it hath nothing to do to iudge of Scripture being the seate of Antichrist neither is the authoritie of that Church to be credited but rather suspected and mistrusted 2 There are certaine writings of the Prophetes not canonicall and other writings of some that were no Prophetes made canonicall Ergo the Church hath authoritie to iudge of Scripture sic Stapleton For the first where he obiecteth that there are many writings of the Prophetes as of Solomon Nathan Ahiia Ieedo 2. Chronic. 9.29 that are lost and if they were extant should not be receiued We aunswere First it is not to be doubted of but some part of the canonicall Scripture is lost Secōdly how proueth he that if they were extant they were not to be acknowledged for Scripture To the second that bookes not made by Prophets are iudged canonicall as of Tobie Iudith We aunswere that these bookes ought not to be canonicall neither that euer they were so taken till of late it was decreed by Councels of no great antiquitie for in the Laodicene Councell and other auncient Councels they were deemed not to be canonicall 3 Certaine bookes of the new Testament before doubted of as the Epistle to the Hebrues the Apocalipse the 2. Epistle of Peter the second of Iohn are receiued into authoritie by the Church and other bookes as the Gospell of Thomas Mathias Andrew Peter were reiected by the authoritie of the Church We answere First we deny not but that the Church is to discerne betweene the true Scriptures forged bookes but this she doth not of her own authoritie but folowing the direction of Gods spirite speaking in those writings for the Church looking into the sacred and diuine matter of the Apostles writings was moued to acknowledge them for the word of God though of some they were doubted of finding the other to be fabulous bookes did by the direction of the same spirite reiect them Secondly Augustine and Hierome thinke that the Canon of Scripture might be confirmed in the Apostles time Iohn being the suruiuer of thē all who both acknowledged the true writings of the Apostles and condemned the contrarie If it be so the spirite of God in the Apostles hauing determined this question already concerning the canonicall Scripture the Church hath no authoritie to alter or chaunge that decree Plura apud Whitacher quaest 3. de Scriptur cap. 5. The Protestantes WE do not despise the sentence of the Church as our aduersaries doe falsely charge vs but we confesse that it is the duetie of the Church to geue testimony to the Scriptures as the Goldsmith doth trie the gold Fulk annot 2. Gal. 2. But the Church ought not to set the Lordes stampe vpon false coyne as the Papistes do in making Apocryphall bookes canonicall Neither doe we onely beleeue the Scripture because of the Churches testimonie nor chiefly but because the spirit of God doth so teach vs and the Scriptures them selues do testifie for them selues so that euerie man is bound to acknowledge the Scripture though there were no publike approbation of the Church Fulk 2. Galat. 6. Whitacher quaest 3. cap. 1. de Scripturis We do reason thus 1 The Iesuite doth reason strongly for vs he bringeth fiue arguments to proue the Scripture to be the word of God veritas vaticiniorum the constant and perpetuall truth of the Prophecies incredibilis scriptorum conspiratio the wonderfull harmonie and consent of holy writers of the Scripture testis est Deus ipse the spirite of God is a principall witnesse vnto vs testis est ipsa Scriptura the Scripture it selfe beareth witnesse as 2. Tim. 3. all Scripture is geuen by inspiration testis est diuinorum numerus infinitus miraculorum lastly the many and great miracles wrought by the Prophetes and Apostles do testifie for the truth thereof He maketh no mention at all of the testimonie of the Church but saith the same that we hold that the spirit of God inwardly working in our harts by the Scriptures them selues which we find to be most perfect consonant true of singular maiestie doth teach vs which is the word of God Bellarmin de verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. 2 The Scripture geueth authoritie to the Church Ergo the Church geueth not authoritie to the Scripture the first we proue by our aduersaries own confession for being asked how they know that the Church erreth not they alledge such places of Scripture as Math. 28.20 I am with you to the end of the world and the like how then doth the Church geue authoritie to Scripture seeing it taketh her warrant and authoritie from thence the Iesuite him selfe saith that nihil est certius vel notius Scripturis nothing is more certaine or notoriously knowen then Scripture and againe sacra Scriptura est regula credendi certissima the holy Scripture is the most certaine rule of faith Bellarm. de verbo 1.2 If the authoritie of Scripture then be most certaine what reason is it that they should depend vpon the iudgement of the Church which is nothing so certaine the lesse certaine ought rather and so doth indeed depend of the more certaine the Church vpon the Scripture not contrariwise for the Scriptures are the foundation of the Church Ephe. 2.20 3 To beleeue the Scripture is a worke of faith the Church can not infuse faith into vs but the spirite of God Ergo the spirite of God not the Church teacheth vs to beleeue Scripture argum Whitach 18. 4 If the Scriptures depend vpon the approbation of the Church then the promises of saluation and eternall life conteined in the Scriptures do so likewise but it is absurde to thinke that the promises of God do stand vpō the allowance of men Ergo neither the Scriptures argum Caluini 5 The Scripture is the chief iudge and ought so to be in all cōtrouersies we may appeale from the Church to the Scripture not from the Scripture to the Church the Church is subiect to the Scriptures the rule of faith is in the scriptures not in the Church for the cōpanie of faithful which is the Church are ruled by faith they do not ouerrule faith neither are a rule thereof the Church is a point of beliefe as in the Creede not a rule or measure thereof Ergo the Church is not the chief iudge of Scripture but it selfe to be iudged by scripture Whitach argum 16. 6 We haue euident places of scripture Iohn 5.34 saith Christ I receiue no witnes of men but the scripture is the voyce of Christ and of the same authoritie Ergo. Ver. 36. I haue a greater testimonie thē of Iohn the scriptures do testifie of me Ver. 39. The testimony of the scriptures is greater thē the record of Iohn Ergo then of the Church 1. Iohn 5.6 the spirite beareth witnesse that the spirite that is the doctrine of the spirit is the truth And. ver 9. if we receiue the witnesse of man the witnesse of God is greater Ergo not the iudgement of the Church
which is contrarie We aunswere whatsoeuer is imposed as necessarie to saluation beside the Scripture praeter Scripturas is also contra Scripturas contrarie to Scripture as are all Popish traditions which they lay a necessitie vpon both beside and contrarie to Scripture Neither did those false Apostles against whom S. Paule writeth so much bring in another or cōtrary Gospell as the Apostle saith ver 7. as they did labour to corrupt and peruert that Gospel which S. Paul taught Therfore all traditiōs whether praeter or cōtra beside or contrarie to Scripture are notablie by this place ouerthrowen 2 Iohn 20.31 these things are written that ye might beleeue that Iesus Christ is the sonne of God that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name Ergo the Scriptures conteine all things necessarie to saluation for they suffise to worke in vs faith and faith bringeth vs to eternall life First Bellarmine aunswereth that Iohn speaketh onely of that which he had written Aunswere If this one Apostles writings were able to worke faith the whole body of Scripture much more but he rather speaketh of all other holy writings of the Apostles for he was the suruiuer of them all acknowledged their writings and approued them Secōdly saith he the Apostle saith not that those writings onely suffise but they are profitable and referred to this end to worke faith Aunswere The Scripture is not one of the meanes but the sole whole and onely meanes for if they perfectly worke faith what neede any other helpes but the first is true for they doe beget in vs a perfect faith which shall bring vs to eternall life Ergo they are the onely meanes of faith 3 The whole Scripture saith S. Paule is profitable to teach to improue to correct and instruct in righteousnesse 2. Tim. 3.16 Ergo it conteineth all things necessarie for what els is requisite besides these foure to teach the right faith improue error to instruct in righteousnes and vertue to correct vice First they aunswere the Apostle meaneth as well euery booke of Scripture as the whole euery part therfore hath this perfection as well as the whole But you will not say that euery booke conteineth all things necessarie to saluation therefore this perfection is not so to be taken We aunswere First S. Paule vnderstandeth the body of Scripture as ver 15. thou hast knowen the Scriptures he speaketh of them all Secondly if euery part had these vtilities you might as well conclude that euery word and sillable hath them for they are parts of Scripture Thirdly it appeareth by these foure great vtilities here set downe that the Apostle meaneth not any part or partes of Scripture but the whole for euery part of Scripture is not profitable for all these endes but the whole Secōdly they say it foloweth not the Scripture is profitable therfore sufficient they also graunt it is profitable Aunswere but we conclude out of S. Paule that the Scripture is not onely profitable but sufficient as it foloweth v. 17. that the man of God may be absolute perfectly instructed to euery good worke If then the scriptures are able perfectly to instruct vs then are they sufficient then neede we no other helpes 4 Lastly Augustine thus writeth in Psal. 66. Ne putetis saith he ex alijs Scripturis petendum quod forte hic deest Thinke not saith he that it is to be found in any other writings if it be not in Scripture And in another place In Euangelio quaeramus nam si ibi non inuenimus vbi inueniemus Let vs saith he seeke to be resolued in the Gospell if we finde not there where shall we find it Ergo by the iudgemēt of Augustine there is no truth necessary to be knowen which is not to be found in the Scripture THE THIRD PART OF THE SEVENTH question whether there be any traditions beside Scripture concerning faith and manners The Papistes error 13 THey vnderstand by this word tradition doctrine preceptes and ceremonies with other vsages of the Church which are not written in the scriptures They do not say that all their traditiōs are necessary but they make diuerse kindes of them some are vniuersall obserued in the whole Church some particular some are free some necessarie some are Apostolicall inuented by the Apostles some Ecclesiasticall by the Church so thus they conclude all traditions decreed in Councels and iudged Apostolicall whatsoeuer the Church of Rome receiueth as Apostolicall are not to be doubted but to be Apostolicall indeed Secondly all Apostolicall traditions are of equall authoritie with the writings of the Apostles Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. 