The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

CHAP. 55. Texts of the New Testament which Cardinal du Perron brings for the Traditions not contained in the Scripture.

HE brings for the Traditions these proofs from the New Testament. First he makes a show of this text of 2 Thes. 2.15. Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our Epistle. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies every doctrine given to somebody. The vulgar version 1 Cor. 11.2. translates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 praecepta. And the Apostle, Gal. 1.14. saith that he had been zealous of the tradition of his Fathers, calling thus the Law of Moses of which he had been a zealous abettor. In that sense Scripture itself is a tradition. Thus the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.23. speaking of the institution of the holy communion, I received of the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that which I delivered or taught you. It is then a tradition, though it be contained in Scripture.

In this text the most advantageous sense for our Adversaries of this word Tradition is to take it for doctrines not written in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, and by consequent this text is not to the purpose. For our difference is not whether the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, but whether the Old and the New Testament contain all the doctrines necessary to salvation. And although the Apostle had said, Receive the traditions which you have learned by our word, or by the holy Scriptures, it would not follow that the things which he had told them were anything else but what is contained in the holy Scriptures; 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 for one may teach the same thing several ways. Moreover, if one will know what those traditions or doctrines were, which Saint Paul had given by word unto the Thessalonians, let him read the fourth chapter of the first Epistle, beginning at the second verse, where he makes unto them a repetition of those things: There you shall find none of the Traditions of the Church of Rome.

In another place the Cardinal repeateth the same objection, then addeth; You must not cavil that St. Paul speaks of the Tradition unwritten at that time, but written since. For the Tradition after which and for which he pronounceth that general precept, was a Tradition which neither then nor since was ever written, namely the cause why the coming of Antichrist was delayed.

The Cardinals blindness is extreme, to say that the causes of the delay of the coming of the Antichrist were never written, whereas they are written in the same text, where the Apostle saith, Only he who now letteth will let until he be taken out of the way; And then shall that wicked one be revealed; which the Ancients understand of the ruin of the Roman Empire, before the Antichrist (who was to come in his place) should be revealed. Which experience also hath confirmed. So Tertullian understands it in the book of the resurrection of the flesh, chap. 24. Only let him that holds now, hold still, until he be abolished. Who is that but the Roman Empire, whose departure dispersed into ten Kings will produce Antichrist, &c. Chrysostom in the fourth Sermon, upon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians speaks to the same purpose, in these words, What is it that hinders him to be revealed? Some say that it is the Roman Empire, to whose opinion I rather incline. Austin in the twentieth book of the City of God, chap. 19. That which the Apostle saith, Only let him that holds now, hold till he be taken away, is not without reason esteemed to be said of the Roman Empire, as if it was said, Only let him that reigneth, reign until he be abolished. Primasius upon this place saith the same, and Ambrose in his Comment upon this text. And Jerome in the eleventh question to Algasia, where he saith that St. Paul durst not say openly that the Roman Empire must be destroyed before the Antichrist come, for fear of drawing persecution upon the Church; and upon 2 Thes. 2. he saith that the revolt that St. Paul speaks of in this place, est discessio Gentilium à Rege Romano, the revolt of the Gentiles from the Roman Emperor.

The Cardinal brings another text for Traditions; 2 Tim. 1.13. Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good depositum (or that good thing committed unto thee) by the Holy Ghost. This text doth nothing for him; for the Apostle saith not that the things which Timothy had heard of St. Paul were diverse from those which he writ to him, or which are written in the holy Scripture. It is remarkable that Tertullian in the twenty fifth chapter of Prescriptions saith, that the heretics alleged these texts for their traditions. O Timothy keep that which was committed unto thee, and again keep that which was trusted unto thee. Thus the Cardinal maketh himself a disciple to those heretics.

To the same purpose Bellarmine in the fifth chapter of his book of the unwritten word, alledgeth for the Traditions our Savior's words, John 16. I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. But Tertullian in the twenty second chapter of the same book, saith, that the heretics defend their traditions with that text.

To the same purpose the Cardinal brings these words from the second chapter of the same Epistle, ver. 2. The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who, shall be able to teach others also. To which text we make the same answer, as to the precedent, Why will he have the things which Timothy had heard to be diverse from those that are written? But with what rashness doth the Cardinal presuppose without proof that those things heard in the presence of witnesses, are the invocation of Saints, the service of Images, the Succession of the Pope in St. Peters primacy, and the like things?

He alledgeth also 1 Tim. 3.15. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. That proof hath neither color nor likelihood. For the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, when it defends the truth contained in the holy Scriptures, not when she adds unto Scripture. Thus Gregory Nazianzen in the beginning of the Oration upon his Fathers death, calls Basil the pillar and ground of the Church. And in the Oration upon Athanasius he gives to Athanasius the same title of honor. Whereby he understands not that Basil or Athanasius had the power to give new Laws unto the Church, or to add unto her doctrine. I leave also to the judgment of the Reader, well read in the Greek tongue, whether in these words, [that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth] the last words, the pillar and ground of truth, may not be applied unto God, rather then to the Church; supplying the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and translating thus, the house of the living God, who is the pillar and ground of truth. For to speak properly, God and true doctrine are the pillar and ground of the Church. So speaks Chrysostom upon 1 Tim. 3. Truth is the pillar and ground of the Church. And Irenaeus, book 3. chap. 11. The pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel.

CHAP. 56. Doctrines held in the Christian Church, which the Cardinal saith are not contained in Scripture.

BUT that upon which the Cardinal insisteth most, is to seek some doctrines in Christian religion which he holds necessary unto salvation, which yet are not found in Scripture. And he finds four of that nature. The first is the admission or acknowledgement of the Baptism of heretics for a true and real baptism, of which no mention is made in Scripture, and yet he holds that it is a doctrine necessary to salvation.

By speaking thus he condemneth Cyprian and the whole African Church of his time to Hell, for they did err in that point. Certainly many were saved that never heard of that question.

That which he adds [that if the doctrine that both we and they hold in that point be not true, the Protestants which were baptized by Catholics (whom they hold for heretics) have no true Baptism] hath no strength against us, who think not that any person is excluded from salvation for not being baptized, when that happens not through his fault, but by some impediment which could not be removed. Yet it will be found that Scripture decideth that question; for we see that the circumcision of the ten tribes, that were idolaters, was received among the Jews, there being no Law that obliged them to be circumcised again. Now Circumcision was unto them that which Baptism is unto us now.

The second Tradition which he saith is not contained in Scripture, is the Baptism of little children. Upon which he confesseth that the Roman Church disputing against the Anabaptists, brings may texts of Scripture, which he produceth, and endeavors to confute, making himself the Advocate of the Anabaptists. Yet not daring to condemn his own Church, he holds those texts for good and useful, which is sufficient to us. For what need we to prove to the Roman Church by Scripture that children ought to be baptized, since she herself baptizeth them, and dischargeth us of that labor?

The third point is the Article of the procession of the Holy Ghost, about which we dissent with the Grecians. Which controversy is rather imaginary, and fed by the animosity of the parties, then a true controversy. The Grecians saying that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father through the Son; and the Latins saying that he proceeds from the Father and the Son. For I hold that he that saith that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, saith also by consequent that he proceeds from the Father and the Son. As for the manner of proceeding, it is better in such a high matter to be ignorant then too great a disputant. The Cardinal acknowledgeth that the Roman Church disputing with the Grecians, alledgeth texts of Scripture, which texts he goeth about to weaken thereby disputing not with us, but with the Roman Church. By overthrowing the doctrine of his Church he makes himself incapable to dispute with us.

The fourth and last unwritten Tradition is the removing of the Sabbath day to the next day, that is, from the last day of the week to the first; Of which he saith that no mention is made in Scripture. The Jesuit Ribera in his Comment upon the first chapter of the Revelation, expounding these words, I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, speaks thus, Here we see that the solemnity of the Sabbath hath been changed to the [now] Lord's day in the time of the Apostles.

Thomas saith the same in the second lesson upon 1 Cor. 16. And Estius upon the same Chapter of the alleged text of the Revelation gathers, that we must not doubt but that the name and institution of the Lord's day must be referred to the Apostles. And as for not observing the old Sabbath, St. Paul dispenseth Christians of that observation, Col. 2.16. Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbath day, which are a shadow of things to come. He teacheth that Christians ought not to be condemned for observing no more the Jewish distinctions of meats, or the holy days and Sabbaths of that Church. By Acts 20.6. and 1 Cor. 16.2. it is made evident that on the first day of the week solemn Assemblies did meet, and collections were made for the poor. And though all these proofs should fail, yet observation of days is no point of doctrine, and is not an Article of its nature necessary to salvation. It is necessary for salvation to sanctify the Lord's day, and to be employed that day in holy actions in holy Assemblies, not because that day is of its nature better then another, but because it is necessary for salvation, not to be contentious, and not to separate from the union of the Church.

Then of these four points, as of many others, I say that either they are found in Scripture in express or equivalent terms, or by good consequence, or they are not found in Scripture. If they be found, we have what we ask; If they be not found, they are not necessary to salvation.

CHAP. 57. Of the Traditions which the Fathers allow.

