Answer to Reynolds Book, Chapter 1
CHAP. 1.
Concerning the Epiſtle of S. Iames.
ALThough our Aduerſaries hauehave continuallie endeuored to abaſe and extenuat the authoritie of the holy Scriptures,The Papiſtes are enemies of the ſcriptures in many reſpects. by matching with them the credit of Traditions deuiſed by men, by ſubmitting them to the iudgement of Fathers and Councels, and hanging them vponupon their interpretations, and moſte notoriouſly by bringing them into captiuitie vnderunder the Pope, ſo that his pleaſure and determination muſt ſtand for their true ſenſe & meaning, as it is confeſſed by them ſelues, and knowne to the world: yet will they ſeeme neuertheleſſe to be very zealous in defenſe of the ſcriptures, & charge the Proteſtants with that impiety, whereof them-ſeues are moſte of all guiltie. As this hath beene their common practiſe of long time, thereby to make ſome beleeue that we contemne the Scriptures of God, which of all Chriſtians are to be had in moſte high regard and reuerence, and of vsus alwaies hauehave beene eſteemed no otherwiſe, then their incomparable maieſtie & authority requireth, being the word of the eternall God: ſo of late Edmond Campian in his booke, made this the firſt and principall cauſe of his Chalenge,Camp. ra. 1. for that he ſawe vsus through diſpaire (as he ſayeth) compelled to laie hands, and offer violence to the holie bookes of the Bible. For proofe whereof Luther is charged to hauehave written contemptuouſlie, and contumeliouſlie of the Epistle of Saint Iames: which though it had beene true, and could not hauehave beene denied, yet did it nothing at all touch vsus, who therein agree not with Luther, neither are bound to iuſtifie al his ſayings & priuat opinions, no more then they wilbe content to auouch what-ſoeuer hath beene ſpoken or publiſhed by any one or other famous man of their ſide?We no more bound to defend Luther in all his ſayings, then they will be bound to defend whatſoeuer hath bin ſaid by their writers. Which thing if they will take vppon them to performe, then let them profeſſe it, or els they offer vsus the more iniurie, that obiect ſtill againſt vsus a ſaying, which was neuer either vttered, or alowed by vsus.
This might ſuffice men of indifferent reaſon: but our aduerſaries will yet continue wrangling about nothing, and will trouble the world with friuolous writings, being neither aſhamed, nor wearied of any thing. For what matter is it worthie ſoe much adoe, and ſoe many wordes, whether Luther euer ſpake ſo of Saint Iames epiſtle, as Campian ſayth he did, or no? If he had ſo ſpoken, as in trueth he hath not, for any thing I can vnderſtand, what hauehave they wonne? what hauehave we loſt? what matter was it, to multiplie words ſo much about? Is this the controuerſie between vsus and them? doe we ſtriue about mens words and writings? Is Luther our God, or the author of our faith, or our Apoſtle? No, they ſhall not bring vsus thus from the defenſe of Gods trueth to skirmiſh with them about mens ſayings: we will not leaue the great queſtions of Religion, and fall to diſpute about matters of other nature & condition, ſuch as this is concerning Luthers particuler iudgement of S. Iames Epiſtle. The truth of Gods word is it for which we contend, againſt the which if anie man hauehave ſpoken any thing, let him beare the blame himſelfe, and let not the common cauſe be charged therewith. So if Luther, or anie other learned man of our ſide, hauehave eyther interpreted the ſcriptures in ſomething amiſſe, or hauehave doubted of ſome one booke of Scripture, whereof doubte alſo hath beene of olde in the Church of Chriſt, we are not to defend their expoſitions, or to approoue their iudgement: and therefore in vaine do theſe men ſpend ſo much time, and take ſuch paynes to prooue, that Luther vttered reprochfull wordes againſt the Epiſtle of Saint Iames: which, as though it had beene a principall matter for their aduantage, not onelie the Cenſurer in his defenſe, and Gregorie Martin in his diſcouerie, hauehave ſpoken thereof, but now alſo my new aduerſarie Maſter Rainolds in his booke againſt me beginneth with the ſame, and ſayth, he hath thought good to ſett it downe, and proſequute it ſomewhat more at large. But I for my parte hauehave not thought good to ſpend my time, and comber the reader about ſuch vnneceſſarie, and impertinent diſcourſes as theſe are, which the aduerſaries deuiſe, and wherewith Maſter Rainolds hath ſtuffed his booke: onelyonly it ſhalbe ſufficient, for anſwere to Maſter Rainolds, whoe in trueth deſerueth no anſwere, playnlie and briefelie in euerie point to cleare the trueth from his cauils and ſlaunders, for the ſatisfying of the godlie in this behalfe.
