patristic and other ecclesiastical books. The Church of Christ has always been a stranger to the notion of forbidding her children to read Holy Scripture. This is evident:
a) already from the fact that she herself, from the earliest centuries, has always offered, and still offers, them in the churches many, sometimes very extensive, readings—both from the Old Testament, and, chiefly, from the New; and —
b) from the fact that, from the very earliest centuries, she has, through her pastors, constantly urged, and still urges, the flock to exercise themselves in reading Scripture, as much and as often as possible, in their own homes as well. “I am always urging, and will not cease to urge,” said the Golden-Mouthed teacher to his hearers, “that you should not only attend (in church) to what is said, but also constantly occupy yourselves at home with the reading of the divine Scripture… We, who are tossed about as it were in the midst of the sea, and who have occasion for countless sins, stand in need, at every moment, of constant and unceasing consolation from the Scriptures… Even should you not understand what is contained there, yet from the very reading a great sanctification comes to pass. It is, moreover, impossible that you should fail to understand everything equally.”734 “To search the divine writings is the best and most soul-profiting of works,” says another holy Father…, “let us, then, knock at this most perfect paradise of the Scriptures…; let us knock not lightly, but zealously and constantly, and let us not lose patience by knocking long: for only then will it be opened to us…; let us draw from this paradisal fountain of unfailing and purest water, flowing into eternal life.”735 Still more must this be repeated concerning the sacred traditions, contained chiefly in the writings of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church. It is known to everyone that these writings, held in high honor by all true Christians, have always been and remain, for the Orthodox, by the Church’s own direction, the chief and most beloved reading for the soul’s profit.
2) It follows only that all believers (the pastors themselves included), especially if they are unable, or scarcely able, to examine the writings, ought not to read divine revelation without the guidance of the Church. Such a thought was expressed by the most holy Eastern Patriarchs in their Encyclical on the Orthodox Faith: “we know that all Scripture is God-inspired and profitable, and so necessary that without it it is altogether impossible to be pious: yet not all are capable of reading it, but only those who know how one ought to examine, study, and rightly understand the Scripture. Thus, every pious person is permitted to hear the Scripture, that he may believe with the heart to righteousness and confess with the mouth to salvation, but not everyone is permitted, without guidance, to read certain parts of the Scripture, especially of the Old Testament. To permit the unskilled, indiscriminately, to read Holy Scripture is the same as to offer infants the use of strong food” (answer to question 1). Thus, too, taught the ancient hierarchs of the Church: St. Irenaeus736, St. John Chrysostom737, and others.738
3) It does not follow, either, that believers themselves have no right expressly to study divine revelation, and, in particular, Holy Scripture, in every possible respect—historical, archaeological, philological, hermeneutical, and others—and then to have no right to interpret the Word of God according to the rules of sound Orthodox hermeneutics. And this the Church has never forbidden her children, as is evident from the example of the holy Fathers themselves, and of the ancient Christian writers in general. Many of them, incontestably, studied Scripture in all the aforementioned respects, studied its philology, its archaeology, its hermeneutics (blessed Augustine even composed his own sacred hermeneutics, as a guide for others), and, with the aid of all these means, wrote numerous commentaries on the various books of Holy Scripture. This is, in a certain sense, even necessary: for the Church herself has nowhere indicated how each of the countless passages of Holy Scripture is to be understood, has not given an express commentary on the whole Bible, in which the true sense of every text would be determined with complete precision.
4) It follows only that we must always study the Word of God under the guidance of the Church, in whatever respect—historical, archaeological, philological, exegetical, or otherwise. The Church’s own positive teaching, firm and unchanging, must be both the starting point, the rule, and the goal of all our investigations of this kind, and of all our interpretations of Holy Scripture. The starting point, to which we should constantly return, to test our thoughts against it. The rule, which should indicate to us the lawful bounds of our inquiries, and remind us: so far you may come, and no farther. The goal, in whose service all our labors should be devoted. Under these conditions, biblical archaeology, philology, criticism, hermeneutics, and exegesis not only cannot be harmful (as they inevitably become when, having unlawfully rejected, in the matter of divine revelation, every guidance of the divinely-instituted guide, they are grounded on the one arbitrary principle of arbitrary opinion, liberi arbitrii)—but, on the contrary, can be exceedingly useful, both to the believers and to the Church herself: to the believers, in that they clarify for them many of the dogmas and truths of the Orthodox confession they hold; and to the Church herself, in that they furnish important, necessary weapons for the defense of her teaching against her enemies, who wield this same weapon, and can be overcome by no other.
IV. ON EXPOSITIONS OF FAITH IN WHICH THE SYMBOLIC TEACHING OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH MAY BE FOUND
§ 149. Their Division
If the Orthodox Church is Orthodox for this reason alone, that she remains wholly faithful to the ancient universal Church, it follows that the expositions of faith she holds, whether brief or extensive, are most justly divided into two kinds:
a) expositions received by her from the ancient, infallible universal Church, possessing an unconditional authority, and
b) her own expositions, which appeared in later times, and which possess their own authority only from their agreement with the former, just as she herself possesses her own importance from her agreement with the ancient universal Church.
§ 150. Expositions of the First Kind
To the expositions of the first kind belong:
1) On the one hand, the dogmatic definitions composed at the ecumenical Councils, such as:
a) the patterns of the faith: the Creed of the 318 holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council; the Creed of the 150 holy Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council; the dogma of the 630 holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council on the two natures in the one Person of our Lord Jesus Christ; the dogma of the 170 holy Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council on the two wills and operations in our Lord Jesus Christ; the dogma of the 367 holy Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council on the veneration of icons; and
b) definitions concerning the faith in general, contained in the canons of the holy Apostles, of the holy ecumenical and local Councils, and of the holy Fathers named by the Trullan Council.739
2) On the other hand, expositions of faith which, though not expressly examined and confirmed at the ecumenical Councils, have nonetheless been received by the whole universal Church. Such are:
a) the Creed of St. Gregory, Wonderworker of Neocaesarea, and
b) the Creed known under the name of St. Athanasius of Alexandria.740
§ 151. Expositions of the Second Kind
Among the expositions of faith that have appeared in the Eastern Orthodox Church, some are common to the whole of this Church, while others belong properly to the Russian Church.
Among the common ones, the best known are:
1) Two confessions of the Orthodox faith, composed expressly to serve as a guide for all the Orthodox:
a) The one—around the middle of the 17th century (1640), at Kiev, for the preservation of the purity of Orthodoxy both from the opinions of the Lutherans and Calvinists, and still more from those of the Roman Catholics and the former Uniates. This is the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church.741 It was first examined at the Council of Kiev, and shortly afterward (in 1643) at the Council of Iași; it was then examined and approved by all four Eastern Patriarchs742, and unanimously received by the whole Greek Church.743 Finally, it was also approved and confirmed for the whole Russian Church by the Patriarchs Joachim (in 1685) and Adrian (in 1696), who even called this book God-inspired — not, of course, in the strict sense—and by the Most Holy Governing All-Russian Synod, which, besides having published it repeatedly for the universal guidance of the Orthodox744, confirmed in 1840 a special decree of the former Commission of Theological Schools concerning the teaching of this book745 in all Seminaries (in the lower divisions). And in 1845 it decreed that one additional weekly class be devoted to its thorough study, and that students, upon passing into the higher division, should expressly review it once more just before the beginning of the course, as a necessary guide in the study of Theology.746
b) The other—in the latter half of the same century (1672), at the Council of Jerusalem, for the preservation of the purity of Orthodoxy from the errors of the Calvinists, under the title: The Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church. The truth and purity of this Exposition was again attested by all the most holy Patriarchs and other primates of the Eastern Church, when they sent it forth (1723) in answer to the Christians of Great Britain, as a true exposition and confession of the Orthodox faith, and at the same time communicated it, for this same purpose, to our own holy Synod as well; and it was received and attested also by the All-Russian Holy Synod, which published this confession in Russian in 1838, under the title: The Encyclical of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith, for the guidance of all the Orthodox747, and in 1845 decreed that this book be distributed free of charge to all theological students, for their constant use not only in the Seminaries, but after leaving the Seminaries as well.748
2) Certain particular Confessions, composed and preserved by the Church in the liturgical books for special occasions, such as:
a) The Episcopal Oath. It is important already simply as an oath in the faith. But also because it is pronounced by a person appointed to be the chief pastor and teacher of an entire local church; pronounced solemnly in church, in the presence of numerous Christians, before a council of hierarchs, from whom this person is to receive the divine grace of the right to administer the word of truth and to shepherd the spiritual flock entrusted to him.
b) The Dogmatic Questions, proposed to those coming to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church from among the Jews and the Saracens, where the distinction of the Christian faith from the new-Jewish and Mohammedan is clearly marked out.
c) The Confession of Faith, pronounced by one converting to the Orthodox Church from other Christian confessions, where the distinguishing marks of Orthodoxy from the non-Orthodox beliefs are set out.
d) the formula of excommunication from the Church in 12 articles, pronounced on the Sunday of Orthodoxy.
Among the patterns of confession composed properly within the Russian Church —
1) belong the positive expositions of Orthodox Christian teaching, published, and still published, in the name of the holy Synod for the instruction in faith and piety of every Christian, that is, the Catechisms. The foremost place among them is held by the Longer Christian Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, examined and approved by the Holy Governing Synod, and published for teaching in the schools and for the use of all Orthodox Christians, by the supreme command of His Imperial Majesty.
2) One may also reckon here certain polemical (controversial) works, published by the decree or blessing of the holy Synod, against those of other faiths, to warn the Orthodox against their errors, such as:
a) against the Papists: Dialogues between an Inquirer and an Assured Believer Concerning the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Catholic Church;
b) against the Reformed: The Rock of Faith of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church;
c) against the schismatics: The Rod of Governance, The Spiritual Admonition, and others.749
It must be observed, however, that not all these expositions of the second kind possess an equal importance: in all of them, since they are published in the name of the Orthodox Church, her teaching can, without doubt, be heard; but as an express guide for the thorough setting forth of this teaching, as a touchstone for testing one’s own belief, only three of them must be recognized:
a) the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church,
b) the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, and
c) the Longer Christian Catechism, published by decree of the holy Synod—in accordance with the very intention of the Church herself, which publishes them precisely for this purpose, as a guide for her children.
A thorough treatment of the teaching on the Church—on her foundation, structure, hierarchy, composition, properties, purpose, means to that purpose, and so forth—must, by its very nature, find its place in Dogmatic Theology. See our Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, §§ 167-182.
The Rite of Reception of Persons of Other Faiths, fol. 71 verso, Moscow, 1757. Many other testimonies of this kind we shall see hereafter.
In Part 1, when we demonstrated the historical reliability: a) of the miracles and prophecies of the patriarchal period, b) of the miracles and prophecies of Moses, c) of the miracles and prophecies of the later Prophets, d) of the miracles and prophecies of Christ the Savior, and e) of the Apostles (see §§ 61, 71, 74, 98, 102, and 104).
Here belong: 1) Meyer, Apologie der geschichtlichen Auffassung der histor. Bücher des A. T., besonders, des Pentateuchs, im Gegensatze… Sullzb. 1811; 2) Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Pentateuches, Berlin, 1836; 3) Du Yoisin, L’autorité des livres de Moïse, établie et défendue contre les incrédules, Paris, 1778, and others.
Λέγετο δ'δτι τὴν πολιτέιαν καὶ τούς νὸμους ἀυτοῖς καταβαλόμενος ίερεύς, τὸ γένος Ηλιουπολίτης, ὅνομα Ὀσαρσὶφ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν Ήλίου πὸλει Θεοῦ Όσίρεως, ὡς μετέβη ἐις τοῦτο τὸ γένος, μετετέφη τοῦνομα καὶ προσηγορέυθη Μωῡσῆς. See in Josephus—Contra Apionem, lib. 1, § 16. And Josephus’s own remarks on this Manethonian account of Moses, see in the following §§ 27 to 32.
He calls Moses — ἱερογραμματέα. See in this same Josephus, Contra Apion, lib. I, §§ 32-33.
Ibid., § 34.
Μωῡσῆς, ὡς ἤκουσα παρὰ τὼν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν Ἀιγυπτίων, ἧν Ἡλιουπολίτης, ὅς πατρίοις ἔθεσι κατηγγυημένος, ἀιθριους προσευχὰς...
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1, c. 21; Eusebius, Praeparat. Evang. lib. X, c. 10.
Eusebius, Praeparat. Evang. lib. X, cap. 10.
Ἐυπόλεμος δέ φησι τὸν Μωσῆν πρώτον Σοφὸν γενέσθαι, καὶ γράμματα παραδοῡναι τοῖς Ἰουδάιοις πρῶτον, παρὰ δὲ Ἰουδαίων Φοίνικας παραλαβεῖν, Ἒλληνας δὲ παρὰ Φοινίκων, νόμους τὲ πρῶτον γράώαι Μωσῆν τοῖς Ἰουδάιοις. In Eusebius, Praepar. Evang. lib. IX, cap. 26.
