YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

WHITAKER'S
DISPUTATION ON SCRIPTURE.

mt iiatfter Society.

iFor tfje publication of tfje aaiovfeo of tye .dFattm
anU CFarlp fflSHritcre of tijc Ucformro

V
A

DISPUTATION

ON

HOLY SCRIPTURE,

AGAINST THE PAPISTS,

ESPECIALLY

BELLARMINE AND STAPLETON

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 THE
REV. WILLIAM FITZGERALD, A.M.
PREBENDARY OF DONOUGHMORE IN THE CATHEDRAL OF ST PATRICK, AND
PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.

CAMBRIDGE:
PRINTED AT
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,

M.DCCC.XLIX.

CONTENTS.

Preface by the Editor .......
Epistle Dedicatory to Lord Burghley ....
Preface to the Controversies ......
Question the First of the First Controversy : Of the number of the
Canonical Books of Scripture .....
Question the Second : Of the Authentic Edition and Versions of the
Scriptures ........
Question the Third: Of the Authority of Scripture
Question the Fourth : Of the Perspicuity of Scripture
Question the Fifth: Of the Interpretation of Scripture
Question the Sixth : Of the Perfection of Scripture, against Uuwrit
ten Traditions ........
To the Reader ........
Index .....¦•>••

PAGE ix 3
14,
25
no
275359
402496
705709

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 value ; as exhibiting the posture of defence assumed
by 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 Lan
cashire, a.d, 1547, of a good family, nearly related to Alexander
Nowel, the celebrated dean of St Paul's. He was bred at Cam
bridge, where he soon distinguished himself, and was in 1579
appointed the Queen's Professor of Divinity. In 1586, 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. How 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 by Bancroft1 : " Quem Cartwrightus nuper emisit libel-
lum, ejus inagnam partem perlegi. Ne 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-
men videri vult odio capitali dissidere. Verum nee in hac causa
1 Survey of Discipline, p. 379, Lond. 1593.

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 then-
hostility to the Arminian opinions, which in his time began to
prevail in the Church of England ; as appears from the share
taken by him in the prosecution of Baret, and the devising of
the Lambeth articles. The history of such proceedings is foreign
from my present purpose; but the reader will find a full detail
of the circumstances connected with them in Strype's Life of
Whitgift, Book iv., Chapters 14 — 18. Shortly after the termi
nation of that memorable dispute, Whitaker died in 1595, in
the forty-seventh year of his age. He was married, and had
eight children. It was pleasantly said of him, that he gave the
world a child and a book1 every year. Of his children I have
nothing to communicate, and his books will speak for themselves.
They gained for him in his life-time a high character, not only
with friends, but with enemies also. " I have," says the writer
of his life, in Lupton's Protestant Divines2, " 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. For he privately admired this man for his
singular learning and ingenuity ; and being asked of some of his
friends, Jesuits, why he would have the picture of that heretic
in his presence? he would answer, Quod quamvis hcereticus
erat et adversarius, erat tamen doctus adversarius : that, " al
though he was an heretic, and his adversary, yet he was a learned
adversary," p. 359. " He was," says Gataker, " tall of stature and
upright ; of a grave aspect, with black hair and a ruddy com
plexion ; a solid judgment, a liberal mind, an affable disposition ; a
i Librum et Liberum quotannis. See Fuller's Life of Whitaker in tho
"Holy 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 governor ; a contemner of money ; 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." "Who," 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. Had I considered myself at liberty to use more freedom,
I should have made my task more easy to myself, and the work
perhaps less tedious to the reader : 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
by John Allenson, B.D., Fellow of St John's College. The subjects
of these are De Ecclesia, De Conciliis, and De Romano Pontifi.ee.
He encountered Bellarmine also on the other controversies in suc
cession, De ministris et presbyteris Ecclesiaz, De Sanctis mortuis,
De Ecclesia triumphante, De Sacramentis in genere, De Baptismo,
and De Eucharistia. " Quas," adds his biographer, Obadiah
Aooliofnn a. TiVilnw nf Vti« f^nllpfyA i( n+inam lipnicQAf rtc»Y» ntinm

XII PREFACE.
The following is the list of his works :
1. Responsio ad decern rationes Edm. Campiani. 8vo. Lond.
1581. 2. Responsionis ad decern rationes Edm. Campiani Defensio.
8vo. Lond. 1583.
3. Refutatio Nic. Sanderi, quod Papa non sit Antichristus.
8vo. Lond. 1583.
4. Answer to W. Rainold's Reprehensions, &c. 8vo. Camb.
1585. 5. Disputatio de Sacra Scriptura contra hujus temporis Pa-
pistas. 4to. Cantab. 1588.
6. Pro authoritate atque avTOTncrrici S. Scripturse Duplicatio
contra T. Stapletonum. Libri 3. Cantab. 1594.
7. Prselectiones de Ecclesia, &c, edited after his death by
J. Allenson. 4to. Cantab. 1599.
8. Praelectiones de Conciliis. 8vo. Cantab. 1600.
9. Concio in 1 Thess. v. 12. 4to. Cantab. 1599.
10. In Controversiam de R. Pontifice, distributam in quass-
tiones viii., adversus Pontincios, imprimis R. Bellarminum, praelec
tiones. 8vo. Hanov. 1608.
11. De Sacramentis. Francof. 1624. 4to.
A complete collection of his works in Latin was printed in two
vols, folio, at Geneva, 1610.
Besides the above, Whitaker published in 1569 a Greek trans
lation of the Common Prayer; in 1573, of Nowel's larger, and in
1575, of the smaller Catechism.

DISPUTATION

ON

HOLY SCRIPTURE.

[whitaker.]

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

DISPVTATIO
DE SACRA SCRIPTYRA;
CONTRA HVIVS TEMPORIS
PAPIST AS, INPRIMIS,
ROBERTVM BELLARMINVM IeSVITAM,
Pontificium in Collegio Romano, & Thomam
Stapletonvm, Regium in Schola Dua-
cena Controuersiarum
Professorem :

Qucestionibus proposita fy tractata d Gvilielmo Whitakero Tlieologws
Doctore ac Profeffore Bcgio, 8f Collegij D. Ioannis in Canta-
Irigiensi Academia Magistro.
Basilivs in Epistola ad Eustathium mcdicum.
IT 8eoirvcv(no<! t}p.w BtatTr]<raTai ypacpif koi Trap' of? <JV evpeBfj t<x Zdyfxara
cruvM^a toTs ueiot*; Xoyots, eirt tomtom i]^€t Travrtos t/71? ctXqOetas t} \i^l/rf)09.

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 back, 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 of — Society of Jesus hath brought forth, for the
calamity of the church and the christian religion. For 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 by its incredible charms at the
same time moving all, to gaze on, admire, and cleave to it; 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 their 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 key
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 men; 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 God was
not impressed. The event itself, the best interpreter of prophe
cies, has illustrated the obscurity of the prediction. For 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 by any one, who can compare together the past and pre
sent, and interprets what was foretold, as about to happen, by
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 day ; 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
by 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. They have
left the shade of ancient sloth and inactivity, in which the other
monks had grown grey, 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. It hath
come to be understood, that the cause of Rome, which, shaken by
the perilous blows dealt on every side by men of ability and
learning, had begun in many parts to totter and give way,
could never be defended or maintained, except by learned and
diligent and active champions.
For just as a dilapidated mansion, unless propped up almost

EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 5
every day by fresh and firm buttresses, will suddenly fall in a
violent and total ruin; 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. Yet, 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
by any multitude of artificial props; 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 de
struction in its ruins. We 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 by 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 best ; let them exert, if possible, still more
intense sedulity, and omit nothing that learning and diligence can
accomplish without the aid of truth. Yet 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 Belgium ; but afterwards,
having removed to Rome, 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 by his auditors,
transcribed, transmitted into every quarter, and treasured up as

EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

jewels and amulets. After some time, for the sake of rendering
them more generally useful, they were epitomized by a certain
Englishman. Finally, the first volume of these controversies
hath been published at Ingolstadt, printed by Sartorius ; and the
rest are expected in due time1. Now, therefore, Bellarmine is
cried up by 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.
When you, honoured sir, demanded my 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 reading ; — one, 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 own ; perceiving, I suppose,
that the old ones were not sound enough to be relied on. We
have an instance (Lib. 11. de Verbo Dei, c. 16) in his treatment
of 1 Cor. 14, 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
[i 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 be understood of divine
service, interpreted it so as to require that the words of the minis
ter should be understood, not by the whole congregation, but only
by him who made the responses in their name. But Bellarmine,
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. 18, 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. in. 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. He saw clearly that Hosius' exposition left our doctrine of
the perspicuity of scripture in sufficient strength, and therefore
excogitated this new one ; upon which we have treated, Quest, iv.
chap. 4.
In the same way, when we maintain that the mysteries of
the faith should be concealed from no one, and allege, in proof,
those words of Christ, " What ye hear in the ear, that proclaim
ye upon the house-tops ;" Bellarmine, (Lib, iv. c. 12) has recourse
to a strange and hitherto, I think, unheard of interpretation ;_
that is, says he, if need so require. He 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

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 "as a sort of commonitory, useful to preserve and
cherish the faith received by 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 others ; — nor yet 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 Jesuit ! — 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. For 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 you in certain writers ; whereas religious disputes and
controversies should be 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 many — more eager for contention than for truth —
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
"'"• do^rine of the perspicuity of scripture (Lib. in. c. 1), lays
this down as the state of the question, " Whether scripture be so
plain in itself as to be sufficient, without any explication, to deter- ¦
mine controversies of faith ; " 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. For 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.
And 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 very 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 my 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 ; yet 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 by its Jesuit patrons,
than it was heretofore, when defended by the ancient orders. Let
the Jesuits be allowed acute, ready, practised, eloquent, and full of
resources ; let them be, in a word, whatever they are, or are be:
lieved to be : yet truth is ever one and the same ; 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 my 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 by 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. Not 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
Nor do I see that any so great inconvenience is to be appre
hended from this course, as some suspect. For, although those who
are bound to this cause by a blind superstition, will probably be so
far from reaping any advantage, that they will rather be rendered
still more obstinate, and some fickle people will, perhaps, be even
alienated from our side; as, in every disputation, opinions incline
different ways, according as the several auditors are capable of
judging or inclined to attend and reflect ; — yet, we may reasonably
augur the following important results : First, it would easily appear,
what is the true state of the question in each controversy ; 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 by the decrees of
men or their own caprice, but by 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, tEewishesof our adversaries
would be satisfied ; nor could they any longer, with any shew of
probability, reproach us openly with cowardice. Yea, 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 go 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 you my thoughts
and wishes. The determination rests with those who are at the
helm of church and state ; — with 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 by himself; so as thai
we all may easily judge of their quality, their value, their strength;
and their importance, nor believe Bellarmine to be any other than
we find him by their evidence. And, although our adversaries'
opinions might be collected from the many other writers who have
appeared in great numbers on the same side ; yet, since there are
many points upon which they do not all agree, it hath been a matter
of 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 very 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 copy of Bel-
larmine's Lectures, I thought it worth my while to handle these
same controversies in the schools in the discharge of the duties of my
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 by
many persons to publish some of my 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 them ; 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 by itself, and separate from all the others.
In all this I did nothing without the approbation of the most
reverend father, the archbishop of Canterbury, — a man of the
greatest wisdom and the greatest learning, who, having read and
thoroughly considered this whole controversy, declared it worthy
of publication. Now that it is published, I dedicate it to you, most
noble Cecil, whom I have ever esteemed the great patron and
Maecenas of my studies ; you, in whom this college prides herself

EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 13
as a member of her body, 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 country ; whom the church recognises
as a son serviceable both to its interest and safety. I pray God
that he may preserve you ever in safety and prosperity to our
church, state, university, and college. Farewell.
Your 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 by
many and not unworthy of our university, the attempt to go
through those controversies, both numerous and great, as ye 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 you ; at least I should desire that the object
of my intentions and design should meet with approbation from
you all. For I have not been led to this undertaking through
any rashness, or unreasonable and fickle impulses and movement
of my feelings, through disgust of old subjects to look out for new
ones ; 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. Upon 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
by 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 your 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 yet expe
rienced in fulfilling the duties of my office, and where all the
diligence must be applied, which is required by a business of the
highest difficulty. But since our undertaking is both noble and
necessary, and long and earnestly desired by you, 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 be ignorant
of, or refute with commendation, — not of the forms of the lawyers,
in which one may err without damage, — not 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 ;
— but 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. If 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. For 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 task ; they have done that which we 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.
They have two professors in two of their colleges, Stapleton at
Dquay, 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 by 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 by the papists, in many commentaries and sepa
rate books, yet are now handled in one single volume by them
selves ; the object and design of which proceeding cannot possibly
be a secret to any one. Why then should not we do the same,
and put a complete body of controversies into men's hands, col
lecting and compacting into one book whatever hath been disputed
in defence of the truth against popery, by 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. We must take measures for the security of these
persons, and especially at the present time, when so many, partly
by the reading of such books as are every day published by our
adversaries, partly by 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 "the 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 kingdom ! 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. Who can deny it ? For 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 by 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. We 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 ; you 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. For 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 you 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 be avoided.
For he is subverted, and sins against his own conscience, and is
condemned by his own judgment." Tertullian, in his Prescriptions
against heretics, declares that heresy should be "avoided as a
deadly fever." Now "fever," says he1, "as is well known, we
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." And Cyprian, Epist. 40 2, "Fly far from the contagion of
[} Febrem ut malum, et de causa et potentia sua, ut notum est, abomi-
namur potius quam miramur, et quantum in nobis est prsecavemus, non
habentes abolitionem ejus in nostra potestate: hscreses vero mortem seter-
nam et majoris ignis ardorem inferent. 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 discedite, et ser-
r i 2
[WHITAKER.J

18 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES.
such men, and shun by flight their discourses as a canker or a
pestilence ; since the Lord hath forewarned us, saying, ' They are
Mind, and leaders of the blind.' " Similar to this is the admonition
of Jerome, in his Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus : " Beware,
reader, of reading : fly the viper1." Thus it behoves us to fly as
poisonous vipers, not only the discourse, but the books and letters
of heretical persons. For, as Ambrose says in his 80th 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 sheep2." 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 by us, you will be
enabled to set down and assign to its proper place and division
whatever you 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 by 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 referred ; and
many are ill arranged, so that, although we have noted them down,
yet they do riot 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.
And since the new popery, which in general may be called
Jesuitism, differs widely from the old, and the former scholastic
mones eorum velut cancer et pestem fugiendo vitate, prsemonente Domino et
dicente, Cfeci sunt et ccecorum duces.]
[l Cave, Loctor, ne legas ; fuge viperam.]
[2 Sermonem serpentina) disputationis effundunt, atque veritatem catho,
licam vertendo ad sure doctrinaj rabiem diabolico more traducunt, atque
ovium simplicitatem defraudant.]

PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 19
divinity delivered many things much otherwise than they are now
maintained by 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. And 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 words3." 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, judg
ments of the fathers, tradition, and the practice of the church ;
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 are 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 Roman
church, may be adduced as .witnesses in the cause. Thus it will be
clear, that what Jerome, Epist. 139, applies out of Isaiah to the
[3 Fides pura et aperta confessio non quserit strophas et argumenta
verborum. Epist. lxii. ad Theophil.]
2—2

20 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES.
heretics, that "they weave the spider's thread," is pertinently
applied to the papists. For, as Jerome says, they weave a
web 1 " which can catch small and light animals, as flies and gnats,
but is broken by 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. Be ye, therefore, of good cheer. We have a cause, believe
me, good, firm, invincible. We 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 you
will presently see them wavering, turning pale, and unable to keep
their ground. Yet I do not ascribe to myself all those gifts of
genius, judgment, memory and knowledge, which are demanded
by 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 me ;" relying upon
whose assistance I enter upon the combat. They come against us
with sword, and shield, and armour : 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 Creed ; — I believe in the Catlwlic
Church, the Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of Sins. In
this respect 1 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. He 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
game rule and method, and that popery must have in it all the
t1 Quse parva et levia capere potest animalia, ut muscas et culices, a forti-
oribus statim rumpitur. Epist. cxxxix. ad Oyprianum.]

PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 21
heresies which belong to antichristianism. Now antichristianism
consists not in the open and outward denial of Christ, or in the
worn-out defence of obsolete heresies. For 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 ? Who 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 by 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 by the very 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. For
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. The name of Christ denotes
three offices, as you 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. For he
was anointed to be our Prophet, King, and Priest, in order that he
might discharge the function of our Saviour. Now, therefore, we
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 lay
such weighty stress as to equal them even to the scriptures them
selves. How far from slight this controversy is, you readily
perceive. The second office of Christ is the Royal, which all the
heretical opinions of the papists concerning the church impugn.
The kingdom of Christ is the church ; in it he reigns and is sole
monarch. This controversy is complex, and requires to be dis
tributed into its several parts. The church is either militant or
triumphant. We 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. Of the whole —
what it is ; of what sort ; whether visible ; by what notes dis
tinguished ; whether it may err; 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 ; by whom they should be
convoked ; of what persons they should consist ; what authority
they have; who should be the chief president in a council;
whether they are above the pope ; whether they may err. Next,
we come to the several members of the church. Now they are
divided into three classes. There is the principal member, or
head, the intermediate members, and the lowest. They 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 Peter ; whether Peter was bishop of the
church of Rome, and died there ; whether the pope succeeds Peter
in his primacy; whether he may err; 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. Now 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 yoke. The 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. The lowest members, as they arrange
them, are laymen, even kings or emperors. Here 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 by
the pope ; whether civil laws oblige the conscience. And so far of
the church militant.
Next follows the church triumphant ; which consists of angels
and deceased saints. The controversies are, of the hierarchies,
ministry, and invocation of angels. When 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 body of controversy
concerning the sacraments; for by the sacraments, as so many
means instituted by Christ, the efficacy of that sacrifice is derived
to us. We 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 by 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 by the very
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. Next 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 sin;
whether God 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 avr66eos ; whether he increased
in wisdom ; whether he suffered in his soul the pains of hell, and
whatever others there be of this sort.
You 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. You see almost the
whole mass and body of the popish heresies. In considering, re
volving, and explicating these matters it becomes us now to be
wholly occupied. We 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.

CHAPTER I.

WHEREIN THIS WHOLE CONTROVERSY IS DISTRIBUTED INTO ITS
PARTICULAR QUESTIONS.
We 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 : 'Epevvare tos ypacpas, Search
the Scriptures. Christ had been commended to the Jews by
the testimony of John the Baptist. That testimony was most
true and honourable; and could not be despised by the Jews
themselves, amongst whom John lived in the highest respect and
estimation. Yet Christ declares that he had others greater, more
certain and more august than the testimony of John. He enume
rates three of them : first, the works which he performed ;
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. Nor does Christ blame in the least
that judgment of theirs concerning the scriptures, but rather praises
it. He bids them go on to " search the scriptures ;" he inflames in
every way their zeal for the scriptures, and sharpens their industry.
For 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.
Now 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 of
scripture ; not to confine ourselves to certain portions of it, while
we despise or overlook the rest. All parts give plain testimony to
Christ. But the scriptures are praised by the papists, as well as

26 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
highly esteemed by 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.
We 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.
We 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. We are commanded to search the scriptures: whence it appears
that the scriptures enjoy a very high dignity and authority, since
Christ himself appeals and refers us to them. The third question
therefore shall be, Of the authority of scripture ; whether it have
this so great credibility and dignity of itself, and from the Holy
Ghost its author, or from the testimony of the church.
We are commanded to search the scriptures : whence some
hope appears to be shewn that we shall come to understand them,
and gain much profit by the search, if we do as we are commanded.
Therefore the fourth question shall be, Of the perspicuity of
scripture. We 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.
We 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 tho scripture, something else be
commended to our investigations. Therefore the sixth and last
question shall be, Of the perfection of scripture ; which I shall

I,J QUESTION THE FIRST. 27
prove to be so absolutely complete that we should wholly acquiesce
in it, and need desire nothing more, and that unwritten traditions
are by no means necessary for us.
These questions I purpose to treat in the order in which I have
proposed them.

CHAPTER 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. For the scrip
ture is in the church what the law is in a state, which Aristotle
in his Politics calls a canon or rule. As all citizens are bound to
live and behave agreeably to the public laws, so Christians should
square their faith and conduct by the rule and law of scripture.
So, in Eusebius1, the holy fathers accuse Paul of Samosata of
departing from the rule (cnroaTcls cnro tov navovos), and becoming
the author of an heretical opinion. So Tertullian, in his book
against Hermogenes2, calls the scripture the rule of faith ; and.
Cyprian says, in his discourse upon the baptism of Christ : " One
will find that the rules of all doctrine are derived from this scrip
ture ; and that, whatever the discipline of the church contains
springs hence, and returns hither3." Chrysostom too, in his 13th
[} ottov Se awoaTas to£) kovovos fVi Ki'^SijXa Ka\ voda biha.yp.aTa psTeKrj-
¦\v8ev, oidev Set tov ega '6vros Tas irpa^eis Kpivew. H. E. VII. 30. T. 3. p.
391. ed. Heinich. Lips. 1828. But it is most probably the Creed that is
there meant.]
[2 Whitaker most probably refers to the famous passage, c. xxii. " Adoro
plonitudinem scripturse," &c. cited below, Qu. 6. c. xvi., and produced also
by Cosin (Scholastical History of the Canon, chap. i. §. 1.) in proof that the
Church always regarded scripture as "the infallible kulb of our faith."
Some, however, suppose that Tertullian refers to scripture, and not the
Creed, in these words : " Solemus haereticis compendii gratia de posteritate
prajscribere : in quantum enim veritatis regula prior, quae etiam futuras
hcereses prcemmtiavit, in tantum posteriores quseque doctrinse hsereses praj-
judicabuntur." Adv. Hermog. i. (Opp. P. iv. p. 1. ed. Leopold. Lipsise, 1841.)
For the Creed contains no prediction of heresies.]
L8 This treatise, falsely ascribed to Cyprian, may be found in the works
of Arnold ofChartres (Carnotensis) subjoined to Fell's Cyprian (Amstel. 1691),
The passage cited is at p. 33 : " Inveniet ex hac scriptura omnium doctrina-

28 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. LCH'
Homily upon 2 Corinthians calls scripture the exact balance, and
standard, and rule of all things." For the same reason Augustine
affirms, that " whatever belongs to faith and moral life may be
found in the scriptures1;" and he calls the scripture the scales, in
the following passage : " Let us not apply deceitful scales, where
we may weigh what we wish, and as we wish ; but let us bring
God's own scales from the holy scriptures," &c.
So Basil calls the sacred doctrine " the 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 demonstrated2;" and then he subjoins: "From
these fountains of the divine word our cups are to be drawn3."
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 intellect4." Hence it plainly appears why the scriptures are
called canonical ; — because they prescribe to us what we must
believe, and how we ought to live : so that we should refer to this
test our whole faith and life, as the mason or architect squares his
work by 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 it ; upon which point we shall have to
speak under the sixth question.
Now 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 evSiaOqicous* ; and Nice-
phorus often uses the same term. Some also call them ^ia6r]Ko-
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.]
[! See these passages cited more fully below. Qu. 6. c. 16.]
[2 Hecc sunt quae patres intra canonem concluserunt ; ex quibus fidei
nostrse assertiones constare voluerunt. Ad Calc. Opp. Cypriani, p. 26, ut
supra.] [3 Hsec nobis a patribus, ut dixi, tradita opportunum visum est hoc in
loco designare, ad instructionem eorum qui prima sibi ecclesise ac fldei
elementa suscipiunt, ut sciant ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi Dei haurienda
gint pocula. Ibid. p. 27.]
[* Doctrina apostolorum et prophetarum canonica dicitur, quia est quasi
regula intellectus nostri. Thornse Aquin. in 1 Tim. vi. Lect. 1.]
[5 H. E. Lib. V. C. 25. ovk ev8ia6rj<ovs p.ev, a\\a Ka] dvriXeyopevovs.]

"•] . 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 agreed : 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 by
it6." Then it recites the books which are truly canonical, and
are received by us without any hesitation. But it subjoins others
which we do not acknowledge as canonical. Such are these six
books : 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 accursed7!" 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 by the Tridentine
fathers, if we would escape their anathema, to receive as autho
ritative canonical scripture not only those six entire books which
we have mentioned, but besides certain parts of and additions to
the books, as Baruch, the Hymn 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 Esther :
for it is thus that the Jesuits interpret the meaning of this decree.
Now, therefore, the state of the question is this ; whether these
books, and these parts of books, should be received for sacred and
canonical scriptures ? They affirm : we deny. It remains that we
should proceed to the discussion. I will first answer their arguments,
and then proceed to the defence of our cause ; which course I
[6 Sacrorum vero librorum indicem huic decreto adhibendum censuit, ne
cui dubitatio suboriri possit, quinam sint, qui ab ipsa synodo suscipiuntur.
Concil. Trid. Sess. iv. Decret. 1.]
p Si quis autem hos libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus,
prout in ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata editione
habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit  Anathema sit. Ibid.]

SO THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. LCH'
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 by Aristotle. And since, as Nazianzen tells us,
" every argument is designed either to establish our own opinion,
or overturn the opposite1," I will choose first to overturn the oppo-,
site opinion, and then to establish my 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, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others.
I shall not endeavour to go through them all, but will enumerate
for you the principal.,,
First of all, the Sadducees received no scriptures but the five
books of Moses2. This many suppose to have been the reason,
why Christ (Matt, xxii.) refutes the Sadducees denying the resur
rection, by the testimony of the Mosaic scripture. Simon, follow
ing in their steps, declared that the prophets were not at all to be
regarded; as Irenseus testifies3, Lib. i. c. 20. 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. Epi
phanius has treated upon this subject, Haeres. lxvi. So Saturninus
rejected the God of the Jews, and consequently the whole old
Testament, as Irenseus tells us, Lib. i. c. 22*. The impious Mar-
cion insulted with a load of reproaches the God who is preached in
the law and the prophets, and held that Christ had come to dis-
[! Aittov Svtos Xo'yov iravTos, tov pev to oUelov KaTao-Kevagovros, tov Se tq
avriwaXov ivaTpenovTos. Orat. xxxv. p. 562. a. Nazianz. Opp. T. I. Colon. 1690.]
[2 This common notion is reasonably doubted by many. See Jortin's
Remarks, B. xi. Appendix 1, on the Sadducees, Vol. i. p. 439.]
[3 Prophetas autem a mundi fabricatoribus angelis inspiratos dixisse pro-.
phetias ; quapropter nee ulterius curarent eos hi, qui in eum et in Selenen
ejus spom habeant. P. 116. b. ed. Fevard. Paris. 1685.]
[4 Judsaorum Deum unum ex angelis esse dixit, et . . . advenisse Christum
ad destructionem Judceorum Dei  Prophetias autem quasdam quidem

PI.]' QUESTION THE FIRST. 31
solve the law and the prophets, and the works of that God who
made the world. This Irenseus tells us5, Lib. i. c. 29. Such frantic
men Christ himself expressly refutes by his own words, when he
says, 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
tempt6, (Ad Quod vult Deum, c. 21), and to the Severians, of
whom he. writes, " They condemn the resurrection of the flesh and
the old Testament7," (ibid. c. 24.) Guido Cameracensis reckons
this also amongst the heresies of the Albigenses. This heresy is
refuted by Epiphanius, in the place which I have already cited,
and most copiously by Augustine against Faustus the Manichee,
and against the adversary of the law and the prophets.
The Ptolemasans condemned the books of Moses8, as Epipha
nius relates, Hseres. xxxiii. The Nicolaitans and Gnostics ejected
the book of Psalms from the sacred canon, as Philaster informs us,
(in Lib. de Hser. c. 127) ; which heresy the Anabaptists have
renewed in our times. But all these heretics are refuted by the
clearest evidence of the new Testament.
Many formerly, as Philaster relates (in Cat. c. 132, 133),
rejected the books of Solomon, and especially Ecclesiastes and
the Song of Songs ; 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.
For in Ecclesiastes 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 mundum fabricaverunt dictas ; quasdam autem a Satana,
quem et ipsum angelum adversarium mundi fabricatoribus ostendit ; maxime
autem Judseorum Deo. Ibid. p. 118, c]
[5 Marcion . . . impudorate blasphemans eum qui a lege et prophetis an-
nunciatus est Deus . . . Jesum autem [dicens] . . . venientem in Judseam . . .
dissolventem prophetas et legem, et omnia opera ejus Dei qui mundum
fecit. Ibid. p. 129, a.]
[6 Resurrectionem mortuorum negat, spernens etiam Testamentum Vetus.
Augustini Opp. T. vm. col. 43, a. Paris. 1837.]
p Carnis resurrectionem cum Vetere Testamento respuentes. Ibid, c]
[8 Ilapa yap Toll dp-qpivois <a\ tov vopov tov &eov tov Sea Mavo-eas
Pkao-cpripav ovk alo-xvverat.. Ed. Petav. Colon. 1682. T. I. p. 216. See the
curious epistle of Ptolemseus to Flora, which he there subjoins, given also by
Grabe, Spicil. 11. 69.]

32 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

[CH.

despise and contemn the present world. Thus at the very com
mencement he exclaims, "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity:"
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. And 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. For
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. They 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 forth; as, indeed, all men of sound
judgment have always determined. Nor is the fact, that none of
the customary names of God occur in this book, any proof that
it is not canonical. For, although such names are omitted, yet
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 piece: 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.
We care little for the impious Anabaptists, who reject this book
with contempt; nor can we at all excuse Castalio1, if he really wrote
t1 I write the name thus in conformity with Whitaker's usage ; but the
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 Ave editions of Castellio's bible which he

"'•] QUESTION THE FIRST. 33
what some object to him ; — that this book is nothing but a conver
sation which Solomon held with his Sulamith.
The Anabaptists are said, at the present day, to reject and
ridicule the book of Job, and some have written that it is called
by those heretics a Hebrew Tragi- Comedy. This they would seem
to have learned from the wicked Jews: for certain rabbins,
authors of the Talmudic fables, affirm2 that it is a fictitious story,
and no such man ever existed. The impudence of these persons is
refuted by other testimonies of scripture. For, in Ezekiel xiv. 14,
the Lord says : " If these three men were in the midst thereof,
Noah, Daniel, and Job, &c." Whence we perceive that Job 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. 19):
" He taketh the wise in their own craftiness ;" which words we
find, in Job v. 13, to have been pronounced by Eliphaz. The
apostle James, also, hath mentioned this man, James v. 11. Hence
it is manifest that this was a true history, and that the book itself
is canonical, and that they who determine otherwise are to be
esteemed as heretics.
Jerome, in the Proem of his Commentaries on Daniel3, relates
that Porphyry 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 by the ancient prophet, but
by some later Daniel, who lived in the times of Antiochus Epipha-
nes. But we need not regard what the impious Porphyry 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 Ecclesise (Ecclesia)
hostes. Servator, lilium Columba. Solomo Christi Imago. Ad puellas vir,
et ad virum puelUe. Ecclesise pulchritudo. Servatoris in Ecclesiam Stu-
dium. Ecclesia vinea copiosa."]
[2 Nosti quosdam esse, qui dicunt Jobum nunquam fuisse, neque creatum
esse; sed historiam ejus nihil aliud esse quam parabolam. Maimonides,
Moreh Nevoch. par. in. c. 22. Compare Manasseh Ben Israel, de Resurr.
Mort. p. 123.]
[s Contra prophetam Danielem duodecimum librum scripsit Porphyrius,
nolens eum ab ipso, cujus inscriptus est nomine, esse compositum, sed a quo-
dam qui temporibus Antiochi Epiphanis fuerit in Judssa; et non tarn Danie
lem ventura dixisse, quam ilium narrasse prseterita. T. m. p. 1071, &c. ed.
Bened.] 3
[whitaker.]

34 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. LCH>
and whose calumnies were refuted by Eusebius, ApoUinarius and
Methodius1, as Jerome testifies in the above-cited place. So far
concerning the old Testament.
The new Testament, also, was formerly assaulted in various
ways by heretics and others. The Manichees shewed themselves
no less impious and sacrilegious towards the books of the new Tes
tament than they were towards those of the old. They were not
afraid to say that the books of the apostles and evangelists were
stuffed full of lies : which madness and frenzy of theirs Augustine
hath most learnedly confuted in his thirty-second book against
Faustus the Manichee.
Others received no gospel but that of Luke, and hardly any
other part of the new Testament ; as Cerdon and his disciple Marcion.
Tertullian speaks of these towards the end of his Prescriptions2:
" Cerdon receives only the gospel of Luke, nor even that entire.
He takes the epistles of Paul, but neither all of them, nor in their
integrity. He rejects the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse
as false. After him appeared his disciple, Marcion by name, who
endeavoured to support the heresy of Cerdon." These men took
away almost the whole contents of the new Testament.
The Valentinians admitted no gospel but that of John, as Ire
nseus tells us3 ; (Lib. in. c. 11.) which error the papists charge on
Luther also, but most falsely, as they themselves well know. The
Alogians4, on the contrary, rejected all John's writings, and were
so called because they would not acknowledge as God the Logos,
[! Cui solertissime responderunt Csesariensis Episcopus  ApoUinarius
quoque  et ante hos, ex parte, Methodius. Ibid.]
[2 Solum Evangelium Lucse, nee totum recipit, Apostoli Pauli neque om-
nes neque totas epistolas sumit; Acta Apostolorum et Apocalypsin quasi
falsa rejicit. Post hunc discipulus ipsius emersit, Marcion quidam nomine. . .
hseresin 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.]
[3 Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem ple-
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. rv. 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 be God in the beginning of his gospel.
This is related by Epiphanius (Hser. Lib. i.), who gave them this
appellation upon that account.
Irenseus relates6 (Lib. i. c. 26.), that the Ebionites received
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. 27 6-
The Marcionites rejected both epistles to Timothy, the epistle
to Titus, and the epistle to the Hebrews, as Epiphanius records,
Hser. xlii.7
Chrysostom and Jerome8, in the Preface to the epistle of Paul
to Philemon, testify that it was by some not received as canonical ;
which conclusion they were led into by considering that human
frailty could not bear the continual uninterrupted action of the
Holy Ghost, and that the apostles must have spoken some things
by 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. Chrysostom9 refutes this opinion, with
much truth and beauty, in the Argument of this epistle, and teaches
us that many noble and necessary lessons may be learned from it :
first, that we should extend our solicitude to the meanest persons :
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 be honest men. Who now will say that this
epistle is useless to us, from which we may learn so many and
[5 Solo autem eo quod est secundum Matthseum Evangelio utuntur, et
Apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatam esse eum Legis dicentes. p. 127, o.]
[6 B\ao-(prjpovvTes 8e UavXov tov diroo-Tokov, aQeTovcriv ovtov ras eVtoroXa?,
pyo'e Tas irpd^eis Tav dnocrToXav KaTaBexopevot. T. I. p. 409.]
[' 'E7ri<TToAas nap' avra tov dylov dnocrrokov dexa, ais povais KexprjTat. §. 9.
T. i. p. 309. D.]
[8 Volunt aut epistolam non esse Pauli, quae ad Philemonem scribitur ;
aut etiam si Pauli sit, nihil habere quod edificare nos possit. — Hieron. prsef.
in Ep. ad. Philem. T. iv. p. 442.]
t9 The best edition of Chrysostom's admirable Commentary on the epistle
to Philemon is that by Raphelius, subjoined to Vol. II. of his Annotationes
Philologies?. Lugd. Bat. 1747. The reader will find the passage here re
ferred to at pp. 28, 30, 32.]
3—2

36 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. LCH"
such distinguished lessons ? Forasmuch, therefore, as this epistle
was both, written by Paul, and contains in it such excellent in
struction, it ought not by 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 Schwenkfeldtians1 and
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 book concerning the express
word of God : " We 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
be taught of God. Vain is the labour which is expended upon
scripture : for the scripture is a creature and a beggarly sort of
element2." Many passages of scripture condemn this monstrous
heresy. Christ says : " Search the scriptures." Paul says :
" Whatsoever things were written of old time were written for our
learning." Rom. xv. 4. And elsewhere : " All scripture is given
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for correction,
for reproof, and for instruction in righteousness." 2 Tim. iii. 16.
There are innumerable such testimonies, by which the authority of
the scriptures is fully proved, and the blasphemy of these men
refuted; against which our divines have also written many ex
cellent discourses.
At 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
[i So called from Caspar Schwenckfeldt, a Silesian knight, and counsellor
to the Duke of Lignitz, who died in 1561. See an account of him in Mos-
heim, Cent. xvi. Sect. m. part n. c. 1, §§ 23, 24.]
[2 Nos . . . ipsas scripturas . . . facessere jubebimus, et Deum loquentem
potius audiemus, . . . quam ad egena ista elementa nos convertamus  Non
oportet legis et scriptura peritum esse, sed a Deo doctum. Vanus est labor
qui scripturse impenditur : scriptura enim creatura est, et egenum quoddam
elementum.—Hos. Op. Col. 1584. De express.Dei Verbo. Tom. i. p. 624.J

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 them3, " that the evangelists are free from all falsehood,
both from that which proceeds from deliberate deceit, and that
which is the result of forgetfulness." (De Cons. Ev. Lib. n. c. 12.)
Consequently, Jerome judged wrong, if he really judged, as Erasmus
supposes4, "that the evangelists might have fallen into an error of
memory." Erasmus himself, indeed, determines that it is neither
impious nor absurd to think so ; 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 thus : " 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 account6." But it does not become us to be so easy and
indulgent as to concede that such a lapse could be incident to the
sacred writers. They wrote as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost, as Peter tells us, 2 Pet. i. 21. And all scripture is inspired
of God, as Paul expressly writes, 2 Tim. iii. 16. Whereas, there
fore, no one may say that any infirmity could befall the Holy
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 Jerome : " If any, even the smallest, lie be admitted in
the scriptures, the whole authority of scripture is presently inva
lidated and destroyed6." That form which the prophets use so
[3 Omnem autem falsitatem abesse ab Evangelistis decet, non solum earn
quae mentiendo promitur, sed etiam earn quae obliviscendo. — Aug. Opp. T. in.
P. n. 1310. b.]
[4 Erasmus (loc. infra citat.) gives Jerome's own words from his epistle
de optimo genere interpretandi : Accusent Apostolum falsitatis, quod nee cum
Hebraico nee cum Septuaginta congruat translatoribus, et, quod his majus
est, erret in nomine : pro Zacharia quippe Hieremiam posuit. Sed 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.]
[s Ceterum etiamsi fuisset in nomine duntaxat memorise lapsus, non opi-
nor quemquam adeo morosum esse oporteret, ut ob earn causam totius scrip-
t'urse sacrse labasceret auctoritas. — Erasm. Annot. p. 107. Froben. Basil. 1535.]
[6 Si mendacium aliquod in scripturis vel levissimum admittatur, scrip-
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 Lord," is to be attributed also to the apostles
and evangelists. For the Holy Spirit dictated to them whatever
things they wrote ; whose grace (as Ambrose writes, Lib. 11. in Luc.)
" knows nothing of slow struggles1." Hence neither can that be
tolerated which Melchior Canus has alleged, (Lib. 11. c. 18. ad 6)
in explanation of a certain difficulty in the Acts of the Apostles,
chap. vii. 16 ; where Stephen says, that Abraham bought a se
pulchre from the sons of Emmor, whereas Moses relates that the
sepulchre was purchased by Jacob, not by 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 re
corded what Stephen said2. But that answer draws the knot tighter,
instead of loosing it : for Stephen was not only full of the Holy
Ghost, but is even said to have spoken by the Holy Ghost. Acts
vi. 10. Stephen, therefore, could no more have mistaken than
Luke ; because the Holy Ghost was the same in Luke 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
we 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:
" Wherever the apostles or apostolical men speak to the people,
they generally use those testimonies which had gotten into common
use amongst the nations3."
intended : Admisso enim semel in tantum auctoritatis fastigium officioso ali-
quo mendacio, nulla illorum librorum particula remanebit, &c. Epist. xix.
Tom. n. p. 14.]
[i Nescit tarda molimina Sancti Spiritus gratia, c. xix. Ambros. Opp.
T. v. p. 46. Paris. 1838.]
t2 Stephano id quod vulgo solet accidisse, ut in longa videlicet narratione,
eademque prsesertim subita, confuderit nonnulla et miscuerit, in quibusdam
etiam memoria lapsus fuerit ;  Lucas vero, historic veritatem retinere
volens, ne iota quidem immutavit, sed rem ut a Stephano narrata erat ex-
posuit.— Melch. Cani Loc. Theolog. fol. 89. 2. Colon. Agripp. 1585.]
[3 Ubicunque Sancti Apostoli aut Apostolici viri loquuntur ad populos,
iis plerumque testimoniis abutuntur, quse jam fuerant in gentibus divulgata.
— Hieron. Qusest. Hebr. in Genes. T. in. p. 468.]

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. And
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. They allege, in the first place, the third council of Carthage,
(in which Augustine himself bore a part,) can. 47 4, wherein all
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 by pope Leo IV. (Dist. 20. 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, be strong
enough of itself to prove this point, yet, since it is confirmed by
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 IV. (in Epistol.
ad Armenos), that of Trent under Paul III. (sess. 4), and pope
Gelasius with a council of seventy bishops5. Of fathers, they cite
Innocent I., who was also a pope, in his third Epistle to Exuperius
of Tholouse ; Augustine, Lib. ii. c. 8. De Doctrina Christiana ;
Isidore of Seville, Etymolog., Lib. vi. c. 1. So that the argument
of our opponents runs thus : these councils and these fathers affirm
these books to belong to the sacred canon ; 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. We may
then add to it, But these councils and these fathers receive these
books as canonical ; therefore these books are truly canonical and
[4 Mansi, Collect. Concil. Tom. ra. p. 891.]
[s Vide infra, or in Mansi, T. vm. p. 146.]

40 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
divine : otherwise there will be no consequence in the reasoning.
Now let us answer somewhat more clearly and distinctly.
In the first place, we deny the major proposition of this syl
logism. We 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. How ge
neral that of Trent was, in its fourth session, may be appreciated
from the number of the bishops who were present in that session.
The 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. Where the attendance was so thin,
it was impossible that any general council could be held. Yet Ala-
nus Copus (in Dialog. Quint, c. 16.) says, that there were fewer
bishops in many famous councils than at Trent1. I allow this to be
true of provincial synods ; 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. For the papists vehemently and contemptuously
blame the injunction most solemnly expressed in can. 26 2, that
" the bishop of the chief see shall not be called high priest, or chief
of the priests, or by any such title." They cannot then bind us
by an authority to which they refuse to be tied themselves.
But, they say, this Carthaginian synod was approved by the
P Sed nullam isti habent causam paucitatem istam contemnendi, cum
rariore numero multa prasclara concilia sint habita.— Alan. Cop. Dialogi vi.
Dial. v. c. 16. p. 487. Antv. 1573.]
P Ne primaj sedis episcopus appellotur Summus Sacerdos, aut Princeps
sacerdotum, aut ejusmodi aliquid. Labb. Concil. T. ii. p. 1176.]

IV-] QUESTION THE FIRST. 41
Trullan council of Constantinople, which was universal. Be 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 by the same sanction, which yet they will by no
means concede. How, then, will they divide these things ? I ac
knowledge, indeed, that this Trullan synod3 was oecumenical. 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 by no means genuine ; which he seeks
to prove by 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. For there are some
.things in those canons which the papists can by no means approve ;
namely, that the bishop of Constantinople is equalled with the
Roman, can. 36 ; that priests and deacons are not to be separated
from their wives, can. 13 ; 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. 67. 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. For pope Gelasius (in Gratian, Dist. 15. C.
Romana Ecclesia) declares the book of the apostolic canons apo
cryphal4. And Gratian (Dist. 166) says, that there are only fifty
p Called Quini-sext from serving as a kind of supplement to the fifth and
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.]
P Liber Canonum Apostolorum apocryphus : which clause is wanting in
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.]
P Isidorus scribit dicens, canones qui dicuntur apostolorum, seu quia eos-
dem nee sedes apostolica recepit, nee sancti Patres illis assensum prsebue-
runt, pro eo quod ab hsereticis 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 by 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 Gratian1, no more than sixty. Pope Leo IX2., who
was three hundred and fifty years later than the synod, receives
the same number exactly, as Gratian writes in the place just cited.
The thing itself, indeed, shews that the canons ascribed to the
apostles are spurious. For 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. Yet they affirm that these canons were not collected by
others, but published by the assembled apostles themselves. Thus
Peiresius determines in the third part of his book concerning tra
ditions3; and so others. For, can. 28, Peter himself says, "Let
him be removed from communion, as Simon Magus was by me
Peter4." If this canon, therefore, be true, Peter was present at the
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 ? For 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
"the Acts of us the Apostles6."
It is no less easy to refute the answer which others make, that
Clemens published these apostolic canons. For how could Clemens,
P Ibid, c. 2.]
P 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 Uberty of attributing them to Leo, on the principle, that the words of the
Legate are the words of his employer.]
P Peiresius Aiala, De Divinis, Apostolicis, atque ecclesiasticis Traditio-
nibus. Paris. 1550.]
P iKKOTTTeo-da, TravTanao-i ko\ tijs Koivavlas, d>s lipav 6 Mayor viv \ifiov\
IleTpov. It is numbered 29 by Beveridge, and 30 by Whiston. The word in
brackets is omitted by Dionysius Exiguus, for obvious reasons.]
P koI al irpd£eis r\p.S>v t&v diroorSXav. Beveridge here pronounces the
word r)pa>v to be an interpolation ; but, as it seems, without any sufficient
grounds for such an opinion.]

IV'] QUESTION THE FIRST. 43
whom Damasus6 and Onuphrius7 testify to have died in the time
of Vespasian, have seen the gospel of John, which he wrote after
his return from Patmos, during the reign of Trajan ? For almost
all authors say very plainly, that the gospel was written by 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, Gregory of Tours (Glor. Plurim. Mart. c. 30.),
Huimo (Lib. in. de rerum Christianarum Memorabil.), Alcuin upon
John, and innumerable other writers of great authority.
But the matter is clear enough of itself. For these canons of
the apostles approve the constitutions of Clement and his two
epistles. Yet the council of Constantinople, which hath received
the canons of the apostles, condemns the constitutions of Clemens8,
as, indeed, many others do also ; concerning which book we shall
speak hereafter. Besides, these canons of the apostles damage the
papal cause: for they set down three books of Maccabees9, and
omit Tobit and Judith10, and direct young persons to be instructed
in the Wisdom of Sirach11, and make no mention of the Wisdom of
Solomon. If 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 by the authority of
the canons of the apostles, If they be not, as it is plain they are
not, then the synod of Constantinople erred, when it approved them
as apostolical. Yet 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 ap
proved. Hence we may judge what force and authority is to be
P i. e. The Liber Pontificalia, which goes under his name : see the article
Damasus (anno 366) in Cave's H. L. and Pearson, de success, prim. Episc.
Rom. Diss. II. c. 4. § 4 — 6.]
p Annotat. in Platinam. p. 13. Colon. lib. 1600.]
p Canon, n. Beveridge, Pandectse, Can. i. 158.]
p MaKKaftaiav rpla. C. 85. But Cosin (pp. 30 — l) endeavours to shew that
the canon in its original state made no mention of any books of Maccabees.
Cf. Gibbing's Roman Forgeries, p. 114.]
p° Cotelerius, however, found one MS. with the clause 'lovbeid iv, which,
of course, he was glad enough to have any authority for inserting.]
P1 aavddvetv vpa>v tovs veovs ttjv (rotpiav tov noKvpadovs 2tpa^. Can. LXXXV.]

44 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
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 by the authority of these very
canons. For so Canus (Lib. h. cap. 9) proves that the authority
of the council of Carthage, in enumerating these books, is not to be
despised, because it was approved by the general Trullan synod;
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 Maccabees1, and one of Esdras. Thus he rejected
the second book of Maccabees, which is apocryphal, and Nehemiah,
which is truly canonical. Isidore, too2, confesses that there are
but two and twenty books found in the Hebrew 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. For 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. We 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. Now, 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 by 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 by 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 Rome acknowledges as her own children.
P In Dominica prima mensis Septembris ponunt librum Machabseorum :
where, however, Ivo reads libros. Decret, P. i. Dist. xv. c 3 ]
P Offic. 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.
For he distinguishes all the books into two classes ; some which
were received by 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 receive; the other, that those books which
are received by the greater and more noble churches should be pre
ferred to those which are taken into the canon by churches fewer
in number and of less authority. It will be best to listen to Augus
tine himself, whose words are these (Lib. n. c. 8. de Doct.
Christ.)3: "Now, with respect to the canonical scriptures, let him
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.
He will hold this, therefore, as a rule in dealing with the canonical
scriptures, to prefer those which are received by all catholic churches
to those which only some receive. But, with respect to those
which are not received by all, he will prefer such as the more
and more dignified churches receive, to such as are held by fewer
churches, or churches of less authority." Then follows immedi
ately, "Now the whole canon of scripture, in which we say that
this consideration hath place," &c.
Hence, then, I draw an easy and ready answer. We, with
Jerome and many other fathers, deny these books to be canonical,
Augustine, with some others, calls them canonical. Do, then, these
fathers differ so widely in opinion ? By no means. For 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
P In canonicis autem scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quam pluri-
mum auctoritatem sequatur ; inter quas sane ilk* sint, quse apostolicas sedes
habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in
scripturis canonicis, ut eas, quse ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis,
prseponat eis quas qusedam non accipiunt ; in eis vero quse non accipiuntur
ab omnibus, prseponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt eis quas pau-
ciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesise tenent  Totus autem canon
scripturarum, in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus, &c. Aug.
Opp. T. ni. c. 47, 48. A. b.]

46 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. LCH-
canonical ; the rest he banishes from the canon, denies to be 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 judge 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 the several books,
to distinguish them into classes, and to prefer some to others. If
his judgment of them all was the same, as the papists contend,
such an admonition and direction must appear entirely superflu
ous. Would Augustine, if he held all the books to have an equal
right to canonicity, have made such a distribution of the books?
Would he have preferred some to others? Would 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. xvn. c. 20.) concedes, that less reliance should be placed
upon whatever is not found in the canon of the Jews1. Whence it
may be collected that, when Augustine observed that some books
were not received by all, or the greatest and most noble churches,
his remark is to be 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.
Let it be 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. For in the same place of his
City of God he thus speaks of those books : " Learned men have
no doubt that they are not Solomon's2." This was one error in
Augustine. Another, and no less one, was supposing that the
book of Wisdom was written by Jesus the son of Sirach (de
P Sed adversus contradictores non tanta firmitate proferuntur qus
Bcripta non sunt in eanone Judseorum. — 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. n. c. 8.) ; which error he retracts, Retract. Lib.
n. c. 4.3^ Yet he allegeth an excuse, which is neither unhandsome
nor trifling, for attributing five books to Solomon; that "these
books may be 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 by Solomon, and then, that they were written by Jesus
the son of Sirach. Indeed, Augustine himself testifies that these
books were by no means received in all churches (De Civit. Dei.
Lib. xvn. c. 20.) ; where he says that these books were especially
received as authoritative4 by the Western church. To this Wes
tern church Augustine and Innocent belonged. For 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 yet, as
we read, entertained and received by many. For pope Mar-
cellinus, in an epistle to Solomon, adduces a testimony from Ec
clesiasticus, as from Solomon ; and likewise pope Sixtus II. in
an epistle to Gratus : 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 by Mar-
cellinus or Sixtus, but are falsely attributed to them : yet still,
by 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. For 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. If 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
P In secundo sane libro (de Doc. Christ.) de auctore libri, quern plures
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. lb. T. i.
86, 87. d. a.]
p Eos tamen in auctoritatem maxime occidentalis antiquitus recepit ec
clesia. Ut supra, 765.]

48 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. LCH*
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 : " Here," says he, " we close our commentaries on the
historical books of the old Testament. For the rest (that is,
Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St
Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the
Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, 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. Now, 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. Yet, 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. By 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 Carthage1." 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 by some councils and Fathers, and
customarily received in the canon of the bible, because they pro
pose a certain rule of morals. There are, therefore, two kinds
p Hoc in loco terminamus commentaria librorum historialium veteris
Testamenti. Nam reliqui (videlicet Judith, Tobise, et Machabseorum libri) a
Divo Hieronymo extra Canonicos libros supputantur, et inter Apocrypha
locantur cum Sapientia et Ecclesiastico, ut patet in prologo Galeato. Nee
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 tarn verba Conciliorum quam Doctorum, et juxta illius sententiam
ad Chromatium et Heliodorum episcopos libri isti (et si qui alii sunt in C*.
none Biblise similes) non sunt canonici, id est, non sunt regulares ad firman-
dum ea quse sunt fidei : possunt tamen dici canonici, id est regulares ad sedi-
ficationem fidelium, utpote in Canone Biblise ad hoc recepti et auctorati.
Cum hac distinctione discernere poteris dicta Augustini, et scripta in Pro
vincial! Concilio Carthaginonsi. In ult. C. Esther, ad fin.] i

IV-J 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. We 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 approved ; these our churches
acknowledge as truly canonical. The Deutero-canonical are they
which, although they be sometimes called canonical in the sense
just now explained, are yet in reality apocryphal, because they do
not contain the combined rule of faith and morals2. The 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 by the novelties of Erasmus. Let us
lea-re 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. Let them shake
it off as they best can : and yet they never can shake it off, since
it is confirmed by solid reason.
Thus we have seen how weak their argument is. They have none
better : 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 by prophets: therefore they are
not canonical. The entire syllogism is this. All canonical books
of the old Testament were written by prophets: none of these
p A difference of authority is owned also by Lamy. App. Bibl. L. n. c. 5.
p. 333. Lugd. 1723 ; and Jahn, Einleitung ind. A. T. Vol. i. p. 141.] 4
[whitaker.]

2)0 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. |_CH.
books was written by any prophet : therefore none of these books
is canonical. The parts of this syllogism must be confirmed.
The major rests upon plain testimonies of scripture. Peter calls
the scripture of the old Testament, "The prophetic word," 2 Pet. i. 19,
(for it is evident from Luke iii. 4, that Xoyos means scripture,)
and " prophecy," ibid. ver. 20. Paul calls it, " the scriptures of
the prophets." Rom. xvi. 26. Zacharias the priest says, " As he
spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since
the world began." Luke i. 70. Where he means that God had
spoken in the prophetic scriptures. So Abraham says to the
luxurious man, " They have Moses and the prophets," that is, the
books of scripture. Luke xviii. 39. And elsewhere Luke says:
" Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto
them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke
xxiv. 27 ; so Rom. i. 2. Here we see that all the scriptures are
found in the books of Moses and the prophets. The apostle to
the Hebrews says : " God spake in divers manners by the pro
phets." Heb. i. 1. Therefore the prophets were all those by whom
God 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 by the prophets and apos
tles. Christ says : " All things must be fulfilled which are written
in the law of Moses, and in jthe prophets, and in the psalms, con
cerning me :" and then follows immediately, " Then opened he
their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."
Luke xxiv. 44, 45. Paul asks king Agrippa, " Believest thou the
prophets?" — that is, the scriptures. Acts xxvi. 27. And when
he dealt with the Jews at Rome, he tried to convince them " out
of the law of Moses and the prophets." Acts xxviii. 23.
From these testimonies we collect that the assertion in the
major is most true ; — that the whole scripture of the old Testa
ment was written and promulgated by prophets. And there are
many other similar passages from which it may be concluded, that
there is no part of the old Testament which did notproceed from
some prophet. "But we must remark, that the entire old canonical
scripture is sometimes signified by 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 pro-

VM QUESTION THE FIRST. 51
phets and apostles should belong to it1." Lib. n. cap. 31. And in
another place : " Let 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 books2." De Unit. Eccles. c. 16.
And elsewhere : " Read this in the law, in the prophets, in the
Psalms3." We have said enough in confirmation of the major; let
us now proceed to the minor.
That these books, against which we are disputing, were not
written, or set forth to the church, by prophets, is exceedingly
clear and certain. For, 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 church ; which no right-minded person
will deny. Now that most of them were written not in Hebrew
but in Greek, the Fathers affirm, and the papists concede, and the
thing itself proves fully : concerning the rest, we shall see in the
sequel. Finally, if these books had been written by 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 : " The Jews do
not esteem this scripture as the Law and the Prophets, to which the
Lord bears testimony as his witnesses4." (Contra Gaudent. Epist.
P Neque enim sine causa tarn salubri vigilantia canon ecclesiasticus con-
stitutus est, ad quern certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertineant.
Aug. Opp. T. ix. 668, 669. d. a.]
P Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumori-
bus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum, . . . sed in prssscripto
Legis, in Prophetarum prsedictis, in Psalmorum cantibus . . . hoc est, in omni
bus canonicis sanctorum librorum auctoritatibus. Ibid. 585. a.]
P Lege hoc mihi de Propheta, lege de Psalmo, recita de Lege. August.
de Pastoribus, c. 14. J
P Et hanc quidem scripturam, quse appellatur Machabseorum, non habent
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.
For 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 Jerome1: "We must have
recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text both the Lord speaks,
and his disciples choose their examples." But that these books
are not prophetical, we shall hereafter prove still more clearly.
The second argument. These books were not received by the
church of the Israelites ; therefore they are not canonical. The syl
logism may be framed thus : The ancient church of the Hebrews re
ceived and approved all the books of the old Testament. That church
did not receive these books ; therefore they are not canonical.
The major proposition is certain, and may be easily demon
strated. For, first, if that church had rejected a part of the Lord's
Testament, — especially so large a part, — she would have been
guilty of the highest crime and sacrilege, and would have been
charged with it by Christ or his apostles. For, 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. Nay, 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. in. cap. 10 2.
This is also confirmed by 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. Rom. iii. 2.
Whence we learn, that the excellent treasure of the sacred scripture
was deposited by God with the church of the Jews, and by 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. o.]
P Ad Hebrseos revertendum, unde et Dominus loquitur, et discipuli ex-
empla prsesumunt. Prooem. in Paralip.]
P Contra Apion. L. i. c. 8. Vide infra.]

v-] QUESTION THE FIRST. 53
in preserving the sacred books, 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 by the ancient
church of the Jews, it would follow that many canonical books were
never received by any church: for before Christ there was no
other church but that of the Jews. If 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.
Yet 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
books : which was our assumption in the minor, and may be con
firmed by the confession of all the fathers, and even of the papists
themselves. For every one understands that these books were
never received into the Hebrew canon.
As to Bellarmine's pretence (Lib. I. cap. 10), that these books
have the testimony of the apostolic church, and that the apostles
declared these books canonical, whence does its truth appear ? The
apostles never cite testimonies from these books, nor can anything
be adduced to shew that any authority was attributed to them
by 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 by
Catharinus (Annot. Lib. i.) on that account ; and Catharinus lays
it down in that place, that the church receives certain books as
canonical which certainly were neither written nor approved by the
apostles. The allegation of Canus, that these books were neither
received nor rejected3, is merely ridiculous. For, surely, if the
Jews did not receive these books, what else was this but rejecting
them utterly ? He who does not receive God rejects him : so
not to receive the word of God, is to refuse and reject it. " He
that is not with me is against me ; and he that gathereth not with
me scattereth." Luke xi. 23. Besides, how could that church
either receive or rather not reject books written in a foreign tongue ?
The sum of both arguments is this : These books are not
written by prophets, nor received by the Israelitish church. There
fore they are not canonical.
The third argument. Certain things may be found in these
P Negamus hos libros a synagoga esse rejectos. Aliud est enim non reci-
pere, aliud vero rejicere. — Melch. Cani Loc. Theol. Lib. n. cap. xi. p. 45 a.
Colon. Agrip. 1585.]

54 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH'
books which prove them not to be canonical. This argument is
very 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 ex
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. Which argument, though it be merely human, yet may
have force against them who themselves use no other in this cause.
The synod of Laodicea (c. 59 ') forbids the reading of any
non-canonical books in the church, and allows only " the canonical
books of the old and new Testament" to be used for that purpose.
Then those are enumerated as canonical, which our churches re
ceive ; not Tobit, nor Judith, nor the rest. There is, indeed, a
clear error in this council. For Baruch is coupled with Jeremiah,
(which former perhaps they thought to be a part of the latter,) and
the epistles of the prophet Jeremiah are mentioned2, whereas there
is but one epistle of Jeremiah in the book of Baruch : — unless,
perhaps, there may here be a fault in the Greek book, 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 book3. However, in the judgment of those fathers,
P on ou fiei ISiiotikovs yjraXpovs \iyea6ai iv Trj eKKKrjo-la, ouSe duavoviara
/3t/3Xi'a, dXkd pova to. KavoviKa rrjs icaivijs Kal iraXaias Siadqiajs. Mansi, T. H.'
p. 574.] P 'Ifpc/ii'ar, Bapovx, Sprjvoi (cai eirtcrroXat. Can. 60. ibid.]
P It is to be observed that Canon 60 professes only to give a list of those
books oo-a S« dvayivmo-Keo-eai— 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.]

VI-] QUESTION THE FIRST. 55
these books of the old Testament, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus,
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
defined by the church. But this is too ridiculous. For 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 ? Was 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
very 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 defined
this matter by its authority. If 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. For (besides that we have already sufficiently obviated
the force of this argument), in the first place, the Trullan synod
does, in the very 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
by the council of Carthage, yet they are in strictness uncano-
nical, as they are pronounced to be by 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. Now, was the canon of scripture unknown, or uncertain,
or unapproved for so many ages ? Who 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 by these councils ;
which may easily be understood from the testimonies of those
writers who. flourished in the church after those councils, as you
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
be recognised. And although it may be somewhat tedious to go
through them all, yet 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 East l, and learned with exact accuracy all the
books of the old Testament. He, therefore, considered the matter
by no means doubtful ; which would have been impossible without
a fully ascertained knowledge of the canon. Now 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 ex
ception of the book of Wisdom. There are some, indeed, who think
that this Wisdom of Solomon, which Melito mentions, is the book
of Proverbs itself: but I do not agree with them2, for no cause can
be given why the same book 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. The error arose from the circumstance, that this
book 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
one : and this is the reason why Augustine seems to defend its
authority3 (Lib. de Prsed. Sanct. c. 14); from which defence it is
evident that this book was publicly read in the church, and that
the church thought very honourably of its character.
P aveKdav oitv els Trjv dvaTo\r)v . . . kol aKpifiats paOmv ra ttjs wa\ata$ Sta-
6r)Kns /3t/3Xm, *. t. X. p. 403. T. I. ed. Heinichen. Lips. 1827.]
p The clause in question is Tlapoipiai 7) mi 2o0i'a, or, according to Stephens,
r\ So(£i'a ; and the question, whether we should not rather read r\ or ?. t\ is
the reading of six MSS. confirmed by Nicephorus and Eufinus (who trans
lates quce. et Sapientia), and adopted by Valesius. Stroth and Heinichen agree
with Whitaker in preferring rj, 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.]
P Quse cum ita sint, non debuit repudiari sententia libri Sapientise, qui
meruit in ecclesia Christi de gradu lectorum ecclesias Christi tam longa an-
nositate recitari ; et ab omnibus Christianis, ab episcopis usque ad extremos
laicos fideles, poenitentes, catechumenos, cum venoratione divinse auctoritatis
audiri.— Aug. Opp. T. x. 1370. c]

V1-J QUESTION THE FIRST. 57
Origen (in Eusebius, Lib. vi. c. 25) enumerates the same books
as are acknowledged by 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 alphabet4. And
many others after him have made the same remark. Now, 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
by a fixed proportion and number to the elements of the Hebrew
alphabet. Athanasius says, in his Synopsis : "Our 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. He subjoins: "Now these are
the books of the old Testament." Then he enumerates ours, and
no others, and concludes : " The 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 ?
Why, he plainly affirms them to be uncanonical. For thus he
proceeds : " 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,
"are the non-canonical books of the old Testament5." For Athana
sius makes no account of the books of Maccabees. He does not
mention Esther in the catalogue, but afterwards remarks, that this
book belongs to another volume ; — perhaps to Ezra, by whom
Isidore and others say that book was written. And some fathers,
when enumerating the books of scripture, do not mention this by
name, either because they thought it part of some other book, or
esteemed it apocryphal on account of those apocryphal additions of
certain chapters.
P ovk dyvorjreov &* elvai ras evhia@riKovs |3i/3Xous, as 'E/3paiot Trapahiboaaiv,
Svo Kal e'iKoo-i, oo-os 6 apiBpos tS>v Trap' ovtois oroixeiW eotiV.]
P 7rS(ra ypa&rj fip&v Xpto-navav Qeonvevo-Tos eo-Tiv, ovk dopio-Ta 8e, aWa
paWov mpio-peva km KeKavovio-peva c^et to fiifiXia. Kai ecm ttjs pev irakaias
dmd^Krjs raOra  cktos Se TOVTav eloA ndktv erepa (3t/3Xia rfjs avrrjs ffaXaias
biaBqKtjs, oil Kavovi£6peva piv, dvayivao-Kopeva de povov to'is Karrjxovpevois ....
Too-avra Kal to prj Kavovi(6peva. — 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 : " The law of the old Testament is con
sidered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond with
the number of the letters1." By the term "the Law" he denotes
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 he
counts twenty-two books in the canon, — that is, so many in number
as the Hebrew letters :
'Apxalovs pev edrjKa Bvo Kai e'iKoo-i ^tjSXovs,
Tols T&v 'Efipaiav ypdppao-iv dvriderovi ¦-
He omits mentioning Esther ; 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. " Do
thou," says he, " learn carefully from the church what are the
books of the old Testament. Mead the divine scriptures, the two
and twenty books3.'''' Thus he shews that there were no more than
twenty-two divine books. Then he enumerates the same books as
are received by 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. Now
if any shall affirm that nevertheless there are other canonical books
besides these, Cyril will refute him with this splendid objurgation:
DoXy aov (ppovifxwTepoi rjcrav 01 cnroo~To\oi kcu 01 apyaioi eiri-
aKOTroi, 01 tJJs etacXtiaias irpoo'TaTai, o\ towtcls irapacovTes. As
if he had said, " Who art thou, that thou shouldest make these
books canonical ? The 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."
What now becomes of those who say, that these books were ap
proved by the apostles and the apostolic churches ?
Epiphanius (Hror. vm. contra Epicuraos4) counts twenty-seven
P 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 Grs3-
carum literarum connumerare.]
P Carm. xxxm. L. 28. p. 98. T. n. Opp. Nazianz. Colon. 1690.]
P •bi\opa6a>s eniyva>8i napd Ttjs eKK\r;o-ias irotai pev elo-iv at ttjs naXaias 8ia-
8-qKr)S /3i'/3Xoi .... avaylvao-Ke ras 6elas ypacpas, Tas eiKocri 8vo filfiXovs ttjs 7roXo(5s
Biadjiais.— Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. iv. 33. p. 67. ed. Tuttei.]
P Opp. i. p. 19. ed. Petavii.]

YI-] QUESTION THE FIRST. 59
books of the old Testament, which he says were delivered by God
to the Jews ; or rather, as he subjoins, twenty-two : ws to. irap'
avrois (TTOi-^ela tiov Efipainoov ypafx/xdrcov apiQp.oviJ.evai. For
so he determines that the genuine books of 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 sum ; being counted when doubled, twenty-two, and, taking
each book severally, twenty-seven. Then he adds, " There are
also two other books which are doubtful, — the Wisdom of Sirach
and that of Solomon, besides some others which are apocryphal5."
He calls some dubious, some merely apocryphal. The same author
writes, in his book of Weights and Measures6, that the Jews sent
to king Ptolemy twenty-two books transcribed in golden letters,
which he enumerates in a previous passage ; although Josephus, in
the beginning of his Antiquities, relates that only the five books
of Moses were sent7. In this place he writes thus of those two
books, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, which he had in the
former citation called dubious : " They are indeed useful books,
but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the
ark of the covenant8." Which is as much as to say plainly, that
they are not to be 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 by the Holy Ghost him
self; and then he enumerates our books in both Testaments, sub
joining : " But it should be known that there are other books
also, which were called by 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 be read in
churches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for con
firming the authority of faith9." The papist Pamelius praises this
P elo-\ he Kal oXXat Svo /3i'/3Xot irap' avTols iv dp(j>i\eKTa, r) cro^i'a tov 2ipax,
Kai r\ tov 26\opavTOS, ^cspis aXKav nvav fiifSXLav ivanoKpicbav. lb. C.]
p Opp. ii. p. 100. De Pond, et Mens. cc. 22, 23.]
P avTa pova to tov vopov irapeboo-av ol 7rep<bdeVTes eiri Tr)v i£ryyqa-iv els
' A\e£av8peiav. Prooem. §. 3, p. 3. ed. Havercamp.]
P xpy°~ll>-01 H-*" "<" Kal atpekipoi, dXX' els apidpov pjjrmv ovk avaabepovrai,
ho Se et! rm 'Aapav dveTe6rjo-av, ovre iv ttj ttjs dtaBrJKTjs Ki(ia>Ta. lb. p. 162.
The passage is corrupt, and should probably be read — 8io ovhe iv tji ttjs,
h~iadr]Krjs ki/3<bt<3 tib 'Apav []T)H] dveredrjcrav.]
P Sciendum tamen est, quod etalii libri sunt, qui non canonici, sed eccle-
siastici a majoribus appellati sunt : ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sa-.

60 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
book, 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. He would not even have praised
it, if he had not seen it praised by many, who yet are far from
blaming that in it which he disapproves. That exposition was
really made by 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, " As," says he, " there are
two and twenty letters, so there are counted two and twenty
books." Then he adds : " 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 of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and
Tobit, are not in the canon1." Testimonies of the same sort occur
everywhere in his books.
Gregory the Great, in his Commentaries on Job (Lib. xix.
cap. 16), expressly writes that the books of Maccabees are not
canonical2 ; and there is no doubt that he thought the same of
the other books also.
To 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
by Eusebius in the tenth chapter of the third book of his Eccle-
pientia, quse dicitur Filii Sirach . . . Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobise et
Judith et Maccabseorum libri. . . . Quse omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis volue
runt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fldei confirniandam. — Ex-
posit, in Symb. Apost. in Append, ad Cyprian, ed. Fell. p. 26.]
p Quomodo igitur xxn elementa sunt . . . ita xxn volumina supputantur.
. . . Hie prologus scripturarum quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris,
quos de Hebrseo vertimus in Latinum, convenire potest, ut scire valeamus,
quicquid extra hos est inter Apocrypha esse ponendum. Igitur Sapientia
quse 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.]
p De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, tamen
ad fedificationem ecclesise editis, testimonium proferamus. p. 622. A. B.
Paris. 1705.]

VI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 61
siastical History: "We have not innumerable books, inconsistent
and conflicting with each other ; but two and twenty books alone,
containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed
worthy of the highest credit. Of these, five are by Moses ; em
bracing the laws, and delivering down a narrative from the origin
of the human race until his own death; which is a period of nearly
three thousand years. From 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 of their own
times in thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to
God and moral admonitions to man. It is true, that from the time
of Artaxerxes to our own particular accounts have been written of
the various events in our history : 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
interval3." Assuredly it is plain enough from this testimony of Josephus,
what was the judgment of the Israelitish church concerning these
books ; and the testimonies which have been alleged from so many
fathers, distinguished both by 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 by the clearest testimonies
of the fathers that these books, about which we contend, are not
canonical, but apocryphal; for so they are expressly called. There
fore these fathers plainly agree with us, and confirm our sentiments
by their suffrages.
But perhaps the papists may have an answer to allege suffi-
P ov yap pvpidhes ftifiXtav elo\ Trap' rjptv, do~vp<pcovav Kal paxopevav hvo
he pova irpds toIs etKoo-t /3tj3Xi'a, tov iravrbs exovra xpdvov T*)v dvaypa(br)v, to
hiKalas 6ela nemo-Tevpeva. Kal Tovrav nevTe pev icrri ra VLavo-ems, a tovs Te
vdpovs nepiexei, Kal tt)v ttjs dvBpumoyovias napdhoo-iv pexpi- t^s avrov TeXevrrjs.
OStos 6 XP°V0S airoXe'mei Tpio-x^Xlav 6Xiy6v irav. 'Atto he rijs Mavo-eas TeXev-
ttjs pexpt ttjs 'Apragepgov tov perd Sepfrv Jlepo-mv ftao-ikews dpxys, ol perd
Mavaijv 7Tpo(jifJTai ra (car avrovs rrpaxdevra o-vveypa\jrav iv Tpio-l Kal heKa fti-
PXiots. A« he Xonral i-eWapes vpvovs els tov Qeov Kal to'ls dvBpdmois \mo6riKas
tov fiiov irnpiexovo-iv. 'Anb Se 'Aprat-ep£ov pexpi tov Kaff fjpds xpdvov yeypairrai
pev eKao-ra- mo-Teas he ovx opoias ?;|iWai rois irpb avT<Zv hid to pr) yevecrBai tt)v
rav npo(pr)Tav aKpi^fj hiahoxv". ArjXov & iarlv epya iras rjpeis tois ihtois
ypdppao-i iremo-revKapev too-ovtov yap alavos iySij Trapax^Kdros, oilre irpoo-delval
tis ovhev, o&Te d(j)eXe'iv aiiT&v, ovre p-eradelvai TeroXprjKev. k. t. 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 you that I
know. Well 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
canon : 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 we,
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. The 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 received ;
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 by us. Who
does not see that he is speaking of the Christian canon ? Although
perhaps Cyril was too vehement in forbidding these books to be
even read : for the other fathers, although they determine them
to be apocryphal, yet permit their perusal. Ruffinus says, that
those only which our churches also receive were received into the
canon by the ancients (who doubtless were Christians), but that the
rest were called by 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
words : " The church knows nothing of apocryphal writings ; we
must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the
Lord speaks, and his disciples choose their examples1." " What is
not extant with them is to be flung away from us2," says Jerome,
P Apocrypha nescit ecclesia i ad Hebrseos igitur revertendum, unde et
Dominus loquitur et discipuli exempla prsesumunt.]
p Quse 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 Mac
cabees, yet receives them not amongst the canonical scriptures ; so
she may 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 faith3." 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.
They 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 modern ; 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 ab
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 you may the better see how empty that is which
they are wont to urge about the Trullan synod; I will now
shew, by the most illustrious and certain testimonies of those men
P Sicut ergo Judith et Tobise et Machabseorum libros legit quidem ec
clesia, sed eos inter canonicas scripturas non recipit ; sic et hssc duo volu-
mina legat ad sedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum
dogmatum confirmandam.]

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 by Ezra in two and
twenty books, "that the books in the law might correspond in
number with the letters1." John Damascene (Lib. iv. c. 18.) says:
"It must be known that there are two and twenty books of the
old Testament, according to the alphabet of the Hebrew language2."
Thus Damascene agrees with those ancient doctors concerning the
number of the canonical books of the old Testament. The Wisdom
of Solomon and Sirach he praises indeed, but puts them out of the
canon : the rest he does not even mention. Yet he lived, as
every one knows, after the Trullan Synod. So Nicephorus (apud
Cyrum Prodromum in versibus) :
ttjs pev 7rdXaids elo~lv e'iKoo~L hvo.
" There are two and twenty books of the old Testament." Like
wise Leontius determines, in his book 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 books." 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 church3." Rabanus Maurus (De Inst. Cler. c. 54)
says, that the whole old Testament was distributed by Ezra into
two and twenty books, " that there might be as many books in the
law as there are letters4." Radulphus (Lib. xiv. in Lev. c. 1.):
" Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, although they be read for
instruction in the church, yet have they not authority 5." Therefore
they are not canonical. Hugo S. Victoris (Prolog. Lib. I. de Sa-
cram. c. 7) says, that " these books are read indeed, but not written
in the body of the text or in the authoritative canon ; that is, such
as the book of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon,
p Ut tot libri essent in lege, quot et literse habentur. — Isid. de Eccl. Offic.
Lib. i. c. 12.]
P loreov as e'lKoa-i Kal hvo /3i/3Xot tla\ ttjs TraXaids StadtjKris Kara ra OTOi^f'0
ttjs 'EfUpathos <pavijs.]
P touto io-Ti ra Kavovi^opeva /3t/3Xi'a iv t§ ckkXtjo-io, Kal iraXaid Kal vea.~\
P Ut tot libri essent in lege, quot habentur et literse. — Bab. Maur. de
Instit. Cleric. Lib. n. c. 54.]
p Tobias, Judith et Machabseorum, quamvis ad instructionem ecclesise
legantur, tamen non habent auctoritatem.]

VIJ QUESTION THE FIRST. 65
and Ecclesiasticus." Again, (Didaseal. Lib. iv. c. 8) "As there
are twenty-two alphabetic letters, by 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, by means of which, being as it were the
alphabet and elements in the doctrine of God, the yet tender infancy
of our man is instructed, while it still hath need of milk6." Twenty-
two letters form the language, and twenty-two books the faith.
The same is the opinion of Richardus de S. Victore, (Exception.
Lib. ii. c. 9). For, 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 canon7." In which words he plainly denies them to be
canonical. And presently after, in the same place : " In the old
Testament there are certain books which are not written in the
canon, and yet are read, as the Wisdom of Solomon, &c." So
Lyra, (Prolog, in libros Apocryph.) ; Dionysius Carthusianus, (Com
ment, in Gen. in princip.) ; Abulensis, (in Matt. c. 1) ; Antoninus,
(3 p. Tit. xvm. 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 enough ; in sense, excellent.
Restant apocryphi, Jesus, Sapientia, Pastor,
Et Machabseorum libri, Judith atque Tobias :
Hi, quod sunt dubii, sub canone 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. Regum)8 : " Such
the church receives not for proof of the faith, but for instruction
P Quomodo ergo viginti duo elementa sunt, per quas Hebraice scribimus,
omneque loquimur, et eorum initiis vox humana comprehenditur ; ita viginti
duo volumina supputantur, quibus quasi literis et exordiis in Dei doctrina
tenera adhuc et lactens viri nostri eruditur infantia.]
p Sunt prsaterea alii libri, ut Sapientia Salomonis, liber Jesu Filii Sirach,
et Liber Judith, et Tobias, et liber Machabseorum, qui leguntur quidem, sed
non scribuntur in Canone. — Opp. p. 320. Rothomag. 1650.]
P Tales recipit ecclesia, non ad probationem fidei, sed ad morum in
structionem.— Opp. Venet. 1703. T. I. p. 218. 2.]
r i 5
[WHITAKER.]

66 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. |_CH>
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. Now all
these flourished after the Trullan synod, and some of them after
the Florentine ; and the church of Rome acknowledges them all as
her sons and disciples ; except perhaps Erasmus, whom she hath
expelled, as he deserves, from her family : although Leo the
Tenth called even him, in a certain epistle, his most dearly beloved
son1. Antonio Bruccioli, an Italian, translated the old Testament
into the Italian language2, and wrote commentaries upon the cano
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 by Gregory
XIII. his son, in an edition of the Hebrew Bible with an inter
linear version declares that the orthodox church follows the canon of
the Hebrews, and reckons apocryphal the books of the old Testa
ment which were written in Greek.
Thus, therefore, I conclude : If these books either were canoni
cal, or so declared and defined by any public and legitimate judgment
of the church ; 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 be
esteemed, catholics. But these fathers, so numerous, so learned, so
obedient to the godly 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 be apocryphal. There
fore these books are not canonical, and were never inserted in the
sacred canon of scripture by 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 canon ;
and that the papists falsely assert them to be canonical. If they
demand testimonies, we have produced them. If they ask for a
multitude, they ought to be content with these which are so many,
and may well satisfy their desires with them.
[l See Leo's Epistle "Dilecto Filio Erasmo Roterod." prefixed to Eras
mus' Greek Testament, Basil. 1535.]
P The first edition was printed in 1530. There were three others printed
in his life-time, in 1539, 1540, 1541. See an account of him in Simon, Hist.
Crit. p. 333.]

VIIJ QUESTION THE FIRST. 67

CHAPTER VII.
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 "the book of Baruch" claims an examination. To
confirm the authority of this book, our opponents avail themselves
of four arguments. The first is, that there is a quotation made
from the last chapter of Baruch in 2 Mace. ch. ii. The second, that
the councils of Florence and Trent place this book by name amongst
the canonical scriptures. The third, that the church takes some
lessons from this book in her anniversary offices. The fourth, that
many fathers produce testimonies from this book as canonical.
From these premises Bellarmine concludes that this book is truly
canonical (Lib. i. c. 8). To these we can answer briefly : for the
arguments are, as you see, altogether slight ones, and require no
very long reply. Thus, therefore, I answer them severally.
To the first : The second book of Maccabees is apocryphal ; as
I shall hereafter prove by demonstrative arguments. Now one
apocryphal book cannot confirm by its testimony the authority of
another apocryphal book. Therefore this is no argument.
To the second : We care nothing for those councils. They
were popish and altogether antichristian assemblies. The papists
may attribute as much weight to those councils as they please : we
refuse to be pressed or bound by any such authority.
As to what is objected in the third place, — although the church
used to read, and still does read, certain parts of this book, yet it by
no means hence follows that the book is in the genuine and strict
sense canonical. For 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 ? For 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 very slight im
portance. To the last : I acknowledge that some testimonies are cited
from this book by 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. And, in truth, this
book does seem preferable to the rest of the apocrypha : for every
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.
For 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. For testimonies are
often alleged from other books also, which are by no means to be
esteemed canonical. Irenseus cites the book of the Shepherd (as
Eusebius relates, Lib. v. c. 8) 1 ; but I suppose he did not deem that
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, "He receives the scripture
of the Shepherd." And Nicephorus also attests the same, Lib. iv. c. 14.
In like manner Athanasius, in his third oration against the Arians,
produces something from the book of Baruch : 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 by Cyprian (Epist. lxxiv.)2; by Au
gustine (Vet. ac Nov. Test. Qusest. 109 3, and Civit. Dei, Lib. xvm,
c. 36)4; and Ambrose (De bono Mortis, c. 10), in order to prove
that souls are not extinguished with the body 5. Now this book of
Esdras is not canonical, as the papists themselves allow ; so that it
is manifest that the cause is not concluded by this argument.
P Ov povov he olhev, dXXa Kal dffohexerat tt)v tov Tloipevos ypa(f>jjv, Xeyav
" KaXtoj ovv etwev t) ypacbf/ rj Xeyovo-a, k. t. X." T. II. p. 54. ed. Heinich.]
P Scientes quia et apud Esdram Veritas vicit, sicut scriptum est, Veritas
manet et invalescit in seternum. p. 215. ed. Fell.]
P Et audi Zorobabel, qui super omnia ait Veritas. — Aug. Opp. T. in. p.
11. 2980, a. The reference is 3 Esdr. iii. 12. But this is not » genuine
piece : see the admonition prefixed by the Benedictines.]
p Nisi forte Esdras in eo Christum prophetasse intelligendus est, quod . . .
. . . veritatem super omnia demonstravit esse victricem. — Ibid. T. vil. 833,
a. b.] p De quo tibi Esdrse librum legendum suadeo, qui et illas philosophorum
nugas despexerit; et abditiore prudentia, quam collegerat ex revelatione,
perstrinxerit eas substantise esse superioris.— Epistt. Class. I. Ep. 34. n. 2. T.
vm. p. 433. Paris. 1839.]

VI1-] QUESTION THE FIRST. 69
The papists object, that these books of Esdras are not cited by
those fathers as sacred and canonical, but that the book of Baruch
and the rest are cited and mentioned by 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 by them sacred, and scriptures, but in a certain
general sense. For 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. For thus he writes (de Cat.
Script. Lib. i. c. 4. ad Difficult. 11): "So 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 faith6." A papist, answers the objection of
the papists : for in these words he denies that the book of Baruch
is either canonical, or cited as such by those fathers. Melchior
Canus too (Lib. xn. c. 6) writes thus of this same book: "For, 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 faith7." From this testi
mony of Canus I collect, in the first place, that the book of Baruch
is not clearly canonical : in the next, that we may deny its canonicity
without heresy : lastly, that no firm and evident verity of the
catholic faith can be derived from this book; — an 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
p Sic Cyprianus, Ambrosius, ceterique patres citant sententias ex libro
Baruch, et 3 et 4 Esrse, non tanquam ex canonicis libris, sed tanquam ex
libris continentibus qusedam pia, juvantia et non contraria, sed consona potius
fldei nostrse. — Opp. Lovan. 1550. T. I. p. 22.]
P Nam, ut in secundo libro docuimus, libellum Baruch non adeo explorate
et firmiter in sacrorum numero ecclesia reposuit, ut aut ilium esse sacrum
fidei catholicse Veritas expedita sit, aut non esse sacrum hseresis expedita sit.
Libellus ergo iste, sive quilibet alius, qui in qusestionem citra crimen hsereseos
vocari possit, non efficit certas atque constantes catholicse fidei veritates. —
Opp. Colon. Agripp. 1605. p. 688.]

70 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [oil.
is '.' lawful to derive a testimony to the truth from an apocryphal
book," since Jude the apostle hath cited a passage from the apo
cryphal book of Enoch, v. 14. But, although I by 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 fine
from Menander, 1 Cor. xv. 33, a hemistich from Aratus, Acts
xvii. 28, and an heroic verse from Epimenides the Cretan, Tit.
i. 12 ; yet I do not think that this passage, which Jude recites,
is taken from an apocryphal book, because Jude uses the term
7rpoe(prJTeva-e, " 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 prophet ; though, indeed, he does not style him a prophet simply,
but a prophet of the Cretans.
We have now sufficiently shaken the authority of this book.
For I ask, who wrote it ? Either Baruch himself, or Jeremiah, is
counted the author of the book. But neither of them could have
written it ; as is clear from hence — that it was written in Greek,
not in Hebrew, as Jerome tells us, and as the book itself shews.
For Jerome says, in the preface to Jeremiah1, that this book is not
read by the Hebrews, nor extant amongst them, and that it was
therefore wholly omitted by him. But if it had been written by
that Baruch, or by Jeremiah himself, it would doubtless have
appeared in Hebrew, not in Greek : for Jeremiah spoke in
Hebrew, and published his prophecies in the Hebrew language;
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, " Ye shall be there seven generations,"
(v. 2), is new and foreign to the Hebrew idiom : for in the Hebrew
books the term "generation" is never used to designate a period
often 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 by inevitable deduction that this book must be necessarily
esteemed apocryphal.
[ Librum autem Baruch notarii ejus, qui apud Hcbrseos nee legitur nee
habotur, prtctermisimus.— T. ix. p. 783.]

VIIL] QUESTION THE FIRST. 71
CHAPTER VIII.
OF THE SEVEN APOCRYPHAL CHAPTERS OF ESTHER.
So much of Esther as is Hebrew, that is, canonical, we receive ;
and therefore we raise no question concerning those ten chapters
which are contained in the Hebrew books. The whole question
and controversy is concerning those seven last chapters, which are
of a different family and stamp, as we shall easily make appear.
The 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 them: the little force of which kind of reason
ing we have already sufficiently exposed. They say besides that
Josephus (Antiq. Lib. x. cap. 62) mentions two epistles of Aha-
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 re
futed. But I will observe that the argument which rests upon the
authority of Josephus is inconclusive. For, 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 Lyra answer for me, who, in the close of his
commentary upon this book, makes use of the following expressions3:
" 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 by 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-
P The reference should be xi. c. vi. § 12. pp. 575, 676. Haverc]
P Cetera quse sequuntur non intendo exponere, quia non in Hebrsso sunt,
nee de scriptura canonica, sed magis videntur a Josepho et aliis scriptoribus
conficta, et postea editioni vulgatse inserta. — Nic. Lyrani Comment. Antwerp.
1634. in fin. Esther ce.]

72 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
ing them in Josephus, copied them into the Bible. But although
they were, as Lyra 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 Lyra1.
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 by prophets of ascertained
authority. Now these chapters were not written by any prophet,
which I will prove by the following arguments.
In the first place, the matters related in the former chapters
are told over again in these following ones ; which repeated narra
tion of the same events sufficiently shews that all were not written
by the same person. For there was no reason whatever for his
telling the same history twice over. Nor 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 prophecy ? 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 year. See also chap. xii. 1. But in
the second chapter, which is canonical, ver. 16, 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 book ; 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 Mordecai : 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. For 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, (eoiy ttjs vvktos) ;
and that then, as he rested in the court with the two eunuchs, he
p 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 Einlcitung 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 day, if there be
faith in the book itself.
Secondly, the narrative in this book was written many years
after the death of Mordecai. For, in chap. xi. 2 mention is made of
Ptolemy and Cleopatra, who assuredly lived after the times of
Mordecai and of the prophets. Nor 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 us ; that then, at some
other time, the history was written more copiously by some other
person, and translated into the Greek language by Lysimachus, as
is indicated in chap. xi. ; 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 wrote : 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
Latin? 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. Yet this vulgar translation, which Jerome
deemed utterly unfaithful, is in the highest sense authentic and
canonical with the papists.
P The passage referred to is plainly a scholium, or marginal note, as
follows : irovs TerdpTOV fiao-CXevovros UroXepalov Kal KXeowdrpas elo~r)veyKe
Aoo~ldeos, os e(j>r) elvai lepevs Kal Aein'njs, Kal IlToXepaios 6 vlbs avrov, tt)v wpo-
Ketpevrjv i7rio-ToXfjv rav (jjpovpal, i)v ecbacrav eivai Kal fippr)vevKevai Avo-lpaxov
UroXepuiiov tov iv 'lepovo-dXrip. Compare Ussher de LXX. 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 by 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 here ; 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 by no means stand.
For in this twelfth chapter Haman is said to have plotted mischief
against Mordecai, after the gifts were bestowed upon him ; which
cannot be understood of those most distinguished honours and gifts
with which the king graced him after he had read the annals.
For that very morning, as we read in chap, vi., Haman was in
attendance to settle with the king about hanging Mordecai; and
that very day Mordecai was raised to the highest dignity, and
loaded with royal favours. Nor could Haman, after that, attempt
anything against him : 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
by 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 very 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. 10, 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 Per-

VIII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 75
sians to the Macedonians, if he had succeeded ever so well in putting
the king to death ? For 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, by their destruction, he might
the more easily attack the king, and transfer the kingdom to the
Macedonians. For he was not aware that the queen was a Jewess,
or related to Mordecai ; and he devised all sorts of mischief against
Mordecai, not to open himself a way to the kingdom, but simply to
satisfy his malice. For 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. For 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 by 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.
And 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 them ; which is the mark by which he is wont to indicate
apocryphal additions. For the pretence of some that they were
once in the Hebrew text, but have now dropped out of it, is easily
refuted by what we have observed already. Jerome had no sus
picion of this, and the style cries out against it, and reason proves
the contrary. For 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 apocryphal ; a concession which he never
would have made, unless overcome by the very force of truth,
since he labours so energetically to maintain the credit of the other

76 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
apocryphal pieces. Nor did the Tridentine decree, requiring the
books there mentioned to be received with their parts, avail to
turn him from his opinion. For he contends that this is no native
and genuine part of the Book of Esther, but that in these chapters
all is supposititious. He writes in plain words, that " by reason of
these strips appended, inserted by the rashness of certain writers
from various quarters1," it had come to pass that it was late ere
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. And though
this papist, Sixtus, is blamed by the Jesuits, yet is he not refuted.
But let us leave them to quarrel amongst themselves.

CHAPTER IX.
OF THE APOCRYPHAL PARTS OF DANIEL.
To confirm the authority of these parts, the papists can allege
no peculiar argument. For 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. They 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. They 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 discoursers2. 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 Hymn 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 by sound and cogent arguments.
P Propter has appendicum lacinias hinc hide quorundam scriptorum te-
meritate insertas.— p. 20. Paris. 1610.]
P Qui sententiis tractatorum instrui volunt, oportet ut istum librum
sapientise  omnibus tractatoribus anteponant. — August, de Prsedest.
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 Hymn of the three children, nor the
fables of Bel and the Dragon ; 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 volume3."
From 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 by 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 error ; " even as we read," says he,
" the acts of the martyrs, from which we do not derive arguments
for matters of faith4." You see what distinguished and honourable
opinions the papists themselves entertain of this history. We 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, ct7ro tov ayivov ay[aei, diro tov Trpivov Trpiaetb,
P Apud Hebrseos nee Susannse habes historiam, nee hymnum trium pue-
rorum, nee Belis draconisque fabulas : quas nos, quia in toto orbe disperses
sunt, veru-H anteposito, eoque jugulante, subjecimus, ne videremur apud im-
peritos magnam partem voluminis detruncasse. — Hieron. Opp. T. ix. 1362.
ed. Vallars. Veronse. 1738.]
P Ut legimus gesta martyrum, ex quibus argumentum non sumimus effi-
cax ad demonstrandum ea qua; sunt fidei. — T. I. p. 22.]
P Audivi ego quendam de prseceptoribus Judseorum, quum Susanna?
derideret historiam, et a Grseco 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. He answered, under a mastick
tree, o-yivov. Then Daniel forthwith, alluding to the name of the
tree, subjoins, aylaei ae 6 Geos- Afterwards he comes to the other,
and asks him under what tree he had seen Susanna committing
so foul a crime ? He mentions a different tree, and says that
it was under a holm-oak, nrplvov. Then Daniel, using a similar
play upon the name, brings in his judgment, wpiaei os 6 ©eo?.
This Greek etymology (for so Jerome calls it) shews that the
history itself was written in the Greek language : for you will find
no allusion of the kind in the corresponding Hebrew names and
verbs. Therefore it was not written by Daniel, or any prophet.
The papists object, that this argument was long ago answered
by Origen in his Epistle to Julius Africanus, mentioned by Euse
bius1, who alleges that there were words in the Hebrew which
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. For, in the
first place, though I confess that Origen did write about this mat
ter to Julius Africanus, yet what he wrote is not known. For the
piece upon that subject which hath lately appeared hath not yet
gained any clear credit2.
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 Holy 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 of the charge de
pends upon the very diversity of the names. For 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 dirb toO
o-xlvov o-xlo-ai, Kal dirb tov npivov itplo-ai, de Grseco sermone descendere. — Opp.
T. ix. 1364.]
P Hist. Eccl. vi. c. 31.]
p All doubts, however, were very soon removed by its publication in
Greek by Ilsoschelius. 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 by the elders, therefore it should be evident that
Susanna was undeservedly accused. They might have said that
they had not specially observed what kind of tree it was, and so
might easily have been mistaken. They 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,
"that some querulous persons should be indignant at me, as if I
had mutilated the book ; whereas Origen, and Eusebius, and Apol-
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 Porphyry
in defence of things which have no authority of sacred scripture3."
If that be true which Jerome writes of Origen, they have no
reason to call Origen a patron of this history. For Origen together
with the other Greek doctors expressly affirmed, if we believe
Jerome, that these pieces were not extant in the Hebrew, nor pos
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.
For 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 Levi; 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 Daniel? What credit
p Et miror quasdam peptyipolpovs indignari mihi, quasi ego decurtaverim
librum : quum et Origenes, et Eusebius, et ApoUinarius, aliique ecclesiastici
viri et doctores GrEecise has, ut dixi visiones non haberi apud Hebrseos fate-
antur, nee se debere respondcre Porphyrio pro his quse nullam scripturse
sancto auctoritatem prsebeant. — Hieronym. Opp. T. v. 619.]

80 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
do the stories which the Seventy tell about this matter deserve ?
And if what is told in this fourteenth chapter was not done by
that great Daniel, but by some other, why 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 by 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 be cut off, and plucked out
from the body of sacred scripture, it follows now that we should
treat of those six entire apocryphal books.
And 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 by 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" by 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 book by no means to be despised or esteemed lightly. For
although it is not truly canonical, yet 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. For that it is not properly canonical, we have shewn
by many testimonies of the fathers, and can demonstrate by 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. Yet, in the

X>] question the first. 81
meanwhile, the papists bring testimonies from Irenseus, Cyprian,
Hilary, Ambrose, to prove these books canonical. But how or by
what authority could those fathers affirm these books to be canoni
cal, when that matter was not yet certain and clearly known, being
as yet not decided by 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 by its sanction and testimony.
Let us now bring forward some objections against the authority
of this book. And first, Jerome witnesses the judgment which the
church of old passed upon this book. For he says, in the preface
to the books of Solomon, that the church does not receive the
book of Tobit into the canonical scriptures '. Therefore the catholic
church (of which Jerome speaks) hath judged this book not to be
canonical. And, in the prologue to the book of Tobit2, he wonders
at the importunity of those by 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
copy of it, but attributes to it no sort of authority. And the
present copies of the book are exceeding various and corrupt, as
may be easily detected by a collation of them. What more do we
P Judith, et Tobi, et Machabreorum libros legit quidem ecclesia, sed inter
canonicas scripturas non recipit. Hieronym. Opp. T. ix. 1296.]
[2 Mirari non desino exactionis vestrse instantiam : exigitis enim ut librum
Chaldseo sermone conscriptum ad Latinum stylum traham, librum utique
Tobise, quem Hebrsei de Catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes, his quse
Apocrypha memorant, manciparunt  Utriusque linguae (Hebrsese et
Chaldsese) peritissimum loquacem inveniens, unius diei laborem arripui; et
quidquid ille Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego, accito notario, sermonibus
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.]
r i 6
[whitaker.]

82 THE first controversy. [ch.
want? The book may speak for itself, the whole character of
which shews, as clear as the light, that it hath no claims to
canonicity.

CHAPTER XI.
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. For Jerome
tells us, in the preface to the book of Judith, that this book was
counted in the sacred scriptures by the Nicene synod1- Therefore,
say they, Jerome himself testifies that this book at least is canonical.
But this testimony injures our opponents' cause more than it helps
it. For 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. For 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 book in the number of sacred scriptures." But
where this is read, he tells us not. And 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
by the council of Nice.
Thirdly, " To be canonical scripture" is one thing, and " to
be counted in the number of sacred scripture" is another thing.
For 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
P Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero sanctarum scrip-
turarum legitur computasse, &c. — Opp. T. x. 22. 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. 14, to shew that such indexes existed, and passed under the names of the
councils of Nice and Chalcodon.]

XL] 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 scriptures2." Although, therefore, this book be read,
and counted in the number of sacred scriptures, yet is it not re
ceived amongst those scriptures which are canonical and sacred in
the highest sense. This Jerome asserts in plain words ; but this
he would never have asserted, if the council of Nice had determined
this book to be canonical. Nay, in this very preface Jerome
shews this book not to be canonical by two arguments : — first, be
cause the Hebrews esteem it apocryphal, and unfit for confirm
ing anything which may be called in question3: secondly, because
the book was written in the Chaldee language, and the copies of it
grossly corrupted and depraved. For 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 Chaldee4. Now, 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 Judith, — a sufficient proof that Josephus did not consider it
canonical. But now let us estimate the authority of this book by the
evidence of the book itself, and briefly examine what the times
were of which it professes to be the history. For 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. vm. Haer. 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.
[2 Vide supra, p. 81.]
P Apud Hebrseos liber Judith inter Apocrypha legitur : cujus auctoritas
ad roboranda ilia quse in contentionem veniunt minus idonea judicatur.
Chaldseo tamen sermone conscrlptus, inter historias computatur. — Opp. T. x.
p. 22.] P Magis sensum e sensu, quam ex verbo verbum transferens. Multorum
codicum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi : sola ea, quse intelligentia integra
in verbis Chaldseis invenire potui, Latinis expressi. Ibid.]
6 — 2

84 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. LCH-
But 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. He supposes, therefore, that
these events happened a little after the return of Manasseh, fol
lowing Melchior Canus, (Lib. 11. c. 16) : which opinion (although
repugnant to that of all his predecessors, as Eusebius in his Chro-
nicon, Augustine, Philo, Bede, Lyra, 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 by 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.
For 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 Judzea, taken Jerusalem, and carried away with
them Manasseh into Babylon. Therefore these things about wliich
they now inquire could not have been unknown to them.
Secondly, when Holofernes came into Judaea, the temple was
overthrown. For these are the very words of Achior, in the
Greek text : O cao? to? Qeov avrwv eyevijOrj els e$a(po$ kui a\
TroAas avTolv eKpaTrjOriaav. " The 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.
For 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 Holo
fernes; which being a thing of such a remarkable character, it is
surprising that the Holy Spirit should have omitted to mention it.
Fifthly, in the last chapter we read that Judith lived more
than 105 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 Judaea, Judith had not passed
the flower of her age ; for she was very beautiful, and she pleased
Holofernes, and is called a girl, chap. xii. : so that, after this
victory, there must have been peace for near a hundred years.
For the peace is said to have subsisted many years, both during her
life and after she was dead. But Amon succeeded Manasseh, and
reigned two years; 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. How
can we assign that long peace to such times as these ?
Sixthly, I should wish to know, (for I am by no means dis
posed to think it,) whether there was any Nabuchodonosor in
Manasseh's time. For 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.
For, 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 kings : but there is
no evidence that they all went by that name before him.
We have now shewn plainly enough that this history does not
suit the times of Manasseh. And 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 Judith; 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 Kings xviii. For 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. You see what sort of foundation Bellarmine had for his
opinion concerning the history of Judith.
Genebrard, in his Chronology, (Lib. n. anno mundi 3560 ')
assigns the date of this history otherwise, but much more rashly.
For 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.
For 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 it? 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 Jews ? No time, therefore, can be found, which suits
with these transactions. For 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.

We 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 be replete with very beautiful admonitions,
precepts, and sentiments, yet maintain to be deservedly placed
amongst the apocryphal scriptures by 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. They pretend that the apostle
Paul hath used the testimony of this book, Rom. xi. 34, where he
says, T« 'eyvw vovv Kvplov, rj tis o-v/ufiov\os uvtov eyeveTo; "Who
P p. 236. Paris. 1600.]

XII-J QUESTION THE FIRST. 87
hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his coun
sellor?" Likewise that the expression, Heb. i. 3, " Who, being the
brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person," is
borrowed from the seventh chapter of this book.
As to the first place, I answer : The apostle does not intimate
that he is there citing any testimony. For there is no consequence
in the reasoning, that, because similar words to those are found in
this place, therefore the apostle quoted this place. And 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. For the same sentiment is found in
Isaiah xl. 13, in these words : " Who hath directed the Spirit of
the Lord, or, being his counsellor, hath taught him?" &c. Thus
Thomas Aquinas, in his fifth lecture upon Rom. xi. says, that the
apostle here brings in the authority of Isaiah2. So also Cajetan,
and our countrymen the Rhemist interpreters, in their English
version. Add to this, that, whereas there have been various
indexes of testimonies cited out of the old Testament in the new,
drawn up by 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 by name to Isaiah3.
As to the second place, the apostle makes no citation, as is
evident. For what though some words be found in the book of
Wisdom not unlike those wherein the apostle describes the person
of Christ ? For 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 book is apocryphal. We
concede indeed, with Epiphanius, that it is a useful book ; 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
P T. xvi. p. 37. 2. Opp. Venet. 1593.]
[8 It is in fact the Sept. translation of that passage, with only the varia
tion of fj for Kal.]

88 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
confirm the authority of the dogmas of the church1." Where also
he calls the book pseudepigraphal2, so as that, although it goes
under the name of Solomon, it is not to be supposed to be really
his ; and observes that it " savours of Grecian eloquence."
Thirdly, most of the ancients determine that this book was
written by Philo, who certainly neither was a prophet, nor could
have written a canonical book of the old Testament. For he
lived after Christ in the time of Caligula, before whom he dis
charged his celebrated embassy on behalf of the Jews. But then
the time of the old Testament had already passed; and Christ
says, "The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist."
For 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 by Sixtus Senensis, (Lib. vm. c. 9), and
is at variance with the general opinion of the doctors. For thus
writes Bonaventura in his Commentary upon this book : " The
first efficient cause, in the way of a compiler, was Philo the wisest
of the Jews3." So that he determines it to have been written by
Philo, not by Solomon. But by what Philo ? By any other than
him who flourished after Christ, and wrote so many pieces with
so much eloquence? of whom some one said, i$ YlXaTwv <pi\u>-
vi^ei, ri <$>'ikwv TrkaTwv'iXe^. Bonaventura subjoins, " who lived
in the times of the apostles." It is evident therefore what Philo he
supposed the author of this book. For he recognised no other
Philo ; and he tells us that the same was said by Rabanus. For
Josephus, in his first book against Apion, names a certain older
Philo, but one who was a Gentile and a philosopher, not a Jew
or conversant with the scriptures5. Wherefore, since this book was
P Hsec duo ecclesia legat ad edificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem
ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam. T. ix. 1296.]
[2 Alius i\revbeirlypa<bos, qui Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur  et
ipse stylus Graacam eloquentiam redolet; et nonnulli veterum scriptorum
hunc esse Judsei Philonis affirmant. T. ix. 1295. — Hence some have en
deavoured to explain how it came to be attributed to Solomon, Philo's name
in Hebrew being Jedidiah.]
P Proxima causa efficiens per modum compilantis fuit Philo sapientissimus
Judseorum, qui temporibus apostolorum fuit. Opp. T. I. p. 341. Lugd. 1668.]
P Hieronym. in Catal. sub voc. Philo. Photius. Cod. C V. Suidas, Voc.
QiXav, &c]
P 'O pevroi ®aXr)pevs ATipr/Tpios Kal &[Xav 6 -rrpeo-fivrepos Kal EwroXepr
ov iroXv ttjs dXridelas hirjpaprov- off avyy ivdaKeiv aglov ov yap ivrjv aims perd
irdo-rfs aKpfielas to'is Tjperepots ypdppao-i irapaKoXovde'iv. — Josephus, C. Apion.
Lib. I. c. 23. p. 458. ed. Haverc]

XII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 89
written by that Philo the Jew in the time of the apostles, it cannot
be by any means canonical. For if Philo were a true prophet,
or imbued with the prophetic spirit, why did he not receive Christ?
Why not believe the gospel? Why was he a stranger to the
apostles ? Why are not his other books had in similar honour ? Cer
tainly none of the ancients ever said that this Philo was a Christian.
How then, after Christ, should a man who was not a Christian have
written a book 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 by Solomon, so that
that point needs not our confirmation. For if Solomon had written
this book, it would not have been written in Greek but in He
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. For that might
have been done in the way of imitation by the writer whoever he
might be : so that they who argue thence that Solomon must have
been the writer himself, are grievously deceived. Jodocus Clito-
vaeus and Sixtus Senensis are chargeable with this ignorance and
error. But, with better reason, John Driedo (Lib. i. c. 4, ad 4m.
difficult.6) concludes that this book was not written by Solomon,
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 Solomon7.
Fourthly, the church in old times judged no otherwise of this
book than Jerome and we do ; and this may be collected even from
Augustine, whom our adversaries name upon their side. For in his
book de Provdestinatione 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 canonical8. 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
p pp. 41. 42. De Eccl. Script. Lovain. 1533.]
P Et cum Philone in persona Salomonis divinum prsesidium . . . . in-
vocabo. p. 2. Venet. 1580.J
P Quod a me quoque positum fratres istos ita respuisse dixistis, tanquam
non de libro canonico adhibitum. — Opp. T. x. pL 807. Par. 1690.]

90 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Bellarmine also joins (Lib. i. c. 12), but unreasonably. For, what
ever may have been Augustine's own opinion of this book, yet it is
evident that others did not think it canonical, and that their judg
ment was the received opinion of those churches. Nor does Augus
tine contend very anxiously or earnestly for the authority of the
book : 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 "to be preferred to all the treatises of discoursers1;" which may
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 we want nothing more.

CHAPTER XIII.
OF THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTICUS.
Our adversaries can allege no special argument in behalf of
this book ; and we need not repeat our answers to the common
ones. Let us, on our side, bring some proofs to shew that the
book is not canonical. First, we may collect that this book is
not canonical from the fact of its having been written in Greek,
upon the principles already explained. The grandfather of Jesus
had written some things in Hebrew, which this Jesus translated
into the Greek language, as we read in the prologue2. But the
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. Nor 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. He says, that the Hebrew cannot be exactly
rendered into Greek: (why so?) and he asks pardon, if he should
P Vide supra, p. 76.]
P 'O ndinros pov 'Itto-ovs  irporixBt) Kal avr&s o-vyypdyjfai ti tw tit iraibeiav
Kal <ro<plav dvTjKovTav. Prolog, in Sapient. Jesu fil. Sirach.]

XIII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 91
seem in some places to fail of an adequate power of expression3.
By all which he sufficiently proves that he is neither a prophet
nor endowed with a prophetic spirit. For the Holy Spirit asks
pardon of no one, hesitates not in the choice of words, and ever
reaches the mark he aims at ; especially if the writer apply due
diligence, as this author professes that he hath.
Lastly, what is written of Samuel in this book, chap. 49*, is
taken variously and doubtfully by many, as we see from Augus
tine (ad Simplicianum, Lib. 11. quaest. 3, and de Cura pro mortuis,
cap. 15). For the passage, 1 Sam. 28, is rather to be understood
of a diabolical spectre; since the souls of the saints cannot be
evoked by magical arts or incantations. Wherefore Augustine
(De Doctr. Chr. Lib. ii. c. 23 5) says, "that the image of the dead
Samuel gave a true prediction to Saul." Where he indicates that
it was not Samuel himself, but an image or semblance of Samuel,
that conversed with Saul. The same father, in his book de Octo
Dulcit. Qusest. (quaest. 6), after disputing somewhat on the other
side of this question, at last subjoins : " However there is in this
matter a readier way of escaping difficulty, and more easy view of
the meaning of 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 by diabolical devices : which the
scripture therefore calls by the name of Samuel, because images
are wont to be called by the names of those things of which they
are images." And so in the sequel he concludes that " the scrip- .
ture says that Samuel appeared, even though, perchance, it was
the image of Samuel shewn by the devices of him who transforms
himself into an angel of light, and his ministers as the ministers
of righteousness6." Likewise in his treatise de Mirabilib. Scripturae
P HapaKeKkrjo-de .... o-vyyvaptjv exeiv i(ji' oiy av hoKwpev rav Kara Trjv
epprjveiav ire<j)iXoirovT)pet>av Tial tS>v Xegeav dhvvapelv oil yap lo-ohvvapei aird
iv eavrots 'Efipalorl \eyopeva, Kal orav peTax&y els erepav yXao-o-av. Ibid.]
P xlvi. 20. Kai perd rb imvZo-ai airbv i7rpo<j)T]Tevo-ev. The Church of
England omits this verse in reading Ecclus. xlvi. as the evening lesson for
November 16.]
p Non enim, quia imago Samuelis mortui Sauli regi vera prsenuntiavit,
propterea talia sacrilegia, quibus imago ilia prsesentata est, minus exsecranda
sunt.] P Quanquam in hoc facto est alius facilior exitus et expeditior intellectus,
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. 11), — if that book deserves to be reckoned a genuine
piece of Augustine's — he writes in this manner : "Whence 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 death1." And most plainly in his book of Questions
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.
For how is it possible that a man holy in his birth and righteous
in his actions when alive should be dragged up by magic arts ? or,
if not dragged up, should have consented to them ? Either alter
native we can not without absurdity believe of a just man2." To
say that the soul of the holy prophet was troubled by the spells of
witches, even Isidore himself detests as impious, as we see in Gra
tian (26 quaest. 5. cap. Nee. Mirum.); and he says that this was
"a piece of Satan's jugglery3." Augustine too, in his book de
Cura pro Mortuis (c. 15.4), bears witness that many thought that it
rerum nominibus appellari quarum imagines sunt .... Non mirum est quod
scriptura dicit Samuelem visum, etiam si forte imago Samuelis apparuit ma-
chinamento ejus qui transfigurat se velut angelum lucis, et ministros suos
velut ministros justitise  The treatise De vm. Dulcitii qusestionibus is the
fourth piece in T. vi. of the Benedictine edition, Paris, 1679.]
P 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 filii 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.]
p Indignum facinus sestimo, si secundum verba historise commendetur
assensus. Quomodo enim fieri potuerat, ut arte magica attraheretur vir et
nativitate sanctus et vitaa 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.]
p Porro autem hoc est prastigium Satanse. Decreti Pars Secund. Caus,
26. Qusest. 5. c. 14.]
p 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. And concerning the
book of Ecclesiasticus his expression is5: "But if this book be
objected to on account of the Hebrew canon which does not give
it a place, what shall we say of Moses ?" He concedes ' therefore
that this book is open to objections. So Aquinas (i. p. 89. 4. 8.
Art. ad 2m.) gives three answers to this place : 1. That Samuel
appeared by a divine revelation. 2. Or, that the apparition was
produced by demons. 3. Or, that the authority of Ecclesiasticus
must not be admitted by reason that it is not esteemed by 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. The first is,
that they are placed by 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. xviii. c. 36), which
is to this effect : " These books not the Jews, but the Church hold
to be canonical6." A similar testimony is found also in his second
book against the Epistles of Gaudentius, cap. 23 7. Hence they
conclude that these books are truly and properly canonical. I
proceed to return a brief answer to both allegations.
To 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 apostles8. In
the second place, I am surprised that Bellarmine should choose to
avail himself of such a witness, whose evidence he must know
p Sed si huic libro ex Hebrseorum, quia in eo non est, canone contra-
dicitur, quid de Mose dicturi sumus? — Id. ibid.]
p The whole passage upon which Whitaker reasons in his reply is as
follows : Ab hoc tempore apud Judasos restituto templo non reges sed prin-
cipes fuerunt, usque ad Aristobulum : quorum supputatio temporum non in
scripturis Sanctis, quse canonicse 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.]
P It is the last piece in T. ix. of the Benedictine edition, where this
passage stands. Lib. I. § 38. p. 655.] p Supra, p. 42.]

94 the first controversy. Lch-
very well to make much more against the cause which he defends
than it weighs in favour of these particular books. For, 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. Let 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 canonical1. If then
they rely on the authority of these canons to prove the canonicity
of two books, what are they to determine concerning the third?
They must consequently give up the argument derived from these
canons, and Bellarmine hath acted discreetly in omitting it in the
edition published by Sartorius.
I come now to the testimonies of Augustine. And, first, to the
former from the City of God, Lib. xviii. c. 36. How Augustine
calls these and the other books canonical, by a certain common
use of that term in a loose sense, hath been already explained.
The 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 very
same passage : " The calculation of which times is not to be 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. Now in these words
of Augustine two things present themselves which deserve notice.
The first, that these books are not, in truth and fact, sacred and
canonical. The 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, "on 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-
P There is some reason for believing the words MaKKafiaiav rpla to be an
interpolation. See Cosin's Scholast. Hist. p. 30. Beverege's Annotations,
pp. 5, 39, and Gibbings's Roman Forgeries, pp. 113, 114.]

xiv.J question the first. 95
tain martyrs who fell in the cause of religion with the utmost
fortitude and constancy? On this account Nazianzen hath pro
nounced a most beautiful panegyric upon that mother and her
seven sons2. But in what sense can it be said that a book is
held canonical on account of this or that? For 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 : " Nor 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 lives3." In these books if not a
precept, at least a permission for a man to take his own life, is
to be detected. For in 1 Mace. chap. vi. Eleasar 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. Yet 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.. The Holy Spirit judges not of valour by 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 by an act of such prodigious horror. Thus he was
crushed and extinguished either by despair, or grief, or some other
perturbation of mind ; 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 by the authors.
The second testimony of Augustine occurs Lib. ii. c. 23 ;
where also Augustine opposes our adversaries more than he favours
them. For he requires that " the book should be read and heard
with sobriety." Say you so ? What, I pray, do these words mean,
" not unprofitably, if done soberly?" Is there ground to fear that
scripture may be read unprofitably ? And what is this sobriety
which he demands in the perusal of these books ? Every thing,
indeed, should be read soberly ; no one doubts that ; 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
P Inter Opp. Gregorii Nazianzen. T. I. p. 397. Colon. 1690.]
P Neque enim frustra in Sanctis canonicis libris nusquam nobis divinitus
prseceptum permissumve reperitur, ut nobismet ipsis necem inferamus.]

