〈◊〉 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
signifie to take order for a funerall So likewise Luc. 10. Paeniterent they had done penaunce But to answere for our owne doings Io 5. v. 36. where Christe saith I haue a greater witnesse than Iohns witnesse why may not the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be referred rather to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of necessitie to be vnderstood than to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the other place 1. Iohn 2. v. 2. the worde sinnes muste needes be vnderstoode in the pronoune adiectiue ours In the thirde texte where you accuse the translators of hereticall purpose the sense is all one whether you adde the article or no. For when the Apostle sayeth by Christe we haue boldnesse and entrance with confidence by faith howe can you vnderstand confidence by workes and whether there be confidence by workes or no there can none be proued by this place Where Beza vnderstandeth an article Rom. 8. whom our English translation doth follow it is only to make that plaine which otherwise is necessarily to be vnderstoode For there is no differeÌ„ce betwene these sayings The law of the spirit of life in Christ Iesus this The lawe of the spirit of life which is in Christ Iesus hath deliuered me from the lawe of sinne and death The article or relatiue therefore declareth no more but that the lawe of the spirit of life is in Christ Iesus which deliuereth vs. For both the text sayth in Christ Iesus and it can not be in any other to deliuer vs. For he sayeth not The lawe of the spirite of life in vs but in Christe Iesus and the nexte verse following doeth manifestly confirme the same as euerie man may see that will consider it Likewise Iames the seconde wilt thou knowe O thou vaine man that faith without workes is deade If you say the faith which is without good workes is deade is not that the meaning of the Apostle Where he addeth immediatly that Abraham was iustified by such a faith as was fruitefull of good workes And when he bringeth example of Deuils faith is it not manifest he speaketh of suche a faith as is vtterly voyde of all good workes Where you say that Beza putteth the article into the text and translateth it accordingly you do most shamefully belye him For to the original text he addeth none of his owne collection but in his translation onely where he iudgeth that according to the sense of the place it must of necessitie be vnderstood which if it be a fault in articles it must be so in other wordes also for like cause added Then answere to your owne translations where beside those that I haue noted before which seeme to proceede of some Popish purpose you haue added to your Latine authenticall texte As in these examples Mat. 8. Quid nobiâ— tibi what is betweene vs Cap. 9. Confidâ— haue a good hart Cap. 22. Malâ— pâ—rdet he wil bring to naught Marc. 2. Post dios after some dayes Accumberet he satte at meate Luc. 17. Ab illo more than he Io. 12. Discumbentibus them that satte at the table Non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum not because he cared for the poore Act. 9. Ecce ego Domine Loe here I am Lorde cap. 10. gustare to take somewhat cap. 17. colentibus that serued God Nobiliores eorum qui sunt Thessalonicae more noble than they that are at Thessalonica Rom. 1. Vocatis sanctis called to be Saincts c. MART. 4. But you will say in the place to the Corinthians there is a Greeke article therfore there you do well to expresse it I aunswere first the article may then be expressed in translation when there can be but one sense of the same secondly that not onely it may but it must be expressed when we can not otherwise giue the sense of the place as Mat. 1 6. Ex ea quae fuit Vriae Where you see the vulgar interpreter omitteth it not but knoweth the force and signification thereof very well Mary in the place of S. Paul which we now speake of where the sense is doubtfull and the Latine expresseth the Greeke sufficiently otherwise he leaueth it also doubtful and indifferent not abridging it as you doe saying the grace of God which is with me nor as Caluin gratia quae mihi aderat nor as Illyricus gratia quae mihi adest Which two later are more absurd thaÌ„ yours because they omit neglect altogither the force of the preposition cum which you expresse saying with me But because you say which is with me you meane heretically as they doe to take away the Apostles cooperation and labouring togither with the grace of God by his free will which is by the article and the preposition most euidently signified FVLK 4. You take vpoÌ„ you to prescribe rules of traÌ„slatioÌ„ as though you were Prince of the Critici or Aeropâ—gitae But al reasonable men will coÌ„fesse that the article is so ofteÌ„ to be expressed as it may maketh any thing to the sense and vnderstanding of the place But as for your rule that it is not to be expressed in traÌ„slatioÌ„ when there may be more senses than one of the same is so good a rule that by the same reason and by equitie thereof when so euer any worde commeth in the text that may haue more senses than one we must skippe it ouer and not translate it at all and so wee shal leaue out fiue hundred wordes in the new Testament A better rule I take it to be in all such cases to examine what is most agreeable to the common phrase of the tongue and the scope of the text in hand according to which I say the verbe substantiue is both more vsuall and also more probable to be vnderstoode in this text 1. Cor. 15. than the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MART. 5. And here I appeale to all that haue skill in Greeke speaches and Phrases whether the Apostles wordes in Greeke sounde not thus I laboured more aboundantly than all they yet not I but the grace of God that laboured with mee Vnderstanding not the participle of Sum but of the verbe going before as in the like case when our Sauiour saith It is not you that speake but the holy Ghost that speaketh in you If he had spoken short thus but the holy Ghost in you you perhaps would translate as you doe here the holy Ghost WHICH IS IN YOV But you see the verbe going before is rather repeated Not you speake but the holy Ghost THAT SPEAKETH IN YOV Euen so Not I laboured but the grace of God labouring with me or WHICH LABOVRED WITH ME. So praieth the wise man Sap. 9 10. Sende wisedome out of thy holy heauens that she may be with me and labour with me as your selues translate Bib. 1577. FVLK 5. And I likewise appeale not onely to all that haue skill in Greeke speaches and phrases but to al
