haue done if the name of the Church had bene odious vnto them or that they thought the Catholike church stood against theÌ„ Looke Thomas Mathewes Bible in the Canticles of Salomon vpon the 16. of S. Mathewes Gospell the 18. verse the wordes of Christ to Peter Therfore your senseles imaginations shewe no hatred of the Catholike Church in our translators but cancred malice and impudent follie in your selues MART. 53. To conclude as I began concerning their shiftes and iumpes and windings and turnings euery way from one thing to an other till they are driuen to the extreme refuge of palpable corruptions and false translations consider with me in this one case onely of traditions as may be likewise considered in all other controuersies that the auncient fathers councels antiquitie vniuersalitie and custom of the whole Church allowe traditions the Canonicall Scriptures haue them the Latine text hath them the Greeke text hath them onely their translations haue them not Likewise in the olde Testament the approued Latine text hath such and such speeches that make for vs the renowmed Greeke text hath it the Hebrewe text hath it onely their translations haue it not These are the translations which we call heretical and wilful and which shal be examined and discussed in this Booke FVLK 53. By what windings and turnings I pray you are we driuen to that miserable refuge of palpable corruptions and false translations for hitherto you haue shewed none but such as shewe your owne ignoraunce or malice Neither I hope you shal be able to shewe any though you sweat neuer so sore at your work Yes I weene this one case only of traditions for so you seeme to say if it be considered wil discouer no lesse It is meruaile if for your sake al the Greeke Dictionaries in the world must not be corrected taught to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 caÌ„ signifie nothing but a tradition that is not written But yet you rolle in your accustomed rhetorike saying that the antieÌ„t fathers couÌ„cels antiquitie vniuersalitie custome of the whole Church allow traditioÌ„s so do we so many as be good agreeable to the holie scripturs but that there be traditioÌ„s of matter necessarie to saluatioÌ„ not contained in the holie scripturs wheÌ„ you bring your fathers Councels c. you shal receiue an answere to them That the canonical scripture alloweth any traditions contrary to the doctrine therof or to supply any want or imperfection therof as though al things required to make the man of God perfecte prepared to all good workes were not conteyned in the Scriptures you shall neuer be able to proue although for spite against the perfection of the Canonicall Scripture you should braste a sunder as Iudas did which betrayed the auctor of the Scripture Finally what so euer you say out of the old Testament without proofe or shew of proofe it is as easily denied by vs as it is affirmed by you When you bring but only a shadow of reason it shall sone be chased away with the light of truth The Argumentes of euerie chapter with the page where euery chapter beginneth CHAP. 1. THat the ProtestaÌ„ts translate the holie Scripture falsly of purpose in fauor of their heresies throughout al controuersies page 1. 2 Against Apostolical Traditions pag. 73. 3 Against sacred Images pag. 88. 4 The Ecclesiastical vse of words turned into their original and profane significations pag. 131. 5 Against the CHVRCH pag. 139. 6 Against Priest and Priesthoode Wheremuch also is saide of their profaning of Ecclesiastical wordes pag. 157. 7. Against Purgatorie Limbus Patrum and Christes descending into Hell pag. 196. 8. Concerning Iustification and Gods iustice in rewarding good workes pag. 252. 9 Against Merites meritorious workes and the reward for the same pag. 263. 10 Against Free will pag. 300. 11 For Imputatiue iustice against true inherent iustice pag 328. 12 For Speciall faith vaine securitie and onely faith pag. 342. 13 Against Penance and Satisfaction pag. 355. 14 Against the holy Sacraments namely Baptisme and Confession pag. 379. 15 Against the Sacrament of Holy Orders and for the Mariage of Priestes and Votaries pag. 390. 16 Against the Sacrament of Matrimonie pag. 423. 17 Against the B. Sacrament and Sacrifice and altars pa. 429. 18 Against the honour of Saincts namely of our B. LADY pa. 460. 19 Against the distinction of Dulîa and Latrîa pag. 474. 20 Adding to the text pag. 483. 21 Other hereticall treacheries and corruptions worthy of obseruation pag. 493. 22 Other faults Iudaical profane meere vanities follâ—es and nouelties pag. 507. ¶ A Discouerie of the manifolde corruptions of the holie Scriptures by the Heretikes of our dayes specially the English Sectaries of their foule dea ling herein by partiall and false Translations to the advantage of their heresies in their English Bibles vsed and authorized since the time of Schisme CHAP. 1. That the Protestantes translate the holie Scriptures falsly of purpose in fauour of their heresies MARTIN THOVGH this shall euidently appeare thorough out this whole Booke in euery place that shall be obiected vnto them yet because it is an obseruation of greatest importaunce in this case which stigeth theÌ„ sore toucheth their credit exceedingly in so much that one of them setting a good face vpon the matter sayth confidently that al the Papists in the worlde are not able to shew one place of Scripture mistranslated wilfully of purpose therfore I wil giue the reader certein brief obseruations and euident markes to know wilfull corruptions as it were an abridgement and summe of this Treatise FVLKE ALTHOVGH this trifling treatise was in hand two or three yeares ago as by the threatning of Bristow and Howlette it may appeare yet that it might seeme new and a sudden peece of worke compyled with small studie you thought good by carping at my confutation of Howlet last made and of M. Whitakers work set forth later than it as it were by setting on newe eares vpon your olde potte to make it seeme to be a newe vessell And first of all you would seeme to haue taken occasion of my confident speech in my confutation of Howlets nyne Reasons in reâ—earsing wherof you vse such fidelitie as commonly Papistes vse to beare towardes God the Churche your Prince and your Countrie For what face soeuer I set vpon the matter with a whorish forehead and a brasen face you make reporte of my saying which beeing testified by a thousande copies printed as it were by so many witnesses doth crie out vpon your falshode and iniurious dealing For my wordes out of the place by you quoted against Howlet are these That some error may bee in translation although by you it can not be shewed I will not denye but that any shameles translations or wilfull corruptions can be found of purpose to draw the Scriptures to any hereticall opinion all the Papistes in the world shall neuer be able to make demonsiration This
and it is very well and honesty translated for so the Greeke worde doth properly signifie But nowe on the other side concerning good traditions let vs see their dealing The Apostle by the selfe same worde both in Greeke and Latine sayth thus Therefore brethren stand and hold fast the TRADITIONS which you haue learned either by worde or by our Epistle And againe Withdraw your selues from euerie brother walking inordinately and not according to the TRADITION which they haue receiued of vs. And againe according to the Greeke which they professe to folow I praise you brethren that in all things you are mindefull of me and as I haue deliuered vnto you you keepe my TRADITIONS FVLK 2. No maruell though you can not abide the bels sounding against mans traditions which sound must nedes pearce your coÌ„science more than it offendeth your eares seeing you know that many of those things which you defend vnder the name of traditions against the holy scriptures haue not God for their auctor which forbiddeth to be worshipped in such sorte but man or rather Sathan which hath inspired such things vnto meÌ„ thereby to dishonor God and to discredite his holy and most certaine written worde Yet you say it is well and honestly translated God knoweth how faine you would there were no such text extaÌ„t in the Gospel against your superstition and will worshipping But now let vs see our craftie dealing as you compte it against good traditions In the first text 2. Thessal 2. v. 15. You may see your vnderstanding of traditions quite ouerthrowen For the Apostle speaketh of such traditions as were deliuered to them partly by preaching partly by his Epistle Therfore tradition doth not signifie a doctrine deliuered by worde of mouth onely But yet you will say it signifieth here a doctrine deliuered by word of mouth also which is not written How proue you that because all that the Apostle preached was not conteyned in his Epistles to the Thessalonians therefore was it no where written in the Scriptures what the tradition was in the second text 2. Thess. 3. v. 6. is expressed by and by after that he which will not labour must not eate Was this doctrine neuer written before when God commaundeth euery man to labour in his vocation As for the third place 1. Cor. 11. 2. your owne vulgar Latine translater both teacheth vs how to translate it and also dischargeth our translation of heresie and corruption for he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place praecepta precepts or instructions or commauÌ„dements or ordinances I see no great difference in these wordes By which his translation he sheweth that in the other places 2. Thes. 2. 