bene accounted is it credible that the holy Ghost would neuer haue called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well yea and rather than the Sacrificers of the olde Testament Seeing therefore the holy Ghost had made such a broade difference betwene their names and offices those auncient fathers that confounded those names which the spirit of God would haue to be distinct can not be excused although they neuer dreamed of the mischiefe that followed that the altar of the crosse being ouerthroweÌ„ the only sufficient sacrifice which Christ our high Sacrificer offered once for all being iudged imperfect a new altar a newe sacrifice and a new sacrificing Priesthoode shoulde be set vp in the steede of it Wherefore the vnproper speaches of the auncient writers are no warrant for vs either to translate the Scripture according to their vnproper speaking or to set vp a newe sacrifice and function of sacrificing contrarie to their meaning They named sacrifice and offering but they meant not propitiatorie sacrifiee but only of prayers or praises and giuing of thankes They named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Sacerdotes but they meant according to the generall etymologie of those wordes suche as were occupied in distributing holy things not suche as shoulde verily sacrifice the bodie of Christ againe to his father but offer the sacrifice of thankes giuing in the Sacrament of the Lordes supper which after a certaine manner as Sainct Augustine sayeth is called the bodie of Christ when in deede it is the Sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ. And it is called the sacrificing of the bodie of Christ not in trueth of the thing but a signifying mysterie as Gracian citeth out of Hierome MART. 25. Likewise when Sainct Ambrose sayth The consecration of the bodie of Christ with what wordes is it and by whose speache Of our Lord Iesus For in the rest that is said there is praise giuen to God prayer made for the people for Kings and others but when it commeth that the venerable Sacrament must be consecrated now the Priest vseth not his owne words but he vseth the wordes of Christ. And S. Chrysostome in very many places saith The sacred oblation it selfe whether Peter or Paul or any meaner Priest whatsoeuer offer it is the verie same that Christ gaue vnto his disciples and which now the Priestes doe make or consecrate Why so I pray thee because not men doe sanctifie this but Christ him selfe which before consecrated the same And againe It is not man that maketh the bodie and bloud of Christ but he that was crucified for vs Christ the wordes are vttered by the Priestes mouth and by Gods power grace are the things proposed consecrated For this sayth he is my bodie With this worde are the things proposed consecrated FVLK 25. These testimonies are heaped vp without any neede for the vnproper vsage of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacerdos in the auncient writers we doe acknowledge but in the holy Scripture you are not able to bring one place where Presbyteri of the newe Testament are called Sacerdotes or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore of the vnproper applying of these names to the Ministers of the newe Testament can followe no consequence of externall sacrifice or altar which you vrge except sacrifice and altar be likewise vsed vnproperly as where the table is called an altar the bread wine a sacrifice as in Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. where also he saith that the sacrifices do not sanctifie the man but the coÌ„science of the man being purâ— sanctifieth the sacrifice and causeth God to accept it as of a friende cap 34. Which can not in any wise be true of the naturall bodie of Christ. MART. 26. And so be these places where them selues translate Sacerdos a Priest they may learne also how to translate Presbyteros in S. Hierome saying the verie same thing that at their praiers the bodie and bloud of our Lord is made And in an other place that with their sacred mouth they make our Lordes bodie Likewise when they read S. Ambrose agaist the Nouatians that God hath grauÌ„ted liceÌ„câ— to his Priests to release forgiue as well great sinnes as litle without exception in the Ecclesiastical history how the Nouatian Heretikes taught that such as were fallen into great sinnes should not aske for remission of the Priest but of God onely they may learne howe to translate Presbyteros in S. Hierom and in the Ecclesiasticall historie where the one sayth thus Episcopus Presbyter cùm peccatorum audierit varietates scit qui ligandus sit qui soluendus and the other speaketh de Presbytero Poenitentiario of an extraordinarie Priest that heard confessions and enioyned penance who afterward was taken away and the people went to diuerse ghostly fathers as before And especially Saint Chrysostome â—ill make them vnderstand what these Presbyteri were and how they are to be called in English who telleth them in their owne word that Sacerdotes the Priestes of the newe lawe haue power not onely to know but to purge the filth of the soule therefore whosoeuer despiseth them is more worthy to be punished than the â—ebell Dathan and his complices FVLK 26. Where S. Hierom vseth the worde Presbyteri we wil make no great curtesie to translate Priests knowing that when he sayth at their prayers the bodie and bloud of Christ is made he meaneth the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ as he him selfe sayth in an other place Dupliciter sanguis Christi â—arâ— intelligitur The bloud and flesh of Christ is vnderstoode two maner of