aduersaries the Papistes that holding all those bookes to be Scripture which we do acknowledge doe adde vnto them other bookes which are not canonicall so that they offend not as other heretikes in denying any part of the Scripture but which is as bad in adding vnto it for both these are accursed Reuel 22.18 First of all breifly before we proceed let vs see who they were that offend in the first kind Some heretikes generally reiected the whole Scripture some certaine partes thereof The Sadducees receiued no Scripture beside the fiue bookes of Moses the Maniches condemned the whole old testament and so did wicked Marcion The bookes of Moses the Ptolemaites refused the booke of the Psalmes the Nicolaitanes and the Anabaptistes in our dayes there wanted not which condemned the booke of the Preacher and the Canticles as wanton and lasciuious bookes and the Anabaptists are not here behind with their partes The holy and excellent booke of Iob hath also found enimies and some of the Rabbins which do thinke that the storie is but fained which heresie is confuted Ezech 14.14 for there Noah Iob Daniel are named together so that it is manifest that such a man there was The new testament the Maniches most impiously affirmed to be full of lies Cerdon the heretike condemned all but Lukes Gospel The Valentinians could away with none but Iohns Gospell The Alogians of all other hated Iohns writings The Ebionites onely admitted Matthewes Gospell The Acts of the Apostles the Seuerian heretikes contemned The Marcionites the Epistles to Timothie to Titus to the Hebrues The Ebionites could not away with any of S. Paules workes ex Whitakero cont 1. de Script cap. 3. Vnto these adde the Zwencfeldians and Libertines that refuse to be iudged by the Scripture calling it a dead letter and flie vnto the inward and secret reuelations of the spirite And by your leaue the Papists are not far from this heresie some of them although the Iesuite crie neuer so much with open mouth that wee belye them De verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 1. Take but a litle paines to peruse that worthy learned mans and reuerent fathers defence of the Apologie p. 521. there you shall find how that Lodouicus a Canon Lateran in Rome said in the Councell of Trent that the Scripture is but mortuum atramentū dead inke The Bishop of Poitiers sayd that it was but res mammis muta a dead and dumbe thing Albertus Pigghius that the Scriptures were but muti Iudices dumbe Iudges Eckius calleth it Euangelium nigrum theologiam atramentariam the blacke Gospell and inkie diuinitie and it is nasus cereus a nose of wax saith he And now in cometh Hosius with his part that it is but lost labor which is bestowed in the Scripture for the Scripture is a creature and a certaine bare letter But the Iesuit saith that we abuse the name of that man for those are not his owne words but he reporteth them of Zuinckfeldius Be it so for this time though M. Iewell bestowe some paines to proue them to be according to his owne meaning Though these be not Hosius owne wordes yet these are not much better yea far worse who speaking of Dauids writing of the Psalmes sayth thus Quid ni scriberet scribimus indocti doctique poemata passim why might not he write sayth he being a temporall Prince as Horace saith we write ballades euery body both learned and vnlearned p. 522. I pray you now how much do these Papists differ from the Libertines and Zuinkfeldians vnlesse it be in this that the Libertins cleaue to secret reuelations the Papistes are pinned vpon the Popes sleeue affirming that it is no Scripture nor Gospel without the determination of the Church Nay one of them saith determinatio Ecclesiae appellatur Euāgelium the determination of the Church is called the Gospell Iohannes Maria will you yet heare of greater impietie Anno Domini .1240 or thereabout there was a booke set forth by the Friers called Euangelium aeternum full of their owne fables and abominable errors they taught that Christes Gospell was not to be compared vnto it and that the Gospel of Christ should be preached but fifty years This booke with much a do was condemned by the Pope but after long disputation and it was burnt secretely lest the fryers should haue bene discredited and withall the booke of Guilielmus de S. amore which he had written against the Friers and disputed against their Gospell was commanded to be burned with the other Besides these heresies their opinion also is to be reiected that thynke that the holy writers might in some things be deceiued