we be in deede most foule sinners and all our iustice be as the Prophete saith as a menstruous cloth yet in Christe he washeth and cleanseth vs from our sinnes and reputing his iustice as ours he maketh vs truly iuste before him not hauing our owne iustice whiche is of the lawe but the iustice which is by faith of Iesus Christe the iustice which is of God through faith Where you charge vs to affirme that our iustice being none at all in vs yet is allowed and accepted before hym for iustice and righteousnesse it is no assertion of ours but a dogged slaunder of your owne MART. 7. Againe to this purpose they make S. Paul saie that God hath made vs accepted or freely accepted in his beloued sonne as they make the Angel in S. Luke say to our Lady Haile freely beloued to take away all grace inherent and resident in the B. Virgin or in vs whereas the Apostles worde signifieth that wee are truely made gratious or gratefull and acceptable that is to say that our soule is inwardly endued and beautified with grace and the vertues proceeding thereof and consequently is holy in deede before the sight of God and not only so accepted or reputed as they imagine If they know not the true signification of the Greeke worde and if their heresie will suffer them to learne it let them heare S. Chrysostome not only a famous Greeke Doctor but an excellent interpreter of all S. Paules epistles who in this place putteth such force and significancie in the Greeke worde that he saith thus by an allusion and distinction of wordes He said not WHICH HE FREELY GAVE VS but WHEREIN HE MADE VS GRATEFVL that is not onely delyuered vs from sinne but also made vs beloued and amiable made our soule beautiful grateful such as the Angels and Archangels are desirous to see and such as himselfe is in loue withal according to that in the Psalme THE KING SHALL DESIRE or BE IN LOVE WITH THY BEAVTIE So S. Chrysostome and after him Theophylacte who with many moe wordes and similitudes explicate this Greeke worde and this making of the soule gratious and beautifull inwardly truely and inherently FVLK 7. Wee make S. Paule saye no otherwise than hee saith in deede 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee hath made vs accepted or he hath freely accepted vs in his beloued son And so we truely say the blessed Virgin Mary was freely accepted or freely beloued But this taketh not away the gratious gifts of God which the blessed Virgin in most plentifull maner was and we in some measure are indued by his grace and fauor which also God loueth in vs because they be his giftes and because he loueth vs freely in his beloued sonne whom alwaies you forget when you speake of iustice or acceptation before God For that being sanctified by his spirite we are holie indeed thoughe not perfectly as sanctification is begunne and not consummate in this life for if it were we should be voyd of sinne death we doe thankfully acknowledge yet those vertues wherewith our soule is inwardly indued and beautified are not the cause that iustifieth vs or maketh vs acceptable in Gods sight but onely his mercie in Iesus Christ for whose sake also he accepteth this vnperfect holines and righteousnes which is in vs by his grace and gift rewarding the same for his sake also with euerlasting glorie And nothing else doth Chrysostome say or meane in the place by you cited about whom you make so many wordes that you might be thought by giuing him his due praise to haue him as it were bound to you to maintaine your vnrighteous cause But Chrysostome careth not for your commendation and that which he sayth maketh nothing for iustice inherent by which we shoulde be iustified for he sayth not so much as that our soule is made amiable and beautiful by vertues and good qualities infused by his grace much lesse that for such qualities inherent in vs GOD shoulde iustifie vs but hee haeth made vs acceptable in Christe amiable and beautiful and louely to the Angels some effect of which grace also appeareth in our life and conuersation to the praise of God and good example of men MART. 8. And I would gladly knowe of the aduersaries if the like Greeke wordes be not of that forme and nature to signifie so much as to make worthy to make meete whether he whome God maketh worthy or meete or gratefull iust and holy be not so in very deede but by acceptation onely if not in deede then God maketh him no better than he was before but only accepteth him for better if he be so in deede then the Apostles word signifieth not to make accepted but to make such an one as being by Gods grace sanctified and iustified is worthy to be accepied for such puritie vertue and iustice as is in him FVLK 8. I haue told you before that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not to make worthye but to account worthye for many a man may desire vsing this verbe to be accoūted worthy of him which can not make him worthy but in his owne iudgement and account But where you demaund further whether he whome God maketh meete worthy gratefull iust holy be not so in deede but by acceptation onely I aunswer those whome he accepteth for worthy meete iust holy gratefull are so in deede but then it is further to be knowen whether they be such in them selues or in Christ. We say they are not such in them selues but in Christ. Then are they made nothing better say you in them selues Yes verily as soone as they are accepted to be Gods children and the iustice of Christ is imputed to thē through faith they receiue the spirite of adoption which reneweth them in the inwarde man and beginneth in them holines and iustice puritie vertue but because all these qualities are vnperfect they are not worthy in Gods iustice to be accepted for them but the cause of their acceptation is still the mercie of God in Christ in whome both they and their vnperfecte good qualities are accepted to reward MART. 9. Againe for this purpose Dan. 6. 22. they will not translate according to Chaldee Greeke and Latine Iustice was founde in me but they alter it thus My iustice was found out and other of them My vnguiltinesse was found out to draw it from inherent iustice which was in Daniel FVLK 9. I can but wonder at your impudence and malice which saye so confidently that for this purpose they translated thus Would any man by the iustice or innocencie that was in Daniel or in any iust man feare lest any thing should be detracted from the iustice of Christ whereby Daniel and all iust men are iustified in Gods sight Well let that purpose rest in Gods iudgement as Daniels iustice did when he was shamefully slaundered But what is the fault of the translation According to the Chaldee Greeke and Latine