wayes either that spirituall and diuine whereof he him selfe sayde my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede and except yee shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud you shall not haue eternall life or else the flesh and bloud which was crucified and which was shedde by the speare of the souldier This and such other places teach vs to vnderstand S. Hierome if he speake any where obscurely or vnproperly of the mysterie of our Lordes supper We graunt with Ambrose that God hath giuen auctoritie to all the ministers of the worde to remit all sinnes that be remissible But this do not you graunt for you reserue some to the Bishops and some to the Pope alone to remitte wherein you goe cleane against Ambrose who fauoureth you not so much by the terme Sacerdos which you say he vseth as he condemneth your partiall Popish reseruation of cases when he alloweth euery Priest to forgiue as well great sinnes as litle without exception S. Hierom you cite at large as it seemeth to insinuate auricular coÌ„fession But the whole saying you liked not because it sheweth how they forgiue sinnes It is writteÌ„ in Math. lib. 3. cap. 16. vpoÌ„ those wordes spoken to Peter Vnto thee will I giue the keies of the kingdome of
Let a bishop be consecrated or ordained by two or three Bishops Let a Priest be made by one Bishop See in the 4. Councel of Carthage the diuerse maner of coÌ„secrating Bishops Priests Deacons c. Where S. Augustine was present and subscribed Againe Si quis Presbyter conteÌ„nens Episcopum suum c. If any Priest contemning his Bishop make a seueral congregation and erect another altar that is make a Sehisme or Heresie let him be deposed So did Arius being a Priest against his Bishop AlexaÌ„der Againe Priests and Deacons let them attempt to do nothing without the Bishop The first Councell of Nice saith The holy Synode by all meanes forbiddeth that neyther Bishop nor Priest nor Deacon c. haue with them any forren woman but the mother or sister c. in whom there is no suspicion Againe It is told the holy Councel that in certaine places cities Deacons giue the Sacraments to Priests This neither rule nor custome hath deliuered that they which haue not authoritie to offer the sacrifice should giue to them that offer the body of Christ. The 3. Councel of Carthage wherein S. Augustine was and to the which he subscribed decreeth That in the Sacraments of the body bloud of Christ there be no more offered than our Lord him selfe deliuered that is bread and wine mingled with water Whiche the sixth generall Councell of Constantinople repeating and confirming ad doth If therefore any Bishop or Priest doe not according to the order giuen by the Apostles mingling water with wine but offer an vnmingled sacrifice let him be deposed c. But of these speaches all Councelles be full where wee would gladly know of these new Translatours how Presbyter must be translated eyther an Elder or a Priest FVLK 17. I thinke you haue cleane forgotten your promise so lately made that this word Presbyter hath alwaies bin peculiar for a Priest you bring many testimonies some counterfaite some autenticall in which the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Presbyter is found but that in all them it is peculiar for a Priest you shew not at all Some colour it hath of that you say in the 14. Can. of the Nicene Councell Carth. 3. c. 24. repeated Const. 6. where mention is made of sacrifice and offering for so they did vnproperly call the administration of the Lordes supper in respect of the sacrifice of thanks giuing that was offered therein After which phrase also they called the Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Sacerdotes sacrificers So they called that which in deede was a table of wood an altar and the inferior ministers Leuites by which it appeareth they did rather allude to the names vsed in the old TestameÌ„t than acknowledged a sacrificing Priesthood that might as properly be so called as the Priesthood after the order of Aaron was Sometime they vsed the name of sacrifice Sacerdos generally for religious seruice the minister of religion as the Gentils did And hereof it is that wee read often of the sacrifices of bread and wine and in the Canon of Carthage by you cited Nec amplius in sacrificijs offeratur quà m de vuis frumentis And let no more be offered in the sacrifices thaÌ„ that which is made of grapes and corne This was bread and wine not the naturall body and bloud of Christe Wherefore these vnpropre speaches proue not a sacrificing priesthood whereby the naturall body and bloud of Christ should be offered in the Masse which is the marke you shoote at MART. 18. Do not all the fathers speake after the same maner making alwaies this distinction of Bishop and Priest as of the first and second degree S. Ignatius the Apostles scholer doth he not place Presbyterium as he calleth it and Presbyteros Priests or the College of Priests next after Bishops and Deacons in the third place repeating it no lesse than thrice in one Epistle and coÌ„mending the dignitie of all three vnto the people doth not S. Hierom the very same saying Let vs honour a Bishop do reuerence to a Priest rise vp to a Deacon And when he saith that as Aaron his sonnes the Leuites were in the Temple so are Bishops Priests and Deacons in the Church for place and degree And in an other place speaking of 〈…〉 ages done by the Vandals and such like Bishops were 〈…〉 Priestes slaine and diuerse of other Ecclesiastical oâ—â—ers Churches ouerthrowen the altars of Christe made stables for horses the relikes of Martyrs digged