as mistaking one thing for another or fayling in their memorie To this opinion Erasmus enclined whom Bellarmine taketh paine to confute lib. 1. cap. 6. He might as well haue turned his argument vpon Melchior Canus their owne champion who thinketh that Stephen Act. 7. in telling so long a storie might forget him selfe in some things Cau. lib. 2. cap. 18. ex Whitakero but now to the question The Papists Assertion THere are certaine bookes annexed to the old Testament which the Papists error 1 them selues do not acknowledge for canonicall as the Prayer of Manasses the two bookes of Esdras commonly called the third and fourth of Esdras also other which are not vsually in our English Bibles as an appendix to the booke of Iob the 151. Psalme a booke called the Pastor All these by our aduersaries are reiected The question betweene vs is concerning these books first certaine peeces ioyned to canonicall bookes as seuen Chapters of Esther certaine stories annexed to Daniel as of Bel the Dragon of Susanna the Song of the three children also the Epistle of Baruch ioyned to Ieremy Thē folow certaine whole books as Tobie Iudith the Wisedome of Salomon Ecclesiasticus two bookes of the Machabees these six bookes with the other three appendices or peeces of books the Papists hold to be canonicall and of as firme authority as any part of the Scripture Arguments they haue none beside cartaine testimonies of some fathers and Councels which we purpose not to deale withall leauing them to our learned country men who haue taken in hand to discusse these controuersies to the full The Protestants confession WE are agreed concerning the new testamēt that all the books therof as they stand are to be receiued of all for Scripture for as for those forged Gospels of Thomas S. Andrew of Nicodemus and the like though the Church were troubled with them in times past yet their memory being now worne out there is no question of thē Concerning the bookes on both sides acknowledged if some one man seeme to doubt of some one part as Luther doth of the Epistle of Iames and Iude it ought no more to preiudice vs then Catetanus opinion doth hurt them who called more bookes in question then Luther did as the Epistle of Iames of Iude the second of Peter the second and
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
abridgeth the story of one Iason a Syrenean Lib. 2. cap. 2. v. 23. Who was an Heathen but the spirite of God vseth not neither needeth to borow of prophane writers He saith that this worke was not easie but paineful to him but required sweating and watching v. 26. But to the holy writers of Scripture though their own labour and diligence was not wanting yet was not the worke hard or molestious vnto them Lastly the author faith he writeth for pleasure recreation of the Reader and craueth pardon if he haue not done well Lib. 2.15.39 But to read for pleasure is no end of Scripture neither doth the spirit of God vse any excuse either for matter or manner Our aduersaries say that S. Paule likewise confesseth that he was rude in speaking 1. Cor. 11.6 We aunswere he so saith because the false Apostles so gaue out of him not that he was so indeed and yet in that place S. Paule doth not excuse him selfe for his not sufficieÌ„t haÌ„dling of his matter as this author doth neither is that speach of S. Luke any thing like for there the Euangelist doubteth not to say that he had attained to an exact knowledge of all things Vpon these premises we conclude that these bookes of the Machabees are not Canonicall nor to be taken for any part of holy Scripture though we denie not but that there may be some profitable vse of them for the storie AVGVSTINES IVDGEMENT OF the bookes called Apocrypha FIrst generally of them all thus he writeth Quas itaque Scripturas dicimus nisi Canonicas legis Prophetarum de vnit Eccle. 16. We acknowledge no Canonicall Scripture of the old Testament but the law and the Prophetes but none of the Apocrypha were writteÌ„ by any of the Prophets Againe he saith Omnes literae quib Christus Prophetatus est apud Iudaeos sunt Psal. 56. All the bookes which do Prophesie of Christ were kept amoÌ„gest the Iewes but none of the Apocrypha were written in Hebrue Ergo. Concerning the story of Bel and the Dragon he calleth it a fable de mirabilib lib. 2. cap. 32. Of the same credite is the storie of Susanna The booke of Iudith was not saith he receiued in the Canon of the Iewes De Ciuit. Dei 18.26 The two bookes of Ecclesiasticus and the wisedome of Solomon are onely said to be Solomons