3. He meaneth the same thing by traditiones traditions that we doe by ordinances or instructions and might as well haue vsed the word praecepta in those two places as he did in this one if it had pleased him MART. 3. Here we see plaine mention of S. Paules traditions and consequently of Apostolicall traditions yea and traditions by worde of mouth deliuered to the saide Churches without writing or Scripture In all whiche places looke gentle reader and seeke all their English translations and thou shalt not once finde the worde tradition but in steede thereof ordinances instructions preachings institutions and any worde else rather than tradition In so much that Beza their maister translateth it traditam doctrinam the doctrine deliuered putting the singular number for the plural adding doctrine of his owne So framing the text of holy Scripture according to his false commentarie or rather putting his commentarie in the text making it the text of Scripture Who would thinke their malice and partialitie against traditions were so great that they should all agree with one consent so duely and exactly in these and these places to conceale the worde which in other places do so gladly vse it the Greeke worde being all one in all the saide places FVLK 3. There is no question but the Apostles by word of mouth that is by preaching teaching deliuered the doctrine of the Gospel to the Churches but that they preached taught or deliuered any doctrine as necesarie to saluation which they proued not out of the holy Scriptures and which is not contained in the new TestameÌ„t or the old this is not yet proued neither euer can it be proued Such matters of ceremonies order discipline which are mutable no man denies but they might did deliuer but yet in them nothing but agreeable to the generall rules set downe in the Scripture But in all these places the word tradition can not once be founde Yet M. Fulke saith it is fouÌ„d Yea doth where saith he so You answere pag. 153 against D. Saunders Rocke Therfore if he giue not an instaunce let him giue him selfe the lie But he that chargeth Fulke to say it is found lieth the more For so he saith not read the place who wil. He speaketh against Saunder who affirmed that the very name of tradition vsed in the better part can not be suffered to be in the Englishe Bible as though there were some decree of the Synode or Act of Parliament against it and sayth it may be and is suffered in that sense which the holy Ghost vseth it but not to bring prayer for the deade or any thing contrarie to the Scripture vnder the name of traditions Apostolike By which wordes I meane that there is no prohibition or edict to the contrarie but if any man will vse the worde tradition in translation of the Bible he is permitted so to doe I doe not affirme it is so founde But as if I shoulde say The Papistes in Englande are suffered to liue as becommeth good subiectes I affirme not that they are or shall be founde so to liue But to omit this foolishe quarrell Beza our Maister is sayed to haue translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the doctrine deliuered putting the singular number for the plurall and adding doctrine of his owne What an hainous matter here is the word doctrine is a collectiue comprehending many precepts or traditions and in the next chapiter the Apostle vseth the same word in the singular number Againe the 1. Thes. 4. v. 2. he calleth the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 precepts or documents which worde signifieth the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 witnes your vulgar latin traÌ„slator which giues one word for both praecepta 1. Cor. 11. 1. Thes. 4. And that the word doctrine is added to the text it is a fonde cauil for the word doctrine is coÌ„tained in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a deliuerie but whereof â—f not of doctrine Our Sauiour Christ also Math. 15. v. 9. by the testimony of Esay reproueth the traditioÌ„ of the Pharisees teaching the doctrines precepts of meÌ„ which testimonye of Esay could take no hold of theÌ„ if traditioÌ„s were not doctrines precepts So that in this traÌ„slatioÌ„ of
say we you can not so answer the matter for in other places you translate it duely and truely tradition and why more in one place than in another They are ashamed to tell why but they must tell and shame both thom selues and the deuill if euer they thinke it good to answer this treatise as also why they changed congregation which was alwaies in their first translation into Church in their later translations and did not change likewise ordinances into traditions Elder◠into Priestes FVLK 51. That the Thessalonians had some parte of Christian doctrine deliuered by word of mouth that is by the Apostles preaching at such time as he did write vnto them and some part by his Epistles the text enforceth vs to graunt and we neuer purposed to denye But that the Church at this daye or euer since the newe Testament was written had any tradition by worde of mouth of any matter necessary to saluation which was not contayned in the olde or newe Testament we will neuer graunt neither shall you euer be able out of this text or any text in the Bible to proue Make your Syllogismes when you dare and you shall be aunswered But we knowe you saye that the Greeke word signifieth tradition as plaine as possibly but here and in like places we rather translate it ordinances instructions and what else soeuer We knowe that it signifieth tradition constitution instruction precept also mancipation treatise treason For al these the Greeke Dictionaries do teach that it signifieth Therefore if in any place we haue translated it ordinaunces or instructions or institutions we haue not gone from the true signification of the worde neither can you euer proue that the worde signifieth such a doctrine onely as is taught by worde of mouth and is not or may not be put in writing But in other places you can tell vs that we translate it duely and truly tradition and you will know why more in one place than in another affirming that we are shamed to tell why For my part I was neuer of counsaile with any that translated the Scriptures into English and therefore it is possible I can not sufficiently expresse what reason moued the translators so to varie in the exposition of one and the same worde Yet can I yeelde sufficient reason that might leade them so to doe which I thinke they followed The Papistes doe commonly so abuse the name of tradition which signifieth properly a deliuerie or a thinge deliuered for such a matter as is deliuered onely by worde of mouth and so receaued from hande to hande that it is neuer put in writing but hath his credite without the holye Scriptures of God as the Iewe had their Cabala and the Scribes Pharisees had their traditions beside the lawe of God and the Valentinian Heretikes accused the Scriptures as insufficient of authoritie and ambiguously written and that the truth could not be found in them by those that knewe not the tradition which was not deliuered by writing but by worde of mouth iumpe as the Papists doe This abusing of the word tradition might be a sufficient cause for the translators to render the Greeke worde where it is taken for such doctrine as is beside the commaundement of God by the name of tradition as the worde is commonly taken But where the Greeke worde is taken in the good parte for that doctrine which is agreeable with the holy Scriptures they might with good reason auoide it as you your selfe doe not alwayes translate tradere to betray but sometimes to deliuer So did the translators giue these words ordinances instructions institutions or doctrine deliuered which doe generally signifie the same that tradition but haue not the preiudice of that partiall signification in which the Papistes vse it who wheresoeuer they find tradition straight way imagine they haue found a sufficient argument against the perfection and sufficiencie of the holy Scripture and to bring in all riffe raffe and trishe trashe of mans doctrine not onely beside but also contrarye to the manifest worde of God conteined in his most holy and perfect Scriptures To the shame of the deuill therefore and of all popish maintainers of traditions vncommaunded by God this reason may be yelded Nowe to aunswer you why Ecclesia was first translated congregation and afterward Church the reason that moued the firste translators I thinke was this the worde Churche of the common people at that tyme was vsed ambiguously both for the assemblie of the faythfull and for the place in which they assembled for auoyding of which ambiguitie they translated Ecclesia the congregation and yet in their Creede and in the notes of their Bibles in preaching writing they vsed the word Church for the same the later translators seing the people better instructed able to discerne when they read in the Scriptures the people from the place of their meeting vsed the worde Church in their translations as they did in their preaching These are weightie matters that wee muste giue accompt of them Why we chaunge not ordinances into traditions and Elders into Priests wee will answere when we come to the proper places of them In the meane season wee thinke there is as good cause for vs in translating sometime to auoide the termes of traditions and prieste as for you to auoid the names of Elders calling them auncients and the wise men sages as though you had rather speake French than English as we do Like as you translate Conside haue a good hart after the french phrase rather than you would say as we do be of good comforte MART. 52. The cause is that the name of Church was at the first odious vnto thē because of the Catholike Church which stoode against them but afterward this name grewe into more favour with them because of their English Church so at length called and termed But their hatred of Priests and traditions continueth still as it first began and therefore their translation also remaineth as before suppressing the names both of the one and of the other But of all these their dealings they shal be told in their seuerall chapiters and places FVLK 52. I pray you who translated first the creed into the English tongue and taught it to the people for that cause were accounted heretikes of the Antichristian Romish rable If the name of Churche were odious vnto them why didde they not suppresse that name in the creede whyche they taught to yong and olde and in steede of Catholike Church call it the vniuersal congregation or assembly Wel Dauus these things be not aptely diuided according to their times The firste translation of the Bible that was printed in the english tong in very many places of the notes vseth the name Church most notoriously in the song of Salomon where before euery other verse almost it telleth which is the voice of the Church to Christ her spous◠which no reasonable man would thinke the translators would
