Christ as I haue shewed before MART. 43. Well let vs goe forwarde in their owne daunce You allowe at the least the Iewes Canonicall bookes of the olde Testament that is all that are extant in the Hebrewe Bible and all of the newe Testament without exception Yea that we doe In these bookes then will you be tried by the vulgar auncient Latine Bible onely vsed in all the West Church aboue a thousandyeares No. Will you be tried by the Greeke Bible of the Septuaginta interpreters so renowmed and authorised in our Sauiours owne speaches in the Euangelistes and Apostles writings in the whole Greeke Church euermore No How then will you be tried They answere Only by the Hebrue Bible that now is and as now it is pointed with vowels Will you so and do you thinke that only the true authenticall Hebrue which the holy Ghost did first put into the pennes of those sacred writers We do thinke it say they and esteeme it the only authenticall and true Scripture of the old Testament FVLK 43. Where so many of your owne Popish writers do accuse your vulgar Latine text of innumerable corruptions what reason is there that we should follow that translation onely especially seeing God hath giuen vs knowledge of the tongues that we may resort to the fountaines them selues as S. Augustine exhorteth As for the Greeke translation of the Septuaginta from which your owne vulgar Latine varieth although we reuerence it for the antiquitie and vse it for interpretation of some obscure places in the Hebrew why should you require vs to be tried thereby which will not be tried by it your selues If I were as captious as you are with Iohn Keltrige about the Greeke Bible of the Septuaginta Interpreters I might make sporte with you as you doe with him but I acknowledge your Synâ—cdoche that you meane the olde Testament onely whereas the word Bible is commonly taken for both But to the purpose we acknowledge the text of the olde Testament â—n Hebrew and Chaldee for in the Chaldee tongue were some partes of it written as it is now printed with vowels to be the onely fountaine out of which we muste draw the pure truth of the Scriptures for the olde Testament adioyning herewith the testimonie of the Mazzoreth where any diuersitie of pointes letters or wordes is noted to haue bene in sundry auncient copies to discerne that which is proper to the whole context from that which by errour of the writers or printers hath bene brought into any copie olde or newe MATT. 44. We aske them againe what say you then to that place of the Psalme where in the Hebrue it is thus As a lion my handes and my feete for that which in truth should be thus They digged or pearced my hands and my feete being an euident prophecie of Christes nailing to the crosse There in deede say they we followe not the Hebrue but the Greeke text Sometime then you follow the Greeke and not the Hebrue onely And what if the same Greeke text make for the Catholikes as in these places for example I haue inclined my hart to keepe thy iustifications for reward and Redeeme thy sins with almes might we not obtaine here the like fauour at your handes for the Greeke texte specially when the Hebrue doth not disagree No say they nor in no other place where the Greeke is neuer so plaine if the Hebrue worde at the least may be any otherwise interpreted drawen to an other significatioÌ„ FVLK 44. We say to you first that you haue falsely pointed the Hebrue word in the margeÌ„t for all the printed bookes that euer I haue seene as Bomberge both in folio and quarto Stephanus Basil Plantine Arias Montanus CoÌ„plutensis al place Camets vnder Caph where you make Patach But perhaps your Hebrue is most out of MuÌ„sters Dictionarie where it is pointed as you make it But for answere to your question we say that their is a double testimonie of the Mazzorites to proue that in the most auncient and best corrected copies the Hebrue was Caru they haue digged or pearced this is testified not onely by our translators but also by Ioannes Isaac your owne Rabbin against Lindanus a prelate of yours And this the auctors of the Complutense edition doe acknowledge for thus they haue pointed it Caru where is nothing but the redundans of Aleph whiche is vnderstood in euery Camets differing from the vsuall reading and declining of the Verbe Carah that signifieth to pearce or digge Againe where it is redde otherwise if it be rightly pointed as it is in Arias Montanus Caari it cannot signifie Sicut leo as a lion as both the Mazzorites do teach and Iohannes Isaac a Grammarian out of theÌ„ by the points the note ouer iod doth plainly demonstrate For what should shureâ—h sound in iod or if you would contend it should be Daghes to what purpose should it be in iod if the worde should signifie as a lion Therefore howsoeuer this varietie of copies came either by negligence of some writers or by corruption of the Iewes wee haue sufficient warrant for the auncient and true reading whiche the Greeke translator did followe whiche also was in S. Hieromes copie otherwise hee woulde not haue translated out of the Hebrue Fixerunt they haue pearced Therefore Rabbi Ioseph which made the Chaldeâ— Paraphrase vpon the Psalter laboured to expresse both the copies as well that which hath plainely they haue pearced as that whiche hath it corruptly as though it spake of a Lion and yet can not rightly be so translated because the points are imperfect euen for that reading Therefore he hath saide Nikethin Heich Cheariah They haue indented and pearced like a lion my handes and my feete as it is in the Venice print of Daniel Bomberg although Arias Montanus in his Bible haue no more but Nachethin which he traslateth biting my handes and my feete I haue played the foole to vtter these matters in the mother tongue to ignorant men that can make no triall of them but you haue not only giuen me example but also enforced me with your vnsoluble question as you thought by one word somewhat out of frame to ouerthrow the whole Hebrue text But you are to be pardoned for that you follow your M. Lindanus herein who hath nothing else in effect to quarrel against the Hebrue text but this therfore he repeteth it in many places to make greater shew of it as you doe In other places where the Hebrue worde hath diuerse significations who shall forbid vs to chuse that which is most agreeable to the circumstance of the text and to the analogie or rule of faith MART. 45. We replie againe and say vnto them why Is not the credit of those Septuaginta interpreters who them selues were Iewes and best learned in their owne tongue and as S. Augustine often and other auncient fathers say were inspired with the holy Ghost in translating the
Pighius Eccius the one calling the holy Scripture a nose of waxe and a dumbe iudge the other terming the Gospel written to be a blacke Gospell and an ynkie Diuinitie and that of Hosius acknowleging none other expresse word of God but onely this one worde Ama or dilige loue thou what other thing do they import but a shamelesse deniall of all bookes of the holy Scripture in deede how soeuer in worde they will seeme to admitte them MART. 2. An other way is to call into question at the least and make some doubt of the authoritie of certaine bookes of holy scriptures therby to diminish their credite so did Manicheus affirme of the whole new Testamēt that it was not writtē by the Apostles and peculiarly of S. Matthewes Gospell that it was some other mās vnder his name therfore not of such credit but that it might in some part be refused So did Marcion the Ariās deny the epistle to the Hebrues to be S. Paules Epiph. li. 2. haer 69. Euseb. li. 4. hist. c. 27 Alogiani the Apocalypse to be S. Iohns the Euāgelist Epiph. August in haer Alogianorii FVLK 2. We neither doubt of the authoritie of anie certaine booke of the holy Scriptures neither cal we any of them into question but with due reuerence do acknowledge thē all euery one to be of equall credit authority as being al inspired of god giuē to the church for the building vp thereof in truth and for the auoiding of fables heresies But the Papists arrogating to their Pope authoritie to allowe or refuse any booke of holy Scripture affirming that no Scripture hath authoritie but as it is approued by their church do bring al bookes of the holy Scripture into doubting vncertaintie with such as wil depend vpō their Pope popish churches authoritie which they affirme to be aboue the holy Scriptures saying they might as wel receaue the gospel of Nicodemus as of S. Marke by the same authoritie reiect the Gospell of S. Matthew as they haue done the Gospel of S. Bartholomew These blasphemous assertions although some of them would couler or mitigate with gentle interpretations yet their is no reasonable man but seeth into what discredite and vncertaintie they must needes bring the authoritie of the Canonicall bookes of holy Scripture with the simple and ignorant MART. 3. An other way is to expound the Scriptures after their owne priuate conceite and phantasie not according to the approued sense of the holy auncient fathers and Catholike Church so did Theodorus Mopsuestites Act. Synod 5. affirme of all the bookes of the Prophets and of the Psalmes that they spake not euidently of Christ but that the auncient fathers did voluntarily draw those sayings vnto Christ which were spoken of other matters so did all heretikes that would seeme to ground their heresies vpon Scriptures and to auouch them by Scriptures expounded according to their owne sense and imagination FVLK 3. We expound not the Scriptures after our owne priuate conceite and fantasie but as neere as God giueth vs grace according to the plaine and natural sense of the same agreable vnto the rule or proportiō of faith which bene approued by the auncient fathers and Catholike church of Christ in al matters necessarie to eternall saluation Not bringing a newe and straunge sense which is without the Scriptures to seeke confirmation thereof in the Scriptures as the manner of heretikes is rightly noted by Clemens but out of the Scriptures thēselues seeke we the exposition of such obscure places as we find in them being perswaded with S. Augustine that nothing in a manner is founde out of those obscure and darke places which may not be found to be most plaine ly spoken in other places And as for the approued sense of the holy auncient Fathers and Catholike Church of the eldest and purest times if the Papists durst stand vnto it for the deciding of many of the most waightie controuersies that are betweene vs there is no doubte but they should soone and easily be determined as hath bene shewed in diuerse and many treatises written against them In which if any thing bee brought so plainely expounding the Scripture against their popish heresies as nothing can be more expresse nor cleare then they are driuen to seeke newe and monstrous expositions of those Fathers interpretations or else they answere they are but those Fathers priuate expositions appealing to the Catholike churches interpretation which is nothing else but their owne priuate conceipte and fansie hauing no recorde to proue that Catholike Churches interpretation but the present hereticall opinions of this late degenerated Antichristian congregation And whē they haue discoursed neuer so much of the Catholike churches interpretation they reduce and submitte all mens iudgements to the determinatiō of their Councels the decrees of the Councels to the approbation of their Pope which as he is oftentimes a wicked man of life so is he ignorant and vnlearned in the Scriptures to whose most priuate cēsure the holy Scriptures themselues and al sense and exposition of them is made subiect vnder colour that Christ praying for Peter that his faith should not fayle in temptation gaue all Popes suche a prerogatiue that they could not erre in faith though they were wicked of life voyde of learning ignorant in the Scriptures destitute of the spirite of God as is proued moste inuincibly by example of diuerse Popes that haue bene heretikes and mainteyners of such errours as are not now in controuersie betweene vs least they should say we begge the principle but of the secte of the Arrians Monothelites Eutychians Saduces and such other MART. 4. An other way is to alter the very originall text of the holy Scripture by adding taking away or changing it here and there for their purpose So did the Arians in sundry places and the Nestorians in the first epistle of S. Iohn and especially Marcion who was therefore called Mus Ponticus the mouse of Pontus because he had gnawen as it were certaine places with his corruptions whereof some are sayd to remaine in the Greeke text vntill this day FVLK 4. The originall text of the holie Scripture we alter not either by adding taking away or changing of any letter or syllable for any priuate purpose which were not only a thing most wicked and sacrilegious but also vaine and impossible For seeing not only so many auncient coppies of the original text are extant in diuers places of the worlde which we can not if we woulde corrupt and that the same are multiplied by printing into so many thousande examples wee shoulde bee rather madde than foolishe if we did but once attempt such a matter for maintenaunce of any of our opinions As also it is incredible that Marcion the mouse of Pontus coulde corrupt all the Greeke coppies in the world as Lindanus of whome you borrowed that conceite imagineth in those places in which he
Luke he doth giue a reason thereof both for the 70 and for the Euangelist that folowed them neither doubting of the truth thereof nor controlling them by the authoritie of Moyses as Beza speaketh that is by the Hebrue Others say concerning Cainan that Moyses might leaue him out in the Genealogie of Sem by the instinct of the same Spirite that S. Matthew left out three kings in the genealogie of our Sauiour Where if a man would controll the Euangelist by the Hebrue of the old Testament that is read in the bookes of the kings he should be as wise and as honest a man as Beza Lastly Venerable Bede thinketh it sufficient in this very difficultie of Cainan to maruell at it reuerently vather than to search it dangerously And thus farre of picking quarels to the originall text and their good will to alter and change it as they list if they might be suffered FVLK 22. Here of pittie you will shewe vnto vs a peece of learning how the Fathers reconcile the sayde Hebrue and Greeke without violence to the text as they do alwayes or else leaue the matter to God First S. Augustine De ciuitate lib. 18. cap. 43. de doctr chr lib. 2. cap. 15. of their agreement notwithstanding they were separated into seuerall celles gathereth that those Septuaginta were inspired with the same prophetical spirite of interpreting that the Prophetes were in foreshewing But this doth S. Hierome vtterly denie and derideth the ground of this imagination those 72. celles at Alexandria as a fable and a lie That S. Ambrose saith we haue found that many thinges are not idely added of the 70. Greeke interpreters We confesse as much where their addition serueth for explication of that whiche is contavned in the Hebrue and so meaneth Ambrose not that they had auctoritie to adde any thing which Moses had omitted And we acknowledge with S. Hierome that their may be many reasons giuen for the difference of the one frō the other But concerning this place of S. Luke now in question you say he giueth a reason therof both for the 70. for the Euangelist that followed thē neither doubting of the truth thereof nor controlling them by the auctoritie of Moses And for this you quote Comment in 28. Esa. and in question Hebrai in neither of which places is any mention of this place much lesse any reason giuen to reconcile it or the Septuaginta with the Hebrue It seemeth you redde not the bookes your selfe but trusted to much some mans collectiō which you vnderstoode not In the Preface to the Hebrue questions Hieronime excuseth him selfe against enuious persons that barked against him as though he did nothing but reproue the errors of the 70. saying That he thinketh not his labour to be a reprehension of thē seing they would not expresse vnto Ptolomaeus king of Alexādria certain mysticall thinges in the Scriptures and especially those things which promised the comming of Christ least the Iewes might haue bene thought to worship an other God whom that follower of Plato therefore did greatly esteeme because they were said to worship but one god But the Euangelistes also and our Lorde and Sauiour and S. Paule the Apostle bring foorth many thinges as it were out of the old Testament which are not had in in our bookes of whiche in their due places wee will more fully discusse Whereof it is cleare that those are the more true examples which agree with the auctoritie of the newe Testament Thus much Hierom in that place but neither in his questions vppon Genesis nor 1. Paralip the proper places for this texte is their any mention of this place of Luke Qui fuit Cainan In the place cited by you vpon the 28. of Esay hee sayth Legimus in Apostolo c. We reade in the Apostle In other tongues and lippes will I speake to this people and neither so shall they heare me sayth the Lorde Which seemeth to me to be taken out of this present chapter according to the Hebrew And this we haue obserued in the old Testament except a few testimonies which only Luke vseth otherwise whiche had knowledge of the Greeke tongue rather wheresoeuer any thing is said out of the old Testamēt that they set it not according to the 70. but according to the Hebrue folowing the translatiō of no mā but turning the sense of the Hebrue into their owne speach You see that Hierome saith nothing particularly that which he sayth generally concerneth this place nothing at all And very like it is that this corruption was not crept into S. Lukes text in his tyme especially seeing neyther S. Ambrose in his commentarie vpon S. Luke once toucheth this controuersie as hee doth all other questions about that Genealogie Where you say S. Hierome was a great patrone of the Hebrue not without cause being at that time perhaps the Hebrue veritie in deede It is without perhaps or peraduenture that not one iote or pricke of the lawe of God can perishe by the testimonie of our Sauiour Christe Math. 5. And if you will beleeue Arias Montanus an excellent learned Papiste he will tell you as much out of the same text doubtles in his Preface vnto the great Bible by him set out with diligent obseruation of all the Accents Hebrue points which Christ sayth he will neuer suffer to perish And if the Hebrue veritie were in Hieronyms time as doubtlesse it was whether he had a perfect copie therof or no the same Arias Montanus testifieth if you dare credite him being one of your sect for opinion though in sinceritie of minde and loue of the truth which I pray to God to reueale vnto him I thinke him far better than a number of you he I say affirmeth in the same Preface against the obiection that is made of the Iewes corruption of the Hebrue bookes Etenim apud nonnull for we reade in some auctors that through the fraude and impulsion of the spirit of errour some of the nation of the Iewes in times past were brought to that point of insolencie or madnesse that in the beginning of the Christian church they changed some words which might altogither breake of that their contention of oppugning the Christian veritie But those places so defiled by them were very fewe and in the bookes of our writers and also in the copies both printed written of the Iewes them selues are all for the most partnoted and shewed out For although either by the fraude of those men or by the ignorance of the booke writers or by iniurie of the times some change hath bene made in the Hebrew bookes which we vse yet is there not one word nor one letter nor point that is mentioned to haue bene of olde time which is not found to haue bene safely kept in that moste riche treasurie which they call the Mazzoreth For in that as in an holy and faithfull custodie appointed with vttermost diligence
〈◊〉 which the vulgar Latine and Erasmus translate Agite poenitentiam Repent or Doe penance This interpretation sayth he I refuse for many causes but for this especially that many ignorant persons haue taken hereby an occasion of the false opinions of SATISFACTION wherewith the Church is troubled at this day Loe of purpose against satisfaction he will not translate the Greeke worde as it ought to be and as it is proued to signifie both in this booke and in the annotations vpon the newe Testament A litle after speaking of the same worde he sayth why I haue changed the name poenitentia I haue tolde a litle before protesting that he will neuer vse those wordes but resipiscere and resipiscentia that is amendment of life because of their heresie that repentance is nothing else but a meere amendment of former life without recompense or satisfaction or penance for the sinnes before committed See chap. 13. FVLK 49. Of purpose against the heresie of satisfaction Beza will not translate the Greeke worde as the vulgar Latine translator dothe but yet as the Greeke worde ought to be translated Erasmus finding the vulgar Latine vnsufficient hath added Vitae prioris that is repent yee of your former life Neither dothe Beza finde faulte with the English worde repent but with the Latine Agite paenitentiam when you translate it do penaunce meaning thereby paine or satisfaction for sinnes passed to be a necessarie parte of true repentance which is not conteyned in the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth changing of the mind that is not onely a sorrow for the sinne past but also a purpose of amendment which is beste expressed by the Latine worde Resipiscere which is alwaies taken in the good parte as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Scripture where as the Latine wordes paenitere and Paenitentia are vsed in Latine of sorrowe or repentance that is too late As paenitere and paenitentia may be saide of Iudas grief of minde which caused him to hang him selfe but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or resipiscere and resipisscentia and therefore the Holye Ghoste speakinge of his sorrowe vseth an other worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this is the cause why Beza refused the worde Paenitentia hauing a Latine worde that more properlye doeth expresse the Greeke worde as wee might lawefullye doe in Englishe if wee had an other Englishe worde proper to that repentaunce whiche is alwayes ioyned with faith and purpose of amendmente for wante whereof wee are constrayned to vse the wordes repente and repentaunce whiche maye bee taken in good parte or in euill For wee saye repentaunce too late and Iudas repented too late but there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that can bee called too late But where you saye that resipiscere and resipiscentia is nothing but amendement of life and that repentaunce in our heresie is nothing else but a meere amendment of former life you speake vntruly for those words do signifie not only amendment of life but also sorrow for the sinnes past although without recompēce or satisfactiō which you call penance for the sinnes before cōmitted for we know no recompence or satisfactiō made to God for our sinnes but the death of Christ who is the propitiation for our sinnes 1. Iohn 1. Neither hath your blasphemous satisfaction any grounde in the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but onely a foolish colour by the Latine translation Agite poenitentiam which it is like your Latine interpreter did neuer dreame of and therefore he vseth the worde Resipiscere 2. Tim. 2. Of them to whom God should giue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 repentaunce to the acknowledging of the truth Et resipiscant and so they may repent or as you translate it recouer themselues from the snare of the Diuell Seyng therefore repentance is the gifte of God it is no recompence or satisfaction made by vs to God to answere his iustice but an earnest and true griefe of minde for our transgression of Gods lawe and offending against his maiestie with a certaine purpose and determination of amendment so neere as God shall giue vs grace Hetherto therefore we haue no demonstration of any wilfull corruption but a declaration of the cause that moued Beza to vse a more exact translation and such as commeth nearer to the originall worde than that which the vulgar translation hath vsed vpon which occasion of a great blasphemie hath bene taken and is yet mainteyned MART. 50. Againe concerning the worde Iustifications which in the Scripture very often signifie the commaundements he saith thus The Greeke interpreters of the Bible meaning the Septuaginta applieth this worde to signifie the whole Lawe of God and therefore commonly it is wont to be translated worde for worde Iustificationes which interpretation therefore only I reiected that I might take away this occasion also of cauilling against iustification by faith and so for iustificationes he putteth constituta Tullies worde forsooth as he saith Can you haue a more playne tèstimonie of his heretic all purpose FVLK 50. Concerning the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Beza translateth Constitutionibus constitutions and you confesse that in Scripture it doth very often signifie the commaundements He sayth first that as the whole Lawe of God is diuided into three partes Morall Ceremoniall and Iudiciall so the Hebrewes haue three seuerall words to expresse the seueral precepts of those lawes For the Hebrew word which signifieth the Ceremoniall precepts the Greekes vse to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the sense is that Zacharie and Elisabeth were iust walking in all the Morall commaundements and obseruing the holy rites and ceremonies as much as concerned them but the thirde worde which signifieth Iudgements S. Luke doth not adde because the exercise of Iudiciall cases did not belong vnto them being priuate persons After this he saith that the Greeke Interpreters of the Bible transferred this worde vnto the whole lawe of God and especially to the holy ceremonies so verily exceedingly commending the law that it is a certaine rule of all iustice And therefore men are wont commonly in respect of the worde to turne it Iustifications And this worde in this place Beza in deede confesseth that he refused to vse for auoyding of cauillations against iustification by fayth seeing he hath none other worde neither woulde he for offence seeke any newe worde to expresse iustification by faith whereas the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this text Luc. 1. verse 6. signifieth not that by which they were made iust but the commaundements or precepts of God by walking in which they were declared to be iust For by the workes of the lawe such as Saint Luke here speaketh of no fleshe shall be iustified before God Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place must haue an other sense than iustifications namely commaundements as you saye it