And firſt, what a ſillie argument he gathereth,M. Rainolds argum. that we hauehave left no ground of faith, becauſe Luther ſomwhat toucheth the credit of Saint Iames epiſtle. for that Luther hath written ſomewhat hardlie of Saint Iames his Epiſtle, that therefore the Proteſtants leue no one ground, whereupon a Chriſtian man may reſt his faith, I truſt anie man of mean diſcretion, can eaſilie perceiue. For the iniurie done to Saint Iames Epiſtle by Luther ſhould not be obiected againſt the Church of England, which doth receiue the ſame, as the Canonicall word of God, but againſt Luther, if he did ſo deſerue, and ſuch as maintayne Luthers opinion herein. But neither I, nor any other that I knowe in our Church euer denied, much leſſe doth the whole Church denie that epiſtle to be worthely rekned among the bookes of ſacred Scripture,S. Iames Epiſtle not doubted of in the Church of England. nor hauehave taken vponupon vsus to defend either Luther, or any other, for reiecting the ſame. Indeed becauſe Campian rayled vponupon Luther, charging him to hauehave diſgraced that epiſtle with deſpitefull tearmes, I anſwered, that Luther had not ſo written of it, as Campian affirmed, which ſtill I may truely holde, for anie thing hath bene ſhewed, either by any other, or by Maſter Rainolds him ſelfe, whoe, like a profound ſcholler, handleth this worthie matter thus at large.
Furthermore how doth that followe Maiſter Rainolds, that if Luther thought Saint Iames epiſtle not to be Canonicall, or equall in Authoritie with the epiſtles of Saint Paull, and Peter, that therefore he left no ground for a Chriſtian mans faith, to ſtay vppon? are all the grounds of our fayth in Saint Iames epiſtle? is all foundation of Religion ouerthrowne, yf Saint Iames epiſtle ſhould not be Canonicall? Doe they that deny or doubt of that epiſtle, deſtroy the credit of all other bookes of holie ſcipture? God forbid, that ſo we ſhould thinke.Diuers auncient learned men and Churches hauehave denyed the Epiſtle of S. Iames. Amongſt the Auncient writers of eſtimation, Euſebius calleth this ſame epiſtle of Saint Iames, about which you make ſoe great adoe, in playne wordes, a Baſtard. I thinke you will not ſay that Luther hath written worſe, or more againſt it.Euſeb. lib. 2. ca. 23. Ieron. in catal. And Saint Ierome ſaith, It was affirmed, that this epiſtle was publiſhed by ſome other vnderunder the name of Saint Iames? whereby appeereth that many Chriſtians in auncient tyme thought it to be in deede counterfait: and yet did they not therefore ouerthrow al the foundations of our fayth.Euſeb. lib. 7. ca. 25. Dionyſius Alexandrinus writeth (as Euſebius reporteth) that many of his predeceſſours vtterly refuſed, and reiected the booke of Reuelation. Concil. Laod. cap. 59. Iunil. lib. 1. cap. 3.And ſo doth the Councell of Laodicea leue the ſame out of the number of Canonicall bookes. Iunilius Africanus, an auncient father, reiecteth not only the bookes of Iudith, Hester, and Maccabees, as they are worthy, in that they are not canonicall, but alſo of Iob, Ezra, and Paralipomenon, which notwithſtanding are canonical ſcriptures. And neuertheleſſe for al this they left ſome ſtaie for Chriſtians in the other bookes of Scripture, wherein a man may finde ſufficient ground to build his faith vponupon. Yea Ierome was not afraid to diſcredit the trueth of the hiſtorie, written in holie Scripture, concerning Dauids marrying with Abiſag, calling it, according to the letter, that is, the true and natural ſenſe,Hier. epiſt. 2. Vel. figmentū eſſe de mimo, vel. Atellanarum ludicra. no better, then either a poetical fiction, or vnſeemely ieſt: and therefore deuiſeth a proper Allegorie of Wiſdome, which cheriſheth and refreſheth a man in his age. I wil not vrge Father Ierome for his vnreuerent wordes, but ſure I am he hath deſerued more reproofe for the ſame, then Luther hath done, for any thing euer vttered by him againſt S. Iames Epiſtle. By theſe examples you may learne not to be ſo raſh in your iudgement, and haſty in your concluſions, as you ſhew your felfe to be in the very beginning, that becauſe Luther denied Saint Iames epiſtle to be Canonical, following the enſample of others, hence doe gather, not onelyonly