9. and they are that part of the word of God which is vnwritten as well as the scriptures are that part which is written Let vs see what arguments they bring for these traditions 1 They geue an instance of certaine traditiōs as the Baptisme of infants and the not rebaptising of those which were before Baptised by heretikes We aunswere these two customes of the Church are grounded vpon scripture for as childrē were in the time of the law Circūcised so are they now vnder the Gospell Baptised and that promise Gene. 17. I will be thy God and the God of thy seede as it belonged to them and their children so doth it appertaine to vs and our children Concerning the other point that they whom heretikes haue once Baptised ought not to be Baptised againe S. Augustine doth proue it out of the scripture Ephe. 4. there is one Faith one Baptisme Ergo not to be repeated But now they come in with other traditions as the Lenton fast which they vse most fondly and superstitiously the eight Ecclesiasticall orders Bishops Prists Deacōs Subdeacons Acolythistes Readers Exorcistes Doore-keepers the worshipping of Images with many other these they would face vs out to be Apostolical traditions and to haue bene vniuersally obserued which are but their vayne brags and Thrasonicall crakes they shall neuer proue them vniuersall much lesse Apostolicall And because they finde no scripture to establish these their superstitious fantasies by they flye vnto tradition which is their onely hauen where they hope to finde succour but all in vayne Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 9. Consul Whitacher quaest 6. cap. 4. 2 They proceede and alledge scripture for their traditions as that place Iohn 16.12 I haue many things to say but you can not beare them now Ergo say they there are many traditions not written We aunswere First it foloweth not because Christ declared not all things at that time that therefore he kept them from his Apostles all together Nay whatsoeuer afterwardes the Apostles learned of the spirite of God they had heard before of Christ for it was the office of the spirite but to put them in remembrance of Christes sayings Iohn 14.26 which they had heard before but vnderstood them not and so forgat them Wherefore these things which Christ forbeareth to speake are the same things which are cōteined in
knowne in time of persecution exercebant patientiam Ecclesiae they did proue the patience of the Church but now as Augustine saith exercent sapientiam they doe exercise the wisedome of the Church Let not the number and multitude offend vs of those which doe band themselues against the Church for so it must be Christs flocke is but a little flocke Let vs not be afrayd of their wisedome power or strength the scripture teacheth vs that they in their generation are wiser then the children of light yet the Lord our God that is with vs and fighteth for vs is wiser and stronger then they Let them not deceiue vs with a shew of holinesse for Sathan can transforme himselfe into an Angel of light neither let it moue vs because they endure some trouble and losse of their goods and imprisonment of their bodies for their religion which is falsely so called for S. Peter saith That men may suffer as euill doers and so doe these And S. Augustine saith Si poenae martyres faceret omnes carceres martyribus pleni essent omnes catenae martyres traherent If the punishment onely and not the cause made Martyrs al prisons should be full of Martyrs and all that are bound with fetters and chaines should be Martyrs But let vs not stumbling at any of these stones be constant in the faith and go forward in the profession of the Gospel which is grounded vpon the Scripture sealed with the blood of Martyrs waited and attended vpon these many yeeres as the mistresse with the handmaid with peace prosperitie and abundance of all blessings With them there is no peace to be had their owne Doctors teach that no reconciliation can be made betweene vs And indeed so it is for there is no fellowship betweene light and darknesse The Israelites were commanded not to sow their ground with diuers seedes nor to plough with an oxe an asse What is this els but that the Church of God cannot consist of beleeuers Idolaters of true Christians and hypocrites Catholikes and Heretikes Protestants and Papists Their seede and ours is diuers they sow the doctrine of men and humane traditions we sow the seede of Gods word The oxe is onely fit for the Lords plough that chaweth the cud and deuideth the hoofe the asse doth neither Who is he that deuideth the hoofe chaweth the cud Augustine telleth vs Fissa vngula pertinet ad discernendū quid dextrū quid sinistrū ruminatio pertinet ad eos qui cogitant postea quid audierint He deuideth the hoofe that deuideth and discerneth what is good what euill and they chaw the cud that do meditate of that which they heare out of the word But such are not the common Catholikes among Papists for they do not allow euery one the mistresse the mayd the ploughman and artificer to talke of Scripture or moue questions and doubts in Religion and so make them asses not oxen to chaw the cud They say it belongeth not to euery Christian to discerne betweene true and false doctrine but they must take their faith of their superiours and obey them in all things and so neither would they haue them deuide the hoofe taking from them their discerning iudgement There is no agreement therefore to be looked for at their hands no more then yron or clay can be tempred together Their old vessels cannot receiue the new liquor of the Gospell but they must first become new themselues they must first put off their beggerly ragges of Popish ceremonies and superstitions or els they shall neuer put on Christ And to be short Reuertantur illi ad te ne tu reuertaris ad illos Let them returne vnto vs we will not returne to them as the Lord saith to Ieremie But lest now we should be thought to speake without booke deepely charging our aduersaries with heresie lyes false doctrine and prouing nothing we will take some paynes of set downe some principall opinions of the Papists which haue in the purer ages of the Church been condemned for heresies Marcellina the companion of Carpocrates the archheretike worshipped the Images of Iesus and Paul and offered incense vnto them August heres 7. So the Papists do worship the Images of Saints and in the second Nicene Councel it was decreed that the Image of God should be worshipped with the same honour that God himselfe was The Heracleonites did anoynt their sicke which lay a dying with oyle and balme Heres 16. So the Papists haue found out extreme vnction and made it a Sacrament The Caians did hold that the sinne of Iudas in betraying Christ was a benefite to mankind Heres 18. The Papists come somewhat neere One of them affirmeth that the Iewes had sinned mortallie if they had not crucified Christ Ex Iuell defens Apolog. p. 676. The Pepuzians iudged heretikes because they permitted women to be Priests Heres 27. So it was decreed in the Florentine Councel among the Papists that in the case of necessitie not only a lay man but an heretike pagan and a woman to may baptize The heretikes called Angelici were condemned because they worshipped Angels Heres 39. So the Rhemists teach that Angels may be worshipped Annot. in Apocal. 3 sect 6. There was a sect of heretikes that walked with bare feete because God sayd to Moses put off thy shooes c. Heres 68. And so are there of Friers that goe barefoote as the Friers Flagellants and Franciscanes The Priscillianists did make the Apocrypha that is bookes not Canonicall of equall authoritie with Scripture Heres 70. So doe the Papists the bookes of Tobie Iudith Machabees and others which are not found in the Canon of the Hebrue they make thē bookes of Canonical Scripture and part of the word of God yea they say that whatsoeuer the Pastors of the Church doe teach beside Scripture in the vnitie of the Church is to be taken for the word of God Rhemist annot 1. Thessal cap. 2 sect 12. An Archheretike called Marcus did hold that Christ did not verily suffer and indeed but in shew onely and appearance Heres 14 The Appollinarists also affirmed that Christ tooke humane flesh without a soule Heres 55. I pray you how farre are the Papists from these heresies for they affirme that Christ suffered not in soule Nay the Rhemists hold that it is a blasphemous assertion so to say Annot. Hebr. 5. v. 7. What is this els but either with Marcus to say that Christ suffered but in shewe and that he felt nothing in soule when he cryed out vpon the Crosse My God my God why hast thou forsaken me for if there were no such matter indeed Christ must haue vttered those words only in outward shew and pretense Againe they cannot shift off handsomely from them the Appollinarists heresie for why did Christ take vpon him our flesh and soule but to redeeme man that was lost both in bodie and soule and therefore he must needes haue