you so malitious an enimie vnto him hauing spent all your inuention to seeke holes in his translation can finde nothing but such childish cauils as when they be discouered men will maruaile that you were not ashamed to moue them MART. 56. But after this generall vewe of their wilfull purpose and heretical intention let vs examine their false translations more particularly and argue the case with them more at large and presse them to answere whether in their conscience it be so or no as hitherto is saide and that by seuerall chapters of such CONTROVERSIES as their corruptions concerne and first of all without further curiositie whence to begin in cases so indifferent of TRADITIONS FVLK 56. The more particularly you examine our translations the freer I hope they shall be found from falsehoode wilfull corruption And the more at large you argue the case and presse vs to answere the more you shall make the case to appeare worse on your side and the truth clearer on our parte And as God is witnesse of our conscience and sinceritie in setting forth his word without adulteration or corruptiō so I appeale to the consciences of al indifferent readers whether hitherto you haue gotten any aduantage against vs in this whole chapter which yet you professe to be the abridgement and summe of your whole treatise CHAP. II. Hereticall translation of holy Scripture against Apostolicall TRADITIONS Martin THis is a matter of such importance that if they shoulde graunt any traditions of the Apostles and not pretende the written worde onely they know that by such traditions mentioned in all antiquitie their religion were wholy defaced and ouerthrowen For remedie whereof and for the defacing of all such traditions they bend their translations against them in this wonderfull maner Wheresoeuer the holy Scripture speaketh against certaine traditions of the Iewes partly friuolous partly repugnant to the law of God there all the English translations follow the Greeke exactly neuer omitting this word tradition Contrariwise wheresoeuer the holy Scripture speaketh in the commendation of Traditions to wit such traditions a◠the Apostles deliuered to the Church there all their sayd translations agree not to followe the Greeke which is still the selfe same word but for traditions they translate ordinaunces or instructions Why so and to what purpose we appeale to the worme of their conscience which continually accuseth them of an hereticall meaning whether by vrging the word traditions wheresoeuer they are discommended and by suppressing the word wheresoeuer they are commended their purpose and intent be not to signifie to the Reader that all traditions are naught and none good all reproueable none allowable Fulke TRaditions in deede is a matter of such importance as if you may be allowed whatsoeuer you will thrust vpon vs vnder the name of vnwritten traditions the written worde of God shall serue to no purpose at all For first as you plainly professe the holy Scripture shall not be accounted sufficient to teach all truth necessary to saluation that the man of God may be perfect prepared to all good works Secondly with the Valentinian heretikes you accuse the Scriptures of vncertaine vnderstāding without your traditions vnder pretense of which you wil bring in what you list though it be neuer so contrary to the holy Scriptures plaine wordes by colour of interpretatiō as you do the worshipping of images many other like heresies As for the mention that is made of Apostolicall traditions in diuerse of the auncient fathers some of thē are such as you your selues obserue not not for the tenth part of those that you obserue can you bring any testimony out of the ancient fathers as is proued sufficiently by so many propositiōs as were set downe by the Bishoppe of Sarisburie M. Iewel whereof you can bring no proofe for any one to haue bene taught within 600. yeres after Christ. Now concerning the traditions of the Apostles what they were who can be a better witnesse vnto vs than Ignatius the disciple of the Apostles of whom Eusebius writeth that when he was led towardes Rome where he suffred martyrdom he earnestly exhorted the Churches by which he passed to continue in the faith and against all heresies which euen then began to bud vp he charged thē to retaine fast the traditiō of the Apostles which by that time he protested to be committed to writing for by that time were al the books of the new Testament written The words of Eusebius concerning this matter are li. 3. c. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he exhorted thē straitly to kepe the tradition of the Apostles which testifying that it was now for assurance cōmitted to writing he thought necessary to be plainly taught Against this tradition of the Apostles which for certaintie assurance is contained in their holy vndoubted writings we say nothing but striue altogither for it But because the word traditions is by you Papistes taken to signifie a doctrine secretely deliuered by worde of mouth without authority of the holy Scriptures we do willingly auoide the word in our translations where the simple might be deceiued to think that the holy ghost did euer cōmēd any such to the church which he would not haue to be committed to writing in the holy Scriptures in steede of that word so commōly taken although it doth not necessarily signifie any such matters we doe vse such wordes as do truly expresse the Apostles meaning the Greke word doth also signifie Therfore we vse the words of ordināces or instructiōs or institutiōs or the doctrine deliuered all which being of one sense the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doeth signifie and the same doth tradition signifie if it be rightly vnderstoode but seing it hath bene commonly taken and is vrged of the Papistes to signifie only a doctrine deliuered beside the word of God written in such places where the holy Ghost vseth the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that sense we translate by that worde tradition where he vseth it for such doctrine as is groūded vpon the holy Scriptures our translatours haue auoyded it not of any hereticall meaning that all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions are naught but that all such as haue not the holy Scripture to testifie of them and to warrant them are euill and to be auoyded of all true Christians which can not without blasphemie acknowledge any imperfection in the holy Scriptures of God which are able to make a man wise vnto saluation if they shoulde thinke any doctrine necessarie to saluation not to be cōtained therein MART. 2. For example Matt. 15. Thus they translate Why do thy disciples transgresse the TRADITION of the Elders And againe Why do you also transgresse the commaundement of God by your TRADITION And againe Thus haue you made the commaundement of God of no effect by your TRADITION Here I warrant you all the bels sound tradition and the word is neuer omitted
They wil say the first Hebrewe word can not be as Saint Hierome translateth and as it is in the Greeke and as all antiquitie readeth but it muste signifie Let vs destroy They say truely according to the Hebrewe word which now is But is it not euident thereby that the Hebrewe worde nowe is not the same which the Septuaginta translated into Greekeâ— and S. Hierom into Latine and consequently the Hebrue is altered and corrupted from the originall copie which they had perhaps by the Iewes as some other places to obscure this prophecie also of Christes Passion and their crucifying of him vpon the Crosse. Such Iewish Rabbines and new Hebrue words do our newe maisters gladly folow in the translation of the olde Testament whereas they might easily conceyue the old Hebrue worde in this place if they would employ their skill that way and not onely to nouelties For who seeth not that the Greeke Interpreters in number 70. and al Hebrues of best skill in their owne tongue S. Hierom also a great Hebrician did not reade as now wee haue in the Hebrue Nashchîta but Nashitha or Nashlîcha Againe the Hebrue worde that now is doth so litle agree with the wordes folowing that they cannot tell how to translate it as appeareth by the diuersitie and difference of their translations thereof before mentioned and transposing the wordes in English otherwise than in the Hebrue neither of both their translations hauing any commodious sense or vnderstanding FVLK 19. If we shoulde acknowledge the Hebrue word to be altered in so many places as the 70. departe from it we should not only condemne the Hebrue text that now is in many places but your vulgar Latine text also the translator whereof differing oftentimes from the Greeke followeth the truth of the Hebrue or at least commeth nearer vnto it Your argument of the number of the 70. interpreters al Hebrewes is very ridiculous childish Hierom him selfe will laugh you to skorne in it who acknowledged for certaintie no more than the bookes of the lawe translated by them And Lindanus proueth manifestly vnto you that some partes of the old Testament in Greeke which wee now haue are not the same that were counted the 70. translation in the auncient fathers time Whether Hierom in this place did consider the Hebrue text we know not for he doth not as his manner is shew the diuersitie of the Hebrue and the Septuaginta in this chapiter beside he professeth great breuitie intreating vpon so long a Prophete But whether a letter in this word haue bene altered or no or whether it were corrupt in the copie which the Greeke translater and Hierom did reade for the true or simple sense thereof there is no great difference No nor for that sense which Hierom bringes which although it seemeth to be farre from the Prophets meaning yet it may haue as good ground vpon the worde Naschita as vpon the worde Nashlicha MART. 20. But yet they will pretende that for the first worde at the least they are not to be blamed because they folow the Hebrue that now is Not considering that if this were a good excuse then might they as well folowe the Hebrue that now is Psal. 21. v. 18 and so vtterly suppresse and take out of the Scripture this notable prophecie They pearced my hands and my feete Which yet they do not neither can they doe it for shame if they will be counted Christians So that in deede to folow the Hebrue sometime where it is corrupt is no sufficient excuse for them though it may haue a pretence of true translation and we promised in the preface in such cases not to call it hereticall translation FVLK 20. To this cauill against the certaine truth of the Hebrue texte I haue sufficiently answered in my confutation of your preface Sect. 44. shewing that the true reading of this word as Felix PrateÌ„sis Ioannes Isaak Tremelius and other do acknowledge is still remayning and testified by the Mazzorites MART. 21. But concerning the B. Sacrament let vs see once more how truely they folow the Hebrue The holy Ghost saith S. Cyprian ep 63. nu 2. by Salomon foresheweth a type of our Lordes sacrifice of the immolated host of bread wine saying Wisedome hath killed her hostes SHE HATH MINGLED HER WINE INTO the cuppe Come ye eate of my bread and drinke the wine that I HAVE MINGLED for you Speaking of WINE MINGLED saith this holy doctor he foresheweth prophetically the cuppe of our Lorde MINGLED WITH WATER AND WINE So doth S. Hierom interprete this mixture or mingling of the wine in the chalice so doth the author of the commentaries vpon this place among S. Hieroms workes so doe the other fathers So that there is great importance in these propheticall wordes of Salomon She hath mingled her wine into the cuppe and the wine which I haue mingled as being a manifest prophecie of Christes mingling water and wine in the Chalice at his last supper which the Catholike Churche obserueth at this day and whereof S. Cyprian writeth the foresaide long epistle FVL. 21. It had bene to be wished that S. Cyprian when he goeth aboute to proue the necessitie of wine in the celebration of the Lordes supper agaynst the Heretikes called Aquarij that contended for onely water had retained the precise institution of Christe in wine onely which the Scripture mencioneth and not allowed them a mixture of water and for that purpose driuen him selfe to suche watrie expositions as this of Prouerbes 9. which without good warrant he draweth to represent the Lordes supper Where if hee had bene vrged by the aduersaries whereto the beastes slayne were referred in this Sacrament hee muste haue bene driuen to some violent comment But whereto tendeth this preparation MART. 22. But the Protestants counting it an idle superstitious ceremonie here also frame their translation accordingly suppressing altogither this mixture or mingling and in steede thereof saying Shee hath drawen her wine and drinke the wine that I haue drawen or as in other of their Bibles Shee hath powred out her wine and the wine which I haue powred out neither translation agreing either with Greeke or Hebrue Not with the Greeke which doth euidently signifie mingling and mixture as it is in the Latine and as al the Greeke Church from the Apostles time hath vsed this word in this very case whereof wee nowe speake of mingling water and wine in the chalice S. Iames and S. Basil in their Liturgies expresly testifying that Christ did so as also S. Cyprian in the place alleaged S. Iustine in the end of his second Apologie calling it of the same Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is according to Plutarche wine mingled with water likewise S. Irâ—neus in his fifth booke neere the beginning See the sixth generall Councell most fully treating hereof and deducing it from the Apostles and auncient fathers and interpreting
¶ A DEFENSE of the sincere and true Translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong against the manifolde cauils friuolous quarels and impudent slaunders of GREGORIE MARTIN one of the readers of Popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes By WILLIAM FVLKE D. in Diuinitie and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of all such quarrels cauils as haue bene of late vttered by diuerse Papistes in their English Pamphlets against the writings of the saide WILLIAM FVLKE AT LONDON Imprinted by Henrie Bynneman Anno. 1583. Cum gratia Priuilegio To the moste high and mightie Princesse Elizabeth by the grace of God Queene of England Fraunce and Irelande defender of the fayth c. AMONG THE inestimable benefits wherwith almightie God hath woonderfully blessed this your Maiesties most honourable and prosperous gouernement it is not to be numbred among the least that vnder your most gratious and Christian protection the people of your Highnes dominions haue enioyed the most necessarie and comfortable reading of the holy Scriptures in their mother tongue and natiue language Which exercise although it hath of long time by the aduersaries of Him that willeth the Scriptures to be searched especially those of our nation beene accompted little better than an haereticall practise And treatises haue bene written praetending to shew great inconvenience of hauing the holie Scriptures in the vulgar tongue Yet now at length perceiuing they can not preuaile to bring in that darâ—knesse and ignorance of Gods most sacred word and wil therin contained wherby their blind deuotioÌ„ the daughter of ignorance as they them selues professe was wont to make them rulers of the world they also at the last are become Translators of the Newe Testament into English In which that I speak nothing of their insincere purpose in leauing the pure fountaine of the original veritie to folow the croked streame of their barbarous vulgar Latin translatioÌ„ which beside al other manifeste corruptions is founde defectiue in more than an hundred places as your Maiestie according to the excellet knowledge in both the tongs wherwith God hath blessed you is verie well able to iudge And to omit euen the same Booke of their translation pestred with so many annotations both false and vnduetifull by which vnder colour of the authoritie of holie Scriptures they seeke to infecte the mindes of the credulous readers with haeretical and superstitious opinions and to alienate their harts from yelding due obedience to your Maiestie and your most Christian lawes concerning true Religion established And that I may passe ouer the verie Text of their translation obscured without anie necessarie or iust cause with suche a multitude of so strange and vnusuall termes as to the ignorant are no lesse difficult to vnderstande than the Latine or Greeke it self Yet is it not meete to be concealed that they which neither truely nor praecisely haue translated their owne vulgare Latin and only Authenticall text haue neuerthelesse bene bolde to set forth a seuerall Treatise in which most slanderously and vniustly they accuse all our English translations of the Bible not of small imperfections and ouersightes committed through ignorance or negligence but of no lesse than most foule dealing in partiall false translations wilfull and haereticall corruptions Against which most leude and vntrue accusation though easie to be iudged of by such as be learned in the tongues yet daungerous to disquiet the conscience of them that be ignorant in the same I haue written a short and necessarie Defense Which although not labored in words yet in matter I hope sufficient to auoide all the aduersaries cauilles I am most humbly to craue pardon that I may be bolde to dedicate vnto your most excellent Maiestie that vnder whose high Christian authoritie your people haue so many yeares enioyd the reading of the holie bookes of GOD in their natiue language to the euerlasting benefit of many thousand soules Vnder the same your most gratious roial protection they may reade also the Defense of the syncere and faithfull translation of those Bookes to the quieting of their consciences and the confusion of the aduersaries of Gods truth and holie religion By which they may be stirred vp more and more in all duetifull obedience not only to be thankeful vnto your Maiestie as it becommeth them but also to continewe their most earnest and hartie prayers to almightie God for this your moste godlie and happie regiment ouer them for many yeares forwarde to be prolonged The God of glorie which hitherto hath aduaunced your Maiesties throne aboue all Princes of this age in true honour and glorie vouchsafe to preserue the same with his dailie blessing to the perfection of that glorious reparation of his Church which you haue most happily taken in hande to the euerlasting praise of his mercie and the endelesse felicity of your Maiestie Your Maiesties most humble subiect and most bounden daylie orator WILLIAM FVLKE THE PREFACE CONTEINING FIVE SVNDRIE ABVSES or corruptions of holy Scriptures common to all Heretikes and agreeing specially to these of our time with many other necessarie aduertisements to the reader MARTIN AS it hath bene alwaies the fashion of Heretikes to pretend Scriptures for shew of their cause so hath it bene also their custome and propertie to abuse the saide Scriptures many waies in fauour of their errours FVLKE WHETHER these fiue abuses haue bene common to all heretikes whether it hath bene the fashion of all heretikes to pretende Scriptures for shewe of their cause though I will spare nowe to enquire of as a thing wherin learned men at the first sight may espie the great skil that Martin pretendeth to haue in discerning of heretikes and heresies yet will I shew by the grace of God that none of these fiue abuses are committed by vs or our Catholike translations that the popish heretikes are in some sort or other guiltie of them all MART. 1. One way is to denie whole bookes thereof or partes of bookes when they are euidently against them So did for example Ebion all S. Paules epistles Manicheus the Actes of the Apostles Alogiani S. Iohns Gospell Marcion many peeces of S. Lukes Gospell and so did both these and other heretikes in other bookes denying and allowing what they liste as is euident by S. Irenaeus S. Epiphanius S. Augustine and all antiquitie FVLK 1. First we denie no one booke of the Canonicall scripture that hath bene so receaued of the Catholike church for the space of 300. yeares more as it hath bene often proued out of Eusebius S. Ierome and other ancient authorities but the Papists in aduauncing Apocryphall bookes to be of equall credite with the Canonicall Scriptures do in effect deny theÌ„ all Besides that to adde vnto the word of God is as great a fault as to take away from it the one being forbidden vnder as heauie a curse as the other Those blasphemies of
shame if he had not thought it more shame to graunt it I neede not goe farre for the matter Aske M. Fulke and he will flatly confesse it was so Aske Caluin in arg ep Iacobi Aske Flaccus Illyricus in argum ep Iacobi and you shall perceiue it is very true I will not send you to the Catholike Germans and others both of his owne time and after that wrote against him in the question of iustification among whome not one omitteth this being a thing so famous and infamous to the confusion of that Arch heretike FVLK 7. I know not whether euer Luther denied S. Iames epistle as vnworthy of an Apostolical spirit but I beleue you may take a twelue monethes daye more to proue it as also that he did so contemne it that he called it an epistle of straw But M. Whitaker which denied it so vehemently must aske of me who moste slatly confesse sayth M. Martin that it was so I pray you sir vrge me not to confesse more than I know or euer knew But you haue confessed it already in two printed bookes Retent pag. 32. Disc of the Rock pag 307. In the place first cited ther are these words But to proceed LVTHER DENIETH THE EPISTLE OF S. IAMES BECAVSE IT IS AGAINST HIS HERESIE OF IVSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONELY We allow not Luther neither did he allow him selfe therein for he retracteth it afterward First those wordes of Luthers denyall being printed in a diuerse letter may testifie sufficiently to euery reasonable man that they are the obiection of Bristow and not the confession of Fulke who not simplye admitteth them as true but by concession proueth that if they were true yet Luthers opinion against which he him selfe hath written ought not to preiudice him and much lesse all other men that neuer held that opinion In the later cited place are these wordes And as touching the epistle of S. Iames it is a shamelesse slaunder of him to say that the Protestants reiect it but we must heare his reason First Luther calleth it a strawen epistle So Luther called the Pope supreame head of the Church and the masse a sacrifice propitiatorie If Protestants be charged to holde whatsoeuer Luther sometime helde and after repented c. Who seeth not in these words that I rehearse the obiection of Saunder which is common to him with many other Papistes which not discussing whether it be true or no but supposing it were as Saunder and the rest of the Papistes doe affirme I shewe that it is no good consequence to charge all Protestants with Luthers priuate opinion which perhaps he helde sometime and after retracted more than to charge vs with all opinions of Papistrie which de did hold before God opened his eyes to see the absurditie of them And yet if he had helde that opinion and neuer retracted the same he were not in worse case than Eusebius who in playne wordes affirmeth that the same epistle is a counterfet or bastard epistle lib. 2. cap. 23. Doe you not see nowe how flatly Maister Fulke confesseth that it was so Such confessions as these are nowe than extorted out of the auncient fathers writings which are not liuing to expounde their meanings But I had thought Maister Martin could haue discerned betwene a suppose or concession and an absolute assertion or a flat confession especially of one whose writing is plaine enough and beside is aliue to interprete himselfe if any ambiguitie were therein But be it that Maister Martin either would not or could not see in my writing any thing else but a flat confession of Luthers denying of S. Iames epistle and calling it an epistle of strawe of what forehead proceedeth it that he willeth Maister Whitaker to aske Caluin in argum Epist. Iacobi whether Luther so speake of that epistle in which argument Luther is not once named by Caluin so farre is it that he doth testifie any such thing against Luther Onely he sayth that some there are in these dayes which thinke that epistle not worthy of authoritie which could not be vnderstood of Luther who long before Caluin wrote that argument had forsaken that opinion if euer he helde any such as all those Dutche Bibles and Testaments of Luthers translation in which those wordes so muche bayted at and so much sought for are omitted doe giue sufficient testimonie What Flaccus Illyricus reporteth who perhaps helde that opinion him selfe and woulde father it vppon Luther I haue neither opportunitie to seeke nor care to knowe But howe great a matter it is that all the Popish Germans and other who haue written against Luther doe so spitefully gnawe vpon I haue learned at length by relation of Maister Whitaker whome you send to aske of me who after long search and many editions turned ouer at the length lighted vpon a Dutch Testament by likehood one of the first that Luther did sette forth in the German tongue in which he findeth neither deniall of S. Iames epistle to be Canonicall nor affirmation that it is vnworthy of an Apostolicall spirit no nor that whereof there hath bene so much babling of all the Papistes that he calleth it an epistle of strawe simply and in contempt but onely in comparison of the epistles of Paule and Peter and other bookes of the newe Testament the excellencie of which one aboue an other after he hath shewed in sundry degrees at last he sayth the epistle of Iames in comparison of these is strawye or like straw Which he sayth not in respect of the credit or authority thereof but in regarde of the argument or matter handled therein which all wise and godly men will confesse to bee not so excellent and necessary as the matter of the holye Gospels and Epistles of some other of the Apostles namely of Paule Peter and Iohn Our Sauiour Christ himself Ioh. 3. 12 calleth the doctrine of regeneration in such plaine maner as he vttered it to Nicodemus earthly things in comparison of other greater mysteries which he coulde haue expressed in more heauenly spirituall sort If I haue spoken to you sayth he of earthly things and you haue not beleued how if I shoulde speake to you of heauenly things will you beleue Were not he an honest and a wise man that vpon these words of Christ spoken in comparison would conclude by his authoritie that regeneration were a contemptible matter a thing not spirituall not heauenly but simply and altogither earthly And yet with as good reason for ought I see or can learne of Luthers wordes concerning this matter he might so inferre as the Papists doe inforce the like against Luther Wherefore it is nothing else but a famous and infamous cauillation to the confusion of all the Papistes which write against Luther that no one of them omitteth vpon so false and friuolous a ground to sclaunder him so haynously and to charge all Protestantes with his assertion so enuiously which if it were his should not be so euill as