repentance they doe not feine or forge this crime against him but vtter or disclose it For all men vnderstand that it was too true Neither was this Cyprians fault alone that he wrote of repentance many thing◠incommodiously and vnwisely but all the most holy fathers almost at that time were in the same errour For whiles they desired to restraine mens maners by seuere lawes they made the greatest part of repentance to consist in certaine externall discipline of life which them selues prescribed In that they punished vice seuerely they were to be borne withall but that by this meanes they thought to paye the paines due for sinnes and to satisfie Gods iustice and to procure to them selues assured impunitie remission and iustice therin they derogated not a litle from Christes death attributed too much to their owne inuentions and finally depraued repentance Thus farre the Answerer FVLK 10. If Campion was such a reuerend godly and learned father among you whose leuitie treason and ignorance in diuinitie hath bene so lately tried among vs we knowe how to esteeme of the whole packe of you Whose learning if it had bene neuer so great as by the time of his studie in diuinitie the trade of his trauailing life since he gaue him selfe thereto no wise man can esteeme that it was great yet being so lately attaynted of high treason against the Prince and the state none that is honest and dutifull would haue bestowed vpon him the commendation of godlinesse As for that which M. Whitaker hath answered against him although not in the name of both the Vniuersities by whom hee was neuer authorised to be their aduocate yet so as neither of both the Vniuersities neede be ashamed of his doing for as much as I know he hath cōfuted your quarrels already I will leaue you in this matter wholy to cōtend against him Assuring you of my credite which I know is but small with you that he shall be found sufficient to match with as strong and aduersarie as the Seminary of Rhemes can make out against him MART. 11. Marke how he accuseth the fathers in generall of no lesse crime than taking away from Christ the merits of his Passion attributing it to their owne penance and discipline Which if they did I maruell he should call them in this very place where he beginneth to charge thē with such a crime sanctissimos patres most holy fathers The truth is he might as well charge S. Paule with the same when he saith wee shall Be the heires of God and coheires with Christ yet so if we suffer with him that wee may also be glorified with him S. Paul saith our suffering also with Christ is necessarie to saluation Maister Whitakers saith it is a derogation to Christs suffering Christ fasted for vs therfore our fasting maketh nothing to saluation He prayed for vs was scourged and dyed for vs therefore our prayer scourging and emprisonment yea and death it selfe for his sake make nothing to life euerlasting and if we should thinke it doth we derogate from Christes passion Alas is this the diuinitie of Englande now a dayes to make the simple beleeue that the auncient fathers and holie men of the primitiue Church by their seuere life and voluntarie penaunce for their sinnes and for the loue of Christe didd◠therein derogate from Christes merites and passions FVLK 11. If the fathers at some time by attributing too much to externall discipline were carried somwhat too farre whereby not a little was derogated from the merits of Christs death yet they are not charged directly to haue impugned the dignitie thereof whyche when theyr eyes were attentiuely bent vpon it they did worthily magnifie and extoll That we must be conformable to the suffering of Christe if we wil bee made partakers of his glorie it is the diuinitie that is now taught in England but that any sufferings or any good works of ours whatsoeuer do merite any part of eternall glorie the diuinitie preached in England doth most iustly abhorre But that the holie men of the Primitiue Churche by theyr seuere lyfe and heartie repentaunce for theyr synnes testified by teares fasting and other chastising of their flesh for the loue of Christ did derogate from Christes merits and passion it is a lewde slaunder out of Fraunce from the trayterous seminarie at Rhemes but no part of the diuinitie of England allowed by the Vniuersities of Cambridge and Oxford as you would make simple men beleeue that it is MART. 12. I may not stand vpon this point neither neede I. the principall matter is proued by the aduersaries confession that the holy Doctors spake wrote and thought of penance and doing penance as we doe in the same termes both Greeke and Latine and with Catholikes it is alwayes a good argument and we desire no better proofe than this The Protestants graunt all the auncient fathers were of our opinion and they say it was their errour For the first parte being true it is madnesse to dispute whether al the auntient fathers erred or rather the newe Protestants as it is more than madnesse to thinke that Luther alone might see the truth more than a thousande Augustines a thousand Cypriās a thousand Churches Which notwithstanding the palpable absurditie therof yet M. Whitakers auoucheth it very solemnly FVLK 12. The confession you charge the aduersaries to make is of your own forgerie not of their concession But for want of other proofe it was the beste you could do to faine our graunt but you are not able to shew our deedes thereof in writing As neither of the rest that the antient fathers were all of our opinion by the Protestants graunt that Luther might see more of himselfe alone than c. but whatsoeuer M. Whitaker hath aduouched I leaue to himselfe to answere MART. 13. And yet againe that the reader maye see howe they play faste and loose at their pleasure this is the man that when he hath giuen vs al the fathers on our side not onely in the matter of penaunce but also in inuocation of Saincts and in diuers other errours as he calleth them the very same man I say in the very next leaues almoste renueth Maister Iewels olde bragge that we haue not one cleare sentence for vs of any one father within sixe hundred yeares after Christe and againe that the same faith reigneth nowe in England which these father 's professed What fayth M. Whitakers not their faith concerning penance or inuocation of Saincts as your self confesse or other such like errours of theirs as you terme them Why are you so forgetfull or rather so impudent to speake contraries in so litle a roome Such simple aunswering will not serue your aduersaries learned booke which you in vaine goe about by foolish Rhetorike to disgrace when the world seeth you are driuen to the wall and either can say nothing or doe say that which confuteth is selfe with the
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