WEE have brought many testimonies of the Ancients, wherein, as for matter of salvation, they reject all doctrines not contained in the Scriptures. To those texts the Cardinal opposeth other texts, of Tertullian, of Basil, of Epiphanius, of Austin, in which they approve unwritten traditions. But who so will narrowly examine of what kind of traditions they speak, shall find no difficulty in that seeming difference. For either they are traditions about Ecclesiastical policy and things of indifferent nature, or they are traditions grounded upon holy Scripture; For they ate traditions which the Roman Church approves not, and which consequently by the confession of our Adversaries are not Apostolical traditions, unless they will confess that they are departed from the Ordinances of the Apostles. See Tertullian in his book de corona Militis, chap. 2. & 3. And the book concerning the Holy Ghost attributed to Basil, chap. 27. And Jerome in his Dialogue against the Luciferians; And Austin Epist. 118, 119. There you have a great list of unwritten traditions; as to be dipt three times in Baptism, to taste in Baptism milk and honey mingled in sign of concord; Not to wash that day nor the whole week after; to sign ones self in the forehead with the sign of the cross at every action, to pray standing from Easter to Whitsunday, to celebrate on certain anniversary days the passion, the resurrection, and the ascension of Christ: To pray with the face turned Eastward, the annointing with oil, the form of prayer whereby consecration is made: To which one may add, prayers for the dead, the admission of the Baptism of heretics; And the tradition of which Tertullian speaks in the alleged place, that it is not lawful for a Christian soldier to be crowned with flowers and leaves, when the army is mustering. Of which traditions some are contrary to the custom of the Apostles, as the custom of not kneeling at prayers from Easter to Whitsunday. For Acts 20.16. & 21.5. the Apostle Paul prayeth kneeling, and that a few days before Pentecost.

Most of these traditions are rejected by the Roman Church, although the Ancients give them for Apostolical as the custom of fasting upon Wednesdays and Fridays, which Epiphanius in the heresy of Arius will derive from the Apostles. The custom of tasting milk and honey. Not to wash for a whole week after Baptism. Not to fast upon the Lord's day. To pray standing from Easter to Whitsunday. Never to pray but being turned Eastward. To pray for the dead as the ancient Church did, which prayed not to fetch souls out of Purgatory, but that the dead might rise again to salvation, or that they might rise betimes, or that they might be but gently touched with the purging fire of the day of the resurrection; or that in the receptacles of the souls where they slept, they might reeive some comfort.

Chrysostom Hom. 4. upon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians seems to favor our Adversaries, saying that the Apostles have not taught all by Epistles, but have taught many things without writing, and that these things as well as those are worthy to be believed. But in the homily before, he showeth evidently that he meaneth unwritten traditions not necessary to salvation. For as for things necessary to salvation so he speaks, All that is in the divine Scriptures is clear and right; All things that are necessary are therein clearly set down. And Hom. 13. upon the second Epistle to the Corinthians, he calls Scripture an exact balance for all things, a square and a rule. And upon Psalm 95. When one saith that which is not written, the hearers mind is halting.

Besides these traditions which the Roman Church hath left, the Fathers speak of traditions that are founded in Scripture, although they be not found in express terms. As the tradition which Basil brings in the same place, that the Father and the Son must be glorified with the same glorification. For since Scripture saith that Jesus Christ is God, and that he thinks it not robbery to be equal with God his Father, and that he is one with the Father, it follows that the same glorification must be rendered unto him. Upon which we have an express text, John 5.23. That they all honor the Son as they honor the Father.

Irenaeus in the third book, chap. 4. saith, that if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures, we should have recourse to tradition. But what is that tradition? Is it the invocation of Saints, the worshipping of images and relics, the succession of the Roman Bishop in St. Peters primacy, the Communion under one kind, the celibat of the Clergy, the service in an unknown tongue, the Roman Indulgences, the Transubstantiation? Nothing of all that; but the doctrine concerning the nature and Office of Christ, and the Articles of the Symbole, of which he makes an enumeration in the same place.

As for the admission of the Baptism of heretics, Austin puts it among traditions. And yet in the first book of Baptism against the Donatists; and in the second book, chap. 14. And in the fourth book, chap. 7. And in the fifth book chap. 4. & 23. he endeavors to prove it by texts of Scripture, which he saith to be certain and clear. Whence it appears that by the unwritten things, he understands the things not contained in the holy Scriptures in express terms, but deduced from the Scriptures by consequence. And indeed we have shown before that the admission of the Baptism of heretics is not without foundation in Scripture. And though it were not grounded upon it, that would not prejudice us in anything; for the knowledge of that point is not necessary for salvation. Jerome upon 2 Thes. 2. (if these comments be his, not of Pelagius ) puts Baptism among the Apostolical traditions. Apostolica traditio est quae in toto mundo praedicatur, ut Baptismi Sacramenta. It is an Apostolical tradition which is preached over all the world.

In general, almost all these traditions are either light things, of their nature indifferent, and infinitely under the divine doctrine concerning faith and the service of God contained in the Scripture; or they are points contained in the Scripture, if not in express words, at least in equivalent terms, or by necessary consequence.

Note, that M. du Perron could not bring any testimony of the Ancients which put among Traditions any of the doctrines about which we dissent with the Roman Church, excepting only prayers for the dead, about which the Roman Church dissents with the Anctient Church, as we will show hereafter. But they shall not find one of the Ancients that puts among the Apostolical traditions, Roman Indulgences, or the Popes power to release souls out of Purgatory, and to give and take away Kingdoms, and to canonize Saints, or the adoration of images, or the images of the Trinity, or the title of Queen of heaven bestowed upon the Virgin Mary, or the Limbus of infants, or the celibat of Priests, or prayers in a language which he that prayeth understands not, or the public service in an unknown language, or the prohibition made to the people to read Scripture without an especial leave, or the communion of the cup denied to the people: for they are Papal not Apostolical traditions.

We must not dissemble that Austin in the one hundred and nineteenth Epistle complains that already in his time human traditions did multiply, and were often preferred before the word of God. That (saith he) grieveth me much that many most wholesome precepts of divine books are neglected, and that all is full of so many presumptions; So that he is more sharply reproved that trod barefoot within the octave, then he that hath buried his understanding in drunkenness. He addeth, That men had so loaden religion with servile burdens, that the condition of the Jews was more tolerable then that of Christians.

Wherefore the Roman Church hath rejected with just reason the traditions believed by Irenaeus, who believed that the souls separate from the bodies have hands and feet; and that the souls coming out of their bodies go not into the heavenly glory, but into an earthly Paradise; And that the Fathers before the publishing of the Law by Moses were without Law: And that Christ must reign a thousand years in earth: In which reign there will be feasts and bodily delights; and the traditions of Clemens Alexandrinus who believed that the Grecians were saved by Philosophy. That there is in God four hypostases. That the Angels fell by cohabitation with women. That the death of Christ no more then our afflictions, happened not by God's will, and many the like traditions. And that of Ambrose and Tertullian, who hold that some shall rise again sooner then others. And the tradition held by the Ancients that souls shall be purged by the fire of the day of judgment, of which we shall speak hereafter.

CHAP. 58. Of the prohibition of reading holy Scripture. Shifts of Cardinal du Perron.

IT is one of the accusations of his Majesty of Great Britain against the Church of Rome, that they have deprived Christians of the understanding of the holy Scripture, and forbidden the reading of it unto the simple people. This the Cardinal doth not absolutely confess; for he denieth that it is forbidden to the people to read the Bible in Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin, that is, that the simple people are not allowed to read the Bible, but in the tongues which they understand not. They give leave to women and tradesmen to read the Hebrew Bible. He saith also that they forbid only the reading of corrupt and not approved versions. Thereby he seems to mean that the Roman Cuhrch giveth leave unto the people to read the good and approved versions. But there is no such thing. For the Roman Church approveth no version in any vulgar tongue, and there is none allowed by public authority. If any private man hath translated the Bible into French as Rene Benoist Parson of St. Eustache in Paris, his work hath been presently censured and condemned by the Popes authority, as M. du Perron acknowledgeth, page 1103.

But this matter deserveth a careful examination: for it is a new tyranny, and a custom without example in all antiquity.

It must be known then that in the Council of Trent, Prelates and Doctors in good number were appointed to make an Index or Catalogue of books, the reading whereof ought to be prohibited. That Index hath been published by the authority of Pope Pius the IV. and confirmed and augmented by Sixtus the V. and Clement the VIII.

Their first prohibition begins at the holy Scripture; of which they say in the fourth rule prefixed before that Index, that the reading thereof in the vulgar language being indifferently allowed, doth more harm then profit, by reason of the rashness of men. Wherefore they forbid the traductions of the Bible made by Authors which are not Catholic. And as for the versions made by Authors that are Catholic and approved, they permit the reading of them, so that one get a written permission from the Bishop, or from the Inquisition, or from the Parson; Adding, that who so without that permission will have a Bible, or read in it, his sins shall not be forgiven him, till he hath delivered his Bible to his Parson. Whereupon it is to be observed, that when this Decree was made, there was not any version of the Bible in Italian, or Spanish, or French, or German, that was approved in the Roman Church. And that since that time the Pope caused no version to be made in any vulgar tongue. It is known that in all the Countries where the Inquisition reigneth, there is none to be found. To permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic Authors, and in the mean while to give leave to none to translate it, is it not an abusive permission? For it is giving leave to the people to read a book which is nowhere to be found, and permitting that the people read the approved versions, while they approve of no version.

Nevertheless the Popes were afraid that some would think that this permission was given in good earnest. Wherefore to that fourth rule they have added another, that speaks more roundly, and absolutely forbids the reading of Scripture in the vulgar tongue. That prohibition is set down in the same book immediately after the forementioned rule. Thus It must be observed concerning the IV. Rule above written, made by Pope Pius IV. of blessed memory, that by this impression or edition no new power is given to Bishops or Inquisitors, or Superiors of the Regulars, to give permission to buy, read, or keep the Bible in the vulgar tongue, seeing that hitherto by the commandment and use of the holy Roman Church, and universal inquisition, power is taken from them to grant such permissions of reading or keeping such vulgar Bibles, or some parts of the holy Scriptures, either of the Old or of the New Testament, printed in any vulgar language whatsoever. Or even any Summary or abridgement of the histories of the Bible, or of the books of the holy Scripture, written in any vulgar language whatsoever. This to be inviolably kept.

Nothing can be more express then that prohibition. Wherefore in the Countries where Inquisition reigneth, as in Spain, Italy, Sicily, Corsica, the East and West Indies, one shall as soon find an Alcoran as a Bible in the language of the country, unless some have secretly brought in a Bible from England, or Netherlands, or Geneva, which is a crime punishable by the fire if it be discovered. But all kinds of unchaste and profane books are impunedly read. No book forbidden but the word of God.