other Catholike writers haue affirmed of that Epistle and therefore not sufficient to charge him and much lesse others with heresie but being not his simple affirmation yet because it hath bene offensiuely taken he him selfe hath put it out and giuen it ouer O what a sturre would they keepe if they had any weightie matter of truth to burthen him withall MART. 8. To let this passe Tobie Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees are they not most certainly reiected And yet they were allowed and receiued for Canonicall by the same authoritie that S. Iames Epistle was This Epistle the Caluinists are content to admit because so it pleased Caluine those bookes they reiect because so also it pleased him And why did it so please Caluine Vnder pretence forsooth that they were once doubted of and not taken for Canonicall But is that the true cause in deede Howe doe they then receiue S. Iames Epistle as Canonicall hauing before doubted of also yea as they say reiected FVLK 8. You may well let it passe for it is not worth the time you spend in writing of it and if you had bene wise you would vtterly haue omitted it But what say you of Tobie Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees most certainly by vs reiected They were allowed you say for Canonicall by the same authoritie that S. Iames Epistle was And thinke you that S. Iames Epistle was neuer allowed for Canonicall before the third Councell of Carthage For of the other it is certaine they were neuer receiued by the Church of the Israelits before Christ his coÌ„ming nor of the Apostolike and primitiue Church for more than 300. yeres after as both Eusebius out of Origines and the Councell of Laodicea Can. â—9 confirmed afterwarde by the sixt generall Councell of Constantinople sheweth for the Greeke Church and S. Ierome in prologo Galeato for the Latine Church As for the prouinciall Councell of Carthage holden by 44. Bishops of Africa if we were bound to receiue it for these bookes we must also acknowledge fiue bookes of Salomon which in the same Councell are authorised whereas the Church neuer knew but of three And although the booke of wisedom should be ascribed to SalomoÌ„ there could be but foure Againe how they vnderstand the word Canonical it may be gathered both out of the wordes of the same Canon where they giue none other reason of the approbatioÌ„ of all those books of Scripture but that they haue receiued them of their fathers to be read in the Church and also out of S. Augustine who was one present at the same CouÌ„cell which after he hath declared how a man should discerne the Canonicall Scriptures from other writings by following the authoritie of the Catholike Churches especially those that haue deserued to haue Apostolike sees and to receiue their Epistles he addeth further Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis canonicis vt eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesijs Catholicis praeponat eis quas quaedaÌ„ non accipiunt In eis vero quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat eas quas plures grauiorèsque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatis Ecclesiae tenent Si autem alias inuenerit à pluribus alias à grauioribus haberi quanquam hoc inuenire non possit aequalis tameÌ„ auctoritatis eas habeÌ„das puto Totus autem canon scripturarum in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus his libris continetur He shall hold therfore this meane in the canonical Scriptures that he preferre those which are receiued of all catholike churches before those Scriptures which some Churches do not receiue But in those which are not receiued of all let him preferre those Scriptures which the greater number and grauer churches do receiue before those which churches fewer in number of lesse authority do hold But if he shal find some Scriptures to be had of fewer churches other some of grauer churches althogh you can not find this thing yet I thinke they are to be accoÌ„pted of equall authority Now the whole canoÌ„ of scriptures in which we say this consideration must be occupied is contained in these books Fiue books of Moises that is Genesis Exodus c. By this saying of Augustine it is manifest that he calleth canonicall Scriptures not only those bookes that ought of necessity to be receiued of al churches but also such as were receiued of some of some were not in which nuÌ„ber were these bookes of Tobie Ecclesiasticus the Machabees which by his owne rule were not to be receiued as of absolut soueraigne authority because the Apostolike churches of Asia Europa those of grauest authoritie among which was the church of Rome in that time did not receiue theÌ„ as witnesseth not only S. Hierome a Priest of Rome but also Ruffinus of Aquileia in symbolo who both declare what bookes were receiued in their churches as canonical of irrefragable authority to build principles of faith vpon them what books were admitted only to be read for instruction of maners And therfore according to the rule of Augustin testimony of the ancieÌ„t fathers because it coÌ„senteth with the rest of the scriptures not for Caluins pleasure we receiue the Epistle of S. Iames though it hath not bene alwaies and of all Churches receiued Concerning the name of Caluinists as of all other nicke names that it pleaseth you of your charity to bestow vpon vs it shall suffice to protest once for all that we acknowledge none other name of our profession but Christians Catholikes and that we haue neither receiued that Epistle nor reiected the other bicause it pleased Caluin so This may serue for a cleare demonstration that in the first English Bibles that were printed vnder the name of Thomas Mathew before Caluine wrote any word of the reiectioÌ„ of those bookes or of receiuing of the other they are called Apocrypha printed with other of that marke by theÌ„selues the Epistle of S. Iames without any question acknowledged to be one of the canonical Epistles wheras Caluines Institution was first printed An. 1536. his argument vpon S. Iames Epistle 1551. You may see what honest dealing the Papistes vse to bring the truth into discredit the professors thereof into hatred with the simple vnlearned people bearing theÌ„ in hand that we haue no cause to receiue or refuse bookes of Scripture but Caluines pleasure But the God of truth wil one day reward these impudeÌ„t liars shameles slaunderers Well let vs now see vnder what preteÌ„ce it pleased Caluine to reiect these bookes Vnder pretence forsooth sayth Martin that they were once doubted of and not taken for Canonical I pray you sir where doth Caluine pretend that only cause In his Instit. li. 3. c. 5 sect 8. He alleageth diuerse other causes touching the bookes of Machabees as euery maÌ„ that wil may read Shame you nothing to forge such manifest
vntruths that in such matters as you may be conuinced in them by ten thousand witnesses What credit shal be giuen to you in matters that cōsist vpon your owne bare testimonie when you force not to faine of other men that wherin euery man may reproue you And as for the only pretence you speake of Caluine doth so litle esteeme it that notwithstanding the same he doubteth not to receiue the Epistle of S. Iames because it is agreable to the whole body of the canonical Scripture as if you had read his argumēt vpon that Epistle you might easily haue perceiued MART. 9. Marke gētle reader for thy soules sake thou shalt find that heresie only heresie is the cause of their denying these books so farre that against the orders Hierarchies particular patronages of Angels one of them writeth thus in the name of the rest We passe not for that Raphael of Tobie neither do we acknowledge those seuē Angels which he speaketh of al this is farre from Canonical Scriptures that the same Raphael recordeth sauoureth I wote not what superstition Against free will thus I litle care for the place of Ecclesiasticus neither will I beleeue free will though he affirme an hundred times That before men is life death And against praier for the dead intercession of Saincts thus As for the booke of the Machabees I do care lesse for it thā for the other Iudas dreame cōcerning Omas I let passe as a dreame This is their reuerence of the scriptures which haue uniuersally bin reuerenced for canonical in the church of God aboue 1100 yeres Con. Cart. 3. particularly of many fathers long before Aug. de doct Christ. l 2. c. 8. FVLK 9. The mouth that lieth killeth the soule The reader may thinke you haue small care of his soules health when by such impudēt lying you declare that you haue so smal regard of your own But what shal he mark That heresy c. You were best say that Eusebius Hierom Ruffine al the churches in their times were heretiks that only heresie was the cause of their deniall of these bookes For such reasons as moued thē moue vs some thing also their authority But how proue you that only heresie moueth vs to reiect thē Because M. Whit. against the orders Hierarchies particular patronages of Angels writeth in the name of the rest That we passe not c. Take heede least vpon your bare surmise you belie him where you say he writeth in the name of the reste as in the next sectiō following you say he writeth in the name of both the vniuersities for which I am sure he had no cōmissiō frō either of thē althogh he did write that which may well be aduouched by both the vniuersities yet I knowe his modestie is such as he will not presume to be aduocate for both the vniuersities and much lesse for the whole church except he were lawfully called therto This is a cōmon practise of you Papists to beare the world in hand that whatsoeuer is writtē by any of vs in defense of the truth is set forth in the name of al the rest as though none of vs could say more in any matter than any one of vs hath writtē or that if any one of vs chaūce to slip in any smal matter though it be but a wrong quotatiō you might open your wide sclaunderous mouths against the whole church for one mans particular offense Now touching any thing that M. Whit. hath written you shal find him sufficient to maintaine it against a strōger aduersary thā you are therfore I wil medle the lesse in his causes And for the orders patronage or protection of Angels by Gods appointment we haue sufficient testimonie in the Canonical Scriptures that we neede not the vncertain report of Tobies booke to instruct vs what to thinke of thē But as for the Hierarchies patronage of Angels that many of you Papistes haue imagined written of neither the canonical Scriptures nor yet the Apocryphal bookes now in controuersie are sufficient to giue you warrātise The like I say of freewil praier for the dead intercession of Saincts But it grieueth you that those Apocryphal scriptures which haue bin vniuersally receiued for canonicall in the church of God aboue 1100. yeares should find no more reuerēce amōg vs. Stil your mouth rūneth ouer For in the time of the Canon of the coūcel of Carthage 3. which you quote these bookes were not vniuersally reuerenced as canonical And Augustine him selfe speaking of the booke of Machabees Cont. 2. G and. Ep. c. 23. cōfesseth that the Iewes accoūt it not as the law the Prophetes the Psalmes to which our Lord giueth testimonie as to his witnesses saying It behoueth that all things should be fulfilled which are writtē in the Law in the Prophets in the Psalmes cōcerning me but it is receiued of the Church not vnprofitably if it be soberly read or heard This writeth S. Augustine whē he was pressed with the authority of that booke by the Donatists which defended that it was lawful for them to kil themselues by exāple of Razis who is by the author of that booke commēded for that fact He saith it is receiued not vnprofitably immediatly after Especially for those Machabees that suffred paciently horrible persecution for testimony of Gods religiō to encourage Christians by their example Finally he addeth a condition of the receiuing it if it be soberly read or heard These speches declare that it was not receiued without all controuersie as the authenticall word of God for then should it be receiued necessarily because it is Gods word especially how soeuer it be read or heard it is receiued of the Church not only necessarily but also profitably Beside this euen the decree of Gelasius which was neare 100. yeares after that councel of Carthage alloweth but one booke of the Maccabees Wherfore the vniuersal reuerence that is bosted of can not be iustified But M. Whitaker is charged in the margent to condemne the seruice booke which appointeth these books of Toby Ecclesiasticus to be read for holy Scripture as the other And where finde you that in the seruice booke M. Martin Can you speake nothing but vntruths If they be appointed to be read are they appointed to be read for holy Scripture and for suche Scripture as the other canonicall bookes are The seruice booke appointeth the Letanie diuerse exhortations and praiers yea homelies to be read are they therefore to be read for holy canonicall Scriptures But you aske Do they read in their Churches Apocryphall and Superstitious bookes for holy Scripture No verily But of the name Apocryphall I must distinguish which somtimes is taken for all bookes read of the Church which are not canonicall sometime for such bookes onely as are by no meanes to be suffered but are to be hid or abolished These bookes
therefore in controuersie with other of the same sort are sometimes called Hagiographa holy writings as of S. Hierom praefat in lib. Tobiae sometime Ecclesiastica Ecclesiastical writings and so are they called of Ruffinus Because sayth he they were appointed by our Elders to be read in the Churches but not to be brought forth to confirme authoritie of faith but other Scriptures they named Apocryphall which they would not haue to be read in the Churches So sayth S. Hierom in praefat in Prouerb Euen as the Church readeth in deede the bookes of Iudith Tobias and the Machabees but yet receaueth them not among the Canonical Scriptures so let it read these two bookes of Ecclesiasticus and wisedom for the edifying of the people not for the confirmation of the authoritie of Ecclesiastical doctrines These auncient writers shal answer for our seruice booke that although it appoint these writings to be read yet it doth not appoint them to be read for Canonicall Scriptures Albeit they are but sparingly read by order of our seruice booke which for the Lordes day other festiuall daies commonly appointeth the first lesson out of the Canonicall Scriptures And as for superstition although M. Whitaker say that some one thing sauoreth of I know not what superstition he doth not by and by condemne the whole booke for superstitious and altogither vnworthy to be read neither can he thereby be proued a Puritane or a disgracer of the order of dayly seruice MART. 10. As for partes of bookes doe they not reiect certaine peeces of Daniel and of Hester because they are not in the Hebrew which reason S. Augustine reiecteth or because they were once doubted of by certaine of the fathers by which reason some part of S. Marke and S. Lukes Gospell might nowe also be called in controuersie specially if it be true which M. Whitakers by a figuratiue speech more than insinuateth That he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit should by time winne authoritie Forgetting him selfe by by in the very next lines admitting S. Iames epistle though before doubted of for Canonicall Scriptures vnles they receiue it but of their curtesie so may refuse it when it shall please them which must needes be gathered of his wordes as also many other notorious absurdities contradictions and dumbe blanckes Which onely to note were to confute M. Whitakers by him selfe being the answerer for both Vniuersities FVLK 10. As for peeces of Daniel of Hester we reiect none but only we discerne that which was written by Daniel in deede from that which is added by Theodotion the false Iew that which was written by the spirit of God of Esther from that which is vainly added by some Greekish counterfecter But the reason why we reiect those patches you say is because they are not in the Hebrew which reason S. Augustine reiecteth Here you cite S. Augustine at large without quotation in a matter of controuersie But if we may trust you that S. Augustine reiecteth this reason yet we may be bold vpon S. Hieroms authoritie to reiect whatsoeuer is not found in the canō of the Iewes written in Hebrew or Chaldee For whatsoeuer was such S. Hierom did thrust through with a spit or obeliske as not worthy to be receyued Witnes hereof S. Augustine him selfe Epist. ad Hier. 8. 10. in which he disswaded him from translating the Scriptures of the olde Testament out of the Hebrew tongue after the 70. Interpreters whose reasons as they were but friuolous so they are derided by S. Hierom who being learned in the Hebrew Chaldee tongues refused to be taught by Augustine that was ignorant in them what was to be done in translations out of them Also Hieronym him selfe testifieth that Daniel in the Hebrew hath neither the story of Susanna nor the hymne of the 3. children nor the fable of Bel the Dragon which we saith he because they are dispersed throughout the whole world haue added setting a spit before them which thrusteth them through lest we should seeme among the ignorant to haue cut of a great part of the booke The like he writeth of the vaine additions that were in the vulgar edition vnto the booke of Esther both in the Preface after the ende of that which he translated out of the Hebrew There are other reasons also beside the authoritie of S. Hierom that moue vs not to receiue them As that in the storie of Susanna Magistrats iudgement of life death are attributed to the Iewes being in captiuitie of Babylon which hath no similitude of truth Beside out of the first chapter of the true Daniel it is manifest that Daniel being a young man was caried captiue into Babylon in the dayes of Nebucadnezer but in this counterfect storie Daniel is made a young child in the time of Astyages which reigned immediatly before Cyrus of Persia. Likewise in the storie of Bel and the Dragon Daniel is said to haue liued with the same king Cyrus and after when he was cast into the lyons denne the Prophet Habacuck was sent to him out of Iurie who prophecied before the first comming of the Chaldees and therefore could not be aliue in the daies of Cyrus which was more than 70 yeares after The additions vnto the booke of Esther in many places bewray the spirite of man as that they are contrary to the truth of the story containing vaine repetitions amplifications of that which is contained in the true historie that which most manifestly conuinceth the sorgerie that in the epistle of Artaxerxes cap. 16. Haman is called a Macedonian which in the true storie is termed an Agagite that is an Amalekite whereas the Macedonians had nothing to doe with the Persians many yeares after the death of Esther Haman I omit that in the ca. 15. ver 12. the author maketh Esther to lie vnto the king in saying that his countenance was ful of all grace or else he lyeth him selfe v. 17. where he saith the king beheld her in the vehemēcy of his anger that he was exceding terrible As for other reasons which you suppose vs to follow because these parcels were once doubted of by certaine of the fathers it is a reason of your owne making and therefore you may confute it at your pleasure But if that be true which Maister Whitaker by a figuratiue speech doth more than insinuate parte of S. Markes and S. Lukes Gospell may also be called in controuersie Why what saith M. VVhitaker Marie that he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit should by tyme winne authoritie But when I pray you was any part of S. Marke or S. Luke out of credit if any part were of some person doubted of doth it follow that it was not at al in credit you reason profoundly and gather very necessarily As likewise that he forgetteth him selfe in the very next lines admitting