Hebrue Bible into Greeke Is not their credit I say in determining and defining the signification of the Hebrue worde farre greater than yours No. Is not the authoritie of all the auncient fathers both Greeke and Latine that followed them equiualent in this case to your iudgement No say they but because we finde some ambiguitie in the Hebrue we will take the aduantage and we will determine and limit it to our purpose FVLK 45. S. Hieronym aboundantly aunswereth this cauill denying that supposed inspiration and deâ—iding the fable of their 70. celles which yet pleased Augustine greately yea calling in question whether anye more were translated by them than the fiue bookes of Moses because Aristaeus a writer in Ptolomees time and after him Iosephus make mention of no more The same cause therfore that moued S. Hierome to translate out of the Hebrewe mooueth vs whose translation if we had it sounde ande perfect might much further vs for the same purpose Althoughe for the signification of the Hebrewe wordes we require no more credite than that which al they that be learned in the Hebrewe tongue must be forced to yeelde vnto vs. And seeing your vulgare Latine departeth from the Septuagintaes interpretation euen in the bookes of Moses whiche if anie bee theirs may most rightly be accounted theirs because it is certaine they translated them although it be not certaine whether they translated the rest with what equity do you require vs to credite them which your owne vulgare translation affirmeth to haue translated amisse as I haue shewed before in the example of Canans generation An other example you haue in the 4 of Genesis Nonne si bene egeris recipies c. If thou shalt do wel shalt thou not receiue but if thou shalt doe euill straighte-way thy sinnes shall be present in the doores The greke texte hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. not if thou haste rightly offered but thou hast not rightly diuided hast thou sinned be stil. Where your translation commeth muche nearer to the Hebrue as might be shewed in verie many examples As for the auncient fathers credit of the greeke Church and the Latine that folowed them if our iudgement alone be not aequiualent vnto them yet let these auncient fathers Origene and Hierome that thought them not sufficient to be followed and therefore gathered or framed other interpretations let theyr iudgement I say ioining with ours discharge vs of this fonde and enuious accusation MART. 46. Againe we condiscend to their wilfulnes and say what if the Hebrewe be not ambiguous but so plaine and certaine to signifie one thing that it can not bee plainer As Thou shalt not leaue my soule in Hel whiche prooueth for vs that Christ in soule descended into Hell Is not the one Hebrewe worde as proper for soule as anima in Latine the other as proper and vsual for hel as infernus in Latine Heere then at the least wil you yeeld No say they not here neither for Beza telleth vs that the word which commonly and vsually signifieth soule yet for a purpose if a man wil straine it may signifie not onely bodie but also carcase and so he translateth it But Beza say we being admonished by his friendes corrected it in his later edition Yea say they he was content to change his translation but not his opinion concerning the Hebrewe worde as himselfe protesteth FVLK 46. You haue chosen a text for example wherein is least colour except it bee with the vnlearned of an hundred For whereas you aske whether Nephesh be no not as proper for soule as anima in Latin Sheol for Hel as infernus in Latine I vtterly deny both the one and the other For nephesh is properly the life and Sheol the graue or pit though it may sometimes be taken for Hel which is a consequent of the death of the vngodly as nephesh is taken for person or ones selfe or as it is sometimes for a dead carcase Yea there be that hold that it is neuer taken for the reasonable immortall soule of a man as anima is specially of Ecclesiasticall writers That Beza translated the Greeke of the newe Testament after the signification of the Hebrewe wordes althoughe it was true in sense yet in mine opinion it was not proper in wordes and therefore he himselfe hath corrected it in his latter editions as you confesse hee hathe not chaunged hys opinion concerning the Hebrewe the reason is because it is grounded vppon manifest textes of Scripture whiche hee citeth Leuit. 19. verse 27. cap. 21. verse 1. and 11. Num. 5. verse 2. and 9. verse 10. In the firste place your owne vulgare Latine translation for la nephesh turneth mortuo you shall not cut your flesh for one that is dead In the second place your vulgare Latine hathe Ne non contaminetur sacerdos in mortibus and Ad omnem mortuum non ingredietur omnino Lette not the Priest bee defiled with the deathes of his countreymen and The highe Priest shall not enter into any dead bodie at all where the Hebrue is lenephesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the thirde place your vulgare Latine readeth polluiusque est super mortuo they shall caste out him that is polluted by touching a dead carcase where the Hebrewe is lanephesh In the first place your vulgare Latine hathe indede anima but in the same sense that it had before mortuo for the text is of him that is vncleane by touching any dead bodie which in Hebrue is nephesh How say you nowe is the Hebrewe worde as proper for soule as anima in Latine except you wil say the Latine worde anima dothe properly signifie a dead bodie hathe not Beza good reason to retaine his opinion concerning the Hebrewe worde when hee hathe the authoritie of youre owne vulgare translation You that note such iumps and shiftes in vs whether wil you leape to saue your honestie will you saye the Hebrewe texte is corrupted since your translation was drawen out of it The seauentie interpretours then will crie out againste you for they with one mouth in all these places for the Hebrewe worde nephesh render the vsuall signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adding in the 21. of Leuit. v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which either you muste translate a deade bodie or you shall call it absurdly a dead soule Woulde any man think to haue founde in you eyther suche grosse ignoraunce or shamefull negligence or intollerable malice against the trueth that Beza sending you to the places eyther you woulde not or you coulde not examine them or if you dydde examine them that you woulde notwythstanding thus malitiouslye agaynste youre owne knowledge and conscience raile against him you make vs to saye if a manne will straine the worde it may signifie not onely bodie but also carcase What saye you did Moses straine the worde to that signification You saide beefore that wee were at the iumps and turnings of
