Answer to the Tractive by Master Kennedy, Lesson 3
Heir followis M. Q. Thride Leſſone, collectit of the Text foreſaid, for Confirmatione of his Concluſione.
THridly, it is to be notit, that efter Paule and Barnabas, had oppinnit and declarit to the Apoſtles, and Elders, the queſtione and debait, that raſe in the Congregation, betuix the Iowes and the Gentiles: the Iowes being indurit, perſuading circumciſione to be neceſſare with Baptiſme, the Gentiles, be the contrare, diſdaning the ȝok of circumciſione, thinking Baptiſme onelyonly ſufficient. Raſe vp Peter, and efter conferring of Scripturs, declarit Baptiſme ſufficient without circumciſione. And als Iames cytit the Scripturs, to beare witneſſing, and approuit the ſayingis of Peter, quhilk being done. Iames in the Name of the reſt of the Apoſtles (becauſe he was Paſtor and Biſhop of Ieruſalem, quhare the Apoſtles conuenit for the tyme) pronouncit ſentence, and ſaid, I Iudge. Marke gude Reader, Peter and Iames, to call to remēbrance: the teſtimoneis of the Scripture, as witnes bearer, of the will and mynde of the Lorde. And the Apoſtles to occupy the place of the Iudge, to the queſtione mouit in the Congregatione. For quhy? The Apoſtle, Iames ſaid nocht, the Scripture Iudges, decernis, nor geuis ſentence, bot he takis the place of the Iudge (in the Name of the reſt of the Apoſtles) vpone him ſelf, ſaying, I Iudge.
M. Iohne Dauidſonis Anſwer to M. Q. Thride Leſſone.
QVhare. M. Q. heir ſayis, that Iames in the Name of the reſt of the Apoſtles (becauſe he was Biſchop of Ieruſalem, quhare the apoſtles was conuenit for the tyme) pronouncit ſentence. I ſay his ſayingis hes na ground, and that I tak to proue be diuers reaſonis. Firſte we may ſee in the diſputatione, that Peters reaſone is, quhy the Gentiles that beleuit ſould nocht be circumciſit: for God (ſayis he) wald hauehave thaim hearing the worde of the Euangell, be my mouth, and beleue. And he hes put na difference, betuix vsus that is Iowes, and thaim that is Gentiles, in geuing thaim the haly Spirit, and be faith hes purifeit thare hartis. Tharefore now, quhy tempt ȝe God, to lay ane ȝok on the Diſciples neckis. And thir laſt wordis is rehearſit againe, in the Decrete of the haly Spirit, put in writ be the Councell, placing this worde burdene, for ȝok, quhilk ſignifeis heir baith ane thing. Iames heirefter, to approue Peters reaſone, he alledges Amoz the Prophet, and vp one him he groundis his reaſone, quhy the Gentiles that beleuit ſould nocht be circumciſit, making his exhortatione to the Congregatione on this maner: ſaying.
Quharefore I think beſt, that we trouble thaim nocht of the Gentiles, that ar turnit to God, bot that we write to thaim, that thay abſtene thaim ſelues fra filthynes of Idoles, and Fornicatione, and that is wirreit, and fra blude: and of Iames wordis thare is ſum put in the decrete Siclyke.
Than I ſay, gif this had bene the ſentence that Iames had geuin in the Name of the hale Apoſtles, as M. Q. alledgis, Iames failȝeit to Peter, that maid na mentione of his wordis, of the quhilk, the hale Councell in the writtin decrete makis mentione. And mairattoure, the Councell had failȝeit to Iames, that wald nocht write the ſentence of the Councell, as it was pronouncit be him, gif he pronouncit the ſentence in the Name of the hale Apoſtles: for in the writtin decrete of the hale Councell, thare is mekle left out, that Iames ſpak in his exhortatione, quhilk M. Q. callis Iames ſentence: Bot thare was na ſic variance amangs thaim. Quharefore in the decrete of the Councel, nother Pethers nor Iames ſayings is followit, bot the effect of baith thare ſayings (as members of the councel, geuing thare reaſonis as vthers did, in the diſputatione that was thare) was concludit: ſaying, it hes pleaſit the haly gaiſt and vsus. &c. To lay na vther burdene vpone ȝow, as Peter ſayis. Bot that ȝe abſtene ȝour ſelues fra filthynes of Idoles, and Fornicatione, and that is wirreit and, from blude, as Iames ſayis.
Secondly, that Iames gaue ſentence in this Councell, it can nocht be prouin be this worde Iudico in Latine, for the Greik terme ( … ) of the originall Text, it ſignifeis nocht onelyonly Iudico, bot arbitror, cenſeo.
Quharefore Eraſmus, and Sanctes Pagninus men, weil ſene baith in the three languagis, interpretis the Greik terme ( … ) be the Latine Verbe cenſeo, quhilk properlie is nocht to Iudge, or to giuegive ſentence, bot to think to be gude, or beſt. Mairattoure Ireneus in the 12. Chap. of his thrid buke readis this place of Scripture on this maner. Propterea ego ſecū dum me Iudico. Eiking to this verbe,
Quhilk wordis reſtrykis the ſignificatione of this verbe … to ane ſpeciall man, forſamekle as he ſpak at that tyme, bot for him ſelf. For inſafar he readis, ſecundum me, he ſchawis that Iames was nocht ſa arrogant, and Lordlie ouer his brethren, as that he tuke on him to pronunce ſentence in the name of the reſt, or that he walde hauehave al vthers addictit to his ſayings in the councell. Bot ſchawing his Iudgement be it ſelf, quhat he thocht beſt to be done, according to the Scripturs in the controuerſie, proponit before thaim: he leauis place to all vthers that ws thare preſent, quhat thay thoct beſt to be done in the mater. Nor it is nocht lyke, that Iames wald hauehave bene ſa raſche, as to hauehave geuin ſentence, quhill his reaſone firſt had bene hard, & appreuit be the councell, or that he walde hauehave ſaid, I Iudge, bot we Iudge, giuegive he gaue the ſentence in the name of the reſt, for thay had all, bot ane commiſſione of God.
As to the cauſe, quharefore he alledgis Iames ſulde hauehave tane vponupon him to pronunce ſentence, in the name of the reſt of the Apoſtles: becauſe he was Byſchope of Ieruſalem. This cauſe ſoundis verray neir, to the ambitione of the Papiſtrie, quhilk I beleue na godlie man wyl think to hauehave bene amangis the Apoſtles. For in lykewayis, Paule mycht hauehave ſaid, that he was, Apoſtle, and Byſchope conſtitute be God, to the hale Gentiles, of the hale warlde, and to thay Gentiles, quha had the gouernement of Ieruſalem, at that tyme, that he ſulde hauehave pronuncit ſentence, in maters perteyning to thaim, to quhome he was Apoſtle. And Peter alſwa mycht hauehave ſaid, that he ſulde hauehave pronuncit ſentence, becauſe he was cheif Apoſtle (as M. Q. ſtylis him) quhilk was mair than to be byſchope of ane toun, and alſwa Peter was Apoſtle to all the circumciſit, nocht onelyonly in Ieruſalem, bot throuthour the hale warlde: quhilk was ane greater thing to be, than to hauehave bene Byſchope of ane Citie of Ieruſalem, vponupon the quhilk Peter, and Paule was alſwa conſtitute Apoſtles: became thay war conſtitute be God, Apoſtles, baith of Iow and Gentile. Gal. 2. bot Iames was choſin be the Apoſtles, Byſchope of Ieruſalem: as teſtifeis Hierome in the Prologe of the Eccleſiaſticall wryttars: and that, as Egeſippus wryttis tſayis Hierome. Quharefore it hes na appearance, that he, quha was choſin be the Apoſtles, walde take on him in thare preſence, as ane Byſchope to ꝓnunce ſent̄ce, quhilk is the office of the beaſt powar. And beſyde this, giuegive Iames was not Byſchope of Ieruſalem, at the tyme of this councell, bot was choſin efter the Councell: the cauſe quharefore M. Q. alledgis him to pronūce ſentence, is fals. Mairattoure I ſay (with ꝑdone of Hierome and Egeſippus his autor) it is nocht lyke, that ony of the Apoſtles, quha was choſin be Chriſte to be Preach… is to the hale warlde, that thay walde addict thaim ſelf (bot giuegive it war for ane ſchorte tyme, to ony ſpecial Kirk) …ot follow thare Maiſter Chriſtis command: quha commandit nocht Peter to be Byſchope of Rome, nor Paule Byſchope of Antiochia, nor ȝit commandit he, the Apoſtles to make Iames Byſchope of Ieruſalem; to hauehave autoritie amangis thaim be reaſone of the place that he occupyit: bot he gaue thaim all ane cōmon charge, ſaying, pas in to the hale warld, & preache the Euāgel to eueryevery Creature. Marke 16. Quharefore it is nocht weil inferrit that Iames gaue ſentence, becauſe he was Byſchope of Ieruſalem, ſuppoſe he had ſaid as the vulgare tranſlation bearis, I iudge.
Thridlye, this cauſe quharefore M. Q. alledgis, that Iames ſulde hauehave pronuncit ſentence, is of na effect: for it ſawris of twa vngodlie things, firſt of Papiſtrie, for the principall thing, the Paip hes, for his vſurpit autoritie of Iudgemēt, and ſentence geuing ouer the hale warlde: is, becauſe he is byſchop of ane toun callit Rome, and ſucceſſour vntounto Peter, noine ienus. Secundlie, if ſauoris of ambitione, giuegive thay regardit ony of the apoſtles amangs thaim ſelf, be reaſone of the place thay war choſin to, and that ambitioye was croppin in amāgs thaim, quhilk I beleue na man wyll ſaye.
Ferdlie, giuegive thir wordis of Iames had bene the ſentence, geuin in the name of the teſt of the councell, quhart he ſayis, I Iudge nocht to trouble the brether, bot wreit to thaim, to abſtene thaim ſelf. &c. this words (bot wreit to thaim) had bene imperimēt to hauehave bene put in the myddis of ane ſentēce. And giuegive he wyll ſay, that the ſentence follow is thir wordis (bot wreit to thaim). Than I ſay, that the ſentence (as he callis it) that Iames gaue, and the decrete that was wryttin in the Councell to the Gentiles of Antiochia aggreis nocht, as ony Man may ſee, quhilk ware ane greate Inconuenient.
Quharefore be thir reaſonis I conclude, that nother Iames (becauſe he was Biſchope of Ieruſalem) pronouncit ſentence, in the Name of the reſt of the Apoſtles: nor ȝit inferris he weill of this place, that the Scripturs was nocht Iudge: bot that the Apoſtles was Iudge. As ſalbe ſhawin plainely heirefter, in the Confutatione of his Confirmatione, that Iames gaue ſentence (as he alledgis) quhilk heirefter followis. &.