The progenie of Catholicks and Protestants Whereby on the one side is proued the lineal descent of Catholicks, for the Roman faith and religion, from the holie fathers of the primitiue Church ... and on the other, the neuer-being of Protestants or their nouel sect during al the foresayd time, otherwise then in confessed and condemned hereticks. ...

It is confessed by Protestants, that the Primitiue Church of Christ beleeued the Bookes of Tobie, Iudith, Esther, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, and two first of Machabees, to be truly Canonical Scriptures. CHAPTER V.

AS it is vndoubted by al, that the true Scriptures Prophetical and Apostolical are most sacred, diuine, and of infallible authoritie; so it remayneth stil in Controuersie which Bookes be the sayd Prophetical, Apostolical, and Canonical Scriptures; for as the(1) 1.1 Catholick Church hath defyned the Bookes of Esther, Iudith, Tobie, two of the Machabees, Wis∣dome and Ecclesiasticus to be sacred, Canonical, and of infallible authoritie, so are al the sayd Bookes reiected by Protestants(2) 1.2 as merely apocryphal and only human.

Now to decide this so waightie a Controuersie by the Primitiue Church; Wheras in the Third Carthage Councel, wherat S. Austin and sun∣drie other Fathers and Bishops were present, and subscribed, it is expresly defined, that,(3) 1.3 Nothing be read in the Church vnder the name of diuine Scriptures, besides Canonical Scriptures. And the Canonical Scriptures are Genesis, Exodus &c. fiue bookes of Salomon &c. Tobie, Iudith, Hester, two bookes of Esdras, two bookes of Machabees &c. Wheras also the same Canon of Scriptures is made and numbred particulerly by S. Austin(4) 1.4 himself, as also by Innocentius, Gelasius and other ancient Writers; the truth hereof is so manifest, that the same is confessed by sundrie Protestant Writers, and the same Councel and Fa∣thers (in steed of better answere) seuerely reprehended for the same. Hiperius(5) 1.5 auoucheth that, In the Third Carthage Councel there are added to the Canon &c. Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus, two bookes of Machabees, Tobie, Iudith &c. Al which bookes in the same order numbreth Augustin, Innocentius & Gelasius,

for which he at large afterwards reiecteth their iudgement. In like sort(6) 1.6 Lubbertus: I grant (sayth he) certaine of these bookes to be admitted by the Cartha∣ginians, but I deny that therfore they are the Word of God; for no Councels haue that Authoritie. But to be brief, the Third Carthage Councel is acknowledged and reproued for this verie doctrine by D. Raynolds,(7) 1.7 Zanchius, Hospinian, Trelcatius, Mathias Hoe, M. Parker, and D. Field, And so likewise is S. Austin and other ancient Fathers herein acknowledged and reiected by Hospinian,8) 1.8 H••perius, Zanchius & D. Field. But Brentius auoucheth more in general, that,(9) 1.9 There are some of the ancient Fathers who receiue (sayth he) these Apo∣cryphal Bookes into the number of Canonical Scriptures: And in like sort some Coun∣cels command them to be acknowledged as Canonical: I am not ignorant what was done, but I demand whether it was rightly and Canonically done. Lastly D. Couel not only most plainly confesseth S. Austins like Iudgement had of the Booke of Wisdome, but withal further affirmeth(11) 1.10 of al these Bookes that, If Ruffinus be not deceaued, they were approued as partes of the Old Testawent by the Apostles. So cleer it is, that this foresayd Bookes were confessedly belee∣ued to be Canonical by the Primitiue Church.

