In exposi tione symboli. without all controversy as the authentical word of God: for then should it be received necessarily, and because it is God's word especially, and howsoever it be read or heard, it is received of the church, not only necessarily, but also profitably. Beside this, even the decree of Gelasius, which was near 100 years after that council of Carthage, alloweth but one book of the Machabees. Wherefore the universal reverence that is boasted of cannot be justified. But M. Whitaker is charged in the margin to condemn the service-book, which appointeth these books of Toby and Ecclesiasticus to be read for holy scripture as the other. And where find you that in the service-book, M. Martin? Can you speak nothing but untruths? If they be appointed to be read, are they appointed to be read for holy scripture, and for such scripture as the other canonical books are? The service-book appointeth the litany, divers exhortations and prayers, yea, homilies to be read: are they therefore to be read for holy and canonical scriptures? But you ask, Do they read in their churches apocryphal and superstitious books for holy scripture? No, verily. But of the name apocryphal I must distinguish, which sometimes is taken for all books read of the church, which are not canonical; sometime for such books only as are by no means to be suffered, but are to be hid or abolished. These books therefore in controversy, with other of the same sort, are sometimes called Hagiographa, holy writings, as of St Jerome præfat. in lib. Tobia; sometimes Ecclesiastica, Ecclesiastical writings, and so are they called of Ruffinus. Because (saith he) they were appointed by our elders to be read in the churches, but not to be brought forth to confirm authority of faith: but other scriptures they named apocryphal, which they would not have to be read in the churches. So saith St Jerome in præfat. in Proverb. "Even as the church readeth indeed the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Machabees, but yet receiveth them not among the canonical scriptures; so let it read these two books (of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom) for the edifying of the people, not for the confirmation of the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines." These ancient writers shall answer for our service-book, that although it appoint these writings to be read, yet it doth not appoint them to be read for canonical scriptures. Albeit they are but sparingly read, by order of our service-book, which for the Lord's day, and other festival days, commonly appointeth the first lesson out of the canonical scriptures. And as for superstition, although M. Whitaker say, that some one thing savoureth of I know not what superstition, he doth not by and by condemn the whole book for superstitious, and altogether unworthy to be read; neither can he thereby be proved a puritan, or a disgracer of the order of daily service. Martin. As for parts of books, do they not reject certain pieces MARTIN, of Daniel and of Hester, because they are not in the Hebrew, which 10. reason St Augustine rejecteth; or because they were once doubted of by certain of the fathers? by which reason some part of St Mark's and St Luke's gospel might now also be called in controversy, specially if it be true which M. Whitaker by a figurative speech more than insinuateth, That he cannot see by what right that which once p. 10. was not in credit should by time win authority. Forgetting himself by and by, and in the very next lines admitting St James' epistle, M. Whitathough before doubted of, for canonical scriptures, unless they receive it but of their courtesy, and so may receive it when it shall please them, which must needs be gathered of his words, as also many other notorious absurdities, contradictions, and dumb blanks. Which only to note were to confute M. Whitaker by himself, being the answer for both universities. ker's book. Fulke. As for pieces of Daniel and of Esther, we reject FULKE,10. none; but only we discern that which was written by Daniel in deed, from that which is added by Theodotion the false Jew, and that which was written by the Spirit of God of Esther, from that which is vainly added by some Greekish counterfeiter. But the reason why we reject those patches (you say) is because they are not in the Hebrew, which reason St Augustine rejecteth. Here you cite St Augustine at large, without quotation in a matter of controversy. But if we may trust you that St Augustine rejecteth this reason, yet we may be bold upon St Jerome's authority to reject whatsoever is not found in the canon of the Jews, written in Hebrew or Chaldee: for whatsoever was such, St Jerome did thrust through with a spit or obelisk, as not worthy to be received. Witness hereof St Augustine himself, Epist. ad Hier. 8 and 10, in which he [Petimus ergo, et nobiscum petit omnis Africanarum ecclesiarum studiosa societas, ut interpretandis eorum libris, qui Græce scripturas nostras quam optime tractaverunt, curam atque operam impendere non graveris. Potes enim efficere, ut nos quoque habeamus tales illos viros, dissuaded him from translating the scriptures of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew tongue, after the seventy interpreters; whose reasons as they were but frivolous, so they are derided by St Jerome, who, being learned in the Hebrew and Chaldee tongues, refused to be taught by Augustine, that was ignorant in them, what was to be done in translations out of them. Also Jerome himself' testifieth, that Daniel in the Hebrew hath neither the story of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three children, nor the fable of Bel and the Dragon: which we, (saith he,) because they are dispersed throughout the whole world, have added, setting a spit before them, which thrusteth them through, lest we should seem among the ignorant to have cut off a great part of the book. The like he writeth of the vain additions that were in the vulgar edition unto the book of Esther, both in the preface, and after the end of that which he translated out of the Hebrew. There are other reasons also, beside the authority of St Jerome, that move us not to receive them. As that in the story of Susanna, magistrates and judgment of life and death are attributed to the Jews being in captivity of Babylon, which hath no similitude of truth. Beside, out of the first chapter De ver et unum potissimum, quem tu libentius in tuis literis sonas. tendis autem in Latinam linguam sanctis literis canonicis laborare te nollem, nisi eo modo quo Job interpretatus es; ut signis adhibitis quid inter hanc tuam et Septuaginta, quorum est gravissima auctoritas, interpretationcm distet, appareat.