But God's command is more regarded by us then that prohibition; for he recommendeth to the faithful the reading of his word, Rev. 1.3. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy. And Deut. 17.18, 19. Kings are commanded to have the book of the Law in their hand, to read in it all the days of their lives. Which command, if the Kings that reigned since seven or eight hundred years had kept, their crowns should not have been subjected to an outlandish Priest, and Popery had not so disfigured Christian Religion. Because in the Church of Thessalonica there might be some that could not read, the Apostle commands that his Epistle be read to all the holy brethren, 1 Thes. 5.27. He praiseth Timothy, (2 Tim. 3.15.) that from a child he had known the holy Scriptures. And the Eunuch of the Queen of Candace was reading in his charet the Prophet Isaiah, Acts 8.28. The faithful people of Berea, (Acts 17.10, 11.) having heard St. Paul's preaching, searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so. For a Preacher that would deceive and seduce the people, should have fair play if he were allowed to allege Scripture in his Sermons, and the people were not allowed to consult Scripture and confer the text, to see whether the Preacher had faithfully alleged them.

This also is very considerable, that the Apostle St. Paul writ long Epistles to the people of Corinth, of Ephesus, of Philippi, &c. not fearing that the reading of them should do harm to those he writ them to. And St. Peter, and St. John have written Catholic Epistles to all the faithful, and by consequent to those of this time. Why then should they not read the Epistles written to them? Why should not the things which God saith unto his people, be read by the people to which God is speaking? And whereas they that instruct the people are sinful men, apt to draw religion to their profit, shall the people have no way to know whether they be taught the truth? Why shall God be suspected by men, as if his word were a dangerous book, doing more harm then good, as the Tridentine Fathers speak?

The reason given for this is full of impiety. They say that it belongs to none but the learned to read Scripture. Now we thought that Scripture must be read to get learning. But these men will have a learning in Religion without Scripture, and before the knowledge of Scripture. Whereupon we would gladly know of them what kind of learning one must have before he can read the holy Scripture. Must one be learned in Greek and Hebrew? But the Popes themselves that give these rules, are unskillful in these tongues; As Innocent the III. who deriveth the word Pascha from the passion; And the Decretal of Anacletus, who saith that Cephas signifies a head. Besides, one cannot become learned in Hebrew, but by the reading of the Old Testament. Must one have read the Poets full of fabulous combats and amorous passions? But many are corrupted by those studies. Must one be versed in Philosophy? But the Apostles had not studied that kind of learning, and Philosophers have been mortal enemies to Christian religion. They were the men that called St. Paul a babbler. What then can that learning be which is requisite before the reading of Scripture? I know none, unless it be that one must be strongly forestalled with Popery as a preservative against the doctrine contained in the Scripture. But a man that believeth that the Roman Church cannot err, shall believe also that Scripture is not a competent Judge, and that the reading thereof is not necessary. And in vain should he ask license to read Scripture in the vulgar tongue; since no Bible is found allowed by the Roman Church in the language of the country.

To excuse that prohibition, they allege also the rashness of men that abuse Scripture. But because of the indiscretion of some men we must not abstain from good things, such especially as God hath commanded. By the same reason the word of God should not be preached to the people because many abuse it. And the Bishops and Parish Priests to whom that lecture is permitted, are no more exempt from rashness then the rest of the world; For in effect all heresies are sprung not from the people, but from the Pastors. Few examples or none shall be found of any of the people who by reading Scripture have brought in any heresy into the Church.

But this is not the true reason of that prohibition. For if the holy Scripture were favorable unto the Roman Church, they would not hide it from the people's eyes. Such as find themselves guilty, are afraid of the Law, and wish that there were none. Thieves will blow out the candles for fear of being perceived. To the same end, to weaken the strength of this Scripture, they have forged another unwritten word more favorable unto the Pope, of which the Pope disposeth at his pleasure. To the same end, the Roman Church beareth herself as an infallible Judge of the sense of Scripture. By that means she shall never be condemned by Scripture.

As for that frandulent permission to read Scripture, so that the version be made by Roman Catholics, the Popes had just reason to revoke and disannul it. For it is a manifest impiety to give a man leave to do that which God hath commanded him; as if the Pope said to one, I give thee leave to obey God, or I permit thee to believe in Jesus Christ. By that account God shall not be obeyed unless the Pope consent to it, and cannot be served without leave. Or if he have the luck to find some servants, he shall be obliged for it to his Papal holiness. Certainly to command disobedience unto God, is a less evil then to permit obedience to his commandments. For he that commands that God be disobeyed; doth not only oppose himself unto God and contradict him, but he placeth himself above God, and grants to him, as to an inferior, that some persons may yield him obedience.

Upon this his Majesty had said that the Ancients did constrain everyone to read at home continually the sacred books, which the people is now forbidden to touch without especial leave, upon pain of Anathema. The Cardinal omitting all the rest of the Fathers, answers for Chrysostom only, who many times exhorts his hearers to the reading the holy Scriptures, and saith that Chysostom did so because he had to do with learned hearers, skilled in Philosophy, and with Courtiers whom by the reading of Scripture he labored to turn away from the reading of Philosophers: But if he had brought the very texts of Chrysostom, it had been evident that he made that exhortation to tradesmen, and to the lowest and most ignorant of the people.

In the third Homily concerning Lazarus, he speaks thus, I do exhort you always, and never give over exhorting, that not only you hearken to that I say, but also that when you are at home you diligently tend the reading of the holy Scriptures; A duty which I have not ceased to press upon those that have resorted to me in private. For one must not tell me, There is but little savor in these words, and we may well be without many of these things: I am tied to my law businesses, I have my hands full with the affairs of the public. I have my trade, I have a wife, I must provide meat for my children, I must take care of my family, I am employed in the world, and therefore it belongs not to me to read the Scriptures, but to those that have taken their leave of the world, that dwell in the top of mountains, leading an austere life. What sayest thou man? Must thou not peruse the Scriptures because thou art distracted with many businesses? Nay, it belongs more to thee to read the Scriptures then to those [that have left the world] For they need not so much the help of Scripture, as you that are tossed among the waves of businesses, &c. Again, It is impossible, yea, I say impossible for any man to obtain salvation, unless he be perpetually employed in the spiritual reading. And a little after, The grace of the Spirit hath so dispensed and fitted the Scriptures, that publicans, fishermen, tent-makers, Pastors and Apostles, ignorant and unlettered men can be saved by these books; least that some idiot excuse himself about the difficulty; to the end that the things herein said might be easy to perceive, and that the tradesman, the servant, the widow, and the most unlearned of men may get some profit by the hearing of that lecture. The like things he saith, in his second Homily upon St. Matthew, and in the third upon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians. This discourse is very far from the opinion of Sixtus of Siena, a Carmelite Friar, in the sixth book of his Library, in the 152. annotation, where he saith that to permit the reading of Scripture unto Shoemakers, Fullers and Curriers, is giving holy things unto dogs, and pearls to swine.

Because the Cardinal by this answer endeavors to persuade that none but Chrysostom speaks so, and that other Fathers, Jerome especially, speak to the contrary, let us see what Jerome and the other Fathers say.

Jerome then in the Epitaph of Fabiola speaks thus of that holy woman; O good Jesu! with what fervor, with what study was she bent upon the divine books; as desirous to satiate her hunger with the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Psalms! And in the Epistle to Salvina Let the sacred lecture be always in thy hands. And in the Epistle to Furia After the holy Scriptures, read the Treatises of learned men. Himself in the Epistle to Laeta touching the Instruction of her daughter Paula, Instead of jewels and silk, let her love the divine books; loving in them not the checkered picture of Babylonian leather, but the learnedly correct and distinct Scripture. Let her first learn the Psalms. Let her recreate herself with the Canticles. Let her learn to live well in the Proverbs of Solomon. Let her learn to tread worldly things under by the Ecclesiastes. Let her follow the examples of virtue and patience in Job. Thence let her pass to the Gospels, and have them in her hands always. Let her learn the Prophets by heart: Let her abstain from all the Apocrypha.

Athanasius disputing against those that held it the safer course to abstain from the Scriptures, and simply to believe, speaks thus, Shall I neglect the Scriptures? Whence then shall I get knowledge? But by what means shall I have faith? And soon after, Reverence that studious Eunuch who being set over the Queens treasure, even in his way did not leave reading.

In the Epistle to the Virgin Demetrias, which was set the one hundred forty second among Austin's Epistles, chap. 23. So read the holy Scripture, that thou remember always that they are the words of God.

Austin in the sixth book of his Confessions, chap. 5. That (saith he) Scripture might be easy to he read of all, and yet should keep in a deep intelligence the dignity of her secrets, &c. And in the second book of Christian doctrine, chap. 9. In these books they that fear God and the meek seek the will of God. Yea he adviseth them that cannot read, to learn them by heart.

Gregory Nazianzen in the Epitaph of his sister Gorgonia, puts among her virtues, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that she acquainted herself with the word of God and turned it over.

Athanasius saith that heretics turn the people away from the Scriptures, saying that they are not accessible, but (saith he) the truth is, they fly to be condemned by them.