Παρά μὲν τοῖς Ἀριμασποῖς Ζαθραύστην ίστοροῦσι τὸν ἀγαθὸν δαίμονα προσποιήσασθαι τούς νόμους ἀυτῷ διδόναι, παρὰ δὲ τοῖς ὀνομαζομένοις Γέταις Ζάμολξιν ωσαύτως τὴν κοινὴν Ἐστίαν, παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Ἰουδάιοις Μοσῆν τὸν Ἰαῶ ὲπικαλόυμενον Θεόν. Diodor. Sicul. Biblioth. hist. lib. 1, pag. 59, edit. 1559.
In Photius, Biblioth. cod. 244.
Antiqu. lib. I, cap. 4.
Strab. — Rerum geograph, lib. XVI.
Eusebius, Praepar. Evang. lib. IX, cap. 26 and 27; lib. X, cap. 9-13; Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julian, lib. 1.
Histor. lib. XXXVI, c. 2.
Histor. lib. V, cap. 3.
Juvenal. Satir. XIV, 95-100.
These testimonies, as well as all the numerous testimonies concerning Moses from pagan writers, are examined in their full extent by Petrus Dan. Huetius in his Demonstrat. Evangelica, propos. IV, c. 2, edit. Lips. 1703, pag. 83-114.
This argument against the pagans was used in their own time by Josephus, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Julius Africanus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Lactantius. See also Eusebius, Praeparat. Evang. lib. X, cap. 9-14; Augustine, De civitate Dei, lib. XVIII, cap. 37 and 39, and blessed Theodoret, in his work On the Beginning, Khr. Cht. 1845, II, 196.
Flavii contra Apion. lib. I, §§ 25-35.
See in the Demonstr. Evangel. of Huetius, pp. 96 and 100.
Diodor. Sicul. Bibl. lib. I.
See above, note 322.
We have by no means cited all the passages from the Old Testament books that point to the content of the Pentateuch: such passages are exceedingly numerous, as may be seen from the parallel tables in the Bible.
Here are a few more passages from the Pentateuch of Moses mentioned in the New Testament: 1) From the Book of Genesis: Matt. 19:4-5; Rom. 9:8; 1 Cor. С, 16; Heb. 4:4. 2) From the Book of Exodus: Matt. 5:38 cf. Exod. 21:23 and 24; Matt. 15:4 cf. Exod. 20:12; Luke 2:23. 3) From the Book of Leviticus: John 2:8 cf. 19:18; 1 Pet. 1:16 cf. 19:2; 2 Cor. 6:16, cf. 26:11-12. 4) From the Book of Numbers: John 3:14 cf. 21:8-9; 2 Pet. 2:16 cf. 22:28; 1 Cor. 10:9 cf. 21:5-6. 5) From the Book of Deuteronomy: Matt. 4:7 cf. 6:16; John 8:17 cf. 19:15; Acts 3:22, cf. 18:15, and so forth.
At first these were pagans, resettled by Shalmaneser from various regions of Babylon into the cities of Samaria, in place of the sons of Israel, whom he had carried away captive into Assyria (2 Kings 17:24). They afterward requested from the Assyrian king one of the captive Israelite priests, that he might teach them the faith in the true God, which they did indeed accept, without, however, abandoning their former pagan superstitions (verses 26-31). As a consequence of this, at the building of the second temple at Jerusalem, the Samaritans already represented themselves to the Jews as fellow believers. Finally, from the time of the building of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim, when, following Manasseh, the first high priest at this temple, many Jews also resettled in Samaria, the Samaritans, mingling with them, entirely abandoned their ancient idolatry, forgot their pagan origin, and began constantly to represent themselves as true Israelites, keepers of the law of Moses in all its purity. Dwelling to this day in ancient Shechem, they hold with the utmost strictness to the precepts of this law, believe that true worship may be offered to God only on Mount Gerizim, and await the Messiah.
Today this alphabet is called Samaritan, whereas the Pentateuch properly belonging to the Jews of today, though it contains the Hebrew text, is written in Chaldean letters.
See Coguel, Origine des lois, des sciences et des arts; also Fleury, Moeurs des Israélites.
In the work of Wiseman—Discours sur les rapports entre la science et la religion révélée, edit. Paris, 1813—several particular accounts of Egypt from the Pentateuch are presented, fully confirmed and explained by these discoveries. See Introduct. analytique, pag. XXXII, et Discours IX, pag. 342-344. And incomparably more such confirmations may be found in the book: Commentaire géographique sur l’Exode et les Nombres, par Léon de Laborde, Paris et Leipzig, 1811.
The well-known three passages from Holy Scripture itself (2 Kings 22 and 23; 1 Macc. 1:56-57; and 3 Ezra 14:21 and following), commonly cited by opponents, can in no way serve as proof of the loss of the Pentateuch. Cf., with the first passage, 2 Chron. 34:14; with the second, 1 Macc. 3:48; 12:9; with the third, 1 Ezra 7:6 and Dan. 9:2 and 11. For more detail, see the Ecclesiastical-Biblical History of Metropolitan Philaret, pp. 562-563.
Some of these we have already seen in examining the authenticity of the Pentateuch (in § 110).
Philo apud Evseb. Praeparat. Evang. lib. VIII.
This is, in particular, Benjamin Kennicott, who, after ten years of labor devoted to collecting manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible from every country of Europe (numbering as many as 501) and to their strict collation, published his astonishing discoveries before the learned world between 1776 and 1780; and still more, the Parma professor Giovanni Bernardo De Rossi, who, with rare perseverance, collected and collated as many as 680 Hebrew manuscripts, and published his findings between 1784 and 1808.
Here mention must also be made of a recent astonishing discovery, confirming the truth we are examining. Dr. Buchanan brought to Europe a most ancient scroll, containing the greater part of the Pentateuch, which had been used by the black-skinned Jews living in India from time immemorial, and who for many centuries already had had no contact whatsoever with the Jews of other lands. Upon collating this copy with the printed Hebrew Pentateuch of the best edition, no more than forty variants were found, of which the greater part concern mere letters, and not one is of the slightest importance. Discours sur les rapp. entre la science et la relig. révélée, par Nic. Wiseman, Paris, 1843, pag. 365.
What the canon of the sacred books is will be discussed in detail in its proper place (see § 122).
The Law (Thôrâth) consists precisely of the five books of Moses: 1) Genesis, 2) Exodus, 3) Leviticus, 4) Numbers, and 5) Deuteronomy.
To the division called the Prophets (Nebî’îm) belong the following books: 6) Joshua, 7) Judges, 8) the First and Second Books of Kingdoms, 9) the Third and Fourth Books of Kingdoms, 10) Isaiah. 11) Jeremiah, 12) Ezekiel, 13) the Twelve Minor Prophets.
The Hagiographa (Kethûvîm) are called the books: 14) Job, 15) Ruth, 10) Psalms, 17) Proverbs, 18) Song of Songs, 19) Ecclesiastes, 20) Daniel, 21) Lamentations of Jeremiah, 22) Ezra and Nehemiah, 23) 1 and 2 Chronicles, 24) Esther.
Philo, tom. II, pag. 475; Joseph, contra Apion. lib. I, § 8.
Namely: 1) From the Book of Joshua: 1:5, cf. Heb. 13:5. 2) Judges: 2:16, cf. Matt. 2:23 and Acts 13:20. 3) the First and Second Books of Kingdoms: 1 Sam. 8:5; 13:14, cf. Acts 13:21. 22; 2 Sam. 7:12, cf. Acts 2:30. 4) the Third and Fourth Books of Kingdoms: 1 Kings 17:1 and 7, cf. John 5:17; 2 Kings 5, cf. Luke 4:27. 5) the First and Second Chronicles: 2 Chron. 24:21. 22, cf. Matt. 23:35. 6) Job: 5:13, cf. 1 Cor. 3:19; 22:29, cf. James 4:6. 7) Psalms: 91:11. 12, cf. Matt. 4, 6; 69:10, cf. John 2:17; 61:10, cf. Acts 1:16; 116:11, cf. Rom. 3:4, and so forth. 8) Proverbs: 1:16, cf. Rom. 3:15; 25:21. 23, cf. Rom. 12:20; 9) Song of Songs: 8:6, cf. James 4:5. 10) the Prophet Isaiah: 7:14, cf. Matt. 1:22; 4:9, cf. Mark 1:3; 42:10, cf. Luke 3:6, and many others. 11) Jeremiah: 31:15, cf. Matt. 2:17; 9:28, cf. 1 Cor. 1:31; 31:31, cf. Heb. 8:8, and others. 12) Ezekiel: 34:31, cf. 1 Pet. 2:25; 34:17, cf. Matt. 25:32; 37:26-27, cf. 2 Cor. 6:16, and so forth. 13) Daniel: Matt. 24:15; Mark 12; Luke 21:14) Hosea: Matt. 2:16; 9:13; 12:1; 1 Cor. 2:9. 10; Rom. 9:25 and 27; 1 Cor. 15:54. 55 15) Joel: Acts 2:16-22; Rom. 10:16. 16) Amos: Acts 7:42; 15:15-18. 17) Jonah: Matt. 12:39-42. 18) Micah: 5:2, cf. Matt. 2:6. 19) Nahum: Rom. 10:15. 20) Habakkuk: 2:9, cf. Acts 13:41; Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:38. 21) Haggai: 2:11, cf. Heb. 12:26. 22) Zechariah: 13:7, cf. Matt. 16:31; Matt. 27:9-10; Mark 14:27; John 16:14-15; 19:37. 23) Malachi: Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27; Rom. 9:13, and so forth. Only concerning four Old Testament books—Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah—is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament. But this, without doubt, is only because the New Testament writers had no occasion, no need, to mention them, and by no means because these books either did not then exist in the Old Testament canon, or were not acknowledged as canonical by the Savior and the Apostles: such a conclusion could be drawn only if we knew that the New Testament writers, in quoting passages from the Old Testament books, or referring to them, had as their aim to confirm their canonical importance; but they had, as is evident from their writings, no such aim at all.
Jahn, Introduct. in lib. Veter. Testament, pag. 463, 464, edit. 2.
Irenaeus, Adversus haeres. lib. III, c. 21; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. lib. 1; Tertullian, De habit. mul., c. 3; Chrysostom, homily on Romans, ch. 8; Theodoret, preface on the Psalms.
Contra Apion. lib. I, §§ 7 et 8.
See Talm. Babylon. Baba Bathra, fol. 13, col. 2; fol. 15, col. 2.
Antiqo. lib. XI, cap. 1.
Baba Bathra.
Numerous examples of this astonishing precision are adduced by Hengstenberg in his work: Die Authentie des Daniels, where he examines this important subject in its full extent, overturning the crafty objections of the rationalists.
Fairness requires us to note that, as regards the authenticity of certain Old Testament books—for instance, the prophecies of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—even the rationalists themselves no longer dispute it, but readily agree, differing among themselves only in determining the time in which this or that Prophet lived.
Coment. in Esaiam cap. 6.
Philo, apud Evsebium — Praepar. Evang. lib. VIII; Joseph. contr. Apion. lib. I, § 8.
Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 73; Augustine, De civitate Dei lib. XVIII, cap. 46; in Psalm. 66.
Absit, says blessed Augustine, ut prudens quispiam, vel Judaeos cujuslibet perversitatis atque malitiae tantum potuisse credat in codicibus, tam multis et tam longe lateque dispersis (De civitate Dei lib. XV, cap. 13).
As for the discrepancies now observed between the Hebrew text and the translation of the Seventy (whatever their origin), it must be remembered: a) that these discrepancies are by no means substantial, that is, they in no way affect the substance of the Old Testament prophecies, the sacred history, the rules of morality, or the whole of Old Testament teaching in general, which remain one and the same in both the Hebrew text and the Greek translation; b) that the greater part of these discrepancies, upon reasonable comparison, are easily reconciled with one another, as many recent well-intentioned scholars attest, and as blessed Augustine himself already noted earlier, saying: in qnibus ab hebraica veritate putantur septuaginta interpretes discrepare, et bene intellecti inveniuntur esse concordes (De civit. Dei lib. XVIII, c. 44); and c) that it is, consequently, unjust to represent these discrepancies as a matter of too great importance, or to be scandalized by them in any way in the matter of the faith. The dispute over these discrepancies among scholars, as is known, was rather protracted and quite heated, and, for this reason, perhaps not free of extremes and exaggerations. Some maintained the integrity and incorruption of the Hebrew text, such as: Fabricius (Des titres primitifs de la révélation…, in 2 volumes), Martianay (Défense du texte hébreu et de la chronologie…), Le Quien (Défense du texte hébreu et de la version Vulgate…), Carpzov (Critica Sacra), Bellarmine (De Verbo Dei…), Walton (Prolegom. ad Bibl. polyglott.); others, on the contrary, suspected, or even directly asserted, that the present Hebrew text is corrupted, and that it must be restored according to the translation of the Seventy: namely Morin (Exercit. Biblicae…), Cappel (Critica Sacra…), Vossius (De septuaginta interpret…), and Pezron (Antiquité des temps, rétablie et défendue contre les Juifs…).
Among the best works on this subject are the following: 1) J. B. Duvoisin—L’autorité des livres du Nouveau Testament, défendue contre les incrédules, Paris, 1775; 2) W. Paley—Tableau des preuves évidentes du Christianisme, trad. de l’anglais par D. Lewad, Lausanne, 1806; 3) J. L. Hug—Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, Stuttg. und Tübing., 1821; 4) H. Olshausen—Die Echtheit der vier kanonischen Evangelien…; 5) Tholuck—Die Glaubwürdigkeit der Evangelischen Geschichte, zugleich eine Kritik des Lebens Jesu von Strauss, Hamburg, 1638.
