A refutation of sundry reprehensions, cauils, and false sleightes, by which M. Whitaker laboureth to deface the late English translation, and Catholike annotations of the new Testament, and the booke of Discouery of heretical corruptions. By William Rainolds, student of diuinitie in the English Colledge at Rhemes

CHAP. 1. Of Luthers contemning S. Iames his Epistle and callinge it STRAMINEAM.

AMONG sundrie cōtrouer∣sies raysed by the Protes∣tants in our dayes, one and that of greate weyght and consequence, is the Canon of holy Scriptures, that is, what bookes are to be admitted into diuine and supreme authoritye, and as certaynlye wryt∣ten by inspiration of the holy Ghoste to be receaued without any doubte or contradiction. In examininge which question, the behauiour of our aduer∣saries deserueth diligent considerati∣on. For as in the beginning, they much praysed the Fathers, Church, & Coun∣cels of the firste fiue hundred yeares,

not for any respecte or reuerence they bare vnto them, but by so doinge to discountenance and thrust out of cre∣dite, the Fathers, Church and Coun∣cels of the later thowsand, by whom they saw most euidently their heresies to haue bene condemned: so not long after, for lyke purpose, they made vaūt of the scriptures, agaynst those very first and moste auncient Fathers, not for any iuste honor or regarde which they had of the scriptures, but by that meanes to disgrace the Fathers, and ease them selues of answering their au∣thoritye, when soeuer they should be pressed therewith. For that in deede they accompte not of the very scrip∣tures more then of the Fathers, but turne them ouer for vs to defende no lesse then the Fathers, time and expe∣rience hath shewed, their publike wry∣tinges professe (as by that which here∣after ensueth, shall manifestly appeare) and M. Whitaker though in worde he would fayne dissemble the matter, yet in facte and truth playnly declareth so much. which being so, let the Christi∣an Reader as in other things, so in this especially note the proceeding of that which these men call the gospell, the

grosse impietie wherevnto it tendeth, and in to what open profession of infi∣delitie in a shorte space it is likely to breake out, which in the compasse of so few yeares is growen to such a head, that now already they dare as boldly call in question and deny partes of the holy scriptures, as not long sithence they made the like quarels against the wrytings of the auncient Fathers. Let the Christian Reader note I say, not their wordes, but their doinges, not their coūterfeit dissimulatiō in speach & pulpit sometyme vsed, but their eui∣dent practise, reasons & asseuerations published in bookes, confirmed by ar∣guments, deduced by necessarie cohe∣rence from their doctrine, and many wayes expressed by them selues in sun∣dry their Cōferences, Institutions, and disputations, and he shall easely per∣ceaue our aduersaries after denyall of the Fathers, Councels, Tradition, and the authoritie of the Church Catho∣like, now at this present to stand vpon lyke deniall of the written worde, the Apostles & Prophets, so as they leaue no one ground whereupon a christian man can rest his fayth, or stay him selfe. Thus much I gather not onely by the

writinges of sundry other Protestants whereof some I shall touch hereafter, but euen of M. Whitakers discourse in defence of Luther about S. Iames Epi∣stle. whose words and reasons for this purpose and the Readers better intel∣ligence, I will sett downe and prose∣quute somewhat the more at large.

And firste of all concerning S. Iames his Epistle, M. Martin repro∣ueth M. Whitaker for denyinge that Luther called that Epistle stramincam, and in so cleare a case charged Father Campian with a notorius lye. It is easie to gesse (sayth M.W.) vvhat a fellovv vve shall fynde you in the reste, vvho are not a∣shamed in the very beginning to lye so egregi∣ously. When F. Campian replyed that it was in some one of Luthers first editi∣ons, though otherwyse altered in the later: nether so sayth M.W. Praefationem illam purgatam esse dixisti, quam tamen con∣stat nullo vnquam verbo mutatam esse. You saye that preface vvas corrected, vvhereas it is certayne that there vvas neuer anye vvorde changed in it. Now this being the faulte which M. Martin layeth to M. W. see how wel he defendeth himselfe. First, because after he had read ouer all Luthers prefaces vpon the new Testa∣ment

(as he sayth) he found none such, there of he inferreth: He is not to be ac∣counted impudent (as you call me,) vvho deni∣eth that to be true vvhich he knovveth not to be true, but he that to deceaue others defendeth that as false vvhich he knovveth to be most true. but I am so farre from acknovvledging this to be true, that I neuer thought it to be more false then I thinke it novv. I will not wrangle vpon the definition of impu∣dency but whether this dealing be not moste shamelesse and detestable in a Christian, let any man of indifferencie iudge.

