и

WHITAKER'S

DISPUTATION ON SCRIPTURE.
dFov t$t publication of tfje ЗШог Ье of tï)* dFatfjm

anö лПр Ш ги т of uje Mfformrö

 DISPUTATION ,
ON

HOLY SCRIPTURE,
AGAINST THE PAPISTS,

ESPECIALLY

BELLARMINE AND STAPLETOK

BY

WILLIAM WHITAKER, D.D.,

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, AND MASTER OF ST JOHN'S COLLEGE,
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

TRANSLATED AND EDITED FOR

BY T H E

REV. WILLIAM FITZGERALD, A.M.

PR EBENDA R Y OF D O N O U G H M O R E IN T H E CATHEDRAL O F ST P A T R I C K , AND

PROFESSOR OF M O R A L PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.

CAMBRIDGE:
PRINTED AT
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

M.DCCC.XLIX.
 CONTENTS.

PAGE

PREFACE by the Editor . . . . . . . . ix

Epistle Dedicatory to Lord Burghley . . . . . 3

Preface to the Controyersies . . . . . . . 14

Question the First of the First Controrersy: Of the number of the

Canonical Books of Scripture . . . . . . 25

Question the Second: Of the Authentic Edition and Versions of the

Scriptures . . . . . . . . . 110

Question the Third: Of the Authority of Scripture . . . 275

Question the Fourth: Of the Perspicuity of Scripture . . 359

Question the Fifth: Of the Interpretation of Scripture . . 402

Question the Sixth : Of the Perfection of Scripture, against Unwrit-

ten Traditions . . . . . . . . . 496

To the Reader 705

Index . . . . . . . . . . . 709
 PREFACE.

IT seemed desirable that this, the great work of one of

the greatest of our early divines upon the cardinal point of
difference between the churches of the Roman and the reformed
communions, should be comprised in the collection of the Parker
Society; not only on account of its intrinsic merits, but also for
its historical v a l u e ; as exhibiting the posture of defence assumed
b y our schools against that change of tactics in the management
of this great controversy, which is to be dated from the insti-
tution of the Society of Jesus.
William Whitaker (or Whitacre) was born at Holme, in L a n -
cashire, A.D. 1 5 4 7 , of a good family, nearly related to Alexander
Nowel, the celebrated dean of St Paul's. H e was bred at Cam-
bridge, where he soon distinguished himself, and was in 1579
appointed the Queen's Professor of Divinity. In 1 5 8 6 , through
the influence of Burghley and Whitgift, and in spite of obstinate
and powerful opposition, he was made Master of St John's Col-
lege in that University; soon after which appointment he took
his degree of Doctor in Divinity. His delay in assuming the
doctorate seems curious, and it was maliciously made the ground
of a most unjust imputation of puritanism. H o w small was his
sympathy with the disciplinarian party, appears from the manner
in which he speaks of their great leader, Cartwright, in a letter
preserved b y B a n c r o f t : " Quem Cartwrightus nuper emisit libel-
1

lum, ejus magnam partem perlegi. Ke vivam, si quid unquam

viderim dissolutius ac pene puerilius. Verborum satis ille quidem
lautam ac novam supellectilem habet, rerum omnino nullam,
quantum ego quidem judicare possum. Deinde non modo per-
verse de Principis in Rebus Sacris atque Ecclesiasticis auctoritate
sentit; sed in papistarum etiam castra transfugit; a quibus ta-
rn en videri vult odio capital! dissidere. Verum nec in hac causa

1
Survey of Discipline, p. 379, Lond. 1593.
 X PREFACE.

ferendus, sed aliis etiam in partibus tela a papistis mutuatur.

Denique, ut de Ambrosio dixit Hieronymus, verbis ludit, sententiis
dormitat, et plane indignus est qui a quopiam docto refutetur."
But though far removed from the disciplinarian tenets of
the puritans, Whitaker undoubtedly agreed with them in their
hostility to the Arminian opinions, which in his time began to
prevail in the Church of E n g l a n d ; as appears from the share
taken b y him in the prosecution of Baret, and the devising of
the Lambeth articles. The history of such proceedings is foreign
from m y present purpose; but the reader will find a full detail
of the circumstances connected with them in Strype's Life of
Whitgift, B o o k iv., Chapters 1 4 — 1 8 . Shortly after the termi-
nation of that memorable dispute, Whitaker died in 1 5 9 5 , in
the forty-seventh year of his age. H e was married, and had
eight children. I t was pleasantly said of him, that he gave the
world a child and a b o o k 1
every year. O f his children I have
nothing to communicate, and his books will speak for themselves.
T h e y gained for him in his life-time a high character, not only
with friends, but with enemies also. " I h a v e , " says the writer
of his life, in Lupton's Protestant Divines , 2
" I have heard it
confessed of English Papists themselves, which have been in Italy
with Bellarmine himself, that he procured the true portraiture
and effigies of this Whitaker to be brought to him, which he
kept in his study. F o r he privately admired this man for his
singular learning and ingenuity; and being asked of some of his
friends, Jesuits, w h y he would have the picture of that heretic
in his presence? he would answer, Quod quamvis hcereticus
erat et adversariuSj erat tamen doctus adversarius: that, " al-
though he was an heretic, and his adversary, y e t he was a learned
adversary," p. 3 5 9 . " H e was," says Gataker, " tall of stature and
upright; of a grave aspect, with black hair and a ruddy c o m -
plexion ; a solid judgment, a liberal mind, an affable disposition; a

1 Librum et Liberum quotannis. See Fuller's Life of Whitaker in the

" H o l y State."
2
History of the moderne Protestant Divines, & c , faithfully translated
out of the Latin by D . L., London, 1637.
 PREFACE. xi

mild, yet no remiss g o v e r n o r ; a contemner of m o n e y ; of a mode-

rate diet, a life generally unblameable, and (that which added a
lustre to all the rest) amidst all these endowments, and the respects
of others (even the greatest) thereby deservedly procured, of a most
meek and lowly spirit." " W h o , " asks Bishop Hall, " ever saw
him without reverence ? or heard him without wonder ? "
I have only to add, that in the translation I have endeavoured
to be as literal as would consist with a due regard to the English
idiom. H a d I considered myself at liberty to use more freedom,
I should have made m y task more easy to myself, and the work
perhaps less tedious to the r e a d e r : for there is a prolixity in
Whitaker's style, which contrasts unfavourably with the com-
pactness of his great antagonist, Bellarmine; though he trespasses
far less upon the student's patience than Stapleton, whose verbose
rhetoric made him admired in his own day, and whose subtlety of
logic cannot save him from neglect in ours.

It is proper to apprise the reader, that, besides the Controversy

translated in the present volume, the only one published in the
Author's life-time, three others are contained in the ponderous
volumes of his works, all of which were published after his death
b y John Allenson, B.D., Fellow of St John's College. T h e subjects
of these are De JEcclesia, De Conciliis, and De Romano Pontifice.
H e encountered Bellarmine also on the other controversies in suc-
cession, De ministris et presbyteris Ecclesice, De Sanctis mortuis,
De Ecclesia triumphante, De Sacramentis in genere, De Baptismo,
and De Eucharistia. " Quas," adds his biographer, Obadiah
Assheton, a Fellow of his College, "utinain licuisset per otium
relegisse, et mandasse typis universas: id enim auditoribus erat in
votis vel m a x i m e ; quorum cum summa admiratione et acclamatione
singulas tractarat controversias. Ceterum studio respondendi Bel-
larmino in omnibus controversiis religionis provectus, optimum
censuit has elucubratas disputationes apud se r e p o n e r e ; ratus (quod
postea non evenit) aptius fore tempus eas per otium evulgandi.
- Sed Deo immortali, cujus consilia sunt abyssus inscrutabilis, aliter
visum est."
xìi FREFACE.

The following is the list of his works :

1. Kesponsio ad decern rationes Edm. Campiani. 8vo. Lond.

1581.
2. Responsionis ad decern rationes E d m . Campiani Defensio.
8vo. Lond. 1 5 8 3 .
3. Refutatio Nic. Sanderi, quod Papa non sit Antichristus.
8vo. Lond. 1 5 8 3 .
4. Answer to W . Rainold's Reprehensions, &c. 8vo. Camb.
1585.
5. Disputatio de Sacra Scriptura contra hujus temporis P a -
pistas. 4to. Cantab. 1 5 8 8 .
6. P r o authoritate atque avTo-KicjTÍq. S. Scriptura Duplicatio
contra T . Stapletonum. Libri 3. Cantab. 1 5 9 4 .
7. Praelectiones de Ecclesia, & c , edited after his death b y
J. Allenson. 4to. Cantab. 1 5 9 9 .
8. Praelectiones de Conciliis. 8 7 0 . Cantab. 1 6 0 0 .
9. Concio in 1 Thess. v. 1 2 . 4to. Cantab. 1 5 9 9 .
10. In Controyersiam de R . Pontífice, distributam in quses-
tiones viii., adversus Pontificios, imprimis R . Bellarminum, praelec-
tiones. 8vo. Hanov. 1 6 0 8 .
11. D e Sacramenti^. Francof. 1 6 2 4 . 4to.

A complete collection of his works in Latin was printed in two

vols, folio, at Genova, 1 6 1 0 .
Besides the above, Whitaker published in 1569 a Greek trans-
lation of the Common Prayer ; in 1 5 7 3 , of ^Towel's larger, and in
1 5 7 5 , of the smaller Catechism.
 DISPUTATION

ON

HOLY SCRIPTURE.

1
[wHITAKER.]
 [Title-page of the original work, 1610.]

D I S P V T À T I O

DE SACRA SCRIPTYRA;
CONTRA HVIVS TEMPORIS
PAPISTAS, INPRIMIS,
E r O B E R T V M BELLARMINVM IESVITAM,
Pontificium in Collegio Romano, & THOMAM
STAPLETONVM, Regium in Sehola D u a -
cena Controuersiarum
Professorem :

Qucestionibus proposita traciata et GVILIELMO W I I I T A K E R O Theologice

Doctore ac Profeffbre Regio, § Collegij D. Ioannis in Canta-
brigiensi Academia Magistro.

BASILIVS in Epistola ad Eustatliium medicum.

H ' deóirvivaro'; tj/i'v S i a i T í j c r a V o ) jpaípi]' K<X\ irap oh ai» evpedrj TO' So'yyuaTa
a-vvtaià TOTS deíots A o ' y o i e , èiri TOVTOII ij£et TTÓVTÍÚS Trjs à\t]deia<; tj \¡/tj<pav.
 EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

TO THE MOST NOBLE AND PRUDENT,

WILLIAM CECIL, KNIGHT,

BARON BURGHLEY, HIGH TREASURER OF ENGLAND, AND
CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

THERE have been many heretofore, illustrious Cecil, who

have defended the papal interest and sovereignty with the utmost
exertion, the keenest zeal, and no mean or vulgar erudition. But
they who have played their part with most address, and far out-
stripped almost all others of their own side, are those men who
now, for some years hack, have been engaged most earnestly in
this cause ; a fresh supply of monks, subtle theologians, vehement
and formidable controvertists; whom that strange—and, in former
times, unheard o f — S o c i e t y of Jesus hath brought forth, for the
calamity of the church and the christian religion. F o r when,
after that black, deadly, baneful, and tedious night of popish
superstition and antichristianism, the clear and cheerful lustre
of the gospel had illuminated with its rays some portions of
the christian world, attracting, and b y its incredible charms at the
same time moving all, to gaze on, admire, and cleave to i t ; on
a sudden, these men sprang up to obscure with pestilential vapours,
and ravish, if possible, from our view, this light, so hateful to
themselves, so. hostile and prejudicial to then' interests. So indeed
had John, that holy disciple of Christ, predicted in the Apocalypse,
that a star, which had fallen from heaven, and received the k e y
of the infernal pit, should remove the covering of the abyss,
and cause a mighty smoke to issue forth, like the smoke of a
; great furnace, shedding darkness over the sun and heaven. This

1—2
4 EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

pit, from the time that it was first opened, hath not ceased to
exhale perpetual smoke to blind the eyes of m e n ; and, as the
same prophet had foretold, hath sent forth innumerable locusts
upon the earth, like scorpions, who have wounded with their
deadly stings all men upon whose foreheads the seal of G o d was
not impressed. T h e event itself, the best interpreter of prophe-
cies, has illustrated the obscurity of the prediction. F o r who can
doubt the meaning of the star, the pit, the smoke, the locusts;
who considers the state of the papal power, in which they are
all so pourtrayed to the very life, as to be most readily dis-
cerned b y any one, who can compare together the past and p r e -
sent, and interprets what was foretold, as about to happen, b y
that which is seen to have occurred ?
Amongst these locusts,—that is, as very learned men justly
deem, amongst the innumerable troops of monks — none, as we
before said, have ever appeared, more keen, or better prepared
and equipped for doing mischief, than are the Jesuits at this
present d a y ; who in a short space have surpassed all other
societies of that kind in numbers, in credit, and in audacity.
Other monks, following the rule and practice of former times,
lived in general a life of leisure and inactivity, and spent their
time, not in reading and the study of the sciences, but in repeating
b y the glass certain offices for the canonical hours, which con-
tributed nothing to the advancement of either learning or religion.
But the Jesuits have pursued a far different course. T h e y have
left the shade of ancient sloth and inactivity, in which the other
monks had grown g r e y , and have come forth to engage in toils,
to treat of arts and sciences, to undertake and carry through an
earnest struggle for the safety of the common interests. I t hath
come to be understood, that the cause of R o m e , which, shaken b y
the perilous blows dealt on every side b y men of ability and
learning, had begun in many parts to totter and give way,
could never b e defended or maintained, except b y learned and
diligent and active champions.

F o r just as a dilapidated mansion, unless propped up almost

 EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 5

every day b y fresh and firm buttresses, will suddenly fall in a

violent and total r u i n ; so they perceived that the Roman syna-
gogue, tottering as it is and threatening to fall, in its wretched
state of decay and dilapidation, hath need continually of new
supports and bracings, to maintain any remnant of its state and
dignity under the pressure of such vehement assaults. Y e t , with
all their efforts, shall they never be able to avert the imminent
calamity, or rescue themselves from perdition. But as buildings,
whose foundations are subverted, their walls pierced, their roofs
uncovered, having no part secure, can never be supported long
b y any multitude of artificial p r o p s ; so that church of theirs,
all rent and torn on every side, in which nor roof, nor pillar,
nor foundation remains sound, intrinsically devoid of firmness and
integrity, must at length fall headlong, and crush many to d e -
struction in its ruins. W e are not to believe that the Roman
church is flourishing, because the Jesuits are often able to impose
upon inconstant and unskilful persons, and lead them into the
popish fraud b y the lures and blandishment of their fallacious
reasoning, any more than we should think that health and life
is restored to the frame that labours in a mortal malady, when
it gains, for a moment, some casual alleviation of its pain. Let
the Jesuits do their b e s t ; let them exert, if possible, still more
intense sedulity, and omit nothing that leai*ning and diligence can
accomplish without the aid of truth. Y e t all they can accomplish
will be this,—to prop a falling house with mounds and buttresses,
to afford some brief refreshment to antichrist, now gasping in his
last long agony,—and, despite of all the rules of physic, apply
remedies to a desperate disease.
Amongst these Jesuits, Robert Bellarmine, a native of Italy,
hath now for several years obtained a great and celebrated name.
At first he taught scholastic divinity in B e l g i u m ; but afterwards,
having removed to R o m e , he treated of theological controversies
in such a manner as to excite the admiration and gain the applause
of all. His lectures were eagerly listened to b y his auditors,
transcribed, transmitted into every quarter, and treasured up as
6 EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

jewels and amulets. After some time, for the sake of rendering
them more generally useful, they were epitomized b y a certain
Englishman. Finally, the first volume of these controversies
hath been published at Ingolstadt, printed b y Sartorius; and the
rest are expected in due time . 1
N o w , therefore, Bellarmine is
cried up b y his party as an invincible champion, as one with
whom none of our men would dare to engage, whom nobody can
answer, and whom if any one should hope to conquer, they would
regard him as an utter madman.
W h e n you, honoured sir, demanded m y opinion of this writer,
I answered, as indeed I thought, that I deemed him to be a man
unquestionably learned, possessed of a happy genius, a penetrating
judgment, and multifarious r e a d i n g ; — o n e , moreover, who was
wont to deal more plainly and honestly than is the custom of
other papists, to press his arguments more home, and to stick more
closely to the question. Thus, indeed, it became a 'man who had
been trained in the schools, and who had made the handling of
controversies his professed business, to dismiss all circumlocutions
and digressions, and concern himself entirely with the argument;
and, having read all that had been previously written upon the
subject, to select those reasons and replies which seemed to have
most strength and sinew in them. In the prosecution of which
task, he was led to weigh everything with a profound and anxious
solicitude, and has sometimes differed from all his predecessors, and
struck out new explanations of his o w n ; perceiving, I suppose,
that the old ones were not sound enough to be relied on. We
have an instance (Lib. n. de V e r b o Dei, c. 1 0 ) in his treatment
of 1 Cor. 1 4 , where the apostle forbids the use of a strange
language in the church. , The former popish writers had usually
understood that place to speak of exhortations or sermons to the

[! The first complete edition of Bellarmine's Controversies was printed,

according to Bayle, at Ingolstadt, in three Tomes, 1586. The oldest edition
which I have seen is that of 1588, printed also at Ingolstadt by Sartorius,
in three Tomes. Alegambus states that the first Tome was printed so
early as 1581.]
 EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 7

people; or, if they conceded that it might b e understood of divine

service, interpreted it so as to require that the words of the minis-
ter should be understood, not b y the whole congregation, but only
b y him who made the responses in their name. But Bellai'mine,
having reflected upon the falsehood and weakness of these evasions,
hath invented another for himself; and pretends that the apostle
is speaking not of the offices of divine service, nor yet of the
public reading of the scriptures, but only of certain spiritual
songs and canticles. What, however, or what sort of things
these were, or why they required to be recited in a known
language more than the common prayers or the scripture lessons,
it is not so easy to understand. But of this place of the apostle,
and this new pretence of Bellarmine's, we have discoursed suf-
ficiently at large in the second question, chap. 1 8 , of this con-
troversy.

So again, (Lib. in. cap. 2) where he is answering an objection

drawn from St Peter's calling the prophetic word a lamp, he does
not answer, as Hosius did (Lib. i n . contra Proleg. Brentii), that
in the prophecies there are many things plain, and that what is
enigmatically spoken in the prophets is expressed clearly in the
gospel; but he says that prophecy is called a lamp, not because it
is easily understood, but because it illuminates when it is under-
stood. H e saw clearly that Hosius' exposition left our doctrine o f
the perspicuity of scripture in sufficient strength, and therefore
excogitated this new o n e ; upon which we have treated, Quest, iv.
chap. 4.
In the same w a y , when we maintain that the mysteries of
the faith should be concealed from no one, and allege, in proof,
those words of Christ, " W h a t y e hear in the ear, that proclaim
y e upon the house-tops;" Bellarmine, (Lib. iv. c. 12) has recourse
to a strange and hitherto, I think, unheard of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; —
that is, says he, if need so require. H e gives the allegation no
other reply whatever; and how proper and apposite an answer
this is, I am content that others should determine.
Again, when we urge that the scripture is called canonical, and
8 EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

therefore is, what that very appellation indicates, the rule of faith
and of living; Bellarmine answers confidently in the same chapter,
that the scripture was not published to be the rule of our faith,
but to serve " a s a sort of commonitory, useful to preserve and
cherish the faith received b y preaching." So that, according to
this new interpretation of Bellarmine's, we learn that the scriptures
are no rule of faith at all, but a certain commonitory,—an honour
which they share with many o t h e r s ; — n o r y e t even a necessary
one, but only useful to the end of preserving the traditions.
This is a noble judgment of the value of scripture, and alto-
gether worthy of a J e s u i t ! — a judgment which leaves the bible
only the office of admonishing us, as if we only required to be
admonished, and not taught.

Bellarmine hath innumerable such new discoveries; with which

he defends the papal cause in a different manner, indeed, from
that of its former patrons, but yet is so far from really serving
it, that he hath rather done it the greater damage and injury
with discreet and attentive readers, who have any care for their
faith and religion. F o r hence it appears that, while Bellarmine
cannot approve the answers of others, it is impossible to invent
new ones, which are not worse than the old.
I remember, too, that in the course of that same conversa-
tion between us, I allowed Bellarmine the merit of dealing less
dishonestly with the testimonies of the fathers than is customary
with others, and of not captiously or maliciously perverting the
state of the question; a fault which, I found, had particularly
disgusted y o u in certain w r i t e r s ; whereas religious disputes and
controversies should b e managed in such a way as to eschew all
craft, and seek truth, and truth alone, with a holy earnestness.
I acknowledged that, while our adversaries erred grossly in this
respect, our own party stood not so wholly clear of the same
fault, as became the investigators of truths so sacred; which, in
proportion as they are more heavenly in their nature, and concern
us more nearly, should be searched into and handled with so
much the more sincerity.
 EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 9

But, since m a n y — m o r e eager for contention than for t r u t h —

propose to themselves scarcely any other object than to be able to
say something against their opponents, and to be esteemed the
champions of a cause, which they love much better than they un-
derstand ; so it comes to pass, that the just state of the question is
laid aside with a cold neglect, and truth, as usual, is lost in alter-
cation. Thus Bellarmine himself, where he undertakes to impugn
our doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture (Lib. in. c. 1), lays
this down as the state of the question, " Whether scripture b e so
plain in itself as to be sufficient, without any explication, to deter-
mine controversies of f a i t h ; " and he imposes upon us the office of
maintaining that the scriptures are in themselves most plain and
easy, and stand in need of no interpretation:—as if we either
thought that every part of scripture was plain, easy, and clear,
or ever rejected the exposition and interpretation of the scriptures!
Could Bellarmine really hope to impose upon us in so gross a
manner, as to make us confess that to be our opinion which had
never so much as entered into our thoughts? But to this we
have given a sufficiently plain answer in our fourth question.

I could wish that this were the only place in which Bellarmine
had shewn bad faith, and that he had not elsewhere also played
the Jesuit in matters of no small importance. F o r there can be
no end of writing and disputing, no decision of controversies, no
concord amongst Christians, until, laying aside all party feelings,
and assuming the most impartial desire and design of investigating
truth, we apply ourselves entirely to that point where the stress of
the controversy lies.
A n d now (since I am addressing one who is accustomed both
to think of these matters often and seriously himself, and to listen
to others delivering their own opinions upon them also), allow me
briefly to explain, and commend to your consideration, a thing
which I have long wished for, and which I trust might be ac-
complished with singular advantage and with no great difficulty.
Our adversaries have v e r y often demanded a disputation, and
declared that they especially wish and long for permission to hold
10 EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

a scholastical contest with us upon the subject of those questions

which form the matter of our present controversies. Whether this
demand be made hypocritically, as many suppose, or sincerely, I,
for m y part, would desire that they may have their asking. For,
although they cannot deny that they have often been disputed
with in Germany, France, and England, nay, that those learned
men Melancthon and Brentius repaired to Trent for the sole purpose
of defending the confessions of their churches against the Popish
theologians; y e t I would have them made to understand, that they
have no reason for believing that their cause hath become one
whit the better, since it hath been espoused b y its Jesuit patrons,
than it was heretofore, when defended b y the ancient orders. Let
the Jesuits b e allowed acute, ready, practised, eloquent, and full of
resources; let them be, in a word, whatever they are, or are b e -
lieved to b e : yet truth is ever one and the s a m e ; and still, the
more it is attacked, shines out with greater brilliancy and lustre.
Perhaps, indeed, it will be said that none can be found who would
dare to stand a conflict with the Jesuits, or are fit to be matched
with such opponents. I know well, for m y part, how confident and
boastful these men are, and what a look and mien they assume
in disputation; as if they had only learned how most arrogantly
to despise their adversaries, not how to give a better answer to
their arguments. Yet, since the sacred laws of such conferences
secure to each man just so much advantage, and no more, as he
can win b y reason and argument, and whatever is said must be
reduced to the rules of Syllogism ; there remains no ground to fear
that painted falsehood will prevail more than simple and naked
truth. N o t to speak of foreign nations and churches, where every
one knows that there is abundance of learned men, this island itself
possesses persons well skilled in every kind of learning, who could
readily, not only explain the truth, but defend it also against any
adversaries. In both our Universities there are men so practised
and skilled in every portion of these controversies, that they would
rather forfeit their recognisance, than shrink from a dispute so
honourable, just, and necessary.
 EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 11

Nov do I see that any so great inconvenience is to be appre-

hended from this course, as some suspect. F o r , although those who
are bound to this cause b y a blind superstition, will probably be so
far from reaping any advantage, that they will rather b e rendered
still more obstinate, and some fickle people will, perhaps, be even
alienated from our s i d e ; as, in every disputation, opinions incline
different ways, according as the several auditors are capable of
judging or inclined to attend and r e f l e c t ; — y e t , we may reasonably
augur the following important results: First, it would easily appear,
what is the true state of the question in each c o n t r o v e r s y ; which
should be pressed, driven home, and discussed, without regard to
impertinent and trifling altercations. In the next place, it cannot
be doubted, that all who measured religion, not b y the decrees of
men or their own caprice, but b y the standard of the holy scrip-
tures, and were ready to acknowledge and embrace the truth when
it was found, would easily reject the rotten devices of the papists,
and prefer that sound and wholesome doctrine of the faith, which
our churches have drawn from the pure springs of scripture, to
their old and idle superstition. Lastly, the wishes of our adversaries
would be satisfied; nor could they any longer, with any shew of
probability, reproach us openly with cowardice. Y e a , the truth
itself, which we profess, would rise above the suspicion which it has
incurred in the minds of some, and establish itself in the light
and conscience of all the world. There is nothing which truth
fears so much as to be prevented from appearing in public, and be-
ing exposed to the examination of all men. It would rather have
any patron that is not absolutely dumb, than g o without defence
from the unrighteous calumnies of unjust accusers. One thing only
I would have carefully provided. Prudent and grave moderators
should preside in this disputation; who should restrain petulance,
repress clamours, permit no breach of decorum, and maintain order,
modesty and discipline. I have now laid before y o u m y thoughts
and wishes. The determination rests with those who are at the
helm of church and s t a t e ; — w i t h yourself especially, in regard of
that singular wisdom which hath ever distinguished you in every
judgment and deliberation. I now return to Bellarmine.
12 EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

I am rejoiced that these controversies of his, so much celebrated

in common report, have now been published b y himself; so as that
w e all may easily j u d g e of their quality, their value, their strength,
and their importance, nor believe Bellarmine to be any other than
we find him b y their evidence. And, although our adversaries'
opinions might be collected from the many other writers who have
appeared in great numbers on the same s i d e ; yet, since there are
many points upon which they do not all agree, it hath been a matter
o f some obscurity hitherto, to ascertain the real judgment of the
Roman church. But now that Bellarmine hath been published, we
shall know better and more certainly what it is they hold upon
every subject, the arguments on which they specially rely, and
what is (so to speak) the v e r y marrow of popery, which is thought
to be as much in the Jesuits as in the pope himself. Knowing,
therefore, how much our party desire that these Jesuits should be
answered, and having fallen in with a manuscript c o p y of B e l -
larmine's Lectures, I thought it worth m y while to handle these
same controversies in the schools in the discharge of the duties of m y
office, to discuss the new sophisms of the Jesuits, and vindicate our
unadulterated truth from the captious cavils with which the popish
professor had entangled it. Afterwards, being often requested b y
many persons to publish some of m y disputations against our ad-
versaries, and let the whole church share in the benefit of my toil
and studies, I determined to commit to the press this controversy
concerning SCRIPTURE, which is the first of t h e m ; and which,
forming, as it does, a sort of vestibule to the rest, and sufficing of
itself to fill a reasonable volume, seemed, as it were, to demand
that I should not wait until I had completed the remainder, but
publish it b y itself, and separate from all the others.
In all this I did nothing without the approbation of the most
reverend father, the archbishop of C a n t e r b u r y , — a man of the
greatest wisdom and the greatest learning, who, having read and
thoroughly considered this whole controversy, declared it worthy
of publication. N o w that it is published, I dedicate it to you, most
noble Cecil, whom I have ever esteemed the great patron and
Mascenas of m y studies; you, in whom this college prides herself
 EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 13

as a member of her b o d y , and will always, as long as she stands,

challenge to herself on this account a just prerogative; you, whom
our university respects as chancellor; whom the whole state cele-
brates as the father of your c o u n t r y ; whom the church recognises
as a son serviceable both to its interest and safety. I pray God
that he may preserve y o u ever in safety and prosperity to our
church, state, university, and college. Farewell.

Y o u r most devoted servant,

WILLIAM WHITAKER.

CAMBRIDGE. From the College of St John

the Evangelist. April 30, 1588.
 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES,
DELIVERED

TO THE AUDIENCE AT CAMBRIDGE.

I THIS day enter upon a new undertaking, often demanded b y

many and not unworthy of our university, the attempt to go
through those controversies, both numerous and great, as y e all
perceive, which are agitated between the Roman popish synagogue
and our churches reformed according to the word of God. Ac-
customed as I have hitherto been to handle a sedate quiet kind of
theology, I here come suddenly upon the sternest strifes and most
violent contentions. I hope that this will appear matter of surprise
or censure to none of y o u ; at least I should desire that the object
of m y intentions and design should meet with approbation from
y o u all. F o r I have not been led to this undertaking through
any rashness, or unreasonable and fickle impulses and movement
of m y feelings, through disgust of old subjects to look out for new
o n e s ; but have proceeded with thought and deliberation, and not
without the authority and encouragement of those who have the
greatest influence in our church and university. U p o n these grounds,
I am confident that I shall undertake the task upon which I am now
entering, not only without blame from any one, but with the highest
satisfaction to all except the papists: which consideration inspires
me with still greater alacrity for these controversies, although I am
b y no means ignorant that the toil which I shall have to undergo
in managing them is at the same time increased and doubled. But
for y o u r interests I should willingly do anything, and spare no
labour which I can perform. Indeed, if I wished to indulge myself,
or had any concern for my own leisure, I should never have
launched out upon this most stormy sea of controversies, in which
I shall be exposed to such a tossing as I have never y e t e x p e -
rienced in fulfilling the duties of m y office, and where all the
diligence must be applied, which is required b y a business of the
highest difficulty. But since our undertaking is both noble and
necessary, and long and earnestly desired b y y o u , it did not become
me to balk your desires on account of the trouble of the task, but
 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 15

to lay out for the common good whatever strength and ability I
may possess.
Now of this discourse I perceive that the utility, or rather the
necessity, is three-fold. In the first place, we have to treat not
of the opinions of philosophers, which one may either b e ignorant
of, or refute with commendation,—not of the forms of the lawyers,
in which one may err without d a m a g e , — n o t of the institutions of
physicians, of the nature and cure of diseases, wherein only our
bodily health is concerned,—not of any slight or trivial matters ;
— b u t here the matter of our dispute is certain controversies of
religion, and those of the last importance, in which whosoever errs
is deceived to the eternal destruction of his soul. In a word, we
have to speak of the sacred scriptures, of the nature of the church,
of the sacraments, of righteousness, of Christ, of. the fundamentals
of the faith; all which are of that nature, that if one be shaken,
nothing can remain sound in the whole fabric of religion. I f what
these men teach be true, we are in a miserable condition ; we are
involved in infinite errors of the grossest kind, and cannot possibly
be saved. But if, as I am fully persuaded and convinced, it is
they who are in error, they cannot deny that they are justly con-
demned if they still persist in their errors. F o r if one heresy be
sufficient to entail destruction, what hope can be cherished for those
who defend so many heresies with such obstinate pertinacity ?
Therefore either they must perish, or we. It is impossible that
we can both be safe, where our assertions and belief are so contra-
dictory. Since this is so, it behoves us all to bestow great pains
and diligence in acquiring a thorough knowledge of these matters,
where error is attended with such perils.
Besides, there is another reason which renders the handling of
these controversies at the present time not only useful, but even
necessary. The papists, who are our adversaries, have long since
performed this t a s k ; they have done that which Ave are now only
beginning to do. And although they can never get the better of
us in argument, they have nevertheless got before us in time.
T h e y have two professors in two of their colleges, Stapleton at
Douay, Allen at Rheims, both countrymen of ours, (besides other
doctors in other academies,) who have explained many controversies
and published books, Stapleton on the Church and Justification,
Allen on the Sacraments. But beyond them all, in the largeness
wherewith he hath treated these controversies, is Robert Bellar-
mine, the Jesuit at Rome, whose lectures are passed from hand to
16 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES.

hand, and diligently transcribed and read b y very many. Indeed

I should wish that they were published, and am surprised that they
are not. But many copies of these lectures fly about everywhere
among the papists, and sometimes, in spite of their precautions, fall
into our hands. Shall we then, whilst these men defend their own
side with such activity and zeal, lie idle and think nothing of the
matter? These things, although they were in a fragmentary
manner explained b y the papists, in many commentaries and sepa-
rate books, yet are now handled in one single volume b y them-
selves ; the object and design of which proceeding cannot possibly
be a secret to any one. W h y then should not we do the same,
and put a complete b o d y of controversies into men's hands, col-
lecting and compacting into one book whatever hath been disputed
in defence of the. truth against popery, b y writers of our own or
of any other party ? It is not every one that can at once form
a judgment of an argument, or find out a fitting reply in the books-
of our divines. W e must take measures for the security of these
persons, and especially at the present time, when so many, partly
b y the reading of such books as are every day published b y our
adversaries, partly b y too great a familiarity with papists, have
fallen under a deplorable calamity, and deserted from us to the
popish camp.
Indeed, when I compare our side with the papists, I easily
perceive the great truth of Christ's saying, that " t h e children
of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of
light." Mark well, I beseech you, with what solicitude, vigilance,
and cunning, these men maintain their own k i n g d o m ! They
prevent their people from reading our books, and forbid them to
have any intercourse with us, that so they may provide against
the influence of that contagion which they fear. Surely this is
wisely done. W h o can deny it ? F o r if we be heretics, as they,
though falsely, exclaim, it is but a just consequence of that opinion
of us to denounce us, as persons to be carefully avoided b y all who
are under their control. In the meanwhile we buy, read, peruse
all the productions of those whom we justly esteem heretics, and
never suspect the possibility of any damage accruing from our
conduct. Hence unskilful persons are easily deceived; especially
if there be any encourager at hand to lend an impulse, as there are
at present everywhere too many. W e avoid the acquaintance of
no one ; yea, we take a pleasure in conversing with papists. This
is all well, if your aim and desire be to reclaim them from their
 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 17

errors, and if you are able to do this, and see that there is any
hope of them remaining. Those who are perverse and desperate
should be left to themselves ; y o u can do them no service, and they
may do you much damage. I commend courtesy in every one,
specially in an academic or man of letters ; but courtesy should not
be so intent upon its duties towards men as to forget piety and its
duty towards God. Bellarmine compares heresy to the plague,
and rightly. F o r the plague does not hang about the outward
limbs, but attacks the heart, immediately poisons it with its venom,
and suddenly destroys him who but a little before was in health ;
then it spreads a fatal contagion to others also, and often pervades
a whole family, sometimes fills the state itself with corpses and
funerals. In like manner heresy especially assails the heart, and
expels faith from the mind ; then creeps further and diffuses itself
over many. If then y o u tender your salvation, approach not
near so deadly a pestilence without an antidote or counterpoison.
Speaking of Alexander the coppersmith, Paul gives this admonition,
2 Tim. iv. 5, " Of whom be thou ware also ; " and subjoins as the
reason of this caution, " for he hath greatly withstood our words."
Those, therefore, who not only cherish in their own minds a perverse
opinion in religion, but cry out against and oppose sound doctrine,
and resist it to the utmost of their power, with such persons it is
perilous and impious to live on pleasant and familiar terms. For,
as the same apostle elsewhere directs, Tit. iii. 10, " A man that is
a heretic, after the first and second admonition, must b e avoided.
F o r he is subverted, and sins against his own conscience, and is
condemned b y his own judgment." Tertullian, in his Prescriptions
against heretics, declares that heresy should be " a v o i d e d as a
deadly fever." N o w " f e v e r , " says h e , " a s is well known, w e
1

regard as an evil, in respect both of its cause and its power, with
abomination rather than with admiration ; and, as far as we can,
strive to avoid it, not having its extinction in our own power. But
heresies inflict eternal death, and the burning of a still intenser
fire." A n d Cyprian, Epist. 4 0 , " F l y far from the contagion of
2

I Febrem ut malum, et de causa et potentia sua, ut notum est, abomi-

1

namur potius quam miramur, et quantum in nobis est prsecavemus, non

habentes abolitionem ejus in nostra potestate: hecreses vero mortem ceter-
nam et majoris ignis ardorem infèrent. Prescript. Hseret. c. ii.]
[ 2
i. e. in Pamelius' edition : but in Fell's (Amstel. 1691) Ep. xliii. p. 82.
The words are : Procul ab hujusmodi hominum contagione discedito, et ser-
r i 2
[WHITAKER.]
18 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES.

such men, and shun b y flight their discourses as a canker or a

pestilence; since the Lord hath forewarned us, saying, ' T h e y are
blind, and leaders of the b l i n d . ' " Similar to this is the admonition
of Jerome, in his Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus : " Beware,
reader, of reading : fly the viper V Thus it behoves us to fly as
poisonous vipers, not only the discourse, but the books and letters
of heretical persons. F o r , as Ambrose says in his 80 th Epistle,
heretics " shed forth the speech of serpentine discourse, and,
turning catholic truth into the madness of their own doctrine,
traduce it after the example of the devil, and deceive the simplicity
of the s h e e p . "
2
If this be true at any time, surely we have felt it
true of the papists in our time. But let us return to the tenor of
our present discourse.
Besides the advantages of this task already enumerated this
should be added, in the third place, that, when a fixed method of
controversies hath been handled and explained b y us, y o u will be
enabled to set down and assign to its proper place and division
whatever y o u may read yourselves in the books of ancient or later
divines of any pertinence to these subjects, or whatever arguments
against the papists may be suggested b y your private meditations.
Many things escape us in the course of our reading or reflexion,
from our not knowing to what head they should be r e f e r r e d ; and
many are ill arranged, so that, although we have noted them down,
yet they do not readily present themselves at the proper time. But
when every thing is duly distributed in meet order, it will be easy both
to copy what we please in its appropriate place, and to find it there
again whenever we chance to have occasion. And perhaps, in this
first essay of ours, some things will be omitted—(though we shall
endeavour not to seem to omit many things and those of principal
importance)—but if any thing be omitted, it will claim its own
place, and (as it were) its proper receptacle, when our work passes
under a second review.
A n d since the new popery, which in general may be called
Jesuitism, differs widely from the old, and the former scholastic

monos eorum velut cancer et pestem fugiendo vitate, prcemonente Domino et

dicente, Caeci sunt et csecorum duces.]
f Cave, Lector, ne legas; fuge viperam.]
1

[ Sermonem serpentina? disputationis effundunt, atque voritatem catho-

2

licam vertendo ad sure doctrinas rabicm diabolico more traducunt, atquo

ovium simplicitatcm defraudant.]
 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 19

divinity delivered many things much otherwise than they are now
maintained b y the Roman church; we must, lest we should seem
to construe the doctrines of the papists otherwise than the practice
of the Roman church requires, or to take for granted what they
grant not, or to ascribe to them opinions which they disclaim, take
care to follow this order, namely, first to inquire what the
council of Trent hath determined upon every question, and then
to consult the Jesuits, the most faithful interpreters of that
council, and other divines, and our countrymen at Rheims amongst
the rest. A n d since Bellarmine hath handled these questions with
accuracy and method, and his lectures are in every body's hands,
we will make him, so to speak, our principal aim, and follow, as it
were, in his very footsteps.
Our arms shall be the sacred scriptures, that sword and shield
of the word, that tower of David, upon which a thousand bucklers
hang, and all the armour of the mighty, the sling and the
pebbles of the brook wherewith David stretched upon the ground
that gigantic and haughty Philistine. Human reasonings and tes-
timonies, if one use them too much or out of place, are like the
armour of Saul, which was so far from helping David that it rather
unfitted him for the conflict. Jerome tells Theophilus of Alexandria,
that " a sincere faith and open confession requires not the artifice
and arguments of w o r d s . "
3
However, since we have to deal with
adversaries who, not content with these arms, use others with
more readiness and pleasure, such as decrees of councils, j u d g -
ments of the fathers, tradition, and the practice of the c h u r c h ;
lest perchance we should appear to shrink from the battle, we have
determined to make use of that sort of weapons also. And, indeed,
I hope to make it plain to you, that all our tenets arc not only
founded upon scriptural authority, which is enough to ensure victory,
but command the additional suffrage of the testimonies of fathers,
councils, and, I will add, even of many of the papists, which is a
distinguished and splendid ornament of our triumph. In every
controversy, therefore, after the sacred scriptures of the old and new
Testaments, we shall apply to the councils, the fathers, and even to
our adversaries themselves; so as to let you perceive that not only
the ancient authors, but even the very adherents of the R o m a n
church, may be adduced as witnesses in the cause. Thus it will bo
clear, that what Jerome, Epist. 1 3 9 , applies out of Isaiah to the

[ Fides pura et aperta confessio non qurcrit stropbas et argumenta

3

verborum. Epist. lxii. ad Theopbil.]

2—2
20 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES.

heretics, that " t h e y weave the spider's thread," is pertinently

applied to the papists. F o r , as Jerome says, they weave a
w e b " w h i c h can catch small and light animals, as flies and gnats,
1

but is broken b y the stronger ones." Just thus many stick fast in
the subtleties of the papists, as flies do in the spider's web, from
which they are unable to extricate themselves, though nothing can
possibly be frailer than those threads. Such are the reasonings of
the papists, even the Jesuits themselves; who, although they seem
to spin their threads with greater skill and artfulness, yet fabricate
nothing but such cobwebs as may easily be broken by any vigorous
effort. B e y e , therefore, of good cheer.' W e have a cause, believe
me, good, firm, invincible. W e fight against men, and we have
Christ on our side ; nor can we possibly be vanquished, unless we
are the most slothful and dastardly of all cowards. Once wrest
from the papists what they adduce beside the scripture, and y o u
will presently see them wavering, turning pale, and unable to keep
their ground. Y e t I do not ascribe to myself all those gifts of
genius, judgment, memory and knowledge, which are demanded
b y such a laborious and busy undertaking. I know well and
acknowledge how slightly I am furnished with such endowments;
nor can any think so meanly of me as myself. But " I can do
all things through Christ who strengtheneth m e ; " relying upon
whose assistance I enter upon the combat. T h e y come against us
with sword, and shield, and a r m o u r : we go against them in the
name of Jehovah of Hosts, of the armies of Israel, whom they have
defied.

But it is now time to distribute the controversies themselves

under their proper heads, that we may see beforehand the order in
which we are to proceed. Bellarmine hath reduced all the con-
troversies to three articles of the C r e e d ; — I believe in the Catholic
Church, the Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of Sins. In
this respect I shall not follow Bellarmine. I have another, and
more certain, plan and method of my own. He could not frame
to his method the controversy concerning scripture, which assuredly
challenges the first place for its nobility and importance. H e there-
fore calls it a Proem, and says that he hath set it before the rest
in the manner of a preface. But since popery is nothing else but
mere antichristianism, it is evident that both must fall under the
same rule and method, and that popery must have in it all the

\} Qute parva et levia capeve potest animalia, ut muscas ot culiccs, a forti-

oribus statim rumpitur. Epist. cxxxix. ad Cvprianum.]
 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 21

heresies which belong to antichristianism. N o w antichristianism

consists not in the open and outward denial of Christ, or in the
worn-out defence of obsolete heresies. F o r who would not imme-
mediately recognise, cry out against and explode, the patrons of
Cerinthus, Valentinus, Arius, Nestorius, and other heresiarchs of
the same complexion ? W h o could tolerate amongst Christians him
who should openly and publicly deny Christ ? Antichrist was not
so stupid as to hope that he would gain much b y such a course as
this. It was not fit, therefore, that antichrist should hold those
errors which may be generally described as touching the nature of
God, the mystery of the Trinity, the person of Christ. But, since
antichrist must needs be the opposite of Christ, the same purpose
must be gained in a more secret and more artful manner. For it
is a certain mystery of iniquity, which in words establishes Christ,
but in fact destroys him. This is the very antichristianism of the
papists, who leave indeed the natures of Christ intact, but make
away with the offices of Christ, and consequently Christ himself.
For Jesus cannot be Christ, if he bear not all his offices and merits.
Now these offices and benefits are designated b y the v e r y names
CHRIST and JESUS. All the heresies of the papists (a very few
excepted, which relate to his person,) concern these offices and
merits of Christ: on which account it will be no inconvenient dis-
tribution of the popish errors and heresies, to set them forth as
they are tenets opposed to Christ and Jesus.
Survey now, I beseech you, this whole body of antichristianism,
as I shall submit it to your inspection, that you may see, as it were
in one view, a monster mis-shapen, vast, horrible, and manifold. F o r
I will present to you the very portraiture and lineaments, drawn
out and expressed as it were with one stroke of the pencil; and
afterwards distribute and describe its limbs more accurately, when
we come to speak severally of each. T h e name of CHRIST denotes
three offices, as y o u know, of Prophet, King, and Priest. That
of JESUS sets before us the benefits of redemption and salvation;
and these latter benefits result from the former offices. F o r he
was anointed to be our Prophet, King, and Priest, in order that he
might discharge the function of our Saviour. Now, therefore, w e
should regard in Christ Jesus his offices and merits as well as his
person. In the former the papists are wholly astray: in regard of
his person they hold not many errors, but they have some. There
are then two chief heads of these controversies; concerning the
offices and benefits of Christ Jesus, and concerning his person.
22 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES.

Hear, therefore, what particular heresies they maintain against

Christ Jesus.
The first office is that of PROPHET, which shews that the func-
tion of supreme teacher is to be ascribed to Christ. This saving
teaching Christ hath proposed to his church in the scriptures. In
defending this office of Christ against the papists we handle
these controversies concerning the scriptures ; of the number of the
canonical books of scripture; of vernacular versions of scripture;
of the perspicuity of scripture; of the authority of scripture; of
the interpretation of scripture; of the perfection of scripture in
opposition to human traditions, upon which our adversaries l a y
such weighty stress as to equal them even to the scriptures them-
selves. H o w far from slight this controversy is, y o u readily
perceive.
T h e second office of Christ is the ROYAL, which all this
heretical opinions of the papists concerning the church impugn.
T h e kingdom of Christ is the c h u r c h ; in it he reigns and is sole
monarch. This controversy is complex, and requires to be dis-
tributed into its several parts. T h e church is either militant or
triumphant. W e must dispute first of the militant, and afterwards
of the triumphant church. Our controversies concern either the
whole church militant, or the members of it. O f the whole—•
what it is ; of what s o r t ; whether visible ; b y what notes dis-
tinguished ; whether it may e r r ; what power it possesses-;
whether the Roman be the true visible church of Christ. Next,
we have to speak of the members of the church. These members
are either collected in a council (which is the representative church),
or considered separately. Here, therefore, we must treat of councils;
whether they must needs be assembled ; b y whom they should be
c o n v o k e d ; of what persons they should consist; what authority
they h a v e ; who should be the chief president in a council;
whether they are above the pope ; whether they may err. Next,
w e come to the several members of the church. N o w they are
divided into three classes. There is the principal member, or
-head, the intermediate members, and the lowest. T h e y affirm
the Roman pontiff to be the head of the church militant: where-
upon the question arises of the form of the church's government;
whether it be, or be not, monarchical; whether the monarchy of the
church was settled upon P e t e r ; whether Peter was bishop of the
church of R o m e , and died t h e r e ; whether the pope succeeds Peter
in his p r i m a c y ; whether he may e r r ; whether he can make laws
 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 23

ecclesiastical ; whether he can canonize saints ; whether he hath

temporal power; whether he be antichrist. The intermediate
members are the clergy, of whom they make two sorts, some
secular, some regular. Those are called secular, who are engaged
in any ecclesiastical function. N o w here arise controversies con-
cerning the election and rank of these persons, whether celibacy
be necessarily attached to the ministry, whether ministers be
exempt from the secular y o k e . T h e regulars are monks and mem-
bers of religious orders. Here we have to discourse of evangelical
counsels, of vows, of retirement, of the dress and labours of monks,
of the canonical hours. T h e lowest members, as they arrange
them, are laymen, even kings or emperors. H e r e we have to in-
quire concerning the civil magistracy ; whether the care of religion
appertains to the civil magistrate ; whether he may punish heretics
capitally ; whether he can ever be excommunicated or deposed b y
the pope ; whether civil laws oblige the conscience. A n d so far of
the church militant.
Next follows the church triumphant; which consists of angels
and deceased saints. T h e controversies are, of the hierarchies,
ministry, and invocation of angels. W h e n we come to deceased
saints, the occasion requires us to dispute, of the limbus patrum,
of purgatory ; whether saints are to be invoked and adored, of the
relics of saints, of the worship of images, of the temples of the
saints, of their festivals, of pilgrimages to their places : and these
controversies are concerning the royal office of Christ.
His third office is that of PRIEST, which includes two functions,
intercession and sacrifice. It pertains to intercession to inquire,
whether Christ be the sole mediator of intercession. In the question
of sacrifice, we shall have to explain the whole b o d y of controversy
concerning the sacraments; for b y the sacraments, as so many
means instituted b y Christ, the efficacy of that sacrifice is derived
to us. W e must treat of sacraments, first generally, and then
specially : generally, what a sacrament is, how many sacraments
there be, what is the efficacy of the sacraments, what the distinction
between the old and new sacraments : specially, concerning each
of the sacraments b y itself ; and first, of baptism, whether those
who die without baptism cannot be saved ; whether laymen or
women can baptize; whether John's baptism was the same as
Christ's ; whether the popish ceremonies are to be used in the ad-
ministration of baptism. After the sacrament of baptism, we have
to speak of the eucharist, which topic contains most important con-
24 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES.

troversies, of transubstantiation, of the sacrifice of the mass, of com-

munion in one kind. Next follow the five sacraments of the papists,
upon which great controversies depend, of confirmation, of penance
(where we shall have to treat of contrition, confession, satisfaction,
indulgences), of extreme unction, of orders, of matrimony; and all
these controversies hitherto set forth belong to those three prime
offices, which are signified by the name of CHRIST.
Next we have to handle controversies concerning the benefits
of our redemption and salvation, which are indicated b y the v e r y
name of JESUS. Here first arise questions concerning predestination
and reprobation; whether God hath predestinated or reprobated
any persons, on what account he hath done so, whether predesti-
nation be absolute. N e x t we have to treat of sin, what it is, how
manifold, whether all are born with the infection of original sin,
even the virgin Mary ; whether all sins be equal; whether any sin
be venial of itself; whether concupiscence after baptism be s i n ;
whether G o d be the author of sin. Next in order, we must speak
of the law, whether it can be fulfilled, and even more done than
it commands. Afterwards we must explain the controversy con-
cerning free-will; faith, what it is and how manifold; good works
and merits; justification.
In the last place, there remain a few questions concerning the
person of Christ, as whether he is auToQeos; whether he increased
in w i s d o m ; whether he suffered in his soul the pains of hell, and
whatever others there be of this sort.
Y o u have now the principal classes and heads of those contro-
versies which are contested with the greatest earnestness between
us and our adversaries at the present day. Y o u see almost the
whole mass and b o d y of the popish heresies. In considering, r e -
volving, and explicating these matters it becomes us now to be
wholly occupied. W e must begin from the first, and proceed
through the intermediate to the last, at which we hope at length
to arrive, and pray that the issue may correspond to our hope and
wishes.
 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

QUESTION I.

C H A P T E R I. .

WHEREIN THIS WHOLE CONTROVERSY IS DISTRIBUTED INTO ITS

PARTICULAR QUESTIONS.

W E will lay the foundation of this controvery in those words

of Christ which are to be found in the fifth chapter of St John's
Gospel at the thirty-ninth verse : 'Epeware Tar ypa(pa$, SEARCH
THE SCRIPTURES. Christ had been commended to the Jews b y
the testimony of John the Baptist. That testimony was most
true and honourable; and could not be despised b y the Jews
themselves, amongst whom John lived in the highest respect and
estimation. Y e t Christ declares that he had others greater, more
certain and more august than the testimony of John. H e enume-
rates three of them : first, the works which he p e r f o r m e d ;
secondly, his Father who had sent him ; thirdly, the holy scrip-
tures themselves, which he calls his witnesses. The Jews, indeed,
thought honourably of the scriptures, and supposed that eternal
life might be found in them. N o r does Christ blame in the least
that judgment of theirs concerning the scriptures, but rather praises
it. H e bids them g o on to " search the scriptures;" he inflames in
every way their zeal for the scriptures, and sharpens their industry.
F o r he exhorts them not only to read, but search and thoroughly
examine the scriptures: he would not have them content with a
slight perusal, but requires an assiduous, keen, laborious diligence
in examining and investigating their meaning, such as those apply
who search with anxious toil for treasures buried in the earth.
N o w since Christ hath bid us search the scriptures without
exception, not this part, or that part, or the other, it is mani-
fest that in these words we are commanded to search the whole o f
scripture; not to confine ourselves to certain portions of it, while
we despise or overlook the rest. A l l parts give plain testimony to
Christ. But the scriptures arc praised b y the papists, as well as
26 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

highly esteemed b y us ; nor is there any controversy, whether

the scriptures are to be searched. But concerning the due man-
ner of searching them, and who they are to whom that care
appertains, and concerning the scriptures themselves, which we all
unanimously affirm should be searched, there is a most important con-
troversy, which I shall now attempt to explain. In order to effect
this clearly and methodically, I think it may be all divided into six
questions, after the following manner.
W e are commanded to search the scriptures: and for that
purpose we must first understand, what are those genuine books
of scripture, in searching and turning over which it behoves us to
be occupied. The first question therefore shall be, Of the num-
ber of the canonical books of scripture.
W e are commanded to search the scriptures: and therefore
we must next consider, to whom this precept is addressed; whether
only to the learned, and those skilled in the ancient languages,
or to all the faithful. The second question therefore shall be,
Of versions of the scripture and sacred rites in the vulgar
tongue.
W e are commanded to search the scriptures: whence it appears
that the scriptures enjoy a v e r y high dignity and authority, since
Christ himself appeals and refers us to them. T h e third question
therefore shall be, Of the authority of scripture ; whether it have
this so great credibility and dignity of itself, and from the H o l y
Ghost its author, or from the testimony of the church.
W e are commanded to search the scriptures: whence some
hope appears to be shewn that we shall come to understand them,
and gain much profit b y the search, if we do as we are commanded.
Therefore the fourth question shall be, Of the perspicuity of
scripture.
W e are commanded to search the scripture; that is, to seek
and investigate the true sense of scripture, since the scripture lies
wholly in the meaning. Therefore the fifth question shall be, Of
the interpretation of scripture; how it is to be interpreted, and
who has the right and authority of interpretation.
W e are commanded to search the scripture: and" under the
name of scripture the written word of God is plainly understood.
Here then we must consider whether we are only bound to search
the scripture, or whether, beside the scripture, something else be
commended to our investigations. Therefore the sixth and last
question shall be, Of the perfection of scripture; which I shall
 QUESTION THE FIRST, 27

prove to be so absolutely complete that we should wholly acquiesco

in it, and need desire nothing more, and that unwritten traditions
are b y no means necessary for us.
These questions I purpose to treat in the order in which I have
proposed them.

C H A P T E R II.

CONCERNING THE STATE OF THE FIRST QUESTION.

THE books of scripture are called canonical, because they con-

tain the standard and rule of our faith and morals. F o r the scrip-
ture is in the church what the law is in a state, which Aristotle
in his Politics calls a canon o r rule. A s all citizens are bound to
live and behave agreeably to the public laws, so Christians should
square their faith and conduct b y the rule and law of scripture.
So, in Eusebius , the holy fathers accuse Paul of Samosata of
1

departing from the rule {a-jroaTas ano TOV KCLVOVOS), and becoming
the author of an heretical opinion. So Tertullian, in his book
against H e r m o g e n e s , calls the scripture the rule of faith; and
2

Cyprian says, in his discourse upon the baptism of Christ: " One
will find that the rules o f all doctrine are derived from this scrip-
ture ; and that, whatever the discipline of the church contains
springs hence, and returns h i t h e r . " Chrysostom too, in his 13th
3

L 1
OTTOV 5e airovTas TOV KCIVOVOS e 7 r i KtftdijXa Kai. voBa Sibayixara fi*Tc\ri-

\v6ev, nvdev Set rov e£a OVTOS Tas npa^eis Kpivew. H. E. VII. 3 0 . T. 3. p.
3 9 1 . ed. Heinich. Lips. 1 8 2 8 . But it is most probably the Creed that is
there meant.]
[ Whitaker most probably refers to the famous passage, c. xxii. " Adoro
2

plenitudinem scripturse," &c. cited below, Qu. 6. c. xri., and produced also
by Cosin (Scholastical History of the Canon, chap. i. §. 1.) in proof that the
Church always regarded scripture as " t h e infallible RULE of our FAITH."
Some, however, suppose that Tertullian refers to scripture, and not the
Creed, in these words: " Solemus hsereticis compendii gratia de postoritato
prscscribere: in quantum eniin veritatis regula prior, qua? etiam futuras
hcereses pramuntiavit, in tantum posteriores quajque doctrinal hajroscs pra;-
judicabuntur." Adv. Hermog. i. (Opp. P. iv. p. 1. ed. Leopold. Lipsire, 1 8 4 1 . )
For the Creed contains no prediction of heresies.]
[ This treatise, falsely ascribed to Cyprian, may bo found in the works
3

of Arnold ofChartres (Carnotensis) subjoined to Fell's Cyprian (Amstel. 1 0 9 1 ) -

The passage cited is at p. 3 3 : " Inveniet ex hac scriptura omnium doctrjna-
28 THE 1'IRST CONTROVERSY.

H o m i l y upon 2 Corinthians calls scripture the exact balance, and

standard, and rule of all things." F o r the same.reason Augustine
affirms, that " whatever belongs to faith and moral life may b e
found in the scriptures ; ' and he calls the scripture the scales, in
1 1

the following passage: " L e t us not apply deceitful scales, where

we may weigh what we wish, and as we w i s h ; but let us bring
God's own scales from the holy scriptures," &c.
So Basil calls the sacred doctrine " t h e canon of rectitude and
rule of truth," which fails in no part of perfection: and Ruffinus,
in his exposition of the creed, after enumerating the books of
scripture, adds, " These are the books which the fathers included
in the canon, and from which they willed that the assertions of our
faith should be d e m o n s t r a t e d ; " and then he subjoins: " F r o m
2

these fountains of the divine word our cups are to be d r a w n . " 3

Aquinas too lays down, that " the doctrine of the apostles and
prophets is called canonical, because it is, as it were, the rule of
our intellect ." Hence it plainly appears w h y the scriptures are
4

called canonical;—because they prescribe to us what we must

believe, and how we ought to l i v e : so that we should refer to this
test our whole faith and life, as the mason or architect squares his
work b y the line and plummet. Hence, too, we may perceive that
the scripture is perfect, since otherwise the title of canon or rule
could hardly be applied to i t ; upon which point we shall have to
speak under the sixth question.
N o w these books, which are called canonical, are comprised in
the old and new Testaments, and are therefore styled Testa-
mentary. So Eusebius calls these books ev^iaQriKovs ; and Nice- 5

phorus often uses the same term. Some also call them SiaOrjuo-

rum regulas emanasse; et hinc nasci, et hue reverti, quidquid ecclesiastica

continet disciplina." But Arnold is not speaking of the whole scripture, but
of the command to love God.]
[ l
See these passages cited more fully below. Qu. 6. c. 16.]
[ Hffic sunt quse patres intra canonem concluserunt; ex quibus fidei
2

nostrse assertiones constare voluerunt. Ad Calc. Opp. Cypriani, p. 26, ut

supra.]
[ Hsec nobis a patribus, ut dixi, tradita opportunum visum est hoc in
3

loco designare, ad instructionem eorum qui prima sibi ecclesias ac fidei

elementa suscipiunt, ut sciant ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi Dei haurienda
sint pocula. Ibid. p. 27.]
[ Doctrina apostolorum et prophetarum canonica dicitur, quia est quasi
4

regula intellectus nostri. Thomaj Aquin. in 1 Tim. vi. Lect. 1.]

[ 6
H. E. Lib. V. C 25. OVK evbiadrjKovs jxh, aXXa Kai avTikeyonhovs.]
II.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 29

ypa(povs. The question, then, between us and the papists is,

What books are to be esteemed canonical and testamentary. Con-
cerning many, and indeed the principal ones, we are a g r e e d : con-
cerning some we are at variance. But, in order that the true state
of this question may be understood, we must see, in the first place,
what the council of Trent hath determined upon this subject. Its
words are as follows: " The synod hath deemed it fitting that a
catalogue of the sacred books should be subjoined to this decree,
lest any should have occasion to doubt what books are received b y
it ."
6
Then it recites the books which are truly canonical, and
are received b y us without any hesitation. But it subjoins others
which we do not acknowledge as canonical. Such are these six
b o o k s : Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, two books of Mac-
cabees. These are the books of the old Testament. Afterwards,
it enumerates the books of the new Testament, all of which we
receive without any controversy, although they were not always
alike received in the church, as you shall hear in the sequel.
Finally, the council concludes in these words : " Whoever does not
receive these books entire with all their parts, as they are con-
tained in the ancient Latin Vulgate, for sacred and canonical, let
him be a c c u r s e d ! "
7
Here you have the decree of the Tridentine
council, and the terrible sanction of that decree. From these pre-
mises it now appears that we are required b y the Tridentine
fathers, if we would escape their anathema, to receive as autho-
ritative canonical scripture not only those six entire books which
w e have mentioned, but besides certain parts of and additions to
the books, as Baruch, the H y m n of the three Children, the histo-
ries of Susannah and Bel and the Dragon, which are attributed to
Daniel, and certain apocryphal chapters of the book of E s t h e r :
for it is thus that the Jesuits interpret the meaning of this decree.
N o w , therefore, the state of the question is this; whether these
books, and these parts of books, should be received for sacred and
canonical scriptures ? T h e y affirm : we deny. I t remains that we
should proceed to the discussion. I will first answer their arguments,
and then proceed to the defence of our c a u s e ; which course I

[ Sacrorum vero librorum indicem huic decreto adhibendum censuit, no

6

cui dubitatio suboriri possit, quinam sint, qui ab ipsa synodo suscipiuntur.
Conoil. Trid. Sess. iv. Decret. 1.]
[' Si quis autem hos libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus,
prout in ecclesia catholioa legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata editione
habcntur, pro sacris et canonicis non suscoperit. . . . Anathema sit. Ibid.]
30 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

intend to follow throughout, because I deem it most suitable to the

matter we have in hand, and I perceive that it hath been gene-
rally adopted b y Aristotle. A n d since, as Nazianzen tells us>
" every argument is designed either to establish our own opinionj
or overturn the opposite ," I will choose first to overturn the oppo-
1

site opinion, and then to establish m y own.

CHAPTER III.

CONCERNING THOSE HERETICS WHO WERE GUILTY OF SACRILEGE

AGAINST THE SACRED AND CANONICAL SCRIPTURES.

BUT, before I proceed, I deem it necessary for you to censure

the madness of certain ancient heretics, who impiously removed
some certain and undoubted parts of scripture from the sacred
canon. Such heretics, indeed, there were in great numbers, as we
read in Irenseus, Tertullian, Epiphànius, Augustine, and others.
I shall not endeavour to go through them all, but will enumerate
for y o u the principal.
First of all, the Sadducees received no scriptures but the five
books of Moses . This many suppose to have been the reason
2

w h y Christ (Matt, xxii.) refutes the Sadducees denying the resur-

rection, b y the testimony of the Mosaic scripture. Simon, follow-
ing in their steps, declared that the prophets were not at all to be
r e g a r d e d ; as Irenseus testifies , Lib. i. c. 2 0 .
3
The Manichees
rejected the whole old Testament, as proceeding from the evil God :
for they imagined two gods, the one good and the other evil. E p i -
phànius has treated upon this subject, Hasres. Ixvi. So Saturninus
rejected the God of the Jews, and consequently the whole old
Testament, as Irenseus tells us, Lib. i. c. 2 2 . The impious M a r -
4

cion insulted with a load of reproaches the G o d who is preached in

the law and the prophets, and held that Christ had come to d i s r
[} AITTOV OVTOS \6yov Tvavrbs, TOV peu TO OIKÛOV Karao-KevafavTos, TOV 8è t o

avTLTrakovavarpewovTos. Orat. xxxT. p. 5 6 2 . A. Nazianz. Opp. T. I. Colon. 1 6 9 0 . ]

[ This common notion is reasonably doubted by many. See Jortin's
2

Remarks, B. xi. Appendix 1, on the Sadducees, Vol. I. p. 4 3 9 . ]

[ Prophetas autem a mundi fabricatoribus angelis inspiratos dixisse pro-
3

phetias ; quapropter nec ulterius curarent eos hi, qui in eum et in Selenen
ejus spom habeant. P. 1 1 6 . B. ed. Fevard. Paris. 1 6 8 5 . ]
[* Judœorum Deum unum ex angelis esse dixit, e t . . . advenisse Christum
ad destructiouem Judœorum Dei Prophetias autem quasdam quidem
III.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 31

solve the law and the prophets, and the works of that God who
made the world. This Irenseus tells u s , Lib. i. c. 2 9 . Such frantic
5

men Christ himself expressly refutes b y his own words, when he

!­:ays, that he did not come to destroy the law and the prophets,
but to fulfil. Matt. v. 17. This heresy Augustine also imputes to
the Cerdonians, whom he affirms to hold the old Testament in con­
t e m p t , (Ad Quod vult Deum, c. 2 1 ) , and to the Severians, of
6

whom he writes, " T h e y condemn the resurrection of the flesh and

the old Testament ," (ibid. c. 24.)7
Guido Cameracensis reckons
this also amongst the heresies of the Albigenses. This heresy is
refuted b y E piphanius, in the place which I have already cited,
and most copiously b y Augustine against Faustus the Manichee,
and against the adversary of the law and the prophets.
T h e Ptolemasans condemned the books of Moses , as E pipha­ 8

nius relates, Haares. xxxiii. T h e Nicolaitans and Gnostics ejected

the book of Psalms from the sacred canon, as Philaster informs us,
(in Lib. de Ыюг. с. 1 2 7 ) ; which heresy the Anabaptists have
renewed in our times. But all these heretics are refuted b y the
clearest evidence of the new Testament.
Many formerly, as Philaster relates (in Cat. c. 1 3 2 , 1 3 3 ) ,
rejected the books of Solomon, and especially E cclesiastes and
the Song of S o n g s ; because in the former Solomon seems to invite
men to a life of pleasure, and in the latter, to relate certain
amatory discourses between himself and Pharaoh's daughter. But
it is plain that these men fell into a manifest and impious error.
F o r in E cclesiastes Solomon does not allure men to enjoy the
pleasures and blandishments of the world, but rather deters them
from such pleasures, and exhorts them, with a divine eloquence, to

ab iis angelis qui mimdum fabricaverunt dictas; quasdam autom a Satana,

quem ot ipsum angelum adversarium mundi fabricatoribus ostendit; maximo
autom Judceorum Deo. Ibid. p. .118, c ]
[ Marcion . . . impudorate blasphemans eum qui a logo et prophetis an­
5

nunciatus est D e u s . . . Jesum autem [dicens] . . . venientem in Judaiam . . .

dissolventem prophetas et legem, et omnia opera ejus Dei qui mundum
fecit. Ibid. p. 1 2 9 , A.]
[ Resurrectionem mortuorum negat, spernens etiam Testamentum Vetus.
6

Augustini Opp. T. VIII. col. 4 3 , A. Piiris. 1 8 3 7 . ]

[? Carnis resurrectionem cum Vetere Testamento rospuontes. Ibid, c ]
[8
Пара yap roh clp-qpivois ка\ rov vopov TOV GeoC TOV Sia Моплге'мг
рХао-фщши QVK alcrxvvcTac. E d. Petav. Colon. 1 6 8 2 . T. i. p. 2 1 6 . See the
curious epistle of Ptolemoeus to Flora, which he there subjoins, given also by
Grabc, Spicil. 1 1 . 6 9 . ]
32 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

despise and contemn the present world. Thus at the v e r y c o m -

mencement he exclaims, " Vanity of vanities, all is v a n i t y : "
in which words he declares that all those things which are sought
after in this world, are uncertain, transitory, and fallacious. Whence
it necessarily follows that those are mad who acquiesce in the
enjoyment of such objects. A n d so (after having disputed through
the whole book against those who pursue these pleasures so
greedily, and desire to satisfy themselves with such goods, what-
ever they are) he at the close teaches that happiness consists not,
as many suppose, in things of this kind, but in true piety, and
thus concludes : " Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this
is the whole of man." This is not the judgment of an Epicurus,
but of a holy prophet, withdrawing foolish men from the pursuit
of worthless objects, and recalling them into the true path of a
pious and a happy life.
In the Song, if Solomon had wished to praise his wife, he
would not have used such prodigious and absurd comparisons. F o r
he compares her to the cavalry of Pharaoh, her head to Carmel,
her eyes to fish-ponds, her nose to a tower, her teeth to a
flock of sheep ; and finally pronounces her whole person terrible
as an army. Such things do not suit the daughter of Pharaoh
and the bride of Solomon. T h e y must, therefore, be referred
to the mystic bride of another Solomon,—that is, to the Church
of Christ, whose consummate union of faith and love with her
spouse this whole book sets f o r t h ; as, indeed, all men of sound
judgment have always determined. N o r is the fact, that none of
the customary names of God occur in this book, any proof that
it is not canonical. F o r , although such names are omitted, y e t
others are used of the same kind and importance, as shepherd,
brother, friend, beloved, spouse, which were much more suitable to
the style of such a p i e c e : since he, whom the bride so often
addresses under these names, is no other than Christ, at once the
true Son of God, and the true God himself.
W e care little for the impious Anabaptists, who reject this b o o k
with contempt; nor can we at all excuse Castalio , if he really wrote
1

f 1 write the name thus in conformity with Whitaker's usage; but the
1

correct form is Castellio. See the curious history of the origin of the other
form in Bayle, CASTALIO, Rem. M. With respect to the imputation men-
tioned in the text, Varillas charges it upon Castellio more definitely, stating
this injurious opinion of the Canticles to be avowed by him in his argument
to that book. Bayle observes, that in five editions of Castellio's bible which he
III.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 33

what some object to h i m ; — t h a t this book is nothing hut a convert

sation which Solomon held with his Sulamith.
The Anabaptists are said, at the present day, to reject and
ridicule' the t o o k of J o b , and some have written that it is called
b y those heretics a Hebrew Tragi-Comedy. This they would seem-
to have learned from the wicked J e w s : for certain rabbins,
authors of the Talmudic fables, affirm that it is a fictitious story,
2

and no such man ever existed. The impudence of these persons is

refuted b y other testimonies of scripture. F o r , in Ezekiel xiv. 1 4 ,
the L o r d says : " I f these three men were in the midst thereof,
Noah, Daniel, and J o b , & c . " Whence we perceive that J o b must
have really existed, as no one doubts that Noah and Daniel did.
Paul too cites a clear testimony from this book (1 Cor. iii. 1 9 ) :
" H e taketh the wise in their own craftiness;" which words we
find, in J o b v. 1 3 , to have been pronounced b y Eliphaz. The
apostle James, also, hath mentioned this man, James v. 1 1 . Hence
it is manifest that this was a true history, and that the b o o k itself
is canonical, and that they who determine otherwise are to b e
esteemed as heretics.
Jerome, in the Proem of his Commentaries on Daniel , relates 3

that P o r p h y r y the philosopher wrote a volume against the book of

our prophet Daniel, and affirmed that what is now extant under
the name of Daniel, was not published b y the ancient prophet, but
b y some later Daniel, who lived in the times of Antiochus Epipha-
nes. But we need not regard what the impious P o r p h y r y may
have written, who mocked at all the scriptures and religion itself,

examined, he could find no argument to that book whatever. However, in the

London edition of the Latin bible (in 4 vols. 12mo. 1726), there is the follow-
ing : " Colloquium Servatoris et Ecclesice. Domestici in Ecclesia? (Ecclesia)
hostes. Servator, lilium Columba. Solomo Christi Imago. Ad puellas vir,
et ad virum puellaj. Ecclesi» pulchritudo. Servatoris in Ecclesiam Stu-
dium. Ecclesia vinea copiosa."]
[ Nosti quosdam esse, qui dicunt Jobum nunquam fuisse, neque creatum
2

esse; sed historiam ejus nihil aliud esse quam parabolam. Maimonides,
Moreh Nevoch. par. m . c. 22. Compare Manasseh Ben Israel, de Resurr.
Mort. p. 123.]
[ Contra prophetam Danielem duodecimum librum scripsit Porphyrius,
3

nolens eum ab ipso, cujus inscriptus est nomine, esse compositum, sed a quo-
dam qui temporibus Antiochi Epiphanis fuerit in Judsea; et non tarn Danie-
lem ventura dixisse, quam ilium narrasse prseterita. T . ni. p. 1071, &c. ed.
Bened.]
3
[WHITAKER.]
34 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

and whose calumnies were refuted b y Eusebius, Apollinarius and

Methodius , as Jerome testifies in the above-cited place. So far
1

concerning the old Testament.

T h e new Testament, also, was formerly assaulted in various
ways b y heretics and others. T h e Manichees shewed themselves,
no less impious and sacrilegious towards the books of the new T e s -
tament than they were towards those of the old. T h e y were not
afraid to say that the books of the apostles and evangelists were
stuffed full of l i e s : which madness and frenzy o f theirs Augustine
hath most learnedly confuted in his thirty-second book against
Faustus the Manichee.
Others received no gospel but that o f Luke, and hardly any
other part of the new Testament; as Cerdon and his disciple Marcion.
Tertulliari speaks of these towards the end of his Prescriptions : 2

" Cerdon receives only the gospel of Luke, nor even that entire.
H e takes the epistles of Paul, but neither all of them, nor in their
integrity. H e rejects the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse
as false. After him appeared his disciple, Marcion b y name, who
endeavoured to support the heresy of Cerdon." These men took
away almost the whole contents of the new Testament.
T h e Valentinians admitted no gospel but that of John, as I r e -
nasus tells u s ; (Lib. HI. c. 11.) which, error the papists charge on
3

Luther also, but most falsely, as they themselves well know. The
Alogians , on the contrary, rejected all John's writings, and were
4

so called because they would not acknowledge as G o d the L o g o s ,

[1 Cui solertissime responderunt Csesariensis Episcopus Apollinarius

quoque et ante hos, ex parte, Methodius. Ibid.]
[ Solum Evangclium Lucas, nec totum recipit, Apostoli Pauli neque om-
2

nes neque totas epístolas sumit; Acta Apostolorum et Apocalypsin quasi

falsa rejicit. Post hunc discipulus ipsius emersit, Marcion quidam nomine...
haeresin Cerdonis approbare conatus est. c. 51. This piece, which forms
the concluding part of the Prescriptions (from c. 45), seems the work of
some later hand.]
[ Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem ple-
3

nissime utentes ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum, ex ipso detegentur

nihil recte dicentes. p. 258, D.]
Lardner, History of Heretics, chap. 23 (Works, 4to ed., Vol. iv. p. 690),
considers the existence of such a heresy very doubtful; but I cannot see
sufficient ground for all his suspicions. However, it is hard to believe that
any men in their senses ever ascribed all John's writings to Cerinthus, as
Epiphanius seems to say, p. 424.]
III.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 35

whom John declares to b e God in the beginning of his gospel.

This is related b y Epiphanius (Hser. L i b . i.), who g a v e them this
appellation upon that account.
Irenseus relates (Lib. i. c. 26.), that the Ebionites received
5

only the gospel according to Matthew, and rejected the apostle

Paul as an apostate from the law.
The Severians made no account of the Acts of the Apostles, as
Eusebius informs us, Lib. iv. c. 2 7 . 6

T h e Marcionites rejected both epistles to Timothy, the epistle

to Titus, and the epistle to the Hebrews, as Epiphanius records,
Hser. XLII. 7

Chrysostom and J e r o m e , in the Preface to the epistle of Paul

8

to Philemon, testify that it was b y some not received as canonical;

which conclusion they were led into b y considering that human
frailty could not bear the continual uninterrupted action of the
H o l y Ghost, and that the apostles must have spoken some things
b y a mere human spirit. Amongst these they classed this epistle,
as containing in it nothing worthy of an apostolic and divine au-
thority, or useful to us. Chrysostom refutes this opinion, with
9

much truth and beauty, in the Argument of this epistle, and teaches
us that many noble and necessary lessons may be learned from i t :
first, that we should extend our solicitude to the meanest p e r s o n s :
secondly, that we should not despair of slaves, (and therefore, still
less of freemen,) however wicked and abandoned: thirdly, that it is
not lawful for any one to withdraw a slave from his master under
pretence of religion: fourthly, that it is our duty not to be ashamed
of slaves, if they b e honest men. W h o now will say that this
epistle is useless to us, from which w e may learn so many and

[ Solo autem eo quod est secundum Matthseum Evangelio utuntur, et

6

Apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatam esse eum Legis dicentes. p. 127, c ]

[0 3\ao-(pr]p.ovVTes Se TLavkov TOV dirooroKov, dderovo-iv airrov ras emo-roKas,
firjSe ras irpd^eis rav cmoo-ToKav Karabexd^voi. T. r. p. 409.]
p 'EirurroXas trap' UVT& TOV ayiov dwocrrokov 8ena, ah povais KexP1 ' §• 9. Tal

T. i. p. 309. D.]
[ Volunt aut epistolam non esse Pauli, quse ad Philemonem scribitur;
8

aut etiam si Pauli sit, nihil habere quod edificare nos possit.—Hieron. prsef.
in Ep. ad. Philem. T. rv. p. 442.]
[ The best edition of Chrysostom's admirable Commentary on the epistle
9

to Philemon is that by Raphelius, subjoined to Vol. n. of his Annotationes

PhilologicEe. Lugd. Bat. 1747. The reader will find the passage here re-
ferred to at pp. 28, 30, 32.]
3—2
36 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [en.

such distinguished lessons ? Forasmuch, therefore, as this epistle

was both written b y Paul, and contains in it such excellent in-
struction, it ought not b y any means to be rejected.
Such, then, was the opinion, or rather the mad raving of the
heretics concerning the sacred books. There were others also, who
either rejected altogether certain books and parts of books of the
new Testament, or else allowed them no great authority, whom it is
not necessary to enumerate: for we must not spend too much time in
recording or refuting such persons. But the Schwenkfeldtians and 1

Libertines, proceeding to a still greater length in their wickedness,

despise the whole scripture, and insult it with many reproaches,
holding that we should attend not to what the scriptures speak,
but to what the Spirit utters and teaches us internally. Of these,
Hosius Polonus writes thus, in his b o o k concerning the express
word of G o d : " W e will dismiss the scriptures, and rather listen
to God speaking to us, than return to those beggarly elements.
One is not required to be learned in the law and scriptures, but to
b e taught of God. Vain is the labour which is expended upon
scripture: for the scripture is a creature and a beggarly sort of
element ."
2
Many passages of scripture condemn this monstrous
heresy. Christ s a y s : " Search the scriptures." Paul s a y s :
" Whatsoever things were written of old time were written for our
learning." R o m . xv. 4. And elsewhere: " All scripture is given
b y inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for correction,
for reproof, and for instruction in righteousness." 2 Tim. iii. 1 6 .
There are innumerable such testimonies, b y which the authority of
the scriptures is fully proved, and the blasphemy of these men
refuted; against which our divines have also written many e x -
cellent discourses.

A t the same time that we justly condemn the heresies which

I have mentioned, we cannot but wholly disapprove the opinion of
those, who think that the sacred writers have, in some places, fallen

[} So called from Gaspar Schwenckfeldt, a Silesian knight, and counsellor

to the Duke of Lignitz, who died in 1 5 6 1 . See an account of him in Mos-
heim, Cent. xvi. Sect. in. part n. c. 1, §§ 2 3 , 2 4 . ]
[ N o s . . . ipsas scripturas... facessere jubebimus, et Deum loquentem
2

potius audiemus,... quam ad egena ista elementa nos convertamus.. . . Non

oportet legis et scriptura? peritum esse, sed a Deo doctum. Vanus est labor
qui scriptural impenditur: scriptura enim creatura est, et egenum quoddam
elementum.—Hos. Op. Col. 1 5 8 1 . De express. Dei Verbo. Tom. i. p. 6 2 4 . ]
III.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 37

into mistakes. That some of the ancients were of this opinion

appears from the testimony of Augustine, who maintains, in oppo-
sition to t h e m , " that the evangelists are free from all falsehood,
3

both from that which proceeds from deliberate deceit, and that
which is the result of forgetfulness." ( D e Cons. Ev. Lib. 11. c. 12.)
Consequently, Jerome judged wrong, if he really judged, as Erasmus
supposes , " t h a t the evangelists might have fallen into an error of
4

m e m o r y . " Erasmus himself, indeed, determines that it is neither

impious nor absurd to think s o ; and allows it possible that Matthew,
for instance, in that place of his 27th chapter, may have put the
name of Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Upon which place Erasmus
writes t h u s : " But although this were a slip of memory merely in
the name, I do not suppose that one ought to be so over-scrupulous
as that the authority of the whole scripture should seem invalidated
on that account .'" But it does not become us to be so easy and
5

indulgent as to concede that such a lapse could be incident to the

sacred writers. T h e y wrote as they were moved b y the H o l y
Ghost, as Peter tells us, 2 Pet. i. 2 1 . A n d all scripture is inspired
of God, as Paul expressly writes, 2 Tim. iii. 1 6 . Whereas, there-
fore, no one may say that any infirmity could befall the H o l y
Spirit, it follows that the sacred writers could not be deceived, or
err, in any respect. Here, then, it becomes us to be so scrupulous
as not to allow that any such slip can be found in scripture. For,
whatever Erasmus may think, it is a solid answer which Augustine
gives to J e r o m e : " I f any, even the smallest, lie be admitted in
the scriptures, the whole authority of scripture is presently inva-
lidated and d e s t r o y e d . "
6
That form which the prophets use so

[ Omnem autem falsitatem abesse ab Evangelistis decet, non solum earn

3

quaj mentiendo promitur, sed etiam earn quse obliviscendo.—Aug. Opp. T. in.
P. II. 1310. B.]
[* Erasmus (loc. infra citat.) gives Jerome's own words from his epistle
de optimo genere interpret'andi: Accusent Apostolum falsitatis, quod nec cum
Hebraico nec cum Septuaginta congruat translatoribus, et, quod his majus
est, erret in nomine: pro Zacbaria quippe Hieremiam posuit. Sod absit hoc
de pedissequo Christi dicere, cui curse fuit non verba et syllabas aucupari,
sed sententias dogmatum ponere.—Epist. ci. T. n. p. 334. Antv. 1579.]
[ Ceterum etiamsi fuisset in nomine duntaxat memorise lapsus, non opi-
5

nor quemquam adeo morosum esse oporteret, ut ob earn causam totius scrip-
turso sacrse labasceret auctoritas.—Erasm. Annot. p. 107. Froben. Basil. 1535.]
[ Si mendacium aliquod in scripturis vel levissimum admittatur, scrip-
G

turse auctoritatem omnem mox labefactari ac convelli.—This is the quotation

as given by Whitaker in his text. The following is probably the passage
38 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

often, " Thus saith the L o r d , " is to be attributed also to the apostles
and evangelists. F o r the H o l y Spirit dictated to them whatever
things they w r o t e ; whose grace (as Ambrose writes, Lib. n. in Luc.)
" k n o w s nothing of slow struggles ." 1
Hence neither can that be
tolerated which Melchior Canus has alleged, (Lib. 11. c. 1 8 . ad 6)
in explanation of a certain difficulty in the Acts of the Apostles,
chap. vii. 1 6 ; where Stephen says, that Abraham bought a se-
pulchre from the sons of Emmor, whereas Moses relates that the
sepulchre was purchased b y Jacob, not b y Abraham. Canus thinks
that Stephen might have made a mistake in relating so long a
history, but that Luke committed no error, since he faithfully r e -
corded what Stephen said . But that answer draws the knot tighter,
2

instead of loosing i t : for Stephen was not only full of the H o l y

Ghost, but is even said to have spoken b y the H o l y Ghost. Acts
vi. 1 0 . Stephen, therefore, could no more have mistaken than
L u k e ; because the H o l y Ghost was the same in L u k e and in
Stephen, and had no less force in the one than in the other. Be-
sides, if we concede that Stephen mistook or was deceived, I do not
see how he can excuse Luke for not rectifying the error. Therefore
w e must maintain intact the authority of scripture in such a sense
as not to allow that anything is therein delivered otherwise than the
most perfect truth required. Wherefore I cannot understand with
what degree of prudence and consideration Jerome can have written
that, which he says is to be noted, in his Questions upon Genesis:
" W h e r e v e r the apostles or apostolical men speak to the people,
they generally use those testimonies which had gotten into common
use amongst the n a t i o n s . "
3

intended: Admisso enim semel in tantum auctoritatis fastigium officioso ali-

quo mendacio, nulla illorum librorum particula remanebit, &c. Epist. xix.
Tom. II. p. 1 4 . ]
[ Nescit tarda molimina Sancti Spiritus gratia, c. xix.
J
Ambros. Opp.
T. v. p. 4 6 . Paris. 1 8 3 8 . ]
[ Stephano id quod vulgo solet accidisse, ut in longa videlicet narratione,
2

eademque pnesertim subita, confuderit nonnulla et miscuerit, in quibusdam

etiam memoria lapsus f u e r i t ; . . . . Lucas vero, historic veritatem retinere
volens, ne iota quidem immutavit, sed rem ut a Stephano narrata erat ex-
posuit.—Melch. Cani Loc. Theolog. fol. 8 9 . 2. Colon. Agripp. 1 5 8 5 . ]
[ Ubicunque Sancti Apostoli aut Apostolici viri loquuntur ad populos,
3

iis plerumque testimoniis abutuntur, qua? jam fuerant in gentibus dryulgata.

—Hieron. Qua3st. Hebr. in Genes. T. ni. p. 4 6 8 . ]
IV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 39

CHAPTER IV.

WHEREIN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ADVERSARIES IS PROPOSED

AND CONFUTED.

HAVING now premised a brief explanation of these matters, we

will come to the discussion of the cause and question proposed. A n d
first, we shall have to treat of the six entire books, Tobit, Judith,
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of Maccabees, all together;
and then, of those several books taken separately, as likewise of
those fragments and parts of books, Esther, Baruch, &c.
Our adversaries have but one argument in behalf of these
books, which is derived from the authority of certain councils and
fathers. T h e y allege, in the first place, the third council of Carthage,
(in which Augustine himself bore a part,) can. 4*7 , wherein all
4

these books are counted canonical. Should any one object, that
this council was only provincial, not general, and that its judgment
is, therefore, of less consequence; our antagonists proceed to shew,
that this council was confirmed b y pope L e o I V . (Dist. 2 0 . C. de
libellis), and also in the sixth general council held at Constantinople,
which is called Trullan, can. 2. Hence they argue, that although
the decree of the council of Carthage might not, perhaps, b e strong
enough of itself to prove this point, yet, since it is confirmed b y
the authority of this pope and of a general council, it hath in it as
much efficacy as is required to be in any council. Besides, they
adduce the council of Florence under Eugenius I V . (in Epistol.
ad Armenos), that of Trent under Paul H I . (sess. 4 ) , and pope
Gelasius with a council of seventy bishops . Of fathers, they cite
6

Innocent I., who was also a pope, in his third Epistle to Exuperius
of T h o l o u s e ; Augustine, Lib. II. c. 8. D e Doctrina Christiana;
Isidore of Seville, Etymolog., Lib. vi. c. 1. So that the argument
of our opponents runs t h u s : these councils and these fathers affirm
these books to belong to the sacred c a n o n ; therefore, these books
are canonical. In order to make this argument valid, we must
take as our medium this proposition: whatsoever these councils and
these fathers determine is to be received without dispute. W e may
then add to it, B u t these councils and these fathers receive these
books as canonical; therefore these books are truly canonical and

[ Mansi, Toni. in. p. 891.]

4

[s Vide infra, or in Mansi, T. vm. p. 14G.]

40 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH,

d i v i n e : otherwise there will be no consequence in the reasoning.

N o w let us answer somewhat more clearly and distinctly.
In the first place, we deny the major proposition of this syl-
logism. W e must not concede that whatever those councils
determine, and whatever those fathers affirm, is always true: for it
is the special prerogative of scripture, that it never errs. There-
fore, it is manifest that nothing can be concluded from these testi-
monies which hath the force of a certain and necessary argument.
In the second place, the council of Florence was held one hun-
dred and fifty years ago, and the council of Trent in our own times,
and this latter for the-express purpose and design of establishing all
the errors of the popish church. These both were no legitimate
councils of christian men, but tyrannous conventicles of antichrist,
held for the object of opposing the truth of the gospel. H o w g e -
neral that of Trent was, in its fourth session, may be appreciated
from the number of the bishops who were present in that session.
T h e legates, cardinals, archbishops, and bishops, who were then
present, and who published this decree concerning the number of
the canonical books, made in all about fifty; and those, almost to
a man, Italians and Spaniards. W h e r e the attendance was so thin,
it was impossible that any general council could be held. Y e t Ala-
nus Copus (in Dialog. Quint, c. 16.) says, that there were fewer
bishops in many famous councils than at T r e n t . I allow this to be
1

true of provincial s y n o d s ; but no oecumenic council can be named,

in which there was such a paucity and penury of prelates. These
two councils, therefore, are to be wholly set aside from the dispute.
Thirdly, the council of Carthage was merely provincial and
composed of a few bishops; and therefore hath no authority suf-
ficiently strong and clear for confirming the point in question.
Besides, our adversaries themselves do not receive all the decrees
of this council. F o r the papists vehemently and contemptuously
blame the injunction most solemnly expressed in can. 2 6 , that 2

" the bishop of the chief see shall not be called high priest, or chief
of the priests, or b y any such title." T h e y cannot then bind us
b y an authority to which they refuse to be tied themselves.
But, they say, this Carthaginian synod was approved b y the

I Sed nullam isti habent causam paucitatem istam contemnendi, cum

1

rariore numero multa prseclara concilia sint habita.:—Alan. Cop. Dialogi vi.
Dial. v. c. 16. p. 487. Antv. 1573.]
[ N e primse sedis episcopus appelletur Summus Sacerdos, aut Princcps
2

sacerdotum, aut ejusmodi aliquid. Labb. Concil. T. n. p. 1176.]

IV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. ál

Trullan council of Constantinople, which was universal. B e it so.

But, if this decree of the number of the canonical books was legi-
timately approved, then that also concerning the title of high priest
was confirmed b y the same sanction, which yet they will b y no
means concede. H o w , then, will they divide these things ? I ac-
knowledge, indeed, that this Trullan s y n o d was oecumenical.
3
But
the papists themselves doubt what should be determined of the
authority of the canons which are attributed to this council. Pig-
hius, in a treatise which he wrote upon this subject, calls the acts
of this council spurious, and b y no means genuine; which he seeks
to prove b y some arguments. Melchior Canus too (Lib. v. cap. ult.)
declares that the canons of that council have no ecclesiastical au-
thority : which is also the opinion of others. F o r there are some
things in those canons which the papists can b y no means approve ;
namely, that the bishop of Constantinople is equalled with the
Roman, can. 3 6 ; that priests and deacons are not to be separated
from their wives, can. 1 3 ; that the law of fasting is imposed on
the Roman church, can. 55 ; and others of the same kind. There
is one rule, also, which truth itself disapproves; that which forbids
the eating of blood and things strangled, can. 6 7 . It is, besides,
a strong objection to the credit and authority of these canons, that
eighty-five canons of the apostles are approved and received in
them, can. 2. F o r pope Gelasius (in Gratian, Dist. 1 5 . C.
Romana Ecclesia) declares the book of the apostolic canons apo-
c r y p h a l . And Gratian (Dist. 1 6 ) says, that there are only fifty
4 5

[ Called Quini-sext from serving as a kind of supplement to the fifth and

3

sixth general councils, with the latter of which it is, as here by Whitaker,
commonly confounded. It was held in 691, and its claims to the character
of an oecumenical Synod are generally denied by the Romanists; though
principally, as it would appear, because its canons are repugnant to their
system. See the article in Cave's Historia Literaria, Concil. Constant, iv.
anno 691.]
[ Liber Canonum Apostolorum apocryphus: which clause is wanting in
4

Justellus' and two other MSS. The genuineness of this decree, which has
been strongly impeached, is very learnedly defended by Mr Gibbings, in his
Roman Forgeries, p. 93, et seq. To his authorities from Isidore of Seville
(p. 94) he may add another produced by Hody, p. 653, col. 70.]
[ Isidoras scribit dicens, cañones qui dicuntur apostolorum, seu quia eos-
fi

dem nec sedes apostólica recepit, nec sancti Patres illis assensum prajbue^
runt, pro eo quod ab htereticis sub nomine apostolorum compositi dignos-
cuntur, quamvis in eis utilia inveniantur, tamen eorum gesta inter
apocrypha deputata. Dist. xvi. c. 1.]
42 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

canons of the apostles, and they apocryphal, upon the authority of

Isidore, who hath related that they were composed b y heretics
under the name of the apostles. But this synod receives and con-
firms eighty-five canons of the apostles; whereas pope Zephyrinus,
who was five hundred years older than that synod, recognises, as
appears in Gratian , no more than sixty.
1
Pope L e o I X . , who 2

was three hundred and fifty years later than the synod, receives
the same number exactly, as Gratian writes in the place just cited.
T h e thing itself, indeed, shews that the canons ascribed to the
apostles are spurious. F o r in the last canon the gospel of John is
enumerated amongst the scriptures of the new Testament; which
all agree to have been written when all or most of the apostles
were dead. Y e t they affirm that these canons were not collected b y
others, but published b y the assembled apostles themselves. Thus
Peiresius determines in the third part of his book concerning tra-
d i t i o n s ; and so others.
3
F o r , can. 28, Peter himself says, " L e t
him be removed from communion, as Simon Magus was b y me
P e t e r . " I f this canon, therefore, be true, Peter was present at the
4

framing of it. But how could Peter, who was put to death in the
time of Nero, have seen the gospel of John, which was first written
and published in the time of Domitian ? F o r the figment which
some pretend, that Peter and the rest foresaw that gospel which
John was afterward to write, is merely ridiculous. So in the last
chapter all the apostles are made to speak, and the phrase occurs
" t h e Acts of us the A p o s t l e s . " 5

It is no less easy to refute the answer which others make, that

Clemens published these apostolic canons. F o r how could Clemens,

[i Ibid, c. 2 . ]
[ 2
Ibid, c. 3. The words are really Cardinal Humbert's, taken from his
Reply to Nicetas. See Canisius, Antiq. Lect. T. vi. p. 181. Gratian takes
the liberty of attributing them to Leo, on the principle, that the words of the
Legate are the words of his employer.]
[ Peiresius Aiala, De Diyinis, Apostolicis, atque ecclesiasticis Traditio-
3

nibus. Paris. 1550.]

[* iKKOTrriaBa iravTcnrao-t. KCU. rrjs Kotvavias, COS 'S.lp.av O MAYOR VTT* [E/IOV]
Uirpov. It is numbered 29 by Beveridge, and 30 by Whiston. The word in
brackets is omitted by Dionysius Exiguus, who, I suppose, felt that it was a
little too bad.]
[ 5
KCU al 7rpa£eu rjixav rav airoarokav. Beveridge here pronounces the
word fjp,S>v to be an interpolation; but, as it seems, without any sufficient
grounds for such an opinion.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 43

whom Damasus and Onuphrius testify to have died in the time

6 7

of Vespasian, have seen the gospel of John, which he wrote after

his return from Patmos, during the reign of Trajan ? F o r almost
all authors say v e r y plainly, that the gospel was written b y John
after his exile. So Dorotheus in the Life of John, the Prologue to
John, Simeon Metaphrastes, Isidorus in his book of the parts of the
new Testament, G r e g o r y of Tours (Glor. Plurim. Mart. c. 3 0 . ) ,
Huimo (Lib. i n . de rerum Christianarum Memorabil.), Alcuin upon
John, and innumerable other writers of great authority.
B u t the matter is clear enough of itself. F o r these canons of
the apostles approve the constitutions of Clement and his two
epistles. Y e t the council of Constantinople, which hath received
the canons of the apostles, condemns the constitutions of Clemens , 8

as, indeed, many others do a l s o ; concerning which book we shall

speak hereafter. Besides, these canons of the apostles damage the
papal cause: for they set down three books of Maccabees , and 9

omit Tobit and J u d i t h , and direct young persons to b e instructed

10

in the Wisdom of S i r a c h , and make no mention of the Wisdom of

11

Solomon. I f these are the true and genuine canons of the apostles,
then the papists are refuted in their opinion of the number of the
canonical books of the old and new Testaments b y the authority of
the canons of the apostles, I f they be not, as it is plain they are
not, then the synod of Constantinople erred, when it approved them
as apostolical. Y e t these men deny that a general council can err
in its decrees respecting matters of faith. Let the papists see how
they will answer this. Certainly this Trullan synod approved the
canons of the council of Carthage no otherwise than it approved the
canons of the apostles. But it is manifest, and the papists themselves
will not deny, that the canons of the apostles are not to be a p -
proved. Hence we may j u d g e what force and authority is to be

[ I. o. The Liber Pontificalis, which goes under his name: see the article
6

Damasus (anno 366) in Cave's H. L. and Pearson, de success, prim. Episc.

Horn. Diss. II. c. 4. § 4—6.]
[1 Annotat. in Platinam. p. 13. Colon. lib. 1600.]
[ Canon. II. Beveridge, Pandectse, Can. I. 158.]
8

[ MaKKa^aiav rpia. C. 85. But Cosin (pp. 3 0 — l ) endeavours to shew that

9

the canon in its original state made no mention of any books of Maccabees.
Cf. Gibbing's Roman Forgeries, p. 114.]
t Cotelerius, however, found one M S . with the clause 'lovSeld iv, which,
10

of course, he was glad enough to have any authority for inserting.]

[ /iavBaveiv v/iav TOVS veovs rrjv o-otpiav TOV irokviiaOovs 2ipa%,. Can. LXXXY.]
ll
 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CII.

allowed to the canons of this council of Constantinople; and what

sort of persons the papists are to deal with, who both deny that
these canons have any legitimate authority, and yet confirm the
sentence of the council of Carthage b y the authority of these very
canons. F o r so Canus (Lib. 11. cap. 9) proves that the authority
of the council of Carthage, in enumerating these books, is not to be
despised, because it was approved b y the general Trullan s y n o d ;
yet the same man elsewhere (Lib. v. cap. 6. ad argument. 6.)
makes light of the authority of these canons, and brings many
arguments to break it down.
Fourthly, Gelasius with his council of seventy bishops recites
but one book of Maccabees , and one of Esdras. Thus he rejected
1

the second book of Maccabees, which is apocryphal, and Nehemiah,

which is truly canonical. Isidore, t o o , confesses that there are
2

but two and twenty books found in the H e b r e w canon: and that
their canon is the true one will be proved hereafter.
Lastly, before they can press us with the authority of councils,
they should themselves determine whether it is at all in the power
of any council to determine what book is to be received as canoni-
cal. F o r this is doubted amongst the papists, as Canus confesses,
Lib. ii. c. 8.
Let us come now to the minor premiss of the proposed syl-
logism. W e allow that the council of Carthage, and Gelasius
with his seventy bishops, and Innocent, and Augustine, and Isi-
dore call these books canonical. But the question is, in what
sense they called them canonical. N o w , we deny that their mean-
ing was to make these books, of which we now speak, of equal autho-
rity with those which are canonical in the strict sense; and the
truth of this we will prove from antiquity, from Augustine, and
from the papists themselves.
For, in the first place, if it had been decreed b y any public
judgment of the whole Church, or defined in a general council,
that these books were to be referred to the true and genuine
canon of the sacred books, then those who lived in the Church
after the passing of that sentence and law would b y no means have
dissented from it, or determined otherwise. But they did dissent,
and that in great numbers; and amongst them some of those
whom the Church of R o m e acknowledges as her own children.

[! In Dominica prima mensis Septembris ponunt librum Machaboeoium :

where, however, Ivo reads Ubros. Decret, P. I. Dist. xv. c. 3.]
p O i c . i. 12.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 45

Therefore, there was no such judgment of the Church publicly

received.
Secondly, Augustine, in that same place, plainly indicates that
he did not consider those books of equal authority with the rest.
F o r he distinguishes all the books into two classes; some which
were received b y all the churches, and some which were not.
Then he lays down and prescribes two rules: one, that the
books which all the churches receive should be preferred to those
which some do not r e c e i v e ; the other, that those books which
are received b y the greater and more noble churches should be p r e -
ferred to those which are taken into the canon b y churches fewer
in number and of less authority. It will be best to listen to Augus-
tine himself, whose words are these (Lib. 11. c. 8. de Doct.
Christ.) : " N o w , with respect to the canonical scriptures, let him
3

follow the authority of the greater number of catholic churches;

amongst which those indeed are to be found which merited to pos-
sess the chairs of the apostles, and to receive epistles from them.
H e will hold this, therefore, as a rule in dealing with the canonical
scriptures, to prefer those which are received b y all catholic churches
to those which only some receive. But, with respect to those
which are not received b y all, he will prefer such as the more
and more dignified churches receive, to such as are held b y fewer
churches, or churches of less authority." Then follows immedi-
ately, " N o w the whole canon of scripture, in which we say that
this consideration hath place," &c.

Hence, then, I draw an easy and ready answer. W e , with

Jerome and many other fathers, deny these books to be canonical.
Augustine, with some others, calls them canonical. D o , then, these
fathers differ so widely in opinion? B y no means. F o r Jerome
takes this word "canonical" in one sense, while Augustine, Innocent,,
and the fathers of Carthage understand it in another. Jerome calls
only those books canonical, which the church always held for

[ In canonicis autem scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quam pluri-

3

mum auctoritatem sequatur; inter quas sane ilke sint, quaí apostólicas sedes
habere et epístolas accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in
scripturis canonicis, ut eas, quse ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis,
prseponat eis quas quaidam non accipiunt; in eis vero qua? non accipiuntur
ab omnibus, prajponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt eis quas pau-
ciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesia? tenent Totus autem canon
scriptui arum, in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus, &c. A u g .
-

Opp. T. in. c. 47, 48. A. B.J

46 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

canonical; the rest he banishes from the canon, denies to b e ca-

nonical, and calls apocryphal. But Augustine calls those canon-
ical which, although they had not the same perfect and certain
authority as the rest, were wont to be read in the church for the
edification of the people. Augustine, therefore, takes this name
in a larger sense than Jerome. But, that Augustine was not so
minded as to j u d g e the authority of all these books to be equal, is
manifest from the circumstance that he admonishes the student of
theology to place a certain difference between t h e s e v e r a l books,
-

to distinguish them into classes, and to prefer some to others. I f

his judgment of them all was the same, as the papists contend,
such an admonition and direction must appear entirely superflu-
ous. W o u l d Augustine, if he held all the books to have an equal
right to canonicity, have made such a distribution of the b o o k s ?
W o u l d he have preferred some to others ? W o u l d he not have
said that they were all to be received alike ? But now, Augustine
does prefer some to others, and prescribes to all such a rule for
judging as we have seen. Therefore Augustine did not think that
they were all of the same account, credit, and authority; and, con-
sequently, is in open opposition to the papists. All this is manifest.
It makes to the same purpose, that this same Augustine (de Civit.
Dei, Lib. x v n . c. 20.) concedes, that less reliance should be placed
upon whatever is not found in the canon of the J e w s . Whence it 1

may be collected that, when Augustine observed that some books

were not received b y all, or the greatest and most noble churches,
his remark is to b e understood of those books which are not con-
tained in the Hebrew canon: and such are those which our churches
exclude from the sacred canon.

L e t it b e noted too, that in the council of Carthage, and in the

epistle of pope Innocent, five books of Solomon are enumerated;
whereas it is certain that only three are Solomon's. So, indeed,
Augustine himself once thought that the book of Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus were Solomon's, though he afterwards changed (but
without correcting) that opinion. F o r in the same place of his
City of G o d he thus speaks of those b o o k s : " Learned men have
no doubt that they are not Solomon's ." This was one error in
2

Augustine. Another, and no less one, was supposing that the

book of Wisdom was written b y Jesus the son of Sirach (de

[1 Seel adversus contradictores non tanta firmitate proferuntur qute

scripta non sunt in canone Judajorum.—Aug. Opp. T. vn. 766. A.]
[ 2
Non autem esse ipsius, non dubitant doctiores.—Ubi supra, 765.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 47

Doct. Christ. Lib. 11. c. 8 . ) ; which error he retracts, Retract. Lib.

ii. c. 4. 3
Y e t he allegeth an excuse, which is neither unhandsome
nor trifling, for attributing five books to S o l o m o n ; that " these
books may b e all called Solomon's, from a certain likeness which
they bear." Hence, however, it appears that Augustine was in
a great mistake when he thought, first, that these two books were
written b y Solomon, and then, that they were written b y Jesus
the son of Sirach. Indeed, Augustine himself testifies that these
books were b y no means received in all churches ( D e Civit. Dei.
L i b . x v i i . c. 2 0 . ) ; where he says that these books were especially
received as authoritative b y the "Western church.
4
T o this W e s -
tern church Augustine and Innocent belonged. F o r the oriental
church never allowed to these books such great authority. But
the mistake of counting Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus amongst the
books of Solomon, although it is a very gross one, was y e t , as
we read, entertained and received b y many. F o r pope M a r -
cellinus, in an epistle to Solomon, adduces a testimony from E c -
clesiasticus, as from S o l o m o n ; and likewise pope Sixtus I I . in
an epistle to G r a t u s : which shews sufficiently that these persons
must have thought that Solomon was the author of this book. I
know, indeed, that these epistles were not really written b y M a r -
cellinus or Sixtus, but are falsely attributed to t h e m : y e t still,
b y whomsoever written, they indicate that this opinion was a com-
mon error.

Thirdly, the papists themselves understand and interpret

Augustine and the rest in the same manner as we do. F o r so
many persons after Augustine and after those councils would
never have denied these books to be canonical, if they had not
perceived the reasonableness of this interpretation. I f then they
blame our judgment, let them at least lend some credit to their
own companions and masters. I will bring forward no man of
light esteem, no mean or obscure doctor, but a distinguished car-
dinal,—that special pillar of the popish church, Cajetan, who as-
suredly excelled all our Jesuits in judgment, erudition, and

[ In secundo sane libro (deDoc. Christ.) de auctore libri, quem plures

3

vocant Sapientiam Salomonis, quod etiam ipsum, sicut Ecclesiasticum, Jesus

Sirach scripserit, non ita constare sicut a me dictum est postea didici, et
omnino probabilius comperi non esse hunc ejus libri auctorem. Ib. T. i.
86, 87. D. A.]
[ Eos tamen in auctoritatem maxime occidentals antiquitus recepit ec-
4

clesia. Ut supra, 765.]

48 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

authority. I will recite his words, because they are express and
should always be in remembrance. Thus, therefore, writes Caje-
tan at the end of his commentary upon the History of the old
Testament: " H e r e , " says he, " we close our commentaries on the
historical books of the old Testament. F o r the rest (that is,
Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted b y St
Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the
Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Eeclesiasticus, as is plain from
the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar,
if thou shouldest find any where, either in the sacred councils or
the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For
the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to
the correction of Jerome. N o w , according to his judgment, in the
epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and
any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical,
that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of
faith. Tet,_ they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature
of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and
authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. B y the
help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through
that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial
council of C a r t h a g e . "
1
Thus far Cajetan; in whose words we
should remark two things. First, that all the statements of coun-
cils and doctors are to be subjected to the correction of Jerome.
But Jerome always placed these books in the apocrypha. Secondly,
that they are called canonical b y some councils and Fathers, and
customarily received in the canon of the bible, because they p r o -
pose a certain rule of morals. There are, therefore, two kinds

[} Hoc in loco terminamus commentaria librorum historialium veteris

Testamenti. Nam reliqui (videlicet Judith, Tobia;, et Machabseorum libri) a
Divo Hieronymo extra Canonicos libros supputantur, et inter Apocrypha
locantur cum Sapientia et Ecclcsiastico, ut patet in prologo Galeato. Nec
turberis novitie, si alicubi reperies libros istos inter canonicos supputari, vel
in sacris Conciliis vel in sacris Doctoribus. Nam ad Hieronymi limam redu-
cenda sunt tam verba Coneiliorum quam Doctorum, et juxta illius seutentiam
ad Chromatium et Heliodorum episcopos libri isti (et si qui alii sunt in Ca-
none Biblia? similes) non sunt canonici, id est, non sunt regulares ad firman-
dum ea qua? sunt fidei: jjossunt tamen dici canonici, id est regulares ad sedi-
ficationem ftdelium, utpote in Canone Bibliaj ad hoc reccpti et auctorati.
Cum hac distinctione discernere poteris dicta Augustini, et scripta in Pro-
vinciali Concilio Carthaginensi. In ult. C. Esther, ad fin.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 49

of canonical books : for some contain the rule both of morals

and of faith; and these are, and are called, truly and properly
canonical: from others no rule, but only of morals, should be
sought. And these, although they are improperly called canonical,
are in truth apocryphal, because weak and unfit for the confirma-
tion of faith. W e may use, if we please, the same distinction
which I perceive some papists themselves to have used, as Sixtus
Senensis (Bibliothec, Lib. i.), and Stapleton (Princip. Fid. Doctrin.
Lib. ix. c. 6 ) , who call some books Proto-canonical, and others
Deutero-canonical. The proto-canonical are those which are counted
in the legitimate and genuine canon, i. e. of the Hebrews. These
Jerome's accurate judgment hath a p p r o v e d ; these our churches
acknowledge as truly canonical. T h e Deutero-canonical are they
which, although they be sometimes called canonical in the sense
just now explained, are y e t in reality apocryphal, because they do
not contain the combined rule of faith and morals . 2
T h e papists
are greatly incensed against their partner Cajetan, on account of
this most solid sentence; and some even vituperate him. Canus
says, that he was deceived b y the novelties of Erasmus. L e t us
leave them to fight with their own men. This is certain, that
there never was a papist of more learning and authority than
Cajetan, whom the pope sent into Germany to oppose Luther. This
testimony should be a weighty one against them. L e t them shake
it off as they best c a n : and yet they never can shake it off, since
it is confirmed b y solid reason.
Thus we have seen how weak their argument is. T h e y have none
b e t t e r : for they have none other. Now, since we have answered
them, we will proceed to the confirmation of our own cause.

CHAPTER V.

WHEREIN REASONS ARE ALLEGED AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THE

SECOND KIND.

I FORM the first argument thus : These books, concerning which

we contend, were not written b y prophets: therefore they are
not canonical. T h e entire syllogism is this. All canonical books
of the old Testament were written b y p r o p h e t s : none of these

[ A difference of authority is owned also by Lamy. App. Bibl. L. n. c. 5.

2

p. 333. Lugd. 1723; and Jahn, Einleitung ind. A. T. Vol. I. p. 141.]

4
[_WHITAKER.J
50 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

books was written b y any p r o p h e t : therefore none of these books

is canonical. The parts of this syllogism must b e confirmed.
T h e major rests upon plain testimonies of scripture. Peter calls
the scripture of the old Testament, " T h e prophetic w o r d , " 2 Pet. i. 1 9 ,
(for it is evident from Luke iii. 4, that Xo-yos means scripture,)
and " p r o p h e c y , " ibid. ver. 2 0 . Paul calls it, " t h e scriptures of
the prophets." R o m . xvi. 2 6 . Zacharias the priest says, " A s he
spake b y the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since
the world began." L u k e i. 7 0 . W h e r e he means that God had
spoken in the prophetic scriptures. So Abraham says to the
luxurious man, " T h e y have Moses and the prophets," that is, the
books of scripture. Luke xviii. 3 9 . A n d elsewhere Luke s a y s :
" Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto
them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke
xxiv. 2 7 ; so R o m . i. 2. Here we see that all the scriptures are
found in the books of Moses and the prophets. T h e apostle to
the Hebrews s a y s : " God spake in divers manners b y the p r o -
phets." H e b . i. 1. Therefore the prophets were all those b y whom
G o d spake to His people. And to this refers also the assertion of
the apostle, that the Church is built " upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets." Eph. ii. 20. This foundation denotes the
doctrine of the scriptures, promulgated b y the prophets and apos-
tles. Christ s a y s : " All things must be fulfilled which are written
in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, c o n -
cerning m e : " and then follows immediately, " Then opened he
their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."
L u k e xxiv. 4 4 , 4 5 . Paul asks king Agrippa, " Believest thou the
p r o p h e t s ? " — t h a t is, the scriptures. Acts xxvi. 2 7 . A n d when
he dealt with the Jews at R o m e , he tried to convince them " out
of the law of Moses and the prophets." Acts xxviii. 2 3 .

F r o m these testimonies we collect that the assertion in the

major is most t r u e ; — t h a t the whole scripture of the old Testa-
ment was written and promulgated b y prophets. A n d there are
many other similar passages from which it may be concluded, that
there is no part of the old Testament which did not proceed from
some prophet. But we must remark, that the entire old canonical
scripture is sometimes signified b y the name of the prophets, some-
times of Moses and the prophets, sometimes of Moses, the prophets,
and the Psalms. So Augustine, in his discourse against Cresconius
the grammarian: " Not without cause was the canon of the church
framed' with so salutary a vigilance, that certain books of the p r o -
 QUESTION THE FIRST, 51

phets and apostles should belong to i t . " Lib. n. cap. 3 1 . A n d in

1

another place: " L e t them shew us their church, not in the rumours
of the Africans, but in the injunction of the law, in the predictions
of the prophets, in the songs of the Psalms; that is, in all the
canonical authorities of the sacred b o o k s . " D e Unit. Eccles. c. 1 6 .
2

A n d elsewhere: " R e a d this in the law, in the prophets, in the

P s a l m s . " W e have said enough in confirmation of the m a j o r ; let
3

us now proceed to the minor;

That these books, against which we are disputing, were not
written, or set forth to the church, b y prophets, is exceedingly
clear and certain. F o r , in the first place, all confess that Malachi
was the last prophet of the Jews, between whom and John the
Baptist no prophet whatever intervened. But most of the authors
of these books undoubtedly lived after Malachi. This is manifest
in the case of the writers of Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees; and
even our adversaries themselves are not able to deny it. Besides,
those books were not written in the prophetic tongue, which was
the language of Canaan and the proper language of the church.
But if prophets, who were the teachers and masters of the Israel-
itish church, had written those books, they would have used, in
writing them, their native and prophetic language, not a language
foreign and unknown to the c h u r c h ; which no right-minded person
will deny. N o w that most of them were written not in Hebrew
but in Greek, the Fathers affirm, and the papists concede, and the
thing itself proves f u l l y : concerning the rest, we shall see in the
sequel. Finally, if these books had been written b y prophets, then
Christ would have used them as his witnesses. But neither Christ
nor his apostles ever made any use of their testimony. This is
what Augustine says of the books of Maccabees: " T h e Jews do
not esteem this scripture as the Law and the Prophets, to which the
L o r d bears testimony as bis witnesses*." (Contra Gaudent. Epist.

p Neque enim sine causa tam salubri vigilantia canon ecclesiasticus con-
stitutus est, ad quern certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertineant.
Aug. Opp. T. ix. 668, 669. D. A.]
[ Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumori-
2

bus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum,... sed in prsescripto

Legis, in Prophetarum prsedictis, in Psalmoram cantibus . . . hoc est, in omni-
bus canonicis sanctorum librorum auctoritatibus. Ibid. 585. A.]
[ Lege hoc mihi de Propheta, lege de Psalmo, recita de Lege. August,
3

de Pastoribus, c. 14.]
[ Et hanc quidem scripturam, quae appellator Machabseorum, non habent
4

4—2
52 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Lib. n. cap. 23.) Christ bears no testimony to these books as his

witnesses. Therefore they are not sufficient or fully credible wit-
nesses of Christ. But this they would be if they were prophetic.
F o r all the canonical and prophetic scriptures testify of Christ;
and to them as his witnesses Christ bears distinguished testimony,
when he says, " Search the scriptures," and when he cites so many
testimonies from those books. So J e r o m e : " W e must have
1

recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text both the L o r d speaks,

and his disciples choose their examples." But that these books
are not prophetical, we shall hereafter prove still more clearly.
T h e second argument. These books were not received b y the
church of the Israelites; therefore they are not canonical. T h e syl-
logism may b e framed t h u s : T h e ancient church of the Hebrews r e -
ceived and approved all the books of the old Testament. That church
did not receive these b o o k s ; therefore they are not canonical.
T h e major proposition is certain, and may be easily demon-
strated. F o r , first, if that church had rejected a part of the Lord's
Testament,—especially so large a p a r t , — s h e would have been
guilty of the highest crime and sacrilege, and would have been
charged with it b y Christ or his apostles. F o r , since the Jews
were blamed for putting wrong senses upon the scripture, they
would never have escaped still greater and sterner reprehension, if
they had taken away the scripture; forasmuch as it is much more
wicked and impious to take away books of scripture than to inter-
pret them ill in certain passages. But neither Christ, nor his,
apostles, nor any others, ever accused the Jews of mutilating or
tearing to pieces their canon of the sacred books. N a y , the an-
cient Israelitish church both received all the canonical books, and
preserved them with the greatest care and faithfulness. On which
point read what Josephus writes, in Eusebius, Lib. i n . cap. 1 0 . 2

This is also confirmed b y the authority of scripture itself. For

the apostle says, that to the Jews were committed and delivered in
charge the oracles of God,—that is, the scriptures. R o m . iii. 2.
Whence we learn, that the excellent treasure of the sacred scripture
was deposited b y G o d with the church of the Jews, and b y it
received and guarded : which diligence and fidelity of the Jews,

Judsei sicut Legem et Prophetas et Psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium

perhibet ut testibus suis (Lib. I. §. 38.) Aug. Opp. T. ix. 1006. c ]
[} Ad Hebraeos revertendum, unde et Dominus loquitur, et discipuli ex-
empla prsesumunt. Prooem. in Paralip.]
[ Contra Apion. L. I. c. 8. Vide infra.]
2
 QUESTION THE FIRST. 53

in preserving the sacred hooks, Augustine (Ep. 3, and 59.) and all
the other Fathers celebrate. Besides, if so many canonical books
had been (not only not received, but) rejected b y the ancient
church of the Jews, it would follow that many canonical books were
never received b y any c h u r c h : for before Christ there was no
other church but that of the Jews. I f then we grant that that
church, which was the whole and sole church at that particular
time, could have rejected canonical books, then it is evident that
the church may err, which the papists will not be willing to allow.
Y e t is it not a great error, not only not to acknowledge and receive
sacred books, but to repudiate and eject them from the canon of
the inspired writings ? But the whole Jewish church rejected these
b o o k s : which was our assumption in the minor, and may be con-
firmed b y the confession of all the fathers, and even of the papists
themselves. F o r every one understands that these books were
never received into the Hebrew canon.
A s to Bellarmine's pretence (Lib. i. cap. 1 0 ) , that these books
have the testimony of the apostolic church, and that the apostles
declared these books canonical, whence does its truth appear ? T h e
apostles never cite testimonies from these books, nor can anything
b e adduced to shew that any authority was attributed to them
b y the apostles. Indeed when Cajetan affirmed, in his commen-
tary on 1 Cor. xii., that only to be sacred and divine scripture
which the apostles either wrote or approved, he was blamed b y
Catharinus (Annot. Lib. i.) on that a c c o u n t ; and Catharinus lays
it down in that place, that the church receives certain books as
canonical which certainly were neither written nor approved b y the
apostles. T h e allegation of Canus, that these books were neither
received nor rejected , is merely ridiculous. F o r , surely, if the
3

Jews did not receive these books, what else was this but rejecting
them utterly ? H e who does not receive G o d rejects h i m : so
not to receive the word of God, is to refuse and reject it. " He
that is not with me is against m e ; and he that gathereth not with
me scattereth." Luke xi. 2 3 . Besides, how could that church
either receive or rather not reject books written in a foreign tongue ?
T h e sum of both arguments is t h i s : These books are not
written b y prophets, nor received b y the Israelitish church. There-
fore they are not canonical.
T h e third argument. Certain things may be found in these

[ Negamus hos libros a synagoga esse rejectos. Aliud est enim non reci-
3

pere, aliud vero rejicere.—Melch. Cani Loc. Theol. Lib. n. cap. xi. p. 45 a.
Colon. Agrip. 1685.]
54 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

b o o k s which prove them not to be canonical. This argument is

v e r y strong, as derived from the nature and genius of the books
themselves : and the conclusion will appear with fuller evidence in
the sequel of this discourse, when we come to the particular e x -
amination of the several books ; whence it will be sufficiently mani-
fest that none of those now called in question have any just claims
to be considered as canonical.

CHAPTER VI.

WHEREIN THE TRUTH OF OUR CAUSE IS ILLUSTRATED BY OTHER

TESTIMONIES.
LASTLY, it is clear from the testimonies of councils, fathers and
writers, that these books deserve no place in the true canon of
scripture. W h i c h argument, though it b e merely human, y e t m a y
have force against them who themselves use no other in this cause.
T h e synod of Laodicea (c. 5 9 ) forbids the reading of any
:

non-canonical books in the church, and allows only " t h e canonical

books of the old and new Testament" to be used for that purpose.
Then those are enumerated as canonical, which our churches r e -
ceive ; not Tobit, nor Judith, nor the rest. There is, indeed, a
clear error in this council. F o r Baruch is coupled with Jeremiah,
(which former perhaps they thought to b e a part of the latter,) and
the epistles of the prophet Jeremiah are mentioned , whereas there 2

is but one epistle of Jeremiah in the book of B a r u c h : — u n l e s s ,

perhaps, there may here b e a fault in the Greek b o o k , since
these words are omitted in the Latin. There is another error
with respect to the Apocalypse, which these fathers have not
placed in the catalogue of the books of the new Testament. And
it is certain that many in the church doubted for a long time con-
cerning that b o o k . However, in the judgment of those fathers,
3

{} on ov 8eí ÍSMÚTIKOVS ^a\fiovs Xí'yecr&it iv rfj ¿KKkr¡o-íq, oiBe aKavóvio~ra

/3i|3Xía, áXXa ¡lava ra KavoviKa TÍJS <mvf¡s KOÍ TtaKaias BLaB^Krjs. Mansi, T. II.
p. 574.]
[ 2
'lepe/nías, Bapoi>x, dprjvoi Kai eVioroXcu. Can. 60. ibid.]
[ 3
It is to be observed that Canon 60 professes only to give a list of those
books ¿Va Sel avaytváo-neo-daí—i. e. in the Church. Hence Cosin (Hist, of the
Canon, p. 60.) supposes the Apocalypse to be left out, not as uncanonical,
but as unfit for popular instruction on account of its mysterious obscurity;
for which reason, he observes, it is omitted likewise in the Calendar of Lessons
read in the Church of England, though received in our Canon.]
TI.J QUESTION THE FIRST. 55

these books of the old Testament, Tobit, Judith, Ecelesiasticus,

Wisdom, and the two books of Maccabees, are not canonical. We
form the same judgment of those books. The papists object, that
the canon of scripture was not then settled; consequently, that
they might leave these books out of the canon of scripture, but we
cannot claim a similar right after this canon of scripture hath been
denned b y the church. But this is too ridiculous. F o r who can,
without great impudence, maintain that there was no certain canon
even of the old Testament for four hundred years after Christ;
until, forsooth, the time of the council of Carthage ? W a s the
church so long ignorant what books pertained unto the canon of
scripture ? A pretence at once false and impious! On the con-
trary, the fathers who lived before that council testify that they
v e r y well knew and understood what books were divine and canoni-
cal, as shall presently appear. Besides, that council of Carthage
could not determine anything about the canon of scripture, so as
to bind the whole church, since it was only a provincial one.
But (it will be said) the universal Trullan synod determined
that these books should be received into the canon, and denned
this matter b y its authority. I f we ask, how we are to under-
stand that this is so ? they answer, from its approving the acts of
the council of Carthage. But that is not enough to make this a
clear case. F o r (besides that we have already sufficiently obviated
the force of this argument), in the first place, the Trullan synod
does, in the v e r y same place and canon, approve also the acts of
the council of Laodicea. If that canon, therefore, of the Trullan
synod be genuine, the Laodicene and Carthaginian decrees con-
cerning the canonical books do not contradict each other. Conse-
quently, although these books be called in a certain sense canonical
b y the council of Carthage, yet they are in strictness uncano-
nical, as they are pronounced to be b y the council of Laodicea.
But if the judgments of these councils be contradictory, the Trul-
lan synod failed in prudence when it approved the acts of both.
Secondly, the Trullan synod was held six hundred years after
Christ. N o w , was the canon of scripture unknown, or uncertain,
or unapproved for so many ages ? W h o in his right senses would
choose to affirm this ?
Thirdly, the later church did not judge that the canon of
scripture was in this way determined and defined b y these councils;
which may easily be understood from the testimonies of those
writers who flourished in the church after those councils, as y o u
shall hear presently. First of all, therefore, I will adduce the
56 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

testimonies of the ancient fathers, then of the later, from which

the constant judgment of the church concerning these books may-
b e recognised. A n d although it may be somewhat tedious to g o
through them all, y e t this so great multitude of witnesses must needs
possess the greater authority in proportion to their numbers.
Melito of Sardis, as Eusebius tells us, (Lib. iv. cap. 26) testifies
that he went into the E a s t , and learned with exact accuracy all the
1

books of the old Testament. H e , therefore, considered the matter

b y no means doubtful; which would have been impossible without
a fully ascertained knowledge of the canon. Wow this Melito, who
took so much pains in determining these books, recites precisely
the same books of the old Testament as we do, with the single e x -
ception of the b o o k of Wisdom. There are some, indeed, who think
that this Wisdom of Solomon, which Melito mentions, is the b o o k
of Proverbs itself: but I do not agree with t h e m , for no cause can2

b e given w h y the same b o o k should be twice named. But though

he might have mistaken in one book, he could not have mistaken
in all, especially when using such diligence as he professes himself
to have used. T h e error arose from the circumstance, that this
b o o k was in the hands of many, and was more read and had in
greater esteem than the rest. Indeed, I acknowledge that of all
Apocryphal books most respect was always exhibited towards this
o n e : and this is the reason w h y Augustine seems to defend its
authority (Lib. de Prasd. Sanct. c. 1 4 ) ; from which defence it is
3

evident that this b o o k was publicly read in the church, and that
the church thought v e r y honourably of its character.

[} aviK8a>v ovv els TTJV dvaroXfjV. . . Kai anpifSws paSav TO. rrjs iraKaias 8ia-
6TIKT)S fii.p\ta, K. T. X. p. 403. T. I. ed. Heinichen. Lips. 1827.]
[ 2
The clause in question is Hapoiptai 77 Kai 2o</6/a, or, according to Stephens,
77 2o<j)ia; and the question, whether we should not rather read 1/ or 77. 77 is
the reading of six M S S . confirmed by Nicephorus and Rufinus (who trans-
lates quce et Sapientia), and adopted by Valesius. Stroth and Heinichen agree
with Whitaker in preferring 77', in which I think them undoubtedly wrong,
because when the title of a book is given in an index or catalogue, the article
is hardly ever prefixed, and in this catalogue in particular never. In reply
to Whitaker's objection, I suppose it is sufficient to say that the Book of
Proverbs is twice named, because it had two names. " Certe," says Valesius,
"veteres poene omnes proverbia Salomonis Sapientiam vocabant, interdum
et Sapientiam panareton." Cf. Euseb. H. E . iv. 22.]
[ 3
Quae cum ita sint, non debuit repudiari sententia libri Sapientia?, qui
meruit in ecclesia Christi de gradu lectorum ecclesise Christi tarn longa an-
nositate recitari; et ab omnibus Christianis, ab episcopis usque ad extremos
laicos fideles, poenitentes, catechumenos, cum veneratione divina3 auctoritatis
audiri.—Aug. Opp. T. x. 1370. c]
VI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 57

Origen (in Eusebius, L i b . vi. c. 2 5 ) enumerates the same books

as are acknowledged b y our churches to be canonical, and says,
that the testamentary books of the old Testament are two and
twenty, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet . And 4

many others after him have made the same remark. N o w , if the
canonical books agree in number with the Hebrew letters, as these
fathers determine, then it is certain that no place is left in the
sacred canon for those books concerning which we now dispute;
otherwise there would be more canonical books than Hebrew letters.
But those books which we concede to be truly canonical correspond
b y a fixed proportion and number to the elements of the Hebrew
alphabet.
Athanasius says, in his Synopsis: " O u r whole scripture is
divinely inspired, and hath books not infinite in number, but finite,
and comprehended in a certain canon." There was, therefore, at
that time a fixed canon of scripture. H e subjoins: " N o w these are
the books of the old Testament." Then he enumerates ours, and
no others, and concludes: " T h e canonical books of the old testa-
ment are two and twenty, equal in number to the Hebrew letters."
But, in the meanwhile, what did he determine concerning the rest ?
W h y , he plainly affirms them to be uncanonical. F o r thus h e
p r o c e e d s : " But, besides these, there are also other non-canonical
books of the old Testament, which are only read to the catechu-
mens." Then he names the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of
Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit. " These," says he,
" a r e the non-canonical books of the old Testament ." F o r Athana- 5

sius makes no account of the books of Maccabees. H e does not

mention Esther in the catalogue, but afterwards remarks, that this
book belongs to another v o l u m e ; — p e r h a p s to Ezra, b y whom
Isidore and others say that b o o k was written. A n d some fathers,
when enumerating the books of scripture, do not mention this b y
name, either because they thought it part of some other book, o r
esteemed it apocryphal on account of those apocryphal additions of
certain chapters.

[ 4
OVK ayvorjTÍov & ctvai ras ivSiad^Kovs /3¿'/3Xour, cor 'Eppaíoi rrapabibaao-iv,
8ío (cat fiKotrí, otros <5 ápidpós rS>v Trap' airois o-Toi^íav eoriV.]
[ 5
irada ypa<pf¡ yp.S¡v Xpio-naváv QeoVvcuo-ros io~Tiv, OVK aópicrra 8e, dXXa
fiaXKov iúpio-¡xéva Kal KeK.avovio-p.eva e^e¿ ra ftijSXÍa. Kai tari ríjs pxv rraXatas
biadrjKqs ravra ¿KTOS 8e roírav elo-l iráXiv erepa /3i/3Xta rrjs avrrjs ?raXat5r
hia6r¡Kr)s, oh Kavovi£óp.eva p.év, avayiva>tTKÓp.eva Se ¡xávov rote Karr¡xpvp.¿vois . . . .
Too-avra Kal ra p.r) Kavovi&iieva.—Athanas. Opp. ii. 126, sqq. ed. Bened.—The
Synopsis is the work of an uncertain author, falsely ascribed to Athanasius.]
58 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, speaks thus in the Prologue to his

Exposition of the Psalms : " T h e law of the old Testament is con->
sidered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond with
the number of the letters ." B y the term " t h e L a w " he denotes
1

the whole scripture of the old Testament.

Nazianzen, in his verses on the genuine books of sacred scrip-
ture, fixes the same number of the books of the old Testament.
These are the lines of Nazianzen, in which he declares that h e
counts twenty-two books in the canon,—that is, so many in number
as the Hebrew letters :
'A.pX<ztovs /tev e8r]Ka bvo Kal €iKO<n /3i'/3Xovj,
Toly T&V 'Efipaiav ypap,\iao-iv avnOerovs . 2

H e omits mentioning E s t h e r ; the reason of which we have before

explained.
Cyril of Jerusalem, in his fourth catechetical discourse, hath
written many prudent and pious directions upon this matter. " D o
thou," says he, " l e a r n carefully from the church what are the
books of the old Testament. Read the divine scriptures, the two
and twenty books .' '' Thus he shews that there were no more than
3 1

twenty-two divine books. Then he enumerates the same books as

are received b y us for canonical, save that he includes in that
number the book of Baruch, because he took it (though wrongly,
as we shall prove anon) for a part of the book of Jeremiah. N o w
if any shall affirm that nevertheless there are other canonical books
besides these, Cyril will refute him with this splendid objurgation :
rioXi) GOV (ppovifxcoTepoi i)crau O'I CLTTOGTOXOI Kal O'I ap-^cuoi C7R-
GKOTTOI, T?JS eKKKijaia'S irpoaTarai,
o\ o\ -ravras -rrapa&ovTes. As
if he had said, " W h o art thou, that thou shouldest make these
books canonical ? T h e apostles, the ancient bishops, the governors
of the church, were much wiser than thou art, who have com-
mended these books alone to us as canonical, and no others."
W h a t now becomes of those who say, that these books were a p -
proved b y the apostles and the apostolic churches ?
Epiphanius (Hser. v m . contra Epicuraaos ) counts twenty-seven 4

[} Lex veteris Testamenti in viginti duos libros deputatur, ut cum litera-

rum numero convenirent. He adds, however: Quibusdam autem visum
est, additis Tobia et Judith, viginti quatuor libros secundum numerum Giae-
carum literarum connumerare.]
[2 Carm. xxxm. L. 28. p. 98. T. II. Opp. LNazianz. Colon. 1690.]
[ 3
$ikopa6cos iwiyvadi napa rrjs eKKKrjo-las iroiai p.kv elcriv ai rijs irakmas 8m-
filfiXoL.... avaylvaxTKe ras Betas ypacpas, ras e'iKoo~L dvo j3ifi\ovs TJJS nakatas
StadrJKris. —Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. iv. 33. p. 67. ed. Tuttei.]
[ 4
Opp. i. p. 19. ed. Petavii.]
VI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 59

books of the old Testament, which he says were delivered b y G o d

to the J e w s ; or rather, as h e subjoins, t w e n t y - t w o : ws ra trap
avToils <TTOf)(eia TWV 'EfipaiKwv ypatx(xarwv apiOfiovnevat. For
so he determines that the genuine books o f the old Testament are
equal in number to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. But some
books (as Epiphanius says) are doubled. Hence arises that variety
in the s u m ; being counted when doubled, twenty-two, and, taking
each book severally, twenty-seven. Then h e adds, " There are
also two other books which are doubtful,—the Wisdom of Sirach
and that of Solomon, besides some others which are a p o c r y p h a l . " 5

H e calls some dubious, some merely apocryphal. T h e same author

writes, in his b o o k of Weights and Measures , that the Jews sent 6

to king Ptolemy twenty-two books transcribed in golden letters,

which h e enumerates in a previous passage; although Josephus, in
t h e beginning of his Antiquities, relates that only the five books
of Moses were sent . I n this place h e writes thus of those t w o
7

books, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, which he had in the

former citation called dubious: " T h e y are indeed useful books,
but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the
ark of the covenant ." Which is as much as to say plainly, that
8

they are not to b e counted canonical.

Ruffinus, in his Exposition of the Apostles'" Creed, says, that
he intends to designate the volumes of the old and new Testaments,
which are believed to have been inspired b y the H o l y Ghost him-
self; and then he enumerates our books in both Testaments, sub-
joining : " But it should b e known that there are other books
also, which were called b y the ancients not canonical but ecclesiasti-
cal, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith,
Maccabees. These," says he, " they would have to b e read in
ehurches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for con-
firming the authority of f a i t h . " T h e papist Pamelius praises this 9

[ s
titrl 8e KM aXXat fiuo /3t'/3Xot irap avroXs iv dficbiXeKTa, 77 tjotpia TOV Sipafa
KM fj TOV SoXo/icHiros, x^P 15
oXKav rivav fiiffXlav evmroKpvcpav. Ib. C.]
[ 6
Opp. ii. p. 1 0 0 . D e Pond, et Mens. cc. 2 2 , 2 3 . ]
[7 avra p.6va t o TOV vopov irapeboo-av oi 7refi(bdevTes iiri TTJV i^r/yrjo-w els
'AXegav&peiav. Prooem. §. 3, p. 3. ed. Havercamp.]
[ 8
XPW !1 101 e
' c r
' K a
' ii(pe\ifioi, dXX* els api8p.bv pryraiv OVK avafpepovTM,
810 de e'v T& 'Aapav averedrjo-av, ovre iv rjj rrjs diad^Krjs Kifjara. Ib. p. 1 6 2 .
The passage is corrupt, and should probably be read—810 oi/Se iv 777 TTJS
StadijKrjs KificoTm t<5 'Apav [ ] V 1 N ] aveTedijo-av.]
[ 9
Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non canonici, sed eccle-
siastici a majoribus appellati sunt: ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sa-
60 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

b o o k , but blames this single passage in it; which yet did not deserve
reprehension, since it is both true and accordant with innumerable
judgments of the ancient fathers. H e would not even have praised
it, if he had not seen it praised b y many, who yet are far from
blaming that in it which he disapproves. That exposition was
really made b y Ruffinus, though it was attributed to Cyprian.
I come now to Jerome, who most plainly of all rejects these
books from the canon, and argues strenuously against their canoni-
cal authority, and shews himself a most vehement adversary of
these books. It would be tedious to review all his testimonies.
In the Prologus Galeatus to Paulinus, " A s , " says he, " there are
two and twenty letters, so there are counted two and twenty
b o o k s . " Then he a d d s : " This Prologue to the scriptures may
serve as a sort of helmed head-piece for all the books which we
have translated from the Hebrew into Latin, to let us know that
whatever is out of these is to be placed amongst the Apocrypha.
Therefore the Wisdom o f Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and
Tobit, are not in the c a n o n . " Testimonies of the same sort occur
1

everywhere in his books.

G r e g o r y the Great, in his Commentaries on J o b (Lib. x i x .
cap. 1 6 ) , expressly writes that the books of Maccabees are not
canonical ; and there is no doubt that he thought the same of
2

the other books also.

T o these authorities of the ancient fathers, I will subjoin the
testimony of Josephus, which exactly agrees with them, as it lies
in his first book against Apion the grammarian, and is transcribed
b y Eusebius in the tenth chapter of the third book of his Eccle-

pientia, qua? dicitur Filii Sirach. . . Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobia? et
Judith et Maccabseorum l i b r i . . . . Qua? omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis volue-
runt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam.—Ex-
posit, in Symb. Apost. in Append, ad Cyprian, ed. Fell. p. 26.]
[} Quomodo igitur xxn elementa s u n t . . . ita x x n volumina supputantur.
. . . Hie prologus scripturarum quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris,
quos de Hebrajo vertimus in Latinum, convenire potest, ut scire valeamus,
quicquid extra hos est inter Apocrypha esse ponendum. Igitur Sapientia
qua? vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Jesu filii Sirach. liber, et Judith et
Tobias et Pastor non sunt in canone.—The prologues of Jerome, being to be
found in every common copy of the Vulgate and in a thousand other shapes,
are not generally referred to by the page in these notes.]
2
[ D e qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, tamen
ad sediflcationem ecclesia? editis, testimonium proferamus. p. 622. A. B.
Paris. 1705.]
VI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 61

siastical H i s t o r y : " W e have not innumerable books, inconsistent

and conflicting with each o t h e r ; but two and twenty books alone,
containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed
worthy of the highest credit. O f these, five are b y M o s e s ; e m ­
bracing the laws, and delivering down a narrative from the origin
of the human race until his own death; which is a period o f nearly
three thousand years. F r o m the death of Moses to the reign of
Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets
after Moses have written accounts of the events pf their own
times in thirteen books. T h e remaining four contain hymns to
God and moral admonitions to man. I t is true, that from the time
of Artaxerxes to our own particular accounts have been written of
the various events in our h i s t o r y : but these latter have not been
deemed worthy of the same credit, because the succession of the
prophets has not been regularly and exactly maintained in that
interval ."3

Assuredly it is plain enough from this testimony o f Josephus,

what was the judgment of the Israelitish church concerning these
b o o k s ; and the testimonies which have been alleged from so many
fathers, distinguished both b y antiquity and sanctity, evince with
the highest certainty that the opinion of the Christian church also
could not have been different.
Hitherto, therefore, we have proved b y the clearest testimonies
of the fathers that these books, about which we contend, are not
canonical, but apocryphal; for so they are expressly called. T h e r e ­
fore these fathers plainly agree with us, and confirm our sentiments
b y their suffrages.
B u t perhaps the papists m a y have an answer to allege sufli­

[3 ov yap pvpiabes /3t/3Xi'coi/ elcrl пар f)pXv, aovpxpavav Kal paxopevav Svo
be fiova irpbs TOIS e'Uoo-i j3i/3Xi'a, TOV rravros %xovra xpovov rrjn араурафур, та
biKalas веТа тгетпо-Tevpeva. Kal rovrav тгёуте pev ion та Мшисгесог, a TOVS те
vopovs Treptexet, кал rrjv rijs av6p<imoyovlas wapdbocrw pi~XP " ? l r
avrov TeXeVTrjs.
OVTOS 6 XP° V0S
airoXelirei TpurxiKiav oXlyov стаи. 'Атгб be rijs Мсоисгсшг тсХеи­
rijs р*ХР 41 T S
'ApTai-ept-ov TOV рета Eep£r)v Qepo-wv fiao-iXeas ap^ijy, ol рета.
NlavGTJv тгрофт\та1 та кат avroiis ттрахвёчта avveypatyav ev тритХ ка\ Ьека (3t­
fSKiois. At be Лоигш тёсго-apes vpvovs els TOV веои ксй тоГг арвратгок vwo6i]Kas
той jSiou irepiexovo-iv. \тто be 'Apragepgov pexP 1 T
°v K a
^ XP°V0V
уёура-птаь
pev екаата- Trio-Teas be oix opoias i;£t'corcu TOIS тгрд avrCv bia то py yeveo-6ai rfjv
raiv тгрофг]тши акрфг) biaboxrjv. AfjXov 8' itrrlv epya was fjpels TO'IS ibiois
ypappao-i Tremo-revKapev тоо-ovrov yap alavos tfbr) irapa>xr)KOTOS, ovre тгроо-8еЪа1
TIS ovbev, ovre афеХеш avTtov, ovre ретавеЪаь тетоХрт)кеу. К. т. X. Contra
Apion. L . i. c. 8.]
62 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

cient to shew that these testimonies avail us nothing. Indeed I will

not dissemble their answer, nor conceal any thing from y o u that I
know. W e l l then, in order to break the force of these testimonies
and overturn our argument, some of them bring two objections:
the first, that these fathers spoke of the Jewish, not of the Christian
c a n o n : the second, that the canon was not yet fixed; wherefore
those fathers are not to be blamed for determining otherwise con-
cerning the canon than the church afterwards defined, while w e ,
nevertheless, are precluded from a similar liberty. Let us briefly
obviate both objections.
First of all, these fathers whom I have cited do speak of the
canon of Christians, as any one who looks at their words themselves
will readily perceive. T h e synod of Laodicea prescribes what
books should be read as canonical in the churches. Melito declares
that he had taken pains to find out what books should be r e c e i v e d ;
and this he did surely not for the sake of the Jews, but for his
own. Athanasius says that those books which he calls uncanonical
were wont to be read only to the catechumens. Now the catechu-
mens were Christian catechumens. Cyril forbids the reading of
those books which he calls apocryphal, and says that the apostles
and old bishops and masters of the church had taken no other
books into the canon than those which are received b y us. W h o
does not see that he is speaking of the Christian canon ? Although
perhaps Cyril was too vehement in forbidding these books to be
even r e a d : for the other fathers, although they determine them
to b e apocryphal, yet permit their perusal. Ituffinus says, that
those only which our churches also receive were received into the
canon b y the ancients (who doubtless were Christians), but that the
rest were called b y those same ancients, not canonical, but eccle-
siastical. So Jerome, writing to Paulinus a Christian bishop,
makes none others canonical than we do, and briefly describes the
contents of these books, and of no others... Therefore he acknow-
ledged no other canon of the sacred books than we do now. In
his preface to the books of Chronicles he writes in these plain
w o r d s : " T h e church knows nothing of apocryphal writings; we
must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the
L o r d speaks, and his disciples choose their examples ." " W h a t is
1

not extant with them is to be flung away from u s , " says Jerome,
2

\} Apocrypha nescit ecclesia: ad Hebrseos igitur revertendum, unde et

Domhvus loquitur et discipuli exempla prEesumunt.]
[ 2
Qua? non habentur apud illos, procul abjicienda sunt.]
VI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 63

in his preface to Ezra and Nehemiah. And elsewhere, in his pre-

face to the books of Solomon, he hath these words : " As therefore
the church, while it reads Judith and Tobit and the books of M a c -
cabees, yet receives them not amongst the canonical scriptures; so
she m a y read these two volumes also [the Wisdom of Solomon and
Sirach] for the edification of the people, not for confirming the
authority of articles of f a i t h . "
3
Plainly Jerome speaks of the
Christian church, and determines that the canon of the old Testa-
ment is no other with Christians than it was with the Hebrews.
T h e y are absurd, therefore, who imagine a double canon. Again,
in his first book against the Pelagians, he blames a heretic for
citing testimonies from the Apocrypha, when proposing to prove
something about the kingdom of heaven.
In the next place, whereas they say that the canon of scrip-
ture was not then fixed, it is but fair that they should speak out,
and teach us when afterwards it was fixed. If it be said, in the
council of Florence or of Trent, these are but m o d e r n ; and, I am
very sure, they will not affirm that it was fixed so late. If in the
council of Carthage, that council of Carthage was not general. If
in the Trullan, those canons are censurable in many respects, even
in the opinion of the papists themselves, as we have shewn clearly
above. Will they concede then, either that there was no definite
canon of scripture for six hundred years after Christ, or that these
books were not received into the canon for so many ages ? This in-
deed would be sufficient to overturn the authority of the books. Let
them answer, therefore, and mark the precise time, that we may
understand when the canon of scripture was at length defined and
described. If they can name any general council in which is extant
the public judgment of the church concerning the canonical books,
let them produce it. Except this Trullan council, they have a b -
solutely none at all. And this Trullan does not precisely affirm
these books to be canonical, but only confirms the council of Car-
thage ; which is of no consequence, since it also confirms the council
of Laodicea, and the papists themselves deny all credit to the
Trullan canons. Thus they are left without defence on any side.
However, that y o u may the better see how empty that is which
they are wont to urge about the Trullan s y n o d ; I will now
shew, b y the most illustrious and certain testimonies of those men

[ Sicut ergo Judith et Tobise et Machabseorum libros legit quidem ec-

3

clesia, sed eos inter canonicas scripturas non recipit; sic et hsec duo volu-
mina legat ad asdificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum
dogmatum confirmandara.]
64 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

who have governed and taught the church of Christ in more

recent times, that since that council these books were nevertheless
not held to be canonical in the church.
Isidore, who lived almost in those very times, says (in Lib. de
Offic.) that the old Testament was settled b y Ezra in two and
twenty books, " t h a t the books in the law might correspond in
number with the letters ." John Damascene (Lib. iv. c. 18.) s a y s :
1

" It must be known that there are two and twenty books of the
old Testament, according to the alphabet of the Hebrew l a n g u a g e . " 2

Thus Damascene agrees with those ancient doctors concerning the

number of the canonical books of the old Testament. T h e Wisdom
o f Solomon and Sirach he praises indeed, but puts them out of the
c a n o n : the rest he does not even mention. Y e t he lived, as
every one knows, after the Trullan Synod. So Nicephorus (apud
Cyrum Prodromum in versibus):

rrjs fiev vaKams elcriv c'Uocn Svo.

" There are two and twenty books of the old Testament." Like-
wise Leontius determines, in his b o o k of Sects (Act. 2 ) , that there
are no more canonical books of the old Testament than the twenty-
two which our churches receive. Thus he speaks: " Of the old
Testament there are twenty-two b o o k s . " Then he goes through
all the books of the old and new Testaments in order, and finally
subjoins, " These are the books, old and new, which are esteemed
canonical in the c h u r c h . " Ptabanus Maurus ( D e Inst. Cler. c. 54)
3

says, that the whole old Testament was distributed b y Ezra into
two and twenty books, " that there might be as many books in the
law as there are letters ." Padulphus (Lib. x i v . in Lev. c. 1 . ) :
4

" Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, although they be read for
instruction in the church, y e t have they not authority ." Therefore 5

they are not canonical. H u g o S. Victoris (Prolog. Lib. i. de Sa-

cram. c. 7) says, that " these books are read indeed, but not written
in the b o d y of the text or in the authoritative c a n o n ; that is, such
as the book of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon,

[! Ut tot libri essent in lege, quot et literse habentur.—Isid. de Eccl. Offic.

Lib. i. c. 12.]
[2
lo-reov cos eiKocri KOL 8VO /3i/3Xot e«rl rrjs TraXaias diadt]Kt]s Kara ra oroi^em
rrjs 'E/3patSor cpcovfjs.]
[3 ravra icrri ra Kavovc£ofieva fiLfifkia iv TTJ eKK\rjo~lq, Kai nakaia nal via.~\
[* Ut tot libri essent in lege, quot habentur et literse.—Rab. Maur. de
Instit. Cleric. Lib. n. c. 54.]
[ Tobias, Judith et Machabseorum, quamvis ad instructionem ecclesise
5

legantur, tamen non habent auctoritatem.]

VI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 65

and Ecclesiasticus." Again, (Didascal. L i b . iv. c. 8) " As there

are twenty-two alphabetic letters, b y means of which we write in
Hebrew, and speak what we have to say, and the compass of the
human voice is included in their elementary sounds; so twenty-two
books are reckoned, b y means of which, being as it were the
alphabet and elements in the doctrine of God, the y e t tender infancy
of our man is instructed, while it still hath need of m i l k . " T w e n t y -
6

two letters form the language, and twenty-two books the faith.
T h e same is the opinion of Bichardus de S. Victore, (Exception.
L i b . ii. c. 9 ) . F o r , after telling us that there are twenty-two
canonical books of the old Testament, he presently subjoins:
" There are besides other books, as the Wisdom of Solomon, the
book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and the book of Judith and Tobit,
and the book of Maccabees, which are read indeed, but not written
in the c a n o n . "
7
I n which words he plainly denies them to b e
canonical. A n d presently after, in the same p l a c e : " In the old
Testament there are certain books which are not written in the
canon, and y e t are read, as the Wisdom of Solomon, & c . " So
L y r a , (Prolog, in libros A p o c r y p h . ) ; Dionysius Carthusianus, (Com-
ment, in Gen. in princip.); Abulensis, (in Matt. c. 1 ) ; Antoninus,
(3 p. Tit. xviii. c. 5 ) . Cardinal Hugo, in his Prologue to Joshua,
calls Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Eccle-
siasticus, apocryphal; and says that the church does not receive
them for proof of the faith, but for instruction in life. These are
his lines; in metre, poor e n o u g h ; in sense, excellent.

Restant apocryphi, Jesus, Sapientia, Pastor,

Et Machabasoram libri, Judith atquo Tobias:
Hi, quod sunt dubii, sub canono non numerantur;
Sed quia vera canunt, ecclesia suscipit illos.
But, in what sense the church always received them, the same
author explains elsewhere (in Prol. Hieron. in Lib. R c g u m ) : " Such
8

the church receives not for proof of the faith, but for instruction

[ Quomodo ergo viginti duo elomcnta sunt, per quaj Hcbraice scribimus,
G

omneque loquimur, et corum initiis vox humana comprehenditur; ita viginti

duo volumina supputantur, quibus quasi Uteris et exordiis in Dei doctrina
tenera adhuc et lactens viri nostri eruditur infantia.]
[? Sunt prasterea alii libri, ut Sapientia Salomonis, liber Jesu Filii Sirach,
et Liber Judith, et Tobias, et liber Machabceorum, qui leguntur quidem, sed
non scribuntur in Canono.—Opp. p. 320. Rothomag. 1650.]
[ Tales recipit ecclesia, non ad probationem fidei, sed ad morum in-
8

structionem.—Opp. Venet. 1703. T. I. p. 218. 2.]

R -I 5

[WHITAKER.J
66 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [en.

in morals." Which other fathers also had said before him. The
Gloss upon Gratian's decree (Dist. 16) affirms that the Bible has
some apocryphal books in it. Erasmus in many places maintains
the same opinion, and Cardinal Cajetan most expressly. N o w all
these flourished after the Trullan synod, and some of them after
the Florentine; and the church of R o m e acknowledges them all as
her sons and disciples; except perhaps Erasmus, whom she hath
expelled, as he deserves, from her f a m i l y : although L e o the
Tenth called even him, in a certain epistle, his most dearly beloved
son .1
Antonio Bruccioli, an Italian, translated the old Testament
into the Italian language , and wrote commentaries upon the cano-
2

nical books, but omitted the apocryphal. Even since the council
of Trent, Arias Montanus, who was himself present in that synod,
and published that vast biblical work, and is called b y G r e g o r y
X I I I . his son, in an edition of the Hebrew Bible with an inter-
linear version declares that the orthodox church follows the canon o f
the Hebrews, and reckons apocryphal the books of the old Testa-
ment which were written in Greek.
Thus, therefore, I conclude : I f these books either were canoni-
cal, or so declared and defined b y any public and legitimate judgment
of the c h u r c h ; then these so numerous fathers, ancient and modern,
could not have been ignorant of it, or would not have dissented,
especially since they were such as desired both to be, and to bo
esteemed, catholics. But these fathers, so numerous, so learned, so
obedient to the g o d l y precepts of the church, were not aware that the
church had decreed any such thing concerning the canon of scrip-
ture, and openly pronounced these books to b e apocryphal. There-
fore these books are not canonical, and were never inserted in the
sacred canon of scripture b y any legitimate authority or sanction
of the church. Whence it follows that our church, along with all
other reformed churches, justly rejects these books from the c a n o n ;
and that the papists falsely assert them to be canonical. If they
demand testimonies, we have produced them. I f they ask for a
multitude, they ought to be content with these which are so many,
and may well satisfy their desires with them.

f See Leo's Epistle "Dilecto Filio Erasmo Roterod." prefixed to Eras-

1

mus' Greek Testament, Basil. 1535.]

[ The first edition was printed in 1530. There were three others printed
2

in his life-time, in 1539, 1540, 1541. See an account of him in Simon, Hist.
Crit. p. 333.]
VII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 67

CHAPTER V I I .

OF THE BOOK OF BARUCH.

ORDER requires that we should now treat particularly of these

several apocryphal scriptures: and first of those which are counted
parts of the canonical books. Here, in the first place, what is
commonly called " t h e book of B a r u c h " claims an examination. T o
confirm the authority of this book, our opponents avail themselves
o f four arguments. The first is, that there is a quotation made
from the last chapter of Baruch in 2 Mace. ch. ii. T h e second, that
the councils of Florence and Trent place this book b y name amongst
the canonical scriptures. The third, that the church takes some
lessons from this book in her anniversary offices. T h e fourth, that
many fathers produce testimonies from this book as canonical.
F r o m these premises Bellarmine concludes that this b o o k is truly
canonical (Lib. i. c. 8). T o these we can answer briefly: for the
arguments are, as y o u see, altogether slight ones, and require no
very long reply. Thus, therefore, I answer them severally.
T o the first: The second book of Maccabees is a p o c r y p h a l ; as
I shall hereafter prove b y demonstrative arguments. Now one
apocryphal b o o k cannot confirm b y its testimony the authority of
another apocryphal book. Therefore this is no argument.
T o the s e c o n d : W e care nothing for those councils. They
were popish and altogether antichristian assemblies. T h e papists
may attribute as much weight to those councils as they please: we
refuse to be pressed or bound b y any such authority.
A s to what is objected in the third place,—although the church
used to read, and still does read, certain parts of this book, y e t it b y
no means hence follows that the b o o k is in the genuine and strict
sense canonical. F o r we have shewn above, from Jerome and other
fathers, that the church was wont formerly to read books not
canonical, for the benefit of the people in forming their morals, but
not for confirmation of the faith. Besides, what church is it whose
example they object to us as an argument ? F o r we are so far from
recognising in the custom of the Roman church the force of so
great an argument, that we count it a matter of v e r y slight im-
portance.
T o the last: I acknowledge that some testimonies are cited
from this book b y the fathers; and I add too that some of them
5—2
68 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

believed this piece to be a part of Jeremiah. A n d , in truth, this

b o o k does seem preferable to the rest of the a p o c r y p h a : for e v e r y -
thing in it, whether we consider the matter or the style, appears
more august and suitable to the sacred character than in the other
books. Nevertheless, the book is apocryphal, as you shall hear.
There is no consequence in this reasoning: Some fathers thought
this book a part of Jeremiah, therefore it is a part of Jeremiah.
F o r those fathers were in error, as is manifest. Nor is there force
in this inference: Some fathers cited testimonies from this book,
therefore the book hath canonical authority. F o r testimonies are
often alleged from other books also, which are by no means to b e
esteemed canonical. Irenasus cites the book of the Shepherd (as
Eusebius relates, Lib. v. c. 8 ) ; but I suppose he did not deem that
1

book part of the canonical scriptures. Yet, alleging a passage from

it, he hath used the expression, " "Well spoke the scripture which
says, & c . " And Eusebius writes of him, " H e receives the scripture
of the Shepherd." A n d Nicephorus also attests the same, Lib. iv. c. 1 4 .
In like manner Athanasius, in his third oration against the Arians,
produces something from the book of B a r u c h : but the same writer
does also, in the same oration, bring forward a testimony, to prove
that the word is God, from the third of Esdras, which book our
adversaries confess to be apocryphal. Testimonies out of this third
book of Esdras are used also b y Cyprian (Epist. LXXIV.) ; b y A u - 2

gustine (Vet. ac Nov. Test. Quaest. 1 0 9 , and Civit. Dei, Lib. x v m .

3

c. 3 6 ) ; and Ambrose (De bono Mortis, c. 10), in order to prove

4

that souls are not extinguished with the b o d y . Now this book of
6

Esdras is not canonical, as the papists themselves a l l o w ; so that it

is manifest that the cause is not concluded b y this argument.

[} Ob /IOVOV Se olSev, dXka leal airoSexe™ TTJV TOV Iloifievos ypafprjv, \iya>v
" KaXcoy odv uivev fj ypaqbfj fj Xeyovcra, K. T. \." T. II. p. 5 4 . ed. Heinich.]
[ Scientes quia et apud Bsdram Veritas vicit, sicut scriptum est, Veritas
2

manet et invalescit in seternum. p. 2 1 5 . ed. Fell.]

3
[ Et audi Zorobabel, qui super omnia ait Veritas.—Aug. Opp. T. ill. p.
1 1 . 2 9 8 0 , A. The reference is 3 Esdr. iii. 1 2 . But this is not a genuine
piece: see the admonition prefixed by the Benedictines.]
[ Nisi forte Esdras in eo Christum prophetasse intelligendus est, q u o d . . .
4

. . . veritatem super omnia demonstravit esse victricem.—Ibid. T. vn. 8 3 3 ,

A. B,]
[5 De quo tibi Esdra? librum legendum suadeo, qui et illas philosophorum
nugas despexerit; et abditiore prudentia, q u a m collegerat ex revelatione,
perstrinxerit eas substantias esso superioris.—Epistt. Class. I. Ep. 3 4 . n. 2. T.
vni. p. 4 3 3 . Paris. 1 8 3 9 . ]
VII.] QUESTION THE FIUST. 69

T h e papists object, that these books of Esdras are not cited b y

those fathers as sacred and canonical, but that the book of Baruch
and the rest are cited and mentioned b y them in such a manner as
to shew that they thought them to be truly canonical. Therefore
there is no analogy between the two cases. I answer, that they
are indeed styled b y them sacred, and scriptures, but in a certain
general sense. F o r most of them did not suppose that the books
were sacred in such a sense as to leave no difference between them
and the books which are truly divine and canonical. This John
Driedo, one of the chief popish writers, expressly testifies in the
case of this very book of Baruch. F o r thus he writes (de Cat.
Script. Lib. i. c. 4. ad Difficult. 1 1 ) : " S o Cyprian, Ambrose, and
the other fathers cite sentences from the book of Baruch, and from
the third and fourth of Esdras, not as if they were canonical books,
but as containing salutary and pious doctrines, not contrary, but
rather consonant to our faith ." A papist answers the objection of
6

the papists: for in these words he denies that the book of Baruch
is either canonical, or cited as such b y those fathers. Melchior
Canus too (Lib. x n . c. 6) writes thus of this same b o o k : " F o r , as
we have shewn in the second book, the church hath not placed the
book of Baruch in the number of the sacred writings so certainly and
clearly, as to make it a plain catholic verity that it is a sacred piece,
or a plain heresy that it is not. That book, therefore, or any other,
which may be called in question without heresy, can not produce
certain and evident verities of the catholic f a i t h . " F r o m this testi-
7

mony of Canus I collect, in the first place, that the b o o k of Baruch

is not clearly canonical: in the next, that we may deny its canonicity
without h e r e s y : lastly, that no firm and evident verity of the
catholic faith can be derived from this b o o k ; — a n evident proof
that the book itself is apocryphal, since all canonical books are fit
to produce certain and evident verities of the catholic faith.
Aquinas, however, in his Commentary upon Jude, says, that it
[ Sic Cyprianus, Ambrosius, ceterique patres citant sententias ex libro
6

Baruch, et 3 et 4 Esrse, non tanquam ex canonicis libris, sed tanquam ex

libris continentibus quondam pia, juvantia et non contraria, sed consona potius
fidei nostras.—Opp. Lovan. 1550. T. I. p. 22.]
[' Nam, ut in secundo libro docuimus, libellum Baruch non adeo explorate
et firmiter in sacrorum numero ecclesia reposuit, ut aut ilium esse sacrum
fidei catholicEe Veritas expedita sit, aut non esse sacrum hajresis expedita sit.
Libellus ergo iste, sive quilibet alius, qui in quajstionem citra crimen hsereseos
vocari possit, non efflcit certas atque constantes catholicaj fidei veritates.—
Opp. Colon. Agripp. 1605. p. 588.]
70 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cn.

is " lawful to derive a testimony to the truth from an apocryphal

b o o k , " since Jude the apostle hath cited a passage from the a p o -
cryphal b o o k of Enoch, v. 1 4 . But, although I b y no means deny
that it is just as much lawful to quote a passage from an apocry-
phal book, as from a profane author,—as Paul cites an Iambic line
from Menander, 1 Cor. xv. 3 3 , a hemistich from Aratus, A c t s
xvii. 2 8 , and an heroic verse from Epimenides the Cretan, Tit.
i. 1 2 ; yet I do not think that this passage, which Jude recites,
is taken from an apocryphal book, because Jude uses the term
"7rpoe(p^Tevae, " he prophesied." Consequently, he hath adduced
this as a prophetical testimony : unless, perhaps, he used the word
prophet here in the same sense as Paul when he called Epimenides
a p r o p h e t ; though, indeed, he does not style him a prophet simply,
but a prophet of the Cretans.
W e have now sufficiently shaken the authority of this book.
F o r I ask, who wrote it ? Either Baruch himself, or Jeremiah, is
counted the author of the book. But neither of them could have
written i t ; as is clear from hence—that it was written in Greek,
not in Hebrew, as Jerome tells us, and as the book itself shews.
F o r Jerome says, in the preface to Jeremiah , that this book is not
1

read b y the Hebrews, nor extant amongst them, and that it was
therefore wholly omitted b y him. But if it had been written b y
that Baruch, or b y Jeremiah himself, it would doubtless have
appeared in Hebrew, not in G r e e k : for Jeremiah spoke in
H e b r e w , and published his prophecies in the Hebrew l a n g u a g e ;
and Baruch was Jeremiah's scribe, and committed many things
to writing from Jeremiah's lips, as we find in Jerem. xxxvi. 4.
Besides, the very phraseology and diction is Greek, not so con-
densed, nervous, sedate, and majestic as the style of scripture is
wont to be. In the Epistle of Jeremiah, which is recited in
Chap, vi., the expression, " Y e shall be there seven generations,"
(v. 2 ) , is new and foreign to the Hebrew idiom : for in the Hebrew
books the term " g e n e r a t i o n " is never used to designate a period
o f t e n years, as Francis Junius hath correctly observed. Whoever
wrote this book was a Greek, or wrote in Greek. Consequently
he was neither Baruch nor any other of the prophets. Thus we
prove b y inevitable deduction that this book must b e necessarily
esteemed apocryphal.

f Librum autem Baruch notarii ejus, qui apud Hebraos nec legitur nec
1

habctur, proetermisimus.—T. ix. p. 783.]

VIII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 71

CHAPTER VIII.

OF THE SEVEN APOCRYPHAL CHAPTERS OF ESTHER.

S o much of Esther as is Hebrew, that is, canonical, we r e c e i v e ;

and therefore we raise no question concerning those ten chapters
which are contained in the Hebrew books. T h e whole question
and controversy is concerning those seven last chapters, which are
of a different family and stamp, as we shall easily make appear.
T h e papists will have those seven chapters joined to the rest,
without any distinction in point of authority, because the Triden-
tine council, which has more weight with them than all reason and
scripture together, commands those books to be received with all
their parts. Their arguments are nearly the same as were alleged
for the book of Baruch. Some passages from these chapters are
read in the offices of the church, and the fathers sometimes adduce
testimonies from t h e m : the little force of which kind of reason-
ing we have already sufficiently exposed. T h e y say besides that
Josephus (Antiq. Lib. x. cap. 6 ) mentions two epistles of A h a -
2

suerus, which are found in these last chapters and not in the pre-
vious ones. These are the arguments of our opponents.
I do not choose to reply again to what has been already r e -
futed. But I will observe that the argument which rests upon the
authority of Josephus is inconclusive. F o r , in the first place, what
if Josephus took something from these chapters, to enlarge or illus-
trate his history ? must he therefore have deemed these chapters
to appertain to the canonical scripture? But, concerning this
whole matter, let L y r a answer for me, who, in the close of his
commentary upon this book, makes use of the following expressions : 3

" The rest which comes after I do not intend to explain, because
it is not in the Hebrew, nor belongs to the canonical scripture,
but rather seems to have been invented b y Josephus and other
writers, and afterwards inserted in the vulgar edition." Josephus,
therefore, did not take those things from any canonical book, but
was himself the first writer of them ; and others afterwards, read-

[ The reference should be xi. c. vi. § 12. pp. 575, 576. Ilaverc.]
2

[3 Cetera quae sequuntur non intendo exponere, quia non in Ilebraeo sunt,
nec de scriptura canonica, sed magis videntur a Josepho et aliis scriptoribus
conficta, et postea editioni vulgates inserta.^-Nic. Lyrani Comment. Antwerp.
1634. in fin. Estlterce.]
72 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

ing them in Josephus, copied them into the Bible. But although
they were, as L y r a says, inserted in the vulgar edition, it does not
therefore follow that they were ever allowed a canonical authority.
Sixtus Senensis (Lib. i.) approves and follows the opinion of L y r a . 1

Lastly, it is certain that Josephus's own judgment concerning the

canonical books was no other than that of Jerome, as appears from
his first book against Apion. There he determines that no books
are canonical, but such as were written b y prophets of ascertained
authority. Now these chapters were not written b y any prophet,
which I will prove b y the following arguments.
I n the first place, the matters related in the former chapters
are told over again in those following o n e s ; which repeated narra-
tion of the same events sufficiently shews that all were not written
b y the same person. F o r there was no reason whatever for his
telling the same history twice over. N o r would the same author
have written the latter part in a different language from the
former. But if he were another person, why yet, if he were a
prophet, did he not use the Hebrew tongue, the proper language
of p r o p h e c y ? Learned men make either Ezra, or Joachim the
priest, or Mordecai himself, the author of this book, and recognise
no other than these.
Secondly. There are many incongruities and inconsistencies,
which it is impossible to reconcile, in these chapters, of which I
will produce some specimens. First, in chap. xi. 2, Mordecai is
said to have dreamed of the two eunuchs who conspired against
the king, in the second y e a r . See also chap. xii. 1. But in
the second chapter, which is canonical, ver. 1 6 , we read that this
conspiracy took place in the seventh year of Ahasuerus. Bellar-
mine answers, that the narrative of the plot which is contained in
chap. xii. belongs to the beginning of the b o o k ; but that what we
read to have occurred in the second year in chap. xi. is not to be
understood of the plot, but of the dream of M o r d e c a i : for that the
plot was laid in the seventh year, as we are told in the second
chapter. But all this is said without proofs, and in spite of the
plain declaration of the book itself. F o r at the close of chap. xi.
Mordecai says that, when he arose, he pondered many thoughts in
his mind concerning that dream, until the night, (ea>s T^S VVKTOS) ;
and that then, as he rested in the court with the two eunuchs, he

[} Even in our own times, notwithstanding the stringent declaration of

the council of Trent, this seems to have been the opinion of some respect-
able Roman Catholic divines, e. g. John in his Einleitung in A. T.]
VIII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 73

detected their conspiracy. There was not therefore an interval of

five years between the dream of Mordecai and the plot of the
eunuchs, as Bellarmine fancies, but only of one d a y , if there be
faith in the book itself.
Secondly, the narrative in this book was written many years
after the death of Mordecai. F o r , in chap. x i . mention is made of
2

Ptolemy and Cleopatra, who assuredly lived after the times of

Mordecai and of the prophets. N o r can one well understand what
the meaning of that passage is intended to be. Lysimachus of Jeru-
salem, the son of Ptolemy, is said to have " interpreted the present
epistle of Phurim," which Dositheus and his son Ptolemy brought in
the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra. Bellarmine says it may be
answered, that the first author of this book, who wrote the history
of Esther in Hebrew, drew up only the sum of the story, and that
this Hebrew narrative has come down to u s ; that then, at some
other time, the history was written more copiously b y some other
person, and translated into the Greek language b y Lysimachus, as
is indicated in chap. x i . ; and that not the original book of this
later author, but only a translation of it, is now extant.
But, in the first place, Lysimachus is not here said to have
translated any Hebrew book into the Greek tongue, but only the
epistle of Phurim. And, in the next place, if the assertion that
the later author wrote this history more copiously than the former
were true, then this history, of which a translation only hath
survived, could not be that which the later author w r o t e : for it
is shorter than the Hebrew history, and does not give the series
of the narrative at all so fully, as every one may readily perceive.
Lastly, who translated this Greek translation of Lysimachus into
L a t i n ? Jerome found a certain Latin translation, and subjoined
it to his version, though containing, as he tells us, some things
which were extant neither in the Hebrew, nor in the text of any
other interpreter. Y e t this vulgar translation, which Jerome
deemed utterly unfaithful, is in the highest sense authentic and
canonical with the papists.

[ 2
The passage referred to is plainly a scholium, or marginal note, as
follows: 6TOVS Tfraprov fiao-ikevovTos UroXtpaiov Kal JUXeondrpas eio-171/eyKe

Aoo-ldtos, os i'<pr) eivai Upevs Kai AeviTTjs, Kal Hro\cp.a1os o vlos airov, rfjv rrpo-
Keipevrjv imctroXifV TWV (ppovpal, fjv <?<pao-av dual Kal ^pprjvevKevai Avo-lp.a}(pv
XlToXffialov TOV iv 'Upovo-aXr/p.. Compare Ussher de L X X . Int. p. 22, and
Valckenaer de Aristobulo Judseo, p. 63, who supposes this Lysimachus to
have been the author also of what is called the Third Book of Maccabees.]
74 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Thirdly, this pretended author tells us, chap. xii. 5, that a

reward was given b y the king to Mordecai for his information;
whereas, in chap. vi. 3 of the true history, we read that no reward
was bestowed upon him. Bellarmine, however, replies that there
is no difficulty h e r e ; since in chap. xii. that magnificent reward is
meant which he afterwards received. But any one who reads the
place itself will see, that this interpretation can b y no means stand.
F o r in this twelfth chapter Haman is said to have plotted mischief
against Mordecai, after the gifts were bestowed upon h i m ; which
cannot be understood of those most distinguished honours and gifts
with which the king graced him after he had read the annals.
F o r that very morning, as we read in chap, vi., Haman was in
attendance to settle with the king about hanging M o r d e c a i ; and
that v e r y day Mordecai was raised to the highest dignity, and
loaded with royal favours. N o r could Haman, after that, attempt
anything against h i m : for Mordecai was then in the highest
favour with the king, and Haman himself was presently hanged
upon that same day. Therefore here there must be some false-
hood upon the other side.
Fourthly, in chap. xii. 6, Haman is said to have been enraged
against Mordecai on account of the eunuchs whom Mordecai
accused, and whom, upon being arraigned of treason, and convicted
b y Mordecai's evidence, the king had punished capitally. But it
is incredible that Haman, who had received such honour and dig-
nity from the king, should have favoured the treason of the
eunuchs; and nothing of the kind is found in the true history,
but, on the contrary, a v e r y different cause of his offence and
anger is assigned, chap. iii.
Fifthly, in chap. xv. 7, this author says that, when Esther
came into the king's presence, the king looked upon her with so
angry a countenance, that she fainted through fear. On the con-
trary, chap. v. 2, she is said to have obtained great favour on
coming in to the king.
Sixthly, in chap. xvi. 1 0 , Haman is called a Macedonian;
but in chap. viii. 3, we find him to have been an Agagite, that is,
of the race of Amalek.
Seventhly, Haman is not only said (chap, xvi.) to have been
a Macedonian himself, but also to have designed, after removing
Mordecai and Esther, to lay violent hands upon the king, in order
to transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians. But,
first, how could Haman have transferred the kingdom of the P e r -
VIII.] QUESTION THE FIIIST. 75

sians to the Macedonians, if he had succeeded ever so well in putting

the king to death ? F o r the kingdom of the Macedonians was at
that time little or nothing. Besides, the true history contains not
a trace of the story told in chap, xvi., that he plotted against
Mordecai and Esther, in order that, b y their destruction, he might
the more easily attack the king, and transfer the kingdom to the
Macedonians. F o r he was not aware that the queen was a Jewess,
or related to M o r d e c a i ; and he devised all sorts of mischief against
Mordecai, not to open himself a way to the kingdom, but simply to
satisfy his malice. F o r Mordecai was not, in the beginning, when
Haman first conceived this grudge against him, in any station of
authority, so as in any way to eclipse his splendour. But if any one
choose to say that Mordecai's information was the means of saving
the king from assassination, and that thus an obstacle was set in
the way of Haman's ambition, and it was this which kindled such
a blaze of hatred ; he must be given to understand that he contra-
dicts the sacred narrative. F o r that conspiracy of the eunuchs
and the information of Mordecai took place before Haman had
acquired so much favour and power in the royal court, as is mani-
fest from the second chapter and the beginning of the third.
All these things are of such a nature, that they can b y no means
stand together or be reconciled with each other : whence it follows,
that the authority of these chapters must needs fall to the ground.
A n d rightly is it ordered that these chapters are not read in our
church.
Thirdly. These chapters are not written in Hebrew. For
Jerome says that he had marked these chapters with an obelus set
before t h e m ; which is the mark b y which he is wont to indicate
apocryphal additions. F o r the pretence of some that they were
once in the Hebrew text, but have now dropped out of it, is easily
refuted b y what we have observed already. Jerome had no sus-
picion of this, and the style cries out against it, and reason proves
the contrary. F o r how could they have been better preserved in
the Greek than in the Hebrew ? or what need is there to give any
credit to mere fictions and conjectures of this nature ?
Fourthly. Besides other authors, and some papists also, whom
I have already alleged, Sixtus Senensis, who wrote his Bibliotheca
after the council of Trent, in the first book of that work asserts
these chapters to be a p o c r y p h a l ; a concession which he never
would have made, unless overcome b y the very force of truth,
since he labours so energetically to maintain the credit of the other
76 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

apocryphal pieces. N o r did the Tridentine decree, requiring the

books there mentioned to be received with their parts, avail to
turn him from his opinion. F o r he contends that this is no native
and genuine part of the B o o k of Esther, but that in these chapters
all is supposititious. H e writes in plain words, that " b y reason of
these strips appended, inserted b y the rashness of certain writers
from various quarters ," it had come to pass that it was late ere
1

this book acquired a canonical authority amongst Christians. So

clearly did pious men see these to be fabulous, that they threw a
shade of suspicion over even the canonical portions. A n d though
this papist, Sixtus, is blamed b y the Jesuits, yet is he not refuted.
But let us leave them to quarrel amongst themselves.

CHAPTER IX.

OF THE APOCRYPHAL PARTS OF DANIEL.

T o confirm the authority of these parts, the papists can allege

no peculiar argument. F o r their allegation, that the fathers' quote
testimonies from these chapters as well as from the others, and call
them testimonies of scripture, is devoid of strength. T h e y do in-
deed quote them, and call them scriptures; but they do not affirm
them to be canonical scriptures, such as the Books of Moses and
the prophets. T h e y are styled scriptures, because they used to
be publicly read in the church, that the people might thence take
noble examples of morals, and were preferred (as Augustine says in
a certain place) to the treatises of all other discoursers .2
But this
is far from proving the authority of these portions equal to that of
the remainder of the book, which is truly canonical. Now, there-
fore, let us say a few words of that H y m n of the three children
which is commonly placed in, and reckoned to the end of the third
chapter; and of the History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon,
which are joined in the vulgar Bibles with the prophecy of Daniel,
and counted a part of it. These pieces I will prove to be spurious
and apocryphal b y sound and cogent arguments.

[} Propter has appendicum lacinias hinc inde quorundam scriptorum te-

meritate insertas.—p. 20. Paris. 1610.]
[ Qui sententiis tractatorum instrui volunt, oportet ut istum librum
2

sapientire omnibus tractatoribus anteponant.—August, de Prasdest.

Sanct. Lib. I. c. 14.]
IX.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 77

First, then, let us hear Jerome expressly pronouncing his

judgment concerning these portions. Thus he speaks, in his proem
to Daniel, and in the preface of his commentary upon that pro-
phet : " Daniel, as it stands in the Hebrew text, has neither the
History of Susanna, nor the H y m n of the three children, nor the
fables of Bel and the D r a g o n ; which we, considering that they are
now dispersed over the whole world, have subjoined with an obelus
prefixed, and [as it were] striking them through, lest the ignorant
should think that we had cut off a great part of the v o l u m e . " 3

F r o m these words of Jerome we collect: 1. That no part of these

pieces was found in the Hebrew, which sufficiently proves them to
be spurious. 2. That they seemed to Jerome to deserve the stroke
of that obelus b y which he uses to distinguish the apocryphal from
the canonical passages. 3. That, nevertheless, they were in use
and read every where. 4. That he would himself have omitted
them, but that he feared the calumnies of certain persons. 5.
That it was the unlearned who supposed that these were really
any parts of Daniel.
Secondly, John Driedo (de Catal. Scripturse, Lib. i. cap. ult.)
does not say that this history is canonical, but only that it is not
to be despised; and that he who believes these things to be all
true, falls into no pernicious e r r o r ; " even as we read," says he,
" the acts of the martyrs, from which we do not derive arguments
for matters of f a i t h . " Y o u see what distinguished and honourable
4

opinions the papists themselves entertain of this history. W e our-

selves can not think more lowly than they do of this class of
writings. But that learned theologian saw that it was impossible
to frame any more exalted judgment of these fragments, since they
are not found in the Hebrew and sacred volumes of the scrip-
ture, but are derived from the Greek translation of the worthless
and perfidious Theodotion.
Thirdly, that Paronomasia, of which Jerome speaks in the pre-
face to Daniel, airo TOV a^ívou a-^laei, aVo TOV irplvov Trpiaei^,

p Apud Hebrreos nec Susanna? habes historiam, nec hymnum trium pue-
rorum, nec Belis draconisque fábulas: quas nos, quia in toto orbe dispersa?
sunt, veru-H anteposito, eoque jugulante, subjecimus, ne videremur apud im-
peritos magnam partem voluminis detruncasse Hieron. Opp. T. ix. 1362.
ed. Vallars. Verona?. 1738.]
[* TJt legimus gesta martyrum, ex quibus argumentum non sumimus effi-
cax ad demonstrandum ea quo? sunt fidei.—T. I. p. 22.]
P Audivi ego quendam de prreceptoribus Juda?orum, quum Susanna?
derideret historiam, et a Gra?co nescio quo diceret esse confictam, illud op-
78 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

proves that this little story was not written in Hebrew, but in
Greek. Daniel asked one of the elders, under what tree he had
found Susanna with her paramour. H e answered, under a mastick
tree, cyivov. Then Daniel forthwith, alluding to the name of the
tree, subjoins, cx-^icrei ae o Qeos. Afterwards he comes to the other,
and asks him under what tree he had seen Susanna committing
so foul a crime ? H e mentions a different tree, and says that
it was under a holm-oak, -n-plvov. Then Daniel, using a similar
play upon the name, brings in his judgment, irpiaei ae o Qeos.
This Greek etymology (for so Jerome calls it) shews that the
history itself was written in the Greek language: for y o u will find
no allusion of the kind in the corresponding Hebrew names and
verbs. Therefore it was not written b y Daniel, or any prophet.
T h e papists object, that this argument was long a g o answered
b y Origen in his Epistle to Julius Africanus, mentioned b y Euse-
bius , who alleges that there were words in the Hebrew which
1

contained plainly such an allusion, but that the Greek interpreter

had changed the names to preserve the paronomasia. But nothing
can be slighter or more futile than that conjecture. F o r , in the
first place, though I confess that Origen did write about this mat-
ter to Julius Africanus, y e t what he wrote is not known. F o r the
piece upon that subject which hath lately appeared hath not y e t
gained any clear credit . 2

I ask, in the next place, what are those Hebrew names of trees
which will yield this allusion ? a question which must needs bring
them to a stand.
Thirdly, the H o l y Spirit does not use to affect this change of
names, or put a force upon the truth of things, or alter their deno-
minations, especially seeing that the refutation o f the charge d e -
pends upon the v e r y diversity of the names. F o r if they answered
that they had seen Susanna under an oak or a fig, the story should
not have been told as if they had said a mastick or a holm-tree,
since that is not true in fact. Effectually to discover the falsehood
of these calumnies of the elders, the very names of the trees should
have been preserved.

ponere quod Origeni quoque Africanus opposuit, etymologias has diro TOV
o-)(lvov crxlo-ai, Kal ano TOV TtpLvov Ttplam, de Grasco sermone descendere.—Opp.
T. ix. 1364.]
[} Hist. Eccl. vi. c. 31.]
[ All doubts, however, were very soon removed by its publication in
2

Greek by Hceschelius. August. Vindel. 1602.]

IX.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 79

Fourthly, I cannot understand how it should be taken for a

solid proof of the falsehood of the charges, that because different
trees were named b y the elders, therefore it should be evident that
Susanna was undeservedly accused. T h e y might have said that
they had not specially observed what kind of tree it was, and so
might easily have been mistaken. T h e y who were so wicked in
devising the charge would not have been so stupid in proving it.
Lastly, when they object to us in this cause so often the
authority of Origen, let them attend to what Jerome hath
written of him in the preface to Daniel. " I wonder," says he,
" t h a t some querulous persons should be indignant at me, as if I
had mutilated the b o o k ; whereas Origen, and Eusebius, and A p o l -
linarius, and other ecclesiastical men and the doctors of Greece,
confess, as I have said, that these visions are not extant in the
Hebrew, and declare that they are not bound to answer P o r p h y r y
in defence of things which have no authority of sacred scripture ." 3

I f that be true which Jerome writes of Origen, they have no

reason to call Origen a patron of this history. F o r Origen together
with the other Greek doctors expressly affirmed, if we believe
Jerome, that these pieces were not extant in the Hebrew, nor p o s -
sessed the authority of sacred scripture.
In fine, the papists cannot agree amongst themselves who
that Daniel was who was thrust into the lion's den for slaying
the dragon and destroying Bel, and was suffered to remain there
six days. Bellarmine, after carefully weighing the whole matter,
at length arrives at the conclusion, that this Daniel was not the
same person as the distinguished prophet, but a different one.
F o r the great prophet Daniel was of the tribe of Juda, as is
manifest: but the Seventy, as Jerome testifies in the preface to
Daniel, make that Daniel who had intercourse with Cyrus, a
priest of the tribe of L e v i ; and the more learned papists think
that this was the same Daniel who destroyed Bel and the dragon,
and was preserved six days in the den of lions. Thus these
things cannot be speciously defended, without introducing a second
Daniel contrary to the common and general opinion. But what
proof have we of the existence of such a D a n i e l ? W h a t credit

[ Et miror quasdam fiep^inoipovs indignan mihi, quasi ego decurtaverim

8

librum: quum et Orígenes, et Eusebius, et Apollinarius, aliique ecclesiastici

viri et doctores Grajcia? has, ut dixi visiones non haberi apud Hcbraos fate-
antur, nec se deberé responderé Porphyrio pro his quos nullam scriptime
sanctas auctoritatem praibeant.—Hieronym. Opp. T. v. 619.]
80 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

do the stories which the Seventy tell about this matter deserve ?
A n d if what is told in this fourteenth chapter was not done b y
that great Daniel, but b y some other, w h y is it made a part
of that Daniel ? why said to be his, and attributed to him ? Let
all, therefore, understand that the Daniel who subverted Bel, burnt
the dragon, and remained six days in the den, was not that great
Daniel whose prophetic book is extant, and worthy of all authority,
and that b y the confession of the papists themselves, but some
other unknown, unheard of, and uncertain Daniel. But we have
hitherto never heard of more prophets of the name of Daniel than
one, and may therefore dismiss this second Daniel without further
ceremony.

CHAPTER X.

OF THE BOOK OF TOBIT.

AFTER having proved that those fragments which are stuck
upon certain canonical books should b e cut off, and plucked out
from the b o d y of sacred scripture, it follows now that we should
treat of those six entire apocryphal books.
A n d first let us consider the book of Tobit, for the authority of
which the papists adduce no special argument whatsoever. For,
though it be quoted b y the fathers, it does not thence follow that
it is a canonical book, as we have already clearly proved : and as
to its being called " divine" b y Ambrose, the meaning is not to
teach us that the book is undoubtedly canonical and equal in every
respect to those which really form part of the canon, but that it is
a b o o k b y no means to be despised or esteemed lightly. For
although it is not truly canonical, y e t it may be styled divine, as it
was wont to be read in the church, and was joined with the canoni-
cal books in one volume, so as commonly to pass under the name
of scripture. F o r that it is not properly canonical, we have shewn
b y many testimonies of the fathers, and can demonstrate b y plain
arguments. But here consider how the papists run into a clear
contradiction. Bellarmine confesses that Jerome rejects this book,
and the rest which are involved in the present controversy, from
the canon of scripture; and pretends that it is no wonder he should
do so, since no general council (which hath the regular privilege of
determining and defining what should be deemed the canon of
scripture) had decreed the canonicity of these books. Y e t , in the
 QUESTION THE FIRST. 81

meanwhile, the papists bring testimonies from Irenasus, Cyprian,

Hilary, Ambrose, to prove these books canonical. But how or b y
what authority could those fathers affirm these books to be canoni-
cal, when that matter was not yet certain and clearly known, being
as y e t not decided b y any general council? Therefore, either
this is not the exclusive prerogative of a general council, or those
fathers followed opinion rather than judgment and reason, when they
received (as our opponents imagine) these books for canonical, which
the church had not yet approved b y its sanction and testimony.
Let us now bring forward some objections against the authority
of this book. A n d first, Jerome witnesses the judgment which the
church of old passed upon this book. F o r he says, in the preface
to the books of Solomon, that the church does not receive the
book of Tobit into the canonical s c r i p t u r e s T h e r e f o r e the catholic
church (of which Jerome speaks) hath judged this book not to b e
canonical. And, in the prologue to the book of T o b i t , he wonders
2

at the importunity of those b y whom he had been induced to

translate into the Latin tongue this book, which the Hebrews had
cut off from the list of the divine scriptures, and which was only
to be read in the Chaldee, a language with which he was unac-
quainted. Wherefore he confesses that he had availed himself of
the assistance of another, and had rendered in Latin words that
which some unknown interpreter, skilled both in the Hebrew and
Chaldee languages, had dictated to him in Hebrew. So that
Jerome hath rather translated some other person's version of this
book than the book itself. Besides, the book is now extant only in
Greek and Latin, and it is wholly uncertain in what language it
was originally written. Jerome writes that he had seen a Chaldaic
c o p y of it, but attributes to it no sort of authority. A n d the
present copies of the book are exceeding various and corrupt, as
may be easily detected b y a collation of them. W h a t more do we

I Judith, et Tobi, et Machabaeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia, sed inter

1

canonicas scripturas non rocipit. Hieronym. Opp. T. IX. 1296.]

[ Mirari non desino exactionis vestrae instantiam: exigitis enim ut librum
2

Chaldseo sermone conscriptum ad Latinum stylum traham, librum utiquo

Tobia?, quem Hebraei de Catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes, his quao
Apocrypha memorant, manciparunt Utriusque linguae (Hebraeao et
Chaldseae) peritissimum loquacem inveniens, unius die! laborem arripui; et
quidquid ille Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego, accito notario, semionibus
Latinis exposui.—Opp. T. x. 293. The common reading is Hagiographa for
Apocrypha: but the correctness of the latter is so evident, that it is ad-
mitted by the Benedictines and Vallarsius.]

[WHITAKER. |
82 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

want? T h e b o o k may speak for itself, the whole character of

which shews, as clear as the light, that it hath no claims to
canonicity.

CHAPTER XL

OF THE BOOK OF JUDITH.

OUR adversaries snatch up an argument from Jerome in favour

of this book, which goes under the name of Judith. F o r Jerome
tells us, in the preface to the book of Judith, that this book was
counted in the sacred scriptures b y the Nicene s y n o d . 1
Therefore,
say they, Jerome himself testifies that this book at least is canonical.
B u t this testimony injures our opponents' cause more than it helps
it. F o r first, if that synod received this book into the number of
the sacred scriptures, it affected those others, which it omitted,
with no slight prejudice. F o r if, as these men will have it, it
determined this book to be canonical, why did it not comprehend
the others also in the same decree, if they be really canonical ?
Secondly, Jerome's words are, " We read that the synod of
Nice counted this b o o k in the number of sacred scriptures." But
where this is read, he tells us not. A n d if the Nicene synod
had determined the canonicity of this book, the council of Laodicea,
which was held a short time after that of Nice, would not have left
it in the Apocrypha. And Erasmus hath rightly noted, that Jerome
does not himself affirm that this book was counted sacred scripture
b y the council of Nice.
Thirdly, " T o be canonical scripture" is one thing, and " to
be counted in the number of sacred scripture" is another thing.
F o r those pieces which are read along with the sacred scriptures
for the edification of the people, although not for confirmation of
doctrines, are counted in the number of sacred scriptures. And

[! Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero sanctarum scrip-

turarum legitur computasse, &c.—Opp. T. x. 2 2 . Most critics suppose that
the council of Nice in some of their documents had quoted some testimony
from the book of Judith: but Vallarsius thinks it more probable that Jerome
alludes to some spurious index of the scriptures, forged under the name of
that council. He appeals, very properly, to Cassiodorus, Instit. Divin. Lit.
c. 1 4 , to show that such indexes existed, and passed under the names of tho
councils of Nice and Chalcedon.]
XI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 83

that this was the mind and meaning of Jerome, is plain from
Jerome's own words in the preface to the Proverbs. "The
church," says he, " reads this book, but does not receive it amongst
the canonical scriptures ." Although, therefore, this book be read,
2

and counted in the number of sacred scriptures, yet is it not r e -

ceived amongst those scr-iptures which are canonical and sacred in
the highest sense. This Jerome asserts in plain w o r d s ; but this
he would never have asserted, if the council of Nice had determined
this book to be canonical. N a y , in this very preface Jerome
shews this book not to be canonical b y two arguments:—first, b e -
cause the Hebrews esteem it apocryphal, and unfit for confirm-
ing anything which may be called in question : secondly, because
3

the book was written in the Chaldee language, and the copies of it
grossly corrupted and depraved. F o r which reason Jerome, in
translating it, gave the general sense rather than the exact mean-
ing of each word, and only rendered into Latin what he found un-
corrupted in the Chaldee*. N o w , however, even those Chaldee
copies themselves have perished; and the Greek ones differ widely
from Jerome's version. Besides, Josephus, in his commentaries
upon the Jewish antiquities, does not touch at all upon this story
of J u d i t h , — a sufficient proof that Josephus did not consider it
canonical.
But now let us estimate the authority of this book b y the
evidence of the book itself, and briefly examine what the times
were of which it professes to be the history. F o r the opinions of
authors upon this subject are various; nor is it needful that we
should enumerate them particularly. Let us hear, then, the de-
terminations of those who at present sway the Romish schools.
Sixtus Senensis (Lib. vin. Hser. 11) writes, that he who is called
Nabuchodonosor was Ahasuerus, the son of Darius Hystaspes,
and that he reigned in Babylon after Cyrus was slain. But no
Persian emperor was called Nabuchodonosor; and the Persian
kings fixed the seat of their empire not at Nineve but at Babylon.

[ Vide supra, p. 81.]

2

[ Apud Hebraos liber Judith inter Apocrj'pha legitur: cujus auctoritas

3

ad roboranda ilia qua? in contentionem veniunt minus idónea judicatur.

Chaldceo tamen sermone conscriptus, inter historias computatur.—Opp. T. x.
p. 22.]
[ Magis sensum e sensu, quam ex verbo verbum transforens. Multorum
,J

codicum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi: sola ea, quas intelligentia integra

in verbis Chaldajis invenirc potui, Latinis expressi. Ibid.]
6 2
84 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [en.

B u t he who sent Holofernes with an army to subdue the world, is

called in the first chapter of this book Nabuchodonosor, and is said
to have reigned at Nineve. There are many other incongruities
besides, so that Bellarmine refers this history to the times of Ma-
nasseh, whom Nabuchodonosor took captive, brought to Babylon,
and after a long while set at liberty. H e supposes, therefore, that
these "events happened a little after the return of Manasseh, fol-
lowing Melchior Canus, (Lib. 11. c. 1 6 ) : which opinion (although
repugnant to that of all his predecessors, as Eusebius in his Chro-
nicon, Augustine, Philo, Bede, L y r a , Driedo and others,) seems yet
much more probable than that of the rest, since it is certain that
there was no Nabuchodonosor in existence after the Babylonian cap-
tivity. But now let us sift this hypothesis, and prove that these
things could not have been done even in the time of Manasseh.
First, in the beginning of the fifth chapter, when Holofernes
perceives that the Jewish people were meditating and preparing war,
he convokes all his officers and asks them what people this was,
and who was their leader. But if Manasseh had been only a short
time before taken captive b y the king of the Chaldeans, and carried
into Babylon, neither Holofernes nor the Chaldeans could have
been so ignorant who was their king as to be forced to seek and
obtain information upon this subject from Achior the Ammonite.
F o r they are made to inquire concerning the people, the country,
the cities, the power of the inhabitants, their mode of warfare,
their leader and king, as if they had never heard of such a nation
as the Jews. But the Chaldeans had before then made war upon
this people, wasted Judrea, taken Jerusalem, and carried away with
them Manasseh into Babylon. Therefore these things about which
they now inquire could not have been unknown to them.
Secondly, when Holofernes came into Judsea, the temple was
overthrown. F o r these are the very words of Achior, in the
Greek t e x t : ' O vao? TOV Qeov avrwv eyevrjOrj els eSoxpos KUI al
7roXets avrwv eKpanjOrjcrav. " T h e temple of the Jews at Jeru-
salem was overturned and rased to the ground, and their cities
occupied." But in the captivity of Manasseh there was no sub-
version of the temple, nor was the temple levelled to the ground
before the reign of Zedekiah, in which (as everybody knows) the
great captivity took place.
Thirdly, if these things had happened in the time of Manasseh
and after his return, the Jewish people would not have treated
the messengers of the king of Babylon so shamefully, or dismissed
XI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 85

them so ignominiously, as we are told they did in the first chapter.

F o r the Jews had then experienced both the power and the cle-
mency of the Babylonians.
Fourthly, in the history of the Kings, in which the acts of
Manasseh are written, we read nothing of this kind about H o l o -
fernes; which being a thing of such a remarkable character, it is
surprising that the H o l y Spirit should have omitted to mention it.
Fifthly, in the last chapter we read that Judith lived more
than 1 0 5 years, and that while Judith lived, after this victory no
enemy troubled Israel. This peace, therefore, lasted many years.
But now, when Holofernes was in Judsea, Judith had not passed
the flower of her a g e ; for she was very beautiful, and she pleased
Holofernes, and is called a girl, chap. x i i . : so that, after this
victory, there must have been peace for near a hundred years.
F o r the peace is said to have subsisted many years, both during her
life and after she was dead. But A m o n succeeded Manasseh, and
reigned two y e a r s ; Josiah succeeded Amon, and held the sove-
reignty thirty-one years. After the death of Josiah, a mighty mass
of trouble fell upon the state, which could not be allayed until it
was entirely subverted, and the people carried into captivity. H o w
can we assign that long peace to such times as these ?
Sixthly, I should wish to know, (for I am b y no means dis-
posed to think it,) whether there was any Nabuchodonosor in
Manasseh's time. F o r Nabuchodonosor the first, whose son was
the second and great Nabuchodonosor, began to reign with Josiah,
who was 33 years later than Manasseh. Before him, if we believe
history, no Nabuchodonosor reigned either at Nineve or Babylon.
F o r , as to the allegation that all the kings of the Babylonians were
called Nabuchodonosor, I grant it to have been so after that great
Nabuchodonosor, whose greatness was the cause that this name
became hereditary in the line of Babylonian k i n g s : but there is
no evidence that they all went b y that name before him.
W e have now shewn plainly enough that this history does not
suit the times of Manasseh. A n d the argument which led Bellar-
mine to cast it in those times is utterly destitute of force. Eliakim,
says he, was at this time high priest, as he is called in the fifteenth
chapter of J u d i t h ; and in the time of Hezekiah there was a
certain Eliakim priest, the son of Hilkiah. But Bellarmine did
not observe that that Eliakim, who is mentioned in the history of
Hezekiah, was not a priest, but a certain officer, of the tribe of
Judah and the family of David, as appears from Isai. xxii. and
86 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

2 Bangs xviii. F o r he succeeded Shebna, who was either the royal

scribe, as some render it, or the chancellor, as others, or the master
of the royal household, as others; but who neither was, nor could
have been, a priest. Josephus, in the last book of his Jewish
antiquities, gives a list of all the pontiffs of the Jews, from Aaron
down to the last, yet names no Eliakim or Joakim about these
times. Y o u see what sort of foundation Bellarmine had for his
opinion concerning the history of Judith.
Genebrard, in his Chronology, (Lib. n. anno mundi 3 5 6 0 ' )
assigns the date of this history otherwise, but much more rashly.
F o r he says this was the same Nabuchodonosor, who subdued
Zedekiah, took Jerusalem, and carried the people into captivity;
that he sent Holofernes into Judaea in the 13th year of his reign,
and in the 19th transferred the remainder of the Jews to Babylon.
But Genebrard hath not made a correct distribution of the times.
F o r how can it be truly said that Judith lived so long after
that calamity, and that peace subsisted during her life and a long
time after i t ? Or how could the Chaldeans have failed to be
thoroughly acquainted with the people and king of the Jews, when
Nabuchodonosor had, but a little before, made Zedekiah himself
king of the J e w s ? N o time, therefore, can be found, which suits
with these transactions. F o r it is manifest that none of these
three opinions is true, and our adversaries can invent none truer
than these.

CHAPTER XII.

OF THE BOOK OF WISDOM.

W E have now to treat of those two books, whereof one is

called the Wisdom of Solomon, the other Ecclesiasticus; which
pieces we deny not to b e replete with very beautiful admonitions,
precepts, and sentiments, yet maintain to be deservedly placed
amongst the apocryphal scriptures b y our churches. Besides the
common arguments, which we have often answered already, our
adversaries allege one peculiar to the case of that book which is
called the Wisdom of Solomon. T h e y pretend that the apostle
Paul hath used the testimony of this book, R o m . xi. 3 4 , where he
says, T « eyvio vovv Kvp'tov, ¡7 r k avfx(iou\os avrov eyevero; "Who
['- p. 236. Paris. 1600.]
XII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 87

hath known the mind of the L o r d , or who hath been his coun-
sellor ? " Likewise that the expression, H e b . i. 3, " W h o , being the
brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person," is
borrowed from the seventh chapter of this book.
A s to the first place, I answer: T h e apostle does not intimate
that he is there citing any testimony. F o r there is no consequence
in the reasoning, that, because similar words to those are found in
this place, therefore the apostle quoted this place. A n d even if
the apostle recited the words of some prophetic scripture, or alluded
to some scripture, we are not therefore obliged to suppose that it
was to this place in Wisdom. F o r the same sentiment is found in
Isaiah xl. 1 3 , in these w o r d s : " W h o hath directed the Spirit of
the L o r d , or, being his counsellor, hath taught him ? " &c. Thus
Thomas Aquinas, in his fifth lecture upon E o m . xi. says, that the
apostle here brings in the authority of Isaiah . 2
So also Cajetan,
and our countrymen the Rhemist interpreters, in their English
version. A d d to this, that, whereas there have been various
indexes of testimonies cited out of the old Testament in the new,
drawn up b y many persons, and placed in various editions of the
Bible, no one of these exhibits any testimony from this book of
Wisdom, and all refer this citation b y name to Isaiah . 3

A s to the second place, the apostle makes no citation, as is

evident. F o r what though some words be found in the b o o k of
Wisdom not unlike those wherein the apostle describes the person
of Christ ? F o r indeed it cannot be said that the words are iden-
tically the same, but only that they are similar. So that this
argument has but weak force to prove the canonical authority
of this book. But now we, on the other hand, will produce some
considerations which may shew that the b o o k is apocryphal. W e
concede indeed, with Epiphanius, that it is a useful b o o k ; but we
add also with Epiphanius, that " it is not referred to the number
of the canonical scriptures:" which assertion he extends also to the
following one.
First, this book, as all allow, was written in Greek, and that, as
hath already been proved, is sufficient to exclude it from the canon.
Secondly, Jerome, in the Preface to Proverbs, says of these
two books, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus: " These two volumes one
may read indeed for the edification of the people, but not to

[ T. xvi. p. 37. 2. Opp. Venet. 1593.]

2

[ It is in fact the Sept. translation of that passage, with only the varia-
3

tion of rj for KCU'.]

 88 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

confirm the authority of the dogmas of the c h u r c h . " W h e r e also 1

he calls the book pseudepigraphal , so as that, although it goes

2

under the name of Solomon, it is not to be supposed to b e really

h i s ; and observes that it " savours o f Grecian eloquence."
Thirdly, most o f the ancients determine that this book was
written b y Philo, who certainly neither was a prophet, nor could
have written a canonical book of the old Testament. F o r h e
lived after Christ in the time of Caligula, before whom he dis-
charged his celebrated embassy on behalf of the Jews. B u t then
the time o f the old Testament had already passed; and Christ
says, " T h e law and the prophets were until John the Baptist."
F o r the conjecture of some, and Bellarmine among the rest, that
there was some other Jewish Philo, is grounded upon no testimony
of antiquity, and is rejected b y Sixtus Senensis, (Lib. VIII. c. 9), and
is at variance with the general opinion of the doctors. F o r thus
writes Bonaventura in his Commentary upon this b o o k : " T h e
first efficient cause, in the w a y of a compiler, was Philo the wisest
of the J e w s . " So that he determines it to have been written b y
3

Philo, not b y Solomon. But b y what Philo ? B y any other than

him w h o flourished after Christ, and wrote so many pieces with
so much eloquence? of whom some one said, $ YLXARODV (PCKMI-
VI^EI, RJ <T>L\WV TRXCTTWI'L^EI : Bonaventura subjoins, " who lived
4

in the times of the apostles." It is evident therefore what Philo h e

supposed the author of this book. F o r he recognised no other
Philo ; and he tells us that the same was said b y Eabanus. F o r
Josephus, in his first b o o k against Apion, names a certain older
Philo, but one who was a Gentile and a philosopher, not a J e w
or conversant with the scriptures . Wherefore, since this book was
5

I 1
Hsec duo ecclesia legat ad edificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem
ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam. T. IX. 1 2 9 6 . ]
[ 2
Alius ijrevSemypaqbos, qui Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur et
ipse stylus Gracam eloquentiam redolet; et nonnulli veterum scriptorum
huno esse Judasi Philonis affirmant. T . i x . 1 2 9 5 . — H e n c e some have en-
deavoured to explain how it came to be attributed to Solomon, Philo's name
in Hebrew being Jedidiah.]
[ 3
Proxima causa efficiens per modum compilantis fuit Philo sapientissimus
Juckcorum, qui temporibus apostolorum fuit. Opp. T. i. p. 3 4 1 . Lugd. 1 6 6 8 . ]
[ 4
Hieronym. in Catal. sub voc. PHILO. Photius. Cod. CV. Suidas, Voc.
Q?i\a>i>, & c ]
[ s
'O fzevToi ^aXrjpevs Arjpi^Tpios KO\ $[\a>u o Trpeo-jivTcpos Ka\ 'Exmokep.os
oi TTOXI rrjs dXrjSelas birjpaprov' of? crvyyivcocrKeiv a£iov oi yap eprjv airols p.erd
Traa-rjs aKptfietas ROIS rnxeripois ypajip.acri TrapaKoXovBeiv. — Josephus, C. Apion.
Lib. i, c. 2 3 . p. 4 5 8 . ed. Haverc]
XII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 89

written b y that Philo the Jew in the time of the apostles, it cannot
be b y any means canonical. F o r if Philo were a true prophet,
or imbued with the prophetic spirit, why did he not receive Christ?
W h y not believe the g o s p e l ? W h y was he a stranger to the
apostles ? W h y are not his other books had in similar honour ? Cer-
tainly none of the ancients ever said that this Philo was a Christian.
H o w then, after Christ, should a man who was not a Christian have
written a b o o k worthy to be classed amongst the canonical books
of the old Testament ? But the most learned of the papists them-
selves allow that the book was not written b y Solomon, so that
that point needs not our confirmation. F o r if Solomon had written
this book, it would not have been written in Greek but in H e -
brew, as the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song. But, as to
the notion of some, who make Solomon the author of this book,
because Solomon is introduced in chap. ix. making prayers and
vows, it has no argumentative validity whatsoever. F o r that might
have been done in the way of imitation b y the writer whoever lie
might b e : so that they who argue thence that Solomon must have
been the writer himself, are grievously deceived. Jodocus Clito-
vajus and Sixtus Senensis are chargeable with this ignorance and
error. But, with better reason, John Driedo (Lib. i. c. 4, ad 4 . m

difficult. ) concludes that this book was not written b y Solomon,

6

and says that the manner of scripture requires, that he who speaks
should speak in the person of another. So John Capistranus,
in the preface to his Speculum Clericorum, says that Philo speaks
in the person of Solomon . 7

Fourthly, the church in old times judged no otherwise of this

book than Jerome and we d o ; and this may be collected even from
Augustine, whom our adversaries name upon their side. F o r in his
book de Prcedestinatione Sanctorum, c. 14, when he had cited a
testimony from the book of Wisdom, chap. 4, " Speedily was he
taken away, lest that wickedness should alter his understanding;"
many pious and catholic brethren cried out against him that the
book was not canonical . 8
Andradius, in his Defence of the Council
of Trent, (Lib. in.) attacks Chemnitz for using this place and tes-
timony out of Augustine with many reproaches, in which attack

[8 pp. 41. 42. D e Eccl. Script. Lovain. 1533.]

[' Et cum Philone in persona Salomonis divinum pra:sidium . . . . in-
vocabo. p. 2. Venet. 1580.J
[ Quod a me quoque positum fratres istos ita respuisse dixistis, tanquam
8

non de libro canonico adhibitum.—Opp. T. x. p. 8 0 7 . Par. 1 6 9 0 . ]

90 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Bellarmine also joins (Lib. i. c. 1 2 ) , but unreasonably. F o r , what-

ever may have been Augustine's own opinion of this book, y e t it is
evident that others did not think it canonical, and that their j u d g -
ment was the received opinion of those churches. N o r does Augus-
tine contend very anxiously or earnestly for the authority of the
b o o k : he only says that it is not " to be despised," since it had
been so long read with great reverence in the church, and that it
was " t o be preferred to all the treatises of discoursers ;" which may 1

perhaps be conceded to him. But if Augustine had thought that the

book was certainly canonical, he would never have been so slack
and cool in defending its authority, but would have blamed with
much severity those who rejected the book as utterly without claims
to a place in the canon. In truth, what he hath written upon this
subject is much more intended to screen himself from odium than to
fortify the authority of this book. But we understand already that
the book is not canonical, and w e want nothing more.

CHAPTER XIII.
OF THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTICUS.

OUR adversaries can allege no special argument in behalf of

this b o o k ; and we need not repeat our answers to the common
ones. L e t us, on our side, bring some proofs to shew that the
book is not canonical. First, w e may collect that this book is
not canonical from the fact of its having been written in Greek,
upon the principles already explained. T h e grandfather of Jesus
had written some things in Hebrew, which this Jesus translated
into the Greek language, as we read in the prologue . But the 2

Hebrew original itself, when it was extant, never possessed a

prophetic credit or authority, and hath now entirely disappeared;
so that now nothing remains but Jesus' Greek version, which is full
of many faults and blemishes. N o r was this Jesus anything more
than a mere translator.
Secondly, how highly this translator thought of himself and
his own version, appears plainly from his own words and confession
in the prologue. H e says, that the Hebrew cannot be exactly
rendered into G r e e k : (why so ? ) and h e asks pardon, if he should
[i Vide supra, p. 76.]

[ 2
'O iramros p-ov 'irjtrovs . . . . irpofixBt) Kai avros o-vyypa^rai n ra>v els ircubeiav
KOI cro(plav avrjKovTav. Prolog, in Sapient. Jesu fil. Sirach.]
XIII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 91

seem in some places to fail of an adequate power of expression . 3

B y all which he sufficiently proves that he is neither a prophet

nor endowed with a prophetic spirit. F o r the H o l y Spirit asks
pardon of no one, hesitates not in the choice of words, and ever
reaches the mark he aims a t ; especially if the writer apply due
diligence, as this author professes that he hath.
Lastly, what is written of Samuel in this book, chap. 4 9 , is 4

taken variously and doubtfully b y many, as we see from Augus-

tine (ad Simplicianum, L i b . 11. qusest. 3, and de Cura p r o mortuis,
cap. 1 5 ) . F o r the passage, 1 Sam. 2 8 , is rather to b e understood
of a diabolical spectre; since the souls of the saints cannot b e
evoked b y magical arts or incantations. Wherefore Augustine
( D e Doctr. Chr. Lib. II. c. 2 3 ) says, " t h a t the image of the dead
5

Samuel gave a true prediction to Saul." W h e r e he indicates that

it was not Samuel himself, but an image o r semblance of Samuel,
that conversed with Saul. T h e same father, in his book de Octo
Dulcit. Quaest. (qusest. 6 ) , after disputing somewhat on the other
side of this question, at last subjoins: " H o w e v e r there is in this
matter a readier way o f escaping difficulty, and more easy view of
the meaning o f the passage, if we suppose that it was not really the
spirit of Samuel that was roused from its repose, but some phantom
and imaginary illusion produced b y diabolical devices: which the
scripture therefore calls b y the name of Samuel, because images
are wont to b e called b y the names o f those things o f which they
are images." A n d so in the sequel he concludes that " the scrip-
ture says that Samuel appeared, even though, perchance, it was
the image of Samuel shewn b y the devices of him who transforms
himself into an angel of light, and his ministers as the ministers
of righteousness ." Likewise in his treatise de Mirabilib. Scripturaa
6

[3 TlapaKticKrjcrde . . . . avyyvdtpryv exetv

e<j)' ols av boKwfiev T<OV Kara rrjv
epjxrjveiav 7re(pih.o7rovr)p,€vav ncri ra>v \e£ea>v abwa/xeiv oi yap lo-obvvaixei avra
iv iavrois 'Efipa'lo-rl Xeyopeva, KTU orav peTa^dy els erepav ykaao-av. Ibid.]
[ 4 xlvi. 2 0 . K a t pera TO virvaxxai avrov enpo^revo-ev. The Church of
England omits this verse in reading Ecclus. xlvi. as the evening lesson for
November 16.]
[ Non enim, quia imago Samuelis mortui Sauli regi vera pramuntiavit,
6

propterea talia sacrilegia, quibus imago ilia prajsontata est, minus exsecranda
sunt.]
[ Quanquam in hoc facto est alius facilior exitus et expeditior intellectus,
8

ut non vere spiritum Samuelis excitatum a requie sua credamus, sed aliquod
phantasma et imaginariam illusionem diaboli machinationibus factam: quam
propterea scriptura nomine Samuelis appellat, quia solent imagines earum
92 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

(Lib. ii. c. 1 1 ) , — i f that book deserves to be reckoned a genuine

piece of Augustine's—he writes in this manner : " W h e n c e from the
fact itself we may the more readily understand that this was not
the prophet Samuel, but that the devil, who transforms himself into
an angel of light, is considered in the phantastic form of Samuel.
This appears from his discourse, since he tells Saul, who was an
execrable man, ' Thou and thy sons shall be with me.' Surely, if
it had been the true Samuel who was here exhibited, he would
never have said that this unjust king would be a participator of his
reward after d e a t h . " And most plainly in his book of Questions
1

on the old and new Testaments, in the seven and twentieth

question, he determines thus : " I deem it a most unworthy act
to repose belief in this narrative in the strict literal sense of it.
F o r how is it possible that a man holy in his birth and righteous
in his actions when alive should be dragged up b y magic arts ? or,
if not dragged up, should have consented to them ? Either alter-
native we can not without absurdity believe of a just m a n . " T o 2

say that the soul of the holy prophet was troubled b y the spells of
witches, even Isidore himself detests as impious, as we see in G r a -
tian (26 q u » s t . 5. cap. Nec. Mirum.); and he says that this was
" a piece of Satan's j u g g l e r y . " Augustine too, in his book de
3

Cura pro Mortuis (c. lb.*), bears witness that many thought that it

rcrum nominibus appellari quarum imagines s u n t . . . . Non mirum est quod

scriptura dicit Samuelem visum, etiam si forte imago Samuelis apparuit ma-
chinamento ejus qui transfigurat se volut angelum lucis, et ministros suos
velut ministros justifies—The treatise De Yin. Dulcitii qurestionibus is the
fourth piece in T. vi. of the Benedictine edition, Paris, 1679.]
]} Unde non hunc esse Samuelem ilium Prophetam per factum facilius
intelligitur, sed diabolus qui se transfert in angelum lucis, in phantasia
Samuelis consideretur. Quod ex sermonibus ejus recte dignoscitur, quoniam
funesto Sauli dicebat, Tu et fllii tui mecum eritis. Etenim si verus hie
Samuel ostensus esset, nullo modo iniquum regem consortem sui meriti post
mortem diceret.—This spurious work is to be found in the Appendix to Part
i. of T. in. of the Benedictine edition. The author is supposed to have been
an Irish monk, named Augustine.]
[ Indignum facinus sestimo, si secundum verba historian commendetur
2

assensus. Quomodo enim fiei-i potuerat, ut arte magica attraheretur vir et

nativitate sanctus et vita? operibus Justus ? aut, si non attractus est, consensit ?
quod utrumque de viro justo credere absurdum est.—This is also a spurious
piece; it is the third in the Appendix referred to in the last note.]
[ Porro autem hoc est prajstigium Satance.
3
Decreti Pars Secund. Caus.
26. Qusest. 5. c. 14.]
[•* It is the nineteenth piece in Tom. vi. of the Benedictine edition.]
XIII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 93

was not Samuel himself, but an evil spirit. A n d concerning the

book of Ecclesiasticus his expression i s : " But if this book be
5

objected to on account of the Hebrew canon which does not give

it a place, what shall we say of Moses ? " H e concedes therefore
that this book is open to objections. So Aquinas (i. p. 89. 4. 8.
Art. ad 2 . ) gives three answers to this p l a c e : 1. That Samuel
m

appeared b y a divine revelation. 2. Or, that the apparition was

produced b y demons. 3. O r , that the authority of Ecclesiasticus
must not be admitted b y reason that it is not esteemed b y the
Hebrews a portion of the canonical scriptures.

CHAPTER XIV.

OF THE BOOKS OF MACCABEES.