See a collection of these passages at the end of his works.
For example: “and that this is correct is clearly stated in the Gospel of Luke: in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar… the word of God came to John, the son of Zechariah” (Strom. lib. I, pag. 407, edit. Potter); or: “and in the Gospel of Matthew the genealogy begins from Mary, the Mother of the Lord” (ibid., p. 490).
Origen, In Matth. lib. 1, in Eusebius, Church History, bk. VI, 25.
Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ., n. 32—Matt. 5; n. 11-12 — Luke 5; n. 33 — Matt. 19 and Luke 16.
Jerome, Catalog. viror. illustr., under the word: Theophilus; also Jerome, Commentar. in Matth., in proem, oper. tom. IV, p. 1 et 3, edit. Martinay.
Ad Autolic. lib. III, 11, 13, and 14 — Matt. 5:32, 44, 46; 6:3. Ibid. lib. II, n. 13 — Luke 18:27. Ibid. lib. II, n. 22 — John 1:1-13.
Constituimus inprimis, evangelicum instrumentum apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc munus Evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum, sic apostolicos viros, non tamen solos, sed cum Apostolis et post Apostolos. Quoniam praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloriae studio, si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum, immo Christi, qui magistros apostolos fecit. Denique nobis fidem ex Apostolis Johannes et Matheus insinuant, ex Apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instavrant (Adversus Marcion. lib. IV, c. 2). In summa, si constat, id verius, quod prius, id prius, quod et ab initio, id ab initio, quod ab Apostolis; pariter utique constabit, id esse ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum… Dico itaque apud illas, nec solas jam apostolicas, sed apud universas, quae illis de societate sacramenti confoederantur, id evangelium Lucae ab inilio editionis suae stare, quod cum maxime tuemur… Eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum caeteris quoque evnngeliis patrocinabitur, quae proinde per illas et secundum illas habemus, Johannis dico et Mathaei; licet et Marcus, quod edidit, Petri adfirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus: nam et Lucae digestum Paulo adscribere solent (Ibid. c. 5).
Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus, quam per eos. per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos; quod quidem tunc pracconaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et columnam fidei nosirae futurum… Ita Mathaeus in Hebraeis ipsorum lingua scripturam edidit evangelii, cum Petrus et. Paulus evangelizarent et fundarent ecclesiam. Post vero horum excessum Marcus, discipulus et interpres Petri, et ipse, quae a Petro annunciata erant, per scripta nobis tradidit. Et Lucas autem, sectator Pauli, quod ab illo praedicabatur evangelium, in libro condidit. Postea et Johannes, discipulus Domini, qui et supra pectus Ejus recumbebat, et ipse edidit evangelium, Ephesi Asiae com·morans (Contr. haeres. lib. III, cap. 1).
Nec autem plura numero, quam haec sunt, neque rursus pauciora capit esse evangeliä quoniam enim quatuor regiones mundi sunt, in quo sumus, et quatuor principales spiritus, et disseminata est ecclesia super omnem terram; columna autem et tirmamentum ecclesiae est evangelium et spiritus vitae. Consequens est, quatuor habere eam columnas, undique flantes incorruptibilitatem, et vivificantes homines (Ibid. cap. II, n. 8).
Tanta est circa haec evangelia firmitas, ut et ipsi haeretici tectimonium reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetur suam confirmare doctrinam… Cum ergo hi, qui contradicunt nobis, testimonium perhibeant, et utantur his, firma et vera est nostra de illis ostensio (Ibid. cap. IV, n. 7).
See the fragment of his letter to Florinus, preserved by Eusebius, in Church History, bk. V, ch. 20.
Assemani Bibliothec. Orient, tom. II, pag. 282.
Muratorii Antiqu. italic, med. aevi, tom. III, pag. 851-854; Olshausen Die Echtheit der vier kanonischen Evangelien. s. 280-281.
Origen, contr. Cels. lib. VI, n. 40, ed. de la Rue.
Ibid., lib. II, n. 74 et lib. II, n. 13.
Ibid., lib. II, n. 27. This word is used in the same sense by Tertullian and Irenaeus in the passages cited above. Irenaeus, in particular, uses the expression: Ἐυαγγέλιον τετράμορφον.
Origen, contr. Cels. lib. II, n. 28, 34, 59, 61, 66, and 74.
Ibid., lib. VI, n. 16; VII, n. 18, 61; VIII, n. 7-8; I, n. 65; II, n. 9, 12, 18, 20, 24, 37, 18, 49, 53, 55, and 72.
— lib. II, n. 55 and 59.
— lib. II, n. 32.
— lib. II, n. 31 and 36; lib. I, n. 67; cf. John 1:1; 19:34; 2:18; lib. I, n. 50; lib. II, n. 13 and 49, cf. John 3:31; 8:23.
Irenaeus, Advers. haeres. lib. I, praef. c. 1, 3, 8; lib. III, c. 11.
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. c. 9. Ex scriptis prophetarum Eclogae c. 25; Grabe, Spicileg. Patrum, tom. II, p. 83-117; Neander, Entwicklung der vornehm. gnost. System., s. 156, Berlin, 1818.
See in detail in Einleitung in die Schriften des N. T. von Hug, th. 1, s. 63, Aufl. 2.
Epiphanius, Haeres. XXXIII.
Irenaeus, Advers. haeres. lib. I, c. 18.
Οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομιένοις ὑπ' ἀυτῶν ἀπομνημονέυμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται ἐυαγγέλια, ὅυτως παρέδωκαν ἐντετάλθαι ἀυτοῖς τὸν Ἰησοῦν, λαβόντα ἄρτον, ἐυχαριστήσαντα ἐιπεῖν' τοῦτο ποιεῖτε ἐις τὴν ἀνάμνησίν μου. καὶ τὸ ποτήριον δμόιως λαβόντα καὶ ἐυχαριστήσαντα ἐιπεῖν' τοῦτο εστι ἆιμά μου, καὶ μόνοις ἀυτοῖς μεταδοῦνα:. Justin, Apolog. 1, n. 66.
It will suffice to point out a few passages: for instance, in his First Apology, under n. 15, he points to a text from Matthew ch. 5 on the subject of temptation, as well as from Matthew ch. 19, Mark ch. 10, and Luke ch. 16, on the adultery of a man who marries a divorced woman; under n. 16 he points to a text from Matthew ch. 9, that Jesus Christ came to call not the righteous, but sinners, and from Luke ch. 5, on love toward all, on laying up treasure in heaven, and so forth; under n. 17—from Matthew ch. 19, Mark ch. 10, and Luke ch. 18, that no one is good but God alone; under n. 18—from Matthew ch. 22, the Savior’s words: render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And in his Dialogue with Trypho, for instance on p. 316, he cites the words of John the Baptist: I am not the Christ, but a voice crying out, found only in the Gospel of John (1:20). On p. 342 he uses the expression living water, found only in this same evangelist, in Christ’s conversation with the Samaritan woman (ch. 4:10), and so forth. One must not be troubled by the fact that the holy martyr does not quote the texts of our four Gospels word for word, and sometimes even quotes the very same saying of the Savior, in different works of his, not word for word either. This is, of course, because the holy father composed his works in various places, during his travels, and could not always have the Gospel with him, and quoted the texts from memory, not directly from the sacred books, taking care only to preserve the Gospel thought, without troubling himself over the exact words. This happens very often among us too, in composing sermons and the like, whether from haste or from not having a Bible at hand. And it by no means follows from this that the holy father drew these passages from something other than the Gospel books, or that these did not yet exist at that time: for he cites, in exactly the same way, many passages from the Old Testament books as well, which without doubt did already exist at that time.
Here are the words of the fragment: Rationabiliter Evangelistae principiis diversis utuntur, quamvis una eademque evangelizandi eorum probetur intentio. Mathaeus, ut Hebraeis scribens, genealogiae Christi ordinem texuit, ut ostenderet, ab ea Christum deseendisse progenie, de qua eum nasciturum universi prophetae cecinerant. Johannes autem ad Ephesum constitutus, qui legem tanquam ex gentibus ignorabant, a causa nostrae redemptionis Evangelii sumpsit exordium: quae causa ex eo apparet, quod Filium suum Deus pro nostra salute voluit incarnari. Lucas vero a Zachariae sacerdotio incipit, ut ejus filii miraculo nativitatis, et tanti praedicatoris officio, divinitatem Christi gentibus declararet. Unde et Marcus antiqua prophetici mysterii eompetentia adventus Christi declarat: ut non nova, sed antiquius prolata ejus praedicatio probaretur. Aut per hoc Evangelistis curae fuit, eo uti prooemio quod unusquisque judicabat auditoribus expetere. Nihil ergo contrarium reperitur, ubi licet diversis scriptis, ad eandem tamen patriam pervenitur. Vid. Gott. Lumperi. Histor. Theologico-Critic. de vita, scriptis atque doctrina S. Patrum… trium primorum saeculorum, edit. Augustae Vindelicorum, 1783, p. 347-352; also S. Clementis Rom., S. Ignatii, S. Polycarpi… quae supersunt, ed. a Guielm. Jacobson. Oxonii 1838, tom. II, p. 492-495.
Eusebius, Church History, bk. III, ch. 39.
Namely the following: 1) all things came to be through him, and apart from him not one thing came to be that has come to be, and 2) the darkness has not mastered it (the light) (Orat. ad Graecos n. 19 et n. 13).
Eusebius, Church History, bk. IV, ch. 19; Chronic. Paschal. ad Olympiad. 238; Epiphanius, Haeres. XLVI; Theodoret, lib. 1, Haeret. fabul. cap. 20.
Biblioth. Orient. Assemani tom. 1, 1, pag. 568.
Eusebius, Church History, bk. IV, ch. 29.
Et super haec id, quod est secundum Lucam, evangelium circumcidens, et omnia, quae sunt de generatione Domini conscripta auferens, et de doctrina sermonem Domini multa auferens…, semetipsum veraciorem, quam sunt hi, qui Evangelium tradiderunt, Apostoli, suasit discipulis suis, non Evangelium, sed particulam Evangelii tradens eis… Apostolos enim admiscuisse ea, quae sunt legalia, Salvatoris verbis… (Contra haeres. lib. I, cap. 27; lib. III, cap. 2).
Qui (Christianus) cum fuisses, exscidisti rescidendo quod retro credidisti, sicut et ipse confiteris in quadam epistola, et tui non negant, et nostri probant (De carne Christi cap. 2).
Si scripturas opinioni tuao resistentes, non de industria alias rejecisses, alias corrupisses, confudisset te in hac specie Johannis Evangelium (ibid. cap. 3).
Ego meum dico verum, Marcion suum; ego Marcionis adfirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. Quis inter nos determinabit, nisi temporis ratio, ei praescribens auctoritatem, quod antiquius reperietur, et ei praejudicans viliationem, quod posterius revincetur… and so forth (Adversus Marcion. lib. IV, cap. 4 et 5).
Irenaeus, Adver. haeres. lib. I, cap. 25; Tertullian, De praescr. haeret. cap. 38; Epiphanius, Haeres. XXVII, cap. 5. Tertullian, for instance, says: Si Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur, non callidiore ingenio, quam Marcion, manus intulit veritati. Marcion exerte et palam machaera, non stylo usus est: quoniam ad materiam suam caedem scripturarum confecit. Valentinus autem pepercit: quoniam non ad materiam scripturas, sed materiam ad scripturas excogitavit; et tamen plus abstulit, et plus adjecit, auferens proprietates singulorum quoque verborum, et adjicens dispositiones non comparentium rerum.
Irenaeus, Adver. haeres. lib. I, cap. 25; Epiphanius, Haeres. XXVII, cap. 5.
In Eusebius, Church History, bk. IV, ch. 7.
Προσφυγών, he says of himself, τῷ ἐυαγγελίῳ ὡς σαρκὶ Ἰησδυ, καὶ τοῖς Ἀποστόλοις ὡς πρεσβυτερίῳ ἐκκλησίας, and he immediately continues, addressing the believers: καὶ τούς προφήτας δὲ ἀγαπῶμεν διὰ τὸ καὶ αὐτὸυς ἐις τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον κατηγγελκέναι... Epist. ad Philadelph. cap. 5.
Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς μηδὲν κατ' ἐριθέιαν πράσσειν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ χριστομαθίἀν. ἐπεὶ ἥκουσά τινων λεγόντων, ὅτι ἔαν μὴ ἐν τοῖς αρχάιοις ἔυρω, ἐν τᾦ ἐυαγγελίῳ ὀυ πιστέυω, καὶ λέγοντός μου ἀυτοῖς, ὅτι γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησαν μοι, ὅτι πρόκειται. Ibid., cap. 8.