S. Iames epistle though before doubted of for Canonicall VVill ye say that S. Iames epistle was once not in credit or not worthy of credit for that is his plaine meaning because it was doubted of yea reiected of some yea you saye it must needes be gathered of his wordes that we receiue it but of curtesie and so may refuse it when it pleaseah vs. Demonstrate this in a syllogisme out of his words if you can or all the whole rable of Rhemes if you be able For my part I can but maruaile at your bold assertions and abhorre your impudent enforcements As for other contradictions notorious absurdities dumbe blanks I know not what other monsters you feine vnto him without all proofe or perticular declaration all wise men see howe easie a matter it is to raile slaunder in generals whē you dare come to particulars I doubt not but the world shal see your vanitie so detected by M. Whitaker him selfe that you shal haue litle ioy thus insolently to deface his godly learned writings It had bene more than time that his booke had bene confuted which hath bene abroad a yeare and a halfe almost if you can with such facilitie by onely noting such matters shewe that he confuteth him selfe But somwhat you must say afarre of to saue your credit with your Disciples to keepe them playe for the time while with long studie and great trauaile you are crowding out great trifles MART. 11. For the second point which is not the grosse deniall of bookes but yet calling of them in question mouing scruples about them and diminishing their authoritie and credite I will goe no further than to S. Paules epistle to the Hebrewes which I will not aske why they doubt of or rather thinke it not to be S. Paules for they will tell me because it was once in doubte not considering that it was in like maner doubted whether it were Canonicall yet they will not now denie but it is Canonicall but I must aske them and request them to make a reasonable answere why in their English Bible of the yeare 1579. and 1580. they presume to leaue out S. Paules name out of the very title of the saide epistle which name is in the Greeke and in Bezaes Latine translation both which they professe to folow See the title of the new Test. an 1580. Doth not the title tell them that it is S. Paules why seeke they further or why do they change the title striking out S. Paules name if they meant to deale simply and sincerely and what an hereticall peeuishnes is this because Beza telleth them of one obscure Greeke copie that hath not Paules name and onely one that they will rather folow it than all other copies both Greeke and Latin I report me to all indifferent men of common sense whether they do it not to diminish the credite of the epistle FVLK 11. Nowe concerning the seconde pointe which is calling of some bookes into controuersie or mouing scruples about them to diminish their credite or auctoritie whether you be guiltie of that crime rather than we I haue somewhat noted before But with what euidence you are able to charge vs it cōmeth now to be cōsidered you will go no further than the epistle to the Hebrewes You may be ashamed to haue gone so far For of al bookes of the new Testament their is none that we might worse spare to confounde your blasphemous heresies than that epistle which is the very mall to beate into pouder the abominable Idoll of your Masse and your sacrilegious priesthood seruing to the same Wherefore it is without all colour that you charge vs to seeke to diminish the credite of that epistle But you will not aske why we doubt of or rather thinke it not to be S. Paules because we will tell you that it was once in doubt If you acknowledge that the auctor of this epistle was once in questiō you cleare vs of mouing scruples about it or calling it in question which was your first charge Let Eusebius Hierome and other auncient writers beare that blame if it be blame worthie to tell what other mens opinions haue bene in such a matter Some holding that it was written by S. Luke some by S. Barnabas some by S. Clemens But you must wit if you wil that they which at this day doubt of the writer therof or else thinke it not of S. Paules penning haue other reasons to lead them than onely because it was doubted of For beside those reasons which they had which of old time doubted of the writer therof as the diuersitie of the stile and inscription thereof and manner of reasoning they haue also obserued something out of the epistle it self which seemeth to argue that it was not writtē by S. Paule as that in the beginning of the 2. chapter he saith The doctrine of saluation was confirmed to vs by thē that heard it after it was first spoken by the Lord him self which seemeth to agree with the profession of S. Luke in the beginning of his gospell Wheras S. Paule denieth that he learned his gospel os men but only by reuelation of Iesus Christ. Gal. 1. v. 12. But of all thē that doubt or thinke it not to be S. Paules epistle there is not one that doubteth of the auctoritie thereof but that it is equall with the epistle to the Romanes or the gospell of S. Iohn Although in the Latine church as S. Hierom testifieth it hath bene doubted whether it were Canonicall The cause seemeth to be the heresie of the Nouatians which abused a text out of the 6. chapt against remissiō of sinnes cōmitted after grace receyued which we shew was no sufficiēt cause to refuse so diuine an epistle seing the Apostle speaketh not of particular faults which are cōmon to the faithful oftētimes euery day but of an vtter apostasie falling cleane away frō the truth of the gospel once knowen professed into an horrible contempt persecuting of the same But we must make you a reasonable answere why in the English Bibles printed 1579. 1580. we presume to leaue out S. Paules name out of the very title of the said epistle which name is in the Greeke Bezaes Latine translatiō which we professe to folow I answere without any presumptiō that that which is vncertaine we spare to affirme Exāple we haue not only that ancient Greeke copie whereof Beza speaketh which leaueth out the name of Paulé but also diuerse printed bokes in which that name is left out Beside it is certain that title was not of ancient time vniuersally added For S. Hier. in Catalogo scriptorū ecclesiast after he hath recited al the epistles of S. Paule at lēgth he cōmeth to this epistle Epistola autē quae fertur ad Hebraeos c. But the epistle which is called vnto the Hebrewes is not thought to be his for the differēce of the stile
one Heretike not onely correcting his fellow euery day but one egerly refuting and refelling an other Bucer and the Osiandrians and c Sacramentaries against Luther for false translations Luther against Munster Beza against Castaleo Castaleo against Beza Caluin against Seruetus Illyricus both against Caluin and Beza The Puritanes controule the grosser Caluinists of our country yea the later translations of the selfe same Heretikes controule the former exceedingly not onely of ouersights but of wilfull falsifications as it is notorious in the later editions of Luther and Beza and in our Englishe Bibles set forth in diuerse yeares from Tindall their first translatour vntill this day yea which is more the Englishe translatours of Bezaes newe Testament controule him and his translation which they protest to followe being afraide sometime and ashamed to expresse in Englishe his false translations in the Latin FVLK 24. By false translations wilfully and of purpose to falsifie the truth of Gods word is as grosse as abhominable treacherie as to corrupt the verie text although I thinke S. Paule speaking of the couertures or cloakes of dishonestie and adultering of the worde of God 2. Cor. 4. meaneth a further cūning than false translations That those whom you call heretikes finde fault with one an others translations they do none otherwise than you Popish heretikes Do not you Gregorie Martin in the 7. chapter and 33. section of this booke finde fault with all the Catholikes as you terme them that translate Sheol Sepulchrum a sepulchre and not alwayes hell If Bucer or Zwinglius do iustly obserue any errour in Luther or Luther in Munster or Beza in Castalio the Anabaptist or Caluine in Seruetus the horrible heretike yea and if froward schismaticall Illyricus can discouer any errour committed by Caluine and Beza the truth leeseth nothing when the errours of men are found out by what meanes soeuer That you speake of the Puritanes controuling the grosser Caluinistes of our countrie I knowe not what you meane neither doe I thinke you can iustifie your words for translation of the Scriptures Where you say the later translations of the selfe same heretikes controule the former exceedingly not only of ouersightes but of wilfull falsifications it is a wilfull and impudent sclaunder yet you blushe not to say it is notorious Howe I pray you You aunswere in the later editions of Luther and Beza and in our Englishe Bibles set forth in diuerse yeares from Tyndall their first translatour That Luther Beza and the later translatours of the Englishe Bibles haue corrected some small faultes that haue escaped in their former editions it may be graunted But doe Luther and Beza therefore accuse them selues or the later Englishe translatours the former of wilfull falsifications I thinke those brute beastes to whome Ambrose ascribeth the arte of making syllogismes if they could speake would not conclude thus brutishly Certaine it is that Balaams asse did reason substantially But muche more you saye the Englishe translatours of Bezaes newe Testament doe controule him and his translation being somtimes afraid and ashamed to expresse his false translations If it be so they are more modest than you which seeme to bee afrayed or ashamed of nothing so much as least you might seeme to faile in vnshamefastnesse But to the purpose If they thinke Beza as all men may erre hath somewhat troden awrye is it a faulte to auoyde his steppe or a prowde controuling or accusing him of falsification Neuerthelesse wherein soeuer Luther Beza or the Englishe translatours haue reformed any of their former ouersightes the matter is not so great that it can make an heresie Yea if you were of Sainct Augustines iudgement you would acknowledge that the multitude and diuersitie of translations is for the benefite of them that be ignoraunt in the tongues yea of them also that be learned in them oftentimes that of diuerse mens translations they may iudge which is the aptest MART. 25. But in this Catalogue of dissentions falsifiers and disagreeing translatours I will not greatly rippe vp old faultes neyther abroad nor at home I leaue Luthers false translations into the Germaine tongue to the credite of Staphylus Apolog. part 2. and Emserus praef Annot. in no. Test. Luth. and other Germaine writers of his owne time that saw them read them and reckoned the number of them in the new Testament only about 1400. hereticall corruptions I leaue Caluines and Bezas french corruptions to so many worthie men as haue noted them in their french bookes against the said heretikes Tindals and his companions corruptions in their first English Bible to our learned countreymen of that age and namely to the right reuerend Father and Confessor Bishop Tonstal who in a sermon openly protested that he had foūd in the new Testament onely no lesse than two thousand If wee know it not or wil not beleeue it strangers in their Latine writings testifie it to the world FVLK 25. We are muche beholding to you that you will not rippe vp olde faultes abroad nor at home and leaue Luthers Dutch translation with a 1400. hereticall corruptions in the new Testament only with Caluins Bezaes French corruptions noted by Vigor and the rest Also Tyndals his companions corruptions in their first English Bible in whose translation of the new Testament Bishop Tonstal professed openly in a sermon that he found no lesse than 2000. corruptions This you know he protested with the same tongue with which he forsware the Pope sware to the kings supremacie and with which he preached a solēne sermō which is in print before the King against the Popes vsurped tirāny pride false doctrine couetousnesse crueltie treason peruerting of Scriptures as in the same Sermon more at large it appeareth and therefor we neede not Lindanus writing to testifie of his credit But thankes be to God that when you haue scraped all that vnto you seemed to haue any shewe of corruption you can not finde 200. faultes in the translation of the whole Bible nor in three seuerall translations of the same which pointes you are faine to dilate with such vaine tautologies and repetitions that all learned men are ashamed of your tedious writing and yet to make your booke to be of some tollerable lēgth you had no better shift than to note a sort of Bezaes corruptions in his Latine Testament Who if you woulde write against him in Latine any thing worth the noting woulde thanke you for your paynes and reforme his errours but if you brought nothing but cauils woulde so shake you vppe as you shoulde haue small ioy of your insolent inuectiue but you prouided well for that by writing against a Frenchman in Englishe And as for the number of errours or coruptions that you woulde haue the ignoraunt beleeue to bee in our Englishe translations you thinke is so greate as must needes make the simple abhorre it But looke homewarde a litle vnto
your authenticall vulgar Latine translation howe manye faultes bee in that which your Tridentine Councell hath authorised And here I will not charge it with the aduersaries thereof as you doe ours but with great friendes of it and your doctrine Lindanus Bishoppe of Ruremonde and Isidorus Clarius Monke of Casine and Bishoppe Fulginatensis of whiche the former writeth a whole booke discussing howe he woulde haue the errours vices corruptions additions detractions mutations vncertaynties obscurities pollutions barbarismes and soelecismes of the vulgar Latine translation corrected and reformed bringing manye examples of euerie kinde in seuerall chapters and sections The other Isidorus Clarius giuing a reason of his purpose in castigation of the sayed vulgar Latine translation confesseth that it was full of errours almost innumerable which if he shoulde haue reformed all according to the Hebrue veritie he could not haue set forth the vulgar edition as his purpose was Therefore in many places he retayneth the accustomed tanslation but in his annotations admonisheth the reader howe it is in the Hebrue And notwithstanding this moderation he acknowledgeth that about 8000. places are by him so noted corrected This Epistle the Deputies of the Councell of Trent could not abide and therefore in the later edition of this Bible set forth with obseruation of their censure 1569. it is cleane left out as also a godly collection of the same Isidorus of places of Scripture exhorting to the studie of holy Scripture and a like sound confession of those thinges which the Scriptures teach c. MART. 26. But I omit these as vnknowen to our countrie or to this age and will deale principally with the English translations of our time which are in euery mans handes within our country the corruptions whereof as they are partly touched here and there in the annotations vpon the late newe English Testament Catholikely translated and printed at Rhemes so by occasion thereof I will by Gods helpe to the better commoditie of the Reader and euidence of the thing lay them closer togither and more largely display them not counting the number because it were hard but esteeming the weight and importance of so many as I thought good to note specially in the new Testament Where I haue to aduertise the Reader of certaine speciall things which he must obserue FVLK 26. You should rather omit them as vntrue for albeit it can not be denied but some faults may escape the most faithfull and diligent translator yet so many heretical corruptions either in the Dutch or English are incredible and turne rather to the discredit of the accuser in all wise mens iudgement than to the parties so charged In like maner as Surius noteth no lesse than 11000. lyes in Sleidan more to his owne reproche than to the defacing of Sleidans credit You professe wisely therefore not to count the number but to esteeme the weight and importaunce of suche faultes as you thought good to note if there were as great faithfulnesse in your performance as there is wisedom in your profession But now to your nine aduertisements to the Reader MART. 27. First that in this booke he may not looke for the proofe or explication and deciding of controuersies Which is done in the Annotations vpon the new Testament but onely therefuting or controlling of their false translations concerning the said controuersies which is the peculiar argument of this â—reatise FVLK 27. I thinke their is no wise reader woulde loke for the deciding of so many coÌ„trouersies in so smal a booke he that shal seeke them in your Annotations shall find euen as litle to the purpose except he will take your determinatioÌ„ without proofe for a sufficieÌ„t decisioÌ„ As for the doctors you quote without iudgment fraudulently falsly truncately and otherwise abusiuely haue all or the most bene answered long agoe And if neede shal be with litle labour may be answered againe MART. 28. Secondly that we refuâ—e sometime one of their translations sometime an other and euery one as their falshood giueth occasio Neither is it a good defense for the falshood of one that it is truely translated in an other the reader being deceyued by any one because commonly he readeth but one Yea one of them is a condemnation of the other FVLK 28. That sheweth your malice rather than either wisedome or honestie For if we our selues in our later translations haue corrected some small and few errours that haue ouerslipped vs in our former traÌ„slatioÌ„s we haue shewed our sinceritie and care of setting out the truth by al meanes And where you say it is no good defence the reader being deceiued by any one because coÌ„moÌ„ly he readeth but one I answere you first there is not in the worst translation any fault escaped that may of it selfe lead him into a damnable errour Secondly he hath the word of God expounded by catechizing sermons lectures in which he may learne the substance of Christian religion Thirdly he hath at hand euery where learned Diuines vnto whose counsell he may resort if he be offended with any thing that he readeth in his Bible souÌ„ding contrarie to the publikely receiued doctrine of the Church In that you say the one of our translations condemneth the other it had bene sufficient to haue said reproueth which is only where there is a manifest error in the one for otherwise the diuersities of traÌ„slations as S. Augustin teacheth you may much profit the simple readers they that be diligent studeÌ„ts of the Scriptures in the English tongue will not satisfie them selues with euery translation but wil seeke for the best approued MART. 29. Thirdly that we speake indifferently against Protestants Caluinists Bezites and Puritans without any curious distinction of them being all among themselues brethren and pewfellowes sometime the one sort of them sometime the other more or lesse corrupting the holy Scriptures FVLK 29. A wise aduertisement But this is to be noted that now you acknowledge them to be all brethren among them selues and pewfellowes But when you list they shall be at deadly feude one against an other and no communitie or fellowship betwene them MART. 30. Fourthly that we giue but a taste of their corruptions not seeing so farre nor marking all so narrowly and skilfully as them selues know their owne subtilties meanings who will smile at the places which we haue not espied FVLK 30. He that considereth your quarrels pickt to words of one signification as Church Congregation iustice and righteousnes Elder and Priest Image and Idol workes and deedes and such like will not thinke that you haue past ouer any great matters worth the writing of but that you would set a vaine bragge of the case as though there were much worse matter than you haue witte to conceiue Yet you say confidently that we as guiltie of our owne subtilties and meanings will smile at the places which you haue not espied You are like to those southsayers mentioned
in Tullie of whom one sayd that he maruailed if when they mette togither one of them did not smile vppon another because they deluded the cittie got themselues much honour with such vaine superstitions So you beyng newly become subtill and partial translaters thinke other men to be like your selfes But euen as the head of your Church once iested with his Cardinall how great wealth honour that fable of Christ so the beast called the Christian religion had brought them euen so you his lewde limmes make sporte among your selfe of the holy worde of God which you haue corrupted somewhat with your blinde translatioÌ„s but much more with your hereticall Annotations So said your great friend Campion in open audience that he could make as good sport vpon the incarnation of Christ. According to your owne affection therefore you iudge of vs and not according to the truth as the day will trie when the secretes of all hartes shall be made manifest MART. 31. Fifthly that the very vse and affectation of certaine termes and auoiding other some though it be no demonstration against them but that they may seeme to defend it for true translation yet was it necessarie to be noted because it is and hath bene alwayes a token of hereticall meaning FVLK 31. When our translation is true I doubt not but we shall defende the vse of some termes and the auoiding of other some by as good reason as you shall defende the like in your translations especially where you affect new termes vnused or not vnderstoode and auoide common and vsuall termes of the same signification as Euangelizing for preaching the Gospel adueÌ„t of Christ for the coÌ„ming of Christ scandalizing for offending scandale for offense c. Which if it be as you say alwayes a token of hereticall meaning first plucke your selfe by the nose and then see if we can not defend our doings MART. 32. Sixtly that in explicating these things we haue endeuoured to auoide as much as was possible the tediousnesse of Greeke and Hebrue wordes which are only for the learned in these tongues and which made some litle doubt whether this matter which of necessity must be examined by them were to be written in Englishe or no. But being perswaded by those who them selues haue no skill in the sayd tongues that euerie reader might reape commoditie thereby to the vnderstanding and detesting of such false Hereticall translations it was thought good to make it vulgar and common to all our deere countrie men as the newe Testament it selfe is common whereof this Discouerie is as it were a handmaide attending therevpon for the larger explication and proofe of corruptions there brieâ—ly touched and for supply of other some not there mentioned FVLK 32. He that seeth your margent painted with Greeke and Hebrewe wordes in so many places may guesse whether it were possible for you to haue auoided the tediousnesse of them when in diuerse places the Greeke and Hebrew wordes are set without all neede of them and sometimes where there is no controuersie about them as in the 5. section of this Preface where you shew the corruptions of the Arrians and Pelagians and in the 19 section where you would shew the difference of the new Testament from the olde in citing of testimonies But the Hebrewe word in the Psalme 21. or 22. which you falsly say signifieth no such thing as pearcing you set not downe lest your falshood by them that haue skill might be conuinced And if you had cared as much to finde out the truth as to shewe your skill in both the tongues you would haue written in Latine especially against Beza which neuer wrote in English And vaine it is that you pretend to make the matter common to your deare countrimen that be vnlearned for the iudgement muste reste in them that haue knowledge in the tongues albeit you had written in Latine It is all one therefore to the vnlearned as if you had onely said there are many faults or corruptions which in a Latine booke shall be discouered to the iudgement of the learned seeing the ignorant can not vnderstand your demoÌ„stratioÌ„s MART. 33. Seuenthly that all the English corruptions here noted and refuted are either in all or some of their English Bibles printed in these yeares 1562. 1577. 1579. And if the corruption be in one Bible not in an other commonly the sayd Bible or Bibles are noted in the margent if not yet sure it is that it is in one of them and so the Reader shall find it if he find it not alwaies in his owne Bible And in this case the Reader must be very wise and circumspect that he thinke not by and by we charge them falsly because they can shew him some later edition that hath it not so as we say For it is their common and knowen fashion not onely in their translations of the Bible but in their other bookes and writings to alter and change adde put out in their later editions according as either them selues are ashamed of the former or their scholers that print them againe dissent and disagree from their Maisters So hath Luthers Caluins and Bezaes writings and translations bene changed both by them selues and their scholers in many places so that Catholike men when they confute that which they find euident faults in this or that edition feare nothing more than that the Reader hath some other edition where they are corrected for very shame and so may conceiue that there is no such thing but that they are accused wrongfully For example Call to minde the late pretended conference in the Tower where that matter was denied and faced out for Luthers credit by some one booke or edition of his which them selues and all the world knoweth was most truly layd to his charge FVLK 33. First this is vntrue for some you haue noted in the new Testament printed 1580. Secondly it is vncertaine for two of these translations might be printed in one yeare and so I thinke they were Therefore I know not well which you meane but I guesse that the Bible 1562. is that which was of Doctor Couerdales translation most vsed in the Church seruice in King Edwards time The Bible 1577. I take to be that which being reuised by diuerse Bishops was first printed in the large volume and authorized for the Churches about tenne or twelue yeares agoe That of 1579. I knowe not what translation it be except it be the same that was first printed at Geneua in the beginning of the Queenes Maiesties Raigne And this coniecture as the fittest I can make I must followe seeing your note of distinction is as good as that fond fellowes that would know his maisters horse by the bridle But it is a common and knowen fashion you say vsed of vs that not onely in translations but in other bookes and writings of ours we alter and change adde and put to in our later editions And who vseth not