propter eloquij nonnullam similitudinem because of some affinitie and likenesse of the stile De Ciuit. Dei 17.20 So he thinketh that Solomon was not indeed the author of them how then can that booke be Canonicall which geueth it selfe a false title being called the wisedome of SolomoÌ„ and was neuer compiled by Solomon THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERning the authenticall and most approued Edition of the Scriptures The Papistes WHereas it is confessed that the Hebrue Edition of the old TestameÌ„t error 2 is the most auncient in the which toung the Scriptures were compiled by the Prophets that the new TestameÌ„t was writteÌ„ in Greeke by the Apostles and the Euangelistes yet our aduersaries do generally hold as it was decreed in the TrideÌ„tine Chapter Sess. 4. Decret 2. That in all sermoÌ„s readings disputations controuersies the vulgare Latine traÌ„slation should be taken for authentike before the Hebrue or Greeke and that no man should presume vpon any occasion to reiect it or appeale from it The Protestantes WE do truly affirme that although there are diuerse EditioÌ„s of the old Testament besides the Hebrue and some of them verie auncient as the translation of the Septuagints compiled by 72. auncieÌ„ts of the Iewes at the instigation of Ptolomeus Philadelphus king of Egypt 300. yeares before Christ and after Christ there were other translations in Greeke made by Aquila Synomachus Theodotion and others also a Chalde Paraphrase compiled by the Iewes last of all diuerse Latin translations the which as Augustine saith in his time were so many that they could not be nuÌ„bred yet of al the rest the Hebrue being the most auncient and the mother of the rest and freest from corruptions ought to be receiued as most authentike And for the new Testament though there be a Syriacke translation verie auncient yet the Greeke ought to be preferred being the same toung wherein the Apostles and the Euangelistes wrote to be the onely authentike copie As for the Latin translation of the Bible we are able to proue it to be verie corrupt and faultie and therefore not authentike The Papistes Argumentes 1 THe Latin Church hath vsed the vulgare Latin translation for the space of 800. or 900. yeares and it is not like that the Church all this while was without the true Edition of the Scriptures Ergo it is onely authenticall We aunswere First by this Argument it foloweth that this vulgar Latin being generally vsed was preferred before other Latin translations which were at the first in great number not that therefore it is more authentike then the Hebrue in the old and the Geeeke in the new Testaments Secondly there were other Churches besides the Latin all this while as amongest the Greekes famous congregations and Churches that be it in the Latin Church the vulgar translation was reteined being erroneous yet the whole Church continued not in that errour which were not so tyed and bound to the Latin translation Thirdly if men all this while knowledge decreasing and a way being in preparing for Antichrist were negligent in correcting and amendiâ—â— the common translation this is no good Argument to make it authenticall â— As the Hebrues had an authentike translation in their own toung and 〈…〉 in theirs why should not the Latin Church haue it also authenticall in Latin We aunswere First it is no good reason because the Lord did consecrate the Hebrue and Greeke toung and therein would haue his word written that therefore he would or should also haue made the Latin as well authenticall as they Secondly if the Latin Church must haue an authentike translation why should not other countrys likewise haue their authenticals The Armenians had the Scriptures of old translated by Chrisostome the Sclauonians by Hierome the Gothes by Vlphilas why should not these also as well be authenticall and so looke into how many toungs the Scriptures should be translated so many authenticall translations should there be 3 They say that all other translations which are come forth since are erronious and much differ amoÌ„gest them selues Aunswere First this is no reason to prefere it before the Hebrue and Greeke though it were better theÌ„ all other traÌ„slations Secondly they charge vs falsly that our traÌ„slations are dissonant and erronious for their disagreement is not in such substantiall points where any of them do swarue from the originall we allow them not and yet there is not the meanest of them but may iustly compare with theirs yea and be preferred before it Thirdly if their traÌ„slation were so pure as they say Beza him selfe maketh it he would not haue set forth a
