sayd Quod pro vobis funditur his wordes are not so but that those wordes if we looke to the construction can not be referred to the bloud but to the cuppe which in effect is as much as you say His iudgement in deede is of these wordes as they are now redde that either it is a manifest Soloecophanes or else an addition out of the margent into the text And as for the word Soloecophanes you vnderstand him that he meaneth a plaine soloecisme fault in grammar and so doth M. Whitakers Howe you vnderstand him it is not materiall but how he is to be vnderstood in deede M. Whitakers whom you call to witnesse doth not so vnderstand him but sheweth that if he had called it a plaine Soloecisme he had not charged S. Luke with a worse fault than Hieronyme chargeth S. Paule But what reason is there that you or any man should vnderstand Beza by Soloecophanes to meane a plaine soloecisme Think you he is so ignorant that he knoweth not the difference of the one from the other or so negligent of his termes that he would confound those whome he knoweth so much to differ But Maister Fulke say you saith that he meaneth no such thing but that it is an elegancie and figuratiue speech vsed of moste eloquent auctors and it is a world to see and a Grecian muste needes smyle at his deuises striuing to make Saint Lukes speeche here as he construeth the wordes an elegancye in the Greeke tongue Thus you write but if I giue not all Grecians and Latinistes iust occasion before I haue done with you to laugh at your prowde ignorance and to spit at your malitious falshood let me neuer haue credit I say not of a Grecian or learned man which I desire not but not so much as of a reasonable creature Ah sir and doth M. Fulke saye that this speech of S. Luke is an elegancie in the Greeke tongue I pray you where sayth he so you answer me quickly Against D. Saunders Rocke pag. 308. I tremble to heare what wordes you haue there to charge me withall In deede in that page I begin to speake of that matter against Saunder who chargeth Beza as you doe moreouer affirmeth that Beza should teach that S. Luke wrore false Greeke because he sayth that here is a manifest Soloecophanes But that neither you shall quarrell that I chose some peece of my saying for my purpose nor any man doubt how honestly you charge me I will here repeate whatsoeuer I haue written touching that matter in the place by you quoted But the Protestants doe not onely make them selues Iudges of the whole bookes but also ouer the very letter sayth he of Christes Gospell finding fault with the construction of the Euangelists and bring the text it selfe in doubt Example hereof he bringeth Beza in his annotatioÌ„s vpon Luke 22. of the words This cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you In which text because the word bloud in the Greeke is the datiue case the other word that followeth is the nominatiue case Beza supposeth that S. Luke vseth a figure called Soloeâ—ophanes which is appearaunce of incongruitie or else that the last word which is shed for you might by error of writers being first set in the margent out of Mathew and Marke be remoued into the text Herevpon M. Sander out of all order and measure â—ayleth vpon Beza and vpon all Protestants But I pray you good sir shall the onely opinion of Beza and that but a doubâ—full opinion indite all the Protestants in the world of such high treason against the word of God For what gaineth Beza by this interpretation For sooth the Greeke text is contrary to his Sacramentarie heresie For thus he should translate it This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud which cuppe is shed for you Not the cuppe of gold or siluer sayth he but the liquor in that cuppe which is not wine because wine was not shed for vs but the bloud of Christ. Why then the sense is this This bloud in the cuppe which is shed for you is the new Testament in my bloud What sense in the worlde can these wordes haue By which it is manifest that the words which is shed for you cannot be referred to the cuppe but to his bloud For the cuppe was the new Testament in his bloud which was shed for vs which sense no man can deny but he that will deny the manifest word of God Neither doth the vulgar Latine translation giue any other sense although M. Sander is not ashamed to say it doth The vulgar Latine text is this Hic est calix nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo qui pro vobis fundetur What grammarian in construing would referre qui to calix and not rather to sanguine Againe Erasmus translateth it eueÌ„ as Beza Hoc poculum nouum Testamentum per sanguinem meum qui pro vobis effunditur Nowe touching the coniecture of Beza that those words by errour of the scriuener might be remoued from the margent into the text is a thing that sometime hath happened as most learned men agree in the 27. of Mathew where the name of Ieremie is placed in the text for that which is in Zachary yet neither of the Prophets was named by the Euangelist as in most auncient records it is testified The like hath bene in the first of Marke where the name of Esay is set in some Greeke copies followed in your vulgar translation for that which is cited out of Malachie which name was not set downe by the Euangelist but added by some vnskilfull writer is reproued by other Greeke copies But this place you say is not otherwise found in any olde copie as Beza confesseth then remaineth the second opinion that S. Luke in this place vseth Soloecophanes which is an appearance of incongruitie yet no incongruitie Wherein I can not maruaile more at your malice M. Sander than at your ignorance which put no difference betwene Soloecisinus Soloecophanes but euen â—s spitefully as vnlearnedly you affirme that Beza should teach that S. Luke wrote false Greeke whereas Soloecophanes is a figure vsed of the most eloquent writers that euer tooke penne in hand euen Cicero Demosthenes Greeke and Latine prophane and diuine and euen of S. Luke him selfe in other places whereof for examples I referre you to Budaeus vpon the worde Soloecophanes The apparance of incongruitie is that it seemeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the nominatiue case should agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the datiue case whereas in deede 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed as a relatiue for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is often and the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wanteth is vnderstoode as it is commonly in the Greeke tongue and so the translation must be hoc poculum nouum Testamentum est in sanguine meo qui pro vobis