Wherefore also the holy Scripture was translated in all languages. Socrates lib. 4. cap. 27. And Nicephorus lib. 11. cap. 48. doth witness that Ulfilas had translated Scripture in Gothic language. And Jerome in his Preface upon the four Gospels saith, that before the time of Lucian and Hesychius Scripture had been translated into the languages of many Nations. And Chrysostom in the first Homily upon St. Johns Gospel saith, that Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and many other Nations had St. Johns Gospel translated in their languages . The same Father hath translated the New Testament and the Psalms in Armenian language. Jerome hath translated the whole Scripture in the Dalmatick tongue. Theodoret in his book of the cure of the sicknesses of the Grecians, speaks thus; The Hebrew language (so he calls the Old Testament) is not only translated into Greek, but also into the tongues of the Romans and Egyptians, and Persians, and Indians, and Armenians, and Scythians, and Sarmates; in a word, in all the languages, which all the Nations continue to use. At that time they did not put the holy Scripture in the Index of the prohibited books: For they had not translated it into all languages, but that all Nations, even the most barbarous should read it: and they that read it, asked leave of nobody, there being then no Inquisition set up, nor any penalty against those that labor to instruct themselves in God's knowledge by his word.

In all this the end of the Pope is to keep the people in ignorance, whilst he builds up his Empire. To the same end the Council of Trent, of all the Latin versions approveth none, but that which is commonly called the Vulgar; and they will have it authentical, with prohibition to contradict it under any pretence whatsoever. For this serveth for the raising of the Empire of the Latin Church, to establish that Bible alone which the Roman Church useth in the public service. This they do against the authority of all the Latin Fathers that have written of that matter. Hilary upon Psal. 118. We have often given warning, that no sense which may give satisfaction, can be drawn from the Latin version.

Jerome in his Epistle to Sunia and Fretella . In the New Testament, if sometimes there is any question and variety found in the Latin copies, we have recourse to the spring, even to the Greek language in which the New Testament was written. And in his Preface to Damasus upon the four Gospels . If we must believe the Latin copies, let them answer me which? for there are wellnigh as many diverse exemplaries as there are copies. But if among many copies we must seek which of them is the true one; why do we not correct the things that have been ill translated by faulty interpreters, returning to the Greek originals? And in the Epistle to Lucinius As the purity of the books of the Old Testament must be examined by the Hebrew books, so the purity of the books of the New Testament must be examined upon the rule of the Greek text. The same he saith in his Preface upon Joshua, and in the Epistle to Marcella.

Austin in the second book of Christian doctrine, ch. 11 Men whose natural language is Latin, have need of two other tongues for the knowledge of the holy Scripture, the Hebrew and the Greek, that they may have recourse to the precedent [Hebrew and Greek] copies, when the infinite variety of the Latin interpreters brings some doubt.

It would be an infinite thing to produce the faults of the Latin vulgar version, the only approved by the Council of Trent. Sixtus Senensis Library-keeper to Pope Pius the fifth, doth freely acknowledge it, saying, Our vulgar Edition which they say to be of St. Jerome, is remote from the Greek truth in many things. And shortly after; Although this Edition be not of Jerome, and that many things that are there, agree not with the truth of the Greek text, &c. In the same place he maintains, that the Latin version of the Roman Church is not of Jerome, but a mingled version. The Jesuit Maldonado upon Luk. 16. saith the same. The New Testament was not translated by Jerome, but only the old version hath been corrected by him in many places. And Jerome himself saith the same in his Preface to Damasus: that he doth not own it, nor greatly approve it, he showeth in his works, where he alledgeth many texts out of the Old Testament, otherwise then they are found this day in the vulgar version: And which is more, he disputes against it. For example, Heb. 11.21. the vulgar version which they say to be of St. Jerome, translates thus, Jacob adoravit fastigium virgae ejus, Jacob adored the end of Joseph his staff. A text which our adversaries use to maintain the adoration of creatures. But Jerome rejecteth that version in the book of the Hebrew questions upon Genesis, in these words, Israel worshipped the end of his staff. In that place some do in vain make the world believe that Jacob worshipped the end of Josephs scepter, as if by honoring his son he had adored his power; whereas in the Hebrew text it is read quite otherwise, namely that Israel worshipped towards his beds head.

Nevertheless the Council of Trent prefers the Vulgar version full of corruptions and depravations, before all other translations made after the Hebrew verity (such as is among others, that of Pagninus a fryer of Luca ) and by consequent before the Hebrew and Greek Originals. Of which it seems that the Popes, Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth were ashamed, having since the Council of Trent published an edition of that Vulgar version where many things are altered, and many faults corrected.

But Bellarmine is so rashly bold, as to offer to prefer the Latin version before the Greek and Latin Originals: as if one would make us forsake the source and send us to the miry brook. Cardinal Ximenes Archbishop of Toledo doth worse. For in his prologue upon the Bible of Complute, he giveth a reason why he put the vulgar version between the Greek and the Hebrew texts. We have (saith he) put between both the Latin version of St. Jerome, as holding the middle between the Synagogue and the Eastern Church; like the two thieves, the one on the one side and the other on the other, and Jesus Christ between both; that is the Roman Church, for she alone is built upon the stone.

Thus that venerable Prelate revileth and debaseth the Original texts of Scripture, comparing them to two thieves, and blaspheming against the holy Ghost, who hath spoken both in the Hebrew and in the Greek tongue, by the mouth of his Prophets and Apostles, and hath inspired them to write in those languages. As for the Latin version which that Cardinal compareth to Jesus Christ placed between two thieves, among a thousand corruptions it hath no good, but that wherein it is conformable with the Greek and Hebrew Originals, upon which it hath or ought to have been translated.

Out of all this it appeareth that the Roman Church forbidding the people to read the holy Scripture, opposeth Scripture, since Scripture itself recommendeth the reading of the same; and likewise opposeth the consent of all the Fathers, who are all of one mind in this point, to recommend the reading of Scripture unto all, even unto the least of the people. The evidence of this truth fetcheth from the Jesuit Salmeron these words of anger against the Popes that have forbidden rhe reading of Scripture; Wherefore hath not David chosen another rule to conduct his life then Scripture? Thy word, saith he, is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path: And whosoever hinders men to read the sacred books where the laws of God are written, exempteth them from all law, and makes them children of the Devil. And why should he commend the Thessalonians that perused the Scriptures and searched them every day (Act. 17.) if things went so?

The ordinary excuse is, that Scripture is dark, and that the ignorant might be seduced by it. But they that speak so, not only accuse Scripture of obscurity, but of untruth also. For Scripture bears witness to itself, that it is clear and made to give light to the understanding, Psal. 19. The commandment of the Lord is pure enlightening the eyes, and Psal. 119. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. The books of the Prophets are of all Scripture the most obscure, yet St. Peter saith that they are like a light shining in a dark place. They accuse then Scripture of untruth, when they accuse it of darkness; and together cast a great reproach upon God, as if he had digged a pit to make men fall into it in the dark, and hidden the doctrine of salvation under obscure terms to lead men into error; like one that makes his will in ambiguous terms, purposely to sow strife among his heirs. Should the Father of light study obscurity? He that gave his Son to save his enemies, should he be envious of the salvation of his children? If Scripture must be forbidden to the people least they fall into heresy; by the same, yea by stronger reason it ought to be forbidden to Bishops and Priests, since from them, not from the people, all sorts of heresies are come: Read the Catalogues of ancient heretics made by Epiphanius, Philastrius, Theodoret, Austin, &c. you shall find, that almost all the heresiarches were Clergymen, and having charge in the Church. And if reading Scripture be for none but the learned, none ought to read it, because none can be learned before he hath read it.

For these causes it belongs to those that accuse Scripture of obscurity, to look to themselves, least that the obscurity wherewith they charge Scripture be found in their understanding, and this sentence of the Apostle belong to them, (2 Cor. 4.3.) If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds. So the distracted maid of Seneca's wife being smitten with sudden blindness, complained that the air was dark. Men will cast their defects upon God himself, and are ingenuous in finding blocks to stumble at.

But it is no wonder that our adversaries find Scripture dark, since they cannot find in it what they would find. For one hath need to have piercing eyes and a reaching wit, that will find in Scripture a commandment for sacrificing the body of Christ in the Mass, or the Invocation of Saints, or the Veneration of Images and Relicks, or the Popes succession in St. Peters primacy, or his power over the temporal, and the very crowns of Kings, or the Roman indulgences. There is no doubt, but that these Gentlemen desire that Scripture were a thousand times darker, that none might find in it their condemnation.

The Fathers are so far from that language, that Origen disputing against Celsus a Pagan, and Theodoret writing of the sicknesses of the Grecians, that is, of the Pagans, defend Scripture against this reproach of the Pagans, that it is written in a style too simple and too familiar. The same Fathers also generally commend the perspicuity and evidence of the holy Scriptures.

Irenaeus in the second book, ch. 46. All the Prophetical and Evangelical Scriptures are open and without ambiguity, and may be heard of all alike. Tertullian calls heretics lucifugas Scripturarum, people that fly from the light of the Scriptures. The Emperor Constantine in the Council of Nice was saying, The Evangelical and the Apostolical books, and the Oracles of the Prophets teach us openly what we must believe of the divine things. Austin 9. ch. of the second book of Christian doctrine, saith much to the same purpose; In the things which are clearly set down in Scripture, all things are found that concern faith and manners to live well. Epiphanius, in the heresy 69. and 76. All things are clear in the holy Scriptures to them who with a pious reason will draw near the word of God. And Chrysostom told us above, that Scripture is easy to be understood even by tradesmen and ignorant men.

To the objection that it cannot be denied, but that there are some dark texts in Scripture, these Fathers answer that Scripture expounds herself; and that such things as are obscurely spoken in some places are plainly delivered in other places. Thus Chrysostom, Hom. 13. upon Genesis The holy Scripture expounds itself, and suffers not the hearer to go astray. And Basil in his Asceticks in his Answer to the 267. Interrogation, The things which seem to be said obscurely in some places of Scripture, are expounded by other texts clearly delivered. Austin in the second book of Christian doctrine, 9. ch. To clear the darker expressions, take the clearer passages. And 6. ch. Almost nothing can be deduced out of these dark places, but is found most clearly spoken in other places.