you so malitious an enimie vnto him hauing spent all your inuention to seeke holes in his translation can finde nothing but such childish cauils as when they be discouered men will maruaile that you were not ashamed to moue them MART. 56. But after this generall vewe of their wilfull purpose and heretical intention let vs examine their false translations more particularly and argue the case with them more at large and presse them to answere whether in their conscience it be so or no as hitherto is saide and that by seuerall chapters of such CONTROVERSIES as their corruptions concerne and first of all without further curiositie whence to begin in cases so indifferent of TRADITIONS FVLK 56. The more particularly you examine our translations the freer I hope they shall be found from falsehoode wilfull corruption And the more at large you argue the case and presse vs to answere the more you shall make the case to appeare worse on your side and the truth clearer on our parte And as God is witnesse of our conscience and sinceritie in setting forth his word without adulteration or corruptiō so I appeale to the consciences of al indifferent readers whether hitherto you haue gotten any aduantage against vs in this whole chapter which yet you professe to be the abridgement and summe of your whole treatise CHAP. II. Hereticall translation of holy Scripture against Apostolicall TRADITIONS Martin THis is a matter of such importance that if they shoulde graunt any traditions of the Apostles and not pretende the written worde onely they know that by such traditions mentioned in all antiquitie their religion were wholy defaced and ouerthrowen For remedie whereof and for the defacing of all such traditions they bend their translations against them in this wonderfull maner Wheresoeuer the holy Scripture speaketh against certaine traditions of the Iewes partly friuolous partly repugnant to the law of God there all the English translations follow the Greeke exactly neuer omitting this word tradition Contrariwise wheresoeuer the holy Scripture speaketh in the commendation of Traditions to wit such traditions a◠the Apostles deliuered to the Church there all their sayd translations agree not to followe the Greeke which is still the selfe same word but for traditions they translate ordinaunces or instructions Why so and to what purpose we appeale to the worme of their conscience which continually accuseth them of an hereticall meaning whether by vrging the word traditions wheresoeuer they are discommended and by suppressing the word wheresoeuer they are commended their purpose and intent be not to signifie to the Reader that all traditions are naught and none good all reproueable none allowable Fulke TRaditions in deede is a matter of such importance as if you may be allowed whatsoeuer you will thrust vpon vs vnder the name of vnwritten traditions the written worde of God shall serue to no purpose at all For first as you plainly professe the holy Scripture shall not be accounted sufficient to teach all truth necessary to saluation that the man of God may be perfect prepared to all good works Secondly with the Valentinian heretikes you accuse the Scriptures of vncertaine vnderstāding without your traditions vnder pretense of which you wil bring in what you list though it be neuer so contrary to the holy Scriptures plaine wordes by colour of interpretatiō as you do the worshipping of images many other like heresies As for the mention that is made of Apostolicall traditions in diuerse of the auncient fathers some of thē are such as you your selues obserue not not for the tenth part of those that you obserue can you bring any testimony out of the ancient fathers as is proued sufficiently by so many propositiōs as were set downe by the Bishoppe of Sarisburie M. Iewel whereof you can bring no proofe for any one to haue bene taught within 600. yeres after Christ. Now concerning the traditions of the Apostles what they were who can be a better witnesse vnto vs than Ignatius the disciple of the Apostles of whom Eusebius writeth that when he was led towardes Rome where he suffred martyrdom he earnestly exhorted the Churches by which he passed to continue in the faith and against all heresies which euen then began to bud vp he charged thē to retaine fast the traditiō of the Apostles which by that time he protested to be committed to writing for by that time were al the books of the new Testament written The words of Eusebius concerning this matter are li. 3. c. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he exhorted thē straitly to kepe the tradition of the Apostles which testifying that it was now for assurance cōmitted to writing he thought necessary to be plainly taught Against this tradition of the Apostles which for certaintie assurance is contained in their holy vndoubted writings we say nothing but striue altogither for it But because the word traditions is by you Papistes taken to signifie a doctrine secretely deliuered by worde of mouth without authority of the holy Scriptures we do willingly auoide the word in our translations where the simple might be deceiued to think that the holy ghost did euer cōmēd any such to the church which he would not haue to be committed to writing in the holy Scriptures in steede of that word so commōly taken although it doth not necessarily signifie any such matters we doe vse such wordes as do truly expresse the Apostles meaning the Greke word doth also signifie Therfore we vse the words of ordināces or instructiōs or institutiōs or the doctrine deliuered all which being of one sense the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doeth signifie and the same doth tradition signifie if it be rightly vnderstoode but seing it hath bene commonly taken and is vrged of the Papistes to signifie only a doctrine deliuered beside the word of God written in such places where the holy Ghost vseth the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that sense we translate by that worde tradition where he vseth it for such doctrine as is groūded vpon the holy Scriptures our translatours haue auoyded it not of any hereticall meaning that all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions are naught but that all such as haue not the holy Scripture to testifie of them and to warrant them are euill and to be auoyded of all true Christians which can not without blasphemie acknowledge any imperfection in the holy Scriptures of God which are able to make a man wise vnto saluation if they shoulde thinke any doctrine necessarie to saluation not to be cōtained therein MART. 2. For example Matt. 15. Thus they translate Why do thy disciples transgresse the TRADITION of the Elders And againe Why do you also transgresse the commaundement of God by your TRADITION And againe Thus haue you made the commaundement of God of no effect by your TRADITION Here I warrant you all the bels sound tradition and the word is neuer omitted