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
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
Was not here great amitie and loue thinke you amongest the Popes Another notable example of their vnitie we haue in Pope Vrbanus time the 6. against whom stood vp a contrarie Pope in Fraunce named Clement it is worth the noting what coyle these two popes kept between whō many battailes were fought many thousands slaine Pope Vrbane beheaded fiue Cardinals together after long torments Bishop Aquilonensis because he did ride no faster was had in suspition and slayne and cut in peeces by Vrbans souldiers at his commaundement behold here I pray you the vnitie of these Catholikes We will adioyne one other example no longer since then in king Henry the eights time The Duke of Bourbon being the leader of the Emperors armie layd siege to Rome and sacked it the souldiers brake in vpon the Pope which was Clement the seuenth being at Masse slew diuerse of the Priests and one Cardinall called Sanctorum quatuor they layd siege to the Castle of S. Angell so long till the Pope yeelded him selfe The souldiers dayly that lay at the siege made iestes of the Pope sometime they had one riding like the Pope with a whore behind him sometimes he blessed sometime he cursed sometime with one voyce they would call him Antichrist See here is their Catholike obedience to their chief Bishop Thus much concerning their vnitie and concord in life Let vs likewise take a view of their vnitie in doctrine We heard before how Pope Stephen and Sergius abolished the decrees of Formosus how then saith the Iesuite that the decrees of Popes do consent together The Councell of Basile and Constance before that decreed that the Pope should be subiect to generall Councels but this Canon was afterward reuersed and now generally the Papists hold the contrary that the Pope is aboue Councels Let vs see the consent of their writers Bellarmin lib. 1. de verbo cap. 12. maintaineth against Lyranus Driedo Genebrard and others that Iudith was in Manasses time Against Alphonsus de Castro that heretikes are no members of the Church Lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 4. Against Iohannes de turre cremata that faith is not necessarie to make one a member of the Church Lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 10. And euery where the Iesuite taketh great libertie to confute and controll other his felow Papistes belike hauing found out some starting holes that they either knew not or were ashamed to creepe into as the Iesuite doth But saith he we denie not but that we haue dissentions but they are not in materiall points but in such things as appertaine not to faith I meruaile he blusheth not thus to say him selfe knowing the contrary Is it not a substantiall point and belōging to faith to know which bookes are canonicall Scripture which are not But in this question they do much disagree Caietanus the Cardinall saith that we must acknowledge no Scripture but that which was either written or approued by the Apostles But Catharinus a Papist doth reiect that opinion Hugo Cardinalis Arias Montanus do hold no bookes of the old Testament to be canonicall which are written onely in Greeke the Papistes now generally hold the contrary Ex Whitacher 1. contr c. quaest cap. 6. Bellarmin saith that all those opinions which the Church holdeth as articles or preceptes of faith were deliuered by the Apostles that the Church must not now seeke for new reuelations but content her selfe with the Apostolike traditions and doctrine de Scriptur lib. 4. cap. 9. Out of the which words it doth necessarily folow that the church is not now to foūd any new article of faith but this generally is denied by the Papistes and Stapleton an English Papist is not ashamed to say that the Church may adde more bookes to the canonicall Scripture by her absolute authoritie Further to beleeue that the virgine Marie was without sinne yea conceiued without originall sinne is now amongest the Papistes receiued for an article of faith and therefore in Paris none are admitted to be Doctors of Diuinitie which doe not first confirme this article by their oth Yet this was a great question betweene the Scotistes and Thomistes and a great and hote contention arose about this controuersie anno 1476. betweene the Dominicke Friers who affirmed that she was conceiued in sinne and the Franciscanes that held the contrary But these Franciscanes had the vpper hand and foure of the other order were condemned and burned for it at Berne and yet for all this our aduersaries will say still that they varie not in matters of faith Thus we haue seene what is to be thought of Popish vnitie Now to answere briefly to their false accusation whereby they charge vs with manifold schismes and dissentions yea Bellarmin is not ashamed to say that an hundred seuerall sectes are sprong amongest vs. cap. 10. lib. 4. de Eccles. 