But above all is clear and evident the testimony of Chrysostom, hom. 3. upon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians. What need is there of Sermon, seeing that all the things that are in the divine Screptures are clear and right? all that is necessary is evident there. But because you are hearers that look for delight, you will have also these things; that is, Sermons. Then he personates one of the people saying, But I know not what is contained in the divine Scriptures. Why? are they written in Hebrew or in Latin? are they set down in another but thine own language? are not the contents of it in Greek? But (answers he) there they be but obscurely. Tell me, what obscurity dost thou mean? are they not histories? knowest thou not what things there are clear, that thou mayest inquire of the obscure? There are infinite histories in the Scripture; tell me one among the rest. But thou canst not tell it; so that all that thou sayest are but pretences and vain babbling. So did that goldenmouth chide his people when they alleged the difficulty of Scripture, to dispense themselves from the reading of it. For then it was not lawful to any not to read it: whereas nowadays to read it one must have a permission and an especial privilege. Truly, if after the example of Chrysostom one would question diverse persons that abstain from the reading of Scripture, pretending that there are many obscure things in it; Tell me what texts of Scripture you find clear, and what dark places did ye find in it? they could not answer. They complain of the obscurity of a book where they never read one line. Indeed hardly can Scripture be clear to him that never looked in it. Poor souls, they make use of that scruple to feed their idleness; they study ignorance under a pretence of docility. Christ asked a Doctor of the Jews, what is written in the Law? how readest thou? presupposing that he read the Scriptures or ought to read them. If it had been in those days the privilege of Doctors to read Scripture, Christ to convince him of idleness and contempt, would have told him, Thou art a Doctor, and hast license to read Scripture; thou shouldest then make use of thy privilege.

CHAP. 59. Defense of the purity and truth of Scripture against the Cardinals accusations and falsifications.

THe boldest Chapter of the whole book of Cardinal du Perron is the 6. ch. of the fifth book, wherein by a most perverse diligence, that I say no worse, he gathers up all the texts of Scripture, which (saith he) seem to man's sense to be full of absurdity and contradiction; that so he may dissuade the people from reading Scripture, and make them refer themselves to the Roman Church about the sense of those texts, as about all other difficulties.

This might have some color, if the Church to which he sends us had made some declaration about that, or if any ecclesiastical exposition was extant, authorized by the judgment of the Church: but that is nowhere found. The Roman Church which falsely styleth herself Universal, hath no exposition of Scripture, but of particular Doctors, who expound Scripture diversely, and there is little agreement among them.

Of the pretended absurdities of Scripture which he alledgeth, some are easily resolved, as these. That it is said that God separated light from darkness, that is, the day from the night. That God created the Sun on the fourth day. That God took one of Adams ribs and therewith formed Eve. That he made to Adam and Eve clothes with beasts kins. That God put the rain-bow in the cloud for a sign that there should be no more a general flood. That after Moses there arose no Prophet like unto him. That Sampson killed a thousand men with the jaw-bone of an Ass. That out of a tooth of that jaw-bone he fetched water, and many the like things, which none can find absurd but he that seeks absurdity in them, or brings the Almighty power of God in question, or doubts of the truth of his word.

He brings other objections where one cannot deny but there is some difficulty, as about the calculations of times, and some proper names which seem to be put instead of other names. By which difficulties it pleaseth God to call us to sobriety. Every wise man if he cannot satisfy his reason, will choose rather to keep himself in silence then to contend with God's word; and for that, will not abstain from reading Scripture, as though it were a dangerous book.

He heaps up other texts of Scripture concerning manners which seem to be scandalous, as that which is said in Ecclesiastes, chap. 2. that there is nothing better for a man, then that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good by his labor. And in the third chapter, that the death of man, and that of a beast is the same; as the one dieth so dieth the other, and herein man hath no preeminence above the beast; And that a living dog is better then a dead Lion. Sentences which say only that according to the course of nature, and considering nothing but the present life, a man hath nothing of all his temporal good but to use it with joy, and to eat and drink with tranquility of mind; And that according to the course of nature the same causes make a man and a beast to die. But the same book is full of sentences which put a great difference between the end of good and evil men; saying that God shall judge the righteous and the wicked. That it shall be well with them that fear God. That God shall bring every work to judgment. And he concludeth the book with this sentence, Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.

He puts in the same rank some expressions of Solomon's Song, as ill beseeming: Then the history of the incest of Lot with his daughters, and of Judah with Tamar and the like things. But it is not without cause that God in his word layeth open the sins of holy men, to make us acknowledge human infirmity, and to show that God fetcheth good out of evil. Neither is there anything in all these, that ought to dissuade a man from reading Scripture. It belongs not to us to prescribe to the Spirit of God what language he must use.

He addeth some texts, which (to his thinking) might shake the faith with scruples, as My Father is greater then I. And I go up to my God and to your God. And This is life eternal that they may know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, and other texts employed by the Arians. But that ought not to keep the people from reading Scripture. For in the same Scripture they shall find wherewith to instruct themselves upon that point, and clear texts for the Godhead of the Son of God. As when Rom. 9. he is called God above all things blessed for evermore, and Tit. 2. Looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ. And by Isaiah 9. he is called the everlasting Father. And John 1. That word was God. And 1 John 5.24. Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life. And Phil. 1.6. He thought it no robbery to be equal with God.

But that which is more intolerable in that great gathering of texts, is that this Prelate falsifieth Scripture, and makes it say what it saith not, to make it absurd. He saith that it is written Gen. 2. that in the garden of Eden, among other rivers there was both Nile and Euphrates, which are above a thousand leagues asunder; but in that text there is no mention of Nile, but of the river Gihon, even in the vulgar version. It is a Jewish fable which is found in Josephus in the first book of his Antiquities; wherein he showeth so much ignorance, that he makes Nile to come from the East. And I wonder what moved the Cardinal to falsify his own Bible.

In the same place he saith that Gen. 3. God walked in the cool of the wind after noon in the garden. He finds an absurdity in these words the cool in the afternoon; which seem to say that God was cooling of himself against the heat of the afternoon. But these words cool and afternoon are not in the Hebrew; there is only in the text that Adam and Eve heard God going in the garden in the wind of the day.

In the same place he makes Scripture to say ( Judges 15.) that God made a spring of water to come out of the hole whence a tooth of the Ass had been plucked out, to give drink unto Sampson. But there is in the text that God brake a great tooth of the jaw-bone, and thence came out water; Of a fountain coming out of the hole of the jaw-bone it is not spoken, not so much as in the vulgar version. Here it will not be unseasonable to say that by the Hebrew word Leki which is translated a jaw-bone, a rock is understood, out of which God fetched water, so named in memory of Samson's combat happened in that place. Thus the Chaldaick Paraphrast understands it.

He adds for an apparent absurdity that (2 Chron. 21.) it is written that Elias writ to Joram King of Judah, although Elias had been taken up to heaven eight years before the reign of Joram. The absurdity which he conceiveth, is, that a man that liveth no more on earth should write to a man that liveth on earth. But these letters might be written by Elijah in his life time, and sent to Joram some years after the Prophets death.

To make Solomon speak like a profane man and an Epicurean, he makes him say Eccles. 9.5. that the dead have no more reward yonder, as if the souls were mortal, and no salvation for them. There is according to the Hebrew, there is no more gain unto them, that is, to the dead: for he speaks of the profit or gain which they can get on earth. But that word yonder is an addition of M. du Perron to exclude the hope of another life.

I do not put among the falsifications, but among the oversights that which he saith in the same place, that the Levites wife died by being too much abused by the men of Jabesh, (Judges 19.) he put Jabesh for Gibeah.

But this is most insupportable, that he makes the Gospel to say, ( John 15.) he that came after me was made before me. Not a word of that is found in that chapter. True it is, that in the first chapter there is, He that comes after me is preferred before me, or, was before me. The word made which favoreth the Arians, making Christ to be a creature, is of the addition of the vulgar version, which M. du Perron rather chose to follow, because the sense is absurd as that version makes it, then to follow the truth of the Greek text, which is the original. The small skill that this Prelate had in Greek, made him believe that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify always the same thing, whereof the one signifies, was made, the other hath been.

I shut up this chapter with the sentence of Epiphanius in the heresy of the Unlike, which is the 76. All things are clear in the divine Scripture to them that will with a godly reason approach unto the word of God, and conceiving not a devilish efficacy, do not turn themselves down into the gulfs of death.

CHAP. 60. Of Canonical and Apocryphal books. Proofs by God's word that Tobit, Judith, the Maccabes, &c. are not Canonical.

IN this question, more then in any other, our Adversaries are at a loss; for they have no less against them then the word of God, reason, and the testimony of Antiquity.

As for the word of God, everyone confesseth that the Church of the Jews to which the oracles of God had been committed, did not acknowledge the books of Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Susanna, and Maccabes for Canonical. This is known by the testimony of Josephus book 1. against Appion, where he reckons but two and twenty books of the Old Testament, and saith that the books written since the time of Artaxerxes are not so worthy of evidence as the precedent. Indeed Josephus is posterior in time unto Christ: His birth meets almost with the time of Christ's death. And when he writ, the Jews were fallen already from God's Covenant; but making an enumeration of the sacred books, he showeth what books have been received by the Jews; not only in his time, but also in the ages that went before him.

Austin saith that the Jews hold not these books for Canonical. Wherefore Jesus Christ and his Apostles never allege these books. And if sometimes they mention some history written in the Apocrypha, as the Feast of the dedication, John 10.22. they mention also, not seldom, histories attested by the Pagans and by the unbelieving Jews.

The book of Maccabees is is held Canonical by the Roman Church. Yet there mention is made of Alexander the Great and of his victories, which many Pagans had already written before the book of Maccabees was made. St. Paul alledgeth texts out of Menander, Aratus, Epimenides, &c. and that in a point of doctrine. As that which he brings ( Acts 17.) out of Aratus, that in God we live and move and have our being. As then the allegation of a book in the New Testament is not a proof that the book is Canonical; so on the other side it is an evident sign that the books in question are not Canonical, that of so great a number of books not one is alleged in the New Testament. And if the Apostles have used some word or expression which is found also in some Apocrypha, it followeth not that the Apostles allege that book; For the same word shall be be found also in Pagan authors.

