To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
1. The Scriptures are sufficient, tho some Bookes were lost. 2. No part of the Canon perished. 3. Many obiections answered.
[Conclusion IIII] THough we should grant that some Bookes of Cano∣nicall Scripture were lost, (which yet cannot be proued by our Aduersaries, cannot be approued by vs) yet doth the Scripture still remaine sufficient. For thea necessary matter of those Bookes supposedly
lost, is contained in these bookes of holy Writ that are now extant.
It seemes then, willb Stapleton say, That those books, tho full fraught with most high and heauenly matter, were needlesse and superfluous. But who not of an ouer-daring spirit, dare disgorge & belch out such impious & hay∣nous blasphemies against the Lord? Who, (not as outragious as Apostaticall Iulian,) would say that it is superfluous to haue the same Psalme or Story recor∣ded in two seuerall places of the Scripture? Is not the eighteenth Psalme in the booke of Psalmes recorded, and in the booke of Samuel, 2. Sam. 22? Is not the Hi∣story of Hezekiah, recorded in the 2. King. 18.19, & 20, Chapters, and in Is••. 36, 37, 38, 39 Chapters?
But indeed I take it, that no part of the Canon is lost. I am not ignorant thatc Chrysostome, and other of the learned, perswade themselues that some part is perished: but to these let mee modestly oppose the Iewes, together with the most skilfull Christians in the Rabbins, who in this point are of a diuerse iudgement from Saint Chrysostome. And I am induced herein to dissent from so many of the learned Sages, as suppose that these bookes were lost in the Captiuity, by these three Reasons.
First, because S. Paul makes no question, but takes it for granted, that the whole Canon of holy Scripture was euen in his time extant, Rom. 15.4. Whatsoeuer things were written aforetime, were written for our lear∣ning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scrip∣tures might haue hope. Had the blessed Apostle thought that some bookes of Scripture had perished in Babylon,
doubtlesse he would haue sayd, that whatsoeuer was written, and is now extant, was written for our lear∣ning and comfort: for bookes that are lost, serue nei∣ther for Instruction nor Consolation.
Secondly, To hold that any bookes of Scripture should be lost, cals into question, not onely Gods euer-watching prouidence, but also his ouer-ruling power. He euer was, is, and will bee able to preserue his Wri∣tings from the violence of cruell Tyrants. He can make his very aduersaries to bind them as a Crowne vnto them, and cause them to bee more carefull to preserue them, then Titus to reserue the Temple.
Thirdly, It cals into question the fidelity of the Church, vnto whom were of credit committed the Oracles of God, and who is therefore styled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Pillar and ground of Truth, because it hath the bookes of God in keeping.
There bee alleaged many particular places of Scrip∣ture, to proue that some bookes of Scripture be lost; As in Numb. [Obiect. 1] 21.14. Moses maketh mention of the bookes of the Battels or Warres of the Lord, which [Answ. 1] Booke seemeth to be lost. But first, you must know that a [Booke] in Scripture sometime signifieth a Re∣hearsall, a Roule, or Catalogue. As the fift chapter of Genesis, contayning the Genealogie of Adam, is called the booke of the Generation of Adam. So in like manner, that Booke of the Warres, might be some short & com∣pendious narration of diuers exploits which fell out among the Israelites, which in Moses his time being [Answ. 2] Manuall, went from hand to hand. Secondly, This Booke of the Battels of the Lord, seemeth vnto some to be the Booke of the Iudges; yea, learned Iunius referres vs to Judg. 11.
Obiect. 2. In Josh. 16.13. Wee are sent to the Booke of [Jasher:] Is not this written in the Booke of Iasher? This booke is vndoubtedly lost.
Answ. Consider, I pray you, that [Jasher] is no proper, but a common Name, signifying vpright, iust, or righteous. As if Ioshua should haue said, Is not this rare, this so much admired miracle of the Suns standing still, recorded by him that is iust, vpright, and righteous in his reports? Is it not registred by a Nathaniel, by an Jsraelite indeed, yet one without guile, by a true-spiri∣ted, by a true-spoken man? So that I can neither assent to the Chaldee text, which readeth, [In the booke of the Law:] nor yet to those other, who by Iasher vnder∣stand Moses.
Obiect. 3. But I heare you say, that that Booke of the Chronicles of the Kings of Jsrael is surely lost, yeta frequently mentioned in the Scriptures.