[ 1] First it can not be excused of grosse and insolente boldnesse and rashnesse, vpon the vew of one onely edition to deny so peremptorily a thing obiected so often, by so many learned men of name, and for ought I coulde yet reade or heare, neuer denyed by the Luthe∣rans: especially, whereas withall no∣thing is more notorious, [ 2] then the ma∣nifold alteratiōs which Melanchton and those of VVittenberge haue made in Lu∣thers works, corrupting, deprauing, putting in, and taking out, so much and so far forth, as pleased their chāge∣able humor: where of the zealous Lu∣therans in a synode holden at Altem∣burg,

by procurement of the Duke of Wirtemberg, and Palsgraue of Rhene, lamentably complayne. Electorales (say they) Lutheri scripta enormiter quám faedis∣simé deprauant, ita vt post obitū Lutheri &c. The Diuines of the Prince Elector, do most filthely and beyonde all measure depraue Luthers vvrytings, so as since Luthers death there haue not bene more foule corrupters of Luthers bookes. In the same Councel ma∣ny times they fal into this argumēt, and each side in most spitefull termes ob∣iecte to others this faulte, as may be seene, if you liste to peruse the pages here noted in the margent. And in fine there is promise made, as a matter of great importance, and one of Hercules labours, that the Duke of Saxonie will cause Luthers workes to be printed without corruption. Illustrissimus Dux Saxoniae, curabit tomos Lutheri sine depraua∣tione typis excudi. which notwithstāding is perhaps a harder thing thē the Duke of Saxonie can perfourme, though his power were much greater then it is. What speake I of the Lutherans, with whom Luthers wordes be autenticall and litle inferior to scripture, whereas the very Caluinists, and that in Geneua,

where Caluin is all in all, yet notwith∣standing haue in their prints corrupted Luthers works. whereof Ioachim. VVest∣phalus a Lutheran thus wryteth in his Apologie against the slanders of Cal∣uin. I Marueil much (sayeth he) that Cal∣uin keeping such a doe about this one vvord, could not see the most filthy mutations and corruptions of the diuine commentarie of D. Luther vpon the epistle to the Galatians, and translated into French, and printed at Geneua. In one place some vvordes are taken avvay, in an other many mo, some vvhere vvhole paragraphs are lopte of. in the exposition of the sixte chapter, tvvo pages and an halfe are lefte out. vvhere Luther doth reproue the Sacra∣mentaries, there especially those falsifiers tooke to them selues libertie to mutilate, to take a∣vvay, to blotte out and change. some vvhere they remoue the name of Sacramentaries, at o∣ther tymes they haue put in vvordes such as pleased them. and that this vvas done at Ge∣neua vvithout Caluins knovvledge, it is not very lykely.

[ 3] And touching this very place wher∣of we treate, when Coclaeus obiected it to Bullinger, as now M. Martin did to M. W. he answered, (not denyinge that which was so publyke and notorious) but, Guperem Lutherum sobrié magis, modesta∣us

& circumspectius &c. I vvoulde to God Luther had iudged and geuen his sen∣tence more soberlye, discreetelye, and cir¦cumspectly of Sainte Iames his Epistle, and the Apocalips of Sainte Iohn; and certayne other.

[ 4] Add we herevnto M. W. owne con∣fession set downe in this preface. I con∣fesse (sayth he) that Luther hath vvritten in a certen place, that Iames his Epistle is not to be compared vvith the Epistles of Peter and Paule, and that in comparison of them it may be iudged an epistle made of stravv. Which a man would thinke were sufficiente to cleare M. Martin and M. Campian, and to condemne Luther and M. Whitaker. For how or in what comparison coulde Luther so speake, but onely to disgrace that epistle, & in respect of other scrip∣ture to make it light and contemptible: that is, not to make it scripture at all. For if he thought it to proceede from the holy Ghost as did the bookes of the Prophets, the Gospels, and Epistles of Sainte Paule, how coulde he without intollerable iniurye done to the holy Ghost so debase that wryting, which he beleeued to proceede from his diuine inspiration. But M. Whitaker reply∣eth: That vvorde albeit I defende not,

yet iustly may I say that Luther is iniuried vvhen he is accused to haue reiected as made of stravv that epistle, and playnely and sim∣ply to haue named it so, vvhereas he called it so in comparison: especially vvhereas these vvordes are not founde in the bookes of later printes. and excepte I by chaunce had happe∣ned vpon a most auncient edition, I might haue sought long inough in the later. Con∣fesse you then that there hath bene such choppinge and changinge in Luthers workes, that the one differ so far from the other, & namely in this very point? How standeth this now with your for∣mer bold asseueration: It is certaine, there vvas neuer any one vvorde changed therein? And what reason haue you better to credit these later printes sett furth by Luthers scholers, then the auncient set furth by the maister and author Luther him selfe.