vp c. When he saith of Nepotian fit Clericus per solitos gradus Presbyter ordinatur he becommeth a man of the Clergie and by the accustomed degrees in m 〈…〉 at a Priest or an Elder when he saith Mihi ante Presbyâ—â—â—uÌ„ sedere non licet c. doth he meane he could not sit aboue an Elder or aboue a Priest him self as then being not Priest When he Vincentius as S. Epiphanius writeth of reuerence to the degree were hardly induced to be made Presbyteri did they refuse the Eldership What was the matter that Iohn the B. of Hierusalem seemed to be so much offended with Epiphanius S. Hierom was it not because Epiphanius made Pauliamus S. Hieroms brother Priest within the said Iohns Diocese FVLK 18. Before the blasphemous heresie of the Popish sacrifice of the Masse was established in the world the fathers did with more libertie vse the termes of sacrifice and sacrificing Priestes which improper speaches since they haue giuen occasion in the time of ignorance to maintain that blasphemous heresie there is good reason that we should beware how we vse any such termes especially in translatioÌ„ of the Scriptures Al the rest of the authorities you cite in this section 500. moe such as they are speake of Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes we embrace but of the English word Prieste as it is coÌ„monly taken for a sacrificer or against this word Elder they speake nothing for in all those places we may truly translate for Presbyter an Elder MART. 19. When all antiquitie saith Hieronymus Presbyter Cecilius Presbyter Ruffinus Presbyter Philippus Iâ—â—encus Hesychius Beda Presbyteri and when S. Hierom so often in his Cataloge saith Such a man Presbyter is it not for distinction of a certaine order to signifie that they were Priests and not Bishops namely when he saith of S. Chrysostom Ioannes Presbyter Antiochenus doth he not meane he was as then but a Priest of Antioche Would he haue said so 〈…〉 had written of him after he was Bishop of Constantinopl 〈…〉 FVLK 19. Al this while here is nothing for the English word Priest in that respect we auoid it in traÌ„slatioÌ„ nor against the worde Elder which we vse by which we meane 〈…〉 other thing than the Scripture doth giue vs to vn 〈…〉 d by the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for the distinction of
and not copulatiue wee were driuen to the wall But seeing the Hebrue coniunction copulatiue must be expounded according to the sense you do very vnskilfully to coÌ„clude the sense which is in controuersie vpon the coniunction which is indefinite and wee without partialitie haue translated the coniunction copulatiue as it doth most commonly and ordinarily signifie MART. 14. Wherein the reader may see their exceeding partialitie and wilfulnesse For besides infinite like places of Scripture whereby we do easily shew that this Hebrue particle is vsed to giue a reason or cause of a thing themselues also in an other place proue it for vs and that by the authoritie of Theophylact and allegation of examples out of the Scripture and translate accordingly thus Blessed art thou among women because the fruite of thy wombe is blessed Let them giue vs a reason why the sayd coniunction is here by their translation quia or enim where it was neuer so translated before and it must not be in any case in the other place of Genesis where it hath bene so translated and generally receiued euen in the Primitiue Church In other places of Scripture also which Theophylact alledgeth and many moe may be alledged they coÌ„fesse and like very well it should so signifie onely in the place of Genesiâ— they can not abide any such sense or translation thereof but He brought forth bread and wine and he was the Priest c. not because he was the Priest What is the cause of this their dealing None other vndoubtedly and in all these cases I knocke at their consciences but that here they would auoide the necessarie sequele of Melchisedecks sacrifice vpon such translation which typicall sacrifice of bread wine if it should be graunted then would follow also a sacrifice of the newe Testament made of bread and wine aunswering to the same and so we should haue the sacrifice of the altar and their bare communion should be excluded FVLK 14. Because we will not falsly translate to maintaine a colour of your popish sacrifice we shewe great partialitie Wherein I praye you The coniunction copulatiue we knowe may often be resolued into the causall where the sense so requireth But it neuer hath any force in it selfe to breede such a sense or to conclude suche a sense by it It is agaynste all reason therefore that you woulde vrge vs to translate contrarie to that whyche in our consciences beefore GOD wee take to bee the sense Where you say that the sacrifice of Melchisedech if it were graunted woulde bring in your Masse and exclude oure communion it is altogither vntrue For none of the auncient fathers who were deceiued to imagine a sacrifice where the Apostle seeking al things pertaining to Melchisedechs priesthoode coulde find none doth allow your propitiatorie sacrifice but contrariewise by those onely speeches that they vse aboute Melchisedechs oblation of breade and wine wee are able to prooue that they didde speake of a sacrifice of thankesgiuyng onely And your sacrifice in whyche you say is neither bread nor wine should hardly resemble Melchisedechs oblation made of bread and wine MART. 15. For whiche purpose also their partiall translation aboute altare and table is notorious For the name of altare as they know verie wel both in the Hebrue and Greeke and by the custome of al peoples both Iewes and Pagans implying and importing sacrifice therfore we in respect of the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud say altar rather than table as all the auncient fathers Chrys. ho. 53. ad po Antioch and ho. 20. in 2. Cor. and in Demonst. ê™ Christus sit Deus to 5. Nazianz. de Gorgonia sorore Basil. in Liturg Socrat. li. 1. Hist. c. 20. 