through beginning at the first and so prosecuting euery particular questioÌ„ till we are come to the last My purpose is not to set down all the heresies which impugne the Christian faith but onely those which are maintained by the Church of Rome this day who are the chief troublers disquieters of the peace of our Church I say therefore with Augustine Omnis Christianus Catholicus ista noÌ„ debes credere sed noÌ„ omnis qui ista noÌ„ credit coÌ„sequenter se debet Christianum Catholicum â—utare vel dicere Euery true Catholike Christian is bound not to beleeue any of these errors set down in this book but it foloweth not that whosoeuer beleeueth not these is a true Catholike for there are other heresies in the world which destroy the faith as the heresies of the Anabaptistes Familie of Loue Libertines and such like But our speciall purpose and drift is to weed out the Popish cockle and darnell that troubleth our field Neither haue I set forth at large the controuersies betweene vs for that laborious worke other of our learned countrymen haue taken in hand as D. Whitakers in Cambridge D. Reynoldes in Oxford and besides it farre exceedeth my strength and habilitie I haue onely brieflie set downe the grounds of Poperie as I haue collected them out of Bellarmine the stoutest champion of their side our English Rhemistes Eckius Canisius and other Papistes as also out of the late Chapter of Trent for it deserueth not the name of a CouÌ„cell And with all as an Antidotum or counterpoyson I haue opposed and set against them the coÌ„fession of the Protestants and Church of God with reasons and Arguments of both sides and places of Scripture annexed adding also throughout the iudgement of Augustine who of all the fathers is most plentifull in these matters which fall in question in our dayes The benefite which the Christian Reader shall reape in some measure I trust by this simple labour of mine is threefold First the knowledge of all Popish errours which much auayleth Multum adiuuat cor fidele nosce quid credendum non sit etiamsi disputandi facultate id refutare non possit It much helpeth a Christian toward beleefe to know what is not to be beleeued though he can not refell it by Argument Secondlie he shall vnderstand both their principall Obiections which they do entangle simple men withall as also he shall learne how to defend and maintayne the truth Thirdly the chief places of Scripture which make for them or against them are briefly euery where expounded and opened This whole worke I haue deuided into three partes or bookes the first conteineth the coÌ„trouersies of the Scriptures and the Militant Church the second the controuersies of the Triumphant Church and of the Sacraments the third the questions concerning the benefites of our redemption and as touching the person of Christ Which bookes I haue thus deuided not so much in respect of the matter which they conteine for then the controuersies of the Militant and TriuÌ„phant Church ought not to haue bene sundred but that there might be some equalitie indifferent proportion in the Volumes euery one of them comprehending a Centurie that is an hundred of Popish errours either vnder or ouer But the rather I haue so done because I had proceeded no further then to the end of the controuersies of the Militant Church when this first booke went out of my haÌ„ds the which I was moued vpon some occasion to publish before the rest were finished which shall not stay long after God assisting me Wherein I doe also folow the counsell and example of Augustine who writing of the like argument of heresies doth thus conclude his booke Hunc librum antequam totum hoc opus perfeci vobis credidi esse mittendum vt cum quicunque legentis ad id quod restat implendum quod tam magnum esse cernitis orationib adiuuetis This booke I thought good saith he to send abroad before the rest be finished that whosoeuer readeth it might helpe me with their prayers to the better performing of that which remaineth Which I beseech thee also good Christian Reader to afoord me that being mutuallie assisted one with the prayers of an other we may walke on with strength and chearefulnesse in our Christian race till we haue by Iesus Christ obtayned the price of euerlasting life Amen THE FIRST BOOKE OR CENTVRIE CONTEINING THE CONTROVERSIES OF RELIGION WHICH ARISE IN QVEstion betweene the Church of God and the Papistes about the word of God conteined in the Scriptures and the Church Militant here vpon earth with the partes and members thereof THE FIRST GENERALL CONTROVERsie of the holie Scriptures ACcording to the methode which we wil God assisting vs by his spirite obserue throughout this whole Treatise of the controuersies in the first place we are to entreat of such matters as coÌ„cerne the Propheticall office of Christ. He is our Prophet our heauenly teacher and Doctor Math. 23. vers 8. from him proceedeth all holy knowledge we haue not seen God nor the high things of God but the onely begotten sonne which is in the bosome of the father he hath declared him Iohn 1.18 Wherefore all the true sheepe of Christ will heare his voyce Iohn 10.3 His voyce is not els where heard but onely in the Scriptures We must heare Moses and the Prophetes Luke 16.29 First of all therefore this great and most famous controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning the Scriptures must be handled which is distributed into seuen seuerall questions 1 Concerning the Canonicall Scripture what bookes are to be receiued into the sacred Canon what books to be reiected and counted apocryphall 2 Concerning the authenticall Edition of the holy Scriptures whether the Hebrue Greeke or Latine translation is cheifly to be folowed 3 Whether the Scriptures ought to be translated into the vulgar and English toung and whether publique prayers and diuine seruice ought to be vsed in the same toung 4 Whether the scriptures are authorized by the Church and not rather so knowne to be of them selues 5 Concerning the perspicuitie and playnnes of the Scripture whether it be so hard that the common people may not safely be admitted to the reading thereof 6 Concerning the interpretation of Scripture which question is deuided into three parts first whether the Scripture admit diuerse senses and expositions secondly who hath the cheife authoritie to expound Scripture thirdly what meanes ought to be vsed in expounding of it 7 Concerning the perfection of the Scripture three parts of the questioÌ„ First whether the Scriptures be necessarie secondly whether they be sufficient to saluation thirdly whether there be any traditions beside necessarie to saluation THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the Canonicall Scripture Of the state of the first Question WE haue not any thing in this place to deale with those heretikes which denie either the whole Scripture or any part thereof but onely with our
third of Iohn the last Chapter of Marke We differ not then in the new Testament vnlesse it be concerning the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews which ouer aduersaries stoutly affirme to be S. Pauls which we deny not neither certainly can affirme it seeing in some Greeke copies it is left out and in the Syriacke translation But it mattereth not who was the author seeing we receiue it as canonicall for the title is no part of the booke and so neither of Scripture and we receiue many bookes in the old Testament the authors whereof are not perfectly knowne So then all the question is about the Apocrypha of the old Testamēt they are called Apocrypha because they are hid and obscure not because their authours are vnknowne for as I sayd we knowe not by whom certaine Canonical bookes were written neither are they so called because of some vntruthes conteined in them contrary to Scripture as the most of them haue for it foloweth not that euerie booke which hath no vntruth or lye should straight wayes be taken for Scripture but they are therfore iudged and called Apocrypha because they were not in former time receiued into publike and authentick authoritie in the Church neither to be alledged as grounds of our faith though they may be read for example of life and may haue other profitable vse But the Canonicall Scripture onely hath this priuiledge to geue rules of faith and thereupon it hath the name that we may be bold to beleeue and ground our faith vpon the canonicall holy Scripture which is the onely word of God Wherefore out of this number of Canonicall Scripture we exclude all the books afore named therfore let not the reader be deceiued that although they be ioyned in one volume with the Scripture to think that they are for that of the same authoritie and credit with the rest first we will shew one reason in general and afterward come vnto the particular books in order 1 All canonical scripture in the old Testament was written by Prophets we haue a sure word of the prophetes saith S. Peter 2.1.19 and S. Paule Rom. 16.26 calleth them the Scriptures of the Prophets But none of those bookes aforenamed of Tobias Iudith and the rest were written by the Prophets for they were all written since Malachies time who was the last Prophete as the Church complaineth Psal. 74.9 There is not one Prophete nor any that can tell vs how long Ergo none of these bookes are canonicall 2 All the canonicall bookes of the old Testament were acknowledged of the Iewes and Hebrues for they were then onely the Church of God and where should Scripture be found but in the Church to them sayth S. Paule were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.2 But the Iewes receiued none of these books for none of them are written in the Hebrue toung neither did they receiue them with the like authoritie as other bookes of Scripture and this some of the Papists can not denie Ergo thy are not Canonicall 3 There is no Scripture of the old Testament but it hath approbation of the new for as the Prophetes beare witnesse to Christ so he againe doth witnesse for the Prophets and therefore it is a true proposition of Caietane though he be controlled and checked of Catharinus an other Papist for it that there is no Scripture which was not either written or approued by the Apostles but in the whole new Testament you shall not find one testimony cited either in the Gospel or the Epistles out of any of the Apocrypha as out of other bookes of Scripture therefore hauing no approbation of the new Testament we conclude they are none of the old 4 It shall appeare in the seuerall discourse of the particular bookes that there is somewhat euen in the bookes themselues to be found that barreth them from being Canonicall OF THE BOOKE OF BARVCH The Papistes THis is their best reason for the authoritie of this booke because Baruch was Ieremies scribe and therfore Baruch can not be refused vnlesse also we doubt of Ieremie Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo Dei cap. 8. The Protestantes THis booke was neither written by Ieremie nor Baruch first because it is in Greeke if either Ieremie or Baruch had written it it is most like they would haue written in Hebrue Secondly the phrase and manner of speach sheweth that it was neuer written in Hebrue for in the 6. Chapter in the Epistle of Ieremie it is said that the Israelites should be in captiuitie seuen generations that is 70. yeares but it can not be found in any Hebrue booke that generation is taken for the space of 70. yeares OF THE SEVEN APOCRYPHAL Chapters of Esther The Papistes ONe of their chief Arguments besides testimonies and authorities which would make to great a Volume is this which is common also to the rest of the Apocrypha they are read in the Church haue bene of auncient time Ergo they are Canonicall I aunswere that it is no good argument Hierome saith plainly Legit Ecclesia sedeos inter Scripturas Canonicas non recipit Praefat. in lib. Solomon The Church indeede saith he readeth them yet for all that they are not Canonicall And Augustine was wōt to read vnto the people the Epistles of the Donatistes and his aunsweres vnto them Epist. 203. The Protestantes THe most of our reasons against the authoritie of the 7. Chapters added to Esther for of the 10 first Chapters which are found in the Hebrue we make no doubt at all are drawen from the matter of the booke it selfe 1 In the second of the Canonicall Esther ver 16. it is said that the conspiracie of the two Eunuches against the king was in the 7. yeare of Assuerus but in the 11. Chap. ver 2. of the Apocryphall Esther we read that Mardocheus did dreame of this conspiracie in the secōd yeare Bellarmine aunswereth that both are true for the dreame was in the secōd yeare the conspiracie in the seuēth so belike there was fiue yeares betweene But in the 11. Chapter it is said that Mardocheus was much troubled about that dreame and the next night after his dreame the conspiracie was enterprised 2 The true history of Esther saith that Mardocheus had no reward at that time of the king cap. 6.3 but the forged storie saith that at the same time the king gaue him great gifts which can not be meant of that great honor which afterward was bestowed vpon Mardoche for then Haman being hanged the same day could worke him no despite wheras the forged story saith that after the king had rewarded him then Haman began to stomach him because of those two Eunuches 3 Againe the storie which is added was written many yeares after Mardoches Esthers death vnder the raigne of Ptolomaeus Cleopatra as it appeareth cap. 11.1 it is not like therefore to be a true storie Bellarmins ridiculous cōiecture is this that there were two stories