[ 5] But to end this matter, may it please you to reade Father Duraeus, there shall you be informed in what print and edi∣tion of Luther, these wordes are to be reade, to wit, not in the later of VVittē∣berg corrected and corrupted by the ci∣uill Lutherans, but in the more aunci∣ent of Iena, a Citie in religion lutherish to, but yet after a more exacte and pre∣cise

order then are those other. There may you finde that Pomerane a greate Euangelist among the lutherans, tou∣chinge S. Iames Epistle wryteth thus. Fayth vvas reputed to Abraham for iustice. by this place thou mayest note the error of the epistle of Iames, vvherein thou feest a vvic∣ked argument. besides that he concludeth ridi∣culously, he citeth scripture against scripture, vvhich thing the holy Ghost can not abyde: vvherefore that epistle may not be numbred a∣mongest other bookes, vvhich set foorth the ius∣tice of fayth. There may you finde Vitus Theodorus preacher of Norimberg in hye Germanie, wryting thus. The epistle of Iames, and Apocalips of Iohn, vve haue of set purpose lefte out, because the epistle of Iames is not onely in certayne places reprouable, vvhere be to much aduaunceth vvorkes a∣gaynst fayth, but also his doctrine through out is patched together of dyuers peeces, vvhereof no one agreeth vvith an other. Vnto these you may add for your better satisfacti∣on the iudgement of the Centuries, noted by F. Campian though not touched by you. They say, that the epistle of Iames much svvarueth from the analogie of the Apostoli∣call doctrine, vvhereas it ascribeth iustificati∣on not to onely fayth but to vvorks, and calleth the lavv, a lavv of libertie. And in the next

booke: Against Paule and against all scrip∣tures, the epistle of Iames attributeth iustice to vvorkes, and peruerteth as it vvere of set purpose, that vvhich Paule disputeth Rom. 4. out of Genes. 15. that Abraham vvas iustifi∣ed by onely fayth vvithout vvorkes, and af∣firmeth, that Abraham obteyned iustice by vvorkes. You may add Luther him selfe in his commentarie vpon S. Peter. ep. 1. ca. 1. fol. 439.440. in the common edi∣tion of Wittemberg, where after he hath geuen many rules taken from his owne licentious doctrine, wherby to discerne the true and canonicall scriptures from false and Apocriphal, of them al thus he concludeth. pa. 442. Atque inde etiam fa∣cile discitur epistolam D. Iacobi nomine in∣scriptam, handquaquam Apostolicam esse e∣pistolam: nullum enim prope elementum in ea de his rebus legis. Hereby vve easely learne, that it is no Apostolical Epistle, vvhich goeth in S. Iames his name: for there is in it no letter or title of these matters: that is, of onely fayth, confidence, resurrection &c. whereby we must esteeme of true & ca∣nonical scriptures. [ 6] And that this fault lye not altogether vpon Luther and the lutherās, VVolfg. Musculus, a famous wry∣ter amongst the Zuinglians, vpon lyke reason pronounceth lyke sentence. They

obiect vnto vs (sayeth he) the place of Iames. but he vvhatsoeuer he vvere, though he speake othervvise then S. Paule, yet may he not pre∣iudice the truth. And after he hath at large shewed the disagreemente betweene those two Apostles, thus he breaketh forth into the open reproch of S. Iames. VVherefore he (S. Iames) alleageth the ex∣ample of Abraham nothinge to the purpose, vvhere he sayeth, vvilte thou knovv ô vayne man, that fayth vvithout vvorkes is dead? A∣braham our Father vvas he not iustified by vvorkes vvhen he offred his sonne Isaak? He confoundeth the vvord, fayth. hovv much bet∣ter had it bene for him, diligently and playne∣ly to haue distinguished the true and proper∣lye Christian fayth, vvhich the Apostle euer preacheth, from that vvhich is common to Ievves and Christians, Turks and Diuels, then to confound them both, and set dovvne his sen∣tence so different from the Apostolicall doc∣trine, vvhereby as concluding he sayth: you see that a man is iustified by vvorkes, and not by fayth alone, vvhereas the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus &c. And after he hath made S. Paule speake as he thin∣keth best, he inferreth: Thus sayeth the A∣postle of vvhose doctrine vve doubt not. Com∣pare me novv vvith this argument of the A∣postle, the conclusion of this Iames: A man ther∣fore