96 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
book. The meaning, therefore, is, that there are some things in
the book which, if they be examined by 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 men1, and in his
second book against Pelagius2, says that Josephus was the author
of these books. Now 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, yet allow that the chronology
in them was supplied by Josephus; in consequence of which the
books became apocryphal, because the dates in these books do
not agree. So the popish writer Annius3 delivers his opinion,
upon the Second book of Philo's Chronology.
Secondly, these books are expressly styled apocryphal by
Gregory the Great, who was Pope of Rome, in his Morals, Lib. xix.
c. 16. These are his words : " We shall not transgress the due
bounds of order, if we produce a testimony upon this subject from
books, not indeed canonical, yet set forth for the edification of the
Church4." Then he cites a passage from the Maccabees. There
fore, before Gregory, that is, within six hundred years after Christ,
the Church did not esteem the Books of Maccabees canonical.
P Alius quoque liber ejus, qui inscribitur irepl avTOKparopos Xoyio-pov,
valde elegans habetur, in quo et Machabseorum sunt digesta martyria. Cap.
xm. Opp. T. n. 837.]
p Unde et Josephus, Machabseorum scriptor historise, frangi et regi posse
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.]
P Josephus tempora adjiciens apocryphas reddidit. Annii Viteberg.
Antiquitt. ap. Ascenscium. 1512. Pol. ci.]
P De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris non canonicis, sed tamen
ad sedificationem ecclesise editis, testimonium proferamus.]

XIV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 97
Hence we see clearly what we should think of pope Innocent and
Augustine. They call these books canonical ; Gregory denies them
to be such. They and he, therefore, without doubt used that term
in different senses. The same judgment on these books is passed
by Eusebius (Lib. de Temp.)5, Richard of S. Victor. (Except. Lib. h.
c. 9)6, and Occam (3 Part. Dial. Tract, i. Lib. in. c. 16) 7.
Thirdly, in 2 Maec. chap, xii., Judas Maccabasus is praised for
offering sacrifice for the dead. Whereas he really deserved no praise
on that account, since God 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.
For 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. And this author says it was a clear case that they had
fallen on account of that crime. Now the papists themselves allow
that no sacrifice should be offered for persons guilty of such idolatry
and sacrilege : for this was a mortal sin ; 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
— as to the pretence which Bellarmine has borrowed from Lyra,
that Judas piously supposed that they had repented of their sin in
the very article of death — not 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.
P Machabseorum Historia hinc supputat regnum Grsecorum. Verum hi
libri inter divinas scripturas non recipiuntur. P. 348, ed. Majo. et Zohrab.
Mediol. 1818.]
p Alii non habentur in canone, tamen leguntur. Hi sunt  Libri
Machabaeorum. Deinde sanctorum patrum scripta, &c. Opp. Ven. 1592.
p. 331.] P Secundum Hieronymum .... Libri .... Machabseorum .... non sunt
recipiendi ad confirmandum aliquid in fide. Dialog. Guil. Ockam. Lugd.
1495. Fol. ccxii. 2.]
r i 7
[whitaker.]

98 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Fifthly, the Holy Spirit is not accustomed to epitomize the
history of a profane author. But the Second Book of Maccabees,
as we read in chap, ii., is a contraction of the five volumes of Jason
of Cyrene, comprising in one httle book what Jason had minutely
detailed in five. Who that Jason was is uncertain. A prophet he
was not : that no one ever said, or could say. Consequently this
synopsis of Jason's history, composed in such a manner, cannot be
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 by
Jeremiah. Now there is not a word of all this in Jeremiah himself.
And 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. The 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. For what
reason is there why these things should be shewn to the Jews at
such a period ? Or 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. For Jeremiah was in prison until the destruction of the city.
Jer. chaps, xxxvii. and xxxviii. : so that he could not take these
things away and hide them, while the city and temple stood; 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
th© ark of the Lord, and the altar of incense, which were overlaid
and covered entirely within and without with pure gold, Exod. xxv.
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 Jews. For 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 bed ; 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
Nanaea. So that we have now been told of two deaths of An
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, ix ; 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. The papists however set up some pre
tences. Canus says (Lib. n. cap. 11 ad quartum) that it is not the
same Antiochus. But the history itself refutes him at once; and
Bellarmine was compelled to allow that the person meant was one
and the same. He endeavours to reconcile the accounts thus :
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 book : and, indeed, the first book
deserves more credit than the second. Now 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 by the priests, and cut in pieces, and his head thrown out
to those who were outside. Now 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 go 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. Nor 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 188 1 letters to Aristobulus the
master of Ptolemy, — that is, 36 years after his death.
P In the common text indeed the date stands thus : but one of Mr Par
son's MSS. reads reo-o-apaKoo-Tov for dyhorjKoo-rov. The difference is very
slight between par) and pirrj : 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. 36, 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. For 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 by a human
spirit. For, in the first place, at the end of the book the author
begs pardon of his readers, which is altogether alien from the Holy
Ghost ; 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.
They object that Paul used a similar excuse, when he con
fesses himself to have been "rude in speech," 2 Cor. xi. 6. I
reply : 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 by 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. For, as to Paul's calling
himself rude in speech, (cStcoTnv 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 by certain
false apostles. For 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 diflrculty remains, how an event
could be spoken of as passed in 148, which the first book of Maccabees
(vi. 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 tho 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 Amtobuti
Judceo, pp. 40, 41.]

XIV0 QUESTION THE FIRST. 101
teacher and apostle: but, because these pretenders called him
[(Siurr/v Xoya), he acknowledges that, in their way of thinking, and
judged by their model and standard, he was an J<Wt»js. For this
is that eloquence which he calls "wisdom of words" (aocplav
Xdyov), 1 Cor. i. 17, and "words which man's wisdom teacheth"
(otdaKTovs dvOpooirivris crocpias Xoyovs), 1 Cor. ii. 13, and " excel
lency of speech" (uirepoxn" Xoyov), 1 Cor. ii. 1; and which St Peter
calls " cunningly-devised fables" (aeaocpiafxevovs pivOovs), 2 Pet.
i. 16. So CEcumenius interprets the apostle : Aoyov Xe'7ei to
eyyeyvp-vaaQai Trj eXXrji>iKrj ao(pia. "He means by speech the
being exercised in the wisdom of the Greeks." To a similar
purpose Aquinas upon that place : " Because the apostle pro
posed the faith plainly and openly, therefore they said that he was
rude in speech 1." So Lyra : " He 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 them2." The same is the opinion concerning this
place expressed by Catharinus archbishop of Campsa : " 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 eloquence3." For what Canus says,
(Lib. n. c. 11, on the fourth head,) — "There is no reason why
the Holy Ghost should not assist an author who yet speaks modestly
in a human manner4," — is an insult to the Holy Spirit. The Holy
Spirit ever teaches us modesty ; but meanwhile ever speaks and
P Apostolus proposuit eis fidem non in subtilitate sermonis, sed 
plane et aperte ; ideo isti dicebant eum imperitum esse sermone. — In 2 Cor. xi.
Lect. 2. Comm. p. 140. Ant. 1569.]
P Hoc dicit ad repellendum dictum pseudapostolorum, qui contem-
nebanfr ejus doctrinam, eo quod plana et grossa dicebat : ideo dicit, quod hoc
non ex defectu scientise, sed quod non expediebat Corinthiis pro tunc subtilia
prtedicari. — Biblia cum Gloss. Lyr. P. vi. p. 74. Lugd. 1520.]
P Non puto Paulum se fateri esse imperitum sermone, cum esset prse-
dicator eximius : Bed ita illis videbatur ad quorum opinionem loquitur ; quia
sermo ejus habebat simplicitatem spiritualem, et non secularem illam aiFec-
tatam redolebat eloquentiam. — Comm. in Paul. Epp. p. 232. Paris. 1566.]
P Nihil impedit ut Spiritus Sanctus scriptori assistat, qui in quibusdam
tamen, humano more, ex modestia loquitur.]

102 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
writes in a way that cannot be excelled by 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 Holy
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 Holy 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 Holy Spirit ; and Luke, when he wrote his
narrative, had the Holy Spirit as much as John when he wrote the
Apocalypse. " The Holy Ghost," as Ambrose says, " knows
nothing of slow efforts1." Besides, how could the task of making
a short epitome of five books by 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. The 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.
We 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
P Vide supra, p. 38.]

XV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 103
come to those apocryphal pieces of the old Testament which
are judged apocryphal by 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 you understand
what and of what sort they are. They are these : The third
and fourth books of Esdras : the third and fourth of Macca
bees ; whereof the third is found in some copies of the Bible, and
the fourth is mentioned by Athanasius in his Synopsis. To these
must be added the prayer of Manasseh, which is set after the
books of Chronicles : the 151st Psalm : the Appendix to the
book of Job 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 by any
council or pope. The third book of Maccabees, however, is
counted in the canon by Clement2, whom some suppose to have
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 by Ezra, after a retirement of forty
days. For if these books had been lost, and written anew by
Ezra, their language would be Chaldee, and not Hebrew ; upon
which point we shall speak hereafter. But these are false and
incredible figments, rejected even by the papists, who yet generally
are wont to entertain such fables with wonder and veneration.
Indeed Genebrard, in his Chronology (anno mundi 3749), 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
P Vide supra, p. 94.]

104 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
same reasons by which Bellarmine, as noticed above, seeks to prove
the canonicity of Tobit, Wisdom, and the rest. Genebrard shews
that these books are cited by 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
yet the Jesuits would be so far from granting, that they would
oppose it as grossly erroneous. However Genebrard does not
stand alone in this mistake. For John Benedictus also, in the be
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 by the christian Church. In like manner
Renatus Benedictus in his Stromata Biblica, Lib. i. c. 9, counts
the third and fourth of Esdras among the canonical books.
The prayer of Manasseh is extant neither in Hebrew, nor in
Greek ; 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 thee ;" unless we suppose,
indeed, that this is only said comparatively. For they too had
sinned, and stood in need of repentance.
Psalm cli. is found in the Greek, but not in the Hebrew copies.
It contains thanks to God for the victory over Goliah, and was
translated by ApoUinarius in his Metaphrase1. However it was
always esteemed apocryphal. The appendix to the Book of Job2
is condemned by Jerome, as translated only out of the Syriac
tongue, and not found in the Hebrew, and because Job is there
said to have been the fourth from Esau, whereas he was of the
race of Uz, who was the son of Nahqr. So Jerome in his Questions
and traditions upon Genesis3. In his Epistle to Evagrius, however,
(Quaest. 126) he says that Job 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. For the argu
ments, as you have already seen, are no less valid against the latter
than against the former. Hence too it appears evidently, that it is
P Fabricius, Cod. Pseud. V. T. T. n. p. 907.]
P Ibid. p. 793.] [s 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 by 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.
For we acknowledge without any exception those same books as
they judge to be canonical. Those books of the new Testament
which the council of Trent hath enumerated, those all, and those
only, our church receives. If 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. For 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 very distinguished papists at the
present day. Cajetan openly rejects all the following : — the
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 book were not, in former
times, therefore reputed heretics. But I will not pursue this
subject farther, since it hath no connexion with our cause. Let
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 by the apostle Paul. Some judge it to be Paul's,
others think otherwise. This was a questionable point in the
earliest period of the Church. Eusebius (Lib. in. c. 3) writes1
that the church of Rome 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 words : " The Epistle called that to the He
brews is not thought to be his, on account of the difference
of the style and diction2." He writes to the same effect in his
Epistle to Paulinus, and upon the 13th chapter of Jeremiah.
Tertullian ascribes it to Barnabas3. Some to Luke the Evangelist,
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 Paul4." Eusebius also hath mentioned this Caius,
Lib. vi. c. 16. Hence it appears clearly, that many in former
times thought this epistle not to have been written by 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 Paul's5 ; and of this mind is Origen (in Eusebius,
Lib. vi. c. 18), — Clemens Alexandrinus (in Eusebius, Lib. vi. c. 11),
P on ye pf/v nves r\6en)Kao-{. tt)v irpbs 'E/3pcu'our, irpbs Ttjs 'Papaltov eimXi/-
<rias as /xi) HaiXov oSarav aiirfjv dvriXeyeo-dai (prjaravres, oi hUaiov dyvoeiv. —
Eccl. Hist. T. i. pp. 189, 190. ed. Heinrich.]
P Epistola quse fertur ad Hebrseos non ejus creditur, propter styli ser-
monisque dissonantiam. — Opp. T. ii. p. 823.]
P De Pudicitia. c. 20. Extat enim et Barnabse titulus ad Hebrseos.]
P Et in eodem volumine epistolas quoque Pauli tredecim tantum enume-
rans, decimam quartam, quaa fertur ad Hebrseos, dicit ejus non esse. Sed
et apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli Apostoli non habetur.— c. 59.
T. II. p. 886.] p T. ii. p. 608, alias Ep. 129.]

XVI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 107
— Eusebius himself (Lib. n. c. 3), — the council of Laodicea (c. 59) 6,
— Athanashi3, in the Synopsis and elsewhere, — Irenseus7, Cyril
(Thesaur. Lib. xii. c. 9), — Chrysostom upon the epistle, and Na
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's8. Even the more celebrated of the Latins hold the
same language. Augustine, de Doctr. Christ. Lib. ii. 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 Gregory 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 Pet. iii. 15, — " As our brother
Paul hath written to you." Now they were Hebrews : 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 by others, as Illyricus, Hyperius, &c. We need not
be very 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 churches10." Gregory, in
like manner, wrote excellently well of the author of the book of Job,
when, in the preface to his commentary upon that book, cap. 10,
he answers the inquiries put to him upon that subject : " Who
wrote these things, it is superfluous to ask, if only we believe
faithfully that the Holy Spirit was the author of the book. He
himself, therefore, wrote these things, since he dictated them to be
P Mansi, T. H. p. 574.]
P It seems a mistake to say that Irenseus cites this epistle as Paul's.
Stephen Gobar (apud Photium cod. ccxxn. p. 904) aflirms the contrary.]
p De fide Orthodox. Lib. iv. c. 17. T. I. p. 283.]
P See also in Job. Lib. xvn. c. 23, p. 546, e.]
p° Et nihil interesse cujus sit, quum ecclesiastic: viri sit, et quotidie eccle-
siarum lectione celebretur. ut supra, p. 106. n. 5.]

108 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. L0"'
written. If we read the words in some letter which we had gotten
from some great man, and raised the question, what pen they were
written with ; 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
traced1." Since, then, we perceive that the Holy 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, by the confession and in the opinion of all, are
those numerous spurious gospels under the names of Thomas,
Andrew, Nicodemus, the Nazarenes, &c, whereof we read in Gra
tian, Dist. 15. c. Sancta Romana. These are not now extant,
although they were formerly read and highly esteemed by many.
But the Lord 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 apocryphal ; of which Jerome writes
in the catalogue under the article Paul : " Some read the epistle to
the Laodiceans, but it is universally exploded2." And the fathers of
the second Nicene council, Act. 6, say : " Amongst the epistles of
the apostle there is one which goes under the title of that to the
Laodiceans, which our fathers have rejected as spurious3." 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. 16. For
the Vulgate reads there, et ilia quoz est Laodicensium, as if there
had been some epistle written to the Laodiceans by Paul. The
Latin words are ambiguous, and may be understood in such a sense.
But the Greek text immediately removes this suspicion, Kal ttJv e/c
AaoSiKeias. 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.
P Quis hoc scripserit supervacaneo quseritur, cum tamen auctor libri
Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur. Ipse igitur haec scripsit, qui haoc scri-
bonda dictavit. Si magni cujusdam viri susceptis epistolis legeremus verba,
eaque quo calamo essent scripta qutereremus; 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.] P Legunt quidam ad Laodicenos, sed ab omnibus exploditur. T. ii. p. 823.]
P Kai yap tov Belov 'Aitoo-toXov irpbs AaohiKets (fieperai. mXao-n) «r«rroXi7 . . .
rjv ol irarepes rjpav diiehoKipao-av. — Concil. Labb. ot Cossart, T. VU. p. 475.]

XVL] QUESTION THE FIRST. 109
There is also a book of Hermas, called the Shepherd, which
Jerome speaks of in the catalogue, under the article Hermas.
The papists concede this also to be apocryphal, yet so as to be
capable of being made and adjudged to be canonical by the church.
For so Stapleton writes of this book, Doctrinal. Princip. Lib. ix. cap.
14, 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. 19 4. Which in
tolerable falsification of this compiler Alphonsus de Castro (contra
Hasr. Lib. i. c. 2), and Andradius (Def. Trident. Lib. in.) acknow
ledge and condemn. Yet there are still some papists who persist
in the same impudent blasphemy. For 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 Christians Religionis, cap.
3. Num. 5 : " Also decretal epistles have the force of authorityj
and decretal epistles are reckoned part of the canonical scriptures5."
Also 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 by
a glorious accession, if all the decretal letters of the popes are to be
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 way.
But we have now finished the first question which we proposed
concerning the canonical books.
P c.,vi. In Canonicis. Where the Roman editors, having cited the pas
sage as it really stands in Augustine, very fairly add : " Quae quidem B.
Augustini sententia non ad decretales Romanorum pontificias, sed ad cano-
nicas et sacras scripturas referenda est."]
P Et decretales epistolse vim auctoritatis habent, et in canonicis scrip
turis decretales epistolfe connumerantur. Ap. Roccaberti, Bibl. Max. Pontif.
T. II. p. 15. Romaj, 1698.]

THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.
QUESTION II.
OF THE AUTHENTIC EDITION OP THE SCRIPTURES.

CHAPTER I.
THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.

The first point raised in our inquiry concerning the duty of
searching the scriptures, as between us and the papists, hath now
been sufficiently explained. For we have found what are the books
of holy scripture which we are commanded to search, and have re
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. For, 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. Farther still, they cannot think that even
with all this they have enough, but join to these scriptures even
unwritten traditions also; that so they may be enabled to prove
by 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. The 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 re
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 whatsoever1." 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. ii. c. 13) interprets
this decree, and deduces from it four conclusions. The first is,
that the old vulgate edition must be retained by the faithful in all
points which pertain to faith and morals : the second, that all
questions concerning faith or morals must be determined by this
Latin edition : the third, that we must not in a disputation ap
peal to the Hebrew or Greek copies : 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
book of his treatise de optimo genere interpretandi, prefers the
Latin edition to the Hebrew and Greek ; and Andradius (Defens.
Trident. Lib. iv.) declares it intolerable that any one should be per
mitted to despise the authority of that edition which is used by the
church, or to appeal freely to the Hebrew and Greek.
Although, therefore, our adversaries do not condemn the He
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 very 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 God ; and that, consequently, all questions are to be deter
mined by these originals, and versions only so far approved as
they agree with these originals. Consequently, we and our ad
versaries maintain opinions manifestly contradictory.
P Sancrosancta synodus  statuit et declarat, ut hsec ipsa vetus Vul-
gata editio, quae longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est, in
publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, prsedicationibus, et expositionibus pro
authentica habeatur, et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis prsetextu audeat vel
pisesumat. p. 20. Lips. 1837.]

112 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
It behoves me to proceed in this question in such a course
as to say something, — first, of the Hebrew edition of the old
Testament ; secondly, of the Greek of the new ; thirdly, of this
Latin vulgate itself. Upon this last point I shall shew that it
is corrupt, and therefore to be corrected and judged of by the
standard of the original text, which is, indeed, the grand hinge
upon which this whole controversy turns. The former matters
therefore I shall dispatch briefly, so as to come without delay
to the main subject.

CHAPTER II.
OF THE HEBREW EDITION.

The Hebrew 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 Tower of Babel. For 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 book de Mirabilibus
Scriptura, (cap. 9) : " Whereas, up to that time, the whole race of
all men were of one language, he divided their tongues into different
terms1." And, in his City of God (Lib. xvi. c. 4): "Time was
when all had one and the same language2." This is likewise con
firmed by that testimony of the Sybil, which Josephus hath set
down, Antiquit. Lib. i. c. 6 : " When all men were of one lan
guage, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby
ascend to heaven ; but the gods sent storms of wind, and overthrew
the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language3." Which
P Cum ad illud tempus esset unius linguse cunctus populus, universorum
lingulas in diversa verba divisit.]
P Cum ergo in suis linguis istse gentes fuisse referantur, redit tamen ad
illud tempus narrator, quando una lingua omnium fuit.]
P Hdvrav opocjidvav &vrav dvdpdirav, irvpyov aKoh6prjo~dv nves v^rrjXd-
totov, as eirl rbv oipavbv dvafiTjcropevoi hi aiiTov- 01 Se #eoi dvepovs iiriirep-
tyavTes dveTpetyav Tov iripyov, Kal Ihtav eKaora qbavr)v ehaKav. Lib. I. C 4.
§. 3. ed. Richter. Lips. 1826. The lines, as given by Opsopseus, are these:
bfxotpwvot 8' T\aa.v airavTes,
Kai fiovXovT duafiijv eis oiipavdv dvrepoevTa,
AvTiKa dddvaroi  ,
HvevfjLatriv.
Sibyll. Orac. Lib. in. p. 223. edit. Opsop. Paris. 1599.]

IL] 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 (Haeret. c. 106) 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.
For so the scripture tells us plainly, Gen. xi. 1 : " The whole earth
was of one language and one speech." Now Augustine, in his City
of God (Lib. xvi.'c. 11) tells us, that this common language re
mained in the family of Heber4, and was thence called Hebrew;
which is also expressly affirmed by Eucherius upon Genesis (Lib. ii.
c. 2) : " At that time, wherein a diversity of languages was pro
duced, the former tongue retained its place in the family of Heber
alone5." 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 took
place at Babel, the Hebrew was the mother of the rest. For 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 stock : but
all the rest are derived from it. " We may perceive," says
Jerome, on Zephaniah, chap. iii. " that the Hebrew language is the
mother of all languages6." He gives there one example in proof,
the identity of the Hebrew 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
p Non defuit domus Heber, ubi ea quse antea fuit omnium lingua re-
maneret.] p Eo tempore quando linguarum facta est varietas, in sola domo Heber
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 Ut nosse possimus, esse Hebraicam linguam omnium matricem. T. vi.
p. 730. The verse referred to is 18. But in OOi which Jerome translates
nugas in its obsolete sense of mourners, the 3 is not radical but servile, —
the mark of the Niphal participle from njP corresponding to the Sanscrit
wig.] r n 8
[whitaker.]

114 THE first CONTROVERSY. L^""
142nd Epistle : "All 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
written1." 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 by his own
finger, to Moses. This is the opinion of Chrysostom (Opp. T. ii. p. 1.
Eton. 1612), and Theophylact (upon Matth. i.) ; and it is also em
braced by the Papists, as Hosius, in his Confessio Petrocoviensis,
cap. 15, and the Jesuit Schrock, in his 13 Thesis de Verbo Dei.
Augustine, indeed, (Civit. Dei. Lib. xv. c. 23,) 2 affirms it to be cer
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 Enoch ; " but, " well prophesied," wpoeip^Tevo-e. The
passage cited, therefore, is either some oral speech of Enoch's, or
else written by some other person. But we must not say that any
book written by 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. It was Moses, therefore,
the greatest of the prophets, who wrote the first canonical book of
scripture; after whom other prophets published several volumes.
Some wrote before the captivity, as Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, Hosea,
and many more : some in the captivity, as Ezekiel and Daniel :
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 by Daniel and Ezra in Chaldee. But the Chal
dee tongue is near akin to the Hebrew, and was then a language
known to the church. Nor 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
P Initium oris et communis eloquii, et hoc omne quod loquimur, He-
brasam linguam, qua vetus Testamentum scriptum est, universa antiquitas
tradidit — Ep. 18. T. I. p. 49.]
P Scripsisse quidem nonnulla divina Enoch, ilium septimum ab Adam,
negare non possumus, cum hoc in opistola canonica Judas Apostolus dicat.]

"•] 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, Ezra, in
structed by the Holy Spirit, published these afresh, as it were
again recovered. In this opinion was Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom.
Lib. i.)3 and Irenasus (Lib. in. c. 25), who writes thus : " In 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, God inspired Ezra,
who was of the tribe of Levi, to renew all the discourses of the
prophets, and restore to the people the law which had been given
them by Moses4." Similar are the words of Leontius (de Sectis.
Act. 2) : " Ezra, 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 place5." Isidorus (de
officiis), and Rabanus Maurus (de Inst. Cleric, c. 54) write to the
same effect. They affirm, therefore, two things : one, that the
whole sacred and canonical scripture perished in the Babylonian
captivity : the other, that it was restored to its integrity by Ezra,
instructed and inspired in a wonderful manner by the direct agency
of God. But the falsehood of this opinion is manifest. For the pious
Jews had, no doubt, many copies of the scripture in their possession,
and could easily save them from that calamity. What 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
P hi ov ylverai  6 rav Beorrvevarrav dvayvapio-pbs Kal dvaKaivto-pbs
Xoylav. P. 329, d. Morell. Paris. 1629. Compare also 342, b.]
P iv tji iirl Na/3ov^oSoy<$o"op alxpaXao~lq tov Xaov hia<p6apeio~av Tav
ypa(f)av, Kal perd efihopr/KOVTa en) Tav 'lovhaiav dveXQovrav els ttjv xa'Pav
avrav, eirevra iv tols xpdvois 'ApTa£ep£ov tov Tlepo~dv (3ao~iXeas eveirvev&ev
"Eo-hpq ra lepe'i eVc ttjs (bvXfjs Aeui, tovs Tav irpoyeyovorav irpo<pr]Tav irdvTas
dvaTd£ao~9ai Xoyovs, Kal diroKaTao-Ti]o~ai tg> Xaa ttjv Bid 'M.ao'eas vopoBtrrlav.
P. 293. ed. Fevard. Par. 1675. The Greek is given by Eusebius, H. E. v. 8.]
p 'O he "Eo-hpas eXBav els Ta 'lepooSXvpa, Kal evpdv on jravra (3i(3Xm
tfo-av KavdevTa, TJviKa iJxpaAam'o-&;o-aj', airb pvr/pris Xeyerai o-vyypd\jfao-6ai rd
K(3' /3t/3Xia, airep iv to'is dva dirrjpiBprjo-dpeda. §. 8. p. 632. ap. Gallandi Bibl.
V. P. T. xii. Venet. 1788.]
8—2

116 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. Luil-
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.
For 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 book of Moses and read it. The 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 very
same books of scripture of the old Testament as those which were
written by Moses and the rest of the prophets.
However, it is very possible that the books, which may have
been previously in some disorder, were corrected by 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 Samaritans1." Hence, if we credit Jerome,
Ezra introduced 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.2, that the last letter of the alphabet was formerly similar to the
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.
P Certum est, Esdram scribam Legisque doctorem, post captam Hiero-
solymam .... alias literas repperisse, quibus nunc utimur : cum ad illud
usque tempus iidem Samaritanorum et Hebrseorum characteres fuerint.]
p Antiquis Hebrseorum Uteris, quibus usque hodie utuntur Samaritani,
extrema Thau litera, crucis habet similitudinem. — T. v. p. 96. The remark
was made by Origen before him : rd dpxdla orotxeia iprpepes exeiv to Tav ra
tov o-Tavpov xapaKrrjpi. Coins are still found which preserve the old cruciform
Phoenician Tau, though the Samaritan has ceased to bear that shape.]

"•] QUESTION THE SECOND. 117
But, though Jerome affirms that Ezra invented new characters;
he never says that he made everything new. He might very easily
copy and set forth the same ancient text in the new letters. We
must hold, therefore, that we have now those very 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 III.

OF THE GREEK VERSION BY 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 by
Onkelos3- The rest were turned into Chaldee by Jonathan and
Joseph, who lived a little before, or about the time of Christ4.
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 by the seventy-
two interpreters in Egypt, in compliance with the pious wishes of
Ptolemy Philadelphus. We may read large accounts of this Greek
version in Epiphanius (de Mensur. et Ponder.5), Eusebius (Praeparat.
Evangel. Lib. vm.6), Justin Martyr (Dial. e. Tryph.7), besides many
others. Nay, 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 Vives8 (in Lib. xviii.
P It is printed in Buxtorf's Rabbinical Bible, Basil, 1719, and in the
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.] P Jonathan Ben Uzziel lived probably a little before the time of Christ ;
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.]
P c. 3, 6, 9—11.]
p pp. 206—209. ed. Steph. Par. 1544.]
p p. 294. Opp. Just. Mart. Par. 1636.]
p Circumfertur libellus ejus nomine de LXX. interpretibus, confictus ut

118 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. |_CH-
c. 43. August, de Civit. Dei,) supposes this book 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.1) seems to say that the scripture was translated into Greek
long before this period, and read by Plato ; and the question of
Numenius, a Pythagorean philosopher, is alleged by him, t'i yap
eo-tt YlXaTtov fj Mwafjs aTTLKi^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 them ; but I hardly think that they ever read the
books in Greek. For this was the first Greek translation, published
about three hundred years before Christ, as Theodoret writes in
these words : " This first edition was published three hundred
and one years before God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, came
to sojourn with us in the flesh2."
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 words : " For Ptolemy did not
puto ab aliquo recentiore. — P. 620. ed. Froben. Basil. 1512. The spurious-
ness of this piece was finally demonstrated by Hody, in a treatise which forms
the first part of his great work, De Bibliorum Textibus, &c. Oxon. 1705.]
P hiTjppTjvevrai he Kal irpb AriprjTpiov  ra Tt Kara tt)v e£ Alyinrrov
igayayr/v Tav 'Eftpaiav Tav rjptTepav iroXirav, Kal tJ rav •yeyovdrai' dirdvrav
aiirois iiri<bdveia, Kal Kpdi-qo-is ttjs x°>Pa*> Kai "?r °^VS vopodeo-'ias iire^yrjo-is-
ao-re eilhrjXov tlvai tov irpoeipT/pevov (f>iX6o-o(bov tiXT]<bevai iroXXd. yeyove yap
iro\vp.a(>TJs — P. 342. B.C. The passage is quoted from Aristobulus,upon whom
see Valckenaer, de Aristobulo Judseo Diatribe. It appears to me, however,
that Aristobulus is there not speaking of any regular translation, but of such
pieces as those of Ezekiel Tragcedus, in which the greater part of the Mosaic
history was paraphrased in Greek verse or prose.]
P irparr) he avTTj 77 eKhoo-is iyeveTO irpb TpiaKoarov irpdrov irovs ttjs pera
o-apKos irpbs rjpas iirthrjpias tov eeoC Aciyov Kal Kvpiov rjpav '"b/croii XpioroC]

III.]

QUESTION THE SECOND. 119

obtain the whole scripture ; but the interpreters only delivered to
him the law3." Which, he says, was the circumstance that led him
to introduce the whole scripture to Grecian readers. That this
was Josephus' opinion is confirmed also by the testimony of Jerome.
But others hold that all the books were translated; and theirs
seems the more probable view. For the reason which led them
to make any version at all is sufficient to persuade one that they
made a complete one ; nor would the king have been satisfied with
only a part. The 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 by them
were reposited in the temple of Serapis, and the version of the
prophetic books might be found there even still: /xe-^pi vvv e'/rei
twv Hpo(prjTwv al eppLrjvevOeio-ai filftXoi fievovaiv*. 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, ypvo-o7s
ypafifxaai ttjv wdaav ypa<pr]v evarmrjudixevot. Now, if the books
of the prophets translated into Greek by 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 by them
into the Grecian language.
What authority, however, this version should command is un
certain. The ancients used to hold it in the highest estimation, and
looked upon it as unique and divine. Epiphanius, in his book of
Weights and Measures, says that the translators were not mere
interpreters, but, in some sort, prophets also5. And Augustine (de
Doct. Christ. Lib. ii. c. 15) says, that this version was made by a
divine dispensation, and was held in greatest repute among the
best learned churches, since the translators were said to have been
" aided by such a presence of the Holy Spirit in their interpreta
tion as that they all had but one mouth6." Upon this subject he
P ovhe yap irao-av iKelvos e(j)8ri Xafietv tt)v dvaypaqbyv, dXX' aira pdva ra
tov vdpoy irapehoo-av ol irepfbdevres eirl tqv i^r\yt)o-iv els tt)v 'A\e£avhpeiav.
Prooem. § 3. p. 6.]
p Tom. vi. p. 37. ed. Savil.]
p oil povov epprjvevral eKelvoi yeydvamv, dXXa Kal airb pepovs irpoqirJTai. De
Pond, et Mens. § 17. Opp. T. n. p. 173. c. ed. Petav. Colonise. 1682.]
P Septuaginta interpretum, quod ad vetus Testamentum attinet, excellit

120 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. LCH*
hath also written largely in his City of God, Lib. xviii. c. 42 and
43. In like manner, Irenaeus (Lib. in. c 25) 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 end ; so as that the gentiles who stood by might
easily perceive, that it was by the inspiration of God that the
scriptures were translated1." So Augustine, in the City of God,
Lib. xviii. c. 42 : " The 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), yet 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 one ; as, indeed, it was
one and the same Holy Spirit which was in them all2." 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 credit; and, indeed, we
find that they are treated as fables by Jerome in the Preface to
the Pentateuch3. However great may have been the authority
of this version, it could not have been greater than that of our
version. They, 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 prophets : nor is it the same thing to be ah
auctoritas: qui jam per omnes peritiores ecclesias tanta prsesentia Sancti
Spiritus interpretati esse dicuntur, ut os unum tot hominum fuerit.]
P Tav iravrav ra aiird tois aiiTais Xe£eo~i Kal toXs aiirois 6v6pao~iv dvayopev-
eravTav an apxrjs pexpi TeXovs, aare Kal Ta irapovra eBvrj yvdvai oti Kar iiriirvoiav
tov Qeov elo-lv rjpprjvevpevai at ypacpal. — P. 293. ut supra.]
P Traditur sane tarn mirabilem ac stupendum planeque divinum in eorum
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.]
P Nescio quis primus auctor septuaginta cellulas Alexandras mendacio
suo extruxerit, quibus divisi eadem scriptitarint, cum Aristseus ejusdem
Ptolemsei iirepa<nrio-rr)s, et multo post tempore Josephus nihil tale retu-
lerint, sed in una basilica congregates contulisse scribant, non proplietasse.
T, ix. p. 3.]

UI-] QUESTION THE SECOND. 121
interpreter and to be a prophet. Rightly, therefore, does Jerome4,
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 by
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.
The sounder opinion seems to be that of those who determine that
the true Septuagint is wholly lost5, and that the Greek text, as
we have it, is a mixed and miserably corrupted document. Aris-
taeus says that the Septuagint version was exactly conformable to
the Hebrew originals, so that, when read and diligently examined
by skilful judges, it was highly approved by the general suffrage
of them all. But this of ours differs amazingly from the Hebrew
copies, as well in other places and books, as specially in the Psalms
of David. Nor is there room for any one to reply that the He
brew is corrupt. For even the papists will not venture to maintain
that the Greek is purer than the Hebrew. If they did, they
would be obliged to condemn their own Latin version, which agrees
much more closely with the Hebrew 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. The Greek books reckon 2242 years from Adam
and the beginning of the world to the flood, as we read in Augus
tine, Eusebius, and Nicephorus' Chronology. But in the Hebrew
books we see that there were no more than 1656. Thus the
Greek calculation exceeds the Hebrew by 586 years. Again, from
the deluge to Abraham there is, according to the LXX., an
interval of 1082 years. But if you consult the Hebrew verity,
you will not find more than 292 s. Thus the Greek books exhibit
P Aliud est enim esse vatem, aliud esse interpretem. Ibi Spiritus ventura
prsedicit : hie eruditio et verborum copia ea quae intelligit profert. Ibid.]
P This opinion is most learnedly, but in my opinion most hopelessly
maintained by Ussher, in his Syntagma De LXX. Interprett. See Walton
Prolog. IX. pp. 125—159. (Vol. n. ed. Wrangham.)]
P See some admirable remarks upon the comparative merits of the He
brew, Samaritan, and Greek chronologies in Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samar.
Orig. &c. Halse. 1815.]

122 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
790 years more than the Hebrew: and all concede the Hebrew
numbers to be much truer than the Greek. Gen. v., in the Greek
books, Adam is said to have lived 230 years, or, according to
some copies, 330, when he begat Seth. But the Hebrew text
shews that Seth was born when Adam was 130 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 by which Methusalem is made to survive the
flood fourteen years1. Where did he remain during the deluge?
or how was he preserved ? Certainly he was not in the ark ; 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 by the deluge. Augus
tine treats of this matter in his City of God, Lib. xv. c. 11. So
Jonah iii., according to the Hebrew reading, destruction is de
nounced against the Ninevites after 40 days. But in the Greek
we read otherwise, " Yet three days, and Nineve shall be de
stroyed:" which is manifestly a false reading; for he could
scarcely have traversed the whole city in three days. Augustine
(Civit. Dei. Lib. xvm. c. 44) invents I know 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.
From 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 by the seventy Jewish
elders, or that it hath suffered such infinite and shameful cor
ruptions as to be now of very slight authority. Even Jerome had
not the Greek translation of the seventy interpreters in its purity ;
since he often complains in his commentaries that what he had
was faulty and corrupt.
P 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 MSS. of the LXX. which are free from this fault. Walton (Proleg.
ix. T. n. p. 168. edit. Wrangham) observes, that Methusalem's age at the
birth of Lamech is made 187 instead of 167 in the Cotton MS., the octateuch
of J. Clemens, and the Aldine edition.]

lv-] QUESTION THE SECOND. 123
CHAPTER IV.
OF OTHER GREEK TRANSLATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Besides this first and most famous translation, which was made
by the seventy interpreters, there were formerly other Greek ver
sions also of the old Testament, composed by various authors after
the gospel of Christ had been spread far and wide over the world.
The first of these was Aquila of Sinope, whom the emperor Hadrian
employed as prefect 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 by the
Christians, and finally, when he disregarded their censures and
admonitions, ejected from the Church ; that, stung by 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 {KafXTrvXip Kal cieo~Tpa/i/i.ev(p Xoyiafxtp, as Theodoret
says,) of obscuring the testimonies which confirm the doctrine of
Christ, and giving a plausible colour to his apostasy.
He was followed by Symmachus, whom Epiphanius testifies to
have lived in the time of Aurelius Verus 2, and who was a Samaritan
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 Hebrew into Greek (irpos SiaaTpocprjv)
for the confutation of the Samaritans. Epiphanius relates that this
Symmachus was twice circumcised ; Kal irepiTenveTai, says he,
SeuTepav Tt}v ivepiTop.r\V which he shews to be possible by adducing
those words of the apostle, irepiTeT/xrjfxivos tk eKXrjOrj ; ny eiri-
o-rrdo-Ou), and ascribes the device there meant to Esau as the
inventor. Next came3 one Theodotion of Pontus, of the party and sect of
Marcion. He, having not only rejected the Marcionite opinions,
[2 Ut supra, c. 16.]
[3 Whitaker has fallen into a mistake in placing Theodotion after Sym
machus. See Hody, p. 179.]

124 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. LCH«
but also utterly abjured Christianity, went over to the Jews ; and,
having learned their language, translated the scriptures into the
Greek tongue, "for the confutation," as Theodoret says, "of his
own sect" (irpos SiaaTpo<pr)v ttjs avTov alpeaews). These three
interpreters were enemies of the christian faith, and did not trans
late the scriptures honestly. Yet 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. For they have the apocryphal 13th and 14th of Daniel
not from the pure Hebrew originals, but from the Greek translation
of Theodotion, an impious heretic or apostate.
There was also another Greek translation by Lucian1, a pres
byter of the church of Antioch, and a martyr about the time of
Diocletian, which is mentioned by Theodoret, in the Synopsis of
Athanasius, and elsewhere2. They say that this was found written
by the martyr's own hand, at Nicomedia, in a marble tower. And
Jerome, in the catalogue, says that in his time some copies were
called Lucianea. There were also two other editions by unknown
authors. The first was found at Jericho in a pitcher3, in the reign
of Caracalla ; the other in a similar vessel, at the northern
Nicopolis, in the reign of Alexander the son of Mammaea, as Epi
phanius and Theodoret testify.
I come now to Origen, who, according to the narrative of Epi
phanius and others, being assisted by the resources of Ambrosius,
a rich and pious person, bestowed incredible pains upon collecting
and comparing the various editions of the scriptures4- He brought
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 (rerpaTrXa fiifiXla).
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
P Lucian made no new translation, but only revised the text of the LXX.
See Hody, p. 627.]
P Synopsis Script, inter Opp. Athanasii. T. n. pp. 203, 204. cf. Suidas,
VOC. AovKiavds.]
P Epiphan. de Mens, et Pond. c. 17.]
P See what is still the fullest and best account of Origen's labours in
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 THE 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 book de Sacro Vernac.) says, that it was only
the Gospel of Matthew which was written in Hebrew. Jerome
affirms the same thing in these words of his Preface to the four
evangelists addressed to Damasus : " The new Testament is un
doubtedly Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who
first published the gospel in Judaea in Hebrew letters5." Neverthe
less in the catalogue, under the article Paul, he says that the Epistle
to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew. Thus he writes : " He wrote
most eloquently as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew, that
is, in his own language6." The translation of this epistle into Greek
some ascribe to Barnabas, as Theodoras Lector* in his second book
of Collectanea, some to Luke8, and some to Clemens9. 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,
p De novo nunc loquor Testamento, quod Grsecum esse non dubium est,
excepto apostolo Matthseo, qui primus in Judsea evangelium Christi Hebraicis
Uteris edidit.— Opp. T. i. p. 1426.]
p Scripserat, ut Hebrseus Hebrseis, Hebraice, id est suo eloquio, disertis-
sime.] p I think this is a mistake. At least I can find no such statements in
Theodoras.] P So Clemens Alex. ap. Euseb. H. Eccl. L. vi. c. 14.]
P Euseb. H. E. Lib. III. C. 38. ot pev tov eiiayyeXio-Tr)v AovKav, ol he tov
TQurjpevra tovtov airbv epprjvevo-at Xeyovo-i tt)v ypaotnjv.']

126 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. |_CH-
received in the church, and approved by the apostles themselves.
Jerome in the Catalogue (Article Matthjeus), tells us : " He first
composed a gospel in the Hebrew character and language, in Judaea,
for the sake of those of the circumcision who had believed ; but it is
not certainly known who translated it into Greek." He adds, that
" the Hebrew text itself was preserved in his time in the library of
Caesar aea which was built by the martyr Pamphilus1.'" So Nazian-
zene in his version upon the genuine books2 :
Mardaios pev eypatyev 'Efipaiois Oavpara XptoroO'
where, when he says that Matthew wrote the miracles of Christ for
the Hebrew, it is implied that he wrote his gospel in Hebrew. So
Irenaeus, Lib. in. c. 1, relates, that "Matthew published the scripture
of the gospel amongst the Hebrews in their own language3." These
fathers then suppose that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and
that it was translated by an unknown hand. Athanasius, however,
in his Synopsis4, writes that the Hebrew gospel of Matthew was
translated into Greek by the apostle James, but brings no argument
to command our credence.
Nor is the opinion of a Hebrew original of the gospel of
Matthew supported by 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 Hebrew; 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 Hebrew, but
in the Syriac language. And 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 Judaea, propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderant, evange-
lium Christi Hebraicis Uteris verbisque composuit : quod quis postea in Grse-
cum transtulerit non satis certum est. Porro ipsum Hebraicum habetur
usque hodie in Csesariensi 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 Hebraicis Uteris scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secun
dum apostolos, sive (ut plerique autumant) juxta Matthseum, quod et in Ccssa-
riensi habetur Bibliotheca, &c]
P Poem. xxxm. 31. Opp. T. n. p. 99. Lips. 1690.]
P 6 pev MaT0aior iv ro'is 'Eftpalois tjj Ihlq StaXe'/cra) avrav Kal ypacpljv igijvey-
Kev eiayyeXiov. P. 220. et ap. Euseb. H. E. Lib.V. C 8.]
P Inter Opp. Athan. T. n. p. 177.]

v-] QUESTION THE SECOND. 127
not pure Hebrew, but Syriac, or a mixture of Hebrew and Chaldee.
Yet Jerome thought that the gospel of Matthew was written in pure
Hebrew: for, in the catalogue under the article Matth^us, he writes
that there was a MS. remaining of this Hebrew gospel in the
library of Nicomedia5, and that he was permitted to make a copy
of it. On the whole, therefore, it seems uncertain that Matthew
wrote his gospel either in Hebrew or in Syriac; and it is rather to
be 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 they 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 Hebrew copies of this gospel and
epistle which are now extant are not genuine.
The Lord 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. On this account the Lord selected the
Greek language, than which no other was more commonly known
by all men, wherein to communicate his gospel to as many coun
tries and persons as possible. He willed also that the heavenly
truth of the gospel should be written in Greek in order to pro
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 Romans6. As,
therefore, before Christ the holy doctrine was written in that lan
guage which was the peculiar and native tongue of the Church ; 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.
p Mihi quoque a Nazaraeis, qui in Bersea urbe Syrise hoc volumine utun-
tur, describendi facultas fuit. Vide supra.]
P Grseca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus : Latina suis finibus, exiguis
sane, continentur. Cic. Opp. T. v. p. 445, ed. LaUemand. Paris. 1768.]

128 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. LUH'
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 very many Latin versions of the scriptures,
we have the testimony of Augustine (de Doctr. Christ. Lib. ii. c. 11)
to assure us. His words are: "Those who have translated the
scriptures into Greek out of the Hebrew language may be counted,
but the Latin translators cannot1." Augustine expresses an opinion,
that a theologian may 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 of the Latin texts : for
he says that "there were as many texts as copies, since every one,
at his own caprice, added or subtracted what he pleased2." But
among the rest there was one more famous, which was called Itala3;
and which Augustine (Doctr. Christ. Lib. ii. c. 15) 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. Who the author of this version was is
not known, but it was certainly more ancient than the Hieronymian:
for Gregory, in his epistle to Leander4, says that the Roman
P Qui ex Hebrsea lingua scripturas in Grsecam verterunt numerari pos-
sunt, Latini autem nullo mode]
P Maxime cum apud Latinos tot sint exemplaria, quot codices, et unus-
quisque pro arbitrio suo vel addiderit vel subtraxerit quod ei visum est.]
p As this is the only passage in which any ancient Latin father speaks of
a versio Itala, various critical efforts have been made to alter the text ; the
most ingenious being that of Archbp. Potter: "In ipsis autem interpretatio-
nibus Usitata ceteris prseferatur ; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspi-
cuitate sententiae." He supposes the present reading to have originated by
the absorption of the Us in the last syllable of the preceding word, after
which Itala was easily changed into Itala. But see, in defence of the old
reading, Hug. Einl. 115.]
P Novam vero translationem dissero ; sed ut comprobationis causa exigit,
nunc novam, nunc veterem, per testimonia assumo : ut quia sedes apostolica
(cui auctore Deo prsesideo) utraque utitur, mei quoque labor studii ex utraque
fulciatur. T. I. p. 6. Opp. Paris. 1705.]

V,.]

QUESTION THE SECOND. 129

church made use of two versions, one of which he calls the old, and
the other the new. The old was most probably that same Italic;
the new the Hieronymian, which presently after its publication
began to be read in some churches, as we may collect from Augus
tine's 10th epistle to Jerome, where he writes that some Christians
were offended by a new word occurring in it : for in the fourth
chapter of Jonah the old Latin edition had cucurbita (a gourd);
but Jerome in his version made it hedera (ivy)5. Perhaps the
Hebrew term does not really denote either, but a quite different
plant called Ricinus (or Palma Christi). Now, 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 Gregory attesting the
use of them both in the Church of Rome.
At length, however, not only the rest, which were more ob
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 Hie
ronymian. For 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 very weighty grounds. Xantes
Pagninus, iii the Preface to his Translation, which he inscribed to
Clement VII., 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 a mixture of 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
P In hoc loco quidam Cantherius  dudum Romse dicitur me accu-
sasse sacrilegii, quod pro cucurbita hederam transtulerim : timens videlicet,
ne si pro cucurbitis hederse nascerentur, unde occulte et tenebrose biberet
non haberet. — Hieron. Comment, in Jon. iv. Opp. vi. 425. Compare also
his Epistle to Augustine. Ep. 112.]
r i 9
)_WHITAKER.J

130 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. LCHl
to the sacred original of scripture1:" and he adds that it is blamed
and corrected, not only by Armachanus and Lyra, but also by 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 yet altogether the same with
it. Sixtus Senensis (Bibliotheca, Lib. vm) is of the same opinion,
and confesses that he has been brought to that opinion by demon
strative arguments. Bellarmine (Lib. h. 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 judged them apocryphal. The Psalms he translated with
the utmost care and religious scrupulousness from the Hebrew : 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 good 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 Jerome: for Jerome, at the request of Damasus,
corrected the old version, but did not make a new one ; as he him
self testifies in several places, and specially in the catalogue towards
the end. "The new Testament," says he, "I restored to the Greek
fidelity; the old I translated according to the Hebrew2." Thirdly,
that all the other parts of the old Testament are exhibited in the
Vulgate according to Jerome's version.
The 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 matters. 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.
For, first of all, Jerome translated the old Testament accurately
from the Hebrew, as he hath himself frequently professed and
[i Sunt qui dicunt translationem hanc Latinam, qua communiter utitur
tota Latinorum ecclesia, neque esse divi Hieronymi, neque in omnibus con-
sonam scripturse sacrse originali.— Opp. Lovan. 1550. T. i. p. 24.]
P Novum Testamentum Grajcoe fidei reddidi. Vetus juxta Hebraicam trans-
tuli. c. 135. Opp. ii. 941. The latter clause, Vctus, &c. is wanting in one MS.]

VL] QUESTION THE SECOND. 131
testified. In the Preface of the Psalter to Sophronius (which is
the Epistle 133) he writes thus of his translation : " Certainly I
will say it boldly, and can cite many witnesses of my work, that I
have changed nothing of the sense, at least from the Hebrew verity.
Wherever, therefore, my edition clashes with the old ones, ask any
Hebrew, and you will see clearly that I am unreasonably attacked by
my rivals, who choose rather to seem despisers of what is excellent
than to become learners3." Again, in the Preface to the five books of
Moses : " Wherever you think I go wrong in my translation, ask
the Jews, consult the masters in various cities, &c.4" And in the
preface to Kings he declares that he hath nowhere departed from
the Hebrew verity5. So that Jerome everywhere most carefully
compared and adjusted his version by the standard of the Hebrew
books. This Augustine also (Civit. Dei, Lib. xviii. c. 43) testifies
concerning him : " We have had in our own time the presbyter
Jerome, a very 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 Latin ; whose stupen
dous literary work the Hebrews acknowledge to be faithful to the
original6." 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 per
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 Hebrew text, as
Jerome himself, if he returned to life, would not be able to deny.
Nor can they answer that the Hebrew is corrupt. For, although
P Certe confidenter dicam, et multos hujus operis testes citabo, me nihil
duntaxat scientem de Hebraica veritate mutasse. Sicubi ergo editio mea a
veteribus discrepant, interroga quemlibet Hebrseorum, et liquido pervidebis,
me ab aemulis frustra lacerari, qui malunt contemnere videri praeclara, quam
discere. Opp. T. ix. 1156.]
p Sicubi in translatione tibi videor errare, interroga Hebraos, diversarum
urbium magistros consule. Ibid. 6.]
p Quanquam mihi omnino conscius non sim, mutasse me quidpiam de
Hebraica veritate. Ibid. 459.]
P Non defuit temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissi-
mus et trium linguarum peritissimus, qui non ex Grseco, sed ex Hebrseo in
Latinum divinas scripturas converteret: cujus tantum literarum laborem
Hebraei fatentur esse veracem.]
9 — 2

132 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.' LCH*
some papists do indeed say this, yet they are refuted by plain
reason and by 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 by some
arguments that they could not have been corrupted by the Jews,
as those writers supposed. How were they corrupted? By the
copyists ? This cannot be said, since all the MSS. agree ; 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 judged that many passages ought to be translated otherwise
than we find them translated in this version. How then can that
be called Jerome's version, which Jerome himself condemns ? Now
we could shew by many examples that many things in this version
are censured by 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 Vulgaite edition, Spiritus Dei
ferebatur super aquas, there is, says Jerome, in the Hebrew a terra
which means "brooded, or cherished, as a bird warms its eggs with
animal heat1." In Gen. iv. the Vulgate has, Et respexit Dominus
ad Abel et ad munera ejus; ad Cain autem et ad munera ejus non
respexit. Jerome thinks that the place should rather be translated,
as Theodotion hath translated it, "And the Lord sent fire upon
Abel and his sacrifice : but upon Cain and his sacrifice he did not
send fire ;" which translation he pronounceth to be most exact2.
In the same chapter he pronounces that clause, " Let us pass
into the field," to be superfluous3, though it appears both in the
Greek and Samaritan editions. Yet this is the same thing as the
Vulgate exhibits in the words, Egrediamur foras.
[i In Hebraao habet Merefeth, quod nos appellare possumus incubabat,
sive con/ovebat, in similitudinem volucris ova calore animantis. Qusest. Hebr.
in Genes. Opp. T. in. 306. J
p Unde scire poterat Cain, quod fratris munera 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.J

QUESTION THE SECOND. 133

In Gen. xxx. 32, 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, Je
rome translates, "No longer tread my court5 ;" and so the version,
which we find in his works along with his Commentaries, still reads
it. So where the Vulgate hath, facti estis mihi molesti, Jerome
reads, facti estis mihi in satietatem. And, in the end of the chapter,
that passage, which the Vulgate represents by cum fueritis velut
quercus, Jerome translates, " They shall be like a terebinth6."
Examples of this kind are almost innumerable.
Nor 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 blood7." In the
same Epistle, chap. iii. 1, Jerome omits in his version these words,
non credere veritati8, which appear in the Vulgate ; 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's9. And in Eph. chap, i., Jerome blames the interpreter for
putting pignus for arrhabo, and proves, by excellent reasons, that
this is a false translation10: yet in all the books of the Vulgate
edition we have still not arrhabo but pignus, contrary to Jerome's
determination. Upon Eph. iv., where the vulgar copies have, qui
P Ibid. 352.]
p Calcare atrium meum non apponetis. Opp. T. iv. 2, 1.]
p Jerome gives both translations : Usque hodie Judsei legentes scripturas
sanctus terebinthus sunt, sive quercus, ut interpretatus est Symmachus. T. iv.
39.] P Sive, ut in Grseco melius habet: Non contuli cum came et sanguine.
T. vn. 391.]
P Legitur in quibusdam codicibus: Quis vos fascinavit non credere veri
tati f Sed hoc, quia in exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur, omisimus.
Ibid. 418.]
P Hie est unus locus e multis, quo coarguitur hsec editio non esse tota
Hieronymi. Etenim quum ille testetur se hanc particulam omisisse, quod in
Adamantii codicibus non inveniretur, in nostris codicibus constanter habetur.
— Erasmi Annot. in N. T. p. 576. Basil. 1535.]
P° Pignus Latinus interpres pro arrhabone posuit. Non idipsum autem
arrhabo quod pignus sonat. Arrhabo enim futurse emtioni quasi quoddam
testimonium et obligamentum datur. Pignus vero, hoc est, evexvpov, pro
mutua pecunia opponitur ; ut quum iUa reddita fuerit, reddenti debitum pig
nus a creditore reddatur. — Hieron. Opp. T. vn. 560, 561.]

134 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
desperantes semetipsos tradiderunt impudicitio3, "it is otherwise,"
says Jerome, "in the Greek. For the Gentiles do not despair,
since they have no sense of their ruin, but live like brute beasts ac
cording to the flesh." And he subjoins that instead of "being in
despair," we may read, " being without feeling1." Why should I
endeavour to go through all the rest ? It will be easier to find a
beginning than an end.
What Bellarmine adduces to obscure this light of truth, may be
dispelled without difficulty. For, 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 good 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. For, as to his
third pretence — that Jerome changed his opinion, — although it
might be allowed in the case of a few passages, yet 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 judg
ment. Besides, in most of the instances he had no reason for
changing. For in Gal. i. ¦jrpoo-aveQkp.r\v is more correctly rendered
" conferred," than " acquiesced." Eph. i., dppafiwv is not the
same as pignus, as Jerome himself hath taught us in his Commen
taries. " A pledge," says he, " is given for money borrowed ;
but an earnest is given as a sort of evidence and security of a
future purchase2." And Eph. iv., dirrjXyriKOTes does not mean
" despairing," but " being past or without feeling," as Jerome
says. Who that reads Jerome, disputing and proving by 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 by Jerome.
As to Bellarmine's last excuse, — that the church hath inter
posed its authority, and judged the first version to be the truer — I
ask, when, or how the church declared that judgment? or what
church it is that he means ? or what right any church had to
P Multo aliud in Grcoco significat quam in Latino  exprimamus
si possimus verbum de verbo, et dicamus, amjKyrtKores indolentes, sive indolo-
rios. Ibid. 621.]
p See preceding page, note 10.]

VL] QUESTION THE SECOND. 135
determine a false or improper version to be truer than a true3 and
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 THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR
OPPONENTS, WHEREBY THEY ENDEAVOUR TO PROVE THAT
THE LATIN VULGATE EDITION IS AUTHENTIC.
We 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 Hebrew and Greek originals, but in
the Vulgate Latin version. We, 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. We 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 by the following arguments.
He proposes his first argument in this form : For nearly a
thousand years, that is, from the time of Gregory 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. iii., declares the church to be the pillar and ground of truth.
P In the original, " aut quo jure potuit ulla ecclesia judicare versionem
aut 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, Lib. ii. c. 13.
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 by the circumstance,
that some place of scripture happens to be improperly rendered ;
and the Roman 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
by 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 Gregory, but also before Gregory's time.
But we have shewn that there were many Latin versions in the
Latin church before Gregory, and no one in particular authentic :
and after Gregory there was no provision made by any decree of
the church that this Latin version should be authentic, until the
publication of this very decree of the council of Trent.
Fourthly, Bellarmine does not prove that the Latin church
from the time of Gregory 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 rest1." 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 Gregory, 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-
tiso clarior. Madrit. 1599. p. 103. Which last are almost the very words in
which Augustine commends the old Italic, De Doctr Christ, n. 15.]

V"-J 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. Nor 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 by Jerome out of Hebrew into Latin,
as Jerome himself testifies in his second book against Ruffinus, and
in his Catalogue under the article Sophronius2.
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. They praise it, and deserv
edly : but yet they always prefer the originals to it. Jerome
himself adjusted his version by the standard of the originals, and
wished it to be judged 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. With 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 by the translation of the Seventy elders. In a
word, it is praised as a carefully executed translation, and is pre
ferred to other Latin versions, but not required to be received
as authentic scripture. Isidore, Etymol., Lib. vi. cap. 5, has these
words : " His [Jerome's] version is deservedly preferred to the
others3 ;" that is, to the other versions, not to the originals them
selves. Secondly, his assumption that this is either the Italic or the
P Sophronius .... opuscula mea in Gracum eleganti sermone transtulit,
Psalterium quoque et Prophetas, quos nos de Hebrseo in Latinum transtuli-
mus. Catalog. Scriptt. c. 134.]
p Vide supra, pp. 131, 136,]

138 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
Hieronymian, rests upon no certain basis. Some think 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
we have previously adduced establish. The argument is, therefore,
faulty every way.
The third argument is this : The Hebrews had the authentic
scripture in their own language, and the Greeks in theirs ; that is,
the old Testament in the Septuagint version, and the new Tes
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, by 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? If so, I
deny its authenticity. For Augustine, who allowed most to the
authority of the Septuagint version, yet thought that it should be
corrected by the originals. But the papists contend that their
Latin text is authentic of itself, and ought not to be tried by the
text of the originals. Now in this sense no translation ever was,
or could be, authentic. For 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
by inspiration of God, is in every way credible on its own account
and authentic. Besides, if the Septuagint was formerly authentic,
how did it become not authentic ? At least in the Psalms it must
continue authentic still, since they derive their Latin version of
that book from no other source than the Greek of the Septuagint.
Even 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 Hebrew and Greek; therefore also in Latin. The authentic
originals of the scripture of the old Testament are extant in
Hebrew, of the new in Greek. It 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. If he grant that each church
should necessarily have authentic versions of its own, what are we
to do if these versions should (as they easily may) disagree ? Can
they be all authentic, and yet disagree amongst themselves ? But

VI1-] 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 day claim their version
likewise as authentic?
Thirdly, I know not with what truth they call theirs the
Latin church. For 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.
Now 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, may understand He
brew or Greek. So Ruffinus, in his Ecclesiastical History, (Lib. x.
c. 21), writes that no bishop was found in the council of Rimini
who knew the meaning of the term ofioovartos. Now 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 be masters of those languages in which they
were first written. The 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 of
ours. But we grant that many come who know nothing of the
Hebrew, or Greek, or perhaps even the Latin, tongue.
Thirdly, It is false, that no one was found in the council of
Rimini capable of understanding the term 6/xoovcnos. For there
were present many bishops from Greece, who were well acquainted
with the Greek language : 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 ofxoovo-iov. But this
may happen to persons who are ever so well acquainted with the
languages. The 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
judge of the sense of each separate passage, whether all be cor
rectly rendered, can yet, being instructed by the Holy Spirit,
acknowledge and approve the doctrine.
Thirdly, this argument no more proves the Latin to be authen
tic than any other version. For 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? The 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.
The last argument is : The heretics, who despise the ancient
editions, make various and mutually discordant editions of their
own ; 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 this? The 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 Hebrew in the old,
and the Greek in the new, Testament. We approve translations,
if they agree with these standards : we reject them if they do
not. Fourthly, as to Luther, I do not know whether he said this
or not. The slanderous Cochlasus hath affirmed it of him. It is a
matter of no moment. Such then are Bellarmine's arguments.
But Melchior Canus (Lib. 11. c. 13) hath made use of some others
in this cause, but such as perhaps the Jesuit considered too futile.
Of 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

VI1-] QUESTION THE SECOND. 141
conclusions from the Latin Vulgate edition, as appears plainly from
their books and disputations. I could produce a great many ex
amples. In Canticles, n. 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 allow : but it is supported by no authority from this place and
testimony ; for the words should be translated otherwise : " His
banner towards me is charity." Again, Rom. xiii. 2 is read thus
in the Vulgate : Quae a Deo sunt, ordinata 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
God ; and specially in Prima Secundoz, q. 102, art. 1, he proves
from these words, that ceremonial precepts have a reason. A
question, verily, Both proposed and concluded with singular wis
dom ! For the place is most perversely rendered by that trans
lator ; who first omits altogether the word e^ovaiai, " powers," and
then sets a comma after a Deo, when it should have been set before
it: not to mention that the reading is ordinata, when it should be
ordinata:. 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 THE TEN REASONS OF THE
ANGLO-RHEMIST TRANSLATORS, WHEREBY THEY ENDEAVOUR
TO PROVE THE AUTHORITY OF THE 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 Vulgate1. In 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.
[i It was first printed at Rheims in 4to in 1582. The principal transla
tors appear to have been Allen, Martin, and Bristow.J

142 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. L°H.
I. This edition is so ancient that it hath been received in
the church by the space of 1300 years, as appears from the fathers
of those times.
I answer : However ancient they make it out, yet they must
needs confess that it is younger than the Greek edition. For the
Greek was not only older than the Latin, but than all other ver
sions, which are but streams derived from the fountain of the
Greek edition. If, then, an antiquity of 1300 years commends
the Latin version, the Greek text should be yet more strongly
commended to us, which we gather from the genuine monuments
of those times to have been publicly received 1500 years ago in
the churches of Christians. And it is marvellous that these noble
translators did not bethink themselves, when they vaunted the
antiquity of their version, that by 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 by their
own shewing.
II. This is (as is commonly thought and most probable) that
very same version which Jerome afterwards corrected from the
Greek, by order of Damasus, as he writes in the preface to the
Evangelists, in the catalogue at the end, and in the 102nd Epistle.
I answer : First, they confess it to be by 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.
Now 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 by 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 Greek; 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, Ep. 10.
I answer : 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.
He 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 by 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 we 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. The sacred council of Trent, for these and many other
very weighty reasons, hath defined this alone of all Latin trans
lations to be authentic.
I answer : In the first place, that Tridentine Synod hath no
authority with us. Secondly, What right had it to define this ?
Thirdly, It hath proposed no grounds of this decree, except this
only, — that 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 know whe
ther the council of Trent only commanded this Latin edition to be
considered the authentic one amongst Latin editions, or determined
it to be absolutely authentic ? For 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. Do 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 by the Latin rather
than the Greek or Hebrew copies. And it is certain that this is
now the received opinion of the papists.

144 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. LuiI"
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 Holy 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 here
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. If 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 Greek in many places, as we shall see hereafter.
VIII. The adversaries themselves, and Beza in particular,
prefer this to all the rest. See his Preface to the new Testament,
published in the year 1556. And elsewhere he says, that the old
interpreter translated very 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 ; yet 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. Nay, in this very place he blames the old interpreter for
not understanding the difference between irXnpo(popla and ire-rroi-
Orjo-is. If 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. If it were agreed that this is better than all
other translations, what would that be to the purpose? For it
does not therefore follow, either that the Latin is authentic, or that
the Rhemists ought to have translated the new Testament from
the Latin, and not from the Greek. 2. They 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, yet those places are not numerous,
nor is the difference dangerous ; since we do not say that one should

VI11-] QUESTION THE 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. Hence 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 THE LATIN
VULGATE EDITION IS PROVED NOT TO BE THE AUTHENTIC
SCRIPTURE.
It remains that we should shew by good 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. Nay, he left it to
his readers to choose in many places between different interpre
tations, being doubtful whether they were rightly understood and
rendered by himself. Sometimes he even ingenuously confesses
that he hath translated otherwise than the Hebrew verity required.
So Jonah iv. he translates " ivy," following Aquila, not " a gourd"
with the Septuagint; whereas in his Commentary on Jonah he
teaches us that neither ivy nor gourd can be really denoted by
the word. " For," says he, " gourds and ivy are naturally prone
to creep upon the earth, and cannot gain any height without props
and stays to support them1." But he testifies that the shrub
which the Lord prepared for Jonah supports itself by its own
P Cucurbita et hedera hujus naturae sunt ut per terrain reptent, et absque
furcis vel adminiculis quibus innituntur altiora non appetant. — T. vi. p. 426.]
r ' 10
LWHITAKER.J

146 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. 1.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 very wide of the true sense of the Hebrew,
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 by 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.
The validity of the consequence may be perceived from the follow
ing consideration: — Jerome, as they say, translated the old Tes
tament, and corrected the new, at the request of Damasus. Where
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 by the judgment of the church
and the order of the pontiff. But such was not the case. For
in the time of pope Gregory, 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 Gregory's Preface to Job, 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 by no means deemed it authentic. The ante
cedent hath been proved by many previous testimonies; and the
consequent needs no proof. For, if Jerome found and remarked
many errors in this edition, it is certain that it could not have been
regarded by him as either authentic or true. Now Jerome, in
his Traditions upon Genesis and other books, shews many faults
of this edition, which are still found in it. And, 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-J QUESTION THE SECOND. 147
rendered, and therefore did not change ; 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 Catalogue1.
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 events ; in the latter, learning and
copious command of words translates what it understands2." Hence
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. For it is the function of an interpreter to
translate the authentic scripture, not to make his own translation
authentic scripture. Now Jerome both might, and did err in
translating. That he might have erred no one doubts, and Au
gustine in his 8th Epistle to Jerome takes it for granted. That
he did err, Jerome himself ingenuously acknowledges in many
places. Nay, 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 version? 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 by 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, yet his version was approved by
the church ; — I answer first, that our assertion is not only
that Jerome might have erred, but also that he hath committed
P (Vetus Testamentum) juxta Hebraicam transtuU  multaque aUa de
opere prophetali, quse nunc habeo in manibus. — T. ii. p. 941.]
p Aliud est esse vatem, aliud esse interpretem. Ibi Spiritus ventura prse-
dixit; hie eruditio et verborum copia ea quse intelligit transfert.]
10—2

148 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
great errors in this version, if it be his version ; and this assertion
we 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. For authentic scripture must proceed immediately from
the Holy Ghost himself; and therefore Paul says that all scripture
is divinely inspired, 2 Tim. iii. 16. Now 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 very 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 Lyra,
Paul of Bruges, Richard of Armagh, Valla, Eugubinus, Isidore
Clarius, John Isaac, Cajetan, Erasmus, Jacques De-Ferre, Ludo-
vicus Vives, Lucas of Bruges, and many more. The 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. Now first, in the
Tridentine synod, we 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, yea, their Christ, is Jerome : 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 God had permitted the scripture to
perish in the Hebrew and Greek originals, in which it was first
published by men divinely inspired, he would not have provided
sufficiently for his church and for our faith. From 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 very
writings of the prophets and apostles are not those which we con
sult? What reason can be alleged, why the authentic word of
God should perish in those languages in which it was first pub
lished, and become authentic in a new tongue, into which it was
translated by a man who was no prophet ? or why 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, Arno-
bius, Lactantius, Victorius, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome
himself, Leo, Gregory, 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, why 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 now : for Augustine says that in his time they
were innumerable (Doct. Christ. Lib. ii. c. 11) ; but those which
are now extant may be easily counted. Yet the council of Trent
willed that one out of many should be held authentic ; and Andra-
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. If this be a good
reason — an 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 be
come canonical and most holy, but that they may be so esteemed,
as we shall hear afterwards. Is this Latin edition therefore now
made by them authentic, or is it only declared to be authentic ?
If they say that it is now made authentic, it will follow that it was
not authentic before. Then by 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 yet 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.
For 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 by themselves.
The eighth argument. The 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 CONTROVERSY. [CH.
blaming it, that I admire it rather as divine. But in the authen
tic original scriptures you shall never find such barbarity and
disgraceful solecisms as are everywhere occurring in the Latin
Vulgate. Gen. xxi. 26 : Non audivi praeter hodie. Gen. xlii. 13 :
Alius non est super, — for superest. Ps. lxvii. 20 : Benedictus
Dominus die quotidie. Ps. cxxv. 1 : In convertendo Dominus
captivitatem Sion facti sumus sicut consolati. Matt. xxii. : Neque
nubent neque nubentur. Matt. vi. : Nonne vos magis pluris estis
Mis ? Matt. xx. : Filius hominis non venit ministrari. Luc. vii. :
Lamentavimus vobis. Luc. xxi. : Omnis populus manicabat ad
eum. John xv. : Ut fructum plus afferat. Acts iii. : Pcenitemini.
James i. : Deus intentator est malorum. These are expressed in
the original quite otherwise, and with sufficient purity and elegance.
Matt. xxii. 30 : ovre yapLodaiv ovtc eKyafi'i^ovTai. Matt. vi. 26 :
ovy v/meis /maXXov Siatpepere avTmv ; Matt. xx. 28 : o v\os tov
dvdpunrov ovk r)X0e SiaKovrj9tjvai dXXa SiaKoi'tjaai. Luke vn. 32 :
hBpr\vr]aap.ev v/xlv. Luke xxi. 38 : iras o Xaos wpQpiXe irpos
aiiTov. John xv. 2 : 'Iva irXeiova Kapirov (pepr/. Acts iii. 19 :
IxeTavoriaaTe. James i. 13 : o Oeos aireipaaros eaTi twv KaKwv.
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 Holy Spirit is never
wont to speak so barbarously and foolishly. For though there be in
the holy scriptures some pendent sentences, and inversions, and ap
parent solecisms, and other things of that kind, yet the same may be
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 rendered ; 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 Donatus l, as Gregory reminds us in his
preface to Job : 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-
P A famous grammarian.]

Ix>] QUESTION the second. 151
lently well: "Here perhaps some one may ask whether our
writers are only to be styled wise, or to be called eloquent also ?"
Which question Augustine answers thus : " Where I understand
them, nothing can seem not only wiser but more eloquent than
they are. And 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 manner2." He observes that there is one
kind of eloquence which becomes youth, and another which is suit
able to age ; and that nothing, which is not suited to the person of
the speaker, can deserve to be called eloquence : 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. Any other
would not have become them, nor this any other writers.
The ninth argument. The 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 may
recur to the Hebrew and Greek originals. 1. Where there seems
to be a mistake of the transcribers in the Latin copies; of which
he produces some examples, and of which very many might be
produced. 1 Sam xix. 24, the Vulgate had for many ages,
Cecinit nudus tota ilia die. If you look at the Hebrew original,
you will see that one should read cecidit, not cecinit. Yet they
persist in retaining the latter (cecinit) in the text, and write cecidit
in the margin. Ecclus. xxiv. 30, the old edition hath, and hath
had this long time back, Ego quasi fluvius Dorix. If you ask
what river that is, Rabanus tells you 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 we should read
vorax; and Bellarmine corrects it from the Greek, Ego quasi
fluvius Dioryx. For " $iwpv%," says he, " signifies a trench
dug from a river to irrigate the ground." Be it so : but what
Latin writer ever used this term? or what are we to think of
p Hie aliquis forsitan quserit, utrum auctores nostri  sapientes tan-
tummodo, an eloquentes etiam nuncupandi sunt. Quse quidem qusestio apud
meipsum, 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. Et audeo dicere omnes, qui recte inteUigunt
quod illi loquuntur, simul intelligere non eos aliter loqui debuisse. — T. in.
p. 88. Bassan. 1797.]

152 ' the first controversy. [ch.
such a Latin version ? or, if this be the true reading, why 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 prce-
cepta. But the Louvain editors have corrected the place thus,
coram praicepta ; and Bellarmine approves that emendation, since
the Greek exhibits Kara irpocrurirov1, and says that it is now so
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 Bibles ? So again the old books exhibit that place in
Psal. xii., ad Deum fontem vivum2 : but Bellarmine thinks it
might safely be changed to ad Deum fortem vivum, as is plainly
required by 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. 23 3, the
old Latin books have sulphure et solis ardore comburens ; whereas
the Hebrew text shews that the true reading is salis, not solis :
which error I am surprised that the Louvain editors did not per
ceive, and correct at least in the margin. An infinite number of
other like examples might be given ; and Canus (Lib. ii. 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. Do we not hence see that the original edi
tion possesses greater purity and authority than this Vulgate
Latin? The 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. For example, in Joshua v. some copies of the Vul
gate edition have4, Quibus juravit 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
P Kal ehaKev avry Kara irpoo-airov ivToXds, vopov £arjs Kal imo-TTjpris. Ec-
clus. xlv. 6, ed. Grabe.]
[2 Ps. xlii. 2, in the Hebrew, ''11 bilb. In tho Greek, irpbs rbv eebv rbv
£dvra.] Is This is a mistake. The true reference is Deut. xxix. 22, where tho
Hebrew is, nsnitf rtei rinso.]
p ver. 6. Dni'inn ">Fbib ' snb nim vatw 1
t . - • : • ; •,. t t : * - : • ' J

*X-] 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, xi.5, some copies have, Non
fuit civitas quas non se traderet ; some, on the contrary, quoz se
traderet. And 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, Redemptionem plebis
sua, : but it is evident that we should read plebi sua, because
the Greek is Tip Xaip avTov. 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 judged of and corrected by the originals. Meanwhile,
however, errors of this kind are not removed, but preserved in
their Bibles. Who, then, will not much rather trust the originals
than this Vulgate edition ?
The 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
bona voluntatis. The words, bona voluntatis, may be referred,
he thinks, either to homines, or to pax, but more correctly to the
latter ; so that the sense shall be, " on earth peace to men, peace
(I say) of the good-will of God towards men." For evSoKia 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 terms : which opens to us a
very wide door. For 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. n. c. 15, sets forth many advantages which
attend a knowledge of the originals. First, when we dispute with
infidels. Secondly, when we 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
p ver. 19.]
p V. 68, iiroiTjo-e Xvrpao-iv ra Xaa abrov.]
p v. 14, where the Vulgate reads eiihoKias.]

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 Holy Spirit, nor hath light enough in itself to illustrate the
diction and sense of scripture, is not authentic. Now the Latin
Vulgate edition is such, by the ingenuous confession of our adver
saries themselves. Therefore it is not authentic : and consequently
the Hebrew 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 by 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
Hebrew and Greek, and appeal to them as to a superior judge.
And 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, why have they branded
it, and changed it in their missals ? If the new, why 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 by a single
example. In Proverbs xvi. 11, the old copies of the Latin edition
have this reading ; " Pondus et statera judicia Dei sunt, et opera
ejus omnes lapides seculi." They now perceive that it should be
read, " et opera ejus omnes lapides sacculi ; " for the Hebrew word
denotes a scrip, or purse, or little bag1. Here there is no doubt
that the reading seculi is erroneous. Yet the author of the Com
mentary upon Proverbs, which appears amongst the works of
Jerome, reads seculi, and explains " the stones of eternity" to
mean just men and strong in faith. No doubt a most brave expo
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 by
the mistakes and faults of this edition, have invented absurd opi
nions and interpretations in consequence. So that passage in Wis
dom, xii. 15, which the Louvain editors now read thus in their
P D^? •]

IX-J QUESTION THE SECOND. 155
Bibles, " Qui non debet puniri, condemnare exterum sestimas a
virtute tua2," was formerly read thus : " Qui non debet puniri,
condemnas, et exterum aestimas a tua virtute." For Gregory upon
Job (Lib. in. c. 11) understands it of God 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 be false (as it certainly is), then the Latin church hath
followed a false, and consequently by 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 Bether for
Bethel ; which is confirmed also by the Hebrew verity. Yet Gre
gory, a thousand years ago, read the text just as it used to be read
in their corrupt copies ; from which circumstance we may perceive
the great antiquity of that corruption. For, in his Commentary
upon the Canticles, he interprets Bethel in this place to mean the
church, as that in which God dwells. Thus almost all the Latin
expositors read and expound that place, in which, nevertheless,
unless by 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 be deemed authentic
by us. Now the Hebrew edition of the old, and the Greek of the
new Testament, was always held the authentic scripture of God in
the christian churches for six hundred years after Christ. This,
therefore, ought to be received by us also as authentic scripture.
If 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 by the prophets and apostles, who can defend that neg
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 by its testimony as the authentic word of God ;
not substitute for this divinely-promulgated scripture a mere trans
lation of it into Latin, not made by either prophets or apostles ;
nor persuade us that such a document as this is the authentic word
P In the Greek, tov prj dcfreiXovra KoXao-drjvai KaradiKdcrai dXXorpwv rjyov-
pevos ttjs o-fjs hvvdpeas.J

156 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CHi
of God. In which proceeding they really assume to themselves
the privilege of doing that which they allow themselves incompe
tent to do. For 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. Now they have made their
scripture authentic, forasmuch as it was not authentic previously.
Therefore they make scripture canonical ; which yet they confess
not to be placed in the power and judgment of the church.
To 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 by 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 book against Helvidius, writes thus : " We
must suppose that the water of the fountain ran much clearer than
that of the stream 1." The same author, in his letter to Sunnia and
Fretella, observes : " As 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 we recur to the Hebrew verity2."
So, in his letter to Marcella, at the end of the second volume : " I
wish to recal the corruption of the Latin copies to the Greek ori
ginal3." And 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.
To the same effect in his Commentary on Zechariah, chap. viii. :
" We are compelled to have recourse to the Hebrews, and to seek
certain knowledge of the truth from the fountain rather than from
the streamlets4." 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 fortress5- To this we may add the consideration, that
[i Multo purior manare credenda est fontis unda quam rivi.]
P Sicut in novo Testamento  recurrimus ad fontem Grseci sermonis,
quo novum scriptum est instrumentum; ita in veteri Testamento ad Hebraicam
veritatem confugimus. — T. i. p. 637.]
[3 Latinorum codicum vitiositatem ad Grsecani originem volui revocare. —
T. i. p. 132.]
p Cogimur ad Hebrseas recurrere, et scientise veritatem de fonte magis
quam de rivulis qufererc. — T. vi. p. 851.]
p Si quidem in historiis aliter haberent lxx. interpretes, aliter Hebraica
Veritas; confugere poteramus ad sohta prresidia, et arcem linguae 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 Greek; that prelate being sufficiently aware that
the Greek deserved to be preferred by a great deal to all the
Latin copies. Much to the same purpose may be found in Am
brose, de Spiritu Sancto, Lib. ii. c. 66, and in his book, de Incarn.
Domin. Sacram. c. 87: also in Augustine de Doctr. Christ. Lib. ii.
c. 78, and elsewhere. From Augustine, Gratian hath transcribed
in his Decree what we read Dist. 9, cap. Ut veterum : " As the
correctness of the old books is to be estimated by the Hebrew
volumes, so the truth of the new requires the standard of the
Greek text9." Also, in his City of God (Lib. xv. c. 13), 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 one10."
Ludovicus Vives thus comments upon that chapter : " The same
answer may be given to those who object that the MSS. of the old
Testament have been falsified and corrupted by the Jews, and
those of the new by the Greeks, to prevent us from seeking the
true sense of the sacred books from those originals11."
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 Hebrew 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
p Lib. n. c. 5. § 42. T. vi. Paris. 1839. p. 341.]
p § 82. p. 475, ut supra. Ita enim et in Grsecis codicibus invenimus,
quorum potior auctoritas est.]
p c. 13. ed. Bruder. Lipsise, 1838.]
P Ut veterum librorum fides de Hebrseis voluminibus examinanda est,
ita novorum Graeci 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, Epist. 28. ad Lucinium Bseticum.]
[ic Ei linguae potius credatur, unde est in aliam per interpretes facta
translatio.] P1 Hoc idem responderi potest his qui falsatos corruptosque et ab Hebrseis
codices veteris instrumenti, et a Graecis novi objiciunt, ne Veritas sacrorum
librorum ex illis fontibus petatur. — Ludov. Vives, Annot. p. 459. ed. Froben.J

158 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
others. For Lindanus, De optimo Genere Inter.; Lib. i. c. 11, and
Canus, Lib. n. c. 13, pretend most slanderously that the originals
are utterly corrupted. But others come to much more moderate
and equitable conclusions. Neither party, however, can do any
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 copies ; which is beyond what any papist
hitherto hath hoped to demonstrate. Bellarmine is of the number
of those who treat the originals with some respect; 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 Hebrew originals are not
absolutely pure, Bellarmine proposes five places, which he thinks
undoubtedly corrupt. The first place is Is. ix. 6, where he says
that we should read, " He shall be called Wonderful ;" as Calvin
also contends. But the Hebrew text not only does not exhibit
jikkare, [Nip1;] "he shall be called," but does exhibit jikra, \_cV^f\
"he shall call." I answer; — first, as to the sense, it makes no differ
ence whether we read, " His name shall be called Wonderful," or
" He 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. The points indeed require the latter reading,
but the letters will bear either. Thirdly, the Hebrew doctors tell
us, as Vatablus observes upon this place1, that verbs of the third
person are often used impersonally by the Hebrews, as " he shall
call " [one shall call], for " he shall be called."
The second place is Jerem. xxiii. 6, in which we should read,
as Calvin thinks also, " This is his Name, whereby they shall call
[i So Buxtorf, Thes. Gramm. Lib. n. c. 10. " Tertisa personae verba
ssepissime 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, The Lord our Righteousness." But the Hebrew 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. For Jerome left it
optional with us to read it either in the singular or the plural;
and the Seventy, before Jerome, rendered the word KaXeaei,
" he shall call." Secondly, the Hebrew 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 Hebrew text invites us, the sense will be neither impious
nor unsuitable, as is plain from the annotations of Junius and
Tremellius. The third place is Ps. xxii. 17. All Christians read, " They
pierced my hands and my feet." But the Hebrew MSS. have not
Cam, [n2>] "they pierced," but Caari, [nt*3] "as a Lion." I
answer, that this is the only specious indication of corruption in
the Hebrew original ; yet 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 Caru ;
Andradius, Defens. Trid. Lib. iv., and Galatinus, Lib. vm. c. 17.
And John Isaac writes that he had himself seen such a copy,
in his book against Lindanus, Lib. n. ; and the Masorites them
selves affirm that it was so written in some corrected copies2.
Secondly, in those books which have this reading, the Masorites3
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.
For the Chaldee Paraphrast hath conjoined both readings4, and
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.
The fourth place is Ps. xix. 5, where the Hebrew copies have,
P In the textual Masora on Numb. xxiv. 9, TIKD *6j")1 T1 n»D
p The smaller Masora on Ps. xxii. 17, "Otyv? "nJ"Q J^Dp !•]
P "hxy) ,TN iT"l{0 "pri IT03. "They pierced, like a lion, my
hands and my feet."]

160 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
" their line1 went into all the earth ;" whereas the Septuagint render
it, (pOoyyos avTwv, "their sound;" and Paul hath approved that
reading, Rom. x. 18. I answer with Genebrard, in his Scholia
upon the passage, that the Hebrew term does indeed denote a
line, but the Septuagint regarded the general sense, and were
followed by the apostle. For that line, or (as Tremellius trans
lates it) delineation of the heavens, — that is, that frame and
structure of the heavenly orbs, smoothed as it were by the rule,
proclaims the infinite power and wisdom of the divine artist.
The fifth place is Exod. chap, ii., in which this whole sentence
is wanting: "He begat another also, and called his name Eliezer,
saying, The God of my father hath helped me, and delivered me
from the hand of Pharaoh2." I answer, that in this place it is the
Latin rather than the Hebrew copies that are corrupt. For 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 books ; and this the more learned
and candid of the papists themselves confess. For so Cajetan
writes in his commentary upon that place : " This whole paragraph
about the second son is superfluous3."
These then are the passages which Bellarmine was able to find
fault with in the originals ; and yet 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 ? Would 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 by transcribers, or that
it is not very easy for us to discover many more errors in the
Latin edition which ought not, and cannot be defended, as we
shall hear presently.
Here indeed the Jesuit hath betrayed the papal cause. For,
to maintain the reasonableness of the Tridentine decree, we must
I1 E}p- See Pococke in his Appendix to Maimonidis Porta Mosis, c. iv.
pp. 47—51.]
P Alium quoque genuit, et vocavit nomen ejus EUezer, dicens,Deus patris
mei auxiliatus est mihi, et liberavit me e manu Pharaonis. — Exod. ii. 22.]
P Tota ista particula de secundo filio superflua est. — Cajet. in Penta
teuch, p. 82. 2. Romoc. 1531.]

IX] QUESTION THE SECOND. 161
assert that the Hebrew text is utterly corrupt, and the Latin
uncorrupted ; which Lindanus and Canus endeavour to do ; and
that, constrained by the authority of this Tridentine decree : but
Bellarmine is so far from doing this, that he censures Lindanus and
Canus for saying that the Hebrew originals have been corrupted
by the Jews ; which thesis, although these men assert it with
strenuous earnestness, hath been long since exploded by the senate
(so to speak) of more learned and sound-minded papists. Sixtus
Senensis, Lib. vm. c. 2, delivers his opinion thus : "It cannot be said
that the divine scriptures of the old Testament have been falsified
by the malice either of Jews or Christians4 :" which he presently de
monstrates by many arguments. We might adduce similar passages
from other popish authors. Now then, if the originals of sacred scrip
ture have not been so disgracefully corrupted by 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 book, (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 muddy stream of the Latin edition should
be preferred to the fountain, and become authentic ? For they who
assert the Latin to be authentic scripture, close up the Hebrew and
Greek fountains. Indeed these men are unwilling to seem to do
this; and yet they do it nevertheless, when they determine the
originals not to be authentic. Thus, therefore, I frame my 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. For what
other reason can be assigned for denying, that books which were
authentic once, should still be so, and be so esteemed at pre
sent? As to the minor, if they answer that they are corrupt;
I demand, whether by the deliberate malice of adversaries, or
by chance ? If they say the former, — what adversaries do they
mean ? In the case of the old Testament they can dream of none
except the Jews. Now the Jews are, as you have heard, acquitted
by the very papists, and by Bellarmine himself, and are indeed
wholly free from blame. For when could they have made these
corruptions ? Neither before Christ, nor for 400 years after
Christ. For then Christ and the doctors of the church would have
P Dici non potest divinas veteris Testamenti scripturas aut Judaaorum
aut Christianorum maUgnitate falsatas. p. 613. Paris. 1610.]
r i n
[WHITAKER.J

162 TIIE FIRST CONTROVERSY. Lu"'
blamed them upon that score ; whereas, on the contrary, they praise
their fidelity and diligence in preserving the originals, and call them
the book-keepers (capsarii) of the scriptures 1. 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 lack : nay, they sometimes run far clearer than the
Latin streams. For instance, in Psalm ii. the Latin copies have, Am-
plectimini disciplinam ; which reading says nothing emphatical of
Christ. But the Hebrew original leads us at once to the Son of
God, and celebrates his far-extended sway over all : " Bliss the
Son." The same may be affirmed of many other passages. John
Isaac, the Jew, in his second book against Lindanus, writes that
more than two hundred arguments against Jewish opinions may be
drawn more strongly from the Hebrew text than from the Latin
translation. To the same effect Andradius (Defens. Lib. iv.):
" Those who handle the Hebrew text with piety and religious care,
meet in it with much larger testimonies to Christ than in the Latin
and Greek2." This was testified long ago also by Jerome, in his
74th Epistle to Marcella3. But if they say that the originals are
only corrupted by 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 Hebrew
and Greek books.
The eleventh argument. The Latin Vulgate edition is most
certainly and most plainly corrupt. And the corruptions I speak of
are not casual, or slight, or common errors, such as the careless
ness of copyists often produces in books ; 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 account : 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,
P E. g. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. xU. n. 14. T. iv. Contr. Faust. L. xii.
c. 23. T. vm. &c]
P Qui Hebrsea pie et religiose tractant, multo in illis ampUora de Christo
testimonia quam in Latinis Graecisque offendunt.]
[3 T. I. p. 150. Ep. 32.]

Ix-J 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.
For, 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. Who does
not see from this that either the originals are corrupted, or the
Latin Vulgate edition is full of innumerable errors ? For, 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 together ; 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 Tes
taments, to labour under most wretched depravation. For whoever
will compare the Latin with the originals, shall find almost every
where a remarkable discordance. Were I to go in detail through all
the errors of this edition, I should never make an end, and should
weary your attention with a vain prolixity. You may spend your
leisure in reading what others have written upon the subject. It
shall suffice for me to discharge what my duty requires, and to lay
before you some faults of this edition, from which it will plainly appear
that it is really corrupt and erroneous. And, 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 by Chemnitz, then those by
Calvin in the Psalms, lastly those by others in the Latin edition of
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.
The first place is Gen. iii.4: Ipsa conteret caput tuum. So it
is wrongly and corruptly read in the Vulgate. For the reading
p ver. 15. ttiNh PP'1 Wil.] 11—2

164 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. LCH-
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 so ; and that, as to the verb, which is in the
Hebrew 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 by herself but by her Son. However, he hath omitted
to notice this mystery in the Sartorian edition.
I answer. Though all the fathers were to say that we should
read Ipsa, yet it should by no means be admitted or approved.
For the Hebrew copies constantly read Hu; the Septuagint exhibits
avTos ; the Chaldee Paraphrase confirms the same reading ; 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.
What woman could crush the serpent's head? Was it Mary? I
am well aware that this is what is said by them. But how? When
she bore Christ ? But to bear Christ is not to crush the head of
the serpent: to give birth to him by whom the serpent's head is
crushed is one thing, and to crush the head of the serpent is another.
Was it when she believed in Christ1 ? But this applies to all be
lievers. Christ therefore, and Christ only, is he who by 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 by 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. ii. c. 36 2, reads the whole passage
corruptly, Ipsa tibi servabit caput : but Cyprian reads Ipse in
his Second Book to Quirinus3; and before him Irenaeus, Lib. in.
P Salmeron however determines, " Christum Matrem suam prope crucem
vocasse, ut ipsa Mater Filium suum in sacrificium Patri setemo pro toto
mundo offerret, ut Abraham filium suum Isaac ex obedientia ofierre voluit." —
Opp. T. x. Tract. 41. p. 933. cited by Glass. Philol. S. p. 693. (Amstel. 1694.)]
P So also Enarr. in Ps. ciii. T. iv. pp. 1668 — 9, and elsewhere. The
reading servabit is from the Septuagint rriprio-ei. See Gesenius in voc. 6|^.]
P Testim. adv. Judseos, n. 9. p. 37. Hoc semen prsedixerat Deus de
muliere procedere, quod calcaret caput Diaboli .... ipse tuum observabit
caput.]

X-] QUESTION THE SECOND. 165
c. 77 4; and Leo the pope of Rome interprets this place of the Seed
of the woman, Serm. 2 De Nativitate Domini5. And 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. 15, acknowledges that there is a
manifest error in this place. To the same effect Andradius, Defens.
Lib. iv., and Cajetan6, upon the three Chapters of Genesis, writes
plainly that this is not spoken of the woman, but of the Seed of the
woman. Isidore Clarius hath restored Ipsum in his Bible ; 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.
The 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 die1. 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. For 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
words ; since many things may lie under cover in the words of the
Holy Spirit, which are not immediately perceived, and yet contain
important instruction. But in this place the sense is changed.
For it is one thing to be intent on evil, and another to be evil, and
only evil. For it is a lighter thing to be propense towards evil, than
to be already actually evil. Besides the Vulgar translator says that
"every thought of man's heart is intent on evil:" as if the Holy
Spirit only blamed the thoughts ; 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 Hebrew to answer to the word Intenta. Secondly, "every
P Lib. in. c. 38. p. 309, a. (ed. Fevard. Par. 1675) Lib. iv. c. 78. p.
425, c. 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.]
P Denuntians serpenti futurum semen mulieris, quod noxii capitis elatio-
nem sua virtute contereret. pp. 13, 14. Opp. Lugd. 1623.]
P Opp. Lugd. 1639. T. I. p. 29.]
P uvr\~b2 jn pi ii6 mwra t^-bai. Gen. vi. 5.]

166 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
thought of the heart " 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 evi ;
since this is a hyperbole, similar to that which is said in the same
chapter, "All flesh had corrupted its way," while yet Noah is called
in the very 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 yet rege
nerate. Now, 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 of 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, "which the human heart itself begins the
effort to frame and form." If the first movements of the heart be
so vicious and impure, what remains at all sound in the human
breast ? For we 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 way. Noah was, indeed,
a just man and a perfect ; yet so as that his justice was not innate
in his nature, but received as a gift from God : 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: "It 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 generation1."
The third place is in Gen. ix., where they read thus: Qui
fuderit sanguinem hominis, fundetur sanguis illius. Here the
words "by man2" are omitted. Bellarmine says that this omission
does not render the sense imperfect, since the sense is the same in
the Hebrew and in the Latin: "He who shall slay man shall be
slain himself."
I answer. The sense is not so full in the Latin as in the
Hebrew. For the clause " by man," or, as others render it, " in
man," is emphatic, as Cajetan in his Commentaries and others
also inform us, and is variously explained by many expositors ; all
P Ut ostenderet non juxta justitiam consummatam, sed juxta generationis
suae justitiam, fuisse eum justum. T. m. p. 316.]
p IQfi 1'OT U1X3. tn»PT ff[ }Sff. Gen. ix. 6.]

x0 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 by this omission. The truest explanation seems to be that
given by those who think that the authority of the magistrate and
the judge is sanctioned in these words, and that a murderer is not
to be merely left to the divine vengeance, but searched out and
punished by those to whom the sword hath been delivered by God.
For 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 "by man."
For the former might be understood only to mean that he should
be slain by God ; but the latter implies that he is to be consigned to
death by man.
The fourth place is Gen. xiv. 18, where in the Hebrew 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 book of his Defence. But
most of the Latin copies do indeed now read proferens panem et
vinum, not offerens. Which 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 Hebrew often
taken for Chi, because*.
I answer. This is not denied ; nor was there any occasion to
prove it by the citation of so many instances. However, it hath
not that force in this passage. For Melchisedek brought forth the
bread and wine, not to offer sacrifice or discharge any priestly
[8 The clause in question is ! |V^ bit) ]Pp Mill \>£ UVlb XWn,
and the question seems to be 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 1 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 tliere 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 king, — that is, refresh with
provisions Abraham and his comrades in the battle. This answer
you will not perhaps approve when given by me. Listen, therefore,
to the reply of your own fellows. Cajetan speaks thus in his
Commentary upon this place: "That which in the Vulgate edition
is subjoined as the cause of the oblation (' for he was priest of the
most high God') is not given in the Hebrew as a reason, but as a
separate clause : ' Also he was priest to the high God.' It adds
his priestly dignity, to his royal honour and bounty1." 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. iv.:
" I agree with those who say that Melchisedek refreshed with bread
and wine the soldiers of Abraham, wearied and broken with the
long battle2." You have, therefore, Andradius and Cajetan, and
many more, differing from your notion, that the bread and wine
were produced by Melchisedek to offer them as a sacrifice to God.
As 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. The apostle plainly teaches us in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, chap. v. vii. how Christ is a priest after the order of Mel
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
purpose ; for he hath made no mention of this sacrifice in the com
parison. If then it was by 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-
P Quod in vulgata editione subditur, ut causa oblationis (erat enim
sacerdos Dei altissimi), in Hebrseo non habetur ut causa, sed separata clau
sula, ' et ipse erat sacerdos El excelso.' Adjungit siquidem regia: dignitati
et liberalitati dignitatem sacerdotalem. T. i. p. 66.]
P Ego cum illis sentio, qui lassos Abrahse milites et diuturna 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. What else is this,
but to offer an open insult to the Holy Spirit ? Which 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.
The fifth place is in the last chapter of Numbers, where the
Vulgate copies exhibit the following reading : Omnes viri ducent
uxores de tribu et cognatione sua, et cuncta fozmina de eadem
tribu maritos accipient3- That this is an erroneous interpreta
tion, any one may readily understand in many ways, who shall
compare it with the Hebrew 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 tribes ;
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.
And 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 yet so falsely,) I will confute him with no
other testimony than that of Cajetan. This is Cajetan's remark
upon the place : " This clause is not contained in the Hebrew 4."
That cardinal denies that to be contained in the Hebrew, which
Bellarmine affirms to be contained in it : but the cardinal is Bel-
larmine's superior both in authority and in truth. Afterwards the
same cardinal presently subjoins : " See how many and how im
portant additions to the law the translator hath passed over in
silence. The law is not delivered concerning every daughter, but
of a daughter that is an heiress5," &c. Thus there are many
faults of the Vulgate edition in this place, if we believe Cajetan ;
P Numbers xxxvi. 7, 8.]
P Non habetur hsec clausula in textu Hebraico. T. I. p. 428.]
P Vide quot et quales additiones legis siluit interpres. Non traditur lex
de qualibet filia, sed de filia hasrede.]

170 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
and yet 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 !
The sixth place is Ezra ix. 8, where the reading is pax illius,
whereas we should read paxillus1. Here 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 by no means probable, since the Louvain cor
rectors of the Bible retain the old and wrong reading in the text;
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 why they did not amend it?
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. And with other such mistakes
of the transcribers, known, manifest and acknowledged, does that
edition abound. Should we receive that for authentic scripture,
which its very correctors have left so full of blemishes?
The seventh place is Job 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. And thus
these men often abuse the Latin version to the support of their
doctrines in a way that can hardly be called sober argumentation.
The eighth place is Pro v. xvi. 11, where they read lapides
seculi2, instead of lapides sacculi; which passage we have men^
tioned before. And Bellarmine confesses that the reading which
P The word in the Hebrew is "7JT, upon which Gesenius observes, "pan-
gere paxillum. Hebrseis (et Arabicus, v. vit. Tom. i. p. 134, 228. ed. Mauger)
imago est sedis firmas et stabilis Jer. xxii. 23, de qua 1J"V> dicitur, Esr. ix. 8."]
P DO 131«.]

X-J QUESTION THE SECOND. 171
exhibits sacculi is the true one, but the Vulgate, even in its latest
Louvain edition, false, which exhibits seculi.
The ninth place is Eccles. ix. 2 : Nescit homo, utrum odio vel
amove dignus sit, sed omnia in futurum servantur incerta3. Bel
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. The 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. For 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 thus : " And that man is ignorant alike of love and
hatred, but to him (God) all things are set open4." Pagninus
thus : " Both love and hatred man knows not ; all which are
before them5." Cajetan thus : " Both love and hatred man knows
not ; all in their face6." Jerome himself translated this passage far
otherwise, as appears from that other interpretation of this book,
which is extant amongst his works, where we read : Et quidem
caritatem, et quidem odium non est cognoscens homo : omnia in
facie eorum. This differs, both in words and in sense, from yours,
which yet ye call Jerome's. As to the sense, it is not what you
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 God and their own salvation ; which most
true and sacred doctrine should not be rejected for the sake of the
error of your version. We 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:
p arrosfc bhn dikh jnv P*? nwto-D| nnnss_D|.]
P Quodque pariter amorem et odium ignorat homo, ipsi autem (Deo)
sunt omnia proposita.]
p Etiam amorem, etiam odium nescit homo : quae omnia ante eos sunt.]
P Etiam amorem etiam odium non sciens homo : omnia enim in facie
eorum.]

172 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
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
God out of his love to a man governs him by adverse circum
stances, and in hke manner, out of his hatred to a man governs
him by adversity ; and the same may be said of prosperity 1."
Mercer, a man exquisitely skilled in the Hebrew 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 judged and certainly determined by external
circumstances, whether any one is loved by God or not, since all
happen alike to all, to the just and the impious, the pure and the
impure, the good 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.
The tenth place is Ecclus. v. 5 : De propitiato peccato noli
esse sine metu. The place is badly translated, since the Greek is
irepl e^iXaa/uov txr) dipofios yivov. Which words warn men not to
sin presumptuously through confidence of obtaining remission of
their sins : for it follows, " nor add sin to sin." For many heap
sin upon sin, because they promise themselves certain remission ;
whom Ecclesiasticus deters by this most solemn admonition.
As to Bellarmine's pretence, that we say that a man should be
secure of obtaining pardon, and therefore that our opinion is con
futed by these words, he seems to understand our doctrine but
badly. For we do not approve security in any man, as he slan
derously lays to our charge.
The eleventh place is Ecclus. xvi. 15 : Misericordia faciet
locum unicuique secundum meritum operum suorum. Here in a
few words are many errors. For thus stands the Greek text :
Trao-rj eXetjuocrvvri iro'irio-ov tottov ' e/cacrros yap KaTa Ta epya
avrov evpvaei • " Make way for every work of mercy : for every
man shall find according to his works." The words are not the
same, and the sense different. That word merit, whence did the
Vulgate translator get it? Certainly he did not find it in the
Greek. For as to Bellarmine's pretence that kuto. epya is the
same as " according to the merit of one's works," which he says
[i Coram nobis sunt ea quse circa nos geruntur, sive prospera, sive ad
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.]

X-J QUESTION THE SECOND. 173
that every one knows who is ever so slightly skilled in the Greek
language ; I would fain know from him who is so skilful in the
Greek tongue, in what Lexicon or other book he ever found that
KaTa epya means anything else but "according to works?" And 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. To works there
is a reward promised in scripture ; to the merits of works none, but
that of death.
The twelfth place is Joel ii. 13 : Prastabilis super ma
litia2. What is this ? Let us hear Bellarmine's explanation :
"Prastabilis super malitia," saith he, "means excelling in compas
sion." As if prastabilis super were all one with excelling, or
malitia the same thing as compassion. Or otherwise: "Prastabilis
super malitia is as much as to say, so good as not to be overcome
of evil." But that is not the meaning of the prophet. The pro
phet extols the clemency and goodness of God, and says that it is
so great that God 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 by the old translator. For it should not be
translated, parvula es in millibus Judah3, but, " it is too slight a
thing that thou shouldst be in the thousands of Judah." I 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 ovSa/nws eXay^laTri el, " art by
no means least:" and the place might undoubtedly be rendered
better than it is rendered by the Vulgate interpreter.
Thus then hath Bellarmine excused some faults of the old
Latin version ; with what skill, learning, or truth, let others judge.
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 by Bellarmine. If there were no other error in that version,
yet it might be sufficiently understood and perceived by 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
p ny-in-b^ ore.]
[3 miiT *'S^3 mS~lb "VJ^. Osiand. BM. P. n. p. 482. Tubing.
1597. He translates, Parum est ut sis in millibus Judse.]

174 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. Lull>
and enumerated. And lest any one should think that I say this
rashly, I will exhibit yet more clearly by 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, " all green herbs," are wanting
in your Vulgate edition. Nor ought they to be deemed super
fluous. The Lord 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 pro
vision is given by God to the brutes and to man.
Gen. ii. 8, the Vulgate hath, Plantaverat Deus Paradisum
voluptatis a principio, instead of, " God had planted a garden in
Eden eastward." For 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 place : and God had not planted that garden
" from the beginning1," since it was only on the third day that he
created the herbs and fruitful trees, as is manifest from chap. i. 12.
More correct is the rendering of the Seventy, KaTa dvaro\d\ :
and so Vatablus, Pagninus, and Tremellius, ab oriente.
Gen. ii. 23, Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, instead of2, "for
this turn bone of my bone ;" and Cajetan tells us that there is in
these words an emphasis usual with the Hebrews.
Gen. iii. 6, Aspectuque delectabile, instead of, " desirable to
make one wise." Verse 8, in medio ligni Paradisi, for, "amongst
the trees of Paradise." Verse 17, maledicta terra in opere tuo3,
for, " cursed be the earth on thine account." Gen. iv. 13, 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 "than I can bear," or "sustain4;" or, " than that I should
obtain forgiveness," as the Septuagint translates it, tov d(pe9rjval
yue. At verse 15, Nequaquam ita fiet, is redundant. For the
Lord does not promise Cain that no one should slay him. Verse 16,
Profugus in terra, for, " in the land of Nod," or Naid as the
Septuagint read it, or " the land of wandering." Verse 26, Iste
[i The word is D^fpD, which is ambiguous: cf. Ps. lxxiv. 12 ; lxxvii. 6.j
[2 Di/Sil DN'J. I cannot see the fault of the Vulgate here.]
p The translator mistook the word "pilyi, reading it with a Daleth 1
instead of a Resh -), and so making an unauthorised derivative from "Qy
equivalent to iTQy.]
p NitWD.J T

X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 175
coepit invocare, for, "then began men5:" for it is not the person
but the time which Moses particularises. Gen. v. 22, those words,
et vixit Enoch, are superfluous.
Gen. vi. 3, Non permanebit Spiritus mens in homine in
aternum, instead of, " My Spirit shall not strive6." Verse 6, et
pracavens infuturum, should be struck out.
Gen. viii. 4, Vicesimo septimo die mensis, instead of, "upon
the seventeenth day of the month ;" where the Vulgate edition
follows not the Hebrew original, but the seventy interpreters :
which is also the case verse 7, where it translates, qui egrediebatur
et non revertebatur. For the raven went and returned into the
ark, as is plain from the Hebrew, until the waters dried up.
Hence Eugubinus, though a papist, deservedly blames in his
Scholia the Vulgate version of this verse.
Gen. xi. 12. 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 possessionem auri et argenti,
instead of, " very rich in flocks, in silver, and in gold." And verse
11, Divisique sunt alterutrum a fratre suo, which is absolutely
unintelligible. The Hebrew text is plain, that they separated the
one from the other.
Gen. xiv. 3. That is called vallis sylvestris, which should
have been called Siddim, or a plain. For, unless it be a proper
name, it denotes arable, and not woody ground8. Gen. xvii. 16,
Orientur ex eo, for, "from her." Gen. xix. 18, Quaso, Domine
mi, for, " No, I pray thee, my Lord."
Gen. xxi. 9. The expression of the 'Vulgate is too gentle,
when it says that Ishmael played with9 (lusisse) Isaac. He rather
p niiT Dttfl **"lj?^ bTVlil ?N. The verb, being in the passive, must
be taken impersonally.]
P | IT iib . Gesenius translates, "Non in perpetuum Spiritus meus in
hominibus humiliabitur ;" making the radical idea of jn to be, Uke that of
the Arabic .Jj depression; in which case it is cognate with the Anglo-Saxon
down.] p TOpfil . However, the word does denote possession in general, as well
as the particular possession of cattle.]
[s whiten pay. from mb to uvei]
p pmp.j

176 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. |_CH'
played upon Isaac, than with him. And that it should be so
rendered, appears from the apostle to the Galatians, iv. 29, 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. 22, we have duo sicli, instead of, " the half of
a shekel." And at verse 32, 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. And at verse 6, the Vulgate hath, qui festinus reverte-
batur ad Dominum 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." But the Hebrew text says that he despised
the birthright itself. For Esau might have thought slightly of
the sale of the birthright, and yet might have prized highly the
birthright itself. So that the Vulgate translator hath by 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." At verse 33, those
words, ultra quam credi potest admirans, are redundant. Like
wise Gen. xxxi. 32, these, quod autem furti me arguis.
Gen. xxxiv. 29, the clause, " and they plundered finally what
soever was in any house," is omitted, while quibus perpetratis
audacter is added superfluously. Gen. xxxvi. 24, the Vulgate
interpreter says that Anan found " warm waters" in the desert ;
which version all who know any thing of Hebrew know to be
false l ; for Anan found not hot springs, of which there is no
mention made in this place, but mules. This place, therefore, the
Septuagint translated ill2, and the Vulgate interpreter in following
them hath erred from the Hebrew verity.
[i Gesenius (Lex. voc. UW) observes, "Quod Hieronymus scribit in
Qusest. ad 1. c, 'nonnulli putant aquas calidas juxta Punicce linguce viciniam,
quae Hebrseaa contermina est, hoc vocabulo significari,' non contemnendum
 Conjectura sat infelici ex contextu facta mulos intelligunt nonnulli
Hebrsei et Lutherus."]
P This seems to be an oversight of AVhitakcr's : for the Septuagint have

x0 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 Hebrew text it is seventeen. In the
same verse the Vulgate interpreter says that Joseph accused his
brethren to his father with a very grievous accusation, as if some
fixed and foul crime were intended ; but the Hebrew text runs
thus : " And Joseph reported the ill report of them to their
father," — 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 nolo,
parere ultra cessavit ; which is foreign from the meaning of the
Hebrew text. It ought to have been rendered, " And she was in
Chezib when she bore him3;" for Chezib is the name of a city of
the Philistines. And, verse 12, Hirah is called opilio gregis by
the Vulgate interpreter, as by the Septuagint 6 Troi/uqv avTov.
But Jerome blames this version, and teaches us that the Hebrew
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. At verse 23, the old version hath, Certi mendacii
arguere nos non potest. But the true sense of the Hebrew is,
"that we be not despised5."
Gen. xxxix. 6, these words, " Wherefore he left all his goods
in the hand of Joseph," are omitted. At verse 10, something is
wanted to make the sense complete : 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 day
did she address Joseph." But the words which follow are super
fluous, Et mulier molesta erat adolescenti.
Gen. xl. 5, this whole clause is left out, " The butler and the
baker of the king of Egypt who were bound in the tower of the
prison." At verse 16 we have tria canistra farina, for " three
white (or osier) baskets6." But here the Vulgate interpreter
followed the Septuagint, not the Hebrew original itself.
not translated it at all, but retained the original word, bs elpev tov 'lapelv iv
ttj ip-qpa.] p ink rrfi-ta mm nvn.]
L t :•:•:¦ it :
P VTjn . The difference is in the points ; iTJT) a friend, Hyi a
shepherd.] p \ub nvu )S.]
P '"Vn vD. Gesenius translates '"in panis albus. LXX. Kavd xov-
Spirav. I think the Vulgate is not here to be blamed.]
r i 12
|_WHITAKER.J

178 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
Gen. xii. 45, the Vulgate interpreter, in explaining the name
which Pharaoh gave to Joseph, hath followed conjecture rather
than any certain reason. For he first says that those words are
Egyptian ; and then he explains them to mean the Saviour of the
luorld1 : 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 any explanation ;
and the Hebrews doubt whether they are Egyptian or Chaldee.
Josephus interprets them, " the discoverer of secrets2;" and with
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. 10, Jacob says of Judah, " binding the foal of his
ass to the vine." But the Vulgate translator hath rendered those
words thus ; Ligans ad vitem, O fili mi, asinam suam. And,
at verse 22, Joseph is compared to a fruitful branch beside a well ;
which words the Vulgate translates thus, accrescens et decorus
aspectus3. At verse 24, Jacob says of 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 of
the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew text.
At the end of that chapter, after the 32 nd verse, this whole
clause is omitted : " Now that piece of ground was bought, and also
the cave which is therein, from the sons of Heth." Thus that
chapter is, in the Vulgate edition, too short by one entire verse.
Hitherto we have run over a single book ; in which review we
have not been at all so curious or malicious as to let nothing which
t1 D?J?.? J"1???- Gesenius, after Bernard and Jablonski, thinks the
Vulgate interpretation right, deriving the word from the Egyptian article
p — sot — Saviour, and phenec aldv. This explanation regards the form given
by the LXX. tyovdopcfidvrix as correct; for the above words, when com
pounded, would in Coptic be Psotmphenec : the interposed m being sounded
om in the dialect of upper Egypt. See Scholtz, Expos. Voc. Copt, in Repert.
Litt. Bibl. et Orient. T. xra. p. 19.]
P Srjpalvei yap to ovopa KpvirTav evpeTTjV. Joseph. Alltiq. L. II. C. vi. 1.]
[3 jv;/ i^y. The Vulgate took }y_ in the sense of mien, The LXX.
give a different turn, but still understand J^ in the sense of an eye, not a well.
Indeed we have two different versions in the present text of the LXX.
Mod (rjXaTT)s (who has his eye on me), and Upos pe dvdarpefov (turn back
thine eye on mc.)]

x-] • QUESTION THE SECOND. 179
might justly deserve blame escape our hands. Many things I have
knowingly and deliberately passed over, which nevertheless ou^ht
certainly to be accounted errors, because repugnant to the truth of
the originals. Were I to examine in the same way the remaining books of
the old Testament, I should find an abundant crop of errors, and
fill many pages with the enumeration of them. For your version
is not a whit more exact in the other books than we have seen it
to be in this ; whence we may 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 my opinion, undertake
and perform a work of very great utility. For from such a work
all would reap the benefit of seeing and understanding the great
difference there is between the pure springs of the Hebrew verity,
and the muddy and turbid streams of this version which they call
the Vulgate. Were I to enter on the remaining books, I should
engage in a task not at all required by the plan of my under
taking, and be drawn into a digression which would interrupt the
course of our disputation. I have, I hope, sufficiently proved to
you 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 Hebrew 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 THE LATIN EDITION OF THE 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 by some
12—2

180 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
instances, to be corrupt and vicious. And 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 ?
For it is absolutely certain that it is rendered into Latin, not from
the Hebrew, but from the Greek ; not by Jerome, but by some
unknown and uncertain author. Would 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, or
image rather, of the former. Why do they, in the case of the
other books, receive what they think to be the Hieronymian
version, and yet reject it here ? Jerome expended as much labour
upon translating the Book 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
parts : 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? By no means.
For it was not retained because it was better, but because it was
more common, and could not easily be changed. Upon 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. For thus the case stands with respect to the Psalms.
The Latin edition is ratified as authentic. Why ? We have the
Hebrew and the Greek: whereof the Hebrew 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, by the seventy Interpreters. This latter, though it must not
absolutely be despised, hath yet most foully corrupted in many
places the pure fountains of the Hebrew verity. Now 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. Tet 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. And although all
can see the enormous impudence of this proceeding, yet their
most reckless rashness and temerity will appear yet more plainly
when some errors of this edition are set before your eyes. Since
then Bellarmine hath endeavoured to excuse those which Calvin

XI-J QUESTION THE SECOND. 181
had remarked, let us see with what shew of success or probability
he hath performed his task.
The first place is Psalm ii. 12 : Apprehendite disciplinam} -
Bellarmine says that in the Hebrew it is, " kiss," or " adore the
Son;" but that the sense is excellently well expressed by appre
hendite disciplinam, since we can no otherwise acknowledge the
Son to be the Messiah than by 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 by him. For 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 Mes
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
by this version wrested from us. For 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 corde2? In
the Hebrew it is, "how long my glory into shame?" Bellarmine
says, first, that the Hebrew text is probably corrupt; secondly,
that the sense is the same.
I answer to the first plea : The Hebrew text is now precisely
the same as it was in Jerome's time, as appears from his Psalter.
The Septuagint read and translated the passage erroneously, and
this interpreter followed them. The cavils and calumnies of Lin
danus upon this place are sufficiently refuted by 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? For he says,
that God here complains concerning men. But that is a mistake :
[1 "fl~!|pt#3 . LXX. hpd£ao-6e iraihelas. Jerome, Adorate pure. Ewald,
however, (Poetischen Bucher. m. p. 66) prefers the LXX. and Vulgate. He
translates " nehme Rath an."]
[2 Ttizblb HUD. The Vulgate follows the LXX. Papvmphioi; they
read, nab' lb 'TOD.]