BESIDES those common pleas, upon which we have already

said enough and answered sufficiently, our opponents adduce two
arguments to establish the authority of these books. T h e first is,
that they are placed b y Clement in the canon of sacred scripture,
as appears in the last of the apostolic canons. The second is the
testimony of Augustine, in his City of God, (Lib. x v m . c. 3 6 ) , which
is to this effect : " These books not the Jews, but the Church hold
to be canonical ."6
A similar testimony is found also in his second
book against the Epistles of Gaudentius, cap. 2 3 . Hence they
7

conclude that these books are truly and properly canonical. I

proceed to return a brief answer to both allegations.
T o the former I reply, in the first place, that we have already
shewn what should be thought of that book of apostolic canons, and
have stripped it of the name and authority of the apostles . In 8

the second place, I am surprised that Bellarmine should choose to

avail himself of such a witness, whose evidence he must know

[s Sed si Tiuic libro ex Hebrajorum, quia in eo non est, canone contra-

dicitur, quid de Mose dicturi sumus?—Id. ibid.]
[ The whole passage upon which Whitaker reasons in his reply is as
6

follows: Ab hoc tempore apud Judajos restituto templo non reges sed prin-
cipes fuerunt, usque ad Aristobulum: quorum supputatio temporum non in
scripturis SANCTIS, qua; canonical appellantur, sed in aliis invenitur; in quibus
sunt et Machabeorum libri; quos non Judcei, sed ecclesia pro canonicis habet
propter quorundam martyrum passiones vehementes atque mirabiles.]
[T It is the last piece in T. ix. of the Benedictine edition, where this
passage stands. Lib. I. § 38. p. 655.] 8
[ Supra, p. 42.]
94 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

v e r y well to make much more against the cause which he defends

than it weighs in favour of these particular books. F o r , except
these books of Maccabees, that apostolical canon recites none of
all those pieces which our churches hold apocryphal, amongst the
canonical books of the old Testament. If, therefore, this aposto-
lical canon hath made these books canonical, it hath certainly left
the rest in the class of apocryphal and spurious. L e t the papists
consider, whether they would choose that these books should be
received on condition that all the others be excluded. Besides, in
this apostolical canon three books of Maccabees are recited, whereas
the papists allow only two of them to be canonical . 1
If then
they rely on the authority of these canons to prove the canonicity
of two books, what are they to determine concerning the t h i r d ?
T h e y must consequently give up the argument derived from these
canons, and Bellarmine hath acted discreetly in omitting it in the
edition published b y Sartorius.
I come now to the testimonies of Augustine. A n d , first, to the
former from the City of God, Lib. x v m . c. 3 6 . H o w Augustine
calls these and the other books canonical, b y a certain common
use of that term in a loose sense, hath been already explained.
T h e Jews did not hold these books canonical; for they were of
no account whatever amongst them. But the christian church
may be said to hold them canonical, forasmuch as they are read in
the church, and held in some value, although they are not ad-
mitted to an equal authority and credit with the rest. This we
may learn from Augustine himself, who writes thus in that v e r y
same passage: " T h e calculation of which times is not to b e found
in the sacred scriptures which are called canonical, but in others,
amongst which are also the books of Maccabees." Then follow the
words upon which the argument is founded. N o w in these words
of Augustine two things present themselves which deserve notice.
T h e first, that these books are not, in truth and fact, sacred and
canonical. T h e other, that they are nevertheless held canonical
in the church,—that is, read publicly, set forth, and esteemed of
great value in the church. Augustine subjoins the reason when
he says, " o n account of the violent and admirable sufferings of
certain martyrs." Does he not in these words sufficiently shew
that Christians were led to ascribe so much importance to these
books on this account, because in them mention was made of cer-

[} There is some reason for believing the words Maiacafiaícov rpla to be an

interpolation. See Cosin's Scholast. Hist. p. 30. Boverego's Annotations,
pp. 5, 30, and Gibbings's Roman Forgeries, pp. 113,114.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 95

tain martyrs who fell in the cause of religion with the utmost
fortitude and constancy? On this account Nazianzen hath p r o ­
nounced a most beautiful panegyric upon that mother and her
seven sons . But in what sense can it be said that a book is
2

held canonical on account of this or t h a t ? F o r a book which

is truly canonical is to be received absolutely and entirely, not on
account of this or that part or reason. Augustine says, in the City
of God, Lib. i. c. 20 : " N o r is it in vain, that nowhere in the
sacred canonical scriptures do we find any divine precept or per­
mission to take away our own l i v e s . " In these books if not a
3

precept, at least a permission for a man to take his own life, is

to be detected. F o r in 1 Mace. chap. vi. E leasar is praised for
voluntarily rushing upon death. And in 2 Mace. chap, xiv., the
fortitude of Razis is commended, who laid violent hands upon
himself. Y e t Razis deserved no praise for his fortitude. For
this was to die cowardly rather than courageously, to put him­
self voluntarily to death in order to escape from the hands of a
tyrant. T h e H o l y Spirit judges not of valour b y the same mea­
sures as profane men, who extol Cato to the skies for committing
suicide lest he should fall into the power and hands of Caesar:
for he either feared, or could not bear to see him, or sought to
catch renown b y an act of such prodigious horror. Thus he was
crushed and extinguished either b y despair, or grief, or some other
perturbation of m i n d ; any of which motives are foreign from true
fortitude. Rightly, therefore, did Augustine deny those books to
be canonical, in which such a crime is narrated with some com­
mendation b y the authors.

T h e second testimony of Augustine occurs Lib. н. c. 23 ;

where also Augustine opposes our adversaries more than he favours
them. F o r he requires that " the book should be read and heard
with sobriety." Say y o u so ? W h a t , I pray, do these words mean,
" not unprofitably, if done s o b e r l y ? " Is there ground to fear that
scripture may be read unprofitably ? A n d what is this sobriety
which he demands in the perusal of these books ? E very thing,
indeed, should be read s o b e r l y ; no one doubts t h a t ; and rash­
ness should always be avoided. But if Augustine had meant that
sobriety which is everywhere required in all scriptures, he would
not have peculiarly prescribed that caution to the readers of this

[2 Inter Opp. Gregorii Nazianzen. Т. I. p. 397. Colon. 1090.]

[ Neque enim frustra in SANCTIS canonicis libris nusquam nobis divinitus
3

proeceptum permissumve reperitur, ut nobismet ipsis песет inferainus.]

96 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

book. T h e meaning, therefore, is, that there are some things in

the book which, if they be examined b y the strict rule of faith,
cannot be defended, and therefore are not fit models for imitation ;
and that consequently the book requires to be read soberly. This
is moreover to be noted, that Augustine writes in that same place,
that Christ does not bear testimony to these books as his witnesses';
which sufficiently shews that Augustine did not deem these books
truly canonical.
These matters being thus explained, let us now adduce our ar-
guments against the authority of these books.
First, Jerome, in his catalogue of illustrious m e n , and in his
1

second book against Pelagius , says that Josephus was the author
2

of these books. N o w Josephus was no prophet, and lived after

Christ and beyond the limits of the old Testament; for which
reasons he could not have written any book belonging to the
canon of the old Testament. Others, although they do not think
Josephus the author of these books, y e t allow that the chronology
in them was supplied b y Josephus; in consequence of which the
books became apocryphal, because the dates in these books do
not agree. So the popish writer A n n i u s delivers his opinion,
3

upon the Second book of Philo's Chronology.

Secondly, these books are expressly styled apocryphal b y
G r e g o r y the Great, who was Pope of R o m e , in his Morals, Lib. xix.
c. 16. These are his w o r d s : " W e shall not transgress the due
bounds of order, if we produce a testimony upon this subject from
books, not indeed canonical, y e t set forth for the edification of the
C h u r c h . " Then he cites a passage from the Maccabees. There-
4

fore, before Gregory, that is, within six hundred years after Christ,
the Church did not esteem the Books of Maccabees canonical.

[ Alius quoque liber ejus, qui inscribitur ntpl avroKpaxopos

1
\oyurp.ov,
valde elegans habetur, in quo et Machabajorum sunt digesta martyria. Cap.
xni. Opp. T. II. 837.]
[ Unde et Josephus, Machabseorum scriptor historise, frangi et regi posse
2

dixit perturbationes animse, non eradicari. Ibid. 735.—The reader must be

reminded, that neither this, nor the preceding passage, mean anything like
what Whitaker supposes; the piece attributed to Josephus being, not the
books of Maccabees commonly so called, but a discourse or oration on the
Maccabees, which may be found in his works.]
[3 Josephus tempora adjiciens apocryphas reddidit. Annii Viteberg.
Antiquitt. ap. Ascenscium. 1512. Fol. ci.]
[ De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris non canouicis, sed tames
4

ad sedificationem ecclesias editis, testimonium profcramus.]

XIV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 97

Hence we see clearly what we should think of pope Innocent and

Augustine. T h e y call these books canonical; Gregory denies them
to be such. T h e y and he, therefore, without doubt used that term
in different senses. T h e same judgment on these books is passed
b y Eusebius (Lib. de T e m p . ) , Richard of S. Victor. (Except. Lib. 11.
5

c. 9 ) , and Occam (3 Part. Dial. Tract, i. Lib. in. c. 16)

6

Thirdly, in 2 Mace. chap, xii., Judas Maccabaaus is praised for

offering sacrifice for the dead. Whereas he really deserved no praise
on that account, since G o d had commanded the making of no such
sacrifice. Now, whatever is done in religious service without divine
precept, is displeasing to God, and deserves not praise, but blame; and
all sorts of will-worship were ever condemned in scripture. But upon
this whole matter and argument we shall have to speak hereafter.
Fourthly, that sacrifice was offered for men who had brought
themselves under the guilt and pollution of idolatry and sacrilege,
and had perished in that crime, as we read in the twelfth chapter.
F o r the soldiers of Judas had plundered some things consecrated
to the Jamnite idols, and had hidden these offerings under their
clothes; which, when they were slain, were discovered under their
vesture. A n d this author says it was a clear case that they had
fallen on account of that crime. N o w the papists themselves allow
that no sacrifice should be offered for persons guilty of such idolatry
and sacrilege: for this was a mortal s i n ; and they tell us them-
selves that for those who are certainly in mortal sin, as the author
affirms these men to have been, no sacrifice should be made. For
— a s to the pretence which Bellarmine has borrowed from L y r a ,
that Judas piously supposed that they had repented of their sin in
the very article of d e a t h — n o t to mention that it rests wholly upon
a dim surmise, yet, however probable it may have been that they
had grieved in death for their offence, a public sacrifice should
never have been offered for persons of this sort, who had polluted
themselves with idolatry, unless there were certain proof of their
true repentance.

[ Machabaeorum Historia bine supputat regnum Graecorum. Verum hi

5

libri inter divinas scripturas non recipiuntur. P. 348, ed. Majo. et Zohrab.
Mediol. 1 8 1 8 . ]
6
[ Alii non habentur in canone, tamen leguntur. Hi sunt Libri
Machabseorum. Deinde sanctorum patrum scripta, &c. Opp. Ven. 1 5 9 2 .
p. 3 3 1 . ]
7
[ Secundum Hieronymum . . . . L i b r i . . . . Machabseorum.... non sunt
recipiendi ad confirmandum aliquid in fide. Dialog. Guil. Ockam. Lugd.
1 4 9 5 . Fol. ccxii. 2 . ]

R
[WHITAKER.]1 7
98 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Fifthly, the H o l y Spirit is not accustomed to epitomize the

history of a profane author. But the Second B o o k of Maccabees,
as we read in chap, ii., is a contraction of the five volumes of Jason
of Cyrene, comprising in one little b o o k what Jason had minutely
detailed in five. W h o that Jason was is uncertain. A prophet he
was n o t : that no one ever said, or could say. Consequently this
synopsis of Jason's history, composed in such a manner, cannot b e
counted part of the canonical scriptures.
Sixthly, in 2 Mace. chap. ii. we have a long narrative about the
sacred fire, the ark, the tabernacle, and the altar, which are said
there to have been hidden in a certain mountain and laid up b y
Jeremiah. Now there is not a word of all this in Jeremiah himself.
A n d this author adds, that God had promised that he would shew
them, when he had collected the people. But, after the Babylonian
captivity, the Jews neither had nor found that ark, that tabernacle,
nor that altar, nor did God, after that event, shew these things to
any one. T h e papists object, that this is not to be understood of
the return under Cyrus, when that remnant of the Jews was col-
lected, but of the advent of Christ, when the whole people shall be
collected, or of the conversion of the Jews a little before the end
of the world. But this is an utterly vain conjecture. F o r what
reason is there w h y these things should be shewn to the Jews at
such a period ? O r who does not feel the absurdity of so ridiculous
a figment ? However, if we consult the sacred history, we shall
find that this which is told of Jeremiah is contrary to the truth of
facts. F o r Jeremiah was in prison until the destruction of the city.
Jer. chaps, xxxvii. and x x x v i i i . : so that he could not take these
things away and hide them, while the city and temple s t o o d ; nor
would the priests and princes have permitted it. But, after the
taking of the city, the Chaldeans fire the temple, plunder all its
valuables, whether gold, or silver, or brass, and carry them off with
themselves, as we read 2 Kings xxv., and in the last chapter of
Jeremiah. Jeremiah, therefore, had no opportunity of taking away
the ark of the Lord, and the altar of incense, which were overlaid
and covered entirely within and without with pure gold, E x o d . x x v .
11. Besides, where are those records of Jeremiah to be found,
which are mentioned in the beginning of this chapter ?

Seventhly, there are many things in these books irreconcileable

and contradictory, such as the following examples which I shall
proceed to specify. In the first place, these books are not agreed
about the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was a most bitter enemy
XIV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 99

of the J e w s . F o r in 1 Mace. vi. 8 and 16,- Antiochus is said to

have died of mental anguish upon the receipt of evil tidings, and to
have died at Babylon in his b e d ; at which time also he gave his
son in charge to Philip, whom he set over the kingdom. But in
2 Mace. i. 16, he is beheaded and cut in pieces in the temple of
Nansea. So that we have now been told of two deaths of A n -
tiochus, since the manner of dying on these two occasions is different.
But this author tells us further of a third death of the same man
Antiochus, 2 Mace. chap, i x ; where he writes that he died far away
in the mountains of an internal pain in the bowels, out of which
worms were seen to crawl, and a horrible stench issued through
almost the whole army. One man could not have died so many
and such different deaths. T h e papists however set up some p r e -
tences. Canus says (Lib. H. cap. 11 ad quartum) that it is not the
same Antiochus. But the history itself refutes him at o n c e ; and
Bellarmine was compelled to allow that the person meant was one
and the same. H e endeavours to reconcile the accounts t h u s :
Antiochus lost his army in the temple of Nanaea, on the road he
fell from his chariot, afterwards he was carried to Babylon and
breathed his last. They confess therefore that Antiochus died at
Babylon, as is related in the first b o o k : and, indeed, the first book
deserves more credit than the second. N o w read what is related
in the second book concerning the death of Antiochus in the places
already cited. In chap. i. we read, that the leader himself was
stoned b y the priests, and cut in pieces, and liis head thrown out
to those who were outside. N o w this leader is called Antiochus.
Antiochus, therefore, perished in this temple, unless a man who
hath been stoned, and cut to pieces, and beheaded, can escape alive.
Let us now g o on to chap. ix. There we shall find that this
murderer and blasphemer, whilst in a transport of fury he was
marching from Persia towards Jerusalem, in a remote and moun-
tainous region exchanged a miserable life for a deplorable death.
If he died at Babylon, he did not die in the country, nor in a
mountainous region. N o r can both narratives possibly be true.
In the next place, Judas is said, 1 Mace. ix. 3, to have been
slain in the year 152 of the reign of the Seleucidae. But in 2
Mace. i. 10 he writes in the year 1 8 8 letters to Aristobulus the
1

master of P t o l e m y , — t h a t is, 3 6 years after his death.

I In the common text indeed the date stands thus : but one of Mr Par-
1

son's M S S . reads Teo-o-apaKoo-rov for oyHotjKocrTov. The difference is very

slight between pafj and pvt) -. and the latter doubtless is the true reading.
7—2
100 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

In the third place, Judas is said, 1 Mace. iv. 3 6 , to have purified

the temple before the death of Antiochus, after Lysias had been
routed. But in 2 Mace, at the commencement of chap. x. this
purification of the temple is said to have been made after the
death of Antiochus. F o r it is the same purification, as our adver-
saries allow.
In the fourth place, according to 2 Mace, x., Antiochus
Eupator, the son of Epiphanes, upon his accession to the throne,
confided the administration of affairs to Lysias. But, according to
1 Mace, vi., Lysias was long before in charge of that administration,
and educated king Antiochus, and gave him the name of Eupator.
Eighthly, the second book shews that it is written b y a human
spirit. F o r , in the first place, at the end of the book the author
begs pardon of his readers, which is altogether alien from the H o l y
G h o s t ; since he always writes the truth, and writes it as it ought
to be written, erring neither in the matter nor in the manner, and
standing in no need of our indulgence.
T h e y object that Paul used a similar excuse, when he con-
fesses himself to have been " r u d e in speech," 2 Cor. xi. 6. I
r e p l y : Paul never excused himself for writing poorly or slen-
derly, or accomplishing less than he proposed. But this author
acknowledges the poorness and slenderness of his composition; and
therefore, impelled b y the sense of his own weakness, could not
help imploring the humane indulgence of his readers. Paul never
did this, nor any prophet or apostle. F o r , as to Paul's calling
himself rude in speech, (iSuoTriv Xoyw), it is spoken in the sense
and style of the false apostles, who, puffed up with a certain empty
shew of eloquence, despised the apostle as rude and unskilful in
discourse. In those words, therefore, he did not describe himself
such as he really was, but such as he was represented b y certain
false apostles. F o r the apostle was lacking in no commendable
part of true, simple, holy and divine eloquence, fit for so great a

For had the letter been written after 170, it would have been dated from the
era of Liberty, 1 Mace. xiii. 14. Still the difficulty remains, how an event
could be spoken of as passed in 148, which the first book of Maccabees
(ri. 14) tells us did not occur till 149. But Basnage (Hist, of the Jews, B. n.
c. 1. § 20) long ago observed, that the years are counted differently in the
two books of Maccabees. The first, following the Jewish mode, begins the
year in March: the second in September. Thus the first makes Eupator
declare war in 150, while the second dates the same event in 149. I wonder
that Valckenaer did not remember this. See his dissertation de Arislobulo
Judceo, pp. 40, 41.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 101

teacher and apostle: but, because these pretenders called him

I^IIOTYIV Xoyip, he acknowledges that, in their way of thinking, and
j u d g e d b y their model and standard, he was an iSuoTrjs. F o r this
is that eloquence which he calls " w i s d o m of w o r d s " {ao<piai>
Xoyov), 1 Cor. i. 1 7 , and " w o r d s which man's wisdom teacheth"
(SiSaKTovs av6p(i)irlvr)s o-o<f>las Xoyovs), 1 Cor. ii. 1 3 , and " excel-
lency of speech" {inrepo-^riv Xoyov), 1 Cor. ii. 1 ; and which St P e t e r
calls " cunningly-devised fables" (aeo-o<pio-fj.evovs fj.v9ovs), 2 P e t .
i. 16. So CEcumenius interprets the apostle: Aoyov Xeyei TO
eyyeyv/xvao-Qai TY\ eXXrjiuKrj crocpiq. " H e means b y speech the
being exercised in the wisdom of the Greeks." T o a similar
purpose Aquinas upon that p l a c e : " Because the apostle p r o -
posed the faith plainly and openly, therefore they said that he was
rude in s p e e c h . "
1
So L y r a : " H e says this to refute the saying
of the false apostles, who despised his doctrine, because he spoke
plainly and coarsely. Therefore he tells them that he did this
not from lack of knowledge, but because, as times then were, it
was not expedient for the Corinthians to have subtle questions
preached to t h e m . "
2
The same is the opinion concerning this
place expressed b y Catharinus archbishop of C a m p s a : " I do
not think," says he, " that Paul confesses himself to have been
really rude in speech, since he was an excellent preacher. But he
seemed so to those according to whose opinions he is speaking,
because his style had a spiritual simplicity, and was not redolent
of their secular and affected eloquence ." 3
F o r what Canus says,
(Lib. II. c. 1 1 , on the fourth h e a d , ) — " There is no reason w h y
the Holy Ghost should not assist an author who yet speaks modestly
in a human m a n n e r , " — i s an insult to the H o l y Spirit. T h e H o l y
4

Spirit ever teaches us m o d e s t y ; but meanwhile ever speaks and

[ Apostolus proposuit eis fidem non in subtilitate sermonis, sed

J

plane et aperte; ideo isti dicebant eum imperitum esse sermone.—In 2 Cor. xi.
Lect. 2. Comm. p. 1 4 0 . Ant. 1 5 6 9 . ]
[ Hoe dicit ad repellendum dictum pseudapostolorum, qui contem-
2

nebant ejus doctrinam, eo quod plana et grossa dicebat: ideo dicit, quod hoc
non ex defectu sciential, sed quod non expediebat Corinthiis pro tunc subtilia
prsedicari.—Biblia cum Gloss. Lyr. P. vi. p. 7 4 . Lugd. 1 5 2 0 . ]
[ Non puto Paulum se fateri esse imperitum sermone, cum esset pra;-
3

dicator eximius: sed ita illis videbatur ad quorum opinionem loquitur; quia
sermo ejus habebat simplicitatem spiritualem, et non secularem illam affec
tatam redolebat eloquentiam.—Comm. in Paul. Epp. p. 2 3 2 . Paris. 1 5 6 6 . ] :
[ Nihil impedit ut Spiritus Sanctus scriptori assistat, qui in quibusdam
4
;

tamen, humano more, ex modestia loquitur.]

102 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

writes in a way that cannot be excelled b y any one possessed of a

mere human spirit.
In the second place, this author speaks of the labour of making
this epitome as troublesome, and full of toil and difficulty, 2 Mace,
ii. But nothing is so difficult as to give any trouble to the H o l y
Spirit: for the Holy Spirit is God, and labours under no human
weakness, and possesses infinite wisdom and power. Bellarmine,
indeed, objects, that, although God ever assists all the sacred
writers, yet the mode is different in the case of the historians from
what it is in the case of the prophets. The prophets had no other
trouble than that of dictating or writing, since God inspired them
with a knowledge of all that they were to write or dictate; as we
read of Baruch writing things down from the lips of Jeremiah.
But the historians underwent much labour in searching and
thoroughly examining their subject, as Luke declares of himself,
chap. i. 3. I confess, in reply to this, that those who published
histories used diligence and industry: for the H o l y Spirit does
not make men lazy, or slothful, or negligent. So Luke thoroughly
investigated, and knew accurately, and wrote most truly, all things
pertaining to his subject. But I absolutely deny that this writing
was troublesome or difficult to Luke, because nothing can be
troublesome to the H o l y Spirit; and Luke, when he wrote his
narrative, had the H o l y Spirit as much as John when he wrote the
Apocalypse. " T h e H o l y Ghost," as Ambrose says, " knows
nothing of slow efforts ."
1
Besides, how could the task of making
a short epitome of five books b y Jason of Cyrene have been so
troublesome to the writers of the Maccabasan history ? Certainly
it is very easy to take out of another work what we choose, and
to omit what we choose not. T h e mind, the spirit, the genius, the
confession, the history are here all human.

CHAPTER XV.

OF THE BOOKS ALLOWED BY THE PAPISTS TO BE APOCRYPHAL.

W E have now spoken of those apocryphal books of the old

Testament, which the papists maintain to be canonical, and have
shewn them to be truly apocryphal. It remains now that we

\} Vide supra, p. 38.]

XV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 103

come to those apocryphal pieces of the old Testament which

are judged apocryphal b y the papists themselves. Concerning
these there is no dispute between us and them. Nevertheless, I
will give a brief enumeration of them, so as to let y o u understand
what and of what sort they are. T h e y are these : T h e third
and fourth books of E s d r a s : the third and fourth of Macca-
bees ; whereof the third is found in some copies of the Bible, and
the fourth is mentioned b y Athanasius in his Synopsis. T o these
must be added the prayer of Manasseh, which is set after the
books of Chronicles: the 151st P s a l m : the Appendix to the
book of J o b in the Greek copies. There is also a little preface to
the Lamentations of Jeremiah, which is apocryphal. All these
are conceded to be apocryphal parts of the old Testament, because
not found in the Hebrew text, nor reckoned in the canon b y any
council or pope. T h e third b o o k of Maccabees, however, is
counted in the canon b y Clement , whom some suppose to have
2

collected the canons of the apostles, and who was a sovereign

pontiff; upon which difficulty they know not what to say.
The fourth book of Esdras, chap, vi., contains some fables
about the two fishes, Enoch and Leviathan, which are pretended to
be of such vast and prodigious magnitude, that no waters can contain
them. There are many things of the like stamp in these books,
fit to please and feed human curiosity, but discordant from all
sound and solid instruction. Such is the fiction in chap, iv., that
the souls of the righteous are kept in certain subterranean cells
until the number of the righteous shall be complete, and that then
they will no longer be able to retain them, even as the womb
cannot hold the foetus beyond the ninth month. Such also is the
story, chap, xiv, that the sacred books were lost in the captivity,
and restored to their integrity b y Ezra, after a retirement of forty
days. F o r if these books had been lost, and written anew b y
Ezra, their language would be Chaldee, and not H e b r e w ; upon
which point we shall speak hereafter. But these are false and
incredible figments, rejected even b y the papists, who yet generally
are wont to entertain such fables with wonder and veneration.
Indeed Genebrard, in his Chronology (anno mundi 3 7 4 9 ) , calls both
these books canonical; which may well excite astonishment, as being
not only repugnant to right reason and the common opinion of the
doctors, but also made in contradiction to the authority of the
council of Trent. Genebrard, however, builds his cause upon the
[ Vide supra, p. 94.]
2
104 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

same reasons b y which Bellarmine, as noticed above, seeks to prove

the canonicity of Tobit, Wisdom, and the rest. Genebrard shews
that these books are cited b y ancient fathers, and that the Church
is wont to read portions of them upon her sacred anniversaries.
All this is perfectly true, since in the third week of Pentecost, and
the commemorations of Martyrs, lessons are taken from the fourth
of Esdras. Therefore either this argument, which Bellarmine hath
hitherto used so often, does not prove the matter proposed, or these
books of Esdras must come in as canonical on the same plea : which
y e t the Jesuits would b e so far from granting, that they would
oppose it as grossly erroneous. However Genebrard does not
stand alone in this mistake. F o r John Benedictus also, in the b e -
ginning of his bible, places the third and fourth of Esdras in the
number of those books which, although not contained in the Hebrew
canon, are yet received b y the christian Church. In like manner
Benatus Benedictus in his Stromata Biblica, Lib. i. c. 9, counts
the third and fourth of Esdras among the canonical books.
T h e prayer of Manasseh is extant neither in Hebrew, nor in
G r e e k ; and although it seems pious, yet I cannot understand how
that passage can be defended where he says, " Thou hast not ap-
pointed repentance to the just, as to Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob, which have not sinned against t h e e ; " unless we suppose,
indeed, that this is only said comparatively. F o r they too had
sinned, and stood in need of repentance.
Psalm cli. is found in the Greek, but not in the Hebrew copies.
I t contains thanks to God for the victory over Goliah, and was
translated b y Apollinarius in his Metaphrase . 1
However it was
always esteemed apocryphal. T h e appendix to the B o o k of J o b 2

is condemned b y Jerome, as translated only out of the Syriac

tongue, and not found in the Hebrew, and because J o b is there
said to have been the fourth from Esau, whereas he was of the
race of U z , who was the son of Nahor. So Jerome in his Questions
and traditions upon Genesis . In his Epistle to Evagrius, however,
3

(Qusest. 1 2 6 ) h e says that J o b was more probably descended from

Esau, yet affirms that the Hebrews think otherwise.
All these the papists allow to be apocryphal; and they may as
well add to them what we esteem apocryphal also. F o r the argu-
ments, as y o u have already seen, are no less valid against the latter
than against the former. Hence too it appears evidently, that it is
[i Fabricius, Cod. Pseud. V . T. T. n. p. 907.]
[ 2
Ibid. p. 793.] [3 Hieronym. Opp. T. in. p. 339.]
XV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 105

not everything that is read in the Latin bibles that can claim canon-
ical authority, since many apocryphal pieces are found there. But
from this it arose that the apocrypha, being bound into one volume
with the canonical scriptures, obtained b y degrees more and more
credit and authority, and at last were esteemed even canonical
themselves.

CHAPTER XVI.

OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

IT follows that, in the next place, we should speak of the books

of the new Testament. But I will omit this portion of the subject,
inasmuch as it involves no controversy between us and the papists.
F o r we acknowledge without any exception those same books as
they j u d g e to b e canonical. Those books of the new Testament
which the council of Trent hath enumerated, those all, and those
only, our church receives. I f Luther, or some of Luther's followers,
have thought or written otherwise concerning some of them, as the
Epistle of James or that of Jude, or some other pieces, they must
answer for themselves: their opinions are no concern of ours, nor
is it incumbent upon us to defend them, since we are, in this
respect, no followers of Luther, and submit to the direction of
better reason. However the persons just mentioned can produce
in their behalf the judgment and example of the ancient christian
Church and of certain fathers. F o r it is sufficiently known, that in
old times some christian churches and fathers, distinguished for their
piety and their learning, removed from the canon all those books
which Luther called in question. There is, therefore, no just cause
why our adversaries should inveigh so vehemently and with such
acrimony against Luther on this account, since he hath erred no
more in this respect than several catholic churches and some holy
fathers formerly, and even some v e r y distinguished papists at the
present day. Cajetan openly rejects all the f o l l o w i n g : — t h e
Epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of
John, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews (which
Luther certainly never disputed), the history of the woman taken
in adultery, John viii., the last chapter of Mark, and throughout
the gospels and other books several passages about which it never
entered into the mind of Luther to entertain a doubt. However
106 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

all who doubted about some canonical b o o k were not, in former

times, therefore reputed heretics. But I will not pursue this
subject farther, since it hath no connexion with our cause. L e t
them attack others, but not from henceforth molest us.
Thus, then, we doubt not of the authority of any book of the
new Testament, nor indeed of the author of any, save only the
Epistle to the Hebrews. That this epistle is canonical, we all
concede in the fullest sense; but it is not equally clear that
it was written b y the apostle Paul. Some j u d g e it to be Paul's,
others think otherwise. This was a questionable point in the
earliest period of the Church. Eusebius (Lib. m . c. 3) writes 1

that the church of R o m e denied this Epistle to be Paul's; but

now that church hath changed its opinion, and attributes the
authorship to Paul. Jerome, in his Catalogue under the Article
PAUL, hath these w o r d s : " T h e Epistle called that to the H e -
brews is not thought to be his, on account of the difference
of the style and diction ." H e writes to the same effect in his
2

Epistle to Paulinus, and upon the 13th chapter of Jeremiah.

Tertullian ascribes it to Barnabas . Some to Luke the Evangelist,
3

as Jerome testifies. So Caius, an ancient and learned writer,

enumerates no more than thirteen epistles of Paul, as Jerome tells
us in the Catalogue. " In the same volume," says he, " enume-
rating only thirteen epistles of Paul, he says that the fourteenth,
which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not his. Yea, and amongst
the Romans, even to this day, it is not looked upon as the work
of the Apostle P a u l . " Eusebius also hath mentioned this Caius,
4

Lib. vi. c. 1 6 . H e n c e it appears clearly, that many in former

times thought this epistle not to have been written b y Paul.
But now, if I were to seek to mention all who attribute this
epistle to the apostle Paul, I should never find an end. Jerome,
in his epistle to Dardanus, says, that almost all the Greek authors
affirm it to be P a u l ' s ; and of this mind is Origen (in Eusebius,
5

Lib. vi. c. 1 8 ) , — C l e m e n s Alexandrinus (in Eusebius, Lib. vi. c. 1 1 ) ,

P ON ye pf)v nves ^denjKacn TT]V irpbs 'Efipatovs, TTpbs Trjs 'VapaLav CKKXTJ-
alas ds prj XLavXov ovcrav aimjv avri\eyeo~0ai (prjo-avres, ov hiKaiov ayvoetv.—
Eccl. Hist. T. I. pp. 189, 190. ed. Heinrich.]
[ Epistola quae fertur ad Hebraos non ejus creditor, propter styli ser-
2

monisque dissonantiam.—Opp. T. n. p. 823.]

[ D e Pudicitia. c. 20. Extat enim et Barnaboe titulus ad Hebrseos.]
3

[ Et in eodem volumine epistolas quoque Pauli tredecim tantum enume-

4

rans, decimam quartam, quaj fertur ad Hebneos, dicit ejus non esse. Sed
ct apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli Apostoli non habetur.—c. 59.
T. ii. p. 886.] [ T. II. p. 608, alias Ep. 129.]
6
 question t h e first. 107

— E u s e b i u s himself (Lib. 11. c. 3 ) , — t h e council of Laodicea (c. 5 9 ) ,

6

— A t h a n a s i u 3 , in the Synopsis and elsewhere,—Irenasus , Cyril 7

(Thesaur. Lib. X I I . c. 9 ) , — C h r y s o s t o m upon the epistle, and N a -

zianzen in many places. Theophylact wonders at the impudence
of those who deny it. Damascene cites a testimony from it as a
work of Paul's . Even the more celebrated of the Latins hold the
8

same language. Augustine, de Doctr. Christ. Lib. I I . c. 8, and

many other places. Ambrose wrote commentaries upon this, as
one of Paul's epistles, and calls it a work of Paul's, in commenting
upon Psalm cxix. 9
So also G r e g o r y the Great, Moral. Lib. v.
cap. 3. And the apostle Peter seems to testify that this is an
epistle of Paul's, in these words, 2 P e t . iii. 1 5 , — " A s our brother
Paul hath written to y o u . " N o w they were H e b r e w s : for it was
to Hebrews that Peter wrote, as is plain from the inscription of
his first epistle; and it was to the same persons that the second
also was sent, since he says, " This second epistle I now write unto
you." ch. iii. 1.
This, however, I leave to the judgment of the reader, with-
out determining anything absolutely one way or other. I know
that some allege reasons to shew that this cannot possibly be an
epistle of Paul's. But I perceive that these have been opposed
and refuted b y others, as Illyricus, Hyperius, & c . W e need not
be v e r y earnest in this debate. It is not a matter of necessity,
and the question may well be left in doubt, provided that, in the
meanwhile, the authority of the epistle be allowed to remain clear
and uncontested. Jerome, in his epistle to Dardanus, hath sagely
reminded us, that it makes no great matter whose it is, " since it
is certainly the work of an ecclesiastical man, and is continually
used every day in the reading of the c h u r c h e s . " G r e g o r y , in
10

like manner, wrote excellently well of the author of the book of J o b ,

when, in the preface to his commentary upon that book, cap. 1 0 ,
he answers the inquiries put to him upon that subject: " W h o
wrote these things, it is superfluous to ask, if only we believe
faithfully that the H o l y Spirit was the author of the book. He
himself, therefore, wrote these things, since he dictated them to be
[e Mansi, T . n. p. 574.]
[ It seems a mistake to say that Irenseus cites this epistle as Paul's.
7

Stephen Gobar (apud Photium cod. ccxxn. p. 904) affirms the contrary.]
[8 De fide Orthodox. Lib. IT. c. 17. T. i. p. 283.]
[ See also in Job. Lib. xvn. c. 23, p. 546, e.]
9

[10
Et nihil interesse cujus sit, quum ecclesiastici viri sit, et quotidie eccle-
siarum lectione celobretur. ut supra, p. 106. n. 5.]
108 the first controversy. [CH.

written. I f we read the words in some letter which we had gotten

from some great man, and raised the question, what pen they were
written w i t h ; it would surely be thought ridiculous that we should
be curious not to know the author and understand his meaning, but
discover what sort of pen it was with which their characters were
traced ." 1
Since, then, we perceive that the H o l y Ghost is the
author of this epistle, it is superfluous to inquire so anxiously
and curiously about the pen, and rash to affirm anything without
certain evidence.
Apocryphal, b y the confession and in the opinion of all, are
those numerous spurious gospels under the names of Thomas,
Andrew, Nicodemus, the Nazarenes, & c , whereof w e read in G r a -
tian, Dist. 1 5 . c. Sancta Momana. These are not now extant,
although they were formerly read and highly esteemed b y m a n y .
But the L o r d provided for his church that, while the true gospels
were constantly preserved, those fictitious ones should perish utterly.
Besides, that piece which goes about under the title of the Epistle
to the Laodiceans, is likewise a p o c r y p h a l ; of which Jerome writes
in the catalogue under the article P A U L : " Some read the epistle to
the Laodiceans, but it is universally e x p l o d e d . " 2
A n d the fathers of
the second Nicene council, A c t . 6 , say : " Amongst the epistles o f
the apostle there is one which goes under the title of that to the
Laodiceans, which our fathers have rejected as spurious ." 3
I know
not whence the notion of such an epistle originated, if it were not
from the error and fault of the Latin version, Coloss. iv. 1 6 . For
the Vulgate reads there, et ilia quas est Laodicensium, as if there
had been some epistle written to the Laodiceans b y Paul. The
Latin words are ambiguous, and may be understood in such a sense.
But the Greek text immediately removes this suspicion, Kal T^V BK
AaoSiKelas. Therefore this epistle which Paul here mentions,
whatever it was, was not written to the Laodiceans, but from the
Laodiceans; which all the Greek expositors have observed.

[} Quis hoc scripserit supervacanee quseritur, cum tamen auctor libri

Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur. Ipse igitur hsec scripsit, qui ha;c scri-
benda dictavit. Si magni cujusdam viri susceptis epistolis legeremus verba,
eaque quo calamo essent scripta quajreremus; ridiculum profecto esset, si
non epistolarum auctoritatem scire, sensumque cognoscere, sed quali calamo
earum verba impressa fuerint, indagare studeremus.—Opp. T. l. p. 7. Paris.
1701.]
[ 2
Legunt quidam ad Laodicenos, sed ab omnibus exploditur. T. n. p. 823.]
[ 3
K a i yap rov 8uov 'KirocrTokov rrpos AaoSiKfTf (peperai. w X a o r i j OTJOTOX^ . . .
TJV oi rrarepes ijp,£v aTTeSoicipao-av.—Concil. Labb. et CoSSart. T. Vn. p. 475.}
XVI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 109

There is also a b o o k of Hermas, called the Sheplierd, which

Jerome speaks of in the catalogue, under the article HERMAS.
T h e papists concede this also to be apocryphal, y e t so as to be
capable of being made and adjudged to be canonical b y the church.
F o r so Stapleton writes of this book, Doctrinal. Princip. L i b . ix. cap.
1 4 , and he says as much of the Clementine Constitutions. Nor
should this surprise us, since Gratian, upon the foot of a passage
from Augustine (which, however, he hath most shamefully and
foully corrupted), asserts that the decretal epistles are to be
reckoned a part of the canonical scriptures, Dist. 1 9 . 4
W h i c h in-
tolerable falsification of this compiler Alphonsus de Castro (contra
Hser. Lib. i. c. 2 ) , and Andradius (Def. Trident. Lib. HI.) acknow-
ledge and condemn. Y e t there are still some papists who persist
in the same impudent blasphemy. F o r one Alphonsus de Guerero
adduces the evidence of this place to prove that the decretal epistles
of the Roman pontiffs are equal to the sacred scriptures; whose
words stand as follows in the Thesaurus Christiance Religionis, cap.
3. Num. 5 : " Also decretal epistles have the force of authority,
and decretal epistles are reckoned part of the canonical scriptures ." 5

A l s o John Turrecremata, (de Ecclesia. Lib. iv. p. 2 . c. 9 ) , and Ca-

jetan, in his book de Primatu Papce, make use of this corrupt place
in Gratian to prove the authority and primacy of the Roman pon-
tiffs. Thus the volume of the new Testament will be augmented b y
a glorious accession, if all the decretal letters of the popes are to b e
counted amongst the sacred scriptures. But look yourselves at the
passage in Augustine, de Doctr. Christ. Lib. n. c. 8, and see there
the manifest ignorance or manifest fraud of Gratian. For Augus-
tine says not a word of decretal epistles, or Roman pontiffs, and the
scope of the whole place is directed quite another w a y .
But we have now finished the first question which we proposed
concerning the canonical books.
o
[* c. vi. In Canonicis. Where the Roman editors, having cited the pas-
sage as it really stands in Augustiue, very fairly add: " Qua: quidem B.
Augustini sententia non ad decretales Romanorum pontificias, sed ad canó-
nicas et sacras scripturas referenda est."]
[ Et decretales epístola? vim auctoritatis habent, et in canonicis scrip-
5

turis decretales epístola? connumerantur. Ap. Roccaberti, Bibl. Max. Pontif.

T. ii. p. 15. Roma?, 1698.]
 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

QUESTION II.

OF T H E A U T H E N T I C E D I T I O N OF T H E SCRIPTURES.

CHAPTER I.

THE STATE OF T H E QUESTION.

T H E first point raised in our inquiry concerning the duty of

searching the scriptures, as between us and the papists, hath now
been sufficiently explained. F o r we have found what are the books
of holy scripture which we are commanded to search, and have r e -
jected the error of our adversaries, who seek to introduce certain
apocryphal books into the canon. Wherein, indeed, no one can
fail to perceive their manifest unreasonableness, and the utter hope-
lessness of their cause. F o r , in the first place, not content with
those books which are truly canonical and inspired, those books
in which the Lord hath desired us to seek his will, they add to this
list of sacred pieces many others of a foreign and wholly hetero-
geneous character. Fai'ther still, they cannot think that even
with all this they have enough, but join to these scriptures even
unwritten traditions a l s o ; that so they may be enabled to prove
b y their spurious scriptures and traditions those dogmas of which
they can find no vestige in the genuine scriptures. On the other
hand, we have already shewn these books to be apocryphal, and I
shall presently speak of their traditions in the proper place. Order
requires that we should now proceed to the second question of our
controversy, which contains two divisions. T h e first is concerning
the authentic edition of the scriptures: the second, concerning the
versions of scripture and sacred rites in the vulgar tongue. We
shall handle each in its proper order.
Rightly to understand the state of this question, we must r e -
member what the council of Trent hath enjoined upon this subject;
which synod we read prescribing in the second decree of its fourth
 QUESTION THE SECOND. Ill

session, that " the old Latin vulgate edition should be held for
authentic in public lectures, disputations, preachings, and expositions,
and that no man shall dare or presume to reject it under any pre-
text whatsoever ." 1
Consequently, the point to be decided in this
question is, whether this Latin version, commonly styled the vulgate,
is the authentic edition of scripture, or not rather the Hebrew text
in the old Testament, and the Greek in the new. Our opponents
determine the Latin to be authentic, and so the council of Trent
hath defined it. So Melchior Canus (Lib. 11. c. 1 3 ) interprets
this decree, and deduces from it four conclusions. T h e first is,
that the old vulgate edition must be retained b y the faithful in all
points which pertain to faith and morals : the second, that all
questions concerning faith or morals must be determined b y this
Latin edition: the third, that we must not in a disputation a p -
peal to the Hebrew or Greek c o p i e s : the fourth, that, in matters
of faith or morals, the Latin copies are not to be corrected from the
Hebrew or Greek. In like manner our countrymen the Rhemists,
in the preface to their version of the new Testament, run out into a
long panegyric upon this Latin edition, and contend for its superi-
ority not only to all other Latin versions, but even to the Greek
itself which is the original and prototype. Lindanus, in the first
b o o k of his treatise de optimo genere interpretandi, prefers the
Latin edition to the Hebrew and G r e e k ; and Andradius (Defens.
Trident. L i b . iv.) declares it intolerable that any one should be p e r -
mitted to despise the authority of that edition which is used b y the
church, or to appeal freely to the Hebrew and Greek.
Although, therefore, our adversaries do not condemn the H e -
brew and Greek originals, yet they conclude that not these
originals, but the vulgate Latin edition is the authentic text of
scripture. Our churches, on the contrary, determine that this
Latin edition is v e r y generally and miserably corrupt, is false
and not authentic; and that the Hebrew of the old Testament,
and the Greek of the new, is the sincere and authentic scripture
of G o d ; and that, consequently, all questions are to be deter-
mined b y these originals, and versions only so far approved as
they agree with these originals. Consequently, we and our ad-
versaries maintain opinions manifestly contradictory.

f Sancrosancta synodus
1
statuit et declarat, ut ha;c ipsa vetus Vul-
gata editio, quse longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa ecolesia probata est, in
publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, pradicationibus, et expositionibus pro
authentica habcatur, et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis praJtextu audeat vol
piTcsumat. p. 20. Lips. 1837.]
112 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

I t behoves me to proceed in this question in such a course

as to say something,—first, of the H e b r e w edition of the old
Testament; secondly, of the Greek of the n e w ; thirdly, of this
Latin vulgate itself. Upon this last point I shall shew that it
is corrupt, and therefore to be corrected and j u d g e d of b y the
standard of the original text, which is, indeed, the grand hinge
upon which this whole controversy turns. T h e former matters
therefore I shall dispatch briefly, so as to come without delay
to the main subject.

CHAPTER II.

OF T H E HEBREW EDITION.

T H E H e b r e w is the most ancient of all languages, and was that

which alone prevailed in the world before the deluge and the erec-
tion of the T o w e r of Babel. F o r it was this that Adam used, and
all men before the flood, as is manifest from the scriptures, and as
the Fathers testify. So Augustine in his b o o k de Mirabilibus
Scripturce (cap. 9 ) : " Whereas, up to that time, the whole race of
all men were of one language, he divided their tongues into different
terms ." 1
A n d , in his City of G o d (Lib. xvi. c. 4 ) : " Time was
when all had one and the same l a n g u a g e . " 2
This is likewise con-
firmed b y that testimony of the Sybil, which Josephus hath set
down, Antiquit. Lib. i. c. 6 : " W h e n all men were of one lan-
guage, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby
ascend to h e a v e n ; but the gods sent storms of wind, and overthrew
the tower, and gave every one his peculiar l a n g u a g e . " 3
Which

f Cum ad illud tempus esset unius linguae cunctus populus, universorum

1

lingulas in diversa verba divisit.]

[ Cum ergo in suis Unguis istse gentes fuisse referantur, redit tamen ad
2

illud tempus narrator, quando una lingua omnium f uit.]

[3 Havrav opotbcovoiv ovrcav avOpconav, irupyov G>Ko8op7]<rdv rives vyjrrjXo-
rarov, as e-jri rov oiipavov dvafirjcropevoL dc avrov' ol de deal avepovs eTTtirep-
tyavTes dverpeyjrav rbv irvpyov, Kai Idiav eKao-rta (pcovtjv edatKav. Lib. I. C. 4.
§. 3. ed. Richter. Lips. 1826. The lines, as given by Opsopaeus, are these:
BFIOTPUIVOL O" RJCRAV AIRAVTES,
Keel FIOUXOVT DVA^RJV EH OIIPAVOV DATEPOEVTA,
AVTLKA DDAVATOI
Tlveufiatrtv.
Sibyll. Orac. Lib. in. p. 223. edit. Opsop. Paris. 1599.]
II.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 113

testimony of that aged prophetess is not to be rejected, since it

agrees with the scriptures. It was, therefore, no slight error of
Philastrius (Hseret. c. 1 0 6 ) to contend that there were many lan-
guages from the beginning, and to stigmatize as heretical the opi-
nion that there was but one language before the building of Babel.
F o r so the scripture tells us plainly, Gen. xi. 1 : " T h e whole earth
was of one language and one speech." N o w Augustine, in his City
of G o d (Lib. xvi. c. 1 1 ) tells us, that this common language r e -
mained in the family of H e b e r , and was thence called H e b r e w ;
4

which is also expressly affirmed b y Eucherius upon Genesis (Lib. H.

c. 2 ) : " A t that time, wherein a diversity of languages was p r o -
duced, the former tongue retained its place in the family of H e b e r
alone ." 5
Thus, whilst all other races were punished with a sudden
change of dialect, Heber preserved his ancient language, and trans-
mitted it to his posterity, not all of them indeed, but that line from
which Abraham descended. And, along with the language, the
pure religion also was propagated in the family of Abraham. Fur-
thermore, in that perturbation and confusion of tongues which t o o k
place at Babel, the Hebrew was the mother of the rest. F o r the
others are generally but dialects and varieties of this, some more
closely allied and bearing a greater resemblance to their parent,
while others have deflected farther from the primitive s t o c k : but
all the rest are derived from it. " W e may perceive," says
Jerome, on Zephaniah, chap.iii. " t h a t the H e b r e w language is the
mother of all l a n g u a g e s . " 6
H e gives there one example in proof,
the identity of the H e b r e w Nugei with the Latin Nugce.
In this language, which the faithful after that time preserved
incorrupt in one family, the old Testament was published, as all
unanimously agree. Upon this subject Jerome thus writes in his

[ Non defuit domus Heber, ubi ea quae antea fuit omnium lingua re-
4

maneret.]
[ Eo tempore quando linguarum facta est varietas, in sola domo Heber
5

quse antea fuit lingua commansit.—c. 7. p. 61. These commentaries are falsely
attributed to Eucherius of Lyons, who flourished A. D. 434, as they make
citations from Gregory I. and Cassiodorus. They were published among
his works, Basil. 1531.]
[ 6
U t nosse possimus, esse Hebraicam linguam omnium matricem. T. vi.
p. 730. The verse referred to is 18. But in ^ 3 » which Jerome translates
nugas in its obsolete sense of mourners, the 3 is not radical but servile,—
the mark of the Niphal participle from HJP corresponding to the Sanscrit
wig.]
r -1 8
LWHITAKER.]
114 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

142nd Epistle : " A l l antiquity agrees to witness that the beginning

of speech and common discourse, and the whole substance of human
language, is the Hebrew tongue, in which the old Testament is
written ."
1
It is also certain that Moses is the earliest writer,
although some persons think otherwise, and allege certain names of
books which are found in the scriptures. These objections may be
easily answered; but I shall not enter upon that subject as not per-
taining to the matter in hand. God himself shewed the model and
method of writing, when he delivered the law, inscribed b y his own
finger, to Moses. This is the opinion of Chrysostom (Opp. T . ir. p. 1.
Eton. 1 6 1 2 ) , and Theophylact (upon Matth. i . ) ; and it is also e m -
braced b y the Papists, as Hosius, in his Confessio Petrocoviensis,
cap. 1 5 , and the Jesuit Schrock, in his 13 Thesis de V e r b o Dei.
Augustine, indeed, (Civit. Dei. Lib. x v . c. 2 3 , ) affirms it to be cer-
2

tain that Enoch committed some things to writing, since Jude asserts
as much in his Epistle. But it does not appear that this is a fair
inference from Jude's expression: for Jude does not say, " "Well
wrote E n o c h ; " but, " w e l l prophesied," irpoecpt) revere. The
passage cited, therefore, is either some oral speech of Enoch's, or
else written b y some other person. But we must not say that any
book written b y Enoch was extant at the time when this epistle
was written: for if so, it would have been canonical. But the
Jews had no such book in their canon. I t was Moses, therefore,
the greatest of the prophets, who wrote the first canonical book o f
scripture; after whom other prophets published several volumes.
Some wrote before the captivity, as Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, Hosea,
and many m o r e : some in the captivity, as Ezekiel and D a n i e l :
some for a space after the captivity, as Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi. These all wrote in Hebrew, except a few pieces which
we find composed b y Daniel and Ezra in Chaldee. But the Chal-
dee tongue is near akin to the H e b r e w , and was then a language
known to the church. N o r is this exception a matter of sufficient
moment to prevent Jerome from saying that the old Testament is
entirely written in Hebrew.
There are some, however, who imagine that the whole old
Testament perished in the captivity. This suspicion, perhaps, arose

[! Initium oris et communis cloquii, et hoc omne quod loquimur, H e -

brceam linguam, qua vetus Tcstamcntum scriptum est, univorsa antiquitas
tradidit—Ep. 18. T. I. p. 49.]
[ Scripsisse quidem nonnulla diyina Enoch, ilium septimum ab Adam,
2

negare non possumus, cum hoc in epistola canonica Judas Apostolus dicat.] .
п.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 115

from considering that, when the temple was burnt, all that was in
it must have been consumed in the same conflagration. Hence
they believe that the sacred volumes of scripture must have been
destroyed in the flames; but that, after the captivity, E zra, in­
structed b y the H o l y Spirit, published these afresh, as it were
again recovered. In this opinion was Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom.
Lib. i . ) 3
and Irenams (Lib. nr. c. 2 5 ) , who writes t h u s : " I n that
captivity of the people which took place under Nebuchadnezzar, the
scriptures being impaired, when, after the expiration of seventy
years, the Jews returned to their own land, and after that again in
the times of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, G o d inspired E zra,
who was of the tribe of Levi, to renew all the discourses o f the
prophets, and restore to the people the law which had been given
them b y M o s e s . " 4
Similar are the words of Leontius (de Sectis.
Act. 2 ) : " E zra, coming to Jerusalem, and finding that all the
books had been burnt when the people were taken captive, is said
to have written down from memory those two and twenty books of
which we have given a list in the foregoing p l a c e . " 5
Isidorus (de
officiis), and Rabanus Maurus (de Inst. Cleric, c. 5 4 ) write to the
same effect. T h e y affirm, therefore, two t h i n g s : one, that the
whole sacred and canonical scripture perished in the Babylonian
captivity: the other, that it was restored to its integrity b y E zra,
instructed and inspired in a wonderful manner b y the direct agency
of God.
But the falsehood of this opinion is manifest. F o r the pious
Jews had, no doubt, many copies of the scripture in their possession,
and could easily save them from that calamity. W h a t man in his
senses will say that there was no copy of the scriptures beside that
in the temple ? Besides, if these books had been deposited in the
temple, would not either the priests or somebody else have been

[ 3
St' 8v ylverai о таи 6eoTrvevo-Tav avayvapio-p.bs ксй avaKaivio-p.os
\oylav. P. 3 2 9 , D. Morell. Paris. 1 6 2 9 . Compare also 3 4 2 , в . ]
[•* iv TTJ int Na/3ou^o8ocoo"op alxp.a\ao-la той XaoC Ьюфварею-ар таи
урафау, кал р.ета ё/38ор^коуга Чтг\ TWV 'louSatW avekBovTav els TT)V pawpaw
avrav, eireiTa iv rots xpovois 'Apra£ep£ov той ПерсгсЗе /ЗаочХешу ivenvevo-ev
"EcrSpa та lepei ек Ttjs фиХ^г Леш, TOVS Tav Trpoyeyovorav тгрофг/таи wavras
avaTa^ao-Bai \6yovs, ка\ атгокатаотт)о-а1 та Хаю TTJV &ш Жао-ias vop-o6eo-lav.
P. 2 9 3 . ed. Fevard. Par. 1 6 7 5 . The Greek is given by E usebius, H. E . v. 8 . ]
[ 5
'O Se "E crSpas i\6a>v els та 'lepocroKvp.a, ка\ evpav on irdvra /3t/3Xia
fjaav KavQevra, rjvLKa 7)x/xaX<ATICR#?70"az/, атто pvtjprjs Xcycrat o-vyypafyao-6ai та
к/3' /3t/3Xt'a, amp iv rois ava ainipidp.T)o-ap.e6a. §. 8. p. 6 3 2 . ap. Gallandi Bibl.
V . P. T. x u . Venct. 1 7 8 8 . ]
8—2
 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.

able to rescue them from the flames? It is incredible that the

religious Jews should have been so unmindful of piety and religion
as to keep no copies whatever of the scriptures, whilst they lived
in Babylon, especially while they had such men among them as
Ezekiel and Daniel. But it is certain that they had many copies.
F o r even Antiochus himself could not utterly destroy them all,
though he set himself to do so with the utmost zeal and sedulity.
Hence it appears that there were everywhere a very great number
of copies; and now the Babylonians made no such fierce assault upon
the sacred books. In accordance with what we might expect from
such premises, Ezra is simply said, Nehem. viii., to have brought
the b o o k of Moses and read it. T h e books of Moses therefore,
and, in like manner, the other books of scripture, were preserved
safe in the captivity; and we have now no other, but the v e r y
same books of scripture of the old Testament as those which were
written b y Moses and the rest of the prophets.
However, it is v e r y possible that the books, which may have
been previously in some disorder, were corrected b y Ezra, restored
to their proper places, and disposed according to some fixed plan,
as Hilary in his prologue affirms particularly of the Psalms. Per-
haps, too, Ezra either changed or reformed the shapes and
figures of the letters. Jerome indeed, in his epistle to Paulinus,
maintains that " Ezra invented new forms for the letters after the
return from the captivity; for that previously the Jews had used
the same characters as the Samaritans ." Hence, if we credit Jerome,
1

Ezra fntroduced new forms of the letters, more elegant and easy
than those which were before in use, copied out the law in these
new characters, and left the old ones to the Samaritans. In con-
formity with this statement, Jerome further tells us, upon Ezekiel
ix. , that the last letter of the alphabet was formerly similar to the
2

Greek Tav, and that it still, in his time, retained that figure in the
Samaritan character; while the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet
has now quite another and different shape.

f Certum est, Esdram scribam Legisque doctorem, post captam Hiero-

1

solymam . . . . alias literas repperisse, quibus nunc utimur: cum ad illud

usque tempus iidem Samaritanorum et Hebreeorum characteres fuerint.]
[ Antiquis Hebrreorum Uteris, quibus usque hodie utuntur Samaritani,
2

extrema Thau litera, crucis habet similitudinem.—T. v. p. 96. The remark

was made by Origen before him: r a apxaia o-Toixeta (fitpepis i'xeiv TO Tav T&
TOV arravpov xapaKrrjpi. Coins are still found which preserve the old cruciform
Phoenician Tau, though the Samaritan has ceased to bear that shape.]
II.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 117

But, though Jerome affirms that Ezra invented new characters,

he never says that he made everything new. H e might very easily
copy and set forth the same ancient text in the new letters. We
must hold, therefore, that we have now those v e r y ancient scrip-
tures which Moses and the other prophets published, although we
have not, perhaps, precisely the same forms and shapes of the
letters.

CHAPTER IK.

OF THE GREEK VERSION B Y THE SEVENTY TRANSLATORS OF

THE HEBREW BOOKS.

THESE Hebrew books of sacred scripture were, of old, trans-

lated into various languages, particularly into Chaldee and Greek.
The Chaldee paraphrase is generally allowed great credit and
authority, especially that of the Pentateuch which was made b y
Onkelos . 3
T h e rest were turned into Chaldee b y Jonathan and
Joseph, who lived a* little before, or about the time of Christ .4

There were many Greek translations of scripture published by

various authors. But, without question, the noblest and most
famous of them all was that which was composed b y the seventy-
two interpreters in E g y p t , in compliance with the pious wishes of
Ptolemy Philadelphus. W e may read large accounts of this Greek
version in Epiphanius (de Mensur. et P o n d e r . ) , Eusebius (Praeparat.
5

Evangel. Lib. v i n . ) , Justin Martyr (Dial. c. T r y p h . ) , besides many

6 7

others. N a y , there is still extant a book of Aristaeus, who pretends

to have been one of Ptolemy's body-guards, and gives a narrative
of the whole transaction. But Ludovicus V i v e s 8
(in L i b . x v m .

[ It is printed in Buxtorf's Rabbinical Bible, Basil, 1719, and in the

3

Paris and London Polyglotts. Onkelos's history is involved in great obscu-

rity. The best book on the subject is perhaps Luzzato's Philoxenus, Vienna,
1830.]
[ Jonathan Ben Uzziel lived probably a little before the time of Christ;
4

but Joseph the Blind presided over the school at Sora about A. D. 322. A
great part of the Targum, which goes under his name, was probably written
much later.]
[ c. 3, 6, 9—11.]
fi

[° pp. 206—209. ed. Steph. Par. 1544.]

[ p. 294. Opp. Just. Mart. Par. 1636.]
7

[ Circumfertur libcllus ejus nomine de L X X . interpretibus, conftctus ut

8
118 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

c. 4 3 . August, de Civit. Dei,) supposes this b o o k to be the fiction

of a more modern writer. That the scriptures were translated into
Greek, there can be no doubt, since all antiquity attests the fact.
But the other parts of the story are not equally certain.
This version I suppose to have been the first and earliest of
all the Greek versions; although Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromat.
Lib. i . ) seems to say that the scripture was translated into Greek
1

long before this period, and read b y P l a t o ; and the question of

Numenius, a Pythagorean philosopher, is alleged b y him, TI yap
ean YlXarwv rj Mcoarj's aTTiKt^wv; What else is Plato but an
Attic Moses ? But if the sacred books of scripture had been
translated into the Greek tongue previously, then Demetrius, who
collected the library for king Ptolemy, would not have been igno­
rant of that version or desired a new one. Plato, indeed, and the
Pythagoreans might have known something of these books from
the common discourse of men and intimacy with those who were
acquainted with t h e m ; but I hardly think that they ever read the
books in Greek. F o r this was the first Greek translation, published
about three hundred years before Christ, as Theodoret writes in
these w o r d s : " This first edition was published three hundred
and one years before G o d the W o r d , our L o r d Jesus Christ, came
to sojourn with us in the flesh ." 2

Some there are who think that the seventy interpreters did
not translate the whole scripture of the old Testament, but only the
law into the Greek language, understanding under the name of the
law not the entire ancient scripture, but merely the Pentateuch.
Such was the opinion of Josephus, as we find in the Proem to his
antiquities, where he hath these w o r d s : " F o r Ptolemy did not

p u t o ab aliquo r e c e n t i o r e . — P . 6 2 0 . e d . F r o b e n . B a s i l . 1512. The spurious-

ness of this p i e c e was finally d e m o n s t r a t e d b y H o d y , in a treatise w h i c h f o r m s
t h e first p a r t of his g r e a t w o r k , D e B i b l i o r u m T e x t i b u s , & c . O x o n . 1705.]
\} SitjppijvevTai be Kal npo Arjpr/Tpiov ra re Kara TTJV e£ Alyxmrov
ii;aya>yrjv TO>V 'E/Hpalav T£>V ^perepcov nokiTcov, Kal r) raiv yeyovorav ajravrav
avrois im<paveia, Kal Kparrjo-is rijs ^oSpay, Ka\ rfjs 5XT]S uopodealas iттe£r¡yr|o•l.s•
ao-T€ evbrjXov eivai TOV wpoeipt)p,evov <pi\6<ro(pov elXrfCpeuai iroXXa. yeyove yap
TToXvpaBrjs—P. 3 4 2 . B.C. T h e passage is q u o t e d f r o m A r i s t o b u l u s , u p o n w h o m
see V a l c k e n a e r , d e A r i s t o b u l o Judaeo D i a t r i b e . I t appears t o m e , however,
t h a t A r i s t o b u l u s is t h e r e n o t s p e a k i n g of a n y r e g u l a r translation, b u t o f such
pieces as t h o s e o f E z e k i e l Tragcedus, in which t h e g r e a t e r p a r t o f t h e M o s a i c
history was p a r a p h r a s e d in G r e e k verse or p r o s e . ]
[2
Trparq bk avrrj y eVSocrtr iyivtro Trpb TpiaKoorov irparov erovs rjjs p-era
o-apKos TTpbs rjpas eiribtjpias TOV Oeov Adyou Kal Kvplov rjp,lav 'ITJO-OV X / H O T O V . ]
HI.] QUESTION T H E SECOND. 119

obtain the whole scripture; but the interpreters only delivered to

him the l a w . " 3
W h i c h , he says, was the circumstance that led him
to introduce the whole scripture to Grecian readers. That this
was Josephus' opinion is confirmed also b y the testimony of Jerome.
But others hold that all the books were translated; and theirs
seems the more probable view. F o r the reason which led them
to make any version at all is sufficient to persuade one that they
made a complete o n e ; nor would the king have been satisfied with
only a part. T h e wonder, too, which some relate of the incredible
celerity with which the task was performed would have no place, if
they translated so small a piece only. Chrysostom, in his discourse
against the Jews, affirms that the scriptures translated b y them
were reposited in the temple of Serapis, and the version of the
prophetic books might be found there even still: fxe-^pi vvv eVet
TWV UporpriTwv ai epp.r]vev6elaai /3i/3\oi [xevovaiv*. And Theo-
doret says that the Jews sent to king Ptolemy not a part only of
the scripture, but the whole written in golden characters, ypvcrols
'ypdixfx.aai Ttjv wacrav •ypa(prjv evo-ijfXTivafiei'oi. N o w , if the b o o k s
of the prophets translated into Greek b y them remained in the
royal library to the time of Chrysostom, and if the Jews sent the
whole scripture along with the interpreters to the king, there is no
room left to doubt that the whole scripture was translated b y them
into the Grecian language.
W h a t authority, however, this version should command is un-
certain. T h e ancients used to hold it in the highest estimation, and
looked upon it as unique and divine. Epiphanius, in his b o o k of
Weights and Measures, says that the translators were not mere
interpreters, but, in some sort, prophets a l s o . 5
A n d Augustine (de
Doct. Christ. L i b . II. c. 1 5 ) says, that this version was made b y a
divine dispensation, and was held in greatest repute among the
best learned churches, since the translators were said to have been
" aided b y such a presence of the H o l y Spirit in their interpreta-
tion as that they all had but one m o u t h . " 6
U p o n this subject he

[
oiSe yap ira<rav eKelvos ecpdrj \aj3ew rr)i> avaypafprjv, dXX' aura pova ra
3

TOV vopov irapehoo-av ol irep<p6evTes iir\ TTJV e^r\yr)tji.v els rr\v 'A\e£av8pelav.
Prooem. § 3. p. 6.]
[" Tom. vi. p. 37. ed. Savil.]
[ oi povov ipprjvevTai iKelvoi yeyovaariv, <SXXa Kai anb pepovs 7rpo(f>iiTai. Do
6

Pond, et Mens. § 17. Opp. T . II. p. 173. c. ed. Petav. Colonia;. 1682.]
[° Septuaginta interpretum, quod ad vetus Testamentum attinet, excellit
120 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [сн.

hath also written largely in his City of G o d , L i b . XVIII. c. 4 2 and

43. I n like manner, Irenaaus (Lib. ш . c. 2 5 ) writes that, though
each made his translation apart, yet in the end, when they all
met together and compared their several versions, " they all recited
the same thing and in the very same words and terms from
beginning to the e n d ; so as that the gentiles who stood b y might
easily perceive, that it was b y the inspiration of G o d that the
scriptures were translated ." 1
So Augustine, in the City of G o d ,
L i b . x v n i . c. 4 2 : " T h e tradition is that there was so wonderful,
stupendous, and absolutely divine agreement in their expressions,
that although each sat down separately to this task (for so Ptolemy
chose to try their fidelity), y e t none differed from another even in
a single word, though it were synonymous and equivalent, or in
the order and placing of the words. But, as if there had been
but one translator, so the translation was o n e ; as, indeed, it was
one and the same H o l y Spirit which was in them a l l . " 2
Now,
while I doubt not that this version was held in high authority,
and that deservedly too, I cannot think that the miracles which
are told to magnify its authority deserve c r e d i t ; and, indeed, we
find that they are treated as fables b y Jerome in the Preface to
the Pentateuch . 3
H o w e v e r great may have been the authority
of this version, it could not have been greater than that of our
version. T h e y , therefore, attribute too much to it, who make it
inspired, and equal to the authentic scriptures themselves. For
the authority of those interpreters was not so illustrious and cer­
tain as that of the p r o p h e t s : nor is it the same thing to be an

auctoritas: qui jam per omnes peritiores ecclesias tanta prajsentia Sancti
Spiritus interpretati esse dicuntur, ut os unum tot hominum fuerit.]
[1 riov iravrcov та avra та7$ avrdis Лб£еоч ка\ TOIS avTois ovop.ao'w avayopev-
crai/rcav an dp%i]s p-exP 1
wore ка\ та тгарбита Чвщ yvcovai. OTL кат iirmvoiav
TeXovs,
TOV Oeov clcrw r)pp.r\vev\ievai ai ypaepai P. 293. ut supra.]
[ Traditur sane tarn mirabilem ac stupendum planeque divinum in eorum
2

verbis fuisse consensum, ut cum ad hoc opus separatim singuli sederint, (ita
enim eorum fidem Ptolemseo regi placuit explorasse,) in nullo verbo, quod
idem significaret et tantundem valeret, vel in verborum ordine, alter ab altero
discreparet, sed tanquam si unus esset interpres, ita quod omnes interpretati
sunt, unum erat, quoniam revera Spiritus erat unus in omnibus.]
[ Nescio quis primus auctor septuaginta cellulas Alexandria; mendacio
3

suo extruxerit, quibus divisi eadem scriptitarint, cum Aristseus ejusdem

Ptolemsei vTrepao-mo­Trjs, et multo post tempore Josephus nihil tale retu­
lerint, sed in una basilica congregates contulisse scribant, non prophetasse.
T. ix. p. 3.]
III.] QUESTION T H E SECOND. 121

interpreter and to be a prophet. R i g h t l y , therefore, doe3 J e r o m e , 4

in the Preface to the Pentateuch, call the seventy interpreters, not

prophets. In his Commentaries also he frequently blames the
Greek version of the seventy translators, not only as depraved b y
the scribes, but even as faulty in itself; which he surely would
not have done, if he had deemed that translation to be possessed of
such divine and supereminent authority.
Learned men question, whether the Greek version of the scrip-
tures now extant be or be not the version of the seventy elders.
T h e sounder opinion seems to be that of those who determine that
the true Septuagint is wholly l o s t , and that the Greek text, as
5

we have it, is a mixed and miserably corrupted document. Aris-

tseus says that the Septuagint version was exactly conformable to
the Hebrew originals, so that, when read and diligently examined
b y skilful judges, it was highly approved b y the general suffrage
of them all. But this of ours differs amazingly from the H e b r e w
copies, as well in other places and books, as specially in the Psalms
of David. N o r is there room for any one to reply that the H e -
brew is corrupt. F o r even the papists will not venture to maintain
that the Greek is purer than the H e b r e w . If they did, they
would be obliged to condemn their own Latin version, which agrees
much more closely with the H e b r e w than with the Greek. Nay,
the faults of the Greek translation are so manifest, that it is im-
possible to find any way of excusing them. There is the greatest
difference between the Hebrew and Greek books in the account of
times and years. T h e Greek books reckon 2 2 4 2 years from Adam
and the beginning of the world to the flood, as we read in A u g u s -
tine, Eusebius, and Nicephorus' Chronology. But in the H e b r e w
books we see that there were no more than 1 6 5 6 . Thus the
Greek calculation exceeds the Hebrew b y 5 8 6 years. Again, from
the deluge to Abraham there is, according to the L X X . , an
interval of 1 0 8 2 years. But if y o u consult the H e b r e w verity,
y o u will not find more than 2 9 2 . 6
Thus the Greek books exhibit

[ Aliud est enim esse vatem, aliud esse interpretem. Ibi Spiritus ventura
4

prsedicit: hie eruditio et verborum copia ea quae intelligit profert. Ibid.]

[ This opinion is most learnedly, but in my opinion most hopelessly
5

maintained by Ussher, in his Syntagma De L X X . Interprett. See Walton

Proleg. ix. pp. 1 2 5 — 1 5 9 . (Vol. n. ed. Wrangham.)]
[° See some admirable remarks upon the comparative merits of the He-
brew, Samaritan, and Greek chronologies in Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samar.
Orig. &c. Hate. 1 8 1 5 . ]
122 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

7 9 0 years more than the H e b r e w : and all conoede the H e b r e w

numbers to be much truer than the Greek. Gen. v., in the Greek
books, Adam is said to have lived 2 3 0 years, or, according to
some copies, 3 3 0 , when he begat Seth. But the Hebrew text
shews that Seth was born when A d a m was 1 3 0 years old. In
the rest there is a similar discordance of reckoning times, so as to
prove that it was not without reason that Jerome wrote that the
LXX. sometimes erred in their numbers. It is even a laughable
mistake in the Greek b y which Methusalem is made to survive the
flood fourteen y e a r s .
1
W h e r e did he remain during the d e l u g e ?
or how was he preserved ? Certainly he was not in the a r k ; in
which the scripture testifies that there were no more than eight per-
sons. This, therefore, is a manifest falsity in the Greek edition.
But the Hebrew text speaks much more truly of the years and age
of Methusalem; and we collect from it that he died in that same
year in which the world was overwhelmed b y the deluge. Augus-
tine treats of this matter in his City of G o d , L i b . x v . c. 1 1 . So
Jonah iii., according to the H e b r e w reading, destruction is d e -
nounced against the Ninevites after 4 0 days. But in the G r e e k
we read otherwise, " Yet three days, and Nineve shall be d e -
stroyed:" which is manifestly a false reading; for he could
scarcely have traversed the whole city in three days. Augustine
(Civit. Dei. L i b . XVIII. c. 4 4 ) invents I k n o w not what mystery in
this change of numbers to preserve the authority of the Septuagint,
which, nevertheless, in the former place about Methusalem he is
unable to defend.
F r o m these and innumerable examples of the like sort we may
conclude, either that this Greek version which hath come down to
our times is not the same as that published b y the seventy Jewish
elders, or that it hath suffered such infinite and shameful c o r -
ruptions as to be now of v e r y slight authority. Even Jerome had
not the Greek translation of the seventy interpreters in its p u r i t y ;
since he often complains in his commentaries that what he had
was faulty and corrupt.

[! Whitaker might have remembered, that Augustine (Civit. Dei, xv. 13),
and the author under his name of the Questions on Genesis, Q. n. appeal to
ancient M S S . of the L X X . which are free from this fault. Walton (Proleg.
ix. T. II. p. 168. edit. Wrangham) observes, that Methusalem's age at the
birth of Lamech is made 187 instead of 167 in the Cotton M S . , the octateuch
of J. Clemens, and the Aldine edition.]
IV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 123

CHAPTER IV.

OF OTHER GREEK TRANSLATIONS OF T H E OLD TESTAMENT.

BESIDES this first and most famous translation, which was made
b y the seventy interpreters, there were formerly other Greek v e r -
sions also of the old Testament, composed b y various authors after
the gospel of Christ had been spread far and wide over the world.
T h e first of these was Aquila of Sinope, whom the emperor Hadrian
employed as prafect and curator of the works when he repaired
Jerusalem. Epiphanius, in his book of Weights and Measures,
relates that this Aquila, having originally been a Greek, received
baptism and was admitted into the christian society; but, on account
of his assiduous devotion to astrology, was first censured b y the
Christians, and finally, when he disregarded their censures and
admonitions, ejected from the C h u r c h ; that, stung b y such a dis-
grace, this impious man revolted from the Christians to the Jews,
had himself circumcised, learned the Hebrew language and literature,
and translated the scriptures of the old Testament into Greek, but
not with faithfulness or sincerity, but with a depraved and perverse
intention {Ka/xTTvXw Kal SiecTTpan/neuip Xoyta/ucp, as Theodoret
says,) of obscuring the testimonies which confirm the doctrine of
Christ, and giving a plausible colour to his apostasy.
H e was followed b y Symmachus, whom Epiphanius testifies to
have lived in the time of Aurelius V e r u s , and who was a Samaritan
2

according to Theodoret. Being ambitious of power and dignity,

and unable to obtain from his countrymen that authority and
honour which he desired, he betook himself to the Jews, and trans-
lated the scriptures from H e b r e w into Greek (nrpos Siaarpo(p>jv)
for the confutation of the Samaritans. Epiphanius relates that this
Symmachus was twice circumcised; KUI irepiTenverai, says he,
BevTepau Tt}v irepiToixijv' which he shews to be possible b y adducing
those words of the apostle, TrepiTeT/urnuevos Tts enXrjOt]; fxrj eiri-
o-iracr9u>, and ascribes the device there meant to Esau as the
inventor.
N e x t c a m e one Theodotion of Pontus, of the party and sect of
3

Marcion. H e , having not only rejected the Marcionite opinions,

[ 2
U t supra, c. 16.]
[ Whitaker has fallen into a mistake in placing Theodotion after Sym-
3

machus. Sec Hody, p. 179.]

124 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

but also utterly abjured Christianity, went over to the J e w s ; and,

having learned their language, translated the scriptures into the
Greek tongue, " f o r the confutation," as Theodoret says, " o f his
own s e c t " (irpos dia<rrpo(priv Ttjs avrov alpeoewi). These three
interpreters were enemies of the christian faith, and did not trans-
late the scriptures honestly. Y e t Jerome and other ancient writers
often cite their translations in commenting upon the bible. Those
versions have now perished, save that the papists retain some
parts of Theodotion's version, and obtrude them on the world as
canonical. F o r they have the apocryphal 13th and 14th of Daniel
not from the pure H e b r e w originals, but from the Greek translation
of Theodotion, an impious heretic or apostate.
There was also another Greek translation b y Lucian , a pres- 1

byter of the church of Antioch, and a martyr about the time o f

Diocletian, which is mentioned b y Theodoret, in the Synopsis o f
Athanasius, and elsewhere . T h e y say that this was found written
2

b y the martyr's own hand, at Nicomedia, in a marble tower. A n d

Jerome, in the catalogue, says that in his time some copies were
called Lucianea. There were also two other editions b y unknown
authors. T h e first was found at Jericho in a pitcher , in the reign
3

of Caracalla; the other in a similar vessel, at the northern

Nicopolis, in the reign of Alexander the son of Mammsea, as E p i -
phanius and Theodoret testify.
I come now to Origen, who, according to the narrative of E p i -
phanius and others, being assisted b y the resources of Ambrosius,
a rich and pious person, bestowed incredible pains upon collecting
and comparing the various editions o f the scriptures . H e brought
4

together the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the seventy-two,

and Theodotion, into one volume, arranged in four distinct columns.
This formed what is called Origen's Tetrapla (reTpcnrKa j3ifi\la).
Afterwards he added the Hebrew text in two columns, expressing in
one in Hebrew, in the other in Greek characters. • This was the
Hexapla. Lastly, he appended the two anonymous versions found
in jars, and so constructed the Octapla, a laborious and super-human

[} Lucian made no new translation, but only revised the text of the L X X .
See Hody, p. 627.]
[ Synopsis Script, inter Opp. Athanasii. T. n. pp. 203, 204. cf. Suidas,
2

voc. Aoviaavos.]
[ s
Epiphan. de Mens, et Pond. c. 17.]
[ See what is still the fullest and best account of Origen's labours in
4

Hody, Lib. iv. c. 11.]

IV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 125

work, which is now lost, to the irreparable injury of the

Church. Origen marked these texts with various asterisks and
obeli, lemnisci and hypolemnisci, according as the various and
manifold characters of those editions required. This was a work the
loss of which we may deplore, but cannot compensate.

CHAPTER V.

OF THE GREEK EDITION OF T H E NEW TESTAMENT.

WE have next, in the second place, to speak of the Greek

edition of the new Testament. It is certain that the whole new
Testament was written in Greek, unless, perhaps, we are to except
the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hosius
of Esmeland (in his b o o k de Sacro Vernac.) says, that it was only
the Gospel of Matthew which was written in H e b r e w . Jerome
affirms the same thing in these words of his Preface to the four
evangelists addressed to D a m a s u s : " T h e new Testament is un-
doubtedly Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who
first published the gospel in Judsea in Hebrew l e t t e r s . " 5
Neverthe-
less in the catalogue, under the article Paul, he says that the Epistle
to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew. Thus he writes : " H e wrote
most eloquently as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew, that
is, in his own l a n g u a g e . " 6
The translation of this epistle into Greek
some ascribe to Barnabas, as Theodorus L e c t o r in his second book 7

of Collectanea, some to L u k e , and some to Clemens .

8 9
But, how-
ever that may be, the Greek edition both of the Gospel according
to Matthew and of the Epistle to the Hebrews is authentic. For
the Hebrew originals (if any such there were) are now nowhere
extant, and the Greek was published in the life-time of the apostles,

[ De novo nunc loquor Testamonto, quod Grajcum esse non dubium est,
5

oxcepto apostolo Matthoeo, qui primus in Judasa evangelium Christi Hebraicis

litoris edidit.—Opp. T . i. p. 1 4 2 6 . ]
[ Scripserat, ut Hebra;us Hebraais, Hebraice, id est suo eloquio, disertis-
6

sime.]
[ I think this is a mistake.
7
At least I can find no such statements in
Theodorus.]
[ So Clemens Alex. ap. Euseb. II. Eccl. L. vi. c. 1 4 . ]
8

[ 9
Euseb. H. E. Lib. in. c. 38. oi pev TOV ctayyf\iori)i> AOVKOV, oi 8e Toy
KXqpevra TOVTOV OVTOV tpprjvfvo-m \eyovo-i TTJV ypa(j>rjv.]
126 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

received in the church, and approved b y the apostles themselves.

Jerome in the Catalogue (Article MATTHÜLUS), tells u s : " H e first
composed a gospel in the Hebrew character and language, in Judaea,
for the sake of those of the circumcision who had b e l i e v e d ; but it is
not certainly known who translated it into G r e e k . " H e adds, that
" the Hebrew text itself was preserved in his time in the library of
Csesarsea which was built b y the martyr Pamphilus V 1
So Nazian-
zene in his version upon the genuine b o o k s : 2

Maráaíos piv 'éypatyev 'Efipaíois Bavpara XptoroO'

where, when he says that Matthew wrote the miracles of Christ for
the H e b r e w , it is implied that he wrote his gospel in H e b r e w . So
Irenasus, Lib. i n . c. 1, relates, that " M a t t h e w published the scripture
of the gospel amongst the Hebrews in their own l a n g u a g e . " 3
These
fathers then suppose that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and
that it was translated b y an unknown hand. Athanasius, however,
in his Synopsis , writes that the H e b r e w gospel of Matthew was
4

translated into Greek b y the apostle James, but brings no argument

to command our credence.
Nor is the opinion of a H e b r e w original of the gospel of
Matthew supported b y any proofs of sufficient strength. For
at the time when Christ was upon earth the Jews did not speak
Hebrew, but Syriac. Matthew, therefore, would rather have
written in Syriac than in H e b r e w ; as indeed it is the opinion
of Widmanstadt and Guido Fabricius, to which our Jesuit also
subscribes, that Matthew wrote his gospel not in the H e b r e w , but
in the Syriac language. A n d they allege that, when the fathers
say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, we must understand them to
mean that Hebrew dialect which the Jews then used, and which was

P Primus in Judsea, propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderant, evange-

lium Christi Hebraieis uteris verbisque composuit: quod quis postea in Grse-
cum transtulerit non satis certum est. Porro ipsum Hebraicum liabetur
usque hodie in Cajsariensi Bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus Martyr studiosissime
confecit. c. 3. It seems to be certain, nevertheless, that Jerome believed
this Gospel to have been written in Syriac. Compare Adv. Pelag. Lib. in.
c. 1. In evangelio juxta Hebrseos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone,
sed Hebraieis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secun-
dum apostólos, sive (ut plerique autumant) juxta Matthasum, quod et in Ccesa-
riensi liábetur Bibliotheca, & c ]
[2 Poem, xxxiii. 31. Opp. T. n. p. 99. Lips. 1690.]
[ ó peu Mardaios ¿V TOIS 'Eftpaiois TTJ Idla StaXcxra airav KOI ypa<j)T¡v e^i]V(y-
3

KCV tiayyeXiov. P. 220. et ap. Euseb. H. E. Lib. v. c. 8.]

[ Inter Opp. Athan. T. n. p. 177.]
4
 QUESTION T H E SECOND. 127

not pure Hebrew, but Syriac, or a mixture of H e b r e w and Chaldee.

Y e t Jerome thought that the gospel of Matthew was written in pure
H e b r e w : for, in the catalogue under the article MATTHJEUS, he writes
that there was a M S . remaining of this H e b r e w gospel in the
library of N i c o m e d i a , and that he was permitted to make a c o p y
5

of it. On the whole, therefore, it seems uncertain that Matthew

wrote his gospel either in Hebrew or in S y r i a c ; and it is rather to
b e thought that both Matthew and the author of the epistle to the
Hebrews wrote in Greek, since the Greek language was then not
unknown to the Jews themselves, and the other apostles used the
Greek language not only in those pieces which t h e y wrote for all
promiscuously, but also in those which were inscribed peculiarly to
the Jews, as we see in the case of James and Peter. However,
the learned are agreed that those H e b r e w copies of this gospel and
epistle which are now extant are not genuine.
T h e L o r d willed the new Testament to be written in Greek,
because he had determined to bring forth the gospel from the
narrow bounds of Judaea into a broader field, and publish it to
all people and nations. O n this account the L o r d selected the
Greek language, than which no other was more commonly known
b y all men, wherein to communicate his gospel to as many coun-
tries and persons as possible. H e willed also that the heavenly
truth of the gospel should be written in Greek in order to p r o -
vide a confutation of the Gentiles' idolatry and of the philosophy
and wisdom of the Grecians. And, although at that time the
Romans had the widest empire, yet Cicero himself, in his ora-
tion for the poet Archias, bears witness that the language of the
Greeks was more widely extended than that of the R o m a n s . 6
As,
therefore, before Christ the holy doctrine was written in that lan-
guage which was the peculiar and native tongue of the C h u r c h ; so
after Christ all was written in Greek, that they might more easily
reach and be propagated to the Church now about to be gathered
out of all nations.

[ Mihi quoque a Nazarajis, qui in Bersea urbe Syria? hoc volumine utun-
6

tur, describendi facultas fuit. Vide supra.]

[ Grosca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus: Latina suis finibus, exiguis
G

sane, continentur. Cic. Opp. T. v. p. 4 4 5 , ed. Lallemand. Paris. 17C8.]

128 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

CHAPTER VI.

OF THE LATIN VULGATE EDITION.

I COME now, as was proposed in the third place, to the Latin

edition, which is commonly called the Vulgate. That there were
formerly in the church v e r y many Latin versions of the scriptures,
w e have the testimony of Augustine (de Doctr. Christ. Lib. 11. c. 1 1 )
to assure us. His words a r e : " Those who have translated the
scriptures into Greek out of the H e b r e w language may be counted,
but the Latin translators c a n n o t . " 1
Augustine expresses an opinion,
that a theologian m a y derive some assistance from this multitude
of versions; but shews plainly that he did not consider any one in
particular authentic, but thought that whatever in each was most
useful for the reader's purpose, should be employed as a means for
the right understanding of scripture. But Jerome, in the preface to.
Joshua, complains of this so great variety o f the Latin texts: for
he says that " t h e r e were as many texts as copies, since every one,
at his own caprice, added or subtracted what he pleased ." 2
But
among the rest there was one more famous, which was called Itala ;
3

and which Augustine (Doctr. Christ. Lib. 11. c. 1 5 ) prefers to the

others, for keeping closer to the words and expressing the sense
more clearly and intelligibly. This was not, however, that version
which Jerome published. W h o the author of this version was is
not known, but it was certainly more ancient than the Hieronymian:
for G r e g o r y , in his epistle to L e a n d e r ,4
says that the Roman

f Qui ex Hebrsea lingua scripturas in Grsecam verterunt numerari pos-

1

Bunt, Latini autem nullo modo.]

[ Maxime cum apud Latinos tot sint exemplaria, quot codices, et unus-
2

quisque pro arbitrio suo vel addiderit vel subtraxerit quod ei visum est.]
[ As this is the only passage in which any ancient Latin father speaks of
3

a versio Itala, various critical efforts have been made to alter the text; the
most ingenious being that of Archbp. Potter: " I n ipsis autem interpretatio-
nibus USITATA ceteris praferatur; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspi-
cuitate sententise." He supposes the present reading to have originated by
the absorption of the Us in the last syllable of the preceding word, after
•which Itata was easily changed into Itala. But see, in defence of the old
reading, Hug. Einl. 1 1 5 . ]
[* Novam vero translationem dissero; sed ut comprobationis causa exigit,
nunc novam, nunc veterem, per testimonia assumo: ut quia sedes apostolica
(cui auctore Deo prajsideo) utraque utitur, mei quoque labor studii ex utraque
fulciatur. T. i. p. 6. Opp. Paris. 1705.]
V..] QUESTION T H E SECOND. 129

church made use of two versions, one of which he calls the old, and
the other the new. T h e old was most probably that same Italic;
the new the Hieronymian, which presently after its publication
began to be read in some churches, as w e may collect from Augus-
tine's 10th epistle to Jerome, where he writes that some Christians
were offended b y a new word occurring in i t : for in the fourth
chapter of Jonah the old Latin edition had cucurbita (a g o u r d ) ;
but Jerome in his version made it hedera ( i v y ) . 5
Perhaps the
Hebrew term does not really, denote either, but a quite different
plant called Ricinus (or Palma Christi). N o w , although there were
formerly many and almost infinite Latin versions in the Latin Church,
yet these two were undoubtedly the most celebrated and used in the
greatest number of churches, since we find G r e g o r y attesting the
use of them both in the Church of R o m e .
A t length, however, not only the rest, which were more o b -
scure, but even the Italic too fell altogether out of use, and the
Hieronymian alone prevailed everywhere throughout the Latin
churches,—if indeed it hath any just claims to be called the H i e -
ronymian. F o r I am well aware that there are learned men who
entertain great doubts upon that subject: and, although most of
the Papists, and the Jesuits especially, maintain the present Latin
edition to be the pure Hieronymian, there are, nevertheless, amongst
them theologians of great erudition and judgment, who determine
quite the other way, and that upon v e r y weighty grounds. Xantes
Pagninus, in the Preface to his Translation, which he inscribed to
Clement V I I . , declares himself of opinion that it is not Jerome's, and
wishes earnestly that Jerome's own version were remaining. In
like manner Paul of Forossombrone, De Die Passion. Domin. Lib.
ii. c. 1 ; not to mention Erasmus, Munster, and the rest of that sort.
Others, though they allow it to be partly the Hieronymian, yet
think it not throughout that same version which Jerome composed
with so much care and fidelity, but%, mixture o f the Hieronymian
and some other ancient version. So John Driedo, de Catalog. Script.
Lib. II. c. 1 : " There are some who say that this Latin translation,
which the whole church of the Latins commonly makes use of, is
neither the work of St Jerome, nor in all points perfectly consonant

[ In hoc loco quidam Cantherius

fi
dudum Roma? dicitur me accu-
sasse sacrilegii, quod pro cucurbita hederam transtulerim: timens videlicet,
ne si pro cucurbitis hederaa nascerentur, unde occulte et tenebrose biberet
non haberet.—Hieron. Comment, in Jon. iv. Opp. vi. 4 2 5 . Compare also
his Epistle to Augustine. Ep. 1 1 2 . ]

1_WHITAKER..J
130 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

to the sacred original of s c r i p t u r e : " and he adds that it is blamed

1

and corrected, not only b y Armachanus and L y r a , but also b y other

persons of the present time well skilled in both languages. After-
wards, in his first proposition, he determines that this Latin translation,
as well of the old as of the new Testament, is neither an altogether
different translation from Jerome's, nor y e t altogether the same with
it. Sixtus Senensis (Bibliotheca, Lib. v m ) is of the same opinion,
and confesses that he has been brought to that opinion b y demon-
strative arguments. Bellarmine (Lib. 11. c. 9) lays down the three
following propositions. First, that the Books of Wisdom, Eccle-
siasticus, Maccabees, and the Psalms, as they have them, are not
part of Jerome's version. The former three he did not translate,
because he j u d g e d them apocryphal. The Psalms he translated with
the utmost care and religious scrupulousness from the H e b r e w : but
this Vulgate version (as they call it) of the Psalms was made from
the Greek, as appears on the face of it, and as our adversaries them-
selves allow. It is even g o o d sport to see how Genebrard, in his
Scholia, tries to reconcile the Latin version with the Hebrew. Se-
condly, that the Latin edition of the new Testament was not made,
but only amended,by J e r o m e : for Jerome, at the request of Damasus,
corrected the old version, but did not make a new o n e ; as he him-
self testifies in several places, and specially in the catalogue towards
the end. " T h e new Testament," says he, " I restored to the Greek
fidelity; the old I translated according to the H e b r e w . " 2
Thirdly,
that all the other parts of the old Testament are exhibited in the
Vulgate according to Jerome's version.
T h e reasons which he alleges shew, that this is not the sincere
Hieronymian edition of either the old or the new Testament,
but that it may perhaps be not altogether a different version
from the Hieronymian, as Driedo and Sixtus Senensis suppose.
Much might be said upon this subject, but we must not spend too
much time upon such matter^. I shall, therefore, in a few words
make it as plain as the light, that this is not the version which
Jerome either made himself or published in an amended form.
F o r , first of all, Jerome translated the old Testament accurately
from the H e b r e w , as he hath himself frequently professed and

\} Sunt qui dicunt translationem hanc Latinam, qua communiter utitur

tota Latinorum ecclesia, neque esse divi Hieronymi, neque in omnibus c o n -
sonam scripturse saci-Ee originali.—Opp. Lovan. 1 5 5 0 . T. I. p. 2 4 . ]
[ NovumTestamentumGra3C83fideireddidi. VetusjuxtaHebraicamtrans-
2

tuli. c. 135. Opp. II. 941. The latter clause, Vetus, &c. is wanting in o n e M S . ]
VI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 131

testified. In the Preface of the Psalter to Sophronius (which is

the Epistle 1 3 3 ) he writes thus of his translation: " Certainly I
will say it boldly, and can cite many witnesses of m y work, that I
have changed nothing of the sense, at least from the H e b r e w verity.
Wherever, therefore, m y edition clashes with the old ones, ask any
Hebrew, and y o u will see clearly that I am unreasonably attacked b y
m y rivals, who choose rather to seem despisers of what is excellent
than to become learners ." 3
Again, in the Preface to the five books of
M o s e s : " Wherever y o u think I g o wrong in m y translation, ask
the Jews, consult the masters in various cities, & c . " 4
A n d in the
preface to Kings he declares that he hath nowhere departed from
the H e b r e w v e r i t y .5
So that Jerome everywhere most carefully
compared and adjusted his version b y the standard of the H e b r e w
books. This Augustine also (Civit. Dei, L i b . XVIH. c . 4 3 ) testifies
concerning h i m : " W e have had in our own time the presbyter
Jerome, a v e r y learned man and one exquisitely skilled in the
three languages, who hath translated the divine scriptures not
from the Greek, but from the Hebrew, into L a t i n ; whose stupen-
dous literary work the H e b r e w s acknowledge to b e faithful to the
original ." 6
So Isidorus of Seville, in his Etymologicon, Lib. vi. c . 5,
prefers the version of Jerome to all others, as adhering more
closely to the words and expressing the sense with greater p e r -
spicuity. That such was the character of the Hieronymian version
no man can reasonably doubt, since Jerome himself affirms it so often,
and others agree in the same testimony.
But now this Vulgate, which we now have, exhibits in the
several books considerable variations from the H e b r e w text, as
Jerome himself, i f he returned to life, would not be able to deny.
N o r can they answer that the H e b r e w is corrupt. F o r , although

[ Certe confidenter dicam, et multos hujus operis testes citabo, me nihil

3

duntaxat scientem de Hebraica veritate mutasse. Sicubi ergo editio mea a

veteribus discrepant, interroga quemlibet Hebrreorum, et liquido pervidebis,
mo ab a3mulis frustra lacerari, qui malunt contemnere videri proeclara, quam
discere. Opp. T. ix. 1 1 5 6 . ]
[ Sicubi in translatione tibi videor errare, interroga Hebrscos, diversarum
4

urbium magistros consule. Ibid. 6.]

[ Quanquam mini omnino conscius non sim, mutasse me quidpiam do
5

Hebraica veritate. Ibid. 4 5 9 . ]

[° Non defuit temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissi-
mus et trium linguarum peritissimus, qui non ex Gra;co; sed ex Hebra?o in
Latinum divinas scripturas converteret: cujus tantum literarum laborem
Hebrai fatentur esse veracem.]
9—2
132 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [en.

some papists do indeed say this, yet they are refuted b y plain
reason and b y the authority of their own party. Bellarmine, Lib.
ii. c. 2, defends, against Jacobus Christopolitanus and Melchior
Canus, the integrity of the Hebrew copies, and proves b y some
arguments that they could not have been corrupted b y the Jews;
as those writers supposed. H o w were they corrupted? B y the
copyists ? This cannot be said, since all the M S S . a g r e e ; and,
besides, might just as well be said of the Latin as of the Hebrew
books. Since, then, the Vulgate edition differs so greatly from the
Hebrew, they must either pronounce the Hebrew grievously cor-
rupt (which their more prudent champions will not venture to say),
or concede that the present Latin text is not the Hieronymian.
Besides, Jerome in his Questions upon Genesis, his Commentaries
on the Prophets, and his book De Optimo Genere Interpretandi,
hath j u d g e d that many passages ought to be translated otherwise
than we find them translated in this version. H o w then can that
b e called Jerome's version, which Jerome himself condemns? N o w
we could shew b y many examples that many things in this version
are censured b y Jerome. But it will suffice to give a specimen in
a few, which will be enough to establish our desired conclusion.
Whereas we read, Gen. i., in the Vulgate edition, Spiritus Dei
ferebatur super aquas, there is, says Jerome, in the Hebrew a term
which means " b r o o d e d , or cherished, as a bird warms its eggs with
animal h e a t . " In Gen. iv. the Vulgate has, Et respexit Dominus
1

ad Abel et ad muñera ejus; ad Cain autem et ad muñera ejus non

respexit. Jerome thinks that the place should rather be translated,
as Theodotion hath translated it, " A n d the L o r d sent fire upon
A b e l and his sacrifice: but upon Cain and his sacrifice he did not
send fire;" which translation he pronounceth to be most e x a c t . 2

In the same chapter he pronounces that clause, " Let us pass

into the field," to be superfluous , though it appears both in the
3

Greek and Samaritan editions. Y e t this is the same thing as the

Vulgate exhibits in the words, Egrediamur foras.

P In Hebneo habet MEREFETH, quod nos appellare possumus incubabat,

sivo confovebat, in similitudinem volucris ova calore animantis. Quaest. Hebr.
in Genes. Opp. T. in. 306.]
p TJnde scire poterat Cain, quod fratris muñera suscepisset Deus, et sua
repudiasset; nisi ilia interpretatio vera est, quam Theodotion posuit, Et
inflammavit Dominus super Abel, &¡c. ib. 310.]
p Superfluum ergo est, quod in Samaritanorum et nostro volumine repe-
ritur, Transeamus in campum. ib. 312.]
VI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 133

In Gen. x x x . 3 2 , where we read cunctum gregem unicolorem,

Jerome observes that we ought to read non unicolorem*; and so
reason and the context require. Likewise in the first chapter of
Isaiah, where the Vulgate hath, ut ambularetis in atriis meis, J e -
rome translates, " N o longer tread m y c o u r t ; " and so the version,
5

which we find in his works along with his Commentaries, stillreads

it. So where the Vulgate hath, facti estis mild molesti, Jerome
reads, facti estis mihi in satietatem. And, in the end of the chapter,
that passage, which the Vulgate represents b y cum fueritis velut
quercus, Jerome translates, " They shall be like a terebinth ." 6

Examples of this kind are almost innumerable.

N o r does this occur only in the old Testament, but in the new
also. In the first chapter of the Galatians, the passage, Non ac-
quievi carni et sanguini, Jerome in his Commentary says should
be translated, " I conferred not with flesh and b l o o d . " 7
In the
same Epistle, chap. iii. 1, Jerome omits in his version these words,
non credere veritati , 8
which appear in the V u l g a t e ; whence Eras-
mus in his Annotations writes, that this is one place out of many,
which prove that the present edition is not altogether the same as
Jerome's . 9
And in Eph. chap, i., Jerome blames the interpreter for
putting pignus for arrhabo, and proves, b y excellent reasons, that
this is a false translation : yet in all the books of the Vulgate
10

edition we have still not arrhabo but pignus, contrary to Jerome's

determination. Upon Eph. iv., where the vulgar copies have, qui

[•» Ibid. 352.]

[ Calcare atrium meum non apponetis. Opp. T. iv. 2, 1.]
5

[° Jerome gives both translations: Usque hodie Judrei legontes scripturas

sanctus terebinthus sunt, sive quercus, ut interpretatus est Symmachus. T. iv.
39.]
p Sive, ut in Grajco melius habet: Non contuli cum came et sanguine.
T. vn. 391.]
[ Legitur in quibusdam codicibus: Quis vos fascinavit non credere veri-
8

tati f Sed hoc, quia in exemplaribus Adamantii non habotur, omisimus.

Ibid. 418.]
[ Hie est unus locus e multis, quo coarguitur hrec editio non esse tota
9

Hieronymi. Etenim quum ille testetur se banc particulam omisisse, quod in

Adamantii codicibus non inveniretur, in nostris codicibus constanter habetur.
—Erasmi Annot. in N . T. p. 570. Basil. 1535.]
[ Pignus Latinus interpros pro arrhabone posuit. Non idipsum autem
10

arrhabo quod pignus sonat. Arrhabo enim futuras emtioni quasi quoddam
testimonium et obligamentum datur. Pignus vero, hoc est, e'v(x P > P v 0V r 0

mutua pecunia opponitur; ut quum ilia reddita fuerit, reddenti debitum pig-
nus a creditore reddatur.—Hieron. Opp. T. vn. 560, 561.]
134 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

desperantes semetipsos tradiderunt impudicitice, " i t is otherwise,"

says Jerome, " i n the Greek. F o r the Gentiles do not despair,
since they have no sense of their ruin, but live like brute beasts a c -
cording to the flesh." A n d he subjoins that instead of " being in
despair," we may read, " b e i n g without feeling ." 1
W h y should I
endeavour to g o through all the rest ? It will b e easier to find a
beginning than an end.
W h a t Bellarmine adduces to obscure this light of truth, may be
dispelled without difficulty. F o r , first, in these and innumerable other
passages there is no error of the copyists; for all the books, whether
ancient or modern, agree in the reading. Next, as to the various
signification of words, it is the duty of a g o o d interpreter to con-
sider well what signification is most suitable, and to choose it. But
when Jerome says plainly, that he thinks a certain place or word
should be translated otherwise than it is translated in the Vulgate,
it is manifest that that version cannot be Jerome's. F o r , as to his
third p r e t e n c e — t h a t Jerome changed his o p i n i o n , — a l t h o u g h it
might be allowed in the case of a few passages, y e t in the case of
so many it is incredible. If he had made so many changes, he
would have impaired, in no slight degre, the authority of his j u d g -
ment. Besides, in most of the instances he had no reason for
changing. F o r in Gal. i. irpoffave9ép.r¡v is more correctly rendered
" c o n f e r r e d , " than "acquiesced." Eph. i., áppaficáv is not the
same as pignus, as Jerome himself hath taught us in his Commen-
taries. " A p l e d g e , " says he, " is given for money borrowed ;
but an earnest is given as a sort of evidence and security of a
future p u r c h a s e . "
2
A n d Eph. iv., a^j^^/cóVes does not mean
" despairing," but " being past or without feeling," as Jerome
says. W h o that reads Jerome, disputing and proving b y argu-
ments, that these places should have been thus translated, can
doubt that he translated them thus himself? Nay, it is not
only clear that this is not Jerome's version, but manifest also
that it is a version condemned b y Jerome.
A s to Bellarmine's last excuse,—that the church hath inter-
posed its authority, and j u d g e d the first version to be the t r u e r — I
ask, when, or how the church declared that j u d g m e n t ? or what
church it is that he m e a n s ? or what right any church had to

[ Multo aliud in Greeco significat quam in Latino

J
exprimamus
si possimus verbum de verbo, et dicamus, cmr¡\yr¡KÓTes indolentes, sive indolo-
rios. Ibid. 621.]
[ See preceding page, note 10.]
2
VI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 135

determine a false or improper version to be truer than a t r u e and 3

proper one ?
These, to omit the rest, are sufficiently plain reasons to prove,
that the Latin Vulgate is not that pure version which Jerome so
diligently composed and published. Since, however, so many things
are found in it which were in the Hieronymian, the opinion of those
who think it made up of Jerome's and some other ancient version
appears to commend itself to our approval.

CHAPTER VII.

WHEREIN AN ANSWER IS GIVEN TO T H E ARGUMENTS OF OUR

OPPONENTS, WHEREBY THEY ENDEAVOUR TO PROVE THAT
THE LATIN VULGATE EDITION IS AUTHENTIC.

W E have next to discourse of the authority of this Vulgate

edition, which point is the hinge whereupon this controversy par-
ticularly turns. Our adversaries determine that the authentic
scripture consists not in the H e b r e w and Greek originals, but in
the Vulgate Latin version. W e , on the contrary side, say that
the authentic and divinely-inspired scripture is not this Latin, but
the Hebrew edition of the old Testament, and the Greek of the
new. W e shall first obviate the arguments of the adversaries, and
then produce our own. Upon this question many papists have
written, and published works, both great and numerous; whose
diligence Bellarmine has sought to imitate, and endeavours to prove
this same conclusion b y the following arguments.
H e proposes his FIRST argument in this form : F o r nearly a
thousand years, that is, from the time of G r e g o r y the Great, the
whole Latin church hath made use of this Latin edition alone. Now
it is absurd to say, that for eight or nine hundred years together
the church was without the true interpretation of scripture, or
respected as the word of God, in matters pertaining to faith and
religion, the errors of an uncertain translator, since the apostle,
1 Tim. hi., declares the church to be the pillar and ground of truth.

[ In the original, " aut quo jure potuit ulla ecelesia judicare versioncm
3

nut falsam aut impropriam esse falsa propriaque veriorem?" Where falsa is
plainly a mistake, though not marked in the errata.]
136 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Bellarmine says that this is the argument of the council of Trent,

and it is the same which Canus uses, L i b . 11. c. 1 3 .
I answer, in the first place, that the Latin was not at that time
the whole church; for there were many and very populous
churches of the Greeks and others. Although, therefore, the Latin
church had erred, yet it would not follow that the whole church of
Christ had remained for such a length of time subject to that error.
Secondly, that the church may be deceived in the translation
of some passages without, in the meanwhile, ceasing to be the
church. For the church is not subverted b y the circumstance,
that some place of scripture happens to be improperly r e n d e r e d ;
and the R o m a n church, if it had no other errors except this
faulty version, and if it put a sound and pious meaning upon
this Latin scripture which it receives, might still be the church
of Christ. The fundamental points of the faith are preserved
intact in this Latin edition, if not everywhere, yet in very
many places. But that church not only receives and defends
this faulty version as the authentic scripture, but also pollutes
b y its expositions those places in it, which are well or tolerably
rendered.
Thirdly, if it were so necessary that the Latin church should
have an authentic Latin version, which might claim equal credence
with the originals, it would have prevailed always in the Latin
church, not only after G r e g o r y , but also before Gregory's time.
But we have shewn that there were many Latin versions in the
Latin church before G r e g o r y , and no one in particular authentic:
and after G r e g o r y there was no provision made b y any decree of
the church that this Latin version should be authentic, until the
publication of this v e r y decree of the council of Trent.
Fourthly, Bellarmine does not prove that the Latin church
from the time of G r e g o r y used this edition only. For Isidore,
who lived after Gregory, says, Etymol. Lib. vi. c. 4, " that
Jerome's version is deservedly preferred to all the r e s t . " 1
There
were, therefore, other versions besides this of Jerome, though he
confesses it to be the purest and best. Besides, interpreters and
expositors, even after G r e g o r y , do not always use to recite the

P Presbyter quoque Hieronymus, trium linguarum peritus, ex Hebrseo in

Latinum eloquium easdem scripturas convertit. . . cujus interpretatio merito
ceteris antefertur. Nam est et verborum tenacior et perspicuitate senten-
tial clarior. Madrit. 1 5 9 9 . p. 1 0 3 . Which last are almost the very words in
which Augustine commends the old Italic, De Doctr Christ, n. 1 5 . ]
VII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 137

words of scripture as they are now read in this edition, as is plain

from Bede and Gildas, and other writers, who flourished in the
church after Gregory.
Fifthly, as to the passage of St Paul, we shall explain it here-
after in the proper place.
Bellarmine draws his SECOND argument from the testimonies of
the ancients. This version is either the Italic, which Augustine
praises, or that of Jerome, which Damasus, and Augustine, and
Isidore, and Rabanus, and Bernard, and others, commend and
follow. N o r is it the Latins only who give this approbation, but
the Greeks also, who turned out of Latin into Greek some books
which had been translated b y Jerome out of Hebrew into Latin,
as Jerome himself testifies in his second book against Ruffinus, and
in his Catalogue under the article SOPHRONIUS . 2

I answer, first, that this argument is wholly inconclusive. For

what if those authors praise and commend this version ? Will it
therefore follow that this alone is authentic, or preferable to the
originals themselves ? Nothing less. T h e y praise it, and deserv-
edly : but yet they always prefer the originals to it. Jerome
himself adjusted his version b y the standard of the originals, and
wished it to be j u d g e d of by that same standard. Augustine, as
we have previously shewn, passes a long encomium upon that
translation which the Seventy published. Will our adversaries
thence conclude that that translation is authentic? On the con-
trary, they now esteem it very slightly. W i t h what pertinency
then do they allege that Jerome's version is approved by Au-
gustine and other Fathers ? Which yet was certainly never praised
in such a manner as not to imply, that not only the originals were
considered preferable, but even that higher praise might be deserv-
edly challenged b y the translation of the Seventy elders. In a
word, it is praised as a carefully executed translation, and is p r e -
ferred to other Latin versions, but not required to be received
as authentic scripture. Isidore, Etymol., L i b . vi. cap. 5, has these
words: "His [Jerome's] version is deservedly preferred to the
o t h e r s ; " that is, to the other versions, not to the originals them-
3

selves.
Secondly, his assumption that this is either the Italic or the

[ Sophronius . . . . opuscula mea in Gracum eleganti sermone transtulit,

2

Psalteriuin quoque et Prophetas, quos nos de Hebroeo in Latinum transtuli-

mus. Catalog. Scriptt. c. 1 3 4 . ]
[3 Vide supra, pp. 1 3 1 , 1 3 6 . ]
138 THE FIItST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Hieronymian, rests upon no certain basis. Some tbink it a Latin

version of Aquila's, or Symmachus's, or Theodotion's, Greek. That
it is not the pure text of Jerome's translation, the reasons which
w e have previously adduced establish. T h e argument is, therefore,
faulty every way.
T h e THIRD argument is t h i s : T h e Hebrews had the authentic
scripture in their own language, and the Greeks in t h e i r s ; that is,
the old Testament in the Septuagint version, and the new T e s -
tament in the original. Therefore it is fit that the Latin church
also should have the authentic scripture in its own language.
I answer, first, b y requiring to know in what sense it is that
he makes the Septuagint version authentic. Is it in the same
sense in which they make their Latin text authentic? I f so, I
deny its authenticity. F o r Augustine, who allowed most to the
authority of the Septuagint version, y e t thought that it should be
corrected b y the originals. But the papists contend that their
Latin text is authentic of itself, and ought not to be tried b y the
text of the originals. N o w in this sense no translation ever was,
or could be, authentic. F o r translations of scripture are always
to be brought back to the originals of scripture, received if they
agree with those originals, and corrected if they do not. That
scripture only, which the prophets, apostles, and evangelists wrote
b y inspiration of God, is in every w a y credible on its own account
and authentic. Besides, if the Septuagint was formerly authentic,
how did it become not authentic ? A t least in the Psalms it must
continue authentic still, since they derive their Latin version o f
that b o o k from no other source than the Greek of the Septuagint.
E v e n in the other books too it must still be authentic, since it is
plain from the commentaries of the Greek writers that it is the
same now as it was formerly.
Secondly, I would fain know how this argument is conse-
quential,—God willed his word and authentic scripture to be written
in H e b r e w and G r e e k ; therefore also in Latin. T h e authentic
originals of the scripture of the old Testament are extant in
H e b r e w , of the new in Greek. I t no more follows from this that
the Latin church ought to esteem its Latin version authentic, than
that the French, or Italian, or Armenian churches should esteem
their vernacular versions authentic. I f he grant that each church
should necessarily have authentic versions of its own, what are w e
to do if these versions should (as they easily m a y ) disagree ? Can
they be all authentic, and y e t disagree amongst themselves ? But
VII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 139

if he will not assign authentic versions to all churches, upon what

grounds will he determine that a necessity, which he grants to
exist in the Latin church, hath no place in others ? Cannot the
churches of the Greeks at the present d a y claim their version
likewise as authentic?
Thirdly, I know not with what truth they call theirs the
Latin church. F o r it does not now speak Latin, nor does any
one among them understand Latin without learning that language
from a master. Formerly it was, and was called, the Latin church.
N o w it is not Latin, and therefore cannot truly be so called, except
upon the plea that, though not Latin, it absurdly uses a Latin
religious service.
The FOURTH argument is : It may happen that in general coun-
cils either very few persons, or none at all, m a y understand H e -
brew or Greek. So Ruffinus, in his Ecclesiastical History, (Lib. x .
c. 2 1 ) , writes that no bishop was found in the council of Rimini
who knew the meaning of the term o/xoovatos. N o w in such cases
the Church's interest would be badly provided for, if it did not
understand the authentic scripture.
I answer, in the first place, That it is absurd to draw an
argument against the authority or necessity of the originals from
the ignorance of prelates and bishops.
Secondly, There never was any general council in which some
persons could not be found who understood the scriptures in the
original. But it is not necessary that all who understand the
scriptures should b e masters of those languages in which they
were first written. T h e true Church, indeed, hath always had.
and still possesses, many persons well skilled in those languages,
What sort of persons come to their councils, is no concern oi
ours. But We grant that many come who know nothing of the
H e b r e w , or Greek, or perhaps even the Latin, tongue.
Thirdly, I t is false, that no one was found in the council oi
Rimini capable of understanding the term ofixoovaios. F o r there
were present many bishops from Greece, who were well acquainted
with the Greek l a n g u a g e : but perhaps there were not many
among them who exactly perceived the whole force of that term.
Hence, suspecting that something wrong lay hid under the word,
they rashly rejected and condemned the onooucriov. But this
may happen to persons who are ever so well acquainted with the
languages.
T h e FIFTH argument. It would follow that all men, who are
not skilled in the Hebrew and Greek tongues, should always be in
140 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

doubt whether it is the true scripture which they read. This

argument Bellarmine hath omitted in the Sartorian edition; having,
perhaps, upon reflection disapproved of it. Indeed it really contributes
nothing towards confirming the authority of the Latin version.
However I answer, in the first place, that the Church would
act wisely in not permitting every one to publish a new version
at his own caprice, and taking care that all versions should be as
pure and faithful as possible.
Secondly, men unskilled in the tongues, although they cannot
j u d g e of the sense of each separate passage, whether all be cor-
rectly rendered, can yet, being instructed b y the H o l y Spirit,
acknowledge and approve the doctrine.
Thirdly, this argument no more proves the Latin to be authen-
tic than any other version. F o r they themselves allow vernacular
versions to the people under certain conditions. How then do
those who are unlearned and illiterate understand that they are
reading the true scripture? T h e unlearned in our country who
read the English version of the Rhemists could never, if this
argument have any weight, be certain that they read the true
scripture. But Bellarmine hath himself renounced this argument.
T h e LAST argument i s : T h e heretics, who despise the ancient
editions, make various and mutually discordant editions of their
o w n ; so that Luther, in his book against Zwingle, was moved to
say, that, if the world lasted long, it would again be necessary to
receive the decrees of councils, on account of these diverse inter-
pretations of scripture. I answer, in the first place, what sort of
an argument is t h i s ? T h e editions of the heretics are various
and discordant; therefore the old Latin edition is authentic.
Secondly, we do not approve discordant editions and versions.
Thirdly, we make no edition authentic, save the H e b r e w in the old,
and the Greek in the new, Testament. W e approve translations,
if they agree with these standards: w e reject them if they do
not. Fourthly, as to Luther, I do not know whether he said this
or not. T h e slanderous Cochlajus hath affirmed it of him. It is a
matter of no moment. Such then are Bellarmine's arguments.
But Melchior Canus (Lib. 11. c. 1 3 ) hath made use of some others
in this cause, but such as perhaps the Jesuit considered too futile.
O f this kind is this (which Canus, however, thinks a noble argu-
ment), that the scholastic theologians have followed this alone, and
that the inquisitors of heretical pravity are wont to convince and
condemn heretics out of it. I answer, in the first place, that those
divines, whom they call scholastic, have drawn some most absurd
VII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 141

conclusions from the Latin Vulgate edition, as appears plainly from

their books and disputations. I could produce a great many e x -
amples. In Canticles, 11. 4, the old interpreter hath translated thus :
Ordinavit in me caritatem. Hence Thomas (I believe a thousand
times) proves that there is a certain order and certain degrees in
charity. That all this is true and accordant with the scriptures,
I a l l o w : but it is supported b y no authority from this place and
testimony; for the words should be translated otherwise: " His
banner towards me is charity." Again, R o m . xiii. 2 is read thus
in the V u l g a t e : Qace a Deo sunt, ordinate/, sunt. Hence this
same Thomas, undoubtedly the chief of all the schoolmen, collects
in many places that all things are well and rightly constituted by
G o d ; and specially in Prima Secundoe, q. 1 0 2 , art. 1, he proves
from these words, that ceremonial precepts have a reason. A
question, verily, both proposed and concluded with singular wis-
dom! F o r the place is most perversely rendered b y that trans-
lator ; who first omits altogether the word e^ovalai, " p o w e r s , " and
then sets a comma after a Deo, when it should have been set before
i t : not to mention that the reading is ordinata, when it should be
ordinate. Thus those theologians frequently abuse the errors of
the Vulgate version, to confirm their own inventions.

CHAPTER VIII.

IN WHICH AN ANSWER IS GIVEN TO T H E TEN REASONS OF THE

ANGLO-RHEMIST TRANSLATORS, WHEREBY THEY ENDEAVOUR
TO PROVE T H E AUTHORITY OF T H E VULGATE VERSION IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT.

CERTAIN English popish divines, who have taken up their

abode in the seminary of Rheims, some years since translated
the new Testament into the English tongue, not from the Greek
text, but from the old Latin V u l g a t e I n order to persuade us
of the wisdom and prudence of this proceeding, they produce in
their preface ten reasons to prove that this Latin Vulgate edition
is to be followed in all things rather than the Greek. "We shall
now briefly report and refute those reasons.

[! It was first printed at Rheims in 4to in 1582. The principal transla-

tors appear to have been Allen, Martin, and Bristow.]
142 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

I. This edition is so ancient that it hath been received in

the church b y the space of 1 3 0 0 years, as appears from the fathers
of those times.
I answer: However ancient they make it out, y e t they must
needs confess that it is younger than the Greek edition. F o r the
Greek was not only older than the Latin, but than all other v e r -
sions, which are but streams derived from the fountain of the
Greek edition. If, then, an antiquity of 1 3 0 0 years commends
the Latin version, the Greek text should be y e t more strongly
commended to us, which w e gather from the genuine monuments
of those times to have been publicly received 1 5 0 0 years ago in
the churches of Christians. A n d it is marvellous that these noble
translators did not bethink themselves, when they vaunted the
antiquity of their version, that b y this plea of antiquity more was
gained for the Greek edition, which was undoubtedly the first and
most ancient of all, than for this Latin Vulgate, and that b y their
own shewing.
II. This is (as is commonly thought and most probable) that
v e r y same version which Jerome afterwards corrected from the
Greek, b y order of Damasus, as he writes in the preface to the
Evangelists, in the catalogue at the end, and in the 1 0 2 n d Epistle.
I answer: First, they confess it to be b y no means certain
and clear, that this Vulgate Latin edition of the new Testament is
altogether the same as that which Jerome corrected, since they say
that the fact rests upon common opinion and probability alone.
N o w we, not doubtfully or only with some probable shew, but
most certainly, know that this Greek edition of the new Testament
is no other than the inspired and archetypal scripture of the
new Testament, commended b y the apostles and evangelists to the
christian church.
Secondly, Jerome's correcting the Latin edition from the Greek
originals sufficiently shews, that the authority of the Greek is
greater than that of the Latin edition. Jerome corrected the
Latin from the G r e e k ; but our Rhemists, on the contrary, deter-
mine that the Greek should be corrected from the Latin.
III. Consequently, it is the same which Augustine so highly
praises and approves in a certain letter to Jerome, E p . 10.
I a n s w e r : In the first place, this plea depends upon the same
opinion and conjecture as the preceding. Secondly, Augustine's
praise is not weighty enough to constitute an edition authentic.
H e praised also the Italic and many others, but preferred the Greek
VIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 143

to all, and would have them all corrected and estimated b y the
Greek. Thirdly, Augustine praised that edition, not as absolutely
authentic, but as more faithful than the rest.
IV. This is that same edition which thenceforth was almost
always used in the church-offices, in sermons, in commentaries, in
the writings of the ancient fathers of the Latin church.
I answer : In the first place, for two hundred years after
Jerome, and more, it never obtained any singular prerogative and
authority, as w e have already shewn. Secondly, 1 ask, Is it any
consequence, that, because the Latin fathers and writers have made
special use of this, it is therefore absolutely authentic and prefer-
able to the Greek ? Thirdly, Much more ought the Greek to be
concluded authentic, which the churches of the Greeks have always
used from the apostles' times in their public liturgies, homilies, com-
mentaries, and books.
V. T h e sacred council of Trent, for these and many other
v e r y weighty reasons, hath defined this alone o f all Latin trans-
lations to be authentic.
I answer : In the first place, that Tridentine S y n o d hath no
authority with us. Secondly, W h a t right had it to define this ?
Thirdly, I t hath proposed no grounds of this decree, except this
o n l y , — t h a t that edition had been for a long time received in the
church ; which reason, at least, every one must perceive to be
unworthy of such great divines. Fourthly, I desire to k n o w w h e -
ther the council of Trent only commanded this Latin edition to b e
considered the authentic one amongst Latin editions, or determined
it to be absolutely authentic ? F o r if it only preferred this one to
other Latin translations, that could be no reason to justify the
Rhemists in not making their version of the new Testament from
the Greek ; since the council of Trent prefers this, not to the Greek
edition, but to other Latin translations. D o they, then, make both
this Latin and that Greek edition authentic, or this Latin only ?
Indeed, they express themselves in such a manner as not to deny
the authenticity of the Greek, while nevertheless they really hold
no edition of either old or new Testament authentic, save this Latin
Vulgate only. This is the judgment of these Rhemists who have
translated the new Testament from the Latin ; and this the Jesuits
defend most strenuously, maintaining that, where the Latin differs
from the Greek or Hebrew, we should hold b y the Latin rather
than the Greek or H e b r e w copies. A n d it is certain that this is
now the received opinion of the papists.
144 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

VI. It is, of all others, the weightiest, purest, most venerable

and impartial.
I answer : 1. That all these virtues must needs be still greater
in the Greek edition, which is that of the apostles and evangelists,
and, finally, of the H o l y Ghost himself, than in the Latin, which
cannot derive the beginning of its credit and dignity higher than
from the time and person of Jerome. 2. In many places it is
absurd and erroneous, as will hereafter be shewn ; and therefore,
in such cases, destitute of weight, and majesty, and purity.
VII. It agrees so exactly and thoroughly with the Greek, in
regard both of the phrases and the words, that the fastidious h e r e -
tics have blamed it on that account as rude and unskilful.
I answer : 1. That it is no great praise to be rude and
unskilful. 2. I f it deserves commendation for agreeing and cor-
responding remarkably with the Greek, then it follows that the
Greek itself is still more deserving of commendation. 3. It differs
from the G r e e k in many places, as we shall see hereafter.
VIII. T h e adversaries themselves, and Beza in particular,
prefer this to all the rest. See his Preface to the new Testament,
published in the year 1 5 5 6 . A n d elsewhere he says, that the old
interpreter translated v e r y religiously. Annot. in 1 Luc. v. 1.
I answer : Although Beza hath preferred it to other versions
in the translation of certain places, and said that the old interpreter
seems to have translated the sacred books with religious care ; y e t it
never came into his mind to prefer that Latin edition to the Greek,
or to make it authentic, or pronounce that the Latin translator never
erred. N a y , in this v e r y place he blames the old interpreter for
not understanding the difference between TrXt]po(popia and ireiroi-
Oyais. I f Beza had thought this as perfect as they would have
it, he would never have published a new translation of his own.
IX. In other translations there is the greatest difference and
discordance.
I answer : 1. I f it were agreed that this is better than all
other translations, what would that b e to the p u r p o s e ? For it
does not therefore follow, either that the Latin is authentic, or that
the Bhemists ought to have translated the new Testament from
the Latin, and not from the Greek. 2. T h e y cannot find so great
a difference between our versions, as there is between their Latin
Vulgate and the Greek edition. 3. Although some of our trans-
lations differ in some places, y e t those places are not numerous,
nor is the difference dangerous ; since we do not say that one should
VIII.] QUESTION T H E SECOND. 145

stand by these translations as of themselves authentic, but appeal

to the originals alone as truly authentic.
X. It is not only better than all other Latin versions, but
preferable even unto the Greek edition itself in those places •where
they differ.
I answer: 1. H e n c e it appears what value these men set
upon the Greek edition, who maintain that the Latin is superior to
it in all those places where any discrepancy is found. 2. How
false is this assertion we shall hereafter shew, and many other writers
have already often and copiously demonstrated.

CHAPTER IX.

WHEREIN THE ARGUMENTS ARE EXPLAINED WHEREBY T H E LATIN

VULGATE EDITION IS PROVED NOT TO B E T H E AUTHENTIC
SCRIPTURE.

IT remains that w e should shew b y g o o d and solid reasons,

that this Latin Vulgate edition is not to be esteemed authentic
scripture. Upon which subject I might use many words, and
adduce many arguments; but I shall endeavour to cut off all
matters of inferior importance, and concern myself only with those
things which are fitted to the immediate cause and question.
The first argument. Jerome, who either made or amended
this edition, did not himself deem it authentic, although it was then
in a much purer state than it is at present. N a y , he left it to
his readers to choose in many places between different interpre-
tations, being doubtful whether they were rightly understood and
rendered b y himself. Sometimes he even ingenuously confesses
that he hath translated otherwise than the Hebrew verity required.
So Jonah iv. he translates " i v y , " following Aquila, not " a g o u r d "
with the Septuagint; whereas in his Commentary on Jonah he
teaches us that neither i v y nor gourd can be really denoted b y
the word. " F o r , " says he, " gourds and i v y are naturally prone
to creep upon the earth, and cannot gain any height without props
and stays to support t h e m ' . " But he testifies that the shrub
which the L o r d prepared for Jonah supports itself b y its own
[ l
Cucurbita et hedera hujus natura? sunt ut per terrain reptent, et absque
furcis vel adminiculis quibus innituntur altiora non appetant.—T. VI. p. 426.]
r -i 10
[WHITAKER.J
146 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

stem, and grows commonly in Palestine. If, therefore, Jerome

hath not ventured to defend that edition everywhere, and in some
places owns that it is v e r y wide of the true sense of the H e b r e w ,
it follows that it is not to be taken for authentic. Assuredly
Jerome never even so much as dreamed, that a time would come
when the church would receive his translation for authentic scrip-
ture. Since, therefore, our opponents ascribe this version to
Jerome, and deem it to be commended by his authority, it is
fair that in this question they should be ruled b y the testimony
and judgment of Jerome, and learn from Jerome himself that it
is not authentic.
The second argument. If this Latin edition were authentic,
then the Latin church would have presently received it as authentic.
T h e validity of the consequence may be perceived from the follow-
ing c o n s i d e r a t i o n : — J e r o m e , as they say, translated the old T e s -
tament, and corrected the new, at the request of Damasus. W h e r e -
fore, if he had made this Latin edition, and delivered it to the
church with the intention that it should everywhere be esteemed
authentic scripture in the Latin churches; then it would have been
forthwith received and approved b y the judgment of the church
and the order of the pontiff. But such was not the case. For
in the time of pope G r e g o r y , who lived in the Latin church more
than two hundred years after Jerome, that version could not
maintain exclusive sway, even in the Roman church, or be esteemed
authentic, as is evident from G r e g o r y ' s Preface to J o b , c. v. If
then it was neither published to serve as authentic, nor then held
authentic when it was sounder and purer than it is at present, no
one can, without extreme injustice, require us to reverence and
follow it as authentic.
The third argument, Jerome himself, whom these men make
either the author or corrector of this edition, blames many things
in it. Therefore he b y no means deemed it authentic. T h e ante-
cedent hath been proved b y many previous testimonies; and the
consequent needs no proof. F o r , if Jerome found and remarked
many errors in this edition, it is certain that it could not have been
regarded b y him as either authentic or true. N o w Jerome, in
his Traditions upon Genesis and other books, shews many faults
of this edition, which are still found in it. A n d , as to the answer
of our adversaries,—that Jerome in his Commentaries judged some
things to be wrongly translated, which afterwards, when he came
to publish that Latin edition, he perceived to be quite correctly
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 147

rendered, and therefore did not c h a n g e ; this pretence, I say, may

be easily refuted, if we will only remember that those Comment-
aries upon the Prophets, in which he often blames this Vulgate
version, are later than that edition, as manifestly appears from
Jerome's own words at the end of the Catalogue . 1

The fourth argument. Jerome was neither a prophet, nor en-

dowed with a prophetic spirit. It is one thing to be a prophet,
and another to be an interpreter of prophetic writings. So Jerome
himself, in the Preface to the Pentateuch: " It is one thing to be
a prophet, and another to be an interpreter. In the former case,
the Spirit predicted future e v e n t s ; in the latter, learning and
copious command of words translates what it understands ." Hence 2

a conclusive argument may be formed. Since the Vulgate edition

is nothing more than a version, it is not of itself authentic or
inspired scripture. F o r it is the function of an interpreter to
translate the authentic scripture, not to make his own translation
authentic scripture. N o w Jerome both might, and did err in
translating. That he might have erred no one doubts, and A u -
gustine in his 8th Epistle to Jerome takes it for granted. That
he did err, Jerome himself ingenuously acknowledges in many
places. N a y , though we were to suppose that Jerome never erred
in translating, yet what answer can our adversaries give as to
the Vulgate Latin version of the Psalms, which is widely different
from the Hieronymian v e r s i o n ? Finally, what account can they
give of those parts of the Latin edition which are read in the
Latin Bibles from the Greek version of Theodotion, a man most
averse from the christian faith ? Will they affirm that Theodotion
too, from whom they have received some of the fragmentary
pieces in their collection, as either interpreter or author, was en-
dowed with a prophetic spirit? I trow not. Wherefore this
Latin edition, being put together b y persons who both could and
did err, cannot possibly be the authentic word of God and inspired
scripture.
And, whereas our adversaries object that, although Jerome
was himself obnoxious to error, y e t his version was approved b y
the c h u r c h ; — I answer first, that our assertion is not only
that Jerome might have erred, but also that he hath committed

]} (Vetus Testamentum) juxta Hebraicam t r a n s t u l i . . . . multaque alia de

opere prophetali, qua? nunc habco in manibus.—T. n. p. 941.]
[ Aliud est esse vatem, aliud esse interpretem. Ibi Spiritus ventura pra?-
2

dixit; hie eruditio ct vcrborum copia ea qua: intelligit transfert.]

10—2
143 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

great errors in this version, if it be his version; and this assertion

w e shall presently prove. Therefore if the church approved this
version, it approved very many errors of translation. Secondly,
the church hath not power of approving any man's translation,
however accurate, in such a manner as to pronounce it alone to be
authentic scripture, and preferable to the sacred originals them-
selves. F o r authentic scripture must proceed immediately from
the H o l y Ghost himself; and therefore Paul says that all scripture
is divinely inspired, 2 Tim. iii. 1 6 . N o w Jerome's translation is
not divinely inspired; therefore it is not authentic scripture.
Thirdly, the church hath never approved nor received as authentic
this Latin edition before the v e r y recent council of Trent. For
if the church had ever approved it before, so many learned and
catholic men would not have blamed this Latin version, as L y r a ,
Paul of Bruges, Eichard of Armagh, Valla, Eugubinus, Isidore
Clarius, John Isaac, Cajetan, Erasmus, Jacques D e - F e r r e , Ludo-
vicus Vives, Lucas of Bruges, and many more. T h e Latin church
did indeed use this version, because it was needful that Latin
churches should have some Latin edition of the scriptures; but it
never before made it authentic or canonical. N o w first, in the
Tridentine synod, w e are commanded to receive the old Latin
version as our authentic scripture. Whence we perceive that their
authentic scripture is only the version, such as it is, of Jerome and
others, one knows not whom. Their Moses, their prophets, their
apostles, their evangelists, y e a , their Christ, is J e r o m e : for, in
receiving his writings as authentic, they attribute to him what
truly appertains to Moses, the prophets, the apostles, the evange-
lists, and Christ.
The fifth argument. If G o d had permitted the scripture to
perish in the Hebrew and Greek originals, in which it was first
published b y men divinely inspired, he would not have provided
sufficiently for his church and for our faith. F r o m the prophetic
and apostolic scripture the church takes its origin, and the faith
derives its source. But whence can it be ascertained that these
are in all respects prophetic and apostolic scriptures, if the v e r y
writings of the prophets and apostles are not those which w e con-
sult ? W h a t reason can be alleged, w h y the authentic word of
G o d should perish in those languages in which it was first p u b -
lished, and become authentic in a new tongue, into which it was
translated b y a man who was no prophet ? or w h y in the Latin,
rather than in any other language ?
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 149

The sixth argument. The ancient fathers of the Latin church

did not all follow one edition, namely, Tertullian, Cyprian, A r n o -
bius, Lactantius, Victorius, Hilary, A m b r o s e , Augustine, Jerome
himself, Leo, G r e g o r y , Bede. Therefore there was not then one
authentic edition through so many ages of the church. Which
since experience shews to be a certain fact, w h y now must Latins
have one authentic Latin edition ? It might rather seem to have
been more necessary then that there should have been one
authentic edition, because there were then more Latin versions
than there are n o w : for Augustine says that in his time they
were innumerable (Doct. Christ. Lib. n. c. 1 1 ) ; but those which
are now extant may be easily counted. Y e t the council of Trent
willed that one out of many should be held authentic; and A n d r a -
dius (Defen. Trid. Lib. iv.) says that the synod acted wisely in
determining that, out of the many which are now in men's hands,
one should become and be esteemed authentic. I f this be a g o o d
r e a s o n — a n adequate cause—it was much more fit that there
should have been one authentic edition in those times in which
many more versions than now were everywhere in the hands of
men.
The seventh argument. I ask whether the council of Trent
made this Latin edition authentic, or only declared it to be so ?
The reason of this question is, because they say that they receive
the books of scripture from the church, not that they may b e -
come canonical and most holy, but that they may be so esteemed,
as we shall hear afterwards. Is this Latin edition therefore n o w
made b y them authentic, or is it only declared to be authentic ?
I f they say that it is now made authentic, it will follow that it was
not authentic before. Then b y what right could they make a
non-authentic edition become authentic? In the same way it will
be lawful for them to convert a book, which is not sacred, into
sacred and canonical: which y e t they profess not to arrogate to
themselves the power of effecting, But if they only declared this
edition authentic, let them tell us when it first began to be authentic.
F o r at first, as we have shewn, it was not authentic. It behoves
them therefore to let us know when, and from whom, it received
the privilege of authenticity, if they will not profess that it was
made authentic b y themselves.
The eighth argument. T h e Latin Vulgate edition is in many
places utterly barbarous aud full of solecisms: whence we collect
that its author was very careless. I readily acknowledge that the
style of scripture is simple and unadorned; and am so far from
150 THE FIRST CONTROVE RSY. [сн.

blaming it, that I admire it rather as divine. But in the authen­

tic original scriptures y o u shall never find such barbarity and
disgraceful solecisms as are everywhere occurring in the Latin
Vulgate. Gen. xxi. 2 6 : Non audivi prwter hodie. Gen. xlii. 1 3 :
Alius non est super,—for superest. Ps. lxvii. 2 0 : Benedictus
Dominus die quotidie. Ps. cxxv. 1 : In convertendo Dominus
captivitatem Sionfacti sumus sicut consolati. Matt. x x i i . : Neque
nubent neque nubentur. Matt. v i . : Nonne vos magis pluris estis
illis ? Matt. x x . : Filius hominis non venit ministrari. Luc. v i i . :
Lamentavimus vobis. Luc. x x i . : Omnis populus manicabat ad
eum. John x v . : Ut fructum plus afferat. Acts i i i . : Poznitemini.
James i . : Deus intentator est malorum. These are expressed in
the original quite otherwise, and with sufficient purity and elegance.
Matt. xxii. 3 0 : o'vre yafiovaiv оите екуа/xi^ovTai. Matt. vi. 2 6 :
ou% v/ueis fiaWov Зкхферете avriov; Matt. x x . 2 8 : о u\os TOV
av9pa>irov OVK rjhQe ^LUKovrjQrjvai dWa bianovrjaai. L u k e vii. 3 2 :
edprivijcrafjLev v/xlv. Luke xxi. 3 8 : 7год о Xaos wpQpiXe irpos
avrov. John xv. 2 : 'Lva irXeiova Kapirov (pipr). Acts iii. 19 :
/хетаиоцаате. James i. 13 : о Geo? атге1расгто$ ёсгтг тип какши.
In these Greek expressions there is no lack either of purity or of
elegance. But the Latin are such that nothing can be conceived
more barbarous or absurd. Assuredly the H o l y Spirit is never
wont to speak so barbarously and foolishly. F o r though there be in
the holy scriptures some pendent sentences, and inversions, and a p ­
parent solecisms, and other things of that kind, y e t the same may b e
found in the most eloquent and approved authors ; so that nothing
occurs in the originals, as far as the style and diction are con­
cerned, for which one cannot find a parallel in some approved
writer. But those Latin expressions are strange and unparalleled;
nor did ever any man speak in this style, who knew or cared how
to speak. Jerome, in his letter to Paulinus, says that this
rudeness, which is found in versions of the scriptures, hath occurred
partly through the fault of the translators. It is a fault therefore
to translate foolishly and awkwardly what is capable of being
neatly r e n d e r e d ; and the examples adduced shew it to be a fault
into which this interpreter hath fallen. It is true indeed that
every thing, especially in sacred writings, must not be brought
strictly to the rules of D o n a t u s , as G r e g o r y reminds us in his
l

preface to J o b : but the scriptures, though never superstitiously

exact, are everywhere clear and pure, and, I will add too, elo­
quent. So writes Augustine (Doct. Christ. Lib. iv. c. 6) excel­
[ l
A famous grammarian.]
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND, 151

lently well: " H e r e perhaps some one may ask whether our
writers are only to be styled wise, or to be called eloquent also ? "
W h i c h question Augustine answers t h u s : " W h e r e I understand
them, nothing can seem not only wiser but more eloquent than
they are. A n d I venture to say, that all who rightly understand
what they say, understand at the same time that they ought to
have said it in no other m a n n e r . " 2
H e observes that there is one
kind of eloquence which becomes youth, and another which is suit­
able to a g e ; and that nothing, which is not suited to the person of
the speaker, can deserve to be called e l o q u e n c e : in a word, that
there is a certain kind of eloquence suitable to divine writings, and
that the sacred writers possess this kind of eloquence. A n y other
would not have become them, nor this any other writers.
The ninth argument. T h e Papists themselves maintain that the
originals are useful; but the points of utility which they enumerate
prove the originals to be even necessary, and that the original
scripture in both testaments is more authentic than the Latin
edition. Bellarmine tells us of four occasions upon which we m a y
recur to the Hebrew and Greek originals. 1. W h e r e there seems
to be a mistake of the transcribers in the Latin c o p i e s ; of which
he produces some examples, and of which v e r y many might be
produced. 1 Sam xix. 24, the Vulgate had for many ages,
Cecinit nudus tota ilia die. I f y o u look at the H e b r e w original,
y o u will see that one should read cecidit, not cecinit. Y e t they
persist in retaining the latter (cecinit) in the text, and write cecidit
in the margin. E cclus. xxiv. 3 0 , the old edition hath, and hath
had this long time back, Ego quasi fluvius Dorix. I f y o u ask
what river that is, Rabanus tells y o u in his commentary upon
this place, that there is a river in Armenia which is called the
Dorix. But the Louvain editors have noted that w e should r e a d
vorax; and Bellarmine corrects it from the Greek, Ego quasi
fluvius Dioryx. For " $napu%," says he, " signifies a trench
dug from a river to irrigate the g r o u n d . " B e it s o : but what
Latin writer ever used this t e r m ? or what are we to think of

[ Hie aliquis forsitan quserit, utrum auctores nbstri

2
sapientes tan­
tummodo, an eloquentes etiam nuncupandi sunt. Qua? quidem qucestio apud
meipsura, et apud eos qui mecum quod dico sentiunt, facillime solvitur.
Nam ubi eos intelligo, non solum nihil eis sapientius, verumetiam nihil
eloquentius mihi videri potest. E t audeo dicere omnes, qui recte intelligunt
quod illi loquuntur, simul intelligere non eos aliter loqui debuisse.—Т. Ш.
p. 88. Bassan. 1797.]
152 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

such a Latin version? or, if this be the true reading, w h y is not

the old one corrected, but even still, when the error hath been
detected, left to remain in their books ? Ecclus. xlv. 6 : it is read
in the Vulgate, and so in the old missals, Dedit ei cor ad proz-
cepta. But the Louvain editors have corrected the place thus,
coram prcecepta; and Bellarmine approves that emendation, since
the Greek exhibits Kara irpoaanvov , and says that it is now so
1

corrected in the new missals. But why is it not amended in the

Bibles ? Is this your solicitude, to have your missals more correct
than your B i b l e s ? So again the old books exhibit that place in
Psal. xli., ad Deum fontem vivum : but Bellarmine thinks it
2

might safely b e changed to ad Deum fortem vivum, as is plainly

required b y the evidence of the Hebrew and Greek copies. Yet,
though this be certainly the case, they still retain fontem in the
text, and only set fortem in the margin. Again, Deut. iv. 2 3 , the 3

old Latin books have sulphure et solis ardore comburens; whereas

the H e b r e w text shews that the true reading is salis, not solis:
which error I am surprised that the Louvain editors did not p e r -
ceive, and correct at least in the margin. A n infinite number of
other like examples might be g i v e n ; and Canus (Lib. n. c. 15)
hath adduced many in which it is obviously evident that the Latin
edition is corrupt, and requires to be corrected from the Hebrew
and Greek originals. D o we not hence see that the original edi-
tion possesses greater purity and authority than this Vulgate
L a t i n ? T h e Latin books must be corrected from the originals,
not the originals from the Latin edition: therefore the Latin edi-
tion is less authentic than the original scripture.

Bellarmine's second occasion is, when the Latin copies present

such various readings as to make it impossible to determine which
is the true. F o r example, in Joshua v. some copies of the V u l -
gate edition h a v e , Quibus juravit
4
ut ostenderet eis terram;
others, ut non ostenderet, with a directly contrary sense. The
latter, says Bellarmine, is said to be the truer, because in the

[} Kai tbaiKtv avrw Kara 7rpo<ramov ivroXas, vo/iov £a>rjs Kai im.a njixt]s. Ec-
,,

clus. xlv. 5, ed. Grabe.]

[2 Ps. xlii. 2, in the Hebrew, bub. In the Greek, wpos TOP Qeop TOP
£avra.l
[3 This is a mistake. The true reference is Deut. xxix. 22, where the
Hebrew is, JTS^W r f e l JTHSJ.]

[i ver. 6. D n i N n n ' ^ l V D r ^ njiT yittO.]

IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 153

Hebrew text the negative is constantly added. Why then do

their books retain the former, which they themselves know and
confess to be false ? So again, Josh, x i . , some copies have,
5
Non
fait civitas quce non se traderet; some, on the contrary, quce se
traderet. A n d this is affirmed to be the truer reading, because it
agrees with the Hebrew and is required by the context. So
Luke i . 6
in the common books we read, Medemptionem plebis
SUCB : but it is evident that we should read plebi suce, because
the Greek is rip Xaw avrou. Thus they allow that their Latin
edition, which they determine to be alone authentic, hath in it
many things not only futile, but even utterly wrong, and that it
may be j u d g e d of and corrected b y the originals. Meanwhile,
however, errors of this kind are not removed, but preserved in
their Bibles. W h o , then, will not much rather trust the originals
than this Vulgate edition ?
T h e third occasion is, when the Latin copies have something
ambiguous, either in the expression or in the sense. Bellarmine
gives some examples: one is taken from Luke ii. , 7
Hominibus
bonce voluntatis. T h e words, boncB voluntatis, may be referred,
he thinks, either to homines, or to pax, but more correctly to the
l a t t e r ; so that the sense shall be, " on earth peace to men, peace
(I say) of the good-will of God towards m e n . " F o r evSoida is the
good-will of God towards men. If this be true, as Bellarmine justly
deems, our Rhemists have erred grossly, in gathering from this
place a proof of the freedom of the human will.
Fourthly, we may recur to the original, in order to discover
the full energy and propriety of the t e r m s : which opens to us a
very wide door. F o r in the well-spring every thing is more
emphatic than in the streams of the translations; which not a
little illustrates their inferior excellence and dignity.
Melchior Canus, Lib. 11. c. 1 5 , sets forth many advantages which
attend a knowledge of the originals. First, when we dispute with
infidels. Secondly, when w e wish to explain the peculiar emphasis
of terms. Thirdly, to help us to a number of meanings. Fourthly,
to give us an acquaintance with the idioms, phrases, and proverbs,
of a foreign tongue. Fifthly, to correct errors. Sixthly, to shew
us the meaning of some places which cannot be explained without a
knowledge of languages. Seventhly, to escape the doubtfulness

[s ver. 19.]
[ 6
v. 68, €7TOt7](Te \vrpai(Tiv T<5 \aa auroi).]
[ 7
v. 14, where the Vulgate reads eioWas.]
154 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

and ambiguity of the Latin. Eighthly, to give us right interpre-

tations of some terms in common use, as Anathema, Maranatha, and
the like. That all these advantages may be obtained from the
originals, they allow. Consequently, I may argue thus from their
own confession : That edition which is corrupt, faulty, ambiguous,
futile, and neither explains the meaning nor teaches the majesty of
the H o l y Spirit, nor hath light enough in itself to illustrate the
diction and sense of scripture, is not authentic. N o w the Latin
Vulgate edition is such, b y the ingenuous confession of our adver-
saries themselves. Therefore it is not authentic : and consequently
the H e b r e w and Greek are authentic ; because not only are they
free from those faults and disadvantages with which the Latin is
replete, and adorned with all those privileges which are b y no
means conceded to the Latin, but even they, who press the Latin
edition upon us as authentic, are compelled to have recourse to the
H e b r e w and Greek, and appeal to them as to a superior j u d g e .
A n d now I would desire to put this question to them : Since
the Louvain divines have found many mistakes and faults in their
Latin Bibles, and have indicated them in the margin, what reading
is it which they determine to be authentic—the old one of the text,
or the new one of the margin ? If the old, w h y have they branded
it, and changed it in their missals ? If the new, w h y do they not
receive it into the text, but leave it to stand, as it were, without
upon the threshold ? I will make the matter plain b y a single
example. I n Proverbs xvi. 1 1 , the old copies of the Latin edition
have this reading ; " Pondus et staterà judicia D e i sunt, et opera
ejus omnes lapides seculi." T h e y now perceive that it should b e
read, " e t opera ejus omnes lapides s a c c u l i ; " for the H e b r e w word
denotes a scrip, or purse, or little b a g . 1
H e r e there is no doubt
that the reading seculi is erroneous. Y e t the author of the C o m -
mentary upon Proverbs, which appears amongst the works of
Jerome, reads seculi, and explains "the stones of e t e r n i t y " to
mean just men and strong in faith. N o doubt a most brave e x p o -
sition! Innumerable similar instances might be found in Latin
authors, who, for the last thousand years, and from the time that
this version began to prevail in the Latin churches, deluded b y
the mistakes and faults of this edition, have invented absurd opi-
nions and interpretations in consequence. So that passage in W i s -
dom, xii. 1 5 , which the Louvain editors now read thus in their
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 155

Bibles, " Qui non debet puniri, condemnare exterum sestimas a

virtute t u a , " was formerly read t h u s :
2
" Qui non debet puniri,
condemnas, et exterum sestimas a tua virtute." F o r G r e g o r y upon
J o b (Lib. i n . c. 1 1 ) understands it of G o d the Father, who deli-
vered up to death Christ, the most righteous of all men, and
deserving of no punishment. Thus this fault hath remained more
than a thousand years in the Latin books. Wherefore, if that
reading b e false (as it certainly is), then the Latin church hath
followed a false, and consequently b y no means authentic, reading,
in an infinite number of places,—for of such places the number is
infinite. So Canticles ii. at the end, the old books have " Super
montes Bethel." But the Louvain critics bid us read Betlier for
Bethel; which is confirmed also b y the H e b r e w verity. Yet Gre-
g o r y , a thousand years ago, read the text just as it used to be read
in their corrupt c o p i e s ; from which circumstance w e may perceive
the great antiquity of that corruption. F o r , in his Commentary
upon the Canticles, he interprets Bethel in this place to mean the
church, as that in which G o d dwells. Thus almost all the Latin
expositors read and expound that place, in which, nevertheless,
unless b y means of a corruption, no mention of Bethel can be
found.
The tenth argument. That scripture which was authentic for
the old Testament before Christ, and for both old and new six
hundred years after Christ, should now also b e deemed authentic
b y us. N o w the H e b r e w edition of the old, and the Greek of the
new Testament, was always held the authentic scripture of G o d in
the christian' churches for six hundred years after Christ. This,
therefore, ought to be received b y us also as authentic scripture.
I f they doubt the major, we must ask them, Whether the church
hath changed its authentic scripture, or hath not rather preserved,
and commended to all succeeding generations, that which was in
truth authentic from the very first? If it lost that which was
published b y the prophets and apostles, who can defend that n e g -
ligence, who excuse so enormous a sacrilege? If it lost it not,
then let it deliver to us the writings of the prophets and apostles,
and approve them b y its testimony as the authentic word of G o d ;
not substitute for this divinely-promulgated scripture a mere trans-
lation, of it into Latin, not made b y either prophets or apostles;
nor persuade us that such a document as this is the authentic word

[ 2
I n the Greek, TOP JXTJ ofpeikovra KoKao~6rjpai KaTahiKao-ai aXkorpiov ijyou-
/xevos TT)S aijs Swapecor.]
156 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

of God. In which proceeding they really assume to themselves

the privilege of doing that which they allow themselves incompe-
tent to do. F o r those who make scripture authentic, make it
canonical; since it is only authentic scripture that is canonical, and
it is canonical, because it is authentic. N o w they have made their
scripture authentic, forasmuch as it was not authentic previously.
Therefore they make scripture canonical; which y e t they confess
not to be placed in the power and judgment of the church.
T o return to the argument. I suppose that no one doubts the au-
thenticity of the Hebrew edition of the old Testament in Christ's time.
But now it may be demonstrated b y many testimonies of the fathers,
that the Hebrew edition of the old, and the Greek of the new
Testament, was held authentic in the church for many ages after
Christ. Jerome, in his b o o k against Helvidius, writes thus : " W e
must suppose that the water of the fountain ran much clearer than
that of the s t r e a m . " T h e same author, in his letter to S u n n i a a n d
1

Fretella, o b s e r v e s : " A s in the new Testament we recur to the

fountain of the Greek language, in which the new Testament is
written, so in the old Testament w e recur to the H e b r e w verity . " 2

S o , in his letter to Marcella, at the end of the second v o l u m e : " I

wish to recal the corruption of the Latin copies to the Greek ori-
ginal ." 3
A n d in his Preface to the Pentateuch he rejects as absurd
the opinion of those persons, who said that the Latin copies were
more correct than the Greek, and the Greek than the Hebrew.
T o the same effect in his Commentary on Zechariah, chap. viii.:
" W e are compelled to have recourse to the Hebrews, and to seek
certain knowledge of the truth from the fountain rather than from
the streamlets ." 4
Yea, in his Epistle to Vitalis he writes that he
was wont to betake himself to the Hebrew verity, as a sort of
citadel and fortress . 5
T o this we may add the consideration, that

f Multo purior manare credenda est fontis unda quam rivi.]

1

[ Sicut in novo Testamento . . . . recurrimus ad fontem Grajci sermonis,

2

quo novum scriptum est instrumentum; ita in veteri Testamento ad Hebraicam

veritatem confugimus.—T. I. p. 637.]
[ Latinorum codicum vitiositatem ad Graacam originem volui revocare.—
3

T. I. p. 132.]
[ Cogimur ad Hebrreas reeurrere, et scientia? veritatem de fonte magis
4

quam de rivulis qua?rere.—T. vi. p. 851.]

[ Si quidem in historiis aliter haberent L X X . interpretes, aliter Hebraica
5

Veritas; confugere poteramus ad solita prsesidia, et arcem lingua? tenere ver-

nacular—T. I. p. 434.]
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 157

Damasus urged Jerome to the task of correcting the new Testa-

ment from the G r e e k ; that prelate being sufficiently aware that
the Greek deserved to be preferred b y a great deal to all the
Latin copies. Much to the same purpose may b e found in A m -
brose, de Spiritu Sancto, L i b . n. c. 6 , and in his book, de Incarn.
6

Domin. Sacram. c. 8 : 7
also in Augustine de Doctr. Christ. Lib. ir.
c. 7 , and elsewhere.
8
F r o m Augustine, Gratian hath transcribed
in his Decree what we read Dist. 9, cap. Ut veterum: " A s the
correctness of the old books is to b e estimated b y the H e b r e w
volumes, so the truth of the new requires the standard of the
Greek t e x t . "
9
Also, in his City of G o d (Lib. x v . c. 1 3 ) , Augustine
makes a large defence of the Jews, and reminds us, that " we
must not trust a translation so implicitly as the language from
which interpreters made that translation into a different one ."
1 0

Ludovicus Vives thus comments upon that chapter: " T h e same

answer may b e given to those who object that the M S S . of the old
Testament have been falsified and corrupted b y the Jews, and
those of the new b y the Greeks, to prevent us from seeking the
true sense of the sacred books from those o r i g i n a l s . " 11

But our adversaries allow that what the fathers write of the
authority of the originals was true indeed formerly; and they
would not deny that we ought to do the same, if the H e b r e w and
Greek originals were still uncontaminated. But they maintain
that those originals are now corrupted, and that therefore the
Latin streamlet is deserving of more regard than the ancient well-
spring. Hence it is now the earnest effort of the popish theolo-
gians, and the champions of the council of Trent, to persuade us
of the depravation of the original scriptures. In the conduct of
which argument, however, some are more keen and impudent than

[0 Lib. II. c. 5. § 4 2 . T. v i . Paris. 1 8 3 9 . p. 3 4 1 . ]

[ § 8 2 . p. 4 7 5 , ut supra.
7
Ita cnim et in Grrecis coilicibus invenimus,
quorum potior auctoritas est.]
[b c. 1 3 . ed. Bruder. Lipsia?, 1 8 3 8 . ]
[ Ut veterum librorum fides de Hebraois voluminibus examinanda est,
9

ita novorum Gra?ci sermonis normam desiderat.—Decret. p. 1 . Dist. ix. c. vi.

The title does indeed ascribe these words to Augustine, but the note, more
correctly, to Jerome, Bpist. 2 8 . ad Lucinium Bseticum.]
[10
Bi linguse potius credatur, unde est in aliam per interpretes facta
translatio.]
[
n
Hoc idem responden potest his qui falsatos corruptosque et ab Hebrajis
codices veteris instrumenti, et a Grascis novi objiciunt, ne Veritas sacrorum
librorum ex illis fontibus petatur.—Ludov. Vives, Annot. p. 4 5 9 . od. Froben.]
158 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

others. F o r Lindanus, De optimo Genere Inter., Lib. i. c. 1 1 , and

Canus, L i b . II. c. 1 3 , pretend most slanderously that the originals
are utterly corrupted. But others come to much more moderate
and equitable conclusions. Neither party, however, can do a n y -
thing really serviceable to the cause of the authentic authority
of the Latin edition, until they can shew us that not only the
originals are corrupt in some places, but even generally more
corrupt than the Latin c o p i e s ; which is b e y o n d what any papist
hitherto hath hoped to demonstrate. Bellarmine is of the number
of those who treat the originals with some r e s p e c t ; and conse-
quently he refutes the opinion of Lindanus and Canus. Neverthe-
less, lest he should seem not to approve the Tridentine Decree, he
maintains that there are some corruptions in the original text. Let
us see what sort of corruptions he speaks of.
In order, then, to shew that the H e b r e w originals are not
absolutely pure, Bellarmine proposes five places, which he thinks
undoubtedly corrupt. T h e first place is Is. ix. 6, where he says
that we should read, " H e shall be called W o n d e r f u l ; " as Calvin
also contends. But the H e b r e w text not only does not exhibit
jikkare, " h e shall be called," but does exhibits'/era, [ N i p ? ]
" h e shall call." I answer;—first, as to the sense, it makes no differ-
ence whether w e read, " H i s name shall be called Wonderful, ' or 1

" H e shall call (i. e. God the Father shall call) his name Wonderful."
So Junius and Tremellius have rendered it, in conformity with the
present Hebrew reading, " vocat;" which they would not have
done, if they had supposed that there was any important difference
in the sense. Secondly, the opinion of some, that we should rather
read in the passive than in the active, does not prove the originals
to be corrupted. T h e points indeed require the latter reading,
but the letters will bear either. Thirdly, the Hebrew doctors tell
us, as Vatablus observes upon this p l a c e , that verbs of the third
1

person are often used impersonally b y the Hebrews, as " he shall

c a l l " [one shall call], for " he shall be called."
T h e second place is Jerem. xxiii. 6, in which we should read,
as Calvin thinks also, " This is his Name, whereby they shall call

[! So Buxtorf, Thes. Gramm. Lib. n. c. 10. "Tertise persona? verba

stepissime quoque usurpantur indefinite et quasi impersonaliter, nullo nomi-
nativo expresso." He cites Is. ix. 6, Jerem. xxiii. 6, as instances. There are
some remarks upon this idiom, both very curious and very valuable, in
Gataker, de Stylo N . T. pp. 66—72. London, 1648. Cf. Nordheimer's
Hebrew Syntax, § 763, New York, 1841.]
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 159

him, T h e L o r d our Righteousness." But the H e b r e w text reads

constantly in the singular, " he shall call," not " they shall call." I
answer, in the first place, That we plainly perceive this place not
to be corrupt from the circumstance, that of old in Jerome's time
it was read exactly as it is read at present. F o r Jerome left it
optional with us to read it either in the singular or the p l u r a l ;
and the Seventy, before Jerome, rendered the word KuXeaei,
" he shall call." Secondly, the H e b r e w word may be rendered,
" they shall call," as Vatablus, Pagninus, and Arias Montanus
have translated it. Thirdly, if we read " He shall call," as
our H e b r e w text invites us, the sense will be neither impious
nor unsuitable, as is plain from the annotations of Junius and
Tremellius.
T h e third place is P s . xxii. 1 7 . All Christians read, " T h e y
pierced m y hands and m y feet." But the H e b r e w M S S . have not
Cam, [n|] " t h e y pierced," but Caari, [n»3] " a s a Lion." I
answer, that this is the only specious indication of corruption in
the Hebrew original; y e t it is easy to protect this place also
from their reproaches. For, first, learned men testify that
many Hebrew copies are found in which the reading in Ca.ru;
Andradius, Defens. Trid. Lib. iv., and Galatinus, Lib. v m . c. 1 7 .
And John Isaac writes that he had himself seen such a c o p y ,
in his book against Lindanus, Lib. II. ; and the Masorites them-
selves affirm that it was so written in some corrected copies . 2

Secondly, in those books which have this reading, the Masorites 3

tell us that it is not to be taken in the common acceptation :

whence it plainly appears that nothing was farther from their minds
than a design to corrupt the passage. Thirdly, the place is now
no otherwise read than it was formerly before Jerome's time.
F o r the Chaldee Paraphrast hath conjoined both readings , and 4

the Masorites testify that there is a twofold reading of this place.

Jerome, too, in his Psalter read in the Hebrew Caari, as our
books have it, though he rendered it "fixerunt." So that it
can never be proved, at least from this place, that the Hebrew
originals were corrupted after the time of Jerome.
T h e fourth place is Ps. xix. 5, where the H e b r e w copies have,

[ 2
In the textual Masora on Numb. xxiv. 9, I l i O *6j"Tl "H" 'HJO
1

[ The smaller Masora on Ps. xxii. 17, i^wb

3
" H f Q ^JJDp 2 - ]
[ '>by\)
4
1TN
n n i O "prr prOD- " T h e y pierced, like a lion, my
hands and my feet."]
160 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

" t h e i r l i n e went into all the e a r t h ; " whereas the Septuagint render
1

it, cpQoyyoi avrwv, " t h e i r s o u n d ; " and Paul hath approved that
reading, R o m . x. 1 8 . I answer with Genebrard, in his Scholia
upon the passage, that the H e b r e w term does indeed denote a
line, but the Septuagint regarded the general sense, and were
followed b y the apostle. F o r that line, or (as Tremellius trans-
lates it) delineation of the h e a v e n s , — t h a t is, that frame and
structure of the heavenly orbs, smoothed as it were b y the rule,
proclaims the infinite power and wisdom of the divine artist.
T h e fifth place is E x o d . chap, ii., in which this whole sentence
is wanting: " H e begat another also, and called his name Eliezer,
saying, T h e God of m y father hath helped me, and delivered me
from the hand of P h a r a o h . " 2
I answer, that in this place it is the
Latin rather than the Hebrew copies that are corrupt. F o r the
asterisk which the Latin editions, even that of Louvain, prefix
to these words, is a brand which shews that the whole sentence
should be removed from the Latin b o o k s ; and this the more learned
and candid of the papists themselves confess. For so Cajetan
writes in his commentary upon that p l a c e : " T h i s whole paragraph
about the second son is superfluous ." 3

These then are the passages which Bellarmine was able to find
fault with in the originals; and y e t in these there is really nothing
to require either blame or correction. But, even though we should
allow (which we are so far from doing, that we have proved the
contrary), that these were faulty in the original, what could our
adversaries conclude from such an admission? W o u l d it follow that
the Hebrew fountain was more corrupt than the Latin streamlets,
or that the Latin edition was authentic? Not, surely, unless it
were previously assumed, either that canonical books of scripture
cannot be erroneously copied sometimes b y transcribers, or that
it is not v e r y easy for us to discover many more errors in the
Latin edition which ought not, and cannot be defended, as we
shall hear presently.
H e r e indeed the Jesuit hath betrayed the papal cause. For,
to maintain the reasonableness of the Tridentine decree, we must

I1
DJp. See Pococke in his Appendix to Maimonidis Porta Mosis, c. iv.
pp. 4 7 — 5 1 . ]
[ Alium quoque genuit, et voeavit nomen ejus Eliezer, dicens, Deus patris
2

mei auxiliatus est mihi, et liberavit me e manu Pharaonis.—Exod. ii. 2 2 . ]

[ Tota ista particula de secundo Alio superflua est.—Oajet. in Penta-
3

teuch, p. 8 2 . 2 . Romse. 1 5 3 1 . ]
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 161

assert that the H e b r e w text is utterly corrupt, and the Latin

uncorrupted; which Lindanus and Canus endeavour to d o ; and
that, constrained b y the authority of this Tridentine d e c r e e : but
Bellarmine is so far from doing this, that he censures Lindanus and
Canus for saying that the H e b r e w originals have been corrupted
b y the J e w s ; which thesis, although these men assert it with
strenuous earnestness, hath been long since exploded b y the senate
(so to speak) of more learned and sound-minded papists. Sixtus
Senensis, Lib. v m . c. 2, delivers his opinion thus : " I t cannot be said
that the divine scriptures of the old Testament have been falsified
b y the malice either of Jews or Christians : " which he presently d e -
4

monstrates b y many arguments. W e might adduce similar passages

from other popish authors. N o w then, if the originals of sacred scrip-
ture have not been so disgracefully corrupted b y any malice of Jews
or adversaries, as some persons have ignorantly suspected; and if no
mistakes have crept into the originals, but such as may casually
be introduced into any b o o k , (which our opponents expressly allow ; )
why, I pray, did not the Tridentine fathers rather command
that the originals should be purified with the greatest care and
diligence than that the m u d d y stream of the Latin edition should
be preferred to the fountain, and become authentic ? F o r they who
assert the Latin to be authentic scripture, close up the H e b r e w and
Greek fountains. Indeed these men are unwilling to seem to do
t h i s ; and yet they do it nevertheless, when they determine the
originals not to be authentic. Thus, therefore, I frame m y argu-
ment : If the originals are not authentic, it must be because they
are corrupt. But they are not corrupt: therefore they are
authentic. Upon the major we shall have no dispute. F o r what
other reason can be assigned for denying, that books which were
authentic once, should still be so, and be so esteemed at p r e -
sent ? A s to the minor, if they answer that they are corrupt;
I demand, whether b y the deliberate malice of adversaries, or
b y chance ? If they say the f o r m e r , — w h a t adversaries do they
mean ? In the case of the old Testament they can dream of none
except the Jews. N o w the Jews are, as y o u have heard, acquitted
b y the very papists, and b y Bellarmine himself, and are indeed
wholly free from blame. F o r when could they have made these
corruptions? Neither before Christ, nor for 400 years after
Christ. F o r then Christ and the doctors of the church would have

[ Dici non potest divinas veteris Testamenti scripturas aut Judajorum

4

aut Christianorum malignitate falsatas. p. 613. Paris. 1610.]

I WHITAKEH. |
162 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

blamed them upon that s c o r e ; whereas, on the contrary, they praise

their fidelity and diligence in preserving the originals, and call them
the book-keepers (capsarii) of the scriptures \ Besides, if the Jews had
wished to corrupt the original scriptures, they would have laid their
sacrilegious hands specially upon those places which concern Christ
and confirm the faith. But in those places these fountains run so clear
that one feels no l a c k : nay, they sometimes run far clearer than the
Latin streams. F o r instance, in Psalm ii. the Latin copies have, Am-
plectimini clisciplinam; which reading says nothing emphatical of
Christ. But the H e b r e w original leads us at once to the Son of
G o d , and celebrates his far-extended sway over a l l : " Kiss the
Son." T h e same may be affirmed of many other passages. John
Isaac, the J e w , in his second b o o k against Lindanus, writes that
more than two hundred arguments against Jewish opinions may be
drawn more strongly from the H e b r e w text than from the Latin
translation. To the same effect Andradius (Defens. Lib. i v . ) :
" Those who handle the H e b r e w text with piety and religious care,
meet in it with much larger testimonies to Christ than in the Latin
and G r e e k . " 2
This was testified long ago also b y Jerome, in his
7 4 t h Epistle to Marcella . 3
But if they say that the originals are
only corrupted b y some accident, we too may affirm the same, and
with much more justice, of their own Latin version: for such
accidental causes extend no less to the Latin than to the H e b r e w
and Greek books.
The eleventh argument. T h e Latin Vulgate edition is most
certainly and most plainly corrupt. A n d the corruptions I speak of
are not casual, or slight, or common errors, such as the careless-
ness of copyists often produces in b o o k s ; but errors deeply rooted
in the text itself, important and intolerable. Hence is drawn the
weightiest argument against the authority of this edition. Upon
this subject many excellently learned men, even of the popish party,
have written,—Valla, Isaac, Erasmus (if indeed they rank him in
their number at all), and Clarius, whom Canus censures most
severely upon this a c c o u n t : but the thing is certain and manifest.
Yet here the Jesuit, who hitherto did not dare to accuse the
Hebrew originals, toils hard to save the credit of the Latin edition,

I E. g. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. xli. n. 14. T. iv.

1
Contr. Faust. L. xir.
c. 23. T. v m . &c.]
[ Qui Hebraja pie et religiose tractant, multo in illis ampliora de Christo
2

testimonia quam in Latinis Grajcisque offendimt.]

[ T. i. p. 150. Ep. 32.]
3
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 163

and is large in his replies to Chemnitz, Calvin, and others. In

which task he has no more formidable adversary than himself.
F o r , unless the Hebrew and Greek originals be most foully corrupt,
it follows that this Latin edition is most foully corrupt, inasmuch as
it differs widely in all the books from those originals. W h o does
not see from this that either the originals are corrupted, or the
Latin Vulgate edition is full of innumerable errors ? F o r , where the
difference and opposition of the readings is so great as is actually
found between the originals and the Latin edition, it cannot be said
or conceived that every thing is sound and uncorrupted. Bellarmine
therefore cannot possibly defend them both t o g e t h e r ; and he must
necessarily confess either the Hebrew original of the old, and the
Greek of the new Testament, or else the Latin edition in both T e s -
taments, to labour under most wretched depravation. F o r whoever
will compare the Latin with the originals, shall find almost e v e r y -
where a remarkable discordance. W e r e I to g o in detail through all
the errors of this edition, I should never make an end, and should
weary your attention with a vain prolixity. Y o u may spend your
leisure in reading what others have written upon the subject. It
shall suffice for me to discharge what m y duty requires, and to lay
before y o u some faults of this edition, from which it will plainly appear
that it is really corrupt and erroneous. A n d , though I might bring
forward many passages, and follow the regular order of the several
books and chapters, I shall prefer to tread in the steps of Bellarmine,
and examine his defence of certain places. He first proposes
severally and defends the faults of the Vulgate edition of the old
Testament which had been censured b y Chemnitz, then those by
Calvin in the Psalms, lastly those b y others in the Latin edition o f
the new Testament. These let us now examine, and, as occasion
offers, interpose a few remarks.

CHAPTER X.

WHEREIN CERTAIN CORRUPT PLACES IN THE VULGATE EDITION OF

THE OLD TESTAMENT ARE SET FORTH.

T H E first place is Gen. iii. : Ipsa

4
conteret caput tuum. So it
is wrongly and corruptly reao! in the Vulgate. F o r the reading

P ver. 15. ttish SfSW'! WH.]

11—2
164 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

ought to be Ipse or Ipsum, so as to make the reference to the Seed

of the woman, not to the woman herself. Bellarmine affirms that
it is not improbable that the true reading is Ipsa, and that many
of the ancients read s o ; and that, as to the verb, which is in the
H e b r e w of the masculine gender, being coupled with a noun in the
feminine, we must consider that there is a great mystery contained
in that construction—namely, that the woman crushes the serpent's
head, not b y herself but b y her Son. However, he hath omitted
to notice this mystery in the Sartorian edition.
I answer. T h o u g h all the fathers were to say that we should
read Ipsa, y e t it should b y no means be admitted or approved.
F o r the H e b r e w copies constantly read Hu; the Septuagint exhibits
ai-ros; the Chaldee Paraphrase confirms the same r e a d i n g ; and
lastly, some copies of the Vulgate edition retain Ipse, some Ipsum.
Finally, the very drift of the sentence requires that we should
understand it of the Seed of the woman, not of the woman.
W h a t woman could crush the serpent's head ? W a s it Mary ? I
am well aware that this is what is said by them. But h o w ? When
she bore Christ ? But to bear Christ is not to crush the head of
the serpent: to give birth to him b y whom the serpent's head is
crushed is one thing, and to crush the head of the serpent is another.
W a s it when she believed in C h r i s t ? 1
But this applies to all b e -
lievers. Christ therefore, and Christ only, is he who b y his power
could crush and destroy the head of the infernal serpent, and rescue
and deliver us out of his jaws. Indeed it is wonderful that this first
promise of our redemption, upon which the whole safety of the
human race depends, should not have been more diligently cared
for b y these men. If they had been as solicitous as they ought for
the salvation of men, they would never have permitted its founda-
tion to have been so perilously and impiously shaken. Augustine
indeed, De Gen. ad Liter. Lib. n. c. 3 6 , reads the whole passage
2

corruptly, Ipsa tibi servabit caput: but Cyprian reads Ipse in

his Second B o o k to Q u i r i n u s ; and before him Irenjeus, Lib. m .
3

[ Salmerón however determines, " Christum Matrem suam prope crucem

x

vocasse, ut ipsa Mater Filium suum in sacriflcium Patri seterno pro toto
mundo offerret, ut Abraham filium suum Isaac ex obedientia offerre voluit."—
Opp. T. x. Tract. 41. p. 933. cited by Glass. Philol. S. p. 693. (Amstel. 1694.)]
[ So also Enarr. in Ps. ciii. T. IV. pp. 1668—9, and elsewhere. The
2

reading servabit is from the Septuagint T-qp-qo-tt. See Gesenius in voc. S|!)tiK]
[ Testim. adv. Judasos, n. 9. p. 3 7 . ' Hoc semen prredixerat Deus do
3

muliere procederé, quod calcaret caput D i a b o l i . . . . ipso timm observabit

caput.]
X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 165

c. 7 7 ; and Leo the pope of R o m e interprets this place of the Seed

4

of the woman, Serm. 2 D e Nativitate D o m i n i . 5

A n d that this is
the true reading, Jerome teaches us in his Questions upon Genesis:
so that either the Vulgate edition is not Jerome's, or Jerome hath
contradicted himself. Chrysostom sometimes seems to read Ipsa;
but Philip Montanus hath shewn that this is the fault of his
translator. Canus, Lib. II. c. 1 5 , acknowledges that there is a
manifest error in this place. T o the same effect Andradius, Defens.
Lib. iv., and Cajetan , upon the three Chapters of Genesis, writes
6

plainly that this is not spoken of the woman, but of the Seed of the
woman. Isidore Clarius hath restored Ipsum in his B i b l e ; and
John Benedictus, in his Scholia upon this place, says that we should
not read Ipsa but Ipsum, so as to understand it of the Seed.
Wherefore to defend this reading of the Vulgate edition is to excuse
a manifest error, and to contradict a plain truth.
T h e second place is Gen. vi., which is read thus in the Vulgate
edition: Cuncta cogitatio cordis est intenta ad malum. The
Hebrew would require: Figmentum cordis ejus tantummodo
malum omni die''. Bellarmine says, in the first place, that the sense
is the same.
I answer. Although this were true, it would not amount to a
just defence. F o r it behoves a translator of scripture not merely
to take care that he do not corrupt the meaning, but also, as far
as it is at all possible, not to depart a hand's breadth from the
w o r d s ; since many things may lie under cover in the words of the
H o l y Spirit, which are not immediately perceived, and y e t contain
important instruction. But in this place the sense is changed.
F o r it is one thing to be intent on evil, and another to be evil, and
only evil. F o r it is a lighter thing to be propense towards evil, than
to be already actually evil. Besides the Vulgar translator says that
" e v e r y thought of man's heart is intent on e v i l : " as if the H o l y
Spirit only blamed the t h o u g h t s ; whereas he condemns both the
thoughts and the principle and source of all the thoughts. The
faults of this passage, then, are these. First, there is nothing in
the H e b r e w to answer to the w o r d Intenta. Secondly, "every

[ Lib. in. c. 38. p. 309, A. (ed. Fevard. Par. 1675) Lib. iv. c. 78. p.
4

425, o. The reference in the text is a mistake, since there are not seventy-
seven chapters in the third book in any edition that Whitaker could have used.]
[ Denuntians serpenti futurum semen mulieris, quod noxii capitis elatio-
s

nem sua virtute contereret. pp. 13, 14. Opp. Lugd. 1623.]
[ Opp. Lugd. 1639. T. i. p. 29.]
8

[' DiTT^S in pi mt^np •ttfbD]. Gen. vi. 5.]

166 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CII.

thought of the h e a r t " is substituted for the whole figment of the

thoughts of man's heart. Thirdly, the particle only is omitted,
which hath the greatest possible weight in the expression.
Bellarmine's second observation is, that it does not follow from
this that, as the Lutherans suppose, all the works of men are e v i ' ;
since this is a hyperbole, similar to that which is said in the same
chapter, " A l l flesh had corrupted its w a y , " while yet Noah is called
in the v e r y same place a righteous man and a perfect.
I answer. In the first place, the Lutherans do not say that
all man's works are evil, but only the works of men not y e t r e g e -
nerate. N o w , that these latter are all evil, is most manifestly plain
from other testimonies of scripture, and specially from this place.
Secondly, there is no hyperbole in this passage; for in reality the
desires o f such men are nothing but evil. This even Andradius
acknowledges, Orthodox. Explic. Lib. in. and Defens. Lib. v. For
he says that that is evil, " w h i c h the human heart itself begins the
effort to frame and f o r m . " If the first movements of the heart b e
so vicious and impure, what remains at all sound in the human
breast ? F o r w e do not speak of the substance of the heart, but of
the qualities. Thirdly, there is nothing whatever hyperbolical in
the assertion, that all flesh had corrupted its w a y . Noah was, indeed,
a just man and a p e r f e c t ; yet so as that his justice was not innate
in his nature, but received as a gift from G o d : for Noah was not
entirely pure from all that corruption which had pervaded all flesh.
See what hyperboles these men have found in scripture! Concerning
Noah, Jerome writes thus in his Questions on Genesis: " I t is empha-
tically said, 'in his generation,' to shew us that he was righteous
not according to the measure of absolute righteousness, but according
to the righteousness of his generation ." 1

T h e third place is in Gen. ix., where they read thus: Qui

fuderit sanguinem hominis, fundetur sanguis illius. Here the
words " b y m a n " are omitted.
2
Bellarmine says that this omission
does not render the sense imperfect, since the sense is the same in
the H e b r e w and in the L a t i n : " H e who shall slay man shall be
slain himself."
I answer. The sense is not so full in the Latin as in the
Hebrew. F o r the clause " b y man," or, as others render it, " in
man," is emphatic, as Cajetan in his Commentaries and others
also inform us, and is variously explained b y many expositors; all

[• U t ostenderct non juxta justitiam consummatam, seel juxta generationis

SUED justitiam, fuisse cum justum. T. in. p. 316.]
[ 2 } 3 t ^ )Ol DINn ^2ttf. Gen. ix. 6.]
" T T T T T T T T -
 QUESTION THE SECOND. 167

which explanations are taken from us, if these words be removed

from the text. It is false, therefore, that the sense is not im-
paired b y this omission. T h e truest explanation seems to be that
given b y those who think that the authority of the magistrate and
the j u d g e is sanctioned in these words, and that a murderer is not
to be merely left to the divine vengeance, but searched out and
punished b y those to whom the sword hath been delivered b y God.
F o r it is not the same thing for one to say merely, " he who slays
man shall be himself slain," as it is when one adds " b y man."
F o r the former might be understood only to mean that he should
be slain b y G o d ; but the latter implies that he is to be consigned to
death b y man.
T h e fourth place is Gen. xiv. 1 8 , where in the H e b r e w neither
is there any trace of the word "offering," nor of a causative
conjunction.
Bellarmine objects, in the first place, that the Vulgate edition
does not read obtulit, but protulit panem et vinum.
I answer. Nevertheless in some copies we do find obtulit; nor
does Andradius deny it in the fourth b o o k of his Defence. But
most of the Latin copies do indeed now read prqferens panem et
vinum, not offerens. W h i c h shews that our adversaries do the
more grossly abuse this place, when they apply it to support the
sacrifice of the mass.
Secondly, he objects that the particle Ve is in H e b r e w often
taken for Clii, because .3

I answer. This is not denied; nor was there any occasion to

prove it b y the citation of so many instances. However, it hath
not that force in this passage. F o r Melchisedek brought forth the
bread and wine, not to offer sacrifice or discharge any priestly

[ 3
The clause in question is ! bi*b ]tX2 N¡.¡11 ]«1 UVlb WXin,
and the question seems to he whether his being priest of the Most High be
mentioned in connexion with the bringing forth of the bread and wine, or
with his blessing Abraham. If with the former, then the T may be causative.
For when the sense of a clause in Hebrew is such as to leave the reader's
mind searching for a reason of the thing stated in it, then the conjunctive
particle is often used to carry on the train of thought thus implied rather
than expressed:—i. e. it becomes causative. But there seems no reason here
for any such connexion; because there was nothing for which the reader
would naturally seek any reason, not to be found amongst the other circum-
stances, in the act of Melchisedech bringing refreshment for Abraham and
his followers : whereas the clause is perfectly fitted to introduce the circum-
stance of the benediction.]
168 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

function, but rather to do as became a k i n g , — t h a t is, refresh with

provisions Abraham and his comrades in the battle. This answer
y o u will not perhaps approve when given b y me. Listen, therefore,
to the reply of your own fellows. Cajetan speaks thus in his
Commentary upon this p l a c e : " T h a t which in the Vulgate edition
is subjoined as the cause of the oblation (' for he was priest of the
most high G o d ' ) is not given in the Hebrew as a reason, but as a
separate clause: ' Also he was priest to the high G o d . ' It adds
his priestly dignity, to his royal honour and b o u n t y . "
1
Thus
Cajetan refers his production of the bread and wine to his royal
bounty, his benediction of Abraham to his sacerdotal dignity, and
that with perfect justice. So Andradius, Defens. Trid. Lib. i v . :
" I agree with those who say that Melchisedek refreshed with bread
and wine the soldiers of A b r a h a m , wearied and broken with the
long b a t t l e . "
2
Y o u have, therefore, Andradius and Cajetan, and
many more, differing from your notion, that the bread and wine
were produced b y Melchisedek to offer them as a sacrifice to God.
A s to the judgment of the fathers, there will be another place for
answering that argument.
Bellarmine objects thirdly, that in Ps. cix. it is said of Christ:
" Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek!"
Why is Christ a priest after the order of Melchizedek, unless
because the one offered bread and wine, the other himself in the
forms of bread and wine ?
I answer. T h e apostle plainly teaches us in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, chap. v. vii. how Christ is a priest after the order of M e l -
chizedek ; so that there is no necessity for inventing this new
analogy. But if Melchizedek was no otherwise a type of Christ
but because he offered bread and wine, the apostle hath compared
Christ with Melchizedek in vain, and said not one word to the
p u r p o s e ; for he hath made no mention of this sacrifice in the c o m -
parison. If then it was b y reason of this sacrifice alone that
Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, then the apostle,
in drawing this comparison of Christ with Melchizedek, hath
omitted that altogether which was the only thing worth mention-

f Quod in vulgata editione subditur, ut causa oblationis (erat enim

1

sacerdos Dei altissimi), in Hebraio non habetur ut causa, sed separata clau-
sula, ' et ipse erat sacerdos El excelso.' Adjungit siquidem regise dignitati
et liberalitati dignitatem sacerdotalem. T. 1. p. 66.]
[2 Ego cum illis sentio, qui lassos Abrahte milites et diutuma pugna frac-
tos Melchisedechum pane vinoque refecisse aiunt.]
X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 169

ing, and hath not proved with any sufficient care and pertinency
the very thing which was to have been proved. W h a t else is this,
but to offer an open insult to the H o l y Spirit ? W h i c h is, indeed,
what these men do, when they say that Christ is a priest after the
order of Melchizedek, upon no other grounds than because the one
offered bread and wine, the other himself in the forms of bread
and wine. But we shall have an occasion elsewhere of speaking of
this whole matter.
T h e fifth place is in the last chapter of Numbers, where the
Vulgate copies exhibit the following r e a d i n g : Omnes viri ducent
uxores de tribu et cognatione sua, et cunctoz fceminas de eadem
tribu maritos accipient .
3
That this is an erroneous interpreta-
tion, any one may readily understand in many ways, who shall
compare it with the H e b r e w text. In these words it is absolutely
forbidden that any man should take a wife, or any woman marry a
husband, out of their own tribes respectively. But many examples
occur in scripture of marriages contracted between persons of dif-
ferent tribes. It was not, therefore, the meaning of the law, that
every man and woman should marry only into their own t r i b e s ;
but the command extended only to heritors, to prevent the posses-
sions and estates of the several tribes from being confounded, or
passing into other tribes. Whatever, then, Bellarmine may say to
excuse the fault of this version, whoever will give the place even
the slightest inspection, will immediately detect its erroneousness.
A n d whereas Bellarmine affirms that the words run just the same
way in the Hebrew as in the Latin, (which I marvel how he could
assert so confidently and y e t so falsely,) I will confute him with no
other testimony than that of Cajetan. This is Cajetan's remark
upon the p l a c e : " This clause is not contained in the Hebrew *."
That cardinal denies that to be contained in the Hebrew, which
Bellarmine affirms to be contained in i t : but the cardinal is B e l -
larmine's superior both in authority and in truth. Afterwards the
same cardinal presently subjoins: " See h o w many and h o w im-
portant additions to the law the translator hath passed over in
silence. T h e law is not delivered concerning every daughter, but
of a daughter that is an h e i r e s s , " & c . 5
Thus there are many
faults of the Vulgate edition in this place, if we believe Cajetan;

[ 3
Numbers xxxvi. 7, 8.]
[* Non habetur hasc clausula in textu Hebraico. T. I. p. 428.]
[ Vide quot et quales additiones legis siluit intcrpres. Non traditur lex
5

de qualibet filia, sed de filia hserede.]

170 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

and y e t Bellarmine could see none, lest perchance he should be

forced to acknowledge some error in the Vulgate edition, which, no
doubt, would be a most deplorable catastrophe!
T h e sixth place is Ezra ix. 8, where the reading is pax illius,
whereas w e should read jjaxillus . 1
H e r e Bellarmine acknowledges
an error of the transcribers; for the Hebrew word denotes a
stake, so that there is no room to doubt that this is the true read-
ing. As to Bellarmine's assertion that many Latin copies exhibit
paxillus, I think it b y no means probable, since the Louvain cor-
rectors of the Bible retain the old and wrong reading in the t e x t ;
which surely they would not have done, if they had felt that the
authority of copies would have supported them in amending the
passage. Indeed, we may well ask w h y they did not amend i t ?
Is the matter doubtful or obscure ? Bellarmine confesses that to
be the true reading which they have excluded from the text, that
false which they retain in the text. Yet the divines of Louvain,
who profess themselves to be desirous of correcting the errors of
the Vulgate edition, have marked indeed, but not removed, this
error, certain and shameful as it is. A n d with other such mistakes
of the transcribers, known, manifest and acknowledged, does that
edition abound. Should we receive that for authentic scripture,
which its v e r y correctors have left so full of blemishes?
The seventh place is J o b v. 1 : Voca si quis est qui tibi re-
spondeat, et ad aliquem sanctorum convertere. Bellarmine says
that Chemnitz pretends that this place was corrupted to support
the invocation of saints; and thereupon, with sufficient impudence,
pronounces him drunk. But Chemnitz blames not the version of
the passage, but the reasoning of the papists from that version;
that the saints are to be invoked, because we are bidden to betake
ourselves to some of the saints: whereas those are called saints
in scripture, who cultivate holiness during their lives. A n d thus
these men often abuse the Latin version to the support of their
doctrines in a w a y that can hardly be. called sober argumentation.
T h e eighth place is Pro v. xvi. 1 1 , where they read lapides
secidi , 2
instead of lapides sacculi; which passage we have m e n -
tioned before. A n d Bellarmine confesses that the reading which

[i The word in the Hebrew is upon which Gesenius observes, "pan-

gere paxillum. Hebrceis (et Arabicus, v. vit. Tom. i. p. 1 3 4 , 2 2 8 . ed. Mauger)
imago est sedis flrmse et stabilis Jer. xxii. 2 3 , de qua liy dicitur, Esr. ix. 8 . " ]
[2 D"3
 X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 171

exhibits sacculi is the true one, but the Vulgate, even in its latest
Louvain edition, false, which exhibits seculi.
T h e ninth place is Eccles. ix. 2 : Nescit homo, utrum odio vel
amove dignus sit, sed omnia in futurum servantur incerta . Bel- 3

larmine says that the Vulgate interpreter hath rendered the passage
excellently well, not counting, indeed, the Hebrew words, but
weighing them and expressing their sense.
I answer. T h e Vulgate interpreter in this place hath neither
counted the words, nor weighed them, nor expressed the sense, but
rendered them most falsely ; which will readily appear evident, if
the Hebrew words be compared with this translation. F o r those
interpreters who have translated the scriptures from the Hebrew,
with the greatest care and fidelity, have perceived that these words
required a totally different interpretation. Vatablus hath translated
the passage t h u s : " And that man is ignorant alike of love and
hatred, but to him (God) all things are set o p e n . " 4
Pagninus
thus: " Both love and hatred man knows n o t ; all which are
before t h e m . " Cajetan t h u s : " Both love and hatred man knows
5

n o t ; all in their f a c e . " Jerome himself translated this passage far

6

otherwise, as appears from that other interpretation of this book,

which is extant amongst his works, where we r e a d : Et quidem
caritaiem, et quidem odium non est cognoscens homo: omnia in
facie eorum. This differs, both in words and in sense, from yours,
which yet y e call Jerome's. A s to the sense, it is not what y o u
suppose; that all things here are doubtful and uncertain, so that
no man, while he remains in this life, knows whether he enjoys the
love of God or labours under his hatred. This is an utterly false
assertion, and contrary to the whole teaching of the scriptures:
for the scriptures every where teach, that those who believe are
certain of the favour of G o d and their own salvation ; which most
true and sacred doctrine should not be rejected for the sake of the
error of your version. W e shall speak of the matter itself else-
where : for the present, let cardinal Cajetan teach Bellarmine that
this is not the sense of the place in hand. " Before us are those
things which are carried on about us, whether prosperous or adverse :

[ 3
arrosfc ten Dixn ^tp nwb-Di nina-oa.]
[ Quodque pariter amorem et odium ignorat homo, ipsi autem (Deo)
4

sunt omnia proposita.]

[ Etiam amorem, etiam odium nescit homo: quas omnia ante eos sunt.]
5

[ Etiam amorem etiam odium non sciens homo: omnia enim in facie
6

eorum.]
172 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [сн.

at the same time we know not the cause of adversity or pros­

perity, whether it be the love or hatred of God, that is, whether
G o d out of his love to a man governs him b y adverse circum­
stances, and in like manner, out of his hatred to a man governs
him b y adversity; and the same may b e said of p r o s p e r i t y . " 1

Mercer, a man exquisitely skilled in the H e b r e w tongue and scrip­

ture, interprets and explains the passage to the like effect; nor
does he think that your own translator meant any thing more than
this, that it cannot be j u d g e d and certainly determined b y external
circumstances, whether any one is loved b y God or not, since all
happen alike to all, to the just and the impious, the pure and the
impure, the g o o d and the unrighteous, those who sacrifice and
those who sacrifice not, those who swear and those who reverence
an oath, as it follows in the succeeding sentences.
T h e tenth place is E cclus. v. 5 : De propitiato peccato noli
esse sine metu. T h e place is badly translated, since the Greek is
Tvepi ej~t\ct(TtJiov цг) афо/Зо$ ylvov. Which words warn men not to
sin presumptuously through confidence of obtaining remission of
their sins: for it follows, " nor add sin to sin." F o r many heap
sin upon sin, because they promise themselves certain remission;
whom E cclesiasticus deters by this most solemn admonition.
A s to Bellarmine's pretence, that we say that a man should be
secure of obtaining pardon, and therefore that our opinion is con­
futed b y these words, he seems to understand our doctrine but
badly. F o r we do not approve security in any man, as he slan­
derously lays to our charge.
T h e eleventh place is E cclus. x v i . 1 5 : Misericordia faciet
locum unicuique secundum meritum operum suorum. H e r e in a
few words are many errors. F o r thus stands the Greek text:
7raarj eherjuocrvvri TTOLYJCTOV TOTTOV екао~то$ yap ката та еруа
аитод evpqcrei' " Make w a y for e v e r y w o r k of mercy : for every
man shall find according to his w o r k s . " T h e words are not the
same, and the sense different. That word merit, whence did the
Vulgate translator get i t ? Certainly he did not find it in the
Greek. F o r as to Bellarmine's pretence that ката, еруа is the
same as " according to the merit of one's w o r k s , " which he says

f Coram nobis sunt ea qua? circa nos geruntur, sive prospera, sive ad­
1

versa; et cum hoc nescimus causam adversitatis vel prosperitatis, an sit

odium vel amor Dei, hoc est, an Deus tanquam amans aliquem gubernet
eum per adversa: et similiter an tanquam odio habens aliquem gubernet eum
per adversa: idemque dicito de prosperis. p. 165. sine loco. 1545.]
 QUESTION THE SECOND. 173

that every one knows who is e v e r so slightly skilled in the Greek

l a n g u a g e ; I would fain know from him who is so skilful in the
Greek tongue, in what Lexicon or other book he ever found that
/cara epya means a n y t h i n g else but " a c c o r d i n g to w o r k s ? " A n d if
Bellarmine can make no distinction between works and the merit of
works, he hath no reason to attribute to himself any great skill and
expertness in either the Greek language or theology. T o works there
is a reward promised in scripture ; to the merits of works none, but
that of death.
The twelfth place is Joel ii. 1 3 : Prcestabilis super ma-
litia .
2
What is this ? L e t us hear Bellarmine's explanation :
"Prcestabilis super malitia," saith he, "means excelling in compas-
sion." As if prazstabilis super were all one with excelling, or
malitia the same thing as compassion. Or otherwise: " P r a i s t a b i l i s
super malitia is as much as to say, so good as not to be overcome
o f evil." B u t that is not the meaning of the prophet. The pro-
phet extols the clemency and goodness of G o d , and says that it is
so great that G o d repents him of the evil with which he had
determined to afflict the people. This may easily be understood.
The other is not only obscure, but absolutely barbarous.
The thirteenth place is Micah v. 2 , which Osiander says is
wrongly rendered b y the old translator. F o r it should not b e
translated, parvula es in millibus Judah ,
3
but, " it is too slight a
thing that thou shouldst be in the thousands of J u d a h . " 1 have
no business to answer in behalf of Osiander. His correction seems
to deserve some regard, since Matthew in reciting this place, chap,
ii. 6, does not read " art little," but ov&a/uws eXa^iaTV el, " art b y
no means least:" and the place might undoubtedly be rendered
better than it is rendered b y the Vulgate interpreter.
Thus then hath Bellarmine excused some faults of the old
Latin version; with what skill, learning, or truth, let others j u d g e .
I believe that no one who is not under an immoderate influence of
party spirit will say that the Vulgate translation is nobly vindi-
cated b y Bellarmine. I f there were no other error in that version,
y e t it might be sufficiently understood and perceived b y those now
adduced, that it is by no means so pure and perfect as to merit to
be esteemed the authentic scripture of God. But besides these there
are others also, and those so many that they cannot be detailed

[2 n>nrrfy DTO.l
T T T - - • J

[3 nTirP r\Vnb T ^ X . Osiand. Bibl. P. n. p. 482. Tubing.

1597. Ho translates, Parum est ut sis in millibus Judas.]
174 T H E FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cil.

and enumerated. A n d lest any one should think that I say this
rashly, I will exhibit yet more clearly b y fresh instances the in-
finite perversity of that version.
I shall commence with Genesis, wherein at the 30th verse
of the first chapter these words, " a l l green herbs," are wanting
in your Vulgate edition. N o r ought they to be deemed super-
fluous. T h e L o r d in this place plainly distinguishes the food of
man from that of cattle: to man God gave the herbs and trees
which yield fruit; to the beasts all green herbs for food. The
Vulgate translator, omitting these words, says that the same p r o -
vision is given b y God to the brutes and to man.
Gen. ii. 8, the Vulgate hath, Plcontaverat Deus Paradisum
voluntatis a principio, instead of, " G o d had planted a garden in
Eden eastward." F o r Heden indicates the proper name of a place,
as appears from Gen. iv. 16, where we read that Cain settled on
the east side of this p l a c e : and G o d had not planted that garden
" from the b e g i n n i n g , " since it was only on the third day that he
1

created the herbs and fruitful trees, as is manifest from chap. i. 12.
More correct is the rendering of the Seventy, KARA avaroXas:
and so Vatablus, Pagninus, and Tremellius, ab oriente.
Gen. ii. 2 3 , Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, instead o f , " f o r 2

this turn bone of m y bone ; " and Cajetan tells us that there is in
these words an emphasis usual with the Hebrews.
Gen. iii. 6, Aspectuque delectabile, instead of, " d e s i r a b l e to
make one wise." Verse 8, in medio ligni Paradisi, for, "amongst
the trees of Paradise." Verse 1 7 , maledicta terra in opere tuo , 3

for, " cursed be the earth on thine account." Gen. iv. 1 3 , Major
est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear. In the Hebrew there
is not even the shadow of any word denoting merit. It should be
rendered " t h a n I can bear," or " s u s t a i n ; " or, " t h a n that I should
4

obtain forgiveness," as the Septuagint translates it, TOV dcpedijval

YUE. A t verse 1 5 , Nequaquam ita fiet, is redundant. F o r the
L o r d does not promise Cain that no one should slay him. Verse 1 6 ,
Prqfugus in terra, for, " i n the land of N o d , " or Naid as the
Septuagint read it, or " the land of wandering." Verse 2 6 , Iste

[! The word is D^|?D, which is ambiguous: cf. Ps. lxxiv. 1 2 ; lxxvii. 6.]
[2 C y a n DNt. I cannot see the fault of the Vulgate here.]
[3 The translator mistook the word - [ " f i l y l , reading it with a Daleth 1
instead of a Resh ~), and so making an unauthorised derivative from "733;
equivalent to tTQJ?.]
[4 Ni2?3D.] T
X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 175

cozpit invocare, for, "then began m e n : " for it is not the person
5

but the time which Moses particularises. Gen. v. 2 2 , those words,

et vixit Enoch, are superfluous.
Gen. vi. 3, Non permanebit Spiritus mens in homine in
mternum, instead of, " M y Spirit shall not s t r i v e . " 6
Verse 6, et
prcecavens infuturum, should b e struck out.
Gen. viii. 4, Vicésimo séptimo die mensis, instead of, "upon
the seventeenth day of the m o n t h ; " where the Vulgate edition
follows not the H e b r e w original, but the seventy interpreters :
which is also the case verse 7, where it translates, qui egrediebatur
et non revertebatur. F o r the raven went and returned into the
ark, as is plain from the H e b r e w , until the waters dried up.
Hence E ugubinus, though a papist, deservedly blames in his
Scholia the Vulgate version of this verse.
Gen. xi. 1 2 . Arphaxad is said in the Vulgate edition to have
lived, after he had begotten Saleth, three hundred and three years.
But the Hebrew text proves him to have lived four hundred and
three years.
Gen. xiii. 2, Dives valde in possessions' 1
auri et argenti,
instead of, " very rich in flocks, in silver, and in g o l d . " A n d verse
1 1 , Divisique sunt alterutrum a fratre suo, which is absolutely
unintelligible. T h e H e b r e w text is plain, that they separated th«
one from the other.
Gen. xiv. 3. That is called vallis sylvestris, which shoulc
have been called Siddim, or a plain. F o r , unless At be a propel
name, it denotes arable, and not w o o d y g r o u n d . 8
Gen. xvii. 16
Orientur ex eo, for, " f r o m her. ' 1
Gen. xix. 1 8 , Quceso, Domim
mi, for, " N o , I pray thee, m y L o r d . "
Gen. xxi. 9. The expression of the Vulgate is too gentle
when it says that Ishmael played with 9
(lusisse) Isaac. H e rathe:

[s niiT ÜW2 th$b br\Ti №. The verb, being in the passive, mus
be taken impersonally.]
Gesenius translates, " N o n in perpetuum Spiritus meus i
hominibus humiliabitur;" making the radical idea of |n to be, like that c
the Arabic ^¡S depression; in which case it is cognate with the Anglo­Saxo
down.]
[ 7
• However, the word does denote possession in general, as we
as the particular possession of cattle.]
[s p D y from mb to level]
[o p r a o . ]
176 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

played upon Isaac, than with him. A n d that it should be so

rendered, appears from the apostle to the Galatians, iv. 2 9 , who
interprets this version to mean nothing slighter than a hostile
persecution. But now, if Ishmael had done nothing more than
play with his brother, neither would Sarah have taken it so un-
kindly, nor would the apostle on that account have charged
Ishmael with so great a crime.
Gen. xxiv. 2 2 , we have duo sicli, instead of, " the half of
a shekel." And at verse 3 2 , what is the meaning of distravit
camelos ? He should have said that he loosed, or took their
burdens off the camels; which, as I take it, is not the sense
of distravit. In this verse too water is said to have been
brought to wash the camels' feet, which, however, was really
prepared for washing the feet, not of the camels, but of the
servant. A n d at verse 6, the Vulgate hath, qui festinus reverte-
batur ad Dominium suum, instead of, " and that servant took
Rebecca, and departed." In the last verse of Gen. xxviii., Esau is
said in the Vulgate to have " counted it a slight thing that he had
sold his birthright. 11
But the H e b r e w text says that he despised
the birthright itself. For Esau might have thought slightly of
the sale of the birthright, and y e t might have prized highly the
birthright itself. So that the Vulgate translator hath b y no means
come up to the sense of the words or the enormity of the sin
intended. Gen. xxvii. 5, ut jussionem patris impleret, instead of,
" to take the prey which he should bring." A t verse 3 3 , those
words, ultra quam credi potest admirans, are redundant. Like-
wise Gen. xxxi. 3 2 , these, quod autemfurti me arguis.
Gen. xxxiv. 2 9 , the clause, " and they plundered finally what-
soever was in any house," is omitted, while quibus perpetratis
audacter is added superfluously. Gen. x x x v i . 2 4 , the Vulgate
interpreter says that Anan found " warm waters" in the d e s e r t ;
which version all who k n o w any thing of H e b r e w k n o w to be
false ; 1
for A n a n found not hot springs, of which there is no
mention made in this place, but mules. This place, therefore, the
Septuagint translated i l l , and the Vulgate interpreter in following
2

them hath erred from the Hebrew verity.

[' Gesenius (Lex. voc. D^DJ) observes, " Q u o d Hieronymus scribit in

QuEest. ad 1. c., ' nonnulli putant aquas calidas juxta Punicce linguae viciniani,
quaj Hebrsese contermina est, hoc vocabulo signiflcari,' non contemnendum
Conjectura sat infelici ex contextu facta mulos intelligunt nonnulli
Ilebrcei et Lutherus."]
[ 2
This seems to be an oversight of Whitakcr's: for the Septuagint have
X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 177

Gen. xxxvii. 2. Joseph is said in. the Vulgate to have been

sixteen years of age, when he fed his father's sheep along with
his brothers. But in the H e b r e w t e x t it is seventeen. In the
same verse the Vulgate interpreter says that Joseph accused his
brethren to his father with a v e r y grievous accusation, as if some
fixed and foul crime were intended; but the H e b r e w text runs
thus : " And Joseph reported the ill report of them to their
f a t h e r , " — i . e. he related their ill behaviour to their father, and
informed him of all their faults.
Gen. xxxviii. 5, the Vulgate translator reads: Quo nato,
parere ultra cessavit; which is foreign from the meaning of the
Hebrew text. It ought to have been rendered, " A n d she was in
Chezib when she bore h i m ; " 3
for Chezib is the name of a city of
the Philistines. And, verse 1 2 , Hirah is called opilio gregis by
the Vulgate interpreter, as b y the Septuagint o troiixriu airrov.
But Jerome blames this version, and teaches us that the H e b r e w
word denotes not a shepherd, but a friend*: so that this Hirah,
who went to the town with Judah, was his friend, and not his
shepherd. A t verse 2 3 , the old version hath, Certi mendacii
arguere nos non potest. But the true sense of the H e b r e w is,
" that we be not despised ." 5

Gen. xxxix. 6, these words, " Wherefore he left all his goods
in the hand of Joseph," are omitted. A t verse 1 0 , something is
wanted to make the sense c o m p l e t e : for thus we read in the
Vulgate, Hujusmodi verbis per singulos dies. It should have been
filled up from the Hebrew original, " with such words every d a y
did she address Joseph." But the words which follow are super-
fluous, JSt mulier molesta erat adolescenti.
Gen. xl. 5, this whole clause is left out, " T h e butler and the
baker of the king of E g y p t who were bound in the tower of the
prison." A t verse 16 we have tria canistra farinaz, for " three
white (or osier) baskets"." But here the Vulgate interpreter
followed the Septuagint, not the H e b r e w original itself.
not translated it at all, but retained the original word, 6s elpev TOV 'lapelv iv
Trj iprifX(0."\

T T T : J

p ^rijn. The difference is in the points; Hjn a friend, rTJTI a

shepherd.']
P ]Mb n v n )S.]
Gesenius translates 'HH panis cdtois. L X X . <ava x - ov

Spirav. I think the Vulgate is not here to be blamed.]

[WHITAKER.] ^
178 T H E FIRST CONTROVERSY. [en.

Gen. xli. 4 5 , the Vulgate interpreter, in explaining the name

•which Pharaoh gave to Joseph, hath followed conjecture rather
than any certain reason. F o r h e first says that those words are
Egyptian; and then he explains them to mean the Saviour of the
world : 1
for thus we read in the text of the Vulgate edition,
Et vocabit eum lingua JEgyptiaca Salvatorem mundi. The
Septuagint have set down these two words without a n y explanation ;
and the Hebrews doubt whether they are Egyptian or Chaldee.
Josephus interprets them, " the discoverer o f s e c r e t s ; " and with 2

him agree the later Jews and the Chaldee Paraphrast. It may
seem strange whence Jerome learnt that these were Egyptian
terms, and that they denoted " the Saviour of the world."
Gen. xlix. 1 0 , Jacob says of Judah, " binding the foal of his
ass to the vine." But the Vulgate translator hath rendered those
words t h u s ; Ligans ad vitem, O fili mi, asinam suam. And,
at verse 2 2 , Joseph is compared to a fruitful branch beside a w e l l ;
which words the Vulgate translates thus, accrescens et decorus
aspectus . s
A t verse 2 4 , Jacob says o f Joseph, " and the arms of
his hands were strengthened;" which, in your edition, is turned to
a quite contrary sense, dissoluta sunt vincula brachiorum et
manuum ejus. In this place the translator followed the version o f
the Septuagint, and not the H e b r e w text.
A t the end of that chapter, after the 3 2 nd verse, this whole
clause is omitted : " N o w that piece of ground was bought, and also
the cave which is therein, from the sons of H e t h . " Thus that
chapter is, in the Vulgate edition, too short b y one entire verse.
Hitherto w e have run over a single b o o k ; in which review w e
have not been at all so curious or malicious as to let nothing which

[' nj#D J"0il2J. Gesenius, after Bernard and Jablonski, thinks the
Vulgate interpretation right, deriving the word from the Egyptian article
p—sot—Saviour, and plienec altou. This explanation regards the form given
by the L X X . VovSofKpavrix as correct; for the above words, when com-
pounded, would in Coptic bo Psotmphenec: the interposed m being sounded
om in the dialect of upper Egypt. See Scholtz, Expos. Voo. Copt, in Repert.
Litt. Bibl. ct Orient. T. x m . p. 19.]
[2
'S.-qpaivei yap TO ovopa KpvnTuv evpeTijv. Joseph. Antiq. L . II. C. vi. 1.]

[3 . The Vulgate took }y_ in the sense of mien. The L X X .

give a different turn, but still understand in the sense of an eye, not a well.
Indeed we have two different versions in the present text of the L X X .
MOD Cr/Xwrfjs (who has bis eye on me), and npos pe avao-rpetyov (turn back
thine eye on mo.)]
X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 179

might justly deserve blame escape our hands. Many things I have
knowingly and deliberately passed over, which nevertheless ought
certainly to be accounted errors, because repugnant to the truth of
the originals.
W e r e I to examine in the same w a y the remaining books of
the old Testament, I should find an abundant crop of errors, and
fill many pages with the enumeration of them. F o r your version
is not a whit more exact in the other books than we have seen it
to be in t h i s ; whence we m a y easily form an estimate of the gross-
ness of its faults throughout. Indeed, since many have translated
the scriptures from the original into various languages, and correct-
ed in their versions the errors of this Vulgate edition, whoever
would compile a separate book, diligently and accurately executed,
upon the errors of this edition, would, in m y opinion, undertake
and perform a work of very great utility. F o r from such a w o r k
all would reap the benefit of seeing and understanding the great
difference there is between the pure springs of the H e b r e w verity,
and the muddy and turbid streams of this version which they call
the Vulgate. W e r e I to enter on the remaining books, I should
engage in a task not at all required b y the plan of m y under-
taking, and be drawn into a digression which would interrupt the
course of our disputation. I have, I hope, sufficiently proved to
y o u that this Latin edition is full of many errors and mistakes,
such as our adversaries have never hitherto found even a single
instance of in the originals. This it is not we alone that affirm:
even some leaders of the popish sect maintain the same thing. No
reason then can be adduced, why the H e b r e w edition in the old
Testament, and the Greek in the new, should not command a great
and deserved preference to the Latin Vulgate. I shall now return
to Bellarmine, and sift the remainder of his defence.

CHAPTER XI.

OF T H E LATIN EDITION OF T H E PSALMS AND ITS MANIFOLD

CORRUPTIONS.

BELLARMINE next inveighs against Calvin, and pleads in defence

of the Latin edition of the Psalms, which Calvin, in his Antidote to
the council of Trent, had most truly declared, and proved b y some
12—2
180 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

instances, to be corrupt and vicious. A n d who is there, but the

patron of a desperate cause, who can maintain the claims of this
edition to the character of an authentic and uncorrupted document ?
F o r it is absolutely certain that it is rendered into Latin, not from
the Hebrew, but from the G r e e k ; not b y Jerome, but b y some
unknown and uncertain author. W o u l d it not be more conformable
to reason for these men to make the Greek, from which that version
is derived, authentic? since the latter is only the daughter, o r
image rather, of the former. W h y do they, in the case of the
other books, receive what they think to be the Hieronymian
version, and y e t reject it here ? Jerome expended as much labour
upon translating the B o o k of Psalms into Latin as upon the other
books ; and that Latin edition, which was in most general use
before Jerome, was no less faulty in the Psalms than in the other
p a r t s : but on account of the constant and customary use of the
Psalms, which had everywhere propagated that old Latin version
in the churches, and made it familiar to men's ears, the Hieronymian
Latin translation was not publicly received. Is this, then, to be
held superior to Jerome's version in the Psalms? B y no means.
F o r it was not retained because it was better, but because it was
more common, and could not easily be changed. U p o n the same
grounds, if use had confirmed that old version in the case of the
other books also, it would not be now the Hieronymian, but it,
however corrupted, that would, in spite of all its faults, be esteemed
authentic. F o r thus the case stands with respect to the Psalms.
T h e Latin edition is ratified as authentic. Why ? W e have the
Hebrew and the G r e e k : whereof the H e b r e w proceeds directly
from the Prophets, David, Moses, Asaph; Solomon, and others who
wrote the Psalms; and the Greek was made, as most people sup-
pose, b y the seventy Interpreters. This latter, though it must not
absolutely be despised, hath y e t most foully corrupted in many
places the pure fountains of the Hebrew verity. N o w the Latin is
still more corrupt than this, as being still farther removed from the
fountain head, and derived from the stream and not from the
spring. Y e t it is not the Hebrew, nor the Greek, but this Latin
edition, such as I have described it, that the Tridentine fathers
have made the authentic scripture of the Psalms. A n d although all
can see the enormous impudence of this proceeding, yet their
most reckless rashness and temerity will appear y e t more plainly
when some errors of this edition are set before y o u r eyes. Since
then Bellarmine hath endeavoured to excuse those which Calvin
XI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 181

had remarked, let us see with what shew of success or probability

he hath performed his task.
T h e first place is Psalm ii. 1 2 : Apprehendite disciplinam . 1

Bellarmine says that iu the Hebrew it is, " kiss," or " adore the
S o n ; " but that the sense is excellently well expressed b y appre-
hendite disciplinam, since we can no otherwise acknowledge the
Son to be the Messiah than b y receiving his faith and doctrine.
I answer, in the first place, that a translator of scripture hath
no right, first to change the words, and then to plead this excuse,
that the sense hath been rendered b y him. F o r we are not
to consider the sense which he renders, but what the inspired
words require. Secondly, the sense is not the same. For
who will say, that to apprehend discipline is the same thing as
to kiss the Son ? For it does not follow that, because we must
needs embrace Christ's discipline, if we acknowledge him as M e s -
siah and our King, therefore the sense of these two expressions is
the same. In this way all propositions, which agreed with each
other, might be made out absolutely identical. Thirdly, a most
noble testimony to Christ, for the refutation of Christ's enemies, is
b y this version wrested from us. F o r discipline may be under-
stood in such a sense as to have nothing to do with Christ; but
the command to kiss the Son commends to us both his divine
nature and his royal sway.
The second place is Psalm iv. 3 : Usque quo gravi corde ? In 2

the Hebrew it is, " h o w long m y glory into s h a m e ? " Bellarmine

says, first, that the Hebrew text is probably c o r r u p t ; secondly,
that the sense is the same.
I answer to the first p l e a : The H e b r e w text is now precisely
the same as it was in Jerome's time, as appears from his Psalter.
T h e Septuagint read and translated the passage erroneously, and
this interpreter followed them. T h e cavils and calumnies of Lin-
danus upon this place are sufficiently refuted b y his master, Isaac.
Then as to the sense, who does not see that there is a great diversity,
especially if we follow Bellarmine's exposition? F o r he says,
that God here complains concerning men. But that is a mistake:

C 1
*11™ lpt2'3.
!
LXX. &pa§ao-0e Trmbelas. Jerome, Adorate pure. Ewalcl,
however, (Poetischen Biicher. in. p. 66) prefers the L X X . and Vulgate. He
translates "nehme Rath an."]
[2 iiaW> Hl'lD. The Vulgate follows the L X X . fiapvmpbi.01; they
read, H D V 2 b
I T . . . . . J
182 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [en.

the speech is not God's, but David's, complaining of the boldness

and wickedness of his enemies. " 0 sons of men, y e insolent
foes of mine, who, buoyed up with arrogance and fury, despise all
others, how long will y e treat m y glory with ignominy ? " But
Bellarmine pretends that God speaks and complains of men for
neglecting eternal things, and loving temporal; which kind of men
are heavy of heart b y reason of their own fault, yet the glory of
God b y reason of the divine goodness. W h o now will not confess
that Bellarmine is a notable interpreter of the Psalms ? Does God
then call those who are heavy of heart his glory ? Does God
call those men his g l o r y , who despise the things of heaven and
pursue the things of earth ? Who must not laugh at such an
exposition? Genebrard, however, hath explained the meaning
better, who b y the glory of David understands God himself, t o -
wards whom these men were disrespectful.
T h e third place is Psalm xxxi. 4 : Conversus sum in cerumna
mea, dum configitur spina . 1
These ought to be translated, as
Bellarmine himself translates them from the H e b r e w : " M y juice
is without moisture, and my freshness is turned into the summer
droughts." These versions are sufficiently different. Y e t Bellar-
mine says that the Vulgate interpreter cannot be blamed in this
place. H e alleges two pleas in defence of him. One is, that he
translated not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek into L a t i n ;
the other, that there is an error of the transcribers in the
Hebrew. T o the first I answer, that the fact of his translating
from the Greek, and not the Hebrew, makes more for the blame
than for the excuse of that interpretation: for in proportion as
the Greek yields to the Hebrew text in fidelity and authority, in
the same proportion must the value be depreciated of a version
made not from the Hebrew but from the Greek. Then, as to his
suspicion that the Hebrew text hath been here corrupted b y the
scribes, it is an assertion which Genebrard hath not ventured to
make, nor would any one but Bellarmine, unless he were extrava-
gantly prejudiced against the Hebrew originals, think of saying
it; nor indeed would Bellarmine himself, most probably, have
raised such a suspicion, if he had been able to excuse this error in
any other way. The Hebrew words afford a certain and easy
sense. T h e Latin will scarcely bear any tolerable explanation.
F o r what is the meaning of dum configitur spina ? The ancients

[i Y$ ^^IHl. In the Hebrew, Ps. xxxii. 4.]

XL] QUESTION THE SECOND. 183

expounded the thorn to denote s i n : Bellarmine says that we should

understand the thorn of calamitv. Be it so. But what then will
he meant b y dum configitur spina ? T h e Greek reading, though
not deserving much commendation, is y e t intelligible, ev rep e/x-
irayrjvai fxoi oLKavdav—" while the thorn is driven into m e . " I
see what this m e a n s ; but I wish that Bellarmine would give some
interpretation, consistent with the laws of grammar, of the other,
dum configitur spina.
Bellarmine's explanation of the former clause of this verse,
Conversus sum in cerumna, which he makes to mean, " I am
turned to repentance in the time of trouble," is neither admitted b y
Jerome's version, nor approved b y Genebrard, who observes that
the word Haphac is scarce ever spoken of repentance .
2

T h e fourth place is in the same Psalm, verse 9 : In cliamo et

frae.no maxillas eorum astringe, qui non approximant ad te. The
place should have been rendered t h u s : " Their mouth must be
held in with bit and bridle, lest they come nigh to t h e e . " 3
Bel-
larmine says that Calvin here exhibits amazing impudence. Why ?
Because, says he, the Septuagint* and Saint Jerome, and all the
fathers, always read this passage as it is read now.
I answer, first, that the Seventy have varied in many places
v e r y widely from the Hebrew, and Jerome gives large testimony
to the fact. Secondly, Jerome in this place abstained from changing
the old version, not because he deemed it incapable of amendment,
but because he thought it was tolerable as it stood. Thirdly, the
fathers' reading according to the present text is nothing to the
p u r p o s e : they follow the version in common use, which from an
indifferent Greek text was made a worse Latin. But further, in
reply to Bellarmine's assertion that the Hebrew words, even as
they are now read, m a y v e r y well bear this interpretation, I must
say that it would have been better to have proved this, than
merely to have said it. Certainly Pagninus, Vatablus, Montanus,
and Tremellius were of a different opinion; and Genebrard owns
that the sentence was indeed broken up b y the Septuagint, but

[ 2
I can find no instance of such a use of "^Si"?.]
[3 The Hebrew is Zn'T? bl DL'W? ]DNRJNM, thus
rendered by Ewald : Zaum und zügel müssen dessen Bachen Schliessen, der
sich dir nicht freundlich naht, p. 35, ut supra.]
[ 4
iv ^aAicfti Kol Kr^jico ras crrayvvas avrcov ay£ai TB>J> fif/ iyyl£ovTiov irpbs crc.
Jerome: In camo et freno maxillas ejus constringis, ut non appropinquet ad
te.]
184 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [en.

for the sake of making it more easy. In fact, however, they have
made it more intricate and difficult b y this plan of breaking it up.
F o r the prophet warns us not to be devoid of reason and discretion,
" l i k e the horse and the mule, whose mouths must be held in with
bit and bridle, lest they fall upon us." T h e old translator hath set
forth a totally different sense of the words, as if God had com-
manded David to bind with bit and bridle the throats of all those
who (in Genebrard's words) do not approach " thy nature, which is that
of a man, reason and virtue." Nothing could possibly be alleged
more remote from the prophet's meaning than such an exposition.
T h e fifth place is in Psalm xxxvii. 8 : Quoniam lumbi mei
repleti sunt illusionibus .
1
Calvin asks, how we are to understand
that his reins were filled with illusions ? Bellarmine says that the
H e b r e w word denotes not only shame, but h e a t . 2
I answer, that
this is indeed true ; but how then does he interpret his loins being
" filled with i l l u s i o n s ? " Forsooth, b y putting the effect for the
cause; since David speaks of the heat and titillation of lust, which
produces illusions in the mind. A w a y with this. Nothing was
farther from the Psalmist's meaning. Genebrard hath made a much
better attempt, who b y these " i l l u s i o n s " understands diseases on
account of which he was mocked and insulted b y his enemies. For
David's meaning is, that his loins or reins were filled with a sore
and sharp disorder.
T h e sixth place is Psal. Ixvii. V : Qui inliabitare
3
facit unius
moris in clomo. T h e place should be rendered thus: " W h o setteth
the single, or solitary, persons in a family." Bellarmine says that
the Hebrew words may v e r y well receive several senses. I answer:
T h e words will bear but one true sense, and that an easy and
ready one. Amongst the praises of God, the prophet mentions this,
that those who are by themselves, that is, the desolate and solitary,
without kindred, friends or wealth, are so increased, enriched, and
adorned b y him, as now to have families, in which are contained
both children and servants. Thus Pagninus renders the words, and
Vatablus and Montanus, and, in the old times, Jerome. The H e -
brew w o r d does not denote (lovorpoTrovs (as the Seventy render i t ) ,
4

[! In the Hebrew, xxxviii. 7.]

