OF THE SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN, THE IDOL, BELL AND It is no just exception against these, and other parts of holy Scripture of the Old Tes tament, to say, they are not in the Hebrew edition, being otherwise accepted for canonical by the Catholic church: and further, it is very probable that these parcels were sometime either in the Hebrew or Chaldee; in which two languages, part in one, and part in the other, the rest of the book of Daniel was written; for from whence could the Septuagint, Theodotion, Symmachus, and Aquila translate them? In whose editions St. Hierom found them. But if it be objected, that St. Hierom calls them fables, and so did not account them canonical Scripture; we answer, that he, reporting the Jewish opinion, uses their terms, not explaining his own judgment, intending to deliver sincerely what he found in the Hebrew: yet would he not omit to insert the rest, advertising withal, that he had it in Theodotion's translation; which answer is clearly justified by his own testimony, in these words: "Whereas I relate," says he, "what the Hebrews say against the Hymn of the Three Children; he that for this reputes me a fool, proves himself a sycophant; for I did not write what myself judged, but what they are accustomed to say against me."* The prayer of Azarias is alleged as divine Scripture by St. Cyprian, St. Ephrem, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, and others.† The Hymn of the Three Children is alleged for divine Scripture by divers holy fathers, as also by St. Hierom himself, in cap. 3. ad Gallatos & Epist. 49. de Muliere Septies icta; also, by St. Ambrose, and the council of Toledo, c. 13. So likewise the history of Susanna is cited for holy Scripture by St. Ignatius, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, who in Hom. 7. fine, has a whole sermon on Susanna, as upon holy Scripture: St. Ambrose and St. Augustine cite the same also as canonical. The history of Bell and the Dragon is judged to be divine Scripture; St. Cyprian, St. Basil, and St. Athanasius, in Synopsi, briefly explicating the argument of the book of Daniel, make express mention of the Hymn of the Three Children, of the history of Susanna, and of Bell and the Dragon. OF THE TWO BOOKS OF MACCABEES. EVER Since the third council of Carthage, these two books of the Maccabees have been held for sacred and canonical by the Catholic church, as is proved by a council of seventy bishops, under pope Gelasius; and by the sixth general council, in approving the third of Carthage; as also by the councils of Florence and Trent. But because some of the church of England divines would seem to make their people believe, that the Maccabees were not received as canonical Scripture in Gregory the Great's time, consequently not before, I will, besides these councils, refer you to the holy fathers, who lived before St. Gregory's days, and alleged these two books of the Maccabees as divine Scripture: namely, St. Clement Alexandrinus, lib. 1. Stromat. St. Cyprian, lib. 1. Epistolarum Ep. 3. ad Cornelium, lib. 4. Ep. 1. & de Exhort. ad Martyrium, c. 11. St. Isidorus, lib. 16. c. 1. St. Gregory Nazianzen has also a whole oration concerning the seven Maccabee martyrs, and their mother. St. Ambrose. lib. 1. c. 41. Office. See in St. Hierom's Commentaries upon Daniel, c. 1. 11, and 12. in how great esteem he had these books; though, because he knew they were not in the Jewish canon, he would not urge them against the Jews. And the great doctor, St. Augustine, in lib. 2. c. 8. de Doctrina Christiana, & lib. 18. c. 36. de Civit. Dei, most clearly avouches, that, "Notwithstanding the Jews deny these books, the church holds them canonical." And whereas, one Gaudentius, a heretic, alleged, for defense of his heresy, the example of Razias, who slew himself, 2 Mac. 14. St. Augustine denies not the authority of the book, but discusses the fact, and admonishes, that it is not unprofitably received by the church, "If it be read or heard soberly," which was a necessary admonition to those donatists, who, not understanding the holy Scriptures, depraved them, as St. Peter says of like heretics, to their own perdition. Which testimonies, I think, may be sufficient to satisfy any one who is not pertinacious and obstinate, that these two * S. Hier. lib. 2. c. 9. advers. Ruffinum. † Vide Doway Bible, Tom. 2. See the Second Vindication of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England. books of the Maccabees, as well as others in the New Testament, were received, and held for canonical Scripture, long before St. Gregory the Great's time. Judge now, good reader, whether the author of the Second Vindication, &c. has not imposed upon the world in this point of the books of the Maccabees. And, indeed, if this were all