what is that I pray you Not wine you wil say I am sure but the bloud of Christ. If you so resolue it then followeth that vaine nugation which I haue noted against Saunder This bloud in the cuppe which bloud is shed for you is the new Testament in my bloud Is that bloud in the cuppe diuerse from that bloud in which the new Testament is confirmed If it be the same how often was â—t shed If it were shed in the cuppe how holdeth your vnbloudie sacrifice Or howe can you saye that it was shed in the cup where by your rule of concomitans it is not separated from the body as it was in his passion If it were not separated as certainly his bloud was not separated from his bodye in the supper howe can that which was in the cup be his bloud that was shed for vs for the word of shedding signifieth separation Wherefore it can not be referred to that in the cup but to his bloud which was shed on the crosse for vs so that there is a manifest enallage or change of the temps The present being put for the future as it is manifest by the other Euangelists where the word of shedding can be referred to nothing els but to his bloud shedde vpon the crosse wherfore the Greeke text can here resolue you of no ambiguity as in the place you cite act 14. Neither was there euer any auncient writer that stumbled vpon this ambiguitie but al with one consent referre the word of shedding to his bloud and not to the cuppe or the content thereof so many as speake of it MART. 40. And this is one commoditie among others that we reape of the Greeke text to resolue the ambiguitie that is sometime in the Latine whereas you neyther admit the one nor the other but as you list neither doth the Greeke satisfie you be it neuer so plaine and infallible but you will deuise that it is corrupted that there is a soloecisine that the same soloecisme is an elegancie and there vpon you translate your owne deuise and not the worde of God Which whence can it proceede but of most wilfull corruption See chap. 17. nu 10 11. 12. FVLK 40. This is nothing but generall rayling impudent slaundering as in the particular sections before is proued For we neither deuise that the text is corrupted to alter any thing of the text no not where it is vndoubtedly corrupted as in the name of Ieremie Math. 27. Neyther deuise wee a Soloecisme when wee admonish that there is a Soloecophanes which of no Papist that euer I heard of was before obserued Neither make we a Soloecisme to be an elegancie when we say against them that confound a Soloecisme with Soloecophanes that Soloecophanes is a figure vsed sometimes of most eloquent writers neither is it streight way a vertue or elegancie of speache what so euer eloquent writers sometimes haue vsed wherefore we translate nothing of our owne deuise but we translate the worde of God without any wilfull corruption MART. 41. If in ambiguous Hebrue woords of doubtfull signification where the Greeke giueth one certaine sense you refuse the Greeke and take your aduantage of the other sense what is this but wilfull partialitie so you doe in Redime eleemosynis peccata tua Dan. 4. and Inclinaui cor meum ad faciendas iustificationes tuas propter retributionem and Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus c. and yet at an other time you folow the determination of the Greeke for an other aduantage as Psal. 98. Adore his footestoole because he is holy Whereas in the Hebrue it may be as in our Latin because it is holy See chapt 13. num 18. chapt 9. num 23 24. chapt 18. num 1. 2. So you flee from the Hebrue to the Greâ—ke and from this to that againe from both to the vulgar Latine as is shewed in other places and as S. Augustine saith to Faustus the Manichee You are the râ—le of truth whatsoeuer is for you is true whatsoeuer is against you is not true FVLK 41. If Hebrue wordes be ambiguous wee take that sense whiche agreeth with other places that are playne and with out all ambiguitie and this is no partialitie but wisedome and loue of the truthe not to grounde any newe doctrine vppon suche places onely where the Hebrue worde is ambiguous and may haue diuerse significations As you do the redemption of sinnes by almesse vpon that place of Daniel 4. Where you confesse that the Hebrue worde is ambiguous are not able to bring any one plain text for it where the wordes are not ambiguous But wee ground our refusal vpon a hundred plaine textes that acribe the whole glorie of our raunsome redemption froÌ„ sinnes to the onely mercy of God But as well this text as the other two that you cite in the chapters by you quoted shall be throughly diseussed to see if you can haue any aduauÌ„tage at our translators of the same But on the coÌ„trarie side you say that at an other time we follow the determination of the Greeke for an other aduantage as in that texte Psalm 89. Adore his foote stoole because he is holy whereas in the Hebrue it may be as in your Latine because it is holy I answer that we follow not the determination of the Greeke as moued by the onely authoritie thereof for any aduantage but because wee learne our interpretation out of the verie Psalme it selfe For whereas the Prophet in the 5. verse hath sayed Exalt â—e the Lorde