Beza cry out as lowd as you can there is neither fraude nor corruptioÌ„ malice nor partialitye but a prudent declining of that terme which might giue occasioÌ„ of error the Apostles meaning truly and faithfully deliuered To shewe that one word may be diuersly traÌ„slated especially wheÌ„ it signifieth diuers things to wise meÌ„ is needeles I haue said before you your selues translate or else you should be taken for mad men the Latine worde tradere of which tradition is deriued sometimes to deliuer sometimes to betray and yet the Greeke and Latine worde being all one in all the saide places MART. 4. Yea they doe else where so gladly vse this word tradition when it may tend to the discredit thereof that they put the sayd word in all their English Bibles with the like ful consent as before when it is not in the Greeke at all As when they translate thus If ye be dead with Christ from the rudimeÌ„ts of the world why as though liuing in the world ARE YE LEDDâ— WITH TRADITIONS and as an other English translation of theirs readeth more heretically Why are ye burdened with traditions Tell vs sincerely you that professe to haue skill in the Greeke and to translate according to the Greeke tell vs we beseech you whether this Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe signifie tradition and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be lead or burdened with traditions You can not be ignorant that it doth not so signifie but as a litle before in the same chapter and in other places your selues translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinaunces decrees so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be as in the vulgar Latine it is Quid decernitis Why do you ordaine or decree or why are you ledde with decrees FVLK 4. It grieueth you that tradition shoulde be mentioned so often in the ill part as it is And it seemeth you would defend the Colossians against S. Paule who reproueth them because they were led with ordinaunces according to the precepts and doctrines of men But you seeme to make light of suche traditions and therefore you count that the more hereticall translation which sayth why are you burthened with traditions Wherfore I pray you is that more hereticall Doe you not thinke that such traditions as are the commaundements doctrines of men are burthenous to mens consciences But they that haue skill in the Greeke tongue must tell you sincerely whether this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe signifie tradition and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be led or burdened with traditions I answere you if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you confesse signifie ordinances and decrees or doctrines and the worde tradition signifieth the same why shoulde not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie to be ledde or burdened with traditions as well as with ordinaunces customes or decrees These wordes differ much in sounde but not greatly in signification Dogmata Pythagoraea that might neuer be put in writing what were they but the traditions of Pythagoras Such were the Philosophicall decrees called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof Tullie speaketh in his booke de finibus which were dictata taught by worde of mouth which to set foorth among them was compted an heynous offence might not those rightly be called traditions MART. 5. Iustifie your translation if you can either out of Scriptures fathers or Lexicon And make vs a good reason why you put the worde traditions here where it is not in the Greeke and would not put it in the places before where you know it is most euidently in the Greeke Yea you must tell vs why you translate for tradition ordinance and contrarie for ordinance tradition so turning caâ—te in panne as they say at your pleasure and wresting both the one and the other to one end that you may make the very name of traditions odious among the people be they neuer so authenticall euen from the Apostles which your conscience knoweth and you shal answere for it at the dreadfull day FVLK 5. Firste out of Scripture I iustifie it thus Those dogmata against which the Apostle writeth were according to the precepts doctrines of men but such the Scripture calleth traditions Math. 15. Therfore these were traditions SecoÌ„dly out of the fathers Chrysostome vpon this place saith Traditiones graecorum taxat he reproueth the traditions of the Greekes saying all is but a humane doctrine Secondly S. Ambrose vpon this texte Loue not the world sayth he nor those errours Quos humana adinuenit traditio which the tradition of men hath inueÌ„ted And afterward Sagina enim carnalis sensus humana traditio est For the tradition of man is the pampering of carnal sense by which he saith men are so burthened that they cannot be ioyned to the head which is aboue Yet burthening with traditions is called of you the more heretical translation Say as much to Ambrose that he maketh an hereticall coÌ„mentarie The interpretor of Theodoret printed at Collen 1573. hath translated in the very text for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditiones hominum traditions of meÌ„ You see nowe this matter is not so voide of testimonie of the fathers as you supposed The reason you require vs to make is made often before Wee thought it not meete to expresse the Greeke worde in both places by the same english word because the english word as it is vsed by you is not so indifferent to signifie the doctrine of God deliuered out of the Scriptures as to signifie doctrines of men deuised beside the Scriptures If we must answere why we call tradition ordinance and ordinance tradition let your vulgar Latine interpreter answere vs or you for him why he calleth tradition precept and vsage or precept traditioÌ„ The one he doth 1. Cor. 11. v. 2. the other Act. 6. v. 14. where the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying there precepts or obseruations commauÌ„ded he translateth traditiones as in the other place the Greeke being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he translateth praecepta If this be lawfull for him why should it be couÌ„ted corruptioÌ„ or false translation in vs seeing we are moued with as good reason as can be yeelded for him As for authentical and apostolicall traditions that are grounded vpon the doctrine of the Apostles expressed in their writings we shall be ready to receiue them when so euer they shal be brought soorth If they caÌ„not be proued by the Scriptures which are writteÌ„ that we might beleeue and beleeuing haue eternall life which are able to make vs wise vnto saluatioÌ„ we haue nothing to do with them we may wel spare them nay we dare not admit them least we should answer for blasphemie against the holy Scriptures in that dreadfull day if by admitting of such traditioÌ„s we should professe that the doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures is vnperfect or insufficient to saluation MART. 6. Somewhat more excusable it is but yet proceeding of the same hereticall humor and
you to proue Forsooth that his aduersaries do confesse all the olde fathers to be on their side and to haue erred with them as Fulke doth of S. Ambrose Austen Tertullian Origen Chrysostom Gregorie and Bede by name with most reprochefull and contemptuous words against them This is spoken generally as though we confesse all the doctors to bee on their side in euery controuersie which we doe not acknowledge to be true in any one although many of the later sort do in some part fauour one or two errours of theirs among an hundreth But let vs examine his prooues which seeme to be verie plentifull yet of nine quotations I must needes strike out two page 306. and 279. because in them is not one syllable of my writing but all of Allens In the pages 315. 316. is nothing more contained touching this matter than I haue alreadie declared There remaineth nowe page 349. where I say touching a rule of S. Augustine which hee giueth to trie faith and doctrine of the Church onely by the scripture that if he had as diligently followed it in examining the common error of his time of prayer for the dead as he did in beating downe the schisme of the Donatistes or the heresie of the Pelagians hee woulde not so blindly haue defended that which by holy scripture he was not able to maintaine as he doeth in that booke De Cura pro mortuis agenda and else where What most reprochefull or contemptuous wordes are here against S. Augustine Seeing the holie scripture is a light shining in a darke place as S. Peter sayeth who so goeth without it must walke blindly which I say in commendation of the light of the scripture not in contempt of Augustines reason whome as I may not honour with contempt of the trueth so when he is a patrone maintainer of the truth I honour him from my heart Likewise page 78. Saint Ambrose is named but nothing acknowledged to fauour any popish errour Augustine is againe noted speaking of the amending fire whereof he hath no ground but in the common errour of his time and whereof he affirmeth sometimes that it is a matter that may bee doubted of sometimes that there is no third place at all Wherefore this place hath neither reprochful wordes nor confession of any constant opinion of Augustine inclining to your errours Then let vs passe to the next place which is page 435. where concerning this matter I haue written thus I denie that any of the auncient fathers in Christs time or scholers to his Apostles or within one or two hundreth yeares after Christ except one that had it of Montanus the heretike as he had more things beside in any one word maintained your cause for purgatorie or prayers for the dead Secondly of them that maintained prayers for the dead the most confessed they had it not out of the scriptures but of tradition of the Apostles and custome of the church therefore they are not to be compared vnto vs in better vnderstanding of the scriptures for that point which they denyed to be receiued of the scriptures Thirdly those of the auncient fathers that agreed with you in any part of your assertion for none within 400. yeares was wholly of your errour notwithstanding manie excellent gifts that they had yet maintained other errors beside that and about that diffented one from another and sometime the same man from himselfe and that is worst of all from manifest truth of the holy scriptures Therefore neither is their erronious interpretation in this matter to be receiued nor M. Allens wise iudgement of vs to bee regarded Here also I appeale to the iudgement of indifferent readers what confession I haue made of the fathers to be on their side or what reprochefull or contemptuous wordes I haue vsed against them for dissenting from vs. The next place is quoted page 247. where I say against Allen boasting of auncient testimonies for prayer for the dead I will not denie but you haue much drosse and dregges of the later sort of doctors the later the fuller of drosse But bring me any worde out of Iustinus Martyr Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus or any that did write within one hundreth yeares after Christ that aloweth prayer or almes for the dead I will say you are as good as your word Here except he will cauil that I acknowledge much drosse and dregs to be in the later sort of doctors I knowe not what hee findeth that hath any shadowe of his slander But the trueth must be confessed that the pure waters of life are to be founde onely in the worde of God and beside that the best and purest liquors that are to bee seene are not cleare from all dregges and drosse of humane error and frailtie In the next page Origen deliuered from the shamefull mangling of Allens allegation is shewed plainly to be an enimie of purgatorie prayer for the dead in that he affirmeth the day of a Christian mans death to be the ende of all sorrowe and the beginning of all felicitie There remaineth nowe the last place quoted page 194. where I acknowledge that Gregorie Bernard Bede vpon the text Matth. 