Answer to Reynolds Book, Chapter 2
CHAP. 2.
Of the canonicall Scriptures, and Engliſh Cleargie.
FRom Saint Iames Epiſtle Maſter Rainolds proceedeth to entreat of other bookes, refuſed by the Church of England, which yet he ſaith were not further diſprooued in times paſt, then that epiſtle of Saint Iames: whereupon he would hauehave his reader beleeue, that in alowing ſome bookes, and reiecting others, we are ledde by opinion & fanſie, not by learning, or diuinitie. Wherein, Maſter Rainolds, your ſelfe hauehave ſhewed, that opinion, not learning, ruled you, when you writ this. For Saint Iames epiſtle was neuer diſprooued by the wholl Church of God, but onelie by ſome of the Church: but thoſe bookes that are refuſed by vsus, were by the wholl Church diſtinguiſhed from the canonical ſcriptures, & had no greater credit, then they are of with vsus, as ſhall appeere.
The reaſon therefore of our refuſing them, is not, as you imagine, becauſe they containe ſome proofe of your Romiſh Religion, which we cannot otherwiſe auoid, but by denying the bookes to be of Canonicall authoritie: but becauſe they doe bewray themſelues of what ſtampe they are by moſt euident markes: and therefore hauehave bin generally of the wholl Church heeretofore ſette in the ſame degree, that they are left by vsus. Theſe Reaſons you ſawe comming againſt you, and becauſe you durſt not openlie encounter with them, you ſteale by an other way, & let them paſſe. But I muſt call you back a litle, though it be to your griefe and trouble: and require of you a plaine and direct anſwere, how thoſe bookes of the olde teſtament, which are commonly called Apocryphall, written firſt in Greeke, or ſome other forraine language, can be Canonicall? For all bookes of holie ſcripture in the olde Teſtament were written, and deliuered to the Church, by the holie prophets of God, being approoued by certain Teſtimonies to be indeed the Lords Prophets. Therefore Abraham anſwered the rich man,Lue. 16.29. requiring to ſend Lazarus to his fathers houſe, They hauehave Moſes and the Prophets: whereby it is plaine, that the wholl doctrine of the church then, was contained in the bookes of Moſes, and the other Prophets.2. Pet. 1.19. And Peter ſaith: we hauehave a more ſure word of the Prophets, meaning the ſcriptures of the olde teſtament. And ſo the Apoſtle to the Hebrewes writeth that God ſpake to our fathers by the Prophets. Heb. 1.1.By which teſtimonies of Scripture it is prooued, that none could write bookes to be receiued of the Church for the Canonicall word of God, but onelie they whome God had declared to be his Prophets. But the writers of thoſe Apocriphal books, were no Prophets, as may eaſily appeere: For then they would not hauehave written their bookes in Greeke, as is confeſſed moſt of theſe were, nor in any other tongue, then that which was proper to the Church of God in that time, as Moſes and the Prophets after him, writers of the holie ſcriptures, had done. The Church was then amongſt the Iewes, and the Prophets were the meſſengers, & miniſters of God in that Church, and vntounto it they deliuered, & dedicated their bookes. Wherefore the Greeke tongue, being not the tongue of Canaan, nor of the Church then, was not choſen by the Prophets to write, and ſet forth therein the doctrine and Religion of the Lord: ſo that the verie tongue wherein theſe bookes were written being not the tongue of the Prophets, doth plainlie conuince them to be no prophetical, & therefore no canonical bookes of the olde Teſtament. And here I omitte particular arguments, which might be brought againſt eueryevery one of thoſe bookes ſeuerallie, whereby it may be prooued inuincibly, that though you entitle them with the name of Canonical ſcriptures, yet they had not the ſpirite of God for their father.