our God and worshippe at the foote stoole of his feete for he is holy in the laste verse of the same he repeateth againe the like exhortation Exalt ye the Lorde our God and worshippe him in his holy hill for the Lorde our God is holy In this verse for his foote stoole he placeth the holy hill which expresseth where his foote stoole was namely the holy Aâ—ke and for Cadhosh hu holy is he now he sayeth Cadosh Iâ—houa holy is the Lorde our God which putteth the other verse out of ambiguitie Wherefore if wee take testimonie of the Greeke we flie not to the Greeke from the Hebrue but shewe that the Hebrue may so bee vnderstoode hauing other more certaine arguments than the testimonie of the Greeke Againe it is vtterly false that you saie we flie from both Hebrue and Greeke to the Latine for wee neuer flie from the Hebrue but acknowledge it as the fountaine and spring from whence wee must receyue the infallible truth of Gods worde of the olde Testament following the Latine or Greeke so farre as they followe the truth of the Hebrue texte and no farther As for the saying of S. Augustine to Faustâ—s the Manichee You are the rule of truth doth moste aptly agree to you Papistes and to your Pope for you will not aforde vnto the Scriptures them selues any authoritie or certaintie of truth but vpon your approbation and interpretation
that if he pretended to interprete any thing out of Saint Basil it was altogither by artificiall coniecture either of the place which he knewe and had read in Latine or else by surmising of some one common worde hee gathered what the sense of the whole shoulde bee Indeede if hee hadde neuer knowne a word of Greeke althoughe hee had bene no meete man to chalenge a whole realme to disputation yet hee might haue beene an honest man and otherwise meanly learned so hee had not pretended knowledge when he was in a maner altogither ignorant For mine owne parte thoughe it please you to name mee with Maister Humfrey Maister Whitakers and others I neuer tooke vpon mee but a meane knowledge in the tongues neither desire I in comparison to be preferred before any learned manne whose trauailes haue bin profitable to the Churche althoughe he were ignorant in the tongues Yet this I muste freely say that he which shall professe to bee an absolute learned diuine without the knowledge of three tongues at the leaste may thinke wel of himselfe but hardely hee shall gette and retaine the credite hee seeketh amoung learned menne in this learned age And therefore Campion if disputation hadde beene meante rather than sedition for al his arrogance and impudence was an vnmeete Apostle to bee sente from Gregorie of Rome to chalenge all the wise and learned in England Neither do I say this as thoughe I measured all learning by knowledge of the tongues but wherein soeuer any Papist in the worlde shall bee bolde to chalenge the name of learning in anie knowledge that euer was or is accounted good learning God bee praysed there are many of Gods true Catholike Churche whereof we are members able to match them therein That I saye not to excell them And whereas you woulde make vs beholding to Papistes for suche knowledge as any of vs hathe in the Greeke Hebrewe Syriacke Chaldee Arabicke tongues c. It is well knowne the Papistes are more beholding to vs. And although I confesse that some Papistes of late dayes haue bestowed fruitefull paines in setting foorth some of the orientall tongues yet are they not the firste nor all that haue traueiled profitably that waiâ— But manye haue attained to competent skill in those languages many yeares beefore anye Papistes had written anye thing that mighte further them therein You were wont to beare ignoraunt menne in hande that we were a sight of English Doctors vnderstanding no languages but our mother tongue which hath enforced diuerse men to shewe their skill in the tongues which otherwise they would neuer haue openly professed But now that the worlde seeth to your shame how richly God hath blessed vs with the knowledge and interpretation of diuerse tongues you exprobrate to vs our knowledge in the tongues and traduce vs among the ignorant as though we esteemed all learning by knowledge of tongues and that we were but meare Grammarians often tell vs of that stale iest that the kingdome of Grammarians is paste as though it were but a little Grammar whereof we make a shew But for that generall muster which you threaten to driue vs vnto ere it be long if you come as learned men should do armed with bookes penne inke and paper I doubt not by the grace of God but you shall finde them that dare confront you and chase you out of the field also But if you come vnder the Popes banner with such blessing as he sente lately into Ireland I hope you shall be mette with all as those his champions were and finde that promotion for your good seruice whiche you haue long agoe deserued by your trauailes for vpholding of his kingdome MART. 9. But to returne to you M. Whitakers greater is your fault in diuinitie than in the tonges when you make your argument against the real presence out of this place as out of the Scripture and S. Peter whereas they are Bezaes wordes and not S. Peters Againe whether you take Bezaes wordes or S. Peters your argument faileth very much when you conclude that Christs natural body is not in the Sacrament because it is placed and conteined in heauen For S. Chrysostome telleth you that Christe ascending into heauen both lefte vs his flesh and yet ascending hath the same And againe O miracle saith he He that sitteth aboue with the Father in the same moment of time is handled with the handes of al. This is the faith of the auncient fathers M. Whitakers and this is the Catholike faith and this is I trow an other maner of faith and farre greater thus to beleeue the presence of Christ in both places at once because he is omnipotent and hath saidâ— the worde than your faith