is iustified by vvorks and not by fayth on∣ly, and see hovv much it differeth, vvhereas he should more rightly haue cōcluded thus &c. In which discourse the Reader may see that he not onely contemptuously refu∣seth to call him an Apostle, and euer na∣meth him as opposite to the Apostle, but also that he refuteth him as making false arguments, and taketh vpon him to be his maister, and as it were calling him ad ferulam, checketh and controw∣leth him for a corrupter of scripture, misapplying the word of God, and wic∣kedly pullinge downe that which S. Paule had so wel built vp.

All which beinge so plaine, eui∣dent, and manifest, and the worde, stra∣minea found out at length, & acknow∣leged by M.VV. a man wold thinke all this matter ended, and that egregious lye fathered vpon M. Campian, turned vpon M.VV. head, & withall M. Cam∣pians first reason iustified, wherein he burdened the Protestantes with de∣nial of the holy scriptures. And yet M. VV. yeldeth not, but like a valiant sol∣diar is so farre from geuinge ouer, that he pursueth his aduersarie still, as though he had the better of him and wh••e so? or how can he possiblie de∣fend

him self? forsoothe, because Luther non plane & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 stramineam appellauit: Luther sayed not playnlye and simplye that it vvas stravven, or made of stravve, but in comparison of Sainte Peter, and Sainte Paules Epistles. I beleeue in deede: Ne∣ther did F. Campian or M. Martine saye so, or any wise man els for although he were as madde and shamelesse in his assertions, as euer was heretike, yet to haue termed that epistle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 stramineam, simplye made of stravve, or any otherwise then to haue signified the vnworthynes of the same in respect of holie scriptures, (and in that sort, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a worde of blasphemous con∣tempt) had bene as wonderful, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to haue affirmed that is was made of woode, or morter.

And here in the verie fronte and beginning, let the reader note in M.VV. the liuely paterne of a perfecte wran∣gler, maintaininge a continuall bab∣linge vppon wordes, and neuer draw∣ing nigh to the pointe. Father Campians and M. Martins charge vppon them beinge euidente, that they contemne the written worde, as is proued by Lu∣ther, M.VV. knowinge not wel what to say, runneth he knoweth not whether,

vp and downe, and aboute, forwarde, and backward, now grauntinge, and by and by recalling: so that in the com∣passe of one leafe, in one plaine mat∣ter, he hath more contrary windinges and turnings, then a graue and sober man could be driuen vnto, in the wry∣ting of a large volume. [ 1] First there is no suche thinge, and F. Campian lyeth egre∣giously. nowe him selfe hath founde it out. [ 2] then there was neuer a worde chaunged in Luthers preface. now the later editions differ much from the for∣mer. [ 3] againe, Luther calleth it not sim∣pliciter stramineam, but in respect of S. Paules epistles, and S. Peters. [ 4] If this serue not the turne, then I require you (saith he), to bring forth the other wordes that folow, arida, tumida, con∣tentiosa, or els this of straminea is no great matter. yet one fetche more. [ 5] Al∣though I vvil not defend this of Luthers, yet you haue iniuried him, in saying that he cal∣led it omnino stramineam, altogether made of stravv. looke (saith M. Martin) in Illyricus and there you shall finde the matter graunted. I haue so done (saith M.VV.) & let me be counted impudent, yf you finde this vvord there. Thus muche I graunt, Illyri∣cus saith that Luther rehearseth graue causes,

vvhy this epistle ought not to be esteemed for a vvriting of Apostolicall authoritye. [ 6] But vvhat is this to the purpose? as though he that denieth the epistle to be apostolical, ter∣meth yt stramineam, made of stravv. This is a copie of M.VV. vayne in wryting, first to deny the matter be it neuer so eui∣dent, and whē the matter is cōfessed thē to cauil vpon syllables, and when mat∣ter, and forme, & the verie syllables are founde, yet to yelde to nothing, but to keepe the pen or tounge walking: as though in this point lyke verball gram∣marians and ridiculous sophisters, we principallie hunted after these syllables stra mi ne am (which neuerthelesse are found) and not as students & searchers of truth in diuinitye, soughte out first and cheeflie, whether by these and the lyke contemptible speeches, the aduer∣sarie laboured to disgrace & deface that Apostolical writing, and so impiouslie to auoyde suche authoritie, when he should be pressed therewith.