Agaynſt this reaſon you bring Saint Auguſtines authoritie,De doct. Chriſt. l. 2. 8. whoe reckoneth them amongſt the Canonicall bookes of ſcripture, and ſo you ſay did the Catholike Church of that age. But that this is a moſte manifeſt vntruth, appeereth by S. Ierome,Praeſa. in Pro. Solom. whoe plainlie writeth that the Church readeth thoſe bookes, but receiueth them not amongst the Canonicall ſcriptures. So although Saint Auguſtine had thought them to hauehave bene of equall authoritie with the writings of the Prophets, which are called properlie Canonicall: yet was not this the common iudgement of the Church in thoſe dayes, as Saint Ierome doth let vsus vnderſtand, who liued in the Church of that age.In what ſenſe S. Auguſtine calleth theſe bookes canonicall. Saint Auguſtine calleth them indeede Canonicall, by a general and improper acception of that word: becauſe they are red in the Church, and containe profitable and Godlie inſtruction: but yet not ſo, as though there were no difference betweene them and the other which are vndoubtedlie Canonicall. For in that very place Saint Auguſtine oppoſeth Canonical ſcriptures to ſuch bookes, as by perilous lies and phantaſies might abuſe the reader, Periculoſis mendacus & phantiſmatibus.and bring preiudice to ſound vnderſtanding. And then giueth a rule to preferre thoſe bookes that are receiued of al Catholike Churches, before them, that ſome Churches receiue: & of thoſe that are not receiued of all, to preferre thoſe that the moſte & of greateſt authority do receiue. wherby you may ſee the vanitie of that you ſaid before, that the catholike church then iudged them to be canonicall. And further if Saint Auguſtine himſelfe had bene of your opinion, he would not hauehave giuen this admonition to preferre ſome before ſome: but would hauehave ſtraitly, and preciſely charged, that no difference ſhould be made, but all receiued alike, being al of like authoritie. As for Daniel, albeit ſome parte of him be written in the Chaldey tongue, yet was it vnderſtood of the Church, being then in captiuitie vnderunder the Babylonians: and that tongue is but a diuerſe Dialect from the Hebrew, and differeth littel from it.
My ſecond reaſon,Pag. 21. you ſay, is of more force: and if I prooue it, you promiſe to be of my iudgement. Let vsus then ſet downe the reaſon firſt, and ſee the proofes afterward. I ſayd, betwene thoſde bookes Apocryphes of the old Teſtament, and Saint Iames epiſtle there was this difference, that they were refuſed of the wholl Church, and ſo was not Saint Iames: wherfore we had reaſon to reiecte them, and not this. By the wholl Church I meant, not onelyonly the primitiue Church of Chriſtians, as you ſuppoſed, but the Church of the Iewes before Chriſt, which neuer allowed thoſe bookes for Canonicall, as your ſelues confeſſe: which is an inuincible argument againſt them. For had they bene Canonical, that Church would not, nor ought not to hauehave reiected them: and other Church there was none then, to allowe them. So by your iudgement it muſt be thought that diuerſe bookes of Canonicall ſcripture were neuer receiued for many yeares in any Church: which howe abſurde it is eueryevery man ſeeth. The Apoſtle writeth, that vntounto the Iewes were committed the oracles of God: Rom. 3.2.whereby is meant his word: But theſe bookes the Iewes neuer receiued, and therefore they are of another ſorte, then thoſe that containe the oracles of God. And that the Iewes did not amiſſe, in reiecting them, it may be vnderſtoode in that they were neuer reprooued by Chriſt or his Apoſtles for the ſame. Their falſe expoſitions of ſcripture are often tymes noted, and their errours confuted: but they are neuer found fault with, for refuſing theſe bookes of ſcripture, whereof if they had bene guilty, they ſhould not hauehave eſcaped reprehenſion. This argument you deale not with: but expound my words of the primitiue Church, whereas I ſpake ſpecially of the Church before Chriſt. For though the Catholike Church neuer thought theſe bookes to be Canonicall, as that word is properlie taken, yet it vſed in ſome places to read them, for inſtruction of manners, Hieron. praef. in Solom.not for confirmation of faith, as S. Ierome teacheth: but the olde Church of the Iewes neuer vouchſafed them ſo much honour as to read them publikelie. And that the Catholike Church receiued not theſe bookes for Canonicall, though it read them, you hauehave alreadie heard the witnes of Saint Ierome: who alſo in another place writing expreſſely of the Canonicall bookes,Hieron. in prologo Galeats. excludeth theſe out of the Canon, and calleth them Apochryphall. Hereunto might I adde many teſtimonies of Councels, and writers, both olde, and newe, wherein appeareth what iudgement the Catholike Church had of theſe bookes.