Ἐξάιρετον δέ τι ἔχει τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον, τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ Κυρίου ὑμῶν Ἰησδυ Χρίστοῦ, τὸ πάθος ἀυτδυ καὶ τὴν ἀνἀστασιν. Οἱ γὰρ ἀγαπητοὶ προφήται κατήγγειλαν ἐις ἀυτήν' τὸ δε ἐυαγγέλιον ἀπάρτισμά ἐστιν ἀφθαρσίας. Ibid., cap. 9.
For example, in one place he says that Christ was baptized by John, that he might fulfill all righteousness (Epist. ad Smyrn. n. 14 — Matt. 3); in another he recalls the Savior’s words that a tree is known by its fruit (Epist. ad Ephes. n. 13; Luke 6:44; Matt. ch. 12); in a third he repeats the Savior’s counsel: be wise as serpents, and innocent as doves (Epist. ad Polyc. n. 3; Matt. 10:16, and so forth).
Ότε δἐ τὀυς Ἀποστόλους, τὀυς μέλλοντας κηρύσσειν τὸ ἐυαγγέλλιον ἀυτοῦ ἐξελέξατο, ὅντας ὑπὲρ πάσαν ἀμαρτὶαν ἀνομωτέρους, ἵνα δέιξη, ὅτι ὀυκ ἤλθε καλὲσαι δικάιους, ἀλλὰ ἀμαρτωλούς ἐις μετάνοιαν. Epist. c. 5.
Παντὶ ἀιτδυντι σε δίδου. Ibid. c. 19.
Attendamus ergo, ne forte, sicut scriptum est: multi vocati, parvi electi, inveniamur. Ibid. cap. 4. We quote the words according to the ancient translation, because the first 4 chapters of this epistle have not come down to us in the original. It should be recalled that St. Barnabas was by birth a Jew, and the Jews used the expression as it is written only with reference to the sacred books of Scripture alone.
For example: Μάλιστα μεμνημένοι τῶν λόγων τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησδυ, oὗς ἐλάλησε διδάσκων ὲπιείκειαν καὶ μακροθυμίαν. ὅυτως γὰρ εἷπεν' ἑλεεῖτε, ἵνα ελεηθῆτε, ἀφίετε, ΐνα ἀπεθῆ ὑμῖν... ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε, ἐν ἀυτῷ μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν. Epist. 1, cap. 13. — Luke 6:35-36. Or: μνήσθητε τῶν λόγων Ἰησδυ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, εἷπε γὰρ' οὐαὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκέινῳ, καλὸν ἧν ἀυτῷ, ἐι οὐκ ἐγεννήθη... ἣ ἔνα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν μου σκανδαλίσαι, κρεῖττον ἧν ἀυτῶ περιτεθῆναι μύλον, καὶ καταποντισθήναι ἐις την θάλασσαν, ἣ ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν μου σκανδαλίσαι. Ibid. cap. 46. cf. Matt. 26:24; 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2.
Cf., e.g., Epist. II, cap. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 with Matt. 9:21; 10:32; 7:21 and 23; Luke 13:37; Matt. 6:24; 16:26; Luke 16:12; Matt. 12:50.
Καὶ ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει' ὅτι ὀυκ ἧλθον καλέσαι δικαίους, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτολὸυς. Epist. II, cap. 2.
Λέγει γὰρ ὁ Κύριος ἐν ἐυαγγελίῳ' ἐι τὸ μικρὸνὀυκ ἐτηρήσατε, τὸ μέγα τίς ὑμῖν δώσι; λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ πιστός ἐν ἐλαχίστω, καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πιστός ἐστιν. cap. 8, — Luke 16:10; Matt. 25:21.
Lumperi Hist. Theologico-Critic. de vita, scriptis et doctrina S. Patrum… trium primorum saeculorum. Aug. Vindelic. 1783, pag. 1-3.
Jacobson. S. Clementis, S. Ignatii, S. Polycarpi, quae supersunt. Oxon. 1838, tom. I, p. 244-253 et tom. II, pag. 454-461.
Namely, up to 30 passages. See, in the above-mentioned edition of Jacobson, tom. II, pag. 597: Index S. Scripturarum, toto opere citatarum, and compare with this the passages we have enumerated in the other apostolic men whose writings are not included in Jacobson’s edition.
Up to eleven passages. See ibid.
Two passages: one in St. Polycarp, the other in St. Clement.
In St. Clement and Barnabas.
Papias speaks of Matthew and Mark; St. Polycarp—of all the Evangelists and Gospels.
The chief objections against the authenticity of the Gospels, and the refutations of these objections, may be read in the small book: Certitude des preuves du Christianisme ou réfutation de l’examen critique des Apologistes de la religion Chrétienne, par Bergier, Paris, 1838, chap. 1 et 11.
The Gospel of Matthew, though written in the Hebrew language, has come down to us only in Greek translation.
The best works in which these testimonies are gathered and surveyed are: 1) Pezron—Histoire Évangélique, confirmée par la Judaïque et la Romaine, included in vol. 27 of Cursus completi Sacrae Scripturae… Paris, 1843, and 2) William Paley—in German translation under the title: Übersicht und Prüfung die Beweise und Zeugnisse für das Christentum, mit einer Vorrede von Nösselt, Leipzig, 1792, th. II, cap. 6.
Antiqu. lib. XVIII, cap. II, sect. 2, cap. V, sect. 3. Also De bello Judaico, lib. II, cap. 20.
Antiqu. lib. XVII, cap. 8, sect. I, et cap. 13, sect. I; lib. XVIII, cap. 5, sect. 6, et cap. 6, sect. 1 et 4.
Heineccii Antiqu. jur. Rom. illustr. lib. IV, tit. 4, n. 1; cf. tit. 6, 14, and 16.
Productique onmes, virgisque caesi ac securi percussi… Tit. Liv. lib. XI, cap. 15; Joseph, de bello Jud. pag. 1247, edit. Huds.
Plutarch, de iis, qui sero puniuntur, pag. 554, Paris, 1624.
Svet. Domit. cap. 10; Cass. lib. IV; Joseph, de bello Jud. ibidem.
Eo pius, ut etiam vetus veterrimumque supplicium patibulum, et cruribus suffringendis, primus removerit. Aur. Vict. Ces. cap. 42.
De bell. Jud. lib. II, cap. 6 et 7, pag. 868-869, edit. Basil.
Philo, de legat. ad Cajum.
Justin, Epitome Trogi lib. XXXV, c. 3: Opes gentis ex lectigalibus opobalsami crevere…
Strabo lib. XVI, pag. 519, Cassab. 1587.
Ἔθος ἠν τoῖς Γαλιλάιοις ἐν τᾶις ἐωρταῖς ἐις τἠν ἱερὰν πόλιν παραγενομένοις ὀδέυειν διὰ τῆς Σαμαρίων χώρας, καὶ καθ' ὀδὸν ἀυτδις κώμης τῆς Ναι λεγομένης. Antiqu. lib. XX, cap. 6.
Harduin. Numm. antiqu. popul. et urb. illustr. pag. 340.
Vita Josephi Flav. p. 630, edit. Basil; de bello Jud. lib. VII, cap. 2.
Pellerin, Recueil des médailles tom. I-II.
Even Quintus Curtius and Titus Livy, as is known, are reproached for this. Livy, for instance, forgetting the difference of times and circumstances, confuses ancient geography with the new, and speaks of Sinuessa, Praeneste, and Arpi, calling them by the new names in use in his own time, whereas he ought to have called them Sinope, Argos-Hippium, and Stephania. In exactly the same way the deception of Philostratus, who described the life of the notorious Apollonius of Tyana, has been exposed. This biography, Philostratus assures us, he composed from the memoirs of Damis, Apollonius’s inseparable companion during his travels; and yet, at almost every step in his narrative, he contradicts the actual state, at that time, of the places where Apollonius and Damis traveled. Thus, he brings his hero to Babylon, and describes this city as great and flourishing, whereas at that time Babylon was nothing but a vast ruin and wasteland; he likewise depicts Sparta as a free city at a time when it lay under the yoke of the Romans (Vit. Apollon. Thyan. per Philostrat. Lemm. Sen. lib. I, c. 18 et lib. IV, c. 2).
Dio Xiphil. in vita Hadrian, pag. 266; H. Steph., edit. Wechel. p. 974.
See especially the above-cited testimony of St. Irenaeus on this point—Contra haeres. lib. III, c. XI, n. 7.
Quod poteris proferre scriptum, quod non ille, qui non vult credere, dicat esse confictum, si tanta Evangelii notitia venit in dubium? (Augustine, Contra Faustum. lib. XXII, cap. 79).
Contra haeres. lib. III, cap. 13, n. 3; cap. 14, n. 1.
Adversus Marcion. lib. V, cap. 2 et 3.
Fragment. Adumbrat. in prior. Petri epist., pag. 1007, edit. Potter.
For example, Origen (Epist. ad Africanum, n. 9), Eusebius (Histor. Eccles. lib. II, cap. 22), Jerome (Epist. 103 Paulin.), Chrysostom (Homil. in Acta).
Epist. I, ad Corinth, cap. 38, 30, 10.
“…credit Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus Dei vocatus est” (Adversus haeres. lib. IV, cap. 16).
Opp. Graec. tom. III, pag. 51.
Epist. II, 2; cf. 1 Pet. 1:5, 7.
1 Epist. II, 1; cf. 1 Pet. 5:5; 1 Epist. XVI, 7; cf. 1 Pet. 2:21.
Ignatius, ad Magnes. XIII, 2; cf. 1 Pet. 5:5.
In Eusebius, Church History, bk. III, ch. 39.
Polycarp, Epist. I, 3: cf. 1 Pet. 1:8; II, 1: cf. 1 Pet. 1:21; Polycarp, V, 5: cf. 1 Pet. 2:11.
Adversus haeres. lib. IV, cap. 9, n. 2 et cap. 16, n. 5; cf. Eusebius, Church History, bk. V, ch. 8.
Clement of Alexandria quotes almost the whole of this epistle under the name of the Apostle Peter, in various of his works, especially in the Stromata.
Tertullian, Scorpiac. cap. XII.
In Eusebius, Church History, bk. VI, ch. 25.
In Eusebius, Church History, bk. III, ch. 3, 25.
Justin, Dialogue with Trypho.
Irenaeus, Adversus haeres. lib. V, cap. 18 et 23.
All these testimonies may be seen in Calmet, De Vence, and other commentators on Holy Scripture.
Eusebius, Church History, bk. III, ch. 24.
See in Calmet or De Vence.
See in Calmet or De Vence.
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. lib. III, cap. 2 et Paedag. lib. III, cap. 8; Origen, Commentar. in Matth. XIII; Tertullian, De cult. foem. cap. 4; Epiphanius, Adversus haeres. lib. I, T. II, haer. 26 et caet.
For a proper thorough treatment, see in Hug—Einleitung in die Schriften des neuen Test. Theil II, seit. 201-450, Stuttg. 1821.
Ibid., seit. 521-568. In this same work, and also in Calmet, De Vence, and others, a satisfactory explanation may also be found for why certain of the New Testament books—namely the Epistle of James, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse—were, by some, not received, or held to be doubtful, until a certain time.
Antiqu. lib. XXV, cap. 7, § 8.
Antiqu. lib. XII, cap. 10, § 6 and 7.
Antiqu. lib. XX, cap. 4, § 2.
Diogen. Laërt. in Epimedit. lib. I, § 110.
Pausan. Attic, lib. I et V.
Philostr. vita Apollon. Thyan. lib. VI, cap. 3.
Judaeos, impulsore Christo, assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit (Claudius). Sveton, in Claudio cap. 25.
This is chiefly Mill, who, after thirty years of labor, published the Greek text of the New Testament with variant readings at Oxford in 1707; also Wettstein (1751, 1752), Küster, and others.
All these variant readings, however numerous they may appear, concern, by the agreement of all critics, only spelling, word order and arrangement, pronunciation, grammatical errors, and the like, nowhere altering the actual sense of Scripture.
The autograph of St. Matthew still existed in the time of Origen and Jerome, according to their own testimony, and the autograph of St. John was preserved in the church of Ephesus in the time of Peter of Alexandria (4th century). See Peter of Alexandria, Tract. de Paschat.
Age, says Tertullian, qui voles curiositatem exercere in negotio salutis tuae, percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quae ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident; apud quas ipsae authenticae litterae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque (De praecaript. cap. 36).
Justin, Apolog. I, 67.
The bishop who delivered the homily was named Triphyllius; he altered the Savior’s word in the following text: take up your pallet and go (Mark 2:11), using in place of pallet another synonymous word which seemed to him more elegant; and the one who reproved him was St. Spyridon, bishop of Trimithus (Sozomen, Church History, bk. 1, ch. 2).
He even relates a case, similar to the one related by Sozomen, that occurred in the African church—how the people, upon hearing in Jerome’s translation the alteration of a single word found in the ancient Italic translation, became agitated and compelled the bishop to keep to the former translation. Epistol. 71 et 82.
Jerome himself clearly foresaw this, on undertaking his work, as is evident from his letter to Pope Damasus.
See St. Athanasius the Great’s 39th Festal Letter, and, in the Longer Christian Catechism published by the holy Synod, the article: On Holy Scripture.
Ότι δἐ ταῦτα ὅυτως ἔχει, τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀλήθέιας, τὰς θέιας, φημὶ, γραφὰς κατοπτεύσωμεν. Epist. CXIV, lib. IV.