182 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ell.
the speech is not God's, but David's, complaining of the boldness
and wickedness of his enemies. "0 sons of men, ye insolent
foes of mine, who, buoyed up with arrogance and fury, despise all
others, how long will ye treat my 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 by reason of their own fault, yet the glory of
God by reason of the divine goodness. Who 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 glory, 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 by the glory of David understands God himself, to
wards whom these men were disrespectful.
The third place is Psalm xxxi. 4 : Conversus sum in arumna
mea, dum configitur spina1. These ought to be translated, as
Bellarmine himself translates them from the Hebrew : " My juice
is without moisture, and my freshness is turned into the summer
droughts." These versions are sufficiently different. Yet Bellar
mine says that the Vulgate interpreter cannot be blamed in this.
place. He alleges two pleas in defence of him. One is, that he
translated not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek into Latin ;
the "other, that there is an error of the transcribers in the
Hebrew. To the first 1 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 by 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. The Latin will scarcely bear any tolerable explanation:
For what is the meaning of dum configitur spina ? The ancients
P YIP. ^ina . In the Hebrew, Ps. xxxii. 4.]

XL] QUESTION THE SECOND. 183
expounded the thorn to denote sin : Bellarmine says that we should
understand the thorn of calamity. Be it so. But what then will
be meant by dum configitur spina ? The Greek reading, though
not deserving much commendation, is yet intelligible, ev Tip e/u-
Trayfjva'i /jloi aKavQav — " while the thorn is driven into me." I
see what this means ; 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 tire former clause of this verse,
Conversus sum in arumna, which he makes to mean, " I am
turned to repentance in the time of trouble," is neither admitted by
Jerome's version, nor approved by Genebrard, who observes that
the word Haphac is scarce ever spoken of repentance2.
The fourth place is in the same Psalm, verse 9 : In chamo et
frano maxillas eorum astringe, qui non approximant ad te. The
place should have been rendered thus : " Their mouth must be
held in with bit and bridle, lest they come nigh to thee3." Bel
larmine says that Calvin here exhibits amazing impudence. Why ?
Because, says he, the Septuagint4 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
very 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
purpose : 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, may very 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 by the Septuagint, but
p I can find no instance of such a use of "ijSn.]
p The Hebrew is ?$« ll'lp, b2 Dl'W? Viy. IDnrj/lM, thus
rendered by Ewald : Zaum und zugel miissen dessen Bachen Schliessen, der
sich dir nicht freundlich naht, p. 35, ut supra.]
P iv X"^iva Kal Kr/pa Tas mayovas aindv ay£ai Ttov prj iyyi£6vrav irpbs (re.
Jerome : In camo et freno maxillas ejus constringis, ut non appropinquet ad
te.]

184 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. f_CII.
for the sake of making it more easy. In fact, however, they have
made it more intricate and difficult by this plan of breaking it up.
For the prophet warns us not to be devoid of reason and discretion,
"like the horse and the mule, whose mouths must be held in with
bit and bridle, lest they fall upon us." The 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.
The fifth place is in Psalm xxxvii. 8 : Quoniam lumbi mei
repleti sunt illusionibus1. Calvin asks, how we are to understand
that his reins were filled with illusions ? Bellarmine says that the
Hebrew word denotes not only shame, but heat2- I answer, that
this is indeed true ; but how then does he interpret his loins being
"filled with illusions?" Forsooth, by putting the effect for the
cause ; since David speaks of the heat and titillation of lust, which
produces illusions in the mind. Away with this. Nothing was
farther from the Psalmist's meaning. Genebrard hath made a much
better attempt, who by these "illusions" understands diseases on
account of which he was mocked and insulted by his enemies. For
David's meaning is, that his loins or reins were filled with a sore
and sharp disorder.
The sixth place is Psal. lxvii. 73 : Qui inhabitare facit unius
moris in domo. The place should be rendered thus: " Who setteth
the single, or solitary, persons in a family." Bellarmine says that
the Hebrew words may very well receive several senses. I answer:
The 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 by 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 He
brew word does not denote novoTpiirovs (as the Seventy render if),
P In the Hebrew, xxxviii. 7.]
[2 "?Pt- The Radical of ,-ftp, in the sense of heat, seems tho same as
appears in cal-eo, cal -or.]
[» Heb. Ps. lxviii. 6.]
P The Seventy seem unjustly blamed hero. They used povorpoiros, in
the sense recognised by good authors, to express the notion of solitariness.

XI-J 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.
The seventh place is in the next verse of the same Psalm : Qui
habitant in sepulchris. Calvin contends that we should read, " in
a dry place5." By this expression, says Bellarmine, the translator
wished to declare the horrors of that desert from which God 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 Holy Spirit.
For what can be more foreign to the mind of David than this
meaning which our opponent ascribes to these words? The pro
phet is not, as Bellarmine supposes him to be, speaking of that
desert out of which God had brought his people, which might, for
its horridness, be compared to the tombs ; but is saying that those
who prove rebellious are thrust by God into dry and thirsty regions.
What 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. For the words sound thus
in the Hebrew : " He bringeth forth those that are bound with
chains, but the rebels dwell in a very dry place." The Latin
interpreter translates them thus, falsely and foolishly : Qui educit
vinctos in fortitudine, similiter eos qui exasperant, qui habitant
in sepulchris. What could possibly be expressed with greater con
fusion ? Yet Genebrard applies to this place some medicine in his
scholium, to cure the disorder of the Latin version. The words,
according to him, are to be thus explained ; that the rebels, who
dwell in the sepulchres, or the dry places, are brought forth and
delivered from death and the devil, or from dangers and evils.
Thus this man by 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,
Xjjott)s yap yv povorpoiros, eireira Kal o-vvoh'iav evpe ttjs ToXprjs; and by Plutarch
in Pelopid. c. 3., povdrpoirov filov air dpx^s eXopevos. Compare Bochart.
Hierozoic. P. I. Lib. n. c. 45. col. 491.]
[5 nrrm. lxx. iv racbois.]

186 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
into a most joyous and delightful benefit. If this be interpreting
scripture, it certainly will be easy enough to make scripture say
any thing we please.
The eighth place is in the same Psalm, verse 12, &c. Dominus
dabit verbum evangelizantibus virtute multa. Rex virtutum
dilecti, dilecti, et speciei domus divide spolia. Si dormiatis inter
medios cleros, penna columba deargentatoz, et posterior a dorsi ejus
inpallore auri1. These are not the oracles of the Holy Spirit, but
rather, as Calvin truly says of them, senigmas which CEdipus 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. Yet, if you please, let
us have the explanation of Bellarmine. Rex virtutum dilecti
dilecti: that is, the King most mighty, and Father of Messiah his
entirely beloved Son. Speciei domus divide 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 church : for
that speciei is in the dative case, and is equivalent to ad speciem.
Wondrous well ! First let me ask him whence he gets those two
words, " he will give," 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 Jerome ; and those words can by no means be
carried over into it. Next, it is absolutely intolerable to make
speciei the same as ad speciem, so as that dividere spolia speciei
domus shall mean, " to divide spoils to the beauty," that is, to
the grace and adornment " of the house," which is the church.
Who speaks Latin after this fashion ?
Genebrard hath excogitated another interpretation, more tole
rable indeed, but still alien from the prophet's meaning. He denies
that Rex virtutum here means God, but supposes it to denote
any very brave and powerful prince. The sense therefore will be
P In the Greek, 'O Qebs Kvpios hdo-ei prjpa Tois elayyeXi£opevois hvvapei
iroXXjj. O pao-iXevs rdv hvvapeav tov dyairrjTov, tov dyairrjTov, Kal dpaiOTTjTl
tov o'ikov hteXeo-dai o-KvXa. They took niN3lt "O^ as one word, regarding
the 1 as merely a vowel of composition, as it is in pTi'cto, and other
proper names. pTF^ they derived from "IT dilexit, taking the termination
|1 for a diminutive ; and gave to ni3 a meaning of which its radical shews
traces in the Hiphil voice, Exod. xv. 2.]

XI-] QUESTION THE SECOND. 187
this : The most powerful princes shall be the Beloved's, that is,
shall yield to the Beloved of God, or the Son of God : and speciei
he makes not the dative, but the genitive, (although in spite of the
authority of the Greek text which exhibits rrj wpaioTnTi,) and
explains thus; "it is of the beauty of the house to divide the spoil,"
— that is, it pertains to the glory of the house of God to divide
the spoils of conquered kings, that is, demons. Is not this now a
neat interpretation? The remainder is thus explained by Bel
larmine. Si dormiatis inter medios cleros : that is, if you, 0
preachers, remain between two lots, the heavenly and the earthly,
that is, be 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 ? What 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, "to sleep between the two lots ;"
and then these two lots are most absurdly understood of action and
contemplation. But everything hath its proper counterpart2, and
the exposition suits the version. Genebrard confesses that the wits
of all expositors have been, as it were, crucified in seeking an ex-,
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 by cleros, to mean " the
pots3." But Bellarmine says that it cannot possibly bear that sig
nification. The 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.
You have now heard how perplexed, confused, and tortured are
[2 Whitaker's words are, " Similes habent labra lactucas." The proverb
occurs in Jerome, and is thus explained by Erasmus : "Usurpat, 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 perforatam navim dcbilis gubernator regat, et cseci csecos
ducant in foveam, et talis sit rector quales illi qui reguntur." Adagia. p. 644.
Hanov. 1617.]
p D^nSty, the moaning of which is much disputed. Gesenius renders
it, "stabula, caute." So Ewald, "So ofs ihr zwischen Hurden ruhet."]

188 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.'
all these explications. But the Hebrew text hath no similar diffi
culty in it ; which Pagninus and Montanus translate thus : " Kings
of armies fled, they fled ; and she that dwelt at home divided the
spoil. If ye have lain in the midst of the pots, ye shall be as the
plumage of a dove, which is covered with silver, and her wings
with yellow gold." 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.
The ninth place is in the same Psalm at verse 17 : Ut quid
suspicamini montes coagulatos ? Calvin says that we should read,
" Why do ye envy the fat mountains ?" In regard of this place
Bellarmine hath no other answer to give but this, that the Hebrew
word1 is found nowhere else but here ; and therefore, since we
must abide by the judgment of some interpreters, the Seventy
should be preferred to all the rest. If 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 ? If we must abide by 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'l viroXaufidveTe opr\ Tervpw-
fxeva ; which the Latin translator renders thus ; Ut quid sus
picamini montes coagulatos ? Why hath Bellarmine concealed
from us the meaning of these words ? What is it to suspect co
agulated mountains ? Bellarmine would do us a favour if he would
inform us.
The tenth place is in the same Psalm also, at verse 19, Etenim
non credentes inhabitare Dominum Deum; which translation agrees
neither with the Hebrew2, nor with the Greek. That it does not
agree with the Hebrew, 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. Yet depart it does, and very widely.
For the Greek edition reads the passage thus : Kal yap aTreiQovvras
tov KaTaaKtivwaat. Here there is a full stop; and then a new
sentence begins, Kvpios 6 Qeos evXoyrjTos. If the Latin had no
P D'MSS rendered by Jerome, excelsi; by Ewald, gipfeligen; by Gesenius,
eaciwnina ; substantially to the same sense.]
[2 : D'rfw nj ]bwb annib *\$).]

XI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 189
other fault save that of its ambiguity and obscurity, it ought not to
be defended. The eleventh is also in the same Psalm, verse 23 : Convertam in
profundum maris. The Hebrew words denote the very opposite :
" I will bring back from the depths of the sea3." Here Bellarmine
acknowledges a mistake, and says that some copies of the Vulgate
have not in profundum, but in profundis ; and he explains conver-
tere 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. The twelfth place is in the same Psalm, verse 28 : Ibi Benjamin
adolescentulus in mentis excessu. Which 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 body or out of
the body. And 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 the
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 David is here speaking
of Paul ? or that the Hebrew word4 is capable of the meaning
which the old interpreter hath put upon it ? Jerome gives a dif
ferent rendering, Continens eos : 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 "in
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.
[3 : Dr' nfeSD 2W . In the LXX. iirio-rpfya iv Pvdo'is daXdo-o-T,s.]
P DTI , LXX. iv iKo-rdo-ei, deriving it from DTI, which is used, in
Niphal, to denote deep slumber and prostration of sense.]

190 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cHi
The thirteenth place is Psalm cxxxi. [cxxxii.] 15 : Viduam ejus
henedicens benedicam. It is in the Hebrew, " her victuals." There
cannot possibly be a more shameful mistake than this. For 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 widow?" 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 by
their antiquity ? Could the church thus perversely interpret
scripture ? Is it so, that false interpretations should not be cor
rected when once confirmed by long usage in the church ? That
we should read victum and not viduam, the Hebrew word itself
cries out to us, Jerome testifies in his Psalter and his Questions on
Genesis, Symmachus, cited by Theodoret, on the Psalms, Chryso
stom and Theodoret himself. The fact that some Latin copies of
the Vulgate edition have viduam, hath arisen from an error of cer
tain Greek MSS., in which yripav was read instead of Qripav. 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 yet hath no great reason to suppose that
he hath fully acquitted himself of his task. For 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 you 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 by Moses the
man of God. Let us briefly run over some verses of this Psalm,
and compare their old Latin version with the Hebrew 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. The Hebrew original yields
a far different sense : " Thou convertest man to contrition, and
sayest, Return, ye children of men." How different are these two
sentences ! In the fifth verse the old Latin hath : Qua 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 reads ; Posuisti seculum nostrum in illuminationem vul-

XI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 191
tus tui. In the Hebrew text it is : " Thou hast set our secrets in
the light of thy countenance." In the nineteenth verse it is thus
in the Vulgate : 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 words? or what interpreter is there learned
enough (always excepting Genebrard) to undertake to give a suit
able explanation of them ? The Hebrew is quite otherwise, both in
expression and in sense : " For all our days have declined in thine
anger, we have spent our years like a tale. The days of our years,
there are seventy years in them, or, at most, eighty years. Even
the best of them is labour and trouble : when it is past, forthwith
we flee away."
In the eleventh and twelfth verses the Vulgate reads thus : Et
pra timore tuo iram tuam dinumerare. Dextram tuam sic
notum fac, et eruditos corde in sapientia. In the Hebrew it is :
" And as thy fear, is thy wrath : 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 Hebrew : " Let thy work 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 Psalm ; 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 suspect that the Hebrew text
which is now in our hands is corrupt, let him consult Jerome's
version in his Psalter and in his 139th Epistle to Cyprian1, where he
will find the same Hebrew text of this Psalm as we have at present.
The same is the case of the other Psalms also ; 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.
The first is that of Bruno Amerbach, in the Preface to his
readers, which he has prefixed to his Psalter of Jerome ; where,
speaking of the old Greek and Latin editions of the Psalms, he
P Ep. cxl. ed. Vallars. T. I. p. 1042.]

192 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
says : " 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 copy. Whether we
are to blame for this the negligence of the translator, or the care
lessness of the transcribers, or, which is more probable, the pre
sumptuous ignorance of some meddling coxcomb, is a question which
I shall not now examine1." The second is that of Lindanus a
follower of the popish cause, who, in his third book 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 these : " 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 1500 years ago, which used this version, could not
have degenerated so much in so short a time from the purity of the
Latin tongue. For 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 reading2."
And then he goes on to prove, that the Greek edition of the Psalms
now extant is not that ancient one which was composed by the
seventy interpreters3. Hence we may learn what to think of
Genebrard, who, in his Epistle to Castellinus, bishop of Rimini,
maintains that this Greek edition is not only catholic, but either
apostolical or the Septuagint. So far of the book of Psalms.
P Grsecum item adjecimus, cui respondet e regione translatio, quse
passim legitur, dhrjXos, hoc est, auctore incerto, nonnunquam, ut dicam id
quod res est, Sis hid irao-dv ab exemplari Grseco dissidens. Cujus rei culpa
in interpretis oscitantiam, aut in Ubrariorum incuriam, aut, quod verisimilius
sit, alicujus nebulonis audacem imperitiam rejici debeat, nolo excutere in
prsesentia.] P Ssepe multumque de nostra; Latinse editionis interprete cogitans, plu-
rima videre videor quse ad suspicandum me invitant, ut non Latinum hominem
sed Grseculum quempiam fuisse existimem. Siquidem ilia prisca ecclesia,
ante annos 1500 hoc versione usa, haud ita potuit a Romansa linguse puritate
intra tantillum temporis degenerare. Nam quse cum in Psalmis, turn in
Novo Testamento occurrunt versionis offondicula, majora sunt quam ut ab
homine Latinse linguse, etiam quse non jam ex lectione, sed ex sermone disci-
tur, potuerint peccari. — p. 106. Colon. 1558.]
P Compare Hody, Lib. iv. p. 588.]

XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 193
CHAPTER XII.
OF CORRUPTIONS IN THE LATIN EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Finally, 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 by 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. The first place is Matth. ix. 13 : Non veni vocare justos, sed
peccatores. Chemnitz asserts that a most noble passage is here
mutilated, because the Latin hath nothing to represent "to re
pentance4." 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. And 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 by 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 MSS. Theophylact
too found the same clause in his copies ; and Robert Stephens in
those numerous and very faithful ones (one of which was the
Complutensian) by 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 Luke,, without
all controversy, adds these words, chap. v. 32. For thus, by the
unanimous suffrage of all the copies, we read in Luke, oiik eXyXvOa
KaXeo-ai SiKalovs, aXX' dfxapTwXovs eis fxeTavoiav. Besides, the
P els perdvoiav is wanting in the Vatican, Cambridge, and other ancient
MSS. ; in the Persian, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Armenian versions, as well as in
the Vulgate,] r 1 13
[whitaker.]

194 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
reason of the thing leads us to the same conclusion. For 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 fielvwaiv dfiapTcoXol, aXX' tea pLeTavorjawaiv' "not that
they should remain sinners, but that they should repent."
The second place is John xiv. 26 : Spiritus Sanctus suggeret
vobis omnia, quacunque dixero vobis. The papists abuse this
passage to prove, that whatever is defined in councils should be
received as the oracles of the Holy Spirit. But in the Greek it is
not " I shall say," but, " I have said," a elirov v/uv. Bellarmine
says that the sense is the same as in the Greek ; since we are to
understand it to mean, not " what I shall then say," but " what I
shall now say."
I answer. The papists seize greedily upon all occasions, how
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 Holy Ghost
is the author of all the dogmas which they have invented and
confirmed in their councils, although they cannot be supported by
any scripture evidence. But Christ did not promise that he would
hereafter say something which the Holy Ghost should teach them,
but that what he had already said to them should be recalled to
their mind and memory by the Holy Ghost. For Christ says not,
•wavTa d av e'lTroj vpuv, but a elirov v/uuv. Christ, therefore, had
already told them all; but they had not yet learned it accurately
enough, nor committed it to memory. Whence the falsehood of
Bellarmine's exposition sufficiently appears ; since Christ does not
say, as he supposes, "The Spirit shall suggest to you whatever I
shall now say," but " whatever I have already said to you :" for a
elirov does not mean " what I shall say," but " what I have said."
Thus the Latin version of this place is false, and even Bellarmine's
own exposition proves it false.
The third place is Rom. i. 4 : Qui pradestinatus est filius
Dei. In the Greek it is optaOevTos, 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
pradestinatus est.
I answer. Firstly, that opiteiv 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, t'i

XIL] QUESTION THE SECOND. 195
ovv eo-Tiv opiaOevros ; he subjoins as synonymous terms, SeiyOei"
tos, airocpavOevTos, KpiQevTos' where he teaches us that oplteiv
in this passage means nothing else but to declare, shew, or judge.
In the same way CEcumenius asserts that tov opiadevTos is equi
valent to tov aTTo^eiyBevTos or eiriyvaiaOevTos. Nor 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 6p'i(eiv mean the same thing as to predestinate.
Secondly, the Latin fathers followed the Vulgate translator,
by whom this word is unskilfully and absurdly rendered, as Eras
mus and Faber and Cajetan tell us, and as every 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.
The fourth place is Rom. 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 facientibus1. Chemnitz,
Valla, Erasmus, and others, agree that this place is corrupt. For
in the Greek text it runs thus : o'tTives to SiKaiw/ua tov Qeov
ewiyvovTes (6ti o\ tu toiuvtu TrpacraovTes afyoi OavaTov elalv)
ov fxovov avTa iroiovcriv, aXXa Kai avveuooKovcri tois irpaaraovcri.
Yet Bellarmine is not ashamed to say that the Latin reading is the
truer. For, 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 very accurate in his estimate of
the magnitude of sins. For to have pleasure in the wicked is one
of those gravest sins, which are not committed but by the most
abandoned men. To 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 MS., and the apparent citation in Clement's 1 Ep. ad Cor. c. 35
(pp. 120, 122, ed. Jacobson). Mill and Wetstein declare in its favour ; but see
on the other side Whitby, Examen Var. Lect. n. 1. § 1. n. 16.]
13—2

196 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
what the apostle means by aweucWeiv), 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 true ; and is what is given by
the Greek interpreters, Chrysostom, Theodoret, CEcumenius and
Theophylact. And in all the Greek copies which Stephens followed,
that is, all which he could by any means procure, there was no
variety of 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.
And though Bellarmine affirms the Latin text to be altogether pre
ferable to the Greek, yet other papists entertain an altogether dif
ferent opinion. "To speak my mind freely," says Catharinus,
upon the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, " the Greek
reading pleases me far better. The construction runs on easily and
without any rubs1."
The fifth place is Rom. iv. 2 ; where Abraham is said not to
have been justified by works. In their Latin edition it is added
" of the law," 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 hands : for some centuries ago all,
or almost all, the copies had legis, as is plain from some ancient
fathers, the scholastic divines, Lyra, Aquinas, Carthusianus, and
others. How the passage ought to be understood, and what kinds
of works the Apostle excludes from justification, shall be explained
hereafter in its proper place.
The sixth place is Rom. xi. 6 ; where these words are omitted,
" But if it be of works, then is it not of grace : otherwise work is
no more work2." Bellarmine confesses that this sentence is in the
Greek, but says that it is recognised by none of the commentators
upon this place except Theophylact. Which assertion is wholly
untrue ; since CEcumenius exhibits and explains this same sentence,
as also Theodoret and Chrysostom : which latter he nevertheless
affirms, naming him expressly, not to have made any mention of
this sentence. Bellarmine did not examine Chrysostom in this
P Ne quid autem dissimulem, longe magis mi placet Grseca lectio : 
facile procedit litera et sine ullo scrupulo. Comm. in Epp. Paul. p. 21. Paris.
1566.] P This clause is omitted in the Alexandrian, and several other ancient
MSS.]

XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 197
place, but gave too much credit to Erasmus, who falsely denies that
it is to be found in Chrysostom3. For Chrysostom reads it thus :
el oe e£ 'epywv ovk €ti earl ^a'pis" eTrel to epyov ovk en ecrTt
epyov. But what if the clause were not to be found in the
commentaries of these writers ? Must we, therefore, deem it
spurious? By no means. For the Greek copies, and very nu
merous MSS. of the greatest fidelity, and the most ancient Syrian
translator, will suffice to prove that this sentence came from the
apostle's pen; whose evidence is still more confirmed by the very
antithesis of the context and the sequence of the reasoning. For,
as the apostle says, " If it be of grace, then it is not of works ; for
then grace would not be grace ;" so to balance the antithesis he
must say, "If it be of works, it is not of grace; for then work
would not be work."
The seventh place is Eph. v. 32 : Sacramentum hoc magnum
est. Where 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. For the word in the Greek is (xvaTr\piov, which
is never in scripture used to denote what we 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
these4 : "A prudent reader will not gather from this place that
Paul teaches that marriage is a sacrament. For he does not say,
This is a sacrament, but a great mystery." For which true speech
of his the cardinal receives hard usage from Ambrose Catharinus in
the fourth book of his Annotations.
The eighth place is Eph. vi. 13 : Ut possitis resistere in die
malo, et in omnibus perfecti stare. In the Greek it is diravTa
KaTepyaod/xevoi, 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 ye have procured and put on
all the arms which are needful to you for this warfare. But
Chrysostom (followed here by CEcumenius) hath better understood
the force of the verb KaTepydcraaOai. For KaTepydaaoQai
denotes to conquer completely, to subdue and quell all the powers
of an adversary. The panoply here spoken of enables us not only
to resist in the evil day, but also diravTa KaTepyaadpevoi, that is,
P It is indeed in the Text, but not in the Commentary.]
P Non habet ex hoc loco prudens lector a Paulo, conjugium esse sacra
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 way (for so Chrysostom and
CEcumenius explain the apostle's expression) whatever opposes us,
to stand firm ourselves and unconquered.
But this is quite a different thing from the reading in the old
books, in omnibus perfecti ; from which false rendering false ex
planations also have arisen. Thomas explains the words "in all
things" to mean in prosperity and in adversity ; and here he makes
out a twofold perfection1, one of the way, the other of the home;
which, although they are true in themselves, are things wholly
impertinent to the passage before us.
The ninth place is Heb. ix. 28 : Ad multorum exhaurienda
peccata. In the Greek it is, els to ttoXXwv aveveyKelv dfiapTias'
which means, "to bear away the sins of many." Now 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. For, since our adversaries seize on the most slender
occasions to sophisticate the truth, the Holy Spirit must be every
where vindicated from their calumnies. Now whereas Bellarmine says
that the translator hath rendered this place with great propriety, I
would desire him to produce an example where dveveyKelv means
to exhaust. For, although dvafpepw means "to bear upward," yet
bearing up and drawing are not the same thing as exhausting or
draining. He who draws from a fountain, does not consequently
exhaust the fountain itself. But dvatpepeiv more frequently denotes
" to take away or bear ;" as, both in this place and another similar
one, 1 Peter ii. 24, Christ is said dveveyKelv els to %vXov our
sins, that is, "to have borne them on the tree," as there even the
old translator hath rendered it.
The tenth place is Heb. xiii. 16: Talibus hostiis promeretur
Deus. In the Greek it is, ToiavTais Ovalais evapea-TelTai o Qeos'
" with such sacrifices God 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 by 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 we deserve well of those
P P. 171. Antverp. 1591. The Schoolmen were fond of the distinction
of Via and Domus; meaning by the former, the present, and by the latter,
the eternal life.]

XIl] 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 yet 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, dy^peloi SovXoi. Besides, I ask
Bellarmine whether, in their theology, to deserve well of God 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.
We ourselves say that the good works of the saints are grateful
and pleasant to God ; but the whole dispute is about the merit of
works. Lastly, how senseless is this expression, Talibus hostiis
promeretur Deus !
The eleventh place is James v. 1 5 : Et alleviabit eum Dominus.
In the Greek it is, Kal eyepel avTov 6 Kvpios. "And the Lord
shall raise him up." Here Bellarmine disputes, by the way, upon
the effects of extreme unction against Chemnitz. Although there
is no capital fault in the translation, yet the place might be more
correctly rendered than it is by the Latin interpreter. As to
their popish unction, James makes no mention of it here; as
Cajetan himself abundantly teaches us in his commentary upon the
passage. His words are : " Neither in terms, nor in substance,
do these words speak of the sacramental anointing of extreme
unction2;" which he proves by three very solid arguments drawn
from the passage itself. But this is not the place for disputing
concerning the sacramental unction.
The last place is 1 John v. 13 : Hac scribo vobis, ut sciatis
quoniam vitam habetis aternam, qui creditis in nomine Filii Dei.
And 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: Tavra eypa-^a
vfiiv tois iriaTevovo'iv els to bvo/ua tov Yiov tov Qeov, 'iva
elor/Te oti <£a>t]v alooviov e^ere, Kal wa -KiaTevriTe els to bvo/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. For 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.
p Nee ex verbis, nee ex effectu, verba hsec loquuntur de sacramentali
unctione extremse unctionis. p. 419.]

200 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
For we too often admonish men to do what they are doing, ac
cording to that saying, Qui monet ut facias quod jam facis ; 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.
And 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 you the better to judge
how very far it is from being pure and authentic.
Matth. iii. 2, the old version hath, appropinquabit regnum
ccelorum. In the Greek it is riyyiKe, " hath drawn nigh." So
also in chap. iv. 17. In Matth. iv. 4, the word "openly" is
omitted in the old version, though the Greek text is, diro^iioaei aoi
ev tiZ (pavepw. And v. 7, the old translator renders fxrj fiaTro-
XoyqarjTe by nolite multum loqui. But fiaTToXoyelv means
something different from much speaking. For Christ does not
prohibit long prayers, but the tedious and hypocritical repetition
of the same words. At v. 11, he hath rendered dpTov kinovo-iov
by panem supersubstantialem. And v. 25 in the Latin runs thus :
Ne solliciti sitis anima vestra quid manducetis. In the Greek,
t'i (pdyrjTe Kal t'i -Kir\Te' " What ye shall eat and what ye shall
drink." At v. 32, in the Latin, Scit Pater vester : in the Greek,
o T\aTrjp v/awv 6 ovpdvios. Chap. vii. 14, in the Latin, Quam
angusta porta ! In the Greek, oti arevij n irvXrf " For strait
is the gate." Chap. ix. 8, timuerunt occurs in the Latin, instead
of " they wondered," since the Greek hath eOav/xaarav. Chap. ix.
15, Filii sponsi for the " children of the bride-chamber," the
Greek being ol viol tov vv/u<pwvos. The same mistake recurs
Luke v. 34. Chap. xiv. 3, the name of Philip is omitted in the
Latin, though exhibited by the Greek copies. He was the brother
of Herod, whose wife the impious Herod had united to himself in
an incestuous union. Verse 21, the Latin reads, quinque millia ;
in the Greek it is, uxrel TrevTaKio-xiKioi, "about five thousand."
Verse 26, the word, " the disciples," is omitted : for in the Greek
we have IdovTes avrov ol fxaQriral, where the Latin gives only
videntes eum. Chap. xv. 8, in the Latin, Populus hie labiis me
honorat; but in the Greek, eyy l^ei not 6 Xaos ovtos ™ tjTO/xaTi

XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 201
avToiv, Kat to7s yeiXeal ne Tina' " This people draweth nigh
unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips." At
v. 31 there is nothing to express " the maimed to be whole,"
though the Greek hath kvXXovs vytels.
Chap. xvii. 19 : in the Latin, Quare nos non potuimus ejicere
ilium ? instead of illud " it," that is, the demon ; for the Greek is,
eKfiaXelv at/To. Chap, xviii., in the last verse, there is nothing
in the Latin corresponding to to irapaTTTw/uaTa uvtwv, "their
offences," in the Greek. Chap. xix. 7 stands thus in the Latin :
Quid me interrogas de bono ? unus est bonus, Deus. But in most,
and the most correct, Greek copies, we read, t'i jue Xeyets dyaOov,
ovlels dyaOos, el juj) eh, o GeoV that is, " Why caliest thou me
good ? There is none good but one, God." Chap. xx. 9 : in the
Latin, acceperunt singulos denarios, instead of " every man a
penny;" for the Greek hath eXafiov dvd Snvdpiov. And the
like mistake is made again in the next verse. At verse 15, we
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, jy ovk e^eaTi /mot iroirjaai b 9eXoj ev tols e/uois ', Chap.
xxi. 30 : Eo, domine, is in the Latin instead of, " I, Sir," eyio,
Kvpie. Chap. xxiv. 6 : Opiniones praliorum, in the Latin, for
" rumours of wars," aKods iroXefj-wv. Chap. xxvi. 61 : Sid Tp'iwv
rinepwv, which means, "in three days," is rendered in the old
version 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^eXQbvTa els tov irvXwva. 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 reads : Quid hie sic loquitur ? blas-
phemat; instead of, "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies?"
t'i ovtos ovtuj XaXei fiXaaCpripcas ',
Mark iii. 39, in the Latin, Reus erit aterni delicti, instead
of " eternal judgment," aluvlov Kpiaews. Mark xiv. 14, in the
Latin there is, Ubi est refectio mea ? instead of, " Where is the
guest-chamber ?" itov eo-ri to KaraXvfxa ;
Luke i. 28 in the Latin runs thus, Ave, gratia plena; but
KeyapiTwp.evri is " highly favoured " or " freely loved," not " full
of grace." Luke ii. 40, the Latin hath, puer crescebat et con-
fortabatur, wherein "in spirit" is left out1. Luke iii. 13, in the
Latin, nihil amplius, quam quod constitutum est vobis, faciatis.
P irvevpan is omitted in some Greek MSS. also. See Grotius in loc]

202 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
But in this place irpdo-aeiv does not mean "to do," but "to ex
act ;" for it is the publicans that the Baptist here addresses. Luke
vi. 11, in the Latin, ipsi repleti sunt insipientia, instead of, " with
madness;" eirXtiadrjo-av dvolas. Luke xi. 53, the old translator
renders, diroo-TOfiarlXeiv aiiTov ewl irXetovoDv by, os ejus opprimere
de multis; absurdly, since it means that they pressed him to
speak of many things1. Luke xiii. 3, 4, runs thus in the Latin,
nisi pcenitentiam habueritis, omnes similiter peribitis : sicut illi
decern et octo, instead of, " or those eighteen," &c. Luke xv. 8,
Evertit domum, instead of everrit, " she sweeps ;" aapol thv olKiav.
A shameful and manifest error, which the Louvain editors perceived,
but would not correct ; 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. Nay, what surprises one still more, Gregory of
Rome, a thousand years ago, read and expounded evertit domum,
Horn. 34 in Evangel. : so ancient are many of the errors of this
translation. In the same chapter, verse 14, we have postquam
omnia consummasset, instead of consumpsisset, SairavnaavTos.
Chap. xvi. 22 is read thus in the Latin, Sepultus est in inferno.
Elevans autem, oculos, fyc. 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. For it ought to have been read, as
it is read with great unanimity by the Greek copies, " The rich
man also died, and was buried :" where Euthymius justly observes,
that mention of the burial was made in the case of the rich, and not
of the poor man ; 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, " And in
hell raising up his eyes," &c. Chap. xix. last verse, Omnis
P diroo-TopaTi^eiv 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 Timrcus Lex. Platon.]

X"-J QUESTION THE SECOND. 203
populus suspensus erat, audiens ilium, instead of, " All the people
hung upon him while they heard him." 6 Xaos aVas e%eKpep.aTo
avTov aKovwv.
John, chap. v. 16, after the words, persequebantur Judai
Jesum, the clause, " and desired to slay him," Kal s^tow avrbv
diroKTelvai, is left out. Chap. xii. 35 : Adhuc modicum lumen in
vobis, for, " yet a httle while is the light with you," ctj /juKpov
Xpovov to (pws fj.e9' vfxwv eaTi. Chap. xxi. 22 : Sic eum volo
manere donee veniam. Quid ad te ? Whence some, deceived
by the error of this version, have supposed John to be still alive.
But we ought to read, " If I will that he tarry till I come, what
is that to thee ?" In the Greek, eav avTov 6eXw neveiv 'ecus epyo-
/u.ai, t'i irpos ae ;
Acts ii. 42 : Et communication fractionis panis, for, " in
communion and breaking of bread," Kal tyi Koivwvia ko.1 t»J
icXao-et tov dpTov. And at the last verse, in idipsum2, for, " the
church," t?7 eKK\t]o-la. Chap. iii. 18 : Qui pranunciavit, for,
" which things he foretold," d irpoKarriyyeiXe. Chap. x. 30 :
Usque ad hanc horam, orans eram hora nona, instead of, " I
was fasting until this hour, and at the ninth hour I was pray
ing :" fiey^pi TavTrjs tjjs upas rifjinv vriffTevwv3, Kat ttjv evvaTnv
wpav irpoa-evyotxevos. Also at the close of verse 32, these
words, " who when he is come shall speak to thee," bs irapaye-
vbp.evos XaXrio-ei aoi, are omitted. Chap. xii. 8 : Calcea te caligas
tuas, for, "bind on thy sandals," inrbor)o-ai to: cravodXtd gov.
Chap. xvi. 13 : Ubi videbatur oratio esse, for, " where prayer
was wont to be made," ov evoix'XeTo irpoaevyfj elvai. Chap, xviii.
5 : Instabat verbo Paulus, for, " Paul was bound in the spirit,"
awelyeTo Tip irveviuaTi. In the same chapter at verse 16,
Minavit eos a tribunali, for, "he drave them from the judgment-
seat," dirtjXao-ev. And at verse 21, this clause is omitted, "I
must by all means keep this feast which cometh on in Jerusalem4:"
Ae? ne irdvTms ttjv eopTtjv ti)v epyomvnv iroincrai els lepoao-
Xvfia. Chap, xix., in the last verse : Cum nullus obnoxius sit, for,
" since there is no cause," nr/Sevos aWlov vtrapyovTos. Chap.
xxii. 12 : Vir secundum legem, for, " a pious man according to
p The mistake arose from connecting the words iirl to dvrb, which form
the commencement of the next chapter, with the close of this one. The
Ethiopic agrees with the Vulgate in omitting rfj ekkXijo-io.]
p Some MSS. agree with the Vulgate in omitting vrjo-Tevav.]
P It is omitted in the Alex, and several other MSS.]

204 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
the law," dvnp evcre(3i}s. Chap. xxiv. 14 : Quod secundum sec-
tam, quam dicunt haresin, sic deservio Patri Deo meo, instead
of, " that according to the way which they call heresy, so worship
I the God of my fathers :" oti KaTa tjJi/ oSov, rjv Xeyovaiv
a'ipecnv, ovtoo Xarpeva) Tip iraTpwip Qetp. Chap. xxvn. 42 : Ut
custodias occiderent, for, "that they should slay the prisoners1,"
'Iva tovs cecrfxwTas diroKTe'ivwcrt.
Rom. ii. 3 : Quod judicas, instead of, " thou that judgest,"
d kp'wojv. Chap. v. 6 : Ut quid enim Christus, cum adhuc
infirmi essemus, $c, instead of, "for Christ, when we were yet
without strength," cti yap Xjoi'cttos ovtwv rjfiwv doQevwv. And
verse 13 : Peccatum non imputabatur, cum lex non esset, for,
" sin is not imputed where there is no law," d/uapTia ovk eXXo-
yelrai ny ottos vdtxov. Chap. vii. 25 : Quis me liberabit de
corpore mortis hujus ? Gratia Dei per Jesum Christum, for,
" I thank God through Jesus Christ," evyapiaTw Tip' Qeip Sid
'Irjirov XpiaTov. Chap. viii. 18 : Existimo quod non sunt dignce
passiones, fyc, for, " I reckon for certain," Xoylfyfj-ai. Chap. xii.
19: Non vosmet ipsos defendentes, instead of, "avenging,"
mSiKovvTes. Chap. xiii. 1 : Qua autem sunt a Deo, ordinata
sunt2, for, "the powers that be, are ordained of God," a\ Se
ovaai e^ovulai, vtto tov Qeov TeTay/uevai elo~iv. Chap. xiv. 5 :
Unusquisque in suo sensu abundet, for, "let each be fully per
suaded in his own mind," eKaaTos ev Tip iS'up vo* 7rXnpo<pope'ia0ti).
And at verse 6 is omitted, " and he that regardeth not the day, to
the Lord he doth not regard it," Kal 6 /i>) (ppovwv tjJm ri/xepav
Kvplip ov (ppovel. Chap. xvi. 23 : Salutat vos Gaius hospes
meus, et universa ecclesia, for, " and of the whole church,"
Kai Trjs eKKXrju'ias 6A»7?.
1 Cor. iii. 5 : Ministri ejus cui credidistis, for, " ministers by
whom ye believed," Smkovoi Si u>v kirio-revo-aTe. Verse 9 : Dei
adjutores, instead of, " administrators or co-operators, avvepyoi.
Chapter vi. last verse : In corpore vestro, omitting3, " and in your
spirit, which are God's," Kal ev Tip irvevp.aTi v/uwv, ant/a earl
tov Qeov. Chapter ix. 22 : Ut omnes salvos faciam, for, " that
P Instances however are found in good authors of Custodia meaning a
prisoner as well as a guard. I need not cite instances of a meaning given
in every common dictionary.]
P The fault is in the stopping. It should be, " Quse autem sunt, a Deo
ordinatoe sunt."]
[s This clause is omitted also in tho Alexandrian and several other MSS.]

XI1-] QUESTION THE SECOND. 205
I may by all means save some," "wa irdvTwsTivds o-waw*. Chap.
xv. 23 : Deinde ii qui sunt Christi, qui in adventum ejus credi-
derunt, for, "then those who are Christ's at his coming," lireira
ol Xpio-Tov ev Trj irapovala ovtov. Verse 34 : Ad reverentiam
vobis loquor, for, " I speak to inspire you with shame," irpbs
evTpoirr\v v/juv Ae-ycu. Verse 51 : Omnes quidem resurgemus,
sed non omnes immutabimur, instead of, " We shall not indeed all
sleep, but we shall all be changed," irdvTe* nev ov KoifxriOrjaoneOa,
iravres Se dXXayr}tj6fj.e9a5. Verse 54, there is omitted, " when
this corruptible shall have put on incorruption," brav to (pOapTov
tovto evSvanrai d<p9apoiav. Verse 55 : Ubi est mors stimulus
tuus ? for, " Where is thy victory, 0 grave or hell ?" irov aov dSri
TO VlKOS ',
2 Cor. i. 11 : Ut ex multarum personis facierum ejus qua in
nobis donationis, per multos gratia agantur pro nobis. The
words in the Greek are, wa e/c 7roXXwv irpoawirivv to els r)p.as
yapiafxa Sid iroXXwv evyapiaTrj9rj virep qpniov' that is, "that the
gift conferred upon us by many persons may be celebrated by
many in returning thanks on our account." Chapter vii. 8 : Non
me panitet etsi poeniteret, instead of, "I do not repent, though I
did repent," ov fxeTain.eXop.ai, el Kal /ueTe/xeAo/x^i'. Chapter ix. 1 :
Ex abundanti est mi scribere, for, "it is superfluous," irepiaaov
fxoi eaTi. Chap. xii. 11 : Factus sum insipiens, omitting the next
word " in boasting," Kavyj.op.evos.
Gal. iii. 24 ; Lex padagogus noster fuit in Christo, for " to
Christ," eis XjOiffToV. Chap. iv. 18 : Bonum amulamini in bono
semper, for, "it is good to be zealously affected always in a good
thing ;" koXov to XriXovo~9ai ev KaXip iravToTe. At the end of
this chapter the words, Qua libertate Christus nos liberavit, should
be joined with the commencement of the next chapter. " In the
liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free, stand fast:" Trj
eXevOepttf r\ XpiGTos rip.as nXevOepwae tTTrjKere.
Eph. i. 22, Super omnem ecclesiam, instead of, " over all
things to the church," virep irdvTa Trj eKKXtja'ta. Chap. ii. 10 :
Creati in Christo £esu in operibus bonis, for, " to good works, eirl
P Several MSS. read irdvras for irdvras nvas, and Mill was disposed to
think it the true reading.]
P There is here considerable difference in the MSS. The Clermont
reads with the Vulgate. Lachmann's text gives iravres [pev] Koipydrja-opeda,
oil iravres he dXXayyo-opeda, following the Alexandrian MS. though not
exactly.]

206 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
epyols dyaQols. Chap. v. 4, Qua ad rem non pertinent, for,
" which are not convenient :" to fxr) dvijKovTa.
Col. ii. 14 : Chirographum decreti, for, " contained in ordi
nances," tois S6yp.aaiv.
2 Thess. ii. 13 : Elegit nos Dominus primitias1 in salutem,
instead of, " from the beginning," aV dpxns-
1 Tim. vi. 5 : It omits, " withdraw from those that are such2,"
dqb'io-Taao dirb tu>v toiovtwv. 2 Tim. ii. 4 : Ut ei placeat, cui
se probavit, for, " that he may please him who hath chosen him
to be a soldier:" iva Tip o-TpaToXoyntxavTi apearj.
Philem. 9 : Cum sis talis ut Paulus senex, instead of, " since
I am such an one as Paul the aged."
Heb. i. 3 : Purgationem peccatorum faciens, omitting the
words, " by himself," Si eavrov3- Heb. iii. 3 : Quanto ampliorem
honorem habet domus*, for, " as he that built it hath more honour
than the house," &c. Heb. xii. 8 : Ergo adulteri5 et non filii
estis, for "bastards and spurious, not sons:" dpa v69oi eo-Te, Kal
ovy_ viol. In the same chapter, verse 18, accessibilem6 ignem, for,
"inflamed with fire," KeKav/xevip irvpl.
James i. 19: Scitis,fratres mei dilectissimi, instead of, "Where
fore, my beloved brethren," wcttb1, dSeXqboi p.ov dyairTjTo'i.
1 Pet. ii. 5 : Super adificamini domos spirituals, for, " a
spiritual house," oIkos irvevfxaTiKos. Ibid, verse 23 : Tradebat
autem judicanti se injuste, for, " that judgeth righteously," tw
Kp'tvovn SiKatoos. 1 Pet. iv. 14, it leaves out, " on their part he is
blasphemed, but on your part he is glorified8 :" KaTa /uer avrovs
j3Xatr(prineiTai, KaTa Se vp.as So^dXeTai.
2 Pet. i. 3 : Quomodo omnia nobis divina virtutis sua, qua
p The Vulgate translator seems to have read dirapxrjv, (which is still
exhibited by some Greek MSS.) unless, indeed, primitias be itself a corrup
tion of primitus. ]
P The clause is also omitted by the Alexandrian, Clermont, and other
ancient MSS., and by the Ethiopic and Coptic versions.]
P They are omitted in the Alex, and Vatican MSS., and several others.]
P But domus is here in the genitive, being governed of ampliorem, to
correspond, barbarously enough, with the Greek construction.]
p But adulter is used adjectively in the sense of adulterinus, by PUny,
N. H. L. 33. c. 7.]
P Here we should read " accensibilem," the translator taking Kemvpeva
to agree with irvpl, as yjrrjXaipapJvm does with Spei. See Grotius in loc]
P The Alex., Vatican, and some other MSS. read "ore.]
p It is omitted in the Alex, and some other MSS.]

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 :" ws irdvTa npuv Trjs 9eias Svvdfxews avTov to irpbs
fyoijv Kal evaefieiav SeSooprjixevris9 : verse 16, indoctas fabulas se-
quuti, for " learned," aecroipia/uievois nv9ois e^aKoXov9tjaavTes, and
in the same verse, Christi virtutem et prascientiam for, " the
power and presence," Svva/xiv Kal irapovtriav. 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 :" fiXefj-ft-aTi yap Kal aKotj 6 SiKaios, eyKaToiKwv ev avTois,
rj/uepav e£ ripispas ^/vyiqv SiKaiav avop.ois epyois epatraviXev.
1 John v. 17 : Et est peccatum ad mortem, for, "and there is
a sin not unto death;" Kal euTiv a/xapTia ov irpos 9avaTov10.
3 John, 4. Major em horum non habeo gratiam, for, " I have
no joy greater than these," neiXoTepav tovtwv ovk eyw yapdv11.
Jude, 5 : Scientes semel omnia, for, "since ye know this once,"
eio^Tas a7ra£ tovto12. Rev. ii. 14 : edere etfornicari, for, "to eat
those things which are sacrificed to idols, and to commit whore
dom :" (hayelv elSwXo9vTa, Kal iropvevoai.
I have selected a few instances from many. Were 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 Brescia 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
sages 14-
Such is that edition, even by their own confession, which we
p A couple of unimportant MSS. read here hehapypeva with the Vulgate.]
P° The oil is also omitted in the Ethiopic.]
P1 Some MSS. here read x^Plv with the Vulgate.]
P2 The Alex, and other most ancient MSS. here read irdvra with the Vul
gate. The Syriac appears to have read iravres.]
P3 In the preface to his edition of the Vulgate, Venice 1542.]
p4 Etsi ea quam diximus usi fuerimus moderatione, loca tamen ad octo

208 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
are now forsooth, at the pleasure of the Tridentine Fathers, com
manded to receive as authentic scripture. But let them take to
themselves this old edition of theirs, while we, 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 THE STATE OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING VERNACULAR
VERSIONS IS EXPLAINED.
We 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 Hebrew and Greek originals.
We have obviated the arguments of our opponents, and confirmed
our own opinion. Now follows the second part of this question,
which hath two principal divisions. For 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.
Upon both subjects there are controversies between us.
Now, as to vernacular versions of scripture, we 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 by men. The first, of those
who absolutely deny that the scriptures should be translated into
the vulgar tongue.
The second, the opposite of the former, is the opinion of those
who think that the holy scriptures should by all means be translated
into the vulgar tongues of all people.
The 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 those " octo millia," Walton,
by what Hody calls " ingens memorire lapsus," has made octoginta milUa erro-
yum. — Proleg. §. 10. (T. n. p. 250. Wrangham.)]

XIII"J QUESTION THE SECOND. 209
opinion held by the papists, and the judgment ratified at Trent.
They 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 by 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 by Pius IV., and
approved by the council of Trent; which determination contains
four parts : first, that no man may read the scriptures in the vul
gar 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 by some catholic author : fourthly, that the reading even
of these must not be permitted to every one, but only to those
who, in the judgment of their curates and confessors, are likely to
receive no damage therefrom, but rather an augmentation of faith,
— those, that is, and those only, who they hope will be rendered
thereby still more perverse and obstinate. Such are the subtle
cautions of that decree; 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. They subjoin to this a reason which looks
plausible at first sight ; — that it hath appeared by experience that,
if the Bible were allowed to be read by all, without distinction,
more injury than advantage would result, on account of the rash
ness of mankind. The 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 Tes
tament. "Holy church," they say, "knowing by 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 good 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 worthie1:" — and so
they conclude that the scriptures, although translated truly and in
accordance with the catholic faith, must not be read by every one
who has a mind to read them, but only by those who are specially
and by name licensed by their ordinaries, and whom their curates
P Preface to the Reader, p. 4. Rhemes. 1582.]
r 1 14
[WHITAKER.J

210 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
and confessors have testified and declared to be fit and proper
readers of the same. Now then, you 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, by 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 by no means permitted to get
a glimpse of the sacred books of scripture. Who does not see that
the scriptures are taken from the people, in order that they may
be kept in darkness and ignorance, and that so provision may be
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
by 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. n. c. 15. To which let me subjoin the
testimony of Johannes Molanus, a divine of Louvain, and censor of
books to both the pope and the king ; who hath these words, in
his book of Practical Theology, Tract, in. c. 27 : " Yet 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 by the directions of the pastors and doctors of the church1;" —
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 book of his Monarchia 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. We, on the
[ Negamus tamen ab eis requiri studium scripturarum : imo salubriter
dicimus eos a lectione scripturarum arceri, sufficereque eis, ut ex prsescripto
pastorum et doctorum ecclesise vitoe cm-sum 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
be stirred up to the frequent and diligent perusal of them; and
that, not only when the privilege of reading them is permitted by
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 be enabled
to read them in their own tongue. This is declared by the confes
sion of all the churches. This is true ; and this we shall shew to be
agreeable to the scriptures. The state of the question, therefore,
is, — whether or not vernacular versions of the scriptures are to be
set forth and permitted to all promiscuously. They 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.
The first argument of the Jesuit, whereby he proves vernacu
lar versions by 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
God, and yet that the scriptures were in the church in Hebrew
after those times. But how does he prove that the Hebrew
language was then unknown to the people? 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. It remains that we listen to the tes
timonies by which all these statements are substantiated.
The first is taken from the old Testament, Nehem. viii. : where
we read that Nehemiah, and Ezra, and the Levites read the book
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 them ; 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. For it is clear from the passage itself,
that the people did understand correctly enough the words which
were read to them ; whence it follows that the language was not
unknown to them. At verse 3, Ezra is said to have brought the
book of the law, and to have read in the presence of a multitude of
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 intelligently1. 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 evening ; and, in
verse 19, 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 him ; 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 book,
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. 92) plainly, as Tremellius, or distinctly, as
the old translator renders it, but that, by that plain reading of the
scripture, the whole people might the better understand what was
being read to them ? For it is no matter whether you read well
or ill to those who understand nothing of what is read.
But Bellarmine objects that great joy was excited in the peo
ple, when by Ezra's interpretation they came to understand the
words of the law. What a subtle Jesuit ! He 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-
p twipn.]
P ver. 8. in the Hebrew. The word is tthSD .]

XIV-] QUESTION THE SECOND. 213
gether absurd. For Ezra read the words of the law openly and
publicly from a pulpit, and continued that readmg 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. For so at verse 9, the Levites are said "to have ex
pounded the sense, and given the meaning by the scripture itself,"
as Tremellius hath most correctly interpreted the passage. Vata-
blus hath translated it thus, " explaining the sense, and teaching
as they read3 ;" which is not very different. And the old trans
lator thus, " Plainly that it might be understood ; and they under
stood when it was read4;" which sufficiently proves that the people
understood what was read to them. Ezra was therefore said to be
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.
And hence sprang that gladness, which the scripture tells us that
the people felt when they heard the law expounded by Ezra.
The thing is plain and certain, nor do we need the aid of com
mentaries. The other testimony which the Jesuit uses in this matter, to
prove that Hebrew 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 by Jerome in his book, de Nominib. Hebr. The
same fact is indicated by the saying, John vii., " This multitude
which knoweth not the law." Hence it is manifest that the Hebrew
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. Yet, in the meanwhile, the people had not forgotten the
Hebrew language, neither immediately after the captivity, nor in
the succeeding times. For, Nehem. xiii., certain Jews are said
to have married wives of Ashdod, whose children spake in the
language of Ashdod, and not in Hebrew. The people in general
P ExpUcantes sententiam et erudientes inter legendum.]
p Aperte ad intelligendum ; et intellexerunt cum legeretur.]

214 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
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 return — would 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 Hebrew 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 integrity ; yet not to
such a degree as would be inconsistent with supposing that Hebrew
was spoken by the better educated, and understood by all ; so as
that the scriptures, when publicly read in Hebrew, might be
understood by the people. Christ, therefore, John v. 39, 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 read ; which
command he never would have issued, if the people could not
understand the scriptures in the Hebrew language. The Jews
of Berea, also, of whom we have an account, Acts xvii. 11, searched
the scriptures diligently. So Christ read the prophet Isaiah in
the synagogue, as we find in Luke iv. 18 ; and no one doubts
that he read it in Hebrew. So Acts xv. 21, James says, that
"Moses of old times hath in every city them that preach him,
being read in the synagogues every sabbath-day." Whence also
it is plain, that avaywioaicew and Kr/pvcrcreiv are different things.
And, Acts xiii. 15, "after the reading of the law and the prophets,"
Paul was desired to address the people if it seemed fit to him.
What 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 ?
The title which Pilate affixed to the cross was inscribed with
Hebrew words, and many of the Jews read it, John xix. 20. And
Paul, Acts xxvi. 14, says that he heard Christ speaking to him " in
the Hebrew tongue." He himself also addressed the people in the
Hebrew tongue, Acts xxi. 40. And (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, 0/395 irws aiiTovs
eiXe to op.oio(pn}vov ; elyov ydp Tiva alSib irpbs tt)v yXwTTav
eKelvnv1, as much as to say, that they were caught by perceiving
his language to be the same as their own, and by a certain reve
rence which they entertained for that tongue. I produce these
testimonies not to prove this language to have been pure Hebrew ;
but to shew that it was not altogether different from the Hebrew,
since it is called Hebrew, and was understood by the people. Now
it could not be called Hebrew, 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 ; yet it re
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. For, although the dialect of the Scots and English, nay, of
the southern and northern English themselves, is not the same ; yet
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 yet understand the scriptures when read to them
in Hebrew by their priests and Levites. Thus the bystanders
could sufficiently understand Peter, although they knew him to be
a Galilean by his manner of speaking. Matth. xxvi. 73. Formerly
the Greek language had various dialects, the Ionic, the Doric, and
the rest ; yet all Greeks were able to understand each other.
Thirdly, the Jesuit hath shamefully perverted the testimony
from John vii. 49 : " This multitude which knoweth not the law."
For the saying is to be understood not of the language, words, and
letters, but of the sense and meaning of the law. The Pharisees arro
gated to themselves a most exact knowledge of the law, and, puffed
up with that conceit, thus proudly despised the common people.
Now as to the assumption, that the scriptures were at that
time read in Hebrew in the synagogues, I acknowledge it to be
true. Why should they not have been read in Hebrew, when the
people understood them in that language? Bellarmine ought to
have proved that the people could not understand the Hebrew
language ; and then he would have done something to the purpose.
But there are no proofs to demonstrate that assertion, which hath
P Opp. T. m. p. 160. Vcnet. 1758.]

216 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
been already refuted by many arguments. For 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 Romans ; which latter sup
position is rendered probable by the circumstance that, whereas
Luke tells us that " the soldiers gave him vinegar to drink," chap.
xxiii. 36 ; 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 Lord,
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 Hebrew
language. The second argument is taken from the example and practice
of the apostles. For the apostles preached the gospel through the
whole world, and founded churches, as is plain from Rom. x., Col. i.,
Mark xvi., Ireneeus, Lib. i. c. 31, who says, that in his time
churches were founded in the East, in Libya, in Egypt, in Spain,
in Germany, in Gaul; and yet 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.
Lib. vn.
I answer, in the first place : 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, by
word of mouth; for that would have been an infinite labour : it was
enough that they left this doctrine of the gospel written in one
[ OiiVe al iv Yeppavlais ihpvpevai eVfeXiyo-icu  ofae iv rais 'lfiriplais,
oilre iv KeXrois, oure Kara rds dvardXas, ofce iv AlyvirTW, ovrt iv Ai^ir). —
p. 52, B.]

XIV-] QUESTION THE SECOND. 217
language, from which it might easily be drawn and derived into all
other tongues.
Thirdly, they wrote in that language which was the most
common, and understood by the greatest number of people, and out
of which the scriptures might with most facility be rendered and
translated into other tongues, — that is, in the Greek; which, although
it was not the mother tongue and native language of all, yet was to
most by no means an unknown tongue. For all those nations, whom
Irenaaus enumerates in that book, either spoke or understood Greek.
The Oriental churches were composed of Greeks ; and that the
Egyptians understood Greek, is manifest from their bishops and
doctors, Origen, Alexander, Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyril, who
were Alexandrians, and published all their works in Greek. Epi
phanius had his see in Cyprus, and delivered his instructions to his
people in Greek. At Jerusalem Cyril and others imparted the
gospel to their flock in Greek, and the Catechetical Discourses of
Cyril written in Greek are still extant. In Gaul, Irenseus himself
wrote his books in Greek; which shews that the Greek language
was not unknown to the Lyonnese and Gauls. In Italy too Greek
was understood, and therefore Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans
in that language : for he would not have written it in Greek, if
those to whom he wrote could not have understood it. And Irenseus,
cited by Eusebius, Lib. v. c. 24, testifies that Anicetus the bishop
of Rome gave Poly carp Uberty "to administer the eucharist in his
church2;" which he would not have done, if the Romans could not
understand Polycarp who was a Grecian. But, however the case
may have been, there were persons who could readily interpret, and
the scriptures were immediately translated into almost all languages,
into Latin, at least, by many hands, since Augustine, as we have
already heard, writes, that, in his time there were innumerable
Latin versions. And although a knowledge of Greek was not so
common in Africa, yet they had versions of their own, as we learn
P Kal ev Tjj iKKXtjcriq irapexdpr^oev 6 'Av'uayros tt)v evxapio-riav t& UoXv-
Kapira kot ivTpoirrjV hijKovoTi  H. E. Lib. V. C. 24. (Tom. II. p. 128. ed.
Heinich. Lipsise, 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 Irenseus only meant to say that Anicetus gave the Eucharist
to Polycarp. However the word iraptxdprjo-e seems in favour of Whitaker's
construction. Lowth compares Constitut. Apostol. II. 58, iirirptyeis h' aira
(that is, a foreign bishop visiting another bishop's see) Kal ttjv eiixapio-riav
dvoio-ai.]

218 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
from Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine, within 400, or 300, or 200,
years after Christ.
But Bellarmine objects, that Peter wrote to the Jews in Greek,
and that James did the same ; and John, in like manner, his Epistle
to the Parthians, as Augustine tells us1, Quaest. Evangel. 1. ii. quast.
39, and Hyginus in Epist. i., and Pope John II. in his Epistle to
Valerius : and yet 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
very 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 by all
men, sufficiently to understand the epistles which they received
written in Greek from the apostles. And 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. Whence Augustine derived this account, is uncertain2.
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 by the Parthians in Greek verses3.
P Secundum sententiam hanc etiam illud dictum est a Johanne in Epis-
tola ad Parthos : ' Dilectissimi, nunc fiUi Dei sumus,' &c. — Opp. T. m. 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 caUed by
the ancients Epistola ad Virgines, and consequently in Greek, irpbs irapdevovs.
Clemens expresses himself thus in the Adumbrations: Secunda Johannis
Epistola, qum ad Virgines scripta est, simplicissima est. — Tom. II. Op. Clem.
Alex. p. 10. 11. edit. Venet. We find in Greek MSS. the subscription irpbs
irapdovs, 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
irapdovs was an abbreviation of irapdevovs, is confirmed." — Hug. Introd. to
N. T. Waits' transl. Vol. II. p. 255. Dr Wait, in a note, gives Srpdpara as
the proper Greek title of the Adumbrations, but this is a mistake. The
book meant is the 'Yirorvirdo-eis, from which these Latin collections were
made by Cassiodorus.]
[ dhopevav he rdv i(be£rjs dppifiaiav irpbs rbv X°P0V>

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 by all ; which design of theirs is most
plainly repugnant to the theory of the papists. And although all
might not understand that language, yet 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. Nor
was it to be expected that the apostles should write to each people
in the mother tongue of every several region.
The third argument is drawn from the use of the universal
church ; and the conclusion is inferred thus : that which the universal
church hath held and observed is right : 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 ; therer
fore no other versions are necessary. He proves the major by the
testimony of Augustine, Epist. 1181, where he says that it is a piece of
the wildest insolence to dispute against that which is practised by 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 be
lieved to descend from apostolic tradition, and to have been always
as it is now. To the same purpose he adduces also the testimony of
Leo from his second discourse De Jejunio Pentecostes. He 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. We shall,
if the Lord permit, handle that whole qnestion hereafter in its ap
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. For it does not follow, if the public use of the Latin
Tis e<povevo~ev ;
epbv to yepas. 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 tho Greek literature.]
P Ep. 54. p. 164. Opp. T. n. Bassan. 1797.]

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. And 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. The whole force of this argument depends upon the proof of the
assumption; for which many things are adduced, which we must
discuss severally. Nor must you think that time is spent in vain
upon these ; since they are necessary for the refutation of our ad
versaries. Now, first, Augustine is said to affirm, Doctr. Christ. Lib. n.
c. 11, that the scripture was wont to to be read in the church
only in three languages, the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. But, if
you will consult the place itself, you will perceive that nothing of
the kind is said by Augustine. What Augustine says is1, that
to persons whose language is the Latin, the knowledge of two
other tongues is needful, namely, of the Hebrew and the Greek :
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
may the better understand the sense of scripture, therefore the
scriptures were not customarily read in any but these three lan
guages ? For it is to the Latins that Augustine delivers these pre
cepts : he says expressly, " men of the Latin language, whom we
have now undertaken to instruct." Hence nothing can be concluded
against us, but something may be concluded against them. For, if
P Et Latinse quidem linguse homines, quos nunc instruendos suscepimus,
duabus aUis ad scripturarum divinarum cognitionem opus habent, Hebrsea
scilicet et Grseca, ut ad exemplaria prsecedentia recurratur, si quam dubi-
tationem attulerit Latinorum interpretum inflnita varietas.]

XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 221
the Latins ought to learn the Hebrew and Greek languages, to
enable them to understand the scriptures aright, and to square
their versions by 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.
As 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
tongue2. This is so certain that Hosius, in his book de Sacro Ver-
nacule Legendo, writes thus : " It is undoubted that Jerome
translated the sacred books into Dalmatian3." And in the same
book he praises the Dalmatian language, and declares it to be
very famous. So Alphonsus de Castro, Lib. i. c. 13 ; " We con
fess that the sacred books were formerly translated into the vulgar
tongue4:" and he cites Erasmus, who writes that Jerome translated
the scriptures into the Dalmatian language. Harding, Art. in.
sect. 38 5, writes that the Armenians, Russians, Ethiopians, Dalma
tians and Muscovites read the scriptures in their own vernacular
tongues. Eckius makes the same confession, in his Enchiridion
de Missis Latine Dicendis6. Cornelius Agrippa, in his book of the
Vanity of the Sciences (if that author deserve any credit), says
that it was decreed by the council of Nice, that no Christian should
be without a bible in his house7. Socrates too testifies, that Ulphi-
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. 38 8: " Having
P This is now universally allowed to be a mistake. It is exposed by
Hody, Lib. in. pars n. c. 2. § 8. p. 362.]
P Dalmatica lingua sacros Ubros Hieronymum vertisse constat. — Opp.
Col. 1584. T. i. p. 664.]
p Fatemur . . . olim sacros libros in linguam vulgarem fuisse translates.
— Col. 1539. fol. 28. 2.]
p See Jewel, Controversy with Harding, Vol. I. Parker Soc. edit. p.
334.] P I cannot find this admission in c. 34. of the Enchiridion, 1. c. 1534.]
P Et Nicena Synodus decretis suis cavit ne quis e numero Christianorum
sacris Bibliorum libris careret. — cap. 100. ad fin.]
P ras Betas ypaqbds els ttjv YorBdv perajiaXdv, tovs ftapfidpovs pavBdveiv
to Beta Xdyia irapeo-Keiao-ev  p. 206. ed. Vales. Par. 1686.]

222 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
translated the divine scriptures into the Gothic language, he pre
pared the barbarians to learn the oracles of God." And Sixtus
Senensis, Bibliothec. Lib. vin., says that Chrysostom translated
the scriptures into the Armenian language1. Jerome, too, in his
Epitaph upon Paula, affirms that the Psalms were chanted by
the Christians of Palestine at Paula's2 funeral, in the Hebrew,
Greek, Latin and Syriac, tongues; 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 book against bishop Jewel, of sacred memory, Art.
hi., says that these were extraordinary hymns, and not the Psalms
of David; 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 corrupt ; pretending that some of the books
do not exhibit the word "Hebrseo," 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 Hebrew 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, by order of king
Athelstan, nine hundred years ago. And John of Trevisa writes,
that our countryman Bede translated the gospel of John into
English, Lib. v. c. 24 ; and that the Psalms were translated by
order of Alfred, Lib. vi. c. 1. And Bede tells us, Lib. 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.]
P Tota ad funus ejus Pakestinarum urbium turba convenit. . . . Hebrseo,
Grseco, Latino, Syroque sermone, Psalmi in ordine personabant. — Epist.
xxxvi. T. iv. part. u. 687, 8.]

XIV. J QUESTION THE' SECOND. 223
written, searches and confesses one and the same knowledge of the
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 by meditation of the scripture hath become common
to all3." It is therefore manifest, that the statement that there are
no vernacular version mentioned by 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. But the scriptures were in
Africa read only in Latin. Now, 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 Hebrew*. And Jerome, in the
Preface to his Second book upon the Epistle to the Galatians5,
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 : No one says that the Punic lan
guage was the same as the Latin. The contrary may be seen even
from the Psenulus of Plautus6; nor did any one ever entertain a
doubt upon that subject. However it is quite uncertain whether
there were any Punic version of the scriptures. How will our
adversaries prove that there was none, by 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, yet it does
not follow thence that there was no version. For in old times the
scriptures were translated into our own tongue, and yet 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
P Hsec insula in prsesenti, juxta numerum librorum, quibus lex divina
scripta est, quinque gentium Unguis unam eandemque summse veritatis et
verse subUmitatis scientiam scrutatur et confitetur, Anglorum videlicet, Brito-
num, Scotorum, Pictorum et Latinorum, quse meditatione scripturarum omni
bus est facta communis. — Opp. T. I. p. 9. ed. Stevens. Lond. 1841.]
[* Serm. cxiii. 2. Tom. v. col. 568. Opp. Par. 1679. 1700.]
P Quum et Afri Phoenicum linguam non nulla ex parte mutaverint. —
T. iv. 255, 6.]
p Plauti Psenulus. 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 it ;
so that we are not to wonder that the scriptures were read in Latin
at Carthage, as appears from Cyprian ; at Milevi, as we find from
Optatus ; at Hippo, as appears from Augustine. For 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 words : " Most dearly be
loved, that which we have sung with harmonious voice, we ought
also to know and hold in an unclouded breast1." In his book de
Cateehiz. Rudibus, cap. 92, he warns the people not to ridicule their
pastors, if they shall happen to express themselves ungrammatically
in their prayers and sermons. Whence it is plain that some of the
common people were often better skilled in Latin than the ministers
themselves. In his Retractations, Lib. i. c. 20, 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
very lowest of the people, the unskilful and illiterate3. In his
Serm. 24, de Verbis Apost. he speaks thus: "The Punic proverb is
well known, which I will tell you in Latin, because all of you do not
understand Punic4." Therefore the common people understood Latin
better than Punic. Upon Psalm 1. : " We all know," says he, "that
in Latin one cannot say sanguines, or sanguina, but sanguinem5."
And when he addressed the people, he was much more careful to be
intelligible, than to express himself with purity. So on Psalm cxxviii.6:
P Carissimi, quod consona voce cantavimus, sereno etiam corde nosse et
tenere [ac videre] debemus. — T. iv. 81, 2.]
P § 13. Tom. vi. col. 272.]
P Tom. i. col. 31. Volens etiam causam Donatistarum ad ipsius humil-
limi vulgi et omnino imperitorum atque idiotarum notitiam pervenire ....
psalmum, qui eis cantaretur, per Latinas literas feci.]
P Proverbium notum est Punicum : quod quidem Latine vobis dicam,
quia Punice non omnes nostis. — T. v. 804. (Serm. clxvii. 4.)]
p Omnes novimus Latine non dici sanguines nee sanguina, sed sanguinem.
— T. IV. 472.]
P Ego dicam ossum : sic enim potius loquamur : melius est ut nos repre-
hendant grammatici, quam non intelligant populi. — T. iv. col. 1545.]

XIV-J 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." And upon John, Tract. 7, " Lend me your
kind attention. It is dolus, not dolor. I mention this because
many brethren, who are not very skilful in the Latin tongue, are in
the habit of using such phrases as, Dolus ilium torquet, when they
mean what is denoted by Dolor1." And Augustine, Confess. Lib. i.
c. 14, 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 him8." Now Augustine was born
and bred at Tagasta, in Africa, as appears from the Confessions,
Lib. iv. c. 7. From 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 re
quired. The 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 Rome
every thing was read in a foreign language. But before this igno
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 prove
the contrary. The 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 teljs us,
in his City of God, Lib. xix. c. 7, " Care was taken that the im
perial city should impose not only her yoke, but her language also,
upon the vanquished nations9." Plutarch, in his Platonic Questions10,
[7 Intendat caritas vestra ; dolus, non dolor est. Hoc propterea dico quia
multi fratres imperitiores Latinitatis loquuntur sic ut dicant, Dolus ilium tor
quet, pro eo quod est Dolor. — T. ni. P. n. 349.]
p Inter blandimenta nutricum, et joca arridentium, et hetitias alluden-
tium.] [9 Data opera est ut civitas imperiosa non solum jugum, verum etiam
linguam suam, domitis gentibus imponeret.]
p° as hoxel pot irepl Papatav Xeyeiv, dv pev Xoya vvv bpov ti iravres av-
Bparroi xpdvrat  p. 1010. 0. T. II. Opp. Francofurt. 1620.]
r i 15
|_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, by us. It is quite certain that the
reading of the scriptures was everywhere understood in those
churches. Isidore, in his book De Offic. Eccles. c. 10, writes thus
of the Spanish and all other churches : " It behoves that when the
Psalms are sung, all should sing ; and when the prayers are said,
they should be said by all ; and that when the lesson is read, silence
should be kept that it may be heard equally by all1." Where the
language is a strange one, men can neither sing together, nor pray
together, nor hear anything together : 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. For 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 Psalm ; at the reading of which a general shout was raised
by the people, and the opposite party were reduced to silence2.
From 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.
Now 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. He proves the major by 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 psallatur : et cum oratur, ut
oretur ab omnibus ; quando lectio legitur, ut facto silentio seque audiatur a
cunctis.— Isid. Opp. Col. Agripp. 1617, p. 393.]
P Sulpitii Severi. Opp. Amstel. 1665, p. 452.]

XIV>] QUESTION THE SECOND. 227
I answer : 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. For 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 people ; but now, in the
greatest multitude that can be collected, how few will you find that
are acquainted with Latin !
Secondly, if, as Bellarmine himself confesses, the very reason
why 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 common ; 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. For these are the
mother-tongues of great nations ; whereas the Latin is the. mother-
tongue of no nation whatever. At 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 by the Hebrews, in Greek by the Grecians, and
in Latin by 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, yet 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, why
were not measures taken to insure it from the beginning ? Or why
ought the Latin language to be deemed fitter for such a purpose than
any other ? These dreams are only meet subjects for laughter ;
and therefore this argument hath been omitted by the editor of the
epitome. The 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. But 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 good cause, since the
people cannot understand them even when they are translated.
For the people would not understand the prophets and Psalms,
and other pieces which are read in the churches, even if they
were read in the vernacular language. For these things even the
learned do not understand, unless they read and hear expositors.
I answer, in the first place, by confessing that all things are
not immediately understood upon the reading even by the learned,
especially in the prophets and the Psalms. For 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
all : and assuredly, all things which are necessary to salvation are
plainly delivered in scripture, so as that they can be easily under
stood by any one if he will. And men would know more than
they do, if they would read and hear the scriptures with that
attention which they ought to bestow. For the reason why 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 per
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. The 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 de
servedly been praised by 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 be
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. For 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.
The 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 synodis1 ; and Luther calls the scriptures the book of heretics:
and this is further proved by experience. Hence have sprung the
heresies of the Anthropomorphites, the Adamites2, and of David
George3, who understood no language but his mother-tongue. 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
these 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 : " Is this the word of God ? —
nay, rather it is the word of the devil." And 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. The censors
of Cologne, too, in their book against Monhemius, p. 20, tell us,
" No 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 hsereticorum esse qui se nunc non secundum
scripturas prsedicare ea, quibus blasphemat, mentiatur .... omnes scrip-
turas sine scripturse sensu loquuntur. — Col. 1230. Hilarii Opp. Paris. 1693.]
p There was an ancient sect of Adamites, said by Theodoret (Ha;r. Fab.
p. 197) to have been founded by Prodicus, (whose tenets are described by
Clemens Alex. Strom. I. p. 304. b. and § 3. pp. 438, 439,) and of which the
fullest account is given by Epiphanius, (Hseres. 52,) but only upon hearsay,
(p. 458, c.) But the persons meant by Bellarmine were probably the Picards,
exterminated by Zisca in the 15th century, and the Anabaptists of Amster
dam in the 16th. — See Bayle's Diet. Art. Piuard, and Beausobre's Disserta
tion at the end of L'Enfant's History of the Hussites, Amsterd. 1731.]
p Founder of the Davidists. He died 1556 — See Mosheim, Cent. 16.
sect. 3. part. II. c. 3. § 24.]

230 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
yea, to speak still more boldly, which did not take its occasion
from scripture1."
I answer, in the first place : All these suggestions are the product
of human ingenuity, and impeach the divine wisdom. For if the
reading of these things were so dangerous, why did the Lord 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 good 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. For 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. For, 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.
We 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 God will be merciful for Christ's sake, if
the sinner heartily repent. Lastly, that those holy and excellent
men were not saved by their own virtues, but by the merits of Christ,
and consequently that we ought not to think of them more mag
nificently than is proper ; as indeed there is less danger of our
attributing too little to them than too much : on which account the
Holy 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 Rom. xv. 4, the apostle declares why the scriptures were pub
lished, and what end they regard ; not to lead men into false opinions,
but "they are written for our learning, that we through patience
and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." In Psalm cxix. 9,
David asks, "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way?"
He answers, not by avoiding or remaining ignorant of the scriptures,
but, "by taking heed to them." Even young men, therefore, whose
age is especially prone to lust, may nevertheless be usefully engaged
P Nulla unquam reperta est hseresis, quse non scripturis fuerit usa: imo
ut audentius dicamus, quso 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 "the
words of the Lord" are "pure words:" but these men are afraid,
lest, as the apostle, 1 Cor. xv. 33, reminds us that good manners are
corrupted by evil communication, so men should be made worse
and more estranged from piety by 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. What 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 by the scriptures well and
fittingly understood and expounded. Hence the Anthropomorphites,
hence the Adamites, hence all the other heretics are convicted of
error. Now it is much better that the scriptures should be read,
and that, from the scriptures read and understood, heresies should
be condemned and overthrown, than that they should not be read
at all ; and that by such means the rise of heresies should be pre
vented. For doubtless many more persons perish through ignorance
of scripture, than through heresy; 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
book of the heretics," is neither very certain nor very important.
Indeed they are wont to abuse the scriptures, but still may always
be convicted and refuted by the same.
Sixthly, the story which he subjoins, as heard from some
Englishman, about a certain woman, who, when that chapter of
Ecclesiasticus2 was read in England, rose up in a rage and spoke
with httle 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 people? 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.
P It is to be observed that, in our present Calendar, Ecclus. xxv., which is
the evening lesson for November 6, is ordered to be read only to ver. 13. No
such rule however was made in King Edward's Prayer-book.]

232 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH-
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
iise 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 thus: if the scrip
tures should be read by the people in the vulgar tongue, then
new versions should be made in every age, because languages are
changed every age ; which he proves from Horace's Art of Poetry l
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. For, in
the first place, it is false that languages change every age ; 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.
The Jesuit's eighth argument is taken from the authority of
the fathers. He 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. Lib. iv. cap. 19,
when the prefect of the imperial kitchen was prating with into
lerable impudence and ignorance concerning the dogmas of theo
logy, answered him thus : " It is your business to mind your
sauces, not to cook the divine oracles2."
P Ut silvse foliis pronos mutantur in annos,
Prima cadunt : ita verborum vetus interit sstas
Et juvenum ritu florent modo nata, vigentque. — v. 60.]
P iraprjv he tis Arjpoo-Bevrjs KaXovpevos tcov fiao-iXiKav irpopTjBovpevos o\jrav,
os ra hihao-KaXa ttjs o'iKovpevT)S eiripepijmpevos ifiapfidpio-ev, 6 he Betos Bao-i-

XIV. J QUESTION THE SECOND. 233
I answer, This prefect of the imperial kitchen was by 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 SiSdaKaXov Ttjs 0'iKovfj.evns, — 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-Ti tcJs twv ^iuw KapvKelas
<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 De
mosthenes ; who, because he was altogether illiterate and possessed
with heretical prejudices, seemed to Basil a person unworthy to
discourse upon religious subjects. For so Basil addresses him :
" Thou canst not hear the divine doctrines, for thine ears are
stuffed against them."
I come now to the testimony of Jerome cited by the Jesuit,
which is contained in the epistle to Paulinus, and runs thus :
" ' 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
Xeios peihido-as, 'EBeairdpeBa, e(j)T), Kal ATjpoo-Bevrjv aypdpparov iirtihr) he irXeov
iKtivos hvo^epdvas ijireiXTjire, 2dp etjriv, etpT] 6 peyas Baa-iXetos, rijs rdv £apdv
KapvKtias (j>povn£eiv hoypdrav yap Beiav iiraieiv oil hivaaai, [iefivo-pevas e'xcov
ras aKods. — p. 174, c. n. ed. Vales. Paris. 1673.]

234 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
shame !) learn from women what they are to teach to men ; and,
as if this were not enough, by a certain facility, or rather au
dacity, of talk discourse to others what they do not understand
themselves1." These are the words of Jerome : to which I answer,
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,
aa 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. He 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, Art. 15. Sect. 3, who dis
tributes this whole controversy under five heads. He 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 bible; as well because they are absolutely the
same with those alleged by the Jesuit, as also because they have
been already most copiously and learnedly confuted by that dis
tinguished man, Doctor John Jewel, bishop of Sarum, whom they
may read who desire to see more upon this matter.
P Quod medicorum est promittunt medici, tractant fabrilia fabri. Sola
scripturarum ars est quam sibi omnes passim vindicant. Scribimus indocti
doctique poemata passim. Hanc garrula anus, hanc delirus senex, hanc
sophista verbosus, hanc universi prsesumunt, lacerant, docent antequam dis-
cant. Alii adducto supercilio, grandia verba trutinantes, inter muUerculas de
sacris Uteris philosophantur. Alii discunt (proh pudor !) a feminis quod viros
doceant : et ne parum hoc sit, quadam facilitate vcrborum, imo audacia, edis-
serunt aliis quod ipsi non intelligunt. — T. iv. p. 571.]

XV.J 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.
Now my first argument shall be to this effect : that which is
by 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. We must inquire,
therefore, whether God hath prescribed this to all. And this may
very 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.
What 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. 11, 12, there is an express command of
God concerning the reading of the scriptures before the whole
people : " Thou shalt read the words of this law in the presence of
all Israel, in their hearing, and to all the people collected together."
And lest any of the people should peradventure suppose himself
exempted by 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." Now this is of perpetual obligation : therefore
the reading of the scripture is always necessary. For 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 be read to the people perpetually throughout all ages.
In Deut. xvii. 19, 20, 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 king ; as that,

236 THE 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 sons ; that they should speak of them
when they sat at home and when they walked by the way, when
they lay down and when they rose up; that they should have
them, as it were, bound upon their hands, and kept ever before
their eyes ; finally, that they should be inscribed upon the posts of
their houses and upon their doors. From 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
people ; and the reason is subjoined, " if peradventure they may
fall down, and make entreaty before Jehovah, and return each man
from his evil way." And in the new Testament Christ, John v.
39, bids men epevvqv tccs ypacpds, " 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 life ; yea, salvation and
the kingdom of God pertains to the latter equally with the former
class. Chrysostom observes upon that place, Horn. 40, 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. 31, the Evangelist says : " These things are
written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God ; and that believing ye may have life through his name."
Now 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 life : without the scriptures there is no faith : the
scriptures therefore should be set forth before all men. Rom. xv.
14, " Whatsoever things were written were written for our learn
ing," says Paul. The Lord therefore willed us to be learned, and
this is saving knowledge. He subjoins, " that we, through patience
and comfort of the scriptures, might have hope." Those therefore
who are without the scriptures are without patience, without
comfort, without hope ; for all these things are produced by the
scriptures.

xv-] QUESTION THE SECOND. 237
Our second argument stands thus : The people should not be
deprived of those arms by which they are to be protected against
Satan. Now the scriptures are such arms : 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. The assumption is proved by the example
of Christ himself, Matt. iv. For 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, how 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
example ; for he could have repelled Satan with a single word.
We therefore ought to resist Satan in the same manner. It is
folly to suppose that Satan can be driven away by bare ceremonies,
exorcisms, gesticulations, and outward fopperies. We 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. For with
out the protection of scripture the people must necessarily fall
under all temptations. The apostle Paul, Eph. vi. 16, says that
the shield, 9vpebv, wherewith the fiery darts of Satan are to be
quenched, is ttIo-tis, Faith. Now faith, as the same apostle testi
fies, Rom. x, 17, is " begotten by hearing, and hearing by the
word of God." And, as we resist Satan by faith, which is produced
by the scriptures, so also is he to be attacked by scripture. For in
the same place that ndyaipa irvevp.aTos, the spiritual sword,
is said to be the word of God. From 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 by 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.
My third argument I form thus: The scriptures are to be
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 tongue : therefore they should be
translated into a language known to the people. The major is
indubitable ; and, for the minor, it is proved by Paul, 1 Cor. xiv.
through almost the whole of which chapter he handles this ques
tion : " If I shall come to you," says he, v. 6, " speaking with
tongues, what shall I profit you?" t'i vixds uxpeXtjtrw ; as if he
had said, " certainly nothing." And, verse 7, he proves by the
examples of things without life, as pipe and harp, " which," says
he, " unless they give a distinction (SiaaToXrjv) in their tones, how
shall it be known what is piped or harped ?" In like manner it
behoves our speech to be evanp.os, or significant. So he concludes,
verse 19, that he would rather speak five words in the church Sid
vobs, with his understanding, so as to instruct others, than " ten
thousand words in an unknown tongue," ev yXwuo-r]. Chrysostom,
in his 35th homily upon the first epistle to the Corinthians, exclaims,
"What utility can there be in a speech not understood?" wtos yap
dirb (piovrjs %s ov avvieTe1 ; and in the same homily: "He 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 : yet 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. The Lord commands and requires
that the people should be instructed, full of wisdom and knowledge,
and perfectly acquainted with the mysteries of salvation. He 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. Now 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
P 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, may wonder amd exclaim,
" Lo a people wise and understanding, a great nation ! " Coloss. iii.
16, the apostle desires that the word of Christ may evoiKelv, dwell
abundantly, or copiously, irXovo-iws, in the Colossians. And, in the
same epistle, i. 9, he wishes that they may 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 God." And, 2
Cor. viii. 7, he says that the Corinthians irepiaraevetv, are abun
dantly filled " with faith, and utterance, and knowledge." And
Numb. ii. 29, Moses wishes that all the people were prophets.
And, 1 Cor. xiv. 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 may abound more
and more, " in knowledge and in all judgment." And, 2 Pet. i. 5,
Peter admonishes those to whom he writes that they should add vir
tue to faith, and to virtue and sanctity of life ttjv yvwaiv, know
ledge. From these passages we perceive that wisdom, prudence,
knowledge and understanding are required in the people of God;
and therefore those who retain them in a stupid and gross igno
rance of the scripture inflict a grievous injury upon the people.
Nay, 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. 16, says:
" Hence we see that the laity ought to have not only a suffi
cient, but an abundant knowledge of the scriptures, and also to
instruct each other2." Chrysostom, in his ninth homily upon the
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, ovy_ airXws, aX\a fxera iroXXijs t>Js
irepiovalas ; and adds : " Attend, all ye that are secular {ko<thikoi),
and have wives and families depending upon you, how he (the
apostle) specially commands you to read the scripture ; and not
merely to read it in a perfunctory manner, but with great dili
gence," dXXd fxeTa iroXXtjs airovSrjs. Chrysostom observes in
that same place, that the apostle does not say, let the word of God
be in you; but, let it dwell in you; and that, irXova'ioos, richly3.
P Hinc perspicimus non tantum sufficienter, sed etiam abundantur debere
lacios scripturarum cognitionem habere, et se invicem docere. — T. xi. 1029.
But this Commentary is not Jerome's.]
P 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 iroXXf, Sa^/iXela, most abundantly.
Now, how are we to obtain so full a knowledge of it as this im
plies? CEcumenius informs us by subjoining, Sid Ttjs twv ypacpiov
epevvr/s, by searching the scriptures. So Thomas Aquinas in his
third lecture upon this chapter : " Some," says he, " are satis
fied with a very small portion of the word of God ; but the apostle
desires we should have much of it1."
Our adversaries urge many objections against such knowledge
being diffused amongst the people. In the first place they allege
what is found in Luke viii. 10, where Christ says to his disciples :
" Unto you 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 pro
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 Hugo (not to mention
others) interprets this place ; and so also the ordinary gloss. Thus
Hugo : " To you ; that is, who hear willingly, and repose faith in
my words2." And the ordinary gloss still more plainly in this man
ner : " Holy things are to be imparted to you who are faithful,
not to the incredulous Pharisees3." These words of Christ, therefore,
are no obstacle to the reading of holy scripture by the laity and
unlearned persons.
Against such a knowledge in the people, in the second place, Ho-
sius (in his book de Sacr. Vernac. Legend. Opp. p. 742. Lugd 1563)
objects certain testimonies of the fathers ; as namely, Augustine, Con
tra Epist. Fundament, c. 4, where he says; "It is not the vivacity
of their understanding, but the simplicity of belief which best secures
the multitude4:" and in his 102nd Epistle5, where he says: "If Christ
P Quibusdam suflicit modicum quid de verbo Dei : sed apostolus vult
quod habeamus multum, p. 164. 2. T. xvi. Opp. Venet. 1593.]
P Vobis, hoc est, qui libenter auditis, et fidem habetis verbis meis.]
p Vobis qui fideles estis, non Pharisseis incredulis, sancta sunt danda.]
P Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simpUcitas tutam facit.
— Tom. x. p. 183. Opp. Bassan. 1797.]
P Si propter cos solos Christus mortuus est qui certa inteUigentia possunt
ista discornere, pene frustra in ecclesia laboramus. — T. n. p. 786.]

Xv-] QUESTION THE SECOND. 241
died only for those who can distinguish these matters by a certain
intelligence, we labour almost in vain in the church," &c. To the
same effect also he produces Gregory Nazianzen, Lib. i. de Theo-
logia, where he says : " It is not the business of all persons to
dispute concerning God, and the things of God6," &c.
I answer, These testimonies do by no means prohibit the read
ing of the scriptures, as will better appear upon a particular exami
nation of them. For 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 whole: for all cannot be 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 laity ; 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
prudence ; for while Christ would have us to be simple as doves, he
would have us also to be wise as serpents, Matth. x. 16. 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, by 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 peo
ple it is not knowledge, but a good life that is requisite7." And
Tertullian, in his Prescriptions against Heretics : " This faith of
thine hath saved thee ; thy faith, he says, not thy knowledge or
expertness in scripture8." The same answer will serve for the pas
sage from Nazianzen. He does not say that the scriptures should
not be read by the people, but that every body is not competent
to determine questions concerning God and abstruse mysteries of
religion : ov iravTos to ire pi Qeov (piXoiroipe'iv' which we will-
P Oil iravrbs, a oSrot, ro irepl Qeov cjuXoo-oabeiv, oil iravrbs, ovx ovra to
irpdypa evavov . . . irpoo~BT]o~a he, oithe iravrore, oiihe iraa-iv, oiihe iravra. — Orat.
xxxm. p. 530, o. T. I. Col. 1690.]
p Non requiritur in vulgo scientia, sed bona vita.]
p Fides, inquit, tua te salvam fecit, non exercitatio scripturarum. — c. 14.
p. 10. P. in. Tertull. Opp. Lips. 1841.]
r 1 16
[WHITAKER.J

242 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH;
ingly allow. " For the matter," says he, " is not so mean and
vile, ovx ovtw to irpdyna 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 all:" ovre irdvTOTe, ovre irdcriv, ovre
irdvTa. Those, therefore, who have never read or heard anything,
or who are unskilful, and yet venture to discuss divine matters, —
such persons are deservedly obnoxious to blame ; and such are the
persons whom Nazianzen means. The unskilful ought, indeed, to
leave such discussions to others. But the same father1 exhorts all
men to the reading of scripture, from that passage of David,
Psalm i. 2 : " And in the law of the Lord he meditates day and
night ;" and from Deut. vi. : " Yea," says he in that same place,
"we should think of God oftener than we breathe: fxvrtp.ovevreov
tov Qeov fxaXXov n dvairvevuTeov' and, if possible, ovoev dXXo
irpaKTeov, nothing else should be done." This very 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 thus : The holy doctrine of the
gospel is not contaminated when preached or taught in the verna
cular tongue ; 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.
The question of farthings will give us no concern. The point is to
know, why 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 it ; but in writing each matter is propounded nakedly by itself.
Secondly, because the apostles preached in various tongues, but all
wrote in the same language."
Let us examine this reply of the Jesuit's. I allow, indeed, that
the word preached is much more easily understood than when it is
[ Kaya Tav iiraivovvrav elpi rbv Xoyov, bs peXerav rjpipas Kal wktos hia-
KeXeverai, Kal eo-irepas Kal irpai Kal peo-qp^plas SiTjyelo-Bai, Kal tiiXoyeiv rbv
Kvpiov iv iravrl Kaipa- el hel Kal rb Mavo-eas elireiv, Koira£6pevov, hiaviirrd-
pevov, ohoiiropovvra, (JrioCi/ dXXo irpdrrovra. — Ut sup. p. 531. B.]

XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 243
merely read; because, when preached, each several point is ex
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 Beroeans, Acts
xvii. ; otherwise any one, at his pleasure, might deliver what he
liked to the people, and enjoin it upon them as the word of God.
And 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, yet
they do understand much, and will understand more every day,
if they persevere in reading. What is to-day obscure, will become
clearer to-morrow ; what is now unknown, will afterwards, by use
and exercise, become better understood. Furthermore, I confess,
too, that the apostles wrote only in one language ; 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
beforehand; and in the same way, ministers should not deliver
the book of scripture entire to the people. I answer : The people
should not be always like infants, so as always to require chewed
meat; that is, when they hear the scripture in their native lan
guage, understand nothing of it unless it be explained by 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
word : yet should they not be 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 ; Eph. iv. 14 ; Heb. v. 12 ; and requires from
them senses exercised in scripture, aicr9t]Tripia yeyvp.vaaiJ.eva. 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 "put away childish
things," 1 Cor. xiii. 11.
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 by their pastors to read them with diligence and assiduity.
Hence we draw our conclusion thus : Formerly the scriptures were
extant in vernacular languages, and were also read by the people.
Therefore the same is lawful at the present day.
The 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 Gothic ; and others into other languages. But the Jesuit
replies, that, though the scriptures may lawfully be translated
into vernacular languages, yet, when so translated, they should
not be read publicly in the churches ; and that, as to those ver
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.
For, 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. 33, 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 by all. For 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, by many testimonies of the fathers
that the scriptures were read by all. Jerome, upon Ps. lxxxvi.
writes thus1: "The Lord hath related in the scriptures of the
p T. vin. p. 103.]

XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 245
people, the holy scriptures; which scriptures," says he, "are
read by all people:" whence it appears that none were prevent
ed from reading them. But why were the scriptures read by
all people ? 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 Homily 2 upon the Gospel of John, writes that
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: "Hence 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
by 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
by whom it was written, and through them the will of God, ac
cording to which we believe that such men as they were spoke3."
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
by the people; which is evident from the words, "reading 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 words : " The Hebrew books were
not only translated into the Greek language, but into the Ro
man tongue also, into the Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Armenian,
P Horn. 2. al. 1. T. vm. p. 10, b.]
P Ex quo factum est, ut scriptura divina (qua tantis morbis humanarum
voluntatum subvenitur), ab una lingua profecta, quse opportune potuit per
orbem terrarum disseminari, per varias interpretum linguas longe lateque
diffusa, innotesceret gentibus ad salutem: quam legentes nihil aliud appe-
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 day1."
Nothing could possibly be written more explicitly.
From what hath been said, it is evident that the scriptures
were formerly translated into the vulgar tongue; not only into
some certain languages, but into all promiscuously. Where
fore now, in like manner, they should be translated and read
vernacularly. Were 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: "Hear me, I beseech you,
all men of secular life. Procure for yourselves bibles, the medicines
of the soul. If ye 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
your balm, whether it be losses, or death, or domestic bereavement,
that hath befallen you. Nay, not only apply to it, but take it all
in and hold it in your mind. The one great cause of all evils is
ignorance of scripture," In the same place, he addresses fathers
of families thus : " You lay every thing on our shoulders : it were
fitting that you only should need to be instructed by us, and by
you your wives, and by you your children, should be taught2."
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 be understood in
the sense which the words seem to bear at first sight; for he
speaks with exaggerated emphasis. He only wishes by these
exhortations to take the people off from the games and spectacles
to which they were at that time wholly given up." To which I
might reply, that now also there are games and spectacles and
many other occasions by which the people are seduced from piety ;
P Kal j] 'Ejipaiav (jiavr) oi pdvov els tt)v r(3v 'EAX?Jv<»»> pcre/SXyBt), dXXd
koi eis ttjv rdv Papaiav Kal Alyvirriav Kal Hepcrdv Kal 'Ivhav Kal 'Appevlav
Km 'SiKvBav Kal Savpopardv, Kal o-vXXtjPStjv elireiv, els irdaas ras yXdrras ah
airavra ra eBvrj KexpT]pe'va hiareXet  GrKC. Affect. Curat, (ed. Sylburg. 1692.)
Serm. v. p. 81. 1. 14.]
P 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, you may take up the book
and weigh the whole matter ; and thus, by 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. And 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 you are at home, to betake your
selves assiduously to the perusal of the holy scriptures3." Then
he removes all the excuses which the people used to allege for
not reading the sacred scriptures, — not only that about the spec
tacles, but others much more reasonable, as the following: "I am
not a monk, but a layman ; I have a wife, and children, and a
family to mind, and am distracted by a multiplicity of avocations ;
this appertains to others and not to me." All these he removes,
and affirms more than once : " 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." He writes
to the same effect, Horn. 29 in Genes. ; Horn. 13 in Joan. ; Horn.
2 in Matt. ; 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 Exod.4, blames the people in many
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, says : " Would that we all did that which is written,
' Search the scriptures6'." He says all, not merely the learned, or
p T. i. p. 737. a. b.]
P p. 174. A. ed. Benedict.]
p Utinamque omnes faceremus illud quod scriptum est, Scrutamini scrip-
turas.— Opp. T. i. p. 639. Basil. 1536.]

248 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [dl.
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 day1." Writing to
the widow Salvina2, he exhorts her to be continually occupied with
pious reading. So also he exhorts a matron named Celancia3, to
make it "her chief care" to know the law of God. And 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 :
"You may see everywhere these doctrines of ours understood not
only by those who are masters in the church and teachers of the
people, but by the very cobblers and smiths, weavers and artisans
of every kind, yea, and by women too of all classes ; not alone
those, if there be such, who are acquainted with literature, but by
those who work for hire with their needles, by maid-servants and
nursery girls. Nor is it only the inhabitants of cities who know
these things, but the rustics have almost an equal acquaintance with
them; and you 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 were4." Thus Theodoret. But
P Nee licebat cuiquam sororum ignorare Psalmos, et non quotidie aliquid
de scripturis Sanctis discere. — Opp. p. 706. T. i.]
[2 T. i. p. 493.]
P T. i. p. 1089.]
[* Kal eo-riv Iheiv ravra elhdras rd hoypara, ov povovs ye ttjs iKKXr)crias
tovs hihao-KaXovs, dXXd Kal o-Kvroropovs, Kal xaAKOTwrovr, Kal TaXao-iovpyoiis,
Kai tovs aXXovs diroxeipofiidrovs- Kal yvvaiKas do-airas, oil pdvov rds \6yav
pereo-xiKvias, aXXd Kal xfP"'jrihas Kal aKeorplhas, Kal pevroi Kal Bepairalvas-
Kal ov pdvov aorol, dKXd Kal xapinxol rrjvhe ttjv yvao-iv eo-^Kacrf Kal eanv
evpelv Kal UKairaveas Kal fiorjXdras Kal (jyvrovpyoi/s irepi Ttjs Beias hiaXeyope-

XV-] QUESTION THE SECOND. 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 Legendo. " This profanation," says he, " rather than
translation of the scripture has brought us not only men belt-
makers, porters, bakers, tailors, cobblers ; but also female belt-
makers, sewers and stitchers, she-apostles, prophetesses, doe-
tresses6:" as if, forsooth, it were not lawful for women, in what
ever station of life, to understand the mysteries of religion. And
Alphonsus de Castro, de Just. Punit. Haret. Lib. in. c. 6, says
that the translation of the scriptures into the vulgar tongue is " the
cause of all heresies6 :" of course, because whatever displeases the
Roman pontiff is undoubtedly heretical. But Eusebius, Demonstr.
Evang. Lib. i. c. 6, passes a much sounder judgment upon this
matter, when he says : " The divine doctrines may be learned as
well by women as by men, by the poor as by the rich, by servants
as by masters7." Erasmus, a man of the greatest judgment and
extraordinary genius, affirms in many places, that it is necessary
that the scriptures should be translated and read by the people ;
and, when he was blamed on that account by the divines of Paris,
he defended himself against them not only by the precedent of the
ancient church, but by the necessity of the thing itself.
And let this suffice upon the first member of the second part of
this second question.
vovs Tpidhos, Kal irepi tt/s rdv oXav hrjpiovpytas, Kal ttjv dvBpaireiav <bvo-iv
elhoras 'ApicrroreXovs iroXXa paXXov Kal liXdravos. — p. 81. ed. Sylburg. 1592.
I have departed in one word from Sylburgius' orthography, writing diroxeipo-
/3«oTour for diroxeipofiioTovs. There are indeed some instances of dfiloros, but
Lobeck I think truly treats them as only a kind of a play upon ftioros, in
connexion with which they occur. — See Lobeck ad Phrynich. p. 713.]
p Profanatio hsec scripturse verius quam translatio non solum zonarios,
bovillos, pistores, sartores, sutores, verum etiam zonarias, bovillas, sartrices,
sutrices facit nobis apostolas, prophetissas, doctrices. — Opp. p. 745. Lugdun.
1563.] P The title of the chapter is De quinta causa hseresium, quse est Sacrse
Scripturse translatio in linguam vulgarem. Fol. 208. 2.- Salmant. 1547.]
p do-re roiavra pavBdvetv Kal qbiXoo-ocjieiv prj povov dvhpas dXXd Kal yv-
vaiKas, irXovo-tovs re Kal irevryras, Kal hovKovs dpa heo-irorais. — p. 24. D. ed.
Viger. Paris. 1628.]

250 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.

CHAPTER XVI.
STATE OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING PUBLIC PRAYERS AND
SACRED RITES IN THE VULGAR TONGUE.
We 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. The papists everywhere
make use of the Latin tongue in all their churches throughout all
nations : which practice, impious and absurd as it is, is yet con
firmed by the authority of the council of Trent, Sess. xxii. cap. 8 ;
where it is said " not to seem good to the fathers, that the mass
should everywhere be celebrated in the vulgar tongue." Now
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, fre
quently during the celebration of mass, either themselves or through
others, to expound some parts of what is read in the mass1." And
in canon ix. of that session, the council says : " If any affirm that
the mass should only be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, let him be
anathema2." Hosius also hath written a book 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. We, 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
P Etsi Missa magnam contineat populi fideUs eruditionem, non tamen
visum est patribus, ut vulgari passim lingua celebretur. Quamobrem, retento
ubique cujusque ecclesise antiquo, et a sancta Romana ecclesia, omnium
ecclesiarum matre 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 quse in missa leguntur, aUquid
exponant, atque inter cetera sanctissimi hujus sacrificii mysterium aUquod
declarent, diebus prsesertim dominicis et festis. — Sess. xxn. c. viii.]
P Si quis dixerit, ecclesise Romanse ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis
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.l

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? We 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 together : 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 XVII.
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, What 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 by the
Roman church. For my 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. The Latin, therefore, cannot contribute any
additional dignity to the scripture. Secondly, I deny that the
majesty of sacred things can be diminished by 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 by the apos'tles in all languages, even barbarous
ones : which they certainly never would have done, if they had
supposed that by 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
people ; and that they are profaned when they are translated into
the vulgar tongue, and so commonly published to everybody. This
he proves by the testimonies of certain fathers, as Dionysius the
Areopagite, Basil, and others. Nay, 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. Yea, on the contrary, Christ instituted such sacraments in
order to instruct us through our very senses : this was the end of
the institution itself. And, indeed, the whole significance of these
mysteries was of old quite familiarly known by the people; and
therefore the apostle, 1 Cor. x. 15, when about to enter upon a
discourse concerning the sacraments, addresses the Corinthians thus :
" I speak as to wise men ; judge ye what I say." Consequently
they were not ignorant of the sacraments ; for he calls them wise
men, and would have them judge of what he was about to say.
Nothing, indeed, could bear a more ludicrous and trifling appearance
than the sacraments, unless their design and reason were known.
For what advantage could a gentile, or any one unacquainted with
that sacrament, suppose to have accrued to an infant by merely
seeing it baptized? What advantage, in his opinion, would a
Christian receive by 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
people ; 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 Dionysius1, whose words are cited from the book of the Ecclesi-
P 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, d/ue9eKTa Kal dy^pavTa
tois aTeXeiTTois SiaTripelv, and lepols novois twv \epwv Kaivwvelv'
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 be cast to swine." Now, as to this Dionysius, I deny, in the
first place, that he is the Areopagite mentioned Acts xvii. 34. And
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 by 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. The sense of his words is, that holy things are not to be
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 word; because
heathen and impure men used to deride and despise the sacraments
much more than the preaching of the word. Now that this is the
meaning of Dionysius, his scholiast Maximus informs us ; whose
words are as follows: " It is not fit to reveal the holy things to the
profane, nor to fling pearls to swine2." But the laity ought not to
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. And
I make the same answer to the testimony of Basil, which is con
tained in his treatise, de Sp. S., Lib. n. c. 27 3. The people cer
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
P oil hei ra dyia to'is fiefiriXois iKfaiveiv, oiihe tovs papyapiras roXs x°'P°l*
piirreiv. This scholiast was Maximus the Confessor, who flourished about the
year 645.]
P a yap oiihe iiroirreveiv et-eari rois dpvrjrois, rovrav irds av tjv e'lKos ri)V
hihao-KaXlav Bpiapfievew iv ypdppao-iv. — Basil. Opp. T. II. p. 211. B. Which,
by the way, is a good instance of BpiapfSeva in the sense of openly displaying.
Cf. Col. ii. 15 ; 2 Cor. ii. 14. I observe another instance in Cabasilas, as
given in Jahn's Lerefruchte byzantinischer Theologie, in Ullman's Studien
und Krit. for 1843, part 3, p. 744, n. 62. hvoiv ovrav, a hijXov Ka6'io-n\o-i Kal
Bpiapftevei tov ipaorrjv.]

254 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
dogs. Chrysostom, Horn. 24, in Matt., and Gregory, Dial. Lib. iv.
c. 56, contain nothing pertinent to the present question.
The second argument "of our adversaries is grounded upon the
authority of scripture, namely, Levit. xvi. 17, 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. 10, where we read that the people
stood without, while Zacharias offered incense in the temple : 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 by
the priest to God.
I answer : That the conclusion does not follow from this precept
and example. For, in the first place, there was an express com
mandment of God 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 done ; since all the old types have been
done away. The 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 God for the church, although we do
not now see or hear him. I deny that this should now be imitated
by us ; 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 by 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.
For what if many are made worse? 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. When 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
why the offices of the church should not be performed in the Vul
gar tongue, because many are thereby rendered worse ; 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. For 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. The people, indeed, are not so super
stitious as they were formerly : they then feared everything with
a certain stupid superstition, which, it must be allowed, repressed,
however, many crimes. Yet they are now much more religious in
our churches. For they are deceived, who suppose that there is
any piety, or virtue, or religion, in blind ignorance or superstition.
And 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.
The fourth argument is that adduced by Harding1 in his third
article against Jewel, sect. 8. which stands thus : "A great part of
Asia Minor used only the Greek language in their service ; but
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. He con-
[l " The less Asia, being a principal part of the Greek Church, had then
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. ra. §. 8. p. 272. ut supra.]

256 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
firms it, indeed, by a twofold testimony. The first is taken from
Acts xiv. 11, where, when Paul had healed a man who was lame
from Ids mother's womb, the people are said to have lifted up their
voice AvKaovia-Tl, "in the speech of Lycaonia," and to have said,
" The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men." Hence
he collects that the whole people of Asia Minor did not understand
Greek, since the people of Lystra and Derbe, which were two
cities of Asia Minor, did not speak in Greek but in Lycaonian. I
answer ; the Lycaonian tongue was not a different language from
the Greek1, but only a different dialect. For Paul did not preach
the gospel to that people in Lycaonian, but in Greek ; while yet
the people doubtless understood what he said, as is manifest from
the instance of the lame man who was cured and converted by
Paul. If Paul had spoken in Lycaonian, and not in Greek, why
does Luke write particularly that they uttered this exclamation "in
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 Lycaonia2,
wrote in Greek, some fragments of whom are extant to this day.
The second testimony by which he confirms his minor, is
taken from the second chapter of the Acts, where Cappadocia,
Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, 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
Jews ; yet not so as to be another language, but only another dia
lect. For the maid-servant doubtless understood Peter, who was
of Galilee, when she said, "Thy speech bewrayeth thee." So a
Cappadocian could understand a Phrygian speaking, a Pamphylian
[i We 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
Grcecis orta Wittenberg, 1726, in which he contends that the Lycaonian was
derived from the Greek. See Kuinoel upon Acts xiv. 11.]
P i.e. Bishop of Iconium, the capital of Lycaonia. He flourished A. D.
370. The principal fragments that go under his name were published by
Combefls, 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. Now 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 Colossse, Were cities of Asia Minor. There
fore either all Asia, or a great part of this Asia, understood Greek :
otherwise Paul would never have written to them in Greek.
Besides, the same is evident from Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna,
Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, Basil, bishop of Caesarea 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 Greek3- The 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 language? Hence their argument is inconsequential in
every possible way of considering it.
The fifth argument, which some at least advance, is of this
kind : Three languages were hallowed upon the cross : therefore
we ought to use only these languages in the public offices of the
church. And Bellarmine says that we 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 use ; 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. Lib. i. Qusest. 4, says that these three languages
" were the representatives of all languages4," because the number
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. The 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.
P Excepto sermone Grseco, quo omnis oriens loquitur. T. iv. p. 1. 255.]
P Et tribus prsecipuis Unguis omnium Unguarum vices gerentibus, ex
ipsius etiam trinarii omnia complectentis perfectione, scribere disposuit.
Jentacida Novi Testamenti. 27. 2. Paris. 1536.]

r i 17
[whitaker.]

258 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
CHAPTER XVIII.
OUR ARGUMENTS, WHEREBY WE PROVE THAT THE OFFICES OF THE
CHURCH SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN THE VERNACULAR LAN
GUAGE OF EVERY PEOPLE.
Let us now proceed to the establishment of our own opinion,
whither all those arguments which we used in the former part may
be referred. For 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. xiv. : 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. And the whole chapter is spent
upon this subject. Whence it evidently appears that the popish
opinion is repugnant to apostolical teaching. We reason thus from
that chapter against the papists: If 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. For who
would have been mad enough to deliver an harangue to the people
in an unknown tongue ? Who could so much as have hoped that
the people would be sufficiently attentive to hear with patience and
civility a man uttering, by the space of an hour or more, words
which they did not understand ? We 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
29, " Let the prophets speak (XaXeiTaiuav) by two or three, and
the rest judge :" but that this is his whole subject, upon which he
is entirely engaged throughout that chapter, I deny. For how are
we to understand what is said ver. 14, " If I pray in an unknown
tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful?"
Besides he speaks of services to which the people answer Amen,
Now the people use not to do this to sermons. He mentions also
giving of thanks and praising God. Nay, 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, Hard
ing, Art. iii. Sect. 18 *, allows that it was needful in the primitive
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. They 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. They prove this from those words of the apostle,
at verse 16, " If 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 Se
nensis, Bibliothec. Lib. vi. Annot. 263.
I answer : In the first place, the Latin vulgate version is false
and foolish, and does not agree with the Greek text. For toVos
never means the person of those represented ; and dvairXnpovv is
to fill, not to supply. So that the meaning is not, " he who supr
plies the place of the people," as the old Latin edition renders it ;
but, "he who occupies the room, and sits amongst the Iaity,'% —
that is, he who is himself a layman and one of the common people.
For formerly the minister did not sit promiscuously with the
P 18 is a misprint for 28. yarding's words are: "But St Paul, say they,
requireth that the people give assent and conform themselves unto tho
priest, by answering amen to his prayer made in the congregation. Verily,
in the primitive church this was necessary, when the faith was a-learning."
Ap. Jewel, p. 317, ut supra.]
17—?

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 by the phrase, dvairXri-
povv tov toitov toV ISiwtov. And thus it is that Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and CEcumenius interpret this place. CEcumenius
says that he fills the place of the unlearned, who els iSiwTnv TeXel,
is ranked as an unlearned person; and immediately subjoins,
" he calls him unlearned who is ranged in the rank of laymen1."
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 com
mentary on the Galatians: "The whole church," says he, "re
plies with a thundering Amen2." 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
body else published under his name3. So Cyprian, in his discourse
upon the Lord's prayer : " When the minister," says he, " hath
said, ' Lift up your heart,' the whole people answer, ' We lift them
up unto the Lord4.' " But most plainly of all Justin Martyr, in his
Second Apology for the Christians: 7ms b Xabs eirevcprifie'l'Aiu.riv5'
" the whole people reply in token of assent, Amen." 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. They 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. iii. 16, where the apostle bids the Christians to whom he
[1 Ihidrnv Xeyei rbv ev ra XaiKa rdypari reraypevov. — T. I. p. 560. Com-
mentt. in N. T. Paris. 1631.]
P Tota ecclesia instar tonitrui reboat Amen, ut supra.]
P See the excellent remarks of "the ever-memorable" Hales, at the end
of the article Chrysostom, in Cave's Historia Literaria.]
P Ideo et sacerdos ante orationem prsefatione prsemissa parat fratrum
mentes dicendo, Sursum corda ; ut dum respondet plebs, Habemus ad Domi-
num, &c. p. 152, ed. Fell. Amstel. 1691.]
P p. 98. E. Opp. Colon. 16S6, or Paris, 1636.]

