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
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
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
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
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
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
chiefe citie in all the world this reason was rendered in the Councel of Chalcedon Can. 28. An other cause thereof was the ample priuiledges and immunities which the Emperours endued it withall as Constantine the great and Gratianus the Emperour made a lawe that all men should reteyne that religion which Damasus of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria did hold A third cause was the vnquiet estate of the Greeke Church who often voluntarily referred their matters to the Bishop of Rome as being lesse partiall and a more indifferent Iudge they themselues being diuided and rent into sects And hereupon and other like causes it came about that the Bishop of Rome a little stepped aboue his fellowe Patriarkes but yet had no such preeminent authoritie as to commaund them Fourthly the Pope of Rome being thus tickled with vayne glorie because they were reuerenced of other Churches many matters were committed vnto them and their consent required vnto the decrees of Councels when they were absent Hereupon they laboured euery day more and more to aduance that See taking euery small occasion that might helpe forward their ambicious desire till Anno. 606. or somewhat after Boniface the 3. obtayned of wicked Phocas the Emperour who murthered his master the Emperour Mauritius and his children to come to the Empire and was after slaine himselfe of Heraclius that succeeded him of him I say Boniface for himselfe and his successors obtayned to bee called vniuersall Bishops ouer the whole Church and the See of Rome to haue the preeminence aboue all other Churches in the world Afterward in Pope Zacharie his time the proude and insolent iurisdiction of Rome was established by Pipinus King of France who aspired to the Crowne and obtayned it by the sayd Popes meanes first deposing Childericus the rightfull King and dispensing with the oath which the French men had made before to Childericus Calum Institut 4. cap. 7. sect 17. Thus then it sufficiently appeareth that the primacie of Rome which it now vniustly challengeth ouer other Churches is not of any such antiquitie as they would beare the world in hand neither that it had the beginning from Christ but both the time when and the authors by whom it began may bee easily assigned 2 Wee neede no better argument to proue that the primacie of Rome hath not his originall from Christ then the Iesuites owne confession First he sayth that it doth not depend of Christs institution but ex Petri facto of Peters fact that the Bishop of Rome should bee rather Peters successor then the Bishop of Antioch or any other It is not iure diuino saith he by Gods lawe neither is it ex prima institutione pontificatus quae in Euangelio legitur of the first institution whereof wee reade in the Gospell And agayne Romanum pontificem succedere Petro non habetur expresse in scripturis It is not expressely set downe in scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeede Peter but it is grounded onely vpon the tradition of Peter Nay he saith further that Peter needed not to haue chosen any particular place for succession and he might as well haue chosen Antioch as Rome Ergo neither is the succession of Rome grounded vpon scripture neither any commandement of Christ for then Peter could not haue had free choyse to appoynt his successor where he would himselfe as the Iesuite saith if he had had any especiall direction or commaundement from Christ. So then marke I pray you they cannot proue out of scripture that the Bishop of Rome ought to succeede Peter in the chiefe Bishopricke but onely that Peter had the chiefe Bishopricke committed to him and his successors in generall whosoeuer they should appoynt Ergo the Bishops of Rome by their owne confession can alleadge no scripture institution or commandement of Christ for the primacie of the Church to bee annexed to the See of Rome and yet agaynst their knowledge they will alleadge scripture to colour the matter withall Bellarm. lib. 2. de pontif ca. 17. 