See his 39th Festal Letter, in the Book of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, and the Holy Fathers, published by the holy Synod. The Greek word κανών signifies: a) a register, a catalogue of persons or things (see in Suicer, κανών, num. V, and κανονικός, num. III); b) a definition, an ordinance of the Church, for which reason all the canons of the Councils were commonly called κανόνες (ibid., κανών, num. III); and, most often of all, c) a fixed, unchanging rule, admitting neither addition nor subtraction (ibid., num. I). The sacred books are called canonical in all three of these senses, and not in any one alone: that is, they are so called, on the one hand, because they are entered in the register (κανών) of God-inspired books and entered there by the rules (κανών) of the Church; and, on the other hand, because they are received and set before the faithful by the Church as the rule of truth. The first is evident from the very name of these books in Greek — κανονιζόμενα, κεκανονισμένα, from κανονίζω, I enter in the register, I canonize… — and from Rufinus’s own words about these books: haec sunt, quae patres intra canonem concluserunt et ex quibus fidei nostrae assertiones constare voluerunt (in Exposit. Symboli); the last is evident from the words of St. Isidore of Pelusium, who, speaking in general of Holy Scripture, calls it κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας (Epist. CXIV, lib. IV), and, in part, from St. Irenaeus, who likewise calls the Gospel by this name (Adv. haeres. lib. III, cap. II). But to reject the first sense of this word and confine oneself to the last alone, as the Protestants wish to do—that is, to say that the canonical books are called canonical solely because they contain, for Christians, a rule of faith and conduct—is entirely unjust: besides being contrary to the ancient ecclesiastical usage of the word canonical, one may ask: who, then, in that case, will point out to us these very books which we are to recognize as the rule of our conduct?
See this same 39th Festal Letter.
Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, bk. IV, ch. 17, p. 272, Moscow, 1844. — The non-canonical books, or those not brought into the canon, as St. Athanasius calls them, were otherwise called in antiquity ecclesiastical books, because they were read in the churches for the edification of catechumens and the faithful (Rufin. in exposit. Symboli, pag. 555). Among certain Christian teachers in the West (Jerome, in prolog. Galeat.) they were even called apocryphal (ἀπόκρυφος — hidden). But this name was not received in the Church, and under the name of apocryphal books, especially in the East, were properly understood only spurious books, put forth as sacred, or books that were indeed originally sacred but corrupted by heretics—such were the Gospels of Thomas, of Peter, of the Hebrews, and the like, as well as the Gospels of Basilides, Tatian, and others. This is the sense in which the word is used by Pope Gelasius (in Decreto apud Gratianum, distinct. XV), by Rufinus (in exposit. Symboli), but, what is most important for us, by St. Athanasius, in his Festal Letter, which the Orthodox Church receives as a canonical epistle. Here, having enumerated in detail which books of Holy Scripture are canonical and which non-canonical, the holy father concludes: “yet, beloved, besides these that are read” (that is, the non-canonical) “and those that are canonical, there is nowhere any mention of the apocryphal, but this is a device of the heretics, who write these at will, and assign and add to them a date, that, presenting them as though ancient, they may have the means to deceive the simple-minded by them” (Book of the Canons…). Consequently, there ought to be no mention whatsoever of apocryphal books among those that make up Holy Scripture.
See, in Part One, the article: The Internal Marks of the Divinity of the Old Testament Revelation (§§ 53-57).
Lib. 1 contra Apion., cap. 8.
De special. legibus, tom. II, pag. 343; cf. De praemiis et poenis, tom. II, pag. 417, also De monarchia, lib. I, tom. II, pag. 222, edit. Th. Mangey.
Γνόντα δὲ τὸ πραχθὲν φασί τὸν (Πέτρον) ἀποκαλύψαντος ἀυτῷ τοῦ πνεύματος (that is, that Mark, at the request of the Romans, wrote the Gospel), ἠσθῆναι τῆ τὸν ἀνδρῶν προθυμία, κυρῶσαι τε τὴν γραφὴν ἐις ἔντευξιν ταῖς κκλησίαις. Κλήμης ἐν ἔκτω τῶν ὑποτυπώσεων παρατέθειται τὴν ἱστορίαν' συνεπιμαρτυρεῖ δὲ ἀυτῷ καὶ ὁ ἱεραπολίτης ἐπίσκοπος ὀνόματι Παπιας. Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. lib. II, cap. 15.
Καὶ Λουχᾶς δέ ὁ ἀχόλουθος Παύλου, τὸ ὑπ' ἐχείνου κηρυσσόμενον ἐυαγγέλιον, ἐν βιβλίφ κατέθετο. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. V, cap. 8.
Ἤγη δἐ Μάσκου καὶ Λουκᾶ τῶν κατ' αὐτῶν ἐυαγγελίων τὴν ἔκδοσιν πεποιημμένων, Ἰωάννην φασι τὸν πάντα χρόνον ἀγράφῳ κεχρημμένον κηρύγματι τέλος καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν γραφὴν ἐλθεῖν τοιᾶσδε χάριν ἀιτίας. τῶν προαναγραφέντων τριῶν ἐις πάντας ἤδη καὶ ἐις αὐτὸν διαδεδομμένων, ἀποδέζασθαι μὲν φασὶν, ἀληθέιαν αὐτοῖς ἐπιμαρτυρήσαντα. Eusebius, Histor. Eccl. lib. III, cap. 24.
Clement, I ad Corinth. cap. 45; Ignatius, ad Magnes.; Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ.; Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 29, 33.
Theophilus, ad Autolic. lib. II, cap. 9; Irenaeus, Adver. haeres. lib. II, cap. 47; Origen, De princip. lib. IV, cap. 1; Gregory the Wonderworker, Serm. 2 de Annunt.; Tertullian, Adv. Hermog. cap. 22; Cyprian, lib. de oper. et eleemosyn.; Hilary, Psalm. 37.
Eusebius, Church History, bk. I, ch. 38; Basil the Great, on Ps. 59, n. 2; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures IV; Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, bk. I, in Opp. t. II, p. 346, ed. Morel.; Chrysostom, on Genesis, homily 21.
See, in Part One, the article: The Internal Marks of the Divinity of the New Testament Revelation (§§ 91-94).
See the Longer Christian Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, the article: On Holy Scripture in Particular.
Contra Apion. lib. I, § 8.
Their testimonies we shall see further on, in this same §.
Mischna, edit. de Surenhusius, tom. IV, pag. 409.
In his letter to Onesimus, where Melito enumerates these books, he first says the following: ἔτι δέ καὶ μαθεῖν τὴν τῶν παλαιῶν βιβλίων ἐβουλήθης ἀκρίβειαν, πόσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ ὁποῖα τὴν τάξιν ἕιεν, ἐσπούδασα τὸ τοιδυτο πρᾶξαι... ἀνελθὼν οὗν ἐις τὴν ἀνατολὴν, καὶ ἕως τοῦ τόπου γενόμενος ἔνθα ἐκηρύχθη, καὶ ἀκριβῶς μαθὼν τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βιβλία, ὑποτάξας ἔπεμψά σοι. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. IV, cap. 26.
In Eusebius, lib. IV, cap. 25.
Catechetical Lectures IV, ch. 35.
Church History, bk. IV, ch. 26.
See in the Book of the Canons—the Festal Letter, and in Khr. Cht. 1841, IV, pp. 216-218.
See in the Book of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical Councils, and…
Vid. De ponder. et mensuris cap. 4, cap. 23 et contra haeres. lib. I, cap. 8.
Hic prologus, scripturarum quasi galeatum principium, omnibus libris, quos de Haebreo vertimus in Latinum, convenire potest, ut scrire valeas, quidquid extra hos est, inter apocrypha esse ponendum. Sapientia, quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Jesu Sirach liber et Judith, et Tobias… non sunt in canone. Vid. Prolog. Galeat.
T. V. libri XXII… Quibusdam autem visum est, additis Tobia et Judith, XXIV libros, secundum numerum Graecarum litterarum, connumerare (Vid. Prolog. in librum Psalmorum pag. 241, in tom. IX. Patrolog. curs. complet. Paris, 1844).
In Exposit. Symboli pag. 557.
De sectis liber in X Actiones distributus, una cum aliis opusc. edit. Basil. 1578. Vid. Act. II, pag. 402.
See, in his Theology, the chapter On Scripture.
Chronologia tripartita, edit. ad calcem Chron. Evsebiani, Paris, 1652, pag. 312.
Confess. Eecles. Orient, cap. VII de Ecclesia.
See the Book of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Councils, and the Holy Fathers.
Augustine, De doctrina Christ. lib. 2, cap. 8; Innocent, Epist. ad Exuperium, episcopum Toletanum; Gelasius, in concil. Romano, an. 494.
See in the Book of the Canons of the Holy Apostles… Council of Carthage, canon 33.
De civit. Dei lib. XVIII, cap. 36: scripsit, etsi Maccabaeorum libri inter scripturas, quae canonicae appelantur, non sint, et Judaei eos pro canonicis non habeant, attamen Ecclesia eos pro canonicis habere…
Lib. II contra Gaudentium, cap. 21 explicat, scripturam, quae apellatur Maccabaeorum, non habere Judaeos, sicut legem et prophetas et psalmos…, sed receptam ab Ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur, vel audiatur.
This observation must be kept in mind also in the event that, among later Orthodox writers, or even among whole local Councils, all the books of Holy Scripture, both canonical and non-canonical, are called canonical without distinction. In this way, the teaching of individual teachers and Councils is easily reconciled with the teaching of the whole Orthodox Church, which clearly distinguishes between the two kinds of books.
It must be noted, however, that not all the non-canonical books are mentioned in the canon of the Council of Carthage; missing, for instance, are the Wisdom of Sirach and all the books of Maccabees, at least according to the Greek manuscripts of this Council, although they are said to be present in the Latin manuscripts (Thesaur. Sviceri — Μαχχαβᾶιος de lib. II Maccabaeorum).
In canonicis scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quam plurium auctoritatem sequatur Christianus. Tenebit itaque hunc modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas, quae ab omnibus ecclesiis accipiantur, praeponat iis, quas quaedam non accipiunt; in iis vero, quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat eas, quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, iis, quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesiae tenent (Lib. II, de doctrin. Christ., cap. 8).
Contra Apion. lib. I, § 8.
Praeparat. Evangel. lib. XII, cap. 22, pag. 597. Paris, 1628.
See in more detail on this above, in the § on the authenticity of the remaining (post-Pentateuch) books of the Old Testament.
Among the testimonies we have enumerated concerning the 22 canonical books of the Old Testament, there is a slight discrepancy regarding—a) the Book of Baruch, b) the Epistle of Jeremiah, and c) the Book of Esther. The first two are reckoned among the canonical books in the lists of Origen, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius, Hilary, the Council of Laodicea, and Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, but are not mentioned in the rest. But they are not mentioned, without doubt, because they were usually counted together with the book of the prophecy of Jeremiah, with which they were also joined under a single number, as all the lists in which they are mentioned show; and it is known that the teachers of the Church quite often quoted passages from the Book of Baruch under the name of Jeremiah (for instance, St. Chrysostom, Khr. Cht. 1832, XLVII—in his discussion that Jesus Christ is God, quotes the words of Baruch 3:36-38 under the name of Jeremiah; likewise blessed Augustine—De civit. Dei lib. XVIII, cap. 33; St. Ambrose, lib. I, De poenit. cap. 8; lib. III Hexaem., c. 14, et lib. 1 De fide, cap. 2; St. Basil the Great, lib. IV Contra Eunomium, and others). As for the Book of Esther, in the list of St. Athanasius, set forth in his Festal Letter, it is, for an unknown reason, assigned to the non-canonical books, and in the list of St. Gregory the Theologian it is omitted altogether, whereas in all the other lists it is counted as canonical: the voice of all the rest must, without doubt, settle the matter here. Yet even St. Athanasius himself, if he is indeed the author of the Synopsis ascribed to him, remarks here: “some of the ancients affirmed that the Jews, among the canonical books, also counted Esther, and, joining the Book of Ruth to the history of Judges, reckoned it as one book, and the Book of Esther as another, separate book; thus, in this case too, the number of canonical books was limited to 22.” A Brief Survey of Holy Scripture, in Khr. Cht. 1841, IV, pp. 218-219.
See in the Longer Christian Catechism, the article On Holy Scripture in Particular.
Eusebius, Church History, bk. VI, ch. 25.
Ibid., bk. III, ch. 25.
See in Khr. Cht. 1841, IV, 219-220.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Lectures IV, 36; St. Amphilochius, see in the Book of the Canons…; Leontius of Byzantium, lib. de sectis, act. II; St. John of Damascus, bk. IV of the Theology, ch. 17.
See in the Book of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Councils…
Rufinus, In exposit. Symboli; Augustine, De doctrina Christ. lib. II, cap. 8; Innocent, Epist. ad Exuperium, episcopum Toletanum; Gelasius, in concil. Rom., an. 464; Cassiodorus, De instit. Divin. Script. lib. II, cap. 13.
Muratorii Antiquit. Ital. maedii aevi tom. III.