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 Lord;"
and that such songs are spoken of in this chapter, ver. 26, where
the apostle says, " when ye come together," e/cao-Tos v/xwv ^aXfibv
ey_ei, " each of you 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 Apology, c. 39 6, and also
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 by
all, and no strange tongue; which Paul must have remembered
very well.
I answer : The 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. For
he expressly mentions prayers, ver. 14, edv irpoo-evyw/iai Trj
yXwo-ov, " If I pray in an unknown tongue." And 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. He 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. And
the first ground is this : an unknown tongue is useless ; therefore
it ought not to be used in the church. The antecedent is proved,
verse 2, where he says, " He that speaketh in an unknown tongue
speaketh not to men, but to God ; for no man understandeth him :
howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries." 'O XaXwv yXwaari,
" he that speaketh in a tongue," that is, an unknown tongue, says
Thomas Aquinasr; " for no man heareth," that is, no one under
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 I should come to you speaking
with tongues" (though innumerable), "what shall I profit you?" — as
much as to say, you will derive no advantage whatever from my
discourse. And, verse 9, he says, edv jur) evar^ov Xoyov SwTe,
" unless ye utter with the tongue words easy to be understood, how
P Post aquam manualem et lumina, ut quisque de Scripturis Sanctis vel
de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo canere. — Apolog. c. 39.
p. 112. Opp. Tertull. Part 1. ed. Leopold. Lipsise. 1839.]
p Comment, in loc]

262 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
shall it be understood what is spoken ?" eaeaQe yap els depa
XaXovvTes, " for ye shall .be as if speaking into the ah-." ^ 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 very 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, " What shall I profit you?" — as if he had said, I cannot be
any way of use to you. So CEcumenius interprets those words,
ovk eaop.ai v/uTiv eirwfeXrjs. And " ye shall be speaking into the
air," that is, fruitlessly and in vain: for so CEcumenius, ixaTnv
Kal dvw(peXa>s. So also Chrysostom, in his 35th Homily upon
this chapter : " Ye depart," says he, " ovSev KepSdvavTes, deriving
no advantage from a sound which ye do not understand1." But let
us hear how 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 pray to the people, but to God
for the people. Therefore, it is not necessary that the people
should understand what he says, but it is sufficient that God him
self understands him. Now he understands all languages. This
he illustrates by 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 seeks ; so
it is not requisite that the people should understand those prayers
which the minister presents to God 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 God for the people;
therefore it is not necessary that the people should understand what
the minister prays. For the minister is, as it were, the people's
mouth. He prays, indeed, to God, but yet for the people ; and
although the people remain silent in their lips, while the minister
prays, yet meanwhile they follow him, as he prays, in their hearts,
and respond at the close, Amen ; by which expression they shew
[1 O he Xeyct rovrd io~Tiv .... yXarrav dv aKovtravres ovhev Kephdvavres aire-
Xevo-eo-Be. irds yap dirb q^avrjs, rjs oil o-vvlere ; — 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 Ducseus, 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 pray for the people to God
in their absence. But prayers are public, that is, prayers of the
whole church. We see, therefore, that it is a foolish comparison
which the Jesuit uses. For 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. What 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 prayers : " If I should pray," says he,
" in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is un
fruitful." And it is plain that he there speaks of public prayers ;
first, because, verse 19, he says, ev t»J eKKXr/ala, 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 16 ;
which is only done when the people are assembled together in
one place. Therefore, unless the prayer be understood, the un
derstanding will be aKapiros, unfruitful; that is, no advantage
will accrue to the church from the conceptions of your under
standing. The Jesuit and the papists give a wrong and foolish
interpretation of that whole fourteenth verse, to this effect : " If
I pray in a tongue, my mind or my understanding is not in
structed, because indeed it does not understand what I say : but
meanwhile my spirit, that is, my affections," — so they expound
it, — "are edified." For example, says Bellarmine, if one were to
recite the seven psalms, and not to understand what he was
reciting, his understanding is not improved, yet his affections mean
while are improved. The sum, therefore, of this interpretation ia
this : if I pray in an unknown tongue, although I do not under
stand the words, yet my 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. [CH.
not assisted by 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 prayer; why
does he not use a language with which he is acquainted, that he
may 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. Why then do they not pray in a known tongue ?
For prayers should be made in that manner in which they are
likely to be most useful to us. Now that prayers, when under
stood, are more useful than prayers not understood, the Jesuit con
cedes ; and so does Harding, as may be seen, Art. in. Sect. 29. l
And De Lyra also, upon 1 Cor. xiv., says that the people, if they
understand the prayer of the priest, are " better brought to God,
and answer Amen with more devotion." If this be, as indeed it is,
most true, we see that there are very just reasons why the people
should understand their prayers : and yet Stapleton was not ashamed
in his English book against the very learned Jewel to say, Art. in.
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 ? Who 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?
Whence CEcumenius upon this chapter distinctly affirms prayer to be
a kind of speech : irpocrevyfj, says he, gotiv elSbs ti to6 Xoyov'
and he interprets verse 14 thus : If I speak anything necessary
and good, and expound it not to my audience, my spirit prays, —
that is, I myself derive some advantage ; but my understanding is
unfruitful, that is, the conceptions of my 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, " My 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 : tovto irepl twv ev
yXwcxcrn ayvoovp.evr) tois aKovovui Tas irpouevyds dvaireuirbvTaiv.
oTav yap ayvwaTa r\ tois irapovai Ta pr/fiaTa Trjs irpotrevyrjs,
P " 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
aKapiros etjTiv o vovs tov irpoaevyopevov /nr/Sevbs cofpeXov/xivov2.
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. xn. c. 8. " No one,"
says he, " is edified by hearing what he does not understand3."
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 answer : 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, yet they were not wholly ignorant of them ; and there
were Levites from whom they could easily learn the whole design
of their ceremonies, so as to understand it.
The Jesuit's second objection is taken from Augustine, de
Baptism, contra Donat. Lib. vi. c. 25 *, 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 rightly : 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 Rome is wont
to use ; 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 by those who use
the prayers. This, he says, will be no way prejudicial to them,
provided their intentions be pure ; because, as he expresses it,
"the affection of the suppliant overcomes the fault of the prayer5."
But what is this to the present question ?
P p. 641. B. T. n. Opp. Paris. 1618.]
p Nemo sediflcatur audiendo quod non intelligit. T. in. p. 302.]
p Augustin. Opp. T. ix. p. 176.]
p Quia plerumque precis vitium superat affectus precantis.]

266 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
The third objection of the Jesuit is taken from Origen's
twentieth Homily upon Joshua: "We often, indeed, do not un
derstand what we utter, yet the Virtues understand it1." So,
says the Jesuit, though the people do not understand the prayers
which the priest utters, yet the Virtues understand them. I an
swer : Origen, in that place, does not speak of prayers, but of the
reading of the scriptures ; where he meets an objection which the
laity are accustomed to make : the scriptures are difficult, and
transcend our comprehension ; therefore we need not read them.
Now, although (says Origen) we often do not understand what
we read, yet the Virtues understand it.
The Jesuit's fourth objection is to this effect : If the people
should use no prayers which they do not understand, then they
should never recite the Psalms and the Prophets. I answer : The
case of scripture is different from that of prayer. We must peruse
the whole scripture, although we are not masters of its meaning, in
order that we may, in the first place, understand the words, and
then from the words be able to proceed to the sense. But we
should only pray what we know ; because prayer is a colloquy with
God, and springs from our understanding. For we ought to know
what we say, and not merely, as the Jesuit pretends, know that
what we do appertains to the honour of God. Secondly, the
reason why we understand so little when we read, is to be found
in our own fault, and not in any obscurity of scripture.
The Jesuit's fifth and last objection is taken from St Antony,
as reported by Cassian, who says that prayer is then perfect when
the mind is so affected, while we pray, as not itself to understand
its own words. I answer : I wonder how this, be it what it may,
can be made to serve the cause in hand. For Antony does not
say that we should pray in an unknown tongue ; but that, when
we pray, we 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. If the feelings
[i The Greek is preserved in the PhilocaUa, c. 12, p. 40, ed. Spencer.
Elo~l yap rives hvvdptis iv rjpiv, av at pev Kpetrroves hid roiirav Tav otovet iirahdv
rpe(j)ovrai, a-vyyeveis ova-at avrais, Kal, rjpav prj voovvrav, ixeivas rds hvvdpeis,
vooiicras rd Xeydpeva, hvvararepas iv r/piv yiveo-Bai. 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 Holy 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. The second general argument of the apostle is taken from those
words which are contained in ver. 11 : "If 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 me." Therefore, if the
minister shall pray in an unknown tongue, he and the congregation
shall be barbarians to each other. Now this should not be in the
church, that the minister should be a barbarian to the people, or
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. They 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 by 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. For 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 judge of it. The poet Ovid, when
banished to Pontus, says of himself, Trist. Lib. v. Eleg. II2:
Barbarus hie ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli.
Anacharsis, when an Athenian reproachfully called him a barbarian,
is said to have replied : " And ye Athenians are barbarians to the
Scythians :" e/uol irdvTes ''EXXr/ves crKv9i<£ovtri. 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 barbarian3."
Though men were to talk Attic, yet Anacharsis truly pronounces
P Trist. Lib. v. Eleg. x. 36.]
P Tovro yap drexvds eotKt rois eipijpevois virb tov yperepov o-Kuroropov • 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 deaf1." If deaf, then certainly it is
not too much to say barbarians. Chrysostom interprets this pas
sage in precisely the same way, and says that the word barbarian
is used "not in reference to the nature of the speech, but with
reference to our ignorance2." And so also CEcumenius. But, to
silence our Rhemists with the testimony of papists, Catharinus writes
thus upon the place : " He 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 auditor3." Then he produces the
verse of Ovid which we cited just now. He determines, therefore,
that the popish priests are barbarians to the people, however they
speak Latin. How 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. Now 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. 40, should be done in the church "decently and in
order," /caret Ta^iv. Now it is most grossly repugnant to good
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 ones : for the people, since they do
not understand the liturgy, do not pray publicly ; and, consequently,
the minister must needs pray alone by himself. For it does not
presently follow that prayers are public, because they are made in
a public place ; but those are public, which are made by the united
desires and wills of the whole church. Hence the minister should
p Omnesque itidom nos in iis Unguis quas non intelligimus surdi pro-
fecto sumus. — c. xi. 1. Opp. Ciceron. T. vm. p. 559. ed. Lallemand. Paris-
1768. Barbou.]
P Oi irapa rr)v (bvo-tv rijs (j>avijs dXXd irapa rrjv rjperepav ayvolav. T. VI. p. 477.]
p Barbarus hoc in loco is dicitur, qui linguse differt varietate, ut non
intelligatur : quilibet enim qui non intolligitur 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 : The 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. Why 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 errors ; yet
neither more nor greater than in the church of Rome. These
churches are condemned by the papists, because they will not
submit to the Roman pontiff, or hold any such communion with
him. They 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. The same is the case of the Indians, as
Eckius testifies in his common places : " We deny not that it is
permitted to the southern Indians to perform divine service in
their own language; which custom their clergy still observe4."
Our fourth argument stands thus : JEneas 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 service6. I ask, therefore, why the same might not be
allowed to other churches? or why other churches should not do
that which they know to be advantageous to them ? The 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
P Non negamus Indis australibus permissum ut in lingua sua rem divi-
nam facerent, quod clerus eorum hodie observat. c. xxxiv. Colon. 1532.]
p Referunt Cyrillum, cum Romse ageret, Romano pontifici supplicasse ut
Sclavorum lingua ejus gentis hominibus, quam baptizaverat, rem divinam
faciens uti posset. De qua re dum in sacro senatu disputaretur, essentque
non pauci contradictores, auditam vocem tanquam de coelo in hsec verba
missam : " Omnis spiritus laudet Domiuum, 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 tongue; 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 good reason, there can be no just cause for
performing them in the vernacular. What 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. 123) x orders that the minister
in the church should pronounce every thing with a clear voice, in
order that the people may hear and answer Amen. Harding2,
Art. in. Sect. 14, 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 score ; 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 answer : 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 Rome also, as is manifest
from that same chapter : " We order, therefore, the most blessed
archbishops and patriarchs, that is to say, of old Rome and of Con
stantinople3 :" where expressly and by name he prescribes rules to
the bishop of Rome. 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. And Gregory 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 Ep. 63, to the
clergy of the church of Neocassaraea, writes thus : " As the day
dawns, all together, as with one voice and one heart, offer a Psalm
of confession to the Lord, and each in his own words professes re
pentance." And lest any should suppose that this was spoken only
of the Greeks, he subjoins : " These constitutions are observed with
one accord by all the churches of God." There follows also in the
same place : " If on account of these you fly from us, you must fly
also the Egyptians, either Lybia, 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.]
P Ap. Jewel, p. 284, ut supra.]
P KeXevopev roivvv roiis paKapiardrovs dpxieirio-Kdirovs Kal irarpiapxat, rov-
reari ttjs irpeo-^vrepas 'Pdprjs Kal KavoravTivovirSXeas.]

XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 271
upon the Euphrates ; in a word, all who have any value for watch
ing, and prayer, and common psalmody;" irap' oh dypvirvlai,
Kai irpovevyal, Kal a\ Koival \jsaXpiwS'iai TeTifxr\VTai*. To the
same effect it is that this same Basil (Horn. 4. in Hexaem. at the
end) compares the church to the sea : for as (says he) the waves
roar when driven upon the coast, so the church " sends forth the
mingled sound of men and women and children in prayer to God5."
We perceive, therefore, that it was the custom of the primitive
church for the whole people to combine their desires and assent
with the prayers of 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 their own indefinite private
prayers to themselves. Ambrose hath a similar sentence, Hexaem.
Lib. in.6 Augustine, in his book de Magistro, c. 1, says that we
should pray with the heart, because the sacrifice of righteousness
is offered " in the temple of the mind and in the chambers of the
heart. Wherefore," says he, " there is no need of speeeh, that is,
of audible words, when we pray, unless, as in the case of the
priests, for the sake of denoting what we mean7." But why then
must we speak ? Augustine answers, " not that God, but that
p 'Upepas 17817 virdXapirovcrijs, iravres Koivfj, as i£ evbs crrdparos Kal pias
Kaphias, rbv ttjs i£opoXoyfjo-eas TJtaXpbv dva<j>ipovo-i rip Kvpia, ihia eavrdv
eKao'Tos rd prjpara rf/s peravoias iroiovpevoi . . . iirl rovrois Xotirbv el -rjpas diro-
ifievyere, <jiev£eo-6e pev Aiyvirrtovs, <fiev£eo-Be he Kal Aiftvas apiborepovs, Qij^alovs,
ILdXaioTtvovs, Apafias, &oivtKas, Svpovs, Kal roils irpbs ra Eicbparei KaraKi-
o-pevovs, Kal irdvras dirat-aifXas k.t.X. — Basil. Opp. Paris. 1618. T. n. p. 844. A.
The clause, ihia eavrdv, &c, should rather be rendered, " each making the
words of repentance his own:" but in the text the common Latin version
quoted by Whitaker iB foUowed, "Suis quisque verbis resipiscentiam pro-
fitetur."] P el he BdXao-tra koXt) Kal iiraiverr) t$ Bed, irds oir/(\ KoXXlav ckkX^uios
TotavrT]s o-vXXoyos, iv fj o-vpptyfjs VX0S> °*°v Tlv°s Kvparos rjiovi irpocr<f)epopevov,
dvhpdv Kal yvvatKav Kal vrjiriav Kara rds irpbs Oebv ¦qpdv heTjaeis iKirepirerai ;
— Ibid. T. I. p. 53. D.]
p Quid aUud ille concentus undarum, nisi quidam concentus est plebis ?
Unde bene mari plerumque comparatur ecclesia, quse primo ingredientis
popuU totis vestibuUs undas vomit; deinde, in oratione totius plebis tan
quam undis refluentibus stridet, cum responsoriis psalmorum, cantus viro-
rum, muUerum, virginum, parvulorum, consonas undarum fragor resultat.
— Hexaem. in. cap. v. § 23. Opp. Ambros. Paris. 1836. Pars I, p. 97.]
p Quare non opus est locutione cum oramus, id est, sonantibus verbis,
nisi forte sicut sacerdotes faciunt, significandse mentis suae causa. — T. I.
col. 542.]

272 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
men may hear us." But why ought men to hear us ? " In order,"
says Augustine, " that they, being moved to consent by our sug
gestion, may have their minds fixed upon God." But the people
cannot be thus fixed upon God by the suggestion of the priest, un
less they understand what is suggested by the priest. This consent
depends upon the suggestion; but a suggestion without being un
derstood is vain and futile. The same Augustine writes thus, in
his second exposition of Psalm xviii. : " Since we have prayed the
Lord 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. For blackbirds," says he, "and parrots, and crows and
magpies, and such like birds, are frequently taught by men to
utter sounds which they do not understand. But to sing with
the understanding is granted by the divine will, not to birds, but
to men1." 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 Rome) 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
prayers ; which we see taking place everywhere in the popish sy
nagogues. And the same Augustine, upon Psalm lxxxix. : " Blessed
is the people which understand the joyful sound. Let us hasten
to this blessedness ; let us understand the joyful sound, and not
pour it forth without understanding."
Chrysostom, in his 35th Horn, upon 1 Corinthians, says,
that he who speaks in an unknown tongue is not only "useless
(dy^prio-Tos) and a barbarian2" to others, but even to himself, if he
do not understand what he says ; and that if he understand it, but
others not, small fruit can be gained by the rest from his words.
p Deprecati Dominum ut ab occultis mundet nos, et ab aUenis parcat
servis suis, quid hoc sit intelUgere debemus, ut humana ratione, non quasi
avium voce, cantemus. Nam et meruli et psittaci et corvi et picse et hujus-
modi volucres ssepe ab hominibus docentur sonare quod nesciunt. Scientes
autem cantare non avi, sed homini, divina voluntate concessa est. — T. iv.
c. 8. The reference is to the vulgate version of Psal. xix. 12, 13. Ab oc
cultis meis munda me, et ab alienis parce servo tuo : which follows the LXX.
dirb dXXorpiav (beio-at toO hoiXov o-ov. They read D'H-JD for D'H-fO.]
P Tom. x. p. 323.]

XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 273
Ambrose says upon 1 Cor. xiv. : " If ye come together for the
edification of the church, the things spoken should be such as the
auditors may understand3." Jerome upon 1 Cor. xiv. says : " Every
speech is deemed barbarous that is not understood." The 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
xlvi. : " When we raise a psalm, we should not only sing, but
understand it. For no one can do that wisely which he does not
understand4." Isidore of Seville, de Eccles. Offic. Lib. i. c. 10 :
" It is fitting that when the psalms are sung, they should be sung
by all ; when prayers are made, they should be made by all ; when
the lesson is read, all keeping silence, it should equally be heard
by all5." The fathers of the council of Aix, c. 132, say that, of
those who sing in the church " the mind should be in concord with
the voice;" and, in the following chapter, that such should read,
chant, and sing in the church, " as by the sweetness of their reading
and melody may both charm the learned and instruct the illi
terate6." Jacobus Faber, in his Commentary upon 1 Cor. xiv.,
hath these words : " The greatest part of the world now, when
they pray, I know not whether they pray with the spirit, but
they certainly do not with the understanding ; for they pray in a
tongue which they do not understand. Yet 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 by the prayer, and cannot edify others at all
by their speech7." And Cardinal Cajetan, as in many other things
P Si utique ad sedificandum ecclesiam convenitis, ea dici debent quse
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.]
p Oportet ut quando psallitur, psallatur ab omnibus ; cum oratur, oretur
ab omnibus; quando lectio legitur, facto silentio seque audiatur ab om
nibus. — Opp. p. 393. Col. Agr. 1617.]
[6 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 maxime
Paulus probat ut fideles pariter spiritu orent, et mente : et qui sic ut passim
r i 18
LWHITAKER.J

274 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH. 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. For thus he speaks: "From
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 Latin1." Here Catha
rinus2 could not restrain himself from pouring forth many insults
upon his own cardinal ; and he maintains that this is an invention of
Luther's, or rather of the devil speaking in Luther2 : which yet is
plainly a doctrine and precept of the apostles, in spite of the blas
phemies of this foul papist. Nicolas de Lyra, in his Postil upon
1 Cor. xiv., writes frankly thus : " But if the people understand
the prayer or benediction of the priest, they are better turned
towards God, and more devoutly answer, Amen." And presently
he subjoins: "What 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, by an
swering, Amen. On which account in the primitive church the
benedictions and other common offices were performed in the vulgar
tongue3." And so we have arrived at the conclusion of the Second
Question.
Solent orant, parum se oratione sedificant, et aUos nequaquam sua sermone
edificare valent.— Fol. 101. Paris. 1517.]
[i Ex hac PauU doctrina habetur, quod melius ad ecclesise sedificationem
est orationes pubUcas, quse audiente populo dicuntur, dici Ungua communi
clericis et populo, quam dici Latine. — Fol. 158. 2. Paris. 1571.]
P Quse primo a Luthero, imo a diabolo in Luthero loquente, inventa est.
— p. 57. Catharin. Annotat. in Cajet. Comm. Lugd. 1542.]
P Quod si populus intelligit orationem seu benedictionem sacerdotis,
melius reducitur in Deum, et devotius respondet Amen  Quid proficit
populus simplex et non inteUigens? Quasi dicat, nihil, aut modicum;
quod nescit se conformare tibi, qui es minister ecclesise, respondendo Amen.
Propter quod in primitiva ecclesia benedictiones et cetera communia fiebant
in vulgari. — p. 55. 2. Biblia cum gloss, ord. et post. Lyr. T. vi. Venet. 1588.]

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. 39, epeware Tas ypafpds,
" 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. The 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. The 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
case ; for the council of Trent hath made no decree or definition
upon this question. The opinion of the papists must, therefore, be
discovered from their books. The 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 by 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 by the
authority of the church1." And that this answer is wonderfully
acceptable to the papists appears from the marginal note, where
this argument is styled " Achilles pro Catholicis." How well this
reason deserves to be considered Achillean, will appear hereafter.
The same author places this assertion amongst heretical proposi
tions, " The 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, " The
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 church ; and affirms that the whole authority
of 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 by its testimony. His express
words are these : " All the authority which the scripture now hath
with us, depends necessarily upon the authority of the church2."
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. And he
pursues this discourse to a great length. One Hermann, a most
impudent papist, affirms that the scriptures are of no more avail
than JEsop's fables, apart from the testimony of the church3. As
suredly this assertion is at once impudent and blasphemous. Yet,
P c. 1. p. 6. Antwerp. 1533.]
P Omnis quse nunc apud nos est scripturarum auctoritas ab ecclesise
auctoritate dependet necessario. — Pigh. Hierar. Eccles. Assertio. p. 17. Col.
Agr. 1572.]
P Casaubon, Exercit. Baron. I. xxxiii. had, but doubtfully, attributed
this to Pighius : but in a MS. note preserved in Primate Marsh's library, at
St Sepulchre's, Dublin, he corrects himself thus : " Non est hie, sed quidam
Hermannus, ait Wittakerus in Prsefat. Controvers. 1. Qusest. 3. p. 314."
If a new edition of those Exercitations be ever printed, let not these MSS.-
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 by Brentius in the Wittemberg Con
fession, it was defended as a pious speech by Hosius, de Authorit.
Script. Lib. in. : 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 very
slight weight with us4." From this every one must see that the
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. Cochlseus, in his Reply to Bullinger, chap.
2, avails himself of a distinction. He says that the scriptures
are indeed in themselves firm, clear, perfect, and most worthy
of all credit, as the work of God; but that, with regard to us,
they need the approval and commendation of the church, on ac
count of the depravity of our minds and the weakness of our
understandings. And this he confirms by 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 sun5." So Canus,
in his Common Places, Lib. n. c. 8, says that we cannot be certain
that the scriptures come from God, but by 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. For (says
he) the scriptures are in themselves worthy of all reverence, but,
with regard to us, they would not by 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
P Revera nisi nos ecclesise doceret auctoritas hanc scripturam esse ca-
nonicam, perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet. — p. 269. Opp. Antw. 1571.]
P aoirep yap Kal ra tow WKrep'ihav oppara irpbs to obeyyos exet to peff
fipepav, ovra Kal ttjs rjperepas fax^s 6 vovs irpbs ra rfj obvo-ei qbaveparara
irdvrav. — Metaphys. Lib. n. c. 1. Opp. T. II. p. 856, b. Paris. 1619.]

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 be received into the canon; since
that sacred scripture, to which divine reverence is due, is to be
found only in the canonical books ? The papists affirm the latter
opinion ; therefore, also the first. The 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 church ; and that, when it
is said that the church approves them, it is only meant that it de
clares these scriptures to be canonical. To the same effect Andra
dius also writes, Defens. Trid. Con. Lib. in., that the church does
not give to scripture its authority, but only declares to us how
great its authority is in itself. This opinion might appear tolerable,
— that scripture is in itself a sacred and divine thing, but is not
recognised as such by us, except upon the testimony of the church.
But in the second book the same author speaks much more per
versely : " Nor is there in the books themselves, wherein the sacred
mysteries are written, any divinity to compel us by a sort of re
ligious awe to believe what they contain; but the efficacy an.d
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. 16, says that the
authority of the church is necessary to us, firstly, in order that
" we may certainly distinguish the true and canonical scriptures
from the spurious2." They mean, then, that the scripture depends
upon the church, not in itself, but in respect of us.
And now we are well nigh in possession of the true state of
the question, which is itself no slight advantage : for they speak in
so perplexed, obscure, and ambiguous a manner, that one cannot
easily understand what it is they mean. Now these assertions
might seem not to deserve any severe reprehension, — that 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.
P Neque enim in ipsis libris, quibus sacra mysteria scripta sunt, quic-
quam inest divinitatis, quse nos ad credendum quse illis continentur religione
aliqua constringat : sed ecclesise, qute 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.]
P Opus Catech. p. 156. Colon. 1577.]

I-] QUESTION THE THIRD. 279
Meanwhile let us see what they mean by this word, the "church."
Now, 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 by Canus, Loc. Comm. Lib. n.
c. 8, and also by Stapleton, Doctrin. Princip. Lib. ix. c. 12, 13),
but the succeeding, and therefore the present church ; yet not the
whole people, but the pastors only. Canus, when he handles this
question, understands by the church sometimes the pastors, some
times councils, sometimes the Roman pontiff. Stapleton, Lib. ix.
c. 1, applies this distinction : The church, as that term denotes the
rulers and pastors of the faithful people, not only reveres the scrip
ture, but also by its testimony commends, delivers down, and con
signs it, that is to say, with reference to the people subject to
them : 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 "does 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 by the term the church, and
how they determine that the scripture is consigned and approved
by the church.
We will now briefly explain our own opinion upon this matter.
It does not appear to be a great controversy, and yet 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 members ; and we say that this testi
mony is true, and should be received by all. We 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 by the church.
For 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 Holy Spirit, without
which the commendation of the church would have with us no
weight or moment. The papists, therefore, are unjust to us, when
they affirm that we reject and make no account of the authority of
the church. For 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 avToiritjTos, 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 God ; and that
we certainly know that it comes from God, not by the church, but by
the Holy Ghost. Now by the church we understand not, as they do,
the pastors, bishops, councils, pope ; but the whole multitude of the
faithful. For this whole multitude hath learned from the Holy Spirit
that this scripture is sacred, that these books are divine. This per
suasion the Holy Spirit hath sealed in the minds of all the faithful.
The state of the controversy, therefore, is this : 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 Holy Spirit ; 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.
It 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. He, Doctr. Princip. Lib. ix. cap. 2, makes use of a
distinction which he hath taken from Cochlseus. He 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 by the church, or whether it be not
received." For though, says he, the church can never reject the
scripture, because it comes from God ; 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.
He who does not receive God rejects him ; and so the church
plainly rejected those scriptures which formerly it did not receive.
For 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 books ; and he shews that some doctrines are now received by
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 by the ancient church in the times
of the apostles ; so that all those churches must have erred which
formerly did not receive the same. He 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 pro
cession of the Holy Ghost, of the creation of souls immediately by
God, of the unlawfulness of repeating heretical baptism : but I
,k affirm once more, that all these doctrines had whatever force they
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 neces'sary. Everything that Stapleton adduces, in order to
shew that those books which were formerly not received by the
church, ought now to be received solely on account of the external
testimony of the church, may be reduced to the argument stated
above. He 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 be believed as true. Mark ye. The 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, yet they would
not have seemed true to us, they would not have been believed, or
(to use Stapleton's expression) received by us, unless on account of
the church's approbation. This is the whole mystery of iniquity.
We determine far otherwise, and with far greater truth: for we
resolutely deny that we are indebted to the church for this — that the
scriptures are true even in respect to us; but we say that our

282 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
belief of their truth is produced by the testimony and suggestion
of the Holy Spirit. It was Cochlseus 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
may seem incredible to man, and to which he maintains that human
frailty could not assent, if they were not confirmed by 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. For he says that the land of
Judaaa could never have nourished and supported such a vast
number of men ; 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 Judsea. How, 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 poets?
"For what fable of the poets" (these are his words) "ever ascribed
such a number of warriors to one people, and that not the whole
of the people1?" He brings in also the number of talents which
David is said to have left to his son Solomon for the building of
the temple. For this, he maintains, may deservedly seem incredible,
inasmuch as David was very poor ; 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 Alex
ander, nor Augustus, ever possessed? He 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. At 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? What 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 sea ; of the manna ; of
the quails by which the people of Israel were fed in the desert so
P Quse enim fabula poetarum uni populo nee toti tantum numerum
ascripsit fortium virorum ?]

Ir-] QUESTION THE THIRD. 283
richly ; of all Christ's miracles ? What 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 Cochteus and a Stapleton ! We 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 Holy 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 deny : yet 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 be written by men. Now we
confess that the church commends the scripture by its testimony,
and that this is the illustrious office of the church ; but it is a very
different matter to say that we could not otherwise believe the
scriptures, unless on account of this judgment and testimony of the
church. We concede the former ; the latter we resolutely deny,
and that with the greatest detestation.
You have heard how much these men attribute to the church.
It follows now that we consider how much ought really to be
attributed to it. We do not indeed ascribe as much to the church
as they do (for we could not do so lawfully) ; but yet 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 required: 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 yet we do not repose credit
in the scriptures merely on account of the testimony and authority
of the church. The 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. The 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 be required, another skilful
person informs me that a coin, which I do not recognise as such,
is good and lawful money: 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 and royal money. In
like manner, the church acknowledges the scriptures, and de
clares them to be divine: we, admonished and stirred up by the
church, perceive the matter to be so indeed. — The 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 :
" As," says he, " the herald makes his proclamation in the theatre
in the presence of all, so also we1." Where he shews that the duty
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.
Now the people believes and obeys the edict of the magistrates on
its own account, not because of the voice of the crier. — The 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 by the
scriptures. Such are the offices, and those surely in the highest
degree great and dignified, which we gladly allow to belong to
the church : from which, nevertheless, it will by 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.
From 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.
P ao-irep 6 KTjpv^ irdvrav irapdvrav iv rd Be'rpa Kt/pirrei, ovra Kal TJpeis. —
Opp. T. iv. p. 383.]

Hi] QUESTION THE THIRD. 285
CHAPTER III.
WHEREIN THE FIRST ARGUMENT OF OUR OPPONENTS IS CONFUTED.
We 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.
With 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. He bestows his whole ninth
book upon this question, and in the fourth chapter of that book
commences his reasoning against us in this manner : To 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 major : Firstly,
the major is true, if he mean books properly canonical, which have
been always received by the church ; for these the church ought
always to acknowledge for canonical : although it be certain that
many flourishing 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. For 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 by the authority
of the church, — by three arguments. The first is this : 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, &c. I
answer, that it is false to say, as he does, that no authority is
more certain than that of the church : it is a mere begging of the
question. For greater and more certain is the authority of God,
of the scriptures themselves, and of the Holy Spirit, by 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 by no other
medium : 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. For the authority of him who teaches
is greater than that of him through whom one is taught. God
teaches us through the church : 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. He confesses that we are taught by God
through the church : therefore, since God is the prime and highest
teacher, it is evident that his authority and trustworthiness is the
chief. For the church is only his minister, subserves him in giving
instruction, and expounds his commands. The weakness of his
reasoning will easily appear from a parallel instance. A prince
publishes his law and edict by a herald, and explains and expounds
by his lawyers the meaning of the law and the force of the edict.
Does it therefore follow that there is no more certain authority
than that of the herald and the lawyers ? By no means. For 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. Now where is the consequence of this ? We 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 God and the scrip
tures, because it is God who addresses us in his word, and teaches
us through his word ; whereas the church discharges merely a
ministerial function. Therefore we are not bound absolutely to
receive whatever the church may teach us, but only whatever it
proves itself to have been commanded by God to teach us, and
with divine authority.
The second argument wherewith Stapleton confirms the as
sumption of the preceding syllogism is this : All other mediums
that can be attempted are insufficient without making recourse to

m'] QUESTION THE THIRD. 287
the judgment of the church ; and then he enumerates the mediums
upon which we rely. For as to the style (says he) and phrase
ology, and other mediums, by which the scripture is usually dis
tinguished, — these the church knows best, and is best able to judge
aright. Therefore, &c. I answer : If by 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. For 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 we should concede all
this to him, yet where will be the coherence of his reasoning, —
The church knows best the voice of the spouse, and the style and
phraseology of scripture ; therefore its authority is the most cer
tain ? For what though the church know ? What is that to me ?
Are these things therefore known and certain to me? For 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
me; and by whatever means it hath gained that knowledge,
why should I be able to gain it also by 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. For if tho authority of
the church be therefore most certain, because it knows best the
style of scripture, and judges by the style of scripture, it is plain
that the authority of scripture itself is far more certain, since it
indicates itself to the church by its style. But I (you 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 be known that this is the
voice of Christ and true and genuine scripture without the judg
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, yet even so the argument would be inconsequential.

288 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
For 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 world!" Was then the authority
of John more certain than that of Christ ? By no means. For
John 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 by the scriptures themselves. Besides, Paul and
Peter and the other apostles best knew the voice of Christ ; must
therefore their authority be rated higher than that of Christ him
self ? Far from it. It does not therefore follow that because the
church knows very 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 judge of that rule ; we must observe that the terms
deliver and judge are ambiguous. The 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 by the Holy
Spirit. But may I therefore conclude, that I cannot be certain
of this rule, but barely by the testimony of the church? It is
a mere fallacy of the accident. There is no consequence in this
reasoning : I can be led by 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 thus : Scripture (says he) cannot be proved by scripture :
therefore it must be proved by the church ; and consequently the
authority of the church is greater than that of scripture. The 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 be 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 others :

I'1-] 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 ? Was it by the authority of the church ? Why then did
he not receive all upon the faith of the same judgment ? For 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 be proved by the church.
The first will be evident from the following considerations.
Scripture hath for its author God himself; from whom it first pro
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. iii. 16, the whole scripture is called
9ebirvevaTos. In 2 Pet. i. 12, we are told, " Prophecy in old
time came not by the will of men, but holy men of God spake as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost," vnb irvev/uaTos dylov
cpepbp.evoi. And, verse 19, the word of prophecy is called /3e-
(iaibrepos • "Eyop.ev, says the apostle, fiefSaioTepov tov ivpo(pr\Ti~
kov Xbyov. That word fiefiaioTepos is most pertinent to the mat
ter in hand ; 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, Xvy^vip tpaivovTi ev avyjiripip Toirtp.
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, " Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a
light to my path :" therefore the scripture hath the clearest light
in itself. On this account it is frequently styled the testimony.
From these and similar passages, we reason thus : There is the
greatest perspicuity and light in the scriptures : therefore the scrip
ture may be understood by the scripture, if one only have eyes to
perceive this light. As the brightest light appears in the sun, so
r i 19
pvVHITAKER.J

290 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
the greatest splendour of divinity shines forth in the word of God.
The blind cannot perceive even the light of the sun ; 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 God speaking in his word ?
For what need is there that another should teach that this is the
voice of somebody, when I recognise it myself; 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 God speaking. This I deny. For those
who have the Holy Spirit, are taught of God : these can recog
nise the voice of God as much as any one can recognise a friend,
with whom he hath long and familiarly lived, by his voice. Nay,
they can even hear God. For so Augustine (Ep. in.), "God ad
dresses us every day. He speaks to the heart of every one of
us1." If we do not understand, the reason is because we have not
the Spirit, by which our hearts should be enlightened. With
respect to us, therefore, the authority of the scripture depends
upon, and is made clear by, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit;
without which, though you were to hear a thousand times that this
is the word of God, yet you 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 God which we pos
sess. Now that it is in itself the word of God, they do not deny,
but they say that we cannot be certain of it without the help of
the church : 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 by itself and for itself. Otherwise we should ascribe more
to the church than to God, if we did not believe him except for the
sake of the church. God speaks in the prophets, and through the
prophets : whence we find often used by them such phrases as, the
word of Jehovah, and, Thus saith Jehovah. Now then these men
tell me that I must by no means believe that God really speaks, or
that this is the word of Jehovah, unless the church confirm the
same : in which proceeding every one may perceive that more
credit and authority is ascribed to the church, that is, to men, than
P Ep. 137. Opp. T. n. 528. Bassan. 1797.]

H1-] QUESTION THE THIRD. 291
to God ; which is directly opposite to what should be done : for
God 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 by
itself and of itself. It now remains that we shew that the scrip
tures themselves mutually support and confirm each other by their
testimony ; which is a point easy to be proved.
The old Testament is confirmed by itself, and by the new ; the
new also by itself, and by the old : 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 by the new. In Luke xxiv.
44, Christ divides the whole old Testament into Moses, the pro
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. 29, 31, Abraham, when the rich man requests
that Lazarus may be sent to his brethren, replies, " They have
Moses and the prophets ; let them hear them :" as much as to say,
those who will not hear them, will hear no man, not even the church.
In John x. 35, "the scripture cannot be broken," Xv9rjvai, there
fore it possesses an eternal and immutable force. In John v. 39,
Christ says to the Jews, " Search the scriptures :" where he under
stands all the books of the old Testament ; for the new had not yet
been published. Thus we have shewn in general that the old Tes
tament is confirmed by the new; let us now shew the same in
detail. Christ himself confirms the books of Moses specially, Matth.
v., where he interprets the whole law ; Matth. xix., where he ex
plains the law of marriage ; Matth. xxii., where he proves the re
surrection of the flesh from Moses; and John iii. 14, where he
confirms his own death, and its efficacy and benefits, from the figure
of the brasen serpent. The historical books of the old Testament
are likewise confirmed by the new. Matth. xii. 42, Christ mentions
the story of the Queen of Sheba : Luke iv. 26, the story of the
widow of Sarepta is repeated, which occurs 2 Kings v. : Acts ii. 25,
19 — 2

292 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
30, 34, a testimony is adduced from the Psalms : Acts xiii. 17 and
following verses, Paul details a long narrative, drawn from several
books of the old Testament : Heb. xi., many examples are produced
from the books of Joshua and Judges. Part of the genealogy which
Matthew exhibits is derived from the book of Ruth. From the
Psalms an almost infinite multitude of testimonies are alleged ; very
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. 42, cites the book of the twelve minor prophets,
and thus proves the authority of them all ; for all the minor pro
phets used formerly to make but one book. Now the testimony
there cited is taken from the prophet Amos. 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
Manichaum. Now that, in like manner, the books of the new Testament
may be confirmed from the old, is sufficiently clear. For the
truth of the new Testament is shadowed forth in the figures of
the old ; and whatever things were predicted in the old, those we
read to have been fulfilled in the new. Whatever was said ob
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. 18, 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. 22, and Stephen, Acts vii. 37, teach us that this
prediction of a prophet bath been fulfilled. Moses therefore hath
sanctioned Christ by his testimony. Peter confirms Paul's epistles
by his authority, 2 Pet. iii. 16, and distinctly calls them scriptures.
" The unlearned," says he, " wrest them, as they do also the other
scriptures." Paul confirms his own epistles by his name, and by
his judgment. Therefore the old and new Testaments do, by their
mutual testimony, establish and consign each other. In other cases,
indeed, such a mutual confirmation is of no avail; but in this it
should be of the greatest, because no one is so fit a witness of God
and his word, as God himself in his word. If then we repose any
credit in the old Testament, we must repose as much in the new ;
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

111 ¦] 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 by the authority of the new Testament : and there are
besides many books of the new Testament which cannot be con
firmed by the old. Besides, if there were even some one book of
the new Testament, in which all the books of the old Testament
were severally enumerated, there would yet 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 book ;
and how (they will say) are we 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 httle weight. Secondly, if
any pious persons have yet 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 by Calvin, Institut. Lib. i. c. 81, and are of the following
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 them : 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 pu
rity is not to be found in Plato, or in Aristotle, or in Demosthenes,
or in Cicero, or in any other writer. Thirdly, the antiquity of the
books themselves secures them a great authority. For the books
of Moses are more ancient than the writings of any other men, and
P T. i. pp. 62—69. ed. Tholuck. Berolin. 1834.]

294 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
contain the oldest of all histories, deduced from the very creation of
the world ; which other writers were either wholly ignorant of, or
heard of from this source, or contaminated by the admixture of
many fables. Fourthly, the oracles contained in these books prove
their authority to be sacred in the highest sense, by shewing it
necessarily divine. For some things are here predicted, which
happened many ages afterwards, and names are given to persons
sofhe ages before they were born ; as to Josiah, 1 Kings xiii. 2,
and to Cyrus, Isaiah xliv. 28, and xlv. 1. How could this have
been without some divine inspiration ? Fifthly, miracles, so many
and so true, prove God to be 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 vain : nay, many of them, by the penalties and
torments which befel them, were made to understand that it was
the word of God 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, by their confession and their blood. Eighthly,
the authors themselves guarantee, in a great measure, the credit of
these books. What sort of men were they before they were
raised up to discharge this office by the Holy Ghost ? Altogether
unfitted for such a function then, though afterwards endowed with
the noblest gifts of the Holy Spirit. Who was Moses, before he
was called by God ? First, a courtier in Egypt, then a shepherd,
finally, endued with the richest outpouring of the Spirit, he became
a prophet, and the leader of the people of Israel. Who was Jere
miah? A man, incapable, as himself testifies, of any eloquence.
Who was David? A youth and a shepherd. Who Peter? A
fisherman, an ignorant and illiterate person. Who John ? A man
of the same low rank. Who was Matthew ? A publican, altogether
a stranger to holy things. Who was Paul ? An enemy and per
secutor of that doctrine which he afterwards professed. Who was
Luke ? A physician. How could such men have written so divinely
without the divine inspiration of the Holy Ghost? They were,
almost all, illiterate men, learned in no accomplishments, taught in
no schools, imbued with no instruction ; but afterwards summoned by
a divine call, marked out for this office, admitted to the counsels
of God: 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, yet will
never be sufficient to bring conviction to our souls so as to make us

IIL] QUESTION THE THIRD. 295
assent, unless the testimony of the Holy 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 pre
vious arguments may indeed urge and constrain us ; but this (I
mean the internal testimony of the Holy 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 times ! The 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 unity : but the church can
of itself by 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 Holy 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, you 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 Holy Ghost be
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 books ; 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 by the Spirit, so can none assent to the scriptures but by
the same Spirit.
But here two objections must be removed, which are proposed
by Stapleton, of which the former is against this latter reply of
ours, and the latter against the former. The first objection is this :
If it be by the testimony of the Spirit that we know the scriptures,
how comes it that churches, which have this Spirit, agree not
amongst themselves ? For (so he argues) the Lutherans disagree
with you Calvinists, because you receive some books which they
reject: therefore, either you or they are without the Spirit.
This is an objection urged also by Campian and by others. I
answer : 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 Holy
Spirit. For no saving truth can be known without the Holy
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 Holy Spirit must agree
in all other points of faith. Nor does it immediately follow, that
all who are in error are without the Holy Spirit, because all errors
are not capital. Now the reason why all who have the Holy Spirit
do not think exactly alike of all things, is because there is not precisely
the same equal measure of the Holy Spirit in all ; otherwise there
would be the fullest agreement in all ppints. Secondly, both we
who receive some books not received by the Lutherans, have the
precedent of some ancient churches, and the Lutherans also, who
reject them. For 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 yet all meanwhile were churches of God. Thirdly, it does not
presently follow that all have the Holy 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 by the name of the church only the bishops and doctors ;
but the sentiments are not to be judged of by merely a few of its
members. The second objection against our former reply is to this effect :
The scripture is not the voice of God, but the word of God ; that is,
it does not proceed immediately from God, but is delivered me
diately to us through others. I answer: We confess that God
hath not spoken by himself, but by others. Yet this does not
diminish the authority of scripture. For God inspired the prophets
with what they said, and made use of their mouths, tongues, and
hands : the scripture, therefore, is even immediately the voice of
God. The prophets and apostles were only the organs of God.
It was God who spake to the fathers in the prophets and through
the prophets, as is plain from Heb. i. 1. And Peter says, 2 Epist.
i. 21, that "holy men of God spake as they were moved, cpepofievovs,
by the Holy 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
by the church like the rest, that is, like other doctrines necessary

m,J QUESTION THE THIRD. 297
to salvation. But what? Is it only by 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 Holy Spirit to teach us all
things necessary to salvation? Mark 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 by 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. For 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. For the Holy Ghost is the author of
. faith, and not the church, except as an instrument, an external
and ministerial medium. He 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. Now 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 by
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,
by 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. If they say, by some ordinary means ; then they
must acknowledge that the church hath this knowledge by the
word itself. Stapleton proceeds : Now 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 by the church. I answer : The inference does
not hold. For it cannot be proved by human reasons that Christ
was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, ascended up to heaven
with* his body. Must then the whole credit of these and other
articles depend upon the sole authority and testimony of the church
alone? Do 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
we came to know 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 ; yet must this be understood
so as to indicate an external, ministerial means, which God 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. As, therefore, he who receives a message of
great favours promised or bestowed upon him by 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 token; nor believes on
account of the servant, although through his ministry ; so we re
ceive indeed the scriptures sent to us from God through the church,
and yet do not believe it to be sent from God 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 by scripture,
as Stapleton says, then certainly much less can it be proved by the
church. For if Stapleton's be a good reason, that scripture cannot
be proved by scripture, because scripture may be unknown or de
nied, that reason will have still greater force against the church.
For the church is no less liable to be 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. The case of both, there
fore, is the same. Do you 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 Familists1 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
P Disciples of Henry Nicholas of Amsterdam. See Hooker, Preface to
E. P., Chap. iii. 9, and Mr. Kcble's note, p. 1S4.]

"*•] 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 it ;
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 be
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 body of the elect which hath
existed from the beginning of the world, and shall exist unto
the end. And why do we thus believe ? Assuredly by 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 rest;" 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." To 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 Creed; 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 God," I profess
also that I believe that God speaks truth in his word, and conse
quently, that I receive and venerate all divine scripture. For the

300 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
word "I believe," which occurs at the commencement of the
Creed, is by the fathers expounded in a threefold sense, — that
is, I believe God; I believe that there is a God; 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 re
veals truth to us through the Spirit and the scripture : for though
" Paul plant and Apollos water," yet these are of no avail unless
" God give the increase." 1 Cor. iii. 6. The church can reveal
nothing to us in a saving way 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 so ; since it is
certain that whatever authority the church hath depends entirely
upon the scripture.
So much then in reply to Stapleton's first argument : 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 Book, 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 by, 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 pro
phets and apostles may have written some things in an ordinary
way to private persons, as, for instance, David sent private letters to

IVl] QUESTION THE THIRD. 301
Joab. These things ought not to be received into the canon. But
whatever they wrote as prophets, and inspired by 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 not? If they
were ; then the church ought to admit and approve them by its
testimony, as they allow themselves, and the church hath erred in
not receiving them : for it is the office of the church to recognise
the sacred scriptures and commend them to others. If they were
not ; then it is certain that they were written by 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. Yet 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.
By Samuel, says he, and Nathan and Gad, the Acts of David
were written, as appears from 1 Chron. last chapter, verse 29.
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 by those three prophets,
Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, and which Stapleton rashly denies to be
canonical. For it is certain that both these books were not written
by Samuel, because Samuel was dead before the end of the first
book. Now the church always acknowledged these books to be
canonical. But Stapleton supposes that some other history, the
work of those distinguished prophets, is referred to ; which cannot be
established by any proof. Secondly, he says that the Acts of Solo
mon were consigned to writing by Nathan, Ahijah and Iddo, as
appears from 2 Chron. ix. 29. I reply, that the history there
meant is that which is contained in the first book of Kings : 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. 22, that the history of Abijah was written by 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 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
1 Kings xv. Fourthly, he says that the history of Jehoshaphat was
written by the prophet Jehu ; which he proves from 2 Chron. xx.
34. I answer, that the same history is meant which is extant
1 Kings xvi. For it is certain that the histories of Judges, Ruth,
Samuel and Kings, were written by many prophets: whence in
Matth. ii.1, at the last verse, a passage is cited from the book
of Judges (for it is found nowhere else); and yet Matthew uses the
expression, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the pro
phets," to pri9ev Sid twv irpotpnToov. Whence we may undertand
that that book was written and composed by 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
anywhere : 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 be in the canon.
Next he brings a testimony from Augustine, de Civit. Dei, Lib.
xvn. cap. ult. where these words occur : " There are writings of
theirs" (meaning Zechariah, Malachi, and Haggai,) "as there are
of others, who prophesied in great numbers : very few wrote
pieces which had canonical authority2." I answer, these things
which Augustine says have no reference to our question. For he
does not say that many things were written by the prophets which
had no canonical authority ; but that, out of a great many prophets,
there were very few who wrote anything : because many prophets
left no written compositions whatever. What he says, therefore, is,
there were many prophets who taught the church only orally ; but
few who wrote anything. This is plainly Augustine's sense and
meaning : whence, by the way, we may take notice of Stapleton's
fidelity in quoting the fathers. These, then, are Stapleton's ob
jections concerning the writings of the prophets. Let us come now
to those writings of the apostles which he affirms 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 by Paul ; yet, says he,
[i Whitaker supposes the reference to be to Judges xiii. 5. But a Naza-
rite is expressed in Greek by Nafapator, Naffp, Nafip, Na&paios' never, I
believe, by Nafwpaioj.]
[2 Sunt scripta eorum, sicut aliorum qui in magna multitudine prophe-
tarunt : perpauci ea scripserunt quse auctoritatem canonis haberent. T. ix.
p. 640.]

IV-] QUESTION THE THIRD. 303
that epistle is not now in the canon. I answer : No epistle of the
kind is mentioned in that place. The apostle says, e«: AaoSiKeias,
not irpos AaoSiKeiav, so that the epistle here referred to was not
written to the Laodiceans, but from Laodicea. The 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,
but is censured on that account by Erasmus4. 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 by the Colossians along with this epistle of
his own. This I judge not incredible, and indeed much the more
probable opinion. To this effect CEcumenius writes distinctly :
" He does not say, that written to Laodicea, but that from Lao
dicea; not that from Paul to the Laodiceans, but that from the
Laodiceans to Paul. For no doubt there was something in it which
concerned the Colossians5." These remarks CEcumenius took from
Chrysostom. Catharinus too, a papist, acknowledges in his com
mentary upon this place, (p. 366,) that it is not an epistle written
by him to the Laodiceans, but one written from that place. Jerome,
in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, under the head of Paul6,
makes mention of this epistle, but observes that it is universally
condemned. The second Council of Nice7 determines it to be
p 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 Whitaker. — Hseres. xiii. T. I. pp. 310, 319, 374.]
P Etiam Faber, homo doctus sed ahquoties nimium candidus, diligenter
reliquis admiscuit Eplstolis. — Erasm. Annot. in Col. iv. 16.]
P oil yap eiire tt)v irpbs AaohtKeis, dXXd tt)v ck AaohtKelas ypatbelo-av oil rr)v
dirb ITavXov irpbs AaohtKeas, dXXd ttjv dirb AaohtKeav irpbs UavXov. 'Hv yap rt
irdvras iv aiiTrj dcbeXovv KoXoo-o-aeis. p. 146. T. n. Paris. 1631.]
P Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur. T. n.
p. 826.] P Kal yap tov Beiov 'AirocrrdXov irpbs AaohtKeis tfieperai irXao-rr) iirio-roXrj. —
Art. 6. p. 5. Concil. Labb. T. vn. p. 475.]

304 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
spurious, and rejects it as supposititious. Theophylact1 thinks that
the first epistle to Timothy is meant, because it was written from
Laodicea ; Tertullian, in his fifth book against Marcion2, the epistle
to the Ephesians.
As to what Stapleton subjoins, that there were some books
written by Peter, and a certain book also of the travels of Paul and
Thecla3, which are not in the canon ; I answer, that these books
were always deemed spurious impostures by the church. Jerome
(in Cat. under Peter4) rejects them as apocryphal, and not
written by Peter. Let me therefore say of these, as we read that
Augustine formerly said of some still more ancient (Civit. Dei,
Lib. xviii. c. 38) : " These writings the chastity of the canon hath
not admitted, not because the authority of those men who pleased
God is rejected, but because these are not believed to be their
works5." 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 THE THIRD ARGUMENT OF OUR OPPONENTS IS
EXAMINED AND SET ASIDE.
Stapleton's third argument is contained in the 6th chapter
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 first
[1 rls he t)v i)' « AaohiKetas ; 17 irpbs TtpoBeov irpdrt]. avrrj yap eK AaohtKeias
iypdqbi). — Theophyl. in Col. iv. 16, p. 676, Lond. 1636.]
P Prsetereo hie et de aha Epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios prsescriptam
habemus, hseretici vero ad Laodicenos. — V. c. 11.]
P Grabe Spicil. 1. p. 95, et seqq.]
P Libri autem ejus, e quibus unus Actorum ejus inscribitur, alius Evan-
gelii, tertius prsedicationis, quartus Apocalypsis, quintus Judicii, inter apo-
cryphas scripturas reputantur. T. 11. p. 814.]
P Sed ea castitas Canonis non recepit, non quod eorum hominum qui
Deo placuerunt, reprobetur auctoritas, sed quod ista non credantur eorum
esse. T. ix. p. 685.]

V-] QUESTION THE THIRD. 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 Apocryphal 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. For 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 book 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 this : otherwise the church could not make such a
difference between writings, all of which were really in the same
predicament. For 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. The answer shall be fourfold.
Firstly, I say that the church never did receive, by 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? Now whatever councils they are
able to produce are merely recent ; and no reason can be assigned
why canonical books should lie so long unsanctioned by the autho
rity of the church.
Secondly, I say that the church neither could, nor ought to
have received them into the canon. For 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.
Now we have already proved that these books possess no such
character. The council of Laodicea expressly rejects them as non-
canonical writings, filfiXia aKavbvio-Ta. Jerome determines that
no religious dogma can be proved by them : 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. For 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 be plainly divine and inspired by God. Why then may
not the same reason persuade us also to receive them? Any
other answer which they may give will assign a wholly uncertain
criterion. Fourthly, although in some churches doubts prevailed concern
ing these books of the new Testament, yet other churches received
them. So Eusebius writes concerning these epistles ; as specially
of the Epistle of James, Lib. ii. c. 23. For although he uses the
term vo9evecr9ai1, yet he acknowledges that it was publicly received
(SeSrnj.otjievfj.evr]v) 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 error : for the church ought not to
have caused pieces of equal authority intrinsically to appear other
wise to us. Now Stapleton says that these books are of the same
P lo-reov he as vodeverat pev  Spas he io-pev Kal ravras phis and the
Epistle of Jude] perd rav Xoiirav iv irXeiarais hehypoo-tevpevas iKKXijo-iats. — ;
T. I. p. 175. ed. Heinich. Compare Hug's Einl. 1. 119.]

V-] 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 of 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 be able to establish : let us nevertheless
attend to the manner in which he attempts to prove it.
Stapleton proceeds to cite many testimonies of the fathers, of
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. Lib. in. c. 19, or in the Greek, 25), who affirms
that the plain mark of the canonical books is the tradition of the
church. I answer : Eusebius there enumerates all the books of the
new Testament, as well those which were always received by all,
as those which were rejected by some, and concerning which doubts
were then entertained in some churches. Eusebius's own words are
as follow : "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 Testament2." To
which testimony of Eusebius I briefly return a threefold reply.
Firstly, we should allow no weight in this matter to the authority
of Eusebius, because it has no force to establish what Stapleton
undertakes to prove. For, while he says- that he follows the
ecclesiastical tradition, he distinguishes from the canonical books
those very pieces which the papists themselves maintain to be
canonical, as the Book 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. And if that
tradition be 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 by Stapleton, banishes from the sacred canon. Let him
then consider for himself what weight is to be allowed to this tes
timony. Secondly, I deny not that ecclesiastical tradition is a means
of proof, whereby it may be shewn what books are canonical and
P dvayKatas he Kal rovrav Spas rbv KaraXoyov ireiroirjpeBa, htaKpivavres rds re
Kara tt)v iKKXr)o-iaariKT)v irapdhoo-iv aXTjBets Kal airXda-rovs Kal dvapoXoyrjpivas
ypaipas, Kal rds dXXas irapa ravras, ovk ivhiaBrjKovs pev, k. t. X. — T. I. p. 247.]
20—2

308 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
what not canonical ; yet I say that it is a merely external means
of proof. Now, 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 Holy 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 Holy Spirit be added, fortified by 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 very different thing. His words are not Sid
Ttjv irapdSoaiv, but KaTa Trjv irapdSocriv. Those who suppose
that there is no difference between these two are greatly deceived.
For 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 by an authority much more august,
certain and clear, than that of the church. Let this suffice con
cerning the testimony of Eusebius.
The second testimony cited by Stapleton is taken from Augus
tine, De Doct. Christ. Lib. n. c. 8, where these words occur: "The
believer will observe this rule with respect to the canonical
scriptures, to prefer those which are received by all churches to
those which some do not receive. In the case of those which are
not received by 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 by the greater number, and others by 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 authority1."
P Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas quse ab
omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis prseponat eis quas qusedam non accipiunt:
in eis vero qute non accipiuntur ab omnibus, prseponat eas quas plures
gravioresque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesia
tenent. Si autem aUas invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi,
(quamquam hoc facile invenire non possit,) sequalis tamen auctoritatis eas
habendas puto. — p. 30. Opp. T. in.]

V>] 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. For, what ? shall this whole truth
and difference between the books depend upon the various judg
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 one ? — What asser
tion could possibly be more absurd or more insulting than this?
Churches indeed may judge variously and inconstantly, as was
plainly the case in the ancient churches : but the scriptures of
God 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. Nor will any one deny that this is pious and sound
advice. We 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 Holy 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 by the
Roman Church, which all Christians should be bound to stand by
and obey: 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 judge variously of certain canonical
books. Whence it manifestly appears that all who have the Holy
Spirit do not think alike of all the books of scripture. But, to reply
briefly and in one word, — 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
by inspiration of God ; but that the form and full assurance depend

310 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
upon the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, which must needs be
added before we can certainly know and hold undoubtingly that
these books are canonical and divine.
The third testimony produced by Stapleton, which I have re
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 ex
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 understanding1." Hence it appears, says
Stapleton, that the scripture is set in this high tribunal by the ap
probation and authority of the church. I answer : Augustine writes
that the canon of the scriptures was established by the apostles,
and is now • set in this elevated place through the successions of
bishops and propagations of churches. What does this prove
against us ? Who is so mad as not to perceive that the apostles
established the canonical scripture, and that pious bishops and
churches rendered it the highest reverence ? But does it follow
thence, that we do not know what books are canonical by 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, by 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 Tes
tament. Secondly, that the books of the new Testament were
written and confirmed by the apostles themselves, and a definite
number of books marked out. Thirdly, that if the canon of scrip
ture were settled by the apostles themselves, it is not now in the
power of the church to add any book to this canon, and so increase
P Distincta est a posterioribus libris excellentia canonicse auctoritatis
veteris et novi Testamenti, qutc, apostolorum confirmata temporibus, per
successiones episcoporum et propagationes ecclesiarum tanquam in sede
quadam sublimiter constituta est, cui serviat omnis fldclis et pius intellectus.
— p. 267. Opp. T. x.]

?¦J

QUESTION THE THIRD. 311

the number of the canonical books ; 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 pubhshed, to distinguish them from the sacred
and truly canonical books. Jerome2, in his Catalogue, under the
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 by the authority of the apostle. Tertullian3 in
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, " We determine the
document of the gospel to have the apostles for its authors4." Au
gustine, Epist. 19 5, asserts that these scriptures were received to the
height of canonical authority by the apostles themselves. The 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 object : 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 be considered under a twofold aspect : firstly, as the
principal teachers of the church ; secondly, as certain immediate
organs, chosen by 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. Now 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
Holy Ghost, fortified by a divine authority, and commended to the
p Opp. T. n. 827. This piece was the story of Thecla, printed by Grabe
in the first vol. of his Spicilegium.]
p Percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsse adhuc cathedrse apos
tolorum suis locis prsssidentur, apud quas ipsse autbenticse Uterse eorum
recitantur. — c. 36. ed. Leopold. Lips. 1841. P. 3. p. 25.]
p This is a mistake. The passage cited occurs in the 4th Book, Adv.
Marc. c. 2. (p. 147): Constituimus imprimis evangelicum instrumentum
apostolos auctores habere.]
p Ep. 82. Opp. T. n. p. 253. Commendata. . . ab ipsis apostoUs.]

312 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
faith of all. For 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 Holy 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.
Now follows his fourth argument, which is handled in Lib. ix.
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. He calls those books apocryphal
of the second class, which have been published under the name
of the apostles, either by 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 by 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. For that same
Spirit, by whom those books were written, still resides in the
church, although not always in the same measure. All this, there
fore, we allow ; but we demand to know how it follows from these

VI.]

QUESTION THE THIRD. 313

premises, that we can judge by 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 by
legitimate arguments? For 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 by the authority of the catholic church ? 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 Holy Spirit and of judgment: since it
hath, with so much judgment and deliberation, rejected certain
hooks, 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 by it ; nor yet
heretics alone, but other opponents also who would either receive
supposititious books, or reject really canonical. This argument
the fathers frequently used ; 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. Nay, 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 court ; 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 copy,

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, why these books were rejected by the church, in the following
words : " The very diction, character, and phraseology, are foreign
from the apostolic. Their drift is widely different from the or
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 words : Ylbppno Se irov Kal b Ttjs (ppatreaJs
irapd to r/9os to dirorrToXiKov evaXXaTei yapaKTrjp, n Te yvw/unj,
Kal twv ev avTols (pepofxevitiv irpoaipeois, irXeitTTov baov Ttjs
dXrj9ovs bp9oSo%tas dirdSovcra, oti Se a'lpeTiKiiov avSpiov ava-
irXdup.aTa Tvyydvei aa<pws irap'iaTritriv' b9ev ovo ev vo9ois
avTa KaTaTaKTeov, aXX' ws ctToira 7rdvTrj Kal ovaaefirj irapai-
TtjTeov1. Here we may remark Stapleton's fidelity. He 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
them ; 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 writings2." 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
yapaKTrjpi Ttjs (ppaaews, 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 books : secondly, Trj yvaip-rj Kal Trj
irpoaipeaet, 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 re
jected and abhorred as the impure and wicked productions of the
heretics. Yet 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. 32,3
P T. I. pp. 247—50. ed. Heinichen.]
P dv oiihev oihapas iv o-vyypdppan rdv Kara hiahoxds iKKXrjo-iao~TtKdv
ris dvrjp els pvrjprjv ayayeiv ^iarrev. — Id. ibid.]
P 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 or
thodox doctrine. OvSe yap, says he, Ka9apbv*diroo-ToXiKrjs bp9o-
So^las diroaoj^ei tov yapaKTrjpa : as much as to say, it is manifest
that this dispute was not held by an apostle, since it wants the true
and genuine mark of 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 of Eusebius. I proceed now to
Augustine, who certainly never wrote as Stapleton affirms him
to have written, but to a far different effect. He does not say
that these books were held to be 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 of
Paul, he subjoins, that it is not received by the church: but
wherefore ? Is it because it was placed in the judgment of the
church alone to receive or not receive it ? By no means ; but
because it was "feigned" by certain "vain" men, and because it
was "full of fables4." Well then, do we reject, upon no other
account but the church's testimony, a book " feigned by vain men,
and full of fables ?" Yea, rather we reject it for being such. The
same Augustine, against Faustus the Manichean, Lib. xxn. c. 79,
says that the Manichees read certain books written by " stitchers-
together of fables5." He means the gospels of Matthias, Andrew,
Peter, and those other books which Stapleton hath before enu
merated. These books therefore were not received by 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, Lib. i. c. I,6 discusses the question
why, since so many had written of the actions and doctrine both of
Christ and of the apostles, only four gospels and the Acts of 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 Holy Spirit, or so furnished for the task as
all those ought to be who write of such sacred and divine matters ;
P Qua occasione vani quidam Apocalypsin Pauli, quam sane non recipit
ecclesia, nescio quibus fabulis plenam, stultissima prsesumptione finxerunt.
— Opp. T. iv. p. 982.]
P Legunt scripturas apocryphas Manichsei, a nescio quibus sutoribus
fabularum sub apostolorum nomine scriptas, etc. — T. x. p. 490.]
p 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. As 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 by Stapleton. It re
mains now that we address ourselves to his fifth.

CHAPTER VII.
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 by
the authority and tradition of the church. Therefore it is the
privilege of the church to consign the canon of scripture. Here he
is very large in his citations of testimonies from Augustine, yet 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 by the authority of the church; therefore
there is no other stronger argument by which the canon of scrip
ture can be established. This is just as if one were to argue
thus : atheists who deny the existence of God are refuted by 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 earth — cry out that there is a God, as saith the

VI1-] question the third. 317
prophet : " The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firma
ment sheweth his handy-work." This is a more certain argument
for the confutation and conviction of the atheists than the testi
mony of the church ; 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 thus :
this is an argument, therefore it is the sole argument, or there is
no other argument besides. The inconsequence of such reasoning
will easily appear from a parallel instance. The philosophers may be
so refuted by 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 by 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 by 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. For such reasoning as this
hath ever had very great weight and influence with all, even the
worst of men : the church hath ever judged these books canonical ;
therefore you ought not to reject, or doubt concerning them. A
man must be shameless indeed, who will not be moved by 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 by the authority and
testimony of the church, but also by the style of scripture, and
the 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. For in like manner as a
man may be compelled by many arguments taken from nature to
confess the being of God, and yet will never meanwhile be
persuaded of it in his conscience, until the Holy Spirit hath
infused this faith and persuasion into his heart ; so we may indeed
be compelled by the authority of the church to acknowledge the

318 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
canonicity of the scripture, and yet can never be brought to
acquiesce in it as a firm and solid truth, until the internal testimony
of the Holy Spirit be added. And this argument persuades not
others but ourselves, and prevails not upon others but upon our
selves. We do not therefore endeavour to refute others by the
secret testimony of the Spirit, since it is peculiar to the individual,
private and internal; but by 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
Holy Spirit must excite our whole mind to yield assent. Now
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.
We, 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 it ; but con
tend nevertheless that there are some other arguments of a firmer
and more certain nature.
It is not necessary that we should reply severally to all those
testimonies which Stapleton adduces, since we fully allow that
they are all most true. The clearest and strongest testimony
which he alleges is taken from Augustine's book 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 Holy 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 alike1." Therefore
(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 by 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 by this one
argument, and it is specially to be urged against obstinate persons ;
but those who are not disturbed by passion, not dishonest, not
P Necesse est me credere huic libro, si credo Evangelio, cum utramque
ecripturam similiter mihi catholica commendat auctoritas.  T. x. p. 185.]

VII-] QUESTION THE THIRD. 319
obstinate, but honest and desirous of truth, may be persuaded by
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 these : first, the order of
the things ; 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 them ; but, since heretics
pay but little care and attention to such matters, they must be
pressed with the authority of the church. The same Augustine
also, in the 5th chapter of that same book, 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. And 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." For the Manichees rendered the old Testament odious
with the people by 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 by 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.
Now 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 me2." These
P Ego vero non crederem evangelio, nisi me catholicse ecclesise com-
moveret auctoritas  See Laud's Conference, §. 16. n. 19. p. 81. 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.
They 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 by Calvin, Instit. Lib. i. c. 7.
and by Musculus and Peter Martyr, by alleging that Augustine
speaks of himself as a Manichean ; that he meant that he, when a
Manichean, was moved by 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 says : " What would you do with one who said, I do not
believe?" Then he subjoins : "But I would not believe the gospel,
&c." He speaks, therefore, of himself in an unbelieving state. And
in the same chapter, in the words immediately following, he says :
" Those whom I obeyed when they said to me, Believe the gospel,
why should I not obey when they tell me, Believe not Mani?"
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, by listening to the voice of the church.
But Stapleton denies this, and endeavours to prove that
he speaks of himself as a catholic by 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. He was indeed a heretic, but one most desirous
of truth, and no obstinate heretic. He was a heretic, not from
malice, but from error of opinion. Nor did he doubt, even when
he was a heretic, that he ought to agree and communicate with the
true church, although he did not judge aright which was the true
church. Those who are so disposed are easily moved by the
authority of the true church. Stapleton's second reason is, because
a heretic is not moved by 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-

V1IF-] 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 church; but they may be
brought to faith by the preaching of the word, and then they will
obey. And it was in this very 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 book." Therefore (says Stapleton) he speaks of
himself as he then was, namely, as a catholic. I answer, that this
is no reason. For whether he speak of himself as a catholic or as
a Manichean, it was needful by all means that he should believe
this book, inasmuch as it is the word of God : for all alike must
needs either receive or reject the Gospels and the Acts 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 : yet 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 church ; 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 by
the help of men, but by God himself internally confirming and
illuminating our minds. The faithful, therefore, do not believe
merely on account of the church's authority. Secondly, I say that
this is also repugnant to reason itself. For all the faithful are
endowed with the Holy Spirit. Now his authority is greater than
that of the church. Therefore it is not to be doubted that they
are kept in the true faith by his rather than by the church's
authority. Thirdly, what if we were to acknowledge that the
21
[whitaker.]

322 the first controversy. [ch.
faithful themselves are moved by the authority of the church to
receive the scriptures ? It does not follow thence, that their inti
mate inward persuasion is produced by the same way, or that they
are induced by no other and stronger reason. What 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 be
persuaded is another. The 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, " Now we believe
not on account of thy speech (Sid Tr)v arjv 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 we
have ourselves read the scriptures, and understand them, then we
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 Holy Spirit persuades us
internally that these are the words of God.
But since this testimony of Augustine is urged so vehe
mently by Stapleton, other papists shall easily either teach or
remind him, how little force it hath to establish the perpetual
authority of the church. Driedo, Lib. 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 so." 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. Whence also it fol
lows that the gospel is the truest mark of the church. Bellarmine
himself, in his MSS. Lectures upon the Secunda Secunda of Aquinas,
Qusest. i. art. i. Dub. 1, tells us, that Augustine " speaks of the
church as the propounding cause, not as the prime foundation of
faith." For we should not believe the gospel unless the catholic
church propounded it : which, no doubt, is true. For, unless the
church commended the sacred books to us, and led us, as it were,
by the hand, to the very fountains of divine truth, we should never
emerge out of the darkest shades of error. But does it therefore

VI11-] QUESTION THE THIRD. 323
folio w^ that the apocryphal books cannot be distinguished from the
canonical otherwise than by the mere authority of the church?
By no means. And there is no need that we should say more of
this sixth argument.

? CHAPTER IX.
OF THE SEVENTH ARGUMENT OF OUR ADVERSARIES.
The seventh argument is contained in Book ix. chap. 10,
where he joins other fathers to Augustine, for the purpose of
proving, that the canon of scripture must be consigned by the
authority of the church. But what else do all those fathers prove
but this, that the scripture should be received because it hath ever
been received by the church, and that certain books should be
rejected because they have ever been rejected by the church ?
Now this we most willingly confess. For we concede that the
authority of the church is one argument, and a good one too : 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. Now the testimonies, which
Stapleton alleges in this chapter, are five in number : namely, from
Theodoret, Tertullian, Irenaeus, 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 churches1." I
answer : What is all this to us ? Nothing whatever. We grant
that this epistle is to be embraced with all reverence, and that its
opponents may be pressed and coerced by the argument drawn
[1 ehel he avroiis, el Kal pT/hev erepov, tov xpdvov yovv alhear8ijvai to prJKOs, iv
d rrjvhe tt)v imo-roXrjV iv rais iKKXr)o-iais dvayivdaKovTes htereXeaav rrjs eKKXr]-
o-las ol rpotpipot. — Theod. Argum. in Heb.]
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 very antiquity
of time? By no means, but rather quite the opposite, as is manifest
from his words : for he says, " if there were nothing else," they
should be moved by the very 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
very doctrine itself of the epistle, which the church acknowledges by
the assistance of the Holy Spirit. For what else can be adduced ?
Thus, therefore, this first testimony alleged by 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 founded1." 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.
For thus he writes : " We draw up therefore this prescriptive plea:
if the Lord 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 them2." 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. For if this had
[1 Quid autem prsedicaverint, id est, quid illis Christus revelaverit, et hie
prsescribam non aliter probari debere, nisi per easdem ecclesias quas ipsi
Apostoli condiderunt. — c. 21. p. 14.]
p Hinc igitur dirigimus prsescriptionem, si Dominus Jesus Christus apos-
tolos misit ad prsedicandum, alios non esse recipiendos prsedicatores quam
quos Christus instituit, quia nee alius Patrem novit nisi Filius et cui Filius
revelavit; nee aliis videtur revelasse Filius quam apostolis, quos misit ad
prsedicandum 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 Holy
Spirit ; which he certainly never meant to do. Nay, 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 by 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.
For thus he subjoins : " If these things be 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
true ; and that that is undoubtedly to be held, which the churches
received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from
God ; but all other doctrine is to be judged beforehand to be false3."
This is so far from taking away the testimony of the Holy Spirit,
that it rather establishes it; for the Holy Spirit is the judge of
apostolical doctrine. Therefore he attributes nothing to the church,
unless it hold this doctrine. Besides, to say, as Tertullian says,
that " doctrine should be proved by the church," is a different
thing from saying that it should be received only on the authority
of the church, which Stapleton means. We concede the former,
especially as far as the apostolical churches are concerned, but the
latter by no means. For although it be through the church that
we know doctrine, yet that it is now upon the authority of the
Holy Spirit that we believe, even our adversaries themselves allow,
as ye 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 Holy Spirit.
So much upon the testimony of Tertullian. 1 come now to
P Si hsec ita sunt, constat proinde omnem doctrinam, quse cum illis
ecclesiis apostolicis, matricibus et originalibus fidei, conspiret, veritati depu-
tandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesise ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo,
Christus a Deo accepit ; rcliquam vero omnem doctrinam de mendacio pras-
j udicandam. — Ibid. ]

326 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Irenseus, from whom Stapleton quotes some words, which, it must
be allowed, have very little force in them. For we confess with
Irenseus, 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 by the scriptures which they
received, does he not affirm, exactly as we would have it, that scrip
ture may be proved by scripture, and that scripture may be other
wise recognised and proved than by the testimony of the church ?
His fourth testimony is taken from the first council of Toledo,
the twenty-first 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 anathema1." I answer :
I do not see why I and all good Christians may not be permitted
to say Amen to these words. For 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 way. But I wonder
that Stapleton should be so stupid as not to understand or remark
how weak is this argument of his : No scriptures should be re
ceived, which have not been received and approved by the church :
therefore, scriptures are only to be received on account of the
church's testimony. No scriptures should be rejected, but those
which the church hath rejected : therefore the apocryphal writings
are to be rejected solely on that account, because the church hath
rejected them.
And of this testimony enough hath been said. Now follows
the fifth and last, which is that of a certain Serapion, bishop of
Antioch, of whom Eusebius speaks H. E. Lib. vi. c. 11, taken from
an epistle of his : " We," says Serapion, " refuse certain books
falsely inscribed with the names of the apostles, knowing that we
have never received such2." Now he speaks of the gospel of
P Si quis dixerit aut crediderit alias scripturas recipiendas esse prseter
illas quas ecclesia recepit, anathema sit. — Anathem. xn. col. 328. CoUect.
Cann. Eccles. Hispan. Matriti. 1808.]
P 'H/xeis yap, dheX(j>ol, Kal Jlerpov Kal roiis aXXows airomoXovs dirohexdpeBa
as "X.pto~TQv ra he dvopart aiirdv 'yjrevheirlypaq'ia cos epireipol irapairovpeBa,
ytvdo-Kovres on to TOiaOra ov irapeXdfiopev. — H. E. Lib. VI. C. 12. pp. 177 — 8.
T. ii. ed. Heinich.]

IX0 QUESTION THE THIRD. 327
Peter, which used to be read in some churches. I answer : That
book was rejected by Serapion on account of the many falsehoods
which were found in it, as is plain from the words which follow :
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. We, says Serapion, have not re
ceived the book, a)s e/tireipot, as being skilful and expert ; yivw-
tjKovTes oti Ta TotavTa ov irapeXa(iop.ev. And Eusebius says
that he refuted xd y^evSaJi ev oil™ elpri/ueva, "the falsehoods
contained in it." The 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. For Serapion says3, at the end
of that chapter, that he had found very many things bp9ov Xoyov,
sound, in that book, but some also it poaSieaTaXneva, foreign from
and at variance with the orthodox faith, and therefore had re
jected it. He 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 human ; and how weak such arguments are in
causes of faith, every one must understand.

CHAPTER X.
OF THE 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, thus : The rule of faith which is lodged with the church,
and delivered by the church, is the means by 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 by 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
P xal evpeiv to pev irXelova tov opBov \6yov toO Sarfjpos, nvd he irpo-
hieo-raXpeva. — Ibid. p. 179.]

328 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
his argument. For this is no reason : Such a book teaches things
in harmony with the articles of the faith ; therefore it is canonical.
For many books expound that sound doctrine which is in perfect
harmony with the articles of the faith, and nevertheless should not
be received into the canon. The reason is indeed good negatively
the other way : 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 be consigned by the rule of faith, then the scripture is
confirmed by the scripture, which is the very thing we maintain.
But he means far otherwise. The 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. For it is to be held undoubt
ingly, as we shall hereafter prove most largely, that the revealed
and written word of God is the sole rule of faith, which is a thing
prior to the faith of the church. For all " faith is by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God," Rom. x. 17 : 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 by this rule, or without this rule, that
the church distinguishes true scriptures from false? Stapleton
answers thus, at the close of the chapter: "The rule of faith," says
he, " delivered and accepted by 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 by the rule
of faith, then it no less appertains to the whole body of the church
to consign the canon of scripture, than to the pastors and governors
of the church themselves. For all the faithful have this rule, not
alone the pastors, governors and prelates ; because the faith is
common to both laymen and ministers. Now this makes against
Stapleton, who does not attribute this power to the whole body of
the church, but only to the prelates and pastors.

x-] QUESTION THE THIRD. 329
Secondly, if it be not by its own authority, but by 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 ? He says that the pastors and masters of the church do,
by means of the rule of faith delivered and received by 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, by means of the rule of
faith delivered and received by the pastors, discriminate the scrip
tures. But, in the first place, the pastors do not always think
alike concerning the canonical scriptures, (if by the pastors he
understand the~ bishops and doctors,) as may be proved from anti
quity. If therefore this rule be delivered by 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 books ? 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. For he said above, that the testimony of the Holy
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? And wherein does it differ
from the testimony of the Spirit? since faith is the work and
effect of the Holy 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 church ; and that the office of the present
church was only to receive the canon consigned by that other more
ancient church. With these he enters upon a very severe en
counter and contention, of which I shall not be a sharer, but a
spectator only.
The second is, that this present church also might even now add
other books to the canon, as the book of the Shepherd, and the
Apostolical Constitutions written by 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 Walden1,
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 by 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 ? He cannot deny that it was : for he has already confessed
it out of Augustine ; and there are some councils too, which the
P Doctrin. Fidei, T. I. L. 2. Art. 2. c. 23. 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 by 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 canon ; or
that it should now, so late, in the very last age of the world, be so
received 1 As to the Constitutions of Clement, they were even con
demned by the judgment of some councils, as is shewn above.
They were deemed, therefore, wholly unworthy of having rank or
place in the canonical scriptures : yea, they certainly can never be
received into the canon by the church. For the church cannot
make non-canonical books canonical, but only cause those books to
be 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 by any new accession
of books, that in his 129th sermon upon the Times2 he does not
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.
Now that it hath this power is boldly maintained by 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 of: but I perceive that some other papists
are exceedingly delighted with it. It is to this effect : The 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 En
chiridion : so Hosius, Lib. iii. de Auctoritate Scriptura : so Linda
nus, in his Panoply, in many places : so Andradius in the third
book of his Defence of the Council of Trent : so Schrock the Jesuit,
in his 13th Thesis ; and some others beside. I answer : In the first
place, I confess that there was a time when the word of God was not
written, and that the church existed then : 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. For the
P Col. 876. Opp. T. x. Basil. 1569.]

332 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
word of God is the seed of the church. Now 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. For Christ was later
in time than John. Shall then the authority of John be greater
in respect of us than that of Christ? No one in his senses will
affirm that. This argument therefore is but slight, and of no im
portance whatsoever, although it be handled very shewily by 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. Now follow the arguments of our defence.
Our first argument is to this effect : If 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 true ; there
fore also the second. The major proposition is manifest. The
minor is confirmed by 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 us ; 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 dSea-

XI-] QUESTION THE THIRD. 333
irorov and ixKvpov, 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 us ; otherwise they were absolutely incapable of
being declared authentic.
The second. The 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 books ; 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 ? If they answer, In the books of the
fathers, and the decrees of the councils : I desire to know, how we
are more sure of the authority of the fathers and councils than of
that of scripture? For 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 by some authority. I
demand, therefore, by what authority it is so collected ? If they
answer, by 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 by the authority of scripture, then they concede that
which we demand : for it will thence follow, that the scripture
had a canonical authority before it was confirmed by the judgment
of the church. If 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 Holy Spirit, not the
public judgment of the church. Therefore, the testimony of the
Holy 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 be no doubt ; and
the minor is easily established. For if the judgment of the church
always rendered the authority of scripture canonical in respect of
us ; 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 it : 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 Holy 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 may be easily
established. For 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 by the Holy 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 by
the Holy 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 ? They answer that Christ hath promised
this. Be it so. But where, I pray, hath he promised it ? Readily,

XI-] 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 these : "I
will be with you always, even to the end of the world." Matth.
xxviii. 20. "Where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there I will be in the midst of you." Matth. xviii. 20. " I
will send to you the Comforter from the Father." John xv. 26.
" Who, when he is come, will lead you into all truth." John xvi. 13.
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 church ; but, contrariwise, that the authority of
the church depends on scripture. Surely it is a notable circle in
which this argument revolves ! They say that they give authority
to the scripture and canonical books in respect of us ; and yet they
confess that all their authority is derived from scripture. For if
they rely upon the testimonies and sentences of these books, when
they require us to believe in them ; 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 thus : If 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 avToirio-Tov, canonical and authentic. Now the first is true ;
therefore also the second. There is no controversy about the major.
The minor may be confirmed by testimonies of scripture. In Luke
viii. 11 the word of God is compared to seed, and 1 Pet. i. 13 is
called " immortal seed." Now then as seed displays itself, and
issues forth, and bears fruit in its season, so the word of God re
sembles the nature of seed ; it springs up, and breaks forth, and
manifests its energy. Besides, 1 Cor. ii. 4, Paul says : " My
speech and my preaching was not in persuasive words of man's
wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and in power," dXX' ev
dwoSei^ei Uvev/uaTos Kal Svvd/xews. In Luke xxiv. 32, those two
disciples, to whom Christ appeared on their way to Emmaus, con
versed thus with one another, after Christ had vanished from their
sight : " Did not our heart burn within us, Kaio/uevri yjv ev r]p.7v,
whilst he spake unto us by the way, and whilst he opened unto us
the scriptures ?" Heb. iv. 12, " The word of God," says the
apostle, " is quick and powerful, <£i2v Kal 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.
24, 25, " If all prophesy," says Paul, " and there come in one that
believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged
of all ; and so are the secrets of his heart made manifest, and so,
falling down on his face, he will worship God, and report that God
is in you of a truth." From 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. The 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 by all means of itself
canonical and authentic.
Our fifth argument is taken from the words of Christ, John v.
34, where Christ says : " I receive not witness of men," eyw ov
irapd dv9pioirov fiapTvp'tav Xafxfiavw. Hence we draw an argument
to this effect : Christ is known of himself; he depends not on the
testimony or authority of any man. Therefore, neither does the
scripture. For the authority of scripture is not less than that of
Christ, whose word it is. But here they will object thus : Did not
Christ use the honourable testimony of John ? Why then may not
also the scripture be commended by 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. The same may be said
of the church ; that is, that it gives testimony to the scriptures ;
that it commends and declares them authentic, and yet 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 said : I
need not that any should give me authority by his testimony; I
am sufficiently fortified on all sides by mine own authority ; I will
abundantly gain authority for myself by mine own testimony. As,
therefore, Christ could of himself demonstrate that he was the
Messiah, so the word of Christ can of itself produce the belief that
it is the word of God. Its being commended by the church is not
for the purpose of receiving greater authority, but in order that its
authority may be the more recognised by men. Canus, Lib. n.
cap. 8, seeks to break the force of this testimony, thus : The sense
is, says he, I do not receive witness of man ; that is, I do not need
the witness of any man, but I allege the witness of John for your
sakes. Be it so. Then also it will follow, that neither does
scripture need the witness of the church.

XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 337
Our sixth argument is taken from the same chapter, verse 38,
where Christ says : " I have greater testimony than that of John ;"
— e^w fiapTvplav /me't^w 'loodvvov : and then he recites three such
testimonies, namely, his works, the testimony of his Father, and the
scriptures. Hence I conclude thus : 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. For 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. Nay, the written
word of God is even more certain and firm than a divine revela
tion and a celestial voice : for so we read, 2 Pet. i. 19. 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 God the Father ; and yet he
says, " We have a more sure word of prophecy," fiefiaioTepov tov
irpoipnTiKov Xoyov. 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 /3e-
fiatoTepov 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. 13, where
Paul addresses the Thessalonians thus : " We give thanks to God
always, because that, when ye received the word of God which ye
heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in
truth), the word of God, eSe<£ao-9e ov Xoyov dv9pwira?v, dXXd
Xbyov Qeov, which also worketh effectually in you that believe."
From this place I argue thus : 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 true ; for the Thessalonians had then heard of no pro
phecy or testimony of any church, but had only received the
word from the lips of Paul : therefore also the latter. Ambrose
writes thus upon that place : " They received the word with such
devotion as to prove that they understood it to be the word of
22
[whitaker.]

338 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
God1." But whence could they understand it to be such ? Certainly
from the doctrine itself, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit ; not
from the authority of any church, or of the apostle himself. For
what church could persuade the Thessalonians by the weight of
its testimony to receive Paul, or assent to his discourses as divine ?
The 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. We read in like manner, Gal. iv. 14, " Ye
received me," says Paul, "as an angel of God, yea, as Christ
Jesus." Whose commendation was it, I beseech you, which pro
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. 11, the Beroeans, when they heard
Paul, examined his teaching not by the judgment of any church, but
by 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 thus : The authority of the un
written word did not depend upon the authority of the church.
Therefore neither does the authority of the written word now
depend upon the church. The argument is conclusive, because
the reason is the same in both cases. The major is proved be
cause, when as yet the word was not published in the scriptures
or written documents, God used to speak immediately to the pa
triarchs, and this word was not commended or received by any
authority of the church, but by that of God alone : therefore also
the written word of God should be received in like manner : un
less it be said that it is of less authority since it hath been con
signed to books than it was before ; which is the height of absurdity.
Paul, Rom. ii. 15, 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 God, be acknow
ledged of itself and by 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 God ; much more is the gospel sealed in our hearts by the Holy
Spirit, and received on account of the Holy Spirit's authority.
For, if we understand that the law is the will of God, not per
suaded by the authority of the church, but by the internal light
of the law ; how much more need is there that we be illuminated
by the light of the Holy Spirit, before we believe the gospel;
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 found : to irvev/xa eari to /xapTvpovv, oti irvev/xd
ko-Tiv r) dXrj9eia> " It is the Spirit that beareth witness that
the Spirit is truth ;" that is, by a metonymy, that the doctrine
delivered by 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. For 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 God is greater ;" r) /xapTvpla tov Qeov nelXoov:
whence we understand that no testimony can be either greater
or more certain than the divine. But the testimony of the church
is human : 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 by " 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 ye believe not Moses' writings, how shall ye believe my
words?" et tois eKe'ivov ypa/xptacri fit] irio~TeveTe, irws to7s e/mois
prjp.ao-i •Kio-TevaeTe ; They are Christ's words to the Jews : whence
I conclude thus : They 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 the 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 words1." And
Theophylact interprets this place in the following manner : " If
ye believe not words written, how shall ye believe my words that
are not written ?" Ov iriaTeveTe tois ypapL/aacri, Kai iruis iri-
aTevaere toIs ep.ols dypdcpois pr/fiainv ; It is evident, therefore,
that those who are not moved by the authority of the scriptures
themselves, to embrace them with a pure faith, can be moved
or induced by no other argument or authority to believe.
Stapleton does not touch upon the foregoing arguments, where
by it is plain that our cause is abundantly demonstrated : but now
follow some which he endeavours to obviate. For, Lib. ix. c. 2,
he proposes six arguments of the Protestants, as he calls them,
which he answers severally, c. 3. The first four arguments are
taken from Calvin, Instit. Lib. i. c. 7,2 the remaining two from
others, which we shall join to the foregoing along with the de
fence of them.
Calvin's first argument, therefore, shall be our twelfth, which
is this : If 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 judgment ; because we believe those pro
mises on account of the canonical authority of the scriptures in
which they are contained. But it is absurd, that the promises
of God should depend upon men, that the eternal truth of God
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 ? Be it
so. But is it merely divine ? For surely it is requisite that the
truth of the promises of eternal life should be propped and sup
ported by a testimony purely divine. This Stapleton does not
openly affirm, but afterwards seems to wish it to be understood,
P Comment, in Concord. Evang. p. 241. Lugd. 1606.]
p Tom. i. pp. 57 — 62. ed. Tholuck. Berol. 1834.]

XI-] QUESTION THE THIRD. 341
when he says that it is divine and infalhble, 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 by 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. Be it so ; let the judgment
of the church be divine. Well, is not the judgment of scripture
divine also in Stapleton's opinion? Why then may we not ac
quiesce in the judgment of scripture as well as in that of the
church ? But indeed, when he answers thus, he accomplishes no
thing. For 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 so ; — unless perhaps he has forgotten his own Thesis.
This latter question he gives us no information upon. He says
only, that God 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 by us to be
true solely on account of the church's authority, and whether it be
not proved in some other way than by the church's own testimony
that God speaks through the church ? By 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. For there is a wide difference between these
two propositions; God speaks through the church, and, We can
not be otherwise certain of the scriptures and doctrine of God,
but because the church attests them.
Cochlseus indeed, of whom we have heard before, asserts that
we cannot be certainly persuaded of the doctrine of scripture other
wise than by the testimony of the church. For 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 by
us as true. From 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. For thus we read,
1 John, v. 10, " He who believeth not God, makes him a liar."

342 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
He therefore who no otherwise believes God promising, but on ac
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. 24, " We have not do
minion over," ov Kvpievo/xev, " your faith ;" tJ} irltrTei ecrTrjKaTe,
" by faith ye stand." We stand, indeed, by faith, and that is the
gift of the Holy Ghost, not of the church. We see, therefore, that
it is not on the church's, but on the Holy Spirit's authority, that
we persevere stable and constant in the faith, and fall not from
divine grace. Besides, by 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 words ; but 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 be
lieve whatever we believe on the church's authority ? For if the
judgment of the church causes the books of scripture to be canoni
cal to us, then it certainly is the cause why those things which are
contained in scripture are judged and believed true by 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. Why, there
fore, should he not also concede, that the ultimate resolution of faith
is placed in the judgment of the church?
From what hath been said it appears that all the promises of
scripture are, in Stapleton's opinion, confirmed by 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 why, asks Stapleton, when the
testimony of the church is divine ? I answer : We 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 Holy 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
of Calvin's in another way ; 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.
He 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 by us on account of the church. What
Stapleton subjoins out of Ephes. iv. 11, 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. For although the
people be retained by pastors and doctors in faith and obedience, it
does not therefore follow that it is solely by their authority that
the permanence of the people in their duty is effected. For 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 by the magistrates and ministers of the king;
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 this : 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 true; for who fails to perceive
that, in this way, scripture is exposed to infinite reproaches and
calumnies from men ? Here Stapleton, overcome by the force of
truth, is compelled even against his will to speak the truth. He
says that it is not by the good will of men, but the testimony of
1 [Opp. Paris. 1571. p. 46.]

344 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
God speaking through men, that both the scriptures and all the
rest of our faith have their authority. This we willingly embrace.
For we confess that the scripture hath its authority from the testi
mony of God ; and we confess also what he adds, that God speaks
through men : 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. And 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
God 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.
The scripture, says he, does not receive from the church any pre
carious authority, since it depends not upon the church in itself, but
only in respect of us ; when yet he had said only a little before,
that we believe on the testimony of God 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 by means of the church ;
because God speaking through the church commends it to us, and
makes it conspicuous. If he distinguishes God speaking through
the church from the church itself, we concede all this, and then
conclude that scripture rests upon the authority of God. If he do
not distinguish, then he makes God 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
God 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 same ? 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. For 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.
Now if it be the testimony of God 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 thus :
The testimony of the Holy 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. We say that the scriptures are
proved to us by the witness of the Holy Spirit: therefore, we
apply the most certain testimony, even in the judgment of our
adversaries themselves, who dare not deny this. For 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. For 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 God ;
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 Holy 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 one ; 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. For 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. If they say, it
is public to a few, I would fain know of them how it can be called
public and manifest at all? But I demand besides, who these few
are to whom it is public ? They 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. For 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 Holy Spirit ; yea, the scriptures them
selves plainly teach the contrary, that the testimony of the Holy
Spirit is only private, internal, and secret. In 2 Cor. i. 21, Paul
says that God hath sealed us, and given to us the earnest of the
Spirit : but where ? in our hearts. In Rom. viii. 16, 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.
10, he who believes upon the Son of God is said to have the testi
mony, not in any external tribunal, but ev eavTip, in himself. In
Matth. xvi. 17, Christ says to Peter, "Flesh and blood have not
revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." In
which words he unquestionably implies that the persuasion was
wrought, and the revelation made inwardly to Peter, by the Holy
Spirit, which he had just before confessed concerning Christ. In
1 John ii. 20, John addresses all the faithful in this manner : " Ye
have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things."
vixels y_p'iap.a eyeTe, Kal o'loaTe irdvTa. And at verse twenty-seven
of the same chapter, " The anointing which ye have received re-
maineth in you," ev vp.lv /uevei. He 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. 21 :
"My Spirit, which is within you," &c. And it is certainly re
pugnant to the nature of the Spirit, that this testimony should be
external and public. For 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 ; yet 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 very papists themselves are compelled to acknowledge
it. For so Hosius in his Confessio Petrocoviensis, cap. 16 : "Now
we 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 be believed but on account of the voice of God
speaking to us within1." But certainly the testimony of the church
cannot be called the testimony of the Spirit in a strict sense, but
only by way of similitude, or in so far as it agrees and harmonises
P 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. 21. Opp. Lugd. 1564.]

XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 347
with the testimony of the Spirit. For we do not deny that the public
judgment of the church may agree with the secret testimony of the
Holy 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. For 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. He slanderously pretends also
that we make the judgment of the church merely human ; which is
not true. For although we say that the church is composed of
men, yet when its testimony agrees with the judgment and testi
mony of the Holy Spirit, and is in harmony with the word of God,
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 is : this is the sole question before us, — whence 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 us ; otherwise they do nothing.
But assuredly they can produce none ; nor hath Stapleton himself
produced any, but only taken things for granted. He only says
that we are impudent, if we do not believe, and unworthy of being
disputed with ; or else proves the conclusion by itself after this
fashion : It is true that the judgment of the church is divine,
because the church itself says so; it is governed by the Holy
Ghost, because it says that it is so governed. We may, 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. Nor is there any reason why we should say
more upon this argument.
Now follows our fifteenth argument, the fourth of Calvin, which
is this : The church is said (Ephes. ii. 20) 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 doc
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 by a
double equivocation concealed in these two words, foundation and
church. For he says, in the first place, that the foundation in
this place does not signify the doctrine written by the prophets and
apostles, but their preaching : next, he says, that by 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.
As 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 us : for the preaching of the prophets and
apostles was precisely the same as the scripture itself. This is mani
fest from Acts xxvi. 22, 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 come ;" ovSev bktos Xeymv.
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. 11, where the Beroeans
are said to have examined the preaching of the apostles by 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.
Now 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. 11, and 1 Cor. xii. 28. But under the name of pro
phetic doctrine always in the scriptures the whole doctrine of the
old Testament is wont to be understood. So 2 Pet. i. 16, where the
apostle says: "We have a more sure word of prophecy;" eyop.ev
fiefiaioTepov tov irpocpr/TtKov Xoyov. So Heb. i. 1, where the
apostle says that God had spoken formerly in divers ways to the
fathers by the prophets. So Rom. i. 2, where Paul says, that

XI-j QUESTION THE THIRD. 349
God had before promised the Gospel Sid twv irpotprjTolv aWov ev
ypa(pous dylais. So Luke i. 70, 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
tTToptaTos Ttoi/ ayiwv Tiiov air alwvos irpo(prjTwv avTov." There
fore in this place also, under the name of prophets are understood
the old, and not the new prophets. For if Paul had understood
those prophets of the new Testament, why 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 prophets : for he says
that the apostles were posterior in time to those prophets whom
Paul names here, and yet are set in the first place: UpwTov
Ti9r\iji tovs airocfToXovs etryaTovs bvTas toIs y^povois1. 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
by word of mouth, and afterwards in books that were to remain for
ever. How then can the church be now founded upon that preach
ing, which hath ceased and come to an end many ages ago?
Fourthly, Ambrose says that by 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 Ephes. iv. 11,
and 1 Cor. xii. 28. The 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. We have discussed the first ambiguity ; it remains
that we come now to the second.
The second equivocation which Stapleton remarks in Calvin's
argument is in the word Church. Stapleton wishes to understand
in this place by 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 of
the faithful, as if they had another foundation to rest upon besides
the prophetic and apostolic doctrine; whereas absolutely all the
[i In Ephes. Horn. vi. T. n. p. 39. B.]

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 body of the faithful, is founded upon
the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, but not as it denotes the
prelates and governors. Hence 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.
He says that the scripture is posterior to the church in regard of its
acceptation in respect of us : as if approbation and acceptation were
not the same thing, or scripture were not then accepted when it
was approved. The adversary, therefore, cannot elude Calvin's
argument by this distinction. What he subjoins, namely, that the
pastors are known before the scriptures, is utterly false, and a bare
faced begging of the question. For we ought first to know how
good pastors should feed their 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 then-
art, and in no other way : 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. As 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 by
Augustine in his exposition of Ps. Ixxxviii. we allow it and concede
it readily : but the reason is because that by their constancy the
weaker are sustained and strengthened ; by 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 he 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. For 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 this : 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 by other things, but all other things
to be proved and confirmed by them. If this hold in human
sciences, whereof men are the authors, much more does it hold
in scripture, whose author is the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth.
Whoever is the author of this argument, it is most true. It seems
to be Musculus's. Stapleton answers by a distinction (for he is
very copious in distinctions, which he generally abuses greatly,) in
this manner : 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,
by a demonstration shewing simply that they exist. Such is the
case of scripture. I answer : We confess that the scriptures may
be demonstrated by 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 we are much aided in this matter by 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. We receive indeed the axioms of
the sciences, when they are first delivered, and believe them to be
true, induced by the words and authority of the professors of those
sciences : but when we understand the reason of them, then we
believe rather on account of the plain and necessary truth of the
axioms themselves, which we perceive ; for they have an infallible
reason in themselves which commends them to our belief. The
existence of the principles of the sciences may be explained to us ;
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 by the voice of the church,
although they are in themselves most firm and certain principles,
which are both proved by the authority of God himself, and fortify
each other by their mutual testimony. Stapleton subjoins that the
scripture is in such a sense a principle in religion as yet 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. Now 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 which are believed ; but
the church is the rule of all those things which are believed.
Where 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 be
lieved; while yet he determines the church to be that rule, although
it be itself one of the things which are believed. For 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, why does not the same argument hold also against
the church ? But is the voice of the church indeed the rule of
faith ? Yea, 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 by the rule. The
scripture itself is the rule of faith, as we shall hereafter shew
more clearly : for the voice of the church ought to be governed by
scripture, and the church is the effect of faith, and therefore cannot
be the rule of faith. -For the church is the multitude of the faith
ful ; and therefore ought to be governed by faith, to follow faith,
to depend upon the rule of faith, and adjust all things by it. But
the voice of the church is an act of the church, and posterior to the
church. The voice of the church is the voice of men : 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 : The
church is subject to the scripture ; therefore it ought not to judge

XI-] QUESTION THE THIRD. 353
of scripture. The argument is perfectly conclusive, if we under
stand an authoritative judgment, as the lawyers express it, which is
what the papists would have. The antecedent is proved by a two
fold testimony of Augustine. The first is contained in his treatise
against Faustus the Manichee, Lib. xi. 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 understanding1." The
second is in his book de Vera Religione, c. 31, where the same
Augustine says that "it is lawful for pure minds to know the eternal
law of God, but not lawful to judge it." Here also Stapleton seeks
to escape under the screen of one of his customary distinctions.
He says that the church, as it denotes the body of the faithful, is
subject to the scriptures ; but, as it denotes the pastors, governors',
and prelates, is not subject, because they rather judge 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 body 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. Are not
these also obliged to be subject to the scriptures, and to submit
their understandings to them ? See what things these popish pre
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 judge of scripture not yet
accepted ; I demand whether scripture be yet accepted or no ?
They cannot deny that scripture hath been long ago accepted. It
follows, therefore, that this judgment of the chureh is at an end.
Nor is the sense of Augustine different in the second passage, as
may easily be perceived from observing his own words. He says
that the church does not judge the scripture (which he calls the
law, rule, and truth), but only according to the scripture. For he
uses there a similitude taken from the civil laws, which agrees ex
cellently well with our defence. "Just 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 judge to judge concerning them,
P Excellentia canonicse auctoritatis veteris et novi Testamenti . . . tanr
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 them1;" the same is the case of the divine
law. For such is the gist of his comparison. But who hath
authority to establish divine laws ? Not 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. For
asmuch then as the scriptures are made and promulgated by God,
they ought not to be subjected to human judgment, nor can any
one lawfully sit in judgment upon them. God hath established
these laws. It is our part to receive, acknowledge, venerate, obey,
submit ourselves to them, and judge of every thing according to
them, not to exercise judgment upon them. And this all men with
out exception are bound to do ; 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. Let us attend and see how he performs his promise.
Calvin, Instit. Lib. i. c. 9, disputes against those who introduce en
thusiasm, and shews that their enthusiastical spirits, of which they
boast, are to be judged of by the scriptures. They say, that it is
unjust to subject the Holy Spirit to scripture. Calvin answers, that
no injury is done to the Holy Spirit, when he is examined by scrip
ture, because in that way he is tried by no foreign rule, but only
compared with himself. Now 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. Hence Stapleton gathers this argument: As, says he, it
is no insult to the Holy Spirit to be examined by the scriptures, so
it is not an insult to the scripture to be examined by 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 Holy Spirit; which is what he will never
be able to prove. For the whole scripture is divinely inspired, and
ever in harmony with the Spirit. Therefore every spirit which
agrees not with scripture is to be rejected : but all churches do not
agree with scripture. Here then halts this so boasted argument
of Stapleton's, wherewith he hoped to be able to close our mouths.
P Sicut in istis temporalibus legibus, quanquam de his homines judicent
cum eas instituunt, tamen cum fuerint institutse atque nrmatse, non licebit
judici de ipsis judicare, sed secundum ipsas  ^Eternam igitur legem
mundis animis fas est cognoscere ; judicare non fas est. — August. De "Ver.
Belig. cap. xxxi. T. i. p. 977.]

XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 355
And thus far Stapleton, who is bold in words, but in argument
loose and weak, as we have seen. Let us now dismiss him.
Now follows our eighteenth argument, which is this : 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 this, — whe
ther acquired or infused ? They call that acquired which is gained
by our own exertions, and human topics of persuasion ; that infused,
which the Holy Spirit hath disseminated and inspired into our
hearts. H 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 pro
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 :
"Ye have seen all these miracles," says Moses to the Israelites;
" but God hath not given you a mind to understand, ey es to see,
and ears to hear, unto this day." Whence we perceive that we
believe nothing as we ought without infused faith, not even things
the most manifest, such as were the miracles which Moses mentions.
Matth. xvi. 17: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh
and blood hath not revealed these things unto thee, but my 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 : yet Peter nevertheless could not be
lieve before a divine revelation was added to all this ; and therefore
Christ attributes the whole of Peter's faith to revelation. To the
same effect is what we read of Lydia, Acts xvi. 14, whose heart
God is said to have opened. 1 Cor. xii. 3 : " No one," says Paul,
" can call Jesus Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." And, verse 9 of
the same chapter, faith is reckoned amongst the gifts (yapio~naTa)
of the Holy Spirit ; and he speaks there of justifying faith, not of
the faith of miracles. From 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 by an infused faith, they say
precisely the same as we. For what else is that infused faith but
the testimony of the Holy 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 by the witness of the Holy Spirit. There is a notable
23—2

356 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
passage of Augustine's, Confession. Lib. xi. 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. For, 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
my body to the sounds which should issue from his lips. But if he
were to speak in the Hebrew tongue, it would strike my senses in
vain ; nor would any of his discourse reach my understanding : but if
he spoke in Latin, I should know what he said. But how should I
know whether he spoke the truth ? And even if I knew this, should
I know it from him ? Surely within, inwardly in the home of my
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, He speaks the truth ; and I, ren
dered certain immediately, should say confidently to that man of
thine, Thou speakest truth. Since then I cannot interrogate him,
thee I entreat, 0 Truth, filled with whom he uttered words of
truth ; thee, 0 my God, I entreat, have mercy on my sins, and do
thou, who didst grant to him thy servant to speak these things,
grant to me also to understand them 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. For they will not, I
suppose, attribute more to the church than to Moses and the pro
phets. If therefore, although Moses and the prophets too were to
rise from the dead and declare that what they wrote was true, yet
their testimony would not suffice us for faith, but we should require
in addition the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, and a divine
P Audiam et intelligam quomodo fecisti coelum et terram. 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 prseberem aures corporis mei sonis erumpentibus ex
ore ejus. At si Hebrsea voce loqueretur, frustra pulsaret sensum meum, nee
inde mentem meam quicquam tangefet. 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, nee
HebrEea nee Grseca nee Latina nee barbara Veritas sine oris et Unguse organis,
sine strepitu syllabarum diceret, Verum dicit; etego statimcertus confidenter
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.
The same Augustine says also, in his book Contra Epist. Fund.
c 14, that, " in order that we may obtain an understanding of what
we believe, it is requisite that our minds should be inwardly confirmed
and illuminated by the Deity himself2." And in his book De Vera
Religione, c. 31, he writes thus, as we have just heard : " It is law
ful for pure minds to understand the eternal law [of God], but to
judge it is unlawful3." Where then are those who arrogate to them
selves this judicial power, which they would exercise upon the scrip
tures, whose authority is supreme ? Basil, upon Ps. 115, writes of
faith thus beautifully and truly : " Faith," says he, " is that which
draws the soul to assent by a force transcending the methods of
logic : faith is that produced, not by the necessary demonstrations
of geometry, but by the energy of the Holy Spirit4." Thus we
believe not till the Holy Ghost — not the church — hath inspired us
with faith. Hereto appertains also what Ambrose says, De Fide
ad Gratian. Lib. i. c. 5 : " Do not," says he, " 0 Arian, estimate
divine things by our (sayings, or writings, or authorities, or
words); but believe them divine, when you find that they are
not human5." Divine things, therefore, are proved by them
selves, are believed on their own account. Salvian, the bishop,
De Providentia, Lib. in., writes thus : " 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 truth6."
We have besides the testimonies of papists themselves. For the
chief popish writers may be cited in this cause. Gabriel Biel, in
Sentent. Lib. in. Dist. 25, in Dub. 3, speaks thus : " Catholic veri
ties, without any approbation of the church, are by their own na
ture immutable, and immutably true, and so are to be considered
p Ut . . . quod credimus intelligere mereamur, non jam hominibus, sed ipso
Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram firmante atque illuminante. T. x. p. 192.]
[3 Vide supra, p. 354.]
P ij iirep rds XoyiKas peBohovs ttjv tyvxyv els o-vyKard&eo-iv eXKOVo-a, k.t.X 
T. I. p. 313, B. Whitaker, in making this citation, writes incorrectly avy-
Kard^ao-iv for o-vyKardBeo-iv.]
P Noli, Arriane, ex nostris sestimare divina, sed divina crede ubi hu-
mana non invenis.— Opp. T. iv. p. 122. Par. 1603.]
[e Humana omnia dicta argumentis et testibus egent, Dei autem sermo
ipse sibi testis est : quia necesse est quicquid incorrupta Veritas loquitur, in-
corruptum sit testimonium veritatis. — Salv. Opp. Par. 1684, p. 43.]

358 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH. XI.
immutably catholic1." But this is a catholic verity about which we
inquire : it is, therefore, immutable in its nature, and immutably to be
considered catholic, and that, without the approbation of the church.
Hosius in his Confessio Petrocoviensis, cap. 16, says that we believe
the gospel on no other score, but on account of the voice of God
speaking within and teaching us2. This he affirms more than once
in that book, although afterwards he tries in some degree to
correct and excuse himself. Melchior Canus, Loc. Commun. Lib.
n. c. 8, disputes upon this question at great length, and, though
differing from us in words, agrees with us in substance. For 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 Holy Spirit. Therefore, even by 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 God ; and in
order that we should certainly believe what we receive in scripture,
we have need of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Cani-
sius, in his Catechism, in the chapter upon the precepts of the
church, sect. 16, says that we " believe, adhere, and attribute the
greatest authority to scripture on account of the testimony of the
divine Spirit which speaks in it3." Hence two things are collected :
first, that the Holy Spirit speaks in scripture ; secondly, that the
Holy 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 book: "It is not derogatory to the sacred scrip
ture that it receives witness from the church, although it have greater
testimony from the Spirit of God, who is its author." If this be
true, why hath Stapleton afterwards disputed so keenly against this
testimony of the Spirit, which he had himself confessed to be greater
than the testimony of the church ? And Bellarmine himself, in his
MS. lectures upon Thomas' Secunda Secunda, Qusest. 1, Art. 1, Dub. 1,
teaches that we believe, not on account of the church, but on ac
count of the revelation of God ; 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.
And so much upon the third question.
P Sicut veritates cathoUcte absque omni approbatione ecclesise ex natura
rei sunt immutabiles, et immutabiliter verse, ita sunt immutabiliter cathoUcse
reputandse — p. 253. Brixise, 1574.]
P . . propter Dei vocom intus loquentis. — p. 21. Opp. Lugd. 1564.]
P Scripturse propter testimonium divini Spiritus in ilia loquentis credi-
mus, &c. — Opus Catech. p. 157. Colon. 1677.]

THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.
QUESTION IV.
CONCERNING THE PERSPICUITY OF SCRIPTURE.

CHAPTER I.
OF THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.
In commencing to speak of this question, we must return to
that foundation which was laid at the beginning. In John v. 39,
Christ says, " Search the scriptures," epevvaTe Tas yparpds- 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 us ; 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. As to our own opinion, the
papists certainly either do not understand it ; or, if they do, treat
us unfairly and slander us in an impudent manner. For we never
said that every thing in scripture is easy, perspicuous, and plain ;
that there is nothing obscure, nothing difficult to be understood;
but we confess openly that there are many obscure and difficult
passages of scripture : and yet these men object to us this, and
affirm that we maintain the scriptures to be perfectly easy.
The council of Trent hath defined or expressly determined no
thing upon this matter. We must, therefore, investigate the opinion
of our adversaries by 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, Loc. 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.
His words are these: "The Lutherans contend that the sacred scrip
tures are clear ; and accordingly laymen and doting old women treat
of them in a style of authority 1." Whence we understand that their
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 by laics, women, and the vulgar. We hold the con
trary, that the scriptures are not so difficult but that they may
be read with advantage, and ought to be read, by 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 it." Hence they conclude that the unlearned are to be
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. in. 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, Lib. 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 Rhe
mists, in their annotations upon 2 Pet. iii. 16, say that the whole
scripture is difficult, but especially the Epistles of Paul ; 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." What 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 by no means be conceded. For if Paul ever said any thing
plainly, he hath declared his mind upon this subject in a perspi-
P Lutherani contendunt scripturas sacras esse claras ; ideo laici et delirso
anus eas tractant imperiose.]

!•] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 361
cuous discourse. The same Rhemists, in their marginal annotation
upon Luke vi. 1, attribute to us this opinion, " that all things are
very easy." The Jesuit Bellarmine affirms that there are many
obscurities in scripture ; which we also concede : but when he de
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 adversary : at least he hath no adversaries
in us upon this point. Prateolus, in his Elenchus Hareticorum,
Lib. xvn. c. 20, 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. 151,
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 by 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 body 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 by 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 by the unlearned ; and what they say, but falsely
say, that we think, that all things are plain in the scriptures, and
that they suffice without any interpretation to determine all contro
versies. Let us now see what our opinion really is.
Luther, in his assertion of the articles condemned by 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 by him most truly, if it be candidly under
stood. The 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. And because this may seem a para
dox, he afterwards explains himself thus : 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 true: for although there is much obscurity in
many words and passages, yet 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. We 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
found; so that it is no wonder that Origen and Jerome himself,
although both of them most skilful grammarians, may 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 these : " The things
¦themselves are in light ; we need not care, therefore, though some
signs of the things be in darkness1." 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. And this he very properly confirms by
the testimony of Paul, 2 Cor. iii. 14, 15, 16, where Paul says that
" the vail is placed upon the hearts of the Jews until this very day,
which vail is done away in Christ ;" and from 2 Cor. iv. 3, where
the same apostle says, " If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them
which are lost:" and he illustrates the same thing by the simili
tude of the sun and the day, both of which, although very clear in
themselves, are invisible to the blind. " There is nothing," says he,
" brighter than the sun and the day : but the blind man cannot
even see the sun, and there are some also who flee the light2."
Stapleton endeavours to take this answer from him. He says that
P Nihil refert, si res sit in luce, an aliquod ejus signum sit in tenebris. —
Opp. "Witeberg. T. u. p. 459. 2.]
p Eadem temeritate solem obscurumque diem culparet, qui ipse sibi
oculos velaret. — Ibid. p. 460.]