Adde hereunto, that(12) 1.11 D. Field & M. Hutton both of them teaching that some of the ancient Iewes receiued the foresayd Bookes for truly Canonical, though others of them did not beleeue and receaue the same accordingly, yet are the sayd Iewes therfore expresly reproued by Protestants themselues, Bibliander tearming it The rashnes of the Iewes; in which his censure he is ap∣proued by the Protestant Sceltco in his booke of the Second coming of Christ, Englished by M. Rogers(13) 1.12 for the supposed worth therof. D. Bancroft(14) 1.13 in the verie Conference before his Maiestie reiecteth the obiections of the Iewes made against these Bookes, tearming them, The old cauils of the Iewes, renewed by Hierom, who was the first that gaue them the name of Apocrypha, which opinion vpon Ruffi••us his challenge he after a sort disclaymed. Yea D. Bancroft is so ful with Catholicks in Defence of the sayd Bookes, as that other of his owne Brethren charge him further to say,(15) 1.14 that, The Apocrypha were giuen by in∣spiration from God, which is al one as to affirme them to be truly diuine and Canonical. And as concerning the booke Ecclesiasticus, it is defended to be truly Canonical by the Protestant Writers(16) 1.15 Lascicius and Parker, of which later D. Willet(17) 1.16 sayth How audacious is this fellow, that contrarie to the deter∣mination of this Church (of England) dare make Ecclesiasticus a book of Canonical Scripture?10) 1.17

Furthermore, seing it is expresly taught and defended by sundrie Pro∣testants, that this waightiest Controuersie of discerning true Scripture from forged, can not be decided by the(18) 1.18 Scriptures themselues, neither by Testi∣monie(19) 1.19 of the Spirit, but(20) 1.20 by the authoritie of Gods Church, Hence it neces∣sarily followeth, that the Church of Christ hauing decided and determined this foresayd Controuersie, and that not only by General Churches of later times, but euen by the Councels & Tradition of the true Primitiue Church, that therfore al parties are bound to approue & beleeue the foresayd Bookes to be truly Canonical.

Al which wil yet be made much more euident by our easie Refutation of their chiefest arguments vsually vrged against them. For first it is obiected by

D. Whitaker(21) 1.21 that therfore they are not Canonical, because They were written in Greek, or some other forraine language, and not in Hebrew, nor had for their knowne Authours, those, whom God hath declared to be his Prophets. But neither of these are of force, for it is no litle temeritie so to measure the Scrip∣tures by the tongue wherein they are written, as to restrayne the Spirit of God to one only language. The further falsehood and vanitie wherof is abun∣dantly disproued by example of Daniel, a great part wherof,(22) 1.22 though not written in Hebrew, is yet by our Aduersaries themselues acknowledged for Canonical. Neither likewise is it true, that God would direct by his holie Spirit no Authours in their writings, but such as were knowne, and also further declared by certaine testimonie, to be Prophets: For Protestants themselues can not yet tel, who were Authours of the seueral Bookes of Iudges, the Third and Fourth of Kings, the Two of Chronicles, and the Bookes of Ruth and Iob: Euen D. Whitaker(23) 1.23 himself doth directly answer his owne ob∣iection, saying: The Authours of manie Bookes are not knowne, as of Iosue, Ruth, Paralipomenon, Hester &c. And we receiue (sayth D. Willet)24) 1.24 manie Bookss in the old Testament, the Authours wherof are not perfectly knowne. Yea Caluin, Beza, and the publishers of certaine of our English Bibles in the Preface or Argu∣ment of the Epistle to the Hebrewes, do al of them professe to rest doubtful of the Authour therof, Caluin & Beza there affirming, that it is not written by S. Paul. So that though the foresayd Bookes be not written in the Hebrew, nor haue their Authours or Penners knowne, yet by like example of other approued Scriptures, it maketh nothing against their Sacred and Diuine Authoritie.(25) 1.25

Secondly, it is obiected that the sayd Bookes were reiected or doubted of by sundrie of the ancient Fathers, as namely by Origen(26) 1.26 Epiphanius and Hierom, who agreed therein with the ancient Iewes. But first, these Fathers in the places cited do not speak of their owne opinion, but do only report what was the opinion of certaine of the Iewes therin; for Origen was so far from according herein with the Hebrewes, that he expresly defended(27) 1.27 against Iulius Africanus (who doubted therof) the Historie of Susanna, which Iewes and Protestants reiect: Yea he auerreth)28) 1.28 that part of Esther to be Cano∣nical, which Protestants refuse as not being in the Hebrewes Canon. In like sort S. Epiphanius29) 1.29 numbreth Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus among the Diuine Scriptures, and referreth(30) 1.30 Sapientia vnto Salomon.