whereof you boaste so much which beleeueth no further than that he is ascended and that therefore he cannot be present vpon the altar nor dispose of his body as he list FVLK 9. Maister Whitaker is not so young a diuine but he knoweth that Chrysostome speaketh of the ineffable manner of Christs presence spiritually though he be absent corporally As in the place by you cited Desacerdoâ—io it is most manifest where he saith that wee may see the people dyed and made redde with the pretious bloud of Christe which as it is not with the eye of the bodie but with the eye of faith so is Christe that is corporally present in heauen spiritually present vnto the faith of the worthie receyuer MART. 10. Againe it is a very famous place for the real presence of the bloud which wee haue handled at large else where but here also must be briefly touched when our Sauiour saith Luc. 22. This is the Chalice the new Testament in my bloud which Chalice is shedde for you For so which must needes be referred according to the Greeke In which speach Chalice must needes be taken for that in the chalice and that in the chalice must needes be the bloud of Christ and not wine because his bloud only was shed for vâ— And so â—e do plainâ—ly proue the real presence according aâ— S. Chrysostome also said Hoc quod est in calice illud est quod â—â—â—xit delatere That which is in the Chalice is the same that gushed out of his side All which moste necessarie deduction Beza would defeate by saying the Greeke is corrupted in all the copies that are extant in the world and by translating thus cleane otherwise than the Greeke will beare This â—â—ppe is the newe Testament in my bloud which bloud is shedde for you FVLK 10. It is a famous place in deede that neuer a one of the auncient writers could coÌ„â—â—der for any reall presence to be drawne out of it How Beza hath traÌ„slated it I haue at large declared before Cap. 1. Sect. 37. 38. 39. That which Chrysostome saieth wee confesse to be most true after a spiritual heauenly manner and so he doth expound him selfe in the same place where he saith
not be true that the lambe was slaine since the beginning of the worlde seeing without violence you can not distract 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the lambe slaine whom it doth immediatly follow MART. 45. But if in points of controuersie betweene vs they will say diuers pointing is of no importance they knowe the contrarie by the example of auncient heretikes which vsed this meane also to serue their false hereticall purpose If they say our vulgar Latine sense pointeth it so let them professe before God and their conscience that they doe it of reuerence to the saide auncient latine text or because it is indifferent and not for any other cause and for this one place we wil admit their answere FVLK 45 We say that wrong pointing may greatly alter the sense but good composition and placing of wordes in a sentence is a good rule to direct pointing where it is either lacking or falsly signed Wee refuse â—ot the testimonie of the vulgar Latine where it agreeth with the truth of the Greeke or Hebrewe yea before God our consciences we reuerence it as a monument of some antiquitie from which wee neither doe nor are willing to dissent except the same dissent from the originall text Otherwise the truth of this assertion that Christ was slaine from the beginning of the world hath not only testimonie of the ancient fathers but also may bee confirmed out of the Scripture For by the obedience of Christ Saint Paule Rom. 5. teacheth that many are iustified meaning all the elect of God who except Christes death had bene effectuall to them before he suffered actually on the crosse must haue gone not into Limbâ— patrum but into hell Diabolorum which is the place appointed for all them that are not iustified freely by the grace of God through the redemption of Christ Iesus whom God before hath set foorth to be a propitiatorie in his bloud Rom. 3. v. 24. c. The title of this chapter threatneth a discouerie of heretical translations against Purgatorie especially but in the whole discourse thereof which is shamefull long one containing 45. sections there is not one place noted against Purgatorie Amphora coepit institui currenâ—e rota cur vrceus exit CHAP. VIII Hereticall translation concerning IVSTIFICATION Martin ABout the article of iustification as it hath many branches and their errours therein bee manifolde so are their English translations accordingly many wayes false and hereticall First against iustification by good workes and by keeping the commaundements they suppresse the very name of iustification in all such places where the woorde signifieth the commandements or the Lawe of God which is both in the olde and newe Testament most common and vsuall namely in the bookes of Moses in the Psalme 118. that beginneth thus Beati immaculati in the Psalme 147. ver 19. 1. Mach. 1. ver 51. and cap. 2. v. 21. Luke 1. v. 6. Rom. 2. v. 26. In all which places and the like where the Greeke signifieth iustices and iustifications most exactly according as our vulgar latine traÌ„slateth iustitias iustificationes there the English translations say iointly with one coÌ„sent ordinances or statuts For example Rom. 2. If the vncircumcision keepe the ORDINANCES of the lawe shall it not bee counted for circumcision And Luc. 1 6. They were both righteous before God walking in all the commaundementes and ORDINANCES of the Lord blamelesse Why translate you it ordinances and auoide the terme iustifications is it because you would followe the Greeke I beseech you is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iustifications or iustices In the old Testament you might perhappes pretend that you follow the Hebrue word and therefore there you translate statutes or ordinances But euen there also are not the seuentie Greeke interpreters sufficient to teache you the