I.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 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, yet of
those which are necessary to salvation), it is manifest from their
writings, was thoroughly seen by the fathers. He 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 dog
mas are obscure, as the doctrine of the Trinity, of the distinction
of Persons, of sin against the Holy Ghost, and such like; and
to this sense he tortures that passage which is contained in Rom.
xi. 33, where Paul says that the "judgments 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 God 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 God hath revealed in his word are by no means
inscrutable to us ; and that Paul in that place spoke of the things
of God, not of the things of scripture. Furthermore he says,
that the reason why 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
by 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. He 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 jot is in this way clear in the scripture without
the internal light of the Holy 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 Ps. xiv. : " The fool hath said in
his heart, that there is no God." But if we understand the exter-

? v

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. And this distinction is very necessary : for although, in
the external way, we perfectly hold all the doctrines of religion,
we yet understand nothing internally to salvation, nor have learned
any dogma aright, without the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
Assuredly, this is the difference between theology and philoso
phy : since it is only the external light of nature that is required
to learn thoroughly the arts of philosophy ; but to understand theo
logy aright, there is need of the internal light of the Holy Spirit,
because the things of faith are not subject to the teaching of mere
human reason. We may, in a certain manner, be acquainted with
the doctrines of scripture, and obtain an historical faith by the
ministry of the word, so as to know all the articles of faith, and
deem them to be true, and all without the inward light of the
Spirit, as many impious men and devils do ; but we cannot have
the irXrjpocpopia, that is, a certain, solid, and saving knowledge,
without the Holy 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
stood ; 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 God hath left us,
as if on purpose to keep us constantly scholars in the school of
the Holy Spirit. And in the same place he affirms, that a
man must be impudent who would say that he understood even
any one book thoroughly : and the same hath ever been the
opinion of us all.
The state of the question, therefore, is not really such as the
papists would have it appear ; but our fundamental principles are
these : First, that the scriptures are sufficiently clear to admit of
their being read by 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 THE FOURTH. 365
CHAPTER II.
WHY GOD WOULD HAVE MANY OBSCURITIES IN THE SCRIPTURES.
We should carefully bear in memory the preceding distinctions
drawn by Luther ; 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 God 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. The fathers write excellently well upon this
subject, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. Lib. vi.1, Augustine, de
Doct. Christ. Lib. n.2, Gregory, Homil. vi. in Ezechiel3, and others.
Now the causes are such as follow: First, God would have"7
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 them ; for we are ready to grow weary of easy things : God,
therefore, would have our interest kept up by difficulties. Fourthly,
God willed to have that truth, so sublime, so heavenly, sought and
found with so much labour, the more esteemed by us on that account.
For we generally despise and contemn whatever is easily acquired,
near at hand, and costs small or no labour, according to the Greek
proverb, eirl 9vpas Tr]v 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 by this means to subdue our pride and
arrogance, and to expose to us our ignorance. We 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, God 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
P P. 677, et seqq. ed. Morell. Paris. 1629.]
p cap. 6, pp. 35, 36. ed. Bruder. Lips. 1838.]
p Opp. p. 1261, a. Paris. 1705.]

366 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
are easy to holy persons, appear so many parables to the profane.
For the mysteries of scripture are like gems, which only he that
knows them values ; while the rest, like the cock in .JSsop, despise
them, and prefer the most worthless objects to what is most beauti
ful and excellent. Seventhly, God 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 study ; which
we certainly should not bestow upon them, if we found every thing
plain and open. Eighthly, God 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 oil: 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
it ; 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 Holy Spirit, wherewith, as Au
gustine expresses it, De Doctrina Christ. Lib. n. 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 the arguments of the papists are obviated.
Let 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. 19, where Christ is said to have "preached to the spirits
in prison, which were sometime disobedient in the days of Noah,"
&c. ; and 1 Cor. xv. 29, " What shall .they do who are baptized
for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ?" 1 Cor. iii. 15, " If any
man's work be burned, he shall suffer loss ; yet he himself shall be

in.] question the fourth. 367
saved, yet so as by fire." He 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 ob
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
thus : David was ignorant of many things, therefore much more we ;
consequently, the scriptures are obscure. Now that David was
ignorant of many things, he proves from Psalm cxix., where it is
said, " Give me understanding, and I will search thy law ;" where
also the psalmist entreats God " to teach him " his law, to " illumi
nate his eyes ;" and in many places of that same Psalm he ingenu
ously confesses his ignorance of many things. To the same purpose
he alleges what Jerome writes of Da"vid, to Paulinus, Ep. 13, de
Institit. Monachi: "If so great a prophet confesses the darkness of
ignorance, with what night of ignorance do you suppose that we,
mere babes and hardly more than sucklings, are surrounded1 ?"
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
God 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. Who would believe that these men know what they are
saying ? Do we 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 ? No one was ever so impious and so mad. Therefore we
ought continually to pray with David, that God 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. For 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
P Si tantus propheta tenebras ignorantise confitetur, qua nos putas parvulos
etpene lactentes inscitise nocte circumdari? — Opp. T. i. p. 323. Veron. 1734.]

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 mys
teries of his word ; which is plain from Jerome himself in that same
place quoted by Bellarmine. For thus he subjoins : " Unless the
whole of what is written be opened by him who hath the key of
David, who openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man
openetb, they can be unfolded by no other hand1."
The second passage of scripture which he objects is Luke xxiv. 27,
from which place he reasons thus : 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 us ; 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
thing ; 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. He, being asked by Philip if he understood what he was
reading, replied, " How 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 very 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. Now, we do not say that every thing is immediately plain
and easy in the scriptures, so as to be intelligible to every one;
but we say that those things which at first seem obscure and diffi
cult, are afterwards rendered easy, if one be diligent in reading
P Nisi aperta fuerint universa quaD scripta sunt, ab eo qui habet clavem
Davidis, qui aperit et nemo claudit, claudit et nemo aperit, nullo alio rese-
rante pandentur. — Ibid. p. 324.]

ni-] 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.
For thus he writes of that eunuch2: "While he held the book, and
conceived in thought, uttered with his tongue and sounded with his
lips, the words of the Lord, he knew not him whom in the book 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 iii. 16, where Peter says expressly that
there are SvavorjTa Tiva (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 by
the unlearned and unstable, but simply and absolutely Svo-vbr/ra,
difficulties ; whence he wishes to infer that they are difficult to all,
though especially to the unlearned. And to this purpose he al
leges the testimony of Augustine, De fide et operibus, c. 16, where
he confesses that a certain place in Paul seems to him very difficult.
I answer, first, We concede that some places are hard to be under
stood: therefore, this passage does not make against us. Secondly,
Peter does not say that irdvTa, all things, but only Tiva, some
things, are hard to be understood. And what if some things be
obscure? Yet it follows that the greatest part is plain and easy.
Thirdly, Although Peter inveighs against the dp.a9els Kal daTnpiK-
tovs, "the unlearned and unstable," who o-TpefiXovai "wrest" 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. Now 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 very words : for
he does not say, ev ah, but ev oh, which plainly refers to the tov-
P Cum librum teneret et verba Domini cogitatione conciperet, lingua
volveret, labiis personaret, ignorabat eum quern 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 l 24
[WHITAKER. J

370 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
twv 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. The 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 qua. 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. They 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
obscure : 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. What
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
yet 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, Gregory; all
of which very learned fathers may be passed over by us, since
they say absolutely nothing that makes against us. For 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 by us as they ought : 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 Irenasus,
who, in his second book against heresies, cap. 47, 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. "Like
wise," says he, "in the scriptures we understand some things, and
some things we commit to God1." I answer, that nothing could
P Si ergo et in rebus creaturse qusedam quidem eorum adjacent Deo,
qusedam autem et in nostram venerunt scientiam ; quid maU est, si et eorum

n'-] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 371
be said more truly ; for never any man attained to all things that
are delivered in scripture. But we speak of things necessary.
This testimony of Irenaaus avails against those, who, elate with
pride and carried further than behoves them by curiosity, attribute
to .themselves a knowledge of all things, and especially of the scrip
tures : but it in no way touches us, who confess that there are
many matters in scripture too abstruse to be perfectly understood
by 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 book2. So, in his seventh book against Celsus, he
says that the scripture is in many places obscure3. I answer, We
say also that study and diligence are required in reading the scrip
tures, and that assiduous prayers are also necessary. The papists,
therefore, are impertinent, who say that we affirm that any one
may treat the scriptures negligently and without prayer, and yet
understand them correctly, or that the scripture is not in many
places obscure.
The third father whom Bellarmine cites is Ruffinus. He, Lib.
xi. c. 9, writes that Basil and Nazianzen were both bred at Athens*
both colleagues for many years; 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 be
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 by 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 re
quired in the people. It is sufficient for them to understand and
quse in scripturis requiruntur, universis scripturis spirituaUbus existentibus,
qusedam quidem absolvamus secundum gratiam Dei, qusedam autem com-
mendemus Deo? — p. 203. b.]
p Opp. T. n. p. 174. Par. 1733.]
P pp. 338, 9. ed. Spencer. Cantab. 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, — epewaTe rds ypacpas, "search the scriptures,"
— says 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. For 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 by the Jews ; but we
judge both dihgence and faith to be required in the reading of
them. The Jews read the scriptures negligently and without faith :
we 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. 44; where two reasons
are brought why God chose that the scriptures should be obscure.
The first is, that some might be teachers and others learners;
because if all knew all things equally well, a teacher would not
be necessary, and good order would not be maintained amongst
men. The second reason is, lest scripture should be not so much
useful as contemptible, if it were understood promiscuously by all.
I answer : This is precisely the same as we say ourselves, that God,
induced by the fittest reasons, chose that there should be many
obscurities in scripture. But what hath this to do with the cause
in hand? In the fifth place, he objects Ambrose, Epist. 44 ad Constan-
tium Episcopum, where these words are found : " The holy scripture
is a sea, having in it deep meanings, and the profundity of prophetic
enigmas, into which sea have entered many streams1." I answer:
We readily confess with Ambrose, that there are many obscure
meanings in scripture, and that scripture is like a sea : 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
P Mare est scriptura divina, habens in se sensus profundos, et altitudi-
nem propheticorum senigmatum ; in quod mare plurima introierunt flumina.
— Class. 1. Ep. ii. § 3. T. vni. p. 181. Ambros. Opp. ed. Caillau. Paris. 1839.]

m-] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 373
also. There are, I confess, in the scripture, as in the ocean, many
depths ; but yet the same Ambrose himself says a little afterwards :
" There are different streams of scripture. You have what you may
drink first, what second, and what last2."
In the sixth place he objects Jerome, from whom he cites three
testimonies. The first is taken from the Epistle to Paulinus on the
Study of the Scripture, where3 he writes that we cannot possibly
learn and understand the scriptures, without some one to go before
and shew the way, 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. The second testimony of Je
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 others ; upon which latter account, he had gone as far
as to Alexandria, to consult there a certain learned man called
Didymus. The 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 obscurity4. I answer : We willingly acknow
ledge and concede all these things ; 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 them ; lastly, that
the Epistle to the Romans is obscure ; and so that some books are
more obscure than others. Yet, 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 pro
duces four testimonies. The first is cited from his work De Doctr.
Christ. Lib. n. 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
P Sunt ergo et fluvii dulces atque perspicui, sunt et fontes nivei, qui saliant
in vitam seternam . . . Diversa igitur scripturarum divinarum fluenta. Habes
quod primum bibas, habes quod secundum, habes quod postremum. — Ibid.]
P Hsec a me perstricta sunt breviter . . . . ut intelligeres, te in scripturis
Sanctis, sine prsevio et monstrante semitam, non posse ingredi. — Ut supra,
p. 369.] P T. I. pp. 864 — 70.]

374 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
generally held cheap1." I answer: Yet the same father says in
the same chapter, that the Holy 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. The 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 practice2. The second testimony of Au
gustine is taken from his Confessions, Lib. xn. cap. 14, where
he says, that " the depth of the divine words is wonderful 3."
I answer : 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. The third testimony cited from Augustine is
contained in his third Epistle to Volusianus, where he says that
"the 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 order." I answer : Here the Jesuit betrays his remarkable
unfairness, and really singular dishonesty : for there foUow imme
diately these words which he hath omitted : "Not that one comes at
those things which are necessary to salvation with so much diffi
culty4." 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 by its humble style, whom
it feeds with its manifested truth, and exercises with that which is
P Quod totum provisum divinitus esse non dubito ad edomandam labore
superbiam et intellectum a fastidio revocandum, cui facile investigata ple-
rumque vilescunt. — Opp. T. m. p. 27.]
P In eis enim quse aperte in scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur ilia omnia
quse continent fidem moresque vivendi. — Ibid. p. 31.]
P Mira profunditas eloquiorum tuorum, quorum ecce ante nos superficies
blanditur parvulis : sed mira profunditas, Deus meus, mira profunditas. — T.
I. p. 253.]
P Tanta est enim christianarum profunditas literarum,ut in eiscontinuo pro-
ficerem, si eas solas ab ineunte pueritia usque ad decrepitam senectutem,maximo
otio, summo studio, meliore ingenio addiscerem. Non quod ad ea quse necessa-
ria sunt saluti tanta in eis perveniatur difficultate. — Ep. 137. n. 3. T. ii. p. 526.]

m0 QUESTION THE FOURTH. 375
hidden." He says, moreover, that the scripture hath in its ready
places whatever it hath in the recondite ones : " but that, lest men
should grow 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 pleasure5." When the Jesuit passes
all this over in silence, he displays his own extraordinary desire to
deceive us. The fourth testimony of Augustine is found in Epist.
cxix. c. 21 : " In scripture," says Augustine, " there are many more
things that I know not, than that I know6." 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 knowledge : yet
Augustine both professes that he himself knew whatever was neces
sary, and concedes that it might be easily understood by others.
The eighth testimony cited by the Jesuit is that of Gregory
the great, in his sixth Homily upon Ezekiel, where he writes thus :
" The very obscurity of the words of God is of great use, because
it exercises the perception so as to be enlarged by 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 search V I an
swer : Nothing could be said more truly. We confess with Gre
gory, 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
p  quasi amicus familiaris sine fuco ad cor loquitur indoctorum
atque doctorum. Ea vero quse in mysteriis occultat, nee ipso eloquio su-
perbo erigit, quo non audeat accedere mens tardiuscula et inerudita, quasi
pauper ad divitem; sed invitat omnes humili sermone, quos non solum
manifesta pascat, sed etiam secreta exerceat veritate, hoc in promptis quod
in reconditis habens : sed ne aperta fastidirentur, eadem rursus operta desi-
derantur, desiderata quodammodo renovantur, renovata suaviter intimantur.
— Id. ibid. prop, fin.]
P Et miror quia hoc te latet, quod non solum in aliis innumerabiUbus
rebus multa me latent, sed etiam in ipsis Sanctis scripturis multo nesciam
plura quam sciam. — Ep. 55. c. 21. n. 38. p. 190.]
p Magnae utilitatis est ipsa obscuritas eloquiorum Dei, quia exercet sen-
sum, ut fatigatione dilatetur, et exercitatus capiat quod capere non potest
otiosus. Habet quoque adhuc aliud majus, quia scripturse sacrse intelligen-
tia, si in cunctis esset aperta, vilesceret. In quibusdam locis obscurioribus
tanto majore dulcedine inventa reficit, quanto majore labore fatigat animum
,. — Opp. T. I. p. 1213. Paris. 1705.]

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 Gregory.
But what man in his senses would reason thus: Some things in
scripture are obscure, so as not to be understood in a moment;
therefore either nothing can be understood, or the scriptures are
not to be read ? And so much for the Jesuit's second argument.
Bellarmine's third argument is founded upon necessary reason
ing. In scripture, says he, we must consider two things, the
things spoken, and the way in which they are spoken. Whichever
we regard, there is the greatest difficulty. For, 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 like ; and Bellarmine asks, why metaphysics are more obscure
and difficult than the other sciences, but because of their subject-
matter ? — because, 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, by observing that the subjects of scripture are indeed
obscure, hidden, abstruse, and mysterious, yet not in themselves
but to us. When 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 obscure) ; but what I mean
is, that the subjects of scripture, as they are set forth and delivered
in scripture, are not obscure. For example, that God is one in
substance and three in persons, that God 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 by no means be per
ceived by us ; yet they are proposed plainly in scripture, if we will
be content with that knowledge of them which God hath chosen to
impart to us. As 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 very 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.
And so much of the obscurity of the things themselves.
Now as to the manner of expression, he proves the scriptures

HI.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 377
to be obscure by six reasons. The first reason is, because there
are many things in the scriptures which may seem at first sight
contradictory and plainly repugnant to each other ; such as these
two places, Exod. xx. 5, where God threatens that he " will
visit the sins of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and
fourth generation ;" and Ezekiel xviii. 20, where we read that the
very 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 ; yet 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 together : 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. For it is certain that God punishes men for their own,
and not for other people's sins, as we are told, Ezek. xviii. 20.
Therefore, what is said of the punishment of parents being derived
upon their posterity, Exod. xx. 5, must needs be understood with
this condition, if their posterity continue in their wickedness : for
if they avoid their parents' sins they will not be subjected to their
punishments. — The second reason, to prove that the scriptures are
obscure in their manner of expression, is this: 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 easy ; for
the words are ty\v apyrjv b ti ical XaXui vp.iv, that is, Kara Tr/v
dpyfiv. Of which words this meaning is obvious enough : I am
no other than what I have said that I was from the beginning. —
The third reason is, because there are many imperfect speeches
and sentences in scripture, as in Rom. v. 12, wo-tvep occurs without
any thing to correspond to it : 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 this. — The fourth reason is, because there
are in scripture many sentences put out of order ; as Gen. x. 31,

378 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
we find it written thus, " These are the children of Shem, accord
ing to their families and their tongues:" but in chap, xi., at the
very 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 (vaTepov irpbrepov) is common. The rule of Ticonius
given long ago 1 was : That some things are related in scripture by
way 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. xvi. 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 language ; and setting out
from thence, he now explains what occurred to produce a diversity
of languages2." Secondly, it should not be translated, " The peo
ple was of one speech," but, "had been of one speech:" 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 very hard to be understood, as Ps. Ixxxix. 29,
"like the days of heaven;" as if there were day and night in
heaven, or as if heaven lived by day and night like men. So Ps.
cxix. 108: "My soul is alway in my hand3." I answer, that
there are, indeed, in the Hebrew, as in other tongues, certain
idioms and phrases proper and peculiar to that language ; 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. For who is so dull as not to
understand what such modes of speech as these denote ? God spake
by the hand of Jeremiah, or, The word of the Lord came by the
hand of Zechariah, that is, by the ministry of that prophet. So,
P Sextam regulam Tichonius recapitulationem vocat .... Sic enim di-
cuntur qusedam, quasi sequantur in ordine temporis, vel rerum continuatione
narrentur, quum ad priora quse prsetermissa fuerant, latenter narratio revo-
cetur. — Augustin. de Doctr. Christ. Lib. in. c. 36. T. in. p. 81.]
p Cum ergo in suis Unguis istse gentes fuisse referantur, redit tamen ad
illud tempus narrator, quando una lingua omnium fuit ; et inde jam exponit,
quid accident, ut linguarum diversitas nasccretur.]
P This phrase, however, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. It occurs in a
fragment of Xenarchus' Pentathlus, preserved by Athenseus, iv x(tpi Thv
¦fyvxi" £X0VTa> hehtora. — Deipnos. Lib. xiii. § 24. p. 669. ed. Casaub.]

'"•] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 379
" His throne is like the days of heaven," that is, shall endure per
petually like heaven itself : and, " my soul is in my hand," that is,
is exposed to every danger. — The sixth reason why 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, by these
tropes and figures. For 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 light. Augustine, de
Doctr. Christ. Lib. n. c. 6, writes thus upon this subject : " No
one doubts that things are more pleasantly understood by simili
tudes4." 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
thus : " He 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 you) to make his
discourse more plain5." And a little after : " Whenever scripture
uses metaphors, it is wont to explain itself more clearly." In the
same way Thomas Aquinas, in the first part of Summ. Quaest. i.
Artie. 9, respons. ad Arg. 2 : " Whence those things that in one
place are spoken under metaphors, are expressed more clearly
elsewhere6." Therefore, although the scriptures are rendered more
obscure in some places by 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 thus : 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 them : although those who
P Nemo ambigit per similitudines libentius quseque cognosci. — T. in. p. 28.]
p iratei he aiirb, oirep eqbr/v del, rbv Xdyov ipabavriKdrepov Karao-Kevdfav . . .
iravraxov iv rais pera(j)opais eavrr)v eppijvevetv e'taBev t) ypaabr/. — Opp. T. I. p.
1084. Eton. 1612.]
P Unde ea quse in uno loco sub metaphoris dicuntur, in aliis locis ex-
pressius exponuntur. — Qusest. I. Art. ix. Resp. ad Arg. 2. p. 4. Par. 1639.]

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 ex
plication of some rather obscure place; 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 by the
confessionists from these words, "Abraham believed God, and it
was imputed unto him for righteousness ;" — one, of faith ; the other,
of imputation : as if, forsooth, being justified by faith and being
justified by 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 by Hosius, in his third book against
Brentius. So also Lindanus, in his Dubitantius, and Prateolus, in
his Elenchus Hareticorum, Lib. ix. c. 35. And so much of Bel
larmine's fourth argument.
Now 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 answer : Now
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 by 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.
Now follow the arguments upon our side. We 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. They are nine in number, to which we will add three ; and
so this whole cause will be concluded in twelve arguments.
We 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 by the following arguments, whereof
the first is taken from Deut. xxx. 11, where we read it thus written:
" This commandment which I command thee this day is not hidden
from thee, nor far from thee : It is not in heaven, that thou
shouldest say, Who 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, Who 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 them; and he brings Tertullian, contra
Marcion. Lib. iv. Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Comment, in 10
Rom. 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 by
the apostle in the 10th chapter of the Romans. We have only to
see whether it can be concluded from this place that the scripture
is easy : which indeed is plain from the words themselves ; first,
because it says, that " the commandment is not hidden ;" next, be
cause it says that there is no need that any one should "ascend
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 make ; and concludes
that this word is near, in the mouth and in the heart : 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. For if the commandments
of God can be easily obeyed, then certainly they can more easily
be understood. For it is much more easy to understand God's
precepts than to fulfil them ; 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 by
us : 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.
The Jesuit's second answer (for he distrusts the former one)
is this, that those words are to be 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 by Moses. I answer :
It 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. For he care
fully exhorts the people to walk in all the ways of the Lord, and
keep all his precepts, ceremonies and judgments. And, in order
that these might be the better understood, the monuments of scrip
ture are delivered by Moses, as we find in chap. xxxi. 9. But let
us take what he gives. For, 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. The Decalogue is everywhere repeated,
inculcated, explained in the other books of scripture. Now 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 pre
ceding verse, and from Augustine, Qusest. 54 in Deut. and De Lyra
upon the place, and Hieronymus ab Oleastro, a papist himself, who
says, in his commentary on these words, that Moses speaks of "the
whole law," 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 number :" and in what sense he calls
them easy, he shews before, where he says, " that the command
ments of God are not difficult and hidden, but easy to be understood,
said, and done." There is no reason why I should make any larger
defence or discourse upon our first argument.
Our second argument is to this effect : In Ps. xix. 9, the word
of God is called clear ; and Ps. cxix. 105, it is called a lamp to our
feet, and a light to our paths ; and Proverbs vi. 22, Solomon says,
" The commandment is a lamp, and the law is light." From these
and similar places it is evident, that the word is not so obscure as
to be unintelligible, but perspicuous and plain. The 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 it ; and in
Ps. xix, he speaks of those two things which manifest and declare
God to us, and by which men attain to a knowledge of God, the
creatures and the word of God, which latter is there described by
him under many titles. For 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, by a metonymy,
because it teaches the fear and reverence of the Lord ; and this
doctrine he declares to be sound and perfect, and to give wisdom
to the simple. He therefore did not mean any part, but the whole
scripture, the teacher of true and perfect wisdom. Genebrard, upon
Ps. xviii, 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 Lyra
and many others. Now the third place is hkewise 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. The 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
by the word, when we speak the commandments of the word of
God : our inward eye also is fed by 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 way 1." And Augustine, Concio 23 in Ps. cxviii. hath
these words : " The saying, ' Thy word is a lamp to my feet and
a light to my paths,' denotes the word which is contained in all the
holy scriptures2." 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. The 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 God. A lamp hath light in itself,
whether men look upon that light or not : so also the scripture is
clear and perspicuous, whether men be illuminated by 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 light otherwise. But we affirm that it may be under
stood by all who desire to know it, and bestow the pains they
ought ; even as a lamp may be seen by 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. For a lamp is beheld by those who have eyes ; 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. 130, it is said to illuminate, or bring light to babes.
Our third argument is taken from Matthew v. 14, where Christ
thus addresses his apostles: "Ye are the light of the world."
Therefore, the apostolic doctrine, and consequently the scripture,
I1 Pascitur enim os nostrum verbo, cum loquhnur mandata Dei verbi.
Pascitur et oculus noster interior lucernse spiritalis lumine, quas nobis in hac
mundi nocte prselucet : ne sicut in tenebris ambulantes, incertis titubemus
vestigiis, et viam veram invenire nequeamus. — § 5. T. iv. p. 288, ed. Caillau.
Paris. 1836.]
P Quod ait, Lucerna, etc  vorbum est quod scripturis Sanctis om
nibus continetur. — Opp. T. vi. p. 705.]

IV] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 385
hath light in itself. So Brentius argues against Soto, and not ill.
The 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 works," &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. And 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.
And so indeed by the fruit of heretics or false apostles, Matth. vii.
20, 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.
As if forsooth the sun had no light in itself, unless blind men could
see it. For scripture in this matter is hke 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 Brentius3, namely, that the preaching of the
apostles was plain and luminous, but that the scripture is not
equally plain ; that they preached plainly, but that their writings
are more obscure. And 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. Now, as to
the solution of this argument, I wish to know, in the first place,
P Opp. Lugd. 1563. p. 550.]
r i 25
[WHITAKER.J

386 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
why 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 go in
quest of another. However, I answer thus : although the living
voice of the apostles, when they preached, had more force in it to
move the passions of men ; nevertheless, in regard of the sum of
evangelic doctrine, the same facility and perspicuity appears in
their writings. For if " the word of prophecy " be like a lamp,
that is, clear and plain, as Peter expressly affirms, 2 Pet. i. 19,
(where he understands the writings, not the preaching of the pro
phets, as we shall afterwards prove,) then certainly the apostolic
word must needs be still clearer and more illustrious. And hence
springs our next argument.
For thus we reason in the fourth place : It is written, 2 Pet.
i. 19, "We have a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well
that ye 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 place; 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 be 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. For 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 eyes ; 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 lamp : 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 by the
gospel. What 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

IV.]

QUESTION THE FOURTH. 387

saw^ that our cause was confirmed by 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 be capable of
being easily seen and understood : as if he were to say, it is not a
lamp, unless you see it shining ; whereas it is a lamp, and shines,
whether you see it or will not see it. The apostle says that it
shines in a dark place : therefore it dispels the shades. So the
scripture dispels the darkness from our mind, by 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 these : " If 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. The 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 book 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. For he says that he delivered to the
Corinthians the gospel most sincerely, without any deceit or false
colouring, /mr) SoXovvTes tov Xoyov tov Qeov, and then presently
follow these words : " If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that
are lost ;" 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 more : for this is as much as we require or contend for, that all
things necessary to salvation may be easily known from scripture.
For 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 ob
tained him, and learned him aright, want nothing for eternal salva
tion. The 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. [CH.
says, that the apostles had nothing dark, avveuKiao-fxevov, either in
their life, or in their doctrine and preaching, ev Tip KnpvyfxaTi.
Ambrose also understands these words of the whole gospel delivered
by the apostles. So also CEcumenius ; for he observes, that it is
as much as if the apostle had said : The 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. 0»x rjuwv
'eyKXr/fxa rj daafbelas tov evayyeXlov, a\Xa Trjs eKe'tvwv airwXeias
Kal TvdtXtoo-eius. Theophylact also says upon this place, that the
light and brilliancy of the gospel is such as to dazzle the eyes of
the impious1. Thomas Aquinas upon these words says, that the
cause why 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
of the number of the faithful. Therefore the whole cause of ob
scurity or ignorance is not the difficulty of the things, but the
blindness and incredulity of men.
Our sixth argument is as follows : The 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. The Jesuit puts in
this conclusion, — therefore the whole scripture is manifest ; and
denies the consequence. I reply, if by the whole scripture he un
derstands every several passage of scripture, we frame no such
argument; but if by 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
joins, — that, 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. For there is nothing in scripture so plain that some men
have not doubted it ; as, that God is Almighty, that he created
heaven and earth, that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, con
ceived of the Holy Ghost, and so forth : these are indeed plainly
and openly set down in scripture, and yet there are controversies
P acrirep ei ris drbBaXpidvrd riva airoKXeio-ete tov prj rds aKrivas rod 17X10V
Ihfiv, ha pr) Kal irpoo-fiXapeiT).  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. The apostle says that
the minds of infidels are blinded by the devil, lest they should see
that brilliant light and acquiesce in it : which is most true of our
adversaries. Our seventh argument stands thus: 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. 11, but
the new Testament is like a book opened, as we read, Revel, v.
We 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 by saying that this is true,
not of the whole scripture, but only of the mysteries of our re
demption which is wrought by 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 by 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 body, 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, 'To-day
shalt thou be with me in Paradise,' immediately the vail of the
temple was rent, and all things were set open ; and, the covering
being removed, we can say, 'We 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,
p Priusquam Salvator humanum corpus assumeret, et humiUaret se for-
mam servi accipiens, clausa erat Lex et Prophetse, et omnis scientia scriptu
rarum, clausus erat Paradisus. Postquam autem ille pependit in cruce, et

390 THE first controversy. [ch.
in his Epist. 13, de Instit. Monach. to Paulinus), that a vail is placed
not upon the face of Moses only, but of the apostles and evangelists
also ; he speaks there of the difficulty of believing without the Holy
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 by what is still more unknown. Luther hath this
argument in the Preface of his Articles condemned by Leo X. The
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 ? For 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.
And 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 Irena3us, 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 by 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 Holy Spirit excels
in all powers of expression. Where 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
Holy 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 be instructed by
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. The Jesuit answers, that the first fathers
consulted the apostles themselves, and learned from them the sense
of scripture, and afterwards wrote commentaries. And he shews
out of Jerome, that commentaries on the Apocalypse were pub
lished from the very first by Justin Martyr and Irenseus. I an
swer : It 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. As to his objection from Jerome's catalogue, article Jo
hannes1, that Justin and Irenseus wrote commentaries on the
Apocalypse, the statement is untrue. For Jerome does not affirm
this, but only says that they interpreted the Apocalypse. Perhaps,
therefore, they expounded some obscure places in the Apocalypse ;
but how correctly, appears from the circumstance of their establish
ing the error of the Chiliasts by the authority of this book. But
let us grant them to have written something upon this book: will it
therefore follow that they published commentaries upon the whole
scripture ? By no means. Certainly the Apocalypse is a small
book compared with the whole of scripture. Besides, the Jews
before Christ had no commentaries on the prophets, and yet they
understood them. The scriptures, therefore, are not so obscure as
the papists wish them to appear. We confess, indeed, that we owe
a deep debt of gratitude to those who have written learned com
mentaries, because by their means we understand scripture with
increased facility; but yet that the scriptures may be understood
without them, is clear from the fact that they were understood
P Scripsit Apocalypsim, quam interpretantur Justinus Martyr et Irenseus.]

392 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
before any commentaries were pubhshed : and if at the present day
no commentaries remained, the scriptures would nevertheless be
understood. These are the arguments of Luther and Brentius. We will
now add three arguments of our own : whereof the first, which
shall count as the tenth, is this : If the scriptures be so obscure
and difficult to be understood, that -they cannot be read with ad-,
vantage by the people, then this hath happened, either because the
Holy Spirit could not write more plainly, or because he would not.
No one will say that he could not: 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 Rom. 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 we briefly conclude this argument. The Holy Spirit willed
the scriptures to be consigned to writing in order that we might
understand them ; 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 by us, or else the
Holy Spirit hath not gained his end; which cannot be thought
without impiety.
Our eleventh argument is on this wise. There are two classes
of men, — the faithful, and the infidels. To 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. 27, " My sheep hear my voice ;" that is, they understand
it. So Jeremiah xxxi. 34, " All shall know the Lord, from the
least to the greatest." So Christ says to his disciples, Luke viii.
10, " To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
God," &c. So Paul, 1 Cor. ii., last verse, "We have the mind of
Christ." The faithful, therefore, understand, acknowledge, approve
the scriptures. And the scriptures are such in themselves as by

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. For they not only have light in themselves, but they illu
minate others also with their hght. So the Apostle, 2 Cor. iv. 6,
attributes not only (pws [light], but tpu>Tuyp.bs [illumination] also
to the scripture. So great, then, is the brightness of scripture,
that it opens even the eyes of us who are blind by nature, and re
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 yet be of great avail against our
adversaries, who studiously affect such arguments in every question.
First, Augustine upon Psal. viii. says : " God hath made the scrip
tures stoop to the capacity of babes and sucklings1." And, de Doctr.
Christ. Lib. n. c. 6, he writes thus : " The Holy Spirit hath so
modified the scriptures, combining ornament with utility, as to
provide for our hunger in the easier places, and prevent satiety by
the more obscure. For scarce anything can be gotten out of those
obscurities which may not be found spoken elsewhere with the
utmost plainness2." The Jesuit says that it is not for nothing that
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 Holy 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. The 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. 44. in Johan. : " He feeds us with the clear, and ex
ercises us with the hidden3." Therefore those things which can feed
P Inclinavit ergo scripturas Deus ad infantium et lactentium capacita-
tem. — T. v. p. 64.]
p 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. m. p. 28.]
P 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 yet not such as to be unintelhgible,
but to require greater diligence and industry. And, de Doctr.
Christ. Lib. n. c. 9, he writes thus : " 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 charity1."
Wherein we may observe four things. First, what things are
necessary to salvation, — namely, a right faith and a pious fife.
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, If we ask, whether they
are set down plainly or obscurely in scripture ? Augustine answers,
Plainly. What could possibly be more clearly expressed?
The same author, in his piece de Peccat. meritis et remissione,
Lib. n. c. 36, 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,
yet I believe that here also the authority of the divine oracles
would be most clear, if a man could not be ignorant of them
without the loss of promised salvation2." Where he declares that
he does not doubt but that those points, which cannot be unknown
without the loss of salvation, may be proved by 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 Book de Utilitate credendi, c. 6, he writes thus of this
matter : " 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 rehgion demands3." K there
[1 Vide supra.]
P Etsi enim quodlibet horum, quemadmodum demonstrari et explicari
possit, ignorem, illud tamen credo, quod etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum
clarissima auctoritas esset, si homo illud sine dispendio promissse salutis igno-
rare non posset. — Opp. T. xiii. p. 88.]
P Quidquid est (mihi crede) in scripturis istis, altum et divinum est.
Inest omnino Veritas, et reficiendis instaurandisque animis accommodatissima
disciplina, et plane ita modificata, ut nemo inde ham-ire non possit quod sibi
satis est, si modo ad hauriendum devote ac pie, ut vera reUgio poscit, ac-
cedat. — 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. Why do they not permit men to draw their salvation from
the scriptures, but because they are enemies to men's salvation?
And, in his fifth Book 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 learned4: which Thesis
when our adversaries maintain, they resemble the heretical more
than the catholic doctors. Let these testimonies suffice from
Augustine. We bring forward Chrysostom in the second place, who hath
clear testimonies in our favour. He, 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 by them
selves. His words are these : " What then, they say, if we do not
understand what is contained in books ? Yet by all means, although
thou understandest not what is hidden there, yet great sanctity is
gained by the very perusal of it. Although indeed it is impossible
that you 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 by these books, lest any of the uninstructed should
fly to this excuse of difficulty ; that the things spoken might be
easily discerned by all ; that the craftsman, and the servant, and
the widow, and the most unlearned of men, might gain some benefit
and advantage from hearing them read5."
Then he subjoins the comparison of the philosophers with the
prophets and apostles. " For 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 Holy Spirit, com
pose all their works. The 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
p Exaggeras quam sit difficilis paucisque conveniens eruditis sanctarum
cognitio Uterarum. — Opp. Anti-Pelag. T. n. p. 241. Lovan. 1648.],
p 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, by the mere perusal, might be enabled to understand
what was said." Thus Chrysostom. The 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. Where he confesses that many can
read the scriptures with advantage ; which is sufficient : for these
many are not only learned, but unlearned also ; since it is plain
enough that Chrysostom speaks not merely of the learned, but
of the unlearned also : 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 by 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 ap
prove, and consider ourselves very fortunate if by 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 :
" All things are clear and plain in the divine scriptures1." And
because this might seem a paradox, he afterwards explains himself
by saying, irdvTa to dvayKala, " all necessary things are clear
and plain ;" so that we have no need of homilies and sermons, ex
cept Sid Tr]v pa9vp\'iav rj/mwv, 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 why? Are they in Hebrew, or Latin, or
any foreign language ? Are they not spoken in Greek ? Yes, you
say, but obscurely. Tell me, I beseech you, what is that obscu
rity?" The Jesuit answers, that he is speaking only of the histo
rical books ; which is false : for he says of all things necessary
to salvation, iravra SrfXa, aacprj, ev9ea, " they are all manifest,
P XlavTa o-acbi) Kal eiBea ra irapa rats Betats ypaqbals- iravra to dvaymia
hijXa.—T. XI. p. 528.]

Iy0 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 Romans : " Wherefore, if
ye also will resolve to bestow a studious and diligent perusal upon
this piece, there will be nothing more required by you, ovSevbs
eTepov Ser)aetj9e, for true is the word of Christ, who says, ' Seek
and ye shall find ; knock and it shall be opened to you V
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 evils ; but that ignorance of the scriptures is the
mother of all errors and heresies. For thus he writes : evrev9ev ra
fxvpla e(pv KaKa, airo toov ypacpojv ayvolas. " 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. For even
as those who are deprived of the use of the light of this world
can never go 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 thus:
" 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 Trypho 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 exposition2." Where he says
that the scriptures are so easy that he who hears them merely, im-
P Pag. 274, e. Paris. 1636.]

398 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
mediately understands them. For the Greek words shew that this
is affirmed of the scriptures themselves, not merely of those matters
which he mentioned out of the scriptures : irpoaeyeTe oh ixeXXw
dvafxipivrjo-Keiv dirb tiZv dy'iiov ypacpwv, ovSe e^rjyr/9ijvat Seop.evwv,
dXXd p.bvov aKova9rjvai. Irenseus, Lib. in. 15, affirms the doc
trine of the apostles to be "manifest and firm, keeping nothing
back1." Thus it is both perspicuous and perfect. Clemens Alex-
andrinus, in his irpoTpeirTiKos Xoyos, or exhortation to the Gentiles,
writes thus : " Hear ye that are far off, hear also ye that are nigh.
The word is concealed from none; the light is common, it beams
on all men ; there is nothing Cimmerian in the word. Let us haste
to salvation, to regeneration2." 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 him; 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 add; " and, if he
would say something, must discharge the office of a grammarian
rather than of a reasoner3."
Basil, in his shorter definitions, Qusest. 45, where he handles
the question, — If a man, having heard the Lord (who had said,
"The servant that knew his Lord's will and did it not, neither pre
pared himself to do his will, shall be beaten with many stripes ; but
he who knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten
with few stripes,") should on that account studiously neglect the
knowledge of the divine will, hath he any comfort ? — declares it evi
dent, that he who is such, falsely pretends ignorance, and inevitably
incurs judgment for his sin. For, saith the Lord, "if I had not
come among them and spoken to them, they had not had sin ; but
now they have no cloak for their sin." Then he subjoins what makes
P Igitur testificatio ejus [Lucse] vera, et doctrina Apostolorum manifesta
et firma, et nihil subtrahens. — Pag. 273, B. Paris. 1675.]
P 'AKoio-are oSv 01 paKpdv, aKovo-are 01 iyyvs- oiiK direKpifii] rivdt 6 Xoyos •
<bds io-ri Koivbv, iirtXdpirei iracrtv dvBpdirots- oihels Kippepios iv Xoya. o^irev-
o-apev els o-aTrjptav, iirl ttjv iraXtyyeveo-tav. — p. 56, D. Paris. 1629.]
[ In plerisque ita se ipse suis exponit sermonibus, ut is qui tractat nihil
inveniat quod adjiciat suum ; ac si velit aliquid dicere, grammatici magis quam
disputatoris fungatur munere. — Ep. 37. (class. 1.) T. viii. p. 448. Paris. 1839.]

IV.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 399
for us in this controversy : tjjs dylas ypatpfjs iravTayov irdtxt to
9eXr/pia tov Qeov SiayyeXXovuris*- " The sacred scripture every
where declares to us the will of God. Therefore he who is such will
not be condemned with a lesser judgment along with those who
are in ignorance, but with a severer, with those of whom it is
written, 'They 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 by him'/' The same author, in the begin
ning of his Commentary upon the Psalms, observes : " From scrip
ture, as from a common repository of drugs to heal our souls, ev
Koivio twv ^vymv larpeiip, every man may choose a remedy suited
to his complaint, each may be his own physician." Epiphanius,
Hares. 69, says : " All things are clear and full of light in the
divine scripture5," &c. And Har. 76, " All things are clear in
the divine scriptures to those who will approach with pious reason
ing to the divine word :" irdvTa aacprj ev Trj 9e'ia ypafprj toIs
(iovXonevois evoefiel XoyiirpLip irpoirepyea9ai Tip 9eltp Xoytp6.
Cyril of Alexandria, in his seventh Book against Julian, an
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 by every one. His words are these : "But
some one will say, that the divine scripture hath a style and
diction common to all, vulgar and trite ; 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 be known to all, small and great, are usefully committed to a
familiar diction, so as to transcend no man's capacity7." The 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
ought ; but that every sentence in them is inaccessible to Julian
and such as he.
p Basil. Opp. T. n. p. 542, A. B. 1618.]
p rdv prirdv irdvrrj ev Qvevpari 'Ay'ta Karrjvyao-pevav. — T. I. p. 763. ed.
Petav.] p Ibid. p. 920, A.]
p Sed dicet aliquis quod divina scriptura communem omnibus et vulga-
rem ac protritam habet dictionem, res autem Grsecorum diserte dicuntur, et
abundant gratia et eloquentia. Dicimus igitur, quod lingua quidem Hebrseo
rum Prophetica dicta sunt et Mosaica : ut autem omnibus essent notse par-
vis et magnis, utiliter familiari sermone commendatse 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 age ;
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 by the letter, and
instructs us unto knowledge: there the promise which draws us
by grace, and leads us to glory1." Gregory the great, in the
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 by straight paths," writes in this manner :
" The ways of the Lord are right ways, fair ways, full ways, plain
ways : right, without error, because they lead to life ; fair, with
out soil, because they teach purity ; full in multitude, because the
whole world is now within the net of Christ ; plain, without diffi
culty, because they freely bestow sweetness2."
The same may be proved even from the papists themselves. For
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
by the ignorant people; and that there is no degree of rudeness so
P In quibus denuo mandatis, tanquam ditissimis fercuhs, sic ccelestium
deUciarum copia spiritalis exuberat, ut in verbo Dei abundet quod perfectus
comedat ; abundet etiam quod parvulus sugat. Ibi est enim simul et lacteus
potus, quo tenera fideUum nutriatur infantia, et soUdus cibus quo robusta
perfectorum juventus spiritualia sanctse virtutis accipiat incrementa. Ibi
prorsus ad salutem consulitur universis quos Dominus salvare dignatur. Ibi
est quod omni setati congruat : ibi quod omni professioni conveniat, etc. —
p. 649. Antwerp. 1574.]
P Vise Domini vise rectse, vise pulchrse, vise plcnse, via planse : rectse sine
errore, quia ducunt ad vitam ; pulchrse sine sorde, quia decent munditiam ;
plense multitudine, quia totus jam mundus est intra Christi sagenam ; planaa
sine difficultate, quia donant suavitatem. — Sermones de Divers. Serm. xx. 1.
Bernard. Opp. T. in. p. 41. Paris. 1835.]

IV-J 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. 151, 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 good morals, and easy examples; of which
kind are the moral sentences, and some of the sacred narratives,
useful for moulding our manners3." Thus our opponents confess
that those things are plain in scripture, which contain the chief
heads of faith, and precepts and examples of practice. We accept
this admission ; nor did we ever think or write that every thing
was plain in scripture. For 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. For 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 by 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. For in
every dispute their common phrases are, — This is clear, — This 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.
p Utpote quse prima summaque rerum credendarum principia, ac prseci-
pua bene vivendi prsecepta et exemplo cognitu facilia complectantur, ut sunt
morales sententise, et sacrse qusedam historise formandis moribus utiles.]

r i 26
[whitaker j

THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.
QUESTION V.
CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.

CHAPTER I.
THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.
It is written, John v. 39, ' EpewaTe Tas ypatpds, " 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 book against Eunomius, where he says, that " piety is
not in the sound of the air, but in the force and meaning of the
things denoted1." The same appears also from Jerome's commentary
upon the first chapter of the Galatians, where he writes thus :
" 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 reason2." vSince scripture there
fore is concerned not merely with the words, but the true sense of
the words, which we may rightly call the very life and soul of
scripture; it is plain that this precept of Christ, wherein he bids
us " search 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
papists, — Whence 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. The Tridentine fa
thers, in their fourth session, command that no one shall dare,
to interpret holy scripture contrary to that sense which holy
P I cannot find this in the place specified ; and suppose there is a mistake
in the reference.]
P Ne putemus in verbis scripturarum esse evangelium, sed in sensu ; non
in superficie, sed in medulla ; non in sermonum foUis, sed in radice rationis.
— T. vn. p. 386.]

*•] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 403
motherclvurchji^ and holds, to whom (as they say) it
belongsTo~ju3ge of the true sense and interpretation of scripture ;
or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers. They 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. For we
inquire further, what is this church ; and who are these fathers ?
We 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
pleton : 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 lodged; 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.

CHAPTER 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 serological, 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 astiologically, when it is shewn why 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. He 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 either tropological, or anagogic, or allegorical.
26 — 2

404 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Thomas Aquinas, in the first part of his Sum. Quaest. i. Art. 10,
says out of Gregory, Moral. Lib. xx. 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 by that book mentioned Ezek. ii. 10, and Revel, v. 1,
which was " written within and without." The words of Gregory
cited by Thomas are these : " The 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
event1." Nazianzen compares the literal sense to the body, the
mystical and spiritual to the soul. The Jesuit uses a different
simile : " As," says he, " the begotten Word 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
reject : we concede such things as allegory, anagoge, and tropo
logy in scripture ; but meanwhile we deny that there are many
and various senses. We 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 collecj-
tions from one sense, or various applications and accommodations
of that one meaning.
Now the Jesuit's assertion, that the literal sense is that which
the words immediately present, is not true. For then what, I
beseech you, will be the literal sense of these words, Ps. xci. 13,
" Thou shalt go upon the adder and the basilisk ; the lion and the
dragon shalt thou trample under foot ? " For 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 is
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
P Sacra scriptura reliquas scientias ipso locutionis suse more transcendit,
quia uno eodemque sermone, dum gestum narrat, prodit mysterium. — p. 4.
Par. 1639.]

"•] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 405
make the literal sense of Isaiah xi. 6, 7, 8, and Ixv. last verse?
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
hteral sense to be that which the words immediately suggest.
Finally, if this Jesuitical definition of the literal sense be true,
what literal sense, I pray you, will remain in those words of
Christ, Matth. v. 29, 30, " If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it
out; 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- it ; but rather that which arises from the
words themselves, whether they be taken strictly or figuratively.
If the discourse be 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 Hares. 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 by the words, denote. For 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.
As 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. For 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. The apostle, indeed, Galat. iv. 24, interprets the history
of Abraham's two wives allegorically, or rather typically, of the
two Testaments ; for he says in express words, anvd ko-Tiv aXXr\-
yopovfxeva, &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 dXXn-

406 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
yopoip.eva, for that history is not accommodated by 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, bu^jpjTton_thetype,
part in the transaction_itself, In either of these consiaered~sepa-
rately and by itself part only of the meaning is contained ; and by
both taken together the full and perfect meaning is completed.
The 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 together ; 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 type 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, thus : 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 wouldhe absurd to say that either the one or th&-othex_was
thg^senseoTThTsrhisTbryi So much upon allegories.
Tropologynath~"still less claims to be esteemed a new sense,
because it flow^_plaiply and necessarily_from_ihe__y_ery 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
band ; therefore we should neither trust too much to a great num
ber, nor despair with a few. David, given up to inactivity, was
entangled by 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 son : therefore we should beware of
drunkenness, lest we fall into disgrace and mischief. " Thou -shalt
not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn :" therefore ministers

n-J QUESTION THE FIFTH. 407
are to be supported and supplied with all things needful. This is
what Paul collects from the words, 1 Qbr, 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. 41, 42,
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.
We should form a like judgment of the type or anagoge. In
Psalm xcv. God says, "I sware in my wrath, that they should
not enter into my 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 type of the kingdom of
heaven. Yet this is not a twofold sense ; but, jEhen.the sign is re-
ferred_to the thing signified, that which was. hidden in.the_sign.is,
more_ openly expressed. When we proceed from the sign to_ tihe
thing signified, we bring no new sense, but only bring out into
light what" was before concealed in the sign. When we speak of
the sigh hy itself, we express only part of the meaning ; and so also
jv]ien_vyje_ment2on^_only. .the .thing signified.: but when the mutual
relation between the sign and the thing signified is brought out,
thenthe whole complete sense, which is founded upon this simili
tude and agreement, is set forth. Paul says, 1 Cor. x. 11, " All
these things happened to them for ensamples," or typically, tvwoi
avvefiaivov eKelvois, &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 by 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. For although this sense be spiritual, yet it is not a different one,
but really literal ; since the letter itself affords it to us in the way
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. He 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. They had indeed many things of a

I-

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 jthings. As 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 by
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, by expounding a similitude,
we compare the sign with the thing signified, and so bring out the
true andw_£nJtir^-^ensa_oXJhj|_WOTds.. So in our sacraments there
are~libt two senses, the literal and the mystical; but onejonly,
founded in , the comparison and conjunction of Jh.e_ signs_andjthings.
As our bodies are washed with water, so our souls are purified by
the blood of Christ: as our bodies are strengthened with bread
and wine, so are we wholly sustained by the flesh and blood of our
Saviour. So from these types Paul argues : K 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,
by which he admonishes the Corinthians to take warning.
The sense of scripture, therefore, is but one, — the literal ;
for if is folly to feign many senses, merely because many things
follow from the words of scripture rightly understood. Those
things may, indeed, be cahed,.corolk_iries or consequences^ flowing
from the right understanding of the words, but new and dif
ferent senses they are by no means. Thomas Aquinas himself
appears to have seen this ; for, in the 1st part of his Sum. Quaest.
i. Art. 10, he writes thus : " 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 mind ; there is nothing im
proper in saying that, even according to the literal sense, there
are several meanings of scripture in one text1." Since then that
is the sense of scripture, and the literal sense, which the Holy
Spirit intends, however it may be gathered ; certainly, if the Holy
Spirit intended the tropologic, anagogic, or allegoric sense of any
P Quia sensus literalis est quem auctor intendat, auctor autem sacrse
scripturse Deus est, qui omnia simul suo intellectu comprehendit ; non est
inconveniens, si etiam secundum literalem sensum in una Utera scripturse
plures sint sensus. — p. 4. Par. 1639.]

"•] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 409
place, tr^gse senses are...nolijyflacgB.t from the hteral. as Thomas hath
expressly taught us. So also Alphonsus de Castro, Lib. i. contra
Hares, cap. 3. " He that shall choose to confine the sense of a
parable within the letter, will not do amiss2." So much for the
first preliminary.
We 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. For 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. Now the reason why sound arguments are always derived
from the hteral sense is this, because it is certain that that which is
derived from the words themselves is ever the sense of the Holy
Spirit ; but we are not so certain of any mystical sense, except when
the Holy Spirit himself so teaches us.^\For example, it is written,
Hosea xi. 1, " Out of Egypt have I called my son ;" and Exod.
xii. 46, " 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./ Who, now, would dare to
transfer and accommodate these to—Christ, if the Holy Spirit had
not done it firsjt, 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 also ; and the bone, in the latter, is to
be understood of Christ as well as of the paschal lamb. They who
interpret those places merely of the people of Israel or the paschal
lamb, brings only part of the meaning, not the whole : because the
entire sense is to be understood of the. sign andJhe^tihlngjtsSf
/ jlaken_tQg.e£hei\ and consists in the accommodation of the .sign .to. the
|thigg_signified^/ Hereupon emerge not different senses, but one en-
tire_sense. TTnwflvfir^wiB rnjist. 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. 48, contra
Vincent. Donat., as also Jerome on the 13th of Matthew. Hence
also Dionysius the Areopagite says in a certain place, that " mystical
P Sensum parabolse qui intra Uteralem circumsepire voluerit, non abs re
faciet.— De Sensu Parab. p. 5. Par. 1564.]

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. Lib. ii., that " the literal sense alone supplies arguments to
confirm the doctrines of religion1."
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 Holy Spirit. For, since
he is the author of the scriptures, it is fit that we should follow him
in interpreting scripture. This our adversaries concede : for both
plain reason convinces them, and that passage in 2 Pet. i. 20, makes
the matter sufficiently clear, where Peter says no scripture is iS'tas
eiriXvcrews. But what is the sense of the Holy Spirit ? what his
mind and intention, wherewith all our interpretation should suit and
agree ? In this the controversy consists. Now therefore we must
proceed to the discussion.

CHAPTER III.

THE STATE OF THE FORMER PART OF THIS QUESTION TREATED
MORE AT LARGE.
We have already made two divisions of this question ; — the
former, concerning the authority of interpreting the scriptures, with
whom it is vested; the latter, concerning the means by which we
may come to the true sense of scripture. We have now to treat of
the former, in the first place, and afterwards we shall consider the
latter also in its proper place.
As 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. 42, whose judgment Sta
pleton affirms and explains, Lib. x. c. 11, with a copiousness excelled
P See also Thomas Aquinas, Summ. Theol. Pars. 1. q. 1. Art. 10. Sixtus
Senensis. Bibl. S. Lib. in. p. 141. Vega, de Justificatione, Lib. ix. c. 44.
Salmeron. Comment, in Heb. i. Disp. 7. § idem.]
p Nemo  contra eum sensum quern tenuit et tenet sancta mater
ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione scripturarum
sanctarum  ipsam scripturam sacram interpretari audeat. — Sess. iv.
Decret. 11. p. 20, 21. Lips. 1837.]

Ill-] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 411
by 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 church : 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 by 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. Now Stapleton says, that the sense of
scripture is not that which is given by 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 church? He takes it for granted that their
church is the true church ; 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. He 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 him : 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. For 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 ?
The fifth caution is : We 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 ? Why are we not sent straight at once to the supreme
pastor and pontiff, without minding fathers, bishops, and councils?
Why not repair to and consult him in the first place ? Why not,
at the very 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. For, 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 true ; 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 this : 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 church : 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 be held similarly by us. But how shall
we know what the church holds as matter of faith, and what as
only probable ? This he explains in the next caution. The eighth
caution is : 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 by the application of those means which Sta
pleton is afterwards to deliver.
The ninth caution is : that whatever bishops may have written
or said, or howsoever they may have expounded scripture, their
exposition is not necessarily to be received, if they have only
written, spoken, or expounded by the way. But this involves us
in still greater doubts. For how shall we certainly understand
what things are written by the way, what seriously, carefully, and
professedly, unless the men themselves who write shall tell us?

HI-] 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 ex
plains in the next caution. The tenth caution therefore is : that
the schoolmen have no certain or infalhble authority of expounding
scripture. Thus the schoolmen are deprived of authority. You
see what a matter it is amongst them to be a bishop. All the
fathers, who were not bishops, have their authority lowered by
Stapleton. Such are Origen, Tertullian, Jerome, Bernard, Lom
bard, all the monks, Aquinas, Bonaventura, Scotus, Stapleton him
self, and all such writers who are not yet 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? He
shews this in the next caution. The eleventh caution, therefore,
is; that whatever even the bishops themselves may have said or
written, if they did not teach it as bishops ex cathedra, hath no
certain authority, and is not of necessity to be received by 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.
We have only their books. What 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
by Gelasius in Gratian, causa 15. Tit. Ecclesia Romana1. But
are all these to be received? They will not themselves say this
either : for they do not receive all. Yea, there are many things
in all those books which the papists themselves are compelled to
reject ; and, therefore, he adds a twelfth caution, which is to this
effect : that a certain argument cannot immediately be 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. What then, — where 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. Why did he not bring us straight at
once to this point ? He might at the beginning have sent us to
the church, and dispatched this whole business in a few words.
[i The reference should be, Gratian. Decret. Distinct, xv. c. 3. Sancta
Romana Ecclesia. Whitaker has, by a mistake, quoted the second for the
first part of the Decree.]

414 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
But what is this church, to which we are to repair in the last
resort, and by whose interpretation we ought to abide? For
sooth, the Roman ; for they mean no other whenever they speak
of the church. The sense of scripture, therefore, must be referred
to the Roman church. But what is this Roman church? Must
all be consulted who belong to it? By no means; for no one
could do this, though he spent his life in it. What then ? perhaps
we should only consult the bishops and pastors ; for they always
mean these by the Roman church. But even these we could never
meet personally. Therefore, finally, the church is the supreme
pontiff. To 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
very 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. How, there
fore, shall this agreement be made certainly evident to us ? Besides,
even when they agree, why should we rather believe them so
agreeing than scripture agreeing with itself? Secondly, if we are
still doubtful of the sense of scripture, he desires us to seek it from
a council confirmed by the chief pastor. Thirdly, if even thus all
doubt be not removed, we must seek it from the chief pastor him
self with his council of pastors. Mark how cautiously and with
what hesitation he speaks of his supreme pontiff! But hath not
the pope of himself authority to interpret scripture ? He dares not
to affirm this ; and yet doubtless this is what he means. He was
ashamed, it seems, to ascribe such great authority to the pope
alone. Yet neither did he dare to deny it altogether ; and there
fore timidly and confusedly he names the pope together with a
council of pastors. It was once a great question, whether the
authority of a council or of the pope was greater in interpreting
scripture. Formerly they used to believe that the authority of a
council was greater than that of the pope ; but, since the councils of

III.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 415
Constance and Basle, a greater authority hath been attributed to
the pope. Yet here, I know not how, the Jesuit joins a council of
pastors to the pope. Alphonsus, contra Hares. 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 by the apostolic see : " The apostolic see,"
says he, " comprehends not only the supreme pontiff, but also that
council which the pontiff uses, and by 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 way
of ornament and pomp, and have no place in the settling of any
definition. Yea, although all the cardinals were to say nay, yet
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 alone ; because,
however much the rest oppose, yet 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.
We have heard now their opinion. It remains to see what
ours is. Now we determine that the supreme right, authority, and
judgment of interpreting the scriptures, is lodged with the Holy
Ghost and the scripture itself: for these two are not mutually
repugnant. We say that the Holy Spirit is the supreme interpreter
of scripture, because we must be illuminated by the Holy 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 others : 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. Here, 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 by scripture.
Now, 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. The Jesuit hath drawn his arguments into a conciser
form. With him, therefore, our present contest shall principally
be maintained. He 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. He cites seven testimonies from
the old Testament, which we will examine in order.
The first place is, Exodus xviii. 13, 26, from which he argues
thus: after the people of God were collected and reduced to the
form of a church, Moses sat as supreme judge ; and afterwards
also, though other judges were estabhshed, 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 by divine testimonies, and sent immediately by
God himself. Now the pope hath no such qualifications. If he
be such, let him shew us those extraordinary gifts wherewith he
is endowed, and those testimonies by which he is by 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 be
ministers to interpret the scriptures to the people, and answer those

IV0 QUESTION THE FIFTH. 417
who inquire concerning the will of God. But an argument from
particular churches to the whole universal church does not hold:
for then one might also conclude from this place, that there ought
to be amongst Christians one supreme political judge (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. Now many
of the priests, who in fixed succession after Aaron 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 prophet : therefore we must
not ascribe to him a judicial power, which, according to them,
belongs only to a priest. As to our reading, Ps. xcix. 6, " Moses
and Aaron amongst his priests :" I answer, either that the Hebrew
word1 denotes chief men of the people, as in 2 Sam. viii. 18, where
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 Aaron ; 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 Aaron :
and he illustrates this by 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 none : 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. For 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, xxvhi ? Besides, Jerome, Ep. 85, plainly refutes this ; for he
says, that "all bishops are successors of the apostles3," not of Peter
p |ri3 Gesenius owns that " admodum vetus est sententia Hebrseorum,
in3 etiam principem notare," though he rejects it himself.]
p Apud nos Apostolorum locum episcopi tenent. — Ep. 41. T. i. p. 187.
ed. Vallars.] 27
[whitaker.]

418 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
alone. So Cyprian, Ep. 69 x : and the same author, in his book de
Simplicitate Pralatorum, writes thus : "The other apostles were the
same as Peter was, endowed with an equal share both of honour and
of power2." Besides, if there be any force in the Jesuit's comparison,
why, 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 Christi
and was a type of him who is the supreme Judge of all contro
versies. But now all types are taken away ; 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 people : yea, there was a priest higher than the chief priest ;
which is impossible.
The second place of the old Testament alleged by Bellarmine
is contained in Deut. xvii. 8 — 13 : " If there arise a matter
too hard for thee in judgment between blood and blood," &c. "We
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 judge 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 judge,
but with this condition, provided that he judge according to the
P Potestas ergo peccatorum remittendorum Apostolis data est, et eccle-
siis quas illi a Christo missi constituerunt, et episcopis qui eis ordinatione
vicaria successerint. — Ep. 75. ed. Fell. p. 225.]
P Hoc erant utique et ceteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio
prsediti et honoris et potestatis. — pp. 107, 108. This treatise is now more
commonly (and more correctly) cited under the title, De Unitate Ecclesia;.]

IV-] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 419
law of God, that is, shew from the law that it is the will of God.
This we also wilhngly 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 judge as may determine what he pleases at his own caprice,
and by whose judgment, though destitute of all scripture authority,
we are bound to stand : 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. For he says, first, that those
words, " and shall teach thee according to the law," 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 Hebrew copies, v. 11,
al pi hathorah asher jorucha3 ; 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
promise : for Moses did not mean to say, Abide by the judgment
of the priest, if he teach thee according to the law ; for then men
would have been reduced to greater doubts than before, and the
priest would not be the judge, but they themselves, who would
have to judge 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 by his judgment. What? Simply by
whatever judgment he may pass? God never gave so great a
power to any man ; 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. Were men bound to abide by the judgment of
the priest, even when he taught not according to the law ? Who
would say so ? Therefore the condition is necessary : and yet 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, Do thou
abide by the judge's sentence, and I promise that the judge shall
[8 spiv im rninn '"s-by.]
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 judge,
because he is joined with the priest ; and so the political judge also
will be infallible in civil matters : which (I suppose) the papists will
not allow. But he says that the judge here mentioned is ecclesi
astical, and not civil : 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
judge be there spoken of, then the definitive sentence is assigned to
the priest, but the execution to the judge : which is also manifestly
false. For, first, these words are there contained in the Vulgate,
Ex decreto judicis morietur. Therefore, the judge himself should
pass sentence and adjudge the accused to death; and consequently
the definitive sentence also is assigned to the judge. Again, there
is a fault in the Vulgate edition. For in v. 12, ex occurs for either et
or aut, as is clear from the Hebrew and Greek texts. In the Greek
there is i), or; and the Hebrew word also denotes or, but never
from ; so that the words should be read thus : "He who will not
obey the priest or judge shall die." And that a disjunctive particle
is required, is plain from v. 9 : for they are ordered to come to
the priests and to the judge ; so that he who should presumptuously
despise the priest or the judge should be 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, pre
sumptuous, headlong and frantic, that was punished capitally. The
words of the text stand thus in the Vulgate : 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 : " And the man that
will do presumptuously so as to refuse to hearken to the priest who
stands to minister there before the Lord thy God, or to the judge,
that man shall die." This law gives as much definitive authority
to the judge as to the priest. The Hebrew has, o el hashophet1.
Upon which place Cajetan writes thus : " The translator hath
made a change : for in the Hebrew it is, or to the judge. The
expression is disjunctive, ' in not obeying the priest or the judge.'
p B3&rr^» \s\]

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 by a single
person, but by many priests and the judge. The ordering ex
ecution is ascribed to the pontiff or the judge. Like penalties are
decreed against the opposer of the priest and the judge2." 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 judge; thirdly, that the same penalty was
prescribed for him who resisted the judge as for him who resisted
the priest; fourthly, that the definitive sentence was not of one
priest, but of many, and of the judge. Jerome ab Oleastro, in his
commentaries, gathers from this passage : " That it is not free to
judges to judge as they will, but according to the laws; and that
we are commanded to obey them when they judge according to the
same3." But these men require obedience to whatever they pre
scribe, and will by no means suffer their decrees to be examined.
Cyprian also, Ep. 69, cites this place thus : " It behoves us to
hearken to the priest or the judge4." And 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, by the minister ; if political or civil, by 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 this : disputes of murder, assault, blood, leprosy,
and such like, are always to be determined by some judge, and
there ought to be some certain tribunal for controversies at law :
therefore, there ought to be some supreme judge with whom shall
reside the power of interpreting scripture, and from whom no
appeal shall be permitted. For no tribunal concerning religion
p Interpres mutavit: nam Hebraice habetur, vel judiai. Disjunctive
enim dicitur, non obediendo sacerdoti vel judici. Ubi, prudens lector, ad- -
verte, quod definitio ambiguse causse non ab uno sed a multis sacerdotibus.
et judice describitur. Prsecipere executionem attribuitur pontifici vel ju
dici. Par poena decernitur opponentis se sacerdoti vel judici.]
[s Non est judicibus liberum judicare ut volunt, sed juxta leges ; et illis
parendum prsecipit, cum secundum eas judicaverint. — Comment, in Penta
teuch. Lugdun. 1586.]
P Cum Dominus Deus in Deuteronomio dicat, Et homo . . . . ut non
exaudiat sacerdotem aut judicem. — Ep. 66. p. 166. ed. Fell.]

422 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
hath been constituted by 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. Now, no commonwealth can subsist, unless it have some
supreme tribunal from which no appeal can be made ; but still, in
such cases, where it is consistent with religion, and not impious, to
obey even an unjust sentence. But Bellarmine says that the law
is general concerning all doubtful questions which arose out of the
law ; 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 law ; 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.
The third place which the Jesuit cites is taken from Ecclesi
astes xii. 11, where we read thus : " The words of the wise are
as goads, and as nails driven deep, which by the counsel of the
masters are given from one shepherd. Seek, my son, no more
than these1." Solomon, says he, teaches us that we should
thoroughly acquiesce when sentence is pronounced by the chief
pastor, especially combined with the advice of sage councillors. And
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 God ! I answer : The
meaning is, that the doctrine and heavenly wisdom which the pro
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 piety ; and that one shepherd, who is there mentioned,
is neither the pope, nor the priest of the old Testament, but Christ
himself. For so Salonius, an old father, writes upon this place :
" Who are these wise men ? who is. this one pastor ? The wise men
are the prophets, the one pastor is God2." And Jerome says also
P Verba sapientium sicut stimuli, et quasi clavi in altum defixi, quse per
magistrorum consilium [aliter et rectius concilium] data sunt a pastore uno.
His amplius, fili mi, ne requiras. Vulgate translation.]
P Qui isti sapientes sunt? Quis iste unus pastor? Sapientes sunt
prophetse, unus pastor Deus. — Bibliothec. Patrum. T. vm. Salonius was
Bon of Eucherius of Lyons, and flourished about a. d. 453.]

IV-J 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, God." Where 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 Holy Spirit, as Vatablus ; others, Christ, as
Mercerus; none the pope, except senseless papists. The 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 be
seech you, is the priest of the new Testament, but Christ alone?
We at least recognise no other High Priest of the new Testament.
What 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. 11. The words are these : " Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Ask
the priests concerning the law." I answer : In the first place, we
confess this, namely, that the ministers, bishops and doctors, should
be inquired of concerning the law ; and that, when inquiries are
made, they should answer them ; otherwise they would not do their
duty. But does it thence follow that they have therefore the
power of defining anything just as they choose? 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
judge of scripture, but many, because God says through the pro
phet in the plural number, "Inquire of the priests," not in the
singular, " Inquire of the priest."
The fifth place cited by the Jesuit is contained in Malachi ii. 7,
where are these words : " The 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 he. 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 ye have wandered
from the way and made many to stumble :" as much as to say, Ye
should have been endowed with knowledge, and skilful in the law,

424 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. . [CH.
so as to be able to teach others also; but ye are unlearned and
ignorant of the law, and have caused many to sin and violate my
laws. Now, 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 clergy. So Hosea iv. 6, God thus addresses such
priests as were in that time : " Because thou hast spurned know
ledge, I also will spurn thee from being a priest unto me :" and
Hosea v. 1, God calls the priests of that time snares.
The 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 : " Woe 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 answer : We 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.
The seventh and last place cited by the Jesuit is contained in
2 Chron. xix. 10, 11, where Jehoshaphat makes Zebadiah judge of
civil suits or controversies, but Amariah, the pontiff and priest, of
those matters which pertain to God ; 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 :
We confess that the functions of king and priest are distinct, and
that they should not be confounded together. Nor 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 be some judges, not of scripture, but
of suits and controversies, as well ecclesiastical as civil. We say
that ecclesiastical disputes should be determined by the minister
out of the divine law, and political disputes by the civil judge out
of the laws of the state. But meanwhile, to end or determine con
troversies is one thing, and to interpret scriptures a very different
one. And so much in reply to the Jesuit's first argument.

V.] QUESTION THE 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. Now from this he alleges nine testimonies, which we
must examine severally in their order.
The first testimony is contained in Matth. xvi. 19, where Christ
says to Peter, " I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven." From 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 answer : We shall
have to speak elsewhere at large of the power of the keys ; how
ever, sufficiently for the purposes of the present place, we thus
briefly reply. First, the keys 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. For 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 keys was not committed to Peter alone, but to the
rest of the apostles also. For in this place he did not give the
keys, but only promised that he would give them : but afterwards,
when he actually gives them (Matth. xxvhi. 18, 19 ; John xx. 21,
22, 23), he addresses all the apostles equally. Therefore, if the
pope have the authority of interpreting the scriptures, because the
keys 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 Trac
tate upon John, as in many other places, that "Peter signified
the universal church1," when the keys were given to him : there
fore this power of the keys was given not to the pope alone, but
to the whole church. But of this place we shall speak elsewhere
more copiously.
The second place which Bellarmine cites from the new Testa-
[i Ecclesia quse fundatur in Christo, claves ab eo regni coelorum accepit,
id est, potestatem Ugandi solvendique peccata. — Cf. Augustin. de Baptism.
m. 17. In Johan. Tract. 50. In Psal. cviii. c. 30.]

426 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
ment is contained in Matth. xviii. 17: "If 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 be understood of public injuries, such as heresy is : and by the
church he denotes not the whole body 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 be
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 ex
communicated. Secondly, I confess that the church is to be heard,
and always to be heard, but under two provisions. First, it be
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 by 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 be heard. The church is to be credited only on account
of Christ and Christ's word : therefore, if it once diverge from
the mind of Christ, it is not to be heard ; yea, we must not be
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 by the Jesuit is
Matth. xxiii. 2. The words are these : " The scribes and Pha
risees sit in Moses' seat ; all, therefore, that they command you to
observe, that observe and do." 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 : To sit in Moses' seat is
to succeed Moses as teacher ; for by the seat of Moses is understood
the doctrine delivered by Moses and the function of teaching. In
this chair of Moses the scribes and Pharisees sat, and taught some
things legitimately and correctly. They were to be heard, there
fore, yet 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. For 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 by them into the church contrary to the true
sense of the law. Who, indeed, would say that those scribes and

V.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 427
Pharisees always in their teaching sat in Moses' seat, when Moses,
Deut. xviii. 15, had foreshewn that a prophet like unto him was
to be raised up by God, whom he warned them to hear ; 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. The sum is this :
That teachers and pastors are always to be heard, when they pre
scribe what is right and true, although in the meanwhile they do
not those things which they enjoin upon others, nor lead a hfe
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.
Ep. 91, that 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 blamed : 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 by their decisions, he censures them freely and with severity.
Secondly, I say that the Jesuit misrepresents Cyprian. For that
father does not write to the effect which this man pretends, as may
appear by 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 of
Moses, much more those who sit in the chair of Peter ; 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,
—namely, provided that be true which they teach : otherwise they
are not to be heard. However, he goes on to object Augustine,
Epist. 165 2, where he says, that in the succession of the Roman
church, from Peter to Anastasius, who was then bishop of Rome,
there was no traditor, no Donatist. I answer : That testimony of
Augustine is nothing to the purpose. For we confess that up to
P i. e. in Erasmus' edition. It is Ep. 66, in bishop Fell's, and the pas
sage referred to will be found in p. 166.]
p i. e. in Erasmus' edition, Basil. 1596, T. n. col, 751.]

428 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
that time the Roman bishops were devout and good men ; 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 Lord says, that even bad men are to be heard, and
we should do not what they do, but what they say. He says
therefore, firstly, that there was no traditor in that succession from
Peter to Anastasius : secondly, that even had there been one, yet
the church would not be injured, since the Lord had provided
for his church, saying of wicked prelates, Do what they say ; do
not what they do. Augustine neither mentions the argument a
fortiori, nor says that the successors of Peter cannot possibly
misinterpret the law ; but only that, while they teach aright, the
church is not defiled by their evil life. And so much for the third
passage. The fourth place of the new Testament, which the Jesuit brings
to confirm his opinion, is written in the last chapter of John, verse
16, where Christ thus addresses Peter : " Simon Peter, lovest thou
me ? Feed my sheep." From these words the Jesuit would have
three observations drawn. The 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. For 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 place : 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 way of accommodation or inference,
may be applied also to the successors of Peter. For 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 Rome 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.
The second point which the Jesuit observes, and would have us
to observe, in the above passage, is this ; 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 by the spiritual pastor.
I answer, that this is correctly enough remarked ; and therefore I
say that these words appertain least of all to the Roman pontiff,
because he is least of all engaged in teaching.

v-] 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 my sheep ; for neither Peter nor any other
apostle could do that ; but he speaks indefinitely, " Feed my 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. For 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, " Go, and teach
all nations." Therefore, if feeding and teaching be the same, the
same authority was granted also to the other apostles as to Peter ;
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 by 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 yet by 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 answer : 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 him :" from which
words Cyprian, Epist. 63, concludes, " that 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 1." 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 !
P Quare si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendere quid
alius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid, qui ante omnes est, Christus
prior fecerit. — p. 155. ed. Fell.]

430 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
A monstrous fiction ! Who 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 by scripture,
nor the fathers, nor the church. Christ commended nothing to
Peter alone; and committed to him no such popish species of
pastorate. For Peter, in fact, both taught, as much as he could,
by 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.
The fifth place which the Jesuit cites from the new Testament
is Luke xxii. 32, and contains the words of Christ to Peter a httle
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. 190 \ deduces that Peter teaching ex cathedra,
and consequently also his successors, cannot err ; 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, Peter," — not for thy successors.
He 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 by 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 end ; 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. For it is certain that many
Roman pontiffs have erred, even when teaching ex cathedra, that
P Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna fidei, ubi non
possit fides sentire defectum. Hsec quippe hujus prserogativa sedis. Cui
enim alteri aliquando dictum est, Ego pro te rogavi, Petre, ut non deficiat
fides tua 9— Bernard. Opp. De Erroribus Abselard. Preef. p. 52. T. n. Paris.
1835.]

V.J QUESTION THE FIFTH. 431
is, determining controversies ; as Alphonsus asserts, Contra Hares.
Lib. i. c. 42, where he affirms that the pope not only may err, but
even be a heretic3- The same is written and held by other papists
also. Then who, I pray you, will be the supreme judge of the
church, when the supreme pontiff hath fallen into heresy ? Is he a
fit person to be the supreme judge in religion, and one in whose
judgment we should acquiese, who may be, and is a heretic, as the
very papists themselves confess? Surely, never. The supreme
judge 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 heresy, — the possibility of which our adversaries con
cede, — what 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, 28 ; 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 pre
sided, which came to this conclusion, ver. 28 : "It seemed good
to the Holy Ghost and to us," &c. Hence the Jesuit gathers, that
the Holy 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, neg
lecting all means of finding truth, as the Jesuit falsely objects to
us ; but to scripture itself, and the Holy Spirit speaking publicly
in the scripture, who, we say, ought to be heard, and by 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 by their own judgment, but by the authority of the
Holy 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. Nor was there
p Omnis homo errare potest in fide, etiamsi Papa sit. He gives as in
stances the cases of Liberius and Celestiue. — Lugd. 1564.]
p See Delahogue, de Ecclesia, pp. 386, et seq. DubUn. 1815.]

432 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
anything there concluded but by the authority of scripture. Secondly,
the Jesuit's assertion that Peter presided over this council is false.
For James presided rather than Peter; for it was in the words
proposed by the former that the decree was drawn up, as appears
from verses 13 and 22, and there are no vestiges whatever of a
precedence or presidential right being assigned to Peter in that
assembly. As 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 by Luke, yet it is plain from verse
7, that many had spoken before Peter: for it is said there, that
after long disputing upon both sides Peter rose up. noXX^s, says
Luke, avXr\rr]aeias yevofxevr/s. Thirdly, I confess, that the Holy
Ghost was present and presided in this council, and that this sen
tence was that of the Holy Ghost, since it is proved by the testi
mony of scripture. But what hath this to do with the popish
councils over which Peter presides not, and in which the Holy
Spirit hath no share?
The Jesuit's seventh place is written Gal. ii. 2, where Paul says
that he, at Jerusalem, compared his gospel avv toIs Sokovui, that
is, with those who were in some estimation, or who were held of
some value. From this place, says the Jesuit, the fathers conclude
that the church would not have believed Paul's gospel, if it had not
been confirmed by Peter : therefore, it was then the privilege of
Peter, and is now that of Peter's successor, to judge of the doc
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. For so, v. 2,
Kal ave9ep.r]v avrdis to evayyeXiov, which the old translator
renders, Et contuli cum illis evangelium, that is, " with the whole
church ; " which also is plain from his subjoining, Kar iSlav Se toIs
Sokovo-i, "privately with those who were of reputation:" therefore
what follows, fxr) els Kevbv Tpeyta rj eSpap.ov, " 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, yet we
cannot interpret it of Peter alone. For Paul says expressly, that
he compared his gospel not with Peter alone, but with several,
namely, avv toIs SoKovai, and he afterwards shews who these were,
namely, James, Peter, and John. Therefore it is false that Paul's
gospel was confirmed by Peter alone : it was the privilege of these

V.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 433
others, as much as of Peter, to judge concerning doctrine. Thirdly,
as to the Jesuit's assertion, that the church would not have believed
Paul's gospel unless it had been confirmed by Peter, it may bear
two senses. If he mean, that the church ought not to have be
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 why Paul wished to go 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 by many he thus entirely removed.
The eighth place produced by the Jesuit is contained in 1 Cor.
xii. 8, 9, &c, where Paul says that "to some is given by the
Spirit the word of wisdom, to others the word of knowledge, to
others faith, to others the interpretation of speeches." From 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 by the
ambiguity of a word. For there is both a public and a private
interpretation. We confess that all have not the gift of publicly
interpreting the scriptures ; but in private all the faithful, taught
by the Holy 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 "not 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 judge or interpreter of scripture, because it is to be
judged itself. I answer : The Jesuit does not understand the state
of the question. We do not say that each individual should
acquiesce in that interpretation which his own private spirit frames
and dictates to him ; 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 hear ; by 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. We recognise no public judge save scripture, and
the Spirit teaching us in scripture : yet this man speaks as if we
made the spirit within the judge of others ; which should never be
done. For we are not so mad or foolish as to deal thus : You
ought to acquiesce in this doctrine, because my spirit judges it to
r i 28
[WH1TAKER.J

434 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
be true ; but we say, You should receive this doctrine because the
Holy 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 by which controversies were de
cided. I answer, that I do not understand what concern all these
have with the argument. For 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 truth ; yet with this proviso, that they govern their
decision wholly by the scriptures. Such a proceeding we, for our
parts, have long wished for ; for it is attended with a twofold
advantage : first, that what is sought by many is found the more
readily ; second, that errors, and heretics the patrons of errors,
are the more easily repressed, when they are condemned by 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. We shall have a second
opportunity of speaking about these matters, and therefore I now
answer all with this one word ; that, indeed, the weightiest contro
versies have been determined and settled in councils, but not by
the absolute authority of the council itself, but by the judgment
and authority of scripture in the council. Pious bishops never
assembled to define a point themselves by their own authority, but
by 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 xv. ; for there the maintainers of circumcision were
refuted out of the Law of Moses. So the Novatians were refuted
by 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 by the authority of scripture. For 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. Laying aside, therefore,
all hostile feelings of enmity, let us derive from the inspired scrip
tures, Xvaiv, the solution or decision of those matters about which
this controversy hath arisen1." This is the very thing which we
demand. Since, then, councils, whenever they are good and pious,
follow the scriptures, it is manifest that the supreme authority of
judging belongs to the scriptures.
The Jesuit proceeds to cite the Roman pontiffs, and emperors
and fathers in great number, concerning whom also we will briefly
reply in order. The popes alleged are, Damasus, Epist. 3. ad Ste-
phanum ; Innocent. I. in Epist. ad Concil. Carthag. et Milevit. apud
August. 91 and 93 2 ; Leo I. Epist. 81 and 89 ; Gelasius, Epistol. ad
Episcopos Dardaniae ; Gregory, Lib. iv. Ep. 52. 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 by 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 be
cause it seemed unjust to determine anything which concerned the
public profession of the faith, without consulting the bishop of
Rome, who occupied the principal see. Hence it came to pass that
by degrees those prelates seized and arrogated to themselves still
greater authority, and laid claim to a divine right, the catholics
meanwhile raising no very 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
erudition3." Gelasius everywhere exaggerates the dignity and
P Vide supra.]
P Aug. Opp. T. n. p. 88. Paris. 1555. See Coke, Censura quorundam
Scriptt. Vett. p. 219. (Helmstadt. 1683). Papebroch himself (Catalog. Ro
man. Pontine, p. 61. ap. Cave, Hist. Liter. Art. Innocentius I.) confesses that
many of this pope's epistles may be proved spurious by chronology.]
p In hac epistola et dictionem et ingenium tali dignum Prsesule deside-
rare cogimur. — Censura in Ep. xciii. inter Epp. Augustini ut supra, p. 86. 2.]
28—2

436 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH-
privileges of his see without any moderation. Leo and Gregory,
indeed, write with considerably more modesty, and yet transgress
far and widely the limits of christian humihty. 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.
Pie, says Bellarmine, would not sit down in the Nicene synod be
fore the bishops had given him leave to be seated1. So Eusebius
tells us in his life of Constantine, Lib. in. : which conduct shewed
that he was not president of that council. In the Epistle also to all
churches, given in that same place, he says : "Whatever is decreed
in the holy assemblies of the bishops, should wholly be ascribed to
the divine will2." Ambrose says of him, Ep. 32 : " Constantine
left the judgment free to the bishops3." And Augustine, Epist.
162, writes that the Donatists were by him referred to their own
proper judge, Melchiades bishop of Rome4. I answer, that these
things are irrelevant to the matter in hand. We 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 by the bishops,
proved his singular urbanity and respect for Christ's bishops, —
nothing else. As 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. For 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 by the authority of scripture,
P ov irporepov J) robs iirto-Koirovs iirivevcrai iKaBt^e. Euseb. de Vita Con
stant. Lib. in. c. 10. p. 402. d. Ed. Vales. Paris. 1678.]
P irav yap e'l rt h' dv iv rots dytots rdv iirio~Koirav crvvehptois irpdrrerat, tovto
irpbs tt)v Beiav f$ovXr)o-iv exet rt)v dvaipopdv. Ibid. cap. 20. p. 407. c]
P Sicut factum est sub Constantino augustse memorise principe, qui
nullas leges ante praamisit, sed liberum dedit judicium sacerdotibus. — Class.
I. Ep. xxi. n. 15. p. 339. T. viii. Paris. 1839.]
P Neque enim ausus est Christianus imperator tumultuosas et fallaces
querelas suscipero, ut de judicio episcoporum qui Roma; sederant ipse
judicaret: sed aUos, ut dixi, episcopos dedit. — Al. Ep. xliii. cap. 7. T. II.
p. 97.]

VI0 QUESTION THE FIFTH. 437
as we shall shew hereafter in its fitting place. What 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 judge according to the scriptures?
Furthermore, Augustine does not write that Constantine referred
the Donatists to the bishop of Rome as their proper judge: for
the bishop of Rome 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 of the cause himself ; which fact Bellarmine
omitted, because plainly repugnant to the plea which he had under
taken to defend.
The second is Gratian, in his Epistle to the bishop of Aquileia,
in which he allows "the cognisance of altercations" to the bishops6.
I reply : Who denies that the bishops can judge of such causes ? or
what hath this to do with a question about the interpretation of
scripture ? The 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
matters6." I answer : There will be another place for discussing
the question, whether it be lawful for none but bishops to treat of
ecclesiastical affairs : meanwhile, what does this contribute towards
confirming the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff in the inter
pretation of the scriptures ? The fourth is Martian, who, L. Nemo.
C. de Summa Trinit. declares that nothing " once adjudicated should
be gone back upon or subjected to fresh disputation7." I answer,
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 judg
ment the Roman pontiff hath passed prevail even against the plain
evidence of scripture? The fifth is Valentinian the elder, who
permits bishops to assemble when they would, and denies that such
P Neque enim controversise dubise sententise rectius poterant expediri,
quam si obortse altercationis interpretes ipsos constituissemus antistites. —
Rescript. Gratian. Imp. ad Cone. Aquileg. inter Opp. Ambrosii. T. vni.
p. 230. Paris. 1839.]
[8 ddeptrov yap rbv pr) rov KardXoyov Tav dyiardrav eirto-Koirav rvyxdvovra
Tois iKKXrjo-tao-TiKois o-Keppaatv iiripiywo-Bat. Ap. Labb. et Cossart. Concill.
T. in. coll. 442, 3.]
P Nam et injuriam facit judicis reverendissimse synodi, si quis semel
judicata ac recte disposita revolvere et publico disputare contenderit. — Cod,
Justinian. Lib. I. Tit. iv. 1. 111. Lugd. 1585,]

438 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
matters appertain to him ; as we see in Sozomen. Lib. vi. c. 7 '. I
answer : Valentinian denies that it was lawful for him /uera Xaoi;
TeTay/xevtp Toiavra iroXvirpayxiovelv, " who was ranked amongst
the laity to busy himself with such matters:" what then? The
Roman bishop is the judge of all interpretations of scripture and all
controversies ? Surely a beautiful conclusion ! The sixth is the
emperor Basil2, in the 8th synod, and the seventh, Theodoric, king
of the Goths, in the fourth Roman synod under Symmachus3; who
say nothing more than that laymen should not presume to decide
church-controversies, but should leave them to the bishops. Yet it
does not follow from this, either that the bishop of Rome is the
supreme interpreter of scripture, or that bishops can define contro
versies of faith and religion any otherwise than out of scripture.
Let us now see how the case stands with the fathers. In the
first place he objects to us Irenasus, contra Hasr. Lib. in. 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 by 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 be determined by the
doctrine of that church4. I answer : Whoever will look at the place
itself in Irenaeus, will readily perceive the fraud and prevarication
of the Jesuit. For there Irenseus finds fault with those heretics
with whom he was engaged, on the very 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 Irenasus, as if it were
his own opinion ; whereas Irenaeus in that place is not speaking his
P 'Epol pev, eqbi], perd Xaov reraypeva oil Bepis roiavra iroXuirpaypove'iv ol
he Upeis ois tovtov peXei KaB' eavroiis ojnj fioiXovrai o-vvtrao-av. — p. 525. B.
Paris. 1686.]
p Labb. et Cossart. ConciU. T. vni. col. 1157.]
P Ib. T. in. col. 1333.]
P Cum enim ex scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ip-
sarum scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et
quia varie sint dictse, et quia non possit ex his inveniri Veritas ab his qui
nesciant traditionem. — p. 230. Paris. 1675. In the next chapter, p. 232, we
find : Maximse et antiquissimse et omnibus cognitse, a gloriosissimis duobus
apostolis Petro et Paulo Romse fundatse ct constitutse ecclesise, earn quam
habet ab apostolis traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per succes-
siones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes, confundimus
omnes eos, &c]

VI-] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 439
own sentiments, but proposing the judgment and opinion of the
heretics, and censuring it. And as to cap. 3 of the same book,
Irenaeus does, indeed, send those heretics to the Roman church, and
with good 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 : " When was
it ever heard that the judgment of the church received its authority
from the emperor5?" I answer: The legitimate judgments of the
church upon matters which concern faith borrowed their force and
authority from none but from God 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 God hath determined, and that
not otherwise but by the scriptures ; so as always to acknowledge
that their opinion is to be squared by the rule of scripture, and ap
proved as it accords with scripture.
In the third place, he objects Basil, Epist 52, 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 Ri
mini6. 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 be
sent to the Roman bishop in order that, as it was difficult to send
persons " by public decree and consent," dirb koivov Kal ctwoSikov
Sdy/xaTOs, he might of himself choose and send certain men fit for
the office, and who understood the whole transactions at Rimini in
p T. i. p. 371. Ed. Benedict.]
P 'Eipavrj he rjpiv aKoXovBov eiriOTe'iXai ra iirto-Koirm Pdptjs, iirio-Kfyao-Bai ra
ivravBa, Kal hovvai yvdpijv "tva iirethav dirb koivov Kal avvohiKov hoyparos diro-
o-raXijvat rivds hvo-KoXov rdv iKeWev, airbv alBevrijo-ai irepl rb irpdypa, eicXegd-
pevov avhpas tKavovs pev ohonropias irdvovs hieveyKtiv, iKavois he rrpqarrirri Kal
dirovoia ijBovs roiis evhiao-Tpdqbovs rdv irap' ijpiv vovBerijo-af iirirqheias he ko.1
o'tKovopiKas KexpiP-tvovs ra Xdym, Kal iravra exovras peB' eavrdv ra ev 'Apiplva
ireirpaypeva, iirl Xvcrei rdv Kara dvdyKTjv «« yevopevav. T. n. p. 825. B.]

440 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Italy, 67ri Xvaei twv KaT dvdyKt]v eVel yevop.evo)v, "to dissolve
what was there done by force ;" 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 Rome ?
The fourth father whom he objects to us is Nazianzen, in his
oration upon his flight1, and again in his oration to his panic-
stricken fellow-citizens2, where there is nothing whatever to favour
the opinion of our adversaries. He bids them not " to feed the
pastor, or judge the judge :" not as if the bishops were allowed to
establish any thing just as they pleased, while the people were
forbidden to contradict or examine it ; but because rashness in judg
ing is to be guarded against. For the people, if they desire not
to be involved in error and perdition, are bound to judge 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 by Christ3- 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 treatise4 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
P Orat. I. T. i. p. 1.]
P Orat. XVII. T. I. p. 265.]
P Chrysostom there says of Peter, tt)v irpoo-rao-lav iveirioreiBri rdv dhe\-
<bdv, in v. 21. But he adds afterwards of him and the other apostles
generally, iirethdv yap epeXXov ttjs olKovpevrjs rrjv iirtrpoirT)v dvahe£ao~Bai, oiiK
ehet o-vpireirXexBat Xoiirbv dXXijXoif, in V. 23.]
P Dicit enim Cyrillus in libro Thesaurorum : Ut membra maneamus in
capite nostro, apostolico throno Romanorum pontificum, a quo nostrum est
quserere quid credere et quid tenere debemus.— Thomse Aquinat. Opp.
T. xvii. p. 9. Venet. 1593.]

VI-] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 441
against heretics out of scripture5. I answer: Tertullian says that
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. For 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 ?
To 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 judge at
a time, is not considered as representing Christ6." I answer, that
this priest and judge is not the sole bishop of Rome, as Bellarmine
feigns, but each catholic bishop of the church : 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 : " Thence," says he, " schisms and heresies have
sprung and do spring, that the bishop, who is but one and presides
over the church, is despised by the arrogant presumption of certain
persons7." He speaks of the particular bishops of particular churches,
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. 32, to Valentinian8 the younger, blames him severely
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 ?
P Hunc igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus, non admittendos eos ad
illam de scripturis disputationem, si hse sunt illse vires illorum, uti ne eas
habere possint. c. xv. p. 11.]
p Neque enim aliunde hsereses obortse sunt aut mota sunt schismata,
quam inde quod sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nee unus in ecclesia ad
tempus sacerdos et ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur. Ep. lix. p. 129.
Ed. Fell.]
p Inde schismata et hsereses obortse sunt, dum episcopus, qui unus est et
ecclesise prseest, superba quorundam prsesumptione contemnitur.]
p Quando audisti, clementissime imperator, in causa fidei Iaicos de
episcopo judicasse? — Class, i. Ep. xxi. n. 4. p. 337. T. viii. Paris. 1839.]

442 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
But will this make the bishop of Rome supreme judge, or permit
bishops to judge as they please ?
Augustine is next objected to us, who, in his first book against
Cresconius the grammarian, cap. 33, says, " Let him who fears he
may be deceived, consult the church 1." I answer : This we allow,
but under the condition which Augustine subjoins; namely, that
that church is to be consulted "which the scripture points out."
For otherwise than by the scriptures it cannot certainly be known
which is the true church. We say that the church should be con
sulted in every cause which concerns faith, and that the church
ought to consult the scriptures. And 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 Doctrine; 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 men ; 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 be afraid to speak of three hypostases, if you desire me2."
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. He recognised three persons: but this term
virbuTaais he regarded with suspicion, supposing that perhaps some
poison lay concealed in it ; and when constantly in the writings of
the Greeks meeting with the assertion that there are three hypo
stases, he feared that he might involve the doctrine of three Gods.
Upon this subject he consulted the bishop of Rome, being himself
in total seclusion, and having, in that place where he was, no learn
ed man whose advice he could ask. He 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
P Ut quoniam sancta scriptura fallero non potest, quisquis falli metuit
hujus obscuritate qusestionis, eandem ecclesiam de ilia consulat, quam sine
ulla ambiguitate sancta scriptura demonstrat. — T. vn. p. 168. Paris. 1637.]
p Discernite, si placet, obsecro : non timebo tres hypostases dicere, si
jubetis.— Ep. lvi. Opp. T. n. p. 131. Basil. 1565.]

VI-] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 443
church, was in the best condition to know the sense of that church
which Jerome would desire to follow. The controversy, therefore,
was about words, not things : 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, Historia
Sacr. L. n., of Martin, how he told the emperor Maximus, " that it
was impious for the temporal judge to take cognisance of an eccle
siastical cause3;" I answer, that Martin did indeed assert the
church's right to judge 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 judg
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 by the Roman bishops. For 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 by
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 by 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 understanding4." 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." What then is this? He shews, says Bellarmine,
that it is the decrees of councils, the consent of the fathers, and
P Namque turn Martinus apud Treveros constitutuB non desinebat
increpare Ithacium, ut ab accusatione desisteret: Maximum orare, ut san
guine infelicium abstineret: satis superque sufficere ut episcopali sententia
hseretici judicati ecclesiis pellerentur: novum esse et inauditum nefas, ut
causam ecclesise judex seculi judicaret. — p. 161. Amstel. 1641.]
P Idcirco multum necesse est, propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus,
ut propheticse et apostolicse interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et
catholici sensus normam dirigatur. — Commonit. c. 2. p. 325. Paris. 1663.]

444 THE first controversy. [ch.
such like. We also value these things highly; yet not promis
cuously, but with discrimination. For 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? Who does not perceive that this glorious
interpreter of scripture was unknown to Vincentius ?
Gregory follows, who, Lib. v. Epist. 25, says : " We know that
the most pious lords keep strict discipline, observe order, respect
the canon, and intermeddle not with the business of the priest1."
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 Rome ? 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 by 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, yet, since they are
merely human, they could make no reason of demonstrative force.
And so much upon the Jesuit's third argument.

CHAPTER VII.
of the Jesuit's fourth argument.
His 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 judge 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 answer : God
P Notum est piissimos dominos disciplinam dirigere, ordinem servare,
canones venerari, et se sacerdotalibus negotiis non miscere. — Opp. T. I. p.
838. Basil. 1564.]

vn.] question the fifth. 445
hath, indeed, left his church a judge ; but the question now is, who
is that judge ? upon which a controversy is raised between us and
the papists. We say that the judge is the Holy 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 : We 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
ly, the Jesuit affirms that this judge is no secular prince. I answer :
We concede this also. For we ascribe the supreme decision solely
to the scripture and the Holy 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, yet
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. Now the Jesuit proves
that scripture cannot be its own interpreter, by 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, yet does it speak
plainly as a law; 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 judge and interpreter than God himself?
He 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 ? No 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 God ;" and yet

446 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
they speak not : the scriptures have a yet more glorious and dis
tinct utterance. "In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth." What ? shall we not know the meaning of these words,
unless we consult the pope ? And 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 this : because in
every well- constituted state there is careful distinction made be
tween the law and the judge ; and therefore the scripture cannot
be the judge, since it is the law. I answer : In no commonwealth
should any judge 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 by the law ; 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 by the law of God 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
judge of civil matters in regard of the laws of men. Human laws
may with much greater safety be entrusted to a single judge than
the divine law. The divine law is both the judgment and the
judge, the interpreter and the rule. For what rule shall that
judge whom the papists feign propose to himself in the interpreta
tion of scripture ? Hath he none ? That, I hope, they dare not
affirm. Now 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 pubhc 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 judge 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
judge 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 judge of this sort, who could compel all persons, then

VII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 447
there would be no controversies, which yet 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 by 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. The pontiff, therefore, is not the judge,
because he cannot compel us to believe. For 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 Holy
Spirit. Yea, unless that inward persuasion of the Holy 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 by some arguments.
Our first argument depends upon the conclusion of the third
question. For if scripture cannot otherwise be known but by 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 Holy Spirit speaking in scripture. For 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 Holy Spirit that have this power.
Therefore this authority is to be ascribed only to them. The
major is sufficiently plain. For faith (says Paul, Rom. x. 17)
" cometh by hearing," that isrfrom the sense of scripture duly per
ceived. Now the sense of scripture is only to be sought from scrip
ture itself and the Holy Spirit. The minor is also manifest : for it
is only the Holy Ghost that can infuse into our hearts that saving
faith which is therefore called by 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. The gospel is called "the power of God unto
salvation," Rom. i. 16 ; 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 Holy Spirit speaking
through the scriptures. The sum of the matter is this : faith is
produced by scripture alone ; therefore the true sense of scripture
is to be discovered from the scripture itself alone.
Our third argument stands thus : 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
it ; the second, that no appeal from that sentence shall be lawful ;
the third, that he be influenced by no partiality. Now the church
or the pope possess none of these ; whereas the scripture, and the
Holy 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. For by 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

VIII.] 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, by 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 Holy 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 Holy 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, by the church they mean the pope. But there are
grounds of hesitation also with respect to his sentence. For how
can we be certain that he does not himself err ? How shall it be
made plain to us that he hath any such authority? They say, from
scripture. I ask, from what scripture ? Forsooth from this : " I
have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not." Luke xxii. 32.
Be it so. But who shall judge of the sense of this passage ? How
shall I know that it is spoken of the pope ? My 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 life ; but many popes have not had the
like perseverance. How then shall I know that these words are
meant of the pope ? Who shall be the judge 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. For 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 infalhble ? 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 men; and scripture testifies
that all men are deceitful. How then shall I acquiesce in their sen-
29
[whitaker.]

450 the first controversy. [ch.
tence ? How 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.
For 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 pro
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 judge whom our adversaries have set up.
But now, as to the second part : 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. They appeal from fathers to councils,
from councils to the pope ; why then should it not be lawful for us
to appeal from the pope to God, that is, to the Holy Spirit speak
ing in the scriptures ? But, says the papist, God does not speak ;
the Holy 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. 39, to " search the scriptures :" and Matth. xxii. 29, Christ
thus addresses the Sadducees : " Ye do err, not knowing the scrip
tures." So that errors spring from ignorance of the scriptures. And,
2 Pet. i. 19, Peter praises those to whom he writes, saying: "Ye
do well that ye take heed to the word, Xbyip, of prophecy." And
on this account pious pastors do not say, you 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. The Levites are commanded, Deut. xvii. 11,
to judge according to the law; and, Joshua i. 7, Joshua is ordered
to decline from the law neither to the right hand nor to the left.
He 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 by the following
texts : Rom. iii. 19, Paul says, baa b vbuxos Xeyei toIs ev Tip
vbfxip XaXei, " Whatever the law saith, it speaketh to those who

viii.] 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. Heb. xii. 5,
" Ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh, SiaXeyeTai,
unto you as unto children : My son, despise not thou the chastening
of the Lord," &c. John vii. 42 : ¦" Hath not the scripture said,
eltrev; &c." And afterwards, verse 51, Nicodemus asks, Mr)
vopos rfxxiov Kp'ivei tov dv9pwirov', "Doth our law judge the
man," &c. If the law condemn, it certainly speaks. John xix. 37,
erepa ypa(pr) \eyei, " another scripture saith." Paul asks, Rom.
iv. 3, t'i ydp r) ypa<pr) Xeyei ; " What 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 seriptures. Since it is certain, therefore, that
scripture speaks, what sort of voice shall we ascribe to it ? 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 by,, the same Spirit whereby they
were written, then it is necessary for all who would interpret or
understand them to consult the Holy Spirit. But the former is
true, and therefore also the latter. There can be no doubt of the
consequence in the major ; and as to the minor, it is evident from
2 Tim. iii. 16, and 2 Pet. i. 21, that the Holy Spirit is the author
of scripture. Now 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. For they say that this Spirit, by whose teaching the scrip
tures are to be rightly understood and interpreted, resides only in ,
the pope ; whereas we say that he resides in every pious man who
duly interprets scripture. This also Bernard asserts in his dis
course to the fathers of the mountain, where these words occur :
" You will never be able to enter into Paul's meaning, unless you
imbibe Paul's spirit1." But, you will ask, how am I to imbibe this
spirit ? Can this spirit be infused by the pope ? Bernard sub
joins, that it is to be gotten "by the use of a devout intention in
reading, and by meditation;" therefore from the scripture itself.
He adds something of the same kind respecting David : " You can
never understand David, until by actual experience you feel the
[i Nunquam Pauli sensum ingredieris, donee usu bonse intentionis in lec-
tione ejus, et studio assiduse meditationis, spiritum ejus imbiberis. — Opp. T. I.
p. 1171. Basil. 1566.]
29—2

452 THE first controversy. [ch.
affections which the Psalms express1." Each man therefore needs
the Holy Spirit for the scriptures. This is what Jerome affirms in
his commentary upon the first chapter of the Galatians : " He that
understands scripture otherwise than the sense of the Holy Spirit,
by whom it was written, demands, may be called a heretic2."
To this also relates that saying of Paul, 1 Cor. ii. 15, "He that is
spiritual judgeth all things," dvaKplvei irdvTa. Who 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 irvevp-aTiKos,
or the spiritual man, is there opposed to Ttp -fyvyjiKtp, or the carnal
man, and therefore denotes all the faithful who are regenerate and
have received the Holy Ghost ; as by the carnal, on the contrary,
all those are meant who have not yet obtained the spirit of re
generation. So 1 John ii. 20, " Ye have an unction from the Holy One,"
that is, ye have the Holy Spirit. What follows? What is it
we have obtained by him ? It follows, " and ye know all things,"
that is, all things necessary. Therefore he says, verse 27, "Ye
have no need that any one teach you." The Jesuit thus endeavours
to elude this passage. He interprets the clause, " that any man
teach you," as if now any one were to say, Ye 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 : ye who
are Christians have no need that any false prophet or false apostle
should teach you. 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.'
What then, brethren, are we about who teach you, if his anointing
teacheth you of all things ? We seem to labour in vain. And why
do we spend our breath in this manner ? Let us dismiss you to his
anointing, that his own anointing may teach you. 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, They to whom you spake had
the anointing. You said, His own anointing teacheth you : where
fore then did you compose this Epistle ? Why teach, instruct, and
P Nunquam Davidem intelliges, donee ipsa experientia Psalmorum affec-
tus indueris. This piece, however, is not by Bernard.]
P Qui scripturam aUter intclligit, quam sensus Spiritus Sancti efilagitat,
a quo scripta est, hsereticus appellari potest.]

vni.] question the fifth. 453
edify them3 ?" Hitherto he hath proposed the doubt ; now he sub
joins the reply. There follow therefore in Augustine these ensuing
words: "Now," says he, "behold, brethren, this great mystery. The
sound of our words strikes the ear ; the teacher is within. Sup
pose not that any man learns of man. We may admonish' you by
the noise of our voice ; but unless there be one within to teach you,
it is an empty noise. Would ye, brethren, know it still further ?
Have ye not all heard this discourse ? Yet how many will go
hence uninstructed ! As far as in me lies, I have spoken to all :
but they to whom that unction speaks not internally, they whom
the Holy Ghost does not teach internally, they go forth unin
structed. External instructions are a sort of help and admonition :
but he who teaches hearts hath his chair in heaven4." What 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 earth? Wert thou never at Rome, or sawest thou
never the chair of Peter, wherein whosoever sits can teach thee
all things ? Why 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 earth ; for one is your master, even
Christ." " He therefore," says Augustine, " speaks internally to
you, when no man is there. For although one may be beside you,
yet is there no one in your heart. But let it not be so that there
should be no one in your heart; let his own unction be in your
heart, lest your heart should be desert and thirsty and without
P Quid ergo nos facimus, fratres, qui docemus vos, si unctio ejus docet
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 qusestionem, et illi ipsi apostolo facio. Dignetur audire parvulum
quserentem a se : ipsi Joanni dico, Unctionem habebant quibus loquebaris ? Tu
dixisti, quia unctio ipsius docet vos de omnibus: ut quid talem epistolam
focisti? quid illos tu docebas? quid instruebdfe? quid sedificabas? — Opp.
T. ix. p. 129, 2. Paris. 1555.]
P Videte magnum sacramentum, fratres. Sonus verborum nostrorum
aures perculit: magister intus est. Nolite putare quemquam hominem
a liquid discere ab homine. Admonere possumus per strepitum vocis nostrse :
si non sit intus qui doceat, inanis fit strepitus noster. Adeo, fratres, vultis
nosse? Nunquid non sermonem istum omnes audistis? Quam multi hinc
indocti exituri sunt ! Quantum . ad me pertinet, omnibus locutus sum ; sed
quibus unctio ilia intus non loquitur, quos Spiritus Sanctus intus non doceat,
indocti redeunt. Magisteria forinsecus adjutoria qusedam sunt et admoni-
tiones : cathedram in coelo habet, qui corda docet. — Ibid.]

454 the first controversy. [ch.
any springs to irrigate it. The inward master therefore teaches ;
Christ teaches, his inspiration teaches." Thus Augustine upon that
place ; whence it appears that he differs widely from the Jesuit.
To the same purpose also is that saying, Isaiah liv. 13, " They
shall be all taught of God;" which passage is cited by Christ,
John vi. 45 : where we must note, that Isaiah does not say, they
shall be all God's disciples, but, they shall be all taught of God,
QeoS'iSaKToi, or SiSaKTol tov Qeov, which is something more.
None, therefore, are truly taught but sueh as God teaches internally
by his Holy Spirit. The Jesuit says, that we are therefore said
to be taught of God, because Christ hath now taught us in his own
person, and not through the prophets, as formerly : but absurdly.
For 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 QeoSlSaKToi ? 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 Holy Spirit. Augustine, de Grat. Christ, cap. 12, 13,
14 l, compels him to make this admission. A somewhat similar
passage occurs, Jeremiah xxxi. 33, 34, " I will put my law in their
hearts, and they shall all know me from the least to the greatest."
The 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 context ; for
there follows immediately : " They shall all know me from the least
to the greatest, saith the Lord : for I will pardon their iniquity,
and their sin I will remember no more." This is what he promises
to inscribe upon their hearts. Is this to believe as the nations,
Jews and Turks, believe ? Who would say it ? Again, Luke x.
21, 22, Christ gives thanks to the Father that he had " hid these
things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes,"
&c. From which place it may be gathered, that faith is the work
of God and of the Holy Spirit, not of any man ; 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 quodseiunt agere . . . . ; Isto modo sunt omnes
secundum propositum vocati, sicut scriptum est in prophetis, Docibiles Dei. —
De Gratia Christi. c. 13. Opp. T. vn. p. 166, 2.]

VUI-J QUESTION THE FIFTH. 455
Our fifth argument stands thus: When we demand of our
opponents how scripture ought to be interpreted, they always answer
at first and say, by the unanimous expositions of the fathers. But
we immediately again demand of them, when we are to know that
the fathers agree ? For certainly in most places they are at
variance ; so that their authority will be but small. To 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, Rom. 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. 22, will have them to be understood of a re
generate man, and therefore of Paul himself. And in other places
also he expounds that passage of the apostle in the same manner :
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 wife." Upon this place, as appears
from Gratian, Dist. 26. C. Unius and C. Acutius3, the opinions of
Augustine and Jerome were contrary to each other. Let us add a
third example. Chrysostom and Jerome excuse the dissimulation
of Peter related by Paul, Gal. ii. ; on the other hand Augustine and
Ambrose think it sinful. Add now a fourth : " We conclude," says
Paul, (Rom. iii. 28,) " that a man is justified by faith ;" which place
Ambrose expounds of the heathen only, Chrysostom most truly of
all men universally, because he says, a man simply, to koivov Trjs
tpvaeios bvo/xa 9eis. So, to prove the same thing by yet other
examples, in the same place by " the works of the law" Jerome
understands ceremonies, circumcision, the sabbath, and such hke;
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 follow : Augustine in many places, and almost all the other
fathers, determine the contrary. Ambrose supposes that in Coloss.
ii. 21, in those words, " taste not, handle not," we are warned to
have no hope in worldly things ; but Augustine, Ep. 59, and Chry-
[2 It should be c. 3.]
p The opinion of Jerome, in Dist. 26, c. 1, is : Unius uxoris virum, id est,
monogamum post baptismum. That of Augustine, ibid. c. 2, is, Acutius intel-
ligunt qui nee eum, qui catechumenus vel paganus habuit alteram, ordinan-
dum censuerunt.]

456 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
sostom, and Theophylact, teach us that rather they contain a censure
of those who issued such prohibitions. Why 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 war1.
Who 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 follow ; and this we
prove by 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. Now what, I beseech you, was the
rule of scriptural interpretation before that time? There certainly
was some, and yet this was not then in existence.
Our sixth argument stands thus : Scripture hath greater au
thority in judging than the present church : therefore scripture
ought to be the judge rather than the church ; for this judgment
ought to go along with the greatest authority. Now that the
church hath not as great authority as the scripture, is manifest
from Gal. i. 8, where Paul says : " If we, or an angel from heaven,
preach unto you any other gospel than that we have preached unto
you, let him be accursed ! " 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-
P Jam illud videndum, an de bello satis sibi constet Augustinus ; qui cum
tot locis Christiane bellum detestetur, nunc adversus Manichseos ac Donatistas
belli patronus esse videatur. — p. 212. Basil. 1535.]

VHI-] 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. 11, 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 by scripture,
then the doctrine of the church should also be examined by scrip
ture. The antecedent is true ; therefore also the consequent. The
Jesuit here hath but one reply. He 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 not ; and therefore that
they did well in judging his doctrine by 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 by scrip
ture. Whence we draw two inferences : First, that all doctrine is
to be judged by the scriptures. For, 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 by 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. 21, where
Paul says, " Prove all things," irdvTa SoKip-d^eTe : and from
1 John iv. 1, where John says, "Believe not every spirit, but
try the spirits whether they be of God ;" SoKip.d<£eTe to irvevp-ara.
Hence I conclude, that the teaching of the church should be ex
amined. The Jesuit says that this precept does not refer to all,
but only to the learned and well instructed; which he illustrates by
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. For 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 good," which are the common
duties of piety ; then also all good Christians ought to " try all
things." Now those former injunctions concern all the faithful.
Therefore also this latter. For John in that place addresses dya-
irr/Tovs and iraiSla, his beloved and little children, that is, all
devout and faithful Christians. Therefore all pious people are com
manded by 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.
For that which is either plainly false, or undoubtedly true, is not
commonly brought in question or examined by 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 (SoKijuao-'ia) 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 Rome hath affirmed them in a response
from his chair ? But first we must, at least, examine the privilege by
which he pretends that he is exempted from error in passing judg
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. 15, where Christ orders all to beware of false
prophets. But how shall we know them ? He tells us, " by their
fruits." But what are these fruits ? Are they bad morals ? By
no means ; for many false prophets seem to live a life of greater
sanctity than some good or true teachers. They are to be known,
therefore, not merely by their morals, but still more by their false

VIIL] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 459
interpretations and expositions. And so Vincentius Lirinensis, whom
the papists highly esteem, expounds this place, capp. 36 and 37.
Our ninth argument is this : If 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. For whatever hath the supreme
authority of assigning the sense of scripture, upon that our faith,
in the last resolution, must bottom itself and rest. For our faith re
poses upon that which gives the most certain sense of scripture, and
judges of all doctrine. The papists themselves concede the minor:
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 thus : He 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 by the very light of
nature. The minor is also manifest. So the apostles confirmed all
their doctrine by the authority of the divine law, that is, by 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 God in the scrip
tures illustrates and explains himself.
I form our eleventh argument thus : If the supreme judgment
of scripture belong to the church, then it will follow (though our
adversaries intimate that they do notlike the consequence), that the
authority of the church is greater than that of scripture ; which is
made plain by the following considerations. The sense of scripture
is the scripture itself. They, 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. For to faith are incident these
two things, what we believe, and why. 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 ? Do we then upon no
other account believe that the world was made, that Adam sinned,
that the Redeemer 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 Rome ?
0 noble basis of the christian faith ! 0 glorious faith of papists !
I propound our twelfth argument thus : If 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. The
force of the inference is manifest, but the consequent is plainly false.
For 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: No man is a suf
ficient judge of controversies or interpreter of scripture : there
fore, not the pope. For no man ought to decide controversies by
his own authority, but by that of another, namely, of God and the
scriptures. So formerly the Nicene fathers condemned Arius by
divine testimonies ; so the holy bishops condemned Macedonius,
Nestorius, Eutyches, by the authority of scripture, and not by their
own. Besides, if a man could define controversies by 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/uev
vtxwv Trjs iritTTeios. 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 judge controversies, this is because they
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 : Every 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 judge of controversies in the church. For each indi
vidual should be his own judge, and stand by his own judgment,
not indeed mere private judgment, but such as is inspired by God :
and no one can bestow the Holy Spirit save God who infuses it
in whom he will. Nor can any one man render another certain in

VIII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 461
matters of religion, with whatever authority he may be invested.
Christ says, John vi. 44, 45, " No man can come unto me unless
my Father draw him : wherefore whosoever hath heard and learned
of the Father cometh unto me." John the Baptist says also, John
iii. 33, " He 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.
Irenaeus, in his 4th book against Heresies, cap. 63, says that
" the legitimate and safe exposition of the scriptures is by the
scriptures themselves1." Hilary, in his 1st book upon the Trinity,
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. He is a sufficient witness to
himself, who is not known but by himself2." So Hilary.
Augustine hath many testimonies in our favour. In his book of
Marriage and Concupiscence, Lib. n. cap. 33, he writes thus : " This
controversy requires a judge." But who shall be the judge ? He
rephes, " Let Christ be the judge." And a little after : " With
him let the apostle judge also ; for Christ himself speaks in the
apostle3." Why did he not say, Let the Roman pontiff, or, at least,
P Agnitio vera est apostolorum doctrina, et antiquus ecclesise status in
universo mundo, et character corporis Christi, secundum successiones epis-
coporum, quibus illi earn, quse in unoquoque loco est, ecclesiam tradiderunt,
quse pervenit usque ad nos, custodita sine fictione scripturarum tractatione
plenissima, neque additamentum neque ablationem recipiens, et lectio sine
falsatione, et secundum scripturas expositio legitima et diUgens, et sine
periculo et sine blasphemia. — p. 400. a. ed. Fevard.]
p Optimus lector est, qui dictorum intelligentiam exspectet ex verbis
potius quam imponat, et retulerit magis quam attulerit, neque cogat id videri
dictis contineri, quod ante lectionem prsesumpserit intelligendum. Cum
itaque de rebus Dei erit sermo, concedamus cognitionem sui Deo, dictisque
ejus pia veneratione famulemur. Idoneus enim sibi testis est, qui nisi per
se cognitus non est.— pp. 776, 777. Opp. Paris. 1693.]
P Ista controversia judicem quEerit. Judicet ergo Christus, et cui rei
mors ejus profecerit, ipse dicat : hie est, inquit, sanguis meus, qui pro multis
effundatur in remissionem peccatorum. Judicet cum illo et apostolus, quia
et in apostolo ipse loquitur Christus.— Opp. T. vn. p. 185.]