so to doe if by later cogitations that often are wiser he finde any thing meete to be changed Doe not you Papistes vse the same Is Bristowes chapter of obedience in his motiues nothing altered from the high treason contained in the first edition Is nothing added taken away or changed in your Iesus Psalter in any of your editions or are you your selues ashamed of the former Or haue your schollers presumed to alter their maisters writings If you may haue an euasion in these cases I trust we are not so pente in but we may change our owne writings without shame of the former or corruption in the later As for the example of S. Iames Epistle denyed as you saye and faced out for Luthers credit will serue you for no proofe For so farre off is it that we or the world doe knowe that is was moste truly layed to his charge that nowe we knowe of a certaintie that it was a very slaunder as false as it was common seeing Luthers wordes of that Epistle are not absolute but in comparison as is confessed by you and founde by some of vs to be none otherwise in deede who haue not stoode vpon one onely booke or edition but vpon as many as they could come by both in the Latine and in the Dutch tongue MART. 34. Eightly in citing Beza I meane alwaies vnlesse I note otherwise his Latine translation of the new Testament with his annotations adioyned thereunto printed in the yeare 1556. FVLK 34. You were afraide lest they that vnderstoode not Latine for whose sake you wrote in English this treatise might take hurt by Bezaes translations and annotations in Latine And if he him selfe haue espied and corrected any thing of his first edition that was either faultie or offensiue in his two later editions with great equitie as though you were the onely man that had discouered his errours you muste let all the vnlearned in Englande knowe what shamefull corruptions you haue obserued in Bezaes translation or annotations MART. 35. Lastly and principally is to be noted that we will not charge them with falsifying that which in deede is the true and authenticall Scripture I meane the vulgar Latine Bible which so many yeares hath bene of so great authoritie in the Church of God and with all the auncient fathers of the Latine Church as is declared in the Preface of the newe Testament though it is much to be noted that as Luther onely in fauour of his heresies did wilfully forsake it so the rest followed and doe follow him at this daye for no other cause in the world but that it is against them And therefore they inueigh against it and against the holye Councell of Trent for confirming the authoritie thereof both in their speciall treatises thereof and in all their writings where they can take any occasion FVLK 35. In the margent You will not charge vs with forsaking the old approued Latine text though it be an ill signe and to our euident confusion S. Augustine though a meere Latine man whome you your selfe doe after confesse to haue vnderstoode but one tongue well and that was euen his mother tongue learned as he confesseth of his nurses is not so addicted to the Latine translation but that he would haue men to seeke to the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines which you like a blasphemous hypocrite deny to be the true and authenticall Scriptures in deede allowing onely the vulgar Latine translation as though neither the Churches of Greece Syria Armenia Aethiopia nor any other in the world which haue not the vulgar Latine had not the true and authenticall Scriptures And though your vulgar Latine hath for many yeares bene of great authoritie in the Latine Church from the time when the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greeke tongues haue decayed yet is it vtterly false that you say that it hath bene of great authoritie with all the fathers of the Latine Church whereas there is not one that liued within 400. yeares after Christ that knew it but almost euery one followed a seueral translation And S. Augustine in the place before cited telleth you that there were innumerable translations out of the Greeke into the Latine Againe that your vulgar Latin is full of many errours and corruptions I haue shewed by the confession of Isidorus Clarius and Lindanus two of your owne profession of which the one tooke paines by the Hebrue and Greeke to correct it the other shewed meanes how it should be corrected And where you say that Luther and his followers forsooke it for none other cause in the world but that it is against them it is vtterly vntrue For beside that they haue made cleare demonstration of many palpable errours therein which they that haue any forehead amongst you cānot denie they haue and do dayly conuince you of horrible heresies euen out of your owne corrupt vulgar translation Finally whosoeuer shall reade what Caluine and Kemnitius hane written against the Councell of Trent for auctorizing that translation shall plainely see that they had something else to alledge against it which nothing at all concerneth their opinions that be contrarie to the Popish heresie MART. 36. And concerning their wilfull and hereticall auoyding thereof in their newe translations what greater argument can there be than this that Luther who before alwaies had reade with the Cath. Church and with all antiquitie these wordes of S. Paul Haue not we power to leade about A WOMAN A SISTER as also the rest of the Apostles and in S. Peter these wordes Labour that BY GOOD WORKES you may make sure your vocation and election sodenly after he had contrarie to his profession taken a wife as he called her and preached that all other votaries might do the same and that faith only iustified good workes were not necessarie to saluation sodenly I say after he fell to these heresies he began to reade and translate the former Scriptures accordingly thus Haue not we power to lead about a SISTER A WIFE as the rest of the Apostles and Labour that you may make sure your vocation and election leauing out the other wordes by good workes And so do both the Caluinists abroade and our English Protestants at home reade and translate at this day because they holde the selfe same heresies FVLK 36. If their be no greater argument as you confesse there can be none that their auoyding of this vulgar Latine is wilfull and hereticall than this that Luther defended his mariage beyng a votarie by that texte of 1. Corinth 9. wherein the Apostle challengeth power to leade aboute with him a sister to wife whiche your texte hath Mulierem sororem a woman a sister And that to proue that faith only iustifieth and good workes are not necessarie to saluation he lefte out of the text of S. Peter good workes by which the Apostle exhorteth vs to make sure vnto our selues our vocatiō election there is none argument at all of
corruption But if it shall be euidently proued that they shrinke from the same also and translate an other thing and that wilfully and of full intention to countenaunce their false religion and wicked opinions making the Scriptures to speake as they list then we trust the indifferent reader for his owne soules sake will easily see and conclude that they haue no feare of God no reuerence of the Scriptures no conscience to deceiue their readers he will perceiue that the Scriptures make against them which they so peruert and corrupt for their purpose that neither the Hebrue nor Greeke text is for them which they dare not translate truly and sincerely that their cause is naught which needeth suche fâ—ule shiftes that they must needes knowe all this and therefore doe wilfully against their conscience and consequently are obstinate heretikes FVLK 39. We craue no pardon if it can be proued that wee haue wilfully translated an other thing than is contained in the Hebrue and Greeke to maintaine any false religion or wicked opinion Prouided alwayes that if any translatour or all the translatours haue ignorantly erred in misunderstanding any worde or phrase of the Hebrue or Greeke text that if it may be plainly shewed vnto them they acknowledging the fault they may not be charged with hereticall corruption from which it is certaine their intention was most free MART. 40. And the more to vnderstand their miserie and wretchednesse before we enter to examine their translations marke and gather of all that which I haue sayed in this Preface their manifolde flightes and iumpes from one shift to an other and howe Catholike writers haue pursued and chased them and followed them driuen them euen to this extreame refuge seely couert of false translation where also they must of necessitie yeeld or deuise some new euasion which we can not yet imagine FVLK 40. Hitherto I hope the indifferent reader will confesse that you haue driuen vs to no iumpes nor shiftes but onely vttered your owne malicious and vnlearned quarrels And howe Popishe writers haue pursued and chased vs to extreame refuge and seely couert of false translation let it appeare by the learned answeres of M. Iewell M. Horne M. Nowell M. Bridges M. Calfhill and others that I speake nothing of mine owne simple labours who being one of the meanest hauing confuted tenne or twelue of your Popishe treatises can receiue no replye of any man but onely of poore Bristowe to whome in this respecte I confesse my selfe more beholding than to all the Papistes beside sauing that I haue reioyned to him almost two yeares agoe and yet I heare not of his answere MART. 41. First we are wont to make this offer as we thinke most reasonable and indifferent that forasmuch as the Scriptures are diuersely expounded of vs of them they neither be tied to our interpretation nor we to theirs but to put it to the arbitrement iudgement of the auncient fathers of generall Councels of vniuersall custome of times and places in the Catholike Church No say they we will be our owne iudges and interpreters or follow Luther if we be Lutherans Caluin if we be Caluinists and so forth FVLK 41. For expounding of the Scriptures we will not refuse the arbitrement and iudgement of the auncient fathers of generall Councels of vniuersall custome of times and places in the Catholike church for this you say is your offer which was neuer refused of vs though you most falsely affirme that we say we will be our owne iudges and interpretours or followe Luther if we be Lutherans Caluine if we be Caluinistes c. Who euer sayed so you shamelesse sclauâ—derer What haue you differing from vs Wherein you haue the iudgement of the auncient fathers of generall Councels of vniuersall custome of times and places in the Catholike church Vnlesse perhappes you meane some wretched sophistrie by disioyning these that you here seeme to ioyne togither And if you so doe we must first aske you whether you your selues in all expositions of the Scriptures will stand to the arbitrement of euerie auncient father or of euerie generall Councell or of any custome in any time or place I knowe and you can not deny it that you will stande to nothing that is not allowed by your Pope though fathers councels custome time or place or all the world be against it yea the manifest Scripture which is so plaine that it needeth no exposition as the commaundement against images in religion Theodoret Gelasius Vigilius Chrysostome against transubstantiation Epiphanius against images the sixt councell of Constantinople for condemning the Pope of heresie the councels of Constance and Basil for deposing the Popes and decreeing that the councell is aboue the Pope many other like matters beside in which you goe clearely from the consent of all antiquitie for 600. yeares as the Bishoppe of Sarum hath made plaine demonstration and you are not able to replie MART. 42. This being of it selfe a shamelesse shift vnlesse it be better coloured the next is to say that the Scriptures are easie and plaine and sufficient of them selues to determine euerie matter and therefore they will be tried by the Scriptures onely We are content because they will needes haue it so and we alleage vnto them the bookes of Tobie Ecclesiasticus Machabees No say they we admit none of these for Scripture Why so are they not approued Canonicall by the same authoritie of the Church of auncient Councels and fathers that the other bookes are No matter say they Luther admitteth them not Caluine doth not allow them FVLK 42. That the Scriptures are plaine and easie to be vnderstoode of them that vse the ordinary meanes to come to it for all doctrine necessarie to be knowen and sufficient to determine euerie matter the holie Ghost him selfe doth testifie 2. Tim. 3. and some of the auncient fathers also doe beare witnesse as Augustine de doct Christ. lib. 2. Chrysost. in Gen. hom 13. de verb. Esai Vidi dâ—minum c. hom 2. If therefore you had the spirite of the auncient fathers you would be content to be tryed by the Scriptures for reuerence you ought to Gods most holye and perfect writings and not because we will haue it so who are content in many controuersies to be tryed by the iudgement of the auncient fathers or general Councels or vniuersall custom of times and places and in all controuersies wherein all the auncient fathers all Councels and vniuersall custom of all times and places doe consent if any think such things can be brought against vs as it is falsly and sophistically bragged But whereas we refuse the bokes of Tobie Ecclesiasticus Machabees for Canonicall Scripture it is not as you say ridiculously because Luther and Caluine admitteth them not but because they are contrary to the Canonicall Scriptures and were neâ—er receiued of the Church of Israel for Canonicall nor of the Catholike Church of Christ for more than 400. yeares after
when they professe they are of thē selues vniust of Sacraments mysteries by which the benefits of Christ are sealed vp vnto them of altar when they beleue that Iesus Christ is our altar of Priests when they hold that al good Christians are Priests of deuotions when they dispute that ignorance is not the mother of true deuotion but knowledge of excommunication which they practise daily As for the names and thinges of procession shrines images traditions beside the holy Scriptures in religiō they haue iust cause to abhorre Neither do they vse the one sort of termes without probable ground out of the originall text nor auoide the other but vpon some good speciall cause as in the seueral places when we are charged with them shal appeare MART. 17. If in a case that maketh for them they straine the very originall signification of the word and in a case that maketh against them they neglect it altogither what is this but wilfull and of purpose See chap. 7. numb 36. FVLK 17. I answer we streine no words to signifie otherwise than the nature and vse of them will affoord vs neither doe we spare to expresse that which hath a shewe against vs if the propertie or vsuall signification of the word with the circumstance of the place doe so require it MART. 18. If in wordes of ambiguous and diuerse signification they will haue it signifie here or there as it pleaseth them and that so vehemently that here it must needes so signifie and there it must not and both this and that to one ende and in fauour of one and the same opinion what is this but wilfull translation So doth Beza vrge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie wife and not to signifie wife both against virginitie and chastitie of Priestes and the English Bible translateth accordingly See chap. 15. num 11. 12. FVLK 18. To the generall charge I answer generally we do not as you slaunder vs. Nor Beza whom you shamefully belye to vrge the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 7. v. 1. not to signifie a wife against virginitie and chastitie of Priestes For cleane contrariwise he reproueth Erasmus restraining it to a wife which the Apostle saith generally it is good for a man not to touch a woman which doth not onely conteine a commendation of virginitie in them that be vnmaried but also of continencie in them that be maried And as for the virginity or chastitie of Priestes he speaketh not one worde of it in that place no more than the Apostle doth Now touching the other place that you quote 1. Cor. 9. v. 5. Beza doth truely translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sister to wife because the word sister is first placed which comprehendeth a woman and therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following must needes explicate what woman he meaneth namely a wife For it were absurd to say a sister a woman Therfore the vulgar Latine Interpreter peruerteth the words saith Mulierem sororem It is true that many of the auncient fathers as too much addict to the singlenes of the Clergie though they did not altogither condemne mariage in them as the Papists doe did expound the sister whereof S. Paule speaketh of certaine rich matrones which followed the Apostles whithersoeuer they went ministred to them of their substance as we reade that many did to our Sauiour Christ. Math. 27. v. 55. Luc. 8. v. 3. But that exposition can not stand nor agree with this text for many causes First the placing of the wordes which I haue before spoken of Secondly this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were needeles except it should signifie a wife for the word sister signifieth both a woman a faithful woman and otherwise it was not to be doubted least the Apostle would leade a heathen woman with him Thirdly the Apostle speaketh of one womā not many wheras there were many that followed our Sauiour Christ whereas one alone to follow the Apostle might breede occasion of ill suspition and offence which many could not so easily Fourthly those that are mentioned in the Gospell our Sauiour Christ did not leade about but they did voluntarily follow him but the Apostle here saith that he had authoritie as the rest of the Apostles to leade about a woman which argueth the right that an husband hath ouer his wife or of a maister ouer his maide Fiftly it is not all one if women could trauel out of Galilie to Ierusalem which was nothing neare an hundred miles that women could followe the Apostles into all partes of the world Sixtly if the cause why such women are supposed to haue followed the Apostles was to minister to them of their substance the leading them about was not burdenous to the Church but helpeful but the Apostle testifieth that he forbare to vse this libertie because he would not be burdenous to the Church of Corinth or to any of them Seuenthly seing it is certaine that Peter had a wife and the rest of the Apostles are by antiquitie reputed to haue bene all maried It is not credible that Peter or any of the rest would leaue the companie of their owne wiues leade strange women about with them As for the obiection that you make in your note vppon the text to what ende should he talke of burdening the Corinthians with finding his wife when he himself cleerely saith that he was single I answer Although I thinke he was single yet is it not so cleere as you make it for Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh he had a wife which he left at Philippi by mutual consent But albeit he were single it was lawfull for him to haue maried and Barnabas also as wel as all the rest of the Apostles Againe to what end should he talke of burdening the Church with a woman which was not his wife when such women as you say ministred to the Apostles of their goods Wherby it should follow that none of the Apostles burdened the Churches where they preached with their owne finding which is cleane contrary to the Apostles wordes and meaning Wherefore the translation of Beza and of our Church is most true and free from all corruption MART. 19. If the Puritans grosser Caluinists disagree about the translations one part preferring the Geneua English Bible the other the Bible read in their Church if the Lutherans condemne the Zuinglians Caluinistes translations and contrariwise if all Sectaries reproue eche an others translation What doth it argue but that the translations differ according to their diuerse opinions See their bookes written one against another FVLK 19. Here againe is nothing but a generall charge of disagreeing about translations of Puritans Caluinists Lutherans Zuinglians and of all Sectaries reprouing one an others translation with as generall a demonstration See the bookes written one against an other which would aske longer time than is needeful to answer such a vaine cauil when it is alwaies sufficient
it if in this case they will adde only to the very text is it not most horrible and diuelish corruption So did Luther whom our English ProtestaÌ„ts honor as their father in this heresie of only faith are his owne childreÌ„ See ch 12. FVLK 24. In the question of iustification by faith only where S. Iames saieth no we say no also neyther can it be proued that we adde this word only to the text in any translation of oures If Luther did in his translation adde the worde only to the texte it can not be excused of wrong translation in worde although the sense might well beare it But seing Luther doth him selfe confesse it he may be excused of frawde though not of lacke of iudgement But why should our translation be charged with Luthers corruption Because our English Protestants honour him as their father A very lewde slaunder for we call no man father vpon earth though you do call the Pope your father albeit in another sense Luther was a reuerende father of the Churche for his time But as touching the doctrine of only faith iustifying it hath more patrones of the fathers of the auncient primitiue Church than Martine can beare their bookes though he would breake his backe who in the same plaine wordes do affirme it as Luther doth that only faith doth iustifie And the Apostle which saieth that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law speaketh more plainely for iustification by faith only as we do teach it than if he had sayed a man is iustified by faith only Which text of Rom. 3. and many other are as expresse scripture to proue that we teach and beleeue as that S. Iames sayeth against iustification by faith only where he speaketh of an other faith and of an other iustification than S. Paule speaketh of and we vnderstand when we holde that a man is iustified by faith only or without workes of the law which is all one MART. 25. If these that account themselues the great Grecians and Hebricians of the world will so translate for the aduauntage of their cause as though they had no skill in the world and as though they knew neither the significatioÌ„ of words nor proprietie of phrases in the saide languages is it not to be esteemed shamelesse corruption FVLK 25. Yes but if it can not be proued that so they translate then is this an impudent slaunder as al the rest are and so it will proue when it coÌ„meth to be tried MART. 26. I will not speake of the German Heretikes who to mainteine this heresie that all our workes be they neuer so good are sinne translated for Tibi soli peccaui to thee only haue I sinned thus Tibi solùm peccaui that is I haue nothing else but sinned whatsoeuer I do I sinne whereas neither the Greeke nor the Hebrewe will possibly admit that sense Let these passe as Lutherans yet wilfull corrupters and acknowledged of our English Protestants for their good brethren But if Beza translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when we were yet of no strength as the Geneua English Bible also doth interprete it whereas euery young Grecian knoweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is weake feeble infirme and not altogither without strength is not this of purpose to take away mans free will altogither See chap. 10. nu 13. FVLK 26. I knowe not what German heretikes those be which maintaine that heresie that al our works be they neuer so good are sinne except they be the Libertines with whom we haue nothing to do For we neuer say that good workes are sinne for that were al one to say that good were euill But that al our good workes are short of that perfection which the law of God requireth we do humbly confesse against our selues Or else what soeuer seemeth to be a good worke and is done of meÌ„ voyde of true faith is sinne For these assertions we haue the scripture to warraÌ„t vs. And if to proue the later any man hath translated those words of Dauid in the 51. Psalme Lecha Lebadecha Tibi solum or tantuÌ„modo tibi peccaui c. To the only or altogither to thee I haue sinned in respect of his naturall corruption which he doth expresse in the next verse he hath not departed one whitte from the Hebrewe wordes nor from the sense which the wordes may very wel beare which he that denieth rather sheweth him selfe ignorant in the Hebrew tongue than he that so translateth For what doth Lebad signifie but Solum or Tantum and therefore it may as well be translated Solum tibi as Soli â—ibi And the Apostle Rom. 3. prouing by the later end of that verse all men to be vniust that God only may be true and euery man a lier as it is written that thou mayest be iustified in thy wordes c. fauoreth that interpretation of Bucer or who soeuer it is beside But if Beza translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when wee were yet of no strength as the Geneua Englishe Bible doth also interprete it whereas euerye young Grecian knoweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is weake feeble infirme and not altogither withoute strengthe is not this of purpose to take awaye mannes free wyll altogither Chapter tenth Number 13. Naye it is to shewe as the Apostles purpose is that wee haue no strength to fulfill the lawe of God without the grace of Christ euen as Christ him selfe sayth without me you can do nothing Ioan. 15. v. 5. But euery young Grecian saye you knoweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is weake feeble infirme and not altogither with out strength And is there then any old Grecian that will proue that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alway signifieth him that is weake but not voide of strength Doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwayes signifie him that hath some streÌ„gth Certaine it is that the Apostle speaketh here of those that were voide of strength for the same he calleth in the same verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vngodly or voide of religion for whom Christ died Howe say you then had vngodly persons any strength to be saued except Christ had died for them Therefore he that in this place translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 weake feeble infirme must needes vnderstand men so weake feeble and infirme as they haue no strength For how might it else be truely sayed what hast thou which thou hast not receiued 1. Cor. 4. v. 7. Yes say you we haue some peece of freewil at least some strength to clime to heauen euen without the grace of God without the death redemption of Christ. If you say no why cauill you at Bezaes translation and ours The Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as great a Grecian as you would make your selfe signifieth weake or infirme sometime that which yet hath some strength sometime that which hath no strength at all as I will giue you a plaine example out of S.