There is no reason then why the books of Judith and Maccabees, &c. having never been divine nor Canonical under the Old Testament, should become holy and Canonical under the New, as if they had altered their nature. Neither can we receive the books of the Old Testament but from the Church of the Old Testament; nor have the books of the Old Testament in other esteem then the Church of the Old Testament had them.

The same is evident in that these books are not found in Hebrew. Now how unlike is it that the book of Wisdom, if it was made in Hebrew by Solomon, be not extant in Hebrew, and that ill versions have been preserved, seeing that the divine works of Solomon were so precious unto the Jews? And that the Jewish Church, which then was the true Church, hath carefully preserved in their natural language the book of Hester, and the Prophecies of Jeremiah and Daniel, but suffered some chapters to be lost, and not been careful to preserve the whole books in their proper tongue? Must we say that the sacred books were more perfect among the Grecians then among the Jews, and in the versions then in the original tongues? Which chapters added to Jeremiah and Daniel whoso will compare with the chapters that go before, shall easily perceive that not only they have no connection with the precedent, but also that they contradict them, and that the style of both is as different as day and night.

CHAP. 61. Untruths and errors in the books called the Apocrypha.

THE strongest instance for us in this matter, is, that these books are stuffed with fables, and forged tales, and doctrines contrary to that of the Canonical books. Could we be able to receive fables and grossly devised lies for the word of God? In this acusation we desire not to be believed without evident proofs. I will produce some of them.

CHAP. 62. That the Cardinal attributes weak objections to us, and defends that which we do not impugn.

M. Du Perron not daring to meddle with such strong objections, puts straws in our hands instead of swords, and ascribes to us reasons which we do not use, or if we use them it is another way, and answereth objections which we never made.

He makes us say that the book of Maccabees is not an original history, but a summary. That the primitive Author was called Jason which is a profane name; And that he was a Cyrenian not a Jew. But we do not reason thus. We know that a holy man may have a name taken from the Pagans, as Apollo, Philippus, and the like. If the Etymology of the name of Jason is Greek, it signifies Physic or remedy, where there is nothing that is profane. But if the origin be Hebrew, it is a name corrupted from the name Jesus, according to the custom of the Hebrews of that time to give to their Hebrew names a Greek or Latin inflection, turning Phinehas into Phoenix, Saul into Paul, and Jesus into Jason. We know also that Cyrene was full of Jews, and that the same man might be a Jew and a Cyrenian. And such was that Simon that bore the cross of the Lord, Mark 15.21.

This is then our true Objection. The Author of the Maccabees saith that his book is an abridgement of the five books of Jason the Cyrenian. That book of Jason being not a sacred book, how can the summary of a profane book be sacted and Canonical? This is as unreasonable as if n epitome of Titus Livius or Cornelius Tacitus were made a Canonical book.

He makes us say also that the Author of the second book of the Maccabees excuseth the rudeness of his style. But we do not say that only, but we say that this Author doubts whether he hath said well, and craves pardon, saying that he could do no better. Which are things unbeseeming an Author speaking by the inspiration of the Spirit of God.

CHAP. 63. That we reject not the Apocrypha because they are contrary to us; And that they are rather favorable to us.

SOme persons little versed in our Controvesies and in the reading of the Apocrypha, might think that we reject all these books because they are contrary to us. The following texts will show the contrary.

In these books the Purgatory and the Limbus of the Fathers are clearly condemed. Wisdom 3.1. the Author speaks thus, The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. They are not then tormented in a fire.

Tobit 3.6. Tobit sore afflicted, and wishing for death, prayeth thus to God, Command that I may be delivered out of this distress, and go to the everlasting place. Then he did not believe the Limbus of the Fathers; for our Adversaries do not hold it to be an everlasting place. No more did he believe Purgatory; for none is so senseless as to beseech God that he may be tormented in a fire. Neither can Purgatory be called an everlasting place: for our Adversaries hold that the souls come out of it after the purgation is ended, and that Purgatory shall be no more after the day of judgment.

In the Apocrypha supplement of Esther, chap. 13, ver. 13, 14. to kiss a man's feet is accounted idolatry: for Mardocheus gives this reason why he would not kiss a man's feet. I would have been content with good will for the salvation of Israel to kiss the soles of his feet. But I did this that I might not prefer the glory of man above the glory of God; Neither will I worship any but thee O God. Yet neither this, nor the example of Jesus Christ who gave not his feet to kiss though he was God, could hinder the Pope from giving his to kiss, not only to persons of low condition, but even to Kings and Emperors. And he causeth himself to be worshipped with a religious worship.

In the book of Baruch, chap. 6. the honors and services which the Pagans yielded to the images of their false God's, are amply described, which are the same as the people of the Roman Church yield to the images of the Saints. In ver. 11. the Author saith that the Pagan Priests will deck with garments their God's of gold, and silver, and wood. The same is done to the images of the Saints. That they wipe their faces because of the dust, ver. 13. The like is done to the images of the Saints. That some of those images hold a dagger, some an axe, ver. 15. Thus also the images of the Saints are armed. St. Paul with a sword, St. George with a launce, St Peter with a key like Janus, and St. Christopher with a club like Hercules. That to these images they light candles, though they cannot see, ver. 19. The same is done to the images of the Saints. That these idols are carried upon men's shoulders; That being fallen they cannot rise again. That offerings are made unto them as to the dead. That their Priests gather those offerings and make profit of them. That they sing before those images, ver. 25, & seq. What is there in all these, that is not done to the images of the Saints which the Roman Church worshippeth? Who seeth not that Popery imitates Paganism, and that the one is copied out upon the other?

2 Macc. 15.12. it is related that Judas Maccabeus saw in a dream Onias the Priest, and Jeremiah the Prophet, dead long before, praying and interceding for the people of the Jews, and watching for their defense. Of Jeremiah particularly it is said that he was of a wonderful and excellent Majesty, and that he gave to Judas a sword to fight for the people of the Jews. Nevertheless for all this neither Judas nor any of the people called upon Jeremiah or Onias. An evident proof (if that history be not fabulous) that the Jews of that time believed that the Saints in heaven intercede for men living on earth, but yet that they must not be invocated. For if one prayeth for me, it follows not that I must pray to him or defer to him a religious service. Note also, that if the relation be true, Jeremiah and Onias were not in an underground prison, which they call the Limbus of the Fathers.

In the 12 ^th chapter of the same book, v. 43, 44. Judas Maccabeus makes offerings and sacrifices for the dead that had defiled themselves with idolatry; and the reason is added why he prayed for the dead, that he was mindful of the resurrection. For (saith the Author) if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. Thereby it appears that Judas prayed for those dead men that they should rise unto salvation, and besought God that though they were dead polluted with Idolatry, and (as our Adversaries speak) dead in mortal sin, that God would nevertheless save them in the day of resurrection. It is then (by this Authors judgment) a vain and superfluous thing to pray, not for the resurrection, but to deliver souls out of Purgatory, as the Roman Church doth. Which also approveth not the action of Judas Maccabeus to have made prayers, and offerings for persons dead in motral sin.

In ver. 14. of the sixteenth chapter of Ecclesiasticus, there is in the Greek, which is the Original, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Everyone shall find according to his works. Which text being not favorable to the doctrine of merits, because it is one thing to find according to his works, another thing to find according to the merit of his works, the Bible of the Roman Church doth corrupt it with an horrible falsification; for instead of according to his works, it saith, according to the merit of his works.

So I make no doubt but that the most clear-sighted among our Adversaries with these books abolished; And that the Council of Trent by the same authority whereby they cut off the third and the fourth book of Ezra from the Canon of the Bible, could willingly have done the same to Tobit, Judith, and the other Apocrypha's.

We do not then reject these books out of fear that our Adversaries use them against us, but because we are obliged to maintain the authority and purity of holy Scripture, which is lost (as far as in us lieth) when it is mingled with fables, and impious or absurd doctrines, of which these books are full. That shaketh the faith of the weak; and gives occasion of triumph and insultation to the enemies of the Christian name; for they reproach us that we receive fables for the word of God.

CHAP. 64. Belief of the Ancient Greek Church about the Canonical Books.

LEt us hear the Verdict of the Ancients upon this matter, beginning at the Greek and Eastern Church, as more ancient then the Latin and Western.

The Council of Laodicea more ancient then that of Nice, Can. 58. speaks thus, We must not say in the Church particular Psalms, nor Books not Canonical, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament. Then they add a list of the Canonical Books, where they put not Tobit, nor Judith, nor Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Susanna, nor the History of Bel and the Dragon, nor the Maccabees.

It will not serve to answer, that this was a particular Council, and that it consisted only of two and thirty Bishops, since several Universal Councils have approved it, especially the Council of Trull, Can. 2. in these words, We ratify the Canons of Laodicea, of Phrygia. Wherefore the Ancient Church and all that have labored about that Code, as Balsamon, Zonaras, Harmenopulus, have inserted it in that Council of Trull.

The Jesuit Regourd answereth, that the decisions of the Church are not made all at one time. For he confesseth that at that time, that is, above three hundred years after the birth of Christ, those Books were not yet received as Canonical. And he saith, that they were received soon after. How much he is mistaken in that, we shall show hereafter. In the mean while the Reader is desired to remember this Confession, that the Apostles, and the Church of their times did not acknowledge those Books for Canonical. Will these men be wiser then the Apostles?