For instance, even at the end of the 4th century, blessed Jerome wrote of the Epistle to the Hebrews: sed apud Romanos usque hodie Pauli non habetur (Vid. in Catal. scriptorum illustr., under the word: Caius).
Namely, of many Gospels—for instance, the Gospel of the Infancy of Christ, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Peter, and others; of many Acts of the Apostles, many epistles, and many Apocalypses. See Fabricii, Codex apocryphus Nov. Testam.
To these non-canonical books belong also certain passages found within the canonical books, such as: 1) the Prayer of Manasseh, at the end of the Second Book of Chronicles; 2) the passages, not marked by verse numbering in the Greek codices and in the Slavonic translation, in the Book of Esther; 3) the Song of the Three Youths in the third chapter of the Book of the Prophet Daniel, the story of Susanna in the thirteenth, and likewise of Bel and the Dragon in the fourteenth chapter of the same book.
Contra Apion. lib. I, §§ 7 et 8.
Proofs of all this are adduced by Joseph de Voisin in his Observat. in prooemium Pugionis fidei—Raymundi Martini, edit. Lipsiae 1687, pag. 125-129. Among the Jews, second-rank hagiographa was the name given to books that did not possess the importance of the hagiographa admitted into the canon and written by inspiration from the Holy Spirit, yet which were, in their view, written with the assistance of this same Spirit, only in a lesser degree.
Origen, Epist. ad Africanum n. 13, pag. 26, edit. Benedictin.
Bertholdt, Einleitung in die Schrift…, I, § 33, s. 97, 98.
See above, note 497.
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. lib. VI; Cyprian, De orat. Dominica.
In cap. II ad Roman, et homil. 27 in Numer.
Lib. de Tobia et lib. VI in Hexaemer.
Lib. II, de doctrin. Christ.
Clement of Rome, in Epist. I ad Corinth.; Tertullian, De monogam. cap. 17; Jerome, in praef. ad libr. Judith, where he remarks: “Synodus Nicaena in numero S. Scripturarum Judith legitur computasse”; Augustine, lib. II De doctrin. Christ., cap. 8.
Irenaeus — in Eusebius, Church History, bk. V, ch. 8; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. IV, V, VI; Origen, In Levit. homil. V, XII; Cyprian, De exhort. Martyr. I; Epiphanius, Haeres. 76; Hilary, Enarrat. in Psalm. 127.
As indeed the ancient heretics also did, according to the testimony of the teachers of the Church: Tertullian, De praescript. haeret. cap. XVIII; Irenaeus, Contra haeres. lib. I, cap. 20, n. 1; Basil the Great, on Genesis, homily V, n. 5; Augustine, Contra Adimant. cap. 13, n. 4.
Symbolique par Moehler tom. II, chap. 5, § 41, pag 40-42. Bruxel. 1838.
It is known that even the clearest passage of this kind (2 Tim. 3:16) is variously interpreted by those of wrong belief. See Rosenmüller on 2 Tim. 3:16.
“And the false wisdom of the heretics,” it is noted in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, “receives the divine Scripture, but only distorts its meaning, making use of allegorical and equivocal expressions and the artifices of human wisdom, blending together what cannot be blended, and playing childishly with matters that admit no jesting. Had everyone taken to interpreting Scripture daily in his own way, the catholic Church, by the grace of Christ, would not have remained to this day the Church that she is—a Church which, being of one mind in the faith, believes always alike and unshakably—but would have split into countless factions, fallen into heresies, and, along with this, ceased to be the holy Church, the pillar and ground of the truth, becoming instead the church of the crafty, that is, the church of the heretics” (see art. 2). And, indeed, it is precisely from this very principle that all the heresies, ancient and modern, chiefly arose—each of which, as is known, invariably strives to base its errors upon certain texts of Holy Scripture, interpreting them in its own way. Omnes enim haeretici, blessed Augustine already remarked long ago, qui eas (scripturas) in auctoritate recipiunt, ipsas sibi videntur sectari, cum potius suos sectentur errores; ac per hoc, non quod eas contemnant, sed quod eas non intelligant, haeretici sunt (Epist. CXX ad Consentium, n. 13). And elsewhere: neque enim non omnes haeretici scripturas catholicas legunt, nec ob aliud haeretici, nisi quod eas non recte intelligentes, suas falsas opiniones contra earum veritatem, pertinaciter asserunt (De Genes. ad litter. lib. VII, cap. 9, n. 13).
We shall speak of him further on.
This is precisely why all heretics, too, invariably had recourse to Scripture, and said that their teaching was clearly set forth in it. Memento, writes Hilary, neminem haereticorum esse, qui se nunc non secundum Scripturas praedicare ea, quae blasphemat, mentiatur (Ad Constant. lib. II, n. 9). The same was written in their own time by St. Irenaeus (Adversus haeres. lib. V, cap. 21, n. 2), Tertullian (De praescript. cap. 17 et 38), Origen (De principiis lib. IV, n. 8), blessed Jerome (Adversus Luciferianos), Vincent of Lérins (Commonit. n. 2), and others. Cf. note 563.
It suffices, in this connection, to recall the teaching of the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anabaptists on baptism.
See Moehler, Symbolique tom. II, §§ 59 and 84.
Τοῖς ἐρευνῶσι τὰς γραφὰς, says St. Chrysostom, χρεία τῆς ἄνωθεν αἴγλης, ἵνα καὶ εὕρωσι τὸ ζητούμενον, καὶ φυλάξωσι τὸ θηρώμενον (In Psalm. 119). The same is said by: St. Justin the Martyr (Dialog. cum Tryphon. n. 29, 30), St. Irenaeus (Adv. haer. II, 28, n. 3), blessed Theodoret on Hosea ch. 14, blessed Augustine on Psalm 126, and others.
See in the Longer Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, the article: On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, and specifically the answer to the question: why is Tradition needed even now?
Many other, well-known, preliminary concepts concerning sacred Tradition, concerning the division of traditions into Apostolic, ecclesiastical, and patristic, and their further subdivision into dogmatic, historical, and ritual, and the like, may be found: 1) in The Rock of Faith, in the article: On Holy Tradition, and also 2) in Khr. Cht. 1829, XXXIV, 314, in the article: On Traditions as a Source of Religion.
Dialogue of a Priest with a Molokan on the Veneration of Holy Icons, in Khr. Cht. 1841, pt. III, pp. 113-114.
Adv. haer. III, 4, n. 1, 2, in Khr. Cht. 1838, II, 7-9.
Dialogue of a Priest with a Molokan, in Khr. Cht. 1841, pt. III, pp. 114-115.
Προύτρεπέ τε ἀπρὶξ ἒχεσθαι τῆς τῶν Ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως, ἣν ὑ ύπὲρ ασφαλέίας καὶ ἐγγράφως ἤδη μαρτυρόμενος διατυποῖσθαι ἀναγκᾶιον ἡγεῖτο. Eusebius, Histor. Eccles. III, cap. 36, edit. Vales.
Ταῦτα διδάξας ἀεἰ (Πολυκαρπος), says St. Irenaeus, ἃ καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἕμαθεν, ἅ καὶ ἡ ἐκκλησία παραδίδωσιν, ἅ καὶ μόνα ἐντὶν ἀληθῆ. See in Eusebius, H. E. lib. IV, c. 14, and cf. Irenaeus, Contra haeres. lib. III, cap. 3.
Eusebius, Church History, bk. IV, ch. 22.
Contra haeres. lib. III, cap. 3.
Ibid., cap. 2. “When we refer them” (the heretics), “he says, to the apostolic tradition, which is preserved in the churches through the succession of presbyters, they oppose the tradition”… and so forth.
De praescript. haereticorum. See especially cap. 19, 21, 27.
De prinsipiis lib. I, n. 2.
Cyprian, Epist. 63.
Haeres. 60, cap. 6.
See, in the newly published Kormchaia (Book of the Pilot), St. Basil, from ch. 27 of his book On the Holy Spirit, to blessed Amphilochius.
Ἐυτεῦθεν (2 Thess. 3:15) δῆλον, ὅτι ὀυ πάντα δἰ' επιστολῆς παρεδίδοσαν, αλλα καὶ ἀγράφως, ὁμοίως δὲ κακεῖνᾳ καὶ τᾶοτα 'εστιν ἀξιόπιστα, ὥστε καὶ τὴν παράδοσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας 'αξιόπιστον ἡγώμεθα. παράδοσις 'εστι, μηδὲν πλέον ζητεῖ. In 2 Thess., homil. IV, n. 2.
A large number of them may be seen in The Rock of Faith, pt. III, from p. 19, ed. St. Petersburg, 1840.
Theodoret, Church History, bk. I, ch. 8; Athanasius, Epist. de decret. Nicen. Synod., n. 27.
Theodoret, Church History, bk. V, ch. 8, 9.
Acta concilior. Harduini tom. II, col. 1354 et seqq.
Ibid., tom. III, col. 450 et seqq.; Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. lib. II, cap. 18.
Canons 1 and 2.
Khr. Cht. 1838, II, 4.
See above, note 572.
Khr. Cht. 1838, II, pp. 4-5. Cf. Irenaeus, III, 3, n. 1-4; IV, 25, n. 2, 6; Tertullian, De praescr. haeret. c. 23; Cyprian, Epist. XXVII.
Augustine, Adversus Julian. lib. II, c. 10.
This is known of Papias (Eusebius, Church History, bk. III, ch. 39), Hegesippus (ibid., IV, 22), Pantaenus (VI, 13), Clement of Alexandria (V, 11; cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1, n. 1), Origen, Eusebius, and others.
Many of these Creeds are collected in Bingham—Origin. Ecclesiast. vol. IV, lib. X, cap. 4—and also in Vetrinsky—in Monuments of Christian Antiquities, pt. IV, bk. 9, ch. 4.
See the article: On the Canons of the Holy Apostles, in Khr. Cht. 1841, III, p. 456.
Collections of them may be found: apud Asseman., Codex liturgicus Ecclesiae universae, Romae, 1749; Card. Bona, De rebus liturgicis…; Renaudot, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio, Paris, 1716—the latter counts as many as 50 Eastern liturgies alone.
Zaccaria, Dissertatio de liturgiarum in rebus Theologicis usu…, also Muratorius, De rebus liturgicis, and others.
Many of these acts are collected and published under the title Acta martyrum sincera, by Ruinart.
See apud Ruinart, in Praefat. generali in Acta martyrum sincera, § 1, n. 3, 4, 5.
More on the holy Fathers and their authority will be said later (§ 141).
It is justly held that even the ancient heretics themselves may be regarded as incorruptible witnesses to the true Apostolic tradition that existed in the Church. All these heretics generally held a twofold teaching: a) teaching condemned by the Church, for which she excommunicated them, and b) teaching not condemned by the Church, which they had borrowed from her while still her members, and carried away with them. The former obviously points, by contrast, to the true teaching then held in the Church; the latter, directly. If, for instance, the ancient Church condemned the Antitrinitarians, who denied the trinity of Persons in God, is this not a plain sign that she herself believed in this trinity?
Longer Catechism, the article: On Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture.
Rite of Orthodoxy, fol. 7 and 8 verso, Moscow, 1820.
Rite of Reception of Persons of Other Faiths, fol. 7 verso, Moscow, 1757.
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, art. 2.
Irenaeus, Adv. haer. III, 4, n. 1, in Khr. Cht. 1838, II, p. 7; cf. III, 3, n. 1.
Non alia agnoscenda erit traditio Apostolorum, quam quae hodie apud ipsorum ecclesias editur (Contra Marcion. 1, cap. 12). And here are other words of Tertullian’s, of a similar kind: constat, omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis ecclesiis Apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandam, sine dubio tenentem, quod ecclesiae ab Apostolis, Apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo accepit (De praescript. haer. cap. 21. See also Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I, lib., cap. 2).
Advers. Julian. lib. II, cap. 10.
Quod apud multos, unum invenitur, non est erratum, sed traditum (De praescript. cap. 82).
Vid. Commonitor. circa finem.
Khr. Cht. 1838, II, p. 7.
De Baptismo, Contra donatistas IV, cap. 24.
See the remarkable words on this passage of His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, in his sermon at the consecration of the church of the Life-Giving Trinity in the Danilov Monastery in Moscow, delivered on September 13, 1838. This sermon sets forth the teaching on Tradition in general.
See in the Book of the Canons… St. Basil the Great, to Amphilochius, On the Holy Spirit.
See above, note 584.
In Eusebius, Church History, bk. VI, ch. 26.
These passages are indicated above, in notes 513 and 544.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Lectures IV, 35; Eusebius, Church History, bk. III, ch. 25.
Basil the Great, ch. 27 of his epistle On the Holy Spirit, to Amphilochius.
Let us recall the sheer number of interpretations of the Savior’s words: this is my body… See in The Rock of Faith, pt. III, p. 96, St. Petersburg, 1840.
See the Longer Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Church, the article: On Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture.
Contra haeres. III, c. 2; IV, c. 63.
Strom. 1, 7.
Tract. in Matth. 29.
De princip. praef. n. 2.
Histor. Eccles. lib. II, c. 9.
Epist. 74.
