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
should not haue bene so straunge a matter vnto you to heare that our Sauiour Christ with great astonishment and terrour of mind was afraid of death where he vseth the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was not for bodilye paine or bodily death which not onely thousands of holy Martyrs haue ioyfully embraced but infinite wicked persons haue contemned but for the feeling of Gods wrath which was infinitely more heauy vpon his soule than any torments were vpon his bodie MART. 42. Yea Beza sayth further to this purpose much more against his skill in the Greeke tongue if he had any at all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preposition can not beare this sense For which or in respect whereof and therefore he translateth the Greeke into Latine thus Exauditus est ex metu he was heard from feare not for feare or for his reuerence And because from feare is a hard speech and darke that seemeth to be the cause why our English translators say In that which he feared farre from Beza in word but agreeably in sense FVLK 42. When Beza hath shewed his skill in the Greeke tongue not onely in his translation and annotations but also in diuers Greeke Epigrams which he hath set forth who but one starke mad with malice blind with conceit of his owne slender skil would doubt whether Beza had any skill at all in the Greeke tongue As for that he sayth of the signification of the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he speaketh in respect of the propertie of the Greeke tongue for yet you bring no examples but Hebraisms out of the Scripture for that signification of the preposition MART. 43. But for this matter we send them to Flaccus Illyricus a Captaine Lutherane who disputeth this very point against the Caluinistes and teacheth them that no thing is more common than that signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For proofe whereof we also referre them to these places of the holye scripture Mat. 13. Luc. 22. and 24. Act. 12. Psal. 87. And Machab. 5. 21. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a genitiue and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an accusatiue signifie all one which Beza denieth Gentle Reader beare with these tedious grammatications fitter to be handled in Latine but necessary in this case also good for them that vnderstand for the rest an occasion to aske of them that haue skill in the Greeke tongue whether we accuse our aduersaries iustly or no of false translating the holy Scriptures FVLK 43. And we by the same authoritie sende you to Bezaes answer in his last edition of his annotations And yet the Reader must know that Beza did not simply deny that the preposition might haue such sense But he sayde Non facile mihi persuaserim I can not easily perswade my selfe that any example can be brought wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so vsed And in all these examples that you haue brought it signifieth rather prae which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than propter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as your vulgar translator obserueth the difference 2. Mac. 5. verse 27. translating prae superbia and propter elationem mentis But Beza requireth an example of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that may aunswer to the vulgar Latine pro reuerentia For who would translate in Saint Mathew 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro gaudio propter gaudium or secundum gaudium or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro dolore and so of the rest but of these let Beza him selfe giue account As for these tedious grammatications which you confesse to haue bene fitter to be handled in Latine it seemeth you vttered in English for that of many ignorant you might be thought to bringe some great learning out of the Hebrewe and Greeke tongues against vs whereas the learned if you had written in Latine of other nations as well as ours might haue bene witnesses of your fonde trifling and quarrelling against our translations As for the necessarye cause you pretende that the vnlearned may aske them that haue skyll in Greeke is very ridiculous For neyther can they haue at hande alwayes such as be able to resolue them neither if they be of your faction wil they aske any indifferent mans iugement but onely such as will auouch before the ignorant that all which you write is good and perfect MART. 44. And we beseech them to giue vs a good reason why they professing to followe precisely the Greeke doe not obserue truely the Greeke points in such place as concerneth this present controuersie For the place in the Apocalypse which they alledge of our Sauiour Christes suffering from the beginning thereby to inferre that the iust men of the olde Testament might enter heauen then as well as after his reall and actuall death according to the Greeke points sayth thus All that dwell vpon the earth shall worship him the beast whose names haue not bene written in the booke of life of the Lambe slayne from the beginning of the worlde Where it is euident that the