25. Theodoret. hist. li. 4. c. 20. Theophyl in 23. Mat. Cypr. epist. 63. Optat. cont Parm. Aug. ep 86. li. 9. Confess c. 11. 13. alibi saepe are wont to speake and write namely when S. Hierom calleth the bodies or bones of S. Peter and Paule the altars of Christ because of this sacrifice offercd ouer and vpon the same though in respect of eating and drinking the body and bloud it is also called a table so that with vs it is both an altar and a table whether it be of wood or of stone But the Protestants because they make it only a communion of bread and wine or a supper and no sacrifice therefore they call it table onely and abhorre from the worde altar as Papistical For the which purpose in their firste translation Bible an 1562. when altares were then in digging downe throughout England they translated with no lesse malice than they threwe them downe putting the word temple in steede of altare which is so grosse a corruption that a man woulde haue thought it had beene done by ouersight and not of purpose if they hadde not doone it thrice immediately wythin twoo Chapiters 1. Cor. 9. and 10. saying Know you not that they whiche waite of the TEMPLE are partakers of the TEMPLE and Are not they whiche eate of the sacrifice partakers of the TEMPLE in al which places the Apostles worde in Greeke is altare and not temple and see here their notorious peeuishnesse where the Apostle saith temple there the same translation saith sacrifice where the Apostle saith altar there it saith temple FVLK 15. That the ancient fathers vsed the name of altar as they did of sacrifice sacrificer leuite and such like improperly yet in respect of the spirituall oblation of prayse and thankes gyuyng whyche was offered in the celebration of the Lordes supper wee doe easilye graunte as also that they doe as commonly vse the name of table and that it was a table indede so standing as menne mighte stande round about it and not against a wall as your popishe altares stande it is easie to prooue and it hathe oftentimes bene prooued and it seemeth you confesse as muche but that it is with you bothe an altare and a table with vs indeede it is as it is called in the scripture only a table That we make the Sacrament a communion of bread and wine it is a blasphemous slaunder when wee beleeue as the Apostle taught vs that it is the communion of the bodie and bloud of Christe and the Lordes supper as for the corruption you pretend I cannot thinke as I haue aunsweared before it was any thing else but the first Printers ouersight For why shoulde the name of altare mislike vs in that place more than in an hundreth other places when it is certaine wheresoeuer it is vsed in the scriptures in the proper sense it signifieth the altares of the Iewes or of the Gentiles and neuer the communion table or that at whyche the Lordes supper is prepared and receiued MART. 16. Thus we see howe they suppresse the name of altare where it shoulde be now let vs see howe they putte in their translation where it shoulde not bee this also they
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
a distinction of iust and righteous MART. 5 And certaine it is if there were no sinister meaning they would in no place auoide to say iust iustice iustification where both the Greeke and Latine are so woorde for word as for example 2. Tim. 48. In all their Bibles Henceforth there is laid vp for me a crowne of RIGHTEOVSNES which the Lorde the RIGHTEOVS iudge shall GIVE mee at that day And againe 2. Thess. 1. Reioyce in tribulation which is a token of the RIGHTEOVS IVDGEMENT of God that you may be counted worthie of the kingdome of God for which yee suffer For it is a RIGHTEOVS THING with God to recompence tribulation to them that trouble you and to you that are troubled rest with vs in the reuelation of our Lorde IESVS from heauen And againe Heb 6. 10. God is not VNRIGHTEOVS to forget your good woorke and labour c. These are very pregnant places to discouer their false purpose in concealing the worde iustice in all their Bibles For if they will say that iustice is not an vsuall English word in this sense and therefore they say righteousnesse yes I trow iust and vniust are vsuall and well knowen Why theÌ„ would they not say at the least in the places alleadged God the IVST iudge A token of the IVST IVDGEMENT of God It is a IVST thing with God God is not VNIVST to forget c Why is it not at the least in one of their English Bibles â—eeing so both in Greeke and Latine FVLK 5. Certaine it is that no Englishman knoweth the difference betweene iust and righteous vniust vnrighteous sauing that righteousnesse righteous are the more familiar English wordes And that we meane no fraude betweene iustice and righteousnesse to apply the one to faith the other to workes reade Rom. 10. v. 34. 