The Radical of n'Tpj m
the sense of heat, seems the same as
appears in cal-eo, calor.']
[s Hob. Ps. lxviii. 6.]
[ 4
The Seventy seem unjustly blamed here. They used povorpowos, in
the sense recognised by good authors, to express the notion of solitariness.
 QUESTION THE SECOND. 185

that is of one manner, but solitary or lone persons. So that all

the common disquisitions upon this place concerning similitude of
manners and the identity of tastes, however true in themselves, are
foreign to the subject and impertinent to the matter in hand.
T h e seventh place is in the next verse of the same Psalm : Qui
habitant in sepulchris. Calvin contends that we should read, " in
a dry place ." 5
B y this expression, says Bellarmine, the translator
wished to declare the horrors of that desert from which G o d brought
his people forth.
I answer: This man imagines that the Latin version of the
Psalms, in its present state, is nobly defended, and his duty as its
champion sufficiently discharged, when he is able to assign any
sense at all to the words, no matter what, provided it be not impious
and heretical. As if nothing else were required of a translator of
scripture, but only to express some sense or other not absolutely
absurd, however remote from the real meaning of the H o l y Spirit.
F o r what can be more foreign to the mind of D a v i d than this
meaning which our opponent ascribes to these w o r d s ? The pro-
phet is not, as Bellarmine supposes him to be, speaking of that
desert out of which G o d had brought his people, which might, for
its horridness, be compared to the t o m b s ; but is saying that those
who prove rebellious are thrust b y G o d into d r y and thirsty regions.
W h a t hath this to do with the desert through which God led his
people into the land of Canaan? But this is not all that Calvin
finds fault with in the verse before us. F o r the words sound thus
in the H e b r e w : " H e bringeth forth those that are bound with
chains, but the rebels dwell in a v e r y d r y place." The Latin
interpreter translates them thus, falsely and foolishly: Qui educit
vinctos in fortitudine, similiter eos qui exasperant, qui habitant
in sepulchris. W h a t could possibly be expressed with greater con-
fusion ? Y e t Genebrard applies to this place some medicine in his
scholium, to cure the disorder of the Latin version. T h e words,
according to him, are to b e thus explained; that the rebels, who
dwell in the sepulchres, or the d r y places, are brought forth and
delivered from death and the devil, or from dangers and evils.
Thus this man b y his exposition changes a most gloomy punishment

It is so used by Josephus, B. J. II. xxi. 1, where he speaks of John of Giscala,

X^o-Tijy yap j/v povorpowos, enura <a\ o-vvobiav evpe TTJS Tokprjs; and by Plutarch
in Pelopid. c. 3., povoTpowov fiiov arr ap^>js ¿\Spevos. Compare Bochart.
Hierozoic. P. I. Lib. n. c. 45. col. 491.]
[5 n n T K . L X X . iv raqbois.]
186 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

into a most j o y o u s and delightful benefit. If this be interpreting

scripture, it certainly will be easy enough to make scripture say
any thing we please.
T h e eighth place is in the same Psalm, verse 1 2 , &c. JDominus
dabit verbum evangelizantibus virtute multa. Rex virtutum
dilecti, d ilecti, et speciei d omus d ivid e spolia. Si d ormiatis inter
rnedios cleros, pennee columbce d eargentatce, et posteriora d orsi ejus
inpallore auri .
1
These are not the oracles of the H o l y Spirit, but
rather, as Calvin truly says of them, amigmas which OEdipus himself
could never solve. It is not only difficult to elicit and educe any
consistent meaning at all from these words, utterly incoherent as they
are ; but to torture them into any thing which approaches the mean­
ing of the prophet exceeds all the powers of art. Y e t , if y o u please, let
us have the explanation of Bellarmine. Hex virtutum d ilecti
dilecti: that is, the King most mighty, and Father of M essiah his
entirely beloved Son. Speciei d omus d ivid e spolia: that is, he
will give to the preachers to divide the spoils of nations, for the
beauty of the house, that is, the adornment of the c h u r c h : for
that speciei is in the dative case, and is equivalent to ad speciem.
Wondrous w e l l ! First let me ask him whence he gets those two
words, " he will g i v e , " and " to the preachers," which are not con­
tained in this verse through the whole compass of its words ? For
the preceding verse is divided from it in the Hebrew and the Greek,
and the version of J e r o m e ; and those words can b y no means be
carried over into it. Next, it is absolutely intolerable to make
speciei the same as ad speciem, so as that d ivid ere spolia speciei
domus shall mean, " to divide spoils to the b e a u t y , " that is, to
the grace and adornment " of the house," which is the church.
W h o speaks Latin after this fashion ?
Genebrard hath excogitated another interpretation, more tole­
rable indeed, but still alien from the prophet's meaning. H e denies
that Rex virtutum here means God, but supposes it to denote
any very brave and powerful prince. T h e sense therefore will be

[! I n the Greek, 'O Geor Kvpios fiwo-et pripa Tots €vayye\i£opevois Svvapei
noXXij. 'O /3ao"iX6№ Tav Svvapeav TOV ayainjTov, roO ayaTrqTov, Kai dpmoTrjTt
TOV OIKOV 8teXe'o-6\u O-KCXO. They took mKZllJ as one word, regarding
the i as merely a vowel of composition, as it is in and other
proper names. l^TP1
they derived from "IT dilexit, taking the termination
]1 for a diminutive; and gave to fil3 a meaning of which its radical shews
traces in the Hiphil voice, Exod. xv. 2.]
XL] QUESTION T H E SECOND. 187

t h i s : T h e most powerful princes shall be the Beloved's, that is,

shall yield to the Beloved of G o d , or the Son of G o d : and speciei
he makes not the dative, but the genitive, (although in spite of the
authority of the Greek text which exhibits TYJ wpaioTtjri,) and
explains t h u s ; " i t is of the beauty of the house to divide the spoil,"
— t h a t is, it pertains to the g l o r y of the house of God to divide
the spoils of conquered kings, that is, demons. Is not this now a
neat interpretation? T h e remainder is thus explained b y Bel-
larmine. Si dormiatis inter medios cleros: that is, if y o u , 0
preachers, remain between two lots, the heavenly and the earthly,
that is, b e not wholly engaged in action nor wholly in contem-
plation, but in a mean between both, then shall the church be like
a most beautiful dove, &c. But ought the preachers to be in the
middle between action and contemplation ? W h a t else can this
mean but to keep clear of either action or contemplation; in other
words, to be wholly useless? Dormire inter medios cleros, is, in
an unexampled manner, translated, " t o sleep between the two l o t s ; "
and then these two lots are most absurdly understood of action and
contemplation. But everything hath its proper counterpart , and 2

the exposition suits the version. Geneb'rard confesses that the wits
of all expositors have been, as it were, crucified in seeking an e x -
planation of this passage : undoubtedly it tortured Bellarmine. But
how hath Genebrard himself taken away this cross ? Dormire
inter medios cleros is, if we believe Genebrard, to be in the most
certain and imminent perils. Our translators generally explain the
word, which the Latin version represents b y cleros, to mean " the
pots ." 3
But Bellarmine says that it cannot possibly bear that sig-
nification. T h e contrary, however, is the opinion of Genebrard, the
king's professor of Hebrew in the university of Paris, who tells us
that the Hebrew term denotes cauldrons, tripods, or pots.
Y o u have now heard how perplexed, confused, and tortured are

[ Whitaker's words are, " Similes habent labra lactucas." The proverb
2

occurs in Jerome, and is thus explained by Erasmus: " ITsurpat, simulque

interpretatur, hoc proverbium Divus Hieronymus, scribens ad Chromatium
in hunc modum: Secundum illud quoque, de quo semel in vita Crassum
ait risisse Lucilius; similem habent labra lactucam, asino carduos come-
dente: videlicet ut perforatum navim dobilis gubernator regat, et csoci ccecos
ducant in foveam, et talis sit rector qualcs illi qui reguntur." Adagia. p. 64-1.
Hanov. 1617.]
[3 D)FlS5£>, the meaning of which is much disputed. Gesenius renders
it, "stabula, caulse." So Ewald, ".So ofs ihr zwischen Hürden ruhet."]
188 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

all these explications. But the Hebrew text hath no similar diffi­
culty in i t ; which Pagninus and Montanus translate t h u s : " Kings
of armies fled, they fled; and she that dwelt at home divided the
spoil. If y e have lain in the midst of the pots, y e shall b e as the
plumage of a dove, which is covered with silver, and her wings
with yellow g o l d . " This text hath given the interpreters no such
torture, as, according to Genebrard, hath, in the case of the Latin,
set them on the rack.
T h e ninth place is in the same Psalm at verse 1 7 : Ut quid
suspicamini monies coagulatos ? Calvin says that we should read,
" W h y do y e envy the fat mountains ? " In regard of this place
Bellarmine hath no other answer to give but this, that the H e b r e w
word 1
is found nowhere else but h e r e ; and therefore, since w e
must abide b y the judgment of some interpreters, the Seventy
should be preferred to all the rest. I f this be so, how comes it
that Jerome and Vatablus and Pagninus and Montanus, and all
who have translated the Psalter from the Hebrew, have put a dif­
ferent sense upon that word ? I f we must abide b y the judgment
of the Seventy, on account either of their own or the church's
authority, they who have assigned another meaning to this word
cannot be defended. But let us follow the seventy interpreters,
and inquire into the meaning of the word. The words stand
thus in the Greek Psalter, 'iva T'I viro\au(&aveT6 optj Tervpw­
fxeva; which the Latin translator renders t h u s ; Ut quid sus­
picamini montes coagulatos ? Why hath Bellarmine concealed
from us the meaning of these words ? W h a t is it to suspect co­
agulated mountains ? Bellarmine would do us a favour if he would
inform us.
T h e tenth place is in the same Psalm also, at verse 1 9 , JEtenim
non credentes inhabitare Dominum Deum; which translation agrees
neither with the H e b r e w , nor with the Greek.
2
That it does not
agree with the H e b r e w , is no way surprising, since it is not derived
from it. But, at least, it should not depart from the Greek, from
which it hath been taken. Y e t depart it does, and v e r y widely.
F o r the Greek edition reads the passage thus : /ecu yap aireiOovvTas
TOV KaracrKrivwaai. H e r e there is a full s t o p ; and then a new
sentence begins, Kvpio? o Geo? evXoyriros. If the Latin had no

[! №3321 rendered by Jerome, excelsi; by Ewald, gipfeligen ; by Gfesenius,

cacumina; substantially to the same sense.]
XI.] QUESTION T H E SECOND. 189

other fault save that of its ambiguity and obscurity, it c ught not to
be defended.
T h e eleventh is also in the same Psalm, verse 2 3 : Convertam in
profundum maris. T h e Hebrew words denote the v e r y opposite:
" I will bring back from the depths of the s e a . " 3
H e r e Bellarmine
acknowledges a mistake, and says that some copies of the Vulgate
have not in profundum, but in profundis; and he explains conver-
ter in profundis maris to mean, drawing out those who are in the
depths of the sea. But if this reading and interpretation be the
true, as Bellarmine confesses, why have not the Louvain critics
preferred it to the other which is false ? Although perhaps the
grammarians will not concede to Bellarmine that to convert in the
deep of the sea, is the same as to bring forth from the depths of
the sea.
T h e twelfth place is in the same Psalm, verse 28 : Ibi Benjamin
adolescentulus in mentis excessu. W h i c h translation Bellarmine
defends warmly, and maintains that these words are to be under-
stood of the apostle Paul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin; and
who, in the transport of his mind, is related to have slept so
soundly that he did not know whether he were in the b o d y or out of
the b o d y . A n d because the Hebrew word, which the old interpreter
hath rendered, In mentis excessu, signifies a prince or governor, he
combines this interpretation with the former, because Paul was tho
chief ruler and spiritual prince of the church of the Gentiles. Thus
there is nothing with which Bellarmine cannot bravely reconcile his
interpretations. But who can believe that D a v i d is here speaking
of Paul ? or that the Hebrew w o r d 4
is capable of the meaning
which the old interpreter hath put upon it ? Jerome gives a dif-
ferent rendering, Continens cos : Aquila, " their commander : "
Theodotion, " the teacher of them," as we learn from Theodoret
in his Commentaries upon the Psalms. All the later translators too
differ from the Vulgate, giving Lord, Ruler, Prince, and never " i n
a trance." But, at any rate, Bellarmine's device of combining
both translations is a stroke of excessive subtilty; for the He-
brew cannot possibly mean both, but at least one or other. There
must needs therefore be an error here either in our editions or in
the old Latin.

H" !^.^ .
1
In the L X X . eViorpe'^w iv fivdois 6aKa<ro-r)s.]
[ 4
D7."'> L X X . iv iKo-Tcta-ei, deriving it from D T I . which is used, in
Niphal, to denote deep slumber and prostration of sense.]
190 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

T h e thirteenth place is Psalm cxxxi. [cxxxii.] 15 : Viduam ejus

benedicens benedicam. It is in the H e b r e w , " her victuals." There
cannot possibly be a more shameful mistake than this. F o r what hath
the Lord's promise to supply us abundantly with victuals, and, as
it were, to care for our necessary provisions; what hath this, I say,
to do with " a w i d o w ? " Here, though Bellarmine cannot avoid
acknowledging a manifest error, yet he does not think that the
place should be altered, because viduam hath been ever read and
chanted in the church. Is it thus that errors are defended b y
their antiquity ? Could the church thus perversely interpret
scripture ? Is it so, that false interpretations should not be cor-
rected when once confirmed b y long usage in the church ? That
we should read victum and not viduam, the H e b r e w word itself
cries out to us, Jerome testifies in his Psalter and his Questions on
Genesis, Symmachus, cited b y Theodoret, on the Psalms, Chryso-
stom and Theodoret himself. T h e fact that some Latin copies of
the Vulgate edition have viduam, hath arisen from an error of cer-
tain Greek M S S . , in which yjqpav was read instead of Qrjpav. Yet
so obstinate are our adversaries in the defence of all errors that,
let the mistake be never so notorious and the cause of it never so
manifest, they will nevertheless endure no change, no correction.
Hitherto then Bellarmine hath fought his best for the old Latin
edition of the Psalms, and y e t hath no great reason to suppose that
he hath fully acquitted himself of his task. F o r these which Calvin
hath touched are but a few errors, if compared with that multitude
which are to be found in that old Latin edition of the Psalms. To
enable y o u the more readily to perceive this, I will adduce the
testimony of a single Psalm ; and that shall be the ninetieth (or, as
they reckon, the eighty-ninth), which was composed b y Moses the
man of God. Let us briefly run over some verses of this Psalm,
and compare their old Latin version with the H e b r e w text. In the
third verse the Latin copies read, following the version of the
seventy translators: Ne convertas hominem in humilitatem;
et dixisti, convertimini filii hominum. T h e H e b r e w original yields
a far different sense: " T h o u convertest man to contrition, and
sayest, Return, y e children of men." H o w different are these two
sentences ! In the fifth verse the old Latin hath : Qim pro nihilo
habentur, eorum anni erunt; of which words I am not sure that
any sense can be given. In the Hebrew it is thus : " Thou takest
them off with a flood : they are asleep." In the eighth verse the
Vulgate r e a d s ; Posuisti seculum nostrum in illuminationem vul-
XI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 191

tus tui. In the Hebrew text it is : " T h o u hast set our secrets in
the light of thy countenance." I n the nineteenth verse it is thus
in the V u l g a t e : Quoniam omnes dies nostri defecerunt, et in ira
tua defecimus. Anni nostri sicut aranea meditabantur: dies
annorum nostrorum, in ipsis septuaginta anni: si autem in poten-
tatibus, octoginta anni: et amplius eorum labor et dolor; quo-
niam supervenit mansuetudo, et corripiemur. What is the
meaning of these w o r d s ? or what interpreter is there learned
enough (always excepting Genebrard) to undertake to give a suit-
able explanation of them ? T h e H e b r e w is quite otherwise, both in
expression and in sense : " F o r all our days have declined in thine
anger, we have spent our years like a tale. T h e days of our years,
there are seventy years in them, or, at most, eighty years. Even
the best of them is labour and t r o u b l e : when it is past, forthwith
we flee a w a y . "
I n the eleventh and twelfth verses the Vulgate reads thus : Et
prce timore tuo iram tuam dinumerare. Dextram tuam sic
notum fac, et eruditos corde in sapientia. In the H e b r e w it i s :
" And as thy fear, is t h y w r a t h : so teach us to number our days,
and we shall bring our heart to wisdom." In the sixteenth verse,
the Vulgate hath : Respice in servos tuos, et in opera tua, et dirige
filios eorum. But the H e b r e w : " L e t thy w o r k be clear to thy
servants, and thy beauty in their children."
This is sufficient to shew us how remarkable is the agreement
between the Hebrew original and the Latin edition. There are
seventeen verses in this P s a l m ; and I will venture to say that
there are more errors in the old version of it than there are verses
in the Psalm. But should any one suspeet that the H e b r e w text
which is now in our hands is corrupt, let him consult Jerome's
version in his Psalter and in his 139th Epistle to C y p r i a n , where he 1

will find the same Hebrew text of this Psalm as we have at present.
T h e same is the case of the other Psalms a l s o ; so that it may be
said with truth, that these which they read and chant in their
sacred offices, are not the Psalms of David, but the blunders of the
Greek and Latin translators. And since Bellarmine, at the close of
his Defence, presses us strongly with the testimony of Pellican, I
will pay him back with two for his one, and return him his own
with interest.
T h e first is that of Bruno Amerbach, in the Preface to his
readers, which he has prefixed to his Psalter of J e r o m e ; where,
speaking of the old Greek and Latin editions of the Psalms, he
C Ep. csl. ed. Vallars. T. I. p. 1042.]
1
192 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

s a y s : " I have added the Greek, with which corresponds the next
column, that common translation which is every where in use,
which is the work of an uncertain author, and, to tell the truth, is
sometimes utterly at variance with the Greek c o p y . Whether w e
are to blame for this the negligence of the translator, or the care-
lessness of the transcribers, or, which is more probable, the p r e -
sumptuous ignorance of some meddling coxcomb, is a question which
I shall not now e x a m i n e . "
1
T h e second is that of Lindanus a
follower of the popish cause, who, in his third b o o k de Optimo
Gen. Interpr. c. 6, expresses his opinion that the Greek edition of
the Psalms is not the version of the seventy interpreters, but of
the apostate Symmachus, and that this old Latin translation is the
work of some obscure Greek. His words are t h e s e : " After fre-
quent and deep reflection upon the translator of our Latin edition,
I seem to perceive many indications which suggest to me a suspicion
that the man was not a Latin, but some petty Grecian. Surely the
ancient Church 1 5 0 0 years ago, which used this version, could not
have degenerated so much in so short a time from the purity of the
Latin tongue. F o r the strange renderings which occur both in the
Psalms and the new Testament are more numerous than we can
possibly suppose the blunders of any man conversant with the Latin
tongue, even learned from common talk and not from reading ." 2

A n d then he goes on to prove, that the Greek edition of the Psalms

now extant is not that ancient one which was composed b y the
seventy interpreters . 3
Hence we may learn what to think of
Genebrard, w h o , in his Epistle to Castellinus, bishop of liimini,
maintains that this Greek edition is not only catholic, but either
apostolical or the Septuagint. So far of the b o o k of Psalms.

f Grsecum item adjecimus, cui respondet e regione translatio, quae

1

passim legitur, abrjkos, hoc est, auctore incerto, nonmmquam, ut dicam id

quod res est, Sis Dm nacrav ab exemplari Gracco dissidens. Cujus rei culpa
in interprets oscitantiam, aut in librariorum incuriam, aut, quod verisimiliu3
sit, alicujus nebulonis audacem imperitiam rejici debeat, nolo excutere in
pracsentia.]
[ Sa?pe multumque de nostra? Latina? editionis interpreto cogitans, plu-
2

rima videre videor quae ad suspicandum me invitant, ut non Latinum hominem

sed Graeculum quempiam fuisse existimem. Siquidem ilia prisca ecclesia,
ante annos 1 5 0 0 hoc versione usa, haud ita potuit a Romana? lingua? puritate
intra tantillum temporis degenerare. Nam qua? cum in Psalmis, turn in
Novo Testamento occurrunt versionis offendicula, majora sunt quam ut ab
homine Latina? lingua?, etiam qua? non jam ex lectione, sed ex sermone disci-
tur, potuerint peccari.—p. 1 0 6 . Colon. 1 5 5 8 . ]
[3 Compare Ilody, Lib. iv. p. 588.]
XII.] QUESTION T H E SECOND. 193

CHAPTER XII.

OF CORRUPTIONS IN THE LATIN EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

F I N A L L Y , Bellarmine now undertakes the defence of the old

Latin edition of the new Testament, and answers the objections
of Chemnitz and Calvin to those places which they have asserted
to be corrupted b y the Latin translator. "We proceed to break the
force of this portion also of Bellarmine's defence, and to shew that
the Greek original in the new Testament is purer than the Latin
edition.
T h e first place is Matth. ix. 1 3 : Non veni vocare jastos, sed
peccatores. Chemnitz asserts that a most noble passage is here
mutilated, because the Latin hath nothing to represent " t o re-
pentance ." 4
Bellarmine's defence consists of three heads. First,
he says that that clause is found in some Latin copies. I answer,
that, however, it is not found in those which they use as the most
correct and authentic, that is, the copies of that edition which the
Louvain divines have published. A n d in their latest missal, when
this part of the gospel is repeated upon the Feast of St. Matthew,
the clause in question is omitted.
Secondly, he pretends that it is most likely that this clause is
superfluous in the Greek, and did not appear in the more accurate
MSS.
I answer, that this is b y no means likely, since Chrysostom
read that clause, as appears from his commentaries; and it is likely
that Chrysostom had access to the most correct M S S . Theophylact
too found the same clause in his c o p i e s ; and R o b e r t Stephens in
those numerous and v e r y faithful ones (one of which was the
Complutensian) b y the help of which he corrected his edition of
the new Testament.
Thirdly, he says that this clause is not necessary, since to
call sinners and not the righteous, is the same thing as to exhort
to repentance those who need it.
I answer, that it is plainly necessary, because L u k e , without
all controversy, adds these words, chap. v. 3 2 . F o r thus, b y the
unanimous suffrage of all the copies, we read in L u k e , OVK eXrjXvOa
KaXeaai SIKUIOVS, ctXX' afxapTwXovs eis fxeravoiav. Besides, the

[ els peravmav is wanting in the Vatican, Cambridge, and other ancient

4

M S S . ; in the Persian, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Armenian versions, as well as in

the Vulgate]

[WHITAKER.]
194 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

reason of the thing leads us to the same conclusion. F o r it is one

thing to call sinners, and another to call sinners to repentance; as
Theophylact writes, with great truth, upon this place in Matthew :
ov% iVa fxeivwaiv a/xapTco\ol, aXX' i r a /jLeTavoqcrwaiv' "not that
they should remain sinners, but that they should repent."
T h e second place is John xiv. 2 6 : Spiritus Sanctus suggeret
vobis omnia, qucecunque dixero vobis. The papists abuse this
passage to prove, that whatever is defined in councils should be
received as the oracles of the H o l y Spirit. But in the Greek it is
not " I shall s a y , " but, " I have said," a elirov v/uv. Bellarmine
says that the sense is the same as in the G r e e k ; since we are to
understand it to mean, not " what I shall then say,'" but " what I
shall now s a y . "
I answer. T h e papists seize greedily upon all occasions, h o w -
ever futile and absurd, to gain proof for their dogmas, and not
seldom use arguments which are founded only in the errors of a
translation. Thus from this place they gather that the H o l y Ghost
is the author of all the dogmas which they have invented and
confirmed in their councils, although they cannot be supported b y
any scripture evidence. But Christ did not promise that he would
hereafter say something which the H o l y Ghost should teach them,
but that what he had already said to them should be recalled to
their mind and memory b y the H o l y Ghost. F o r Christ says not,
iravra a av e'iira> vfuv, but a elirov ifxlv. Christ, therefore, had
already told them all; but they had not yet learned it accurately
enough, nor committed it to memory. W h e n c e the falsehood of
Bellarmine's exposition sufficiently appears; since Christ does not
say, as he supposes, " T h e Spirit shall suggest to y o u whatever I
shall now s a y , " but " whatever I have already said to y o u : " for a
elirov does not mean " what I shall s a y , " but " what I have said."
Thus the Latin version of this place is false, and even Bellarmine's
own exposition proves it false.
T h e third place is R o m . i. 4 : Qui praidestinatus est filius
Dei. In the Greek it is opicrOevTos, i. e. who was declared or
manifested. Bellarmine tells us that opi^eiv never in the scrip-
tures means to declare, and that all the Latins read thus, Qui
praidestinatus est.
I answer. Firstly, that op'iCeiv in this place does denote " to
declare," as Chrysostom interprets it, who cannot be supposed
ignorant of the just force and significance of the word. For
having, in his first Homily upon the Romans, put the question, ri
XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 195

ovv ECTTIV opiadevTos; he subjoins as synonymous terms, SeiyQLv-

TOS, airotpavOevTos, KptOevros' where he teaches us that opi(eiv
in this passage means nothing else but to declare, shew, or judge.
In the same way CEcumenius asserts that TOV opiaOevTos is equi-
valent to TOV a.TRO§EIYQEVTO<s or e-RRIYVWAQEVTO^. N o r do Theodoret
or Theophylact vary from this explanation: so that Bellarmine's
confident assertion is manifestly destitute of all truth. What may
be said with truth is, that neither in the scriptures nor anywhere
else does op'i(eiv mean the same thing as to predestinate.
Secondly, the Latin fathers followed the Vulgate translator,
b y whom this word is unskilfully and absurdly rendered, as Eras-
mus and Faber and Cajetan tell us, and as e v e r y one who knows
any thing of Greek must needs confess. As to Bellarmine's
assertion, that defined and predestinated are perfectly equivalent
terms, I leave it without hesitation to the general judgment of all
learned men.
T h e fourth place is R o m . i. at the end, where we have in the
Vulgate edition, Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent, non intellex-
erunt, quoniam qui talia agunt digni sunt morte; non solum qui
ea faciunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus . 1
Chemnitz,
Valla, Erasmus, and others, agree that this place is corrupt. For
in the Greek text it runs t h u s : O'ITIVE<s TO SiKaioj/ua TOV QEOV

ETRIYVOVTES ( o n 01 Ta TOIAVTA TTjOatrcroi/Tes aj~toi Qavarov eiatv)

ov [x.ovov AVTA •NOIOVAIV, aXXa KCII avvev^OKOVAI TOTS IRPDCJCROVA'I.

Y e t Bellarmine is not ashamed to say that the Latin reading is the

truer. F o r , says he, according to the Greek the sense is, that it
is worse to consent to an evildoer than to do ill oneself; whereas,
taken absolutely, it is worse to do ill than to consent to another
doing ill.
I answer: Bellarmine is not v e r y accurate in his estimate of
the magnitude of sins. F o r to have pleasure in the wicked is one
of those gravest sins, which are not committed but b y the most
abandoned men. T o sin at all is of itself impious, and deserves
eternal punishment, however much it be done against our better con-
science and with internal struggles; but to approve our sins and
those of other men, to deem them well done, to applaud them in
our feelings and judgment, and to take pleasure in sins (which is

P This reading of the Vulgate is however strongly supported by the

Clermont M S . , and the apparent citation in Clement's 1 Bp. ad Cor. c. 3 5
(pp. 1 2 0 , 1 2 2 , ed. Jacobson). Mill and Wetstcin declare in its favour; but see
on the other side Whitby, Examen Var. Lect. n. 1. § 1. n. 1 6 . ]
13—2
196 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

what the apostle means b y <rvveu$OKe7v), is almost the very height

and climax of iniquity. This is the assent which Paul condemns
in this place, and which is indeed almost the last step in sin. The
sense of the Greek therefore is very t r u e ; and is what is given b y
the Greek interpreters, Chrysostom, Theodoret, OEcumenius and
Theophylact. And in all the Greek copies which Stephens followed,
that is, all which he could b y any means procure, there was no
variety o f reading in this place. That the Latin fathers read it
otherwise, need not surprise us ; since they did not consult the
originals, but drew from the streams of this Vulgate translator.
A n d though Bellarmine affirms the Latin text to be altogether p r e -
ferable to the Greek, y e t other papists entertain an altogether dif-
ferent opinion. " T o speak m y mind freely," says Catharinus,
upon the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, " the Greek
reading pleases me far better. T h e construction runs on easily and
without any r u b s . "
1

T h e fifth place is R o m . iv. 2 ; where Abraham is said not to

have been justified b y works. In their Latin edition it is added
" of the l a w , " as if the apostle were speaking of the ceremonies of
the law. But Bellarmine says that all, or almost all, the Latin
copies omit the word legis. This I admit, if he speak of the copies
at present generally in men's h a n d s : for some centuries ago all,
or almost all, the copies had legis, as is plain from some ancient
fathers, the scholastic divines, L y r a , Aquinas, Carthusianus, and
others. H o w the passage ought to be understood, and what kinds
of works the Apostle excludes from justification, shall be explained
hereafter in its proper place.
T h e sixth place is R o m . xi. 6 ; where these words are omitted,
" But if it be of works, then is it not of g r a c e : otherwise work is
no more w o r k . "
2
Bellarmine confesses that this sentence is in the
Greek, but says that it is recognised b y none of the commentators
upon this place except Theophylact. W h i c h assertion is wholly
u n t r u e ; since CEcumenius exhibits and explains this same sentence,
as also Theodoret and C h r y s o s t o m : which latter he nevertheless
affirms, naming him expressly, not to have made any mention of
this sentence. Bellarmine did not examine Chrysostom in this

f N e quid autem dissimulem, longe magis mi placet Grasca lectio:

1

facile procedit litera et sine ullo scrupulo. Comm. in Epp. Paul. p. 21. Paris.
1566.]
L This clause is omitted in the Alexandrian, and several other ancient
2

MSS.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 197

place, but gave too much credit to Erasmus, who falsely denies that
it is to be found in Chrysostom . 3
F o r Chrysostom reads it t h u s :
el ¿6 e£ epywv OVK en earl j^a'ps* 67rei TO epyov OVK en ecrrl
epyov. But what if the clause were not to be found in the
commentaries of these writers ? Must we, therefore, deem it
spurious? B y no means. F o r the Greek copies, and v e r y nu-
merous M S S . of the greatest fidelity, and the most ancient Syrian
translator, will suffice to prove that this sentence came from the
apostle's p e n ; whose evidence is still more confirmed b y the v e r y
antithesis of the context and the sequence of the reasoning. For,
as the apostle says, " I f it be of grace, then it is not of w o r k s ; for
then grace would not b e g r a c e ; " so to balance the antithesis he
must say, " If it be of works, it is not of g r a c e ; for then w o r k
would not be w o r k . "
T h e seventh place is Eph. v. 3 2 : Saeramentwm hoc magnum
est. W h e r e our divines have no other complaint to make, but that
the papists abuse the ambiguity of the term to prove that matrimony
is a sacrament. F o r the word in the Greek is /uvarypiov, which
is never in scripture used to denote what w e properly call a sacra-
ment. It is absurd, therefore, for the schoolmen to conclude from
this place that matrimony is a sacrament. Cajetan's words are
these : 4
" A prudent reader will not gather from this place that
Paul teaches that marriage is a sacrament. F o r he does not say,
This is a sacrament, but a great m y s t e r y . " F o r which true speech
of his the cardinal receives hard usage from Ambrose Catharinus in
the fourth book of his Annotations.
T h e eighth place is E p h . vi. 1 3 : Ut jwssitis resistere in die
malo, et in omnibus perfecti stare. In the Greek it is airavra
KaTepyaaapevoi, which does not mean perfect in all things.
Some explain the passage as if it were omnibus perfectis, " all
things being complete," that is, when y e have procured and put on
all the arms which are needful to y o u for this warfare. But
Chrysostom (followed here by CEcumenius) hath better understood
the force of the verb KarepyaaacrOai. For KarepyaaaoOai
denotes to conquer completely, to subdue and quell all the powers
of an adversary. T h e panoply here spoken of enables us not only
to resist in the evil day, but also airavra Karepyao-afievoi, that is,

[ It is indeed in the Text, but not in the Commentary.]

3

[ Non habet ex hoc loco prudens lector a Paulo, conjugium esse sacra-
4

mentum. Non enim dicit sacramentum, sed, Mysterium hoc magnum est.
p. 278. 2. Paris. 1571.]
198 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

having quelled and taken out of the w a y (for so Chrysostom and

CEcumenius explain the apostle's expression) whatever opposes us,
to stand firm ourselves and uneonquered.
But this is quite a different thing from the reading in the old
books, in omnibus perfecti; from which false rendering false e x -
planations also have arisen. Thomas explains the words " i n all
things" to mean in prosperity and in adversity; and here he makes
out a twofold perfection , one of the w a y , the other of the h o m e ;
1

which, although they are true in themselves, are things wholly

impertinent to the passage before us.
T h e ninth place is H e b . i x . 2 8 : Ad multorum exhaurienda
peccata. In the Greek it is, els TO TTOWWV aveveyiceiv a/uapTias'
which means, " to bear away the sins of m a n y . " N o w sins are
borne away when they are remitted, which takes place in this
life; but they are exhausted or drained off, when we are wholly
purified and no remains of sin left in us, which does not take place
in this life. F o r , since our adversaries seize on the most slender
occasions to sophisticate the truth, the H o l y Spirit must be e v e r y -
where vindicated from their calumnies. N o w whereas Bellarmine says
that the translator hath rendered this place with great propriety, I
would desire him to produce an example where <xveveyKe7v means
to exhaust. F o r , although avacpepto means " t o bear upward," y e t
bearing up and drawing are not the same thing as exhausting or
draining. H e who draws from a fountain, does not consequently
exhaust the fountain itself. But dvacpepeiv more frequently denotes
" to take away or b e a r ; " as, both in this place and another similar
one, 1 Peter ii. 2 4 , Christ is said aveveyKelv els TO i~u\ov our
sins, that is, " t o have borne them on the tree," as there even the
old translator hath rendered it.
T h e tenth place is H e b . xiii. 1 6 : Talibus hostiis promeretur
Deus. In the Greek it is, TotavTctis Ova'iais euapeaTeiTai o Qeos'
" with such sacrifices G o d is well pleased." Bellarmine is not
ashamed to produce a defence of his own, such as it is, for this
place also. In Latin, says he, one is correctly said to deserve
well of the person whom he gratifies b y his actions.
I answer in the first place, that I grant that amongst men
there is room for merit, since all things are not due to all. It
may therefore be correctly said, that w e deserve well of those
I 1
P. 171. Antverp. 1591. The Schoolmen were fond of the distinction
of Via and Domios; meaning by the former, the present, and by the latter,
the eternal life.]
 XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 199

upon whom we have bestowed any benefit which hath flowed merely
from our own free choice. But when the matter is between us
and God, farewell all merit; since whatever we do pleasant to him,
we y e t do no more than we already owed to him. Wherefore
when we have done all that we can do in any way, we are never­
theless still, as Christ expresses it, a%pe!oi $ov\oi. Besides, I ask
Bellarmine whether, in their theology, to deserve well of G o d means
nothing more than to do what is pleasing to him. I would it were
so : for then they would not err so much upon the merit of works.
W e ourselves say that the good works of the saints are grateful
and pleasant to G o d ; but the whole dispute is about the merit of
works. Lastly, how senseless is this expression, Talibus hostiis
promeretur Deus !
T h e eleventh place is James v. 1 5 : Et alleviabit eum Dominus.
In the Greek it is, кол kyepel avrov о livpios. " A n d the L o r d
shall raise him u p . " H e r e Bellarmine disputes, b y the w a y , upon
the effects of extreme unction against Chemnitz. Although there
is no capital fault in the translation, y e t the place might be more
correctly rendered than it is b y the Latin interpreter. As to
their popish unction, James makes no mention of it h e r e ; as
Cajetan himself abundantly teaches us in his commentary upon the
passage. His words a r e : " Neither in terms, nor in substance,
do these words speak of the sacramental anointing of extreme
u n c t i o n ; " which he proves b y three very solid arguments
2
drawn
from the passage itself. But this is not the place for disputing
concerning the sacramental unction.
T h e last place is 1 John v. 1 3 : Ноге scribo vobis, ut sciatis
quoniam vitam habetis ceternam, qui creditis in nomine Filii Dei.
A n d so indeed the text is exhibited in some Greek copies, as
Robert Stephens informs us in his Greek Testament. But the
majority, even the Complutensian, otherwise, thus: тадта eypa\}sa
vp.iv TOIS TrKjrevovcriv eU т о ovo/ua той Wov TOV Qeov, 'Lva
eiSrjTe on ^wrjv alooviov е^ете, teal 'iva тпегтеицте els то ovo/ua
TOV Ylov TOV Qeov. But we do not choose to raise any great
contention with our opponent upon the reading of this passage,
since there is no difference in the sense. F o r Bellarmine's attempt
to shew that it is better in the Latin than in the Greek, because
there was no need to admonish them to do what they had done
already, is a mode of reasoning unworthy of so great a theologian.

[­ Nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu, verba haic loquuntur de sacramentali

unctione extremaa unctionis. p. 419.]
200 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

F o r we too often admonish men to do what they are doing, a c -

cording to that saying, Qui monet ut facias quod jam facts; and
this is a thing of constant occurrence in the scriptures. Thus
those who believe in Christ are to be perpetually admonished to
increase and remain constant in that faith.
A n d now Bellarmine thinks that he hath satisfactorily answered
all our charges against the old translation of the new Testament.
But how small a portion is this of the errors which may be found
and censured in that version! I am disposed therefore to bestow
a little more time upon examining it, and producing some more
of its faults, not all indeed (for that would be a tedious and difficult
task), but still too many, so as to enable y o u the better to j u d g e
h o w very far it is from being pure and authentic.
Matth. iii. 2, the old version hath, appropinquabit regnwm
ccelorum. In the Greek it is riyyute, " hath drawn n i g h . " So
also in chap. iv. 1 7 . In Matth. iv. 4, the w o r d "openly" is
omitted in the old version, though the Greek text is, aTroSwaei aoi
ev Tip (pavepto. A n d v. 7, the old translator renders M»7 fictTTo-
XoyfarjTe by nolite multum loqui. But j3aTro\oyelv means
something different from much speaking. F o r Christ does not
prohibit long prayers, but the tedious and hypocritical repetition
of the same words. A t v. 1 1 , he hath rendered aprov e-movo-iov
b y panem supersubstantialem. A n d v. 2 5 in the Latin runs thus :
Ne solliciti sitis animoz vestroz quid manducetis. In the Greek,
TI (payers Ka\ T'C Trlrjre' " W h a t y e shall eat and what y e shall
drink." A t v. 3 2 , in the Latin, Scit Pater vester: in the Greek,
o Tlarrip v/nwv o ovpavios. Chap. vii. 1 4 , in the Latin, Quam
angusta porta 1 In the Greek, on o-revtj ij irvXt]' " F o r strait
is the g a t e . " Chap. ix. 8, timuerunt occurs in the Latin, instead
of " they wondered," since the Greek hath e9av/xaarav. Chap. ix.
1 5 , Filii sponsi for the " children of the bride-chamber," the
Greek being o\ viol TOV vuiucpwvos. T h e same mistake recurs
L u k e v. 3 4 . Chap. xiv. 3, the name of Philip is omitted in the
Latin, though exhibited b y the Greek copies. H e was the brother
of Herod, whose wife the impious H e r o d had united to himself in
an incestuous union. Verse 2 1 , the Latin reads, quinque millia;
in the Greek it is, wael irevTaKiaxikiot, "about five thousand."
Verse 2 6 , the word, " the disciples," is omitted: for in the Greek
w e have iSovres avrov ol naOrjral, where the Latin gives only
videntes eum. Chap. x v . 8, in the Latin, Populus hie labiis me
lwnorat; but in the Greek, eyy'v^ei not o Xaos oyros T<jJ o-roixari
XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 201

aiirwv, ical TOTS •^eiXeai /xe Tifxq' " This people draweth nigh
unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips." At
v. 3 1 there is nothing to express " the maimed to be whole,"
though the Greek hath KVXXOUS vyieis.
Chap. xvii. 19 : in the Latin, Quare nos noil potuimus ejicere
ilium ? instead of illucl " i t , " that is, the d e m o n ; for the Greek is,
e/c/3aXety avTO. Chap, xviii., in the last verse, there is nothing
in the Latin corresponding to rd Trapa-rrrusLtaTa avrwv, " their
offences," in the Greek. Chap. xix. 7 stands thus in the L a t i n :
Quid me interrogans de bono ? units est bonus, Deus. But in most,
and the most correct, Greek copies, we read, T'I /xe Xeyeis dyaQov;
ovSeh dyaOos, el nn eh, o GeoV that is, " W h y callest thou me
good ? There is none g o o d but one, G o d . " Chap. x x . 9 : in the
Latin, acceperunt singulos denarios, instead of "every man a
penny;" for the Greek hath eXafiov dvd Srivdpiov. And the
like mistake is made again in the next verse. A t verse 1 5 , w e
have in the Latin, aut non licet mi quod volo facere ? instead of,
" is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own ? " In
the Greek, rj OVK e^eaTi /xoi Troiijaai o 6eXw ev rots extols; Chap,
xxi. 3 0 : Eo, domine, is in the Latin instead of, " I , Sir," eyw,
Kvpie. Chap. xxiv. 6 : Opiniones prailiorum, in the Latin, for
" rumours of wars," dicods TroXefiwv. Chap. xxvi. 6 1 : Sid rp'iwv
riLLepiov, which means, " in three d a y s , " is rendered in the old
versio'n post triduum; and v. 71, the Latin hath exeunte illo
januam, instead of, " when he went out into the vestibule," since
the Greek is e^eXdovTa eU TOV -prvXwva. Chap, xxviii. 2, in the
Latin, after the words revolvit lapidem, there is an omission of
" from the door," diro Ovpas.
Mark ii. 7, the Latin r e a d s : Quid hie sic loquitur ? blas-
phemat; instead of, " W h y doth this man thus speak blasphemies?"
T'I OVTOS OVTOJ XaXei j3Xaa<pt]fi'ia<:;
M a r k iii. 3 9 , in the Latin, Reus erit ozterni delicti, instead
of " eternal j u d g m e n t , " aiwviov Kplcrews. M a r k xiv. 14, in the
Latin there is, Ubi est refectio mea ? instead of, " W h e r e is the
guest-chamber ? " TTOV earl TO xaraXvLia;
Luke i. 28 in the Latin runs thus, Ave, gratia plena; but
KexaptTwixevri is " h i g h l y f a v o u r e d " or " f r e e l y l o v e d , " not " f u l l
of grace." L u k e ii. 4 0 , the Latin hath, puer crescebat et con-
fortabatur, wherein " i n s p i r i t " is left o u t . 1
Luke iii. 13, in the
Latin, nihil amplius, quam quod constitutum est vobis, faciatis.
I 1
TTvevpaTi is omitted in some Greek M S S . also. See Grotius in l o c ]
202 T H E FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

But in this place •n-pdacrew does not mean " to d o , " but " to ex-
act ; " for it is the publicans that the Baptist here addresses. Luke
vi. 1 1 , in the Latin, ipsi repleti sunt insipientia, instead of, " with
madness;" eirXqaOtjaav avoias. Luke xi. 5 3 , the old translator
renders, airoo-roixaTi^eiv avrov eirl irXetovwv b y , os ejus opprimere
de multis; absurdly, since it means that they pressed him to
speak of many things . 1
Luke xiii. 3, 4, runs thus in the Latin,
nisi poenitentiam habueritis, omnes similiter peribitis : sicut illi
decern et octo, instead of, " or those eighteen," &c. Luke xv. 8,
Evertit domum, instead of everrit, " she s w e e p s ; " crapdi rrjv oixlau.
A shameful and manifest error, which the Louvain editors perceived,
but would not c o r r e c t ; I suppose on account of its antiquity, for
thus hath the place been constantly read in their churches for
many ages. The Ordinary Gloss interprets this woman to mean
the church, who then turns her house upside down when she
disturbs men's consciences with the conviction of their guilt.
But Dionysius Carthusianus hath a somewhat better explanation
of the way in which the house is turned upside down, that is,
when the contents of the house are carried about from one place
to another, as people are wont to do when they search diligently
for any thing. N a y , what surprises one still more, G r e g o r y of
R o m e , a thousand years ago, read and expounded evertit domum,
Horn. 3 4 in E v a n g e l . : so ancient are many of the errors of this
translation. In the same chapter, verse 14, we have postquam
omnia consummasset, instead of consumpsisset, hairavrioavTos.

Chap. xvi. 2 2 is read thus in the Latin, Sepultus est in inferno.

Elevans autem oculos, # c . Whereupon some Latin doctors and
interpreters run out into many philosophical speculations concerning
the burial of the rich man in hell, which are all derived from the
erroneous version of the place. F o r it ought to have been read, as
it is read with great unanimity b y the Greek copies, " The rich
man also died, and was b u r i e d : " where Euthymius justly observes,
that mention of the burial was made in the case of the rich, and not
of the poor m a n ; because the poor man had a mean grave, whereas
the funeral of the rich man was performed with splendour and
magnificence. Then in the text a new sentence begins, " A n d in
hell raising up his eyes," &c. Chap. xix. last verse, Omnis

[i anoo-roiiarl&iv rather means to require one to speak off-hand and

without premeditation. The reader will find all the learning of the ques-
tion; as to the sense of this word, in Grotius upon Luke xi. 53, and Runkhen's
note upon the word in Timseus Lex. Platon.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 203

populus suspensus erat, audiens ilium, instead of, " All the people
hung upon him while they heard h i m . " o Xaos d-iras e^eKpeparo
avTov ciKovwv.
John, chap. v. 1 6 , after the words, persequebantur Judazi
Jesum, the clause, " and desired to slay h i m , " na\ etyrow avrov
airoKTelvai, is left out. Chap. xii. 3 5 : Adhuc modicum lumen in
vobis, for, " y e t a little while is the light with y o u , " e n niKpov
Xpovov T O (puis fieff v/xwv eo-rt. Chap. xxi. 2 2 : Sic eum volo
manere donee veniam. Quid ad te ? W h e n c e some, deceived
b y the error of this version, have supposed John to be still alive.
But we ought to read, " I f I will that he tarry till I come, what
is that to thee ? " I n the Greek, edv avrov 9eXw fxeveiv ecus epyo-
nai, T'L trpos ere ;
Acts ii. 4 2 : Et communicatione fractionis panis, for, " in
communion and breaking of bread," nai rrj Koivcovla Kal T7\
KXaaei TOV aprov. A n d at the last verse, in idipsum , 2
for, " the
church," rrj eKKXtjcria. Chap. iii. 1 8 : Qui pramunciavit, for,
" which things he foretold," d TrpoKaTr/yyeiXe. Chap. x. 3 0 :
Usque ad hanc horam, orans eram hora nona, instead of, "I
was fasting until this hour, and at the ninth hour I was p r a y -
ing : " /jLe^pi Taurus Trjs wpas 'n/j.r)v vrjcrTeuwv , 3
Kal TY\V evvarriv
dipav Trpoaevxpixevos. Also at the close of verse 32, these
words, " who when he is come shall speak to t h e e , " os irapa-ye-
i'o/xevos XaXr/aet croi, are omitted. Chap. xii. 8 : Calcea te caligas
tuas, for, " bind on t h y sandals," inroSrjo-ai T O aavSaXid aou.
Chap. xvi. 1 3 : Ubi videbatur oratio esse, for, " where prayer
was wont to be made," ov evo/n'^eTo Trpoo-evyri elvat. Chap, xviii.
5: Instabat verbo Paulus, for, " Paul was bound in the spirit,"
auvei^ero T<J5 Trvev/uaTi. In the same chapter at verse 16,
Minavit eos a tribunali, for, " h e drave them from the judgment-
seat," airtjXacrev. A n d at verse 2 1 , this clause is omitted, " I
must b y all means keep this feast which cometh on in J e r u s a l e m : " 4

AeT fxe iravTWS TT\V eopTr/v Trjv epy^o/neviiv iroirjcrai els lepoao-
Au/ua. Chap, xix., in the last verse : Cum nullus obnoxius sit, for,
" since there is no cause," fx^evos aWiov virdpjovTos. Chap,
xxii. 1 2 : Vir secundum legem, for, " a pious man according to

[ The mistake arose from connecting the words eVl TO avrb, which form
2

the commencement of the next chapter, with the close of this one. The
Ethiopic agrees with the Vulgate in omitting rrj eKuXrjo-iq.]
[ Some M S S . agree with the Vulgate in omitting prja-revcov.]
3

[ It is omitted in the Alex, and several other M S S . ]

4
204 T H E FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

the l a w , " avijp evaefZys. Chap. xxiv. 1 4 : Quod secundum sec-

tam, quam dicunt hosresin, sic deservio Patri Deo meo, instead
of, " that according to the w a y which they call heresy, so worship
I the G o d of m y f a t h e r s : " on Kara. TYJV ocicv, rjv Xeyovaiv
aipecnv, ovTw Xarpevw ™ iraTpwip Qeip. Chap, xxvii. 4 2 : Ut
custodias occiderent, for, " t h a t they should slay the prisoners ," 1

'iva T O U S ^ecT/UftjTas airoKTeivwcn.

R o m . ii. 3 : Quod judicas, instead of, " thou that j u d g e s t , "
o Kplvaiv. Chap. v. 6 : Ut quid enim Christus, cum adhuc
infirmi essemus, fyc, instead of, " f o r Christ, when w e were y e t
without strength," en yap XplaTos OVTWV IJHWV aadevwv. And
verse 1 3 : Peccatum non imputabatur, cum lex non esset, for,
" sin is not imputed where there is no l a w , " a/xapTia OVK eXXo-
ye'irai txr\ OVTOS vo/xou. Chap. vii. 2 5 : Quis me liberabit de
corpore mortis hvjus ? Gratia Dei per Jesum Christum, for,
" I thank G o d through Jesus Christ," ev^apiaTtio np Qecp Sia
'irjaov XpiaTov. Chap. viii. 18 : Existimo quod non sunt dignw
passiones, #c., for, " I reckon for certain," Xoyify/xai. Chap. xii.
19: Non vosmet ipsos defendentes, instead of, "avenging,"
etcStKovvTes. Chap. xih. 1 : Quce autem sunt a Deo, ordinata
sunt , 2
for, " t h e powers that be, are ordained of G o d , " at 8e
oicrai ePovaiai, viro TOV Qeov Teray/xevai eiatv. Chap. x i v . 5 :
Unusquisque in suo sensu abundet, for, " l e t each b e fully p e r -
suaded in his own mind," e/cacrro? ev ™ iB'up voi irkripofpopeladu).
A n d at verse 6 is omitted, " and h e that regardeth not the d a y , to
the L o r d he doth not regard i t , " KOI O /xrj cppovwv TJJC rjfxepav
Kvpuo oil (ppovel. Chap. xvi. 2 3 : Salutat vos Gaius hospes
meus, et universa ecclesia, for, " and of the whole church,"
Kai Trj<$ eiacXrjcrias 6\rj?.

1 Cor. iii. 5 : Ministri ejus cui credidistis, for, " ministers b y

whom y e believed," Sidtcovot oY cue eiricxTevaaTe. Verse 9 : Dei
adjutores, instead of, " administrators or co-operators, avvepyoi.
Chapter vi. last verse : In corpore vestro, omitting , " and in your
3

spirit, which are G o d ' s , " /cat ev T<J> wvev/xaTi V/JLWV, ariva ecrrl
TOV Qeov. Chapter ix. 2 2 : Ut omnes salvos faciam, for, " that

t Instances however are found in good authors of Custodia meaning a

1

prisoner as well as a guard. I need not cite instances of a meaning given

in every common dictionary.]
[ The fault is in the stopping. It should be, " Qure autem sunt, a Deo
2

ordinate sunt."]
[ This clause is omitted also in the Alexandrian and several other MSS.]
3
XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 205

I may b y all means save some," "wa TvávrwsTivds o-to'o-ct) .

4
Chap,
xv. 2 3 : Deinde ii qui sunt Christi, qui in adventum ejus credi-
derunt, for, " then those who are Christ's at his coming," eireira

ol X pio-Tov ev Trj irapovaiq avTov. Verse 3 4 : Ad reverentiam

vobis loquor, for, " I speak to inspire y o u with shame," irpos
ei>Tpoirt]v V/ULIV Xéyio. Verse 5 1 : Omnes quidem resurgemus,
sed non omnes immutabimur, instead of, " W e shall not indeed all
sleep, but we shall all be changed," Trávre* /lev oú Koiixrfir¡G¿ne9a,
•n-ávres Sé a\\ayr¡o-óiJL€6a . 5
Verse 5 4 , there is omitted, "when
this corruptible shall have put on incorruption," OTUV TO (pOaprov
TOVTO évSvGnrai á<p9apaíai>. Verse 5 5 : Ubi est mors stimulus
tuus ? for, " W h e r e is t h y victory, O grave or hell ?" nov GOV qSrj
TO VLKOS J

2 Cor. i. 1 1 : Ut ex multarum personis facierum ejus quce in

nobis donationis, per multos gratice agantur pro nobis. The
words in the Greek are, 'iva ¿K TTOXXWV irpoGwirwv TO els r¡¡xas

yápiG/xa Sid TTOXXOOV ev%apiGTn9ri virep rjuwv' that is, " t h a t the
gift conferred upon us b y many persons may b e celebrated b y
many in returning thanks on our account." Chapter vii. 8 : Non
me posnitet etsi pceniteret, instead of, " I do not repent, though I
did repent," ov /ueTa/ueXofxai, el ¡cal fj.eTe/ieX¿fír¡v. Chapter i x . 1 :
Ex abundanti est mi scribere, for, " i t is superfluous," irepiaaóv
[xoi ¿GT'Í. Chap. xii. 1 1 : Factus sum insipiens, omitting the next
word " in boasting," Kav^tófxevos.
Gal. iii. 2 4 ; Lex pcedagogus noster fuit in Christo, for " to
Christ," els ~XpiGT¿v. Chap. iv. 1 8 : Bonum cemulamini in bono
semper, for, " it is good to be zealously affected always in a g o o d
thing;" KaXov TO XrfXovoQai év tcaXcp irdvToTe. A t the end of
this chapter the words, Qua libértate Christus nos liberavit, should
be joined with the commencement of the next chapter. " In the
liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free, stand f a s t : " rfj
eXevOep'tq f\ Xptaros ^/xds r)Xev9épioae GTtjKere.
Eph. i. 2 2 , Super omnem ecclesiam, instead of, " over all
things to the church," vwep iravra TÍJ ¿KiíXrjGlq. Chap. ii. 10 :
Creati in Christo Jesu in operibus bonis, for, " to g o o d works, 671-2

[ Several M S S . read wávras for irávrcos TWOS, and Mill was disposed to
4

think it the true reading.]

[ There is here considerable difference in the M S S .
5
The Clermont
reads with the Vulgate. Lachmann's text gives návres \jj-ev] Koi¡ir¡9r¡<róneda,
ov irávres 8e aWayrjcroufda, following the Alexandrian M S . though not
exactly.]
206 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

epyols ayadcns. Chap. v. 4, Quce ad rem поп pertinent, for,

" which are not convenient:" та fxt] avrjKovTa.
Col. ii. 1 4 : Chirographum decreti, for, " contained in ordi­
nances," TO7S Soyfiaaiv.
2 Thess. ii. 1 3 : Elegit nos Dominus primitias 1
insalutem,
instead of, " from the beginning," атг apxfjg.
1 Tim. vi. 5 : It omits, " withdraw from those that are s u c h , " 2

аф1атаао атго TWV TOIOVTWV. 2 T i m . ii. 4 : Ut ei placeat, cui

se probavit, for, " that he may please him who hath chosen him
to be a soldier:" 'Iva тш crTpaTokoyiqcTavTi аресту.
Philem. 9 : Cum sis talis ut Paulus senex, instead of, " since
I am such an one as Paul the a g e d . "
Heb. i. 3 : Purgationem peccatorum faciens, omitting the
words, " b y himself," Si eavTov .3
H e b . iii. 3 : Quanto ampliorem
honorem habet domus*, for, " as he that built it hath more honour
than the house," &c. H e b . xii. 8 : Ergo adulteri 5
et поп filii
estis, for "bastards and spurious, not s o n s : " ара vodoi кате, ка\
oi>-£ v'ioi. In the same chapter, verse 18, accessibilem 6
ignem, for,
"inflamed with fire," Keicav/nevy Trvp'i.

James i. 1 9 : Scitis,fratres mei dilectissimi, instead of, " W h e r e ­

fore, m y beloved brethren," шате", a^e\<poL fxov ауатгг)то1.
1 Pet. ii. 5 : Supercedificamini domos spirituales, for, " a
spiritual house," o k o s тгиеи/латисоч. Ibid, verse 2 3 : Tradebat
autem judicanti se injuste, for, " that judgeth righteously," т<р
Kp'ivovri SiKalm. 1 Pet. iv. 1 4 , it leaves out, " on their part he is
blasphemed, but on your part he is g l o r i f i e d : " 8
ката fj.ev аитом
(i\acr(prtfxeiTai, ката $e ицач Ьо^а^етси.
2 Pet. i. 3 : Quomodo omnia nobis divina, virtutis sua;, qua,

[} The Vulgate translator seems to have read awapx^V) (which is still

exhibited by some Greek M S S . ) unless, indeed, primitias be itself a corrup­
tion of primitus.]
[ The clause is also omitted by the Alexandrian, Clermont, and other
2

ancient M S S . , and by the E thiopic and Coptic versions.]

[ They are omitted in the Alex, and Vatican M S S . , and several others.]
3

[ But domus is here in the genitive, being governed of ampliorem, to

4

correspond, barbarously enough, with the Greek construction.]

[ But adulter is used adjectively in the sense of adulterinus, by Pliny,
s

N . H. L. 33. c. 7.]
[ Here we should read " accensibilem," the translator taking кекаьрАуы
6

to agree with mip\, as ^Хофарера does with opei. See Grotius in l o c ]

[ The Alex., Vatican, and some other M S S . read t o r e . ]
7

[ It is omitted in the Alex, and some other MSS.]

s
XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 207

ad vitam et pietatem, donata sunt, for, " forasmuch as his divine

power hath given us all things that are needful for life and
godliness:". OJS iravTa y\p?iv TJJS- 8eias Swa/xews avTov TO. irpos
Xioriv KOI evaefielav SeSwprjfxevijs : verse 1 6 , indoctas fabulas se-
9

quuti, for " learned, 11

aeaotpiafxevois fxvOois e^aKoXovOqaavres, and
in the same verse, Christi virtutem et prozscientiam for, " t h e
power and presence," Svva/miv /ecu irapovcriav. 2 Pet. ii. 8 : Aspectu
enim et auditu Justus erat, habitans apud eos, qui de die in diem
animam justam iniquis operibus excruciabant; instead of, " for in
seeing and hearing that righteous man, dwelling amongst them,
vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unrighteous
deeds (iXefx/xaTi yap KOI aKorj o Slicatos, eyicaToiKwv ev auTots,
rj/xepav e]~ rjfxepas ^v^riv Sucaiav avofxois epyoi? ejHacraviCev.
1 John v. 17 : Et est peccatum ad mortem, for, " a n d there is
a sin not unto d e a t h ; " Kai CCTTIV a/xapTta ov irpos OavaTov . 10

3 John, 4. Majorem horum non habeo gratiam, for, " I have

no j o y greater than these," /xeiXoTepav TOVTWV OVK. 'e-^oo y^apav . 11

Jude, 5 : Scientes semel omnia, for, "since y e know this once,"

el^oVas a V a £ TOUTO .
12
R e v . ii. 1 4 : edere etfornicari, for, " t o eat
those things which are sacrificed to idols, and to commit whore-
dom (payelv elSooXoOura, Kal iropvevoai.
I have selected a few instances from many. W e r e I to pursue
them all, I should make a volume. But these sufficiently prove the
infinite and inveterate faultiness of the old Latin Version in the new
Testament. Erasmus, therefore, when he desired a review of the
new Testament, preferred translating it anew according to the Greek
verity to spending his pains in correcting this old Latin edition.
In like manner, Isidore Clarius of B r e s c i a 13
bemoans the wretched
and squalid plight of this edition in both Testaments, and wonders
at the negligence of learned men, who have never attempted to
remove the innumerable errors, under which he affirms it to labour,
adding that he hath himself noted and amended eight thousand
passages . 14

Such is that edition, even b y their own confession, which we

[° A couple of unimportant MSS. read here bebaprjpeva with the Vulgate.]

[ The ov is also omitted in the Ethiopia]
10

[ Some M S S . here read x°P

u
Vulgate.]
lv

[ The Alex, and other most ancient M S S . here read wavra with the Vul-
12

gate. The Syriac appears to have read navTes.]

[ In the preface to his edition of the Vulgate, Venice 1 5 4 2 . ]
13

[ Etsi ea quam diximus usi fuerimus moderatione, loca tamen ad octo

M
208 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

are now forsooth, at the pleasure of the Tridentine Fathers, c o m -

manded to receive as authentic scripture. But let them take to
themselves this old edition of theirs, while Ave, as the course to
which reason constrains us, and Augustine, Jerome, and other illus-
trious divines persuade us, and even the ancient decrees of the
Roman pontiffs themselves admonish us, return to the sacred origi-
nals of scripture.

CHAPTER XIII.

WHEREIN T H E STATE OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING VERNACULAR

VERSIONS IS EXPLAINED.

W E have now completed the first part of this second question,

wherein we have proved that the authentic scripture lies not in the
Latin version of the old translator, as the Tridentine fathers and
the Jesuits would have it, but in the H e b r e w and Greek originals.
W e have obviated the arguments of our opponents, and confirmed
our own opinion. N o w follows the second part of this question,
which hath two principal divisions. F o r we must, in the first place,
discuss vernacular versions of the scripture; and, in the second
place, the performance of divine service in the vulgar tongue.
U p o n both subjects there are controversies between us.
N o w , as to vernacular versions of scripture, w e must first of all
inquire what is the certain and fixed opinion of the papists there-
upon. Concerning vernacular versions of scripture there are at the
present day three opinions entertained b y men. T h e first, of those
who absolutely deny that the scriptures should be translated into
the vulgar tongue.
T h e second, the opposite o f the former, is the opinion o f those
who think that the holy scriptures should b y all means be translated
into the vulgar tongues of all people.
T h e third is the opinion of those who neither absolutely con-
demn, nor absolutely permit, vernacular versions of the scriptures,
but wish that in this matter certain exceptions should be made,
and regard had to times, places, and persons. This last is the

millia annotata atque emendata a nobis sunt. Of these " octo millia," Walton,
by what Hody calls " ingens memorias lapsus," has made ocloginta millia erro-
rum.—Prolog. §. 10. (T. II. p. 250. Wrangham.)]
XIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 209

opinion held b y the papists, and the judgment ratified at Trent.

T h e y do not then seem to affirm that it is simply impious or un-
lawful to translate the scriptures, or read them in the vulgar
tongue; but they do not choose that this should be done com-
monly or promiscuously b y all, or under any other conditions than
those which the council hath prescribed.
There is extant concerning this matter a decree, in the fourth
rule of the index of prohibited books published b y Pius I V . , and
approved b y the council of T r e n t ; which determination contains
four p a r t s : first, that no man may read the scriptures in the vul-
g a r tongue, unless he have obtained permission from the bishops
and inquisitors: secondly, that the bishops should consult with the
parish priest and confessor: thirdly, that the bishops themselves
must not permit every kind of vernacular versions, but only those
published b y some catholic a u t h o r : fourthly, that the reading even
of these must not be permitted to every one, but only to those
w h o , in the judgment of their curates and confessors, are likely to
receive no damage therefrom, but rather an augmentation of faith,
— t h o s e , that is, and those only, who they hope will be rendered
thereby still more perverse and obstinate. Such are the subtle
cautions of that d e c r e e ; whence it is evident that the reading of
the scriptures in the vulgar tongue is allowed to as small a number
of persons as possible. T h e y subjoin to this a reason which looks
plausible at first s i g h t ; — t h a t it hath appeared b y experience that,
if the Bible were allowed to be read b y all, without distinction,
m o r e injury than advantage would result, on account of the rash-
ness of mankind. T h e force of this argument we shall examine in
its proper place.
Our Rhemish brethren are profuse of words in praising this
decree, in the preface to their English version of the new T e s -
tament. " H o l y church," they say, " knowing b y her divine and
most sincere wisedom, how, where, when, and to whom, these her
maisters and spouses gifts are to be bestowed to the most g o o d of
the faithful; and therefore, neither generally permitteth that
which must needs doe hurt to the unworthy, nor absolutely con-
demneth that which may do much good to the w o r t h i e : " — a n d so
1

they conclude that the scriptures, although translated truly and in

accordance with the catholic faith, must not be read b y every one
who has a mind to read them, but only b y those who are specially
and b y name licensed b y their ordinaries, and whom their curates
I 1
Preface to the Reader, p. 4. Rhemes. 1582.]

)_WHITAKER.J
210 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

and confessors have testified and declared to he fit and proper

readers of the same. N o w then, y o u sufficiently perceive that all
men are excluded from the perusal of the scriptures in the vulgar
tongues, save those who shall have procured a licence to read them;
and such a licence none can procure, but those who are certainly
known, b y confession, and the whole course of their lives, to be
obstinate papists. Those, therefore, who might desire to read the
scriptures in order that they might learn from the scriptures the
true faith and-religion, these, unless they first swear an absolute
obedience to the Roman pontiff, are b y no means permitted to get
a glimpse of the sacred books of scripture. W h o does not see that
the scriptures are taken from the people, in order that they m a y
b e kept in darkness and ignorance, and that so provision may b e
made for the safety of the Roman church and the papal sovereignty,
which could never hold its ground if the people were permitted to
read the scriptures ? Wretched indeed is that religion, and
desperate that state of things, where they are compelled to with-
draw the scriptures from the eyes of men, and take off the people
from the reading of the scriptures; which is the course pursued
b y our adversaries, as is manifest from the decree of the Tridentine
council, and from the versions of the Rhemists. Such is also the
opinion of Bellarmine, Lib. 11. c. 1 5 . T o which let me subjoin the
testimony of Johannes Molanus, a divine of Louvain, and censor of
books to both the pope and the k i n g ; who hath these words, in
his b o o k of Practical Theology, Tract, HI. c. 2 7 : " Y e t we deny
that the study of the scriptures is required of them [laymen] ; yea,
we affirm that they are safely debarred the reading of the scrip-
tures, and that it is sufficient for them to govern the tenor of their
life b y the directions of the pastors and doctors of the c h u r c h ; " —
1

than which nothing could be said more shocking to common sense

and decency. Similar to this is the opinion of Hosius, in his small
piece upon divine service in the vulgar tongue, and that of the
censors of Cologne against the preface of Monhemius. Sanders
too, in the seventh b o o k of his Monorchia visibilis, says that it
is heretical to affirm that the scriptures ought necessarily to be
translated into the vulgar languages.
Such then is the determination of our adversaries. W e , on the

[} Negamus tamen ab eis requiri studium scripturarum: imo salubriter

dicimus eos a lectione Bcripturarum arceri, sufficereque eis, ut ex prcescripto
pastorum et doctorum ecclesias vitas cursum moderentur. p. 105. 2. Colon.
1585.]
XIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 211

contrary, affirm that the reading of the scriptures should be com-

mon to all men, and that none, however unlearned, should be
debarred or deterred from reading them, but rather that all should
b e stirred up to the frequent and diligent perusal of t h e m ; and
that, not only when the privilege of reading them is permitted b y
their prelates, but also although their ordinaries and confessors
should prohibit it never so much.
Accordingly we say that the scriptures should be translated
into all the languages of Christendom, that all men may b e enabled
to read them in their own tongue. This is declared b y the confes-
sion of all the churches. This is t r u e ; and this w e shall shew to be
agreeable to the scriptures. T h e state of the question, therefore,
i s , — w h e t h e r or not vernacular versions of the scriptures are to b e
set forth and permitted to all promiscuously. T h e y hold the nega^
tive, we the affirmative; and we must first examine and refute
their arguments, and then apply ourselves to the support of our
own cause. Our attention shall be principally directed to our
Jesuit Bellarmine.

CHAPTER XIV.

WHEREIN THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR ADVERSARIES AGAINST

VERNACULAR VERSIONS ARE REFUTED.

T H E first argument of the Jesuit, whereby he proves vernacu-

lar versions b y no means necessary, is drawn from the practice of
the church under the old Testament, from the time of Ezra until
Christ. He affirms, that from the times of Ezra the Hebrew
language ceased to be the vulgar tongue amongst the people of
G o d , and y e t that the scriptures were in the church in H e b r e w
after those times. But h o w does he prove that the Hebrew
language was then unknown to the p e o p l e ? Because, says he,
the Jews who dwelt in Babylon forgot their own language, and
learned the Chaldee, and thenceforward the Chaldee or Syriac
became their mother tongue. I t remains that we listen to the tes-
timonies b y which all these statements are substantiated.
T h e first is taken from the old Testament, Nehem. viii.: where
we read that Nehemiah, and Ezra, and the Levites read the b o o k
14—2
212 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

of the law to the people, and gave the interpretation, because the
people understood nothing of what was read to t h e m ; but upon
Ezra's supplying the interpretation the people were greatly rejoiced,
because they then understood the words of the law.
I answer, in the first place, that the Jesuit hath grossly abused
that place in Nehemiah. F o r it is clear from the passage itself,
that the people did understand correctly enough the words which
were read to t h e m ; whence it follows that the language was not
unknown to them. A t verse 3, Ezra is said to have brought the
book of the law, and to have read in the presence of a multitude o f
men and women, and as many as were capable of understanding,
that is, who were old enough to understand anything, or, as the
Hebrew expression is, who heard intelligently . 1
Therefore they
not only heard, but heard intelligently, that is, understood what
they heard. Hence, in verse 4, Ezra is said to have read before
the men and women, and those who understood; and the people to
have had their ears attentive to the book of the law. Now, why
should the people have listened so attentively, if they did not un-
derstand what they heard ? In the same place, Ezra is related to
have read out of the book from morning until e v e n i n g ; and, in
verse 1 9 , every day for seven days, from the first day until the
last. Assuredly, he would not have taken so much trouble in read-
ing, unless he had auditors who could understand h i m ; and it was
certainly very far from a prophet's wisdom to assemble a multitude
of persons, then come forth into the midst of them, open the b o o k ,
and read so earnestly, and for the space of so many hours, what
the people could not at all understand. Besides, what was the rea-
son of his reading (v. 9 ) plainly,
2
as Tremellius, or distinctly, as
the old translator renders it, but that, b y that plain reading of the
scripture, the whole people might the better understand what was
being read to them ? F o r it is no matter whether y o u read well
or ill to those who understand nothing of what is read.
But Bellarmine objects that great j o y was excited in the p e o -
ple, when b y Ezra's interpretation they came to understand the
words of the law. W h a t a subtle Jesuit! H e feigns that Ezra
first read to the people words which they did not uuderstand, and
afterwards rendered or translated them into other words, and that
language with which the people were acquainted; which is alto-

[ 2
ver. 8. in the Hebrew. The word is ttTJSD.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 213

gether absurd. F o r Ezra read the words of the law openly and
publicly from a pulpit, and continued that reading through the
space of some hours, then expounded the scripture which had been
read, and opened up the sense and meaning of the words to the
people. F o r so at verse 9, the Levites are said " t o have ex-
pounded the sense, and given the meaning b y the scripture itself,"
as Tremellius hath most correctly interpreted the passage. Vata-
blus hath translated it thus, " explaining the sense, and teaching
as they r e a d ; " 3
which is not very different. A n d the old trans-
lator thus, " Plainly that it might be understood; and they under-
stood when it was r e a d ; " which sufficiently proves that the people
4

understood what was read to them. Ezra was therefore said to b e

skilful in the law, not because he could read and understand the
words and text of the law, but because he explained the sense and
meaning of the law, so as to enable the people to understand it.
A n d hence sprang that gladness, which the scripture tells us that
the people felt when they heard the law expounded by Ezra.
T h e thing is plain and certain, nor do we need the aid of com-
mentaries.
T h e other testimony which the Jesuit uses in this matter, to
prove that H e b r e w was not the vulgar tongue of the Jews after
Ezra, is drawn from the new Testament, from which it appears
that the people used the Syriac language. For Talitha cumi,
Mark v., Abba, Mark xiv., Aceldama, Acts i., and Matth xxvii.
Golgotha and Pascha, are neither Greek nor Hebrew. More ex-
amples are given b y Jerome in his b o o k , de Nominib. H e b r . The
same fact is indicated b y the saying, John vii., " T h i s multitude
which knoweth not the law." Hence it is manifest that the H e b r e w
was not at that time the mother tongue of the Jews.
I answer, in the first place, that this may, to some extent, be
allowed true, but that, in the sense in which Bellarmine affirms it,
it is altogether false. I acknowledge that the language was not
pure Hebrew, but corrupted with many alien and foreign terms, so
as to become, as it were, a new dialect compounded of Hebrew and
Chaldee. Y e t , in the meanwhile, the people had not forgotten the
H e b r e w language, neither immediately after the captivity, nor in
the succeeding times. F o r , Nehem. xiii., certain Jews are said
to have married wives of Ashdod, whose children spake in the
language of Ashdod, and not in Hebrew. T h e people in general

[ s
Explicantes sententiam et eradientes inter legendum.]
[ 4
Aperte ad intelligendum; et intellexerunt cum legeretur.]
214 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

therefore spoke Hebrew. Indeed it is impossible that, in the space

of seventy or even one hundred years, the people should so wholly
lose their native language as not even to understand it. If this
had been the case, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,—prophets
who lived after the r e t u r n — w o u l d not have published their dis-
courses in Hebrew, but in the vulgar tongue. It is, therefore,
absolutely certain, that the Jews understood Hebrew after the times
of Ezra.
Secondly, as to the terms which are not pure H e b r e w in the
new Testament, the thing proved comes merely to what I have
observed already, that the language of the people had, at that
time, greatly degenerated from its native i n t e g r i t y ; y e t not to
such a degree as would be inconsistent with supposing that H e b r e w
was spoken b y the better educated, and understood b y a l l ; so as
that the scriptures, when publicly read in Hebrew, might be
understood b y the people. Christ, therefore, John v. 3 9 , bids
even the laity " search the scriptures." Greek they did not
understand; and the Chaldee paraphrase was not then published,
or, if published, was unintelligible to them. It was the Hebrew
scriptures, therefore, which Christ commanded them to r e a d ; which
command he never would have issued, if the people could not
understand the scriptures in the H e b r e w language. The Jews
of Berea, also, of whom we have an account, Acts xvii. 1 1 , searched
the scriptures diligently. So Christ read the prophet Isaiah in
the synagogue, as we find in L u k e iv. 1 8 ; and no one doubts
that he read it in H e b r e w . So Acts xv. 2 1 , James says, that
" Moses of old times hath in every city them that preach him,
being read in the synagogues every sabbath-day." W h e n c e also
it is plain, that dvayivooaiceiv and Krtpvaaeiv are different things.
A n d , Acts xiii. 1 5 , "after the reading of the law and the prophets,"
Paul was desired to address the people if it seemed fit to him.
W h a t end could it serve to read the scriptures so diligently in the
synagogues, and that the people should assemble every sabbath-day
to hear them read, if they were read in an unknown language ?
T h e title which Pilate affixed to the cross was inscribed with
H e b r e w words, and many of the Jews read it, John xix. 2 0 . And
Paul, Acts xxvi. 1 4 , says that he heard Christ speaking to him " in
the H e b r e w tongue." H e himself also addressed the people in the
H e b r e w tongue, Acts xxi. 4 0 . A n d (chap. xxii. at the commence-
ment) when they heard him speaking to them in the Hebrew
tongue, they kept the rather quiet, and rendered him still greater
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 215

attention. Theophylact observes upon that place, opq.% wws avrous

elXe TO opoiocpcovou; el^ov yap Tiva alS(d Trpos T J ) V yXwTTav
eKelvrjv ,
1
as much as to say, that they were caught b y perceiving
his language to be the same as their own, and b y a certain reve-
rence which they entertained for that tongue. I produce these
testimonies not to prove this language to have been pure H e b r e w ;
but to shew that it was not altogether different from the Hebrew,
since it is called H e b r e w , and was understood b y the people. N o w
it could not be called H e b r e w , if those who used it were not even
able to understand Hebrew. Although, therefore, it was full of
foreign mixtures, which the people had brought with them from
Babylon, or contracted from the neighbouring nations; y e t it r e -
tained a great deal of its native genius, enough to enable the
people, though they could not speak Hebrew as purely as in
former times, to recognise and understand the scriptures when read
to them in Hebrew. The difference is not so great as to prevent
this. F o r , although the dialect of the Scots and English, nay, of
the southern and northern English themselves, is not the s a m e ; y e t
the Scots read the English version of the scriptures in their
churches, and the people understand it. Thus the Jews, though
they did not speak pure Hebrew, as the Scots do not speak pure
English, could y e t understand the scriptures when read to them
in Hebrew b y their priests and Levites. Thus the bystanders
could sufficiently understand Peter, although they knew him to be
a Galilean b y his manner of speaking. Matth. xxvi. 7 3 . Formerly
the Greek language had various dialects, the Ionic, the D o r i c , and
the r e s t ; y e t all Greeks were able to understand each other.
Thirdly, the Jesuit hath shamefully perverted the testimony
from John vii. 4 9 : " This multitude which knoweth not the l a w . "
F o r the saying is to be understood not of the language, words, and
letters, but of the sense and meaning of the law. T h e Pharisees arro-
gated to themselves a most exact knowledge of the law, and, puffed
up with that conceit, thus proudly despised the common people.
N o w as to the assumption, that the scriptures were at that
time read in Hebrew in the synagogues, I acknowledge it to be
true. W h y should they not have been read in H e b r e w , when the
people understood them in that language ? Bellarmine ought to
have proved that the people could not understand the Hebrew
l a n g u a g e ; and then he would have done something to the purpose.
But there are no proofs to demonstrate that assertion, which hath
P Opp. T. in. p. 160. Vcnet. 1758.]
216 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

been already refuted b y many arguments. F o r as to the objection

urged in the epitome of Bellarmine's lectures,—that when Christ
exclaimed, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, some said that he called for
Elias, because they did not understand the language in which he
spoke,—I reply, that it may be either that they mocked him
maliciously, or had not perfectly heard the words, or were soldiers
who were generally foreigners and R o m a n s ; which latter sup-
position is rendered probable b y the circumstance that, whereas
L u k e tells us that " the soldiers gave him vinegar to drink," chap,
xxiii. 3 6 ; Matthew writes, that one of those who said this hastily
filled a sponge with vinegar, and presented it to Christ, chap, xxvii.
48. Jerome explains it otherwise, supposing that the Jews, in
their usual manner, seized upon the occasion of maligning the L o r d ,
as if he implored the assistance of Elias through inability to defend
and deliver himself. Nothing, therefore, can be elicited from this
passage, to prove that the people did not understand the H e b r e w
language.
T h e second argument is taken from the example and practice
of the apostles. F o r the apostles preached the gospel through the
whole world, and founded churches, as is plain from R o m . x., Col. i.,
Mark xvi., Irenaaus, L i b . i. c. 3 , 1
who says, that in his time
churches were founded in the East, in L i b y a , in E g y p t , in Spain,
in Germany, in G a u l ; and y e t the apostles did not write the
gospels or their epistles in the languages of those people to which
they preached, but only in Hebrew or Greek. This argument is
borrowed by Bellarmine from Sanders, de visibil. Monarch.
L i b . vii.
I answer, in the first p l a c e : the church could for some time do
without vernacular versions, just as for some time it could do
without the scriptures of the new Testament; for everything was
not immediately committed to writing. Meanwhile, however, the
principal heads of the doctrine of the gospel were explained to all,
and set forth in that language which they understood; and then
all necessary matters were committed to writing.
Secondly, I confess the apostles and evangelists did not write
the gospel in as many various languages as they preached it in, b y
word of mouth; for that would have been an infinite l a b o u r : it was
enough that they left this doctrine of the gospel written in one

[ } Ofire ai iv Teppaviais íSpvpévat exicX^criat ovre iv rats 'ifirjpiais,

ovre iv Kekrois, ovre Kara ras ávaroXas, ovre iv Alyinra, OVTC iv At^iirj.
p. 52, B.]
XIV.] QUESTION T H E SECOND. 217

language, from wh i ch i t mi ght easi ly be drawn and deri ved i nto all
other tongues.
Thirdly, they wrote i n that language whi ch was the most
common, and understood b y the greatest number of people, and out
of whi ch the scri ptures mi ght wi th most faci li ty be rendered and
translated into other tongues,—that i s, in the G r e e k ; whi ch, although
it was not the mother tongue and nati ve language of all, y e t was to
most b y no means an unknown tongue. F o r all those nati ons, whom
Irenaeus enumerates i n that book, ei ther spoke or understood Greek.
T h e Ori ental churches were composed of G r e e k s ; and that the
Egyptians understood Greek, i s mani fest from thei r bi shops and
doctors, Ori gen, Alexander, Athanasi us, Theophi lus, Cyri l, who
were Alexandri ans, and publi shed all thei r works i n Greek. Ei
p -
phanius had hi s see i n Cyprus, and deli vered hi s i nstructi ons to hi s
people i n Greek. A t Jerusalem Cyri l and others i mparted the
gospel to thei r flock i n Greek, and the Catecheti cal Di scourses of
Cyril wri tten i n Greek are sti ll extant. In Gaul, Irenasus hi mself
wrote hi s books i n G r e e k ; whi ch shews that the Greek language
was not unknown to the Lyonnese and Gauls. In Italy too Greek
was understood, and therefore Paul wrote hi s Epi stle to the Romans
in that l a n g u a g e : for he would not have wri tten i t i n Greek, i f
those to whom he wrote could not have understood i t. A n d Irenasus,
cited b y Eusebi us, Li b. v. c. 2 4 , testi fi es that Ani cetus the bi shop
of R o m e gave Polycarp li berty " t o admi ni ster the euchari st i n hi s
c h u r c h ; " wh i ch he would not have done, i f the Romans could not
2

understand Polycarp who was a Grec i an. But, however the case
may have been, there were persons who could readi ly i nterpret, and
the scri ptures were i mmedi ately translated i nto almost all languages,
into Lati n, at least, b y many hands, si nce Augusti ne, as we have
already heard, wri tes, that, i n hi s ti me there were i nnumerable
Latin versi ons. A n d although a knowledge of Greek was not so
common i n Afri ca, y e t they had vers i ons of thei r own, as w o learn

[2
Kai cV Tjj eKKkijcria тгарехсорустеи 6 AVIKTJTOS TT)V eixapio-Tiav тш ПоЛи-
картгсо кат ivTpoTTrfV 817X01/014.—H. E. Lib . V. c. 24. (Tom. II. p. 128. ed.
Heinich. Lipsice, 1828.) Valesius understands these words in the same sense
as Whitaker. But Le Moyne, Prolegom. in Var. S. p. 28, and Heinichen in
loc. contend, that Irenaeus only meant to say that Anicetus gave the Eucharist
to Polycarp. However the word тгарехсоруа-е seems in favour of Whitaker's
construction. Lowth compares Constitut. Apostol. n. 68, iniTptyets 8' аЬ тш
(that is, a foreign b ishop visiting another b ishop's see) ка\ тгр> eixapicrriai/
cuioicrtu.']
218 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

from Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine, within 4 0 0 , or 3 0 0 , or 2 0 0 ,

years after Christ.
But Bellarmine objects, that Peter wrote to the Jews in Greek,
and that James did the s a m e ; and John, in like manner, his Epistle
to the Parthians, as Augustine tells u s , Qusest. Evangel. 1. n. qussst.
1

3 9 , and Hyginus in Epist. i., and P o p e John I I . in his Epistle to

V a l e r i u s : and y e t Greek was the mother tongue, neither of the Jews
nor of the Parthians.
I answer, in the first place, that I cannot see what this is meant
to prove, unless it be that the apostles deliberately wrote to some
persons what they could not possibly understand; which is a course
v e r y abhorrent from the apostles' real purpose.
Secondly, the Jews in their dispersion had learned the Greek
language, which was then the language most commonly used b y all
men, sufficiently to understand the epistles which they received
written in Greek from the apostles. A n d the apostles knew that
those letters would be still more profitable to others than to the
Jews, and therefore wrote them not in the Jewish but in the Greek
language.
Thirdly, I do not think that John wrote his Epistle to the
Parthians. W h e n c e Augustine derived this account, is uncertain . 2

One might just as well pretend that he wrote to the Indians as to

the Parthians. But suppose he did write to these latter,—still the
Parthians do not seem to have been wholly unacquainted with Greek,
since Plutarch, in his life of Crassus, tells us that the slaughtered
Crassus was mocked b y the Parthians in Greek verses . 3

P Secundum sententiam hanc etiam illud dictum est a Johanne in Epis-

tola ad Parthos: 'Dilectissimi, nunc ftlii Dei sumus,' &c.—Opp. T. in. p. 2.]
P " How Augustine and some Latins call this Epistle ad Parthos, we may
explain in the following manner. The Second Epistle of John was called by
the ancients Epistola ad Virgines, and consequently in Greek, rrpbs rrapQivovs.
Clemens expresses himself thus in the Adumbrations: Secunda Johannis
Epistola, qyue ad Virgines scripta est, simplicissima est Tom. n. Op. Clem.
Alex. p. 10. 11. edit. Venet. W e find in Greek M S S . the subscription rrpbs
rrapdovs, in the second Epistle; whence Whiston's conjecture in the " Com-
mentary on the three catholic Epistles of St John," London, 1719, p. 6, that
rrapdovs was an abbreviation of rrapBevovs, is confirmed."—Hug. Introd. to
N . T. Waits' transl. Vol. II. p. 255. Dr Wait, in a note, gives ^.rpapara as
the proper Greek title of the Adumbrations, but this is a mistake. The
book meant is the 'YirorvTrdo-us, from which these Latin collections were
made by Cassiodorus.]
[ 3
qbopivav Se ray c<jbe£!js apoifialuv rrpos rbv x°P° >
v
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 219

But to all objections of this sort one answer is sufficient,—that

the apostles chose to use one language for writing, which was the
best known of all, in order that what they wrote might with the
greater facility be understood b y a l l ; which design of theirs is most
plainly repugnant to the theory of the papists. A n d although all
might not understand that language, y e t the apostolic scripture
might with the utmost ease and convenience be translated out of it,
and transmitted to the tongues of other nations and countries. N o r
was it to be expected that the apostles should write to each people
in the mother tongue of every several region.
T h e third argument is drawn from the use of the universal
c h u r c h ; and the conclusion is inferred thus : that which the universal
church hath held and observed is r i g h t : now, the universal church
hath ever confined itself to these three languages, Hebrew, Greek,
and Latin, in the common and public use of the scriptures; there-
fore no other versions are necessary. H e proves the major b y the
testimony of Augustine, Epist. 1 1 8 ' , where he says that it i s a piece of
the wildest insolence to dispute against that which is practised b y the
universal church. And the same father, in his fourth book of Baptism
against the Donatists, lays it down, that whatever is practised in the
universal church, if its beginning cannot be assigned, should be b e -
lieved to descend from apostolic tradition, and to have been always
as it is n o w . T o the same purpose he adduces also the testimony of
Leo from his second discourse De Jejunio Pentecostés. H e subjoins
that now, wherever catholics are, use is made only of the Greek
and Latin languages in the public reading of the scriptures, and
that the commencement of this custom cannot be assigned.
I answer, in the first place, that this is not the proper time for
disputing concerning ecclesiastical traditions and customs. W e shall,
if the L o r d permit, handle that whole question hereafter in its a p -
propriate place.
Secondly, we should consider, not so much what hath been done
or observed in the Church, as what ought to have been done and
observed. F o r it does not follow, if the public use of the Latin

T'LS ¿(pópfvo-ev;
ifibv TO yépas.
Plut. Opp. T. I. 565, A. Francof. 1620.
The lines in which Crassus was so barbarously ridiculed were taken from the
Bacchse of Euripides, and Plutarch tells us that both Hyrodes and Artavasdes
were familiar with the Greek literature.]
E Ep. 54. p. 164. Opp. T. II. Bassan. 1797.]
1
220 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

tongue exclusively hath obtained in Italy, Spain, France, Germany,

and the rest of these nations, that therefore such a practice is in
no way open to reprehension; but what we must look to is, whe-
ther these churches have done right in publicly reading the scrip~
tures in an unknown tongue. A n d if the church have forbidden the
scriptures to be read in any tongue but the Latin, we must not
therefore think that the church hath committed no error in such
an inhibition.
Thirdly, that is altogether false which he asserts of this having
been the unbroken custom and tradition of the universal church,
as shall presently appear. Wherefore these opinions of Augustine
and Leo are irrelevant to the present subject, and we seem able
to concede that whatever the universal church hath always held
is apostolic: but nothing which can justly claim that character is
popish.
T h e whole force of this argument depends upon the proof of the
assumption; for which many things are adduced, which we must
discuss severally. N o r must y o u think that time is spent in vain
upon t h e s e ; since they are necessary for the refutation of our a d -
versaries.
N o w , first, Augustine is said to affirm, D o c t r . Christ. Lib. n.
c. 1 1 , that the scripture was wont to to b e read in the church
only in three languages, the H e b r e w , Greek, and Latin. But, if
y o u will consult the place itself, y o u will perceive that nothing of
the kind is said b y Augustine. W h a t Augustine says i s , that
1

to persons whose language is the Latin, the knowledge of two

other tongues is needful, namely, of the H e b r e w and the G r e e k :
he subjoins as the reason, " in order that they may be able to recur
to the previous exemplars,"—that is, the originals. Does it follow
that, because the Latins ought to procure for themselves some
knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek tongues in order that they
m a y the better understand the sense of scripture, therefore the
scriptures were not customarily read in any but these three lan-
guages ? F o r it is to the Latins that Augustine delivers these p r e -
cepts : he says expressly, " men of the Latin language, whom w e
have now undertaken to instruct." Hence nothing can be concluded
against us, but something may be concluded against them. F o r , if

[ Et Latince quidem linguse homines, quos nunc instruendos suscepimus,

x

duabus aliis ad scripturarum divinarum cognitionem opus habent, Hebrsea

scilicet et Graeca, ut ad exemplaria prrecedentia recurratur, si quam dubi-
tationem attulerit Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 221

the Latins ought to learn the H e b r e w and Greek languages, to

enable them to understand the scriptures aright, and to square
their versions b y the rule of the originals; it follows that more
deference should be given to the Hebrew and Greek editions than
to the Latin, and consequently, that the Latin is not, as they would
have it, authentic.
A s to the statement which the Jesuit subjoins, that no ancient
author hath mentioned any other version, I am amazed that he
should have brought himself to make such an assertion. For
Jerome, whom they make the author of the Latin Vulgate, trans-
lated the scriptures into the Dalmatian, which was his mother
tongue . This is so certain that Hosius, in his book de Sacro Ver-
2

nacule Legendo, writes t h u s : " It is undoubted that Jerome

translated the sacred books into Dalmatian ." A n d in the same 3

book he praises the Dalmatian language, and declares it to b e

very famous. So Alphonsus de Castro, Lib. i. c. 1 3 ; " W e con-
fess that the sacred books were formerly translated into the vulgar
t o n g u e : " and he cites Erasmus, who writes that Jerome translated
4

the scriptures into the Dalmatian language. Harding, A r t . i n .

sect. 3 8 , writes that t h e Armenians, Russians, Ethiopians, Dalma-
5

tians and Muscovites read the scriptures in their own vernacular

tongues. Eckius makes the same confession, in his Enchiridion
de Missis Latine Dicendis . Cornelius Agrippa, in his book of the
6

Vanity of the Sciences (if that author deserve any credit), says
that it was decreed b y the council of Nice, that no Christian should
b e without a bible in his house . Socrates too testifies, that Ulphi-
7

lus, a bishop of the Goths, who was present at the council of Nice,
translated the scriptures into the Gothic language, in order that the
people might learn them. His words are, Lib. iv. c. 3 8 : " Having 8

[ 2
This is now universally allowed to be a mistake. It is exposed by
Hody, Lib. in. pars n. c. 2. § 8. p. 362.]
[3 Dalmatica lingua sacros libros Hieronymum vertisse constat.—Opp.
Col. 1584. T. i. p. 664.]
[ 4
Fatemur . . . olim sacros libros in linguam vulgarem fuisse translatos.
— C o l . 1539. fol. 28. 2.]
[ s
See Jewel, Controversy with Harding, Vol. I. Parker Soc. edit. p.
334.]
[ 6
I cannot find this admission in c. 34. of the Enchiridion, 1. c. 1534.]
[ 7
Et Nicena Synodus decretis suis cavit ne quis e numero Christianorum
sacris Bibliorum libris careret.—cap. 100. ad fin.]
[8 as T Betas ypa<pas els rtjv TOTBCOV pera^aXav, TOIIS jiapfiapovs fiavBaveiu
ra Beta \oyia irapeo-Keiacrev.—p. 206. ed. Vales. Par. 1686,]
222 T H E FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

translated the divine scriptures into the Gothic language, he p r e -

pared the barbarians to learn the oracles of G o d . " And Sixtus
Senensis, Bibliothec. L i b . VIII., says that Chrysostom translated
the scriptures into the Armenian language . 1
Jerome, too, in his
Epitaph upon Paula, affirms that the Psalms were chanted b y
the Christians of Palestine at P a u l a ' s 2
funeral, in the Hebrew,
Greek, Latin and Syriac, t o n g u e s ; and that not only for three
days, whilst she was a-burying beneath the church, beside the
Lord's cave, but during the whole week. It is manifest, therefore,
that the Psalms were translated into Syriac. Stapleton, however,
in his English b o o k against bishop Jewel, of sacred memory, Art.
HI., says that these were extraordinary hymns, and not the Psalms
of D a v i d ; which figment rests upon no proof, and offends even
other papists: for Jerome plainly speaks of the Psalms, when he
says, " they chanted them out in order." Our Jesuit, therefore,
pronounces the place c o r r u p t ; pretending that some of the books
do not exhibit the word " Hebraeo," and that the Syriac is here
used for the Hebrew.
Thus do they turn themselves in every direction to escape that
light. This was the ingenious conjecture of Marianus Victorius,
who hath done noble service in corrupting Jerome. But, in the
first place, Erasmus, who laboured quite as diligently, and far more
faithfully than Victorius, as editor of Jerome, and who had seen as
many copies as he, could discover nothing of the kind in that
place. Furthermore, if the Syriac language here meant the
Hebrew, it ought certainly to have been enumerated in the first
place : for when authors, and especially Jerome, enumerate lan-
guages, the H e b r e w is usually allowed the first place.
But to proceed. In our own histories we read that the scrip-
tures were translated into the British language, b y order of king
Athelstan, nine hundred years ago. A n d John of Trevisa writes,
that our countryman B e d e translated the gospel of John into
English, L i b . v. c. 2 4 ; and that the Psalms were translated by
order of Alfred, L i b . vi. c. 1. A n d Bede tells us, L i b . i. c. 1,
that, in his time, the scriptures were read in five British languages.
His words in that passage are as follows : " This island at present,
according to the number of the books wherein the divine law was

[i See Hug. Introd. to N . T. §. 86.]

[ Tota ad funus ejus Patestinarum urbium turba convenit. . . . Hebraeo,
2

Gra;co, Latino, Syroque sermone, Psalmi in ordine personabant.—Epist.

xxxvi. T. iv. part. II. 687, 8.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 223

written, searches and confesses one and the same knowledge of thé
sublimest truth and truest sublimity in the languages of five people,
that is, of the English, the Britons, the Scots, the Picts, and the
Latins ; which b y meditation of the scripture hath become common
to a l l . " It is therefore manifest, that the statement that there are
3

no vernacular version mentioned b y any ancient author is emi-

nently and most plainly false.
But the Jesuit goes on to mention particular churches ; and
first he discourses thus concerning the African church. All the
Africans did not understand Latin. B u t the scriptures were in
Africa read only in Latin. N o w , that the Latin was not the vulgar
tongue of all the Carthaginians, we have the testimony of Augustine,
in the beginning of his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans; who
affirms that some of the Carthaginians understood both Latin and
Punic, some Punic only, and that almost all the rustics were of this
latter class. Also, Serm. 35. de Verbis Domini, he says that the
Punic language is a-kin to the H e b r e w . A n d Jerome, in the
4

Preface to his Second b o o k upon the Epistle to the Galatians , s

writes that the language of the Africans is the same as the Phoeni-
cian, with only a little alteration.
I answer, in the first place : N o one says that the Punic lan-
guage was the same as the Latin. The contrary may be seen even
from the Pœnulus of Plautus ; nor did any one ever entertain a
6

doubt upon that subject. However it is quite uncertain whether

there were any Punic version of the scriptures. H o w will our
adversaries prove that there was none, b y the testimony of Augus-
tine or of any other writer ? Augustine no where denies it ; and
although no monuments of such a thing be now extant, y e t it does
not follow thence that there was no version. F o r in old times the
scriptures were translated into our own tongue, and y e t scarcely any
traces of those versions are now apparent. There were certainly
pious bishops in all those parts of Africa, Numidia, Mauritania, who
cherished a tender solicitude for the salvation of their people. It

[ Hœc insula in prassenti, juxta numerum librorum, quibus lex divina

3

scripta est, quinque gentium Unguis unam eandemque summas veritatis et

vera? sublimitatis scientiam scrutatur et confitetur, Anglorum videlicet, Brito-
num, Scotorum, Pictorum et Latinorum, quœ meditatione scripturarum omni-
bus est facta communis.—Opp. T. i. p. 9. ed. Stevens. Lond. 1841.]
[ 4
Serm. cxiii. 2. Tom. v. col. 568. Opp. Par. 1679. 1700.]
[ Quum et A M Phœnicum linguam non nulla ex parte mutaverint.—
5

T. IV. 255, 6.]

[6 Plauti Pasnulus. V . I. & c ]
224 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

seems incredible that there should have been no one found amongst
them to do that for the Carthaginians, 'which we read that Jerome
did for the Dalmatians,—translate the scriptures into the language
of the people.
Secondly, in the more frequented and civilized places, and con-
siderable cities, the Africans understood Latin, and could speak i t ;
so that we are not to wonder that the scriptures were read in Latin
at Carthage, as appears from C y p r i a n ; at Milevi, as we find from
Optatus; at Hippo, as appears from Augustine. F o r these fathers
read and expounded the scriptures in Latin in their churches: nor
would they have used the Latin tongue in their homilies and
harangues, if the people could not have understood that language.
Augustine upon Psalm xviii. hath these w o r d s : " Most dearly b e -
loved, that which we have sung with harmonious voice, we ought
also to know and hold in an unclouded b r e a s t . " 1
In his book de
Catechiz. Rudibus, cap. 9 , he warns the people not to ridicule their
2

pastors, if they shall happen to express themselves ungrammatically

in their prayers and sermons. W h e n c e it is plain that some of the
common people were often better skilled in Latin than the ministers
themselves. In his Retractations, L i b . i. c. 2 0 , he says that he had
composed a certain Psalm in Latin letters against the Donatists,
with the express object that it should reach the knowledge of the
v e r y lowest of the people, the unskilful and illiterate . 3
I n his
Serm. 2 4 , de Verbis Apost. he speaks thus: " T h e Punic proverb is
well known, which I will tell y o u in Latin, because all of you do not
understand P u n i c . "
4
Therefore the common people understood Latin
better than Punic. U p o n Psalm 1.: " W e all k n o w , " says he, " t h a t
in Latin one cannot say sanguines, or sanguina, but sanguinem, ."
6

A n d when he addressed the people, he was much more careful to be

intelligible, than to express himself with purity. So on Psalm cxxviii. : 6

[! Carissimi, quod consona voce cantavimus, sereno etiam corde nosse et

tenere [ac videre] dcbemus.—T. iv. 81, 2.]
[2 § 13. Tom. VI. col. 2 7 2 ]
[ Tom. i. col. 31. Volens etiam causam Donatistarum ad ipsius humil-
3

limi vulgi et omnino imperitorum atque idiotarum notitiam pervenire . . . .

psalmum, qui eis cantavetur, per Latinas literas feci.]
[4 Proverbium notum est Punicum: quod quidem Latine vobis dicam,
quia Punice non omnes nostis.—T. v. 804. (Serm. clxvii. 4.)]
[5 Omnes novimus Latine non dici sanguines nec sanguina, sedsanguinem.
^ - T . iv. 472.]
[° Ego dicam ossum: sic cnim potius loquamur: melius est ut nos repre-
liendant giammalici, quam non intelligant populi—T. iv. col. 1545.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 225

" I will say ossum: for so we should rather speak. It is better

that the grammarians should blame, than that the people should
not understand us." A n d upon John, Tract. 7, " Lend me your
kind attention. It is dolus, not dolor. I mention this because
many brethren, who are not v e r y skilful in the Latin tongue, are in
the habit of using such phrases as, Dolus ilium torquet, when they
mean what is denoted by Dolor ." 7
A n d Augustine, Confess. L i b . i.
c. 1 4 , says that he learned the Latin language, "amidst the
caresses of the nursery, the jokes of those that laughed, and the
smiles of those that played with h i m . " 8
N o w Augustine was born
and bred at Tagasta, in Africa, as appears from the Confessions,
Lib. iv. c. 7. F r o m these circumstances it is clear that the people
of Africa, especially in the cities and more populous places, not only
understood Latin, but could speak it too, although perhaps not
always with that purity which an exact Latinity would have r e -
quired.
T h e Jesuit goes on to enumerate the Spanish, English, French,
German, and Italian churches ; with respect to which it is not
necessary that I should answer him upon each case severally. I
am aware that, in these later times, the people were plunged in the
densest darkness, and that even in the centre of Italy and R o m e
every thing was read in a foreign language. But before this i g n o -
rance and antichristian tyranny, in the older and purer times of
the church, I affirm that the scriptures were never, in any country,
read publicly to the people in any other language but that which
the people understood. Our adversary will never be able to p r o v e
the contrary. T h e Latin tongue certainly of old prevailed widely
in the western part of the world, so that the scriptures may have
been read in Latin in those countries which Bellarmine mentions,
and yet have been understood by the people. Augustine tells us,
in his City of God, Lib. x i x . c. 7, " Care was taken that the im-
perial city should impose not only her y o k e , but her language also,
upon the vanquished nations ." Plutarch, in his Platonic Questions ,
9 10

[ Intendat caritas vestra; dolus, non dolor est. Hoc propterea dico quia
7

multi fratres imperitiores Latinitatis loquuntur sic ut dicant, Dolus ilium tor-
quet, pro eo quod est Dolor.—T. ni. P. n. 349.]
[ Inter blandimenta nutricum, et joca arridentium, et lsetitias alluden-
8

tium.]
[ Data opera est ut civitas imperiosa non solum jugum, verum etiam
9

linguam suam, domitis gentibus imponeret.]

[10
as 8 O K « ¡101 nep\ Papaimv \eyeiv, wv pev \oya> vvv opov TI Trayres av-
SpioTroi xpavrat.—p. 1010. c. T. il. Opp. Francofurt. 1620.]

r 1 1 5

I WHITAKER.J
226 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

affirms that almost all men use the Latin language. And Strabo
says this expressly of the Gauls and Spaniards. Besides, there
may have been versions of the scriptures in those churches, which
are unknown, and unheard of, b y us. It is quite certain that the
reading of the scriptures was everywhere understood in those
churches. Isidore, in his book D e Offic. Eccles. c. 1 0 , writes thus
of the Spanish and all other churches: " It behoves that when the
Psalms are sung, all should s i n g ; and when the prayers are said,
they should be said b y a l l ; and that when the lesson is read, silence
should be kept that it may be heard equally b y a l l . " 1
W h e r e the
language is a strange one, men can neither sing together, nor pray
together, nor hear anything t o g e t h e r : for not to understand what
another reads or says, comes to the same thing as not to hear it.
It is therefore sufficiently evident from Isidore, that in Spain the
Latin language was known to those who used it in the reading of
the scriptures. And this is likewise manifest of Gaul. F o r Sulpi-
tius Severus, in his Life of Martin, informs us, that, when the
people had assembled to choose Martin bishop, upon the reader not
appearing, one of the by-standers seized the book, and read the
eighth P s a l m ; at the reading of which a general shout was raised
b y the people, and the opposite party were reduced to silence . 2

F r o m this testimony we collect that the people understood very well

what was read to them ; for otherwise no occasion would have been
afforded them of raising this acclamation. Whence it follows, either
that this people were not unacquainted with the Latin tongue, or
that there was then extant some vernacular version of the scripture.
N o w then we have sufficiently answered this argument; but there
will be something to be answered again in the other part upon this
subject.
The fourth argument is drawn from the reason of the thing
itself. It is requisite that the public use of scripture should be in
some language most common to all men, for the sake of preserving
the unity of the church, But at present there is no language
more common than the Latin. H e proves the major b y the con-
sideration that otherwise the communion between churches would be
destroyed, and it would be impossible that general councils should
be celebrated; for all the fathers have not the gift of tongues.

[' Oportet ut quando psallitur, ab omnibus psallntur: et cum oratur, ut

orctur ab omnibus; quando lectio legitur, ut facto silentio a?que audiatur a
cunctis.—Isid. Opp. Col. Agripp. 1617, p. 393.]
[ 2
Sulpitii Scvcri. Opp. Amstel. 1665, p. 452.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 227

I a n s w e r : All the parts of this argument are weak. For, in

the first place, it is false that no language is more common than
the Latin, even in the "West. In truth there is hardly any less
common. F o r at the present day none understand Latin, but those
who have learned it from a master. Formerly, indeed, this was
the native and common language of many p e o p l e ; but now, in the
greatest multitude that can be collected, how few will you. find that
are acquainted with L a t i n !
Secondly, if, as Bellarmine himself confesses, the very reason
w h y the apostles at first wrote almost everything in Greek, was
because that language was the most common of all, and the
scriptures were afterwards translated into Latin, because afterwards
the Latin became more c o m m o n ; it follows that now also the
scriptures should be rendered into other languages which are now
more common than either Latin or Greek. Such are now the
Dalmatian, Italian, French, German, Polish. F o r these are the
mother-tongues of great nations; whereas the Latin is the mother-
tongue of no nation whatever. A t this day the Latin is a stranger
in Latium itself, is the vernacular language of no people, but
peculiar to learned men and those who have attended the lessons
of some master in the schools.
Thirdly, his pretence that the inter-communion of churches
would be destroyed, and the celebration of general councils ren-
dered impossible, unless the scriptures were everywhere read in
some one most common language, is absurd and repugnant to all
reason and experience. For formerly, when the scriptures were
read in Hebrew b y the Hebrews, in Greek b y the Grecians, and
in Latin b y the Latins, there was nevertheless the greatest friend-
ship amongst Christians and the closest union in the church, nor
was there any impediment to the holding of general councils. In
the Nicene council there were Greek and Latin fathers, who all,
though they did not use one and the same language, y e t defended
the same faith with the most zealous unanimity. If it be a thing
so conducive to the conservation of the church's unity, that the
scriptures should everywhere be read in the same language, w h y
were not measures taken to insure it from the beginning ? Or w h y
ought the Latin language to be deemed fitter for such a purpose than
any o t h e r ? These dreams are only meet subjects for laughter;
and therefore this argument hath been omitted b y the editor of the
epitome.
T h e fifth argument. If there be no cause why the scriptures
15—2
228 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

should be translated vernacularly, then they ought not to be trans-

lated. Bat there is no cause why they should be translated;
which is thus proved. If they are translated in order that the
people may understand them, this is no g o o d cause, since the
people cannot understand them even when they are translated.
F o r the people would not understand the prophets and Psalms,
and other pieces which are read in the churches, even if t h e y
were read in the vernacular language. F o r these things even the
learned do not understand, unless they read and hear expositors.
I answer, in the first place, b y confessing that all things are
not immediately understood upon the reading even b y the learned,
especially in the prophets and the Psalms. F o r to enable us to
understand the scriptures, there is need not only of reading, but
of study, meditation and prayer. But if, for this reason, the
people ought not to read the scriptures in their own tongue, then
even the learned ought not to be permitted to read them. How-
ever there are many things which can be understood, though not
a l l : and assuredly, all things which are necessary to salvation are
plainly delivered in scripture, so as that they can be easily under-
stood b y any one if he will. A n d men would know more than
they do, if they would read and hear the scriptures with that
attention which they ought to bestow. F o r the reason w h y most
men understand so little, and gain such slender advantage from the
reading of the scriptures, is to be found in their own negligence,
because they neither give a religious attention to the perusal of
them, nor approach it with the proper dispositions.
Secondly, although the whole sense be not immediately p e r -
ceived, yet the words are understood when they are recited in the
mother-tongue; and this greatly conduces towards gaining a
knowledge of the sense. T h e eunuch, Acts viii., was reading the
prophet Isaiah, which yet he did not thoroughly understand.
Nevertheless, he was to be praised for reading it, and hath d e -
servedly been praised b y many of the fathers. He understood the
words indeed, but knew not that the prophet spoke of Christ, and
was ignorant of the true sense. But these men do not allow the
people to understand even so much as the words. However, as
that reading of the scripture was useful to the eunuch, so it will b e
useful to the people to be diligent in reading the scriptures, so as
that, from understanding the words, they may come to understand
the sense of the whole. F o r the first step is to know the words,
the second to perceive the drift of the discourse. But the papists
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 229

are so far from wishing the people to comprehend the sense of

scripture, that they prevent them from even reading the words.
T h e sixth argument. It is dangerous for the people to read
the scriptures; since they would not derive benefit from the
scriptures, but injury. All heresies have sprung from misunder-
standing of scripture, as Hilary observes at the end of his book
de synodis ; 1
and Luther calls the scriptures the book of heretics:
and this is further proved b y experience. Hence have sprung the
heresies of the Anthropomorphites, the Adamites , and of David 2

G e o r g e , who understood no language but his mother-tongue.

3
If
the people were to hear the Song of songs read, the adultery of
David, the incest of Tamar, the story of Leah and Rachel, the
falsehoods of Judith, they would either despise the holy patriarchs,
or argue that similar things were lawful to themselves, or believe
those to be false. Bellarmine further subjoins, that he heard from
a credible witness, that once when in England the twenty-fifth
chapter of Ecclesiasticus was being read in the vulgar tongue,
wherein many things are spoken of the wickedness of women, a
certain woman rose up and exclaimed: " I s this the word of G o d ? —
n a y , rather it is the word of the devil." A n d the Rhemists, in
their note upon 1 Cor. xiv., say that the translation of holy offices
often breeds manifold perils and contempt in the vulgar sort,
leading them to suppose that God is the author of sin, when they
read, " Lead us not into temptation:" although they seem here to
have forgotten what they have observed elsewhere, that the Lord's
prayer should be allowed in the vernacular language. T h e censors
of Cologne, too, in their book against Monhemius, p. 2 0 , tell us,
" N o heresy was ever found which did not make use of scripture;

[' The reference meant is most probably ad Constant. August, n. 9. Sed

memento tamen neminem hasreticorum esse qui se nunc non secundum
scripturas prasdicare ea, quibus blasphemat, mentiatur . . . . omnes scrip-
turas sine scriptura? sensu loquuntur.—Col. 1 2 3 0 . Hilarii Opp. Paris. 1 6 9 3 . ]
[ There was an ancient sect of Adamites, said by Theodoret (Hser. Fab.
2

p. 1 9 7 ) to have been founded by Prodicus, (whose tenets are described by

Clemens Alex. Strom. I. p. 3 0 4 . B. and § 3. pp. 4 3 8 , 4 3 9 , ) and of which the
fullest account is given by Epiphanius, (Hseres. 5 2 , ) but only upon hearsay,
(p. 4 5 8 , c.) But the persons meant by Bellarmine were probably the Picards,
exterminated by Zisca in the 1 5 t h century, and the Anabaptists of Amster-
dam in the 1 6 t h . — S e e Bayle's Diet. Art. PIUARD, and Beausobre's Disserta-
tion at the end of L'Enfant's History of the Hussites, Amsterd. 1 7 3 1 . ]
[ Founder of the Davidists.
3
He died 1 5 5 6 . — S e e Mosheim, Cent. 1 6 .
sect. 3. part. n. c. 3. § 2 4 . ]
230 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

yea, to speak still more boldly, which did not take its occasion
from scripture ."1

I answer, in the first p l a c e : All these suggestions are the product

of human ingenuity, and impeach the divine wisdom. F o r if the
reading of these things were so dangerous, w h y did the L o r d will
that they should be written, and that in the language which the
whole church understood, and afterwards should be translated into
the Greek and Latin tongues, which latter our adversary himself
affirms to be the most common of all ? These things ought rather to
have been buried than consigned to writing, if they were so fraught
with danger to piety and g o o d morals.
Secondly, there is nothing which the reading of these histories
is less fitted to produce than either contempt for the saints, or any
kind of petulance and impiety. F o r though in those histories the
adultery of David is narrated, yet so is also, in the same narratives,
the penitence of David and his punishment described; the knowledge
whereof is useful to the church and all the faithful. F o r , in the
first place, hence we learn that no one can sin with impunity; but
that every one, if he sin, must undergo the penalty of sin, either in
the shape of chastisement, as David, or in that of vengeance, as others.
W e learn farther, that one must not despair though he may have
sinned; but that, however heinous the sin into which he may have
fallen, there is hope that G o d will be merciful for Christ's sake, if
the sinner heartily repent. Lastly, that those holy and excellent
men were not saved b y their own virtues, but b y the merits of Christ,
and consequently that we ought not to think of them more mag-
nificently than is p r o p e r ; as indeed there is less danger of our
attributing too little to them than too m u c h : on which account the
H o l y Spirit did not choose to pass in silence these actions, which
were not small delinquencies, but most enormous crimes.
Thirdly, no scandal springs truly and legitimately from scripture.
In R o m . x v . 4, the apostle declares w h y the scriptures were p u b -
lished, and what end they r e g a r d ; not to lead men into false opinions,
but " t h e y are written for our learning, that we through patience
and comfort of the scriptures might have h o p e . " In Psalm cxix. 9,
David asks, " W h e r e w i t h a l shall a young man cleanse his w a y ? "
H e answers, not b y avoiding or remaining ignorant of the scriptures,
but, " b y taking heed to them." Even young men, therefore, whose
age is especially prone to lust, may nevertheless be usefully engaged

[} Nulla unquam repcrta est hooresis, quce non scrlpturis fuerit usa: imo
ut audentius dicamus, qua? non ex scripturis occasionem acceperit. Colon.1582.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 231

in the study of the scriptures. In Psalm xii. 7, he says that " t h e

words of the L o r d " are " p u r e w o r d s : " but these men are afraid,
lest, as the apostle, 1 Cor. xv. 3 3 , reminds us that good manners are
corrupted b y evil communication, so men should be made worse
and more estranged from piety b y the perusal of the scriptures.
Meanwhile, they who remove the scriptures from the eyes of men,
as pestilent to all pious behaviour, permit all young men to read
Propertius, Martial, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and forbid not the most
shameful comedies and the foulest shews. W h a t can be conceived
more impious and antichristian than such conduct ?
Fourthly, as to his assertion that heresies spring from the scrip-
ture not being understood, I confess its truth. But, as all heresies
are wont to spring from not understanding or ill understanding-
scripture, so all heresies are refuted b y the scriptures well and
fittingly understood and expounded. Hence the Anthropomorphites,
hence the Adamites, hence all the other heretics are convicted of
error. N o w it is much better that the scriptures should be read,
and that, from the scriptures read and understood, heresies should
b e condemned and overthrown, than that they should not be read
at a l l ; and that b y such means the rise of heresies should be p r e -
vented. F o r doubtless many more persons perish through ignorance
of scripture, than through h e r e s y ; and it is from ignorance of
scripture, and not from the reading of it, that heresies themselves
arise.
Fifthly, whether Luther ever really said that "scripture is the
b o o k of the heretics," is neither v e r y certain nor very important.
Indeed they are wont to abuse the scriptures, but still m a y always
be convicted and refuted b y the same.
Sixthly, the story which he subjoins, as heard from some
Englishman, about a certain woman, who, when that chapter of
Ecclesiasticus was read in England, rose up in a rage and spoke
2

with little modesty of that scripture, I leave entirely on the credit

of the good man from whom Bellarmine heard it. But what if a
few persons sometimes abuse the scriptures; does it therefore follow
that the scriptures are to be wholly taken away, and never read
to the p e o p l e ? In this way of reasoning, even the learned
should never read the scriptures, since many even very learned
men abuse the scriptures, as is the case with almost all heretics.

[ It is to be observed that, in our present Calendar, Ecclus. xxv., which is

2

the evening lesson for November 6, is ordered to bo read only to ver. 13. N o
such rule however was made in King Edward's Prayer-book.]
232 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

Besides, if the abuse of any thing were sufficient to set aside its use,
we should abstain from food and from drink, and even forego the
use of clothes, because many people abuse these things to gluttony,
drunkenness and pride. This then is the most noted of all fallacies,
putting that which is not the cause for the cause, and arguing from
accidental circumstances.
In the seventh place, the Jesuit reasons t h u s : if the scrip-
tures should be read b y the people in the vulgar tongue, then
new versions should be made in every age, because languages are
changed every a g e ; which he proves from Horace's A r t of P o e t r y 1

and from experience. But this would be impossible, because there

would be a lack of persons fit to make the versions; and, if it
were possible, it would be absurd that the versions should be so
often changed. Therefore the scriptures ought not to be read in
the vernacular tongue. •
I answer, every part of this argument is ridiculous. F o r , in
the first place, it is false that languages change every a g e ; since
the primary tongues, the Hebrew, Greek and Latin, have not
undergone such frequent alterations. Secondly, there is never in
Christian churches a lack of some sufficient interpreters, able to
translate the scriptures and render their genuine meaning in the
vulgar tongue. Thirdly, no inconvenience will follow if inter-
pretations or versions of scripture, when they have become obsolete
and ceased to be easily intelligible, be afterwards changed and
corrected. I would assuredly have passed over this argument
entirely, if I had not determined not to conceal or dissemble any
arguments of our opponents.
T h e Jesuit's eighth argument is taken from the authority of
the fathers. H e brings forward the testimonies of two illustrious
fathers, to whom we are bound to render the highest deference on
account of their consummate and manifold erudition, Basil and
Jerome. Basil then, as Theodoret relates, Hist. L i b . iv. cap. 1 9 ,
when the prefect of the imperial kitchen was prating with into-
lerable impudence and ignorance concerning the dogmas of theo-
l o g y , answered him t h u s : " It is y o u r business to mind your
sauces, not to cook the divine o r a c l e s . " 2

f 1
U t silvae foliis pronos mutantur in annos,
Prima cadunt: ita verborum vetus intcrit setas
Et juvenum ritu florent modo nata, vigentque.—v. 60.]
[2
Tvaprjv Se TIS Ar)poo-8evqs Ka\ovpevos TS>V fiao-ikiKav Trpopijdovpivos o-^rav,
hs T<5 didacrKaKa rrjs otKovpevrjs intpep^fapevos ¿[email protected], 6 5e 8e7os Batri-
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 233

I answer, This prefect of the imperial kitchen was b y name

Demosthenes, and troubled the holy father with exceeding in-
solence and ignorance; for, being himself a stupid barbarian, he
would yet, as Theodoret tells us, instruct the doctor of the whole
world, TOV lilao-Kakov T J J ? oiKov/xevris,—for so Basil was esteemed.
The courtier imagined, it seems, that he, a person at once wholly
unlearned and very foolish, could maintain a disputation upon the
scriptures with Basil, a man of profound learning, most expert in
scriptures, and a bishop of the church. This was the reason why
Basil answered him so sharply, 2oV e'o-rt T C I ? TWV XWLLWV Kapvue'tas
(ppovTi^eiv. And, indeed, those who are like this man ought to
be treated in like manner, and rebuked with much severity : but
what is this to the purpose ? It is one thing to read the scriptures,
and another thing to suppose ourselves to understand them when
we do not. Basil did not blame the cook for having read the
scriptures, but for having the conceit that he had obtained such
distinguished knowledge as to be able to dispute with him con-
cerning the scriptures, when he did not understand them. This
arrogance of his Basil wished to crush, and to shut his impudent
mouth with that answer, not to prevent him from reading the
scriptures. All should be expected, when they read the scriptures,
to read them with judgment, lest they be like this foolish D e -
mosthenes ; who, because he was altogether illiterate and possessed
with heretical prejudices, seemed to Basil a person unworthy to
discourse upon religious subjects. F o r so Basil addresses h i m :
" Thou canst not hear the divine doctrines, for thine ears are
stuffed against them."
I come now to the testimony of Jerome cited b y the Jesuit,
which is contained in the epistle to Paulinus, and runs t h u s :
" ' Physicians undertake the proper business of physicians, and
workmen handle workmen's tools.' Skill in the scriptures is the
only art which all claim for themselves. ' Learned and unlearned,
we all promiscuously write poems.' This the garrulous crone, this
the doting old man, this the wordy sophist, this all indiscriminately
seize on, tear, teach before they learn. Some with importance on
their brows, and weighing their pompous words, philosophize upon
the sacred books amongst their female disciples. Others ( 0
Xeior peibiacras, 'TZ6zao-ap.e9a, ecpr], Kal Arjpoo-divqv dypapparov eVeiSij be nXiov
CKCWOS bv&xepdvas ^TC(iXr)o-(, Sov eanv, e<pr) 6 peyas Batri'X«os, rijs rav £a>pa>v
KapvKetas <ppovrl£civ boypdrav yap 8e'mv eVaietv oil bivao-ai, jicjivo-pivas e^toc
ras axoas.—p. 174, c. D. ed. Vales. Paris. 1673.]
234 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

shame!) learn from women what they are to teach to m e n ; and,

as if this were not enough, b y a certain facility, or rather au-
dacity, of talk discourse to others what they do not understand
themselves ." These are the words of J e r o m e : to which I answer,
1

that Jerome's complaint is just; since those persons should not treat
of scripture, who are ignorant and unskilful in the subject. But
here it is to be observed, that Jerome does not blame the men and
women of whom he speaks for reading the scriptures, but because,
as soon as ever they had the slightest taste of scriptural knowledge,
they supposed immediately that they understood every thing, that
they could teach others, and could interpret the scriptures to others,
when they did not understand them themselves; and because they
rushed precipitately into the scriptures without that modesty which
is to be preserved in the perusal of them. H e blames, therefore,
their impudence, unskilfulness, insolence and arrogance, but does
not prevent them from reading the scriptures; yea, rather, he would
have all to read the scriptures, provided they read with modesty
and reverence.
These are the arguments of the Jesuit; to which, I hope, we
have returned an answer abundantly sufficient. There are others
who handle this question, as Harding, A r t . 1 5 . Sect. 3, who dis-
tributes this whole controversy under five heads. H e proves that
a vernacular translation of the scriptures is, first, unnecessary;
secondly, not fitting; thirdly, not useful; fourthly, unsafe ; fifthly,
heretical. But it is not worth while to answer his arguments
also, and obviate the objections which he brings against vernacular
versions of the b i b l e ; as well because they are absolutely the
same with those alleged b y the Jesuit, as also because they have
been already most copiously and learnedly confuted b y that dis-
tinguished man, Doctor John Jewel, bishop of Sarum, whom they
may read who desire to see more upon this matter.

{} Quod medicorum est promittunt medici, tractant Jabrilia fabri. Sola

scripturarum ars est quam sibi omnes passim vindicant. Scribimus indocti
doctique poemata passim. Hanc garrula anus, banc delirus senex, liano
sophista verbosus, hanc universi prffisumunt, lacerant, doeent antequam dis-
cant. Alii adducto supercilio, grandia verba trutinantes, inter mulierculas de
sacris Uteris philosophantur. Alii discunt (proh pudor!) a feminis quod viros
docoant: et ne parum hoc sit, quadam facilitate verborum, imo audacia, edis-
serunt aliis quod ipsi non intelligimt.—T. iv. p. 571.]
XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 235

CHAPTER XV.

OUR REASONS FOR VERNACULAR VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES.

I COME now to the defence of our own side, in which I have to

prove that the scriptures are to be set forth before all Christians in
their vernacular tongues, so as that every individual may be enabled
to read them.
N o w m y first argument shall be to this effect: that which is
b y God prescribed to all, all should do. But God hath commanded
all to read the scriptures: therefore all are bound to read the
scriptures. There can be no controversy about the major, unless
some "one doubt whether we are bound to obey God. The as-
sumption however may perhaps be questioned. W e must inquire,
therefore, whether God hath prescribed this to all. A n d this may
v e r y easily be made to appear; for God hath chosen that his will
should be written, that his word should be committed to writing,
that his scriptures should be commended to men, and that in a
language known not only to the learned, but to the vulgar also.
W h a t could have been his object in this, if it were not that all
people should read the scriptures, and recognise the will and word
of God ? In Deut. xxxi. 1 1 , 1 2 , there is an express command of
G o d concerning the reading of the scriptures before the whole
p e o p l e : " Thou shalt read the words of this law in the presence of
all Israel, in their hearing, and to all the people collected together."
A n d lest any of the people should peradventure suppose himself
exempted b y some special privilege, and discharged from the
obligation of this divine command, Moses makes use of a distributive
enumeration, naming expressly the women, the children, and the
strangers, and subjoining even their posterity. But why does God
will his law to be read before the whole people ? The reason is
added, " that they may hear, and may learn, and fear Jehovah and
observe his precepts." N o w this is of perpetual obligation: therefore
the reading of the scripture is always necessary. F o r if the end
and proximate cause of any law be perpetual, the law itself is to be
esteemed perpetual. But the reasons on account of which God
willed the scriptures to be read are perpetual. Therefore he wills
them to b e read to the people perpetually throughout all ages.
In Deut. xvii. 1 9 , 2 0 , it is particularly enjoined upon the king
that he should read the scriptures: and the same reasons are added
as were given before, and also some peculiar to the k i n g ; as that,
 236 T H E FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

lest his soul should be lifted up with pride, and he should despise
his brethren, and depart from this precept, " to the right hand or to
the left." In Deut. vi. 6, 7, 8, 9, this command is proposed to all
Israel, and even urged vehemently upon them, that the words of
the divine law should be graven upon their hearts; that they
should tell them to their s o n s ; that they should speak of them
when they sat at home and when they walked b y the way, when
they lay down and when they rose u p ; that they should have
them, as it were, bound upon their hands, and kept ever before
their e y e s ; finally, that they should be inscribed upon the posts of
their houses and upon their doors. F r o m all which we understand
that God would have his law most familiarly known to his people.
In Jer. xxxvi. 6, 7, the prophet commands Baruch to read the
book which he had written from Jeremiah's dictation, before the whole
p e o p l e ; and the reason is subjoined, " if peradventure they may
fall down, and make entreaty before Jehovah, and return each man
from his evil w a y . " A n d in the new Testament Christ, John v.
3 9 , bids men epewav rds ypacpas, " search the scriptures." In
which place he addresses not only the persons of learning and
erudition, that is, the Scribes and Pharisees, but also the unlearned
people and the illiterate vulgar : for not the learned alone, but
the unlearned also, seek and desire eternal l i f e ; yea, salvation and
the kingdom of God pertains to the latter equally with the former
class. Chrysostom observes upon that place, Horn. 4 0 , that Christ
exhorts the Jews in that passage not merely to a bare and simple
reading of the scriptures, but sets them upon a very diligent
investigation, since he bids them not to read, but to search the
scriptures. John xx. 3 1 , the Evangelist s a y s : " These things are
written that y e may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
G o d ; and that believing y e may have life through his name."
N o w all desire life and salvation; all too desire faith, or, at least,
ought to desire it. Thus then we reason from this passage : without
faith there is no l i f e : without the scriptures there is no f a i t h : the
scriptures therefore should be set forth before all men. R o m . xv.
1 4 , " Whatsoever things were written were written for our learn-
i n g , " says Paul. T h e Lord therefore willed us to be learned, and
this is saving knowledge. H e subjoins, " that we, through patience
and comfort of the scriptures, might have h o p e . " Those therefore
who are without the scriptures are without patience, without
comfort, without h o p e ; for all these things are produced b y the
scriptures.
XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 237

Our second argument stands t h u s : The people should not he

deprived of those arms b y which they are to be protected against
Satan. N o w the scriptures are such a r m s : therefore the scrip-
tures should not be taken away from the people; for taken away
they are, if the people be prevented from reading them. The
major is self evident. T h e assumption is proved b y the example
of Christ himself, Matt. iv. F o r when Christ had to deal with
Satan, and was engaged in a close encounter with him, he repressed
and refuted him with no other arms than the scriptures. Thrice
he answered him with, " It is written," and with the third reply
he routed him. If Christ defended himself against Satan with the
scriptures, h o w much more needful are the scriptures to us against
the same enemy ! And it was for this end that Christ used the
weapons of scripture against Satan, that he might afford us an
e x a m p l e ; for he could have repelled Satan with a single word.
W e therefore ought to resist Satan in the same manner. It is
folly to suppose that Satan can be driven away b y bare ceremonies,
exorcisms, gesticulations, and outward fopperies. W e must fight
with arguments drawn from scripture, and the examples of the
holy fathers : the scriptures are the only arms which can prevail,
or ought to be used against him. Those, therefore, who take the
holy scriptures away from the people, leave them exposed naked
to Satan, and hurl them into most certain destruction. F o r with-
out the protection of scripture the people must necessarily fall
under all temptations. The apostle Paul, Eph. vi. 16, says that
the shield, Ovpeov, wherewith the fiery darts of Satan are to be
quenched, is TT'UTTK, Faith. N o w faith, as the same apostle testi-
fies, R o m . x, 17, is " begotten b y hearing, and hearing b y the
word of G o d . " And, as we resist Satan b y faith, which is produced
b y the scriptures, so also is he to be attacked b y scripture. F o r in
the same place that /ud^atpa Trvevnaros, the spiritual sword,
is said to be the word of God. F r o m the scriptures, therefore, we
must take ' both what are called offensive and defensive arms
against Satan, with which furnished upon all sides, we shall un-
doubtedly obtain a happy victory. All the other arms there
described depend upon faith acquired from the scriptures. Thus
then we conclude this place and our second argument. All who
have to contend with Satan ought to read the scriptures, that
they may use those arms which are supplied b y the scriptures
expertly and skilfully against that deadly and most formidable foe.
Now Satan wages war against all men without exception. All there-
238 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

fore ought to read the scriptures ; and consequently the scriptures

ought to be set forth for all people in their own vernacular languages.
M y third argument I form t h u s : T h e scriptures are to b e
read publicly in such a manner as that the people may be able to
derive some advantage from them. But they cannot be useful to
the people in an unknown t o n g u e : therefore they should be
translated into a language known to the people. The major is
indubitable; and, for the minor, it is proved b y Paul, 1 Cor. xiv.
through almost the whole of which chapter he handles this ques-
tion : " If I shall come to y o u , " says he, v. 6, " speaking with
tongues, what shall I profit you ? " rl v/xas w(¡>ehr¡o-u) ; as if he
had said, " certainly nothing." And, verse 7, he proves b y the
examples of things without life, as pipe and harp, " which," says
he, " unless they give a distinction (o\aaTÓkr¡v) in their tones, how
shall it be known what is piped or h a r p e d ? " In like manner it
behoves our speech to be euanp-o^, or significant. So he concludes,
verse 19, that he would rather speak five words in the church Sid
voos, with his understanding, so as to instruct others, than " ten
thousand words in an unknown tongue," ev y\c¿(rar¡. Chrysostom,
in his 35th homily upon the first epistle to the Corinthians, exclaims,
" W h a t utility can there be in a speech not understood?" TTÍO<¡ yap
¿TTO rpwvtjs jys ov avvtére ;
1
and in the same h o m i l y : " H e who
speaks with tongues edifies himself: yet he cannot do even so much
as this, unless he understand what he says." So that, according
to Chrysostom, the reading of what one does not understand, can-
not profit either others or even the reader himself: y e t the popish
priests used to read every thing in Latin, although very many of
them were mere illiterate persons. But we shall speak more at
large upon this subject in the next part.
The fourth argument. T h e L o r d commands and requires
that the people should be instructed, full of wisdom and knowledge,
and perfectly acquainted with the mysteries of salvation. H e often
complains of the ignorance of the people, and commands them to
be exercised in his word, that they may thence acquire wisdom and
understanding. Therefore the people ought to read the scriptures,
since without the reading of the scriptures they cannot acquire
such knowledge. N o w they cannot read them, unless they be
translated: therefore the scriptures ought to be translated.
The antecedent is easily proved by many testimonies of scrip-
ture. Deut. iv. 6, God wills his people Israel to be so well
[' T. x. p. 323.]
XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 239

instructed, so endued with wisdom and knowledge of his law, that

foreign nations, when they hear of it, m a y wonder amd exclaim,
" L o a people wise and understanding, a great n a t i o n ! " Coloss. iii.
1 6 , the apostle desires that the word of Christ may evoiKeiv, dwell
abundantly, or copiously, itXovo-'iws, in the Colossians. And, in the
same epistle, i. 9, he wishes that they m a y be filled " with the
knowledge of his will, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding."
And chap. ii. 2, he requires in them " a full assurance of under-
standing to the acknowledgment of the mystery of G o d . " And, 2
Cor. viii. 7, h e says that the Corinthians irepio-aeveiv, are abun-
dantly filled " with faith, and utterance, and knowledge." A n d
Numb. ii. 2 9 , Moses wishes that all the people were prophets.
And, 1 Cor. x i v . 5, Paul wishes that all might speak with tongues,
but rather that they should prophesy. Philip, i. 9, the same
apostle prays that the love of the Philippians m a y abound more
and more, " in knowledge and in all judgment." And, 2 Pet. i. 5,
Peter admonishes those to whom h e writes that they should add vir-
tue to faith, and to virtue and sanctity of life T J ) V yvcoaiv, know-
ledge. F r o m these passages we perceive that wisdom, prudence,
knowledge and understanding are required in the people of G o d ;
and therefore those who retain them in a stupid and gross igno-
rance of the scripture inflict a grievous injury upon the people.
N a y , the fathers also confess, that a knowledge of, and
acquaintance with, the scriptures is necessary for all Christians.
Jerome in his commentary upon the Colossians, iii. 1 6 , says:
" Hence w e see that the laity ought to have not only a suffi-
cient, but an abundant knowledge of the scriptures, and also to
instruct each o t h e r . " Chrysostom, in his ninth homily upon the
2

Colossians, writing upon the same passage, remarks that the

apostle requires the people to know the word of God, not simply,
but in great abundance, ov% a-n-Xws, aXXd fxerd TTOAX ijs Trjs
Trepiouo-ia$; and adds : " Attend, all y e that are secular (KOO-/XIKOI),

and have wives and families depending upon y o u , h o w he (the

apostle) specially commands y o u to read the scripture; and not
merely to read it in a perfunctory manner, but with great dili-
gence," dXXd fierd iroXXrjs crirov^. Chrysostom observes in
that same place, that the apostle does not say, let the word of God
be in y o u ; but, let it dtvell in y o u ; and that, 7rXovorioos, richly . 3

[ Ilinc perspicimus non tantum suflicicntcr, sed etiam abundantur debeie

2

lacios scripturarum cognitionem habere, et se invicem docere.—T. xi. 1029.

But this Commentary is not Jerome's.]
[ 3
T. xi. p. 391.]
240 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

CEcumenius too observes upon the same passage, that the doctrine
of Christ should dwell in us ev iro\\r, Sa\j/t\eia, most abundantly.
N o w , how are we to obtain so full a knowledge of it as this im-
plies? CEcumenius informs us b y subjoining, Sid rfjs TWV ypa<pwv
epevvris, by searching the scriptures. So Thomas Aquinas in his
third lectm-e upon this c h a p t e r : " S o m e , " says he, " are satis-
fied with a very small portion of the word of G o d ; but the apostle
desires we should have much of i t . " 1

Our adversaries urge many objections against such knowledge

being diffused amongst the people. In the first place they allege
what is found in L u k e viii. 10, where Christ says to his disciples:
" Unto y o u it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God,
but to the rest I speak in parables." Hence they conclude that
the scriptures should only be communicated to the learned and
well-instructed, that is, to the ministers, bishops, priests and p r o -
fessors, but refused to the laity and unlearned people.
But I answer, that Christ spoke in that place not of the com-
mon people, but of the scribes and Pharisees who proudly resisted
him, who " seeing saw not, and hearing did not understand;"
and therefore that those words have no reference to the cause we
have in hand. Thus it is that cardinal H u g o (not to mention
others) interprets this p l a c e ; and so also the ordinary gloss. Thus
H u g o : " T o y o u ; that is, who hear willingly, and repose faith in
m y w o r d s . " A n d the ordinary gloss still more plainly in this man-
2

ner : " H o l y things are to be imparted to you who are faithful,

not to the incredulous Pharisees ." 3
These words of Christ, therefore,
are no obstacle to the reading of holy scripture b y the laity and
unlearned persons.
Against such a knowledge in the people, in the second place, H o -
sius (in his b o o k de Sacr. Vernac. Legend. Opp. p. 7 4 2 . L u g d 1563)
objects certain testimonies of the fathers; as namely, Augustine, Con-
tra Epist. Fundament, c. 4, where he says; " I t is not the vivacity
of their understanding, but the simplicity of belief which best secures
the multitude :'''' and in his 102nd Epistle , where he s a y s : " I f Christ
4 5

[ Quibusdam sufiicit modicum quid de verbo D e i : sed apostolus vult

J

quod habeamus multum, p. 164. 2. T. xvi. Opp. Venet. 1593.]

[ Vobis, hoc est, qui libenter auditis, et fidem habetis verbis meis.]
2

[ Vobis qui fideles estis, non Pharisajis incredulis, sancta sunt danda.]
3

[* Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas tutam facit.

— T o m . x. p. 183. Opp. Bassan. 1797.]
[ Si propter cos solos Christus mortuus est qui certa intelligentia possunt
5

ista discernere, pene frustra in ecclesia laboramus.—T. n. p. 786.]

XV.] QUESTION T H E SECOND. 241

died only for those who can distinguish these matters b y a certain
intelligence, we labour almost in vain in the church," &c. . T o the
same effect also he produces G r e g o r y Nazianzen, Lib. i. de T h e o -
logia, where he s a y s : " It is not the business of all persons to
dispute concerning God, and the things of G o d , " &c. 8

I answer, These testimonies do b y no means prohibit the read-

ing of the scriptures, as will better appear upon a particular exami-
nation of them. F o r first, as to Augustine: I allow with him,
that an accurate knowledge of mysteries is not required of the com-
mon people, but that it is sufficient for them if they hold the
foundation of religion sound and w h o l e : for all cannot b e quick
in understanding, and it is enough if they be simple in believing.
But this simplicity is not that sort of brute ignorance which the
papists would have in their l a i t y ; since such an ignorance, as the
papists defend, should rather be styled utter stupidity than simpli-
city. But the simplicity of Christians should be combined with
p r u d e n c e ; for while Christ would have us to be simple as doves, he
would have us also to be wise as serpents, Matth. x. 1 6 . Christ
died for many, who cannot dispute acutely of the mystery of salva-
tion, or handle and discuss theological questions in a scholastic man-
ner : this I allow to be said, and truly said, b y Augustine; but
this does not prove that no knowledge is required in the people.
I confess that the people do not need to have as much knowledge
as the learned, who are wholly occupied in books and literature;
but the people ought not to be (as the papists would have them)
wholly ignorant of the scriptures and of all knowledge. Gregory
the Great hath a somewhat similar maxim : " In the common p e o -
ple it is not knowledge, but a g o o d life that is requisite ." And 7

Tertullian, in his Prescriptions against H e r e t i c s : " This faith of

thine hath saved t h e e ; t h y faith, he says, not thy knowledge or
expertness in scripture ." T h e same answer will serve for the pas-
8

sage from Nazianzen. H e does not say that the scriptures should
not b e read b y the people, but that every b o d y is not competent
to determine questions concerning God and abstruse mysteries of
religion: ou ITCIVTOS TO Tvepl Qeov (pCkoaocpelv' which we will-

[ 6
Ou navrbs, co oJVot, TO Trepl 6eo0 cpiXocrorpc-Tv, ov navrbs, ovx OVTCO TO

irpayfia evcovov . . . 7rpoo~Qqcrcd Se, ovfte iravTOTt, ovbe nacriv, ovbe iravra.—Orat.
XXXIII. p . 6 3 0 , C. T. I. C o l . 1 6 9 0 . ]
[7 N o n requiritur in v u l g o scientia, sed b o n a v i t a . ]
[ 8
F i d e s , inquit, tua t e s a l v a m fecit, n o n exercitatio s c r i p t u r a n i m . — c . 1 4 .
p. 10. P . i n . Tertull. Opp. Lips. 1841.]

LWHITAKER.J
242 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

ingly allow. " F o r the matter," says he, " is not so mean and
vile, ovx O'VTCO TO irpay/ua evwvov, as that every one is able
to philosophize upon it." Then he says a little lower down,
" Neither all subjects indiscriminately should be discoursed of, nor
yet everywhere or to a l l : " ovre irávToTe, OVTE irácnv, ovre
irávra. Those, therefore, who have never read or heard anything,
or who are unskilful, and y e t venture to discuss divine m a t t e r s , —
such persons are deservedly obnoxious to b l a m e ; and such are the
persons whom Nazianzen means. T h e unskilful ought, indeed, to
leave such discussions to others. But the same father 1
exhorts all
men to the reading of scripture, from that passage of David,
Psalm i. 2 : " A n d in the law of the L o r d he meditates day and
n i g h t ; " and from Deut. v i . : " Y e a , " says he in that same place,
" w e should think of G o d oftener than we b r e a t h e : nvrmovevTeov
TOV Qeov /xaWov rj avairvevcrTeov' and, if possible, ovoev aWo
irpaKTeov, nothing else should be d o n e . " This v e r y learned father
Nazianzen therefore is no patron of the papists.
Our fifth argument is to this effect: Christ taught the people
in their mother-tongue ; so also the apostles and disciples of Christ,
as well when upon the day of Pentecost they published the gospel
in a known tongue, as afterwards when, scattered over the whole
world, they taught all nations in their own native languages.
Hence we draw our conclusion t h u s : T h e holy doctrine of the
gospel is not contaminated when preached or taught in the verna-
cular t o n g u e ; therefore, not when it is written or read in the
vernacular tongue. This is the argument of Chemnitz, which the
Jesuit, in his manuscript lectures, pronounces not worth a farthing.
T h e question of farthings will give us no concern. T h e point is to
k n o w , w h y it is invalid ? " Firstly," says he, " because an
argument from the preaching of the word to the writing of the
word is inconsequential; since in preaching every thing may be
so explained to the people as to make them capable of understand-
ing i t ; but in writing each matter is propounded nakedly b y itself.
Secondly, because the apostles preached in various tongues, but all
wrote in the same language."
L e t us examine this reply of the Jesuit's. I allow, indeed, that
the word preached is much more easily understood than when it is

\} Káya T5>V erraivovvrav elp\ TOV \oyov, or pe\erav ypépas KOL VVKTOS 8ia-
KeXeverai, /cat évnépas Kai irpat Kai peo-qpf¡Spías díi]yúo-dai, KOL evkoyelv TOV
Kvpiov ev iravri Kcupw- el Set Kai TO Mavcréas elirelv, KoiTa£ópevov, Siaviorá-
pevov, óbonropovvTa, ÓTIOVV SXko irpaTTOvra.—Ut sup. p. 5 3 1 . B.]
XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 243

merely r e a d ; because, when preached, each several point is e x -

plained, and variously accommodated and referred to the use of the
people, which cannot be done when it is merely read. Nevertheless
the same word should be set forth for the people in their mother
tongue, in order that, when it is preached, they may have it in
their hands, and so may see whether that which is propounded to
them be indeed the word of God, as we read of the Berceans, Acts
x v i i . ; otherwise any one, at his pleasure, might deliver what he
liked to the people, and enjoin it upon them as the word of G o d .
A n d the people will derive from this combined preaching and read-
ing of the scripture advantages both solid and abundant. Besides,
although they do not immediately understand all they read, y e t
they do understand much, and will understand more every day,
if they persevere in reading. W h a t is to-day obscure, will become
clearer t o - m o r r o w ; what is now unknown, will afterwards, b y use
and exercise, become better understood. Furthermore, I confess,
too, that the apostles wrote only in one l a n g u a g e ; for it would have
been an infinite task to have written the same things in all the
languages of all nations: but I say that this one tongue was the
commonest and most generally diffused of all, so as to render it the
more easy for the scripture to reach the greatest possible number,
and be the better and more quickly translated into all other lan-
guages. Translated, in fact, it was immediately, as we have already
said, and shall presently shew.
But here the Jesuit brings a comparison, of how many far-
things' worth it may be well to consider. Nurses, says he, do
not put the food whole into the mouths of infants, but chewed
before-hand; and in the same way, ministers should not deliver
the book of scripture entire to the people. I answer: T h e people
should not be always like infants, so as always to require chewed
m e a t ; that is, when they hear the scripture in their native lan-
guage, understand nothing of it unless it be explained b y a mi-
nister. The minister's voice is indeed required, that the people
may understand obscure passages, and be excited to the practice
and exercise of those duties which they have learned from the
w o r d : yet should they not b e so ignorant and childish as not to
recognise and understand the reading of the scriptures. Such a
state of childhood in the people the apostle frequently reprehends,
as in 1 Cor. xiv. 20 ; E p h . iv. 1 4 ; H e b . v. 1 2 ; and requires from
them senses exercised in scripture, aia9r]Tijpia yeyv/j-vaa-Meva. It
is not fit, therefore, that the people should be always infants, but
16—2
244 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

in due time they should become men, and " p u t away childish
things," 1 Cor. xiii. 1 1 .
Our last argument (not to heap up too many) is drawn from
the use and practice of the ancient church. It is evident from
history and the books of the holy fathers, that the scriptures were
translated into all languages, and that the people were always ad-
monished b y their pastors to read them with diligence and assiduity.
Hence we draw our conclusion t h u s : Formerly the scriptures were
extant in vernacular languages, and were also read b y the people.
Therefore the same is lawful at the present day.
T h e antecedent hath been proved already above, where we
shewed that Jerome translated the scriptures into Dalmatian,
Chrysostom into Armenian, Ulphilas, a bishop of the Goths,
into G o t h i c ; and others into other languages. But the Jesuit
replies, that, though the scriptures m a y lawfully be translated
into vernacular languages, yet, when so translated, they should
not be read publicly in the churches; and that, as to those v e r -
nacular versions of Jerome, Chrysostom, and the rest, which
we mentioned above, they were not communicated to all, but
were only written for the consolation of some particular persons.
But the Jesuit cannot thus escape through such a chink as this.
F o r , since the reason of these versions was a public one, and had
regard to all,—namely, that all might thus be enabled to read the
scriptures, and obtain a knowledge of them,—this fiction of the
Jesuit's is easily confuted. Now the truth of this appears from the
design of all these versions: and specially of the Gothic Socrates,
Lib. iv. c. 3 3 , tells us that its reason and end was that the barba-
rians might learn and understand " the divine oracles." The scrip-
tures, therefore, were not translated for the sake of a few, but of
all, in order that they might be read b y all. F o r what else could
be the reason of these versions ? If they had been unwilling that
the scriptures should be publicly read, they would never have put
them into the vulgar tongue. If it had been unlawful for the
scriptures to be read publicly in the vulgar tongue, as the papists
would persuade us, can we suppose that Jerome, Chrysostom, and
other pious fathers, would ever have rendered them into the proper
and native language of the common people ? This is incredible
and absurd. But I shall prove, b y many testimonies of the fathers
that the scriptures were read b y all. Jerome, upon P s . lxxxvi.
writes t h u s : " T h e Lord hath related in the scriptures of the
1

1
I T. viii. p. 103.]
XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 245

people, the holy scriptures; which scriptures," says he, " are
read by all p e o p l e : " whence it appears that none were prevent-
ed from reading them. But w h y were the scriptures read b y
all p e o p l e ? Jerome answers in the same place, to the end
" that all might understand." Not therefore, according to the
Jesuit's fiction, that one or a few might understand them. Chry-
sostom, in his first H o m i l y upon the Gospel of John, writes that
2

the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and innumer-

able other nations, had translated the divine doctrines " into their
own language, and thus the barbarians had learned philosophy."
If any one desires a still more illustrious testimony, let him
read Augustine, De Doct. Christ. Lib. n. c. 5, where these words
may be found: " H e n c e it hath come to pass, that the scripture
of God (which is the remedy for such grievous disorders of the
human will), proceeding from one language, commodiously fitted
for dissemination through the globe, and diffused far and wide
b y the various tongues of its interpreters, hath become known
to all people for their salvation; which when they read, they
desire nothing else but to find out the thoughts and will of those
b y whom it was written, and through them the will of God, a c -
cording to which we believe that such men as they were s p o k e . " 3

Thus far Augustine, in whose words we may observe these five

points: First, that the scripture was published in that language,
from which it might most conveniently be transfused into others.
Secondly, that in fact it was variously translated. Thirdly, that it
thus became known to all for salvation. Fourthly, that it was read
b y the p e o p l e ; which is evident from the words, " r e a d i n g which
they desire nothing else." Fifthly, that it was not only read, but
understood; which the last words render sufficiently apparent.
Theodoret, in the fifth book of Therapeutic Discourses, estab-
lishes the same fact in these w o r d s : " The Hebrew books were
not only translated into the Greek language, but into the B o -
man tongue also, into the Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Armenian,

[2 Horn. 2. al. 1. T. vin. p. 10, B.]

[ Ex quo factum est, ut scriptura divina (qua tantis morbis humanarum
3

voluntatum subvenitur), ab una lingua profecta, qua; opportune potuit per

orbem terrarum disseminari, per varias interpretum linguas longe lateque
diffusa, innotesceret gentibus ad salutem: quam legentes nihil aliud appc-
tunt, quam cogitationes voluntatemque illorum a quibus conscripta est inve-
nire, et per illas voluntatem Dei, secundum quam tales homines loquutos esse
credimus.]
246 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Scythian, and even Sarmatian, or (to say it at once in one

word) into all the languages which nations use up to this d a y . " 1

Nothing could possibly be written more explicitly.

F r o m what hath been said, it is evident that the scriptures
were formerly translated into the vulgar t o n g u e ; not only into
some certain languages, but into all promiscuously. Where-
fore now, in like manner, they should be translated and read
vernacularly. W e r e I now to proceed in detail through all those
sentences of the fathers in which they exhort the people to the
study of the scriptures, I should never, come to an end. Chry-
sostom presses this exhortation most earnestly in many places, and
is so vehement in the matter that we seem actually frigid in com-
parison of him. In his ninth Homily upon the Epistle to the
Colossians, he uses these expressions: " H e a r me, I beseech y o u ,
all men of secular life. Procure for yourselves bibles, the medicines
of the soul. I f y e will have nothing else, get yourselves even the
new Testament alone, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels,
as your constant and perpetual instructors. Should any distress
befall you, apply to this as a dispensary of remedies. Hence draw
y o u r balm, whether it be losses, or death, or domestic bereavement,
that hath befallen you. N a y , not only apply to it, but take it all
in and hold it in y o u r mind. T h e one great cause of all evils is
ignorance of scripture." In the same place, he addresses fathers
of families t h u s : " Y o u lay every thing on our shoulders: it were
fitting that y o u only should need to be instructed b y us, and b y
y o u your wives, and b y y o u your children, should be taught . ' 2 1

Hence it appears how absurd is the answer of the Jesuit,

when he endeavours to wrest the testimony of this father out of
our hands. " Chrysostom," says he, " is not to b e understood in
the sense which the words seem to bear at first sight; for he
speaks with exaggerated emphasis. He only wishes b y these
exhortations to take the people off from the games and spectacles
to which they were at that time wholly given u p . " T o which I
might reply, that now also there are games and spectacles and
many other occasions b y which the people are seduced from p i e t y ;

[} Kal 17 'Efipaicov qbavfj oi povov els TI)V TWV 'JLXKIJVOIV perefi\rj8r), aX\a
Kal els TTJV rav Fapalwv Kal Alyvnrlav Kal Heptraiv Kal 'h>8av Kal Appevltai
Kal 'ZKvdav Kal ^avpoparav, Kal trvWqIBb'rjv elnelv, els naaas ras yXcirras ah
arravra ra edvr] Kexprjpha BiareXet Gr£CC. Affect. Curat, (ed. Sylburg. 1692.^
Serm. v. p. 81. 1. 14.]
[2 T. xi. p. 390.]
XV,] QUESTION THE SECOND, 247

and that therefore in these times also they should be exhorted to

read the scriptures. But it is manifest that Chrysostom did not
merely say these things to deter the people from such trifling and
seductive amusements, or take them off from their pursuits, but
because he thought the perusal of the scriptures appertained to the
duty of the people. In consequence, in his third Homily upon
Lazarus, he wishes the people to examine the passage at home
which he was about to treat of in the church. His words are
as follows: " On this very account we often forewarn you, many
days before, of the subject upon which we intend to speak, in
order that, in the intervening time, y o u may take up the book
and weigh the whole matter; and thus, b y distinctly understand-
ing what hath been said and what still remains to be said, your
minds may be the better prepared to hear what shall afterwards
be discoursed to you. A n d now I constantly exhort you, and
shall never cease to exhort you, not merely to attend here to what
is said to you, but also, when y o u are at home, to betake y o u r -
selves assiduously to the perusal of the holy scriptures ." Then 3

he removes all the excuses which the people used to allege for
not reading the sacred sci'iptures,—not only that about the spec-
tacles, but others much more reasonable, as the following: " I am
not a monk, but a l a y m a n ; I have a wife, and children, and a
family to mind, and am distracted b y a multiplicity of avocations;
this appertains to others and not to m e . " All these he removes,
and affirms more than o n c e : " It is impossible, it is, I say, impos-
sible, that any one can obtain salvation, who is not continually
employed in spiritual studies." Yea, he removes also the excuse
grounded upon the obscurity of scripture, and says that it is
nothing but " a pretext and cloak of carelessness." H e writes
to the same effect, Horn. 29 in Genes.; Horn. 13 in J o a n . ; Horn.
2 in M a t t . ; Horn. 3 in 2 Thess.; and elsewhere; which testimony
I, for the present, omit to cite at length.
Other fathers also agree with Chrysostom and us in this
matter. Origen, Horn. 12 in E x o d . , blames the people in many
4

words for not attending to the scripture in church, and meditating

upon it at home also. The same author, in his second Homily
upon Isaiah, s a y s : " Would that we all did that which is written,
' S e a r c h the scriptures '." H e says all, not merely the learned, or
5

[ 3
T. i. p. 737. A. B.]
[4
p. 174. A. cd. Benedict.]
[ 5
Utinamquo omnes faceremus illud quod scriptum est, Scrutamini scrip-
turas.—Opp. T. i. p. 639. Basil. 1536.]
 248 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

the bishops, or the spiritualty. Jerome, in his Epistle to Eusto-

chium, exhorts her to the constant reading of the scriptures. But
here the Jesuit answers, that Eustochium and her mother Paula
understood not only Latin, but Greek and Hebrew also ; and adds
farther, that they were modest women, and that, if all women were
like them, they might without danger be permitted to read the holy
scriptures. But Jerome invites not only Eustochium, but all pious
women to the reading of the scriptures; and in the epitaph of
Paula he affirms, that not only Eustochium but all the sisters sung
the Psalms of David in course : " None of the sisters," says he,
" was allowed to remain ignorant of the Psalms, or to fail of learn-
ing something from the holy scriptures every d a y . " Writing to 1

the widow Salvina , he exhorts her to be continually occupied with

2

pious reading. So also he exhorts a matron named Celancia , to 3

make it " h e r chief c a r e " to know the law of God. A n d he writes

in the same strain to many other females. Thus of old times all,
both men and women, whose souls were warmed with any zeal for
piety, were occupied in the reading of the scriptures.
Theodoret, in the book already cited, namely, the fifth of his
Therapeutic Discourses, writes thus concerning the present subject:
" Y o u may see everywhere these doctrines of ours understood not
only b y those who are masters in the church and teachers of the
people, but b y the very cobblers and smiths, weavers and artisans
of every kind, yea, and b y women too of all classes; not alone
those, if there be such, who are acquainted with literature, but b y
those who work for hire with their needles, b y maid-servants and
nursery girls. N o r is it only the inhabitants of cities who know
these things, but the rustics have almost an equal acquaintance with
them; and y o u will find men who dig the ground, or tend cattle, or
plant vegetables, who can dispute of the divine Trinity and the cre-
ation of all things, and who are better acquainted with human
nature than Plato and the Stagirite w e r e . " Thus Theodoret. But
4

I1
Nec licebat cuiquam sororum ignorare Psalmos, et non quotidie aliquid
de scripturis Sanctis discere.—Opp. p. 706. T. i . ]
P T. I. p. 493.]
p T. I. p. 1089.]
P Kai ecrnv ISeTv ravra elboras TO. boypara, ov povovs ye Trjs eKKkrjcrias
robs 8i8acrKa\ovs, aXXa Kal o-Kvroropovs, Kal ^aX/corun-ovr, Kal TaXacriovpyovs,
Kal robs aXXow dwoxetpo^icoTovs- Kal yvvaims coaravras, ov povov Tar \6yav
pereo-xqKvias, aXXa Kal xepvrjTthas Kal aKea-rpibas, Kal pevrot Kal Bepairaivas-
Kai ov povov acrrol, aXXa Kal xcopirtKol rqvSe rf/v yvcomv eo-xyKacrr Kal ecrnv
evpetv Kai trmiraveas Kal PorjXdras Kal (pvrovpyovs irepl T>js Betas StaKeyope-
XV.] QUESTION THE SE COND. 249

the papists now make it a matter of reproach to us, that amongst

us women converse about sacred matters, or any men even except
the learned. Hosius complains bitterly of this in his book, De Sacro
vernacule Leyendo. " This profanation," says he, " rather than
translation of the scripture has brought us not only men belt­
makers, porters, bakers, tailors, c o b b l e r s ; but also female belt­
makers, sewers and stitchers, she­apostles, prophetesses, d o c ­
t r e s s e s : " as if, forsooth, it were not lawful for women, in what­
8

ever station of life, to understand the mysteries of religion. And

Alphonsus de Castro, de Just. Punit. H ozret. L i b . i n . c. 6, says
that the translation of the scriptures into the vulgar tongue is " the
cause of all h e r e s i e s : " of course, because whatever displeases the
6

Roman pontiff is undoubtedly heretical. But E usebius, Demonstr.

Evang. Lib. I. c. 6, passes a much sounder judgment upon this
matter, when he s a y s : " The divine doctrines may be learned as
well b y women as b y men, b y the poor as b y the rich, b y servants
as b y masters ." E rasmus, a man of the greatest judgment and
7

extraordinary genius, affirms in many places, that it is necessary

that the scriptures should be translated and read b y the p e o p l e ;
and, when he was blamed on that account b y the divines of Paris,
he defended himself against them not only b y the precedent of the
ancient church, but b y the necessity of the thing itself.
And let this suffice upon the first member of the second part of
this second question.

vovs rpiaSos, каХ тгсрХ rr¡s rav SXav Srjpwvpyías, каХ rr¡v avBpamelav фхю-iv
eíSóras 'Apio-roré\ovs 7гоЛЛш paWov каХ HKáravos p. 8 1 . ed. Sylburg. 1 6 9 2 .
I have departed in one word from Sylburgius' orthography, writing <игох«/>о­
fiuÓTovs for ¿TroxeipofiíÓTovs. There are indeed some instances of á¡3íoros, but
Lobeck I think truly treats them as only a kind of a play upon Piaros, in
connexion with which they occur.—See Lobeck ad Phrynich. p. 7 1 3 . ]
[ Profanatio hsec scripture; verius quam translatio non solum zonarios,
5

bovillos, pistores, sartores, sutores, verum etiam zonarias, bovillas, sartrices,

sutrices facit nobis apostólas, prophetissas, doctrices.—Opp. p. 7 4 5 . Lugdun.
1563.]
[ The title of the chapter is De quinta causa hseresium, quse est Sacra;
e

Scriptures translatio in linguam vulgarem. Pol. 2 0 8 . 2 . Salmant. 1 5 4 7 . ]

[7 COOTE roiavra pavQaveiv каХ obiKocrocpeív prj póvov avbpas aKKa каХ yv-
vdÍKas, TT\OVO~ÍOVS ET (caí nevaras, каХ áoúXous ap.a SecrTToVatr. — p. 2 4 . D. ed.
Viger. Paris. 1 6 2 8 . ]
250 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

CHAPTER XVI.

STATE OF T H E QUESTION CONCERNING PUBLIC PRAYERS AND

SACRED RITES IN THE VULGAR TONGUE.

W E have now at length come to the second member of the

second part of this question, which concerns the celebration of
divine service, that is, the public prayers and offices of the church,
in the vulgar tongue of all churches. T h e papists everywhere
make use of the Latin tongue in all their churches throughout all
nations: which practice, impious and absurd as it is, is y e t con-
firmed b y the authority of the council of Trent, Sess. XXH. cap. 8 ;
where it is said " not to seem g o o d to the fathers, that the mass
should everywhere be celebrated in the vulgar tongue." Wow
under the name of the mass they understand the whole liturgy and
all the offices of the church. Nevertheless it is permitted in the
same decree " to pastors and those who have the cure of souls, f r e -
quently during the celebration of mass, either themselves or through
others, to expound some parts of what is read in the m a s s . " 1
And
in canon i x . of that session, the council s a y s : " I f any affirm that
the mass should only be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, let him be
anathema ." 2
Hosius also hath written a b o o k upon this subject,
to which he gives this title, "De Sacro vernacule Legendo;"
wherein he asserts that the Latin was the only language ever used
in the Western church, and the Greek in the Eastern. W e , on
the contrary, maintain that always in all ancient churches of
the Christians the lessons and public prayers were held in that
language which the people understood, and that so it should always

[ Etsi Missa magnam contineat populi fidelis eruditionem, non tamen

l

visum est patiibus, ut vulgari passim lingua celebretur. Quamobrem, retento

ubique cujusque ecclesiss antiquo, et a sancta Romana ecclesia, omnium
ecclesiarum matro et magistra, probato ritu, ne oves Christi esuriant, neve
parvuli panem petant, et non sit qui frangat eis, mandat sancta Synodus pas-
toribus et singulis curam animarum gerentibus, ut frequenter inter missarum
celebrationem, vel per se vel per alios, ex iis quae in missa leguntur, aliquid
exponant, atque inter cetera sanctissimi bujus sacrificii mysterium aliquod
declarent, diebus proesertim dominicis et festis.—Sess. xxn. c. viii.]
[ Si quis dixerit, ecclesia? Romance ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis
2

et verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vul-

gari missam celebrari debere; aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice
ofFerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem: anathema sit.—Can. ix.
ut supra.]
XVI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 251

be. Wherefore the reformed churches have justly banished these

Latin services. The state, therefore, of the controversy is this;
whether public prayers are only to be held in the Latin tongue, or
in the vulgar tongue of every nation? W e have already proved
that the scriptures should be translated into the vulgar tongue : and
since the reason is the same for celebrating prayers and translating
scripture vernacularly, the same arguments will serve for confirming
this cause as for the former. On this account the Jesuit hath
mixed up this question with the previous one, and treated of them
both t o g e t h e r : yet it seemed to us more prudent to discuss these
matters separately.
So much we thought fit to premise upon the state of the
question. Let us now proceed to the arguments on both sides.

CHAPTER XVÍI.

THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PAPISTS FOR SERVICE IN A FOREIGN

TONGUE ARE CONFUTED.

IN the first place, as our proposed plan requires, we shall set

forth the arguments of the papists, upon which they rely to prove
that public prayers and the other offices of the church should only
be celebrated in the Latin tongue.
Their first argument is to this effect: The majesty of religious
offices requires a language more grand and venerable than the
vulgar tongues of every nation. Therefore they should be per-
formed in Latin, not in the vernacular.
I answer: In the first place, W h a t is that peculiar dignity,
majesty, or sanctity which the Latin tongue hath more than others?
Surely, none. Yea, nothing can be slighter, more futile, or more
foolish, than those common Latin services which are used b y the
Roman church. F o r m y part, I can recognise no greater holiness in
one language than in another ; nor a greater dignity either; unless,
perhaps, they hold the Latin in such high esteem for the sake of
its phrases, its antiquity, or the mysteries which are consigned in
that language. But gravity, holiness, and majesty are in the things,
not in the tongue. T h e Latin, therefore, cannot contribute any
additional dignity to the scripture. Secondly, I deny that the
majesty of sacred things can be diminished b y any vernacular
tongues, however barbarous. Nothing can be more dignified, ma-
jestic, or holy than the gospel. Yet, Acts ii., it was expounded
252 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

and published b y the apostles in all languages, even barbarous

ones: which they certainly never would have done, if they had
supposed that b y so doing its majesty would have run the risk of
being in the slightest degree impaired. But the Jesuit urges that
there are many mysteries which must not be imparted to the
p e o p l e ; and that they are profaned when they are translated into
the vulgar tongue, and so commonly published to e v e r y b o d y . This
he proves by the testimonies of certain fathers, as Dionysius the
Areopagite, Basil, and others. N a y , our countrymen the Rhemists,
too, urge the same plea in their Annotations upon 1 Cor. xiv., where
they complain most piteously that the mysteries of the sacraments
are horribly profaned, which should be carefully concealed from the
common people.
I answer: In the first place, neither Christ nor the apostles
ever commanded that those mysteries should be concealed from the
people. Y e a , on the contrary, Christ instituted such sacraments in
order to instruct us through our very senses: this was the end of
the institution itself. A n d , indeed, the whole significance of these
mysteries was of old quite familiarly known b y the p e o p l e ; and
therefore the apostle, 1 Cor. x. 1 5 , when about to enter upon a
discourse concerning the sacraments, addresses the Corinthians t h u s :
" I speak as to wise m e n ; j u d g e y e what I s a y . " Consequently
they were not ignorant of the sacraments; for he calls them wise
men, and would have them j u d g e of what he was about to s a y .
Nothing, indeed, could bear a more ludicrous and trifling appearance
than the sacraments, unless their design and reason were known.
F o r what advantage could a gentile, or any one unacquainted with
that sacrament, suppose to have accrued to an infant b y merely
seeing it b a p t i z e d ? W h a t advantage, in his opinion, would a
Christian receive b y taking a morsel of bread and a few drops of
wine? Surely nothing could seem more foolish to one who was
not acquainted with the reason and object of these ceremonies.
These therefore should not be concealed, but explained to God's
p e o p l e ; and the hiding of them is an antichristian device to fill the
people with a stupid admiration of they know not what.
I answer, secondly, to the testimonies of the fathers: and, first,
to Dionysius , whose words are cited from the b o o k of the Ecclesi-
1

[! The works of the pseudo-Dionysius were published by Corderius in

Greek, Paris, 1615. But the last and best edition is that of 1644, printed
also at Paris with the Defensio Areopagitica of Chaumont. For a full ac-
count compare Daille, de Script. Dion. Areop. Geneva, 1666; and Pearson,
Vindic. Ignat. par. 1. c. 10.]
 XVII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 253

astical Hierarchy, cap. 1, where he admonishes Timotheus, to whom

he writes, concerning the sacred mysteries, a/ueOeicTa aal a-^pavra
TOIS aTeXecrTois SiaTripeiv, and \epois novois TWV \epwv Koivoaveiv'
that is, " that they should not be imparted to the uninitiate, because
holy things are only to be given to holy persons, and pearls are
not to b e cast to swine." N o w , as to this Dionysius, I deny, in the
first place, that he is the Areopagite mentioned Acts xvii. 3 4 . A n d
this I do, not because I feel uneasy at his testimony (for he says no
more than what Christ himself distinctly enjoins, Matt. vii. 6 ) ; but
because I am led to form this opinion b y certain arguments, which
it is not, at present, needful for me to touch upon. There will be
another opportunity of speaking about this Dionysius. Secondly,
I say that his opinion is true and pious, and makes, in no respect,
against us, as will readily appear to any one who will consider the
passage. T h e sense of his words is, that holy things are not to b e
exposed or cast before heathen, gentiles, and profane persons :
which, indeed, ought to hold as well in the case of the word, as in
that of the sacraments. But the fathers formerly were much more
cautious with respect to the sacraments than the w o r d ; because
heathen and impure men used to deride and despise the sacraments
much more than the preaching of the word. N o w that this is the
meaning o f Dionysius, his scholiast Maximus informs u s ; whose
words are as follows: " It is not fit to reveal the holy things to the
profane, nor to fling pearls to s w i n e . " But the laity ought not to
2

be compared to swine, nor treated as profane, or spectators of the

Eleusinian mysteries. If they wish to be pious, holy, and faithful,
they should be acquainted with the design of the mysteries. A n d
I make the same answer to the testimony of Basil, which is con-
tained in his treatise, de Sp. S., L i b . n. c. 2 7 . T h e people cer- 3

tainly are not bound to feel much indebted to those who think of
them so meanly and dishonourably as to regard them as swine and

[2 oil Sei ra ayia rots f5e$T}kois cKCpalpciv, ouSe rovs fiapyapiras rots x°*Pols

pinTeiv. This scholiast was Maximus the Confessor, who flourished about the
year 6 4 5 . ]
[3
a yap ov8e iTvorrreieiv e£«m rots apvrjTois, TOVTCOV TTS>S av %v clubs rfjv
SiSao-KaXiav dpiafifieieiv iv ypappao-iv.—Basil. Opp. T. II. p. 2 1 1 . B. Which,
by the way, is a good instance of flpcapfievm in the sense of openly displaying.
Cf. Col. ii. 1 5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 1 4 . I observe another instance in Cabasilas, as
given in Jahn's Lerefruchte byzantinischer Theologie, in Ullman's Studien
und Krit. for 1 8 4 3 , part 3, p. 7 4 4 , n. 6 2 . bvotv ovrav, a hrjkov KaOlo-rrjo-i. Kal
dpiapfteiei rbv ipao-rrjvJ]
254 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

dogs. Chrysostom, Horn. 2 4 , in Matt., and G r e g o r y , Dial. Lib. iv.

c. 5 6 , contain nothing pertinent to the present question.
T h e second argument of our adversaries is grounded upon the
authority of scripture, namely, Levit. xvi. 1 7 , where the people are
commanded to remain without and wait for the priest, whilst he
enters the sanctuary, and offers up prayers alone for himself and
the people. This is commanded in that passage; and an example
of the practice is given Luke i. 1 0 , where we read that the people
stood without, while Zacharias offered incense in the t e m p l e : whence
it is clear that the people not only did not understand the priest,
but did not even hear him. Therefore it is considered unnecessary
that the people should understand the prayers which are offered b y
the priest to God.
I answer: That the conclusion does not follow from this precept
and example. F o r , in the first place, there was an express c o m -
mandment of G o d that the people should remain without, and the
priest alone should offer incense in the sanctuary. Let them, if
they can, produce any similar command for their Latin liturgy and
foreign services, and we will yield to their opinion. But they
cannot; and, in matters of religion, nothing should be attempted
without a command. Secondly, this was typical. Therefore the
same should not now be d o n e ; since all the old types have been
done away. T h e priest was in the place of Christ, and represented
him, who thus went up alone into the sanctuary, that is, into heaven,
where he now intercedes with G o d for the church, although w e do
not now see or hear him. I deny that this should now be imitated
b y u s ; for typical observances have now no place. Thirdly, the
people were not able even to hear the absent priest speaking, much
less to understand what he said: but when the priest spoke in
presence of the people, he spoke in such a manner as to be under-
stood b y all. But the priests of the papists, even under the eyes
and in the audience of the people, perform and celebrate their
unholy rites and sacrifices, which are no sacrifices, in a foreign
tongue.

Their third argument is that of cardinal Hosius, in his book,

De Sacro vernac. Legendo, and is to this effect: " Religion and
piety have been so far from being increased, that they have been
diminished, since some have begun to use the Vulgar tongue in the
offices of the church. Therefore they ought rather to be per-
formed and celebrated in the Latin language."
I answer, in the first place, Though we were to concede the
XVII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 255

truth of what Hosius affirms, it will not follow thence that the public
service should be performed in Latin, and not in the Vulgar tongue.
F o r what if many are made w o r s e ? Will it therefore follow that
vernacular prayers are to be entirely banished? The doctrine of
the gospel renders many more perverse and obstinate; yet it ought
not, on that account, to be concealed from the people. W h e n Christ
preached and taught the people, the Pharisees were made more
obstinate; and the apostle says that the gospel is to some the
savour of death unto death: and yet nevertheless the gospel should
always be preached. That reason, therefore, is not a just cause
w h y the offices of the church should not be performed in the Vul-
gar tongue, because many are thereby rendered w o r s e ; unless it
be proved that the vernacular language is the cause of that ill
effect: which they cannot prove. Secondly, I say that what is
supposed in the antecedent is untrue. F o r although there does
not appear in the people so much superstition as formerly; yet in
the reformed churches at the present day the sincerity of true
religion is more flourishing. T h e people, indeed, are not so super-
stitious as they were f o r m e r l y : they then feared everything with
a certain stupid superstition, which, it must be allowed, repressed,
however, many crimes. Y e t they are now much more religious in
our churches. F o r they are deceived, who suppose that there is
any piety, or virtue, or religion, in blind ignorance or superstition.
A n d although there be amongst us many profane persons, such as
there will never be lacking in the church of God, there are yet
many who have a true sense of religion. So much upon the
argument of Hosius.
T h e fourth argument is that adduced b y H a r d i n g in his third
1

article against Jewel, sect. 8. which stands t h u s : " A great part of

Asia Minor used only the Greek language in their s e r v i c e ; buf
the whole people did not understand Greek. Therefore it is law-
ful to use an unknown tongue in the public service."
I answer, firstly, he should prove that all Asia Minor used the
Greek language in their service; which since he fails to do, his syl-
logism is composed of merely particular propositions, and therefore
concludes nothing. Secondly, he should prove his minor. H e con-

[l " The less Asia, being a principal part of the Greek Church, had ther
the service in the Greek tongue. But the people of sundry regions and
countries of the less Asia then understood not the Greek tongue; ergo, the
people of sundry regions and countries had then their service in an unknown
tongue." Apud Jewel, Art. m. §. 8. p. 272. ut supra.]
256 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

firms it, indeed, b y a twofold testimony. T h e first is taken from

Acts xiv. 1 1 , where, when Paul had healed a man who was lame
from his mother's womb, the people are said to have lifted up their
voice AvKaovuTTi, " i n the speech of L y c a o n i a , " and to have said,
" T h e gods have come down to us in the likeness of m e n . " Hence
he collects that the whole people of Asia Minor did not understand
Greek, since the people of Lystra and D e r b e , which were two
cities of Asia Minor, did not speak in Greek but in Lycaonian. I
a n s w e r ; the Lycaonian tongue was not a different language from
the G r e e k , but only a different dialect.
1
F o r Paul did not preach
the gospel to that people in Lycaonian, but in G r e e k ; while y e t
the people doubtless understood what he said, as is manifest from
the instance of the lame man who was cured and converted b y
Paul. If Paul had spoken in Lycaonian, and not in Greek, w h y
does Luke write particularly that they uttered this exclamation " i n
the speech of Lycaonia ? " This reasoning, therefore, is the same as
if he were to say : they spoke Doric, and therefore did not speak
Greek. Furthermore, that they both understood and spoke Greek,
is evident from the fact that Amphilochius, a bishop of L y c a o n i a , 2

wrote in Greek, some fragments of whom are extant to this day.

The second testimony b y which he confirms his minor, is
taken from the second chapter of the A c t s , where Cappadocia,
Pontus, Asia, P h r y g i a , Pamphylia, & c , are enumerated as sundry
regions, and must therefore have used sundry languages; I an-
swer : Some of those tongues which the apostles used, were not
altogether different and distinct, but only various dialects. So the
speech which the Galileans used was different from that of the
J e w s ; y e t not so as to be another language, but only another dia-
lect. F o r the maid-servant doubtless understood Peter, who was
of Galilee, when she said, " T h y speech bewrayeth thee." So a
Cappadocian could understand a Phrygian speaking, a Pamphylian

[i W e are left to mere conjecture upon this subject. Grotius supposed

the Lycaonian to be the same as the Cappadocian. Jablonsky determines
that it was a Greek dialect, but next akin to the Assyrian and thence derived.
Guhling published a separate dissertation, De Lingua Lycaonica a Pelasgis
Orcecis orta Wittenberg, 1726, in which he contends that the Lycaonian was
derived from the Greek. See Kuinoel upon Acts xiv. 11.]
[ i. e. Bishop of Iconium, the capital of Lycaonia. He flourished A. D.
2

370. The principal fragments that go under his name were published by
Combefis, Paris, 1644. But there is an epistle preserved by Cotelerius, in
his Monumenta, T. n. p. 99, which is supposed to be the only genuine piece
of his now extant.]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 257

a Cretan, an Athenian a Spartan. N o w that the people of Asia

Minor understood the Greek language is certain: for Paul wrote
to the Ephesians, to the Galatians, and to the Colossians in Greek.
But Ephesus, Galatia, and Colossas, were cities of Asia Minor. There-
fore either all Asia, or a great part of this Asia, understood G r e e k :
otherwise Paul would never have written to them in Greek.
Besides, the same is evident from Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna,
G r e g o r y , bishop of Nyssa, Basil, bishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia;
who all, though bishops of Asia Minor, wrote all their works in
Greek. Jerome too, in his second proem to the Epistle to the
Galatians, affirms that the whole East spoke G r e e k . 3
T h e papists
therefore can never prove that Asia Minor did not use the Greek
language. Or, if amongst those people some were ignorant of
Greek, how will they prove that they had their service in the
Greek l a n g u a g e ? Hence their argument is inconsequential in
every possible w a y of considering it.
T h e fifth argument, which some at least advance, is of this
k i n d : Three languages were hallowed upon the c r o s s : therefore
we ought to use only these languages in the public offices of the
church. A n d Bellarmine says that w e should be content with
those three languages which Christ honoured upon the cross.
I answer: In the first place, that title was not written in three
languages in order that those languages should thereby be conse-
crated to such a u s e ; but that the report of Christ's death should
so be diffused as widely as possible. Secondly, this is an allegori-
cal argument, and therefore of itself concludes nothing. Thirdly,
Cajetan, Jentac. L i b . i. Quaest. 4, says that these three languages
" w e r e the representatives of all l a n g u a g e s , " because the number
4

three denotes perfection. If this be so, then all the languages of

all nations can celebrate the death of Christ, and all the services
of Christianity.
T h e other arguments of the adversary in this question have
no weight in them whatsoever, and I will not be guilty of seeming
to waste time in unnecessary disputes.

[ Excepto sermone Grceco, quo omnis oriens loquitur. T. iv. p. 1. 255.]

3

[ Et tribus prsecipuis Unguis omnium linguarum vices gerentibus, ex

4

ipsius etiam trinarii omnia complectentis perfectione, scribere d isposuit.

Jentacula Novi Testamenti. 27. 2. Paris. 1536.]

17
[WHITAKER.]
258 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

CHAPTER XVIII.

OUR ARGUMENTS, WHEREBY WE PROVE THAT T H E OFFICES OF THE

CHURCH SHOULD B E PERFORMED IN THE VERNACULAR LAN-
GUAGE OF EVERY PEOPLE. '

L E T us now proceed to the establishment of our own opinion,

whither all those arguments which we used in the former part may
be referred. F o r if the scriptures should be read in the vulgar
tongue, then certainly the rest of the service should be performed
in the vulgar tongue also. However, we will now use some
peculiar and separate arguments in this question.
Our FIRST argument shall be taken from Paul's first epistle to
the Corinthians, chap. x i v . : in which chapter Paul directs, that
everything should be done for the edification of the people in the
church, that no one should speak in a strange tongue without an
interpreter; and adds, that he would rather speak five words with
his understanding, so as to instruct others also, than ten thousand
words in an unknown tongue. A n d the whole chapter is spent
upon this subject. W h e n c e it evidently appears that the popish
opinion is repugnant to apostolical teaching. W e reason thus from
that chapter against the papists: I f prayers in the Latin are
everywhere to be set forth for the people, then the people will
not understand what is said. But the apostle expressly forbids
this in this chapter. Therefore public prayers should not be
everywhere celebrated in the Latin tongue. However, let us
weigh the answer of our opponents to this reasoning; who, in
truth, are wonderfully perplexed at this passage, and have
devised many contrivances to evade it.
Some papists reply, that Paul does not speak in that chapter
of prayers, offices, or stated services, but of exhortations and public
sermons, which they confess should be delivered in the vulgar
tongue. But I deny that the meaning of the apostle was merely
to forbid a strange language in exhortations or sermons. F o r who
would have been mad enough to deliver an harangue to the people
in an unknown tongue ? W h o could so much as have hoped that
the people would be sufficiently attentive to hear with patience and
civility a man uttering, b y the space of an hour or more, words
which they did not understand ? W e read that some persons for-
merly in the church preached in a foreign tongue, but we read also
that there were at the same time interpreters at hand. But this is
quite another matter. I allow, indeed, that the apostle does men-
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 259

tion sermons; for it is with such a reference that he says, verse

2 9 , " Let the prophets speak (XaXeiTwcrav) b y two or three, and
the rest j u d g e : " but that this is his whole subject, upon which he
is entirely engaged throughout that chapter, I deny. F o r how are
we to understand what is said ver. 1 4 , " I f I pray in an unknown
tongue, m y spirit prayeth, but m y understanding is unfruitful?"
Besides he speaks of services to which the people answer Amen.
N o w the people use not to do this to sermons. H e mentions also
giving of thanks and praising God. N a y , the fathers themselves,
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, CEcumenius, and all who have
well explained this chapter, confess that Paul speaks not only of
exhortations and sermons, but also of public prayers. Yea, H a r d -
ing, A r t . hi. Sect. 1 8 , allows that it was needful in the primitive
1

church that prayers should be held in the vulgar and intelligible

tongue, but contends that it is now no longer requisite. But now
the papists, become more learned, choose another mode of answer-
ing. T h e y confess, indeed, that the apostle speaks of public prayers;
but they deny it to be requisite that the whole people should un-
derstand the prayers which the minister repeats; for they say it
is sufficient if one only, whom they commonly call the clerk, un-
derstand them, who is to answer Amen in behalf of the whole
congregation. T h e y prove this from those words of the apostle,
at verse 16, " I f thou shalt bless with the spirit, how (says the old
edition) shall he who supplies the place of the unlearned answer
Amen?" Thus Stapleton, in his English book against Jewel, Art. iii.
Thus a certain papist, who hath made an epitome of Bellarmine's
Lectures. So Thomas Aquinas. So Catharinus. So Sixtus S e -
nensis, Bibliothec. Lib. vi. Annot. 2 6 3 .
I a n s w e r : In the first place, the Latin vulgate version is false
and foolish, and does not agree with the Greek text. For T W O S
never means the person of those represented; and avawXijpovv is
to fill, not to supply. So that the meaning is not, " he who sup-
plies the place of the people," as the old Latin edition renders i t ;
but, " he who occupies the room, and sits amongst the l a i t y , " —
that is, he who is himself a layman and one of the common people.
F o r formerly the minister did not sit promiscuously with the

\} 18 is a misprint for 28. Harding's words are: " But St Paul, say they,
requireth that the people give assent and conform themselves unto the
priest, by answering amen to his prayer mado in the congregation. Verily,
in the primitive church this was necessary, when the faith was a-learning."
Ap. Jewel, p. 317, ut supra.]
17—2
260 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

people, but in a place separate from the people and the rest of
the multitude. This is what is referred to b y the phrase, avair\r}-
povv TOV Toirov TOV iSttcTov. A n d thus it is that Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and CEcumenius interpret this place. CEcumenius
says that he fills the place of the unlearned, who eis ISIIOTTIV TeXei,
is ranked as an unlearned person; and immediately subjoins,
" h e calls him unlearned who is ranged in the rank of l a y m e n . " 1

Secondly, I say that there was no such person in the ancient

church as they call a clerk, but that the whole congregation together
answered Amen. So Jerome, in his second prologue to his c o m -
mentary on the Galatians: " T h e whole church," says h e , " r e -
plies with a thundering A m e n . " 2
A single clerk, unless he be a
Stentor, cannot answer thus. So Chrysostom, as is manifest from
his liturgy,-—if indeed it be his, and not rather the work of some
b o d y else published under his name . 3
So Cyprian, in his discourse
upon the Lord's p r a y e r : " W h e n the minister," says he, " h a t h
said, ' Lift up your heart,' the whole people answer, * W e lift them
up unto the L o r d . ' "
4
But most plainly of all Justin Martyr, in his
Second A p o l o g y for the Christians : irds o Xaos e-n-eucpnimel 'A/nriv*"
" the whole people reply in token of assent, A m e n . " These
words, therefore, are not to be understood of such an imaginary
clerk, answering in the name of the whole people, as the papists
would have it.
But the Jesuit Bellarmine, and lately our countrymen, the
Rhemists, following his example, do not venture to trust to this
answer, and therefore have invented another. T h e y say that the
apostle does not speak at all of divine service, or the public read-
ing of the scripture, but of certain spiritual songs, which were
wholly extraordinary, and in which the Christians of those times
used to praise God, and give him thanks, and edify and comfort
one another. These, they say, are mentioned, Ephes. v. 19 and
Coloss. hi. 1 6 , where the apostle bids the Christians to whom he

[1 IBtcorrjv Xcyfj TOV iv TCO \diKco rayjiari rerayplvov.—T. I. p. 5 6 0 . Com-

mentt. in N . T. Paris. 1631.']
[ Tota ecclesia instar tonitrui reboat Amen, ut supra.]
2

[ See the excellent remarks of " t h e ever-memorable" Hales, at the end

3

of the article Chrysostom, in Cave's Historia Literaria.]

[•* Ideo et sacerdos ante orationem praefatione prsemissa parat fratrum
mentes dicendo, Sursum corda; ut dum respondet plebs, Habemus ad Domi-
num, &c. p. 1 5 2 , ed. Fell. Amstel. 1 6 9 1 . ]
P p. 9 8 . E. Opp. Colon. 1 6 8 6 , or Paris, 1 6 3 6 . ]
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 261

writes, to speak to each other " in psalms and hymns, and spiritual
songs, singing and making melody in their hearts to the L o r d ; "
and that such songs are spoken of in this chapter, ver. 2 6 , where
the apostle says, " when y e come together," e/cao-ros vfxoav \^a\ixov
eyei, " each of y o u hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue,
hath a revelation: let all things be done unto edification." Finally,
that Tertullian mentions these in his A p o l o g y , c. 3 9 , and also 6

other fathers: and that this cannot be understood of the public

offices and prayers, because the public prayers at Corinth were
then celebrated in the Greek language, which was understood b y
all, and no strange t o n g u e ; which Paul must have remembered
v e r y well.
I a n s w e r : T h e apostle, I confess, speaks of those songs, and I
am not unaware of the existence of such hymns formerly amongst
Christians: but the apostle does not speak of them alone. F o r
he expressly mentions prayers, ver. 1 4 , eclv Trpoaev-^w/nai rr\
<y\<oaan, " If I pray in an unknown tongue." A n d although the
Corinthian church then used the Greek language in the service of
God, it does not therefore follow that these words of the apostle
are not to be understood of the public offices and service. Cer-
tainly the whole discourse of the apostle is general. H e speaks
generally and in common of all the offices of the church, and
condemns, on general grounds, the use of an unknown tongue in
the church, whether in sermons, or in prayers, or in songs. A n d
the first ground is t h i s : an unknown tongue is useless; therefore
it ought not to be used in the church. T h e antecedent is proved,
verse 2, where he says, " H e that speaketh in an unknown tongue
speaketh not to men, but to G o d ; for no man understandeth h i m :
howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries." ' O XaAwv yKoiaan,
" he that speaketh in a tongue," that is, an unknown tongue, says
Thomas A q u i n a s ; " f o r no man heareth," that is, no one under-
7

stands him. But in the church one should speak so as that not God
alone, but men also may understand him. This he proves also in
the sixth verse, where he says, " If 1 should come to you speaking
with tongues" (though innumerable), " w h a t shall I profit y o u ? " — a s
much as to say, you will derive no advantage whatever from my
discourse. And, verse 9, he says, edv /XTJ evar fxov Xoyov Score, t

" unless y e utter with the tongue words easy to be understood, how

[ 6
P o s t aquam manualem e t lumina, u t quisque d e scripturis Sanctis vcl
d e proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium D e o c a n e r e . — A p o l o g . c. 3 9 .
p. 1 1 2 . O p p . T e r t u l l . P a r t 1. c d . L e o p o l d . Lipsia;. 1 8 3 9 . ]
[' C o m m e n t , in l o c ]
262 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

shall it be understood what is spoken ?" eareade yap els aepa

XaXovvres, " for y e shall be as if speaking into the air." From
these passages it is manifest that the apostle's meaning is this, that
whatever is spoken in the church in an unknown tongue is spoken
fruitlessly and in vain.
But the Jesuit and the Rhemists, setting themselves in open
opposition to the apostle, affirm that prayers, even when they
are not understood, are v e r y edifying, although perhaps they
may be more edifying when they are understood. But the
apostle's words are clear, and must always be pressed upon
them, " W h a t shall I profit y o u ? " — a s if he had said, I cannot be
any way of use to you. So CEcumenius interprets those words,
OUK eaofxai v/uuv 67rw0eXjj?. A n d " y e shall be speaking into the
air," that is, fruitlessly and in v a i n : for so CEcumenius, /marr/v
Kal avuxpeXak. So also Chrysostom, in his 35th Homily upon
this c h a p t e r : " T e depart," says he, " ou&ev tcepSdvavres, deriving
n o advantage from a sound which y e do not understand ." 1
But let
us hear h o w the Jesuit proves that a prayer, though not under-
stood, is useful to the people. Attend to his beautiful reason. The
minister, says he, or priest, does not p r a y to the people, but to G o d
for the people. Therefore, it is not necessary that the people
should understand what he says, but it is sufficient that G o d him-
self understands him. N o w he understands all languages. This
he illustrates b y a comparison. As, says he, if one were to inter-
cede with a king for a rustic, it is not necessary that the rustic
should understand what his patron says to the king in his behalf,
nor does he much care, provided only he obtain what he s e e k s ; so
it is not requisite that the people should understand those prayers
which the minister presents to G o d in their name. Besides, the
church prays even for the infidels and the absent. I answer, this
reasoning of the Jesuit is inconsequential; and it is a bad argument
to say, prayer is not made to the people, but to G o d for the p e o p l e ;
therefore it is not necessary that the people should understand what
the minister prays. F o r the minister is, as it were, the people's
mouth. H e prays, indeed, to God, but y e t for the p e o p l e ; and
although the people remain silent in their lips, while the minister
prays, y e t meanwhile they follow him, as he prays, in their hearts,
and respond at the close, Amen; b y which expression they shejv

[1 * O St? \iyu TOVTO etTTiv.... y\a>TTa>v av aKovo-avres oidev Kephavavres atre-

"Xeio-eo-de. rras yap airb (pcovrjs, rjs oi o-vvUre;—Chrys. Opp. T. X. p. 233. The
Homilies on 1 Cor. are to be found in T. iv. of Saville's ed., and T. x. of the
Paris edition of Fronto Ducasus, 1613.]
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 263

that the prayer is their own, and signify that they ask from God
whatever the minister himself hath asked. Otherwise, if the peo-
ple did not pray along with the minister, it would not be necessary
for the people to be present, or assemble in the same place with the
minister, but the minister alone might p r a y for the people to God
in their absence. But prayers are public, that is, prayers of the
whole church. W e see, therefore, that it is a foolish comparison
which the Jesuit uses. F o r if the rustic, of whom he speaks,
were to hear his advocate pleading his cause before the king in an
unknown tongue, and speaking words which he did not understand,
he might suspect that he was rather speaking against him than for
him. So the people, when they hear the minister pray in an un-
known tongue, may doubt whether he prays for them, or for others,
or against them. W h a t if even the priest himself do not under-
stand what he is saying ? the possibility of which experience hath
taught in the case of many priests of the Roman church.
But the apostle, at verse 14, blames altogether all use of an
unknown tongue in public p r a y e r s : " If I should p r a y , " says he,
" in a tongue, m y spirit prayeth, but m y understanding is un-
fruitful." And it is plain that he there speaks of public p r a y e r s ;
first, because, verse 19, he says, ev rrj eKKKricriq, in the church;
secondly, because he speaks of such prayers as the people said
Amen to, as a token of their assent, as is plain from verse 1 6 ;
which is only done when the people are assembled together in
one place. Therefore, unless the prayer be understood, the un-
derstanding will be aKapwos, unfruitful; that is, no advantage
will accrue to the church from the conceptions of your under-
standing. T h e Jesuit and the papists give a wrong and foolish
interpretation of that whole fourteenth verse, to this effect: " I f
I pray in a tongue, m y mind or m y understanding is not in-
structed, because indeed it does not understand what I s a y : but
meanwhile m y spirit, that is, m y affections,"—so they expound
i t , — " a r e edified." F o r example, says Bellarmine, if one were to
recite the seven psalms, and not to understand what he was
reciting, his understanding is not improved, y e t his affections mean-
while are improved. T h e sum, therefore, of this interpretation is
t h i s : if I pray in an unknown tongue, although I do not under-
stand the words, y e t m y affections are thereby made better.
I answer, in the first place, this is an utterly ridiculous inter-
pretation. For he who recites any prayers or psalms in a language
which he does not understand, is no more improved than if he had
not recited them at all. His good affection, or desire of praying, is
264 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [en.

not assisted b y reading he knows not what. But if the affections of

him who prays in an unknown tongue be good, and his reason no
way benefited, because he does not understand his p r a y e r ; w h y
does he not use a language with which he is acquainted, that he
m a y derive a double advantage, both to his affections and to his un-
derstanding? Secondly, the papists themselves confess that prayers
expressed in a language known and understood are more useful and
advantageous. W h y then do they not pray in a known tongue ?
F o r prayers should be made in that manner in which they are
likely to be most useful to us. N o w that prayers, when under-
stood, are more useful than prayers not understood, the Jesuit con-
cedes ; and so does Harding, as may be seen, A r t . in. Sect. 2 9 . 1

A n d D e L y r a also, upon 1 Cor. xiv., says that the people, if they

understand the prayer of the priest, are " better brought to G o d ,
and answer Amen with more devotion." If this be, as indeed it is,
most true, we see that there are v e r y just reasons why the people
should understand their p r a y e r s : and y e t Stapleton was not ashamed
in his English b o o k against the very learned Jewel to say, Art. m .
p. 75, that devotion is not assisted, but impeded, when the language
is known and understood. Thirdly, since it is certain that prayer
is a mode of speech, is it not ridiculous to pray in an unknown
tongue ? W h o is there so destitute of common sense, as to choose,
especially in the presence of others, to speak in such a language as
either he himself is ignorant of, or the audience do not understand?
W h e n c e CEcumenius upon this chapter distinctly affirms prayer to be
a kind of s p e e c h : Trpoaev^ij, says he, eoTiv el$o<s TI TOV \oyov'
and he interprets verse 1 4 t h u s : If I speak anything necessary
and good, and expound it not to m y audience, m y spirit p r a y s , —
that is, I myself derive some advantage; but m y understanding is
unfruitful, that is, the conceptions of m y understandimg bring no
advantage to others. Hence it is manifest that the sense of these
words is very different from what they suppose. So Chrysostom
expounds this passage ; and Basil most expressly and plainly of all,
in his Epitome of Definitions, Def. 278, " M y understanding is un-
fruitful, because no one is benefited:" and he adds, that this is
spoken of them who " pray in an unknown tongue." I will subjoin
the words, because they are very remarkable: TOUTO irepl TWV ev
yAwcruri ayvoovfxei'ri -rots atcovovai rets Trpotrev^a's ava7re/x7rovTu>]'.
orav yap ayvcoaTa y TOIS irapovcxi ra prj/uara Ttjs Trpocrev)£rjs,

[l " I grant they cannot say ' Amen' to the blessing or thanksgiving of
the priest so well as if they understood the Latin tongue perfectly." Apud
Jewel, ut supra, p. 318.]
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 265

aKaprros eariv o vovs TOV irpocrew^onevou fxrjóei'os w(peAouii.evou .

In which words Basil distinctly affirms, that no benefit whatever can
redound to the people from prayers which they do not understand.
So Augustine, De Genesi ad Liter. Lib. XII. c. 8. " No o n e , "
says he, " is edified b y hearing what he does not understand ." 3

Therefore from words not understood no fruit follows; and hence

it is manifest, that all their prayers are unfruitful and odious
to God.
But here the Jesuit urges us with many allegations to prove
that prayers, although not understood, are nevertheless useful to us.
These we must examine severally. First, he says, that the figures
and ceremonies of the old law were useful to the Jewish people,
although they did not understand them. I a n s w e r : In the first
place, let the Jesuit produce any such express command of God for
having prayers in a tongue not understood as the Jews had for
those ceremonies. Secondly, although the Jews did not understand
the figures and ceremonies of the law so clearly as we now under-
stand them, y e t they were not wholly ignorant of t h e m ; and there
were Levites from whom they could easily learn the whole design
of their ceremonies, so as to understand it.
T h e Jesuit's second objection is taken from Augustine, de
Baptism, contra Donat. Lib. vi. c. 2 5 ' ' , where he says that those
prayers, which have something heretical mingled with them, may
yet be profitable to one who recites them in simplicity, not know-
ing what he says, and supposing that he prays r i g h t l y : whence
the Jesuit infers that still more may good and holy prayers be
beneficial to the people, although the people do not understand
them. I answer: In the first place, we are not obliged to say
anything now of those prayers which the church of B o m e is wont
to u s e ; for many heretical matters might be pointed out in them.
Secondly, Augustine does not speak of such prayers as are made
in an unknown tongue, but of those in which something heretical
is found mixed, which however is not perceived b y those who use
the prayers. This, he says, will be no way prejudicial to them,
provided their intentions be p u r e ; because, as he expresses it,
" t h e affection of the suppliant overcomes the fault of the p r a y e r . " 5

But what is this to the present question ?

[2 p. 641. B. T. ii. Opp. Paris. 1618.]

[ 3
Nemo asdificatur audiendo quod non intelligit. T. in. p. 302.]
[ 4
Augustin. Opp. T. ix. p. 176.]
[ 5
Quia plerumque precis vitium superat affectus precantis.]
266 T H E FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

The third objection of the Jesuit is taken from Origen's

twentieth Homily upon J o s h u a : " W e often, indeed, do not un-
derstand what we utter, y e t the Virtues understand i t . " S o , 1

says the Jesuit, though the people do not understand the prayers
which the priest utters, y e t the Virtues understand them. I a n -
swer : Origen, in that place, does not speak of prayers, but o f the
reading of the scriptures; where h e meets an objection which the
laity are accustomed to make : the scriptures are difficult, and
transcend our comprehension; therefore we need not read them.
N o w , although (says Origen) we often do not understand what
we read, y e t the Virtues understand it.
T h e Jesuit's fourth objection is to this effect: I f the people
should use no prayers which they do not understand, then they
should never recite the Psalms and the Prophets. I answer: T h e
case of scripture is different from that of prayer. W e must peruse
the whole scripture, although w e are not masters o f its meaning, in
order that we m a y , in the first place, understand the words, and
then from the words b e able to proceed to the sense. But w e
should only pray what w e k n o w ; because prayer is a colloquy with
God, and springs from our understanding. F o r we ought to know
what we say, and not merely, as the Jesuit pretends, know that
what we do appertains to the honour of G o d . Secondly, the
reason w h y we understand so little when we read, is to b e found
in our own fault, and not in any obscurity of scripture.
T h e Jesuit's fifth and last objection is taken from St Antony,
as reported b y Cassian, who says that prayer is then perfect when
the mind is so affected, while we pray, as not itself to understand
its o w n words. I a n s w e r : I wonder h o w this, b e it what it m a y ,
can b e made to serve the cause in hand. F o r Antony does not
say that we should pray in an unknown t o n g u e ; but that, when
we p r a y , w e should not fix our attention on the words, but have
the mind absorbed, as it were, in divine meditation, and occupied
in thoughts about the things rather than the words. I f the feelings
[! The Greek is preserved in the Philocalia, c. 12, p. 40, ed. Spencer.
Eio"i yap rives Svvapeis iv tjplv, cov al pen KpeiTroves 8ict Toirav ra>v olovel iTrcodcov
rpetpovrai, uvyyeveis oZcrai avrais, Kal, rjpwv prj voovvrav, iiteivas TOLS dvvapets,
voovcras rd Xeyopeva, SvvaTcorepas iv qpiv yiveaQai. The whole chapter is a very
curious discourse, in which Origen suggests that the mere words of scripture
may have a beneficial effect, after the manner of a spell, upon the man who
reads them, through certain spiritual powers which he supposes to be in
intimate contact with our souls. The same passage is to be found in
Huetius' Origen, T. I. p. 27. C.]
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 267

be sincere, we need not doubt but that the H o l y Spirit will suggest
and dictate words to us, and guide us in our prayers.
Thus then what this argument of the apostle's proves remains
unshaken, that all prayers made in an unknown tongue are un-
fruitful.
T h e second general argument of the apostle is taken from those
words which are contained in ver. 11 : " I f I know not the meaning
of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he
that speaketh shall be a barbarian to m e . " Therefore, if the
minister shall pray in an unknown tongue, he and the congregation
shall be barbarians to each other. N o w this should not be in the
church, that the minister should be a barbarian to the people, o r
the people to the minister. Therefore, the minister ought not to
pray in an unknown tongue. The Jesuit does not touch this argu-
ment. The Rhemists pretend that the apostle does not here mean
the three learned languages, that is, the Hebrew, Greek, and
Latin, but others. T h e y contend, therefore, that not he who
speaks Latin, when the people do not understand it, is a barbarian ;
but he who speaks English, French, Spanish, or any vulgar tongue
which is not understood b y the audience. I answer, that the
apostle speaks in general of all languages, which the people do not
understand. " If I speak in a tongue," says he, that is, in an un-
known tongue, whatever it be. F o r those who speak with the
greatest purity and elegance, if they speak not what the people
understand, are barbarians to the people. Even Cicero himself or
Demosthenes shall be barbarians, if they harangue the people in an
unknown tongue which the people do not understand, however
sublimely they may discourse. Thus also, if the people know not
the Latin tongue, whoever uses it shall be a barbarian to them,
since they are not able to j u d g e of it. T h e poet Ovid, when
banished to Pontus, says of himself, Trist. Lib. v. Eleg. I I : 2

Barbaras hie ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli.

Anacharsis, when an Athenian reproachfully called him a barbarian,
is said to have replied : " A n d y e Athenians are barbarians to the
Scythians : " èfxoì Wi/re? ''EXX^es- O-KVOLXOVCTI. So Theodoret,
Therapeut. Orat. Lib. v. ; in which same place he observes that this
is what St Paul says, " I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian ." 3

Though men were to talk Attic, yet Anacharsis truly pronounces

[2 Trist. Lib. v. Eleg. x. 36.]

[3
Tovro yàp ÒTe^var eoine rots elprjpévois virò TOV qperepov cKVTOTÓpov K.T.X.
p. 81. 1. 53. ed. Sylburg. 1592.]
268 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

them barbarians to the Scythians, because the Scythians knew

nothing of the Attic tongue. And Cicero, in the fifth book of his
Tusculan Questions says : " In those languages which we understand
not, we are just the same as deaf ." 1
If deaf, then certainly it is
not too much to say barbarians. Chrysostom interpi*ets this pas-
sage in precisely the same way, and says that the word barbarian
is used " n o t in reference to the nature of the speech, but with
reference to our ignorance ." 2
And so also GEcumenius. But, to
silence our Rhemists with the testimony of papists, Catharinus writes
thus upon the p l a c e : " H e is here called a barbarian, whose tongue
is so diverse that he cannot be understood: for whoever is not
understood is a barbarian to the auditor ." 3
Then he produces the
verse of Ovid which we cited just now. H e determines, therefore,
that the popish priests are barbarians to the people, however they
speak Latin. H o w well they speak it, makes no difference in this
case. Certainly they do not speak better Latin than Ovid, who yet
says that he was a barbarian to the people of Pontus. N o w we
have said enough upon this place of the apostle against the Jesuit
and the Rhemists.
Next comes our SECOND argument, which is taken from other
words of the apostle in this same chapter. All things, says he,
1 Cor. xiv. 4 0 , should bé done in the church " d e c e n t l y and in
order," KaTa TÚ^IH. NOW it is most grossly repugnant to g o o d
order, that the minister should pray in an unknown tongue. For
so the people, though assembled for public prayer, are compelled to
pray, not publicly, but privately : and the custom hath prevailed in
the popish churches, that the people recite none but private prayers
in the church where public prayer is required. Yea, thus not only
the people, but the minister, who ought to offer up the public
prayers, utters only private o n e s : for the people, since they do
not understand the liturgy, do not pray publicly; and, consequently,
the minister must needs pray alone b y himself. F o r it does not
presently follow that prayers are public, because they are made in
a public p l a c e ; but those are public, which are made b y the united
desires and wills of the whole church. Hence the minister should

[ Omncsque itidem nos in iis unguis quas non intolligimus surdi pro-
J

ferto sumus.—c. xi. 1. Opp. Cicerón. T. vm. p. 559. ed. Lallemand. Paris-
1768. Barbou.]
[ Oi wapa rrjv <pvo-iv rrjs <f>ü>vrjsaX\a7rapaT^pijpeTépaváyvoíav.
2
T.Vl.p.477.]
[ Barbarus hoc in loco is dicitur, qui lingua; differt varietate, ut non
3

intelligatur: quilibet enim qui non intelligitur barbarus est illi qui audit.
p. 193. Paris. 1566.]
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 269

not pray in the church in an unknown tongue, because he, in so

doing, makes that private which ought to have been public, and
violates good order.
Our THIRD argument is to this effect: T h e papists themselves
know and concede that the Armenians, Egyptians, Muscovites and
Ethiopians perform their services in the vulgar tongue, and hold
their prayers in their own native languages. W h y then, if they do
right, should not other churches do the same? But the Jesuit
objects, that they are either heretics or schismatics; and that,
therefore, it is no great matter what they do. I answer, that
there are, indeed, in those churches many and great e r r o r s ; y e t
neither more nor greater than in the church of R o m e . These
churches are condemned b y the papists, because they will not
submit to the Roman pontiff, or hold any such communion with
him. T h e y are extensive churches, and perhaps more extensive
than the popish party, however they boast of their extension. All
these are ignorant of the Latin tongue, and use their own language
in their services; and in this matter we would rather resemble
them than the papists. T h e same is the case of the Indians, as
Eckius testifies in his common places: " W e deny not that it is
permitted to the southern Indians to perform divine service in
their own language; which custom their clergy still o b s e r v e . " 4

Our FOURTH argument stands thus: .¿Eneas Sylvius, in his book

on the origin of the Bohemians, c. XIII., relates, that- Cyril and
Methodius allowed the Moravians to use their own language in
their service . I ask, therefore, w h y the same might not be
5

allowed to other churches? or w h y other churches should not do

that which they know to be advantageous to them ? T h e Jesuit
objects, that Cyril and Methodius converted all the Moravians to-
gether to the faith, and that there was just cause then for that
permission, because ministers could not be found competent to
perform the service in Latin. I answer, if this were needful at
first, then it follows that the service may be performed in the

[ 4
Non negamus Indis australibus pcrmissum ut in lingua sua rem divi-
nam facerent, quod clerus eorum hodie observat. c. xxxiv. Colon. 1 5 3 2 . ]
[ 5
Referunt Cyrillum, cum Romas ageret, Romano pontifici supplicasso ut
Sclavorum lingua ejus gentis hominibus, quam baptizaverat, rem divinam
faciens uti posset. De qua re dum in sacro senatu disputarctur, essontque
non pauci contradictores, auditam vocem tanquam de coelo in hasc verba
missam: " Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum, et omnis lingua confiteatur ei."
Indeque datum Cyrillo indultum. JEn. Sylv. Hist. Bohem. c. xiii. p. 91. Basil.
1571.]
270 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

vulgar t o n g u e ; which he had before said ought not to be done,

because the dignity of the sacred offices requires a more majestic
language. If this be a g o o d reason, there can b e no just cause for
performing them in the vernacular. W h a t he adds about the lack
of ministers is an invention of his own.
Our FIFTH argument is taken from the authority of the emperor
Justinian; who (Lib. de cap. Eccl. c. 1 2 3 ) orders that the minister1

in the church should pronounce every thing with a clear voice, in

order that the people may hear and answer Amen. Harding , 2

A r t . in. Sect. 1 4 , objects, firstly, that Justinian speaks of a " clear

voice," to let us know that it is vocal, and not mental, prayers that
are required. But I answer, the reason subjoined removes all
doubt on that s c o r e ; for he adds, that the people may hear, and
be inflamed to devotion, and answer Amen. Secondly, he objects
that this rule was only enjoined upon the Greeks, not on others.
I a n s w e r : Justinian was not merely emperor of Greece, but of all
Europe; and therefore he proposed his laws not only to the
prelates of Constantinople, but to those of R o m e also, as is manifest
from that same chapter: " W e order, therefore, the most blessed
archbishops and patriarchs, that is to say, of old R o m e and of Con-
stantinople : " where expressly and b y name he prescribes rules to
3

the bishop of R o m e . Thirdly, he objects that these words are not

found in ancient copies. 1 answer, they are, however, found in all
the Greek copies, which are more to be trusted than the Latin
ones. A n d G r e g o r y Holoander hath them also in his Latin ver-
sion, who certainly faithfully translated the Greek text.
Our SIXTH and last argument is founded upon the authority and
testimony of the fathers. First, Basil the Great, in E p . 6 3 , to the
clergy of the church of Neocsesaraa, writes t h u s : " A s the day
dawns, all together, as with one voice and one heart, offer a Psalm
of confession to the L o r d , and each in his own words professes r e -
pentance." A n d lest any should suppose that this was spoken only
of the Greeks, he subjoins : " These constitutions are observed with
one accord b y all the churches of G o d . " There follows also in the
same p l a c e : " If on account of these you fly from us, y o u must fly
also the Egyptians, either L y b i a , the Thebeans, the Palestinians,
the Arabians, the Phoenicians, the Syrians, and those who dwell

[i Justinian. Novell. Const. 137 (or 123) pp. 409, 10. Basil. 1561.]
[ Ap. Jewel, p. 284, ut supra.]
2

[ 3
K€Áevofiev TOWVV TOVS paKapiiúTarovs ápxieTTUTKÓTrovs Kai irarpiapxas, TOV-

TÍOTL TTJS irpeo-fivrepas 'Pcopr¡s Kai ¥La>vaTavTivovir6k*a>si]

XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 271

upon the Euphrates; in a word, all who have any value for watch­
ing, and prayer, and common p s a l m o d y ; " •кар' oh aypvirviai,
кал Trpoo~evya\, кол al Koival ^aXfiooSlai Teri/uriVTai*. T o the
same effect it is that this same Basil (Horn. 4. in Hexaem. at the
end) compares the church to the s e a : for as (says he) the waves
roar when driven upon the coast, so the church " s e n d s forth the
mingled sound of men and women and children in prayer to G o d . " 5

W e perceive, therefore, that it was the custom of the primitive

church for the whole people to combine their desires and assent
with the prayers o f the minister, and not, as is with the papists
(amongst whom the priest alone performs his service in an unknown
tongue), to remain silent, or murmur then' own indefinite private
prayers to themselves. Ambrose hath a similar sentence, Hexaem.
Lib. HI. Augustine, in his book de Magistro,
6
с. 1, says that w e
should pray with the heart, because the sacrifice of righteousness
is offered " i n the temple of the mind and in the chambers of the
heart. Wherefore," says h e , " there is no need of speech, that is,
of audible words, when we pray, unless, as in the case of the
priests, for the sake o f denoting what we m e a n . " B u t w h y then 7

must we speak ? Augustine answers, " not that G o d , but that

P 'Hpepas tfbr) VTroXapTTovo-r]S, navres Koivfj, cSs it; evbs crropaTos ка\ puis
mpblas, TOV rrjs igopoXoyr/crecos ijfaXpov avacpipoviri тел Kvplcp, ibia iavrcov
екао-Tos та рт/рата rfjs peravolas iroiovpevoi... iiA TOVTOIS XOITTOV el щрая ano-
феууете, феб^еегде pev Alyvirriovs, феЬ^естве be ка\ Лфуа; apfpoTepovs, Byfiaiovs,
n a X a t o T i V o u ? , "Apafias, Фошька?, 2vpovs, кал robe npbs та ЕЬфрате1 катсоы-
Opp. Paris. 1 6 1 8 . Т. II. p. 8 4 4 . A .
o-pevovs, ка\ iravras airaganXas к.г.Х.—Basil.
The clause, 'Lbia iavrcov, &c, should rather be rendered, " each making the
words of repentance his own:" but in the text the common Latin version
quoted by Whitaker is followed, "Suis quisque verbis resipiscentiam pro­
fitetur."]
P el be ваХасгсга KaXrj ка\ e V a i p e r ^ тер веер, iras ov)(i KaXXlcov iKKXrjcrias
ToiavTTjs criXXoyos, ev § crvppiyfjs rjx ?'
0 T l v o s
Kvparos r/iovi тгросгферорыоу,
avbpcov ка\ yvvaiKcov ка.1 vryitlcov ката гаг irpos Qebv tfpcov beycreis iKwepwerai;
—Ibid. Т. I. p. 5 3 . D . ]
[6 Quid aliud ille concentus undarum, nisi quidam concentus est plebis ?
Uiide bene mari plerumque comparatur ecclesia, qua? primo ingredientis
populi totis vestibulis undas vomit; deinde, in orationo totius plebis tan­
quam undis refluentibus stridet, cum responsoriis psalmorum, cantus viro­
rum, mulierum, virginum, parvulorum, consonas undarum fragor resultat.
—Hexaern. in. cap. v. § 2 3 . Opp. Ambros. Paris. 1 8 3 6 . Pars I, p. 9 7 . ]
p Quare non opus est locutione cum oramus, id est, sonantibus verbis,
nisi forte sicut sacerdotes faciunt, signiftcanda? mentis sua? causa.—Т. I.
col. 5 4 2 . ]
272 THE FIRST CONTRO VERS If. [CH.

men may hear u s . " But w h y ought men to hear us ? " In order,"
says Augustine, " that they, being moved to consent b y our sug-
gestion, may have their minds fixed upon G o d . " But the people
cannot be thus fixed upon God by the suggestion of the priest, un-
less they understand what is suggested b y the priest. This consent
depends upon the suggestion; but a suggestion without being un-
derstood is vain and futile. T h e same Augustine writes thus, in
his second exposition of Psalm xviii.: " Since we have prayed the
L o r d to cleanse us from our secret faults, and spare his servants
from strange ones, we ought to understand what this is, so as to
sing with human reason, and not, as it were, with the voice of
birds. F o r blackbirds," says he, " a n d parrots, and crows and
magpies, and such like birds, are frequently taught b y men to
utter sounds which they do not understand. But to sing with
the understanding is granted b y the divine will, not to birds, but
to m e n . "
1
Thus Augustine; whence we perceive that the people,
when they sing or pray what they do not understand (as is the
custom everywhere in the church of R o m e ) are more like black-
birds, or parrots, or crows, or magpies, or such like birds, which
are taught to utter sounds which they understand not, than to men.
Thus Augustine deems it absurd and repugnant to the common
prudence of mankind, that the people should not understand their
p r a y e r s ; which we see taking place everywhere in the popish s y -
nagogues. A n d the same Augustine, upon Psalm lxxxi'x.: " Blessed
is the people which understand the joyful sound. L e t us hasten
to this blessedness; let us understand the joyful sound, and not
pour it forth without understanding."
Chrysostom, in his 3 5 t h Horn, upon 1 Corinthians, says,
that he who speaks in an unknown tongue is not only "useless
(axpyvTos) a n
d a
b a r b a r i a n " to others, but even to himself, if he
2

do not understand what he s a y s ; and that if he understand it, but

others not, small fruit can be gained b y the rest from his words.

[} Deprecati Dominum ut ab occultis mundet nos, et ab alienis parcat

servis suis, quid hoc sit intelligere debemus, ut humana ratione, non quasi
avium voce, cantemus. Nam et meruli et psittaci et corvi et picas et hujus-
modi volucres saspe ab hominibus docentur sonare quod nesciunt. Scientos
autem cantare non avi, sed homini, divina volúntate concessa est.—T. iv.
c. 8. The reference is to the vulgate version of Psal. xix. 1 2 , 1 3 . A b oc-
cultis meis munda me, et ab alienis parce servo tuo: which follows the L X X .
¿Vó aWorplaiv (pc'iarai TOV doiXov crov. They read D'H-fQ for OH-tD.]
P Tom. x. p. 3 2 3 . ]
XVIII.] QUESTION T H E SECOND. 273

Ambrose says upon 1 Cor. x i v . : " I f y e come together for the

edification of the church, the things spoken should be such as the
auditors may understand ." 3
Jerome upon 1 Cor. xiv. says : " E v e r y
speech is deemed barbarous that is not understood." T h e Latin,
therefore, is barbarous to those who understand it not, that is, to
the whole common people of all nations: and when the apostle
condemns a barbarous speech in the church, he plainly condemns
the use of the Latin tongue in the service. Cassiodorus upon Psalm
x l v i . : " W h e n w e raise a psalm, w e should not only sing, but
understand it. F o r no one can do that wisely which he does not
understand ." 4
Isidore of Seville, de Eccles. Offic. Lib. i. c. 1 0 :
" It is fitting that when the psalms are sung, they should be sung
b y a l l ; when prayers are made, they should be made b y a l l ; when
the lesson is read, all keeping silence, it should equally be heard
by all ." 5
T h e fathers of the council of A i x , c. 1 3 2 , say that, of
those who sing in the church " the mind should be in concord with
the v o i c e ; " and, in the following chapter, that such should read,
chant, and sing in the church, " as b y the sweetness of their reading
and melody m a y both charm the learned and instruct the illi-
terate ." 6
Jacobus Faber, in his Commentary upon 1 Cor. xiv.,
hath these w o r d s : " T h e greatest part of the world now, when
they p r a y , I know not whether they pray with the spirit, but
they certainly do not with the understanding; for they p r a y in a
tongue which they do not understand. Y e t Paul approves most
that the faithful should pray both with the spirit and the under-
standing ; and those who pray so, as is the general practice, edify
themselves but little b y the prayer, and cannot edify others at all
b y their s p e e c h . "
7
A n d Cardinal Cajetan, as in many other things

[ Si utique ad sedificandum ecclesiam convenitis, ea dici debent qua?

3

intelligant audientes.—Pseud-Ambros. in 1 Cor. xiv. p. 157. App. Opp.