signification of the Hebrue word who alwaies interprete it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English iustifications Fulke THese matters were driuen so thinne in the first chapter that you shall sooner presse out bloud than any more probable matter For the olde Testament which we translate out of the Hebrue you your selfe doe set foorth our aunswere that we giue the Englishe of Chukim when we say ordinaunces or statutes and not of the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of the Septuaginta is vsed in the same sense for preceptes and commaundementes as you your selfe confesse cap. 1. sect 50. that verie often in the Scripture it signifieth commaundementes But the Septuaginta you say are sufficient to teache vs the interpretation of the Hebrewe worde who alwaies interprete it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If they had alwayes interpreted it so it is not sufficient to teache vs then there needed none other translation but according to theirs then must you depart from your vulgar translation which in many things departeth from them But where you say they alwaies interprete the Hebrue word Chukim by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is false For Exod. 18. v. 20. they translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praecepta which your vulgar translation calleth Ceremonias ceremonies as it doeth also Gen. 26. v. 5. where the Septuaginta translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which you see that iustification is not alwayes the Englishe for the Greeke worde which the Septuaginta doe vse Also Num. 9. v. 3. for Chukoth they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lawe which the vulgar Latine calleth Ceremonias ceremonies and for the Hebrewe worde Misphatim they giue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comparation the vulgar Latin iustification by which you may see how your traÌ„slatour vseth euen the Latin word that you make so much a do about Likewise in the foureteenth verse of the same Chapter the Septuaginta translate Chukath twise togeather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that which the vulgar Latine calleth iustification of the passeouer the Greeke calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the order of the pascall Deut. 4. your vulgar Latine turneth Chukim thrise Ceremonias ceremonies And Deut. 5. twise and Deut. 6. twise Deut. 7. once and so commonly almost in euerie chapter But in the chap. 11. v. 32. the Greeke for Chukim hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where as in the beginning of the chapter he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latine in both Ceremonias ceremonies By which it is euident what the Greekes and Latines meant by those wordes chap. 20. for this Hebrue word and in an other the Greeke hath nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commaundementes So hath he 1. Reg. 2. v. 3. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coÌ„mandements Also 1. Reg. 8. v. 58. for Chukim he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for Misphatim he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he hath it twise in the nexte verse where Salomon prayeth that God will defende his cause and the cause of his people Israell
Lorde the sacred cup. why or to what effect It followeth changing it by the holie spirite Where is signified the transmutation and consecration thereof into the bodie and bloud But in the other worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there may be some question because it signifieth properly to giue thankes therefore may seeme to be referred to God onely and not to the element and creature But this also we finde contrarye in the Greeke fathers who vse this worde also transitiuely saying panem calicem eucharistisatos or panem in quo gratiae actae sunt that is the bread and the cuppe made the Eucharist the bread ouer which thankes are giuen that is which by the worde of prayer and thankes-giuing is made a consecrated meate the fleshe and bloud of Christ as S. Iustine in fine 2. Apologo and Saint Irenaeus lib. 4. 34 in the same places expound it Whereas it may also signifie that for which thankes are giuen in that most solemne sacrifice of the Eucharist as S. Denyâ— in one place seemeth to take it Eccl. Hier c. 3. in fine Who in the selfe same chapter speaketh of the consecration thereof most euidently FVLK 4. That the creatures or elements are blessed and consecrated that by the working of Gods spirite they shoulde bee chaunged into the bodye and bloud of Christ after a diuine and spirituall manner vnto the worthye receyuers Beza and we agree with the Greeke Liturgies But that this blessing is performed by the worde of God prayer and thankes-giuing both Iustinus and Irenaeus doe most plainely testifie with Beza and vs. When the mixed cuppe and bread sayth Irenaeus receyueth the worde of God it is made the Eucharist c. The breade on which or for which thankes is giuen The bread which is of the earth receyuing the vocation or inuocation of God So sayth Iustinus the meate for which thankes are giuen by the worde of prayer which is receyued from him and speaking of the verie manner of the consecration vsed in his tyme. When the breade and wine with water is offered the chiefe Minister sendeth forthe prayers and thankes-giuing with all his might and the people consenteth saying Amen Then followeth the distribution and participation of those thinges for which thankes was giuen to euery one c. As for the Magicall mysteries of Dionyse although in this behalfe they make nothing againste vs we make not so great account of that we will stand to his iudgement any more than you to his practise MART. 5. Whereby we haue to note that the Heretikes in vrging the worde Eucharist as meere thankes-giuing thereby to take away blessing and consecration of the elements of bread