5. and 6. of the Geneua translation where you shall see the righteousnesse of the law the righteousnesse of faith Reade also against this impudent lie in the same translatioÌ„ Luc. 1. Zacharie and Elizabeth were both iust Cap. 2. Simeon was iust Mathew the firste Ioseph a iust man and else where often times and without any difference in the worlde from the worde righteous Who euer heard a difference made betweene a iuste iudge and a righteous iudge this trifling is too too shameful abusing of mens patience that shall vouchsafe to reade these blotted papers MART. 6. Vnderstand gentle Reader and marke well that if S. Paules wordes were truely translated thus A crowne of IVSTICE is laid vp for me which our Lord the IVST iudge will RENDER vnto me at that day and so in the other places it would inferre that men are iustly crowned in heauen for their good workes vpon earth and that iâ— is Gods iustice so to do and that he wil do so because he is a iust iudge and because he wil shew his IVST IVDGEMENT and he wil not forget so to do because he is not vniust as the auncient fathers namely the Greeke doctors S. Chrysostom Theodorete and Oecumenius vpon these places do interprete and expound In so much that Oecumenius saith thus vpon the foresaid place to the Thessalonians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. See here that to suffer for Christ procureth the kingdome of heaueÌ„ according to IVST IVDGEMENT and not according to grace Which least the Aduersarie might take in the worse parte as though it were onely Gods iustice or iuste iudgement and not his fauour or grace also S. Augustine excellently declareth how it is both the one and the other to witte his grace and fauour and mercie in waking vs by his grace to liue and beleeue well and so to be worthy of heauen his iustice and iust iudgement to render and repaye for those workes whiche him selfe wrought in vs life euerlasting Which he expresseth thus How should he render or repay as a iust iudge vnlesse he had giuen it as a merciful father Where S. Augustine vrgeth the wordes of repaying as due and of being A IVST IVDGE therefore Both which the said translatours corrupt not onely saying righteous iudge for iust iudge but that he will giue a crowne whiche is of a thing not due for that which is in the Greeke He will render or repay whiche is of a thing due and deserued and hath relation to workes going before for the which the crowne is repaied He saide not saith Theophylacte vpon this place hee will giue but hee will render or repay as a certaine deâ—te For he being iust will define and limite the reward according to the labours The crowne therefore is due debte because of the iudges iustice So saith he FVLK 6. What so euer you may cauill vpon the wordes iuste and iustice you may doe the same with as great aduauntage vppon the wordes righteous and righteousnesse That God as a iust iudge rewardeâ—â— good workes of them that are iustified freely by his grace by fayth without workes with a crowne of iustice it proueth not eyther iustification by workes or the merite or worthinesse of mennes workes but all dependeth vppon the grace of God who promiseth this rewarde of his meere mercie and of the worthinesse and merites of Christe whiche is our iustice whereby wee beyng iustified before God our workes also whiche hee hath giuen vs are rewarded of his iustice yet in respecte of Christes merites and not in respecte of the worthinesse of the workes Againe God is not vnmindefull of his promise to rewarde our workes for then he should be vniuste he is iuste therefore to performe what so euer he hath promised though wee nothing deserue it Neyther hath Chrysostome or Theodorete any other meaning That you cite out of Oecumenius a late writer in comparison is blasphemous against the grace of God neyther is S. Augustine that liued 500. yeares before him a sufficient interpreter of his saying to excuse him With Augustine we say God crowneth his giftes not our merites And as he acknowledgeth Gods mercie and also his iustice in rewarding our workes so do we Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated he wil giue I confesse it had bene more proper and agreeable to the Greeke to haue saide hee will render or repaie which yet is wholy of mercie in respecte of vs or our deseruing but of iustice in respecte of his promises and of Christes merites vnto which is rendred and repayed that whiche hee deserued for vs. The crowne therefore is due debte because it is promised to vs for Christes sake not because any workes of ours are able to purchase it MART. 7. Whiche speaches beyng moste true as beyng the expresse wordes of holy Scripture yet wee know howe odiously the Aduersaries may and doe misconster them to the ignoraunt as though wee chalenged heauen by our owne workes and as though wee made God bounde to vs. Whiche wee doe not God forbidde But because he hath prepared good workes for vs as the Apostle
signification which being compounded in like maner as the other what doth it signifie any thing els but infirmitie and feeblenes Yea it is so farre from signifying no strength that the greatest Grecians say it is not spoken properly of him that for weakenes keepeth his bed which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of him that is il disposed and distempered in body Yet the etymologie is all one with that worde which these men will haue to signifie him that hath no strength And if they will needes vrge the etymologie we tell them that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie robur that is great strength such as is in the strongest and stoutest champions and so the etymologie may take place to signifie a man of no great strength not of no strength But M. Whitaker putteth vs in good hope they will not stand vpon etymologies FVLK 13. This cauill is fully aunswered cap. 1. sect 26. therefore I wili not spende many wordes here about it The worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we knowe signifieth weake that is of small strength and