Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

bibles that were printed under the name of Thomas Matthew, before Calvin wrote any word of the rejection of those books, or of receiving of the other, they are called Apocrypha, and printed with other of that mark by themselves, and the epistle of St James without any question acknowledged to be one of the canonical epistles; whereas Calvin's institution was first printed anno 1536, and his argument upon St James' epistle, 1551. You may see what honest dealing the papists use to bring the truth into discredit, and the professors thereof into hatred with the simple and unlearned people, bearing them in hand, that we have no cause to receive or refuse books of scripture, but Calvin's pleasure. But the God of truth will one day reward these impudent liars and shameless slanderers.

Well, let us now see under what pretence it pleased Calvin to reject these books: "Under pretence forsooth, (saith Martin,) that they were once doubted of, and not taken for canonical." I pray you, Sir, where doth Calvin pretend that only cause? In his Instit. lib. III. c. 5. sec. 8, he allegeth divers other causes touching the books of Machabees, as every man that will may read. Shame you nothing to forge such manifest untruths, and that in such matters as you may be convinced in them by ten thousand witnesses? What credit shall be given to you in matters that consist upon your own bare testimony, when you force not to feign of other men that wherein every man may reprove you? And as for the only pretence you speak of, Calvin doth so little esteem it, that notwithstanding the same, he doubteth not to receive the epistle of St James, because it is agreeable to the whole body of the canonical scripture; as, if you had read his argument upon that epistle, you might easily have perceived.

ker by these

their own

Martin. Mark, gentle reader, for thy soul's sake, and thou shalt MARTIN, 9. Ibid. p. 17.3 find that heresy, and only heresy, is the cause of their denying these M. Whitabooks; so far, that against the orders and hierarchies and particular word co patronages of angels one of them writeth thus in the name of the demneth rest: "We pass not for that Raphael of Toby, neither do we acknow- service book, which ledge those seven angels which he speaketh of; all this is far from appointeth canonical scriptures, that the same Raphael recordeth, and savoureth of Tobit and I wot not what superstition." Against free-will thus: "I little care cus to be for the place of Ecclesiasticus, neither will I believe free-will, though holy scriphe affirm an hundred times, that before men is life and death." And ture, as the

[Ad Rationes Campiani Responsio, p. 17.]

these books

Ecclesiasti

read for

other. Do

they read
in their
churches
apocryphal
and super-
stitious

against prayer for the dead, and intercession of saints, thus: "As for the book of the Machabees, I do care less for it than for the other. Judas' dream concerning Onias I let pass as a dream." This is their reverence of the scriptures, which have universally been reverenced for canonical in the church of God above 1100 years. Con. Cart. 3. and he a puritan particularly of many fathers long before, Aug. de doct. Christ. Lib. II.

books for holy scrip

ture, or is

that thus

disgraceth

their order of daily service?

FULKE, 9.

c. 8.

66

Fulke. The mouth that lieth killeth the soul. The reader may think you have small care of his soul's health, when by such impudent lying you declare that you have so small regard of your own. But what shall he mark? "That heresy, &c." You were best say that Eusebius, Jerome, Ruffine, and all the churches in their times, were heretics, and that only heresy was the cause of their denial of these books. For such reasons as moved them move us, and something also their authority. But how prove you that only heresy moveth us to reject them? Because M. Whitaker against the orders, and hierarchies, and particular patronages of angels, writeth in the name of the rest, that we pass not," &c. Take heed, lest upon your bare surmise you belie him, where you say he writeth in the name of the rest; as in the next section following you say, he writeth in the name of both the universities, for which I am sure he had no commission from either of them; although he did write that which may well be avouched by both the universities; yet I know his modesty is such, as he will not presume to be advocate for both the universities, and much less for the whole church, except he were lawfully called thereto. This is a common. practice of you papists, to bear the world in hand, that whatsoever is written by any of us in defence of the truth, is set forth in the name of all the rest, as though none of us could say more in any matter than any one of us hath written; or that if any one of us chance to slip in any small matter, though it be but a wrong quotation, you might open your wide slanderous mouths against the whole church for one man's particular offence. Now touching any thing that M. Whitaker hath written, you shall find him sufficient to maintain it against a stronger adversary than you are; and therefore I will meddle the less in his causes. And for the orders and patronage or protection of angels by God's appointment, we have sufficient testimony in the canonical scriptures, that we need not the uncertain report of Tobie's book to instruct

over.

us what to think of them. patronage of angels, that many of you papists have imagined and written of, neither the canonical scriptures, nor yet the apocryphal books now in controversy, are sufficient to give you warrant. The like I say of free will, prayer for the dead, and intercession of saints. But it grieveth you that those apocryphal scriptures, which have been universally received for canonical in the church of God above 1100 years, should find no more reverence among us. Still your mouth runneth For in the time of the canon of the council of Carthage 3. which you quote, these books were not universally reverenced as canonical. And Augustine himself, speaking of the book of Machabees, Cont. 2. Gaud.' Ep. c. 23. confesseth that the Jews account it not as the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which our Lord giveth testimony as to his witnesses, saying, "It behoveth that all things should be fulfilled which are written in the Law, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me; but it is received of the church not unprofitably, if it be soberly read or heard." This writeth St Augustine, when he was pressed with the authority of that book by the Donatists, which defended that it was lawful for them to kill themselves by example of Razis, who is by the author of that book commended for that fact. He saith, "it is received not unprofitably," and immediately after, "especially for those Machabees that suffered patiently horrible persecution for testimony of God's religion, to encourage Christians by their example." Finally, he addeth a condition of the receiving it, "if it be soberly read or heard." These speeches declare, that it was not received

But as for the hierarchies and

[Et hanc quidem scripturam, quæ appellatur Machabæorum, non habent Judæi sicut legem et prophetas et psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tamquam testibus suis, dicens, Oportebat impleri omnia quæ scripta sunt in lege et prophetis et in psalmis de me: sed recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur vel audiatur, maxime propter illos Machabæos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres a persecutoribus tam indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt; ut etiam hinc populus Christianus adverteret, quoniam non sunt condignæ passiones hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam quæ revelabitur in nobis, pro quibus passus est Christus, si tanta patientissime pertulerunt pro lege quam dedit Deus per famulum hominibus illis pro quibus nondum tradiderat Filium.-Augustin. contra Gaudentium Donatist. Episc. Lib. 1. cap. 88. Opera. Vol. ix. p. 655-6.]

In exposí

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. Tobiæ; 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,

« PoprzedniaDalej »