462 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
Christ speaking in the Roman pontiff, be judge? Doubtless,
because he acknowledged no such judge. The same father, in his
book of Grace and Free-will, cap. 18, writes in almost the same
terms: "Let the apostle John sit as judge between us1." But
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 by scripture. In
the 11th book of his City of God, c. 33, there occurs the following
testimony. "We," says he, "have supposed that there are two so
cieties of angels, different and opposed the one to the other, — the one
both by nature good and upright in will, the other though good by
nature, yet perverted in will — which are plainly spoken of in other
more clear testimonies of scripture, to be here, in this book, called
Genesis, designated by 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 by means of other parts of sacred scripture
which have a like authority2." The same author also, in his book
de Genesi ad Literam, Lib. i. c. 21, tells us how the sense of scrip
ture may best be found : " When we read the divine books, where
the number of true meanings which may be drawn from a few words,
and are fortified by the integrity of the catholic faith, is so great,
let us especially choose that which it shall appear certain that he
whom we read intended ; but if this be hidden from us, yet 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. For it is
one thing not to distinguish what the writer principally intended,
P Sedeat ergo inter nos judex apostolus Joannes, et dicat nobis : Caris-
simi, diligamus invicem. — Opp. T. vn. p. 284. 2.]
p Nos has duas societates angelicas, inter se dispares atque contrarias,
unam et natura bonam et voluntate rectam, aUam vero natura bonam, sed
voluntate perversam, aliis manifestioribus divinarum scripturarum testimo-
niis declaratas, quod in hoc libro, cui nomen Genesis, lucis tenebrarumque
vocabulis significatas oxistimavimus, etiamsi aliud sensit hoc loco forte qui
scripsit. Non est inutiliter obscuritas hujus pertractata sententise, quia etsi
voluntatem auctoris libri hujus indagare nequivimus, a regula tamen fidei,
quEe per 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
behef3." The same father, Epistle 19, indicates plainly enough
what we should determine of the expositions of the fathers, when he
says : " 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 reasoning4." In these words
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 by 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. 80 5, ascribes the authority of deciding and defining
controversies, in these words : " We 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. For 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 by the judg
ment of the scripture inspired by God ; and let, by all means, truth
P Cum divinos libros legimus, in tanta multitudine verorum intellectuum
qui de paucis verbis eruuntur, et sanitate catholicse fidei muniuntur, id
potissimum deUgamus, quod certum apparuerit eum sensisse quem legimus :
si autem hoc latet, id certe quod circumstantia scripturse non impedit, et
cum sana fide concordat: si autem et'scripturse circumstantia pertractari
ac discuti non potest, saltern id solum quod fides sana prsescribit. Aliud est
enim, quid potissimum scriptor senserit non dignoscere, aliud autem a regula
pietatis errare. Si utrumque vitetur, perfecte se habet fructus legentis. Si
vero utrumque vitari non potest, etiamsi voluntas scriptoris incerta sit, sanse
fidei congruam non inutile est tenuisse sententiam. — Opp. T. in. p. 116, 2.]
P Alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque prsepolleant,
non ideo verum putem, quia ipsi ita senserunt ; sed quia mihi vel per illos
auctores canonicos, vel probabiU ratione, quod a vero non abhorreat, per-
Buadere potuerunt. — Id. Ad Hieronym. T. n. p. 15, 2.]
P Qusest. iv. c. 17.]

464 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
of opinion be ascribed to those with whom are found doctrines con
sonant with the divine oracles." It is admirably well expressed in
the Greek : r) 9ebirvevo7TOS r)nlv SiaiTrjaaTip ypa(prj. Kal irap oh
av evpe9rj Ta Sby/xaTa avvtpSa toIs 9eiois Xoyois, eirt tovtois
rj'£ei Trjs dXr)9elas r) ^rjcpos- From these words two things are
to be gathered : first, that in every question the judgment of the
scriptures is supreme ; secondly, that those are to be judged 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 words : " Some
judges must be sought of this controversy. If Christians, they can
not be assigned by consent of both sides, because truth is obstructed
by party zeal. A judge must be sought without. If a pagan, he
cannot know the Christian mysteries. If a Jew, he is an enemy of
Christian baptism. Therefore no tribunal can be found on earth
to take cognisance of this matter. A judge must be sought from
heaven. But why do we knock at heaven's gates, when we have
his Testament here in the gospel ? The Testament, I say ; for in
this place earthly things may rightly be compared with heavenly 1."
Thus Optatus; from which passage we derive three observations:
first, that in every religious controversy some impartial and com
petent judge must be sought for, who is not engaged in the interest
of either party. At that time there was a dispute between the
catholics and Donatists. No Christian judge, 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 with
some degree of prejudice. Whence I draw this conclusion : if the
Roman pontiff was not then a competent judge of those contro
versies which then subsisted between the catholics and the Dona
tists, because he might seem attached to one side ; 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!
P Quserendi sunt aliqui hujus controversise judices: si Christiani, de
utraque parte dari non possunt, quia studiis Veritas impeditur. Deforis
quserendus est judex. Si paganus, non potest nosse Christiana secreta. Si
Judseus, inimicus est christiani baptismatis. Ergo in terris de hac re nullum
poterit rcperiri judicium. De coelo quserendus est judex. Sed ad quid pul-
samus ad coelum, cum habemus hie in evangelio testamentum ? — Optat. c.
Parmen. Don. Lib. v. c. 3.]

VIII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 465
Secondly, that no judge of religion is to be sought for, as the
papists would have it, upon the earth, but from heaven. If Optatus
had thought that any judge had been constituted on earth by
Christ, he would surely never have said that a judge was to be
sought in heaven, but would have appealed to this legitimate judge
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 gospel: for he says that we then
have a celestial judge, when the scripture is the judge.
Ambrose, in the 5th book of his Epistles, in a certain oration
against Auxentius the Arian, which is contained in the 32nd and
33rd Epistles2, desires the people to be the judge of that dispute
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., "Since it is, when made intelligible and
opened by the Holy Spirit, that the scriptures shew us Christ, pro
bably the porter is the Holy Spirit :" where he sufficiently indicates,
that the scriptures are only unfolded by the Holy Ghost, and that
therefore the Holy Ghost is the porter of the scriptures. There
fore, those who are without this Spirit can never understand the
scriptures. Lyra, having raised the question whether the truth of faith can
be sufficiently proved by the sacred scripture, answers thus, as we
read in Pelbart's Golden Rosary, Tom. in. 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
able3." So that, however heretics may turn and twist the scriptures,
yet the scriptures shall assert of themselves their own truth from
P Hsec ego, fratres, coram ipso apud vos plenius disputarem : sed certus
non ignaros vos esse fidei, vestrum refugit examen. — Sermo c. Auxent. n. 26.
p. 353. T. vm. Paris. 1839.]
P Alio modo potest accipi probationis efficacia per scripturam sic, quod
licet scriptura possit aUter 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-
nabiUor.] r i 30
[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 by God to the sense of the fathers ; and he therefore ad
monishes his readers not to take it ill, or blame him, if he sometimes
dissent from the torrent of the fathers, that is, from their unanimous
opinion. Canus, in his Common places, Lib. vn. c. 3, censures the
cardinal severely , and charges him with arrogance ; but it is not
necessary that I should appear in his defence, whom Andradius
vindicates in the second book of his Defensio Tridentina, subjoining
also some reasons to shew that he could say truly what he actually
hath said. For 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 mys
teries of religion, did yet assign different and dissimilar meanings
when they approached the interpretation of scripture. Thirdly
and lastly, he affirms that the Holy Spirit is " the sole and faith
ful interpreter of scripture."
Let it suffice to have said thus much upon the former part of
this fifth question. Now follows the second part.

CHAPTER IX.

THE STATE OF THE QUESTION, CONCERNING THE MEANS OF
FINDING THE TRUE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE.
We have spoken of the supreme authority for interpreting
scripture, which we have proved to belong to the Holy 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. For since scripture hath no audible voice, we must use cer
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.J

QUESTION THE FIFTH. 467

consider what means we should use to discover the true sense of
scripture and the words of God. The church, indeed, hath always
used some means in the interpretation of scripture. Here I will
enumerate first those means which are proposed by 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 go wrong in the interpretation of scripture.
In the first place, prayer is necessary for reading the scriptures
so as to understand them ; and on that account David so often begs
of God to illuminate his mind and to open his eyes ; and, in Matth.
vii. Christ says, "Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and ye shall
find : knock, and it shall be opened unto you." And James, chap. i.
v. 5, says : " If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who
giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be
given him." Whence a certain father said, that he profited more
in the knowledge of scripture by prayer, than by reading and
study. And Origen1, in his 12th Homily on Exodus, says that we
must not only apply study in order to learn the sacred word, but
also supplicate God and entreat him night and day, that the Lamb
of the tribe of Juda may come, and, taking himself the sealed book,
vouchsafe to open it. Augustine too, in his book De Scala Para-
disi, c. 2, writes thus admirably upon this subject : " Reading
inquires, meditation finds, prayer asks, contemplation tastes : whence
the Lord himself says, ' Seek, and ye shall find ; knock, and it
shall be opened unto you.' Seek by reading, and ye shall find in
meditation : knock by prayer, and it shall be opened to you in
contemplation. Reading does, as it were, set the solid food at the
lips ; meditation breaks and chews it ; 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 acquired2." Thus far Augustine. And Jerome says
P Unde ostenditur non solum studium nobis adhibendum esse ad dis-
cendas Uteras sacras, verum et supplicandum Domino, et diebus ac noctibus
obsecrandum ut veniat agnus de tribu Judse et ipse accipiens Ubrum signatum
dignetur aperire. Origen. Opp. p. 61. Paris. 1604.]
P Lectio inquirit, meditatio invenit, oratio postulat, contemplatio de-
gustat ; unde ipse Dominus dicit : Quserite, et invenietis ; pulsate, et aperietur
vobis. Quserite 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 Laata : "Let reading follow prayer, and prayer reading1." This
should be always the first means, and the foundation of the rest.
Secondly, we ought to understand the words which the Holy
Spirit hath used in the scriptures ; and therefore we ought to know
the original languages. We should consult the Hebrew text in the
old Testament, the Greek in the new : we should approach the
very 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
errors ; 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. And upon this account in the council of Vienna2 (how
ever otherwise superstitious, as held under pope Clement V.) a
decree was made that there should be professors of these tongues in
all universities. For, unless we understand the words, how shall we
find the sense ? And indeed many errors are refuted by the mere
understanding of the words themselves. Thus we often refute our
adversaries. For example, Luke ii. 14, the Rhemists make out
the freedom of the will from the Vulgate Latin version, which is
this : Pax in terra hominibus bona voluntatis. But they are
easily refuted by the original : for in the Greek it is evSoKia,
which never denotes the free will of man, as the Rhemists absurdly
explain it, but the gratuitous goodness of God toward men : and this,
indeed, some of the papists themselves concede. Eph. ii. 10 is thus
read in the Vulgate Latin version : Creati in Christo Jesu in operi-
bus bonis; whence some papists gather, that we are justified by
good works. But they are easily refuted out of the original Greek ;
for eVi there denotes ad, not in. In Coloss. iv. 16, 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
quae 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.
1120), 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.]
P Orationi lectio, lectioni succedat oratio. — Ad Lset. Ep. 57. (al. 7.) T. iv.
p. 596.] P The council of Vienna, counted as the 15th general, was held in tho
year 1311. See its decrees in Labbe's collection of the Councils, T. xi
part 11.]

IX.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 469
written to the Laodiceans. But this mistake is corrected by the
original : for in the Greek text it is read bk AaoSiKelas. In 1 Cor.
xiv. 16, the words stand thus in the old version : Si benedixeris
Spiritu, qui supplet locum idiota, 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
text : for b dvairXr/pwv tov tottov tov ISiojtov does not mean him
who supplies the place of the unlearned (since the verb dvairXrjpovv
never occurs in that sense3), but rather one that fills the place of
the unlearned, that is, one who sits amongst the unlearned, and is
really unlearned and a layman. In 1 Sam. xxi. 13, 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. The old trans
lation hath, collabebatur inter manus eorum. Of these words
Augustine, in his Commentary on Psalm lxxxiii.4, produces a strange
exposition suggested by the faulty translation of some obscure
interpreter, who had rendered them thus : 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 my body." How
ever, he puts in the word quodammodo, so that the papists should
not suppose that he favoured their opinion. Now Augustine fell
into this mistake from not understanding the Hebrew term. Bel
larmine, De Ecclesia, Lib. in. c. 12, proves the visibility of the
church by the testimony of Psalm xix., In sole posuit tabernacu-
lum suum, according to the version of the old translator, who hath
followed the Septuagint. Yet Jerome, twelve hundred years ago,
had rendered it from the Hebrew thus : 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
errors ; which, however, are most easily removed by an inspection
[3 But see Schwartz. Comment. Ling. Grsec. p. 98.]
P 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. vm. 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, we should
have a just and correct knowledge of the signs of things, that is, of
/ords. Thirdly, in dealing with the words we should consider 'which
are proper, and which figurative and modified. For, when words
are taken figuratively, they should not be expounded strictly. " It
is," says Augustine, in his books of Christian Doctrine, "a wretched
bondage of the soul, when signs are taken for things1;" that is,
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 how
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 by
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. The Rhemists 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 God ; and therefore, that faith
alone does not justify. Now, 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 God or procuring remission of
our sins, but of that fraternal love which represses many occasions
of offence, and so quenches feuds and enmities amongst brethren.
But how shall we understand that this is the sense of the passage ?
Why^_from_the context itself. The apostle says, in the words im
mediately preceding, " having sincere love one towards another."
He is speaking, consequently, of the love wherewith we should
embrace and respect our brethren. And, if we compare this place
with another, namely, with Prov. x. 12, whence Peter took these
words, this will appear still more plainly. There we read thus :
" Hatred stirreth up strifes and contentions, but love covereth the
multitude of sins:" where, by reason of the antithesis between the
P Ea demum est miserabilis animse servitus, signa pro rebus accipere.
Lib. in. c. 5, ad fin.]

1X-J 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." From this all the papists collect that we are justified by
the merit of our works, but, in the meanwhile, they reflect not
what sort of person it was to whom Christ said this ; 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 Job xxi.
13, we read, " They pass their days in wealth, and go down in a
moment to the grave :" 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. He means that
those wicked rich men, the enemies of God and piety, are happy
not only in life, but in death also ; since after they have filled
themselves with all kinds of pleasures, they die without any pro
tracted pain, while others pine under lingering diseases, and are
tortured with keen agonies in death. Hence then springs the
fifth mean.
For, in the fifth place, one place must be compared and collated
with another ; the obscurer places with the plainer or less obscure.
For though in one place the words may be obscure, they will be
plainer in another. For example, James, chap. 2, verse 21,
affirms that Abraham was justified by works. The place is obscure,
and seems to favour the papists. Whence, then, shall we know the
true meaning of this passage ? Why, 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 be understood.
For Paul, in Rom. iv. 2, expressly says, that Abraham was not
justified by works, because then he would have whereof to glory :
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 body knows to have taken
place after his call : 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 by the Spirit of God, and called by God. We 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 place ; 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 not
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 like ; as, for example, John vi. 53, " Unless
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no
life in you;" with John iv. 14, "Whosoever 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 together : for example, if that same passage, John
vi. 53, be compared with the sixth precept in the Decalogue,
" Thou shalt do no murder ;" (for if it be a crime, yea, an enormity,
to slay a man, it is certainly a far deeper crime to eat and devour
a man ;) 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, Rom. xii. 6. Now 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 may be
confirmed by plain passages of scripture. Whatever exposition is
repugnant to this analogy must be false. For example, the
papists elicit transubstantiation from the words, " This is my body,"
making the meaning of them this, This bread is transformed into

IX.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 473
my body. The Lutherans adopt another interpretation, namely,
The body of Christ is under this bread ; and hence infer their
doctrine of consubstantiation. Both expositions are at variance
with the analogy of faith. For, first, the analogy of faith teaches
that Christ hath a body like to ours : now such a body 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 heaven ;
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 by works ; which is likewise repug
nant to the analogy of faith. For 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 live ; 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 be received because they
are theirs, but because they are supported by the authority of
scripture or by reason, so as to allow them no weight in opposition
to the scripture. We 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. He 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 most ; if not immediately, yet
ultimately.

474 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.

CHAPTER X.
THE GENERAL ARGUMENTS OF OUR OPPONENTS AGAINST THESE
MEANS ARE OBVIATED.
What ? Do our opponents find fault with these means ? Not
altogether ; but yet neither do they entirely receive them. Staple-
ton, Lib. 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 by 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 by three
arguments. The first is, that these means of ours are subordinate to the
means which they maintain ; which (as ye 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
by them, they are neither just nor salutary. I answer, firstly, by
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 ? Upon 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 down; 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 wrong ; 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. The fathers do not all in
terpret scripture by 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
be examined by the standard of scripture, not the contrary. It is

x-] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 475
therefore a preposterous proceeding to interpret scripture by these
things which are themselves to be judged of by 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. Now this is so far from being true, that heretics, if
they would make a legitimate apphcation of these means, would see
that their heresies were condemned by the scriptures ; and, in like
manner, the Jews and pagans would understand that their impious
, and profane opinions were refuted by our scriptures. If 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. Yea, if the heretics might
lawfully interpret scripture otherwise than by scripture, they might
defend their cause with much greater ease and probability than they
have ever yet 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 : If they are called human because they are
used by 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 Holy 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 Holy Ghost might always shew us

476 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH;
his illumination. For the practice of the church is the custom of
men ; the sense of the fathers is the opinion of men ; the definition
of a council is the judgment of men ; the decree of a pope is the
will of man, yea, of one single individual. But, say they, the
church never errs ; the pope never errs. We shall shew both
assertions to be false in the proper place. We say that scripture
never errs, and therefore judge that interpretation to be the
truest which agrees with scripture. What have we to do with
churches, or councils, or popes, unless they can shew that what
they define is in harmony with the scriptures ? And what, at the
last, must we say that this church really is which they object to us ?
Here certainly you will find nothing but what is human, and, con
sequently, uncertain and altogether unsafe.

CHAPTER XI.
THE PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS OF OUR ADVERSARIES ARE REFUTED.
Let us now reply severally to each of his special objections.
The 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 style : 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. For we do not say that each of these several
means, taken by 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
we 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, by 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. For example, Gen. iii., we read,
that Adam and Eve " saw the fruit of the tree, that it was fair to
the eye," &c, and yet that, immediately after eating it, "their
eyes were opened." Eyes are here spoken of, first in a figura
tive, and then in a strict sense. Who does not know this, or
what end was the exhibition of this instance designed to serve ?
Why, 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 alone ! For 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 ap
plied which are fit and necessary ; and that if one give us not ade
quate assistance, we should take in the rest also ; as he who cannot
open a door with one key, 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 Eve 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
Eve really had eyes and the power of vision, since she was so
influenced by 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. xxii : 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 of

478 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
the whole church : upon which point we will plainly refute him by
the application of two of our means, the comparison of places, and
the examination of the originals. For, first, in Matth. xxvii. 46,
Christ himself, who is the head of the church, hath proved this to
be his own voice and complaint, by exclaiming as he hung upon
the cross, " My God, my God, why 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, "Thou art far from my help, from the words of my 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.
[II.] 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.
We accept his praises of this mean, and are glad that we may use
it with Stapleton's good leave ; but, as to his affirming it not to
be sufficiently efficacious, taken by itself alone, for gaining the
authentic sense of scripture, this is precisely our own judgment. We
ascribe no such great force to these several means when applied
singly ; 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,
yet 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 Amos ; 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
anything: for he had learned to speak from the best master of
speech, even the Holy Spirit. So, although Paul, brought up by

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
by the Holy Spirit, a much better and more eloquent instructor
than Gamahel. But let us grant that the style of scripture is dif
ferent in many books : yet how does this prevent either that such
differences should be 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 Cicero ; Tertullian affects obscurity ; Chrysostom is ornate
and clear ; Nazianzen compressed and acute. In a word, they have
not all the same character, and yet 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 go wrong ;
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, The 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 by the scriptures themselves. What ? must we wait until
the pope tells us the force of Hebraisms, who, generally, knows
nothing of either Greek or Hebrew ? A worthy judge of style
forsooth !
[III.] He disputes against the comparison of passages in c. 10.
We say that a diligent and judicious comparison of places is a good
means of interpretation ; while he maintains that, taken alone and
by itself, it is not only fallacious but pernicious. What then ? We
do not suppose that either this, or any mean whatever, should be
used and applied alone ; and I wonder that he did not hence per
ceive the egregious sophistry of his proceeding. For, 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 by 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 by 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.
First : In a comparison, private feeling and prejudice generally
prevail. I answer : 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 by fear
or shame, or in some hypocritical manner. Can he who is not
moved by almost innumerable testimonies of scripture, appositely
and judiciously collated, to believe the deity of Christ, can he be
persuaded by 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. Secondly : The 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, yet the difficulty may be
freed from embarrassment either by considering the things them
selves, or by the comparison of other places, or by recurring to the
analogy of faith. " The flesh" and "the world" are taken in various
senses, and so are many other terms. Who denies it? 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. For those
common phrases of the apostles, " being buried with Christ ;"
"being crucified with Christ;" "living with him;" "reigning with
him ;" " being baptized into his death," and such like, are plain
enough in themselves, and may also have light thrown upon them
by the comparison of other sentences.
Fourthly : Because all heretics, by using great diligence in
comparing scripture, have nevertheless erred most foully in the
sense of scripture. I answer : They did not compare scripture
with great diligence, but for the most part, slightly and carelessly.
And his assertion, that " by a most diligent collation of scripture

XI.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 481
they fell into shameful errors," is an outrageous insult upon the
scriptures. For even though it might be said that they fell into
error while using the comparison of parallel passages, yet they did
not err by means of that comparison ; since, however those may
go most shamefully wrong who collate scripture, yet a careful col
lation is never the cause of their mistakes. Stapleton proposes an
example of such a comparison. The Arians compared that saying
of Christ in John x., " I and my Father are one," with those other
words of Christ in John xvii., " Father, I will that they all may be
one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee ;" nevertheless, says
he, that interpretation hath obtained, which is prescribed by the
rule of faith. I answer by demanding, whence the church derived
its proofs of this interpretation ? Stapleton says, from the rule of
faith. Well then, was it from the scripture ? By no means, if
we are to believe Stapleton; for it would then follow that the
Arians were confuted by the comparison and testimony of the
scriptures. Now it is certain that the Arians were refuted by the
church and the holy fathers out of the scriptures, and specially by
the collation of scripture, as is plain from Hilary de Trin. Lib. viii.
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 my Father are one ;" 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 consub-
stantial with the Father ; 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 : " They therefore took up
stones to stone him." This also follows, which is still plainer. The
Jews being asked by 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 thus : " Thus far the Jews were able to bear
him ; but when they heard, ' I and my Father are one,' they could
bear it no longer, and, hard as ever, rushed to take up stones1."
P Hucusque Judsei 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 31
[whitaker.]

482 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH
Then, a little lower down : " Lo, the Jews understood what the
Arians understand not. For they were enraged upon that very
account, because they perceived that the words, ' I and my Father
are one,' supposed an equality of the Son with the Father1." Thus,
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 by a most righteous
sentence. Augustine teaches well, that both Arians and Sabellians
are refuted by these words. Thus he speaks, as quoted in the
Catena of Thomas Aquinas : " If you mark both terms, both the
one and the are, you will escape both Scylla and Charybdis. His
saying one saves you from Arius : his saying are saves you from
Sabellius. If one, then not different : if we are, then Father and
Son are distinct persons2." Thus always the catholic and pious
fathers in every question and dispute refuted the heretics by 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 widowhood : whereupon he
cites many fathers and councils. We 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. To understand
by 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-
P Ecce Judsei 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.]
P Utrumque audi, et unum, et sumus ; et a Charybdi et a Scylla Ubera-
beris. Quod dixit, unum, liberat te ab Ario : quod dixit, sumus, Uberat te a
Sabellio. Si unum, non ergo diversum ; si sumus, ergo Pater et Filius. — Fol.
306, 2. Paris. 1537.]

XI.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 483
tary upon Titus; Athanasius de Trin. Lib. vi.; Vincentius Lirinensis,
Commonit. c. 12. For they say that heretics cast away their first
faith, not when they contract marriage after a vow of celibacy, but
when they fall away to infidelity or heresy after having made a
profession of the true faith. No 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, And 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 by chaste matrons ; and
then, perceiving themselves to have lost their character amongst
Christians by their unchastity, pass over to the enemies of the
christian faith. So the apostle explains himself, verse 15, where,
speaking of such widows, he says : " For some already e^eTpd-
irriaav bir'nxta tov Sarava3." The apostle therefore immediately
tells us the meaning of the phrase irpwTr\v irluTiv d9eTe7v. It
is nothing else but eKTpairfjvai oiriato tov IZaTava, that is, to
turn from the right way, and follow Satan as a guide ; which is
what those do who persevere not in their faith pledged to God
and in a holy profession. For to take faith for a vow 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 by the church in a general
council. I answer, that the synagogue of antichrist in their pre
tended council of Trent did that which the true church of Christ
never in any council dared to attempt or think of, — namely, 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 be 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 by strict
reasoning, but even by the confession of the papists themselves, that
the Latin copies should be amended from the originals. There is
no necessity for entering now into a fuller reply to this argument.
P Compare also V. 8 : rfjv irio-riv fjpvTjrat, Kal eariv diriarov xeipav, said of
one who provides not for his own.]
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. n., proposes four means. The 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 approves ; 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
judge who forms his judgment by them. Thus Stapleton seems
here to overturn the position maintained by Bellarmine and Sta
pleton himself elsewhere, which attributes a judicial and definitive
authority to the practice of the church. For 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. We have already
spoken of Stapleton's three latter means, and intend to speak again
in the proper place. Let us now consider the rule of faith whereof
he boasts. What 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 book de Virginibus Velandis, thus
explains that rule: "The rule of faith," says he, "is but one,
immoveable and incapable of reformation, that is, the rule of
believing in one God almighty, the Maker of the world, and in
his Son Jesus Christ, who was born of the virgin Mary, crucified

XH.J 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 judge the quick and the dead by
means of the resurrection also of the flesh1." And this he calls also
the law of faith. So Augustine, in his Enchiridion, c. 56 :
" Unless the Holy Ghost were God, he would not be placed before
the church in the rule of faith2." Gerson, upon Communion in
both Kinds, understands the scripture by the rule of faith, when he
says : " Holy scripture is the rule of faith, against which, when
rightly understood, no human authority may be admitted3." We
always appeal to this rule, and it is this which our adversaries
fear and shun. Stapleton says, Lib. vn. c. 1, that the rule of
faith is more extensive than the Creed, and denotes that doctrine
which the anostles delivered to the churches, and which was
publicly received by all, that is to say, all tradition written or
unwritten. We, however, make no account of those pretended
traditions, and demand a known, open, clear, certain, immutable
rule. The unwritten rule is uncertain, and known only to a few ;
whereupon we shall treat in the question next ensuing. In the
meanwhile, it is either repugnant to the scriptures, or not. If it
be repugnant, it is to be rejected without hesitation : if it agree,
that must be perceived and judged of by 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, Rom. xii.4, the measure of the
rule mentioned in 2 Cor. x.B, and the rule, Galat. vi.6, and Philipp.
p Regula quidam fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis,
credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omnipotentem, mundi Conditorem, et
Filium ejus Jesum Christum, natum ex virgine Maria, crucifixumsub 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.]
P 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 quse in coelis est. — p. 207. ed. Bruder. Lips. 1838.]
p Scriptura sacra est regula fidei, contra quam bene intellectam non est
admittenda auctoritas. — Gerson. Opp. T. I. p. 521. Paris. 1606.]
P Kara rr/v avaXoy'tav rijs irto-reas. — Rom. xii. 6.]
p koto rb perpov tov kovovos. — 2 Cor. X. 13.]
p oo-oi rtp kov&vi rovra o-toixt]o-ovo-iv. — Gal. vi. 17.]

486 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
iii.1 But it is manifest, that it is not that popish rule of ecclesiastical
tradition that is meant by 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
faith : 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. The 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 by an evil deity, as the
Manicheans blasphemously taught. The article which teaches that
Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary con
demns the Pelagians, who deny original sin : 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 by that sin: and the Creed, as understood and
explained by 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
P ra aiird oroixeiv Kavovt. — Philipp. iii. 16.]

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. For these testimonies which he hath produced make
mention of no rule not circumscribed by the boundaries of scripture.
The most stringent of all is that which is objected to us from the
third Book 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 church2 :" where note (says Stapleton),
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 defining
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. LThe 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 by her own caprice, but by 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 ministryj 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 Word was in the beginning with God, but was
not God. " Now this," says Augustine, " is to be refuted by 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
P Consulat regulam fidei quam de scripturarum planioribus locis et
ecclesise auctoritate percepit. — p. 78.]

488 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
self-credible and supreme verity. Thus the church prescribes no
thing beyond 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 BY SCRIPTURE.
It remains now in the last place for us to prove that these
means are to be used ; 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.
We have examples of this sort of interpretation in the scriptures.
For 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 by examples of both sorts of interpretation. In
Isaiah li. 1, we have : " Look unto the rock whence ye were hewn,
and to the hole of the pit whence ye were digged." The language
is obscure and ambiguous ; but the obscurity is wholly removed by
the words which follow : " Consider Abraham your father, and
Sarah who bore you." What better expositor do we require?
Gen. xv. 2, Abraham says to the Lord: "What wilt thou give me,
seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eleazar
of Damascus?" These words are somewhat dark, but light is
thrown upon them presently after : " Behold, thou hast given me
no seed, and lo, my servant born in my house is my heir." What
could possibly be spoken more plainly ? Gen. xi. 1, the whole
world is said to have been of one Up; 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
thing ;" 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 by affinity. This might be plain enough by itself, but
is rendered still more clear and definite by 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 me," saith the Lord ; and then immediately shews that this
declaration concerns the Israelites : " Israel doth not know, my
people doth not consider." Isaiah liii. 1, " To whom is the arm
of the Lord revealed?" — the meaning of this is plain from the
preceding clause, "Who hath believed our report?" — so as to
make it evident, that the gospel is denoted by 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 by 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 up ; that it is the Spirit
that quickens, while the flesh profits nothing ; 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 you 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 mystery:" where, foreseeing
that some would hence infer that marriage was a sacrament, he

490 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
subjoined what absolutely removes the ground of such a surmise,
" But I speak concerning Christ and the church ;" in which words
he protests that it is not matrimony, but the union of Christ and
the church, that is styled by him a mystery. Such examples are
innumerable, wherein it is apparent that the Holy 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.
Now if I were to attempt to prove by 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. For 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 am," and, " I am
hath sent me to you." What is the meaning of these expressions?
What else but this, that God is eternal and immortal, unlike the
other deities of erroneous creeds ? Now this is elsewhere ex
pressed without any ambiguity of phrase. Isaiah xliii., "Before
me there was no God formed, neither after me shall there be
any;" and Isaiah xlviii., "I am the first, and I am the last:"
and in infinite other passages of both Testaments the same truth is
most manifestly established. When the devil abused the scrip
tures, Christ restrained him by the authority of the scriptures,
Matt. iv. ; thus instructing his church to refute those opponents who
torture scripture into various senses by 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 by interpreting the law and explaining it
by another passage of scripture, Matt. xix. Christ refutes and
convinces by 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 them;

XIII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 491
so as that if 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 to deem no expo
sitor of the Holy Spirit better than the Holy 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 by 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 noon.
Let us next see briefly what the fathers determined respecting
these means of interpretation. Basil, in his treatise of the Holy
Spirit, c. 1, bids us "investigate the meaning concealed in every
word and syllable1." The expediency of doing this he proves
thus : The scope of scripture is, that we may be made like to
God ; such a likeness cannot have place without knowledge : now
" knowledge comes by instruction," and " of instruction the begin
ning is speech, the parts whereof are syllables and terms." The
same Basil, in his Ascet. Quaest. 267, hath these words : " What
soever seems to be spoken ambiguously or obscurely in some places
of holy scripture, is cleared up by what is plain and evident in
other places2." What is this, but the very thesis which we main
tain? So then, if we would understand the ambiguities and ob
scurities which meet us in every direction in the study of scripture,
we must consult other passages, and compare scripture with itself.
Irenaeus, Lib. n. c. 47 3, says that all scripture is in harmony with
itself, and that the parables (that is, the more obscure sentences)
are in harmony with the places perspicuously expressed, et qua
manifesta sunt absolvent parabolas ; that is, that light is so re-
P To yap pi) irapepyas aKovetv rdv BeoXoyiKav (fiavdv, dXXa ireipdo-Bai
rbv iv eKao-Tij Xe£ei Kal eKdcrrr} o-vXXafirj KeKpvppevov rbv vovv e£ixvevetv, oiiK
dpydv els evvefieiav, dXXd yvapi{\ovrav rbv o~k6ttov ttjs KXrjo-eas rjpdv on irpd-
Kfirai ypiv 6poia8i)vai Qed Kara to hvvarbv avBpdirov <pvo-ei. opolao-ts he oiiK avev
yvdaeaf tj he yvdo~is €k hthaypdv Xoyos he hihao~KaXtas dpxTJ' Xoyov he peprj
orvXXaPal Kal Xegeis. — T. II. p. 143. B.]
P ra dpqbi^oXa Kal iiriKeKaXvppevas elprjo-Bai hoKovvra ev tio~i rdirois rfjs
Beoirvevo-rov ypacprjs iiirb rdv iv dXXots toitois opoXoyovpevav o-a<f>rjvi£eTat.
— T. II. p. 632. o.]
P Omnis scriptura a Deo nobis data consonans nobis invenietur, et
parabolse his quse manifesto dicta sunt consonabunt, et manifeste dicta
absolvent parabolas. — p. 203. c. ed. Fevard.]

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 us : " The dis
covery of what we seek in the scriptures is much facilitated by ad
ducing from several places what is written upon the same subject1."
Tertullian, in his book de Virginibus Velandis : " Arise, 0 truth,
thyself expound thine own scriptures, which custom knows not;
for had it known them, it would not have existed2." And in his
book against Praxeas : " 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
itself3." Hilary, in his 9th book upon the Trinity : " Let the
meaning of what is said be gathered either from the preceding, or
from the following context4." Ambrose, Epist. 7, Lib. ii.5, says
that Paul interprets himself in most passages ; and likewise Chry
sostom, Horn. 9, upon 2 Cor. : " Every where, when he uses any
obscure expression, he presently again explains himself6." Cyril,
in his Thesaurus, Lib. vin. c. 2, says that " we must observe the
circumstances, time, subject, and person, in order that we may
investigate the true meaning7."
But most clearly of all Augustine, in his four books of Christian
Doctrine ; 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
P Facilius in scripturis quod qujeritur invenitur, si ex pluribus locis
quse de eadem re scripta sunt proferantur.]
P Exsurge igitur, Veritas, et quasi de patientia erumpe : nullam volo con-
suetudinem defendas ; nam jam et ilia consuetudine, sub qua te fruebaris,
expugnatur. Te esse demonstra quse virgines tegis. Ipsa scripturas tuas
interpretare, quas consuetudo non novit ; si enim nosset, nunquam esset.
— c. 3, p. 204. P. n.]
p Porro non periclitatur scriptura, ut illi de tua argumentativa succurras,
ne sibi contraria videatur. Habet rationem, et cum unicum Deum statuit, et
cum duos Patrem et Filium ostendit, et sufficit sibi. — c. 18. p. 270. P. iv.]
p Dictorum intelligentia aut ex prsepositis aut ex consequentibus exspec-
tetur. — Hilarii Opp. p. 116. Basil. 1570.]
p In plerisque ita se ipse suis exponit verbis, ut is qui tractat, grammatici
magis quam disputatoris fungatur munere. — T. vin. p. 448. Paris. 1839.]
P iravraxov drav rt do~a<bes eiirr}, eavrbv eppjjvevet irdXiv.]
p Ante omnia quando locum scripturse aliquem recte intelligere volumus,
tria diligenter consideranda sunt ; tempus quando scriptum est quod dicitur ;
persona quse dicit, vel per quam, aut de qua dicitur. — Opp. T. n. 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 de
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.
He treats of the unknown in the second book, and of the am
biguous in the third. He 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 books ; 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 good 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. 10, 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. 11, 12, the general precepts for acquiring an
acquaintance with the art of grammar, which is a requisite condition
for learning the sense of scripture. He 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. He directs the reader also to
study history, through ignorance of which many persons have
fallen into error, cc. 27, 28 ; 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 ways: 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. He 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 Rome was the sole certain interpreter of scripture.
The same Augustine, in his Book of 83 Questions, Qu. 69, says :
"The 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
sion1." Jerome too, on Isaiah, c. 19 : "It is usual in scripture to
subjoin plain words to obscure ones, and to express in a clear form
what was first spoken enigmatically2." In his epistle to Pamnia-
chius, which is prefixed to his commentary upon Hosea, he says
that "the scriptures are the sealed book," 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 ? He subjoins : " We must pray to the Lord, and say
with Peter, ' Declare unto us this parable '."
Why should I enumerate other authors, even papists ? Gerson,
P Solet circumstantia scripturse illuminare sententiam, cum ea quse
circa scripturam sunt, prsesentem qusestionem contingentia, diligenti discus-
sione tractantur.]
P Moris est scripturarum obscuris manifesta subnectere, et quod prius sub
senigmatibus dixerint, aperta voce proferre.— Opp. T.iv.p. 201. Veron. 1735.]

XIII.] QUESTION THE FIFTH. 495
in his treatise Qua Veritates sunt Credenda, says, p. 1 : " The
scripture expounds its own rules by themselves, according to the
several passages of scripture3." And in his book of Communion in
one Kind, he says that the scripture is " hke one connected speech,
whereof one part confirms, elucidates, and explains another4 :" and
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 another5." Augustinus Steuchus, upon Genesis, c. 2, says:
" God was not so unmerciful as to wish that men should be tortured
throughout all generations by 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. For, as Theo
doret says in this place, ' Holy scripture, when it designs to express
any thing of importance, explains itself, and does not suffer the
hearer to go wrong6'." 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
tures; the drift of all which canons is to enable us to interpret
scripture by 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. 1488) ; for the citation is really from the tract, Casus contra Propo-
sitiones Magistri Johannis Parvi: Unde propositiones universales de sacra
pagina possunt et debent aliter exponi quam oppositiones Magistri Johannis
Parvi, primo quia scriptura exponit regulas suas per semet ipsas secundum
diversos passus scripturse, et juxta sacros doctores.]
P Quarum una pars confirmat, elucidat, exponit alteram.]
p Unus potest passus in scripturis mutuo ceteros exponere.]
p Non adeo inhumanus fuit Deus, ut voluerit hujus rei ignoratione per
omnes setates homines torqueri; cum neque ullum in sacris scripturis esse
passus sit locum, quern si accurate pensitemus, intepretari non possimus.
Ut enim hoc loco ait Theodoritus, i? dyia ypaabi] iirtihdv fHovXqrat ti roiovrov
rjpas hihdo-Kfiv, iavrrjv eppTjvevei, Kal ovk d(j>tT](ri liXavdo-Bat rbv aKpoarrjV id est,
Bacra scriptura cum explicare aliquid grande vult, se ipsa declarat, neque
patitur errare auditorem. — Opp. T. i. p. 106, 2. 1578. The citation should
have been from Chrysostom. The passage occurs, Horn. xrn. in Gen. ii. T. iv.
p. 103. Paris. 1718-38.]

THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.

QUESTION VI.
CONCERNING THE PERFECTION OF SCRDPTURE, AGAINST
HUMAN TRADITIONS.

CHAPTER I.
THE QUESTION IS PROPOSED.
Our Saviour Christ says, John v. 39, epewdre ras ypaipds,
" Search the scriptures." From these words certain questions con
cerning the scriptures were taken at the commencement of our
inquiries, which embrace the whole controversy about scripture de
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 body 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. n. c. 5, says that tra
dition is that Homeric MtoXy, which preserves the christian faith
against the spells of heretics ; intimating thereby that the papists
would be presently slain by 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. n. 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. in. 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. Now in the handling of the pre
sent question we mean to observe the following order : First, we
will explain what they denote by the term tradition : secondly,
how they classify their traditions : thirdly, what rules they pro
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. We shall treat severally of these in the order wherein
we have proposed them.

CHAPTER 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 by the mouth, or in written
documents. In Acts vi. 14, the Vulgate version hath traditiones,
but the Greek text ret e9r}. By that term are understood the legal
ceremonies, all of which Moses hath comprised in his books : for
there follows immediately d irapeSwKev rjfxlv Mwvarjs, that is, which
he consigned to writing. The fathers too sometimes understand
written teaching by this term. So Cyprian, Epist. 74, ad Pom-
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 tradition1."
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 place ; whereas
Cyprian is speaking of the apostolic and evangelical scriptures. So
P Si ergo aut in evangelio prsecipitur, aut in apostolorum epistolis aut
actibus continetur, ut a quacunque hseresi venientes non baptizentur, sed
tantum manus illis imponatur in poenitentiam ; observetur divina hsec et
sancta traditio.— p. 211. ed. Fell.]
r i 32
[WH1TAKER.J

498 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
again : " Whence is that tradition ? Does it descend from the
authority of the Lord by the gospels, or comes it from the com
mandments and epistles of the apostles? For God is witness that
those things should be done which are written1." 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 book against Eunomius, speaking of baptism, writes thus :
" This is plainly repugnant to the tradition of holy baptism2 :"
tovto aa(pws p.dyeTai Trj irapaSoaei tov crojTrjp'iov pairTio-fxa-
tos : which is meant to apply to the scripture itself, as is plain
from what follows afterwards in that same place. For he adds, that
infants should be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of tJie Holy Ghost, KaTa rrjv tov Kvplov trapdooijiv,
"according to the tradition of the Lord." Now Christ and the
apostles left this doctrine consigned to writing. We must carefully
bear this in memory ; 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. xv. 2, "Why
do they transgress the tradition of the elders ?" For 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. 23, b Kal irapeSwKa vxilv : he had
delivered it to them, but had not yet written it. However, these
things are now all committed to writing. The fathers frequently
thus use this term. Bellarmine brings an example from Cyprian,
Epist. 63, contra Aquarios, where these words are found : " I
would have you know that we have been admonished to preserve
the tradition of the Lord in offering the cup3." Chemnitz, however,
p Unde est ista traditio ? utrumne de dominica et evangelica auctoritate
descendens, an de apostolorum mandatis atque epistolis veniens? Ea enim
facienda esse quse scripta sunt, Deus testatur. — Ibid, paulo ante.]
P Tovro he o-acbds paxerai ttj irapahoo~ei tov o'a'njpiov f3airrio-paros' iropevBevres,
<br]o-l, jiairrl^ere els to ovopa toO irarpbs Kal tov vlov Kal tov dytov irvevparos 
to he pdirno-pa rjpdv io~ri Kara ttjv tov Kvplov irapdhoo-tv, els ovopa irarpbs Kal
vlov Kal dyiov irvevparos. — T. II. p. 84. A. B.]
P 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 by word of mouth. For 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 deceived : but he is much more deceived, as
is plain from the passage itself. For although the mixture of
water with the wine in the holy supper be approved by Cyprian
and the other fathers ; yet it is not confirmed by unwritten tradi
tion, but by the scriptures themselves, and reason. To this they
referred the circumstance that Christ's side, when it was transpierced
as he hung upon the cross, poured forth blood and water; and
they rested also upon the fact that it was the custom of men
in those warm countries to drink always their wine temperately
diluted with a httle water. However, we allow that the term is
sometimes so taken by the fathers as to signify unwritten teaching.
So Tertullian, in his book de Corona Militis : " You will find no
scripture : tradition is alleged as authority4." So also Basil, upon
the Holy Spirit, c. 27 s. In this sense it is that the papists take
this word in this controversy ; for they divide the word of God
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. They 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 by the original authors. Thus Bellar
mine determines, who proposes the baptism of infants as an ex
ample. But we shall shew in its proper place, that this tradition
is dehvered 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 by the scriptures.
what foUows : neque aliud fiat a nobis, quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior
fecerit ; ut caUx, qui in commemoratione ejus offertur, mixtus vino oflferatur.
Nam cum dicat Christus, Ego sum vitis vera ; sanguis Christi, non aqua est
utique, sed vinum.]
p Harum et aliarum ejusmodi si legum expostules scripturam, nullam
invenies : traditio tibi prsetendetur auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, et fides
observatrix. — c. 4.]
p Tdv iv ttj iKKXrjo-'ia ire<j>vXaypevav hoypdrav Kal Kt]pvypdrav to pev eK ttjs
iyypd(j)ov hihao-KaXtas 'ixopev, ra he ek ttjs tbv diroa-rdXav irapahoo-tas hiaho-
Bevra rjpiv iv pvtrrTjpia irapehe£dpe8a. — T. n. p. 210. C.]
32—2

500 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
We have explained then what the papists understand by 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. 100, 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, The power of bishops, and especially the Roman
bishops. He 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 yet did not leave consigned in writing.
Now 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. No 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. Now 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 affirm the whole
essence of the sacraments to be delivered in the sacred writings.
However, the argument by which he proves that all the things
which they use in baptism, confirmation, penance, matrimony, and
the rest of their sacraments, were instituted by Christ, is worth
observing. It is to this effect : Paul says, 1 Cor xi. 13 : "I

I"-] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 501
received of the Lord what I also delivered unto you :" therefore,
we must believe that all these things were prescribed by the Lord.
But how does this consequence follow ? Paul received of the Lord
those things which he delivered to the Corinthians to be observed
by them : therefore every thing also which these men deliver,
they have received from the Lord. Now, those things which the
apostle delivered he left in his writings, and mentions in this very
place. This they cannot shew of their traditions.
He calls those apostolical traditions, which the apostles pre
scribed not without the authority of the Holy 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. Yet afterwards he forgets himself, and
confesses that the fourth time of fasting was instituted by Calixtus.
Here, however, we must note that Bellarmine concedes that Lent
was not instituted by Christ, but by the apostles : whereas other
papists usually defend Lent by the example and authority of
Christ; contending that, as he fasted forty days, so we should
also fast for the same period; and so making this tradition of
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 by his example he might leave to us certain
solemn days of fasting. Alphonsus de Castro, contra Hareses,
Lib. vm., says, that many grave divines affirm that Lent was
instituted by Christ ; and names one Maximus, who says that he
has proved this number of forty to be sanctioned by 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 words : " Mother church hath instituted the fast of
forty days1." Thus they are uncertain what to determine con
cerning this tradition.
He calls those ecclesiastical traditions, which by degrees, and
by the consent of nations, obtained the force of laws. Of these he
gives no example.
He proceeds to add, that divine unwritten scriptures have an
authority equal to that of the scriptures ; and, in like manner, that
apostolical traditions rank along with the writings of the apostles.
His reason is, because the authority of the word of God does not
depend upon its being written, but upon its having proceeded from
P Mater ecclesia . . . quadraginta dierum jejunium instituit  Opp. p. 4.
Lugd. 1564.]

502 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
God. We allow that this is a good reason, provided he can prove
that these traditions were instituted by Christ or the apostles. But
now what is the authority of ecclesiastical traditions ? He says that
they are of the same authority as the written constitutions and
written decrees of the church. But how great is that force ? They
will not, I suppose, put the ecclesiastical traditions upon a par with
the divine. Yet the Tridentine fathers, in their fourth session,
command us to receive and reverence the unwritten traditions with
the same pious affections as the very 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. Yet surely they ought to have explained the
distinctions and degrees which were to be apphed 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. He says that some belong to faith, some to morals ;
some are perpetual, others temporary ; some universal, others par
ticular ; some necessary, others free. Some are matters of faith,
as that the blessed Mary was always a virgin, that there are only
four gospels and no more. As to the former tradition, Jerome,
Ambrose, and Epiphanius, who wrote against Helvidius upon this
subject, bring testimonies from scripture to prove the perpetual
virginity of Mary. Basil, however, in his homily upon the na
tivity of the Lord, affirms this dogma to be diroXvirpayixovriTov
Tip tov fxvo-Trjp'iov Xbyip1, which is the same as saying that it
is no article of faith. The 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 by
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. He makes those perpetual
traditions, which are never to have an end ; 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,
P MrjSev ra> rrjs evcrefHeias irapaXvpaiveTai X6yw pexpi ydp rrjs Kara tt)v
oiKovoptav virr)peo~tas avayKaia ij irapBevta, to he itpe£rjs diroXvirpayp6vT]Tov rd
\6ya roil pvarrfplov KardXelijfapev. — T. I. p. 690. B.]

»!•] 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 by the apostles to abstain from things strangled and
from blood. But Bellarmine will say that they are written to us,
not to them. Yea, they were written even to them : for that
law which demands of us a mutual charity requires this too, that
in matters indifferent we 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. He calls those universal, which the whole
church everywhere observes, such as the celebration of Easter and
Whitsuntide : those particular, which only certain churches ob
serve, as fasting upon Saturday was formerly peculiar to the
Roman church. He styles those necessary, which are delivered in
the form of a precept ; as that Easter is to be kept upon a Sunday:
those free, which are delivered in the form of a counsel, not of a
precept; such as the sprinkling of holy water.
We have now explained what our opponents mean by the term
tradition, and how many kinds of tradition they make : it remains,
in the next place, that we inquire into the rules by 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, Lib. iv. c. 9, proposes five rules whereby true
and genuine traditions of the apostles may be distinguished.
The first rule is this : Whatsoever the universal church holds
as an article of faith, and which is not found in the Bible, is with
out any doubt apostolical. The reason of this rule is, because the
church cannot err. That the church cannot err, he proves by a two
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 : The present
occasion does not permit me to handle the question, whether or not
the church may err : 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 by the universal church ?
For 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 re
lated to faith, and some to practice. These were universal (if those
are to be styled universal which are observed by 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. For 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. For, 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 re
ceived by the universal church, according to this rule of Bellarmine's.
However, what he writes in this place, and hath taken from Ca
nus, Lib. in. c. 4, must in nowise be passed over. He says that all
points which the church holds as articles of faith were delivered by
the apostles or prophets, in writing or by word of mouth, and that
the church is not now governed by 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 even the slightest taint of

IV-J 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. How then hath it constantly subsisted ? Or
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 ? The
canon is an article of faith ; for Bellarmine hath given it as an
example of his rule. Stapleton adds : " If the Holy Spirit should
so suggest." Now 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 by the church ;
others, that the church is not governed by 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 by
the apostles, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul.
All the papists allow it. Lindanus, Panopl. Lib. iv. c. 100, 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 by 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 other ; 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 thus : When
the universal church observes any thing which is of such a nature
as that it could not be instituted by any one but God, and yet is
nowhere found mentioned in scripture, we must needs believe it to
have been instituted by Christ himself, and delivered down by his

506 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
apostles. The reason is, because the church can no more err in
act than in belief. He produces Augustine as either the witness
or the author of this rule; who, in his Epist. 118, 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 day1."
I answer : Our cause can receive no damage from this opinion
of Augustine. For he speaks of such traditions as were received
and practised by 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 by the universal church; and those tradi
tions which are here maintained by Bellarmine are of a different
kind altogether. The first is, the baptizing of infants : the
second, the not re-baptizing those who were baptized by heretics.
These traditions, though not in so many words, may yet be found
in scripture, and confirmed by 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. As to the former, Augustine indeed, de Genesi ad lit.
Lib. 10, c. 23, 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. 24, 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. Yet these heretics
our churches have refuted and condemned by 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 be
refuted no otherwise than by tradition. As to Bellarmine's second
instance, of not re-baptizing those who had been baptized by
heretics ; although Cyprian contended that baptism administered by
a heretic was null and void, (for that question was debated, with
P In the new editions, Ep. 54. Opp. T. n. p. 164. Bassan. 1797.]

IV.J QUESTION THE SIXTH. 507
great heat on Cyprian's part, between him and other bishops;) yet
Augustine proved that Cyprian was in error by the authority, not
so much of tradition as of scripture. For thus he writes, in his
first book of Baptism against the Donatists, c. 7 : " Lest I should
seem to prove my point" (he is speaking of this very thing) " by
mere human arguments, I produce certain evidence from the
Gospel2." 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 by the
heretics when they go out, and therefore can be given by them
whilst they are without. But the plainest passage of all is in
Lib. v. c. 26. 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 former :
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 by the church. This rule, also, he
confirms from Augustine, contra Donat. Lib. iv. c. 22, where he
writes to the following effect : " That which the universal church
holds, which, though never instituted by any council, was always
retained, is with the utmost justice believed to be dehvered by no
less than apostolical authority3." I answer: We 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 it, 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-
p Ne videar humanis argumentis id agere . . ., ex Evangelio profero certa
documenta. — Opp. T. xn. p. 110.]
P Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nee conciliis institutum sed semper re-
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, how
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. For, commencing with
Bernard, he ascends from him to Gregory, from Gregory to
Augustine, from Augustine to Jerome, from Jerome to Chrysostom,
from Chrysostom to Ambrose, from Ambrose to Epiphanius, Basil,
Nazianzen, Cyril, Origen, Irena?us, 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 ? He must
needs mean the former ; for otherwise he disputes absurdly. But
now it may be proved by 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 of fasting, and the kinds of food : this may be proved, I
say, if not from Bernard and Gregory, yet from Augustine, Jerome,
and the rest of the more ancient fathers. Secondly, I affirm that
an author may be found for the observance of Lent later than the
apostles' times. For Platina, in the life of that pope1, writes, that
Lent was instituted by Telesphorus, who lived a hundred years
after Christ. They will find no more ancient author; yet the
papists make him to have been not the author, but the restorer
and asserter, of this fast instituted by 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 by Telesphorus. The epistle of Ignatius to
the Philippians, wherein he mentions Lent2, is spurious. The
book of Clement referred to is spurious also, and was condemned
in the sixth general council at Constantinople. The canons which
go 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 apostohcal
tradition, proving it by tracing them back to the apostles' times, as
in the former example. But here his own rule fails him ; for the
apostolic canons, to which he ascribes so much, name only five
P Telesphorus autem, quem diximus Xysto successisse, constituit ut sep-
tem hebdomadibus ante Pascha jejunium observaretur. — Platina Vitt. Pon
tiff, p. 28. Col. Ub. 1600.]
P tt)v reo-o-apaKoo-rrjv prj i^ovBevelre' ptpijo-iv yap irepiexet r^s tov Kvplov
iroXireias. — Ignat. ad Philipp. p. 111. ed. Voss. Lond. 1680.]

IV.J QUESTION THE SIXTH. 509
orders, — the 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. This instance, therefore, does not suit very well with
Bellarmine's rule.
The 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.
He 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
Epistles3, says that, although images should not be broken, yet
the people should be carefully taught and admonished not to
worship them ; 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. He adduces no example of the second
sort; for he says that scarce anything of that kind can be found
expressly in the fathers, wherein they all agree. He therefore
delivers the following rule to meet that case : 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 rule !
But how shall we know that the others do not dissent ? for
many books of the fathers are lost, and many fathers wrote none :
it may be that these dissented. Besides, many things are delivered
down even by some of the fathers, which by 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
p Tua ergo fraternitas et illas servare, et ab earum adoratu populum
prohibere debuit. — p. 1370.]

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 as such in those
churches wherein there is an unbroken succession of bishops from
the apostles. I answer : Where then was the need of all his pre
vious windings? At bottom he would have those only to be
apostolical traditions, which the church of Rome affirms to be
such. This was what he meant to say ; 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 church ; 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. For 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 years; furthermore, that there were
frequent schisms, and sometimes two or three popes in existence
together. Nay, in one council1 three popes were deposed, and
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, yet that
succession would be a matter of no weight ; 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 what ? In the Greek churches. If he demand a particular
example, I instance in the most noble of them all, that of Con
stantinople, which was formerly called New Rome, and always
stood upon a par with Rome in dignity. Nicephorus, in his
History, Lib. vm. c. 6, describes the series of the Constantinopolitan
bishops from Andrew the apostle down to his own time. This also
P viz. That of Constance, which assembled in 1414. The popes deposed
were, John XXIII., Gregory XII., and Benedict XIII. 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 Rome. 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. How 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.
It now remains that we inquire, what are those dogmas and
institutions which the papists affirm are to be defended by the
authority, not of scripture, but of unwritten traditions. It is but
fit that we should have this matter perfectly cleared up. No 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. The 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. Now why are these monuments, so
sacred and so necessary, not published? Peter Soto, a popish
author of great name, in his book 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. Nay, I may
say that all will, with the sole exception of the point of the merit of
works. We 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, yet the most important dogmas of the
papists depend upon tradition, although, for the sake of appearance,
they generally cite scripture in defence of them ; but if they re
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 Pracept. 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. 100, 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 Rome. Thus we derive
from tradition both points, Peter's having been at Rome 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. He 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 ! He 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. When therefore they allege scripture in proof of these things,

v-] 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 by a silent tradition, and not by the testimony of scripture.
Our assertion, therefore, that these things cannot be established by
scripture, is allowed by 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. We allow besides, that Christ said and did many
things which are not written. Out of twelve apostles seven wrote
nothing, who yet orally taught, and did many things in many
places; for they were commanded to go 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. Now that some such rites,
suited to the seemly polity of the church, were prescribed by them,
is manifest from 1 Cor. xi. and xiv. We have, however, in scripture
only this general rule, that all those rites should be directed to the
end of securing edification and decency, but the particular rites
themselves are not set forth. But we say that all things that are
necessary, whether they regard either faith or practice, are plainly
and abundantly explained in the scriptures. Hence we say that
the sum of our religion is written, being precisely the same as the
teaching of those apostles who wrote nothing. For those who wrote
not taught absolutely the same gospel as those who wrote : 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
33
[whitaker.]

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, yet the sum of
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 cavil : for although every single thing they
said and did be 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. He who compares these un
written things with the written, does only in other words praise
the written teaching. But Brentius and Chemnitz affirm him to be
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 he calls them) of Chemnitz and Calvin, which I will not ex
amine in this place : most of them will recur again and be handled
in their proper places.
Bellarmine states the question thus : We, 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. They, 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 : The word expressly is
ambiguous. If he mean that we affirm all things to be 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 by necessary argument from the scriptures,
we accept his statement. For if that which is directly laid down
in scripture be true, then that also which is deduced from it by
necessary consequence must needs be true also. So Nazianzen
rules, in his fifth book of theology, where he writes concerning

¦"¦J QUESTION THE SIXTH. 515
the Holy Spirit : " Inferences from scripture stand on the same
footing with the actual words of scripture1." Some things are not,
and yet are said in scripture to be ; as that God sits, that he hath
ears and eyes. Some are, and yet are not said, that is, expressly
and in so many words ; as that the Holy Ghost is God ; while
nevertheless something is said from which they may be 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 own: to fxev ovk earl, XeyeTai
oe tu o ovTa ov XeyeTai Ta oe ovre ecTTiv, ovTe XeyeTai ra oe
dp.(pio Kal eo-n Kal Xeyerat. So we say that all necessary things
are contained in scripture, though not always in express terms.
For example, infant baptism and original sin are not propounded
directly and in set terms in the Bible, and yet they may be inferred
from it by the strictest reasoning. Thus, to comprise the whole
matter in a few words, we say that all things appertaining to faith
and morals may be learned and derived from scripture, so as that
traditions are in no way requisite. They, 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.
At length our Jesuit opponent approaches the question itself,
taking upon himself to make good 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. He proceeds to prove them both in regular
order. The first is manifestly twofold ; first, that scripture is not
necessary ; and secondly, that it is not sufficient without tradition.
p Opp. T. i. p. 605. a]
33—2

516 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
In the first place, he proves that scripture is not necessary ;
wherein you see to what a pass the thing is brought. For 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. How 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. He proves the antecedent from there being no mention
of scripture in the book 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 : why then might it not have been preserved
also for fifteen hundred years after Christ ? I answer : 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 by Chryso
stom in his 1st homily upon Matthew, and also by Theophylact.
Augustine, however, in the 15th book of his City of God, c. 23,
affirms that something was written by Enoch1. And Josephus,
Antiquit. Lib. 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 them2. Pliny indeed affirms
the use of written characters to have subsisted always, Lib. vn. c.
56 3. And Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. Lib. n., thinks that "the book
of the wars of the Lord" was more ancient than the books of Moses.
However, I concede that there was no scripture more ancient than
P Scripsisse quidem nonnulla divina Enoch ilium septimum ab Adam
negare non possumus.]
P o-rrjXas hvo iroiTjo-dpevot, ttjv pev €K irXlvBov, ttjv h' erepav e/c Xluav,
dptporepats iveypayjrav ra evprjpeva. — Lib. I. C. 2. § 3.]
p Literas semper arbitror Assyrias fuisse. Where Perionius and some
others read, Assyriis.]

VII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 517
the books of Moses, and that religion remained pure for so many
years without scripture. What follows from that? Are the scrip
tures, therefore, unnecessary ? By no means. For I perceive a
twofold fallacy in this argument. The first Hes in the consequent.
Our opponent disputes thus : Scripture is not absolutely necessary ;
therefore it is not necessary at all. But here hes the Jesuit's
error : for it is not every necessity that is absolute ; some is only
hypothetical. God could teach us without the holy scriptures, and
lead us to eternal life ; 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 food ; 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.
The second fallacy is mistaking the question : for the time is
changed, when he argues thus : Scripture was once not neces
sary ; therefore it is also unnecessary now. This reasoning is
inconsequential. For though God once taught his church by
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. And the
reason of the change was to provide more completely for the pure
and uncorrupted preservation of his teaching. For doctrine de
livered only orally without writing could not be so easily saved
from corruptions ; and in fact it was soon depraved, and God's re
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 rehgion,
to have the scriptures in our hands ; so that to think otherwise is
to accuse God 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 by the holy prophets, which he never-

518 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
theless maintains to have been unnecessary. For 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 Job and his friends. To this purpose he alleges
Augustine on Original Sin, Lib. n. c. 24 ; and in the City of God,
Lib. xviii. c. 47. I answer : We confess that there were amongst
the Gentiles some pious persons really zealous for true rehgion:
but that the scriptures were read by such persons, is also clear
from the story of the eunuch in Acts vin. Besides, the number of
such persons as the Jesuit mentions was very small. And, how
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, yet they used
tradition more than scripture : as appears from Ps. xii v. 1, 2, and
Ixxviii. 3, 4, where we read that fathers related the works of God to
their children ; and from Deut. vi. 20, where the fathers are com
manded to tell their children, when their children should ask them,
what great things God had done in their behalf. I reply, that no
conclusion can be drawn from such testimonies as these. For 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. Now, this is all written : every thing recited in
Ps. Ixxviii. is also written; as the deliverance of the people from
Egypt, &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 why 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 ?
The 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
people ; but are they, for that reason, not necessary ? A man
should be a fool to say so. The scriptures, however, were not alto
gether lost, nor does the finding of the book of the law prove that
they were. The book that was found in the temple, during its
purification, was the very autograph of Moses, or only the book of
Deuteronomy. As 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. As to the piece at the end
of Deuteronomy, some say that it was added by Joshua, as Sixtus
Senensis, Lib. i. ; others by Moses before his death, so as to seem
rather to have been translated than to have died1.
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 body perceives to be
utterly false. For 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. Now, as far as the sum and substance of
teaching is concerned, there is no difference between the old Tes
tament and the new. The promises are written in the old
Testament, and the fulfilment of them in the new. Nor was it
very many years after Christ that the church lacked the scriptures
of the new Testament. For Matthew wrote. his gospel eight years
after Christ's ascension, if that be true which Theophylact tells us,
upon the 1st of Matthew : (xeTa oktw 'err/ Ttjs tov XptaTov
dvaXrixf/eiDs. Nicephorus2, however, says that it was in the fifteenth
P Ut raptus, non mortuus fuisse videatur.]
P Hist. Eccles. Lib. iv. c. 14.]

520 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
year; but Eusebius, Lib. v. c. 81, out of Irenseus, dates it after
the twentieth, when Peter and Paul had already come to Rome.
But the Jesuit proves his assertion from Irenseus, Lib. in. c. 4,
where that father writes, that in his time some barbarous nations
lived admirably without the scriptures, by the sole help of tradition.
I answer : I confess that Irenseus 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, by the power of
the Holy Ghost. But lest you 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. Then he
adds : " 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, by reason of the righteousness
and chastity and wisdom of their whole behaviour2." But although
some barbarous people were for a time without the scriptures, it
does not therefore follow that the scriptures are absolutely un
necessary. Many 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 rehgion
which they possess ? Doubtless from the scriptures. The scrip
tures, therefore, are highly necessary. And 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, by the reading and ex
pounding of them, they might the better preserve the teaching
which they had received. The conclusion he draws is, that the
P MarBaios .... ypaqbr/v i^T/veyKev eiayyeXtov, tov Ilerpov Kal tov UavXov
iv 'Paprj evayyeXi£opevav.  T. II. p. 53. ed. Heinich.]
P Cui ordinationi assentiunt multse gentes barbarorum, quorum qui in
Christum credunt, sine charta et atramento scriptam habentes per Spiritum
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. Fevard.]

vn-] 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 out ; since presently afterwards, replying
to a citation from Chrysostom, 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. From the whole reasoning of our opponent,
therefore, we see the truth of what we read in this same author
Irenseus, Lib. in. 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 gospel : therefore they are necessary. As
to the law, the apostle tells us, Rom. vii. : " 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 by visions, dreams, revelations, oracles, as of old,
but by the scriptures alone ; 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 by Moses, the prophets and the
apostles, for this very 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. 12, God says, "I have written to them the great
things of my law; but they were counted as a strange thing."
Luke says, chap. i. verse 3, " It seemed good to me to write
unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus," — for what pur
pose? The reason is subjoined; 'iva eiriyvtps irepl wv KaTr/y_rj9ris
Xoyoov Trjv da<pdXeiav. Theophilus had before that been in
structed in the true doctrine (as is plain from the words irepl
<£v KaTnyfi9ris) ; but Luke 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. The 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. 29, Christ says to the Sadducees, "Ye
do err, not knowing the scriptures :" irXavaa9e, fxr) eiSoTes Tas
ypatpds. From which words we gather that the scriptures are ne
cessary to us, lest we should fall into error. In another evangehst
the words stand thus : " Ye therefore err, because ye know not the
scriptures :" ov Sid tovto irXavaa9e, xxri eiSoTes Tas yparpds ; and
so the place makes still more clearly for our side. The same is
the purport also of the passage in 2 Pet. i. 19, " We have also a
more sure (and firm) word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that
ye take heed :" where Peter teaches us that nothing is surer than
the scriptures. To them, therefore, as the solid, firm and perpe
tual monuments of the faith, it behoves us to cleave constantly.
In Luke xvi., when the rich reveller begs that somebody may be
sent to his brethren, Abraham replies : " They have Moses and the
prophets ; let them hear them." From 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
xx. 31, we read thus : " They were written, that ye might believe
that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God ; and that believing ye
might have life by his name." Whence it may be inferred that
the scriptures are necessary to us for the obtaining of faith and
eternal life ; since it was for that purpose they were written. In
John v. 39, Christ says to the Jews, " Search the scriptures ; " —

VIII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 523
wherefore? "Because in them ye think ye have eternal life."
And 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 may be gathered. He calls them the
law; and what more necessary than law? Now, if the law be
necessary in a state, then much rather in the church. For if
in civil affairs men cannot be left to themselves, but must be
governed and retained in their duty by certain laws ; much less
should we be independent in divine things, and not rather bound by
the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule, lest we fall into a
will-worship hateful to God.
Fourthly, we can by no means do without the scriptures :
therefore they are necessary. The* Jesuit will deny the ante
cedent. But if we can do without the scriptures, why hath
God dehvered them to us ? Thus the wisdom and counsel of
God 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 them : therefore the
scriptures are necessary. For if any persons could be free or
discharged from the duty of reading the scriptures, who could be
rather than the clergy ? forasmuch as none are better acquainted
with tradition than they are. In 1 Tim. iv. 13, Paul admonishes
Timothy to be attentive to reading, irpbueye Trj dvayvwaei' and
in 2 Tim. iii. 14, 15, 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. And if he uttered such ad
monitions to one who could raise the dead, what are we now to say,
who fall so miserably short of his excellence ?" Thus Chrysostom.
If, then, the scriptures are commended to Timothy, how much
more to us ? To the same purpose is the passage in Rom. xv. 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 hope." It was, therefore, for our service that
God provided in delivering his doctrine in a written form ; — 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 Matthew1,
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. He 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 by the scriptures. Bellarmine saw
this place, and endeavours to break the force of the argument.
He says that the scriptures are called necessary, because they are
useful. Excellent ! But, then, they are so useful as to be neces
sary. Nothing, indeed, is more useful than what is necessary.
You have heard how admirably the Jesuit hath acquitted
himself of his first undertaking. I do not choose at present to pro
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.
Now, 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 by
three arguments.
The first is to this effect: If 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 case ; 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 Tom. vn. p. 1. et seqq.]

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 by no means so large and full, since the Jews, who were
without the new Testament, had not so many books as we have) ;
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. When there were only the five books of Moses,
they were sufficient. When they were increased by 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 : " He 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 Egypt have I called my
Son." Indeed, the seventy translators whom he followed exhibit
neither passage : but the Hebrew text does ; with which he was
not conversant, being ignorant of the Hebrew language. Jerome,
in his work de Optimo Genere Inter pretandi, 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
ture; 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. For 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. For, as to the books of Samuel, Gad,
Nathan and Abijah, 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 by 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. For
we have before established, both by the words themselves and the
testimonies of authors, that this was no epistle of Paul to the
Laodiceans, but of the Laodiceans to Paul ; unless indeed we trans
late eK AaoSiKelas, " to the Laodiceans." For other people wrote
letters to Paul, as is plain from 1 Cor. vii. 1 : " Now concerning
those things whereof ye wrote unto me." The 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.
The Jesuit's second argument is as follows : If 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 this : therefore
they never designed to do this. I answer by pronouncing the
assumption to be untrue. Can we suppose that the apostles and
evangelists attempted to write without a command or authority?
Was it under the impulse of some slight occasional motive that they
wrote so many works; or did they not rather follow therein the
authority of the Holy Spirit? Surely we cannot entertain the
former thought without impiety. We beheve that they were
induced and moved to write by the special authority of Christ and
the Holy Spirit: for the scripture is called Oedirvevo-ros, that is,
delivered by the impulse and suggestion of the Holy Ghost. And
2 Pet. i. 21, Peter testifies that holy men of God spake " as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost." Which makes it plain that they
followed the impulse and authority of the Holy Spirit, not their
own will and choice. The men were merely the instruments; it
was the Holy Ghost who dictated to them.
Our opponents, however, will have it that they wrote of them
selves, without any express command. In Exod. xxiv. 4, we read
that Moses wrote all the words of God : and Canus expressly ac
knowledges that he wrote this pursuant to the command of God.
In Hosea viii. 12, God says : " 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 ? Un
doubtedly they had. For, in Matt xxviii. 19, we read that the
last words of Christ to his apostles were these : " Go, teach all
nations." Now the term (xa9nTeveiv, which is used in that place,
denotes teaching both orally and by writing, as should seem best
to the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit governed their minds in
the discharge of this office, and impelled them to writing as a
thing most specially needful. For 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. 11, it is expressly
written, " Those things which thou hast seen, write in a book,"
ypd^rov els (iifiXiov. 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
Rev. xiv. 13, John says : " I heard a voice saying, Write." These
things sufficiently prove that the apostles and evangelists followed
the divine authority, and were not moved to writing by certain
exceeding slight and fortuitous circumstances, as the papists im
piously pretend, especially Lindanus, who thinks that he can make
this good in the case of every one of the books. The fathers were
very far indeed from this notion of the papists. For Augustine, in
the last chapter of his first book upon the Consent of the Evange
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. Now 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 follow : " Through that human nature
which he assumed, he is the head of all his disciples, as members
of his body. When, therefore, they wrote what he shewed and
spoke to them, we must by no means say that he himself did not
write, since his members did that which they knew by the influence
of their head. For whatever he willed that we should read
concerning his deeds or words, he commanded them as his hands to
write. He 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 very hand of
the Lord, which was a part of his proper natural body, engaged

528 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
in writing it1." Thus Augustine. Irenseus also, Lib. in. c. 1, says
that the gospel is delivered in the scriptures "by the will of God."
And Athanasius, in his epistle to Liberius, speaking of Christ, says:
" He composed both the old Testament and the new2." Finally,
Gregory, in his 4th book of Epistles, Epist. 84, says, that
the scripture is the epistle of God the Creator to his creature3 ;
which assertion is also, in some places, made by Augustine and
Chrysostom. Now then, who dares to forge letters in a prince's
name ? Much less would the apostles or prophets have dared to do
so in the name of God.
From these considerations, it is manifest, that all the books
of the old and new Testaments were written not merely by the
will and command, but under the very dictation of Christ ; nor
yet merely occasionally, or under the suggestion of 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. For
they knew well that God 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 go into their several provinces,
which is indeed an epitome of the scriptures. But this (says he)
they dehvered orally, and did not commit to writing : upon which
p Omnibus discipulis suis, per hominem quern assumpsit, tanquam mem-
bris sui corporis, caput est. Itaque cum ilU scripserunt, quse 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 iUis, tanquam suis
manibus, imperavit. Hoc unitatis consortium, et in diversis of&ciis concor-
dium membrorum sub uno capite ministerium quisquis inteUexerit, 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.]
P 6 hiaBepevos tt)v iraXaiav Kal ttjv Katvr/v hia8r]Kr;v. 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.]
p Imperator coeli, Dominus hominum et angelorum, pro vita tua tibi suas
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 purpose ; and the whole creed is contained in
the scriptures, as Augustine tells us, ad Catechumen. Lib. 1. de
Symbolo : " These words (meaning the Creed) which you have
heard, are scattered through the scriptures. Thence they have
been gathered and reduced into a system, to help the memory of
the weak4." But of the Creed hereafter.
The 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. For although they were not
circumcised in the flesh, nevertheless the efficacv 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 by sacrifices and oblations. Bellarmine might there
fore have learned from his own master, how frivolous was this pre
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. Now it is by men rather than by women that
sin is propagated ; and therefore this mark was the rather imprinted
upon them.
The Jesuit subjoins, there is no doubt but that infants dying
before the eighth day had some remedy against original sin ;
but this is nowhere found in scripture. I answer : This is futile,
[4 Ilia verba quse audistis per divinas scripturas sparsa sunt, inde collecta
et ad unum reducta, ne tardorum hominum memoria labaret. — Augustin.
Opp. T. vi. col. 399. Antwerp. 1701.]
r i M
[WHITAKER.J

530 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
and, like the former objection, unworthy of a reply. For 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 saved ; 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. The 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 saved ; and yet we read
nothing in the scriptures of their justification from original and
other sins. I answer, that we do so read: for they were jus
tified by 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. The Jesuit's
fourth example is of this sort : We 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. For the doctrine
itself confirms itself, and bears most certain testimony to itself. Do
we not read that the whole scripture is given by inspiration of God ?
But, says the Jesuit, how shall I know that this is scripture which
affirms this ? And 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 by 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 by thee to the Alcoran ? The 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 by 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. For if that
be the true faith which is delivered in the creed, then our faith

IX-J QUESTION THE SIXTH. 531
rests upon the scriptures, and upon them alone, since all the articles
of faith are contained in the scriptures. And 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. 45, 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, The 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. For example, we
ought to know that the gospel of Mark is genuine and true, and so
also that of Luke, and so on through all the other books of either
Testament. But how are we to be assured of this ? The 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 by Paul ! His assertion
that it is certain that Paul wrote an epistle to the Laodiceans hath
been sufficiently answered by us already. The epistle to the Colos
sians mentions no epistle written by Paul to the Laodiceans, but rather
hints (as we have shewn above from certain of the fathers) that
some epistle had been written by the Laodiceans to him. This
error was occasioned by 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 answer : This is indeed necessary, but not
simply and alike to all : which even the papists themselves may be
compelled to own. For 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, The
Holy Spirit recognises all the canonical books ; therefore all who
have the Holy Spirit recognise them. For the Holy Spirit does
not produce the same effect in all persons, nor have all the same
measure of the Spirit. Thus all who have the Holy Spirit do not
determine exactly alike concerning all the parts of religion. Some
know Christ more perfectly, and some less ; and this also is to be
ascribed to the Holy Spirit, for " no one can say that Jesus is the
Lord but by the Holy 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.
For the books themselves prove themselves by their own testimony.
The purity, the truth, the wonderful character impressed upon these
writings, prove, at least to all those that have the Holy Spirit, that
they emanated from God and his holy inspiration. For it is only
they who have received the Holy Spirit that can hear, recognise,
and understand his voice. Then, secondarily, these books are con
firmed by 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. Lib. 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. The 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 other ; 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
The Jesuit's sixth example is this: 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 books ; not only
that the gospel of Mark is true, but that this which we now have
is the gospel of Mark : now this cannot be proved from the
scriptures. I answer : It is not simply necessary to salvation that
we should believe that this book which is inscribed with the name
of Mark was actually written by 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 by Mark does not immediately fall from salvation,
or deserve to be esteemed a heretic. We do indeed think that he
would deserve blame who should entertain such doubts, because there
is no reason for them : but nevertheless we do not on that account
exclude him from life and salvation. The scripture receives not
authority from men, but from the Holy Ghost : nor is it more
necessary to believe that this is the gospel of Mark, than to be
lieve that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul, or the
Apocalypse by John. The 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 by Moses, because it bears his name, so that
sometimes the whole Pentateuch is called by the name of Moses.
So the gospel and epistles of John, of Paul, and of Peter : and
yet 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 beheve that the Creed
was written by the apostles themselves. For so Lindanus argues,
Panopl. Lib. m. c. 8. But if I doubt whether the Creed were
written by 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 by all
the apostles ; for James died before any, and many of the apostles
before all the books of the new Testament were published. Bel
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. Now, he
says, there are many ambiguities in the scriptures which cannot be.

534 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
understood until they are explained by an infallible guide. For
he says there are two things to be considered in the scriptures, the
words and the sense, the words being hke a sheath, while the
sense is the sword of the Spirit ; and, though the words may be
understood by every one, yet it is not so with the sense. To this
purpose he thinks is the saying of Basil, de Spirit. S. c. 27, that
the gospel "without an interpretation is a mere name1." 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 Holy 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. For 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 very different style about these matters, and rank
them in the number of unwritten traditions. Stapleton, Lib. xn. c.
5, says that the Homoiision cannot be proved from scripture, nor
yet the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Nazianzen, de Theolog. Lib. v.
mentions certain heretics who maintained that the Holy Ghost was
%evos Kal ay pa<pos 9ebs, " a strange God unknown to scripture2."
They 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 by necessary inference from the
scriptures rightly expounded and understood. Cochlseus against
Bullinger affirms the Homoiision 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 Homoiision or the Trinity. Yet the
fathers formerly proved it by the express testimony of scripture :
for although they could not produce the very terms from scripture,
yet they found the sense and meaning of the words in scripture.
Tertullian, in his book against Praxeas, proves by many testimonies
P el yap imxtipTJcraipev ra dypaljia rdv iBdv as ftij peydXrjv exovra ttjv
hvvaptv irapatreio-Bai, XdBoipev av els aiird ra Kalpta £i;/j4o{ivrEr rb eiiayyeXiov,
paKXov he els Svopa yjriXbv irepiioravres rb Ktjpvypa. — T. II. p. 210. G.]
P irSBev rjpiv eireio-dyets £evov Bebv Kal aypaijiov; Orat. xxxvii.  T. I.
p. 593. B.]

IX-J QUESTION THE SIXTH. 535
of scripture, that God is one in substance and three in persons. So
Epiphanius, in Hares. 60,3 proves that the Homoiision is in scrip
ture, as to the sense, though not as to the term : eo-rt Se Kal
aatpws eyKeiTai ev vofxip Kai irapa airoaToXois Kal toIs irpotbr]-
rais. So also against the Sabelhans. So in the Anchoratus we
find that the Arians blamed that term because it was not found in
scripture. But Ambrose, de Fide, c. Arian. c. 4 and 5, proves it
by many testimonies of scripture ; and begins his fifth chapter with
these words : " 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 Homousion is
not found in scripture4?" Then he adds more to the testimonies
which he had used in the preceding chapter. Augustine, c. Max-
imin. Arian. Lib. in. c. 14, wishes the dispute concerning this
doctrine to be managed, not by the testimonies of the fathers, or
by councils, but by scripture itself. The 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 re
ferred to, writes thus : " Neither should I allege the council of
Nice, nor you that of Rimini, prejudging, as it were, the question.
I am not bound by the authority of the one, nor you by that of
the other. By 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 reason5." In this
passage Augustine desires that this article may not be debated and
denned by 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 by John and Paul : which is the
plainest possible refutation of the papists, who pretend that the
Arians were convicted by tradition rather than by the scriptures.
For Augustine openly and confidently appeals to the scriptures, and
all the fathers use arguments from the scriptures.
p He means Hseres. 69. §. 70. p. 796. B. T. 1. ed. Petro.]
P Cum ergo hanc unitatem substantise in Patre et FiUo non solum pro-
phetica sed et evangelica auctoritate cognoscas, quomodo dicis in scripturis
divinis 'Opoovo-tov non inveniri? — Opp. T. iv. p. 280. Paris. 1603.]
P Sed nunc nee ego Nicsenum, nee tu debes Arimense, tanquam prseju-
dicaturus proferre concilium. Nee ego hujus auctoritate, nee tu illius deti-
neris: scripturarum auctoritatibus, non quorumque propriis, sed utrisquo
communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione con-
certet.— T. vi. p. 306.]

536 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
The procession of the Holy 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 by 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 Quastiones
Disput. Qusest. 10, and in prima Secunda, Quaast. 36, 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. As 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 Rom. v. 12, "As by one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin, &c. ;" and Psalm li. 7,
"I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."
Here 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.
As 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, by scripture, undertakes a difficult task.
Andradius, Defens. Trident. Condi. Lib. n., says that it cannot
be gathered at all from scripture. Bellarmine says that it may,
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, how
ever, honestly confesses that this point cannot be proved by 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. 10, and Acts ii., in which chapter
Peter recites some words out of that Psalm, and 1 Pet iii. 19, "By
which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison, &c." Yet
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

VX-] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 537
wanting even in the creeds of the orientals1; adding, that nothing
more is delivered in these words than is implied by 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.
The Nicene Creed does not exhibit this article. The Athanasian
does: but this makes rather for us than against us; 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 de
scent into hell : which seems to indicate the sameness of the articles.
Besides, there are almost infinite reasons assigned for this
descent. The Roman catechism delivers two : 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. 62, maintains, that Christ and
the apostles descended in order to preach the Gospel to the con
demned souls, and bring the hope of salvation to the philoso
phers and others who might believe. Aquinas, in his Sum, part
in. q. 52, art. 1, enumerates three reasons why Christ descended
into hell. The 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 hell : — "
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 im
prisoned in the pit. Thirdly, in order that, as he had shewn his
power on earth by living and dying, so he might also shew his
power in hell by visiting and illuminating it." In the exposition
of the creed he adds a fourth reason : " That he might perfectly
triumph over the devil." Augustine knew nothing of these fine
reasons, since, Ep. 99, he writes that he had not yet discovered
what advantage Christ's descent into hell conferred upon the just
men of old time. These are his words : " I have not yet discovered
what benefit Christ conferred upon the righteous who were in the
p Sciendum sane est, quod in ecclesise Romanse symbolo non habetur
additum, descendit ad inferna; sed neque in orientis ecclesiis habetur hie
sermo. — Expos. Symb. §. 20.]
p AeheiKTai he Kav ra hevrepm Srpaparei, roils airoo-roXovs aKoXovBas ry
Kvpla Kal roiis ev ahov evrjyyeXio-pevovs. — p. 637. D. Paris. 1629.]

538 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
bosom of Abraham, when he descended into hell, since I do not
see that, as to the beatifio presence of his divinity, he ever with
drew from them1." Besides, nothing is certainly defined as to the
period during which Christ remained in hell. The Roman cate
chism affirms that he remained in hell as long as his body lay in
the sepulchre. So Thomas, in his Sum, part 3, q. 52, Art. 4 : "At
the same time his soul was brought out of hell, and his body from
the tomb2." If this be true, how did he perform his promise to the
thief, "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise?" Unless,
indeed, they make a paradise in hell. The papists indeed place
paradise upon earth : 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 hell ; 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 : We must believe
that the essential parts of all the sacraments were instituted by
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 : We recognise only two sacra
ments, which we maintain to have been instituted by Christ in
regard of both matter and form : for the whole entire essence of
these is set forth in the scriptures. As 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 Mary 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. Cochlasus adds
further, that the title of 9eoTOKos or Deipara is not grounded
upon the scriptures : which is a notable calumny ; for the fathers
proved the virgin to be 9eoTOKos from the scriptures, against
P Unde illis justis qui in sinu Abrahse erant, cum ille in inferna descen-
derot, nondum quid contulisset inveni, a quibus eum secundum beatificam
prsesentiam suse divinitatis nunquam video recessisse. — Ep. 99. al. 164. §. 8.]
p Simul aniina ejus educta est de inferno, et corpus de sepulchre]

IX.J QUESTION THE SIXTH. 539
the Nestorians, namely, from Matt. i. 23, and Luke i. 35, and
many other places. I answer : As to the perpetual virginity of
Mary, 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 very high, but made use also of
testimonies from scripture. So Proclus Cyzicenus alleges a passage
from Ezekiel about the gate which should be closed 3. So Ambrose,
Sermon 4 and 5. So also Ambrose, Epist. 31 and 79, proves the
same from John, where Christ commends his mother to John's
care ; 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 hke 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 Mary, 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 :
We must believe under the new Testament that Easter is to be
celebrated on the Lord's day, because the Quartadecimans were
esteemed heretics by the ancient church. But this is by 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.
Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate all the eastern churches
for keeping Easter upon another day than Sunday ; but Irenseus
and many other very holy bishops blamed Victor on that account,
as appears from Eusebius, Lib. v. c. 25. The eastern churches said
that they followed John and Philip ; the western, Paul and Peter.
Sozomen, Lib. vn. c. 19, says, that the controversy was settled by
Polycarp and Victor upon the agreement that each should follow
his own custom and judgment ; deeming it " a piece of folly to be
divided on account of customs," e'vrj9es eQwv eveKev aXXrjXwv yoipl-
%etj9ai. From whose words we perceive that the observance was
free, and not necessary as Bellarmine says. Perhaps those apostles
p Ezek. 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 obhgation ? I answer, therefore, in
the first place : That there was no reason why 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. For so Socrates,
Lib. v. c. 22, says, that the apostles determined nothing about
festivals : "Ekoitos fxev ovv yeyove toIs airotjToXois ov irepl r]p.e-
pwv eopTaaTiKwv vo/uo9eTelv : on which point he discourses at
large, and says, that those fathers contended about this matter to
no. purpose ; since the passover was a type and ceremony, and all
types have now vanished. Secondly, I affirm, that this was in
deed a very ancient custom, but still free : 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 by 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 by the Lutherans and
Calvinists, though it can by the catholics. But why not by 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 Lec
tures. For in the book printed at the Sartorian press his words
are these : " Now this the catholics do not, and the Lutherans can
not, prove out of the scriptures alone." But in the MS. copy thus :
" This though the catholics can prove out of scripture, yet 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. 54l
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 be
lieves Thomas Aquinas to be a saint : which I do not think that
he believed very earnestly. Furthermore, he wrote that book 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 this : We
say that nothing is necessary to be believed which is not contained
in scripture. He retorts this upon us, and asks us where we find
this written. I answer, in the first place : We 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 this ; 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. We 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 word mentioned by Moses, Deut. iv. 2, (where
he says, " Ye shall not add to this word which I speak unto you,
neither shall ye 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.
Now 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 moral : therefore he speaks of the written law, as we will shew
more clearly hereafter.

CHAPTER X.
THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN FROM SCRIPTURE, WHEREBY BELLARMINE
PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF SOME TRUE TRADITIONS, ARE
ANSWERED.
It follows now that (to use his own language) he should prove
de facto the existence of some true traditions. His first argument
is taken from what hath been already said and argued. If scripture
do not contain all necessary things, then there is some unwritten
word : otherwise God would not have well provided for his church,
if anything necessary were wanting. I answer : That God hath
excellently weU and wisely provided for his church by delivering to
it the scriptures, which contain in themselves a full and perfect body
of doctrine sufficient for every man's salvation. For the things
alleged are either contained in scripture, or are not necessary.
The second argument is taken from the authority of scripture,
out of which he quotes many testimonies. The first place is John
xvi. 12, where Christ says to his disciples : " I have yet many
things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." From which
place the Jesuit concludes that there are many unwritten traditions,
because the Lord 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 ac
count Christ (John xiv. 26) had promised to them the Holy Spirit,
who should bring all things to their remembrance : now what were
these " all things ?" Were they anything more than he had pre-
vionsly taught them ? By no means ; but precisely the same as
he had before said to them. The 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 : StSa^ei iravra Kal viropu'rlaet vfxas iravra d elirov
vpCiv. Therefore the Holy Spirit suggested nothing more than Christ

X.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 543
had spoken. We have a clear example of this in John ii. 22.
Christ had said that he could in three days restore and rebuild the
temple, if it were destroyed. The disciples did not understand these
words at the time when they were spoken ; but after his resurrection
the evangelist says that they understood that he spake not of the
temple reared by human hands, but of his own body. Jansenius, a
popish author, commenting upon these words, " I have yet many
things to say unto you," John xvi. 12, affirms that these " many
things " are not " different from what he had previously taught
them," but only a clearer " explication " of them ; 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 says :
" All things, which I have heard of my Father, I have made known
unto you." Christ had declared all things : he had, therefore, re
served nothing, nor had the Holy 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 them : 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 Holy 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 you which I will not
say, because ye are not capable of understanding them ; therefore,
all things are not written ? Who does not perceive that there is
absolutely no conclusiveness in this reasoning ? Where is the middle
term? What the tie by which these two things are bound to
gether into coherence? Surely it is a palpable instance of the
fallacy ignoratio elenchi. For Christ does not say, Ye shall not
write all, or, ye shall not know all ; but, I will not now say what
I have to say, because you cannot now bear so many things;
Does it therefore follow, that they afterwards did not know or
did not write them all? By no means.
Thirdly, How 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. Are 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 context ? Nay, 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. They are
all mere trifles, such as any the most dull and stupid is capable of
mastering. The 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. Yet these are of such
a nature that they may be easily learned and understood by any
ignorant priest, yea, by a boy. Are these the things which ex
ceeded the reach and perception of the apostles? or were they
traditions about fasting, or about Lent, or feasts, or prayers? All
these are of such a character as to be intelligible to even the most
stupid of mankind. Therefore these are not the "many things"
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 Holy Spirit.
Fourthly, the papists, when they draw such an argument from
this place, plainly imitate the ancient heretics. So Augustine tells
us, Tractat. 97, 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 by the occasion of this passage in the gos
pel, where the Lord says, ' I have yet many things to say unto
you.'1" This is no slight blow the learned father deals to the
papists of our time ; whom, in Tractat. 96, he answers thus :
" 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 ?"
Then 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 suorum . . . hac occasione evangelicse sententise colorare
conantur, ubi Dominus ait, Adhuc multa habeo vobis dicere. — T. iv. p. 975.
Bassan. 1797.]

X.J QUESTION THE SIXTH. 545
the things which the Lord was unwilling to say ? Who of us can
do this, destitute of the extraordinary authority of a prophet or an
apostle, without incurring the severest blame for his temerity2?"
Where 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." And again, almost at the commence
ment : " Who of us would now venture to say that he was now able
to tell what they then were not able to bear? On this account
you must not expect that I should tell them to you." Augustine
affirms himself to be utterly ignorant what things these were ; 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
tell ; thirdly, he thinks them greater and more mysterious thaii
the human mind, even when illuminated by the Holy Spirit, can
comprehend or understand, such as secrets of predestination, the
number of the elect, the joys of the kingdom of heaven ; 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.
The second place of scripture cited by the Jesuit is contained in
the last chapter of John, in the closing words, where the evangelist
writes thus : " There are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which if they should be written one by 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
P Quis est tam vanus aut temerarius, qui cum dixerit etiam vera, quibus
voluerit, quse voluerit, sine ullo testimonio divino, affirmet ea esse quse turn
Dominus dicere noluit? Quis hoc nostrum faciet, et non maximam culpam
temeritatis incurrat, in quo nee prophetica nee apostolica excellit auctoritas ?
— Opp. T. rv. p. 970.]
r i 35
[whitaker.]

546 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
is, of his signs and miracles. For he says, "which Jesus did,"
oo-a eirotno-ev, not, "which he said." This place is therefore irrelevant
to the question before us. For we 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 books : but we affirm that the whole
doctrine of Christ, so far as it is necessary to our salvation, is
written in these books. To this effect is what we read in John xx.
30, where the evangelist writes thus : " 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 ? By no means : 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.
Now this " those miracles" which are related in scripture do most
evidently ; nor could these things be more firmly established, even
if all Christ's miracles were described in writing. The 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 hke
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 by the evangelists? John
answers, that he did many other things, which are not written.
Yea, even all the words of Christ are not related one by one seve
rally, but only in general. The second error is no less glaring.
All things are not written : therefore, all necessary things are not
written. The argument is inconsequential. We confess that all
things are not written, but yet contend that all necessary things
are written. In John xx. 30, 31, " Many other signs," says the
evangelist, " did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are
not written in this book ; but these things are written that ye
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that
believing ye might have life through his name." John therefore
confesses that many other miracles were exhibited by 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 be
lieve these will obtain eternal salvation. The fathers understood

X.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 547
these words to mean thus, that all necessary things may be derived
from the scriptures. Augustine, Tract. 49 in Joann., writes thus
upon this subject : " Though the Lord Jesus did many things, yet
all are not written (as this same holy evangelist testifies, that the
Lord Jesus said and did many things which are not written) ; but
those things were chosen to be committed to writing, which seemed
sufficient for the salvation of believers1." Therefore, those things
which are written suffice for the salvation of believers. Cyril, Lib.
xn. in Joan. cap. ult., writes thus : " All those things which the
Lord did are not written, but so much as the writers thought suffi
cient both for faith and manners ; that, clothed with the glory of an
orthodox faith and a virtuous life, we might reach the kingdom of
heaven2." 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. The third error in
this reasoning is the most absurd. The evangelist says that the
things unwritten are innumerable; therefore, if he mean the tra
ditions of the papists, they must be infinite, so as that not even
the whole world could contain them. They must, therefore, either
confess their traditions to be infinite, and incapable of being enu
merated by themselves, or else concede that this place does not
refer to them.
The third passage of scripture cited by 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 BeUarmine, Christ
told his disciples what he would not tell them before ; 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-
P Cum multa fecisset Dominus Jesus, non omnia scripta sunt, (sicut idem
ipse sanctus evangelista testatur, multa Dominum Christum et dixisse et
fecisse quse scripta non sunt;) electa sunt autem quse scriberentur, quse saluti
credentium sufficere videbantur. — T. rv. p. 819.]
P Non igitur omnia quse Dominus fecit conscripta sunt, sed quse scri-
bentes tarn ad mores quam ad dogmata putarunt sufficere ; ut recta fide et
operibus ac virtute rutilantes ad regnum coelorum perveniamus. — Cyril. Opp.
col. 220. Paris. 1508.]
35—2

548 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
tial force in this argument. For 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 ? He 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, avveyfj Siarpifirjv with them, but Sieo-raXp.evu>s ', 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 God : 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.
We shall milch better understand what it was he said, by consult
ing the scriptures, so that we have no ground for inventing any
unwritten verities. From Matt, xxviii., Mark xvi., John xx. and
xxi., Luke xxiv., and Acts i., we may gather the nature of his
discourses. He expounded to them the scriptures ; he gave them
authority to cast out devils, to retain and remit sins ; he attested
his resurrection to them ; 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 by 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 ye remember all my instructions." Now 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 answer : It may be conceded that these things are
nowhere written in scripture ; and yret nothing can be 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. 549
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 by the
term ' tradition ; ' and indeed, for my own part, I think that the
whole teaching delivered by the apostle is meant, because he says,
oti irdvra (xov fiefxvr]<j9e, 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. What then
follows from all this ? We 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
written? Surely, by 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 pubhshed,
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 then ; if of indifferent ceremonies, it is still
farther from touching us. For these may be changed, provided
only the reason and end be preserved ; nor are they necessary, as is
plain from the place before us. For 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. He 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 by
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, thus : " 1 delivered unto you that
which I also received of the Lord." So that in these words he
praises them for holding tradition. I answer : Does it, therefore,
follow that something unwritten is necessary ? By 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, "that

550 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
the Lord Jesus Christ in the same night," &c, which not only he
writes in this place, but three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, have also written. This, therefore, which Paul delivered is
assuredly not unwritten. But there is another place in that
chapter, which the Jesuit presses very earnestly : " The rest will I
set in order when I come." ' What 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 Siard^ofxai.
Chrysostom seems to give no bad explanation of these words : 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 ra Xonrd, " 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. Are they nowhere written? 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
contrary : but it would have been more reasonable if he had shewn
what he maintains. And yet I think it quite possible to shew
what he thinks impossible to be shewn. I profess myself able to
shew it, not by uncertain suspicions, but by the dear testimony of
scripture. For if those things be here understood which the
papists rate so high, — the sacrifice of the altar, the ordination of the
clergy, institution, and such like, then some necessary things were
not delivered to the Corinthians when this epistle was written.
For the papists say that these articles of theirs are necessary in
the highest degree. Now all necessary things had been abundantly

X-] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 551
delivered by 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 "in everything," ev iravrl Xbytp Kal irdar]
yviiaei : and from chap. xv. 1, 2, where he writes, " I declare
unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which
also ye received, and wherein ye stand, by which also ye are
saved if ye continue therein, &c." Whence it is plain that the
apostle had before this delivered to them the whole complete body
of christian doctrine. The 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 ; yet 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 by Bellar
mine in the words, "The Catholics justly think." This is to
suspect, to guess, to wish ; not to believe, to prove, to argue.
Teach, shew, demonstrate to me, that these things were instituted
by Paul. — You cannot do it, and you own you cannot do it.
The Jesuit's third testimony is taken from 2 Thess. ii. 15,
where the apostle says, dpa ovv, dSeXcpol, oTrJKere : " Therefore,
brethren, stand fast," hold firm, keep your ground, Kal Kparelre
rds irapaSbtxeis, " and hold the traditions which ye have been
taught, whether by our word or epistle." From 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 reply : Various answers are given to this testimony.
Some suppose that Paul speaks only of certain external rites and
ceremonies of no great moment : but the scope of the epistle and
the context refutes that opinion. For Paul, having mentioned the
horrible devastation which was to be occasioned by the coming of
antichrist, immediately subjoins, " Stand fast, and hold the tradi
tions, &c." Therefore his doctrine is rather to be understood as
designated by 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. Now, therefore, he exhorts them
to hold fast his whole teaching, as well what he had when present
delivered by 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? Nay, 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
thus : Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, both orally
and by our epistle. But the Jesuit opposes two arguments to
this answer. First, he says that the apostle uses a disjunctive
particle, e'lre, thereby indicating that the things which he had de
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 irporprjrelai Karapyr)9r]aovrai' e'lre yXwaaai, iravaovrai' e'lre
yvwais, Karapyr)9r]o-erai, which words are to be thus rendered :
" Both prophecies shall fail, and tongues shall cease, and knowledge
shall fail :" 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 doc
trine, which, says he, it does not, nay, not the hundredth part of
necessary doctrine, as is manifest. I answer : 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 re
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. We must, consequently, seek
another reply. I answer, then : That the canon of the. new Tes
tament was not yet 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
Matthew ; and, if we believe Irenseus1, these two epistles to the
Thessalonians were more ancient even than the gospel of Matthew:
P O pev hr) MarBaios .... ypa(j)r)v i^nveyKtv eiiayyeXtov, roC Uerpov Kal toO
TlavXov ev Poj/mj etayyeXi£opevav Kal depeXiovvrav tt)v iKKXrja-iav. — 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. It is therefore in
consequential reasoning to say : When Paul wrote to the Thessa
lonians, all necessary things were not written ; therefore not after
wards : 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 time : but we have now more books than those
Thessalonians had ; 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 by Paul to the
Thessalonians, as namely, the time of antichrist's coming, which is
not contained in the rest of scripture. He proves this from
2 Thess. ii. 5 ; and he confirms it out of Augustine, de Civit. Dei,
Lib. xx. c. 19, 2 where he endeavours to make that father say that,
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.
And although Paul may have said something to them about the
coming of antichrist, yet 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 ye not that
when I was with you I told you these things?" — must 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,
p Et nunc quid detineat scitis, id est, quid sit in mora, quse causa sit
dilationis ejus, ut reveletur in suo tempore, scitis : quoniam scire illos dixit,
aperte hoc dicere noluit. Et ideo nos, qui nescimus quod illi sciebant,
pervenire cum labore ad id quod sensit apostolus cupimus, nee valemus. —
p. 689. Basil. 1511.]

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 place : it will then follow that
this is a tradition. Now 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 do : yea, they deny that any one can do it. As to Augus
tine, Bellarmine abuses his words also most disgracefully. For
Augustine does not say that the Thessalonians knew the time when
antichrist was to come ; but he says that they knew what it was
that delayed his coming, which we are ignorant of: upon which
point we raise no question. For whether the impediment delaying
the coming of antichrist at that time were the circumstance of the
Roman empire being still safe and entire, or the gospel being not
yet preached in the whole world, we may be entirely ignorant of
it without injury to our faith. Augustine therefore says nothing
against our defence.
The Jesuit answers, in the second place, that, even though it
were conceded that all is written in other books, yet this would be
no objection to beheving 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, "hold 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 by other apostles ?
By no means. For they wrote according as they were commanded
by the Holy Ghost. We 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 by 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. How 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 by and by. Meanwhile to these

X.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 555
fathers we oppose Ambrose's commentary upon these words, who
says, that by tradition in this place is meant the evangelical doc
trine or tradition of the gospel1, which is abundantly explained in
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 argument : " Some things are not written : therefore
these are the very points which they boast of and obtrude upon
us." This they can never prove ; and yet they must demonstrate
this before they can establish their position. Secondly, if from this
mode of speaking ("Hold fast the traditions which ye have been
taught, whether by 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 de
livered : whereas they will have it that all necessary truths are
contained in tradition. Now 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. For 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
Joshua : 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 traditions ; "
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. We have already examined three testimonies of
scripture which the Jesuit considers the strongholds of his cause.
Now follows the fourth.
The Jesuit's fourth testimony is derived from certain injunc
tions given by Paul to his disciple Timothy. He proposes three
injunctions; the first of which is contained in 1 Tim. vi. 20,
" Keep that which is committed unto thee," or the deposit. Under
the name deposit (says Bellarmine) is denoted not the scripture,
P In traditione evangelii standum . . . monet. — Opp. T. in. p. 567. Paris.
1603.]

556 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH,
but a treasury of unwritten doctrine, as some of the fathers have
explained it : 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
by this " deposit" the flock committed to Timothy, which Paul com
mands him to keep diligently. Which 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 ? How 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 by the term " deposit," nor
does any of our divines so explain the passage ; but we understand
by "the deposit" the sound and cathohc doctrine itself. Now, 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 by " 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 men? 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 Tertullian1. He, in his Prescriptions
against heretics, desires us to understand by the term " deposit," in
this place, no remote or secret doctrine, but that which was written
"above and below" by the apostle: so that, if we believe Tertul
lian, no other doctrine is here meant but that which is delivered by
p Quod hoc depositum est ? . ... an illius denuntiationis, de quo ait, Hanc
denuntiationem commendo apud te, filiole Timothee ; item illius prsecepti, de
.quo ait, Denuntio tibi ante Deum, &c  Quod autem prseceptum, et quas
denuntiatio ? Ex supra et infra scriptis intelligere erat, non nescio quid sub-
ostendi hoc dicto de remotiore doctrina, sed potius inculcari de non admit-
tenda alia prseter earn quam audierat ab ipso, et puto, coram 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 by the term " de
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 by the Jesuit in this fourth testimony
is 2 Tim. i. 13, where Paul thus addresses Timothy : virorviriooiv
eye vyiaivovrwv Xoywv, wv irap exxov r}Kovcras, ev irlarei Kai
dydirt] rrj ev Xpirxrip 'Irjaov : that is, " Have 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 virorvirwo-is here denotes
an express image shining forth either in the matter or the form.
The 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 by Paul in that same place, and are the two things
irlans and dydirri, " faith and love." 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 "thy neighbour as thyself;" upon which
subject Christ discourses, Matth. xxii. 37, and in verse 40 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 by the Jesuit in this fourth testimony is
contained in 2 Tim. ii. 2, where Paul thus addresses Timothy :
" 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 answer : Bravely reasoned !
The 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
men; 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 12,
where John writes thus : " Having many things to write unto you,
I would not write with paper and ink; but I trust shortly to see
you, and to speak with you face to face, that our joy may be full :"
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
you with ink and pen; but I hope to see you shortly, and to speak
with you 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 brief
epistles of John ; but are all necessary things therefore not found in
the rest of the books of scripture, numerous and large as they are ?
Who can be so mad as to argue from so small a part of scripture to
the whole ? Surely this is just as if one were to say, that because
a- finger is not the whole body, therefore the nature of the whole
body does not consist in all its parts. John says that he chose to
put off many things till his arrival. What 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 other
things of the same kind.
These are all the testimonies of scripture cited by 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 God." So great, says Canus, is the force of
ecclesiastical tradition, that he refutes by custom and the tradition
of the church those whom neither scripture nor natural reason could
refute. Whence he concludes that tradition is far more prevailing
than either scripture or natural reason. For the apostle had before
proved that women should pray with covered heads by 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 you, if ye are not
moved by these, yet the institution and practice of the church and
tradition ought to have great weight with you. I answer :' 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.
The apostle does not say, If ye 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
be 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, by the practice of the church ; but he says, that
the churches of God have no custom of allowing any man to be con
tentious. Thus he represses contentious spirits by the authority of
the church, and does not confirm the dogma by mere custom. Now
that custom of avoiding contention in the church is abundantly sanc
tioned by testimonies of scripture.
The second passage of scripture cited by Canus is contained in
1 Tim. vi. 3, where Paul writes thus : " If any man teach any
other doctrine, and consent not to the wholesome words of our
Lord 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 by the same reason traditions also are
excluded, because they too are written somewhere. But by 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.
The third passage of scripture cited by Canus is found in
Galat. i. 9, where Paul writes thus : " If any one preach unto you
any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be Anathema."
Paul says (remarks Canus) " that ye have received," not, " that I
have written." Upon this place we will speak hereafter ; mean
while I answer : Where is the consequence in such an argument as
this, They 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
by them Melchior, Gaspar, and Balthazar1; a similar tradition of
the name of the penitent thief, whom they call Ismas2 ; and of the
name of the soldier who pierced Christ's side, whom they pretend
to have been called Longinus3. This name was doubtless given
him dirb rrjs Xbyyjjs, that is, from the lance by 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 : Though we should grant
that the apostle knew the names of the magicians by 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 kings : for if this had been necessary, the evangelists would
not have been silent upon that subject. Let 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 by tradition. From this source was
derived a great portion of the genealogy which Matthew and Luke
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. Yet 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 by a regular succession
from Abraham and David ? Though, indeed, that very accurate
genealogy drawn out by the evangelists contributes much to the
stability of this faith. And whatever necessity is in the thing it
self, it may now be learned from the scriptures. For the names of
Christ's ancestors are now published, and Paul hath indicated who
those distinguished magicians were, who so boldly resisted Moses.
They allege also Acts xx. 35. There (they say) a saying of Christ
p Legends assign various names : Apellius, Amerus, and Damascus ;
Magalath, Galgalath, and Saracin; Ator, Sator, and Paratoras. See
Casaubon. c. Baron. Exerc. xi. 10 : who observes in a MS. note of the copy
before alluded to, that the most correct order and orthography is, Baltasar,
Melchior, Jaspar.]
P In the gospel of Nicodemus (c. x. ap. Fabric, cod. Apocr. T. I. p. 260)
the penitent thief is called Dimas, and the other Gestas. Gerard "Vossius
writes Gismas and Dismas. Whitaker, I suppose, meant to write Dismas.]
p Ibid. p. 259 ; where see Fabricius' note, as also T. n. p. 472.]

X.J QUESTION THE SIXTH. 561
is recited by Paul, which is nowhere found in the gospels : " It is
more blessed to give than to receive." I answer : I confess that
this is nowhere expressly and in so many words written in the
gospels ; but yet 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. 38, " Give, and it shall be given
unto you :" 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, yet all that were necessary are ; 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 received ; "
and they will have it that their traditions are established by this
expression. I answer : 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.
Now 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 by the example of Michael, of which he could
know nothing but by tradition. I answer : I confess this to be most
true : but yet 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 irapdSoats 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.
32, 33 ; 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,
r i 36
[whitaker]

562 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
the evangelical doctrine is written not in books, but on the heart.
I answer : 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 the 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 Holy Spirit,
and many more who shall have the covenant of God impressed
upon their hearts. The 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.
Now 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.
As to the first council of Nice, he says that Theodoret, Lib. i.
c. 8, writes plainly, that Arius was condemned in that council by
unwritten tradition : for, says he, even the Arians themselves alleged
some things from scripture; therefore, they were condemned not
by scripture, but by traditive doctrine. I answer, in the first place :
What sort of an argument is this? The Arians alleged many
things from scripture ; therefore they could not be refuted out of
scripture. If 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. Nor yet is it always he who can heap
together most sentences of scripture, that maintains the justest
cause : for he who brings one sentence of scripture rightly under
stood, hath a better cause than he 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. Arian. Lib.
in. c. 14, would never have recalled him from councils to the
scriptures. In that passage is the celebrated saying : " Neither
should I allege the council of Nice to you, nor you that of Rimini
to me, as if we could prejudge the question. I am not bound by
the authority of the latter, nor you by 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 both1." Augustine
therefore trusted most to the scriptures in this question. Besides,
Constantine (as Theodoret relates, Lib. i. c. 7) plainly says that
the doctrine of the Holy Ghost is written, dvdypairrov. These
are his words : " The books of the evangelists and apostles, as
also the oracles of the old prophets, plainly teach us, what we
should think of divine subjects. Laying aside, then, all factious
contention, let us resolve the points of inquiry by the testimony of
the inspired words : e«r rwv 9eoirvevarwv Xbyoov Xd/Qwptev rwv
fyrovneviDv rrjv Xvaiv2." 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 by unwritten tradition, is untrue. For Theodoret writes
that a writing of Eusebius of Nicomedia was convicted of open blas
phemy by the scriptures. His words are these: awrjyayov e/c rwv
ypacbolv, they collected out of the scriptures testimonies against
Eusebius and the other Arians3- I confess, indeed, that the term
bp.oovcrios was proved orthodox out of antiquity, as having been
used 130 years before by bishops who then flourished in the church,
[i Lib. n. c. xiv. §. 3. p. 848. Opp. T. x. Bassan. 1797.]
P . . . rov iravaytov irvevparos rrjv hihao-KaXiav avaypairrov exovras. eiiay-
yeXtKal yap, (jiTjo-i, /3i'/3Xoi Kal diroo'roXiKal Kal rdv iraXatdv irpoa^rjTdv ra Beoiri-
o-para o-alpds fjpds a XPV wepi tov Betov qbpoveiv iKiraiheiovo-i. tt)v iroXepoiroibv
ovv direXdo-avres epiv, eK rdv Beoirvevarav, r.. t. e. Lib. I. 7.]
p avrrj rdv 'Apeiavdv 17 hietpBappevr/ hidvoia. dXXd Kal evravBa ol iirio-Koirot,
Beaprjtravres iKeivav rb hdXiov, avvrjyayov in rdv ypaljidv rb diravyao-pa, ttjv re
irrjyfjv, k. r. e. Ibid. C. 8.]
36 — 2

564 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
since the Arians slanderously asserted it to be a new word. The
term, we confess, is not found in scripture ; yet the meaning of the
term is found there. " The Arians," says Theodoret, in that same
place, " were condemned by the words of scripture rightly un
derstood," e'£ eyy pdcptxtv p.er evcref&elas evvoovxievwv Xe^eiav Kar-
eKpl9rjtrav. What could be written more expressly ? He adds too
that the words of scripture alleged against the Arians had the same
force and meaning as the Homoiisios, — ravrrjv eyei rrjv o-rj/xatr'iav.
I come now to the second council of Nice, in the sixth session,
whereof these words occur : " Many things are observed by us
without the authority of scripture, as for example, the worship of
images1." I answer : We 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. If the papists had
any shame, they would themselves be ashamed of this council.
However, 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. We 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 THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
FATHERS, IS ANSWERED.
In the fourth place, our opponent collects the testimonies of the
fathers ; in the management of which argument he is large and
P Kat eyypaqbas Kal dypa(j)as e'k r<5v dpxijBev xpdvav airds. . . . iorrjpi^av,
peff av Kal tt)v rdv o-eirrdv ehovav dvdhetgiv. Concill. Labbe et Cossart. T.
VII. p. 406. Paris. 1671.]