and wine doe vnlearnedly and deceitfully because all the fathers make mention of both Saint Paule also calleth it blessing of the chalice which the Euangelistes call giuing of thankes Whose wordes Theophylacte explicateth thus THE CHALICE OF BLESSING that is of the Eucharist For holding it in our handes we blesse it and giue thankes to him that shedde his bloud for vs. See here both blessing and Eucharist blessing the chalice and thankes-giuing to Christ. Saint Iames and the Greeke fathers in their Liturgies put both wordes in the consecration of eche element saying thus giue thankes sanctifying breaking and giuing thankes blessing sanctifying and taking the cuppe giuing thankes sanctifying blessing filling it with the holy Ghost he gaue it to vs his Disciples Saint Chrysostome who in many places of his workes speaketh much of thankes-giuing in these holy mysteries doth he not as often speake of the blessing consecration yea and the transmutation thereof and that with what wordes and by what power it is done Doth not Saint Augustine saye of the same benedicitur sanctificatur it is blessed and sanctified who often speaketh of the solemne giuing of thankes in the sacrifice of the Church Doth not the Church at this daye vse the very same termes as in Saint Augustines time Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro Let vs giue thankes to the Lord our God and Verè dignum iustum est semper vbique tibi gratias agere c. It is very meete and right alwayes and in all places to giue thee thanks Which the Greeke Church also in their Liturgies expresse most aboundantly yet doth there follow blessing and consecration and whatsoeuer Saint Ambrose describeth to be done in this holye sacrifice touching this poynt writing thereof moste excellently in his booke de ijs qui initiantur mysterijs c 9. FVLK 5. If it were to proue any thing that we deny you would be as bare and hungry as nowe you are franke and plentifull of your testimonies Theophylact sayth the same that Beza sayde out of Chrysostome and Oecumenius The Greeke Liturgies falsely intituled to Saint Iames Basil and Chrysostome haue no other thing nor any other author whome you name But your popish Church doth not either as the Greeke Liturgies or as the Churches in Ambrose and Augustines time For they holde that the elements are consecrared by prayer and thankes-giuing whereof although you vse some termes in your masse yet you holde that the consecration consisteth onely in a Magicall murmuration of the wordes Hoc est corpus meum ouer the bread by a Priest with intent of consecration wherefore you are farre from the iudgement that the auncient fathers had and we haue of the consecration of the bread and wine to be the sacraments of the bodye and bloud of Christ. MART. 6. Of all which this is the conclusion that the Eucharist is a solemne name taken of the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called because this sacrament and sacrifice is blessed and consecrated with prayer thankes-giuing as S. Iustine speaketh and because in this sacrifice so blessed and consecrated into the body and bloud of Christ him we offer vp a most acceptable oblation of thankes-giuing and a memorie of all Gods maruelous benefites towarde vs. In this sense the fathers and the holye Church speake of the Eucharist including all the rest to wit sacrament sacrifice blessing consecration without which thiâ— were no more to be called Eucharist than any other common giuing of thanks as S. Irenaeus doth plainly signifie when he declareth that being before bread receiuing the inuocation of God ouer it now is no more coÌ„mon bread but the Eucharist coÌ„sisting of two things the earthly the heauenly So that it is made the Eucharist by circuÌ„stance of solemne wordes and ceremonies and therefore is not a meere giuing of thankes and further we learne that S. Iustines and S. Irenaus wordes before alledged Panis calix Eucaristisatus signifie the bread and chalice made the Eucharist and consequently we learne that the a 〈…〉 e thereof is by thankes-giuing to make the Eucharist a 〈…〉 â—ecause the other word of blessing and this of thankes-giuing are vsed indifferently one for an other in Christs action
that Christ suffreth him selfe to be broken for vs in the oblation which he suffred not on the crosse where no bone of his was broken Which none but a madde man would take otherwise than spiritually to be done as he is present after a spirituall manner MART. 11. But what pertaineth this to the English heretikes who translate which is shed so indiffereÌ„tly that it may signifie which cuppe or which bloud is shed Thus farre it pertaineth because they do not only defend this translation by al meanes but they tel vs plainely namely Fulke that they referre which to the word bloud and not to the worde cuppe â—ueÌ„ as Beza doth asking vs what Grammarian would referre it otherwise In which question he sheweth him self a very simple GraÌ„marian in the Greeke or a madde Heretike that either knoweth not or will not know that in the Greeke it can not be so referred and consequently neither in Latine nor English which in true translation must folow the Greeke But of these and other their foule and manifold shifâ—es to auoide this place I haue spoken in an other place of this booke FVLK 11. As you haue placed your crimination in the first chapiter to be sure that it should be redde of euery man that taketh your booke in hand So haue I. obseruing your order answered you in the same place and in such sort I hope discharged my selfe that you shall haue little lust hereafter to insult against mine ignorance before you be able to weigh the matter your selfe with sounder knowledge MART. 12. Onely M. Whitakers to say truely hath brought somewhat to the purpose to wit that S. Basil readeth the Greeke as they translate But he doth wel to make light of it because it is euident that S. Basil cited