T . ii. Par. 1690.]
[* Adjecit, Psallite sapienter; ut non solum cantantes, sed intelligentes
psallere debeamus. Nemo enim sapienter quicquam facit quod non in-
telligit.—p. 157. T . II. Opp. Rothomag. 1679.]
[6 Oportet ut quando psallitur, psallatur ab omnibus; cum oratur, oretur
ab omnibus; quando lectio legitur, facto silentio aeque audiatur ab om-
nibus.—Opp. p. 393. Col. Agr. 1617.]
[8 Labbe, Concill. vii. 966.]
p Maxima pars hominum cum nunc orat, nescio si spiritu, tamen mente
non orat: nam in lingua orat quam non intelligit. Attamen maximo
Paulus probat ut fideles pariter spiritu orent, et mente: et qui sic ut passim

[WHITAKER.J
274 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ C H . XVIII.

he blames the institutions of the Roman church, so indicates plainly

that he is not pleased with the strange language in the service,
in his Comment upon 1 Cor. xiv. F o r thus he speaks: " F r o m
what Paul here teaches us we find, that it is more for the edification
of the church that the public prayers, which are said in the audience
of the people, should be said in the common language of the clergy
and people, than that they should be said in L a t i n . " Here Catha- 1

rinus could not restrain himself from pouring forth many insults
2

upon his own cardinal; and he maintains that this is an invention of

Luther's, or rather of the devil speaking in L u t h e r : which y e t is 2

plainly a doctrine and precept of the apostles, in spite of the blas-

phemies of this foul papist. Nicolas de L y r a , in his Postil upon
1 Cor. xiv., writes frankly t h u s : " But if the people understand
the prayer or benediction of the priest, they are better turned
towards God, and more devoutly answer, A m e n . " A n d presently
he subjoins : " W h a t profit does the simple and ignorant folk gain ?
As much as to say, nothing or little; because they know not how
to conform themselves to thee, the minister of the church, b y an-
swering, Amen. On which account in the primitive church the
benedictions and other common offices were performed in the vulgar
tongue ." 3

A n d so we have arrived at the conclusion of the Second

Question.

solent orant, p a r u m se oratione sedifieant, e t alios n e q u a q u a m sua s e r m o n e

ediflcare v a l e n t . — F o l . 1 0 1 . P a r i s . 1 5 1 7 . ]
t 1
E x liac P a u l i doctrina h a b e t u r , q u o d m e l i u s a d ecclesiaj asdificationem
est orationes publicas, qua? audiente p o p u l o dicuntur, dici lingua communi
clericis et p o p u l o , q u a m dici L a t i n e . — F o l . 1 5 8 . 2 . P a r i s . 1 5 7 1 . ]
[ 2
Qua? p r i m o a L u t b e r o , i m o a diabolo in L u t h e r o l o q u e n t e , inventa est.
— p . 5 7 . Catharin. A n n o t a t . in Cajet. C o m m . L u g d . 1 5 4 2 . ]
[ 3
Q u o d si p o p u l u s intelligit o r a t i o n e m seu benedictionem sacerdotis,
m e l i u s reducitur i n D e u m , et devotius r e s p o n d e t A m e n Q u i d proficit
populus simplex et non intelligens ? Quasi dicat, nihil, aut modicum;
q u o d nescit se c o n f o r m a r o tibi, qui es minister ecclesice, r e s p o n d e n d o A m e n .
P r o p t e r quod in primitiva ecclesia b e n e d i c t i o n e s et cetera c o m m u n i a fiebant
in v u l g a r i . — p . 5 5 . 2. B i b l i a c u m gloss, o r d . e t post. L y r . T . VI. V e n e t . 1 5 8 8 . ]
 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

QUESTION III.
CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE.

CHAPTER I.

OF THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.

IN commencing this question, we must return to those words of

Christ, which are contained in John v. 3 9 , epewdre TCJS ypcxpds,
" Search the scriptures." In these words Christ hath referred and
remitted us to the scriptures: whence it follows that they are de-
serving of the greatest trust, dignity, and authority. T h e question,
therefore, between us and the papists is, whence they have received
such great authority, and what it is, and on what this whole weight
of such divine dignity and authority depends. T h e subject is diffi-
cult and perplexed; nor do I know whether there is any other
controversy between us of greater importance. Though desirous in
every question to draw the doctrine of our adversaries from the
decrees of the council of Trent, I am unable to do so in the present
c a s e ; for the council of Trent hath made no decree or definition
upon this question. T h e opinion of the papists must, therefore, be
discovered from their books. T h e Jesuit does not treat this ques-
tion in this place, but elsewhere in the controversy concerning
councils; and even there but briefly and superficially. But, since
it appertains to the nature and efficacy of scripture, to know what
its authority is, I have judged it proper to be treated here.
It would be too troublesome and laborious to enumerate the
opinions of all the papists severally upon this matter, and to inquire
what every one may have written upon it. Those who are esteemed
the most skilful and the best learned, now deny that they make the
scripture inferior to the church; for so Bellarmine and others openly
profess, and complain that they are treated injuriously b y us in
this respect. But, that they make the authority of scripture de-
pend upon the church, and so do in fact make the scripture inferior
18—2
276 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

to the church, and that we do them no injustice in attributing this

to them, will appear from the words of their own theologians, and
those not the meanest. Eckius, in his Enchiridion de Authorit.
Eccles. Respons. 3, says that " the church is more ancient than
the scriptures, and that the scripture is not authentic but b y the
authority of the c h u r c h . " 1
And that this answer is wonderfully
acceptable to the papists appears from the marginal note, where
this argument is styled " A c h i l l e s pro Catholicis." H o w well this
reason deserves to be considered Achillean, will appear hereafter.
T h e same author places this assertion amongst heretical proposi-
tions, " T h e authority of scripture is greater than that of the
church," and affirms the contrary proposition to be catholic : which
agrees with the assertion so often repeated in the canon law, " T h e
church is above the scripture." Pighius, de Hierarch. Eccles. Lib.
i. c. 2, disputes against the scripturarians (as he calls us), main-
taining that the authority of scripture cannot be defended without
the tradition of the c h u r c h ; and affirms that the whole authority
o f scripture, with regard to us, depends upon ecclesiastical tradition,
and that we cannot believe the scriptures upon any other grounds,
but because the church confirms it b y its testimony. His express
words are t h e s e : " All the authority which the scripture now hath
with us, depends necessarily upon the authority of the c h u r c h . " 2

So, says he, it happens that the gospel of Mark, who was not an
apostle, is received, while that of Thomas, who was an apostle, is
not received. Hence also, he says, it hath come to pass that the
gospel of Luke, who had not seen Christ, is retained, while the
gospel of Nicodemus, who had seen Christ, is rejected. A n d he
pursues this discourse to a great length. One Hermann, a most
impudent papist, affirms that the scriptures are of no more avail
than iEsop's fables, apart from the testimony of the church . 3
As-
suredly this assertion is at once impudent and blasphemous. Yet,

I1
c. 1. p. 6. Antwerp. 1533.]
[ Omnis qua; nunc apud nos est scripturarum auctoritas ab ecclesias
2

auctoritate dependet necessario.—Pigh. Hierar. Eccles. Assertio. p. 17. Col.

Agr. 1572.]
[ Casaubon, Exercit. Baron. I. xxxiii. had, but doubtfully, attributed
3

this to Pighius: but in a M S . note preserved in Primate Marsh's library, at

St Sepulchre's, Dublin, he corrects himself thus: " N o n est hie, sed quidam
Hermannus, ait Wittakerus in Prarfat. Controvers. 1. Quasst. 3. p. 314."
If a new edition of those Exercitations be ever printed, let not these M S S .
of that great man, which, with many other valuable records, we owe to the
diligence of Stillingfleet and the munificence of Marsh, be forgotten.]
 QUESTION THE THIRD. 277

when it was objected to them b y Brentius in the Wittemberg Con-

fession, it was defended as a pious speech b y Hosius, de Authorit.
Script. Lib. i n . : where also he affirms that the scriptures would
have no great weight, except for the testimony of the church.
" In truth," says he, " unless the authority of the church had
taught us that this was canonical scripture, it would have v e r y
slight weight with u s . " F r o m this every one must see that the
4

opinion of the papists is, that the authority of the church is really
greater than that of scripture.
But other papists now begin to speak with somewhat greater
caution and accuracy. Cochlaeus, in his R e p l y to Bullinger, chap.
2, avails himself of a distinction. H e says that the scriptures
are indeed in themselves firm, clear, perfect, and most worthy
of all credit, as the work of G o d ; but that, with regard to us,
they need the approval and commendation of the church, on a c -
count of the depravity of our minds and the weakness of our
understandings. And this he confirms b y the authority of Ari-
stotle, who says, in his Metaphysics, that " our understanding is to
divine things as the eyes of owls to the light of the s u n . " So Canus, 5

in his Common Places, L i b . 11. c. 8, says that we cannot be certain

that the scriptures come from God, but b y the testimony of the
church. So our countryman Stapleton explains this controversy
through almost his whole ninth book of Doctrinal Principles. In
the first chapter he examines the state of the question; where he
says that the question is not, whether the scripture be in itself
sacred and divine, but how we come to know that it is sacred and
divine: and therefore he blames Calvin for stating the question
wrongly, when he says that the papists affirm, that it depends
upon the church what reverence is due to scripture. F o r (says
he) the scriptures are in themselves worthy of all reverence, but,
with regard to us, they would not b y themselves have been held in
such honour. This, says he, is a very different thing from making
it depend upon the church, what books should be reckoned in the
canon of scripture. The one (he adds) relates to the reverence due
to scripture in itself; the other to the same reverence in respect to
us. But, I beseech you, what is the difference between these two

[ 4
Revera nisi nos ecclesiae doceret auctoritas hanc scripturam esse ca-
nonicam, porexiguum apud nos pondus haberet.—p. 2 6 9 . Opp. Antw. 1 5 7 1 . ]
[ s
<5<nrep yap KOI T<X TO>V vvKTeplbav oppara npbs TO qbeyyos ?xel T 0

fipipav, OVTCO Ka\ rijs fjperepas tyvxqs 6 vovs npbs rd rfi (j)vo-ei (jjaveparaTa.
ndvriov. —Motapbys. Lib. II. c. 1. Opp. T. n. p. 8 5 6 , B. Paris. 1 6 1 9 . ]
278 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

opinions, It depends upon the judgment of the church what rever-

ence is due to scripture; and, It depends upon the judgment of
the church what books are to b e received into the c a n o n ; since
that sacred scripture, to which divine reverence is due, is to be
found only in the canonical books ? T h e papists affirm the latter
opinion; therefore, also the first. T h e same is the opinion of the
Jesuit, Controv. de Concil. Qusest. 2 ; where he says that the scrip-
tures do not need the approbation of the c h u r c h ; and that, when it
is said that the church approves them, it is only meant that it d e -
clares these scriptures to be canonical. T o the same effect A n d r a -
dius also writes, Defens. Trid. Con. Lib. in., that the church does
not give to scripture its authority, but only declares to us h o w
great its authority is in itself. This opinion might appear tolerable,
— t h a t scripture is in itself a sacred and divine thing, but is not
recognised as such b y us, except upon the testimony of the church.
But in the second b o o k the same author speaks much more per-
versely : " N o r is there in the books themselves, wherein the sacred
mysteries are written, any divinity to compel us b y a sort of r e -
ligious awe to believe what they contain; but the efficacy and
dignity of the church, which teaches us that those books are sacred,
and commends to us the faith and piety of the ancient fathers, are
such that no one can oppose them without the deepest brand of
impiety ." 1
Canisius, in his Catechism, c. 3, sect. 1 6 , says that the
authority of the church is necessary to us, firstly, in order that
" w e may certainly distinguish the true and canonical scriptures
from the spurious ." 2
T h e y mean, then, that the scripture depends
upon the church, not in itself, but in respect of us.
A n d now w e are well nigh in possession of the true state of
the question, which is itself no slight a d v a n t a g e : for they speak in
so perplexed, obscure, and ambiguous a manner, that one cannot
easily understand what it is they mean. N o w these assertions
might seem not to deserve any severe r e p r e h e n s i o n , — t h a t the
scripture hath authority in itself, but that it cannot be certain to
us except through the church. But we shall presently shew where
the true steps and turning point of the controversy lie.

[} Neque enim in ipsis libris, quibus sacra mysteria scripta sunt, quic-
quam inest divinitatis, quse nos ad credendum qua? illis continentur religione
aliqua constringat: sed ecclesia?, qua? codices illos sacros esse docet et
antiquorum patrum fidem et pietatem commendat, tanta est vis et am-
plitudo, ut illis nemo sine gravissima impietatis nota possit repugnare.]
[ Opus Catech. p. 156. Colon. 1577.J
2
 QUESTION THE THIRD. 279

Meanwhile let us see what they mean b y this word, the " c h u r c h . "
N o w , under the name of the church the papists understand not only
that church which was in the times of the apostles (for Thomas of
Walden is blamed on that account b y Canus, L o c . Comm. Lib. 11.
c. 8, and also b y Stapleton, Doctrin. Princip. Lib. i x . c. 1 2 , 1 3 ) ,
but the succeeding, and therefore the present church; y e t not the
whole people, but the pastors only. Canus, when he handles this
question, understands b y the church sometimes the pastors, some-
times councils, sometimes the Roman pontiff. Stapleton, Lib. i x .
c. 1, applies this distinction: T h e church, as that term denotes the
rulers and pastors of the faithful people, not only reveres the scrip-
ture, but also b y its testimony commends, delivers down, and con-
signs it, that is to say, with reference to the people subject to
t h e m : but, as the church denotes the people or the pastors, as
members and private persons, it only reveres the scripture. And
when the church consigns the scripture, it " d o e s not make it au-
thentic from being doubtful absolutely, but only in respect of us,
nor does it make it authentic absolutely, but only in respect of us."
Hence we see what they understand b y the term the church, and
how they determine that the scripture is consigned and approved
b y the church.
W e will now briefly explain our own opinion upon this matter.
It does not appear to b e a great controversy, and y e t it is the
greatest. In the first place, we do not deny that it appertains to
the church to approve, acknowledge, receive, promulge, commend
the scriptures to all its m e m b e r s ; and we say that this testi-
mony is true, and should be received b y all. W e do not, there-
fore, as the papists falsely say of us, refuse the testimony of the
church, but embrace it. But we deny that we believe the scrip-
tures solely on account of this commendation of them b y the church.
F o r we say that there is a more certain and illustrious testimony,
whereby we are persuaded of the sacred character of these books,
that is to say, the internal testimony of the H o l y Spirit, without
which the commendation of the church would have with us no
weight or moment. T h e papists, therefore, are unjust to us, when
they affirm that we reject and make no account of the authority of
the church. F o r we gladly receive the testimony of the church,
and admit its authority ; but we affirm that there is a far different,
more certain, true, and august testimony than that of the church.
The sum of our opinion is, that the scripture is avroTriaros, that
is, hath all its authority and credit from itself; is to be acknow-
280; THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

ledged, is to be received, not only because the church hath so deter-

mined and commanded, but because it comes from G o d ; and that
we certainly know that it comes from God, not b y the church, but b y
the H o l y Ghost. N o w b y the church we understand not, as they do,
the pastors, bishops, councils, p o p e ; but the whole multitude of the
faithful. F o r this whole multitude hath learned from the H o l y Spirit
that this scripture is sacred, that these books are divine. This per-
suasion the H o l y Spirit hath sealed in the minds of all the faithful.
T h e state of the controversy, therefore, is t h i s : Whether we
should believe that these scriptures which we now have are sacred
and canonical merely on account of the church's testimony, or rather
on account of the internal persuasion of the H o l y S p i r i t ; which, as
it makes the scripture canonical and authentic in itself, makes it
also to appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the
church is dumb and inefficacious.

CHAPTER II.

HOW MUCH AUTHORITY, WITH RESPECT TO SCRIPTURE, IS AT-

TRIBUTED BY THE PAPISTS AND BY US TO THE CHURCH.

I T remains now that we proceed to the arguments of the

papists. But first, we must explain what authority, both in their
opinion and in ours, the church exercises with respect to scripture.
Of all the popish authors, Stapleton hath treated this question
with the greatest acuteness: we shall, therefore, examine him specially
in this debate. H e , Doctr. Princip. Lib. i x . cap. 2, makes use of a
distinction which he hath taken from Cochlaaus. H e says, as we
have touched before, that the scripture must be considered under a
twofold aspect, in itself, and relatively to us. In itself, and of
itself, he says that it is always sacred on account of its author,
" whether it be received b y the church, or whether it be not
received." F o r though, says he, the church can never reject the
scripture, because it comes from G o d ; yet it may sometimes not
receive some part of scripture. But, I pray you, what is the
difference between not receiving and rejecting ? Absolutely none.
H e who does not receive God rejects h i m ; and so the church
plainly rejected those scriptures which formerly it did not receive.
F o r I would fain know why it did not receive them. Certainly
the reason was, because it judged them spurious, wherein it appears
"•] QUESTION THE THIRD. 281

it might be mistaken. But Stapleton goes on to say, that the

church, exercising its just privilege, might sometimes not receive
some b o o k s ; and he shews that some doctrines are now received b y
the later churches which were not received formerly. These if
any one were now to reject, after the church hath received them,
he would, says Stapleton, be most justly called and deemed a
heretic. But I affirm, that no doctrines have now become matters
of faith, which were not received b y the ancient church in the times
of the apostles; so that all those churches must have erred which
formerly did not receive the same. H e presses us, however, with
particular instances, and produces certain points which he says
were not received at first: as for instance, the doctrine of the p r o -
cession of the H o l y Ghost, of the creation of souls immediately b y
G o d , of the unlawfulness of repeating heretical baptism : but I
affirm once more, that all these doctrines had whatever force t h e y
now have at all times, so as that if it be now heretical not to assent
to them, it must have been always equally heretical; for the
doctrine of scripture never changes in the gospel, but is always
equally necessary. Everything that Stapleton adduces, in order to
shew that those books which were formerly not received b y the
church, ought now to be received solely on account of the external
testimony of the church, m a y be reduced to the argument stated
above. H e subjoins that the authority of the church respects the
scriptures only materially; which he explains to mean, that it is
fitting we should obey the judgment of the church, and, on account
of its judgment, receive the scripture as sacred. But it would not,
says he, be fitting that the truth of scripture, or of other objects of
faith, should so depend upon the judgment of the church, as that
they should only be true on condition of the church's approving them;
but now, says he, the church does not make them true in themselves,
but only causes them to b e believed as true. Mark y e . T h e scrip-
ture is true in itself, and all the doctrines of scripture are true; but
they could not appear true to us, we could not believe the scriptures,
unless the church approved the scripture and the doctrines of scrip-
ture. Although these things be true in themselves, y e t they would
not have seemed true to us, they would not have been believed, or
(to use Stapleton's expression) received b y us, unless on account of
the church's approbation. This is the whole mystery of iniquity.
W e determine far otherwise, and with far greater truth: for w e
resolutely deny that we are indebted to the church for this—that the
scriptures are true even in respect to u s ; but we say that our
282 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

belief of their truth is produced b y the testimony and suggestion

of the H o l y Spirit. It was Cochlasus who taught Stapleton this
blasphemy, in his second book upon the authority of the church
and scripture; where he collects many places of scripture, which
m a y seem incredible to man, and to which he maintains that human
frailty could not assent, if they were not confirmed b y the authority
of the church. Such is the account of David's innumerable army,
which he shews from the smallness of that country to be a thing
which no one would think credible. F o r he says that the land of
Juda3a could never have nourished and supported such a vast
number of m e n ; and demonstrates this from a comparison of that
region with other countries, shewing that so many thousand men
were never enrolled in the whole Roman republic, which was much
larger than Judaea. H o w , says he, can the human intellect assent
to these things, when nothing of the kind is read in any other
historians, cosmographers, philosophers, orators, nay, even p o e t s ?
" F o r what fable of the poets" (these are his words) " e v e r ascribed
such a number of warriors to one people, and that not the whole
of the p e o p l e ? "
1
H e brings in also the number of talents which
David is said to have left to his son Solomon for the building of
the temple. F o r this, he maintains, may deservedly seem incredible,
inasmuch as David was very p o o r ; which he endeavours to prove
from the circumstance that he spent so much upon his courtiers,
sons, wives, and concubines which he had in great numbers, and
also in the wars, which lasted almost all through his life. Whence,
he asks, came such wealth to David as neither Croesus, nor A l e x -
ander, nor Augustus, ever possessed? H e is profusely prodigal
of words and eloquence upon this subject, and hath produced many
passages of this kind, which shame and weariness alike forbid me
to enumerate. A t the close he concludes thus, (and a noble con-
clusion it is,) that all these things cannot otherwise be believed, but
because the church believes them, and hath required them to be
believed. Certainly I know not what is, if this be not, impudence.
Cannot then these things be believed on any other ground, but
because the church hath delivered them, and would have them to
be believed? W h a t then shall we say of the almost infinite
number of other such things which are contained in scripture; of
the passage of the Israelites through the s e a ; of the manna; o f
the quails b y which the people of Israel were fed in the desert so
[! Qua? e n i m fabula poetarum uni p o p u l o n e c toti tantuin numerum
asoripsit fortium virorum ?]
IL] QUESTION T H E THIRD. 283

r i c h l y ; of all Christ's miracles ? W h a t of the whole scheme of

our redemption, the incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, of
Christ ? What must we determine of all these ? Can these too
be believed as true upon no other reason or testimony, but because
the church hath so determined? This is monstrous blasphemy,
and worthy of a Cochlseus and a Stapleton! W e believe these
things, and have no doubt of their truth, not merely because the
church hath so determined, but on account of the authority of the
word of God and of the H o l y Spirit. All therefore that the
papists allege tends substantially to make the whole authority of
scripture depend upon the authority of the church, which never-
theless they d e n y : y e t that this is the real meaning of their
opinion is manifest from what hath been already said. Stapleton
subjoins, that it should not appear to us more unbecoming that the
church should commend the scripture and bear testimony to it,
than it was unbecoming that John the Baptist should bear witness
to Christ, and the gospel should b e written b y men. Now we
confess that the church commends the scripture b y its testimony,
and that this is the illustrious office of the c h u r c h ; but it is a v e r y
different matter to say that we could not otherwise believe the
scriptures, unless on account of this judgment and testimony of the
church. W e concede the f o r m e r ; the latter we resolutely deny,
and that with the greatest detestation.
Y o u have heard how much these men attribute to the church.
It follows now that w e consider h o w much ought really to be
attributed to it. W e do not indeed ascribe as much to the church
as they do (for we could not do so lawfully); but y e t we recognise
distinguished offices which the church hath to perform in respect
of scripture, and which may be reduced to four heads. First, the
church is the witness and guardian of the sacred writings, and
discharges, in this respect, as it were the function of a notary.
In guardians the greatest fidelity is r e q u i r e d : but no one would
say that records were believed merely on the notary's authority,
but on account of their own trustworthiness. So the church ought
carefully to guard the scriptures, and y e t w e do not repose credit
in the scriptures merely on account of the testimony and authority
of the church. T h e second office of the church is, to distinguish
and discern the true, sincere, and genuine scriptures from the
spurious, false, and supposititious. Wherein it discharges the office
of a champion; and for the performance of this function it hath
the Spirit of Christ to enable it to distinguish the true from the
284 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

false: it knows the voice of the spouse; it is endued with the

-highest prudence, and is able to. try the spirits. T h e goldsmith
with his scales and touchstone can distinguish gold from copper
and other metals; wherein he does not make gold, even in respect
of us, but only indicates what is gold, so that we the more easily
trust it. Or, if a different illustration b e required, another skilful
person informs me that a coin, which I do not recognise as such,
is good and lawful m o n e y : and I, being so instructed, acquiesce;
but it is on account of the matter and the form impressed upon
the coin that I perceive it to be sterling a n d ' royal money. In
like manner, the church acknowledges the scriptures, and d e -
clares them to be divine: we, admonished and stirred up b y the
church, perceive the matter to be so i n d e e d . — T h e third office
of the church is to publish, set forth, preach, and promulgate the
scriptures; wherein it discharges the function of a herald, who
ought to pronounce with a loud voice the decrees and edicts of the
king, to omit nothing, to add nothing of his own. Chrysostom, in
his first Homily upon the Epistle to Titus, pursues this similitude:
" A s , " says he, " the herald makes his proclamation in the theatre
in the presence of all, so also w e . " W h e r e he shews that the duty
1

of the herald is to publish whatever is consigned to him, to add

nothing of his own, and to keep back no part of his commission.
N o w the people believes and obeys the edict of the magistrates on
its own account, not because of the voice of the c r i e r . — T h e fourth
office of the church is to expound and interpret the scriptures;
wherein its function is that of an interpreter. Here it should in-
troduce no fictions of its own, but explain the scriptures b y the
scriptures. Such are the offices, and those surely in the highest
degree great and dignified, which we gladly allow to belong to
the c h u r c h : from which, nevertheless, it will b y no means follow,
that we assent to the scriptures solely on account of the church's
authority, which is the point that the papists affirm and maintain.
F r o m what hath been said it is sufficiently evident what are
the offices of the church in respect of scripture, both in our opinion
and in that of the papists.

[} ao-yrep 6 Kqpv^ TtavTav irapovrav iv ra> 6e 'rp<o Kr/pirTd, ovra Kai ij/ueir.
Opp. T. IV. p. 383.]
m.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 285

CHAPTER III.

WHEREIN THE FIRST ARGUMENT OF OUR OPPONENTS IS CONFUTED.

W E have drawn the true state of this question from the books
of the papists themselves. It follows now that we should approach
their arguments, which they themselves deem so exceeding strong
as to leave us no capacity to resist them. But we, with God's help,
shall easily (as I hope) confute them all. Stapleton hath borrowed
much from Canus, and explicated his arguments at greater length.
W i t h him therefore we will engage, as well because he is our fellow-
countryman, as because he seems to have handled this subject most
acutely and accurately of them all. H e bestows his whole ninth
book upon this question, and in the fourth chapter of that b o o k
commences his reasoning against us in this m a n n e r : T o have a
certain canon of scripture is most necessary to faith and religion.
But without the authority of the church it is impossible to have
a certain canon of scripture; since it cannot be clear and certain
to us what book is legitimate, what supposititious, unless the church
teach us. Therefore, &c. I answer, as to the m a j o r : Firstly,
the major is true, if he mean books properly canonical, which have
been always received b y the c h u r c h ; for these the church ought
always to acknowledge for canonical: although it be certain that
many nourishing churches formerly in several places had doubts
for a time concerning many of the books, as appears from antiquity.
Secondly, therefore, it is not absolutely, and in the case of each
particular person, necessary for faith and salvation to know what
books are canonical. F o r many can have faith and obtain sal-
vation, who do not hold the full number of the canonical books.
Stapleton proves his assumption,—namely, that the canon of scrip-
ture can no otherwise be certainly known to us but b y the authority
of the c h u r c h , — b y three arguments. The first is t h i s : There is
no authority more certain than that of the church. But there is
need of the most certain authority, that the trustworthiness of
scripture may be ascertained, and all doubt removed from the
conscience concerning the canon of scripture. Therefore, &e. I
answer, that it is false to say, as he does, that no authority is
m o r e certain than that of the c h u r c h : it is a mere begging of the
question. F o r greater and more certain is the authority of God,
of the scriptures themselves, and of the H o l y Spirit, b y whose
286 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

testimony the truth of scripture is sealed in our minds, and with-

out which all other testimonies are utterly devoid of strength.
But God (says he) teaches us through the church, and b y no other
m e d i u m : therefore there is no more certain authority than that
of the church. I answer: His own words prove that God's au-
thority is more certain. F o r the authority of him who teaches
is greater than that of him through whom one is taught. God
teaches us through the c h u r c h : therefore the authority of God
is greater than that of the church. I am surprised that Stapleton
should have been so stupid as not to see that, if it be God who
teaches through the church, the authority of God must be greater
than that of the church. H e confesses that we are taught b y God
through the c h u r c h : therefore, since God is the prime and highest
teacher, it is evident that his authority and trustworthiness is the
chief. F o r the church is only his minister, subserves him in giving
instruction, and expounds his commands.. T h e weakness of his
reasoning will easily appear from a parallel instance. A prince
publishes his law and edict b y a herald, and explains and expounds
b y his lawyers the meaning of the law and the force of the edict.
D o e s it therefore follow that there is no more certain authority
than that of the herald and the lawyers ? B y no means. F o r it
is manifest that the authority of the law and of the prince is greater
than that of the herald or the interpreter. But (says he) nothing
is more certain than God's teaching: therefore nothing more
certain than the authority of the church, since God teaches through
the church. N o w where is the consequence of this ? W e confess
indeed that nothing is more certain than God's teaching, and this
is the very thing which we maintain, and hence conclude that the
authority of the church is not the highest: but his consequence
meanwhile is weak, until he prove that God and the church are
the same thing. It will more correctly follow from this reasoning,
that nothing is more certain than the word of G o d and the scrip-
tures, because it is God who addresses us in his word, and teaches
us through his w o r d ; whereas the church discharges merely a
ministerial function. Therefore we are not bound absolutely to
receive whatever the church m a y teach us, but only whatever it
proves itself to have been commanded b y G o d to teach us, and
with divine authority.
T h e second argument wherewith Stapleton confirms the as-
sumption of the preceding syllogism is t h i s : All other mediums
that can be attempted are insufficient without making recourse to
III.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 287

the judgment of the c h u r c h ; and then he enumerates the mediums

upon which we rely. F o r as to the style (says he) and phrase-
ology, and other mediums, b y which the scripture is usually dis-
tinguished,—these the church knows best, and is best able to j u d g e
aright. Therefore, &c. I answer: If b y the church he understand
the pope and the bishops (as the papists always do), I deny that
they are best able to distinguish the style and phraseology of scrip-
ture ; I deny that this is the true church of Christ which knows
the voice of Christ. But if he speak of the true church, this
fallacy is that called ignoratio elenchi, and the state of the question
is changed. F o r before this he had been speaking of the external
judgment of scripture, which perhaps may properly belong to the
bishops: but here he understands the internal judgment, which is
not only proper to the pastors, but common to all Christians: for
all Christ's sheep know his voice, and are internally persuaded of
the truth of scripture. Secondly, although w e should concede all
this to him, y e t where will be the coherence of his reasoning,—
T h e church knows best the voice of the spouse, and the style and
phraseology of scripture; therefore its authority is the most cer-
tain ? F o r what though the church know ? W h a t is that to me ?
A r e these things therefore known and certain to m e ? F o r the
real question is, how I can know it best ? Although the church
know ever so well the voice of its spouse, and the style and
phraseology of scripture, it hath that knowledge to itself, not to
m e ; and b y whatever means it hath gained that knowledge,
w h y should I b e able to gain it also b y the same ? Thirdly, from
what he says, the contrary of his conclusion might much more
correctly be inferred, namely, that the authority of scripture is
more certain than that of the church. F o r if the authority of
the church be therefore most certain, because it knows best the
style of scripture, and judges b y the style of scripture, it is plain
that the authority of scripture itself is far more certain, since it
indicates itself to the church b y its style. But I ( y o u will say)
should not know that this was the voice of the spouse, that this
was the style of scripture, unless the church were to teach me.
This, indeed, is untrue, since it can b e known that this is the
voice of Christ and true and genuine scripture without the j u d g -
ment of the church, as shall hereafter be shewn more at large.
But, although we were to grant him this, that it could not be
known otherwise than through the church, that these were the
scriptures, y e t even so the argument would be inconsequential.
288 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

F o r many would not have known Christ, if John had not taught
them, pointed him out, and exclaimed, " Behold the Lamb of God,
who taketh away the sin of the w o r l d ! " W a s then the authority
of John more certain than that of Christ ? B y no means. For
J o h n brought many to Christ, who afterwards believed much more
on account of Christ himself, than on account of the preaching and
testimony of John. So many through means of the church believe
these to be the scriptures, who afterwards believe still more firmly,
being persuaded b y the scriptures themselves. Besides, Paul and
Peter and the other apostles best knew the voice of C h r i s t ; must
therefore their authority be rated higher than that of Christ him-
self ? F a r from it. It does not therefore follow that because the
church knows v e r y well the voice of Christ, the authority of the
church is greater than that of Christ. But as to his pretence that
because the church delivers the rule of faith, it must therefore be
the correctest j u d g e of that r u l e ; we must observe that the terms
deliver and judge are ambiguous. T h e church does indeed deliver
that rule, not as its author, but as a witness, and an admonisher,
and a minister: it judges also when instructed b y the Holy
Spirit. But may I therefore conclude, that I cannot b e certain
of this rule, but barely b y the testimony of the c h u r c h ? It is
a mere fallacy of the accident. There is no consequence in this
reasoning: I can be led b y the church's voice to the rule of faith;
therefore I can have no more certain judgment than that of the
church.
In the third place, Stapleton proves the fore-mentioned assump-
tion t h u s : Scripture (says he) cannot be proved b y scripture:
therefore it must be proved b y the c h u r c h ; and consequently the
authority of the church is greater than that of scripture. T h e an-
tecedent is thus established. Should any one, he says, deny Paul's
epistles to be canonical, it cannot be proved either from the old
Testament, or from the gospel, because there is nowhere any men-
tion there made of them. Then he goes on to say that neither the
whole scripture, nor any part of it, can be proved from scripture
itself, because all proof is drawn from things better known than the
thing to b e proved. Therefore (says he) to one who denies or
knows not either the whole scripture or any part of it, nothing can
be proved from scripture itself. But here, according to him, the
church comes to our help in both cases. For, should any one
deny a part of scripture, the church persuades him to receive
these books upon the same ground as he hath received the o t h e r s :
nr.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 289

he who is ignorant of the whole scripture, it persuades to accept

the scripture in the same way as he hath accepted Christ.
I answer, This is a fine way of persuading a man to receive
these books upon the same grounds as he hath received the others!
But the question is, how he was first induced to receive those
others ? W a s it b y the authority of the church ? W h y then did
he not receive all upon the faith of the same j u d g m e n t ? F o r the
church will have us receive the whole scripture as well as certain
parts of it. Stapleton does not meet this scruple. Besides, it is
manifestly absurd to suppose the possibility of a man's believing in
Christ, who denies and rejects the whole scripture: this certainly is
quite impossible. But now let us come to the examination of the
argument itself, to which I return a twofold answer. First, I affirm
that the scripture can be understood, perceived, known and proved
from scripture. Secondly, I say that if it cannot be perceived and
proved in this way, still less can it b e proved b y the church.
The first will be evident from the following considerations.
Scripture hath for its author God himself; from whom it first p r o -
ceeded and came forth. Therefore, the authority of scripture may
be proved from the author himself, since the authority of God him-
self shines forth in it. 2 Tim. hi. 16, the whole scripture is called
QeoTrvevaTos. In 2 Pet. i. 1 2 , we are told, " Prophecy in old
time came not b y the will of men, but holy men of God spake as
they were moved b y the H o l y Ghost," VTTO TrveviuctTos dylov
(peponevoi. And, verse 1 9 , the word of prophecy is called /3e-
(ScuoTepos • ''Exp/J-ev, says the apostle, fiefiaio-repov rov wpocpnTi-

KOV Xoyov. That word fiefiaioTepos is most pertinent to the mat-

ter in h a n d ; for it signifies that the scripture is endued with the
firmest and highest authority. In the same place it is compared to
a lamp shining in a dark place, \uyytp (paivovri ev avyjiripiZ TOTTW.
It hath therefore light in itself, and such light as we may see in
the darkness. But if the opinion of our opponents were correct,
this light should be in the church, not in the scriptures. David
indicates the same thing in the 14th octonary of Psalm cxix., at the
beginning, where he says, " T h y word is a lamp to my feet, and a
light to m y path : " therefore the scripture hath the clearest light
in itself. On this account it is frequently styled the testimony
F r o m these and similar passages, we reason t h u s : There is the
greatest perspicuity and light in the scriptures : therefore the scrip-
ture may be understood b y the scripture, if one only have eyes tc
perceive this light. A s the brightest light appears in the sun, sc

rwiIITAKER.l ^
290 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

the greatest splendour of divinity shines forth in the word of God.

T h e blind cannot perceive even the light of the s u n ; nor can they
distinguish the splendour of the scriptures, whose minds are not
divinely illuminated. But those who have eyes of faith can behold
this light. Besides, if we recognise men when they speak, why
should we not also hear and recognise G o d speaking in his word ?
F o r what need is there that another should teach that this is the
roice of somebody, when I recognise it m y s e l f ; or should inform
me that my friend speaks, when I myself hear and understand him
speaking ?
But they object that we cannot recognise the voice of God,
because we do not hear G o d speaking. This I deny. F o r those
who have the H o l y Spirit, are taught of God: these can r e c o g -
nise the voice of G o d as much as any one can recognise a friend,
with whom he hath long and familiarly lived, b y his voice. Nay,
they can even hear God. F o r so Augustine (Ep. nr.), " G o d ad-
dresses us every d a y . H e speaks to the heart of every one of
us ."
1
If we do not understand, the reason is because we have not
the Spirit, b y which our hearts should be enlightened. With
respect to us, therefore, the authority of the scripture depends
upon, and is made clear b y , the internal witness of the H o l y Spirit;
without which, though y o u were to hear a thousand times that this
is the word of G o d , y e t y o u could never believe in such a manner
as to acquiesce with an entire assent. Besides, the papists should
tell us whether or no this is really the word of G o d which we pos-
sess. N o w that it is in itself the word of G o d , they do not deny,
but they say that we cannot be certain of it without the help of
the c h u r c h : they confess that the voice of God sounds in our ears;
but they say that we cannot believe it, except upon account of the
church's approbation. But now, if it be the word of God which we
hear, it must needs have a divine authority of itself, and should be
believed b y itself and for itself. Otherwise w e should ascribe more
to the church than to God, if we did not believe him except for the
sake of the church. G o d speaks in the prophets, and through the
p r o p h e t s : whence we find often used b y them such phrases as, tlie
word of Jehovah, and, Thus saith Jehovah. N o w then these men
tell me that I must b y no means believe that G o d really speaks, or
that this is the word of Jehovah, unless the church confirm the
s a m e : in which proceeding every one may perceive that more
credit and authority is ascribed to the church, that is, to men, than
[1 Ep. 1 3 7 . Opp. T . ii. 5 2 8 . Bassan. 1 7 9 7 . ]
in.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 291

to G o d ; which is directly opposite to what should b e d o n e : for

G o d ought to be believed before all, since he is the prime and
highest verity; while the church is nothing of the kind. If, there-
fore, God address me, and say that this is his word, I should
acquiesce in his authority. Hitherto we have shewn that there is
a divine authority in scripture (which we shall do hereafter even
still more clearly); and that, consequently, we should believe it b y
itself and of itself. It now remains that we shew that the scrip-
tures themselves mutually support and confirm each other b y their
testimony; which is a point easy to be proved.
The old Testament is confirmed b y itself, and b y the n e w ; the
new also b y itself, and b y the o l d : so that, as it is certain that
there is a God, although the church had never said it, so it is cer-
tain that the scripture is the word of God, although the church had
been silent upon the subject. But they, perhaps, would not even
believe God's existence, except upon the church's word. It is evi-
dent that the old Testament is proved b y the new. In Luke xxiv.
4 4 , Christ divides the whole old Testament into Moses, the p r o -
phets, and the Psalms: therefore he hath declared all these books
to be authentic and canonical, and hath besides confirmed his whole
doctrine from those books. If, then, we believe Christ, we must
believe the whole old Testament to be endued with authentical au-
thority. In Luke xvi. 2 9 , 3 1 , Abraham, when the rich man requests
that Lazarus may be sent to his brethren, replies, " T h e y have
Moses and the prophets; let them hear t h e m : " as much as to say,
those who will not hear them, will hear no man, not even the church.
In John x. 3 5 , " the scripture cannot be broken," \v6fjvat, there-
fore it possesses an eternal and immutable force. In John v. 3 9 ,
Christ says to the Jews, " Search the scriptures :" where he under-
stands all the books of the old Testament; for the new had not y e t
been published. Thus we have shewn in general that the old T e s -
tament is confirmed b y the n e w ; let us now shew the same in
detail. Christ himself confirms the books of Moses specially, Matth.
v., where he interprets the whole l a w ; Matth. xix., where he e x -
plains the law of marriage; Matth. xxii., where he proves the r e -
surrection of the flesh from M o s e s ; and John iii. 1 4 , where he
confirms his own death, and its efficacy and benefits, from the figure
of the brasen serpent. T h e historical books of the old Testament
are likewise confirmed b y the new. Matth. xii. 4 2 , Christ mentions
the story of the Queen of S h e b a : Luke iv. 26, the story of the
widow of Sarepta is repeated, which occurs 2 Kings v . : Acts ii. 2 5 ,
19—2
292 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

SO, 3 4 , a testimony is adduced from the P s a l m s : Acts xiii. 1 7 and

following verses, Paul details a long narrative, drawn from several
books of the old Testament: H e b . xi., many examples are produced
from the books of Joshua and Judges. Part of the genealogy which
Matthew exhibits is derived from the b o o k of E-uth. F r o m the
Psalms an almost infinite multitude of testimonies are alleged ; v e r y
many from Isaiah; many from Ezekiel, and, in a word, from all the
prophets, except perhaps one or two of the minor prophets. But
Stephen, Acts vii. 4 2 , cites the b o o k of the twelve minor prophets,
and thus proves the authority of them a l l ; for all the minor p r o -
phets used formerly to make but one book. N o w the testimony
there cited is taken from the prophet A m o s . Thus it is manifest
that the confirmation of the old may be drawn from the new Testa-
ment. Upon this subject, see further in Augustine, in his book,
contra Adversar. Legis et Prophetarum, and contra Faustum
Manichwum.
N o w that, in like manner, the books of the new Testament
may be confirmed from the old, is sufficiently clear. F o r the
truth of the new Testament is shadowed forth in the figures of
the o l d ; and whatever things were predicted in the old, those we
read to have been fulfilled in the new. Whatever was said o b -
scurely in the former, is said plainly in the latter. Therefore if
one be true, the other must needs be true also. Moses wrote of
the Messiah, and so did the prophets. Moses, Deut. xviii. 1 8 , fore-
told that there should be a prophet like unto himself; and death
and destruction is denounced upon any who would not hear him.
Peter, Acts iii. 2 2 , and Stephen, A c t s vii. 3 7 , teach us that this
prediction of a prophet hath been fulfilled. Moses therefore hath
sanctioned Christ b y his testimony. Peter confirms Paul's epistles
b y his authority, 2 Pet. iii. 1 6 , and distinctly calls them scriptures.
" T h e unlearned," says he, " wrest them, as they do also the other
scriptures." Paul confirms his own epistles b y his name, and b y
his judgment. Therefore the old and new Testaments do, b y their
mutual testimony, establish and consign each other. In other cases,
indeed, such a mutual confirmation is of no a v a i l ; but in this it
should be of the greatest, because no one is so fit a witness of G o d
and his word, as God himself in his w o r d . I f then we repose any
credit in the old Testament, we must repose as much in the n e w ;
if we believe the new, we must believe the old also. But the
papists, on the contrary, would have neither Testament believed on
its own account, but both on account of the church's authority : the
III.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 293

falsehood of which is abundantly evident from what hath been

already said.
But human incredulity will still urge, that this may indeed be
conceded with respect to some books, but that it cannot be affirmed
of every one of the books of the old and new Testament; because
we nowhere read that the books of Esther, Nehemiah, and Ezra, were
confirmed b y the authority of the new Testament: and there are
besides many books of the new Testament which cannot be con-
firmed b y the old. Besides, if there were even some one b o o k of
the new Testament, in which all the books of the old Testament
were severally enumerated, there would y e t be need (will the
papists say) of the authority of the ancient church, because there
may be some who do not acknowledge the authority of*any b o o k ;
and how (they will say) are w e to persuade such persons that this
scripture is divine ?
I answer, in the first place, such men as these, who despise all
the sacred books, the church itself will be unable to convince: for
with those who hold the authority of scripture in no esteem, the
authority of the church will have but little weight. Secondly, if
any pious persons have y e t doubts concerning the scriptures, much
more certain evidences may be gathered from the books themselves,
to prove them canonical, than from any authority of the church.
I speak not now of the internal testimony of the Spirit, but of cer-
tain external testimonies, which may be drawn from the books
themselves to prove them divinely inspired writings. Such are
mentioned b y Calvin, Institut. L i b . I. c. 8 , and are of the following
1

kind. First, the majesty of the doctrine itself, which everywhere

shines forth in the sacred and canonical books. Nowhere, assuredly,
does such majesty appear in the books of philosophers, orators, or
even of all the divines that ever wrote upon theology. There are
none of the sacred books which one would be more likely to ques-
tion than the Epistle of Jude, the second Epistle of Peter, and the
second and third of John, since formerly even some churches enter-
tained doubts of t h e m : nevertheless, in these there is contained
such a kind of teaching as can be found in no other writer.
Secondly, the simplicity, purity, and divinity of the style. Never
was anything written more chastely, purely, or divinely. Such p u -
rity is not to be found in Plato, or in Aristotle, or in Demosthenes,
or in Cicero, o r in any other writer. Thirdly, the antiquity of the
books themselves secures them a great authority. F o r the books
of Moses are more ancient than the writings of any other men, and
] } T . I. p p . 6 2 — 6 0 . c d . T h o l u c k . Berolin. 1 8 3 4 . ]
294 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

contain the oldest of all histories, deduced from the v e r y creation of

the w o r l d ; which other writers were either wholly ignorant of, or
heard of from this source, or contaminated b y the admixture of
many fables. Fourthly, the oracles contained in these books prove
their authority to b e sacred in the highest sense, b y shewing it
necessarily divine. F o r some things are here predicted, which
happened many ages afterwards, and names are given to persons
some ages before they were b o r n ; as to Josiah, 1 Kings xiii. 2,
and to Cyrus, Isaiah xliv. 2 8 , and xlv. 1. H o w could this have
been without some divine inspiration ? Fifthly, miracles, so many
and so true, prove G o d to b e the author of these books. Sixthly,
the enemies themselves prove these books to be sacred; for, while
they have 'endeavoured wholly to destroy them, their fury hath
ever been in v a i n : nay, many of them, b y the penalties and
torments which befel them, were made to understand that it was
the word of G o d which they opposed. Seventhly, the testimonies
of martyrs make it evident that the majesty of these books is of no
mean character, since they have sealed the doctrine, here delivered
down and set forth, b y their confession and their blood. Eighthly,
the authors themselves guarantee, in a great measure, the credit of
these books. W h a t sort of men were they before they were
raised up to discharge this office b y the H o l y Ghost ? Altogether
unfitted for such a function then, though afterwards endowed with
the noblest gifts of the H o l y Spirit. W h o was Moses, before he
was called b y God ? First, a courtier in E g y p t , then a shepherd,
finally, endued with the richest outpouring of the Spirit, he became
a prophet, and the leader of the people of Israel. W h o was Jere-
miah? A man, incapable, as himself testifies, of any eloquence.
W h o was D a v i d ? A youth and a shepherd. Who Peter? A
fisherman, an ignorant and illiterate person. W h o John ? A man
of the same low rank. W h o was Matthew ? A publican, altogether
a stranger to holy things. W h o was Paul ? A n enemy and per-
secutor of that doctrine which he afterwards professed. W h o was
L u k e ? A physician. H o w could such men h a v e written so divinely
without the divine inspiration of the H o l y G h o s t ? T h e y were,
almost all, illiterate men, learned in no accomplishments, taught in
no schools, imbued with no instruction; but afterwards summoned b y
a divine call, marked out for this office, admitted to the counsels
of G o d : and so they committed all to writing with the exactest
fidelity; which writings are now in our hands.
These topics may prove that these books are divine, y e t will
never be sufficient to bring conviction to our souls so as to make us
III.] QUESTION THE THIRD. . 295

assent, unless the testimony of the H o l y Spirit be added. When

this is added, it fills our minds with a wonderful plenitude of as-
surance, confirms them, and causes us most gladly to embrace the
scriptures, giving force to the preceding arguments. Those p r e -
vious arguments may indeed urge and constrain u s ; but this ( I
mean the internal testimony of the H o l y Spirit) is the only argu-
ment which can persuade us.
Now if the preceding arguments cannot persuade us, how
much less the authority of the church, although it were to repeat
its affirmation a thousand t i m e s ! T h e authority of the church,
and its unbroken judgment, may perhaps suffice to keep men in
some external obedience, may induce them to render an external
consent, and to persevere in an external u n i t y : but the church can
of itself b y no means persuade us to assent to these oracles as
divine. In order, therefore, that we should be internally in our
consciences persuaded of the authority of scripture, it is needful
that the testimony of the H o l y Ghost should be added. And he,
as he seals all the doctrines of faith and the whole teaching of sal-
vation in our hearts, and confirms them in our consciences, so also
does he give us a certain persuasion that these books, from which
are drawn all the doctrines of faith and salvation, are sacred and
canonical. But, y o u will say, this testimony is not taken from the
books themselves: it is, therefore, external, and not inherent in the
word. I answer: Although the testimony of the H o l y Ghost b e
not, indeed, the same as the books themselves; yet it is not
external, nor separate, or alien from the books, because it is per-
ceived in the doctrine delivered in those b o o k s ; for we do not
speak of any enthusiastic influence of the Spirit. But, in like
manner as no man can certainly assent to the doctrine of faith
except b y the Spirit, so can none assent to the scriptures but by
the same Spirit.
But here two objections must be removed, which are proposed
b y Stapleton, of which the former is against this latter reply of
ours, and the latter against the former. T h e first objection is t h i s :
If it be b y the testimony of the Spirit that we know the scriptures,
how comes it that churches, which have this Spirit, agree not
amongst themselves? F o r (so he argues) the Lutherans disagree
with y o u Calvinists, because you receive some books which they
reject: therefore, either you or they are without the Spirit.
This is an objection urged also b y Campian and b y others. I
a n s w e r : In the first place, it does not follow either that they who
296 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

reject those books, or we who receive them, are without the H o l y

Spirit. F o r no saving truth can be known without the H o l y
Spirit; as for example, that Christ died for us, or any other.
This the papists will themselves allow. Yet it does not follow that
all who have learned this truth from the H o l y Spirit must agree
in all other points of faith. N o r does it immediately follow, that
all who are in error are without the Holy Spirit, because all errors
are not capital. N o w the reason why all who have the H o l y Spirit
do not think exactly alike of all things, is because there is not precisely
the same equal measure of the H o l y Spirit in a l l ; otherwise there
would be the fullest agreement in all points. Secondly, both we
who receive some books not received b y the Lutherans, have the
precedent of some ancient churches, and the Lutherans also, who
reject them. F o r there were some churches who received these
books (that is, the epistle of Jude, the second epistle of Peter, and
the second and third of John), and also some who rejected them,
and y e t all meanwhile were churches of God. Thirdly, it does not
presently follow that all have the H o l y Spirit who say they have
it. Although many of the Lutherans (as they call them) reject
these books, yet it is not to be concluded that such is the common
opinion of that whole church. The papists, indeed, understand and
denote b y the name of the church only the bishops and d o c t o r s ;
but the sentiments are not to be judged of b y merely a few of its
members.
The second objection against our former reply is to this effect:
T h e scripture is not the voice of God, but the word of G o d ; that is,
it does not proceed immediately from God, but is delivered m e -
diately to us through others. I answer: W e confess that God
hath not spoken b y himself, but b y others. Y e t this does not
diminish the authority of scripture. F o r God inspired the prophets
with what they said, and made use of their mouths, tongues, and
h a n d s : the scripture, therefore, is even immediately the voice of
God. T h e prophets and apostles were only the organs of God.
I t was G o d who spake to the fathers in the prophets and through
the prophets, as is plain from H e b . i. 1. And Peter says, 2 Epist.
i. 2 1 , that " h o l y men of God spake as they were moved, cpepofievovs,
b y the H o l y Ghost." Therefore the scripture is the voice of the
Spirit, and consequently the voice of God. But what though it
were not the voice of God immediately, but only the word of
God ? Therefore (says Stapleton) it requires to be made known
b y the church like the rest, that is, like other doctrines necessary
III.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 297

to salvation. But w h a t ? Is it only b y the testimony of the

church, that we know all other points of religion and doctrines of
the faith ? Is it not the office of the H o l y Spirit to teach us all
things necessary to salvation? M a r k well how Stapleton affirms
that we learn all only from the church, and sets the Spirit and
the church asunder. But if the Spirit teach in the church, and it
is b y the Spirit that we know the other doctrines, then why may
we not learn from the Spirit this also, that the scripture is the
word of God ? Let him speak and tell us, if he can. But this
(says he) is a " matter of faith, like the rest." I confess it. But
here he strangles himself in his own noose. F o r if without faith
it cannot be understood that the scripture is the word of God, then
is there need of some more certain testimony than the external
approbation of the church. F o r the H o l y Ghost is the author of
faith, and not the church, except as an instrument, an external
and ministerial medium. H e subjoins: " But this, like the rest,
exceeds mere human comprehension." I answer: Therefore men
cannot give us this persuasion, but there is need of some higher,
greater, more certain testimony than that of man. N o w the church
is an assembly of men, and is composed of men. " But this (says
he further) should not, any more than the rest, be received b y
immediate revelations." I answer: This is no extraordinary or
immediate revelation separate from the teaching of the books them-
selves ; because it springs, derives itself, and is perceived from the
word itself through the same Spirit from which that word emanated.
But I would gladly know from them, whence it is that the church
comes to know that the scripture is the word of God. If they say,
b y a private revelation; then they concede that extraordinary and
private revelations are still employed, and so they establish and
confirm enthusiasm; for this authority they attribute even to the
present church. I f they say, b y some ordinary means; then they
must acknowledge that the church hath this knowledge b y the
word itself. Stapleton proceeds: N o w it cannot be discovered by
reason that one book is apocryphal, another canonical; this au-
thentic, and that spurious, any more than the rest. Therefore it
must be proved b y the church. I answer: T h e inference does
not hold. F o r it cannot be proved b y human reasons that Christ
was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, ascended up to heaven
with his b o d y . Must then the whole credit of these and other
articles depend upon the sole authority and testimony of the church
alone ? D o we believe these things to be true upon no other
grounds but because it pleases the church that we should thus
298 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

believe ? Assuredly not. But what, though it were conceded that

w e came to k n o w through the church, that this is the word of God,
and that this teaching is true and canonical, which we do indeed
gladly concede in a certain sense; y e t must this be understood
so as to indicate an external, ministerial means, which G o d hath
been pleased to use in instructing us, and nothing more. It is
through the ministry of the church, and not on account of the
church's authority. A s , therefore, he who receives a message of
great favours promised or bestowed upon him b y his sovereign, does
not believe on account of the messenger, or on the messenger's
authority, but on account of the prince's own munificence, or because
he sees the patent or letter signed with the prince's own hand, or
because he recognises some other certain t o k e n ; nor believes on
account of the servant, although through his ministry; so w e r e -
ceive indeed the scriptures sent to us from God through the church,
and y e t do not believe it to be sent from G o d solely on the church's
authority, but on account of the voice of God, which we recognise
speaking clearly and expressly in the scriptures.
I answer, secondly, If scripture cannot be proved b y scripture,
as Stapleton says, then certainly much less can it be proved b y the
church. F o r if Stapleton's be a good reason, that scripture cannot
be proved b y scripture, because scripture may be unknown or d e -
nied, that reason will have still greater force against the church.
F o r the church is no less liable to b e unknown or denied than the
scripture. Stapleton calls this a " weighty question;" and indeed
he must needs find it so. In truth, it is so weighty that he cannot
support himself under it.
But, says he, the case of the church and of the scripture is
not the same. Why ? " Because there is no Christian who is
ignorant of the church." In like manner, there is no Christian
who is utterly ignorant of the scripture. T h e case of both, there-
fore, is the same. D o y o u yourself deem him a Christian who
denies the whole scripture ? Certainly, he replies; for he affirms that
some Christians deny the scriptures, such as the Schwenkfeldians,
Anabaptists, and in England the Familists 1
and Superilluminati.
I answer, our question is about real Christians. These are not
Christians truly but equivocally, as the papists are equivocal
catholics. It may indeed happen that there may be some Chris-
tians who are ignorant of the canon of scripture, or have even not
seen some books of it, but yet assent to the doctrine contained in the

[ Disciples of Henry Nicholas of Amsterdam.

]
See Hooker, Preface to
E. P., Chap. iii. 0, and Mr. Kcble's note, p. 1 8 4 . ]
III.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 299

canon of scripture; for otherwise they certainly cannot be called

Christians. As to his assertion that there are no Christians who
are ignorant of the church, if he mean it of the Roman church, it is
certain that many Christians have been, and still are ignorant of i t ;
many have not even so much as heard of it. Will he exclude all
these from the hope of salvation ? But if he understand any other
church, it is nothing to the purpose. However, he proves that no
Christians are ignorant of the church, because in the Creed we b e -
lieve in the church. I confess that in the Creed we do believe in
the church, but not in this or that church, but the catholic church;
which is no particular assembly of men, much less the Roman syna-
gogue, tied to any one place, but the b o d y of the elect which hath
existed from the beginning of the world, and shall exist unto
the end. A n d why do we thus believe ? Assuredly b y no other
argument than the authority of scripture, because the scriptures
teach us that there is such a body in the world, as Augustine repeats
a thousand times against the Donatists, not because any church
attests or professes this proposition. But the church, says he, is
" the means of believing all the r e s t ; " therefore it is the means
also of believing the existence of the scriptures. I answer, it is in-
deed the means, not the principal or prime source; and a mean
merely external and ministerial. But the principal mean is the
word itself, and the prime cause is the Spirit; whereas the church is
only an inferior organ.
" But in the Creed," says Stapleton, " we believe in the
church, but not in the scriptures." T o this I return two an-
swers. First, since Stapleton allows that we believe in the church,
I demand how, and on what account? If he say, on account
of the church, then we believe a thing on account of the thing
itself. But this is no proof even in his own opinion: for every
proof (as he says himself elsewhere) proceeds from premises better
known than the conclusion. Therefore, we believe the church
through some other mean, that is, through the scripture and the
church. Secondly, Stapleton thus rejects the scripture from the
Creed, since he says that in the Creed we believe in the church,
but not in the scriptures. But the scripture is not rejected from
the C r e e d ; for the Creed is a compendium and epitome of the
whole scripture, and all the articles of the Creed itself are confirmed
out of scripture. Besides, in the Creed itself we indicate our belief
in scripture: for when I profess that " I believe in G o d , " I profess
also that I believe that God speaks truth in his word, and conse-
quently, that I receive and venerate all divine scripture. F o r the
300 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

word " I believe," which occurs at the commencement of the

Creed, is b y the fathers expounded in a threefold sense,—that
is, I believe G o d ; I believe that there is a G o d ; and I believe
in God. (Credo Deo, Credo Deum, Credo in Deum).
Stapleton goes on to observe, that the whole formal cause of
faith is assent to God revealing something through the church. I
answer, God does, indeed, reveal truth through the church, but so
as through an external ministerial medium. But properly he r e -
veals truth to us through the Spirit and the scripture: for though
" Paul plant and Apollos water," y e t these are of no avail unless
"God give the increase." 1 Cor. iii. 6. T h e church can reveal
nothing to us in a saving w a y without the Spirit. But nothing can
be hence gathered to make it appear that the authority of the
church and of scripture is not equally doubtful and obscure, nay,
that the authority of the church is not much more s o ; since it is
certain that whatever authority the church hath depends entirely
upon the scripture.
So much then in reply to Stapleton's first a r g u m e n t : let us
come now to the rest, which are all, as it were, inferior streams
derived from this first argument, and referred to its confirmation.
However, we will examine them each distinctly and severally, that
a plain answer may be returned on our part to every argument
which he employs.

CHAPTER IV.

WHEREIN STAPLETON'S SECOND ARGUMENT IS PROPOSED

AND CONFUTED.

IN his ninth B o o k , chap. 5 , he sets forth an egregious piece of

reasoning to this effect: Some writings of the prophets and apostles
have not canonical authority, and some which are not writings of
prophets or apostles are received into the canon. Therefore the
whole canon of scripture rests on, and is defined b y , the judgment
of the church. It ought to determine the canon of scripture; and
consequently the scripture hath its authority from the testimony of
the church.
I have three answers to this. First, it is possible that p r o -
phets and apostles may have written some things in an ordinary
way to private persons, as, for instance, David sent private letters to
IV.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 301

Joab. These things ought not to be received into the canon. But
whatever they wrote as prophets, and inspired b y God, for the
public instruction of the church, have been received into the canon.
Secondly, I demand of him, whether those writings of which he
speaks were in themselves sacred and divine, or n o t ? I f they
w e r e ; then the church ought to admit and approve them b y its
testimony, as they allow themselves, and the church hath erred in
not receiving t h e m : for it is the office of the church to recognise
the sacred scriptures and commend them to others. If they were
n o t ; then it is certain that they were written b y prophets and apo-
stles with some other design than that they should be admitted into
the canon of scripture: so that the church neither could nor ought
to have admitted them into that canon.
Thirdly, no such public writing of either the prophets or the
apostles can be produced, which hath not been received in the
canon of the scriptures. Y e t Stapleton endeavours to prove
that there were many such writings both of prophets and apo-
stles, which the church never chose to sanction. And, in the
first place, he enumerates certain writings of the prophets, and
then of the apostles which were never admitted into the canon.
B y Samuel, says he, and Nathan and Gad, the Acts of David
were written, as appears from 1 Chron. last chapter, verse 2 9 .
But those books are not now canonical. Therefore it is in the
discretion of the church, either to receive books of scripture as
canonical, or to refuse and reject them as apocryphal. I answer,
that in that place the sacred history of the first and second of
Samuel is meant, which was 'drawn up b y those three prophets,
Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, and which Stapleton rashly denies to be
canonical. F o r it is certain that both these books were not written
b y Samuel, because Samuel was dead before the end of the first
book. N o w the church always acknowledged these books to be
canonical. But Stapleton supposes that some other history, the
work of those distinguished prophets, is referred t o ; which cannot be
established b y any proof. Secondly, he says that the Acts of Solo-
mon were consigned to writing b y Nathan, Ahijah and Iddo, as
appears from 2 Chron. ix. 2 9 . I reply, that the history there
meant is that which is contained in the first book of K i n g s : or, if
some other history be indicated, how will he prove that, when it
was extant, it had not canonical authority ? Thirdly, he proves from'
2 Chron. xiii. 2 2 , that the history of Abijah was written b y Iddo
the prophet, which yet is not now extant in the canon. I answer,
that this is the same history of king Abijah which is contained in
302 T H E FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

1 Kings xv. Fourthly, he says that the history of Jehoshaphat was

written b y the prophet J e h u ; which he proves from 2 Chron. x x .
34. I answer, that the same history is meant which is extant
1 Kings xvi. F o r it is certain that the histories of Judges, Ruth,
Samuel and Kings, were written b y many p r o p h e t s : whence in
Matth. ii. , at the last verse, a passage is cited from the b o o k
1

of Judges (for it is found nowhere else); and y e t Matthew uses the

expression, " t h a t it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the pro-
phets," TO prjOev Sua T¿ÚV Trpo<pr¡T¿ov. W h e n c e we may undertand
that that book was written and composed b y many prophets.
Fifthly, he says that many writings of Solomon's are now not
extant in the canon of scripture. I answer, that this is no great
wonder, since they have now wholly perished and are not extant
a n y w h e r e : for I believe that no man doubts that some canonical
pieces have perished. But if they were now extant, Stapleton
would have to prove that it would depend upon the authority of
the church whether they should or should not b e in the canon.
N e x t he brings a testimony from Augustine, de Civit. Dei, Lib.
x v i i . cap. ult. where these words o c c u r : " There are writings of
t h e i r s " (meaning Zechariah, Malachi, and Haggai,) " as there are
of others, who prophesied in great n u m b e r s : v e r y few wrote
pieces which had canonical authority ." 2
I answer, these things
which Augustine says have no reference to our question. F o r he
does not say that many things were written b y the prophets which
had no canonical authority; but that, out of a great many prophets,
there were very few who wrote a n y t h i n g : because many prophets
left no written compositions whatever. W h a t he says, therefore, is,
there were many prophets who taught the church only o r a l l y ; but
few who wrote anything. This is plainly Augustine's sense and
meaning: whence, b y the way, we may take notice of Stapleton's
fidelity in quoting the fathers. These, then, are Stapleton's o b -
jections concerning the writings of the prophets. Let us come now
to those writings of the apostles which he aifirms not to have been
received into the canon.
The first specifies the epistle to the Laodiceans, which he proves
from Coloss. iv. 16, to have been written b y P a u l ; yet, says he,

[i Whitaker supposes the reference to he to Judges xiii. 5. But a Naza-

rite is expressed in Greek by Na¿'apaíor, Nófep, Ná¿ip, T<¡a£tpaios' never, I
believe, by Nafwpaior.]
[2 Sunt scripta eorum, sicut aliorum qui in magna multitudine prophe-
tavunt: perpauci ea scripserunt qua? auctoritatem canonis haberent. T. ix.
p. 640.]
IV.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 303

that epistle is not now in the canon. I a n s w e r : N o epistle of the

kind is mentioned in that place. T h e apostle says, e/c A a o c W / a s ,
not irpog AaoSiKelav, so that the epistle here referred to was not
written to the Laodiceans, hut from Laodicea. T h e mistake arose
from the vulgar Latin edition, which reads, Epistolam Laodi-
censium. Formerly, indeed, there was an epistle which passed
under this name, as Epiphanius (contra Marcion. ) 3
and others
remark. Faber Stapulensis counts this amongst Paul's epistles,
hut is censured on that account b y Erasmus . 4
Those hold a more
reasonable and specious opinion, who think that there was such an
epistle, but that it is now lost. However, even that cannot be
proved from this passage. It appears to me, that what is here
indicated is rather that the Laodiceans had written an epistle to
Paul, in which as there were some things which concerned the
Colossians, and which it was important for them to know, Paul
wished it to be read b y the Colossians along with this epistle of
his own. This I j u d g e not incredible, and indeed much the more
probable opinion. To this effect CEcumenius writes distinctly:
" H e does not say, that written to Laodicea, but that from Lao-
d i c e a ; not that from Paul to the Laodiceans, but that from the
Laodiceans to Paul. F o r no doubt there was something in it which
concerned the Colossians ." 5
These remarks CEcumenius took from
Chrysostom. Catharinus too, a papist, acknowledges in his com-
mentary upon this place, (p. 3 6 6 , ) that it is not an epistle written
b y him to the Laodiceans, but one written from that place. Jerome,
in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, under the head of P A U L , 8

makes mention of this epistle, but observes that it is universally

condemned. The second Council of N i c e 7
determines it to be

[3 Whitaker is doubtless mistaken in supposing that the miserable modern

forgery, under this title, is the Epistle to the Laodiceans used by Marcion ;
Marcion gave this title to what we call the Epistle to the Ephesians. See
Tertullian, c. Marc. V. xi. 17. Epiphanius' loose and inconsistent statements
misled Whitakeiv—Hreres. xlii. T. i. pp. 310, 319, 374.]
[ Etiam Faber, homo doctus sed aliquoties nimium candidus, diligenter
4

reliquis admiscuit Epistolis.—Erasm. Annot. in Col. iv. 16.]

p oil yap tare TTJV npbs A a o S i x e i y , a X X a TTJV ix AaoSiKfias ypacpelcrav oi rrjv
a V o U a u X o u npbs AaobiKeas, a X X a TTJV OTTO Aao&meav Tvpbs UavXov. s
Hv yap TL
TTOVTCQS iv avrrj dqbekovv K o X o c n r a e i r . p. 146. T. II. Paris. 1631.]
[6 Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur. T. n.
p. 826.]
p Kal yap TOV delov AWOCTT<>KOV irpos AaodiKeis (piperai TrXacrri) imoToKrj.
Art. 6. p. 5. Concil. Labb. T. vn. p. 475.]
304 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

spurious, and rejects it as supposititious. Theophylact 1

thinks that
the first epistle to Timothy is meant,' because it was written from
L a o d i c e a ; Tertullian, in his fifth b o o k against M a r c i o n , the epistle
2

to the Ephesians.
As to what Stapleton subjoins, that there were some books
written b y Peter, and a certain book also of the travels of Paul and
T h e c l a , which are not in the c a n o n ; I answer, that these books
3

were always deemed spurious impostures b y the church. Jerome

(in Cat. under P E T E R , ) rejects
4
them as apocryphal, and not
written b y Peter. Let me therefore say of these, as we read that
Augustine formerly said of some still more ancient (Civit. Dei,
Lib. XVIII. c. 3 8 ) : " These writings the chastity of the canon hath
not admitted, not because the authority of those men who pleased
G o d is rejected, but because these are not believed to be their
works ." 5
It rests not therefore with the church's discretion to
make the writings of prophets and apostles canonical or not canon-
ical, to reject what is, or to admit what is not, canonical. So far
concerning Stapleton's second argument.

CHAPTER V.

WHEREIN T H E THIRD ARGUMENT OF OUR OPPONENTS IS

EXAMINED AND SET ASIDE.

STAPLETON'S third argument is contained in the 6th chaptei

of his ninth book, and is to this effect. It is owing to the judgment
and. authority of the church, that apocryphal writings of the firsl

[ } T t s 8e r)V r\ «TK AaoSifetTias; rj rrpos Ti/iodfov irpdrrj. avrt) yap EK AaoSucciai

iypdcpt).—Theophyl. in Col. iv. 16, p. 676, Lond. 1636.]
[2 Prsetereo hie et de alia Epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios prrescriptan
habemus, hajretici vero ad Laodicenos.—V. c. 11.]
[ Grabe Spicil. i. p. 95, et seqq.]
3

[* Libri autem ejus, e quibus unus Actorum ejus inscribitur, alius Evan
gelii, tertius prsedicationis, quartus Apocalypsis, quintus Judicii, inter apo
cryphas scripturas reputantur. T. n. p. 814.]
[ Sed ea castitas Canonis non recepit, non quod eorum hominum qu
8

Deo placuerunt, reprobetur auctoritas, sed quod ista non credantur eorun
esse. T. ix. p. 685.]
 QUESTION T H E T H I R D . 305

kind, such as were formerly not certainly canonical but doubtful,

were after a while admitted into the canon. Therefore, &c. He
calls those books A p o c r y p h a l of the first class, concerning which
doubts were at first entertained in the church, although they were
afterwards ultimately received. Such are those whom this same
author and other papists call Deutero-canonical. F o r those which
form the second rank of canonical, are the first rank of apocryphal
writings: of which kind, in the old Testament, are Tobit, Judith,
Ecclesiasticus, and those other books concerning which we have
disputed at large in the first Question; in the new, the Epistle to
the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, the second and third Epistles of
John, the second of Peter, the story of the woman taken in adul-
tery, the Epistle of Jude, and the Epistle of James. Together
with these Stapleton, in the fifth chapter of this book, enumerates
the b o o k of the Shepherd, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of
Paul, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the travels of
Paul, styling these also Apocryphal of the first class, although books
which neither now nor heretofore were ever received into the canon,
which all those other books of the new Testament have long since
been. Nevertheless this man tells us that all these pieces are of
the same rank, kind, and nature, and that whatever difference is
made between them results entirely from the circumstance that the
church hath judged some canonical, others not, received the one
set, and rejected the other. But there is a wide difference between
them besides t h i s : otherwise the church could not make such a
difference between writings, all of which were really in the same
predicament. F o r if, as Stapleton says, all these books be of the
same kind, rank, and nature, why hath the church received the
one part rather than the other ? But now let us answer this argu-
ment distinctly and in form. T h e answer shall be fourfold.

Firstly, I say that the church never did receive, b y its judgment
and approbation, those books of the old Testament which they call
Deutero-canonical, or Apocryphal of the first class; which point
we have sufficiently established in the first Question of this contro-
versy. If they say the church hath received them, let them tell
us when, and in what council? N o w whatever councils they are
able to produce are merely r e c e n t ; and no reason can be assigned
w h y canonical books should lie so long unsanctioned b y the autho-
rity of the church.
Secondly, I say that the church neither could, nor ought to
have received them into the canon. F o r the church cannot make

[WHITAKER.]
306 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

those books canonical and divine, which are not really in themselves
canonical, sacred, and divine. Even the papists themselves do not
ascribe so much power to the church, whose office terminates in
declaring those books to be canonical, and as such commending
them to the people, which are really and in themselves canonical.
N o w we have already proved that these books possess no such
character. The council of Laodicea expressly rejects them as non-
canonical writings, filfBXia ctKavovicTTa. Jerome determines that
no religious dogma can be proved b y t h e m : whereas, if they were
canonical, the doctrines of religion might be established from them
just as well as from the rest.
Thirdly, we confess that formerly doubts were entertained con-
cerning certain books of the new Testament, as the Epistle to the
Hebrews and others, which books were nevertheless afterwards
received into the canon. But we deny that it is merely on the
church's authority that these books either are, or are accounted,
canonical. F o r I demand, what reason was it that induced or im-
pelled the church at length to receive them ? Certainly no other
cause but this, that it perceived and recognised the doctrine in
them to b e plainly divine and inspired b y G o d . W h y then may
not the same reason persuade us also to receive t h e m ? Any
other answer which they m a y give will assign a wholly uncertain
criterion.
Fourthly, although in some churches doubts prevailed concern-
ing these books of the new Testament, y e t other churches received
them. So Eusebius writes concerning these epistles; as specially
of the Epistle of James, Lib. 11. c. 2 3 . F o r although he uses the
term vo9evea9ai\ y e t he acknowledges that it was publicly received
(SeSrmiocrtevixevnv) in many churches: which these men can not say
of the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
or other such like spurious or adulterated pieces. But if, as Sta-
pleton says, these books were indeed equal amongst themselves
and of the same rank (that is, these canonical books and those
spurious ones which he enumerates), and if the church have caused
them to be of unequal authority with respect to us, then the church
hath fallen into a grievous e r r o r : for the church ought not to
have caused pieces of equal authority intrinsically to appear other-
wise to us. N o w Stapleton says that these books are of the same

[} loreov 8 e cos vodcverai fiev ojxas 8 « "urpev KOI rairas [this and the
Epistle of Jude]
T. i. p. 175. ed. Heinich. Compare Hug's Einl. i. 119.]
 QUESTION THE THIRD. 307

rank in themselves; but in respect of us, he ascribes it to the

church's judgment that some are deemed canonical, and not others.
But surely the church cannot change the quality o f books, but only
declare them to us to be such as they really are in themselves.
Therefore, if they were all equal, an equal judgment ought to be
passed upon them all. That this rests in the arbitrary decision of
the church, he will never b e able to establish: let us nevertheless
attend to the manner in which he attempts to prove it.
Stapleton proceeds to cite many testimonies o f the fathers, o f
which I will only examine the three principal, and pass over what
is irrelevant to the question. In the first place, then, he objects to
us Eusebius ( H . E. L i b . i n . c. 1 9 , or in the Greek, 2 5 ) , who affirms
that the plain mark of the canonical books is the tradition of the
church. I a n s w e r : Eusebius there enumerates all the books of the
new Testament, as well those which were always received b y all,
as those which were rejected b y some, and concerning which doubts
were then entertained in some churches. Eusebius's own words are
as f o l l o w : " It was needful that we should draw up such a cata-
logue of these, distinguishing those pieces which, according to the
ecclesiastical tradition, are true and unfeigned and acknowledged
scriptures, from those which are not part of the T e s t a m e n t . " 2
To
which testimony of Eusebius I briefly return a threefold reply.
Firstly, w e should allow no weight in this matter to the authority
of Eusebius, because it has no force to establish what Stapleton
undertakes to prove. F o r , while he says that he follows the
ecclesiastical tradition, he distinguishes from the canonical books
those v e r y pieces which the papists themselves maintain to b e
canonical, as the B o o k of Tobit, Judith, &c. the Epistle to the
Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the Apocalypse, &c. Therefore, if
that tradition which Eusebius follows be true, it will prevail as
much against the papists themselves as against us. A n d if that
tradition b e so certain a mark of the books, then the authority of
some books of the canon is utterly destroyed, as the Epistle of
James and other epistles, which this tradition of Eusebius, so much
relied on b y Stapleton, banishes from the sacred canon. L e t him
then consider for himself what weight is to b e allowed to this tes-
timony. Secondly, I deny not that ecclesiastical tradition is a means
of proof, whereby it m a y be shewn what books are canonical and

[2
avayKatas de KCU rovrav opcos rbv KaraXoyov 7re7r01.1jiJ.cda, biaKplvavTcs ras re
Kara TTJV iKKJ\r)o-iao~TiK.r]v Trapdboo-iv aXr/de'is Ka\ airXaa'Tovs (cat ava>p.6Xoyj)pcvas
ypa(f>as, (cat ras aXXas napa rairas, oi< ivbiadrjKovs pcv, (c. T. X.—T. I. p . 247.]
20—2
308 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

•what not canonical; y e t I say that it is a merely external means

of proof. N o w , in order that we should be thoroughly persuaded
of the authority of the canonical books, there is need besides of the
internal testimony of the H o l y Spirit. In like manner, with respect
to God himself and the Trinity, and other articles of our faith, the
church gives us instruction, and this tradition ought to have with
all the force of a great argument: and if any were to deny those
articles, we should press them with the authority of the church as
an external argument, which hath in it all the strength necessary
for convincing and refuting the gainsayers. Yet, unless the inter-
nal testimony of the H o l y Spirit be added, fortified b y the ample
authority of scripture, the human mind will never give a solid
assent with entire acquiescence to those articles. Thirdly, Eusebius
writes that he enumerates these books as canonical, not on account
of the ecclesiastical tradition, but according to the ecclesiastical
tradition, which is a v e r y different thing. His words are not Bed
Tt]v TrapdSoo-iv, but Kara Ttjv irapd^oaiv. Those who suppose
that there is no difference between these two are greatly deceived.
F o r it is through the church's ministry that we believe whatever
we believe, but not on account of the church's authority ; since our
faith relies upon and is confirmed b y an authority much more august,
certain and clear, than that of the church. Let this suffice con-
c e r n i n g ' t h e testimony of Eusebius.

T h e second testimony cited b y Stapleton is taken from Augus-

tine, De Doct. Christ. Lib. 11. c. 8, where these words o c c u r : " T h e
believer will observe this rule with respect to the canonical
scriptures, to prefer those which are received b y all churches to
those which some do not receive. In the case of those which are
not received b y all, he will prefer those which the more and
more dignified churches receive to those which fewer churches or
churches of less authority admit. But if he should find some
received b y the greater number, and others b y the more digni-
fied (though indeed such a case cannot easily be found), yet I
think that the two classes should be deemed of equal a u t h o r i t y . " 1

]} T e n e b i t igitur h u n c m o d u m in scripturis canonicis, u t eas quse a b

o m n i b u s accipiuntur ecclesiis preeponat eis quas queedam n o n a c c i p i u n t :
in eis vero quse n o n accipiuntur a b o m n i b u s , praeponat eas quas plures
gravioresque accipiunt eis quas pauciores m i n o r i s q u e auctoritatis ecclesisa
tenent. S i a u t e m alias invenerit. a pluribus, alias a gravioribus h a b e r i ,
( q u a m q u a m h o c facile invenire n o n possit,) aequalis t a m e n auctoritatis eas
habendas p u t o . — p . 3 0 . O p p . T . i n . ]
 QUESTION THE THIRD. 309

Thus Augustine; where (says Stapleton) he shews that this whole

truth, and this difference between the books, depends upon the
various judgment of the church. I answer, that Stapleton does
not consider what he says. F o r , w h a t ? shall this whole truth
and difference between the books depend upon the various j u d g -
ment of the church ? Must the truth and authority of the cano-
nical scripture be made thus to hang upon the judgment of the
church, and that judgment itself a variable o n e ? — W h a t asser-
tion could possibly b e more absurd or more insulting than t h i s ?
Churches indeed m a y j u d g e variously and inconstantly, as was
plainly the case in the ancient c h u r c h e s : but the scriptures of
G o d are always the same, consistent with themselves, and admit-
ting of no variety. But Augustine in that place is instructing
tyros and novices, and exhorting them in the first place to attend
to the church as their mistress and admonisher, and to follow her
judgment. N o r will any one deny that this is pious and sound
advice. W e do not immediately understand everything ourselves;
we must therefore listen to the church which bids us read these
books. Afterwards, however, when we either read them ourselves, or
hear others read them, and duly weigh what they teach, we believe
their canonicity, not only on account of the testimony or authority
of the church, but upon the inducement of other and more certain
arguments, as the witness of the H o l y Spirit, and the majesty of
that heavenly doctrine, which shines forth in the books themselves
and the whole manner of their teaching. Augustine, therefore,
would have us ascribe much, but not all, to the church in this
matter. But two points against the papists may be gathered from
this place. First, that Augustine never understood or recognised
such a public and certain judgment of the church as the papists
feign;—that is, an external judgment, and that passed b y the
R o m a n Church, which all Christians should be bound to stand b y
and o b e y : for then he would have desired a disciple to follow
this judgment, and consult only the Roman Church. Secondly, it
may be gathered from this place, that churches may be true
churches of Christ, and yet j u d g e variously of certain canonical
books. W h e n c e it manifestly appears that all who have the H o l y
Spirit do not think alike of all the books of scripture. But, to reply
briefly and in one w o r d , — I say that the dictate, and voice, and
commendation of the church is the occasion and first rudiment of
the faith wherewith we believe these books to be divine and given
b y inspiration of G o d ; but that the form and full assurance depend
310 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

upon the internal witness of the H o l y Spirit, which must needs be

added before we can certainly know and hold undoubtingly that
these books are canonical and divine.
T h e third testimony produced b y Stapleton, which I have r e -
solved to answer, is taken from Augustine's eleventh book against
Faustus the Manichean, chap. 5, where Augustine writes to this
effect: " Distinguished from the books of later authors is the e x -
cellence of the canonical authority of the old and new Testaments;
which, having been established in the time of the apostles, hath
through the successions of bishops and propagations of churches
been set as it were in a lofty tribunal, demanding the obedience of
every faithful and pious understanding ." Hence it appears, says
1

Stapleton, that the scripture is set in this high tribunal b y the ap-
probation and authority of the church. I answer: Augustine writes
that the canon of the scriptures was established b y the apostles,
and is now set in this elevated place through the successions of
bishops and propagations of churches. W h a t does this prove
against us ? W h o is so mad as not to perceive that the apostles
established the canonical scripture, and that pious bishops and
churches rendered it the highest r e v e r e n c e ? But does it follow
thence, that we do not know what books are canonical b y any
other testimony than that of the church; or that the scripture hath
no other authority with us than that which the church assigns to
it ? Assuredly not. But from this passage of Augustine we draw
the following observations against the papists. First, that the
canon of scripture was settled in the time of the apostles, and con-
signed in a certain number of books, and that, therefore, those more
recent councils, b y means of which the papists prove that certain
apocryphal books of the old Testament are canonical, are of no avail
against us, since the apostles themselves had determined in their own
times what books should be received into the canon of the old T e s -
tament. Secondly, that the books of the new Testament were
written and confirmed b y the apostles themselves, and a definite
number of books marked out. Thirdly, that if the canon of scrip-
ture were settled b y the apostles themselves, it is not now in the
power of the church to add any book to this canon, and so increase

] } D i s t i n c t a est a posterioribus libris excellentia canonical auctoritatis

vcteris e t novi T e s t a m e n t i , qua?, a p o s t o l o r u m confirmata temporibus, per
successiones episcoporum e t propagationes ecclesiarum tanquam in sede
q u a d a m sublimiter constituta est, cui serviat o m n i s fldelis et pius intellectus.
—p. 267. O p p . T . x.]
 QUESTION THE THIRD. 311

the number of the canonical b o o k s ; which yet Stapleton affirms in

the 14th chapter of this book. Jerome in his Catalogue, and other
authors write that John lived the longest of all the apostles, so as
to be able to see all the books and confirm them, and, if any
fictitious books were published, to distinguish them from the sacred
and truly canonical books. J e r o m e , in his Catalogue, under the
2

article LUKE, relates that a certain book concerning the acts of Paul
was presented to John, but that the author was discovered and the
book condemned b y the authority of the apostle. Tertullian in 3

his Prescriptions says, that the very autographs of the apostles

themselves were preserved in his time safe in the churches; and
the same writer remarks in the same place, " W e determine the
document of the gospel to have the apostles for its authors ." A u - 4

gustine, Epist. 19 , asserts that these scriptures were received to the

s

height of canonical authority b y the apostles themselves. T h e fact

that afterwards some persons entertained doubts of certain parts had
its origin not in the scriptures themselves, but in our infirmity.
But perhaps some one may o b j e c t : If the apostles, who were
the pastors of the church, had the power of consigning the
canon and confirming the canonical scriptures, then the same privi-
lege will belong to the other pastors of the church who succeed
them, when assembled together in one place. I answer, the apo-
stles may b e considered under a twofold aspect: firstly, as the
principal teachers of the c h u r c h ; secondly, as certain immediate
organs, chosen b y God and designated for the special office of
writing and publishing the sacred books. This was so peculiar
to themselves, that in this respect they were placed out of the con-
dition of all other men. N o w the apostles' consignation of the
canon of scripture is to be referred not to the authority of the
church, but to that of God. It was not as the ministers of the
church that they consigned it, but as the unerring organs of the
H o l y Ghost, fortified b y a divine authority, and commended to the

[ Opp. T. n. 827. This piece was the story of Thecla, printed by Grabo
2

in the first vol. of his Spicilegium.]

[ Percurre ecclesias apostólicas, apud quas ipsa? adhuc cathedra? apos-
3

tolorum suis locis pra?sidentur, apud quas ipsa? authentica? litera? eorum
recitantur.—c. 36. ed. Leopold. Lips. 1841. P. 3. p. 25.]
I* This is a mistake. The passage cited occurs in the 4th Book, Adv.
Marc. c. 2. (p. 147): Constituimus imprimis evangelicum instrumentum
apostólos auctores habere.]
[ 6
Ep. 82. Opp. T. II. p. 253. Commendata.. . ab ipsis apostolis.]
312 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

faith of all. F o r if they had done this as ordinary ministers, then

all pastors who succeed the apostles would have the like power.
Whence it is manifest that this authority of theirs was of an
extraordinary kind. Therefore the apostles consigned the canon of
scripture, not as men or ministers, but as the representative of
God, the tongue of the H o l y Spirit, and, as it were, a divine
oracle. Wherefore this act can avail nothing towards establishing
the perpetual authority of the church. And so much for Stapleton's
third argument.

CHAPTER VI.

WHEREIN THE FOURTH ARGUMENT OF OUR OPPONENTS IS

ANSWERED.

N o w follows his fourth argument, which is handled in Lib. i x .

c. 7, and is to this effect: The apocryphal books of the second
class are therefore not accounted divine, because the church hath
never chosen to approve them. Therefore this whole matter
(namely, of receiving and rejecting books) depends upon the au-
thority and judgment of the church. H e calls those books apocryphal
of the second class, which have been published under the name
of the apostles, either b y heretics, or philosophers, or others: of
which kind were, the revelation of Paul, the gospel of Judas
Iscariot, the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Matthias, the gospel
of Andrew, and the gospel of Peter, which pope Innocent I. in his
third epistle testifies to have been published b y philosophers.
These books, says Stapleton, the church hath rejected and repu-
diated. Therefore, it appertains to the church to determine concern-
ing canonical books, and to consign a certain canon of scripture.
I answer, that this argument proves nothing; and that for
three reasons. The first is, because we have already granted that
it appertains to the office, and consequently to the authority, of the
church, to distinguish the true and genuine books from spurious.
For it possesses the Spirit of God, under whose instruction it hears
the voice of its Spouse and recognises his teaching. F o r that same
Spirit, b y whom those books were written, still resides in the
church, although not always in the same measure. All this, there-
fore, we a l l o w ; but we demand to know how it follows from these
VI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 313

premises, that we can judge b y no other criterion than the church's

determination of their non-canonicity, that these books deserve to
be rejected and refused? Would any one draw so loose and in-
consequent a conclusion, who trusted to be able to gain his cause b y
legitimate arguments? F o r our parts, we affirm that there are
other criterions. Let them tell us upon what grounds the church
deems these books spurious; and I will answer, that we also may
arrive at the same conclusion upon the same inducements. Secondly,
we concede that against heretics an argument may be taken from
the authority and consent of the church, shewing that, since the
whole church hath rejected those books, we justly allow them to
deserve rejection. For who is there so bold and impudent as not
to be greatly moved b y the authority of the catholic c h u r c h ? It
hath seen and examined these books, and can judge better of them
than any private person, because endowed with a greater and more
ample abundance of the H o l y Spirit and of j u d g m e n t : since it
hath, with so much judgment and deliberation, rejected certain
books, we ought not, without any reason, to retain them. This ar-
gument, therefore, hath very great weight against heretics, and
heretics may be very much pressed and urged b y i t ; nor yet
heretics alone, but other opponents also who would either receive
supposititious books, or reject really canonical. This argument
the fathers frequently u s e d ; but, nevertheless, have nowhere said
that all this depended upon the authority of the church, or that
this was either the sole or the greatest argument, whereby heretics
and other adversaries, who held wrong sentiments concerning these
books, might be refuted. N a y , some of those very fathers whom
Stapleton cites have used other arguments upon this subject, as will
appear presently. Thirdly, therefore, those fathers who used this
argument which is derived from the authority of the church, did
not reject these apocryphal books of the second class merely on
account of the church's authority, and solely upon the church's
external judgment delivered as it were in c o u r t ; but on account of
other proofs which were taken and derived out of the books them-
selves. For those books had generally open errors and perverse
doctrines, from which the church could easily determine that they
were fictitious and spurious books, and not truly canonical. This is
evident from the testimony of those very fathers, whom Stapleton
alleges in his own behalf in this cause, that is, Eusebius and
Augustine.

Eusebius, in his third book, chap. xxv. of the Greek c o p y ,

314 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

speaking of the gospels of Thomas, Peter, Matthias, and other apo-

cryphal books of the second class, explains at the end of his dis-
course, w h y these books were rejected b y the church, in the following
words : " T h e very diction, character, and phraseology, are foreign
from the apostolic. Their drift is widely different from the o r -
thodox religion and doctrine, and therefore they are deservedly
rejected as spurious books and figments of the heretics." It is better
to hear Eusebius's own w o r d s : Uoppco 8e IROV KAL O TTJS (PPACREWS

IRAPA TO iiQos TO AJROATOXIKOV eeaXXaVet YAPAKTIJP, R\ TS YVCO/XN,

KAL TWV EV AVTOLS <PEPOFJ.EVA>V TRPOALPEOIS, IR\EI<JTOV baov rjjs

A\T]9ovs op9o$O<*LA<: A.TRQ.Sovcra, OTI <)E AIPETIKWV avSpiov AVA-
IRXAAFMTA TVY^AVET CRA(PW% IRAPIATRIAIV 69ev ovb" EV vodois
AVTCI KCLTCLTCLKTEOP) ctXX' uls UTOIRA IRAVTN KAL SvaaefBrj IRAPAI-

TRJTEOV . 1
Here we may remark Stapleton's fidelity. H e would
fain prove from the testimony of Eusebius, that these books are to
be rejected for no other reason but because the church hath rejected
t h e m ; and he cites a place from this very chapter, and from the
words immediately preceding, where it is said: " None of the ec-
clesiastical writers hath ever vouchsafed to make mention of these
books in his writings ." 2
Here he breaks off the testimony of
Eusebius: whereas the words quoted above follow immediately,
which he hath altogether omitted, because they make against
himself. In those words Eusebius tells us that, besides the testi-
mony of the church, there are two other ways and marks whereby
we may perceive that these books are not canonical: first, TIP
•%0-PAKTRJPT TTJS CPPAAEM, from the style and character, because
the apostles never wrote or spoke after such a fashion; whence it
appears that, in the opinion of Eusebius, the phrase and diction is
a mark of the canonical b o o k s : secondly, TJJ •YVMFJ.RJ KAL TRJ

irpoaipeo-EI, from the sentiments and design; that is, from the
kind of doctrine delivered in these books, which, says Eusebius, is
inexpressibly different from sound doctrine and orthodox religion,
so that they not only should not be received, but should be r e -
jected and abhorred as the impure and wicked productions of the
heretics. Y e t Stapleton would fain persuade us that these books
ought to be rejected upon no other account but because the church
hath rejected them. Besides, Eusebius in the same book, chap. 3 2 , 3

I 1
T. i. pp. 247—50. ed. Heinichen.]
[2 d>v ohSev ov8afia>s ev uvyypajijxarL TS>V Kara 8iado)(as i<K\r](na<TTiK<ov
Tis avrjp els pvjprjv ayayelv rj^iao-ev—Id. ibid.]
[ 3
Euseb. H. E. in. c. 38. pp. 280, 1. ut supra.]
VI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 315

rejects the dispute of Peter with Apion, on account of its not

maintaining the pure unblemished signature of apostolic and o r -
thodox doctrine. OvSe yap, says h e , KaOapov dnoaToKiK^ opQo-
So^ias aTToaw^ei TOV ^apaKTripa: as much as to say, it is manifest
that this dispute was not held b y an apostle, since it wants the true
and genuine mark o f apostolical faith and preaching; it does not
agree with the doctrine of Peter, and therefore it is falsely ascribed
to Peter.
So much for the testimony o f Eusebius. I proceed now to
Augustine, who certainly never wrote as Stapleton affirms him
to have written, but to a far different effect. H e does not say
that these books were held to b e apocryphal solely because they
were full of lies, and contained many things impious and false. In
his 98th tractate upon John, having mentioned the revelation o f
Paul, he subjoins, that it is not received b y the church: but
wherefore ? Is it because it was placed in the judgment of the
church alone to receive or not receive it ? B y no means; but
because it was " f e i g n e d " b y certain " v a i n " men, and because it
was " f u l l of f a b l e s . " Well then, do w e reject, upon no other
4

account but the church's testimony, a b o o k " feigned b y vain men,

and full of fables ? " T e a , rather we reject it for being such. T h e
same Augustine, against Faustus the Manichean, L i b . XXII. c. 7 9 ,
says that the Manichees read certain books written b y " stitchers-
together of fables ." 5
H e means the gospels of Matthias, Andrew,
Peter, and those other books which Stapleton hath before enu-
merated. These books therefore were not received b y the church,
because they were full of fables, not merely because the church
chose to reject them. Besides, the same Augustine, in his work
de consensu Evangelistarum, L i b . i. c. I , discusses the question
6

w h y , since so many had written of the actions and doctrine both o f

Christ and of the apostles, only four gospels and the Acts o f the
Apostles were received, and assigns two reasons: first, because the
men who wrote those other books were not such as the church
deemed worthy of credit, that is, were not endowed with the extra-
ordinary gifts of the H o l y Spirit, or so furnished for the task as
all those ought to b e who write of such sacred and divine matters;

[ 4
Qua occasione vani quidam Apocalypsin Pauli, quam sane non recipit
ecclesia, nescio quibus fabulis plenam, stultissima prassumptione finxerunt.
— O p p . T. iv. p. 982.]
[5 Legunt scripturas apocryphas Manichay, a nescio quibus sutoribus
Jabularum sub apostolorum nomine scriptas, e t c . — T . x. p. 490.]
[« T. iv. p. 1. Bassan. 1797.]
316 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. |_CH.

secondly, because they did not write with the same fidelity, but
introduced many things which clash and are at variance with the
catholic faith and rule of apostolic doctrine. Therefore, the fathers
themselves allow that there are other arguments for rejecting these
books, besides the sole authority of the church. A s to the Acts of
the Apostles, Augustine writes in that same place, that no others
wrote with the same fidelity as Luke, and therefore that his book
only was received. What could possibly be spoken more plainly ?
These books were at variance with the rule and analogy of faith,
and therefore ought not to have been received, neither could the
church receive them, nor do otherwise than reject and condemn
such books. Now in like manner as the church formerly rejected
those books upon this account, so we also would, on the same
account, now reject and condemn them, if they were still extant.
So much for the fourth argument brought b y Stapleton. It r e -
mains now that we address ourselves to his fifth.

•CHAPTER V I I .

OF THE FIFTH ARGUMENT OF OUR ADVERSARIES.

STAPLETON'S fifth argument is contained in the eighth chapter
of his ninth book, and is to this effect: Heretics rejecting any part
of scripture, or persons doubting any canonical book, are refuted b y
the authority and tradition of the church. Therefore it is the
privilege of the church to consign the canon of scripture. H e r e he
is very large in his citations of testimonies from Augustine, y e t to
no advantage of his cause; since they in no way weaken ours, but
prove a totally different thing, and therefore might be wholly
omitted.
I answer, therefore, that this argument is inconsequential:
heretics are refuted b y the authority of the church; therefore
there is no other stronger argument b y which the canon of scrip-
ture can be established. This is just as if one were to argue
t h u s : atheists who deny the existence of God are refuted b y the
authority of the church, which hath ever confessed one God, the
maker of all things; therefore there is no other argument whereby
either we or others can be convinced of God's existence, no more
certain reason whereby either they may be refuted, or we esta-
blished in the truth. Yea, rather the creatures themselves—the
heaven and the e a r t h — c r y out that there is a G o d , as saith the
VII."| QUESTION THE THIRD. 317

p r o p h e t : " The heavens declare the g l o r y of God, and the firma-

ment sheweth his h a n d y - w o r k . " This is a more certain argument
for the confutation and conviction of the atheists than the testi-
mony of the c h u r c h ; but for the most certain argument of all is
the testimony of the Spirit, without which it is in vain that all
other proofs are applied. It is manifest therefore, that this is a
plain fallacy of inconsequence, when our adversary disputes t h u s :
this is an argument, therefore it is the sole argument, or there is
no other argument besides. T h e inconsequence of such reasoning
will easily appear from a parallel instance. T h e philosophers may be
so refuted b y arguments of their own sort, as to be forced to acknow-
ledge the truth of our religion : are there then no other but philo-
sophical arguments b y which they can be refuted ? Far from it.
However, to return a fuller answer: we observe that the
fathers have indeed used this argument, and that we also may
use it against the heretics; because, since heretics are without the
Holy Spirit, and are ignorant of the phraseology and sense of
scripture, they will doubtless be more moved b y the authority and
testimony of men, than either of God or of the scripture. They
attribute much to the testimony of men, so as that there is no
external argument with which, for the most part, they can be
pressed more strongly and effectually. F o r such reasoning as this
hath ever had v e r y great weight and influence with all, even the
worst of men : the church hath ever j u d g e d these books canonical;
therefore y o u ought not to reject, or doubt concerning them. A
man must be shameless indeed, who will not be moved b y this
argument. But it is one thing to force men to acknowledge the
scriptures, and quite another to convince them of their truth.
Heretics may perhaps be forced not only b y the authority and
testimony of the church, but also b y the style o f scripture, and
tbe exact harmony between the old and new Testaments; which
two points are of no less avail than the testimony of the church for
inducing us to confess that these books are canonical: but to per-
suade our souls thoroughly, it is not these or any other arguments
of the same kind that can avail, but only the voice of the Holy
Spirit speaking inwardly in our hearts. F o r in like manner as a
man may be compelled b y many arguments taken from nature to
confess the being of God, and y e t will never meanwhile be
persuaded of it in his conscience, until the H o l y Spirit hath
infused this faith and persuasion into his h e a r t ; so we may indeed
be compelled b y the authority of the church to acknowledge the
318 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

canonicity of the scripture, and y e t can never b e brought to

acquiesce in it as a firm and solid truth, until the internal testimony
of the H o l y Spirit be added. A n d this argument persuades not
others but ourselves, and prevails not upon others but upon our-
selves. W e do not therefore endeavour to refute others b y the
secret testimony of the Spirit, since it is peculiar to the individual,
private and internal; but b y common arguments taken from the
books themselves, and from the judgment of the church, which are
of such a nature as to move any one not wholly abandoned, and to
leave him nothing to say against them. But it is not sufficient
for us that our judgment should be compelled and coerced; the
H o l y Spirit must excite our whole mind to yield assent. N o w
although the fathers frequently use this argument [from authority],
they do not therefore take away other arguments; so that the
papists, Stapleton and the rest, err greatly in leaving us no others.
W e , for our part, do not take away this argument, as they falsely
affirm of us, but allow it to be good, and make use of i t ; but con-
tend nevertheless that there are some other arguments of a firmer
and more certain nature.

It is not necessary that w e should reply severally to all those

testimonies which Stapleton adduces, since we fully allow that
they are all most true. T h e clearest and strongest testimony
which he alleges i s taken from Augustine's b o o k contra Epistol.
Fund. c. 5 ; where Augustine, being about to cite something from
the Acts of the Apostles (which book the Manichees rejected,
because, Acts ii., the H o l y Ghost is said to have descended upon
the apostles, whereas they affirmed that his inspiration belonged
solely to themselves), he prefaces the quotation with these words :
" I must needs believe this book, if I believe the gospel, since
catholic authority commends both books to me a l i k e . " Therefore 1

(says Stapleton) we repose faith in the canonical books solely on

account of the church's authority. I answer, as I have frequently
done already, that we are indeed compelled b y the authority of
the church to believe these books canonical, but that we do not
depend upon this argument alone, since we are supplied with other
and stronger evidence. Heretics indeed are coerced b y this one
argument, and it is specially to be urged against obstinate persons;
but those who are not disturbed by passion, not dishonest, not

[ x
N e c e s s e e s t m e credere h u i c l i b r o , si credo E v a n g e l i o , c u m u t r a m q u e
scripturam similiter m i h i catliolica c o m m e n d a t a u c t o r i t a s . — T . x. p . 1 8 5 . ]
VII.] QUESTION THE THIKD. 319

obstinate, but honest and desirous of truth, may be persuaded b y

many other arguments. So much may be proved from Augustine
himself in his book de Utilit. Credendi, cap. 3, where he enume-
rates several other arguments, such as t h e s e : first, the order of
the t h i n g s ; secondly, the causes of the sayings and acts ; thirdly,
the exact agreement of the old Testament with the new, " so as
that not a tittle is left which is not in unison." These arguments
must be allowed to have great force in t h e m ; but, since heretics
pay but little care and attention to such matters, they must be
pressed with the authority of the church. T h e same Augustine
also, in the 5th chapter of that same b o o k , writes that he can
easily persuade any one that this or that book of scripture is cano-
nical, if he be met with a candid mind not obstinate in its preju-
dices. A n d in chap. 2, he gives the reason why he makes such
frequent use of this argument derived from the authority of the
church, and handles it so diligently,— namely, because " the
scriptures may be popularly accused, but cannot be popularly
defended." F o r the Manichees rendered the old Testament odious
with the people b y alleging the adultery of David, Jacob's
marriage with two sisters, and many similar things to be found in
the old Testament, upon which they declaimed largely to the
populace. This is the popular accusation alluded to b y Augustine.
When therefore the holy father was anxious to defend the old
Testament, and the scripture itself supplied no such popular argu-
ment ; he recalled his adversaries to the common authority of the
church, which was an argument no less popular than their own.
N o w we have said enough upon Stapleton's fifth argument.

CHAPTER VIII.

OF THE SIXTH ARGUMENT OF OUR ADVERSARIES.

His sixth argument is contained in the ninth chapter of his

ninth book, and is taken from the authority of Augustine, contra
Epist. Fund. c. 5, where he says: " I would not believe the gospel,
if the authority of the catholic church did not move m e . " These 2

[ 2
E g o v e r o n o n c r e d e r e m evangelio, nisi m e catholica; ecelesia: com-
movcret auctoritas.—See Laud's C o n f e r e n c e , §. 16. n. 1 9 . p. 8 1 . et seqq.
Lond. 1639.]
320 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

words of Augustine, says Stapleton, have distressed the protestants.

Doubtless they have, and no wonder, since, as he confesses in the
same place, they have deceived even some of the schoolmen also.
T h e y are indeed special favourites, and always in the mouths of
the papists generally; so that a papist can scarce exchange three
words with you, without presently objecting this testimony of
Augustine. This argument is answered b y Calvin, Instit. Lib. i. c. 7.
and b y Musculus and Peter Martyr, b y alleging that Augustine
speaks of himself as a Manichean; that he meant that he, when a
Manichean, was moved b y the authority of the church to believe
the scriptures. Musculus interprets the words so as to take crede-
rem for credidissem, and commoveret for commovisset; or, " I,
that is, when a Manichean, or if I were a Manichean, would not
believe the gospel, & c . " And indeed this interpretation is most
true : for it is evident from the same chapter that Augustine is
speaking of himself as a Manichean. In the words immediately pre-
ceding he s a y s : " W h a t would you do with one who said, I do not
b e l i e v e ? " Then he subjoins: " But I would not believe the gospel,
& c . " H e speaks, therefore, of himself in an unbelieving state. A n d
in the same chapter, in the words immediately following, he s a y s :
" Those whom I obeyed when they said to me, Believe the gospel,
why should I not obey when they tell me, Believe not M a n i ? "
Whence it is plain that he speaks of himself as an unbeliever, and
informs us how he first was converted from a Manichean to be a
catholic, namely, b y listening to the voice of the church.

But Stapleton denies this, and endeavours to prove that

he speaks of himself as a catholic b y several arguments. His
first reason is, because an infidel does not allow anything to the
authority of the church. I answer, that Augustine was not alto-
gether an infidel. H e was indeed a heretic, but one most desirous
of truth, and no obstinate heretic. H e was a heretic, not from
malice, but from error of opinion. N o r did he doubt, even when
he was a heretic, that he ought to agree and communicate with the
true church, although he did not j u d g e aright which was the true
church. Those who are so disposed are easily moved b y the
authority of the true church. Stapleton's second reason is, because
a heretic is not moved b y the authority of the catholic church,
which he does not acknowledge. I answer, that Augustine speaks
of the church as he thought of it now that he was a catholic, not
as he thought of it formerly when he was a Manichean. His third
reason is, because infidels do not now believe the preaching minis-
VIII.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 321

tors, as Augustine in that same chapter affirms that he did. I

answer : infidels do not, indeed, while they continue infidels, obey
the preaching of the ministers of the c h u r c h ; but they may be
brought to faith b y the preaching of the word, and then they will
obey. A n d it was in this v e r y way that Augustine was made a
catholic from a Manichean. His fourth reason is, because Augus-
tine in this chapter says of the Acts of the Apostles, " I must
needs believe this b o o k . " Therefore (says Stapleton) he speaks of
himself as he then was, namely, as a catholic. I answer, that this
is no reason. F o r whether he speak of himself as a catholic or as
a Manichean, it was needful b y all means that he should believe
this book, inasmuch as it is the word of G o d : for all alike must
needs either receive or reject the Gospels and the A c t s together.
His fifth reason is, because Augustine writes in the fourth chapter
of this book, that even when he was a bishop, he was kept in the
church, on account of the name of the church and the consent of
people and nations. I answer, that Augustine does indeed confess
this: y e t nevertheless, besides these two, he alleges another stronger
argument in that same chapter, namely the absolutely constant
truth of doctrine; which if the Manicheans could allege in their
behalf, he promises that he would be willing to desert the name of
the church and the consent of people and nations, and return to
them. Therefore he ascribed more to the truth of doctrine than
to the judgment and authority of the church.
Finally, says Stapleton, Augustine everywhere in all the places
before alleged attributes to the church the privilege of consigning the
canon of scripture to the faithful. I answer, in the first place, it would
be repugnant to Augustine himself to make him say that, now that
he was a believer and a catholic, he would not believe the gospel,
save only upon the authority of the c h u r c h ; since he himself in the
fourteenth chapter of this book says that we, when we believe and
are become strong in faith, understand what we believe not now b y
the help of men, but b y God himself internally confirming and
illuminating our minds. T h e faithful, therefore, do not believe
merely on account of the church's authority. Secondly, I say that
this is also repugnant to reason itself. F o r all the faithful are
endowed with the H o l y Spirit. N o w his authority is greater than
that of the church. Therefore it is not to be doubted that they
are kept in the true faith b y his rather than b y the church's
authority. Thirdly, what if we were to acknowledge that the

r i 2 1

1_WHITAKER.J
322 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

faithful themselves are moved b y the authority of the church to

receive the scriptures ? It does not follow thence, that their inti-
mate inward persuasion is produced b y the same w a y , or that they
are induced b y no other and stronger reason. W h a t Christian is
there whom the church of Christ, commending the scriptures to
him, does not move ? But to be moved is one thing, and to b e
persuaded is another. T h e Samaritan woman who is mentioned in
John iv. moved many of her countrymen by her testimony to
Christ, and excited them to flock to Christ and lend his instructions
a favourable and willing attention. But the same persons afterwards,
when they had heard Christ, said to the woman, " N o w we believe
not on account of t h y speech (Sid rrjv cnjv XaXidv), but because we
have heard him ourselves, and know that this is the Christ, the
Saviour of the world." So the authority of the church may at first
move us to acknowledge the scriptures: but afterwards, when w e
have ourselves read the scriptures, and understand them, then w e
conceive a true faith, and believe, not because the church judges
that we should believe, but, as for many other more certain argu-
ments, so for this specially, because the H o l y Spirit persuades us
internally that these are the words of God.
But since this testimony of Augustine is urged so vehe-
mently b y Stapleton, other papists shall easily either teach or
remind him, how little force it hath to establish the perpetual
authority of the church. Driedo, L i b . iv. c. 4 , determines that
Augustine speaks in these words of the primitive church of the
apostles: for if Augustine were now alive, and meant to speak of
the church such as it now is, he would rather say, " I would not
acknowledge such men to be the church of Christ, unless the autho-
rity of the four Gospels taught me s o . " Wherefore we do not
now believe the gospel on account of the church, but, on the con-
trary, the church on account of the gospel. W h e n c e also it fol-
lows that the gospel is the truest mark of the church. Bellarmine
himself, in his M S S . Lectures upon the Secunda Secundce of Aquinas,
Qusest. i. art. i. D u b . 1, tells us, that Augustine " speaks of the
church as the propounding cause, not as the prime foundation of
faith." F o r we should not believe the gospel unless the catholic
church propounded i t : which, no doubt, is true. F o r , unless the
church commended the sacred books to us, and led us, as it were,
b y the hand, to the v e r y fountains of divine truth, we should never
emerge out of the darkest shades of error. But does it therefore
VIII.] QUESTION T H E THIRD. 323

follow that the apocryphal books cannot be distinguished from the

canonical otherwise than b y the mere authority of the church?
B y no means. A n d there is no need that w e should say more of
this sixth argument.

CHAPTER IX.

OF T H E SEVENTH ARGUMENT OF OUR ADVERSARIES.

THE seventh argument is contained in B o o k i x . chap. 1 0 ,

where he joins other fathers to Augustine, for the purpose of
proving, that the canon of scripture must be consigned b y the
authority of the church. But what else do all those fathers prove
but this, that the scripture should b e received because it hath ever
been received b y the church, and that certain books should be
rejected because they have ever been rejected b y the church ?
N o w this w e most willingly confess. F o r w e concede that the
authority of the church is one argument, and a g o o d one t o o : but
it does not immediately follow either that it is the only argument,
or that this whole matter depends upon the authority of the church.
I might, therefore, disregard all those testimonies, and pass them
over as irrelevant; but I prefer to touch upon them briefly, lest I
should seem to have omitted anything. N o w the testimonies, which
Stapleton alleges in this chapter, are five in n u m b e r : namely, from
Theodoret, Tertullian, Irenaaus, the first council of Toledo, and
Serapion the bishop of Antioch; to each of which severally we shall
give a brief reply.
Theodoret, in his argument to the Epistle to the Hebrews,
writes thus against the Arians, who denied the authority of that
epistle: " If nothing else, they should at least have respected
the length of time during which the disciples of the truth have
been wont to read this epistle continually in the c h u r c h e s . " 1
I
answer: W h a t is all this to u s ? Nothing whatever. W e grant
that this epistle is to be embraced with all reverence, and that its
opponents may be pressed and coerced b y the argument drawn

[} eSet 8e airois, el rat prj8ev erepov, TOV xpovov yovv al8e<r6ijvai TO pijicos, ev
<p TTJj»8e TTJV imorohriv iv Tats eKKkrjcriats dvaytvaaKovres 8ieTe\eo-av rrjs £KK\>J-
o-ias ol Tpo<pipoi.—Theod. A r g u m . in H e b . ]
21—2
324 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

from antiquity. But, I beseech you, hath Theodoret written that

nothing else gains authority for this epistle, save this v e r y antiquity
of time? B y no means, but rather quite the opposite, as is manifest
from his w o r d s : for he says, " if there were nothing else," t h e y
should be moved b y the v e r y length of time. Therefore, he in-
timates that there were other arguments, besides antiquity of time,
whereby the authority of this epistle might be confirmed. And
amongst these other arguments the principal, no doubt, was the
v e r y doctrine itself of the epistle, which the church acknowledges b y
the assistance of the H o l y Spirit. F o r what else can be adduced ?
Thus, therefore, this first testimony alleged b y Stapleton is an-
swered easily, and almost without any effort.
But peradventure the second is clearer, which we have now,
in the next place, to discuss. It is that of Tertullian in his book of
Prescriptions against the heretics, where these words are to be
found: "I will allege as a prescription, that what the apostles
preached should not otherwise be proved, but through those same
churches which the apostles themselves f o u n d e d . " 1
What (says
Stapleton) could possibly be more plainly said ? I answer: I con-
fess indeed that the words are plain, but I affirm that Tertullian
speaks not of the apostolic epistles, but of the apostolic doctrine;
which is sufficiently manifest from the words immediately preceding.
F o r thus he writes : " W e draw up therefore this prescriptive p l e a :
if the L o r d Jesus Christ sent apostles to preach, then no other
preachers are to be received than those whom Christ instructed;
because no man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom
the Son hath revealed him, and the Son seems to have revealed
him to no others than the apostles, whom he sent to preach, no
doubt, that which he had revealed to t h e m . " 2
Then he applies
this prescription, namely, that the doctrine which the apostles
preached should not be proved in any other way but through
those churches which they founded. In which words Tertullian
does not reject, however, all other testimonies. F o r if this had

[! Quid autem prajdicaverint, id est, quid illis Christus revelaverit, et hie

praescribam non aliter probari deberé, nisi per easdem ecclesias quas ipsi
Apostoli condiderunt.—c. 2 1 . p. 1 4 . ]
[ Hinc igitur dirigimus prasscriptionem, si Dominus Jesus Christus apos-
2

tólos misit ad praadicandum, alios non esse recipiendos prsedicatores quam

quos Christus instituit, quia nec alius Patrem novit nisi Pilius et cui Filius
revelavit; nec aliis videtur revelasse Filius quam apostolis, quos misit ad
proedicandum utique quod illis revelavit.—Ibid. Whitaker reads hanc for
hinc. I know not on what authority.]
IX.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 325

been his meaning, that the evidence of the apostolical epistles to

us depended entirely upon the approbation of the apostolical
churches, then he would have rejected the testimony of the H o l y
S p i r i t ; which he certainly never meant to do. N a y , this would
not be consistent even with our adversary's own defence. For he,
in the last chapter of this his ninth book, will have the canon of
scripture to be consigned b y the rule of faith. Therefore, besides
the approbation of the church, he would have the rule of faith
also to be necessary; for the rule of faith is a different thing from
the external judgment of the church. But Tertullian's meaning,
as appears from the words following, is, that every doctrine is true
which agrees and harmonises with that doctrine of the churches,
which they received from the apostles, and the apostles from
Christ; and that whatever does not so agree is adulterate and false.
F o r thus he subjoins: " If these things b e so, it follows thence,
that every doctrine which agrees with those apostolical churches,
from whose wombs the faith derived its origin, is to be accounted
t r u e ; and that that is undoubtedly to be held, which the churches
received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from
G o d ; but all other doctrine is to be judged beforehand to be f a l s e . " 3

This is so far from taking away the testimony of the H o l y Spirit,

that it rather establishes i t ; for the H o l y Spirit is the j u d g e of
apostolical doctrine. Therefore he attributes nothing to the church,
unless it hold this doctrine. Besides, to say, as Tertullian says,
that " d o c t r i n e should be proved b y the church," is a different
thing from saying that it should be received only on the authority
of the church, which Stapleton means. W e concede the former,
especially as far as the apostolical churches are concerned, but the
latter b y no means. F o r although it b e through the church that
w e know doctrine, yet that it is now upon the authority of the
H o l y Spirit that we believe, even our adversaries themselves allow,
as y e shall hear hereafter. Therefore, when Tertullian speaks of
sound and apostolical doctrine, although he says that it should
agree with the faith of the apostolic churches, he nevertheless does
not, on that account, set aside the testimony of the H o l y Spirit.
So much upon the testimony of Tertullian. 1 come now to

[ Si hsec ita sunt, constat proinde omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis
3

ecclesiis apostolicis, matricibus et originalibus fidei, conspiret, veritati depu-

tandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiaj ab apostolis,apostoli a Christo,
Christus a Deo accepit; reliquam vero omnem doctrinam de mendacio pras-
j udicandam. — I b i d . ]
326 THE FIRST CONTROVE RSY. [CH.

Irenreus, from whom Stapleton quotes some words, which, it must

he allowed, have very little force in them. F o r we confess with
Irenasus, that the authority of the church is a firm and compendious
demonstration of the canonical doctrine a posteriori, but not a
priori; but we deny that this is the sole, or the greatest, or the
strongest argument. This Stapleton could not prove from Irenseus.
Besides, when Stapleton concedes out of Irenseus, that heretics who
denied some scriptures were refuted b y the scriptures which they
received, does he not affirm, exactly as we would have it, that scrip­
ture may b e proved b y scripture, and that scripture may be other­
wise recognised and proved than b y the testimony of the church ?
His fourth testimony is taken from the first council of Toledo,
the twenty­first canon of which is to this effect: " If any shall say
or believe that any other scriptures are to be received, save those
which the church hath received, let him be anathema ." I answer: 1

I do not see w h y I and all good Christians may not be permitted

to say Amen to these words. F o r we think no otherwise than we
are directed in this canon, and receive or reject no book without
the testimony and example of the catholic church. Wherefore this
denunciation of an anathema touches us in no w a y . But I wonder
that Stapleton should be so stupid as not to understand or remark
how weak is this argument of h i s : N o soriptures should be r e ­
ceived, which have not been received and approved b y the c h u r c h :
therefore, scriptures are only to be received on account of the
church's testimony. Wo scriptures should be rejected, but those
which the church hath r e j e c t e d : therefore the apocryphal writings
are to be rejected solely on that account, because the church hath
rejected them.
A n d of this testimony enough hath been said. N o w follows
the fifth and last, which is that of a certain Serapion, bishop of
Antioch, of whom E usebius speaks H . E . Lib. vi. c. 1 1 , taken from
an epistle of h i s : " W e , " says Serapion, " r e f u s e certain books
falsely inscribed with the names of the apostles, knowing that we
have never received s u c h . " N o w he speaks of the gospel of
2

p Si quis dixerit aut crediderit alias scripturas recipiendas esse praster

illas quas ecclesia recepit, anathema sit.—Anathem. xn. col. 328. Collect.
Cann. E ccles. Hispan. Matriti. 1808.]
[2
'Hfieis yap, ад(Хфо\, ка\ Uerpov ка\ TOVS aWovs anwroXour атгодех°Н- ^
е а

as XpurTov та Ss ovopari airav ^rivbewlypaqba as i'pmipoi irapaiToipeQa,

yivaa-Kovres OTL та тошЪта oil wapekdjioLiev.*—H. E . Lib. VI. С 12. pp. 177 8.
Т. п. ed. Heinich.]
IX.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 327

Peter, whieh used to be read in some churches. I a n s w e r : That

b o o k was rejected b y Serapion on account of the many falsehoods
which were found in it, as is plain from the words which f o l l o w :
therefore it was not rejected merely on account of the authority
of the church. In this place Stapleton hath, as he often does,
made use of a notable artifice. W e , says Serapion, have not r e -
ceived the book, ws e/xTreipoi, as being skilful and expert; <yivd-
GKovres OTI TO. ToiavTa 011 TrapeXd/Sofiev. A n d Eusebius says
that he refuted TO. \|/eu$a;? ev avnp elprj/xeua, "the falsehoods
contained in i t . " T h e book, therefore, was interspersed with some
falsehoods and impostures. Besides, Stapleton omits some words
which have great force in them, as will manifestly appear to any
one who will look at the passage. F o r Serapion s a y s , at the end
3

of that chapter, that he had found very many things op9ov Xoyov,
sound, in that book, but some also TTpoaSiea-raXtxeva, foreign from
and at variance with the orthodox faith, and therefore had r e -
jected it. H e therefore did not reject it merely on account of
the church's judgment, of which no mention is here made, but
on account of the doctrine delivered in the book itself. This
seventh argument, and the sixth also, which immediately preceded
it, were merely h u m a n ; and h o w weak such arguments are in
causes of faith, every one must understand.

CHAPTER X.

OF T H E TWO REMAINING ARGUMENTS OF OUR ADVERSARIES.

I COME now to the eighth and last argument, which Stapleton

considers the weightiest and most important of all. It is stated in
the eleventh chapter of his ninth book, and is drawn from the rule
of faith, t h u s : T h e rule of faith which is lodged with the church,
and delivered b y the church, is the means b y which the masters
and pastors of the churches distinguished true scriptures from false.
Therefore the church only should determine of the canonical books
of scripture. I answer : if b y the rule of faith we understand the
articles of faith, then this reason of our adversary is not sufficient
for the confirmation of his cause, nor is there any consequence in

[3
Koi (iipeiv ra ficv Ttkciova TOV opdov Xoyov TOC Sarrjpos, riva be rrpo-
bieo-TaKpiva.—Ibid. p. 1 7 9 . ]
328 THE FIRST CONTROVERSV. [CH.

his argument. F o r this is no reason : Such a book teaches things

in harmony with the articles of the faith; therefore it is canonical.
F o r many books expound that sound doctrine which is in perfect
harmony with the articles of the faith, and nevertheless should not
b e received into the canon. T h e reason is indeed g o o d negatively
the other w a y : such a book delivers something repugnant to the
articles of the faith; therefore it is not canonical. But affirmatively,
it does not hold. But what is that rule of faith ? Undoubtedly
the rule of faith is the scripture itself: if therefore, the canon of
scripture b e consigned b y the rule of faith, then the scripture is
confirmed b y the scripture, which is the v e r y thing w e maintain.
But he means far otherwise. T h e rule of faith, says he, is not
the scripture, but a certain previous, presupposed, and pre-existing
faith, which, being prior to the scripture, is neither included in, nor
convertible with, the scripture. This is certainly an impious and
blasphemous fiction of Stapleton's. F o r it is to be held undoubt-
ingly, as we shall hereafter prove most largely, that the revealed
and written word of G o d is the sole rule of faith, which is a thing
prior to the faith of the church. F o r all " faith is b y hearing, and
hearing b y the w o r d of G o d , " B o m . x . 1 7 : that is, our hearing
hath regard to the word of God, as its object, and objects are
prior to the senses perceiving them ; therefore the word is prior to
faith. If he feign another rule of faith besides the written word of
God, we reject, repudiate, and refuse to acknowledge any such, and
reduce the whole rule of the catholic faith to the scripture alone.
But I ask whether it is b y this rule, or without this rule, that
the church distinguishes true scriptures from false? Stapleton
answers thus, at the close of the chapter: " T h e rule of faith," says
he, " d e l i v e r e d and accepted b y the church, is the sole and most
certain mean, whereby the pastors and governors of the church
distinguish the true scriptures from the false: therefore, without
this rule the genuine scriptures cannot be distinguished from the
spurious." I derive then from this statement four observations.
Firstly, if true scriptures are discerned from false b y the rule
of faith, then it no less appertains to the whole b o d y of the church
to consign the canon of scripture, than to the pastors and governors
of the church themselves. F o r all the faithful have this rule, not
alone the pastors, governors and prelates; because the faith is
common to both laymen and ministers. N o w this makes against
Stapleton, who does not attribute this power to the whole b o d y of
the church, but only to the prelates and pastors.
X.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 329

Secondly, if it be not b y its own authority, but b y the rule

of faith, that the church distinguishes the true scriptures from the
false, then all Stapleton's former arguments, drawn from the au-
thority of the church, are of no avail; because the church does not
rest simply on its own authority, but on some certain rule of faith
in adjudicating and discriminating scripture. Thus the previous
arguments, which are founded on the bare authority of the church,
are altogether avoided, and the whole judgment of the church is
tied to the rule of faith.
Thirdly, how can these things agree, or in any wise stand
together ? H e says that the pastors and masters of the church do,
b y means of the rule of faith delivered and received b y the church,
distinguish the true scriptures from the false; and under this name
of the church he understands the pastors only, and prelates, and
masters (as he calls them) of the churches. Therefore, he says
nothing else but this, that the pastors do, b y means of the rule of
faith delivered and received b y the pastors, discriminate the scrip-
tures. But, in the first place, the pastors do not always think
alike concerning the canonical scriptures, (if b y the pastors he
understand the bishops and doctors,) as may be proved from anti-
quity. If therefore this rule be delivered b y the pastors, it will
be changeable and uncertain. Yea, even the pastors of the present
day do not think alike of the canonical books. It is necessary,
therefore, that at length they should betake themselves to the
pope alone, as to (in their own phrase) the chief pastor, make him
the church, and make all depend upon his caprice. Again, how
absurd is it, that pastors should receive from pastors, that is, from
themselves, the most certain mean of discerning the scriptures !
These things are of such a nature, that certainly they can in no
way be reconciled.
Fourthly, I ask what this rule is ? and where we may find it
containing a certain and definite enumeration of b o o k s ? is it
written or unwritten ? If he say, written; I demand where it is
written. If it be not written, we may easily despise it, as a thing
of no credit or importance: for we make no account of their
pretended unwritten traditions. But he says that it is written
in the hearts of the faithful, and to this purpose he adduces the
testimonies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others, where the Lord says
that he will write his laws in the hearts of the faithful. We
for our parts approve all this. But, in the meanwhile, he does
not perceive that he is overturning all that he had previously
330 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

established. F o r he said above, that the testimony of the H o l y

Spirit is therefore to be rejected because not an external, but an
internal, evidence. But if this rule of faith be written in the
hearts of the faithful, how, I beseech you, will it be more certain
than the testimony of the Spirit? A n d wherein does it differ
from the testimony of the S p i r i t ? since faith is the work and
effect of the H o l y Ghost in the hearts of the faithful, received from
the word of God, whereby all saving truth is proved and confirmed
to us. Therefore, Stapleton hath at length of his own accord
passed over entirely to our opinion.
Stapleton next handles two subjects at the end of this book.
The first is, that not only the ancient apostolical church, but this
present church also, may consign and constitute the canon of
scripture. Wherein he hath for opponents Durandus and Driedo,
two very learned papists, who contend that this power related
only to the apostolical c h u r c h ; and that the office of the present
church was only to receive the canon consigned b y that other more
ancient church. W i t h these he enters upon a very severe en-
counter and contention, of which I shall not be a sharer, but a
spectator only.
T h e second is, that this present church also might even now add
other books to the canon, as the b o o k of the Shepherd, and the
Apostolical Constitutions written b y Clement, and other books also,
which were formerly doubtful, but never condemned: which indeed,
it is manifest, is said and maintained absurdly. But, it seems, they
have gone to such a length of impudence, that nothing is so revolt-
ing to be said, as to make them ashamed of affirming it. Certainly
the book of the Shepherd is altogether unworthy of such great
authority; and the Apostolical Constitutions of Clement have not
even a grain of the apostolic spirit. The church, therefore,
neither can, nor should, receive these books into the canon. Sta-
pleton, while he asserts the competency of the church to do this,
is at variance both with very many papists (Thomas a W a l d e n , 1

for example, and others), and even with himself; since he had
already alleged a testimony from Augustine, whence it appeared
that the canon of scripture was consigned b y the apostles, who
excluded this book from the canon. But I would fain have him
answer, whether the canon of scripture was settled heretofore, or
not ? H e cannot deny that it w a s : for he has already confessed
it out of Augustine; and there are some councils too, which the
t 1
D o c t r i n . F i d e i , T . I. L . 2. A r t . 2. c. 2 3 . N . 9.]
X.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 331

papists object to us, in which they say that the canon of scripture
was consigned. If, therefore, the canon of scripture was consigned
formerly, certainly a canon settled b y so great authority cannot
be changed, or this or that book introduced into it. For how
grossly absurd would it be, either that a book intrinsically canon-
ical should be for so many ages not received into the c a n o n ; or
that it should now, so late, in the v e r y last age of the world, be so
received ! A s to the Constitutions of Clement, they were even con-
demned b y the judgment of some councils, as is shewn above.
T h e y were deemed, therefore, wholly unworthy of having rank or
place in the canonical scriptures : yea, they certainly can never be
received into the canon b y the church. F o r the church cannot
make non-canonical books canonical, but only cause those books to
b e received as canonical, which are really such in themselves.
Augustine, at least, was so far from thinking that this most vene-
rable canon could be changed, or increased b y any new accession
of books, that in his 129th sermon upon the T i m e s he does not 2

hesitate to denounce an anathema upon all who believe that any

scriptures should be held in authority, or reverence any but those
which the church had received. Therefore, if the church were to
receive any new books into the canon, it would act against the
faith itself, and deserve the severest censure, nay, execration.
N o w that it hath this power is boldly maintained b y Stapleton:
whence it is plain enough how great an injustice he does the
church. But we have answered Stapleton's arguments already at
sufficient length.
There remains now one other argument, which Stapleton in-
deed hath not made use o f : but I perceive that some other papists
are exceedingly delighted with it. It is to this effect: T h e church
is more ancient than the scripture; therefore it ought to have more
authority in respect of us than the scripture. So Eckius, in his E n -
chiridion : so Hosius, Lib. iii. de Auctoritate Scripturoz: so Linda-
nus, in his Panoply, in many p l a c e s : so Andradius in the third
b o o k of his Defence of the Council of T r e n t : so Schrock the Jesuit,
in his 13th T h e s i s ; and some others beside. I a n s w e r : In the first
place, I confess that there was a time when the word of God was not
written, and that the church existed t h e n : but it does not, there-
fore, follow that the church was more ancient than the word. For
the doctrine was the same when not written, as it is now when it
is written; and that was more ancient than all churches. F o r the
[ 2
Col. 876. Opp. T. x. Basil. 1569.]
332 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

word of G o d is the seed of the church. N o w the seed is always

more ancient than that progeny of which it is the seed. When I
speak of the word of God, I mean no other than that which is now
written: for the unwritten word was the same with that which is
now written. Secondly, Neither is that assertion true, that all
things that are junior are of less authority. F o r Christ was later
in time than John. Shall then the authority of John be greater
in respect of us than that of Christ? N o one in his senses will
affirm that. This argument therefore is but slight, and of no i m -
portance whatsoever, although it be handled very shewily b y some
authors. Some of the papists have laboured, as if they were on a
question of chronology, to shew that the word was unwritten for
more than two thousand years, and that the gospel was preached
about thirty years before it was written. But there is no reason
why we should give this argument a larger answer in this place.

CHAPTER XI.

OUR ARGUMENTS, WHEREBY WE PROVE THAT THE AUTHORITY OF

THE SCRIPTURE, IN RESPECT OF US DOES NOT DEPEND UPON
THE JUDGMENT AND AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.

HITHERTO we have spoken of the arguments of the papists,

and have given such answers as are sufficient to satisfy all im-
partial persons. N o w follow the arguments of our defence.
Our first argument is to this effect: I f the scripture had divine
authority before any public judgment of the church, then it hath
of itself in respect of us canonical authority, and its authority
does not depend upon the church. But the former is t r u e ; there-
fore also the second. The major proposition is manifest. The
minor is confirmed b y four reasons. The first: The papists them-
selves confess that the church does not make the scripture au-
thentic, but only declares it. But if the scripture be first authentic
of itself, then certainly it necessarily follows that it must be au-
thentic also to u s ; for nothing can be called authentic, which
seems authentic to no one. That is called authentic, which is
sufficient to itself, which commends, sustains, proves itself, and hath
credit and authority from itself; the contrary of which is a Seer-
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 333

•KOTOV and atcvpov, that, namely, which is uncertain and hath no

authority of itself. Therefore, if the scriptures were authentic
before the church declared them to be authentic, they were au-
thentic also to u s ; otherwise they were absolutely incapable of
being declared authentic.
The second. T h e judgment of fathers, councils, and the church,
is but recent, if we respect the antiquity of scripture. If therefore
the authority of scripture depend upon the public judgment of the
church, then doubtless for many centuries there was no certain
canon of scripture. Fathers, indeed, and councils enunciate the
canonical b o o k s ; but those books both were, and were esteemed,
previously authentic, and canonical, and sacred, as is plain from
those fathers and councils themselves. Let them produce any
public judgment of the church, and it will readily appear that the
scriptures were deemed canonical before that judgment.
The third. I demand what this judgment of the church was,
or where it can be found ? I f they answer, In the books of the
fathers, and the decrees of the councils: I desire to know, h o w we
are more sure of the authority of the fathers and councils than of
that of scripture? F o r example, whence are we more certainly
assured that these are the books of Augustine, those of Jerome,
than we are that this is the Gospel of Matthew, and that of Mark ?
If they urge, that the living voice of the church is necessary, then
they must needs abandon the support which they are wont to build
upon in the authority of the ancient church. If they say, that this
is certain from the voice of the present church; I ask again, whence
it appears that this is the voice of the true church? They
must prove this from the scriptures; for the true church can no
otherwise be proved but from the authority of scripture. Now
from thence it will follow that the authority of scripture is more
certain than that of the church.
The fourth. If the church be gathered together to consign the
canon of scripture, it must needs be so b y some authority. I
demand, therefore, b y what authority it is so collected ? If they
answer, b y some internal impulse or revelation of the Spirit, we
entirely reject such revelations which are besides the word, as
fanatical and anabaptistical and utterly heretical. If they say that
it is collected b y the authority of scripture, then they concede that
which we d e m a n d : for it will thence follow, that the scripture
had a canonical authority before it was confirmed b y the judgment
of the church. I f they allow only this part of scripture which
334 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

gives such an authority to the church to have been previously

canonical, but deny the rest to have been so, they do this without
any certain reason. Suffice it to say so much of our first argument.
Our second argument is to this purpose. That is the true
and proper cause of that authentic authority which the scripture
holds with us, which produces this effect perpetually and neces-
sarily; that is, which always causes the scripture to have an
authentic authority with us. But the necessary and perpetual
cause of this is only the testimony of the H o l y Spirit, not the
public judgment of the church. Therefore, the testimony of the
H o l y Spirit, and not the public judgment of the church, is the true
and proper cause of that authentic authority which the scripture
hath with us. Concerning the major there can b e no d o u b t ; and
the minor is easily established. F o r if the judgment of the church
always rendered the authority of scripture canonical in respect of
u s ; then all who heard this from the church would presently believe
it, and immediately all, to whom this judgment of the church came,
would receive that canon which the church had established. But
the church hath long since consigned the canon of scripture, and
nevertheless the Jews, Turks, Saracens, and even many Christians
do not heartily assent to i t : it is, therefore, evident that the
judgment of the church is not the certain, necessary, solid and
perpetual argument of that authority which the scripture obtains.
But the H o l y Spirit always produces this effect: his testimony,
therefore, is the true and proper cause of the authority of scripture
in respect of us.
Our third argument stands thus : If the authority of the church
in respect of us depend upon the authority of scripture, then the
authority of scripture in respect of us does not, on the contrary,
depend upon the authority of the church. But the first is true,
and therefore also the second. The consequence of the major is
sufficiently strong of itself; and the assumption m a y be easily
established. F o r I demand, whence it is that we learn that the
church cannot err in consigning the canon of scripture? They
answer, that it is governed b y the H o l y Spirit (for so the council
of Trent assumes of itself), and therefore cannot err in its judgments
and decrees. I confess indeed that, if it be always governed b y
the H o l y Spirit so as that, in every question, the Spirit affords it
the light of truth, it cannot err. But whence do we know that it
is always so governed ? T h e y answer that Christ hath promised
this. B e it so. But where, I pray, hath he promised it ? Readily,
XL] QUESTION THE THIRD. 335

and without delay, they produce many sentences of scripture which

they are always wont to have in their mouths, such as t h e s e : "I
will be with y o u always, even to the end of the world." Matth.
xxviii. 2 0 . " W h e r e two or three are gathered together in my
name, there I will be in the midst of y o u . " Matth. xviii. 2 0 . "I
will send to y o u the Comforter from the Father." John xv. 2 6 .
"Who, when he is come, will lead y o u into all truth." John xvi. 1 3 .
I recognise here the most lucid and certain testimonies of scripture.
But now from hence it follows not that the authority of scripture
depends upon the c h u r c h ; but, contrariwise, that the authority of
the church depends on scripture. Surely it is a notable circle in
which this argument r e v o l v e s ! T h e y say that they give authority
to the scripture and canonical books in respect of u s ; and y e t they
confess that all their authority is derived from scripture. F o r if
they rely upon the testimonies and sentences of these books, when
they require us to believe in t h e m ; then it is plain that these books,
which lend them credit, had greater authority in themselves, and
were of themselves authentic.
Our fourth argument stands t h u s : I f the scripture have so
great force and virtue in itself, as to draw up our souls to itself,
to infuse into us an intimate persuasion of its truth, and of itself to
commend itself to our belief; then it is certain that it is to us of
itself avTOTTio-Tov, canonical and authentic. N o w the first is t r u e ;
therefore also the second. There is no controversy about the major.
T h e minor may be confirmed b y testimonies of scripture. In L u k e
viii. 1 1 the word of G o d is compared to seed, and 1 Pet. i. 1 3 is
called " i m m o r t a l seed." N o w then as seed displays itself, and
issues forth, and bears fruit in its season, so the word of G o d r e -
sembles the nature of s e e d : it springs up, and breaks forth, and
manifests its energy. Besides, 1 Cor. ii. 4, Paul says: " My
speech and m y preaching was not in persuasive words of man's
wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and in p o w e r , " aXX' ev
dTroSei^ei TivevfxaTos teal Swdnews. In Luke xxiv. 3 2 , those two
disciples, to whom Christ appeared on their way to Emmaus, con-
versed thus with one another, after Christ had vanished from their
s i g h t : " D i d not our heart burn within us, Kaio/xevtj rjv ev riiuv,
whilst he spake unto us b y the w a y , and whilst b e opened unto us
the scriptures ? " H e b . iv. 1 2 , " T h e w o r d of G o d , " says the
apostle, " is quick and powerful, ^wv /ecu evepyrjs, and quicker than
any two-edged sword, and pierceth even to the dividing asunder
of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a
336 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." 1 Cor. xiv.

2 4 , 2 5 , " If all prophesy," says Paul, " and there come in one that
believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is j u d g e d
of a l l ; and so are the secrets of his heart made manifest, and so,
falling down on his face, he will worship G o d , and report that G o d
is in y o u of a truth." F r o m all these places we understand, that
there is a certain divine force, virtue, and efficacy in scripture, which
reaches not the ears only, but even the soul itself, and penetrates
to the inmost recesses of the heart, and proves the most certain
divinity of scripture. T h e scripture, therefore, which hath such
a force in itself, and which so openly shews, proves, establishes
itself, and persuades us of its own truth, is b y all means of itself
canonical and authentic.
Our fifth argument is taken from the words of Christ, John v.
3 4 , where Christ s a y s : " I receive not witness of men," eya) ov
7rapd avQpwirov /xaprvplav \a/xf3ava). Hence w e draw an argument
to this effect: Christ is known o f himself; he depends not on the
testimony or authority of any man. Therefore, neither does the
scripture. F o r the authority of scripture is not less than that of
Christ, whose w o r d it is. But here they will object t h u s : Did not
Christ use the honourable testimony of John ? W h y then may not
also the scripture b e commended b y the testimony of the church ?
I answer, that John did indeed give testimony to Christ, but not
any authority, not even in respect of us. T h e same may be said
of the c h u r c h ; that is, that it gives testimony to the scriptures;
that it commends and declares them authentic, and y e t imparts to
them no authority, not even in respect of us. Christ's saying, " I
receive not witness of man," is the same thing as if he had s a i d : I
need not that any should give me authority b y his testimony; I
am sufficiently fortified on all sides b y mine own a u t h o r i t y ; I will
abundantly gain authority for myself b y mine own testimony. As,
therefore, Christ could of himself demonstrate that he was the
Messiah, so the w o r d of Christ can of itself produce the belief that
it is the word of God. Its being commended b y the church is not
for the purpose of receiving greater authority, but in order that its
authority may b e the more recognised b y men. Canus, L i b . ii.
cap. 8, seeks to break the force of this testimony, t h u s : T h e sense
is, says he, I do not receive witness of m a n ; that is, I do not need
the witness of any man, but I allege the witness of John for y o u r
sakes. Be it so. Then also it will follow, that neither does
scripture need the witness of the church.
XI.] QUESTION T H E THIRD. 337

Our sixth argument is taken from the same chapter, verse 3 8 ,

where Christ says : " I have greater testimony than that of J o h n ; "
—e^a> fxapTuplav fxeiXw 'Iwavvov : and then he recites three such
testimonies, namely, his works, the testimony of his Father, and the
scriptures. Hence I conclude t h u s : If the testimony of scripture
concerning Christ be more certain than the judgment and witness
of John, then is it also much more certain and valid than the
judgment and witness of the church. F o r the papists dare not say,
that the judgment of the church concerning scripture is more
certain than was that testimony of John concerning Christ. But
the former is true, and therefore also the latter. N a y , the written
word of God is even more certain and firm than a divine revela-
tion and a celestial v o i c e : for so we read, 2 Pet. i. 1 9 . Does the
church dare to attribute more to her judgment than to a divine
voice and heavenly revelation ? Peter was with Christ upon the
mount, and there heard the voice of G o d the F a t h e r ; and y e t he
says, " W e have a more sure word of p r o p h e c y , " fiej&aiorepov TOV
•n-pocprjTiKov \oyov. If then the scripture be more certain than
divine revelations from heaven, much more must it needs be more
certain than the judgment and testimony of the church. Whence
it is plain that no authority can be conceived greater or more
certain than that of scripture. Beza indeed hath translated f3e-
fiaiorepov most firm; but it comes to the same thing: for if
the word of prophecy be most firm, then certainly it is more firm
than any revelation, and contains the highest degree of strength
in itself.

Our seventh argument is taken from 1 Thess. ii. 1 3 , where

Paul addresses the Thessalonians t h u s : " W e give thanks to G o d
always, because that, when y e received the word of G o d which y e
heard of us, y e received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in
truth), the word of God, eSe^acrOe ov Xoyov avOpioTrcov, aXXd
Xoyov Qeov, which also worketh effectually in y o u that believe."
From this place I argue t h u s : If the Thessalonians, when they
only heard Paul, received the doctrine of scripture as divine, and
so embraced it, then, without the judgment of the church, the
scripture ought to have a divine authority with us. But the
former is t r u e ; for the Thessalonians had then heard of no p r o -
phecy or testimony of any church, but had only received the
word from the lips of P a u l : therefore also the latter. Ambrose
writes thus upon that p l a c e : " T h e y received the word with such
devotion as to prove that they understood it to be the w o r d of
22
[WHITAKER.]
338 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

God ."1
But wheuce could they understand it to be such ? Certainly
from the doctrine itself, and the testimony of the H o l y Spirit; not-
from the authority of any church, or of the apostle himself. For
what church could persuade the Thessalonians b y the weight of
its testimony to receive Paul, or assent to his discourses as divine ?
T h e apostle himself was unknown to them, and had nowhere any
authority but on account of that doctrine, the minister and herald of
which he was. Therefore, the doctrine itself gained for him all his
authority and credit. W e read in like manner, Gal. iv. 1 4 , " Y e
received m e , " says Paul, "as an angel of God, yea, as Christ
Jesus." W h o s e commendation was it, I beseech y o u , which p r o -
cured for Paul this authority and dignity with the Galatians ? No
man's. Therefore that doctrine which the apostle brought with
him excited in the strongest manner the minds of the Galatians to
welcome and respect Paul, and sufficiently of itself commended itself
and its minister. So Acts xvii. 1 1 , the Beroaans, when they heard
Paul, examined his teaching not b y the judgment of any church, but
b y the standard of the scripture itself. It appears, therefore, that
scripture of itself, without the testimony and authority of the
church, hath a divine, canonical and authentic authority even in
respect of us.

Our eighth argument stands t h u s : T h e authority of the un-

written w o r d did not depend upon the authority of the church.
Therefore neither does the authority of the written word now
depend upon the church. T h e argument is conclusive, because
the reason is the same in both cases. T h e major is proved b e -
cause, when as y e t the word was not published in the scriptures
or written documents, G o d used to speak immediately to the pa-
triarchs, and this word was not commended or received b y any
authority of the church, but b y that of G o d a l o n e : therefore also
the written word of G o d should be received in like m a n n e r : un-
less it be said that it is of less authority since it hath been con-
signed to books than it was b e f o r e ; which is the height of absurdity.
Paul, R o m . ii. 1 5 , affirms of the law, that it is written in our
hearts. I believe the law, therefore, not on account of the testi-
mony or judgment of the church, but because we retain the light
of the law impressed and inscribed upon our hearts. Now then,
if the law, which is one portion of the word of G o d , b e a c k n o w -
ledged of itself and b y its own light, which is impressed upon our

P Tanta devotione receperunt verbum, ut probarent se intellexisse esse

Dei verbum.—Opp. T. n. App. p. 279. Paris. 1670.]
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 339

souls, and easily proves itself to all, and shews that this is the will
of G o d ; much more is the gospel sealed in our hearts b y the H o l y
Spirit, and received on account of the H o l y Spirit's authority.
F o r , if we understand that the law is the will of God, not per-
suaded b y the authority of the church, but b y the internal light
of the l a w ; how much more need is there that we be illuminated
b y the light of the H o l y Spirit, before we believe the g o s p e l ;
since the law is natural, but the gospel transcends all nature, and
therefore needs some greater kind of confirmation !
Our ninth argument is taken from 1 John v. 6, where these
words are f o u n d : T O Trvev/ma eo~Ti TO (xaprvpow, OTI -Trvevfua

ecTTiv 7) aXtjOeia. " It is the Spirit that beareth witness that

the Spirit is t r u t h ; " that is, b y a metonymy, that the doctrine
delivered b y the Spirit is true. The old translator somewhat
otherwise: Spiritus est qui testatur, quoniam Christus est Veritas.
But it comes to precisely the same thing. F o r the sense is plain,
that it is the Spirit which testifies. of the Spirit, that is, of the hea-
venly doctrine whereof he is the master, and of Christ: where the
testimony of the Spirit in confirming doctrine is established.
Our tenth argument is taken from the same chapter, verse 9,
where these words are contained: " If we receive the witness of
men, the witness of G o d is g r e a t e r ; " r\ /mapTvpla TOV Qeov /mel^cov:
whence we understand that no testimony can be either greater
or more certain than the divine. But the testimony of the church
is h u m a n : for if they would have the testimony of the church to
be divine, they must mean thereby the testimony of the Spirit, and
so they will assert the same thing as we. Thomas Aquinas b y " the
testimony of men " in this place understands the testimony of the
prophets; but the testimony of the church cannot be more certain
than the testimony of the prophets. If, therefore, there be, as Thomas
implies, something greater than the testimony of the prophets, then
it will follow that the testimony of the church is not the greatest
whereby we are convinced of the truth of faith and doctrine.
Our eleventh argument is taken from the last words of the
fifth chapter of the gospel according to St John, which are these :
" If y e believe not Moses' writings, how shall y e believe m y
w o r d s ? " el T O I S eiceivou >ypa/xixao~i fxr] iricrTeveTe, TTWS T O I S e/xoTy

ptjfxaai iriarevo-eTe; T h e y are Christ's words to the Jews : whence

I conclude thus : T h e y who do not believe the scriptures them-
selves, will not even believe the testimony of Christ; much less
will be capable of being induced to repose faith in the voice and
22—2
 340 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

words of tlie church. Jansenius, himself a papist, observes that

it is an argument a fortiori, because " as that is firmer which
is consigned to writing, so it is more censurable and a greater
fault, not to believe writings than not to believe w o r d s . " And 1

Theophylact interprets this place in the following manner: " If

y e believe not words written, how shall y e believe m y words that
are not written ?" Ov TrtaTevere TO?S ypawnacxi, KCU irws iri-
arevcrere roTy e/«>7s aypa(pois prifxacrtv; I t is evident, therefore,
that those who are not moved b y the authority of the scriptures
themselves, to embrace them with a pure faith, can b e moved
or induced b y no other argument or authority to believe.
Stapleton does not touch upon the foregoing arguments, where-
b y it is plain that our cause is abundantly demonstrated: but now
follow some which he endeavours to obviate. For, Lib. i x . c. 2,
he proposes six arguments of the Protestants, as he calls them,
which he answers severally, c. 3. T h e first four arguments are
taken from Calvin, Instit. Lib. i. c. 7, the remaining two from 2

others, which we shall join to the foregoing along with the d e -

fence of them.
Calvin's first argument, therefore, shall be our twelfth, which
is t h i s : I f the canon of scripture depend upon the determination
of the church, then the authority, verity, and credibility of all
the promises of salvation and eternal life contained in scripture
depend upon a human j u d g m e n t ; because we believe those p r o -
mises on account of the canonical authority of the scriptures in
which they are contained. But it is absurd, that the promises
of G o d should depend upon men, that the eternal truth of G o d
should rest upon the will of man, because then our consciences
can have no confidence, no security. Therefore the canon of scrip-
ture does not depend upon the determination of the church.
Stapleton answers, that the judgment of the church in this matter
is not merely human, but divine and infallible, so as that the faithful
soul may most safely acquiesce in it, and therefore that Calvin's
argument is inconsequential. But what is the meaning of this as-
sertion, that the church's judgment is not merely human ? B e it
so. But is it merely divine ? F o r surely it is requisite that the
truth of the promises of eternal life should be propped and sup-
ported b y a testimony purely divine. This Stapleton does not
openly affirm, but afterwards seems to wish it to be understood,
I 1
C o m m e n t , in C o n c o r d . E v a n g . p. 2 4 1 . L u g d . 1606.]
[ 2
T o m . i. p p . 5 7 — 6 2 . e d . T h o l u c k . B e r o l . 1 8 3 4 . ]
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 341

when he says that it is divine and infallible, and that faithful souls
may safely acquiesce in it. But here he does not answer candidly;
for the question is, whether those things which are promised in the
scriptures are believed b y us to be true solely on account of the
church's authority, or on account of some more certain judgment ?
Stapleton says that the judgment of the church is divine, because
God speaks through the church, and that so we may acquiesce in
the voice and sentence of the church. B e it s o ; let the judgment
of the church be divine. Well, is not the judgment of scripture
divine also in Stapleton's opinion? W h y then may we not a c -
quiesce in the judgment of scripture as well as in that of the
church ? But indeed, when he answers thus, he accomplishes n o -
thing. F o r the question is not, whether the judgment of the
church be divine in itself, but whence it is that we are assured
of its being s o ; — u n l e s s perhaps he has forgotten his own Thesis.
This latter question he gives us no information upon. H e says
only, that G o d speaks through the church, which we, for our
parts, confess; but we ask further, whether those things which
God speaks and teaches through the church are believed b y us to b e
true solely on account of the church's authority, and whether it be
not proved in some other way than b y the church's own testimony
that God speaks through the church ? B y not telling us this, nor
shewing how we know the church's judgment to be divine, he is
guilty of manifest tergiversation, and fails to prove that which was
the real question. F o r there is a wide difference between these
two propositions; God speaks through the church, and, W e can-
not be otherwise certain of the scriptures and doctrine of God,
but because the church attests them.

Cochkeus indeed, of whom we have heard before, .asserts that

we cannot be certainly persuaded of the doctrine of scripture other-
wise than b y the testimony of the church. F o r that dishonest writer
enumerates many strange and incredible things in scripture, which
he falsely pretends to be believed solely on account of the church's
authority. Stapleton thinks in the same way, and speaks in the same
way in this chapter : for he says, that the church does not make the
contents of scripture true, yet does cause them to be believed b y
us as true. F r o m which statement it is apparent that Calvin's
objection is just, that in this way our whole faith depends upon
the authority and human judgment of the church. But the scrip-
ture teaches us far otherwise and better. F o r thus we read,
1 John, v. 1 0 , " H e who believeth not God, makes him a liar."
342 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

H e therefore who no otherwise believes G o d promising, but on a c -

count of the authority of some one else, certainly believes that
other person more than God, and so makes God a liar. Besides,
in this way, the church would be mistress of our faith, which is
repugnant to that saying of Paul, 2 Cor. i. 2 4 , " W e have not d o -
minion o v e r , " ou Kvpievo/uev, " your f a i t h ; " T>7 7ri'crTei ecri-j^/care,
" b y faith y e stand." W e stand, indeed, b y faith, and that is the
gift of the H o l y Ghost, not of the church. W e see, therefore, that
it is not on the church's, but on the H o l y Spirit's authority, that
we persevere stable and constant in the faith, and fall not from
divine grace. Besides, b y this way of reasoning, it would follow
that the ultimate issue and resolution (as they call it) of our faith
would be into the voice and judgment of the church. This indeed
some of the schoolmen, and those of great name too, have long
since not been ashamed to affirm in express w o r d s ; hut the later
papists deny it, and Stapleton himself elsewhere disputes against
it. But how can it be denied, if, as Stapleton will have it, we b e -
lieve whatever we believe on the church's authority ? F o r if the
judgment of the church causes the books of scripture to be canoni-
cal to us, then it certainly is the cause w h y those things which are
contained in scripture are judged and believed true b y us. And
if this be so, is not our faith ultimately resolved into the voice of
the church ? On account of the church we believe the scriptures
and every thing contained in scripture; for this is the meaning of
Stapleton's assertion that the church causes those things which are
found in scripture to be believed and held for true. Thus he does
not perceive that he overturns his own opinion. Besides, he says
that the judgment of the church is divine and infallible, and that
the minds of the faithful may safely acquiesce in it. W h y , there-
fore, should he not also concede, that the ultimate resolution of faith
is placed in the judgment of the c h u r c h ?
F r o m what hath been said it appears that all the promises of
scripture are, in Stapleton's opinion, confirmed b y no other au-
thority than that of the church; whence what Calvin says follows,
that our consciences are despoiled of all security, and that nothing
certain is left to us in religion. But w h y , asks Stapleton, when the
testimony of the church is divine ? I answer : W e confess, indeed,
that the testimony of the church is divine in a certain sense; not
absolutely, but in some respects, that is, so far as it agrees with
scripture, with the H o l y Spirit, with the will of God. But then
we say that that judgment is not to be received on account of the
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 343

church, but on account of the will and authority of God with which
it agrees. Alphonsus de Castro, Lib. i. c. 8 , answers this argument
x

of Calvin's in another w a y ; namely, that we owe it to the church

indeed that we know what is divine scripture, but that afterwards,
when we have been assured that scripture is divine, then we have
from itself the obligation to believe it thoroughly in all respects.
H e thought that which Stapleton hath ventured to defend grossly
absurd. But there is this also in de Castro's answer, that, if the
church make scripture authentic to us, then it also makes authentic
to us, and true, all the things which are written and taught in
scripture. Whereupon Stapleton did not choose to make use of
this answer; and preferred openly enunciating its consequence, that
all things are believed b y us on account of the church. What
Stapleton subjoins out of Ephes. iv. 1 1 , that Christ left to his
church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, doctors, that the
people might be kept in the faith, and not carried about with every
wind of doctrine, is of absolutely no weight. F o r although the
people be retained b y pastors and doctors in faith and obedience, it
does not therefore follow that it is solely b y their authority that
the permanence of the people in their duty is effected. F o r the
christian people acknowledges and reverences a greater authority
than that of the pastors, namely, that of God himself; which unless
it were of more avail than that of the pastors, the people could
never be so retained. So, in precisely the same way, the people
are kept in peace b y the magistrates and ministers of the k i n g ;
but yet there is a greater authority than that of these magistrates,
on account of which they are kept in peace,—namely, that of the
prince himself, whose authority and dominion extends far and wide
through all the parts of his realm.
Our thirteenth argument, which was Calvin's second, is t h i s : In
this way the truth of divine scripture would be exposed to the
mockeries of impious men, and would in great measure be brought
into even general suspicion, as if it had no other authority than
such as depended precariously upon the good will of men, if it be
said to be received only on account of the judgment of the church.
Therefore, &c. And this is most t r u e ; for who fails to perceive
that, in this way, scripture is exposed to infinite reproaches and
calumnies from men ? Here Stapleton, overcome b y the force of
truth, is compelled even against his will to speak the truth. He
says that it is not b y the good will of men, but the testimony of
1 [ O p p . P a r i s . 1 5 7 1 . p. 4 6 . ]
344 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

G o d speaking through men, that both the scriptures and all the
rest of our faith have their authority. This we willingly embrace.
F o r we confess that the scripture hath its authority from the testi-
mony of G o d ; and we confess also what he adds, that God speaks
through m e n : for God uses no other ministry than that of men,
when he now addresses us in this world. But of what sort is this
testimony of God speaking through men ? Let them tell us, and
they will find that the testimony of God speaking through the
church is one thing, and the church itself another. A n d if they
shall say that we believe the church on account of the testimony of
God, what else do they say but what we say also ? But neverthe-
less we say further, that we ought to believe those things which
God speaks through the church, on account of the authority of
G o d himself who speaks, not on account of the authority of the
church through which he speaks. Stapleton, under the pressure of
this argument, betakes himself for refuge to his old distinction.
T h e scripture, says he, does not receive from the church any p r e -
carious authority, since it depends not upon the church in itself, but
only in respect of u s ; when y e t he had said only a little before,
that we believe on the testimony of G o d speaking through the church.
Doubtless that authority cannot be called precarious, which rests
upon divine testimony. The man absolutely knows not whither to
turn himself, and yet he calls Calvin a caviller. Then he tells us
how scripture hath authority with us b y means of the c h u r c h ;
because God speaking through the church commends it to us, and
makes it conspicuous. I f he distinguishes G o d speaking through
the church from the church itself, we concede all this, and then
conclude that scripture rests upon the authority of God. I f he do
not distinguish, then he makes G o d speaking through the church,
and the church through which he speaks, the same thing ; that is, he
confounds the principal efficient cause with the instrument. I de-
mand of him, therefore, whether he distinguishes that testimony of
G o d speaking through the church from the actual judgment and
testimony of the church, and makes the former something different
from the latter; or confounds the one with the other, and deter-
mines them to be.absolutely the s a m e ? If he distinguish, then he
concedes what we wish, namely, that the authority of scripture in
respect of us rests upon the testimony of God. But if he confound
them, then he absurdly commingles things which ought to be kept
separate. F o r he who speaks is one, and that through whom he
speaks is another. If therefore God speaks through the church,
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 345

this is not properly the witness of the church, but rather of God.
N o w if it be the testimony of G o d himself, it follows that God, not
the church, gives authority to the scripture even in respect of us.
And now we have said enough upon this argument.
Our fourteenth argument, which is Calvin's third, runs t h u s :
The testimony of the H o l y Spirit is more excellent than all au-
thority : therefore the same Spirit can best persuade us that it is
God who spoke in the scriptures. W e say that the scriptures are
proved to us b y the witness of the H o l y Spirit: therefore, we
apply the most certain testimony, even in the judgment of our
adversaries themselves, who dare not deny this. F o r God is alone
a fit witness of himself. Stapleton concedes that the testimony of
the Holy Spirit is the best and most certain; but he concedes this
only in words, and in reality breaks down the whole force of this
testimony. F o r he subjoins that this testimony of the Spirit should
be public and manifest, not private and secret, lest seducing spirits
should introduce themselves under the title of the Spirit of G o d ;
and this public testimony of the Spirit he would have to be the
judgment of the church. Here meanwhile he is compelled to con-
fess, that there is need of the witness of the Spirit, and that this
witness of the H o l y Spirit is the most certain testimony. Thus
then he affirms a testimony of the Spirit, but of such a kind as
does not really exist, namely, a public and manifest o n e ; so as that
the external judgment of the church shall be holden to be the public
judgment of the Spirit, and whatever the church determines and
deems, this shall be believed to proceed from the testimony of the
Spirit. Christ instituted no such tribunal, as will be shewn here-
after in its place. F o r I ask, whether it be public and manifest to
all, or only to a few ? Certainly, it is not manifest to all publicly;
for then all would acknowledge and submit to it. I f they say, it
is public to a few, I would fain know of them how it can be called
public and manifest at a l l ? But I demand besides, who these few
are to whom it is public ? T h e y will say, to the pastors, or, under
the pressure of argument, to the pope alone. But we seek for such
a public judgment as is open to all the faithful; and Stapleton should
either shew us such, or confess that he is playing with us in a
serious matter. F o r our dispute is not about the question how the
pope or the pastors only, but how all the faithful universally, may
understand the scriptures to have divine authority. Wherefore
they are at length reduced to confess that they rest upon a dif-
ferent testimony from that of the church, and that a private one,
346 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

since it lies hidden in a single person. But it is absurd to dream of

any public tribunal of the H o l y Spirit; yea, the scriptures them-
selves plainly teach the contrary, that the testimony of the H o l y
Spirit is only private, internal, and secret. In 2 Cor. i. 2 1 , Paul
says that God hath sealed us, and given to us the earnest of the
S p i r i t : but where ? in our hearts. In R o m . viii. 1 6 , the Spirit of
God is said to testify not openly, not externally, but internally,
that is, in our spirit, that we are the sons of God. In 1 John v.
1 0 , he who believes upon the Son of God is said to have the testi-
mony, not in any external tribunal, but ey eavrcp, in himself. In
Matth. xvi. 1 7 , Christ says to Peter, " Flesh and blood have not
revealed this unto thee, but m y Father which is in heaven." In
which words he unquestionably implies that the persuasion was
wrought, and the revelation made inwardly to Peter, b y the H o l y
Spirit, which he had just before confessed concerning Christ. In
1 John ii. 2 0 , John addresses all the faithful in this m a n n e r : "Ye
have an unction from the H o l y One, and y e know all things."
vfiels •^pidfia e-^ere, Kal o'tSare iravTa. A n d at verse twenty-seven
of the same chapter, " T h e anointing which y e have received r e -
maineth in y o u , " eV vplv fxevei. H e does not mean any external
and manifest unction, but an internal one, entering in our minds
and establishing all truth to us internally. So Isaiah lix. 2 1 :
"My Spirit, which is within y o u , " &c. A n d it is certainly r e -
pugnant to the nature of the Spirit, that this testimony should be
external and public. F o r such as the Spirit is himself, such should
also be his testimony. But the Spirit himself is hidden and secret,
and blows where he listeth, as Christ taught Nicodemus, John iii.
8 : therefore his testimony also is occult; y e t occult in such a sense
as to admit of its being clear and certain to those persons them-
selves who are anointed with this unction. Indeed this is so mani-
fest that the v e r y papists themselves are compelled to acknowledge
it. F o r so Hosius in his Confessio Petrocoviensis, cap. 16 : " N o w
w e willingly concede that the gospels are to be received as the
word of God, who teaches and reveals truth to us internally, and
that they are not to b e believed but on account of the voice of G o d
speaking to us w i t h i n . "
1
But certainly the testimony of the church
cannot be called the testimony of the Spirit in a strict sense, but
only b y w a y of similitude, or in so far as it agrees and harmonises

[! Nos vero libenter concedimus, accipienda esse evangelia ut verbum

Dei intus docentis et revelantis, neque credendum illis esse nisi propter Dei
vocem intus loquentis.—p. 2 1 . Opp. Lugd. 1 5 6 4 . ]
XI.] QUESTION T H E THIRD. 347

with the testimony of the Spirit. F o r we do not deny that the public
judgment of the church may agree with the secret testimony of the
H o l y Spirit; but we say that then it is received for the sake of
the testimony of the Spirit, not for the sake of the church.
But as to what Stapleton subjoins, that the public judgment is
necessary on account of false and seductive spirits; we answer, that
this man would fain seem wiser than Christ. F o r Christ, when he
had a full prospect and foresight of this evil, nevertheless left no
remedy against these deceiving spirits except the scripture, in whose
judgment whosoever refuses to acquiesce will certainly contemn
equally the authority of the church. H e slanderously pretends also
that we make the judgment of the church merely h u m a n ; which is
not true. F o r although we say that the church is composed of
men, yet when its testimony agrees with the judgment and testi-
mony of the H o l y Spirit, and is in harmony with the word of G o d ,
we then confess that it is divine. Nevertheless we do indeed in the
meanwhile say, that it is then believed not on account of the church
itself and its authority, but on account of that truth which it follows
and pronounces, and on account of the authority of God, whom, in
that judgment, the church merely serves as a ministering agent.
But all are not churches of God, which assume and arrogate to
themselves this privilege, but those only which determine what
Christ determined, and teach the same as he taught. But our dis-
pute here is not concerning the true church, what and of what sort
it i s : this is the sole question before u s , — w h e n c e we are assured
that the judgment of the church is true and divine ? This is the
very point at issue. Let them then produce some argument
whereby this may be cleared up for u s ; otherwise they do nothing.
But assuredly they can produce n o n e ; nor hath Stapleton himself
produced any, but only taken things for granted. H e only says
that we are impudent, if w e do not believe, and unworthy of being
disputed w i t h ; or else proves the conclusion b y itself after this
fashion: It is true that the judgment of the church is divine,
because the church itself says s o ; it is governed b y the H o l y
Ghost, because it says that it is so governed. W e m a y , however,
much more justly reply, that they are impudent if they do not
believe the scripture, and that the scripture is divine because it
affirms itself to be so. N o r is there any reason w h y we should say
more upon this argument.
N o w follows our fifteenth argument, the fourth of Calvin, which
is t h i s : T h e church is said (Ephes. ii. 2 0 ) to be built upon the
348 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

foundation of the prophets and apostles, that is, upon the prophetic
and apostolic doctrine: therefore the prophetic and apostolic d o c -
trine, that is, the whole scripture, and the approbation of the same,
preceded the church, without which the church could never have
existed. Stapleton answers, that Calvin misleads his reader b y a
double equivocation concealed in these two words, foundation and
church. F o r he says, in the first place, that the foundation in
this place does not signify the doctrine written b y the prophets and
apostles, but their preaching: next, he says, that b y the church in
this place are not understood the masters, prelates, and superiors, but
the faithful themselves as they constitute the body of the church.
A s to the first equivocation, I return a fourfold answer. First,
what if we concede, that in this place the foundation of the prophets
and apostles is meant of the apostolic and prophetic preaching? This
will avail nothing against u s : for the preaching of the prophets and
apostles was precisely the same as the scripture itself. This is mani-
fest from Acts xxvi. 2 2 , where Paul speaks thus : " Having obtained
help from God, I continue unto this day, witnessing these things to
both small and great, saying none other things than those which
the prophets and Moses did say should c o m e ; " oiiSev 6/CTOS Xeycov.
Whatever, therefore, the apostles taught, they derived from the
prophets and Moses, and beyond them they taught nothing. The
same may also be confirmed from Acts xvii. 1 1 , where the Berceans
are said to have examined the preaching of the apostles b y the
scripture; which they certainly could not have done if they had
preached anything beside or without the scripture. Secondly, I
say that the foundation of the prophets and apostles in this place
actually does denote the scripture: which I prove from the cir-
cumstance that Paul here joins the prophets with the apostles.
N o w the prophets were not then preaching, but only their writings
were extant. Stapleton foresaw this, and therefore determines
that, in this place, it is not the prophets of the old Testament that
are meant and designed, but those of the new, who lived and
taught along with the apostles, such as those who are mentioned,
Ephes. iv. 1 1 , and 1 Cor. xii. 2 8 . But under the name of p r o -
phetic doctrine always in the scriptures the whole doctrine of the
old Testament is wont to be understood. So 2 Pet. i. 1 6 , where the
apostle s a y s : " W e have a more sure word of p r o p h e c y ; " eyoixev
fiefiatoTepov TOV 7rpo(prjTiKov \6yov. So H e b . i. 1, where the
apostle says that God had spoken formerly in divers ways to the
fathers b y the prophets. So R o m . i. 2, where Paul says, that
XI.J QUESTION THE THIRD. 349

G o d had before promised the Gospel oid TWI> тгрофцтм avrov eu

<ypa<pals dy'iavs. So L u k e i. 7 0 , where Zacharias, the father of
John the Baptist, says that God had " raised up a horn of salvation
for us in the house of his servant David, as he had spoken Sid
агоцатоъ T W ayiaiv TWV air a'twvos тгрофцтм avrov." There­
fore in this place also, under the name of prophets are understood
the old, and not the new prophets. F o r if Paul had understood
those prophets of the new Testament, w h y not equally mention the
evangelists, pastors and doctors, who were also preaching the word,
and united their labours with the apostles and prophets in this
work? Chrysostom opposes Stapleton, and teaches us that none
other are here understood but the ancient p r o p h e t s : for he says
that the apostles were posterior in time to those prophets whom
Paul names here, and y e t are set in the first place: ПроЗтои
т'&цсп TOV% dirocTToXovs ecr^aTovs ovras TOIS xpovois .1
Thirdly,
I say, that the preaching of the apostles and prophets, as it was
their action, continued only a short time. But the apostle speaks
of a perpetual foundation which should consist and endure to the
end of the world, and upon which the church of all times should
always rest. This is the doctrine which the apostles first delivered
b y word of mouth, and afterwards in books that were to remain for
ever. H o w then can the church b e now founded upon that preach­
ing, which hath ceased and come to an end many ages ago?
Fourthly, A m b r o s e says that b y the foundation in this place is
understood the old and new Testaments, and that other prophets
are here designated than those of whom we read E phes. iv. 1 1 ,
and 1 Cor. xh. 2 8 . T h e same is the opinion of Thomas Aquinas;
the same of Dionysius the Carthusian, and of some other papists:
so that we may perceive that Stapleton is here at variance with
his own men. W e have discussed the first a m b i g u i t y ; it remains
that we come now to the second.
T h e second equivocation which Stapleton remarks in Calvin's
argument is in the word Church. Stapleton wishes to understand
in this place b y the church, not the pastors, but the people. But it
is plain that the apostle is here laying the foundation of the whole
church, and therefore of the pastors also ; unless perhaps they are no
members of the church. Indeed it would be absurd that he should
except the masters and prelates of the church more than the rest o f
the faithful, as if they had another foundation to rest upon besides
the prophetic and apostolic doctrine; whereas absolutely all the
t 1
In E p h e s . H o r n . vi. Т. n. p. 39. В.]
350 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

faithful are settled upon this foundation, of which Christ is the

corner-stone. Since this is so, it is idle in Stapleton to say, that
the church, as it denotes the b o d y of the faithful, is founded upon
the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, but not as it denotes the
prelates and governors. H e n c e it is manifest that Calvin's reason-
ing stands firm;—namely, scripture is the foundation of the church;
therefore, scripture and its approbation is prior to the church.
But Stapleton still defends himself with that worn-out distinction.
H e says that the scripture is posterior to the church in regard of its
acceptation in respect of u s : as if approbation and acceptation were
not the same thing, or scripture were not then accepted when it
was approved. T h e adversary, therefore, cannot elude Calvin's
argument b y this distinction. W h a t he subjoins, namely, that the
pastors are known before the scriptures, is utterly false, and a bare-
faced begging of the question. F o r we ought first to know how
good pastors should feed then' flocks, (a point of knowledge only
attainable from scripture, which most clearly describes the pastoral
office), before we can recognise the actual good pastors. So we
know a governor, a general, a professor of any art, from the matters
themselves which they handle, and which are the subject of their
art, and in no other w a y : unless, indeed, he understand merely a
confused sort of knowledge, such as that of which Aristotle speaks,
Physic, i. cap. 1. But that is rather a sort of mere uncertain con-
jecture or guess, than any clear and certain knowledge. A s to his
remark that the church itself also, in the sense of the pastors and
rulers, is sometimes compared to a foundation and a gate, as b y
Augustine in his exposition of Ps. lxxxviii. we allow it and concede
it r e a d i l y : but the reason is because that b y their constancy the
weaker are sustained and strengthened; b y their preaching the
gates of heaven are, in a manner, opened, so as that, without the
ministry of the word, no access to salvation could lie open to any
one. In the meanwhile, however, what we have before laid down
is true, that the pastors are founded upon the word, and it cannot
be determined otherwise than out of the word itself, who are true,
good, and faithful. Therefore it must ever be held as most true,
that the approbation of scripture precedes this discrimination of the
pastors. F o r if we approve them for pastors, then before that, and
much rather, must we approve the scriptures, which have made
them pastors, and taught us not only what their office is, but also
our own; and without which neither would they know how to feed the
flock, nor could we esteem them as our pastors. In like manner,
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 351

since the church depends upon the scriptures, the knowledge of the
scriptures must needs precede the knowledge of the church.
Our sixteenth argument is t h i s : Scripture in the doctrine of
religion hath the rank and place of a principle; all its declarations
are, as it were, axioms and most certain principles, which neither
can, nor ought to be proved b y other things, but all other things
to be proved and confirmed b y them. If this hold in human
sciences, whereof men are the authors, much more does it hold
in scripture, whose author is the H o l y Ghost, the Spirit of truth.
W h o e v e r is the author of this argument, it is most true. It seems
to be Musculus's. Stapleton answers b y a distinction (for he is
v e r y copious in distinctions, which he generally abuses greatly,) in
this m a n n e r : The principles of sciences, says he, are in themselves
indemonstrable with respect to the nature of things; but in respect
of us they may be demonstrated, on account of our great dulness,
b y a demonstration shewing simply that they exist. Such is the
case of scripture. I a n s w e r : W e confess that the scriptures may
b e demonstrated b y an argument a posteriori; and that this argu-
ment is especially useful to us on account of the slenderness of our
intellect; and so that w e are much aided in this matter b y the
voice and testimony of the church. But nevertheless we deny that
the scripture needs this testimony of the church, or that it is on no
other grounds authentic to us. W e receive indeed the axioms of
the sciences, when they are first delivered, and believe them to be
true, induced b y the words and authority of the professors of those
sciences: but when w e understand the reason of them, then we
believe rather on account of the plain and necessary truth of the
axioms themselves, which we p e r c e i v e ; for they have an infallible
reason in themselves which commends them to our belief. The
existence of the principles of the sciences m a y be explained to u s ;
but are they understood to be true no otherwise than because the
professors have so delivered them ? Yea, the axioms themselves
mutually demonstrate each other. In like manner, the scriptures
may be illustrated and commended b y the voice of the church,
although they are in themselves most firm and certain principles,
which are both proved b y the authority of God himself, and fortify
each other b y their mutual testimony. Stapleton subjoins that the
scripture is in such a sense a principle in religion as y e t to allow
that the church's voice is prior to it. Which is utterly false, since
all the voice of the church arises from the scripture. Besides, that
which is taught is always prior to that which teaches. N o w the
352 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

scripture is taught, and the church teaches: therefore the scripture

is prior to the church.
But Stapleton proceeds, and proves that the church is prior
to the scripture, and even of greater authority; because the scrip-
ture (says he) is one of those things ^vhich are believed; but
the church is the rule of all those things which are believed.
W h e r e we may observe a two-fold self-contradiction. The first
is, that whereas, in the chapter immediately preceding, he had
denied that the scripture was believed, and said that though we
professed in the Creed a belief in the church, we did not in the scrip-
ture ; now, on the contrary, he says that the scripture is one of
the things believed, and so appertains to the Creed. Thus does he
contradict himself, nor attend at all to what he says. The second
is, that he says that the scripture is one of the things to be believed,
and, therefore, cannot be the rule of those things which are b e -
lieved; while yet he determines the church to be that rule, although
it be itself one of the things which are believed. F o r do we not
plainly in the Creed profess that we believe in the catholic church ?
If, therefore, scripture be not the rule of faith, because it is an
article of faith, w h y does not the same argument hold also against
the church ? But is the voice of the church indeed the rule of
faith ? Y e a , rather, on the contrary, scripture is the rule of the
church. Does scripture follow the voice of the church, or the con-
trary ? These men themselves say that the scripture is not squared
to the voice of the church, but the testimony of the church to
scripture; so as that, since it is canonical scripture, therefore the
church can do no otherwise than declare it to be scripture. Thus
the church is not the rule, but a thing directed b y the rule. The
scripture itself is the rule of faith, as we shall hereafter shew
more c l e a r l y : for the voice of the church ought to be governed b y
scripture, and the church is the effect of faith, and therefore cannot
be the rule of faith. F o r the church is the multitude of the faith-
ful ; and therefore ought to be governed b y faith, to follow faith,
to depend upon the rule of faith, and adjust all things b y it. But
the voice of the church is an act of the church, and posterior to the
church. T h e voice of the church is the voice of m e n : but the rule
of faith is the voice of God. Thus are they not ashamed of any
absurdity or blasphemy: to such a pitch of desperation are they
come. But we have spent words enough upon this argument.
Now follows our seventeenth argument, which stands thus : T h e
church is subject to the scripture; therefore it ought not to j u d g e
XL] QUESTION THE THIRD. 353

of scripture. T h e argument is perfectly conclusive, if we under-

stand an authoritative judgment, as the lawyers express it, which i s .
what the papists would have. The antecedent is proved b y a two-
fold testimony of Augustine. The first is contained in his treatise
against Faustus the Manichee, Lib. x i . c. 5, where Augustine says
that " the scripture is settled upon a certain lofty throne to com-
mand the service of every faithful and pious understanding ." T h e1

second is in his book de Vera Religione, c. 3 1 , where the same

Augustine says that " i t is lawful for pure minds to know the eternal
law of God, but not lawful to judge i t . " Here also Stapleton seeks
to escape under the screen of one of his customary distinctions.
H e says that the church, as it denotes the b o d y of the faithful, is
subject to the scriptures; but, as it denotes the pastors, governors,
and prelates, is not subject, because Jthey rather j u d g e of the scrip-
ture not yet accepted, in order to its acceptation: and thus he
seeks to elude both passages from Augustine. But Augustine un-
doubtedly speaks of the whole b o d y of the church, when he says
that every faithful understanding should serve the scriptures; in
which words he embraces the bishops and prelates. And certainly
in that chapter he speaks especially of those whose office it is to
expound the scriptures, that is, of the pastors themselves. A r e not
these also obliged to be subject to the scriptures, and to submit
their understandings to them ? See what things these popish p r e -
lates arrogate to themselves ! Augustine therefore would not have
even these exercise what is called an authoritative judgment upon
scripture, but rather do it service. Next, as to his assertion that
it is the privilege of the pastors to j u d g e of scripture not y e t
accepted; I demand whether scripture b e y e t accepted or n o ?
T h e y cannot deny that scripture hath been long ago accepted. It
follows, therefore, that this judgment of the church is at an end.
N o r is the sense of Augustine different in the second passage, as
may easily be perceived from observing his own words. H e says
that the church does not judge the scripture (which he calls the
law, rule, and truth), but only according to the scripture. F o r he
uses there a similitude taken from the civil laws, which agrees e x -
cellently well with our defence. " J u s t as it happens in the case of
temporal laws (says Augustine), although men judge of them when
they institute them, yet when they are instituted and confirmed, it
will not be lawful even for the j u d g e to j u d g e concerning them,

[! Excellentia canonicse auctoritatis veteris et novi Testamenti. . . tan-

quam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est, cui serviat omnis fidelis et
pius intellectus.—Cont. Faust. Manich. xi. c. 5. T. x. p. 267.]
23
[WHITAKER.]
354 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

but according to t h e m ; " 1

the same is the case of the divine
law. F o r such is the gist of his comparison. But who hath
authority to establish divine laws ? N o t men, but God alone. If
therefore God hath made and promulgated these laws, then they
are laws without the judgment and acceptation of the church. F o r -
asmuch then as the scriptures are made and promulgated b y God,
they ought not to be subjected to human judgment, nor can any
one lawfully sit in judgment upon them. G o d hath established
these laws. It is our part to receive, acknowledge, venerate, o b e y ,
submit ourselves to them, and j u d g e of every thing according to
them, not to exercise judgment upon them. A n d this all men with-
out exception are bound to d o ; yea, the prelates themselves, and
those who hold the highest authority in the church.
But here he declares that he will immediately close the mouths
of us heretics. L e t us attend and see how he performs his promise.
Calvin, Instit. L i b . i. c. 9, disputes against those who introduce en-
thusiasm, and shews that their enthusiastical spirits, of which they
boast, are to be j u d g e d of b y the scriptures. T h e y say, that it is
unjust to subject the H o l y Spirit to scripture. Calvin answers, that
no injury is done to the H o l y Spirit, when he is examined b y scrip-
ture, because in that w a y he is tried b y no foreign rule, but only
compared with himself. N o w he is always equal to, and like him-
self; he is in every respect at perfect harmony and agreement with
himself, and nowhere at variance with himself: this, therefore, is
not injurious to him. These things are most truly spoken by
Calvin. H e n c e Stapleton gathers this argument: A s , says he, it
is no insult to the H o l y Spirit to be examined b y the scriptures, so
it is not an insult to the scripture to be examined b y the voice and
testimony of the church. But this reasoning of Stapleton will then
only be conclusive, when he shall have shewn and proved, that the
analogy and proportion of the church to the scripture is similar to
that of the scripture to the H o l y Spirit; which is what he will never
b e able to prove. F o r the whole scripture is divinely inspired, and
ever in harmony with the Spirit. Therefore every spirit which
agrees not with scripture is to be r e j e c t e d : but all churches do not
agree with scripture. H e r e then halts this so boasted argument
of Stapleton's, wherewith he hoped to be able to close our mouths.

[! Sicut in istis temporalibus legibus, quanquam de his homines judicent

cum eas instituunt, tamen cum fuerint institutse atque firmatse, non licebit
judici de ipsis judicare, sed secundum ipsas ^ t e r n a m igitur legem
mundis animis fas est cognoscere; judicare non fas est.—August. D e Ver.
Belig. cap. xxxi. T. i. p. 9 7 7 . ]
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 355

A n d thus far Stapleton, who is bold in words, but in argument

loose and weak, as we have seen. Let us now dismiss him.
N o w follows our eighteenth argument, which is t h i s : The pa-
pists say that we believe the scripture upon the word and authority
of the church. I ask, therefore, what sort of faith is t h i s , — w h e -
ther acquired or infused ? T h e y call that acquired which is gained
b y our own exertions, and human topics of persuasion; that infused,
which the H o l y Spirit hath disseminated and inspired into our
hearts. If they say that it is acquired (as they must needs say,
because the authority of the church is in the place of an external
means of persuasion), I say, that is not sufficient of itself to p r o -
duce in us a certain conviction; but in order that we should believe
any thing firmly, there is need of the internal infusion of the Spirit.
This appears readily from the following passages. Deut. xxix. 4 :
" Y e have seen all these miracles," says Moses to the Israelites;
" b u t God hath not given you a mind to understand, eyes to see,
and ears to hear, unto this d a y . " Whence we perceive that w e
believe nothing as we ought without infused faith, not even things
the most manifest, such as were the miracles which Moses mentions.
Matth. xvi. 1 7 : " Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh
and blood hath not revealed these things unto thee, but m y Father
which is in heaven," saith Christ to Peter. Peter, indeed, had
heard John the Baptist; he had heard Christ himself, and had
seen many of his miracles: y e t Peter nevertheless could not b e -
lieve before a divine revelation was added to all this; and therefore
Christ attributes the whole of Peter's faith to revelation. T o the
same effect is what we read of Lydia, Acts xvi. 1 4 , whose heart
God is said to have opened. 1 Cor. xii. 3 : " N o o n e , " says Paul,
" can call Jesus L o r d , but b y the H o l y Ghost." And, verse 9 of
the same chapter, faith is reckoned amongst the gifts (•^apio-Liara)
of the H o l y S p i r i t ; and he speaks there of justifying faith, not of
the faith of miracles. F r o m these premises it is manifest that the
faith upon which we rest is infused, and not acquired. But if they
say that we believe the scriptures b y an infused faith, they say
precisely the same as we. F o r what else is that infused faith but
the testimony of the H o l y Spirit, on account of which we believe
even the scriptures and the doctrine of scripture, and which seals
the whole saving truth of scripture in our hearts ?
Our nineteenth argument is taken from the authority of the
fathers, who testify that the scripture and its truth are no other-
wise ascertained for us, and can no otherwise be confirmed in our
souls, but b y the witness of the H o l y Spirit. There is a notable
23—2
356 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

passage of Augustine's, Confession. L i b . x i . c. 3 : " I would hear

and understand," says he, addressing God, "how thou madest
heaven and earth. Moses wrote this : he wrote, and departed : he
passed from hence to thee ; nor is he now before me. F o r , if he
were, I would hold him, and ask him, and beseech him for thy
sake, to unfold these things to me, and I would lend the ears of
m y b o d y to the sounds which should issue from his lips. But if he
were to speak in the Hebrew tongue, it would strike m y senses in
v a i n ; nor would any of his discourse reach m y understanding: but if
he spoke in Latin, I should know what he said. But how should I
know whether he spoke the truth ? A n d even if I knew this, should
I know it from him ? Surely within, inwardly in the home of m y
thoughts, truth, which is neither Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin,
nor barbarian, without the organs of mouth or tongue, without the
sound of syllables, would say, H e speaks the t r u t h ; and I, ren-
dered certain immediately, should say confidently to that man of
thine, T h o u speakest truth. Since then I cannot interrogate him,
thee I entreat, 0 Truth, filled with whom he uttered words of
t r u t h ; thee, 0 m y God, I entreat, have mercy on m y sins, and do
thou, who didst grant to him thy servant to speak these things,
grant to me also to understand t h e m . " 1
Thus Augustine. In which
place he teaches us, that that public and external judgment of
the church, which the papists have so often in their mouths, hath
not strength sufficient to engender faith. F o r they will not, I
suppose, attribute more to the church than to Moses and the p r o -
phets. I f therefore, although Moses and the prophets too were to
rise from the dead and declare that what they wrote was true, y e t
their testimony would not suffice us for faith, but we should require
in addition the internal testimony of the H o l y Spirit, and a divine

[} Audiam et intelligam quomodo fecisti coelum et terrain. Scripsit hoc

Moses, scripsit et abiit; transivit hinc ad te. Neque etiam nunc ante me
est: nam si esset, tenerem eum, et rogarem eum, et per te obsecrarem, ut
mihi ista panderet, et praberem aures corporis mei sonis erumpentibus ex
ore ejus. At si Hebrsea voce loqueretur, frustra pulsaret sensum meum, nec
inde mentem meam quicquam tangeret. Si autem Latine, scirem quid
diceret: sed unde scirem an vera diceret? Quod si et hoc scirem, num
ab illo scirem? Intus utique mihi, intus in domicilio cogitationis, nec
Hebrasanec Groeca necLatina nec barbara Veritas sine oris et linguae organis,
sine strepitu syllabarum diceret, Verum dicit; et ego statim certus confldenter
illi homini tuo dicerem, Verum dicis. Cum ergo ilium interrogare non possum,
te, quo plenus vera dixit, Veritas, rogo; te, Deus meus, rogo, parce peccatis
meis, et qui illi servo tuo dedisti hsec dicere, da et mihi hsec intelligere.—Aug.
Confess, xi. iii. T. I. p. 232.]
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 357

persuasion of the truth itself; then certainly neither shall we believe

the church's testimony, unless the same testimony of the Holy
Spirit be, in the same manner, added.
T h e same Augustine says also, in his book Contra Epist. Fund.
c. 1 4 , that, " in order that we m a y obtain an understanding of what
we believe, it is requisite that our minds should be inwardly confirmed
and illuminated b y the Deity himself ." 2
A n d in his book De Vera
Religione, c. 3 1 , he writes thus, as we have just h e a r d : " It is law-
ful for pure minds to understand the eternal law [ o f G o d ] , but to
j u d g e it is unlawful ." W h e r e then are those who arrogate to them-
3

selves this judicial power, which they would exercise upon the scrip-
tures, whose authority is supreme ? Basil, upon Ps. 1 1 5 , writes of
faith thus beautifully and t r u l y : " Faith," says he, " is that which
draws the soul to assent b y a force transcending the methods of
l o g i c : faith is that produced, not b y the necessary demonstrations
of geometry, but b y the energy of the H o l y S p i r i t . " 4
Thus we
believe not till the H o l y G h o s t — n o t the c h u r c h — h a t h inspired us
with faith. Hereto appertains also what Ambrose says, De Fide
ad Gratian. Lib. I. c. 5 : " D o n o t , " says he, " O Arian, estimate
divine things b y our (sayings, or writings, or authorities, or
words); but believe them divine, when y o u find that they are
not h u m a n . " 5
Divine things, therefore, are proved b y them-
selves, are believed on their own account. Salvian, the bishop,
De Providentia, L i b . in., writes t h u s : " All human sayings need
arguments and witnesses, but the word of God is its own witness;
because it must needs be, that whatever incorruptible truth speaks,
should be the incorruptible testimony of t r u t h . " 6

W e have besides the testimonies of papists themselves. F o r the

chief popish writers may be cited in this cause. Gabriel Biel, in
Sentent. Lib. HI. Dist. 2 5 , in D u b . 3, speaks t h u s : " Catholic veri-
ties, without any approbation of the church, are b y their own na-
ture immutable, and immutably true, and so are to be considered

[ U t . . . quod credimus intelligere mereamur, non jam hominibus, sed ipso

2

Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram firmante atque illuminante. T. x. p. 1 9 2 . ]

[3 Vide supra, p. 3 5 4 . ]
[ 4
r¡ virep ras Xoyi/cás pedódovs rfjv ^u^ijv els o-vyKaraBecriv éXxouo-a, K.r.X
T. i. p. 3 1 3 , B. Whitaker, in making this citation, writes incorrectly o-vy-
KaT¿¡3a(Tiv for vvyKaradeo-iv.]
[° Noli, Arriane, ex nostris sestimare divina, sed divina crede ubi hu-
mana non invenís.—Opp. T. iv. p. 1 2 2 . Par. 1 6 0 3 . ]
[ Humana omnia dicta argumentis et testibus egent, Dei autem sermo
6

ipse sibi testis est: quia necesso est quicquid incorrupta veritas loquitur, in-
corruptum sit testimonium veritatis.—Salv. Opp. Par. 1 6 8 4 , p. 4 3 . ]
358 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH. XI.

immutably catholic ." But this is a catholic verity about which we

1

inquire : it is, therefore, immutable in its nature, and immutably to b e

considered catholic, and that, without the approbation of the church.
Hosius in his Confessio JPetrocoviensis, cap. 1 6 , says that we believe
the gospel on no other score, but on account of the voice of G o d
speaking within and teaching u s . This he affirms more than once
2

in that book, although afterwards he tries in some degree to

correct and excuse himself. Melchior Canus, Loc. Commun. L i b .
ii. c. 8, disputes upon this question at great length, and, though
differing from us in words, agrees with us in substance. F o r he
says, that, without infused faith we can believe nothing necessarily,
nor be persuaded of any thing certainly. But that faith which
springs from the church's judgment is acquired; whereas infused
faith proceeds from the H o l y Spirit. Therefore, even b y the con-
fession of the papists themselves, the scripture is to us what it is,
that is, the scripture, on account of the authority of G o d ; and in
order that w e should certainly believe what w e receive in scripture,
w e have need of the internal testimony of the H o l y Spirit. Cani-
sius, in his Gatechism, in the chapter upon the precepts of the
church, sect. 1 6 , says that we " believe, adhere, and attribute the
greatest authority to scripture on account of the testimony of the
divine Spirit which speaks in i t . " Hence two things are collected:
3

first, that the H o l y Spirit speaks in scripture; secondly, that the

H o l y Spirit, speaking in scripture, persuades us to believe scripture
and assign to it the greatest authority. So Stapleton in the last
chapter of his first b o o k : " I t is not derogatory to the sacred scrip-
ture that it receives witness from the church, although it have greater
testimony from the Spirit of G o d , who is its author." I f this b e
true, w h y hath Stapleton afterwards disputed so keenly against this
testimony of the Spirit, which he had himself confessed to be greater
than the testimony o f the church ? A n d Bellarmine himself, in his
M S . lectures upon Thomas' Secunda Secundce, Quasst. 1, Art. 1, D u b . 1,
teaches that w e believe, not on account of the church, but on a c -
count of the revelation of G o d ; and refutes the contrary opinions
of certain others. Thus we conclude that our opinion is true not only
in itself, but even in the judgment of our adversaries themselves.
A n d so much upon the third question.
[! Sicut veritates catholicse absque omni approbatione ecclesise ex natura
rei sunt immutabiles, et immutabiliter verse, ita sunt immutabiliter cathoticse
reputanda?—p. 2 5 3 . Brixias, 1 5 7 4 . ]

[ . . propter Dei vocem intus loquentis.—p. 2 1 . Opp. Lugd. 1 5 6 4 . ]

2

[ Scriptures propter testimonium divini Spiritus in ilia loquentis credi-

3

mus, &c—Opus Catech. p. 1 5 7 . Colon. 1 5 7 7 . ]

 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

QUESTION IV.

CONCERNING T H E P E R S P I C U I T Y OF SCRIPTURE.

CHAPTER I.

OF THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.

I N commencing to speak of this question, we must return to

that foundation which was laid at the beginning. I n John v. 3 9 ,
Christ says, " Search the scriptures," epevvare r d s ypa<j>a$. The
precept of Christ, therefore, is plain, declaring that the scriptures
should be searched: whence the question arises, whether those
sacred scriptures, which we are commanded to search, are so full
of obscurity and difficulty as to be unintelligible to u s ; or whether
there be not rather a light and clearness and perspicuity in scrip-
ture, so as to make it no useless task for the people to be engaged
and occupied in their perusal. Here, therefore, we have to dispute
concerning the nature of scripture. But, before coming to the
argument, we must see what is the opinion of our adversaries upon
this matter, and what is our own. A s to our own opinion, the
papists certainly either do not understand i t ; or, if they do, treat
us unfairly and slander us in an impudent manner. F o r we never
said that every thing in scripture is easy, perspicuous, and p l a i n ;
that there is nothing obscure, nothing difficult to b e understood;
but we confess openly that there are many obscure and difficult
passages of scripture: and y e t these men object to us this, and
affirm that w e maintain the scriptures to be perfectly easy.

T h e council of Trent hath defined or expressly determined n o -

thing upon this matter. W e must, therefore, investigate the opinion
of our adversaries b y the help of other writings of papists, so as to
be enabled to discover the true state of the controversy. Eckius, the
most insolent of popish writers, in his Enchiridion, Loe. iv., writing
of the scripture, objects to us this opinion,—that the scripture is so
easy, that even the ignorant people may and ought to read it.
360 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY, [CH.

H i s words are these: " T h e Lutherans contend that the sacred scrip-
tures are c l e a r ; and accordingly laymen and doting old women treat
of them in a style of authority ." Whence we understand that their
1

mind and opinion is, that the people are to be kept from reading
the scriptures, because they are so obscure as that they cannot be
understood b y laics, women, and the vulgar. W e hold the con-
trary, that the scriptures are not so difficult but that they may
be read with advantage, and ought to be read, b y the people.
Hosius also, in his third book of the authority of the church against
Brentius, is copious in proving and establishing the exceeding great
obscurity of the sacred writings. So the Censors of Cologne, against
Monhemius, write to precisely the same effect: for they say in
their preface, that the difficulty of scripture " may be argument
enough that all are not to be indiscriminately admitted to the read-
ing of i t . " Hence they conclude that the unlearned are to b e
prohibited reading scripture, even the history of Christ's passion;
in which they say that there are so many doubtful points, that even
the learned can hardly reconcile them. Thus they permit no part of
scripture to the people, not even that most sweet and easy narra-
tive, altogether worthy of our perusal and meditation, which con-
tains the history of the death of Christ. Andradius, Orthodox.
Explic. Lib. ii., disputes largely upon the obscurity of scripture.
Lindanus, in his Panoplia, Lib. i n . c. 6, affirms of all scripture that
which Peter said only of certain subjects handled in Paul's Epistles:
for he says that there are, throughout the whole body of scripture,
many things " hard to be understood," and that such is the unani-
mous opinion of divines. Stapleton, L i b . x . c. 2, says that the
church ought to interpret scripture on account of the difficulties
which present themselves generally and in most places. The R h e -
mists, in their annotations upon 2 Pet. iii. 16, say that the whole
scripture is difficult, but especially the Epistles of P a u l ; whereas
Peter, as shall appear hereafter, affirms neither: all that Peter
observes is, that there are some things in Paul's Epistles " hard to
be understood, which the unlearned wrest, as they do the other
scriptures, to their own destruction." W h a t they subjoin out of
Augustine, that of all things which Paul taught, nothing is more
difficult than what he writes concerning the righteousness of faith,
can b y no means be conceded. F o r if Paul ever said any thing
plainly, he hath declared his mind upon this subject in a perspi-
\} Lutheran: contendunt scripturas sacras esse claras; ideo laici efc delira?
anus eas tractant imperiose.]
 QUESTION THE FOURTH. 361

cuous discourse. T h e same Rhemists, in their marginal annotation

upon L u k e vi. 1, attribute to us this opinion, " that all things are
v e r y easy." T h e Jesuit Bellarmine affirms that there are many
obscurities in scripture; which we also c o n c e d e : but when he d e -
termines the state of the question to be this, whether scripture be
so plain of itself, as to suffice without any interpretation for decid-
ing and putting an end to all controversies of faith of its own self,
he fights without an a d v e r s a r y : at least he hath no adversaries
in us upon this point. Prateolus, in his Elenclius Hcereticorum,
Lib. XVII. c. 2 0 , says that it is the common article of all sectaries to
affirm that the scriptures are clear of themselves, and need no inter-
pretation. Sixtus Senensis, in his Bibliotheca, Lib. vi. Annot. 1 5 1 ,
objects to us this error,—that we say that the whole scriptures are
so clear and perspicuous of their own nature as to be capable of
being understood b y any one, however illiterate, unless some exter-
nal obstacle be interposed. Costerus the Jesuit, in his Enchiridion
of Controversies lately published, confesses that many things in
scripture are plain ; but adds that many things are not of such a
nature as to be intelligible to every b o d y without any trouble.
But they do us injustice, and openly preach falsehood concerning
us, when they affirm us to say that all things in scripture are so
plain that they may be understood b y any unlearned person, and
need no exposition or interpretation. Hence we see, both what they
think, namely, that the scriptures are so obscure that they ought
not to be read b y the unlearned; and what they say, but falsely
say, that we think, that all tilings are plain in the scriptures, and
that they suffice without any interpretation to determine all contro-
versies. L e t us now see what our opinion really is.
Luther, in his assertion of the articles condemned b y Leo X . ,
in the preface, says that the scripture is its own most plain, easy,
and certain interpreter, proving, judging, and illustrating all
things. This is said b y him most truly, if it be candidly under-
stood. T h e same author, in his book of the Slavery of the Will
against the Diatribe of Erasmus, writes almost in the beginning,
that in the scriptures there is nothing abstruse, nothing obscure,
but that all things are plain. A n d because this may seem a para-
dox, he afterwards explains himself t h u s : he confesses that many
places of scripture are obscure, that there are many words and
sentences shrouded in difficulty, but he affirms nevertheless that no
dogma is obscure; as, for instance, that God is one and three, that
Christ hath suffered, and will reign for ever, and so forth. All
362 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

which is perfectly t r u e : for although there is much obscurity in

many words and passages, y e t all the articles of faith are plain.
Stapleton, Lib. x . cap. 3, interprets these words of Luther, as if he
said, that all the difficulty of scripture arose from ignorance of
grammar and figures; and he objects to us Origen and Jerome,
who certainly were exquisitely skilled in grammar and rhetoric,
and yet confess themselves that they were ignorant of many things,
and may have erred in many places. W e answer, that what he
blames in Luther is most true, if it be rightly understood: for
he who can always arrive at the grammatical sense of scripture,
will, beyond all doubt, best explain and interpret the scriptures.
But hitherto no one hath been able to do this every where and in
all places. Certainly the grammatical meaning of scripture, as it
is ever the best and truest, so is it sometimes the hardest to be
f o u n d ; so that it is no wonder that Origen and Jerome himself,
although both of them most skilful grammarians, m a y have erred
in the interpretation of scripture. Luther adds besides, that the
things themselves are manifest in scripture; and that therefore we
need not be put to much trouble, if the words be sometimes in
many places less manifest. His words are t h e s e : " T h e things
themselves are in l i g h t ; we need not care, therefore, though some
signs of the things be in d a r k n e s s . "
1
But some persons complain
greatly of the obscurity of the things also, so that this distinction
of Luther's between the things and the signs of the things may
seem to be idle. Luther answers that this occurs, not from the
obscurity and difficulty of the things themselves, but from our
blindness and ignorance. A n d this he v e r y properly confirms b y
the testimony of Paul, 2 Cor. iii. 1 4 , 1 5 , 1 6 , where Paul says that
" the vail is placed upon the hearts of the Jews until this v e r y day,
which vail is done away in C h r i s t ; " and from 2 Cor. iv. 3, where
the same apostle says, " If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them
which are l o s t : " and he illustrates the same thing b y the simili-
tude of the sun and the d a y , both of which, although v e r y clear in
themselves, are invisible to the blind. " There is nothing," says he,
" brighter than the sun and the d a y : but the blind man cannot
even see the sun, and there are some also who flee the fight ."
2

Stapleton endeavours to take this answer from him. H e says that

[i Nihil refert, si res sit in luce, an aliquod ejus signum sit in tenebris.—
Opp. Witeberg. T. n. p. 4 5 9 . 2 . ]
[ Eadem temeritate solem obscurumque diem culparet, qui ipse sibi
2

oculos velaret.—Ibid. p. 4 6 0 . ]
 QUESTION T H E F O U R T H . 363

Luther, in this way, condemns all the fathers, and so all antiquity,
of error and blindness. But I answer, that Luther is speaking of
things, that is of the nature of the doctrine and of the articles of
the christian religion : the truth of which (though not of all, y e t of
those which are necessary to salvation), it is manifest from their
writings, was thoroughly seen b y the fathers. H e is not speaking
of the several words and passages wherein they might sometimes
easily err, without, nevertheless, in the least incurring the blame
of blindness on that account.
But Erasmus, in his Diatribe, contends that even some d o g -
mas are obscure, as the doctrine of the Trinity, o f the distinction
of Persons, of sin against the H o l y Ghost, and such l i k e ; and
to this sense he tortures that passage which is contained in R o m .
xi. 3 3 , where Paul says that the " j u d g m e n t s of God are unsearch-
able, and his ways past finding out." Luther answers, that these
doctrines are indeed obscure in themselves; but that they are
plain so far forth as they are proposed in scripture, if we will
be content with that knowledge which G o d hath propounded and
conceded to his church in the scripture, and not search into every
thing more curiously than becomes us. But as to the passage
from Paul, he answers, that indeed the things of God are obscure,
but that the things of scripture are clear ; that the judgments of
God concerning the number of the elect, the day and hour of the
judgment, and such-like, are unknown and inscrutable; but that
those things which G o d hath revealed in his word are b y no means
inscrutable to us ; and that Paul in that place spoke of the things
of G o d , not of the things of scripture. Furthermore he says,
that the reason w h y so many dispute about the things of scripture
is to be found in the perversity and depraved desires of men, espe-
cially the sophists and schoolmen, who, not content with the sim-
plicity of scripture, have rendered every thing obscure and intricate
b y their traps and devices ; but that the scripture must not be
falsely blamed on account of men's abuse of it. Luther uses ano-
ther distinction also in that place. H e says that the perspicuity
or obscurity of scripture is either internal or external ; the internal
is that of the heart itself, the external is in the words. If we
speak of the internal obscurity or perspicuity of scripture, he says
that not even one j o t is in this way clear in the scripture without
the internal light of the H o l y Spirit ; for that all things in this
view and respect are obscure to the fleshly understanding of men,
according to that which is said in P s . xiv. : " The fool hath said in
his heart, that there is no G o d . " But if we understand the exter-
364 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

nal clearness or obscurity of scripture, he says that all doctrines

are in this way clear, and brought to light in the ministry of the
word. A n d this distinction is v e r y necessary: for although, in
the external way, we perfectly hold all the doctrines of religion,
w e yet understand nothing internally to salvation, nor have learned
any dogma aright, without the teaching of the H o l y Spirit.
Assuredly, this is the difference between theology and philoso-
p h y : since it is only the external light of nature that is required
to learn thoroughly the arts of philosophy; but to understand theo-
l o g y aright, there is need of the internal light of the H o l y Spirit,
because the things of faith are not subject to the teaching of mere
human reason. W e may, in a certain manner, be acquainted with
the doctrines of scripture, and obtain an historical faith b y the
ministry of the word, so as to know all the articles of faith, and
deem them to b e true, and all without the inward light of the
Spirit, as many impious men and devils d o ; but we cannot have
the 7r\r]po(popia, that is, a certain, solid, and saving knowledge,
without the H o l y Spirit internally illuminating our minds. And
this internal clearness it is, which wholly flows from the Holy
Ghost. Other arts serve our purpose when only externally under-
s t o o d ; but this is of no avail.unless understood internally. Mean-
while Luther was far from such madness as to say, that there was
nothing difficult in scripture, or that it did not need an interpre-
tation. Yea, on the contrary, in the preface to his Commentary
upon the Psalms, he acknowledges that there are many ob-
scurities and difficulties in the scripture, which G o d hath left us,
as if on purpose to keep us constantly scholars in the school of
the H o l y Spirit. And in the same place he affirms, that a
man must be impudent who would say that he understood even
any one b o o k t h o r o u g h l y : and the same hath ever been the
opinion of us all.
T h e state of the question, therefore, is not really such as the
papists would have it a p p e a r ; but our fundamental principles are
t h e s e : First, that the scriptures are sufficiently clear to admit of
their being read b y the people and the unlearned with some fruit
and utility. Secondly, that all things necessary to salvation are
propounded in plain words in the scriptures. Meanwhile, we con-
cede that there are many obscure places, and that the scriptures
need explication; and that, on this account, God's ministers are to
be listened to when they expound the word of God, and the men
best skilled in scripture are to be consulted. So far concerning
the state of the question.
"•] QUESTION T H E FOURTH. 365

CHAPTER II.

WHY GOD WOULD HAVE MANY OBSCURITIES IN THE SCRIPTURES.

W E should carefully bear in memory the preceding distinctions

drawn b y L u t h e r ; for they are sufficient to obviate almost all the
arguments of the papists in this question. But before proceeding
to their arguments, I have thought it proper to set forth the rea-
sons on account of which G o d was willing that there should be so
many things of considerable obscurity and difficulty in the scriptures.
This contributes much to the better understanding of the matter
upon which we treat. T h e fathers write excellently well upon this
subject, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. Lib. vi. , Augustine, de 1

Doct. Clirist. Lib. ii. , G r e g o r y , Homil. vi. in Ezechiel , and others.

2 3

N o w the causes are such as follow: First, God would have

us to be constant in prayer, and hath scattered many obscurities up
and down through the scriptures, in order that we should seek his
help in interpreting them and discovering their true meaning.
Secondly, he wished thereby to excite our diligence in reading,
meditating upon, searching and comparing the scriptures; for, if
every thing had been plain, we should have been entirely slothful
and negligent. Thirdly, he designed to prevent our losing interest
in t h e m ; for we are ready to g r o w weary of easy t h i n g s : God,
therefore, would have our interest kept up b y difficulties. Fourthly,
G o d willed to have that truth, so sublime, so heavenly, sought and
found with so much labour, the more esteemed b y us on that account.
F o r we generally despise and contemn whatever is easily acquired,
near at hand, and costs small or no labour, according to the Greek
proverb, eirl 9upas TIJV vSplav. But those things which we find
with great toil and much exertion, those, when once we have found
them out, we esteem highly and consider their value proportionally
greater. Fifthly, God wished b y this means to subdue our pride and'
arrogance, and to expose to us our ignorance. W e are apt to think
too honourably of ourselves, and to rate our genius and acuteness
more highly than is fitting, and to promise ourselves too much from
our science and knowledge. Sixthly, G o d willed that the sacred
mysteries of his word should be opened freely to pure and holy
minds, not exposed to dogs and swine. Hence those things which

[i P. 677, et seqq. ed. Morell. Paris. 1629.]

p cap. 6, pp. 35, 36. ed. Bruder. Lips. 1838.]
[3 Opp. p. 1261, A. Paris. 1705.]
366 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

are easy to holy persons, appear so many parables to the profane.

F o r the mysteries of scripture are like gems, -which only he that
knows them values; while the rest, like the cock in ^Esop, despise
them, and prefer the most worthless objects to what is most beauti-
ful and excellent. Seventhly, G o d designed to call off our minds
from the pursuit of external things and our daily occupations, and
transfer them to the study of the scriptures. Hence it is now
necessary to give some time to their perusal and s t u d y ; which
w e certainly should not bestow upon them, if we found every thing
plain and open. Eighthly, G o d desired thus to accustom us to a
certain internal purity and sanctity of thought and feeling. For
they who bring with them profane minds to the reading of scrip-
ture, lose their trouble and o i l : those only read with advantage,
who bring with them pure and holy minds. Ninthly, God willed
that in his church some should be teachers, and some disciples;
some more learned, to give instruction; others less skilful, to receive
i t ; so as that the honour of the sacred scriptures and the divinely
instituted ministry might, in this manner, be maintained.
Such was the wisdom of the H o l y Spirit, wherewith, as A u -
gustine expresses it, De Doctrina Christ. Lib. 11. c. 6, he hath
modified the scriptures so as to maintain their honour and consult
our good. Other causes more besides these might be adduced;
but it is not necessary to enumerate more.

CHAPTER III.

WHEREIN T H E ARGUMENTS OF THE PAPISTS ARE OBVIATED.

L E T US come now to the arguments of our adversaries ; which

indeed might be omitted, as neither injuring, nor even touching our
cause, nor having any force against us whatsoever : for all that they
prove is, that there are some difficult passages in scripture, which
we concede. Costerus, a papist, in his Enchiridion, cap. 1, men-
tions and sets forth some places full of obscurity and difficulties, as
1 Pet. iii. 1 9 , where Christ is said to have " preached to the spirits
in prison, which were sometime disobedient in the days of N o a h , "
&c. ; and 1 Cor. x v . 2 9 , " W h a t shall they do who are baptized
for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? " 1 Cor. iii. 1 5 , " If any
man's work be burned, he shall suffer loss ; y e t he himself shall be
111.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 367

saved, yet so as b y fire." H e might verily have produced a thou-

sand such passages; but, in order to dispute pertinently against
Luther and us, he ought to have shewn some doctrines or articles
of faith not openly and plainly set forth in scripture. Bellarmine
alleges five arguments in order to prove the scriptures to be o b -
scure, which we acknowledge in some places to be true. But let
us see of what sort these arguments are.
His FIRST argument is taken from the authority of scripture,
from which he cites some passages. In the first place he reasons
t h u s : David was ignorant of many things, therefore much more w e ;
consequently, the scriptures are obscure. N o w that David was
ignorant of many things, he proves from Psalm cxix., where it is
said, " Give me understanding, and I will search t h y l a w ; " where
also the psalmist entreats G o d " to teach him " his law, to " illumi-
nate his e y e s ; " and in many places of that same Psalm he ingenu-
ously confesses his ignorance of many things. T o the same purpose
he alleges what Jerome writes of David, to Paulinus, E p . 1 3 , de
Institit. Monachi: " If so great a prophet confesses the darkness of
ignorance, with what night of ignorance do y o u suppose that we,
mere babes and hardly more than sucklings, are s u r r o u n d e d ? " 1

From all which he concludes that the scriptures are obscure. I

answer, in the first place, these things do not touch the question.
There is no one amongst us who does not confess with David, that
G o d is to be constantly besought to teach us his law, to illuminate
our hearts, &c. Therefore the example of David is objected to us
in vain. W h o would believe that these men know what they are
saying ? D o w e indeed affirm that the scripture is so plain, that
God needs not to be prayed to to teach us his law, his will, and his
word ? N o one was ever so impious and so mad. Therefore we
ought continually to pray with David, that G o d would give us
understanding, that he would open our eyes, illuminate our minds,
and teach us himself: otherwise we shall never understand any
thing aright. F o r it is not enough to know the words, the letter
or the history, but a full persuasion is required. This it was that
David sought, that he might more and more make progress in true
understanding and faith. Secondly, David speaks there not prin-
cipally of the external understanding (for doubtless he knew the
letter, and the grammatical and historical sense of most passages),
but of that internal full assurance whereof we read Luke i. 1, in

[ } S i tantus p r o p h e t a tenebras ignorantisc confttetur, qua nos putas parvulos

e t p o n e lactontes inscitiaa n o c t e circumdari ? — O p p . T . I. p . 3 2 3 . V e r o n . 1 7 3 4 . ]
368 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

order to the obtaining of which we maintain that we must labour

with continual prayers. Thus David was ignorant of some things,
and did not perfectly penetrate the meaning of God and the m y s -
teries of his w o r d ; which is plain from Jerome himself in that same
place quoted b y Bellarmine. F o r thus he subjoins: " Unless the
whole of what is written be opened b y him who hath the k e y of
David, who openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man
openeth, they can be unfolded b y no other h a n d . " 1

T h e second passage of scripture which he objects is Luke xxiv. 2 7 ,

from which place he reasons t h u s : Christ interpreted the scriptures
to his disciples: therefore the scriptures are not easy, but need
an interpreter. I answer, in the first place, which of us ever took
away the interpretation of scripture ? Certainly, none of u s ; for
we all readily confess that the scriptures need interpretation.
Secondly, those disciples were crushed and stricken at that time
with a sort of amazement, and slow and unapt to understand any
t h i n g ; so that it is no wonder that they could not understand the
scriptures without an interpretation. Thirdly, those who under-
stand the grammatical sense of scripture, ought nevertheless to
hear the exposition of scripture, to help them to a better under-
standing. This we never denied.
In the third place, he objects to us the case of the eunuch, Acts
viii., whom he states to have been a pious man and studious of the
scripture; and to prove this he cites the superfluous testimony of
Jerome, from his epistle to Paulinus concerning the study of the
scriptures. H e , being asked b y Philip if he understood what he was
reading, replied, " H o w can I understand, unless some man declare
it unto me ? " Therefore, says Bellarmine, the scriptures need inter-
pretation. I answer, in the first place, we concede that many things
in scripture are obscure and need interpretation; therefore this place
concludes nothing against us. Secondly, although this eunuch was
pious and v e r y studious of scripture, he was yet unskilful and not
much familiar with scripture, as is plain from his question; for he
asked Philip whether the prophet spoke of himself, or of some other
person. N o w , we do not say that every thing is immediately plain
and easy in the scriptures, so as to be intelligible to every o n e ;
but we say that those things which at first seem obscure and diffi-
cult, are afterwards rendered easy, if one be diligent in reading

f 1
N i s i aperta fuerint universa qua? scripta sunt, a b e o qui h a b e t c l a v e m
D a v i d i s , qui aperit et n e m o claudit, claudit et n e m o aperit, nullo alio r e s e -
rante p a n d e n t u r . — I b i d . p. 3 2 4 . ]
III.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 369

them, and bring with him a pure and pious mind. Thirdly, as to
Jerome, we say that he speaks of a certain higher understanding
and illumination, as is manifest from his own words in that place.
F o r thus he writes of that e u n u c h : " While he held the book, and
2

conceived in thought, uttered with his tongue and sounded with his
lips, the words of the L o r d , he knew not him whom in the b o o k he
ignorantly worshipped. Philip comes, shews him Jesus, who lay
concealed in the letter. 0 wonderful power of a teacher ! In the
same hour the eunuch believes, is baptized, and becomes faithful
and holy, a master in place of a disciple."
In the fourth place, he objects to us the words of Peter which
are contained in 2 Epistle hi. 1 6 , where Peter says expressly that
there are Svo-vorjra nva (some things hard to be understood) in
Paul's epistles. And the Jesuit bids us observe, that Peter does not
say that there are some things hard to be understood merely b y
the unlearned and unstable, but simply and absolutely SvavorjTa,
difficulties; whence he wishes to infer that they are difficult to all,
though especially to the unlearned. A n d to this purpose he al-
leges the testimony of Augustine, De fide et operibus, c. 1 6 , where
he confesses that a certain place in Paul seems to him v e r y difficult.
I answer, first, W e concede that some places are hard to be under-
stood: therefore, this passage does not make against us. Secondly,
Peter does not say that iravra, all things, but only TIVOL, some
things, are hard to be understood. A n d what if some things b e
obscure ? Y e t it follows that the greatest part is plain and easy.
Thirdly, Although Peter inveighs against the apaOeis ical ao-Ttjp'tK-
Ton?, " t h e unlearned and unstable," who o-rpefiXovat. " w r e s t " the
scriptures, he nevertheless does not debar them altogether from the
reading of the scriptures. Fourthly, Peter does not say that Paul's
epistles are obscure, nay, not even that there are some obscurities in
Paul's epistles, but only in those things concerning which he himself
writes in his own. N o w Peter speaks of the last judgment, and the
destruction of the world, about which unlearned men had at that
time many ridiculous fictions. That Peter is speaking of the subjects,
not of the epistles of Paul, is manifest from the v e r y w o r d s : for
he does not say, kv ah, but ev oh, which plainly refers to the TOV-

[ Cum librum teneret et verba Domini cogitatione conciperet, lingua

2

volveret, labiis personaret, ignorabat eum quem in libro nesciens venerabatur.

Venit Philippus, ostendit ei Jesum, qui clausus latebat in litera. O mira
doctoris virtus! Eadem hora credit Eunuchus, baptizatur, et fidelis ac
sanctus factus est, ac magister de discipulo.—Ibid. p. 272. Ep. 53.]

r 1
|_WHITAKEU.J 2 4
370 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Tivv immediately preceding. In these matters and articles of our

faith we confess that there are many difficulties, as also in other
mysteries of our religion. T h e occasion of the mistake arose from
the vulgate version, which renders in quibus, which is ambiguous.
Beza much more properly, in order to remove the ambiguity, trans-
lates it, inter quae. Peter, therefore, speaks not of the character of
Paul's epistles. But the Rhemists endeavour to overturn this reply,
in which attempt they shew how stupid they are, while they de-
sire to exhibit their acuteness. T h e y say there is absolutely no
difference between these two assertions: This author is difficult and
obscure, and, There are many things difficult and obscure in this
author. I answer, first, Peter does not say, as they would have
him, that all, or many, but only some things in Paul's epistles are
o b s c u r e : he narrows his expression as much as possible. Secondly,
these two assertions are not equivalent: for an author may speak
perspicuously and plainly of things most obscure and difficult. W h a t
is harder to be understood than that God made the world out of
nothing ? that God took flesh of a virgin ? that God and man were
one person ? That this world shall be destroyed, and our bodies
restored again to life after death, surpass our understanding; and
y e t concerning these the scriptures speak with the utmost clearness
and explicitness. So much for Bellarmine's first argument.