permitte such consistories of Elders for onely discipline and gouernment as be in some other Churches yet doe they not only permit but also mainteyne and reuerence such Elders being signified by the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as are necessarie for the gouernment of the Church in doctrine Sacraments and discipline to the saluation of Gods people The dayly sacrifice mentioned in Daniell was the Morning and Euening sacrifice of the old Lawe wherevnto your blasphemous sacrifice of the Masse hath no resemblaunce You may not therefore looke to recouer the credite of Massing Priestes by that sacrifice which being once instituted by God was at length taken away by the onely sacrifice of Christes death Against which all the Apologies in the worlde shall neuer be able to defende your Massing Priesthood As for the chapter of Allens Apologie wherevnto you refer vs conteyneth certaine quotations a few sentences of the auncient writers which haue bene answered an huÌ„dreth times to iustifie massing Priests but all in vaine for neuer shall he proue that any one from the Eldest which he nameth vnto Beda which is the yongest was such a Massing Prieste in all pointes as those traytours are which by the Queenes lawes and edict are proscribed and prohibited I meane not for their manners but for their Masse and all opinions incident therevnto CHAP. VII Hereticall translation against PVRGATORIE LIMBVS PATRVM CHRISTS DESCENDING INTO HEL Martin HAVING now discouered their corrupt translations for defacing of the Churches name and abolishing of Priest and Priesthood let vs come to another point of very great importance also and which by the wonted consequence or sequele of errour includeth in it many erroneous branches Their principall malice then being bent against Purgatorie that is against a place were Christian soules be purged by suffering of temporall paines after this life for surer maintenaunce of their erroncous deniall hereof they take away and denie all third places saying that there was neuer from the beginning of the worlde any other place for soules after this life but onely two to witte heauen for the blessed and hell for the damned And so it foloweth by their hereticall doctrine that the Patriarches Prophetes and other good holy men of the old Testament went not after their deaths to the place called Abrahams bosome or Limbus patrum But immediatly to heauen so againe by their erroneous doctrinâ— it foloweth that the fathers of the old Testament were in heauen before our sauiour Christe had suffered death for their redemption and also by their erroneous doctrine it foloweth that our sauiour Christ was not the first man that ascended and entred into heauen and moreouer by their hereticall doctrine it foloweth that our sauiour Christe desâ—ended not into any such third place to deliuer the fathers of the olde Testament out of their prison and to bring them triumphantly with him into heauen because by their erroneous doctrine they were neuer there â— and so that article of the Apostles Creede concerning our sauiour Christ his descending into hell must either be put out by the Caluinists as Beza did in his Confession of his faith printed An. 1564. or it hath some other meaning to wit either the lying of his bodie in the graue or as Caluine and the purer Caluinists his schollers will haue it the suffering of hell paines distresses vpon the Crosse. Loe the consequence and coherence of these errours and heresies Fulke WE may be bolde to say with S. Augustine We beleeue according to the auctoritie of God that the kingdome of heauen is the first place appointed for Gods elect and that hell is the seconde place where all the reprobrate such is be not of the faith of Christe shall suffer eternall punishment Tertium penitus ignoramus imo nec esse in scripturis sanctis inuenimus The thirde place we are vtterly ignorant of yea and that it is not wee finde in the holy Scriptures But hereof it followeth say you that the godly of the olde Testament went not after their deathes to Abrahams bosome or Limbus patrum but immediately to heauen Of Limbus patrum which is a border of the Popes hel I grauÌ„t it followeth but of Abrahams bosome it followeth none otherwise than if I should say Gregorie Martin went into Chepeside Ergo he went not to London That the fathers of the old Testament were in Heauen before our Sauiour Christ had suffered death for their redemption it is no incoÌ„uenience for his death was as effectuall to redeeme them that liued before he suffered actually as them that liue since because in Gods sight hee is the Lambe that was slaine from the beginning of the world And the fathers that were iustified by faith in his bloud receyued the same crowne and rewarde of rightuousnesse that we do beyng iustified by the same meanes And yet our Sauiour Christe was the first man that in his whole manhood ascended and entred into heauen into the fulnesse and perfection of glory which is prepared for all Gods elect to be enioyed after the generall resurrection That our Sauiour Christe descended into no prison after his death we verily beleeue and yet we do also constantly beleeue the article of our Creede that he descended into hel by suffering in soule the paynes due to Gods iustice for the sinnes of all whome hee redeemed and by vanquishing the Deuill and all the power of hel in working the redemption of all the children of God If Beza in his confession had cleane left out that article whiche is vntrue hee had bene no more to bee blamed than the auctors of the Nicene Creede and many other Creedes in which it is not expressed because it is partly conteyned vnder the article of his sufferings partly it is in parte of the effect and vertue of his death and redemption MART. 2. These nowe being the hereticall doctrines which they meane to auouch and defende what soèuer come of it first they are at a point not to care a rushe for all the auncient holy Doctours that write with full consent to the contrarie as themselues confesse calling it their common errour secondly they translate the holy Scriptures in fauour thereof most corruptly and wilfully as in Bezaes false translation who is Caluines successor in Geneua it is notorious for he in his newe Testament of the yeare 1556. printed by Robertus Stephanus in folio with Annotations maketh our Sauiour Christ say thus to his father Non derelinques cadauer meuÌ„ in sepulchro Thou shalt not leaue my carcasse in the graue Act. 2. For that which the Hebrue and the Greeke and the Latine and S. Hierome according to the Hebrue say Non derelinques animam meam in inferno as plainly as we say in English Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell Thus the Prophet Dauid spake it in the Hebrue Psal. 15. Thus the Septuaginta vttered it in Greeke thus the Apostle S. Peter
