Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Response to preface · Martins comments 9
MART. 9. Marke gētle reader for thy soules sake, & thouIbid. pag. 17. M. VVhitaker by these vvords condemneth their ovvne Seruice booke, vvhichwhich appointeth these bookes of Tobie and Ecclesiasticus, to be read for holy Scripture, as the other. Doe they read in their Churches Apocryphall & superstitious bookes for holy Scripture, or is he a Puritane, that thus disgraceth their order of daily Seruice. shalt find, that heresie & only heresie is the cause of their denying these books: so farre, that against the orders & Hierarchies & particular patronages of Angels, one of them writeth thus in the name of the rest. We passe not for that Raphael of Tobie neither do we acknowledge those seuē Angels which he speaketh of, al this is farre from Canonical Scriptures, that the same Raphael recordeth, & sauoureth I wote not what superstition. Against free will thus: I litle care for the place of Ecclesiasticus, neither will I beleeue free will, though he affirme an hundred times, That before men is life & death. And against praier for the dead, & intercession of Saincts thus: As for the booke of the Machabees, I do care lesse for it thā for the other. Iudas dreame cōcerning Omas I let passe as a dreame. This is their reuerence of the scriptures which hauehave uniuersally bin reuerenced for canonical in the church of God aboue 1100 yeres. Con. Cart. 3. & particularly of many fathers long before. Aug. de doct. Christ. l 2. c. 8.
FVLK. 9. The mouth that lieth killeth the soule. The reader may thinke you hauehave small care of his soules health, when by such impudēt lying you declare that you hauehave so smal regard of your own. But what shal he mark? That heresy, &c. You were best say that Eusebius, Hierom, Ruffine & al the churches in their times were heretiks, & that only heresie was the cause of their deniall of these bookes. For such reasons as moued thē moue vsus, & some thing also their authority. But how proue you that only heresie moueth vsus to reiect thē? Because M. Whit. against the orders, & Hierarchies, & particular patronages of Angels writeth in the name of the rest. That we passe not, &c. Take heede least vponupon your bare surmise you belie him where you say he writeth in the name of the reste, as in the next sectiō following you say, he writeth in the name of both the vniuersities, for which I am sure he had no cō missiō frō either of thē, althogh he did write that which may well be aduouched by both the vniuersities, yet I knowe his modestie is such, as he will not presume to be aduocate for both the vniuersities, and much lesse for the whole church, except he were lawfully called therto. This is a cōmon practise of you Papists, to beare the world in hand that whatsoeuer is writtē by any of vsus in defense of the truth is set forth in the name of al the rest, as though none of vsus could say more in any matter, than any one of vsus hath writtē, or that if any one of vsus chaūce to slip in any smal matter, though it be but a wrong quotatiō ▪ you might open your wide sclaunderous mouths against the whole church for one mans particular offense. Now touching any thing that M. Whit. hath written, you shal find him sufficient to maintaine it against a strōger aduersary thā you are, & therfore I wil medle the lesse in his causes. And for the orders & patronage or protection of Angels by Gods appointment, we hauehave sufficient testimonie in the Canonical Scriptures, that we neede not the vncertain report of Tobies booke to instruct vsus what to thinke of thē. But as for the Hierarchies, & patronage of Angels, that many of you Papistes hauehave imagined & written of, neither the canonical Scriptures, nor yet the Apocryphal bookes now in controuersie, are sufficient to giuegive you warrātise. The like I say of freewil, praier for the dead, & intercession of Saincts. But it grieueth you that those Apocryphal scriptures, which hauehave bin vniuersally receiued for canonicall in the church of God aboue 1100. yeares should find no more reuerēce amōg vsus. Stil your mouth rūneth ouer. For in the time of the Canon of the coūcel of Carthage. 3. which you quote, these bookes were not vniuersally reuerenced as canonical. And Augustine him selfe speaking of the booke of Machabees, Cont. 2. G and. Ep. c. 23. cōfesseth that the Iewes accoūt it not as the law, & the Prophetes, & the Psalmes, to which our Lord giueth testimonie as to his witnesses, saying. It behoueth that all things should be fulfilled which are writtē in the Law, & in the Prophets, & in the Psalmes cōcerning me: but it is receiued of the Church, not vnprofitably, if it be soberly read or heard. This writeth S. Augustine, whē he was pressed with the authority of that booke by the Donatists, which defended that it was lawful for them to kil themselues, by exāple of Razis, who is by the author of that booke commēded for that fact. He saith it is receiued not vnprofitably, & immediatly after. Especially for those Machabees that suffred paciently horrible persecution for testimony of Gods religiō, to encourage Christians by their example. Finally, he addeth a condition of the receiuing it, if it be soberly read or heard. These speches declare, that it was not receiued without all controuersie, as the authenticall word of God: for then should it be receiued necessarily, & because it is Gods word especially, & how soeuer it be read or heard it is receiued of the Church, not only necessarily, but also profitably. Beside this, euen the decree of Gelasius, which was neare 100. yeares after that councel of Carthage, alloweth but one booke of the Maccabees. Wherfore the vniuersal reuerence that is bosted of, can not be iustified.
But M. Whitaker is charged in the margent, to condemne the seruice booke, which appointeth these books of Toby & Ecclesiasticus to be read for holy Scripture, as the other. And where finde you that in the seruice booke M. Martin? Can you speake nothing but vntruths? If they be appointed to be read, are they appointed to be read for holy Scripture, and for suche Scripture as the other canonicall bookes are? The seruice booke appointeth the Letanie, diuerse exhortations and praiers, yea homelies to be read: are they therefore to be read for holy & canonicall Scriptures? But you aske. Do they read in their Churches Apocryphall and Superstitious bookes for holy Scripture? No verily. But of the name Apocryphall I must distinguish, which somtimes is taken for all bookes read of the Church, which are not canonicall: sometime for such bookes onelyonly, as are by no meanes to be suffered, but are to be hid or abolished. These bookes therefore in controuersie, with other of the same sort, are sometimes called Hagiographa, holy writings, as of S. Hierom praefat. in lib. Tobiae: sometime Ecclesiastica, Ecclesiastical writings, and so are they called of Ruffinus. BecauseIn expositione Symbol…. (sayth he) they were appointed by our Elders to be read in the Churches, but not to be brought forth to confirme authoritie of faith: but other Scriptures they named Apocryphall, which they would not hauehave to be read in the Churches. So sayth S. Hierom in praefat. in Prouerb. Euen as the Church readeth in deede the bookes of Iudith, Tobias, and the Machabees: but yet receaueth them not among the Canonical Scriptures: so let it read these two bookes (of Ecclesiasticus and wisedom) for the edifying of the people, not for the confirmation of the authoritie of Ecclesiastical doctrines. These auncient writers shal answer for our seruice booke, that although it appoint these writings to be read: yet it doth not appoint them to be read for Canonicall Scriptures. Albeit they are but sparingly read, by order of our seruice booke, which for the Lordes day, & other festiuall daies, commonly appointeth the first lesson out of the Canonicall Scriptures. And as for superstition, although M. Whitaker say, that some one thing sauoreth of I know not what superstition, he doth not by and by condemne the whole booke for superstitious, and altogither vnworthy to be read, neither can he thereby be proued a Puritane, or a disgracer of the order of dayly seruice.