Gregory the great, whoe in your opinion was the head of the Catholike Church, being Biſhop of Rome,Writers old and new eſteeme thoſe bookes for Apocryphall and therefore one that by likelyhood ſhould not be ignorant of the Churches iudgement, calleth the bookes of Macchabees not Canonicall, yet ſet forth to the edification of the Church. Greg. in Iob. li. 19. cap. 16.Thus for 600. yeares after Chriſt you ſee theſe bookes were not eſteemed in the catholike Church for Canonicall: which alſo muſt be thought of the reſt, whereof we ſpeake, ſeeing there is one and the ſame iudgement of thē all. And that this iudgement hath euer ſince continually remayned in the Church, is prooued byac. 49. in Graeco Veronenſi. Damaſcene, bybDe ſacram in prol. li. 1. cap. 7. Hugo S. victoris, bycin Leu. li. 14. cap. 1. Radulphus, bydin prol. in li. Apocryp. Lyrane, byein prol. Ioſu. Hugo Cardinalis, and many moe, whoe playnly doe affirme thoſe bookes in the olde Teſtament, that the Church of England now accounteth Apocryphall, to be ſo, and not, as you would hauehave them taken, canonicall. Yea ſince your Tridentine aſſembly Arias Montanus, a man of your owne ſide, though not ſo abſurd, & corrupt in iudgement, as moſte of you, in his Hebrew Bible interlined, is not affrayd thus to write of the ſame bookes, and that not in a corner, but in the very forefront, and principal leafe of the booke. There are added (ſayth he) in this edition the bookes written in Greeke,Bibilia Montani. 1584. which the catholike Church, following the canon of the Hebrews, reckneth among the Apochryphall. Thus it is euident, that theſe bookes hauehave beene, and are refuſed by the catholike Church, and that our Church iudgeing them Apochrypall, conſenteth with the iudgement of the catholike Church; and yours in receiuing them for canonicall, hauehave not herein a catholike iudgement.
Now for Saint Iames epiſtle, where you demaund how it may appeere that it was not refuſed by the wholl Church, I would know, whether you will ſay it was indeed refuſed by the wholl Church, or no? if you will ſo ſay, then you ſhall, as much diſcredite the authoritie thereof,S. Iames epiſtle was neuer reiected by the wholl Church, but by ſome particuler Churches onelyonly. as euer Luther or anie Proteſtant hath done. For as the wholl Church neuer receiued anie booke for canonical, but that which was truelie Canonicall: ſo the wholl Church hath neuer refuſed any as Apocryphall, but ſuch as were indeed Apocryphall. If then the wholl Church of Chriſt hath refuſed Saint Iames Epiſtle, it will neceſſarilie follow, that S. Iames Epiſtle is not canonicall. But that the wholl Church euer refuſed it, is vntrue, as maybe prooued by the teſtimonies of writers, and Hiſtories of the Church.Euſe. l. 2. c. 23. Euſebius, that was the greateſt aduerſarie of it, and did moſt ſharplie cenſure it, yet in the ſame place confeſſeth, that both that and the reſt were receiued and publiſhed in moſte Churches. Wherfore when you ſaie,foreign. that for this part you muſt credit me vponupon my word, herein you bewray either great ignorance, or deſire to quarrell. The difference then which I put betweene the Apocryphall bookes of the olde teſtament, and theſe bookes of the newe, that they were reiected by the Church wholie, theſe not ſo, is fullie prooued: whereupon it followeth that the Church of England had greater reaſon to refuſe them, then theſe, and was therein led by learning, & knowledge, not by fanſie and opinion, as you ſaie. What learning, or what diuinitie is your Church led by, firſt to eſteem of theſe alike, then to alowe for Canonicall, ſuch bookes, as you confeſſe, and can not denie to hauehave beene refuſed by the wholl Church?