sometimes so weake that there is no strength As Gal. 4. where Saint Paule calleth the ceremonies of Moses lawe nowe exspired the weake and beggerly elements that is voyd of all strength and riches Likewise the Apostle to the Hebrewes cap. 7. saith the commundement of the Aaronicall priesthood is abolished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was weake and vnprofitable without Christ as vnprofitable is void of profit so is weake voyd of strength S. Paule 1. Cor. 15. saith our dead bodie is sowed in weaknes Is there any streÌ„gth of a dead body Moreouer Rom. 8. that which was vnpossible by the law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by meanes it was weake is not that voide of strength to saue vs which hath no possibilitie to doe any thing These instances may serue to proue that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie that which is so weake that it hath no strength Vpon the etymologie alone we stand not But where you say that man was wounded in free will by the sinne of Adam not slayne altogither grounding your assertion vpon a fond false allegorie of him that fell among theeues which is no parable of a man in this case but of man in necessitie to be helped by right of neighbourhood I praye you howe came man to be dead altogither in sinnes Eph. 2. Col. 2. in many other places of the Scripture Beside is there any freedom of wil to godlines remaining in them that are altogither dead in sinne But we are not now to handle coÌ„trouersies but translations as you doe wel admonish vs. MART. 14. When they haue bereaued and spoyled a man of his free will and left him without all strength they goe so farre in this point that* they saye the regenerate them selues haue not free will and abilitie no not by and with the grace of God to keepe the commaundements To this purpose they translate 1. Io. 5. 3. thus His commauÌ„dements are not grieuous rather than thus His commauÌ„dements are not heauye for in saying they are not heauye it would followe they might be kept and obserued but in saying they are not grieuous that may be true were they neuer so heavy or impossible through pacience As when a man can not doe as he would yet it grieueth him not being pacient wise because he is content to doe as he can is able Therefore doe they choose to translate that the commaundements are not grieuous where the Apostle sayth rather they are not heauy much more agreeably to our Sauiours wordes My burden is light to the wordes of God by Moyses Deut. 30. This commaundement which I commaund thee this day is not aboue thee that is beyond thy reache but the word is very neare thee in thy mouth in thy hart that thou mayst doe it and to the common signification of the Greekeword which is heauy Beza would saye somewhat in his commentarie howe the commaundements are heauy or light but his conclusion is against free will and that there can be no perfection in this life inâ—cying against them that woulde proue it out of this place which is as much to say but he is ashamed to speake plainely that we can not keepe the commaundements which the holy Doctors haue long since condemned and abhorred as most absurd that God should commaund that vnder paine of damnation which is impossible to be done FVLK 14. Seeing our English word grieuous coÌ„meth of the Latine word graue which is not only weightie but also troublesom It better aunswereth both the Greeke and the Latine than heauye which is properly that which is of great weight and the same worde being both in Greeke and Latine 2. Cor. 10. you your selues translate sore his epistles are sore and vehement but in effect there is no great difference We acknowledge that his commaundemeÌ„ts are not heauy to him that is borne of God which ouercometh the world by faith otherwise the yoke of the lawe as the Apostle confesseth is such a burtheÌ„ as neither we nor our fathers were able to beare but beleeue to be saued by the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ who hauing taken away the curse of the lawe and satisfied for our transgressions of the law hath also giuen vs grace to loue the law and commaundements of God and in some weake measure to obserue them So that the curse being taken away our transgressions aunswered in Christ and our harts framed by his grace to loue his commaundements and some strength giuen vs to keepe them they are not heauy they are not burdenous or grieuous That which God speaketh Deut. 30. is of the knowledge of the law which was plainely reuealed and not of the strength that men haue to keepe it and therefore is by the Apostle referred vnto faith for the obseruation thereof Rom. 10. for by faith in Christ which hath fulfilled the lawe for vs we are accounted to haue fulfilled it in him Beza speaketh plainely enough if you had grace to vnderstand him and therefore is nothing ashamed to saye that we can not keepe the commaundements of God not onely without the grace of God but neyther hauing the grace of God in such measure as God giueth it to no man but that he sinneth Otherwise what grace God is able to giue we doubt not but what he doth and will giue to any man in this life wee speake That God should commaunde vnder paine of damnation that which is impossible to be done is no absurditie seing for them whom God will haue to be saued he prouided an other way of their saluation than by keeping the lawe namely the redemption of Christ. As for the reprobate voyde of Gods grace say you if you dare that they are able to keepe the lawe without grace or without grace haue so much as any will to desire to haue grace MART. 15.
