Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Response to preface · Martins comments 11
MART. 11. For the second point, which is not the grosse deniall of bookes, but yet calling of them in question, mouing scruples about them, and diminishing their authoritie and credite, I will goe no further than to S. Paules epistle to the Hebrewes,In the argument Bib. an. 1579. which I will not aske why they doubt of, or rather thinke it not to be S. Paules, for they will tell me, because it was once in doubte (not considering that it was in like maner doubted whether it were Canonicall, & yet they will not now denie but it is Canonicall) but I must aske them and request them to make a reasonable answere, why in their English Bible of the yeare 1579. and 1580. they presume to leaue out S. Paules name out of the very title of the saide epistle, which name is in the*foreign Greeke, and in Bezaes Latine translation, both which they professe to folow. See the title of the new Test. an. 1580. Doth not the title tell them that it is S. Paules? why seeke they further: or why do they change the title, striking out S. Paules name, if they meant to deale simply and sincerely? and what an hereticall peeuishnes is this, because Beza telleth them of one obscure Greeke copie that hath not Paules name, and onelyonly one: that they will rather folow it, than all other copies both Greeke and Latin? I report me to all indifferent men of common sense, whether they do it not to diminish the credite of the epistle.
FVLK. 11. Nowe concerning the seconde pointe, which is calling of some bookes into controuersie or mouing scruples about them, to diminish their credite, or auctoritie, whether you be guiltie of that crime rather than we, I hauehave somewhat noted before. But with what euidence you are able to charge vsus, it cōmeth now to be cōsidered: you will go no further than the epistle to the Hebrewes. You may be ashamed to hauehave gone so far. For of al bookes of the new Testament, their is none that we might worse spare to confounde your blasphemous heresies, than that epistle, which is the very mall to beate into pouder the abominable Idoll of your Masse, and your sacrilegious priesthood seruing to the same. Wherefore it is without all colour that you charge vsus, to seeke to diminish the credite of that epistle. But you will not aske why we doubt of, or rather thinke it not to be S. Paules, because we will tell you, that it was once in doubt. If you acknowledge that the auctor of this epistle was once in questiō, you cleare vsus of mouing scruples about it, or calling it in question, which was your first charge. Let Eusebius, Hierome, and other auncientEuseb. lib. 6. cap. …. Hieronim. ad▪ …a…d. Tom. 3. writers, beare that blame, if it be blame worthie, to tell what other mens opinions hauehave bene in such a matter. Some holding that it was written by S. Luke, some by S. Barnabas, some by S. Clemens. But you must wit if you wil, that they which at this day doubt of the writer therof, or else thinke it not of S. Paules penning, hauehave other reasons to lead them, than onelyonly because it was doubted of. For beside those reasons which they had, which of old time doubted of the writer therof, as the diuersitie of the stile, and inscription thereof, and manner of reasoning, they hauehave also obserued something out of the epistle it self, which seemeth to argue, that it was not writtē by S. Paule: as that in the beginning of the 2. chapter he saith, The doctrine of saluation was confirmed to vsus by thē that heard it, after it was first spoken by the Lord him self, which seemeth to agree with the profession of S. Luke in the beginning of his gospell. Wheras S. Paule denieth that he learned his gospel os men, but only by reuelation of Iesus Christ. Gal. 1. v. 12. But of all thē that doubt, or thinke it not to be S. Paules epistle, there is not one that doubteth of the auctoritie thereof, but that it is equall with the epistle to the Romanes, or the gospell of S. Iohn. Although in the Latine… …. lib. 3. cap. 6. in Euāg Math. …. 5. cap. 26. church as S. Hierom testifieth, it hath bene doubted whether it were Canonicall. The cause seemeth to be the heresie of the Nouatians, which abused a text out of the 6. chapt. against remissiō of sinnes cōmitted after grace receyued, which we shew was no sufficiēt cause to refuse so diuine an epistle, seing the Apostle speaketh not of particular faults, which are cōmon to the faithful oftētimes eueryevery day, but of an vtter apostasie, & falling cleane away frō the truth of the gospel once knowen & professed, into an horrible contempt & persecuting of the same. But we must make you a reasonable answere, why in the English Bibles printed 1579. & 1580. we presume to leaue out S. Paules name, out of the very title of the said epistle? which name is in the Greeke & Bezaes Latine translatiō, which we professe to folow. I answere without any presumptiō, that that which is vncertaine we spare to affirme. Exāple we hauehave not only that ancient Greeke copie whereof Beza speaketh, which leaueth out the name of Paulé, but also diuerse printed bokes in which that name is left out. Beside it is certain, that title was not of ancient time vniuersally added. For S. Hier. in Catalogo scriptorū ecclesiast. after he hath recited al the epistles of S. Paule, at lēgth he cōmeth to this epistle, Epistola autē quae fertur ad Hebraeos, &c. But the epistle which is called vntounto the Hebrewes, is not thought to be his, for the differēce of the stile & speach, but either writtē by Barnabas, as Tertullian holdeth, or by Luke the Euangelist, as some men thinke, or by Clemens, that after was B. of the Romane church, whom they say to hauehave ordered & adorned the sentēces of Paul in his own speach, or els truly, bicause Paule did write vntounto the Hebrews, & because of the enuie of his name amōg thē he cut of the title in the beginning of the salutation. These things cō sidered, what neede those tragical exclamations in so trifling a matter? Doth not the title tell it is S. Paules? why strike they out S. Paules name? what an hereticall peeuishnesse is this? For lacke of good matter, you are driuen to lowde clamors against vsus, but I will euen conclude in your owne wordes, I reporte me to all indifferent men of common sense, whether we do it to deminish the credite of the epistle, which of al S. Paules epistles we might least misse, when we come to dispute against your Popish sacrifice, & sacrificing priesthood: or whether you do not craftily moue a scruple in the mindes of simple persons, to make thē doubt of the auctoritie of that epistle (whose double cannon shot you are not able to beare, whē it is thūdred out against you) vnderunder colour that it is not of sound credit among our selues, that vse it against you. Which of al the lies that euer Satan inuented, & taught you to vtter, is one of the most abhominable.