the cheat he endeavours to put upon us, it were well, but he goes yet further, and names eleven points of doctrine besides this, which he, with his fellows, quoted in his margin, falsely affirms not to have been taught in England by St. Augustine, the Benedictine monk, when he converted our nation; telling us, "That the mystery of iniquity," as he blasphemously terms the doctrine of Christ's holy church, "was not then come to perfection." For first, says he, "The Scripture was yet received as a perfect rule of faith." Secondly, “The books of the Maccabees, which you now put in your canon, were rejected then as apocryphal." Thirdly, "That good works were not yet esteemed meritorious." Fourthly, "Nor auricular confession a sacrament." Fifthly, "That solitary masses were disallowed by him." And sixthly, "Transubstantiation yet unborn." Seventhly, "That the sacrament of the eucharist was hitherto administered in both kinds." What then? so it was also in one kind. Eighthly, "Purgatory itself not brought either to certainty or to perfection." Ninthly, "That by consequence masses for the dead were not intended to deliver souls from these torments." Tenthly, "Nor images allowed for any other purpose than for ornament and instruction. Eleventhly, "That the sacrament of extreme unction was yet unformed." Then you must, with your master Luther, count St. James's epistle, an epistle of straw. Twelfthly, "And even the pope's supremacy was so far from being then established as it now is, that pope Gregory thought it to be the forerunner of anti-christ for one bishop to set himself above all the rest." I will only, in particular, take notice here of this last of his false instances, because he cites and misapplies the words of St. Gregory the Great, to the deluding of his reader: whereas St. Gregory did not think it anti-christian or unlawful for the pope, whom (not himself, but) our Saviour Christ had set and appointed, in the person of St. Peter, above all the rest, to exercise spiritual supremacy and jurisdiction over all the bishops in the Christian world: but he thought it anti-christian for any bishop to set up himself, as John bishop of Constantinople had done, by the name or title of universal bishop, so as if he alone were the sole bishop, and no bishop but he, in the universe; and in this sense St. Gregory thought this name or title not only worthily forborne by his predecessors, and by himself, but terms it prophane, sacrilegious, and anti-christian; and in this sense the bishops of Rome have always utterly renounced the title of universal bishop; on the contrary, terming themselves servi servorum Dei. And this is proved from the words of Andræus Friccius, a Protestant, whom Peter Martyr terms an excellent and learned man. “Some there are,” says he, “that object to the authority of Gregory, who says, that such a title pertains to the precursor of anti-christ; but the reason of Gregory is to be known, and may be gathered from his words, which he repeats in many epistles, that the title of universal bishop is contrary to, and doth gainsay the grace which is commonly poured upon all bishops; he therefore, who calls himself the only bishop, takes the episcopal power from the rest: wherefore this title he would have rejected, &c. But it is nevertheless evident by other places, that Gregory thought that the charge and principality of the whole church was committed to Peter, &c. And yet for this cause Gregory thought not that Peter was the forerunner of anti-christ."* Thus evidently and clearly this Protestant writer explains this difficulty. To this may be added the testimonies of other Protestants, who, from the writings of St. Gregory, clearly prove the bishop of Rome to have had and exercised a power and jurisdiction, not only over the Greek, but over the universal church. The Magdeburgian centurists show us, that the Roman see appoints her watch over the whole world; that the apostolic see is head of all churches; that even Constantinople is subject to the apostolic see.† These centurists charge moreover the bishop of Rome, in the very example and person of pope Gregory, and by collection out of his writings, by them particularly alleged, "That he challenged to himself power to command all archbishops, to ordain and depose bishops at his pleasure." And, "That he claimed a right to cite archbishops to declare their cause before him, when they were accused." And also, "To excommunicate and depose them, giving commission to their neighbour bishops to proceed against them." That "In their provinces he placed his legates to know and end the causes of such as appealed to the see of Rome." With much more, touching the exercise of his supremacy. To which doctor Saunders adds yet more out of St. Gregory's own works, and in his own words, as, "That the see apostolic, by the autho * Andreas Friccius de ecclesia, 1. 