not the text of the Euangelist but the sense which Beza noteth to be the custome of the auncient fathers telling vs withall that therfore the reading of the fathers is no certaine rule to reforme or alter the words of Scripture according to the same and it is very like that if Beza or Fulke his aduocate had thought S. Basils reading of any importaÌ„ce they would haue vsed it long since rather than so many other shiftes and so absurde as they do vnlesse we may thinke they knew it not and therefore could not vse it But for S. Basill according to the sense he citeth it very truely for whether wee say the Cuppe that is shed or the bloud that is shed both signifieth the bloud of Christ shed for vs as S. Basil citeth it The difference is that referring it to the cuppe as S. Luke hath it it signifieth the bloud both present in the cuppe and also then shed in a Sacrament at the last supper but referring it to the word bloud as S. Basil doth and as they translate it may signifie the bloud shed on the crosse also yea as these traÌ„slatours meane and would haue it only that on the Crosse not considering that the Greeke worde is the present tense and therfore rather signifieth the present shedding of his bloud then in mysticall sacrifice than the other visible shedding therof which was to come in the future tense Lastly they translate S. Lukes Gospel and not S. Basil and therefore not folowing S. Luke they are false translators how soeuer S. Basil readeth FVLK 12. The reading of S. Basil whereof Beza maketh mention in his Annotation vpon this texte of S. Luke is also handled before As the reading of the Doctours is no perpetuall rule to reforme the texte of the Scripture by so is it not to bee neglected but that sometimes also the present reading may be corrected thereafter True it is that Beza supposeth it rather to haue bene added out of the margent and I as I haue before declared doe thinke that either it is to be read as Basil did reade it or else that the verbe substantiue is to be vnderstood and the article taken for the relatiue as it is often bothe in prophane writinges and in the new Testament it self as by sundry examples I haue made it manifest MART. 13. As this falshood is both against Sacrament and Sacrifice so against the Sacrifice also of the altar it is that they controule S. Hieroms translation in the olde Testament concerning the sacrifice of Melchisedec Who brought forth bread and wine Gen. 14. v. 18. that is offered or sacrificed bread and wine which we proue to be the true sense and interpretation and that this bringing forth of bread and wine was sacrificing thereof not onely by all the fathers expositions that write of Melchisedeks priesthood Cypr. epist. 63. Epiph. haer 55. 79. Hiero. in Mat. 26. in epist. ad Euagrium and by the Hebrew word which is a word of sacrifice Iud. 6. v. 18. and by the greatest Rabbines and Hebricians that a riâ—â— thereof but we proue it also by these wordes of the very text it selfe He brought forth bread and wine for he was the Priest of God most high Which reason immediatly following Because he was Gods Priest proueth euidently that he brought it not forth in coÌ„moÌ„ maner as any other maÌ„ might haue done but as Gods Priest whose office is to offer sacrifice This consequence is so plaine that for auoiding thereof the aduersaries will not haue it translated in any wise For hee was the Prieste as thoughe the Scripture gaue a reason why hee brought forth bread and wine but and he was a Priest c. Wrangling aboute the signification of the Hebrew coniunction FVLK 13. That S. Hieronyme was author of the vulgar Latine interpretation of the olde Testament it is more boldly affirmed than euer it can be sufficiently proued by you But what do we controll your vulgar interpreter saith that Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine and so say we Which how sent Hierom other vnderstaÌ„deth I haue before declared Cap. 1. Sect. 42. Against all the Fathers that expound that bringing forth of bread and wine to pertayne to his Priesthood I oppose the Apostle to the Hebrues who could not haue omitted it if it had bene so That the Hebrue word is a worde of sacrifice it is most impudently affirmed of you For Iud. 6. it signifieth no more to offer than heare although there Gedeon desire the Angell to stay vntill he returne and bring from his house with him a gift or oblation But if you will contende that what so euer is brought forth where soeuer this Hebrue worde is vsed is a sacrifice you shall make an hundreth sacrifices more than euer God ordeyned Neither will Galatinus or Gerebrardus for their credite once affirme that it signifieth to offer sacrifice Though it may bee vsed in bringing foorth of Sacrifices as well as of all other thinges that are brought foorth But the coniunction causall maketh it cleare that this bringing forth was in respect of his Priesthood In deed if the Hebrue coniunction were causall
in 25. Eidyll 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the 24. Edyll. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Theocritus let vs passe to Hesiodus out of whome it were ouer tedious to cite how often he vseth the article prepositiue for the relatiue and not agreeing in case with the antecedent but an example or two shall serue where the verbe substantiue is vnderstood and not expressed nor any other verbe to gouerne the relatiue yet not agreeing in case with the Antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Againe in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here me thinkes I heare you grudge against poetrie and poeticall licence as doubtlesse you would quarrell against profane authorities if I should bring you any like examples out of Prosaicall writers We must see therefore whether we are not able to bring examples of the like phrase out of the holy Scriptures First that Soloecophanes is found in S. Luke I wil referre you to the first cap. of his Gospell v. 74. and cap. 6. v. 4. Likewise Actes 27. v. 3. and act 13. v. 6. But for the like Soloecophanes to this in question Luc. 22. I will sende you first to S. Paule Col. 1. v. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needes be the accusatiue case as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by apposition then is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all the world as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nominatiue case signifying Quod absconditum fuit which the later part of the verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth most plainly declare For what else should be the nominatiue case to the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and euen so your vulgar Latine text hath it translated vt impleam verbum Dei mysterium quod absconditum fuit à saeculis generationibus nunc autem manifestatum est sanctis eius But because this is not so euident for that the nominatiue case the accusatiue of the neuter gender be of one termination I will bring you yet more plaine examples out of the reuelation of S. Iohn cap. 1. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grace to you and peace from him or from God as some copies haue which is and which was which is to come Would not your grammer say it is a plaine Soloecisme because he saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what haue you here to quarrel Is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same phrase that is in Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Well let vs goe a litle further to the next verse of the same chapter where we reade thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And from Iesus Christ which is a faithfull witnesse the first borne from the dead and Prince ouer the kinges of the earth The more vsuall construction would require that he should haue sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But that hevseth the same Soloecophanes which S. Luke doth ca. 22. If the reading be not altered where the article prepositiue is put in the place of the subiunctiue and agreeth not in case with the antecedent as often it doth but being the nominatiue case commeth before the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not expressed but must needes be vnderstoode as euen your vulgar translator doth acknowledge rendring it in both verses thus ab eo qui est qui erat qui venâ—urus est and à Iesu Christo qui est testis fidelis c. These examples I doubt not but they are sufficient to satisfie any reasonable man to shew that I haue not inuented a newe construction that neuer was heard of to saue Bezaes credit and whereof I am able to giue not so much as one example But that I may ouerthrow M. Martines vaine insultation with a whole cloude of examples I wil yet adde one or two more In the same reuelation ca. 8. v. 9. Thus we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there dyed the thirde of all creatures which are in the sea which had liues Your vulgar Latine text turneth it thus Et mortua est â—ertia pars creaturae eorum quae habebant animas in mari And there dyed the thirde parte of the creatures of those thinges which had life in the sea In which translation although the order of the wordes which Saint Iohn vseth is somewhat inuerted yet the sense remayneth the same and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated quae habebant which agreeth not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in case as euerye childe that can declyne a Greeke noune doth knowe where otherwise the moste common construction were to haue sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore the phrase and construction is the same which is Luke 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What can fine M. Gregorie which carpeth at my skill that speake so barbarously and rustically of Greeke elegancies what can Maister Gregorie Martin I saye the great linguist of the Seminarie of Rhemes alledge why these phrases are not alike or rather changinge the wordes in figure the very same And if he haue any thing to cauill against this example as I see not what he can haue yet haue I an other out of the same booke cap. 3. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I will write vppon him the name of my God and the name of the cittye of my God the newe Ierusalem which descendeth out of heauen from my God The vulgar Latine translation differeth not from this which sayth Et scribam super eum nomen dei mei nomen ciuitatis dei mei nouae Ierusalem quae descendit de coelo à deo meo Here the antecedent is of the genitiue case the relatiue of the nominatiue which commeth before the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnderstoode in the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Luc. 22. it is in the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By these examples in seeking whereof I promise you I spent no great time you may learne to be wiser hereafter not to condemne all men beside your self out of your readers chaire at Rhemes of ignorance vnskilfulnes barbarusnes rusticity yea wilfulnes madnes where you your self deserue a much sharper censure through your immoderat insultation the matter thereof being both more false and forged than we might iustly haue borne if we had bene ouertaken with a litle grammatical ignorance By these examples I trust you see or if you will needes be blinde all the young Grecians in England may see that as in the Latine translation you confesse the relatiue standeth more likely to be referred to the word Sanguine than to the word Calix so in the Greeke there is no help to remoue it from the next manifest necessary antecedent to a worde further of with which the signification of the participle can not agree For who would say that a cup is shed for vs And though you make a metonymye of the cup for that which is in the cup