writtē in Hebrue of Esther the one cōpendious short which we now haue the other more large which might be translated by Lisimachus there spoken of cap. 11. whose translation we now onely haue the originall being perished What goodly gesses here be to make Canonicall Scripture what neede two bookes of one thing If the first were written by the spirite of God and so were Canonicall what neede a secōd the spirite of God vseth not to correct his own writings and this can not be that ample and large storie imagined being shorter and not so full as the first 4 Besides the false storie saith that Haman was a Macedonian Cap. 16. v. 10. the true storie saith he was an Agagite or Amalekite cap. 8.3 how can these two agree Nay the forged booke saith that Haman would haue destroyed the king so cōueyed the kimgdome of the Persians to the Macedonians which could in no wise be for the kingdome of the Macedonians was not yet spoken of and so it continued in small or no reputation till Phillippus the father of Alexander who was many yeares after Vide plura Whitach quaest 1. cap. 8. De Scripturis 5 In the latter Chapters that is repeated which was set downe in the former part which argueth that the story was not writtē by one mā and it is not like he would write one part in Hebrue another in Greeke If any say as the Iesuite saith that this part was in Hebrue and being translated into Greeke was lost why was one part rather lost then the other and was it not as like to be preserued in Hebrue as in Greeke These are verie bare and suspicious coniectures OF CERTAINE CHAPTERS annexed to Daniell THere are three parcels ioyned to Daniell the song of the 3. childrē the storie of Susanna of Bel and the Dragon in the vulgare Latin which are not any part of Canonicall Scripture 1 They are neither extant in Hebrue at this day nor are like to haue bene translated out of Hebrue into Greeke but compiled first in Greeke and therfore not written by Daniell for v. 54.58 of the storie of Susanna where one of the Elders saith he saw her vnder a Lentiske tree the other vnder a prime tree he vseth a certaine paronomasie or allusion vnto the Greeke wordes which cā not stand in the Hebrue as of the tree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith the Angell of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall cut you in two and so of the tree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall deuide thee in two As if a mā should thus allude in English thou wast vnder the prune tree the Lord shall prime thee This allusion is not in the Hebrue as the learned haue verie well obserued but onely in the Greeke 2 The time is vncertaine whē this storie should be done It was in the captiuitie for Susanna dwelt in Babilon but Daniell could not then be so young a child as the storie maketh for he was carried away in the first captiuitie with Iehoiakim as it is Dan. 1. And Ezechiell that liued about that time doth speake of the great prudence sage wisedome of Daniel Ezech. 28.3 and ioyneth him with Noah Iob. cap. 14. All this proueth that Daniell could not bee so very a babe in the beginning of the captiuitie as the storie maketh him 3 In the story of Daniell it is said that he was 6. dayes in the Lyōs den but the true storie saith he was there but one night cap. 6. The Iesuite aunswereth he was twise in the Lyons den or rather he thinketh there were two Daniels the one of the tribe of Iuda which was that great Prophet the other of Leui which was the principall in those two stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon But this is a poore shift to inuent another Daniell whom the Scripture neuer knew and if it were so why are all their actes ioyned together as if one Daniell had done and write them all OF THE BOOKE OF TOBIE 1 THis booke is not found in the Hebrue in the which toung all the oracles of God were kept Ergo it is worthelie doubted of 2 Our aduersaries them selues confesse that in Hieromes time it was not receiued for Canonicall The Iesuite aunswereth that it might be doubted of before it was determined in a Generall Councell to whom saith he it appertaineth to define of Canonicall Scripture As though this were not a greater doubt whether a Coūcell hath any such authoritie to determine which books ought to be receiued for Canonicall for Canus a Papist maketh question of it Lib. 2. cap. 8. And the Iesuite him selfe saith that the Church can not Facere Canonicum de non Canonico make a booke not canonicall to be canonicall but onely to declare those to be Canonicall which are so in deed Wherefore the Papistes take to much vpō them to make this boke within the Canon being of it selfe not Canonicall and so adiudged by antiquitie 3 He that readeth the booke it selfe shall finde that both the stile and the matter is not such as beseemeth Canonicall Scripture read Tremell in cap. 3. ver 8. cap. 13. ver 15. OF THE BOOKE OF IVDITH AN escpeciall Argument against this booke is that the historie can not be assigned to any time 1 It is pretie sport to see how the Papistes doe moyle them selues about this point and can not agree amongest them selues Some hold that this storie fell out after the captiuitie in Cambises time as Lyranus and Driedo some in Darius Histaspis raigne as Gerardus Mercator some would haue it before the captiuitie in Sedechias time as Genebrard some in Iosias time as Iohan. Benedictus but the Iesuite confuteth them all and bringeth the storie to Manasses raigne but he hath also mist the cushin 2 It appeareth that this story could not be after the captiuitie for we read not of any Nabuchadneser afterwards for the kingdome was translated frō the Assirians to the Persians and Meedes Againe it could not be before either in Iosias time Sedechias or Manasses first because in the 5. Chap. v. 18. it is said that the temple had bene destroyed and cast downe which could not be in any of those kings raignes It is but a shift of Bellarmines to say those words were foysted into the text it is rather to be thought that the Iesuite is put to his trūps not hauing els what to answer Secōdly Iudith being at this time in the flower of her age and liuing afterward many yeares till she was 105. yeare old all which time and many yeares after her death the booke saith in the last Chapter the land had rest this can not agree with Manasses time for within 40. yeares or not much aboue the land fell into great trouble straight after Iosias death Where then is this long time of rest And the Iesuite that still groūdeth vpon impossibilities and vnlikele-hoods that Iudith was at this time 40. yeare old which was saith
he in the beginning of Manasses raigne and so to dye about 7. yeares before Iosias yet for all his scanning is driuē to this shift that the many yeares peace after her death must be vnderstood of poore 7. yeares Thirdly if all this happened in Manasses time whom the Chaldeans tooke and carried away prisoner and had much troubled and afflicted the country of Iudaea what neede had Holofernes to enquire so curiously of Achior the Ammonite of the country their Citie people kings and such like seeing they had knowen the country to well before in spoyling and wasting of it as the Iewes by wofull experience had felt OF THE BOOKE OF WISEDOME The Papistes OVr aduersaries reason thus they say that S. Paul Rom. 11.34 vsing this speach who hath knowen the Lordes minde or bene his counseller doth alledge it out of the 4. Chapter of this booke v. 13. Ergo it is Canonicall We aunswere First the Apostle seemeth not in that place to cite any testimonie though the wordes which he vseth may els where be found Secondly though the like wordes are read in the booke of Wisedome yet is it not necessarie the Apostle should borrow them frō thēce but rather they are alledged out of the 40. of Esay 13. Where the Prophet saith who hath instructed the spirit of God or was his counseller And this also is the opiniō of the Rhemistes that S. Paul in that place vseth the Prophets wordes The Protestantes OVr reasons against the authoritie of this booke are these and such like 1 Because this booke is not found in the Hebrue but written onely in Greeke wherefore it is not Canonicall seeing the Iewes had all the oracles of God 2 Philo a Iew is thought by the Papistes them selues to be the author of this booke who liued after Christ in the time of Caligula neither him selfe was a Christian or beleeued in Christ therefore an vnlike man to be a writer of Canonicall Scripture Bellarmine saith it was another Philo who was more auncient Indeed Iosephus maketh mention of a Philo before this time but he was an Heathen and no Iew. 3 If this booke were written by Solomon why is it not extant in Hebrue for Solomon wrote in Hebrue not in Greeke Many of the Papists also do proue that it was not written by Solomon for though Solomon in the 2. Chapter be brought in praying vnto God that is no good argument to proue Solomon the author for the author might speake in the person of Solomon OF THE BOOKE CALLED Ecclesiasticus The Papistes THey haue none but common and generall arguments for the authoritie of this booke as that it was of old read in the church diuerse of the fathers alledged testimonies out of it All this proueth not as we haue shewed before that it was Canonicall but that it was well esteemed and thought of because of many wholesome and good precepts which are conteined in it The Protestantes WE do thus improue the authoritie of this booke 1 The author in the Preface saith that he trāslateth in this booke such things as before were collected by his grandfather in Hebrue and excuseth him selfe because that things translated out of the Hebrue do loose the grace and haue not the same force so then it appeareth that this booke can not be