FVLK 13. That which is spoken indifferently of the elect and reprobate must needes be vnderstoode of that which is common to both that is corporall death How can it be verified of their soules that they were laid to the fathers when betwene the godly and the wicked there is an infinite distance but the earth the graue or pitte is a common receptacle of all dead bodies That Samuel which being raysed vppe spake to Saul might truely say of his soule though not of all his sonnes that he should be with him in hell for it was the spirite of Satan and not of Samuel although counterfaiting Samuel he might speake of the death of Saule and his sonnes As for that verse of the eighty and fiue Psalme whereupon you do falsely so often alleage S. Augustines resolution what absurditie hath it to translate it from the lowest graue or from the bottome of the graue whereby Dauid meaneth extreame daunger of death that he was in by the malice of his persecuting enemies Saule and his complices But we are afrayed to say in any place that any soule was deliuered and returned from hell We say that the soules of all the faithfull are deliuered from hell but of any which after death is condemned to hell we acknowledge no returne And these wordes are spoken by Dauid while he liued and praised God for his deliueraunce which might be not onely from the graue but also from hell sauing that here he speaketh of his preseruation from death MART. 14. And that this is their feare it is euident because that in al other places where it is plaine that the holy scriptures speake of the hel of the daÌ„ned from whence is no returne they translate there the verie same worde Hell and not graue As for example The way of life is on high to the prudent to auoide from Hell beneath Loe here that is translated Hell beneath which before was translated the lowest graue And againe Hell and destruction are before the Lorde howe muche more the harts of the sonnes of men But when in the holy Scriptures there is mention of deliuery of a soul from Hell then thus they translate God shal deliuer my soul from the power of the graue for he will receiue me Can you tell what they would say doeth God deliuer them from the graue or from teÌ„porall death whom he receiueth to his mercie or hath the graue any power ouer the soule Againe when they say What man liueth and shall not see death shall he deliâ—er his soule from the hand of the graue FVLK 14. I haue shewed before diuerse times that although the Hebrue word Sheol doe properly signifie a receptacle of the bodies after death yet when mention is of the wicked by consequence it may signifie hell as the day signifieth light the night darkenesse fire heate peace signifieth prosperitie and an hundreth suche like speaches But where you say that Prouerb 15. v. 24. that is translated hell beneath which before was translated the lowest graue Psalm 85. v. 13. You say vntruly for although in both places there is the worde Sheol yet in that Psalme there is Tachtyah in the Prouerbes Mattah for which if it were translated the graue that declineth or is downewarde it were no inconuenience In the other textes you trifle vpon the worde soule whereas the Hebrewe worde signifieth not the reasonable soule which is separable from the bodie but the life or the whole person of man which may rightly be said to be deliuered from the hande or power of the graue as the verse 48. doth plainely declare when in the later parte is repeated the sense of the former as it is in many places of the Psalmes MART. 15. If thâ—y take graue properly where mans bodie is buried it is not true either that euerie soule yea or euery bodie is buried in a graue But if in all such places they will say they meane nothing else but to signifie death and that to goe downe into the graue and to die is all one we aske them why they followe noâ— the wordes of the holy Scripture to signifie the same thing which call it going downe to Hell not going downe to the graue Here they must needes open the mystery of Antichrist working in their translations and say that so they shoulde make Hell a common place to all that departed in the olde Testament which they will not no noâ— in the most important places of our beleefe concerning our Sauiour Christes descending into Hell and triumphing ouer the same Yea therefore of purpose they will not onely for to defeate that parte of our Christian Creede FVLK 15. We can not alwaies take the word graue properly when the Scripture vseth it figuratiuely But if we say to goe downe to the graue and to die is all one you aske vs why we followe not the wordes of the holy Scripture I aunswere we doe for the Scripture calleth it graue and not hell Where is then your vaine clattering of the mysterie of Antichrist that we must open Because we will not acknowledge that hereticall common place inuented by Marcion the heretike we purpose to defeate the article of Christes descending into hell A monstrous sclaunder when we doe openly confesse it and his triumphing ouer hell in more triumphant manner than you determine it For if he descended into that hell onely in which were the soules of the faithfull which was a place of rest of comfort of ioy and felicitie what triumphe was it to ouercome suche an hell which if you take away the hatefull name of hell by your owne description will proue rather an heauen than an hell But we beleeue that he triumphed ouer the hell of the damned and ouer all the power of darkenesse which he subdued by the vertue of his obedience and sacrifice so that it should neuer be able to claime or holde any of his elect whome he had redeemed MART. 16. As when the Prophet first Osee. 13. and afterward the Apostle 1. Cor. 15. in the Greeke sâ—y thus Ero mors tua ô mors morsus tuus ero inferne Vbi est mors stimulus tuus vbi est inferne victoria tua O death I will be thy death I will be thy sting ô Hell Where is ô death thy sting where is ô hell thy victorie They translate in both places O graue in steede of ô Hel. What else can be their meaning hereby but to draw the Reader from the common sense of our Sauiour Christs descending into hell conquering the same and bringing out the fathers and iust men triumphantly from thence into heauen which sense hath alwaies bene the common sense of the Catholike church holy Doctors specially vpon this place of the Prophet And what a kinde of speach is this and out of all tune to make our Sauiour Christ say O graue I will be thy destruction as though he had triumphed ouer the graue not