-Augustin. ad Hieron. Ep. xxviii. Opera. Vol. II. p. 46. Ego sane te mallem Græcas potius canonicas nobis interpretari scripturas, quæ Septuaginta interpretum perhibentur. Perdurum erit enim, si tua interpretatio per multas ecclesias frequentius cœperit lectitari, quod a Græcis ecclesiis Latinæ ecclesiæ dissonabunt, maxime quia facile contradictor convincitur Græco prolato libro, id est linguæ notissimæ.Augustin. LXXI. Epist. ad Hieron. Opera. Vol. I. p. 160.] [1 Cui et Eusebius et Apollinarius pari sententia responderunt: Susannæ Belisque ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico ; sed partem esse prophetiæ Abacuc filii Jesu de tribu Levi, sicut juxta LXX. interpretes in titulo ejusdem Belis fabulæ ponitur: Homo quidam erat sacerdos, nomine Daniel, filius Abda, conviva regis Babylonis: quum Danielem et tres pueros de tribu Juda fuisse sancta scriptura testetur. Unde et nos ante annos plurimos quum verteremus Danielem, has visiones obelo prænotavimus, significantes eas in Hebraico non haberi.-Hieronymi Explanatio in Danielem Prophetam. Opera. Tom. I. p. 1074. Augustini Epist. ad Hieronymum, LXX. p. 611. Hieronym. Opera. Vol. iv. Hieronymi Epist. ad Augustinum, LXXIV. pp. 626, 627.] of the true Daniel it is manifest, that Daniel being a young man was carried captive into Babylon in the days of Nebuchadnezzar; but in this counterfeit story Daniel is made a young child in the time of Astyages, which reigned immediately before Cyrus of Persia. Likewise in the story of Bel and the Dragon, Daniel is said to have lived with the same king Cyrus; and after, when he was cast into the lions' den, the prophet Habakkuk was sent to him out of Jewry, who prophesied before the first coming of the Chaldees, and therefore could not be alive in the days of Cyrus, which was more than seventy years after. The additions unto the book of Esther, in many places, bewray the spirit of man; as that they are contrary to the truth of the story, containing vain repetitions, and amplifications of that which is contained in the true history; and that which most manifestly convinceth the forgery, that in the epistle of Artaxerxes, cap. 16, Haman is called a Macedonian, which in the true story is termed an Agagite, that is an Amalekite, whereas the Macedonians had nothing to do with the Persians many years after the death of Esther and Haman. I omit that in the cap. 15, ver. 12, the author maketh Esther to lie unto the king, in saying that his countenance was full of all grace; or else he lieth himself, v. 17, where he saith, the king beheld her in the vehemency of his anger, and that he was exceeding terrible. As for other reasons, which you suppose us to follow, because these parcels were once doubted of by certain of the fathers, it is a reason of your own making, and therefore you may confute it at your pleasure. But "if that be true, which Master Whitaker by a figurative speech doth more than insinuate, part of St Mark's and St Luke's gospel may also be called in controversy." Why, what saith M. Whitaker? Marry, "that he cannot see by what right that which once was not in credit should by time win authority." But when, I pray you, was any part of St Mark or St Luke out of credit? If any part were of some person doubted of, doth it follow that it was not at all in credit? You reason profoundly, and gather very necessarily: as likewise, that he "forgetteth himself in the very next lines, admitting St James' epistle (though before doubted of) for canonical." Will ye say that St James' epistle was once not in credit, or not worthy of credit (for that is his plain meaning), be MARTIN, 11. cause it was doubted of, yea, rejected of some? Yea, you say Martin. For the second point, which is not the gross denial of books, but yet calling of them in question, moving scruples about them, In the argu- and diminishing their authority and credit, I will go no further than ment bib. an. 1579. ἡ πρὸς ἑβραίους ἐπιστολὴ Παύλου. St Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews; which I will not ask why they doubt of, or rather think it not to be St Paul's, for they will tell me, because it was once in doubt (not considering that it was in like manner doubted whether it were canonical, and yet they will not now deny but it is canonical); but I must ask them, and request them to make a reasonable answer, why in their English bible of the years 1579 and 1580, they presume to leave out St Paul's name out of the very title of the said epistle, which name is in the Greek, and in Beza's Latin translation, both which they profess to follow. See the title of the New Testament, anno 1580. Doth not the title tell them that it is St Paul's? Why seek they further; or why do they change the title, striking out St Paul's name, if they meant to deal simply and sincerely? and what an heretical peevishness is this, because Beza telleth them of one obscure Greek copy that hath not Paul's name, and only one, that they will rather follow it, than all other copies both Greek and Latin! I report me to all indifferent men of common sense, whether they do it not to diminish the credit of the epistle. [1 Whitaker's Answer to Campian was printed in 1581.] |