Canonicall being imperfect neither was his grandfathers worke which is now lost to be thought any part of the Scripture seeing he was no Prophet him selfe but a compiler and a collector of certaine things out of the Prophetes 2 He exhorteth his countrymen to take it in good worth and so craueth pardon but the spirit of God vseth not to make any such excuse whose works are most perfect and feare not the iudgement of men 3 This booke saith cap. 46. v. 20. that Samuell prophesied after his death from the earth lift vp his voyce Whereas the Canonicall Scripture saith not that it was Samuell but that Saul so imagined and thought it to be Samuell 1. Sam. 28. And Augustine thinketh it was phantasma Samuelis but a shew onely and representation of Samuell and an illusion of the deuill Lib. ad Dulcitiū quaest 6. For it is not to be thought that the deuill cā disease the soules of any men much lesse of Saints departed OF THE TWO BOOKES OF the Machabees OVr Argumentes against the authoritie of this booke are these ensuing for our aduersaries bring nothing on their part but such Argumentes drawen from testimonies authorities as do generally serue for all the Apocrypha which are aunswered afore 1 Iudas is commended 2. booke chap. 12. for offring sacrifice for the dead which was not commanded by the law neither is it the custome of the Iewes so to do to this day againe they were manifest Idolaters for there were foūd iewels vnder their coates consecrate to the Idols of the Iamnites And our aduersaries graunt them selues that prayer is not to be made for open malefactors dying impenitently 2 Lib. 2. cap. 2. many things are reported of the arke the holy fire the altar the tabernacle which should be hid by Ieremie in a caue and that the Lord would shew the people these things at their returne Here are many things vnlikely and vntrue First it is found saith the text in the writings of Ieremie but no such storie is there found Secondly Ieremie was in prison till the very taking of the Citie and the Citie being taken the temple was spoyled the holy things defaced and carried away how could they then be conueyed by Ieremie Thirdly in their returne they found neither arke nor fire nor any such thing but saith the Iesuite the Iewes in their conuersion to God in the end of the world may haue them againe as though whē they shal beleeue in Christ they will any more looke backe to the ceremonies or rites of the law for what vse then I pray you shall they haue of altar or sacrifice or any such like 3 There is a great disagreeing in the storie betweene the two bookes cōcerning the death of Antiochus Lib. 1. cap. 6. v. 6.16 It is said that Antiochus dyed for grief in Babylon hearing of the good successe of the Iewes Lib. 2.1 ver 16. Antiochus was with the rest of his souldiers slayne in the temple of Nanea and his head cut of throwen forth Chap. 9. the same Antiochus falling sicke by the way dyed with a most filthie and stincking smell cōsumed of wormes How could this man dye thrise in Babylon in Nanea and by the way in a straunge coūtrey It is confessed by the Iesuite that it was the same Antiochus who saith he lost his armie in the temple and sickned by the way and dyed at Babylon But the storie saith that their heads were cut of I thinke thē he could not liue and that he dyed in a straunge country therefore not at Babylon in his bed These things hang not together 4 Further the author of these bookes saith that he
but the witnesse of the spirite doth certifie and assure vs of the truth and authoritie of scripture 7 I will adde one saying out of Augustine Mihi certum est nusquam a Christi authoritate discedere non enim reperio valentiorem Contra Academic lib. 3. cap. 20 I am resolued for no cause to leaue the authoritie of Christ speaking in the scriptures for I finde none more forcible Ergo the authoritie of scripture is aboue the Church which is denied by the Rhemistes annot 2. Gal. sect 2. THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the perspicuitie and playnnes of the Scripture The Papistes OVr aduersaries do hold that the scriptures are most hard difficult and obscure error 6 Bellarmine saith necessario fatendum est Scripturas esse obscurissimas it must needes be graunted that the scriptures are most obscure de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 1. They do not onely affirme that some things are obscure in the scriptures but that they are all hard and doubtfull and vncertaine and compare thē therfore to a leaden rule which may be turned euery way Petrus a Soto And to a nose of wax Lindanus a Papist ex Tilmanno de verbo Dei error 5. Our Rhemistes say it is all one to affirme some things to be hard in a writer and the writer to be hard so they conclude that the scriptures are both in respect of the matter and manner very hard and therfore daungerous for the ignoraunt to read them Rhemens annot in 2. Pet. 3. ver 16. 1 They obiect that place 2. Pet. 3.16 where the Apostle saith speaking of S. Paules Epistles that many things are hard Ergo the Epistles of S. Paule are hard and so the scriptures this is Bellarmine and the Iesuites argument We answere First he saith not that Paules Epistles are hard but many things which he entreateth of Secondly they are hard not to all but the vnstable and vnlearned do peruert them Thirdly We denie not but that some places in the scripture are obscure and haue neede of interpretation but it foloweth not that therefore the whole scripture is obscure and because of some hard places that the people should be forbidden the reading of all 2 The scriptures are obscure both in the respect of the matter and manner first the matter is high and mysticall as of the Trinitie of the incarnatiō of the word of the nature of Angels such like We aunswere these mysteries may be said to be obscure three diuerse wayes First in their owne nature so are they hard indeed for by humane reason we can not attaine to the depth of thē Secondly in respect of their handling in the scripture so are they not obscure for all these things are plainly declared in the word as the nature of such deepe mysteries will afoord Thirdly in respect of vs so must they needs be obscure if men be not cōtented with the knowledge in the word but curiously search further Luther therefore doth aptly distinguish of these things he saith that res Dei the things of God are obscure the very depth of his mysteries can not be comprehended of vs but res Scripturae these things as they are opened in scripture are plaine if we will content our selues with that knowledge Secondly saith Bellarmine the maner of handling is hard and obscure there are many tropes metaphores allegories Hebraismes which can not easily be vnderstood We aunswere First many of these are rather ornamentes of the scripture as tropes metaphores then impediments to the reader Secondly though the phrase of scripture seeme hard at the first yet by further trauell in the scriptures it may become easie and plaine for all things are not vnderstood at the first Thirdly we denie not but that some places are obscure and had neede to be opened 3 If the scriptures be not hard what need so many Commētaries and expositions Rhemist 2. Pet. 16. We aunswere First so many Commentaries are not requisite some may be spared Secondly expositions are needfull for the vnderstanding of darke places but many things are plaine inough without expositions and may be vnderstood of the simple The Protestantes WE do not hold that the scripture is euery where so plaine and euident that it need no interpretation as our aduersaries do slaunder vs and therefore here they do fight with their owne shadow Bellarm. lib. 3. de verbo cap. 1. We confesse that the Lord in the Scriptures hath tempered hard things and easie together that we might be exercised in the Scriptures and might knocke labour by prayer and studie for the opening of the sense and that there might be order kept in the Church some to be hearers some teachers expounders by whose diligent search and trauell the harder places may be opened to the people But this we affirme against our aduersaries first that all points of faith necessarie to saluation are plainely set forth in the Scriptures secondly that the Scriptures may with great profit be read of the simple and vnlearned notwithstanding the hardnesse of some places which in time also vsing the meanes they come to the vnderstanding of Ex Fulk annot 2. Pet. 3.16 Whitacher quaest 4. cap. 1. 1 First that which we maintaine is euident out of the scripture Deut. 30.11 the commaundement which I commaund thee is not hid from thee nor farre of And as it foloweth thou needest not ascend to the heauens or go beyond the sea the word is neare vnto thee euen in thy mouth and hart to do it argum Brentij Ergo the scriptures are plaine First the Iesuite aunswereth that it is meant onely of the decalogue and the ten commandements that they are easie not of the whole Scripture As though if the commandements be easie the rest of the scriptures be not likewise as the Prophets and historicall books being but commētaries and expositions of the decalogues S. Paule Rom. 10.6 vnderstandeth this place of the whole doctrine of faith who better knew the meaning of Moses then the Iesuite 2 2. Cor. 4.3 If our Gospell be hid it is to them onely that are lost Ergo the Scriptures are plaine to the faithfull The Iesuite aunswereth S. Paule speaketh of the knowledge of Christ not of the Scriptures First it is manifest out of the 2. verse that S. Paule speaketh of that Gospell which he preached to the Corinthians which is the same he wrote vnto them wherefore if the Gospell preached were easie and plaine why is not the Gospell written by him I meane the doctrine of faith being the same which he preached Secondly if they graunt that the knowledge of Christ is easie we aske no more for this is that we say that the doctrine of faith and saluation is plainly expressed in Scripture 3 This is the difference betweene the new Testament and the old the old is compared to a clasped booke Isay. 29.11 the new to a booke opened Apoca. 5. the knowledge of Christians farre exceedeth the knowledge of the Iewes it