Answ. Briefly I answer, that it was but as the Chro∣nicles of England are with vs, or of France with them, euen ciuill and politike records of the euents of things in the Kingdom of Jsrael.b Augustine auerres of all the bookes supposed to be lost, that they neuer attained to the credit of Canonization, that they neuer aspired to bee re∣puted Bookes inspired by the blessed Spirit. Penned they were, sayth he, Non tam inspiratione diuinâ, quàm humanâ diligentiâ: Not by diuine inspiration, but by humane diligence and deuotion. Hence therefore hee doth well inferre, that these Volumes did not apper∣taine ad authoritatem Religionis, to the prouing, to the propagating of Religion; sed ad vbertatem cognitionis, to the promoting, to the inlarging of good literature among the Iewes.
Obiect. 4. It seemes that the Bookes of certaine Prophets be perished, as of Gad, and Nathan, 1. Chron. 29.29.
Answ. By the Booke of Nathan and Gad, is meant onely the first and second books of Samuel, which were not wholy written by Samuel, but some part thereof by Nathan and Gad. For those two bookes of Samuel con∣taine
in them an History of 120. yeeres: The first bee∣ing an History of fourescore yeares; of forty vnder Eli, 1. Sam. 4.18. and of forty vnder Samuel and Saul, Act. 13.21. The second booke is an History of forty yeares, euen from the death of Saul, to the end of Dauids Kingdome: But it is manifest, that Samuel dy∣ed before Dauid came to the Crowne; whereas Na∣than liued neere vnto the beginning of his raigne, and continued till the end thereof. And Gad in like man∣ner liued in the latter end of King Dauids regiment ouer that Kingdome, as appeareth, 2. Sam. 12. and 2. Sam. 24.18.
Ob••ect. 5. The Acts of Salomon penned by those Pro∣phets Natan, Ahijah, and Iddo, are altogether peri∣shed, 2. Chron. 9.29.
Answ. That is altogether false: for they are contay∣ned in the History of the first Booke of Kings. So like∣wise the Acts of Abiha, are written in the Story of the Prophet Iddo, 2. Chro. 13.22. but in that same history that is storied of Abiha, 1. Kin. 15 The Acts of Ieho∣shaphat are written in the booke of Iehu the Prophet, 2. Chro. 20.34 but it is mentioned in the booke of the Kings of Israel. 1. King. 1.61: For it is most certaine, that the bookes of Iudges, Ruth, Samuel, and the Kings, were penned by sundry and succeeding Prophets, in sundry and succeeding ages of the Church. Hence Mat. 2.23. a testimonie is cited out of the Booke of Iudges, which is not elsewhere extant in the Scrip∣tures; and yet Saint Mathew sayes, Ʋt impleretur id quod dictum est per Prophetas, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: That it might bee fulfilled which was spoken by the [Prophets] not which was spoken by the [Prophet.] So that it is manifest, that that Booke was penned not by one, but many Prophets. The like may be auouched of the fore-named Bookes. But I study breuity.
Obiect. I take it to be a truth that, the Booke of Enoch
is lost, of whose Prophesie Iude makes mention, Jude. v. 14.
Answ. 1. I take it to bee a doubt, whether this was a Booke or no. Indeed the Manicheis forged fa∣bles more ancient then Noahs Flood, collecting them into one Volume, called the Booke of Enoch: But this booke Austin with soundnesse of iudgement doth re∣iect;a Liber iste ob nimiam antiquitatem reijcitur, saith the Father: This Booke is too old to bee true. But if it was a Booke; we commonly hold that it was not pen∣ned by Enoch, but by some Iew vnder his name, out of whose writing the Apostle might haue this Prophesie. In like manner wee shall not finde the names of those Magicians that withstood Moses, in the Bookes of the old Testament, yet Saint Paul names them and sayes, that they were Iannes and Iambres, 2. Tim. 3.8. It is like, that the Apostle had their names by some Apo∣cryphall writings at that time extant among the Iewes, in which he was very skilfull and expert, as appeareth, in that he dealing with the Athenians, Cretians, Stoicks, and Epicures conuinced their vicious impurities by the Testimonie ofb Menander,c Aratus,d Epimenides, or Callimachus. Nor is this any surmised surquedry of mine owne fiction, to aduance the proiect of mine o∣uer-weening conceits, as being wedded to selfe-opini∣on: fore Plinie himselfe in his naturall history, nomi∣nateth and numbreth this Iannes amongst the most an∣cient Magicians.
Answ. 2. The Holy Spirit, who enabled Enoch to prophesie of such, might assure Saint Iude, that hee did prophesie of such, though his prophesie had beene ne∣uer penned.