Greeke text sayth not the Lambe slaine from the beginning but that the names of those Antichristian Idolaters were not written in Gods eternall booke of predestination from the beginning as it is also most plaine without all ambiguitie in the 17. chapter v. 8. If in a place of no controuersie they had not bene curious in pointes of the Greeke they might haue great reason sometime to alter the same FVLK 44. How faine would you obscure the light of that excellent testimonie euen contrarye to your owne vulgar Latine translation that you might not haue such a faithfull witnesse against your Limbus patrum You require a reason whye wee keepe not the Greeke pointes Apoc. 13. I aunswer we keepe those pointes which the most auncient written copies haue which the Complutensis Ediâ—iâ— hath and which the beste Greeke printes nowe haue If you would knowe a reason why we followe not them that point otherwise I aunswer you the composition of the wordes is against that pointing For except Saint Iohn had meant that the Lambe was slayne from the beginning of the world he would not haue placed those wordes from the beginning of the worlde next to those wordes the Lambe which is slayne but next the worde written And therefore Aretus that could not vnderstande howe the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world is forced to imagine Hyperbaton in this text where none needeth the sense being good and plaine without it as the wordes doe lye Whose names are not written in the booke of life of the lambe that hath bene slaine since the beginning of the worlde And although it be true that the names of the Antichristian Idolaters were not written in Gods eternall booke of predestination from the beginning as it is said Apoc. 17. v. 8. Yet is that no reason why this also shoulde
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
and reasoning against al other interpreters both auncient later for the coÌ„trary yea and affâ—ming that S. Paul him self did foolishly if he spake there of other rich womeÌ„ Such a fansie he hath to make the Apostles not onely maried man but that they caried about their wiues with them that they were the Apostles wiues for so he translateth it Act. 1. v. 14 that returned with them after our Lordes ascension to Hierusalem and continued togither in praier til the holy Ghost came vpon them Whereas S. Luke there speaketh so euidently of the other holy and faithful women which are famous in the Gospel as the Maries and other that the English Bezites them selues dare not here folow his translation For I beseech you M. Beza to turne my talke vnto you a litle is there any circumstance or particle here added why iâ— should be translated wiues none then by your owne reason before alleaged it should rather be trsÌ„lated women Againe did Erasmus translate well saying It is good for a man not to touch a wife 1 Cor. 7. v. 1. No say you reprehending this translation because it dehorteth from mariage If not shew your commissioÌ„ why you may translate in the foresaid places wife wiues at your pleasure the Greeke being all one both where you will not in any wise haue it translated wife and also where you will haue it so translated in any wise FVLK 12. Nay great must be the impudencie of the Papists that imagine the Apostles which had wiues of their owne did leaue them behinde them and leade straung women aboute with them into all partes of the world The first that inuented that glose of coÌ„tinent women such as followed Christ was Tertullian the Montanist in his booke of Monogamy which he wrote against the Church condeÌ„ning secoÌ„d mariage reprouing the Latine translation of his time as it seemeth which in this text 1. Cor. 9. vsed the terme of vxor by the ambiguitie of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying that if the Apostle had spoken of matrimonie he would haue vnderstood this of wiues but seeing he speaketh De victuaria exhibitione of the exhibition toward his liuing he vnderstandeth it of such women as followed Christe Than the which distinction nothing can be more absurde for speaking of exhibition towarde his liuing the Apostle sheweth that he might haue lawfully charged the Church with finding not only of him self but also of his wife as the other Apostles did Againe if rich womeÌ„ did folow the Apostles ministring to theÌ„ of their substance as they folowed our Sauiour this was no burden but an easement vnto the Church which the Apostle would not haue absteined froÌ„ as a thing burdenous to the Church of Corinth CoÌ„cerning the other place Act. 1. v. 14. although perhaps it be not necessary to translate wiues yet it is necessary to vnderstand wiues For to answere you in M. Bezaes name who telleth you that it was meete as also Erasmus thinketh that their wiues should be coâ—firmed who partly were to be companions of their trauaile and peregrinatioÌ„ partly to tarie patieÌ„tly at home while their husbaÌ„ds were about the Lords businesse and therfore their wiues also were present Againe what a shamefull absurditie were it to thinke that the Apostles would tarie in a close house so long togither with other women than