His SECOND argument is taken from the common consent of the

ancient fathers, of whom he brings forward eight, Irenseus, Origen,
Ruffinus, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, G r e g o r y ; all
of which very learned fathers may be passed over b y us, since
they say absolutely nothing that makes against us. F o r they either
say that there are some obscurities in scripture, or that, without
the internal light of the Spirit, the scriptures cannot be rightly
understood b y us as they o u g h t : both of which propositions we
concede. However, let us return some reply, as briefly as we can,
to each of the testimonies of these fathers The first is Irenaeus,
who, in his second book against heresies, cap. 4 7 , after shewing that
there are many things, even in the creatures themselves, obscure
and difficult, as the origin of the Nile, the vernal visits and autumnal
departures of the birds, the ebb and flow of the sea, and other
such like things, finally accommodates all these to scripture. " L i k e -
wise," says he, " i n the scriptures we understand some things, and
some things we commit to G o d . " I answer, that nothing could
1

[! Si e r g o e t in r e b u s creaturaa qusadam q u i d e m e o r u m adjacent Deo,

qusedam a u t e m et in n o s t r a m v e n e r u n t s c i e i i t i a m ; quid m a l i est, si et e o r u m
III.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 371

be said more t r u l y ; for never any man attained to all things that
are delivered in scripture. But we speak of things necessary.
This testimony of Irenseus avails against those, who, elate with
pride and carried further than behoves them b y curiosity, attribute
to themselves a knowledge of all things, and especially of the scrip-
t u r e s : but it in no way touches us, who confess that there are
many matters in scripture too abstruse to be perfectly understood
b y any man in this life.
The second testimony is that of Origen, who in his twelfth
Homily on Exodus says, that in the case of the scriptures we
should not only employ study, but pour forth prayers also day and
night, that the Lamb of the tribe of Juda may come and open for
us the sealed b o o k . So, in his seventh book against Celsus, he
2

says that the scripture is in many places obscure . I answer, W e 3

say also that study and diligence are required in reading the scrip-
tures, and that assiduous prayers are also necessary. T h e papists,
therefore, are impertinent, who say that we affirm that any one
may treat the scriptures negligently and without prayer, and y e t
understand them correctly, or that the scripture is not in many
places obscure.
T h e third father whom Bellarmine cites is Ruffinus. H e , Lib.
xi. c. 9, writes that Basil and Nazianzen were both bred at Athens,
both colleagues for many y e a r s ; and, setting aside the books of the
philosophers, applied themselves with the utmost zeal to the scrip-
tures, bestowing their whole attention upon them, and learned
them from the writings and authority of the fathers, not from their
own presumption. Hence the Jesuit concludes that the scrip-
tures are obscure. I answer, that these distinguished men b e -
stowed this so great labour and such extraordinary diligence
in the study of scripture, not to obtain any moderate or vulgar
knowledge, but that they might understand the scriptures accu-
rately, and prove fit to instruct others. Similar study and dili-
gence should be applied b y all those who would discharge the
office of pastors and teachers in the church, as was the case of
Basil and Nazianzen; but so great labour is not necessarily r e -
quired in the people. It is sufficient for them to understand and

qua? in Bcripturis requiruntur, universis scripturis spiritualibus existentibus,

quredain quidem absolvamus secundum gratiam D e i , quredam autem c o m -
mendemus D e o ? — p . 2 0 3 . B.]
[ 2
O p p . T . i i . p. 1 7 4 . P a r . 1 7 3 3 . ]
[ 8
p p . 3 3 8 , 9. e d . S p e n c e r . C a n t a b . 1658.]
24—2
372 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

hold aright the articles of faith, and the things which are neces-
sary to salvation.
In the fourth place, Bellarmine objects to us Chrysostom. He
in his fortieth Homily on the fifth chapter of the gospel of St John,
upon these words,—epf-wdre rds ypa<pds, " s e a r c h the scriptures,"
— s a y s that there is need of great labour and the utmost diligence in
the sacred scriptures, and that it behoves us to dig deep, to search
and investigate diligently to find those things which lie concealed
in their depths. F o r it is not (says he) what lies ready to hand
and at the surface that we dig for, but what is profoundly buried
like a treasure. I answer, these words do not prove that the scrip-
tures are so obscure that the laity ought not to read them. We,
for our parts, confess that the scriptures ought not to be read care-
lessly, or without faith, as they were read b y the J e w s ; but we
j u d g e both diligence and faith to be required in the reading of
them. T h e Jews read the scriptures negligently and without faith :
w e say that the scriptures are easy to the studious and faithful.
But Bellarmine produces another testimony also, from Chrysostom's
Opus Imperfectum upon Matthew, Horn. 4 4 ; where two reasons
are brought w h y God chose that the scriptures should be obscure.
T h e first is, that some might be teachers and others learners;
because if all knew all things equally well, a teacher would not
b e necessary, and g o o d order would not be maintained amongst
men. T h e second reason is, lest scripture should be not so much
useful as contemptible, if it were understood promiscuously b y all.
I answer: This is precisely the same as we say ourselves, that God,
induced b y the fittest reasons, chose that there should b e many
obscurities in scripture. But what hath this to do with the cause
in hand ?

In the fifth place, he objects Ambrose, Epist. 4 4 ad Constan-

tium JSpiscopum, where these words are found: " T h e holy scripture
is a sea, having in it deep meanings, and the profundity of prophetic
enigmas, into which sea have entered many streams ." 1
I answer:
W e readily confess with Ambrose, that there are many obscure
meanings in scripture, and that scripture is like a s e a : but the
same Ambrose says also presently in the same place, that "there
are also in the scriptures rivers sweet and clear, and pure fountains
springing up unto eternal life." So he compares scripture to rivers

[! Mare est scriptura divina, habens in se sensus profundos, et altitudi-

nem propheticorum senigmatum; in quod mare plurima introierunt flumina.
—Class. 1. Ep. II. J 3. T. vni. p. 181. Ambros. Opp. ed. Caillau. Paris. 1839.]
III.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 373

also. There are, I confess, in the scripture, as in the ocean, many

d e p t h s ; but yet the same Ambrose himself says a little afterwards:
" There are different streams of scripture. Y o u have what y o u m a y
drink first, what second, and what l a s t . " 2

I n the sixth place he objects Jerome, from whom he cites three

testimonies. T h e first is taken from the Epistle to Paulinus on the
Study of the Scripture, w h e r e 3
he writes that we cannot possibly
learn and understand the scriptures, without some one to g o before
and shew the w a y , that is, without a master and interpreter; and,
running through all the books, he shews in each that there are
many things mystical and obscure. T h e second testimony of J e -
rome is contained in the preface to his commentaries upon the
Epistle to the Ephesians, where he says that he had bestowed
much labour upon the scriptures, always either reading himself or
consulting o t h e r s ; upon which latter account, he had gone as far
as to Alexandria, to consult there a certain learned man called
Didymus. T h e third testimony of Jerome, which Bellarmine cites
is taken from his Epistle to Algasia, Qusest. 8, where Jerome
writes, that the whole Epistle of Paul to the Romans is involved
in exceeding great obscurity . 4
I a n s w e r : W e willingly acknow-
ledge and concede all these t h i n g s ; that is, firstly, that the scrip-
tures cannot be perfectly understood without a master ; next, that
there are some obscure and difficult places in scripture, and that
teachers and masters should be consulted upon t h e m ; lastly, that
the Epistle to the Romans is obscure; and so that some books are
more obscure than others. Y e t , meanwhile, it does not follow that
all things in scripture are so obscure that laymen should not touch
it, and the people should be wholly prevented and repelled from
its perusal: for in this way it would not be lawful for any man
whatsoever to read the scriptures.
In the seventh place, he objects Augustine, from whom he p r o -
duces four testimonies. T h e first is cited from his work De Doctr.
Christ. L i b . H. cap. 6, where Augustine teaches that the obscurity
of scripture is of use " to tame our pride and to rouse our un-
derstanding from listlessness, since things easily investigated are

[ 2
S u n t ergo e t fiuvii dulces a t q u e perspicui, s u n t et f o n t e s n i r e i , q u i saliant
i n v i t a m s e t e r n a m . . . D i v e r s a igitur s c r i p t u r a r u m d i v i n a r u m fluenta. Habes
q u o d p r i m u m bibas, b a b e s q u o d s e c u n d u m , h a b e s q u o d p o s t r e m u m . — I b i d . ]
[ 3
Haic a m e perstricta sunt breviter . . . . ut intelligeres, t e in scripturis
Sanctis, sine prrevio et m o n s t r a n t e s e m i t a m , n o n posse i n g r e d i . — U t supra,
p. 3 6 9 . ]
[* T . i. p p . S 6 4 — 7 0 . ]
374 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

generally held c h e a p . " 1

I a n s w e r : Y e t the same father says in
the same chapter, that the H o l y Spirit provides for our hunger in
the plainer places, and that hardly any thing can be obtained from
those obscurer passages, which is not found said elsewhere with
the utmost plainness. T h e same father, in the ninth chapter of
the same book, says, that amongst those things which are plainly
set down in scripture, are to be found all those things which make
the sum of our faith and practice . 2
T h e second testimony of A u -
gustine is taken from his Confessions, Lib. x n . cap. 1 4 , where
he says, that " the depth of the divine words is wonderful ."
3

I a n s w e r : we confess this to be most true in many places. But

as there are some places such as that an elephant may swim in
them, so there are others so disembarrassed, plain, and utterly free
from prejudices or danger, that a lamb may, as it were, easily
wade over them. T h e third testimony cited from Augustine is
contained in his third Epistle to Volusianus, where he says that
" t h e depth of the christian scriptures is such, that one may every
day make new progress in them, although he should endeavour to
study them alone from his earliest childhood to decrepit age, in
the amplest leisure, with the closest study, and a genius of the
highest o r d e r . " I answer : Here the Jesuit betrays his remarkable
unfairness, and really singular dishonesty : for there follow imme-
diately these words which he hath omitted : " N o t that one comes at
those things which are necessary to salvation with so much diffi-
culty ." 4
Besides, the same father says in the same epistle, that
"the scripture, like a familiar friend, speaks without disguise
to the heart, not of the learned only, but of the unlearned also;
nor elevates with proud diction what it conceals in its mysteries, so
as to make the duller and unlearned minds afraid to approach,
like the poor to the rich; but invites all b y its humble style, whom
it feeds with its manifested truth, and exercises with that which is

I Quod totum provisum divinitus esse non dubito ad edomandam labore

1

superbiam et intellectum a fastidio revocandum, cui facile investigata ple-

rumque vilescunt.—Opp. T. in. p. 2 7 . ]
[ In eis enim quae aperte in scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur ilia omnia
2

quae continent ftdem moresque vivendi.—Ibid. p. 3 1 . ]

[ Mira profunditas eloquiorum tuorum, quorum ecce ante nos superficies
8

blanditur parvulis : sed mira profunditas, Deus meus, mira profunditas.—T.

I. p. 2 5 3 . ]
[ Tanta est enim christianarum profunditas literarum.ut in eiscontinuo pro-
4

ficerem,si eas solas ab ineuntepueritia usque ad decrepitamsenectutem,maximo

otio, summo studio, meliore ingenio addiscerem. Non quod ad ea quae necessa-
ria sunt saluti tanta in eis perveniatur difficultate.—Ep. 137. n. 3. T. n. p. 52G.]
III.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 375

hidden." H e says, moreover, that the scripture hath in its ready

places whatever it hath in the recondite ones: " but that, lest men
should g r o w weary of what is plain, the same things again when
covered are desired, when desired are, as it were, renewed, and
renewed are intimated with p l e a s u r e . " 5
W h e n the Jesuit passes
all this over in silence, he displays his own extraordinary desire to
deceive us. T h e fourth testimony of Augustine is found in Epist.
exix. c. 2 1 : " In scripture," says Augustine, " there are many more
things that I know not, than that I k n o w . " 6
I answer: This ought
to be the true and ingenuous confession of all, to acknowledge that
they are very far distant from the perfection of k n o w l e d g e : y e t
Augustine both professes that he himself knew whatever was neces-
sary, and concedes that it might be easily understood b y others.
T h e eighth testimony cited b y the Jesuit is that of Gregory
the great, in his sixth Homily upon Ezekiel, where he writes t h u s :
" T h e v e r y obscurity of the words of G o d is of great use, because
it exercises the perception so as to be enlarged b y labour, and;
through exercise, be enabled to catch that which a lazy reader
cannot. It hath besides this still greater advantage, that the
meaning of the sacred scripture would be lightly esteemed, if it
were plain in all places. In some obscure places the sweetness
with which it refresheth the mind, when found, is proportionate to
the toil and labour which were expended upon the s e a r c h . " 7
I an-
swer : Nothing could be said more truly. W e confess with G r e -
g o r y , that there are many obscurities in scripture, and that this
hath happened through the divine wisdom, partly to exercise us in
scripture, partly to prevent its being despised, partly that the
[s quasi a m i c u s familiaris sine f u c o a d c o r loquitur i n d o c t o r u m
atque doctorum. E a vero qua? in mysteriis occultat, n e c ipso eloquio s u -
p e r b o erigit, q u o n o n a u d e a t a c c e d e r e m e n s tardiuscula e t inerudita, quasi
pauper ad divitem; sed invitat o m n e s h u m i l i s e r m o n e , q u o s n o n s o l u m
manifesta pascat, sed e t i a m secreta exerceat veritate, h o c in p r o m p t i s q u o d
in reconditis h a b e n s : s e d ne aperta fastidirentur, e a d e m rursus operta d e s i -
derantur, desiderata q u o d a m m o d o renovantur, renovata suaviter intimantur.
— I d . ibid. prop, fin.]
[<s E t m i r o r quia h o c t e l a t e t , q u o d n o n s o l u m in aliis i n n u m e r a b i l i b u s
rebus m u l t a m e latent, sed e t i a m in ipsis Sanctis scripturis m u l t o n e s c i a m
p l u r a q u a m s c i a m . — E p . 5 5 . c. 2 1 . n. 3 8 . p . 1 9 0 . ]
[' Magna? utilitatis est ipsa obscuritas e l o q u i o r u m D e i , quia exercet s e n -
s u m , ut fatigatione dilatetur, e t exercitatus capiat q u o d c a p e r e n o n p o t e s t
otiosus. H a b e t q u o q u e a d h u c aliud m a j u s , quia scriptura? sacra? i n t e l l i g e n -
tia, si in cunctis esset aperta, vilesceret. I n quibusdam locis obscurioribus
tan to m a j o r e d u l c e d i n e inventa reficit, quanto m a j o r e l a b o r e fatigat animuiri
q u a j s i t a . — O p p . T . I. p. 1 2 1 3 . P a r i s . 1 7 0 3 . ]
376 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

truth when discovered might give us greater pleasure. But, in

the meanwhile, Gregory does not say, that every thing is obscure
in scripture: yea, he plainly reclaims against such an assertion;
for he says, " In some obscure places." Therefore it is not all, but
some places in scripture, that are obscure, if we believe G r e g o r y .
B u t what man in his senses would reason t h u s : Some things in
scripture are obscure, so as not to be understood in a moment;
therefore either nothing can b e understood, or the scriptures are
not to be read ? A n d so much for the Jesuit's second argument.
Bellarmine's THIRD argument is founded upon necessary reason-
ing. In scripture, says he, w e must consider two things, the
things spoken, and the way in which they are spoken. Whichever
w e regard, there is the greatest difficulty. F o r , firstly, the things
are most difficult, namely, the divine mysteries which are delivered
in the scriptures of the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, and
such l i k e ; and Bellarmine asks, w h y metaphysics are more obscure
and difficult than the other sciences, but because of their subject-
matter ? — b e c a u s e , that is, they treat of more obscure and difficult
things? In the same way he concludes that the scriptures are hard
and dark, because hard and dark subjects are treated of therein. I
answer, b y observing that the subjects of scripture are indeed
obscure, hidden, abstruse, and mysterious, y e t not in themselves
but to us. W h e n I say, in themselves—I do not mean to say it
of the nature of the things themselves, as if the things were not
all obscure (for I confess that they are o b s c u r e ) ; but what I mean
is, that the subjects of scripture, as they are set forth and delivered
in scripture, are not obscure. F o r example, that G o d is one in
substance and three in persons, that G o d was made man, and such
like, although they be in themselves, if we regard the nature of the
things themselves, so obscure that they can b y no means be per-
ceived b y u s ; y e t they are proposed plainly in scripture, if we will
be content with that knowledge of them which God hath chosen to
impart to us. A s to the fact, that many have written with great
acuteness and subtlety of these matters, I say that these subtleties
are of no concern to the people, who can be saved without a
knowledge of them. Yea, I say besides, that some of them are
impious, and destructive to the v e r y persons who invented them.
Scripture would have us be contented with this plain, perspicuous,
and simple doctrine, which it delivers. All difficulty therefore, if
difficulty there be, in the things, is ours, and springs from ourselves.
A n d so much of the obscurity of the things themselves.
Now as to the manner of expression, he proves the scriptures
m.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 377

to be obscure b y six reasons. T h e first reason is, because there

are many things in the scriptures which may seem at first sight
contradictory and plainly repugnant to each o t h e r ; such as these
two places, E x o d . x x . 5, where G o d threatens that he " will
visit the sins of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and
fourth g e n e r a t i o n ; " and Ezekiel xviii. 2 0 , where we read that the
v e r y soul which sinneth shall die, and that " the son shall not bear
the iniquity of the father." I answer: Some things may seem
contradictory in scripture, to a man who does not consider
them with sufficient attention ; y e t it is certain, nevertheless, that
scripture is in perfect harmony with itself. God willed that some
such shews of contradiction should occur in scripture, that we might
be so the more excited to diligence in reading, meditating upon,
and collating the passages t o g e t h e r : wherein whosoever shall use
diligence, as Augustine formerly did in harmonizing the evangelists,
will easily reconcile all those places which seem repugnant to each
other. As to these passages, one readily perceives that they
agree. F o r it is certain that God punishes men for their own,
and not for other people's sins, as we are told, Ezek. xviii. 2 0 .
Therefore, what is said of the punishment of parents being derived
upon their posterity, E x o d . x x . 5, must needs be understood with
this condition, if their posterity continue in their wickedness: for
if they avoid their parents 1
sins they will not be subjected to their
punishments T h e second reason, to prove that the scriptures are
obscure in their manner of expression, is t h i s : because many
words in scripture are ambiguous, and many whole discourses also,
as John viii. 25 : Principium, qui et loquor vobis. I answer:
This is, indeed, ambiguous, and false, and utterly ridiculous,—but
only in the Vulgate version: for it should be translated, quod
loquor, not qui loquor. But in the Greek text all is e a s y ; for
the words are TYJV dpyr\v 6 TI KOX \a\a> VLUV, that is, Kara TIJV

dpynv. Of which words this meaning is obvious e n o u g h : I am

no other than what I have said that I was from the b e g i n n i n g . —
T h e third reason is, because there are many imperfect speeches
and sentences in scripture, as in R o m . v. 1 2 , wcnrep occurs without
any thing to correspond to i t : where the Jesuit says that the
principal word is wanting. I answer, that I cannot discover what
word he means. I confess that there is a want of an apodosis;
but the sentence is not so obscure as to be unintelligible, and the
apostle seems afterwards to have subjoined the other member
which corresponds to t h i s . — T h e fourth reason is, because there
are in scripture many sentences put out of o r d e r ; as Gen. x. 3 1 ,
378 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

w e find it written thus, " These are the children of Shem, accord-
ing to their families and their t o n g u e s : " but in chap, xi., at the
v e r y commencement, the whole earth is said to have been at that
time of one lip and one tongue. I answer, first, that in every
discourse, and especially in histories, some inversion of the order
of time (uarepov Trporepov) is common. T h e rule of Ticonius
given long a g o 1
w a s : That some things are related in scripture b y
w a y of anticipation, so as to be told briefly before they occurred,
in order to prepare and make more intelligible a fuller exposition
of each circumstance in its proper place. And Augustine hath ad-
mirably explained that place in the following manner, De Civit.
Dei, Lib. x v i . c. 4 : " Although, therefore, these nations are said
to have had their several languages, yet the historian returns back
to that time, when they all had but one l a n g u a g e ; and setting out
from thence, he now explains what occurred to produce a diversity
of l a n g u a g e s . "
2
Secondly, it should not be translated, " T h e p e o -
ple was of one speech," but, " h a d been of one s p e e c h : " and so
indeed Tremellius most fittingly and correctly renders it, so as to
remove all ambiguity; to which version the Hebrew text is no
way repugnant.—The fifth reason is, because there are in the
scriptures some phrases proper and peculiar to the Hebrew tongue,
which are to us v e r y hard to be understood, as Ps. lxxxix. 2 9 ,
" l i k e the days of h e a v e n ; " as if there were day and night in
heaven, or as if heaven lived b y day and night like men. So Ps.
cxix. 1 0 8 : " M y soul is alway in m y h a n d . "
3
I answer, that
there are, indeed, in the Hebrew, as in other tongues, certain
idioms and phrases proper and peculiar to that l a n g u a g e ; yet
such nevertheless as to be readily intelligible to those who are
practised in the scriptures, and such as express the meaning with a
singular sort of emphasis and grace. F o r who is so dull as not to
understand what such modes of speech as these denote ? God spake
b y the hand of Jeremiah, or, T h e word of the Lord came b y the
hand of Zechariah, that is, b y the ministry of that prophet. So,

[ Sextam regulam Tichonius recapitulationem vocat . . . . Sic enim di-

J

cuntur qusedam, quasi sequantur in ordine temporis, vel rerum continuatione

narrentur, quum ad priora quaa praBtermissa fuerant, latenter narratio revo-
cetur.—Augustin. de Doctr. Christ. Lib. in. c. 36. T. in. p. 81.]
[ Cum ergo in suis linguis istas gentes fuisse referantur, redit tamen ad
2

illud tempus narrator, quando una lingua omnium fuit; et inde jam exponit,
quid accident, ut linguarum diversitas nasceretur.]
[ This phrase, however, is not peculiar to the Hebrew.
3
It occurs in a
fragment of Xenarchus' Pentathlus, preserved by Athena?us, <=V x P (l
h l T v

•^"X ?" ex *™, SetnoVn.—Deipnos. Lib. xin. § 24. p. 569. ed. Casaub.]
1 0
III.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 379

" His throne is like the days of heaven," that is, shall endure per­
petually like heaven itself: and, " m y soul is in m y hand," that is,
is exposed to every d a n g e r . — T h e sixth reason w h y the scriptures
are obscure in their mode of expression is this, because there are
many tropes, many figures and schemes of rhetoric in scripture, as
metaphors, ironies, metonymies, inversions, and such like. I answer
and say that scripture is not obscured, but illustrated, b y these
tropes and figures. F o r even the rhetoricians themselves teach,
that tropes are to be employed for the purpose not of obscuring
speech, but of lending to it ornament and fight. Augustine, de
Doctr. Christ. Lib. п. c. 6, writes thus upon this subject: " N o
one doubts that things are more pleasantly understood b y simili­
tudes ." 4
Chrysostom, upon Isaiah viii. [v. 7 ] , treating of these
words, " Behold the Lord will bring upon them the waters of the
river, strong and many, the king of the Assyrians," & c , writes
t h u s : " H e hath in a metaphorical way used terms to express both
the manners of a native prince and the power of a barbarian.
This he does in order (as I have all along told y o u ) to make his
discourse more plain ." A n d a little a f t e r : " Whenever scripture
5

uses metaphors, it is wont to explain itself more clearly." In the

same way Thomas Aquinas, in the first part of Summ. Quaast. r.
Artie. 9, respons. ad A r g . 2 : " Whence those things that in one
place are spoken under metaphors, are expressed more clearly
elsewhere ." Therefore, although the scriptures are rendered more
6

obscure in some places b y metaphors, yet those metaphors are

elsewhere explained so as to leave no obscurity in the discourse or
sentence. So much for Bellarmine's third argument.
His FOURTH argument is taken from common experience, and
stands t h u s : If the scriptures (says he) be not obscure, why have
Luther himself and the Lutherans published so many commentaries
upon the scriptures, and interpreted them so variously, that Osian­
der asserts that there are twenty most different opinions upon
justification subsisting amongst the Confessionists or Lutherans
alone? I answer, first, that the multitude of commentaries was
perhaps not very necessary, because the scriptures might have
been understood without so many of t h e m : although those who

[ 4
Nemo ambigit per similitudines libentius quceque cognosci.—T. in. p. 2 8 . ]
[ 6
Troiei Se axiTO, оттер ecprjv ciei, TOV \6yov ерфаупкатерои катао­Kevá^cúif. . .
Travro-xov ¿v rats ретафорш.! iavrr^v epprjveveiv ешвеи r¡ урафц.—Opp. Т. I. p.
1 0 8 4 . E ton. 1 6 1 2 . ]
[° TJnde ea quaa in uno loco sub metaphoris dicuntur, in aliis locis ex­
presses exponuntur.—Qua;st. i. Art. ix. Rcsp. ad Arg. 2 . p. 4 . Par. 1 6 3 9 . ]
380 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

write learned and elaborate commentaries upon scripture deserve

special gratitude from all students of scripture. Secondly, I say
that commentaries were published in order that the scriptures might
be better and more easily understood. Thirdly, I say that there
is the utmost unanimity amongst the Confessionists (as they call
them) in all things necessary, that is, in the articles of faith, and
especially concerning justification; although perhaps there may be
some dissension amongst them about smaller matters, as the e x -
plication of some rather obscure p l a c e ; which proves not the
obscurity of scripture, but our slowness and inconstancy. Fourthly,
it is little matter what Osiander, a man of the utmost levity and
audacity, may have said; whose calumnious temper appears from
his saying, that two methods of justification are collected b y the
confessionists from these words, " A b r a h a m believed God, and it
was imputed unto him for righteousness ; " — o n e , of faith; the other,
of imputation: as if, forsooth, being justified b y faith and being
justified b y imputation were not absolutely the same thing. Cer-
tainly there is no difference between these two. These, therefore,
are not two different methods of justification; and the objection of
variety of opinions in a matter of the utmost moment is not true.
This calumny is mentioned b y Hosius, in his third book against
Brentius. So also Lindanus, in his Dubitantius, and Prateolus, in
his Elenchus Hcereticorum, Lib. i x . c. 3 5 . A n d so much of Bel-
larmine's fourth argument.
N o w follows his FIFTH and last argument, which is taken from
the confession of protestants. Protestants themselves, says he,
confess this same thing, that there are many obscurities in scripture;
as Luther, Brentius, Chemnitz, and the centuriators. I a n s w e r : N o w
then they absolve us, and openly shew that they themselves are false
and slanderous. What now hath the Jesuit gotten, when through this
whole disputation of his he hath sought to prove and persuade us
by many arguments of that which we concede of our own accord,
and hath bestowed so much trouble upon refuting that which we,
for our parts, never defended ? When, therefore, they prove that
the difficulty of understanding scripture is great, they dispute not
against us, who confess that what they conclude from argument,
is affirmed and determined b y us already. What our adversaries
ought to have proved was, either that all was obscure, or so few
things plain in the scriptures, that the people ought not to meddle
with them.
Thus far then we have replied to the arguments of our ad-
versaries.
IV.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 381

CHAPTER IV.

THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR WRITERS ATTACKED BY BELLARMINE ARE

DEFENDED.

N o w follow the arguments upon our side. W e shall use in this

place those very arguments which Luther and Brentius formerly
used against the papists, and to which our Jesuit endeavours to
reply. T h e y are nine in number, to which we will add t h r e e ; and
so this whole cause will be concluded in twelve arguments.
W e have explained the state of the question above, and have
shewn what the papists and we hold respectively. Our opinion
is, that the scriptures are not so difficult, but that those who read
them attentively may receive from thence advantage and the
greatest edification, even laymen, plebeians and the common mass
of mankind. This we establish b y the following arguments, whereof
the FIRST is taken from Deut. xxx. 1 1 , where we read it thus written:
" This commandment which I command thee this day is not hidden
from thee, nor far from t h e e : It is not in heaven, that thou
shouldest say, W h o shall ascend for us into heaven, and take it for
us, and tell it unto us that we may do it ? Neither is it beyond
the sea, that thou shouldest say, W h o shall pass over for us beyond
the sea, and take it for us, and tell it unto us that we may do it ?
But this word is very nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart,
that thou mayest do it." From which words it is evident that the
scriptures may be easily understood. The Jesuit alleges a two-fold
answer.
First, he says that the ancients interpret this place, not of
the facility of understanding the commandments of God, but of
the facility of fulfilling t h e m ; and he brings Tertullian, contra
Marcion. Lib. iv. Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Comment, in 1 0
R o m . as testimonies; and he says that thus this place makes
against the Lutherans, who deny that the law of God can be ful-
filled. I answer, first, that it belongs to our purpose now to
dispute of the meaning of this place, and inquire how it is used b y
the apostle in the 10th chapter of the Romans. W e have only to
see whether it can be concluded from this place that the scripture
is e a s y : which indeed is plain from the words themselves; first,
because it says, that " the commandment is not h i d d e n ; " next, b e -
cause it says that there is no need that any one should " a s c e n d
into heaven and declare it unto us, or that we should pass over
the sea " and seek it in foreign regions : whereby the sacred writer
382 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH,

takes away the excuses which men are wont to m a k e ; and concludes
that this word is near, in the mouth and in the h e a r t : therefore,
it was not unknown. Thus the meaning is, that the will of God
was so opened to them in the scriptures, that they could not be
ignorant of it, or allege any excuse of ignorance. Secondly, if that
be true which these fathers say, then that which we contend for
must so much the rather be conceded. F o r if the commandments
of God can be easily obeyed, then certainly they can more easily
be understood. F o r it is much more easy to understand God's
precepts than to fulfil t h e m ; and one cannot possibly do that which
he does not understand. But the true meaning of the place is, that
the will of God is plainly revealed to us in the scriptures. Thirdly,
the Lutherans truly deny that the law of God can be fulfilled b y
u s : nor is it they only that deny this, but those very fathers also
whom Bellarmine alleges, as shall appear afterwards when we come
to that controversy.
T h e Jesuit's second answer (for he distrusts the former one)
is this, that those words are to b e understood of the facility of
understanding the decalogue only, not the whole scripture: for
that the decalogue may be easily understood, since the precepts
of the decalogue are natural laws, and those Jews could easily
know them who had heard them explained b y Moses. I answer:
I t is certain that Moses is there speaking of the whole will of
God, which is declared in the whole of the word and scriptures,
and so that this place relates to the entire scripture. F o r he care-
fully exhorts the people to walk in all the ways of the L o r d , and
keep all his precepts, ceremonies and judgments. A n d , in order
that these might be the better understood, the monuments of scrip-
ture are delivered b y Moses, as we find in chap. xxxi. 9. But let
us take what he gives. F o r , if he concede the Decalogue to be
plain and clear, it will follow that the historic and prophetic books
are still more easy; which are, for the most part, a sort of commen-
tary upon the Decalogue, and contain in them a plainer and fuller
exposition of its meaning. T h e Decalogue is everywhere repeated,
inculcated, explained in the other books of scripture. N o w no one
will say that the text is more easy than the commentary. But that
Moses does not speak only of the Decalogue is clear from the p r e -
ceding verse, and from Augustine, Qusest. 5 4 in Deut. and D e L y r a
upon the place, and Hieronymus ab Oleastro, a papist himself, who
says, in his commentary on these words, that Moses speaks of " the
whole l a w , " and then subjoins, " that we should be very grateful to
God for making those things which are necessary to salvation easy,
IV.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 383

and reducing them to a small n u m b e r : " and in what sense he calls

them easy, he shews before, where he says, " t h a t the command-
ments of God are not difficult and hidden, but easy to be understood,
said, and done." There is no reason w h y I should make any larger
defence or discourse upon our first argument.
Our SECOND argument is to this effect: In Ps. xix. 9, the w o r d
of G o d is called clear ; and Ps. cxix. 1 0 5 , it is called a lamp to our
feet, and a light to our p a t h s ; and Proverbs vi. 2 2 , Solomon says,
" T h e commandment is a lamp, and the law is light." F r o m these
and similar places it is evident, that the word is not so obscure as
to be unintelligible, but perspicuous and plain. T h e Jesuit's answer
to this argument is twofold. First, he says that this is to be un-
derstood of the Lord's precepts, not of the whole scripture. I
answer, this is manifestly false: for, in Ps. cxix, the prophet David
praises the whole word of God at great length, and prays of God
that he may understand it all, not merely some part of i t ; and in
Ps. xix, he speaks of those two things which manifest and declare
G o d to us, and b y which men attain to a knowledge of G o d , the
creatures and the word of God, which latter is there described b y
him under many titles. F o r it is called the Law or Doctrine of
the Lord, the Testimony of the Lord, the Statutes of the Lord,
the Precepts of the Lord, the Fear of the Lord, b y a metonymy,
because it teaches the fear and reverence of the L o r d ; and this
doctrine he declares to be sound and perfect, and to give wisdom
to the simple. H e therefore did not mean any part, but the whole
scripture, the teacher of true and perfect wisdom. Genebrard, upon
Ps. xvhi, testifies that some interpret the place of the whole scrip-
ture ; nor is he speaking of our writers, but either of his own or of
ancient ones. Indeed, Jerome is plainly of that opinion, and L y r a
and many others. N o w the third place is likewise to be understood
of the whole doctrine of scripture, which the wise prophet calls a
lamp and a light. Secondly, the Jesuit says, that, if these places
be understood of the whole scripture, then the scripture is called
clear and a lamp, not because it is easy to be understood, but
because it illuminates men when it is understood. I answer, and
affirm, that it is therefore called a lamp, because it hath in itself a
light and brightness wherewith it illuminates others, unless they be
absolutely blind, or wilfully turn away their eyes from this light.
A candle is not kindled that it should be set under a bushel, but
that it should shine on all who are in the house. T h e same is the
case of the word of God. Ambrose, in his fourteenth discourse
384 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

upon Ps. cxviii, writes thus upon this subject: " Our mouth is fed
b y the word, when we speak the commandments of the word of
G o d : our inward e y e also is fed b y the light of the spiritual lamp,
which shines before us in the night of this world, lest, as walking in
darkness, we should stumble with uncertain steps, and be unable to
find the true w a y . " 1
A n d Augustine, Concio 23 in P s . cxviii. hath
these words : " T h e saying, * T h y word is a lamp to m y feet and
a light to m y paths,' denotes the word which is contained in all the
holy scriptures ." 2
This entirely overturns the Jesuit's first reply,
wherein he determines that this place and others like it are not to
be understood of the whole scripture, but only of the precepts of
the Lord; for Augustine expressly expounds it of the whole
scripture. T h e comparison, therefore, of scripture to a lamp is to
be understood to mean that we are thereby illuminated, who by
nature are plunged in utter darkness, and see and understand
nothing of what is pleasing to G o d . A lamp hath light in itself,
whether men look upon that light or n o t : so also the scripture is
clear and perspicuous, whether men be illuminated b y it, or receive
from it no light whatever. As to what Bellarmine says,—that the
scripture gives light when understood,—it is most certain; for it
can give no fight otherwise. But we affirm that it may be under-
stood b y all who desire to know it, and bestow the pains they
o u g h t ; even as a lamp may be seen b y all who choose to open
their eyes. Then the scripture is called lucid, not only because it
hath light in itself, but because it illuminates us, dispels the
darkness of our minds, and brings us new light, which is what no
lamps can do. F o r a lamp is beheld b y those who have e y e s ; but
to those who are blind no lamp shews light. But the scripture is
so full of divine light as to dispel our blindness with its rays, and
make us who before saw nothing in this light to see light. There-
fore, Ps. cxix. 1 3 0 , it is said to illuminate, or bring light to babes.
Our THIRD argument is taken from Matthew v. 1 4 , where Christ
thus addresses his apostles: "Ye are the light of the world."
Therefore, the apostolic doctrine, and consequently the scripture,

f 1
P a s c i t u r e n i m os n o s t r u m v e r b o , c u m l o q u i m u r m a n d a t a D e i verbi.
P a s c i t u r et oculus noster interior l u c e m s e spiritalis l u m i n e , quaa nobis in h a c
m u n d i n o c t e prselucet: n e sicut in tenebris a m b u l a n t e s , incertis t i t u b e m u s
vestigiis, e t v i a m v e r a m invenire n e q u e a m u s . — § 5 . T . i v . p. 2 8 8 , e d . Caillau.
Paris. 1 8 3 6 . ]
[ 2
Q u o d ait, L u c e r n a , etc v e r b u m est q u o d script uris Sanctis o m -
nibus c o n t i n e t u r . — O p p . T . vi. p . 7 0 5 . ]
IV.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 385

hath light in. itself. So Brentius argues against Soto, and not ill.
T h e Jesuit answers first, that this is not spoken of the light of
doctrine or of the scriptures, but is to be understood of the light of
example and probity of life; and that therefore there is subjoined a
little after, " Let your light so shine before men that they may see
your good w o r k s , " &c. I answer, and confess that these words
may be understood of the light of conduct: but I say besides, that
they ought to be understood also of the light of doctrine. And this
is manifest from the circumstance that the apostles are, in the same
place, compared to salt, in respect of their doctrine and preaching.
As the doctrine of the apostles was the salt of the world, so was it
also the light of the world. A n d whereas the Jesuit objects the en-
suing words, " Let your light so shine," & c , I say that those words
also ought principally to be understood of the light of doctrine,
inasmuch as doctrine is the principal work and fruit of an apostle.
A n d so indeed b y the fruit of heretics or false apostles, Matth. vii.
2 0 , their false doctrine and heretical preaching is signified. And in
this manner some of the fathers also expound this place.
Secondly, the Jesuit admits that these words may also be un-
derstood of the preaching and doctrine of the apostles, but that this
is there called light, as he before observed that the word was called
a lamp, not because it is easily understood, but because, when un-
derstood, it illuminates the mind and instructs us upon the sublimest
subjects. I answer, that nothing can be more futile than this reply.
A s if forsooth the sun had no light in itself, unless blind men could
see it. F o r scripture in this matter is like the sun, because it
illuminates with that light which it hath in itself all but those who
are either blind, or do not choose to turn their eyes towards it.
Hosius, however, gives another answer, in his 3rd book against the
Prolegomena of Brentius , namely, that the preaching of the
3

apostles was plain and luminous, but that the scripture is not
equally plain; that they preached plainly, but that their writings
are more obscure. A n d he uses a comparison to illustrate this :
for the orations of Demosthenes now written are much more
difficult to be understood than when they were delivered, because
many things in them are not now apparent which were then
manifest; so as that it may be truly said that a great part of
Demosthenes is lacking in the orations of Demosthenes: and the
case is the same, he says, with the apostolic writings. N o w , as to
the solution of this argument, I wish to know, in the first place,
[ s
Opp. L u i d . 1563. p. 550.]

r i 2 5

I WIIITAKER. I
386 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

w h y the Jesuit, who doubtless had it before him, did not choose to
make use of it ? It is probable that the cardinal's reply seemed
weak to that acute polemic, and that he therefore chose to g o in
quest of another. However, I answer t h u s : although the living
voice of the apostles, when they preached, had more force in it to
move the passions of m e n ; nevertheless, in regard of the sum of
evangelic doctrine, the same facility and perspicuity appears in
their writings. F o r if " the word of prophecy " be like a lamp,
that is, clear and plain, as Peter expressly affirms, 2 Pet. i. 1 9 ,
(where he understands the writings, not the preaching of the p r o -
phets, as we shall afterwards prove,) then certainly the apostolic
word must needs be still clearer and more illustrious. A n d hence
springs our next argument.
F o r thus we reason in the FOURTH p l a c e : It is written, 2 Pet.
i. 1 9 , " W e have a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto y e do well
that y e take heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the
day dawn and the day-spring arise in your hearts." The prophetic
scripture is like a lamp shining in a dark p l a c e ; therefore, it is
illustrious and clear. The Jesuit applies precisely the same answer
which he used before, namely, that the words of the prophets are
compared to a lamp, not because they are clear and plain and easy
to b e understood; but because then, when they are understood,
they give us light and shew us the way to Christ, who is the sun
of righteousness. I answer : it is nevertheless certain that scripture
is compared to a lamp, because it hath light and clearness in it,
which it also shews to men, unless they are either blind or turn
away their eyes from it, as was said before. F o r as the sun is
obscure to no one, nor a lamp when lit and set in the midst, save
to the blind and those who shut their e y e s ; so also is the scripture.
Here also the Jesuit hath departed from Hosius' answer, and made
use of another almost contrary to it, and far more futile. The
prophetic word illuminates us, and leads to Christ, the sun of right-
eousness, and is therefore called a l a m p : as if one used to kindle
a lamp in order to look upon the sun. Hosius says that it is called
a lamp, because there are many things in it clear, and because
what were formerly shadows and enigmas are now declared b y the
gospel. W h a t else is this but what we maintain, that there are
many things in scripture so clear that any one may understand
them ? Although, indeed, the apostle said that the scripture was
like a lamp, even then when those shadows were not entirely dis-
pelled ; for he mentions the -prophetic word. The cunning Jesuit
XV.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 387

saw that our cause was confirmed b y this answer : and therefore he
devised another, that it is called a lamp because it illuminates if it
be understood; although it be plain that it is called a lamp because
it shines brightly and speaks perspicuously, so as to b e capable of
being easily seen and understood: as if he were to say, it is not a
lamp, unless y o u see it shining; whereas it is a lamp, and shines,
whether y o u see it or will not see it. T h e apostle says that it
shines in a dark place: therefore it dispels the shades. So the
scripture dispels the darkness from our mind, b y propounding a
clear and luminous doctrine, which refutes our errors and shews to
us the certain paths of truth.
Our FIFTH argument is taken from the words of the apostle,
2 Cor. iv. 3, which are t h e s e : " I f our gospel be hid, it is hid to
them that are lost." Therefore the gospel is plain and manifest,
and, consequently, also the evangelic scripture, save only to those
who, with a blind impulse, rush headlong upon their own destruc-
tion. T h e Jesuit answers, that Paul in that place speaks not of
the knowledge and understanding of scripture, but of the knowledge
of Christ; and he says that this b o o k was closed to the people of
old, but is open to us. I answer, and say in the first place, that it
is evident from the second verse of the same chapter, that Paul
speaks of the knowledge of scripture, and therefore of the whole
doctrine of the gospel. F o r he says that he delivered to the
Corinthians the gospel most sincerely, without any deceit or false
colouring, fiy SoXovvres rov \oyov rod Qeov, and then presently
follow these w o r d s : " If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that
are l o s t ; " as if he had said, our doctrine and preaching was so full
and clear that none can fail to understand it, but those who choose
to perish and have minds averse to God. Besides, if he confess
that the knowledge of Christ is manifest in the scriptures, we desire
no m o r e : for this is as much as we require or contend for, that all
things necessary to salvation may be easily known from scripture.
F o r if we openly and easily know Christ from the scriptures, we
certainly understand from the scriptures all things necessary to
salvation. These men concede that Christ is openly set forth in
the scriptures: from which admission we shall easily prove that the
scriptures should be diligently read to the people, that they may
understand Christ from the scriptures; since they who have o b -
tained him, and learned him aright, want nothing for eternal salva-
tion. T h e fathers also interpret this place of the perspicuity of the
doctrine itself. Chrysostom, in his 8th Homily upon these words,

25—2
388 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [on.

says, that the apostles had nothing dark, aweo-KiaaLtevov, either in

their life, or in their doctrine and preaching, ev Tip Kripvyfj-ari.
Ambrose also understands these words of the whole gospel delivered
b y the apostles. So also CEcumenius; for he observes, that it is
as much as if the apostle had said : T h e fact that many believe not
comes not from our fault, or from the obscurity of the gospel, but
from this, that they are reprobate and unfaithful. Ouj^ tinwv
eyKArjua r\ aaa<pe'tas TOU evayyeXiov, aXXa Ttj? eiceivwv airwXeias
Kat TvcpXaoo-ewi. Theophylact also says upon this place, that the
light and brilliancy of the gospel is such as to dazzle the eyes of
the impious . Thomas Aquinas upon these words says, that the
1

cause w h y many understand it not is not in the gospel, but in the

malice and incredulity of men. Likewise also Cajetan and Catha-
rinus and other papists. Thus the confession of our adversaries
confirms our cause, that the evangelic scripture and doctrine is
clear in itself, obscure or unknown to none but those who are not
o f the number of the faithful. Therefore the whole cause of o b -
scurity or ignorance is not the difficulty of the things, but the
blindness and incredulity of men.
Our SIXTH argument is as follows: T h e sum of the whole scrip-
ture, which consists in the precepts of the Decalogue, the Creed, the
Lord's prayer and the sacraments, hath clear testimonies in the
scriptures: therefore the scriptures are clear. T h e Jesuit puts in
this conclusion,—therefore the whole scripture is manifest; and
denies the consequence. I reply, if b y the whole scripture he un-
derstands every several passage of scripture, we frame no such
argument; but if b y the whole scripture he means the sum of
doctrine necessary for any man's salvation, then we acknowledge
the argument, and say that the whole is clear. As to what he sub-
j o i n s , — t h a t , if the articles of faith were clear in scripture, then there
would not be so many controversies about them, and hence collects
that there are not such luminous testimonies to them in scripture;
I answer, that this is weak reasoning; because on these grounds
the scriptures would have nothing whatever certain, plain, or
evident. F o r there is nothing in scripture so plain that some men
have not doubted i t ; as, that G o d is Almighty, that he created
heaven and earth, that Christ was born of the Virgin M a r y , con-
ceived o f the H o l y Ghost, and so forth: these are indeed plainly
and openly set down in scripture, and y e t there are controversies
[1 mtnrep et ns oqbdaKfitavra riva anoKKela-eie rov fir) ras aKTivas TOC JJXIOU
loVir/, Iva fiff KCU jr/5oo-/3Xn/3f(>).—p. 355. Lond. 1636.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 389

about them. Things therefore are not presently obscure, concern-

ing which there are many controversies; because these so mani-
fold disputes arise rather from the perversity and curiosity of the
human mind, than from any real obscurity. T h e apostle says that
the minds of infidels are blinded b y the devil, lest they should see
that brilliant light and acquiesce in i t : which is most true of our
adversaries.
Our SEVENTH argument stands t h u s : There is this difference
between the new and the old Testaments, that the old Testament
is like a book closed and sealed, as we find in Isaiah xxix. 1 1 , but
the new Testament is like a book opened, as we read, Revel, v.
W e do not use this argument to prove that the whole scripture
was obscure and unknown to the old Jewish people, but to shew that
the knowledge of Christians is now much clearer than was formerly
that of the Jews. The Jesuit answers b y saying that this is true,
not of the whole scripture, but only of the mysteries of our r e -
demption which is wrought b y Christ. I answer, if he confess that
the scripture is like a book opened, so far as the mysteries of our
redemption are concerned, there is certainly no more that we
need to demand : for from this admission it will follow immediately
that all things necessary to salvation are plain in the scriptures;
which is the foundation of our defence. Surely he was overcome
and constrained b y the force of truth to publish this open and in-
genuous confession. But now, if the mysteries of our redemption
are clear in the scriptures, why should it not be lawful for the
people to read the scriptures and have them constantly in their
hands, so as to recognise the goodness of Christ, and understand
the plan of their redemption and salvation ? Jerome, in his Com-
mentary upon Ezekiel xliv. writes thus upon this subject: " Before
the Saviour assumed a human b o d y , and humbled himself to receive
the form of a servant, the law and the prophets and the whole
knowledge of scripture was closed up, Paradise was shut up. But
after that he hung upon the cross, and said to the thief, ' T o - d a y
shalt thou be with me in Paradise,' immediately the vail of the
temple was rent, and all things were set o p e n ; and, the covering
being removed, we can say, ' W e all with open face beholding the
glory of the Lord are changed into the same image from glory to
glory' ." 2
As to what the same Jerome writes elsewhere (namely,

[ Priusquam Salvator humanum corpus assumeret, et humiliaret se for-

2

mam servi accipiens, clausa erat Lex et Prophetse, et omnis scientia scriptu-
rarum, clausus erat Paradisus. Postquam autem ille pepondit in cruce, et
390 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

in his Epist. 1 3 , de Instit. Monach. to Paulinus), that a vail is placed

not upon the face of Moses only, but of the apostles and evangelists
a l s o ; he speaks there of the difficulty of believing without the H o l y
Spirit, but not of the difficulty of understanding, as is plain from
that same place. Let it suffice to have said so much upon our
seventh argument.
Our EIGHTH argument is to this effect: The fathers proved their
opinions out of the scriptures. Therefore the scriptures are clearer
than the writings and commentaries of the fathers : for no one proves
what is unknown b y what is still more unknown. Luther hath this
argument in the Preface of his Articles condemned b y L e o X . T h e
Jesuit answers, that the scriptures are indeed, in respect of their
truth, clearer and more open than the writings of the fathers, but
not in respect of the words. Which surely is a foolish answer: for
to say that the scriptures are clearer than the fathers in respect of
their truth, is nothing more than saying that they are truer. But
what sort of a distinction is this ? If the truth of scripture be
clearer, how can the words be more obscure ? F o r it is from the
words that the truth arises. If therefore he confess that the scrip-
tures are plainer than the commentaries of the fathers, in respect
of their truth, then he concedes that the truth is plainer in the
scriptures than in the writings of any father; which is sufficient.
A n d doubtless if we will compare the scripture with the writings of
the fathers, we shall generally find greater obscurity and difficulty
in the latter than in the former. There is no less perspicuity in
the Gospel of John or in the Epistles of Paul, than in Tertullian,
in Irenseus, in certain books of Origen and Jerome, and in some
other writings of the fathers. But in all the schoolmen there is such
obscurity as is nowhere found in scripture. " The words of scrip-
ture," says he, " are more obscure than the words of the fathers."
Even if there were some obscurity in the words of scripture greater
than in those of the fathers, it would not nevertheless be a just
consequence, that the scriptures were so obscure that they should
not be read b y the people. This should rather rouse men to an
attentive reading than deter them from reading altogether. Besides,
the scriptures speak of necessary things no less plainly than any
fathers, or even much more plainly, because the H o l y Spirit excels
in all powers of expression. W h e r e has Augustine or Chrysostom,
locutus est ad latronem, Hodie mecum eris in Paradiso, statim velum templi
scissum est, et aperta sunt omnia, ablatoque velamine dicimus, Nos omnes
revelata facie gloriam Dei contemplantes in eandem imaginem transforma-
mur, a gloria in gloriam Opp. T. v. p. 536.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 391

or any father, written more plainly that Christ hath delivered men
from their sins and from eternal punishment, than the evangelists,
than Paul, than Peter, than the rest of those whose ministry the
H o l y Ghost hath used in writing the scriptures ? Surely all neces-
sary things are so plainly set forth in the scripture, that he who
does not understand them in scripture will never he instructed b y
any commentaries of the fathers.
Now follows our NINTH argument, which is this: Formerly, in
the earliest times of the church, there were no commentaries upon
the scriptures extant, but the fathers read them without commen-
taries ; and yet, even then, the scriptures were understood: there-
fore they are plain and easy in themselves. This is also an
argument of Luther's. T h e Jesuit answers, that the first fathers
consulted the apostles themselves, and learned from them the sense
of scripture, and afterwards wrote commentaries. A n d he shews
out of Jerome, that commentaries on the Apocalypse were p u b -
lished from the very first b y Justin Martyr and Irenseus. I an-
s w e r : I t is certain that there was a time when the church both
read and understood the scriptures without commentaries. For
they can produce none before Origen, who published any commen-
taries upon the scriptures; and he lived two hundred years after
Christ. Therefore the church was all that time without commen-
taries. A s to his objection from Jerome's catalogue, article JO-
HANNES , that Justin and Irenseus wrote commentaries on the
1

Apocalypse, the statement is untrue. F o r Jerome does not affirm

this, but only says that they interpreted the Apocalypse. Perhaps,
therefore, they expounded some obscure places in the A p o c a l y p s e ;
but h o w correctly, appears from the circumstance of their establish-
ing the error of the Chiliasts b y the authority of this book. B u t
let us grant them to have written something upon this b o o k : will it
therefore follow that they published commentaries upon the whole
scripture? B y no means. Certainly the Apocalypse is a small
b o o k compared with the whole of scripture. Besides, the Jews
before Christ had no commentaries on the prophets, and yet they
understood them. T h e scriptures, therefore, are not so obscure as
the papists wish them to appear. W e confess, indeed, that we owe
a deep debt of gratitude to those who have written learned com-
mentaries, because b y their means we understand scripture with
increased facility; but y e t that the scriptures may be understood
without them, is clear from the fact that they were understood
t 1
Scripsit Apocalypsim, quam interpretantur Justinus Martyr et Irenseus.]
392 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

before any commentaries were published : and if at the present day

no commentaries remained, the scriptures would nevertheless be
understood.
These are the arguments of Luther and Brentius. W e will
now add three arguments of our o w n : whereof the first, which
shall count as the TENTH, is t h i s : If the scriptures be so obscure
and difficult to be understood, that they cannot be read with ad-
vantage b y the people, then this hath happened, either because the
H o l y Spirit could not write more plainly, or because he would not.
N o one will say that he could n o t : and that he would not, is
repugnant to the end of writing; because God willed that they
should be written and committed to letters for the very end, that
we should learn what was written, and thence derive a knowledge
of his will; as is plain from R o m . xv. 4, " Whatsoever things were
written, were written for our learning:" where Paul speaks not
only of the learned, but of the whole multitude of the faithful.
The scriptures, therefore, are clear. Besides, God does not mock
us when he bids us read the scriptures; but he would have us read
the scriptures in order that we may know and understand them.
Again, the scripture is called a rule, a standard, a mark, laid open
to the eyes of all: it is, therefore, of necessity easy and clear. Thus
then w e briefly conclude this argument. T h e H o l y Spirit willed
the scriptures to be consigned to writing in order that we might
understand t h e m ; and that this was the end which he proposed
there are many things in the scriptures themselves that testify:
therefore, they are so written as to be intelligible b y us, or else the
H o l y Spirit hath not gained his e n d ; which cannot b e thought
without impiety.
Our ELEVENTH argument is on this wise. There are two classes
of m e n , — t h e faithful, and the infidels. T o infidels everything is
obscure; for they understand nothing aright, but are involved in the
thickest darkness. But the faithful understand every thing, the
not understanding of which would involve the loss of true salvation:
they are ignorant of nothing necessary to salvation. So Christ,
John x. 2 7 , " M y sheep hear m y v o i c e ; " that is, they understand
it. So Jeremiah xxxi. 3 4 , " All shall know the Lord, from the
least to the greatest." So Christ says to his disciples, Luke viii.
1 0 , " T o y o u it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
G o d , " & c . So Paul, 1 Cor. ii., last verse, " W e have the mind of
Christ." T h e faithful, therefore, understand, acknowledge, approve
the scriptures. A n d the scriptures are such in themselves as b y
IV.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 393

their own light to turn the eyes of all towards them, and cause
themselves not only to be understood, but also to be received with
faith. F o r they not only have light in themselves, but they illu-
minate others also with their light. So the Apostle, 2 Cor. iv. 6,
attributes not only (pwg [light], but (pwTiaixos [illumination] also
to the scripture. So great, then, is the brightness of scripture,
that it opens even the eyes of us who are blind b y nature, and r e -
stores clear sight to us.
There remains now our LAST argument, which is founded in
human testimonies, that is, those of the fathers; which, although it
have no great force in itself, must y e t be o f great avail against our
adversaries, who studiously affect such arguments in every question.
First, Augustine upon Psal. viii. s a y s : " God hath made the scrip-
tures stoop to the capacity of babes and sucklings ." And, de Doctr.
1

Christ. Lib. ii. c. 6, he writes t h u s : " T h e Holy Spirit hath so

modified the scriptures, combining ornament with utility, as to
provide for our hunger in the easier places, and prevent satiety b y
the more obscure. F o r scarce anything can be gotten out of those
obscurities which may not be found spoken elsewhere with the
utmost plainness ." T h e Jesuit says that it is not for nothing that
2

Augustine added here the qualification fere; because, says he,

there are many things obscurely propounded in scripture, which are
nowhere explained in other places. I answer: Though I should
concede this, yet are these things such as may be unknown without
loss or danger of losing salvation. Meanwhile he gives no answer
to Augustine, who says in express words, that the H o l y Spirit hath
provided for our hunger in the plainer places; that is, that we can
draw and obtain from the open places of scripture what suffices to
dispel our hunger. But that hunger is not removed before we
thoroughly understand the things necessarily required for our sal-
vation. T h e same Augustine also, in his discourse of Blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit, says that " we are fed in the plain places of
scripture, and exercised in the obscure ones." Precisely to the same
effect, Tract. 4 4 . in J o h a n . : " H e feeds us with the clear, and e x -
ercises us with the h i d d e n . " Therefore those things which can feed
3

[! Inclinavit ergo scripturas Deus ad infantium et lactentium capacita-

t e m . — T . v. p. 54.]
[ 2
Magnifice et salubriter Spiritus Sanctus ita scripturas modificavit, ut
locis apertioribus fami occurreret, obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret.
Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur, quod non planissime dictum
alibi reperiatur.—T. in. p. 28.]
[ 3
Pascit manifestis, exercet occultis.]
394 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

us to life and salvation are set down plainly in the scriptures; and
those which are not so plain are y e t not such as to be unintelligible,
but to require greater diligence and industry. A n d , de Doctr.
Christ. Lib. ii. c. 9, he writes t h u s : " Amongst those things which
are clearly set down in scripture, are found all those which make
the sum of faith and practice, that is to say, hope and c h a r i t y . " 1

Wherein we may observe four things. First, what things are

necessary to salvation,—namely, a right faith and a pious life.
Secondly, whence these may be learned,—namely, from the scrip-
tures. Thirdly, If we ask whether all things requisite for these
two may be learned from the scripture, or only some ? Augustine
answers, that all things necessary both for a right faith and pious
life are delivered in scripture. Fourthly, I f we ask, whether they
are set down plainly or obscurely in scripture ? Augustine answers,
Plainly. W h a t could possibly be more clearly expressed ?
T h e same author, in his piece dePeccat. meritis et remissione,
L i b . II. c. 3 6 , discoursing of the generation of the soul and of other
sublime and difficult matters, observes: " Although I could not tell
concerning any of these how it could be demonstrated or explained,
y e t I believe that here also the authority of the divine oracles
would be most clear, if a man could not b e ignorant of them
without the loss of promised salvation ." 2
W h e r e he declares that
he does not doubt but that those points, which cannot b e unknown
without the loss of salvation, m a y be proved b y the clearest
authority of scripture. So constant is he to his principle, that all
things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in scripture. So
also in his B o o k de Utilitate credendi, c. 6, he writes thus of this
m a t t e r : " Trust me, what is in those scriptures is lofty and divine.
There is in them certainly truth, and instruction most suited to
refresh and restore the soul, and so modified as that no one shall be
unable to draw thence enough for himself, if he only approach to
draw with piety and devotion, as true religion d e m a n d s . " 3
If there

[! V i d e s u p r a . ]
[ 2
E t s i e n i m q u o d l i b e t riorum, q u e m a d m o d u m d e m o n s t r a r i e t explicari
possit, i g n o r e m , i l l u d t a m e n c r e d o , q u o d e t i a m h i n c d i v i n o r u m e l o q u i o r u m
clarissima auctoritas esset, si h o m o i l l u d sine dispendio promissse salutis i g n o -
rare non p o s s e t . — O p p . T . a n . p. 8 8 . ]
[ 3
Q u i d q u i d est ( m i h i c r e d e ) in scripturis istis, a l t u m e t d i v i n u m est.
I n e s t o m n i n o Veritas, et reficiendis instaurandisque animis a c c o m m o d a t i s s i m a
disciplina, e t p l a n e ita modiflcata, u t n e m o i n d e haurire n o n possit q u o d sibi
satis est, si m o d o a d h a u r i e n d u m d e v o t e ac p i e , ut vera religio poscit, a c -
c e d a t . — T . x. p. 63.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 395

be no one who cannot draw what is sufficient for him from the
scriptures, they are certainly impious who pluck and steal them
away from the people under the pretext of their being obscure and
difficult. W h y do they not permit men to draw their salvation from
the scriptures, but because they are enemies to men's salvation ?
A n d , in his fifth B o o k against Julian the Pelagian, c. 1 , he blames
that heretic for exaggerating the difficulty of the scriptures, and
saying that they were only suitable for the l e a r n e d : which Thesis
4

when our adversaries maintain, they resemble the heretical more

than the catholic doctors. Let these testimonies suffice from
Augustine.
W e bring forward Chrysostom in the second place, who hath
clear testimonies in our favour. H e , in his third Homily upon
Lazarus, compares the apostles with the philosophers, and says
that the philosophers wrote obscurely, but the prophets and apostles
so plainly, that any one may learn and understand them b y them-
selves. His words are t h e s e : " W h a t then, they say, if we do not
understand what is contained in books ? Y e t b y all means, although
thou understandest not what is hidden there, y e t great sanctity is
gained b y the very perusal of it. Although indeed it is impossible
that y o u should be equally ignorant of all. The grace of the
Spirit hath so disposed and arranged them, that publicans, fisher-
men, tent-makers, pastors and apostles, the ignorant and illiterate,
may be saved b y these books, lest any of the uninstructed should
fly to this excuse of difficulty; that the things spoken might be
easily discerned b y a l l ; that the craftsman, and the servant, and
the widow, and the most unlearned of men, might gain some benefit
and advantage from hearing them r e a d . " 6

Then he subjoins the comparison of the philosophers with the

prophets and apostles. " F o r not, like the Gentiles, for vain glory,
but for the salvation of their hearers, did they whom God from the
beginning deemed worthy of the grace of the H o l y Spirit, c o m -
pose all their works. T h e philosophers indeed, who are strangers
to God, the masters of speech, the orators and writers of books,
seeking not the common good, but aiming only at gaining admira-
tion for themselves, even when they said something useful, yet
even this an obscurity which they ever affected involved as in a
certain cloud of wisdom. But the apostles and prophets took the

[ 4
Exaggeras quam sit difficilis paucisque conveniens eruditis sanctarum
cognitio literarum.—Opp. Anti-Pelag. T. n. p. 241. Lovan. 1648.]
[6 Tom. I. pp. 737. 740. Paris. 1718. 38.]
396 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

contrary way, and exposed to all the clear and open declarations
which they made, as the common teachers of the world, so as that
every one, b y the mere perusal, might be enabled to understand
what was said." Thus Chrysostom. T h e Jesuit endeavours to
break the force of this testimony, and maintains that Chrysostom
said this in order to rouse many from their lethargy, and excite
them to read the scriptures, who could, if they chose, read them
with benefit and advantage. W h e r e he confesses that many can
read the scriptures with advantage; which is sufficient: for these
many are not only learned, but unlearned a l s o ; since it is plain
enough that Chrysostom speaks not merely of the learned, but
of the unlearned a l s o : otherwise his comparison would be utterly
inept and improper, because even the philosophers themselves were
intelligible to the learned. Chrysostom says that the scriptures are
plainer than the books of the philosophers; therefore, the scriptures
may be read with benefit even b y the unlearned. As to what
Chrysostom advises in the same place,—that we should go fre-
quently over the obscure passages, and, if we cannot even so
understand what is said, then repair to some learned men and
consult them,—this we also willingly concede, and earnestly a p -
prove, and consider ourselves very fortunate if b y any means, after
frequent reading and long meditation, we can obtain a knowledge of
those matters. However, the same father elsewhere asserts that all
things necessary to salvation are plain and manifest in the scrip-
tures ; for thus he writes in his 3rd Homily upon 2 Thessalonians:
" A l l things are clear and plain in the divine scriptures ." 1
And
because this might seem a paradox, he afterwards explains himself
b y saying, iravTo. TO. dvayKciia, " a l l necessary things are clear
and plain;" so that we have no need of homilies and sermons, e x -
cept Sid Ttjv padvfx'iav VLIWV, that is, on account of our own sloth
and negligence. And he removes that objection which the people are
wont to make : " But, you will say, I know not what is set down in
the divine scriptures. But w h y ? A r e they in Hebrew, or Latin, or
any foreign language ? A r e they not spoken in Greek ? Yes, y o u
say, but obscurely. Tell me, I beseech y o u , what is that obscu-
rity?" T h e Jesuit answers, that he is speaking only of the histo-
rical b o o k s ; which is false: for he says of all things necessary
to salvation, iravra Sf/Xa, aacpr/, evOea, " they are all manifest,

[} Havra cra(prj KCU eiQea TO. wapa rats delais ypcupais- iravra ra avaynaia
8?j\a.—T. XI. p. 528.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 397

clear, easy," which are contained not only in the historical, but also
in the other books and parts of scriptures. The same father writes
thus in the Prologue to the epistle to the R o m a n s : " Wherefore, if
y e also will resolve to bestow a studious and diligent perusal upon
this piece, there will be nothing more required b y y o u , ov&evos
erepou Serjo-eaOe, for true is the word of Christ, who says, ' Seek
and y e shall find; knock and it shall be opened to y o u ' . "
And, whereas some suppose the reading of the scriptures to be per-
nicious to the people, Chrysostom in the same place removes this scruple
also, and says that this knowledge is highly necessary for all, and
removes infinite e v i l s ; but that ignorance of the scriptures is the
mother of all errors and heresies. F o r thus he writes : evrevOev TO
fxvpla ecpv KOKOI, o V o TCOV ypacpiov ayvoias. " Hence have sprung
infinite evils, that is, from very ignorance of the sacred scriptures;
hence hath grown the prevailing pest of heresies; hence in many
the neglect of life, hence useless and unprofitable labours. F o r even
as those who are deprived of the use of the light of this world
can never g o straight; so they who do not turn their eyes to the
rays of the scriptures of God, do of necessity run frequently into
many errors, just as if they walked in darkness replete with perils."
The same author, in his first Homily upon John, writes t h u s :
" Therefore he (John) covered not his doctrine in mist and darkness,
as they (the philosophers) shrouded their perverse opinions in obscu-
rity as in a vail. But his doctrine is clearer and more lucid than
the rays of the sun, and therefore propagated to all men." And,
in his first Homily upon Matthew, he says, that " the scriptures are
easily intelligible and plain even to the slave, the rustic, the widow,
the child, and the man of weakest intellect." What class of men,
therefore, is there to whom the scriptures are so difficult as our ad-
versaries slanderously pretend. Slaves, rustics, women, boys, and
people of the meanest understanding, may be engaged with ad-
vantage in the perusal of them. Therefore the scriptures have
great perspicuity and facility, and should not be taken away from
the people on the pretext of their obscurity.
Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with T r y p h o the Jew, when
employed in proving the Deity of Christ, thus addresses those with
whom he held the conference: " Attend to those things which I
shall quote from the sacred scriptures, and which are such as to
need merely a hearing, and not any exposition ." W h e r e he says
2

that the scriptures are so easy that he who hears them merely, im-
[2 P a g . 2 7 4 , E. Paris. 1 6 3 6 . ]
398 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

mediately understands them. F o r the Greek words shew that this

is affirmed of the scriptures themselves, not merely of those matters
which he mentioned out of the scriptures: Trpoae^ere oh fieXXoo
avaLLiixvqaKeiv aVo TWV ayiwv ypctfpuiv, ov$e e^tjynOijvai tieoneuuiv,
aXXa ILOVOV aKouaOrjvai. Irenaeus, L i b . m . 1 5 , affirms the d o c -
trine of the apostles to be "manifest and firm, keeping nothing
back ." 1
Thus it is both perspicuous and perfect. Clemens A l e x -
andrinus, in his TrpoTpeirriKos Xoyos, or exhortation to the Gentiles,
writes t h u s : " Hear y e that are far off, hear also y e that are nigh.
T h e word is concealed from n o n e ; the light is common, it beams
on all m e n ; there is nothing Cimmerian in the word. L e t us haste
to salvation, to regeneration ." 2
Jerome, in his Commentary upon
Psalm lxxxvi., compares the apostles and prophets with the philoso-
phers, as Chrysostom did above, and says that Plato wrote for few,
because scarcely three men understood h i m ; but the apostles and
prophets, whom he there calls the princes of the church and the
princes of Christ, " wrote not for a few, but for the whole people,
that all might understand." Ambrose, in his seventh epistle, at the
beginning, says that Paul so explains himself in most of his dis-
courses, that he who treats of him finds nothing to a d d ; " and, if he
would say something, must discharge the office of a grammarian
rather than of a r e a s o n e r . " 3

Basil, in his shorter definitions, Quaest. 4 5 , where he handles

the question,—If a man, having heard the Lord (who had said,
" T h e servant that knew his Lord's will and did it not, neither p r e -
pared himself to do his will, shall be beaten with many stripes; but
he who knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall b e beaten
with few stripes,") should on that account studiously neglect the
knowledge of the divine will, hath he any comfort ? — d e c l a r e s it evi-
dent, that he who is such, falsely pretends ignorance, and inevitably
incurs judgment for his sin. F o r , saith the L o r d , " i f I had not
come among them and spoken to them, they had not had s i n ; but
now they have no cloak for their sin." Then he subjoins what makes

[ x
I g i t u r testiflcatio ejus [Lucaa] vera, e t doctrina A p o s t o l o r u m m a n i f e s t a
e t flrma, e t nihil s u b t r a h e n s . — P a g . 2 7 3 , B. P a r i s . 1 6 7 5 . ]
[ 2
'AKOUCTUTE OZV oi paxpav, aKoio-arf oi cyyvs- OVK cnreKpvfir] rivas 6 Xoyoy
(pas e o n KOLVOV, emXapnet TtarTtv dvBpcoTrois' ovdeis Titppepios iv Xoyop. aney-
aaptv (Is o-arriplau, ENI Ttjv Trakiyyeveo-tav.—'p. 5 6 , D. P a r i s . 1 6 2 9 . ]
[ 3
I n plerisque ita se ipse suis exponit s e r m o n i b u s , u t is q u i tractat n i h i l
inveniat q u o d adjiciat s u u m ; a c si velit aliquid dicere, g r a m m a t i c i m a g i s q u a m
disputatoris fungatur m u n e r e . — E p . 3 7 . (class. l . ) T . v i n . p . 4 4 8 . P a r i s . 1 8 3 9 . ]
IV.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 399

for us in this c o n t r o v e r s y : TTJS dylas ypa<pt}s iravTayov iracri TO

Qekrifia rod Qeou SiayyeWovaris*. " T h e sacred scripture every
where declares to us the will of G o d . Therefore he w h o is such will
not b e condemned with a lesser judgment along with those who
are in ignorance, but with a severer, with those of whom it is
written, ' T h e y are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ears, lest
she should hear the voice of the charmers and the enchanter, while
she is skilfully charmed b y h i m ' . " T h e same author, in the begin-
ning of his Commentary upon the Psalms, observes : " F r o m scrip-
ture, as from a common repository of drugs to heal our souls, ev
KULVIO TOJV yj/u^wv 'lai-pe'up, every man may choose a remedy suited
to his complaint, each may be his own physician." Epiphanius,
Hceres. 6 9 , s a y s : " All things are clear and full of light in the
divine scripture ," &c. 5
A n d Hcer. 7 6 , " All things are clear in
the divine scriptures to those who will approach with pious reason-
ing to the divine w o r d : " iravra cra(prj ev TY\ de'iq ypa<prj TOIS

fiovXofxevois evoefiel Xoyicrnij) irpocrep-^eaOai T<J5 t9e/ff> \oya> . 6

Cyril of Alexandria, in his seventh B o o k against Julian, a n -

swering an objection from the simplicity of the scriptures, says
that they were so written purposely, in order that they might be
known and understood b y every one. His words are these : " B u t
some one will say, that the divine scripture hath a style and
diction common to all, vulgar and t r i t e ; whereas the things of the
Greeks are expressed elegantly, and abound in grace and eloquence.
We say, therefore, that the prophetical and Mosaic books are
expressed in the Hebrew language; and, in order that they
might b e known to all, small and great, are usefully committed to a
familiar diction, so as to transcend no man's c a p a c i t y . " 7
T h e same
father also, in his ninth book against the same antagonist, says that
nothing in the scriptures is difficult to those who use them as they
o u g h t ; but that every sentence in them is inaccessible to Julian
and such as he.

[> Basil. Opp. T. n. p. 542, A.B. 1618.]

[5 £, T v prjrav iravrg cv UvevpaTi 'Ayla KaTqvyatrpevav.—T. I. p. 763. ed.
Petav.]
[6 Ibid. p. 920, A . ]
[ 7
Sed dicet aliquis quod divina scriptura communem omnibus et vulga-
rem ac protritam habet dictionem, res autem Graecorum diserte dicuntur, et
abundant gratia et eloquentia. Dicimus igitur, quod lingua quidem Hebraeo-
rum Prophetica dicta sunt et Mosaica: ut autem omnibus essent notae par-
vis et magnis, utiliter familiari sermone commendatae sunt, ita ut nulUus
captum transcendant.—col. 160. Basil. 1569.]
400 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Fulgentius, in his discourse concerning the confessors, writes

thus upon this subject: " In which commandments (that is, the
divine), as in most rich viands, the spiritual abundance of heavenly-
dainties is so exuberant, that there is in the word of God plenty
for the perfect to eat, and plenty also for the babe to suck. For
there is both the milk of the suckling, whereby the tender infancy
of the faithful may be nourished, and the solid food whereby the
robust youth of the perfect may gain spiritual increase of holy
vigour. There provision is made universally for the salvation of
all whom the Lord designs to save. There is what suits every a g e ;
there is what fits every profession. There we hear the precepts
which we should perform : there we know the rewards we are to
hope for. There is the command which teaches b y the letter, and
instructs us unto k n o w l e d g e : there the promise which draws us
b y grace, and leads us to g l o r y . " G r e g o r y the great, in the
1

epistle to Leander, which may be found at the end of the works

of Gregory, compares the scripture to a river, in which " the ele-
phant may swim, and yet the lamb may walk."
Bernard, in his discourse upon those words of Wisdom, " The
Lord hath led the just b y straight paths," writes in this m a n n e r :
" T h e ways of the Lord are right ways, fair ways, full ways, plain
w a y s : right, without error, because they lead to l i f e ; fair, with-
out soil, because they teach p u r i t y ; full in multitude, because the
whole world is now within the net of Christ; plain, without diffi-
culty, because they freely bestow sweetness ." 2

The same may be proved even from the papists themselves. F o r

Andradius,in his second book of orthodox explications, says that those
things which are the chief heads of faith are to be held explicitly even
b y the ignorant people; and that there is no degree of rudeness so

f 1
I n quibus denuo mandatis, t a n q u a m ditissimis ferculis, sic coelcstium
deliciarum copia spiritalis exuberat, u t in v e r b o D e i a b u n d e t q u o d perfectus
comedat; a b u n d e t etiam q u o d parvulus sugat. I b i est enim simul et lacteus
potus, quo tenera fidelium nutriatur infantia, et solidus cibus quo robusta
porfectorum juventus spiritualia sancta? virtutis accipiat incrementa. Ibi
prorsus ad salutem consulitur universis quos D o m i n u s salvare dignatur. Ibi
est quod o m n i setati c o n g r u a t : ibi quod o m n i professioni conveniat, etc.—
p. 649. Antwerp. 1574.]
[ 2
Via? D o m i n i via? recta?, vise pulchra?, via? plena?, via plana?: recta? sine
errore, quia d u c u n t ad v i t a m ; pulchra? sine sorde, quia d o c e n t munditiam;
plena? multitudine, quia totus j a m m u n d u s est intra Christi s a g e n a m ; plana?
sine difficultate, quia donant s u a v i t a t e m . — S e r m o n e s de D i v e r s . S e r m . xx. 1.
B e r n a r d . O p p . T . TIT. p. 4 1 . Paris. 1835.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 401

great as to exempt an ignorance of these from crime, though it suffice

to hold the rest implicitly. Therefore the chief heads of faith,
even according to Andradius, are plainly proposed in scripture, and
none ought to be ignorant of them, however rude and unlearned.
Catharinus, in his commentary on 2 Tim. iii. says, that to him who
hath faith the scriptures " make themselves easy, as much as may
be, and familiar to be understood." Likewise Sixtus Senensis,
Biblioth. Lib. 6, Annotat. 1 5 1 , distributes the scriptures into two
classes, one of which he allows to be " plain and clear, as con-
taining the first and highest principles of what should be believed,
and the chief precepts of g o o d morals, and easy examples; of which
kind are the moral sentences, and some of the sacred narratives,
useful for moulding our manners ." Thus our opponents confess
3

that those things are plain in scripture, which contain the chief
heads of faith, and precepts and examples of practice. W e accept
this admission; nor did we ever think or write that every thing
was plain in scripture. F o r it is sufficient for the people to learn
from the scriptures those chief principles of faith, which are neces-
sary for every man's salvation, and imitate the precepts and exam-
ples of a life becoming Christians, which occur everywhere in the
sacred pages. F o r we do not say that the scriptures are simply or
universally plain, but in the chief and most necessary things, so as
to be capable of being read with benefit b y the people. Our
adversaries allow that the scriptures are clear in those things
which are the chief and highest principles of faith or ele-
ments of virtue, and yet do not permit the people to read the
scriptures. What can be more iniquitous ? Indeed all the papists
in their books, when they seek to prove any thing, boast every-
where that they can bring arguments against us from the most
luminous, plain, clear and manifest testimonies of scripture: there-
fore, there are many very clear passages in scripture. F o r in
every dispute their common phrases a r e , — T h i s is c l e a r , — T h i s is
plain,—This is manifest in the scriptures, and such like. Surely
when they speak thus, they ignorantly and unawares confess the
perspicuity of the scriptures even in the greatest questions and con-
troversies. And so far of the fourth question.

[ 3
U t p o t e quae p r i m a s u m m a q u e r e r u m e r c d e n d a r u m principia, ac pra?ci-
p u a b e n e vivendi p r a c e p t a et e x e m p l o cognitu facilia complectantur, ut sir
morales sentential, et sacra? qua?dam historia? f o r m a n d i s moribus utiles.]

26
[WIHTAKER]
 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

QUESTION V.

C O N C E R N I N G T H E I N T E R P R E T A T I O N OF SCRIPTURE.

CHAPTER I.

THE STATE OE THE QUESTION.

IT is written, John v. 3 9 , ' Epevvdre r a s ypcKpds, " Search

the scriptures." Christ our Saviour said this to excite the Jews,
and all of us also, to investigate the true sense of scripture. For
the scripture consists not in the bare words, but in the sense, inter-
pretation, and meaning of the words. This is plain from Basil, in
his second b o o k against Eunomius, where he says, that " piety is
not in the sound of the air, but in the force and meaning of the
things d e n o t e d . " The same appears also from Jerome's commentary
1

upon the first chapter of the Galatians, where he writes t h u s :

" Let us not think that the Gospel is in the words of scripture,
but in the sense; not on the surface, but in the marrow ; not in the
leaves of speech, but in the root of r e a s o n . " Since scripture there-
2

fore is concerned not merely with the words, but the true sense of
the words, which we may rightly call the v e r y life and soul of
scripture; it is plain that this precept of Christ, wherein he bids
us " s e a r c h the scriptures," is to be understood of the sense and
meaning of the scriptures, and not of the bare words alone.
Hence arises this question, concerning which we dispute, with the
p a p i s t s , — W h e n c e the true interpretation of scripture is to be
sought ? Here we must seek first the state of the question; and
then come to the arguments on both sides. T h e Tridentine fa-
thers, in their fourth session, command that no one shall dare
to interpret holy scripture contrary to that sense which holy

l I cannot find this in the place specified; and suppose there is a mistake
l

in the reference.]
[ N e putemus in verbis scripturarum esse evangelium, sed in sensu; non
2

in superficie, sed in medulla; non in sermonum foliis, sed in radice rationis.

— T . VII. p. 386.]
 QUESTION THE FIFTH. 403

mother church hath held, and holds, to whom (as they say) it
belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of scripture;
or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers. T h e y seem,
therefore, to determine that the interpretation of scripture is the
privilege of the church, and that that is the true one which agrees
with the fathers. But still the matter is left in doubt. F o r we
inquire further, what is this c h u r c h ; and who are these fathers ?
W e must, therefore, consult other papists in order to gain a full
and perfect knowledge of the true state of the question. I mean
to follow in this matter especially the Jesuit Bellarmine and Sta-
p l e t o n : and I will divide the whole course of this question into
two parts, treating, first, of the authority and supreme tribunal
for interpreting scripture, with whom it is l o d g e d ; next, of the
means to be used in the interpretation of scripture. But first we
must premise something in the way of prolegomena, which are
of great importance to the understanding of the question.

C H A P T E R II.
OF CERTAIN PRELIMINARIES, NECESSARY FOR UNDERSTANDING
THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.
OUR FIRST preliminary observation shall be upon the number of
the senses of scripture, which the fathers determine to be various ;
that is, the historical, which they have styled also the grammatical
or literal sense, the œtiological, the analogical, and the allegorical.
Upon this fourfold interpretation of scripture consult Augustine, de
Utilitate Credendi, c. 3 : where he says that it is the historic sense,
when we are told what was done, and what not done ; that scripture
is expounded serologically, when it is shewn w h y any thing was
done or said ; analogically, when the agreement of both Testaments
is explained ; allegorically, when we are taught that some things
which are written are not to be taken in the letter, but understood
figuratively. Others, however, enumerate other kinds of mystical
senses, as the tropological, the allegorical, and anagogic ; of which
we read a great deal in Origen and the rest. The Jesuit divides
all these senses into two species; the historic or literal, and the
mystic or spiritual. H e defines the historic or literal, as that which
the words present immediately ; and the mystic or spiritual, that
which is referred to something besides what the words express ;
and this he says is cither tropological, or anagogic, or allegorical.
2 6 — 2
 404 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Thomas Aquinas, in the first part of his Sum. Quaast. i. Art. 1 0 ,

says out of Gregory, Moral. Lib. x x . c. 1, that it is the peculiar
property of scripture, and of no other authors, that not only the
words, but the things also, have a signification ; and this he says is
denoted b y that book mentioned Ezek. ii. 1 0 , and Revel, v. 1,
which was " written within and without." T h e words of G r e g o r y
cited b y Thomas are these : " T h e sacred scripture transcends
other sciences in the very manner of its expression, since in one
and the same discourse it discloses a mystery while it narrates an
event ." 1
Nazianzen compares the literal sense to the b o d y , the
mystical and spiritual to the soul. The Jesuit uses a different
simile : " A s , " says he, " the begotten W o r d of God hath two
natures, the one human and visible, the other divine and invisible ;
so the written word of God hath a two-fold sense : the one outward,
that is, historic or literal ; the other, inward, that is, mystic or
spiritual." Then he determines that this spiritual sense is three-
fold, allegorical, anagogic, and tropological, as we have said before
that others had determined also. These things we do not wholly
r e j e c t : w e concede such things as allegory, anagoge, and tropo-
l o g y in scripture ; but meanwhile we deny that there are many
and various senses. W e affirm that there is but one true, proper
and genuine sense of scripture, arising from the words rightly un-
derstood, which we call the literal : and we contend that allegories,
tropologies, and anagoges are not various senses, but various collec-
tions from one sense, or various applications and accommodations
of that one meaning.
N o w the Jesuit's assertion, that the literal sense is that which
the words immediately present, is not true. F o r then what, I
beseech y o u , will b e the literal sense of these words, Ps. xci. 1 3 ,
" Thou shalt g o upon the adder and the basilisk ; the lion and the
dragon shalt thou trample under foot ? " F o r if that be the literal
sense of these words, which the words immediately present, let
them shew us the lion on which Christ trampled, the adder or
basilisk on which he walked. Either, therefore, the literal sense 13
not that which the words immediately present, as the Jesuit main-
tains; or these words have no literal sense, which he dares not
affirm. For they say that all the senses mentioned above are to
be found in every passage of scripture. Besides, what will they

f 1
Sacra scriptura reliqua's scientias ipso locutionis suœ m o r e transcendit,
quia u n o e o d e m q u e s e r m o n e , d u m g e s t u m narrât, prodit m y s t e r i u m . — p . 4 .
Par. 1639.]
II.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 405

make the literal sense of Isaiah xi. 6, 7, 8, and lxv. last v e r s e ?

where the prophet says that " the wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and
the sheep shall dwell together, and the calf and the bear pasture
together," &c. Certainly no one can shew where and when this
prophecy was fulfilled according to the letter, if we determine the
literal sense to be that which the words immediately suggest.
Finally, if this Jesuitical definition of the literal sense be true,
what literal sense, I p r a y y o u , will remain in those words of
Christ, Matth. v. 2 9 , 3 0 , " If thy right e y e offend thee, pluck it
o u t ; if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off ? " Origen, indeed,
though elsewhere too much given to allegories and mystical senses,
interpreted these words according to the letter, but absurdly. The
literal sense, then, is not that which the words immediately suggest,
as the Jesuit defines i t ; but rather that which arises from the
words themselves, whether they be taken strictly or figuratively.
I f the discourse b e figurative, it is not to be explained according to
that meaning which the sound of the words would at first and im-
mediately suggest. This is what Alphonsus de Castro seems to
affirm, Contra Hceres. Lib. i. c. 3, where he defines the literal
sense better than the Jesuit, making it that which either the words,
or the things expressed b y the words, denote. F o r example, the
literal sense of these words, " The seed of the woman shall crush
the serpent's head," is this, that Christ shall beat down Satan, and
break and crush all his force and power ; although the devil neither
is a serpent, nor hath a head.

A s to those three spiritual senses, it is surely foolish to say

that there are as many senses of scripture as the words themselves
may be transferred and accommodated to bear. F o r although the
words may be applied and accommodated tropologically, allego-
rically, anagogically, or any other way ; yet there are not therefore
various senses, various interpretations and explications of scripture,
but there is but one sense, and that the literal, which may be
variously accommodated, and from which various things may be
collected. T h e apostle, indeed, Galat. iv. 2 4 , interprets the history
of Abraham's two wives allegorically, or rather typically, of the
two Testaments; for he says in express words, anva eanv aWrj-
•yopouneva, &c. But there he does not make a two-fold sense of
that history, but only says that it may be allegorically interpreted
to his purpose, and the illustration of the subject which he hath in
hand. Indeed, there is a certain catachresis in the word a\\tj-
406 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

yopoufxeva, for that history is not accommodated b y Paul in that

place allegorically, but typically; and a type is a different thing
from an allegory. The sense, therefore, of that scripture is one
only, namely, the literal or grammatical. However, the whole en-
tire sense is not in the words taken strictly, but part in the t y p e ,
part in the transaction itself. In either of these considered sepa-
rately and b y itself part only of the meaning is contained ; and b y
both taken together the full and perfect meaning is completed.
T h e same is to be thought of all those places in which scrip-
ture interprets any thing in an allegoric sense. Hence we per-
ceive that there is but one true and genuine sense of scripture,
namely, the literal or grammatical, whether it arise from the words
taken strictly, or from the words figuratively understood, or from
both t o g e t h e r ; and that allegorical expositions are not various
meanings, but only various applications and accommodations of
scripture. Such allegories, indeed, we may sometimes use with
profit and advantage to give pleasure, not to coerce assent; espe-
cially when scripture explains a thing allegorically, for otherwise
we should be frugal of inventing allegories. David fought with
Goliah. David was a t y p e of Christ, and Goliah of the devil.
Therefore, this fight and victory of David may be typically accom-
modated to denote the combat of Christ with Satan, and his victory.
One may also give an allegorical accommodation of the same nar-
rative, t h u s : David overcame Goliah. So ought we to overcome
our passions, which wage a kind of giant war within us against the
Spirit of God. I confess that these are true and may be fitly said:
but it would be absurd to say that either the one or the other was
the sense of this history. S o much upon allegories.
Tropology hath still less claims to be esteemed a new sense,
because it flows plainly and necessarily from the very words, and is
therefore collected from the text itself. It is nothing more than an
ethical treatment of scripture, when we collect from the scriptures
what is suitable to direct our lives and form our morals, and hath
place in common life : as, Abraham overcame five kings with a small
b a n d ; therefore we should neither trust too much to a great num-
ber, nor despair with a few. David, given up to inactivity, was
entangled b y love, and so fell into adultery: therefore we should
shun idleness. Noah, when drunk, lay shamefully exposed, and so
became the sport of his own s o n : therefore we should beware of
drunkenness, lest we fall into disgrace and mischief. " Thou shalt
not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the c o r n : " therefore ministers
 QUESTION THE FIFTH. 407

are to be supported and supplied with all things needful. This is

what Paul collects from the words, 1 Cor, ix. 9, and 1 Tim. v. 18.
Peter in the hall of the high priest denied Christ, but went out and
repented: therefore the company of evil men is to be avoided.
Christ also hath used this mode of interpretation, Matth. xii. 4 1 , 4 2 ,
where he accommodates to the case of the Jews then present the
repentance of the Ninevites immediately upon hearing Jonah, and the
long journey of the queen of Sheba to Solomon. In this treatment
of texts, and such educings of various admonitions and exhortations,
the greatest part of the minister's function lies. But all such things
flow and are concluded from the very words themselves. This,
therefore, is not a new or various meaning, foreign to the words
themselves, but absolutely one and the same with the literal sense.
W e should form a like judgment of the type or anagoge. In
Psalm xcv. God says, " I sware in m y wrath, that they should
not enter into m y rest." There the rest may be understood both
of the land of Canaan, and typically also of the kingdom of hea-
ven : for the realm of Canaan was a t y p e of the kingdom of
heaven. Yet this is not a twofold sense; but, when the sign is r e -
ferred to the thing signified, that which was hidden in the sign is
more openly expressed. W h e n we proceed from the sign to the
thing signified, we bring no new sense, but only bring out into
light what was before concealed in the sign. W h e n we speak of
the sign b y itself, we express only part of the meaning; and so also
when we mention only the thing signified: but when the mutual
relation between the sign and the thing signified is brought out,
then the whole complete sense, which is founded upon this simili-
tude and agreement, is set forth. Paul says, 1 Cor. x. 1 1 , " All
these things happened to them for ensamples," or typically, TV-TTOI
crvveficuvov eKeivots, & c . : the meaning of the place is, that we
should accommodate the events of the ancient Jewish people to our
instruction, so as that, admonished b y their example, we may learn
to please God, and avoid idolatry and other sins ; not that we are to
collect from all these things I know not what new and spiritual mean-
ing. F o r although this sense be spiritual, y e t it is not a different one,
but really literal; since the letter itself affords it to us in the w a y
of similitude or argument. The Jews were punished when they sin-
ned : therefore, if we sin in like manner, we shall bear and pay to
God similar penalties. H e hath set before us the punishment of the
Jews pourtrayed as it were in a picture, that we may constantly
have it before our eyes. T h e y had indeed many things of a
408 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

typical nature, the cloud, the passage through the sea, the water
from the rock, the manna; which all were symbols to the pious of
heavenly things. A s the water flowing from the rock refreshed
the weary people, and the manna fed them, so Christ cheers and
preserves us. As they were enveloped in the cloud, and set in the
midst of the waves of the great deep, so all the godly are washed b y
the blood of Christ. These were all sacraments to them, and so
the pious understood them. When, therefore, these are expounded
literally of the things themselves, spiritually of celestial graces, we
do not make two diverse senses; but, b y expounding a similitude,
we compare the sign with the thing signified, and so bring out the
true and entire sense of the words. So in our sacraments there
are not two senses, the literal and the mystical; but one only,
founded in the comparison and conjunction of the signs and things.
A s our bodies are washed with water, so our souls are purified b y
the blood of Christ: as our bodies are strengthened with bread
and wine, so are we wholly sustained b y the flesh and blood of our
Saviour. So from these types Paul argues : If the Jews perished for
their crimes, we also shall perish, if we commit the same offences.
Paul does not there deliver a twofold sense, but he draws and sets
forth an example from those things which befel the Jewish people,
b y which he admonishes the Corinthians to take warning.
T h e sense of scripture, therefore, is but o n e , — t h e literal;
for it is folly to feign many senses, merely because many things
follow from the words of scripture rightly understood. Those
things m a y , indeed, be called corollaries or consequences, flowing
from the right understanding of the words, but new and dif-
ferent senses they are b y no means. Thomas Aquinas himself
appears to have seen t h i s ; for, in the 1st part of his Sum. Qusest.
i. Art. 1 0 , he writes t h u s : " Since the literal sense is that which
the author intends, and the author of holy scripture is God, who
comprehends all things together in his m i n d ; there is nothing im-
proper in saying that, even according to the literal sense, there
are several meanings of scripture in one t e x t . " Since then that 1

is the sense of scripture, and the literal sense, which the H o l y

Spirit intends, however it may be g a t h e r e d ; certainly, if the H o l y
Spirit intended the tropologic, anagogic, or allegoric sense of any

I 1
Q u i a sensus literalis est q u e m auctor m t e n d a t , auctor autem sacra?
scriptura? D e u s est, qui o m n i a s i m u l suo intellectu c o m p r e h e n d i t ; n o n est
inconveniens, si e t i a m s e c u n d u m literalem s e n s u m in u n a litera scriptura?
plures sint s e n s u s . — p . 4 . P a r . 1 6 3 9 . ]
IL] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 409

place, these senses are not different from the literal, as Thomas hath
expressly taught us. So also Alphonsus de Castro, Lib. i. contra
Hazres. cap. 3. " H e that shall choose to confine the sense of a
parable within the letter, will not do amiss ." So much for the
2

first preliminary.
W e must note and observe in the SECOND place, that it is only
from the literal sense that strong, valid, and efficacious arguments
can be derived; which is the concession even of our adversaries
themselves. It follows, therefore, that this and no other is the
genuine sense of scripture. F o r a firm argument may always be
derived from the genuine and proper sense. Since, therefore,
firm inferences cannot be made from those other senses, it is evi-
dent that they are not true and genuine meanings. Therefore,
tropology, allegory, and anagoge, if they are real meanings, are
literal ones. N o w the reason why sound arguments are always derived
from the literal sense is this, because it is certain that that which is
derived from the words themselves is ever the sense of the H o l y
Spirit; but we are not so certain of any mystical sense, except when
the H o l y Spirit himself so teaches us. For example, it is written,
Hosea xi. 1, " Out of E g y p t have I called m y s o n ; " and E x o d .
xii. 4 6 , " Thou shalt not break a bone of him." It is sufficiently
plain that the former is to be understood of the people of Israel,
and the latter of the paschal lamb. W h o , now, would dare to
transfer and accommodate these to Christ, if the H o l y Spirit had
not done it first, and declared to us his mind and intention ? —
namely, that the Son in the former passage denotes not only the
people of Israel, but Christ a l s o ; and the bone, in the latter, is to
be understood of Christ as well as of the paschal lamb. T h e y who
interpret those places merely of the people of Israel or the paschal
lamb, bring only part of the meaning, not the w h o l e : because the
entire sense is to be understood of the sign and the thing itself
taken together, and consists in the accommodation of the sign to the
thing signified. Hereupon emerge not different senses, but one en-
tire sense. However, we must argue from the literal sense: and
hence comes that vulgar and trite proverb, that metaphorical and
symbolic theology is not argumentative; which Thomas, in the
place quoted above, proves out of Augustine, Epist. 4 8 , contra
Vincent. Donat., as also Jerome on the 13th of Matthew. Hence
also Dionysius the Areopagite says in a certain place, that " mystical
[ 2
S e n s u m pai'abolae qui intra litoralem circumsepire voluerit, non abs re
f a c i e t . — D e S e n s u P a r a b . p. 5. P a r . 1 5 6 4 . ]
410 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

theology does not prove any thing." Alphonsus discourses copiously

upon this subject, Lib. i. c. 3 ; and Andradius says, Trident, De-
fens. L i b . ii., that " the literal sense alone supplies arguments to
confirm the doctrines of religion ." 1

Our THIRD preliminary observation is, that we must not bring

any private meanings, or private opinions, but only such as agree
with the mind, intention, and dictate of the H o l y Spirit. F o r , since
he is the author of the scriptures, it is fit that we should follow him
in interpreting scripture. This our adversaries c o n c e d e : for both
plain reason convinces them, and that passage in 2 Pet. i. 2 0 , makes
the matter sufficiently clear, where Peter says no scripture is iSla?
e7rt\uo-ecos. But what is the sense of the H o l y Spirit? what his
mind and intention, wherewith all our interpretation should suit and
agree ? In this the controversy consists. N o w therefore we must
proceed to the discussion.

CHAPTER III.

THE STATE OF THE FORMER PART OF THIS QUESTION TREATED

MORE AT LARGE.

W E have already made two divisions of this q u e s t i o n ; — t h e

former, concerning the authority of interpreting the scriptures, with
whom it is vested; the latter, concerning the means b y which we
may come to the true sense of scripture. W e have now to treat of
the former, in the first place, and afterwards we shall consider the
latter also in its proper place.
A s to the former part of this controversy, our adversaries,
upon their side, attribute this authority of which we speak to the
church, and pronounce it to be the church's privilege to interpret
scripture. So the council of Trent, Sess. 4 , whose judgment Sta-
2

pleton affirms and explains, Lib. x . c. 1 1 , with a copiousness excelled

f See also Thomas Aquinas, Summ. Theol. Pars. 1. q. 1. Art. 1 0 . Sixtus

1

Senensis. Bihl. S. Lib. in. p. 1 4 1 . Vega, de Justificatione, Lib. ix. c. 4 4 .

Salmerón. Comment, in Heb. i. Disp. 7. § idem.]
[2 Nemo contra eum sensum quern tenuit et tenet sancta mater
ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione scripturarum
sanctarum ipsam scripturam sacram interpretan audeat.—Sess. iv.
Decret. 1 1 . p. 2 0 , 2 1 . Lips. 1 8 3 7 . ]
III.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 411

b y no other writer. However, here too a question arises. For we

also say that the church is the interpreter of scripture, and that
this gift of interpretation resides only in the c h u r c h : but we deny
that it pertains to particular persons; or is tied to any particular
see or succession of men. "We must see, therefore, what is the sense
borne b y that axiom or postulate of the papists, wherein they assert
so confidently that the church hath the authority of interpreting the
scriptures. The intent of this assertion, it seems, we may seek and
find in Stapleton, who (as was said above) interprets the council of
Trent in a large exposition. N o w Stapleton says, that the sense of
scripture is not that which is given b y any bishop or catholic pastor,
but teaches us that we must apply certain cautions, such as these.
The first caution is, that the enemies of the church are not to
be listened to. This we also concede;—that when the sense of scrip-
ture is sought for, the enemies of the church are not to be consulted.
But which is that c h u r c h ? H e takes it for granted that their
church is the true c h u r c h ; which none of us will ever grant. The
second caution is, that we are not bound to believe any catholic,
however learned, if he be only a private person. H e must, there-
fore, bear a public character, and be a magistrate, whom we are
obliged to believe in this matter. The third caution is, that we
should consider what the bishops and pastors of the church have
thought, delivered, and determined, concerning the interpretation of
this or that scripture. The fourth caution is, that what they have
determined should be received and held without hesitation. But
here he interposes two conditions : the first is, Provided they
have remained in catholic unity,—that is, have quietly and con-
tentedly subjected themselves to the authority of the pope, and not
revolted from h i m : the second is, If they have agreed with all
their colleagues in the episcopate. But, in this way, even the
common expositions of the fathers are not to be received and held,
because we do not know whether they agreed with their brother
bishops. F o r there were many other bishops of those times, of whom
no writings or monuments whatever remain. Whence can we know
that Augustine, Ambrose, and others agreed with their colleagues
in the episcopate, whose books are not now in our hands ?
T h e fifth caution i s : W e ought to refer an opinion about
which we entertain doubts to a council. But we cannot always and
immediately, when we are in doubt of the meaning of a place,
assemble a council; and councils may err, as we shall prove here-
after in its proper place. There follows, therefore, another caution,
412 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

which is to this effect: Since it is very difficult to assemble councils,

and they have not supreme authority, and sometimes even err, it
behoves us to await the sentence of the supreme pastor, or (as he
expresses it) the supreme head, upon understanding which all doubt
will be put an end to. But where was the need of these long
circuits ? W h y are we not sent straight at once to the supreme
pastor and pontiff, without minding fathers, bishops, and councils ?
W h y not repair to and consult him in the first place ? W h y not,
at the v e r y outset, lay before him our questions and doubts, since
everything must finally of necessity devolve on him ? Perhaps it
would be too troublesome for the pope to have frequently to give
answers upon the sense of scripture, especially since he is busily
employed with other more weighty matters, in which he loves
better to be occupied. But at present, I suppose, we must stop
here. F o r , when we have come to the pope, what more can we
desire ? Still not even yet have we done enough. Stapleton per-
ceives that neither of fathers, nor councils, nor Roman pontiffs are
all the expositions t r u e ; and therefore there is still need of fresh
cautions. Still many doubts occur concerning these cautions, and
the affair is not yet brought to an end.
Accordingly he adds a seventh caution, which is t h i s : that the
sense of scripture is so to be embraced and held as the church would
have it held, and in the same degree as the c h u r c h : that is, what
the church declares to be held as matter of faith, we also should
hold as of faith; what she hath willed and taught to be held as
probable and useful, is to b e held similarly b y us. But how shall
w e know what the church holds as matter of faith, and what as
only probable ? This he explains in the next caution. The eighth
caution i s : that the church holds that as of faith, and propounds
also to us to be held as of faith, firstly, which she proposes under an
anathema; secondly, which she constantly maintains against heretics;
thirdly, which she delivers as the orthodox sense; fourthly and
lastly, which is elicited b y the application of those means which Sta-
pleton is afterwards to deliver.
T h e ninth caution i s : that whatever bishops may have written
or said, or howsoever they may have expounded scripture, their
exposition is not necessarily to b e received, if they have only
written, spoken, or expounded b y the way. But this involves us
in still greater doubts. F o r how shall we certainly understand
what things are written b y the way, what seriously, carefully, and
professedly, unless the men themselves who write shall tell u s ?
III.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 413

Surely we must here stand in endless hesitation. But, in the

meantime, what are we to think of the schoolmen? This he e x -
plains in the next caution. T h e tenth caution therefore is : that
the schoolmen have no certain or infallible authority of expounding
scripture. Thus the schoolmen are deprived of authority. Y o u
see what a matter it is amongst them to be a bishop. All the
fathers, who were not bishops, have their authority lowered b y
Stapleton. Such are Origen, Tertullian, Jerome, Bernard, L o m -
bard, all the monks, Aquinas, Bonaventura, Scotus, Stapleton him-
self, and all such writers who are not y e t advanced and promoted
to the episcopal function. Their interpretation, therefore, he says,
is not to be followed under pain of infidelity, but only of gross con-
tumaciousness. But what is to be thought of the bishops ? H e
shews this in the next caution. T h e eleventh caution, therefore,
is ; that whatever even the bishops themselves m a y have said o r
written, if they did not teach it as bishops ex cathedra, hath no
certain authority, and is not of necessity to be received b y us.
But we have not heard Augustine and the other fathers teaching;
from the chair, and therefore are ignorant what they taught from
the chair, what not, or whether they taught from the chair at all.
W e have only their books. W h a t are we then to determine con-
cerning them ? Forsooth, that those are to be received which the
church hath received and approved ; whereof a catalogue is set forth
b y Gelasius in Gratian, causa 1 5 . Tit. Ecclesia Romana . But 1

are all these to be r e c e i v e d ? T h e y will not themselves say this

either : for they do not receive all. Y e a , there are many things
in all those books which the papists themselves are compelled to
r e j e c t ; and, therefore, he adds a twelfth caution, which is to this
effect : that a certain argument cannot immediately b e gathered
from every interpretation of the fathers. Next follows the thir-
teenth caution, not much unlike the preceding ; namely, that we
must not bind ourselves absolutely to the opinions of any doctor,
or schoolman, or churchman. W h a t t h e n , — w h e r e shall we stop at
last ? Finally, he adds, that we should make recourse to the church,
follow her authority, and acquiesce in her judgment. This is taking
a long circuit for nothing. W h y did he not bring us straight at
once to this point ? H e might at the beginning have sent us to
the church, and dispatched this whole business in a few words.

P T h e r e f e r e n c e s h o u l d b o , G r a t i a n . D é c r e t . Distinct, x v . c. 3. Sancta
Romana Ecclesia. W h i t a k c r has, b y a m i s t a k e , q u o t e d t h e second for t h o
first part o f t h e D e c r e e . ]
414 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

But what is this church, to which we are to repair in the last

resort, and b y whose interpretation we ought to a b i d e ? For-
sooth, the R o m a n ; for they mean no other whenever they speak
of the church. T h e sense of scripture, therefore, must be referred
to the Roman church. But what is this R o m a n c h u r c h ? Must
all be consulted who belong to it ? By no m e a n s ; for no one
could do this, though he spent his life in it. W h a t then ? perhaps
we should only consult the bishops and pastors; for they always
mean these b y the R o m a n church. But even these we could never
meet personally. Therefore, finally, the church is the supreme
pontiff. T o him we must repair, hang upon his lips, and seek from
him the interpretation of scripture. But do the papists make a
reasonable demand, when they would have us submit ourselves to
his judgment, and depend upon his interpretation, whom we accuse
as a false interpreter of scripture, yea, whom we affirm to be the
v e r y antichrist himself ? Surely, they are very unjust, and plainly
betray their own want of confidence, when they confess that they
cannot prove their cause to us without appealing to him, and refer-
ring all to the judgment of him whom they know willing always to
be on their side, and unwilling ever to pronounce anything against
them and himself. Such then are Stapleton's cautions.
But the Jesuit comprises the matter in a smaller compass,
First, he says that the sense of scripture is to be sought in the
fathers when they agree. But they seldom agree. H o w , there-
fore, shall this agreement be made certainly evident to us ? Besides,
even when they agree, w h y should w e rather believe them sc
agreeing than scripture agreeing with i t s e l f ? Secondly, if we are
still doubtful of the sense of scripture, he desires us to seek it fron
a council confirmed b y the chief pastor. Thirdly, if even thus al
doubt be not removed, we must seek it from the chief pastor him-
self with his council of pastors. M a r k how cautiously and witl
what hesitation he speaks of his supreme pontiff! But hath noi
the pope of himself authority to interpret scripture ? H e dares noi
to affirm t h i s ; and yet doubtless this is what he means. H e wai
ashamed, it seems, to ascribe such great authority to the pop*
alone. Y e t neither did he dare to deny it altogether ; and there
fore timidly and confusedly he names the pope together with i
council of pastors. It was once a great question, whether thi
authority of a council or of the pope was greater in interpreting
scripture. Formerly they used to believe that the authority of i
council was greater than that of the p o p e ; but, since the councils o
III.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 415

Constance and Basle, a greater authority hath been attributed to

the pope. Y e t here, I know not how, the Jesuit joins a council of
pastors to the pope. Alphonsus, contra Haires. Lib. i. c. 4, seems to
follow the old opinion: for he says that a council alone hath this
supreme authority, because a council alone is the church represent-
ative. And, chap. 8, he says that the apostolic see hath the next
place after a general council in making definitions. Afterwards he
explains what he meant b y the apostolic s e e : " The apostolic see,"
says he, " comprehends not only the supreme pontiff, but also that
council which the pontiff uses, and b y which he is aided in making
a definition." And this too is perhaps the council which the Jesuit
means in this place, when he joins a council of pastors with the
pope. But all the cardinals are not pastors; for some are pres-
byters, some only deacons ; and these men call none but bishops
pastors. Besides, the cardinals attend the pope only in the w a y
of ornament and pomp, and have no place in the settling of any
definition. Yea, although all the cardinals were to say nay, y e t
the pope can define what he will. Therefore, although the Jesuit
puts a council of pastors along with the pope, yet in reality this
authority of interpretation is lodged with the pope a l o n e ; because,
however much the rest oppose, y e t his opinion shall always stand
and prevail. The question then is, whether the authority of inter-
preting scripture be lodged with the church thus understood ? The
papists hold the affirmative; we the negative.
W e have heard now their opinion. It remains to see what
ours is. N o w we determine that the supreme right, authority, and
judgment of interpreting the scriptures, is lodged with the H o l y
Ghost and the scripture itself: for these two are not mutually
repugnant. W e say that the H o l y Spirit is the supreme interpreter
of scripture, because we must be illuminated b y the H o l y Spirit to
be certainly persuaded of the true sense of scripture; otherwise,
although we use all means, we can never attain to that full assu-
rance which resides in the minds of the faithful. But this is only
an internal persuasion, and concerns only ourselves. As to external
persuasion, we say that scripture itself is its own interpreter; and,
therefore, that we should come to the external judgment of scrip-
ture itself, in order to persuade o t h e r s : in which proceeding we
must also use means; of which more hereafter. But that the
interpretation of scripture is tied to any certain see, or succession
of men, we absolutely deny. H e r e , therefore, we have specially to
discuss and prove two points : first, that the pope cannot claim for
416 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

himself this power of interpreting the scriptures: secondly, that

scripture is to be interpreted b y scripture. ,
N o w , having proposed the state of the question, we must come
to the contest and disputation.

CHAPTER IV.

THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR OPPONENTS TAKEN FROM THE OLD

TESTAMENT ARE SET ASIDE.

STAPLETON hath treated this question at once loosely and

confusedly. T h e Jesuit hath drawn his arguments into a conciser
form. With him, therefore, our present contest shall principally
be maintained. H e adduces four arguments, whereof the first is
from the authority of the old Testament, the second, from the
authority of the new Testament; the third, from the common
practice of the church, and the testimonies of the fathers; the
fourth, from necessary reason. H e cites seven testimonies from
the old Testament, which we will examine in order.
The first place is, Exodus xviii. 1 3 , 2 6 , from which he argues
t h u s : after the people of G o d were collected and reduced to the
form of a church, Moses sat as supreme j u d g e ; and afterwards
also, though other judges were established, yet he reserved the
more difficult causes for his own decision. Therefore, now also
there ought to be in the church one common tribunal, and some
supreme judge and moderator of all controversies, from whom no
appeal is to be permitted.
I answer, first; Moses was a prophet, endowed with singular
wisdom, adorned with extraordinary gifts of God, commended
also to the people b y divine testimonies, and sent immediately b y
God himself. N o w the pope hath no such qualifications. I f he
be such, let him shew us those extraordinary gifts wherewith he
is endowed, and those testimonies b y which he is b y God commend-
ed to the church, and so enable us to believe him.
Secondly, I confess that in every republic there ought to be
judges to determine and put an end to such disputes as arise
amongst men, although not with so much authority as Moses :
I confess also, that, in every particular church there should b e
ministers to interpret the scriptures to the people, and answer those
IV.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 417

who inquire concerning the will of God. But an argument from

particular churches to the whole universal church does not h o l d :
for then one might also conclude from this place, that there ought
to be amongst Christians one supreme political j u d g e (since Moses
was such in the Israelitish republic), who should examine every
thing that was brought into controversy. But even the papists
themselves do not require this.
Thirdly, I affirm that this should be attributed to Aaron rather
than to Moses, and that for two reasons: first, because Aaron was the
ordinary priest and had successors; not Moses, whose function was
extraordinary: for Moses had no successors in his office. N o w many
of the priests, who in fixed succession after A a r o n held the chief place
in the church, were impious men and idolaters, as is clear from the
sacred text. Secondly, because Moses was not a priest, after the law
was published and Aaron consecrated and anointed, nor discharged
any priestly function, but was merely a p r o p h e t : therefore we must
not ascribe to him a judicial power, which, according to them,
belongs only to a priest. A s to our reading, Ps. xcix. 6, " Moses
and Aaron amongst his priests :" I answer, either that the H e b r e w
w o r d denotes chief men of the people, as in 2 Sam. viii. 1 8 , where
1

David's sons are said to have been Cohenim ; and Samuel was not
a priest, nor born in a priestly family, as we see in 1 Chron. vi.
27 : or that Moses is called a priest, because he had been a priest
before the consecration of A a r o n ; for afterwards he ceased to be a
priest, and was only a prophet and magistrate. But the Jesuit says
that Moses was an extraordinary priest, and greater than A a r o n :
and he illustrates this b y a comparison to this effect,—namely, that
in the new Testament Peter was an ordinary pastor, but the rest
of the apostles extraordinary, because Peter had successors, but
the rest n o n e : so that Aaron was an ordinary priest, but Moses an
extraordinary, because Aaron had successors, but Moses none. But
this is a mere dull fiction. F o r who can say that Peter was an
ordinary pastor, while the rest were extraordinary, when they all
received the same vocation and the same charge from Christ,
Matt, xxviii ? Besides, Jerome, E p . 8 5 , plainly refutes t h i s ; for he
says, that " a l l bishops are successors of the apostles ," not of Peter 2

f 1
iri3 Gesenius owns that " a d m o d u m vetus est sententia Hebraorum,

IMS etiam principem n o t a r e , " t h o u g h h e rejects it h i m s e l f . ]

[ 2
A p u d n o s A p o s t o l o r u m l o c u m episcopi t e n e n t . — E p . 4 1 . T . i. p. 1 8 7 .
ed. Vallars.]
27
[WHITAKER.]
418 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

alone. So Cyprian, E p . 6 9 : and the same author, in his book de

1

Simplicitate Prcelatorum, writes t h u s : " T h e other apostles were the

same as Peter was, endowed with an equal share both of honour and
of p o w e r . " Besides, if there be any force in the Jesuit's comparison,
2

w h y , as Moses was superior to Aaron, because the latter was the

ordinary priest, and Moses the extraordinary, were not also the other
apostles superior to Peter; since he was the ordinary pastor, and they
the extraordinary ? Thus, either the other apostles were superior to
Peter, or this comparison of the Jesuit's suits his purpose in no way.
Fourthly, if the authority of Moses was extraordinary, it cannot
surely be dragged to establish any such ordinary authority as that
which the papists maintain.
Fifthly, it may be that Moses in this respect represented Christ,
and was a type of him who is the supreme Judge of all contro-
versies. But now all types are taken a w a y ; and it is a trite
saying, that we cannot argue from types.
Sixthly, if Moses were supreme judge, and a priest higher than
Aaron, then there were two judges and two chief priests also in
that p e o p l e : yea, there was a priest higher than the chief priest;
which is impossible.
T h e second place of the old Testament alleged b y Bellarmine
is contained in Deut. xvii. 8 — 1 3 : " If there arise a matter
too hard for thee in judgment between blood and blood," &c. " W e
see from this place," says the Jesuit, " that all who are in doubt
on any matter, are sent to a living judge, not to their own private
spirits." I answer : It is a malicious assertion of the Jesuit to say
that we send men in doubt on any matter to their own private
spirits: for we send no man to his own private spirit, but to
scripture itself, and the Spirit of God speaking clearly in the scrip-
ture. But, to give a distinct answer, I say, first, that this precept
was conditional, as appears from the very words themselves. For
they who consulted that supreme j u d g e were ordered to do accord-
ing to " that sentence of the law which he should teach them."
All, therefore, are commanded to obey the decree of the j u d g e ,
but with this condition, provided that he j u d g e according to the

f Potestas ergo peccatorum remittendorum Apostolis data est, et eccle-

1

siis quas illi a Christo missi constituerunt, et episcopis qui eis ordinatione
vicaria successerint—Ep. 7 5 . ed. Pell. p. 2 2 5 . ]
[ Hoc erant utique et ceteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio
2

prsediti et honoris et potestatis.—pp. 1 0 7 , 1 0 8 . This treatise is now more

commonly (and more correctly) cited under the title, De Unitate Ecclesice.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 419

law of God, that is, shew from the law that it is the will of God.
This we also willingly concede, that every priest and minister, and
not the pope alone, is to be obeyed whenever he judges according
to the law. Meanwhile this place does not establish any such
supreme j u d g e as may determine what he pleases at his own caprice,
and b y whose judgment, though destitute of all scripture authority,
w e are bound to s t a n d : yea, rather, when it requires him to
answer according to the law, it assigns the supreme judgment to
the law and not to him. Here the Jesuit brings many things to
elude and overturn this answer. F o r he says, first, that those
words, " and shall teach thee according to the l a w , " are not to be
found anywhere but in the Vulgate edition. I answer, first, that
this is enough, since they hold that edition for authentic. Secondly,
this condition is plainly expressed in the H e b r e w copies, v. 1 1 ,
al pi hathorah asher jorucha : 3
in which words the priest is bound
to the mouth, that is, the sentence and declaration of the law, so as
to decree nothing but what the law itself dictates and declares.
Thus the priest ought to be a second mouth to this divine mouth.
Secondly, he says that this is not a condition, but an assertion or
p r o m i s e : for Moses did not mean to say, Abide b y the judgment
of the priest, if he teach thee according to the l a w ; for then men
would have been reduced to greater doubts than before, and the
priest would not be the j u d g e , but they themselves, who would
have to j u d g e of the sentence of the priest. I answer, men are
remitted to the priest only in ambiguous and doubtful causes, and
then required to abide b y his judgment. What? Simply by
whatever judgment he may p a s s ? G o d never gave so great a
power to any m a n ; and the priest in this case he hath expressly
tied to the law, to prevent his saying a word and making an answer
beyond the law. W e r e men bound to abide b y the judgment of
the priest, even when he taught not according to the law ? Who
would say so ? Therefore the condition is necessary : and y e t men
are not thereby involved in greater doubts or made judges them-
selves : for there was great judicial weight in the priest; and
whatever he had once determined was held for rule to all external
intents and purposes, in order that so controversies and disputes
might be removed. Thirdly, he concludes from the premises, that
it is not a condition, but a promise : as if God had said, D o thou
abide b y the judge's sentence, and I promise that the j u d g e shall

[ 3
qm'i ->ty« n n i n n ifr^-]
27—2
420 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

always determine rightly. I answer, If such a promise be made

to the priest, then the same pertains also to the political j u d g e ,
because he is joined with the priest; and so the political j u d g e also
will be infallible in civil matters: which (I suppose) the papists will
not allow. But he says that the j u d g e here mentioned is ecclesi-
astical, and not c i v i l : whereas the falsehood of this pretence is
plain from the context. Moses speaks there of controversies between
blood and blood, plea and plea, which are forensic and civil actions:
therefore he speaks of the civil judge. But, says he, if the civil
j u d g e be there spoken of, then the definitive sentence is assigned to
the priest, but the execution to the j u d g e : which is also manifestly
false. F o r , first, these words are there contained in the Vulgate,
Ex decreto judicis morietur. Therefore, the j u d g e himself should
pass sentence and adjudge the accused to death; and consequently
the definitive sentence also is assigned to the j u d g e . Again, there
is a fault in the Vulgate edition. F o r in v. 12, ex occurs for either et
or ant, as is clear from the H e b r e w and Greek texts. In the Greek
there is rj, or; and the Hebrew word also denotes or, but never
from; so that the words should be read t h u s : " H e who will not
o b e y the priest or j u d g e shall d i e . " A n d that a disjunctive particle
is required, is plain from v. 9 : for they are ordered to come to
the priests and to the j u d g e ; so that he who should presumptuously
despise the priest or the j u d g e should b e put to death. Thus it is
not every dissent from the decision, however modest, and with
probable grounds, pious and reasonable; but such as was bold, p r e -
sumptuous, headlong and frantic, that was punished capitally. The
words of the text stand thus in the V u l g a t e : v. 12, Qui autem
superbierit, nolens obedire sacerdotis imperio, qui eo tempore
ministrat Domino Deo tuo, ex decreto judicis morietur. Hence
the Jesuit gathers, that the definitive sentence belonged to the
priest, the execution to the magistrate. But the Hebrew verity
teaches us otherwise, which is to this effect: " A n d the man that
will do presumptuously so as to refuse to hearken to the priest who
stands to minister there before the Lord t h y God, or to the j u d g e ,
that man shall d i e . " This law gives as much definitive authority
t o the j u d g e as to the priest. T h e Hebrew has, o el hashophet .
1

Upon which place Cajetan writes t h u s : " T h e translator hath

made a c h a n g e : for in the Hebrew it is, or to the judge. The
expression is disjunctive, ' in not obeying the priest or the j u d g e . '

[i Da&rr'w I N . ]
IV.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 421

Where I would have the intelligent reader observe, that the decision
of an ambiguous case is not described as being made b y a single
person, but b y many priests and the j u d g e . T h e ordering ex-
ecution is ascribed to the pontiff or the judge. L i k e penalties are
decreed against the opposer of the priest and the j u d g e . " 2
The
Jesuit hath spoiled the cardinal's argument: for he says, first, that
the particle is disjunctive; secondly, that the execution belonged
to the pontiff or the j u d g e ; thirdly, that the same penalty was
prescribed for him who resisted the j u d g e as for him who resisted
the priest; fourthly, that the definitive sentence was not of one
priest, but of many, and of the j u d g e . Jerome ab Oleastro, in his
commentaries, gathers from this passage: " That it is not free to
judges to j u d g e as they will, but according to the l a w s ; and that
we are commanded to obey them when they j u d g e according to the
same ." 3
But these men require obedience to whatever they p r e -
scribe, and will b y no means suffer their decrees to be examined.
Cyprian also, E p . 6 9 , cites this place t h u s : " It behoves us to
hearken to the priest or the j u d g e . "
4
A n d so much for our first
general reply to this testimony of the Jesuit's.

Secondly, I answer, that these words are not to be under-

stood of a perpetual right of interpreting the scriptures, but only
of an authority of determining difficult disputes and controversies;
if ecclesiastical, b y the minister; if political or civil, b y the magis-
trate ; so as that, in either case, there might be some one from
whom there should be no appeal; for otherwise there would be
no end of litigation. But now, there is no consequence in such
an argument as t h i s : disputes of murder, assault, blood, leprosy,
and such like, are always to be determined b y some j u d g e , and
there ought to be some certain tribunal for controversies at l a w :
therefore, there ought to be some supreme j u d g e with whom shall
reside the power of interpreting scripture, and from whom no
appeal shall be permitted. F o r no tribunal concerning religion

[ Interpres mutavit: nam Hebraice habetur, vel judici.

2
Disjunctive
enim dicitur, non obediendo sacerdoti vel judici. Ubi, prudens lector, ad-
verte, quod deflnitio ambiguas causfe non ab uno sed a multis sacerdotibus
et judice describitur. Pracipere executionem attribuitur pontifici vol ju-
dici. Par poena decernitur opponentis se sacerdoti vel judici.]
[ Non est judicibus liberum judicare ut volunt, sed juxta leges; et illis
3

parendum praxipit, cum secundum eas judicaverint Comment, in Penta-

teuch. Lugdun. 1586.]
[ Cum Dominus Deus in Deuteronomio dicat, Et homo . . . . ut non
4

exaudiat sacerdotem aut judicem.—Ep. 66. p. 166. ed. Fell.]

422 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

hath been constituted b y this law. God hath reserved this to

himself, and hath allowed it to no man, knowing as he does how
easily men corrupt religion with their perverse opinions. But
this law is promulgated to establish external judgments of con-
troversies at law, which either the magistrate or the priests are to
judge. N o w , no commonwealth can subsist, unless it have some
supreme tribunal from which no appeal can b e m a d e ; but still, in
such cases, where it is consistent with religion, and not impious, to
o b e y even an unjust sentence. But Bellarmine says that the law
is general concerning all doubtful questions which arose out of the
l a w ; and that the occasion of the law was the case of those who
served strange gods. I answer, first, there is no mention in the
law of doubts arising out of the l a w ; for in it none but external
and forensic disputes are spoken of. Secondly, what he adds, of
the occasion of the law, is false, and would be of no value if it
were true.
T h e third place which the Jesuit cites is taken from Ecclesi-
astes xii. 1 1 , where we read t h u s : " T h e words of the wise are
as goads, and as nails driven deep, which b y the counsel of the
masters are given from one shepherd. Seek, m y son, no more
than t h e s e . "
1
Solomon, says he, teaches us that we should
thoroughly acquiesce when sentence is pronounced b y the chief
pastor, especially combined with the advice of sage councillors. A n d
if these things are said of the priest of the old Testament, how
much more may they be said of the priest of the new Testament,
who hath received greater promises from G o d ! I answer: The
meaning is, that the doctrine and heavenly wisdom which the p r o -
phets delivered, and which the ministers of God teach and expound,
is like to goads, because it strikes, excites, and urges us, and so
rouses us from our sloth; and to nails, because it keeps us fixed
and firm in p i e t y ; and that one shepherd, who is there mentioned,
is neither the pope, nor the priest of the old Testament, but Christ
himself. F o r so Salonius, an old father, writes upon this p l a c e :
" W h o are these wise men ? who is this one pastor ? T h e wise men
are the prophets, the one pastor is G o d . " And Jerome says also
2

I Verba sapientium sicut stimuli, et quasi clavi in altum deflxi, qua? per
1

magistrorum consilium [aliter et rectius concilium] data sunt a pastore uno.

His amplius, fili mi, ne requiras. Vulgate translation.]
[2 Qui isti sapientes sunt? Quis iste unus pastor? Sapientes sunt
prophetas, unus pastor Deus.—Bibliothec. Patrum. T. vin. Salonius was
son of Eucherius of Lyons, and flourished about A. D. 4 5 3 . ]
XV.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 423

upon the same place : " Although several teach the word of God, yet
there is but one author of that teaching, namely, G o d . " W h e r e he
refutes the Manicheans, who made the author of the new Testament
a different being from the author of the old. Others suppose this
one pastor to be the H o l y Spirit, as Vatablus; others, Christ, as
M e r c e r u s ; none the pope, except senseless papists. T h e place,
therefore, is not to be understood of the pope, as Bellarmine would
have it, but of God. But the Jesuit foolishly subjoins, if this be
understood of the priest of the old Testament, much more of the
priest of the new Testament. I answer : I do not understand it of
the priest of the old Testament. But as to the new, who, I b e -
seech you, is the priest of the new Testament, but Christ a l o n e ?
W e at least recognise no other H i g h Priest of the new Testament.
W h a t did ever God, or Christ, or any apostle promise to the pope ?
Let them produce the records, and shew us there, if they can, that
any such promise was made.
The fourth place which the" Jesuit alleges is taken from Haggai
ii. 1 1 . T h e words are t h e s e : " Thus saith the L o r d of hosts, A s k
the priests concerning the l a w . " I answer: In the first place, we
confess this, namely, that the ministers, bishops and doctors, should
be inquired of concerning the l a w ; and that, when inquiries are
made, they should answer t h e m ; otherwise they would not do their
duty. But does it thence follow that they have therefore the
power of defining anything just as they c h o o s e ? Far from it.
Yea, it is incumbent upon them to answer according to the law.
Whence it is manifest that authority is lodged with the law ; and
that they have no authority, but only a ministry. Secondly, it will
follow from this place, that there ought to be not one supreme
j u d g e of scripture, but many, because God says through the pro-
phet in the plural number, " I n q u i r e of the priests," not in the
singular, " Inquire of the priest."
T h e fifth place cited b y the Jesuit is contained in Malachi ii. 7.
where are these w o r d s : " T h e priest's lips shall keep knowledge,
and they shall require the law from his mouth." I answer: In
these words is shewn, not what sort of persons the priests always
would be, but what they always ought to be. Therefore this is a
fallacy founded upon a figure of speech. There is a precept in these
words (let the priests be always such), not a promise (they shall be
always such); for it follows immediately : " But y e have wanderec
from the way and made many to s t u m b l e : " as much as to say, Y<
should have been endowed with knowledge, and skilful in the law
424 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

so as to b e able to teach others a l s o ; but y e are unlearned and

ignorant of the law, and have caused many to sin and violate m y
laws. N o w , if the prophet affirmed this truly of those priests of
the old Testament, it may certainly be said with even more truth
of the popish c l e r g y . So Hosea iv. 6, G o d thus addresses such
priests as were in that t i m e : " Because thou hast spurned k n o w -
ledge, I also will spurn thee from being a priest unto m e : " and
Hosea v. 1, God calls the priests of that time snares.
T h e sixth place which the Jesuit cites (though he hath omitted
it in his published edition) is Ezek. xiii. 3, where the words are as
follows : " W o e to the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit."
Hence we see, says the Jesuit, that private spirits are not to be
followed in the interpretation of scripture. I a n s w e r : W e also
deny that each man is to follow his own private spirit. But to
follow scripture itself, and the Spirit of God speaking publicly in
the scriptures (which we exhort all men to do), is not to follow a
private spirit.
T h e seventh and last place cited b y the Jesuit is contained in
2 Chron. xix. 1 0 , 1 1 , where Jehoshaphat makes Zebadiah j u d g e of
civil suits or controversies, but Amariah, the pontiff and priest, of
those matters which pertain to G o d ; and distinguishes the office of
the pontiff from the office of the king, assigning to the pontiff alone
the cognisance of the doubtful points about the law. I answer:
W e confess that the functions of king and priest are distinct, and
that they should not be confounded together. N o r is there need of
our here making any large reply, because the same answer which
we made to his second passage will suffice also for this,—namely,
that, indeed, there ought to b e some judges, not of scripture, but
of suits and controversies, as well ecclesiastical as civil. W e say
that ecclesiastical disputes should be determined b y the minister
out of the divine law, and political disputes b y the civil j u d g e out
of the laws of the state. But meanwhile, to end or determine con-
troversies is one thing, and to interpret scriptures a v e r y different
one. A n d so much in reply to the Jesuit's first argument.
 QUESTION T H E FIFTH. 425

CHAPTER V.

AN ANSWER IS GIVEN TO THE TESTIMONIES TAKEN FROM THE

NEW TESTAMENT.

His second argument is taken from the authority of the new

Testament. N o w from this he alleges nine testimonies, which we
must examine severally in their order.
T h e first testimony is contained in Matth. xvi. 1 9 , where Christ
says to Peter, " I will give unto thee the k e y s of the kingdom of
h e a v e n ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven." F r o m these words the Jesuit infers that the authority
of interpreting scripture is given to Peter and all his successors, and,
as it were, the chief judgment of scripture. I a n s w e r : W e shall
have to speak elsewhere at large of the power of the k e y s ; h o w -
ever, sufficiently for the purposes of the present place, we thus
briefly reply. First, the k e y s do not here denote, as the Jesuit
would have it, the authority of interpreting the scriptures and
opening all those things which are obscure in scripture, but they
denote the authority of preaching the gospel. F o r when the gospel
is preached, the kingdom of heaven is opened to those who believe,
but closed against those who will not believe. Secondly, That
authority of the k e y s was not committed to Peter alone, but to the
rest of the apostles also. F o r in this place he did not give the
k e y s , but only promised that he would give t h e m : but afterwards,
when he actually gives them (Matth. xxviii. 1 8 , 1 9 ; John x x . 2 1 ,
2 2 , 2 3 ) , he addresses all the apostles equally. Therefore, if the
pope have the authority of interpreting the scriptures, because the
k e y s were given to Peter, then also other bishops and ministers,
who were successors of the rest of the apostles, received the same
authority, because the keys were given to the rest of the apostles
as well as to Peter. Thirdly, Augustine says in his 124th T r a c -
tate upon John, as in many other places, that " P e t e r signified
the universal c h u r c h , " when the k e y s were given to h i m : there-
1

fore this power of the k e y s was given not to the pope alone, but
to the whole church. But of this place we shall speak elsewhere
more copiously.

T h e second place which Bellarmine cites from the new Testa-

f Ecclesia qua? fundatur in Christo, claves ab eo regni coslorum accepit,
1

id est, potestatem tigandi solvendique peccata.—Cf. Augustin. de Baptism,

in. 17. In Johan. Tract. 50. In Psal. cviii. c. 30.]
426 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

merit is contained in Matth. xviii. 1 7 : " I f he will not hear the

church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican."
The Lord, says he, speaks of private injuries; but much rather is he
to b e understood of public injuries, such as heresy i s : and b y the
church he denotes not the whole b o d y of the faithful, but only the
pastors and bishops. I answer: Christ speaks there not of the in-
terpretation of scripture, but of fraternal correction and admonition,
which those who despise and make light of, are to be brought b e -
fore the church itself; and if they will not hear even the church
and acquiesce in the church's admonitions, then they are to be e x -
communicated. Secondly, I confess that the church is to be heard,
and always to be heard, but under two provisions. First, it b e -
hoves us to be certain that the church which we hear is the true
church of Christ, and that from the scripture's testimony; for this
cannot be proved b y any other means, and otherwise it is not to
be listened to. Secondly, The church is to be heard, not simply in
all its dogmas, declarations, decrees, sentences and injunctions, but
then, and then only, when it enjoins what Christ approves and
prescribes: for if it enjoin anything of its own, in that it is
not to b e heard. The church is to be credited only on account
of Christ and Christ's w o r d : therefore, if it once diverge from
the mind of Christ, it is not to be h e a r d ; yea, we must not b e -
lieve even an angel from heaven, if he teach otherwise than the
scripture hath delivered, as Paul warns us, Gal. i. 8.

The third place of the new Testament cited b y the Jesuit is

Matth. xxiii. 2. The words are t h e s e : " The scribes and P h a -
risees sit in Moses' s e a t ; all, therefore, that they command y o u to
observe, that observe and d o . " Therefore, says the Jesuit, if they
must be obeyed who sit in the chair of Moses, much more they
who sit in the chair of Peter. I answer: T o sit in Moses' seat is
to succeed Moses as teacher ; for b y the seat of Moses is understood
the doctrine delivered b y Moses and the function of teaching. In
this chair of Moses the scribes and Pharisees sat, and taught some
things legitimately and correctly. T h e y were to be heard, there-
fore, y e t not in all, but then only when they taught according to
the law, and when they followed Moses in their teaching, not in
whatsoever simply they commanded. F o r then Christ would have
contradicted himself; since, in the 6th and 7th chapters of Matthew,
he refutes their false interpretations, and wholly sets aside certain
dogmas introduced b y them into the church contrary to the true
sense of the law. W h o , indeed, would say that those scribes and
 QUESTION THE FIFTH. 427

Pharisees always in their teaching sat in Moses' seat, when Moses,

Deut. xviii. 1 5 , had foreshewn that a prophet like unto him was
to be raised up b y God, whom he warned them to h e a r ; whereas
the scribes and the Pharisees continually, with all their authority
and the most pertinacious obstinacy, exclaimed that Christ was not
to be listened to ? Wherefore Christ desired his disciples to beware
of the leaven of the Pharisees, Matth. xvi. 6. T h e sum is t h i s :
That teachers and pastors are always to b e heard, when they p r e -
scribe what is right and true, although in the meanwhile they do
not those things which they enjoin upon others, nor lead a life
agreeable to their profession: which is of force against those who
will not use the ministry of wicked pastors. This we readily con-
cede, which the Jesuit desires to be observed.
Afterwards the Jesuit remarks out of Cyprian, Epist. Lib. iv.
E p . 9 t h a t Christ never blamed the priests and pontiffs but under
the name of scribes and Pharisees, lest he should seem to blame
the chair and priesthood itself. I answer, first, that the right
itself and function of teaching is in truth not to be blamed, but
those who do not rightly discharge that function; not the chair,
but those who abuse the chair. The interpretation of the law was
divinely instituted. If true, therefore, it is not to be b l a m e d : but
if false, the perverse interpretation of the law ought to be cen-
sured. Christ does not blame the priests when they interpret the
law correctly; but when they mingled false doctrines and corrupted
the law b y their decisions, he censures them freely and with severity.
Secondly, I say that the Jesuit misrepresents Cyprian. F o r that
father does not write to the effect which this man pretends, as may
appear b y the place itself, if any one choose to examine it. But,
as to his accommodation of this a fortiori to the chair of Peter, in
this fashion, If those were to be heard who sat in the chair oi
Moses, much more those who sit in the chair of P e t e r ; 1 answer.
That they are indeed to be heard, but with that previous condition
before laid down concerning those who sat in the chair of Moses,
— n a m e l y , provided that be true which they teach : otherwise they
are not to be heard. However, he goes on to object Augustine.
Epist. 1 6 5 , where he says, that in the succession of the Romar
2

church, from Peter to Anastasius, who was then bishop of R o m e

there was no traditor, no Donatist. I a n s w e r : That testimony oi
Augustine is nothing to the purpose. F o r we confess that up tc

[} i. e. in E r a s m u s ' edition. I t is E p . 6 6 , in b i s h o p F e l l ' s , a n d the pas-

sage referred to will b e found in p. 1 6 6 . ]
[ 2
i.e. in E r a s m u s ' edition, Basil. 1 5 0 6 , T . n . col. 7 6 1 . ]
428 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

that time the Roman bishops were devout and g o o d m e n ; but we

say that afterwards evil men succeeded them and crept into the
church. Augustine's meaning is, that the church or Christians are
not contaminated, if perchance a bishop should have been a tra-
ditor, since the L o r d says, that even bad men are to be heard, and
we should do not what they do, but what they say. H e says
therefore, firstly, that there was no traditor in that succession from
Peter to Anastasius: secondly, that even had there been one, y e t
the church would not be injured, since the L o r d had provided
for his church, saying of wicked prelates, D o what they s a y ; do
not what they do. Augustine neither mentions the argument a
fortiori, nor says that the successors of Peter cannot possibly
misinterpret the l a w ; but only that, while they teach aright, the
church is not defiled b y their evil life. A n d so much for the third
passage.
T h e fourth place of the new Testament, which the Jesuit brings
to confirm his opinion, is written in the last chapter of John, verse
1 6 , where Christ thus addresses P e t e r : " Simon Peter, lovest thou
me ? F e e d m y sheep." F r o m these words the Jesuit would have
three observations drawn. T h e first is, that what was said to
Peter was said also to Peter's successors. I answer, firstly, that
these words belong properly to Peter alone. F o r in these words,
Peter is restored to his former dignity in the apostolic office,
from which he had then fallen; and so the fathers themselves have
interpreted this p l a c e : for they say that Peter is therefore thrice
commissioned to feed, because he had thrice denied Christ, that so
his triple confession might answer his threefold denial. Secondly,
I allow that these words, in the w a y of accommodation or inference,
m a y be applied also to the successors of Peter. F o r if it behoved
Peter to feed Christ's lambs and sheep, therefore also the suc-
cessors of Peter should resemble Peter in this respect. Thirdly,
I say that this appertains as much to all bishops and ministers as
to the pope of R o m e himself; because they all succeed Peter in
this matter, that is, in the preaching of the word, and should imi-
tate his diligence in feeding the sheep of Christ.

T h e second point which the Jesuit observes, and would have us

to observe, in the above passage, is t h i s ; that the action of feeding in
this place principally denotes the office of teaching, because here it is
only rational sheep, that is, men, that are fed b y the spiritual pastor.
I answer, that this is correctly enough r e m a r k e d ; and therefore I
say that these words appertain least of all to the Roman pontiff,
because he is least of all engaged in teaching.
 QUESTION THE FIFTH. 429

Thirdly, the Jesuit observes, that sheep in this place denotes all
the faithful, and therefore all Christians. I answer: Christ does not
say to Peter, Feed all m y s h e e p ; for neither Peter nor any other
apostle could do t h a t ; but he speaks indefinitely, " Feed m y sheep."
Christ gives the same command to Peter concerning feeding his sheep,
as he gave to the other apostles, that each, according to the portion
assigned to him, should feed the flock of Christ. F o r since to feed
is, as Bellarmine hath reminded us, to teach, Christ hath thus in
the last chapter of Matthew, v. 19, equally granted to all his apostles
the pastoral authority, saying to all indifferently, *' G o , and teach
all nations." Therefore, if feeding and teaching be the same, the
same authority was granted also to the other apostles as to P e t e r ;
and if sheep denote all Christians, the other apostles also were com-
manded to teach all Christians. But that injunction is to be under-
stood of all the apostles together and conjointly; not of the several
apostles separately, because they could not each severally run
through all nations, and teach all Christians. Hence the Jesuit
concludes, that the Roman pontiff cannot teach all b y preaching,
which we for our part allow to be most true, (for neither the
pope, nor any other sole individual can preach to all men ;) but he
adds, yea, nor y e t b y writing commentaries; because then (says
he) we should have to blame many pious popes, who have bestowed
no pains on this employment. But we will deliver him from this
apprehension: we freely and of our own accord confess that Christ
did not mean that method of feeding. Therefore he determines
that some singular kind of teaching was in these words commended
to Peter and his successors, namely, one which consisted in esta-
blishing and decreeing what each person ought to teach and believe.
I a n s w e r : In this way they ascribe to their pope, not a praetorian,
but absolutely a dictatorial power, such as God claims for Christ
alone, when he says (Matt. xvii. 5 ) , " Hear h i m : " from which
words Cyprian, Epist. 6 3 , concludes, " t h a t Christ alone is to be
heard, because of him alone God said, ' Hear him ;' and therefore
that we need not be solicitous what others said before us, but what
Christ said, who was before all V Surely this is an admirable and
truly singular function of teaching, not to preach, not to write com-
mentaries, but determine and prescribe what others are to believe !

\} Q u a r e si solus Christus a u d i e n d u s est, n o n d e b e m u s attendere quid

alius a n t e nos f a c i e n d u m putaverit, sed quid, qui ante o m n e s est, Christus
prior f e c e r i t . — p . 1 5 5 . e d . F e l l . ]
430 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

A monstrous fiction! W h o instituted this office, that there should

be one man who should prescribe what all others should teach, and
not teach himself? This office is recognised neither b y scripture,
nor the fathers, nor the church. Christ commended nothing to
Peter a l o n e ; and committed to him no such popish species of
pastorate. F o r Peter, in fact, both taught, as much as he could,
b y word of mouth, and wrote epistles: which would not have been
necessary for him to do, if he had been only bound to determine and
fix what others should teach.
T h e fifth place which the Jesuit cites from the new Testament
is L u k e xxii. 3 2 , and contains the words of Christ to Peter a little
before his death, which are these : " I have prayed for thee, Peter,
that thy faith fail not." From these words, says the Jesuit,
Bernard, Epist. 1 9 0 , deduces that Peter teaching ex
x
cathedra,
and consequently also his successors, cannot e r r ; with which Epistle
the decretals also agree. I determine here nothing of the authority
of Bernard and the decretal epistles; but as to the matter itself I
briefly answer, and say, in the first place, that this, whatever it
was, pertains to Peter alone, and not to his successors: for Christ
says, " I have prayed for thee, P e t e r , " — n o t for thy successors.
H e prayed indeed, doubtless, for the other apostles also, but spe-
cially for Peter, because he was about to suffer the assault of a
temptation more perilous than befel the rest, and therefore required
to be assisted b y some peculiar aid of prayer. Secondly, I affirm,
that this faith, of which Christ here speaks, is true faith, whereby
one perseveres firm and constant to the e n d ; actually justifying
faith; in a word, faith of the heart and not of the mouth, as the
place itself shews, and the comments also of the fathers thereupon.
But the papists do not mean this faith, but an historical faith,
which merely holds the true sense of doctrine: for they confess
that the pope may be an impious and wicked man ; but hold never-
theless that he cannot err in the interpretation of scripture, when-
soever he seats himself in the chair. Thirdly, if Christ asked this
for all the Roman pontiffs, that they should be exempt from error,
then he did not obtain what he asked. F o r it is certain that many
R o m a n pontiffs have erred, even when teaching ex cathedra, that

[} Dignum namquo arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna fldei, ubi non
possit fides sentire defectum. Hose quippe hujus prserogativa sedis. Cui
enim alteri aliquando dictum est, Ego pro te rogavi, Petre, ut non deficiat
fides tua?—Bernard. Opp. De Erroribus Abaslard. Praf. p. 5 2 . T. II. Paris.
1835.]
 QUESTION T H E F I F T H . 431

is, determining controversies; as Alphonsus asserts, Contra Hosres.

Lib. i. c. 4 , where he affirms that the pope not only may err, but
2

even be a heretic . The same is written and held b y other papists

3

also. Then who, I pray y o u , will be the supreme j u d g e of the

church, when the supreme pontiff hath fallen into heresy ? Is he a
fit person to be the supreme j u d g e in religion, and one in whose
judgment we should acquiese, who may be, and is a heretic, as the
v e r y papists themselves confess ? Surely, never. The supreme
j u d g e of all controversies must be such an one as can neither err
nor prove a heretic : and such is Christ himself, that true High
Priest, and the sacred scripture. But now, since the pope may err
and fall into h e r e s y , — t h e possibility of which our adversaries con-
c e d e , — w h a t shall we pronounce concerning Christ's prayer ? He
prayed that Peter's faith might not fail, which these men will have
extend to Peter's successors also. But faith cannot consist with
heresy. Therefore Christ could not obtain what he sought, if their
interpretation be received.
The sixth place which the Jesuit objects out of the new Testa-
ment is contained in Acts xv. 5, 6, 7, 2 8 ; where, upon a question
arising about the law of Moses and circumcision, the Christians who
disputed amongst themselves, are not remitted (says the Jesuit) to
a private spirit, but to a christian council over which Peter p r e -
sided, which came to this conclusion, ver. 2 8 : " It seemed good
to the H o l y Ghost and to us," &c. Hence the Jesuit gathers, that
the H o l y Spirit is always present in a council where Peter or
Peter's successors preside. I answer, first, that we do not send
any one who is in doubt on any matter to his private spirit, n e g -
lecting all means of finding truth, as the Jesuit falsely objects to
u s ; but to scripture itself, and the H o l y Spirit speaking publicly
in the scripture, who, we say, ought to be heard, and b y whose
authority we maintain that all controversies should be decided :
which also was the very thing done in this council. Let the same
thing, if possible, be now done as was done here. Let the pastors
and bishops be gathered together to consider and define some
question not b y their own judgment, but b y the authority of the
H o l y Spirit speaking in the scriptures. For thus they defined that
controversy out of the scriptures, that we might understand that the
supreme judgment is to be given to the scriptures. N o r was there

[ 2
O m n i s h o m o errare potest in fide, etiamsi P a p a sit. H e gives as i n -
stances t h e cases of L i b e r i u s a n d C o l e s t i n e . — L u g d . 15G4.]
P S e e D e l a h o g u e , d e Ecclesia, p p . 380,. ct seq. D u b l i n . 1815.]
432 THE FIRST CONTROVE RSY. [сн.

anything there concluded but b y the authority of scripture. Secondly,

the Jesuit's assertion that Peter presided over this council is false.
F o r James presided rather than P e t e r ; for it was in the words
proposed b y the former that the decree was drawn up, as appears
from verses 1 3 and 2 2 , and there are no vestiges whatever of a
precedence or presidential right being assigned to Peter in that
assembly. A s to his attempt to prove that Peter presided from
the circumstance of his having spoken first, I answer, that although
Peter's words are recited first b y Luke, y e t it is plain from verse
7, that many had spoken before P e t e r : for it is said there, that
after long disputing upon both sides Peter rose up. ИбККщ, says
Luke, crvfyTqaews уеуо^щ. Thirdly, I confess, that the Holy
Ghost was present and presided in this council, and that this sen­
tence was that of the H o l y Ghost, since it is proved b y the testi­
mony of scripture. But what hath this to do with the popish
councils over which Peter presides not, and in which the H o l y
Spirit hath no share ?
T h e Jesuit's seventh place is written Gal. ii. 2, where Paul says
that he, at Jerusalem, compared his gospel a w TOIS SOKOVCTI, that
is, with those who were in some estimation, or who were held of
some value. F r o m this place, says the Jesuit, the fathers conclude
that the church would not have believed Paul's gospel, if it had not
been confirmed b y P e t e r : therefore, it was then the privilege of
Peter, and is now that of Peter's successor, to j u d g e of the d o c ­
trine of faith. I answer, first: Paul went to Jerusalem, not to
meet Peter alone, and compare his gospel with him solely, or
borrow from him authority, but to treat publicly with the whole
church concerning that doctrine which he preached. F o r so, v. 2,
Kal a.ve6ent]v avrols то evayyeXiov, which the old translator
renders, Et contuli cum illis evangelium, that is, " with the whole
c h u r c h ; " which also is plain from his subjoining, кат tSlav Se тоТ?
SoKovai, " p r i v a t e l y with those who were of r e p u t a t i o n : " therefore
what follows, fii] eiy K6vov тркуш rj eSpafiov, " lest I should run,
or had run in vain," pertains no more to Peter than to the whole
church, or those principal apostles. Secondly, therefore, although
we should not interpret the place of the whole church, y e t we
cannot interpret it of Peter alone. F o r Paul says expressly, that
he compared his gospel not with Peter alone, but with several,
namely, avv TO7S SOKOVCTI, and he afterwards shews who these were,
namely, James, Peter, and John. Therefore it is false that Paul's
gospel was confirmed b y Peter a l o n e : it was the privilege of these
 QUESTION THE FIFTH. 433

others,' as much as of Peter, to j u d g e concerning doctrine. Thirdly,

as to the Jesuit's assertion, that the church would not have believed
Paul's gospel unless it had been confirmed b y Peter, it may bear
two senses. If he mean, that the church ought not to have b e -
lieved it, unless Peter had approved it, it is false; for the church
ought always to believe an apostle preaching the truth. But if he
mean that it would not have believed so readily, I assent: for
this was the reason w h y Paul wished to g o to Jerusalem, and there
explain his gospel to those who were there, because some supposed
that he preached and taught otherwise than the rest of the apostles;
which suspicion entertained b y many he thus entirely removed.
The eighth place produced b y the Jesuit is contained in 1 Cor.
xii. 8, 9, & c , where Paul says that " to some is given b y the
Spirit the word of wisdom, to others the word of knowledge, to
others faith, to others the interpretation of speeches." F r o m this
place he concludes, that the spirit of interpretation is not given to
all, and therefore that all cannot interpret the scriptures. I answer,
this we spontaneously concede. But the Jesuit deceives us b y the
ambiguity of a word. F o r there is both a public and a private
interpretation. W e confess that all have not the gift of publicly
interpreting the scriptures; but in private all the faithful, taught
by the H o l y Ghost, can understand the scriptures and recognise
the true sense of scripture.
The ninth and last place, which the Jesuit adduces from the
new Testament, is contained in 1 John iv. 1 , where we are admo-
nished " n o t to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits whether
they are of God : " therefore (says the Jesuit) a private spirit can
not be the j u d g e or interpreter of scripture, because it is to be
judged itself. I answer : The Jesuit does not understand the state
of the question. W e do not say that each individual should
acquiesce in that interpretation which his own private spirit frames
and dictates to h i m ; for this would be to open a door to fanatical
tempers and spirits: but we say that that Spirit should be the
judge, who speaks openly and expressly in the scriptures, and
whom all may h e a r ; b y him we desire that all other spirits, that
is, all doctrines, (for so the word is to be taken in this place,) should
be examined. W e recognise no public j u d g e save scripture, and
the Spirit teaching us in scripture : yet this man speaks as if we
made the spirit within the judge of o t h e r s ; which should never be
done. For we are not so mad or foolish as to deal t h u s : Y o u
ought to acquiesce in this doctrine, because m y spirit judges it to
28
[WHITAKER.]
434 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

be t r u e ; but we say, Y o u should receive this doctrine because the

H o l y Spirit in the scriptures hath taught us thus to think and to
believe.
Let it suffice to have said thus much against the Jesuit's second
argument, which is that drawn from the authority of the new
Testament.

CHAPTER VI.

OF THE THIRD ARGUMENT OF OUR ADVERSARIES.

His third general argument is from the practice of the church

in councils, and the testimonies of the fathers: and here he makes
a large enumeration of councils b y which controversies were de-
cided. I answer, that I do not understand what concern all these
have with the argument. F o r we allow that it is a highly conve-
nient way of finding the true sense of scripture, for devout and
learned men to assemble, examine the cause diligently, and investi-
gate the t r u t h ; yet with this proviso, that they govern their
decision wholly b y the scriptures. Such a proceeding we, for our
parts, have long wished f o r ; for it is attended with a twofold
advantage: first, that what is sought b y many is found the more
r e a d i l y ; second, that errors, and heretics the patrons of errors,
are the more easily repressed, when they are condemned b y the
common consent and judgment of a great number. This course,
however, is not open to us in all controversies and at all times:
for one cannot always, when in doubt of the interpretation of a
passage, immediately convoke a council. W e shall have a second
opportunity of speaking about these matters, and therefore I now
answer all with this one w o r d ; that, indeed, the weightiest contro-
versies have been determined and settled in councils, but not b y
the absolute authority of the council itself, but b y the judgment
and authority of scripture in the council. Pious bishops never
assembled to define a point themselves b y their own authority, but
b y that of scripture. Therefore all religious councils have ascribed
the supreme decision to the scriptures. Such we see to have been
the case in Acts x v . ; for there the maintainers of circumcision were
refuted out of the Law of Moses. So the Novatians were refuted
b y authority of scripture. So the Anabaptists, as is plain from
Augustine. So finally the Arians, in the council of Nice, were
VI.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 435

refuted and condemned b y the authority of scripture. F o r thus

the emperor Constantine addresses the fathers assembled in that
Synod: " There are the prophetic and apostolic books, which
plainly teach us what should be believed. L a y i n g aside, therefore,
all hostile feelings of enmity, let us derive from the inspired scrip-
tures, Xvcriv, the solution or decision of those matters about which
this controversy hath arisen ." 1
This is the v e r y thing which we
demand. Since, then, councils, whenever they are g o o d and pious,
follow the scriptures, it is manifest that the supreme authority of
judging belongs to the scriptures.
T h e Jesuit proceeds to cite the Roman pontiffs, and emperors
and fathers in great number, concerning whom also we will briefly
reply in order. T h e popes alleged are, Damasus, Epist. 3. ad Ste-
p h a n u m ; Innocent. I. in Epist. ad Concil. Carthag. et Milevit. apud
August. 9 1 and 9 3 ; Leo I. Epist, 8 1 and 89 ; Gelasius, Epistol. ad
2

Episcopos Dardanise; G r e g o r y , L i b . i v . E p . 5 2 . These instruct us

that weighty causes, especially of faith, pertain to the cognisance of
the apostolic see. I answer, first, that formerly weighty causes were
referred to the Roman church b y the agreement and arrangement
of the bishops, for the better maintenance of the peace of the church,
and the easier repression of heretics and schismatics; as also b e -
cause it seemed unjust to determine anything which concerned the
public profession of the faith, without consulting the bishop of
R o m e , who occupied the principal see. Hence it came to pass that
b y degrees those prelates seized and arrogated to themselves still
greater authority, and laid claim to a divine right, the catholics
meanwhile raising no v e r y strong reclamations, as supposing that
they possessed in the Roman church a great protection against
heretics. Secondly, that these decretal Epistles of the popes
Damasus, Julius, and others, are merely supposititious, of no sense
or genius, but wholly made up of ignorance, arrogance, and anti-
christianism. Erasmus deems the Epistles of Innocent unworthy
of so great a prelate, and misses in them " style and genius and
erudition ." 3
Gelasius everywhere exaggerates the dignity and

[! V i d e s u p r a . ]
[ 2
A u g . O p p . T . ii. p. 8 8 . Paris. 1 5 5 5 . S e e Coke, Censura quorundam
Scriptt. V e t t . p. 2 1 9 . ( H e l m s t a d t . 1 6 8 3 ) . Papebroch himself (Catalog. R o -
m a n . Pontific. p . 6 1 . a p . C a v e , H i s t . L i t e r . A r t . Innocentius I.) confesses t h a t
m a n y o f this pope's epistles m a y b e p r o v e d spurious b y c h r o n o l o g y . ]
[ 3
I n h a c epistola e t d i c t i o n e m e t i n g e n i u m tali d i g n u m Prcesule d e s i d e -
rare c o g i m u r . — C e n s u r a i n E p . xciii. inter E p p . A u g u s t i n i u t supra, p . 8 6 . 2 . ]
28—2
 436 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

privileges of his see without any moderation. L e o and G r e g o r y ,

indeed, write with considerably more modesty, and yet transgress
far and widely the limits of christian humility. Thirdly, that
these bishops are not to be heard in their own cause, who were
manifestly too deeply interested on their own side, and too deeply
prejudiced in their own favour, even to the manifest injury of
other churches and bishops.
Let us come now to emperors, the first of whom is Constantine.
H e , says Bellarmine, would not sit down in the Nicene synod b e -
fore the bishops had given him leave to be seated . 1
So Eusebius
tells us in his life of Constantine, Lib. i n . : which conduct shewed
that he was not president of that council. In the Epistle also to all
churches, given in that same place, he s a y s : " Whatever is decreed
in the holy assemblies of the bishops, should wholly be ascribed to
the divine will ."
2
Ambrose says of him, E p . 3 2 : " Constantine
left the judgment free to the bishops ." 3
A n d Augustine, Epist.
162, writes that the Donatists were b y him referred to their own
proper j u d g e , Melchiades bishop of B o r n e . 4
I answer, that these
things are irrelevant to the matter in hand. W e do not say that
Constantine was president of the Nicene council, in which, perhaps,
he was never present more than once. But what then ? Neither
was the Roman pontiff president, as we shall prove in its proper
place. That he did not sit down until desired b y the bishops,
proved his singular urbanity and respect for Christ's bishops,—
nothing else. A s to his writing in his epistles to the churches, that
what the holy assemblies of bishops determine should be ascribed
to the divine will, we acknowledge it. F o r holy bishops deter-
mine nothing but what the words of sacred scripture sanction,
which is the rule they follow in their decrees; otherwise they are
not holy. Neither are all the decrees of all councils to be esteemed
divine, but those which are supported b y the authority of scripture,

[' ov rrporepov fi TOVS cVtorKojrour «jwe{)o-at enaBi^e. Euseb. de Vita Con-

stant. Lib. in. c. 10. p. 402. D. Ed. Vales. Paris. 1678.]
[ rrdv yap e'l n 8' av ev rots ayiois TO>V eTTio-nowav o-vvehpiois TrpaTTerai, TOVTO
2

•trpbs TTJV Be'iavfiovKrjo-ive^ei rfjv auaqbopav. Ibid. cap. 20. p. 407. C.]
[ Sicut factum est sub Constantino augustse memorise principe, qui
3

nullas leges ante pramisit, sed liberum dedit judicium sacerdotibus.—Class.

I. Ep. xxi. n. 15. p. 339. T. vin. Paris. 1839.]
[ Neque enim ausus est Christianus imperator tumultuosas et fallaces
4

querelas suscipere, ut de judicio episcoporum qui Komaj sederant ipse

judicaret: sed alios, ut dixi, episcopos dedit.—Al. Ep. xliii. cap. 7. T. n.
p. 97.]
 QUESTION THE FIFTH. 437

as we shall shew hereafter in its fitting place. W h a t says Ambrose

of Constantine ? What if Constantine left the judgment free to the
bishops, and himself prescribed nothing to them : will it therefore
follow that they should not j u d g e according to the scriptures?
Furthermore, Augustine does not write that Constantine referred
the Donatists to the bishop of R o m e as their proper j u d g e : for
the bishop of R o m e was not the proper judge of the Donatists ; and
if he were, Constantine would have compelled them to acquiesce in
his sentence: whereas afterwards he assigned other arbitrators, and
finally took cognisance o f the cause himself; which fact Bellarmine
omitted, because plainly repugnant to the plea which he had under-
taken to defend.
T h e second is Gratian, in his Epistle to the bishop of Aquileia,
in which he allows " t h e cognisance of altercations" to the bishops . 5

I reply : W h o denies that the bishops can j u d g e of such causes ? o r

what hath this to do with a question about the interpretation o f
scripture ? T h e third is the younger Theodosius, in an Epistle to
the council of Ephesus, wherein he says that those who are not of
the episcopal order " should not intermeddle in ecclesiastical
matters ." I answer: There will be another place for discussing
6

the question, whether it be lawful for none but bishops to treat o f

ecclesiastical affairs: meanwhile, what does this contribute towards
confirming the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff in the inter-
pretation of the scriptures ? T h e fourth is Martian, who, L. Nemo.
C. de Summa Trinit. declares that nothing " once adjudicated should
be gone back upon or subjected to fresh disputation ." I answer, 7

that whatever things have been once adjudicated in a synod accord-

ing to the scriptures cannot be called a second time in question
without injury to the synod. But must, therefore, whatever j u d g -
ment the Roman pontiff hath passed prevail even against the plain
evidence of scripture? T h e fifth is Valentinian the elder, who
permits bishops to assemble when they would, and denies that such

[ Ñeque enim controversia? dubia? seutentia? rcctius poterant expediri,

5

quam si oborta? altercationis interpretes ipsos constituissemus antistites.—

Rescript. Gratian. Imp. ad Cone. Aquileg. inter Opp. Ambrosii. T. vin.
p. 2 3 0 . Paris. 1 8 3 9 . ]
[6
adipirov yap rbv prj rov KaTaKoyov TSIV dynuTarav iirio~KÓirü>v rvyxávovTa
Tais ¿KKk-qcriaa-TLKois trKeppaaiv ¿TTipíyvvo-Qai. A p . Labb. et Cossart. Concill.
T. III. coll. 4 4 2 , 3 . ]
[ Nam et injuriam facit judiéis reverendissimse synodi, si quis semel
7

judicata ac recte disposita revolvere et publico disputare contenderit.—Cod.

Justinian. Lib. i. Tit. iv. 1. 1 1 1 . Lugd. 1 5 8 5 . ]
438 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

matters appertain to h i m ; as we see in Sozomen. L i b . v i . c. 7 ' . I

a n s w e r : Valentinian denies that it was lawful for him fxera Xaov
TeTayiiei'ip Toiavra •jrokvirpayfxoveiv, " who was ranked amongst
the laity to busy himself with such m a t t e r s : " what t h e n ? The
R o m a n bishop is the j u d g e of all interpretations of scripture and all
controversies? Surely a beautiful conclusion! T h e sixth is the
emperor B a s i l , in the 8th synod, and the seventh, Theodoric, king
2

of the Goths, in the fourth Roman synod under S y m m a c h u s ; who 3

say nothing more than that laymen should not presume to decide
church-controversies, but should leave them to the bishops. Y e t it
does not follow from this, either that the bishop o f R o m e is the
supreme interpreter of scripture, or that bishops can define contro-
versies of faith and religion a n y otherwise than out of scripture.
L e t us now see how the case stands with the fathers. I n the
first place h e objects to us Irenseus, contra Hser. L i b . i n . c. 2 ,
where, he says, that father lays it down that controversies cannot
be determined out of the scriptures alone, because they are variously
expounded b y heretics; and that therefore, in the next chapter, he
sends the heretics against whom he disputes to the Roman church,
and shews them that controversies are to b e determined b y the
doctrine of that c h u r c h . 4
I a n s w e r : W h o e v e r will look at the place
itself in Irenseus, will readily perceive the fraud and prevarication
of the Jesuit. F o r there Irenseus finds fault with those heretics
with whom he was engaged, on the v e r y score of not receiving the
scriptures, but rather pressing and adhering to tradition. Now
their reason was, that scripture admits various senses and no fixed
interpretation. This the Jesuit ascribes to Irenseus, as if it were
his own opinion; whereas Irenseus in that place is not speaking his

[I 'Epoi pev, e(pT], fiera X a o C reraypeva oi 8epis Toiavra Trokvupaypovelv oi

he iepets ois TOVTOV pekei Ka6' eavTovs onrj jioi\ovTcu o-vvLTanrav p . 525. B.
Paris. 1686.]
[ Labb. et Cossart. Concffl. T. v m . col. 1157.]
2

[3 l b . T . in. col. 1333.]

[* Cum enim ex scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ip-
sarum scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et
quia varie sint dicta?, et quia non possit ex his inveniri Veritas ab his qui
nesciant traditionem.—p. 230. Paris. 1675. In the next chapter, p. 232, w e
find: Maxima? et antiquissima? et omnibus cognitse, a gloriosissimis duobus
apostolis Petro et Paulo Roma? fundata? et constitute ecclesia?, earn quam
habet ab apostolis traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per succes-
s i o n s episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes, confundimus
omnes eos, & c ]
 QUESTION THE FIFTH. 439

own sentiments, but proposing the judgment and opinion of the

heretics, and censuring it. A n d as to cap. 3 of the same book,
Irenseus does, indeed, send those heretics to the Roman church, and
with g o o d reason ; because that church was then the most illustrious
and noble of all churches, and retained, at that time, the tradition
of the apostles uncorrupted. But it hath now fallen, and become
much changed from what it was in the early ages.
Next he objects Athanasius, in his Epistle to the Hermits,
wherein, speaking of the Arian Constantius, he says : " W h e n was
it ever heard that the judgment o f the church received its authority
from the e m p e r o r ? " 5
I answer : T h e legitimate judgments of the
church upon matters which concern faith borrowed their force and
authority from none but from G o d himself. Therefore, whoever as-
sumes the right of determining concerning the faith as it may seem
good to himself, as the impious Constantius did, he seizes upon divine
authority, even though he were the Roman pontiff, or all pontiffs
together ; since it is their duty not to pronounce according to their
own pleasure, but to unfold what G o d hath determined, and that
not otherwise but b y the scriptures ; so as always to acknowledge
that their opinion is to be squared b y the rule of scripture, and a p -
proved as it accords with scripture.
In the third place, he objects Basil, Epist 5 2 , to Athanasius,
where he says that it seems to him advisable that the Roman
bishop should be written to, that he might of his own authority send
some persons into the East to dissolve the acts of the council of R i -
mini . 6
I answer : I confess, indeed, that Basil writes that he thought
this advisable ; but what is that to the purpose ? Ought not catholic
bishops to condemn heretical opinions, and provide for the peace and
tranquillity of the church ? Basil requires that a message should b e
sent to the Roman bishop in order that, as it was difficult to send
persons " b y public decree and consent," ¿7ro KOWOV KCU crvvoSiKov
eóy/uaros, he might of himself choose and send certain men fit for
the office, and who understood the whole transactions at Rimini in

[ 5 T . i. p . 3 7 1 . E d . B e n e d i c t . ]
[ 8
'Eipávri Sè r¡pXv ¿KÓ\OV8OV iwío-TÚXai TC5 eVía/cóVci) P<¿pr¡s, éVicnce ^ a c r & u ra
ivravda, Kai òovvai yváprjv Iva irreibàv àrrò KOIVOV KOÍ avvohiRov boyfiaros d V o -
o-TaXrjvaL Tivas òvaKoXov TCÚV eKÚdev, avròv avdevTrju-at 7rep\ TO irpaypa, e/cXe£a-
fievov av8pas ÍKavotis pèv ó&oinopías Tvóvovs SievtyKftv, ÌKavois Se TrpqÓTrjn Kai
¿Trovóla ijdovs Tovs ivòiaorpócpovs Ta>v Trap yp-tv vovOerijo-af eViT^òVico? èè Ka\
oiKovop.iK¿is Kexpqpévovs TÍO Xóyco, /cai návra e x 0 V T a s
f ^ ' éavràv
e
rà iv 'Apipiva
Trenpaypéva, e V l Xúcret T&v Kara àvayKrjv exei yevopévav. T. II. p . 8 2 5 . B . ]
440 THE FIRST CONTROVE RSY. [сн.

Italy, ¿714 \vo~ei Tiov кат áváyKtjv é/cet yevop-ivtov, " to dissolve
what was there done b y f o r c e ; " that is, inform the people that it
was not reason or scripture, but violence and fraud, that prevailed in
that council, and so impair the authority of that council. What
could any one collect from this to confer the supreme right and
dictatorship in the interpretation of all parts of scripture upon the
bishop of R o m e ?
T h e fourth father whom he objects to us is Nazianzen, in his
oration upon his flight , 1
and again in his oration to his panic­
stricken fellow­citizens , where there is nothing whatever to favour
2

the opinion of our adversaries. H e bids them not " to feed the
pastor, or j u d g e the j u d g e : " not as if the bishops were allowed to
establish any thing just as they pleased, while the people were
forbidden to contradict or examine i t ; but because rashness in j u d g ­
ing is to be guarded against. F o r the people, if they desire not
to be involved in error and perdition, are bound to j u d g e heretical
bishops who discharge the office of pastors and judges.
Chrysostom follows in the fifth place, who, in his last Homily
upon St John, says that Peter was set as a master over the whole
world b y Christ . 3
I answer, but not as sole master. Neither does
this avail anything towards establishing the pope's authority. For
Chrysostom does not say that the pope was set as a master over
the world.
Cyril is the sixth, whom Thomas cites in his small treatise 4
on
the errors of the Greeks. I answer, that testimony is not extant
in Cyril's Thesaurus, which Thomas hath cited against the Greeks,
so that it may justly be asked where Thomas found it. It is some
apocryphal and supposititious testimony, such as the rest upon which
the papal primacy is founded.
Bellarmine now proceeds to the Latin fathers, and, in the
seventh place, he objects Tertullian in his book of Prescriptions
against Heretics, where he teaches that we should not dispute
[ i O r a t . I. T . i. p . 1 . ]
[2 O r a t . X V I I . T . i. p . 2 6 5 . ]
[3 C h r y s o s t o m there says o f P e t e r , rr¡v жросттао-íav еуетотывт] TCOV á S e X ­
фшу, in v . 2 1 . B u t h e adds afterwards o f h i m a n d t h e other apostles
generally, eireibav yap epeWov TT¡S oiKovpevajs rrjv iwvrpcmriv avabé^aa-Baí, OVK
e S « о­и/отеггХе'хб'ш \omov dXXiJXois, in v. 2 3 . ]
[ 4
D i c i t e n i m Cyrillus in libro T h e s a u r o r u m : U t m e m b r a m a n e a m u s in
capite nostro, apostólico t h r o n o R o m a n o r u m pontificum, a q u o n o s t r u m est
quserere quid credere e t quid t e n e r e debemus.—Thomaj Aquiuat. Opp.
T . x v i i . p . 9. V e n e t . 1 5 9 3 . ]
VI.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 441

against heretics out of scripture . I a n s w e r : Tertullian says that

5

some heretics do not receive some parts of scripture; that against

such we must not dispute out of the scriptures, but use other argu-
ments. This we also allow, conceding that with such men, who
deny and reject the scriptures, we must argue not from the scrip-
tures but from the testimony of the church, or contend in some
other way. F o r he who disputes only of scripture against those
who deny the scripture loses his pains ; and who denies that the
truth was specially to be sought for in the apostolic churches ?
Can it be proved from this that the Roman bishop is the supreme
judge of controversies and interpreting of scripture?
T o Tertullian succeeds Cyprian, Lib. i. Epist. 3, where he says
that " heresies and schisms arise from this, that God's priest is not
obeyed, and that one priest at a time in the church, and one j u d g e at
a time, is not considered as representing Christ ." I answer, that 6

this priest and judge is not the sole bishop of Rome, as Bellarmine
feigns, but each catholic bishop of the c h u r c h : for Cyprian is now
speaking of himself, against whom the Novatians had created another
bishop, and introduced schism and heresy into that church. So
Lib. iv. Epist. 10 : " T h e n c e , " says he, " schisms and heresies have
sprung and do spring, that the bishop, who is but one and presides
over the church, is despised b y the arrogant presumption of certain
p e r s o n s . " H e speaks of the particular bishops of particular churches,
7

to whom even Bellarmine himself does not ascribe an absolute

power of interpreting scripture. And even should we concede that
Cyprian speaks of Cornelius, what will follow but that he was the
sole priest of the Roman church, not of all churches? Ambrose,
indeed, Ep. 3 2 , to Valentinian the younger, blames him severely
8

and justly for wresting the cognisance of matters of faith from the
catholic bishops and assuming it himself. For who can doubt that
it belongs to the bishops and pastors to judge of matters of faith ?

[ 5
H u n c igitur potissimum graclum obstruimus, n o n admittendos eos ad
i l l a m d e scripturis disputationcm, si ha? sunt ilia? vires illorum, uti n e eas
h a b e r e possint. c. x v . p. 1 1 . ]
[° N e q u e e n i m aliunde hosreses oborta? sunt aut m o t a sunt schismata,
q u a m inde q u o d sacerdoti D e i n o n o b t e m p e r a t u r , nec unus in ecclesia ad
t e m p u s sacerdos et ad terapus j u d e x v i c e Christi cogitatur. E p . lix. p . 1 2 9 .
Ed. Fell.]
[ 7
I n d e schismata et ha?reses oborta? sunt, d u m episcopus, qui unus est et
ecclesia? pra?est, superba q u o r u n d a m pra?sumptiono c o n t e m n i t u r . ]
[ 8
Quando audisti, clementissime imperator, in causa fidei laicos de
episcopo j u d i c a s s e ? — C l a s s . I . E p . xxi. n. 4. p. 3 3 7 . T . v m . Paris. 1 8 3 9 . ]
442 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

But will this make the bishop of R o m e supreme j u d g e , or permit

bishops to j u d g e as they please ?
Augustine is next objected to us, who, in his first book against
Cresconius the grammarian, cap. 3 3 , says, " Let him who fears he
may be deceived, consult the c h u r c h . " 1
I answer : This we allow,
but under the condition which Augustine subjoins; namely, that
that church is to be consulted " w h i c h the scripture points out."
F o r otherwise than b y the scriptures it cannot certainly be known
which is the true church. W e say that the church should be con-
sulted in every cause which concerns faith, and that the church
ought to consult the scriptures. A n d truly they are justly de-
ceived who do not consult the church, and obey her pious counsels
and admonitions. But, although pious doctors are to be sought
for and inquired of, and all proud and perilous temptations to be
avoided, as Augustine hath reminded us in the Prologue to his
books of Christian D o c t r i n e ; yet we should consider both what
they answer, and how truly, lest our faith should rest upon
human teaching rather than upon divine testimony. That is not
really faith, which is founded upon the authority of m e n ; and upon
such authority is founded whatever depends not on the word and
voice of God.
But Jerome, says Bellarmine, writes thus to Damasus: " I shall
not b e afraid to speak of three hypostases, if y o u desire m e . "2

Therefore he entirely acquiesced in the authority of the Roman

pontiff. I answer : Jerome was, indeed, in great doubt and anxiety,
whether he ought to say with the Greek bishops that there were
three hypostases. H e recognised three persons: but this term
inroarracTK he regarded with suspicion, supposing that perhaps some
poison lay concealed in i t ; and when constantly in the writings of
the Greeks meeting with the assertion that there are three h y p o -
stases, he feared that he might involve the doctrine of three Gods.
Upon this subject he consulted the bishop of R o m e , being himself
in total seclusion, and having, in that place where he was, no learn-
ed man whose advice he could ask. H e was the more inclined to
consult him rather than any other person, because he was himself
a presbyter of the Roman church, and Damasus, as bishop of that

[ U t quoniam sancta scriptura fallere non potest, quisquis falli metuit

J

hujus obscuritate quajstionis, eandem ecclesiam de ilia consulat, quam sine

ulla ambiguitate sancta scriptura demonstrat.—T. vn. p. 168. Paris. 1637.]
[ Discernite, si placet, obsecro: non timebo tres hypostases dicere, si
2

jubetis.—Ep. Ivi. Opp. T. n. p. 131. Basil. 1565.]

VI.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 443

church, was iu the best condition to know the sense of that church
which Jerome would desire to follow. The controversy, therefore,
was about words, not t h i n g s : for Jerome was perfectly master of
the thing meant, but wished to know what Damasus and the Roman
church thought of the expression, because he was desirous of acqui-
escing in the consent and custom of that church.
In the next place, as to what Sulpitius Severus tells us, Historian
Sacr. L. ii., of Martin, how he told the emperor Maximus, " that it
was impious for the temporal j u d g e to take cognisance of an eccle-
siastical c a u s e ; " I answer, that Martin did indeed assert the
3

church's right to j u d g e of doctrine, and allowed no such right to the

emperor. And who denies that this judgment belongs to the bishops?
But must therefore the Roman pontiff alone engage in such j u d g -
ments, or be the supreme judge of the church and interpreter of
scripture ? Bellarmine should consider what enormous licence he
allows himself in controversy. There is a wide gap between such
premises and any conclusion suitable to the question proposed.
Furthermore, Prosper, who comes next, does not, as Bellar-
mine affirms, prove, in the end of his book against Cassian, that
the Pelagians are heretics on no other score than because they
had been condemned b y the Roman bishops. F o r throughout the
whole of the book he had been contending against the Pelagians
with arguments for the most part taken from Augustine; and then
in the end he mentions how the Pelagians had been condemned b y
Innocent, Zosimus, Boniface and Celestine. Is this nothing else
but proving that the Pelagians were heretics upon no other account
than because they had been condemned b y the Roman bishops?
Afterwards the Jesuit alleges Vincentius Lirinensis, who, in his
commentary, teaches us that besides the scriptures we should apply
" the rule of catholic understanding ." 4
I answer : that each man
is not to be left to his own private opinions, but that the analogy
of truth is to be retained, and " the line of prophetic and apostolical
interpretation." W h a t then is this ? H e shews, says Bellarmine,
that it is the decrees of councils, the consent of the fathers, and

[ Namque turn Martinus apud Treveros constitutes non desinebat

3

increpare Ithacium, ut ab accusatione desisteret: Maximum mare, ut san-

guine infelicium abstineret: satis superque sufficere ut episcopali sententia
hasretici judicati ecclesiis pellerentur: novum esse et inauditum nefas, ut
causam ecclesise judex seculi judicaret.—p. 1 6 1 . Amstel. 1 6 4 1 . ]
[ Idcirco multum necesse est, propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus,
4

ut propheticae et apostolicas interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et

catholiei sensus normam dirigatur.—Commonit. c. 2 . p. 3 2 5 . Paris. 1 6 G 3 . ]
444 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

such like. W e also value these things h i g h l y ; y e t not promis-

cuously, but with discrimination. F o r the decrees of councils are
not always perfectly entire, and the consent of the fathers can
never be proved. But wherefore did Vincentius say nothing of
the Roman pontiff, when he was disputing of the true interpre-
tation of scripture? W h o does not perceive that this glorious
interpreter of scripture was unknown to Vincentius ?
Gregory follows, who, L i b . v. Epist. 2 5 , s a y s : " W e know that
the most pious lords keep strict discipline, observe order, respect
the canon, and intermeddle not with the business of the priest ." 1

I answer: Pious princes use not to meddle with the affairs of the
priesthood, and this is said to be unlawful for them to do. But
what is this to the Jesuit's cause ? Will it therefore follow, that
the supreme right of expounding scripture and the final judgment
of all controversies appertains to the bishop of R o m e ? These testi-
monies respect rather another question, whether a prince ought to
undertake the care of religion. But such is the acuteness of the
Jesuits, that they can prove anything b y anything.
I pass over Anselm and Bernard, and excuse them, considering
the time they lived in, if perchance they ascribed some extravagant
prerogatives to the Roman pontiff. If he had produced even more
numerous and stringent arguments than these, y e t , since they are
merely human, they could make no reason of demonstrative force.
A n d so much upon the Jesuit's third argument.

CHAPTER VII.

OF THE JESUIT'S FOURTH ARGUMENT.

H I S fourth and last argument is drawn from the reason of the

thing. God, says he, was not ignorant that there would be in his
church at all times many controversies and difficult questions con-
cerning the faith. Therefore he would not have well provided in
things necessary for his church, if he had not established and left
to it some j u d g e of those controversies. But God hath excellently
well provided for his church always, especially in respect of things
necessary. Therefore he hath left some judge. I a n s w e r : God

[! Notum est piissimos d ó m i n o s disciplinam dirigere, o r d i n e m servare,

cañones v e n e r a n , et se sacerdotalibus negotiis n o n m i s c e r e . — O p p . T. I. p .
8 3 8 . Basil. 1 5 6 4 . ]
VII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 445

hath, indeed, left his church a j u d g e ; but the question now is, who
is that judge ? upon which a controversy is raised between us and
the papists. W e say that the judge is the H o l y Spirit speaking in
the scriptures. But the Jesuit draws up three assertions upon this
subject. First, he says that this judge is not some spirit of private
revelation. I answer: W e concede this. The authority of such a
spirit is secret, hidden and private; but the judge sought should
possess a public, open, and universally notorious authority. Second-
l y , the Jesuit affirms that this judge is no secular prince. I answer:
W e concede this also. F o r we ascribe the supreme decision solely
to the scripture and the H o l y Spirit; and yet the papists object to
us that other sentiment and opinion, as if it were ours. Thirdly,
the Jesuit concludes that the supreme judge must be an ecclesias-
tical prince, such as is the Roman pontiff. I answer: Whatever,
then, the papists talk so vauntingly of fathers and of councils, y e t
it is to their ecclesiastical prince, that is to the pope, that all
controversies are finally referred, and with that prince and supreme
interpreter rests the whole meaning of scripture and the right of
adjudicating upon it. But we do not acknowledge that prince,
whom Christ never constituted; and we say that the scripture
itself publicly set forth and propounded is its own interpreter.

It remains now that we see with what sort of reasons he en-

deavours to overturn this opinion of ours. N o w the Jesuit proves
that scripture cannot be its own interpreter, b y three arguments.
His first reason is, because scripture hath various meanings; and,
therefore, since it cannot speak, it cannot inform us which of these
is the true and genuine sense. I answer: Scripture, as we have
already said, hath one simple meaning, which may be clearly
gathered also from the scriptures themselves: and although the
scripture hath not voice and speech like a man, y e t does it speak
plainly as a l a w ; and God himself speaks in the scripture, and
scripture is on that account styled the word of God. With no less
certainty, therefore, may we elicit a true meaning from scripture,
than if God himself were to address us with an audible voice. Do
we then desire a better j u d g e and interpreter than God himself?
H e who reads the letter of a friend, does he fail to understand his
friend's meaning, because the letter itself does not speak, or because
he does not actually hear his friend speaking to him ? N o man in
his senses would say that. Since the scriptures, then, are as it
were a letter sent to us from God, we can from them understand
the will of God, although they do not speak to us. " The heavens"
(says the prophet, Ps. xix.) " declare the glory of G o d ; " and y e t
446 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

they speak n o t : the scriptures have a yet more glorious and dis-
tinct utterance. " In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth." W h a t ? shall we not know the meaning of these words,
unless we consult the pope ? A n d no less plain are all the chief
articles of our religion.
The second argument wherewith the Jesuit proves that scrip-
ture cannot be its own judge and interpreter, is t h i s : because in
every well-constituted state there is careful distinction made be-
tween the law and the j u d g e ; and therefore the scripture cannot
be the judge, since it is the law. I answer: In no commonwealth
should any j u d g e be constituted, who might expound the law ac-
cording to his own will and pleasure: for then what will be the
use of laws ? On the contrary, the judge, in every state, is
bound to expound the law b y the l a w ; otherwise he will prove an
unrighteous magistrate, if he follow his own mind and not the law.
So in the church bishops and pastors ought to interpret scripture
and expound the will of God, but yet b y the law of G o d itself, that
is, the scriptures: although, in truth, we allow to no man so much
authority in respect of the scriptures as may be ascribed to the
j u d g e of civil matters in regard of the laws of men. Human laws
may with much greater safety be entrusted to a single j u d g e than
the divine law. The divine law is both the judgment and the
j u d g e , the interpreter and the rule. F o r what rule shall that
j u d g e whom the papists feign propose to himself in the interpreta-
tion of scripture ? Hath he none ? That, I hope, they dare not
affirm. N o w if he follow any rule, it must needs be either a
public or a private one. If he follow a private and hidden rule, it
should not be received, because doubtful and uncertain, and no
better than the private testimony of the Spirit; whereas every rule
ought to be certain and known. But if it be a public rule which
he follows, it must needs be scripture: for what other can it be ?
Now he that follows scripture as his rule, and squares and conforms
his interpretations to it, confesses that he hath no power to inter-
pret the scriptures otherwise than as the rule of scripture itself
prescribes. Thus he does not j u d g e of the sense of scripture with
an absolute authority, but submits his judgment to the scriptures.
The Jesuit's third reason upon this subject is to this effect: A
j u d g e ought to have a coactive authority; otherwise his judgment
will have no force, nor will any one acquiesce in his sentence. I
answer: Scripture, indeed, hath no external power of compulsion,
but only internally compels the mind to assent. But if there were
any external j u d g e of this sort, who could compel all persons, then
VII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 447

there would be no controversies, which y e t have always been and

always will be, and now too are almost infinite. The Roman pontiff
can indeed compel in one sense, that is, terrify, and restrain b y fear,
and punish with death; but he cannot compel us to believe that
this is the will of God, and to receive the scripture as the voice of
God. It is the Holy Spirit who persuades us to believe this, who
leads our minds to form true opinions, and makes us hold them firm
even to our last gasp. T h e pontiff, therefore, is not the judge,
because he cannot compel us to believe. F o r that coaction of his,
which he uses when he gags our mouths, and strangles our very
throats, so as to prevent us even from muttering, is mere violence,
and can avail nothing without the inward persuasion of the H o l y
Spirit. Yea, unless that inward persuasion of the H o l y Spirit be
superinduced, the mind can never securely and resolutely acquiesce
in any interpretation.
So far then we have spoken of the arguments of the papists;
which are, for the most part, irrelevant, being directed against the
private spirit, which is not the judge whom we recognise.

CHAPTER VIII.

OUR ARGUMENTS WHEREBY WE PROVE THAT THE SUPREME DECISION

IN INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE BELONGS NOT TO THE CHURCH,
BUT TO THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES AND TO THE HOLY
SPIRIT.

OUR opinion is, that the supreme decision and authority in the
interpretation of scripture should not be ascribed to the church, but
to the scripture itself, and to the Holy Spirit, as well speaking
plainly in the scriptures as also secretly confirming the same in our
hearts. This opinion of ours we now establish b y some arguments.
Our first argument depends upon the conclusion of the third
question. For if scripture cannot otherwise be known but b y scrip-
ture and the Holy Spirit, which was the conclusion we have arrived
at already, in the third question; then certainly neither should we
seek the sense of scripture from any other source than from scrip-
ture and the H o l y Spirit speaking in scripture. F o r the sense of
scripture is the scripture itself. Hither, therefore, may be referred
all those arguments which we used in the third question.
448 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Our second argument is this: That which alone hath power to

engender faith, hath alone the supreme authority of interpreting
the scriptures, and defining and deciding all controversies. Now it
is only the scripture and the H o l y Spirit that have this power.
Therefore this authority is to be ascribed only to them. The
major is sufficiently plain. F o r faith (says Paul, R o m . x. 17)
" cometh b y hearing," that is, from the sense of scripture duly per-
ceived. N o w the sense of scripture is only to be sought from scrip-
ture itself and the H o l y Spirit. T h e minor is also manifest: for it
is only the H o l y Ghost that can infuse into our hearts that saving
faith which is therefore called b y the schoolmen Fides infusa.
The church cannot infuse this faith: for that faith which we obtain
from the church is not called infused, but acquired, and the papists
themselves allow that it is not sufficient to a full assurance or cer-
tain persuasion. T h e gospel is called " t h e power of God unto
salvation," R o m . i. 1 6 ; and if this be true, then it is certainly
sufficient to engender faith. . And the apostle testifies that he
preached the gospel without any ornaments of speech, in order that
it might be evident that the people's faith was the mere result of
the gospel itself. Faith, therefore, is not the gift of the church,
except improperly and in a mere ministerial capacity; but it is pro-
perly and necessarily the gift and effect of the H o l y Spirit speaking
through the scriptures. The sum of the matter is this: faith is
produced b y scripture a l o n e ; therefore the true sense of scripture
is to be discovered from the scripture itself alone.
Our third argument stands t h u s : The supreme judge of contro-
versies and legitimate interpreter of scripture should have these
three properties: the first is, that we should certainly know that
the sentence which he delivers is true, and that we can acquiesce in
i t ; the second, that no appeal from that sentence shall be lawful;
the third, that he be influenced b y no partiality. Now the church
or the pope possess none of t h e s e ; whereas the scripture, and the
H o l y Spirit speaking in the scripture, have them all. Therefore
the supreme decision is to be given to them, and not to the church
or the pope. The major is self-evident. The minor, namely, that
none of these properties exist in any visible church or in the pope,
is clear also. F o r b y the church the papists mean, first, the fathers
and the unanimous sentences of the fathers; since unless they agree,
they do not assign to them such great authority. But how can we
be certain whether all the fathers agreed amongst themselves or
with their brother bishops ? In order to know this for certain we
 QUESTION THE FIFTH. 449

should have to read all the fathers. Besides, there are no books
extant of many fathers, so as to leave us totally ignorant what their
opinion was. Secondly, b y the church they mean councils. But
how shall we know certainly that councils were legitimately assem-
bled ? And without this we can have no certain persuasion of the
presence of the H o l y Spirit. Besides, councils were not assembled
or held to define all controversies and interpret all obscure parts of
scriptures, but to condemn and refute two or three heretical doc-
trines. So in the council of Nice Arius was condemned, who denied
the divinity of the Son. In the council of Constantinople Macedonius
was condemned, who impugned the divinity of the H o l y Spirit. So
in other councils other opinions of heretics were refuted out of the
scriptures. But how small a part is this of those things which
require a legitimate interpretation! In the third and last place,
therefore, b y the church they mean the pope. But there are
grounds of hesitation also with respect to his sentence. F o r how
can we be certain that he does not himself err ? H o w shall it be
made plain to us that he hath any such authority ? T h e y say, from
scripture. I ask, from what scripture ? Forsooth from this : " I
have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not." Luke xxii. 3 2 .
B e it so. But who shall j u d g e of the sense of this passage ? How
shall I know that it is spoken of the pope ? M y ears tell me that it
is said of Peter ; but of the pope I hear nothing. For Christ says,
" I have prayed for thee, Peter," not " I have prayed for thee,
pope." And Peter, indeed, did remain firm and constant in the
faith to the very end of his l i f e ; but many popes have not had the
like perseverance. H o w then shall I know that these words are
meant of the pope ? W h o shall be the j u d g e of this controversy ?
The pope, they tell us. But it is unjust that he who is the subject
of the controversy should be the judge of the controversy; and I
am in greater doubt of the pope's authority than of the sense
of this passage. There is need, therefore, of some other and more
impartial judge. F o r who could say this was a legitimate interpre-
tation ;—since the pope says that infallibility is promised to him in
this text, therefore he is infallible ? Surely he needs some greater
authority and testimony than his own word to prove that such a
promise hath been made to him. Besides, the papists themselves
acknowledge, that the pope may not only err, but even be a heretic,
and so completely overturn this interpretation of the passage.

Finally, councils, fathers, popes, are m e n ; and scripture testifies

that all men are deceitful. H o w then shall I acquiesce in their sen-
29
[WHITAKER.]
450 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

tence ? H o w can my conscience certainly determine, so as to leave

no room for my faith to waver, that whatever they may pronounce
is true ? This is surely to leave no difference between God and men.
F o r I believe what God says to be true, because he says it, and
seek no other reason; but when I hear scripture saying that " all
men are liars," I dare not ascribe so much to man, lest I make him
equal to God. If they say that it is true, not because they p r o -
nounce it, but because scripture says it, then they give the supreme
authority to another, that is, to scripture. Thus, what we said was
the first requisite in every judge, we have shewn impossible to be
found in this j u d g e whom our adversaries have set up.
But now, as to the second p a r t : if we cannot certainly know
that their judgment is true, and that we may acquiesce in it, much
less can we be so certain of their sentence as to make it unlawful
for us to appeal against it. T h e y appeal from fathers to councils,
from councils to the p o p e ; why then should it not be lawful for us
to appeal from the pope to God, that is, to the H o l y Spirit speak-
ing in the scriptures ? But, says the papist, God does not s p e a k ;
the H o l y Spirit does not speak; it is foolish, therefore, to appeal to
him. I answer, that such an assertion is false and impious. For
God speaks with us in the scriptures as it were face to face, as much
as he formerly spake out of the cloud, Matth. xvii. 5 ; nor would he
speak otherwise than he hath spoken in the scriptures, if he were
now to utter a voice from heaven. Consequently we are commanded,
John v. 3 9 , to " search the scriptures:" and Matth. xxii. 2 9 , Christ
thus addresses the Sadducees: " Y e do err, not knowing the scrip-
tures." So that errors spring from ignorance of the scriptures. And,
2 Pet. i. 1 9 , Peter praises those to whom he writes, s a y i n g : " Y e
do well that y e take heed to the word, Xoym, of prophecy." A n d
on this account pious pastors do not say, y o u must believe because
we say it, but because God hath said it; and if we ask of them how
this may be known, they tell us, from the scriptures,—from this or
that place of scripture. T h e Levites are commanded, Deut. xvii. 1 1 ,
to j u d g e according to the l a w ; and, Joshua i. 7, Joshua is ordered
to decline from the law neither to the right hand nor to the left.
H e is therefore permitted to determine nothing of himself, but is
bound most closely to the scripture as his rule. Also, that scripture
is not dumb or mute, but utters a clear voice which, if we be
not deaf, we may easily hear, is manifestly shewn b y the following
t e x t s : R o m . iii. 1 9 , Paul says, ocra o vomos Xeyei TOIS ev r<p
t'Ofiip XaXel, " Whatever the law saith, it speaketh to those who
Vili.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 451

are under the law." So Moses ascribes to it a mouth, Deut. vii.

11, where Pagninus hath translated it, ex ore legis. H e b . xii. 5,
" Y e have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh, SiaXeyerai,
unto y o u as unto children : M y son, despise not thou the chastening
of the L o r d , " &c. John vii. 4 2 : " Hath not the scripture said,
еТтге!/; & c . " And afterwards, verse 51, Nicodemus asks, Mij
уоу.о<; rmxwv Kplvei той avOpunrov; " D o t h our law judge the
man," &c. If the law condemn, it certainly speaks. John xix. 3 7 ,
етера урафг] Xeyei, " another scripture saith." Paul asks, R o m .
iv. 3, T'I yap n урафг) Xeyei; " W h a t saith the scripture ? " And
discourse, Xoyos, is everywhere ascribed to scripture, so as plainly
to convict those of folly and audacity who deny the power of
speech to the scriptures. Since it is certain, therefore, that
scripture speaks, what sort of voice shall we ascribe to i t ? Is
it such as none can understand without the pope's help as inter­
preter ?
Our fourth argument is to this effect: If the scriptures should
be interpreted and understood b y the same Spirit whereby they
were written, then it is necessary for all who would interpret or
understand them to consult the H o l y Spirit. But the former is
true, and therefore also the latter. There can be no doubt of the
consequence in the m a j o r ; and as to the minor, it is evident from
2 Tim. iii. 16, and 2 Pet. i. 21, that the H o l y Spirit is the author
of scripture. N o w that the same Spirit is required for the under­
standing of scripture, the papists themselves acknowledge, as Staple­
ton, Andradius, and others, but in a somewhat different way from
us. F o r they say that this Spirit, b y whose teaching the scrip­
tures are to be rightly understood and interpreted, resides only in
the p o p e ; whereas we say that he resides in every pious man whc
duly interprets scripture. This also Bernard asserts in his dis­
course to the fathers of the mountain, where these words o c c u r :
" Y o u will never be able to enter into Paul's meaning, unless you
imbibe Paul's spirit ." 1
But, y o u will ask, how am I to imbibe this
spirit ? Can this spirit be infused b y the pope ? Bernard sub­
joins, that it is to be gotten " b y the use of a devout intention in
reading, and b y meditation;" therefore from the scripture itself
H e adds something of the same kind respecting D a v i d : " Y o u can
never understand David, until b y actual experience y o u feel the

[} N u n q u a m P a u l i sonsum ingredieris, d o n e e usu bona? intontionis in lec­

tione ejus, et studio assiduse meditationis, spiritum ejus i m b i b e r i s . — O p p . Т. I
p. 1 1 7 1 . Basil. 1 5 6 6 . ]
29—2
452 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

affections which the Psalms e x p r e s s . "

1
Each man therefore needs
the H o l y Spirit for the scriptures. This is what Jerome affirms in
his commentary upon the first chapter of the Galatians : " H e that
understands scripture otherwise than the sense of the H o l y Spirit,
b y whom it was written, demands, may b e called a h e r e t i c . " 2

T o this also relates that saying of Paul, 1 Cor. ii. 1 5 , " H e that is
spiritual judgeth all things," avaKp'ivei iravra. W h o is this spi-
ritual man ? The Jesuit wishes it to be understood only of a few
perfect persons, who can even predict future events. But the falsity
of this appears from the very words themselves: for 7rveviiaTiKos,
or the spiritual man, is there opposed to rw \pv^iKw, or the carnal
man, and therefore denotes all the faithful who are regenerate and
have received the H o l y G h o s t ; as b y the carnal, on the contrary,
all those are meant who have not y e t obtained the spirit of r e -
generation.
So 1 John ii. 2 0 , " Y e have an unction from the H o l y O n e , "
that is, y e have the H o l y Spirit. What follows? W h a t is it
we have obtained b y him ? It follows, " and y e know all things,"
that is, all things necessary. Therefore he says, verse 2 7 , " Y e
have no need that any one teach y o u . " The Jesuit thus endeavours
to elude this passage. H e interprets the clause, " that any man
teach y o u , " as if now any one were to say, Y e who are catholics
have no need that any Calvinist should teach you. So he would
have John address the Christians of his time to this effect: y e who
are Christians have no need that any false prophet or false apostle
should teach y o u . But Augustine expounds this text very dif-
ferently in his third Tractate upon the Epistle of John, where his
words are as follows: " ' The anointing teacheth you all things.'
W h a t then, brethren, are we about who teach you, if his anointing
teacheth you of all things ? W e seem to labour in vain. A n d w h y
do we spend our breath in this manner ? Let us dismiss you to his
anointing, that his own anointing may teach y o u . But as I have
now proposed this question to myself, I propose it also to the
apostle. Let him vouchsafe to listen to one of his little children
asking him. I say to John himself, T h e y to whom y o u spake had
the anointing. Y o u said, His own anointing teacheth you : where-
fore then did you compose this Epistle ? W h y teach, instruct, and

[ Nunquam Davidem intelliges, donee ipsa experientia Psalmorum affec-

J

tus indueris. This piece, however, is not by Bernard.]

[ Qui scripturam aliter intelligit, quam sensus Spiritus Sancti efflagitat,
2

a quo scripta est, haereticus appellari potest.]

VIII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 453

edify t h e m ? " Hitherto he hath proposed the d o u b t ; now he sub-

3

joins the reply. There follow therefore in Augustine these ensuing

words: " N o w , " says he, " b e h o l d , brethren, this great mystery. The
sound of our words strikes the e a r ; the teacher is within. Sup-
pose not that any man learns of man. W e may admonish you b y
the noise of our v o i c e ; but unless there be one within to teach y o u ,
it is an empty noise. W o u l d y e , brethren, know it still further ?
Have y e not all heard this discourse ? Y e t how many will g o
hence uninstructed! As far as in me lies, I have spoken to a l l :
but they to whom that unction speaks not internally, they whom
the H o l y Ghost does not teach internally, they g o forth unin-
structed. External instructions are a sort of help and admonition:
but he who teaches hearts hath his chair in h e a v e n . " 4
W h a t is
this chair in heaven ? Wherefore, 0 most holy Augustine, dost
thou place this chair in heaven ? Knowest thou not that this chair
is found on e a r t h ? W e r t thou never at R o m e , or sawest thou
never the chair of Peter, wherein whosoever sits can teach thee
all things ? W h y not rather in the earth ? Doubtless Augustine
knew nothing of that chair. But he goes on still farther, and refers
to the same purpose that saying of Christ, which is related Matth.
xxiii., " Call no man master on e a r t h ; for one is your master, even
Christ." " H e therefore," says Augustine, " speaks internally to
y o u , when no man is there. F o r although one may be beside y o u ,
y e t is there no one in your heart. But let it not be so that there
should be no one in your h e a r t ; let his own unction be in your
heart, lest your heart should be desert and thirsty and without

[ Quid ergo nos facimus, fratres, qui docemus vos, si unctio ejus docet
3

vos de omnibus ? Quasi nos sine causa laboramus. Et ut quid tantum clama-
mus ? Dimittamus vos unctioni illius, ut doceat vos unctio ipsius. Sed modo
mihi facio quasstionem, et illi ipsi apostolo facio. Dignetur audire parvulum
quserentem a se: ipsi Joanni dico, TJnctionem habebant quibus loquebaris ? Tu
dixisti, quia unctio ipsius docet vos de omnibus: ut quid talem epistolam
fecisti ? quid illos tu docebas ? quid instruebas ? quid sadificabas ?—Opp.
T. ix. p. 1 2 9 , 2 . Paris. 1 5 5 5 . ]
[ Videte magnum sacramentum, fratres. Sonus verborum nostrorum
4

aures perculit: magister intus est. Nolite putare quemquam hominem

aliquid discere ab homine. Admonere possumus per strepitum vocis nostra?:
si non sit intus qui doceat, inanis fit strepitus noster. Adeo, fratres, vultis
nosse ? Nunquid non sormonem istum omnes audistis ? Quam multi bine
indocti exituri sunt! Quantum ad me pertinet, omnibus locutus sum; Eed
quibus unctio ilia intus non loquitur, quos Spiritus Sanctus intus non doceat,
indocti redeunt. Magisteria forinsecus adjutoria quajdam sunt et admoni-
tionos : cathedram in ccelo habet, qui corda docet.—Ibid.]
454 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

any springs to irrigate it. T h e inward master therefore teaches;

Christ teaches, his inspiration teaches." Thus Augustine upon that
p l a c e ; whence it appears that he dhTers widely from the Jesuit.
T o the same purpose also is that saying, Isaiah liv. 1 3 , " T h e y
shall be all taught of G o d ; " which passage is cited b y Christ,
John vi. 4 5 : where we must note, that Isaiah does not say, they
shall be all God's disciples, but, they shall be all taught of God,
QeoSiSaKi-oi, or SiSaKTol TOU Qeou, which is something more.
None, therefore, are truly taught but such as God teaches internally
b y his H o l y Spirit. T h e Jesuit says, that we are therefore said
to be taught o f God, because Christ hath now taught us in his own
person, and not through the prophets, as f o r m e r l y : but absurdly.
F o r it is manifest that the prophet speaks of all the faithful, and
Christ also, John vi., applies it to all believers. But the faithful do
not now hear Christ speaking in his proper person; are they,
therefore, not QeoSiSaKroi ? Surely no discreet man will say so.
However the Jesuit is obliged at length to confess that, in a more
subtle and close (yea, rather in a correcter and truer) sense, it is
meant of the H o l y Spirit. Augustine, de Grat. Christ, cap. 1 2 , 1 3 ,
1 4 , compels him to make this admission.
l
A somewhat similar
passage occurs, Jeremiah xxxi. 3 3 , 3 4 , " I will put m y law in their
hearts, and they shall all know me from the least to the greatest."
T h e Jesuit interprets that place to mean that all will believe in the
unity of God, as now (says he) the Jews and Turks and all nations
do. But this is mere playing with the subject: for the text
means to refer to saving faith, as is manifest from the c o n t e x t ; for
there follows immediately: " T h e y shall all know me from the least
to the greatest, saith the L o r d : for I will pardon their iniquity,
and their sin I will remember no m o r e . " This is what he promises
to inscribe upon their hearts. Is this to believe as the nations,
Jews and Turks, believe ? W h o would say it ? Again, Luke x.
2 1 , 2 2 , Christ gives thanks to the Father that he had " hid these
things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes,"
&c. F r o m which place it may be gathered, that faith is the work
of God and of the H o l y Spirit, not of any m a n ; and that whoever
really knows the religion of God, hath learned this knowledge from
God. And let so much suffice for our fourth argument.

P Sic enim docet Deus eos qui secundum propositum vocati sunt, simul
donans et quid agant scire, et quod sciunt agere Isto modo sunt omnes
secundum propositum vocati, sicut scriptum est in prophetis, Docibiles Dei.—
De Gratia Christi. c. 1 3 . Opp. T. vn. p. 1 6 6 , 2 . ]
Vili.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 455

Our fifth argument stands t h u s : W h e n we demand of our

opponents how scripture ought to be interpreted, they always answer
at first and say, b y the unanimous expositions of the fathers. But
we immediately again demand of them, when we are to know that
the fathers agree ? F o r certainly in most places they are at
variance; so that their authority will be but small. T o make this
better understood, I will propose one or two examples, from which
the rest may be conjectured. Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrose,
explain those words, R o m . vii., " I am carnal, sold under sin,"
in such a manner as to make Paul speak not of himself, but in the
person of an unregenerate man. But Augustine against Julian the
Pelagian, Lib. n. c. 2 , will have them to be understood of a r e -
2

generate man, and therefore of Paul himself. And in other places

also he expounds that passage of the apostle in the same m a n n e r :
which exposition Thomas confesses to be the preferable one. Let
us consider another instance of the discrepancy of the fathers' in-
terpretation of scripture. Paul says, 1 Tim. iii. 2, " that a bishop
should be the husband of one tuife." Upon this place, as appears
from Gratian, Dist. 26. C. Unius and C. Acutius , the opinions of 3

Augustine and Jerome were contrary to each other. Let us add a

third example. Chrysostom and Jerome excuse the dissimulation
of Peter related b y Paul, Gal. i i . ; on the other hand Augustine and
Ambrose think it sinful. A d d now a f o u r t h : " W e conclude," says
Paul, (Rom. iii. 28,) " that a man is justified b y f a i t h ; " which place
Ambrose expounds of the heathen only, Chrysostom most truly of
all men universally, because he says, a man simply, T O KOIVOV TIJS
cpvo-ews 'ovofxa 6ek. So, to prove the same thing b y y e t other
examples, in the same place b y " the works of the l a w " Jerome
understands ceremonies, circumcision, the sabbath, and such l i k e ;
but Augustine and Ambrose the whole law, even the Decalogue.
Hilary (Can. 30 in Matth.) thinks that Judas did not take the
eucharist with the rest of the apostles, whom even some papists
also f o l l o w : Augustine in many places, and almost all the other
fathers, determine the contrary. Ambrose supposes that in Coloss.
ii. 2 1 , in those words, " taste not, handle n o t , " we are warned to
have no hope in worldly things; but Augustine, E p . 5 9 , and C h r y -

[2 I t s h o u l d b e c. 3.]
[ 8
T h e opinion of J e r o m e , in D i s t . 2 6 , c. 1, i s : U n i u s uxoris virum, id est,
m o n o g a m u m post baptismum. T h a t o f A u g u s t i n e , ibid. c. 2, is, A c u t i u s intel-
ligunt qui nec e u m , qui c a t e c h u m e n u s vel p a g a n u s h a b u i t alteram, o r d i n a n -
dum censuerunt.]
456 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

sostom, and Theophylact, teach us that rather they contain a censure

of those who issued such prohibitions. W h y should I enumerate
more such expositions of fathers dissenting from each other, when
they sometimes are at open variance with themselves ? Erasmus, in
his annotations on Luke xxii., upon these words, " But now he that
hath a purse," &c. declares that Augustine is inconsistent with him-
self upon the question whether Christian men may engage in w a r . 1

W h o then is so stupid or so void of common sense as that,

when he sees the fathers agreeing neither with each other nor
with themselves in the interpretation of scripture, he should
nevertheless rest in their interpretations? But even though we
were to concede to them that the fathers agree upon all points
(which they however cannot prove), yet, even from this, the con-
clusion which they seek to draw will never f o l l o w ; and this we
p r o v e b y the following argument : Whatever is of such a nature
that it could not have been always the rule of scriptural interpre-
tation, and had not always a judicial authority, ought not now to
have the force of a rule or judicial decision: for the rule ought
to be always one and the same, certain, firm and perpetual. But
the unanimous exposition of the fathers was not always the rule of
interpreting scripture; and, therefore, neither is it the rule now.
That it was not the rule always, appears readily ; since there was
a time when none of the writings of the fathers were extant. Most
of them wrote four hundred years after Christ, some five or six
hundred years after Christ. N o w what, I beseech y o u , was the
rule of scriptural interpretation before that time ? There certainly
was some, and y e t this was not then in existence.
Our sixth argument stands t h u s : Scripture hath greater au-
thority in judging than the present c h u r c h : therefore scripture
ought to be the j u d g e rather than the c h u r c h ; for this judgment
ought to g o along with the greatest authority. N o w that the
church hath not as great authority as the scripture, is manifest
from Gal. i. 8, where Paul s a y s : " If we, or an angel from heaven,
preach unto you any other gospel than that we have preached unto
y o u , let him be a c c u r s e d ! " The papists (I suppose) will not ascribe
more to the modern church than to that ancient one which flourished
in the apostle's time. Now it had no such authority, and could no
otherwise interpret scripture than according to scripture. There-
in J a m illud v i d e n d u m , an d e bello satis slbi constet A u g u s t i n u s ; qui c u m
tot locis Christiane b e ] l u m detestetur, n u n c adversus Manicha;os ac D o n a t i s t a s

belli p a t r o n u s esse v i d c a t u r . — p . 2 1 2 . B a s i l . 1535.]

VIII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 457

fore neither can any church do otherwise. Upon this passage we

shall speak hereafter.
Our seventh argument is taken from Acts xvii. 1 1 , where the
Bereans are praised for searching the scriptures whether those
things which Paul taught were so From which place we argue
thus: If the doctrine of the apostle was examined b y scripture,
then,the doctrine of the church should also be examined b y scrip-
ture. The antecedent is t r u e ; therefore also the consequent. The
Jesuit here hath but one reply. H e says that the person of the
apostle was not known to the Bereans, and that they did not un-
derstand whether Paul was an apostle or n o t ; and therefore that
they did well in judging his doctrine b y the scriptures: but we do
know (says he) that the church cannot err, and therefore we ought
not to examine its teaching. I answer: It makes little matter
whether the Bereans knew Paul to be an apostle or not. The
question is not about persons, but about the kind of teaching. The
Bereans are praised for not rashly and hastily receiving whatever
Paul taught them, but diligently examining his doctrine b y scrip-
ture. Whence we draw two inferences: First, that all doctrine is
to be j u d g e d b y the scriptures. F o r , if the Bereans compared the
preaching of an apostle with the rule of scripture, shall we embrace
without any examination whatever the pope may please to maintain ?
Secondly, That the apostles preached nothing which could not be
established b y the scriptures of the prophets, and did perfectly
agree with them. But we (says he) know that the church cannot
err. But we (say I) know that the pope errs shamefully, and they
who think otherwise err also to the eternal ruin of their own souls.
Whether the church may err or not, shall be treated of in its
proper place. Verily, the church, that is, the pope, would be a
kind of God if he could not err.
Our eighth argument is taken from 1 Thess. v. 2 1 , where
Paul says, " Prove all things," ivavra oWi/jia£eTe: and from
1 John iv. 1, where John says, " Believe not every spirit, but
try the spirits whether they be of G o d ; " SoKifid^ere rd Trvevfiara.
Hence I conclude, that the teaching of the church should be e x -
amined. The Jesuit says that this precept does not refer to all,
but only to the learned and well instructed; which he illustrates b y
the following comparison. If a book, says he, were sent to an
university to be examined, all the members of the university would
not examine it, but only the doctors of some one faculty. I answer,
that the book should be examined and perused by all who ought
458 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

to approve it. But as to the present subject, I allow that all

cannot try every doctrine; for the ungodly cannot do so. But all
pious and faithful men both ought and can discharge this duty, as
is plain from 1 Thess. v. F o r if all good Christians are commanded
" to pray always, to rejoice evermore, to give thanks, not to quench
the Spirit, to hold fast that which is g o o d , " which are the common
duties of p i e t y ; then also all good Christians ought to " try all
things." N o w those former injunctions concern all the faithful.
Therefore also this latter. F o r John in that place addresses erya-
irrjTovs and iraiSla, his beloved and little children, that is, all
devout and faithful Christians. Therefore all pious people are c o m -
manded b y the apostle to take heed to themselves, and diligently
to examine every doctrine, lest, peradventure, they receive false for
true. Secondly, Bellarmine says that it is only doubtful doctrine
that is here treated of. I reply, that we also mean no other.
F o r that which is either plainly false, or undoubtedly true, is not
commonly brought in question or examined b y those who are
already taught what they ought to think. But how are we to
ascertain that any doctrine is not doubtful ? Without examination
we can never be able to determine that any dogma is absolutely
certain and beyond all doubt. It is this trial (SoKijuaaia) which
enables us to distinguish true doctrines from false, to hold fast the
true and to reject the false. Is any one so mad as to say that the
doctrines of Christianity are no otherwise certain and indubitably
true, than as the pope of R o m e hath affirmed them in a response
from his chair ? But first we must, at least, examine the privilege b y
which he pretends that he is exempted from error in passing j u d g -
ment. Will he remove this too from our cognisance ? Surely, un-
less this be clear, we shall be always in uncertainty. What then ?
Must he be interpreter of his own privilege also? The pope hath
the privilege of infallibility. Whence doth this appear ? From
the opinion and exposition of the pope himself. Those who can
assent to so slight an inducement truly deserve never to think
correctly of anything. Besides, what else is this, but to ascribe our
faith, not to God, but to the pope ? Similar to these passages is
that, Matth. vii. 1 5 , where Christ orders all to beware of false
prophets. But how shall we know them ? H e tells us, " b y their
fruits." But what are these fruits ? A r e they bad morals ? By
no means; for many false prophets seem to live a life of greater
sanctity than some good or true teachers. T h e y are to be known,
therefore, not merely b y their morals, but still more b y their false
VIII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 459

interpretations and expositions. And so Vincentius Lirinensis, whom

the papists highly esteem, expounds this place, capp. 36 and 3 7 .
Our ninth argument is t h i s : I f the fathers, the councils, and
the pope have the supreme authority of interpreting the scriptures,
then our faith is ultimately resolved into their judgment. But the
consequent is false, and therefore also the antecedent. The con-
sequent in the major is manifest. F o r whatever hath the supreme
authority of assigning the sense of scripture, upon that our faith,
in the last resolution, must bottom itself and rest. F o r our faith r e -
poses upon that which gives the most certain sense of scripture, and
judges of all doctrine. T h e papists themselves concede the m i n o r :
for they deny, as was already remarked in the third question, that
our faith is ultimately resolved into the sentence of the church.
Our tenth argument stands t h u s : H e who made the law alone
hath supreme authority to expound the law. But God alone made
the scriptures. Therefore God alone hath supreme authority to in-
terpret the scriptures. The major is plain b y the very light of
nature. T h e minor is also manifest. So the apostles confirmed all
their doctrine b y the authority of the divine law, that is, b y the old
Testament. So Nehemiah, as we read, Nehem. viii. 9, read the law
of God plainly to the people, and in expounding the sense " gave
the meaning by the scripture itself." So Tremellius translates that
passage, and correctly. The scripture itself, therefore, is its own
faithful and clear interpreter, and the Spirit of G o d in the scrip-
tures illustrates and explains himself.
I form our eleventh argument t h u s : If the supreme judgment
of scripture belong to the church, then it will follow (though our
adversaries intimate that they do not like the consequence), that the
authority of the church is greater than that of scripture ; which is
made plain b y the following considerations. The sense of scripture
is the scripture itself. T h e y , therefore, who embrace and retain
any sense for no other reason but because the church hath so deter-
mined and taught, and not on account of the prophetic or apostolic
scriptures, these not only ascribe a more august authority to the
church than to the scripture, but also rest their salvation upon the
voice and sentence of the church. F o r to faith are incident these
two things, what we believe, and ivhy. The what contains all the
integral parts of the thing believed. Now what is the why ? Is it
the authority of the pope or the church ? D o we then upon no
other account believe that the world was made, that Adam sinned,
that the Bedeemer Christ was promised, came into the world in
460 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

his proper time, undertook and accomplished the business of our

salvation, and that he will return again at the end of the world,
but because thus speaks the church, and thus the pope of R o m e ?
0 noble basis of the christian faith! 0 glorious faith of papists!
I propound our twelfth argument t h u s : I f the pope be the
supreme judge of controversies and interpreter of scripture, then
every definition of the pope's is as authentic as the scripture. T h e
force of the inference is manifest, but the consequent is plainly false.
F o r then all the definitions of the popes would have equal authority
with the scriptures, and should be ranked in the sacred canon of
scripture, and should be searched with still greater diligence than
the scriptures: all which conclusions are monstrously shocking and
absurd.
Our thirteenth argument is to this effect: N o man is a suf-
ficient j u d g e of controversies or interpreter of scripture: there-
fore, not the pope. F o r no man ought to decide controversies b y
his own authority, but b y that o f another, namely, of God and the
scriptures. So formerly the Nicene fathers condemned Arius b y
divine testimonies; so the holy bishops condemned Macedonius,
Nestorius, Eutyches, b y the authority of scripture, and not b y then"
own. Besides, if a man could define controversies b y his own
authority, he would have a sort of lordship over our souls and
faith, which the apostle plainly denies, 2 Cor. i. 24. ov Kvpievo/xev

vfiwv TYJI irio-rewi. Furthermore, if we were placed in the power

of a man, to remove all controversies and determine what should
be believed, then the sentence of a man would be the matter of
our faith.
Our fourteenth argument is as follows : If the scriptures do not
interpret themselves or j u d g e controversies, this is because thev
are either obscure or imperfect. But neither impediment exists:
for we have shewn before that they are plain in all necessary
things; and that they are perfect in all respects, we shall demon-
strate hereafter.
Our fifteenth argument is this : E v e r y one ought to rest upon
his own faith and his own judgment, and not depend upon
another's will and pleasure. Therefore the Roman pontiff is not
the sole j u d g e of controversies in the church. F o r each indi-
vidual should be his own judge, and stand b y his own judgment,
not indeed mere private judgment, but such as is inspired b y G o d :
and no one can bestow the H o l y Spirit save God who infuses it
in whom he will. Nor can any one man render another certain in
Vili.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 461

matters of religion, with whatever authority he may be invested.