XII-J QUESTION THE SIXTH. 565
copious, yet 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 of 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
by 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, we
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 them ; examining all their
sayings by the rule of scripture, receiving them when they agree
with it, but freely and with their good leave rejecting them when
ever they exhibit marks of discrepancy.
He brings first into the field Clemens Romanus, a great man
undoubtedly, whom he sets upon a par with the apostles themselves.
What 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 of argument. We do not acknowledge this Clement, nor
make any account of the praises which Turrian2 bestows upon him.
He praises and defends also the Decretal epistles, than which it is
quite certain that nothing is less deserving of praise. Eusebius,
H. E. Lib. in. c. 38, testifies that formerly many forged and adul
terated pieces were pubhshed under the name of Clemens3- The
same historian affirms in the same chapter, that there is but one
P Pro Canon. Apostol. Florent. 1572.]
P lareov he as Kal 8evrepa rls etvai Xeyerai roC KXTjpevros iirto-roXr). Oil
prjv eB' Spolas rfj irporepa Kal ravrrjv yvapipov iirio-rdpeBa, ort prjhe Kal roiis
apxalovs avrfj Kexpijpevovs "o-pev. *Hhrj he Kal erepa iroXveirrj Kal paKpa o~vy-
ypdppara ds tov avTov i%8es Kal irpdrjv rives irporjyayov  dv oiih' oXas
pvTjprj rts irapa rois iraXaiois abeperai- oiihe yap KaBapbv rijs dirocrrdXtKrjs op-
Bohogtas airoo-d(ei rbv xapaKrrjpa. — Ed. Heinich. T. I. pp. 280 — 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 Clemens. Nicephorus also, Lib. in. c. 18, and
Epiphanius, Hares. 30, l bear witness that the heretics formerly
took 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 by the sixth
general council at Constantinople, Can. 2.2 But when Bellarmine
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 by the apostles themselves, assembled at Antioch.
So Peresius3, in the third part of his traditions, brings in Anacletus,
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 by Herod Antipas, before any
book was written. These canons, therefore, were not written by all
the apostles. Besides, for what purpose should the apostles have
assembled ? Are 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 by 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 by 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 excommunicated4." And,
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. 15, p. 139. 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. 692). But there the
Canons are not condemned, but confirmed. — Bevereg. Pandectt. T. I. p. 158.]
P Peiresius Aiala, De Divin. Apost. atque Eccles. Traditionibus. Paris.
1550.] P eirio-Koiros tj irpto-^vrtpos fj htaKOVOS rrjv iavrov yvvdiKa prj fK/3aXXcr(a
irpo<bdo-ei eiiXa^etas- iav he iK^dXjj, d<j>opi£eo-8a. — It is can. VI. in Whiston's
Primit. Christ. Vol. n.]

XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 567
office5." And in canon 9 6 it is enjoined, that "the whole people
should communicate with the minister who celebrates the eucharist;
and if any do otherwise, let him be excommunicated." The papists
do not observe these laws. Again, in canon 37, it is required that
" councils should be held twice a-year7," which they themselves
do not comply with. There is a matter in canon 46 s which they
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 Antioch ; for many similar things occur in the councils of
Antioch. Now 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.
They make, however, no mention of this book; 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 yet venture to pass
such a judgment upon this piece ; 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 rd ev avrip p.variKa. 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 ye have heard in the ear, preach ye upon
the housetops," says Christ to his apostles. And Paul says, 1 Cor.
ii. 23 : "I delivered unto you," that is, to you all, " that which
I received of the Lord." Besides, even the papists themselves do
P e'l ris iirlo-KOiros rj irpeo-fiirepos fj hiaKovos  irpoo-cjiopas yevopevrjs prj
peraXdjioi  d<bopt£eo-8a. — can. IX.]
p can. x.]
p Aeiirepov tov erovs avvohos ytveo~8a rdv iirto'KOTroiv. — can. XXXVIII.]
P iirtarKoiros ij irpeo-fivrepos rbv Kara dXrjdeiav e^ovra ftdirTiapa idv avadev
f3airrio-ij, ij rbv pepoXvapevov irapa raiv dcrefidv idv pr) jSairrlo-jj, Ka8aipelo-8a. —
can. XL VII.]

568 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
not receive all the contents of this book, and many of them are
manifestly false. In Lib. n. c. 59, Clemens, mentioning James the
Lord's brother, excludes him from the number of the apostles1;
whereas Paul, Galat. ii. 9, reckons him amongst even the leading
apostles: yea, this author himself, Lib. vi. c. 14 2, as if he had
forgotten himself, speaks of him as one of the apostles. In Lib. n.
c. 32, he mentions the Agapse, and explains the manner of con
ducting them ; while Paul condemns them, 1 Cor. ii. 21 ; and it is
certain that they were abolished long before. In Lib. n. c. 63,
he says that the people ought to assemble in the congregation
twice a day, morning and evening3 ; which practice is not now
observed even by the papists. In Lib. v. c. 15, he says that
those words which Christ spoke of Judas (" He that dippeth with
me in the dish, the same is he that shall betray me") were uttered
by Christ five days before the passover4 : whereas it is evident
from scripture, Matth. xxvi. 31, that Christ was betrayed that
same night. In the same book, c. 16, he affirms that Judas was
absent when Christ celebrated the supper6; which contradicts not
only scripture, but the fathers themselves. Its repugnance to
scripture is plain from a comparison of the three verses, 13, 14,
and 15, of Luke xxii. Nor is it less certain that it is opposed to
the judgment of the fathers : for Dionysius, Eccles. Hierarch.
c. 3, affirms him to have been present. So Cyprian, in his dis
course de Ablutione Pedum. So Augustine, Epist. 163, and
Comment, in Ps. 3, and in Ps. 10, and Tract. 63 in Joann. So
Chrysostom, in his Homily upon the thief. So finally, Aquinas, in
the third part of his Sum. Quaest. 81, art 2. Pachymeres, indeed,
upon Dionysius the Areopagite, Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 3, sup
poses Judas to have been absent ; for thus he writes : "He delivered
the mysteries to the disciples alone, after Judas had gone forth
from supper, he being unworthy of them6 :" but when he wrote this,
P 'Hpeis ovv ol Kara^iadevres etvat paprvpes rrjs irapovo-'tas airov, aiiv
'laKafico r<5 rov Kvplov dheXijid. — p. 259. c. 55.]
P p. 343 ; but that passage down to ro o-kcvos r^s iicXoyfjs is commonly
thought an interpolation.]
P irapaivel rco Xad els rrjv iKKXrjo-tav ivheXexl£eiv opBpov Kal eoirepas eKaorrjs
tjpepas. — C. 59, p. 267.]
P The constitutions speak only of its occurring, rg irepirrrj, i. e. the fifth
day of the week. — p. 317.]
P louSa pij o-vpirapovTos. — Ibid. See Jeremy Taylor's Life of Christ, Part
3. Sect. xv. §. 13, and the authors there cited.]
P ra pvo-TTjpia pdvois to'is paBrjrais perd rb i§eX8etv iKeivov « roC hetirvov
trapehaKev, as dva£iov rovrav Svros 'lovha.]

XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 569
he followed his own conjectures and opinion, not scripture. This
same Clemens, Lib. v. c. 18, * enjoins observances of Easter which
Epiphanius, writing against the Audians, blames as heretical, Hares.
50 ; and, indeed, Epiphanius there tells us that the Audians de
fended their opinion by 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 by them8." This is a fine author of apostolical traditions.
Besides, in Lib. vi. c. 14, 9 he mentions an epistle which he states
to have been written by all the apostles along with Paul ; whereas
James, the son of Zebedee, was dead before Paul came into the
apostolic college. This, therefore, is demonstrably false. Finally,
in Lib. vn. c. 24, 10 he brings forward several regulations void of all
authority about fasting upon the fourth and sixth days of the
week, and the observance of the sabbath (Saturday) and the Lord's
day ; and he says that we should not fast upon any Saturday save
that one whereon the Lord lay in the sepulchre : all which are
now exploded by the papists. It is therefore manifest that this
book is not genuine, but supposititious, and composed by some pre
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 Ignatius, who, as Eusebius
testifies, Lib. in. c. 35, n exhorted all the churches to adhere to
the apostolic traditions, which traditions he asserts that he had "also
p The constitutions there direct that Easter should not be kept with the
Jews, which is directly opposed to the apostolical rule as given by Epiphanius,
Hseres. lxx. §. 10 : 6pt£ovo-t yap ev rfj hiardi-et ol diroo-roXoi, ort vpeis pfj
<ir7j<f>itjrjre, dXXd iroiijre, orav ol dheXobol vpdv ol e« irepiroprjs- per aiirav dpa
iroteire .... Kav re irXavrjBain, prjhe ipiv peXera. — Grabe, Spicil. i. 46. It is
observable that Epiphanius does not venture directly to impugn this rule,
though he is obliged to recur to a monstrous device to evade its natural
meaning.] p Quare tantum abest, ut ea quse in hac capite legimus apostoU statuerint,
ut etiam contraria horum ab ipsis prsecepta videantur.]
P The names 'laKaflos koi 'ladvvrjs, viol Zefiehalov, occur there in the
enumeration of the apostles then assembled. But the passage is probably an
interpolation.] [10 {ipeTs he tj ras irevre vrjaTevo-are Tjpepas, rj rerpdha Kal irapao-Kevrjv . . . .rb
o-dfil3aTov pevTot Kal rrjv KvptaKrjv eoprd^ere . . . . ev he povov <ra/3/3aroi' .... oirep
vrjareveiv irpoo-fjKev. — p. 369.]
P1 The Greek is given in the text, infra.]

570 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
left in writing by way of precaution, and lest posterity should be
reduced to any doubt concerning them." I answer : First, the
passage of Eusebius is either originally obscure or now corrupted,
as is plain from an inspection of the Greek text. By the tra
dition thus mentioned, Eusebius means the sincere doctrine of the
apostolic preaching, as is manifest from the place itself. His words
are, airplc, eyea9ai rwv diroaroXoov irapaSotxeios. If he had
meant such numerous traditions as the papists dream of, he would
not have said irapaSbo-eoos, but irapaSbaeoov. 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, "for the sake of security," virep dacpaXeias
Siarvirovo-9at, 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 refers ; and that
these were no popish traditions may be understood from the circum
stance, that in these epistles Ignatius disputes against Simon, Ce-
rinthus, Menander, and other heretics, who entertained impious
sentiments concerning the person of Christ. Now 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 "tradition" 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 re
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. As to Lent, I confess that it is mentioned in the
epistle to the Philippians : but of that elsewhere. As 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, Rev. i. 10. ev rrj KvpiaKrj
Vfxeptf. 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ; Acts xx. 7, fii$ craji(idrwv. The word's

XII-] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 571
of Eusebius, where he speaks of Ignatius, are these : irpovrpene r
airplt, 'eyea9ai rrjs rwv diroarbXwv irapaSbaews, i}v virep dadtaXelas
Kai eyypa(pws rjdn fxaprvpo/xevos CiarvirovaVai avayKaiov rjyeiro.
Which 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 judged that, for its safer
preservation to succeeding time, it should be committed to writ
ing1." The sense of which words is that, when Ignatius had borne
witness to and professed the apostolic faith by 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 way safe that
any doctrine should be left in an unwritten state. Yet 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 Smyrnseans, which are not found in that
epistle as now extant. The words as they stand in Theodoret
are these : " They 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 mercy2." Theodoret cites this sentence from
p Deinde hortatus est, ut apostolorum traditioni mordicus adhserescerent :
quam quidem asseveranter testificatus, quo tutius posteritati reservaretur,
necessario scriptis mandandam existimavit. Valesius translates it thus:
Hortatusque est ut apostolorum traditionibus tenaciter inhsererent: quas
quidem ad certiorem posteritatis notitiam testimonio suo confirmatas, scriptis
mandare necessarium duxit. But may not Tjhrj paprvpopevos mean, " being now
upon the point of martyrdom?" — though I confess the active paprvpea is the
regular form in such cases.]
P tixapio-Tias Kal irpoo-(f)opds oiiK dirohexovrai, hid rb prj opoXoyeiv ttjv
eiixapto-rlav o-dpxa eivai tov 'Zarfjpos ijpdv 'Itjo~ov XpioroO, rrjv iirep rdv dpaprtdv
qpdv iraBovo-av, fjv xPVa"r^TVTt ° irarrjp ijyeipev. — c. 19. p. 106. Tigur. 1593.
These words are to be found in the shorter epistles, ad Smyrnseos. c. 6.
p. 412. ed. Jacobs: but it is to be remembered that the Florentine text was
first published by Is. Vossius, Amstel. 1646. The publication of the still

572 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Ignatius' epistle to the Smyrnasans, which is nowhere to be dis
covered in the present epistle to the Smyrnseans. 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, ' The Lord chose for his apostles those who
were sinners above all men'1." Now in these epistles Ignatius hath
written nothing of the kind ; and if he ever wrote it, he did so with
more boldness than truth : for who would venture to say that the
apostles were the greatest sinners among all mankind ? Eusebius,
Lib. in. cap. 36, testifies that Ignatius wrote seven epistles to cer
tain churches : but there are now extant twelve. Jerome too, in
his Catalogue under the title Ignatius, enumerates only seven2:
whence it is plain that the other five are undoubtedly spurious.
These are, the epistle to Mary, 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. What we should determine about the rest, whether
they are Ignatius' or some other writer's, is far from clear ; since
some passages are cited by ancient authors from the epistles of
Ignatius, which are wanting in these pieces. Eusebius, Lib. in. c.
36, testifies3 that Polycarp, in his epistle to the Philippians, writes
that he had been requested by 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 Cm-eton, Lond. 1845, has confirmed the suspicions
which most unprejudiced critics entertained of the integrity of even the
Florentine text.]
p Ignatius, vir apostoUcus 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. 131. Monach. 1844: tovs Ihlovs diroo-rdXovs .... i£eXe£aTo,
Svras virep iracrav dpaprtav dvoparepovs.]
p Scripsit unam epistolam ad Ephesios, alteram ad Magnesianos, tertiam
ad Trullenses, quartam ad Romanos. Et inde egrediens scripsit ad Philadel-
pheos, et ad Smyrnseos, et proprie ad Polycarpum.]
P iypdij/are pot Kal ipets Kal 'lyvdnos, tva idv ris direpxrjTai els Svptav, Kal
ra irap' vpdv diroKoplo-ji ypdppara. — T. I. p. 277.]

XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 573
of the next age to the apostles. In it he writes : " If any one fast
upon the Lord's day, or any sabbath but that only whereon the
Lord lay in the grave, he is a murderer of Christ4." Now Augus
tine in his last epistle to Jerome affirms, that it was customary at
Rome to fast on Saturday. And, in Epist. 86, he says that it is
lawful also to fast upon the Lord's day. Again, Ignatius says in
that same epistle5, that if any one keep the passover with the Jews,
he is partner and in communion with those who murdered Christ,
kowwvos etrri rwv airoKreivavrcvv tov Kvptov. Now 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 Mary he says
that Clemens succeeded Anacletus6 : but the papists make him to
have succeeded Peter; and Peter in his own lifetime calls him
bishop and citizen of Rome, Constit. Apost. Lib. vi. c. 8.7 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 be 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 be chosen by the
church itself. Then, in the same epistle, he 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
P et tis KVptaKrjv rj o-dfifiaTov vrjtrrevei, irXfjv evbs o-afiftdrov rov iraaxa, ovros
Xpio-roKTovos io-rlv. — p. 112. Ed. Voss. Lond. 1680.]
P et tis perd 'lovhalav iirireXei rb irdo~xa, ij ra o~ipfioXa rrjs eoprrjs airrdv
Sexerat, Kotvavos io~ri rdv diroKretvdvrav rbv Kvpiov Kal roiis airoo-roXovs auroO.
—Ibid.] p So in the Latin: adhuc existente te in Roma, apud beatum papam
Cletum; cui successit ad prsesens digne beatus  Clemens, p. 72. But Vossius'
Greek Text reads irdira Alva.]
P o-vpirapovrav poi (Petrus loquitur) .... dheXqbdv KAif/ievros tov Vapatav
iirio-Kdirov re Kal iroXlrov. — p. 387.]

574 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
church1," eKKXrjalav eKXeKrtjv, without a bishop, deacons, and pres
byters : and in the same epistle he professes himself able to under
stand " heavenly things," rd eirovpdvia, the whole celestial state,
and all the ranks of angels; and yet declares himself inferior to
Peter and Paul2, who yet neither of them had much skill in such
matters. In the epistle to the Magnesians he expresses an opinion
that greatly needs confirmation, that no presbyter, deacon, or
lay-man, should do anything without the bishop, even as Christ
does nothing without the Father3; and then he cites the passage,
" 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 things : yet they ought to
defend Ignatius in everything, if there be any truth in their
assertion, that he committed the apostohcal traditions to writing.
In the third place follows Hegesippus, a man undoubtedly of
great name and authority. Eusebius, Lib. iv. c. 8, writes concerning
him, that he comprised apostolical traditions in five books4 ; and
although (says Bellarmine) those books are not now extant, yet 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 Eusebius is clear ; but I reply, that under the term tradition
the doctrine of the apostles, and not unwritten traditions, is denoted.
For so Eusebius states that he comprised in those books the sincere
and undissembled exposition of the apostolic preaching, rr)v dirXavij
irapdSoaiv tov dirouToXiKov Krjpvytxaros '• whence it is plain that
he wrote no other things than those which are dehvered in scrip
ture. Jerome, in his catalogue, under the head Hegesippus5,
affirms that these books contain the history of what was done by
Christ, the apostles, and succeeding bishops, down to Hegesippus'
own time. However, we should bear in mind Bellarmine's ad-
P xeopis rovrav iKKXrjo-'ia iicXeKTT) oiiK eariv. — p. 157.]
P Kal hivapai voeiv ra iirovpavta, Kal rds dyyeXiKas ra£ets . . . raura yivao~Kav iyd,
oil irdvras yjhrj reTeXelapat, rj paBrjrrjs elpt olos naOXos Kal Tlerpos. — pp. 158, 159.]
[3 dcrirep ovv 6 Kipios avev roC Ilarpbs oihev irotei, oil hvvajiai yap, tpijo-l,
iroteiv air ipavrov oihev, ovra Kal vpeis avev tov iirio-Kdirov, prjhe irpeo'^vrepos,
prjhe htaKovos, prjhe XatKOs. — p. 146.]
P ev irevre hr) ovv o~vyypdppao~iv oSros ttjv dirXavij irapdhoo~tv rov dirooroXiKOV
Krjpvyparos dirXovcrraTTj crvvrd^ei ypaCjbrjs viropvrjparitrdpevos. — T. I. p. 309. Ed.
Hein.] p Omnes a passione Domini usque ad suam setatem ecclesiasticorum
actuum tenons historias. — c. 22.]

XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 575
mission, that these books are not now extant. For there are now
extant five books under the name of Hegesippus6, which he does
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 by him, while Jerome and
Eusebius mention five only. Lastly, this Hegesippus, Lib. in. c. 5,
makes mention of the city and church of Constantinople, and says
that new Rome, that is Constantinople, was made equal to the old.
Now this did not take place before the times of Constantine, by
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
bear : 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 Dionysius the Areopagite7, whom our oppo
nent specially objects to us, as an author of undoubted excellence.
From 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 (vwepovoia) matters, partly in writing,
and partly without writing8," eyypdtpois Kal dypdcpois /xvrjo-eai. 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 my part I am far from
thinking ; although I perceive that his defence hath been engaged
in very zealously by some great men, and especially by Ambrosius
p Paris. 1511.]
P See Daille De Scriptis quse sub Dionysii Areopag. et Ignatii hominibus
circumferuntur. — Genev. 1666. and compare Pearson, Vindic. Ignat. Part. 1.
cap. 10. pp. 136 — 148. Cantab. 1672.]
p SeTrrorara he Xoyia raSra qbapev, oo-a irpbs rdv ivBeav qpdv leporeXeo-rdv
ev dytoypdqbois rjpiv Kal BeoXoytKois SeSdpTjrai heXrots, Kal pr)v dcra irpbs rdv
airav lepdv dvhpdv dvXarepa pvrjrret Kal yelrovt iras rjhrj rrjs oipavlas lepapxias
in. vobs els vovv, hid peo-ov Xoyov .... ypa(f>i)s iKrbs, ol KaBrjyepoves rjpav ipvrj-
Brjo-av.— Dionys. Areop. Opp. T. I. p. 201. Paris. 1644.]

576 THE FIRST 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 books : 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 books ; which ought to be a very weighty
proof that they were not composed by 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 by
any distinguished man, they took care not to omit mentioning it :
and can we believe it possible that they either did not see such
books as these, written upon such great and distinguished subjects,
or judged them not worthy of being noticed ? Secondly, no author
of any considerable antiquity mentions these books : which proves
sufficiently that they cannot belong to the same remote age as
Dionysius the Areopagite. For 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 apostohc. Fourthly, Erasmus, upon Acts xvii, is large in
proving that this is not the true Dionysius. And before him Valla,
upon the same place thinks that a heretic by 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 by
the apostolic Dionysius1." There were many Dionysiuses formerly
in the church : perhaps these books were written by 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. The apostle Paul, 2 Cor. xii. 14, says, that " these and
P An autem istemet sit ille Dionysius .... certum non est. — p. 495. 2-
Paris. 1571.]

XH.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 577
other such subjects are ineffable :" he adds besides, " that it is not
lawful for a man to utter them." How then could Dionysius dare
to utter these things, even if he knew them ? Or from what source
could he possibly come to know them? Whence, I beseech you,
did he derive this wondrous knowledge ? From revelation ? How
is this proved ? Why were they not rather revealed to the apostles,
if it concerned us to know such things ? If we have no concern in
them, then why hath Dionysius published these mysteries ? Irenaaus,
Lib. n. c. 55, expresses a noble sentiment condemnatory of these
writers of hierarchies : " There is nothing sound in what they
say : they are mad ; nor should we abandon Moses and the pro
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 us2." Whence it manifestly
appears that such a subject was secret, unknown, unheard of, and
as yet handled by no writer. Yet all these things are explained
in the books of this Dionysius. Augustine, in his Enchiridion (ad
Laurent.) c. 58, 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 say3." We return the same
answer to the papists. Dionysius, indeed, tells all these things,
but gives no proofs. Besides, Gregory 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. Now there was
P Non enim sunt magis idonei hi quam scripturfe, nee relinquentes nos
eloquia Domini, et Moysem, et reliquos prophetas qui veritatem prseconia-
verint, his credere oportet, sanum quidem nihil dicentibus, instabilia autem
delirantibus .... Dicant nobis quse sit invisibilium natura, enarrent numerum
angelorum et ordinem archangelorum, demonstrent thronorum sacramenta,
et doceant diversitates dominationum, principatuum, potestatum atque virtu
tum. Sed hoc non habent dicere. — c. 54, pp. 212, 213, ed. Fevard.]
p Dicant qui possunt, si tamen possunt probare quod dicunt: ego me
ista ignorare confiteor. — p. 209. Lips. 1838.]
37
[whitaker.]

578 the first controversy. [ch.
nothing of the kind in existence in those times when Dionysius
lived. In that age, by 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. c. 8.1 Now the papists grant
that Paul and Antony were the parents of the monks; and they
flourished some ages after Dionysius the Areopagite. Certainly
there were no monks in the times of the apostles. In his book of
the Divine Names, c. 42, he cites from Ignatius' epistle to the
Romans this very brief but very sweet sentence, o exibs epws
earavpwrai, "my love is crucified." Now Ignatius sent this
epistle to the Romans when he was on his journey to Rome with
the prospect of certain death, in the reign of Trajan, as we are
informed by Eusebius in his Chronicon, and in his Ecclesiastical
History, Lib. in. c. 36, and by 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. In the end of his book of the Ecclesias
tical Hierarchy he calls Timothy his son, who nevertheless was his
equal in authority, weight, learning, and every kind of dignity.
In his seventh epistle, that to Polycarp3, he writes that he was in
Egypt when that celebrated eclipse of the sun over the whole
world took place, at the time that our Lord Jesus Christ suffered
death upon the cross. Yet Origen, Tractat. 35 * 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.
He says besides, that the darkness spoken of by Matthew, xxvh. 45,
was not universal (for then some history would have mentioned it),
but local and confined to the land of Judsea. Jerome5, in his com-
P rj he reXovpevav dirarrdv vxj/TJXorepa rd£ts, tj rdv povaxdv iariv lepd
hiaKoo-prjo-ts. — ut supra, p. 330.]
P ypdtfiei he Kal 6 8eios 'lyvdrtos, 6 ipbs epas ioravparai. — ibid. pp. 467,
477.] P dp<j)orepa yap Tore Kara 'HXioviroXiv Spa irapovre re Kal o-vveo-rdre,
irapaho£as r<3 'HXi'o) rrjv SeXtjvrjv ipirtirrovo-av eapdpev, ov yap rjv o~vvohov Kaipis.
p. 775.] P Quomodo ergo poterat fieri defectio solis, cum luna esset plena, et
plenitudinem solis haberet ? . . . . Arbitror ergo, sicut cetera signa quse facta
sunt in passione ipsius, in Hierusalem tantummodo facta sunt, sic et tenebras
tantummodo super omnem terrain Judteam sunt factse usque ad horam nonam.
—Origen. Opp. part. n. p. 128. Paris 1619.]
P Videturque mihi clarissimum lumen mundi, hoc est luminare majus,

Xii] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 579
mentary on Matthew, says that this was no eclipse, but 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 Judsea only,
as formerly Egypt. Erasmus6 is of the same opinion. I am not
solicitous about the point ; 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 be
found amongst those at present extant in Greek ; for there are no
more than ten epistles in the Greek copies: perhaps they would
have this to be the eleventh. They say that a narrative is given
in this epistle of the translation and assumption of the body of the
blessed Virgin Mary : for Dionysius, as they affirm, writes that he
and the twelve apostles were present at Mary's death. Now how
was this possible, when they had before this parted company and
gone into different parts and climes of the world ? He says that
they all assembled by a miracle, except Thomas, who did not ar
rive till three days after the Virgin's death. But these things can
by no means be made to hang together. For the papists, as we
read in the New Sacerdotale, part. i. p. 156, maintain that Mary
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, 47 years of age when Christ died and ascended.
Now they say that she died 16 years after Christ's ascension, in
the 63rd year of her age. She lived therefore 15, 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. He died there
fore six years at least before the death of Mary, 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 impn blas-
phemantes sua luce fruerentur — Hieronym. Opp. T. iv. col. 139. Paris. 1706.]
p Indicat Origenes in nonnullis codicibus adjectum fuisse, tenebrse factse
sunt super totam terram deficiente sole, quasi soUs deliquium eas induxerit.
Atque ita certe tradit epistola quse nomine Dionysii circumfertur, mihi
¦tyevheiriypaobos 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. Mary therefore had
died before Dionysius was converted by Paul to the christian faith.
But this Dionysius, who is said to have been present at the death
of Mary 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. He
says they used to salute the corpse, and then pour oil upon it;
which customs are not practised by the papists now. They 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, yet the circumstance of their being
quoted by Gregory the great in his Homily upon the hundred
sheep, and by others, proves that they are neither modern nor
despicable. I answer : I confess that they are not modern nor
despicable ; but the question is, whether they are the work of
Dionysius the disciple of Paul. Gregory the great, although he
mentions them, yet does not follow them in all things. Besides,
Athanasius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, and other fathers
older than Gregory, make no mention of these books. There is
no reason why we should not suppose that these books were pub
lished before Gregory, 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 Areopagite1.
In the fifth place, he produces Polycarp, a distinguished and
P See a curious discussion of the authenticity of these books in Hakewill's
Apologie (Lond. 1635.) Lib. v. pp. 208 — 226, between Hakewill and Good
man, bishop of Gloucester.]

XH-J QUESTION THE SIXTH. 581
constant Christian, adorned with the illustrious crown of martyrdom.
Eusebius, Lib. v. c. 20, relates of him out of Irenseus, that he was
wont to repeat by heart many things which he had heard from the
apostles concerning our Lord, and which he had written not on
paper, but in his heart. I answer, in the first place : The passage
in Eusebius should be referred to. Irenseus is writing against a
certain heretic Florinus, who maintained that evil beings were
created such by God. Then he desires him to remember Polycarp,
the outlines and substance of whose teaching he recalls to his mind.
For Florinus had been with Polycarp, and Irenaaus 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 doc
trine, which he had heard from those who had seen Christ, and
which he had traced not on paper but on his heart2. Now why is
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 by this circumstance. Nor does
the fact of Irenseus having inscribed these lessons upon his heart3,
prove that they could not have been written in books; but only
that he, though a boy, 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 be 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 "accordant with the scriptures," av/xtpcova rals ypafpals-
Let the papists introduce such traditions, and no others, and we
will receive them willingly. But Bellarmine, in order to gain
P dare pe hvvaadai elireiv Kal rbv roirov iv a Ka8e£6pevos hieXeyero .... Kal
rds htdke£ets as iiroieiro irpbs to irXijBos, Kal rrjv Kara 'ladvvov o-vvavaoTpo(prjv as
dirrjyyeXXe, Kal ttjv perd rdv Xoiirdv t&v eapaKorav tov Kvpiov Kal as airepvrjpo-
veve tovs Xdyovs airdv, Kal irepl tov Kvplov rlva rjv d irap' ixelvav aKrjKoet, Kal
irepl rdv hvvdpeav airov, Kal irepl rrjs hihacrKaXtas, as irapa airoirrav rrjs £aijs
tov Xoyov irapeiXrjcpds 6 IloXvKapiros dirrjyyeXXe iravra crvpcjiava rdis ypaqbais.—
T. II. p. 100.]
P ravra .... tjkovov, viropvrjpaTi£6pevos aura ovk iv X<*/"77> °XX' iv rfj ipfj
Kaphia. — ibid.]

582 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
something from this passage, insists that Irenseus' saying that these
things were consonant to scripture, is not inconsistent with their
not being written. For it is not, says he, everything that is con
sonant to scripture, that can immediately be proved by scripture ;
for all truth is consonant to scripture, but all truth is not contained
in scripture, nor can be proved by it. This he wishes to be taken
as an answer to Chemnitzius. I answer : Firstly, that Irenseus in
this place indicates plainly enough what he means by styling these
things consonant to scripture. He had to deal with the heretic
Florinus, who, as we have already said, asserted that evil things
were created by God. This was the heresy he wished to refute :
now this may be most plainly refuted by scripture. Secondly,
whatever is consonant with scripture, may be proved by scripture :
but there are many things not dissonant from scripture which
cannot be proved by 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 by scripture, because in ac
cordance with scripture. So Irenseus, Lib. n. c. 47, 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 Justin Martyr, whom Bellarmine next objects
to us. He brings against us many passages from his second
apology : in the first place, that the Christians used then to meet
upon the Lord's day Y ; next, that they mixed water with the wine
in the eucharist2. I answer : As to the former tradition, I say
that it may be proved by scripture, and therefore is no unwritten
tradition. As 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 be mixed with strong wine, such as the
wine of those countries was, provided the substance of wine be not
destroyed. Bellarmine then sets forth another tradition out of
Justin ; that the eucharist is to be given to none but baptized per-
[1 rfjv he rou fjXiov rjpepav koivtj iravres rrjv o-vve\tvo-iv irotovpeBa. — p. 99.
Paris. 1636.]
P irpoo-cj>eperai rip itpoearrdn rdv dheXipdv apros Kal irorrjptov vharos Kal
Kpdparos. — p. 97. ibid.]

XII.J QUESTION THE SIXTH. 583
sons. But I affirm that this may be gathered from scripture.
However, he presses still more the following words of Justin : " The
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 consideration3," &c. I answer : In the first place, these words
are of no service to the popish traditions. For Justin only says,
that Christ rose on Sunday, which the scriptures tell us also ; and
that he taught his apostles those things which Justin wrote in this
book, and submitted to the consideration of Csesar Antoninus. Now
these are no other than we read delivered in the scriptures. For
in this Apology 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. For, in his Dialogue with Trypho, 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 day do not own. There is, besides, a small book in
Greek, bearing Justin's name, with the title Znrrjp.ara 'AvayKaia,
wherein he recites several traditions ; but it is no genuine piece
of Justin's4. For in Quast. 115, it mentions Irenseus, and in
Quasi. 82, 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 very strong
objection against the authority of this book, that it is not noticed
by either Jerome or Eusebius.
Iren^us comes next to Justin. Bellarmine says that many
noble testimonies might be cited from him, namely, from Lib. in.
c. 2, 3, 4, where Irenaaus writes that there is no more convenient
way of arriving at the truth than by consulting those churches
wherein there is a succession of bishops from the apostles. I
answer : I confess that Irenseus appeals from the scriptures to the
churches and apostolical traditions. Moreover, he writes that
heretics are to be refuted not by scripture, but by tradition.
Nevertheless our defence is no way prejudiced by Irenseus. We
must see what the reason was, on account of which Irenseus spoke
thus ; 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 Kal Trj perd rrjv KpoviKrjv, rjris io-rlv rjXtov f/pepa, (jiavels rdis airoo-roXois
avTov Kal pa8rjrais ihlha^e ravra, airep els iirLo-Ke\jnv Kal vpiv dvehaKapev. p. 99.]
P La Croze ascribes this piece to Diodorus Tarsensis. Thesaur. Epist. m.
p. 280.]

584 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
papists. The reason why he appealed from scripture to apostolical
traditions, and said that heretics were not to be refuted by scripture,
was, because he disputed against heretics who slanderously con
tended that the scriptures were not perfect; yea, who lacerated,
despised, corrupted, and denied them ; who would not allow them
selves to be pressed by their authority, but clave to their traditions,
as the papists do now l. He rightly determines that it is not pos
sible to dispute against such persons out of scripture. Read the
second chapter of the third book. From that chapter it is appa
rent that those heretics were precisely similar to our papists : for
they rejected the scriptures, firstly, because they were obscure;
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. For 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 apostohcal 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 taught2. And accordingly
he says, c. 3 : " When we bring forward our succession, we confound
the heretics3." He brings forward in that place the succession of
the Roman church, because it was the most famous at that time.
But 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 life4." I answer :
P Cum enim ex scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur
ipsarum scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et
quia varie sint dictse, et quia non possit ex his inveniri Veritas ab his qui
nesciant traditionem: non enim per literas traditam Ulam, sed per vivam
vocem. — p. 230. ed. Fevard.]
P Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent apostoli, quse seorsim et latenter
ab reliquis perfectos docebant, his vel maxime traderent ea quibus etiam
ipsas ecclesias committebant. — p. 232.]
P Fidem, per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, in-
dicantes, confundimus omnes eos qui .... prseterquam oportet colligunt. —
ibid, b.]
P Non oportet adhuc quserere apud aUos veritatem quam facile est ab
ecclesia sumere, cum apostoli, quasi in depositorium dives, plenissime in eam

XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 585
We also concede this. But it is inconclusive arguing to say, They
bestowed all upon the church ; 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 churches6?" 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 Irenseus mentions certain barbarous
nations which served God and cultivated religion without the
scripture! Had then no churches scriptures, or do the scriptures
not contain the entire doctrine of Christianity ? This conclusion
does not follow. Bellarmine next alleges what Irenseus says,
Lib. iv. c. 45, 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? By no means. With the scriptures the apostles
dehvered 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. Yet hence the papists may under
stand that succession is of no importance without " the gift of
truth." Furthermore, our opponents should not lay too much
stress upon Irenseus, who was certainly deceived in the matter of
tradition. For Eusebius, Lib. in. c. 39, says that he was a
Chiliast. This may be proved from Lib. v. c. 23. And Lib. n.
c. 39, Irenseus writes that Christ lived forty years ; which he
affirms that he received by tradition not only from John, but from
the other apostles also. Now this may be refuted by scripture ;
and, in fact, Epiphanius, Har. 78, confutes this opinion. And
Lib. n. c. 47, v Irenseus writes, that faith and hope remain in the
life to come, which the scriptures expressly deny.
contulerint omnia quse sint veritatis ; uti omnis quicunque velit, sumat ex ea
potum vitse. — p. 242.]
P Quid autem? si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis,
nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus com-
mittebant ecclesias? — ibid.]
p 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. 43, pp. 381, 382.]
p Sicut et apostolus dixit, reUquis partibus destructis, hsec tunc perseve-

586 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
It follows that we go through the remaining supporters and
patrons of traditions ; the next of whom is Clemens Alexandrinus.
He, as quoted by Eusebius, Lib. vi. c. 11, says1 that he was obliged
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 book,
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," (eyypacpov and
aypatpov). In the same book he says that Christ taught only
during one year, although it be manifest from the gospels that his
teaching lasted three years and upwards. In the same book he
writes also that the Gentiles were saved by 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. And 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.
In the sixth book he says that Christ and the apostles converted
many to the faith in Hades by preaching to them. And in his
Protreptical Discourse he makes " Eve " 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. He wrote also, and taught
that Christ is a creature, as Ruffinus tells us in the Apology for
Origen. Next follows Origen, the auditor of Clemens. He tells us, in his
Commentary upon the Romans, c. 6, that the baptism of infants is a
rare, quse sunt fides, spes, et caritas. Semper enim fides, quse est ad magis-
trum nostrum, permanet. — p. 203. c. The schoolmen solve the difficulty by
determining that faith remains, quoad habitum, though not quoad exercitiuni.
They have other expedients indeed, but this seems the most plausible.]
P Kal iv roi X6ya he airov rc» irepl tov irdo-xa iKJiiao-drjvai o/ioXoyeT irpbs
rcov eraipav, as ervxe irapa rdv dpxalav irpeafivrepav aKrjKods irapahdo~ets ypiMpji
rots perd ravra irapahovvai  c. 13. T. n. p. 182. ed. Heinich.]

XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 587
tradition2. 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 prayer3. I answer :
This is indeed a laudable tradition, but yet not a necessary one ; for
we read that some holy men have prayed standing. And Basil, de
Spirit. S. c. 27, affirms that Christians used to pray 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. Many 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 he learned from tradition that
Christ's countenance assumed diverse appearances according to the
worthiness of the beholders4; and says that it was upon this account
that Judas gave a sign to the Jews, Matth. xxvi. For what need,
says he, of a sign, when the Jews saw Jesus' face every day, if
he had not a countenance that continually changed ? Now this is
a ridiculous tradition.
Bellarmine next produces Eusebius of Cassarea. He, in his
Demonstratio Evangelica, Lib. i. c. 8, confirms unwritten tradi
tions : for he says that the apostles delivered down some observ
ances in writing, and some orally8. I answer : That this testimony is
clear enough, but unworthy of reception, because repugnant to
P Pro hoc et ecclesia ab apostolis traditionem suscepit, etiam parvulis
baptismum dare. — Origen. Opp. T. iv. p. 565. Paris. 1733.]
P Sed et in ecclesiasticis observationibus sunt nonnulla hujusmodi, quse
omnibus quidem facere necesse est, nee tamen eorum ratio omnibus patet.
Nam quod, verbi gratia, genua flectimus orantes .... non facile cuiquam puto
ratione compertum. — T. ii. p. 284.]
P Venit ergo talis traditio ad nos de eo, quoniam non solum duse formse
in eo fuerunt, una quidem secundum quam omnes eum videbant, altera autem
secundum quam transfiguratus est coram discipulis in monte .... Sed etiam
unicuique apparebat secundum quod dignus fuerat. — T. in. p. 906.]
p ot Se ye avrov paBrjral, r<5 roO hthao-KaXov vevpari, KardXXrjXov rats t&v
iroXXdv aKoals iroiovpevoi ttjv hihao-KaXiav, oo-a pev are rrjv e£tv hia/iefirjKdo-i irpbs
tov reXeiov hihao-KaXov iraprjyyeXro, ravra rdis oiois re ^capety irapehthov Sera he
rots en rds yjrvxas ipiradeo-i Kal Bepairelas 8eopevots i<f>appo£etv vireXdpfiavov,
ravra ovyKaridvres Trj rdv irXeiovav de-8evela, ra pev hid ypappdrav, Ta he hi
dypdqbav Beo-pdv (pvkaTTeiv irapebthoo-av. — p. 29. Paris. 1628.]

588 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
scripture. The 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 pro
ceeded in the same manner. Irenseus gives a far different and
sounder determination, Lib. in. c. 15. And we read that the apo
stles made known the whole counsel of God to all the churches, and
concealed nothing that was necessary from any one. Besides, it is
absurd to suppose that the traditions pretended by the papists are
so excellent and sublime as not to be communicated to everybody.
For if we would judge 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.
In 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 fathers1." I answer : That
Athanasius speaks of the Homoiision, which he proves to be no new
term, or then first invented by the Nicene fathers, but acknowledged
and used by the more ancient fathers also. But does it hence fol
low that the same term may not be justified out of the scriptures
too ? By no means. For it was in the scriptures that these fathers
learned to use it. We dispute not about words, but the sense of
words, the dogma, the doctrine which they convey. We 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,
we do reject, and maintain that no article of faith is necessary which
is not dehvered in the scriptures.
Bellarmine proceeds, and objects to us Basil in the next place.
He writes thus, De Spirit. S. c. 27 : " Those things which we
observe and teach we have received partly from the written teach
ing, and partly delivered to us in a mystery from the tradition of
the apostles2." He remarks in the same place, that " both these
P ISov rjpeis pev ck irarepav els irarepas hia^efirfKevat rrjv rotavrrjv hidvoiav
diroheiKvvopev. — Athan. Opp. T. i. p. 233. Paris. 1698.]
P rwv iv rfi iKKXrjo-'tq ireqbvXaypevav hoypdrav Kal KTjpvypdrav ra pev eK rfjs
iyypaq^ov hthao-KaXlas e^opey, ra he « rrjs rdv dirooToXav irapahoo-eas hiahoBevra
riptv ev pvrrrrjpia irapehe^dpeBa' airep dptfrorepa rrjv aiirrjv lo~xyv e^ei irpbs rrjv
evo-efieiav. — Basil. Opp. T. II. 210. Paris. 1618.]

Xn-] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 589
have equal force to piety." He hath similar sentiments in c. 29. 3
The papists press with extraordinary earnestness these words and
the passage adduced; 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 answer : Firstly, that it may be
doubted whether these are the true and genuine words of Basil.
Nor are we the first that have called this matter in question ;
since Erasmus, an acute judge of ancient writings, hath passed the
same judgment in the preface4 to his version of Basil, observing
that he perceived a change of style from the middle of the book
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. For he else
where teaches that all things necessary to salvation may be found
in scripture, and that the scriptures contain a full and perfect body
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 5, where he writes, that the Zach
arias mentioned in Matth. xxiii. 35, was the father of John the
Baptist, and was slain by the Jews for having placed Mary the
mother of Christ amongst the virgins after she had borne a son,
P diroo-roXiKov he oipai Kal rb rais dypdifiois irapahoo~eo-t irapapeveiv. — ibid.
p. 217.] P Rather, in his Dedicatory Epistle. His words are : Postquam dimidium
operis absolveram citra tsedium, visa est mihi phrasis alium referre parentem,
aUumque spirare genium: interdum ad tragicum cothurnum intumescebat
oratio, rursus ad vulgarem sermonem subsidebat, interdum subinane quiddam
habere videbatur .... adhuc subinde digrediebatur ab instituto, nee satis con-
cinne redibat a digressione. Postremo multa videbantur admisceri, quse non
admodum facerent ad id quod agitur; qusedam etiam repetuntur oblivione
verius quam judieio. Quum Basilius ubique sit sanus, simplex, et candidus,
sibi constans, atque etiam instans, nunquam ab eo quod agitur excurrens
temere, nunquam divinis mysteriis admiscens philosophiam mundanam, nisi
per adversaries coactus, idque contemptim. — Cf. Stillingfleet. Ration. Ac
count. P. i. c. 8. Works, Vol. iv. p. 235. Lond. 1709.]
P hrjXoi he Kal rj Kara rbv Zaxaplav lo-ropla, on pexpi iravros irapBevos n
Mapta- Xoyos yap t'is earl Kal oiros « irapahoo-eas els Tjpds dipiypevos. k. r. X.—,
T. I. p. 590.]

590 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
which the Jews could by 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 ex
irapaSbaews drpiyjxevov. I suppose he took it from Origen upon
Matth. xxiii,1 and Origen from I know not whom. However, we
may 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 by ancient fathers and easily refuted by reason.
Fourthly, I come to Basil's actual words : he says, that the gospel
without unwritten tradition hath no force, but is a mere name,
ij/iXbv bvo/ixa. If 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 be 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 by all good Chris
tians. However, 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 judge whether they possess
indeed so much value and importance.
The 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, rip rvirip rod aravpov tovs rjXirt-
Koras KaTaarjfxa'iveo-9ai. I acknowledge this to be an ancient
ceremony, used from almost the earliest times of the christian
church and religion, and used for this reason ; that Christians, who
then lived in the midst of pagans and men most hostile to the faith
of Christ, might by 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
P Tract, xxvi. cf. Huet, Origeniana. Lib. n. Q. iv. p. 66.]

XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 591
religion. For what ? are we to think that piety and religion con
sist in outward things ? Surely not. "But the flesh is signed that
the soul may be protected," says Tertullian. On the contrary, it
is by faith, not by the cross, that the soul should be protected.
The ancients, indeed, thought they were protected by this sign
against evil demons ; but this had its origin in the Montanistic
heresy. We read, however, in history, that many demons were
put to flight by 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. He 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 pray ; npos avaroXas rerpa(p9ai Kara rrjv irpocrevyrjv.
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. n.
c. 58, writes piously, that no precept directs us how to place our
body in prayer, " provided only the mind be present with God,"
and waiting upon him. Socrates, Lib. v. c. 22, writes that the An-
tiochenes used to turn towards the west in their prayers, adopting a
custom directly opposite to what Basil tells us was commanded by
the apostles. Must the gospel be ruined, if this glorious tradition
be taken away ? But let us consider the reasons of this tradition
broached by Basil. " When we pray," says he, " we look to
wards the east; but few of us know the reason why we do so.
Now 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 ? Nay, 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 : The
papists themselves do not retain this form of invocation, nor under
stand any thing of its nature.
Fourthly, Basil says : " We bless the water of baptism." I
answer : What does this mean ? Did not Christ by his authority
and commandment, and by 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 ?
We 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 Apology, where he shews the manner and describes the form of
baptism amongst the ancient Christians, makes no mention of bless
ing the water. We read in Eusebius, that Constantine always
desired to be baptized in Jordan : but, I suppose, a whole river of
running water could not be sanctified in this way. Chrysostom,
(Horn. 25, in Joann.)1 writes excellently well, that Christ by his
baptism sanctified all waters : but these men are wont to apply
exorcisms to water, salt, bells, as if all the creatures were full of
devils. Yet, 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, rpls r3airrl^ea9ai,
concerning which tradition we read also in the 50th canon of the
apostles. I answer : Would the power of the gospel be impaired
by the loss of this tradition ? Who would say so ? It is at least
manifest that this tradition is neither apostolical nor necessary.
For, 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. How great a labour would this have
been, if they had used the trine immersion with each ! Others,
however, rather approve aspersion than immersion, as Cyprian,
Epist. Lib. iv. Ep. 7. And Gregory, Epist. Lib. i. Ep. 4, says that
it makes no matter whether we use the trine or simple immersion.
P Opp. T. IV. 654. Eton. 1612.]

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. The papists themselves do
not now use a trine immersion, but a trine sprinkling, wherewith
they maintain that baptism is completely performed. Now 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
airoratJcrea9ai. rip 2,arav(f, renounce Satan. I reply, that this is
perfectly true. But do we not " renounce " Satan, when we profess
to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
From these instances we may judge of the rest. What ? Are
these the things without which the gospel will lose all its efficacy ?
Nay, the papists themselves retain not all these traditions of Basil's.
They do not dip, but sprinkle : they do not pray standing upon the
Lord's day, as Basil here determines that we ought ; 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. For Basil contends
most earnestly for this tradition, and adduces three reasons in sup
port of the practice : 1. because Christ arose upon the Lord's
day : 2. because we seek the things that are above, to di>u>
Xrjrovp.ev. But we should do this always ; and according to this
reason, we should always pray standing : 3. because the eighth
day is a symbol of the world to come ; 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. 20. 2 But a different
custom hath now for a long time prevailed. The papists themselves
have taught us by their own example to reject such traditions. For
these traditions of Basil's are either necessary, or they are not. If
they be necessary, why do they not themselves observe them all ?
If they be not necessary, why do they press us with the authority
of Basil ? For 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. He says that there
are some things enjoined in the scriptures, and some passed over
p Labb. et Cossart. T. ii. col. 37.]
r i 38
[WHITAKER.J

594 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
in silence : wherein though he may seem to favour the papists, he
yet lends them no sort of countenance. For 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 canon; "all things
are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient1." Now 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, why 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. Yet Bellarmine says, that they are
of equal obligation, not indeed as to observance, but as to faith. So
(he adds) some precepts of the Lord are greater than others, as,
" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 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 by 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. Now 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
know their own traditions.
Hitherto we have been engaged in answering objections from
P ra pev eo-rtv virb rrjs ivroXrjs roO Qeov iv rfj dyla ypatbrj hieo~raXfieva, ra he
ereaiaiTTjpeva .... irepl he rdv o~eo-iairrjpevav Kavova rjpiv i^eBero 6 dirdo'ToXos
UavXos elirdv iravra poi e^eo-rtv, dXX' oi iravra o-vp<j>epei. — T. II. p. 524.]

XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 595
the fathers, and these matters have delayed me, though in haste
to come to the arguments on our side. Yet there are still some
testimonies remaining, which can by no means be passed over.
In the next place, Bellarmine brings Nazianzene 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 by tradition and preserved2- I
answer : Nazianzene by 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 hke. These were
useful, and not to be blamed, but yet not absolutely necessary.
They 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.
Next follows Chrysostom, who, upon 2 Thess. ii. 15, 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 writing3." I answer : 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, bpiolws d^ibirio-ra.
And afterwards he says, " It is a tradition ; let that suffice." I
answer : It was an inconsiderate word, and unworthy of so great a
father. Must whatever is obtruded on us under the name of a
tradition be immediately received? Nay, the apostle tells us to
" try the spirits," and to " prove all things." Theophylact and
CEcumenius agree with him; but it is not necessary to answer them.
The same Chrysostom also in his third Homily upon the Philip-
P opdv yap rbv rjperepov Xoyov peyav pev ovra Tois hdypao-iv .... en he pei£a
Kal yvaptparepov rols irapahehojievois Kal els rohe Terrjprjpevois rvirots rrjs ckkXtj-
o-'ias, iva prjhe tovto aKaKOvpyrjTOV pevrj, Ti prjxavdrai.  Greg. Naz. Opp. T. I.
p. 101. Colon. 1690.]
P ivrevBev hrjkov on ov iravra hi iiri<rroXfjs irapehlhoo-av, dXXd jroXXa Kal
dypdcf>as' opoias Kaxeiva Kal raCra eanv d§t6iriara, do-re Kal ri)v irapdhoo-tv rrjs
iKKKrjo-tas d^idiriorov ijydpeBa. irapdhoo-is tern, prjbev irXeov {firei. — ChrySOSt.
Comm. T. vi. p. 386. Paris. 1633.]
38—2

596 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
pians1, and in his sixty-ninth Homily to the people of Antioch,
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. He says in a previous passage, that
those who die in their sins are not to be helped by 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 rwv ev irlaret
irapeX9bvTwv. But how is it possible that one should die in faith,
and yet die in sins ? For all their sins are remitted to those who
die in faith.
In the next place Bellarmine objects Theophilus of Alexandria.
He 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 by the apostles, but by the heretic
Montanus. So Eusebius testifies, Lib. v. c. 18. " This," says he,
(meaning Montanus), "is the person who prescribed laws for fasting,"
o vrjarelas vop.o9errjaras. These laws, therefore, are heretical, not
apostolical, being instituted by Montanus, and not derived from the
apostles. Secondly, I say, that the rule of fasting prescribed by
this Theophilus is such as the papists themselves do not observe.
He 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
you please to fast on.
Next follows Cyril of Jerusalem, whom Bellarmine declares to
handle nothing else in his Catechetics but unwritten rites in the
celebration of the sacraments. I answer : He produces however no
traditions from this author, nor can he produce many. There are
P Ibid. p. 33.]
P Qui autem legum prsecepta custodiunt, ignorant vinum in jejuniis. —
Ap. Bibl. PP. T. v. p. 855. Lugdun. 1677.]

XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 597
indeed a few, but those of no great importance. The book itself
appeared in Greek only a few years ago, but seems quite worthy
of Cyril : it is marked by singular knowledge, and piety and
prudence. Let them, if they can, produce from him any traditions
opposed to us. How 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, det irepl rHov 9elwv Kal dylwv rijs irlcrrews p.vcrrrip'twv
jur/Se to rvybv avev rwv 9elu)v irapaSlSoa9at ypdtpwv. The 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 by
scripture, and from no other source : r] awrrjpla rrjs trio-Tews r)/xiZv
ovk e£ evpeaiXoylas, aXX' ej~ diroSei^ews rwv 9elwv earl ypatpwv.
Next follows another Cyril, 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 : We have already
spoken of this tradition. It is not surprising that he should speak
copiously upon this subject against Julian the Apostate ; 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 hereafter. — But Bellar
mine hath omitted the testimony of this Cyril in his printed edition.
Next comes Epiphanius, whom they make a great patron of
traditions. He tells us, in Hares. 75, 3 and 61 and 63, speaking
against the Apostolici, that " we cannot take everything from the
scriptures." And Bellarmine observes that the heretics (meaning
us) have no answer to this but blasphemy. I answer : What
blasphemy is it to say that Epiphanius delighted more in traditions
than he ought, yea, even in those genealogies which the apostle
condemns ? Surely he that says this does no injury to Epipha
nius : for the truth of this may be proved by such an instance
as occurs in Hares. 55, where he affirms that he knew by tradition
who was the father of Daniel, and who of Elijah the prophet4, and
how old Lazarus was when Christ raised him from the dead5.
P Hseres. lxxv. §. 6. p. 910. lxi. 6. p. 511. T. I. ed. Petav. The latter is
the most important : ov yap iravra dirb rrjs Belas ypa(j>ijs hvvarat Xap(3dveo-8ai.
htb ra pev iv ypaipats, ra he iv irapahdo-ei irapehaKav ol dytot dirdaroXot.]
P Hser. Iv. §. 3. p. 470.]
P Hseres. lxvi. §. 34. p. 652 : dXXd Kal iv irapahoo-eaiv evpopev, ort rpiaKovra
irav rjv rire o Ad£apos, ore iyrjyeprai.]

598 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
However, my 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 pohty 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 by the papists. Why then
do they press us so urgently with the authority of this father,
when they themselves have long ago exploded his traditions? For
in Hares. 51, he says that the wise men spoken of in Matth. ii.,
came two years after the birth of Christ. Now the fathers have
refuted this opinion, nor do the papists maintain it. The same
author tells us, Hares. 80, that it is a tradition that men should
nourish beards1. Doubtless a noble one! Yet the papists neglect
this tradition, their clergy being all shaven and beardless. Thirdly,
as to the passage which Bellarmine adduces from Hares. 61, it
may indeed be perceived from it that Epiphanius approved of some
traditions as apostolical, but yet not that he was so pertinacious
a maintainer of them as the papists are. For he says that it is
an apostolical tradition, "that no one should contract marriage
after a vow of celibacy2," and that to do otherwise is impious. So
far he 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 vow, and come at length, even
though halt, into the church, than suffer the daily wounds of secret
arrows. The 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 go on
to destruction pierced by those deadly shafts of lust. Do they
approve of him here ? Can they tolerate this opinion of his ?
Far from it : 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 be a sin; and nevertheless
he says that it is better to have one sin than many, Kpelrrov eyetv
P §. 7. p. 1073: iv rois hiardi-eo-i r£c airoo-rSXav obdo-Ket 6 Beios Xrfyos Kal
r) hihao-KaXia, prj tpBelpeiv, Tovrean prj repveiv rplxas yevttov.]
P irapehaKav ro'tvvv ol dyloi Qeov dirdoroXoi rfj dyla 9tot) ckkXijo-mi, irjtdpaprov
eivai rb perd rb optcrai irapdevtav els ydpov rpeireo-Bai. — ut supra, p. 511.]

XII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 599
afxapnav p.lav Kal fxr] irepiao-orepas. Who sees not how repug
nant this is to sound divinity ? For nothing wrong is on any
account to be done.
The last of the Greek fathers cited by Bellarmine is Damas
cene. In his book de Fide Orthodox. Lib. iv. c. 17, he says
that the apostles delivered many unwritten traditions3. I answer :
We make no account in this question of Damascene, a late author,
superstitious, and devoted to the worship of images ; so that it is
no wonder that he should afford some patronage to tradition. He
wrote indeed many things excellently well against the ancient here
tics. Yet even the papists cannot venture to defend him upon every
point : 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 yet ventured on.
Thus far of the Greek fathers. Now follow the Latin ; of
whom our opponent produces first Tertullian, citing his book de
Corona Militis, wherein Tertullian contends vehemently for tradi
tions : " Of these," he says, " and similar observances, tradition
is the author, custom the confirmer4," &c. I answer in the first
place, that Tertullian was a Montanist when he wrote that book ;
for he mentions the new prophecies, of which Montanus was
undoubtedly the inventor. Now 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 ; yet this heresy of Montanism
hath stripped this father of all his credit. So Hilary speaks, in
his commentary on Matthew, canon 5 : " Although Tertullian hath
written very suitable discourses upon this subject, yet the error
which afterwards attached to him hath deprived even his com
mendable writings of all authority5." Jerome in his book against
[3 on he Kal irXeio-ra ol dirdo-roXot dypalbas irapahehaKao-i ypdlpei TIavXos.
k.t.\. — c. 16. T. i. p. 282. ed. Lequien. Paris. 1712.]
p Harum et aliarum ejusmodi disciplinarum si legem expostules scrip
turarum, nullam invenies ; traditio tibi prsetendetur auctrix, consuetudo con-
firmatrix, et fides observatrix. — c. 4.]
p Quanquam et Tertullianus hac de re aptissima volumina scripserit, sed
consequens error hominis detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem. ]

6C0 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
Helvidius denies him to have been " a man of the church ;" and in
his Catalogue he says of Tertullian, that " he wrote many things
against the church ;" as indeed he did. This being so, how absurd
it is to obtrude these Montanistic traditions upon Tertulhan's
authority ! Vincentius Lirinensis, Commonit. c. 24, writes excels
lently of Tertullian, whom he compares to Origen : " What," says
he, " could be more learned than this man ? Where could we find
greater skill in all things human and divine ? &c. And yet, after
all this, even he, this very Tertullian, losing his hold of catholic
doctrine, and far more eloquent than fortunate, changed his opinion
afterwards," &C.1 Who 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 by 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
judge worthy of observance. Tertulhan's traditions are such as
these ; 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 by 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 by the papists. Nay, he seems to have
written this book expressly against the catholics. The very argu
ment of the book seems to prove this, which is as follows : ' The
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 it ; whence ensued a great slaughter of the
Christians. The 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 war2.1'
The other place cited by Bellarmine from this same Tertullian is
[i Quid hoc viro doctius? quid in divinis atque humanis rebus exercita--
tius ? . . . . Et tamon hie quoque post hsec omnia, hie inquam Tertullianus,
catholici dogmatis parum tenax, ac disertior multo quam feUcior, mutata
deinceps sententia, &c. — Commonit. c. 24.]
p Novi et pastores eorum in pace leones, in prcelio cervos. — 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 yet it inflicts a severe blow upon their cause. Tertul
lian had to deal with those same adversaries, as we have said before,
that Irenseus also was engaged with. They denied the perfection
of the scriptures ; and so do the papists. They 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 Irenseus 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 Irenssus 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 by
them. For, says he, the teaching which was first was true ; that
which was later, false ; or, as he expresses it against Praxeas,
"That was true which was first, that spurious which came later3."
And he refutes those who said that the apostles had delivered
certain secret doctrines to the perfect, by shewing that if there had
been any doctrines of that sort, the churches founded by the apo
stles would have had and retained them.
Cyprian of Carthage, whom Bellarmine next objects to us, lived
a century and more after Tertullian. In his epistles, Lib. i. Ep. 12,
he declares it necessary that baptized persons should be anointed,
and pronounces this to be a tradition. And Lib. n. Ep. 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. Lib. n. c. 32 ; where, speak
ing of an epistle of Cyprian's, he uses these expressions : " I am not
bound by the authority of this epistle, because I do not hold the
epistles of Cyprian for canonical scriptures; but I judge of them by
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 agree4."
P Id esse verum quodcunque primum ; id esse adulterum quodcunque
posterius. — c. ii. p. 606.]
P Ego hujus epistolse auctoritate non teneor, quia Uteras Cypriani non

602 THE 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
do 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 by this very law laid down by himself.
First, then, let us see what he says of unction, Lib. i. Ep. 12 :
"Those who are baptized must needs be anointed1." Whence, I
beseech you, springs this necessity ? Forsooth, that we may begin
to be the anointed of God. Who sees not what a cold conceit is
here ? Can we not be the anointed of the Lord without this oil ?
If not, why did Christ give no precept to anoint when he com
manded to baptize ? and when we read in the Acts that so many
were baptized, why 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 Tertulhan, 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. He 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. n. Epist. 3)2, I reply, that
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 says, " Let the tradition of the Lord 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
Apology, besides the Psedagogus of Clemens Alexandrinus, Lib. n.
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.]
p 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. Fell. Amstol. 1691.]
P Admonitos autem nos scias, ut in caUce oflerendo Dominica traditio
servetur, neque aliud fiat a nobis, quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit.
Ut 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
water : 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 close : " Wine is not pleasing by itself, nor
water by 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 highly : for he says, If the wine
be without the water, then Christ is without the people ; if the
water be without the wine, then the people is without Christ. But
Christ cannot be so easily severed from his church ; for the tie by
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 be
altogether omitted as impertinent to the present occasion. For
Hilary3, in that passage which Bellarmine urges, does not affirm
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 re
jected the term Homoiision, because it could not be found in scripture.
But this is of no force against us : 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, 9eoroKos, 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
nowhere found written in the sacred pages. The same author,
p Nolo, inquit, verba quse non scripta sunt dici . . . Die prius si recte
dici putas ; nolo adversum nova venena novas medicamentorum compara-
tiones . . . novitates vocum, sed profanas, devitare jubet apostolus. — Hilar.
c. Const. Imper. $. 16. coll. 1250, 1251. Paris, 1693.]
P Ambrosii Opp. T. vn. p. 4 — 14. Paris. 1839]

604 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
Serm. 25, 34, and 36, 1 teaches us that Lent was instituted by
Christ; and Ep. 81, and Serm. 38, 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 by Christ, Ambrose does not teach, but only guess and
conjecture : and if Christ enjoined Lent at all, it was by his
example ; which indeed is what Ambrose meant. For so he says,
Serm. 34 : " Thou subvertest the law, if thou keep not the example
set by the Lord's fasting2." Ambrose supposed that the Lenten
fast was enjoined by the example of Christ in the way of precept.
He defends Lent, therefore, not by 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. He heaps together other
passages of scripture also with no greater wisdom. When he had
these places of scripture to rely upon, might he not justly accuse of
"contumacy and prevarication" all those who "subvert this law"
of the Lenten fast, " given for our salvation, by eating dinners
therein?" What? Do the papists eat never a dinner from one
end of Lent to the other? Yea, verily, and every day. They
are not then good Christians, if we believe Ambrose. For so
says Ambrose : " What sort of Christian art thou, that dinest when
thy Lord is fasting3?" But I forget that this is not dinner, but
supper, even though they eat the meal at noon : for so they
choose by a beautiful distinction to prove themselves good 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 ? Now as to the Creed : I acknowledge it to be an apos-
P T. ii. p 291; I. 443; VI. 448; v. 126.]
P Rescindis legem, qui exemplum jejunii Dominici non custodis.]
P Qualis Christianus es, cum Domino jejunante tu 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 key of Peter, Serm. 38.
Jerome, in his epistle to Marcella, says that Lent is an apos
tolical tradition4, and in his Dialogue against the Luciferians recog
nises the custom of the church5. To this I answer : With respect to
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 by 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, Ep. 118,
where Augustine writes thus : " Now those which we observe,
handed down though not written, and which are indeed observed
by the whole world, may be understood to have been commended
and enjoined to be kept either by the apostles themselves, or by
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 Holy Ghost, and anything else of the like
nature, which is observed by the whole church wheresoever diffused
throughout the world6." I answer, that Augustine's name stands
high in the church, and deservedly : yet we must remember that
he was a man, and therefore might err. And although he seems
in this place to favour traditions, yet in others he defends the
perfection of scripture with the utmost earnestness, as shall after
wards be more conveniently shewn. He was most clearly of
P Nos unam quadragesimam secundum traditionem apostolorum toto
nobis orbe congruo jejunamus. — Opp. T. iv. part. 2. coll. 64, 65. Paris, 1706.]
p Etiam si scripturse auctoritas non subesset, totius orbis in hanc partem
consensus instar prsecepti obtineret. Nam et multa alia, quse per traditionem
in ecclesiis observantur, auctoritatem sibi scriptse legis usurpaverunt. — Ibid.
col. 294. These words are put into the mouth of the Luciferian : but the
general principle is not disowned by the orthodox Dialogist.]
P Ilia autem, quse non scripta sed tradita custodimus, quse quidem toto
terrarum orbe observantur, dantur inteUigi vel ab ipsis apostolis vel plena-
riis conciliis (quorum est in ecclesia saluberrima auctoritas) commendata
atque statuta retineri; sicuti quod Domini passio et resurrectio et ascensio in
coehim et adventus de coelo Spiritus Sancti anniversaria solemnitate cele-
brantur, et si quid aliud occurrerit, quod servatur ab universa, quacunque se
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 ob
served throughout the whole world. Now what are these ? The
solemn annual celebration of the passion, resurrection, ascension of
the Lord, and the descent* of the Holy Spirit from heaven. I
answer, in the first place, that these traditions are of no great
moment : for without these traditions our whole religion may be
safe and sound; consequently these traditions are not necessary.
We 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, by 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 by the apostles or by 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 apostohcal 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 by all churches. He says so indeed, but he does not
prove it, nor could he have proved it ; for he did not know what
was wont to be done by 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 it : but he could
not have been equally certain of all other churches.
However, the Jesuit endeavours to remove these answers of
ours : and, firstly, argues that these customs were not free, because
Augustine subjoins that those things which vary with places are
free ; 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 ?
To salvation? By no means; but because it was necessary for
every 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

XH.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 607
Galatians 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
answer : Yet 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 them :
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.
He 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. vn. c. 19,
and Augustine, Ep. 86, are clearly on our side in this matter : for
they write that neither Christ nor his apostles prescribed any thing
concerning festival days.
The second testimony cited by 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 by heretics, whose baptism
he affirms ought not to be repeated. And although Augustine
says that this is a tradition, yet he does not say that it is not in
scripture ; yea, he proves the same from scripture by 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, yet placed his great foun
dation in tradition. I answer : Nevertheless, Lib. v. c. 4, he
uses these expressions, "Supported by so many and such important
testimonies of scripture," &c. — and 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.
Here we must remark the impudence of Bellarmine. He says that
Augustine does not prove his point from scripture, but only related
by what scripture his opponents endeavoured to prove theirs ; the
falsehood of which is manifest. We read indeed, Lib. n. c. 8, that
Cyprian was pressed with the authority of custom by the Roman
bishop Stephen, and yet did not yield to it. Now if the authority
of custom were as great as the papists wish to make it, he should
have yielded. Andradius, however, Defens. Con. Trid. Lib. n.
expressly says that Augustine pleaded many testimonies of scrip
ture against the Donatists ; whence I argue thus : Those testi
monies which Augustine used were either apposite, or they were
not : if they were, then he refuted the Donatists by 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 answer ; — that Augustine
brings conjectures out of scripture, which have indeed some effi
cacy towards establishing the truth after it hath been denned
by a council, but are not sufficient of themselves. Nothing can
be conceived more unworthy than this reply. For, first, con
jectures drawn from scripture are so far from being sufficient to
refute heretics, that they have absolutely no weight at all. Augus
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. 47, he himself plainly declares, that he rests upon " most
weighty testimonies of scripture" and " plain reasons of truth."
Lib. v. c. 23, he writes that it is contrary to the commandment of
God to baptize those who come from the heretics, if they have
already received baptism amongst them, "because it is not only
shewn, but clearly shewn by the testimony of scripture," &c.
Bellarmine says that Chemnitz hath been dishonest in his citation
of this passage. Why ? Because those words " it is plainly shewn
by 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 by 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

XH-] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 609
saints, have -yet one common baptism with the saints1." Who sees
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, " We may perceive by
so many and great testimonies of scripture, and clear reasons of
truth, that Christ's baptism cannot be destroyed by the perversity
of any man2?" And elsewhere, "Because it is not only shewn,
but manifestly shewn, by 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 Decentius3. However he hath omitted this testimony from
Innocent, and the next from Leo, in his printed edition, although they
appear in his MS. 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. n. 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 mys
teries are completed, that confirmation is to be celebrated by the
bishop, remarking that he dares not utter the words of confirmation,
lest he should seem to betray the mysteries4- Now what, I pray
P Quia scripturarum sanctarum testimoniis non solum ostenditur, sed
plane ostenditur, multos pseudo-christianos, quanquam non habeant eandem
caritatem cum Sanctis, baptismum tamen communem habere cum Sanctis.]
P Tot tantisque scripturarum testimoniis et perspicuis rationibus veri
tatis intelligitur Christi baptismum non fieri cujusUbet hominis perversitate
perversum.] P Innocentii ad Decentium Ep. vi. inter Epp. Decret. ac Rescriptt. Rom.
Pontiff. Matriti. 1821. p. 10.]
P Verba vero dicere non possum, ne magis prodere videar, quam ad con-
sultationem respondere. — Ib. p. 11.]
39
[whitaker.]

610 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
you, are these so mystic words? Confirmo te signo crucis, et
ungo te chrismate salutis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus
Sancti. These words he dared not utter. Wherefore ?
He then adduces a testimony from Leo, Serm. 6. de Quadrag.1
and elsewhere. I answer, in the first place, that Leo was wrong
in saying that the apostles instituted fasts, which they never insti
tuted. Secondly, I say that those fasts which Leo dehvered are
not now observed by the papists. For he speaks of fasts upon the
fourth and sixth days of the week : 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. in. c. 2,
and Tertulhan'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 : ye,a, those very same heretics
embraced traditions, as is abundantly evident from these same
authors Irenaaus 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 Irenseus means, and by which they clearly saw that they
were refuted ; for Irenseus produced the tradition of the apostolic
churches. Now this tradition was no other than the conservation
and propagation of the apostolic doctrine by the public ministry of
the church. Nor is it wonderful that those men should have despised
P Quod ergo, dilectissimi, in omni tempore unumquemque convenit
facere Christianum, id nunc solicitius est et devotius exsequendum, ut aposto-
lica institutio quadraginta dierum jejuniis impleatur. — Loon. Opp. p. 40.
Lugd. 1633.]

XIII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 611
traditions, who made no account of scripture, and thought themselves
wiser than the apostles. As to Cyprian, his error did not lie in
rejecting custom and appealing to scripture, (for he is praised by
Augustine for doing so,) but in thinking that his opinion could be
established by scripture, whereas scripture is subversive of it. Even
Gratian, Dist. 8 and 9, approves of Cyprian for refusing to yield to
mere custom2. Bellarmine subjoins that the Arians (to mention no
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 already : on which account we condemn the
Arians for rejecting the Homoiision. However, religion and piety
do not consist in words ; and Luther said truly, that he should not
be a heretic if he rejected the term Homoiision, and yet 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 Anatohus, ap. Euseb. Lib. vn. c. 28, testify
that the Jews had unwritten traditions. I answer : In the first
place, it is a mere talmudical and cabbalistic fancy to suppose, that
though the law was dehvered in writing by Moses, the mysteries
of the law were concealed by him, and entrusted only orally to
persons wiser than the rest. Hence have arisen their exceeding
foohsh traditions of the Mishnah (Sevrepwaeis), 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. The 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. What (I beseech you) were the points which
you determined not to be contained in the law? Expiation of
original sin in the case of women, or of males dying before the
eighth day. So Stapleton also, Lib. xn. c. 5, with whom Bellar
mine agrees, as you have already heard. But we have sufficiently
replied to these conjectures. Stapleton however adds, that "nei-
P Et certe, ut beati Cypriani utamur sententia, quselibet consuetudo ....
veritati est postponenda. — Decret. Pars I. Dist. 8. c. 6. Corp. Jur. Canon.
Lugd. 1591.]
39—2

612 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
ther is faith in Christ as mediator ever written of in the whole old
Testament." Who can tolerate such an assertion as this, that the
faith of Christ in nowhere found in the whole old Testament ? Why
then does Christ affirm that the scriptures testify of him ? Or why
did the apostles establish the Christian faith by 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 hved 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 Lord." 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 by no means to be thought.
But Bellarmine goes on to prove from Thucydides, Aristotle,
Lycurgus, Cicero, and Csesar, that profane nations also were in
great measure governed by unwritten laws, and had their unwritten
customs. He adds proofs, besides, from the canon and civil law.
He 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. Pohtical
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 dehver all
things necessary for salvation in the scriptures. Yet even in the
state custom does not always prevail. Cicero says in his book de
Claris Oratoribus, "We 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, ovy^
ws yeyove iroXXaKis, dXX tu? irpoarjKei ylyvea9ai. 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 THE SIXTH. 613
place, " Christ named himself truth, not custom1." As to the canon
law, see Gratian, Distinct. 8, where he shews from Cyprian, Augus
tine, and Gregory, 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 hght of reason,
and understand what they should do : but in religion, and things
pertaining to faith, they are blind by nature and cannot without
the divine words and laws rightly worship God, or attain to life.
Wherefore they are by no means to be left to themselves, but must
be bound to certain and written laws.
The Jesuit's seventh argument is taken from the dignity and
privilege of the church. The church, says he, is the pillar of
truth, the bride of Christ, &c. Now 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, Lib. in. 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 God ; 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. As to the former kind
of knowledge, it is no privilege of the church ; 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 piety ; though, notwithstanding, they main
tain them to have been exquisitely skilled in scripture in respect of
their knowledge of the letter. Yea, 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 body of the elect ; for
they only are taught of God, they only understand the scriptures
aright. The rest hearing hear not, seeing see not, and readmg
P Quodcunque adversus veritatem sapit, hoc erit hseresis, etiam vetus
consuetudo  Christus veritatem se, non consuetudinem cognominavit. —
c. 1, p. 220, Col. Agripp. 1617.]

614 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
understand not. In Luke viii. 10, Christ says to his disciples:
" To you," that is, the faithful, " it is given to understand the
mysteries of the kingdom of God ; 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 "the natural man re
ceiveth not the things of God ;" and they themselves cannot deny that
many of their prelates may have been, and actually were, such.
The 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 all ; 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 them? I confess, indeed, that
Christ and the apostles wrote nothing about such toys as these.
But the eucharist itself is described by three evangelists, Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, and by the apostle Paul besides. What then?
Were they unwise in writing these things? Yea, rather they
were wise, and our adversaries foolish for thinking otherwise. The
Jesuit next uses the following argument : Christ explained his
parables to the disciples apart, Luke viii. Therefore, &c. I an
swer : We also say in like manner that the scriptures cannot be
understood by all, and yet should be set before all. So Christ
proposed his parables to all, though he only explained them to his
disciples. For the true interpretation of scripture is granted only
to the elect and faithful. The Jesuit argues, thirdly, from 1 Cor.
ii. 6. " We speak wisdom amongst them that are perfect." There
fore, says he, all things are not to be told to all, but some are to
be reserved for the perfect and wise. I answer : Now 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. For these heretics, as
appears from Irenseus, Lib. in. c. 2, made use of this same testi
mony 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. The 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 Greeks ; 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, "The faithful under
stand this ; the initiated know what is said1." I answer : I confess,
indeed, that these words frequently occur in the fathers, and I
know well that the fathers were very careful and anxious to afford
no occasion to the Gentiles and profane of ridiculing those holy
mysteries. They 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. We will now
begin to assail them in our turn. First, we will produce our argu
ments from scripture, as being far the strongest of all; and of
these scriptural arguments, we will place foremost those which
Bellarmine hath attempted to answer.
The first passage of scripture is contained in Deut. iv. 2, " Thou
shalt not add unto this word which I speak unto you, neither shalt
thou diminish from it." Also in Deut. xii. in the last verse, similar
expressions occur : "Do only this which I command you ; thou shalt
not add thereto, nor diminish aught from it." From 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 by 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
P io-ao-iv ol pepvijpevoi. This phrase, as observed by Casaubon, occurs
at least fifty times in the writings of Chrysostom alone.]

616 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
contain a full and perfect body of doctrine, as they certainly do,
and Moses therefore forbids any addition to be made, then surely
a most abundantly perfect body of doctrine must needs be found
in the whole circle of the books of the old and new Testaments.
The minor rests upon the express words of scripture, " Thou 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. He 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 by two reasons : first, because the scriptures were not
then extant ; secondly, because Moses says " Which I command
you," not, which I write. I reply to the first, that his assertion
that the scriptures were not then pubhshed is manifestly shewn to
be. false by 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 Exod. xxiv. 4, we read, " Moses wrote all the words of the
Lord." This was in the first or second year after the departure
from Egypt. Now 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 death ; 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 book of Deuter
onomy was then written, appears from the book itself; since we
often read in it, " the words which are written in this book."
This probably Bellarmine perceived on second thoughts; for he
hath omitted this reason in his late publication, although he presses
it in the MS. He 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 Lord had commanded him.
What? Were 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 day," &c. And from verse 58 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 book," &c. At the end of Deut. xxvii.
we read thus : " Cursed be he who continueth not in all the words
of this law;" and Paul, Galat. iii. 10, interprets this to mean
written words : " In all things which are written in the book of
this law." Thus he imphes 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?
Yet Joshua himself is referred, and, as it were, tied to the book,
Josh. L: "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 pubhshed, 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, you shall make no change, either by addition or diminution :
but he does not say, you shall observe nothing else but what I
now command you. I answer : I confess, indeed, that false inter
pretations of scripture are condemned in these words; but this is
not the whole of what is here prohibited. For when God forbids
them to add, he signifies that this body of doctrine was so perfect
as that nothing could or should be added to it ; and that, therefore,
we should acquiesce in it, be satisfied with it, and cleave to it alone.
They 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 body of
doctrine, to which nothing should be added. The ancient Jews
understood and explained these words to mean that nothing should
be added to the written word. So Josephus, quoted by Eusebius,
Lib. in. 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.
Nor let any one suppose that Chrysostom speaks there of things
contrary to scripture ; for he refers to those rites of frequent
washings used by the Jews. Those washings were not simply
contrary to scripture, but only because the Pharisees made holiness
consist in them ; 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 word ; 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
from this that the law of God is perfect."
But let us see how Bellarmine estabhshes 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. The
papists cannot establish their traditions by the same authority.
Secondly, that the prophets and apostles, when they wrote new
books, added nothing to the written word of God. For we must
distinguish two things in the word of God; — the sum of the
doctrine itself, and its principal heads, — and the explication of
these heads. As to the sum of doctrine, nothing was added by
the prophets and apostles ; which may thus be easily proved. The
whole scripture is composed of two parts, the law and the gospel.
No one denies that the whole law of Moses, moral, judicial, and
ceremonial, is written. But perhaps doubts may be entertained
respecting the gospel. Nay, the whole of the gospel itself may
be 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 of Moses. But as to
the clearer exposition and explication of this teaching, many ad-
P Sacra enim scriptura est regula fidei, cui nee addere nee subtrahere
licet. — Secunda secundse, Qusest. I. Art. ix. Tom. n. p. 6, Antwerp. 1627.]

XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 619
ditions were made by the prophets and apostles. The prophets
illustrated Moses, the apostles the prophets : but neither the one
nor the other added any dogma which is not found in the books of
Moses ; just as he who explains a law adds nothing to the law. On
this account the apostles prove their gospel by the books of the
old Testament ; and Christ says, John v., " Search the scriptures
... for they testify of me."
But BeUarmine persists, and turns upon Chemnitz, Brentius,
and Calvin, who had used this answer, thus : 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. He uses a comparison to illustrate this answer
of his : 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 Lord your God
raise up unto you like unto me ; him shall ye hear ;" so we are
in the general commanded by the apostle to "keep 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 by 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 say : Woe to the gloss which corrupts the text !
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. The 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 old ; for this occurs to me as I ponder the subject.

620 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
Yet 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 you a prophet like
unto me ; him shall ye 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. 22, that he said "nothing but what
Moses and the prophets did say." So Christ, Luke xxiv. 27, " be
ginning at Moses and all the prophets, expounded in aU the scrip
tures the things concerning himself." There were, therefore, other
testimonies, sufficiently clear, besides that single one which Bellar
mine cites. And Rom. i. 2, Paul says, that the gospel was pro
mised in the prophets. It is false then that the new Testament
is only potentially in the old. For the whole gospel is no less
perfectly in the old than in the new Testament, although not so
perspicuously. The tree is as much in the old Testament, as in
the new, though it spreads not its branches so diffusely.
Irenaaus, Lib. iv. c. 66, after having shewn at large that Christ
accomplished all that the prophets had predicted, subjoins at length
at the close of that chapter: "Read more diligently the gospel given
us by the apostles, and read more diligently the prophets, and ye will
find that all that the Lord did and suffered and taught is preached
in them1." 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 old." And, c. Faust. Manich.
Lib. xvn. e. 6, he writes thus : " Christ came not to add what was
wanting, but to do and accomplish what was written2." And he
says that Christ himself indicates this in his own words, when he
says, " One jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law" (not,
until what is wanting be added, but) " until all things which are
P Legite diligentius id quod ab apostoUs est evangelium nobis datum, et
legite diligentius prophetas, et invenietis universam actionem, et omnem doc
trinam, et omnem passionem Domini nostri prsedicatam in ipsis. — p. 404.
Paris. 1675.]
p Venit Christus non ut adderentur quse deerant, sed ut fierent et
implerentur quse scripta sunt.]

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 Testament3." 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.
We 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 wiov iritiTOV ; to ev roiavrrj irXnpoCpopla avvSiarl-
6ea0ai rrj Svvap.ei rwv elprjfxevwv, Kal fxnSev roX/xav a9erelv t)
¦$''/).¦ x - t\ , ¦ , < , >
eirioiararreavai ei yap irav o ovk e/c iriarews a/xapria etrriv,
ws (prjoiv b awbaToXos, r) Se irlaris ef aKorjs, v Se aKor) Sid
pri/xaros Qeov, irav to e/CTos rrjs 9eoirvevarov ypatprjs, ovk e/c
iriarews bv, dfxaprla earnv*. 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, e/cros rrjs 9eoirvevarov ypatprjs, 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
P Quidquid in vetere Testamento legimus, hoc idem in evangelio
reperimus ; et quod in evangeUo fuerit lectitatum, hoc ex veteris Testamenti
auctoritate deducitur.]
P MoraUa, Reg. 80, 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 words:
the prophets or the apostles might add other books. Yet 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. For we
may, by parity of reason, argue thus : The authority and analogy
of the other books is the same : if, therefore, it be not lawful to
add to this book, then, by 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 body 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 xxx. 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. 12,
that nothing should be taken away from the divine commands1.
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 also ; and our countrymen of
Rheims allege his testimony in their annotations. Now in that
exposition Ambrose affirms two things : First, that he who
expounds the scriptures adds nothing ; where he tacitly imphes
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
p Si quid enim vel addas vel detrahas, preevaricatio qusedam videtur esse
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.
We 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
words : " Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let
him be accursed ;" and afterwards, v. 9, " If any one preach any
other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be
accursed." It is a remarkable passage, and used by 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. Now the popish traditions (even granting them
to be not contrary to the scriptures) are yet wholly beside the
scriptures: those therefore who defend them, he under the
weight of this anathema. Whoever 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 by
the judgment of Augustine, c. Liter. Petilian. Lib. in. c. 6 ; and of
Basil, in Summa, Moral. 72, 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 dehvered; 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 God which he preached ; but I maintain that
the whole of that word is contained in the scriptures. For from
what source did the apostle confirm his gospel ? Assuredly, from
the scriptures of the old Testament. How does this appear?
From Acts xvii. 10, where we read that the Bereans examined the
gospel and doctrine of Paul by the scriptures ; which they would
not have done, if all that Paul had delivered were not contained in
the scriptures. In Acts xxvi. 22, 23, 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 by the evidence of Moses and the prophets. The whole of
Paul's Gospel can therefore be proved by the certain and clear
authority of the old Testament.
Now 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 above :
" Whether the subject be Christ, or his church, or anything else
appertaining to our faith and hfe ; 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 you have received in the scriptures of
the law and of the gospel, let him be accursed!" 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. For, 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 written :" 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. Now Basil's words, Moral. 72,
are to this effect : " It behoves those hearers who are skilled in
scripture, to examine what is delivered by their teachers, and to
receive whatever is consonant to scripture, but reject whatever is
alien from it1." 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
P hel rav aKpoardv tovs ireiraihevpevovs ras ypa(bas hoKipd£eiv ra irapd r<w
hihao-KaXav Xeydpeva- Kal ra pev o-vpxj>ava rais ypa(f>a1t hexeo-Bai, ra he dXXorpia
airoPdXXeiv.—Opr}. T. II. p. 372.]

XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 625
have proposed some other test besides the scriptures, by which those
skilled in scripture should examine the sayings and teachings of
their instructors. For 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 Word, and Cyril in his book upon the Orthodox Faith. I
answer : Traditions are either consonant to scripture, and then
they should be received, and those who do not receive them are
condemned in these words ; 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.
He says, in the second place, that the word "beside" in
this place is equivalent to " against :" 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. The Rhemists
explain the passage in a similar way; and so does Stapleton,
Lib. xn. c. 10. We, however, take the word " beside" in its
strict sense, so as to bring under this denunciation whatever is de
livered beside that gospel delivered by the apostle. But let us see
the reasons by which Bellarmine seems to confirm this reply of his.
He hath four of them. The first is, because Paul himself taught
and wrote many things beside ; and after this Epistle, John wrote
his Apocalypse and his Gospel. 1 answer : 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. Now 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
r i 40
[WHITAKER.]

626 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
against those who maintained the obligation of the law : now to
maintain this was against, and not merely beside, the gospel preached
by 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. For the apostle says that the false apostles
had transferred the Galatians to " another gospel, which," says he
in that same chapter, " is 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 dehvered 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 dehvered. In order, therefore, to obviate
this false pretence, the apostle says, " beside what I preached unto
you, and ye received :" as if he had said, I taught you nothing of
the kind ; therefore those who introduce such things are to be
avoided, and by 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 Rom. xvi. 17, where the
apostle writes thus : " I beseech you, brethren, mark those who
cause divisions and offences, beside the doctrine which ye have
learned ;" where, says he, Erasmus translates it, against. I an
swer : I confess it, and so does Beza : for whatever is against
scripture is also beside it; and, conversely also, whatever in our
holy rehgion is taught beside the scriptures, is against the scriptures
too, if it carry with it any notion of necessity, that is, if it be pro
posed as a necessary doctrine. Since the apostles dehvered 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 irapa 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 "beside" by "against."
I answer, that in religious matters beside is equivalent to against

XIV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 627
the scriptures: but we have already shewn the reason why the
apostle uses the term beside rather than against, because it suited
his purpose better. There is no necessity for answering his pa
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 you all the contrary,
or subvert the whole gospel, but even if they preach you any (that
is, even a slight and minute, even the smallest) thing beside that
gospel which ye 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, They have Moses and the prophets ; if they
believe not them, neither will they be persuaded though one rose
from the dead. Now 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 eyeipo/uevwv agioiruTTorepas fiovXerai eivai ras ypa(pas.
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 de
scending out of heaven, Kal dyyeXwv e% ovpavov Karafiaivovrwv
avrds irporl9r]<ji, and that very properly ; since angels, however
great, are but servants and ministers ; whereas the whole scripture
hath come to us not from servants, but from God the Lord 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 not only against, but beside the
scriptures. So CEcumenius upon this place, to irap o SrjXol rb
baov Srjirore fxiKpbv tov Kripvyfxaros' " How small soever it be, let
him be accursed." So Theophylact remarks that the apostle does
not say " contrary to," but " beside."
I come now to Augustine, some of whose words Bellarmine
cites from his ninety-eighth Tractate upon the gospel of John;
and the same words are cited also by the Rhemists in their note
upon this place to the Galatians. There Augustine writes, that the
apostle said not, " Above what ye have received, but beside what
ye have received1. For had he said the former, he would have
P Nam si illud diceret, sibi ipsi prsejudicaret, qui cupiebat venire ad
Thessalonicences, ut suppleret quse illorum fldei defuerunt. Sed qui supplet,
quod minus erat addit, non quod inerat tolUt.]
40 — 2

628 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
answered himself by anticipation, who desired to come to the
Thessalonians that he might supply what was lacking in their faith."
I answer : This testimony is of no weight against us and our expo
sition, because although Paul meant to go to the Thessalonians to
give them more instruction, yet it was in the same, and not in
different points. As 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. The apostle had
delivered to them the whole doctrine, but they had not received it
all ; 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 hfe. 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.
Now the fourth passage of scripture which we cite against
traditions is contained in the last verse of the twentieth chapter of
John, and runs thus : " These are written that ye might believe
that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that beheving ye
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 by 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.
49 in Joan, and de Consensu Evangel. Lib. i. c. 35, and of Cyril
upon John, Lib. xn. c. ult. Bellarmine is here upon the rack,
and turns himself on all sides to evade the difficulty. At 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
ravra, which he subjoins in this, is to be understood of doctrine
rather than of miracles. For 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. 122 ; so de Lyra ; so cardinal
Hugo ; so Jansenius. Augustine says that the end of the book is
indicated in these words. De Lyra says that in these words the
utility of this doctrine is pointed out. Cardinal Hugo writes thus :
" 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 by himself; and that therefore if these are sufficient, the
other scriptures will be superfluous. I answer: If the things written
by John are such as that we may by them reach faith and salvation,
then much more may we reach faith and salvation by 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, yet it does not thence follow that all necessary things were
not then written. But when he says, " These are written that ye
might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God," he is not
to be understood to assert that faith or salvation could in no way
be received without these scriptures. For 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 by this
present way we reach faith and 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. For that faith which
brings salvation is perfect ; and consequently the medium whereby
that faith is produced is also perfect. An argument may be framed
thus : 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. He 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. For if John hath sufficiently-
written all Christ's sayings, then he hath sufficiently for our pur
poses committed his whole doctrine to writing. He 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. in. c. ult. However, if we consult Augustine and Cyril, we
shall easily perceive the falsehood of this interpretation. Augus
tine says ( Tract. 49. in Joan.) that " those things which seemed
sufficient for the salvation of behevers were chosen to be committed
to writing1;" and does not say that what was written was suffi
ciently written. Therefore all things are sufficiently written, which
are sufficient for our salvation and necessary to it. The same
father (de Consensu Evangel. Lib. i. c. ult.) writes thus : " What
soever he (i. £. 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, "What he wished that we should read."
But this makes signally against themselves. For 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. For if he
had wished them to be either written or read, who should have
written them rather than the apostles who wrote the rest? or
where should they have been read rather than in the canonical
books and writings ? Cyril upon John, Lib. xn. c. ult., says that
those things are written " which the writers deemed sufficient both
for morals and for doctrine." Two 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 also;
therefore he says, " which the writers," that is the apostles,
P Electa sunt . . . quse scriborcntur, quse saluti credentium sufficere cre-
debantur. — Opp. T. in. col. 2163. Paris. 1837. — The other references are
cited more largely below, chap. 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, why, I beseech you, 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, "Believe what the church teaches:" just as he
had before said, that his traditions were, in the general, enjoined by
Paul in those words, " Hold the traditions," so as to leave nothing
more to be desired. Augustine however, as ye 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 we; but assuredly I do say what he added in that
place, Though an angel from heaven preach any thing beside what
ye 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. n. gives a different answer, but one so
ridiculous and foohsh that Bellarmine did not choose to make use of
it. He says that Augustine and Cyril write, that those things which
are written are sufficient, not because the evangelists have com
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 be
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 support ! For 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 by 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 "most
holy persons" 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 only." We 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. 16, 17 : " All scripture is given by inspiration
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and
for instruction in righteousness ; that the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished for every good work." I will not here dispute
whether the apostle speaks here only of the books of the old, or of
the books of both Testaments. My opinion is that these words
refer to the new Testament also : for although the books of the new
Testament had not yet been published when Timothy was a child,
yet 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.
For 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 body
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.
From this passage we draw the following conclusion : The whole scrip
ture is useful for the end of rendering the man of God perfect for
every good work : therefore, the scriptures are sufficient for all things
necessary for us. Our opponent hath a twofold reply : first, by con
ceding a certain sort of sufficiency ; secondly, by denying that suffi
ciency which we maintain. Let us examine these replies.
First, he says, it may be replied that the scriptures do, in
a certain sense, sufficiently instruct and perfect a man of God,
forasmuch as many things are " expressly " contained in scrip
ture, and the same scripture teaches us also whence the "rest
may be derived." We have already answered this reply, by 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 may be derived ; because then
there would have been no need that the Holy Spirit should have
published so many books of scripture. The Decalogue, the Creed,
and the Lord's Prayer would have been enough, and there would
have been no necessity for so many pieces. But the Holy 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
be found. This reply therefore was an absurd one, Yet 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 be derived, as the papists themselves
confess, when it says, " Hold the traditions." Therefore, if this
reply were sound, that epistle would have been sufficient. The
same might be said of the book of Ruth, Joshua, and others. Bel
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 " all " scripture. Therefore
the apostle ascribes his commendation not only to the whole scrip
ture, but to all, that is, to each several book. Every part of scrip
ture, then, and each several book, must be perfect, if he speak of
such a perfection of scripture. So Stapleton, Lib. xn. c. 8, ex
pounds this place not of the " whole," but of " every " scripture.
I answer : " All " in this place is equivalent to " the whole," and
is frequently so used ; as, " all " life is full of wretchedness, that
is, " the whole " of life. So Coloss. ii. 9, " In him dwelleth irav
rb irXrjpw/ixa1, 'all the fulness' of the Godhead;" that is, "the
whole." So 2 Thessalon. i. 11, " To fulfil irdaav evSoKiav," that
is, " the whole." And frequently in scripture we read " all Israel,"
meaning the whole house of Israel. So Luke xxi. 31, irds b Xaos,
" the whole people :" and Ephes. iv. 16, irav rb awjxa, " the whole
body :" and Matth. iii. 5, irdaa r] 'lovSala Kal iraaa r) ireplywpos
rod 'lopSdvov, "the whole of Judaaa and the whole region," &c.
Acts xx. 27, Paul says that he had declared irdaav rrjv (iovXrjv
rov Qeov, " the whole counsel of God." Rom. iv. 16, iravrl rip
o-irepp-ari, " to the whole seed." And 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
9ebirvevaroi. But this the papists do not concede. Our inter
pretation may also be confirmed from the preceding context ; where
the apostle shews that he is speaking of the whole body of scripture.
For Paul says above, that Timothy was skilled in the scriptures
from a boy. 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 may be gathered also from what follows : for Paul says
that " Scripture is useful for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness :" now this great ability of scrip
ture must be gained from the whole of it, not from any one book or
P The reader, however, needs hardly to be reminded that irds with the
article is a very different thing from irds without the article. There could be
no doubt of the meaning of irdo-a 17 ypacprj.]

634 THE 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 be found in each several book, is absurd.
He 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 God," 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, " Take heed unto
yourselves that we lose not what we have wrought," which apper
tains to correction. Now 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 "perfect" (e^aprlorj) the
man of God. Secondly, Bellarmine disputes thus : When 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 body of doctrine. For the books written afterwards do
not prove that that body was not perfect, but only that what we
now have is more perfect. For 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 body of scrip
ture, this judgment appertains by 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 Tes
tament is useful. I answer : The apostle does not argue from the
universal to the particular, but from the efficient and the final
cause. From the efficient thus: 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 ypaipr) 9ebirvevoros, Kal
wcpeXifxos. 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 Paul ; for
this was the last epistle which Paul wrote a short time before he
departed out of this life. What ! did not this apostle commend
these scriptures also to Timothy ? Undoubtedly he did.
Now, after obviating the sophistry of Bellarmine, let us proceed
to confirm our own argument, which we state thus : The 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 Chark1. With this reply they seem to stop our
mouths; yet is it a mere subterfuge. For 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. For although everything that is
useful is not sufficient, yet if all sufficient things are useful, then,
conversely, some useful things are sufficient, and some kind of
usefulness is sufficient and complete. Now, such is the usefulness
mentioned in this place : 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 aofplaai, that is, ' to make a man
wise' unto salvation. Therefore they are sufficient. For wisdom
contains the perfection of knowledge. Now, from the scriptures
everything may be derived which can render men wise : therefore
all things requisite to perfect knowledge are contained in the scrip
tures. 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 by 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 ? By this, that in the four heads here enumerated
are contained and included all things requisite to our salvation.
[i "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. e. 22. p.
646. Life of Parker, App. 74.]

636 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
What we are obliged to do is, either to teach truth, or to refute
errors, or to direct life aright, or to reprove vice. The 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. AiSao-KaXla denotes sound doctrine ; eXeyy^os, the
refutation of false opinions ; iraiSela, the godly direction of life ;
eiravopQwats, the correction of manners. Scripture is profitable
for. all these purposes. Yes, you may say, — but not sufficient.
Yea, I affirm, profitable and sufficiently profitable ; which is even
still more evident from what follows. For he subjoins, " that the
man of God may be perfect (dpnos n), thoroughly furnished (e^rjp-
ritjLievos) unto every good work." The phrase, "man of God,"
is taken here in the same sense as in 1 Tim. vi. 11. It denotes
a minister or pastor, as Melchior Canus confesses, Lib. in. c. ult.
Hence, therefore, we may reason thus : The scriptures render a
minister thoroughly furnished unto every good work: therefore
they are sufficient. For 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 by 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 same : so much as the pastor ought to teach, just so
much, and no more, the people ought to know and beheve. Now,
he is called dpnos, or perfect, who lacks nothing. The 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. And although the old
translator hath rendered e^r/pncrfxevov by instructum, yet he un
doubtedly means perfectly furnished. So in Matth. xxi. 16, where
Christ cites a passage from the eighth Psalm, e/c trrbfxaros vrjirlwv
Kal 9rjXa^6vrwv Karr/prlirw alvov, the old interpreter translates it,
Ex ore infantium et lactentium perfecisti laudem. So in Luke
vi. 40, where the disciple who shall be as his Lord is called e%np-
rio-fxevos, the old interpreter renders it by perfectus. The 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 God 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 hght 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
me ; thence thou canst learn whatever thou wouldest know :" dir
epov (rpr/tri) rds ypa(pd<s e^ets" et n (iovXeL /ixa9e7v, melOev
Swrjarj. 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 it ; but in saying this he shews that
they are sufficient if one believes them. Even papists themselves
do not blame this interpretation. One Augustinus Villavicentius1,
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, "Ye 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 men :" and Galat. i. 14,2 where Paul says] that,
before his conversion, he was " zealous for the traditions of his
P Whitaker has mistaken the name of this author, as appears from
Placcius (De Scriptor. Pseudon. p. 609) ; which reference I owe to the kind
ness of my friend Mr Gibbings. The title of the work referred to is —
De recte formando studio theologico libri quatuor ; ac de formandis sacris
concionibus libri tres : omnes coUecti et restituti per fratrem Laur. a Villa-
vincentio, Xerezamum, Doctorem Theologum, Augustinianum, Eremitani,
nunc denuo diUgentissime correcti et emendati. — Colon. 1575. See the
Literary History of the Book in Bayle, Art. Hyperius.]
P In the text the reference is by a mistake to verse 20.]

638 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
elders." From these and the like places, we reason thus : Christ
and the apostles condemn traditions : therefore, they are not to
be received ; and consequently scripture is sufficient. Bellarmine
hath but one reply, 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 by the authority of Epiphanius, Irenseus, and Jerome.
I answer : Firstly, it is false that the Jews received any traditions
from Moses and the prophets. He 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, " They have
Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." Now by Moses and
the prophets the scriptures are meant, as in Luke xxiv. 27. There
is no mention in scripture of these traditions : the scriptures say
not a single word about them: there were, therefore, none. Be
sides, who were the guardians of these traditions ? They 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.
Not to the moral ; for that was perfectly delivered in the decalogue,
and expounded in the other books : 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. Now although
the explication of these ceremonies is nowhere contained in the
scriptures, yet that is nothing to the purpose : 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 by these rites. The 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. They 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
by Christ, but all which do not rest upon the authority of scrip
ture. For 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
kind: yea, they seem to carry a sort of piety upon the face of
them; 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, rwv irpeafivrepwv. This shews plainly
that these traditions were not very recent, but sufficiently ancient
in their date. And Christ by 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 church, — the distinction
of days, places, persons, meats, and such like ; all which we pro
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
God ; 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 by themselves. The truth of this is witnessed by
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 by Bellarmine, there is no
necessity for making any reply to them, since we have shewn above
that all unwritten traditions are condemned by Christ. I too can
bring forward fathers. See Cyprian, Ep. 63 and 74, 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. 52 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 God ;
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 God : thirdly, that this is done not only by those
who introduce things contrary to the scriptures, but also by those
who enjoin things not contrary to them ; 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
precept ; 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 God of none effect, and to incur
his severe displeasure. Now 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. For example, those who are
esteemed religious amongst the papists observe the rules of their
founders far more punctihously than the commands of God: 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. Did Bel
larmine suppose that we had no more testimonies of scripture ?
I will now then set forth those which he bath omitted, and draw
arguments from the several passages.
The 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 Rom.
iii. 19, John xv. 25 ; and the usage is so established, that the name
of the law is given even to the gospel, Rom. iii. 27. 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. Temimah1 is by Tremellius, Bucer, and
Vatablus rendered integra; by Pagninus, Arias Montanus, and Calvin,
perfecta. The 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. The old translator renders it immaculata,
incorrectly. Yet the censor before alluded to abuses this transla
tion to his own purpose : he concedes that the law of God is un
dented, but denies that it is perfect. However, that it is perfect
appears plainly from the other attribute, in that it is said to give
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 thus : 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. The antecedent is true, and
therefore also the consequent.
The second place is taken from Luke i. 3, 4, where Luke in
his preface writes thus : "It seemed good 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, rrjv da<paXelav, of those things wherein thou hast been
orally instructed." Theophilus had been previously instructed in
the christian rehgion, and taught concerning Christ, (as appears
from the words, irepl wv Karrj^^r/s ;) yet Luke thought himself
obliged to write to him the same things as he had learned : and
why ? that he might perceive rrjv da<paXelav, the sure and ascer
tained certainty of those things. Out of scripture therefore there
is no, or no great, " certainty." From these words the following
[i nD^W the feminine of CDfi which Gesenius translates in this
place, perfectus, absolutus.] 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. For we are bound
to have a certain knowledge of all things necessary. Now 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 re
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. The former
is true : therefore also the latter.
The third place is taken from Luke xvi. 29, where Abraham
says to the glutton, " They have Moses and the prophets ; let them
hear them." It is plain enough that all the scriptures of the old
Testament are meant by Moses and the prophets. And when he
says that these should be listened to, he indicates that a perfect
body of teaching may be found in them. This, says Stapleton, Lib.
xn. c. 8, does not follow : for it is one thing, says he, to hear
Moses and the prophets, and quite another to hear nothing else.
By the latter the new Testament would be excluded as superfluous.
I answer : 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. The 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. Abra
ham rejoins, " They have Moses and the prophets ; let them hear
them :" as if he had said, If they hear them, they can from them learn
and know all those things by 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 perfect ; 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, " Nay, father Abraham, but if one went unto them from the
dead, they will repent ;" 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
by no teaching at all. Thirdly, when Abraham says, aKovadrwaav,

xv-] question the sixth. 643
" let them hear them," he means them " alone ;" just as when God
from heaven orders us to hear his Son Christ, Matth. xvii. 5,
"Hear him," he means that Christ should be heard alone. So
Cyprian, Ep. 63, expressly infers from that place in Matthew, that
Christ only should be listened to1. In Deut. x. 20, we are com
manded to worship God, and serve him : Christ, explaining that
place, Matth. iv. 10, properly added the word " only." So in this
passage, " let them hear them," means, let them hear them "only."
As to his objection, that this would make the new Testament super
fluous, I answer, firstly, that the new Testament was not then pub
hshed ; secondly, that these scriptures and traditions do not stand
upon the same grounds ; 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. De Lyra gives no
bad explanation of this passage in the following words : " They have
Moses, who taught moral and practical things : they have the pro
phets, who taught mysteries and points of faith; and these are sufficient
for salvation. Therefore he subjoins, ' Let them hear them.'2" No
words can be plainer. Jansenius, in his Commentary on the Evan
gelists3, c. 97, says that all which we are required to know concerning
a future life may be learned from the scriptures. This is enough ;
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. Now Jansenius says that
we may learn from the scriptures all that we need to know con
cerning the condition of the future life. From 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. The antecedent is true,
and therefore the consequent.
The fourth place is taken from Luke xxiv. 25 and 27. Christ,
in verse 25, blames the disciples for being slow " to believe all that
P Et quod Christus debeat solus audiri, Pater etiam de ccelo contestatur,
dicens  Ipsum audite.— p. 155, ed. Fell. Amstel. 1691.
P Habent Mosen, qui docuit moraUa et agenda: habent prophetas, qui
docuerunt mystica et credenda ; et ista sufflciunt ad salutem : ideo sequitur,
Audiant illos.]
P Louvain, 1571 ; together with his Harmony.]
41—2

644 the first controversy. [ch.
the prophets have spoken." But where can those things be found?
This appears from verse 27. 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
argument : 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. The first is true : therefore also the
second. The force of the consequence is manifest. For the same
reason which impelled the prophets to commit all they said to writ
ing, led the apostles also to take a similar course. For if the pro
phets wrote all that they spoke, why should we not suppose that
the apostles and evangelists, proceeding with the same prudence,
governed by 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 ? The same judgment should be passed
where the cases are the same. And hence those are refuted, who
dream of the existence of some unwritten prophetic traditions. For
Luke 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. The reason is precisely the same. If the ancient church
had every thing in scripture, the christian church likewise hath
every thing in scripture. The antecedent is plain ; therefore also
the consequent. Otherwise God provided better for the Jews than
for us. The fifth place is taken from John v. 39, where Christ says,
" Search the scriptures." The Jews read the scriptures, but did
not understand them aright. Christ therefore exhorts them to give
more diligent attention to the search. He adds as a reason, " For
in them ye think that ye have eternal life." And they thought so
truly, nor does Christ blame that opinion, So Psalm cxix. 2,
"Blessed are they who 'search' his testimonies1." If fehcity
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 Lord day and night." If the
Jews could have made a right use of the scriptures, they would
P The quotation is from the Vulgate, " Beati qui scrutantur testimonia
ejus ;" which, as usual, follows the LXX. who have, ol igepevvavres. But the
Hebrew word is *HSfb , 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. And on this account Christ exhorts
them to search the scriptures. From this place I reason thus :
If by searching the scriptures we can find all things requisite to
salvation and eternal life, then all things necessary are written. Be
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.
The sixth place is taken from Acts i. 1, where Luke writes
thus : " The former treatise have I made, 0 Theophilus, of all
that Jesus began both to do and to teach," &c. Now 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. From this passage we argue thus : If all things that
Jesus said and did are written, then all things which necessity
requires us to know concerning Christ are written. Now the first
is true; therefore also the second. Here perhaps some one may
object, Did he really write all? Nay, he hath omitted many
things written by 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 then? Are those things superfluous, which are written by
the other evangelists ? I answer : 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 by 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 by one with some
obscurity, should be more clearly treated by 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. Now the
first is true, and therefore the second.
The 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, dirb rwv yparpwv, 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 by 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 Jews ; then all testimonies which are re
quisite either to confirm the true doctrine of the gospel or to refute
heresies may be taken out of scripture. The former is true, and
therefore the latter. The consequence is manifest. For if any
other testimony had been necessary, the apostle would have used it.
But he confirmed his doctrine only by the scriptures ; and therefore,
in verse 11, the Bereans are praised for having searched the scrip
tures, and examined Paul's teaching by them. Therefore we ought
to do likewise. Now no heretics are more keen disputers, or more
difficult to be refuted, than the Jews.
The eighth place is taken from Acts xviii. 24 and 28. Apollos
was mighty in the scriptures, and refuted the Jews forcibly, evrd-
vws, out of the scriptures. We may argue here as in the former
case : If 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 by the scriptures alone.
The former is true, and consequently the latter also.
The ninth place is taken from Acts xxiv. 14, where Paul
testifies before the governor, that he believed all things which are
written in the law and the prophets : in which words Paul designed
to give evidence of his faith, rehgion and piety. For the reason
why 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
argue : If all things that should be believed by a faithful and godly
man are delivered in the books of Moses and the prophets, then all
necessary things are found in the scriptures. Now the former is
true, and therefore also the latter. The consequence holds; be
cause the whole worship of God consists in believing those things
which are dehvered by Moses and the prophets, and faith embraces
these alone. So Paul says : " So worship I the God of my fathers,
believing all things which are written in the law and in the
prophets." He 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. 22, 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 BKrbs, " 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.
From this passage we reason thus : 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 holds : for Paul preached the
whole gospel, being designed for this special purpose by God, and
in the whole explication of it spoke nothing beside the scriptures.
In Acts xx. 27, he says that he declared to the Ephesians "the
whole counsel of God." 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. For who will dare to assume to himself what Paul could
not or ought not to do ?
The eleventh place is taken from Rom. 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.
Now, 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 by the prophets ev ypatpals dylais, "in the
holy scriptures." Hence we argue thus : H that gospel which Paul
preached was promised in the scriptures, and Paul preached the
whole gospel ; then the whole gospel was promised in the scriptures,
and may be found in them. The former is true, and consequently
the latter also. What will they deny here ? Did he preach the
whole gospel, or only a part of it? Did he not preach the whole ?
Nay, 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 by Paul, let them specify how large a part
that was. But they cannot. Chrysostom writes admirably upon

648 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
this place: "The prophets did not merely speak, but committed
what they spoke to writing ; nor did they merely write, but pre
figured future events also in real types. Such was Abraham's
leading his son Isaac to sacrifice; Moses' hfting up the brasen
serpent, and stretching forth his hands over Amalek, and slaying
the Paschal lamb." So Chysostom, and so, chap. xvi. 26, we read
that this gospel was declared Sid ypa<pwv irpo(prinKwv.
The twelfth place is taken from Rom. x. 17 : " Faith cometh by
hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Whence it appears
that faith is conceived by hearing. But many things are heard :
which, then, are those the hearing whereof begets faith ? The word
of God, prj/xa rov Qeov, says Paul. From which words we argue
thus : If faith is conceived by hearing the word of God, then all
things which are necessary to faith are contained in the word of
God. The former is true, and therefore the latter. But they
will say that the whole word of God is not written. Now, I under
take to prove that the word of God in this place denotes the scrip
ture. It is written in 1 Peter i. last verse, " The word of the Lord
abideth for ever; and this is the word which by the gospel is
preached unto you." In Matth. v. 18, Christ says : " Until heaven
and earth shall pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means
pass from the law till all things be fulfilled." This is the very same
as Peter says : for the law in this place denotes the written teach
ing. So Matth. xxiv, 35, Christ says, " Heaven and earth shall
pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Now we have be
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 by the gospel is preached unto
you." So Paul, Rom. x. 8, " That is, the word of faith which we
preach." For the whole gospel is promised, as we learnt above, in
the prophetic scriptures, and declared in the apostolic. Basil in his
Ascetics exceUently 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 by hearing, and hearing by the word
of God." Where he determines that that word whereby faith is
begotten is by no means to be sought without the divinely inspired
scriptures. The thirteenth place is taken from Rom. xv. 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, by using the term
irpoeypd<pr}, that he is explaining the utility of the old Testament.

XV.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 649
Now, what was this utility ? Our instruction ; for he says, els
rj/xerepav SiSaoKaXlav. Whence it appears that there is no part
of the old Testament idle or unfruitful. From this place we argue
thus : If the Lord 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 true ; 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 them ; for we cannot suppose him to have
chosen to repeat the same things so often, and yet omit what was
necessary. This is confirmed by the consideration that God hath
added the new to the books of the old Testament, so as to put us in
possession of a most lucid body 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 by faith.
Therefore all things necessary may be derived from the scriptures.
The fourteenth place is taken from Eph. ii. 19, 20 : " Ye are no
longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints,
and of the household of God ; and are built, eiroiKoSofxn9evres, upon
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner-stone." By 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. It will not be necessary, therefore, to stand upon the proof
of this. Cajetan says that we are built upon Christ by means of
the doctrine of the prophets and apostles. But why 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. " For," says he, " the apostles preached that
those things had been done which the prophets predicted should
occur1." Hence then I draw the following inference : The prophets
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, direp
P Nam quae prophetse futura prsedixerunt, ea apostoli facta prsedica-
runt. — in Ephes. ii. 20. Comm. Lect. vi. Expos, in Pauli Epp. Basil. 1475.]