Melito Bishop of Sardis, that lived near the time of the Apostles, as Eusebius relates it, in the first Book of his History, chap. 26. in an Epistle to Onesimus makes the enumeration of the Canonical Books, but makes no mention of Tobit, nor of Judith, nor of Wisdom, nor of Ecclesiasticus, nor of Maccabees. Being (saith he) returned into the East, and having stayed in the place where these things have been preached and done; I have diligently set in order the Books of the Old Testament, and have sent them to thee; Of which these are the names; Five Books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus son of Nave, the Judges, Ruth, four Books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Job: the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; A Book of twelve Prophets, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. He follows altogether the Canon of the Hebrews, but that he inserteth in it the Book of Wisdom. Whereupon Baronius, An. 172. Sect. 5. speaks thus Melito tells only the books that are in the Canon of the Hebrews. And Bellarmine in the 1. Book of the Word of God, chap. 20. saith. Many Ancients, as Melito, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Hieronymus, Ruffinus, expounding the Canon of the Old Testament, have altogether followed the Canon of the Hebrews, that is, they have rejected the Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, &c. It would be very strange if the Fathers had left the Canon of the Christians to adhere unto that of the Jews. For why should they follow the Canon of the Jews, that is, that which is found in the Hebrew Bible which is the Original, but that they believed that there was none other? We have seen above, how Jerome, the most learned of all the Fathers, in his Preface upon Daniel, saith that the Fables of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon have not the authority of Holy Scriptures, because they are not in the Hebrew; wherefore he saith, that he hath given them the black mark of a spear [obelo praenotavimus] as it were to cut their throat. And more clearly yet in his Preface upon Ezra and Nehemiah. We must cast away very far, all that is not received among the Hebrews, and which is none of the four and twenty Elders. He makes an allusion to the four and twenty Elders mentioned, Rev. 4. according to which number some of them reckoned the Books of the Old Testament, as he saith himself in his Prologus galeatus, and in his Preface upon the Book of Kings. The Church acknowledgeth not the Apocrypha; we must then return to the Hebrew after which also Jesus speaketh. This Father holds all to be Apocrypha which is not found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament.

Origen upon the first Psalm, according to the Testimony of Eusebius in the sixth Book of his History, chap. 24. speaks thus, We must not be ignorant, that there are (as the Hebrews teach) two and twenty Books of the Old Testament, which among them is the number of their Letters. Then he makes an enumeration of those two and twenty Books conformable unto the Hebrew Bible, which is the Original Text; And to give a particular brand to the Maccabees, he saith Without are the Maccabees.

Eusebius in his Chronicle translated by Jerome upon the 116. Olympiad. The History of the Maccabees doth from hence reckon the reign of the Grecians, but these Books are not received among the Divine Scriptures. And in the first Book of the same Chronicles, being come to the time of Nehemiah and Ezra, and having related their History, he addeth, As far as Ezra and Nehemiah the Hebrew Scriptures have been delivered by the blessed Apostles, the Disciples of the Lord Jesus, to be preached. But that which is happened and done to the Jews since, until the Incarnation of the Lord, Josephus relates it in his Writings of the Maccabees, and Africanus after him. He acknowledgeth that such Writings as are posterior to Ezra, were not given to the Church by the Apostles, and that the Church did not receive them to preach them, and that they are grounded only upon the testimony of Josephus, whom he holds to be the Author of the Maccabees.

The Jesuit Regourd answereth according to his custom, that if Eusebius had known the determination of the third Council of Carthage, he would have altered his language, that is, he wanted so much to be well instructed in that matter. But how could Eusebius know the determination of the third Council of Carthage which sat many years after his death? That Jesuit hath little knowledge of History.

Among the works of Athanasius, there is a Book entitled Synopsis, which M. du Perron holds to be none of the works of Athanasius. Both Bellarmine, and Baronius on the year 342. §. 41. receive it as genuine and true. In that book there is an enumeration of the Canonical books of the Old Testament, and the Author saith that they are two and twenty in number according to the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet. Then he addeth, Besides these, there are others also of the Old Testament, not Canonical, which are read only to the Catechumen; the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, &c. Perhaps by Esther he means the rest of Esther. Of the Maccabees particularly he saith, Among these books [not Canonical] are reckoned the four Ptolemaical books of the Maccabees.

Whether that book be of Athanasius, or of some other Author, we care not, since we have an Epistle of Athanasius where that holy man's opinion is set down in express terms. All the books of the Old Testament (saith he) are two and twenty in number. Then he addeth. Besides these books there are others also which are not put in the Canon, but are propounded by the Fathers to be read by the new comers, and such as will instruct themselves in the word of piety; namely, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, &c. As for the Maccabees he doth not so much as name them among the Apocrypha.

The Jesuit Regourd flieth to his ordinary shift, saying in his fourth Demonstration, p. 347. that then the Church had determined nothing about that matter. By speaking so he confesseth that the Apostles did not hold the books of Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees for Canonical, and that they have determined nothing about it, which is as much as saying that the Roman Church of this time is better instructed then the Apostles. So much the Jesuit Stapleton intimateth, In the time of the Apostles (saith he) Tobit, Judith, and other books of the Old Testáment were not confirmed, having been received into the Canon by the posterior Councils. God forbid that we should presume to be more clear-sighted then the Apostles.

Cyrillus Bishop of Jerusalem in his 4. Catechesis in the chapter of holy Scriptures, makes a list of the books of the Old Testament; and saith that they are but twenty two. All the others, (saith he, speaking of the Apocrypha) are cast out, and are of a second rank. In that Catalogue he puts neither Tobit, nor Judith, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Wisdom, nor Susanna, nor the Maccabees. He wholly follows the Canon of the Hebrews, and declares why he doth so.

Read (saith he) these two and twenty books, and have nothing common with the Apocrypha. Again, Meditate carefully those only, whom also we read in the Church safely . The Apostles and the ancient Bishops, leaders of the Church, who have taught them, were far wiser then thou. Cyrillus then hath followed the Canon of the Hebrews to obey the command of the Apostles.

Gregory Nazianzen, called by excellency the Divine, hath made verses purposely of that matter, which begin thus,

Then he makes an enumeration of those two and twenty books, without Tobit, Judith, Bel, Susanna, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees. It is too much peremptoriness to affirm without proof, as M. du Perron doth, that these verses are none of Gregory's, seeing that they relish the vein of his other verses, and are inserted among them. Bellarmine receiveth them without difficulty.

Other verses we have of the same time in Iambick meeters, made by Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium, which are found among those of Gregory, and are set down by Balsamon. In those verses he makes a Catalogue of the divine books, among which neither Judith, nor Tobit, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Wisdom, nor the Maccabees are found.

Epiphanius Bishop of Salamin in Cyprus, who is almost their contemporary, saith the same, in the book of weights and measures: where after he hath restrained the Canonical books to the number of twenty two, he addeth: For the two books written in rows of sentences, namely, that which is called the Panaretus of Solomon, and that of Jesus son of Sirach, are indeed useful and profitable, but are not put in the number of the Oracles. Wherefore also they were not put in the Ark of the Covenant. The same he saith in the heresy of the Epicureans, which is the VIII; and in that of the Anomoeans or Aetians, which is the 76. It is true that there he makes a Catalogue of the divine Scriptures, among which he puts Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, but he sets them after the Revelation, removing them from the Old Testament, which he would not have done, had he not found some difficulty in receiving them. As also in the heresy of the Epipicureans he saith that there is doubt made of those books. Howsoever he omits all the other books that are in question, the Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, &c. They that say that Epiphanius followed the Canon of the Jews, say true; for he acknowledged no other. And they that speak so, ought to produce some other place of Epiphanius where he speaks of two sorts of Canons, and distinguisheth the Canon of the Jews from that of the Christians.

To these I add Chrysostom in the fourth Homily upon Genesis, speaking of the books of the Old Testament. All the divine Scriptures (saith he) of the Old Testament were first written in Hebrew. How comes it to pass then that the books contended about, as Judith, Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees, are not found in the Hebrew, if they be divine Scriptures?

Damascenus, though much posterior in time, must not be omitted, because our Adversaries value him much as a great Patron of the adoration of images. In the fourth book of the orthodox faith, chap. 18. he saith that there are two and twenty books in the Old Testament according to the number of the Hebrew letters. Then he makes a whole Catalogue of those books wherein he puts neither Tobit, nor Judith; nor the Maccabees, nor Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus. Of these two last he speaks thus; The Panaret, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus are books full of virtue, and good; but they are not put in this number, and were not put in the Ark. An error which he borrowed from Epiphanius, to believe that the sacred books were enclosed in the Ark. See 1 Kings 8.9. 2 Chron. 5.10.

CHAP. LXV. Belief of the Fathers of the Latin or Western Church about the Canonical books. And that the Cardinal doth not truly represent it.

CArdinal du Perron being cast by the judgment of the Greek Church, hath recourse to the Western Church, saying that there was never any Latin Author that had taken the license of overthrowing the authority of the book of Maccabees, before St. Jerome, and Ruffinus after him. The same he saith of the other books that are in question. If he saith true, and if the Greek Church in such an important point did differ from the Roman, it showeth that the Greek Church was not subject unto the Roman.

The Reader may also observe the Cardinals subtlety, to have recourse to the Latin Church against the Greek, in a matter of which he knows that few Latin Fathers have written. Yet let us see what their sense was.

Jerome in his Preface upon the Proverbs of Solomon speaks thus. As the Church reads indeed the books of Judith, of Tobit, and of the Maccabees, but receiveth them not among the Canonical Scriptures: So let her read these two volumes for the edification of the Church, not to confirm the authority of the doctrines of the Church. Note that he sets forth the belief of the Church of his time as well as his own. In the same place he saith that the inscription of the book of the Wisdom of Solomon is false. And in his Prologus Galeatus, The book of Wisdom and that of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Pastor are not Canonical.

Ruffinus in the Exposition of the Symbole speaks thus, It must be known that there are other books which the Ancients have not called Canonical but Ecclesiastical, as the Wisdom of Solomon, and the other Wisdom, which is said to be of Jesus son of Sirach. Of the same rank are the book of Tobit, Judith, and the books of the Maccabees. And in the New Testament the book that is called Pastoral or Hermes, the Judgment of Peter. All which they would have to be read in the Church, but not to be alleged to confirm the authority of the faith. He speaks as of a thing established by the Ancients, herein contradicting our Cardinal, who will persuade us that Jerome and Ruffin are the first that have spoken so.