That the word church is sometimes used in Holy Scripture to designate the order of pastors alone is evident from the Savior’s own words: if your brother sins against you, go and reprove him, between you and him alone; if he listens to you, you have gained your brother—but if he does not listen to you, take with you one or two more, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established; and if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a pagan and a tax collector. For truly I say to you: whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 18:15-19). These last words — truly I say to you: whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven — directly attest that the Lord, by church, meant precisely those persons invested by Him with the authority to bind and to loose, exactly as, among the Jews, in a similar case, when the matter concerned the correction or punishment of someone, the church (Kahal, ἐκκλησία) properly meant the supreme council, or Sanhedrin, composed chiefly of priests and Levites. This is why St. Chrysostom, in his explanation of this passage, after the words tell it to the church, adds: that is, to her presiding elders, and further takes the words whatever you… as a continuation of this same thought, likewise referring it to the presiding elders of the Church (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Russian translation, pt. III, p. 32). St. Cyprian, Augustine, Theophylact, and others explain this passage in the same way.
Clement of Rome, Epist. 1 ad Corinth. n. 1, 34, 47, 57; Ignatius, Epist. ad Smyrnens. n. 8; Epist. ad Magnes. n. 3, 6, 7.
Epist. 52 ad Antonianum et epist. ad Tapsos.
Serm. 32, in Works of the Holy Fathers, pp. 142-145.
Tom XI, 75 et tom. X, 548, Venet. 1741.
Ambrose, De officiis ministr. lib. II, cap. 24, n. 123; Jerome, Dialog. contra Luciferianos, cap. 4; Augustine, Contra epist. Parmeniani, lib. I, cap. 3, n. 5; Gregory the Great, Epist. 62 adversus im, Antioch. Episc.; cf. Epist. 63 ad ?hcodorei.
Valde enim et perfectos et irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant (apostoli), suum ipsorum locum magisterii tenentes. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. III, 3, n. 1. For more detail, see our Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, § 172.
“One must obey the pastors who are in the Church, who have their succession from the Apostles, and who, by the good pleasure of the Father, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the sure gift of truth (charisma veritatis certum)… Where the gifts of the Lord are found, there too one must learn the truth, that is, from those who have been set over the Church by succession from the Apostles, and in whom abides sound, blameless speech, and unadulterated, uncorrupted discourse (inadulteratum et incorruptibile sermonis). It is they who guard our faith in the one God who made all things, and who increase our love for the Son, who accomplished such benefits for us, and who rightly expound the Scriptures to us without danger (et scripturas sine periculo nobis exponunt)” (Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. IV, c. 26). And further: “the presiding elders of the Church, traversing the whole world, firmly guard the apostolic tradition and show us that all hold one and the same faith…, are guided by the same rules and the same law in church governance and ordinances… And thus the teaching of the Church is true and constant, because in her one path to salvation is shown to the whole world. For to her has been entrusted the light of God and the wisdom of God, through which she saves all” (Ibid., V, cap. 20, n. 1, in Khr. Cht. 1838, 1, 143).
“Just as in the body one part rules and, as it were, presides, while another is subject to rule and governance, so too in the churches has God ordained that some—for whom this is more profitable, being directed by word and deed toward their own duty—should remain the shepherded and the subject, while others, standing above the rest in virtue and nearness to God, should be pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the Church, and should stand in the same relation to the others as the soul to the body, and the mind to the soul, so that the two—the deficient and the abounding—being, like the members of a body, united and joined together into a single frame, bound and knit together by the bond of the Spirit, might present one body, perfect and truly worthy of Christ Himself, our Head” (Gregory the Theologian, Serm. 3, Works of the Holy Fathers, 1, 17-18. Cf. Serm. 32, ibid., III, 142-145).
Encyclical of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith, art. 12.
Eusebius, on Ps. LXIV, 5; Ambrose, De Jacob. et vita beata, II, 5, n. 20; 7, n. 34. Other testimonies of these teachers may be seen in their commentaries on the words of the present text, and some we shall see further on in this same paragraph.
Epist. ad Ephes. cap. 17.
Contra haeres. lib. III, cap. 4, n. 1.
Ibid., III, c. 24, n. 1.
Ibid., V, 20, n. 1. Also worthy of note, for their forcefulness, are the words of another second-century writer, Tertullian: age nunc, he says, omnes ecclesiae erraverint; nullam respexerit Spiritus sanctus, uti eam in veritatem deduceret; ad hoc missus a Christo, ad hoc postulatus de Patre, ut esset doctor veritatis, neglexerit officium Dei villicus, Christi vicarius, sinens ecclesias aliter interim intelligere, aliter credere, quod ipse per Apostolos praedicabat. Et quid verisimile est, ut tot et tantae in una fide erraverint? (De praescript. c. 28).
In Matth. comment. ser. n. 47.
Cyprian, Epist. LXXIII ad Jubajanum, et Epist. LV.
Epist. De Ariana haer. ad Alex. Constantinopol. n. 12.
Epistol. 77 al. 55, ad S. Epiphanium, in Biblioth. Patrum. tom. V, pag. 858.
Ὅρος δὲ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ τὸ τῶν δογμάτων ἀκαταγώνιστον καλεῖ. In Jes. homil. II, n. 2.
In Ps. IX, n. 6.
Serm. de Pentec. cfr. homil. de captiv. Eutrop. 6.
Lib. 1, Epist. 238, p. 67. Paris, 1638.
In verba 1 ad Timoth. 3, 14. And elsewhere: Ipsa est ecclesia sancta, ecclesia una, ecclesia vera, ecclesia catholica, contra omnes haereses pugnans; pugnare potest, expugnari tamen non potest (Serm. 1 de symb. ad Cathec. с. VI, n. 15).
In Jes. lib. IV, Or. 2. Conf. in Sophon. n. XX; contra Nestor. ΙII, 1.
Clem. Alex. Strom, lib. VII, c. 17; Euseb. praepar. Evang. lib. 1, c. 3; Athanasius against the Arians. IV, n. 35; Basil on Ps. LIX, n. 4.
Spectat (ecclesia) aliorum naufragia, ipsa immobilis et exors periculi. Lib. 11 de Abrahamo cap. 3.
Epiphan. haeres. LXXV, n. 141.
Ex quo intelligimus, ecclesiam usque ad finem mundi concuti quidem persecutionibus, sed nequaquam posse subverti; tentari, non superari; et hoc fict, quia Dominus Deus omnipotens, sive Dominus Deus eius, id est, ecclesiae, se facturum esse pollicitus est, cuius promissio lex naturae est (Comment, in Amos. lib. ΙII, c. 9; cfr. in Isai. lib. XVII, c. 60).
Acts of the Archaeographic Commission, vol. 1, pp. 131–132.
Rozysk, p. 531, and The Rock of Faith, part III, pp. 32 and 88. St. Petersburg, 1840.
vid. Acta conc. Carthag.
Jerome. Epist. XXVII ad Marcellum.
Adversus haeres. lib. IV, cap. 43. See above, note 637.
Epist. 69, tom. 1, pag. 172.
Aguntur praeterea per Graecias illa certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quae altiora quaeque in commune tractantur et ipsa repraesentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur. Lib. de jejun. cap. 13.
Illis temporibus, antequam plenarii concilii sententia, quid in hac re sequendum esset, totius ecclesiae consensu confirmasset, visum est ei (Cypriano) cum ferme octoginta cöepiscopis suis… et caet. De baptism. 1, c. 18, n. 28.
See the Book of Rules… on the first page.
Spiritus sancti testatur praesentiam congregatio sacerdotum. Certum est enim, quod legimus, quia non potest veritas mentiri, cuius in Evangelio ista sententia est: ubi duo vel tres congregati… Quod cum ita sit, si nec huic tam brevi numero Spiritus sanctus deest, quanto magis Eum nunc interesse credimus, quando in unum convenit tanta turba sanctorum? (P. Coelestin. Epist. ad patres Concil. Ephes.). Necesse est, quoties in nomine Domini eius famuli ad tractanda, quae sunt Ipsi placita, colliguntur, Sancti Spiritus non deesse praesentiam; ita enim Christi Dei et Salvatoris nostri mandata nos instruunt, quibus ait: ubi fuerint… (P. Vigil. Epist. ad Episcopos Galliae).
Epist. ad episcop. Afric., in Opp. t. 1, p. 891 et sq. ed. Maur.
Letter 110 to Cyriacus, in the Works of the Holy Fathers, X, 257.
Letter 221 to the clergy of Nicopolis, ibid., XI, 149.
Panegyric Homily on Athanasius the Great, ibid., 11, 187.
Epist. 32.
Epist. ad Anast. Alex, et epist. ad monach. Aegipt. contr. Nestorium.
And he continues: Nicaenum scilicet, Constantinopolitanum, Ephesinum, Chalcedonensë quia in his velut in quadrato lapide, sanctae fidei structura consurgit… quintum quoque concilium pariter veneror (Epist. 25, lib. 1, in Opp. Т. II, p. 515, ed. Maur.).
Alb. Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. vol. XI, pag. 166.
Concil. Chalcedon. Epist. ad papam Leonem. Vid. in Actis post finem III actionis; and also Concil. II Constantinopol. coll. octav., in tom. V concil., pag. 563.
Theodoret. Church Hist. bk. V, ch. 3.
The commemoration of the First Ecumenical Council is celebrated on the seventh Sunday after Pascha; the commemoration of the first six Ecumenical Councils, on July 16; the commemoration of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, on October 11.
Ode 6 of the canon to the Holy Fathers.
Ode 4 of the same canon.
Rite of Reception of Non-Orthodox, leaf 73, ed. 1757.
Rite of the Election and Ordination of Bishops, leaf 12, ed. 1825. The questions usually raised concerning the Ecumenical Councils are as follows: 1) Who has the right to convoke them? 2) Who holds definitive authority and power over them? 3) What are the essential conditions for a rightly or lawfully constituted Ecumenical Council? 4) How many Ecumenical Councils ought to be acknowledged? 5) In what, precisely, are they infallible? And 6) What weight do their infallible determinations carry—equal to Holy Scripture, or lesser? Some of these questions (indeed nearly all of them, more or less) may be resolved on the basis of what has been said above; others belong to the science of Canon Law; for the resolution of some, one may point to the detailed answers of Stefan Yavorsky in The Rock of Faith, part III, p. 59.
The Orthodox Confession, part 1, quest. 72.
Contra haeres. lib. I, cap. 10; cf. lib. III, cap. 2 et 4.
Lib. de praescr. haeres. cap. 21; cf. cap. 36.
Lib. IV ad Bonifac. contra duas Epistol. Pelagian, cap. 12.
Advers. haeres. lib. III, cap. 3.
“Polycarp, let us cite once more the words of St. Irenaeus, was not only a disciple of the Apostles and a man who conversed with many of those who had seen our Lord, but was also appointed by the Apostles as Bishop of the Church of Smyrna. And I myself knew him in my youth: for he lived long, and in deep old age ended his life with a glorious martyrdom. He taught what he himself had learned from the Apostles, which he also handed down to the Church, and all of it is true. To this all the churches of Asia bear witness, as do all those who have succeeded Polycarp even to this day”. Contra haeres. lib. III, cap. 3.
Concil. Ephes. pag. 332.
Concil. Ephes. pag. 379.
Theodoret. Church Hist. bk. V, ch. 9.
See the service for the Sunday of the Holy Fathers.
The Book of Rules… St. Petersburg, 1838, p. 3.
Collat. III, apud Gennad. pag. 317.
Ibid., p. 4.
Ibid., p. 5.
Defens anathem. 8, tom. II concil. Binii, pag. 457.
Commonit. cap. 1, § 2 et cap. 4.
“Here we have shown, he says, how this doctrine was handed down from Fathers to Fathers, as it were from hand to hand”. De Synod. Nicen. decret. n. 27.
See ch. 29, in the Works of the Holy Fathers, VII, 341–350.
“We have written, he says, a book against Nestorius, following everywhere the determinations of the holy Fathers”. Epist. ad Successum.
See, for example, his Dialogues between the Eranistes and the Orthodox, in Chr. Reading 1846, I. 62–75, 388–396.
Epist. CXLII ad Fortanat., n. 15. He repeats the same thought in Epist. LXXX, ad Hyeronim, n. 3; in lib. XI, cap. 5 contra Ezustum; in lib. VII, cap. 20 contra Donatist. Thus St. Ambrose reasons in Epist. 47, tom. III, pag. 152. Basil. 1527.
Wicent. Lerinens. Commonitoriam 1.
In general, when it comes to the Fathers of the Church and the use of their testimonies, one cannot but recommend the excellent work of this ancient writer, entitled: Commonitorium… It was most recently published in Theolog. Cursu completo, tom, 1, pag. 911–961. Paris, 1842.
See Rule 2 of the Council in Trullo.
See the system of any of them: Feyer, Liebermann, Perrone, etc.
See, for example, in the Dogmatic Theology of Archpriest Ternovsky, among the preliminary concepts on the properties of the true Church and the orthodoxy of the Eastern catholic Church.
See also, whichever one pleases, a system of Protestant theologians.