As concerning S. Hierom, wheras he vnto an vnwarie(31) 1.31 Reader may seem to seclude certaine Chapters of Daniel, as not being in the Hebrewes Canon, insomuch that Ruffinus mistaking herein S. Hierom's meaning, doth therfore (as Protestants(32) 1.32 stil doe) reproue and charge him with refusal of these foresayd parts of Daniel, S. Hierome(33) 1.33 answereth and explaineth himself, saying: Truly I did not set downe what myself thought, but what the Hebrewes are accustomed to say against vs herein, calling there further Ruffinus (and in him our Protestants) a foolish Sycophant for mistaking and charging him herein with the Hebrewes opinion. Yea S. Hierom's thus explai∣ning himself, is a matter certaine, that it is accordingly confessed, by D. Couel(34) 1.34 & D. Bancroft.

And it is further euident, that S. Hierom placed the Bookes of Macha∣bees

bees(35) 1.35 among the Stories of diuine Scripture.(33) 1.36 And of the Booke of Iudith he sayth,(36) 1.37 with the Hebrewes the book of Iudith is read among the Hagiographal (writings) whose authoritie to strengthen those things which fal in Contention (to wit with the Iewes) may be thought lesse fit &c. But because we read that the Nycene Councel accompted this in the number of holie Scriptures,(34) 1.38 I haue yeelded &c. So cleer it is. that the Fathers obiected, did only relate in the foresayd places the opinion of the Hebrewes, from which themselues did yet dis∣clayme.

Secondly, supposing it for true, that the foresayd Fathers haue doubted or reiected the foresayd Bookes, yet neither hence wil it follow, that they are not truly Canonical; it being certaine, that in the Primitiue Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally receaued al at once, but in great varietie of pretended37) 1.39 Scriptures special care and search was requi∣site; whereby it came to passe, that sundrie Bookes were for the time mis∣doubted, or by some Fathers or Councels(38) 1.40 omitted, or not receiued, which yet afterwards were vpon greater search and consideration gene∣rally acknowledged. A poynt so euident, that D. Bilson testifyeth in our behalf, that(39 1.41 The Scriptures were not fully receiued in al places, no not in Euse∣bius time. He sayth the Epistles of Iames, Iude, the 2. of Peter, the 2. and 3. of Iohn are contradicted, as not written by the Apostles, the Epistle to the Hebrewes was for a while contradicted &c. The Churches of Syria did not receaue the 2. Epistle of Peter, nor the 2. and 3. of Iohn, nor the Epistle of Iude, nor the Apocalyps &c. The like might be sayd for the Churches of Arabia: wil you hence conclude (saith D. Bilson) that those partes of Scripture were not Apostolick, or that we need not to re∣ceaue them now, because they were formerly doubted of? So fully doth this Pro∣testant Doctour answear his owne Brethrens like vsual obiection had a∣gainst the Machabees, and the other Bookes of the Old Testament now in question.

And that the foresayd Epistles of S. Peter, S. Iames, S. Iohn, S. Iude and the Apocalyps were doubted of by some Fathers of the Primitiue Church, and not generally receaued by al, it is further confessed by the Deanes of Paules and Windsor, who in the Towers Disputation had with that Ornament of our Nation and most victorious Martyr Edmund Campian, do thus report of them∣selues(40) 1.42 For proofe hereof we alleadged the testimonie of Hierom in Catal. where he thus writeth; The Epistle of Iames is sayd to be published by some other vnder his name, and of the 2. of Peter he sayth, that it is denyed of manie to be his: we also alledged Eusebius writing thus, Those Bookes that be gaynsaid, though they be knowne to manie, be these, the Epistle attributed to Iames, the Epistle of Iude, the latter of Peter, the 2. and 3. of Iohn, And D. Walker in the same Disputation affirmeth,41) 1.43 that S. Hierom saith, concerning that (Epistle) which is written to the He∣brewes, manie haue doubted of it. And also concerning the 2. of Peter, he sayth, it was doubted of by manie, and so with some were the two last Epistles of Iohn &c. Now if the Bookes of Machabees, Tobie, &c. be not Canonical, because (as Protestants before obiected) they were reiected or doubted by some ancient Writers, then by the same reason Protestants must likewise reiect the Epistle to the Hebrew••s, the Epistles of S Peter, S. Iames, S. Iude, S. Iohn and the Apo∣calyps, because these also were no lesse doubted & reiected by sundrie ancient

Writers: Wherefore the weaknes and ensuing absurditie of this obiection being thus discouered, we are to obserue, that the Canonical Scriptures are to vs at this day discerned and made knowne, not by that which some an∣cient Writers omit, deny, or doubt of, but by that which most of the Fathers constantly affirme, and chiefly by that which is iudged and decreed by the Catholick Church lawfully assembled in General Councel.

Thirdly, some obiect that there are in the foresayd Bookes diuers repu∣gnances or Contradictions, and consequently that they are not inspired by the holie-Ghost. But to omit, that in those Scriptures which are beleeued by al to be Canonical, there are manie hidden difficulties and seeming(42) 1.44 re∣pugnances, which yet notwithstāding, we are bound to acknowledge the sayd Scriptures to be true and sacred; I wil for breuitie only alledge, what other Protestants think and answer themselues to the foresayd pretended Contradictions in the Bookes of Machabee:, Tobie &c. D. Couel(43) 1.45 writeth: We could without violence haue afforded them the Reconcilement of other Scrip∣tures, and vndoubtedly haue proued them to be most true: Yea he particularly an∣swereth certaine of the pretended repugnances. In like sort Conradus Pelican(45) 1.46 Professour at Tigure, writing his Commentarie vpon the foresayd Bookes, sayth, I easily yeelded &c. especially seing those Bookes were alwayes ac∣compted so Ecclesiastical and Biblical, that euen from the Apostles times they were read in the Catholick Church with much reuerence, although they were not produced in authoritie against the Iewes as Canonical, who receiued not these into their Sacred Canon, wheras they do not only not contradict in anie thing the writings of the Law and the Prophets,(44) 1.47 but also &c. for the most part they cleerly carry the right style of the holie-Ghost; certain knots (or difficulties) intermingled, which are sound more easie to be loosed, then some haue thought &c. Wherupon they were euer reuerenced and read by holie men; yea the Sayings therof are found to be alledged by the Apostles. Agreably hereto M. Hutton(46) 1.48 at large answereth and cleereth the com∣mon obiection against Iudith, and the like in behalf of Ecclesiasticus(47) 1.49 and(48) 1.50 Daniel. So weake and impertinent are the Contradictions pretended by Protestants against the foresayd Bookes.

Now from the premisses, & that by the Cōfessions of our Aduersaries, we may collect, that the foresayd Bookes of Scripture were only not approued for truly Canonical by S. Austin, Innocentius, Gelasius, and al the Fathers and Bishops of the 3. Carthage Councel, but also were approued as partes of the Old Testament by the Apostles, and for such alledged by them, and so from the Apostles times were read in the Catholick Church with much reuerence. Witnesses wherof are the Protestant Writers Hiperius, Lubbertus, Zanchius, Hospiman, Trelcatius, Hoe, Scelico, Brentius, Bibliander, Lascicius, Pelican, Raynolds, Parker, Field, Couel, Bancroft, Hutton, Parkes & D. Bilson; al of them affording their helping hands in maintayning and defending the foresayd Bookes by true Antiquitie.

Notes

• (1) 1.1

  Concil. Carthag. 3. Can. 47. Trid. sess 4.
• (2) 1.2

  Luth. & Zuingl. Praef. Bibl. a se Cōuers. Calu. Inst. l. 1. c. 12. §. 8. l. 2. c. 5. §. 18. l. 3. c. 5. §. 8.
• (3) 1.3

  Can. 47
• (4) 1.4

  De Doct. Christi l. 2. c. 8 Innoc. ep. ad Exup. c. 7. Gel. To. 1. Concil. in Decret cum 70. Ep. Isid. l 6. Etymol. c. 1. Rabanus l. 2. Instit. cler Cassiod. l. 2. diuina∣rum Lect.
• (5) 1.5

  Meth. Theol. l. 1. p. 46.
• (6) 1.6

  de Prin∣cip. Christ. Dogm l. 1. c. 4. p. 8.
• (7) 1.7

  Conclus. annex. to his Conf p 699 700. Zan de Sacr. p. 32. 33. Hosp. hist. Sacram. p. 1. p. 160. Trelc. loc. com. p. 15. Hoe Tract. Tripart. Theol. p. 46. Park. ag. Symb. part. 2. p 60. Field of the Church p. 246. 247.
• 8) 1.8

  Hist. sacr. part. 1. p. 161. Hip. Meth. Theol. p. 46. Zanch. de sacra-Scrip. p. 32. 33. Field of the Church. p. 246.
• (9) 1.9

  Apol. Confess. Wittemb See Bucers Scripta An¦gl. p. 7••3.
• (11) 1.10

  Ib. p 87
• (12) 1.11

  Of the Church p. 245. 246. Hut. 2. part. of his Answ. p 176.
• (13) 1.12

  fol. 6.
• (14) 1.13

  p. 60.
• (15) 1.14

  The 2. parte of the Ministers Def. p. 108.
• (16) 1.15

  Ep. ad Volanum.
• (17) 1.16

  Lōdoro mastix. p. 69
• 10) 1.17

  Against Burges. p. 76 77.
• (18) 1.18

  Hook. Ecol. Pol. l. 1 p. 86.
• (19) 1.19

  Whit. cont. Staplet. p. 370. 357. Hook vbi sup. p 147.
• (20) 1.20

  Hook. ib. p. 146. 116. Aretiu Exam p. 24.
• (21) 1.21

  Answ to Rayn. p. 22. 23.
• (22) 1.22

  to wit, from Chap. 2 vers. 4. to the end of the 7. chap.
• (23) 1.23

  De sacra Scrip. p 603.
• 24) 1.24

  Syn p. 4
• (25) 1.25

  of Anno 1584. & 1578 See Calu. in c 2. Heb ver. 2.
• (26) 1.26

  In Ps. 1 apud Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 19. Epiph. de Pondere & Mens. & Haer. 8. Epicureorū. Hier Pref. in l Regum.
• (27) 1.27

  Ep. ad Iulium & hom. 1. in Leuit.
• )28) 1.28

  Ep. ad Iulium.
• 29) 1.29

  Haer. 76
• (30) 1.30

  Lib. de Pond. & Mensura. post init.
• (31) 1.31

  Praef. in Daniel.
• (32) 1.32

  Whit. cont Camp. p. 18.
• (33) 1.33

  Apol 2. cont. Ruffin. fin
• (34) 1.34

  Answ. to Burges p. 87. Banc. in the Conf. before his Maiestie. p. 60.
• (35) 1.35

  Prolog. in Machab.
• (33) 1.36

  Apol 2. cont. Ruffin. fin
• (36) 1.37

  Pref. in Iudith.
• (34) 1.38

  Answ. to Burges p. 87. Banc. in the Conf. before his Maiestie. p 60.
• 37) 1.39

  2. Thes. 2.2. Euseb. hist. l. 3. c. 19 & l. 6. c. 10. Aug. cont. Aduers. Leg & Proph l. 1. c. 20. Gelas. in Decret. cū 70. Episc Sozom hist. l. 7. c. 19. Hamelman. de Tradit Apostol. 1. part. l 1. col. 251 & part. 3 col. 841.
• (38) 1.40

  Conc. Laodic. can vlt.
• (39 1.41

  Suruey of Christs suffrings. p. 664.
• (40) 1.42

  The first Day••s Conf. D. 1.
• 41) 1.43

  4. Dayes Conf••r. f••l. 2. 6.
• (42) 1.44

  See Mat. 10.10. & Mar. 6.8 1. Reg. 8.9. 2. Par. 5.10. & Hebr. 9.4 Act. 9.7. & Act 22.9. Math. 26.34. & Marc 14.68. Mar. 15.25. & Io. 19.14 Luc. 3.35.36 & Gen. 11.12. And see Iewel Def. &c. p. 361.
• (43) 1.45

  Answ. to Burges, p. 85.
• (45) 1.46

  Ep. Dedic.
• (44) 1.47

  Ib. p. 87 88. 89. 90.
• (46) 1.48

  2. Parte of the Answ. p. 238. 239.
• (47) 1.49

  Ibid. p. 247.
• (48) 1.50

  Ibid. p. 246. And see Bucers scripta An∣glic p. 713.