12. are of opinion that sinnes not remitted in this world may be remitted in the world to come But how happeneth it say I that Chrysostome Ieronyme which both interpreted that place could gather no such matter although they otherwise allowed prayer for the dead The reason must needes be because the errour of purgatorie growing so much the stronger as it was neerer to the full reuelation of Antichrist Gregorie and Bede sought not the true meaning of Christ in this scripture but the confirmation of their plausible error Here is all the confessions most reprochefull contemptuous wordes that are conteined in so manie of those places as he hath quoted in which I will not tarrie to rehearse how manie vntruthes he hath vttered against mee but wish the indifferent reader to consider that if he be so bolde to slander mee concerning a booke printed in English by which he may be conuinced of euerie simple reader what dare he not aduouch of matters done and past at Rome whither none may trauell to trie out his tretcherie but he is in manifest danger neuer to returne the answere of his message From this Popish Parson whatsoeuer his name be I must passe to another gentleman namelesse in deede but not blamelesse yea much more blame worthie than the other who among so manie and so great flanders as it is wonder howe they could bee conueyed into so small a booke against our prince her lawes her councellors her iudges her officers the nobilitie the comminaltie the church the gouernors the pastors the people thereof against all states persons of the land in whome there is religion towardes God ioyned with dutie towarde their prince and countrie hath founde yet some emptie corners where he might place me in particular And
Apostles which it is sufficient that it is receiued of the doctrine of the Apostles Ruffinus in deede expositione in symbolum sayeth it was an opinion receiued from the elders that the Apostles before their dispersion made this briefe forme of beliefe which is called their Creede And I acknowledge the opinion hath some probabilitie but that it is to be beleeued of necessitie of saluation neither Ruffinus sayeth nor if he did were he able to prooue it Ambrose Ep. 81. Syricio to prooue that Marie in the birth of Christ was a virgine sayeth Credatur symbolo Apostòlorum quod Ecclesia Romana iteratum semper custodit seruat Let credit bee giuen to the Apostles Creede which being repeted often the Church of Rome doth alwayes keepe and obserue That this Creede is called the Apostles symbole or Creede it may well be because it containeth the summe of the Apostles doctrine although it had not beene compiled by them The testimonie of Augustine which you quote Serm. 118. De tempore must needes be some yonger mans because he repeteth the verie wordes of Ruffinus which Augustine liuing almost in his time woulde not repete as his owne You might as well and more for your purpose haue quoted Serm. 115. De tempore where euery Apostle maketh an Article which is the absurde opinion of the late Papistes but neuer was credited by Augustine himselfe howsoeuer these sermons haue gotten vnder the shadow of his name To conclude as some of the auncient fathers thinke the Creede was of the Apostles making so none of them affirmeth that it is damnable to doubt thereof so a man doubt not of the doctrine contained therein whereof the holy ghost is author as it is proued by the holie scriptures whether the Apostles or their successours did gather this short summe or forme of beliefe which we call the Apostles Creede For the obseruation of the Easter day which is the seconde point wherein you dare Master Charke I dare affirme that seeing it is not commaunded in the scripture the obseruation thereof is not necessarie to saluation That Eusebius calleth it an Apostolike tradition it is not materiall seeing that verie contention which he reporteth was about the obseruation of Easter according to the Apostolike tradition by the immediate successors of the Apostles Anicetus and Polycarpus doe plainly testifie what credit is to bee giuen to the traditions of the Apostles without the warrant of the Apostles writings Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 26. For while Anicetus pretendeth the tradition of S. Peter and Polycarpus S. Iohn and neither would yeelde to other they teache vs what to esteeme of traditions apostolical not contained in the holy scriptures Namely that in these dayes there can bee no certeintie of them when they which might see and heare the Apostles themselues could not agree about them Last of all which you make the greatest matter the perpetuall virginitie of the mother of Christ after his birth although for my part I do beleeue it and wish all men so to doe yet dare I affirme that it is not damnable not to beleeue it except it can be prooued that the scripture hath taught it But you obiect against mee first the condemnation of Heluidius testified by Sozomenus Whereto I aunswere that he was iustly condemned not because he beleeued not but because he did obstinately denie it troubled the peace of the church about an vnnecessary question But you aske vs if wee remember not the solemne curse for this matter of so many holy bishops recorded and confirmed by S. Ambrose Ep. 81. 79. It seemeth you remember it not your selfe for that curse contained in the ende of the Ep. 81. was against them that like Manichees denyed that our Sauiour Christ tooke flesh of a virgine And Ep. 79. he reprooueth them which did contende that the virgine Marie had more sonnes than our Sauiour Christ which to affirme is a great errour and conuinced by the authoritie of the scripture seeing as Ambrose well noteth our Sauiour Christ committed his mother to Iohn the Euangelist which had not beene needefull if shee had naturall sonnes of her owne which might take care of her But you will stoppe our mouthes if you can as you say with these wordes of Saint Augustine Integra fide credendum est c. Wee must beleeue with a sounde faith blessed Marie the mother of Christ to haue conceiued in virginitie to haue brought foorth her sonne in virginitie and to haue remained a virgine after her childbirth neither must wee yeeld to the blasphemie of Heluidius Your author goeth on and telleth what that was Qui dixis fuit virgo ante partum non virgo post partum Who sayd shee was a virgine before her child-birth shee was no virgine after her childbirth But where shall wee finde this saying in Saint Augustine Your quotation directeth vs to Augustine in Encherid Cap. 34. where in deede some mention is of Maries virginitie namely that she conceiued in virginitie but nothing of Heluidius or his heresie Wherefore it secmeth that out of Canisius or some other mans collection your common places of the doctors sayings are borowed and not taken out of your owne reading Therefore howsoeuer you haue mistaken the matter the saying you alledge is in the bastarde booke De dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis Cap. 69. which may as easily be knowen from Augustines writing as a goose from a swanne And yet if it were of as good authoritie as Augustines owne writing it were not sufficient to stop our mouth when wee heare that wee are slaundered For wee dare not say with Heluidius which is the blasphemie noted by that writer that the virgine Marie was no virgine after her childbirth although wee say that it is no article of faith necessarie to saluation except it haue demonstration out of the holy scriptures neither doth your author say it is blasphemie to doubt of it but to denye it although for my part I do neither denie it nor doubt of it but beleeue it as I do manie other truethes not expressed in the scripture but yet not as articles of Christian faith necessarie to saluation I will conclude with a saying of Saint Ierome and stoppe your mouth if I can which concerning this verie question in controuersie against Heluidius to shewe what a man is bound to beleeue vpon necessitie of saluation euen that which is contained in the scriptures and that which is not coÌ„teined that he is not bound vpon losse thereof to beleeue thus writeth Sed vt haec quae scripta sunt non negaâ—ius ita â—a quae non sunt scripta renuimus Natum Dâ—â—â— esâ—e de virgine credimus quia legimus Mariam â—â—psisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus But as wee do not deny those things that are written so we do refuse those things that are not written That God was borne of a virgin wee beleeue because we haue read it that Marie vsed marriage after her