Christ says, John vi. 4 4 , 4 5 , " N o man can come unto me unless
my Father draw h i m : wherefore whosoever hath heard and learned
of the Father cometh unto m e . " John the Baptist says also, John
iii. 3 3 , " H e that receiveth his testimony hath set to his seal that
God is true." There is, therefore, need of Christ's testimony before
we can truly and aright believe anything.
There remains now our last argument, which is drawn from
human testimony, and the authority of the ancient fathers.
Irenseus, in his 4th book against Heresies, cap. 6 3 , says that
" the legitimate and safe exposition of the scriptures is by the
scriptures themselves ." Hilary, in his 1st book upon the Trinity,
1

writes thus upon this subject: " The best reader is he who rather
waits for the meaning from the words than imposes one, who
takes instead of giving it, nor forces that to seem to be contained
in the expression which, before reading it, he had presumed to
be the sense. When, therefore, the discourse shall be of the things
of God, let us allow to God the knowledge of himself, and wait upon
his words with a pious veneration. H e is a sufficient witness to
himself, who is not known but b y himself ." So Hilary. 2

Augustine hath many testimonies in our favour. In his book of

Marriage and Concupiscence, Lib. II. cap. 3 3 , he writes t h u s : " This
controversy requires a j u d g e . " But who shall be the j u d g e ? He
replies, " Let Christ be the j u d g e . " And a little a f t e r : " With
him let the apostle judge a l s o ; for Christ himself speaks in the
apostle ." W h y did he not say, Let the Roman pontiff, or, at least,
3

P A g n i t i o vera est a p o s t o l o r u m doctrina, et antiquus ecclesise status in

universo m u n d o , e t character corporis Christi, s e c u n d u m successiones epis-
c o p o r u m , quibus illi earn, qua? in u n o q u o q u e l o c o est, ecclesiam tradiderunt,
qua? pervenit usque ad nos, custodita sine flctione scripturarum tractatione
plenissima, n e q u e a d d i t a m e n t u m neque ablationem recipiens, et lectio sine
falsatione, et s e c u n d u m scripturas expositio legitima et diligens, et sine
periculo et sine b l a s p h e m i a . — p . 4 0 0 . A . e d . F e v a r d . ]
[ 2
Optimus lector est, qui dictorum intelligentiam exspectet ex verbis
potius q u a m i m p o n a t , et retulerit m a g i s q u a m attulerit, n e q u e c o g a t id videri
dictis contineri, quod ante lectionem prresumpserit intelligendum. Cum
itaque de rebus D e i erit s e r m o , c o n c e d a m u s c o g n i t i o n e m sui D e o , dictisque
ejus pia veneratione f a m u l e m u r . I d o n e u s e n i m sibi testis est, qui nisi p e r
se cognitus non e s t . — p p . 7 7 6 , 7 7 7 . O p p . Paris. 1693.]
[ 3
Ista controversia j u d i c e m quoarit. Judicet ergo Christus, et cui rei
m o r s ejus profecerit, ipse d i c a t : hie est, inquit, sanguis m e u s , qui pro multis
effundatur in remissionem p e c c a t o r u m . Judicet c u m illo e t apostolus, quia
et in apostolo ipse loquitur C h r i s t u s . — O p p . T . v n . p. 1 8 5 . ]
462 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Christ speaking in the Roman pontiff, be j u d g e ? Doubtless,

because he acknowledged no such judge. T h e same father, in his
b o o k of Grace and Free-will, cap. 1 8 , writes in almost the same
t e r m s : " L e t the apostle John sit as j u d g e between u s . " But 1

where ? Surely nowhere else but in the scriptures: for he im-

mediately produces a place from 1 John iv., " Beloved, let us love
one another." Also, in his books of Christian Doctrine, he writes
more than once, that scripture is to be expounded b y scripture. In
the 11th book of his City of God, c. 3 3 , there occurs the following
testimony. " W e , " says he, " h a v e supposed that there are two so-
cieties of angels, different and opposed the one to the o t h e r , — t h e one
both b y nature good and upright in will, the other though good b y
nature, y e t perverted in will—which are plainly spoken of in other
more clear testimonies of scripture, to be here, in this book, called
Genesis, designated b y the words light and darkness, although
perhaps he who wrote it had another meaning in this passage. This
obscure passage hath not been considered without profit; for even
though we have failed to discover the meaning of the author of this
book, we have not swerved from the rule of faith, which is sufficiently
known to the faithful b y means of other parts of sacred scripture
which have a like a u t h o r i t y . " T h e same author also, in his book
2

de Genesi ad Literam, Lib. i. c. 2 1 , tells us how the sense of scrip-

ture may best be found : " W h e n we read the divine books, where
the number of true meanings which may be drawn from a few words,
and are fortified b y the integrity of the catholic faith, is so great,
let us especially choose that which it shall appear certain that he
w h o m w e read intended; but if this be hidden from us, y e t that
which the context does not forbid, and which is in harmony with a
sound faith: but if the context too cannot be considered and
sifted, at least only that which a sound faith prescribes. F o r it is
one thing not to distinguish what the writer principally intended,

[} S e d e a t e r g o inter nos j u d e x apostolus J o a n n e s , e t dicat n o b i s : Caris-

sirai, diligamus i n v i c e m . — O p p . T . v n . p . 2 8 4 . 2 . ]
[ 2
N o s has duas soeietates angelicas, inter se dispares a t q u e contrarias,
u n a m et natura b o n a m et volúntate r e c t a m , aliam vero natura b o n a m , sed
volúntate perversam, alus manifestioribus divinarum scripturarum t e s t i m o -
niis declaratas, q u o d in hoc libro, cui n o m e n G e n e s i s , lucis t e n e b r a r u m q u e
vocabulis significatas existimavimus, etiamsi aliud sensit h o c loco f o r t e qui
scripsit. Non est inutiliter obscuritas hujus pertractata sententiae, quia etsi
v o l u n t a t e m auctoris libri hujus indagare n e q u i v i m u s , a regula t a m e n fldei,
qua? p e r alias ejus auctoritatis sacras literas satis fidelibus nota est, non
aberravimus.]
VIII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 463

and another to swerve from the rule of piety. If both faults be

avoided, the fruit to the reader is perfect. But if both cannot be
avoided, even though the intention of the writer be uncertain, yet it
is not without use to have gained a meaning congruous with a sound
belief ." The same father, Epistle 19, indicates plainly enough
3

what we should determine of the expositions of the fathers, when he

s a y s : " Other authors, however excellent their sanctity and learn-
ing, I read so as not to credit their assertions merely because they
thought thus; but because they have been able to persuade me that
they were not repugnant to truth, either by means of the canonical
writers or some probable process of reasoning ." In these words 4

Augustine teaches us three things: First, that, in matters of faith,

we ought to depend upon the authority and judgment of no men,
however holy or learned, much less upon that of a single impure
and illiterate pontiff. Secondly, that no human expositions are to
be received but as they are confirmed either b y the scriptures or
by probable reasoning. Thirdly, that we require to have a full
persuasion, such as cannot be thought to be in those who, knowing
nothing accurately themselves, hang the whole of their faith and
salvation on the opinions of other men.

Basil, Epist. 8 0 , ascribes the authority of deciding and defining

5

controversies, in these w o r d s : " W e do not think it just that that

custom of speaking, which hath obtained amongst them, should be
esteemed the law and canon of correct doctrine. F o r if custom is
sufficient to be the test of right doctrine, it is doubtless lawful also
for us to imitate them herein. Let us stand therefore b y the j u d g -
ment of the scripture inspired b y G o d ; and let, by all means, truth

p G u m divinos libros l e g i m u s , in tanta m u l t i t u d i n e v e r o r u m intellectuum

qui de paucis verbis eruuntur, et sanitate catholicse fidei muniuntur, id
potissimum d e l i g a m u s , q u o d c e r t u m apparuerit e u m sensisse q u e m l e g i m u s :
si a u t e m h o c latet, i d certe q u o d circumstantia scriptural n o n i m p e d i t , e t
c u m s a n a fide c o n c o r d a t : si a u t e m et scripturse circumstantia pertractari
ac discutí n o n potest, saltern id s o l u m q u o d ñdes sana prcescribit. A l i u d est
enim, quid p o t i s s i m u m scriptor senserit n o n dignoscere, aliud autem a r e g u l a
pietatis errare. S i u t r u m q u e vitetur, perfecte se h a b e t fructus legentis. Si
vero u t r u m q u e vitari n o n p o t e s t , etiamsi voluntas scriptoris incerta sit, sana?
fidei c o n g r u a m n o n inutile est tenuisse s e n t e n t i a m . — O p p . T . i n . p. 1 1 6 , 2 . ]
[ 4
A l i o s a u t e m ita l e g o , u t quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque prarpolleant,
n o n ideo v e r u m p u t e m , quia ipsi ita s e n s e r u n t ; sed quia mihi vel p e r illos
auctores canónicos, vol probabili ratione, q u o d a vero n o n abhorreat, p e r -
suadere p o t u e r u n t . — I d . A d H i e r o n y m . T . I I . p. 1 5 , 2 . ]
[ 6
Qusest. i v . c. 1 7 . ]
 464 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

o f opinion be ascribed to those with whom are found doctrines con-

sonant with the divine oracles." It is admirably well expressed in
the G r e e k : r) OeoTrvevaTo<s r}fuv Siairrjadrtp ypafpq. Kal ivap' oh
ai> evpeOfj TO\ SoytxaTa ovvipSd TOIS 9eiow Xoyois, eirl TOUTOIS

rj'£ei TJJS dXtjOeias r) *pr]<po$. F r o m these words two things are

to be g a t h e r e d : first, that in every question the judgment of the
scriptures is supreme; secondly, that those are to be j u d g e d to
have the truth whose doctrines agree with the divine oracles.
Optatus Milevitanus, in his 5th book against Parmenianus, dis-
puting upon this question, whether a baptized person might be
rebaptized, illustrates our cause admirably in these w o r d s : " Some
judges must be sought of this controversy. If Christians, they can-
not be assigned, b y consent of both sides, because truth is obstructed
b y party zeal. A j u d g e must be sought without. If a pagan, he
cannot know the Christian mysteries. I f a Jew, he is an enemy of
Christian baptism. Therefore no tribunal can be found on earth
to take cognisance of this matter. A j u d g e must be sought from
heaven. But w h y do we knock at heaven's gates, when we have
his Testament here in the gospel ? T h e Testament, I s a y ; for in
this place earthly things may rightly be compared with h e a v e n l y . " 1

Thus Optatus; from which passage w e derive three observations:

first, that in every religious controversy some impartial and c o m -
petent j u d g e must be sought for, who is not engaged in the interest
of either party. A t that time there was a dispute between the
catholics and Donatists. N o Christian j u d g e , says Optatus, could
be found competent to decide the controversy ; because all Christians
favour one side or the other, so as to approach the decision w i t h
some degree of prejudice. W h e n c e I draw this conclusion: if the
R o m a n pontiff was not then a competent j u d g e of those contro-
versies which then subsisted between the catholics and the D o n a -
tists, because he might seem attached to one s i d e ; how much less
can the final decision be allowed him in these which are now
agitated, wherein he is under the influence of still stronger party
feeling, inasmuch as it is his own interest that lies at stake!

[! Queerendi sunt aliqui hujus controversial j u d i c e s : si Christian!, d e

utraque p a r t e dari n o n possunt, quia studiis Veritas i m p e d i t u r . Deforis
quosrendus est j u d e x . Si p a g a n u s , n o n potest nosse Christiana s e c r e t a . Si
Judseus, inimicus est christiani baptismatis. E r g o in t e r n s d e h a c re n u l l u m
poterit reperiri j u d i c i u m . D e ccelo quserendus est j u d e x . S e d a d quid p u l -
samus ad ccelum, c u m h a b e m u s hie in evangelio t e s t a m e n t u m ? — O p t a t . c.
P a r m e n . D o n . L i b . v . c. 3.]
VIII.] QUESTION T H E FIFTH. 465

Secondly, that no j u d g e of religion is to b e sought for, as the

papists would have it, upon the earth, but from heaven. If Optatus
had thought that any j u d g e had been constituted on earth b y
Christ, he would surely never have said that a j u d g e was to be
sought in heaven, but would have appealed to this legitimate j u d g e
of the church. Thirdly, that it is not necessary to elicit any divine
voice or response from heaven itself; but that the scriptures should
be consulted, and a certain decision of the controversy sought in the
gospel and derived from the g o s p e l : for he says that w e then
have a celestial j u d g e , when the scripture is the j u d g e .
Ambrose, in the 5th book of his Epistles, in a certain oration
against Auxentius the Arian, which is contained in the 3 2 n d and
33rd Epistles , desires the people to be the j u d g e of that dispute
2

which he had with Auxentius, because he knew them to be skilled

in the scripture. Auxentius was unwilling that the people should
hear the dispute, and on that account Ambrose censures him. Theo-
phylact says upon John x., " S i n c e it is, when made intelligible and
opened b y the H o l y Spirit, that the scriptures shew us Christ, p r o -
bably the porter is the H o l y S p i r i t : " where he sufficiently indicates,
that the scriptures are only unfolded b y the H o l y Ghost, and that
therefore the H o l y Ghost is the porter of the scriptures. There-
fore, those who are without this Spirit can never understand the
scriptures.
L y r a , having raised the question whether the truth of faith can
b e sufficiently proved b y the sacred scripture, answers thus, as we
read in Pelbart's Golden R o s a r y , T o m . HI. c. de Fide, Art. 9. "The
efficacy of proof through scripture may be otherwise taken thus, that,
although scripture may in some sense be otherwise explained so as at
least to escape without a manifest contradiction, yet, speaking simply,
it cannot so reasonably be explained in any other manner but that
the exposition of the catholic faith shall always appear more reason-
able ." 3
So that, however heretics may turn and twist the scriptures,
yet the scriptures shall assert of themselves their own truth from

[ Hsec ego, fratres, coram ipso apud vos plenius disputarem: sed certus
2

non ignaros vos esse fidei, vestrum refugit examen.—Sermo c. Auxent. n. 26.
p. 353. T. v m . Paris. 1839.]
[ Alio modo potest accipi probationis efBcacia per scripturam sic, quod
8

licet scriptura possit aliter exponi aliquo modo, saltern ad evadendum absque
contradictione manifesta, tamen simpliciter loquendo, non potest alio modo
rationabiliter exponi, quin semper appareat expositio fidei catholica ratio-
nabilior.]

[WHITAKER.]
466 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

the false expositions of heretics in such a manner as to make the

catholic truth ever seem more probable to any man not wholly
estranged from it. Cajetan, in the preface to his commentaries
upon the books of Moses, says, that the exposition of scripture is not
tied b y God to the sense of the f a t h e r s ; and he therefore ad-
monishes his readers not to take it ill, or blame him, if he sometimes
dissent from tlie torrent of the fattier s, that is, from their unanimous
opinion. Canus, in his Common places, Lib. VII. c. 3, censures the
cardinal s e v e r e l y , and charges him with a r r o g a n c e ; but it is not
necessary that I should appear in his defence, whom Andradius
vindicates in the second b o o k of his Defensio Tridentina, subjoining
also some reasons to shew that he could say truly what he actually
hath said. F o r he alleges, firstly, that the fathers were too much
given to allegorical expositions; and, consequently, that since the
sense of scripture is but one, Cajetan is not to be blamed for under-
valuing the allegories of the fathers. Secondly, he says, that the
ancient fathers, however united in their sentiments upon the m y s -
teries of religion, did yet assign different and dissimilar meanings
when they approached the interpretation of scripture. Thirdly
and lastly, he affirms that the H o l y Spirit is " the sole and faith-
ful interpreter of scripture."
L e t it suffice to have said thus much upon the former part of
this fifth question. N o w follows the second part.

CHAPTER IX.

T H E STATE OF T H E QUESTION, CONCERNING T H E MEANS OF

FINDING T H E TRUE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE.

"WE have spoken of the supreme authority for interpreting

scripture, which w e have proved to belong to the H o l y Spirit
speaking in the scriptures, not to fathers, or councils, or pope. We
have now to treat concerning the means of finding the sense of scrip-
ture. F o r since scripture hath no audible voice, we must use c e r -
tain means to investigate what is the sense and what the mind of
the scriptures. If Christ were now himself with us, if the apostles
and prophets were living amongst us, we might repair to them, and
entreat them to disclose to us the meaning of what they had written.
But since they have departed and left us only their books, we must
IX.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 467

consider what means w e should use to discover the true sense of

scripture and the words of God. T h e church, indeed, hath always
used some means in the interpretation of scripture. Here I will
enumerate first those means which are proposed b y our divines;
which if we make a lawful and holy application of, we shall not miss
of the true meaning, and which the church herself is bound to use,
unless she prefer to g o wrong in the interpretation of scripture.
In the first place, prayer is necessary for reading the scriptures
so as to understand t h e m ; and on that account David so often begs
of God to illuminate his mind and to open his e y e s ; and, in Matth.
vii. Christ says, " A s k , and it shall be given y o u : seek, and y e shall
find: knock, and it shall be opened unto y o u . " And James, chap. i.
v. 5, s a y s : " I f any of y o u lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who
giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall b e
given him." Whence a certain father said, that he profited more
in the knowledge of scripture b y prayer, than b y reading and
study. A n d O r i g e n , in his 12th Homily on Exodus, says that w e
1

must not only apply study in order to learn the sacred word, but
also supplicate G o d and entreat him night and day, that the Lamb
of the tribe of Juda may come, and, taking himself the sealed b o o k ,
vouchsafe to open it. Augustine too, in his b o o k De Scala Para-
disi, c. 2, writes thus admirably upon this s u b j e c t : " Reading
inquires, meditation finds, prayer asks, contemplation tastes : whence
the L o r d himself says, ' Seek, and y e shall find; knock, and it
shall be opened unto you.' Seek b y reading, and y e shall find in
meditation: knock b y prayer, and it shall be opened to y o u in
contemplation. Reading does, as it were, set the solid food at the
lips; meditation breaks and chews i t ; prayer gains a relish; and
contemplation is the very sweetness itself which gives us pleasure
and refreshment. Reading is in the rind, meditation in the marrow,
prayer in the demand of desire, contemplation in the delight of the
sweetness now acquired ." 2
Thus far Augustine. And Jerome says

[} Unde ostenditur non solum studium nobis adbibcndum esse ad dis-

cendas literas sacras, verum et supplicandum Domino, et diebus ac noctibus
obsecrandum ut veniat agnus de tribu Juda? et ipse accipiens librum signatum
dignetur aperire. Origen. Opp. p. 6 1 . Paris. 1 6 0 4 . ]
[ Lectio inquirit, meditatio invenit, oratio postulat, contemplatio dc-
2

gustat; undo ipse Dominus dicit: Quasrite, et invenietis; pulsate, et aperietur

vobis. Quoerite legendo, et invenietis meditando : pulsate orando, et aperietur
vobis contemplando. Lectio quasi solidum cibum ori apponit, meditatio
masticat et frangit, oratio saporem acquirit, contemplatio est ipsa dulcedo
30—2
468 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

to Lasta : " Let reading follow prayer, and prayer r e a d i n g . " This
1

should be always the first means, and the foundation of the rest.
Secondly, we ought to understand the words which the H o l y
Spirit hath used in the scriptures; and therefore we ought to know
the original languages. W e should consult the Hebrew text in the
old Testament, the Greek in the n e w : we should approach the
v e r y fountain-heads of the scriptures, and not stay beside the
derived streams of versions. Indeed, the ignorance of these lan-
guages, the Hebrew and the Greek, hath been the source of many
e r r o r s ; at least, those who are not acquainted with them are desti-
tute of the best helps and assistances, and are involved in frequent
and unavoidable mistakes. Augustine, in his books of Christian
Doctrine, exhorts all students of theology to the study of these
languages. A n d upon this account in the council of V i e n n a (how- 2

ever otherwise superstitious, as held under pope Clement V . ) a

decree was made that there should be professors of these tongues in
all universities. F o r , unless we understand the words, how shall we
find the sense ? And indeed many errors are refuted b y the mere
understanding of the words themselves. Thus we often refute our
adversaries. F o r example, Luke ii. 1 4 , the Rhemists make out
the freedom of the will from the Vulgate Latin version, which is
t h i s : Pax in terra hominibus bonce voluntatis. But they are
easily refuted b y the original: for in the Greek it is evSoiciu,
which never denotes the free will of man, as the Rhemists absurdly
explain it, but the gratuitous goodness of God toward m e n : and this,
indeed, some of the papists themselves concede. Eph. ii. 10 is thus
read in the Vulgate Latin version : Creati in Cliristo Jesu in operi-
bus bonis; whence some papists gather, that we are justified b y
good works. But they are easily refuted out of the original G r e e k ;
for eirl there denotes ad, not in. In Coloss. iv. 1 6 , there is men-
tion made, in the old version, of a certain epistle of the Laodiceans;
from which many have thought that there was some epistle of Paul

quse jucundat et reficit. Lectio in cortice, meditatio in adipe, oratio in

desiderii postulatione, contemplatio in adeptse dulcedinis delectatione. The
Benedictines ascribe this work to Guigo or Guido Carthusianus (flor. circ.
1 1 2 0 ) , and place it in the appendix to T. vi. of their edition of Augustine,
Par. 1679. It is often printed amongst the works of St Bernard.]
[ Orationi lectio, lectioni succedat oratio.—Ad Lset. Ep. 57. (al. 7.) T. iv.
x

p. 596.]
[ The council of Vienna, counted as the 15th general, was held in the
2

year 1 3 1 1 . See its decrees in Labbe's collection of the Councils, T. xi

part 1 1 . ]
IX.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 469

written to the Laodiceans. But this mistake is corrected b y the

original: for in the Greek text it is read e/c A a o c W / a s . In 1 Cor.
xiv. 1 6 , the words stand thus in the old version: Si benedixeris
Spiritu, qui supplet locum idiotce, quomodo dicet Amen ? Hence
the papists gather that there ought to be some person to make
responses to the priest in behalf of the whole congregation, such
as those clerks, whom they hire for a groat to stand beside the
priest at mass. But this admits an easy refutation from the Greek
t e x t : for o avairXrjpwv TOV TOTTOV TOV ISMTOV does not mean him
who supplies the place of the unlearned (since the verb avairXripovv
never occurs in that sense ), but rather one that fills the place of
3

the unlearned, that is, one who sits amongst the unlearned, and is
really unlearned and a layman. In 1 Sam. xxi. 1 3 , it is said that
David, in the house of Achish king of Gath, was mad, or played the
madman in their hands, that is, pretended madness. T h e old trans-
lation hath, collabebatur inter manus eorum. O f these words
Augustine, in his Commentary on Psalm lxxxiii. , produces a strange
4

exposition suggested b y the faulty translation of some obscure

interpreter, who had rendered them t h u s : ferebatur in manibus
suis. Hence Augustine refers these words to Christ, and says that
they are true if accommodated to the holy supper, because Christ
did, after a certain manner {quodammodo), carry himself in his own
hands, when he said to his disciples, " This is m y b o d y . " How-
ever, he puts in the word quodammodo, so that the papists should
not suppose that he favoured their opinion. N o w Augustine fell
into this mistake from not understanding the Hebrew term. Bel-
larmine, De Ecclesia, Lib. in. c. 1 2 , proves the visibility of the
church b y the testimony of Psalm xix., In sole posuit tabernacu-
lum suum, according to the version of the old translator, who hath
followed the Septuagint. Y e t Jerome, twelve hundred years ago,
had rendered it from the Hebrew t h u s : Soli posuit tabernaculum
in eis (the heavens); so as to shew that this text testifies not that
the tabernacle of the church was pitched in the sun, but that of the
sun in the heavens. Such faults and blemishes in versions the
heretics, and above all the papists, abuse to the confirmation of their
e r r o r s ; which, however, are most easily removed b y an inspection

[ But see Schwartz. Comment. Ling. Grsec. p. 98.]

3

[* Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis ? Quia cum commendaret ipsum

corpus suum et sanguinem suum, accepit in manus suas quod norunt fideles,
et ipse se portabat quodammodo.—Augustin. Opp. T. vni. col. 234. Basil.
1569.]
470 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

of the originals and a knowledge of the languages. It is therefore

principally necessary that, as Augustine somewhere says, w e should
have a just and correct knowledge of the signs of things, that is, of
words.
Thirdly, in dealing with the words we should consider 'which
are proper, and which figurative and modified. F o r , when words
are taken figuratively, they should not be expounded strictly. " It
i s , " says Augustine, in his books of Christian Doctrine, " a wretched
bondage of the soul, when signs are taken for t h i n g s ; " that is, 1

when what is spoken figuratively is expounded as if spoken strictly.

Hence hath arisen that difficult and long-continued dispute between
us and the papists about the words of consecration, which we
would have understood figuratively, and they strictly. But h o w
shall we know whether words be taken figuratively or strictly ?
This inquiry suggests the addition of a fourth mean.
Fourthly, therefore, we ought to consider the scope, end,
matter, circumstances (that is, as Augustine says, the persons, place
and time), the antecedents and consequents of each passage; and b y
this means it will be no hard matter both to refute many errors,
and to arrive at a clear understanding of those things which
seemed at first obscure. T h e Bhemists conclude from 1 Pet iv. 8,
(where Peter writes, that charity covers the multitude of sins,)
that charity hath the power of taking away and extinguishing sins,
and thereby of justifying us before G o d ; and therefore, that faith
alone does not justify. N o w , if we consider the occasion, scope,
preceding and following context, and the other circumstances of
this passage, we shall find that the apostle is not speaking of our
charity as justifying us before G o d or procuring remission of
our sins, but of that fraternal love which represses many occasions
o f offence, and so quenches feuds and enmities amongst brethren.
But how shall we understand that this is the sense of the passage ?
W h y , from the context itself. T h e apostle says, in the words i m -
mediately preceding, " having sincere love one towards another."
H e is speaking, consequently, of the love wherewith we should
embrace and respect our brethren. A n d , if w e compare this place
with another, namely, with Pro v. x. 1 2 , whence Peter took these
words, this will appear still more plainly. T h e r e w e read t h u s :
" Hatred stirreth up strifes and contentions, but love covereth the
multitude of sins:" where, b y reason of the antithesis between the
[ l
E a d e m u m est miserabilis anima? servitus, signa p r o r e b u s accipere.
L i b . i n . c. 5, a d fin.]
IX.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 471

first and second clauses of the sentence, the. meaning of the latter
may easily be gathered from that of the former. Christ says,
Matt. xix. 17 : " If thou wilt enter into life, keep the command-
ments." F r o m this all the papists collect that we are justified b y
the merit of our works, but, in the meanwhile, they reflect not
what sort of person it was to whom Christ said t h i s ; a person,
namely, who had come to Christ resting upon the opinion of his
own righteousness, and, elevated with pride, had asked, what he
ought to do to obtain eternal life. Such persons, who trust in
their own merits, are deservedly referred to the law ; that so they
may come to understand how far they are from perfect righteous-
ness. Indeed, the ancients frequently fell into mistakes from not
attending to the series and connection of the text. In J o b xxi.
1 3 , we read, " T h e y pass their days in wealth, and go down in a
moment to the g r a v e : " which words many have understood to
mean that the holy author affirmed that the rich, after spending
their whole life in luxury, were suddenly plunged into eternal punish-
ment ; whereas it readily appears from the words, that his meaning
is very different, and almost the contrary of this. H e means that
those wicked rich men, the enemies of God and piety, are happy
not only in life, but in death a l s o ; since after they have filled
themselves with all kinds of pleasures, they die without any p r o -
tracted pain, while others pine under lingering diseases, and are
tortured with keen agonies in death. Hence then springs the
fifth mean.

F o r , in the fifth place, one place must be compared and collated

with another; the obscurer places with the plainer or less obscure.
F o r though in one place the words m a y be obscure, they will b e
plainer in another. F o r example, James, chap. 2, verse 2 1 ,
affirms that Abraham was justified b y works. T h e place is obscure,
and seems to favour the papists. Whence, then, shall we know the
true meaning of this passage ? W h y , we must compare it with the
second verse of the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans,
and so it will readily appear how this place is to b e understood.
F o r Paul, in R o m . iv. 2, expressly says, that Abraham was not
justified b y works, because then he would have whereof to g l o r y :
and it is sufficiently plain that the apostle Paul is speaking, in that
place, of the works which followed the call of Abraham : first,
because he says, " Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto
him for righteousness;" which every b o d y knows to have taken
place after his c a l l : secondly, because afterwards he proceeds to
472 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

the example of David, whom all know to have been a holy man,
regenerated b y the Spirit of God, and called b y God. W e must
needs therefore confess that the term 'justification' is taken in different
senses, unless we choose to suppose that the apostles are at variance,
and pronounce contradictory declarations. In James, therefore, to
be justified means to be declared and shewn to be just, as Thomas
Aquinas himself confesses upon that p l a c e ; but, in Paul, to be justi-
fied denotes the same as to be absolved from all sins, and accounted
righteous with God.
Sixthly, in the comparison of places, we must observe that hot
only similar passages are to be compared with similar, but dissi-
milar passages also are to be compared together. Like places are
to be compared with l i k e ; as, for example, John vi. 5 3 , " Unless
y e eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, y e have no
life in y o u ; " with John iv. 1 4 , " W h o s o e v e r shall drink of that
water that I will give him, shall never thirst; but the water that
I will give him shall be in him a well of water springing up unto
everlasting life." This water is spiritual, and the mode of drink-
ing it is spiritual; and the same holds as to the eating of his
flesh: for to eat and to drink are similar kinds of expression.
Therefore as the water which causes that we never thirst is drunk
in a spiritual manner; so the flesh of Christ must be eaten, and
his blood drunk,, only in a spiritual manner. Unlike places are
to be compared t o g e t h e r : for example, if that same passage, John
vi. 5 3 , b e compared with the sixth precept in the Decalogue,
" Thou shalt do no murder ; " (for if it be a crime, y e a , an enormity,
to slay a man, it is certainly a far deeper crime to eat and devour
a m a n ; ) hence Augustine concludes, de Doct. Christ. Lib. iii. c. 16,
that these words must be understood and explained figuratively,
because otherwise they would command a flagitious crime.
Seventhly, all our expositions should accord with the analogy
of faith, which we read of, R,om. xii. 6. N o w the analogy of
faith is nothing else but the constant sense of the general tenour of
scripture in those clear passages of scripture, where the meaning
labours under no obscurity; such as the articles of faith in the
Creed, and the contents of the Lord's Prayer, the Decalogue, and
the whole Catechism: for every part of the Catechism m a y be
confirmed b y plain passages of scripture. Whatever exposition is
repugnant to this analogy must be false. F o r example, the
papists elicit transubstantiation from the words, " This is m y b o d y , "
making the meaning of them this, This bread is transformed into
IX.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 473

my body. T h e Lutherans adopt another interpretation, namely,

The b o d y of Christ is under this b r e a d ; and hence infer their
doctrine of consubstantiation. Both expositions are at variance
with the analogy of faith. F o r , first, the analogy of faith teaches
that Christ hath a b o d y like to ours : now such a b o d y can neither
lie hid under the accidents of bread, nor be along with the bread.
Secondly, the analogy of faith teaches that Christ is in h e a v e n ;
therefore he is not in the bread or with the bread. Thirdly, the
analogy of faith teaches that Christ will come to judgment from
heaven, not from the pix. Similar is the case of the popish
doctrine, that we are justified b y w o r k s ; which is likewise repug-
nant to the analogy of faith. F o r in the Lord's Prayer we ask
for the remission of sins, and in the Creed we profess belief in the
forgiveness of sins, and that, as long as we l i v e ; nor merely of
other people's sins, (for that is the faith of devils,) but also of our
own. Therefore, we cannot believe that God will deem us just on
account of our own works.
Eighthly, since the unlearned know not how to make a right
use of these means, they ought to have recourse to other persons
better skilled than themselves, to read the books of others, to
consult the commentaries and expositions of learned interpreters,
and to confer with others. Such was the practice of Jerome, of
Augustine, and of other fathers. But, in the meanwhile, care
must be taken that we do not ascribe too much to them, or
suppose that their interpretations are to b e received because they
are theirs, but because they are supported b y the authority of
scripture or b y reason, so as to allow them no weight in opposition
to the scripture. W e may use their labours, advice, prudence,
and knowledge; but we should use them always cautiously, modestly,
and discreetly, and so as still to retain our own liberty. H e that
shall be content to make such a use of these means, and will lay
aside his prejudices and party zeal, which many bring with them
to every question, will be enabled to gain an understanding of the
scriptures, if not in all places, yet in m o s t ; if not immediately, y e t
ultimately.
474 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

CHAPTER X.

THE GENERAL ARGUMENTS OF OUR OPPONENTS AGAINST THESE

MEANS ARE OBVIATED.

WHAT ? D o our opponents find fault with these means ? Not

altogether; but y e t neither do they entirely receive them. Staple-
ton, L i b . n. c. 9 , admits that they are highly conducive, but says
that they are not firm, certain, or of uniform avail; and that those
who seek to interpret scripture in this way are sometimes deceived:
which points he endeavours to prove and demonstrate b y many
arguments adduced against these means of exposition. These we
proceed now to obviate, briefly, and conformably to the plan of our
discourse. In that chapter he tries to shake our means b y three
arguments.
T h e first is, that these means of ours are subordinate to the
means which they maintain; which (as y e shall hear afterwards)
are the rule of faith, the practice of the church, the unanimous
opinion of the fathers, the definite interpretation of councils. For,
unless they agree with the rule of faith and the other means settled
b y them, they are neither just nor salutary. I answer, firstly, b y
conceding that all our methods of exposition should be in harmony
with the rule of faith, and that we must not depart a hair's breadth
from that rule. But what is that rule ? U p o n that we shall speak
hereafter. In the meanwhile we lay it down that the rule of faith
is no other than the constant tenor of the sense of scripture, to
which special regard must be had in every exposition of scripture.
This mean we have ourselves laid d o w n ; and to this all the in-
terpretations of all men should agree. Whatever is not combined
with this rule must be rejected as illegitimate. But Stapleton will
not allow that this rule is contained in the scriptures, as will appear
afterwards, where also I shall give a larger reply to the objection.
Secondly, I answer, that the practice of the church is uncertain,
mutable, and often w r o n g ; that an unanimous opinion of the fathers
or a definite interpretation of councils is boasted of and pretended
in words, but cannot be shewn in fact. T h e fathers do not all in-
terpret scripture b y the same rule, nor have councils defined all
controversies; and the later fathers and newer councils differ widely
from the more ancient. Thirdly, that the practice of the church,
the opinions of the fathers, and the definitions of councils, should
b e examined b y the standard of scripture, not the contrary. It is
X.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 475

therefore a preposterous proceeding to interpret scripture b y these

things which are themselves to be judged of b y scripture.
His second argument is, that these means of ours are common
to all heretics and Jews and pagans, while his are peculiar to the
catholics and orthodox. I answer: If the meaning be that all can
use these means, I acknowledge the fact upon which this argument
is founded; for the means of interpreting scripture should be such
as are not peculiar to certain men, but plain and public. But if
the meaning be, that heretics, making use of these means, can con-
firm their heresies out of scripture, the assertion is utterly false.
And if this be not the meaning, Stapleton brings this allegation to
no purpose. N o w this is so far from being true, that heretics, if
they would make a legitimate application of these means, would see
that their heresies were condemned b y the scriptures; and, in like
manner, the Jews and pagans would understand that their impious
and profane opinions were refuted b y our scriptures. I f Stapleton
indeed thought, as he appears to have thought, that these means
favour the heretics, or can give them any aid in maintaining their
cause; he hath put a great and unworthy insult upon the scriptures,
as if they could be, in any question, more favourable to heretics
than to catholics. But the scriptures are the bulwarks and muni-
ments of the catholics, the torment and destruction of heretics.
Wherefore, heretics may indeed use these means: but, if they use
them aright, they will no longer continue heretics as they were, or
they will be absolutely self-condemned. Y e a , if the heretics might
lawfully interpret scripture otherwise than b y scripture, they might
defend their cause with much greater ease and probability than they
have ever y e t been able.
His third argument is, that our means are human, his divine;
because the church cannot err damnably in its public faith or
practice. I answer: I f they are called human because they are
used b y men, I confess them to be in this sense human; and, in
this sense, their own means also are no other than human. But if
Stapleton calls them human under the notion that nothing but
human industry is required in their application, he is grievously
mistaken: for with these means must of necessity be combined
the teaching of the H o l y Spirit, without which we shall ever
expend labour in vain upon the study of the scriptures. It was
upon this account that we said, that we should before all things
pray that we might, in searching the scripture, hold that way which
was most direct, and that the H o l y Ghost might always shew us
476 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

his illumination. F o r the practice of the church is the custom of

m e n ; the sense of the fathers is the opinion of m e n ; the definition
of a council is the judgment of m e n ; the decree of a pope is the
will of man, yea, of one single individual. But, say they, the
church never e r r s ; the pope never errs. W e shall shew both
assertions to be false in the proper place. W e say that scripture
never errs, and therefore j u d g e that interpretation to be the
truest which agrees with scripture. W h a t have we to do with
churches, or councils, or popes, unless they can shew that what
they define is in harmony with the scriptures ? A n d what, at the
last, must w e say that this church really is which they object to us ?
H e r e certainly y o u will find nothing but what is human, and, con-
sequently, uncertain and altogether unsafe.

CHAPTER XI.

THE PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS OF OUR ADVERSARIES ARE REFUTED.

L E T us now reply severally to each of his special objections.

T h e means against which he disputes are principally four. First,
the consideration of what goes before and what follows: secondly,
the observation of the phrase and s t y l e : thirdly, the comparison,
of passages : fourthly, the inspection of the originals.
[I.] Against the first he objects, that such a consideration is un-
certain, because the context of scripture is various and miscellaneous,
the order of discourse in the scriptures often interrupted; that Paul
often imperceptibly, and without any notice, passes from one subject
to another; that in the same sentences some things are said literally,
and some figuratively ; nay, that the same word is taken in different
senses in the same sentence. Therefore, this consideration is un-
certain, and (to use his own words) " misleads the reader in many
ways, when taken separately." I reply, that Stapleton hath an-
swered himself. F o r we do not say that each of these several
means, taken b y itself and applied separately, is always sufficient for
discovering the true sense of scripture; but that they, all taken
together, are sufficiently efficacious when properly handled. Indeed
w e ought to think we have prospered well, if after the long and
diligent use of these means we at length attain to the true sense of
a difficult passage of scripture. When Stapleton, therefore, ad-
XI.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 477

duces examples to shew that we cannot, b y this consideration alone,

find what we seek, he wastes his pains and only amuses his reader.
But if he join the others with this, then he will easily perceive
what great efficacy there is in these means for the opening out
and illustration of the scripture. F o r example, Gen. iii., we read,
that Adam and E v e " saw the fruit of the tree, that it was fair to
the e y e , " & c , and y e t that, immediately after eating it, " t h e i r
eyes were opened." Eyes are here spoken of, first in a figura-
tive, and then in a strict sense. W h o does not know this, or
what end was the exhibition of this instance designed to serve ?
W h y , Stapleton gathers from this, that the consideration of the
context, preceding and consequent, is no firm and infallible rule for
understanding scripture. As if we said so, or depended upon this
rule a l o n e ! F o r when we approach the interpretation of difficult
scriptures, we do not separate and divorce these means from each
other, as if each were sufficient separately and of itself for each
passage: but we say that everywhere those means are to be a p -
plied which are fit and necessary; and that if one give us not ade-
quate assistance, we should take in the rest a l s o ; as he who cannot
open a door with one k e y , applies another, and tries many, nor
stops trying until he hath found the true one. Even so, when con-
sidering the antecedents and consequents is insufficient, we must
compare the passage before us with others, or sift the style and
phraseology, or examine the original. But, to answer this par-
ticular instance of Stapleton's,—who does not see that the con-
sideration of the context is here specially useful and efficacious in
ascertaining the true meaning of the passage ? For, if one were to
argue that Adam or E v e were blind at first, because their eyes are
said to have been opened after they had tasted of the fruit, he
might be easily refuted from the words immediately preceding.
For the woman saw the fruit, which was in appearance fair and
delightful; and this must needs be so understood as to imply that
E v e really had eyes and the power of vision, since she was so
influenced b y this sight as to be unable to restrain herself from
immediately gratifying her desires: and consequently, what follows
concerning the opening of their eyes can only be taken figuratively.
Thus the place itself shews, that this second statement must be
understood of some other kind of seeing. Stapleton brings another
example from Ps. x x i i : Deus, Deus meus, respice in me; quare
me derelinquisti ? Longe a salute mea verba delictorum meorum.
These words, says he, are spoken in the person of his body and o f
478 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

the whole c h u r c h : upon which point we will plainly refute him b y

the application of two of our means, the comparison of places, and
the examination of the originals. F o r , first, in Matth. xxvii. 4 6 ,
Christ himself, who is the head of the church, hath proved this to
be his own voice and complaint, b y exclaiming as he hung upon
the cross, " M y God, m y God, w h y hast thou forsaken me ? " In
the next place, if we look into the original Hebrew verity, we shall
understand that the second member of this verse should be trans-
lated, " T h o u art far from m y help, from the words of m y roaring."
However, our opponent's argument labours under the fallacy of
division and composition: These means do not suffice separately ;
and therefore not taken together.
[ I I . ] His objections to the observation of the style and phra-
seology are of a similar character; which, although he allows it to
be an excellent and very useful mean, and one which may not un-
frequently be applied with advantage, he nevertheless contends is
doubtful, ambiguous and deceitful, if taken alone and by itself.
W e accept his praises of this mean, and are glad that we may use
it with Stapleton's g o o d l e a v e ; but, as to his affirming it not to
be sufficiently efficacious, taken b y itself alone, for gaining the
authentic sense of scripture, this is precisely our own judgment. W e
ascribe no such great force to these several means when applied
s i n g l y ; but think that each hath its weight, and contributes much
help, and that all taken together are sufficient. Stapleton, being
unable to break them down when united and joined together, does
his best to separate them, and attack them in detail; which is a
plain proof of his distrusting his own cause: just as they who are
afraid of, and dare not stand before, united and collected forces,
y e t venture to fall upon them when they are scattered. But let
us hear what sort of argument Stapleton broaches against this
method. First, the scripture hath not one, but many different
authors, who have each their own manner of expression. Isaiah's
style differs from that of A m o s ; Peter and Paul do not write in
the same manner. I answer, that, indeed, the styles in scripture
are various, but that nevertheless that variety is not so great as
to baffle observation. Although Isaiah, who was educated in the
royal court, hath a much purer and more elegant diction than
Amos, who had lived amongst shepherds, yet this shepherd speaks
in such a manner as to be intelligible to all who can understand
a n y t h i n g : for he had learned to speak from the best master of
speech, even the H o l y Spirit. So, although Paul, brought up b y
XI.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 479

Gamaliel, the most learned of the Pharisees, speaks otherwise than

Peter or James, who had passed almost all their lives in fishing;
yet the difference is not very great, since Peter and James did not
learn to speak Greek in their fishing occupations, but were taught
b y the H o l y Spirit, a much better and more eloquent instructor
than Gamaliel. But let us grant that the style of scripture is dif-
ferent in many b o o k s : y e t how does this prevent either that such
differences should b e marked, or that, when marked, they should
yield great help in the interpretation of scripture ? Certainly the
fathers are much more unlike each other than the prophets or
apostles. Augustine is copious, Jerome succinct; Lactantius imi-
tates C i c e r o ; Tertullian affects obscurity ; Chrysostom is ornate
and clear; Nazianzen compressed and acute. In a word, they have
not all the same character, and y e t all speak so as to be easily
intelligible when read with attention. Secondly, says Stapleton,
the variety of the interpreters and of the originals produces un-
certainty. I answer: Translators, indeed, we often see g o w r o n g ;
on which account it is not always safe to acquiesce in them. But
there is no such variety in the originals as Stapleton pretends.
Thirdly, T h e rules which respect the phraseology of scripture are
not universal. I answer: Although they are not absolutely uni-
versal, yet are they such as may assist the students of scripture;
and, whatever they be, the scripture must not be accommodated to
them, but they to the scripture. Upon this point Stapleton hath
used no examples, and he produces no phrase that may not be
explained b y the scriptures themselves. W h a t ? must we wait until
the pope tells us the force of Hebraisms, who, generally, knows
nothing of either Greek or Hebrew ? A worthy j u d g e of style
forsooth!
[ I I I . ] H e disputes against the comparison of passages in c. 1 0 .
W e say that a diligent and judicious comparison of places is a g o o d
means of interpretation; while he maintains that, taken alone and
by itself, it is not only fallacious but pernicious. What then ? W e
do not suppose that either this, or any mean whatever, should be
used and applied a l o n e ; and I wonder that he did not hence per-
ceive the egregious sophistry of his proceeding. F o r , when our
assertion is, that all these means should be used, when necessary,
to unfold the involved meanings of scripture, and not that any one
should be trusted alone, this man comes and disputes against us as
if we determined that each several mean b y itself was strong enough
and sufficient for all purposes. Furthermore, we require a fair,
480 the first controversy. [CH.

judicious, and diligent comparison; and, therefore, his long discourse

of the wrong feelings under which many labour, of the ambiguity
of words, and of the customs of heretics, is beside the question.
Heretics, and those who are led b y party-spirit, or their own feel-
ings, search scripture either carelessly or perversely. However, let
us briefly refute the reasons of our opponent from point to point.
F i r s t : In a comparison, private feeling and prejudice generally
prevail. I a n s w e r : If there be any so perverse as to yield no
assent to the scriptures when duly and accurately compared, such
persons will respect no authority, unless influenced either b y fear
or shame, or in some hypocritical manner. Can he who is not
moved b y almost innumerable testimonies of scripture, appositely
and judiciously collated, to believe the deity of Christ, can he be
persuaded b y the authority of the church or the opinion of the
Roman pontiff ? Assuredly, that man will never be a good catholic,
whom well collated scriptures cannot bring to adopt a catholic
opinion; and such are the popish pseudo-catholics, who have derived
their catholic errors not from the scriptures, but from the inventions
of men.
S e c o n d l y : T h e same words and phrases have not always
everywhere the same sense and signification. I answer : Although
words and phrases may in one place have some ambiguity, on ac-
count of their being taken variously, y e t the difficulty may be
freed from embarrassment either b y considering the things them-
selves, or b y the comparison of other places, or b y recurring to the
analogy of faith. " T h e flesh" and " t h e w o r l d " are taken in various
senses, and so are many other terms. W h o denies i t ? But
whence hath the observation of this variety been derived ? Is it
not from the scriptures themselves and the comparison of places?
Thirdly : Some places occur but once in scripture. I answer :
These are either plain or not necessary to salvation. F o r those
common phrases of the apostles, " b e i n g buried with C h r i s t ; "
" b e i n g crucified with C h r i s t ; " " l i v i n g with h i m ; " " r e i g n i n g with
h i m ; " " being baptized into his death," and such like, are plain
enough in themselves, and may also have light thrown upon them
b y the comparison of other sentences.
F o u r t h l y : Because all heretics, b y using great diligence in
comparing scripture, have nevertheless erred most foully in the
sense of scripture. I answer: T h e y did not compare scripture
with great diligence, but for the most part, slightly and carelessly.
And his assertion, that " b y a most diligent collation of scripture
XI.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 481

they fell into shameful errors," is an outrageous insult upon the

scriptures. F o r even though it might he said that they fell into
error while using the comparison of parallel passages, y e t they did
not err b y means of that comparison; since, however those may
go most shamefully wrong who collate scripture, y e t a careful col-
lation is never the cause of their mistakes. Stapleton proposes an
example of such a comparison. T h e Arians compared that saying
of Christ in John x., " I and m y Father are one," with those other
words of Christ in John xvii., " F a t h e r , I will that they all may be
one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in t h e e ; " nevertheless, says
he, that interpretation hath obtained, which is prescribed b y the
rule of faith. I answer b y demanding, whence the church derived
its proofs of this interpretation ? Stapleton says, from the rule of
faith. Well then, was it from the scripture? B y no means, if
we are to believe Stapleton; for it would then follow that the
Arians were confuted b y the comparison and testimony of the
scriptures. Now it is certain that the Arians were refuted b y the
church and the holy fathers out of the scriptures, and specially b y
the collation of scripture, as is plain from Hilary de Trin. Lib. v m .
And if this very place, John x „ be duly weighed, it will sufficiently
establish the consubstantiality of Christ with the Father. For
Christ promises that none shall snatch his sheep out of his hand,
because none can snatch them out of his Father's hand. And, in
order to give us an intimate persuasion of this truth, he subjoins,
" I and m y Father are o n e ; " which must necessarily be understood
of an unity of nature and of power. Also when Christ says that
he will give his sheep eternal life, he gives no obscure evidence of
his being God. Besides, as Chrysostom hath observed, the Jews
immediately perceived that Christ had pronounced himself consuh-
stantial with the F a t h e r ; and on that account rushed upon Christ
in a transport of frantic fury, and sought to stone him. So it
presently follows in the evangelist: " T h e y therefore took up
stones to stone him." This also follows, which is still plainer. The
Jews being asked b y Christ wherefore they sought to stone him,
replied, for blasphemy, and because he, being a man, made himself
God. Upon which place Augustine, in his 48th Tractate upon
John, discourses t h u s : " Thus far the Jews were able to bear
h i m ; but when they heard, ' I and m y Father are one,' they could
bear it no longer, and, hard as ever, rushed to take up stones ." 1

\} Hucusque Judcei tolerare potuerunt: audierunt, Ego et Pater unum

sumus, et non pertulerunt, et more suo duri, ad lapides cucurrerunt.—Opp.
T. iv. p. 816.]

r i 3 1

|_ WHITAKER.J
482 T H E FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH

Then, a little lower d o w n : " L o , the Jews understood what the

Arians understand not. F o r they were enraged upon that very
account, because they perceived that the words, ' I and m y Father
are one,' supposed an equality of the Son with the F a t h e r . " Thus,
1

from a comparison of places, and a consideration of the context, and

strict inference, the fathers concluded that Christ here speaks of
unity of nature, and so condemned the Arians b y a most righteous
sentence. Augustine teaches well, that both Arians and Sabellians
are refuted b y these words. Thus he speaks, as quoted in the
Catena of Thomas Aquinas: " If you mark both terms, both the
one and the are, y o u will escape both Scylla and Charybdis. His
saying one saves you from A r i u s : his saying are saves you from
Sabellius. If one, then not different: if we are, then Father and
Son are distinct p e r s o n s . "
2
Thus always the catholic and pious
fathers in every question and dispute refuted the heretics b y the
words and collation of the scriptures.
In the eleventh chapter Stapleton adduces one example to
shew how pernicious the collation of scripture may be. Chemnitz,
says he, relying upon such comparisons, perverts a notable passage
of the apostle, where we are taught that a vow of celibacy should
not be violated, 1 Tim. v . : " Having damnation because they have
cast off their first faith." This first faith, says he, the church
understands of a vow of celibacy and w i d o w h o o d : whereupon he
cites many fathers and councils. W e shall elsewhere have to dis-
cuss this passage, when we shall shew that Chemnitz has advanced
nothing inconsistent with the scriptures or piety. However, a pru-
dent and fair comparison of a single passage of scripture hath more
force in it than the bare opinions of many fathers. T o understand
b y the " first faith" a vow of celibacy or widowhood is repugnant
not only to the parallel passages, but even to the analogy of faith.
Wherefore if all the fathers had said that such a vow is here sanc-
tioned, they might better be excused than defended. But some of
the fathers have passed a sounder judgment upon this passage, taking
the first faith to mean, not any vow of abstaining from marriage, but
sincere religion and piety. So Jerome, in the preface to his commen-
[! Ecce Judosi intellexerunt, quod non intelligunt Ariani. Ideo enim irati
sunt, quoniam senserunt non posse dici, Ego et Pater unum sumus, nisi ubi
est sequalitas Patris et Filii.—T. iv. p. 817.]
[ Utrumque audi, et unum, et sumus; et a Charybdi et a Scylla libera-
2

beris. Quod dixit, unum, liberat te ab Ario : quod dixit, sumus, liberat te a
Sabellio. Si unum, non ergo diversum; si sumus, ergo Pater et Filius.—Fol.
30G, 2. Paris. 1537.]
X..] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 483

tary upon Titus; Athanasius de Trin. L i b . v i . ; Vincentius Lirinensis,

Commonit. c. 1 2 . F o r they say that heretics cast away their first
faith, not when they contract marriage after a v o w of celibacy, but
when they fall away to infidelity or heresy after having made a
profession of the true faith. N o faith is prior to that faith in the
Trinity which we profess in baptism. This first faith heretics
violate and annul, when, forgetting their pure and sound profes-
sion, they take up false and impious notions in religion. A n d in
this manner wanton widows cast away their first faith: for, after
having devoted themselves to the service of the church, being
entangled in the seductions of lust, they first abandon their
ministry, which can only be discharged b y chaste matrons; and
then, perceiving themselves to have lost their character amongst
Christians b y their unchastity, pass over to the enemies of the
christian faith. So the apostle explains himself, verse 1 5 , where,
speaking of such widows, he s a y s : " F o r some already e^erpa-
nrriaav OTT'ICTOJ TOV "2aTavd ." 3
T h e apostle therefore immediately
tells us the meaning of the phrase Trpu>Tt]v iriariv aOerelv. It
is nothing else but enTpanrnvat OTT'ICTW TOV ^aravd, that is, to
turn from the right w a y , and follow Satan as a g u i d e ; which is
what those do who persevere not in their faith pledged to God
and in a holy profession. F o r to take faith for a v o w is to assign
it a sense unheard of in the scriptures. But we will speak at
large of this passage in its proper place.
[IV.] In his last chapter he disputes against the inspection of
the originals, concluding that it is not now as necessary as it was
formerly, because there is now one certain and authentic version
of both Testaments, expressly approved b y the church in a general
council. I answer, that the synagogue of antichrist in their p r e -
tended council of Trent did that which the true church of Christ
never in any council dared to attempt o r think o f , — n a m e l y , made
the originals of scripture in both Testaments unauthoritative and
non-authentic, and pronounced the authenticity of the vulgate Latin
version, than which nothing can possibly b e more faulty and corrupt.
However, we have largely treated this whole matter in the first part
of the second question, where we have proved, not only b y strict
reasoning, but even b y the confession of the papists themselves, that
the Latin copies should b e amended from the originals. There is
no necessity for entering now into a, fuller reply to this argument.

[ 3
C o m p a r e also V. 8 : TTJV TTIO-TIV ijpvrjrai, rat ecrnv airio-Tov xeipuv, said o f
one w h o provides n o t f o r his o w n . ]
31—2
 484 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH,

CHAPTER XII.

THE ARGUMENTS BY WHICH OUR OPPONENT ENDEAVOURS TO

ESTABLISH HIS OWN MEANS ARE EXAMINED.

HAVING heard what he hath alleged against the means which

we employ, let us now see how he defends and confirms his own.
Stapleton, then, Lib. 11., proposes four means. T h e first is, the
rule of faith, c. 1 and 3 ; the second, the practice of the church,
c. 4 ; the third, the unanimous interpretation of the fathers,
c. 5 ; the fourth, the interpretation prescribed and decreed by
councils, c. 6. These he pronounces to be the only certain and
authentic means. Here you perceive that there is no express
mention of the pope, which I know not whether to ascribe to
forgetfulness or to design. I suspect that either the reason is,
that the pope is implied in all these means, (for the rule of faith
is that which the pope a p p r o v e s ; the practice of the church that
which the pope observes; the exposition of the fathers that which
the pope follows; the definition of councils that which the pope
confirms;) or that these are mere means, while the pope is the
j u d g e who forms his judgment b y them. Thus Stapleton seems
here to overturn the position maintained b y Bellarmine and Sta-
pleton himself elsewhere, which attributes a judicial and definitive
authority to the practice of the church. F o r if there are means
of interpreting scripture, then the supreme judicial authority
resides not in them, but in the scriptures ; and if the pope himself
be understood to be included in these means, then he disowns this
authority as his, and gives it to the scriptures. W e have already
spoken of Stapleton's three latter means, and intend to speak again
in the proper place. L e t us now consider the rule of faith whereof
he boasts.
W h a t rule, then, does he mean ? If the scripture, we gladly
recognise it as the interpreter. And, assuredly, the rule of
faith is either the scripture itself, or the sum and epitome and
ascertained sense of scripture, not any thing beside or beyond the
scripture; and so the fathers thought when they mentioned the
rule of faith. Tertullian, in his b o o k cle Virginibus Velandis, thus
explains that r u l e : " T h e rule of faith," says he, " is but one,
immoveable and incapable of reformation, that is, the rule of
believing in one G o d almighty, the Maker of the world,.and in
his Son Jesus Christ, who was born of the virgin M a r y , crucified
XII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 485

under Pontius Pilate, rose again from the dead on the third day,
was taken up into heaven, and is now sitting at the right hand
of the Father, and will come to j u d g e the quick and the dead b y
means of the resurrection also of the flesh ."
1
A n d this he calls also
the law of faith. So Augustine, in his Enchiridion, c. 56:
" Unless the Holy Ghost were God, he would not b e placed before
the church in the rule of f a i t h . " 2
Gerson, upon Communion in
both Kinds, understands the scripture b y the rule of faith, when he
s a y s : " H o l y scripture is the rule of faith, against which, when
rightly understood, no human authority may be admitted ." 3
We
always appeal to this rule, and it is this which our adversaries
fear and shun. Stapleton says, Lib. v n . c. 1, that the rule of
faith is more extensive than the Creed, and denotes that doctrine
which the apostles delivered to the churches, and which was
publicly received b y all, that is to say, all tradition written or
unwritten. W e , however, make no account of those pretended
traditions, and demand a known, open, clear, certain, immutable
rule. T h e unwritten rule is uncertain, and known only to a f e w ;
whereupon we shall treat in the question next ensuing. In tbe
meanwhile, it is either repugnant to the scriptures, or not. I f it
be repugnant, it is to be rejected without hesitation: if it agree,
that must be perceived and j u d g e d of b y the scriptures. Since,
therefore, the scriptures are the line and measure for judging
things unwritten, unwritten traditions cannot be the rule of inter-
preting scripture.
Stapleton, however, contends that his unwritten rule is that
analogy of which the apostle speaks, R o m . xii. , the measure 4
of the
rule mentioned in 2 Cor. x. , and the rule,5
Galat. vi. , and Philipp.
6

[! Regula quidam fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis,

credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omnipotentom, mundi Conditorem, et
Filium ejus Jesum Christum, uatum ex virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio
Pilato, tertia die resuscitatum a mortuis, receptum in coelis, sedentem nunc
ad dexteram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos per carnis etiam
resurrectionem.—c. 1. p. 201.]
[ 2
Ne per hoc Spiritus Sanctus, si creatura, non creator esset, profecto
creatura rationalis esset. Ipsa est enim summa creatura; et ideo in regula
fidei non poneretur ante ecclesiam, quia et ipse ad ecclesiam pertineret in
ilia ejus parte qua? in coelis est.—p. 207. ed. Bruder. Lips. 1838.]
[ 3
Scriptura sacra est regula fidei, contra quam bene intellectam non est
admittenda auctoritas.—Gerson. Opp. T. I . p. 521. Paris. 1606.]
[ 4
Kara TTJV avakoylav T*/P T n o r e c o s . — R o m . xii. 6.]
[ 6
Kara TO perpou TOC Kavouos.—2 Cor. X . 13.]
[*> ocroi rip Kavovi TOVTCO o-roi)(ri<TOVcriv.—Gal. vi. 17.]
486 T H E FIRST C O N T R O V E R S Y . [CH.

iii. But it is manifest, that it is not that popish rule of ecclesiastical

1

tradition that is meant b y the apostle, but the sense and force of
the apostolic preaching, which they afterwards set forth plainly and
copiously in written documents, and handed down to the perpetual
memory of all generations. Stapleton, Lib. n. c. 3, enumerates
many testimonies from Augustine to commend his fictitious rule of
f a i t h : but, if we sift them each thoroughly, it will be plain that
such a rule as they dream of never entered into the head of
Augustine. T h e rule of Augustine is no other than a profession
of religion, agreeing in all respects with the scriptures; nor does
Augustine acknowledge any rule save that which the sound and
catholic doctrine of the scriptures embraces, and nowhere desiderates
these unwritten rules of the papists. So in his imperfect work upon
Genesis ad literam, c. 1, he expounds the catholic faith; where
(says Stapleton) he comprises in the rule of the catholic faith not
only those things which are laid down in the Creed, but many
others which the church had recently defined against the Manicheans
and Pelagians. But Stapleton did not observe, that Augustine puts
nothing in the rule of faith which is not contained in the scriptures.
Whatever the church defined against the Manicheans or Pelagians,
it took from no other source than the canonical scriptures; which
were called canonical upon that very account, because they contain
a certain necessary, perfect, and infallible rule of all faith and
religion. And although all things are not plainly and explicitly
laid down in the Creed, which are of avail to the refutation of those
heretics; yet the principles of that faith are delivered in the Creed,
which is found more largely expounded in the scriptures. Indeed
the first article of the Creed sufficiently refutes the Manicheans :
for, if we believe in God, the Maker of heaven and earth and all
creatures, then there is but one God, the Creator of the world, and
not two gods, nor was the world made b y an evil deity, as the
Manicheans blasphemously taught. T h e article which teaches that
Christ was conceived b y the H o l y Ghost of the virgin M a r y con-
demns the Pelagians, who deny original s i n : for if Christ were
thus conceived and born, to escape being tainted with any spot of
original sin, then it follows that the rest of mankind must be born
universally infected b y that sin: and the Creed, as understood and
explained b y the scriptures, refutes also the other Pelagian errors.
But what are those many points, not set down in the Creed,
which Augustine enumerates ? Forsooth, he introduces some things
[l T& miT& o-TOi\eiv Kavovi.—Philipp. iii. 1 6 . ]
XII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 487

concerning sin and the punishment of sin gainst the Pelagians, and
concerning the creation of all things against the Manicheans. Now
these may be learned even from the Creed, and are most plainly
delivered in the scriptures. Let Stapleton, if he can, produce even
a single passage from Augustine, wherein that holy father declares
that the rule of faith contains any dogma which is not delivered in
the scriptures. F o r these testimonies which he hath produced make
mention of no rule not circumscribed b y the boundaries of scripture.
The most stringent of all is that which is objected to us from the
third B o o k of Christian Doctrine, c. 2, where Augustine writes,
that " the rule of faith is learned from the plainer parts of scrip-
ture and the authority of the c h u r c h : " where note (says Stapleton),
2

that the rule of faith is to be derived not from the scriptures alone,
but also from the authority of the church. But Augustine does not
attribute to the church the authority of determining or denning
any thing beyond the scriptures, nor does he say that the rule of
faith is to be drawn from the scriptures and the authority of the
church; but he reminds the student of theology, that whenever he
lights upon a passage which admits of an ambiguous stopping, he
should consult that rule of faith which he hath learned from the
plainer parts of scripture and the authority, that is, the teaching, of
the church. Not that we are to deem the church's authority absolute,
but that the church leads us by her voice and guidance, and protects
us by her authority from the craft of heretics. T h e church hath
authority to interpret scripture; not, indeed, an uncontrolled and in-
definite authority, but tied to certain bonds and conditions, so as to
be obliged to interpret scripture not b y her own caprice, but b y the
scriptures themselves : which legitimate and authentic expositions of
the church must needs have very great weight with all the faithful,
and especially with candidates for the ministry. It would be an
heretical punctuation of the words to read thus, In principio erat
Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat; so as to make
the sense to be, The W o r d was in the beginning with God, but was
not God. " N o w this," says Augustine, " is to be refuted b y the
rule of faith, wherein faith in the coequality of the Persons of the
Trinity is prescribed." Indeed, both the scripture and the church
prescribe faith in the equality of the Trinity, but not with the
same weight of authority. The church prescribes it, because it
hath received it all from scripture: scripture prescribes as the

[ 2
Consulat r e g u l a m fidei quam de scripturarum planioribus locis et
ecclesiee auctoritate p e r c e p i t . — p . 7 8 . ]
488 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

self-credible and supreme verity. Thus the church prescribes n o -

thing b e y o n d the scripture, and whatever authority the church
hath to prescribe any thing is included within the boundaries of
scripture; nor will Stapleton- find in Augustine any other rule of
faith than that which is derived from the catholic exposition of the
scriptures themselves.

CHAPTER XIII.

THAT SCRIPTURE IS TO BE INTERPRETED B Y SCRIPTURE.

I T remains now in the last place for us to prove that these

means are to be u s e d ; which is a corollary from the conclusion
already demonstrated, that scripture is its own interpreter. For
if scripture interpret itself, then we must apply these means to
obtain the interpretation of scripture; since those who would use
other means do not allow to scripture the power of expounding its
own meaning. But scripture does indeed explain itself with the
utmost plainness and perspicuity, if we will only attend to scripture
thus explaining itself; and although it may not in all places leave
absolutely no room for doubt, yet it does so in most, and the most
necessary places, and in the principal articles of our faith.
W e have examples of this sort of interpretation in the scriptures.
F o r the scripture, where it speaks with some obscurity, explains
its meaning sometimes-immediately after in the very same place,
sometimes accumulatively in several other places. This I will
briefly illustrate b y examples of both sorts of interpretation. In
Isaiah li. 1, we h a v e : " L o o k unto the rock whence y e were hewn,
and to the hole of the pit whence y e were d i g g e d . " T h e language
is obscure and ambiguous; but the obscurity is wholly removed b y
the words which f o l l o w : " Consider Abraham your father, and
Sarah who bore y o u . " W h a t better expositor do we require ?
Gen. xv. 2, Abraham says to the L o r d : " W h a t wilt thou give me,
seeing I g o childless, and the steward of m y house is this Eleazar
of D a m a s c u s ? " These words are somewhat dark, but light is
thrown upon them presently a f t e r : " Behold, thou hast given me
no seed, and lo, m y servant born in m y house is m y heir." What
could possibly be spoken more plainly ? Gen. xi. 1, the whole
world is said to have been of one lip; and, to make this better
XIII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 489

understood, it is immediately subjoined, that their speech was the

same. Exod. xx. 4, in the second precept of the decalogue, we
are commanded to " make no graven image, nor likeness of any
t h i n g ; " and, to put us completely in possession of the drift of this
law, a lucid exposition is added in the way of commentary. Deut.
vii. 3, the Israelites are forbidden to unite themselves with the
Canaanites b y affinity. This might be plain enough b y itself, but
is rendered still more clear and definite b y what follows in the
same place, " Thou shalt not give thy daughter to the son of any
of them, neither shalt thou take the son of any of them for thy
daughter:" and the reason of the law, subjoined immediately in a
large exposition, makes the meaning of the law still more evident.
Isaiah i. 2, " I have brought up children, and they have rebelled
against m e , " saith the L o r d ; and then immediately shews that this
declaration concerns the Israelites: " Israel doth not know, m y
people doth not consider." Isaiah liii. 1, " T o whom is the arm
of the Lord r e v e a l e d ? " — t h e meaning of this is plain from the
preceding clause, " W h o hath believed our report ? " — s o as to
make it evident, that the gospel is denoted b y the arm of the Lord.
In the sixth of John Christ is described as having discoursed at
large of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and having given
grievous offence b y that discourse not only to the Capernaites, but
also to his own disciples. Wherefore, to prevent that offence from
sinking too deep or dwelling too long in pious minds, Christ himself
at the last explains himself, saying, that the time should come when
they should see the Son of man ascending u p ; that it is the Spirit
that quickens, while the flesh profits n o t h i n g ; and still more plainly,
that those words which he had spoken were Spirit and life. So
plainly, so carefully, so largely does Christ remove that stumbling-
block from his discourse, and teach us that he spoke of a spiritual,
not a carnal and bodily, sort of eating and drinking. Paul says,
1 Cor. v. 9, " I wrote unto y o u in an epistle not to keep company
with fornicators:" but what sort of fornicators he meant, he pre-
sently indicates; not those who were strangers to the christian
name and profession, but those who, professing to be Christ's ad-
herents, abstained not from fornication and such-like similar enor-
mities ; with such he hath forbidden us to have any familiarity, and
hath clearly explained his mind upon that subject. So, in the fifth
chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, speaking of marriage, he
drops these words, " This is a great m y s t e r y : " where, foreseeing
that some would hence infer that marriage was a sacrament, he
490 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [en.

subjoined what absolutely removes the ground of such a surmise,

" But I speak concerning Christ and the c h u r c h ; " in which words
he protests that it is not matrimony, but the union of Christ and
the church, that is styled b y him a mystery. Such examples are
innumerable, wherein it is apparent that the H o l y Spirit hath been
careful that what he might seem at first to have expressed with
some obscurity, should afterwards be clearly explained, so as to free
the reader from all difficulty.
N o w if I were to attempt to prove b y examples, how those
things which are expressed with some obscurity in one place are
explained with the utmost clearness in other parts of scripture, I
should scarcely come to any end. F o r the usage of scripture is
to send us, for the true meaning of one part of scripture, to ano-
ther ; so that, in this way, we do not rest or acquiesce in any single
portion, but embrace the whole body of the sacred volumes in our
reading and meditation. Passages must therefore be compared
with one another, if we desire rightly to understand or gain a firm
hold of scripture. The prophetic scriptures illustrate the books
of Moses, and the whole old Testament is opened out in the new.
In Exod. iii. we have the words, " I am that I a m , " and, " I am
hath sent me to y o u . " What is the meaning of these expressions?
W h a t else but this, that God is eternal and immortal, unlike the
other deities of erroneous creeds ? N o w this is elsewhere e x -
pressed without any ambiguity of phrase. Isaiah xliii., " B e f o r e
me there was no God formed, neither after me shall there be
a n y ; " and Isaiah xlviii., " I am the first, and I am the l a s t : "
and in infinite other passages of both Testaments the same truth is
most manifestly established. W h e n the devil abused the scrip-
tures, Christ restrained him b y the authority of the scriptures,
Matt. i v . ; thus instructing his church to refute those opponents who
torture scripture into various senses b y testimonies of scripture
compared together, skilfully applied and correctly understood.
Christ condemns and sets aside that licentious custom of divorce,
which the Jews had taken up from a false exposition of the Mosaic
law, no otherwise than b y interpreting the law and explaining it
b y another passage of scripture, Matt. xix. Christ refutes and
convinces b y the testimony of scripture the Sadducees who denied
the resurrection, and founded their denial upon a subtle piece of
reasoning, Matt. xxii. The apostle in his epistles to the Romans,
Corinthians, Galatians, Hebrews, and in almost all the rest, quotes
frequently sentences from the old Testament, and explains t h e m ;
хш.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 491

so as that i f we were not (as he says of the Jews) " dull of hear­
ing," and were earnestly desirous, without pride or prejudice, to
handle, peruse, revolve, search, examine the scriptures, to learn the
scriptures from the scriptures themselves, and t o deem no expo­
sitor o f the H o l y S p m t better than the H o l y Spirit himself, we
should assuredly be seldomer at a loss to understand the scriptures.
But, whereas we read or consider the scriptures with but slight
attention, and follow the changeful and manifold opinions and in­
terpretations of men, we are distracted b y doubtful and almost
infinite judgments, and imagine I know not what obscurities, and
become blind as the bats, seeking light in the very blaze of n o o n .
Let us next see briefly what the fathers determined respecting
these means of interpretation. Basil, in his treatise of the H o l y
Spirit, с. 1, bids us " investigate the meaning concealed in every
word and syllable ." T h e expediency of doing this he proves
1

t h u s : T h e scope of scripture is, that we m a y be made like to

G o d ; such a likeness cannot have place without k n o w l e d g e : n o w
" knowledge comes b y instruction," and " of instruction the begin­
ning is speech, the parts whereof are syllables and terms." T h e
same Basil, in his Ascet. Quasst. 2 6 7 , hath these w o r d s : " W h a t ­
soever seems to be spoken ambiguously o r obscurely in some places
of holy scripture, is cleared up b y what is plain and evident in
other places ." What is this, but the very thesis which we main­
2

tain? So then, if we would understand the ambiguities and o b ­

scurities which meet us in every direction in the study of scripture,
Ave must consult other passages, and compare scripture with itself.
Irena?us, L i b . и. c. 4 7 , says that all scripture is in harmony with
3

itself, and that the parables (that is, the more obscure sentences)
are in harmony with the places perspicuously expressed, et quce
manifesto, sunt absolvent jwrabolas; that is, that light is so r e ­

\} To yap pfj Trapepyas акоСеш Tav 6eo\oyiKav (fravav, аХЛа TTeipdo-Bai

TOV iv iKatrrrj Xe£et кал екаитц сиХХаДт) KtKpvppivov TOV vovv i^i\veveiv t OVK
apyav els evarefieiav, aXkd yvapi^ovrav rov CTKOTTOV TJ\S KKrjo-eas rjpav on irpo-
кеьтаь -qpXv opotadtjvai Qea ката то bvvarbv dvdpanov <j>vo~et.. брошо-is be OVK dvev
yvmo-eas' rf be yvaas ек bibaypav \6yos be bibaa-KaKias архЧ' Xoyov be peprj
o-vWafial ка\ \e£eis.—Т. II. p. 1 4 3 . В.]
[ та dpqbifioXa кал eTTiKeKakvppevas elprjarBai boKOvvra ev run TOTTOLS TTJS
3

BeonvevcrTov ypa<prjs vno таи iv aXXoty TOITOIS opoXoyovpivav aa<j)rjvi£erai.

— Т . п . p. 632. a ]
[ 3
Omnis scriptura a D e o nobis data consonans nobis invenietur, et
parabola? his qua? m a n i f e s t o dicta sunt consonabunt, e t manifesto dicta
absolvent p a r a b o l a s . — p . 2 0 3 . c. e d . F e v a r d . ]
492 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

fleeted upon the obscure places from the clear, that no one who
does not choose it, can possibly err and be misled.
Origen, in his 24th Homily upon Numbers, tells u s : " The dis-
covery of what we seek in the scriptures is much facilitated b y ad-
ducing from several places what is written upon the same s u b j e c t . " 1

Tertulhan, in his b o o k de Virginibus V e l a n d i s : " Arise, 0 truth,

thyself expound thine own scriptures, which custom knows not;
for had it known them, it would not have e x i s t e d . " 2
A n d in his
b o o k against P r a x e a s : " Scripture is in no such peril as to need
help from thy reasoning, lest it should seem to contradict itself. It
hath reason, both when it determines God to be but one, and when
it shews the Father and the Son to be two, and is sufficient for
itself ." 3
Hilary, in his 9th b o o k upon the T r i n i t y : " Let the
meaning of what is said be gathered either from the preceding, or
from the following c o n t e x t . "4
Ambrose, Epist. 7, Lib. n . , 5
says
that Paul interprets himself in most passages; and likewise C h r y -
sostom, Horn. 9, upon 2 C o r . : " E v e r y where, when he uses any
obscure expression, he presently again explains himself ." 6
Cyril,
in his Thesaurus, Lib. v i n . c. 2, says that " we must observe the
circumstances, time, subject, and person, in order that we may
investigate the true m e a n i n g . " 7

But most clearly of all Augustine, in his four books of Christian

D o c t r i n e ; in three of which he treats of the method of finding out
the true sense of scripture, and in the fourth, the mode of teaching

[! Facilius in scripturis quod qua?ritur invenitur, si ex pluribus locis

qua? de eadem re scripta sunt proferantur.]
[ Exsurge igitur, Veritas, et quasi de patientia erumpe : nullam volo con-
2

suetudinem defendas; nam jam et ilia consuetudine, sub qua te fruebaris,

expugnatur. Te esse demonstra qua? virgines tegis. Ipsa scripturas tuas
interpretare, quas consuetudo non novit; si onim nosset, nunquam esset.
— c . 3 p. 204. P. ii.]
[ Porro non periclitatur scriptura, ut illi de tua argumentativa succurras,
3

ne sibi contraria videatur. Habet rationem, et cum unicum Deum statuit, et

cum duos Patrem et Pilium ostendit, et sufficit sibi.—c. 18. p. 270. P. iv.]
[ Dictorum intelligentia aut ex pra?positis aut ex consequentibus exspec-
4

tetur.—Hilarii Opp. p. 116. Basil. 1570.]

[ In plerisque ita se ipse suis exponit verbis, ut is qui tractat, grammatici
5

magis quam disputatoris fungatur munere.—T. vin. p. 448. Paris. 1839.]

[6 TravTaxov orav Ti acracpes e'Lnr], iavrov ippjjveud naXiv.]
[ Ante omnia quando locum scriptura? aliquem recte intelligere volumus,
T

tria diligenter consideranda sunt; tempus quando scriptum est quod dicitur;
persona qua? dicit, vel per quam, aut de qua dicitur.—Opp. T. ii. col. 284.
Paris. 1573.]
XIII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 493

others what we now understand. And forasmuch as the end of all

scripture is, as Augustine observes, the love of God and of our
neighbour, he therefore treats of this in his first book, and d e -
termines that without any doubt that is no true interpretation
which does not serve to build up the edifice of this genuine charity.
Having handled this matter, he comes closer to his subject, and
pronounces the difficulty of understanding things to lie in the signs
wherewith the things are denoted. Such signs he distinguishes
into the unknown and the ambiguous.
H e treats of the unknown in the second book, and of the am-
biguous in the third. H e first defines and divides a sign in several
chapters, teaching us that it is sometimes taken strictly and some-
times figuratively; whence he says that the obscurity of the scrip-
tures is occasioned, of which obscurity he sets forth the various
uses. Then, c. 8, he enumerates the canonical b o o k s ; because, as
he says, the first task is to know the books, to read them through,
and commit them to memory. Then he exhorts us to seek in
those passages which are clearly expressed the precepts of living
and the rules of faith; since all that make the complex of faith
and a g o o d life may be found in what is so expressed. Having
mastered these, which are the plainer parts, he bids us proceed to
the more obscure; and in c. 1 0 , he returns to signs, which he says
are unknown either in the words or in the sentence. Lest any
one, therefore, should err on account of his ignorance of the signs,
he delivers in cc. 1 1 , 1 2 , the general precepts for acquiring an
acquaintance with the art of grammar, which is a requisite condition
for learning the sense of scripture. H e affirms skill in the three
languages to be greatly needed, and bears his testimony to the
great aid to be derived from a multitude of learned interpreters:
but if interpreters do not agree, he teaches us that recourse must
be had to the Hebrew and Greek originals. Afterwards he shews
that physics, and arithmetic, and music, and specially logic, upon
which he speaks largely, are useful to a divine for understanding
the scriptures ; and, whilst he maintains that these philosophic arts
are of great advantage to the students of theology, he yet reminds
us that we do not addict ourselves to them immoderately; because
many, though not all, of the discourses of the philosophers are
superstitious, false, and impious. H e directs the reader also to
study history, through ignorance of which many persons have
fallen into error, cc. 27, 2 8 ; and concludes that the philosophers
have many things agreeable to our religion.
494 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

In his third book he discusses the ambiguity of signs, which

happens in many w a y s : for sometimes they are taken strictly, some-
times metaphorically and figuratively ; sometimes it is doubtful how
the sentence should be stopped or pronounced; upon which subject
he lays down this general rule, that we must never depart from the
rule of faith: furthermore, that we must take care not to understand
strictly what is spoken figuratively, c. 6 ; for it is a pitiable bondage
of the soul to take signs for things. Many chapters and many rules
are occupied with this subject. H e subjoins another general rule,
that some precepts are proposed to all in common, some privately
to special persons; and that these are to be diligently distinguished
the one from the other. Then he adds another, that we ought
not to imitate every thing that is related or even praised in the
scriptures; and this other, that the clear places must be applied to
understand the obscure; which point he frequently repeats. Then
follow the rules of Tychonius, seven in number, which may be
read in Augustine himself. These rules he calls the keys whereby
the mysteries of the holy scripture are unlocked. It is surpris-
ing that Augustine, when anxious to prescribe the best method of
understanding and expounding scripture, did not remind us that the
bishop of R o m e was the sole certain interpreter of scripture.
The same Augustine, in his Book of 83 Questions, Qu. 6 9 , s a y s :
" T h e circumstances of scripture generally throw light upon the
meaning, when those things which lie round the scripture and
touch upon the present question are handled in a diligent discus-
sion ." Jerome too, on Isaiah, c. 19 : " I t is usual in scripture to
1

subjoin plain words to obscure ones, and to express in a clear form

what was first spoken enigmatically ." In Ms epistle to Pamma-
2

chius, which is prefixed to his commentary upon Hosea, he says

that " t h e scriptures are the sealed b o o k , " which none could open,
or unlock its mysteries, but the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Je-
rome, therefore, does not recognise the pope as the public inter-
preter of scripture. But how then shall we understand the
scriptures ? H e subjoins: " W e must pray to the L o r d , and say
with Peter, ' Declare unto us this p a r a b l e ' . "
W h y should I enumerate other authors, even papists? Gerson,

I1
Solet circumstantia scripturse illuminare sententiam, cum ea quaa
circa scripturam sunt, preesentem qusestionein contingentia, diligeiiti discus-
sione t r a c t a n t u r . ]
[ 2
M o r i s est scripturarum obscuris manifesta s u b n e c t e r e , et q u o d prius sub
senigmatibus dixerint, aperta v o c e p r o f e r r e . — O p p . T . i v . p. 2 0 1 . V e r o n . 1 7 3 5 . ]
XIII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 495

in his treatise Quœ Veritates sunt Credendce, says, p. 1 : " The

scripture expounds its own rules by themselves, according to the
several passages of scripture ." 3
A n d in his b o o k of Communion in
one Kind, he says that the scripture is " like one connected speech,
whereof one part confirms, elucidates, and explains a n o t h e r : " and 4

hence he concludes with Augustine, that " one scripture should be

compared with other passages of holy scripture." Again, upon
Canticles, p. 3 : " One passage of scripture can lend an exposition
to a n o t h e r . "
5
Augustinus Steuchus, upon Genesis, c. 2, says:
" G o d was not so unmerciful as to wish that men should be tortured
throughout all generations b y ignorance of this matter ; since he
did not permit the existence of any one place in scripture which we
cannot understand, if we will only weigh it carefully. F o r , as T h e o -
doret says in this place, ' H o l y scripture, when it designs to express
any thing of importance, explains itself, and does not suffer the
hearer to g o w r o n g ' . "
6
Hieronymus ab Oleastro prescribes sixteen
canons, in the beginning of his commentary upon the five books of
Moses, highly useful for the reading and understanding of the scrip-
t u r e s ; the drift of all which canons is to enable us to interpret
scripture b y scripture, not to direct us to have recourse to external
means whenever we would expound a difficult place in scripture.
Thus then we close this question.

p Whitaker was deceived by the running title in Gerson (Opp. T. i.

Basil. 14SS); for the citation is really from the tract, Casus contra Propo-
sitiones Magistri Johannis Parvi : TJnde propositiones universales do sacra
pagina possunt et debent aliter exponi quam oppositiones Magistri Johannis
Parvi, primo quia scriptura exponit regulas suas per semet ipsas secundum
diversos passus scriptural, etjuxta sacros doctores.]
[ Quarum una pars confirmât, élucidât, exponit alteram.]
4

[ Unus potest passus in scripturis mutuo ceteros exponere.]

5

[ Non adeo inhumanus fuit Deus, ut voluerit hujus rei ignoratione per
0

omnes cetates homines torqueri; cum neque ullum in sacris scripturis esse
passus sit locum, quern si accurate pensitemus, intepretari non possimus.
TJt enim hoc loco ait Theodoritus, f) àyia ypa(pr¡ en-eiSài* Pov\r¡raí TI TOIOÎITOV
rjpâi StôâcTKfiv, éavrtjv épfir¡veíet, Kai oîiK àcpirjo-i Tr\avâo-ôai TOV àKpoarrjv id est,
sacra scriptura cum explicare aliquid grande vult, so ipsa déclarât, neque
patitur errare auditorem.—Opp. T. i. p. 106, 2. 1578. The citation should
have been from Chrysostom. The passago occurs, Horn. xin. in Gen. ii. T. iv.
p. 103. Paris. 1718-38.]
 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

QUESTION VI.

CONCERNING THE P E R F E C T I O N OF SCRIPTURE, AGAINST

HUMAN TRADITIONS.

C H A P T E R I.

THE QUESTION IS PROPOSED.

OUR Saviour Christ says, John v. 3 9 , èpewâre r d s ypa<pàç,

" Search the scriptures." F r o m these words certain questions con-
cerning the scriptures were taken at the commencement of our
inquiries, which embrace the whole controversy about scripture d e -
bated between us and our opponents. Of these questions, five have
already been handled ; the sixth still remains, upon which we are
now about to enter. Here we have to inquire, whether the scrip-
ture contained in the books of the old and new Testaments compre-
hend a full and perfect b o d y of teaching, or whether unwritten
traditions are requisite to complete this necessary doctrine. In this
place, therefore, we have to dispute against the popish traditions,
about which they are no less anxious than about the scriptures
themselves, which they defend with the most eager vehemence,
and in which they repose much greater confidence than in the
scriptures. Lindanus, in his Panoplia, Lib. 11. c. 5, says that tra-
dition is that Homeric MOJXV, which preserves the christian faith
against the spells of heretics ; intimating thereby that the papists
would be presently slain b y our spells, that is, the scriptures, if they
did not apply this Moly as an amulet. And, Lib. i. c. 9, he calls it
the Lydian stone, that is, the test of true and false doctrine ; and,
Lib. ii. c. 9, he says that it is the shield of Ajax, which should be
presented against all heretics; and, Lib. v. c. 2, he styles it the
foundation of the faith : which opinion of Peter Soto he praises and
defends. Canus, in his Common Places, Lib. m . c. 3, says that
traditions are of greater efficacy than scripture for the refutation of
heretics. Whence we understand in what account and value the
papists hold traditions. Assuredly they do find more support in
 QUESTION THE SIXTH. 497

them than in the scriptures. These traditions they call divine,

sacred, holy, apostolic, and ecclesiastical; but we style them human,
secret, obscure, silent, unwritten. N o w in the handling of the pre-
sent question we mean to observe the following o r d e r : First, we
will explain what they denote b y the term tradition: secondly,
how they classify their traditions: thirdly, what rules they p r o -
pose for distinguishing true traditions from the false and spurious:
fourthly, what are the dogmas which are founded upon the autho-
rity of tradition: fifthly, we will state the question: sixthly, we
will obviate the arguments of our adversaries: seventhly, we will
set forth our own arguments which we use in this question against
the papists. W e shall treat severally of these in the order wherein
we have proposed them.

C H A P T E R II.

WHAT THE PAPISTS DENOTE BY THE TERM TRADITION.

TRADITION is a general term, and denotes a doctrine handed

down in any manner, whether in words b y the mouth, or in written
documents. In Acts vi. 14, the Vulgate version hath traditiones,
but the Greek text r a %9r). B y that term are understood the legal
ceremonies, all of which Moses hath comprised in his b o o k s : for
there follows immediately d napeScoKev wuv MOJWTJJS, that is, which
he consigned to writing. T h e fathers too sometimes understand
written teaching b y this term. So Cyprian, Epist. 7 4 , ad P o m -
peium, in these words : " If it be enjoined in the Gospel or in the
Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy
should not be baptized, but only have hands laid upon them, in token
of their repentance, let this also be observed as a holy tradition ." 1

Hence we may observe the ignorance of Lindanus, who, in his Pano-

plia, Lib. n. c. 5, would have unwritten tradition to be denoted and
highly praised by Cyprian in this same epistle and p l a c e ; whereas
Cyprian is speaking of the apostolic and evangelical scriptures. So

I1
S i e r g o aut i n e v a n g e l i c pi-secipitur, aut in a p o s t o l o r u m epistolis a u t
actibus continetur, ut a quacunquo hceresi venientes n o n baptizentur, sed
tantum m a n u s illis i m p o n a t u r in poenitentiam; observetur divina ha;c et
sancta t r a d i t i o . — p . 211. ed. Fell.]
32
[WHITAKER.]
498 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

again: " Whence is that tradition ? D o e s it descend from the

authority of the L o r d b y the gospels, or comes it from the c o m -
mandments and epistles of the apostles ? F o r G o d is witness that
those things should be done which are w r i t t e n . " 1
But there is no
need for dwelling longer upon this matter, since the papists them-
selves concede that this term is sometimes so used. Basil, in his
third b o o k against Eunomius, speaking of baptism, writes t h u s :
" This is plainly repugnant to the tradition of holy b a p t i s m : " 2

TOVTO CTcMpws /uen^eTcu Trj irapaSoaei TOV crooTijpiov /ScnrTiana-

T O ? : which is meant to apply to the scripture itself, as is plain
from what follows afterwards in that same place. F o r he adds, that
infants should be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Kwrd TJJV TOV Kvpiov irapaSoaw,
" a c c o r d i n g to the tradition of the L o r d . " Now Christ and the
apostles left this doctrine consigned to writing. W e must carefully
bear this in m e m o r y ; for the papists sometimes object to us the
name of tradition as signifying unwritten teaching, when in point of
fact it denotes written teaching.
Nevertheless, tradition is frequently taken also in scripture
and in the fathers for unwritten teaching, as in Matt. x v . 2, " W h y
do they transgress the tradition of the elders ? " F o r that tradition
of the elders here mentioned never occurs in scripture. So also
this term is taken in the third and sixth verses of the same
chapter; for there Christ opposes " the commandment" to the
" tradition." So 1 Cor. xi. 2 3 , 6 icai irapeSivKa VLUV : he had
delivered it to them, but had not y e t written it. However, these
things are now all committed to writing. T h e fathers frequently
thus use this term. Bellarmine brings an example from Cyprian,
Epist. 6 3 , contra Aquarios, where these words are found : " I
would have y o u know that we have been admonished to preserve
the tradition of the L o r d in offering the c u p . " Chemnitz, however,
3

[! Uncle est ista traditio ? utrumne de dominica et evangelica auotoritate

descendens, an de apostolorum mandatis atque epistolis veniens ? Ea enim
facienda esse qua; scripta sunt, Deus testatur.—Ibid, paulo ante.]
[ 2
TOUTO be croxpas pa%eTai rj) rrapaSocrei TOV craiTTjpiov ^awTicrpaTOs' nopevBevres,
(piarl, fiairri^eTe els TO ovopa TOV irarpbs Kal TOV vlov Kal TOV ayiov wvevjiaTOS
TO defidTrTiorparjp.wv ecrTi Kara TTJV TOV Kvpiov napdboo-iv, els ovopa 7raTpbs Kal
vlov Kal ayiov Trvevparos.—T. I I . p. 84. A. B.]
[ 3
Admonitos autem nos scias, ut in calice offerendo Dominica traditio
servetur.—p. 148. The point which Cyprian is there pressing is not the use
of water, but the absolute necessity of mixing it with wine. The "Dominica
traditio" is referred to for establishing this latter, as appears manifestly from
II.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 499

proves from that same epistle, that tradition is sometimes taken for
teaching delivered in writing, not b y word of mouth. F o r he con-
tends, that Cyprian in those same words affirms that it is delivered
in scripture, that water should be mingled with the wine. Bellar-
mine says that he was d e c e i v e d : but h e is much more deceived, as
is plain from the passage itself. F o r although the mixture of
water with the wine in the holy supper be approved b y Cyprian
and the other fathers; y e t it is not confirmed b y unwritten tradi-
tion, but b y the scriptures themselves, and reason. T o this they
referred the circumstance that Christ's side, when it was transpierced
as he hung upon the cross, poured forth blood and w a t e r ; and
they rested also upon the fact that it was the custom o f men
in those warm countries to drink always their wine temperately
diluted with a little water. However, we allow that the term is
sometimes so taken b y the fathers as to signify unwritten teaching.
So Tertullian, in his book de Corona Militis: " T o u will find no
scripture: tradition is alleged as a u t h o r i t y . " 4
So also Basil, upon
the H o l y Spirit, c. 27 . s
In this sense it is that the papists take
this word in this c o n t r o v e r s y ; for they divide the w o r d of G o d
into the written and unwritten word : which distinction, indeed,
Dionysius the Areopagite hath made use of. In the former class
they rank the scripture; in the latter, traditions. T h e y call, there-
fore, those dogmas and points of doctrine which are nowhere
found in scripture, traditions. But they style them unwritten,
not because they are absolutely so, but because they were not
written in the sacred books b y the original authors. Thus Bellar-
mine determines, who proposes the baptism o f infants as an e x -
ample. B u t we shall shew in its proper place, that this tradition
is delivered in the sacred writings. This then is the open and
ingenuous confession of the papists, that they cannot find their
traditions in the scriptures, or prove them b y the scriptures.

what follows: neque aliud fiat a nobis, quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior
fecerit; ut calix, qui in commemoratione ejus offertur, mixtus vino offeratur.
Nam cum dicat Christus, Ego sum vitis vera; sanguis Christi, non aqua est
utique, sed vinum.]
[ 4
Harum et aliarum ejusmodi si legum expostules scripturam, nullam
invenies: traditio tibi prsetendetur auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, et fides
observatrix.—c. 4 . ]
[5
Tav iv TTJ iKK\ijcria TrerpvXaypivav Soypdraiv Kai Ktjpvypdrav ra pev f K Trjs
iyypacpov Sidao-icaKlas e^ppev, rd 5« CK rrjs rav djro<n-oA<oi> napab6<rea>s SuzSo-
divra -qplv iv pv<TT7]pia rrapede£dpeda.—T. II. p. 2 1 0 . C.]
32—2
500 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

W e have explained then what the papists understand b y the

term tradition. It follows now that we should mention their clas-
sification of traditions.

CHAPTER III.

HOW THE PAPISTS CLASSIFY THEIR TRADITIONS.

ALL the traditions of the papists are not of the same kind,
order, or authority, but admit various and manifold distinctions.
Lindanus, in the fourth book of his Panoplia, c. 1 0 0 , is large in
discussing this question : but he treats everything in a coarse
method. Bellarmine proposes a twofold classification of traditions,
one derived from the authors, the other from the matter. Ranging
them according to the authors, he says that they are either
divine, apostolic, or ecclesiastical : wherein he follows Peiresius, who
gives precisely the same division of traditions in the second part
of his sixth assertion, where he says that there are three originals
of sacred traditions : first, divine authority ; second, apostolic teach-
ing ; third, T h e power of bishops, and especially the Roman
bishops. H e calls those divine which Christ himself instituted, and
which nevertheless are not found in the sacred writings ; of which
kind he says are all those things which appertain to the matter
and form of the sacraments : these things, says he, Christ did
undoubtedly institute, but y e t did not leave consigned in writing.
N o w we must believe that Christ instituted these things, because it
is certain that he did so. Hereupon I desire to know, whence
we can possibly know this for certain. N o one indeed doubts that
Christ was the author of the sacraments : but we say that their
matter and form is found in the holy scriptures. N o w Bellarmine and
the papists concede, that what they believe concerning the matter
and form of the sacraments can be found no where in the Bible ;
as, for instance, what they believe of the matter and form of con-
firmation, penance, matrimony, &c. But we aflirm the whole
essence of thé sacraments to be delivered in the sacred writings.
However, the argument b y which he proves that all the things
which they use in baptism, confirmation, penance, matrimony, and
the rest of their sacraments, were instituted b y Christ, is worth
observing. It is to this effect : Paul says, 1 Cor xi. 1 3 : " I
III.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 501

received of the L o r d what I also delivered unto y o u : " therefore,

we must believe that all these things were prescribed b y the Lord.
But how does this consequence follow ? Paul received of the Lord
those things which he delivered to the Corinthians to be observed
b y t h e m : therefore every thing also which these men deliver,
they have received from the Lord. N o w , those things which the
apostle delivered he left in his writings, and mentions in this very
place. This they cannot shew of their traditions.
H e calls those apostolical traditions, which the apostles p r e -
scribed not without the authority of the H o l y Ghost, although they
did not leave any mention of them in their epistles. Of this kind,
he says, are the fast of Lent, the Ember days, and many other
things of the same kind. Y e t afterwards he forgets himself, and
confesses that the fourth time of fasting was instituted b y Calixtus.
Here, however, we must note that Bellarmine concedes that Lent
was not instituted b y Christ, but b y the apostles: whereas other
papists usually defend Lent b y the example and authority of
Christ; contending that, as he fasted forty days, so we should
also fast for the same p e r i o d ; and so making this tradition o f
Lent not apostolical, but divine. The Rhemists, upon Matt, iv.,
bring a passage from Jerome, to shew that Christ fasted forty
days in order that b y his example he might leave to us certain
solemn days of fasting. Alphonsus de Castro, contra H&reses,
Lib. VIII., says, that many grave divines affirm that Lent was
instituted b y Christ; and names one Maximus, who says that he
has proved this number of forty to be sanctioned b y examples in
the scripture. But if that were true, this would no longer be
a tradition, since it is written. Hosius, however, in his Confessio-
Petrocoviensis, c. 4, affirms this to be an ecclesiastical tradition/
in these w o r d s : " Mother church hath instituted the fast 6f
forty d a y s . "1
Thus they are uncertain what to determine con-
cerning this tradition.
H e calls those ecclesiastical traditions, which b y degrees, and
by the consent of nations, obtained the force of laws. Of these he
gives no example.
H e proceeds to add, that divine unwritten scriptures have an
authority equal to that of the scriptures; and, in like manner, thi
apostolical traditions rank along with the writings of the apostle
His reason is, because the authority of the word of God does nc
depend upon its being written, but upon its haying proceeded from
[! M a t e r ecclesia . . . quadraginta d i e r u m j e j u n i u m i n s t i t u i t . — O p p . p. 4 .
Lugd. 1564.]
502 THE FIRST CONTROVE RSY. [сн.

God. W e allow that this is a good reason, provided he can prove

that these traditions were instituted b y Christ or the apostles. But
now what is the authority of ecclesiastical traditions ? H e says that
they are of the same authority as the written constitutions and
written decrees of the church. But how great is that force ? T h e y
will not, I suppose, put the ecclesiastical traditions upon a par with
the divine. Y e t the Tridentine fathers, in their fourth session,
command us to receive and reverence the unwritten traditions with
the same pious affections as the v e r y books of holy scripture. We
should ask those fathers, what traditions it is they mean ? They
make no distinction, they use general expressions. Perhaps, there­
fore, they desire that even the ecclesiastical traditions should have
equal authority with the scriptures of God. Those fathers do not
obviate this doubt. Y e t surely they ought to have explained the
distinctions and degrees which were to b e applied to traditions of
such a multifarious nature.
Bellarmine next proceeds to his second classification, founded
upon the matter of the traditions: and here he enumerates many
species. H e says that some belong to faith, some to m o r a l s ;
some are perpetual, others t e m p o r a r y ; some universal, others par­
ticular ; some necessary, others free. Some are matters of faith,
as that the blessed M a r y was always a virgin, that there are only
four gospels and no more. A s to the former tradition, Jerome,
Ambrose, and E piphanius, who wrote against Helvidius upon this
subject, bring testimonies from scripture to prove the perpetual
virginity of M a r y . Basil, however, in his homily upon the na­
tivity of the L o r d , affirms this dogma to be airoXvTrpayfxovtjTov
Tip TOV LivcrTY\piov Хоуш , which is the same as saying that it
1

is no article of faith. T h e latter tradition (that there are four

gospels and no more) does not rest merely upon unwritten teach­
ing : for the books themselves indicate that they were written b y
divine inspiration; and if these men seek to obtrude upon us
more gospels, such gospels we can refute out of the scriptures.
Moral traditions are such as the sign of the cross, the celebra­
tion of festival days, and so forth. H e makes those perpetual
traditions, which are never to have an e n d ; of which nature
are those which he hath mentioned: and those temporary, which
belonged to those legal ceremonies which the Christians observed
for a while to enable the church, composed of Jews and Gentiles.

[} MrjBeu тер rrjs еЬсгфе'кн irapakvpaiveTat X o y w p^XP 7"P

1 T
V S к а т а

oiKovopiav virrjpecrias avaynaia 77 тгарвеиш, то 8e i(pe£rjs anoXvirpayporrqTov та

Xoyy TOV pvo-TTjpiov KaraKei^copev.—Т. I. p. 590. В.]
III.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 503

to unite into one body. But these are not unwritten : for we
read of Timothy being circumcised, and of the injunction laid upon
the Gentiles b y the apostles t o abstain from things strangled and
from blood. But Bellarmine will say that they are written to us,
not to them. Y e a , they were written even to them : for that
law which demands of us a mutual charity requires this too, that
in matters indifferent w e should help and consider the weakness of
our brethren, and abstain from those things whereby they are
offended. Therefore all these things depend not solely upon un-
written teaching. H e calls those universal, which the whole
church everywhere observes, such as the celebration of Easter and
Whitsuntide : those particular, which only certain churches o b -
serve, as fasting upon Saturday was formerly peculiar to the
Roman church. H e styles those necessary, which are delivered in
the form of a p r e c e p t ; as that Easter is to be kept upon a Sunday:
those free, which are delivered in the form of a counsel, not of a
p r e c e p t ; such as the sprinkling of holy water.
W e have now explained what our opponents mean b y the term
tradition, and how many kinds of tradition they m a k e : it remains,
in the next place, that we inquire into the rules b y which they tell
us that true traditions are to be distinguished from spurious.

CHAPTER IV.

THE RULES WHEREBY THE PAPISTS DISTINGUISH GENUINE FROM

SPURIOUS TRADITIONS.

BELLARMINE, L i b . iv. c. 9, proposes five rules whereby true

and genuine traditions of the apostles m a y be distinguished.
T h e first rule is t h i s : Whatsoever the universal church holds
as an article of faith, and which is not found in the Bible, is with-
out any doubt apostolical. T h e reason of this rule is, because the
church cannot err. That the church cannot err, he proves b y a t w o -
fold argument: first, because it is the ground of truth; secondly,
because, as Christ says, the gates of hell shall not prevail against
that rock upon which the church is built. I reply : T h e present
occasion does not permit me to handle the question, whether or not
the church may e r r : there will be another fitting place for dis-
cussing that subject. Meanwhile, I return two answers.
504 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

First, I demand what they mean b y the universal church ?

F o r although a very great number of men everywhere throughout
the churches may have embraced some practice or opinion, it does
not therefore follow that it should be ascribed to the whole church;
because there may be many who condemn it, and amongst these the
church may subsist. So when Christ was upon earth, there were
many traditions of the Pharisees which had become prescriptive,
such as are mentioned Matt. xv. and Mark vii.; some of which r e -
lated to faith, and some to practice. These were universal (if those
are to be styled universal which are observed b y the great majority),
and had prevailed in the church through a long course of years and
ages ; for they are called the traditions " of the elders." Does it
therefore follow, either that these were divine, or that all men who
belonged to the church held them, especially when it is certain
that some of them were plainly impious ? Superstitious rites, then,
and perverse opinions, and traditions repugnant to piety, may
prevail amongst men professing God's holy religion. F o r the
church does not always consist of the greatest or the most nume-
rous, but sometimes of the fewest and the meanest.
Secondly, Bellarmine cannot prove that any popish tradition was
observed in all churches. F o r , to take his own example, many
churches have entertained doubts concerning the number of the ca-
nonical books, as we have shewn in the first controversy. It follows,
therefore, that it was no apostolical tradition, because it was not r e -
ceived b y the universal church, according to this rule of Bellarmine's.
However, what he writes in this place, and hath taken from Ca-
nus, Lib. HI. c. 4, must in nowise be passed over. H e says that all
points which the church holds as articles of faith were delivered b y
the apostles or prophets, in writing or b y word of mouth, and that
the church is not now governed b y new revelations, but remains
content with that which it received from the apostles. If this be
true, then the church cannot now deliver any thing as an article of
faith which was not heretofore, from the very times of the apostles,
received and preserved as an article of faith. But the papists
affirm that the church can now prescribe some new article of faith,
which had not been esteemed in former ages as a necessary dogma.
That the virgin Mary was conceived without original sin, was
formerly thought a free opinion, not a necessary part of faith:
upon which subject Canus hath copiously discoursed, Lib. vi. c. 1.
But, at present, it is not permitted amongst papists to retain the
ancient liberty of opinion upon this subject; and he is hardly
deemed a catholic, who ascribes any oven the slightest taint of
IV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 505

sin to Mary. The university of Paris admits no one to any of the

higher degrees in divinity, who does not solemnly swear both that
he believes that Mary was conceived in immaculate purity, and
that he will constantly persevere in the assertion of the spotless
conception of the virgin. So Canus informs us, Lib. i. c. 7, (de
Maria Deipara Virgine); which custom he says is also received
and tenaciously adhered to in Spain and in other popish univer-
sities. This then is at the present day one great article of the
popish faith; and it is a new article, because no such formerly was
publicly received. H o w then hath it constantly subsisted ? O r
how can Stapleton escape the charge of absurdity, who in the last
three chapters of his ninth book endeavours to prove that the
present church can add a book to the canon of scripture ? T h e
canon is an article of faith ; for Bellarmine hath given it as an
example of his rule. Stapleton a d d s : " If the Holy Spirit should
so suggest." N o w this is the very thing to which Bellarmine
alludes, when he says that the church is not now governed by new
revelations, but remains content with those things which they who
were the ministers of the word handed down. So beautifully do
they agree among themselves. Some say that a new dogma,
which never was such before, may be prescribed b y the c h u r c h ;
others, that the church is not governed b y new revelations, but
remains content with those things which were delivered from the
beginning. So that either Bellarmine's rule is false, or these
articles of faith cannot and ought not to be considered necessary.
But I demand of Bellarmine, whether it was delivered down b y
the apostles, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written b y Paul.
All the papists allow it. Lindanus, Panopl. Lib. iv. c. 1 0 0 , affirms
that it is no less necessary to believe it Paul's, than to believe its
canonicity. If that be true, then this is an apostolical tradition : if
it be apostolical, then it was always received b y the universal
church. But it may be easily shewn that many churches thought
otherwise; yea, that the Roman church itself was once in the con-
trary opinion, as appears from Jerome's catalogue of illustrious
men, under the title CAIUS. Either therefore the Roman church
erred in the one tradition or in the o t h e r ; or else at least this first
rule of Bellarmine's is not true, certain, and perpetual.
Bellarmine's second rule is like the first, and runs t h u s : W h e n
the universal church observes any thing which is of such a nature
as that it could not be instituted b y any one but God, and yet is
nowhere found mentioned in scripture, we must needs believe it to
have been instituted b y Christ himself, and delivered down b y his
506 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

apostles. T h e reason is. because the church can no more err in

act than in belief. H e produces Augustine as either the witness
or the author of this rule; who, in his Epist. 1 1 8 , declares that it
is " a piece of the most insolent frenzy to dispute the propriety
of doing that which the whole church throughout all the world is
constantly doing every d a y . "1

I answer : Our cause can receive no damage from this opinion

of Augustine. F o r he speaks of such traditions as were received
and practised b y the whole church. His words are : " That which
the whole church observes," it is a piece of the most insolent
frenzy to question the propriety of doing. But the papists have
no such unwritten tradition which can be certainly shewn to have
been always observed b y the universal church; and those tradi-
tions which are here maintained b y Bellarmine are of a different
kind altogether. T h e first is, the baptizing of infants: the
second, the not re-baptizing those who were baptized b y heretics.
These traditions, though not in so many words, may y e t be found
in scripture, and confirmed b y the certain and express authority of
scripture. Therefore they should be styled written, and not un-
written traditions, inasmuch as they are gathered out of the
scriptures. A s to the former, Augustine indeed, de Genesi ad lit.
Lib. 1 0 , c. 2 3 , calls the baptism of infants an apostolical custom
and tradition; but he means a written tradition: for that such
was Augustine's mind is evident from his fourth book against the
Donatists, on Baptism, c. 2 4 , where from the circumcision of God's
former people he proves the baptism of infants. Besides, the
same thing may be established from that testimony of scripture, " I
will be a God to thee and to thy seed," that is, to thy children.
This covenant is consigned in the holy scriptures, Gen. xvii. The
baptism of children, therefore, rests upon the written authority of
the word of God. Assuredly, if in this matter we had no other
than the authority of unwritten tradition, we should be reduced to
sad extremities in maintaining the dispute with the Anabaptists;
for they care nothing for unwritten traditions. Y e t these heretics
our churches have refuted and condemned b y the testimony of
scripture, while the papists in the interim either keep a treacherous
silence, or impiously, as well as falsely, pretend that they can b e
refuted no otherwise than b y tradition. A s to Bellarmine's second
instance, of not re-baptizing those who had been baptized b y
heretics ; although Cyprian contended that baptism administered b y
a heretic was null and void, (for that question was debated, with
t In the new editions, Ep. 54. Opp. T. n. p. 164. Bassan. 1 7 9 7 . ]
1
IV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 507

great heat on Cyprian's part, between him and other bishops;) yet
Augustine proved that Cyprian was in error b y the authority, not
so much of tradition as of scripture. F o r thus h e writes, in his
first book of Baptism against the Donatists, c. 7 : " Lest I should
seem to prove m y point" (he is speaking of this v e r y thing) " b y
mere human arguments, I produce certain evidence from the
Gospel ." 2
In the second book of the same work, c. 3, he says
that he did not doubt but that Cyprian would have corrected his
opinion, if any one had shewn him that baptism is not lost b y the
heretics when they g o out, and therefore can be given b y them
whilst they are without. But the plainest passage of all is in
Lib. v. c. 2 6 . Cyprian had said that we should appeal in this
question to the fountain of apostolic tradition, that is, the scripture.
This saying Augustine praises and highly approves in that chapter,
and then produces from Eph. iv. the proposition, that there is one
baptism, which consequently cannot be repeated. These two exam-
ples, therefore, are foreign from Bellarmine's subject, being written
traditions ; whereas he is delivering the rules of the unwritten.
Bellarmine's third rule is not very unlike the two f o r m e r :
Whatever the universal church hath observed through all former
times and ages, is apostolic, although it be of such a nature as that
it might have been instituted b y the church. This rule, also, he
confirms from Augustine, contra Donat. Lib. iv. c. 2 2 , where he
writes to the following effect : " That which the universal church
holds, which, though never instituted b y any council, was always
retained, is with the utmost justice believed to b e delivered b y no
less than apostolical a u t h o r i t y . "
3
I answer: W e can only admit
this sentence and rule of Augustine's with a twofold proviso :
First, provided the thing in question were so retained as to make
the manner of the observance always the same, that is, if it were
always observed alike ; secondly, if it were observed as necessary,
not as free and indifferent. If there were a various practice and
diversified custom of observing i t , then it was not apostolical. If
it were observed as a thing indifferent, we are ready to allow that
the church hath authority to constitute and appoint such indifferent
ceremonies. But I affirm that no popish tradition can be produced,
which was observed uniformly, and as necessary at all times. Bel-

[ N e videar humanis argumentis id agere . . ., ex Evangelio profero certa

2

documenta.—Opp. T. xn. p. 110.]

[ Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum sod semper re-
3

tentum est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.—

Opp. T. xn.]
 508 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

larmine assigns Lent as an instance. But the manner of observing

Lent was formerly most various and uncertain. Bellarmine, h o w -
ever, proves it to be an apostolical tradition, because those who
trace it back, and seek the origin of the institution; can find it
no where but in the apostolic times. F o r , commencing with
Bernard, he ascends from him to G r e g o r y , from G r e g o r y to
Augustine, from Augustine to Jerome, from Jerome to Chrysostom,
from Chrysostom to Ambrose, from Ambrose to Epiphanius, Basil,
Nazianzen, Cyril, Origen, Irenaeus, Telesphorus, Ignatius, Clement.
This seems indeed a striking enumeration : but I have two answers
to make. First, I desire to know what Lent he means ? That
which the Roman church now observes, or another ? H e must
needs mean the f o r m e r ; for otherwise he disputes absurdly. But
now it may be proved b y those same testimonies which he hath
himself made use of, that Lent was formerly observed much other-
wise than it is now observed, in respect of the number of the days,
the mode o f fasting, and the kinds of f o o d : this may be proved, I
say, if not from Bernard and G r e g o r y , yet from Augustine, Jerome,
and the rest of the more ancient fathers. Secondly, I affirm that
an author may b e found for the observance of Lent later than the
apostles' times. F o r Platina, in the life of that p o p e , writes, that 1

Lent was instituted b y Telesphorus, who lived a hundred years

after Christ. T h e y will find no more ancient author; y e t the
papists make him to have been not the author, but the restorer
and asserter, of this fast instituted b y the apostles. However, if
Christ and the apostles had instituted Lent, it would not, in those
early and pure times, have so quickly ceased to be observed as to
require to be restored b y Telesphorus. T h e epistle of Ignatius to
the Philippians, wherein he mentions L e n t , is spurious. T h e 2

book of Clement referred to is spurious also, and was condemned

in the sixth general council at Constantinople. T h e canons which
g o under the name of the apostles are also supposititious, as we
have proved before. Bellarmine gives, as another instance, Eccle-
siastical orders, which he will have to be likewise an apostolical
tradition, proving it b y tracing them back to the apostles' times, as
in the former example. But here his own rule fails h i m ; for the
apostolic canons, to which he ascribes so much, name only five

t Telesphorus autem, quom diximus Xysto successisse, constituit ut sep-

1

tem hebdomadibus ante Pascha jejunium observaretur.—Platina Vitt. Pon-

tiff, p. 2 8 . Col. U b . 1 6 0 0 . ]
[2
rrjv Teo-o-apaKoo-rfiv /xi) e£ov6eveiTe' piprjcnv yap irepUx* 1
' 7 * K-vpiov
j r o X i r e i a j . — I g n a t . ad Philipp. p. 1 1 1 . ed. Voss. Lond. 1680.]
IV.J QUESTION THE SIXTH. 509

o r d e r s , — t h e bishop, priest, deacon, reader, and chanter, omitting the

exorcist, porter, and acolyth. So Ambrose, in his Commentary on
Ephes. iv., enumerates only five, and omits acolyths and porters
altogether. « T h i s instance, therefore, does not suit very well with
Bellarmine's rule.
T h e fourth rule is not more certain than the rest, and is to
this effect: When the doctors of the church, whether assembled
in council, or writing it in their books, affirm something to have
descended from apostolical authority, it is to be held apostolical.
H e gives, as an example of the former sort, that the fathers
assembled in the second council of Nice taught the worship of
images to be an apostolical tradition. I answer: That the decree
of that council was against scripture, against other councils (as,
for instance, against the fourth Constantinopolitan synod, which was
more ancient than the Nicene, as being the seventh general council),
and finally, against other doctors and fathers of the church. For
Gregory the great, in the ninth Epistle of his seventh book of
Epistles , says that, although images should not be broken, yet
3

the people should be carefully taught and admonished not to

worship t h e m ; as, indeed, many churches to this day retain
images, but worship them not. However, it is much more prudent
and safe to remove them altogether. Thus the worship of images
is not an apostolic, but an antichristian tradition, if we believe
pope Gregory the first. H e adduces no example of the second
s o r t ; for he says that scarce anything of that kind can be found
expressly in the fathers, wherein they all agree. H e therefore
delivers the following rule to meet that c a s e : That which any
one father of great character writes is to be embraced as apostoli-
cal, if the others do not dissent. Surely an egregious r u l e !
But how shall we know that the others do not dissent ? for
many books of the fathers are lost, and many fathers wrote n o n e :
it may be that these dissented. Besides, many things are delivered
down even by some of the fathers, which b y the confession of the
papists themselves are not apostolical, wherein nevertheless they
cannot shew that the rest dissented. But whom shall we call a
father of great character ? Doubtless they will hold any one for
great who favours themselves, as Dionysius the Areopagite, than
whom no authority can be less respectable. So these men hold
the Decretal Epistles of the Roman pontiffs in great account and

[ 3
T u a ergo fraternitas et illas servare, et ab e a r u m adoratu populum
probibero d e b u i t . — p . 1 3 7 0 . ]
510 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

value, though nothing can be more futile and absurd than they
are.
Bellarmine's fifth rule is to this effect: That is to be held and
deemed undoubtedly apostolical, which is esteemed asdsuch in those
churches wherein there is an unbroken succession of bishops from
the apostles. I answer : W h e r e then was the need of all his p r e -
vious windings? A t bottom he would have those only to be
apostolical traditions, which the church of R o m e affirms to be
such. This was what he meant to s a y ; but lest we should not
bear it in this form, he set it forth in other words. However,
that such was his meaning appears most evidently from what
follows: for he subjoins that, although there were formerly in other
churches also unbroken successions of bishops from the apostles,
yet now this succession remains safe and entire only in the church
of Rome. But Lindanus, Lib. v. c. 7, says plainly (and in-
deed he is plain spoken upon all occasions), that he cannot see
any more certain rule than the judgment of the c h u r c h ; he
means the church of Rome. However, I answer, in the first place,
that the succession even of that church is not entire and uninter-
rupted, as is plain from Platina and others. F o r Platina and
other historians testify that that see hath been vacant ten, yea,
twenty times over, not merely for a day, or a week, or a month,
but for one, two, or three y e a r s ; furthermore, that there were
frequent schisms, and sometimes two or three popes in existence
together. N a y , in one council three popes were deposed, and
1

a fourth new one elected: upon which matters we shall have to

speak elsewhere. Secondly, though we should concede the suc-
cession of that church to have been unbroken and entire, y e t that
succession would be a matter of no w e i g h t ; because we regard not
the external succession of places or persons, but the internal one
of faith and doctrine. Thirdly, an unbroken succession may be
found in other churches also. Our adversary will require to know
in w h a t ? In the Greek churches. I f he demand a particular
example, I instance in the most noble of them all, that of Con-
stantinople, which was formerly called New R o m e , and always
stood upon a par with R o m e in dignity. Nicephorus, in his
History, Lib. VIII. c. 6, describes the series of the Constantinopolitan
bishops from Andrew the apostle down to his own time. This also

[i viz. That of Constance, which assembled in 1414. The popes deposed

were, John X X I I I . , Gregory X I I . , and Benedict X I I I . The pope elected
was Otto de Colonna, who took the name of Martin V . ]
IV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 511

was less interrupted than the Roman succession: for there were
smaller intervals and less schisms in this church than in the church
of R o m e . But, because they can produce no traditions which suit
exactly the preceding rules, they add this fifth one, in which they
repose much more confidence than in the rest. H o w greatly they
are deceived in this, appears from what we have said, and said but
briefly, since these matters will demand a longer and more accurate
discussion in their proper place.
So much then upon the rules which Bellarmine hath prescribed
for distinguishing true from false traditions.

CHAPTER V.

WHAT DOGMAS ARE DEFENDED BY THE PAPISTS BY THE

AUTHORITY OF TRADITIONS.

I T now remains that we inquire, what are those dogmas and

institutions which the papists affirm are to be defended b y the
authority, not of scripture, but of unwritten traditions. It is but
fit that we should have this matter perfectly cleared up. N o one,
however, as far as I know, hath drawn up a catalogue of them ;
but they only affirm in general, that whatever they teach or do
which is not found in scripture, is to be placed in the rank of
traditions. T h e Tridentine fathers, Sess. 4, content themselves
with ordering traditions to be received with the same pious
affections as the holy scriptures.
In the meanwhile they explain not what these traditions are ;
which explanation ought certainly to have been made. If there
were extant a definite enumeration and list of these traditions, one
would readily perceive that all the peculiar doctrines and practices
of the papists, or at least most of them, are derived from some other
source besides the scriptures. N o w why are these monuments, so
sacred and so necessary, not published? Peter Soto, a popish
author of great name, in his b o o k against Brentius, says, that all
those observances, the beginning, author, and origin of which can-
not be found in scripture, are apostolical traditions. Of this kind,
says he, are the oblation of the sacrifice of the altar, the unction of
chrism, invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, the primacy of
the Roman bishops, the consecration of water in baptism, the whole
512 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

sacrament of confirmation, orders, matrimony, penance and extreme

unction, the merit of works, the necessity of satisfaction, the neces-
sity of enumerating one's sins to the priest. Thus he. But perhaps
other papists will not make equally large concessions. N a y , I may
say that all will, with the sole exception of the point of the merit of
works. W e accept this confession, and congratulate ourselves upon
having to deal with adversaries who openly confess that none of
these things rest upon any certain authority of scripture. Hence
it is evident that, if not all, y e t the most important dogmas of the
papists depend upon tradition, although, for the sake of appearance,
they generally cite scripture in defence of t h e m ; but if they r e -
posed any real confidence in the scriptural proofs, they would not
press the slight and nerveless authority of tradition.
Canisius, in his Catechism, c. 5, (de Prcecept. Eccles.) says that
the worship of images, stated fasts, Lent, all the rites in the office
of the mass, prayers and offerings for the dead, are traditions; inas-
much as these, and some others, are incapable of being defended upon
the foot of scripture alone : but he does not tell us what those others
are. But the author who has spoken most clearly and copiously upon
this subject is Lindanus, in his Panoplia, Lib. iv. c. 1 0 0 , wherein he
comprises a farrago of traditions, upon which I beseech you to cast
your eyes. Meanwhile I remark, that he enumerates amongst tra-
ditions the fact of Peter's having been at R o m e . Thus we derive
from tradition both points, Peter's having been at R o m e as well as
his primacy. However, he enumerates his traditions with still
greater accuracy and distinctness at the end of that book, table C ;
although there he hath omitted some, and set down some, as tra-
ditions, which are found in scripture, as the baptism of infants and
original sin. H e counts also amongst traditions the seven sacraments.
This tradition rests upon the authority of the council of Florence,
held about a century ago. Verily, an ancient authority this for
a tradition ! H e enumerates besides, the consecration of water and
oil in baptism, the real presence, communion in one kind, the eucha-
rist being a sacrifice, its reservation and adoration, private masses,
confession of sins, satisfaction, and indulgences. There is scarcely
any thing omitted, which is controverted between them and us.
Over and above these traditions, Peresius adds, part 3, the celibacy
of priests. But the papists are too shrewd to venture upon fixing
any certain list and catalogue of these traditions, but leave free to
themselves the power of having recourse to tradition in every ques-
tion. W h e n therefore they allege scripture in proof of these things,
 QUESTION THE SIXTH. 513

they do violence to their own consciences ; inasmuch as they know

well, and even confess plainly, that these things are such as must be
proved b y a silent tradition, and not b y the testimony of scripture.
Our assertion, therefore, that these things cannot b e established b y
scripture, is allowed b y our adversaries themselves. I come now
to the state of the question.

CHAPTER VI.

THE STATE OF THE QUESTION IS LAID DOWN.

"WE say, in the first place, that every thing which the apostles
either taught or did is not contained in the books of the old and
new Testaments. W e allow besides, that Christ said and did many
things which are not written. Out of twelve apostles seven wrote
nothing, who y e t orally taught, and did many things in many
places; for they were commanded to g o into all the world, and
preach the gospel to all nations : which command they sedulously
performed. Indeed, it is plain from the last chapter of John, that
all the things which Christ did are not committed to writing.
Furthermore, we confess that the apostles established in the several
churches some rites and customs, for the sake of order and decency,
which they did not consign in their writings, because those rites
were not to be perpetual, but free, and such as might be changed
as convenience and the times required. N o w that some such rites,
suited to the seemly polity of the church, were prescribed b y them,
is manifest from 1 Cor. xi. and xiv. W e have, however, in scripture
only this general rule, that all those rites should b e directed to the
end of securing edification and decency, but the particular rites
themselves are not set forth. But w e say that all things that are
necessary, whether they regard either faith or practice, are plainly
and abundantly explained in the scriptures. Hence w e say that
the sum of our religion is written, being precisely the same as the
teaching of those apostles who wrote nothing. F o r those who wrote
not taught absolutely the same gospel as those who w r o t e : all
preached the same Christ, and the same gospel, and the same way
of salvation. Although indeed the precise words which they spoke
are not extant, yet, as far as the thing itself and subject-matter is

[WHITAKER.J
514 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

concerned, that same unwritten preaching of the apostles is found in

scripture: all the words, indeed, of Peter, John and the rest, are
not written down, yet the substance of that teaching which those
apostles delivered is found in the scriptures. Thus, although Christ
said and did many things which are not written, y e t the sum o f
all Christ's words and works is consigned in the monuments of
scripture. It is without reason, therefore, that Bellarmine accuses
Brentius and Chemnitz of inconsistency, when they call it a piece of
signal impudence to compare unwritten traditions with written, or
affirm both to have the like authority; and yet confess at the same
time, that Christ and his apostles taught many things which are not
written. This is a mere c a v i l : for although every single thing they
said and did b e not written (for which no books would have been
sufficient), yet nothing necessary hath been omitted; and, when the
chief heads and doctrines are written so clearly, it might be said
with perfect truth that all is written. H e who compares these u n -
written things with the written, does only in other words praise
the written teaching. But Brentius and Chemnitz affirm him to b e
at once rash and impious, who would venture to set any unwritten
doctrine upon a par in point of authority with the scriptures :
wherein they say nothing that is not perfectly consistent with itself
and with right reason. Bellarmine proceeds to censure some lies
(as h e calls them) of Chemnitz and Calvin, which I will not e x -
amine in this place : most of them will recur again and be handled
in their proper places.

Bellarmine states the question t h u s : W e , says he, assert that

the whole necessary doctrine, whether regarding faith or practice,
is not expressly contained in scripture; and consequently that,
besides the written word of God, we require also the unwritten
word of God, that is, divine and apostolical traditions. T h e y , that
is, the heretics (meaning us), assert that all things which pertain
to faith and morals are contained in the written word, and that
there is no need of traditions. I answer: T h e word expressly is
ambiguous. If he mean that we affirm all things to b e contained
directly and in so many words in scripture, he states the question
wrongly. But if he mean under the term expressly to include what
is inferred and deduced b y necessary argument from the scriptures,
we accept his statement. F o r if that which is directly laid down
in scripture be true, then that also which is deduced from it b y
necessary consequence must needs be true also. So Nazianzen
rules, in his fifth book of theology, where he writes concerning
VI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 515

the H o l y Spirit: " Inferences from scripture stand on the same

footing with the actual words o f scripture ." Some things are not,
1

and y e t are said in scripture to b e ; as that G o d sits, that he hath

ears and eyes. Some are, and y e t are not said, that is, expressly
and in so many w o r d s ; as that the H o l y Ghost is G o d ; while
nevertheless something is said from which they m a y b e certainly
collected or inferred, even as he who says twice five says ten, and
he who says twice two says four, though not in so many words.
Some neither are nor are said. Lastly, some both are and are
said. This division is Nazianzen's o w n : TO. /xev OVK eV-rt, Xeye-rat
os TU o ovra ov Xeyerat ret oe OVTB ecrTtv, OUT€ Xeyerat TO. oe

afx(pw ical eo-Ti Kal Xeyerat. So we say that all necessary things
are contained in scripture, though not always in express terms.
F o r example, infant baptism and original sin are not propounded
directly and in set terms in the Bible, and y e t they m a y b e inferred
from it b y the strictest reasoning. Thus, to comprise the whole
matter in a few words, we say that all things appertaining to faith
and morals m a y b e learned and derived from scripture, so as that
traditions are in no w a y requisite. T h e y , on the contrary, say
that all things necessary to faith and manners are not contained in
the written word of God, and that therefore traditions are necessa-
rily required. There is no need of saying more upon the state of
the question. It follows now that we set forth and weigh the
arguments upon both sides.

CHAPTER VII.

THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR ADVERSARIES, WHEREBY THEY PROVE THAT

THE SCRIPTURES WITHOUT TRADITION ARE NEITHER NECES-
SARY NOR SUFFICIENT.

A T length our Jesuit opponent approaches the question itself,

taking upon himself to make g o o d two positions : First, that the
scriptures are not necessary nor sufficient without traditions.
Secondly, that there are many apostolical traditions respecting both
faith and practice. H e proceeds to prove them both in regular
order. T h e first is manifestly twofold ; first, that scripture is not
necessary ; and secondly, that it is not sufficient without tradition.

p O p p . T . I. p . 6 0 5 . c ]
33—2
 516 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

In the FIRST place, he proves that scripture is not necessary;

wherein y o u see to what a pass the thing is brought. F o r he makes
tradition in such a sense necessary as to make scripture unneces-
sary, thus preferring tradition to scripture as a necessary thing to
an unnecessary one. 0 Jesuit, what art thou doing, or what thing
is this that thou attemptest ? Thou deniest the scriptures to be
necessary, and, not satisfied with a mere denial, thou seekest even
to prove and to establish the charge. H o w couldest thou wish
thus to commence this dispute with blasphemy ? Here we under-
stand what noble and honourable thoughts our adversaries enter-
tain of the scriptures, when they say that they may be done without,
that they may be set aside, that they are not necessary. Here
he makes use of but one argument, but drawn from various times
in the church's history.
In the first place he says, that there was no scripture from
Adam to Moses, and yet, that there was then the word of God and
pure religion; and that therefore the scriptures are not absolutely
necessary. H e proves the antecedent from there being no mention
of scripture in the b o o k of Genesis; while in Gen. xviii. God says,
" I know that Abraham will teach his children." Thus, says he,
religion was preserved pure for two thousand years before Christ
without scriptures: w h y then might it not have been preserved
also for fifteen hundred years after Christ ? I a n s w e r : I will not
contest the truth of his assertion that there was no scripture
before Moses, as I perceive that the same thing is said b y Chryso-
stom in his 1st homily upon Matthew, and also b y Theophylact.
Augustine, however, in the 15th book of his City of God, c. 2 3 ,
affirms that something was written b y E n o c h . A n d Josephus,1

Antiquit. L i b . i. c. 3, tells us that the posterity of Adam before

the flood erected two columns, one of stone, and the other of brick,
and engraved certain inscriptions on t h e m . Pliny indeed affirms 2

the use of written characters to have subsisted always, L i b . v n . c.

5 6 . A n d Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. L i b . n., thinks that " t h e book
s

of the wars of the L o r d " was more ancient than the books of Moses.
However, I concede that there was no scripture more ancient than

f 1
Scripsisse q u i d e m n o n n u l l a divina E n o c h ilium s e p t i m u m a b A d a m
negare n o n possumus.]
[2 trrqXas Svo Tvoirjo-apevoi, rf/v pet> « irXivOov, rf/v 8' irkpav «e Xldcov,
apcporepais e'veypmjtav rd cvpijpeva.—Lib. I. C. 2. § 3 . ]
[ 3
Literas s e m p e r arbitror Assyrias fuisse. W h e r e Perionius a n d s o m e
others r e a d , AssyriisJ]
vn.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 517

the books of Moses, and that religion remained pure for so many-
years without scripture. W h a t follows from t h a t ? A r e the scrip-
tures, therefore, unnecessary ? B y no means. F o r I perceive a
twofold fallacy in this argument. T h e first lies in the consequent.
Our opponent disputes t h u s : Scripture is not absolutely necessary;
therefore it is not necessary at all. But here lies the Jesuit's
e r r o r : for it is not every necessity that is absolute ; some is only
hypothetical. G o d could teach us without the holy scriptures, and
lead us to eternal l i f e ; but he chose to propound his teaching to
us in the scriptures. This, therefore, being supposed, it is neces-
sary that we learn and derive the will and doctrine of God from
the scriptures. Thus, not even food is simply necessary, because
God could easily nourish us without f o o d ; but only hypothetically.
God indeed formerly shewed himself familiarly to our fathers, and,
in a manner, conversed constantly with some distinguished men, to
whom he immediately disclosed his will; and then I confess that
the scriptures were not necessary: but afterwards he changed
this method of teaching his church, and chose that his will should
be committed to writing; and then scripture began to be necessary.
T h e second fallacy is mistaking the question: for the time is
changed, when he argues t h u s : Scripture was once not neces-
sary ; therefore it is also unnecessary now. This reasoning is
inconsequential. For though God once taught his church b y
oral instruction, yet now he hath pleased to choose another mode
of teaching his people. These times, therefore, and those bear
very different relations to the matter in hand. God hath now
seen fit that all that teaching which he delivered of old orally to
the fathers should be committed to books and writing. A n d the
reason of the change was to provide more completely for the pure
and uncorrupted preservation of his teaching. F o r doctrine d e -
livered only orally without writing could not be so easily saved
from corruptions; and in fact it was soon depraved, and God's r e -
ligion remained in its integrity with very few, so as that God was
compelled frequently to repeat and renew it over and over again.
The scriptures, therefore, are necessary to us, because God foresaw
that we should need, for preserving the integrity of true religion,
to have the scriptures in our hands; so that to think otherwise is
to accuse G o d of thoughtlessness or error.

The Jesuit next proceeds to the second age of the church, which
intervened between Moses and Christ; wherein he cannot deny that
scriptures were published b y the h o l y prophets, which he never-
518 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

theless maintains to have been unnecessary. F o r he says in the

first place, that at that time the scriptures belonged exclusively to
the Jews, while yet there were, even amongst the Gentiles, religi-
ous persons who had not the scriptures in their hands, as is plain
from the case of J o b and his friends. T o this purpose he alleges
Augustine on Original Sin, Lib. 11. c. 2 4 ; and in the City of God,
Lib. XVIII. c. 4 7 . I answer: W e confess that there were amongst
the Gentiles some pious persons really zealous for true religion:
but that the scriptures were read b y such persons, is also clear
from the story of the eunuch in Acts viii. Besides, the number of
such persons as the Jesuit mentions was very small. And, h o w -
ever the case be, those who appertained to the church were
not ignorant of the scriptures. In the second place, he says that,
although the Jews used to read the scriptures, y e t they used
tradition more than scripture: as appears from Ps. xliv. 1, 2, and
Ixxviii. 3, 4, where we read that fathers related the works of God to
their children; and from Deut. vi. 2 0 , where the fathers are com-
manded to tell their children, when their children should ask them,
what great things G o d had done in their behalf. I reply, that no
conclusion can be drawn from such testimonies as these. F o r what
if parents were commanded to tell God's works to their children,
and children to ask them of their parents ? Those things which the
parents related were also set forth in scripture. In Ps. xliv. the
prophet shews what it was they had heard from their fathers ; for
it follows that God had cast forth the nations before them, and
planted them in. N o w , this is all written: every thing recited in
P s . Ixxviii. is also written; as the deliverance of the people from
E g y p t , &c. In the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy the people are
commanded to converse about the scriptures, and to instruct their
children in them. Thus it was from the scriptures that the fa-
thers told these things to the children, and out of the scriptures
that the children asked these questions of their fathers. Thirdly,
this sagacious man assigns the reasons w h y the ancient Jews made
greater use of tradition than of scripture. The first reason is,
because at that time the scriptures were not yet reduced into the
form of books, but were scattered about in loose papers. The
second is, because the priests and Levites were neglectful of their
duty to such a degree, as that sometimes the whole scripture dis-
appeared, as is plain from 2 Kings xxii., where we read of the
volume of the law being found. But after the captivity (says he)
Ezra reduced the scriptures into the form of books, and added
VII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 519

many things, as the piece about the death of Moses at the end of
Deuteronomy. I answer: Although we were to concede the negli-
gence of the priests and Levites, does it therefore follow either
that the whole scripture perished, or that it was unnecessary ?
T h e negligence of the priests and Levites does not prove the
scriptures unnecessary, but themselves guilty of horrible sacrilege.
Thus, even now the papists pluck away the scriptures from the
p e o p l e ; but are they, for that reason, not necessary ? A man
should be a fool to say so. T h e scriptures, however, were not alto-
gether lost, nor does the finding of the book of the law prove that
they were. T h e b o o k that was found in the temple, during its
purification, was the very autograph of Moses, or only the b o o k of
Deuteronomy. A s to his assertion, that the scriptures were so
scattered in loose pieces at that time that they could not be read,
it is a mere fiction, and made without any reasonable ground. For
although Ezra reduced the Psalms and other books to order, it
does not follow from that that the scriptures were before in such
confusion that they could not be read. A s to the piece at the end
of Deuteronomy, some say that it was added b y Joshua, as Sixtus
Senensis, Lib. i . ; others b y Moses before his death, so as to seem
rather to have been translated than to have d i e d . 1

Bellarmine passes on to the third age of the church, which

takes its origin from the coming of Christ; and says, that the
church was without scriptures even for many years after Christ:
which assertion of his, however, every b o d y perceives to be
utterly false. F o r the faithful had during all that time all the
books of the old Testament; and immediately after Christ the
scripture of the new Testament began to be published, and the
church always had the full teaching necessary to salvation in
written documents. N o w , as far as the sum and substance of
teaching is concerned, there is no difference between the old T e s -
tament and the new. T h e promises are written in the old
Testament, and the fulfilment of them in the new. N o r was it
v e r y many years after Christ that the church lacked the scriptures
of the new Testament. F o r Matthew wrote his gospel eight years
after Christ's ascension, if that be true which Theophylact tells us,
upon the 1st of M a t t h e w : nerd OKTW ertj T>J$ TOV Xpiarov
avaXfyeoDs. Nicephorus , however, says that it was in the fifteenth
2

[ l
U t raptus, n o n m o r t u u s fuisse v i d e a t u r . ]
p H i s t . E c c l e s . L i b . rv. c. 1 4 . ]
520 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

y e a r ; but Eusebius, L i b . v. c. 8 , out of Irenaeus, dates it after

1

the twentieth, when Peter and Paul had already come to R o m e .

But the Jesuit proves his assertion from Irenaeus, Lib. HI. c. 4,
where that father writes, that in his time some barbarous nations
lived admirably without the scriptures, b y the sole help of tradition.
I a n s w e r : I confess that Irenaeus in that place does say, that some
nations, assenting to those traditions which the apostles delivered
to those to whom they committed the churches, had salvation
written in their hearts without ink or characters, b y the power of
the Holy Ghost. But lest y o u should think that these were
the popish traditions, he subjoins a recital of the Articles of the
Faith, in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, in Christ the
Son of God, his passion, resurrection, ascension, &c. T h e n he
a d d s : " Those who have believed this faith are indeed, in respect
of our language, barbarians; but as to their opinions, and customs,
and conversation, they are, on account of their faith, excellently
wise and well-pleasing to God, b y reason of the righteousness
and chastity and wisdom of their whole behaviour ." 2
But although
some barbarous people were for a time without the scriptures, it
does not therefore follow that the scriptures are absolutely un-
necessary. M a n y persons know not how to read, and nevertheless
hold a sound faith from the preaching of pastors and teachers:
are the scriptures therefore not necessary ? Whence then did
those very pastors and teachers derive that knowledge of religion
which they possess ? Doubtless from the scriptures. T h e scrip-
tures, therefore, are highly necessary. A n d although for a time
doctrine might be preserved intact without written monuments, it
is not safe to keep it so long, nor possible to keep it so always.
Besides, in a short time after the scriptures were translated into
those barbarous tongues, in order that, b y the reading and e x -
pounding of them, they might the better preserve the teaching
which they had received. T h e conclusion he draws is, that the

[1 MarBaios . . . . ypaqbf/v i^tfveyKev eiayyeXlov, TOV JJcVpou KCU TOXI UavXov

hi 'P<opu evayyeXi£opJva>v.—T. II. p. 53. ed. Heinich.]
[ Cui ordinationi assentiunt multa? gentes barbaromm, quorum qui in
2

Christum credunt, sine charta et atramento scriptam habentes per Spiritual

in cordibus suis salutem, et veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes, &c.
. . . Hanc fidem qui sine Uteris crediderunt, quantum ad sermonem nostrum
barbari sunt; quantum autem ad sententiam, et consuetudinem, et conversa-
tionem, propter fidem, perquam sapientissimi sunt, et placent Deo, conver-
santes in omni justitia et castitate et sapientia.—p. 242. B. D. ed. Ferard.]
VII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 521

scriptures are not simply necessary; and so far not amiss. But are
they therefore not necessary at all ? This is plainly what he means,
but he dares not to speak o u t ; since presently afterwards, replying
to a citation from Ghrysostom, who writes that the scriptures are
necessary to us, though not to the patriarchs, he observes that this
necessity must be understood to refer " to our well-being, that is
to mean that they are useful." So that, according to him, the
scriptures are merely useful, and contribute to our well-being, but
are not necessary. F r o m the whole reasoning of our opponent,
therefore, we see the truth of what we read in this same author
Irenseus, Lib. m . c. 2, that the heretics, when they are refuted
out of the scriptures, turn round and accuse even the scriptures
themselves.

CHAPTER VIII.

THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE NECESSARY.

HERE I will briefly demonstrate the necessity of the scrip-

tures, although we shall afterwards have to treat that question
more at large.
In the first place, the scriptures contain that necessary doctrine
without which we cannot be saved, that is to say, the teaching
of the law and the g o s p e l : therefore they are necessary. As
to the law, the apostle tells us, R o m . v i i . : " I had not known
lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." There-
fore, the doctrine of the law is learned from the scriptures, and
indeed only from the scriptures, when rightly and solidly under-
stood. Still less can we understand the doctrine of the gospel
without the scriptures, because it is still more foreign and remote
from our minds than the doctrine of the law, and our nature recoils
from it still more than from the law. Besides, God does not
teach us now b y visions, dreams, revelations, oracles, as of old,
but b y the scriptures a l o n e ; and therefore, if we will be saved,
we must of necessity know the scriptures.
Secondly, the scriptures preserve the doctrine and religion of
God from being corrupted, or destroyed, or forgotten: therefore
they are necessary. The antecedent is manifest. For God willed
522 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

that his word should be written b y Moses, the prophets and the
apostles, for this v e r y reason, that there was a certain risk that
the true teaching would be corrupted, or destroyed, or consigned
to oblivion, if it were not written and published in books. In
Hosea viii. 1 2 , G o d says, " I have written to them the great
things of m y l a w ; but they were counted as a strange thing."
L u k e says, chap. i. verse 3, "It seemed good to me to write
unto thee in order, most excellent T h e o p h i l u s , " — f o r what pur-
pose ? T h e reason is subjoined: "iva e-myvips Trepl w e / c e t T j ? ^ ' ^
Aoywv TYJV datpaAeiav. Theophilus had before that been in-
structed in the true doctrine (as is plain from the words irepl
wv Karrfxn6r){); but L u k e chose to write for him the whole of
that doctrine in order, that he might know it better and more
certainly, and retain it when known more firmly. T h e scripture
therefore is necessary for certainty : for those things which are
taught orally have not the same firmness and certainty as those
which are written and consigned in books.
Thirdly, in Matth. xxii. 2 9 , Christ says to the Sadducees, " T e
do err, not knowing the scriptures:" irkavdaOe, (irj elSo-res ras
ypa<pds. F r o m which words we gather that the scriptures are n e -
cessary to us, lest we should fall into error. In another evangelist
the words stand t h u s : " Y e therefore err, because y e k n o w not the
scriptures:" ov Sid TOVTO irkavdaBe, ixrj e'iSores rds ypafpds; and
so the place makes still more clearly for our side. T h e same is
the purport also of the passage in 2 Pet. i. 1 9 , " W e have also a
more sure (and firm) w o r d of prophecy, whereunto y e do well that
y e take h e e d : " where Peter teaches us that nothing is surer than
the scriptures. T o them, therefore, as the solid, firm and perpe-
tual monuments of the faith, it behoves us to cleave constantly.
I n L u k e xvi., when the rich reveller begs that somebody may be
sent to his brethren, Abraham replies: " T h e y have Moses and the
p r o p h e t s ; let them hear t h e m . " F r o m which words it is clear that
all things necessary are to be derived from Moses and the prophets,
that is, from the scriptures, and that there can be no more certain
or clearer method of learning than from the scriptures. In John
x x . 3 1 , we read t h u s : " T h e y were written, that y e might believe
that Jesus is the Christ the Son of G o d ; and that believing y e
might have life b y his name." Whence it may be inferred that
the scriptures are necessary to us for the obtaining of faith and
eternal l i f e ; since it was for that purpose they were written. In
J o h n v. 3 9 , Christ says to the Jews, " S e a r c h the s c r i p t u r e s ; " —
VIII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 523

wherefore? "Because in them y e think y e have eternal life."

A n d indeed they were right in so thinking, and Christ approves
their opinion. In Psalms xix. and cxix. the prophet David passes
high encomiums upon the scriptures; from which praises and
eulogies men's necessity m a y be gathered. He calls them the
law; and what more necessary than l a w ? N o w , if the law be
necessary in a state, then much rather in the church. F o r if
in civil affairs men cannot be left to themselves, but must be
governed and retained in their duty b y certain l a w s ; much less
should we be independent in divine things, and not rather bound b y
the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule, lest we fall into a
will-worship hateful to God.
Fourthly, we can b y no means do without the scriptures:
therefore they are necessary. T h e Jesuit will deny the ante-
cedent. But if we can do without the scriptures, why hath
G o d delivered them to us ? Thus the wisdom and counsel of
G o d refute the foolish fictions of the papists.
Fifthly, ministers are commanded to read the scriptures, and
to be assiduous and diligent in the study of t h e m : therefore the
scriptures are necessary. F o r if any persons could b e free or
discharged from the duty of reading the scriptures, who could b e
rather than the clergy ? forasmuch as none are better acquainted
with tradition than they are. In 1 Tim. iv. 1 3 , Paul admonishes
Timothy to be attentive to reading, Trpoa-e^e Ttj avayvtocrei' and
in 2 Tim. iii. 14, 1 5 , he shews what it was that he was to read so
attentively, namely, the holy scriptures; for thus he writes: " But
thou abide in those things which thou hast learned, and hast been
entrusted with, knowing from whom thou hast learned them, and
that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are
able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in
Christ Jesus." Upon which place Chrysostom comments thus:
" While the apostle speaks this to Timothy, he gives at the same
time a wholesome admonition to all. A n d if he uttered such a d -
monitions to one who could raise the dead, what are we now to say,
who fall so miserably short of his e x c e l l e n c e ? " Thus Chrysostom.
If, then, the scriptures are commended to Timothy, how much
more to us ? T o the same purpose is the passage in B o m . x v . 4 :
" Whatsoever things were written of old time, were written for
our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scrip-
ture might have h o p e . " It was, therefore, for our service that
God provided in delivering his doctrine in a written f o r m ; — I had
524 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

almost said for his own too, since before that he had been com-
pelled to repeat the same lessons frequently. So Thomas Aquinas
writes upon that passage: " There was," says he, " no necessity
for writing these things, but only on our account."
Sixthly, Chrysostom, in his 1st Homily upon M a t t h e w , 1

expressly writes that the scriptures are necessary; and removes the
Jesuit's objection, that because scripture was not necessary in the
time of the patriarchs, neither is it so now. H e says that the
patriarchs and apostles were exceedingly pure in soul, and that
God therefore addressed them immediately, and taught without the
medium of written documents; whereas, since we are rude and dull,
God hath chosen to instruct us b y the scriptures. Bellarmine saw
this place, and endeavours to break the force of the argument.
H e says that the scriptures are called necessary, because they are
useful. E x c e l l e n t ! But, then, they are so useful as to be neces-
sary. Nothing, indeed, is more useful than what is necessary.
Y o u have heard how admirably the Jesuit hath acquitted
himself of his first undertaking. I do not choose at present to p r o -
secute the question more at large, or to illustrate it with testimonies
of the fathers, which shall be produced in their proper place.

CHAPTER IX.

THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR OPPONENTS, WHEREBY THEY PROVE THAT

THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT SUFFICIENT WITHOUT TRADITION.

N o w , then, in the SECOND place he proves that the scrip-

tures are not sufficient without tradition, and do not contain all
things appertaining to faith and practice. This he does b y
three arguments.
T h e first is to this effect: I f the scripture be sufficient, then
it is either the whole canon which is sufficient, or the several
books contained in that canon : but neither is the c a s e ; and there-
fore the scripture is not sufficient. I answer : I confess that we
do not speak of each several book when we say that the scriptures
contain sufficient instruction, but mean the whole canon, whence we

[i T o m . VII. p . 1. e t s e q q . ]
IX.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 525

affirm that all things necessary may be drawn. Nor is this to be

understood, however, merely of the canon, which is now richer
and more copious than it was formerly (for at one time the canon
was b y no means so large and full, since the Jews, who were
without the new Testament, had not so many books as we h a v e ) ;
but we say that the canon extant in the time of the Jews was
then, and that the canon extant in our time is now, sufficient
without tradition. W h e n there were only the five books of Moses,
they were sufficient. W h e n they were increased b y the accession
of other books (those of the prophets namely), these were sufficient,
but more abundantly sufficient. In each age and generation,
according to the circumstances of the church, the books which
were extant were sufficient. But the Jesuit endeavours to weaken
the force of this, and proves that even the whole canon is insuf-
ficient, because many books which were really sacred and canonical
have perished. This he proves from Chrysostom's 9th Homily
upon Matthew, on these words : " H e shall be called a Nazarene."
I answer, firstly, Chrysostom thought that this sentence could
no where be found in those books of the old Testament which are
still preserved. There is another similar sentence of which he
entertained the same opinion : " Out of E g y p t have I called m y
Son." Indeed, the seventy translators whom he followed exhibit
neither passage: but the Hebrew text d o e s ; with which he was
not conversant, being ignorant of the Hebrew language. Jerome,
in his work de Optimo Genere Interpretandi, says that both
sentences are found in the Hebrew copies, the former in Isaiah xi.
1, the latter in Hosea xi. 1. Secondly, we concede that some
pieces are now wanting which formerly stood in the canon of scrip-
t u r e ; while nevertheless we affirm that the canon which now
remains is sufficient, and contains all things necessary. Some
books of Solomon's have been lost, but without any injury to faith
or risk of our salvation; as that which he wrote concerning plants,
springing herbs, and worms, and also many proverbs. F o r God
knew that these things would not be necessary to us for salvation.
Thirdly, we deny that so many pieces have been lost as the papists
and the Jesuit suspect. F o r , as to the books of Samuel, Gad,
Nathan and Ahijah, I reply, that they are not lost, but are the
same as those books which we now have, namely, the books of
Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, which were written b y those
prophets. Bellarmine goes on to say, that it is certain from the
new Testament that the epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans hath
526 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

been lost, which piece he himself mentions in the last chapter to

the Colossians. But nothing can be more uncertain than this. F o r
we have before established, both b y the words themselves and the
testimonies of authors, that this was no epistle of Paul to the
Laodiceans, but of the Laodiceans to P a u l ; unless indeed we trans-
late eK AaoSuce'ias, " to the Laodiceans." F o r other people wrote
letters to Paul, as is plain from 1 Cor. vii. 1 : " N o w concerning
those things whereof y e wrote unto m e . " T h e opinion arose from
the ambiguous version Laodicensium, which they give a passive
sense to : wherein I am surprised that a man so polished and
learned in Greek literature as Bellarmine should not have
perceived the shameful error into which many had fallen, and
should have chosen rather to incur the blame of negligence than
to omit a very foolish argument.
T h e Jesuit's second argument is as follows: I f Christ or
his apostles had intended to restrain the word of God to the
compendious form of scripture, then Christ would have com-
manded the evangelists and apostles to write, and they would
somewhere have indicated that they wrote in pursuance of the
Lord's injunction. But we nowhere read of t h i s : therefore
they never designed to do this. I answer b y pronouncing the
assumption to be untrue. Can we suppose that the apostles and
evangelists attempted to write without a command or authority ?
W a s it under the impulse of some slight occasional motive that they
wrote so many w o r k s ; or did they not rather follow therein the
authority of the H o l y Spirit? Surely we cannot entertain the
former thought without impiety. W e believe that they were
induced and moved to write b y the special authority of Christ and
the H o l y S p i r i t : for the scripture is called Oeoirvevo-ros, that is,
delivered b y the impulse and suggestion of the H o l y Ghost. And
2 Pet. i. 2 1 , Peter testifies that holy men of God spake " as they
were moved b y the H o l y Ghost." W h i c h makes it plain that they
followed the impulse and authority of the H o l y Spirit, not their
own will and choice. T h e men were merely the instruments; i<
was the H o l y Ghost who dictated to them.
Our opponents, however, will have it that they wrote of them-
selves, without any express command. In E x o d . xxiv. 4, we read
that Moses wrote all the words of G o d : and Canus expressly ac-
knowledges that he wrote this pursuant to the command of God,
In Hosea viii. 1 2 , God s a y s : " I wrote unto them the great things
(as some translate it, but as others, the authentic things) of my
IX.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 527

law." God therefore says, that he wrote those things which

Moses wrote. But had the apostles any express command ? U n -
doubtedly they had. F o r , in Matt xxviii. 1 9 , we read that the
last words of Christ to his apostles were t h e s e : " G o , teach all
nations." Now the term /xadnreveiv, which is used in that place,
denotes teaching both orally and b y writing, as should seem best
to the H o l y Spirit. F o r the H o l y Spirit governed their minds in
the discharge of this office, and impelled them to writing as a
thing most specially needful. F o r they were required not merely
to give temporary instructions; but it was a part of their office to
leave a written teaching, which should suffice for all ages, and
remain even unto the end of the world. In Rev. i. 1 1 , it is expressly
written, " Those things which thou hast seen, write in a b o o k , "
ypd\f/ov ek fBi/iXiov. This is an express command. If this
injunction was given to him, we cannot doubt but that the same
injunction was in the same way given to the rest also. Again, in
R e v . xiv. 1 3 , John s a y s : " I heard a voice saying, W r i t e . " These
things sufficiently prove that the apostles and evangelists followed
the divine authority, and were not moved to writing b y certain
exceeding slight and fortuitous circumstances, as the papists i m -
piously pretend, especially Lindanus, who thinks that he can make
this g o o d in the case of every one of the books. The fathers were
very far indeed from this notion of the papists. F o r Augustine, in
the last chapter of his first book upon the Consent of the E v a n g e -
lists, says expressly that Christ wrote all those things which the
apostles and evangelists wrote ; because the apostles were only the
hands, but Christ the head. N o w the hands write nothing but as
the head thinks and dictates. Therefore, says he, we should
receive their books with the same reverence as if Christ had
written them with his own hand, and we had seen him writing
them. His words are as f o l l o w : " Through that human nature
which he assumed, he is the head of all his disciples, as members
of his body. W h e n , therefore, they wrote what he shewed and
spoke to them, we must b y no means say that he himself did not
write, since his members did that which they knew b y the influence
of their head. F o r whatever he willed that we should read
concerning his deeds or words, he commanded them as his hands to
write. H e that understands this harmonious unity, this ministry
of the members in divers offices, but agreeing under one head
together, will receive what he reads in the gospel narratives of
Christ's disciples no otherwise than as if he saw the v e r y hand of
the Lord, which was a part of his proper natural b o d y , engaged
528 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

in writing i t . " Thus Augustine. Irenasus also, Lib. HI. c. 1, says

1

that the gospel is delivered in the scriptures " b y the will of G o d . "
A n d Athanasius, in his epistle to Liberius, speaking of Christ, says:
" H e composed both the old Testament and the n e w . " Finally, 2

G r e g o r y , in his 4th book of Epistles, Epist. 8 4 , says, that

the scripture is the epistle of G o d the Creator to his c r e a t u r e ; 3

which assertion is also, in some places, made b y Augustine and

Chrysostom. N o w then, who dares to forge letters in a prince's
name ? Much less would the apostles or prophets have dared to d o
so in the name of G o d .
F r o m these considerations, it is manifest, that all the books
of the old and new Testaments were written not merely b y the
will and command, but under the v e r y dictation of Christ; nor
yet merely occasionally, or under the suggestion o f some slight
circumstance, but with the deliberate purpose of serving the church
in all ages : whence plainly appears the falsehood of Lindanus'
pretence. But, if this were so (he urges), they would have
written a catechism, or composed some document in common, or
else each severally would have published in writing the whole
evangelic doctrine. I answer: None of these is necessary. F o r
they knew well that G o d would so direct their wills and hands,
that those should write whom it behoved to write, and write just
so much as was sufficient, and do all things in the proper time.
And if that is true which is handed down, they published the
Creed before they separated to g o into their several provinces,
which is indeed an epitome of the scriptures. B u t this (says he)
they delivered orally, and did not commit to w r i t i n g : upon which

[1 Omnibus discipulis suis, per hominem quem assumpsit, tanquam mem-

bris sui corporis, caput est. Itaque cum Uli scripserunt, qua? ille ostendit et
dixit, nequaquam dicendum est, quod ipse non scripserit, quandoquidem mem-
bra ejus id operata sunt, quod dictante capite cognoverunt. Quidquid enim
ille de suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis, tanquam suis
manibus, imperavit. Hoc unitatis consortium, et in diversis offlciis concor-
dium membrorum sub uno capite ministerium quisquis intellexerit, non aliter
accipiet quod narrantibus discipulis Christi in evangelio legerit, quam si ipsam
manum Domini, quam in proprio corpore gestabat, scribentem conspexerit.—
Opp. T. iv. p. 33.]
[ 2
<5 SiaÖeuevos Ttjv rraXaiav Kai rrjv Kaivr/v HiadiJKrjV. Whitaker translates
" composuit," which he perhaps meant to be taken in the sense of arrange.:
but his argument seems to require what is given above. The passage may
be found in Athanas. Opp. T. in. p. 669. Paris. 1698.]
[ Imperator cceli, Dominus hominum et angelorum, pro vita tua tibi suas
3

epistolas transmisit.—Gregor. Opp. T . n. col. 808. Basil. 1564. It is Lib. IV.

Ep. 31. ed. Benedict. Paris. 1705.]
IX.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 529

point as I feel no solicitude, I will spend no arguments. Indeed, it

is nothing to the p u r p o s e ; and the whole creed is contained in
the scriptures, as Augustine tells us, ad Catechumen. Lib. i. de
Symbolo : " These words (meaning the Creed) which y o u have
heard, are scattered through the scriptures. Thence they have
been gathered and reduced into a system, to help the memory of
the w e a k . "
4
But of the Creed hereafter.
T h e Jesuit's third argument, whereby he proves that the scrip-
tures are not sufficient without tradition, is to this effect: There are
many things which we cannot be ignorant of, that are nowhere found
in the scriptures ; therefore all things necessary are not contained
in the scriptures. The Jesuit sets forth and discusses many exam-
ples, which we must sift and examine severally. First, he says, that
there is no doubt but that women, under the old Testament, had
some remedy against original sin as well as men, which supplied the
place of circumcision: but there is nothing about it found in the
scriptures. I answer, that circumcision regarded not only men,
but women also in a certain sense. F o r although they were not
circumcised in the flesh, nevertheless the efBcacv of circumcision
reached to them, and in the circumcision of the men they were
consecrated to God : for woman was considered a part of man,
and a partner and sharer in all his goods. Unmarried women ap-
pertained to their parents, married women to their husbands: of a
surety they had no peculiar sacrament. Lombard, Lib. iv., dis-
tinct. 1, letter G, says, that faith and good works had the same
efficacy in the case of women as circumcision in that of men, and so
were justified although they had no sacrament. But others say (as
appears from the same author, Lombard), that they were sanctified
and justified b y sacrifices and oblations. Bellarmine might there-
fore have learned from his own master, how frivolous was this p r e -
tence. Besides, he ought to have considered that circumcision was
not merely a remedy against original sin, but also a sign of the
derivation of sin. N o w it is b y men rather than b y women that
sin is propagated; and therefore this mark was the rather imprinted
upon them.
T h e Jesuit subjoins, there is no doubt but that infants dying
before the eighth day had some remedy against original s i n ;
but this is nowhere found in scripture. I answer: This is futile,

[4 U l a v e r b a qua? audistis p e r divinas scripturas sparsa sunt, inde collecta

et a d u n u m reducta, n e t a r d o r u m h o m i n u m m e m o r i a l a b a r e t . — A u g u s t i n .
O p p . T . v i . col. 399. A n t w e r p . 1 7 0 1 . ]

r|_WHITAKER.J1 3 4
530 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

and, like the former objection, unworthy of a reply. F o r the

salvation of infants depends not upon the sacraments. Others,
however, answer that they might be circumcised before the eighth
day, if they were in any danger of losing their lives : how truly, I
inquire not. But as it was not all who were partakers of the
sacraments that were s a v e d ; so neither were all damned who had
them not. If God had determined that all who died before circum-
cision should be damned, he would not assuredly have deferred that
rite until the eighth day. T h e Jesuit's third example is no more
suited to the purpose than the previous ones. In the time of the old
Testament, says he,.many Gentiles were s a v e d ; and yet we read
nothing in the scriptures of their justification from original and
other sins. I answer, that we do so r e a d : for they were jus-
tified b y faith in the Mediator without the sacraments. But, if he
speak of external means, there is a law to be found in the books of
Moses for incorporating proselytes into the Jewish state. These
three arguments are derived from that foul spring of error, the
popish tenet of salvation being inclosed in the sacraments; whence
they conclude that there was need of external means and remedies.
These men know nothing of the power of faith. T h e Jesuit's
fourth example is of this s o r t : W e must believe the canonicity of
the books in the old and new Testaments, which yet cannot be dis-
covered from the books themselves. I answer, that this may be
known sufficiently from the scriptures themselves. F o r the doctrine
itself confirms itself, and bears most certain testimony to itself. D o
we not read that the whole scripture is given b y inspiration of God ?
But, says the Jesuit, how shall I know that this is scripture which
affirms this ? A n d here he brings in a comparison. It is written,
says he, in the Alcoran, that that book was sent down from heaven ;
and yet we are b y no means therefore to believe that it really did
come from heaven. In like manner, says he, I must be assured of
the authority of this book from some other source. I answer:
Seest thou not, 0 Jesuit, that the books of scripture are impiously
and absurdly compared b y thee to the Alcoran ? T h e Alcoran is
replete with absurdities and manifest falsehoods: whereas every
thing in scripture bears the stamp of divinity, and the whole scrip-
ture plainly shews itself to be given b y inspiration of God, as we
have proved in the third question ; so as that those who are endued
with the Spirit of God cannot fail to recognise God speaking in the
scriptures. Thus the conclusion of the Jesuit is false. F o r if that
be the true faith which is delivered in the creed, then our faith
IX.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 531

rests upon the scriptures, and upon them alone, since all the articles
of faith are contained in the scriptures. A n d this faith is sufficient
for salvation, because this faith lays hold upon Christ, in whom are
all the promises of eternal life. But these men argue as if the prin-
ciple of faith were laid in tradition; and if this be true, then faith
depends entirely upon tradition. In Luke xxiv. 4 5 , we read that
Christ opened the minds of the apostles that they might understand
the scriptures. Whence we perceive that faith springs from a right
understanding of the scriptures.
Fifthly, T h e Jesuit says that it is not only necessary to believe
the existence of a canon of sacred books in the old and new Testa-
ments, but also to know which those books are. F o r example, we
ought to know that the gospel of Mark is genuine and true, and so
also that of L u k e , and so on through all the other books of either
Testament. But how are we to be assured of this ? T h e evidence
certainly cannot be derived from scripture; as in the case of
believing that the gospels of Bartholomew or Thomas are not
genuine, whereas reason teaches that we should rather believe a
book bearing the title of an apostle, than one which bore the title
of one who was not an apostle. Besides, how (he asks) shall we know
that the epistle to the Romans is Paul's, and that to the Laodiceans
not his, when the latter is mentioned in the epistle to the Colossians
and the former nowhere ? I answer : This is a fine piece of theolo-
gical reasoning; as if it were not evident from the very inscription of
the epistle to the Romans, that it was written b y P a u l ! His assertion
that it is certain that Paul wrote an epistle to the Laodiceans hath
been sufficiently answered b y us already. The epistle to the Colos-
sians mentions no epistle written b y Paul to the Laodiceans, but rather
hints (as we have shewn above from certain of the fathers) that
some epistle had been written b y the Laodiceans to him. This
error was occasioned b y an erroneous version and still more
erroneous interpretation of it. Jerome, in his Catalogue, testifies
indeed to the existence in former times of such an epistle, but
testifies also that it was universally exploded. There is still extant
a little epistle pretending to be that of Paul to the Laodiceans, but
utterly unworthy of the apostle's name. However, the Jesuit says
that we should not only know that there are canonical books, but
also which they be. I a n s w e r : This is indeed necessary, but not
simply and alike to a l l : which even the papists themselves may be
compelled to own. F o r formerly many persons to whom they dare
not deny the possibility of salvation, entertained doubts concerning
34—2
532 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

some of the canonical books. This was therefore not necessary to

them. Indeed, there is no consequence in this argument, T h e
H o l y Spirit recognises all the canonical b o o k s ; therefore all who
have the H o l y Spirit recognise them. F o r the H o l y Spirit does
not produce the same effect in all persons, nor have all the same
measure of the Spirit. Thus all who have the H o l y Spirit do not
determine exactly alike concerning all the parts of religion. Some
know Christ more perfectly, and some l e s s ; and this also is to be
ascribed to the H o l y Spirit, for " no one can say that Jesus is the
L o r d but b y the H o l y Ghost," and even many papists have removed
the apocryphal books from the canon of scripture. Secondly, I an-
swer, that this very thing may be learned from the scriptures, namely
from the very books themselves, as that the gospel of Mark is true,
and so also that of Luke, and so the epistle of Paul to the Romans.
F o r the books themselves prove themselves b y their own testimony.
T h e purity, the truth, the wonderful character impressed upon these
writings, prove, at least to all those that have the H o l y Spirit, that
they emanated from God and his holy inspiration. F o r it is only
they who have received the H o l y Spirit that can hear, recognise,
and understand his voice. Then, secondarily, these books are con-
firmed b y the authority of the church which hath received these
books, but constantly rejected those others, such as the gospels of
Bartholomew and Thomas. This, however, is only a secondary evi-
dence. Augustine, de Consent. Evangelist. L i b . i. c. 1, replies to
a similar objection, namely, why the same faith is not reposed in the
other authors who wrote accounts of Christ and the apostles? and
alleges two reasons why their books were rejected, lest any should
suppose that the church had rejected them merely on its own autho-
rity. The first reason is, because they were not such as the church
in those times believed or approved : where he speaks of the church
of those times. T h e second is, because the authors of those books
did not write with the requisite fidelity, but fallaciously introduced
into their writings matters which the rule of apostolic faith and
sound doctrine condemns. But whence could this appear but from
the books themselves ? Bellarmine pretends that there is no dif-
ference between those gospels and ours, between the epistle to the
Romans and that to the Laodiceans, save only this, that the church
hath received one set of gospels and rejected the o t h e r ; hath
admitted the epistle to the Romans into the canon, and exploded
that to the Laodiceans : which is plainly at once impious and absurd
in the highest degree.
IX.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 533

T h e Jesuit's sixth example is t h i s : "We must not only know

what books form the canon in both Testaments, we must also
know in particular that these are the very same b o o k s ; not only
that the gospel of Mark is true, but that this which we now have
is the gospel of M a r k : now this cannot be proved from the
scriptures. I answer : It is not simply necessary to salvation that
we should believe that this b o o k which is inscribed with the name
of Mark was actually written b y him. I say not this rashly, but
with reason and judgment. It is indeed necessary for me to
believe it to be true and divine; but every one who doubts whether
it were written b y Mark does not immediately fall from salvation,
or deserve to be esteemed a heretic. W e do indeed think that h e
would deserve blame who should entertain such doubts, because there
is no reason for t h e m : but nevertheless we do not on that account
exclude him from life and salvation. The scripture receives not
authority from men, but from the H o l y G h o s t : nor is it more
necessary to believe that this is the gospel of Mark, than to b e -
lieve that the epistle to the Hebrews was written b y Paul, or the
Apocalypse b y John. T h e authors of many books are unknown,
as of Joshua, Ruth, Chronicles, Esther, &c. But other books
assert their own authors, as the Pentateuch, which no one doubts
to have been written b y Moses, because it bears his name, so that
sometimes the whole Pentateuch is called b y the name of Moses.
So the gospel and epistles of John, of Paul, and of P e t e r : and
y e t the evidence with respect to all these is not precisely the
same. The papists urge the same objection with respect to the
Creed, as if it were necessary we should believe that the Creed
was written b y the apostles themselves. For so Lindanus argues,
Panopl. Lib. m . c. 8. But if I doubt whether the Creed were
written b y the apostles, am I therefore a heretic ? Surely not, if
I hold and receive the doctrine delivered in the Creed. Augustine,
de Symbolo, Lib. I. c. 1, says, that the contents of the Creed are
scattered through the scriptures, and that the Creed was collected
out of the scriptures. If this be true, it was not written b y all
the apostles; for James died before any, and many of the apostles
before all the books of the new Testament were published. B e l -
larmine then subjoins some remarks which we have answered in
the third question.
In the seventh place, the Jesuit says, that it is necessary that
we should not only read, but understand the scriptures. N o w , he
says, there are many ambiguities in the scriptures which cannot be
534 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

understood until they are explained b y an infallible guide. For

he says there are two things to be considered in the scriptures, the
words and the sense, the words being like a sheath, while the
sense is the sword of the S p i r i t ; and, though the words may be
understood b y every one, y e t it is not so with the sense. T o this
purpose he thinks is the saying of Basil, de Spirit. S. c. 2 7 , that
the gospel " without an interpretation is a mere name ."
1
He
enumerates many things of this kind, which are obscurely laid
down in scripture, as the equality of the persons of the Godhead,
the procession of the H o l y Spirit, original sin, Christ's descent
into hell. These, he says, cannot be deduced from scripture with-
out great difficulty. I answer: When our adversary confesses
that, with whatever difficulty, these things may be deduced from
scripture, he concedes that they are not unwritten verities, or such
as are to be counted amongst traditions. F o r the ancient fathers
teach most truly, that whatever is deduced from scripture, whatever
difficulty may attend the deduction, is all written. Secondly, I
say, that the Jesuit differs from other papists in this point. For
others write in a v e r y different style about these matters, and rank
them in the number of unwritten traditions. Stapleton, Lib. XH. c.
5, says that the ffomoilsion cannot be proved from scripture, nor
y e t the D e i t y of the H o l y Spirit. Nazianzen, de Theolog. Lib. v.
mentions certain heretics who maintained that the H o l y Ghost was
feVor ml &ypa<pos 6eos, " a strange G o d unknown to s c r i p t u r e . "
2

T h e y compare us to these heretics, because we receive nothing but

what is found in scripture; whereas they themselves much more
resemble those heretics, denying these things to be written which
indeed are so, because gathered b y necessary inference from the
scriptures rightly expounded and understood. Cochlseus against
Bullinger affirms the Homousion to be a tradition, and declares
that he would find it easier to prove the sacrifice of the mass out
of the scriptures, than the Homousion or the Trinity. Y e t the
fathers formerly proved it by the express testimony of scripture:
for although they could not produce the very terms from scripture,
y e t they found the sense and meaning of the words in scripture.
Tertullian, in his book against Praxeas, proves b y many testimonies

[} el yap emxeiprio-aipev rd aypacpa TCOV ed&v cos pn, peyakqv e^ovra rrjv
dvvapiv irapaiTetcrdai, Xadoipev dv els avrd rd Kaipia cjipiovvres TO evayyeXiou,
pdWov 8e els ovopa yjriXbv irepiioTcovTes TO Kqpvypa.—T. II. p. 2 1 0 . G.]
[2
trodev ypiv eireicrdyeis i-evov Bebv Kai uypacpov; Orat. xxxvii. T . I.
p. 593. B.]
IX.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 535

of scripture, that God is one in substance and three in persons. So

Epiphanius, in Hares. 6 0 , proves that the Homoiision is in scrip-
3

ture, as to the sense, though not as to the t e r m : eari <?e KOI

<ra(pws eyneiTcu ev vo/uip nal trapa a.iro<XTo\oK teal TOIS irpofprj-
TM$. So also against the Sabellians. So in the Anchoratus we
find that the Arians blamed that term because it was not found in
scripture. But Ambrose, de Fide, c. Avian, c. 4 and 5, proves it
b y many testimonies of scripture ; and begins his fifth chapter with
these w o r d s : " Knowing, therefore, this unity of substance in the
Father and in the Son, on the authority, not only of the prophets,
but also of the gospels, how canst thou say that the Homoiision is
not found in s c r i p t u r e ? "
4
Then he adds more to the testimonies
which he had used in the preceding chapter. Augustine, c. Max-
imin. Avian. Lib. m . c. 1 4 , wishes the dispute concerning this
doctrine to be managed, not b y the testimonies of the fathers, or
b y councils, but b y scripture itself. T h e catholics urged the council
of Nice, wherein that term was approved and sanctioned: the
Arians that of Rimini, consisting of twice as many bishops, who
unanimously rejected that term. But Augustine, in the place r e -
ferred to, writes t h u s : " Neither should I allege the council of
Nice, nor y o u that of Rimini, prejudging, as it were, the question.
I am not bound b y the authority of the one, nor y o u b y that o f
the other. B y the authority of scripture, a witness not peculiar
to either of us but common to both, let allegation be compared
with allegation, cause with cause, reason with r e a s o n . " 5
In this
passage Augustine desires that this article may not be debated and
defined b y the testimonies of the fathers, but of scripture; and
therefore he appeals from councils to the bible. So in his dispute
with Paxentius, he says, that although this term be not found in
scripture, yet it is sanctioned b y John and P a u l : which is the
plainest possible refutation of the papists, who pretend that the
Arians were convicted by tradition rather than b y the scriptures.
F o r Augustine openly and confidently appeals to the scriptures, and
all the fathers use arguments from the scriptures.

p He means Hasres. 69. §. 70. p. 796. B. T. 1. ed. Petro.]

[ Cum ergo banc unitatem substantias in Patre et Filio non solum pro-
4

pbetica sed et evangelica auctoritate cognoscas, quomodo dicis in scripturis

divinis 'Ofioovo-iov non inveniri?—Opp. T. iv. p. 280. Paris. 1603.]
[ Sed nunc nec ego Nieamum, nec tu debes Arimense, tanquam proqju-
6

dicaturus proforro concilium. Nec ego hujus auctoritate, nec tu illius deti-
neris: scripturarum auctoritatibus, non quorumque propriis, sed utrisquo
communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione con-
certed—T. vi. p. 306.]
536 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

T h e procession of the H o l y Spirit from the Father and the Son

the church hath always most truly held against the later Greeks,
who affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father only. That
error was condemned in the council of Lyons, in the time of Inno-
cent the Fourth. Thomas Aquinas was summoned to that council,
but he died on the way ; and his place was supplied b y Bonaven-
ture, who proved most learnedly from scripture that the Spirit
proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. Thomas
Aquinas also proves this in many places, as in his Qucestiones
Disput. Qusest. 1 0 , and in prima Secundce, Quasst. 3 6 , Art. 2.
And before Thomas Augustine, in his 99th Tractate upon John,
affirms the Spirit to proceed from the Son, and proves it out of
scripture.
A s to the third example, of original sin, it can be proved
expressly enough from scripture, although indeed the term never
does occur therein: as, from R o m . v. 1 2 , " A s b y one man sin
entered into the world, and death b y sin, & c . ; " and Psalm li. 7,
" I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did m y mother conceive m e . "
H e r e Bellarmine favours the Pelagians, asserting that it is hard to
prove original sin from scripture ; whereas Augustine, in his books
against the Pelagians, establishes the point abundantly from scrip-
tural evidence.
A s to the fourth example, Christ's descent into hell, I cer-
tainly do confess that he that shall seek to establish this article,
as the papists hold it, b y scripture, undertakes a difficult task.
Andradius, Defens. Trident. Condi. Lib. ii., says that it cannot
b e gathered at all from scripture. Bellarmine says that it m a y ,
but with difficulty. But if it can, with whatever difficulty, be
deduced from the scriptures alone, then the evangelists and apo-
stles must have written something about it. Andradius, h o w -
ever, honestly confesses that this point cannot be proved b y any
place in scripture; and thence he proves that something is necessary
which is not delivered in the scriptures. Certain it is, however,
that some of the papists abuse some passages of scripture in behalf
of this doctrine, as Psalm xvi. 1 0 , and Acts ii., in which chapter
Peter recites some words out of that Psalm, and 1 Pet iii. 19, " B y
which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison, & c . " Y e t
Andradius plainly denies that it can be inferred from scripture,
and gives a far different interpretation to the place in Peter.
However, says Andradius, this point is laid down most plainly in
the Creed. I answer: Ruffinus, however, affirms that it was not
laid down in the Roman creeds in his time, yea, that it was then
IX.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 537

wanting even in the creeds of the orientals ; adding, that nothing 1

more is delivered in these words than is implied b y the clauses

immediately preceding, wherein we profess our belief that Christ
was buried, making the meaning of both articles precisely the
same. This is at least not unreasonable; which I say, without
intending to determine any thing for certain upon the subject.
T h e Nicene Creed does not exhibit this article. T h e Athanasian
does: but this makes rather for us than against u s ; for Athanasius
mentions the descent into hell, but not the burial. In the Nicene
Creed, on the contrary, the burial is mentioned, but not the d e -
scent into h e l l : which seems to indicate the sameness of the articles.
Besides, there are almost infinite reasons assigned for this
descent. T h e Roman catechism delivers t w o : the first reason
is, in order that Christ might deliver the fathers; the second,
that he might display his power and sway over the lower regions.
Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. 6 , maintains, that Christ and
2

the apostles descended in order to preach the Gospel to the con-

demned souls, and bring the hope o f salvation to the philoso-
phers and others who might believe. Aquinas, in his Sum, part
i n . q. 5 2 , art. 1, enumerates three reasons w h y Christ descended
into hell. T h e first is, " Because, as it was suitable that he should
die that he might deliver us from death, so it was suitable that he
should descend into hell to deliver us from going down into h e l l : — "
as if, forsooth, he who delivered us from eternal death did not so
perfectly finish his work as to leave us in no danger of such a
descent. " Secondly, because it was suitable that, when the devil
had been vanquished, he should rescue his captives who were i m -
prisoned in the pit. Thirdly, in order that, as he had shewn his
power on earth b y living and dying, so he might also shew his
power in hell b y visiting and illuminating i t . " In the exposition
of the creed he adds a fourth r e a s o n : " That he might perfectly
triumph over the devil." Augustine knew nothing of these fine
reasons, since, E p . 9 9 , he writes that he had not y e t discovered
what advantage Christ's descent into hell conferred upon the just
men of old time. These are his words : " I have not y e t discovered
what benefit Christ conferred upon the righteous who were in the

[i S c i e n d u m sane est, q u o d i n ecclesiaa R o m a n a ? s y m b o l o n o n h a b e t u r

a d d i t u m , desceiid.it ad inferna; sed neque i n orientis ecclesiis h a b e t u r h i e
s e r m o . — E x p o s . S y m b . §. 2 0 . ]
[2 Ae'SeucTcu fie Kav TO Sevrepio 2rp<»/iaret, roiis airoarokovs aKo\ov6a>s ra>
K v p u o Kai robs iv adov evtjyye\urp.ivovs.—p. 6 3 7 . D . Paris. 1 6 2 9 . ]
538 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

bosom of Abraham, when he descended into hell, since I do not

see that, as to the beatific presence of his divinity, he ever with-
drew from t h e m . " 1
Besides, nothing is certainly defined as to the
period during which Christ remained in hell. T h e Roman cate-
chism affirms that he remained in hell as long as his b o d y lay in
the sepulchre. So Thomas, in his Sum, part 3, q. 5 2 , Art. 4 : " A t
the same time his soul was brought out of hell, and his b o d y from
the t o m b . " I f this be true, how did he perform his promise to the
2

thief, " T o - d a y shalt thou be with me in p a r a d i s e ? " Unless,

indeed, they make a paradise in hell. T h e papists indeed place
paradise upon e a r t h : but it is plain from 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, 4, that
that paradise which we deem to be the seat of the happy souls, is
neither in hell, nor on earth, but in the highest heavens. Besides,
when the thief besought Christ to remember him when he was in
his kingdom, he surely never thought of this infernal kingdom. It
is not, therefore, necessary that we should believe that Christ
descended in this way into h e l l ; nor can Christ's descent into hell
in this sense be proved either with ease or with difficulty from
scripture.
In the eighth place, the Jesuit objects thus : W e must believe
that the essential parts of all the sacraments were instituted b y
Christ: but no such thing is found in scripture, except with
respect to two, or three at the most. In the Sartorian edition this
argument is omitted. I answer: W e recognise only two sacra-
ments, which we maintain to have been instituted b y Christ in
regard of both matter and f o r m : for the whole entire essence of
these is set forth in the scriptures. A s to the other popish sacra-
ments, it is no wonder that their essence is not explained in
scripture, because some of them have no matter, some no form, and
some neither form nor matter.
In the ninth place, he frames this objection: It is necessary to
believe that M a r y continued a virgin always. But this is not
certain from the scriptures: therefore, some necessary things are
known from some other source besides the scripture. Cochlseus adds
further, that the title of deoroicos or Deipara is not grounded
upon the scriptures : which is a notable calumny; for the fathers
proved the virgin to be GSOTOKOS from the scriptures, against

f Unde illis justis qui in sinu Abrahse erant, cum ille in interna descen-
1

deret, nondum quid contulisset inveni, a quibus eum secundum beatificam

prsesentiam sua; divinitatis nunquam video recessisse.—Ep. 99. al. 164. §. 8.]
[ 2
Simul anima ejus educta est de inferno, et corpus de sepulchre]
IX.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 539

the Nestorians, namely, from Matt. i. 2 3 , and Luke i. 3 5 , and

many other places. I a n s w e r : A s to the perpetual virginity of
M a r y , it is no business of mine to meddle with that dispute. I
content myself with saying, that the fathers, who managed the
controversy with Helvidius, adduced not only some obscure tradi-
tions, which no one would rank v e r y high, but made use also of
testimonies from scripture. So Proclus Cyzicenus alleges a passage
from Ezekiel about the gate which should be closed . So Ambrose,
3

Sermon 4 and 5. So also Ambrose, Epist. 3 1 and 7 9 , proves the

same from John, where Christ commends his mother to John's
c a r e ; which he would not have done, if she had a family of chil-
dren. Epiphanius prosecutes this argument still more copiously
against the Antidico-Marianites. Jerome contends against Helvidius
with many passages of scripture; and in like manner other fathers.
Therefore, if these fathers determined aright, this opinion is not
absolutely without scriptural authority. Now, as to the Jesuit's
assertion, that it is an article of faith to believe the perpetual
virginity of the blessed M a r y , I say that Basil thought otherwise:
for, in his Homily on Christ's nativity, he says that we should not
curiously dispute upon this subject, but that it is enough to know
that she had no children before Christ.
In the tenth place, Bellarmine uses the following objection:
W e must believe under the new Testament that Easter is to be
celebrated on the Lord's day, because the Quartadecimans were
esteemed heretics b y the ancient church. But this is b y no means
evident from scripture. I answer, that there was indeed a great
contention formerly about this matter, but without reason; so that
it is a wonder how there could have been such great and fierce
dissension about a thing so slight and of hardly any importance.
P o p e Victor threatened to excommunicate all the eastern churches
for keeping Easter upon another day than S u n d a y ; but Irenaeus
and many other very holy bishops blamed Victor on that account,
as appears from Eusebius, Lib. v. c. 2 5 . T h e eastern churches said
that they followed John and P h i l i p ; the western, Paul and Peter.
Sozomen, Lib. v n . c. 1 9 , says, that the controversy was settled b y
Polycarp and Victor upon the agreement that each should follow
his own custom and j u d g m e n t ; deeming it " a piece of folly to be
divided on account of customs," evr)Qe<s eQwv eveKev aWyXcov X P'
W 1

^eadai. F r o m whose words we perceive that the observance was

free, and not necessary as Bellarmine says. Perhaps those apostles
[ 3
E z e k . xliv. 2.]
540 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

in the beginning, in compliance with men's weakness, observed

certain days, which afterwards through human error passed into a
law. If John kept the passover with the Jews, as Paul some-
times observed circumcision, does it thence follow either that the
passover is to be celebrated with the Jews, or that any celebration
of the passover is of perpetual obligation? I answer, therefore, in
the first p l a c e : That there was no reason w h y such learned fathers
should have contended so earnestly, or disputed so keenly upon this
subject. It is no point of necessity to celebrate it upon the Lord's
day, or some other day, or upon any day at all. F o r so Socrates,
Lib. v. c. 2 2 , says, that the apostles determined nothing about
festivals: 2KO7TOS /xeu ovv yeyove TOTS aTrocrroXois ov irepl riixe-
pivv eopraariKcZv vo/uLoOerelv: on which point he discourses at
large, and says, that those fathers contended about this matter to
no purpose; since the passover was a t y p e and ceremony, and all
types have now vanished. Secondly, I affirm, that this was in-
deed a v e r y ancient custom, but still f r e e : for such were the
terms of the agreement between Victor and the oriental bishops.
Thirdly, I say, that the Quartadecimans, that is, those who, in
imitation of the Jews, used to celebrate Easter upon the fourteenth
day of the first month, were opposed b y scriptural arguments ;
because Christ rose upon Sunday, and there ought to be a difference
between the Easter of the Jews, and that of the Christians.
In the eleventh place, Bellarmine objects that the baptism of
infants cannot be proved from scripture b y the Lutherans and
Calvinists, though it can b y the catholics. But w h y not b y the
Lutherans and Calvinists ? Because the Lutherans say that there
is need of faith, and that baptism is of no avail without actual
faith in the individual, with which the scriptures do not teach us
that children are endowed. I answer, first: That in asserting
that catholics can prove the baptism of infants from scripture, he
contradicts himself; for he had said before, that the baptism of
infants was an unwritten tradition. Bellarmine in his published
edition uses different language from that of his manuscript L e c -
tures. F o r in the book printed at the Sartorian press his words
are t h e s e : " N o w this the catholics do not, and the Lutherans can-
not, prove out of the scriptures alone." But in the M S . copy t h u s :
" This though the catholics can prove out of scripture, y e t the
Lutherans cannot." Thus he concedes that infant baptism may be
proved from scripture, although not from it alone. Secondly, the
Lutherans alone are concerned with the question about the faith of
IX.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 541

infants. However, I do not think that they say that baptism is of

no avail if infants have not actual faith; but that it is possible
that infants may have faith, although it be not apparent to us.
But let the Lutherans answer for themselves upon this point. It
is enough for us that Bellarmine himself concedes the possibility
of proving infant baptism from scripture.
In the twelfth place, Bellarmine objects something about pur-
gatory. Luther, says he, believed in the existence of purgatory,
as is manifest from his assertions, Art. 17. But he himself affirms
that it cannot be proved from scripture : therefore we should hold
something which is not contained in scripture. I answer : I confess
that Luther used such expressions, and professed belief in purga-
tory. But what sort of belief? I believe it, says he, not as
certain, but as probable. Besides, he says in the same place, that
he believes the existence of purgatory in the same way as he b e -
lieves Thomas Aquinas to be a saint: which I do not think that
he believed very earnestly. Furthermore, he wrote that b o o k at
an early period, when he first began to take pen in hand against
the papists; afterwards he changed his opinion, and determined
otherwise about purgatory.
Bellarmine thinks himself very acute in his thirteenth objection,
supposing that he hath caught us in our own toils. It is t h i s : W e
say that nothing is necessary to be believed which is not contained
in scripture. H e retorts this upon us, and asks us where we find
this written. I answer, in the first p l a c e : W e do not say that
there is no unwritten word of God, but acknowledge that Christ
and his apostles said many things which are not contained in scrip-
ture. Our opinion is t h i s ; that not every particular of all kinds,
but that all the general kinds of particulars, that is to say, all the
principal heads of doctrine, are in scripture. W e say, that what-
ever cannot be unknown without making shipwreck of faith and
salvation, is fully found and explained in the scriptures. Secondly,
this word also is written, that all necessary dogmas may be drawn
from scripture; as we shall prove hereafter. Thirdly,- as to his
assertion, that the ivord mentioned b y Moses, Deut. iv. 2, (where
he says, " T e shall not add to this zuord which I speak unto you,
neither shall y e diminish from it,") is not written, it may be plainly
refuted from verses 8 and 9, where Moses says this word is the
whole law, and commands parents to teach it to their children.
N o w all parents could not know the unwritten law, which we sup-
pose to have been of a mysterious character, and concealed from the
542 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

people. Besides, he divides this law into the ceremonial, judicial,

and m o r a l : therefore he speaks of the written law, as we will shew
more clearly hereafter.

CHAPTER X.

THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN FROM SCRIPTURE, WHEREBY BELLARMINE

PROVES T H E E X I S T E N C E OF SOME T R U E TRADITIONS, ARE
ANSWERED.

I T follows now that (to use his own language) he should prove
de facto the existence of some true traditions. His F I R S T argument
is taken from what hath been already said and argued. If scripture
do not contain all necessary things, then there is some unwritten
w o r d : otherwise God would not have well provided for his church,
if anything necessary were wanting. I a n s w e r : That G o d hath
excellently well and wisely provided for his church b y delivering to
it the scriptures, which contain in themselves a full and perfect b o d y
of doctrine sufficient for every man's salvation. F o r the things
alleged are either contained in scripture, or are not necessary.
T h e SECOND argument is taken from the authority of scripture,
out of which he quotes many testimonies. The first place is John
xvi. 1 2 , where Christ says to his disciples : " I have y e t many
things to say unto you, but y e cannot bear them n o w . " F r o m which
place the Jesuit concludes that there are many unwritten traditions,
because the L o r d said many things which are not written.
I have four replies to this. Firstly, these many things of which
Christ here speaks were no other than what he had previously
taught his apostles, and which required to be repeated and explained,
because the apostles then in consequence of the dulness of their
minds found some difficulty in understanding them. On that a c -
count Christ (John xiv. 26) had promised to them the H o l y Spirit,
who should bring all things to their remembrance: now what were
these " all things ? " W e r e they anything more than he had p r e -
viously taught them ? B y no means; but precisely the same as
he had before said to them. T h e Spirit was to enable them to
recollect what they had heard, to suggest to them, and to recall to
memory what they had forgotten, to explain to them what they had
not understood : $i$aj*ei iravTa KOI vTrofivycrei v/mas iravTa a elirov
VLCIV. Therefore the H o l y Spirit suggested nothing more than Christ
X.] QUESTION T H E SIXTH. 543

had spoken. W e have a clear example of this in John ii. 2 2 .

Christ had said that he could in three days restore and rebuild the
temple, if it were destroyed. T h e disciples did not understand these
words at the time when they were s p o k e n ; but after his resurrection
the evangelist says that they understood that he spake not of the
temple reared b y human hands, but of his own body. Jansenius, a
popish author, commenting upon these words, " I have y e t many
things to say unto y o u , " John xvi. 1 2 , affirms that these " many
t h i n g s " are not "different from what he had previously taught
t h e m , " but only a clearer " explication " of t h e m ; and to this he
appositely applies 1 Cor. iii. 1, " I could not speak unto you as
unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ."
Indeed Christ in that discourse, which is contained in John xv., testi-
fies that he had delivered all things to his disciples, when he s a y s :
" All things, which I have heard of m y Father, I have made known
unto y o u . " Christ had declared all t h i n g s : he had, therefore, r e -
served nothing, nor had the H o l y Spirit any more or any different
instructions to give the disciples than those truths which Christ had
heard from his Father and had announced to t h e m : but these
things required to be repeated again and again, on account of the
ignorance and slowness and sorrow wherewith their minds were at
that time oppressed and encumbered.
Secondly, they cannot deny that the H o l y Spirit taught the
apostles these many things, and indeed all things, and that they
delivered them to the churches, committing them, besides, to books
and written documents, lest they should be consigned to oblivion;
upon which topic we shall speak more at large hereafter. But
what sort of an argument is this which the papists construct in
this fashion,—I have many things to say unto y o u which I will not
say, because y e are not capable of understanding t h e m ; therefore,
all things are not written ? W h o does not perceive that there is
absolutely no conclusiveness in this reasoning ? Where is the middle
term? What the tie b y which these two things are bound t o -
gether into coherence? Surely it is a palpable instance of the
fallacy ignoratio elenchi. For Christ does not say, Y e shall not
write all, or, y e shall not know a l l ; but, I will not now say what
I have to say, because you cannot now bear so many things.
D o e s it therefore follow, that they afterwards did not know or
did not write them all ? B y no means.
Thirdly, H o w do the papists infer that these things which
Christ reserved are their traditions ? Christ reserved many things ;
therefore he reserved what they hold. It is a mere fallacy of the
544 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

consequent. But in order to see that these were not the popish
traditions, let us consider the nature of these latter. A r e they so
abstruse or so sublime, so difficult or so important, so arduous or
so divine,—are they pregnant with such deep and recondite mean-
ing, as to meet the conditions of the c o n t e x t ? N a y , they are so
easy, so almost futile and childish, as not only to be level to the
capacity of the apostles when still imperfectly instructed, but such
as almost any one may understand without an effort. Doubtless,
therefore, Christ was not thinking of them in this place. T h e y are
all mere trifles, such as any the most dull and stupid is capable of
mastering. T h e most mysterious parts of the popish traditions are
those which pertain to the sacraments, the sacrifice of the mass, its
rites, ceremonies, gesticulations, and so forth. Y e t these are of such
a nature that they may be easily learned and understood b y any
ignorant priest, yea, b y a b o y . A r e these the things which e x -
ceeded the reach and perception of the apostles? or were they
traditions about fasting, or about Lent, or feasts, or p r a y e r s ? All
these are of sueh a character as to be intelligible to even the most
stupid of mankind. Therefore these are not the " m a n y t h i n g s "
which Christ reserved, but some greater things than these, which,
although they had often heard them, and although they were extant
in the scriptures, could not be understood without the assistance of
the H o l y Spirit.
Fourthly, the papists, when they draw such an argument from
this place, plainly imitate the ancient heretics. So Augustine tells
us, Trqctat. 9 7 , in Joan., that all the heretics abused these words
of Christ to persuade the people that their figments were those
things which Christ reserved. " All the most foolish heretics,
who would have themselves called Christians, endeavour to colour
their daring figments b y the occasion of this passage in the g o s -
pel, where the Lord says, ' I have y e t many things to say unto
you.' "1
This is no slight blow the learned father deals to the
papists of our t i m e ; whom, in Tractat. 9 6 , he answers t h u s :
" Since Christ was silent, who of us will say they were these
or those things ? or, if he venture to say it, how can he prove it ? "
T h e n he subjoins: " Who is there so vain or rash, as that even
when he hath said what is true, what he pleases, and to whom he
pleases, without any divine testimony, will affirm that these are

p Omnes autem insipientissimi hseretici, qui se Christianos vocari volunt,

audacias figmentorum s u o r u m . . . hac occasionc evangelicse sentential colorare
conantur, ubi Dominus ait, Adhuc multa habeo vobis dicere.—T. rr. p. 975.
Bassan. 1797.]
X.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 545

the things which the L o r d was unwilling to say ? W h o of us can

do this, destitute of the extraordinary authority of a prophet or an
apostle, without incurring the severest blame for his t e m e r i t y ? " 2

W h e r e Augustine plainly condemns the papists as guilty of heretical

rashness and audacity. Then he says, a little after, " But what
those things were which he himself did not tell, it is rash to wish
presumptuously to say." A n d again, almost at the commence­
ment : " W h o of us would now venture to say that he was now able
to tell what they then were not able to b e a r ? On this account
y o u must not expect that I should tell them to y o u . " Augustine
affirms himself to be utterly ignorant what things these w e r e ; but
the papists of our time boast that they know all these things, and
are quite well able to understand them. Augustine bestows three
entire discourses upon these words, wherein he teaches us these
three points: First, that all the heretics were wont to abuse these
words to the support of their figments; secondly, that we should
not curiously inquire what those things were which Christ did not
t e l l ; thirdly, he thinks them greater and more mysterious than
the human mind, even when illuminated b y the H o l y Spirit, can
comprehend or understand, such as secrets of predestination, the
number of the elect, the j o y s of the kingdom of h e a v e n ; in which
third point he was in error. However, the papists must make
good two things in order to prove that this place lends them any
help : first, that those things which Christ then reserved are
now also still unwritten; the other, that they are the same they
boast of, and place amongst their traditions. But these things
they will never be able to prove.

T h e second place of scripture cited b y the Jesuit is contained in

the last chapter of John, in the closing words, where the evangelist
writes t h u s : " There are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which if they should be written one b y one, I suppose that even
the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."
Therefore, says Bellarmine, there are many things unwritten, since
even a single hand can contain all the books that have been written.
I answer, that there are many errors in this argument. Firstly,
John does not there speak of Christ's doctrine, but of his acts, that

[ 2
Quis est t a m vanus aut temerarius, qui c u m dixcrit etiam vera, quibus
voluerit, quae voluerit, sine ullo testimonio divino, affirmet ea esse qua? turn
D o m i n u s dicere n o l u i t ? Quis h o c n o s t r u m faciet, et n o n m a x i m a m c u l p a m
temeritatis incurrat, in quo nec prophetica n e c apostólica excellit auctoritas ?
— O p p . Т . i v . p. 9 7 0 . ]

Г 1
Г WHITAKER.j
3 5
546 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

is, of his signs and miracles. F o r he says, " which Jesus did,"
oaa eiroiricrev, not, " w h i c h he said." This place is therefore irrelevant
to the question before us. F o r w e do not say that all the miracles
of Christ were committed to writing, since they were too many and
great to be contained in any b o o k s : but we affirm that the whole
doctrine of Christ, so far as it is necessary to our salvation, is
written in these books. T o this effect is what we read in John x x .
3 0 , where the evangelist writes t h u s : " And many other signs did
Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this
book." Thus it is manifest, that the evangelist speaks of his signs
and miracles, not of his doctrine. Is, then, anything wanting,
because his miracles are not all written ? B y no m e a n s : for all
Christ's miracles had this scope, to prove the divinity of the Son,
to seal his doctrine, and finally, to shed a lustre round his person.
N o w this " those miracles" which are related in scripture do most
e v i d e n t l y ; nor could these things be more firmly established, even
if all Christ's miracles were described in writing. T h e learned,
however, recognise a certain familiar hyperbole in these words of
John, such as frequently occurs in scripture; as when we read that
gold and silver were as plentiful as stones and earth, that the walls
of a city reached as high as heaven, that the Israelites were like
grasshoppers in the sight of the Canaanites. John here obviates
a scruple which some, who prosecuted their inquiries with a greater
desire to gratify their curiosity than any prudent care for edifica-
tion, might raise : did Christ live so long, and yet do nothing more
than these things which are related b y the evangelists? John
answers, that he did many other things, which are not written.
Y e a , even all the words of Christ are not related one b y one seve-
rally, but only in general. T h e second error is no less glaring.
All things are not written: therefore, all necessary things are not
written. T h e argument is inconsequential. W e confess that all
things are not written, but yet contend that all necessary things
are written. In John x x . 3 0 , 3 1 , " Many other signs," says the
evangelist, " did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are
not written in this b o o k ; but these things are written that ye
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that
believing y e might have life through his name." John therefore
confesses that many other miracles were exhibited b y Christ, and
that they are not written; and yet says, that these things which are
written are sufficient for faith and salvation; for that all who b e -
lieve these will obtain eternal salvation. T h e fathers understood
X.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 547

these words to mean thus, that all necessary things may he derived
from the scriptures. Augustine, Tract. 4 9 in Joann., writes thus
upon this subject: " Though the L o r d Jesus did many things, y e t
all are not written (as this same holy evangelist testifies, that the
L o r d Jesus said and did many things which are not w r i t t e n ) ; but
those things were chosen to be committed to writing, which seemed
sufficient for the salvation of believers ." 1
Therefore, those things
which are written suffice for the salvation of believers. Cyril, Lib.
x i i . in Joan. cap. ult., writes t h u s : " All those things which the
L o r d did are not written, but so much as the writers thought suffi-
cient both for faith and manners; that, clothed with the g l o r y of an
orthodox faith and a virtuous life, we might reach the kingdom of
heaven ." 2
Nothing could be written more plainly. Many things
were omitted, but nothing that was necessary. Therefore the
evangelists and apostles wrote all those things which they thought
sufficient either for manners or for doctrine. T h e third error in
this reasoning is the most absurd. T h e evangelist says that the
things unwritten are innumerable; therefore, if he mean the tra-
ditions of the papists, they must b e infinite, so as that not even
the whole world could contain them. T h e y must, therefore, either
confess their traditions to be infinite, and incapable of being enu-
merated b y themselves, or else concede that this place does not
refer to them.

T h e third passage of scripture cited b y the Jesuit is from the

beginning of Acts i., where Luke writes that Christ conversed with
his disciples during forty days after his resurrection, and said
many things to them, and taught them many things concerning
the kingdom of heaven. Then, doubtless, says Bellarmine, Christ
told his disciples what he would not tell them b e f o r e ; as, for
instance, concerning the sacrifice of the mass, the institution of the
sacraments, the ordination of ministers, &c. &c, which they
delivered to the church. I answer: I readily confess that the
apostles did deliver, with the utmost fidelity, to the church what
they had received from Christ. But I can perceive no consequen-

f Cum multa fecisset Dominus Jesus, non omnia scripta sunt, (sicut idem
1

ipse sanctus evangelista testatur, multa Dominum Christum et dixisse ct

fecisse qua? scripta non sunt;) electa sunt autem qua? scriberentur, qua? saluti
credentium sufficore videbantur.—T. rv. p. 8 1 9 . ]
[ Non igitur omnia qua? Dominus fecit conscripta sunt, sed qua? scri-
2

bentes tarn ad mores quam ad dogmata putarunt sufiicere; ut recta fide et

operibus ac virtute rutilantes ad regnum ccelorum perveniamus.—Cyril. Opp.
col. 2 2 0 . Paris. 1 5 0 8 . ]
35—2
548 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

tial force in this argument. F o r how will he prove the very

thing which he makes the basis of his reasoning,—that it was his
traditions which Christ taught at that time ? H e says that this is
undoubtedly true. But we cannot take his assertion for an argu-
ment : we want reasons, not asseverations. Now where is the
consequence in this reasoning ? Christ, after his resurrection, often
conversed with his disciples, (not indeed conversing with them con-
stantly, but at intervals; for so CEcumenius; he had not, says
that author, crvveyfj SiaTpt/3ijv with them, but StecrTaXfxevtos; and
it is plain from John xx. 26, that he was for eight days together
absent from the disciples,) and spake unto them many things
concerning the kingdom of G o d : therefore, he delivered to them
those things which are not written. I confess that Christ said many
things about the kingdom, but of the popish traditions not a word.
W e shall much better understand what it was he said, b y consult-
ing the scriptures, so that we have no ground for inventing any
unwritten verities. F r o m Matt, xxviii., Mark xvi., John xx. and
xxi., Luke xxiv., and Acts i., we may gather the nature of his
discourses. H e expounded to them the scriptures; he gave them
authority to cast out devils, to retain and remit sins; he attested
his resurrection to t h e m ; he bade them preach the gospel to all
nations, and said other things of the same kind, which we can
read in scripture, so that we have no need of such conjectures as
the papists rely upon in this question.

The second testimony of scripture cited b y the Jesuit is taken

from certain words of the apostle, in 1 Cor. xi., where Paul handles
two questions,—one concerning the manner of prayer, the other
concerning the mode of receiving the eucharist. He commences
(says Bellarmine) both from tradition. The first thus : " I praise
you, brethren, that y e remember all m y instructions." N o w these,
says he, are not written; and to prove it he alleges Chrysos-
tom, Theophylact, Epiphanius, and says that other fathers also
might be alleged. Therefore, there actually are some unwritten
traditions. I a n s w e r : It may be conceded that these things are
nowhere written in scripture; and yet nothing can bo gathered
thence to the prejudice of the defence of our cause. For if the
apostle speak of free institutions and indifferent ceremonies, which
belong not to the class of necessary things, he touches not upon
our subject, nor censures the position which we maintain. For we
do not say that all indifferent ceremonies are expressly delivered
in scripture (as how men ought to deport themselves in the congre-
X.] QUESTION THE SIXTH.

gation, and the like), which, we are well assured are various and
mutable, according to the change of times and persons. We
contend not, I say, about indifferent ceremonies, which appertain
merely to external polity and order, but about necessary doctrine.
This is perpetual; those are not perpetual, but suited to the times.
But let us grant that necessary doctrine is here denoted b y the
term ' t r a d i t i o n ; ' and indeed, for m y own part, I think that the
whole teaching delivered b y the apostle is meant, because he says,
or* iravra fiov /xe^vtjaOe, and afterwards embraces the eucharist
under the term 'tradition : ' thus he speaks of the whole sum of his
teaching, wherein some things were necessary and perpetual, some
things left free, which (specifically, though not generally) might
be altered and changed. For, in general, all things must always
be referred to the ends of decency and edification. W h a t then
follows from all this ? W e confess that the whole doctrine of the
apostle was not then written, when that epistle to the Corinthians
was written : does it follow from this that it is not even now
w r i t t e n ? Surely, b y no force of this place or argument. We
allow, indeed, that all things were not written immediately; but
we say that afterwards, when all the sacred books were published,
all things were abundantly contained in them. If, then, this place
be understood of doctrine, we say that it is now fully written,
although it was not so t h e n ; if of indifferent ceremonies, it is still
farther from touching us. F o r these may be changed, provided
only the reason and end be preserved; nor are they necessary, as is
plain from the place before us. F o r the apostle speaks of that
modesty which women ought to observe in the congregation, and
of that decency also which is required in men when they frequent
religious meetings and assemblies. H e desires men to pray with
uncovered, women with covered heads .• which injunctions are not
of a perpetual obligation; for they are not now observed even b y
the papists themselves; so as to make it plain that all churches are
not bound to the same ceremonies.

But, says Bellarmine, the apostle commences the second ques-

tion also, which concerns the manner of receiving the eucharist,
from the topic of tradition, t h u s : " I delivered unto y o u that
which I also received of the L o r d . " So that in these words he
praises them for holding tradition. I answer: Does it, therefore,
follow that something unwritten is necessary ? B y no means. For
immediately after the apostle tells us what that was which he had
received of the Lord, and had delivered to the Corinthians, " t h a t
550 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

the L o r d Jesus Christ ia the same night," &c., which not only he
writes in this place, but three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and
L u k e , have also written. This, therefore, which Paul delivered is
assuredly not unwritten. But there is another place in that
chapter, which the Jesuit presses v e r y earnestly: " T h e rest will I
set in order when I c o m e . " ' W h a t it was he settled, says he, is
nowhere found written. Catholics justly think, that he not only
settled rites and ceremonies, but also delivered matters of greater
importance, such as concerning the ordination of the clergy, the
sacrifice of the altar, the matter and form of the other sacraments;
nor can the heretics shew the contrary.' I answer, in the first
place, that the apostle speaks of comparatively slight matters,
namely, of some outward rites and ceremonies appertaining to
order and decency, as is indicated by the word SiaTa^oftai.
Chrysostom seems to give no bad explanation of these w o r d s : he
supposes, that by this term either some clearer explanation of what
was written is denoted, or some matters of slight moment and
importance which did not require to be pressed. Thus Chrysostom
understands TC« \0t7rd, "the rest," to mean either the clearer
elucidation of these same things, or else some other matters, which
were of no necessity and no great weight. But the papists think
their greatest articles, the sacrifice of the altar, the form and
matter of many sacraments, and other very important things of the
same kind, are here denoted. But secondly, let us grant that they
were necessary things which the apostle promises that he would
set in order when he came. A r e they nowhere w r i t t e n ? And
if they be not written in this epistle, are they therefore
nowhere to be found in other passages of scripture? Thirdly, if
they be written neither here nor elsewhere, does it follow that
they were those things which they count amongst their traditions ?
Our adversaries (says Bellarmine) cannot in any way shew the
c o n t r a r y : but it would have been more reasonable if he had shewn
what he maintains. And y e t I think it quite possible to shew
what he thinks impossible to be shewn. I profess myself able to
shew it, not b y uncertain suspicions, but b y the clear testimony of
scripture. For if those things be here understood which the
papists rate so h i g h , — t h e sacrifice of the altar, the ordination of the
c l e r g y , institution, and such like, then some necessary things were
not delivered to the Corinthians when this epistle was written.
F o r the papists say that these articles of theirs are necessary in
the highest degree. N o w all necessary things had been abundantly
X.] QUESTION T H E SIXTH. 551

delivered b y the apostle to the Corinthians, before he sent this

epistle to them, as is plain from 1 Cor. i. 5, where he says that
they were enriched " i n everything," ev -KCIVTI Xoy<o /ecu waari
•yvwaei : and from chap. x v . 1, 2, where he writes, " I declare
unto y o u , brethren, the gospel which I preached unto y o u , which
also y e received, and wherein y e stand, b y which also y e are
saved if y e continue therein, & c . " Whence it is plain that the
apostle had before this delivered to them the whole complete b o d y
of christian doctrine. T h e papists must, therefore, either deny
that their traditions are necessary; or must say, in spite of Paul's
most express assertion, that all necessary things were not delivered
to the Corinthians. Although therefore it is preposterous and
unjust in Bellarmine to require us to prove any thing here, when
he himself cannot do it, and though it is a violation of the laws of
disputation; y e t we have complied with his wishes, and have plainly
proved the contrary. Thus we see the papists have no grounds
for " justly thinking" that it is their traditions which the apostle
here tacitly implies. But mark, upon what a noble foundation
rest the popish dogmas, and those not the slighter ones, but the
most weighty of all, the sacrifice of the altar, the form and matter
of the sacraments;—forsooth upon that here touched b y Bellar-
mine in the words, " T h e Catholics justly think." This is to
suspect, to guess, to w i s h ; not to believe, to prove, to argue.
Teach, shew, demonstrate to me, that these things were instituted
b y P a u l . — Y o u cannot do it, and y o u own y o u cannot do it.

The Jesuit's third testimony is taken from 2 Thess. ii. 1 5 ,

where the apostle says, apa ovv, aSeXcpol, anjKere: " Therefore,
brethren, stand fast," hold firm, keep your ground, teal Kparelre
Tas TrapaSoaeis, " and hold the traditions which y e have been
taught, whether b y our word or epistle." F r o m these words, say
our adversaries, it is plain that all things are not written: and
indeed the papists find no more plausible passage than this in
scripture. I r e p l y : Various answers are given to this testimony.
Some suppose that Paul speaks only of certain external rites and
ceremonies of no great m o m e n t : but the scope of the epistle and
the context refutes that opinion. F o r Paul, having mentioned the
horrible devastation which was to b e occasioned b y the coming of
antichrist, immediately subjoins, " Stand fast, and hold the tradi-
tions, & c . " Therefore his doctrine is rather to be understood as
designated b y the term ' traditions.' The apostle Paul had founded
the church of the Thessalonians, and had both taught them orally,
552 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

and written an epistle to them. N o w , therefore, he exhorts them

to hold fast his whole teaching, as well what he had when present
delivered b y word of mouth, as what he had committed to writing.
So that some things were delivered in discourse orally, and others
written in an epistle. Does not then this place establish tradi-
tions? N a y , our writers have returned a twofold answer to this
testimony. First, that the things which Paul delivered orally
were not different from, but absolutely the same with, those which
were written. Those who adopt this answer explain the passage
t h u s : Hold the traditions which y e have been taught, both orally
and b y our epistle. But the Jesuit opposes two arguments to
this answer. First, he says that the apostle uses a disjunctive
particle, e i r e , thereby indicating that the things which he had d e -
livered, and those which he had written, were not the same, but
different. I answer, that the particle e'lre hath not always a dis-
junctive, but sometimes a conjunctive force, as 1 Cor. xiii. 8 : e'lre
Se irpocpijreiai KctTapyqdtjaovrai' e'lre y\ioo~o~ai, Trauaovrai' e'lre
yvwcjis, KaTapyrjQricrerai, which words are to be thus r e n d e r e d :
" Both prophecies shall fail, and tongues shall cease, and knowledge
shall f a i l : " and of a similar kind are other instances in scripture;
so that nothing can be necessarily gathered from the force of the
particle. But the Jesuit brings forward another objection, namely,
that then the former epistle must needs contain all necessary d o c -
trine, which, says he, it does not, nay, not the hundredth part of
necessary doctrine, as is manifest. I a n s w e r : I acknowledge the
justice of this reasoning. I confess both that the former epistle
does not contain the whole doctrine of the gospel and all things
necessary to salvation, and that many other things beside are r e -
quisite; as also that the matters delivered orally were different
from those which Paul wrote. This answer, therefore, on our
side, is invalid, and not sufficiently clear, although many learned
men of our party acquiesce in it. W e must, consequently, seek
another reply. I answer, then : That the canon of the new T e s -
tament was not y e t published and settled, when Paul wrote this
epistle to the Thessalonians ; yea, I maintain, that no books of the
new Testament were then written, excepting only the gospel of
M a t t h e w ; and, if we believe Irenajus , these two epistles to the
1

Thessalonians were more ancient even than the gospel of Matthew:

[ } ' O plv bfj Mardatos . . . . ypatpfjv ct-qveyiccv elayyeXtov, roO Herpov KUI TOO
TlavXov ev PcSpij eiayyeXiCfipivcav Kai BepeXioivrcov rfjv €KKXrjaiav.—Lib. III.
c. 1.]
X.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 553

for he says that Matthew wrote his gospel whilst Paul and Peter
were preaching the gospel and founding the church at Rome,
which was more than twenty years after Christ's ascension. Now
this epistle was written seventeen or eighteen years after Christ's
ascension, whilst Paul was teaching at Athens. I t is therefore in-
consequential reasoning to s a y : W h e n Paul wrote to the Thessa-
lonians, all necessary things were not written; therefore not afterT.
w a r d s : or, The Thessalonians had not then received the doctrine
complete, as being without the other books of the scriptures of the
new Testament; therefore we, who have all the books, have not
the doctrine entire: or, Paul did not write all necessary things in
this epistle; therefore neither did all the others. Paul in this
place mentions both traditive and written teaching, and that justly
considering the t i m e : but we have now more books than those
Thessalonians h a d ; and therefore it does not follow that all ne-
cessary things are not found in the canon as now published. The
Jesuit makes two assaults upon this most reasonable reply of ours.
First, he says that something was proposed b y Paul to the
Thessalonians, as namely, the time of antichrist's coming, which is
not contained in the rest of scripture. H e proves this from
2 Thess. ii. 5 ; and he confirms it out of Augustine, cle Civit. Dei,
Lib. x x . c. 1 9 , where he endeavours to make that father say that,
2

although the Thessalonians knew this, yet we do not, as having

never heard the apostle. I answer: That he abuses the words
both of scripture, and of Augustine. For, if the apostle had
taught the Thessalonians what day or what year antichrist would
come, which is what he maintains, they would not have expected
Christ's second advent to judgment to take place suddenly and
soon, as it is apparent from this second chapter that they did.
A n d although Paul may have said something to them about the
coming of antichrist, y e t it does not follow that he had described
or predicted any thing of the particular time when he was to come.
So that those words, in the fifth verse, " Remember y e not that
when I was with you I told you these t h i n g s ? " — m u s t be understood
of the whole preceding series and chain of subjects (namely, that an-
tichrist should be revealed, that he should sit in the temple of God,

[ 2
E t n u n c quid detineat scitis, id est, quid sit in m o r a , qua; causa sit
dilationis ejus, ut reveletur in suo t e m p o r e , scitis: q u o n i a m scire illos dixit,
aperte hoc dicere noluit. E t i d e o n o s , qui nescimus quod illi sciebant,
pervenire c u m l a b o r e ad id q u o d sensit apostolus cupimus, n e c v a l e m u s . —
p . 6 8 9 . Basil. 1 5 1 1 . ]
554 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

that he should exalt himself above all that is called God, & c ) , not
of any certain or precise date of his coming, which the apostle had
never assigned. But be it so, let it be true, that Paul delivered
to the Thessalonians some certain day, month or year, when the
coming of antichrist was to take p l a c e : it will then follow that
this is a tradition. N o w if it be a tradition, then the papists are
able to shew the time when antichrist shall come, since they say
that they possess all the apostolical traditions. But this they
cannot d o : yea, they deny that any one can do it. A s to A u g u s -
tine, Bellarmine abuses his words also most disgracefully. For
Augustine does not say that the Thessalonians knew the time when
antichrist was to c o m e ; but he says that they knew what it was
that delayed his coming, which we are ignorant o f : upon which
point we raise no question. F o r whether the impediment delaying
the coming of antichrist at that time were the circumstance of the
Boman empire being still safe and entire, or the gospel being not
y e t preached in the whole world, we may be entirely ignorant of
it without injury to our faith. Augustine therefore says nothing
against our defence.
T h e Jesuit answers, in the second place, that, even though it
were conceded that all is written in other books, y e t this would be
no objection to believing in traditions also. For (says he) the
apostle does not say, I promise that I or the other apostles will
commit all the rest to writing, but, " h o l d the traditions." I an-
swer : Although Paul had never written or made such a promise,
does it follow that all the rest were not written b y other apostles ?
B y no means. F o r they wrote according as they were commanded
b y the H o l y Ghost. W e confess that many things are found in
other scriptures, which were not then committed to writing, con-
cerning the birth, death, resurrection, future advent of Christ, and
the whole mystery of our redemption b y him accomplished. These
things the apostle enjoins to be held no less than any of those
which he had himself written, because no less necessary in them-
selves. H o w does he prove to us that, if these had been then fully,
yea, abundantly set forth in writing, the apostle would have made
any mention of traditions? But it was because he knew that
these things had not yet been written, that he admonished the
Thessalonians to hold fast the traditions. However, since he can-
not prove what he desires from scripture, he brings in the fathers,
Basil, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, to whose testimony we
will give a satisfactory answer b y and b y . Meanwhile to these
X.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 555

fathers we oppose Ambrose's commentary upon these words, who

says, that b y tradition in this place is meant the evangelical doc-
trine or tradition of the g o s p e l , which is abundantly explained in
1

the scriptures.
Although what we have already said is sufficient to explain
this passage, yet, in order to make our reply firmer and fuller,
we will subjoin three observations. First, we bid them prove the
force of this a r g u m e n t : " Some things are not written: therefore
these are the v e r y points which they boast of and obtrude upon
us." This they can never p r o v e ; and y e t they must demonstrate
this before they can establish their position. Secondly, if from this
mode of speaking ( " H o l d fast the traditions which y e have been
taught, whether b y our word or epistle") it follows that some neces-
sary things are not written, then from the same form of speech
it will also follow that some necessary things were not orally d e -
livered : whereas they will have it that all necessary truths are
contained in tradition. N o w let them choose which they please.
Thirdly, I inquire to whom the apostle delivered those things which
they maintain not to have been written? Certainly, if they wish
to be consistent with themselves, they must needs reply that they
were not delivered to all, but only to certain persons; namely, to
the wise and perfect. F o r so Canus, Lib. in. c. 3, Fundament. 4,
proves from Hilary and Origen, that Moses did not write the more
secret exposition of his law, but delivered it orally to his servant
J o s h u a : and thence he infers that the apostles also acted in the
same way, and committed their more secret doctrines only to a few
wise persons. But it is manifest that those things which the apostle
here mentions were delivered to all the Thessalonians : for the
apostle addresses them all, when he says, " Keep the t r a d i t i o n s ; "
so as to make it impossible for us to understand in this place cer-
tain secret traditions delivered only to a few persons. From this
it is plain that this place does not, as Bellarmine affirms, remain in
its strength. W e have already examined three testimonies of
scripture which the Jesuit considers the strongholds of his cause.
N o w follows the fourth.