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
of faith necessarie to saluation are comprehended But we are content to be iudged by those places which seeme of most importance for the dignity preheminence authoritye of the Church MART. 2. Our Sauiour saith Vpon this Rocke I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it They make him to say Vpō this rocke I wil build my congregation Againe If he heare not them tell the Church if he heare not the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and as a publicane they say Congregation Againe who woulde thinke they woulde haue altered the worde Church in the Epistle to the Ephesians their English translation for many yeares red thus Ye husbands loue your wiues as Christ loued the congregation and clensed it to make it vnto him selfe a glorious congregation without spot or wrinkle And This is a great secrete but I speake of Christ of the cōgregation And to Timothee The house of God which is the cōgregation of the liuing God the pillar and grounde of truth Here is no worde of Churche which in Latine Greeke is Ecclesia Dei viui columna firmamētum veritatis Likewise to the Ephesians againe He hath made him heade of the congregation which is his bodie And to the Hebrues they are all bolde to translate The congregation of the first borne where the Apostle nameth heauenly Hierusalem the citie of the liuing God c. FVLK 2. In the first English Bible printed where it was thus translated Math. 16. vppon this rocke I will build my congregation the note in the margent is thus vpon this rock that is as saith S. Augustin vpon the confession which thou hast made knowledging me to be Christ the sonne of the liuing God I will build my congregation or Church Was not this translator thinke you sore afraid of the name of the Church What other thing should he vnderstand by the word congregation in al places by you noted or in any like but the church as he doth here expound him selfe And this translation almost worde for worde doth the Bible you call 1562. follow MART. 3. So that by this translation there is no more Church militant and triumphant but congregation and he is not head of the Church but of the congregation and this congregation at the time of the making of this translation was in a few new brethren of England for whose sake the name Church was left out of the English Bible to commend the name of congregation aboue the name of Church Whereas S. Augustine telleth them that the Iewes Synagogue was a congregation the Church a conuocation and that a congregation is of beasts also a conuocation of reasonable creatures onely and that the Iewes congregation is sometime called the Church but the Apostles neuer called the Church Congregation Doe you see then what a goodly chaunge they haue made for Church to say congregation so making themselues a very Synagogue that by the property of the Greeke word which yet as S. Augustine telleth them most truely signifieth rather a conuocation FVLK 3. A strange matter that the Church militant and triumphant should be excluded by vsing the word congregation when by it nothing is signified but the congregation or Church militant and triumphant and that Christ should no more be head of the Churche when he is head of the congregation where the differēce is only in sound of words not in sense or meaning Your vaine and ridiculous surmise why the name of Church shuld be left out of the Bible I haue before cōfuted shewing that in euery Bible it is either in the text or in the notes But S. Augustin telleth vs say you that the Iewes synagoge was a congregation the church a cōuocation that a congregation is of beasts also a conuocation of reasonable creatures only But S. Luke in the person of S. Stephen telleth vs and Augustine telleth vs as much that the synagoge of the Iewes is called also Ecclesia which signifieth the church and congregation That Congregatio the Latin word may be of beasts also it skilleth not for the church of Christ is called also a flocke and sheepe of his pasture But he that should say in English a cōgregation of beastes might be taken for as wise a man as he that said an audiēce of sheepe And wheras S. Augustine telleth you that the Iewes congregation is somtime called the church what is the cause that you doe translate it the assembly Act. 7. euen as you do the congregation of the Idolatrous Ephesians Act. 19 But further you say Augustine telleth vs that the Apostles neuer called the church congregation It is a worlde to see what foolishe fetches you haue to deceiue the ignoraunt Augustine sayeth the Apostles neuer called our assembly Synagoga but alwaies Ecclesia and yet he is a litle deceiued for S. Paul calleth our gathering togither vnto Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Congregatio a cōgregation he saith not And although he make a nice distinction betwene the wordes Congregation Conuocation yet all men which know the vse of these words will confesse no necessitie of a Iewish synagoge to be implied in the word cōgregation more than in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of the holy Ghost is vsed for an assembly or gathering togither either of Iewes Christiās or Gentils And therfore it seemeth the translatour vsed the word congregation which is indifferent for all euen as the worde Ecclesia is vsed both in the Greeke and vulgar Latine MART. 4. If they appeale here to their later translatiōs we must obtaine of them to condemne the former and to confesse this was a grosse fault cōmitted therein And that the Catholike Church of our coūtrie did not il to forbid burne such bookes which were so translated by Tyndal and the like as being not in deede Gods booke worde or Scripture but the Diuels worde Yea they must confesse that the leauing out of this worde Church altogither was of an hereticall spirite against the Catholike Romane Church because then they had no Caluinisticall Church in any like forme of religion gouernement to theirs now Neither will it serue them to say after their maner And if a man should translate Ecclesiam congregation this is no more absurdity than in steede of a Greeke word to vse a Latin of the same signification This we trow will not suffise them in the iudgement of the simplest indifferent Reader FVLK 4. Wee neede not to appeale to the later translations for any corruption or falsification of the former no nor for any mistranslation For seing the spirite of God as I haue said before vseth the word Ecclesia generally for a companie of Christians Iewes and Gentils the translator hath not gone from the truth and vse of the Scriptures to vse the word cōgregation which signifieth indifferently all three Wherefore there needeth no condemnation nor
confession of any grosse faulte herein cōmitted except you will count it a grosse fault in S. Luke to vse the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any scrupulositie for all three as the translator doth the worde congregation and you in two significations the worde assemblye Neither can your heathenish and barbarous burning of the holy Scriptures so translated nor your blasphemie in calling it the deuils worde be excused for any fault in translation which you haue discouered as yet or euer shall be able to descrye That stinking cauill of leauing out of the Bible this worde Church altogither being both foolish and false I haue aunswered more than once alreadye It is not left out altogither that in contents of bookes and chapiters and in notes of explication of this worde congregation is set downe Neither could there be any purpose against the Catholike Churche of Christe in them that translated and taught the Creede in English professing to beleeue the holy Catholike Church As for our hatred of the malignant Antichristian Church of Rome we neuer dissembled the matter so that wee were afrayed openly to professe it what neede had wee then after suche a fantasticall manner as is fondly imagined to insinuate it MART. 5. But my Maisters if you would confesse the former faults and corruptions neuer so plainely is that inough to iustifie your corrupt dealing in the holy Scriptures Is it not an horrible fault so wilfully to falsifie and corrupt the worde of God written by the inspiration of the holy Ghost May you abuse the people for certaine yeares with false translations and afterward say Loe we haue amended it in our later translations Then might the Heretike Beza be excused for translating in steede of Christes soule in hell his carcas in the graue And because some friend told him of that corruption he corrected it in the later editions he shoulde neuerthelesse in your iudgement be counted a right honest man No be ye sure the discrete Reader can not be so abused but he will easily see that there is a great difference in mending some ouersights which may escape the best men in your grosse false translations who at the first falsifie of a prepensed malice and afterwardes alter it for verie shame Howbeit to say the truth in the chiefest principal place that concerneth the Churches perpetuitie stability you haue not yet altered the former translation but it remaineth as before and is at this day red in your Churches thus Vpon this Rocke I will build my congregation Can it be without some hereticall subtiltie that in this place specially and I thinke only you chaunge not the worde congregation into Church Giue vs a reason and discharge your credit FVLK 5. You are very hardly in very deede maliciously bent against vs that you will accept no confession of faults escaped neuer so plainly made As for corrupt dealing in the holy Scriptures and falsifying of the word of god you are not able no not if you would burst your selfe for malice to conuict vs. And therefore looke for no confession of any such wickednes whereof our conscience is cleare before God and doth not accuse vs. As for Bezaes correction of his formen translation Act. 2. v. 27. if your dogged stomach will not accept he shall notwithstanding with all godly learned men be accoūted as he deserueth for one who hath more profited the Church of God with his sincere translation and learned annotations than all the popish Seminaries and Seminarists shall be able to hinder it iangle of grosse false translations as long as you will But the chiefest principall place that concerneth the Churches perpetuitie is not yet reformed to your minde For in the Bible 1577. we reade still Math. 16. vpon this rocke I will build my congregation If Christ haue a perpetuall congregation builded vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles him selfe being the corner stone his Church is in no daunger euer to decay Yet you aske whether it can be without some hereticall subtiltie that in this place specially and as you thinke onely the word congregation is not chaunged into Church It is an homely but a true prouerbe the good wife would neuer haue sought her daughter in the ouen had she not bene there first her selfe You are so full of hereticall subtilties and traiterous deuises that you dreame of them in other mens doinges whatsoeuer commeth into your handes yea where you your selfe can haue no probable imagination what to suspect And therefore we must giue you a reason in discharge of our credit For my part I knowe not with what speciall reason the translator was moued but I can giue you my probable coniecture that he thought it all one as in deede it is to say my congregation or my Church For what is Christes congregation but his Church or what is Christes Church but his congregation And yet to put you out of all feare the Geneua translation hath the worde Church that you make so great account of as though it were not an indifferent word to the true Church of true Christians and the false Church of malignant Heretikes being vsurped first to signifie the congregation of Christians by a Metonymie of the place containing for the people contained For the etymologie thereof is from the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was vsed of Christians for the place of their holy meetings signifying the Lordes house therefore in the northren which is the more auncient English speech is called by contraction Kyrke more neare to the sound of the Greeke word MART. 6. What shal I say of Beza whom the English Bibles also follow translating actiuely that Greeke word which in common vse and by S. Chrysostoms and the Greeke doctors exposition is a plaine passiue to signifie as in his annotations is cleare that Christ may be without his Church that is a head without a body The words be these in the heretical translation He gaue him to be the heade ouer all thinges to the Church which Church is his body the fulnes of him that filleth all in all S. Chrysostom saith Beza he might haue said all the Greeke Latine auncient fathers taketh it passiuely in this sense that Christ is filled all in all because all faithfull men as members the whole Church as the bodie cōcurre to the fulnes accomplishment of Christ the head But this saith he seemeth vnto me a forced interpretation Why so Beza FVLK 6. That Beza translateth the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 actiuely it is plaine both in the text of his translation in his annotations But that he doth it to signifie that Christ may be without his Church that is a head without a body it is a shameles slaūder His words vpon which you weaue this cobweb are these Omninò autem hoc addidit Apostolus vt sciamus Christum per se non indigere hoc supplemento vt
hāds least as we haue laughed at in some men the secrete imprecation of the voyce should ordaine Clerkes being ignorant thereof And so proceedeth to inueigh against the abuse of them that would ordaine Clerkes of their basest officers and seruitours yea at the request of foolish women By which it is manifest that his purpose is not to tell what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly doth signifie but that imposition of handes is required in lawfull ordination which many did vnderstand by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although in that place it signified no such matter And therefore you muste seeke further authoritie to proue your Ecclesiasticall etymologie that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth putting foorth of the handes to giue orders The places you quote in the margent out of the titles of Nazianzens sermons are to no purpose although they were in the texte of his Homilies For it appeareth not although by Synecdoche the whole order of making Clerkes were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that election was excluded where there was ordination by imposition of handes As for that you cite out of Ignatius proueth against you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differeth from imposition of hands because it is made a distinct office from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifieth to lay on handes and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by your owne author doe differ MART. 8. But they are so profane and secular that they translate the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all the new Testament as if it had the old profane signification still were indifferent to signifie the auncients of the Iewes the Senatours of Rome the elders of Lacedemonia and the Christian Clergie In so much that they say Paul sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Act. 20. and yet they were such as had their flockes and cure of soules as foloweth in the same place They make S. Paul speake thus to Timothee Neglect not the gift so they had rather say than grace lest holy orders should be a Sacrament giuen thee with the laying on of the handes of the Eldership or by the authoritie of the Eldership 1. Tim. 4. What is this companie of Eldership Somewhat they woulde say like to the Apostles worde but they will not speake plainly least the worlde might heare out of the Scriptures that Timothee was made Priest or Bishop euen as the vse is in the Catholike Churche at this day Lette the fourth Councell of Carthage speake for bothe partes indifferently and tell vs the Apostles meaning A Prieste when hee taketh his orders the Bishoppe blessing him and holding his hande vppon his head let all the Priestes also that are present holde their handes by the Bishops hand vpon his head So doe our priestes as this daye when a Bishop maketh priests and this is the laying on of the handes of the companie of Priests which S. Paule speaketh of which they translate the companie of the Eldership Onely their former translation of 1562. in this place by what chaunce or consideration we know not let fall out of the penne by the authoritie of Priesthood FVLK 8. We desire not to be more holy in the englishe termes than the holye Ghost was in the Greeke termes Whome if it pleased to vse such a word as is indifferent to signifie the auncients of the Iewes the Senators of Rome the Elders of Lacedemonia and the Christian Cleargie why shoulde we not truely translate it into English But I pray you in good sadnes are we so profane and secular Act. 20. in calling those whome Saint Paule sent for out of Ephesus Elders What shall we saye then of the vulgar Latine text which calleth them Maiores natu as though they obtayned that degree by yeares rather than by any thing else and why doe you so profanely and secularly call them the Auncients of the Church Is there more profanenesse and secularitie in the Englishe worde Elders than in the Latine worde Maiores natu or in your Frenchenglishe terme Auncients Surely you doe nothing but play with the noses of such as be ignorant in the tongues and can perceiue no similitude or difference of these wordes but by the sounde of their eares But nowe for the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed by Saint Paule 1. Tim. 4. which we call the Eldershippe or the companye of Elders I haue shewed before howe it is vsed by Saint Luke in his Gospell cap. 22. and Act. 22. You saye we will not speake playnely lest the worlde shoulde heare that Timothie was made Priest or Bishop euen as the vse is in the Catholike Church at this day And then you tell vs out of the Councell of Carthage 4. cap. 3. that all the Priestes present shoulde laye their handes on the heade of him that is ordayned togither with the Bishoppe We knowe it well and it is vsed in the Church of England at this daye Onely the terme of Eldership displeaseth you when we meane thereby the companye of Elders But whereas the translators of the Bible 1562. call it Priesthood eyther by Priesthood they meant the same that we doe by Eldershippe or if they meant by Priesthood the office of Priestes or Elders they were deceiued For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a companie of Elders as it is twise vsed by S. Luke and oftentimes by the auncient writers of the Church both Greekes and Latines MART. 9. Otherwise in all their English Bibles all the bells ringe one note as The Elders that rule well are worthye of double honour And Against an Elder receiue no accusation but vnder two or three witnesses 1. Tim. 5. And If any be diseased among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray ouer him and annoynt him with oyle c. Iacob 5. Wheras Saint Chrysostom out of this place proueth the high dignitie of Priestes in remitting sinnes in his booke entituled Of Priesthood vnlesse they will translate that title also Of Eldershippe Againe they make S. Peter saye thus The Elders which are among you I exhort which am also an Elder feedeye Christes flocke as much as lyeth in you c. 1. Pet 5. FVLK 9. In these three textes you triumphe not a litle because your vulgar Latine text hath the Greeke worde Presbyter The high dignitie of Priestes or Elders in remitting sinnes we acknowledge with Chrysostom in his booke entitled of Priesthood which seing it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will neuer translate Eldershippe But we may lawfully wishe that both Chrysostom and other auncient writers had kept that distinction of termes which the Apostles and Euangelists did so precisely obserue In the last text 1. Pet. 5. your vulgar Latine sayth Seniores and Consenior your selues in English seniors and fellow senior What trespasse then haue we committed in saying Elders fellow Elder or an Elder also MART. 10.