speach but either writtē by Barnabas as Tertullian holdeth or by Luke the Euangelist as some men thinke or by Clemens that after was B. of the Romane church whom they say to haue ordered adorned the sentēces of Paul in his own speach or els truly bicause Paule did write vnto the Hebrews because of the enuie of his name amōg thē he cut of the title in the beginning of the salutation These things cōsidered what neede those tragical exclamations in so trifling a matter Doth not the title tell it is S. Paules why strike they out S. Paules name what an hereticall peeuishnesse is this For lacke of good matter you are driuen to lowde clamors against vs but I will euen conclude in your owne wordes I reporte me to all indifferent men of common sense whether we do it to deminish the credite of the epistle which of al S. Paules epistles we might least misse when we come to dispute against your Popish sacrifice sacrificing priesthood or whether you do not craftily moue a scruple in the mindes of simple persons to make thē doubt of the auctoritie of that epistle whose double cannon shot you are not able to beare whē it is thūdred out against you vnder colour that it is not of sound credit among our selues that vse it against you Which of al the lies that euer Satan inuented taught you to vtter is one of the most abhominable MART. 12. I know very well that the authoritie of Canonicall Scripture standeth not vpon the certaintie of the author but yet to be Paules or not Paules Apostolicall or not Apostolicall maketh great difference of credite and estimation For what made S. Iames epistle doubted of sometime or the second of S. Peter and the rest but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles This Luther sawe very well when he denied S. Iames epistle to be Iames the Apostles writing If titles of bookes be of no importāce then leaue out Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn leaue out Paule in his other epistles also and you shall much pleasure the Manichees and other old Heretikes if the titles make no difference vrge no more the title of the Apocalypse S. Iohn the Diuines as though it were not S. Iohns the Euangelistes and you shall much displeasure some Heretikes now a daies Briefly most certaine it is and they know it best by their owne vsual doings that it is a principall way to the discredite of any booke to denie it to be that authors vnder whose name it hath bene receiued FVLK 12. If you know so well that the auctoritie of the Canonical scripture standeth not vpō the certaintie of the auctor as in deede it doth not For the bookes of Iudges of Ruth of Samuel the later of the Kings c. who can certainly affirme by whom they were written with what forehead do you charge vs to doubte of the auctoritie of this epistle because we reporte out of the auncient writers the vncertaintie of the auctor or leaue out that title whiche is not certainely true But yet you say to be Paules or not Paules apostolicall or not apostolicall maketh great difference of credite and estimation If by apostolicall you meane of apostolicall spirite or auctoritie I agree to that you say of apostolical or not apostolicall If you meane apostolicall that only which was writtē by some Apostle you will make great difference of credite estimatiō betweene the Gospell of Marke Luke and the Actes of the Apostles from the gospels of Mathew and Iohn But which of vs I pray you that thinketh that this epistle was not writtē by S. Paul once doubteth whether it be not of Apostolicall spirite and auctoritie Which is manifest by this that both in preaching and writing wee cite it thus the Apostle to the Hebrewes And if it were written by S. Luke or by S. Clement which both were Apostolike men seing it is out of controuersie that it was written by the spirite of God it is doubtlesse Apostolicall and differeth not in credite and estimation from those writings that are knowen certainly to haue bene writtē by the Apostles But I maruel greatly why you write that to be Paules or not Paules maketh great difference of credite estimation Those epistles that are Peters and Iohns are not Paules yet I thinke their is no great difference of credite estimation betweene them Paules What you thinke I know not but you write very suspitiously You aske what made S. Iames epistle or the second of Peter and the rest to be sometimes doubted of but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles Yes something else or else they doubted vainely of them and without iuste cause as I thinke they did But when their were two Apostles called Iames he that doubteth whether the epistle was written by Iames the brother of Iohn is persuaded it was written rather by Iames the sonne of Alphaeus doubteth nothing of the credit auctoritie estimation of the epistle No more doe wee which doubt whether the epistle to the Hebrewes were written by S. Paule seeing we are perswaded it was written either by S. Barnabas or by S. Luke or by S. Clement as the auncient writers thought or by some other of the Apostles or Euangelists we make no question but that it is Apostolicall and of equall auctoritie with the rest of the holy scriptures But Eusebius denied the epistle of S. Iames because he was perswaded that it was written by no Apostle or Apostolike man and therefore saith plainly that it is a bastard or counterset and so belike was Luther deceiued if euer he denied it as you say he did But if titles of bookes be of no importance say you then leaue out Matthew Marke Iohn and Paule in his other Epistles What nede that I pray you Is there no difference betwene leauing out a title whereof there hath bene great vncertaintie and diuersitie in Gods church and which in some Greeke copies both written and printed is left out and in leauing out those titles that neuer were omitted nor neuer any question or controuersie moued of them by any of the auncient catholike fathers But you will vs to vrge no more the title of the Apocalypse of S. Iohn the Diuine as though it were not S. Iohn the Euangelistes we shall please I know not what heretikes of our time except it be the Papistes whom it would most concerne that the reuelation of S. Iohn in which their Antichrist of Rome is so plainly described were brought out of credit But if you had read Bezaes preface before the Apocalypse you should finde that euen by that title he gathereth a probable argument that it was written by Iohn the Euangelist because it is not like that this excellent name THE DIVINE coulde agree to any Iohn in the Apostles time so aptly as to Sainct Iohn the Euangelist beside the consent of al antiquitie
to the Greeke text by one that fauoured Peters primacie Is it so then you will not stande to this Greeke texte neither Not in this place saith Beza FVLK 49. In graunting Peter to be the firste wee neede not graunt him to be the chiefe and if we graunt him to be the chiefe it followeth not that he is chiefe in auctoritie But if that were graunted it is not necessarie that he was head of the Church And albeit that were also graunted the Bishop of Rome could gaine nothing by it But what saith Beza where the texte saith the firste Peter If wee muste beleeue you hee saith No wee will graunt you no suche thing for these wordes were added to the Greeke texte by one that fauoured Peters primacie I praye you Martin where hath Beza those wordes will you neuer leaue this shamefull forgerie Beza in the tenth of Mathew doth only aske the question Quid si hoc vocabulum c. what if this worde were added by some that would establish the Primacie of Peter for nothing followeth that may agree with it This asketh Beza but as an obiectioÌ„ which immediatly after he answeareth concludeth that it is no addition but a naturall word of the text found in all copies confessed by Theophylact an enimie of the Popes primacie and defendeth it in the third of Marke where it is not in the common Greeke copies nor in the vulgar Latine against Erasmus who finding it in some Greeke copies thought it was vntruely added out of Mathew But Beza saith Ego verò non dubito quin haec sit germana lectio But I doubte not but this is the true and right reading of the texte and therefore hee translateth Primâ—inâ— Simonem the firste Simon out of the fewe copies Erasmus speaketh of Therefore it is an abhominable slaunder to charge him with following the common receyued texte where it seemeth to make against you when hee contendeth for the truth against the common text yea and against your owne vulgar Latine to giue you that which you make so great accompte of that Peter in the Cataloge of the Apostles was firste So greatly hee feareth to acknowledge that Peter was called first And so true it is that you charge him to say No wee will graunt you no such thing for these wordes were added to the Greeke texte by one that fauoured Peters primacie I hope your favourers seeing your forgerie thus manifestly discouered will giue you lesse credite in other your shamelesse slaunders at the leastwise this in equitie I trust all Papistes will graunt not to beeleue your report against any mans writing except they reade it thoÌ„selues Now â—â—at this worde the first argueth no primacie or superioritie beside those places quoted by Beza Act. 26. 