ouer hell or ouer the graue that is ouer death and so the Prophet should say death twise and Hell not at all FVLK 16. S. Hierom whom you quote in the margent to proue that all the Catholike Doctors vnderstoode this text of Osee of Christes descending into hell and thereby reproue our translation which for hell sayeth graue after he hath repeated the wordes of the Apostle 1. Cor. 15. vpon this text thus he concludeth Itaque quod ille in resurrectionem interpretatus est Domini noâ— aliter interpretari nec possumus nec audemus Therefore that which the Apostle hath interpreted of our Lordes resurrection we neither can nor dare interprete otherwise You see therefore by Hieromes iudgement that in this text which is proper of Christes resurrection it is more proper to vse the word of graue than of hell How vainly the same Hierome interpreteth the last wordes of this chapter of spoiling the treasure of euerie vessell that is desireable of Christs deliuering out of hel the most precious vessells of the Saincts c. I am not ignoraunt but we speake of translation of the 14. verse which being vnderstoode of Christes resurrection it argueth that the graue is spoken of rather than hell As for the repetition of one thing twise for vehemencie and certainties sake is no inconuenient thing but commonly vsed in the Scriptures MART. 17. Why my Maisters you that are so wonderful precise translatoures admit that our sauiour Christ descended not into Hel beneath as you say yet I thinke you will grant that he triumphed ouer Hell and was conquerer of the same Why then did it not please you to suffer the Prophet to say so at the least rather than that he had conquest only of death and the graue You abuse your ignorant reader very impudently your owne selues verie damnably not onely in this but in that you make graue and death all one and so where the holy Scripture often ioyneth togither death and Hell as things different and distinct you make them speake but one thing twise idly and superfluously FVLK 17. For our faith of Christs triumphing ouer hell I haue spoken alreadie sufficiently but of the Prophetes meaning beside the wordes them selues the Apostle is best expounder who referreth it to the resurrection and his victorie ouer death which he hath gayned not for him selfe alone but for all his elect Where you say we make graue and death all one it is false We knowe they differ but that one may â—e signified by the other without any idle or superfluous repetition in one verse I referre me to a whole hundred of examples that may be brought out of the Psalmes the Prophetes and the Prouerbes where wordes of the same like or neere significatioÌ„ are twise togither repeated to note the same matter which none but a blasphemous dogge will say to be done idly or superfluously MART. 18. But will you know that you should not confound them but that Mors Infernus which are the wordes of the holy Scripture in all tongues are distinct heare what S. Hierome sayth or if you will not heare because you are of them which haue stopped their eares let the indifferent Christian Reader harken to this holy Doctor and great interpreter of the holy Scriptures according to his singular knowledge in all the learned tongues Vpon the foresaid place of the Prophet after he had spoken of our Sauiour Christes descending into hell and ouercomming of death he addeth Betwene death and hell this is the difference that death is that whereby the soule is separated from the body Hell is the place where soules are included either in rest or else in paines according to the qualitie of their deserts And that death is one thing and Hell is another the Psalmist also declareth saying THERE IS not in death that is mindfull of thee but in Hell who shall confesse to thee And in another place Let death come vpon them and let them goe downe into Hell aliue Thus farre S. Hierom. FVLK 18. He that by the graue vnderstandeth a place to receiue the bodies of the dead and figuratiuely death doth no more confound the wordes of death and the graue then he that by a cup vnderstandeth a vessell to receiue drinke properly and figuratiuely that drinke which is contayned in such a vessell Therefore that you cite out of Hierome maketh nothing against vs for hee him selfe although deceyued by the Septuagintes or rather by the ambiguitie of the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they vse in the signification of the Hebrue worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet by Infernus vnderstandeth them that be In inferno and the dead as wee doe by the worde graue oftentimes As for his opinion of the godly soules in happie hell before Christes death or his interpretation of any other parte of Scripture wee professe not to followe in our translations but as neere as wee can the true significatioÌ„ of the words of holy Scripture with such sence if any thing be doubtfull as the proper circumstances of euery place will lead vs vnto that wee may attayne to the meaning of the holy Ghost MART. 19. By which differences of death and Hell whereof wee must often aduertise the Reader are meant two things death and the going downe of the soule into some receptacle of Hell in that state of the olde Testament at what time the holy Scriptures vsed this phrase so often Now these impudent translators in all these places translate it graue of purpose to confound it and death togither and to make it but one thing which S. Hierom sheweth to be different in the very same sense that we haue declared FVLK 19. The difference of Mors Infernus which Hierome maketh can not alwaies stand as I haue shewed of the hoare heades of Iacob Ioab and Shemei which none but madde men will say to haue descended into a receptacle of soules beside other places of Scripture where Sheol must of necessity signifie a place for the bodie And euen those places of the Psalmes that S. Hierom calleth to witnesse do make against his error For where Dauid sayth Psal. 6. In hell who shall confesse vnto thee How can it be true of the soules of the faithfull being in that holy hell Abrahams bosome Did not Abraham confesse vnto God acknowledge his mercie Did not Lazarus the same did not all the holy soules departed confesse God in Abrahams bosome Were all those blessed soules so vnthankefull that being carried into that place of rest and comfort none of them would coÌ„fesse Gods benefits It is plaine therefore to the confusion of your error that Sheol in that place of Dauid must nedes signifie the graue in which no man doth confesse praise or giue thanks vnto God of whom in death there is no remembraunce Therefore he desireth life and restoring of health that he may praise God in his Church or congregation Likewise in the Psal. 54.