2. c. 10. page 579. † Centur. 6 Col. 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 438. Vid. præced. Notas. rity of God, is preferred before all churches. That all bishops, if any fault be found in them, are subject to the see apostolic. That she is the head of faith, and of all the faithful members. That the see apostolic is the head of all churches. That the Roman church, by the words which Christ spake to Peter, was made the head of all churches. That no scruple or doubt ought to be made of the faith of the see apostolic. That all those things are false, which are taught contrary to the doctrine of the Roman church. That to return from schism to the Catholic church, is to return to the communion of the bishops of Rome. That he who will not have St. Peter, to whom the keys of heaven were committed, to shut him out from the entrance of life, must not in this world be separated from his see. That they are perverse men, who refuse to obey the see apostolic."* Considering all these words of pope Gregory, does not this vindicator of the church of England's doctrine show himself a grand impostor, to offer to the abused judgment of his unlearned readers, an objection so frivolous and misapplied, by the advantage only of a naked, sounding resemblance of mistaken words? To conclude, therefore, in the words of doctor Saunders: "He who reads all these particulars, and more of the same kind that are to be found in the works of St. Gregory, and yet with a brazen forehead, fears not to interpret that which he wrote against the name of universal bishop, as if he could not abide that any one bishop should have the chief seat, and supreme govern. ment of the whole militant church; that man, says he, seems to me either to have cast off all understanding and sense of a man, or else to have put on the obstinate perverseness of the devil."t It is not my business in this place, to digress into particular replies against his other false instancest of the difference between the doctrine of pope Gregory the Great, and that of the council of Trent: I will therefore, in general, oppose the words of a protestant bishop, against this protestant ministerial guide, and so submit them to the consideration of the judicious reader. John Bale, a protestant bishop, affirms,§ that "The religion preached by St. Augustine to the Saxons was, altars, vestments, images, chalices, crosses, censers, holy vessels, holy waters, the sprinkling thereof, reliques, translation of reliques, dedicating of churches to the bones and ashes of saints, consecration of altars, chalices and corporals, consecration of the font of baptism, chrysm and oil, celebration of mass, the archiepiscopal pall at solemn mass time, Romish mass books; also free will, merit, justification of works, penance, satisfaction, purgatory, the unmarried life of priests, the public invocation of saints and their worship, the worship of images." In another place he says, that "Pope Leo the first decreed, that men should worship the images of the dead, and allowed the sacrifice of the mass, exorcism, pardons, vows, monachism, transubstantiation, prayer for the dead, offering of the healthful host of Christ's body and blood for the dead, the Roman bishop's claim and exercise of jurisdiction and supremacy over all churches, reliquium pontificia superstitionis chaos, even the whole chaos of popish superstitions." He tells us, that "Pope Innocent, who lived long before St. Gregory's time, made the anointing of the sick to be a sacrament."¶ These are bishop Bale's words; which this vindicator would do well to reconcile with his own. The like may be found in other protestants; namely, in doctor Humfrey in Josuitismi, part II. The centurists, &c. But now to return to the place where we occasionally entered into this digression: you see by what authority and testimonies both of councils and fathers we have proved these books, which protestants reject, to be canonical: yet, if a thousand times more were said, it would be all the same with the perverse innovators of our age, who are resolved to be obstinate, and, after their bold and licentious manner, to receive or reject what they please; still following the steps of their first masters, who tore out of the Bible, some one book, some another, as they found them contrary to their erroneous and heretical opinions. For example : Whereas Moses was the first that ever wrote any part of the Scripture, and he who wrote the law of God, the ten commandments; yet Luther thus rejects both him and his ten commandments:** "We will neither hear nor see Moses, for he was given only to the Jews; neither does he belong in any thing to us.”—“I,” says he, "will not receivett Moses with his law; for he is the enemy of Christ."