Where you ſay, my reaſons make moſte againſt my ſelfe,pag. 23. I know not how I could hauehave written more plainelie, & more conſonantlie to my ſelfe, then I hauehave done. But ſome are ſo froward, that though it be beaten into them with hammer, yet they will not ſeeme to vnderſtand. I ſaie Luther followed the iudgement of the auncient Church, in refuſing Saint Iames Epiſtle. what maketh this againſt my ſelfe? Can you deny but ſome of the ancient Churches refuſed it? Doth not Euſebius prooue it, when he ſaith, it was receiued in moſte Churches? Then it followeth, not in al Churches. And would Euſebius hauehave called it a Baſtard, if ſome Churches had not ſo accounted of it? But what if ſome refuſed it? doth it follow therefore that the wholl Church did ſo? you maie not thinke, M. Rainolds, to caſt vponupon vsus ſuch a miſte, but that we ſhal be hable to eſpie your walking along. Saint Iames epiſtle was neuer refuſed of all Churches generally, it was refuſed onelie by ſome: Luther in refuſing it agreed with the auncient Churches, not with all, but ſome, as many as refuſed it. But the greater number of Churches receiued it, as Euſebius witneſſeth, and our Church is led by Gods ſpirit, and true learning, to follow them. But for the Apochryphall bookes of the olde Teſtament, I hauehave prooued ſufficiently, and can further declare, if neede require, that both the greateſt part of the Church, and the wholl Church hath reprooued them. As for that Ierome ſayth, The Church readeth them, it maketh litle for their credit,S. Ierome a great enemy to thoſe apocryphal bookes. ſeeing he addeth immediatly, it was, to edifie the people, not to confirme the authoritie ef Eccleſiaſticall doctrine: and that though the Church read them, yet it receiueth them not among the canonicall ſcriptures: wherein he hath plainely caſt them downe from that height of authoritie and maieſtie, whereunto you would ſo faine lift them vp.
The Tower conference is here brought in to no purpoſe.Pag. 25. Their ſcope was to ſhew, that in the primitiue Church, not onelyonly ſome particuler perſons, but wholl congregations hauehave doubted of many bookes of Scripture, and yet notwithſtanding loſt not their dignite of true Churches of Chriſt: and therefore that Luther doubting, or denying ſome of them, cannot for that cauſe iuſtelie in any indifferent iudgement be condemned, ſeeing whatſoeuer they obiect againſt Luther in this behalfe muſt light vponupon the auncient Churches & fathers, that hauehave thought herein, as Luther did. Wherefore your concluſion that you ſet downe in the end of this your idle, & wandring talke, is onelie deuiſed of your ſelfe, and not maintained by vsus. For you father vponupon vsus, that we thinke we may refuſe all ſuch bookes, as of olde hauehave bene doubted of:pag. 28. which is as farre from our thinking, as heauen is from earth: and if any man hauehave euer vttered ſuch a thing, as I thinke none hath, it is his owne priuat conceite, not the approoued and conſtant iudgement of our Church. The bookes in the olde Teſtament, that we refuſe, beſides that they carie in their foreheades euident notes of Apochryphall writings, hauehave not onelie bene doubted of, but clean caſt awaie by the Church of God, as hath bene prooued: all the bookes in the newe Teſtament doe we whollie admit as canonical, not refuſing any parcell or word thereof, becauſe we acknowledge in them the ſpirit of God, and ſee no reaſon to mooue vsus otherwiſe. For though they hauehave beene doubted of in former times, yet it was vponupon no certaine ground, and by fewe, in compariſon of thoſe that receiued them, vndoubtedlie.Pag. 29. Thus in a word the necke is broken of al your notes that follow, where in you labour to ſaie as litle in manie words, as poſſiblie maie be ſayd. That we rente from the bodie of the Scriptures in the old Teſtament, Toby, Iudith, Heſter, Baruch, Wiſdome, Eccleſiaſticus, Maccabees, the praier of Manaſſes, the ſong of the three children, the ſtorie of Bell, herein we doe the canonical Scriptures no iniurie, deuiding from them ſuch bookes as are not of that abſolute authoritie, that they which are in truth canonical, maie remaine intire, and wholl together: no more then the ſhepheard doth iniurie to the ſheepe, in ſorting the goates and other cattel from them.