that he, but we alſo, although herein diſagreeing from him, and denying no one booke of Canonicall ſcripture, neyther of the old, nor new teſtament, doe raze the foundation of faith, and leaue no ground for Chriſtians to ſtand vponupon. We leue ſuch ground, and thereupon do build our faith, as ye ſhall neuer be hable to ſhake with all the force ye hauehave. Verely your Pope, and ye all that hang vponupon him, cannot well ſtand on this ground, becauſe it is too narrowe, and ſlippery for you, and therefore ye ſeeke larger roome, in the Fathers, Councells, Traditions, whereof you ſpeak.The grounds of Popiſh faith. Theſe are in deed fit groundes for your Church to be founded vponupon, the corruptions of Fathers, the decrees of men, ſuperſtitious inuentions, forged traditions: whereunto if you did not more leane, and ſomewhat ſtaye your ſelfes, then to the bookes of holy ſcriptures, your Church, your Pope, your Cardinals, your monkes, your friars, your ſelues ſhould ſurely lie in duſt ſhortly.
But now to come to Luther, whome ſtill you chardge, and me alſo, about Saint Iames epiſtle, I could vſe as many words againſt you, if the cauſe required, as you hauehave againſt me, & handle the matter by poynts as you doe: but what end, or vſe ſhould there be of ſuch kinde of writing, or what profitt could ariſe thereby to the Church of Chriſt? Had you clerely gayned al that, for which you contend, yet had you not prooued any thing at all againſt our Church, or fayth, nor yet againſt me, but onelyonly that Luthers writings hauehave beene changed, and altered: which becauſe you hauehave ſo paynfully euicted, I praie you take it vntounto you, and vſe it moſte to your aduantage. Howbeit for all your needles and vnthriftie labour ſpent herein, yet doth Campian ſtill remayne chardged with that vntrueth, whereof you would ſo fayne acquit him: which you may ſone perceiue, if you call to remembrance what Campian in his booke obiected to Luther, concerning this epiſtle of Saint Iames: namely, that he called it contentious, ſwelling, Campian. Rat. 1.drye, ſtrawen, and thought it not worthy an Apoſtolike ſpirite. All this doth Campian auouch Luther to hauehave written of Saint Iames epiſtle. Now yf Luther hauehave in deede thus written, then hauehave I vniuſtly accuſed Campian of vntrueth: yf otherwiſe, then hath Campian ſlaundered Luther fowly. To know the trueth herein. I vſed all conuenient diligence in examining all the copies both Dutche and Latine, that I could get: and when I found in them noe ſuch wordes, but rather the cleane contrary, I was perſwaded, as I had good cauſe, that all this was but a forged matter, and therefore ſayd it was vntrue. Afterwards it fell out, that I light vppon an old Dutch Teſtament of Luthers tranſlation, with his prefaces, wherein I found ſomething, like in one poynt to that which Campian had obiected: the which when I had read, I diſſembled not, but confeſſed it in my anſwere to Gregory Martin. And in that preface Luther in deede writeth, that Saint Iames epiſtle is not ſo worthy, as are the epiſtles of Saint Peter, and Paul, but in reſpect of them is a ſtrawen epiſtle. His cenſure I miſlike, and ſo himſelfe, I thinke, afterwards, ſeeing thoſe words in latter editions are left out. Yet I truſt eueryevery indifferent reader will graunt, that there is ods betweene this that Luther writeth indede, and that which Campian ſaith he writ. For it is one thing to ſpeake ſimply, and another thing to ſpeake in compariſon. Campian ſayth, Luther calleth Sainte Iames Epistle ſtrawne: Luther ſayth, That it is in compariſon of Saint Peters, and Saint Pauls epiſtles, ſtrawne. If you can by all your wiſdome prooue theſe to be all one, and will farther buſie your ſelfe about trifles, I am content to giuegive you the reading, but I will not vouchſafe to anſwere any more ſuch ſtrawen, or rather wodden replies. And ſure, Maſter Rainoldes, if you can write nothing to purpoſe, and yet will needs be writing ſomething, it were better for you to ſit downe and picke ſtrawes, then ſo to trouble your ſelfe and others, wherein you ſhall purchaſe nothing els but commendation of a ſtrawne writer, and your booke ſhalbe iudged more worthy to be burnt, then to be anſwered.