20. Rom. 1 8. 3 2. You may read 1. Par. v 23 24. where the posteritie of Leui and Aaron are rehearsed as they were appointed by Dauid in their orders or courses Subuel primus Rohobia primus sors prima Ioiarib c. where least you should thinke of any headship or principalitie because the Hebrue is somtime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you may see that Subuel is called primus of the sonnes of Gerson when there is no more mentioned more expresly Rohobia is called primus of the sonnes of Eleazer of whome it is sayd that he had no more sonnes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth here the first in order it appeareth by those generations where the second third or fourth is named as in the sonnes of Hebron and of Oziel Also in the sonnes of Semei where Iehoth is counted the first Ziza the second Iaus and Beria becaused they increase not in sonnes were accounted for one familie In all which there is no other primacy than in the first lot of Ioiarib where the Hebrew worde is harishuon and so follow the restâ—n order vnto foure and twenty courses Therefore there is no cause why we should not stand to the Greeke text in that place neither did Beza euer deny to stande to it MART. 50. Let vs see an other place You must graunt vs saywe by this Greeke text that Christes very bloud which was shed for vs is really in the chalice because S. Luke sayth so in the Greeke text No sayth Beza those Greeke wordes came out of the margem into the text and therefore I translate not according to them but according to that which I thinke the truer Greeke text although I finde it in no copies in the world and this his doing is maintained iustified by our English Protestants in their writings of late FVLK 50. Still Beza speaketh as you inspire into him while he speaketh through your throte or quil The truth is Beza sayth that either there is a manifest Soloecophanes that is an appearance of incongruitie or els those wordes which is shed for you seeme to be added out of S. Mathew or els it is an errour of the writers placing that in the nominatiue case which should be in the datiue For in the datiue case did Basil read them in his morals 21. definition Neuertheles all our olde bookes sayth Beza had it so written as it is commonly printed in the nominatiue case Here are three seuerall disiunctions yet can you finde none but one proposition that you set downe as though it were purely and absolutely affirmed by Beza Likewise where you speake of no copies in the world you say more than Beza who speaketh but of such copies as he had who if he were of no better conscience than you would haue him seeme to be might faine some copie in his owne handes to salue the matter But the truth is that since he wrote this he found one more auncient copie both in Greeke and Latine which nowe is at Cambridge where this whole verse is wanting But of this matter which somewhat concerneth my selfe particularly I shall haue better occasion to write in the places by you quoted cap. 1. num 37. and cap. 17. num 11. where I will so iustifie that which I haue written before touching this place as I trust all learned and indifferent Readers shall see how vainely you insult against me where you bewray grosser ignorance in Greeke phrases than euer I woulde haue suspected in you being accounted the principall Linguist of the Seminarie at Rhemes MART. 51. Well yet sayewe there are places in the same Greeke text as plaine for vs as these now cited where you can not say it came out of the margent or it was added falsely to the text Aâ— Stand and hold fast the traditions c. by this text we require that you graunt vs traditions deliuered by word of mouth as wel as the written word that is the Scriptures No say they we know the Greeke word signifieth tradition as plaine as possibly but here and in the like places we rather translate it ordinances instructions and what els soeuer Nay Sirs
say A pagan idolater and a Christian idolater by one and the same Greeke woorde in one and the same meaning and they translate A pagan idolater and a Christian worshipper of images by two distinct words and diuerse meanings it must needes be done wilfully to the foresaid purpose See chap. 3. num 8. 9. FVLKE 6. We translate not only pagane Idolaters but also Iewes Idolaters nor Christians only worshippers of Images but Paganes also wherefore this is a foolish obseruation And if we do any where explicate who is an Idolater by translating him a worshipper of images both the word beareth it and it is not contrarie to the sense of the Scriptures in which we find the worshipping of images alwaies forbidden but neuer commaunded or allowed MART. 7. If they translate one and the same Greeke word Tradition whensoeuer the Scripture speaketh of euill traditions and neuer translate it so whensoeuer it speaketh of good and Apostolicall traditions their intention is euident against the authoritie of Traditions See chap. 2 numb 1. 2 3. FVLKE 7. This is aunswered sufficiently in confutation of the Preface Sect. 51. The English word Tradition sounding in the euill parte and taken by the Papistes for matter vnwritten yet as true and as necessarie as that which is contained in the holie Scriptures we haue vpon iust cause auoided in such places as the Greeke worde signifieth good and necessarie doctrine deliuered by the Apostles which is all contained in the Scriptures and yet haue vsed such English wordes as sufficiently expresse the Greeke word vsed in the originall text Doe not you your selues translate Tradere sometimes to betray and sometimes to deliuer MART. 8. Yea if they translate Tradition taken in ill parte where it is not in the Greeke and translate it not so where it is in the Greeke taken in good parte it is more euidence of the foresaid wicked intention See chap. 2. numb 5. 6. FVLK 8. Our intention can be no worse than your vulgar Latine Interpreters was who where the Greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translateth it Traditions Act. 6. And the right vnderstanding of the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Apostles meaning wil yeeld traditions as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place before mentioned MARTINE 9. If they make this a good rule to translate according to the vsuall signification and not the originall deriuation of wordes as Beza and Maister Whitakers doe and if they translate contrarie to this rule what is it but wilfull corruption So they doe in translating Idolum an Image Presbyter an Elder and the like See chap. 4. chap. 6. numb 6. 7. 8. c. numb 13. c. FVLKE 9. Neither Beza nor Maister Whitaker make it a perpetuall rule to translate according to the vsuall signification for sometimes a worde is not taken in the vsuall signification as Foenerator vsed by your vulgar Latine Interpreter Luke 7. vsuallye signifieth an Vserer yet doe you translate it a Creditor Likewise Stabulum vsed Luke 10. vsually signifieth a Stable yet you translate it an Inne So Nauis which vsually signifieth a Shippe you call it a Boate. Marke 8. and Nauicula which vsuallye signifieth a Boate you call a Shippe Luke 5. And yet I thinke you meant no wilfull corruption No more surelye did they whiche translated Idolum an Image and Presbyter an Elder whiche you can not deny But they followe the originall deriuation of the wordes whereas some of yours both goe from the vsuall signification and also from the originall deriuation MARTINE 10. If Presbyter by Ecclesiasticall vse bee appropriated to signifie a Priest no lesse than Episcopus to signifie a Bishoppe or Diaconus a Deacon and if they translate these two later accordingly and the first neuer in all the Newe Testament what can it be but wilfull corruption in fauour of this heresie That there are no Priestes of the Newe Testament See chap. 6. numb 12. FVLKE 10. The worde Priest by Popishe abuse is commonly taken for a Sacrificer the same that Sacerdos in Latine But the Holie Ghost neuer calleth the Ministers of the worde and Sacramentes of the Newe Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacerdotes Therefore the translatours to make a difference betwene the Ministers of the Olde Testament and them of the Newe calleth the one according to the vsuall acception Priestes and the other according to the originall deriuation Elders Which distinction seeing the vulgar Latine texte doth alwaies rightly obserue it is in fauour of your hereticall Sacrificing Priesthoode that you corruptly translate Sacerdos and Presbyter alwayes as though they were all one a Priest as though the Holie Ghost had made that distinction in vayne or that there were no difference betwene the Priesthoode of the Newe Testament and the Olde The name of Priest according to the originall deriuation from Presbyter wee doe not refuse but according to the common acception for a Sacrificer wee can not take it when it is spoken of the Ministerie of the Newe Testament And although many of the auncient Fathers haue abusiuelye confounded the termes of Sacerdos and Presbyter yet that is no warrant for vs to translate the Scripture and to confounde that which we see manifestly the spirit of God hath distinguished For this cause we haue translated the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Elder euen as your vulgar Latine translater doeth diuerse times as Actes 15. and 20. 1. Pet. 5. and else where calleth them Seniores or Maiores natu Which you commonly call the Auncientes or Seniors because you dare not speake Englishe and say the Elders Neither is Presbyter by Ecclesiasticall vse so approprietated to signifie a Priest that you woulde alwayes translate it so in the Olde Testament where your vulgar translatour vseth it for a name of Office and Gouernment and not for Priests at any time Neither do we alwayes translate the Greeke worde Episcopus and Diaconus for a Bishoppe and a Deacon but sometimes for an ouerseer as Act. 20. and a minister generally oftentimes The word Baptisma by Ecclesiasticall vse signifieth the holy Sacrament of Baptisme yet are you enforced Marke 7. to translate Baptismata washings Euen so doe we to obserue that distinction which the Apostles and Euangelistes alwaies doe keepe when we call Sacerdotes Priestes for difference we call Presbyteros Elders and not least the name of Priestes shoulde enforce the Popishe sacrifice of the Masse For this worde Presbyter will neuer cōprehend a sacrificer or a sacrificing Priesthoode MART. 11. If for Gods altar they translate Temple for Bels idololatrical table they translate altar iudge whether it bee not of purpose against our altars and in fauour of their communion table See chap. 17. numb 15. 16. FVLK 11. If there be any suche mistaking of one word for an other I thinke it was the fault of the Printer rather than of the Translator for the name of altar is more