Wherefore to draw to some issue, howsoeuer Luther 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 called it stra∣mineam or called it not, or whether he spake so in respect of the matter of the epistle, or the forme, or by way of com¦parison with S. Paule, or whatsoeuer

other quidditie M.W. ether now hath or hereafter shall deuise, if Luther did yt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to deface the epistle, which M.VV. denieth not, and to dispossesse it of Ca∣nonicall authoritie as the thing it self speaketh, if by his example the Ger∣mane Diuines & churches altogether contemne it, if vppon Luthers senten∣ce Illyricus pronounce, that Luther in his praeface rendereth great causes, vvhy this epistle oughte in no case to be accounted for a vvriting of Apostolicall authoritie, vnto vvhich reasons I thinke euerie godlie man and not geuen to contention ought to yeld, if Pomerane say, the vvriter thereof maketh a vvicked argument & concludeth ridiculous∣lie, if Vitus Theodorus thrust it cleane out of the booke, if the Centuries affirme that it svvarueth from the Apostolicall do∣ctrine, and teacheth cleane contrarie to S. Paule and all scriptures, if Luther flatly & expresly deny it to be Apostolical, and affirme it to conteyne no one title or letter of such matter as the Apostels are wont to hādle, if Wolfgāgus Musculus vse him so contemptuouslie, as though he were some poore rascall not worth the naming, and teache him what he should say, and sette him to schole: this being euident, then F. Campions conclu∣sion

standeth strong, that Luther with his complices contemne that parte of scrip∣ture, howsoeuer he calleth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 strawen or wodden And therefore ether let M. VV. lyke a good childe confesse with Luther, vvhom gladlie he vvorshippeth as his father, and vvith the Lutherans, vvhom he embraceth as his most deere brethren in Christ, that this epistle is no more worth then his father and brethren make of it, or if he mislike such consanguinitie (as sure I am they abhorre him) let him then detest them as profane and wicked men, who so im∣piouslie reiecte the written worde of God, that is, the foundation, as they say. whereon is buylte their newe con∣gregation. and so may the reader note downe one more capital and substan∣tiall point of dissension betwene those two churches lutheran & zuinglian, then he••herto he hath cons••dered. although nether can he so doe precisely, but ra∣ther note it as a diuision amonge the zuinglians also, for so muche as it ap∣peareth by Musculus, that the Zuinglians of Suitzerlād, no lesse then the Lutherās of Germanye, disagree from the En∣glishe churche in their Canon of scrip∣ture, yea the Englishe church within

it self, as shal appeare in the nexte cha∣piter.

Notes

• The proce∣ding of the new gospel.
• In prefat. pag. 2.
• In respons. ad episto. Campiani.
• prefa. pag. 2.
• The Here∣tikes cor∣rupt their ovvne vvry∣ters.
• Anno 1568. Colloq. Alt. in respo. ad excusa. cor. fol. 227.
• 2. Respō. ad Hipothe. a fol. 284. ad fo. 290. & fo. 353.355.441 442.443.526.
• Ibi. Saxoni. ad respons. de difcess. fo. 539.540.
• Vvestphalus in apologia contra calū. Cal. ca. 46. pag. 458.
• The vvorks of Luther corrupted by the Cal∣uinistes in Geneua.
• Detruncaeti.
• Bull resp. ad Cocle. ca. 3.
• Pag. 4.
• Ibid.
• Manifest contradicti∣on.
• Duraeus fol. 8.
• S. Iames e∣pistle deny∣ed by the Protestāts.
• Pomeran. ad Rom. ca. 8.
• In Annot. in ••o. Test. pag. v••i.
• S. Iames e∣pistle & the Apocalips lefte out of the Protest∣ants bibles.
• C••••. 1. li. 2. c. 4. colum. 54.
• Cent. 2. ca. 4. colum. 71.
• Luther. 10.5. in 1. Pc. ca. 1.
• Muscu. in lo∣cis cōmu. ca. de lusti. num. 5. pag. 271.
• pag. 4.
• M.VV. nota∣ble vvrang∣linge.
• pag. 3.
• Illirieus in praefa. Iac.
• Had it not bene a good¦ly matter & vvorthy the labour of such greate men in the Tovver dis∣putations, to discusse vvhether Lu¦ther called S. I••mes E∣pistle stra∣mine••, made of stravve, simply or ō∣ly in com∣parison?
• Cont. Cam∣pi. pag. 198.