3 Augustine saith Secundum honorum vocabula quae iam ecclesiae vsus obtinuit episcopatus presbyterio maior est The office of a Bishop is aboue the office of a Priest according to the names of honour which the Church by custome hath obtayned If then the difference of those two offices both named in scripture did arise rather and spring of the custome of the Church which thought it good to distinguish them for auoyding of schisme and is not grounded vpon the authoritie of scripture much lesse can the Pope whose neither name nor office is expressed in scripture fetch from thence any shew of proofe for his vsurped primacie THE SIXT PART OF THIS QVESTION CONCERning the proud names and vayne glorious titles of the Pope The Papists BEllarmine setteth downe to the number of fifteene glorious names which error 46 haue been of old giuen as he saith to the Bishop of Rome whereby his primacie ouer other Bishops is notoriously knowne but the principall are these He is called the Pope and chiefe Father the prince of Priests or high Bishop the Vicar of Christ the head of the Church the Prelate of the Apostolike See vniuersall Bishop These sixe names or titles they doe appropriate to the See of Rome Bellarm. de Roman pontif lib. 2. cap. 31. The Protestants WE will shewe by Gods grace that these sixe seuerall titles and names aforesayd are either such as ought not in their sense to be attributed to any Bishop nor any mortall man or els were common in ancient times as well to other Bishops as to him of Rome 1 For the first name of Pope it is deriued from the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Syracusane language is as much as Father which name was indifferently giuen to other Bishops which were famous in the Church for their vertue and learning As Cypriane Epiphanius Athanasius were called Papae Popes Augustine saluteth Aurelius President of the 6. Councel of Carthage by the name of Pope Epistol 77. Likewise those two epithetes of the Pope as to bee called Beatissim sanctissim pater most holy and blessed father were vsed in the stile of other Bisshops Prosper in his Epistle to Augustine twise calleth him Dominum beatissimum papam Lord most blessed Pope Tom. 7. Hierome calleth Epiphanius Beatum papam blessed Pope Ad Eustach Fabiol Augustine writing to Petrus the Presbyter or Priest being no Bishop yet thus saluteth him Ad sanctitatem tuam scripsit he hath written to your holines Nay in his booke dedicated to Renatus a lay man neither Priest nor Bishop thus he writeth Hinc angor quòd sanctitati tuae minus quà m vellem cognitus sum This grieueth me that I am not so well knowne to your holines as I desire If then these titles of holinesse and blessednesse were not onely giuen to Bishops but Priests also yea vnto lay men of vertuous and holy life what colour or
condemned to death men that were bestraught of their wits as Collins and Cowbridge were burned beeing both franticke see their storie page 1131. Where is now that lenitie and compassion which ought to be in the Ministers of the Gospell Such crueltie was not heard of no not amongst the heathen Yea they breake their owne law which suffereth a man once to abiure his heresie but if afterwarde he be detected he dieth without mercie Fox Anno. 1511. William Carder Agnes Grebil were condemned though they submitted theÌ„selues and promised to be conformable to their religion page 1277. Yet this law of theirs is most vniust and contrary to the gospell which faieth that if thy brother sinne against thee 7. times in a day and 7. times in a day turne againe and say It repenteth me thou shalt forgiue him Luke 17.4 Yet these men will forgiue but once and not that neither But S. Paul saith An heretike after once or twise admonition reiect Bellarm. his best answer is by denying the text saying that it was not so red in former times but thus after once admonition de laicis cap. 22. There was more clemencie vsed in Augustines time for then Bishops did not prouoke the Magistrate to execute whom they had condemned but did entreat the Magistrate to shew compassion vnto Heretikes not straight wayes to punish them with death Ne sic vitam istam finiant saith Augustine per supplicium vt ea finita non possint finire supplicium Least they should so end this life by punishment that the life being ended they should neuer end their punishment Epist. 54. And in another place sic eorum peceata compesce vt sint quos poeniteat peccasse Epist. 