non satis videatur illam vim obsignationis declarare The terme signaculum which the old interpretor and Erasmus hath vsed I haue willingly refused partely because it is no very vsuall worde partely because it seemeth not sufficiently to declare that vertue or efficacie of sealing You see therefore what word he auoydeth for what cause that vour eies were not matches or else they were daseled with a mist of malice whē you redde that he auoided Sigillum and placed quod obsignaret for sigillum The worde sigillum as he vseth not so doth he make no mention of it I thinke because it being a diminutiue of signum and taken sometimes for a litle image vnde sigillares c. it is not proper nor ful to expresse the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he maketh circumcision equall vnto the Sacramentes of the newe Testament I haue shewed before that it is in matter substaunce and ende whiche hee that confesseth not as Beza saith seemeth neuer to haue knowen howe farre the office of Christe extendeth but that hee hath any purpose to disgrace the Sacraments of the new Testament instituted by Christ him selfe in a more cleare dispensation of grace and truth you affirme with the same credite by whiche you saide he put quod obsignaret for sigillum MART. 3. Which is also the cause why not only he but the English Bibles for commonly they ioyne handes and agree togither to make no difference betweene Iohns Baptisme and Christs translate thus concerning certaine that had not yet receiued the holy Ghost Vnto what then were ye baptized And they said vnto Iohns Baptisme Which Beza in a long discourse proueth to be spoken of Iohns doctrine and not of his baptisme in water As though it were said what doctrine then doe ye professe and they sayd Iohns Whereas in deede the question is this and ought thus to be translated In what then or wherein were you Baptized And they said in Iohns Baptisme As who should say wee haue receiued Iohns Baptisme but not the holy Ghost as yet And therefore it foloweth immediatly then they were baptized in the name of Iesus and after imposition of hands the Holy Ghost came vpō thē Wherby is plainely gathered that being baptized with Iohns baptisme before yet of necessitie baptized afterward with Christs baptisme also there must needes be a great difference betweene the one baptisme the other Iohns being insufficient And that this is the deduction which troubleth these Bezites and maketh them translate accordingly Beza as commonly still he vttereth his griefe telleth vs in plaine wordes thus It is not necessarie that wheresoeuer there is mention of Iohns Baptisme we should thinke it to be the very ceremonie of Baptisme Therefore they that gather Iohns Baptisme to haue bene diuers from Christs because these a litle after are said to be baptized in the name of Iesus Christ haue no sure foundation Lo how of purpose he translateth expoundeth it Iohns doctrine not Iohns Baptisme to take away the foundation of this Catholike conclusion that his Baptisme differeth and is farre inferior to Christs FVLK 3. And is Iohns Baptisme now made a Sacrament of the old lawe was Iohn the Baptist a minister of the law or of the Gospel Our Sauiour Christ is sufficient to teach vs that the lawe and the Prophetes prophecied vntill Iohn but frō the daies of Iohn the kingdome of heauen suffereth violence But if you will make Iohns Baptisme a Sacrament of the new Testament and yet differing frō the Baptisme of Christ then you make two Baptismes of the newe Testament contrarie to the Nicene Creede and Christ him selfe who was baptised for vs baptised with the worse But concerning that place Actes the 19. which hath troubled so many interpreters with the obscuritie thereof or rather with a preiudicate opinion of a difference in the Baptisme of Iohn and of Christ I am neither of Bezaes opinion nor yet of our translators for the vnderstanding and translation of that place Neither doe I thinke that mention is made of any second baptisme the auoyding whereof hath bred diuerse forced interpretations but that S. Paule enstructeth those Disciples that knew not the grace of the holy Ghost that they which heard Iohns preaching to the people that they should beleeue in Christ Iesus which was comming after him were also baptised in the name of Iesus Christ who had graunted those visible graces of his holy spirite to be bestowed vpon them that beleued by imposition of the Apostles handes Thus therefore I am perswaded those verses are to be translated But Paule sayde Iohn truely baptised with the baptisme of repentance saying to the people that they should beleue in him that commeth after him that is in Iesus they which heard him were baptised into y e name of our Lord Iesus And after Paule had layd his handes vpon c. The argumēt of difference thereof grounded vpō this place is nothing worth where the baptisme of Iohn is confirmed by imposition of handes rather than disgraced by reiteration which giueth strength to the errour of the Donatists and Anabaptistes for rebaptization Whereas it can not be proued that any which were once baptised by Iohn were euer baptised againe But the contrary may easily be gathered for seeing our Sauiour Christ baptised none him selfe it shall follow that the Apostles were either not baptised at all or els baptised onely with Iohns baptisme And where there is expresse mention of Iohns Disciples that came vnto Christ to become his Disciples there is no mention of any other baptisme than they had already receaued MART. 4. But doth the Greeke leade him or force him to this translation In quid vnto what First him selfe confesseth in the very same place the contrary that the Greeke phrase is often vsed in the other sense wherein or wherewith as it is in the vulgar Latine and Erasmus but that in his iudgement it doth not so signifie here and therefore he refuseth it Yet in the very next verse almoste where it is saide by the same Greeke phrase that they were baptized in the name of Iesus Christe there both he and his so translate is as wee doe and not vnto the name of Christe Is it not playne that all is voluntarie and at their pleasure For I beseeche them if it be a right translation baptized in the name of Iesus why is it not right baptized in the baptisme of Iohn Is there any difference in the Greeke none Where then in their commentaries and imaginations onely against which wee oppose and set both the texte and the commentaries of all the fathers FVLK 4. The Greeke dothe allow him so to translate and to be Baptised in the name of Iesus and into the name of Iesus is all one as in the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost or into the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost is