But which of our brethren are they, that ioyne to theſe the two bookes of Cronicles, and the ſong of Salomon? If you can name any ſuch in theſe daies, it will ſoone appeare they are not brethren of ours. You will not (I ſuppoſe) charge vsus therewith, and yet perhaps you will hauehave men ſuſpect vsus as guiltie thereof. But your boldneſſe is intolerable, that knowing both the common conſent, and practize of our Church, do notwithſtanding both labour to caſte wrong fullie vppon vsus ſome ſuſpicion for refuſing theſe, and furthermore alſo plainlie and moſt falſllie avouch, that we denie ſundrie bookes of the new Teſtament, ſetting downe in a rowe Saint Lukes Goſpell,M. Rainold accufeth vsus for denying ſome Canonical books of the olde Teſtament, & diuers of the new, which all the world knoweth to be a great ſlaunder. the epiſtle to the Hebrews, the epiſtle of Saint Iames, the ſecond of Peter, the ſecond and third of Saint Iobn, Saint Iude, the Apocalyps, a parte of Saint Iohns Goſpell. What ment you, Maſter Rainold, thus to ſay, and thus impudentlie to lie? Are you gone to Rheames, and hauehave you left all conſcience behinde you? Care you not to publiſh in printe to the world ſo great, ſo manie, ſo manifeſt vntrueths? before you vſe to make your ſacrifice at Maſſe, do you not vſe to confeſſe your lies, as ſins, and yet will you print your lies, without repentance? Of theſe our Church denieth nor one, doubteth not of one. If you meane ſome Proteſtants in Germanie, whatſoeuer they thinke of Saint Iames, S. Iude, the ſecond of Saint Peter, the ſecond and third of S. Iohn, yet the epiſtle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalyps of Saint Iohn they do receiue as canonicall. Saint Lukes goſpell came neuer yet in doubt or queſtion amongſt vsus, and I muſe what the occaſion ſhould be of this your ſo fowle vntrueth. If becauſe in the Tower conference of the fourth day one ſaid, that the Laodicean Councel omitteth S. Lukes goſpel, it is too friuolous, ſeeing that was a ſlippe of memorie or ouerſight in him. And though the Councel had ſo done, as it hath not, yet how followeth it that we therefore doe ſo?
My diſtinction of the wholl Church, & ſome Churhes, is as cleare as the day: & it is to be obſerued, that whereas in it reſteth the ſumme of this your ſecond Chapter, and you are deſirous to hauehave it remooued, yet you bring nothing once to ſtirre it. That S. Iames hath bene douted of in ſuch ſorte, as Iudith, Macchabees, the counterfaite Heſter, (for the right Heſter we embrace) is prooued alreadie falſe: and that our owne doctours refuſe it, is an other vntrueth. For were it, as you ſaie, of that conference, yet is it but one ſingle mans ſentence, and that by waie of arguing.