See the systems of Orthodox Theology: Archimandrite Iakinf Karpinsky (pag. 168, Lipsiae, 1786), Bishop Irenei Falkovsky (tom. II, pag. 150–151, Mosquae, 1802), Hieromonk Juvenaly (part 3, p. 47. Moscow, 1806), Bishop Theophylact (par. I, pag. 333–334, Petrop. 1818), and especially the Orthodox Teaching, or Christian Theology of Metropolitan Platon (p. 54, St. Petersburg, 1701), and the Dialogues between an Inquirer and one Assured concerning the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church of Metropolitan Filaret (p. 59 and following. Moscow, 1833).
For example, among the Roman Catholics, in explaining the doctrine of the unity of the Church, the concept of the pope as head of the Church is regarded as absolutely essential, just as it is in explaining the other properties as well. But we exclude this concept entirely.
“The holy Fathers assembled at Constantinople have determined: let the Creed of the three hundred and eighty Fathers who were at the Council in Nicaea, which is in Bithynia, not be set aside, but let it remain unaltered”. Rule 1 of the Second Ecumenical Council. “By the grace of God we determine: keep inviolate, safe from innovations and alterations, the faith handed down to us by the eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, the God-chosen Apostles; and likewise by the three hundred and eighty holy and blessed Fathers who assembled at Nicaea, in the days of Constantine our emperor, against the impious Arius… Likewise we hold the confession of faith proclaimed, in the days of the great Theodosius our emperor, by the hundred and fifty holy Fathers who assembled in this reigning city; we accept their pronouncements concerning the Holy Spirit, and we reject the impious Macedonius, together with the former enemies of the truth… Likewise, the teaching set forth by the two hundred God-bearing Fathers who assembled for the first time in the city of Ephesus, in the days of Theodosius, son of Arcadius, our emperor, we seal with our assent as an indestructible bulwark of piety… We also orthodoxly affirm the confession of faith inscribed by the six hundred and thirty God-chosen Fathers in the provincial city of Chalcedon, in the days of Marcian our emperor. And further, we acknowledge the pious utterances, spoken by the Spirit, of the hundred and sixty-five God-bearing Fathers who assembled in this reigning city, in the days of Justinian, our emperor of blessed memory, and we teach them to our descendants… And recently, in the days of our emperor Constantine, of blessed memory, we again bind ourselves to keep inviolate the confession of faith of the Sixth Council that convened in this reigning city… In short, we decree that the faith of all the men glorified in the Church of God, who were lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, be kept firm, and remain unshaken until the end of the age, together with their God-delivered writings and dogmas… And if anyone among all does not hold and accept the aforesaid dogmas of piety, and does not so think and preach, but attempts to go against them: let him be anathema”. VI Ecumenical Council, Rule 1. “After this (the Nicene Creed) had been read, the holy Council determined: let no one be permitted to utter, or write, or compose another faith besides that defined by the holy Fathers who assembled with the Holy Spirit in the city of Nicaea. And those who dare to compose another faith, or to present or propose it to those wishing to turn to the knowledge of the truth, whether from paganism, or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever: such persons, if they are Bishops or belong to the clergy, let them be deprived—Bishops of their bishopric, and clerics of their clergy; and if they are laymen, let them be delivered to anathema”. Rule 7 of the Third Ecumenical Council. “Let no one be permitted to alter or set aside the above-mentioned rules (of the holy Ecumenical and local Councils and the holy Fathers), or to accept, besides the rules here set forth, any others composed under false inscriptions by certain persons who have dared to traffic in the truth. And if anyone is found to have attempted to alter or pervert any of the aforesaid rules: he shall be liable to undergo, for that rule, the penance which it itself prescribes, and through it he shall be healed of that in which he stumbled”. Rule 2 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. See also Rule 1 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and Rule 2 of the Council of Carthage.
See, in the preceding note, Rule 1 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
See in the Laurentian Chronicle, pp. 77–81, Moscow, 1824, and in Sunday Readings, year IV, p. 231.
Sunday Readings, V, 17–21.
Sunday Readings, V, pp. 414–415.
See the Collection of State Charters—Rumyantsev, vol. III, p. 196. Other similar confessions may be seen in the Acts of the Archaeographic Expedition, for example, vol. 1, p. 161, and in the Acts of the Archaeographic Commission.
Acta et scripta Theolog. Wirtemberg. et Patriarch. Jerem.. p. 57, Wirtemb, 1584, in Chr. Reading 1844, IV.
The Tsar’s and Patriarchal Charters on the Establishment of the Holy Synod, with an Exposition of the Orthodox Confession, pp. 18–19. St. Petersburg, 1838.
Rite of Reception of Non-Orthodox, leaf 78, Moscow, 1757.
Part 1, answer to quest. 5.
Ibid., answer to quest. 72.
For example, Walters—Kirchenrecht… seit,. 332, Auslag. 7.
The title catholic and apostolic our Church appropriates to itself, for example, in the very title-page of its Orthodox Confession…, while it calls itself one, holy, conciliar, and apostolic in the title-pages of the Rites for Receiving Adult Converts from the Jews and from the Saracens, and the like.
“Strive to hold and keep, both in doctrine and in confession, only that faith which is now taught to you by the Church”, commands St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. Lect. V, sec. 12, p. 94, in the Russian translation). Cf. notes 642, 645, and others.
See The Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to question 96.
Contra Epist. Manichaei c. V; cf. Contra Faust. X, 5. Or take these words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Diligently inquire of the Church which are the books of the Old Testament and which of the New… Occupy yourself only with those which we read safely even in the Church. Far wiser than you were the Apostles and the ancient bishops, the presidents of the Church, who handed down these books. But you, being a son of the Church, do not alter her laws” (Catechetical Lecture IV, sec. 53, 35, pp. 80–81).
Rite of Reception of Non-Orthodox, leaf 14 verso and 46, ed. 1757.
Epistle on the Orthodox Faith, art. 2.
Rite of Reception of Non-Orthodox, leaf 71 verso, ed. 1757. Worthy of note here are the words of Vincent of Lérins: Multum necesse est propter tantos tam varii erroris antractus, ut propheticae et apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et catholici sensus normam dirigatur. In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc enim vere proprieque catholicum (Commonitor. cap. 2). The same thought is expressed by: Tertullian (de praescr. haeret. с. 19); Augustine (de utilit. cred. с. 18, n. 36).
Menaion for July, leaf 140 verso, ed. 1837.
Metrophanes Kritopoulos, formerly Patriarch of Alexandria in the seventeenth century, discourses very well on this subject—that is, on the Church’s interpretation both of Holy Scripture and of Holy Tradition—in his book: Confessio Catholicae et Apostolicae in Oriente Ecclesiae, cap. VII et XIV, pag. 82, 84 et 122, edit. Helmstadii.
Homily on Lazarus III, sec. 2, 3, in the Works of St. Chrysostom, vol. I, pp. 78–84, St. Petersburg, 1848; cf. in Coloss, homil. IX, n. 1; on the Gospel of Matt., Homily II, n. 5, 6.
St. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, p. 270. Moscow, 1844. In general, this thought is repeated by very many of the ancient teachers of the Church. See, e.g., Basil the Great’s homilies on Ps. 1, in the Works of the Holy Fathers, V, 171; Letter 2 to Gregory the Theologian, ibid., X, 9–10; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Lect. IV, sec. 33, 35–36; Theodoret, Serm. V in tom. IV, p. 555–556 et serm. VIII, pag. 591; Eusebius. praepar. Evang. lib. XII, p. 337; Isidore of Pelusium. Epist. XIV, in lib. I, p. 8.
Omnis sermo ei constabit, si et scripturas diligenter legerit apud eos, qui in ecclesia sunt presbyteri, apud quos est apostolica doctrina, quemadmodum demonstravimus (Iren. adv. haeres. IV, 32, n. 1; cfr. IV, 26, n. 2. 5).
“Do you not understand what is contained there (in Scripture)? … Read what is unclear and hard to understand several times over. And if, even with constant reading, you are unable to grasp what is being said—go to one wiser than yourself, go to a teacher. Confer with him about what has been said, show great diligence, and God, seeing that you have applied such effort, will not disdain your unwearied care” (Homily on Lazarus III, sec. 3, p. 85, in the Russian translation).
Origen. adv. Cels. 1, 48; in Lev. homil. IV; Gregory the Theologian. Oration III, in the Works of the Holy Fathers, 1, 45–46 (Oration 32, ibid., ΙII, 162; Basil the Great, Rules Briefly Stated, answer to question 235, ibid., IX, 327; Tertull. de praescr.haeret. cap. 14; Augustine, de doctrina christ. 1, 39, n. 45.
All these confessional definitions are usually printed in the Kormchaia Book, published most recently by the Holy Synod under the title: The Book of Rules of the Holy Apostles, of the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, and of the Holy Fathers.
The former is usually printed together with The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church; the latter, with the Followed Psalter.
A fairly detailed study of this book was published in Chr. Reading 1844, II, pp. 223–267.
“We have found, they say, that this book agrees in every respect with the dogmas of the Church of Christ and with the sacred canons, and that there is nothing in it contrary to the Church—and by the common judgment of the Synod we determine: let every pious and Orthodox Christian, a member of the Eastern Apostolic Church, read this book and not reject it” (See the Charter of Parthenius, printed together with The Orthodox Confession). A similar testimony was later given also by Nektarios, Patriarch of Jerusalem: “in this book, though briefly, the true doctrine is set forth no less clearly, as its very title shows you; for it is called—The Orthodox Confession, that is, of the Greeks, a confession right and pure, having in it not the slightest admixture from the novelties of any other confessions” (See the Charter of Nektarios, ibid.).
“It has been received, and is received, by the whole Eastern Church in general”—thus testified the Council of Jerusalem pastors, held in 1672 under the presidency of Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem. The same was testified also by Dionysius, Patriarch of Constantinople, a contemporary of Dositheos (see Johan. Aimont. — Monuments authentiques de la religion des Grecs, ed. 1708, pag. 483), and by the new Council of Eastern pastors, held in 1691 (Heineccii — Abbildung der alten und neuen Grieche Kirchen, 1771, see the appendix).
In 1837, by determination of the Holy Synod, up to 30,000 copies of this book were printed at once, to supply all the churches of the Empire with it. In 1841 there followed already the twelfth edition of this book.
The Commission introduced the teaching of The Orthodox Confession in the lower division of the Seminary in 1838, for the purpose—as stated in the rules for the Seminaries issued by it at that same time—that by means of this book the details of theological doctrine should be checked also in the upper division.
In 1840 the Holy Synod confirmed the teaching of The Orthodox Confession in the Seminaries, in the general schedule of subjects of instruction for the Seminaries. In 1845, on the 28/31st of March, it decreed: “For the teaching of the Catechetical doctrine according to the book The Orthodox Confession…, one additional weekly class is to be added in the lower division of the Seminaries…, charging the instructors with the unfailing duty: first, to explain and impress upon the students, with satisfactory thoroughness and precision, all the truths contained in The Orthodox Confession, correlating their explanations—beyond the Synodal Catechism—with the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith and, as far as possible, with the liturgical books of the Orthodox Church. And second, in each class without fail to require of the students a strict accounting of what was taught them in the previous class”. In that same year, 1845, as stated in a paper from the Ecclesiastical-Educational Administration to all the Academy and Seminary Boards—“The Holy Synod, bearing in mind that the book: The Orthodox Confession… has been placed among the subjects of instruction in the Seminaries for the express purpose that all the details of theological doctrine should be checked by it, by determination of the 8th of August has resolved: to charge all Seminary Boards with the duty that they… adopt as a rule, upon the students’ passing into the upper division, immediately before the start of the Theological courses, to review anew the aforementioned book”..
See The Tsar’s and Patriarchal Charters on the Establishment of the Holy Synod, with an Exposition of the Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Catholic Church. St. Petersburg, 1838.
Here are the words of a paper from the Ecclesiastical-Educational Administration under the Holy Synod to the Academy and Seminary Boards on this occasion, dated August 28, 1845: “The Holy Synod, taking into consideration that the Tsar’s Charter and the Patriarchal Charters on the Establishment of the Holy All-Russian Synod, with an Exposition of the Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Catholic Church, issued by its order, is, on account of its importance in relation to the dogmas of the Orthodox faith and of the Church, and especially to the Russian hierarchy, exceedingly useful and even necessary for the Ecclesiastical students, both in the course of their Theological studies and afterward upon entering priestly positions, by determination of the 25/31st of the past July has resolved to supply this book gratis to all Seminary students upon their transfer from the middle division to the upper, on condition that, upon completion of the course and departure from the Seminary, they retain this book for their permanent use…”
In general it must be remembered that a symbolic book of any Church can be called such only if it is an Exposition of the faith issued in the name of all the ruling hierarchs of that Church, and, consequently, in the name of the whole Church, and by no means the confession of any private believer, or even of a hierarch, however renowned he may be. And for this reason foreign theologians err when they number among the symbolic books of the Eastern Church, for example, the Confession of the Orthodox Faith of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, although it is, indeed, Orthodox, and has its own relative importance. Or the Confession of the Orthodox Faith (more detailed, but not free of certain errors in the doctrine of the sacraments) of Metrophanes Kritopoulos, who later became Patriarch of Alexandria. Or the Confession of Faith (thoroughly Calvinist) known under the name of Cyril Lucaris, Patriarch of Constantinople, but in no way actually belonging to him (as Kimmel recently did, publishing a book under the title: Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Orientalis, Jenae, 1843)