The Jesuit's fourth testimony is derived from certain injunc-

tions given b y Paul to his disciple Timothy. H e proposes three
injunctions; the first of which is contained in 1 Tim. vi. 2 0 ,
" Keep that which is committed unto thee," or the deposit. Under
the name deposit (says Bellarmine) is denoted not the scripture,

f 1
I n traditione evangelii standum . . . m o n e t . — O p p . T . nr. p . 5 6 7 . Paris.
1603.]
556 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

but a treasury of unwritten doctrine, as some of the fathers have

explained i t : therefore, there are some unwritten traditions. I
answer : If I chose to go through all the various interpretations of
this place, I might easily stop the adversary's mouth. Cardinal
Cajetan, a man of undoubted learning, would have us understand
b y this " d e p o s i t " the flock committed to Timothy, which Paul com-
mands him to keep diligently. W h i c h exposition overturns the
Jesuit's argument. But I do not think that that interpretation
suits the passage, and therefore will not use it. Let it be, then,
that it denotes, as he desires, a treasure of sound and catholic doc-
trine : what will follow from that ? Does it follow that all necessary
doctrine is not written ? H o w can Bellarmine join together things
so distant as such a conclusion and such premises ? I, for my part,
do not think that the scripture is meant b y the term " deposit," nor
does any of our divines so explain the passage; but we understand
b y " t h e deposit" the sound and catholic doctrine itself. N o w , then,
such an argument as the following is inconsequential: Paul exhorts
Timothy to preserve sound doctrine ; therefore, it cannot be wholly
derived from the scriptures. If I were to advise a person to keep
fast the catholic faith, and beware of popish errors, would he imme-
diately suppose that that faith could not be derived from scripture ?
Nothing less. But, says Bellarmine, if scripture be meant b y " the
deposit" (which none of our divines assert), it is much better kept
in libraries and papers. From which answer we may see the pro-
fane temper of the Jesuit. Is scripture then indeed better kept in
libraries than in the hearts of m e n ? It is thus, forsooth, that
they are wont to keep the scriptures, not in their minds, but in
their chests. Paul, however, is not speaking of the external custody
of books, but of that internal keeping, when the scripture is laid
up in the hearts of the faithful. Here he cites certain fathers, to
whom I will only oppose Tertullian . H e , in his Prescriptions
1

against heretics, desires us to understand b y the term " deposit," in

this place, no remote or secret doctrine, but that which was written
" a b o v e and b e l o w " b y the apostle: so that, if we believe Tertul-
lian, no other doctrine is here meant but that which is delivered b y

f 1
Q u o d h o c depositum e s t ? . . . . a n illius denuntiationis, d e quo ait, H a n c
denuntiationem c o m m e n d o a p u d t e , flliole T i m o t h e e ; i t e m illius praecepti, d e
quo ait, D e n u n t i o tibi ante D e u m , & c Q u o d a u t e m praeceptum, et quae
denuntiatio ? E x supra et infra scriptis intelligere erat, n o n nescio quid s u b -
ostendi h o c dicto d e r e m o t i o r e doctrina, sed potius inculcari d e n o n a d m i t -
t e n d a alia p r a t e r earn q u a m audierat ab ipso, e t p u t o , c o r a m multis, inquit,
testibus.—c. 25.]
X.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 557

the apostle in this same letter. However, I think myself, that not
only is sound doctrine here meant and denoted b y the term " d e -
posit," but also the office committed to Timothy, and all the gifts
of the Spirit bestowed upon him and necessary to the due discharge
of that office.
The second place cited b y the Jesuit in this fourth testimony
is 2 Tim. i. 13, where Paul thus addresses T i m o t h y : uirorvTrmo-iv
'^Xe
vyicuvovTOiv Xoywv, wv Trap e/uov r^Kovcras, ev Triarei KGU
ayarrii Trj ev Xpio-rql 'Irjcrov: that is, " H a v e a form or model
of sound words which thou hast heard of me, with faith and love,
which is in Christ Jesus." I answer, that vTroTviraxris here denotes
an express image shining forth either in the matter or the form.
T h e apostle, therefore, means that Timothy should make no change
in the matter, or even in the form, of the apostolic doctrine. But
can any thing in favour of tradition be gathered from this place ?
Absolutely nothing. For the principal heads of those same words
are proposed b y Paul in that same place, and are the two things
TT'HJTIS and ayairt], " faith and l o v e . " Both of these may be
drawn from scripture. For, firstly, the whole of love depends
upon those two precepts, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart," & c , and " t h y neighbour as t h y s e l f ; " upon which
subject Christ discourses, Matth. xxii. 3 7 , and in verse 4 0 says, that
" upon these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
From the law and the prophets, therefore, all things may be
derived which concern love. The same is also to be determined
concerning faith, since it hath no larger extension than charity.

The third place cited b y the Jesuit in this fourth testimony is

contained in 2 Tim. ii. 2, where Paul thus addresses T i m o t h y :
" Those things which thou hast heard of me before many witnesses,
the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to instruct
others also." These (says Bellarmine) must needs be understood
of traditions; for if the apostle had meant the scripture, he
would not have said, " what thou hast heard of me before many wit-
nesses," but, what I have written. I a n s w e r : Bravely reasoned !
T h e apostle in these words commends sound doctrine to Timothy,
and that no other than what is contained in the scriptures. But,
in the meanwhile, let Bellarmine shew the consequence of his argu-
ment : " What thou hast heard of me commit to faithful men :
therefore these things can nowhere be found in scripture." The
apostle would not have that sound doctrine deposited, and in a
manner buried in books, but set forth before all men; so as that not
558 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

only should Timothy hold it himself, but commend and communi-

cate it to others who might be the masters of many more. So also,
in the present day, there are learned divines who can teach other
m e n ; but does it, therefore, follow that they do not derive their
lessons from the scriptures? Nothing, therefore, can be weaker
than this argument.
The Jesuit's fifth testimony is taken from 2 John, verse 1 2 ,
where John writes thus : " Having many things to write unto you,
I would not write with paper and i n k ; but I trust shortly to see
y o u , and to speak with y o u face to face, that our j o y may be f u l l : "
and from 3 John, verses 13 and 14, where he writes in almost the
same words : " I have many things to write, but will not write unto
y o u with ink and p e n ; but I hope to see y o u shortly, and to speak
with y o u face to face." Therefore, says Bellarmine, John said many
things to the disciples which are nowhere found in the scriptures.
I answer : I confess that all things are not found in those very briel
epistles of J o h n ; but are all necessary things therefore not found in
the rest of the books of scripture, numerous and large as they are ?
W h o can be so mad as to argue from so small a part of scripture to
the w h o l e ? Surely this is just as if one were to say, that because
a finger is not the whole b o d y , therefore the nature of the whole
b o d y does not consist in all its parts. John says that he chose tc
put off many things till his arrival. W h a t were these ? Doubtless,
no other than those which are most plainly proposed in the scrip-
tures, as namely, concerning the nature and benefits of Christ, the
mysteries of our religion, the way to life and salvation, or othei
things of the same kind.
These are all the testimonies of scripture cited b y the Jesuit,
which he hath borrowed from Canus in the end of the third
chapter of his third book.
But the same "Canus, in the sixth chapter of the third book
hath other testimonies, to which also we will reply in order. He
snatches up one from 1 Cor. xi. 16, where Paul uses these words
" If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nei-
ther the churches of G o d . " So great, says Canus, is the force o!
ecclesiastical tradition, that he refutes b y custom and the traditior
of the church those whom neither scripture nor natural reason coulc
refute. W h e n c e he concludes that tradition is far more prevailing
than either scripture or natural reason. F o r the apostle had before
proved that women should pray with covered heads b y the voice
both of scripture and of nature: then follow these words, as if he
X.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 559

had said, If these things cannot prevail with y o u , if y e are not

moved b y these, y e t the institution and practice of the church and
tradition ought to have great weight with y o u . I a n s w e r : Such
talk befits a declaimer better than a divine. It is surely strange
that so great a man should fall into so egregious an hallucination.
T h e apostle does not say, If y e despise scripture and nature, I pre-
sent you. with the custom of the church; but he says, that the church
hath no such custom as that any man should be contentious, but
rather that all should preserve the common peace. But if any one
b e contentious, he is a stranger to the church of God. The apostle
does not argue as this man pretends, I will refute him who
contends against scripture and nature, that women should pray with
heads uncovered, b y the practice of the c h u r c h ; but he says, that
the churches of God have no custom of allowing any man to be con-
tentious. Thus he represses contentious spirits b y the authority of
the church, and does not confirm the dogma b y mere custom. N o w
that custom of avoiding contention in the church is abundantly sanc-
tioned b y testimonies of scripture.
T h e second passage of scripture cited b y Canus is contained in
1 Tim. vi. 3, where Paul writes t h u s : " If any man teach any
other doctrine, and consent not to the wholesome words of our
L o r d Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according unto
godliness, he is proud," &c. Paul, says Canus, speaks of oral dis-
courses, not of the scriptures. I answer : If Canus desires to prove
that the scriptures are here excluded, because Paul mentions words
only and not writings, then b y the same reason traditions also are
excluded, because they too are written somewhere. But b y words
Paul means sound doctrine; not because it is not written, but be-
cause it ought not to be hidden and buried in books, but brought
forth and set in the light, and held in the mind, the tongue and the
lips, and communicated and published to others.
T h e third passage of scripture cited b y Canus is found in
Galat. i. 9, where Paul writes t h u s : " If any one preach unto you
any other gospel than that y e have received, let him be Anathema."
Paul says (remarks Canus) " t h a t y e have received" not, " t h a t I
have written." Upon this place we will speak hereafter; mean-
while I a n s w e r : W h e r e is the consequence in such an argument as
this, T h e y received ; therefore they did not receive it in a written
form ? Or again, Since they received many things orally, there-
fore we also now hold many things on no other security than
tradition ?
Our Rhemists, in order to shew their great skill in scripture,
560 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

propose some new testimonies. First, they allege 2 Tim. iii. 8,

upon which place they write, that Paul received the names of the
two magicians there mentioned from tradition : and they say that
there are similar traditions of the names of the three kings who
came out of the East to adore Christ, and who are elsewhere called
b y them Melchior, Gaspar, and B a l t h a z a r ; a similar tradition of 1

the name of the penitent thief, whom they call I s m a s ; and of the 2

name of the soldier who pierced Christ's side, whom they pretend
to have been called Longinus . 3
This name was doubtless given
him aVo rij9 X o 7 ^ s , that is, from the lance b y which Christ
was transpierced. They pretend that he afterwards died a
martyr: and many traditions of the same stamp have been
invented in later generations. I answer: T h o u g h we should grant
that the apostle knew the names of the magicians b y tradition, yet
the knowledge of these was not necessary to salvation, any more
than it is necessary to our salvation to know the names of those
three k i n g s : for if this had been necessary, the evangelists would
not have been silent upon that subject. L e t the Rhemists bring
us, if they can, any necessary dogma of the church, which stood
upon the foot of mere tradition. It is not to be doubted but that
some things were received b y tradition. From this source was
derived a great portion of the genealogy which Matthew and L u k e
give in their account of the birth of Christ; which indeed ought to
be thought much more necessary than any knowledge of the names
of kings or wizards. Y e t who will refuse to confess that the faith
might be safe without it, provided only we assent to the scriptures
which establish that Christ was descended b y a regular succession
from Abraham and David ? Though, indeed, that very accurate
genealogy drawn out b y the evangelists contributes much to the
stability of this.faith. A n d whatever necessity is in the thing it-
self, it may now be learned from the scriptures. F o r the names of
Christ's ancestors are now published, and Paul hath indicated who
those distinguished magicians were, who so boldly resisted Moses.
• T h e y allege also Acts xx. 3 5 . T h e r e (they say) a saying of Christ
[ x
Legends assign various names: Apellius, A m e r u s , and Damascus;
Magalath, Galgalath, and Saracin; Ator, Sator, and Paratoras. See
C a s a u b o n . c. B a r o n . E x e r c . xi. 1 0 : who observes in a M S . n o t e o f t h e c o p y
b e f o r e alluded t o , that t h e m o s t correct order a n d o r t h o g r a p h y is, Baltasar,
Melchior, Jaspar.]
[ 2
I n the g o s p e l of N i c o d e m u s ( c . x. a p . F a b r i c , c o d . A p o c r . T . I. p . 2 6 0 )
t h e p e n i t e n t thief is called D i m a s , and t h e other G e s t a s . Gerard Vossius
writes G i s m a s and D i s m a s . W h i t a k c r , I suppose, m e a n t to write Dismas.]
L 3
Ibid. p. 2 5 9 ; where see Fabricius' n o t e , as also T . n . p. 4 7 2 . ]
X.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 561

is recited b y Paul, which is nowhere found in the gospels : " It is

more blessed to give than to receive." I a n s w e r : I confess that
this is nowhere expressly and in so many words written in the
g o s p e l s ; but y e t something is found in the gospels which comes to
the same thing. For the precept in Luke xvi. 9, to " make to
ourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that they
may receive us into everlasting habitations," is to the same effect as
this sentence. So also, Luke vi. 3 8 , " Give, and it shall be given
unto y o u : " and in the same verse, " Lend, hoping for nothing
again." There are scattered throughout scripture many similar
expressions, so as to leave no necessity for going in quest of
unwritten traditions. Besides, I say, that though all Christ's
sayings are not written, y e t all that were necessary a r e ; so that
no injury hence accrues to our faith.
They allege, besides, 1 Cor. xv. 3, where Paul says to the
Corinthians, " I delivered unto you that which I also r e c e i v e d ; "
and they will have it that their traditions are established b y this
expression. I a n s w e r : But they ought to have subjoined the
sequel, namely, " That Christ died for our sins, according to the
scriptures, and that he was buried, and rose again the third day,
according to the scriptures." Let them deliver likewise doctrines
according to the scriptures, and we will receive their traditions.
N o w when Paul so frequently repeats in this place, according to
the scriptures, he means it to be understood that he had drawn
from the scriptures whatever he had delivered to the Corinthians.
Fourthly, they allege something from the epistle of Jude, ver. 9,
in favour of traditions, where Jude proves that we must not speak
evil of magistrates b y the example of Michael, of which he could
know nothing but b y tradition. I a n s w e r : I confess this to be most
t r u e : but y e t we learn from other places of scripture also, that it is an
impious thing to speak ill, yea, or even to think ill of the magistrate.
Finally, wherever the term TvapaSocns occurs, the Rhemists
seize upon it as an argument for tradition. But it will not be
necessary to pursue their other testimonies in detail.
Other papists have still fresh testimonies. Lindanus seeks to
establish the authority of unwritten traditions from Jeremiah xxxi.
3 2 , 3 3 ; where the prophet speaks of that new covenant which
God would make with his people, which he predicts should not
be the same as the old covenant which he made with the Jews,
because that was written upon tables of stone; whereas the new
covenant should be written upon men's hearts: therefore, says he,

[WHITAKER.J
562 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

the evangelical doctrine is written not in books, but on the heart.

I a n s w e r : It is not conclusive to say, I will write upon the heart,
therefore, not upon tables: for it is written both upon tables and
in the heart. But t h e difference between the old and the new
covenant is founded upon this, that most of the ancients had scarce
any thing but the material tables, and had not the force of the
covenant inscribed upon their hearts; whereas he predicts that in
the new Testament there will be far ampler gifts of the H o l y Spirit,
and many more who shall have the covenant of God impressed
upon their hearts. T h e place must be understood as speaking
comparatively, not absolutely or simply.
So far, then, concerning the second argument of our oppo-
nents, which is founded upon the authority of scripture.

CHAPTER XI.
BELLARMINE's THIRD ARGUMENT IS OBVIATED.

N o w follows Bellarmine's third argument, which depends en-

tirely upon the testimony and authority of general councils: for
we make no account of the decretal epistles of certain popes. He
proposes three councils: the first Nicene, the second Nicene, and
that of Constantinople, which was the eighth general.
A s to the first council of Nice, he says that Theodoret, Lib. i.
c. 8, writes plainly, that Arius was condemned in that council b y
unwritten tradition: for, says he, even the Arians themselves alleged
some things from scripture; therefore, they were condemned not
b y scripture, but b y traditive doctrine. I answer, in the first place :
W h a t sort of an argument is t h i s ? The Arians alleged many
things from scripture; therefore they could not be refuted out of
scripture. I f this be a firm inference, then certainly no heretics
can be refuted out of scripture, since all heretics allege scripture.
But the Arians wickedly wrested the scriptures into an improper
sense; whose impious expositions the fathers assembled in that
council refuted out of the scriptures; as is plain from Socrates,
Sozomen, and Athanasius, who was himself present in the Nicene
council, and disputed largely against Arius out of scripture. But
perhaps the Jesuit argues upon the supposition that the Arians
could allege more passages in their favour from the scripture, than
the catholic fathers could bring against them, and that therefore
the catholics could not safely trust the scriptures. But they could
XI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 563

not produce more passages. N o r y e t is it always h e who can heap

together most sentences of scripture, that maintains the justest
c a u s e : for he who brings one sentence of scripture rightly under-
stood, hath a better cause than h e who abuses a great number
of scripture passages. Athanasius, for his part, refutes the Arians
out of scripture, and the other fathers trusted more to scripture
than to tradition. Otherwise Augustine, c. Maximin. Avian. Lib.
H I . c. 14, would never have recalled him from councils to the
scriptures. I n that passage is the celebrated s a y i n g : " Neither
should I allege the council of Nice to y o u , nor y o u that of Rimini
to me, as if we could prejudge the question. I am not bound b y
the authority of the latter, nor y o u b y that of the former. Let
the contest be matter with matter, cause with cause, reason with
reason, on the foot of scriptural authorities, which are witnesses
not peculiar to either side, but common to us b o t h . " 1
Augustine
therefore trusted most to the scriptures in this question. Besides,
Constantine (as Theodoret relates, L i b . i. c. 7 ) plainly says that
the doctrine of the H o l y Ghost is written, avdypairTov. These
are his w o r d s : " T h e books of the evangelists and apostles, as
also the oracles of the old prophets, plainly teach us, what w e
should think of divine subjects. Laying aside, then, all factious
contention, let us resolve the points of inquiry b y the testimony of
the inspired w o r d s : e/c TWV OeairveuoTwv Xoywv XafBw/xev TWV
fyTovne'vwv TY)V Xvcrtv ." 2
So that Constantine exhorts the fathers
of that council to determine this whole controversy out of the
books of the prophets and apostles. Secondly, I reply, that his
assertion that Theodoret expressly writes that the Arians were
condemned b y unwritten tradition, is untrue. F o r Theodoret writes
that a writing of Eusebius of Nicomedia was convicted of open blas-
phemy b y the scriptures. His words are these: avvriyayov e/c TWV
ypa<pwv, they collected out of the scriptures testimonies against
Eusebius and the other A r i a n s . 3
I confess, indeed, that the term
o/wovo-ios was proved orthodox out of antiquity, as having been
used 130 years before b y bishops who then flourished in the church,

[i Lib. II. c. xiv. §. 3 . p. 8 4 8 . Opp. T. x. Bassan. 1797.]

[2
. , . TOV Travayiov rrvevpaTos rfjv didao-KaXiav dvdypaitTov exovTas. ei/ay-
•yeXiKtu yap, (prjo-i, /3[/3Xoi Kal drroo'ToXiKal Kal TWV naXaiiov Trpotf)r]Tav Ta BeOTri-
o~para aa<p£>s rjpds d xpy ivtpl TOV Beiov (ppoveiv eWatSeuovcrt. Trjv 7roXtp.07rot.bv
ovv dTreXaaavTes epiv, e< rav Beowvdo-Tcov, K. T. e. Lib. I. 7.]
[ s
a i m ; Tav 'Apeiavav IJ b~ie(p$appevt) Sidvoia. a X X a K a l ivrav&a ol iTsiaKOTtoi,
Becopt]o~avT€s eKtivcnv TO 8oXwv, avvrjyayov CK TWV ypacpmv TO dnavyaapa, rt}v r e
wrjyijv, K. T. i. Ibid. C. 8.]
36—2
 564 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

since the Arians slanderously asserted it to be a new word. The

torm, w e confess, is not found in scripture; y e t the meaning of the
term is found there. " T h e Arians," says Theodoret, in that same
place, " were condemned by the words of scripture rightly un-
derstood," ¿yypá(pwi> fi€T ev<Te/3eías evvoovfxévwv Xé^ewv KCIT-

eKplOtjcrav. W h a t could be written more expressly ? H e adds too

that the words of scripture alleged against the Arians had the same
force and meaning as the Homoiisios,—ravTrjv e^ei TT)V antxaolav.
I come now to the second council of Nice, in the sixth session,
whereof these words occur : " Many things are observed b y us
without the authority of scripture, as for example, the worship of
images V I answer : W e make no account of that council, and do
not acknowledge its authority; yea, we say that it was an impious
and wicked conventicle, wherein many things were concluded most
plainly against scripture. As the first council of Nice was truly
catholic, so this second council of Nice was absolutely heretical:
whereof we mean to speak in its proper place. I f the papists had
any shame, they would themselves be ashamed of this council.
H o w e v e r , we take what he grants us, that these fathers have said
that the worship of images cannot be proved from scripture. Why
then is he not ashamed to abuse so foully so many places of
scripture for the support of this practice ?
Thirdly, Bellarmine objects the eighth general council, in its
sixth action, where the fathers of that council say that they hold
the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions. I answer in precisely
the same way as in the former case. W e entertain no reverence
for the authority of this council, which was like the preceding, and
established a profane idolatry. It was held 900 years after
Christ. These were Bellarmine's councils. Hath he not given us
a beautiful demonstration of his thesis ?

CHAPTER XII.

THE FOURTH ARGUMENT, FOUNDED UPON T H E TESTIMONIES OF T H E

FATHERS, IS ANSWERED.

I N the fourth place, our opponent collects the testimonies of the

fathers ; in the management of which argument he is large and
[! Kai cyypóc/xoí (cat ¿ypácpas in râv àpxijÔev xpávav avràî.... eo-rr¡pt^av,
p.tff a>v Kai TT¡V râv o-firrâv eiKÓvcov àvâheii-iv. Concill. L a b b e e t Cossart. T .
v u . p . 4 0 6 . Paris. 1 6 7 1 . ]
 XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 565

copious, y e t so as to combine at the same time judgment and

selection. These we must needs answer, as well because our
adversaries repose on these their special confidence, as because it is
fit that all who are desirous o f becoming learned divines should
be thoroughly acquainted with all these matters. Neither in this,
nor in any other controversy, can they possibly prevail against us
b y the scriptures; and therefore they press us as closely as they
can with the authority of the fathers. Indeed, even though the
fathers were opposed to us, and we could give no answer to the
arguments drawn from them, this could inflict no real damage
upon our cause, since our faith does not depend upon the fathers,
but upon the scriptures. Nevertheless, I am far from approving
the opinion of those who think that the testimonies of the fathers
should be rejected or despised. Whether we regard then the
weakness of our brethren, or the confidence of our adversaries, w e
should answer these testimonies also, nor deem our pains ill
expended upon such a task. However, we must take heed that we
do not, with the papists, ascribe too much to the fathers, but use
our rights and liberty when we read t h e m ; examining all their
sayings b y the rule of scripture, receiving them when they agree
with it, but freely and with their g o o d leave rejecting them when-
ever they exhibit marks of discrepancy.
H e brings first into the field CLEMENS ROMANUS, a great man
undoubtedly, whom he sets upon a par with the apostles themselves.
W h a t he hath written, says the Jesuit, in his book of the apostolic
canons, and his eight books of apostolical constitutions, he undoubt-
edly received from the apostles. I answer: Bellarmine's undoubtedly
is no sort o f argument. W e do not acknowledge this Clement, nor
make any account of the praises which T u r r i a n bestows upon him. 2

H e praises and defends also the Decretal epistles, than which it is

quite certain that nothing is less deserving o f praise. Eusebius,
H . E. Lib. HI. c. 3 8 , testifies that formerly many forged and adul-
terated pieces were published under the name of Clemens . 3
The
same historian affirms in the same chapter, that there is but one

[2 Pro Canon. Apóstol. Florent. 1 5 7 2 . ]

[ 3
toTcov 5c as teal Sevrépa rls eivai Xeyerat TOC KXijfieiror ónoroXi;. Oi
pr¡v W ópoias TT¡ 7rpoT€pa teal Tavrrjv yvapipov itriarápcOa, on prjbe teal TOVS
ápx&íovs airfj K^xP^f^vovs to-pev. "H8r¡ Si nal érepa iroKvenrj Kal paupa o~uy-
ypáppara ás rov airov fySis Kal itpárpí nvis irporjyayov av oiS" okas
pvq¡írj ns irapa TO'IS irakaiols (fiéperaf o¿8e yap Kadapbv rijs airoo-TokiKrjs op—
Sobogías áffoo-oíffí TOP x P VP -—Ed.
a aKT a
Heinich. T. I. pp. 2 8 0 — 2 . ]
566 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

genuine epistle of this author, namely, that written to the Corin-

thians. Jerome testifies to the same point in his catalogue, under
the head of C L E M E N S . Nicephorus also, Lib. in. c. 1 8 , and
Epiphanius, Hceres. 3 0 , bear witness that the heretics formerly
1

t o o k many things from the books of Clemens, but especially from

the book of the apostolical canons, which, together with the eight
books of Constitutions, was certainly condemned b y the sixth
general council at Constantinople, Can. 2 . But when Bellarmino
2

affirms Clemens to have been the author of the apostolical canons,

he is at variance with the other papists, who say that these canons
were written b y the apostles themselves, assembled at Antioch.
So Peresius , in the third part of his traditions, brings in Anacletus,
3

saying, that the apostles met at Antioch, and wrote these canons
there. But it easily appears that this is impossible : for in the
last canon is given an enumeration of the canonical books, many of
which were written after the death of some of the apostles : indeed,
James, the son of Zebedee, was slain b y H e r o d Antipas, before any
book was written. These canons, therefore, were not written b y all
the apostles. Besides, for what purpose should the apostles have
assembled ? A r e we to say that it was to write their traditions,
when the papists maintain that the apostles judged that tradition
should be promulgated orally, and not b y writing ? But if they
deemed it fit that traditions should be written, why did they not
write them in the books of scripture ? Farther, if these canons were
written b y the apostles, they would have equal authority with the
canonical books, which even the papists themselves do not venture
to affirm. Again, there are some things in these canons which
even the papists do not approve ; as for example, in the fifth canon
these words occur : " If either a bishop or a priest dismiss his wife
under the pretext of religion, let him be excommunicated ." And, 4

in canon 8, we read thus : " If any priest, deacon, or bishop, doth'

not join with him who communicates, let him be deposed from his

P c. 1 5 , p. 1 3 9 . ed. Petav. where, however, Epiphanius is not speaking of

these canons, but of the Recognitions of Clement.]
p He means the Quini-sext council in Trullo (Ann. 6 9 2 ) . But there the
Canons are not condemned, but confirmed.—Bevereg. Pandectt. T. I. p. 1 5 8 . ]
P Peiresius Aiala, De Divin. Apost. atque Eccles. Traditionibus. Paris.
1550.]
P iwlcTKmros rj irpecrjivTepos rj buwovos rfjv iavrov ywaìna prj ÌK^OKKÌTCÙ

irpoqbaarec ev\ap}elas %
iàv dè ÌK@O\T), à(popi£écr()a>.—It is can. VI. in Whiston's
Primit. Christ. Vol. n.J . '
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 567

office ." 6
A n d in canon 9 it is enjoined, that " t h e whole people
6

should communicate with the minister who celebrates the eucharist;

and if any do otherwise, let him be excommunicated." T h e papists
do not observe these laws. Again, in canon 3 7 , it is required that
" councils should be held twice a - y e a r , " which they themselves
7

do not comply with. There is a matter in canon 4 6 which they 8

do not admit, as may readily be perceived from inspecting the

canon itself. Finally, this book appears to be a farrago and
patch-work, made up out of the acts of other councils, especially
that of A n t i o c h ; for many similar things occur in the councils of
Antioch. N o w it is not probable that the Antiochene fathers took
anything from these canons: for, if they had, they would not
have concealed it, but rather have told it distinctly, in order
to gain thereby the greater credit for their sanctions and decrees.
T h e y make, however, no mention of this b o o k ; a plain proof
that it was then either not published or not allowed any aposto-
lical authority.
I come now to the other book of Clemens, the Apostolical
Constitutions; which also, if they really emanated from the apostles,
would have equal authority with the canonical books. And indeed,
in the last canon, these constitutions are ranked among the cano-
nical books. The papists, however, do not y e t venture to pass
such a judgment upon this p i e c e ; which conduct cannot escape
the charge of impiety, if the book is Clement's, and contains the
constitutions of the apostles. It is a most weighty objection against
the authority of this book also, that we read in the last canon, that
this book should not be made public on account " of the mysteries
which it contains," Sid TO. iv avrip ixvartKa. This agrees better
with the rites of Eleusis than with the christian religion. The
apostles were sent to preach openly the message they had received
from Christ, and to publish it to all, because necessary for all.
" Those things which y e have heard in the ear, preach y e upon
the housetops," says Christ to his apostles. And Paul says, 1 Cor.
ii. 2 3 : " I delivered unto y o u , " that is, to y o u all, " t h a t which
I received of the L o r d . " Besides, even the papists themselves do

[ 5
et Tis eVio"K07roff r) 7rpeo~l3vT€pos rj tiiaKovos npoacpopas yevopivrjs pr]
peraXajloi arpopi^itrOco. can. IX.]
[ 6
can. X.]
[ 7
Aeirepov TOV C'TOVS trvvobos yivicrdco rav imo-Korruiv.—can. XXXVIII.]
[ 8
eTvicTKOTTOS r) npecrfivTepos TOV Kara aXijdetav t^ovra jiairTUjpa. iav ava>0ev
PairTicrri, rj TOV pepoXvcrpivov napa. TCOV ao-efitov iav pr) fiaiTTicrri, Kadaipetcrdco.—
can. XLVII.]
568 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

not receive all the contents of this book, and many of them are
manifestly false. In Lib. 11. c. 5 9 , Clemens, mentioning James the
L o r d ' s brother, excludes him from the number of the a p o s t l e s ; 1

whereas Paul, Galat. ii. 9, reckons him amongst even the leading
apostles: yea, this author himself, Lib. vi. c. 1 4 , as if he had 2

forgotten himself, speaks of him as one of the apostles. In Lib. ii.

c. 3 2 , he mentions the Agapse, and explains the manner of con-
ducting t h e m ; while Paul condemns them, 1 Cor. ii. 2 1 ; and it is
certain that they were abolished long before. In Lib. ii. c. 6 3 ,
he says that the people ought to assemble in the congregation
twice a day, morning and e v e n i n g ; which practice is not now
3

observed even b y the papists. In Lib. v. c. 1 5 , he says that

those words which Christ spoke of Judas (" H e that dippeth with
me in the dish, the same is he that shall betray m e " ) were uttered
b y Christ five days before the p a s s o v e r : whereas it is evident
4

from scripture, Matth. xxvi. 3 1 , that Christ was betrayed that

same night. In the same book, c. 1 6 , he affirms that Judas was
absent when Christ celebrated the s u p p e r ; which contradicts not 5

only scripture, but the fathers themselves. Its repugnance to

scripture is plain from a comparison of the three verses, 1 3 , 1 4 ,
and 1 5 , of Luke xxii. N o r is it less certain that it is opposed to
the judgment of the fathers: for Dionysius, JEceles. Hierarch.
c. 3, affirms him to have been present. So Cyprian, in his dis-
course de Ablutione Pedum. So Augustine, Epist. 1 6 3 , and
Comment, in Ps. 3, and in Ps. 1 0 , and Tract. 6 3 in Joann. So
Chrysostom, in his Homily upon the thief.' So finally, Aquinas, in
the third part of his Sum. Quaest. 8 1 , art 2. Pachymeres, indeed,
upon Dionysius the Areopagite, Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 3, sup-
poses Judas to have been absent; for thus he writes: " H e delivered
the mysteries to the disciples alone, after Judas had gone forth
from supper, he being unworthy of t h e m : " but when he wrote this,
6

[} 'H/xets ovv oi Kara^iadevres elvai paprupes TTJS rrapovcrtas airov, trvp

'laxa/Ha rto TOV Kvplov adeXcpa.—p. 259. C. 55.]
[ 2
p. 3 4 3 ; but that passage down to TO o-jcevos TTJS eKKoyrjs is commonly
thought an interpolation.]
[ 3
Trapaivei Ttp Xacp els TT)V enKKrjO-lav ivdeXex^ elv
SpOpov Rat fcmrepas eKacrrtjs
fifiipas.—C 59, p. 267.]
[ 4
The constitutions speak only of its occurring, rfj jrc/ra-Tfl, i. e. the fifth
day of the week.—p. 317.]
[ 5
IouSa pr) o-vprrapovTos.—Ibid. See Jeremy Taylor's Life of Christ, Part
3. Sect. xv. §. 13, and the authors there cited.]
[ 6
TCL pvo-rqpia pjovois rois padrjTcus pera TO e'£c\$elv CKCIVOV tK TOV btlnvav
irapeSaKev, as ava^lov rovrav OVTOS 'lovSa.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 569

he followed his own conjectures and opinion, not scripture. This

same Clemens, Lib. v. c. 1 8 , enjoins observances of E aster which
7

Epiphanius, writing against the Audians, blames as heretical, H ceres.

5 0 ; and, indeed, E piphanius there tells us that the Audians de­
fended their opinion b y the authority of an apostolical constitution.
Carolus Bovius writes thus upon that passage: " Wherefore it is
so far from being true that the apostles established what we read
in this chapter, that even the direct contrary seems to have been
enjoined b y t h e m . " This is a fine author of apostolical traditions.
8

Besides, in Lib. vi. c. 1 4 , he mentions an epistle which he states

9

to have been written b y all the apostles along with P a u l ; whereas

James, the son of Zebedee, was dead before Paul came into the
apostolic college. This, therefore, is demonstrably false. Finally,
in Lib. vii. c. 2 4 , he brings forward several regulations void of all
1 0

authority about fasting upon the fourth and sixth days of the
week, and the observance of the sabbath (Saturday) and the Lord's
d a y ; and he says that we should not fast upon any Saturday save
that one whereon the L o r d lay in the sepulchre: all which are
now exploded b y the papists. It is therefore manifest that this
book is not genuine, but supposititious, and composed b y some p r e ­
tended Clemens. This is so clear, that Bellarmine himself hath
thought fit to omit this author in his published edition, and brand
him with this mark of insult.
In the second place he objects I G N A T I U S , who, as E usebius
testifies, Lib. ш . c. 3 5 , exhorted all the churches to adhere to
1 1

the apostolic traditions, which traditions he asserts that he had " a l s o

[7 The constitutions there direct that E aster should not be kept with the
Jews, which is directly opposed to the apostolical rule as given by E piphanius,
Haares. lxx. §. 1 0 : 6pi£ovo-i yap ev ту biara^ei. oi dnoo-Tokot, 8TI ipels prj
\1гт)ф1£т)те, aXXd ттощте, orav oi аЪе\фо1 vpav oi ек irepiToprjs- per avraiv ара
woielre.... кии те я­Лш^бшоч, рфе vpiv реХёта Grabe, Spicil. i. 4 6 . It is
observable that E piphanius does not venture directly to impugn this rule,
though he is obliged to recur to a monstrous device to evade its natural
meaning.]
[ 8
Quare tantum abest, ut ea qua? in hac capite legimus apostoli statuerint,
ut etiam contraria horum ab ipsis pracepta videantur.]
[ 8
The names '1ак<и/Зог al 'laavvrjs, viol Zf/3e8aiov, occur there
K in the
enumeration of the apostles then assembled. But the passage is probably an
interpolation.]
[ 10
ipels 8c ¡7 таг isevre vrjarevo-ате qpepas, ij тетрада Kal irapao-Kevqv.... то
o-a^arov pevroi Kal TTJV KvpiaKr/v ёорта£ете . . . . ev be povov o-afifiaTOV . . . . опер
vqcrTeieiv npoo-fJKev.—p. 3 6 9 . ]
[ u
The Greek is given in the text, infra.]
570 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

left in writing b y way of precaution, and lest posterity should be

reduced to any doubt concerning them." I a n s w e r : First, the
passage of Eusebius is either originally obscure or now corrupted,
as is plain from an inspection of the Greek text. B y the tra-
dition thus mentioned, Eusebius means the sincere doctrine of the
apostolic preaching, as is manifest from the place itself. His words
are, ct7rpl^ 'e^eaQai TWV airo<7To\(tiv TrapaSocrecos. If he had
meant such numerous traditions as the papists dream of, he would
not have said TrapaSoaeoj's, but irapaSoaectiv. Ignatius, perceiving
that many heretics had at that time begun to corrupt the apostolic
doctrine, declared that it seemed necessary to him that it should be
committed to writing, " f o r the sake of security," vitep acr<pa\eias
SiaTvirovadat, and as a provision for posterity. Therefore, when
he was at Smyrna, he wrote letters to various churches, wherein he
comprised those traditions to which Eusebius here r e f e r s ; and that
these were no popish traditions may be understood from the circum-
stance, that in these epistles Ignatius disputes against Simon, C e -
rinthus, Menander, and other heretics, who entertained impious
sentiments concerning the person of Christ. N o w against the
heresies of such there is no need of unwritten traditions, inasmuch
as they are plainly condemned in the scriptures. Bellarmine hath
not followed Eusebius himself, but the faulty version of Ruffinus,
where " traditions " are spoken of in the plural, "whereas the Greek
has " t r a d i t i o n " in the singular; and certain words not found in the
Greek are subjoined, to the effect that Ignatius "left these traditions
in writing." Besides, Ruffinus says that the apostolic tradition r e -
quired to be written for the benefit of posterity, that no doubt
might remain with succeeding generations: but the traditions of the
papists are, in the first place, most uncertain, so as that the interests
of posterity seem not sufficiently therein consulted; secondly, the
papists cannot find all their traditions in these epistles of Ignatius;
nay, not the thousandth part of them. Bellarmine produces only
three traditions out of Ignatius, namely, Lent, minor orders, and the
Lord's day. A s to Lent, I confess that it is mentioned in the
epistle to the Philippians: but of that elsewhere. A s to orders, he
does indeed reckon a few of them, but not as sacraments; nor does he
enumerate them in the same manner as the papists do, since he men-
tions singers, whom they do not make even a minor order. However,
the third tradition, of the Lord's day, is no unwritten verity, for it is
contained in the scriptures; as namely, R e v . i. 10. ev rrj Kvpiaicfj
rinepa. 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ; Acts x x . 7, /xiq o-afifidraiv. The words
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 571

of Eusebius, where he speaks of Ignatius, are these : irpovTpe-ne T

airp\l£ e^eaOai Ttjs TWV CLITOGTOKLOV irapaSoaews, yv virep dcrfpaketas
ml eyypa(p<tK %Sr] /xapTvpo/xevos StarvTrovarOai dvayicaiov rtyeiro.
W h i c h passage our countryman, Christopherson, hath thus translated:
" Then he exhorted them to adhere closely to the apostolic tradition;
to which having borne stedfast witness, he j u d g e d that, for its safer
preservation to succeeding time, it should be committed to writ-
ing ."
1
The sense of which words is that, when Ignatius had borne
witness to and professed the apostolic faith b y word of mouth,
he deemed it necessary to commit the same to writing also, in order
to check the heretics more effectually, and provide for the service of
the churches hereafter. Upon which account, as it follows immedi-
ately in that same place, he wrote various epistles. Hence we
gather against the papists, that Ignatius deemed it no w a y safe that
any doctrine should Jbe left in an unwritten state. Y e t these men
pretend that the apostles delivered down many things in an un-
written form, as if they could not have foreseen the necessity of
that which Ignatius, a very short time after the apostles, perceived
to be necessary in the highest degree.
Secondly, I say, that it may be doubted whether these epistles,
which are said to be Ignatius', are his or not. For Theodoret,
in his third Dialogue against the heretics, cites certain words
from the epistle to the Smyrnasans, which are not found in that
epistle as now extant. T h e words as they stand in Theodoret
are t h e s e : " T h e y receive not eucharists and oblations, because
they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father
raised again in his m e r c y . " 2
Theodoret cites this sentence from

[} D e i n d e hortatus est, ut a p o s t o l o r u m traditioni mordicus adhserescerent:

q u a m q u i d e m asseveranter testiflcatus, q u o tutius posteritati reservaretur,
necessario scriptis m a n d a n d a m existimavit. V a l e s i u s translates it t h u s :
H o r t a t u s q u e est ut a p o s t o l o r u m traditionibus tenaciter i n h a j r e r e n t : quas
q u i d e m a d certiorem posteritatis notitiam t e s t i m o n i o suo confirmatas, scriptis
m a n d a r e necessarium duxit. B u t m a y n o t rj8t] paprvpopevos m e a n , " being n o w
u p o n t h e p o i n t of m a r t y r d o m ? " — t h o u g h I confess t h e active paprvpea is-the
regular f o r m in such c a s e s . ]
[ 2
e\i)(apio-Tias KOL irpocrcpopas OVK airo&exovrai, 8 i a TO pr) opohoyeiv TT)V
fvxapicrriav tropica elvai TOV 2 a m ; p o r tjpav 'ir/crov XpicrTov, rr)v vrrcp TCOV apapnav
r)pav rradovcrav, r)v xp l " ° l
r 0 r TT Tl
° wanyp tjyetpev.—c. 19. p. 106. Tigur. 1593.
T h e s e words are t o b e f o u n d in t h e shorter epistles, a d Smyrnreos. c. 6.
p . 4 1 2 . e d . J a c o b s : b u t it is t o b e r e m e m b e r e d that the F l o r e n t i n e text was
first p u b l i s h e d b y I s . V o s s i u s , A m s t e l . 1 6 4 6 . T h e publication o f t h e still
 572 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Ignatius' epistle to the Smyrnasans, which is nowhere to be dis-

covered in the present epistle to the Smyrnaeans. Jerome also,
in his third Dialogue against the Pelagians, hath produced a tes-
timony from the epistles of Ignatius which is not at present to be
found in them. " Ignatius," says he, " an apostolic man and a
martyr, writes boldly, ' T h e L o r d chose for his apostles those who
were sinners above all m e n ' . " Now in these epistles Ignatius hath
1

written nothing of the k i n d ; and if he ever wrote it, he did so with

more boldness than t r u t h : for who would venture to say that the
apostles were the greatest sinners among all mankind ? Eusebius,
Lib. in. cap. 3 6 , testifies that Ignatius wrote seven epistles to cer-
tain churches: but there are now extant twelve. Jerome too, in
his Catalogue under the title I G N A T I U S , enumerates only s e v e n : 2

whence it is plain that the other five are undoubtedly spurious.

These are, the epistle to M a r y , to the Tarsensians, to Hero, to the
Antiochenes, to the Philippians, from which last are derived almost
all the passages which our adversaries seize upon in Ignatius for
the defence of traditions. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes any
mention of these epistles: therefore it is certain that they are
supposititious. W h a t we should determine about the rest, whether
they are Ignatius' or some other writer's, is far from c l e a r ; since
some passages are cited b y ancient authors from the epistles of
Ignatius, which are wanting in these pieces. Eusebius, Lib. in. c.
3 6 , testifies that Polycarp, in his epistle to the Philippians, writes
3

that he had been requested b y Ignatius to convey their epistle into

Syria. This is not to be found in the epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
which we now have. Many proofs might be brought forward from
the epistle to the Philippians, which epistle the Papists principally
object to us, demonstrating it not to be the work of Ignatius, a man

shorter Syriac text by Cureton, Lond. 1 8 4 5 , has confirmed the suspicions

which most unprejudiced critics entertained of the integrity of even the
Florentine text.]
f 1
Ignatius, vir apostolicus et martyr, scribit audacter, Elegit Dominus
apostolos qui super omnes homines peccatores erant. But there can be
little doubt that Jerome here by mistake wrote Ignatius for Barnabas.—See
Barnab. Ep. c. 5 , p. 1 3 1 . Monach. 1 8 4 4 : rois ISiovs cmoo-Tokovs.... e£eXe£aro,
ovras irrep Trao-av dfiapriav aVo/xcorepour.]
[ 2
Scripsit unam epistolam ad Ephesios, alteram ad Magnesianos, tertiam
ad Trullenses, quartam ad Eomanos. Et inde egrediens scripsit ad Philadel-
pheos, et ad Smyrnosos, et proprie ad Polycarpum.]
[3
iypafyare poi Kai viiels ieai 'lyvdnos, iva iav ris awipxrjTai ds Svpiav, Kal
ra Trap' vpav aTTOKofiicru ypdppara.—T. I. p. 277.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 573

of the next age to the apostles. I n it he w r i t e s : " If any one fast

upon the Lord's d a y , or any sabbath but that only whereon the
L o r d lay in the grave, he is a murderer of Christ ." N o w Augus- 4

tine in his last epistle to Jerome affirms, that it was customary at

R o m e to fast on Saturday. A n d , in Epist. 8 6 , he says that it is
lawful also to fast upon the Lord's day. Again, Ignatius says in
that same epistle , that if any one keep the passover with the Jews,
5

he is partner and in communion with those who murdered Christ,

KOIVWVOS e<TTi TWV aTroKTeivavrcov TOV Kvpiov. N o w it is certain
that Polycarp kept Easter with the Jews, and (if we believe others)
that John and Philip did so too. In his epistle to M a r y he says
that Clemens succeeded A n a c l e t u s : but the papists make him to
6

have succeeded P e t e r ; and Peter in his own lifetime calls him

bishop and citizen of R o m e , Constit. Apost. Lib. v i . c. 8 . In ?

the epistles to the Philadelphians and Antiochenes he assumes not

to himself any apostolical authority ; which he ought to have done,
if he were prescribing apostolic traditions to the churches: for
apostolical dogmas should b e received as of equal authority with
apostolical writings. In like manner Jerome, in his third Dialogue
against the Pelagians, attributes to him no such great authority.
But if Ignatius had published apostolic traditions, he should have
claimed for himself the highest authority. Besides, although the
papists sometimes object these epistles to us, and seem to set a high
value upon them, they cannot deny that many things are found in
them which they themselves do not approve. In the epistle to the
Philadelphians, he says that a bishop ought to b e chosen b y the
church itself. Then, in the same epistle, h e maintains that a bishop
is subject to no one, nor bound to render an account to any one but
Christ himself. This, I am very sure, the papists will not bear,
who would make all bishops responsible to the Roman pontiffs. In
the epistle to the Trallians he writes, that there is no " elect

[•* ei TIS KvpiaKTJv t) ara^fiarov vrjo-Tevei, TTXTJV evos o-a/3/3arot> TOV Teao-xa, 0S7-09
XptarToKTovos eo-riv.—p. 112. E d . V o s s . L o n d . 1680.]
[ 5
el TIS pera 'Ioi/Sauov ('niTeXel TO 7 r a o - ^ a , fj TO. o-vpftoXa rfjs eoprtjs avrSv
Several, Koivavos euTi TSV airoKTetvavTcov TOV Kvpiov <a\ TOVS arroarToXovs airov.
—Ibid.]
[ G
S o in t h e L a t i n : adhuc existente t e in R o m a , a p u d b e a t u m p a p a m
Cletum; cui successit a d prsesens d i g n e beatus Clemens, p. 7 2 . B u t Vossius'
G r e e k T e x t reads wawa AtV».]
[' o-vpntapovTav poi ( P e t r u s loquitur) . . . . adeXqbav KXt]pevros TOV Pcopalav
eTTicKOTrov re Kai TTOXITOV.—p. 387.]
574 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [сн.

c h u r c h , " eKKkrjcriav ёкХектуу, without a bishop, deacons, and pres­

1

b y t e r s : and in the same epistle he professes himself able to under­

stand " heavenly things," т о kirovpavia, the whole celestial state,
and all the ranks of angels; and yet declares himself inferior to
Peter and P a u l , who yet neither of them had much skill in such
2

matters. In the epistle to the Magnesians he expresses an opinion

that greatly needs confirmation, that no presbyter, deacon, or
lay­man, should do anything without the bishop, even as Christ
does nothing without the F a t h e r ; and then he cites the passage,
3

" I can of mine own self do nothing." But we have said enough of
these epistles; and it may be gathered sufficiently from the previous
remarks, what judgment should be formed of this Ignatius. The
papists do not venture to defend these t h i n g s : y e t they ought to
defend Ignatius in everything, if there be any truth in their
assertion, that he committed the apostolical traditions to writing.
In the third place follows H E G E S I P P U S , a man undoubtedly of
great name and authority. E usebius, Lib. iv. c. 8, writes concerning
him, that he comprised apostolical traditions in five b o o k s ; and 4

although (says Bellarmine) those books are not now extant, y e t we

may thence infer that the apostles did not themselves write every­
thing that they taught. I answer : I acknowledge that the testi­
mony of E usebius is c l e a r ; but I reply, that under the term tradition
the doctrine of the apostles, and not unwritten traditions, is denoted.
F o r so E usebius states that he comprised in those books the sincere
and undissembled exposition of the apostolic preaching, TV\V a-n-Xavij
vapaSoaw TOV атгосгтоХисод KtjpvyfictTos: whence it is plain that
he wrote no other things than those which are delivered in scrip­
ture. Jerome, in his catalogue, under the head H E G E S I P P U S , 5

affirms that these books contain the history of what was done b y
Christ, the apostles, and succeeding bishops, down to Hegesippus'
own time. However, we should bear in mind Bellarmine's a d ­

P xcopts rovrav eKKAtj&ia сккектт) OVK 'io-Tiv.—p. 1 5 7 . ]

[2
ка\ bvvapai voeiv та inovpavia, ка\ ras ayysXinas Tat-eis... ravra yivdxrKav iya>,
ov navrais i]8t] тетеЛе/ш/хси, rj paBrj-rqs elpi olos HavXos (cat Xlirpos.—pp. 158, 159.]
[ 3
<ло~тгер ovv о K u p t o r avev TOV Uarpos ovdiv 7rotet, ov bvvapat yap, фг]оЛ,
7TOLelv air epavrov oi&ev, OVTCO ка\ ipels apev TOV emo'Koirov, prjbt TTpeafivTepos,
рфе biaxovos, prjbk \OIK6S.—p. 146.]
[4 kv irevre brj ovv orvyypappaaiv о5тог TTJV airhavij irapaboo-iv TOV diroo-ToXiKov
Krjpvyparos airkovo-татг) o-vvra^ei ypaffis iwopvrjpaTio-apevos.—Т. I . p. 3 0 9 . E d .
Hein.]
p O m n e s a passiono D o m i n i usque ad suam setatem ecclesiasticorum
a c t u u m tenens h i s t o r i a s . — c . 2 2 . ]
XII.] QUESTION T H E S I X T H . 575

mission, that these books are not now extant. F o r there are now
extant five books under the name of Hegesippus , which he does 6

not venture to defend, because they contain a history, not from

Christ to his own times, but from the Maccabees to the destruction
of Jerusalem. Besides, the Hegesippus now extant informs us that
many more books than five were written b y him, while Jerome and
Eusebius mention five only. Lastly, this Hegesippus, L i b . i n . c. 5,
makes mention of the city and church of Constantinople, and says
that new R o m e , that is Constantinople, was made equal to the old.
N o w this did not take place before the times of Constantine, b y
whom that name was given to the city : whereas the old Hegesippus
lived long before Constantine's times. Hence it sufficiently appears
that books do not always belong to the authors whose names they
b e a r : for who would not suppose these books of Hegesippus to be
genuine, if it were not manifest from their own contents that they
are supposititious ? Let us come now to the remaining fathers.
I come therefore to D I O N Y S I U S the A r e o p a g i t e , whom our o p p o -
7

nent specially objects to us, as an author of undoubted excellence.

F r o m him he produces a clear testimony, taken from his book of
the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, c. 1, where Dionysius says, that " the
chiefs of the sacerdotal function (that is the apostles) delivered these
sublime and supersubstantial iuirepovaia) matters, partly in writing,
and partly without w r i t i n g , " ¿77pacpois KCU dypacpois
8
/w^creai. I
answer, confessing that Dionysius is in some places a great patron
of traditions. However, even if he were the true, and not a suppo-
sititious, false and pretended Dionysius, they would be able to
allege but few things from him in defence of their traditions. Yet,
since he undertook to write upon the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, he
would have been bound to develope accurately all the apostolical
traditions, if any such there were, and if he were indeed the true
Areopagite, the disciple of Paul, which for m y part I am far from
thinking; although I perceive that his defence hath been engaged
in very zealously b y some great men, and especially b y Ambrosius
[6 Paris. 1 5 1 1 . ]
[ See Daille De Scriptis quce sub Dionysii Areopag. et Ignatii hominibus
7

circumferuntur.—Genev. 1 6 6 6 . and compare Pearson, Vindic. Ignat. Part. 1 .

cap. 1 0 . pp. 1 3 6 — 1 4 8 . Cantab. 1 6 7 2 . ]
[8
SeTTTOTara t)e \oyia ravrd cjtapev, oaa wpbs rav ivdeav rjpmv lepoTeXe&Ttav
iv dyioypdcbois tfplv KCU BeoXoyiKols SeScop^rat SeXrois, Kai pr)v Sera rrpbs rav
avT&v lepwv avbpo)V avXarepq pvr](rei /cat yeirovl TTCOS rjt)rj TT}S ovpavias lepap^las
CK vobs els vovv, Did pecrov \oyov . . . . ypaqbtjs eKros, ol KaBryyepoves fip&v epvrj-
Br/o-av.—Dionys. Areop. Opp. T. 1. p. 2 0 1 . Paris. 1 6 4 4 . ]
576 THE FIEST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Conraldulensis. Bellarmine too waxes wroth with Luther and

Calvin for denying these books to be the production of Dionysius
the Areopagite. It is necessary therefore to say something upon
the authority of these b o o k s : and I will bring forward, not con-
jectures or suspicions, but most certain demonstrations to shew that
this is not the true Dionysius. First, Eusebius and Jerome make
no mention of these b o o k s ; which ought to be a v e r y weighty
proof that they were not composed b y Dionysius. They used
the utmost diligence in collecting and searching for the books
of the ancients, so as that, if even a single epistle were written b y
any distinguished man, they took care not to omit mentioning i t :
and can we believe it possible that they either did not see such
books as these, written upon such great and distinguished subjects,
or j u d g e d them not worthy of being noticed ? Secondly, no author
of any considerable antiquity mentions these b o o k s : which proves
sufficiently that they cannot belong to the same remote age as
Dionysius the Areopagite. F o r many things therein occur which
make against the ancient heretics, especially the Arians, and which
certainly the Nicene fathers would not have failed to urge, if such
books were then extant, or the author of them had been held in any
estimation. Thirdly, the style of these books is not plain and
simple, but too subtle, inflated and full of affectation, very unlike
the apostolic. Fourthly, Erasmus, upon Acts xvii, is large in
proving that this is not the true Dionysius. A n d before him Valla,
upon the same place thinks that a heretic b y name Apollinaris
was the writer of these books which pass under the name of
Dionysius. Theodore Gaza, too, in his Preface to the Problems of
Alexander Aphrodisius, addressed to Nicholas V . denies that this is
the true and ancient Dionysius. Likewise Cajetan, in his commen-
tary upon Acts xvii, says, that " these books were not written b y
the apostolic D i o n y s i u s . " 1
There were many Dionysiuses formerly
in the c h u r c h : perhaps these books were written b y some of them,
and afterwards, under a false impression, attributed to Dionysius
the Areopagite, who was the most famous of that name. Fifthly,
it appears most clearly from the books themselves, what opinion
we should form of this sort of writers. In the books of the Celes-
tial Hierarchy he treats a subject surely divine, the very order of
the heavenly commonwealth; an argument full of difficulty and
audacity. T h e apostle Paul, 2 Cor. xii. 1 4 , says, that " these and

f 1
A n a u t e m istemet sit ille D i o n y s i u s . . . . certum non est.—p. 4 9 5 . 2.
Paris. 1571.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 577

other such subjects are ineffable:" he adds besides, " that it is not
lawful for a man to utter them." H o w then could Dionysius dare
to utter these things, even if he knew them ? O r from what source
could he possibly come to know t h e m ? Whence, I beseech y o u ,
did he derive this wondrous knowledge ? F r o m revelation ? H o w
is this proved ? W h y were they not rather revealed to the apostles,
if it concerned us to know such things ? I f we have no concern in
them, then w h y hath Dionysius published these mysteries ? Irenseus,
Lib. ii. c. 5 5 , expresses a noble sentiment condemnatory of these
writers of hierarchies: " There is nothing sound in what they
s a y : they are m a d ; nor should we abandon Moses and the p r o -
phets to believe in them. Let them tell us the nature of things
invisible; let them tell the number of the angels, and the ranks of
the archangels; let them shew the mystery of the thrones, and
explain the differences of dominations, princedoms, powers and
virtues: but this they cannot tell u s . " Whence it manifestly 2

appears that such a subject was secret, unknown, unheard of, and
as yet handled b y no writer. Y e t all these things are explained
in the books of this Dionysius. Augustine, in his Enchiridion (ad
Laurent.) c. 5 8 , declares himself ignorant of the ranks of angels
and their differences, what are thrones, what dominations, what
principalities, what powers. " Let those," says he, " tell who can,
provided they can prove what they s a y . " W e return the same 3

answer to the papists. Dionysius, indeed, tells all these things,

but gives no proofs. Besides, G r e g o r y the Great gives a different
description of the ranks of angels from this Dionysius; and so
Bernard also (as Eckius confesses) Horn. 4. de Festo Michaelis.
Now if this Dionysius had obtained such high credit, or his books
held such great authority, these writers would never have ventured
to differ from him. So far concerning the Celestial Hierarchy.

Sixthly, in his book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he writes

largely of temples, altars, holy places, the choir, and the placing of
catechumens without the portals of the temple. N o w there was
[ 2
N o n e n i m sunt m a g i s idonei hi q u a m scriptura?, n e c relinquentes nos
eloquia D o m i n i , e t M o y s e m , et reliquos prophetas qui v e r i t a t e m prajconia-
verint, his credere oportet, s a n u m q u i d e m nihil dicentibus, instabilia autem
d e l i r a n t i b u s . . . . D i c a n t nobis quae sit invisibilium natura, enarrent n u m e r u m
angelorum et ordinem archangelorum, demonstrent thronorum sacramenta,
et doceant diversitates d o m i n a t i o n u m , p r i n c i p a t u u m , p o t e s t a t u m atque v i r t u -
tum. S e d hoc n o n h a b e n t d i c e r e . — c . 6 4 , p p . 2 1 2 , 2 1 3 , e d . F e v a r d . ]
[ 3
Dicant qui possunt, si t a m e n possunt p r o b a r e q u o d d i c u n t : ego m e
ista ignorare c o n f i t e o r . — p . 2 0 9 . Lips. 1838.]

37
[wHITAKER.]
578 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [сн.

nothing of the kind in existence in those times when Dionysius

lived. In that a g e , b y reason of their tyrannous oppressors, the
Christians were compelled to meet in hidden and concealed places,
and there to hold their prayers and sermons. Besides, he men­
tions monks, Hierarch. Ecclesiast. с. 8. 1
N o w the papists grant
that Paul and Antony were the parents of the m o n k s ; and they
flourished some ages after Dionysius the Areopagite. Certainly
there were no monks in the times of the apostles. In his b o o k of
the Divine Names, c. 4 , he cites from 2
Ignatius' epistle to the
Romans this v e r y brief but v e r y sweet sentence, о ё/хоЧ epws
eo-Tctvpcorai, "my love is crucified." Now Ignatius sent this
epistle to the Romans when he was on his journey to R o m e with
the prospect of certain death, in the reign of Trajan, as w e are
informed b y E usebius in his Chronicon, and in his E cclesiastical
History, L i b . HI. c. 3 6 , and b y Jerome in his Catalogue. But
Methodius, in the Martyrdom of Dionysius, and Simeon Meta­
phrastes, in his Life, write that Dionysius the Areopagite was slain
in the reign of Domitian. I n the end of his book of the E cclesias­
tical Hierarchy he calls Timothy his son, who nevertheless was his
equal in authority, weight, learning, and every kind of dignity.
I n his seventh epistle, that to P o l y c a r p , he writes that he was in
3

E g y p t when that celebrated eclipse of the sun over the whole

world took place, at the time that our L o r d Jesus Christ suffered
death upon the cross. Y e t Origen, Tractat. 3 5 * in Matth, de­
nies that this was an eclipse of the sun, because it was then full
moon, and an eclipse of the sun takes place only at the new moon.
H e says besides, that the darkness spoken of b y Matthew, xxvii. 4 5 ,
was not universal (for then some history would have mentioned it),
but local and confined to the land of Judasa. J e r o m e , in his com­
6

[! ?J 8e reXovpevav dnaoSv i\jn]koTcpa rd£is, ij тши povax&v eariv Upd

8сак6о-рг)о-ц.—ut supra, p. 3 3 0 . ]
[2
урафе1 8e m l 6 delos 'lyvaTios, о epos eptor еатауратш.—ibid. pp. 467,
477.]
[3 арфотера yap готе ката. 'HXioiiroXiv ара irapovre те кол crweo­гйте,
irapabo^as та ' Н Х ш > TIJV ScXifvi/v ipmtTTovo-av icopapev, ov yap qv avvddov Kaipos.
p. 775.]
I* Q u o m o d o ergo poterat fieri defectio solis, c u m luna esset p l e n a , e t
p l e n i t u d i n e m solis h a b e r e t ? . . . . A r b i t r o r ergo, sicut cetera signa qua? facta
sunt in passione ipsius, i n H i e r u s a l e m t a n t u m m o d o facta sunt, sic e t tenebra?
t a n t u m m o d o super o m n e m t e r r a m Juda?am sunt facta? usque a d h o r a m n o n a m .
— O r i g e n . O p p . part. п . p . 1 2 8 . Paris 1 6 1 9 . ]
[ s
V i d e t u r q u e m i h i clarissimum l u m e n m u n d i , h o c est l u m i n a r e m a j u s ,
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 579

mentary on Matthew, says that this was no eclipse, hut that the
sun wrapped in darkness withdrew his beams, and would not look
upon so horrible a crime. If there had been such an eclipse, pro-
fane authors would certainly have mentioned it. But the proba-
bility is that, as Origen says, this darkness pervaded Judaea only,
as formerly E g y p t . Erasmus is of the same opinion.
6
I am not
solicitous about the p o i n t ; but hence I draw an inference, that these
fathers had either not seen these books, or did not ascribe so much
to them as the papists claim in their behalf.
Our countrymen, the Rhemists, in their annotations upon Acts i.
cite a certain epistle of Dionysius to Timothy which is not to b e
found amongst those at present extant in G r e e k ; for there are no
more than ten epistles in the Greek copies: perhaps they would
have this to be the eleventh. T h e y say that a narrative is given
in this epistle of the translation and assumption of the b o d y of the
blessed Virgin M a r y : for Dionysius, as they affirm, writes that he
and the twelve apostles were present at Mary's death. N o w how
was this possible, when they had before this parted company and
gone into different parts and climes of the world ? H e says that
they all assembled b y a miracle, except Thomas, who did not ar-
rive till three days after the Virgin's death. But these things can
b y no means be made to hang together. F o r the papists, as we
read in the N e w Sacerdotale, part. i. p. 1 5 6 , maintain that M a r y
conceived in the 14th year of her age, bore her son in the 15th,
and it is certain that she lived thirty-three years with Christ. She
was, consequently, 4 7 years of age when Christ died and ascended.
N o w they say that she died 16 years after Christ's ascension, in
the 6 3 r d year of her age. She lived therefore 1 5 , or at most 16
years after Christ's ascension. But James, the brother of John,
was put to death the third, or as some say the tenth year after
Christ's ascension, in the reign of Claudius; and so say Genebrard
in his Chronology, and Eusebius in his Chronicon. H e died there-
fore six years at least before the death of M a r y , and could not be
present at her departure, unless indeed he dropped from heaven
specially to attend her funeral. Besides, Dionysius' pretence that

retraxisse radios suos, ne aut pendentem videret Dominum, aut impii blas-
phemantes sua luce fruerentur.—Hieronym. Opp. T. iv. col. 139. Paris. 1706.]
[« Indicat Origenes in nonnullis codicibus adjeetum fuisse, tenebra facta?
sunt super totam terrain deflciente sole, quasi solis deliquium eas induxerit.
Atquo ita certe tradit epistola qua; nomine Dionysii circumfertur, mini
•\//-eu§on'ypa$or videtur.—p. 110. Basil. 1535.]
37—2
 580 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

he was himself present is also false : for Dionysius was a senator

of Athens in the 17th year after Christ's ascension, which was cer-
tainly the year when Paul came to Athens. M a r y therefore had
died before Dionysius was converted b y Paul to the christian faith.
But this Dionysius, who is said to have been present at the death
of M a r y along with the apostles, seems to have been a most zealous
adherent of the christian faith, and on familiar terms with the
apostles.
Lastly, even the papists themselves do not approve or receive
all the traditions of Dionysius. For, in the first place, he testifies
that Christians used in those times to receive the eucharist every
day. Besides, he describes a public not a private, a whole and
not a half-communion, Hierarch. Eccles. c. 3 ; and records in the
same place the reading of scripture and the public prayers to have
been made in the vulgar tongue. These points make against the
papists. In the seventh chapter of his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy
he relates a strange custom of the ancient church at funerals. H e
says they used to salute the corpse, and then pour oil upon i t ;
which customs are not practised b y the papists now. T h e y do
indeed diligently anoint the living, but bestow neither oil nor
salutations upon the dead. Bellarmine says that, although Luther
and Calvin reject these books, y e t the circumstance of their being
quoted b y G r e g o r y the great in his Homily upon the hundred
sheep, and b y others, proves that they are neither modern nor
despicable. I a n s w e r : I confess that they are not modern nor
despicable; but the question is, whether they are the work of
Dionysius the disciple of Paul. G r e g o r y the great, although he
mentions them, y e t does not follow them in all things. Besides,
Athanasius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, and other fathers
older than G r e g o r y , make no mention of these books. There is
no reason w h y we should not suppose that these books were p u b -
lished before G r e g o r y , who gained the place and reputation of a
great doctor of the church after six hundred years had elapsed
from the time of Christ. But Bellarmine could produce or name
no author near the apostolic age, who hath mentioned these books ;
a sufficient evidence that they were unheard of in the more ancient
times, and are no genuine production of the Areopagite . 1

In the fifth place, he produces P O L Y C A R P , a distinguished and

[ See a curious discussion of the authenticity of these books in Hakewill's
J

Apologie (Lond. 1 6 3 5 . ) Lib. v. pp. 2 0 8 — 2 2 6 , between Hakewill and Good-

man, bishop of Gloucester.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 581

constant Christian, adorned with the illustrious crown of martyrdom.

Eusebius, L i b . v. c. 2 0 , relates of him out of Irenseus, that he was
wont to repeat b y heart many things which he had heard from the
apostles concerning our L o r d , and which h e had written not on
paper, but in his heart. I answer, in the first p l a c e : T h e passage
in Eusebius should be referred to. Irenseus is writing against a
certain heretic Florinus, who maintained that evil beings were
created such b y G o d . Then he desires him to remember P o l y c a r p ,
the outlines and substance of whose teaching he recalls to his mind.
F o r Florinus had been with Polycarp, and Irenseus also, in his
youth, had heard Polycarp discoursing concerning the faith; and
he goes on to speak of the place where Polycarp used to relate
to the people many things about Christ, his miracles and his d o c -
trine, which he had heard from those who had seen Christ, and
which he had traced not on paper but on his h e a r t . N o w w h y is 2

all this alleged ? Does it follow that because Polycarp said many
things which he had heard from eye-witnesses, and because Irenseus
engraved them upon his heart, therefore these things are not
written, or unwritten traditions are necessary to salvation? His
mention of eye-witnesses does not prove that the same things as
he related were not written, but only that he wished to win the
greater credit for what he said b y this circumstance. N o r does
the fact of Irenseus having inscribed these lessons upon his heart , 3

prove that they could not have been written in b o o k s ; but only
that he, though a b o y , had engraved the words of Polycarp so
deeply upon his mind, that the memory of them remained per-
petually fixed therein. Ought not all sound doctrine to b e imprinted
upon our minds, even though the sacred books deliver it also ?

Secondly, Irenseus in that same place testifies that all the things
which Polycarp used to relate from memory concerning Christ
were " a c c o r d a n t with the scriptures," a-v/x(pa)va -rals ypatpals.
Let the papists introduce such traditions, and no others, and we
will receive them willingly. But Bellarmine, in order to gain
[2
wore p.e bivao-Bai eiran Kai rov TOTTOV iv <a Ka8t£6p.evos SteAeyero . . . . Kai
ras 8ia\e£cis as inoielro irpos TO TrXrjdos, Kai rrjv Kara 'ladvvov a-vvavao~Tpo(pr)v cos
arrrj-yyeWe, Kai rrjv p.era rcov Xomav rcov kcapaK&rcov rov Kvpiov • Kai cos cmep.vt)po~
veve rovs Xoyovs avrav, Kal irepl rov Kvpiov riva yv a Trap' eKeivcov aKrjKoei, Kai
irepi raiv 8vvap,ea>v airov, Kai irepi rrjs Hidao-Kakias, cos irapd avrcmrcov rrjs £coijs
rov Xoyou TrapeCKrjCpms 6 YloXxiKaprros aVnjyyeXXe iravra avp-Cpcova rals ypacpats.—
T . II. p . 100.]

[° ravra.... TJKOVOV, vrrop.vrip.aTi£6p.evos avra OIK iv X P V<

A T
"XX* iv r§ ip.fi
Kapbiq.—ibid.]
582 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

something from this passage, insists that Irenaaus' saying that these
things were consonant to scripture, is not inconsistent with their
not being written. F o r it is not, says he, everything that is con-
sonant to scripture, that can immediately be proved b y scripture;
for all truth is consonant to scripture, but all truth is not contained
in scripture, nor can be proved b y it. This he wishes to b e taken
as an answer to Chemnitzius. I answer: Firstly, that Irenaeus in
this place indicates plainly enough what he means b y styling these
things consonant to scripture. H e had to deal with the heretic
Florinus, who, as we have already said, asserted that evil things
were created b y God. This was the heresy he wished to r e f u t e :
now this m a y be most plainly refuted b y scripture. Secondly,
whatever is consonant with scripture, may be proved b y scripture:
but there are many things not dissonant from scripture which
cannot b e proved b y it. It is one thing to be consonant with
scripture, and another to be not dissonant from it. That there is
gold in the New Indies is not consonant with scripture, and yet is
not dissonant from it. All truth that is consonant with scripture
may be deduced from, and proved b y scripture, because in ac-
cordance with scripture. So Irenaeus, Lib. 11. c. 4 7 , says that " the
parables are consonant with the plain expression." Thirdly, I affirm
that some popish traditions are not only not consonant with scrip-
ture, but even altgether foreign from scripture; such as the tra-
ditions of purgatory, indulgences, the mass, sacrifice for the dead,
worship of images, and the merit of good works.
I come now to J U S T I N M A R T Y R , whom Bellarmine next objects
to us. H e brings against us many passages from his second
a p o l o g y : in the first place, that the Christians used then to meet
upon the Lord's d a y ; next, that they mixed water with the wine
1

in the eucharist . I a n s w e r : As to the former tradition, I say

2

that it m a y be proved b y scripture, and therefore is no unwritten

tradition. A s to the second, I confess that there was formerly such
a custom, but maintain that it was a matter of no importance. It is
no great matter if water b e mixed with strong wine, such as the
wine of those countries was, provided the substance of wine b e not
destroyed. Bellarmine then sets forth another tradition out of
Justin; that the eucharist is to be given to none but baptized per-
il 1
TT)V be rod y\lov rjpepav Koivfj rravres TTJV o-uve\evo-iv irotoipeda.—p. 99.
Paris. 1 6 3 6 . ]

[2
npoo-tfieperai ra TrpoecTcori rav abe\<p£v apros Kai Trorrjpiov vbaros KOL
Kpapaxos.—p. 97. ibid.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 583

sons. But I affirm that this may b e gathered from scripture.

However, he presses still more the following words of Justin: " T h e
day after Saturday, which is Sunday, he appeared to his apostles and
disciples, and delivered to them these things which we submit also
to your consideration ," &c.
3
I a n s w e r : In the first place, these words
are of no service to the popish traditions. F o r Justin only says,
that Christ rose on Sunday, which the scriptures tell us a l s o ; and
that he taught his apostles those things which Justin wrote in this
book, and submitted to the consideration of Caesar Antoninus. Now
these are no other than we read delivered in the scriptures. For
in this A p o l o g y Justin gives the emperor an account of the chris-
tian religion, wherein the papists have not been able to find any
of their traditions. Secondly, I would not have them trust too
much to Justin's traditions. F o r , in his Dialogue with T r y p h o , he
keenly defends the error of the Chiliasts on the plea of apostolical
tradition, and he hath some similar traditions which the papists at
the present d a y do not own. There is, besides, a small b o o k in
Greek, bearing Justin's name, with the title Zr)Tqp\aTa 'Avaytcdia,
wherein he recites several traditions; but it is no genuine piece
of Justin's*. For in Qucest. 1 1 5 , it mentions Irenseus, and in
Qucest. 8 2 , Origen, neither of whom could possibly have been
known to him. Besides, it speaks also of the Manicheans, who
arose some centuries after Justin. Finally, it is a v e r y strong
objection against the authority of this b o o k , that it is not noticed
b y either Jerome or Eusebius.

I R E N ^ U S comes next to Justin. Bellarmine says that many

noble testimonies might be cited from him, namely, from L i b . i n .
c. 2, 3, 4, where Irenaaus writes that there is no more convenient
way of arriving at the truth than b y consulting those churches
wherein there is a succession of bishops from the apostles. I
answer: I confess that Irenaaus appeals from the scriptures to the
churches and apostolical traditions. Moreover, he writes that
heretics are to be refuted not b y scripture, but by tradition.
Nevertheless our defence is no way prejudiced b y Irenaaus. We
must see what the reason was, on account of which Irenaaus spoke
t h u s ; and when we have got a clear view of this, we shall readily
understand that these statements yield little or no assistance to the

[3 Kai rfi pera TT)V KpoviKrjV, T)TLS io-Tiv TJXIOU r)pepa, cpavels Tois uirotTTokois
avrov Kai paOrjTats edl8a£e ravra, anep els enitrKe'^nv Kai vplv avedcoKapev. p. 99.]
[ La Croze ascribes this piece to Diodorus Tarsensis. Thesaur. Epist. m .
4

p. 280.]
584 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

papists. T h e reason w h y he appealed from scripture to apostolical

traditions, and said that heretics were not to be refuted b y scripture,
was, because he disputed against heretics who slanderously con-
tended that the scriptures were not p e r f e c t ; yea, who lacerated,
despised, corrupted, and denied t h e m ; who would not allow them-
selves to be pressed b y their authority, but clave to their traditions,
as the papists do now K H e rightly determines that it is not p o s -
sible to dispute against such persons out of scripture. R e a d the
second chapter of the third book. , F r o m that chapter it is appa-
rent that those heretics were precisely similar to our papists: for
they rejected the scriptures, firstly, because they were o b s c u r e ;
secondly, because they had various meanings and might be diversely
understood; thirdly, because tradition was prior to scripture;
fourthly, because the scriptures cannot be understood without tra-
ditions. F o r all these reasons they said that we should dispute
rather out of tradition than out of scripture; in all which points
the papists at the present day hold the same as they did : on
which account, Irenseus appeals to the apostolical churches, and
explains in c. 3, the grounds of this proceeding; namely, because,
if the apostles had delivered any such traditions as the heretics
pretended, they would doubtless have delivered them to those
churches wherein they themselves had taught . 2
A n d accordingly
he says, c. 3 : " W h e n we bring forward our succession, w e confound
the h e r e t i c s . "
3
H e brings forward in that place the succession of
the R o m a n church, because it was the most famous at that time.
B u t Bellarmine alleges some words from c. 4, to the effect that
the apostles had laid up in the church, " as in a rich repository, in
full abundance, all things which appertain to the truth, that every
one that chose might thence derive the water of life*." I answer:

P Cum enim e x scripturis arguuntur, i n a c c u s a t i o n e m convertuntur

ipsarum Bcripturarum, quasi n o n recte h a b e a n t , n e q u e sint e x auctoritate, et
quia varie sint dicta?, et quia n o n possit e x his inveniri V e r i t a s a b his qui
nesciant t r a d i t i o n e m : n o n e n i m p e r literas t r a d i t a m illam, s e d p e r v i v a m
v o c e m . — p . 230. ed. Fevard.]
P E t e n i m si recondita m y s t e r i a scissent apostoli, qua? seorsim e t l a t e n t e r
a b reliquis perfectos d o c e b a n t , his v e l m a x i m e traderent ea quibus e t i a m
ipsas ecclesias c o m m i t t e b a n t . — p . 2 3 2 . ]
P F i d e m , p e r successiones e p i s c o p o r u m p e r v e n i e n t e m usque a d n o s , i n -
dicantes, c o n f u n d i m u s o m n e s eos q u i . . . . praeterquam o p o r t e t c o l l i g u n t . —
ibid. B . ]
P N o n oportet a d h u c qua?rere a p u d alios v e r i t a t e m q u a m facile est a b
ecclesia s u m e r e , c u m apostoli, quasi in depositorium dives, plenissime in earn
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 585

W e also concede this. But it is inconclusive arguing to say, T h e y

bestowed all upon the c h u r c h ; therefore they did not write all.
Next he objects these words out of the same chapter: " If the
apostles had not left us the scriptures, ought we not to follow that
order of tradition which they delivered to those to whom they
committed the churches V 6
I answer: Surely we ought. But
where is the force of this argument ? Though the apostles had
written nothing, we ought to follow the order of tradition; there-
fore the apostles have not written all that is sufficient for faith and
salvation! In that chapter also Irenaeus mentions certain barbarous
nations which served God and cultivated religion without the
scripture. H a d then no churches scriptures, or do the scriptures
not contain the entire doctrine of Christianity ? This conclusion
does not follow. Bellarmine next alleges what Irenaeus says,
L i b . iv. c. 4 5 , 6
that the gift of truth was delivered to the churches
along with the succession of bishops from the apostles. I answer:
Can it be probably concluded from this, that all necessary things
are not written? B y no means. With the scriptures the apostles
delivered the truth to the churches; and those apostles who wrote
nothing, delivered to the churches no other truth than that which
is contained in the scriptures. Y e t hence the papists m a y under-
stand that succession is of no importance without " the gift of
truth." Furthermore, our opponents should not lay too much
stress upon Irenaeus, who was certainly deceived in the matter of
tradition. For Eusebius, Lib. i n . c. 3 9 , says that he was a
Chiliast. This may be proved from Lib. v. c. 2 3 . A n d Lib. II.
c. 3 9 , Irenaeus writes that Christ lived forty y e a r s ; which he
affirms that he received b y tradition not only from John, but from
the other apostles also. N o w this may be refuted b y scripture;
and, in fact, Epiphanius, Hcer. 7 8 , confutes this opinion. And
L i b . n. c. 4 7 , 7
Irenaeus writes, that faith and hope remain in the
life to come, which the scriptures expressly deny.

contulerint omnia qua? sint veritatis; uti omnis quicunque velit, sumat ex ea
potum vita?.—p. 2 4 2 . ]
[ Quid autem? si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis,
5

nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus com-
mittebant ecclesias ?—ibid.]
[6 Quapropter eis qui in ecclesia sint presbyteris obaudire oportet, his
qui successionem habent ab apostolis, sicut ostendimus, qui cum episcopatus
successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt.
— c . 4 3 , pp. 3 8 1 , 3 8 2 . ]
[ Sicut et apostolus dixit, reliquis partibus destructis, ha?c tunc persove-
7
586 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

It follows that we go through, the remaining supporters and

patrons o f traditions; the next of whom is C L E M E N S A L E X A N D R I N U S .
H e , as quoted b y Eusebius, Lib. vi. c. 1 1 , s a y s that he was obliged
1

to write a book concerning Easter, and to mention therein the tra-

ditions which he received from the presbyters, the successors of the
apostles. I answer, that that book is not now extant, and conse-
quently, that it is uncertain what traditions he therein related.
Secondly, it may well be supposed that it was traditions about
Easter,- or some similar to these, that were treated of in that b o o k , .
traditions of no great importance, and no way necessary to salvation.
Thirdly, I affirm that this Clemens was not entirely orthodox,
having, as Eusebius testifies, shewn too great a disposition to make
use of apocryphal pieces. In the first book of his Stromata he
says that the labourer, who is sent into the Lord's harvest, hath a
double husbandry, " written and unwritten," (eyy pcxpov and
dypacpov). In the same b o o k he says that Christ taught only
during one year, although it b e manifest from the gospels that his
teaching lasted three years and upwards. In the same book he
writes also that the Gentiles were saved b y their philosophy. In
the second book of the Stromata he hath laid the foundations of the
Nestorian heresy, as his translator Hervetus hath noted in the mar-
gin. A n d in the same book he says that no one was saved before
Christ. In his third book he says that Christ did not truly hunger
or truly thirst, but only seemed to be subject to hunger and thirst.
I n the sixth book he says that Christ and the apostles converted
many to the faith in Hades b y preaching to them. And in his
Protreptical Discourse he makes " E v e " denote allegorically plea-
sure, and thus taught his disciple Origen to interpret scripture
allegorically; from which source almost all the heresies, ancient
and modern, have taken their rise. H e wrote also, and taught
that Christ is a creature, as Ruffinus tells us in the A p o l o g y for
Origen.
Next follows O R I G E N , the auditor of Clemens. H e tells us, in his
Commentary upon the Romans, c. 6, that the baptism of infants is a

rare, qua? sunt fides, spes, et caritas. Semper enim fides, quae est ad magis-
trum nostrum, permanet.—p. 203. c. The schoolmen solve the difficulty by
determining that faith remains, quoad habitwm, though not quoad exercitium.
They have other expedients indeed, but this seems the most plausible.]
[} Kai iv rep Xoycu 8e avrov rep nepi TOV iracrxo- ei<l3iacr6ijvcu o/ioXoyet irphs
TCOV GTaipcov, a s e r u ^ e irapa TCOV apxalcov 7rpecrl3vrepcov aKrjKOcos irapahotrtis ypacpfj
rots perd ravra napahovvai.—c. 13. T. II. p. 182. ed. Heinich.]
XII.] QUESTION T H E SIXTH. 587

tradition . 2
I answer : That it is indeed a tradition, but a written
tradition, and capable of easy proof from scripture. Bellarmine next
gathers another testimony from the same father's fifth Homily upon
Numbers, where Origen says that many things are observed, the
reason of which is not plain to all, as kneeling in p r a y e r . 3
I answer :
This is indeed a laudable tradition, but y e t not a necessary one ; for
we read that some holy men have prayed standing. A n d Basil, de
Spirit. S. c. 2 7 , affirms that Christians used to p r a y erect, and not
upon their knees, on Sundays, and from Easter to Whitsuntide.
However, we need not defer much to Origen's authority, who is a
writer full of blemishes and errors. M a n y of the ancient fathers
wrote against him, as Epiphanius, Theophilus of Alexandria, and
Jerome, who calls his writings " poisoned." Indeed, it is evident
that there are many errors in his books. In his 35th Tractate
upon Matthew, he writes that h e learned from tradition that
Christ's countenance assumed diverse appearances according to the
worthiness of the beholders ; and says that it was upon this account
4

that Judas gave a sign to the Jews, Matth. xxvi. F o r what need,
says he, of a sign, when the Jews saw Jesus face e v e r y day, if 1

he had not a countenance that continually changed ? N o w this is

a ridiculous tradition.
Bellarmine next produces EUSEBIUS of Cesarea. H e , in his
Demonstratio Evangelica, L i b . i. c. 8, confirms unwritten tradi-
tions : for he says that the apostles delivered down some observ-
ances in writing, and some o r a l l y . 5
I answer : That this testimony is
clear enough, but unworthy o f reception, because repugnant to

[ 2
P r o h o c e t ecclesia a b apostolis traditionem suscepit, etiam parvulis
b a p t i s m u m d a r e . — O r i g e n . O p p . T . i v . p . 5 6 5 . Paris. 1 7 3 3 . ]
[ 3
S e d e t in ecclesiasticis obsei'vationibus sunt nonnulla hujusmodi, qua?
omnibus q u i d e m lacere necesse est, n e c t a m e n e o r u m ratio o m n i b u s p a t e t .
N a m q u o d , verbi gratia, g e n u a flectimus o r a n t e s . . . . n o n facile cuiquam p u t o
ratione c o m p e r t u m . — T . n . p . 2 8 4 . ]
[* V e n i t ergo talis traditio a d n o s d e e o , quoniam n o n s o l u m dua? formse
in eo fuerunt, u n a quidem s e c u n d u m q u a m o m n e s e u m videbant, altera a u t e m
s e c u n d u m quam transflguratus e s t c o r a m discipulis in m o n t e . . . . S e d etiam
unicuique apparebat s e c u n d u m q u o d dignus f u e r a t . — T . i n . p . 9 0 6 . ]
[ s
ot dé ye avrov padyrai, rà rov òiSaakaXov vevpan, KaTaXXrfXoi' rais rStv
iroXXàv ÒKoaìs Troiovpevoi TTJV StSao-KaXlav, otra pèv are Tt)V egiv 8iafiefirjKÓ<ri wpòs
rod reXeiov 8i&ao~KaXov rrap^yyeXro, ravra rots olois re x P*ì-v rrapebihov ocra Sè a

rais eri ras yjsvxàs eprraOea-c KO.\ Bepatrelas beopévois è<f>appó£eiv ìnreXapfìavov,
ravra o-vymTióvTes rij rwv 7r\eióva>v àoSevela, rà pèv 8ià ypappàrav, rà òè 6V
àypacpmv Qeo-pStv qbvkaTTeiv Trapeàidoo-av.—p. 2 9 . Paris. 1 6 2 8 . ]
 588 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

scripture. T h e same author says in the same place, that Christ' did
not deliver all things to all persons, but reserved some points of
greater excellence for the perfect, and that the apostles also p r o -
ceeded in the same manner. Irenajus gives a far different and
sounder determination, Lib. HI. c. 15. A n d we read that the apo-
stles made known the whole counsel of G o d to all the churches, and
concealed nothing that was necessary from any one. Besides, it is
absurd to suppose that the traditions pretended b y the papists are
so excellent and sublime as not to b e communicated to e v e r y b o d y .
F o r if we would j u d g e aright, we must needs confess that much more
perfect and excellent matters may be found in scripture. Besides,
what that same author writes in the same place, of two ways of liv-
ing amongst christian men, is a mere fiction.
I n the next place follows ATHANASIUS. In the treatise which he
wrote in defence of the decrees of the Nicene Council against
Eusebius of Nicomedia, he says, that " that doctrine was delivered
down from hand to hand from fathers to f a t h e r s . " 1
I a n s w e r : That
Athanasius speaks of the Homoiision, which he proves to be no new
term, or then first invented b y the Nicene fathers, but acknowledged
and used b y the more ancient fathers also. But does it hence fol-
low that the same term may not be justified out of the scriptures
too ? B y no means. F o r it was in the scriptures that these fathers
learned to use it. W e dispute not about words, but the sense o f
words, the dogma, the doctrine which they convey. W e reject not
certain words which are nowhere found in scripture, provided they
bear no meaning foreign from scripture. Such are the terms,
" Trinity," " person," " hypostasis," " consubstantial," and others
of that sort. But new dogmas, whereof the scriptures say nothing,
w e do reject, and maintain that no article of faith is necessary which
is not delivered in the scriptures.
BeUarmine proceeds, and objects to us BASIL in the next place.
H e writes thus, De Spirit. S. c. 2 7 : " Those things which we
observe and teach w e have received partly from the written teach-
ing, and partly delivered to us in a mystery from the tradition of
the apostles ." 2
H e remarks in the same place, that " both these

[! Idoii ype7s pev in itaripiav eh irarepas Siafie^ijKevai TTJV TOUXVTTJV biavoiav

anoSeiKviopev.—Athan. Opp. T . I. p. 233. Paris. 1698.]
[2
rav ev rfi inKkqcriq Tvetyvkaypevoav doypdrav Kal KtjpvypaTaiv TO pev eK rrjs
eyypatpov 8i8a<rKa\ias e%opev, TO 8e eK TTJS T&V anocrTSKcov irapa86<reas 8ia8o6evra
fipZv ev pvo-njpla napeSe^apeffa- aitep apfporepa Trjv airr/v l<T)(vv er^ei itpos TTJV

eio-ipeiav.—Basil. Opp. T. ii. 210. Paris. 1618.]

XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 589

have equal force to piety." H e hath similar sentiments in c. 2 9 . 3

The papists press with extraordinary earnestness these words and

the passage a d d u c e d ; and indeed they do seem to establish and
sanction the decree of the council of Trent, wherein traditions are
made equal to scripture. But I a n s w e r : Firstly, that it may be
doubted whether these are the true and genuine words of Basil.
N o r are we the first that have called this matter in question;
since Erasmus, an acute j u d g e of ancient writings, hath passed the
same judgment in the preface to his version of Basil, observing
4

that he perceived a change of style from the middle of the b o o k

and onward. Damascene, indeed, in his first oration upon the
Worship of Images, recites these words as Basil's: but we do not
account his opinion of much consequence, since he came too late in
point of time, and was excessively given to traditions; and this book
of his is of no sort of authority. Secondly, if these be genuine
words of Basil, then he is at variance with himself. F o r he else-
where teaches that all things necessary to salvation may be found
in scripture, and that the scriptures contain a full and perfect b o d y
of teaching; as will hereafter appear manifestly, when we come to
propose the arguments upon our side. Thirdly, it is certain that
Basil was sometimes too much addicted to traditions, and hence
sometimes fell into mistakes. This may be plainly perceived from
his Homily upon Christ's Nativity , where he writes, that the Z a c h -
5

arias mentioned in Matth. xxiii. 3 5 , was the father of John the

Baptist, and was slain b y the Jews for having placed M a r y the
mother of Christ amongst the virgins after she had borne a son,

P dwoo-ToKiKov 8e oifiai Kal TO rats dypdfpois Ttapaboo-eo-i irapapeveiv.— ibid,

p. 2 1 7 . ]
[•* R a t h e r , in his D e d i c a t o r y E p i s t l e . H i s words a r e : Postquam dimidium
operis a b s o l v e r a m citra tsedium, visa est m i h i phrasis a l i u m referre parentem,
aliumque spirare g e n i u m : interdum ad tragicum cothurnum intumescebat
oratio, rursus a d v u l g a r e m s e r m o n e m subsidebat, i n t e r d u m s u b i n a n e quiddam
h a b e r e v i d e b a t u r . . . . a d h u c subinde digrediebatur a b instituto, n e c satis c o n -
cinne redibat a digressione. P o s t r e m o m u l t a videbantur admiscori, quse n o n
admodum facerent ad id quod agiturj qua;dam etiam r e p e t u n t u r oblivione
verius q u a m judicio. Q u u m Basilius u b i q u e sit sanus, simplex, et candidus,
sibi constans, a t q u e e t i a m instans, nunquam ab eo quod agitur excurrens
t e m e r e , n u n q u a m divinis mysteriis admiscens philosophiam mundanam, nisi
p e r adversaries coactus, i d q u e c o n t e m p t i m . — C f . Stillingfleet. Ration. Ac-
c o u n t . P . i. c. 8. W o r k s , "Vol. i v . p . 2 3 5 . L o n d . 1709.]

p §17X01 6« Kal rj Kara TOP Za%apiav loTopla, OTI pe^pi TavTOs TTapdevos 17
TAapla- X o y o s yap TIS eari Kal OVTOS eK napadoo-ea>s els rjp.ds atpt.yp.evos. K. T . A . —
T. I. p . 5 9 0 . ]
590 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

which the Jews could b y no means tolerate. On this account he

says that the Jews rushed upon him and slew him between the
temple and the altar. This he calls an old tradition, Xoyov e/c
7rapaSoo-ews atpiyfxevov. I suppose he took it from Origen upon
Matth. xxiii, 1
and Origen from I know not whom. However, we
m a y see from Chrysostom and Jerome, what opinion we should
form of this tradition. Chrysostom affirms that the person here
meant was the son of Jehoiada, of whom we read, 2 Chron. xxiv.
20, 21. And Jerome says, that what we are told about the
father of John Baptist is merely apocryphal, and rejected as
easily as it is asserted, along with all the other things which rest
upon no scriptural foundation. From which words it appears
plainly what value is to be assigned to Basil's traditions, which are
both condemned b y ancient fathers and easily refuted b y reason.
Fourthly, I come to Basil's actual w o r d s : he says, that the gospel
without unwritten tradition hath no force, but is a mere name,
\pikov ovotxa. I f he meant that it is of no avail without preach-
ing and interpretation, he would have said something; but he is
speaking of certain rites and ceremonies not contained in scripture,
which he there enumerates, and without which he pronounces the
gospel to b e of no avail. If Basil were now to rise from the dead,
he would doubtless refuse to acknowledge such a sentiment, which
deservedly merits to be exploded and condemned b y all g o o d Chris-
tians. H o w e v e r , let us see what sort of things are these traditions,
so excellent, so necessary, so divine, and without which the gospel
would lose all its efficacy: let us j u d g e whether they possess
indeed so much value and importance.

T h e first tradition which he proposes is the sign of the cross :

for he says that those who have believed in Christ should be signed
with the symbol of the cross, T(j5 TVTTW TOU aravpou 1-01)5 r]\7ri-
KOTCVS tcaTaarifxaiveaQai. I acknowledge this to be an ancient
ceremony, used from almost the earliest times of the christian
church and religion, and used for this r e a s o n ; that Christians, who
then lived in the midst of pagans and men most hostile to the faith
of Christ, might b y every means declare and publicly testify that
they were Christians; of doing which they supposed that there was
no more convenient means than signing themselves with this out-
ward symbol of the cross. Afterwards this sign was applied to
other purposes, wherein there was more of superstition than of

I 1
Tract, xxvi. cf. Huet, Origeniana. Lib. n. Q. iv. p . 66.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 591

religion. F o r what ? are we to think that piety and religion con-

sist in outward t h i n g s ? Surely not. " B u t the flesh is signed that
the soul may be protected," says Tertullian. On the contrary, it
is b y faith, not b y the cross, that the soul should be protected.
T h e ancients, indeed, thought they were protected b y this sign
against evil demons; but this had its origin in the Montanistic
heresy. W e read, however, in history, that many demons were
put to flight b y this sign, as is narrated in the case of Julian the
apostate. While he was celebrating some horrible rites, and a crowd
of demons had collected in the place where those impious ceremonies
were being performed, Julian, forgetting himself in his fright,
signed himself with the cross,- as he used to do when he was a
Christian; whereupon forthwith all the devils betake themselves
to flight. I am aware that these and similar accounts are delivered
down to us in history. Meanwhile this should be deeply imprinted
upon the minds of us all, that the devil is a cunning, crafty, versa-
tile, deceitful and lying impostor. H e pretends therefore to fear
the sign of the cross, in order to lead us to place more confidence in
that outward sign than in Christ crucified himself. But we shall
have to speak elsewhere of the sign of the cross.

Another of Basil's traditions is, that we should turn to the east

when we p r a y ; irpos cti/aroXas TerpatpQat Kara rrjv Trpocrev^rjv.
I answer : This ceremony is of no importance whatsoever. Can we
think that the apostles were anxious about such a matter as what
point of the compass men should turn towards in their prayers ?
Does not God hear those who turn towards the south or west ? This
is surely more suited to Jews than Christians. Eucherius, an
ancient father, in his Commentary upon the books of Kings, Lib. 11.
c. 5 8 , writes piously, that no precept directs us how to place our
body in prayer, " provided only the mind be present with G o d , "
and waiting upon him. Socrates, Lib. v. c. 2 2 , writes that the A n -
tiochenes used to turn towards the west in their prayers, adopting a
custom directly opposite to what Basil tells us was commanded b y
the apostles. Must the gospel be ruined, if this glorious tradition
b e taken away ? But let us consider the reasons of this tradition
broached b y Basil. " W h e n we p r a y , " says he, " w e look t o -
wards the east; but few of us know the reason w h y we do so.
N o w the reason is, because we seek our ancient country Para-
dise, which God is said to have placed, in the garden of Eden,
towards the sun's rising." I answer: Is it then that earthly para-
dise in which Adam was placed, that we seek for ? N a y , we
seek another country, in the heavens, where there is neither east
592 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

nor west. This, therefore, was a reason absolutely ridiculous and

unworthy of Basil.
Basil's third tradition relates to the words of invocation, when
the bread and wine are exhibited in the eucharist. I answer: T h e
papists themselves do not retain this form of invocation, nor under-
stand any thing of its nature.
Fourthly, Basil s a y s : " W e bless the water of baptism." I
answer: W h a t does this mean ? Did not Christ b y his authority
and commandment, and b y his word, sanctify all water for baptism?
Is not all pure elementary water sufficient for baptism even without
this benediction ? Is not baptism valid performed in any water ?
W e read in Acts viii. of the baptiSm of the eunuch: but neither
there nor elsewhere in the sacred scriptures could we ever find
a word of this sanctification of the water. Justin Martyr, in his
second A p o l o g y , where he shews the manner and describes the form of
baptism amongst the ancient Christians, makes no mention of bless-
ing the water. W e read in Eusebius, that Constantine always
desired to be baptized in J o r d a n : but, I suppose, a whole river of
running water could not be sanctified in this way. Chrysostom,
(Horn. 2 5 , in Joann.) writes excellently well, that Christ b y his
1

baptism sanctified all waters: but these men are wont to apply
exorcisms to water, salt, bells, as if all the creatures were full o f
devils. T e t , although they require exorcisms, they dare not deny
that it is a legitimate, entire, and true baptism, which is performed
even in not sanctified water.
Basil's fifth tradition is like the preceding, namely, that the
persons to be baptized should be dipped thrice, Tpk ficnrTi^eaOai,
concerning which tradition we read also in the 50th canon of the
apostles. I answer: W o u l d the power of the gospel be impaired
b y the loss of this tradition ? W h o would say so ? It is at least
manifest that this tradition is neither apostolical nor necessary.
F o r , in Acts ii., we read that three thousand men were baptized
upon the day of Pentecost. So many persons could not be baptized
on one day, if each were dipped three times. In the ancient and
primitive church baptism was wont to be celebrated but twice in the
year, at Easter and Pentecost, and then a vast multitude of persons
was baptized on one day. H o w great a labour would this have
been, if they had used the trine immersion with e a c h ! Others,
however, rather approve aspersion than immersion, as Cyprian,
Epist. Lib. iv. E p . 7. A n d G r e g o r y , Epist. Lib. i. E p . 4, says that
it makes no matter whether we use the trine or simple immersion,
[i Opp. T. iv. 6 5 4 . Eton. 1 6 1 2 . ]
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 593

Gratian, Dist. 4, de Consecr. C. de Trina, lays down the same

thing. But the fourth council of Toledo, can. 5, prohibits that trine
immersion: and, indeed, every one sees that even a single dip is
attended with danger to a tender infant. T h e papists themselves do
not now use a trine immersion, but a trine sprinkling, wherewith
they maintain that baptism is completely performed. N o w if it be
an apostolic tradition that those who are baptized should be dipped
thrice, they ought not to have made any change.
Basil's sixth tradition is that those who are baptized should
airoTaacreo-Oai Tip Saxa^t, renounce Satan. I reply, that this is
perfectly true. But do we not " r e n o u n c e " Satan, when we profess
to believe in the Father, Son, and H o l y Ghost ?
F r o m these instances we may j u d g e of the rest. What ? Are
these the things without which the gospel will lose all its efficacy ?
N a y , the papists themselves retain not all these traditions of Basil's.
T h e y do not dip, but sprinlde: they do not pray standing upon the
Lord's day, as Basil here determines that we o u g h t ; for if we fol-
low Basil, we ought to pray standing on all Sundays from Easter to
Pentecost. This the papists do not observe, shewing therein that
Basil is not to be listened to upon that matter. F o r Basil contends
most earnestly for this tradition, and adduces three reasons in sup-
port of the practice: 1. because Christ arose upon the L o r d ' s
d a y : 2. because we seek the things that are above, TO] dvw
fyrovfiev. But we should do this a l w a y s ; and according to this
reason, we should always pray standing: 3. because the eighth
day is a symbol of the world to c o m e ; and therefore, says he, the
church hath taught its nurslings to make their prayers in an erect
posture, and that upon a necessary obligation. A similar decree
was made in the first council of Nice, can. 2 0 . But a different 2

custom hath now for a long time prevailed. T h e papists themselves

have taught us b y their own example to reject such traditions. F o r
these traditions of Basil's are either necessary, or they are not. I f
they be necessary, w h y do they not themselves observe them a l l ?
If they be not necessary, w h y do they press us with the authority
of Basil ? F o r either we should not be attacked, if they be un-
necessary ; or they sin in not observing them, if they be necessary.
Let them choose which they will.
The same Basil, however, in his Epitomized Definitions writes
much better upon the subject of traditions. H e says that there
are some things enjoined in the scriptures, and some passed over
[ 2
L a b b . et Cossart. T . n . col. 37.]
-, 38
£W H I T A K E R . J
594 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

in silence: wherein though he may seem to favour the papists, he

y e t lends them no sort of countenance. F o r he afterwards teaches
us what sort of things are those which are not mentioned in them,
namely, things left free, of a middle and indifferent nature. Of
all these he says that this is the rule, this the c a n o n ; " a l l things
are lawful for me, but all things are not e x p e d i e n t . " 1
N o w this
rule must be understood of things indifferent. Whatever therefore
is not set down in scripture must be looked upon as left free. This
is our own opinion, that it is only things necessary, and not things
indifferent, that are delivered in the scriptures. Since then we
are disputing about things necessary, w h y do they press upon us
Basil's traditions, which, being unwritten, are, in his own judgment,
indifferent and not necessary ? Thus we see what opinion we
should form of this place, than which the papists have none more
urgent in favour of tradition. However, the Tridentine fathers
would fain find sanction in this place for their decree, that traditions
are to be received and reverenced with the same feelings of pious
respect as the sacred books of the old and new Testaments them-
selves. But I answer, that no one is so foolish as to believe that
these traditions of Basil's, just now set forth, have the same force
and authority as holy scripture. Y e t Bellarmine says, that they are
of equal obligation, not indeed as to observance, but as to faith. So
(he adds) some precepts of the L o r d are greater than others, as,
" Thou shalt love the L o r d thy G o d with all thy heart," & c . ; and
others of less importance, as that of avoiding idle words, Matth. xii.
36. These (says he) oblige us equally in respect of faith, though
not equally in respect of observance. I answer : In the first place,
the papists themselves have proved b y their own example, that these
traditions of Basil's are in no way to be treated as equal to scripture;
for they have abrogated some of them both in respect of faith and
of observance. N o w not the smallest precept delivered in scripture
can be abrogated, not even that concerning idle words. Secondly,
if they could with so much clearness and authority prove their
traditions to be as true as the precepts of scripture, we would wil-
lingly receive them as on the same footing with scripture: but, as we
have already made appear, even they themselves do not certainly
k n o w their own traditions.
Hitherto we have been engaged in answering objections from

[} ra pev ecrnv vnb rrjs e'vroXrjs rov Qeov iv rij ayiq ypacpfj Steo-ToXpeva, ra Se
o~e<ri<07rr]fLeva.... irepl fie T&V o~eo~iayK7ipev<i>v Kavova ypiv i^eQero 6 airdaroXos
HavXos (lirav navra pot egeortv, dXK' oi iravra o-vpqbepei.—T. II. p . 6 2 4 . ]
XII.] QUESTION T H E SIXTH. 595

the fathers, and these matters have delayed me, though in haste
to come to the arguments on our side. Y e t there are still some
testimonies remaining, which can b y no means be passed over.
In the next place, Bellarmine brings N A Z I A N Z E N E into the field
against us ; who, in his first Invective against Julian, declares that
he admired the doctrine of the church, but especially the forms
which the church had received b y tradition and preserved . 2
I
a n s w e r : Nazianzene b y the word TVTTOVS in that place means either
the sacraments, which were indeed administered with the utmost
sanctity and reverence, or some other rites and ceremonies which
christian men used in the administration of the sacraments. But the
other ceremonies which he mentions were free, not necessary, as the
manner of singing, imposing penance, and such like. These were
useful, and not to be blamed, but y e t not absolutely necessary.
T h e y are consequently irrelevant to the present question, because
our dispute is only about things necessary. Besides, even those
ceremonies have certain rules in scripture, to which they must be
squared and made conformable.
N e x t follows C H R Y S O S T O M , who, upon 2 Thess. ii. 1 5 , com­
menting upon the words, " hold the traditions," drops some
expressions favourable to tradition. " Hence," says he, " it is
plain that the apostles did not deliver everything in epistles, but
many things also without w r i t i n g . " 3
I a n s w e r : Unless those many
things of which Chrysostom speaks be founded upon the autho­
rity of scripture, he contradicts himself, as shall afterwards be
made clear in the defence of our side. But Chrysostom says that
both these classes are equally deserving of credit, ofio'uos а^ютпата.
A n d afterwards he says, " It is a tradition; let that suffice." I
a n s w e r : It was an inconsiderate word, and unworthy of so great a
father. M ust whatever is obtruded on us under the name of a
tradition be immediately received ? N a y , the apostle tells us to
" try the spirits," and to " prove all things." Theophylact and
CEcumenius agree with h i m ; but it is not necessary to answer them.
T h e same Chrysostom also in his third Homily upon the Philip­
[ 2
opav yap той rjptTepov Xoyov peyav pev ovra rots boypao-iv . . . . e n 8c pd£a>
ка\ yvcopiparepov TOIS wapaSedopevoi-,- Kal ei'y roSe Т€тг)рг)pevots TVTTOIS TTJS екк\т}-
crias, tva р-цЫ TOVTO акакоуруг/тор рЬц, ri pqxavaTai.—Greg. Naz. Opp. Т. I.
p. 101. Colon. 1690.]
[3 £VT£v6sv brjkov on ov тгиута bi emo-ToXtjs тгареЫЪоо-av, aWa тгоХКа ка)
аурафеч- opolas какйуа кал таута eoriv а^штота, асгте ка\ тг/и ттараЬосгш -njs
«ккХт/сгшг а^ютгссгтои т/уюрева. irapabocris icrri, pijdev rrXeov tfrei.—Chrysost.
Comm. T. vi. p. 386. Paris. 1633.]
38—2
 596 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

plans , and in his sixty-ninth Homily to the people of Antioch,

1

declares that the apostles sanctioned the mentioning of the dead in

the celebration of the holy mysteries; which he also affirms to be
salutary to the departed. I answer: I do not acknowledge that
tradition, and have no doubt that, if the prayers of the living were
so useful and salutary for the dead, scripture would have mentioned
and even enjoined them. However, Chrysostom is scarce consistent
with himself in this place. H e says in a previous passage, that
those who die in their sins are not to be helped b y prayers, but
perpetually mourned over. Afterwards, nevertheless, he pronounces
that prayers are of great avail to these persons; adding, however,
that he speaks only of such as die in the faith, irepl TWV év wlaTet
•rrape\9ói/Twi). But how is it possible that one should die in faith,
and y e t die in sins ? F o r all their sins are remitted to those who
die in faith.
In the next place Bellarmine objects T H E O P H I L U S of Alexandria.
H e in his first and third Lib. Paschal, says that the laws of fasting
are apostolic. I answer: This was indeed an excellently learned
writer, who refuted the Anthropomorphites; and yet he was a bitter
enemy of Chrysostom, a person of the utmost sanctity and integrity,
whom he ceased not from persecuting until he had glutted his
hatred, and driven that most worthy prelate into exile. But to
come to the question: I answer, in the first place, that those laws
of fasting were not imposed b y the apostles, but b y the heretic
Montanus. So Eusebius testifies, Lib. v. c. 1 8 . " This," says he,
(meaning Montanus), " i s the person who prescribed laws for fasting,"
¿ vr¡<TTeía<i vo¡xodeTr¡cras. These laws, therefore, are heretical, not
apostolical, being instituted b y Montanus, and not derived from the
apostles. Secondly, I say, that the rule of fasting prescribed b y
this Theophilus is such as the papists themselves do not observe.
H e would have us, when we fast, abstain not only from flesh, but
from wine :
2
the papists abstain from flesh indeed, but in the
meanwhile allow other dainties, and as large a quantity of wine as
y o u please to fast on.
JSText follows C Y R I L of Jerusalem, whom Bellarmine declares to
handle nothing else in his Catechetics but unwritten rites in the
celebration of the sacraments. I answer: H e produces however no
traditions from this author, nor can he produce many. There are

[i I b i d . p. 3 3 . ]
[ 2
Q u i a u t e m l e g u m prsecepta custodiunt, ignorant v i n u m in j e j u n i i s . —
A p . B i b l . P P . T . v. p. S 5 5 . L u g d u n . 1 6 7 7 . ]
XII.] QUESTION T H E SIXTH. 597

indeed a few, but those of no great importance. T h e book itself

appeared in Greek only a few years a g o , but seems quite worthy
of Cyril: it is marked b y singular knowledge, and piety and
prudence. L e t them, if they can, produce from him any traditions
opposed to us. H o w far he is from approving unwritten traditions,
he shews plainly in the fourth Catechesis, where he writes expressly,
that in things appertaining to faith and religion nothing, however
small, is to be established without the authority of scripture. His
words are, Set 7repl rwv Oeicov KOI ayitvv rj/s TvicrreiuS fiuo-Trjp'icvv
jurjSe TO TV^OV dvev TIOV Oetivv irapaSlSocrOai ypacpwv. T h e cause,
then, of the popish traditions, which rest upon no testimonies of scrip-
ture, is lost. But Cyril adds further, that our faith must be proved b y
scripture, and from no other s o u r c e : r] awrripia Ttjs irlcrTem r)/xiov
OVK e£ evpeeri\oytas, aXX e£ onToSe't^ecus TWV Qe'iwv eo~Ti ypacpiov.
Next follows another C Y R I L , namely of Alexandria, who in his
sixth book against Julian the Apostate relates many things concern-
ing the use of the image of the cross. I answer : W e have already
spoken of this tradition. It is not surprising that he should speak
copiously upon this subject against Julian the A p o s t a t e ; since the
Christians of those times were wont to use this sign amongst the hea-
then as the banner of their profession. Meanwhile he defends the per-
fection of the scriptures, as shall be proved h e r e a f t e r . ^ B u t Bellar-
mine hath omitted the testimony of this Cyril in his printed edition.
Next comes E P I P H A N I U S , whom they make a great patron o f
traditions. H e tells u s , in Hceres. 7 5 , and 6 1 and 6 3 , speaking
3

against the Apostolici, that " we cannot take everything from the
scriptures." A n d Bellarmine observes that the heretics (meaning
us) have no answer to this but blasphemy. I ans we r: What
blasphemy is it to say that Epiphanius delighted more in traditions
than he ought, y e a , even in those genealogies which the apostle
condemns ? Surely he that says this does no injury to Epipha-
nius : for the truth of this m a y be proved b y such an instance
as occurs in Hceres. 5 5 , where he affirms that he knew b y tradition
who was the father of Daniel, and who of Elijah the p r o p h e t , and 4

how old Lazarus was when Christ raised him from the d e a d . 5

P Hferes. Ixxr. §. 6. p . 9 1 0 . l x i . 6 . p. 5 1 1 . T . i . e d . P e t a v . T h e latter is

t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t : ou yap iravraOTTO-ri/r Betas yparprjs hivarai XapfidvecrBai.
Sco T o pev ev ypacpals, rd He iv irapabotrei TTaplDawav ol ay lot COTOcrToXoi.]
P Hair. lv. §. 3. p . 4 7 0 . ]
P Haei'es. lxri. §. 3 4 . p. 6 5 2 : dXXa <a\ ev Trapaboo-ea-iv evpopev, on Tpianovra
era>v r)v Tore 6 Aa£apos, ore iyr/yeprat.]
598 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

However, m y first reply is, that those things which Epiphanius

says cannot be derived from scripture, are either indifferent and
not necessary, as pertaining only to the external polity of the
church, or else Epiphanius is inconsistent with himself; for he says
elsewhere, that all things necessary are delivered in the scriptures.
Secondly, I say that those traditions which he styles apostolic have
been long since abrogated and disused b y the papists. W h y then
do they press us so urgently with the authority of this father,
when they themselves have long a g o exploded his traditions ? F o r
in Hceres. 5 1 , he says that the wise men spoken of in Matth. ii.,
came two years after the birth of Christ. N o w the fathers have
refuted this opinion, nor do the papists maintain it. T h e same
author tells us, Hceres. 8 0 , that it is a tradition that men should
nourish beards . 1
Doubtless a noble o n e ! Y e t the papists neglect
this tradition, their clergy being all shaven and beardless. Thirdly,
as to the passage which Bellarmine adduces from Hceres. 6 1 , it
may indeed be perceived from it that Epiphanius approved of some
traditions as apostolical, but y e t not that he was so pertinacious
a maintainer of them as the papists are. F o r h e says that it is
an apostolical tradition, " that no one should contract marriage
after a vow of c e l i b a c y , " and that to do otherwise is impious. S o
2

far h e and the papists agree. But in that same place Epipha-
nius affirms that it is better, if one fall in his course, that he should
take a wife, even after such a v o w , and come at length, even
though halt, into the church, than suffer the daily wounds of secret
arrows. T h e papists merely provide that no man shall contract
marriage after a vow, but in the meanwhile escape not from those
" secret arrows." Epiphanius asserts that it is safer and better to
desist from the race begun, and contract marriage, than to g o on
to destruction pierced b y those deadly shafts o f lust. D o they
approve of him h e r e ? Can they tolerate this opinion o f h i s ?
F a r from i t : they pronounce it an impious and sacrilegious crime
once to entertain a thought of marriage after such a vow, and they
annul such marriages though made and celebrated. However, he
hath one opinion sadly unauthorised: for he thinks this very act
of contracting marriage after a vow to b e a s i n ; and nevertheless
he says that it is better to have one sin than many, KpeiTTov e^etv

[} §. 7. p . 1 0 7 3 : ev TOIS 8iaTa£eo~i TO>V aVooToXaw (pdo~Kei 6 8e"ws Xoyos Kai

i) 8i8ao-Kakia, prj cpBeipeiv, Tovretrn prj repveiv Tpi)(as yeveiov.]
[2
7rape8a>Kav Toivvv ol ayloi Qeov awoo-roXoi rfj aylq Qeov eKKkqaiq, effrdpaprov
elvai TO pera TO opiaai irapdevlav els yapov Tpeireo-dcu.—ut Supra, p . 511.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 599

a/uapTiav \x!iav /cat /uij irepicrcToTepas. W h o sees not how repug-

nant this is to sound divinity ? F o r nothing wrong is on any
account to be done.
The last of the Greek fathers cited b y Bellarmine is D A M A S -
CENE. In his book de Fide Orthodox. L i b . iv. c. 1 7 , he says
that the apostles delivered many unwritten traditions . I a n s w e r : 3

W e make no account in this question of Damascene, a late author,

superstitious, and devoted to the worship of i m a g e s ; so that it is
no wonder that he should afford some patronage to tradition. H e
wrote indeed many things excellently well against the ancient here-
tics. Y e t even the papists cannot venture to defend him upon every
p o i n t : for in c. 18 of that same book he enumerates the Clementine
Canons of the apostles along with the other canonical books of
holy scripture; which the papists have not y e t ventured on.
Thus far of the Greek fathers. N o w follow the L a t i n ; of
whom our opponent produces first T E R T U L L I A N , citing his book de
Corona Militis, wherein Tertullian contends vehemently for tradi-
tions : " O f these," he says, " and similar observances, tradition
is the author, custom the confirmer ," &c. I answer in the first 4

place, that Tertullian was a Montanist when h e wrote that b o o k ;

for he mentions the new prophecies, of which Montanus was
undoubtedly the inventor. N o w Montanus was the introducer of
many traditions which could not afterwards be extirpated. He
said that he had that Paraclete whom Christ promised; and rely-
ing upon the authority of this Paraclete, he introduced many
things into the church without the authority of scripture. This
wicked Montanus deluded Tertullian himself, whose loss and fall
we may well lament: for at that time there was none more
learned, none more holy, none more earnest in the defence of the
christian faith, than Tertullian; y e t this heresy o f Montanism
hath stripped this father o f all his credit. S o Hilary speaks, in
his commentary on Matthew, canon 5 : " Although Tertullian hath
written very suitable discourses upon this subject, y e t the error
which afterwards attached to him hath deprived even his c o m -
mendable writings of all a u t h o r i t y . " Jerome in his book against
5

[ 3
o n 8 e /ecu TrXcicrra oi d7rocrroXot aypatfias TrapafieSco/cao-t ypa(pei I l a C X o r .
K. T . X . — c . 1 6 . T . I . p . 2 8 2 . e d . L e q u i e n . Paris. 1 7 1 2 . ]
t 4
H a r u m e t aliarum e j u s m o d i disciplinarum si l e g e m expostulos scrip-
turai'um, n u l l a m i n v e n i e s ; traditio tibi prcetendetur auctrix, consuetudo c o n -
firmatrix, et fides o b s e r v a t r i x . — c . 4 . ]
[ 6
Q u a n q u a m e t Tertullianus h a c d e r e aptissima v o l u m i n a scripserit, sed
consequens error homiuis detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem. ]
600 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Helvidius denies him to have been " a man of the c h u r c h ; " and in
his Catalogue he says of Tertullian, that " he wrote many things
against the c h u r c h ; " as indeed he did. This being so, how absurd
it is to obtrude these Montanistic traditions upon Tertullian's
authority! Vincentius Lirinensis, Commonit. c. 2 4 , writes excel-
lently of Tertullian, whom he compares to O r i g e n : " W h a t , " says
he, " could be more learned than this man ? W h e r e could we find
greater skill in all things human and divine ? &c. A n d y e t , after
all this, even he, this very Tertullian, losing his hold of catholic
doctrine, and far more eloquent than fortunate, changed his opinion
afterwards," & & 1
W h o would not fear in his own case when so
great a man fell into heresy ?
Secondly, I reply that all those traditions which Tertullian
here praises, with the single exception of the sign of the cross,
are now abrogated b y the papists themselves; and consequently,
that their conduct is at once impious and impudent, when they
object to us traditions which they themselves neither retain nor
j u d g e worthy of observance. Tertullian's traditions are such as
t h e s e ; dipping thrice in baptism, presenting milk and honey to be
tasted immediately after baptism, abstaining from the bath for a
week after baptism, taking the Eucharist at meal-times, annual
oblations to be made b y every one in honour of the martyr's an-
niversaries, considering it a crime to worship kneeling on the Lord's
day, or from Easter to Pentecost. These are the traditions which
Tertullian mentions and praises so highly in this place, and not one
of which is observed b y the papists. N a y , he seems to have
written this book expressly against the catholics. T h e very argu-
ment of the book seems to prove this, which is as follows: ' T h e
soldiers were to receive a crown of laurel: one of them refused to
wear that crown upon his head, because he was a Christian, and
told the tribune of i t ; whence ensued a great slaughter of the
Christians. T h e catholics said that this was an ill-timed profession
of Christianity. Tertullian defended it, and praises the soldier.''
Besides, in that same book he speaks thus of the catholics: " I
know them well, lions in peace, but harts in w a r . " 2

T h e other place cited b y Bellarmine from this same Tertullian is

[! Quid hoc viro doctius? quid in divinis atque humanis rebus exercita-
tius? Et tamen hie quoque post haec omnia, hie inquam Tertullianus,
catholici dogmatis parum tenax, ac disertior multo quam felicior, mutata
deinceps sententia, &c.—Commonit. c. 24.]
[ Novi et pastores eorum in pace leones, in prcelio cervos
2
De Coron.
Mil. c. I. p. 203. Col. Agripp. 1607.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 601

found in his book of Prescriptions against heresies, which he wrote

before he fell into the Montanistic heresy. In that book he says
that we should dispute against the heretics out of tradition, and not
out of scripture. I answer: This seems, at first sight, to favour our
opponents, and y e t it inflicts a severe blow upon their cause. Tertul-
lian had to deal with those same adversaries, as we have said before,
that Irenaaus also was engaged with. T h e y denied the perfection
of the scriptures; and so do the papists. T h e y said also that the
apostles did not deliver everything to all, but some things only to
the perfect: so do the papists at the present day. Besides, when
Tertullian and Irenaaus produced the scriptures, these men despised
them. Furthermore, they mutilated and corrupted the scriptures,
and denied some of the prophets, evangelists, and apostles. Hence
Tertullian (as Irenaaus did before him) appeals from the scriptures
to the church and its discipline; not to any unwritten doctrine, but
to the defence, propagation, and promulgation of that doctrine which
the apostles left delivered down orally in the churches founded b y
them. F o r , says he, the teaching which was first was t r u e ; that
which was later, false; or, as he expresses it against Praxeas,
" That was true which was first, that spurious which came l a t e r . " 3

And he refutes those who said that the apostles had delivered
certain secret doctrines to the perfect, b y shewing that if there had
been any doctrines of that sort, the churches founded b y the apo-
stles would have had and retained them.
C Y P R I A N of Carthage, whom Bellarmine next objects to us, lived
a century and more after Tertullian. In his epistles, L i b . i. E p . 1 2 ,
he declares it necessary that baptized persons should be anointed,
and pronounces this to be a tradition. A n d Lib. n. E p . 3, disputing
concerning the mixture of water with the wine in the Eucharist, he
says that " the tradition of the Lord should be observed." I an-
swer, in the first place, that Cyprian was no apostle, and therefore
his words should be examined, and not all received at once. So
Augustine determines, contra Crescon. L i b . n. c. 3 2 ; where, speak-
ing of an epistle of Cyprian's, he uses these expressions: " I am not
bound b y the authority of this epistle, because I do not hold the
epistles of Cyprian for canonical scriptures; but I judge of them b y
the canonical books, and receive with approbation what in them
agrees with the authority of the scriptures of God, but reject,
without meaning him any disrespect, whatever does not a g r e e . ' j 4

[ 3
I d esse v e r u m q u o d c u n q u e p r i m u m ; id esse a d u l t e r u m q u o d c u n q u
p o s t e r i u s . — c . ii. p . 6 0 6 . ]
[ 4
E g o hujus epistolaa auctoritate n o n teneor, quia literas Cypriani n o n
602 T H E FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Secondly, I reply that Cyprian himself advises us to reject all

customs which cannot plead for themselves the authority of scrip-
ture. Indeed, in that very same epistle he says that we ought to
d o as Christ did, and enjoined us to do, not minding what any one
before us supposed ought to be done, but only what Christ, who is
before all, first did. Let us, therefore, not mind what he himself
said, but examine him b y this very law laid down b y himself.
First, then, let us see what he says of unction, Lib. i. E p . 1 2 :
" T h o s e who are baptized must needs be anointed ." 1
Whence, I
beseech you, springs this necessity ? Forsooth, that we may begin
to be the anointed of God. W h o sees not what a cold conceit is
here ? Can we not be the anointed of the L o r d without this oil ?
I f not, w h y did Christ give no precept to anoint when he c o m -
manded to baptize ? and when we read in the Acts that so many
were baptized, w h y do we not read that they were anointed also ?
If without this external oil we are not the anointed of the Lord,
then Christ is not the Lord's anointed, since we nowhere read that
he had this external unction: yet the Psalmist says that he was
"anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows." Perhaps
Cyprian took this unction from Tertullian, from whom he derived
much, and Tertullian from Montanus. Erasmus, in his book upon
the purity of the tabernacle, says that formerly baptism was cele-
brated with water alone, but that afterwards the fathers added
chrism. H e says the fathers, not Christ or the apostles.
Next, as to the mixing of water with the wine in the Eucharist
(which tradition Cyprian mentions, Lib. 11. Epist. 3 ) , I reply, that
2

Cyprian in that epistle is not so much solicitous about mixing water

with the wine, as earnest to oppose the Aquarii, who rejected
wine, and used nothing but water in the Eucharist: against these
he s a y s , " Let the tradition of the L o r d be observed." However, I
do not deny that the fathers used formerly to mix water with the
wine. That is evident as well from Cyprian as from Justin's second
A p o l o g y , besides the Paadagogus of Clemens Alexandrinus, Lib. 11.
ut canonicas habeo, sed eas ex canonicis considero, et quod in eis divinarum
scripturarum auctoritati congruit, cum laude ejus accipio; quod autem non
congruit, cum pace ejus respuo.—T. vn. p. 177.]
[! Ungi quoque necesse est eum qui baptizatus sit, ut accepto chrismate,
id est, unctione, esset unctus Dei, et habere in se gratiam Christi posset.—Ep.
70. p. 190. ed. Pell. Amstol. 1691.]
[ Admonitos autem nos scias, ut in calice offerendo Dominica traditio
2

servetur, neque aliud flat a nobis, quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit.
U t calix, qui in commemoratione ejus offertur, mixtus vino offeratur.—Ep.
63. p. 148.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 603

c. 2. The reason was, because in those places the wine was so

strong that it could not be drunk conveniently unless tempered with
w a t e r : they therefore diluted their wine with water, because it
required such a mixture. This is plain from the last chapter of
2 Maccabees, at the c l o s e : " W i n e is not pleasing b y itself, nor
water b y itself; but wine mixed with water produceth a plea-
sant and delectable taste." If wines were now so strong with us
as not to be fit to drink without water, it would be lawful even
in the Eucharist to use water with the wine, as a thing in itself
indifferent, provided only that the water destroyed not the nature
of the wine, but only tempered and diluted it. Cyprian, however,
appears to value this custom too h i g h l y : for he says, If the wine
be without the water, then Christ is without the p e o p l e ; if the
water be without the wine, then the people is without Christ. But
Christ cannot be so easily severed from his c h u r c h ; for the tie b y
which Christ is united to the church is far too strong and binding
to be so readily broken asunder. These therefore are mere fig-
ments.
Our opponent goes through the rest of his patristic testimonies,
and cites some from Hilary, Ambrose and Jerome, which might b e
altogether omitted as impertinent to the present occasion. For
HILARY , in that passage which Bellarmine urges, does not affirm
3

that any dogma not contained in scripture should be received; but

only that a term may be used, although it do not occur in scripture.
In that book he replies to Constantine, who was an Arian, and r e -
jected the term Homoiision, because it could not be found in scripture.
But this is of no force against u s : for we readily receive even new
terms, provided they are such as expound the genuine sense of
scripture. Such are consubstantial, Trinity, person, supposition,
unbegotten, QSOTOKOS, and the like, which are convenient exponents
of the meaning of scripture. But we should cautiously avoid those
terms which are foreign from the scriptures, such as transubstantia-
tion, consubstantiation, concomitance, ubiquity, and the like.
AMBROSE is cited, in his book concerning the Initiate, c. 2 and
6 , where he explains the rites observed in baptism, which are
4

nowhere found written in the sacred pages. The same author,

[ Nolo, inquit, verba qua? non scripta sunt d i c i . . . Die prius si recte
3

dici putas; nolo adversum nova venena novas medicamontorum compara-

tiones . . . novitates vocum, sed profanas, devitare jubet apostolus.—Hilar,
c. Const. Imper. §. 1 6 . coll. 1 2 5 0 , 1 2 5 1 . Paris, 1 6 9 3 ]
[ 4
Ambrosii Opp. T. vn. p. 4 — 1 4 . Paris. 1 8 3 9 . ]
604 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Serm. 2 5 , 3 4 , and 3 6 , teaches us that Lent was instituted b y

1

Christ; and E p . 8 1 , and Serm. 3 8 , he says that the Apostles'

Creed is an unwritten tradition of the apostles. I answer, in the
first place, that all Ambrose's statements are not to be received;
for many both of the ancients and the moderns have justly censured
him. Secondly, Ambrose recognises the perfection of the scriptures
in all things necessary, as I shall hereafter make manifest. Thirdly,
with respect to those traditions, I confess that the particular rites
which the church of old used in the administration of the sacra-
ments are not expressly prescribed in scripture. That Lent was
prescribed b y Christ, Ambrose does not teach, but only guess and
conjecture: and if Christ enjoined Lent at all, it was b y his
e x a m p l e ; which indeed is what Ambrose meant. For so he says,
Serm. 3 4 : " Thou subvertest the law, if thou keep not the example
set b y the Lord's fasting ." Ambrose supposed that the Lenten
2

fast was enjoined b y the example of Christ in the way of precept.

H e defends Lent, therefore, not b y the authority of tradition, but
of the scriptures; and accommodates to the same purpose other
scriptures, wrested very unskilfully from their true drifts; as, for
example, the account of the floods of rain-water which fell in the
times of Noah, when the windows of heaven were opened forty
days, and of Moses feeding the people of Israel forty years with
manna from heaven in the wilderness. H e heaps together other
passages of scripture also with no greater wisdom. W h e n he had
these places of scripture to rely upon, might he not justly accuse of
" c o n t u m a c y and prevarication" all those who " s u b v e r t this l a w "
of the Lenten fast, " given for our salvation, b y eating dinners
t h e r e i n ? " W h a t ? D o the papists eat never a dinner from one
end of Lent to the o t h e r ? Yea, verily, and every day. They
are not then g o o d Christians, if we believe Ambrose. F o r so
says A m b r o s e : " What sort of Christian art thou, that dinest when
thy Lord is f a s t i n g ? " But I forget that this is not dinner, but
3

supper, even though they eat the meal at n o o n : for so they

choose b y a beautiful distinction to prove themselves g o o d catholics,
and turn dinner into supper, that is, noon into night. Behold the
noble mirror of popish piety and conscientiousness! Could Ambrose
recognise these men as catholics or Christians without abandoning
his law ? N o w as to the Creed : I acknowledge it to be an apos-

t 1
T. n. p 291; I. 4 4 3 ; VI. 4 4 8 ; v. 1 2 6 . ]
[ 2
Rescindis l e g e m , qui e x e m p l u m jejunii D o m i n i c i n o n custodis.]
[ 3
Qualis Christianus es, c u m D o m i n o j e j u n a n t e t u prandes ?]
 XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 605

tolical, but yet a written tradition; for there is not a word of the
Creed that is not found in the scriptures. Ambrose, not improperly,
calls the Creed the k e y of Peter, Serm. 3 8 .
JEROME, in his epistle to Marcella, says that Lent is an apos-
tolical tradition , and in his Dialogue against the Luciferians recog-
4

nises the custom of the c h u r c h . T o this I answer: With respect to

5

Lent, the objection hath been already satisfied; and as to the pious
customs of the church, who ever blamed, or did not rather highly
esteem them ? But these customs are free, and b y no means in the
class of necessary things: for Jerome taught that all necessary things
may be found in scripture, as we shall shew in its proper place.
I come now to AUGUSTINE, from whom our opponent adduces
various testimonies. First he cites the epistle to Januarius, E p . 1 1 8 ,
where Augustine writes t h u s : " N o w those which we observe,
handed down though not written, and which are indeed observed
b y the whole world, may be understood to have been commended
and enjoined to be kept either b y the apostles themselves, or b y
general councils (whose authority is most salutary in the church);
as the anniversary solemnities in which we commemorate the passion
and resurrection of the Lord, and his ascension into heaven, and
the coming of the H o l y Ghost, and anything else of the like
nature, which is observed b y the whole church wheresoever diffused
throughout the w o r l d . " I answer, that Augustine's name stands
6

high in the church, and deservedly: yet we must remember that

he was a man, and therefore might err. A n d although he seems
in this place to favour traditions, y e t in others he defends the
perfection of scripture with the utmost earnestness, as shall after-
wards be more conveniently shewn. H e was most clearly of

[ 4
Nos unam quadragesimam secundum traditionem apostolorum toto
nobis o r b e c o n g r u o j e j u n a m u s . — O p p . T . i v . part. 2 . coll. 6 4 , 6 5 . P a r i s , 1 7 0 6 . ]
[ s
E t i a m si s c r i p t u r e auctoritas n o n subesset, totius orbis in hanc partem
consensus instar praecepti obtineret. N a m et m u l t a alia, quae p e r traditionem
in ecclesiis observantur, auctoritatem sibi scriptae legis usurpaverunt.—Ibid,
col. 2 9 4 . T h e s e words are p u t into the m o u t h of the Luciferian: but the
general principle is n o t disowned b y t h e o r t h o d o x Dialogist.]
[ 6
Ilia a u t e m , qua? n o n scripta sed tradita custodimus, qua? q u i d e m toto
terrarum o r b e observantur, dantur intelligi vel a b ipsis apostolis vel plena-
riis conciliis (quorum est in ecclesia saluberrima auctoritas) commendata
atque statuta retineri; sicuti q u o d D o m i n i passio et resurrectio et ascensio in
ccelum et adventus d e coelo Spiritus Sancti anniversaria solemnitate cele-
brantur, et si quid aliud occurrerit, q u o d servatur a b universa, quacunque s e
diffundit ecclesia.]
606 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

opinion, that no dogma ought to be received which does not rest

upon scripture. Either, therefore, he here speaks of traditions
which are not necessary, or he is at variance with himself. But
I come to the passage itself. Augustine speaks of traditions o b -
served throughout the whole world. N o w what are these ? The
solemn annual celebration of the passion, resurrection, ascension of
the L o r d , and the descent of the H o l y Spirit from heaven. I
answer, in the first place, that these traditions are of no great
m o m e n t : for without these traditions our whole religion may be
safe and s o u n d ; consequently these traditions are not necessary.
W e may confess and bear in mind all that relates to the death,
resurrection, and ascension of Christ, without any solemnity of
fixed and stated days. However, I do not condemn the practice
of the ancient church, which, b y a free custom, observed these
days as festivals. I reply, secondly, that Augustine is ignorant
and uncertain whether the observance of these days was insti-
tuted b y the apostles or b y general councils; which is a sufficient
proof that the origin of this tradition was unknown. Yet the
papists say that they are certain of its apostolical institution. Thus
they know more about the matter than Augustine did. Thirdly, I
reply, that Augustine does not prove these traditions to have been
observed b y all churches. H e says so indeed, but he does not
prove it, nor could he have proved i t ; for he did not know what
was wont to be done b y other churches. Perhaps the neighbouring
churches observed this custom, and it is past doubt that the people
of Hippo and the whole African church observed i t : but he could
not have been equally certain of all other churches.
However, the Jesuit endeavours to remove these answers of
o u r s : and, firstly, argues that these customs were not free, because
Augustine subjoins that those things which vary with places are
f r e e ; but that those which are observed through all the world are
necessary. I answer : Augustine calls those changeful customs
free, and those which are fixed, necessary; but how necessary ?
T o salvation? By no means; but because it was necessary for
e v e r y one, wherever he went, to observe them, for the sake of
avoiding disorder and shunning scandal. This we confess : but we
say that such customs are always to be observed with a free con-
science. Then, as to our assertion that the apostles did not institute
these festival days, he endeavours to overthrow this also. Brentius
proves from the fourth chapter of the Galatians, that the apostles
did not institute them, because Paul in that chapter reproves the
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 607

G-alatians for making a difference between days. Bellarmine

answers out of Augustine's 119th Epist. ad Januarium, that the
apostle speaks of those who observe times according to the rules
of the astrologers. I reply, that the Galatians were more inclined
to Judaize than to observe astrological rules. Therefore he brings
another answer from Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine, upon
the place. Those fathers say, that in this passage the festivals
of the Jews, and not those of the Christians, are condemned. I
a n s w e r : Y e t even so the scope of the apostle is no less opposed
to the papists. Paul disputes against those who suppose that any
external ceremony is necessary to salvation, or to be conjoined
with faith. If the papists hold this, he disputes against t h e m :
if they hold it not, then they confess what we desire, that these
traditions are free, and not necessary. In that same epistle Augus-
tine complains greatly of the multitude of ceremonies in the church.
H e says that the number of ceremonies had so increased in his
time, as to make our state seem worse than that of the Jews
had been. If he were now alive, and could see the state of the
church, and the additional growth of ceremonies, he would say so
still more. Socrates, Lib. v. c. 22, and Sozomen, Lib. v n . c. 1 9 ,
and Augustine, E p . 86, are clearly on our side in this matter: for
they write that neither Christ nor his apostles prescribed any thing
concerning festival days.
T h e second testimony cited b y Bellarmine against us from
Augustine, is from de Baptism, c. Donat. Lib. n. c. 7, Lib. iv. c.
6, Lib. iv. c. 24, and Lib. v. c. 23. I answer: Chemnitz gives a
correct and apposite reply (which I adopt), that Augustine in those
passages is speaking of persons baptized b y heretics, whose baptism
he affirms ought not to be repeated. A n d although Augustine
says that this is a tradition, y e t he does not say that it is not in
scripture ; yea, he proves the same from scripture b y many testi-
monies. Bellarmine spends many words to no purpose upon this
point, and says that no sufficient proof can be brought from scrip-
ture ; and that therefore Augustine, although he alleged reasons
and scripture as much as he could find, y e t placed his great foun-
dation in tradition. I answer : Nevertheless, Lib. v. c. 4, ho
uses these expressions, " S u p p o r t e d b y so many and such important
testimonies of scripture," & c . — a n d subjoins, " the reasons of truth
being so clear," &c. And Lib. v. c. 26, he says that what Cyprian
advises, namely, " to recur to the fountain-head of scripture," is
the best course, and what should be adopted without hesitation.
608 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

H e r e we must remark the impudence of Bellarmine. H e says that

Augustine does not prove his point from scripture, but only related
b y what scripture his opponents endeavoured to prove theirs; the
falsehood of which is manifest. W e read indeed, Lib. 11. c. 8, that
Cyprian was pressed with the authority of custom b y the Roman
bishop Stephen, and yet did not yield to it. N o w if the authority
of custom were as great as the papists wish to make it, he should
have yielded. Andradius, however, Defens. Con. Trial. Lib. 11.
expressly says that Augustine pleaded many testimonies of scrip-
ture against the Donatists; whence I argue t h u s : Those testi-
monies which Augustine used were either apposite, or they were
n o t : if they were, then he refuted the Donatists b y scripture,
which Bellarmine denies; if they were not, then he abused and
played upon those passages, which would be a hard thing to say
of so great a father.
But Bellarmine hath still another a n s w e r ; — t h a t Augustine
brings conjectures out of scripture, which have indeed some effi-
cacy towards establishing the truth after it hath been defined
b y a council, but are not sufficient of themselves. Nothing can
be conceived more unworthy than this reply. F o r , first, con-
jectures drawn from scripture are so far from being sufficient to
refute heretics, that they have absolutely no weight at all. A u g u s -
tine would have done more harm than service to his cause, if he
had brought nothing but conjectures. And, on the contrary, Lib.
v. c. 4 7 , he himself plainly declares, that he rests upon " most
weighty testimonies of scripture" and " plain reasons of truth."
Lib. v. c. 2 3 , he writes that it is contrary to the commandment of
G o d to baptize those who come from the heretics, if they have
already received baptism amongst them, " b e c a u s e it is not only
shewn, but clearly shewn b y the testimony of scripture," &c.
Bellarmine says that Chemnitz hath been dishonest in his citation
of this passage. W h y ? Because those words " it is plainly shewn
b y the testimony of scripture" are not referred to the preceding
but to the following point, namely, that many Christians baptized
in the church lose charity, and yet do not lose their baptism.
But here he is himself most outrageously dishonest. For Augus-
tine is proving it repugnant to the commandment of God to
rebaptize those who were baptized b y the heretics, and afterwards
come into the catholic church, " because it is not only shewn, but
clearly shewn, by the testimony of scripture, that many false
Christians, although they have not the same charity with the
XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 609

saints, have y e t one common baptism with the saints ." W h o sees 1

not that Augustine applied these many and plain testimonies of

scripture, whereby it is shewn that baptism remains entire without
charity, to the confirmation of the cause which he defended
against the Donatists, namely, that those who come from the
heretics are not to be rebaptized, because the heretics may retain
baptism, although they have made shipwreck of charity ? Besides,
if Augustine had adduced nothing but conjectures out of scripture,
could he have used such words as these, " W e may perceive b y
so many and great testimonies of scripture, and clear reasons of
truth, that Christ's baptism cannot be destroyed b y the perversity
of any m a n ? " And elsewhere, " B e c a u s e it is not only shewn,
2

but manifestly shewn, b y the testimony of the holy scriptures," &c.

And elsewhere, where he praises the opinion of Cyprian, that we
should recur to the fountain-head, that is, the scripture, he
adduces that testimony, " one God, one baptism," and then goes on
to mention other scriptures. Finally, if these conjectures are of no
force until after the definition of a council, they were of no force then
when Augustine disputed with them against the Donatists ; for up to
that time nothing had been defined in a council against the Donatists.
Afterwards Bellarmine adduces a testimony from Innocent's first
epistle to Decentius . However he hath omitted this testimony from
3

Innocent, and the next from Leo, in his printed edition, although they
appear in his M S . lectures. I answer briefly : Firstly, those decretal
epistles are of no weight, no credit, no authority. Secondly, I say,
that Innocent was wrong in his traditions, as is plain from Augus-
tine, c. Julian. Lib. ii. c. 2, and elsewhere. Thirdly, I affirm that
the traditions recited in that epistle are frivolous and empty trifles;
such as that the kiss of peace is not to be given before the m y s -
teries are completed, that confirmation is to be celebrated b y the
bishop, remarking that he dares not utter the words of confirmation,
lest he should seem to betray the mysteries . N o w what, I pray 4

[} Q u i a scripturarum sanctarum testimoniis n o n s o l u m ostendltur, scd

p l a n e ostenditur, m u l t o s pseudo-cliristianos, q u a n q u a m n o n h a b e a n t e a n d e m
caritatem c u m Sanctis, b a p t i s m u m t a m e n c o m m u n e m h a b e r e c u m Sanctis.]
[ 2
Tot tantisque scripturarum testimoniis et perspicuis rationibus veri-
tatis intelligitur Christi b a p t i s m u m n o n fieri cujuslibet h o m i n i s perversitate
perversum.]
[ 3
Innocentii a d D e c e n t i u m E p . vi. inter E p p . D e c r e t . ac R e s c r i p t t . R o m .
Pontiff. Matriti. 1 8 2 1 . p. 1 0 . ]
[ 4
V e r b a vero dicere n o n p o s s u m , n e magis p r o d e r e videar, q u a m ad c o n -
sultationem r e s p o n d e r o . — l b . p. 1 1 . ]

[WHITAKER.]
610 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

you, are these so mystic w o r d s ? Confirmo te signo cruris, et

ungo te chrismate salutis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus
Sancti. These words he dared not utter. Wherefore ?
H e then adduces a testimony from Leo, Serm. 6. de Quadrag. 1

and elsewhere. I answer, in the first place, that L e o was wrong

in saying that the apostles instituted fasts, which they never insti-
tuted. Secondly, I say that those fasts which L e o delivered are
not now observed b y the papists. F o r he speaks of fasts upon the
fourth and sixth days of the w e e k : but the papists do not fast
upon the fourth day,
And let so much suffice for an answer to the testimonies of the
fathers.

CHAPTER XIII.

BELLARMINE'S REMAINING ARGUMENTS ARE CONFUTED.

BEFORE coming to our own arguments, I must reply to the

remainder of Bellarmine's. His fifth argument is taken from
the testimony of heretics, which must needs be a strong one. The
heretics, says he, of all times have rejected traditions ; therefore
those who despise traditions are heretics. That that was the case
with Valentinus and Marcion, he proves out of Irenseus, Lib. i n . c. 2,
and Tertullian's Prescriptions. I answer : In the first place, it does
not prove that the heretics of all times rejected traditions, that these
men whom he names rejected them : yea, those very same heretics
embraced traditions, as is abundantly evident from these same
authors Irenseus and Tertullian. In the mean time, there is no con-
sequence in such reasoning as' this : All heretics rejected tradition ;
therefore all who reject tradition are heretics. Secondly, it is no way
surprising that Valentinus and Marcion should have rejected such tra-
ditions as Irenaaus means, and b y which they clearly saw that they
were refuted ; for Irenasus produced the tradition of the apostolic
churches. N o w this tradition was no other than the conservation
and propagation of the apostolic doctrine b y the public ministry of
the church. N o r is it wonderful that those men should have despised

\} Q u o d ergo, dilectissimi, in omni tempore unumquemque convenit

facere C h r i s t i a n u m , id n u n c solicitius est e t devotius e x s e q u e n d u m , ut a p o s t o -
lica institutio quadraginta dierum jejuniis impleatur.—Leon. Opp. p. 40.
Lugd. 1633.]
XIII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 611

traditions, who made no account of scripture, and thought themselves

wiser than the apostles. A s to Cyprian, his error did not lie in
rejecting custom and appealing to scripture, (for he is praised b y
Augustine for doing so,) but in thinking that his opinion could be
established b y scripture, whereas scripture is subversive of it. Even
Gratian, Dist. 8 and 9, approves of Cyprian for refusing to yield to
mere custom . Bellarmine subjoins that the Arians (to mention no
2

more) appealed to the scripture alone. I answer: The Arians clung to

the bare words of scripture: we do not imitate them in that. We
do not reject terms which never occur in scripture, provided the
sense and force of those terms be contained in scripture, as we have
frequently replied a l r e a d y : on which account we condemn the
Arians for rejecting the Homoilsion. However, religion and piety
do not consist in w o r d s ; and Luther said truly, that he should not
be a heretic if he rejected the term Homousion, and y e t so thought
of the Son of God as the scriptures have delivered.
Bellarmine's sixth argument is taken from the custom of all
nations, and specially of the Jews. Origen, Horn. v. in Numeros,
Hilary, in Ps. ii., and Anatolius, ap. Euseb. Lib. v n . c. 2 8 , testify
that the Jews had unwritten traditions. I a n s w e r : In the first
place, it is a mere talmudical and cabbalistic fancy to suppose, that
though the law was delivered in writing b y Moses, the mysteries
of the law were concealed b y him, and entrusted only orally to
persons wiser than the rest. Hence have arisen their exceeding
foolish traditions of the Mishnah (Sevrepojaeis), which Jerome and
the other fathers so frequently deride. I reply, secondly, that the
Jesuit himself confesses that some catholics have been in a different
opinion, and that the Jews had no such traditions; although he
does not assent to their view. However, the reasons on which he
grounds his dissent are very slight. T h e first reason is, because
(says he) we have already shewn that all things are not contained
in the law. I answer: But we have shewn before that you have
shewn no such thing. W h a t (I beseech you) were the points which
you determined not to be contained in the l a w ? Expiation of
original sin in the case of women, or of males dying before the
eighth day. So Stapleton also, Lib. XH. c. 5, with whom Bellar-
mine agrees, as y o u have already heard. But we have sufficiently
replied to these conjectures. Stapleton however adds, that " nei-

[ Et certe, ut beati Cypriani utamur sententia, quaslibet c o n s u e t u d o . . . .

2

veritati est postponenda.—Decret. Pars i. Dist. 8. c. 5. Corp. Jur. Canon.

Lugd. 1 5 9 1 . ]
39—2
612 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

ther is faith in Christ as mediator ever written of in the whole old

Testament." W h o can tolerate such an assertion as this, that the
faith of Christ in nowhere found in the whole old Testament ? W h y
then does Christ affirm that the scriptures testify of him ? Or w h y
did the apostles establish the Christian faith b y the old Testament,
and the fathers say that the new Testament was hidden in the old ?
Bellarmine, I suppose, was ashamed of this notion of Stapleton's : and
indeed it is full of error and Jewish blasphemy. However, Bellar-
mine hath another argument against the opposite opinion. The
Jews, says he, must have had tradition, because, for a long time
after the birth of Moses the people lived without a written law.
I answer: It is true indeed that everything was not written im-
mediately after Moses' birth; but let him prove, if he can, that all
was not written when Moses had written the law. In Exodus xxiv.
3, we read that " Moses recited to the people all the words of
the L o r d . " Therefore he did not conceal those mysteries from
them. Christ also and the apostles always appeal to the scriptures,
urge the scriptures, expound the scriptures, and never make any
mention of these hidden mysteries. Besides, if there were such
hidden mysteries, then the better part of the divine law would have
been unwritten; which is b y no means to be thought.
But Bellarmine goes on to prove from Thucydides, Aristotle,
Lycurgus, Cicero, and Caesar, that profane nations also were in
great measure governed b y unwritten laws, and had their unwritten
customs. H e adds proofs, besides, from the canon and civil law.
H e produces all these testimonies to shew that the force of customs
and written laws is equal. I answer: In the first place, the church
is not governed in the same way as profane republics. Political
laws cannot provide for every individual case, or embrace all par-
ticulars; and therefore customs, having the force of laws, are neces-
sarily required. But it was an easy thing for God to deliver all
things necessary for salvation in the scriptures. Y e t even in the
state custom does not always prevail. Cicero says in his book de
Claris Oratoribus, " W e must not use that most corrupt rule of
custom." Demosthenes too writes somewhere, that we must not do
as is often wont to be done, but as it is fitting should be done, ov%
toy yeyove iroXXaicis, aXX coy TrpoarJKei ylyveaQai. Tertullian in
his tract, de Velandis Virginibus, says most correctly : " Whatever
savours of opposition to truth is a heresy, although it be an old
custom." Old custom, therefore, is of no avail in religion, although
it have great weight in the commonwealth. He adds in the same
 XIII.] QUESTION T H E SIXTH. 613

place, " Christ named himself truth, not c u s t o m . " 1

A s to the canon
law, see Gratian, Distinct. 8, where he shews from Cyprian, Augus-
tine, and G r e g o r y , that no stress is to be laid upon custom when it
opposes truth. Secondly, there is yet another difference. In civil
affairs which appertain to this life, men have the light of reason,
and understand what they should d o : but in religion, and things
pertaining to faith, they are blind b y nature and cannot without
the divine words and laws rightly worship God, or attain to life.
Wherefore they are b y no means to be left to themselves, but must
be bound to certain and written laws.
T h e Jesuit's seventh argument is taken from the dignity and
privilege of the church. T h e church, says he, is the pillar of
truth, the bride of Christ, &c. N o w it would have no such pri-
vilege if all things were written, and plainly written; because then
all, even heretics, pagans, and Jews, would understand as much of
the mysteries of our faith as we do ourselves: and then also that
would be false which Irenseus writes, L i b . i n . c. 4, that the apostles
had most fully lodged all that appertains to the faith in the church,
as in a rich repository. I answer: Firstly, I confess that the
church is the pillar of truth, the bride of Christ, and intimately
acquainted with the secrets of G o d ; but I affirm that these and
other encomiums of the church belong only to the elect and the
faithful, not to the whole multitude of those who profess the
christian religion and the external worship of God: for these
have not universally an union with Christ. Secondly, I reply
that the knowledge and understanding of scripture is twofold, one
of the letter, and the other of the spirit. A s to the former kind
of knowledge, it is no privilege of the c h u r c h ; for even the
impious can attain to this knowledge as well as the pious : nor will
even the papists themselves say that all their most learned bishops,
and popes, and schoolmen, were living members of the church,
and endowed with true p i e t y ; though, notwithstanding, they main-
tain them to have been exquisitely skilled in scripture in respect of
their knowledge of the letter. Y e a , the devil himself, who exceeds
all men in wickedness, exceeds them also in knowledge. But as to
the other sort of knowledge, that is of the spirit, the church hath
in this its greatest privilege. I mean the b o d y of the e l e c t ; for
they only are taught of God, they only understand the scriptures
aright. T h e rest hearing hear not, seeing see not, and reading

\} Q u o d c u n q u e adversus v e r i t a t e m sapit, h o c erit hseresis, e t i a m v e t u s

consuetudo Christus veritatem se, n o n c o n s u e t u d i n e m c o g n o m i n a v i t . —
c. 1, p . 2 2 0 , C o l . A g r i p p . 1 6 1 7 . ]
614 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

understand not. In Luke viii. 10, Christ says to his disciples:

" T o y o u , " that is, the faithful, " it is given to understand the
mysteries of the kingdom of G o d ; but to the rest speak I in
parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not
understand." And, 1 Cor. ii. 14, Paul says that " t h e natural man r e -
ceiveth not the things of G o d ; " and they themselves cannot deny that
many of their prelates may have been, and actually were, such.
T h e eighth argument of the Jesuit is drawn from the dignity
of many mysteries. Many mysteries of our religion (says Bellar-
mine) are of such a kind as to require silence: otherwise they
would be known to a l l ; which must not be. But such would be
the case if they were written: therefore all are not written.
But let us see what mysteries he means. First, says he, we do
not admit any but a baptized person to the sacrifice of the mass.
I answer : Does he think that we make any account of their
masses, or care what they do in t h e m ? I confess, indeed, that
Christ and the apostles wrote nothing about such toys as these.
But the eucharist itself is described b y three evangelists, Matthew,
M a r k , and Luke, and b y the apostle Paul besides. W h a t then ?
W e r e they unwise in writing these things? Yea, rather they
were wise, and our adversaries foolish for thinking otherwise. T h e
Jesuit next uses the following argument: Christ explained his
parables to the disciples apart, Luke viii. Therefore, &c. I an-
swer : W e also say in like manner that the scriptures cannot be
understood b y all, and yet should be set before all. So Christ
proposed his parables to all, though he only explained them to his
disciples. F o r the true interpretation of scripture is granted only
to the elect and faithful. The Jesuit argues, thirdly, from 1 Cor.
ii. 6. " W e speak wisdom amongst them that are perfect." T h e r e -
fore, says he, all things are not to be told to all, but some are to
b e reserved for the perfect and wise. I a n s w e r : N o w the Jesuit
shews plainly his agreement with the heretics, and those not
heretics of the meaner sort, but the chief and most celebrated of
them all, Valentinus, to wit, and Marcion. F o r these heretics, as
appears from Irenasus, Lib. in. c. 2, made use of this same testi-
m o n y to prove that all things were not to be drawn from the
scriptures. Thus our adversaries use the same weapons as the
most abandoned heretics used of old, and therein shew themselves
to be nothing less than catholics. But, however, I reply to Valen-
tinus, Marcion, and Bellarmine all together, that the apostle speaks
of the same things as are written. T h e very same doctrine seems
sound and full of wisdom to some, and foolish to others. So the
XIII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 615

gospel of Christ, and Christ himself, was a scandal and stumbling-

block to the Jews, and foolishness to the G r e e k s ; but to the elect
of both Jews and Greeks (for such are the perfect and the wise) it
was " the power of God unto salvation." Fourthly, Bellarmine says,
that almost all the fathers, when they speak of the eucharist and
other sacraments, use such expressions as, " T h e faithful under-
stand this ; the initiated know what is s a i d . " I a n s w e r : I confess,
1

indeed, that these words frequently occur in the fathers, and I

know well that the fathers were v e r y careful and anxious to afford
no occasion to the Gentiles and profane of ridiculing those holy
mysteries. T h e y did not choose, therefore, to speak of them
before all. But it does not therefore follow that the institution of
the sacraments cannot be found in the bible.
These are all Bellarmine's arguments: let us now come to our
own.

CHAPTER XIV.
SUCH OF OUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS AS
BELLARMINE HATH ANSWERED.

HITHERTO we have stood upon the defensive against our adver-

saries, and sustained their attack in such a manner as that none of
their weapons have done any execution upon us. W e will now
begin to assail them in our turn. First, we will produce our argu-
ments from scripture, as being far the strongest of a l l ; and of
these scriptural arguments, we will place foremost those which
Bellarmine hath attempted to answer.
T h e first passage of scripture is contained in Deut. iv. 2, " Thou
shalt not add unto this word which I speak unto y o u , neither shalt
thou diminish from i t . " Also in Deut. xii. in the last verse, similar
expressions occur : " D o only this which I command y o u ; thou shalt
not add thereto, nor diminish aught from i t . " F r o m these pas-
sages we gather the following argument: If the Jews were not per-
mitted to add anything to the books of Moses, then still less is it
lawful for us to add anything to the canon of scripture, now
increased b y so many books since. But the former was not per-
mitted: therefore still less is it now permitted to us. The conse-
quence in the major is necessary; for, if the five books of Moses
\} l<rao-iv ol iMe/ivrifievoi. T h i s phrase, as observed b y C a s a u b o n , occurs
at least fifty t i m e s in t h e writings o f C h r y s o s t o m a l o n e . ]
616 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

contain a full and perfect b o d y of doctrine, as they certainly do,

and Moses therefore forbids any addition to be made, then surely
a most abundantly perfect b o d y of doctrine must needs be found
in the whole circle of the books of the old and new Testaments.
T h e minor rests upon the express words of scripture, " T h o u shalt
not add to this word, neither shalt thou diminish from it."
Our opponents have devised various replies, but Bellarmine
shall stand in the place of all. H e hath a twofold answer. In the
first place, he says, that these words are not to be understood of
the written word of God, but of the word orally delivered. This
he proves b y two reasons: first, because the scriptures were not
then e x t a n t ; secondly, because Moses says " Which I command
y o u , " not, which I write. I reply to the first, that his assertion
that the scriptures were not then published is manifestly shewn to
b e false b y the scriptures themselves. But even if they had not
been then written, yet Moses intended to write them. However,
as I said, the scripture shews Bellarmine's assertion to be false;
for in E x o d . xxiv. 4, we read, " Moses wrote all the words of the
L o r d . " This was in the first or second year after the departure
from E g y p t . N o w he delivered this discourse in Deuteronomy in
the fortieth year after the Exodus, in the eleventh month, as
appears from Deut. i. 3, a few days before his d e a t h ; for he died
in the twelfth month of that same year. All therefore did not
remain to be written at that time, since so short an interval as
passed between this harangue and the death of Moses was not
sufficient for committing all to writing. That the b o o k of Deuter-
onomy was then written, appears from the book itself; since we
often read in it, " the words which are written in this b o o k . "
This probably Bellarmine perceived on second thoughts; for he
hath omitted this reason in his late publication, although he presses
it in the M S . H e found out therefore afterwards, that it was no
reason at all. Secondly, as to his observation that Moses says, " I
command," not, " I write," it does not follow from this that the
passage is not meant to refer to the written law. In Joshua i. 7,
Joshua is commanded to do what the L o r d had commanded him.
What ? W e r e these commandments therefore not written? On
the contrary, it is plain from what follows that they were written:
" This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but
thou shalt meditate in it day and night." In the commencement
of Deut. xxviii., it is thus written, " If thou wilt keep the things
which I command thee this d a y , " &c. And from verse 5 8 of the
same chapter it appears that these were written; for the same
XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 617

Moses says to the same people, " If thou keep not all the things
which are written in this b o o k , " &c. A t the end of Deut. xxvii.
we read thus: " Cursed be he who continueth not in all the words
of this l a w ; " and Paul, Galat. hi. 1 0 , interprets this to mean
written w o r d s : " In all things which are written in the book of
this law." Thus he implies that the whole law was written.
There is no consequential force then in the argument, that because
he says " which I command," not, " which I have written," there-
fore this word was not committed to writing, but delivered by oral
tradition. Besides, if Moses had entrusted some things orally to
certain persons, which he considered unfit to be written; to whom
could he have committed them rather than to Joshua, to whom he
imparted all his counsels, and who was his successor in office?
Y e t Joshua himself is referred, and, as it were, tied to the book,
Josh. i.: " This book shall not depart from thee, but thou shalt
meditate therein day and night." In which words Joshua's medi-
tation is referred to the book of the sacred scriptures which Moses
himself had published, and not directed to those unwritten pre-
cepts. However, Bellarmine dismisses this reply of his as not
sufficiently strong or safe, and betakes himself to another, which
he says is the true one.
Secondly, then, he answers, that the Lord willed in these
words, that his commandments should not be corrupted, but kept
entire, as he enjoined them. In these things which I command
you, y o u shall make no change, either b y addition or diminution:
but he does not say, y o u shall observe nothing else but what I
now command you. I a n s w e r : I confess, indeed, that false inter-
pretations of scripture are condemned in these w o r d s ; but this is
not the whole of what is here prohibited. F o r when God forbids
them to add, he signifies that this b o d y of doctrine was so perfect
as that nothing could or should be added to i t ; and that, therefore,
we should acquiesce in it, be satisfied with it, and cleave to it alone.
T h e y add, therefore, who determine that this teaching is not com-
plete and full. And when we shew that this word is written, we
shew that the written word contains a full and perfect b o d y of
doctrine, to which nothing should b e added. T h e ancient Jews
understood and explained these words to mean that nothing should
b e added to the written word. So Josephus, quoted b y Eusebius,
Lib. HI. c. 8, testifies that the authority of their sacred books was
so great, that nothing was added to, or taken from them, for so
many ages. So the fathers also interpret these words. I will
content myself with alleging Chrysostom, who, in his 52nd Homily
618 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

upon Matthew, says that the priests added many things to the
law, although Moses had enjoined them, with threats, not to do so.
N o r let any one suppose that Chrysostom speaks there of things
contrary to scripture; for he refers to those rites of frequent
washings used b y the Jews. Those washings were not simply
contrary to scripture, but only because the Pharisees made holiness
consist in t h e m ; and yet Chrysostom confesses that, in this way,
an addition was made to the law, contrary to the command of God.
Hence it appears that this passage in Deuteronomy should be un-
derstood of the written w o r d ; since Chrysostom says that the Jews
made additions, because they used rites which were nowhere
written, although not absolutely contrary to scripture. Nay,
Thomas Aquinas himself explains this passage thus, " that nothing
should be added to the words of holy scripture, or diminished from
them ; " and Cajetan, upon the place, says, " It may be gathered
1

from this that the law of G o d is perfect."

But let us see how Bellarmine establishes his interpretation.
Because otherwise, says he, the prophets and apostles would have
sinned, who afterwards added so much, if these words be under-
stood to forbid any addition; therefore they ought to be under-
stood not of not adding to, but of not corrupting what was written.
I answer, in the first place, that the prophets and apostles were
not to be ranked with other men, but had as much authority as
Moses himself, and therefore deserved as much credit as he. T h e
papists cannot establish their traditions b y the same authority.
Secondly, that the prophets and apostles, when they wrote new
books, added nothing to the written word of God. F o r we must
distinguish two things in the word of G o d ; — t h e sum of the
doctrine itself, and its principal h e a d s , — a n d the explication of
these heads. A s to the sum of doctrine, nothing was added b y
the prophets and apostles; which may thus be easily proved. T h e
whole scripture is composed of two parts, the law and the gospel.
N o one denies that the whole law of Moses, moral, judicial, and
ceremonial, is written. But perhaps doubts may be entertained
respecting the gospel. N a y , the whole of the gospel itself may
b e found in the books of Moses. There is no article of the Creed
itself, for which there is not some illustrious proof extant in
Moses. Therefore, the whole doctrine of it, meaning the sum
of its teaching, is contained in the books o f Moses. But as to
the clearer exposition and explication of this teaching, many ad-

[} Sacra enim scriptura est regula fidei, cui nec addere nec subtrahere
Ucet.—Secunda secundaj, Quaest. i. Art. ix. Tom. n. p. 5, Antwerp. 1627.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 619

ditions were made b y the prophets and apostles. The prophets

illustrated Moses, the apostles the p r o p h e t s : but neither the one
nor the other added any dogma which is not found in the books of
M o s e s ; just as he who explains a law adds nothing to the law. On
this account the apostles prove their gospel b y the books of the
old Testament; and Christ says, John v., " Search the scriptures
. . . for they testify of m e . "
But Bellarmine persists, and turns upon Chemnitz, Brentius,
and Calvin, who had used this answer, t h u s : In the same way,
says he, traditions are not additions to, but explications of, scripture:
for traditions too are found in scripture, not in the particular
indeed, but in the universal; and the new Testament is no otherwise
found in the old. H e uses a comparison to illustrate this answer
of h i s : as the tree is in the seed virtually, so the new Testament
is in the old, implicitly and potentially, in the universal, but not
in the particular. And in the same way tradition is in scripture:
for as Moses says generally, " A prophet shall the L o r d your G o d
raise up unto y o u like unto m e ; him shall y e h e a r ; " so we are
in the general commanded b y the apostle to " k e e p the traditions."
Thus he replies to Chemnitz, Brentius, and Calvin. But I under-
take to obviate this reply. In the first place, I maintain that
most of the popish traditions can b y no means be expositions of
scripture, because they most openly contradict and oppose scripture.
Such are their worship of images, and sacrifice of the altar; as shall
hereafter, if God permit, be made clear, when we come to those
controversies. Concerning these and such-like expositions of scrip-
ture we may truly s a y : W o e to the gloss which corrupts the t e x t !
Secondly, I say that the Jesuit's pretence, that the new Testament
is contained in the old, not in the particular, but only generally, is
untrue. T h e comparison which he uses is impious and blasphemous,
that the new Testament is no otherwise contained in the old, than
as a tree in the seed, that is, only virtually and potentially: for
all the dogmas and heads of the gospel are found in the old
Testament, not in the universal merely, but also in the particular;
not only implicitly but explicitly, although indeed not so plainly and
perspicuously. If we run through all the articles of our faith, we
shall find them all, even in the particular, in the old Testament,—
as that God is the Creator of heaven and earth, that Christ is the
Son of a virgin, and so forth. All these are predicted in the old
Testament, and the accomplishment related in the new. But they
will say, perhaps, that the sacraments of the new Testament cannot
be found in the o l d ; for this occurs to me as I ponder the subject.
620 THE FIRST CONTROVERSV. [CH.

Y e t they can. For the sea and the rock prefigured baptism, and
manna the Eucharist, as the apostle testifies, 1 Cor. x. Otherwise
the apostles could not have proved all the dogmas which they
propounded out of the old Testament. Now it is certain that the
apostles confirmed all they said by its authority. Consequently,
the Bereans searched the scriptures (Acts xvii.) to see whether
those things which Paul preached were so. But if (as the Jesuit
says) the whole new Testament were comprehended in this sentence
only (" The Lord your God will raise up unto y o u a prophet like
unto m e ; him shall y e hear,") as the tree is in the seed, the
apostles could certainly never have persuaded the Jews that this
Jesus was the Messiah. But they used many other testimonies of
scripture. Paul says, Acts xxvi. 2 2 , that he said "nothing but what
Moses and the prophets did s a y . " So Christ, Luke xxiv. 27, " b e -
ginning at Moses and all the prophets, expounded in all the scrip-
tures the things concerning himself." There were, therefore, other
testimonies, sufficiently clear, besides that single one which Bellar-
mine cites. A n d Rom. i. 2, Paul says, that the gospel was p r o -
mised in the prophets. It is false then that the new Testament
is only potentially in the old. F o r the whole gospel is no less
perfectly in the old than in the new Testament, although not so
perspicuously. T h e tree is as much in the old Testament, as in
the new, though it spreads not its branches so diffusely.
Irenasus, Lib. iv. c. 6 6 , after having shewn at large that Christ
accomplished all that the prophets had predicted, subjoins at length
at the close of that chapter: " R e a d more diligently the gospel given
us b y the apostles, and read more diligently the prophets, and y e will
find that all that the Lord did and suffered and taught is preached
in t h e m . " 1
This passage subverts Bellarmine's reply. Augustine,
upon Psalm cv., says, that " the old Testament is unveiled in the
new, and the new veiled in the o l d . " And, c. Faust. Manich.
Lib. x v i i . c. 6, he writes t h u s : " Christ came not to add what was
wanting, but to do and accomplish what was w r i t t e n . " A n d he 2

says that Christ himself indicates this in his own words, when he
says, " One j o t or one tittle shall not pass from the l a w " (not,
until what is wanting be added, but) " until all things which are

\} L e g i t e diligentius id q u o d a b apostolis est e v a n g e l i u m nobis d a t u m , et

legite diligentius prophetas, et invenietis universam a c t i o n e m , et o m n e m d o c -
t r i n a m , et o m n e m passionem D o m i n i nostri prsedicatam in i p s i s . — p . 404.
Paris. 1 6 7 5 . ]
[ 2
Venit Chris tus non ut adderentur quse deerant, sed ut fierent et
i m p l e r e n t u r qucc scripta s u n t . ]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 621

written shall be accomplished." So that even Christ himself added

nothing, but all he taught, did, and suffered, was contained in the
old Testament. Jerome says in his Epistle to Damasus: " What-
ever we read in the old Testament, we find also in the gospel; and
whatever is read in the gospel, is deduced from the authority of
the old Testament ." 3
Therefore whatever is found in the new
Testament may be confirmed, not only in respect of the universal
but of the particular also, by the authority of the old Testament.
W e will support this answer of ours by only one testimony more.
Basil the Great, in his Ascetics, writes thus : " What is the property
of a believer ? To assent with the fullest persuasion to the word
of God, to reject nothing, and to superadd nothing." For this is
the very thing which the Lord forbids, Deut. iv. Then Basil
subjoins: " For if whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and faith be
by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, then whatsoever is
not derived from the scriptures is sin." Basil's own words are as
follow: Ti iSiov TTKTTOV ; TO ev ToiavTr) TrXrjpoipopiq avi'SiaTi-
6eo~9ai TY\ ciuvafxei TWV elprj/mevwv, Kal /unSev ToXnqv aOereiv rj
€TriSiaTa.TTe(j9aL' el ycip irdv o OVK E/C Tricrrecos a/iapr'ia eariv,
<os (prjow o airoaToKos, ij <5e IT'IOTIS e% ct/COJ??, rj CIE uxor} Sta.
pt)fiaTos Geou, irdv T O E/CTOS Trjs OeonvevaTov ypaipijs, OVK E/C

Trio-recus ot>, a/xaprla eariv . 4

From which words I draw these
three inferences: First, that those words of Moses contained in
Deut. iv. and xii. should be understood of the written word of God ;
for it is to those words that Basil here alludes: secondly, that
the word on which faith is grounded is written: thirdly, that all
beside the scriptures, 6/CTO? T^S Oeowvevo-Tov ypacprjs, is sin be-
cause it is not of faith, and should be rejected. Let it suffice to
have spoken thus much upon the first place from scripture.
Our second passage of scripture is taken from Rev. xx. 18, and
is like the former. The words are these : " I testify to every man
that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man
shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues
that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away
from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from
the things which are written in this book." Bellarmine replies,
that these words prohibit the corruption of this book, but not the

[ 3
Quidquid in vetere Testamento legimus, hoc idem in evangelio
reperimus ; et quod in evangelio fuerit lectitatum, hoc ex veteris Testament!
auctoritate deducitur.]
[ 4
Moralia, Reg. 30, T. n. p. 386, Paris. 1618.]
622 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

writing of new books, or the delivery of new doctrines. "For,"

says he, " John himself wrote his gospel after this." I answer:
In the first place, every addition of books, provided they be
prophetic or apostolic, is not indeed prohibited in these w o r d s :
the prophets or the apostles might add other books. Y e t the
consequence will not hold, that the addition of the popish traditions
is not forbidden here, unless they can prove that their traditions
rest upon apostolical authority. Secondly, I confess that these
words properly pertain to the confirmation of the authority of this
particular piece of prophetic scripture, but they may also avail to
the confirmation of the completeness of the whole canon. F o r we
may, b y parity of reason, argue t h u s : The authority and analogy
of the other books is the s a m e : if, therefore, it be not lawful to
add to this book, then, b y parity of reason, it will be unlawful to
add to any other book, or detract from it. Hence it will follow
that these books contain in them a full and perfect b o d y of teach-
ing, and that no dogma should be sought outside them. Now
those who suppose that there is any other necessary article, add
to these books. Solomon, Proverbs x x x . 6, writes thus: " Add
thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found
a liar." So Ambrose gathers from this passage, de Paradiso, c. 1 2 ,
that nothing should be taken away from the divine commands . 1

The same author, in his exposition of the Apocalypse, (if that

piece be Ambrose's, which some doubt,) accommodates the words
now before us to the other scriptures a l s o ; and our countrymen of
Rheims allege his testimony in their annotations. N o w in that
exposition Ambrose affirms two t h i n g s : First, that he who
expounds the scriptures adds nothing; where he tacitly implies
that whoever does more than expound the scriptures, makes an
addition to them. In the next place, he says that those heretics
are accursed, who added any thing to the scriptures, or diminished
aught from them, for the confirmation of their heresies. Those,
therefore, who add any thing to the scripture itself, or take any
thing from it, are obnoxious to this denunciation. Augustine,
likewise, in his exposition of this place, says that all falsifiers of
scripture are condemned in these words. Thomas Aquinas in his
commentary upon 1 Tim. vi., Lect. 1, says that the canonical
scripture is the rule of our understandings: in confirmation of
which he subjoins the two places of scripture which we have been
handling, as well that from Deuteronomy, as this from the

I Si quid enim vel addas vel dotrahas, prasraricatio quaxlam videtur esse
1

mandati.—T. I . p. 62. Col. Agripp. 1616.]

XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 623

Apocalypse. Therefore he understood these words to refer not

merely to this book, but to the canon of the whole scripture.
W e have now discussed two passages of scripture, wherein
additions to, or diminutions from, scripture are forbidden; here
follows a third, which is contained in Gal. i. 8, in the following
w o r d s : " Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel unto y o u than that which we have preached unto you, let
him be a c c u r s e d ; " and afterwards, v. 9, " If any one preach any
other gospel unto y o u than that y e have received, let him be
accursed." It is a remarkable passage, and used b y all our
divines who write against the popish traditions. All those are
obnoxious to this anathema, who preach any other gospel but that
which is written. N o w the popish traditions (even granting them
to be not contrary to the scriptures) are y e t wholly beside the
scriptures: those therefore who defend them, lie under the
weight of this anathema. W h o e v e r preach any thing as gospel
besides Paul's gospel, are pronounced accursed. The patrons of
unwritten traditions preach as gospel something beside, yea, con-
trary to Paul's gospel, since the whole of that is contained in the
scriptures: therefore the patrons of popish traditions are declared
accursed. Our argument from these words is confirmed also b y
the judgment of Augustine, c. Liter. Petilian. Lib. m . c. 6 ; and of
Basil, in Summa, Moral. 7 2 , c. 1. Bellarmine returns two answers.
First, that these words are not to be understood merely of the
written word, but of the whole word of God, whether written or
unwritten, and only orally delivered; and he denies that the
fathers are opposed to this exposition. I answer: I confess that
the apostle denounces an anathema against those who add any
thing to that word of G o d which he preached; but I maintain that
the whole of that word is contained in the scriptures. F o r from
what source did the apostle confirm his gospel ? Assuredly, from
the scriptures of the old Testament. H o w does this appear ?
F r o m Acts xvii. 1 0 , where we read that the Bereans examined the
gospel and doctrine of Paul b y the scriptures; which they would
not have done, if all that Paul had delivered were not contained in
the scriptures. In Acts xxvi. 2 2 , 2 3 , a still plainer testimony
occurs: in that place the apostle declares to Festus, that he, having
received help of God, had continued up to that day, testifying to
all, but saying nothing else than what Moses and the prophets had
said; and then he enumerates certain heads of his teaching, Christ's
death, resurrection, &c. It is manifest, therefore, that the apostle
624 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

never spoke a word, or taught a single point, which might not be

proved b y the evidence of Moses and the prophets. T h e whole of
Paul's Gospel can therefore be proved by the certain and clear
authority of the old Testament.
N o w as to Bellarmine's pretence, that Augustine and Basil
offer no obstacle to our understanding this place as he would have
it understood, let us see what is in it. Those fathers, says he,
do not infer from this passage that nothing is to be delivered
beside the scriptures, but only nothing contrary to them. Now
these are the words of Augustine in the place cited a b o v e :
" Whether the subject be Christ, or his church, or anything else
appertaining to our faith and l i f e ; if (I do not say we, who are
no wise comparable to him who said, ' though we,' but even what
he there immediately subjoins, if) an angel from heaven preach to
you anything besides what y o u have received in the scriptures of
the law and of the gospel, let him be a c c u r s e d ! " In these words
we should observe and consider the following points: First, that
all that Paul taught may be found in the scriptures. This Augus-
tine expressly affirms, dividing the scriptures into the law and the
gospel. Secondly, that all things necessary may be found in these
legal and evangelical scriptures. F o r , says Augustine, " Whether
the subject be Christ, or his church, or anything else appertaining
to our faith and life." Thirdly, that whatever is preached or an-
nounced besides what is contained in these scriptures, is to be wholly
rejected. His words are, " besides what is w r i t t e n : " therefore
not only that which is contrary to, but that also which is beside the
scriptures, should be refused. Fourthly, it is worthy of observation
that Augustine joins Paul in anathematizing the patrons and
preachers of unwritten traditions. N o w Basil's words, Moral. 7 2 ,
are to this effect: " It behoves those hearers who are skilled in
scripture, to examine what is delivered b y their teachers, and to
receive whatever is consonant to scripture, but reject whatever is
alien from i t . " 1
And in confirmation of this he cites, amongst
others, this testimony of Paul to the Galatians. Whence it mani-
festly appears, that Paul is here speaking of the scriptures, and
condemning every doctrine not therein delivered: otherwise, if a
teacher might allege other things beside the scriptures, Basil would
have cited this passage to no purpose. In that case, he should

[I hei TÜ>V aKpoaríúV roiis TTeTraibevpevovs rets ypacphs hoKipdfeiv rd rrapd rS>v
8íBa(TKá\a>v Xcyápcva- (caí ra pev crvp(pai>a raís ypacpais dé^cOat, rd fie dWórpta
árroPáXXeiv.—Opp. T . II. p . 3 7 2 . ]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 625

have proposed some other test besides the scriptures, b y which those
skilled in scripture should examine the sayings and teachings of
their instructors. F o r how can those who are only skilled in the
scriptures examine those things which their masters deliver beside
the scriptures ? It appears therefore hence, that whatever is beside
the scriptures, is alien from them, and therefore should be rejected.
Thus those fathers say precisely what we say, and maintain the
same tenets as we maintain.
But, says Bellarmine, the fathers have used this passage to
confirm tradition, as Athanasius in his book of the Incarnation
of the W o r d , and Cyril in his book upon the Orthodox Faith. I
a n s w e r : Traditions are either consonant to scripture, and then
they should be received, and those who do not receive them are
condemned in these w o r d s ; or they are, as Basil expresses it, alien
from scripture, and then they should be rejected. These fathers
speak of those traditions which are consonant to scripture, not of
such as are alien from it. So much for Bellarmine's first reply to
the passage alleged from Gal. i. 8. I come now to his second reply.
H e says, in the second place, that the word " b e s i d e " in
this place is equivalent to " a g a i n s t : " so as that Paul here anathe-
matizes those who deliver anything against, not beside, the scrip-
tures ; consequently, that new doctrines are not here prohibited,
provided they do not contradict the scriptures. T h e Rhemists
explain the passage in a similar w a y ; and so does Stapleton,
Lib. XH. c. 10. W e , however, take the word " beside" in its
strict sense, so as to bring: under this denunciation whatever is d e -
livered beside that gospel delivered b y the apostle. But let us see
the reasons b y which Bellarmine seems to confirm this reply of his.
H e hath four of them. The first is, because Paul himself taught
and wrote many things b e s i d e ; and after this Epistle, John wrote
his Apocalypse and his Gospel. I a n s w e r : I maintain that Paul
did not afterwards teach other, that is, new and different doctrines
(as Bellarmine wishes to be supposed), but taught the same things to
other persons; for, since he went afterwards into other regions
he was obliged to repeat the same things frequently. Thus he
taught other persons, but not other things. N o w that he neither
ought to have taught, nor actually did teach, anything different,
but always one and the same thing, is evident from this, that the
gospel of Christ is one, and that he always taught the gospel of
Christ. Bellarmine's second reason is drawn from the drift and
design of the apostle, because, says he, the apostle there disputes

TWHITAKKR 1
626 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

against those who maintained the obligation of the l a w : now to

maintain this was against, and not merely beside, the gospel preached
b y Paul. I answer: But Paul not only proves that the rites of
the law should not be observed, nor is this his whole design; but
affirms also, that he had delivered to the Galatians the gospel in its
whole, perfect integrity, so as that whatever was thereto added,
was false and impious. F o r the apostle says that the false apostles
had transferred the Galatians to " another gospel, which," says he
in that same chapter, " i s not another; but there are some that
trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." It was not,
therefore, another gospel which these false apostles preached, but
only a corruption and depravation of that gospel which Paul
preached; and, whereas the apostle had delivered to the Galatians
that gospel of Christ, wherein our salvation is fully and perfectly
set forth, these false apostles endeavoured to introduce their legal
observances, which was a thing both beside and against Paul's
gospel. But the apostle does not use the term against, because
the false apostles would have denied that it was against that gospel
which Paul himself had delivered. In order, therefore, to obviate
this false pretence, the apostle says, " beside what I preached unto
y o u , and y e r e c e i v e d : " as if he had said, I taught you nothing of
the k i n d ; therefore those who introduce such things are to be
avoided, and b y no means to be listened to. Thus it is certain
that beside suits the apostle's design much better than against.
Bellarmine's third reason is taken from R o m . xvi. 1 7 , where the
apostle writes t h u s : " I beseech you, brethren, mark those who
cause divisions and offences, beside the doctrine which y e have
l e a r n e d ; " where, says he, Erasmus translates it, against. I an-
swer : I confess it, and so does B e z a : for whatever is against
scripture is also beside i t ; and, conversely also, whatever in our
holy religion is taught beside the scriptures, is against the scriptures
too, if it carry with it any notion of necessity, that is, if it be p r o -
posed as a necessary doctrine. Since the apostles delivered abun-
dantly all necessary things in the scriptures, whatever is urged
as necessary beside the scriptures is justly deemed contrary to
them. I confess that -rrapa. may sometimes be conveniently trans-
lated against, but not in this place. Bellarmine's fourth reason is
taken from the authority of the fathers. Of these he brings
forward Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, CEcumenius,
and Augustine. These all, says he, explain " b e s i d e " b y "against."
I answer, that in religious matters beside is equivalent to against
XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 627

the scriptures: but ire have already shewn the reason w h y the
apostle uses the term beside rather than against, because it suited
his purpose better. There is no necessity for answering his p a -
tristic authorities. However, Chrysostom is most plainly for us,
and against our opponent: for thus he writes upon the present
passage: " The apostle said not, if they tell y o u all the contrary,
or subvert the whole gospel, but even if they preach y o u any (that
is, even a slight and minute, even the smallest) thing beside that
gospel which y e have received, if they shake any portion of it, let
them be accursed." And, to make it still more clear that he is upon
our side, he subjoins: " Abraham, when he was asked to send
Lazarus, answered, T h e y have Moses and the p r o p h e t s ; if they
believe not them, neither will they be persuaded though one rose
from the dead. N o w Christ introduces Abraham speaking thus in
the parable, to shew that he would rather that more faith should
be reposed in the scriptures than in even men raised from the dead :
veKpwv eyeipofxevtov a^ioTricrroTepas fiovXerai elvai raj ypaipas.

And Paul (and when I say Paul, I say Christ, since it is he who
directed the mind of Paul) prefers the scriptures even to angels d e -
scending out of heaven, Kal ayyeXwv e% ovpavov KarafiaivovTbov

avrds •7rpoTt9>]cTi, and that very p r o p e r l y ; since angels, however

great, are but servants and ministers; whereas the whole scripture
hath come to us not from servants, but from G o d the L o r d of all."
Thus it is certain that Chrysostom maintains the perfection of
scripture, and is on our side against the papists: for in these
words he subverts both the Jesuit's answers, since he determines
that the apostle both speaks of the written word of God, and con-
demns whatever is preached n o t only against, but beside the
scriptures. So GEcumenius upon this place, T O irap o h-fkol TO
oaov SrjTcoTe fxtKpov TOV Kr/pvyixaTos' " H o w small soever it be, let
him be accursed." So Theophylact remarks that the apostle does
not say " contrary t o , " but " beside."
I come now to Augustine, some of whose words Bellarmine
cites from his ninety-eighth Tractate upon the gospel of J o h n ;
and the same words are cited also b y the Rhemists in their note
upon this place to the Galatians. There Augustine writes, that the
apostle said not, " Above what y e have received, but beside what
y e have received . F o r had he said the former, he would have
1

f 1
N a m si illud diccret, sibi ipsi prayudicaret, qui c u p i c b a t venire a d
Thessalonieences, u t suppleret quae illorum fldei defuorunt. S c d qui supplot,
q u o d m i n u s erat addit, n o n q u o d inerat tollit.]
40—2
628 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

answered himself b y anticipation, who desired to come to the

Thessalonians that he might supply what was lacking in their faith."
I a n s w e r : This testimony is of no weight against us and our expo-
sition, because although Paul meant to g o to the Thessalonians to
give them more instruction, yet it was in the same, and not in
different points. A s to the apostle's saying that something was still
lacking to their faith, I use a distinction. There was something
lacking to their faith subjectively, not objectively. T h e apostle had
delivered to them the whole doctrine, but they had not received it
a l l ; consequently he desired to come to them again, that they
might more fully receive the doctrine delivered, and that their faith
might be rendered more stable. In like manner we also need daily
fresh instruction, that we may make every day new advances in
the faith, since our faith is not perfect in this life. Meanwhile
Augustine does not say that it is only contrary doctrines that are
condemned by the apostle; for the additional teaching of which he
speaks may be such as is not beside, but contained in the scrip-
tures. So much for our third testimony from scripture. Next
follows the fourth.
N o w the fourth passage of scripture which we cite against
traditions is contained in the last verse of the twentieth chapter of
John, and runs t h u s : " T h e s e are written that y e might believe
that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing y e
might have life through his name." It is manifest from these words,
that all necessary things may be found in those which are written,
because b y these a full and perfect faith may be produced, inasmuch
as such a faith is capable of procuring eternal life. This interpret-
ation of ours is supported by the authority of Augustine, Tractat.
4 9 in Joan, and de Consensu Evangel. Lib. I. c. 3 5 , and of Cyril
upon John, Lib. x n . c. ult. Bellarmine is here upon the rack,
and turns himself on all sides to evade the difficulty. A t last he
gives five answers, which we will examine in order.
First, he says that John speaks of Christ's miracles, and asserts
that miracles numerous enough to prove and persuade us that Christ
was the Messiah are committed to writing. I answer: Although the
evangelist does mention miracles in the preceding verse, yet the word
TctuTa, which he subjoins in this, is to be understood of doctrine
rather than of miracles. F o r miracles do not properly produce faith
in us, but rather confirm and support it when it hath been produced,
and miracles minister to and win credence for the doctrine. Here,
therefore, the end of the whole gospel is indicated: for the scope
XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 629

of the gospel is that we should believe, and so have life eternal. So

Augustine upon this place, Tractat. 1 2 2 ; so de L y r a ; so cardinal
H u g o ; so Jansenius. Augustine says that the end of the book is
indicated in these words. D e L y r a says that in these words the
utility of this doctrine is pointed out. Cardinal H u g o writes t h u s :
" In these words is declared the end of scripture in general, and of
this book in particular." Jansenius in like manner says the end
and drift of this book are designed in these words.
Secondly, Bellarmine answers that John speaks only of the things
written b y himself; and that therefore if these are sufficient, the
other scriptures will be superfluous. I answer: If the things written
b y John are such as that we may b y them reach faith and salvation,
then much more may we reach faith and salvation b y all the books
and the whole canon of the scriptures. Besides, we may give a
far correcter explanation of this passage, if we say that John speaks
here not only of his own book, but of all the books of the new
Testament: for he had seen them all, and this gospel was written
last; and even though perhaps some of the books were published
after it, y e t it does not thence follow that all necessary things were
not then written. But when he says, " These are written that y e
might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of G o d , " he is not
to be understood to assert that faith or salvation could in no way
be received without these scriptures. F o r faith and life may be
obtained from the old Testament; and those who had only the old
Testament were believers and in a state of salvation : but b y this
present way we reach faith arid salvation with greater clearness and
plainness, in a better and surer method. These writings of John
are therefore necessary, like the other books of the new Testament,
only upon the preliminary supposition that God chose to teach us
now under the gospel in a clearer way, and afford us most manifest
evidence of the redemption which hath been wrought.

Thirdly, Bellarmine pretends that John does not affirm that these
by themselves are sufficient to salvation, but that these and other
things which have been written are referred and subordinated to the
end of producing faith, and so putting us in possession of life. I
answer: Scripture is not only one of those means which relate to
salvation, but the entire and sole medium, the perfect and complete
medium, because it produces a perfect faith. F o r that faith which
brings salvation is perfect; and consequently the medium whereby
that faith is produced is also perfect. An argument may be framed
t h u s : All things necessary to salvation are contained in believing
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Now all things requisite
630 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

for our believing that. Jesus is the Christ are written: therefore all
things necessary to salvation are contained in the scriptures.
Fourthly, Bellarmine endeavours to evade the testimonies of
Augustine and Cyril. H e says, in the first place, that those fathers
speak only of the miracles of Christ, or, at most, of his words and
actions. I answer : This is enough. F o r if John hath sufficiently
written all Christ's sayings, then he hath sufficiently for our pur-
poses committed his whole doctrine to writing. H e says, in the
second place, that they do not affirm, upon the evidence of this
passage, that all things are sufficiently written which are absolutely
necessary to salvation; but that all things which the evangelist
deemed fit to be written are written sufficiently. I answer : This
is surely a ridiculous fiction, which he hath learned from Canus,
Lib. HI. c. ult. However, if we consult Augustine and Cyril, we
shall easily perceive the falsehood of this interpretation. Augus-
tine says ( T r a c t . 4 9 . in Joan.) that " those things which seemed
sufficient for the salvation of believers were chosen to be committed
to w r i t i n g ; " and does not say that what was written was suffi-
1

ciently written. Therefore all things are sufficiently written, which

are sufficient for our salvation and necessary to it. T h e same
father (de Consensu Evangel. Lib. i. c. ult.) writes thus: " W h a t -
soever he (i. e. Christ) wished that we should read concerning his
words or works, he enjoined the task of committing to writing upon
the apostles, as if they were his hands." Perhaps they will seize
upon the expression, " W h a t he wished that we should read."
But this makes signally against themselves. F o r their traditions
are written somewhere, although they are called unwritten. Now
Augustine says Christ committed to his apostles the writing of all
those things which he wished us to read. Therefore he gave no
commandment either to write or read more traditions. F o r if he
had wished them to be either written or read, who should have
written them rather than the apostles who wrote the r e s t ? or
where should they have been read rather than in the canonical
books and writings ? Cyril upon John, Lib. XII. c. ult., says that
those things are written " which the writers deemed sufficient both
for morals and for doctrine." T w o things offer themselves for
consideration in this testimony: first, that these words should be
understood not of the books of John only, but of the rest a l s o ;
therefore he says, " w h i c h the writers," that is the apostles,

I1
E l e c t a s u n t . . . quae scriberentur, qua? saluti c r e d e n t i u m sufficere c r e -
debantur.—Opp. T . i n . col. 2 1 6 3 . P a r i s . 1837.—The o t h e r references are
cited m o r e largely b e l o w , c h a p . 17.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 631

deemed sufficient: secondly, that the things which are written are
sufficient both for morals and doctrine.
Fifthly, Bellarmine answers, that all things are sufficiently written
in the general, but not in the particular; because we are commanded
in the scriptures to hold traditions: where we have a recurrence of
the same subterfuge as he had previously used. I answer : If all
things are thus only written in the general, w h y , I beseech y o u , was
so much written ? A few things would have been sufficient, from which
the rest might have been taken. Yea, this one single sentence might
have been enough, " B e l i e v e what the church t e a c h e s : " just as he
had before said, that his traditions were, in the general, enjoined b y
Paul in those words, " Hold the traditions," so as to leave nothing
more to be desired. Augustine however, as y e have heard but
now, determines far otherwise : " Whether the subject be Christ, or
his church, or any other matter appertaining to our faith or life,
I say not, Though we, who are in no wise comparable to him who
said, Though w e ; but assuredly I do say what he added in that
place, Though an angel from heaven preach any thing beside what
y e have received in the scriptures of the law and the gospel, let him
be accursed." Therefore all things are particularly, and that too
with the fullest sufficiency, consigned to writing. Andradius in his
Orthodox Explications, Lib. 11. gives a different answer, but one so
ridiculous and foolish that Bellarmine did not choose to make use of
it. H e says that Augustine and Cyril write, that those things which
are written are sufficient, not because the evangelists have c o m -
prised all the mysteries of our faith in this small volume, but
because those most holy persons had committed to writing " what
might be sufficient to establish the credit of all the other things
which were not contained in written documents." Thus, if we b e -
lieve Andradius, these fathers meant that the evangelists wrote, not
what was sufficient for our faith (which however Augustine expressly
affirms), but what was sufficient to settle the credit of traditions; —
an assertion destitute of all reasonable s u p p o r t ! F o r how can these
things which are committed to writing establish the credit of those
which are nowhere written? Augustine says besides, that the-
apostles wrote b y divine authority whatever Christ " wished us to
read concerning either his words or works." Andradius is more-
over at variance with himself; since, after having first said that " m o s t
holy p e r s o n s " had written what sufficed to establish the credit of
other things, he so far forgets himself afterwards as to maintain that
Cyril spoke here " of the gospel of John o n l y . " W e have said
enough upon this testimony.
632 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

I come now to the celebrated passage of the apostle which is con-

tained in 2 Tim. iii. 1 6 , 1 7 : " All scripture is given b y inspiration
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and
for instruction in righteousness; that the man of G o d may be perfect,
throughly furnished for every g o o d w o r k . " I will not here dispute
whether the apostle speaks here only of the books of the old, or of
the books of both Testaments. M y opinion is that these words
refer to the new Testament also : for although the books of the new
Testament had not y e t been published when Timothy was a child,
y e t some of them had already seen the light when the apostle wrote
these words. However, if he spake only of the books of the old
Testament, then our argument may be pressed still more closely.
F o r if the books of the old Testament are of themselves sufficient
for all the ends here enumerated, then much rather do the scrip-
tures of the old and new Testaments together contain a full b o d y
of doctrine. But I do not choose to moot this question; though I
think that this is a general sentence referring to the whole scripture.
F r o m this passage we draw the following conclusion: T h e whole scrip-
ture is useful for the end of rendering the man of God perfect for
e v e r y good work : therefore, the scriptures are sufficient for all things
necessary for us. Our opponent hath a twofold reply : first, b y con-
ceding a certain sort of sufficiency ; secondly, b y denying that suffi-
ciency which we maintain. L e t us examine these replies.
First, he says, it m a y be replied that the scriptures do, in
a certain sense, sufficiently instruct and perfect a man of God,
forasmuch as many things are " e x p r e s s l y " contained in scrip-
ture, and the same scripture teaches us also whence the "rest
may be derived." "We have already answered this reply, b y shew-
ing that the scripture cannot be called sufficient only because it
sufficiently delivers some necessary things in the general, and indi-
cates the source whence the rest m a y be d e r i v e d ; because then
there would have been no need that the H o l y Spirit should have
published so many books of scripture. T h e Decalogue, the Creed,
and the Lord's P r a y e r would have been enough, and there would
have been no necessity for so many pieces. But the H o l y Spirit
willed that we should be most fully instructed, and therefore caused
so many books to be published, and referred us to the scriptures
wherein a clearly sufficient explication of all parts of our faith is to
b e found. This reply therefore was an absurd one, Y e t this is
the only one which Canus had to give, Lib. iii. c. ult. Bellarmine,
however, was not satisfied with it. Indeed, the second epistle to the
Thessalonians contains some things expressly, and refers us to the
XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 633

source whence the rest may b e derived, as the papists themselves

confess, when it says, " Hold the traditions." Therefore, if this
reply were sound, that epistle would have been sufficient. T h e
same might b e said o f the book of Ruth, Joshua, and others. B e l -
larmine, therefore, was obliged to seek another reply.
Secondly, then, Bellarmine denies that sufficiency which we
maintain, and that for three reasons. First, he remarks that the
apostle does not say " the whole," but " a l l " scripture. Therefore
the apostle ascribes his commendation not only to the whole scrip-
ture, but to all, that is, to each several book. E v e r y part of scrip-
ture, then, and each several book, must b e perfect, if he speak of
such a perfection of scripture. So Stapleton, L i b . x n . c. 8, e x -
pounds this place not of the " whole," but of " every " scripture.
I a n s w e r : " A l l " in this place is equivalent to " the whole," and
is frequently so u s e d ; as, " a l l " life is full of wretchedness, that
is, " the whole " o f life. So Coloss. ii. 9, " In him dwelleth irdv
TO TrXripwLia , ' a l l the fulness' of the G o d h e a d ; " that is, " t h e
1

whole." So 2 Thessalon. i. 1 1 , " T o fulfil irdaav evSoKiau," that

is, " the whole." A n d frequently in scripture we read " all Israel,"
meaning the whole house of Israel. So Luke xxi. 3 1 , ims o XaoV,
" the whole p e o p l e : " and Ephes. iv. 1 6 , irdv TO aw/xa, " the whole
b o d y : " and Matth. iii. 5, irdoa r} 'lovSaia KCU iraaa r\ irepi^wpos
TOV 'lopSdvov, " t h e whole of Judaea and the whole region," & c .
Acts x x . 2 7 , Paul says that he had declared ivdcrav TY)V fiovXyv
TOV Qeov, " the whole counsel of G o d . " R o m . iv. 1 6 , TTCLVTI TW
o-irepfiaTi, " to the whole seed." A n d that this place must needs
be so understood, is manifest; for otherwise each several Psalm,
yea, every chapter, every verse, every word, would be useful for
all these purposes : for these are all parts of scripture, all yparpal
deoTTvevo-Tou But this the papists do not concede. Our inter-
pretation may also b e confirmed from the preceding c o n t e x t ; where
the apostle shews that he is speaking o f the whole b o d y of scripture.
For Paul says above, that Timothy was skilled in the scriptures
from a b o y . Now it was not in only some one part of scripture, or in
some single book that he was conversant, but in the whole scripture.
The same m a y be gathered also from what f o l l o w s : for Paul says
that " Scripture is useful for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:" now this great ability o f scrip-
ture must be gained from the whole of it, not from any one book o r

f 1
T h e reader, however, needs h a r d l y to h e r e m i n d e d that nds w i t h t h e
article is a very different thing f r o m rras without t h e article. T h e r e could b e
n o d o u b t o f t h e m e a n i n g o f rraa-a i? ypcupij.}
634 TUB FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

part of a book. So Dionysius Carthusianus, no bad expositor:

" All, that is, the whole canonical scripture." Bellarmine's pretence,
that all these uses may b e found in each several book, is absurd.
H e proves, in the case of the second epistle of John, which is the
shortest, that all these things may be found there, because we read
there that " Christ is the Son of G o d , " which appertains to doctrine ;
that " antichrists are in the world," which appertains to reproof:
In the same epistle also the apostle enjoins us " to love one another,"
which appertains to instruction; and says also, " T a k e heed unto
yourselves that we lose not what we have wrought," which apper-
tains to correction. N o w he ought to have shewn that all these
things were contained in each particle and member of the books, if
he meant to defend his interpretation. Besides, although some
things which serve all these purposes may be found in each of the
books of holy scripture, yet not so as to " p e r f e c t " (e^apTiarj) the
man of God. Secondly, Bellarmine disputes thus : W h e n Paul wrote
these words, the gospel of John, the Apocalypse, and other books
also, were not written: therefore, he cannot be understood to speak
of the whole canon of scripture. I answer: The apostle speaks
of the canon which was then extant, and contained a full and
perfect b o d y of doctrine. F o r the books written afterwards do
not prove that that b o d y was not perfect, but only that what w e
now have is more perfect. F o r the additional books do not add
any thing to the doctrine of scripture, but only to the explication
of the doctrine previously delivered. And the apostle speaks
not only of those books, but in general of the whole scripture.
Since, therefore, these books have been added to the b o d y of scrip-
ture, this judgment appertains b y a parity of reason to them also.
Finally, Bellarmine collects what he desires from the reasoning
of the apostle. The apostle, says he, argues from the universal
to the particular. All scripture is useful: therefore the old T e s -
tament is useful. I a n s w e r : T h e apostle does not argue from the
universal to the particular, but from the efficient and the final
cause. F r o m the efficient t h u s : All scripture is divinely inspired;
therefore do thou read the scriptures from which thou mayst learn
divine wisdom. From the end, thus: Scripture is profitable for
many purposes; therefore do thou read the scriptures, that thou
mayst derive these many and great advantages from the study
of them. The old version (which however Bellarmine follows)
requires emendation: Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis
est; whereas it is in the Greek, irdaa ypacpy OeoirveuaTos, ical
wcpeXijuos. And although we must allow that when Timothy was
XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 635

a child, some books of the new Testament were not extant, yet
when this epistle was written, and Timothy now grown up, many
were extant and in the hands of pious persons, as namely, the
gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and all the epistles of P a u l ; for
this was the last epistle which Paul wrote a short time before he
departed out of this life. W h a t ! did not this apostle commend
these scriptures also to Timothy ? Undoubtedly he did.
N o w , after obviating the sophistry of Bellarmine, let us proceed
to confirm our own argument, which we state t h u s : T h e whole
scripture is useful for all these purposes: therefore it is perfect and
sufficient, and contains all necessary things. Bellarmine, however,
laughs at reasoning which concludes sufficiency from utility. So
the Rhemists upon this place, and the defender of the censure
against William C h a r k . W i t h this reply they seem to stop our
1

mouths; y e t is it a mere subterfuge. F o r we do not argue that

scripture is sufficient because it is useful; but we prove its per-
fection and sufficiency from the magnitude of that utility which
may be obtained from scripture. F o r although everything that is
useful is not sufficient, y e t if all sufficient things are useful, then,
conversely, some useful things are sufficient, and some kind of
usefulness is sufficient and complete. N o w , such is the usefulness
mentioned in this p l a c e : and that it is such, is clear from the
words and the design of the apostle; since he speaks of such an
usefulness of scripture as proves the scriptures to be sufficient also.
For so, in the words immediately preceding, the apostle testifies of
the scriptures that they are able ao<plaai, that is, ' to make a man
wise' unto salvation. Therefore they are sufficient. F o r wisdom
contains the perfection of knowledge. N o w , from the scriptures
everything may be derived which can render men w i s e : therefore
all things requisite to perfect knowledge are contained in the scrip-
lures. Neither Bellarmine, nor the Rhemists, nor the censor and
defender of the censure above cited, nor (as far as I am aware)
any papist, hath touched this argument: The scriptures teach perfect
wisdom: therefore the scriptures are sufficient for our salvation.
Besides, the apostle illustrates this utility b y saying that the
scriptures are useful for all purposes; which is assuredly a sufficient
utility. But how is this proved, that the scriptures are useful for
all purposes ? B y this, that in the four heads here enumerated
are contained and included all things requisite to our salvation.

I 1
W . Chark was one of the disputants against Campian in the conference
held in the Tower, Sept. 27, 1580.—Strype, Ann. Vol. n. Book ii. c. 22. p.
646. Life of Parker, App. 74.]
636 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

W h a t we are obliged to do is, either to teach truth, or to refute

errors, or to direct life aright, or to reprove vice. T h e papists
themselves concede that all things are comprised in these four
points, since the pastors of the church are engaged in nothing else
besides these. AiSatrKaX'ia denotes sound d o c t r i n e ; eXey^os, the
refutation of false opinions; TratSeia, the g o d l y direction of l i f e ;
evavopQiocni, the correction of manners. Scripture is profitable
for all these purposes. Y e s , y o u may s a y , — b u t not sufficient.
Y e a , I affirm, profitable and sufficiently profitable; which is even
still more evident from what follows. F o r he subjoins, " that the
man of G o d may be perfect (a/moy rj), thoroughly furnished (e%rip-
Ticrixevos) unto every g o o d w o r k . " T h e phrase, " m a n of G o d , "
is taken here in the same sense as in 1 Tim. vi. 1 1 . It denotes
a minister or pastor, as Melchior Canus confesses, Lib. i n . c ult.
Hence, therefore, we may reason t h u s : T h e scriptures render a
minister thoroughly furnished unto every g o o d w o r k : therefore
they are sufficient. F o r if a minister can derive from the scrip-
tures all things which are necessary for his function, then the
people also may find in the scriptures all things necessary for sal-
vation: for nothing is necessary to be believed b y the people,
which it is not necessary for the minister to teach and deliver. The
measure of doctrine in the minister and of faith in the people is
one and the s a m e : so much as the pastor ought to teach, just so
much, and no more, the people ought to know and believe. Now,
he is called aprios, or perfect, who lacks nothing. T h e scriptures
make a pastor perfect. Therefore they place him in a condition in
which he is in need of nothing more. But, if there be no deficiency
in the pastor, then there can be no deficiency in the scriptures,
which have rendered him thus complete. A n d although the old
translator hath rendered e%t]pTicr/uevov b y instructum, y e t he un-
doubtedly means perfectly furnished. So in Matth. xxi. 1 6 , where
Christ cites a passage from the eighth Psalm, e/c o-TOfiaTos vntriiov
KCU GrjXaXpvTwv KarripTiao} cuvov, the old interpreter translates it,
Ex ore infantium et lactentium perfecisti laudem. So in L u k e
vi. 4 0 , where the disciple who shall be as his L o r d is called e^tjp-
TiaiJ-evos, the old interpreter renders it b y perfectus. T h e meaning
of the term is precisely the same in the present passage. Since
then the scripture is needful for these four purposes, since it renders
the man of G o d perfect, since it teaches a wisdom perfect to the
end of salvation, it must needs itself be perfect and sufficient. No
papist ever hath or will frame a full and pertinent answer to this
argument. Chrysostom sheds some light upon this reasoning of
XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 637

ours in his commentary upon this place, Homil. 9. He says that

Paul commended the scriptures to Timothy, because he knew that
he himself must shortly die, and that this would plunge Timothy
in the deepest affliction. He therefore comforts him in these
words, commending to him the scriptures as capable of standing in
the place of all other masters. So solicitous was Paul to remove
this anxiety from Timothy's mind. Chrysostom subjoins that it is
as if Paul had said: " Thou hast scripture for a master instead of
m e ; thence thou canst learn whatever thou wouldest k n o w : " dw
efiov ((prjcrl) rd? ypa(pa<? e^eis' ei TI /SovXei fxaOeiv, eKeiQev

Sw^crr). Whence it may be inferred, that all things can be learned

from the scriptures which could have been learned from the apostles
if they had still lived. Jerome, explaining those words, " which
are able to make thee wise," & c , says that the scriptures are not
sufficient without faith. I grant i t ; but in saying this he shews that
they are sufficient if one believes them. Even papists themselves
do not blame this interpretation. One Augustinus Villavicentius , l

who wrote four books upon the method of studying theology, which
are really deserving of being perused by all students of theology,
hath, Lib. i. c. 3, these words: " The scriptures can even by
themselves instruct us to salvation." However, those books were
really written by Hyperius, and Villavicentius says in the title of the
work, that they were so corrected by him as to allow of their being
read by catholics without danger; yet he made no change in these
words, although they make most decisively against the papists.
I come now to another argument, the last of those touched upon
by Bellarmine, and derived from various passages of scripture
wherein traditions are condemned: as, Matth. xv. 6, " Y e have
made the commandment of God of none effect by your traditions;"
and the words of Isaiah, c. 29, alleged by Christ in that same
chapter, " In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
'commandments of m e n : " and Galat. i. 1 4 , where Paul says] that,
2

before his conversion, he was "zealous for the traditions of his

[ Whitaker has mistaken the name of this author, as appears from
l

Placcius (De Scriptor. Pseudon. p. 6 0 9 ) ; which reference I owe to the kind-

ness of my friend Mr Gibbings. The title of the work referred to i s —
De recte formando studio theologico libri quatuor; ac de formandis sacris
concionibus libri tres : omnes collecti et restituti per fratrem Laur. a Villa-
vincentio, Xerezamum, Doctorem Theologum, Augustinianum, Eremitani,
nunc denuo diligentissime correcti et emendati.—Colon. 1575. See the
Literary History of the Book in Bayle, Art. H Y P E M U S . ]
[ 2
In the text the reference is by a mistake to verse 2 0 . ]
638 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

elders." F r o m these and the like places, we reason t h u s : Christ

and the apostles condemn traditions: therefore, they are not to
be r e c e i v e d ; and consequently scripture is sufficient. Bellarmine
hath but one r e p l y , namely, that Christ and the apostles did not
condemn those traditions which the Jews had received from Moses
and the prophets, but those which they had received from certain
later persons, whereof some were idle, and some impious. This he
confirms b y the authority of Epiphanius, Irenasus, and Jerome.
I answer: Firstly, it is false that the Jews received any traditions
from Moses and the prophets. H e himself does not prove they did,
and even some papists (as he owns) determine the contrary way.
Finally, it is evident from the scriptures: for Christ says, " Search
the scriptures," not tradition; and Abraham says, " T h e y have
Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." N o w b y Moses and
the prophets the scriptures are meant, as in Luke xxiv. 2 7 . There
is no mention in scripture of these traditions: the scriptures say
not a single word about t h e m : there were, therefore, none. Be-
sides, who were the guardians of these traditions ? T h e y must needs
say, the priests. But they had corrupted even the scripture itself:
much more then tradition. Besides, to what part of the law did
they relate ? for to some part of it they must have had reference.
N o t to the m o r a l ; for that was perfectly delivered in the decalogue,
and expounded in the other b o o k s : nor to the ceremonial; for
the ceremonial law is also perfectly delivered in the books of Moses,
wherein not even the minutest ceremony is omitted. N o w although
the explication of these ceremonies is nowhere contained in the
scriptures, y e t that is nothing to the p u r p o s e : for it is manifest
from the scriptures that the death of the Messiah, and the other
benefits which are derived from him to us, were signified and
declared b y these rites. T h e judicial law is not concerned in the
present question, regarding, as it did, the mere external polity, and
not faith and religion, which form the subject of this dispute. This"
therefore is irrelevant to the question before us. Further, let them
now produce, if they can, any of these traditions. T h e y cannot.
Therefore they have all perished, while the scriptures meanwhile
have been preserved entire.
Secondly, when he says that Christ condemns vain and impious
traditions, I allow the truth of that assertion: but it does not thence
follow that he does not condemn the popish traditions; since (as shall
appear hereafter) some of them are idle, and some pernicious.
Thirdly, I say that not only are impious traditions condemned
XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 639

b y Christ, but all which do not rest upon the authority of scrip-
ture. F o r those frequent washings of the Pharisees, mentioned in
(Matth. xv. and Mark vii.) who used to wash themselves, their ves-
sels, and their couches so diligently, were not openly impious or
pernicious, if they had not drawn after them an impiety of another
k i n d : yea, they seem to carry a sort of piety upon the face of
t h e m ; for the reason of this custom was their fear of having met
with an unclean person, and so contracted some impurity. Surely
this tradition hath a more specious reason, and borders more nearly
upon piety, than most of the popish traditions.
Fourthly, when Christ objects the commandment of God, and
opposes the scriptures to tradition, it is plain that he condemns all
unwritten traditions.
Fifthly, if the authors of these traditions had lived only a
short time before Christ, he would not have called them the
traditions of the elders, TU>V TrpeafivTepoov. This shews plainly
that these traditions were not very recent, but sufficiently ancient
in their date. And Christ b y citing Isaiah indicates that he is not
speaking of a certain sort of modern traditions, but of all unwritten
traditions in general. Undoubtedly therefore Christ condemns
all doctrines which are the decrees of men, such as the papists
have introduced in great numbers into the c h u r c h , — t h e distinction
of days, places, persons, meats, and such l i k e ; all which we p r o -
nounce pernicious, on account of these three evils following: first,
because they draw and lead us away from the scriptures, as if
they were insufficient, and contained not all necessary things;
whereas Christ and the apostles always remand us to the scriptures;
secondly, because those who are devoted to them place some of
their hope of salvation in them, which must needs be displeasing to
G o d ; and thirdly, because those who are occupied in keeping such
things, omit, neglect and despise the study of true godliness, and
apply themselves wholly to some external rites and exercises devised
and invented b y themselves. The truth of this is witnessed b y
experience in the case both of the Jews and papists. For in the
papacy the splendour of those works which human rashness and
superstition have invented hath eclipsed those works of charity
which are truly pleasing to the Deity.
Sixthly, as to the fathers here cited b y Bellarmine, there is no
necessity for making any reply to them, since we have shewn above
that all unwritten traditions are condemned b y Christ. I too can
bring forward fathers. See Cyprian, Ep. 63 and 7 4 , where this
testimony of Isaiah is plainly used to prove that nothing should be
640 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

received that is not based upon the authority of scripture. Elsewhere

also he uses these testimonies for the same purpose. So Chrysostom,
Horn. 5 2 in Matth./ lays down the following points: first, that the
priest and ordinary pastors made many innovations; therefore those
who hold the office and succession of priests are not always faithful:
secondly, that in doing so they transgressed the precept, Deut. iv.,
to make no additions to, or diminution from, the word of G o d ;
therefore those who make any change or innovation other than
the Lord hath appointed in the scriptures, add to, or detract from,
the word of G o d : thirdly, that this is done not only b y those
who introduce things contrary to the scriptures, but also b y those
who enjoin things not contrary to t h e m ; for he says, " that
tradition was not contrary to the law," that is, openly and in every
respect, but only consequentially. Those who will not eat without
washing their hands first, do nothing simply contrary to any divine
p r e c e p t ; but to make any part of godliness consist in this rite, or
to be more solicitous about this precept than about God's command-
ments, this is to make the law of G o d of none effect, and to incur
his severe displeasure. N o w the papists have run into still more
intolerable errors in this matter than the Jews of old, since their
religion is wholly occupied in observing and performing not those
things which Christ sanctioned and enjoined, but those which man's
boldness and curiosity have devised. F o r example, those who are
esteemed religious amongst the papists observe the rules of their
founders far more punctiliously than the commands of G o d : the
truth of which remark hath been now for a long time no secret to
all the world.
Thus far we have defended those testimonies of scripture which
Bellarmine endeavours, but ineffectually, to wrest from our hands.

CHAPTER XV.
WHEREIN OTHER TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE AGAINST TRADITIONS,
NOT NOTICED BY BELLARMINE, ARE EXPLAINED.

