apolo 12 = The Violation of the Holy Scriptures made by the Reformers: By cutting off some offs pars By St. Francis de Gales slaring twelve hursred years And by una! ‘so many noble parts ofthe Bible? They have erased = parol esther, and Bamuch, Tobie, dual, Vikedom, Eccesiaticus, achabees, Who hes fold them that ‘books are net legate, and noto be ecehed? = ss iamerter this aacred ba of he Here are tne principal reasons, as fer es) nave Deen able to gathe: nem fom the ol preface tothe books uuhich they pretend to be apoctypia, printed at ‘Neulenasie, the fansiaton of Peter Robert, otherwise Clvetanus, a relaton and trend of Calvin, ad again fom the newer preiece pieced fo the same books by the professors and prelenced pastors of he Church of Geneve, 1588, (1) They are no found ip Hebrew or Grattan, non languages te (excopl perhaps the Book of Wisdom) fo resiore ther. (2) They are not received ac lestimate by the Jews. (3) Norby the whole church, (4) S. Jerome ‘ss hal they are nt cansiered proper for ‘orrebarating the authorty of Ecdesiastical octane. {5} Canon Law condemns them (6) As docs aig the ‘Gives, which sys hay are reed, bul rot generally, == Fe exy that thay ate not approved generally ‘everyinere (7) Thay have Been corrupted and fled, se Eusabius aoys [1] (6) notably the Machabecs, (2) ‘and pariculary the Second of Machabees, wich S. Jerome sayshe dle not nd in Hebrew. Such are the Teasone of Olvetanus. (10) “There are in them many false things," says the new preface, Lel us now see what these Tine researches are worth (4) And as tothe frst —are you unwilling o receive these books because they are notin Hebrew or Ghaldaic? ive Tobias then, forS. Jerome attests that he ranclates ft from Chaldala into Latin, in the Episte which you yourssives quote, [2] which makes me think you are hardly in good fath And why ret Judith, which was ‘aso writin in Chaldai, as the same S. Jerome sajs in the prologue? And 13, Jerome says ne wes notable io find tha second of Machabees in the Hebrew, — what has tat fo do with the trsf? This then recatve a CSesarvas: ne wi raat of fe socane atorvarde. | ey the smo 19 you boat Eoslesiastiovs, whicn S. Jerome /hed and found in Hebrew as he anys in his preface on tle Lovks oF Selomnon. Sine, then, you reject these ly wit the others which are pet wilon in One othese ianguages, yourwtl have fo {nd anoter pretext an that wiveh you nave alleged for inking out these books from the ‘anan. When you say thal you reject them because they are not whi in Habrev or Chaldatc ths ienot your Fealreacon: for you would not rjact on tis ground Tobia, Jul, the fit of Machabees, Ecciesiaticus, ‘hich are writen either Hebrew or Chaldate, Bet = ip desenca ofthe other books, which are ‘writen ina language ether than that which you would have. Where do you find thatthe re for righty receiving the Holy Seipturas is thal they shoul be writen in these languages rather han in Greek or Lat? "You say that nothing musi be /eceivad h malar of reigion Dut what i urien, and you Bring forward in your ‘grand preface the saying of ueconsue:"Wie bush to speak wihout ata.” Do you not consider that the Controversy abet the valty or hwalktty of the Senptures is one ofthe most important in the sphere of Fallgion? Wiel then, efter remain confounded, or cise produce the Holy Scrllute forthe negalive which you ‘maintain, The Holy Spit certahly declares Himself ac wellin Greek as in Chaldae, There woukd be, you say, (Sat citicuty in ractening them, snes we do noi possess hem thelr otginl language, ane Hs ths which tToubles you. Bul, for God sake, fell me who told you tha they were lost, corupled or etered, 20 29 o need http://svww.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_12 htm bo 2001Pagina 2 de3 ‘or granted, peshaps, that those who have translated them ftom the originals have translated badly, and you would have the eriginal fo compare tam and jedge them Make your meaning lest then, and say that they are therefore zpacryphal because you cennol yourselves be the translators of them ‘rom the enginal, and cannot ius’ the judgment of tia translator So there iso be nothing corsin except what {You have fad the control of Show me thie rule of certtue in the Scripture, Further, are you Ry assured that you have the Hebrew texts ofthe books ofthe fst rank, 9s pure and exact 2s hey were n the time ofthe Aposties anciof the Seventy? Beare of errs, You cetamly do not aivays folow thom, and yu could met, ‘wi good conscience, Show me ths again the Holy Seiphire, Hove, theelore is your firs reason most ‘waning in reason ~ (@)As'o your saying that theae books which you cal apoceyphal are not received by the Jew, you say nothing Hew or important §. Augustine loudly exclaims (3) "tie the Oathote Chureh whieh holds the Books of Machatieas 2s Canonical, But not the Jaws” Thank God, We afe not Jaws we ara Catholics, Show me fom Scripture thatthe Chrieian Church has not as much power fo ave auihory fo the sacred books ae the Mosale ‘may have had, There b not inthis eer Scripture ot Yeaeon to ehow fort (9) Yes, bulthe whole of the Church tsetfdoes rot reosive them, you say. Of what Church are you speaking? Unquestionably the Catholic, which isthe true Church, cacetves them, a8 S, Augustine has lst how home snes io you and he repens, ‘of Carthage. [i] The Counc im True the €% General, that of Florence, and 2 hundred ancient authors ae (wilneeses]therao, name S. Jerome, who winesses fo the lavok of Ju that was racelved inthe fst Coun fof Nice] Pevhaps you would say that of old uma some Catholics doubted ther euthorty. This s clear ftom the division which | hava