MARTIN, 7. p. 18. Retent. p. 32. Luther. in one of your five marks, and more may appear in those four points which you will handle in the preface, because the argument of your whole book is the fifth; so that in the end you shall be proved no wiser with your five points, than he that came forth with his five eggs, and never a good of them all. But you ask, if it were not easy for you to shew (if you would stand upon them) that the protestants use all the said five means of defacing the scripture? I answer, No, and that shall you see when demonstration is made, how vainly you have laboured in the last point; which howsoever you would have it appear to be a sudden writing, of small travail, by interlacing a few lines here and there against M. Whitaker1, against me and some other; yet it is evident, both by Bristow's threatening and Campian's promise, that it hath been a work of some years unto you; wherein, beside that you are beholden much to Lindanus for divers quarrels against Calvin, and to Sir Thomas More for many cavillations against W. Tindal's translation, there is little worthy of so long study and large promises as have gone before this diligent discovery; so that, if you will make the like trial in the rest, you shall find them as hard to prove as this last. Martin. Did not Luther deny St James' epistle, and so contemn it, that he called it an epistle of straw, and not worthy of an apostolical Cont. rat. spirit? Must I prove this to M. Whitaker, who would never have Edm. Camp. denied it so vehemently in the superlative degree for shame, if he had Disc. of the not thought it more shame to grant it? I need not go far for the Rock, p. 307. matter: ask M. Fulke, and he will flatly confess it was so. Ask Calvin, in argum. ep. Jacobi. Ask Flaccus Illyricus, in argum. ep. Jacobi; and you shall perceive it is very true. I will not send you to the catholic Germans and others, both of his own time and after, that wrote against him in the question of justification: among whom not one omitteth this, being a thing so famous and infamous to the confusion of that arch-heretic. Novo Test. FULKE, 7. Fulke. I know not whether ever Luther denied St James' epistle as unworthy of an apostolical spirit; but I believe [ William Whitaker, master of St John's, Cambridge, and Professor of Divinity, born in 1547. Cardinal Bellarmine, his antagonist, pronounced him to be the most learned heretic he ever read. He wrote among other treatises, "Ad Rationes Decem Edmundi Campiani Jesuitæ, quibus fretus certamen Anglicanæ ecclesiæ ministris obtulit in causa fidei, responsio Gulielmi Whitakeri. Londini. 1581.” printed in Whitaker's Works, Genevæ. 1610. Vol. 1.] Re you may take a twelvemonth's day more to prove it, as also that he did so contemn it, that he called it an epistle of straw. But M. Whitaker, which denied it so vehemently, must ask of me, who most flatly confess (saith M. Martin) that it was so. I pray you, sir, urge me not to confess more than I know, or ever knew. But you have confessed it already in two printed books, Retent. p. 32. Disc. of the Rock, p. 307. In the first place cited there are these words: "But to proceed: LUTHER DENIETH THE EPISTLE OF ST JAMES, BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST HIS HERESY OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY. We allow not Luther, neither did he allow himself therein; for he retracteth it afterward." First, those words of Luther's denial being printed in a diverse letter, may testify sufficiently to every reasonable man, that they are the objection of Bristow, and not the confession of Fulke, who not simply admitteth them as true, but by concession proveth that if they were true, yet Luther's opinion, against which he himself hath written, ought not to prejudice him, and much less all other men that never held that opinion. In the latter cited place are these words: "And as touching the epistle of St James, it is a shameless slander of him to say that the protestants reject it; but we must hear his reason. First, Luther calleth it a strawen epistle3. So Luther called the pope supreme head of the church, and the mass a sacrifice propitiatory. If protestants be charged to hold whatsoever Luther sometime held, and after repented," [A Retentive to stay good Christians in true faith and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristow. Also a discovery of the dangerous Rock of the Popish Church, commended by Nicholas Sander, D. of Divinity. Done by Wm. Fulke. 1580.] [Campian, the Jesuit, states that the Reformer had characterised the Epistle of James as "contentiosam, tumidam, aridam, stramineam, et indignam spiritu apostolico." The Prefaces to the Argentine, Wirtemburg, and Francfort editions do not however contain these words, that of Jena alone does. Luther's opinion is exhibited in its truest light by the following remarks: "Epistolam hanc S. Jacobi, quamvis rejectam a veteribus, tamen laudo, et pro utili ac commodo habeo." And in his treatise De Captivitate Babylonica he thus alludes to it: "Omitto quod hanc epistolam non esse apostoli Jacobi, nec apostolico spiritu dignam, multi valde probabiliter asserant." See the question examined more fully Ad Rationes Campiani. pp. 5-13. edit. 1581; and in Whitaker's Works, Vol. 1. p. 60. edit. 1610.] &e. Who seeth not in these words, that I rehearse the objection of Saunder, which is common to him with many other papists; which not discussing whether it be true or no, but supposing it were as Saunder and the rest of the papists do affirm, I shew that it is no good consequence to charge all protestants with Luther's private opinion, which perhaps he held sometime and after retracted, more than to charge us with all opinions of papistry which he did hold, before God opened his eyes to see the absurdity of them? And yet, if he had held that opinion, and never retracted the same, he were not in worse case than Eusebius', who in plain words affirmeth, that the same epistle is a counterfeit or bastard epistle, lib. 2, cap. 23. Do you not see now, how flatly Master Fulke confesseth that it was so? Such confessions as these are now and then extorted out of the ancient fathers' writings, which are not living to expound their meanings. But I had thought Master Martin could have discerned between a suppose or concession, and an absolute assertion or a flat confession, especially of one whose writing is plain enough, and beside is alive to interpret himself, if any ambiguity were therein. But be it that Master Martin either would not, or could not, see in my writing any thing else but a flat confession of Luther's denying of St James' epistle, and calling it an epistle of straw: of what forehead proceedeth it, that he willeth Master Whitaker to ask Calvin', in argum. epist. Jacobi, whether Luther so spake of that epistle?