In vain should one object here that Ruffinus is accused of heresy by Jerome, who calls him a Scorpion; for there was a mortal hatred between Jerome and Ruffinus, and they have written grievous invectives the one against the other. Yet suppose that he was an heretic. It is enough that in this point he is with Jerome, and that none of the enemies of Ruffinus did ever tax him for putting Tobias, Judith, and the Maccabees out of the rank of the Canonical books. That which grieveth most our Adversaries, is, that Ruffinus puts the Maccabees and Judith in the same row as the book called Pastor, which is a fabulous and ridiculous book.

Our adversaries give us eight books of Apostolical Constitutions, which they say to be of Clement Bishop of Rome, the next successor to St. Peter: There in the second book, chap. 61. there is a Catalogue of Canonical books, where neither Tobit, nor Judith, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Wisdom, nor the Maccabees are found.

Tertullian is a hundred and fourscore years more ancient then Jerome. He saith in the fourth book of his verses against Marcion, in the seventh chapter, that by the twenty four wings of the animals mentioned in the Revelation the twenty four ancient volumes are designed. Others reckon but twenty two: for Jerome in his above mentioned Prologue saith that some did reckon four and twenty books of the Old Testament, because they reckoned separately the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and the History of Ruth; saying that they represent the twenty four wings of the animals. It is clear that Tertullian did not acknowledge the books of the Maccabees for Canonical Scriptures, since in the third chapter of his book de corona militis, he puts prayers and offerings for the dead among the unwritten Traditions. For in the twelfth chapter of the second of the Maccabees there is an example of it.

Hilary Bishop of Poitiers writ some fifty or sixty years before Jerome. In his Prologue of the Psalms he saith, The Law of the Old Testament is reduced to two and twenty books, that they may fit the number of the Hebrew letters. Then he makes the Catalogue of those books where he puts none of those that are questioned between us and our Adversaries, and saith that this doctrine comes from the Tradition of the Ancients. Here Regourd doth contradict himself, choler having disjointed his memory. He saith that Hilary receiving Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah, comprehends under Daniel the hymn of the three children, Susanna, and the history of Bel; and under Esther the six last chapters; forgetting that he had said in the page before that Hilary makes the Catalogue of the books of the Old Testament according to the Canon of the Jews, who never received the book of Susanna, nor the history of Bel, as also they never received more of the book of Esther then is in the Hebrew.

Philastrius Bishop of Brixia in Italy writ a little before Jerome about the year 380. In his book of heresies, in the chapter of the Apocrypha he saith that it was commanded by the Apostles that nothing should be read in the Church but the Law and the Prophets, and the Gospels, &c. comprehending all the Old Testament under the Law and the Prophets. Now it was never heard that Judith, or Susanna or the Maccabees should be either the Law or the Prophets.

Austin is express to this purpose in his second book against Gaudentius, ch. 23. where he puts the Maccabees out of the rank of the Law and the Prophets, saying, The Jews receive not that Scripture which is called the Maccabees as the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms to which the Lord beareth testimony. Austin saith plainly that God beareth no testimony to the book of Maccabees as he beareth unto the Law and the Prophets. Then the Maccabees belong neither to the Law nor to the Prophets.

But the words of Philastrius are the most remarkable of all in the ninth chapter, where he speaks of the heretics Hermiotites and Prodianites. Among whose heresies he puts this, That they use the book of Wisdom of that Sirach who long after Solomon writ a book of Wisdom.

It was then a great neglience or oversight in the Cardinal to affirm that before Jerome none of the Latin or Occidental Church hath rejected the book of the Maccabees.

The Churches of Gauls, a little after Jerome's time, are witnesses on our side. For in the seventh volume of the works of Austin, there is an Epistle of Hilary Bishop of Arles to Austin; wherein Hilary saith that in Gauls they did not approve that he had used a text of Wisdom, because the book is not Canonical. They define (saith he) that this text must be omitted, because it is not canonical. Now although those Gauls dissented from Austin in the point of predestination, saying that God hath nor predestinated unto salvation those whom he foresaw that they should believe in Jesus Christ. Austin on the contrary maintaining that God hath predestinated unto salvation those unto whom he will give faith and repentance, and that the use of grace depends not from the free will of man, but from the absolute Election of God; yet those Gauls were accounted faithful Christians in their country, and are called by Prosper in the precedent Epistle, servants of Christ. Chrysostom hath spoken far harder then they in that matter, and is not therefore called an heretic. These Gauls rejecting the book of Wisdom, followed the belief of the Gallican Church. Wherefore also Hilary doth not reprove them. And Austin speaks often as they do, as we shall see hereafter; although in the book of the predestination of Saints, disputing against these Gauls, he endeavoreth to exalt that book of Wisdom, being grieved that he had been reproved.

I cannot but bring here a text of Gregory the I. although he lived towards the end of the sixth age; That Gregory, of all the Bishops of Rome the most esteemed, in the nineteenth of his Morals, chap. 17. before he alleged a text of the Maccabees, made a preface of excuses for using a text that was not Canonical. Of which thing (saith he) we do not treat without order and reason, if we bring a testimony from books that are not Canonical, but have been published for the edification of the Church. Then he adds the text of the Maccabees, where Eleazar put himself to death, going under an Elephant, to destroy those that rid upon him. Upon which place Ambrosius Catharinus, a man of great learning and reputation among our Adversaries, speaks in this manner, St. Gregory moved (as I think) by the authority of St. Jerome, seems to grant that these books are not Canonical.

Cardinal du Perron bends here all his wit to avoid that blow. He saith that Gregory was yet but a Deacon when he writ that book. But if herein he spake amiss, why did he not correct that fault when he was made a Bishop? Why would he suffer that to remain among his works?

He saith also that the first draught of that Comment was made in the East, intimating that he perfected it, and writ it fair when he was returned to Rome. But what is that to the purpose? Was Gregory an hypocrite, writing among the Grecians against the sense of the Roman Church? And if he writ there but the rough draught of the book, it is like that the Grecians did not see it.

But acknowledging that these two answers have but little color, he finds out a third shift, which overthrows the two former. He saith that Gregory's words must be expounded, as supposing, not granting; as if he said; Suppose that the books were not Canonical, yet they have been written for the edification of the Church. There is in the Latin, Si ex libris licet non Canonicis, sed tamen ad aedificationem Ecclesiae editis testimonium proferamus. One would think that the Cardinal had more skill in the Latin tongue, then to translate licet non Canonicis, suppose that they were not Canonical: for licet signifieth although, not suppose. Besides the Cardinal adds the word were, which is not in the Latin. Then by that exposition he overthrows the sense of Gregory: For if Gregory declareth by these words that he holds the books of Maccabees to be Canonical (as the Cardinal will have it) to what purpose should he make excuses for alleging them?

Here Regourd rejecteth the Cardinals opinion, and finds another solution which is no better. He saith that Gregory understands that the Maccabees are not Canonical according to the Canon of the Jews, although they be Canonical according to the Canon of the Christian Church.

But that is speaking against conscience; for why should Gregory forsake the Canon of the Christians to comply with the Canon of the Jews? Would he have made excuses before he alleged a text of the Maccabees, if the Christians received that book for Canonical? Would he excuse himself to the Christians for believing as they do? Or would he excuse himself to the Jews whom he did not fear? Doth he make any mention of the Jews or of their Canon? Nay, doth he not directly say that the Maccabees are not Canonical? Who seeth not that he makes excuses to the Christians for using a book which they approved not? As indeed to mitigate them, he addeth, that although the book be not Canonical, yet it was written for the edification of the Church: which may be said of many books which are not Canonical.

The book of the wonders of Scripture which is found in the third Tome of St. Austin in the second book, chap. 33. speaks thus, That which is related the second time of the [Lions] den, and of the transportation of Habakkuk, in the fable of Bel and the dragon, is not put in this rank, because it is not held to have the authority of divine Scripture.

CHAP. 66. Confutation of the Cardinals shifts.

ALL that the Cardinal opposeth to all that was said before, is so weak that it may be thrown down with blowing upon it.

He saith that Cyprian calls the Maccabees divine Scriptures. That Ambrose alleging the Maccabees crieth out, Moses saith as it is written in the book of the Maccabees. That Lucifer Bishop of Sardinia calls the Maccabees the holy Scripture. But none of these calls the Maccabees Canonical. He saith also that the Fathers often allege these books saying, It is written. But who knows not that the same Fathers often allege books as sacred which never were held Canonical? Irenaeus in the fourth book chap. 37. alleging the book of Pastor, otherwise called Hermes, saith, Bene pronuntiavit Scriptura, Scripture hath well pronounced. Clemens Alexandrinus 1. Stromaton, towards the end of the book, alleging the same book, brings forth a place of the same, which he saith to be divinely revealed. The like is found in Athanasius in the book of the Incarnation of the Word. Among the Popes Decretals, the first of Pope Pius the first speaks thus, In that time Hermes a Doctor of the faith and of the Scriptures did shine among us. And upon that he relates the fable of an Angel appearing to Hermes in a Shepherds habit. Yet he calls that Scripture. Pope Gelasius puts that book of Hermes among the Apocrypha. The Fathers of Nice in full Council alleging the book of the Assumption of Moses, say, We shall propound that which is in Scripture. Ambrose in his book of the good of death, chap. 10. alledgeth the third book of Ezra; and so doth Austin in the sixth chapter of the fourth book to Boniface. Yet the Roman Church puts that book among the Apocrypha.

Then he saith that Jerome hath also doubted of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But though it were so (for we could prove the contrary) what doth that to invalid that which he saith that the Church did not receive