Obiect. 7. But that Saint Pauls Epistle to Laodicea is lost, you cannot deny, for Saint Paul commands his Colossians to reade it, Colos. 4.16. yet is it not now extant.
Answ. I deny not but that long since, such an E∣pistle went from hand to hand, mentioned bya Epi∣pha••ius in his Booke against the Marcionits: But the second Councill of Nice determined to exterminate it out of the Church as spurious, as supposititiousb Saint Jerome also makes mention of the same Epistle, but vt∣terly disclaimes the authenticke authority of the same Faber Stabulensis rangeth it among Saint Pauls Epi∣stles, but is therefore reprehended by Erasmus.c Ter∣tullian imagineth that it is Saint Pauls Epistle to the Ephesians.d Theophylact thinkes that it is Saint Pauls former Epistle to Timotheus, which was written from Laodicea, as the post-script imports. But the truth is, that the Epistle there mentioned, was not written by Saint Paul to the Laodiceans, but by the Laodice∣ans to Saint Paul, and therefore was neuer in the Canon. For the Apostle commands them not to read the Epistle written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the Laodiceans, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Laodiceans. Now Saint Paul commands his Colossians to read this Epistle writ∣ten by the Laodiceans, because many things were con∣tayned in it, which did neerely concerne them. This is at which Oecumenius learned out of Chrysostom for thus hee writeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hencee Catharinus himselfe is forced to confesse, Non hic nominari Epistolam à se scriptum ad Laodicenses, sed ex Laodicea scriptam.
Concedimus nonnulla iam desiderari, quae o∣lim in Canone scripturae fuerūt, sed tamen affir∣mamus, illum Canonem qui re∣manei, esse suffi∣cientem, & om∣nia necessaria continere: Whita. disput••ae sacra Script.
Stapletoni ar∣gumentum, seu potius Cani; Sta∣pletonus enim Canum interpo∣lauit, & eius argumenta fusiùs explicauit. Stapl. lib. 9. Droctrinal. princip. cap. 5.
Chrysost. Hom. 9. in. Mat and Hom. 7. in 1. Cor. Putauit Chrysostomus hāc sententiam, (Na∣zarenus vocabi∣tur,) nusquam inueniri in illis veteris Testa∣menti libris qui nunc salui sunt. Est & alia etiam sententia eius∣modi de qua si∣militer sensit, nempè (Ex Egypto vocaui filium meum.) Et reuera septuaginta Interpretes, quos solos Chrysosto∣mus sequntus est, neutram sententiam habent: Hebraei tamen libri omnes habent; atignorabat Chrysostomus linguam Hebraicam. Jnsuper Hieronymus in lib. de optimo genere interpret. ai•• vtram{que} sententiam reperiri in libris Hebraicis, priorem nempe Esaiae 11.1. posteriorē, Oseae 11.1.
Rom. 3.2. 1. Tim. 3.15.
Iun. in Annot.
Of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rectus fuit.
1. Kin. 14.19, 29. & 15.7, 23, 31. & 16.5, 14, 20, 27. & 22.39, 46. 2. Kin. 1.18. & 8.23. & 10.34. & 12.19. & 13.8, 12. & 14.15, 18, 28. & 15.6, 11, 15, 21, 26, 31, 36. & 16.19. & 20.20, &c.
August. de ciuit. Dei, l. 18. c. 38.
Respondeo: Eo lo∣co sacram histori∣am primi & se∣cundi Samuelis intelligi, contex∣tam à tribus illis Prophetis, Sa∣muele, Natha∣no, & Gad, quam Staplet••∣nus imprudens Canonicam esse negat. Certum est enim non fu∣isse hes libros ab vno Samuele ambos conscrip∣tos, quia Samuel mortuus est ante finem pr••mi lib••••. 2. Sam. 5.5. 1. Sam. 25.1.
Iudg. 13.5.
August. de ciu. Dei. l. 18. cap. 38.
1. Cor. 15.33. adducit Paulus Senarium ex Menandro.
Act. 17.28. Hemisticum illud ex Phaenomen. Arati sumptū est.
Tit. 1.12. citat Paulus Hexame∣trum ex Epime∣nide, vel vt alij, ex Callimacho.
Plin. Natur. Histor. l. 30. c. 1.
Epiphan. lib. contr. Marciones.
Hi••••. catalog. 〈…〉〈…〉. in Paul••.
••rt. l. 5. contr. Ma••on••••.
Theophylact. 〈…〉〈…〉.
Ca••harinus in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in Co∣los. 4.10.