body who would haue the verie flesh of Christ present in the Sacrament for this is against the article of the Creede that Christ is ascended into heauen and there sitteth till his comming againe in iudgement Concerning these meanes thus writeth Augustine Rarissime inuenitur ambiguitas in verbis proprijs quam non aut circumstantia ipsa sermonis qua cognoscitur Scripturarum intentio aut interpretum collatio aut praecedentes soluat inspectio de doctrin Christ. lib. 3.4 There is almost no ambiguitie in any word properly vsed that is not metaphoricall or borrowed which may not either by the circumstance of the place the conference and comparing of interpreters or by looking into the originals easily be taken away Augustine we see approueth this methode though our aduersaries like it not Besides these prayer must be vsed before we enterprise any thing that the Lord would direct vs. And they which cā not so easily take this course which is prescribed shall do well to seeke helpe of learned and godly expositors or to consult with their Pastors and Ministers Ex Whitacher quaest 5. cap. 9. THE SEVENTH QVESTION CONCERNING the perfection and sufficiencie of Scripture THis question is deuided into three parts First whether the Scriptures be absolutely necessary Secōdly whether they be sufficient without vnwritten traditions Thirdly whether there be any traditions of faith and manners beside the Scriptures THE FIRST PART OF THE NEcessitie of the Scriptures The Papistes THe Iesuite laboureth to proue that the Scriptures are not simply necessarie error 11 which we denie not for meate is not simply necessarie for God may preserue man without so in respect of God nothing is simply necessarie God is not necessarily tyed to vse this or that meanes but his argumentes do tend to this end to shew that the scriptures are not necessarie at all and may be spared in the Church so saith Petrus a Soto the Scripture was not alway extant and it is not necessarie vnto faith And the Scripture it not now so necessarie since Christ as it was afore Tilman de verbo Dei error 17. 1 There was no Scripture from Adam to Moses for the space of two thousand yeares and yet true Religion was kept and continued and why might not true Religiō be as well preserued a 1500. yeare after Christ without scripture as afore We answere It foloweth not because in times past God taught his church by a liuelie voyce that the written word is not necessarie now for the Lord saw it good that his word should be left in writing that we might haue a certaine rule of our faith in this corrupt and sinfull age And what els is this but to cōtroll the wisedome of God saying it is not necessarie or needfull for the Church which the Lord saw to be needfull for if the Lord had thought it as good for vs to be taught without Scripture as in that simple and innocēt age of the world I meane innocent in respect of vs he would not haue moued and stirred vp his Apostles to write 2 After the time of Moses when the law was written yet there were many that feared God amongest the Gentiles which had not the Scriptures as Iob and the other his friends Ergo the scripture not necessarie The Iewes also them selues vsed traditions more then Scriptures as Psal. 44. v. 1.2 the fathers did report the workes of God to their children by the negligence also of the Priests the law was lost as 2. King 22. we read that the volume of the law was found which had bene missing a long time We answere First euē the faithfull amōgest the Gētiles did read the scripture as the Eunuke Act. 8. had the booke of the Prophet Isay. Secondly the Iewes declared the workes of God vnto their children but the same were also written as how the heathen were cast out before them and of their deliuerāce out of Egypt those were the things they heard of their fathers as we read Psal. 44. 78. yet all these things are recorded in the bookes of Moses Thirdly what though the Priests were negligent in preseruing the scriptures it is no good argument to proue that therefore they are not necessarie neither was the whole booke of the law lost but either Moses owne manuscript or the booke of Deuteronomie Yet he hath proued nothing 3 The Church after Christ wanted the Scriptures many yeares Ergo they are not necessarie We aunswere it is a great vntruth for the old Testamēt the Church could not be without and the new Testament was written not long after in the age of the Apostles whose liuely voyce and preachings were vnto them as their writings are now to vs. See now what strong arguments they bring the scriptures were not necessary in the time of the Patriarkes when God taught them by his owne voyce they were not necessarie in the time of the Prophetes and Apostles when they had mē inspired of God to teach them Ergo they are not now necessarie when neither God teacheth from heauen neither haue we any Prophetes or Apostles to instruct vs by heauenly reuelations nay rather because they were not necessarie then when they had other effectuall meanes notwithstanding they are necessarie now seeing there is no other way of instruction left vnto vs. The Protestantes THat the scriptures are necessarie for the people of God the reading preaching and vnderstanding whereof is the onely and ordinarie meanes to beget faith in vs we thus proue out of the Scriptures them selues 1 The scriptures conteine necessarie knowledge to saluation which can not be learned but out of the scripture Ergo they are necessarie The knowledge of the law is necessarie but that onely is deriued from the Scripture as the Apostle witnesseth Rom. 7.7 he had not knowen lust to be sinne vnlesse the law had said thou shalt not lust And if the right knowledge of the law is not learned but out of the scripture much more the knowledge of the Gospel is more high and mysticall and more straunge vnto our nature 2 That whereby we are kept frō error and doubtfulnes in matters of faith is necessarie but this is performed by the scripture Ergo. First the Scripture keepeth vs from error Math. 22.29 ye erre not knowing the scriptures saith our Sauiour The ignoraunce of scripture was cause of their error Secondly if our knowledge were onely builded vpon tradition without scripture we should be doubtfull and vncertaine of the truth so S. Luke saith in his Preface to Theophilus I haue written saith he that thou mightest be certaine of those things whereof thou hast bene instructed Hence we conclude that although we might know the truth without scripture as Theophilus did yet we can not know it certainlie without 3 If the scriptures be not necessarie then we may be without them but this can not be Ergo the scriptures can not be spared for then God had done a needlesse and superfluous worke in stirring vp
the Prophets and Apostles to write S. Paule saith that what soeuer is writtē is written for our learning that through patience and cōsolation of the scriptures we might haue hope Rom. 15.4 The Lord saw in wisedome that his people could not be without the Scriptures which are necessarie for their learning for their comfort and to strengthen their hope how then dare our aduersaries say that the scriptures are not necessarie seeing these things wrought in vs by the scriptures knowledge consolation hope are most necessarie 4 Let Augustine now put in his verdict Illud credo quod etiā hinc diuinorū eloquiorum clarissima authoritas esset si homo illud sine dispendio salutis ignorare non posset de peccator merit remiss lib. 2.36 I thinke saith he that euen concerning this matter speaking of the originall or beginning of the soule the Scriptures would not haue bene silent if we might not safelie be ignoraunt of this matter without daunger of saluation Ergo whatsoeuer is necessarie to saluatiō is onely to be found in scripture for other matters there not expressed there in no daunger in not knowing them therfore the Scriptures by this Fathers iudgement are most necessary THE SECOND PART OF THE SEVENTH question of the sufficiencie of Scripture The Papistes THey do straungely affirme that the Scriptures conteine not all things necessarie error 12 to be knowen cōcerning faith and manners and that they are not sufficient without traditions Bellarm. cap. 3.4 Lindanus a Papist saith that the scriptures conteine not all things necessarie to saluation Andradius that their approued traditions are of equall authoritie with the Scripture Ex Tilman de verbo error 2. 1 First the Iesuite thus reasoneth against the sufficiencie of Scripture There are diuerse bookes of canonicall Scripture lost and perished Ergo that part of canonical scripture which remaineth is not sufficiēt that much is lost he thus proueth 1. Chron. cap. vlt. mention is made of the bookes of Nathan Gad. 2. Chron. 9. of the bookes of Ahiiah Ieedo in the new Testamēt Col. 4. of the Epistle of S. Paule to the Laodiceans all those bookes are lost We aunswere First we denie not but that some bookes are now wanting which were part of canonicall scripture yet that which remaineth is sufficiēt as some of Solomōs bookes are perished which he wrote of herbes plāts and many of his Prouerbes the Lord saw that they were not so greatly necessarie for vs to saluation Secondly there is not so much wanting as the Iesuite would beare vs in hād for the books of the Prophets which he nameth are the same with the bookes of the Chronicles of the Kings which no doubt were writtē by those Prophetes And as for the Epistle of S. Paule to the Laodiceās there was neuer any such the text is written from the Laodiceans it was the Epistle rather of the Laodiceans to S. Paule vnto the which he partly maketh aunswere in the Epistle to the Colossians and therefore he would haue it read also in their Church 2 If the Apostles had any such meaning to contriue in the scriptures the summe of faith and all necessarie knowledge it is very like Christ would haue geuen them some expresse commaundement so to do but we read not of any such strict commaundement Ergo they had no such purpose Bellarmine We aunswere First they them selues dare not denie but that the Apostles wrote by the instinct of the spirite what is that els but the commaundement of God Actes 16.6 Paule was forbidden of the holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia and ver 10. when he had seene a vision of a man of Macedonia appearing vnto him the Apostle concludeth that they were called of God wherefore what they did by the secret mouing of the spirite was done at the cōmaundement of God Secondly Apocal. 