650 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
eXe'yoi' Kal eypad>ov. They wrote therefore all necessary things.
Now 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 apostohc scriptures; in the
former as future, in the latter as done ; in the former predicted,
fulfilled in the latter. And it is sufficient for our purpose, if it be
allowed, that the prophets wrote all; since it is most certain that
nothing is predicted in the prophetic books, the fulfilment of which
may not be read in the apostohc. 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. Now 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 : " We have also
a more sure word, Xoyov, of prophecy ; whereunto ye do well that
ye 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 hfe, to turn our eyes continually towards this lamp of the
prophetic word. Hence I argue thus : If in this dark life no
other hght 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. Now the ante
cedent is true; therefore also the consequent. The minor is
proved by observing that the apostle assigns as our lamp the
prophetic word, Xoyov irporpr/riKov, or the holy scripture, as
Cajetan interprets it, and all concede. For that \dyos is fre
quently used for scripture, is evident from many passages. Acts
i. 1, tov fxev irpibrov Xoyov eiroir)irap.nv : where Xoyos means
the book. Luke iii. 4, e!s yeypairrat ev /3J/3\y Xoywv 'Haa'iov.
And Acts xiii. 27, (pwval rwv irpocpijrwv, the voices of the
prophets are said to be read.
The sixteenth place is taken from 1 John i. 4, " And these
things we write unto you, that your joy 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 you." But do we only
declare it? Yea also, ypd<po/xev, we write it; 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. Now, as the papists confess, they
announced all necessary things ; therefore they wrote all neces
sary things. This is still more clearly shewn by the end proposed,
"that your joy may be full." Thus then I reason: Full joy is
procured by 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. The prophetic
books form the old Testament, the evangelical books the new. This
is plain from 2 Cor. iii. 14 : "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 : If 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. For
it is the very notion of a testament to declare the perfect will of
the testator, that is, of the Maker of the Testament. For even in
the case of man's testament, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto,
as Paul observes, Gal. hi. 15. H then this be really God's
Testament, then it contains the full will of God ; and consequently
none should add to or diminish from it, or seek the will of God
elsewhere. Now it is the Testament of God; for no one hath
hitherto blamed that title : therefore it contains the entire will of
God. And, 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 by many testimonies from scripture. It follows now
that we allege some reasons suited to our purpose. We might
produce many such, but will content ourselves with a few, namely,
those which Bellarmine endeavours to answer, Lib. iv. c. 12.
They are four in number.
The 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. He 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 church ; 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 God 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 God 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 God
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 lost : consequently, the church
and tradition are not parallel cases. I can produce innumerable
testimonies and promises wherewith God hath bound himself to the
church to preserve it : let them produce any such promises of God
respecting the preservation of traditions. Now 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 by 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, God would still treat us in the
same manner. But there is the greatest difference between those
things and ours ; 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. For 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 records: 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 body
of the church was scattered, and the worshippers of God but few,
there was no scripture; yet afterwards, when the body 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 de
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 eould 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. Now, if religion could remain entire even when these
books were lost, it would be 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 by somebody. Had 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
tohcal tradition ; another denies it : now, if they were the guar
dians, they would agree. There must then be but one guardian ;
who is he ? The pope forsooth. But how hath he kept them, — -
in a book, or in his mind? Not in a book ; for no pope ever had
such a book, and no one pretends such a thing : nor yet in his
mind ; for then, when the pope died, traditions would perish with
him, and the church lose a great part of necessary doctrine. Be
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 monk ; 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. Where now are the laws of Lycurgus? They have
perished. Where the unwritten dogmas and secret mstitutions of
Pythagoras? They are nowhere to be found. Where the discipline
of the Druids ? It hes utterly extinguished ; nor does a single ves
tige of it remain, save, perchance, some shght traces which we owe
to writing and to books. Yea, 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
of the old and new Testaments, or else they have perished utterly
because not committed to books : for Bellarmine, I suppose, will
not venture to say that the church is the guardian of these tradi
tions. If the trite proverb,
Vox audita perit, Utera scripta manet,
be true in any case, its truth is most strikingly illustrated in the
present ; 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 xxx. 8, God says : " 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 Lord is speaking of his word; for he says in the
next verse, that " this is a rebellious people, lying children, children
that will not hear the law of the Lord." Job, that pious and holy
man, says in his book, xix. 23, 24 : " Oh that my words were now
written! Oh. that they were printed in a book! that they were
graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever I" Where
is shewn the great efficacy of scripture, and how those things re
quire to be written, which we wish to be kept safe throughout all
ages. In Psalm cii. 19, the prophet says : " 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. We 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. And the cause impelling
Luke to this course confirms this : " Forasmuch," says he, " as
many have taken in hand" 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 place : " 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 you1." Writing, then, is in the nature of a
muniment to keep safe the memory of things. So the apostle,
Philipp. iii. 1 : "To write the same things unto you, to me is not
grievous, and for you 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, " Words pass easily away, but those things which are
written remain2." In Exod. xvii. 14, the Lord says, " Write this
for a memorial in a book." Upon which place Cajetan observes
thus : " He orders the achievement to be written for a continual
record of it3." 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. Now 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 gospel: 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
P Nvv iyypd(f>as trot irapahihovs to evayyeXiov, do-<paXl£opai rbv abv Xo-
yicrpbv, tva pi) iirCXdBrfrai toJj' dypdcjias irapahehopevav.]
P Verba de facili transeunt : ea vero quse scripta sunt permanent.]
p Rem gestam scribi jubet, ad perpetuam rei memoriam.]

656 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
which he trusts principally), Bellarmine adduces four others, to
prove that traditions cannot perish. These we will briefly review.
The 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 answer : In the
first place, if God willed traditions to be written by any men, he
doubtless willed that it should be by the apostles and evangelists,
who were the fittest of all men to execute that work. Let them
specify some cause, or allege some reason, why he should not
rather have chosen that they should be written by Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and the other apostles, than by 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 allege ?
They bring forward Dionysius, Irenseus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Cle
mens, and other such fathers of the church ; and by 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. For 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?
The 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. For, 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 by 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 defined by 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 !
The third cause why traditions may be preserved is founded
in certain ancient monuments. Here 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, why are
they not rather inscribed in the scriptures?
The fourth cause which enables traditions to be preserved is
heresy. Heretics, says he, have aroused the church to seek into
and preserve all traditions. For, he adds, those who live in peace
are apt to neglect the instruments which confirm the possession of
their goods ; but they who are engaged in perpetual contention and
strife keep them diligently. I answer : 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.
Luke speaks in a very different tone at the beginning of his first
chapter. " Forasmuch," says he, " as heretics have attempted to
corrupt the sacred history, I have therefore determined to put it
in writing." So Jerome and others l interpret this passage in Luke.
These reasons of Bellarmine's therefore are obviously weak.
Our second reason is this : The 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. xi. c. 5,
and de Civit. Dei, Lib. xix. c. 18. Now, 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. Prsef. in Matth. Origen. Horn, in Luc. i. 1. Theoph. in Luc. i. 1.]
42
[whitaker.]

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 by the very common title of scripture : it is
called canonical, because it contains the canon, that is, the rule of
faith and life. No one ever found fault with that inscription. The
fathers always call it the canonical scripture. K 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 by 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
tory, then there would have been no necessity for writing so many
books ; for a few books would have sufficed for such a purpose.
Thirdly, we have already proved by 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. 132, the pro
phet says : " Direct my feet in thy word :" therefore the scripture
is a rule by which we may direct the whole course of our faith
and life. In Matth. xxii. 29, Christ says to the Sadducees, " Ye
do err, not knowing the scriptures ;" and in Luke xvi. 29, Abra
ham says to the glutton, " They have Moses and the prophets :"
therefore the canonical books of scripture are not only our moni
tors, but our masters also. Besides, they are " written for our
learning ;" and therefore not only for our admonition, as appears
from Rom. xv. 4. And in 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17, 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 good work." Is
this nothing more than a commonitory ? The 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, why 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 " the
P Inreniet 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. Bonoo-Vallis. V. sup. p. 28.]

XVI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 659
canon of right and the standard of truth2." Chrysostom, Horn.
13, in Genes, says : " The 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 you that, closing your
ears to all these, you would follow exactly the rule of holy scrip
ture3." Augustine, De baptismo, c. Donat. Lib. n. says that the
scriptures are " the balance of God. Let 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 light : but let us bring the divine balance from the holy
scriptures, as from the treasury of the Lord, and therein weigh
which is weightiest ; — or rather, not weigh it ourselves, but mark
how it is weighed by the Lord4." As, 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, we should try it
by the balance of the scripture. Augustine elsewhere (De perfect.
Viduit. cap. i.) writes thus upon this subject : " The holy scripture
hath fixed the rule of our doctrine, that we may not seem to be
wiser than we ought, but be wise, as the apostle says, soberly,
according as God hath given to every man the measure of faith.
Let me not then think, that in teaching you I am doing any
thing more than expounding to you the words of the great
Teacher, and discoursing of that which the Lord hath given8."
The same author, contra Crescon. Grammat. Lib. n. c. 31, writes
thus concerning the same subject : " 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
tain; which books we must by no means dare to judge of, and
P The reference is, I suppose, to T. n. p. 8. c. But Basil is there
speaking of the Creed, not of the scripture.]
P ttjs dylas ypaibijs, eireihdv j3ovXijral n toiovtov ijpas hihdo-Keiv, eavrrjv
epprjvevovo-rjs, Kal ovk dobieio-rjs irXavaadai rbv aKpoarfjv. — T. IV. p. 103. J
p 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 Do-
minicis, et in ilia quid sit gravius appendamus ; imo non appendamus, sed a
Domino appensa recognoscamus. — T. vn. p. 43. Paris. 1635.]
P Sancta scriptura doctrinse nostrse 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 judge of all other writings of
believers or unbelievers1." Therefore scripture is the rule by
which we must try all things. Thus, whatever disagrees with
scripture should be rejected; whatever agrees with it, received.
Nay, Thomas himself, in his Comment, on 1 Tim. c. vi., Lect. 1,
says that "scripture is as it were the rule of our faith2." He
does not say " as it were," 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 it : to which
purpose he alleges Deut. iv. 2, and Rev. xxii. 18, 19.
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 Messiah ?
Surely he blasphemes who denies this. Secondly, although it may
be conceded that all the histories are not equally useful and neces
sary, because many may be saved without the knowledge of many
histories ; yet in reality they are all not only useful, but necessary
also. For although they are not all requisite to the being of faith,
yet they contribute greatly to its better being. Thirdly, although
perhaps more things than can be styled simply necessary are deh
vered in scripture, yet it does not therefore follow that the scrip
ture is not a rule. For although the scripture contains some
things which are not simply and absolutely necessary ; nevertheless,
it is a rule to which all doctrine ought to be conformed. We say
P Neque enim sine causa tam salubri vigilantia Canon ecclesiasticus
constitutus est, ad quern 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.]
[2 Scriptura est quasi regula fidei nostae. Vide supra, p. 28.]

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. We 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 rule ; 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
proved : 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 body, as it ought to
be, if it were the rule of faith, but several. I answer: Although
scripture contains many bodies, yet all these make up one conti
nuous and entire body. The men indeed were various, whose
service the Holy Spirit used in writing these pieces, and the hands
which wrote them were many : but it was one Spirit which
governed their hands and tongues. We should not regard the
various men who wrote, but the one Spirit under whose direction
and dictation they wrote. Thus there is one continuous body 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 rule ; as Rom. xv. 4, where the apostle
says that all things which were written were written for our
learning ; and 2 Pet. i. 12, 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.
Now to be written for our learning is something more than conir
monition. We are commonished or reminded of things which we
knew before ; but we learn things of which we were previously
ignorant. As 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. For although Peter says that it was needful for him to
remind those to whom he wrote, yet 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 God, which is divided into the written and the
unwritten word ; and that Augustine must be understood in this
sense. I answer: It is unwillingly that he concedes to us that
scripture is a rule ; and therefore he afterwards denies it again,
by saying that it is only a partial one, thus taking away what
he had previously given. For unless scripture be a whole and
perfect rule, it cannot be a rule at all ; because there ought to
be the exactest agreement between the rule and the thing to
which it is applied. If, therefore, our faith be longer or broader
than the scripture, then the scripture is not its rule; because
a rule should be adequate to the thing measured by it. A rule
is thus defined by Varinus : " A rule is an infallible measure,
admitting no addition or diminution1." So Theophylact, upon
Phil. iii. : "A rule or standard admits neither addition nor ab
straction2." And Basil, Adv. Eunom. Lib. i. blames Eunomius
severely and justly for saying that the faith of the fathers is a
rule or standard, and yet maintaining that something should be
added to it : rrjv avrrjv Kal Kavova Xeyei, Kal irpotr9rjKris (prjojiv
dKpif3eo-Tepas Sela9ai3. In the same way Bellarmine says that
scripture is a rule, and yet needs some addition and emendation.
Consequently, he denies it to be a rule at all. Chrysostom,
Horn. 13 in 2 Cor. says that "the sentence of the divine words" is
" the exact balance and standard, and rule of all things." And,
to let us know that he is speaking of the scriptures, he subjoins :
" Inquire concerning all these things of the holy scriptures."
So Photius, cited by CEcumenius upon Phil. iii. : " Faith is hke a
rule : for, like as if you take any thing from a rule, or add any
thing to it, you entirely spoil the rule ; so it is with faith*." Thus
it is manifest that the scriptures are either a perfect rule, or no
rule at all. See also upon this subject Vincentius Lirinensis,
c 41. Why need I add, that Andradius himseK testifies that
[I Kavdv etrn perpov dhtdijrevo-Tov, irao~av irpdo-Beo-iv Kal dabalpeo-iv prjhapds
iirihexdpevov.] P 6 Kavdv yap ovre irpda-Beo-tv ?xei odrc d<fiaipeo-iv. — Theophyl. In Philipp.
iii. 16, p. 611. Lond. 1636.]
P Basil. Opp. T. n. p. 9. A.]
P ao-irep yap iirl roO Kavdvos Kav atfreXjjs, Kav irpoo-Bjjs, eXvpjjva ro irav, ovra
Kal iirl rrjs irto-rcas.]

XVI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 663
scripture is a rule sufficiently perfect ? For 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 by the exceeding goodness of God5."
Thus he confesses that the scriptures are not only a rule, but a
very ample rule of faith, piety, and religion.
Secondly, I demand why 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. For 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. For why was this teaching committed to writing?
First, that it might remain more fixedly in our memories. Now
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 rule : 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 understanding6." If
this be true, then is it certain that scripture is as it were the
queen and mistress which ought to rule and govern human in-
P Minime illorum mihi displicet sententia, qui canonicas ideo appellari
dicunt, quia pietatis, fidei et religionis canonem, hoc est, regulam atque
normam, e coelis summo Dei beneficio ad nos delatam, continent amplissi-
mam. — Andradii, Defens. Trid. Lib. in. prope init.]
P ... in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est, cui serviat omnis fidelis
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, Lib. xix.
c. 18, he says that that faith " by which the just lives, and by
which we walk without doubting so long as we sojourn absent
from the Lord1," is engendered by the holy scriptures. Whence
it follows, that scripture is a perfect rule both of faith and life.
Fourthly, it may be answered, that Bellarmine contradicts
himself. He said before that scripture could not be a rule, be
cause it is not one continuous body. But the written and un
written word are still less a continuous body ; and yet he makes
them both together form a rule.
Our third reason is drawn from the inconveniences which
traditions bring with them. For if we allow so much to unwritten
traditions, we shall often err, and be always in uncertainty ; because
traditions are various and uncertain. This is manifest from the
books of the fathers, as we have before shewn. The fathers are
witnesses of the variety and uncertainty of traditions. Now in the
doctrine of faith we ought to be certain and constant : therefore
we ought not to depend upon unwritten traditions. The extreme
variety of traditions might be illustrated by many testimonies, and
in many words ; but I will touch it only briefly. Papias was the
father and master of tradition. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Lib. in. c. 39, 2
writes copiously concerning him. He says that he wrote many
things derived from unwritten tradition, e'/c irapaSbaews dypdfpov,
but that they were full of commentitious fables. He wrote, as
Eusebius tells us, five books concerning the Lord's discourses :
but these, through the goodness of God, are now lost. What
sort of pieces they were, appears from Eusebius, who says that
they were full of fables. He 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. CEcumenius3 brings
forward another tradition from this Papias concerning Judas, —
namely, that he was not strangled, but, the rope breaking, lived in
a most wretched condition for some time after, and at length
P 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.]
[2 T. i. p. 281, ed. Heinichen.]
P Apud Grabe, Spicil. n. p. 34.]

xvi.] question the sixth. 665
expired upon the road, crushed to death by a chariot which hap
pened to pass by : which is also alluded to by 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 Rome, taught, lived, and died there4 : for no author
more ancient than he can be named for that tradition. To him
the papists stand indebted for the primacy of their pontiff. Ter
tullian, c. Judseos, c. 5, says that Christ died in the thirtieth year
of his age5; and Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. I,6 says the same.
But Irenseus, Lib. xi. c. 4, says that he lived to be fifty years
old7. Both assertions are false; and yet both are supported by
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. The 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. The papists, and even some of the
fathers, say that stated fasts were instituted by the apostles. But
Augustine, Ep. 68, ad Casulan. denies that the apostles deter
mined any thing about fasting. So Socrates, Lib. v. c. 22. 8
Indeed, it is certain that it was Montanus who instituted them, as
we learn from the testimony of ApoUonius, cited by Eusebius, Lib.
v. c. 18. There, speaking of Montanus, he adds: " This is he who
introduced fasts9." This may be perceived also from Tertullian,
who in his book de Jejunio, which he wrote when a Montanist
P 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.]
P Hujus [Tiberii] quinto decimo anno imperii passus est Christus, annos
habens quasi xxx, cum pateretur. — c. 8, p. 234. ed. Semi. Lips. 1828.]
P Page 340. a.]
p The reference should be xi. 39. Quia autem triginta annorum setas
primse indolis est juvenis, et extenditur usque ad quadragesimum annum,
omnis quiUbet confitebitur a quadragesimo aut quinquagesimo anno decUnat
jam in setatem seniorem, quam habens Dominus noster docebat, &c — p. 192. a.
ed. Pevard.]
P Ai)Xov ds rfj eKao-Tov yvdprj Kal trpoaipeaei iirerpeyfrav ol dirotrroXoi. — p.
235. ed. Vales. Paris. 1686.]
P oUros io-nv . . . 6 vrjcreias vopoBerrjo-as.  T. II. 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
ferent1," and that we should not be obliged to fast " at stated
times according to the institution of the new discipline." This
Tertullian objected to the catholics ; and this is the very 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 be observed according to the institution of the new
discipline. In the same book, Tertullian2 praises the practice of
mortification by hard fare (j*rjpo<payiav), in conformity with which
Epiphanius, in Epilog.3, makes it an apostohcal institution.
Tertullian, in his book de Corona*, and Basil, in his
treatise of the Holy Spirit, c. 27, 5 enumerate various traditions,
which they would have to be apostolical, but which are, never
theless, not at all observed by papists at the present day : 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 we have spoken above. Tertullian pronounces
it a piece of impiety to do otherwise. So even the first council of
Nice, Canon 20, says that we ought to pray standing at that
season6. But the present practice is different, even amongst the
papists; who upon Sundays, and from Easter to Pentecost, do
not pray in an erect posture, but kneeling, as at other times and
seasons of the year. Of old they used to give the Eucharist to
infants, as is manifest from Cyprian, De lapsis'', and Augustine, in
many passages. But 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 Easter8- Do the papists do so now ? Jerome,
P Itaque de cetero (i. e. exceptis diebus in quibus sponsus ablatus) in-
differenter jejunandum, ex arbitrio, non ex imperio. — c. 2, p. 181.]
P Ibid. c. 9.]
P Bxposit. Fidei Catholicse, c. xxii. p. 1105. T. I. ed. Petav.J
P c. 3. But Tertullian does not there pretend these traditions to be
apostolical : he defends them on the plea of custom.]
P Basil. Opp. T. ii. pp. 110, 111.]
P Apud Labb. et Cossart. T. n. col. 37.]
p p. 132, ed. Fell. — The 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.]
P Kal irepl rdv e£ ijpepdv tov nd<r^a irds irapayyeXXovo-t (apostoli SCll.)

XVI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 667
in his discourse on the nativity of Christ (though Erasmus writes
that that piece is attributed by some to Leo, and by 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 baptized9." So that he was ignorant whether
Christ was born or baptized on that day, and whether they ought
on that day to celebrate the memory of his nativity or of his bap
tism. So admirably did they preserve and understand their tradi
tions. The 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 : yet 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 by Jerome, but by Sophronius, who, however, was
contemporary with Jerome.
Such are the popish traditions which they maintain to be
necessary, and deserving to be put on an equal footing with the
scriptures. To all these things Bellarmine makes no other reply
than that the church can discern true traditions from false. I
answer, that this is the very point in debate ; — whether that
church, to which they ascribe this power of 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 very 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 dehvered some things to all, and
some secretly to certain persons only. This Irenseus tells us, Lib. i.
c. 23, of the Basilidians, and Lib. i. c. 24, of the Carpocratians. In
like manner speaks Tertullian, in his Prescriptions against Heretics.
Bellarmine rephes, out of Cyprian, that heretics are the apes of
catholics10. However, says he, there is this difference, that the
heretics conceal their traditions and mysteries on account of their
prihev oXas Xapf3dveiv, fj aprov Kal dXbs Kal vharos ; — Hser. LXXV. c. 6.
p. 910, B.]
P Sive hodie natus Christus sive baptizatus, diversa fertur hominum
opinio in mundo.]
[10 Novatianus, simiarum more, quse cum homines non sint, homines tamen
imitantur, vult ecclesise cathoUcse auctoritatem sibi et veritatem vindicare.
Ep. 73, p. 198.]

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. Irenseus tells
us that Carpocrates maintained that Christ delivered some things
to his disciples apart secretly. But Irenasus himself, Lib. in. c. 15,
writes very differently, denying that Christ and his apostles
delivered one set of things openly, and another secretly1. 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 all2." 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
Irenseus and Tertullian would never have blamed tbe heretics for
concealing their traditions, if the cathohcs 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 hght ;
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 dehvered 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 cathohcs 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
p 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.]
P Sed eadem dementia, cum confitentur quidem nihil apostolos ignorasse,
. . . sed non omnia volunt illos omnibus revelasse, qusedam palam et universiS,
qusedam Becreto et paucis demandasse. — c. 25, T. in. p. 17.]

XVI.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 669
easily corrupt any passage. " Preach upon the house-tops" —
that is, says Bellarmine, if there be any need ! We may then put
a similar meaning upon the words, " Feed my sheep," — that is, if
there be any need : and, " Teach all nations," — that is, if there be
any need ! From 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 place : " What ye
have heard from me, teach with the utmost freedom and clearness
of speech, so as that all may hear3 :" and he observes, that because
dangers attend upon this free speaking, therefore the Lord sub
joins, " Fear not those who kill the body." The words are plain.
To the like effect Christ speaks of himself, John xviii. 20 : "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 my sayings were concerned. But it does not
therefore follow, says he, that Christ taught his disciples nothing
apart. I answer : This is not what Christ says ; but he affirms
that he spoke every thing openly in the midst of the synagogue,
and surrounded by the Jews. They could testify to his teaching ;
and therefore he desires that they might be asked what they had
heard. From these premises I conclude that the whole teaching of
Christ was pubhc 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 THE FATHERS.

I come now to our last argument which is founded upon the
testimony of the fathers. The 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 of our adversaries, who
loudly, in every question, claim the fathers as their own. I should
P "A7T«> povois vpiv elirov, jotera irapprjo-las hihdgare Kal peyaXocpavas, do-re
irdvras aKoieiv vpdv. — Theophyl. in Matt x. 27.]

670 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
never make an end, were I to seek to enumerate all who stand on
our side in this matter. There is almost not one single father,
hardly any author of any kind, who does not support our opinion
in this controversy. Here I might distribute my 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 by Bellarmine, Lib. iv. c. 11, 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.
The first testimony is that of Iren.s:us. He writes thus, Lib. in.
c. 1 : " It is by no other that we have gained the knowledge
of the economy of our salvation than by those by whom the
gospel reached us; which gospel they then preached, and after
wards by the will of God delivered to us in the scriptures, to be
the bases and pillar of our faith1." We must remark three things
in these words : first, that the apostles and evangelists of Christ
preached and published the gospel orally as Christ had commanded
them ; and that this was the entire gospel : secondly, that these
same persons afterwards wrote it, and delivered it to us in the
scriptures ; and that by the divine will and authority : thirdly, that
the gospel by them committed to writing is the basis and column
of our faith. What 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 Irenaeus says, not that the apostles wrote all, but all that they
preached to the people ; for they did not preach all to the people !
He lays down, then, two propositions : one, that all things are not ne
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
all ; — such as the Articles of the Creed, the ten Commandments,
and some of the sacraments, (but what sacraments, he does not
tell us ;) 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
P Non enim per aUos dispositionem salutis nostrse cognoscimus, quam
per eos per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos ; quod quidem tunc prseconia-
verunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fir-
mamentum et columnam fidei nostra? futurum. — p. 229, a.]

XVII.J QUESTION THE SIXTH. 671
opposes it, even in the highest degree. For 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. The 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 Lord, 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 both; nor one
God of a layman, another of a bishop, but the same of both ; 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 expo
sitors whom they dare not reject. Thomas Aquinas writes thus
upon this place : " There is one faith, because one and the same
thing is believed by all the faithful, whence it is called the catholic
faith2." So Cajetan : " One faith, because we all believe one and
the same thing3." Catharinus, too, hath almost the very same
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 knowledge ; for he says that an explicit
knowledge of the rest is not necessary. Now, what knowledge
should be called explicit? Is it the mere power of repeating
these words? By no means, for any one could most easily do
that ; but there is required besides understanding and assent. Now
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 be
bishop or layman ? Surely not ; 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
P Una fides, quia unum et idem creditur a cunctis fidelibus, unde
catholica dicitur. — Comment, in Eph. iv. 5. Basil. 1475.]
P Una fides, quia unum et idem omnes credimus. — Comment, ibid.]

672 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
does Bellarmine prove his distinction? From Acts ii. 41, where
Luke tells us three thousand men were baptized in one day, and
added to the church. These (says he) without doubt understood
not all, but only those necessary things ; 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 yet heard. I
answer, firstly : This is indeed to handle scripture like a Jesuit !
He writes to prove that all things are not simply necessary to all ;
and for this purpose he brings forward Acts ii. 41. But nothing
of the kind can be inferred from this place : 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 means ; 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 case; for under ordinary circumstances
they could not have learned so speedily even those necessary things.
And this is plain from verse 38, where Peter said : " Ye shall re
ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Secondly, his expounding " they
continued," to mean, they learned what they previously were ignorant
of, is ridiculous. To continue is to abide and persevere in known
doctrine, not to learn new matters which we had not yet heard.
What then, somebody will ask, is not a different sort of know
ledge 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 kind ; but there is no difference of kind in this
knowledge, but only of greater and less. And here we must note a
self-contradiction in the Jesuit. First he concedes that these persons
knew all things necessary before they were baptized : then he says
that afterwards they continued, that is, learned the mysteries of the
christian religion. But these are necessary things. Now why 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 Thes-
sal. iii. 10, 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. However, I ask whether these
things which Paul wished to teach them were necessary or not?
If necessary, then they ought not to have been baptized before
they had learned them: 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. The 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. For Tertullian, in his Prescriptions,
declares it to be the opinion of the heretics, "that the apostles
either did not know all, or did not deliver all to all." And 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. Now they were the people :
the people therefore received that gospel which Paul preached,
and received it entire. Here we must notice a remarkable con
tradiction in our opponents. They say that all things are not
delivered to the people, because all things are not necessary for
them: and yet they produce, in proof of their traditions, such
scriptures as 1 Cor. xi. 2, " I praise you that ye 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. They produce also 2 Thess. ii. 15, " Hold
the traditions." Now 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 by the testimony of these places.
Now 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 Irenasus and the
consent of Bellarmine. Besides, we should carefully remark and
remember that Bellarmine, coerced by 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 by which he seeks to prove that
43
[whitaker.]

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 things : 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
manner ; popularly in the churches, accurately and precisely in the
schools. The second reason is taken from Acts xx. 17, 18, where
Paul taught the elders of the church of Ephesus apart from the
people. I answer : He did indeed teach them apart, but nothing
else than what he had taught all : for being unable to address the
whole church, he sent for the elders. Now that he taught them
nothing else is clear from Luke, who hath set forth the sum of that
discourse. The third reason is taken from 1 Cor. ii. 6, " We speak
wisdom amongst them that are perfect." I answer : Irenseus, Lib.
in. c. 2,1 bears witness that the heretics formerly abused this passage
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. The fifth reason is
taken from Irensaus, Lib. iv. c. 43 2, where Irenseus says that the
apostles delivered to their successors along with the episcopate a
certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.
I answer, that the apostles delivered to their successors the gift of
knowledge not only orally, but by writing also : for he says, Lib.
in, c. 1, that they not only preached, but delivered it also in the
scriptures. These pretences then being refuted, the testimony of Irenseus
stands unimpeached. The apostles preached and wrote the gospel ;
they preached it all ; they wrote it all : and therefore he sub
joins, that it is the basis and pillar of our faith. And to make
P Cum enim ex scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsa-
rum scripturarum, . . . quia non possit ex his inveniri Veritas ab his qui
nesciant traditionem : non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam
vocem ; ob quam causam et Paulum dixisse, Sapientiam autem loquimur inter
perfectos. — p. 230. b.]
P Quapropter eis qui in ecclesia sint presbyteris obaudire oportet, his
qui successionem habent ab apostolis, sicut ostendimus, qui cum episcopatus
successione charisma veritatis cortum, secundum placitum Patris, acceperuni
— pp. 381—2.]

XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 675
it evident that Irenseus 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 bishop ; therefore he speaks of that gospel
which contained all that was necessary, even for bishops. Besides,
Irenseus writes in other places also against traditions. In Lib. n.
c. 47, he says that " the scriptures are perfect, being spoken by
the Word of God and his Spirit3." And, Lib. in. c. 2, he refutes
the assertion of the heretics, that the apostles delivered some things
secretly and apart ; which subject he pursues at greater length in
the third chapter of that same book. And, Lib. iv. c. 26, he says
that "the precepts of a perfect life are the same in both Testa
ments4." Therefore all things which pertain to doctrine or morals
are contained in the scriptures, and not merely some of them : for
he says " of a perfect life," which is the thing denied by the papists.
And, Lib. v. c. 17, he. says that we should " betake ourselves to
the church, be reared in its bosom, and nourished by the scriptures
of the Lord." Then he subjoins : " For 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 eat ; ' that is, eat of every
scripture of the Lord : but eat not of the transcendental sense, nor
touch any heretical heterodoxy5." Therefore, as there was no other
food whereof Adam 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
Irenasus 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 Irenseus : " He 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 Rom. iii.,
Horn. 25 in Matth., Horn. 3 in Genes., Horn. 31 in Gen., Horn. 7
P Scripturse quidem perfectse, quippe a Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dictse.
— p. 203. a.]
P Consummatse enim vitse prsecepta in utroque testamento cum sint
eadem, &c. — p. 344. a.]
p Fugere igitur oportet sententias ipsorum  confugere autem ad
ecclesiam, et in ejus sinu educari, et Dominicis scripturis enutriri. Plantata
est enim ecclesise paradisus in hoc mundo : ab omni ergo Ugno paradisi escas
manducabis, ait Spiritus Dei, id est, ab omni scriptura Dominica manducate :
superelato autem sensu ne manduoaveritis, neque tetigeritis universam
hsereticam dissensionem. — c. 20, p. 466. 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. For our opinions and discourses have no
credit, unless confirmed by their witness. And that saying, ' By 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 my understanding by taking two witnesses from the old
and new Testaments; or taking three, from the Gospel, from the
prophets, and from the apostles. For so shall every word be
established1." 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 answer : 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. For what ? Are
those things which pertain solely to prelates and bishops easier
than those which are openly propounded to the people? Who can
fail to perceive that Bellarmine here talks contradictions ? Secondly,
Origen speaks generally of all questions, whether clear or obscure.
And the same thing appears also from his Commentary upon
Rom. iii. , where he has an admirable remark ; 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 by their own reasonings, but fortified
by 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 Holy Spirit2!"
[ Maprvpas hel Xafieiv ras ypaqbds- dpdprvpoi yap ai iirifioXal r}pdv Kal
et-rjyrjo-eis airiarol flow iirl o-ropara hvo Kal rpidv paprvpav araBrjo-erai irav
pijpa, juaXXov appo£ei iirl rwi" hirjyrjcreav 77 ejrl rdv dvBpdirav, iva orrjo-a ra
prjpara ttjs epprjvetas, Xafidv pdprvpas hvo dirb Kaivrjs Kal iraXaids hiadrjKrjs,
Xaftav pdprvpas rpeXs dirb eiayyeXlov, dirb irpocprjrov, dirb dirooToXov ovras yap
o-TaBrjo-erai irdv pijpa. — p. 57. ed. Huet. Colon. 1685. Whitaker, in the text,
has taken the old Latin version, which is therefore followed in the trans
lation.] P Doctoribus ecclesise prsebet exemplum, ut ea quse loquuntur ad popu-

XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 677
The same author, Horn. 25 in Matth., writes thus: "The temple
of the glory of God is all inspired scripture, and the gold is the
meaning lodged in it. We 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. For, 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, be
cause it is not contained by the sense of scripture, which sanctifies
only that sense which it hath in itself, as the temple does its own
gold. We 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
by 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 hke consecrated gold3." 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 Holy Spirit, and to draw continually, and bring home a vessel
full, as also did the holy Rebecca." And 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 by the
lum, non propriis prsesumta sententiis, sed divinis munita testimoniis pro-
ferant. Si enim ipse tantus et talis apostolus auctoritatem dictorum suorum
Bufflcere posse non credit, nisi doceat in lege et prophetis scripta esse quse
dicit : quanto magis nos minimi hoc observare debemus, ut non nostras, cum
docemus, sed Sancti Spiritus sententias proferamus !— Origen. Opp. T. iv.
p. 504, Paris. 1733.]
P Templum glorise Dei est omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata, aurum
autem positus sensus in ea. Debemus ergo ad testimonium omnium verbo-
rum, quse proferimus in doctrina, proferre sensum scripturse, quasi confir-
mantem quern exponimus sensum. Sicut enim omne aurum, quodquod fuerit
extra templum, non est sanctificatum ; sic omnis qui fuerit extra divinam
scripturam (quamvis admirabilis videatur quibusdam) non est sanctus, quia
non continetur a sensu scripturse, quse solet eum solum sensum sanctificare
quern habet in se, sicut templum proprium aurum. Non ergo debemus ad
confirmandam 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 cseci omnes qui non
cognoscunt, quoniam templum, id est, lectio scripturarum, magnum et
venerabilem facit sensum, sicut aurum sacratum. — T. m. p. 842 ]

678 ' THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
rules of the evangelists and apostles1." 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 scriptures2." 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 (aatpws), what we should think
concerning the things of God : 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. 24 : 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 Evagrius, Histor., Lib. n.3, testifies that similar expressions
were used by John, bishop of Antioch, in the council of Ephesus ;
which were also approved by Cyril of Alexandria. Secondly, he
objects, that the confirmation of those dogmas which touch and
P Circumcisus et mundus est qui semper verbum Dei loquitur, et sanam
doctrinam, evangelicis et apostolicis munitam regulis, profert.]
P eiayyeXiKal yap /3i'/3Xot Kal diroaroXiKal, Kal rdv irdXatdv irpo(j)rjrdv ra
Beairlo-para, aaqbds rjpas a xpr) 7repl tov Belov (ftpoveiv iKiraihevovai. ttjv TroXf-
poirotbv ov"v aireXda-avres epiv, e/c raj/ Beoirvevcrrav Xdycai' \dfiapev rdv £rjrovpevav
rrjv Xvmv — p. 25. d. ed. Vales. Paris. 1673.]
p The reference meant is, I suppose, Lib. I. c. 6. p. 261. D. Paris, 1673 ;
where Cyril speaks of his joy at finding that John of Antioch and he had the
same faith, ral? Beoirvevarois ypaipais Kal irapahoo-et Tav dylav rjpdv irarepav
o-vpfialvovtrav.]

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 irepl rod 9elov. And so in
deed Harding, in the book which he wrote against the English Apo
logy, seeks to elude this testimony. But Harding makes a shameful
mistake; and Bellarmine too, if he be in the same opinion, hath
fallen into a shameful hallucination. For irepl rov 9elov 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 law." The very translator whom
Bellarmine follows renders it, " concerning divine things ;" and so
indeed it ought to be rendered. And Theodoret himself, in the
words immediately preceding, hath the expression 7re,oi rwv 9elwv
irpayp.drwv, that is, "of things relating to faith and religion."
Then he says that " we have the teaching of the Holy Spirit in a
written form," rod iravay'iov irvevfxaros StSaaKaXiav dvaypairrov
eyovras. Besides, Constantine says, " Let us take from scripture
rwv Xrirovfievwv rrjv Xvatv," 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 yet he elsewhere indicates a disapproval. For 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 church; and what else is scripture but the sense of scripture?
The falsehood of Bellarmine's third objection, that the Arians were
not convicted and condemned by the testimony of scripture, is clear
from c. 8,4 of this same book of Theodoret, e£ eyypdrpwv /ier'
evaefielas evvoovjxevwv Xe^ewv KareKp'Snaav : and from Socrates,
Lib. i. c. 6, " We have often refuted them by unrolling (or ex
plaining) the scriptures5." For, although Socrates wrote this not
of the Nicene council, but of that at Alexandria, composed only of
a few bishops and presbyters, yet every one sees that the Arians
were most plainly condemned by scripture : unless indeed it be
supposed that scripture had more efficacy at Alexandria than at
P Where, however, another reading is, e'f dypdqbav per' evae^elas voovpe-
vav.  p. 29. A. See Valesius' note.]
P Kal ravra Xeyovres Kal dvairrviro-ovres rds Betas ypacjids iroXXaKis averpe-
yjrapev airovs  p. 11. B. ed. Vales.]

680 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Nice. And 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 idols : " The scriptures are sufficient for
every purpose of instruction or education in the truth'." Bellar
mine replies, that Chemnitz hath added the word " every" out of
his own head. I answer : He 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 God and man. I answer : That these
two 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 answer : But by this explication of the fathers Bellarmine means
unwritten traditions. If 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. And 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, says : " By hearing the scriptures we are led
into faith." This is the very point which we have proved above,
from Rom. x., " Faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God." And in his Synopsis he says, that " holy scripture con
tained in certain books is the anchor and support of our faith2."
Therefore, our faith is not supported by traditions, but by the
scriptures. Our fifth testimony is that of Basil the great, de Confessione
P airapKets pev yap elmv at ayiai Kal Beoirvevoroi ypaqbal irpbs rrjv rrjs
dXrjBelas dirayyeXlav.  T. I. p. 1. Paris. 1598.]
P ttjs irio-reas rjpdv olovel dxpoBivia rj dyKVpai Kal ipelo-para. — T. II. p. 127.]

XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 681
Fidei, where he writes thus : " 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 written3." It is a very
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 by private persons.
I answer : These words do most clearly confirm the perfection of
scripture. For Basil had said a little before, "lam bound to pro
pose to you those things which I have learned from the divinely
inspired scripture, according to the good pleasure of God, for the
common profit. For if the Lord 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, ' He 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
speak;' and if the Holy Spirit speaketh not of himself, but what
soever he heareth from him; how much more is it at once pious
and safe for us to think and do this in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ4 !" And afterwards he says : " If the Lord be
faithful in all his words, and all his commandments are faithful,
standing fast for ever and ever, done in truth and equity ; " then
he subjoins the words which we previously introduced, namely : —
" 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 Lord Jesus Christ says,
'My sheep hear my voice,' premising, 'a stranger will they not
follow, but flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers;'
and the apostle, by an example taken from the case of men,
earnestly prohibits the adding to, or taking from, the scriptures of
God, when he says, ' Though it were but a man's testament, yet,
P (j)avepd eKirraais Trltrreas Kal vireprj(j)avlas Karrjyopla rj dBereiv n rdv
yeypappevav, rj iiretadyeiv rdv prj yeypappevav  T. II. p. 251. A. Paris. 1618.]
P Kdyd direp epaBov « rrjs Beoirvevarov ypacbrjs, ravra vpiv irapadecrBai
Kara to dpeo-Kov 0e<3 irpbs ro Kotvfj o-vp(j)epov oipeiXeTrjs etpt. Ei yap avrbs 6
Kvpios, iv a evhoKijcrev 6 irarrjp, iv a elm irdvres ol Brjo-avpol ttjs o-o<f>las
Kal rrjs yvdaeas diroKpvqboi, 6 irdaav pev ttjv e^ovaiav irdaav he ttjv Kplaiv
XafSav irapa tov irarpbs, 'EvroXrjv hehaKe pot, (fir/at, ri mira Kai n XaXi;a-c»'
Kal irdXtv, a ovv iyd XaXd, KaBds e'ip-rjKe poi 6 irarrjp ovra XaXd- Kal to
irvevpa to dyiov dcf> eavrov ov XaXei, aXX' oaa av aKovo-rj irap avrov, ravra
\aXei- iroo-a pSXXov rjpiv eio-efies re opov Kal daCJyaXes rovro (jlpove'tv Kal iroteiv
iv dvdpan tov K. t). I. X.— Ibid. pp. 249, 250.]

682 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
when it is confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto ; ' con
sequently, we know that now and always we should flee all words
and sentiments alien from the doctrine of the Lord1."
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 God, who seek other doctrines outside the
scriptures. He condemns, therefore, all others as strange and foreign,
j£eva and dXXbrpia. But Bellarmine observes that Basil, in that
same place, says that he was compelled to use unwritten discourses
against the heretics. I answer : he did indeed use unwritten (not
discourses, but) expressions ; yet such as were not foreign from scrip
ture, and its orthodox sense. He 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, yet
they contained no strange meaning, but preserved the " sense which
lay in the scriptures." Consequently, he determines those to be
strange, and false, and deserving to be rejected, which have not
the meaning which lies in the scriptures. He clearly refers there
fore, not to dogmas, but to certain terms not actually used in
scripture, such as 'Ofxoovatov, and others of the hke sort, which he
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 : " We 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. If custom
be indeed the test to try right doctrine, let us by all means be
permitted also to follow their example. Let us stand then by 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 of God2." Bellarmine says that he is speaking
P rov Kvplov rjpav 'lrjcov Xpiarov elirovros, ra ipd irpofiara rrjs ipijs qbavfjs
aKovef Kal irpb rovrov he elprjKoros, dXXorpta he ov prj aKoXovBrjaao-iv, dXXd
<fiev£ovrai air airov, *. r. X. Kal tov diroaroXov iv vrrohelypan dvBpairlva
atpohporepoy dirayopevovros ro irpoo-Belvat 77 v(j)eXeiv n iv rats Beoirvevarots
ypaqbais, hi av cj>rjo-iv, k. t. X. irdaav pev ovv dXXoTpiav ttjs tov Kvplov htha-
o-KaXias <f)avr)v Kal evvoiav ovras rjpeis irdvrore Kal vvv dirolpevyetv iyvaKapev.
— Ibid. p. 251. B. c]
P ov vopl^opev h'tKaiov etvat rrjv irap' avrois iiriKpaTovaav avvrjBeiav vajiov
Kal Kavova tov dpBov iroieio-Bai Xo'yov. el yap laxvpdv iartv els dir6het£iv op86-
ttjtos rj avvTj&eta, e^ean Kal rjpXv irdvras avrnrpofiaXeaBai rrjv irap' rjpiv eirtKpa-
rovo-av o-vvijdeiav. El he irapaypdrpovrat Tavrrjv iKelvoi, rjpiv irdvras aKo7iov8rj-

XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 683
not of any tradition received by the whole church, but of particular
customs. I answer : It is an important question which is handled
and discussed in this place ; namely, whether we may say that
there are three persons and one Godhead, rpe'is viroardaets Kal
ju'iav 9ebrnra. Some persons alleged and urged custom; but he
says it is not fit that " custom should be the rule," vbuxos Kal Kavwv
rov bp9ov Xoyov. Then he subjoins the sentence quoted above ;
wherein he shews, first, that the divine oracles and the scriptures
are the same thing ; 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. 13 in Genes.3 he says:
" Scripture does not permit the hearer of it to go 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 be amused ; and, therefore, seek to
hear not those who profit, but those who entertain them best ; I
beseech you therefore, that, closing your ears to all such, we may
together follow the standard set by the canon of holy scripture."
In his 3rd Homily upon 2 Thess.4 he says that all necessary things
are clear in the scriptures. To all these Bellarmine replies only
by the question: "For what purpose are these alleged?" I
answer, by 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 we should err, then all things are written,
because we should not err in any thing. If 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. If all necessary things are
plain in the scriptures, then nothing beside the scriptures is neces
sary. The same author, Opus Imperf in Matt. Horn. 49, writes
thus : " Then, when ye shall see the abomination of desolation
standing in the holy place, that is, when ye shall see impious
heresy, which is the army of antichrist, standing in the holy places
reov iKetvots. oiKovv fj Bedirvevcrros rjpiv hiaiTrjaara ypaqbrj- Kal irap' ols av
eipeBrj ra Sdyuara avvahd rois Belois Xdyois, iirl rovrois rji-ei irdvras [ij Beta]
rijs dXrjBetas fijqjos. — T. II. p. 901. b. Whitaker has, as the reader will
perceive, omitted a whole clause in his translation of this passage.]
p Tom. iv. p. 103.] P Tom. xi. p. 528.]

684 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
of the church ; then let those that are in Judsea flee to the moun
tains ; that is, let those who are in Christianity betake themselves
to the scriptures. For as the true Jew is the Christian, (accord
ing to the saying of the apostle, ' He is not a Jew who is one out
wardly, but he who is one inwardly,') so the true Judaaa is
Christianity, the name Judasa being, by interpretation, confession.
Now 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, ' Her foun
dations are on the holy hills' 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 by one Maximus, who was
an Arian ; yet 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. 12, says : " Hear
the voice of the Shepherd : draw to the mountains of the holy
scripture." And 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. Why so ? Because, even those churches which are in
P Tunc cum videritis abominationem desolationis stantem in loco
sancto, id est, cum videritis hseresim impiam, quse est exercitus antichristi,
stantem in locis Sanctis ecclesise ; in illo tempore, qui in Judsea sunt, fugiant
ad montes, id est, qui sunt in Christianitate conferant se ad scripturas. Sicut
enim verus Judseus est Christianus, dicente apostolo, Non qui in manifesto
Judseus est, sed qui in occulto ; sic vera Judsea Christianitas est, cujus
nomen intelligitur confessio. Montes autem sunt scripturse apostolorum
aut prophetarum, de quibus dictum est, Illuminas tu mirabiliter a monti
bus aaternis; 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 LXX. <paTi£eis av Bavpao-rds dirb dpeav
alavlav. They probably conjectured that CpJ2 should be read ?113. 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 we ; the holy scriptures themselves as well as we ; bishops
and the other orders of the clergy as well as we ; baptism as well
as we ; the eucharist as well as we, and all the rest ; 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 scriptures2?''
And 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 thus : " 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 by
scripture. I answer : What a ridiculous subterfuge is this ! For
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
P Audite vocem pastoris ; colligite vos ad montes scripturse sanctse  Et
quare jubet hoc tempore omnes Christianos conferre se ad scripturas ? Quia
in tempore hoc, ex quo obtinuit hseresis illas ecclesias, nulla probatio potest
esse verse Christianitatis, neque refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud,
volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem, nisi scriptural divinse. Antea enim
multis modis ostendebatur, quse esset ecclesia Christi et quse gentilitas.
Nunc autem nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere quse sit vera
ecclesia Christi, nisi tantummodo per scripturas. Quare ? Quia omnia quse
sunt proprie Christi in veritate, habent et hsereses illae in schismate, simi-
Uter 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
quse 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. The same Chrysostom, Horn.
13 in 2 Corinth, writes thus: "How can 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 you to
leave asking what this man or the other thinks, and to seek the
resolution of all these inquiries from the scriptures1." Bellarmine
brings a pitiable and foolish reply. He 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, dirdvrwv, in the declaration of the laws of God,
airocpaaiv rwv 9eiuiv vop.wv. How he understands this, is shewn
by his subjoining, irapa rd>v ypafpwv ravra iravra irvv9avecr9e.
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 by a comparison : ' We examine money by counting and
reckoning it : now we ought to be much more careful about such
matters as these.'
Our seventh testimony is from Epiphanius, Hares. 61. This
is produced by Bellarmine. But there is a still clearer testimony,
Hares. 69, where Epiphanius assigns the reason why he gives the
title 'AyKvpwrbs to his book, — because he collected the doctrine of
God out of the whole scripture, to be as it were an anchor2.
Therefore the scripture is the anchor of our faith. And a httle
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
Testaments3." Our eighth testimony is that of Cyril, in his book, De Fide ad
[1 n<3f yap ovk aroirov virep pev xP7)P-°Ta'v H-V irepois irtartveiv, dXX' dpiBpd
Kal tyrjipa tovto iirirpeiretv, virep he irpayparav yj/rjlbi^opevovs dirXas Tais ere-
pav irapaavpeaBat h6£ats, Kal ravra aKpiftrj £vybv airavrav txovras Kal yvapova
Kal Kavdva rdv Beiav vdpav rrjv dirdlpaaiv. htb irapaKaXd Kal heopai iravrav
vpdv, aipevres Tt r<5 heivt Kal r<j> heivi hoKei irepl rovrav, irapa rdv yparpdv
ravra diravra irvvddveaBe. — Chrysost. Comment. T. v. pp. 636, 7. Paris.
1633.] P c. xxvii. p. 751—2. ed. Petav. T. I.]
[3 hid rb iirtacfriygai iraXaiav Kal veav hiaBrjKrjv. — Ib. 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. xn. in Joann. c.
68. : " 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 heaven4." The
same author, Horn. 5 in Levit. writes as follows : " I (as far as the
capacity of my 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 by sacrifice) should be searched out and examined, and that
the understanding of all things should be taken from these ; 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 day), but we should
commit what remains to the fire, that is, reserve it for God5." Bel
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
Origen'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. He not only rejects any third scripture, but distinctly
P Non igitur omnia quse Dominus fecit conscripta sunt, sed quse scri-
bentes tarn ad mores quam ad dogmata putarunt sufficere ; ut recta fide et
operibus ac virtute rutilantes ad regnum coelorum perveniamus. — -Col. 220.
Paris. 1508.]
P Ego (prout sensus mei capacitas habet) in hoc biduo puto duo testa-
menta posse intelligi, in quibus liceat omne verbum, quod ad Deum per-
tineat (hoc enim est sacrificium), requiri et discuti, atque ex ipsis omnem
rerum scientiam capi: si quid autem superfuerit, quod non scriptura
divina decernat, nullam aliam debere tertiam scripturam ad auctoritatem
scientise suscipi, quse hie dies tertia nominatur, sed igni tradamus quod
superest, id est, Deo reservemus. — This passage is taken almost word for
word from Origen, Horn. 5. in Levitic. 66. d.]

688 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
affirms that in the two Testaments " every word pertaining to
God may be sought." Therefore, those things which cannot be
found in these two Testaments, do in no way pertain to God.
To whom then shall we suppose that written traditions pertain ?
Our ninth testimony is that of Theophilus Alexandrinus, who
in his 2nd Paschal writes thus : " It is the fruit of a diabolic spirit to
think that there is aught divine without the authority of the sacred
scriptures1." Bellarmine says that he is speaking of apocryphal
books, which some sought to introduce. I answer : The words are
plain, — that nothing is divine without the scriptures. Now, tradi
tions are without the scriptures : therefore, they are not divine.
Our tenth testimony is that of Apollinaris, mentioned by
Eusebius, Lib. v. c. 15. He 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 gospel2. Bellarmine replies, firstly, that
these words are not found in all the books. I answer : They 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 ivritten 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. For he says that he feared lest he
should seem eiritrvyypdfpew, or eiriSiardo70-eo9ai rip rijs Kaivfjs
Sia9rJKns Xoyw' that is, to add anything to the written gospel.
Besides, he could not possibly fear adding anything by 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 :
He might easily have guarded against the danger of writing any
thing contrary to scripture; but what he dreaded was, lest any one
should suppose that the book which he wrote added anything to
the canon, in the same way as Montanus added many things. Then
he subjoins : "No one can neither add to, or diminish from, the
scriptures of the old and new Testaments," Lxrjre irpo^elvai fxrjre
dcpeXelv Svvarbv. Therefore it is certain that the doctrine de
livered in the scriptures is perfect.
P Diabolici spiritus est, extra scripturarum sacrarum authoritatem divi-
num aliquid putare. — In Bibliothec. Patrum. Paris. 1589. T. in. col. 519.]
P hehids he Kal i£evXaf$ovpevos pn irrj fid£o> rtaiv iirio-vyypaqbeiv tj imhia-
rdaaeadai r<3 rijs rou tvayyeXtov Kaivfjs hiaBrjKrjs X6ya, a prjTt irpocrBeivai prjr
dipeXeiv hvvardv. — T. II. pp. 73, 74. ed. Heinich.]

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 Word, who is the minister and mediator of
the supreme governor. But that all things were made out of any
subject-matter, I have nowhere yet 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
ture3." 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, Rev. xxii. 18. He 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. The scripture, says he, is perfect
enough to prove this. I answer : Tertullian does indeed handle
that question in this book ; 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.
The same author also elsewhere, in his Prescriptions against
P Adoro scripturse plenitudinem, quse mihi factorem manifestat et facta.
In evangelio vero amplius et ministrum atque arbitrum rectoris invenio Ser-
monem. An autem de aliqua subjacenti materia facta sint omnia, nusquam
adhuc legi. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina, aut timeat vos illud
adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum.— cap. 22, p. 19. ed Leopold.
Lips. 1841.]
44
[whitaker.]

690 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
heretics, writes thus : " We are not permitted to indulge our own
caprice in anything, nor to choose what any shall introduce of his own
will. We have as our authorities the apostles of the Lord, 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 accursed1." The apostles delivered the instruction of Christ
faithfully to the nations, not to a few particular persons, but to all.
And a little after he says, that " aU the Lord's sayings are set forth
for all2." Therefore not some for some, (as the Jesuit pretends) but
all for all. The same father, in his book de Resurrections Carnis,
calls the heretics shunners of the light of scripture, lucifugas
scripturarum. This title suits our papists most aptly : 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. And in the same book he says : " Take
away from the heretics what they have in common with pagan wis
dom, so as to make them support all their opinions by scripture
only, and they cannot stand3." The same may be said of the
papists : for if they are compelled to support all their dogmas by
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 says : " If they do not prove it, for indeed it is
not written4." And presently after : " But there is nothing cer
tainly known, because scripture exhibits nothing 5." And again :
" I do not admit what you add beside the scripture out of your
own head6."
Our twelfth testimony is that of Cyprian, Ep. 74 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
nee ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio, quod inducerent, elegerunt, sed accep-
tam a Christo disciplinam fideUter nationibus adsignaverunt. Itaque etiam
si angelus de coelis aliter evangelizaret, anathema diceretur a nobis. — c. 6,
p. 4.] P Omnia quidem dicta Domini omnibus posita sunt. — c. 8, p. 7.]
P Aufer hsereticis quse cum ethnicis sapiunt, ut de solis scripturis quses-
tiones suas sistant, et stare non possunt. — c. 3.]
p Si non probant, quia nee scriptum est. — c. 6, p. 69.]
[s Certum est ; sed nihil de eo constat, quia scriptura non exhibet. — Ibid.]
P Non recipio, quod extra scripturam 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
Lord 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 says : ' The book
of this law shall not depart out of thy 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 Lord,
when he sends his apostles, commands that the nations should be
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 Acts, 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 be observed7." In these words we must observe two
things : 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 error ; and
that consequently he reasoned as men in error do. I answer : He
erred indeed, but he advanced a good argument to support a bad
cause : he was wrong in the minor, not in the major premiss.
For thus he reasoned : Things unwritten should not be received.
So far was true. Then he assumed that what Stephen held, —
namely, that those baptized by heretics should not be rebaptized, —
was not written. Now this was false : so that it was a good
argument applied to a bad cause. Secondly, Bellarmine says,
that Augustine refutes this epistle, de Baptismo c. Donat. Lib. v.
c. 23. I answer : He does refute it, and censures it, not on account
of this opinion, but on account of the drift of the epistle, because
P Unde est ista traditio ? Utrumne de dominica et evangelica 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 Uber legis hujus ex ore tuo, sed meditaberis in eo
die ac nocte, ut observes facere omnia quse scripta sunt in eo. Item Do
minus apostolos suos mittens mandat baptizari gentes et doceri, ut observent
omnia qusecunque ille prsecepit. Si ergo aut in evangeUo prsecipitur, aut in
apostolorum epistoUs aut actibus continetur, ut a quacunque hseresi veni-
entes non baptizentur, sed tantum manus ilUs imponatur in pcenitentiam, ob-
servetur divina hsec et sancta traditio. — p. 211, ed. FeU.]
44 — 2

692 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Cyprian therein contends that those who were baptized by heretics
should be rebaptized. Yea, Augustine approves and praises this
opinion of Cyprian's : for in this same book, c. 26, he says, " This
is excellent which Cyprian hath said, ' Let us return to the fountain-
head.1" 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 by
ever so gross a heretic. Bellarmine's argument therefore is a
sophism — a non causa ad causam. His third reply is to this
effect : Although Cyprian condemns this tradition, yet he condemns
not other traditions. I answer : Cyprian condemns not merely one,
but all traditions which cannot be established by the scriptures of
the evangelists and apostles. And in Ep. 63 ad Cacilium, he says
that "Christ only should be heard," and none beside; that we
should do what he did and commanded to be done : 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. Now he
means no other tradition than the scripture, as in the epistle
to Pompeius. Therefore, if we would keep the tradition of the
Lord, we must always return to the scriptures alone.
I come now to Jerome and Augustine, who alone remain of
those enumerated by Bellarmine. Our thirteenth testimony, then,
is that of Jerome, Comment, in Tit. i. ; Comment, in Matth. xxiii. ;
in Aggseum ; in Psalm. Ixxxvi. ; 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 by the authority of scripture hath no credit1."
Bellarmine says that this fits us exactly ; meaning that garrulous
men obtain no credit with any, unless they seek to confirm their
errors by 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 doc
trine required to be confirmed by the authority of scripture?
P Sine auctoritate scripturarum garrulitas fidem non habet.]

XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 693
The second place from Jerome is contained in his Commentary
on Matth. xxiii. : " That which hath no authority from scripture
is as easily rejected as approved2." He speaks of Zacharias who
was slain between the temple and the altar, and whom some made
the father of John the Baptist on the authority of tradition. Bel
larmine rephes that he speaks of a particular tradition taken
from some apocryphal book. I answer : Yet he speaks gene
rally, that all those things may be easily rejected, which rest not
upon scripture. For what, if that tradition was written in an
apocryphal book, does it therefore follow that it ought to be
rejected? As if any popish traditions were contained in canonical
books !
Jerome's third testimony is found in his Commentary on Hag
gai i. The 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 through3." By the sword of God he means the
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 by Harding in his book against
the English Apology. I answer : This testimony pinches and op
poses the papists mightily ; for they have invented many things
which cannot be established by 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 the
ground (y^a/xevvlas) are here condemned. These things are not
plainly contrary to scripture, and yet he says that these are
stricken by the sword of God ! Now the papists use all these, and
make a great part of piety and religion consist in them. It is mani
fest therefore that Jerome condemns all things which cannot be
proved by plain testimonies of scripture.
The other passage of Jerome is upon Ps. Ixxxvi. ; 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
P Hoc quia de scripturis non habet auctoritatem, eadem facilitate con-
temnitur, qua probatur.— T. ix. p. 57. Francof. 1684.]
p Sed et alia, quse absque auctoritate et testimoniis scripturarum quasi
traditione apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt, percutit gladius
Dei. — T. vi. p. 184.]

694 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
this piece. Thus then writes Jerome in that place : "Mark what he
says : * Those who were' not those who are : so as that, with the
exception of the apostles, whatever else may be said afterwards, is
cut off and deprived of authority. Although therefore a man be
holy after the apostles, although he be eloquent, he hath no autho
rity, because, 'The Lord relates in the scripture of the people, and
of those princes who were in her1." Bellarmine replies, that those
things are rejected which are contrary and repugnant to the scrip
tures, and nothing else. I answer : The words of the psalm which
Jerome treats of are these : " The Lord shall relate in the scripture
of the people and of those princes who were in her." But how,
says Jerome, will he relate? Not by word of mouth, but in
scripture. Therefore every unwritten word must be amputated and
cut off. But Bellarmine hath omitted these words, because they
make against himself. But, says Jerome, why is scripture called
the scripture of the people ? Because it is read by all people, that
all may understand it. Why of the princes ? Because the apostles
and evangelists, the princes of the church, wrote these things.
And he says, " They were," not they are, to shew that nothing
can now 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 charity2." Bellarmine rephes, that Augustine speaks of those
things which are simply necessary to all. I answer: We 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 every one. He says, in the beginning of
this very chapter : " In all these books those who fear God, and
[1 Videte quid dicat : Qui fuerunt, non qui sunt : ut, exceptis apostolis,
quodcunque aliud postea dicetur, abscindatur, non habeat postea auctorita
tem. Quamvis ergo sanctus sit aliquis post apostolos, quamvis disertus sit,
non habet auctoritatem : quoniam Dominus narrat in scriptura populorum
et principum horum, qui fuerunt in ea. — T. viii. p. 163.
The quotation is from Ps. lxxxvn. 6, according to the Vulgate, follow
ing the Seventy : Kvpios hirjyno-erai iv ypaipij Xaav Kal dpxdvrav rovrav rcSi'
yeyevrjpevav iv airfj. They seem to have brought up D'Htt'1 from v. 7, and
¦ * T i
to have read it D'Httfl-] ' t :
p In us enim qute aperte in scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur ilia omnia quse
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 God3."
And, to enable us the better to seek the will of God, he delivers
two rules : the first is, to know, read, and even commit to me
mory the canonical books ; the second, to investigate those things
which are plainly expressed in them. Then he subjoins these
words : " For 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
Bellarmine'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 Au
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 all ! As if the faith of prelates were one thing, and the faith
of the people another ! To the same effect is what Augustine, de
peccat. Merit, et Remiss. Lib. n. c. ult. : " 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 salvation4." Where he affirms that those things, whereof
we cannot be ignorant without the loss of our salvation, are plainly
found in scripture. He 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. From 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 be esta
blished by certain and clear testimonies of scripture ; (for so says
Augustine in the words immediately preceding : " Where the dis
pute is about a matter of great obscurity, and clear and certain
instruction is not lent us by the holy scriptures, human presumption
should restrain itself and he still, inchning to neither side5 :" hence
P In his omnibus libris timentes Deum et pietate mansueti quserunt
voluntatem Dei.]
P Mud tamen credo, quod etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum clarissima
auctoritas esset, si homo illud sine dispendio promissse salutis ignorare non
posset. — T. vn. p. 304.]
p Ubi de re obscurissima disputatur, non adjuvantibus divinarum scrip
turarum Claris certisque documentis, cohibere se debet humana prsesumptio,
nihil faciens, in partem alteram decUnando.— Ibid.]

696 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
it follows as a corollary, that all things must be proved by 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.
in. 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 we — who are by no means
comparable to him who said, 'Though we,' — but I do say certainly
what he goes on to subjoin — ' or an angel from heaven, preach any
thing to you beside what ye have received in the scriptures of the
law and the gospel, let him be accursed'1." Bellarmine rephes:
" 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. 18, where he writes thus : " 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
by which the just man lives, by 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 by sense
nor reason, which are not revealed to us by the canonical scrip
tures, nor have come to our knowledge upon the testimony of
witnesses whose credit it would be absurd to question2." They
produce, moreover, many more testimonies, as from Tract. 2. in Ep.
Joann., Epist. 163, de Pastor, c. 14, de Confess. Lib. vi. c. 5.
To all these testimonies Bellarmine rephes, that nothing is therein
p Proinde sive de Christo, sive de ejus ecclesia, sive de quacunque aha
re quse pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, non dicam si nos, nequaquam
comparandi ei qui dixit, Licet si nos, sed omnino quod sequutus adjecit, si
Angelus de coelo vobis annunciaverit prseterquam quod in scripturis legalibus
et evangelicis accepistis, anathema sit. — T. ix. p. 301.]
p 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, qua salva atque
certa de quibusdam rebus, quas neque sensu neque ratione percipimus,
neque nobis per canonicam scripturam claruerunt, nee per testes quibus non
credere absurdum est, in nostram notitiam pervenerunt, sine justa repre-
hensione dubitamus.]

XVH.J 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! The scriptures are to be produced when they can be
produced ! It is indeed thus that the papists act in defence of
their cause. When they have scripture (which seldom happens),
they produce it. But what must be done when the testimony of
scripture cannot be produced? Why, 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. xix. c. 18,
he says that the church of God believes in the books of the old and
new Testaments, " by which that faith whereby the just man lives
is engendered." They 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. 163, 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 : "Read 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 Lord
saying, 'My sheep hear my voice, and follow me'3." And a little
after he says: "Away with human writings! let us hear God's
words." That divine voice, then, which the sheep of Christ hear,
P Lege hoc mihi de propheta, lege de Psalmo, recita de lege, recita de
evangeUo, recita de apostolo. Inde ego recito ecclesiam toto orbe diftusam,
et Dominum dicentem, Quse sunt oves mese vocem meam audiunt et
sequuntur me . . . Auferantur chartse humanse ; sonent voces divinse. — T. ix. J

698 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
sounds in the scriptures, and unwritten traditions deserve no esteem
from his flock.
In his Confessions, Lib. vi. c. 5, he says, that he was drawn
away from the Manichees by this conviction, amongst others, that
he had begun to believe that God would never have given the
scripture so eminent an authority throughout all lands, unless he
had meant it to be the means whereby we should believe in him,
and seek him.
Another passage of Augustine cited by Bellarmine is from his
book de bono Viduitatis, c. 1, and is as follows : " The holy
scripture hath fixed the rule of our doctrine, that we may not
presume to be wise beyond what is meet, but may be wise (as
the apostle says) unto sobriety, according as God hath dealt to
every man the measure of faith. Let me not then consider that
in teaching you I am doing anything more than expounding the
great Teacher's words, and discoursing of what he hath given1."
Bellarmine maintains that Augustine speaks only of one single
dogma, — namely, 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. He 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 we 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. Arian. Lib. in. c. 14. The words are these : "Neither should
I allege the council of Nice, nor you that of Rimini, as if we would
prejudge the question. You are not bound by the authority of the
one, nor I by that of the other. With 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 reason2."
p Sancta scriptura nostrse doctrinse 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.] P Sed nunc nee ego Nicenum, nee tu debes Ariminense, tanquam prse-
judicaturus proferre conciUum. Nee ego hujus auctoritate, nee tu iUius

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 : When 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." For so Augustine frequently rejects
all other standards, and requires scripture to be produced. In
his commentary on Psalm lvii. Augustine writes thus : " Away with
our writings ! Let the Book of God come forth : hear Christ
teaching: hear Truth speaking3" — where he counts everything
but scripture to be the voice of man. There are similar expres
sions in his book de Unitate Ecclesia, capp. 3, 6, 10, 16, 20; and
another passage, de Merit, et Remiss. Pecc. Lib. n. c. ult. which
hath been already cited. These are the testimonies, the force of
which our opponent seeks to elude.
We might easily produce many more, as well from Augustine as
from others; and therefore Bellarmine's first remark is of no weight
against us : for he says, in the first place, that he hath cited twice
as many testimonies for traditions as we bring against them. I
answer : Firstly, the victory rests not with the multitude and num
ber, but with the truth of testimonies. We read that a thousand
men have been often routed by a hundred. Secondly, I say that
we 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 by
wrong consequences which we draw from them. I answer : 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 by the fathers are generally free customs, and not neces
sary dogmas: thirdly, that the fathers themselves were often
deceived : (this, perhaps, may seem reproachful to the fathers ; but
detineris : scripturarum auctoritatibus, non quorumque propriis, sed utrisque
communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione con
certed— T. vi. p. 306.]
P Auferantur de medio chartse nostrse ; procedat in medium codex Dei ;
audi Christum docentem, audi veritatem loquentem.]

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 by the
fathers are now abrogated by 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 by the fathers, while they do not
concede that it was opposed by them. I answer : We concede that
traditions were defended by 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 Rom. xvi. 1. 10, writes thus : " Behold, how
those men stand upon the brink of peril, who neglect to exercise
themselves in holy scripture, from which alone" — so he proceeds —
"the discernment of this examination can be learned1." Chryso
stom, Horn. 58, on the beginning of John x. writes thus : " He
justly calls the scriptures the door, because they lead us to God,
and disclose to us the knowledge of him. They 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 : " He who does not use the holy scripture, but chmbeth up
some other way, the same is a thief2." Surely, there is a noble
encomium upon scripture in this passage. He says that it is the
door of the knowledge of God ; that it makes us of the flock and
keeps us so ; that we are directed by 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 way, — that is, who use any other
P Vide quam proximi periculis fiant hi, qui exerceri in divinis Uteris
negligunt, ex quibus soUs hujusmodi examinationis agnoscenda discretio
est. — Origen. Opp. P. n. p. 412, o. Paris. 1604.]
P etKoras he Bvpav rds ypaqbas iKaXeaev. avrai yap Tjpds irpoaayovai ra
Qed Kal rrjv Beoyvaatav avoiyovo-iv- avrai trpdfiara irotovaiv' avrai (pvXaTrovaiv,
Kal tovs Xvkous oiiK drbiaatv iiretae\8eXv Kaddirep yap ns Bvpa da(f>aXrJs, ovras
diroKXeiet rois alperiKols rrjv e'iaohov, iv do-(j>aXtla KaBiardaa ijpas irepl av av
(3ovXapeda iravrav, Kal ovk- idaa irXavaaBai  d yap prj rats yparpais XP®~
pevos, aXXa ava{3atvav dXXdxoBev, rovreo-riv, erepav eavrd Kal prj vevopiape-
vrjv repvav Shbv, oJYos KXeirrrjs iariv. — Chrysostom. Comment. T. n. p. 371.
Paris. 1633.]

XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 701
evidence — are thieves. What then, I beseech you, are .the
papists? The same father, Hom. 9. on the Colossians, says: "Wait
not for another master. Thou hast the oracles of God. None can
teach thee like them." And, a little after : " Ignorance of scrip
ture is the source of all evils3." Where then are those who refuse
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 thus : " I have not time at present to
write about the rest, and it was a letter you asked of me and not a
book; 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 by the testimonies of holy scripture,
wherein God speaks daily to believers4." From which words I
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 beyond its boundaries, which are the holy scriptures.1'
Here he writes expressly, that the church is circumscribed by 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, Lord ; yet the dogs eat of the
crumbs that fall from their masters' table," writes thus : " These are
crumbs of that bread ; and since that bread is the word, and faith
is exercised upon the word, the doctrines of faith are as it were
crumbs6." Now, lest any one should explain this of the unwritten
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
P prjhe ireptpeivrjs erepov hihdaKaXov exeis ra Xdyia tov Geov- oihels o-e
hihdaKet as iKeiva. . . . rovro iravrav a'tnov rav Kaxdv, to prj elhevat rds ypa-
<pds.—T. VI. p. 224.]
P De ceteris non est hujus temporis scribere ; neque enim a me librum
sed epistolam flagitasti, qui dictandus est ex otio, et omnes oblatrationes
eorum Christi auxilio destruendse, quod nobis sanctarum scripturarum testi-
monus asserendum est, in quibus quotidie credentibus loquitur Deus. —
Hieron. Opp. T. I. coll. 1035, 6. Veronse. 1734.]
p Micse istse de illo pane sunt, et quia panis verbum est, et fides verbi
est, micse velut qusedam dogmata fidei sunt.— Exposit. in Luc. Lib. viii. $.
,15. T. v. p. 351. Paris. 1838.]

702 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
mysteries, on which the holy church feeds ; and that the dogs are
the faithful. The sense therefore is, that the faithful are fed by
the precepts of faith, but only such as fall from the table of the
Lord, 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. The same Ambrose, De Fide,
ad Gratian. Lib. i. c. 6, writes as follows : " I would not have
your sacred majesty trust mere argument, or any reasoning of
mine. Let us ask the scriptures, let us ask the apostles, let us
ask the prophets, let us ask Christ1."
Augustine, Epist. 112, writes thus : " If it be confirmed by 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 you 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 belief2." Thus Augustine : In which words he
teaches us that the authority of scripture is singular in its kind, so
as that whatever is by it confirmed must be immediately received ;
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.
The same author elsewhere, De Natura et Gratia, c. 91, writes
thus : " I owe an absolute assent only to the canonical scriptures3."
What 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 book the
papists have great confidence, speaks thus : c. 41, " The canon
P Sed nolo argumento credas, sancte imperator, et nostrse disputationi :
scripturas interrogemus, interrogemus apostolos, interrogemus prophetas,
interrogemus Christum. — T. vi. pp. 15, 16.]
P Si divinarum scripturarum, earum scilicet quse canonicse in ecclesia
nominantur, perspicua firmatur auctoritate, sine ulla dubitatione credendum
est. Aliis vero testibus vel testimoniis, quibus aUquid credendum esse sua-
detur, tibi credere vel non credere Uceat, quantum ea momenti ad faciendam
fidem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis. — Paris. 1635.]
P Quia soUs canonicis debeo sine recusatione consensum. — T. vn. p. 322.]

XVII.] QUESTION THE SIXTH. 703
of scripture alone is self-sufficient for all4." Still more plainly,
c. 2: "The canon of scripture alone is sufficient, and more than suf
ficient for all things5." I do not see how he could have spoken more
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. Haret., speaks thus : " I dare not say any thing
upon which scripture is silent6." Those, therefore, are presumptuous,
who say any thing beside the scripture. Damascene, de Fide Ortho-
doxa, c. 1, writes thus : " We receive, acknowledge, honour and
approve all things delivered by the law, the prophets, the apostles,
and the evangelists ;" then he subjoins, " seeking nothing else beside
these7." The same author, Lib. iv. c. 18, writes thus : " Like a
tree planted by the streams of water, so the soul, irrigated by 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. For we become apt for zealous work
and pure contemplation by the scriptures ; since we find in them
what encourages us to all virtue and turns us from all vice8."
Hugo de Sancto Victore, Prol. in Lib. i. de Sacr, c. I,9 compares
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 Word 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
P Solus scripturse canon sibi ad universa sufficit.]
P Solus canon scripturse ad omnia satis superque sufficit.]
P 0P60. 'EycJ pev ovk av ipalijv dvBpairlvois ireiBdpevos Xoyto-pdis. ov yap
ovras tlpl Bpaavs dart <f>dvai n aeaiyrjpAvov irapa rfj Bela ypaipr). — Theo
doret. Dialog. Tiguri. 1593, p. 107.]
P iravra rolvvv ra irapahehopeva rjpiv hid re vdpov Kal irpoqbrjrdv Kal airoaro-
\av Kal tvayyeXto-rdv hexdpeBa Kal yivdaKopev Kal aejiopev, oihev irepairepa
rovrav iirifyrovvTes. — Damascen. Opp. T. i. p. 123. Paris. 1712.]
P dairep yap hevhpov irapa ras hie£bhovs rdv vhdrav iretpvrevpevov, ovra Kal
17 ^IruxVi rfl ^€ia dphevopevrj ypaiprj iriaiverai «al Kapirbv aptpov hiham, irlariv
SpBbhogov, Kal dtiBdXeai rois (fivXXois, rais Beapearois <j>ripl dpai£erai irpdgeai.
— c. 17, p. 282.]
P Divina scriptura materiam habet opera restaurationis. — Opp. T. in.
Mogunt. 1617.]

704 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. XVII.
more clearly, and handle more largely, what is contained in scrip
ture. He 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 life1." 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 : " The
suitable matter of preaching is the holy scripture. For God
speaketh once, says Job, xxii. and it is in the sacred scripture
that God speaks : and that so copiously (as Gregory explains it,
Moral. 22), as that he needs not say any thing necessary a second
time, since all things are therein contained2." Driedo, De Catal.
Lib. i. c. 1, says that scripture is called an instrument, because it
instructs man what he should believe, hope, and do3.
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 Qusestio n. p. 40, inter Scoti Opp. T. m. p. 1. Lugdun. 1639. Scotus
proposes the question, Utrum cognitio supematuraUs necessaria viatori sit
suflicienter tradita in sacra scriptura? and resolves it in the afiirmative.]
p Materia congrua prsedicationis est sacra scriptura. 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. in. Lugdun. 1639.]
p 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 by 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.
The first concerns the number of canonical and truly inspired
books of scripture ; since, not content with those which in the old
Testament were published by the prophets, in the new by the
apostles and evangelists — the chosen organs of the Spirit, they
add to this fair and perfect body 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.
The 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 Diomede4, to exchange gold for brass, but to prefer
the work of man to that of God. Who can doubt that Glaucus
was a wise man compared with these ? Brasen arms are as fit for
all warlike purposes as golden ; but who would not choose to learn
true rehgion from the words of the Holy 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. P Iliad, vi. 234—236.] 45
[whitaker.]

706 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 church ; which is just the same as Tertullian
formerly so wittily charged 'upon the heathen, Apol. c. 5 : " With
you divinity depends on human choice. God is no God, unless it
so pleases man. Man must now be kind to God1." It is abso
lutely thus that the papists maintain, that the scriptures would be
no scriptures to us, if the church did not give them their authority,
and approve them by her judgment.
The 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 pubhshed
his scriptures as Aristotle did his books of Physics, for no one to
understand. " Know that they are pubhshed, and yet not pub
lished ; for they are only intelligible to those who have heard
myself2." The fifth is their refusal to have controversies decided by
scripture, or to allow scripture to be its own interpreter, making
the pope of Rome the sole judge 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 good ; or as if God did not speak to
us, but only by 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. Who 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 ?
P Apud vos do humano arbitratu divinitas pensitatur. Nisi homini Deus
placuerit, Deus non crit : homo jam Deo propitius esse debcbit. — T. I. p. 62.
Lips. 1839.]
P iadi .... airovs Kal ixhehopevovs Kal pr) iKhehopevovs- £vvero( yap elai
p&vois rois rjpav aKovaaatv. — Aristot. ad Alex. ap. Aul. Gell. 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 by arguments and testimonies drawn
from scripture, but also by 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. We publish this controversy by itself (though we mean not to
follow the same course with the rest), and that for very great and
satisfactory reasons. The 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. They are
published as they were taken down by some of my constant and
attentive auditors, and have been afterwards reviewed by myself.
Farewell.

45 — 2

INDEX.

A.
Adamites, 229.
^Etiological sense of scripture, 403.
Albigenses, 31.
Alfred, ordered the Psalms to be translated
into Saxon, 222.
Allegoric sense of scripture, 405.
Alogi, 34.
Ambrose, St, his opinion of the perspicuity
of scripture, 398 ; his testimony to the
authority of scripture, 357, 702 ; another,
the friend of Origen, 124.
Anabaptists, reject the Song of Solomon,
32; said to ridicule the book of Job, 33 ;
to deny the scripture, 298; refuted out
of scripture, 506.
Anagoge, 404.
Andrew, gospel of, 108.
Anicetus, his behaviour to Polycarp, 217.
Anthropomorphites, whence their heresy
sprang, 229; refuted by Theophilus of
Alexandria, 596.
Apocalypse, whether rejected by the Coun
cil of Laodicea, 54 ; interpreted by Justin
aud Irenaeus, 391.
Apocalypse, of Paul, why rejected by the
church, 315; of Peter, 304.
Apocryphal books, in what sense sometimes
called canonical, 45, and scripture, 69;
of the old Testament were rejected by
the Jewish church, 52; never acknow
ledged as canonical scripture by the
fathers or ecclesiastical writers, even
after the Trullan Synod, 63, 66 ; of old
Testament, allowed such by the papists,
103 ; of new Testament, 108, 109 ; of the
first class, what they are, 305; of the
second class, 312 ; why rejected by the
fathers, 313.
 Augustine's judgment
concerning them considered, 45; were
not written by prophets, 49; forbidden
to be read in churches by the Council of
Laodicea, 54 ; rejected by Melito, Atha
nasius, Hilary, Nazianzene, Cyril of Je
rusalem, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, Jerome,

Josephus, &c, 56-61; not cited by
Christ or his apostles, 51.
Apollinaris, supposed by Valla to have
forged the books which go under the
name of Dionysius Areopagita, 576 ; his
testimony to the perfection of scripture,
688.
ApoUinarius, included Psalm cli. in his me
taphrase, 104.
Apollonius, attributes the introduction of
stated fasts to Montanus, 665.
Apostles, did not write without a divine
command, or on slight occasions, 527 ;
to be considered under a twofold aspect,
311 ; how succeeded by bishops, 417, 418.
 canons of, see Canons ; and pro
phets, Eph. ii. 10, how the foundation of
the church, 348, 349, 649, &c; deter
mined nothing about fasting, 665.
Aquarii, Cyprian's epistle against, 498, 602.
Aquila, his version of the old Testament, 123.
Arians, refuted by the fathers out of scrip
ture, 481, 534, 563, &c. ; some rejected
the Epistle to the Hebrews, 323«
Aristotle, calls law the canon of the state,
27; his opinion of the human under
standing, 277 ; obscurity of some of his
writings, 706.
Arnold of Chartres, 27.
Asia Minor, the people of, commonly un
derstood Greek, 256.
Athanasius, his testimony for traditions
considered, 588; his testimony to the
sufficiency of scripture, 680.
Athelstane, ordered the Bible to be trans
lated into the British language, 222.
Augustine, has refuted the Manichees most
copiously of aU ancient writers, 31 ; bore
apart in the third Council of Carthage, 39 ;
did not consider all the books which he
calls scriptures as of equal authority, 45 ;
what he meant by the term canonical,
46 ; believed the old Testament to be
written by prophets, 50, 51 ; his opinion
of Samuel's spectre, 91 ; concedes that
Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees are not

710

INDEX.

in the Jewish canon, 93 ; does not treat
the Decretal Epistles of the popes as holy
scripture, 109 ; supposed Hebrew to have
been the primitive language, 112, 113;
his opinion of the Septuagint, 119 ; his
opinion of the old Italic, 128 ; reads ipsa
corruptly in Gen. iii. 15, 164 ; supposed
John's first epistle to be written to the
Parthians, 218 ; does not say that the
scriptures were read in only three lan
guages, 220; his opinion of the Punic
language, 223 ; his testimony to the use
and value of vernacular versions of scrip
ture, 245 ; recognises the necessity of an
inward teacher, 290, 357 ; says that com
paratively few prophets left any writings,
302 ; does not make the whole difference
between canonical and apocryphal writ
ings depend on the judgment of the
church, 309, 310, 315 ; meaning of his
declaration, non crederem evangelio, nisi
me catholics eeclesiee commoveret auctori
tas, 319, &c. ; his reasons for the partial
obscurity of scripture, 365, &c. ; his tes
timony to the perspicuity of scripture,
393, &c. ; to what church he refers
doubters, 442 ; did not believe that the
rule of faith contains anything not de
livered in scripture, 487 ; his rules for
interpreting scripture, 492-495 ; how far
his decision about apostolical traditions
may be admitted, 507 ; considers Christ
as the author of the books of the new
Testament, 527 : his reasons for rejecting
spurious Acts and Gospels, 523 ; his ig
norance of the reasons of Christ's descent
into heU, 537 ; his exposition of 2 Thess.
ii. 5, misrepresented by Stapleton, 553 ;
his testimony in favour of traditions con
sidered, 594, &c. ; his testimony to the
sufficiency of scripture, 694, &c.
Augustinus Steuchus, 495.
Authentic, what the word means, 332 ; the
Vulgate so declared by the Council of
Trent, 111 ; in the fullest sense, no ver
sion can be, 138 ; protestants allow only
the originals of scripture to be such, 140.
B.
Baptism, of infants, may be proved from
scripture, 506 ; and so admitted by Bel
larmine, 540 ; heretical, not to he re
peated, ib. 507 ; Augustine's opinion
respecting, C08, 009.

Baruch, book of, its claims to canonicity
considered, 67-70.
Basil, his adventure with Demosthenes the
cook, 233; his account of faith, 357 ; ad
vises a reference to the bishop of Kome,
439 ; his rules for interpreting scripture,
491 ; what he means by TrapdSoaii, 493,
498 ; did not deem the perpetual virgin
ity of Mary an article of faith, 502 ; his
testimony in favour of traditions consi
dered, 588, 593 ; his testimony to the
sufficiency of scripture, 681.
Basil, the emperor, 438.
Bellarmine, his character, 5, 6; has deserted
several old points of defence, 7; some
times misrepresents the opinions of pro
testants, 9, 514; and garbles quotations
from the fathers, 374; contradicts him
self, 163, 540, 672, 673; borrows ar
guments from the old heretics, 614 ;
pronounces all the histories of the old
Testament unnecessary, 660 ; his strange
interpretations of scripture, 668.

Cajetan, cardinal, his judgment concerning
the apocryphal books, 48, 66 ; vehemently
censured for it by the popish writers, 49 ;
deemed that only sacred scripture which
the apostles wrote or approved, 53; what
books of the new Testament he rejected,
105; admits many faults in the Vulgate
version, 169 ; admits that matrimony can
not be proved a sacrament from Eph. v.
32, 197, nor extreme unction from James
v. 15, 199; dislikes the use of Latin in
the mass, 274 ; his remarks on Deut. xvii.
12, 420; doubts the genuineness of the
works of Dionysius the Areopagite, 576.
Calvin, vindicated, in his objections to the
Vulgate Psalter, against Bellarmine, 181,
&c. ; defended against Stapleton, 340,
&c.
Canon of scripture, the papists cannot
assign the period when it was defined,
63; was, according to Augustine, fixed in
the apostles' times, and therefore cannot
be altered or increased by the church in
after ages, 310, 311 ; power of fixing, how
incident to the apostolic office, 311 ; the
fathers generally do not attribute the
power of consigning it to the church,
323, &c.

INDEX.

711

Canon, meaning of that term when applied
to scripture, 27, 662.
Canonical books, two kinds of, proto-
canonical, and deutero-canonical, 48, 49 ;
of old Testament written by prophets,
49, 50, and approved by the ancient Jew
ish church, 52.
Canons, of the apostles, a spurious piece,
41 &c, 565-567.
Castellio, 32.
Cerdo and Marcion, received only the gos
pel of Luke, 34.
Cerdonians, despised the old Testament,
31.
Chaldee, Paraphrasts, 117 ; language, un
known to Jerome, 81.
Chemnitz, his objections to the Vulgate
version of the old Testament defended
against Bellarmine, 163, &c.
Chrysostom, vindicates the canonicity of the
Epistle to Philemon, 35; affirms that the
original of the Septuagint was extant in
his own day, 119 ; said to have translated
the scriptures into Armenian, 222; ex
horted the laity to read the scriptures,
239, 246, 247, &c. ; testifies to the ex
istence of many vernacular versions of
scripture in his times, 245; shews that
scripture explains its own metaphors,
379 ; his testimony to the perspicuity of
scripture, 395, &c. ; what he thought of
Peter's primacy, 440 ; his testimony to the
sufficiency of scripture, 700.
Church, a ministerial, not the principal
mean of faith in the scriptures, 299;
bound to receive those writings which
are in themselves divine into the canon,
and no others, 301, 305, &c. ; subject to
scripture, 352 ; and that, not only as the
term denotes the whole body of the faith
ful, but the pastors also, 353 ; under what
conditions always to be heard, 426; not
older than the word, nor, if it were, of
higher authority, 331, 332 ; what autho
rity in respect of scripture assigned to it,
by us and by the papists, 280, &c. ; the
arguments of the papists for the church's
authority over scripture stated and re
futed, 285, &c. ; authority of, can force
men to acknowledge the scriptures, but
not persuade them of their truth, 317;
argument drawn from, not taken away
by protestants, 318; Augustine's use of
that argument considered, 319, &c. ; the

faithful may be first moved by that argu
ment, but rest finally upon firmer ground,
322; none of the fathers cited by Staple-
ton really say that the reception of canon
ical, and rejection of apocryphal, writings
depends only on the authority of the
church, 323, &c. ; authority of, in respect
of us, depends on scripture, not scripture
on it, 332, &c. 338, &c. ; not sufficient of
itself to raise faith in scripture, without
the internal infusion of the Spirit, 355;
offices of, with respect to scripture, al
lowed by protestants, 283, 284 ; the
judgment of, is human, 338, not divine
but in a certain respect, 342; not the
proper cause of the authentic authority
which scripture holds with us, 334 ; what,
we profess in the Creed to believe in, 299 ;
built on the foundation of the prophets
and apostles, what it proves, 348 ; in that
passage, Eph. ii. 20, means both people
and pastors, 349 ; present, the power of
consigning the canon of scripture given
to it by Stapleton, 330 ; cannot judge
scripture but according to scripture, 353.
what power of interpreting scrip

ture the papists claim for it, 410 — 415;
resolves itself into the power of the pope,
412 — 414 ; what Augustine advises us to
consult in doubtful questions, 442.
what the papists mean by that

term, 448, 449 ; universal, not always the
greatest number, or most considerable
persons, 504.
Clemens Alexandrinus, believed that the
old Testament was restored by Ezra,
115 ; that the old Testament was read by
Plato, 118 ; ascribed the Greek of the
Epistle to the Hebrews to Luke, 125;
but the original to Paul, 106, 107; as
signs reasons for the partial obscurity of
scripture, 365; thought that Christ de
scended into hades to preach the gospel
there, 537; his testimony to traditions
considered, 586 ; his errors, ib.
_  Romanus, the book of canons
ascribed to him, spurious, 41 — 44, 565,
567; also that of Constitutions, 567 —
569.
Constantine, 435, 436, 678.
Councils, have a twofold use, 434 ; all re
ligions have guided themselves by scrip
ture, 434, 435.
Council of Carthage, Third, was merely pro-

712

INDEX.

vincial, 39 ; not received, in all its decrees,
by the papists themselves, 40, 41.
Council, Trullan (Quinisext), rejected by
many papists, 41 ; sanctioned the canons
of the apostles, in contradiction to the
decree of pope Gelasius, 41 ; counts too
many canons, 42.
¦ -  of Florence, amere modern popish
conventicle, 40, 63, 67.
Lyons, condemned the error of

the Greeks denying the Spirit to proceed
from the Son, 539.
— ,  Nice, First, proceeded upon scrip
tural authority, 435 ; did not receive the
book of Judith as canonical, 82.
 , Second, a mere conventicle,

564 ; contradicts scripture, general coun
cils, and ancient doctors, 509.
 Trent, not general, 40; its

decree concerning the canon of scripture,
22; concerning the interpretation of
scripture, 410; concerning the authen
ticity of the Vulgate, 110, 111 ; concern
ing prayers in Latin, 250; makes no
classification of the traditions which it
requires to be received with like devout
affection as the scriptures, 502.
Cross, sign of, an ancient ceremony, but
much abused, 590.
Custom, has not the same force in religion
as in politics, 612 ; when opposed to
truth, rejected by the canon law itself,
613.
Cyprian, exhorts men to fly heresy as the
plague, 17 ; not the author of the tract
De Baptismo Christi, 27; quotes the
third book of Esdras, 68 ; in what man
ner, according to Driedo, 69 ; makes all
bishops successors of the apostles, 418 ;
his treatise de Simplicitate PrtBlatorum,
ib. ; how he quotes Deut. xviii. 12, 421 ;
his remark on Christ's blaming the priests
under the name of scribes and Pharisees,
427 ; teaches that Christ only is to be
heard, 429; does not mean the pope,
but the bishop of each particular church,
when he speaks of " one priest,'' 441 ;
how he uses the term tradition, 497 ; his
epistle against the Aquarii, 498; con
firms the custom of mixing water with
the wine from scripture, 499 ; his error
about rebaptizing heretics, 611 j how he
cites Isaiah xxix. 13, 639; his testimony
against traditions, C91, Sc; for tradi

tions considered, 601, &c. ; for communi-
eating infants, 666.
Cyril of Jerusalem, 58, 596; wrote in
Greek, 217.
 of Alexandria, 107, 399, 440, 492, 597,
625, 630, 686, 687. D.
Damascene, John, a late and superstitious
writer, whom the papists themselves dare
not defend in all things, 599 ; his testi
mony to the sufficiency of scripture, 703 ;
ascribes the Epistle to the Hebrews to
Paul, 107.
Daniel, the apocryphal parts of, why some
times called scripture by the fathers, 76 ;
are not canonical, 77-80 ; were written in
Greek, 78; rejected by Origen, 79; re
ferred by Bellarmine to a second Daniel,
79 ; book of, attacked by Porphyry, 33.
Decretal Epistles, spurious, 435, 609; not
called scripture by Augustine, 109.
Deipara, that title vindicated by the Fa
thers from scripture, 538.
Deposit, what spoken of 1 Tim. vi. 20, 555,
556.
Descent of Christ into hell, difference be
tween BeUarmine and Andradius on that
point, 536 ; various, opinions upon the
reasons of it, 537, 538.
Dionysius the Areopagite, the works of,
spurious, 252, 575-580; his works de
fended by Goodman, bishop of Gloucester,
580. E.
Ebionites, used only the gospel of Matthew,
35.
Ecclesiastes, book of, vindicated, 31, 32.
Ecclesiasticus, written in Greek, 90 ; He
brew original lost, ib.; author of, not
inspired, ib. ; his opinion of the ghost of
Samuel doubtful, 91 ; may be rejected by
the confession of Augustine and Thomas
Aquinas, 93 ; offence taken at a passage
in, 231.
Epiphanius, his account of the Septuagint,
117 ; thought the Seventy to be in some
sort prophets, 119 ; his account of Aquila
and Symmachus, 123 ; testifies to the per
spicuity of scripture, 399 ; delighted more
than he ought in traditions and genealo
gies, 597 ; traditions mentioned by him
rejected by the papists, 598 ; his errors,

INDEX.

713

ib. ; says that Christians in his time ate
only bread and salt some days before
Easter, 666 ; his testimony to the suffi
ciency of scripture, 686.
Epistle to the Laodiceans, spurious, 108,
302, 303, 304, 531.
Epistles, Decretal, see Decretal Epistles.
Erasmus, thinks that Matthew may have
made a mistake, 37 ; Canus thinks that
Cajetan was deceived by his novelties,
49 ; admits that the vulgar bibles had
many apocryphal books, 66 ; disowned
by the papists, though called by Leo X.
his dear son, ib. ; censures Faber for cre
dulity, 303 ; deems the Epistles of Pope
Innocent spurious, 435 ; thinks the dark
ness at Christ's passion only partial, 579 ;
thinks part of Basil, de Spiritu S. inter
polated, 589 ; says that the use of chrism
in baptism was introduced by the fathers,
•602.
Esdras, apocryphal books of, generally re
jected by the papists, 103 ; fourth of,
called canonical by Genebrard, and some
others, 103, 104.
Esther, apocryphal chapters of, considered,
71, 76 ; rejected by Sixtus of Sienna, 75 ;
how he evaded the Tridentine decree, 76 ;
invented, according to Lyra, by Josephus,
71 ; not received as canonical by Josephus,
72 ; no evidence of a Hebrew original, 73,
75; contradict scripture, 74, 75.
Ezra, story of his restoring the law, 103,
114, 115 ; said by Jerome to have changed
the shape of the Hebrew letters, 116 ; his
reading of the law to the people, 212,
213. F.
Faith, acquired and infused, 355 ; the same
required in -bishops and laymen, 670,
671 ; analogy of, 465, 485, 486 ; resolu
tion of, according to Stapleton, into the
judgment of the church, 341, 342 ; in
Christ as Mediator, denied by Stapleton
to be found in the old Testament, 612 ;
first, 1 Tim. v., what it means, 482, 483.
Faithful, Basil's definition of a faithful man,
621.
Florence, council of, see Council.

Gelasius, pope, and his council, differ from
the papists as to the number of the

canonical books, 44 ; declares the book of
apostolic canons apocryphal, 41.
Gerson, says that scripture explains itself,
494, 495.
Gnostics, rejected the Psalms, 31.
Greek, language, formerly the most prevail
ing, 217 ; known amongst the Parthians,
218 ; version of the Septuagint, best and
most ancient of the Greek translations,
117, 118 ; extended to the whole old
Testament, 119 ; authority of that ver
sion, ib. ; whether it be still extant, 121 ;
faults of the present copies, 121, 122, &c. ;
text of new Testament more ancient than
the Latin, 142 ; inspired and archetypal
scripture, ib. ; from which Jerome amend
ed the Latin edition, ib. ; why written in
Greek, 127, 217 ; versions of the old Tes
tament by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodo
tion, Lucian, &c, 123, 125.
Gregory, Nazianzene, 30, 58, 241, 242, 371,
440, 515, 595.
Gregory the Great, 96, 97, 107, 129, 241,
375, 400.

H.
Hebrew, the most ancient of all tongues,
112, 113 ; did not cease to be vernacular
amongst the Jews in the time of Ezra,
212 ; yet lost much of its pristine purity,
213 ; scriptures understood by the people,
213-215 ; text of the old Testament con
sidered authentic for 600 years after
Christ, 159, &c. ; popish arguments for
its corruption, answered, 160-162 ; ori
ginal, of Matthew's gospel, 125-127.
Hebrews, Epistle to, the author uncertain,
106 ; generally ascribed to Paul, ib., 107 ;
the question superfluous, why, 107, 108.
Hegesippus, his testimony for traditions,
574 ; a spurious work under his name, 575.
Hermas, his Pastor, an apocryphal piece,
109; might, according to Stapleton, be
made canonical, ib., 330.
Hilary, his alleged testimony for traditions,
irrelevant, 603.
Hugo, Cardinal, 65.

Ignatius, what he meant by tradition, 570 ;
what traditions Bellarmine supports by
his authority, ib.; his Epistles doubtful,
571 ; five of them certainly spurious, 572 ;

714

INDEX.

the papists reject his authority, 573; his
errors, 573, 674.
Interpretation of scripture, means of as
signed by protestants, Quest, v. c. 9 ; by
papists, Quest, v. c. 3; by scripture,
Quest, v. u. 13.
Irenaeus, 30, 31, 34, 35 ; cites the Shepherd
of Hermas, 68; whether he cites the
Epistle to the Hebrews as Paul's, 107 ;
says that Matthew wrote his Gospel in
Hebrew, 126 ; wrote his books in Greek,
217 ; what he relates of Anicetus, ib. ;
what obscurities he admits in scripture,
370, 371 ; Bellarmine misrepresents his
meaning, 438, 439 ; thinks that scripture
may be interpreted by itself, 491, 492 ;
Bays that some barbarous nations retained
the truth without the scriptures, 520;
his testimony to traditions considered,
583-585; his testimony to the sufficiency
of scripture, 670-675.
Itala, Vetus, the version so called, 128.

Jerome, 18, 19, 20, 33, 35 ; thought that the
evangelists might sometimes make a mis
take, 37 ; uses canonical in a different
sense from Augustine, 45 ; the judgments
of councils and doctors subject to his
correction, according to Cajetan, 48; re
jects the Apocrypha, 60, 77, 79, &c. ;
thinks Hebrew the mother of all lan
guages, 113, 114 ; says that Ezra changed
the Hebrew letters, 116 ; thinks that he
saw the Hebrew original of Matthew's
Gospel, 126 ; made a copy of it, 127 ;
complains of the variety of texts in the
Latin versions, 128; not the author of
the Vetus Itala, 128, 129 ; nor of the
whole present Vulgate, 129, 130; cen
sures the readings of the present Vulgate
132-135; it is preferred by the fathers
to other Latin versions, but not to the
originals, 137; Vulgate version of the
Psalms not his, 180, &c. ; says that the
Septuagint varied widely from the He
brew, 183; whether he translated the
Bible into Dalmatian, 221 ; says that the
Psalms were chanted at Paula's funeral
in Syriac, 222 ; thinks the Punic nearly
the same as the Phoenician, 223; com
plains of the audacity of ignorant persons
in expounding scripture, 233, 234; the

Commentary on Colossians not his, 239 ;
his testimony to the free use of the scrip
tures, 244, 245; rejects the apocryphal
pieces attributed to Peter, 304 ; what he
says of the obscurity of scripture, 367 ;
admits the necessity of divine help for
the understanding of scripture, 368, and
the use of a human teacher, 368-369, 373 ;
does not say that Justin and Irenaeus
wrote commentaries on the Apocalypse,
391; why he consulted the Bishop of
Kome upon the use of the word hypo
stasis, 442, 443 ; differed from Augustine
upon the meaning of the passage, 1 Tim.
iii. 2, 455; says that the Roman Church
rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, 505;
corrects a mistake of Chrysostom's, 525 ;
Bays there is but one genuine Epistle of
Clement, 566; his testimony for tradi
tions, 605; his testimony to the suffici
ency of scripture, 692-694.
Jesuits, description of that order, 3-5.
Job, Book of, some Anabaptists said to
reject it, 33 ; some of the Rabbins treat it
as a fiction, ib.
Judge of controversies, question concern
ing, Quest, v. c. 8.
Judges, Book of, written by several pro
phets, 302.
Judgment of individuals assisted by the
Holy Spirit, not to be censured as mere
private judgment, 460, 461.
Judith, Book of, Jerome does not say posi
tively that the Council of Nice received
it as canonical, 82 ; shewn by Jerome to
be apocryphal on two grounds, 83; the
times referred to in it hard to be fixed,
83, &c. ; cannot be referred to the time
of Manasseh, 84, 85; what led Bellarmine
to cast it in those times, 85 ; nor to those
of Zedekiah, 86. L.
Latin version, whether the present be Je
rome's, 128 ; many things in it blamed by
Jerome, 132 ; Bellarmine's replies with
respect to them considered, 134; the
Scholastics have drawn many absurd con
clusions from it, 140, 141 ; sentiments of
Clarius and Erasmus concerning, 207;
arguments of the papists for its supeT
riority to the Hebrew proposed and re
futed, 135-140; arguments of the Rhemish

INDEX.

715

translators, 141, &c. ; arguments of Mel
chior Canus, 140; arguments of pro
testants against its authority, 160, &c. ;
places so corrupt that no papist has de
fended them, 173, &c. ; of the new Tes
tament, corruptions in pointed out, 193,
&c. ; preferred to the Greek and Hebrew
by the Rhemists, Lindanus, &c, 111 ; de
clared authentic by the Council of Trent,
ib. ; could not be made really authentic,
157, &c. ; barbarous, and full of sole
cisms, ib. ; in many places evidently cor
rupt, ib. ; instances of corruption indi
cated, ib. ; of the Psalms, not Jerome's,
180; made not from the Hebrew, but the
Greek, ib. ; worse than the Greek, ib. ;
our objections to it supported against
Bellarmine's replies, 181, &c. ; versions,
formerly numerous, 128; versions, other
besides Jerome's used in the church be
fore and after Gregory the Great, 129.
Latin language, not now the most common,
227.
Language, one only spoken before the
building of the tower of Babel, 112, 113 ;
vulgar, the Council of Trent forbids the
use of in saying mass, 250; arguments in
defence of that decree refuted, 251, &c.
Law, by that term, Ps. xix. 8, the whole
doctrine delivered in the old Testament
is described, 641; in what sense there
said to be perfect, ib.; mysteries of, not
concealed by Moses, 611.
Lent, said by Bellarmine to be instituted by
the apostles, not by Christ, 501 ; defended
by Ambrose not from tradition, but scrip
ture, 604.
Luther, no more erroneous in rejecting
some canonical books than some catholic
churches formerly, or some fathers, and
even papists themselves, 105; distin
guishes between the obscurity of pas
sages and the obscurity of dogmas in
scripture, 361; unjustly blamed by Sta
pleton, 362 ; distinguishes between the
external and internal perspicuity and
obscurity of scripture, 363.

M.
Maccabees, books of, arguments for their
canonicity refuted, 93-96 ; rejected by Je
rome and Gregory the Great, &c. 96-97 ;
contain doctrinal errors, 97 ; and fabulous

stories, 98 ; contradictory statements,
98-100; whether written by Josephus, 96;
second book of, an epitome of a larger
work by Jason of Cyrene, 98 ; evidently
written by a human spirit, 100-102.
Manichees, rejected the whole old Testa
ment, 30; said that the books of the
apostles and evangelists were fuU of false
hoods, 34.
Marcion, rejected the law and the prophets,
30, 31 ; a disciple of Cerdon, 34.
Marcionites, what epistles they rejected, 35.
Mary, the blessed Virgin, her perpetual
virginity proved from scripture by the
fathers, 502, 539 ; not an article of faith
according to Basil, ib. ; her rights to the
title deo-roKos, 538 ; story of her assump
tion fabulous, 579, 580.
Matrimony, not a sacrament, 197, 489, 490.
Melchizedek, did not execute a priestly
office in bringing forth bread and wine,
167, 168 ; how a type of Christ, 168, 169.
Moses, the earliest writer, 114; not a priest
after the unction of Aaron, 417; some
say that there were scriptures before his
time, 114, 516 ; books of, in respect of the
sum of their doctrine, nothing added to
them by the apostles and prophets, 618,
619. N.
Nice, Councils of, see Councils.
Nicholas, H. 298.
Nicolaitans, rejected the book of Psalms,
31. O.
'Ojioova-iov, vindicated from scripture by
the fathers, 534, 535, &c. ; whether the
bishops at Rimini understood that term,
139.
Origen, his labour in collecting versions of
scripture, 124, 125; what books he
received as canonical, 57 ; whether he
defended the history of Susanna, 78 ; re
jected the apocryphal parts of Daniel, 79;
would have all search the scriptures, 247 ;
admits obscurities in scripture, 371 ; his
rules for interpreting scripture, 403, &c. ;
recommends the collation of paraUel
places, 493; thinks that the darkness at
the crucifixion was not caused by an
eclipse, 578 ; could not have been known

716

INDEX.

to Justin Martyr, 583 ; his testimony for
tradition, 586, 587 ; a disciple of Clemens
Alexandrinus, 686 ; his testimony against
traditions, 675, 678, 700; probably author
of some homilies ascribed to Cyril, 687.
Osiander, his explanation of Micah v. 2,
173; his calumnies against the Luthe
rans, 379, 380. P.
Paschal controversy between the East and
"West, 539.
Pastors, why compared to the foundation
and gate, 350.
Paul, the apostle, rejected by the Ebionites
as an apostate from the law, 35 ; did not
go to Jerusalem, Gal. ii. 2, to confer with
Peter alone, 432,
People, the christian, should not be always
like children, 243.
Peter, the apostle, why thrice commanded
to feed Christ's sheep, 428 ; had no com
mission given him thereby to determine
what each one ought to teach and believe,
429 ; said by Bellarmine to have been an
ordinary pastor, while the other apostles
were extraordinary, 417; Christ prayed
for him personally that his faith should
not fail, but not for his successors, 430,
431.
Philemon, epistle to, rejected by some, and
why, 35; vindicated by Chrysostom, 35,
36.
Pope, not the one shepherd mentioned
Eccles. xii. 13, 423; greater authority
given to, than to a council, by the papists
generally, 414, but not by Alphonsus a
Castro, 415 ; why an incompetent judge
of controversies, 464, &c; judge in the
last resort according to the papists, 445.
Prayers, in an unknown tongue, do not
edify the people, Quest, ii. c. 18.
Ptolemseans, rejected the books of Moses,
31.
Purgatory, when, and how far, believed by
Luther, 541. Q.
Quartadecimans, their heresy, 539.

Rites and ceremonies, unwritten, 513; may
be changed as convenience requires, ib.

Rule, as such, perfect, 662 ; of faith, what
according to Stapleton, 328; what it
really is, Quest, v. c. 10; not unwrit
ten tradition, 484, 485.
 general, but one given for rites and
ceremonies in scripture, 513.

S.
Sacraments, the meaning and nature of,
should not be hidden from the people,
252; the objection against divulging them
from the Pseudo -Dionysius answered,
253.
Sadducees, said to have received only the
five books of Moses, 30.
Samuel, books of, written by others besides
Samuel, 301, &c.
Saturninus, 30.
Schoolmen, held in what authority by the
papists, 413.
Schwenkfeldtians, 36.
Scripture in the church what law is in the
state, 27 ; God speaks therein as in his
law, 445 ; how the voice of God, 296 ;
indicates its authority by its style to in
dividuals as well as to the governors of
the church, 287, &c. ; may be recognised
as divine by all who are taught of God,
290 ; the parts of, mutually support each
other, 291, &c. ; its authority, how proved
by Calvin, 293, &c. ; does not depend for
authority on the church, 332, &c. ; how
meanly the papists think of it, 275, 276 ;
said by Bellarmine to be only a commoni
tory, not a rule, 657, 658, &c; is the
perfect, not a partial, rule of our faith,
662, 663 ; words not found in, how far to
be received, 588 ; is the same thing as
the preaching of the apostles, 348 ; more
ancient than the church, 351, 352 ; may
be demonstrated a posteriori, 351 ; the
church does not judge it, but according
to it, 353 ; faith in, produced by the
Holy Spirit, by the confession of the
fathers, and the papists themselves, 355-
358.
 perspicuity of, nothing defined
concerning, by the Council of Trent, 369;
general sentiments of the papists, 360 ;
our sentiments concerning, generally
misrepresented, 361 ; our real sentiments
concerning, 364 ; why sometimes clouded
with obscurity, 365, 366 ; supposed testi-

INDEX.

717

monies of the farthers against, considered,
370-376 ; not contradicted by experience,
379, &c. ; proved from Deut. xxx. 11,
381 ; from Psal. xix. 9, &c., 383 ; from
Matt. v. 14, 384, 385 ; from 2 Pet. i. 19,
386 ; from 2 Cor. iv. 3, 387 ; from the
clearness of its principal points, 388;
from the difference between the new and
old Testaments, 389 ; from its argumen
tative use, 390 ; from its having been
understood without commentaries, 391;
by a disjunction of the classes of readers,
392, 393; from the testimonies of the
fathers, 393-401.
Scripture, interpretation of, rule of the
Council of Trent concerning, 402, 403 ;
various senses noticed by the fathers, 403,
&c. ; has but one true sense, 405-410 ;
interpretation of, Stapleton's cautions
concerning, 411-416 ; to what they really
amount, 415 ; rests with the Holy Spirit
and scripture itself, ib. ; rests not with
the church authoritatively. Arguments of
Bellarmine refuted, Quest, v. c. 4, 5, 6, 7 ;
proved from the cause of faith, 448 ; from
the properties of a legitimate judge, 448-
451 ; from the inspiration of scripture,
461, &c. ; from the inefficiency of the
fathers as a mean of certain exposition,
455, 456; to be derived from scripture,
and the Holy Spirit, proved from Acts
xvii. 11, 457 ; from 1 Thess. v. 21, 457,
468; from the absurdity of resolving
faith into human judgment, 459; from
the principle that the Lawgiver has su
preme authority to expound the law, ib. ;
from the absurdity of making the church
superior to scripture, 469, 460 ; the pope
no sufficient interpreter, 460 ; from the
testimony of the fathers, 461, &c.
 the Arians refuted out of, 481 ;
is the source of the Creed, 485 ; is to be
interpreted by scripture, proved at large,
288-495. perfection of, how asserted by

protestants, 513, 514; denied by Bellar
mine, 514 ; necessity of, how impugned
by Bellarmine, 516-521; necessity of es
tablished against Bellarmine, 621-524;
insufficient without tradition, according
to Bellarmine, Mb arguments considered,
524-542; perfection of, denied by the
ancient heretics, 544, &c; testimonies of
fathers against, considered, 565-610;

proved from Deut. iv. 2, 615, &c. ; from
Rev. xx. 18, 621, See.; from Gal. i. 8,
623, &c. ; from John xx. ult. 628, &c. ;
from 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17, 632, &c; from
the rejection of the Jewish traditions,
637, &c. ; from Psalm xix. 8, 640 ; from
Luke i. 3, 4, 641 ; from Luke xvi. 29,
642; from Luke xxiv. 25, 27, 643, 644;
from John v. 39, 644 ; from Acts i. 1, 645 ;
from Acts xvii. 2, 3, 645, 646 ; from Acts
xviii. 24, xxiv. 14, xxvi. 22, 646, 647 ;
from Rom. i. 2, x. 17, 15, 4, 647, 648;
from Eph. ii. 19, 20, 649; from 2 Pet. i.
19, 650; from 1 John i. 4, 650; from the
title of scripture, 651; from the uncer
tainty of tradition, 651-669; from the
testimony of the fathers, 669-704.
Scripture, did not perish in the Babylonian
captivity, 103, 114, 115 ; should be read
by the people, 212, 243; six heretical
opinions concerning, held by the papists,
705.
Septuagint, see Greek version.
Severians, their heresy, 31, 35.
Simon Magus, 30.
Solomon, books rejected by some, 31 ; Song
of, vindicated, 31, 32 ; whether rejected
by Castellio, ib.
 — Wisdom of, apocryphal, &c, 86 ;
written in Greek, 87 ; supposed to be
written by Philo, 88 ; not written by
Solomon, 89; rejected by the ancient
Church, 89, 90; whether received by
Melito, 56; most respected of all the
apocryphal books, ib.
Stapleton, contradicts himself, 352 ; mis
quotes the fathers, 314.
Succession of the Roman Church, not entire
and uninterrupted, 510.

T.

Tertullian quoted, 17, 27, 34, 303, 311, 324,
485, 492, 499, 599, 600, 601, 665, 666,
689, 690, 705.
Testament, import of that title, 651.
Testamentary, books of scripture, why
called, 28.
Theology, difference of from other sciences,
364.
Tobit, Book of, why called divine by Am
brose, 80; rejected by Jerome, 81; Je
rome had a Chaldee copy, ib.
Tradition, ambiguity of that term, 497-499.

718

INDEX.

Traditions, unwritten, divine, apostolical,
and 'ecclesiastical, how distinguished by
Bellarmine, 500, 501 ; other divisions of,
502; Bellarmine's five rules for distin
guishing genuine, 603-511; the papists
give no exact list of the dogmas depend
ing on, 511, &c. ; not the sole rule before
Moses, 517; not used more than scrip
ture by the ancient Jews, 518; the church
not dependent on for many years after
Christ, 519 ; some barbarous nations how
far dependent on, 520 ; no necessary things
left to oral tradition under the law, 629,
&e. ; not necessary to prove the authority
or genuineness of the books of scripture,
530, 531, &c. ; nor necessary to the inter
pretation of scripture, 534, 635; the pro
cession of the Holy Ghost from the Son,
and original sin, not derived from oral tra
dition, 536; the descent of Christ into hell,
how far dependent on, 536, 537 ; the sacra
ments, and virginity of Mary, not depen
dent on, 538, 539; case of Easter, 539,
540 ; baptism of infants, 540 ; purgatory,
541. — BeUarmine's argument for, from
John xvi. 12, 542 ; from the conclusion of
John's gospel, 545, &c. ; from Acts i. &c,
547; from 1 Cor. xi. 1, 548; from 2
Thess. ii. 15, 551 ; from the Epistles to
Timothy, 555-558; from 2 John, 12, 558;
Canus' arguments from 1 Cor. ii. 16, 558,
659; from 1 Tim. vi. 3, and Gal. i. 9,
559 ; texts for, urged by the Rhemists,
560, 561 ; other texts, 561, 662 ; not the
ground of Arius' condemnation at the
First Council of Nice, 562, 563 ; how far
adopted by the Second Council of Nice,
564 ; testimony of Clemens Romanus,
563, &c. ; of Ignatius, 669, &c. ; of He

gesippus, 574, &c. ; of Dionysius, 575 ;
of Polycarp, 580, 581. &c.
Traditions, testimony of Justin Martyr, 582 ;
of Irenaeus, 583; of Clemens Alexan
dra us, 586 ; of Origen, ib. ; of Eusebius,
587 ; of Athanasius, 588 ; of Basil, 588-
594; of Nazianzene, 595 ; of Chrysostom,
t"6.; of Theophilus Alexandrinus, 596;
of the two Cyrils, 596, 597; of Epi
phanius, 597 ; of John Damascene, 599 ;
of Tertullian, ib. ; of Cyprian, 601 ; of
Hilary, 603; of Ambrose, ib.; of Jerome,
605 ; of Augustine, ib. ; of Innocent and
Leo, 609, 610.
 not universally rejected by here
tics, 610 ; case of the Jewish, considered,
611, &c. ; Gentile, 612 ; hard to be pre
served, 651, 652, &c. ; their uncertainty
the reason why the scriptures were writ
ten, 655; means for preserving them
specified by Bellarmine, 656, 657 ; uncer
tain; 664-667; appealed to by heretics,
667, 668. V.
Valentinians, 34.
Versions, vernacular, of scripture,— three
opinions concerning, amongst the papists,
208 ; decree of the congregation of the
Index, 209 ; opinion of protestants, 211 ;
early, common in Africa, 217, 218 ; used
by the Armenians, Russians, Ethiopians,
Dalmatians, and Goths, 221 ; ancient
British, 222, 223; not injurious to the
people, 229, 230 ; should be corrected
when obsolete, 232. U.
Unction, extreme, cannot be proved from
James v. 15, 199.

II llllllllll I II : «
3 9002 00601 8940 S