Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Response to preface · Martins comments 7
MART. 7. Did not Luther deny S. Iames epistle & so contemne it that he called it an epistle of strawe, and not worthy of an Apostolicall spirit? must I proue this to M. Whitakers, who would neuer hauehave denied it so vehemently in the superlatiue*Cont. rat. Edm. Camp. pag. 18. Retent pag. 32. dist. of the Rock pag. 307. Luther in no…o Test. Germa. in Prefat. Iacobi. degree for shame, if he had not thought it more shame to graunt it? I neede not goe farre for the matter: Aske M. Fulke, and he will flatly confesse it was so. Aske Caluin in arg. ep. Iacobi. Aske Flaccus Illyricus, in argum. ep. Iacobi, and you shall perceiue it is very true. I will not send you to the Catholike Germans and others, both of his owne time and after, that wrote against him in the question of iustification: among whome not one omitteth this, being a thing so famous and infamous to the confusion of that Arch heretike.
FVLK. 7. I know not whether euer Luther denied S. Iames epistle as vnworthy of an Apostolical spirit, but I beleue you may take a twelue monethes daye more to proue it, as also that he did so contemne it, that he called it an epistle of straw. But M. Whitaker which denied it so vehemently▪ must aske of me, who moste slatly confesse (sayth M. Martin) that it was so. I pray you sir, vrge me not to confesse more than I know, or euer knew. But you hauehave confessed it already in two printed bookes, Retent. pag. 32. Disc of the Rock, pag 307. In the place first cited, ther are these words But to proceed: LVTHER DENIETH THE EPISTLE OF S. IAMES, BECAVSE IT IS AGAINST HIS HERESIE OF IVSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONELYONLY. We allow not Luther, neither did he allow him selfe therein, for he retracteth it afterward. First those wordes of Luthers denyall being printed in a diuerse letter, may testifie sufficiently to eueryevery reasonable man, that they are the obiection of Bristow, and not the confession of Fulke, who not simplye admitteth them as true, but by concession, proueth that if they were true, yet Luthers opinion, against which he him selfe hath written, ought not to preiudice him, and much lesse all other men, that neuer held that opinion. In the later cited place, are these wordes. And as touching the epistle of S. Iames, it is a shamelesse slaunder of him to say that the Protestants reiect it, but we must heare his reason. First Luther calleth it a strawen epistle. So Luther called the Pope supreame head of the Church, and the masse a sacrifice propitiatorie. If Protestants be charged to holde whatsoeuer Luther sometime helde, and after repented. &c. Who seeth not in these words, that I rehearse the obiection of Saunder, which is common to him with many other Papistes, which not discussing whether it be true or no, but supposing it were as Saunder and the rest of the Papistes doe affirme. I shewe that it is no good consequence, to charge all Protestants with Luthers priuate opinion, which perhaps he helde sometime, and after retracted, more than to charge vsus with all opinions of Papistrie, which de did hold, before God opened his eyes to see the absurditie of them. And yet if he had helde that opinion, and neuer retracted the same, he were not in worse case than Eusebius, who in playne wordes affirmeth, that the same epistle is a counterfet or bastard epistle, lib. 2. cap. 23. Doe you not see nowe how flatly Maister Fulke confesseth that it was so? Such confessions as these, are nowe & than extorted out of the auncient fathers writings, which are not liuing to expounde their meanings. But I had thought Maister Martin could hauehave discerned betwene a suppose or concession, and an absolute assertion, or a flat confession, especially of one whose writing is plaine enough, and beside is aliue to interprete himselfe, if any ambiguitie were therein. But be it that Maister Martin either would not, or could not see in my writing any thing else but a flat confession of Luthers denying of S. Iames epistle, and calling it an epistle of strawe, of what forehead proceedeth it, that he willeth Maister Whitaker to aske Caluin in argum. Epist. Iacobi, whether Luther so speake of that epistle? in which argument Luther is not once named by Caluin, so farre is it, that he doth testifie any such thing against Luther. OnelyOnly he sayth, that some there are in these dayes, which thinke that epistle not worthy of authoritie, which could not be vnderstood of Luther, who long before Caluin wrote that argument, had forsaken that opinion, if euer he helde any such, as all those Dutche Bibles and Testaments of Luthers translation, in which those wordes so muche bayted at, and so much sought for are omitted, doe giuegive sufficient testimonie. What Flaccus Illyricus reporteth▪ who perhaps helde that opinion him selfe, and woulde father it vppon Luther, I hauehave neither opportunitie to seeke, nor care to knowe. But howe great a matter it is, that all the Popish Germans, and other, who hauehave written against Luther, doe so spitefully gnawe vponupon, I hauehave learned at length by relation of Maister Whitaker. whome you send to aske of me: who after long search and many editions turned ouer, at the length lighted vponupon a Dutch Testament, by likehood one of the first that Luther did sette forth in the German tongue, in which he findeth neither deniall of S. Iames epistle to be Canonicall, nor affirmation that it is vnworthy of an Apostolicall spirit, no nor that whereof there hath bene so much babling of all the Papistes, that he calleth it an epistle of strawe simply, and in contempt, but onelyonly in comparison of the epistles of Paule and Peter, and other bookes of the newe Testament, the excellencie of which one aboue an other, after he hath shewed in sundry degrees, at last he sayth, the epistle of Iames in comparison of these, is strawye, or like straw. Which he sayth not in respect of the credit or authority thereof, but in regarde of the argument or matter handled therein, which all wise and godly men will confesse to bee not so excellent and necessary, as the matter of the holye Gospels and Epistles of some other of the Apostles, namely of Paule, Peter, and Iohn. Our Sauiour Christ himself, Ioh. 3. 12▪ calleth the doctrine of regeneration, in such plaine maner as he vttered it, to Nicodemus, earthly things in comparison of other greater mysteries, which he coulde hauehave expressed in more heauenly & spirituall sort. If I hauehave spoken to you (sayth he) of earthly things, and you hauehave not beleued, how if I shoulde speake to you of heauenly things, will you beleue? Were not he an honest and a wise man, that vponupon these words of Christ spoken in comparison, would conclude by his authoritie, that regeneration were a contemptible matter, a thing not spirituall, not heauenly, but simply and altogither earthly. And yet with, as good reason, for ought I see or can learne of Luthers wordes concerning this matter, he might so inferre, as the Papists doe inforce, the like against Luther. Wherefore it is nothing else but a famous and infamous cauillation, to the confusion of all the Papistes which write against Luther, that no one of them omitteth vponupon so false and friuolous a ground, to sclaunder him so haynously, and to charge all Protestantes with his assertion so enuiously: which if it were his, should not be so euill as other Catholike writers hauehave affirmed of that Epistle, and therefore not sufficient to charge him, and much lesse others with heresie: but being not his simple affirmation, yet because it hath bene offensiuely taken, he him selfe hath put it out, and giuen it ouer. O what a sturre would they keepe, if they had any weightie matter of truth to burthen him withall?