++ "Moses is the master of * Dr. Saund. Visit. Monar. lib. 7. à N. 433. 541. † Dr. Saunders supra. + You will find some of them hinted at in other places as occasion offers. § Bale in act. Rom. pontif. edit. Basil. 1658. p. 44, 45, 46, 47. & cent. I. Col. 3. Pageant of popes, fol. 27. ¶ Ib. fol. 26. ** Tom. 3. Germ. fol. 40, 41. & in Colloq. Mensal. Ger. fol. 152, 153. tt In Coloc. Mensal. c. de Lege & Evan. #Ibid. fol. 118. 'all hangmen."* "The ten commandments belong not to Christians." "Let the ten commandments be altogether rejected, and all heresy will presently cease; for the ten commandments are, as it were, the fountain from whence all heresies spring."t Islebius, Luther's scholar, taught, that "the decalogue was not to be taught in the church:" and from him cames the sect of antinomians, who publicly taught, that "The law of God is not worthy to be called the word of God: if thou art an whore, if an whoremonger, if an adulterer, or otherwise a sinner, believe, and thou walkest in the way of salvation. When thou art drowned in sin even to the bottom, if thou believest, thou art in the midst of happiness. All that busy themselves about Moses, that is, the ten commandments, belong to the devil, to the gallows with Moses."|| Martin Luther believes not all things to be so done, as they are related in the book of Job with him it is, "as it were, the argument of a fable."¶ Castalio commanded the Canticles of Solomon to be thrust out of the canon, as an impure and obscené song; reviling, with bitter reproaches, such ministers as resisted him therein.** Pomeran, a great evangelist among the Lutherans, writes thus touching St. James's epistles: "He concludes ridiculously, he cites Scripture against Scripture, which thing the Holy Ghost cannot abide; wherefore that epistle may not be numbered among other books, which set forth the justice of faith." Vitus Theodorus, a protestant preacher of Norimberg, writes thus: "The Epistle of James, and Apocalypse of John, we have of set purpose left out, because the Epistle of James is not only in certain places reprovable, where he too much advances works against faith; but also his doctrine throughout is patched together with divers pieces, whereof no one agrees with another."++ The Magdeburgian centurists say, that " the Epistle of James much swerves from the analogy of the apostolical doctrine, whereas it ascribes justification not only to faith, but to works, and calls the law, a law of liberty."§§ John Calvin doubted whether the Apostles' Creed was made by the apostles. He argued St. Matthew of error. He rejected these words: "Many are called, but few chosen." Clebitius, an eminent protestant, opposes the evangelists one against another: "Matthew and Mark," says he, "deliver the contrary; therefore to Matthew and Mark, being two witnesses, more credit is to be given than to one Luke,"¶¶ &c. Zuinglius and other protestants affirm, that "all things in St. Paul's epistles are not sacred; and that in sundry things he erred."*** Mr. Rogers, the great labourer to our English convocation men, names several of his protestant brethren, who rejected for apocryphal the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, of St. James, the first and second of John, of Jude, and the Apocalypse."ttt Thus, you see, these pretended reformers have torn out, some one piece or book of sacred Scripture, some another; with such a licentious freedom, rejecting, deriding, discarding, and censuring them, that their impiety can never be paralleled but by professed atheists. Yet all these sacred books were, as is said, received for canonical in the third council of Carthage, above thirteen hundred years ago. But, with the church of England, it matters not by what authority books are judged canonical, if the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of her children, testify them to be from God. They telling us, by Mr. Rogers, that they judge such and such books canonical, "not so much because learned and godly men in the church so have, and do receive and allow them, as for that the Holy Spirit in our hearts doth testify, that they are from God." By instinct of which private Spirit in their hearts, they decreed as many as they thought good for canonical, and rejected the rest; as you may see in the sixth of the thirty-nine articles.+++ * Serm. de Mose. † In Convival. Colloq. cited by Auri. faber, cap. de Lege. + See Osiander; Cent. 16. p. 311, 312, 320. In Serm. Convival. Tit. de Patriarch et Prophet. et Tit. de libris Vet. et Nov. Test. ** Vid. Beza in Vita Calvini. + In Annot. in Nov. Test. pag. ult. Pomeran. ad. Rom. c. 8. §§ Cent. I. 1. 2. c. 4. Col. 54. Inst. 1. 2. c. 26. In Matth. 27. Harm. in Matt. 20. 16. 11 Victoria veritatis et ruina Papatus, Arg. 5. *** Tom. 2. Elench. f. 10. Magdeburg. Cent. 1. 