But ſeeing you hauehave taken in hand to proſecute this matter ſo largelie,M. Rainolds helpeth not, where greateſt neede is of his helpe. why doe you faile in that thing wherein moſt of all we need your hand and helpe? For this that you bring concerning ſtrawne, hath already beene confeſſed ſomuch as is true: your parte had beene now farther to hauehave ſhewed, that Luther likewſe called the ſame epiſtle contentious, ſwollen, drie, not worthie an Apostolicall ſpirit, as he is accuſed by Campian in the ſame place. But for proofe hereof you can bring forth nothing and therefore you confeſſe, that Campian layd more to Luthers charge concerning this Epiſtle then was true: ſo that if in one poore word you hauehave a little auouched the credite of your Ieſuite, for whome you fight: yet in three or foure other you hauehave condemned him: which you ſlylie paſſe ouer notwithſtanding, as though Campian had neuer ſpoken ſo, or you had nothing to do therwith. Indeed I graunt it maketh ſmale matter, what Campian hath lyed of Luther: but you that take vppon you to defend him, may not thinke you hauehave performed your duty, if of much that he hath ſaid, you be able to iuſtify his ſaying in one litle point, & in three points hauehave failed. Wherefore either ceaſe to quarell ſtill about this one word, or ſhew your proofes for the reſt alſo, or acknowledge your lewd and miſerable wrangling, as in deed you muſt, howſoeuer the matter ſtandeth concerning Luther in this behalfe. For what if Luther had plainly and conſtantly affirmed of Saint Iames Epiſtle, as much as Campian hath obiected, though vntrulie? Is this a cauſe ſufficient why you ſhould make all theſe outcryes generally againſt all Proteſtants? why then may not we by like reaſon complayne of all Papiſts for that, which Cardinall Caietane hath written both of other bookes of holie ſcripture, and namelie of this ſame Epiſtle, whereof we ſpeake? was not Caietane a piller of your Church, a peere of the court of Roome, the Popes Legate in Germanie againſt Luther? Doth not this famous Cardinall of Roome ſet downe in playne wordes, that the Author of the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes doth gather inſufficient arguments to prooue Chriſt to be the ſonne of God, that the ſecond and third of Iohn are not Canonicall ſcripture, Cardinal Caietane denieth ſunday bookes and partes of Canonical Scripture in the new Teſtament, where fore Catharinus hath written againſt him.that the Epiſt. of Iude is Apocryphall, that the laſt Chap. of S. Marke is not of ſound authority, that the hiſtory of the adulterous woman in S. Iohn is not authentical, & namely of S. Iames Ep. that the ſalutation is prophane, hauing nothing of God, nor of Ieſus Chriſt?