are such about which meÌ„ are not agreed as in this place you should rather coÌ„mend our equity that suffer such traÌ„slations to be in the peoples handes in which is some colour of maintaining your errors against vs. But if you be so rigorous that a booke of Scripture may not be red in which there is any fault I charge you call in your translation of the new Testament for therein are shamefull faults and such as you can not defend or excuse except it be by the fault of the Printer whereof yet you haue not admonished the reader I will giue you a tast of some and let all men iudge whether they be not intolerable faultes For they are no lesse than detracting and taking away from the word of God As 1. Cor. 14. v. 38. where both the Greeke and the Latine is If they will learne Your translation is If they learne any thing Likewise Actes 5. v. 4. where bothe the Greeke and Latine is Festus answeared that Paule is kepte at Caesarea you translate Festus answered that Paule is in Caesarea leauing out the worde kepte as before you lefte out the worde will or desire whiche altereth the sense very much But in a place of greater moment and in a matter of some controuersie of Gods particuler preordination and fore appointment you leaue out a whole clause Act. 10. v. 41. For where it is bothe in the Greeke and in the Latine that God made the resurrection of his sonne manifest not to all the people but to the witnesses chosen before of God to vs which did eate and drinke with him c. Your English translation hath no more but thus Not to all the people but to vs who did eate and drinke with him c. Leauing cleane out that which is in your Latine text Testibus praeordinatis à Deo Also in the Epistle to the Hebrues cap. 7. v. 28. where bothe the Greeke and your vulgar Latine hath The law appointeth Priests men that haue infirmitie your translation is the lawe appointeth Priests them that haue infirmitie leauing out Homines a word very material in this place to obserue the oppositioÌ„ betweene the Priesthood of meÌ„ the Priesthood of the sonne of God These faultes in the new Testament being some of them whiche I by no diligent reading haue obserued nowe you be admonished of them we shall see whether you will call in your translation or coÌ„maunde your disciples to burne their bookes If you will not I pray you be good maister to vs and let our Bibles goe abroad stil for any faults we haue our selues amended and admonished all diligent Readers thereof by our later translations And because you cracke so much of the exposition of the Doctors and of the whole Churche of God against vs I muste let the Reader vnderstand that the whole Greeke Churche which for the most parte knewe none other text but the Septuaginta must needes expound the place of Abel as we do because the Greeke text is manifestly in the Masculine gender And so doth Chrysostome in Gen. Hom. 18. expound the place in these words Ne putes inquit licet tuum auersatus sim sacrificium ob prauam meÌ„tem fratrisque oblationem acceptam habuerim ob sanam intentionem quod ideo primatu te destituam primogeniturae dignitatem à te auferam Nam licet honore ego illum prosecutus fuerim acceptaque fuerint illius dona c. Thinke not sayeth he that although I haue refused thy sacrifice for thy naughtie minde and haue receiued thy brothers oblation for his good and sound meaning that therefore I will depriue thee of the primacie and take away from thee the dignitie of the birthright For although I haue vouchsafed him of honour that his gifts haue bene receiued yet vnto thee belongeth his conuersion and thou shalt rule ouer him And this I permit after thy sinne that thou mayest enioy the priuiledges of thy birthright and I commaund him to be vnder thy power and dominion You were best now to rayle vpon Chrysostome and charge him with heresie and schismaticall exposition contrarie to the holy Doctors and the whole Church of God against freewill of man Which because it is your quarrell you haue S. Ambrose also your enemie De Caine Abel lib. 2. cap. 7. Who although as he redde it in Latine did thinke it must be referred to him and not to his brother yet he expoundeth it not of the strength of free wil but chargeth Came to be author of his owne errour Culpae ipsius ad â—e conuersio est The coÌ„uersion of the fault it selfe is vnto thee For his brother is not added to him but errour is ascribed whereof he him selfe is author to him selfe The crime sayth he will returne vpon thee which began of thee Thou hast not whereby to accuse necessitie more than thyne owne minde The wickednesse is retorted backe vpon thee thou art Prince of it He sayth well thou art Prince of it for impietie is the mother of sinnes c You see therefore that if you could obtaine that these relatiues were referred to him yet your free will were not by and by to be builded vpon the place and that all be not heretikes which drawe that text to an other exposition than standeth with your good liking MART. 13. Againe they translate in some of their Bibles agaynst free wil thus Christ when we were yet OF NO STRENGTH died for the vngodly Rom. 5. v. 6. The Apostles word doth not signifie that we had nostrength but that we were weake seeble infirme Man was wounded in free will by the sinne of Adam as he that in the Gospell went downe from Hierusalem to Iericho which is a parable of this thing he was not slayne altogither But I stande not here or in any place to dispute the controuèrsie that is done else where This onely I say because* they falsely holde that free will was altogither loste by Adams sinne therefore they translate accordingly When we had no strength But the Greeke worde is well knowen both in profane authors and Ecclesiasticall and specially in the newe Testament it selfe throughout to signifie nothing else but weake feeble sicke infirme Looke me through the newe Testament wheresoeuer infirmitie feeblenesse languishing and the like are spoken of there is founde this Greeke worde to expresse it What Grecian knoweth not be he but simply acquainted with phrases and nature of wordes what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe signifie When the Apostle sayth Quis infirmatur ego non vror Who is weake and infirme and I am not much grieued shall we translate who is of no strength c. or let them giue vs an instance where it is certaine that this word must needes signifie of no strength Will they pretend the etymologie of the word a ridiculous and absurd euasion we aske them of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a worde of the very same
againe as in al Churches they doe which bee called POENITENTES For of such penance spake S Paule 2. Cor. 12. 21. saying THAT I LAMENT NOT MANY OF THEM WHICH BEFORE HAVE SINNED AND HAVE NOT DONE PENANCE FOR THEIR VNCLEANNESSE We haue also in the Actes that Simon Magus being baptized was admonished by Peter TO DO PENANCE for his grieuous sinne There is also in maner a dayly Penance of the good and humble beleeuers in which wee knocke our breasts saying FORGIVE VS OVR DETTES For these veniall and dayly offences fastes and almes and praiers are watchfully vsed and humbling our soules we cease not after a sort to do dayly penance FVLK 8. That all the Latine Church and the glorious doctors thereof haue alwaies redde as the vulgar Latin interpretor translateth you proue by an example of S. Augustine In which also it is manifest that S. Augustine vnderstādeth the phrase not only for the exercise of publike poenitentes but also for the inwarde repentance of the hart But because you challenge all the doctors of the Latin Church for the vse of this word poenitentia I pray you cōsider what Tertullian writeth against Marcion who cauilled about the repenting ascribed in Scripture to God In Graeco sono c. In the Greeke sounde the name of repentance is made not of confession of an offence but of changing of the mind And in his booke De Poenitentia where hee treateth euen of publike repentance citing the testimonie of Iohn Baptiste hee saith Non tacet Iohannes poenitentiam initote dicens Iohn holdeth not his peace saying beginne repentaunce Hilarius also sheweth what Poenitentiae dothe signifie when hee saith Peccati poenitentia est ab eo quod poenitendum intellexeris destitisse Repentance of sinne is to haue ceased from that whiche you haue vnderstoode that it muste bee repented of Likewise agaynste the Nouatians that denie repentance Cum ad Poenitentiam per quam à peccatis desistitur when vnto repentance by whiche menne cease from sinnes the doctrine of the Lawe Prophetes Gospels Apostles exhorteth them that haue sinned And euen your vulgar interpreter in Sainct Marke sayth Poenitemini for that hee saith in Mathew Agite poenitentiam by whiche it is certaine that hee meaneth one thing in bothe namely repentance of harte and no satisfaction of worke MART. 9. In these wordes of S. Augustine it is plaine that hee speaketh of painefull or penitentiall workes for satisfaction of sinnes that is penance againe that there are three kindes of the same one before Baptisme an other after Baptisme for great offences greater and longer the other dayly for common and litle veniall saultes which the best men also commit in this fraile nature Againe that the two former are signified and spoken of in the three places of Scripture by him alleaged Where we see that he readeth altogither as the vulgar interpreter translateth and expoundeth all three places of penance for sinne and so approueth that signification of the Greeke worde Yea in saying that for veniall sinnes we knocke our breast fast giue almes and pray and so cease not Quotidianam agere poenitentiam what doth he meane but daily penance and satisfaction Reade also S. Cyprian beside other places epist. 52. num 6. Where his citatiōs of Scripture are according to the old Latin interpreter and his exposition according of doing penāce and making satisfaction for sinnes committed But I neede not proceede further in alleaging either S. Cyprian or other auncient fathers for this purpose because the Aduersaries graunt it Howbeit in what termes they graunt it and how malapertly they accuse all the auncient fathers at once for the same it shall not be amisse here to put downe their wordes FVLK 9. S. Augustine speaketh nothing of satisfaction for sinnes but as I haue said of such exercises as were appointed by the Church to testifie their repētāce The occasion of all these wordes was of one that was a Nouatian who said that Peter was not baptized whē he was receyued into repentance after his deniall And where he vsed this worde Egisse poenitentiam S. Augustine denieth that he did open penance as they that we properly called poenitentes Quod autem dicitur Petrum egisse poenitentiam But where it is saide that Peter did penance wee muste beware that hee bee not thought so to haue done it as they do it in the Church which are properly called Poenitentes And who can abide this that wee shoulde thinke that the chiefe of the Apostles is to be numbred among such poenitents For it repēted him that he denied Christ which thing his tears doe shewe These words declare that Agere poenitentiam with Augustine signifieth to be inwardly repentant as well as to doe those externall workes which are tokens of repentance Also that teares fastings and such like are arguments and signes of repentance before God and not any parte of that repentance in deede and much lesse any satisfaction for sinnes Of this penance or repentance of S. Peter S. Ambrose saith Lachrymas eius lego satisfactionem non lego I reade of his teares I reade not of his satisfaction In that Augustine vseth the wordes of the olde interpretor it is no matter for he vseth also his meaning But this vsage of his proueth not the antiquitie of the vulgar Latine translation but contrari wise it is certaine that S. Augustine followed an other translation for in the text 2. Cor. 12. where your vulgar Latine hath Super immunditia fornicatione impudicitia quam gesserunt S. Augustine readeth Super immunditia luxuria fornicatione quam egerunt That S. Cyprian vseth the terme Agere poenitentiam and satisfaction also speaking of publike repentance it shall be easily graunted but in none other sense than I haue often declared But where you say that his citations are according to the Latine interpretor it is false For Apoc. 2. your vulgar text is Memor esto itaque vnde excideris age poenitentiam prima opera fac But Cyprians citation is Memento vnde cecideris age poenitentiam fac priora opera Likewise Psalm 88. you reade in your vulgar Latine Visitabo in virga iniquitates eorum in verberibus peccata eorum But Cyprian citeth thus Visitabo in virga facinora eorum in flagellis delicta eorum But that his exposition is of any other penance than of open penance or of any other satisfaction than of satisfaction to the Church your aduersaries will not graunt you although they may graunt you that he ascribed too much vnto such externall tokens of repentance MART. 10. Whereas the reuerend godly and learned Father Edmund Campion had obiected in his booke the Protestants accusation of S. Cyprian for the matter of penance the good man that aunswereth for both Vniuersities sayth thus to that point But whereas Magdeburgenses Lutheran writers of that citie complaine that he depraued the doctrine of
called And for your Ouerseers he sayth Episcopos and not Superintendentes Which he might as well haue sayde as you Ouerseers But to saye the truth though he be too too profane yet he doth much more keepe and vse the Ecclesiasticall receiued termes than you doe often protesting it and as it were glorying therein against Castaleon especially As when he sayth Presbyterum where you saye Elder Diaconum where you saye Minister and so forth Where if you tell me that howsoeuer he translate he meaneth as profanely as you I beleeue you and therefore you shall goe togither like Maister like Schollers all false and profane translators for this Beza who sometime so gladly keepeth the name of Apostle yet calleth Epaphroditus legatum Philippensium Philip. 2. verse 15. Whereupon the Englishe Bezites translate your Messenger for your Apostle As if S. Augustine who was our Apostle should be called our Messenger FVLK 4. You can not leaue your olde byas in wresting mens sayings farre beyond their meaning Therefore you alledge against vs the saying of Beza for the terme of Apostles to be retained where meÌ„tion is made of the Apostles of Christ not onely those that are specially so called but also all the ministers of the worde But what is this to terme them by the honourable name of Apostles which are not sent by God but by men about some ciuil or Ecclesiastical busines For both he we cal Epaphroditus the Messenger and not the Apostle of the Philippians because he was sent by the Philippians vnto Paule and not by Christ vnto them As for that Augustine which was sent by Gregorie might better be called Gregories Apostle than our Apostle for he was not sent by vs but to vs not immediatly from God as an Apostle should but from Gregorie and by Gregorie Touching the termes of Bishops Elders Ministers Priestes c. enough hath bene sayd already Our translators haue done that which they thought best to be done in our language as Beza did in the Latine tongue MART. 5. As also when you translate of S. Matthias the Apostle that he was by a common consent counted with the eleuen Apostles Act. 1. v. 26. what is it else but to make onely a popular election of Ecclesiasticall degrees as Beza in his annotations would haue vs to vnderstande saying that nothing was done here peculiarly by Peter as one of more excellent dignitie than the rest but in common by the voyces of the whole Church though in an other place vpon this election he noteth Peter to be the chiefe or Corypheus And as for the Greeke worde in this place if partialitie of the cause would suffer him to consider of it he shoulde finde that the proper signification thereof in this phrase of speache is as the vulgar Latine Interpreter Erasmus and Valla all which he reiecteth translate it to wit He was numbred or counted with the eleuen Apostles without all respect of common consent or not consent as you also in your other Bibles doe translate FVLK 5. The election of Matthias to be an Apostle was extraordinarily and therefore permitted to the lot the maner whereof as it is not to be drawen into example so the proper election can not be proued thereby yet hath both Beza and the English translator faithfully expressed the Greeke worde which S. Luke there vseth although neyther Erasmus nor Valla beside your vulgar Interpretor did consider it Neither doth that common consent in accepting Mathias for an Apostle whome the lotte had designed more proue a popular election or derogate from the singularitie of Peter than that by common consent of the whole brotherhood two were chosen and set vp that the Apostleshippe should be layd vpon one of them MART. 6. Which diuersitie may proceede of the diuersitie of opinions among you For we vnderstand by Maister Whitegifts bookes against the Puritanes that he and his fellowes deny this popular election and giue preeminence superioritie and difference in this case to Peter and to Ecclesiasticall Prelates and therefore he proueth at large the vse and Ecclesiasticall signification of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be the giuing of voices in popular elections but to be the Ecclesiasticall imposing of handes vpon persons taken to the Churches ministerie Which he sayth very truely and needeth the lesse here to be spoken of specially beeing touched elsewhere in this booke FVLK 6. The diuersitie of the translation proceedeth of this that the former translators did not obserue the nature of the Greeke worde which Beza hath considered more absolutely than any interpretors before him Although it is not vnlike that Chrysostome did well acknowledge it when speaking of this election he vseth these words I am illud considera quam Petrus agit omnia ex communi discipuâ—orum sententia nihil authoritate sua nihil cum imperio Now also consider this thing how Peter doth all things by common consent of the Disciples nothing of his owne authoritie nothing with rule or commaundement And as for the popular election if you had redde those bookes you make mention of you might perceiue that neither of both parts allowe a meere popular election And that Maister Whitgift doth not so much contend what forme of election was vsed in the time of the Apostles and of the Primitiue Church as whether it be necessary that such forme of election as then was practised shoulde in all ages of the Church and in all places be of necessitie continued and obserued MART. 7. One thing onely we woulde knowe why they that pleade so earnestly against their brethren the Puritanes about the signification of this worde pretending herein onely the primitiue custome of imposition of handes in making their Ministers why I saye them selues translate not this worde accordingly but altogither as the Puritanes thus When they had ordayned them Elders by election in euerye Church Act. 14. verse 23. For if the Greeke worde signifie here the peoples giuing of voyces as Beza forceth it onely that way out of Tullie and the popular custome of olde Athens then the other signification of imposing handes is gone which Mayster Whitgift defendeth and the popular election is brought in which he refelleth and so by their translation they haue in my opinion ouershotte themselues and giuen aduantage to their brotherly Aduersaries Vnlesse in deede they translate as they thinke because in deede they thinke as heretically as the other but yet because their state of Ecclesâ—asticall regiment is otherwise they must maintaine that also in their writings howsoeuer they translate For an example They all agree to translate Elder for Priest and Maister Whitakers telleth vs a freshe in the name of them all that there are no Priestes nowe in the Church of Christ that is as he interpreteth himselfe This name Prieste is neuer in the New Testament peculiarly applied to the Ministers of the Gospell this is
their doctrine But what is their prastise in the regiment of their Churche cleane contrarie For in the order of the communion booke where it is appointed what the Minister shall do it is indifferently said Then shall the Prieste do or say this and that and Then shal the Minister c. Whereby it is euident that they make Priest a proper and peculiar calling applied to their Ministers and so their practise is contrarie to their teaching and doctrine FVLK 7. I haue satisfied your desire before if you list to knowe our translation must be as neere as it can to expresse the true signification of the originall words so it is in that place of the Acts. 14. v. 23. which being graunted by them that denie the necessitie of â—at forme of election to continue alwaies giueth no more aduauntage to the aduersaries than they woulde take out of the signification of the Greeke word how soeuer it were translated Your example of Maister Whitakers denying the name of Prieste to be applied to the ministers of the Gospel to proue that wee must mainteine our Ecclesiasticall state how soeuer we translate is very fonde and ridiculous as also the contradiction that you would make betweene him and the seruice booke touching the name of Prieste there vsed and allowed Maister Whitakers writing in Latine speaketh of the Latine terme Sacerdos the Communion booke of the English worde Priest is not this a goodly net for a foole to daunce naked in and thinke that no body can see him MART. 8. Nowe concerning imposition or laying on of handes in making their Ministers which the Puritans also are forced to allow by other wordes of Scripture howsoeuer they dispute and iangle againste 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none of them all make more of it than of the like Iudaicall ceremonie in the olde Law not acknowledging that there is any grace giuen withall though the Apostle say there is in expresse termes but they will aunswer this text as they are wont with a fauourable translation turning grace into gift As when the Apostle saith thus Neglect not THE GRACE that is in thee which is giuen thee by prophecie with impositioÌ„ of the hands of Priesthood they translate Neglect not the GIFT and Beza most impudently for by prophecie translateth to prophecie making that onely to be this gift and withall adding this goodly exposition that he had the gift of prophecie or preaching before and now by imposition of hands was chosen onely to execute that function But because it might be obiected that the Apostle sayth Which was giuen thee with the imposition of handes or as he speaketh in an other place by imposition of handes making this imposition of handes an instrumentall cause of giuing this grace he sayth that it did onely confirme the grace or gift before giuen FVLK 8. Though we finde that by or with imposition of handes many rare and extraordinary giftes of prophecie of tongues and such like were giuen in the Apostles time yet we finde no where that grace is ordinarily giuen by that ceremonie vsed alwayes in the Church for ordination of the ministers therof But whether there be or not our translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into gift is true and proper to the worde For albeit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be taken not onely for the fauour of God but also for his gracious giftes yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is neuer taken in the Scripture but for a free gift or a gift of his grace That Beza referreth the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the ende of the gifte he hath the nature of the worde to beare him out which may well abide that sense and yet he doth not reiect the other common interpretation by prophecie that by appoyntment of the holye Ghost vttered by some of the Prophets But where you wrangle about the gift of prophecie as though he were vtterly voyde thereof before he receyued imposition of handes I knowe not what you meane Woulde you haue vs thinke that he was ordayned Prieste or Elder or to anye office of the Church without competent giftes meete to discharge his office That the gifte of prophecie as well as of speakinge with tongues might be giuen by and with imposition of hands Beza doubteth not But it is out of doubte that to an office none was chosen or admitted by the Apostle and the reste of the Presbyterie of Ephesus but such as had sufficient giftes to answere that office MART. 9. Thus it is euident that though the Apostle speake neuer so plaine for the dignitie of holy Orders that it giueth grace and consequently is a Sacrament they peruert all to the contrarie making it a bare ceremonie suppressing the worde grace which is much more significant to expresse the Greeke worde than gifte is because it is not euery gifte but a gratious gifte or a gifte proceeding of maruelous and mere grace At when it is saide To you it is giuen not onely to beleeue but also to suffer for him The Greeke worde signifieth this much To you this grace is giuen c. So when God gaue vnto S. Paule all that sayled with him this Greeke worde is vsed because it was a great grace or gratious gifte giuen vnto him When S. Paule pardoned the incestuous person before due time it is expressed by this worde because it was a grace as Theodorete calleth it giuen vnto him And therefore also the almes of the Corinthians 1. Cor. 16. v. 3. are called their grace which the Protestants translate liberalitie neglecting altogither the true force and signification of the Greeke wordes FVLK 9. Here is no euidence at al that the order of Priesthoode is a Sacrament or gyueth grace but that God by the ceremonie of laying on of handes did giue wonderfull and extraordinarie giftes of tongues and prophecying in the beginning and firste planting of the Churche But that grace should alwayes follow that ceremonie there is no proofe to bee made out of the holie Scriptures And experience sheweth that hee which was voide of giftes beefore hee was ordered Priest is as verye an asse and Dogbolte as hee was beefore for anye encrease of grace or gratious giftes althoughe hee haue authoritie committed vnto hym if hee bee ordained in the Church though vnworthily with great sinne both of him that ordaineth and of him that is ordained But wee suppresse the worde grace you say bicause charisma signifieth at least a gratious gift See how the bare sounde of tearmes delighteth you that you mighte therein seeke a shadowe for your singlesolde sacrament of popishe orders The worde signifieth a free or gratious gifte and so will euerie man vnderstande it whiche knoweth that it is giuen by God As also in all places where mention is made of Gods giftes wee must vnderstande that it proceedeth freely from him as a token of his fauoure and grace But that the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