calleth meritorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the encrease and augmenting of Iohns merites or priuiledges that in Malachie he is called an Angell and Saint Gregoriâ— sayth he which came to bring tidings of Christ him selfe was worthily called an Angell that in his very name there might be a dignitie and all the fathers and all witte and reason conceiue a greate excellencye in this name onely our profane Protestants that thinke of all diuine things and persons most basely translate accordingly euen in the foresayd Gospell also making our Sauiour to say that Iohn was more than a Prophet because he was a Messenger Yea where our Sauiour him selfe is called Angelus Testamenti the Angell of the Testament there they translate the messenger of the couenant FVLK 18. It is not safe to translate alwayes the messenger of God by the name of an Angell which is commonly taken to signifie a spirite not a bodily creature therefore our translators thought good to expresse the signification of the Hebrew and Greeke worde in English and to vse the terme of Messenger as the worde doth signifie nothing derogating from the dignitie of the persons or office of them of whome it is vttered which consisteth in the addition following of God of the Lorde of the Church For the name of Angell of it selfe is no name of dignitie seeing there be Angells of the deuill and of darkenes as well as of God of light And Isidorus Clarius interpreteth the word in this place of Malachie Legatus the Ambassador or Messenger It is not therefore of any profane minde that for Angell we say Messenger Your owne vulgar Interpretor Agg. 1. v. 13. translateth Maleach Iehouah nuncius domini the Lords Messenger and so diuerse times where mention is made of Gods Messengers This is therefore a vayne contention about termes when the matter is not in question That the name of Angels soundeth more honorably as Hierom and other thinke it is no rule to binde translators but expounders may as occasion is offered obserue it MART. 19. If S. Hierome in all these places had translated nuntium then the English were messenger but translating it angelum and the Church al antiquitie so reading and expounding it as a terme of more dignitie and excellencie what meane these base coÌ„panions to disgrace the very eloqueÌ„ce of the Scripture which by such termes of amplification would speake more significantly and emphatically what meane they I say that so inuey against Castaleo for his profanenesse them selues to say for Angell Messenger for Apostle Legate or Embassadour and the like Are they afraid lest by calling meÌ„ Angels it would be mistaken as though they were Angells in deede by nature then S. Paule spake daungerously when he sayd to the Galathians As Gods Angel you receiued me as Christ Iesus But to proceede FVLK 19. The verye eloquence of the Scripture is best expressed when the wordes are translated as they signifie in the originall tongue And although some words be appropried to certaine callings which it is not conuenient to turne into the generall signification yet is neither the Hebrew nor the Greeke word that signifieth Messengers in the Scripture so restrayned but that it is vsed for all Messengers indifferently of God and men yea of God and the deuill Wherefore there is no cause why we should vse the Greeke worde Angell rather than the English worde Messenger And where you aske whether we be afrayd lest by calling men Angels it would be mistaken as though they were Angels in nature we may well feare lest the ignorant vnlearned might so be deceiued when Bristow so great a Doctor writer among you is so fondly disguised that he mistaketh the Angell of the Church of Philadelphia for an Angell by nature and alledgeth that which God promiseth that his enimies the Iewes shall worship before his feete to proue the inuocation and worship of heauenly Angels Neither spake Paule daungerously when he said the GalathiaÌ„s receiued him as an Angel of God as Christe Iesus For the worde Angell in the Greeke tongue signifieth a messenger it was easie to vnderstand that the messenger or embassadour of a Prince is receiued as the Prince him selfe without confounding the persons of the Prince and his messenger MART. 20. It is much for the authoritie and dignitie of Gods Priests that they do bind and loose and execute al Ecclesiasticall functioÌ„â—â— in the person and power of Christ whose ministers they are So Saint Paule saieth 2. Cor. 2. v. 10. that when hee pardoned or released the penaunce of the incestuous Corinthian he did it in the person of Christe That is as Saint Ambrose expoundeth it in the name of Christe in his steede as his Vicar and deputie But they translate it In the sight of Christ. Where it is euident they can not pretende the Greeke and if there be ambiguitie in the Greeke the Apostle him selfe taketh it away interpreting himselfe in the very same case when he excommunicateth the said incestuous person saying that he doth it in the name and with the vertue of our Lord Iesus Christe so expounding what he meaneth also in this place FVL. 20. That the Bishops Elders or Priests of gods Church do bind and lose as in the person and power of Christ in his name by his authority is acknowledged by vs But when we translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sight of Christ we respect what the Greeke phrase doth more properly require yea what the Hebrewe phrase mipenei doth signifie wherevnto it is like that the Apostle doth allude Otherwise Beza in his annotations vpoÌ„ the place doth not mislike the sense and interpretation of Ambrose whereof he maketh mention but preferreth the other as more simple and agreeable to the meaning of the Apostle in that place and to the nature of the Greke and Hebrew phrase MART. 21. And it may bee that for some suche purpose they change the antient and accustomed reading in these words of S. Mathew Ex te enim exiet dux qui regat populuÌ„ meum Israel translating thus Out of thee shal come the gouemour that shall feede my people Israel for that shall rule my people Israel This is certaine that it is a false translation because the Prophets wordes Mich. 5. cited by Saint Mathew both in Hebrewe and Greeke signifie onely a ruler or Gouernour and not a Pastor or feeder Therefore it is either a great ouer sight which iâ— a smal matter in coÌ„parison of the least corruption or rather because they do the like Act. 20. v. 28. it is done to suppres the signification of ecclesiastical power gouernement that concurreth with feeding first in Christ and from him in his Apostles and Pastâ—rs of the Church both which are here signified in this one Greeke word to wit that Christ our Sauiour shall rule and feede Ps. 2. Apoc. 2. v. 27. yea he