1 We say with S. Paule oportet haereses esse 1. Cor. 11. there must be heresies and diuisions in the Church And it is a signe we haue the truth when the deuill goeth about by schismes and contentions to hinder the preaching thereof We answere to you as Augustine did to the paganes Non proferant nobis quasi concordiam suam hostem quippe quem patimur illi non patiuntur Let them not boast of their concord and cast in our teeth the dissention of Christians the enemie assaulteth not them as he doth vs Quid ibi luchri est quia litigant vel damni si litigant the deuill shall get nothing if they should disagree nor lose any thing by their agreement for he hath sure hold enough of them already consenting all in Idolatrie But amongest Christians he laboureth to hinder the truth by discord because he can not otherwise withdraw them frō the true Religion Hearken now ô ye Papistes if you consent together it is in euill so long it pleaseth the deuill well enough he should destroy his owne kingdome in sowing dissention amongest you for you fight for him He vseth to cast fire brands amongest good Christians to withstand by this meanes the proceeding of the Gospell 2 It is a great sclaunder that there are so many diuisions amongest vs an hundred saith the Iesuite but he shall neuer proue ten He might haue bethought him selfe of a full hundred of sectes amongest his owne darlings the Monkes and Friers as M. Fox hath faithfully gathered the number pag. 260. 3 Those few schismes and dissentions which we haue and yet to many we must needes confesse are not about points of faith and articles of Religion but concerning some things belonging to discipline and Church gouernement which matters we denie not but haue bene somewhat to hotely and egerlie folowed of some amongest vs but God be thanked this contention hath not bene pursued by fire or death as the Franciscanes did persecute the poore Dominickes nor yet to the pronouncing of ech other heretikes as Eugenius your Pope was condemned as an hereticke in the Councell of
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
be adored And thus it is lawfull profitable and expedient for the Church to Canonize Saints Bellarm. cap. 7. Argum. 1. The Patriarkes and Prophets were Canonized for Saints in the old law Heb. 11. So Act. 7. Stephen other were Canonized therfore it is credible that the Lord would haue the same order still continued in his Church Bellarm. cap. 7. Ans. First neither in the old nor the new lawe were any set vp to be Saints with intent to be worshipped called vpon temples to be consecrated in their names but onely the scripture giueth testimonie of them as of holy and faithfull men and so may we also honour the blessed Martyrs whom the cruell Emperours of Rome and since them the Popes of Rome haue sent through fire and other torments to heauen Secondly when they haue as good testimonie for their Saints as we haue for the holy Patriarkes and Prophets they may be bold to pronounce them to be holy blessed Thirdly your argument followeth not vnles you will say that the Church may doe all things now which the Prophets and Apostles did then They may as well make scripture and more Canonicall bookes by the same reason as make and Canonize new Saints The Protestants THat none of the Saints are to be adored or worshipped their images or reliques or praiers to be made vnto them or any such honor to be giuen them it shall afterward appeare more at large And therefore they ought not to be Canonized to any such end or purpose We also grant that the number of Gods Saints and elect is encreased daylie and we are sure in generall as the scripture testifieth that the death of his Saints is precious in the sight of God Psal. 116.15 And that all are blessed that dye in the Lord But particularly we are not able certainly to determine of any the matter is to be left wholly vnto God and we in the meane time to hope the best Argum. 