1. 2. c. 10. Col. 580. ttt Defence of the 39 Articles, Art. 6. The private Spirit, not the church, told those protestants who made the 39 arti cles, what books of Scripture they were to hold for canonical. OF SUCH BOOKS AS PROTESTANTS CALL APOCRYPHA. THE church of England has decreed, that "such are to be understood canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority there was never any doubt in the church" and, therefore, by this rule she rejects these for apocryphal, viz. Maccabees I. BUT if none pass for canonical, but such as were never doubted of in the church, I would know why the church of England admits of such books of the New Testament as have formerly been doubted of?" Some ancient writers doubted of the last chapter of St. Mark's Gospel :+ others of some part of the 22d of St. Luke:§ some of the begin. ning of the 8th of St. John:|| others of the Epistle to the Hebrews:¶ and others of the Epistles of St. James, Jude, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, and the Apocalypse."**& And Doctor Bilson, a protestant, affirms, that "the Scriptures were not fully received in all places, no, not in Eusebius's time." He says, "the Epistles of James, Jude, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, are contradicted, as not written by the apostles. The Epistle to the Hebrews was for a while contradicted," &c. The churches of Syria did not receive the second Epistle of Peter, nor the second and third of John, nor the Epistle of Jude, nor the Apocalypse. The like might be said for the churches of Arabia: "Will you hence conclude," says this doctor, "that these parts of Scripture. were not apostolic, or that we need not to receive them now, because they were formerly doubted of?" Thus Doctor Bilson.tt And Mr. Rogers confesses, that "although some of the ancient fathers and doctors accepted not all the books contained in the New Testament for canonical; yet in the end, they were wholly taken and received by the common consent of the church of Christ, in this world, for the very word of God,"‡‡ &c. And, by Mr. Rogers's and the church of England's leave, so were also those books which they call apocrypha. For though they were, as we do not deny, doubted of by some of the ancient fathers, and not accepted for canonical; "yet in the end," to use Mr. Rogers's words, "they were wholly taken and received by the common consent of the church of Christ, in this world, for the word of God."§§ Vide third council of Carthage, which decrees," that nothing should be read in the church, under the name of divine Scriptures, besides canonical Scriptures:" and defining which are canonical, reckons those which the church of England rejects as apocryphal. To this council St. Augustine subscribed, who,|||| with St. Innocent,¶¶ Gelasius, and other ancient writers, number the said books in the canon of the Scripture. And protestants themselves confess, they were received in the number of canonical Scriptures." *** Brentius, a protestant, says, "there are some of the ancient fathers, who receive these apocryphal books into the number of canonical Scriptures; and also some councils command them to be acknowledged as canonical."+tt Doctor Covel also affirms of all these books, that, "if Ruffinus be not deceived, they were approved of, as parts of the Old Testament, by the apostles."+++ So that what Christ's church receives as canonical, we are not to doubt of: Doctor Fulk avouches, that "the church of Christ has judgment to discern true writing from counterfeit, and the word of God from the writings of men; and this judgment she has of the Holy Ghost. §§§ And Jewel says, "the church of God has the spirit of wisdom to discern true Scripture from false." To conclude, therefore, in the words of the council of Trent: "If any man shall not receive for sacred and canonical these whole books, with all their parts, as they are read in the catholic church, and as they are in the Vulgate Latin edition, let him be accursed."¶¶¶ ** Et c. Sur * In the 6th of the 39 Articles. The three last are not numbered in the canon of the Scripture. See St. Hierom Epist. ad Hed. q. 3. § St. Hilar. 1. 10. de Trin. et Hierom. 1. 2. contr. Pelagian. Euseb. H. 1. 3. c. 39. ¶ Id. 1. 3. c. 3. 25, 28. Hierom divinis Illust. in P. Jac. Jud. Pet. et Joan. et Ep. ad Dardan. vey of Christ. Suff. p. 664. Vid. 1st and 4th days Confer. in the Tower, anno 1581. Def. of the 39 Articles, p. 31, Art. 6. §§ Third council of Carthage, Can. 47. De Doct. Christian. 1. 2. c. 8. 11 Epist. ad. Exuper. c. 7. *** Tom. 1. Conc. Decret. cum 70 Episcop. ttt Brentius Apol. Conf. Wit. Bucers scripta Ang. p. 713. ### Covel cont. Burg. p. 76, 77, et 78. §§§ Fulk An. to a Countr. Cathol. p. 5. III Jewel Def. of the Apol. p. 201. 111 Concil. Trid. Sess. 4. Decr. de Can. Scrip. |