their wiues and shut out their owne wiues which must needes haue bene subiect to great offense and obloquie And what deuilish malice haue you agaynst the Apostles wiues that you caÌ„not abide that they should ioyne with their husbandes in praier and supplication and be made partakers of the holy Ghost with them as well as other women which were also maried women Mary the wife of Cleophas Ioanna the wife of Chuza and other holy women the mothers or wiues of holy men Will you say the Apostles had no wiues Peters wiues mother will testifie againste you Will you saye she was forsaken by Peter the storie of his martiredome if it bee true affirmeth that she continued with him to his dying day will you say he had no matrimoniall companie with hir his daughter Petronilla will beare witnes against you so yong that she was desired in marriage by Flaccus the Comes Touching the place 1. Corin. 7. where Erasmus translateth vxorem I haue answeared alreadie the circumstance of the place doth argue that it is spoken generally of continence not of abstinence in marriage only And who is such a nouice in the greke tongue that he knoweth not that the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a wife or woman as the circumstaunce of the place requireth where it is vsed MART. 13. Againe to this purpose they make Sainct Paule say as to his wife I beseech thee also faithful yokfellow Phil. 4. v. 3. for in Englishe what doth it else sounde but man and wife but that S. Paule shoulde hâ—ere meane his wife moste of the greeke fathers count it ridiculous and foolishe S. Chrisostome Theodorete Oecumenius Theophilactus Beza and Caluin bothe mislike it translating also in the masculine gender S. Paule himselfe saith the contrarie that he had no wife 1. Cor. 7. And as for Clemens Alexandrinus who alleageth it for Paules wife Eusebius plainely insinuaâ—eth and Nicephorus expresly saith that he did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the way of contention and disputation whiles hee â—arnestly wrote against them that oppugned matrimonie FVLK 13. The Greeke worde being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a fellow or companion in yoke they haue not therfore translated amisse when they say yoke fellowe whiche signifieth felow in any yoke whatsoeuer If it sound man and wife in Englishe what matter is that for so it soundeth in Greeke Men must not follow the sound of wordes onely but examine the matter And great probabilitie there is that he speaketh there of his wife as Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh neither dothe S. Paule himselfe say precisely he had no wife 1. Cor. 7. but that he liued without the vse of a wife whiche might be hys wife consenting to remaine at â—hilippi That the later writers mislike the iudgement of Clemens and specially that fabulous historiaÌ„ Nicephorê° it derogateth nothing to his credite nor to the likelihoode of the matter That Theophy lact saith the adiectiue should be of the foeminine gender he is not to be credited aboue Clemens Alexandrinus who knewe the puritie of the Greke tong as wel as he But whether it be to be vnderstoode of hys wife or no we leaue it indifferent and translate according to the Greeke word without preiudice of either opinion which kind of translation at other times you do highly commend MART. 14. Againe for the mariage of Priests and of all sorts of men indifferently they translate the Apostle thus wedlock is honorable among al men Where one falsificatioÌ„ is that they say among all men and Beza inter quosuis in
bite at least wise you should haue regarded that your vulgar Latine Interpretor Num. 21. trāslateth it to strike or hurt as they were that were hurt or bitten by the fierie serpents The consent of all Hebritians also is that neshech the name of vsurie is deriued of biting and hurting wherefore the Bishops Bible meaning to expresse that all vsurie is hurtfull according to the etymologie of the word rather than to defend that any vsurie is lawful other than such as God him selfe alloweth And therfore it had bene well to haue translated also in the next verse a straunger mayst thou bite or hurt with vsurie howsoeuer the Iewes would take it whose abhominable vsurie vnder pretence of that place sure I am our translators purpose was not to defend MART. 18. What shall I tell you of other faults which I would gladly account ouersights or ignorances such as we also desire pardon of bus all are not such though some be As Two thousand written at length to them that keepe the fruite thereof In the Hebrew and Greeke two hundred Againe in the same booke c. 1. v. 4. As the fruites of Cedar in the Hebrew and Greeke Tabernacles And Aske a signe either in the depth or in the height aboue for in the depth of Hell And Great workes are wrought by him for doe worke in him as S. Paule vseth the same word 2. Cor. 4. v. 12. And To make ready an horse Act. 23. v. 24. in the Greeke beastes And. If a man on the Sabboth day receiue circumcision without breaking of the law of Moyses Io. 7. v. 23. For to the end that the lawe of Moyses be not broken And The sonne of man must suffer many things and be reproued of the elders Mar. 8. v. 31. For be reiected As in the Psalme The stone which the builders reiected we say not reprouing of the said stone which is Christ. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a yong scholer in all your translations falsely And Simon of Chanaan or Simon the Cananite who is called otherwise Zelotes that is Zelous as an interpretation of the Hebrue word Cananaeus which I maruell you considered not specially considering that the Hebrue worde for Zelous and the other for a Cananite beginne with diuers letters And least at any time we should let them slippe For least wee slippe or runne by and so be lost FVLK 18. The first in Can. 8. is doubtlesse the printers faulte who did reade in the written copie one Cypher to much That the second Can. 1. v. 5. was the printers fault which did reade fruites for tentes it is plaine by the note vpon the worde Kedar which is this Kedar was Ischmaels sonne of whom came the Arabians that dwelt in tentes In the thirde place Esai 7. there lacketh this worde beneath or towarde the pit downeward for Shealah is here opposite to Lemayelah aboue or vpward which omission I know not whether it is to be imputed to the negligence of the Printer or of the translators but not withstanding the sense is all one In the fourth texte also there is no difference for the meaning and some are of opinion that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken passiuely as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza in Marc. 6. v. 14. other translations turne it actiuely In the fifte text Act. 23. if for an horse they had saide horses it had bene no faulte for it is not lyke they rodde vpon Asses or Camels The worde signifieth beasts that are possessed and of possession they be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but here it is certaine beastes meete for cariage of men are signified In the sixte Ioan. 7. v. 23. I thinke the translators were deceiued supposing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be translated so that the lawe of Moses be not broken as perhaps it may but hereof I will not determine commonly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to the ende yet is there no vngodly sense conteyned in this translation The seuenth Mar. 8. v. 31. Is but a knot in a rushe for reproued in that place signifieth nothing but refused or reiected Your vulgar Latine sayth Reprobari which is plainely to be reproued and 1. Pet. 2. The stone which the builders reproued Reprobauerunt refused By reproued they do not meane reprehended or rebuked but vtterly refused and not accepted The eight Neophytus a young scholler as I haue shewed before is better Englished than a Neophyte which is neither Greeke Latine nor English The ninth is corrected in two translations and the Geneua Bible telleth you that for Cananite you may reade Zealous so that wee are not beholding to you for this correction as it seemeth you would haue vs. Touching the tenth texte Heb. 2. both those translations that say least at any time wee should let them slippe haue this note in the margent by which they declare they meane euen as you would haue them say least like vessels ful of chappes we leake and runne out on euery parte for vessels that do runne out do let goe or let slippe that licour that is put into them MART. 19. And as for the first Bible which was done in hast and not yet corrected but is printed still a freshe that saith With Herods seruants as though that were the onely sense that calleth idiotas lay men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wondering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are gone out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his substance and To know the excellent loue of the knowledge of Christ. For the loue of Christ that excelleth knowledge And of men that turne away the truth For that shunne the truth and turne away from it And Mount Sina is Agar in Arabia For Agar is mount Sina c. FVLK 19. The first Bible was not that you meane but not much differing from it neither was it done in hast but with as good cōsideratiō as god gaue for that time neither was it printed these 22. yeares for ought I know which you say is printed still a fresh In that Bible Herods seruaunts put for the Herodians was lacke of knowledge of what sect the Herodiās should be Idiotas Lay mē is no more faulte than of the vulgar sort which you say The shippe for the Arke is a smal fault seing that arke into which Noe entred was a ship or in steede of a shippe The wōdring for the tumult is a populer terme for so they call a great noyse made by a multitude The lampes are gone out or are quenched I know not what great difference may be in it His substaunce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not where you meane except it bee Marke 13. where Erasmus noteth that he hath redde in some copie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substaunce which seemeth to agree aptly with the place In the texte Eph. 3. the true translation is as wee haue corrected it in the later
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