11.1.14.13 Iohn is biddē to write that which he saw no doubt the other Apostles had the like cōmaundement 3 There are many points which we ought in no wise to be ignoraunt of which the scriptures speake either obscurelie of or not at all First these things are obscurely and doubtfully set downe in Scripture the equalitie of the persons in Trinitie the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne the doctrine of originall sinne We aunswere First if these things be found at all in the Scriptures it is sufficient concerning the question we haue in hand Secondly the Scripture doth manifestly declare the truth in all those points the equalitie of the persons is directly proued 1. Iohn 5.7 the procession of the spirite Iohn 15.26 the spirit is there said to be sent frō the Father the Sonne And Ioh. 14.26 Original sinne is described plainly by the Apostle Rom. 5.12 though the name be not found in Scripture Secondly there are diuerse things necessarie to be knowen not at all declared in Scripture First as that Marie continued a perpetuall Virgine We answere the Scripture saith euery where she was a Virgine neither maketh mention of any children she had and therefore out of the Scripture we gather that she continued Secondly Basile saith that it is sufficient to know she was a Virgine before the birth of Christ. Secondly to know that the Pasch or Easter must be kept vpon the Lordes day is necessarie Aunswere there is no such necessiitie in it to saluation neither needed the Church so much to haue contended about it in times past these are the mightie weapons which our aduersaries vse The Protestantes WE do not affirme as our aduersaries charge vs that all things necessarie to saluation are expressely conteined in scripture that is in so many words but this we hold that all things which are necessarily to be knowen of vs are either expresly declared in Scripture or necessarily concluded out of Scripture and so conteined in them We also graunt that it was not Gospell onely which was written but all that Christ and his Apostles taught by liuely voyce the whole summe whereof and substaunce is conteined in the written word and so we conclude that nothing necessarie to saluation either concerning faith or manners is els where to be found but in the holy Scriptures 1 S. Paule saith if we or an Aungell preach vnto you otherwise then that which we haue preached let him be accursed Ergo the Scripture conteineth all things necessarie First the Iesuite aunswereth that S. Paule speaketh not onely of his writings but also of his preachings which were not written We aunswere that the summe of all S. Paules preachings is conteined in his Epistles and other holy writings for S. Paule confirmed his doctrine out of the scriptures as Act. 17.10 the Berrheans examined his doctrine by the scriptures and found it to be consonant and to agree in all things Secondly he condēneth those which preach any thing not besides or otherwise but contrarie and therefore not any other doctrine besides Scripture is forbidden but that
Bellarm. They did it by an extraordinarie authoritie not as Kings but as Prophets Nay it was an ordinarie power for all the good kings of Iuda beside as Iehosaphat Hezekiah and others did take care of religion this was so properly annexed to the kingly office that idolatrous kings also tooke vpon them to command false religion as Ieroboam set vp two golden calues and Ahaz king of Iudah cōmanded Vriah the high Priest to make an Altar according to the patterne which he sent from Damascus 2. King 16.11 This power also was afterward exercised by Christian Kings and Emperours as Constantinus Theodosius Martianus made lawes for the Church Fulk annot 1. Cor. 14. sect 16. Iustinianus the Emperour decreed many things concerning Church affayres as how excommunication should be vsed how Bishops and Priests should be ordained concerning the order and manner of funerals that the holy mysteries should not be done in priuate houses Carolus magnus decreed that onely the Canonical bookes of scripture should be read in the Church he chargeth all Bishops and priests to preach the word Lodouicus Pius his sonne and Emperour after him ordained that no entrie should bee made into the Church by Simonie that Bishops should bee chosen by the free election of the Clergie and the people All these Emperours did lawfully exercise their princely authoritie in Ecclesiastical matters Ergo other princes may doe the same still 3 Augustine saith Epistol 50. Quis mente sobrius c Who in his right wits would say to the King It pertaineth not to you who in your kingdome is religious or sacrilegious to whom it cannot be said let it not pertaine vnto you who in your kingdome will be chast or vnchast And in another place Ad fratres in erem serm 14. Tunc iustitia dicitur gladius ex vtraque parte acutus quia hominis defendit corpus ab exterioribus iniurijs animam à spiritualibus molestijs Then iustice is rightly called a sword with a double edge because it doth both defend the bodie from externall and corporall wrongs and the soule from spirituall vexation That is the sword of the Magistrate serueth as well to prune the Church and to cut off all errors and heresies in religion as to destroy the vices and corruptions in manners AN APPENDIX OR FOVRTH PART OF THE QVEstion whether the Prince in any good sense may be called the head of his kingdome and consequently of the Church in his kingdome The Papists THey do appropriate this title to be called heads of the vniuersall Church to error 101 the Pope of Rome most blasphemouslie for there can be no head of the vniuersal bodie but Christ But for Princes to be called the head that is chiefe gouernours of the Churches in their kingdomes they do abhorre it Whereupon Bellarmine is so saucie as to checke and controule King Henrie the 8. because he was called the head of the English Church 1 The heathen Emperours were not heads of the Church being not so much as members thereof therefore neither Christian Magistrates which doe succeede them in that authoritie Rhemist annot 1. Pet. 2. sect 6. Ans. 1. The argument followeth not they were no true mēbers of the Church therefore could not be heads that is haue the soueraigntie of the externall gouernment for wicked kings and princes doe keepe their magistracie gouernment still who though they be not true members of the Catholike Church yet ought to be obeied as princes 2. Though the metaphorical name of head agreed not vnto them yet were they by Gods ordinance appointed to be heads gouernours of his people protectors of his Church should haue been if they had not abused their authoritie 3. Christian princes though they haue the same authoritie which they had yet now exercising the sword according to Gods law and being Nurses of the Church may vse and retaine those princely titles in deed to be called Patrones and defenders of the faith head that is chiefe gouernours and protectors of the Church which by right had been due vnto the other if they had vsed their authoritie as they should 2 Christian princes are members of the Church Ergo not heads for if they were heads how could the Church stand without them as it did in the time of persecution Ans. First as though the head is not a member and part of the bodie though a principall one so the Prince is a member of the Church but a principall and chiefe member not of the inuisible Church for so Christ is onely head but of a particular visible Church Secondly we denie not but that the inuisible and spiritual Church may consist without the Magistrate but a visible flourishing and wel-gouerned Church cannot want a head or chiefe gouernour that is as a wall or hedge vnto it The Protestants TO bee head of the vniuersall Church is proper onely to Christ and in that sense is not communicable to any creature for he is to his Church as the head to the naturall bodie giuing vnto it influence of grace spirit and life he is therefore the onely mysticall head of the vniuersal Church But in another sense the Prince may be said to be the head and chiefe gouernour of his kingdome of that particular visible Church where he is king We make him neither the mysticall head which is only Christ farre be that blasphemie from vs nor a ministerial head as they make the Pope to be as Christs Vicegerent in the Church but a politicall head to keepe and preserue the peace of the Church and to see that euery member doe his office and duetie But this name we confesse is vnproperly giuen to the Prince neither were we the first inuentors of it for the papists first gaue it to Henry the 8. And there are other titles which doe sufficiently expresse the office of the Prince and may bee more safely vsed If any man thinke it too high a name for any mortall man and so not to be giuen to any we will not greatly contend about it But if any denye it to the Prince as thereby to abridge her of her power in Ecclesiastical matters we doe stand stiffely for it and are bold to affirme that with much better right is this title attributed to the ciuill Magistrate then it was to the Pope yea and that it hath been of old giuen in a modest and sober sense to Kings and Princes and may with a fauourable exposition be still and Princes also may receiue this honour and title at their subiects hands with protestation of their Christian meaning herein 1 This phrase for the King to be called the head is not vnusuall in scripture 1. Sam. 15.17 Saul is sayd to be the head of the tribes Psal. 18.43 Dauid the head of the nations Isay. 9.15 The Prince or honourable man the head of the people yea Princes are called Gods Psal. 82.2 which is a name of greater Soueraigntie then to be called heads
notwithstanding for popish inuocation of Angels for the Angel here coÌ„mendeth not the prayers of the Saints by his merit but by the much incense giuen vnto him to ad to the prayers of the Saints to make them acceptable which is the sweete smell and sauour of the precious dâ—ath and merites of Christ. Fulk in hunc locum Augustine indeede sometime ascribeth such an office vnto the Angelles to carry vp our prayers to Heauen as their charge is to carry vp our soules not as mediatours or intercessors but as the Lords messengers and agents here vpon earth to reporte vnto him our affaires dicuntur Angeli preces nostras vota Deo offerre non vt deum doceant qui omnia antequam fiant nouit sed vt super his dei voluntatem consulant The Angelles are said to offer vp our prayers and vowes vnto God not to informe or instruct the Lord but onely to consult and know his pleasure tom 9. de dilection Cap. 3. in Psalm 74. for the Angels haue two offices the one to execute the commaundement of God in the world and to attend vpon him to receiue their charge Math. 18.10 the other to returne vnto God as faithfull messengers the successe of their busines in the worlde Zechar. 1.10 Now whether the Angelles be appointed of God to report vnto him our sayings and doings as other affaires of our life the scripture no where euidently sheweth Neither if it were graunted would it any thing helpe their popish inuocation of Angelles Rhemist alleadge Tob. 12.12 to proue the offering of our prayers by Angelles Answer It is neither canonicall Scripture nor agreeable vnto it Fulk annot Coloss. 