where he prophesieth vnto the wicked a sodaine death such as befell to Chore Dathan Abiram which went downe quicke into the graue Not into hell whether come no bodies of men liuing but the soules of men that are dead MART. 20. But alas is it the very nature of the Hebrew Greeke or Latine that forceth theÌ„ so much to English it graue rather than hel we appeale to all Hebricians Grecians Latinists in the world first if a man would aske what is Hebrew or Greeke or Latine for Hell whether they would not answer these three words as the very proper words to signifie it euen as panis signifieth bread secondly if a man would aske what is Hebrew or Greeke or Latine for a graue whether they would answer these words and not three other which they know are as proper words for graue as lac is for milke FVLK 20. The very nature of the Hebrew worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is most properly to signifie a graue or receptacle of dead bodies as all that be learned in that tongue doe knowe About the Greeke and Latine termes is not our question and therefore you deale deceitfully to handle them all three togither Although neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor Infernus are so proper for hel but that they may be taken also sometimes for the graue and so perhaps were meant by the Greeke and Latine translators in diuerse places You speake therefore as one voyd of all shame to say they are as proper for hell as panis for breade Where you aske what is Hebrew Greeke or Latine for hell you must vnderstand that if you speake of a proper word for those inuisible places wherein the soules departed are either in ioy or torments I answer there is no proper word for those places either in Hebrew Greeke or Latine For that which of all these tongues is translated heauen is the proper word for the sensible skye in which are the Sunne Moone and Starres and by a figure is transferred to signifie the place of Gods glorie in which he reigneth with the blessed spirits of Angels and men aboue this sensible world Paradise and Abrahams bosome who is so childish not to acknowledge them to be borrowed wordes and not proper So fo◠〈…〉 of the reprobate soules in the Hebrue tongue Tâ—pheâ—â— or Gehinnom which properly are the names of an abhominable place of Idolatry are vsed Sheol somtimes figuratiuely may signifie the same In Greeke Latin Gâ—henna is vsed for the same which is borrowed of the Hebrue Sometimes also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke is taken for the place of the damned and the kingdome of darkenesse The Latine word Infernus is any lowe place Wherefore I can not maruaile sufficiently at your impudencie which affirme these three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Infernus to be as proper for our English worde hell as Panis is for bread That there be other wordes beside these in all the three tongues to signifie a graue I maruaile to what purpose you tell vs except you would haue ignorant folke suppose that there cannot be two Hebrue Greeke or Latine wordes for one thing MART. 21. Yea note and consider diligently what wee will say Let them shewe me out of all the Bible one place where it is certaine and agreed among all that it must needes signifie graue let them shewe me in any one such place that the holy Scripture vseth any of those former three wordes for graue As when Abraham bought a place of burial whether he bought Infernum or when it is said the kings of Israel were buried in the monuments or sepulchers of their fathers whether it say in infernis patrum suorum So that not onely Diuines by this obseruation but Grammarians also and children may easily see that the proper and naturall signification of the said wordes is in English Hel and not graue FVLK 21. We note wel your foolish subtiltie that will haue vs to shewe you one place where it is oertaine and agreed among al that sheol muste needes signifie graue I am perswaded that you and such as you are that haue sold your selues to Antichrist to maintaine his heresies with all impudencie will agree to nothing that shall be brought though it be neuer so plaine and certaine that it must needes so signifie I haue already shewed you three places where the hoare head is sayd to goe down into sheol that is into the graue For whether shold the hoare head goe but into the graue Nothing can be more plaine to him that will agree to truth that sheol in all such places is taken for the graue But to omit those places because I haue spoken of them all readie what say you to that place Numb 16 where the earth opened her mouth swallowed vp the rebelles with their tents and all there substaunce of cattaile and what soeuer they had where the text sayeth They went downe and all that they had aliue sheolah into the pitte or graue God made a great graue or hole in the earth to receiue them all Where no man will saie that evther the bodies of these men or their substaunce of Tentes cattaile and stuffe went into hell as it is sure their soules wente into torment And if authoritie do way more with you than good reason heare what S. Augustine writeth vpon the same texte and how he taketh your inferos or infernum which in the Hebrue is sheol Quest. super Num. lib. 4. c. 29. Et descenderunt ipsi omnia quaecunque sunt eis viuentes ad inferos Notandum secundum locum terreniâ—m dictos esse inferos hoc est c. And they themselues descended and all that they had aliue vnto Inferas the lower partes It is to be noted that Inferi are spoken of an earthly place that is in the lowe partes of the earth For diuersly and vnder manifold vnderstaÌ„ding euen as the sense of things which are in hand requireth the name of Inferi is put in the Scriptures especially it is wont to be taken for the dead But for asmuch as it is saide that those descended aliue ad inferos by the very narration it appeareth sufficiently what was done it is manifest as I said that the lower partes of the earth are termed by this word inferi in comparison of this vpper part of the earth in which we liue Like as in comparison of the higher heauen where the dwelling of the holy Aungels is the Scripture saith that the sinful Angels being thrust downe into the darknesse of this ayre are reserued as it were in prisons of a lower part or hel to be punished S. Augustine here doth not only vnderstand this place of the graue or receptacle of bodies but also sheweth that the Latin word inferi or infernus doth not alwaies signifie hel as you made it of late as proper for hel as Panis for bread But bicause you shal