made above. But does their doubt then make i impossible for ther successors fo come fo a conclusion? Are we (say thal ifone cannot decide ithe vory rl glance one must always temain wavering, unceriain, and resale? Was thare ot for ‘gome tine an uncetainty aboul the Apocalypse and Ether? Yau wousd not dare to deny t: my witnesses for Eger are foo sound, ~ 5. Athanasius (5] and S Gregory Nazianzen: [6] or the Apocalypee, the Cour Laodices: — and yet you receive ther. Ether receive them all since hey are in equal postion, or tecelve none, onthe sarie ground. But in God's name val hutno lakes you that you here Sxing orate the Church, ‘Whose authnoriy you hold to be a hundred immes more uncertain than these books themselves, and which you ‘ay fo have been erring, incanstant, — yes apacryphal, if apocryphal means hidden? You only pee #0 despise f, and io make # aprearinconstart, now recognizing, nov Fjecing these bocks, But here is great difference between coubting wheiher a thing isto be secepled and rejecting F Doubt does nother 2 ‘subsequent resolution indeed itis is preliminary slage. To reject presuppasesa decision Incanstancy does fet consist in changing a doubt infareeoktton, but in cnangingfTom resaluion to doubt. Is net instailty to ‘become settied ater wavesng, hut is waver after being sefled. The Church then, having fora te left these books in doubt, a loot has received ther with authentic decision, and you wich that om ths resolution che ‘Should return nko doubt. I belongs fo Hereay and not the Churdh thus o 2dvanioe fom had 19 worse. Sut of ‘his elsewhere (As or S. Jerome whom you allege, hiss not tothe purpose, sines in Nis time the Church ned nouyet ‘come fo the fesluion which she has come io since as to the placing ofthese books onthe canon, except ‘that of Just (5) And the canon Sancta Romane, whichis of Gelasivs I.—|thinkyou have taken & by guess, cits entaly _aguinst you, bocause, while cansuting tne spoon] books. does nal name one of fiose which we race but on the contrary witnesses that Tobias and the Machabees were publi recelved In the Church (6) An the poor Gioss does not deserve fo be thus glossed, since It clearly says that these books are read, ‘hough not perhaps generally This “parnape” guarcs # rom stating whats false, and you nave forgotten I Ana if reckon the Books in question es apocryphal this is because l considered that apocryphal meant fhe having no certain author, and therefore i inludes 26 apocryphal te Book of Jucges: a iis sat! nota authentic thal they must pass a= decisive judgment. afer allitis buta Gloss (7) And these falscations which you allege ate rot any way sufficient to abolish the authoiy of these books, because they have bean jstifed and have been purfed from al corruption before the Cturch them. Truly all the books of Holy Sengture nave been corrupted bythe ancient enemies ofthe Church, but by the proviience of Ged they have remained fee and pure in the Church'shands, as 2 sacred deposi, and they Jhave never been able fo epall en many copies asthat there should aot remain enough fe restore the others, (©) Bul you would have the Machabess, at any rete, il ftom our ands, when you say that they na ‘Corrupted, nut since you only agvance 2 simple assertion Ivil retum Your pase by 2 simple negation, een {@)S lecame, you say, coUld not find the Second in Hebrew, and although tis true that tis only as ware = leer which [those off Irae! sent thir Jewish brethren who were then out of Judea, ane! although itis ‘weiter ihe bes! known and most general language of those Limes, does i thence felon that 2s not worthy to be received" The Egyptians used the Greek language more than the Hebrew, as Ptolemy clearly showed ‘hen he proctred the version ofthe Seventy, Thia's why this second book of Machalbees, which was ike an ‘episle oF commentary sent for the consolation ofthe Jewe who were in Egypt, was writen in Greek rather ‘han in Hebrew. {10} remains forthe new preachers to point out those falsehoods of which they accuse these books; which ‘hey llth never do. Bul | ene them coming, bringing fora the intaraecion of Saints, prayer forthe ‘dead, ee-il, the Ronaring ofrelice, and similar point, which ate expressly confirmed inthe Soaks of Maciabees, in Eccesiasticus, and inatner books wnich they pretend to be apocryphal, For God's seke take Cafe that your judgment dose not decane you. Why. | ray you, do you cal als, things which the whole of ‘nfiuly has Held eo articles of ett? Why do you not rather censure your fancies wih wil not embrace the hitp://Awvww. catholicapologetics.net/apolo_12.htm 21/12/2001Pagina 3 de3 dodtine ofthese books, than censure these books which have baen received forso iong a time because they do notjume with your humor? Because you wil nol believe what tie books Yeach, you cersemn K,— why do you not rather condemn your presumption which i ineredtsous to ther teaching? Fete now, thin, are a your reasons scatlered tothe winds, and you can bing no more. But we may wall say; i be thus iu indierenly to reject or make doubtel the authorly of those Serptires, about wih there ves former a doubt, though the Church has now decided, wil be necessary to reject or fo doubl of @ ‘teat pat of the Ok and New Testament. Is then ra title gal fo the enemy of Christian, to have al one ‘Stoke scralched oct ofthe Holy Scripture co many noble paris, < Footnotes 4. Hist ce. v.22 2.Ep. ed Chrom. Et Heliod 3. De eh. Det xvi 36. 4. The necessary references and explanations are given in nolee to preceding chapter. [T:} 5. In Synpos 6. tncarm. deb, sac. http://www catholicapologetics.neVapolo_12:him 21/12/2001 ip: