Wesley Corpus

4. The Church of Rome not only adds tradition to Scrip ture, but several entire books; namely, Tobit and Judith, the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two books of Maccabees, and a new part of Esther and of Daniel; “which whole books,” says the Church of Rome, “whoever rejects, let him be accursed.” We answer, We cannot but reject them. We dare not receive them as part of the Holy Scriptures. For none of these books were received as such by the Jewish Church, “to whom were committed the oracles of God:” (Rom. iii. 2:) Neither by the ancient Christian Church, as appears from the 60th Canon of the Council of Laodicea; wherein is a catalogue of the books of Scriptures, without any mention of these. 5. As the Church of Rome, on the one hand, adds to the Scripture, so, on the other hand, she forbids the people to read them. Yea, they are forbid to read so much as a summary or historical compendium of them in their own tongue. Nothing can be more inexcusable than this. Even under the law, the people had the Scriptures in a tongue vulgarly known; and they were not only permitted, but required, to read them; yea, to be constantly conversant therein. (Deut. vi. 6, &c.) Agreeable to this, our Lord commands to search the Scriptures; and St. Paul directs, that his Epistle be read in all the Churches. (1 Thess. v. 27.) Certainly this Epistle was wrote in a tongue which all of them understood. But they say, “If people in general were to read the Bible, it would do them more harm than good.” Is it any honour to the Bible to speak thus? But supposing some did abuse it, is this any sufficient reason for forbidding others to use it? Surely no. Even in the days of the Apostles, there were some “unstable and ignorant men,” who wrested both St. Paul's Epistles, and the other Scriptures, “to their own destruction.” But did any of the Apostles, on this account, forbid other Christians to read them?