Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Response to preface · Martins comments 12
MART. 12. I know very well that the authoritie of Canonicall Scripture standeth not vponupon the certaintie of the author, but yet to be Paules or not Paules, Apostolicall or not Apostolicall, maketh great difference of credite and estimation. For what made S. Iames epistle doubted of sometime, or the second of S. Peter, and the rest, but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles? This Luther sawe very well, when he denied S. Iames epistle to be Iames the Apostles writing. If titles of bookes be of no importāce, then leaue out Matthew, Marke, Luke, and Iohn, leaue out Paule in his other epistles also, and you shall much pleasure the Manichees and other old Heretikes: & if the titles make no difference, vrge no more the title of the Apocalypse, S. Iohn the Diuines, as though it were not S. Iohns the Euangelistes, and you shall much displeasure some Heretikes now a daies. Briefly, most certaine it is, and they know it best by their owne vsual doings, that it is a principall way to the discredite of any booke, to denie it to be that authors, vnderunder whose name it hath bene receiued.
FVLK. 12. If you know so well that the auctoritie of the Canonical scripture, standeth not vpō the certaintie of the auctor: as in deede it doth not. For the bookes of Iudges, of Ruth, of Samuel the later▪ of the Kings, &c. who can certainly affirme by whom they were written? with what forehead do you charge vsus to doubte of the auctoritie of this epistle, because we reporte out of the auncient writers, the vncertaintie of the auctor? or leaue out that title whiche is not certainely true? But yet (you say) to be Paules or not Paules, apostolicall or not apostolicall, maketh great difference of credite and estimation. If by apostolicall you meane of apostolicall spirite or auctoritie, I agree to that you say of apostolical, or not apostolicall. If you meane apostolicall that only which was writtē by some Apostle, you will make great difference of credite & estimatiō betweene the Gospell of Marke, Luke, and the Actes of the Apostles, from the gospels of Mathew and Iohn. But which of vsus I pray you that thinketh that this epistle was not writtē by S. Paul, once doubteth whether it be not of Apostolicall spirite and auctoritie? Which is manifest by this, that both in preaching and writing wee cite it thus, the Apostle to the Hebrewes. And if it were written by S. Luke, or by S. Clement, which both were Apostolike men, seing it is out of controuersie that it was written by the spirite of God, it is doubtlesse Apostolicall and differeth not in credite and estimation from those writings that are knowen certainly to hauehave bene writtē by the Apostles. But I maruel greatly why you write, that to be Paules or not Paules, maketh great difference of credite & estimation. Those epistles that are Peters and Iohns are not Paules, & yet I thinke their is no great difference of credite & estimation betweene them & Paules. What you thinke I know not, but you write very suspitiously. You aske what made S. Iames epistle, or the second of Peter and the rest, to be sometimes doubted of, but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles? Yes, something else, or else they doubted vainely of them, and without iuste cause, as I thinke they did. But when their were two Apostles called Iames, he that doubteth whether the epistle was written by Iames the brother of Iohn, & is persuaded it was written rather by Iames the sonne of Alphaeus, doubteth nothing of the credit, auctoritie, & estimation of the epistle. No more doe wee, which doubt whether the epistle to the Hebrewes were written by S. Paule, seeing we are perswaded it was written either by S. Barnabas, or by S. Luke, or by S. Clement, as the auncient writers thought, or by some other of the Apostles or Euangelists, we make no question but that it is Apostolicall, and of equall auctoritie with the rest of the holy scriptures. But Eusebius denied the epistle of S. Iames, because he was perswaded that it was written by no Apostle or Apostolike man, and therefore saith plainly that it is a bastard or counterset: and so belike was Luther deceiued▪ if euer he denied it, as you say he did. But if titles of bookes be of no importance (say you) then leaue out Matthew, Marke, Iohn, and Paule in his other Epistles. What nede that I pray you? Is there no difference betwene leauing out a title whereof there hath bene great vncertaintie, and diuersitie in Gods church, and which in some Greeke copies both written and printed is left out: and in leauing out those titles that neuer were omitted, nor neuer any question, or controuersie moued of them by any of the auncient catholike fathers? But you will vsus to vrge no more the title of the Apocalypse of S. Iohn the Diuine, as though it were not S. Iohn the Euangelistes, & we shall please I know not what heretikes of our time except it be the Papistes whom it would most concerne, that the reuelation of S. Iohn in which their Antichrist of Rome is so plainly described were brought out of credit. But if you had read Bezaes preface before the Apocalypse, you should finde that euen by that title, he gathereth a probable argument, that it was written by Iohn the Euangelist, because it is not like that this excellent name THE DIVINE coulde agree to any Iohn in the Apostles time so aptly, as to Sainct Iohn the Euangelist, beside the consent of al antiquitie, ascribing that Reuelation to Sainct Iohn the Euangelist and Apostle. Last of all (you say) it is most certaine and we knowe best by our vsuall doings, that it is a principall way to discredit any booke, to deny it to be the authors vnderunder whose name it hath bene receyued. Howe certaine it is with you, whereof no man else but you can see any light of reason or necessitie of conclusion, I knowe not, but wee are not so voyde of witte, if we lacked honestie, that we would discredite Paules Epistle, by saying it was Peters, or Augustines sermon, by saying it was Ambrose, or Chrysostomes worke by saying it was Basils. But if wee would bring any booke out of credite by denying the auctor whose title it hath borne: wee would rather intitle it to some other writer of lesse credite, or later tyme, or by some other argumentes proue it vnworthie of credite, not by onelyonly denying it to be the auctors, vnderunder whose name it hath hene receyued.