Thirdlie, you deſcant vponupon Bene habet, It is well, pa. 30.but ſo ſimplie and fondlie, that euerie one may ſee you are a trifler. It is well, I ſaid, that Campian could not charge Luther, for denying a booke, which neuer anie Church denied, but for denying ſuch a one, as had beene heretofore by ſome Churches denied. And although I ſeeke not herein to defende either Luther, or thoſe auncient Churches that refuſed the ſame, yet is Luthers offence not ſo hainous, as it ſhould hauehave bene, if this had firſt proceeded of him-ſelfe, without example of other Churches. If you will burthen vsus with refuſall of S. Luke his Gospell, the knowne trueth wil eaſilie acquit vsus of that accuſation. But nothing can be ſo falſlie ſurmized, that you will not finde in your heartes to burthen vsus withall. As for Atheiſme, I doubte not but your owne conſcience doth tell you, our doctrine is farre from it: which when you forſooke, I wil not ſaie, how neere you approched to Atheiſme, in yealding to the ſtrawne opinions at Rome, but I am aſſured, you went from Chriſt, to followe Antichriſt: and of a miniſter of the Goſpel, became an open enemie of the Goſpel. If you repent not, it had bin better for you neuer to hauehave bene borne.
Thoſe forefathers of whome I ſpake, hauehave giuen ſuch a blowe to your great fathers of Rome,pag. 13.32. as you and your companions ſhall not be hable to heale his wound. And though he liue ſtill, and breath, yet is he ſcarſe hable to ſtand on his feete, and carieth vponupon him that marke, that ſhall dailie more and more diſcouer him to the Saints of God. Aerius, Ʋigilantius, Iouinianus, if they taught anie thing againſt the trueth of Gods word, let them be eſteemed as they deſerue. We laie the grounds of our religion, not vponupon the writings or opinions of men, be they good, or badde, learned, or vnlearned, Catholikes, or Heretikes, but vponupon the written word of the eternall God: and therefore we praie not, as you doe, nor offer ſacrifice for the dead, we worſhip not, nor inuocate Saints, we thinke the honourable eſtate of mariage is pleaſing to the Lord as well as ſingle life. For thus hauehave the Prophets, the Apoſtles, the Lord him-ſelfe taught vsus: As for Marcion, Cerdon, the reſt, we abhorre them with all their damnable heriſies, becauſe the word of God condemneth them: the more is your fault, in ſaying they are our fathers. But you hauehave drawen ſince your departure ſo hard a ſkin ouer your conſcience,Foule vntrueths affirmed of vsus by M. R. as you feare not to vtter anie vntrueth be it neuer ſo deſperate. You ſay we matche S. Luke and the Apocalyps with the booke of Iudith, and that we ſaie moſt plainlie we are not bound to admit thoſe, and all the forenamed bookes, but may refuſe them: which for ſhame of the world you would neuer hauehave written, but that like an Atheiſt your pen is a readie inſtrument to publiſh anie vntrueth. The booke of Iudith in dede admit we not: and that is no blaſphemie: prooue it if you can. But what ſhould I require you M. Rainolds, to prooue anie thing, that hauehave taken vppon you to ſaie al things, and prooue nothing?
You reaſon, as if you had made a fraie with reaſon,Pag. 33.34. that we are like thoſe olde brutiſh heretikes, called Alogi, who denied the Apocalyps of Saint Iohn, becauſe we ſaie, we know as certainelie the ſcriptures to be ſcriptures, and euerie booke thereof, as we know the ſunne, to be the ſunne, which is as contrarie to thoſe Alogi, as the light is to darkenes. But who euer doubted of the ſunne, you ſaie, that it is the ſunne? of Saint Iames epiſtle Luther doubteth, and the Lutherans: wherfore you ſaie, I condemne them for the verieſt ſottes that euer liued. Not ſo, Maſter Rainolds, if you could ſee. For though we are as fullie perſuaded of the one, as of the other: yet doth it not follow that the clearnes of this truth appeereth alike vntounto all,We muſt be perſuaded & aſſurede of many things that are not ſeene, no leſſe, then of thoſe things that we ſee with our eies. but to ſuch onelie as it is reueiled vntounto. Know you not as vndoubtedly there is a God, as you know there is a ſunne? If not to you, yet to all Godlie, the knowledge of the one is no leſſe certaine then of the other, though we cannot beholde god with our eies, as we may ſeethe ſunne? Wil you then conclude, that al are ſtocks and ſtones, which cannot perceiue this ſo cleare, and euident a trueth? Doe not your ſelues thinke all thoſe bookes, for which you contend with vsus, to be as truelie canonicall, as that the ſunne ſhineth? you will not, I am ſure ſay otherwiſe. Doe you then beſides an infinite number of auncient writers, condemne thoſe of your ſide, for ſtockes, and ſottes, that denied them? To omit the reſt, of whome I ſpake before,Sixt. biblioth. lib. l. Driedo de Catal. ſerip. li. 1. c. 4. ad difficult. 11. was Sixtus Senenſis a ſotte, for denying your bookes of Heſter? was Dryedo a ſotte, for denying Baruch? Thus muſt it be, or els, your argument is too childiſh, I will not ſaie ſottiſh.