faith imputed to hir for righteousnes without workes or iustice as you wil haue it called we doubt no more of hir than of Abraham But that shee was also sanctified with moste excellent graces and indued in hir soule with al christian vertues Beza and all that esteeme Beza in the word wil confesse as muche as is conuenient for hir honour so nothing bee derogated from the honour of God That which Athanasius saith we do likewise admit and that which Hierome writeth also But this is all the controuersie whether the Virgine Marie were freely accepted and beloued of God so by his spirite indued with gratious vertues or whether for her vertues which she had of her selfe she were worthie to be beloued of God and deserued that honour whereof she was vouchsafed to become the mother of God Athanasius saith expresly that all those graces and giftes were freely giuen her by the obumbration or ouershadowing of the holy Ghost which the Angel promised should come vpon her MART. 7. Now let the English Bezites come with their new terme freely beloued and controll these and all other auncient fathers both Greeke and Latine and teach them a new signification of the Greeke worde which the◠knew not before Let Iohn Keltridge one of their great Preachers in London come and tell vs that the Septuaginta and the beste trāslatiōs in Greeke haue no such words as we vse in the Aue Marie but that the word which the Septuaginta vse is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Who euer heard such a iest that the preacher of the worde of God in London so he is called in the title of his booke and preacher before the Iesuites and Seminaries in the tower which is next degree to the disputers there whose sermons be solemnely printed dedicated to one of the Queenes Councell who seemeth to be such a Grecian that he confuteth the vulgar Latin translation by the significatiō of the Greeke word and in other places of his booke alleageth the Greeke texte that this man for all this referreth vs to the Septuaginta either as authors of S. Lukes Gospel which is too ridiculous or as trāslators thereof as though S. Luke had written in Hebrue yea as though the whole newe Testament had bene written in Hebrue for so no doubt he presupposed and that the Septuaginta had translated it into Greeke as they did the old who were dead three hundred yeares before S. Lukes Gospell and the new Testament was written FVLK 7. Concerning Iohn Keltridge agaynst whose ignorance and arrogancie you insult I can say nothing because I haue not seene his booke But knowing how impudently you slaunder me M. Whitaker Beza and euery man almost wyth whome you haue any dealing I maye wel suspecte your fidelitie in this case and thinke the matter is not so hard against Iohn Keltridge as you make it seeme to be If he haue ouershot himself as you say he is the more vnwise if you slaunder him as you do others you are moste of al too blame MART. 8. Al this is such a pitiful iest as were incredible if his printed booke didde not giue testimonie Pitiful I say because the simple people count such their preachers iolly fellows and great Clearks because they can talke of the Greeke and of the Hebrewe texte as this man doth also concerning the Hebrue letter Tau whether it had in olde time the forme of a Crosse or no euen as wisely and as skilfully as he did of the Septuaginta and the Greeke worde in S Lukes Gospel Whose incredible follie and ignorance in the tongues perhaps I would neuer haue mentioned because I thinke the reste are sorie and ashamed of him but that he boasteth of that whereof he hath no skill and that the people may take him for a very paterne and example of many other like boasters and braggers among them and that when they heare one talke lustily of the Hebrewe and Greeke and cite the text in the said tongues they may alwaies remember Iohn Keltridge their Preacher and say to themselues what if this fellow also be like Iohn Keltridge FVLK 8. Reseruing Iohn Keltridge to the trial defence of himselfe I say you haue shewed your selfe as ridiculous in this booke diuerse times and so haue many that beare a greater countenance among you tentimes than Iohn Keltridge doth among vs how so euer it pleaseth you to make him the next degree to the disputers But if Iohn Keltridge haue shewed him selfe to be a vaine boaster of that knowledge whereof perhaps he is ignorant what reason is it that other learned men which know the tongues in deede should be drawne into suspition of ignorance for his follie But that you delight by al meanes to discredite their learning and good giftes of God in them to whom if you were comparable your selfe yet it were not tollerable that you should seeke their reproche before their vnskilfulnesse may plainely be reproued MART. 9. But to proceede these great Grecians and Hebricians that controll all antiquitie and the approued auncient Latine translation by scanning the Greeke and Hebrue wordes that thinke it a great corruption Gen. 3. to reade Ipsa conteret caput tuum she shall bruise thy head because it pertaineth to our Ladies honour calling it a corruption of the Popish Church whereas S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Gregorie S. Bernard and the rest reade so as being the common receiued texte in their time though there hath bene also alwaies the other reading euen in the vulgar Latine translation and therefore it is not any late reformation of these new correctors as though the Hebrue and Greeke texte before had bene vnknowen these controllers I say of the Latine texte by the Hebrue against our Ladies honour are in an other place content to dissemble the Hebrue worde and that also for small deuotion to the B. Virgin namely Hierom 7. and 44. Where the Prophet inueigheth against them that offer sacrifice to the Queene of heauen this they thinke is very well because it may sounde in the peoples eares against the vse of the Catholike Churche which calleth our Lady Queene of heauen But they know very well that the Hebrue worde doth not signifie Queene in any other place of the Scripture and that the Rabbines and later Hebricians whom they gladly folow deduce it otherwise to signifie rather the whole corps and frame of heauen consisting of all the beautiful starres and planets and the Septuaginta call it not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Queene but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the host of heauen c. 7. Hierem and S. Hierom not onely reginā but rather militiam coeli and when he nameth it reginam Queene he saith we must vnderstand it of the moone to which and to the other starres they did sacrifice commit idolatrie But the Protestants against their custome of scanning the Hebrue and the Greeke translate here Queene of heauen for
blacke garments which they did weare superstitiously as your blacke monkes doe or if you doubt whether Baal had Sacerdotes sacrificing Priestes you may reade 4. Reg. 11. v. 18. where Mathan Baals Priest was killed before his altar And if the Hebrew worde signifie all those that ministred in the temples of false gods your vulgar Latine translator by your owne iudgement hath erred in translating it Aruspices which is a kind of Soothsayers MART. 7. Againe Siluer shrines for Diana Act. 19. v. 24. Because of the shrines and tabernacles made to the image of our B. Ladie the Greeke word signifying temples Beza saith he can not see how it may signifie shrines FVLK 7. The worde in that place is taken neither for shrines nor temples but for peeces of coyne in which was striken the similitude of Dianaes temple in deede such a thing as your shrines and tabernacles are or rather such as your brooches and leaden coynes are which are vsed at your solemne pilgrimages and idolatrous festiuities such as I haue seene a number at Amiens in Fraunce prepared on S. Iohn Baptistes eue hauing the print of S. Iohns head in a platter on them and I knowe not what beside But of this place I haue spoken before cap. 1. sect 16. MART. 8. Againe As I passed by and beheld your deuotions I found an altar Act. 17. v. 23. So they call the superstition of the Athenians towarde their false Gods because of Catholike peoples deuotions toward the true God his Church Altars Saincts c. the Greeke worde signifying the things that are worshipped as 2. Thess. 2. v. 4. and Sap. 15. v. 17. not the maner of worshipping FVLK 8. Of this also I haue spoken in the place aboue mentioned the worde may signifie the exercise of there religion And seeing S. Paule accompteth the altar which he found dedicated to the vnknowen God amoÌ„g their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it seemeth he taketh the word more generally than to signifie their Gods For the altar was not worshipped as God but dedicated to the vnknoweÌ„ God Againe what folly is it to thinke our translators had respect to your Popish deuotions by the name of deuotion so applied to discredite them when the terme of deuotion is indifferent as the terme of religion either to true or to false deuotion and religion MART. 9. Againe The Iewes had agreed that if any man did confesse that he was Christ he should be excommunicate Ioh. 9. v. 22. And Iesus heard that they had excommunicated him v. 35. to make the Iewes doing against theÌ„ that confessed Christ sound like to the Catholike Churches doing against Heretikes in excommunicating them and so to disgrace the Priests power of excommunication whereas the Iewes had no such spirituall excommunication but as the Greeke must needes only signifie they did put them out of the Synagogue so they should haue translated the Greeke worde including the very name of Synagogue But they as though the Churche of Christ and the Synagogue of the Iewes were all one so translate excoÌ„municating and putting out of the Synagogue as all one FVLK 9. The like discipline to the Churches excommunication had the Iewes in excluding men from their Synagogues or assemblies and therefore of the similitude the one hath to the other in the thing as wel as in the end our translators haue vsed the word of excommunicating in this place and yet not excommunicating alone for they al adde out of the Synagogue to make it more plaine which you do fraudulently suppresse But howe vaine a thing it is that wee should haue any purpose against the discipline of excommunication all the worlde may see when wee practise it our selues and teach that it is necessarie to be perpetual in the Church against them that holde it was but temporall And what we are to esteeme of the excommunicatioÌ„ of heretikes both out of this place and diuerse other we may be sufficiently instructed MART. 10. I omit here as spoken before that they call an Idoll the Queene of heauen because we call our Lady by that title so to make both seeme like Also that they say Bels altar thrife for Bels table to disgrace altars that for idols they say images in despite of the Churches images that they say tradition duâ—ly in the ill part yea sometime when it is not in the Greeke to make traditions odious and such like Thus by similitude and like sound of wordes they bâ—guile the poore people not only in their false expositions concerning Iudaical fasts meaâ—s obseruation of daies as is else where shewed but also in their translations So doth Caluins new Testament in french for Nolite vocari Rabbi translate Be not called nostre maistre or Magister noster in derision and disgrace of this â—illâ— and â—alling which is peculiar to Doctors of Diuiniue in the Catholike Vniuersities beyond the seas euen as Wiâ—lâ—sse their grand father did vpon the same wordes condemne such degrees in Vniuersities But their Rabbines can tell them that Rabbi signifieth Magister and not Magister noster And S. Iohn telleth them so chap. 1. v. 38. and chap. 3. v. 2. and chap. â—0 v. 16. and yet it pleaseth them to translate otherwise and to abuse Christes owne sacred wordes against Catholike Doctors and schooles not considering that as Christ forbad them to be called Rabbi so he forbad them the name of father and fathers and yet I â—rowe they will not scoffe at this name either in their owne fathers or in themselues so called of their children though in Religious men according to their hereticall humor they scoffe also at this name as they do at the other in Doctors FVLK 10. And I omitte here as answered before the Queene of heauen Altars Images and Traditions But owe as though wee had any thing to do therewith we are charged with Caluines new Testament in French which translateth Math. 23. Nolite vocari Rabbi be not called Nostre maistre or Magister noster I suppose it is not credible that any man woulde translate Rabbi nostre maistre or Magister noster Specially seeing it is made a great difference among dunsticall Doctors betweene Noster magister and Magister noster as also it is a lyke iâ—ste betweene Noster magistrande and Nostrande magister Wherfore except I see the booke of Caluines translation I must thinke you faine For I haue two new Testamentes printed at Geneua the one 1555. the other 1559. and in both them Rabbi is translated consonaÌ„tly Maistre and not Nostre maistre or Magister noster That the text may be wel applied against your pompous tituleâ— Doctors that desire to be called Nostre maistres as also that whiche followeth against your Iebusites that must be called fathers though they be but yong light persons I will not denie And yet I thinke the titles of Doctor Master in the vniuersities and of fathers ascribâ—d to any
for except one onely Bristowe who obseruing no good order of replying but gathering here and there at his pleasure whatsoeuer he thought himself best able to reproue hath made a shew of defence of Allens Articles and Purgatorie none other haue as yet set foorth any iust replication to the rest of my writings And as for Bristow he hath my reioynder vnto his reply these two yeares in his hand to consider vpon the other that of late haue set forth Popish treatises haue indeuoured themselues almost cuery one of them to haue a snatch or two at some one od thing or other in my bookes wherin they would seeme to haue aduantage that belike they would haue their simple readers thinke to be a sufficient confuration of al that euer I haue written against them I haue thought good therefore as neere as I can to gather all their cauils together and briefely to shape an answere to euery one of them that the indifferēt reader may see iudge what sound matter they haue brought against me wher with in shewe of wordes they would haue it seeme as though they had confuted me First Master Allen in his late Apologie fol. 63. accusing the Protestants to feigne an appellatiō vnto the iudgement of the most auncient fathers of the primitiue Church and yet not to abide by it not esteeming them better than the present gouernment of the Popish Church but as of men deceiued as of humane traditions c. As in their writings saith he it is most euident where from Peters time downward they make the chiefest fathers the ministers and furtherers of Antichrist For this euidence he quoteth Beza in 2. Thess. 2. Retentiue p. 248. How vniustly Beza is slandered to be a witnesse of this accusation they that vnderstande y ◠Latine tongue may see in the places quoted But touching my selfe the booke which he quoteth hauing scarse halfe so many pages I might intreat him for a new quotation but that I gesse he meaneth a place in my confutation of Sanders booke which he calleth the Rocke of the church which was printed with the Retentiue and continueth the number of pages from it In that booke pag. 248. there is nothing that soundeth toward such a matter except it be these wordes As for Leo and Gregorie bishops of Rome although they were not come to the full pride of Antichrist yet the mysterie of iniquitie hauing wrought in that seat neere fiue or sixe hundred yeres before them and then greatly increased they were so deceiued with the long continuance of error that they thought the dignitie of Peter was much more ouer the rest of his fellow Apostles than the holy scriptures of God against which no continuance of errour can prescribe doth either allowe or beare withall Wherefore although he haue some shew out of the old writers yet hath he nothing directly to prooue that Peter did excell the other Apostles in bishoplike authoritie and out of the worde of God no one iote or title that Peter as a bishop excelled the other Apostles not as Apostles but as bishops First it is manifest euen to the eye that Allens slander is not expressed in these wordes Then let vs see if it may be imployed The mysterie of iniquitie did worke in the see of Rome from the Apostles time taking increase by litle litle vntill sixe hundred yeares and more after Christ when Antichrist began to be openly shewed and manie of the ancient fathers not espying the subtiltie of Sathans secret purpose were deceiued to thinke something more of Peters prerogatiue of the bishops of Romes dignitie than by the worde of God was granted to either of them this is in effect as much as I affirme but here of it followeth not that I make them the ministers and furtherers of Antichrist For those are the ministers and furtherers of Antichrist which willingly lend all their power to maintaine and vphold his kingdom after he hath inuaded the tyrannie The auncient fathers meant nothing lesse by admitting of the bishops of Romes prerogatiue vnder colour of Peters successour than to serue him or aduance him into the throne of Antichrist Not euerie one whome Satan hath seduced that he might prepare a way for the aduauncement of his tyrannie is a minister and furtherer of Satan or his tyrannie for then should all men be counted ministers or furtherers of Satan seeing the kingdome of sinne is increased by the frailtie of all men which by temptation of the diuell fall into sinne Beside that manie of the auncient fathers openly resisted the vsurped power of the bishops of Rome when it began onely to budde vp and was yet farre off from Antichristian tyrannie although it tended somewhat toward the same So did the bishops of the East churches countermaund Victor bishop of Rome contending about the celebration of Easter So did Irenaeus Polycrates and many other godly fathers in publike writings openly reprehend him So did Cyprian in diuerse Epistles expostulate with the bishops of Rome for medling with causes that pertained to his iurisdiction So did all the bishops of Aphrica make decrees against the vsurped authoritie and titles of the bishops of Rome denying all appeales vnto the sea of Rome excōmunicating all them that would appeale to any place beyond the sea discouering also the forged Canon of the Nicen Councel by which the bishops of Rome challenged that prerogatiue So that M. Allen by this his slander hath done iniury to mee and hurt to himselfe while men by this example may iudge of his synceritie in other matters Next commeth in the discouerie of I. Nicols denying that they make the Catholike religion locall or of one prouince as he chargeth mee with some scornefull termes of reproche to affirme in my bad answere to Howlet I said in deede that S. Augustine De vnit Eccles Cap. 4. doth cleare vs of schisme who willingly communicate with all the whole bodie of Christs Church dispersed ouer the world and charge the Popish faction both of schisme heresie of schisme because they maintaine the Church to be onely in a part of Europe as the Donatistes did in Aphrica c. And what iniury haue I done to the Papistes in so saying The Donatists sayd the Church was perished out of all the worlde remained only in Aphrica not assigning any place of Aphrica whereunto the Church must be regardant as the Papistes do the citie of Rome but affirming that true Catholikes remained onely in Aphrica being consumed out of all other partes of the earth And what say the Papistes of all the Oriental churches of Greece of Asia of Aphrike that acknowledge not the Popes authoritie Doe they not accompt them all for heretikes or schismatikes Then it followeth that they acknowledge the Church to remaine only in those partes of Europe that are subiect to the Pope and Church of Rome But perhaps they wil alledge their newly founded Churches
vocat propterea sacerdotio fungitur vt homo recipis autem ea quae offeruntur vt Deus offeri verò ecclesia corporis eius sanguinis symbola omne fermentum per primitias sanctificans And Christ is nowe a priest which is sprung of Iuda according to the flesh not offering any thing himselfe but is called the head of them that offer seeing he calleth the church his bodie and therefore he exerciseth the priesthoode as a man and hee receiueth those thinges that are offered as God and the church truely doth offer the tokens of his bodie and bloud sanctifying euerie leauen by the first fruites In these wordes Theodoret speaketh not of the sacrifice that Christ offered himselfe but of the spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing which the church offereth to him in celebrating the memorie of his death Not of the priesthoode which Christ did exercise in earth but of the priesthoode that he doth exercise in heauen not now offering anie thing but as God receiuing oblations And where he sayth that nowe he exerciseth the priesthoode as man he denieth not but that he doeth exercise it as mediator God and man Which is more plaine in his exposition of the Epistle to the Heb. cap. 8. where he enquireth how Christ doth both sit at the right hande of maiestie and yet is a minister of the holy thinges Quonam enim munere sacerdotali fungitur qui seipsum semelobtuliâ— non offert amplius sacrificium Quomodo autem fieri potest vt idem sedeaâ— socerdotali officio fungatur Nisi fortè dixerit quispiam esse munus sacerdotale salutem quam vt dominus procurat Tabernaculum autem vocauit coelum cuius est ipse opifex quem vt hominem dixit Apostolus fungi sacerdotio For what priestly office doth he exercise which hath once offered vp himselfe and doth no more offer any sacrifice And howe can it be that the same person shoulde together both sit and exercise the priestly office Except perhaps a man will say that the saluation which he procureth as Lorde is a priestly office Neither hath he any other meaning Dialog prime where his purpose is to prooue that Christ had a body Si est ergo sacerdonum proprium offerre munera Christus autem quod ad humanit atem quidem attinet sacerdos appellatus est non aliam autem hostiam quam suum corpus obtuliâ— Dominus ergo Christus corpus habuiâ— If therefore it be proper for priestes to offer giftes and Christ as concerning his humanitie truely is called a priest and he offered none other sacrifice but his owne bodie therefore our Lorde Christ had a bodie He sayth not that Christ is a priest according to his humanitie onelie whereas the excellencie of his person being both God and man caused â—is sacrifice to be acceptable and auaileable for the redemption of man But to make the matter cleare beside that which the Apostle writeth to the Hebrues ca. 9. these argumentes may plainely be drawen out of the 7. cap. where he speaketh expresly of his priesthood after the order of Melchisedech Christ as he is without father and without mother is â— priest after the order of Melchisedech Christ as he is God and man is without father and without mother therfore Christ as he is God and man is a priest after the order of Melchisedech Againe Christ as he hath no beginning of his dayes nor ende of his life is a priest after the order of Melchisedech Christ according to his diuinitie hath no beginning of his daies nor ende of his life according to his whole person Therefore Christ according to his diuinitie and according to his whole person is a priest after the order of Melchisedech Againe except you vnderstand Christ to haue beene a priest according to his diuinitie he was tythed in the loynes of Abraham as well as Lcui but according to his diuinitie hee was not in the loynes of Abraham and therfore payde no tythe in Abraham as God though as man he was subiect to the law but receiued tythes of Abraham in his priest and figure Melchisedech For the priest receiueth tythes in the name of God as also he blesseth in the name of God Therefore if Christ giue priestly blessing in his owne name he giueth it as he is God and not as man onely Finally to say that that Christ was a priest only in respect of his manhood â—auoreth rankely of Nestorianisme whereas our assertion that Christ is an high priest both according to his deitie in which he is equall with his father and also according to his humanitie in which the father is greter than he is as farre from Arrianisme as the Papistes are from honestie and synceritie to charge vs with such open blasphemie God be praised Imprinted at London by George Bishop and Henrie Binneman 1583. D. Standish D. Heskins Heretikes fiue vvaies specially abuse the Scriptures â— Denying certaine bookes or parts of bookes 2 Doubting of their authoritie and calling theÌ„ into question 2 Voluntarie expositions according to euery ones fansie or heresie 4. Changing some vvordes or sentences of the very originall text Tertul. cont Marae cio li. â— in princ Tertul. lib. 5. False and heretical traÌ„slation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 possedi◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. ep 89. lib. 1. de pec mer. cap. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Protestants Caluinists vse the foresaid fiue meanes of defacing the Scriptures * Cont. rat Edm. Camp pag. 18. Retent pag. 32. dist of the Rock pag. 307. Luther in noâ—o Test. Germa in Prefat Iacobi Conc. Cart. 3. can 47. * Argu. in epist. Iacob * Whitak p. 10. * Ibid. Lib. 6. cap. 18. De doct Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8. Anno. 1532. Anno. 1537. Ibid. pag. 17. M. VVhitaker by these vvords condemneth their ovvne Seruice booke vvhich appointeth these bookes of Tobie and Ecclesiasticus to be read for holy Scripture as the other Doe they read in their Churches Apocryphall superstitious bookes for holy Scripture or is he a Puritane that thus disgraceth their order of daily Seruice In expositione Symbolâ— pag. 10. M. VVhitakers booke In the argument Bib. an 1579. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. lib. 6. cap. â— Hieronim ad â—aâ—d Tom. 3. â—â—â—â—â—â— lib. 3. cap. 6. in EuaÌ„g Math. â—â— 5. cap. 26. Cyprianus aliâ— in Concilio Aphricano * Whitak pag. 17. 120. Ibid. pag. 101. Praef. ad 6. theses Oxon pag. 25. Lib. Confess 1. cap. 14. lib. 7. c. 20. Cicer. de Senect Beza the mouse of Geneua gnavveth the text of Scripture De ineam dom cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No. Test. an 1556. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza reconcileth the Greeke â—â—â—â— of the nevv TestameÌ„t vvith the Hebrevve text of the old by putting out of the Greeke text so much as pleaseth him Est. 6. 9. 10. Gal. 3. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