—in which argument Luther is not once named by Calvin; so far is it that he doth testify any such thing against Luther. Only he saith, that some there are in these days which think that epistle not worthy of authority; which could not [ Τοιαῦτα καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἰάκωβον, οὗ ἡ πρώτη τῶν ὀνομαζομένων καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν εἶναι λέγεται. ἰστέον δὲ ὡς νοθεύεται μέν· οὐ πολλοὶ γοῦν τῶν παλαιῶν αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσαν, ὡς οὐδὲ τῆς λεγομένης Ιούδα, μιας καὶ αὐτῆς οὔσης τῶν ἑπτὰ λεγομένων καθολικῶν. ὅμως δὲ ἴσμεν καὶ ταύτας μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐν πλείσταις δεδημοσιευμένας ἐκκλησίαις.-Eusebii Pamphili Eccles. Hist. Lib. 1. c. 23. Opera. Vol. 1. p. 66. edit. Valesii.] [Calvin's words are: "Hanc epistolam non sine certamine olim receptam a multis ecclesiis fuisse ex Hieronymi Eusebiique testimonio notum est. Sunt etiam hodie nonnulli, qui eam auctoritate dignam non censeant. Ego tamen, quia nullam ejus repudiandæ satis justam causam video, libenter eam sine controversia amplector."-Argumentum cum Joh. Calvini Commentariis. p. 91. edit. Stephan. 1560.] 3 be understood of Luther, who long before Calvin wrote that argument had forsaken that opinion, if ever he held any such; as all those Dutch bibles and testaments of Luther's translation, in which those words so much baited at, and so much sought for, are omitted, do give sufficient testimony. What Flaccus Illyricus reporteth, who perhaps held that opinion himself, and would father it upon Luther, I have neither opportunity to seek, nor care to know. But how great a matter it is, that all the popish Germans, and other, who have written against Luther, do so spitefully gnaw upon, I have learned at length by relation of Master Whitaker, whom you send to ask of me; who, after long search and many editions turned over, at the length lighted upon a Dutch testament, by likelihood one of the first that Luther did set forth in the German tongue, in which he findeth neither denial of St James' epistle to be canonical, nor affirmation that it is unworthy of an apostolical spirit; no, nor that whereof there hath been so much babbling of all the papists, that he calleth it an epistle of straw simply and in contempt, but only in comparison of the epistles of Paul and Peter, and other books of the new testament; the excellency of which, one above another, after he hath shewed in sundry degrees, at last he saith, the epistle of James in comparison of these is straw, or like straw: which he saith not in respect of the credit or authority thereof, but in regard of the argument or matter handled therein; which all wise and godly men will confess to be not so excellent and necessary, as the matter of the holy gospels and epistles of some other of the apostles, namely of Paul, Peter, and John. Our Saviour Christ himself, John iii. 12, calleth the doctrine of regeneration, in such plain manner as he uttered it to Nicodemus, earthly things, in comparison of other greater mysteries, which he could have expressed in more heavenly and spiritual sort. "If I have spoken to you," saith he, "of earthly things, and you have not believed, how, if I should speak to you of heavenly things, will you believe?" Were not he an honest and a wise man, that upon these words of Christ, [Mathias Flack, or (as the name was latinised, from Albona in Istria, a part of ancient Illyria, where he was born in 1521,) Flaccus Illyricus, was a famous protestant theologian. He studied under Luther and Melancthon, and became a most formidable enemy to the Church of Rome.] 2 [PULKE.] can. 47. Argu. in epist. Jacob. spoken in comparison, would conclude by his authority, that regeneration were a contemptible matter, a thing not spiritual, not heavenly, but simply and altogether earthly? And yet with as good reason, for ought I see or can learn of Luther's words concerning this matter, he might so infer, as the papists do enforce the like against Luther. Wherefore it is nothing else but a famous and infamous cavillation, to the confusion of all the papists which write against Luther, that no one of them omitteth upon so false and frivolous a ground to slander him so heinously, and to charge all protestants with his assertion so enviously: which, if it were his, should not be so evil as other catholic writers have affirmed of that epistle, and therefore not sufficient to charge him, and much less others, with heresy; but being not his simple affirmation, yet because it hath been offensively taken, he himself hath put it out and given it over. O what a stir would they keep, if they had any weighty matter of truth to burthen him withal! MARTIN, 8. Martin. To let this pass: Toby, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, Conc. Cart. 3. are they not most certainly rejected? And yet they were allowed and received for canonical by the same authority that St James' epistle was. This epistle the Calvinists are content to admit, because so it pleased Calvin: those books they reject, because so also it pleased him. And why did it so please Calvin? Under pretence forsooth, that they were once doubted of, and not taken for canonical. But is that the true cause indeed? How do they then receive St James' epistle as canonical, having been before doubted of also, yea, as they say, rejected? Whitak p. 10. Ibid. FULKE, 8. Fulke. You may well let it pass, for it is not worth the time you spend in writing of it; and if you had been wise, you would utterly have omitted it. But what say you of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, most certainly by us rejected? They were allowed (you say) for canonical by the same authority that St James' epistle was. And think you that St James' epistle was never allowed for canonical before the third council of Carthage? For of the other it is certain, they were never received by the church of the Israelites before Christ's coming, nor of the apostolic and primitive church for more than 300 years after, as both Eusebius out of Origenes, and the council of Laodicea, Can. 59. confirmed afterward by the sixth general council of Constan [1 Whitakeri ad Rationes Campiani Responsio.] |