Here is brought an argument for Traditions, ſuch a one as M. R. diuinitie could afford.Pag. 35. It cannot, he ſaith, be prooued by ſcriptures that S. Mat. S. Marke, S. Luke, S. Iohn his goſpell, & S. Paules Ep. are Canonical ſcripture, that is, penned by diuine inſpiration: then we muſt beleeue ſome what, which by ſcripture cannot be prooued, & ſo tradition is eſtabliſhed. I would your other traditions were of this ſorte, then ſhould we ſooner agree. But betweene this, and the reſt of your infinite traditions, there is no likenes. For this is grounded vponupon the word written: the reſt hauehave no footing on that ground. Although it is not expreſlie ſet downe in thus many words, S. Matthewes goſpell is Canonicall, How we knowe the goſpell of S. Matthew, S. Marke. &c. to be canonicall ſcriptures.& ſo likewiſe of the reſt, yet that we cannot otherwiſe come to the certain knowledge & beliefe thereof, but by reporte, is a vaine, & fooliſh phantaſie. For the hiſtorie it ſelfe and doctrine therein contained, doe plainlie ſhewe & conuince the booke to be Canonical, that is, written by diuine inſpiration: ſo as although the Churches commendation and teſtimonie of it may confirme our iudgement in beleeuing the ſame, yet our faith is builded vponupon the written word it ſelfe. And ſo your other argument falleth of faith by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10.17.For when we heare the doctrine of theſe bookes preached vntounto vsus, we beleeue the ſame in euerie point: whereof it muſt needs follow, that the bookes are Canonicall, containing ſo heauenlie and ſpirituall doctrine, as the like can not be written of anie, but the ſpirit of God onelie: ſo being enforced to alowe, and imbrace by faith the doctrine of thoſe bookes, how can we but acknowledge the bookes them-ſelues to be canonicall? wherfore in that you ſaie, we finde not this word in the ſcriptures, vnles you thinke no word is found in them, but ſuch as is ſet downe in expreſſe tearmes, you are abuſed. For this word is found in them by neceſſarie collection, & ſo be not your vaine vnwritten Traditions, and therfore are neither parte nor parcell of Gods diuine word.