But what ſpeake I of Caietane diſalowing certaine bookes, and parcells of diuine ſcripture, whereas Hoſius another Cardinal, and one chiefe founder of all your late ſophiſtications, hath written moſt diſhonorably, and vilely of the wholl ſcripture? for thus he ſayth: Scriptura quomodo profertur á Catholicis, eſt verbum Dei: quomodo profertur ab haereticis, Hofius contra Brent. lib. 4.eſt verbum diaboli: that is, The ſcripture, as it is brought forth by the Catholikes, is the word of god: as it is brought forth by the Heretikes, is the word of the deuil. So that by this notable Cardinals iudgement, if a Proteſtant, that is in their language and meaning, an heretick, ſhall alledge for proofe of Chriſtes eternall diuinitie the beginning of the Goſpel written by Saint Iohn, this ſcripture ſhall now become of Gods word, as it is, and alwaies ſhalbe, the word of the deuil, becauſe it is vſed by ſuch as they account and call heretikes. O blaſphemous hand and tongue! And can you prooue this Maiſter Rainolds? can the word of God be made the word of Sathan? It will not ſtand with your honeſtie to maintaine it. Gods word, by whome-ſoeuer it be vttered, though by the deuill him-ſelfe, is not the worde of the deuill. God is immutable, ſo is his worde. Then hath Hoſius blaſphemed, in calling Gods word the deuills word: which you ought to conſider, who thinke you hauehave found ſomewhat againſt the Proteſtants, when you ſhewe what Luther hath written in ſome diſgrace of Saint Iames Epiſtle. I can further put you in remembrance, what others of your ſyde hauehave taught and maintained to the great ſlaunder and derogation of the Scriptures, and that not in one worde or two, but in earneſt and long diſcourſes.Pighius Hierarch. li. 1. Cap. 2. What doth Pighius labour to perſwade in one whole Chapter, & often in other places by occaſion, but onlie that the Scriptures hauehave al their credit & authoritie from the Church, as though they had not any of them ſelues, & from the lord, by whoſe ſpirit they were written. For thus he ſayth, All authoritie of Scripture among vsus dependeth neceſſarily vponupon the authoritie of the Church: Ne que enim aliter cis credere poſſemus, niſi quia teſtimoniumillis perhibenti Eccleſiç credimus.for we could not otherwiſe beleeue them, but becauſe we beleeue the Church giuing teſtimonie vntounto them. And againe, The primitiue Church hath made certaine proofe vntounto vsus, that the writings of all the Euangeliſts are of canonicall trueth, and not the Euangeliſts themſelues, that were the writers. And againſt SS. Marke and Luke he diſputeth at large, and boldly auoucheth, that they were not meete witneſſes of the trueth of thoſe goſpells which they writ,Marcum & Lucam nonſuiſſe teſtes libneos veritatis ſcriptorum àſe Euangeliorum Eccleſie. & therefore euen while they liued, that credit was not giuen to their Goſpels for them-ſelues, no not of thoſe that certainly knew they were written by them, yea and farther alſo had their verie principall copies written with their ownehands, but for the Apoſtolike Church. Yea this preſumptuos and arrogant ſpirit of Pighius proceedeth farther yet and ſayth, that the Goſpells were written by the Euangeliſts, not to the end that thoſe wrytings ſhould beare rule ouer our faith and religion, Non quidem vt ſcripta illa praeeſſent fidei religioni que noſtrae, ſed ſubeſſent potiùs. Hoc Euangeli um, inquit, vnicum ſolum que deſignans Eu… gelium eſſe, nō que nos Matthaei, Marci, Lucae, Ioanniſ que dicimus Euangelia quat uor. Hier. li. 3. ca. 3. Ceuſur. Colonien. pag. 112. Cuſan. epiſt. 2. & 7.but rather be ſubiect thereunto. And yet a litle more blaſphemouſlie, That they are not the true Goſpell, which Chriſt, aſcending into heauen, commanded his Apoſtles to preach to eueryevery creature. What ſhould I rehearſe his often reprochfull compariſons of ſcripture to a noſe of wax, and a rule of lead, which may eaſelie be turned, bowed, and applied euerie way at our pleaſure? which alſo the Cenſure of Colen hath affirmed of them in like manner. And to the ſame effect hath Cardinall Cuſane long before ſet downe that the Scriptures muſt be expounded diuerſly, and framed to the time, and practiſe of the Church, ſo that one time they are to be vnderſtood and interpreted one waie, and an other time an other way. Which is more vnreaſonable and abſurd by many degrees, then if one ſhould preſcribe, that the Ladie muſt conforme hir ſelfe to the faſhion and manners of hir handmaide.