159. So restraine their sinnes that they may yet remaine to repent them of their sinnes In those daies therefore men were not by and by punished with death to preuent their repentance as in time of poperie but their repentance was expected to deliuer them from the sentence of death Thus much of this question as likewise of the whole controuersie and thus far also concerning such controuersies as are moued about the Church militant heere vpon earth which wee haue hitherto prosequuted by the Lords gracious assistaunce In the next place we are to deale in those controuersies which concerne the other part of the Church triumphant in heauen 1. Timoth. 6.16 Soli Deo immortali Patri Filio cum spiritu sancto sit honor imperium sempiternum THE SECOND BOOKE OR CENTVRIE CONTAINING AN OTHER LARGE HVNDRETH OF POPISH errors and many of them foule heresies deuided into six seuerall Controuersies CONCERNING THE ESTATE OF THE CHVRCH TRIVMPHANT IN Heauen and the Sacraments of the Church Militant vpon earth Jmprinted at London by Thomas Orwin for Thomas Man 1592. ILLVSTRISSIMO ET INclytissimo Domino Comiti Essexio non tam generis claritate quam virtute sua nobili de re literaria studiosisque omnibus semper optimè merito Dominoque mihi multis nominibus colendissimo SCite illud Nobilissime Comes ab Epicharmo olim dictum perhibetur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qua sententia monet neruos atque artus esse sapientiae noÌ„ temere credere Idque pulchrè depingi solet oculatae manus effigie vt ne vel manu contrectare vel pugillo premere id est mentis consensu iudicio approbare audeamus quod noÌ„ prius penitus exploratuÌ„ habuerimus Hoc sequi coÌ„siliuÌ„ si nostrates voluissent papicolas volo et pontificiae haereseâ—s sectatores Anglos si singula ad trutinam expeÌ„dissent prius ad quae postea admouerunt manus non tam temere imprudenter callidis doctoribus aurem praebuissent nec tam facile cito a sana doctrina desciuissent Multi enim apud nos sunt imperiti homunciones indoctae mulierculae quanquam doctos etiam aliquos et satis cordatos viros ex isto genere agnouerim qui nec scientia armati nec animi proposito stabiles nescientes lethale non minutim guttatim sorbillarunt sed plenò gutture hauserunt venenum dum nihil probantes vel examinantes se papisticae superstitionis astutijs illaqueari passi sunt Haec dum meeum seriò cogito altiùs tanquam ex animi spècula prospiciens contueor non ex alijs initijs quaÌ„ temeritatis ignorantiae hoc taÌ„ magnum malum enatum exortum video Jgnorantiae est quòd veritate spreta neglecta errores sponte liberè imbiberuÌ„t amplexati sunt temeritatis verò quòd se nullo delectu habito seditiosis impijs magistris in disciplinam tradere voluerunt Qui non Epicharmi philosophi humanum sed Pauli Apostoli diuinum consilium respuunt qui sic monet Omnia probate quod bonum est tenete Contra istos etiam satis nos cautos dedit dominus Christus sic praemonens Cauete a Prophetis mendacibus qui veniunt ad vos in vestimentis ouium sed intrinsecus sunt lupi rapaces Cum igitur multos quoruÌ„daÌ„ insidijs deceptos in fraudem illici in errores toto impetu praecipitari cernerem idque non alij principio quaÌ„ ipsorum ignorantiae tribuendum esse operae precium facturum duxi si quis papisticae superstitionis capita in synopsin quandam coÌ„ijcere studeret et passim verae fidei ex scripturis adhibens antidotum vniuersam doctrinam pontificiam vno intuitu conspiciendam proponeret Hoc opus tam necessarium cum diu expectassem dum aggrederentur alij cum neminem huc animum applicasse aut id in animo habere perspexeram Ego tandem prodij è multis millibus ad hoc onus sustinendum minimè omnium idoneus Qui me operam meam non perditurum sed aliquid Ecclesiae commodi allaturam mihi persuaseram si in isto opere desudareÌ„ vt haberent nostrates quo aduersus haeresin pontificiam instructiores esse possint NumeruÌ„ si quis quaerat haereseâ—n quas Romana ecclesia orbi nostro propinauit mensuram omnem modum superant ad immensam molem excrescunt Trecentos ego plures hoc opere percurri errores pontificios nec omnes tamen complexus sum Varro scriptor ille copiosus vir multae lectionis vt scribit August philosophorum sectas vsque ad ducentas octoginta octo numerauit et receÌ„suit Sed a papistis huius seculi erroruÌ„ varietate multitudine veteres illi superantur Scripsit non multis abhinc annis libellum Tilemannus quidaÌ„ Heshusius qui sic inscribitur Sexcenti errores pontificij Geminauit ille duplum effecit numeruÌ„ hunc quem nos secuti sumus Trecentos nos malumus quam sexcentos ponere Non quòd non putem tot vitijs corruptelis superstitionem pontificiam scatere vel non posse tot colligi illius synagogae errores Sed id feci iaÌ„ partim quia praecipua capita maximè proseâ—ui
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