But here is by the waie to be noted, how this man ſeeking to diſprooue my compariſon of the ſunne,pag. 36. hath ſuddenlie ouerthrowen the principall ſtaie of their religion, which is the viſiblenes of the Church. That which is knowen by ſenſe, ſaith he, is no article of faith: for theſe two are directly oppoſite. Then the Church is not knowne by ſenſe: and ſo viſiblenes is not a marke of the Church. For if it be, then is it not an article of faith, to beleeue the Church. Thus ſometime you can reaſon well, but then it is againſt your ſelfe. The ſimilitude was brought not to match our beliefe of ſcripture with knowledge of the ſunne, that as we know the one by ſenſe, ſo the other: but that we hauehave certaine and vndoubted beliefe of the canonicall ſcriptures by themſelues, as we know the ſunne by it ſelfe. Your beliefe in deede of the bookes of ſcripture is naturall, and to vſe your owne example, ſuch, as when you beleeue Tuſculans Queſtions to be written by Tullie. For as you are ledde thus to beleeue of this booke becauſe it hath bene ſo accounted in all times by conſtant tradition euer ſince: ſo likewiſe you hauehave no better reaſon to diſcerne the canonicall ſcriptures from other bookes, but onelyonly this common receiued opinion of the Church, which you call Tradition. We hauehave this as well as you, and we hauehave alſo an other, better and ſurer then this, which you hauehave not: yea, which you blaſphemouſly deride, the teſtimony of the ſpirit, wherby the authoritie of the ſcriptures is ſealed in our harts and we are throughly induced to receiue them, as the moſt bleſſed Teſtament, and trueth of God. For example, that there is a God, who created heauen and earth, both the Scriptures teache, and the creatures them-ſelues confirme, ſoe as no man ought to ſtand in doubt thereof, Yet notwithſtanding this perſuaſion cannot be faithfullie ſetled and rooted in mans hearte, vnleſſe it be approoued, and as it were ſealed vntounto vsus by the holie Ghoſt: without the confirmation whereof, great doubtfulnes and diſtruſt will ariſe in our mindes continuallie, through the greate corruptiō of our nature. Euen ſo that theſe ſcriptures are in trueth the verie word of God, not onelie them ſelues doe prooue by their ſubiecte matter, & argument, but alſo the teſtimony & iudgement of the Church, which euer ſo eſteemed them, may inuinciblie argue the ſame. And yet for all this that we faithfullie receiue them, and ſubmit our ſelues vntounto them, as to the word of God, without wandring or ſuſpicion, Gods holie ſpirit muſt inwardlie perſwade our heartes, that this indeede is his word, and therefore of vsus by all meanes to be imbraced, and beleeued. Thus it appeereth how falſe it is, that you hauehave noted in your margent, that the Proteſtants refuſing the Church, beleeued not the ſcriptures. We refuſe not the Church, but we knowe the Scriptures of God hauehave greater credit and aſſurance, then the onelie approbation of the Church.
I hauehave allreadie anſwered whatſoeuer you bring out of Auguſtine, the Councel of Carthage, or any other,pag. 38.39. both in what ſenſe thoſe bookes of the olde Teſtament are called canonicall by them, alſoe how the other of the new Teſtament were refuſed, or receiued in times paſt. You ſhall neuer be able to prooue that you ſet down in your margent, wherein the ſumme of your wholl ſpeach is briefly compriſed, that S. Iames epiſtle, and the epiſtle to the Hebrews, hauehave beene as much doubted of, as the bookes of the olde Apochryphall Teſtament, which the Proteſtans reiect. The moſte you can alledge is, that ſome Churches hauehave doubted of thoſe epiſtles but I hauehave before ſhewed, that the wholl Church reiected theſe of the olde Teſtament. This was mine anſwere to M. Martines demaunde: this is mine anſwere ſtill, which you cannot with all your endeuour take away. Something you write for a colour and faſhion, but you come alwaies behinde with your reckning.
It offendeth you that I ſaide, we hauehave ſeene, we hauehave confuted, we hauehave troden vnderunder foote all the arguments of the Papiſtes, and whatſoeuer they could ſaie. Vnleſſe you hauehave ſome new harueſt growing, which yet hath not bene reaped, I might truely ſaie, as I ſaide: for you hauehave vttered all your ſtore, ſuch as it was, and we hauehave ſeene, and confuted it long agoe, and that by the written word of god, againſt which, no tradition, no religion, though neuer ſo auncient, ſo vniuerſall, ſo glorious, may preiudice anie thing. What reaſons moued you to departe from vsus, and become a feedes-man of the Pope, I leaue to the Lord, and your owne conſcience: for any thing that I could euer ſee (and I hauehave laboured to ſee the trueth, and what could be ſaide againſt it, by the beſt of your ſide) I doe with al my heart reioyce in the cauſe which we maintaine againſt you, and I thinke it to be the iuſteſt, and honorableſt defenſe, that euer was vndertaken. What you hauehave learned ſince you went, and how ſubſtantiallie you confute my bragge, as you call it, ſhall hereafter further appeare, as it hath in part alreadie done.