William Lindane hath bene and ſtill is a ſtout Champion for the Pope,Lindan Pan. Lib. 1. c. 17. in whoſe defence he hath vttered many bolde blaſphemies againſt the Scriptures, as namelie that the Euangeliſts tooke in hand to write the Goſpels,Non vt aliquam totius Euangelij methodum inſormarent, non vt Chriſtianae fiſdei ſummam conſor. berent. Lib. 3. cap. 1. not to the intent to ſet downe any forme of the wholl Goſpell, or to write the ſume of Chriſtian faith. And that the authoritie of the word not written is greater then of the word written, which queſtion he ſaieth maie eaſilie be determined howſoeuer to ſome it ſeemeth full of difficultie and perplexitie:Lib. 3. cap. 6. De to to in vniuerſum ſacrae ſcripturae corpore accipiendum. and that whereas Saint Peter hath affirmed of Saint Paules epiſtles, that in them are ſomethings hard to be vnderſtoode, the ſame muſt be taken and ment generallie of the wholl bodie of the Scriptures: ſoe that according to this mans doctrine there is not in all the ſcriptures one eaſie ſentence, and S. Peter was ouerſeene to ſaie, that but ſomethings in the epiſtles of Saint Paule were hard,foreign when he ſhould rather hauehave ſaid that all things were hard.foreign Lib. 1. cap. 22. Furthermore that it is extreame madnes, to thinke the wholl & entire bodie of Euangelicall doctrine is to be fetched out of thoſe ſole Apostolike letters written with incke, Dementiſſimae inſaniae. Ex puſillo noui teſtanmenti libello.and that litle ſmall booke of the new teſtament. Thus ſcornefullie wirteth this proud Papiſt of the diuine ſcriptures, and exemplifieth his meaning by a notable ſimilitude, that it is as greate a want of wit to eſteeme & iudge that al Euangelical doctrine is comprehended in the bookes of the newe Teſtament, as if one ſhould ſaie, that the wholl frame of the world is contained in ſome one ſenſible creature. So that by his compariſon the doctrine of the goſpel doth infinitelie in largenes excel al the ſcriptures of the new teſtament. Such mad & wicked ſentences hath he throughout his wholl booke manie.
Ambroſe Catharine ſaith, It is the Popes proper priuiledge to Canonize ſcriptures, Catharin. in epiſt. ad. Galat. cap. 2. Ipſe canoniz at ſcripturas, & reprobat.or to reprooue ſcriptures, to Canonize true Saints, and to reiecte falſe: meaning thereby that the holynes, authoritie, and eſtimation of ſcriptures procedeth frō the Pope. Wherein yet he ſeemeth to hauehave foulie forgotten that canonicall ſcriptures are a greate deale more auncient, then the Pope: and therefore could not receiue theire Canonization from him. But thus they vtter their minde, that ſcripture is no otherwiſe the word of God, then as it is approoued, authorized, and Canonized by the Pope, which is in effect to bring the holy ghoſt vnderunder the cenſure & approbation of a man, and ſuch a man as he. I omit, becauſe I will not be tedious, a number of ſuch ſayings moe, wherein the holie ſcriptures of God are ſhamefully & intolerably diſhonoured by theſe men in their writings and diſputations: and yet to procure a litle enuy to Luther, they accuſe him with out all meaſure continuallie for calling the epiſtle of Saint Iames a ſtrawne epiſtle, not abſolutelie & in it ſelfe, but onelie in reſpect of S. Peter and Paules epiſtles. Thus much now hauehave I thought good (for ſatisfiing of the godlie) to anſwere. If you will not be ſatisfied, you may write againe twiſe as much more: whoe can let you? this matter requireth no longer talke.