1 If the Church hath authoritie to Canonize Saints determine of the election or saluation of men then may we as well iudge of the condemnation of those that are lost for if it be knowen to the Church who are Saints in heauen they also may as wel define who are damned in hell But this none can doe nay it were great rashnes and want of charity for any so to take vpon them S. Paul saith Why condemnest thou another mans seruant hee standeth or falleth to his owne master Rom. 14.4 No man can iudge whether the seruant stand or fall but his Master Ergo if the Church presume to determine of the election or damnation of those that are departed she is nowe a Mistres and Lady rather of the Saintes then they Lords or patrones to her as the Papistes holde they are Argum. 2 Iudge not saith S. Paul 1. Corinth 4.5 before the time vntill the Lord come The iudgement then of men who are saued and who are condemned is reserued for the comming of Christ Therefore it is great presumption for men to preuent the time and to take vpon them to bee Iudges in Gods place Againe our Sauiour Christ saith that To sit at his right hand or left in his kingdome was not his to giue meaning as he was man but it shal be giuen to them for whome it is prepared of my Father Math. 20.23 How then is it in the power of any sinfull man to giue vnto any a seat either at the right hand or left hand of Christ in the kingdome of God Argument Gualter Bruti Fox page 487. Augustine also consenteth Non separatio iam cuique tuta est illius erit separatio qui non nouit errare Nos in hac vita difficile est vt nos ipsos nouerimus quantò minùs debemus de quoquā praeproperam ferre sententiam It is not safe for men now to make separation of the good and bad it belongeth to him that can not erre We in this life do hardly know our selues howe much lesse ought we to iudge rashly of others exposit in Psalm 139. Here are two reasons giuen why it is not lawfull for men to iudge of the election or reprobation of men first their iudgement is subiect to error and therefore the matter must be referred to God who erreth not Secondly we can not iudge our selues much lesse can we iudge of others Ergo no man liuing ought or is able to define either who are Saints in heauen or who are damned in Hell AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART of other circumstances which belong to the Canonizing of Saints The Papists THey say that it doth appertaine onely to the Pope to Canonize a Saint for error 24 the whole Church and that none ought to be acknowledged for Saints but they that are so Canonized by him And that herein the Pope is of so infallible a iudgement that he can not erre in Canonizing of Saints because that ordinarily none are Canonized by the Pope for saintes which haue not beene knowne to worke miracles Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 8.9 10. The Protestants FIrst if saintes were to be registred and Canonized as they say yet it should not belong to the Pope but to the whole Church Argum. 1 The Pope hath no authoritie ouer the whole Church no nor yet in any other Bishoppes dioces no more then they haue in his Let him be content with his owne dioces and it were to be wished that he could rule that well the whole world is too large a prouince for him 2 The whole Church hath power to excommunicate and deliuer vp to sathan 1. Corinth 5. 4. and to cut off the prophane and wicked from the Church of God as heathen and publicanes Math. 18.17 Ergo to iudge who are members of the Church and saintes of God is a matter which appertaineth to the whole Church 3 Before Anno. 800. in the time of Carolus magnus there was no saint publiquely Canonized by the pope as Bellarm. confesseth but the truth is this custome of Canonizing saints beganne not till more then 1000. yeare after Christ til Alexander the 3. his time and Gregorie the 7. I pray you then were there no saints before if there were who canonized them Secondly So much as is to be knowne of saints and holy men euery Christian is to acknowledge without any publike decree or determination of the Pope or any other for the word of God giueth rules whereby we may discern the righteous from the vnrighteous Christ speaking of false prophets sayeth By their fruites ye shall know them Math. 7.16 And againe he fayth thus to his Apostles By this shal men know that you are my disciples if you loue one another Iohn 13.35 By these rules it is easie for euery Christian to iudge who for the present time are the true disciples of Christ who otherwise Thirdly it is a most impudent and shameles saying that the Pope can not erre in canonizing of Saintes 1 Miracles are no sufficient proofe of a saint for