I WILL now add others which he hath not touched. D i d Bel-

larmine suppose that we had no more testimonies of scripture ?
I will now then set forth those which he hath omitted, and draw
arguments from the several passages.
T h e first is taken from Ps. xix. 8, where these words are read :
" The law of the Lord is entire, and giveth wisdom to babes." By
 XV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 641

the law the prophet means the old Testament, or the doctrine deli-
vered in the old Testament. This the Rabbins themselves per-
ceived, as is plain from the commentary of David Kimchi upon Ps. cxix.
The term, the Law, is used thus also in scripture itself, as in R o m .
iii. 1 9 , John xv. 2 5 ; and the usage is so established, that the name
of the law is given even to the gospel, R o m . iii. 2 7 . In this place
two attributes of the law are explained, which shew it to be per-
fect : in the first place, it is called entire; in the second, it is said
to give wisdom to babes. Temimah 1
is b y Tremellius, Bucer, and
Vatablus rendered integra; b y Pagninus, Arias Montanus, and Calvin,
perfecta. T h e term denotes that nothing is lacking in the old
Testament, but that in it is contained a full, perfect, and absolute
body of doctrine; for the books which were published afterwards
added no new dogma. T h e old translator renders it immaculata,
incorrectly. Y e t the censor before alluded to abuses this transla-
tion to his own p u r p o s e : he concedes that the law of God is un-
defiled, but denies that it is perfect. H o w e v e r , that it is perfect
appears plainly from the other attribute, in that it is said to g i v e
wisdom to babes or infants,—that is, to bestow divine knowledge
and wisdom upon those who had no understanding previously.
Now wisdom contains the height and perfection of knowledge.
From this place I argue t h u s : If the doctrine of the old Testament
was thus perfect and complete, so as fully to furnish the students
of it with all the parts of true wisdom, then much more is the
doctrine of both Testaments perfect. T h e antecedent is true, and
therefore also the consequent.
T h e second place is taken from L u k e i. 3, 4, where Luke in
his preface writes thus : " It seemed g o o d to me also, having had
perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto
thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know
the certainty, TI]V aacpaXelav, of those things wherein thou hast been
orally instructed." Theophilus had been previously instructed in
the christian religion, and taught concerning Christ, (as appears
from the words, irept wv / c a r ^ ^ ^ j j s ; ) y e t L u k e thought himself
obliged to write to him the same things as he had l e a r n e d : and
why ? that he might perceive TT)V aafpaXeluv, the sure and ascer-
tained certainty of those things. Out of scripture therefore there
is no, or no great, " certainty." F r o m these words the following

[ riD'Eft
x
t h e f e m i n i n e o f U^faF) which Gesenius translates in this
T • ; • T

place, perfectus, dbsohtius.] 41

[WHITAKER.]
642 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

argument may be drawn : If it was needful to Theophilus, to give

him adequate certainty, that those things which he had before
heard and learned should be reduced to writing; then all things uni-
versally which the apostles taught are written. F o r we are bound
to have a certain knowledge of all things necessary. N o w that
was necessary to Theophilus. Therefore all necessary points are in
writing. And if it was necessary to Theophilus, who had heard the
apostles themselves, to have what he had learned from them r e -
duced to writing, in order that he might know the full truth and
certainty of their teaching; then this must be deemed still more
necessary for us, and the churches of subsequent time. T h e former
is true : therefore also the latter.
T h e third place is taken from Luke xvi. 29, where Abraham
says to the glutton, " T h e y have Moses and the prophets; let them
hear them." It is plain enough that all the scriptures of the old
Testament are meant b y Moses and the prophets. A n d when he
says that these should be listened to, he indicates that a perfect
b o d y of teaching may be found in them. This, says Stapleton, Lib.
XII. c. 8, does not f o l l o w : for it is one thing, says he, to hear
Moses and the prophets, and quite another to hear nothing else.
B y the latter the new Testament would be excluded as superfluous.
I a n s w e r : In the first place, the command to hear them denotes
that they only should be listened to ; because this teaching obtained
from Moses and the prophets is opposed to all other revelations and
visions. T h e glutton desired that his brethren should be so admo-
nished and instructed as to be enabled to obtain eternal life, and
escape those punishments wherewith he was then tormented. A b r a -
ham rejoins, " T h e y have Moses and the prophets; let them hear
t h e m : " as if he had said, If they hear them, they can from them learn
and know all those things b y which they may shun this death and these
torments. It is as much as to say, The teaching of those books which
Moses and the prophets have written is p e r f e c t ; there is no need
of seeking other masters or monitors. Otherwise Abraham would
not have answered pertinently to the glutton's sense and meaning.
Secondly, because when the glutton still pressed his petition and
said, " N a y , father Abraham, but if one went unto them from the
dead, they will r e p e n t ; " Abraham replies, " If they hear not
Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one
rose from the dead." In which words he implies that those who
will not be satisfied with the teaching of scripture, can be persuaded
b y no teaching at all. Thirdly, when Abraham says, aKovaarwaav,
XV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 643

" let them hear them," he means them " a l o n e ; " just as when God
from heaven orders us to hear his Son Christ, Matth. xvh. 5,
" H e a r h i m , " he means that Christ should be heard alone. So
Cyprian, E p . 6 3 , expressly infers from that place in Matthew, that
Christ only should be listened t o . In Deut. x . 2 0 , we are com-
1

manded to worship God, and serve h i m : Christ, explaining that

place, Matth. iv. 1 0 , properly added the word " o n l y . " So in this
passage, " let them hear them," means, let them hear them " o n l y . "
A s to his objection, that this would make the new Testament super-
fluous, I answer, firstly, that the new Testament was not then p u b -
lished ; secondly, that these scriptures and traditions do not stand
upon the same g r o u n d s ; thirdly, the gospel only explains Moses and
the prophets: but this exposition is not like a mere commentary,
being inspired and credible upon its own authority. D e L y r a gives no
bad explanation of this passage in the following w o r d s : " T h e y have
Moses, who taught moral and practical t h i n g s : they have the p r o -
phets, who taught mysteries and points of faith; and these are sufficient
for salvation. Therefore he subjoins, ' Let them hear t h e m . ' " No 2

words can be plainer. Jansenius, in his Commentary on the Evan-

gelists , c. 9 7 , says that all which we are required to know concerning
3

a future life may be learned from the scriptures. This is e n o u g h ;

though it is not this alone which is sufficiently taught in scripture:
for the glutton did not merely desire that his brethren should
know this, but also the means of escaping those penalties. How-
ever, upon this admission, it is at least not necessary to believe
either purgatory, or Limbus Patrum, or Limbus puerorum: for
these they determine to be traditions. N o w Jansenius says that
we may learn from the scriptures all that we need to know con-
cerning the condition of the future life. F r o m this place, I draw
the following syllogism : If those who wish to know any thing
necessary to salvation are referred to the scriptures, then the scrip-
tures contain the whole of saving doctrine. T h e antecedent is true,
and therefore the consequent.
The fourth place is taken from Luke xxiv. 25 and 2 7 . Christ,
in verse 2 5 , blames the disciples for being slow " to believe all that

[ :
E t q u o d Christus d e b e a t solus audiri, P a t e r e t i a m d e coelo contestatur,
dicens . . . . Ipsum a u d i t e . — p . 155, ed. Fell. Amstel. 1691.
[ 2
H a b e n t M o s e n , qui docuit m o r a l i a et a g e n d a : h a b e n t prophetas, qui
docuerunt m y s t i c a et c r e d e n d a ; e t ista sufficiunt ad s a l u t e m : ideo sequitur,
Audiant illos.]
[ 3
L o u v a i n , 1 5 7 1 ; t o g e t h e r with his H a r m o n y . ]
41—2
644 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

the prophets have spoken." But where can those things be found?
This appears from verse 2 7 . There it follows: " Beginning at
Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scrip-
tures the things concerning himself." Hence we frame the following
a r g u m e n t : If all the things that the prophets spoke may be found
in the scriptures, then may those also which the apostles spoke be
found in the scriptures also. T h e first is t r u e : therefore also the
second. T h e force of the consequence is manifest. F o r the same
reason which impelled the prophets to commit all they said to writ-
ing, led the apostles also" to take a similar course. F o r if the p r o -
phets wrote all that they spoke, w h y should we not suppose that
the apostles and evangelists, proceeding with the same prudence,
governed b y the same Spirit, and having the same end in view,
committed likewise to writing the sum of that doctrine which they
delivered to the churches ? T h e same judgment should be passed
where the cases are the same. A n d hence those are refuted, who
dream of the existence of some unwritten prophetic traditions. For
L u k e makes all that the prophets spake to be comprised in the
scriptures. Therefore, there were no unwritten traditions of the
prophets. Therefore, there were no unwritten traditions of the
apostles. T h e reason is precisely the same. I f the ancient church
had every thing in scripture, the christian church likewise hath
e v e r y thing in scripture. T h e antecedent is p l a i n ; therefore also
the consequent. Otherwise God provided better for the Jews than
for us.
T h e fifth place is taken from John v. 3 9 , where Christ says,
" Search the scriptures." T h e Jews read the scriptures, but did
not understand them aright. Christ therefore exhorts them to give
more diligent attention to the search. H e adds as a reason, " F o r
in them y e think that y e have eternal life." A n d they thought so
truly, nor does Christ blame that opinion, So Psalm cxix. 2,
"Blessed are they who 'search' his testimonies ." 1
I f felicity
and salvation may be derived from the scriptures, then every thing
is contained in the scriptures. So Psalm i., " Blessed is the man
who meditates in the law of the L o r d d a y and night." I f the
Jews could have made a right use of the scriptures, they would

[! The quotation is from the Vulgate, "Beati qui scrutantur testimonia

ejus;" which, as usual, follows the L X X . who have, ol igepewawrfs. But the
Hebrew word is , rightly translated in the English version, " who keep."
However, the radical idea is to watch or look at narrowly; which might yield
the thought of searching, if there were evidence of such an usage.]
 XV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 645

have found life in them. A n d on this account Christ exhorts

them to search the scriptures. F r o m this place I reason t h u s :
If b y searching the scriptures we can find all things requisite to
salvation and eternal life, then all things necessary are written. B e -
sides, if this benefit could have been obtained from the scriptures
of the old Testament, then much more certainly may the same
benefits be now obtained, after the addition of the scriptures of the
new Testament.
T h e sixth place is taken from Acts i. 1, where Luke writes
t h u s : " The former treatise have I made, 0 Theophilus, of all
that Jesus began both to do and to teach," &c. N o w whatsoever
things concerning Christ are necessary to be known, are contained
under these two heads, namely, the sayings and the acts of Christ;
on which account Luke says in the beginning of his gospel, that he
had made himself perfect master of them all, and committed them
to writing. F r o m this passage we argue t h u s : If all things that
Jesus said and did are written, then all things which necessity
requires us to know concerning Christ are written. • N o w the first
is t r u e ; therefore also the second. H e r e perhaps some one m a y
object, D i d he really write all? N a y , he hath omitted many
things written b y Matthew and the rest, as the story of the Magi,
the cruelty of Herod, &c. Besides, John says that if all things
were written, the whole world could not contain so many books.
What t h e n ? A r e those things superfluous, which are written b y
the other evangelists ? I a n s w e r : Nothing less. But if we had
only the gospel of Luke or of Matthew, we should be content with
it, and that one would be sufficient. Nevertheless, the rest are not
therefore superfluous: first, because God willed that these things
should not be written b y only a single author, in order that our
faith should stand upon the firmer evidence; secondly, because he
willed that those things which are written b y one with some
obscurity, should be more clearly treated b y another, so that we
might thus have not only sufficient, but most abundant instruction.
Luke did not write all things absolutely that Jesus said and did,
but the chief and most necessary things (as even the Rhemists
themselves explain the words), and what might be sufficient. And
so our argument will be perfectly conclusive, as follows: If all the
chief and necessary things are found either in one, or more of the
evangelists, then, much rather, in the whole scripture. N o w the
first is true, and therefore the second.
T h e seventh place is taken from Acts xvii. 2 , 3, where Luke
646 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

•writes that Paul reasoned for three sabbath-days out of the scrip-
tures, airo rwv <ypa(pu>v, that Christ had suffered; so that this was
the Christ whom he preached unto them. Paul then discoursed
from the scriptures, and confirmed his whole doctrine b y the scrip-
tures. Hence we gather the following argument: If Paul used no
other evidence than that of scripture in teaching and delivering the
gospel, and refuting the J e w s ; then all testimonies which are r e -
quisite either to confirm the true doctrine of the gospel or to refute
heresies may be taken out of scripture. T h e former is true, and
therefore the latter. T h e consequence is manifest. F o r if any
other testimony had been necessary, the apostle would have used it.
But he confirmed his doctrine only b y the scriptures; and therefore,
in verse 1 1 , the Bereans are praised for having searched the scrip-
tures, and examined Paul's teaching b y them. Therefore we ought
to do likewise. N o w no heretics are more keen disputers, or more
difficult to b e refuted, than the Jews.
T h e eighth place is taken from Acts xviii. 24 and 2 8 . Apollos
was mighty in the scriptures, and refuted the Jews forcibly, evro-

voas, out of the scriptures. W e may argue here as in the former

case: I f Apollos made use only of the scriptures in refuting the
Jews and confirming the doctrine of the gospel, then the gospel
may be confirmed and heresies refuted b y the scriptures alone.
T h e former is true, and consequently the latter also.
The ninth place is taken from Acts xxiv. 1 4 , where Paul
testifies before the governor, that he believed all things which are
written in the law and the p r o p h e t s : in which words Paul designed
to give evidence of his faith, religion and piety. F o r the reason
w h y he said this was to persuade the Jews that he was a believer
and a Christian. It follows from this, that all articles of faith are
contained in the books of Moses and the prophets. Thus, then, we
a r g u e : I f all things that should be believed b y a faithful and g o d l y
man are delivered in the books of Moses and the prophets, then all
necessary things are found in the scriptures. N o w the former is
true, and therefore also the latter. T h e consequence h o l d s ; be-
cause the whole worship of God consists in believing those things
which are delivered b y Moses and the prophets, and faith embraces
these alone. So Paul says : " So worship I the God of m y fathers,
believing all things which are written in the law and in the
prophets." H e indicates that the true worship of God consists in
believing what Moses and the prophets taught. If any other
things were necessary, then he would not have used a pertinent
XV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 647

argument to prove his piety. But hence it is plain that God •willed
nothing but the faithful reception of whatever is delivered in the
scriptures, and that he is truly and perfectly a believer, who
believes all things contained in the scriptures.
The tenth place is taken from Acts xxvi. 2 2 , where Paul says,
that through the divine assistance he continued up to that very
day, witnessing both to small and great, saying nothing beside,
ovSev e/cTos, " those things- which Moses and the prophets did say
should come." Therefore Paul in preaching the gospel uttered not
a word extraneous to the scriptures of the law and the prophets.
F r o m this passage we reason t h u s : If Paul, when he preached the
gospel, uttered not a word beside the Mosaic and prophetical scrip-
tures, then all things necessary to the preaching of the gospel are
contained in the scriptures. Now the former is true, and therefore
also the second. The consequence h o l d s : for Paul preached the
whole gospel, being designed for this special purpose b y God, and
in the whole explication of it spoke nothing beside the scriptures.
In Acts x x . 2 7 , he says that he declared to the Ephesians " t h e
whole counsel of G o d . " Therefore the whole counsel of God in
announcing the gospel may be learned from the scriptures. Hence
another syllogism follows: If Paul taught nothing beside the scrip-
tures, then neither is it now lawful for any one to deliver anything
beside the scripture. But the former is true, and therefore the
second. F o r who will dare to assume to himself what Paul could
not or ought not to do ?
T h e eleventh place is taken from R o m . i. 2, where Paul says
that the gospel which he preached was before promised in the
prophets. But perhaps it may be said that these prophets did not
write; for the papists are continually falling into this delusion.
N o w , to prevent the suspicion that the prophets made this promise
only orally, and did not commit it to writing, it follows, that the
gospel was promised b y the prophets ev ypa(pcu<s dyiais, " i n the
holy scriptures." Hence we argue thus : If that gospel which Paul
preached was promised in the scriptures, and Paul preached the
whole g o s p e l ; then the whole gospel was promised in the scriptures,
and may be found in them. T h e former is true, and consequently
the latter also. W h a t will they deny here ? Did he preach the
whole gospel, or only a part of it ? D i d he not preach the whole ?
N a y , he was specially appointed to the office of preaching, not a
part of the gospel, but the whole. If they say that only part of
the gospel was preached b y Paul, let them specify how large a part
that was. But they cannot. Chrysostom writes admirably upon
648 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

this p l a c e : " The prophets did not merely speak, but committed
what they spoke to writing; nor did they merely write, but p r e -
figured future events also in real types. Such was Abraham's
leading his son Isaac to sacrifice; Moses' lifting up the brasen
serpent, and stretching forth his hands over Amalek, and slaying
the Paschal lamb." So Chysostom, and so, chap. xvi. 2 6 , w e read
that this gospel was declared Sid ypcMpiZv Trpo<priTiKwv.
T h e twelfth place is taken from R o m . x. 17 : " Faith cometh b y
hearing, and hearing b y the word of G o d . " W h e n c e it appears
that faith is conceived b y hearing. But many things are h e a r d :
which, then, are those the hearing whereof begets faith ? T h e word
of G o d , prj/ia rod Qeou, says Paul. F r o m which words we argue
t h u s : I f faith is conceived b y hearing the word of God, then all
things which are necessary to faith are contained in the word of
God. T h e former is true, and therefore the latter. But they
will say that the whole word of G o d is not written. N o w , I under-
take to prove that the word of G o d in this place denotes the scrip-
ture. It is written in 1 Peter i. last verse, " T h e word of the L o r d
abideth for e v e r ; and this is the word which b y the gospel is
preached unto y o u . " In Matth. v. 1 8 , Christ s a y s : " Until heaven
and earth shall pass away, one j o t or one tittle shall b y no means
pass from the law till all things be fulfilled." This is the very same
as Peter s a y s : for the law in this place denotes the written teach-
ing. So Matth. xxiv. 3 5 , Christ says, " Heaven and earth shall
pass away, but m y words shall not pass a w a y . " N o w we have b e -
fore shewn and proved that all Christ's words, or at least all that
were necessary, are written. Peter himself makes this clear when
he says, " This is the word which b y the gospel is preached unto
you." So Paul, R o m . x. 8, " That is, the word of faith which we
preach." F o r the whole gospel is promised, as we learnt above, in
the prophetic scriptures, and declared in the apostolic. Basil in his
Ascetics excellently well confirms our interpretation; for he says,
" Whatsoever is beside the divinely inspired scriptures is sin, because
it is not of faith; and faith is b y hearing, and hearing b y the word
of G o d . " W h e r e he determines that that word whereby faith is
begotten is b y no means to be sought without the divinely inspired
scriptures.
T h e thirteenth place is taken from R o m . x v . 4 : " Whatsoever
things were written of old time were written for our learning, that
we through patience and comfort of the scripture might have
hope." In which words the apostle shews, b y using the term
TrpoeypdipYi, that he is explaining the utility of the old Testament.
XV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 649

N o w , what was this utility ? Our instruction; for he says, eJ?

riLLeTepav SiSacrKaXiav. Whence it appears that there is no part
of the old Testament idle or unfruitful. F r o m this place we argue
t h u s : If the L o r d willed that so many things should be written for
our instruction, that we might so be the better advanced in learning,
then he willed that all necessary things should be written. The
first is t r u e ; therefore also the latter. The force of the inference
is manifest: for if he willed that not merely one or two, but so
many books should be written, it follows necessarily that all neces-
sary things are written in t h e m ; for we cannot suppose him to have
chosen to repeat the same things so often, and yet omit what was
necessary. This is confirmed b y the consideration that G o d hath
added the new to the books of the old Testament, so as to put us in
possession of a most lucid b o d y of teaching. This is afterwards
made still clearer; for Paul subjoins, " that we through patience
and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." If hope springs
from the scriptures, then faith; for hope is supported b y faith.
Therefore all things necessary may be derived from the scriptures.
T h e fourteenth place is taken from Eph. ii. 1 9 , 2 0 : " Y e are no
longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints,
and of the household of G o d ; and are built, eiroiKoSofitiOevTes, upon
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner-stone." B y the foundation of the apostles
and prophets he means the prophetic and apostolic doctrine; as not
only our divines, but Aquinas also, and Cajetan, and all the papists,
confess. I t will not be necessary, therefore, to stand upon the proof
of this. Cajetan says that we are built upon Christ b y means of
the doctrine of the prophets and apostles. But w h y hath Paul
coupled the prophets with the apostles ? The reason of this may be
learned from Thomas, who says that Paul names both, because
the doctrine of both is necessary to salvation, and to shew the har-
mony between them. " F o r , " says he, " the apostles preached that
those things had been done which the prophets predicted should
o c c u r . " Hence then I draw the following inference : The prophets
1

foretold all things necessary to salvation; therefore the apostles

preached all things necessary. But the papists confess this of the
apostles' preaching, and so I seem to prove nothing against them.
Well, upon this I frame another argument, to this effect: Whatever
the prophets preached they also wrote. So says Chrysostom, d-wep

l1
Nam qua? prophetaj futura praedixerunt, ea apostoli facta prredica-
runt.—In Ephes. ii. 2 0 . Comm. Lect. vi. Expos, in Pauli Epp. Basil. 1475.]
650 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

eXeyov /ecu eypacpov. T h e y wrote therefore all necessary things.

N o w whatever the prophets foretold and wrote, the apostles preached
and wrote to have been fulfilled. Therefore all necessary things
are contained in the prophetic and apostolic scriptures; in the
former as future, in the latter as d o n e ; in the former predicted,
fulfilled in the latter. A n d it is sufficient for our purpose, if it be
allowed that the prophets wrote a l l ; since it is most certain that
nothing is predicted in the prophetic books, the fulfilment of which
may not be read in the apostolic. Hence, therefore, I gather a
fresh argument: If the church rest only upon the written teaching
of the prophets, then it rests also wholly upon the written teaching
of the apostles. N o w the former is true ; for they can produce no
unwritten teaching of the prophets: therefore also the latter.
The fifteenth place is taken from 2 Pet i. 19 : " W e have also
a more sure word, Xoyov, of p r o p h e c y ; whereunto y e do well that
y e take heed, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day
dawn, and the day-spring arise in your hearts." In which words
the state of this life is compared to a dark place, which needs the
light of a candle; but the state of the life to come, to the clear
day, when Christ our day-spring shall arise and shed his divine
light upon our minds. Peter then exhorts us, whilst we sojourn in
this life, to turn our eyes continually towards this lamp of the
prophetic word. Hence I argue thus : If in this dark life no
other light is proposed or shewn to us but that of the scriptures,
then we should be engaged with the scriptures alone, acquiesce in
them, and betake ourselves wholly to them alone. N o w the ante->
cedent is t r u e ; therefore also the consequent. T h e minor is
proved b y observing that the apostle assigns as our lamp the
prophetic word, Xoyov irpo(priTiKov, or the holy scripture, as
Cajetan interprets it, and all concede. F o r that Xoyos is fre-
quently used for scripture, is evident from many passages. Acts
i. 1, T o y /xev irpwrov Xoyov eTroitjadfinv: where Xoyos means
the book. Luke iii. 4, ws yeypairTai ev j3i(5Xw Xoywv 'Hadiov.
A n d Acts xiii. 2 7 , <pwva\ TWV Trpocprircov, the voices of the
prophets are said to be read.
T h e sixteenth place is taken from 1 John i. 4, " And these
things we write unto you, that your j o y may be full." In the
first verse he mentions the word of life, and says, " That which
we have seen and heard declare we unto y o u . " But do we only
declare i t ? T e a also, ypa<po/uev, we write i t ; for he speaks not
merely of himself, but of the other writers too. Whatsoever things,
XV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 651

then, the apostles heard and saw, they announced ; and whatever
they announced, they wrote. N o w , as the papists confess, they
announced all necessary things ; therefore they wrote all neces-
sary things. This is still more clearly shewn b y the end proposed,
" that your j o y may be full." Thus then I reason : Full j o y is
procured b y the scriptures : therefore scripture is perfect.
The last testimony is taken from the title of the scriptures,
which are called the old and new Testaments. T h e prophetic
books form the old Testament, the evangelical books the new. This
is plain from 2 Cor. iii. 1 4 : " In the reading of the old Testa-
ment, even unto this day remaineth that same veil untaken away ;
which veil is done away in Christ." Paul speaks of the prophetic
books. Therefore the prophetic books bear the title of the old
Testament. Hence I draw the following conclusion : I f the books
of holy scripture are rightly called the old and new Testaments,
then they contain the full and perfect will of God and Christ. F o r
it is the very notion of a testament to declare the perfect will of
the testator, that is, of the Maker of the Testament. F o r even in
the case of man's testament, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto,
as Paul observes, Gal. iii. 1 5 . If then this be really God's
Testament, then it contains the full will of G o d ; and consequently
none should add to or diminish from it, or seek the will of G o d
elsewhere. Now it is the Testament of G o d ; for no one hath
hitherto blamed that title : therefore it contains the entire will of
God. A n d , indeed, the covenant unfolded in these books Christ
hath confirmed and established in his own blood.

CHAPTER XVI.

UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS ARE OPPOSED BY REASONS.

HITHERTO we have defended our opinion of the perfection of

scripture b y many testimonies from scripture. It follows now
that we allege some REASONS suited to our purpose. W e might
produce many such, but will content ourselves with a few, namely,
those which Bellarmine endeavours to answer, Lib. iv. c. 1 2 .
T h e y are four in number.
T h e FIRST is this. Unwritten traditions cannot belong pre-
served : for such is the perversity, negligence, and ignorance of
652 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

men, as readily to subvert the best established things. Matters

entrusted to men's memories are easily consigned to oblivion.
These are notorious truths. Let us see how our opponent meets
this argument. H e answers very confidently, that it is impossible
that these traditions should not be preserved, because the care
of them rests not on men, but on God. Here he notices God's
care in preserving his c h u r c h ; how God preserved traditions in-
violate from Adam to the time of Moses, and the scriptures from
Moses down to our times. Therefore, says he, God can now also
preserve unwritten traditions. I answer: In the first place, I
confess that the divine Providence can preserve from destruction
whatever it chooses; for G o d can do whatever he wills. But
if we choose thus to abuse the divine Providence, we may, in
the same manner, infer that there is no need of the scriptures,
that every thing should be trusted to the Divine Providence, and
nothing committed to writing, because G o d can preserve reli-
gion safe without the scriptures. As to what he says about the
church, I confess indeed that it can never perish ; because G o d
hath promised that he will always preserve and defend his church
against all the attempts of those who seek to crush and destroy
it. But God hath nowhere promised that he will save and protect
unwritten traditions from being l o s t : consequently, the church
and tradition are not parallel cases. I can produce innumerable
testimonies and promises wherewith G o d hath bound himself to the
church to preserve i t : let them produce any such promises of God
respecting the preservation of traditions. N o w this they cannot
do. Secondly, I confess that God preserved his doctrine from
Adam to Moses orally transmitted, that is, in the form of unwritten
tradition. It cannot be denied. But then it was amongst exceed-
ing few persons: for the great majority had corrupted this doctrine.
Besides, God frequently and familiarly shewed himself to the holy
fathers who then lived ; conversed with them, and often renewed
and restored the doctrine orally delivered, and brought it back to
its integrity and purity, when not preserved from all corruption
even b y those godly men themselves. Thus God conversed fami-
liarly with those ancient patriarchs: and if the reasoning of our
opponent were of any weight now, G o d would still treat us in the
same manner. But there is the greatest difference between those
things and o u r s ; and consequently his reasoning hath no weight.
Thirdly, the fact of Moses having written his heavenly doctrine is
a point of great importance against tradition, and strongly confirm-
XVI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 653

atory of our opinion. F o r if God had seen that religion could

have been preserved entire and uncorrupted without the scriptures,
he would not have enjoined Moses to consign it in the lasting
monuments of written r e c o r d s : but perceiving that religion was
more and more corrupted every day, and that he was obliged to
repeat the same revelations very often, he devised a remedy in the
shape of writing. Although, therefore, formerly, when the b o d y
of the church was scattered, and the worshippers of God but few,
there was no scripture; y e t afterwards, when the b o d y of the
church was collected, God willed that his doctrine should be written.
Fourthly, when he says that God preserved the scriptures from
Moses to our time, and therefore can now preserve unwritten tra-
ditions, his argument will be allowed to be of force when he can
shew that God feels the same solicitude for unwritten as for written
doctrine, and embraces both with the same care. But God hath no
such design. God protects the scriptures against Satan, as being
their constant enemy. Satan hath frequently endeavoured to d e -
stroy the scriptures, knowing that they stand in his way : but he
hath never spent any trouble or thought upon these unwritten
traditions; for he supposed that his whole object would be gained
if he could destroy the scriptures. In pursuance of this plan he
hath raised up such impious tyrants as Antiochus, Maximin, Diocle-
tian, and others, who have endeavoured utterly to quench the light
of scripture. N o w , if religion could remain entire even when these
books were lost, it would b e in vain for Satan to labour with such
furious efforts to remove these books.
As to his assertion that it is impossible that traditions should
perish, I press him in turn with the inquiry, who was the guardian
of these traditions? If they are preserved, they must be pre-
served b y somebody. H a d they then but one guardian, or several ?
If many, who were they ? Perhaps he will say, the fathers. But
the fathers are at variance amongst themselves, and do not deter-
mine unanimously upon tradition. One affirms this to be an apos-
tolical tradition; another denies i t : now, if they were the guar-
dians, they would agree. There must then be but one guardian;
who is he ? T h e pope forsooth. But how hath he kept t h e m , —
in a book, or in his mind? Not in a b o o k ; for no pope ever had
such a book, and no one pretends such a thing : nor yet in his
m i n d ; for then, when the pope died, traditions would perish with
him, and the church lose a great part of necessary doctrine. B e -
sides, when a person is chosen pope, he brings no other mind with
654 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

him to the papacy than he had formerly when he was a cardinal

or a m o n k ; whereas this hypothesis would require that his mind
should be immediately illuminated with the ideas of these tradi-
tions. Since, then, we can find no competent guardians of these
traditions, it is plain that they must have long since perished, or
been very negligently kept. Our reasoning, therefore, is certain
and perfectly clear. Whatever is not committed to writing easily
perishes. W h e r e now are the laws of L y c u r g u s ? T h e y have
perished. W h e r e the unwritten dogmas and secret institutions of
Pythagoras? T h e y are nowhere to be found. W h e r e the discipline
of the Druids ? It lies utterly extinguished; nor does a single ves-
tige of it remain, save, perchance, some slight traces which we owe
to writing and to books. Y e a , where are those traditions of the
Jews which Bellarmine tells us they received from Moses and the
prophets ? Assuredly they are either kept in writing in the books
o f the old and new Testaments, or else they have perished utterly
because not committed to b o o k s : for Bellarmine, I suppose, will
not venture to say that the church is the guardian of these tradi-
tions. If the trite proverb,
V o x audita perit, litera scripta manet,
b e true in any case, its truth is most strikingly illustrated in the
p r e s e n t ; and that the more, in proportion as our minds are usually
most prone to forget those things which are most excellent and
relate to God. All things which are not written are on the brink
of death and oblivion. In Isaiah x x x . 8, God s a y s : " Go write
it in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to
come, for ever and ever." Thus he intimates that things which
are to last for a constancy must be committed to writing. And it
is plain that the L o r d is speaking of his w o r d ; for he says in the
next verse, that " this is a rebellious people, lying children, children
that will not hear the law of the L o r d . " J o b , that pious and holy
man, says in his book, xix. 2 3 , 2 4 : " Oh that m y words were now
written! Oh that they were printed in a b o o k ! that they were
graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for e v e r ! " Where
is shewn the great efficacy of scripture, and how those things r e -
quire to be written, which we wish to be kept safe throughout all
ages. In Psalm cii. 1 9 , the prophet s a y s : " Let this be written
for a memorial to those that come after." If we wish, then, that
anything should go down to posterity, it must be committed to
writing. W e may adduce with the same view the passage, Luke i.
1, 2, where Luke says that it behoved him to write these things, in
XVI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 655

order that Theophilus might be put in possession of the certainty

of that doctrine which he had received. A n d the cause impelling
Luke to this course confirms t h i s : " Forasmuch," says he, " as
many have taken in h a n d " to write, that is to corrupt the gospel,
such as Ebion, Cerinthus, Apelles and the rest. It is on this
account, Luke says, that it became needful for him to write. Con-
sequently it is necessary that the gospel should be written; since
otherwise it could not be preserved entire. Theophylact explains
these words intelligently and perspicuously in his commentary upon
this p l a c e : " Now, in delivering to you the gospel in a written form,
confirm and assure your reason, lest you should forget what was
orally imparted to y o u . " Writing, then, is in the nature of a
1

muniment to keep safe the memory of things. So the apostle,

Philipp. iii. I : " T o write the same things unto y o u , to me is not
grievous, and for y o u it is safe." Therefore it is safe for us that
teaching should be written, and that often. The old interpreter
hath translated it, mihi necessarium est: where Thomas Aquinas
remarks, " W o r d s pass easily away, but those things which are
written r e m a i n . " In E x o d . xvii. 1 4 , the Lord says, " Write this
2

for a memorial in a b o o k . " Upon which place Cajetan observes

t h u s : " H e orders the achievement to be written for a continual
record of i t . " 3
Thus it plainly appears that our reasoning is
founded upon the clearest lessons of common experience. For
when memory fails, then those things which are committed to
memory fail also. Hence conditions of peace, treaties, covenants,
and whatever we wish to be safe and lasting, we commit to writing
lest they should be lost, distrusting our memories. N o w if our
memory is so frail in outward things, then much more have we
need of all helps and remedies for the support of our memories
in the case of heavenly things. Thomas, in the proem to his
Catena Aurea upon the gospel of Matthew, relates, out of Jerome,
two reasons why Matthew wrote his g o s p e l : the first was, that
he might leave his gospel in men's memories; the second, that he
might guard against the heretics. On both accounts it is plain
that the scriptures are necessary for us in every part of religion.
But in addition to the reason drawn from a consideration of
the divine Providence (which he thinks the most important, and to

[} Nvv iyypdcpcos o~oi napaBtbovs TO evayyiXtov, ao~(ba\[£opai TOV o~bv Xo-

yio-pbv, tva pr) iTrCKadrjTai TG>V aypa(pcos TrapaSeSopevwv^]
[ 2
V e r b a d e facili t r a n s e u n t : ea vero qua? scripta sunt p e r m a n e n t . ]
[ 3
R e m g e s t a m scribi j u b e t , ad p e r p e t u a m rei m e m o r i a m . ]
656 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

•which he trusts principally), Bellarmine adduces four others, to

prove that traditions cannot perish. These we will briefly review.
T h e first is scripture itself. But hereby he does not mean the
holy scriptures: for although, says he, traditions are not found in
the sacred books, yet they may be found in the monuments of
the ancients and the ecclesiastical writings. I a n s w e r : In the
first place, if God willed traditions to be written b y any men, he
doubtless willed that it should be b y the apostles and evangelists,
who were the fittest of all men to execute that work. L e t them
specify some cause, or allege some reason, w h y he should not
rather have chosen that they should be written b y Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and the other apostles, than b y Dionysius the Areopagite,
Clemens Romanus, Irenseus, Augustine, and the like. Secondly,
this answer puts those ecclesiastical writers whom they style
classics, upon a par with the divine writers, the prophets, evan-
gelists and apostles. For when they wish to prove any tradition,
what reason, what authority, what demonstration do they a l l e g e ?
T h e y bring forward Dionysius, Irenseus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Cle-
mens, and other such fathers of the church; and b y their authority
they seek to persuade us, that these traditions are as certainly
apostolic as if the apostles themselves had affirmed it. Consequently
they give them no less credit, and demand for them no less than
for Paul, Peter, and the other apostles. Thirdly, these monuments
of the fathers differ about traditions, and make us still more un-
certain. F o r when some affirm a thing to be an apostolical tradi-
tion, while others deny it, who sees not that the whole subject may
be reasonably called in question ?
T h e second cause, whereby he proves the possibility of pre-
serving traditions, is continual usage. In this way, says he, the
vulgar languages are preserved, although there are no grammars of
them. I answer: Nothing surely can be more futile than this
reply. F o r , first, some traditions are secret, and in no way resting
upon common usage, but far removed from daily practice, being
used only at certain times, and not b y many but a few. Se-
condly, these vulgar languages are changed almost every age, even
those which are in daily and most frequent use. So the English
and the Italians and other people have several times changed their
languages. Consequently, if those things which are in the greatest
use of a whole people, undergo such manifold changes and varia-
tions, how much more is it credible that those which are remote
from popular use, and belong to the abstruser parts of scientific
XVI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 657

theology, are liable to be easily altered, unless denned b y the cer-

tain rules and laws of scripture! If languages, which all men use,
cannot be protected from alteration, how much less traditions which
but few understand!
T h e third cause w h y traditions may b e preserved is founded
in certain ancient monuments. H e r e he relates a story about an
altar in Flanders, which the heretics (he tells us) ordered to be
overturned, saying, that altars were a modern invention: but
whilst they were at work, they found some ancient characters
graven upon the altars, from which they perceived that it was an
ancient monument. I answer : This is a very foolish reason. For,
firstly, this cannot be affirmed of all traditions, since it is not
possible that there should be external monuments of them all;
secondly, if traditions are preserved in dumb monuments, w h y are
they not rather inscribed in the scriptures?
T h e fourth cause which enables traditions to b e preserved is
heresy. Heretics, says he, have aroused the church to seek into
and preserve all traditions. F o r , he adds, those who live in peace
are apt to neglect the instruments which confirm the possession of
their g o o d s ; but they who are engaged in perpetual contention and
strife keep them diligently. I a n s w e r : Firstly, if this be a true
reply, then nothing needed to have been written, because heretics
are always in the church, and always engaged in strife. Secondly,
if the fathers said truly, that the gospel was on that very account
committed to writing because the heretics would constantly oppose
it, then those traditions also should have been written, because (as
he tells us) the heretics endeavour likewise to corrupt traditions.
L u k e speaks in a very different tone at the beginning of his first
chapter. " F o r a s m u c h , " says he, " a s heretics have attempted to
corrupt the sacred history, I have therefore determined to put it
in writing." So Jerome and others interpret this passage in L u k e .
1

These reasons of Bellarmine's therefore are obviously weak.

Our SECOND REASON is t h i s : T h e scriptures were delivered to
us that we might possess a rule of faith. Consequently, the
scripture is sufficient, and therefore there is no need of unwritten
traditions. See Augustine, contra Faust. Manich. Lib. x i . c. 5,
and de Civit. Dei, Lib. x i x . c. 1 8 . N o w , a rule of faith must be
adequate, for otherwise it will be no rule at all. Bellarmine makes
two replies, and assuredly with equal impudence and hardihood.
First he says, that the proper end of scripture is not to be a rule
1
[Hieron. Praef. in Matth. Origen. Horn, in L u c . i. 1. Tbeoph. in L u c . i. 1.]

r i 4 2

[WHITAKEIl.]
658 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

of faith, but a kind of commonitory to help us to retain and cherish

the doctrine orally delivered. I answer: In the first place, this
reply is confuted b y the very common title of scripture: it is
called canonical, because it contains the canon, that is, the rule of
faith and life. N o one ever found fault with that inscription. T h e
fathers always call it the canonical scripture. If it be a rule, then
it is either no rule of our faith, or a perfect and adequate one.
Thus Bellarmine removes that common title, confirmed b y universal
approbation; since according to him we should call the scripture
commonitory, and not canonical. Secondly, if the scripture were
published not to serve as a rule of faith, but as a sort of commoni-
t o r y , then there would have been no necessity for writing so many
b o o k s ; for a few books would have sufficed for such a purpose.
Thirdly, we have already proved b y many arguments and testi-
monies that the scriptures are perfect, as from Deut. iv. and Psalm
xix. and other passages: therefore they do not merely remind,
but perfectly instruct and teach us. In Psalm cxix. 1 3 2 , the p r o -
phet s a y s : " Direct m y feet in thy word :" therefore the scripture
is a rule b y which we may direct the whole course of our faith
and life. In Matth. xxii. 2 9 , Christ says to the Sadducees, " T e
do err, not knowing the scriptures;" and in Luke xvi. 2 9 , A b r a -
ham says to the glutton, " T h e y have Moses and the p r o p h e t s : "
therefore the canonical books of scripture are not only our moni-
tors, but our masters also. Besides, they are " w r i t t e n for our
l e a r n i n g ; " and therefore not only for our admonition, as appears
from R o m . x v . 4. And in 2 Tim. iii. 16, 1 7 , the apostle says that
the scripture is useful not for commonition only, but " for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, and for instruction," that is, for all the
functions of the ministry: for he subjoins, " that the man of God
may be perfect, throughly furnished unto every g o o d w o r k . " Is
this nothing more than a commonitory ? T h e scripture is also
called the Testament. Therefore this assertion of our adversary's,
that the scripture is not a rule, but only a sort of commonitory, is
absurd in the highest degree, and not far removed from blasphemy.
Fourthly, the fathers themselves also teach most plainly, w h y the
scripture is called canonical. Cyprian, in his discourse on the baptism
of Christ, says that " all the rules of doctrine have emanated from
scripture ."
1
Basil, contra Eunom. Lib. i., calls scripture " t h e

\} Inveniet ex hac scriptura omnium doctrinarum regulas emanasse; et

hinc nasci, et hue reverti, quidquid ecclesiastica continet disciplina.—In Fell's
Cyprian, App. p. 33. inter Opp. Arnoldi Abb. Bonee-Vallis. V . sup. p. 28.]
XVI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 659

canon of right and the standard of t r u t h . " 2

Chrysostom, Horn.
1 3 , in Genes, s a y s : " T h e scripture, when it would teach us any
thing of this kind, explains itself, and suffers not the hearer to fall
into error. I pray, therefore, and beseech y o u that, closing your
ears to all these, y o u would follow exactly the rule of holy scrip-
ture ." 3
Augustine, De baptismo, c. Donat. Lib. 11. says that the
scriptures are " the balance of God. L e t us not," he proceeds,
" bring deceitful balances, where we may weigh what we choose
and as we choose, saying at our own pleasure, this is heavy, and
this is l i g h t : but let us bring the divine balance from the holy
scriptures, as from the treasury of the Lord, and therein weigh
which is w e i g h t i e s t ; — o r rather, not weigh it ourselves, but mark
how it is weighed b y the L o r d . " 4
A s , therefore, when we would
discover the weight of any thing, we apply a balance; so, if we
know not whether this or that doctrine be true, w e should try it
b y the balance of the scripture. Augustine elsewhere (De perfect.
Viduit. cap. i.) writes thus upon this subject: " T h e holy scripture
hath fixed the rule of our doctrine, that w e may not seem to b e
wiser than we ought, but be wise, as the apostle says, soberly,
according as G o d hath given to every man the measure of faith.
L e t me not then think, that in teaching y o u I am doing any
thing more than expounding to y o u the words of the great
Teacher, and discoursing of that which the L o r d hath given ." 6

T h e same author, contra Crescon. Grammat. Lib. 11. c. 3 1 , writes

thus concerning the same s u b j e c t : " It was not without cause that
the ecclesiastical canon was with such wholesome vigilance esta-
blished, to which certain books of the prophets and apostles apper-
t a i n ; which books we must b y no means dare to j u d g e of, and

[ 2
The reference is, I suppose, to T. n. p. 8. c. But Basil is there
speaking of the Creed, not of the scripture.]
[ 3
rrjs ayias ypaqbrjs, iwei&av, /SovAijrai ri TOIOVTOV qpas bibaaKeiv, eavrrjv
ipjirfvevoio-rjs, KCU OVK acpLilo-rjs Tr\avdo-8at TOV aKpoarffv.—T. I V . p. 1 0 3 ]
[ 4
Non afferamus stateras dolosas, ubi appendamus quod volumus, et
quomodo volumus, pro arbitrio nostro dicentes, hoc grave, hoc leve est: sed
afferamus divinam stateram de scripturis Sanctis tanquam de thesauris D o -
minicis, et in ilia quid sit gravius appendamus; imo non appendamus, sed a
Domino appensa recognoscamus.—T. vu. p. 4 3 . Paris. 1 6 3 5 . ]
t 5
Sancta scriptura doctrina? nostra? regulam figit, ne audeamus sapere
plus quam oportet sapere, sed sapiamus, ut ipse ait, ad temperantiam, sicut
unicuique Deus partitus est mensuram fidei. Non sit ergo mihi aliud te
docere, nisi verba tibi Doctoris exponere, et de iis quod Dominus dederit
disputare.—De Bono Viduit. c. 1.]
42—2
660 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

according to which we may freely j u d g e of all other writings of

believers or unbelievers ." 1
Therefore scripture is the rule b y
which we must try all things. Thus, whatever disagrees with
scripture should be rejected; whatever agrees with it, received.
N a y , Thomas himself, in his Comment, on 1 Tim. c. vi., Lect. 1,
says that "scripture is as it were the rule of our f a i t h . " 2
He
does not say " as it w e r e , " to diminish the dignity of scripture,
but to shew that he is drawing a comparison. Quasi is here a
mark not of diminution, but of comparison. And that he means
that scripture is a perfect rule, is evident from his subjoining that
nothing should be added to or diminished from i t : to which
purpose he alleges Deut. iv. 2, and R e v . xxii. 18, 1 9 .
Let us now look at the causes and reasons which induce Bel-
larmine to style scripture a commonitory, rather than a rule. The
first reason is, because in the latter case only necessary things
should have been written: but now, says he, many things not
necessary have been written; as all the histories of the old Testa-
ment, many of the new, some of the Acts of the Apostles, and all
the salutations in the apostolic epistles. But every rule comprises
only things necessary. I answer: In the first place, no one can
fail to observe how impious and profane is his assertion, that none
of the histories of the old Testament are necessary. Is it not
necessary for us to know the commencement of the church, its
propagation, and continual conservation and government, and
the promises made to the patriarchs concerning the M e s s i a h ?
Surely he blasphemes who denies this. Secondly, although it m a y
b e conceded that all the histories are not equally useful and neces-
sary, because many may be saved without the knowledge of many
histories; y e t in reality they are all not only useful, but necessary
also. F o r although they are not all requisite to the being of faith,
y e t they contribute greatly to its better being. Thirdly, although
perhaps more things than can be styled simply necessary are deli-
vered in scripture, y e t it does not therefore follow that the scrip-
ture is not a rule. F o r although the scripture contains some
things which are not simply and absolutely necessary; nevertheless,
it is a rule to which all doctrine ought to b e conformed. W e say

I Neque enim sine causa tarn salubri vigilantia Canon ecclesiasticus

1

constitutus est, ad quem certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertineant;

quos omnes judicare non audeamus, et secundum quos de ceteris Uteris vel
fidelium vel infidelium libere judicemus.—T. vn. p. 177.]
[ Scriptura est quasi regula fidei nostra. Vide supra, p. 28.]
2
XVI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 661

that the scriptures are a rule, because they contain all things
necessary to faith and salvation, and more things may be found in
them than absolute necessity requires. W e do not attach so strict
and precise a notion to the term 'rule,' as to make it contain nothing
but what is necessary: and as to many things being frequently
repeated, this makes it still more a r u l e ; since that repetition is
profitable to our better and surer understanding of what is said.
Our adversary's second reason is, because the scripture does
not contain all necessary things, as, says he, we have already
p r o v e d : for there are many necessary things which are not in
scripture. I answer: And we have already sufficiently replied,
that the things which he deems necessary are useless and ridi-
culous: such are the remedy whereby women were cleansed from
original sin under the old Testament, and others of the like sort,
upon which we have spoken before. Bellarmine's third reason
is, because scripture is not one continuous b o d y , as it ought to
be, if it were the rule of faith, but several. I answer: Although
scripture contains many bodies, y e t all these make up one conti-
nuous and entire b o d y . T h e men indeed were various, whose
service the H o l y Spirit used in writing these pieces, and the hands
which wrote them were m a n y : but it was one Spirit which
governed their hands and tongues. W e should not regard the
various men who wrote, but the one Spirit under whose direction
and dictation they wrote. Thus there is one continuous b o d y of
doctrine in these books, various as they are. Finally, Bellarmine
produces certain passages from scripture to prove that scripture is
a commonitory, and not a r u l e ; as R o m . x v . 4, where the apostle
says that all things which were written were written for our
learning; and 2 Pet. i. 1 2 , and iii. 1, where Peter says that it
was needful for him to remind and stir up those to whom he
wrote. Therefore, (says he) it is commonitory, and not a rule. I
answer to the first place, that the apostle says that all things
which were written of old time were written for our learning.
N o w to be written for our learning is something more than corn-
monition. W e are commonished or reminded of things which we
knew b e f o r e ; but we learn things of which we were previously
ignorant. A s to the place of Peter, I allow that the scripture is
profitable for monition; but I say that this is not the only use it
serves. F o r although Peter says that it was needful for him to
remind those to whom he wrote, y e t he does not merely do this,
but teaches them also what it behoves them to know : and thus the
662 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

scripture, when teaching us what we ought to know, exhorts us

also to stand fast in this doctrine.
Secondly, Bellarmine replies that scripture is a rule indeed,
but partial, not complete; and that the whole and entire rule
is the word of G o d , which is divided into the written and the
unwritten word ; and that Augustine must b e understood in this
sense. I answer: I t is unwillingly that h e concedes to us that
scripture is a r u l e ; and therefore h e afterwards denies i t again,
b y saying that it is only a partial one, thus taking away what
he had previously given. F o r unless scripture b e a whole and
perfect rule, it cannot be a rule at a l l ; because there ought t o
b e the exactest agreement between the rule and the thing t o
which it is applied. If, therefore, our faith b e longer or broader
than the scripture, then the scripture is not its r u l e ; because
a rule should be adequate to the thing measured b y it. A rule
is thus denned b y V a r i n u s : " A rule is an infallible measure,
admitting no addition or diminution ." So Theophylact, upon
1

Phil. i i i . : " A rule or standard admits neither addition nor a b -

straction ." A n d Basil, Adv. Eunom.
2
L i b . i. blames Eunomius
severely and justly f o r saying that the faith of the fathers is a
rule or standard, and y e t maintaining that something should b e
added to i t : Trjv avrrjv /cat tcavova \e<yei, Kal TrpocrdrjKtis (prjclv
aKpifiecTTepas SeiaOai . I n the same w a y Bellarmine says that
3

scripture is a rule, and y e t needs some addition and emendation.

Consequently, h e denies it to be a rule at all. Chrysostom,
Horn. 1 3 in 2 Cor. says that " t h e sentence of the divine words" is
" the exact balance and standard, and rule o f all things." A n d ,
to let us know that h e is speaking of the scriptures, h e subjoins :
" Inquire concerning all these things o f the holy scriptures."
So Photius, cited b y CEcumenius upon Phil. i i i . : " Faith is like a
r u l e : f o r , like as if y o u take a n y thing from a rule, o r add any
thing to it, y o u entirely spoil t h e rule ; so it is with f a i t h . " Thus 4

it is manifest t h a t t h e scriptures a r e either a perfect rule, or n o

rule at all. See also upon this subject Vincentius Lirinensis,
c. 4 1 . W h y n e e d I add, t h a t Andradius himself testifies t h a t
[} Kavdv fern perpov d&id\jrevo-Tov, irao-av wpoo-deinv Kal acpatpecriv prjbapas
imbfx°p -\ evov

[ 2
6 Kavaiv yap ovre irpoo-6e<rw ? x « ovre d<paipeo-tv.—Theophyl. I n Philipp.
iii. 1 6 , p . 6 1 1 . L o n d . 1 6 3 6 . ]
[3 Basil. O p p . T . n . p . 9. A . ]
[* atrirep yap eVi TOV rnvovos Kav d(pi\j]s, Kav rrpoo-drjs, eXvprjva TO irav, ovra>
Kal eiri TTJS jr/orecoj.]
XVI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 663

scripture is a rule sufficiently perfect ? F o r thus he writes, in the

beginning of the third book of his Defensio Tridentina: " I am
far from disliking the opinion of those who say that the scriptures
are called canonical, because they contain the canon, that is, the
amplest rule and standard of faith, piety, and religion, brought
down to us from heaven b y the exceeding goodness of G o d . " 5

Thus he confesses that the scriptures are not only a rule, but a
very ample rule of faith, piety, and religion.
Secondly, I demand w h y he affirms the scriptures to be a
partial rule, or a rule only in part, and not throughout and
altogether? If, because they contain only some necessary things,
he is utterly mistaken in the matter of fact. F o r if God willed
to give us a rule in the scriptures, he certainly willed to give
us a perfect one. This may be gathered from the ends to serve
which, and the causes on account of which, the scriptures were
published. F o r w h y was this teaching committed to w r i t i n g ?
First, that it might remain more fixedly in our memories. N o w
this reason teaches us that all necessary things ought to have
been written; because all necessary things should be retained as
firmly as may be in memory. Secondly, lest the doctrine should be
corrupted. But nothing necessary ought to be corrupted. Thirdly,
that we might the better and more surely know the sacred and hea-
venly doctrine. But all necessary things we ought to know rightly
and surely. Wherefore all the reasons for publishing the scriptures
will establish, that all necessary things are delivered in them, and
that scripture is a perfect r u l e : for whatever reason there was for
delivering a rule, held also for making that rule complete.
Thirdly, I answer, with respect to Augustine. Our adver-
sary pretends that, though Augustine calls scripture a rule, he
does not mean that it is the sole or perfect rule. Thus then
speaks Augustine, Contra Faust. Manich. Lib. n. c. 5 : " The
canonical scripture is placed upon an elevated throne, demanding
the obedience of every faithful and pious understanding ." If 6

this b e true, then is it certain that scripture is as it were the

queen and mistress which ought to rule and govern human in-

[ Minime illorum mihi displicet scntentia, qui canonicas ideo appcllari

B

dicunt, quia pietatis, fidei et religionis canonem, hoc est, rcgulam atquo
normam, e coelis summo Dei beneflcio ad nos dclatam, continent amplissi-
mam.—Andradii, Defens. Trid. Lib. in. prope init.]
[ . . . in sede quadam sublimitcr constituta est, cui serviat omnis fidelis
6

et pius intellectus.—Vide supra, p. 353.]

664 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

firmity, and to which our whole intellect, all teaching, every

thought and opinion, should be conformed in dutiful submission.
In the other place, which is taken from his City of God, L i b . x i x .
c. 1 8 , he says that that faith " b y which the just lives, and b y
which we walk without doubting so long as we sojourn absent
from the L o r d , " is engendered b y the holy scriptures.
1
Whence
it follows, that scripture is a perfect rule both of faith and life.
Fourthly, it m a y b e answered, that Bellarmine contradicts
himself. H e said before that scripture could not be a rule, b e -
cause it is not one continuous b o d y . But the written and un-
written word are still less a continuous b o d y ; and y e t he makes
them both together form a rule.
Our THIRD REASON is drawn from the inconveniences which
traditions bring with them. F o r if we allow so much to unwritten
traditions, w e shall often err, and be always in uncertainty; because
traditions are various and uncertain. This is manifest from the
books of the fathers, as w e have before shewn. T h e fathers are
witnesses of the variety and uncertainty of traditions. N o w in the
doctrine of faith w e ought to b e certain and constant: therefore
we ought not to depend upon unwritten traditions. T h e extreme
variety of traditions might be illustrated b y many testimonies, and
in many w o r d s ; but I will touch it only briefly. Papias was the
father and master of tradition. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. L i b . m . o. 3 9 , 2

writes copiously concerning him. H e says that he wrote many

things derived from unwritten tradition, etc irapaSocrew^ aypdcpov,
but that they were full of commentitious fables. H e wrote, as
Eusebius tells us, five books concerning the Lord's discourses:
but these, through the goodness of G o d , are now lost. What
sort of pieces they were, appears from Eusebius, who says that
they were full of fables. H e first invented the heresy of the
Chiliasts, and that doubtless much more from unwritten tradition
than scripture, although perhaps he seized upon some occasional
support of that error from the scriptures. CEcumenius brings 3

forward another tradition from this Papias concerning J u d a s , —

namely, that he was not strangled, but, the rope breaking, lived in
a most wretched condition for some time after, and at length

[I Credit etiam scripturis Sanctis, et veteribus et novis, quas canonicas

appellamus; unde fides ipsa concepta est, ex qua Justus vivit; per quam
sine dubitatione ambulamus, quamdiu peregrinamur a Domino.]
[3 T. i. p. 281, ed. Heinichen.]
[ 3
Apud Grabe, Spicil. n. p. 34.]
XVI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 665

expired upon the road, crushed to death b y a chariot which hap-

pened to pass b y : which is also alluded to b y Theophylact upon
Matt, xxvii. But scripture opposes this, and the fathers form a
different judgment. This Papias was the first who taught that
Peter was at R o m e , taught, lived, and died t h e r e : for no author4

more ancient than he can b e named for that tradition. T o him

the papists stand indebted for the primacy of their pontiff. T e r -
tullian, c. Judseos, c. 5, says that Christ died in the thirtieth year
of his a g e ; and Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. I , says the same.
5 6

But Irenseus, Lib. x i . c. 4, says that he lived to be fifty years

old .
7
Both assertions are false; and y e t both are supported b y
tradition.
There was formerly a great dispute about the time of cele-
brating Easter. The Western churches said that they followed
Paul and Peter, keeping Easter upon the Sunday after the four-
teenth day of the third month, to avoid any conformity with the
Jews. T h e Orientals and Asiatics, however, alleged John, as
ample and sufficient authority as could be desired, and Philip, in
defence of their practice of observing it after the Jewish manner,
upon the actual fourteenth day of the third month. There were
also, as will hereafter appear, many disputes and differences in
former times concerning Lent. T h e papists, and even some of the
fathers, say that stated fasts were instituted b y the apostles. But
Augustine, E p . 6 8 , ad Casulan. denies that the apostles deter-
mined any thing about fasting. So Socrates, L i b . v . c. 2 2 . 8

Indeed, it is certain that it was Montanus who instituted them, as

we learn from the testimony of Apollonius, cited b y Eusebius, L i b .
v. c. 18. There, speaking of Montanus, he adds: " This is he who
introduced fasts ." This may be perceived also from Tertullian,
9

who in his book de Jejunio, which he wrote when a Montanist

[ 4
I can nowhere find that Papias said a word of Peter's having been at
Rome, and cannot guess the grounds of this strong assertion.]
[ 5
Hujus [Tiberii] quinto decimo anno imperii passus est Christus, annos
habens quasi xxx, cum pateretur.—c. 8, p. 234. ed. Semi. Lips. 1828.]
[6 Page 340. A.]
[ 7
The reference should be xi. 39. Quia autem trigirita annorum Betas
prima? indolis est juvenis, et extenditur usque ad quadragesimum annum,
omnis quilibet confltebitur a quadragesimo aut quinquagesimo anno declinat
jam in aetatem seniorem, quam habens Dominus noster docebat, & c — p . 192. A.
ed. Fevard.]
[ 8
ArjXov cos r/7 e/caorov yvcoprj KO\ Trpoaipecrei c'ir(Tpei}rav oi airocrToXot.—p.
235. ed. Vales. Paris. 1686.]
[9 ovrds ecmv... o vrjcrreias vop.o6irr]aas.—T. I I . p. 85.]
666 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

against the catholics, blames the catholics for saying that men
should " fast, each of his own free choice, as in a matter indif-
f e r e n t , " and that we should not be obliged to fast " at
1
stated
times according to the institution of the new discipline." This
Tertullian objected to the catholics; and this is the v e r y thing
which we affirm and maintain against the papists, that each man
should fast as time and occasion shall require, not at fixed seasons.
Thus it was that the catholics then fasted; but afterwards, when
the heresy of Montanus had secretly diffused itself more extensively,
fasts began to b e observed according to the institution of the new
discipline. In the same b o o k , Tertullian 2
praises the practice of
mortification b y hard fare (^npofpaylav), in conformity with which
Epiphanius, in Epilog. , 3
makes it an apostolical institution.
Tertullian, in his book de Corona , 11
and Basil, in his
treatise of the H o l y Spirit, c. 2 7 , 5
enumerate various traditions,
which they would have to b e apostolical, but which are, never-
theless, not at all observed b y papists at the present d a y : for
example, that we should stand at prayer on Sundays, and from
Easter to Pentecost. Basil adduces some reasons in confirmation
of this, upon which w e have spoken above. Tertullian pronounces
it a piece of impiety to do otherwise. So even the first council of
Nice, Canon 2 0 , says that we ought to p r a y standing at that
season . 6
But the present practice is different, even amongst the
papists; who upon Sundays, and from Easter to Pentecost, do
not p r a y in an erect posture, but kneeling, as at other times and
seasons of the year. O f old they used to give the Eucharist to
infants, as is manifest from Cyprian, De lapsis" , 1
and Augustine, in
many passages. B u t this practice is now abolished. Epiphanius,
against Aerius, writes that Christians in his time, upon the authority
of apostolic tradition, used to eat nothing but bread and salt for
some days before E a s t e r . 8
D o the papists do so n o w ? Jerome,

f Itaque de cetero (i. e. exceptis diebus in quibus sponsus ablatus) i n -

1

differenter jejunandum, ex arbitrio, non ex imperio.—c. 2, p. 1 8 1 . ]

[ Ibid. c. 9 . ]
2

[ Exposit. Fidei Catholicse, c. xxii. p. 1 1 0 5 . T. I. ed. Petav.]

3

[ c. 3. But Tertullian does not there pretend these traditions to be

4

apostolical: he defends them on the plea of custom.]

[s Basil. Opp. T. II. pp. 1 1 0 , 1 1 1 . ]
[8 Apud Labb. et Cossart. T. n. col. 3 7 . ]
[' p. 1 3 2 , e d . F e l l . — T h e passage referred to is the story of an infant which,
after having eaten something offered to an idol, refused the eucharistic cup,
and turned sick when forced to drink of it.]
[8
Ka\ Trcpi rav c£ rjpepav TOV Ilao-^a TTWS napayyiXKovo-i (apostoli scil.)
XVI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 667

in his discourse on the nativity of Christ (though Erasmus writes

that that piece is attributed b y some to L e o , and b y others to
Maximus), says : " There is a difference of opinion in the world
amongst men, whether this be the day whereon Christ was born,
or whereon he was baptized ." So that he was ignorant whether
9

Christ was born or baptized on that d a y , and whether they ought

on that day to celebrate the memory of his nativity or o f his bap-
tism. S o admirably did they preserve and understand their tradi-
tions. T h e papists celebrate the feast of the assumption of the
blessed virgin Mary with the utmost honour, and the Rhemists in
their notes on Acts i. praise this custom exceedingly: y e t Jerome,
in his book to Paula and Eustochium, concerning the assumption
of the blessed virgin, says that " what is told about the translation
of her body is apocryphal." Erasmus, indeed, writes that that
book is not b y Jerome, but b y Sophronius, who, however, was
contemporary with Jerome.
Such are the popish traditions which they maintain to b e
necessary, and deserving to b e put on an equal footing with the
scriptures. T o all these things Bellarmine makes no other reply
than that the church can discern true traditions from false. I
answer, that this is the v e r y point in d e b a t e ; — w h e t h e r that
church, to which they ascribe this power o f judgment, be the
true church, and not another, which hath now of a long time
put off false, lying, and heretical traditions upon us for apostolical.
Assuredly, since she is the v e r y party accused, she can be no
fit person to discharge the function of a judge.
I come now to our FOURTH REASON, which is derived from
the custom and practice of heretics. It is the wont of heretics to
affirm that Christ and the apostles delivered some things to all, and
some secretly to certain persons only. This Irenasus tells us, Lib. i.
c. 2 3 , o f the Basilidians, and Lib. i. c. 2 4 , o f the Carpocratians. In
like manner speaks Tertullian, in his Prescriptions against Heretics.
Bellarmine replies, out of Cyprian, that heretics are the apes of
catholics . 10
However, says he, there is this difference, that the
heretics conceal their traditions and mysteries on account of their

pr¡8ev okas kap¡3áveiv, T) aprov Kal áXos Kai vbaros;—Ha3r. LXXV. c. 6.

p . 9 1 0 , B.]
[ 9
S i r e hodio natus Christus sive baptizatus, diversa fertur hominum
opinio in m u n d o . ]
[10 N o v a t i a n u s , simiarum m o r e , qua? c u m h o m i n e s n o n sint, h o m i n e s t a m e n
i m i t a n t u r , v u l t e c c l e s i » catholica? auctoritatem sibi e t veritatem vindicare.
E p . 7 3 , p. 1 9 8 . ]
668 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

shamefulness and obscenity, whereas the catholics hide theirs,

either because it is not necessary to disclose them, or because all
are not capable of receiving them. I answer: I confess, indeed,
that heretics desire to seem like catholics, but they do not imitate
them in this particular point. For it is no practice of catholics,
that is, of those who profess sound, solid, and pure doctrine, to
hide and conceal the mysteries of Christ: yea, they keep back no
part of sound doctrine, but propose the whole to all. Irenaeus tells
us that Carpocrates maintained that Christ delivered some things
to his disciples apart secretly. But Irenaeus himself, Lib. in. c. 1 5 ,
writes very differently, denying that Christ and his apostles
delivered one set of things openly, and another secretly . 1
Tertul-
lian, in his Prescriptions, pronounces it an heretical proposition to
say either that " the apostles did not know every thing, or did not
deliver every thing to a l l . " 2
Yet so say the papists now: for
although they concede that the apostles knew all, yet they do not
concede that they delivered and promulgated all to all. Doubtless
Irenaeus and Tertullian would never have blamed the heretics for
concealing their traditions, if the catholics for any reason concealed
theirs. Therefore, whatever be the reason of concealing traditions,
the very concealment itself is heretical. Christ says, Matt. x. 27 :
" What I say unto you in darkness, that speak ye in the light;
and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops."
Therefore we ought not to hide or conceal any thing: for things
which should be spoken on the house-tops should be delivered and
divulged to all; not so as that this man and the other, but so as
that all may hear them.
But here let us mark Bellarmine's exposition, and observe
how neat an interpreter he is of scripture: " Preach ye upon
the house-tops; that is," says he, "if need so require;"—so as
to save his former reply, that the catholics conceal some tra-
ditions because there is no necessity for disclosing them. I
answer: What sort of an exposition is this ? As if it might
be doubted whether there were any necessity for performing the
command! Yea, it is necessary because Christ hath enjoined
it. If they were allowed to interpret scripture thus, they might

[i Igitur testificatio ejus vera, et doctrina apostolorum manifesta et firma,

et nihil substrahens, neque alia quidem in abscondito, alia vero in manifesto
docentium.—p. 273, B. ed. Fevard.]
[ Sed eadem dementia, cum confitentur quidem nihil apostólos ignorasse,
2

. . . sed non omnia volunt illos omnibus revelasse, qusedam palam et universis,
qusedam secreto et paucis demandasse.—c. 25, T. in. p. 17.]
XVI.] QUESTION T H E SIXTH. 669

easily corrupt any passage. " Preach upon the house-tops"—

that is, says Bellarmine, if there be any n e e d ! "We may then put
a similar meaning upon the words, " Feed m y s h e e p , " — t h a t is, if
there be any n e e d : and, " Teach all nations,"—that is, if there be
any n e e d ! F r o m this it appears how absolutely, without any con-
science, the papists are accustomed to deal with scripture. But
Theophylact gives a better explanation of this p l a c e : " W h a t y e
have heard from me, teach with the utmost freedom and clearness
of speech, so as that all may h e a r : " and he observes, that because
3

dangers attend upon this free speaking, therefore the L o r d sub-

joins, " Fear not those who kill the b o d y . " T h e words are plain.
To the like effect Christ speaks of himself, John xviii. 2 0 : "I
spake openly to the world : I taught ever in the synagogue and in
the temple, whither the Jews always resort, and in secret have I
said nothing." Bellarmine explains it thus;—that is, I said
nothing in secret which might not be said everywhere, as far as the
truth and purity of m y sayings were concerned. But it does not
therefore follow, says he, that Christ taught his disciples nothing
apart. I a n s w e r : This is not what Christ s a y s ; but he affirms
that he spoke every thing openly in the midst of the synagogue,
and surrounded b y the Jews. T h e y could testify to his teaching;
and therefore he desires that they might be asked what they had
heard. F r o m these premises I conclude that the whole teaching of
Christ was public and common to all, and that Christ taught
nothing to his disciples privately, which was not to be published to
all Christians.

CHAPTER XVII.

TESTIMONIES OF T H E FATHERS.

I COME now to our LAST ARGUMENT which is founded upon the

testimony of the fathers. T h e fathers most clearly favour our
opinion. However, I bring them forward not to confirm a thing
in itself dubious and uncertain, but to shed light upon a truth
already ascertained, and to shut the mouths o f our adversaries, who
ioudly, in every question, claim the fathers as their own. I should

[3
"Airep povois vfiiv clirov, ptra irapprjtrias SiSa^arc Kal peyakocpavas, ©ore
navras aKoieiv vpuiv.—Theophyl. in M a t t x. 2 7 . ]
670 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

never make an end, were I to seek to enumerate all who stand on

our side in this matter. T h e r e is almost not one single father,
hardly any author of any kind, who does not support our opinion
in this controversy. H e r e I might distribute m y testimonies into
classes, since some tend to prove the perfection of scripture; some
that all faith and religion should be based on scripture; some that
the fathers are at variance about traditions: but I choose rather
to handle those cited b y Bellarmine, Lib. iv. c. 1 1 , and which he
endeavours to wrest out of our hands. I will prove that those
testimonies, the force of which he hath undertaken to obviate, are
fit and sufficient for the confirmation of our opinion.
T h e first testimony is that of IRENJETJS. H e writes thus, L i b . i n .
c. 1 : " It is b y no other that we have gained the knowledge
of the economy of our salvation than b y those b y whom the
gospel reached u s ; which gospel they then preached, and after-
wards b y the will of G o d delivered to us in the scriptures, to b e
the bases and pillar of our f a i t h . " 1
W e must remark three things
in these w o r d s : first, that the apostles and evangelists of Christ
preached and published the gospel orally as Christ had commanded
t h e m ; and that this was the entire g o s p e l : secondly, that these
same persons afterwards wrote it, and delivered it to us in the
scriptures; and that b y the divine will and authority : thirdly, that
the gospel b y them committed to writing is the basis and column
o f our faith. W h a t does Bellarmine say in reply to these things ?
Forsooth he tells us, that all things are written which the apostles
preached commonly and openly to all, but not all other things. So
that Irenseus says, not that the apostles wrote all, but all that they
preached to the p e o p l e ; for they did not preach all to the p e o p l e !
H e lays down, then, two propositions: one, that all things are not n e -
cessary to all; the other, that the apostles preached to all, and left also
in the scriptures, all those things which were necessary for all persons.
First, he says that some things are simply necessary to
a l l ; — s u c h as the Articles of the Creed, the ten Commandments,
and some of the sacraments, (but what sacraments, he does not
tell u s ; ) while the rest may remain unknown without any damage
to salvation. I answer: This distinction rests upon no authority
or foundation of scripture, but rather plainly contradicts and

[1 N o n e n i m p e r alios dispositionem salutis nostra? cognoscimus, q u a m

p e r eos p e r quos e v a n g e l i u m pervenit a d n o s ; q u o d q u i d e m tunc pra?conia-
v e r u n t , p o s t e a v e r o p e r D e i v o l u n t a t e m in scripturis n o b i s tradiderunt, fir-
m a m e n t u m et c o l u m n a m fidei nostra? f u t u r u m . — p . 2 2 9 , A.]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 671

opposes it, even in the highest degree. F o r the scripture testifies

that the same things are necessary for all. There is not one faith
of a prelate-or bishop, and another of a private man or laic, but
the same of both. T h e Apostles' Creed, and the other orthodox
creeds, pertain not more to the people than to the prelates and
masters of the church, and were published chiefly for their benefit.
That the faith of all is one and the same, the apostle testifies,
Ephes. iv. 5 : " One L o r d , one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father of all, & c . " As there is, therefore, not one baptism for a
bishop, and another for a layman, but the same for b o t h ; nor one
God of a layman, another of a bishop, but the same of b o t h ; so
there is not one faith of a bishop, and another of a layman, but
the same of both. Here the apostle affirms the faith of all Chris-
tians to be one and the same. But, lest the papists should suppose
that I abuse this passage of scripture, I will bring forward e x p o -
sitors whom they dare not reject. Thomas Aquinas writes thus
upon this p l a c e : " There is one faith, because one and the same
thing is believed b y all the faithful, whence it is called the catholic
f a i t h . " So Cajetan: " One faith, because we all believe one and
2

the same t h i n g . " Catharinus, too, hath almost the very same
3

words upon this passage. Thus these men acknowledge that the
faith of all is one and the same. Therefore, all things are equally
necessary for all.
Secondly, he concedes that a knowledge of the articles of
the creed, and of the decalogue, and of some sacraments, is
necessary. I ask what sort of knowledge he means? Assuredly
he must mean an explicit k n o w l e d g e ; for he says that an explicit
knowledge of the rest is not necessary. N o w , what knowledge
should be called explicit? Is it the mere power of repeating
these w o r d s ? B y no means, for any one could most easily do
t h a t ; but there is required besides understanding and assent. N o w
I ask, is it possible, that he who rightly understands the articles
of the creed, that is, who understands the sense of all those
articles, and perfectly assents to their truth, and understands in
like manner the ten commandments, can perish, whether he b e
bishop or layman ? Surely n o t ; since he embraces with his un-
derstanding and faith all things which pertain to salvation. Thus
this first reply of Bellarmine's hath no strength in it. But how

f
2
Una fides, quia unum et idem creditur a cunctis fidelibus, unde
catholica dicitur.—Comment, in Epb. iv. 5. Basil. 1 4 7 5 . ]
[ 3
Una fides, quia unum et idem omncs credimus.—Comment, ibid.]
672 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

does Bellarmine prove his distinction ? F r o m Acts ii. 4 1 , where

L u k e tells us three thousand men were baptized in one d a y , and
added to the church. These (says he) without doubt understood
not all, but only those necessary t h i n g s ; wherefore they are said,
after baptism, to have persevered in the doctrine of the apostles,
that is, to have learned the rest which they had not y e t heard. I
answer, firstly: This is indeed to handle scripture like a J e s u i t !
H e writes to prove that all things are not simply necessary to a l l ;
and for this purpose he brings forward Acts ii. 4 1 . But nothing
of the kind can be inferred from this p l a c e : for does it follow that
these men knew what was necessary for them, therefore not what
was necessary for all ? I see, however, what he m e a n s ; that they
could not learn from one discourse all things necessary, and there-
fore, that they learned only what were necessary for themselves.
But he might have understood from the very words of the text, that
this was an extraordinary c a s e ; for under ordinary circumstances
they could not have learned so speedily even those necessary things.
A n d this is plain from verse 3 8 , where Peter s a i d : " Y e shall r e -
ceive the gift of the H o l y Ghost." Secondly, his expounding " they
continued," to mean, they learned what they previously were ignorant
of, is ridiculous. T o continue is to abide and persevere in known
doctrine, not to learn new matters which we had not y e t heard.
W h a t then, somebody will ask, is not a different sort of k n o w -
l e d g e required in a bishop from what is demanded in a laic ? I
answer: One knowledge is not necessary to salvation in a bishop,
and another in a layman, but the same. If it were another, then
it would differ in k i n d ; but there is no difference of kind in this
knowledge, but only of greater and less. A n d here w e must note a
self-contradiction in the Jesuit. First he concedes that these persons
knew all things necessary before they were b a p t i z e d : then he says
that afterwards they continued, that is, learned the mysteries of the
christian religion. But these are necessary things. N o w w h y should
men, especially laymen, learn some necessary things afterwards, if
they had before learned all that was needful for them ?
Bellarmine proceeds to prove the same point from 1 T h e s -
sal. iii. 1 0 , where Paul wishes to come to them, that he might
supply what was lacking to their faith. I answer: We have
already replied to this passage. H o w e v e r , I ask whether these
things which Paul wished to teach them were necessary or not ?
I f necessary, then they ought not to have been baptized before
they had learned t h e m : Bellarmine himself confesses that adult
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 673

persons should not be baptized without an explicit knowledge and

belief of what is necessary. But if they were not necessary, the
apostle would not have been so eager to come to them. In neither
way can this reply, or rather tergiversation, of our adversary stand
consistently. T h e apostle, therefore, wished to come in order to
teach them more certainly what they had previously learned, to
confirm the faith which they had received, and not to deliver a
new one.
Bellarmine replies in the second place, that the apostles preached
to all the things which are simply necessary, but some things only
to the prelates, bishops and presbyters. I answer: This is abso-
lutely false and heretical. F o r Tertullian, in his Prescriptions,
declares it to be the opinion of the heretics, " t h a t the apostles
either did not know all, or did not deliver all to all." A n d Paul,
Gal. i. 8, 9, denounces an anathema against all those, even though
they were angels, who should preach anything beside what he had
preached and they had received; implying that he had preached
nothing but what they had received. N o w they were the p e o p l e :
the people therefore received that gospel which Paul preached,
and received it entire. Here w e must notice a remarkable con-
tradiction in our opponents. T h e y say that all things are not
delivered to the people, because all things are not necessary for
t h e m : and y e t they produce, in proof of their traditions, such
scriptures as 1 Cor. xi. 2, " I praise y o u that y e remember me in
all things, and keep the traditions even as I delivered them unto
you." But these words are addressed to the people, as is plain
from the first chapter. T h e y produce also 2 Thess. ii. 1 5 , " Hold
the traditions." N o w the apostle speaks these words to the laity
and the people, as is clear from the first verse of the first chapter.
Since, therefore, these traditions were preached to the people, they
cannot confirm their traditions b y the testimony of these places.
N o w that the apostle preached these to the people, is manifest from
the consideration that otherwise he would not have praised the
people for holding them. But if they were preached, then they
were written too, according to the evidence of Irenaaus and the
consent of Bellarmine. Besides, we should carefully remark and
remember that Bellarmine, coerced b y inevitable force of reason,
confesses that all those things which are simply necessary, and for
all, are written: whence it follows that no traditions are necessary
either simply or for all.

But let us look at the reasons b y which he seeks to prove that

LWIIITAKER.]
674 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

the same things are not necessary for all persons. The first is, because
what are taught in the schools, and what are preached in sermons
to the people, are not the same t h i n g s : therefore the same things
are not necessary for all. I answer: The mode of treating them
is different, but the things handled are the same. The same things
are taught in the schools and in the churches, but in a different
m a n n e r ; popularly in the churches, accurately and precisely in the
schools. The second reason is taken from Acts xx. 1 7 , 1 8 , where
Paul taught the elders of the church of Ephesus apart from the
people. I answer: H e did indeed teach them apart, but nothing
else than what he had taught a l l : for being unable to address the
whole church, he sent for the elders. N o w that he taught them
nothing else is clear from Luke, who hath set forth the sum of that
discourse. T h e third reason is taken from 1 Cor. ii. 6, " W e speak
wisdom amongst them that are perfect." I answer: Irenaeus, Lib.
m . c. 2 , bears witness that the heretics formerly abused this passage
1

to support the same opinion (or rather madness) as the papists of

the present time, as we have before observed. The fourth reason
is taken from 2 Tim. ii. 2, " Those things which thou hast heard of
me before many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men,
who shall be able to teach others also." I answer: I have already
given a sufficiently large reply to this place. T h e fifth reason is
taken from Irenaeus, Lib. iv. c. 4 3 , where Irenaeus says that the
2

apostles delivered to their successors along with the episcopate a

certain gift of truth, according to the g o o d pleasure of the Father.
I answer, that the apostles delivered to their successors the gift of
knowledge not only orally, but b y writing a l s o : for he says, Lib.
i n , c. 1, that they not only preached, but delivered it also in the
scriptures.
These pretences then being refuted, the testimony of Irenaeus
stands unimpeached. T h e apostles preached and wrote the g o s p e l ;
they preached it a l l ; they wrote it a l l : and therefore he sub-
joins, that it is the basis and pillar of our faith. A n d to make
f 1
C u m e n i m e x scripturis arguuntur, in a c c u s a t i o n e m convertuntur i p s a -
rum scripturarum, . . . quia n o n possit ex his inveniri Veritas a b his qui
nesciant t r a d i t i o n e m : n o n e n i m p e r literas t r a d i t a m i l l a m , s e d p e r vivam
vocem; o b q u a m c a u s a m et P a u l u m dixisse, S a p i e n t i a m a u t e m l o q u i m u r inter
perfectos.—p. 230. B.]
[ 2
Q u a p r o p t e r eis qui i n ecclesia sint presbyteris obaudire oportet, his
qui successionem h a b e n t ab apostolis, sicut o s t e n d i m u s , qui c u m episcopatus
successione charisma veritatis c e r t u m , s e c u n d u m p l a c i t u m PatriB, acceperunt.
—pp. 381;—2.]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH, 675

it evident that Irenaaus in this place speaks of no mere popular

gospel, that is, of something suited merely to the people, he says,
" we know the economy of our salvation," and " it hath reached
us." Now he was a b i s h o p ; therefore he speaks of that gospel
which contained all that was necessary, even for bishops. Besides,
Irenaeus writes in other places also against traditions. In Lib. 11.
c. 4 7 , he says that " t h e scriptures are perfect, being spoken b y
the W o r d of God and his Spirit ." And, Lib. nr. c. 2 , he refutes
3

the assertion of the heretics, that the apostles delivered some things
secretly and a p a r t ; which subject he pursues at greater length in
the third chapter of that same book. And, Lib. iv. c. 2 6 , he says
that " t h e precepts of a perfect life are the same in both Testa-
ments ." 4
Therefore all things which pertain to doctrine or morals
are contained in the scriptures, and not merely some of t h e m : for
he says " of a perfect life," which is the thing denied b y the papists.
And, Lib. v. c. 1 7 , he says that we should " betake ourselves to
the church, be reared in its bosom, and nourished b y the scriptures
of the L o r d . " Then he subjoins: " F o r the paradise of the church
is planted in this world. Therefore, says the Spirit of God, ' of every
tree of the garden thou mayest freely e a t ; ' that is, eat of every
scripture of the L o r d : but eat not of the transcendental sense, nor
touch any heretical heterodoxy V Therefore, as there was no other
food whereof A d a m could eat in paradise but the fruit of the trees,
so he that is placed in the garden of the church should desire no
other food for his soul beside the scriptures. Thus it is clear that
Irenaeus is opposed to unwritten traditions; and his custom was to
use no other arms against the heretics save those of scripture; as
Erasmus hath truly remarked in his preface to Irenasus : " H e fights
with no other defence than scripture against a host of heretics."

Our second witness against traditions is ORIGEN, who opposes

them in many places: for example, in his Commentary on R o m . iii.,
Horn. 2 5 in Matth., Horn. 3 in Genes., Horn. 3 1 in Gen., Horn. 7
[ 3
Scriptural q u i d e m p e r f e c t s , quippe a V e r b o D e i et Spiritu ejus dicta;.
— p . 203. A.]
[ 4
Consummates cnim vita? prajcepta in utroque testamento cum sint
e a d e m , & c . — p . 3 4 4 . A.]
[ 5
Fugere igitur oportct scntentias ipsorum confugero autom ad
ecclesiam, et in ejus sinu educari, et D o m i n i c i s scripturis enutriri. Plantata
est e n i m ecclesia? paradisus in h o c m u n d o : ab o m n i ergo ligno paradisi escas
manducabis, ait Spiritus D e i , id est, ab o m n i scriptura D o m i n i c a m a n d u c a t o :
superelato a u t e m sensu no manducaveritis, neque tetigeritis universam
haireticam d i s s e n s i o n e m . — c . 2 0 , p. 4 6 6 . B . ]
43—2
676 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

in Ezech., Horn. 1 in Jerem. In the last-mentioned place he

writes as follows: " It is necessary for us' to cite the testimony
of the holy scriptures. F o r our opinions and discourses have no
credit, unless confirmed b y their witness. A n d that s a y i n g , ' B y the
mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be confirmed,'
agrees rather to the proof of an interpreter than to any number
of mere human testimonies; and means, that I should establish the
word of m y understanding b y taking two witnesses from the old
and new Testaments; or taking three, from the Gospel, from the
prophets, and from the apostles. F o r so shall every word be
established ." 1
In these words Origen testifies that our judgments,
discourses, and opinions have no credit without scripture. Bellarmine
replies, that he speaks of certain very abstruse questions, of which
nature those generally are not which rest upon the testimony of
tradition. I a n s w e r : In the first place, it is absurd that those
things which rest on tradition should be not as abtruse and obscure
as those which were delivered in the scriptures. F o r w h a t ? Are
those things which pertain solely to prelates and bishops easier
than those which are openly propounded to the people ? W h o can
fail to perceive that Bellarmine here talks contradictions ? Secondly,
Origen speaks generally of all questions, whether clear or obscure.
A n d the same thing appears also from his Commentary upon
R o m . iii., where he has an admirable r e m a r k ; saying that Paul
" sets an example to the teachers of the church to bring forward
what they say to the people" (not meaning therefore obscure
questions), " not as presumed b y their own reasonings, but fortified
b y divine testimony." Besides, he subjoins: " If even the apostle
himself, such and so great as he was, thinks that the authority of
his words is not sufficient without shewing that what he says is
written in the law and the prophets; how much rather should we,
who are the least, observe, when we teach, not to bring forward
our own judgments, but those of the H o l y S p i r i t ! " 2

f 1
Maprvpas 8 « \al3e7v ras ypacpas- apaprvpoi yap ai eV./3oXcn ypav Kal
i£rjyqo~€is aitiGToL *lo-iv eVt o~Topara Bio Kal rpitHv papriptav CTaBrjo-erai irav
pijpa, paKkov appofei eirl T£>V Bir)yrja-ea>v rj eVt rcov avBpwircov, tva cmjcrco TO.
pijpara rrjs epprjiteias, Xafiav paprvpas Bio airb Kaivijs Kal jraXcuSj BiaB^KTjs,
XafStav paprvpas rpeis anb evayyeXlov, a V o irpotprjrov, airb a V o a T o X o y ' OVTCHS yap
o-TaBrjo-eTat, wav prjpa.—p. 57. ed. Huet. Colon. 1685. Whitaker, in the text,
has taken the old Latin version, which is therefore followed in the trans-
lation.]
[2 Doctoribus ecclesia? praVbet exemplum, ut ea quas loquuntur ad popu-
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 677

T h e same author, Horn. 25 in Matth., writes thus: " T h e temple

of the glory of G o d is all inspired scripture, and the gold is the
meaning lodged in it. W e ought, therefore, in evidence of every
word that we utter in teaching to produce the sense of scripture as a
confirmation of the sense which we expound. F o r , as all the gold
outside the temple is unsanctified, so every sense which is beside
the holy scripture (however admirable it may seem) is not holy, b e -
cause it is not contained b y the sense of scripture, which sanctifies
only that sense which it hath in itself, as the temple does its own
gold. W e ought not then in confirmation of our doctrine to swear
our own meanings, and produce as it were in evidence what each of
us understands and deems true, without shewing that it is sanctified
b y being contained in the holy scriptures as it were in the temples
of God. Foolish and blind are those that know not that the
temple, that is, the reading of the scripture, makes a sense great
and venerable like consecrated g o l d . "
3
The same author, Horn. 10
in Genes., writes thus upon the words, " Rebecca went daily to
the well : " " This is the instruction of souls which instructs and
teaches thee to come daily to the wells of scripture, the waters of
the H o l y Spirit, and to draw continually, and bring home a vessel
full, as also did the holy Rebecca." A n d Horn. 3 in Gen. he
writes thus : " Circumcised and clean is he, who always speaks the
word of God, and brings forward sound doctrine fortified b y the

lum, non propriis prœsumta sententiis, sed divinis munita testimonies pro-
férant. Si enim ipse tantus et talis apostolus auctoritatem dictorum suorum
sufficere posse non credit, nisi doceat in lege et prophetis scripta esse qua?
dicit : quanto magis nos minimi hoc observare debemus, ut non nostras, cum
docemus, sed Sancti Spiritus sententias proferamus !—Origen. Opp. T. iv.
p. 5 0 4 , Paris. 1733.]
[ Templum gloria? Dei est omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata, aurum
3

autem positus sensus in ea. Debemus ergo ad testimonium omnium verbo-

rum, qua? proferimus in doctrina, proferre sensum scriptura, quasi conflr-
mantem quem exponimus sensum. Sicut enim omne aurum, quodquod fuerit
extra templum, non est sanctiflcatum ; sic omnis qui fuerit extra divinam
scripturam (quamvis admirabilis videatur quibusdam) non est sanctus, quia
non continetur a sensu scriptura?, qua? solet eum solum sensum sanctificare
quem habet in se, sicut templum proprium aurum. Non ergo debemus ad
conftnnandam doctrinam nostram proprios sensus jurare, et quasi testimonia
assumere, quos unusquisque nostrum intelligit, et secundum veritatem existi-
mat esse, ni ostenderit eos sanctos esse ex eo quod in scripturis continetur
divinis, quasi in templis quibusdam Dei. Stulti ergo et ca?ci omnes qui non
cognoscunt, quoniam templum, id est, lectio scripturarum, magnum et
venerabilem facit sensum, sicut aurum sacratum.—T. in. p. 8 4 2 . ]
678 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [сн.

rules of the evangelists and apostles ." 1

So much from Origen, to
whose testimony, thus unembarrassed, clear and pertinent to the
point, Bellarmine answers not a word.
Our third testimony is that of CONSTANTINE the great, as given
by Theodoret, Lib. i. c. 7, who thus addressed the fathers assembled
in the council of Nice: " The evangelic and apostolic books, together
with the oracles of the old prophets, plainly instruct us what we
ought to think on divine subjects. Let us then, laying aside all
hostile discord, resolve the debated questions by the testimony of
the inspired scriptures ."2
In these words two things deserve to
be considered: first, that the scriptures of the old and new Testa­
ments teach us, and that plainly (о~афш$), what we should think
concerning the things of G o d : secondly, that we ought, therefore,
to decide every controversy by the words of inspiration.
Bellarmine objects, first, that Constantine was a great emperor,
but not a great doctor. I answer : In the first place, I confess that
he was not a bishop or doctor of the church; but yet I affirm him to
have been a pious and learned man, studious of religion and very
useful to the church. This is plain from Theodoret, i. 2 4 : for when
bishops were rending the church and disturbing its peace, he pre­
served it with a tender and remedial solicitude. Secondly, no
bishop, either of those present at the Nicene council or of those
who afterwards flourished in the church, ever blamed these words
uttered by Constantine in the midst of the Nicene fathers. Now
if they were not orthodox, doubtless somebody would have either
interfered upon the spot, or at some time or other warned the
church against them. Constantine desires this dispute to be de­
termined by the scriptures of the evangelists, apostles, and prophets.
And E vagrius, H istor., Lib. n . , testifies that similar expressions
3

were used by John, bishop of Antioch, in the council of E phesus;

which were also approved by Cyril of Alexandria. Secondly, he
objects, that the confirmation of those dogmas which touch and

[i Circumcisus et mundus est qui semper verbum Dei loquitur, et sanam

doctrinam, evangelicis et apostolicis munitam, regulis, profert.]
[ evayyeXiKal yap fHfiXoi ка\ атгоотокшаХ, ка\ тар тгаХашр тгрофг/тюр та
2

$ecrnlo-p-ara, сгафсоу r)p,ds а хрт) тгер\ TOV delov фрореХр eKiraideiovcn. тг)р 7гоХс­
ЦОТГОШР ovp direXacrapres Zpiv, ек тар весчтреусгтар Xoycav Xdfitofiev тар (г/тоуцерар
TT)V Xvo-iv.—p. 25. D. ed. Vales. Paris. 1673.]
[ The reference meant is, I suppose, Lib. i. c. 6. p. 261. D. Paris, 1 6 7 3 ;
s

where Cyril speaks of his joy at finding that John of Antioch and he had the
same faith, rals 6eoirpevcrTois урафа\$ кш ттараЬоа-ei тар ау'шр т)у.ар патерар
o~vp.^alvovtrav, ]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 679

relate to the divine nature may be deduced from scripture, but that
the true sense of scripture depends upon the unwritten tradition of
the church. I answer: In the first place, perhaps the occasion of
his thus trifling arose from the words irepi TOV Oeiov. A n d so in-
deed Harding, in the book which he wrote against the English A p o -
logy, seeks to elude this testimony. But Harding makes a shameful
mistake; and Bellarmine t o o , if he b e in the same opinion, hath
fallen into a shameful hallucination. F o r irepl TOV Oeiov denotes
not only, " concerning those things which pertain to the divine
nature," but also, as Cassiodorus hath translated it, " concerning
the divine will, or the divine l a w . " T h e very translator whom
Bellarmine follows renders it, " concerning divine t h i n g s ; " and so
indeed it ought to be rendered. A n d Theodoret himself, in the
words immediately preceding, hath the expression trepl TWV Oe'ioov
7rpayixdTwv, that is, " o f things relating to faith and religion."
Then he says that " we have the teaching of the H o l y Spirit in a
written form," TOV iravayiov irvev/uaros StSaaKoklav avaypcnrTov
e^oyra?. Besides, Constantine says, " Let us take from scripture
TWV Xrjrovixevcav Tt)v \vaiv" that is, the solution not of this or
that question, but of all questions. Secondly, in asserting that
the true sense of scripture depends upon the unwritten tradition
of the church, he openly makes the scriptures inferior to the church,
of which y e t he elsewhere indicates a disapproval. F o r if the true
sense of scripture depend upon the church, then it is plain that the
credit and authority of the church is greater than of scripture:
since the true sense of scripture follows the unwritten tradition of
the c h u r c h ; and what else is scripture but the sense of scripture?
T h e falsehood of Bellarmine's third objection, that the Arians were
not convicted and condemned b y the testimony of scripture, is clear
from c. 8 , of this same book o f Theodoret, e£ eyy patpwv /ler'
4

evaefte'ias evvoov/xevwv Xe^emv KaTeKpidtiaav: and from Socrates,

L i b . i. c. 6, " W e have often refuted them b y unrolling (or e x -
plaining) the scriptures ." F o r , although Socrates wrote this not
6

of the Nicene council, but of that at Alexandria, composed only of

a few bishops and presbyters, y e t every one sees that the Arians
were most plainly condemned b y scripture: unless indeed it be
supposed that scripture had more efficacy at Alexandria than at

[ 4
W h e r e , h o w e v e r , a n o t h e r r e a d i n g is, e£ aypdfyav per do-epclas voovpl-
vuv.—p. 2 9 . A. S e e Valesius' note.]
[ c
Km ravra \eyovres KCU ava7TTvarcrovT€s rar dclas ypafjms TTOWQKIS averpc-
\j/apev abrovs p . 1 1 . B. e d . V a l e s . ]
680 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Nice. A n d what else did Athanasius do but condemn Arius out

of scripture ?
Our fourth testimony is taken from ATHANASIUS, in his book
against the Gentiles or i d o l s : " The scriptures are sufficient for
every purpose of instruction or education in the t r u t h . " Bellar- 1

mine replies, that Chemnitz hath added the word " e v e r y " out of
his own head. I a n s w e r : H e did indeed add, but he hath not
thereby changed the sense: for that this is Athanasius' meaning,
is apparent from the place itself, which occurs in the beginning of
the book. In the next place, Bellarmine answers that Athanasius
speaks in that book of only two dogmas : one of which is, that idols
should not be worshipped; the other, Christ's twofold nature, or
that Christ was truly both G o d and man. I answer: That these
t w o points are indeed handled in the books to Macarius; but this is
no reason for not extending it in its force and application to all other
dogmas, or taking it in a general sense. Thirdly, he concedes that
scripture is sufficient, but not without the explication of the fathers.
I a n s w e r : But b y this explication of the fathers Bellarmine means
unwritten traditions. I f he meant the interpretation of the fathers,
we should feel less reluctant to admit it. And yet even the inter-
pretations of the fathers are not simply necessary; because there
was a time when there were no patristic interpretations, and never-
theless the scriptures were understood. A n d Athanasius himself
writes expressly in that same place, that the truth of scripture is
known, and " clearer than the sun." Then he subjoins, " the scrip-
tures are sufficient;" and afterwards he says, that the fathers must
be read on account of some men's perverseness, who will not receive
what is plain and manifest. Whence it appears that he means, that
the fathers are not universally or simply necessary to the under-
standing of the scriptures. The same author, in his third book
against the Arians, s a y s : " B y hearing the scriptures we are led
into faith." This is the very point which we have proved above,
from R o m . x., " Faith is b y hearing, and hearing b y the word o f
G o d . " And in his Synopsis he says, that " h o l y scripture con-
tained in certain books is the anchor and support of our f a i t h . " 2

Therefore, our faith is not supported b y traditions, but b y the

scriptures.
Our fifth testimony is that of BASIL the great, de Confessione

1} airapKeis pkv yip elcriv al ayiai Kai deoirvevo-Toi ypaipai irpbs rrjv rrjs
aXrjdclas cmayyiKiav.—T. I. p. 1. P a r i s . 1 5 9 8 . ]
[ 2
TTJS Trio-Teas fjpav olovti axpodlvia t] ayicvpai Kal ipdo-para.—T. II. p. 127.]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 681

Fidei, where he writes t h u s : " It is a manifest piece of infidelity,

and incurs a just charge of arrogance, either to reject what is
written, or to add anything which is not w r i t t e n . " It is a very 3

remarkable passage. Bellarmine replies that this place of Basil is

meant to refer, not to apostolical traditions, but to those things
which are contrary to scripture and invented b y private persons.
I answer: These words do most clearly confirm the perfection of
scripture. F o r Basil had said a little before, " I am bound to p r o -
pose to y o u those things which I have learned from the divinely
inspired scripture, according to the good pleasure of God, for the
common profit. F o r if the L o r d himself, in whom the Father was
well-pleased, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge, who hath received from the Father all power and all
judgment, says, ' H e gave me a commandment what I should speak
and what I should say ; ' and again, ' Those things, therefore, which
I speak unto you, as the Father hath said unto me, even so I
s p e a k ; ' and if the H o l y Spirit speaketh not of himself, but what-
soever he heareth from h i m ; how much more is it at once pious
arid safe for us to think and do this in the name of our L o r d
Jesus C h r i s t ! " A n d afterwards he s a y s : " If the Lord be
4

faithful in all his words, and all his commandments are faithful,
standing fast for ever and ever, done in truth and e q u i t y ; " then
he subjoins the words which we previously introduced, n a m e l y : —
" It is a manifest incurring of the crime of infidelity and arrogance,
either to reject anything that is written, or add anything that is
not written." Then follows: " Since our L o r d Jesus Christ says,
' M y sheep hear m y voice,' premising, ' a stranger will they not
follow, but flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers;'
and the apostle, b y an example taken from the case of men,
earnestly prohibits the adding to, or taking from, the scriptures of
God, when he says, ' T h o u g h it were but a man's testament, y e t ,

[ 3
(pavepd eKwracris jn'orecor Kal vwepr]<pavias Karqyopia rj aderelv Tt TCOJ>
ycypappcvav, tj iTreio-dyeiv rap prj yeypappivav.—T. II. p . 2 5 1 . A. Paris. 1618.]
[ 4
Kciyo) drrep i'padov (K rfjs deoirveio-Tov ypafpys, Tavra vp.1v 7rapa8e<r6ai
Kara TO dpio'Kov Gec3 Trpbs TO KOIVTJ o~vp<pepov otpetKerys dpi. E t yap avrbs 6
Kipios, iv co evt)oKrjo-(V o Trarrjp, iv w euri navTfs ol Srjcravpol -rijs crocplas
Kal Trjs yvwo-ecas anoKpvCpoi, 6 iraa-av pev TTJV ifcovaiav nacrav Se TTJV Kpiaiv
\a[iu>v irapa rov narpos, 'EvroXf/v dedaxe poi, (pr/al, TL eiVca Kal ri XaXiJcrcu-
Kal 7raK.iv, a ovv dycb XaXco, Ka8a>s (ipr)Kt poi 6 iraTrjp OVTG> XaXco- Kal TO
Trvevpa TO dyiov d(j> cavrov ov XaXeT, dXX* oo-a av aKovarj Trap avrov, ravra
XaXet' noaco paWov rjpiv evo-eftes r e opov Kal acrcpaXeV TOVTO (ppoye'iv Kal rroidv
iv ovopaTL TOV K . 77. I . X Ibid. p p . 249, 2 5 0 . ]
682 THE FI R S T CONTROVERSY. [сн.

when it is confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth t h e r e t o ; ' con­

sequently, we know that now and always we should flee all words
and sentiments alien from the doctrine of the L o r d . " 1

Basil, therefore, testifies that all points of faith, whatever they

may be, are found in the scriptures; and therefore that those persons
violate the testament of G o d , who seek other doctrines outside the
scriptures. H e condemns, therefore, all others as strange and foreign,
£eva and aWoTpta. But Bellarmine observes that Basil, in that
same place, says that h e was compelled to use unwritten discourses
against the heretics. I answer: h e did indeed use unwritten (not
discourses, but) expressions; y e t such as were not foreign from scrip­
ture, and its orthodox sense. H e employed no new doctrines, but
new terms, and those such as introduced no new sense: for he
says that these words are not " foreign from the pious meaning of
scripture." Although those terms were strange in expression, y e t
they contained no strange meaning, but preserved the " sense which
lay in the scriptures." Consequently, he determines those to b e
strange, and false, and deserving to b e rejected, which have not
the meaning which lies in the scriptures. H e clearly refers there­
fore, not to dogmas, but to certain terms not actually used in
scripture, such as 'Ofioovaiov, and others of the like sort, which h e
was accustomed to use in disputing against the heretics. There is
another place, in his eightieth epistle to Eustathius the physician,
where Basil writes as follows: " W e do not think it just and equi­
table, that the manner of speaking which obtains amongst them
should be made the rule and canon of orthodox doctrine. I f custom
be indeed the test to try right doctrine, let us b y all means b e
permitted also to follow their example. L e t us stand then b y the
arbitration of the holy scriptures, and let the sentence of truth be
certainly adjudged to those with whom are found doctrines conso­
nant to the oracles o f G o d . " Bellarmine says that he is speaking
2

[1 TOV Kvp'wv tjpiov 'Ь7<го0 Хрмгтоу elnovros, та. ера тгро(Зата rfjs eprjs abiovrjs
aKovef ка\ тгро TOVTOV be elprjKoros, aKkorplcp be ov prj aKo\ov6qo-G>o-w, d X X a
<fiev£ovrai атг аЬтоС, к. т. X . (cat TOV awocrToKov iv virobeiypaTi av6pa>nivm
афоЬротероу arrayopevovros то Trpoo-BeXvai rj ьфеХеЪ ri ev Tais SeowvevcrTois
урафая, bt a>v c^i/aw, к. т. X. iracrav pev ovv aXXoTpiav TTJS TOV Kvpiov biba-
o-ieaXias фсмцу ка\ evvoiav ovrac т)/х€(у navrore ка\ vvv аттофеггуеи/ eyv(OKap.ev.
—Ibid. p. 251. в. a ]

[2
ov vopi£opev btKaiov elvai TTJV ттар' avTols ewiKparovo-av o-vvr\6eiav vopov
ка\ Kavova TOV opdov iroielo-Bai X o y o v . el yap lo~xyp6v eaTiv els ajrobei^w орво-
TTJTOS rj crvvriBeia, e£eo-Ti ка\ fjplv тгартш? ауттро^аХео-вас TTJV Trap qptv етпкра-
Tovuav o-vvr)6eiav. E t be ттараурафоута1 TavTtjv eKelvoi, r/pXv iravTas aKoXovdt)-
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 683

not of any tradition received b y the whole church, but of particular

customs. I answer: It is an important question which is handled
and discussed in this p l a c e ; namely, whether we may say that
there are three persons and one Godhead, Tpels vTroo-raads KU\
fxiav OeoTrjra. Some persons alleged and urged custom; but he
says it is not fit that " custom should be the rule," vomos KO.1 Kaviov
TOV opdou Xoyov. Then he subjoins the sentence quoted a b o v e ;
wherein he shews, first, that the divine oracles and the scriptures
are the same t h i n g ; secondly, that those doctrines which agree
with the scriptures should be received, and all others rejected.
And so much for the testimony of Basil.
Our sixth testimony is taken from some sentences of CHRYSO-
STOM. In Horn. 1 in Matt, he says : " There is need of scripture,
because many corrupt doctrine." In Horn. 1 3 in Genes. he s a y s : 3

" Scripture does not permit the hearer of it to g o wrong." Then

he subjoins : " But, because most people lend an ear to those who
handle these subjects, not in order to gain some edification from
the holy scriptures, but to b e amused; and, therefore, seek to
hear not those who profit, but those who entertain them b e s t ; I
beseech y o u therefore, that, closing your ears to all such, we m a y
together follow the standard set b y the canon of holy scripture."
In his 3rd Homily upon 2 Thess. he says that all necessary things
4

are clear in the scriptures. T o all these Bellarmine replies only

b y the question: " F o r what purpose are these alleged ? " I
answer, b y shewing the purpose, thus: If the gospel was committed
to writing lest it should be corrupted, then all parts of it are
written, because no part of it should be corrupted. If the scrip-
tures were written lest w e should err, then all things are written,
because we should not err in any thing. I f all things ought to be
referred to this canon of scripture, then scripture is the perfect rule
of all our actions and articles of faith. I f all necessary things are
plain in the scriptures, then nothing beside the scriptures is neces-
sary. T h e same author, Opus Imperf. in Matt. Horn. 4 9 , writes
t h u s : " Then, when y e shall see the abomination of desolation
standing in the holy place, that is, when y e shall see impious
heresy, which is the army of antichrist, standing in the holy places

reov eKeivois. OVKOVV r) dsonveva-ros r)piv SiaiTrjcraTco ypacprj • Km nap' ols dv

evpedrj TO. Soypara crvvcpSd rols 8elait Xoyoir, ini TOVTOIS rj£ei navrcos [_r] deia]
TTJS aXr/deias tyrj<pos T . II. p . 9 0 1 . B. W h i t a k e r h a s , as t h e reader will
perceive, o m i t t e d a w h o l e clause in his translation o f this p a s s a g e . ]
[3 Tom. iv. p. 103.] [ 4
Tom. xi. p. 528.]
684 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

of the church ; then let those that are in Judaea flee to the moun-
tains ; that is, let those who are in Christianity betake themselves
to the scriptures. F o r as the true Jew is the Christian, (accord-
ing to the saying of the apostle, ' H e is not a Jew who is one out-
wardly, but he who is one inwardly,') so the true Judaea is
Christianity, the name Judaea being, b y interpretation, confession.
N o w the mountains are the scriptures of the apostles and prophets,
concerning which it is said, ' Thou givest wonderful light from the
eternal mountains;' and again, it is said of the church, ' H e r foun-
dations are on the holy h i l l s ' . " 1

Bellarmine replies, that not Chrysostom, but some heretic, was

the author of these homilies. I answer : Some do, indeed, sup-
pose that these homilies were written b y one Maximus, who was
an A r i a n ; y e t the book is an useful one, and this opinion is a
pious one, consonant not only with the scriptures, but with the
other fathers. Augustine, de Pastoribus, c. 1 2 , s a y s : " Hear
the voice of the Shepherd: draw to the mountains of the holy
scripture." A n d the reason which he uses, and which follows
in that same place, proves the truth of this sentence. " And
wherefore does he bid all Christians to betake themselves to the
scriptures? Because at this time, since heresy hath prevailed in
those churches, there can be no other proof of true Christianity,
no other refuge for true Christians, who desire to know the truth
of faith, save the scriptures of God. Formerly it was shewn
in many ways, what was the true church of Christ, and what
paganism; but now those who wish to know what is the true
church of Christ, have no other means of knowing but the holy
scriptures. W h y so ? Because, even those churches which are in

f 1
Tunc cum videritis abominationem desolationis stantem in loco
sancto, id est, cum videritis haeresim impiam, qua? esu exercitus antichristi,
stantem in locis Sanctis ecclesiae; in illo tempore, qui in Judaea sunt, fugiant
ad montes, id est, qui sunt in Christianitate conferant se ad scripturas. Sicut
enim verus Judseus est Christianus, dicente apostólo, Non qui in manifesto
Judacus est, sed qui in occulto; sic vera Judaea Christianitas est, cujus
nomen intelligitur confcssio. Montes autem sunt scriptura? apostolorum
aut prophetarum, de quibus dictum est, Illuminas tu mirabiliter a monti-
bus aetemis; et iterum de ecclesia dicit, Fundamenta ejus in montibus
Sanctis.—Chrys. Opp. T. vi. col. 204. Paris. 1718—38. The quotation,
"Illuminas tu mirabiliter," & c , is from the Vulgate version, Ps. lxxvi. 4,
which here, as usual, follows the L X X . (pcori^eis era 6av¡j.acrTas airo opiav
áíavícov. They probably conjectured that PpJ2 should be read D"1Q- This
piece is falsely ascribed to Chrysostom.]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 685

schism have all things which truly belong to Christ: they have churches
as well as w e ; the holy scriptures themselves as well as w e ; bishops
and the other orders of the clergy as well as w e ; baptism as well
as w e ; the eucharist as well as we, and all the r e s t ; finally, they
have Christ himself. If, then, one desires to know which is the
true church of Christ, where the points of resemblance are^ so con-
founded, whence can he know it but from the holy s c r i p t u r e s ? " 2

A n d more to the same purpose follows in the same writer.

There is another passage of Chrysostom's, in his homily on Ps.
xcv., where he writes t h u s : " "We should not say any thing without
evidence, out of the mere device of our own minds. If any thing be
spoken without proof from scripture, the thoughts of the hearers
stumble, now assenting, now hesitating, sometimes turning from the
discourse as frivolous, sometimes receiving it as specious. But when
the testimony of the voice of God is uttered from the scripture, it
confirms at once the discourse of him who speaks, and the mind of
him who hears." Thus Chrysostom. Nothing therefore must be
said beside the scripture, lest the thoughts of the hearer should
halt or vacillate. Bellarmine replies, that what is here prohibited
is the saying any thing out of our own inventions, because what is
so said does not so easily win assent as that which is confirmed b y
scripture. I answer: W h a t a ridiculous subterfuge is this ! F o r
that which is said out of our own inventions would be utterly
rejected. But what Chrysostom says is, that nothing should be
said without evidence, merely of our own thoughts, and without
scripture; intimating, that every thing which is said without the
testimony of scripture is spoken merely from our own thoughts,
without evidence, and of our own invention. For if any thing of

[ Audite vocom pastoris; colligite vos ad montes scriptura? sancta?.... Et

2

quare jubet hoc tempore omnes Christianos conferre se ad scripturas ? Quia

in tempore hoc, ex quo obtinuit hseresis illas ecclesias, nulla probatio potest
esse vera; Christianitatis, neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud,
volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem, nisi scripturas divinee. Antea enim
multis modis ostendebatur, qua; esset ecclesia Christi et qua? gentilitas.
Nunc autem nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere qua? sit vera
ecclesia Christi, nisi tantummodo per scripturas. Quare ? Quia omnia qua?
sunt propria Christi in veritate, habent et ha?reses ilia? in schismate, simi-
liter ecclesias, similiter et ipsas scripturas divinas, similiter episcopos
ceterosque ordines clericorum, similiter baptismum, similiter eucharistiam,
et cetera omnia; denique ipsum Christum. Volens ergo quis cognoscere
qua? sit vera ecclesia Christi, unde cognoscat in tanta confusione similitu-
dinis, nisi tantummodo per scripturas ?—T. ix. p. 279, et seqq.]
686 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

this sort be said, it will be uncertain, and bring the minds of the
hearers into doubt and hesitation. T h e same Chrysostom, Horn.
1 3 in 2 Corinth, writes t h u s : " H o w - c a n it be other than absurd to
refuse to trust others in the matter of money, and to count and
reckon it ourselves, and yet in far more important matters to
follow simply other men's opinions; especially when we have, in the
sentence of the divine laws, the most exact balance, and standard,
and rule of all things ? Therefore, I beseech and implore y o u to
leave asking what this man or the other thinks, and to seek the
resolution of all these inquiries from the scriptures ." Bellarmine1

brings a pitiable and foolish reply. H e says, that Chrysostom

speaks of those who prefer riches to poverty, whereas scripture
teaches the contrary. I answer: Chrysostom speaks not of this
only, but says that we have the most exact balance and perfect
rule of all things, airavrwv, in the declaration of the laws of God,
aTrocpacTiv TWI> Oelwv voficov. H o w he understands this, is shewn
b y his subjoining, irapa TU>V ypacpwv TavTa wavTa irvvBaveaQe.
Therefore he admonishes us not to be anxious about the opinions of
the many, but to examine all things for ourselves; and he illus-
trates it b y a comparison: ' W e examine money b y counting and
reckoning i t : now we ought to be much more careful about such
matters as these.'

Our seventh testimony is from EPIPHANIUS, Hozres. 6 1 . This

is produced b y Bellarmine. But there is a still clearer testimony,
Hazres. 6 9 , where Epiphanius assigns the reason w h y he gives the
title 'A<yKvpooTo\ to his book,—because he collected the doctrine of
God out of the whole scripture, to be as it were an anchor . 2

Therefore the scripture is the anchor of our faith. A n d a little

after, in the same place, he says, that Christ is called the corner-
stone, because " he hath constructed for us the new and the old
Testaments ." 3

Our eighth testimony is that of CYRIL, in his b o o k , De Fide ad

[1 Ileos yap OVK STOTTOV vwep ptv xprjpdrav pr) erepois more-Lew, dXK' apidpa
Kal ^rq(pa TOVTO eiriTpeneiv, {mep de irpaypdrav •^rrjcpi^opevovs diihas rais ere-
pav TTapao-ipeaBai 8o£ais, Kal ravra aKpififj £vybv dirdvrav e^ovras Kal yvapova
Kal Kavova rav Beiav vofiav rr)v div6(fiao-iv. bib napaKaXa Kal beopai ndvrav
ipav, d(f>evTes ri ra belvi Kal ra 8cu>i SoKel irepl rovrav, irapd rav ypacbav
ravra diravra nwddvea-Oe.—Chrysost. Comment. T. v. p p . 6 3 6 , 7. Paris.
1633.]
[2 c. xxvii. p. 751—2. ed. Petav. T. i.]
[3
Std TO e-mcrcplygai nakaiav Kal veav dtaBqKtjv.—lb. c. XXXV. p . 758. D . ]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 687

Reginas, where he hath these words : " It is needful for us to fol-

low the holy scriptures, and in nothing to depart from what they
prescribe." Bellarmine says that he only affirms that no new
dogmas should be broached contrary to the scriptures. I answer:
Cyril refers us to the directions of scripture as perfect. For he
plainly affirms the sufficiency of scripture, Lib. x n . in Joann. c.
6 8 . : " All things which the Lord did are not written, but those
which the writers thought sufficient, both for practice and for doc-
trine; that we, resplendent with the glory of orthodox faith and
works and virtue, might attain to the kingdom of h e a v e n . " The 4

same author, Horn. 5 in Levit. writes as follows: " I (as far as the
capacity of m y judgment permits me to form an opinion) suppose
that in these two days we may understand the two Testaments,
wherein it is lawful that every word pertaining to God (for this is
meant b y sacrifice) should be searched out and examined, and that
the understanding of all things should be taken from t h e s e ; but
if any thing remain, which the scripture of God determines not, that
no other third scripture should be received for the confirmation of
our knowledge (which is here called the third d a y ) , but we should
commit what remains to the fire, that is, reserve it for G o d . " Bel- 6

larmine hath two replies: first, that Cyril was not the author of
these homilies, but Origen, or somebody else, who (says he) every-
where destroys the letter to establish his own mystical sense. I
answer: It makes no difference whether the piece be Cyril's or
O r i g e n ' s : the authority of both is equal. This author does in-
deed pursue allegories, as the other fathers do ; yet this sentence
is true and orthodox. Secondly, he says, that it is not all unwrit-
ten doctrine, but any third scripture pretending to be divine, when
it is really human, that is here condemned. I answer : The words
are plain. H e not only rejects any third scripture, but distinctly

[ 4
N o n igitur o m n i a qua? D o m i n u s fecit conscripta sunt, sed qua; scri-
b e n t e s t a m a d m o r e s q u a m ad d o g m a t a putarunt sufficore; ut recta fide et
operibus ac virtute rutilantes a d r e g n u m ccelorum p e r v e n i a m u s . — C o l . 2 2 0 .
Paris. 1 5 0 8 . ]
[ 5
E g o (prout sensus m e i capacitas h a b e t ) in h o c biduo p u t o duo testa-
m e n t a posse intelligi, in quibus liceat o m n e v e r b u m , q u o d ad D e u m per-
tineat ( h o e e n i m est sacrificium), requiri et discuti, atque ex ipsis o m n e m
rerum scientiam capi: si quid autem superfuerit, quod non scriptura
divina decernat, n u l l a m aliam d e b e r e t e r t i a m scripturam ad auctoritatem
sciential suscipi, qua} hie dies tertia noininatur, sod igni tradamus quod
superest, i d est, D e o r e s e r v e m u s . — T h i s passage is taken almost word for
w o r d f r o m Origon, Horn. 5 . in L e v i t i c . 6 6 . D.]
688 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

affirms that in the two Testaments " every word pertaining to

God m a y be sought." Therefore, those things which cannot be
found in these two Testaments, do in no w a y pertain to G o d .
T o whom then shall we suppose that written traditions pertain ?
Our ninth testimony is that of THEOPHILUS ALEXANDRINOS, who
in his 2nd Paschal writes thus: " I t is the fruit of a diabolic spirit to
think that there is aught divine without the authority of the sacred
scriptures ." Bellarmine says that he is speaking of apocryphal
1

books, which some sought to introduce. I answer: T h e words are

plain,—that nothing is divine without the scriptures. N o w , tradi-
tions are without the scriptures: therefore, they are not divine.
Our tenth testimony is that of APOLLINARIS, mentioned b y
Eusebius, L i b . v. c. 1 5 . H e says that he had deferred for a long
time writing against Montanus, lest he should seem to add some-
thing to the word of the gospel . Bellarmine replies, firstly, that
2

these words are not found in all the books. I a n s w e r : T h e y are

found in the Greek copies, c. 16 ; in the versions of Christopherson
and Musculus, c. 15 ; and the books which have them not are
faulty. Secondly, Bellarmine remarks that he does not say, to
the written word of the gospel of God, but simply, to the word of
the gospel of God. I answer: But he means the written word, as
is plain from his expressions. F o r he says that he feared lest he
should seem eTrio~vy ypa(peiv, or einSiardcraeaQai
r
rip rrjs naivris
SiaOrjicris Xoycp' that is, to add anything to the written gospel.
Besides, he could not possibly fear adding anything b y writing to
an unwritten teaching, but only to written books. Thirdly, Bellar-
mine says that he means any dogma contrary to scripture,—that
he was careful not to write anything repugnant thereto. I answer:
H e might easily have guarded against the danger of writing a n y -
thing contrary to scripture; but what he dreaded was, lest any one
should suppose that the b o o k which he wrote added anything to
the canon, in the same way as Montanus added many things. T h e n
he subjoins: " N o one can neither add to, or diminish from, the
scriptures of the old and new Testaments," /xtjre irpoaOelvai fxrjre
a(pe\eiv hvvarov. Therefore it is certain that the doctrine d e -
livered in the scriptures is perfect.

t 1
D i a b o l i c i spiritus est, extra scripturarum sacrarum authoritatem divi-
n u m aliquid p u t a r e . — I n B i b l i o t h e c . P a t r u m . P a r i s . 1 5 8 9 . T. in. c o l . 5 1 9 . ]
[ 2
SeSio)!' 8c KCU i^evkafiovpevos pr] mj do£co rtcrw eirurvyypcitpeiv t) emSia-
Tatrtreo-Bai rep TT)S TOV euayyeXiou Kcuvijs hia8r)ta]s Xoycp, of prjre irpotrBeivai pr]r
dqbeXetv bvvarov.—T. I I . p p . 7 3 , 7 4 . e d . H e i n i c h . ]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 689

Our eleventh testimony is that of TERTULLIAN (for I come now

to the Latin fathers) in his books against the heretic Hermogenes,
where these words occur : " I adore the fulness of scripture, which
shews me at once the Creator and the creatures. But in the gospel
I find still further, the W o r d , who is the minister and mediator of
the supreme governor. But that all things were made out of any
subject-matter, I have nowhere y e t been able to read. Let the shop
of Hermogenes teach us where this is written, or fear that woe
which is destined for those who add to or diminish from the scrip-
ture ."
3
In these words there are two things to be considered:
the first is, that the scripture is full and perfect, which appears
from the words, " I adore the plenitude of scripture; " the other,
that whoever add or deliver anything that is not written, have to
dread that woe which is denounced, R e v . xxii. 1 8 . H e would not
have those only to fear it, who bring forward anything contrary to
scripture, but those also who bring forward anything that is not
written. Bellarmine says that Tertullian is only speaking of a
single dogma, namely, that God made all things out of nothing,
without any pre-existent matter. T h e scripture, says he, is perfect
enough to prove this. I a n s w e r : Tertullian does indeed handle
that question in this b o o k ; but these words are general and refer
to all religious questions; nor apply merely to this alone, but to all
others. Indeed he would have said nothing, unless what he said
should apply to all questions: for Hermogenes might have objected
to him that we need not in every question recur to scripture; and
to what end should he have admonished the heretic to fear that woe
denounced against all who add or diminish, unless he could shew
that what he said was written, unless he himself had taken it for
granted that all was written ? Tertullian disputes from the autho-
rity of scripture negatively. Hermogenes cannot shew that this is
written; therefore let him fear that woe: which argument would
have no force at all in it, unless it were certain that the scriptures
are absolutely full and perfect, and that no dogma should be
received which is not delivered in the scriptures.
T h e same author also elsewhere, in his Prescriptions against

[ Adoro scriptures plenitudinem, quae mihi factorem manifestat et facta.

3

In evangelio vero amplius et ministrum atque arbitrum rectoris invenio Ser-

monem. An autem de aliqua subjacent! materia facta sint omnia, nusquam
admic legi. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina, aut timeat vce iilud
adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum.—cap. 2 2 , p. 1 9 . ed Leopold.
Lips. 1 8 4 1 . ]

r 1 4 4

[_WHITAKER.J
690 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

heretics, writes t h u s : " "We are not permitted to indulge our own
caprice in anything, nor to choose what any shall introduce of his own
will. W e have as our authorities the apostles of the L o r d , who them-
selves chose not anything to be introduced at their own pleasure,
but faithfully consigned to all nations that instruction which they
received from Christ. Consequently, though even an angel from
heaven should preach unto us any other gospel, we should pronounce
him accursed ." 1
T h e apostles delivered the instruction of Christ
faithfully to the nations, not to a few particular persons, but to all.
A n d a little after he says, that " all the Lord's sayings are set forth
for a l l . "
2
Therefore not some for some, (as the Jesuit pretends) but
all for all. T h e same father, in his b o o k de Resurrectione Carnis,
calls the heretics shunners of the light of scripture, lucifugas
scripturarum. This title suits our papists most a p t l y : for they
hate the light of scripture, and, whether writing or disputing, seek
to take us off from the scriptures to the fathers, or tradition, or
some other testimony. A n d in the same b o o k he s a y s : " T a k e
away from the heretics what they have in common with pagan wis-
dom, so as to make them support all their opinions b y scripture
only, and they cannot s t a n d . " 3
T h e same may be said of the
papists: for if they are compelled to support all their dogmas b y
the scriptures, it is all over with tradition and the whole of popery.
Thus Tertullian, as long as he was a catholic, everywhere asserts
the perfection and authority of the scriptures. In his book, de
Came Christi, he s a y s : " If they do not prove it, for indeed it is
not w r i t t e n . " 4
A n d presently a f t e r : " But there is nothing cer-
tainly known, because scripture exhibits n o t h i n g . " 5
A n d again :
" I do not admit what y o u add beside the scripture out of y o u r
own h e a d . " 6

Our twelfth testimony is that of CYPRIAN, Ep. 7 4 ad Pompeium,

P Nobis vero nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, sed nee eligere quod
aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos Domini habemus auctores, qui
nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio, quod inducerent, elegerunt, sed accep-
tam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus adsignaverunt. Itaque etiam
si angelus de coelis aliter evangelizaret, anathema diceretur a nobis.—c. 6,
p. 4.]
[ Omnia quidem dicta Domini omnibus posita s u n t . — c . 8, p . 7.]
2

p Aufer hsereticis quae cum ethnicis sapiunt, ut de soils scripturis quass-

tiones suas sistant, et stare non possunt.—c. 3.]
[ Si non probant, quia nec scriptum e s t . — c . 6, p . 69.]
4

[s Certum est; sed nihil de eo constat, quia scriptura non exhibet.—Ibid.]

P Non recipio, quod extra Bcripturam de tuo infers.—c. 7, p . 70.]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 691

against Stephen, concerning the rebaptization of those who returned

to the church from heresy. In that epistle he writes thus :
" Whence is that tradition ? Descends it from the authority of the
L o r d and the gospel, or from the commandments and letters of the
apostles ? That we should do what is written, is what God testifies,
proposing this to Joshua the son of Nave, where he s a y s : ' The book
of this law shall not depart out of t h y mouth, but thou shalt
meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do all
the things which are written therein.' In like manner the L o r d ,
when he sends his apostles, commands that the nations should b e
baptized and taught to observe all things whatsoever he commanded
them." Then he subjoins: " If therefore it is either enjoined in
the gospels, or contained in the apostolic epistles or A c t s , that those
who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only have
hands laid upon them in token of repentance, let this divine and
holy tradition b e observed V In these words we must observe two
t h i n g s : first, that every evangelical and apostolic tradition should
be sought in the Gospels, Acts, or Epistles; secondly, that all
things which cannot be found in these books should be rejected and
despised. Bellarmine replies, in the first place, that Cyprian, when
he wrote this epistle, was in error, and defended that e r r o r ; and
that consequently he reasoned as men in error do. I answer: H e
erred indeed, but he advanced a good argument to support a bad
cause: he was wrong in the minor, not in the major premiss.
F o r thus he reasoned: Things unwritten should not be received.
So far was true. Then he assumed that what Stephen h e l d , —
namely, that those baptized b y heretics should not be rebaptized,—
was not written. N o w this was false: so that it was a g o o d
argument applied to a bad cause. Secondly, Bellarmine says,
that Augustine refutes this epistle, de Baptismo c. Donat. Lib. v.
c. 2 3 . I answer: H e does refute it, and censures it, not on account
of this opinion, but on account of the drift of the epistle, because
p Uncle est ista traditio ? Utrumne de dominica et evangélica aucto-
ritate descendens, an de apostolorum mandatis atque epistolis veniens ? Ea
enim facienda esse quse scripta sunt, Deus testatur, et proponit ad Jesum
Nave, dicens, Non recedet liber legis hujus ex ore tuo, sed meditaberis in eo
die ac nocte, ut observes faceré omnia qua? scripta sunt in eo. Item D o -
minus apostólos suos mittens mandat baptizan gentes et doceri, ut observent
omnia quajcunque ille praecepit. Si ergo aut in evangelio prsecipitur, aut in
apostolorum epistolis aut actibus continetur, ut a quacunque hajresi veni-
entes non baptizentur, sed tantum manus illis imponatur in pcenitentiam, ob-
servetur divina haec et sancta traditio.—p. 2 1 1 , ed. Fell.]
44—2
692 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

Cyprian therein contends that those who were baptized b y heretics

should be rebaptized. T e a , Augustine approves and praises this
opinion of C y p r i a n ' s : for in this same book, c. 26, he says, " This
is excellent which Cyprian hath s a i d , ' Let us return to the fountain-
head."' If Cyprian had done what he himself says ought to have
been done, that is, had entirely betaken himself to the tradition of
canonical scripture, he would never have persisted in this opinion,
or have contended for the repetition of a baptism performed b y
ever so gross a heretic. Bellarmine's argument therefore is a
s o p h i s m — a rum causa ad causam. His third reply is to this
effect: Although Cyprian condemns this tradition, y e t he condemns
not other traditions. I answer : Cyprian condemns not merely one,
but all traditions which cannot be established b y the scriptures of
the evangelists and apostles. And in JEp. 63 ad Ccecilium, he says
that "Christ only should be heard," and none beside; that we
should do what he did and commanded to be d o n e : where he
refers us to the voice of Christ, and that consigned in writing. And
in the same epistle he says that we should take care, that when
Christ comes " he may find us holding what he admonished us of,
observing what he taught, doing what he did." And a little before
he says that we should follow the tradition of the Lord. N o w he
means no other tradition than the scripture, as in the epistle
to Pompeius. Therefore, if we would keep the tradition of the
L o r d , we must always return to the scriptures alone.
I come now to Jerome and Augustine, who alone remain of
those enumerated b y Bellarmine. Our thirteenth testimony, then,
is that of JEROME, Comment, in Tit. i . ; Comment, in Matth. x x i i i . ;
in Aggaeum; in Psalm, l x x x v i . ; and elsewhere. Those which we
have enumerated are the only testimonies of Jerome to which
Bellarmine replies. In the first of them Jerome says : " Gar-
rulity unsupported b y the authority of scripture hath no c r e d i t . " 1

Bellarmine says that this fits us exactly; meaning that garrulous

men obtain no credit with any, unless they seek to confirm their
errors b y scripture. I answer: But in these words traditions
are plainly set aside, and those are pronounced mere talkers, who
maintain anything without authority of scripture; which even
Bellarmine's own interpretation of the passage proves. Would
heretics seem mere talkers, when they teach anything without
scriptural proof, and gain credit with nobody, unless every d o c -
trine required to be confirmed b y the authority of scripture ?
P S i n e auctoritate scripturarum gamilitas fidem non habet.]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 693

The second place from Jerome is contained in his Commentary

on Matth. x x i i i . : " That which hath no authority from scripture
is as easily rejected as a p p r o v e d . " H e speaks of Zacharias who
2

was slain between the temple and the altar, and whom some made
the father of John the Baptist on the authority of tradition. B e l -
larmine replies that he speaks of a particular tradition taken
from some apocryphal book. I answer: Y e t he speaks gene-
rally, that all those things may be easily rejected, which rest not
upon scripture. F o r what, if that tradition was written in an
apocryphal book, does it therefore follow that it ought to b e
rejected? A s if any popish traditions were contained in canonical
books!
Jerome's third testimony is found in his Commentary on H a g -
gai i. T h e words are these : " And other things also, which they
find or invent out of their own heads, as if it were an apostolic
tradition, without the authority and testimony of scripture, the sword
of God strikes t h r o u g h . " B y the sword of God he means the
3

scriptures. Bellarmine replies, that he is dealing with those who

devise something out of their own heads, and would have it thought
apostolical. The same reply is given b y Harding in his book against
the English A p o l o g y . I answer: This testimony pinches and o p -
poses the papists mightily; for they have invented many things
which cannot be established b y the authority of scripture, and which
nevertheless they desire should be esteemed apostolical. And, to
make Jerome's meaning still plainer, he subjoins, that all their
labours, and fastings, and various observances, and lyings on t h e
ground (xaixewias) are here condemned. These things are not
plainly contrary to scripture, and y e t h e says that these a r e
stricken b y the sword of God ! N o w the papists use all these, and
make a great part of piety and religion consist in them. I t is mani-
fest therefore that Jerome condemns all things which cannot be
proved b y plain testimonies of scripture.
The other passage of Jerome is upon Ps. I x x x v i . ; although
Erasmus and others suppose that those commentaries on the Psalms
are not Jerome's, but of some other writer. However, Bellarmine
does not avail himself of that exception,' or deny the authority of

[ 2
H o c quia d e scripturis n o n h a b e t auctoritatem, c a d e m facilitate c o n -
temnitur, qua p r o b a t u r . — T . i x . p . 57. Francof. 1684.]
[ 3
S e d e t alia, quae absque auctoritate e t testimoniis scripturarum quasi
traditione apostolica s p o n t e reperiunt atque confingunt, percutit gladius
D e i . — T . vi. p . 184.]
694 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

this piece. Thus then writes Jerome in that p l a c e : " M a r k what he

s a y s : ' Those who were,' not those who are: so as that, with the
exception of the apostles, whatever else m a y be said afterwards, is
cut off and deprived of authority. Although therefore a man b e
holy after the apostles, although he be eloquent, he hath no autho-
rity, because, ' T h e L o r d relates in the scripture of the people, and
of those princes who were in h e r . " 1
Bellarmine replies, that those
things are rejected which are contrary and repugnant to the scrip-
tures, and nothing else. I answer: T h e words of the psalm which
Jerome treats of are t h e s e : " T h e L o r d shall relate in the scripture
of the people and of those princes who were in h e r . " But how,
says Jerome, will he r e l a t e ? N o t b y word of mouth, but in
scripture. Therefore e v e r y unwritten word must be amputated and
cut off. But Bellarmine hath omitted these words, because they
make against himself. But, says Jerome, w h y is scripture called
the scripture of the people ? Because it is read by all people, that
all may understand it. W h y of the princes ? Because the apostles
and evangelists, the princes of the church, wrote these things.
A n d he says, " T h e y were," not they are, to shew that nothing
can n o w be added.
I come now to AUGUSTINE, from whom our divines allege many
testimonies. De Doctr. Christ. Lib. n. c. 9 , he writes thus:
" Amongst those things which are plainly set down in scripture
are found all those which contain faith and manners, that is, hope
and c h a r i t y . "
2
Bellarmine replies, that Augustine speaks of those
things which are simply necessary to all. I answer: W e have
already discussed this. Indeed it is a mere and a miserable subter-
fuge ; for Augustine speaks of those doctrines which are necessary
not only for all, but for e v e r y one. H e says, in the beginning of
this v e r y c h a p t e r : " I n all these books those who fear G o d , and

[} Videte quid dicat: Qui fuerunt, non qui sunt: ut, exceptis apostolis,
quodcunque aliud postea dicetur, abscindatur, non habeat postea auctorita-
tem. Quamvis ergo sanetus sit aliquis post apostólos, quamvis disertus sit,
non habet auctoritatem: quoniam Dominus narrat in scriptura populorum
et principum horum, qui fuerunt in e a . — T . vni. p. 163.
The quotation is from Ps. lxxxvii. 6, according to the Vulgate, follow-
ing the Seventy: Kvptos Sury^o-erai iv ypa<pfj XacSv KOÍ apxóvrmv TOVTCOV TOIV
yeyevr/pevav iv air§. They seem to have brought up D'HíiH from v. 7, and
• T :
to have read it D'Htt'V]
[ In iis enim quae aperte in scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur ilia omnia quss
2

continent fidem moresque vivendi, spem scilicet atque caritatem.—T. in. p. 12.]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 695

are endued with the meekness of piety, seek the will of G o d . " 3

A n d , to enable us the better to seek the will of God, he delivers

two r u l e s : the first is, to know, read, and even commit to me-
mory the canonical b o o k s ; the second, to investigate those things
which are plainly expressed in them. Then he subjoins these
w o r d s : " F o r amongst those things which are plainly set down in
scripture are found all those which contain faith and manners, that
is, hope and charity." However, it is no despicable concession on
Beilarmine's part, that he confesses all dogmas simply necessary
for all to be contained in scripture: from which we may gather,
that no traditions are simply necessary for all persons. But A u -
gustine plainly concedes, that whatever things simply contain faith
and morals, are perspicuously delivered in the scriptures. Now,
how impious and repugnant to sound theology is it to maintain that
some things are simply necessary to all for salvation, and some not
to a l l ! A s if the faith of prelates were one thing, and the faith
of the people another! T o the same effect is what Augustine, de
peccat. Merit, et Remiss. Lib. 11. c. u l t . : " I believe that upon this
subject also the authority of the divine oracles would be abundantly
clear, if a man could not be ignorant of it without the loss of the
promised salvation ." W h e r e he affirms that those things, whereof
4

we cannot be ignorant without the loss of our salvation, are plainly

found in scripture. H e is speaking of a very difficult question,
how we can prove that God is not the author of the guilt of sin, if
the soul be not ex traduce. F r o m this place of Augustine I draw
two inferences: one, that in every obscure question between us
and the papists, or any other adversaries who discourse upon
religion, we should suspend our assent unless the point b e esta-
blished b y certain and clear testimonies of scripture; (for so says
Augustine in the words immediately preceding: " W h e r e the dis-
pute is about a matter of great obscurity, and clear and certain
instruction is not lent us b y the holy scriptures, human presumption
should restrain itself and lie still, inclining to neither s i d e : " hence
5

[ In his omnibus libris timentes Deum et pietate mansueti quserunt

3

voluntatem Dei.]
[* Illud tamen credo, quod etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum clarissima
auctoritas esset, si homo illud sine dispendio promissse salutis ignorare non
posset.—T. VII. p. 304.]
[ Ubi de re obscurissima disputatur, non adjuvantibus divinarum scrip-
s

turarum claris certisque documentis, cohibere se debet humana praesumptio,

nihil faciens, in partem alteram declinando.—Ibid.]
696 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

it follows as a corollary, that all things must be proved b y scrip-

ture :) the other, that there are plain testimonies in scripture to all
those things which we cannot be ignorant of without peril of our
salvation. Farewell then traditions, as things no way necessary to
salvation! Another passage of Augustine is, contra Lit. Petil. Lib.
HI. c. 6, where he writes thus : " Therefore, if there be a question
concerning Christ, or his church, or any other matter appertaining
to our faith or practice, I say not if w e — w h o are b y no means
comparable to him who said, ' T h o u g h w e , ' — b u t I do say certainly
what he goes on to s u b j o i n — ' or an angel from heaven, preach any
thing to y o u beside what y e have received in the scriptures of the
law and the gospel, let him be a c c u r s e d ' . " Bellarmine replies: 1

" I have shewn already that the word beside is equivalent to op-
posed to." I answer : And I have shewn already, that all dogmas
which rest not on the scriptures of the law and the gospel are here
condemned.
Our divines produce besides other testimonies from Augustine,
as Civit. Dei. Lib. xix. c. 1 8 , where he writes t h u s : " The city
of God believes also in the holy scriptures, as well the old as
the new, which we style canonical; whence that faith is conceived
b y which the just man lives, b y which we walk without doubting
so long as we sojourn absent from the Lord, and which faith
remaining safe and certain, we may doubt, without incurring just
censure, about some things which we perceive neither b y sense
nor reason, which are not revealed to us b y the canonical scrip-
tures, nor have come to our knowledge upon the testimony of
witnesses whose credit it would be absurd to question ." T h e y 2

produce, moreover, many more testimonies, as from Tract. 2. in Ep.

Joann., Epist. 1 6 3 , de Pastor, c. 1 4 , de Confess. Lib. vi. c. 5.
T o all these testimonies Bellarmine replies, that nothing is therein

f 1
P r o i n d e sive d e Christo, sive d e ejus ecclesia, sive d e q u a c u n q u e alia
re quae pertinet a d fldem v i t a m q u e n o s t r a m , n o n d i c a m si n o s , n e q u a q u a m
c o m p a r a n d i ei qui dixit, L i c e t si n o s , sed o m n i n o q u o d sequutus adjecit, si
A n g e l u s d e ccelo vobis annunciaverit praeterquam q u o d in scripturis legalibus
et evangelicis accepistis, a n a t h e m a s i t . — T . i x . p. 3 0 1 . ]
[ 2
Credit etiam scripturis Sanctis, et veteribus et novis, quas canonicas
a p p e l l a m u s , u n d e fides ipsa c o n c e p t a est, ex qua Justus vivit, p e r q u a m sine
dubitatione a m b u l a m u s , q u a m d i u p e r e g r i n a m u r a D o m i n o , q u a salva a t q u e
certa d e quibusdam rebus, quas neque sensu neque ratione percipimus,
n e q u e nobis p e r c a n o n i c a m scripturam claruerunt, n e c p e r testes quibus n o n
credere a b s u r d u m est, in nostram n o t i t i a m p e r v e n e r u n t , sine j u s t a r e p r e -
hensione d u b i t a m u s . ]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 697

said against traditions; but that Augustine merely affirms, that

where scriptural evidences can be had for the confirmation of doc-
trines, we should use them rather than others. Surely a. noble
answer! T h e scriptures are to be produced when they can be
produced! It is indeed thus that the papists act in defence of
their cause. W h e n they have scripture (which seldom happens),
they produce it. But what must be done when the testimony of
scripture cannot be p r o d u c e d ? W h y , forsooth, according to this
reply, we need not feel much more care or solicitude what testi-
monies we use. But Augustine desires that in every case testi-
monies should be adduced from scripture, as appears plainly from
the passages themselves, which we shall set forth every one, to
manifest the futility and falsehood of this reply.
In the first, that taken from the City of God, Lib. x i x . c. 1 8 ,
he says that the church of God believes in the books of the old and
new Testaments, " b y which that faith whereby the just man lives
is engendered." T h e y therefore seek some new faith, who seek
anything beside the scripture, forasmuch as this is the faith which
all Christians hold who are Christians in reality as well as in
profession.
In the second testimony, taken from the second Tractate on
the Epistles of John, he says, that " God designed to lay a foun-
dation against insidious errors in the scriptures, against which no
man dares to speak who desires to seem a Christian in any sense."
The end of scripture, therefore, is to defend us against errors.
In the third testimony, taken from Epist. 1 6 3 , he says that
the canonical books ought to be beside us, " from which, in prefer-
ence to all others, if any evidence can be alleged on either side,
the matter may be examined to the end."
In his book de Pastoribus, c. 14, (from which the fourth tes-
timony is taken), he writes thus: " R e a d me this from the prophets,
or from the Psalms; quote it from the law, quote it from the gos-
pel, quote it from an apostle. From these sources I can quote the
fact of the church diffused over the whole world, and the L o r d
saying, ' M y sheep hear my voice, and follow m e ' . " A n d a little 3

after he s a y s : " A w a y with human writings! let us hear God's

words." That divine voice, then, which the sheep of Christ hear,

[ 3
L e g e h o c m i h i d e p r o p h e t a , l e g e d e P s a l m o , recita d e l e g e , recita d e
evangelio, recita d e apostolo. I n d e e g o recito ecclesiam toto orbe diffusam,
et Dominum dicentem, Qua? sunt oves mea? v o c e m meam audiunt et
sequuntur m e . . . A u f e r a n t u r charta? h u m a n a ? ; sonent voces d i v i n a ? . — T . i x . ]
698 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

sounds in the scriptures, and unwritten traditions deserve no esteem

from his flock.
I n his Confessions, L i b . vi. c. 5, he says, that he was drawn
away from the Manichees b y this conviction, amongst others, that
h e had begun to believe that G o d would never have given the
scripture so eminent an authority throughout all lands, unless he
had meant it to be the means whereby w e should believe in him,
and seek him.
Another passage of Augustine cited b y Bellarmine is from his
b o o k de bono Viduitatis, c. 1, and is as f o l l o w s : " T h e holy
scripture hath fixed the rule of our doctrine, that we m a y not
presume to b e wise b e y o n d what is meet, but may b e wise (as
the apostle says) unto sobriety, according as G o d hath dealt to
e v e r y man the measure of faith. L e t me not then consider that
in teaching y o u I am doing anything more than expounding the
great Teacher's words, and discoursing of what he hath g i v e n . " 1

Bellarmine maintains that Augustine speaks only of one single

d o g m a , — n a m e l y , that of the profession of widowhood. I answer :
Augustine's expressions are general, laying down that holy scrip-
ture fixes for us the rule of doctrine in reference to all sound
dogmas. H e says not that it hath fixed the rule of this or that
dogma, but of our doctrine, lest we presume to be wise above
what is meet. This, says Bellarmine, is spoken against those who
feign anything out of their own heads. But Augustine says that
the rule of doctrine is fixed in scripture : therefore, if w e teach
anything that is not laid down in scripture, whether of our own
invention or otherwise, it is foreign from the rule of doctrine.
Another passage of Augustine is contained in his treatise C.
Max. Avian. Lib. in. c. 1 4 . T h e words are t h e s e : " N e i t h e r should
I allege the council of Nice, nor y o u that of Rimini, as if w e would
prejudge the question. Y o u are not bound b y the authority of the
one, nor I b y that of the other. W i t h authorities from the scrip-
tures, evidence not peculiar to either but common to both, let us
compare matter with matter, cause with cause, reason with r e a s o n . " 2

]} Sancta scriptura nostra? doctrina? regulam figit, ne audeamus sapere

plus quani oportet sapere, sed sapiamus, (ut ipse ait) ad temperantiam, sicut
unicuique Deus partitus est mensuram fldei. Non sit ergo mihi aliud te
docere, nisi verba tibi Doctoris exponere, et de iis, quod Dominus dederit,
disputare.]
[ Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum, nec tu debes Ariminense, tanquam prse-
2

judicaturus proferre concilium. Nec ego hujus auctoritate, nec tu illius

XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 699

Bellarmine replies, that these words may seem to make something

against the authority of councils, but not against traditions. I an-
swer : W h e n Augustine appeals from councils to the scriptures, he
certainly much more rejects traditions; because the authority of
councils ranks next after that of scripture. And if (as the papists
pretend) traditions have an equal authority with scripture, then
Augustine would have mentioned them, and said, " with authorities
from scripture and tradition." F o r so Augustine frequently rejects
all other standards, and requires scripture to be produced. In
his commentary on Psalm lvii. Augustine writes t h u s : " A w a y with
our writings! L e t the B o o k of G o d come f o r t h : hear Christ
teaching: hear Truth s p e a k i n g " — w h e r e he counts everything
8

but scripture to be the voice of man. There are similar expres-

sions in his b o o k de Unitate JEcclesice, capp. 3, 6, 10, 1 6 , 2 0 ; and
another passage, de Merit, et Remiss. Pecc. Lib. II. c. ult. which
hath been already cited. These are the testimonies, the force of
which our opponent seeks to elude.
W e might easily produce many more, as well from Augustine as
from others; and therefore Bellarmine's first remark is of no weight
against u s : for he says, in the first place, that he hath cited twice
as many testimonies for traditions as we bring against them. I
a n s w e r : Firstly, the victory rests not with the multitude and num-
ber, but with the truth of testimonies. W e read that a thousand
men have been often routed b y a hundred. Secondly, I say that
w e also could bring twice as many testimonies as he hath produced.
In the second place, Bellarmine observes that the testimonies on their
side expressly teach that traditions ought to be received; while ours
do not teach that they should be rejected expressly, but only b y
wrong consequences which we draw from them. I a n s w e r : I con-
fess that the fathers often mention traditions, but these four things
are to be noted in their testimonies : first, that the name of tradi-
tion sometimes denotes written doctrine, and some article depending
on the sure testimony of scripture: secondly, that those traditions
mentioned b y the fathers are generally free customs, and not neces-
sary dogmas: thirdly, that the fathers themselves were often
d e c e i v e d : (this, perhaps, may seem reproachful to the fathers; but

d e t i n e r i s : scripturarum auctoritatibus, n o n q u o r u m q u o propriis, sod utrisque

c o m m u n i b u s testibus, res c u m r e , causa c u m causa, ratio c u m ratione c o n -
certet.—T. vi. p. 306.]
[ 3
A u f e r a n t u r d e m e d i o chartas nostra?; p r o c e d a t in m e d i u m c o d e x D e i ;
audi Christum d o c e n t e m , audi veritatem l o q u e n t e m . ]
700 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

the matter of fact is manifest, inasmuch as they differ among them­

selves :) fourthly, that many of the traditions mentioned b y the
fathers are now abrogated b y the papists themselves. Some of
these four observations will suffice to obviate every one of the testi­
monies from the fathers. Finally, Bellarmine remarks, that we
concede that tradition is defended b y the fathers, while they do not
concede that it was opposed b y them. I answer: W e concede that
traditions were defended b y the fathers, but in the sense already
explained: and his assertion, that the fathers do not oppose tradi­
tions, is false; for they who say that the scriptures are perfect
and sufficient, and that all religious doctrines should be drawn from
the scriptures, do really reject traditions.
However, since he taunts us with the paucity of testimonies, I
am disposed to proceed a little further, and accumulate additional
evidence. Origen, in R o m . xvi. 1. 1 0 , writes thus: " Behold, how
those men stand upon the brink of peril, who neglect to exercise
themselves in holy scripture, from which a l o n e " — s o he p r o c e e d s —
" t h e discernment of this examination can be l e a r n e d . " Chryso­ 1

stom, Horn. 5 8 , on the beginning of John x. writes thus : " H e

justly calls the scriptures the door, because they lead us to, God,
and disclose to us the knowledge of him. T h e y make us his sheep,
they guard us, and permit not the irruption of the wolves. For,
like a gate of exceeding strength, they repel heretics, place us in
safety, and suffer us not to wander as we please." Then he sub­
joins : " H e who does not use the holy scripture, but climbeth up
some other way, the same is a thief ." Surely, there is a noble
2

encomium upon scripture in this passage. H e says that it is the

door of the knowledge of G o d ; that it makes us of the flock and
keeps us s o ; that we are directed b y it so as not to fall into error;
that it protects us from heretics and repels them; lastly, that those
who climb up some other w a y , — t h a t is, who use any other

\} Vide quam proximi periculis fiant hi, qui exerceri in divinis literis
negligunt, ex quibus solis hujusmodi examinationis agnoseenda discretio
est.—Origen. Opp. P. n. p. 4 1 2 , G. Paris. 1604.] 4

[2 elKoras fie Bipav rds ypa<pds eVcdXeerev. avrai yap ypds irpo<rdyov(ri T<3
©e<S Ka\ TTJV 6eoyvtno~iav dvoiyovctP' avrai Trpofiara TTOIOVO­IV' адтас obvkdrrovaiv,
ка\ rovs XVKOVS OVK aqbidaiv eVetcreXc9efV кавалер yap ris 6vpa асгфаА^г, OVTCH S

dnoKXeiei rots alperiKots rrjv e'lo-odov, tv do-qbaXelq кавнттакта ypds rrepl av av

ftovXdpeBa irdvrwv, Kai OVK ешсга тгХауаагва1 о yap рг/ Tats ypa<pats XP^~
pevos, аХХа dvafialvav аХХа^обе!», rovreo-Tiv, irepav iavra ка\ pf/ vevopio-pe-
vr)v repvav6t)ov, OSTOJ /tXeiTTi/r eVriV.—Chrysostom. Comment. Т. n. p. 371.
Paris. 1633.]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 701

evidence—are thieves. W h a t then, I beseech you, are the

papists ? The same father, Horn. 9. on the Colossians, says : " Wait
not for another master. Thou hast the oracles of God. None can
teach thee like them." A n d , a little a f t e r : " Ignorance of scrip-
ture is the source of all e v i l s . " W h e r e then are those who refuse
3

to be satisfied with scripture, when Chrysostom bids us expect no

other master ? whereby he indicates pretty plainly, that all neces-
sary things are found in scripture. Jerome, at the end of his
epistle to Ctesiphon, writes t h u s : " I have not time at present to
write about the rest, and it was a letter you asked of me and not a
b o o k ; which must be dictated at leisure, and wherein all the calum-
nies of these men shall be, with Christ's help, refuted: and this
cause must be asserted b y the testimonies of holy scripture,
wherein God speaks daily to believers ." F r o m which words I
4

gather two conclusions: first, that all things which any doctor
asserts must be brought to the test of scripture; secondly, that
God speaks still in the scriptures. The same father, in his com-
mentary on Micah i., says, that the church hath " the cities of the
law, of the prophets, of the gospel, and of the apostles, and hath
not gone b e y o n d its boundaries, which are the holy scriptures. ' 1

Here he writes expressly, that the church is circumscribed b y the

bounds of scripture, and not permitted to transgress them.
Ambrose, Comment, in Luc. xvi., explaining the words of the
woman of Canaan to Christ, " Truth, L o r d ; y e t the dogs eat of the
crumbs that fall from their masters' table," writes t h u s : " These are
crumbs of that b r e a d ; and since that bread is the word, and faith
is exercised upon the word, the doctrines of faith are as it were
c r u m b s . " N o w , lest any one should explain this of the unwritten
5

word, Aquinas, in his Catena Aurea, upon these words, adopting

the very same allegory, says that the table figuratively denotes
the holy scripture, and the crumbs the least precepts or internal

[ pr)8e irtpipeluris erepov SiSacrKaKov ?x«r ra \6yia TOV Oeov- ob8c-ls ere
3

StfidcrKei as eKtiva.. .. TOVTO ndurav a'lriov T&IV KaKcov, TO pr) eldevat rds ypa-
<pis T . VI. p . 2 2 4 . ]
[ 4
D e ceteris n o n est hujus temporis s c r i b e r e ; n e q u e e n i m a m e l i b r u m
sed epistolam flagitasti, qui dictandus est ex otio, et omnes oblatrationes
e o r u m Christi auxilio destruenda?, q u o d nobis s a n c t a r u m scripturarum testi-
moniis asserendum est, in quibus quotidie credentibus loquitur Deus.—
H i e r o n . O p p . T . I. coll. 1 0 3 5 , 6. V e r o n a ? . 1 7 3 4 . ]
[5 Mica? ista? d e illo p a n e sunt, et quia panis v e r b u m est, et fides v e r b i
est, mica? velut qua?dam d o g m a t a fidei s u n t . — E x p o s i t . in L u c . L i b . v m . }.
1 5 . T . v. p . 3 5 1 . Paris. 1 8 3 8 . ]
702 T H E FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.

mysteries, on which the holy church f e e d s ; and that the dogs are
the faithful. T h e sense therefore is, that the faithful are fed b y
the precepts of faith, but only such as fall from the table of the
L o r d , that is, are taken from the holy scriptures. Consequently,
the faithful feed only on those doctrines which are delivered in the
word of God, that is, in scripture. T h e same Ambrose, De Fide,
ad Gratian. L i b . i. c. 6, writes as follows : " I would not have
your sacred majesty trust mere argument, or any reasoning of
mine. L e t us ask the scriptures, let us ask the apostles, let us
ask the prophets, let us ask C h r i s t . " 1

Augustine, Epist. 1 1 2 , writes thus : " If it be confirmed b y the

clear authority of the scriptures of God, (those, I mean, which are
called canonical in the church,) it should be believed without any
doubt. But y o u may repose greater or less faith in all other wit-
nesses or testimonies, which are urged as persuasions to belief, in
proportion as we find them to have or to want the weight which
is proper to produce belief ." 2
Thus Augustine : In which words he
teaches us that the authority of scripture is singular in its kind, so
as that whatever is b y it confirmed must be immediately r e c e i v e d ;
but that all other witnesses and testimonies are destitute of such an
authority, requiring to be examined, and to have just so much credit
assigned to them as we find upon examination to be their due.
Absolutely false, then, is the assertion of our adversaries, that
the authority of scripture and tradition is the same; since we must
believe scripture without any hesitation, while all other testimonies,
of what kind soever, must be diligently weighed and examined.
T h e same author elsewhere, De Natura et Gratia, c. 9 1 , writes
t h u s : " I owe an absolute assent only to the canonical scriptures ." 3

W h a t value, may I ask, did this father set upon traditions, when he
declared that he owed an absolute assent to nothing but the canoni-
cal scriptures ?
Vincentius Lirinensis, an ancient author in whose b o o k the
papists have great confidence, speaks thus : c. 4 1 , " T h e canon
f 1
S e d nolo argumento credas, sánete imperator, et nostras disputationi:
Bcripturas interrogemus, interrogemus apostólos, interrogemus prophetas,
interrogemus C h r i s t u m . — T . v i . p p . 1 5 , 1 6 . ]
[ 2
S i divinarum scripturarum, earum scilicet quae canonicae in ecclesia
nominantur, perspicua firmatur auctoritate, sine ulla dubitatione credendum
est. A l u s vero testibus vel testimoniis, quibus aliquid credendum esse sua-
detur, tibi credere vel non credere liceat, quantum ea momenti a d faciendam
fidem vel habere vel non habere p e r p e n d e r i s . — P a r i s . 1 6 3 5 . ]
[ 3
Quia solis canonicis debeo sine recusatione c o n s e n s u m . — T . v n . p. 3 2 2 . ]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 703

of scripture alone is self­sufficient for a l l . " Still more plainly,

4

c. 2 : " The canon of scripture alone is sufficient, and more than suf­
ficient for all t h i n g s . " I do not see how he could have spoken more
5

plainly: he says that the canon of scripture is sufficient, and more

than sufficient; sufficient for all things, and sufficient alone. Theodo­
ret, Dialog. 2. c. H ceret., speaks t h u s : " I dare not say any thing
upon which scripture is silent ." Those, therefore, are presumptuous,
6

who say any thing beside the scripture. Damascene, de Fide Ortho­
doxa, с. 1, writes t h u s : " W e receive, acknowledge, honour and
approve all things delivered b y the law, the prophets, the apostles,
and the evangelists;" then he subjoins, " seeking nothing else beside
theseV T h e same author, Lib. i v . c. 1 8 , writes t h u s : " L i k e a
tree planted b y the streams of water, so the soul, irrigated b y the
holy scripture, is enriched, and brings forth seasonable fruit, even
orthodox faith, and is adorned with foliage ever green, that is, with
works well pleasing to God. F o r we become apt for zealous work
and pure contemplation b y the scriptures; since we find in them
what encourages us to all virtue and turns us from all v i c e . " 8

H u g o de Sancto Victore, Prol. in Lib. i. de Sacr, с. I , compares 9

Christ to a king who walks, as princes use, between his attendants,

the sacraments of the old and new Testaments: he says that the
matter of scripture is works of restoration, and that the works of
restoration are the incarnation of the W o r d with all its sacraments.
Wherein he expressly testifies that all the sacraments are contained
in scripture, in opposition to the papists who derive some sacra­
ments from tradition. In the same book, c. 7, he says that the
sayings of the fathers are not reckoned part of the body of the
text, and that they add nothing to the scripture, but only explain

[ 4
Solus scriptures canon sibi ad universa sufficit.]
[ e
Solus canon scriptui­ээ ad omnia satis superque sufficit.]
[ 6
0P90. 'Еуш pev OVK dv фащу avdpamlvois rreiBopeuos Xoyicrpots. oil yap
ovras dpi Bpaais иот« фате TI o~eo-iyr)pivov пара тд Belt} урафу.—Theo­
doret. Dialog. Tiguri. 1 5 9 3 , p. 1 0 7 . ]
[ 7
iravra Toivvv та rrapadedopeva rjpbi bid те vopov ка\ тгрофутши ка\ drroo-то-
\a>v ка\ evayyeXio-Twv Ье^орева кал yivao-Kopev ка\ се/Зореи, oiBev irepaiTepa
TOVTCOV Im&jTovvTes.—Damascen. Opp. T. i. p. 1 2 3 . Paris. 1 7 1 2 . ]
[ 8
юо-тгер yap SevSpov пара таг bie^obovs T£V iSaruJV тгефутеьрероу, OVT<O Kai
77 tyv)(ri, TJj Beta dpbevopevr) урафу maiverai ка\ Kapitov apipov dlBao-i, TTIO­TIV
opBobo^ov, Kai deiBaKeari Tois фбХКои, Tais Beapearois фг]р\ cipai£erai irpd^ecri.
— C . 1 7 , p. 2 8 2 . ]
[ 9
Dirina scriptura materiam habet opera restaurationis.—Opp. T. m.
Mogunt. 1 6 1 7 . ]
704 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH. XVII.

more clearly, and handle more largely, what is contained in scrip-

ture. H e teaches us, therefore, not to seek in the fathers any
thing else but what is in scripture, because they only interpret
scripture, not add to it any thing of their own. Scotus, in
his Prologue to Lombard, says that " Scripture contains suffici-
ently the doctrine necessary for a Christian in this l i f e . " 1
So
Thomas, Comment, in 2 Tim. iii., says that the scriptures make the
man of God perfect. Antoninus, Summa, P. in. Tit. 18, c. 8 : " T h e
suitable matter of preaching is the holy scripture. For God
speaketh once, says J o b , xxii. and it is in the sacred scripture
that God s p e a k s : and that so copiously (as G r e g o r y explains it,
Moral. 2 2 ) , as that he needs not say any thing necessary a second
time, since all things are therein contained ." 2
Driedo, De Catal.
Lib. i. c. 1, says that scripture is called an instrument, because it
instructs man what he should believe, hope, and d o . 3

Thus have we come to the close of this controversy, and sup-

pose that, in what hath been said, we have sufficiently explained
that sentence of scripture which we laid down at the commencement
as our text. Hitherto we have refuted those errors of the papists
which relate to the prophetic office of Christ. Those follow, in the
next place, which regard his royal functions.

P Qujestio ii. p. 40, inter Scoti Opp. T. nr. p. 1. Lugdun. 1639. Scotus
proposes the question, TJtrum cognitio supernaturalis necessaria viatori sit
sufficienter tradita in sacra scriptura? and resolves it in the affirmative.]
[ Materia congrua prajdicationis est sacra scriptura.
2
Semel enim loqui-
tur Deus (inquit Job. xxii.); loquitur autem Deus in scriptura sacra, et ita
copiose, ut Gregorius exponit 22 Moral., quod non oportet Deum iterum
loqui aliquid nobis necessarium, cum ibi omnia habeantur.—Antoninus,
Summa Summarum, P. m . Lugdun. 1639.]
[3 Earundem scripturarum canonem eruditissimi viri instrumentum vo-
cant, quia illic instruitur quisque pro sua salute, quid credere, quid sperare,
quid agere debeat.—Dried. Opp. fol. 2. Lovan. 1500.]
 TO THE CHRISTIAN READER.

IF ever any heretics have impiously outraged the holy scrip-

ture of God, we may justly rank the papists of our time with this
class of men, who pervert things the most sacred. For, not to men-
tion how insultingly most of them speak, and how meanly they
think, of the scriptures, and to pass b y at present the insane slan-
ders of certain of them, (because I would not hurt your pious ears
with the foul speeches these men have uttered,) there are especially
six opinions concerning scripture which they now hold and obstinately
defend, that are eminently absurd, heretical, and sacrilegious.
T h e first concerns the number of canonical and truly inspired
books of scripture; since, not content with those which in the old
Testament were published b y the prophets, in the new b y the
apostles and evangelists—the chosen organs of the Spirit, they
add to this fair and perfect b o d y of canonical scripture, not only
the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, but even the
history of the Maccabees, the apocryphal stories of Susanna and
Bel and the Dragon, and fragments of Esther, than which nothing
more spurious can be imagined.
T h e second is, their placing the authentic scripture in the old
Latin translation, which they call the Vulgate, and not in the
sacred Hebrew and Greek originals: which is not merely, as
Glaucus with D i o m e d e , to exchange gold for brass, but to prefer
4

the work of man to that of God. W h o can doubt that Glaucus

was a wise man compared with these ? Brasen arms are as fit for
all warlike purposes as g o l d e n ; but who would not choose to learn
true religion from the words of the H o l y Ghost rather than from
those of a translator—especially such a translator, and draw the
water which he drinks from a spring, and not a cistern ? Besides,
in forbidding the people to read the scriptures, and performing
their service in a strange language, they plainly take away all
mutual converse of God with the people, and the people with God,
and interrupt the intercourse and communion of the Deity with
man.

[ 4
Iliad, vi. 234—236.]

r 1 4 5

[WHITAKER.]
70G TO THE CHRISTIAN READER.

The third is, their determining that the authority of scripture

depends upon the voice and testimony of the church, and their
teaching that the scripture is no scripture to us except on account
of the sentence of the c h u r c h ; which is just the same as Tertulhan
formerly so wittily charged upon the heathen, Apol. c. 5 : " W i t h
y o u divinity depends on human choice. G o d is no God, unless it
so pleases man. Man must now be kind to G o d . " It is abso- 1

lutely thus that the papists maintain, that the scriptures would b e
no scriptures to us, if the church did not give them their authority,
and approve them b y her judgment.
T h e fourth is, their complaining of the incredible obscurity
of the scriptures, not for the purpose of rousing men to diligence in
studying and perusing them, but to bring the scriptures into hatred
and subject them to wicked suspicions: as if God had published
his scriptures as Aristotle did his books of Physics, for no one to
understand. " Know that they are published, and y e t not p u b -
lished; for they are only intelligible to those who have heard
myself ." 2

The fifth is their refusal to have controversies decided b y

scripture, or to allow scripture to be its own interpreter, making
the pope of P o m e the sole j u d g e of controversies and interpreter
of scripture: as if scripture were of no force without the pope,
could hold no sense but what it received from the pope, nor even
speak but what the pope saw g o o d ; or as if G o d did not speak to
us, but only b y the pope as his interpreter.
The sixth is, their asserting the doctrine of scripture, which is
most full and absolutely perfect, to be incomplete; and therefore
not only joining innumerable unwritten traditions, whereof there
was no mention in the bible, with scripture, but even setting them
on a level with scripture in dignity, utility, authority, credit, and
necessity : wherein they fall under the weight of just so many
anathemas from Christ as the traditions are which they add to
scripture. W h o can adequately conceive the greatness of this
insult, that these rotten popish traditions, whereof there is not one
syllable in scripture, should be counted equal to the scriptures ?

\} Apud vos de humano arbitrate divinitas pensitatur. Nisi homini Deus

placucrit, Dcus non crit: homo jam Doo propitius esse debebit.—T. I. p. 62.
Lips. 1839.]
[2
"<T8L . . . . avrovs Kal eVScSo/xei/ovr (cat fuj cKSedo/ievovs- £VVCTO\ yap elcri
pavois TOU rjn<Sv aKola-atriv.—Aristot. ad Alex. ap. Aul. Gcll. Noct. Attic.
L. xx. c. 5.]
 TO THE CHRISTIAN READER. 707

These monstrous errors of the papists, courteous reader, we

refute in this book, not only b y arguments and testimonies drawn
from scripture, but also b y those other proofs in which our adver-
saries principally confide; nor do we produce merely the ancient
fathers of the church as witnesses on our side, but also the school-
men and classic authors of the papists, who though, as the apostle
says, they " held the truth in unrighteousness," yet left it not with-
out witness.

W e publish this controversy b y itself (though we mean not to

follow the same course with the rest), and that for very great and
satisfactory reasons. T h e style is that which was used in delivering
them orally, scholastic and concise, suitable not for expansion
(which was little suited to our design), but for argument. T h e y are
published as they were taken down b y some of m y constant and
attentive auditors, and have been afterwards reviewed b y myself.

FAREWELL.

45—2
 INDEX.

A. Josephus, & c , 5 6 - 6 1 ; not cited by

ADAMITES, 229. Christ or his apostles, 51.
./Etiological sense of scripture, 403. Apollinaris, supposed by Valla to have
Albigenses, 31. forged the books which go under the
Alfred, ordered the Psalms to be translated name of Dionysius Areopagita, 5 7 6 ; his
into Saxon, 222. testimony to the perfection of scripture,
Allegoric sense of scripture, 405. 688.
Alogi, 34. Apollmarius, included Psalm cli. in his me-
Ambrose, St, his opinion of the perspicuity taphrase, 104.
of scripture, 3 9 8 ; his testimony to the Apollonius, attributes the introduction of
authority of scripture, 357, 7 0 2 ; another, stated fasts to Montanus, 665.
the friend of Origen, 124. Apostles, did not write without a divine
Anabaptists, reject the Song of Solomon, command, or on slight occasions, 5 2 7 ;
3 2 ; said to ridicule the book of Job, 3 3 ; to be considered under a twofold aspect,
to deny the scripture, 2 9 8 ; refuted out 3 1 1 ; how succeeded by bishops, 417, 418.
of scripture, 506. canons of, see Canons; and pro-
Anagoge, 404. phets, Eph. ii. 10, how the foundation of
Andrew, gospel of, 108. the church, 348, 349, 649, & c ; deter-
Anicetus, his behaviour to Polycarp, 217. mined nothing about fasting, C65.
Anthropomorphites, whence their heresy Aquarii, Cyprian's epistle against, 498, 602.
sprang, 2 2 9 ; refuted by Theophilus of Aquila, his version oftheold Testament, 123.
Alexandria, 596. Arians, refuted by the fathers out of scrip-
Apocalypse, whether rejected by the Coun- ture, 481, 534, 563, & c . ; some rejected
cil of taodicea, 5 4 ; interpreted by Justin the Epistle to the Hebrews, 323.
and Irenseus, 391. Aristotle, calls law the canon of the state,
Apocalypse, of Paul, why rejected by the 2 7 ; his opinion of the human under-
church, 3 1 5 ; of Peter, 304. standing, 277 ; obscurity of some of his
Apocryphal books, in what sense sometimes writings, 706.
called canonical, 45, and scripture, 6 9 ; Arnold of Chartres, 27.
of the old Testament were rejected by Asia Minor, the people of, commonly un-
the Jewish church, 5 2 ; never acknow- derstood Greek, 256.
ledged as canonical scripture by the Athanasius, his testimony for traditions
fathers or ecclesiastical writers, even considered, 588; his testimony to the
after the Trullan Synod, 63, 6 6 ; of old sufficiency of scripture, 680.
Testament, allowed such by the papists, Athelatane, ordered the Bible to be trans-
1 0 3 ; of new Testament, 1 0 8 , 1 0 9 ; of the lated into the British language, 222.
first class, what they are, 3 0 5 ; of the Augustine, has refuted the Manichees most
second class, 3 1 2 ; why rejected by the copiously of all ancient writers, 3 1 ; bore
fathers, 313. a part in the third Council of Carthage, 3 9 ;
Augustine's judgment did not consider all the books which he
concerning them considered, 4 5 ; were calls scriptures as of equal authority, 4 5 ;
not written by prophets, 4 9 ; forbidden what he meant by the term canonical,
to be read in churches by the Council of 4 6 ; believed the old Testament to be
Laodicea, 5 4 ; rejected by Melito, Atha- written by prophets, 5 0 , 5 1 ; his opinion
nasius, Hilary, Nazianzene, Cyril of Je- of Samuel's spectre, 9 1 ; concedes that
rusalem, Epiphanius, Kuffinus, Jerome, Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees are not
710 INDEX.

in t h e J e w i s h c a n o n , 9 3 ; does n o t treat Baruch, book of, its c l a i m s t o canonicity

t h e D e c r e t a l E p i s t l e s of t h e p o p e s as h o l y considered, 67-70.
scripture, 1 0 9 ; supposed H e b r e w t o have Basil, his adventure with D e m o s t h e n e s t h e
been t h e primitive language, 1 1 2 , 1 1 3 ; c o o k , 2 3 3 ; h i s a c c o u n t o f faith, 3 5 7 ; a d -
his o p i n i o n o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t , 1 1 9 ; his vises a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e b i s h o p of R o m e ,
o p i n i o n o f t h e o l d I t a l i c , 1 2 8 ; reads ipsa 4 3 9 ; his rules f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g s c r i p t u r e ,
c o r r u p t l y i n G e n . iii. 1 5 , 1 G 4 ; supposed 4 9 1 ; w h a t h e m e a n s b y irapaooaii, 493,
John's first epistle t o b e w r i t t e n t o t h e 498; did n o t deem the perpetual virgin-
Parthians, 2 1 8 ; does n o t say that the ity o f M a r y a n article o f faith, 5 0 2 ; h i s
scriptures w e r e read i n only three l a n - testimony in favour o f traditions c o n s i -
guages, 2 2 0 ; his opinion o f t h e P u n i c dered, 5 8 8 , 5 9 3 ; his testimony to the
l a n g u a g e , 2 2 3 ; his testimony t o t h e u s e sufficiency o f s c r i p t u r e , 6 8 1 .
a n d v a l u e o f v e r n a c u l a r versions o f s c r i p -
Basil, the emperor, 4 3 8 .
t u r e , 2 4 5 ; r e c o g n i s e s t h e necessity o f a n
B e l l a r m i n e , his character, 5 , 6 ; has deserted
i n w a r d teacher, 2 9 0 , 3 5 7 ; says that c o m -
several o l d p o i n t s of defence, 7 ; some-
paratively f e w p r o p h e t s left a n y w r i t i n g s ,
times misrepresents the opinions of p r o -
302; d o e s n o t m a k e t h e w h o l e difference
testants, 9, 5 1 4 ; a n d garbles quotations
b e t i v e e n canonical a n d a p o c r y p h a l w r i t -
from t h e fathers, 3 7 4 ; contradicts him-
ings depend on the judgment of the
self, 1G3, 5 4 0 , 6 7 2 , 0 7 3 ; b o r r o w s ar-
church, 3 0 9 , 3 1 0 , 3 1 5 ; m e a n i n g of his
guments from the o l d heretics, C 1 4 ;
d e c l a r a t i o n , non crederem evangelio, nisi
pronounces a l l t h e histories o f t h e o l d
me catholics ecclesia: commoveret auctori-
T e s t a m e n t u n n e c e s s a r y , COO; h i s s t r a n g e
tas, 3 1 9 , & c . ; h i s reasons f o r t h e partial
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f scripture, 6G8.
o b s c u r i t y o f s c r i p t u r e , 3 6 5 , & c . ; his t e s -
timony t o t h e perspicuity of scripture,
393, &c.; to what church he refers
doubters, 4 4 2 ; did n o t believe that the
C.
rule o f faith contains a n y t h i n g n o t d e - C a j e t a n , cardinal, his j u d g m e n t concerning
livered in scripture, 487 ; his rules for the apocryphal books, 4 8 , 6 6 ; vehemently
interpreting scripture, 4 9 2 - 4 9 5 ; h o w far censured for it b y the popish writers, 4 9 ;
his decision a b o u t apostolical traditions d e e m e d that only sacred scripture w h i c h
m a y b e a d m i t t e d , 5 0 7 ; considers Christ the apostles wrote or approved, 5 3 ; w h a t
as t h e author o f t h e books o f t h e n e w books of the n e w Testament h e rejected,
Testament, 5 2 7 : his r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i n g 1 0 5 ; a d m i t s m a n y faults i n t h e V u l g a t e
spurious A c t s and G o s p e l s , 5 2 3 ; his i g - version, 1 G 9 ; a d m i t s t h a t m a t r i m o n y c a n -
n o r a n c e of t h e reasons of C h r i s t ' s d e s c e n t n o t b e proved a sacrament from E p h . v .
into hell, 5 3 7 ; his exposition o f 2 T h e s s . 32, 197, nor extreme unction from J a m e s
ii. 5 , m i s r e p r e s e n t e d b y S t a p l e t o n , 5 5 3 ; v . 1 5 , 1 9 9 ; dislikes t h e u s e o f L a t i n i n
his t e s t i m o n y i n f a v o u r o f traditions con- t h e m a s s , 2 7 4 ; his r e m a r k s o n D e u t . x v i i .
s i d e r e d , 5 9 4 , & c . ; his t e s t i m o n y t o t h e 12, 4 2 0 ; doubts t h e genuineness of t h e
sufficiency o f s c r i p t u r e , C94, & c . works of Dionysius the Areopagite, 5 7 6 .

Calvin, vindicated, in his objections t o t h e

A u g u s t i n n s Steuchus, 4 9 5 .
V u l g a t e Psalter, against Bellarmine, 1 8 1 ,
Authentic, w h a t t h e w o r d m e a n s , 3 3 2 ; t h e &c.; defended against Stapleton, 3 4 0 ,
Vulgate so declared b y t h e Council of &c.
Trent, 1 1 1 ; in t h e fullest sense, n o v e r -
Canon of scripture, t h e papists cannot
sion can b e , 1 3 8 ; protestants allow only
assign t h e period w h e n i t w a s defined,
t h e originals o f scripture t o b e s u c h , 1 4 0 .
6 3 ; w a s , a c c o r d i n g t o A u g u s t i n e , fixed i n
t h e apostles' times, a n d therefore cannot
B.
b e altered o r increased b y t h e c h u r c h i n
Baptism, of i n f a n t s , m a y be proved from after a g e s , 3 1 0 , 3 1 1 ; p o w e r of fixing, h o w
scripture, 5 0 6 ; and so admitted b y B e l - i n c i d e n t t o t h e a p o s t o l i c office, 3 1 1 ; t h e
larmine, 6 4 0 ; heretical, not to be r e - fathers generally d o n o t attribute t h e
peated, ib. 507 ; Augustine's opinion power of consigning it to the church,
r e s p e c t i n g , G08, 0 0 9 . 323, &c.
 INDEX. 711

C a n o n , m e a n i n g o f that term w h e n applied faithful m a y b e first m o v e d b y t h a t a r g u -

to scripture, 2 7 , 6 6 2 . m e n t , b u t r e s t finally u p o n firmer g r o u n d ,
Canonical books, t w o kinds of, proto- 3 2 2 ; n o n e o f t h e fathers cited b y S t a p l e -
canonical, and deutero-canonical, 4 8 , 4 9 ; t o n really say t h a t t h e r e c e p t i o n of c a n o n -
of old Testament written b y prophets, ical, a n d r e j e c t i o n o f a p o c r y p h a l , w r i t i n g s
4 9 , 5 0 , and approved b y t h e ancient J e w - depends only o n t h e authority of the
ish c h u r c h , 5 2 . c h u r c h , 3 2 3 , & c . ; a u t h o r i t y of, i n r e s p e c t
Canons, o f t h e apostles, a spurious piece, o f u s , d e p e n d s o n s c r i p t u r e , n o t scripture
41 & c , 565-567. o n i t , 3 3 2 , & c . 3 3 8 , & c . ; n o t sufficient of

Castellio, 3 2 . i t s e l f t o raise faith i n s c r i p t u r e , without

Cerdo and Marcion, received only t h e g o s - t h e internal infusion o f t h e S p i r i t , 3 5 5 ;

p e l of L u k e , 3 4 . offices of, w i t h r e s p e c t t o s c r i p t u r e , a l -

Cerdonians, despised the old Testament, lowed by protestants, 2 8 3 , 2 8 4 ; the

31. j u d g m e n t of, is h u m a n , 3 3 8 , n o t d i v i n e

Chaldee, Paraphrasts, 1 1 7 ; language, u n - but in a certain respect, 3 4 2 ; not the

known to Jerome, 8 1 . proper cause o f t h e a u t h e n t i c authority

w h i c h scripture h o l d s w i t h u s , 3 3 4 ; w h a t ,
Chemnitz, his o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e Vulgate
w e profess i n t h e C r e e d t o b e l i e v e i n , 2 9 9 ;
version o f t h e o l d T e s t a m e n t defended
built o n t h e foundation of the prophets
against Bellarmine, 1 6 3 , & c .
a n d a p o s t l e s , w h a t i t p r o v e s , 3 4 8 ; in t h a t
C h r y s o s t o m , vindicates t h e c a n o n i c i t y o f t h e
passage, E p h . ii. 2 0 , m e a n s b o t h people
E p i s t l e t o P h i l e m o n , 3 5 ; affirms t h a t t h e
and pastors, 3 4 9 ; present, t h e p o w e r o f
original of the Septnagint w a s extant in
c o n s i g n i n g t h e c a n o n o f scripture g i v e n
h i s o w n d a y , 1 1 9 ; said t o h a v e translated
to it b y Stapleton, 3 3 0 ; cannot judge
the scriptures i n t o A r m e n i a n , 2 2 2 ; ex-
scripture b u t a c c o r d i n g t o s c r i p t u r e , 3 5 3 .
h o r t e d t h e l a i t y t o r e a d t h e scriptures,
2 3 9 , 2 4 0 , 2 4 7 , & c . ; testifies t o t h e e x - w h a t power of interpreting scrip-
istence of many vernacular versions o f t u r e t h e p a p i s t s claim f o r i t , 4 1 0 — 4 1 5 ;
scripture in his t i m e s , 2 4 5 ; s h e w s that r e s o l v e s itself into t h e p o w e r o f t h e p o p e ,
scripture explains its o w n metaphors, 4 1 2 — 4 1 4 ; w h a t A u g u s t i n e advises u s t o
3 7 9 ; his t e s t i m o n y t o t h e p e r s p i c u i t y o f c o n s u l t in d o u b t f u l questions, 4 4 2 .
scripture, 3 9 5 , & c . ; w h a t he t h o u g h t of what the papists mean by that
Peter's primacy, 4 4 0 ; his testimony to the t e r m , 4 4 8 , 4 4 9 ; universal, n o t a l w a y s t h e
sufficiency of scripture, 7 0 0 . greatest number, or most considerable

Church, a ministerial, not the principal persons, 5 0 4 .

mean of faith i n t h e scriptures, 2 9 9 ; Clemens Alexandrinus, believed that the

bound to receive those writings which old Testament w a s restored by Ezra,
are in themselves divine into t h e c a n o n , 1 1 5 ; that t h e old T e s t a m e n t w a s read b y
and n o others, 3 0 1 , 3 0 5 , & c . ; subject to P l a t o , 1 1 8 ; ascribed the Greek of the
scripture, 3 5 2 ; a n d that, n o t only as t h e Epistle t o the Hebrews to Luke, 1 2 5 ;
term denotes the w h o l e body of the faith- b u t t h e original t o P a u l , 100, 1 0 7 ; as-
ful, b u t t h e pastors also, 3 5 3 ; under what s i g n s reasons f o r t h e partial obscurity o f
conditions always to b e heard, 4 2 6 ; n o t scripture, 3 0 5 ; t h o u g h t that Christ d e -
older than t h e word, n o r , if i t w e r e , o f scended into hades t o preach t h e g o s p e l
higher authority, 3 3 1 , 3 3 2 ; w h a t a u t h o - t h e r e , 5 3 7 ; his t e s t i m o n y t o traditions
rity in r e s p e c t o f scripture a s s i g n e d to i t , c o n s i d e r e d , 5 8 0 ; his e r r o r s , ib.
b y us a n d b y t h e papists, 2 8 0 , & c . ; t h e Romamis, the book of canons
a r g u m e n t s o f t h e p a p i s t s f o r t h e church's ascribed t o h i m , s p u r i o u s , 4 1 — 4 4 , 5 0 5 ,
authority over scripture stated a n d r e - 5G7; also t h a t of C o n s t i t u t i o n s , 507—
futed, 2 8 5 , & c . ; authority of, c a n f o r c e 509.
m e n t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e scriptures, b u t Constantine, 4 3 5 , 436, 6 7 8 .
not persuade them o f their t r u t h , 3 1 7 ; C o u n c i l s , h a v e a t w o f o l d u s e , 4 3 4 ; all r e -
argument drawn from, n o t taken away
ligions have guided themselves by scrip-
by protestants, 3 1 8 ; Augustine's use o f
ture, 4 3 4 , 4 3 5 .
that a r g u m e n t considered, 3 1 9 , & c . ; the
C o u n c i l of C a r t h a g e , T h i r d , w a s m e r e l y p r o -
712 INDEX.

vincial, 3 9 ; n o t received, i n all its decrees, tions c o n s i d e r e d , 6 0 1 , & c . ; f o r c o m m u n i -

by t h e papists themselves, 4 0 , 4 1 . cating infants, 6 6 6 .
Council, Trullan (Quinisext), rejected by Cyril of Jerusalem, 58, 5 9 6 ; wrote in
many papists, 4 1 ; sanctioned t h e canons Greek, 217.
o f t h e a p o s t l e s , in contradiction to the of Alexandria, 1 0 7 , 3 9 9 , 4 4 0 , 4 9 2 , 5 9 7 ,
decree o f p o p e Gelasius, 4 1 ; counts t o o 625, 630, 686, 687.
many canons, 4 2 .
of F l o r e n c e . a m e r e modern popish D.
conventicle, 4 0 , 6 3 , 6 7 .
D a m a s c e n e , J o h n , a late a n d superstitious
Lyons, condemned t h e error o f
writer, w h o m the papists themselves dare
t h e G r e e k s d e n y i n g t h e Spirit t o p r o c e e d
n o t d e f e n d in all t h i n g s , 5 9 9 ; h i s t e s t i -
from t h e Son, 5 3 9 .
m o n y t o t h e sufficiency o f s c r i p t u r e , 7 0 3 ;
Nice, First, proceeded upon scrip- ascribes t h e E p i s t l e t o t h e H e b r e w s t o
t u r a l a u t h o r i t y , 4 3 5 ; d i d n o t receive t h e Paul, 107.
b o o k of Judith as canonical, 8 2 .
D a n i e l , t h e a p o c r y p h a l parts of, w h y s o m e -
, Second, a mere conventicle,
t i m e s called s c r i p t u r e b y t h e fathers, 7 6 ;
5 0 4 ; c o n t r a d i c t s scripture, g e n e r a l c o u n -
are n o t canonical, 7 7 - 8 0 ; w e r e w r i t t e n in
cils, a n d a n c i e n t d o c t o r s , 5 0 9 .
G r e e k , 7 8 ; rejected b y O r i g e n , 7 9 ; re-
Trent, not general, 40; its
ferred b y B e l l a r m i n e t o a s e c o n d D a n i e l ,
d e c r e e c o n c e r n i n g t h e c a n o n o f scripture, 7 9 ; b o o k of, a t t a c k e d b y P o r p h y r y , 3 3 .
22; concerning t h e interpretation of
Decretal Epistles, spurious, 4 3 5 , 6 0 9 ; n o t
scripture, 4 1 0 ; concerning the authen-
c a l l e d scripture b y A u g u s t i n e , 1 0 9 .
ticity o f t h e V u l g a t e , 1 1 0 , 1 1 1 ; concern-
Deipara, t h a t title v i n d i c a t e d b y t h e F a -
ing prayers in L a t i n , 2 5 0 ; makes no
thers f r o m s c r i p t u r e , 5 3 8 .
classification o f the traditions which it
Deposit, what spoken of 1 T i m . vi. 2 0 , 5 5 5 ,
r e q u i r e s t o b e r e c e i v e d w i t h like d e v o u t
556.
affection a s t h e s c r i p t u r e s , 5 0 2 .
D e s c e n t o f C h r i s t into h e l l , difference b e -
Cross, s i g n of, a n a n c i e n t c e r e m o n y , b u t
tween Bellarmine and A n d r a d i u s on that
much abused, 590.
p o i n t , 5 3 6 ; various opinions upon t h e
C u s t o m , h a s n o t t h e s a m e f o r c e in r e l i g i o n
reasons o f i t , 5 3 7 , 5 3 8 .
as in politics, 6 1 2 ; when opposed to
Dionysius the Areopagite, the works of,
t r u t h , r e j e c t e d b y t h e c a n o n l a w itself,
spurious, 252, 575-580; his w o r k s d e -
613.
f e n d e d by G o o d m a n , b i s h o p o f G l o u c e s t e r ,
C y p r i a n , e x h o r t s m e n t o fly heresy a s t h e 580.
p l a g u e , 1 7 ; n o t t h e a u t h o r o f t h e tract
De Baptismo Christi, 27; quotes the E.

third b o o k o f E s d r a s , 6 8 ; in w h a t man- E b i o n i t e s , u s e d o n l y t h e g o s p e l of M a t t h e w ,
ner, according t o D r i e d o , 6 9 ; makes all 35.
b i s h o p s successors o f t h e a p o s t l e s , 4 1 8 ; E c c l e s i a s t e s , b o o k of, vindicated, 3 1 , 3 2 .
his treatise de Simplicitate Prcelatorum, Ecclesiasticus, written in G r e e k , 9 0 ; H e -
ib.; h o w he quotes D e u t . xviii. 1 2 , 4 2 1 ; brew original l o s t , ib.; author of, n o t
his r e m a r k o n Christ's b l a m i n g t h e priests i n s p i r e d , i f t . ; h i s opinion o f t h e g h o s t o f
u n d e r t h e n a m e of scribes a n d P h a r i s e e s , Samuel doubtful, 9 1 ; may b e rejected b y
427; teaches that Christ o n l y is t o b e t h e confession o f A u g u s t i n e a n d T h o m a s
heard, 4 2 9 ; does n o t mean the pope, A q u i n a s , 9 3 ; offence t a k e n a t a p a s s a g e
b u t t h e b i s h o p o f each particular c h u r c h , in, 2 3 1 .
when h e speaks of " o n e priest, ' 4 4 1 ;
-

E p i p h a n i u s , his a c c o u n t of t h e S e p t u a g i n t ,
h o w h e uses t h e term tradition, 4 9 7 ; h i s 1 1 7 ; t h o u g h t the Seventy t o b e in s o m e
e p i s t l e a g a i n s t t h e Aquarii, 4 9 8 ; con- s o r t p r o p h e t s , 1 1 9 ; his a c c o u n t o f A q u i l a
firms t h e c u s t o m of mixing water with a n d S y m m a c h u s , 1 2 3 ; testifies t o t h e p e r -
the wine from s c r i p t u r e , 4 0 9 ; h i s error spicuity o f s c r i p t u r e , 3 9 9 ; d e l i g h t e d m o r e
about rebaptizing heretics, 6 1 1 ; h o w h e than h e o u g h t in traditions and g e n e a l o -
cites Isaiah x x i x . 1 3 , 6 3 9 ; his t e s t i m o n y g i e s , 5 9 7 ; traditions m e n t i o n e d b y h i m
against traditions, 6 9 1 , & c . ; for t r a d i - r e j e c t e d by t h e p a p i s t s , 5 9 8 ; his errors,
 INDEX. 713

ib.; says t h a t Christians in his t i m e ate canonical b o o k s , 4 4 ; declares t h e b o o k o f

only bread and salt some days before apostolic canons apocryphal, 4 1 .

E a s t e r , 666 ; his t e s t i m o n y t o t h e suffi- G e r s o n , says t h a t s c r i p t u r e explains itself,

c i e n c y of scripture, 686. 494, 495.

Epistle to the Laodiceans, spurious, 108, Gnostics, rejected the Psalms, 3 1 .

302, 303, 304, 531. G r e e k , l a n g u a g e , formerly the most prevail-

Epistles, D e c r e t a l , s e e Decretal Epistles. ing, 217 ; k n o w n a m o n g s t the Parthians,

Erasmus, thinks that M a t t h e w may have 2 1 8 ; version o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t , b e s t a n d

made a mistake, 37 ; C a n u s thinks that m o s t ancient of the G r e e k translations,

Cajetan was deceived b y his novelties, 117, 118 ; extended to the whole old

40 ; admits that t h e vulgar bibles had Testament, 1 1 9 ; authority of that ver-

many apocryphal b o o k s , 66; disowned sion, ib. ; w h e t h e r it b e still e x t a n t , 1 2 1 ;

by the papists, t h o u g h called by L e o X . faults o f t h e p r e s e n t c o p i e s , 1 2 1 , 1 2 2 , & c . ;

text of n e w T e s t a m e n t m o r e ancient than
h i s d e a r s o n , ¿6.; censures F a b e r for c r e -
the Latin, 142 ; inspired a n d archetypal
dulity, 3 0 3 ; deems the Epistles of Pope
scripture, ib. ; from w h i c h J e r o m e a m e n d -
I n n o c e n t s p u r i o u s , 4 3 5 ; thinks t h e d a r k -
e d t h e L a t i n e d i t i o n , ib. ; w h y w r i t t e n in
ness a t Christ's passion o n l y p a r t i a l , 5 7 9 ;
G r e e k , 1 2 7 , 2 1 7 ; versions o f t h e o l d T e s -
t h i n k s p a r t o f B a s i l , de Hpiritu S. inter-
tament by Aquila, Symmachus, T h e o d o -
p o l a t e d , 5 8 9 ; says t h a t t h e u s e o f chrism
tion, L u c i a n , & c , 1 2 3 , 1 2 5 .
in b a p t i s m w a s i n t r o d u c e d b y t h e f a t h e r s ,
602. Gregory, Nazianzene, 30, 5 8 , 2 4 1 , 2 4 2 , 3 7 1 ,

E s d r a s , a p o c r y p h a l b o o k s of, g e n e r a l l y r e - 440, 5 1 5 , 5 9 5 .

jected by the papists, 103; fourth of, G r e g o r y the Great, 9 6 , 9 7 , 107, 1 2 9 , 241,

c a l l e d canonical b y G e n e b r a r d , a n d s o m e 375, 400.

others, 1 0 3 , 1 0 4 .
E s t h e r , a p o c r y p h a l c h a p t e r s of, c o n s i d e r e d ,
H.
7 1 , 7 6 ; r e j e c t e d b y S i x t u s of S i e n n a , 7 5 ;
H e b r e w , t h e m o s t a n c i e n t o f all t o n g u e s ,
h o w he evaded the Tridentine decree, 7 6 ;
1 1 2 , 1 1 3 ; did n o t cease t o b e vernacular
invented, according to Lyra, by Josephus,
a m o n g s t t h e J e w s in t h e t i m e o f E z r a ,
71; n o t received as c a n o n i c a l by J o s e p h u s ,
v

2 1 2 ; y e t l o s t m u c h o f its pristine p u r i t y ,
72; n o e v i d e n c e o f a H e b r e w original, 7 3 ,
2 1 3 ; scriptures u n d e r s t o o d b y t h e p e o p l e ,
75; contradict scripture, 7 4 , 7 5 .
2 1 3 - 2 1 5 ; text of the old T e s t a m e n t con-
E z r a , s t o r y o f his r e s t o r i n g t h e l a w , 1 0 3 ,
sidered .- a u t h e n t i c for 600 years after
1 1 4 , 1 1 5 ; said b y J e r o m e t o have c h a n g e d
Christ, 159, &c. ; popish arguments for
t h e s h a p e o f t h e H e b r e w l e t t e r s , 116; his
its corruption, answered, 1 6 0 - 1 6 2 ; ori-
reading of the l a w t o the people, 2 1 2 ,
ginal, of M a t t h e w ' s g o s p e l , 1 2 5 - 1 2 7 .
213.
H e b r e w s , Epistle t o , the author uncertain,

F. 1 0 6 ; g e n e r a l l y ascribed t o P a u l , ib., 1 0 7 ;
t h e q u e s t i o n superfluous, w h y , 1 0 7 , 1 0 8 .
F a i t h , a c q u i r e d a n d infused, 3 5 5 ; t h e s a m e
Hegesippus, his testimony for traditions,
required in bishops and laymen, 670,
671; a n a l o g y of, 465, 485, 4 8 0 ; resolu- 5 7 4 ; a spurious w o r k u n d e r his n a m e , 5 7 5 ,

t i o n of, a c c o r d i n g t o S t a p l e t o n , i n t o t h e H e r m a s , his Pastor, an a p o c r y p h a l piece,

judgment of the church, 341, 342; in 109; m i g h t , according to Stapleton, be

Christ as M e d i a t o r , denied by Stapleton m a d e canonical, ib., 330.

to be found in t h e o l d T e s t a m e n t , 6 1 2 ; H i l a r y , his a l l e g e d t e s t i m o n y for t r a d i t i o n s ,

first, 1 T i m . v . , w h a t i t m e a n s , 4 8 2 , 4 8 3 . irrelevant, 6 0 3 .

F a i t h f u l , B a s i l ' s definition o f a faithful m a n , H u g o , Cardinal, 6 5 .

621.
F l o r e n c e , c o u n c i l of, see Council. I.
I g n a t i u s , w h a t h e m e a n t b y tradition, 5 7 0 ;
G. what traditions B e l l a r m i n e s u p p o r t s by
G e l a s i u s , p o p e , a n d his c o u n c i l , differ f r o m his a u t h o r i t y , ib.; his E p i s t l e s doubtful,
the papists as to the number of the 5 7 1 ; five o f t h e m certainly s p u r i o u s , 5 7 2 ;
714 INDEX.

t h e papists reject his authority, 5 7 3 ; his C o m m e n t a r y on Colossians n o t his, 2 3 9 ;

errors, 5 7 3 , 5 7 4 . his t e s t i m o n y t o t h e free u s e o f t h e s c r i p -
Interpretation o f scripture, means of a s - tures, 2 4 4 , 2 4 5 ; rejects t h e apocryphal
s i g n e d b y p r o t e s t a n t s , Q u e s t , v . c . 9; by pieces attributed t o P e t e r , 3 0 4 ; w h a t he
papists, Quest, v . c. 3 ; b y scripture, says o f t h e o b s c u r i t y o f s c r i p t u r e , 3 6 7 ;
Q u e s t . T . o. 1 3 . admits t h e necessity o f divine h e l p f o r

I r e n a j u s , 3 0 , 3 1 , 3 4 , 3 5 ; cites t h e S h e p h e r d the understanding o f scripture, 3 6 8 , a n d

of Hermas, 08; whether h e cites the the u s e of a human teacher, 3 6 8 - 3 6 9 , 3 7 3 ;

E p i s t l e t o the H e b r e w s as Paul's, 1 0 7 ; does n o t say that Justin a n d Irenajus

says t h a t M a t t h e w w r o t e his G o s p e l in wrote commentaries on the Apocalypse,

H e b r e w , 1 2 6 ; w r o t e h i s b o o k s in G r e e k , 391; w h y h e consulted the Bishop of

217; w h a t h e relates o f A n i c e t u s , ib.; Rome upon the use of the word hypo-

w h a t obscurities h e a d m i t s i n s c r i p t u r e , stasis, 4 4 2 , 4 4 3 ; differed f r o m Augustine

370, 3 7 1 ; Bellarmine misrepresents his upon the meaning of the passage, 1 T i m .

m e a n i n g , 4 3 8 , 4 3 9 ; thinks that scripture iii. 2 , 4 5 5 ; says t h a t t h e R o m a n Church

m a y b e i n t e r p r e t e d b y itself, 4 9 1 , 4 9 2 ; rejected the Epistle t o the H e b r e w s , 6 0 5 ;

says t h a t s o m e b a r b a r o u s n a t i o n s r e t a i n e d c o r r e c t s a m i s t a k e of C h r y s o s t o m ' s , 5 2 5 ;

the truth without the scriptures, 5 2 0 ; says t h e r e is b u t o n e g e n u i n e E p i s t l e o f

his testimony t o traditions considered, Clement, 5 6 6 ; his testimony f o r tradi-

5 8 3 - 5 8 5 ; his t e s t i m o n y t o t h e sufficiency t i o n s , 6 0 5 ; h i s t e s t i m o n y t o t h e suffici-

of scripture, 6 7 0 - 6 7 5 . ency o f s c r i p t u r e , 6 9 2 - 6 9 4 .

Itala, V e t u s , t h e version s o called, 1 2 8 . Jesuits, description of that order, 3 - 5 .

Job, Book of, some Anabaptists said t o
r e j e c t i t , 3 3 ; s o m e o f t h e R a b b i n s treat i t
J. as a fiction, ib.
Jerome, 1 8 , 1 9 , 2 0 , 3 3 , 3 5 ; t h o u g h t that t h e Judge of controversies, question concern-
evangelists m i g h t sometimes m a k e a m i s - ing, Q u e s t , v . o. 8 .
t a k e , 3 7 ; uses canonical i n a different Judges, Book of, w r i t t e n b y several pro-
sense f r o m A u g u s t i n e , 4 5 ; t h e j u d g m e n t s phets, 3 0 2 .
of councils and doctors subject to his Judgment o f individuals assisted b y t h e
correction, according t o Cajetan, 4 8 ; r e - H o l y Spirit, n o t t o b e censured as mere
jects the Apocrypha, 60, 77, 79, & c . ; private j u d g m e n t , 4 6 0 , 4 6 1 .
thinks Hebrew the mother of all lan- J u d i t h , B o o k of, J e r o m e d o e s n o t s a y p o s i -
g u a g e s , 1 1 3 , 1 1 4 ; says t h a t E z r a c h a n g e d tively t h a t t h e C o u n c i l o f N i c e r e c e i v e d
the H e b r e w letters, 1 1 6 ; thinks that he it a s c a n o n i c a l , 8 2 ; s h e w n b y J e r o m e t o
saw the H e b r e w original of Matthew's b e apocryphal on t w o g r o u n d s , 8 3 ; t h e
Gospel, 1 2 6 ; made a copy of it, 1 2 7 ; t i m e s referred t o i n i t h a r d t o b e fixed,
complains of t h e variety of texts in t h e 8 3 , & c . ; c a n n o t b e referred t o t h e t i m e
Latin versions, 1 2 8 ; n o t t h e author of of Manasseh, 8 4 , 8 5 ; w h a t led Bellarmine
t h e Vetus Itala, 1 2 8 , 1 2 9 ; nor of the t o c a s t i t in t h o s e t i m e s , 8 5 ; n o r t o t h o s e
w h o l e present V u l g a t e , 1 2 9 , 1 3 0 ; cen- of Zedekiah, 8 6 .
sures t h e r e a d i n g s o f t h e p r e s e n t V u l g a t e
132-135; i t is preferred by t h e f a t h e r s
t o other Latin versions, b u t n o t t o t h e L.
originals, 1 3 7 ; Vulgate version of the
Latin version, whether the present b e J e -
P s a l m s n o t h i s , 1 8 0 , & c . ; says t h a t t h e
r o m e ' s , 1 2 8 ; many things in it blamed by
Septuagint varied w i d e l y f r o m the H e -
Jerome, 1 3 2 ; Bellarmine's replies with
brew, 1 8 3 ; whether he translated t h e
respect to them considered, 1 3 4 ; the
B i b l e iuto D a l m a t i a n , 2 2 1 ; says t h a t t h e
Scholastics have d r a w n m a n y absurd c o n -
P s a l m s w e r e c h a n t e d a t P a u l a ' s funeral
clusions f r o m i t , 1 4 0 , 1 4 1 ; s e n t i m e n t s o f
in S y r i a c , 2 2 2 ; t h i n k s t h e P u n i c nearly
Clarius and Erasmus concerning, 2 0 7 ;
t h e s a m e a s t h e Phoenician, 2 2 3 ; c o m -
arguments of t h e papists for its s u p e -
plains o f t h e audacity o f i g n o r a n t p e r s o n s
riority t o t h e H e b r e w p r o p o s e d a n d r e -
jn e x p o u n d i n g s c r i p t u r e , 2 3 3 , 2 3 4 ; t h e
f u t e d , 1 3 5 - 1 4 0 ; a r g u m e n t s of t h e R h e m i s h
 INDEX. 715

translators, 1 4 1 , & c . ; arguments o f M e l - stories, 98; contradictory statements,

chior Canus, 1 4 0 ; arguments of pro- 9 8 - 1 0 0 ; whether written by Josephus, 9 6 ;
testants against its authority, 1 6 0 , & e . ; second b o o k of, a n e p i t o m e o f a l a r g e r
places so corrupt that n o papist has d e ^ w o r k b y Jason o f Cyrene, 9 8 ; evidently
fended them, 1 7 3 , & c . ; of the n e w T e s - written b y a h u m a n spirit, 1 0 0 - 1 0 2 .
t a m e n t , corruptions in pointed o u t , 1 9 3 , Manichees, rejected the whole old T e s t a -
& c . ; preferred t o the G r e e k a n d H e b r e w m e n t , 3 0 ; said t h a t the books of the
by the Rhemists, Lindanus, & c , 111; d e - a p o s t l e s a n d e v a n g e l i s t s w e r e full o f f a l s e -
clared a u t h e n t i c b y t h e C o u n c i l o f T r e n t , hoods, 3 4 .
ib. ; c o u l d n o t b e m a d e really a u t h e n t i c , M a r c i o n , rejected the l a w and the prophets,
157, &c. ; barbarous, a n d full of sole- 3 0 , 3 1 ; a disciple o f C e r d o n , 3 4 .
c i s m s , ib. ; i n m a n y p l a c e s e v i d e n t l y c o r - M a r c i o n i t e s , w h a t epistles t h e y r e j e c t e d , 3 5 .
r u p t , ib.; instances o f corruption indi- Mary, t h e blessed V i r g i n , her perpetual
c a t e d , ib. ; o f t h e P s a l m s , n o t J e r o m e ' s , virginity proved from scripture by the
1 8 0 ; made n o t from the H e b r e w , but the f a t h e r s , 5 0 2 , 5 3 9 ; n o t a n article o f faith
Greek, ib. ; w o r s e t h a n t h e G r e e k , ib. ; a c c o r d i n g t o B a s i l , ib.; h e r rights t o t h e
our objections to it supported against t i t l e deoroKos, 5 3 8 ; s t o r y o f h e r a s s u m p -
Bellarmine's replies, 1 8 1 , & e . ; versions, tion fabulous, 5 7 9 , 5 8 0 .
formerly numerous, 1 2 8 ; versions, other
Matrimony, n o t a sacrament, 197, 4 8 9 , 4 9 0 .
b e s i d e s J e r o m e ' s u s e d in t h e c h u r c h b e -
Melchizedek, did n o t execute a priestly
fore a n d after G r e g o r y t h e G r e a t , 1 2 9 .
office i n b r i n g i n g f o r t h b r e a d a n d w i n e ,
L a t i n l a n g u a g e , n o t n o w the m o s t c o m m o n ,
107,168; h o w a type of Christ, 1 6 8 , 1 6 9 .
227.
M o s e s , t h e earliest w r i t e r , 1 1 4 ; n o t a p r i e s t
Language, o n e only spoken before the after t h e u n c t i o n o f A a r o n , 4 1 7 ; s o m e
building of the tower of Babel, 1 1 2 , 1 1 3 ; say t h a t there w e r e s c r i p t u r e s b e f o r e h i s
v u l g a r , t h e C o u n c i l o f T r e n t forbids t h e t i m e , 1 1 4 , 5 1 6 ; b o o k s of, i n r e s p e c t o f t h e
u s e o f in s a y i n g m a s s , 2 5 0 ; a r g u m e n t s i n s u m o f their d o c t r i n e , n o t h i n g a d d e d t o
defence o f that decree refuted, 2 5 1 , & c . them b y t h e apostles a n d prophets, 6 1 8 ,

L a w , b y that term, P s . x i x . 8, the whole 619.

doctrine delivered in t h e o l d T e s t a m e n t
is described, 6 4 1 ; in what sense t h e r e N.
said t o b e p e r f e c t , ib.; mysteries of, n o t
N i c e , C o u n c i l s of, s e e Councils.
concealed b y M o s e s , 6 1 1 .
Nicholas, H . 2 9 8 .
L e n t , said b y B e l l a r m i n e t o b e instituted b y
Nicolaitans, rejected t h e b o o k of P s a l m s ,
the apostles, n o t b y Christ, 5 0 1 ; defended
31.
b y A m b r o s e n o t from tradition, b u t scrip-
ture, 6 0 4 .
O.
Luther, no more erroneous in rejecting
s o m e canonical b o o k s t h a n s o m e catholic 'Ofioovariov, vindicated from scripture b y
churches f o r m e r l y , o r s o m e -fathers, a n d the fathers, 5 3 4 , 5 3 5 , & c . ; whether the
even papists themselves, 105; distin- bishops at Rimini understood that term,
guishes between t h e obscurity of p a s - 139.
sages a n d t h e obscurity of dogmas in O r i g e n , h i s l a b o u r in c o l l e c t i n g versions o f
scripture, 3 6 1 ; unjustly b l a m e d b y S t a - scripture, 124, 1 2 5 ; what books lie
pleton, 3 6 2 ; distinguishes between the received a s c a n o n i c a l , 5 7 ; whether h e
external and internal perspicuity and d e f e n d e d t h e history of S u s a n n a , 7 8 ; r e -
obscurity of scripture, 3 6 3 . j e c t e d t h e a p o c r y p h a l parts o f D a n i e l , 7 9 ;
w o u l d have all search t h e s c r i p t u r e s , 2 4 7 ;
a d m i t s obscurities i n s c r i p t u r e , 3 7 1 ; h i s
M. rules for interpreting scripture, 4 0 3 , & c . ;

M a c c a b e e s , b o o k s of, a r g u m e n t s f o r their recommends the collation of parallel

places, 4 9 3 ; thinks that t h e darkness a t
canonicity r e f u t e d , 9 3 - 9 6 ; r e j e c t e d b y J e -
the crucifixion was not caused by an
rome and Gregory the Great, & c . 96-97 ;
eclipse, 5 7 8 ; c o u l d n o t have been known
contain doctrinal errors, 9 7 ; a n d fabulous
716 INDEX.

t o Justin M a r t y r , 5 8 3 ; his t e s t i m o n y for Rule, as s u c h , perfect, 0 0 2 ; o f faith, w h a t

tradition, 5 8 6 , 5 8 7 ; a disciple o f C l e m e n s according to Stapleton, 328; what it
A l e x a n d r i n u s , 5 8 6 ; his t e s t i m o n y a g a i n s t really is, Q u e s t , v. c. 1 0 ; not unwrit-
traditions, 6 7 5 , 6 7 8 , 7 0 0 ; probably author ten tradition, 4 8 4 , 4 8 5 .
o f s o m e h o m i l i e s ascribed t o C y r i l , 6 8 7 . g e n e r a l , b u t o n e g i v e n f o r rites a n d
Osiander, his e x p l a n a t i o n of Micah v. 2, c e r e m o n i e s in s c r i p t u r e , 5 1 3 .
173; his c a l u m n i e s a g a i n s t the Luthe-
rans, 3 7 9 , 3 8 0 .
S.

P. Sacraments, the meaning and nature of,

Paschal controversy between the E a s t and should not be hidden from the people,

•West, 5 3 9 . 252; the objection against divulging them

Pastors, why compared to the foundation from the Pseudo-Dionysius answered,

and g a t e , 3 5 0 . 253.

Paul, the apostle, rejected b y the Ebionites S a d d i i c e e s , said t o h a v e r e c e i v e d only the

as an a p o s t a t e f r o m t h e l a w , 3 5 ; did n o t five b o o k s of M o s e s , 3 0 .

g o t o Jerusalem, G a l . ii. 2, t o confer with S a m u e l , b o o k s of, w r i t t e n b y o t h e r s b e s i d e s

Peter alone, 4 3 2 , Samuel, 3 0 1 , & c .

P e o p l e , t h e christian, s h o u l d n o t b e always Saturninus, 3 0 .

like children, 2 4 3 . S c h o o l m e n , h e l d in w h a t a u t h o r i t y b y the

P e t e r , t h e a p o s t l e , w h y thrice commanded papists, 413.

to feed Christ's sheep, 4 2 8 ; had no com- Schwenkfeldtians, 3 6 .

mission g i v e n h i m t h e r e b y t o determine S c r i p t u r e in t h e c h u r c h w h a t l a w is in t h e

w h a t each o n e o u g h t t o t e a c h a n d b e l i e v e , state, 27 ; G o d s p e a k s therein as in his

429; said b y B e l l a r m i n e t o have b e e n an law, 445; h o w t h e voice o f G o d , 290;

ordinary p a s t o r , w h i l e t h e o t h e r apostles indicates its authority b y its style t o i n -

were extraordinary, 4 1 7 ; Christ prayed dividuals as w e l l a s t o t h e g o v e r n o r s o f

for him p e r s o n a l l y t h a t his faith should the church, 287, & c . ; may be recognised

n o t fail, b u t n o t f o r his s u c c e s s o r s , 4 3 0 , as divine b y all w h o a r e t a u g h t o f God,

431. 290; t h e p a r t s of, m u t u a l l y s u p p o r t e a c h

o t h e r , 2 9 1 , & c . ; its a u t h o r i t y , h o w p r o v e d
P h i l e m o n , epistle t o , r e j e c t e d b y s o m e , a n d
b y Calvin, 2 9 3 , & c . ; does n o t depend for
w h y , 3 5 ; vindicated by Chrysostom, 35,
a u t h o r i t y on t h e c h u r c h , 3 3 2 , & c . ; how
36.
m e a n l y t h e p a p i s t s t h i n k o f it, 2 7 5 , 2 7 0 ;
Pope, not the one shepherd mentioned
said b y B e l l a r m i n e t o b e o n l y a c o m m o n i -
Eccles. xii. 1 3 , 423; greater authority
tory, not a rule, 057, 058, &c.; is t h e
given to, than to a council, by the papists
p e r f e c t , n o t a p a r t i a l , r u l e o f o u r faith,
generally, 4 1 4 , but not by Alphonsus a
6 6 2 , 0 0 3 ; w o r d s n o t f o u n d in, h o w far t o
C a s t r o , 4 1 5 ; w h y an i n c o m p e t e n t judge
be received, 5 8 8 ; is t h e s a m e t h i n g as
o f controversies, 4 0 4 , & c . ; j u d g e in t h e
the preaching of the apostles, 3 4 8 ; more
last r e s o r t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p a p i s t s , 4 4 5 .
ancient than the church, 3 5 1 , 3 5 2 ; may
Prayers, in an u n k n o w n tongue, do not
b e demonstrated a posteriori, 3 5 1 ; t h e
edify t h e p e o p l e , Q u e s t , n . c. 1 8 .
c h u r c h d o e s n o t j u d g e it, b u t according
Ptolemaeans, r e j e c t e d t h e b o o k s o f Moses,
t o it, 3 5 3 ; faith in, produced by the
31.
Holy Spirit, by t h e confession of the
P u r g a t o r y , w h e n , a n d h o w far, b e l i e v e d b y fathers, and the papists themselves, 3 5 5 -
Luther, 5 4 1 . 358.

Q. — p e r s p i c u i t y of, n o t h i n g defined
c o n c e r n i n g , b y t h e C o u n c i l of T r e n t , 3 5 9 ;
Q u a r t a d e c i m a n s , their heresy, 5 3 9 . general sentiments of the papists, 3 6 0 ;
our sentiments concerning, generally
U. misrepresented, 3 0 1 ; our real sentiments
Rites and ceremonies, unwritten, 5 1 3 ; may concerning, 3 6 4 ; w h y sometimes clouded
b e c h a n g e d as c o n v e n i e n c e r e q u i r e s , ib. with obscurity, 3 6 5 , 3 6 6 ; supposed testi-
 INDEX. 717

m o n i e s o f t h e fathers a g a i n s t , considered, p r o v e d f r o m D e u t . iv. 2 , 6 1 5 , & c . ; from

3 7 0 - 3 7 6 ; not contradicted by experience, Rev. xx. 1 8 , 6 2 1 , & c . ; from Gal. i. 8,
379, &c.; proved from Deut. xxx. 11, 623, & c . ; from John x x . ult. 6 2 8 , &c.;
381; from Psal. xix. 9, & c , 383 ; from from 2 T i m . iii. 1 6 , 1 7 , 6 3 2 , & c ; from
M a t t . v. 1 4 , 3 8 4 , 3 8 5 ; from 2 P e t . i. 1 9 , the rejection of the Jewish traditions,
386 ; from 2 C o r . iv. 3, 3 8 7 ; from the 637, & c . ; from P s a l m x i x . 8, 6 4 0 ; from
clearness of its principal points, 388; L u k e i. 3, 4 , 6 4 1 ; from Luke xvi. 29,
f r o m t h e difference b e t w e e n t h e n e w a n d 642; from L u k e xxiv. 2 5 , 2 7 , 643, 644;
o l d T e s t a m e n t s , 3 8 9 ; f r o m its a r g u m e n - f r o m J o h n v. 3 9 , 6 4 4 ; f r o m A c t s i. 1 , 6 4 5 ;
tative use, 3 9 0 ; from its having been from A c t s xvii. 2 , 3, 6 4 5 , 6 4 6 ; from Acts
understood without commentaries, 391; xviii. 24, xxiv. 1 4 , xxvi. 2 2 , 646, 647;
b y a disjunction o f t h e classes o f readers, from Rom. i. 2 , x . 1 7 , 1 5 , 4 , 6 4 7 , 6 4 8 ;
392, 393; from the testimonies of the f r o m E p h . ii. 1 9 , 2 0 , 6 4 9 ; f r o m 2 P e t . i.
fathers, 3 9 3 - 4 0 1 . 19, 6 5 0 ; f r o m 1 J o h n i. 4 , 6 5 0 ; f r o m t h e
t i t l e o f scripture, 6 5 1 ; from the uncer-
Scripture, interpretation of, rule of the
tainty of tradition, 651-669; from the
Council of T r e n t concerning, 4 0 2 , 4 0 3 ;
testimony of the fathers, 6 6 9 - 7 0 4 .
various senses n o t i c e d b y t h e f a t h e r s , 4 0 3 ,
S c r i p t u r e , d i d n o t perish in t h e B a b y l o n i a n
&c.; has b u t one true sense, 405-410;
c a p t i v i t y , 1 0 3 , 1 1 4 , 1 1 5 ; s h o u l d b e read
interpretation of, Stapleton's cautions
by the people, 212, 243; six heretical
concerning, 4 1 1 - 4 1 5 ; t o w h a t they really
o p i n i o n s c o n c e r n i n g , held b y t h e p a p i s t s ,
amount, 4 1 5 ; rests w i t h t h e H o l y Spirit
705.
a n d scripture itself, ib.; rests n o t w i t h
t h e c h u r c h authoritatively. A r g u m e n t s o f Septuagint, see Greek version.
B e l l a r m i n e r e f u t e d , Q u e s t , v . c. 4 , 5 , 6, 7 ; Severians, their heresy, 3 1 , 3 5 .
p r o v e d f r o m t h e c a u s e o f faith, 4 4 8 ; from Simon Magus, 3 0 .
the properties of a legitimate j u d g e , 4 4 8 - S o l o m o n , books rejected by s o m e , 3 1 ; Song
451; from t h e inspiration o f scripture, of, v i n d i c a t e d , 3 1 , 3 2 ; w h e t h e r rejected
451, &c.; from the inefficiency of the b y C a s t e U i o , ib.
f a t h e r s as a m e a n o f certain e x p o s i t i o n , — Wisdom of, apocryphal, &c, 86;
455, 456; to b e derived from scripture, w r i t t e n in G r e e k , 87; supposed to be
and the Holy Spirit, proved from Acts written by Philo, 88; not written by
xvii. 1 1 , 4 5 7 ; from 1 T h e s s . v. 2 1 , 457, Solomon, 89; rejected by the ancient
458; from the absurdity of resolving Church, 89, 90; whether received by
faith into human j u d g m e n t , 4 5 9 ; from Melito, 56; most respected of all the
t h e principle that t h e L a w g i v e r has s u - a p o c r y p h a l b o o k s , ib.
p r e m e authority to e x p o u n d the l a w , ib.;
Stapleton, contradicts himself, 352; mis-
f r o m t h e absurdity o f m a k i n g t h e c h u r c h
quotes the fathers, 3 1 4 .
superior to scripture, 4 5 9 , 4 6 0 ; the pope
Succession o f t h e R o m a n C h u r c h , n o t entire
n o sufficient i n t e r p r e t e r , 4 6 0 ; from the
and uninterrupted, 5 1 0 .
testimony of the fathers, 4 6 1 , & c .

t h e A r i a n s r e f u t e d o u t of, 481; T.
is t h e source o f t h e C r e e d , 4 8 5 ; is t o b e
interpreted by scripture, proved at large, Tertullian quoted, 17, 2 7 , 3 4 , 3 0 3 , 3 1 1 , 3 2 4 ,

288-495. 485, 492, 499, 599, 600, 601, 665, 666,

. perfection of, how asserted by 689, 690, 705.

protestants, 5 1 3 , 5 1 4 ; denied b y Bellar- T e s t a m e n t , i m p o r t of t h a t t i t l e , 6 5 1 .

mine, 5 1 4 ; necessity of, h o w impugned Testamentary, books of scripture, why

b y B e l l a r m i n e , 5 1 6 - 5 2 1 ; necessity o f e s - called, 2 8 .

tablished against Bellarmine, 521-524; T h e o l o g y , difference o f f r o m o t h e r s c i e n c e s ,

insufficient without tradition, according 364.
t o B e l l a r m i n e , his a r g u m e n t s c o n s i d e r e d , T o b i t , B o o k of, w h y c a l l e d divine b y A m -
524-542; perfection of, denied b y the brose, 8 0 ; rejected by J e r o m e , 8 1 ; Je-
ancient heretics, 5 4 4 , & c . ; testimonies of r o m e had a C h a l d e e c o p y , ib.
fathers against, considered, 565-610; Tradition, ambiguity of that term, 4 9 7 - 4 9 9 .
718 INDEX.

Traditions, unwritten, divine, apostolical, gesippus, 574, &e. ; of Dionysius, 575;

a n d ecclesiastical, h o w distinguished by of Polycarp, 5 8 0 , 5 8 1 . & c .
Bellarraine, 500, 5 0 1 ; o t h e r d i v i s i o n s of, T r a d i t i o n s , t e s t i m o n y of J u s t i n M a r t y r , 5 8 2 ;
502; Bellarmine's five rules for distin- of Irenams, 583; of Clemens Alexan-
guishing genuine, 6 0 3 - 5 1 1 ; the papists drinus, 5 8 0 ; o f O r i g e n , { 6 . ; of E u s e b i u s ,
g i v e n o e x a c t list o f t h e d o g m a s d e p e n d - 587; of Athanasius, 5 8 8 ; of Basil, 588-
i n g on, 5 1 1 , & c . ; n o t the sole rule before 594; of N a z i a n z e n e , 5 9 5 ; of C h r y s o s t o m ,
Moses, 5 1 7 ; not used more than scrip- ib.; of Theophilus Alexandrinus, 696;
ture b y t h e a n c i e n t J e w s , 5 1 8 ; t h e c h u r c h of the t w o Cyrils, 596, 597; of Epi-
not dependent on for m a n y years after phanius, 597 ; of John Damascene, 599 ;
Christ, 5 1 9 ; s o m e barbarous nations h o w o f T e r t u l l i a n , ib. ; o f C y p r i a n , 601 ; of
far d e p e n d e n t o n , 5 2 0 ; n o necessary t h i n g s H i l a r y , 6 0 3 ; o f A m b r o s e , ib.; of J e r o m e ,
left t o o r a l tradition u n d e r t h e l a w , 5 2 9 , 6 0 5 ; o f A u g u s t i n e , ib. ; o f I n n o c e n t a n d
& c . ; n o t necessary t o p r o v e the a u t h o r i t y L e o , 609, 610.
or genuineness of the b o o k s of scripture, n o t universally rejected by here-
530, 531, & c . ; n o r necessary t o t h e i n t e r - t i c s , 6 1 0 ; case of t h e J e w i s h , c o n s i d e r e d ,
pretation of scripture, 5 3 4 , 5 3 5 ; the p r o - 6 1 1 , &c. ; Gentile, 612 ; hard to be p r e -
cession o f t h e H o l y G h o s t f r o m t h e S o n , served, 6 5 1 , 6 5 2 , & c . ; their uncertainty
a n d o r i g i n a l s i n , n o t d e r i v e d f r o m oral t r a - the reason w h y t h e scriptures w e r e w r i t -
dition, 5 3 6 ; t h e d e s c e n t o f C h r i s t i n t o h e l l , ten, 655; means for preserving them
h o w far d e p e n d e n t o n , 5 3 6 , 5 3 7 ; t h e s a c r a - specified b y B e l l a r m i n e , 0 5 6 , 6 5 7 ; u n c e r -
m e n t s , a n d virginity of M a r y , n o t d e p e n - tain, 6 6 4 - 6 6 7 ; appealed to by heretics,
dent on, 538, 5 3 9 ; case of E a s t e r , 539, 667, 608.
5 4 0 ; b a p t i s m o f infants, 5 4 0 ; purgatory,
541. V.

B e l l a r m i n e ' s a r g u m e n t for, f r o m Valentinians, 34.

John xvi. 1 2 , 5 4 2 ; from the conclusion of Versions, vernacular, of scripture,—three

J o h n ' s g o s p e l , 5 4 5 , & c . ; f r o m A c t s i. & c , opinions concerning, a m o n g s t the papists,

547; from 1 Cor. xi. 1, 548; from 2 208; decree o f the congregation of the

T h e s s . ii. 1 5 , 5 5 1 ; from t h e Epistles to I n d e x , 2 0 9 ; opinion of protestants, 2 1 1 ;

Timothy, 5 5 5 - 5 5 8 ; from 2 John, 1 2 , 5 5 8 ; e a r l y , c o m m o n in A f r i c a , 2 1 7 , 2 1 8 ; u s e d

C a n u s ' a r g u m e n t s f r o m 1 C o r . ii. 1 0 , 5 5 8 , by the A r m e n i a n s , Russians, E t h i o p i a n s ,

5 5 9 ; from 1 Tim. v i . 3 , a n d G a l . i. 9, Dalmatians, and Goths, 221 ; ancient

559; texts for, u r g e d by the Rhemists, British, 222, 223 ; n o t injurious t o the

5 6 0 , 5 6 1 ; other texts, 5 0 1 , 5 0 2 ; not the people, 229, 230 ; should be corrected

ground of Arius' condemnation at the when obsolete, 2 3 2 .

F i r s t C o u n c i l o f N i c e , 5 6 2 , 5 6 3 ; h o w far
a d o p t e d b y t h e S e c o n d C o u n c i l of N i c e , U.
5C4; testimony of Clemens Eomanus, Unction, extreme, cannot be proved from
563, & c . ; of Ignatius, 5 0 9 , & c . ; of He- J a m e s v. 1 5 , 1 9 9 .
 1000362678

¡f* BOUND ВУ #

ff .LONDON ^