2. sect 3. The Protestants THe scripture alwayes maketh Christ our onely Mediator neither Angelles nor Saints by whome our prayers and all other spirituall sacrifices are offered vnto God Fulk ibid. 1 Hebrew 13.15 Let vs by him offer the sacrifice of praise alwayes to God 1. Peter 2.5 You are an holy priesthoode to offer vp spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. Ergo Christ Iesus is our onely Mediator Secondly Galatian 3.19 The Lawe was ordayned by Angelles in the hand of a Mediator Ergo the Angelles are one office and the Mediator another Augustine sayeth Quòd non aliquem ex Angelis dicit Mediatorem sed ipsum Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum habes alio loco vnus inquit Deus vnus mediator Dei hominum homo Christus Iesus That the Apostle calleth not any of the Angels but only Iesus Christ our Lord Mediator we haue in another place There is one God saith he and one Mediator of God and man the Man Iesus Christ. AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART of this question whether Angelles or Saints know our heartes The Papists THe Angelles and other Celestiall spirites doe knowe our heartes and inwarde repentance And betweene the Angelles and the blessed soules of Saintes there is no difference in this case the one being as highly exalted and neere God as the other in whome and by whome only they see and know our affaires Luke 15.10 There is ioy in heauen in the presence of the Angelles ouer one sinner that repenteth Ergo they know our repentaunce Rhemist Lu. 15. Sect. 2. Ans. 1 Our heartes and inward repentance are not knowen to the Angelles but by the fruites and true effectes thereof 2 Although the elect after the resurrection shal be like in glorie to the Angelles yet it followeth not that they shall be like in all thinges much lesse that their soules now in heauen be in all thinges like vnto the Angelles whose presence and Ministerie God vseth in the preseruation of his chosen 3 That all thinges done in the worlde may be seene in God as in a glasse is but a prophane speculation and the deuise of an ydle braine Fulk ibid. Argum. 2 Abraham had knowledge of things in earth which were not in his time as that they had Moyses and the Prophetes bookes which hee neuer sawe Luk. 16. ver 29. Rhemist Answere First In this narration many thinges are spoken parabolically out of the which we must not ground any doctrine not taught els where in scripture for you may aswell say that soules haue fingers and tounges and that elementall water wil quench hell fire as that Abraham knew what books were written after his death Secondly Albeit that the doctrine of the Church comprehended in the scriptures might be reuealed to Abraham after his death yet it followeth not that he knew all thinges as you affirme the saintes doe by beholding the Maiestie of God Fulk annot ibid. The saintes therefore in heauen knowe so much as the Lord thinketh good to reueale vnto them they knowe not all things The Protestants WE deny not but that as Prophetes and holy men in this life may knowe many secret thinges reuealed vnto them by the spirit of God as Peter found out the secret fraude of Ananias Sapphirae Eliseus being absent found out Gehezi his corruption yea hee could tell what was doone in the King of Syria his chamber so the Lord may reueale vnto the saintes in heauen at his pleasure some thinges done vpon earth But that they receiued any such gift of God to know all thinges done vpon earth it is a great vntrueth and cleane contrary to the scriptures 1. Salomon sayeth in his prayer vnto God Heare thou in heauen in thy dwelling place and giue vnto euery man according to his wayes as thou knowest his heart for thou onely knowest the hearts of all the children of men 1. King 8.39 Out of this place we thus reason he only knoweth the heart that is the Iudge of all men and a rewarder of them according to their wayes But the Lord onely is iudge Ergo. Againe the wordes themselues be plaine that God onely knoweth the heart so that what knowledge of secrets the Saintes haue it is by reuelation not by searching the heart Againe S. Paul saith No man knoweth the thinges of man saue the spirit of man which is in him so the thinges of God knoweth no man but the spirite of God 1. Corinth 1.11 the Rhemist aunswer that no man knoweth the secrets of the heart naturally but by extraordinary gift he may as the Prophets did Ans. No man euer had or can haue a generall gift to know the heart but when God seeth it good to reueale it for otherwise the comparison holdeth not The spirit of God onely knoweth the things of God which also is giuen to men to know but not by receiuing any gift to search and looke into the nature and heart as it were of God for then should they knowe all the secrets of God which neuer any did but onely by reuelation of the spirite which openeth Gods secrets vnto them so farre as it is conuenient and needfull Euen after the same manner the spirite of God may reueale the secrets of the heart of man not by giuing them a generall gift
that he prophecied being dead Ergo it was Samuel indeed Bellarm. De Purgat lib. 2. cap. 6. Augustine answereth that this booke was not receiued into the Canon of the scriptures It is not Canonicall De cura pro mortuis cap. 15. Arg. 3. He telleth Saul things to come as how the next day he should be ouercome and slaine But the diuell knoweth not things to come Bellar. ibid. Augustine answereth Facile est non incongruum It is an easie matter with God and not vnlikely that some things should be reuealed to euill spirits for the greater punishment of the wicked for otherwise we might maruaile Quomodo daemones agnouerint Christum quem Iudaei non agnoscebant How the diuels knewe Christ whom the Iewes did not acknowledge Ad Simplician lib. 2. quaest 3. The Protestants THat it was not the soule of Samuel which appeared who was now at rest but the diuell in the likenes of Samuel who also can transforme himselfe into an Angel of light Augustine proueth by these foure arguments Argum. 1. Because the Witch or Pythonist vsed enchantments vnto the which the soule of so holy a prophet was not subiect Daemoniacis incantationibus vti videtur De mirabilib scriptur 2. cap. 11. Bellarmine answereth that Samuel preuented her enchantment and came vp voluntarily Ans. The text is contrarie vers 11. for the woman first asketh Saul whom she should bring vp that is by her charmes and incantations and he sayd bring me vp Samuel Argum. 2. Quomodo Saul c. How could Saul obtaine to heare a Prophet speake from the dead whom God vouchsafed not to answere by Prophets aliue The text is that God gaue him no answere neither by Prophets nor by dreames therefore I haue called for thee vers 15. Ergo it was not Samuel for then God should haue giuen him answere by Prophets Argum. 3. If it had been Samuel he would not haue told a lye vnto Saul saying to morowe thou shalt be with me Magno quippe interuallo separari bonos à malis legimus for we reade that the good are separated from the bad by a great distance after this life as it appeareth in the storie of Diues and Lazarus August ad Simplician ibid. Bellarm. He sayth as much as you shall be dead noting the generall condition not the particular state of the dead Ans. This phrase in scripture importeth and implieth also the particular state of those that are departed as 2. Sam. 12.23 Dauid saith of his child I shall goe to him he shal not come to me And Luk. 23.43 Christ saith This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise In both places it signifieth to be in rest and ioye in the same place where they are with whom they are sayd they shal be Ergo it must be so taken here Argum. 4. If it had been Samuel Vtique vir iustus non permisisset se adorari The iust man would not haue suffered himselfe to be adored and worshipped as the diuell doth take it at Saules hands to be worshipped of him For the text sayth he enclined his face toward the ground and bowed himselfe or worshipped August quaest ex veteri testam 27. THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING Purgatorie THe question hath three parts first whether there be any Purgatorie for soules to be purged cleansed in after this life Secondly of other circumstances and matters that doe belong thereunto Thirdly of praier for the dead THE FIRST PART WHETHER THERE BE any Purgatorie after this life The Papists THere is they say a certaine infernall place in the earth called Purgatorie in the which as in a prison house the soules which were not fully purged in this life are there cleansed and purged by fire before they can be receiued into heauen Bellarm. de Purgator lib. 1.1 lib. 2.6 Rhemist Matth. 12. sect 6. Argum. 1. Zachar. 9.11 Thou hast loosed thy prisoners out of the pit where was no water Psalm 66.12 We went through fire and water These and such like places the Iesuite vnderstandeth of Purgatorie Lib. 1. de Purgator cap. 3. Ans. First the Iesuite brought this place before to proue that there was Limbus Patrum and now he maketh it serue for Purgatorie thus they can make the scripture to speake what they list themselues But Purgatorie and Limbus Patrum are two diuers yea and contrary things for the Limbus was onely for those that liued before Christ Purgatorie began since the Limbus was voyde of payne and punishment so is not Purgatorie wherefore if the Lake or pit in Zacharie signifie Purgatorie it maketh nothing for Limbus and if it serue for Limbus then they misse of a place for Purgatorie But indeede it signifieth no such thing but is taken onely in that place for the affliction and miserie of this life as we shewed out of Augustine And so doth he also expound such and the like places out of the Psalmes as Psalm 86.13 Thou hast deliuered my soule from the lowest graue Quid sayth he est lacus infimus nisi profundissima miseria qua non sit profundior What els sayth he is the lowest pit or graue but the lowest degree of miserie then the which there can be no greater Argum. 2. Luk. 8.55 Her spirit came againe and she arose Christ raised the rulers daughter to life This euidently sheweth that there is a third place beside Heauen and Hell for the soules that are there cannot returne againe Rhemist Ans. Surely a goodly argument the spirits of Lazarus and of the Maide returned Ergo there is a third place and why may you not thinke that their soules were whereas the soules of other righteous are And why may not the Lord bring at his pleasure if it pleaseth him the soules at rest into their bodies againe Fulk 8. sect 5. Argum. 3. Of all other they most insult and beare themselues bolde vpon that place of Saint Paul 1. Corinth 3. which being rightly vnderstood doth not helpe them anything at al vers 13. The fire shal trie euery mans worke vers 15. if any mans worke burne he shall suffer losse but he shall be safe himselfe yet as it were through the fire Bellarm. Rhemist by fire here vnderstand the flames of Purgatorie by wood stubble strawe veniall sinnes which must be purged by that fire Rhemist 1. Cor. 3. sect 3. Ans. First by the precious matter here as of gold siluer are not the workes of charitie vnderstood but the preaching of sound doctrine by straw and stubble and wood and other combustible matter the affectation of eloquence and corrupt teaching of the truth yet holding the foundation not veniall sinnes as the Rhemists affirme and this Bellarmine also granteth Secondly fire is here taken allegorically as the rest of the words are of gold siluer stubble neither can it be taken for their Purgatorie fire because it trieth the workes onely not the persons and all must be tried by this fire as well those that build gold and siluer as the