on your parte that should exactly folow the Greeke falsely translated when you translate in S. Peters Epistle thus You were not redeemed with corruptible things froÌ„ your vaine conuersation receiued by the tradition of the fathers Where the Greeke is thus rather to be translated froÌ„ your vaine conuersation deliuered by the fathers But your fingers itched to fâ—â—st in the word tradition and for deliuered to say receiued because it is the phrase of the Catholike Church that it hath receiued many things by tradition which you woulde here controll by likenesse of wordes in this false translation FVLK 6. I maruaile why you should compte it an heretical humor to vse the worde traditions in the euill part which the holy ghost so vseth and your owne vulgar translator also but that you are more partial in allowing the traditions of meÌ„ than we in auoiding the terme somtimes only for doubt lest traditioÌ„s of meÌ„ should creepe into the place of Gods coÌ„mandemeÌ„ts But how is it falsly translated on our part that professe to folow the Greke which is truly translated in your vulgar Latin text which professeth to translate the Greeke as well as we belike because we say receiued by the tradition of the fathers which according to the Greeke should be deliuered by the fathers but that our fingers itched to foyst in the word tradition What I pray you hath your vulgar traÌ„slator foisted in that word did his fingers itch against such catholike phrases that he would coÌ„trol theÌ„ by a false traÌ„slation do you not perceiue that while you raile vpoÌ„ vs you reuile your owne vulgar Latin translatioÌ„ which hath the same word traditioÌ„ for which you storme against vs But for deliuered we haue said receiued See whether frowardnes driueth you the Apostle saith they were deliuered froÌ„ the vaine coÌ„uersation of their fathers traditioÌ„ Do you then vnderstaÌ„d that it was deliuered by the fathers but not receiued by their sonnes Certainely they were deliuered from that vaine conuersation which they had receyued For receyuing doth necessarily importe deliuering And because you called for a Lexicon in the next section before Scapula will teach you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie as indifferently A patre traditus as à patre acceptus deliuered by the father and receyued by the father What wrangling then is this about the moone shine in the water to crie out false translation foysting itching fingers and I know not what MART. 7. But concerning the worde tradition you will say perhaps the sense thereof is included in the Greeke worde deliuered We graunt But would you be content if we should alwayes expresly adde tradition where it is so included then should we say 1. Cor. 11. 2. I praise you that as I haue deliuered you by tradition you keepe my precepts or traditions And againe v. 23. For I receiued of our Lord which also I deliuered vnto you by tradition c. And Luc. 1. v. 2. As they by tradition deliuered vnto vs which from the beginning sawe c. and suche lyke by your example wee should translate in this sorte But we vse not this licentious maner in translating holy Scriptures neither is it a translators parte but an interpreters and his that maketh a commentarie neither doth a good cause neede other translation than the expresse text of the Scripture giueth FVLK 7. We will say it is contained in the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth receaued by tradition or deliuerie froÌ„ the Fathers not in the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth otherwise many times thaÌ„ simply to deliuer when it signifieth to deliuer it doth not alway signifie to deliuer by word of mouth without writing as you vnderstand tradition but as well by writing as by preaching As when S. Paule saith I receaued of the Lord that which I deliuered vnto vou speaking of the institution of the supper he meaneth that which the Euangelists had written he him selfe doth write So 2. Thess. 2. when he willeth theÌ„ to hold the traditioÌ„s which they had learned of him he speaketh not only of such as they learned by his preaching but such also as they learned by his Epistle Wherefore if you should expresly adde the worde tradition in your partiall signification wheresoeuer you finde the word deliuered you shoulde not onely translate ridiculously but also heretically and falsly Wordes in deriuation and composition doe not alwaies signifie according to their primitiue MART. 8. And if you will yet say that our vulgar Latine translation hath here the worde tradition we graunt it hath so and therefore we also translate accordingly But you professe to translate the Greeke and not the vulgar Latine which you in England condemne as Papisticall and say it is the worst of all though Beza your maister pronounce it to be the very best and will you notwithstanding followe the sayde vulgar Latine rather than the Greeke to make traditions odious Yea such is your partialitie one way and inconstancie an other way that for your hereticall purpose you are content to followe the olde Latine translation though it differ from the Greeke and againe another time you will not follow it though it be all one with the Greeke most exactly as in the place before alledged where the vulgar Latine translation hath nothing of traditions but Quid decernitis as it is in the Greeke you translate Why are ye burdened with traditions FVLK 8. You may be sure we will saye that we know to be true and sufficient to discharge our translation from your foolish and malicious quarrelling But we professe you saye to translate the Greeke and not the vulgar Latine And I pray you what doth your vulgar Latine Interpreter professe to translate but the Greeke if he then translating out of Greeke could finde tradition in the Greeke worde why shoulde not we finde the same especially being admonished by him who if he translated truly why are we blamed for doing as he did if his translation be false why is it allowed as the onely authenticall text We follow not therefore the Latine translation but ioyne with it wheresoeuer it followeth the Greeke as we doe in ten thousand places more than this and willingly depart not from it but where it departeth from the Greeke or else vseth such wordes as would be offensiue if they were translated into English or occasion of errour as you doe likewise when you depart from the proper and vsuall signification of wordes which your Latine translator vseth as when you call foenerator a creditor which signifieth an vsurer Luc. 7. Stabulum an Inne and stabularius an host Luc. 10. Vna Sabathi the first of the Sabaoth Iohn 2. Ecclesia the assembly Act. 7. Baptismata washings Marc. 7. and such like But we in England you say condemne the Latine translation as papisticall We accuse it as not true in many places we saye it is the worst of all though
he adored in respect of things to come it is not otherwise easie to vnderstād but that he partly for saw the kingdō of Ephraim the posteritie of Ioseph partly the kingdome of Christ prefigured in Ioseph then Prince of Aegypt and so by faith adored his scepter or toward his scepier which is all one as the Greeke fathers for the most part expound it But let vs hasten towà rd an end FVLK 6. S. Hierom in deede denieth that Iacob did worship his staffe or his scepter or toward the toppe of his Sonnes scepter but onely towardes the beds head as the Hebrue text is For reuerent estimation of reliques the Holy land and the monuments of Christs doing and being as he sometime vpon contention perhaps was immoderate so for adoration of such things after such Idolatrous manner as is vsed in the popish Church he was farre off yea he saith expresly that hee dothe not allowe the adoration of any creature and that to adore any creatures is plaine idolatrie Has autem non dico martyrum reliquias c. But we doe worshippe and adore I saye not the reliques of martyres but neither the sunne truly nor the moone c. not Aungelles not Archaungels not Cherubin not Seraphin or any name that is named in this worlde or in the worlde to come least we should serue the creature rather than the creator whiche is blessed for euer But we honour the reliques of martyres that wee might adore him whose martyres they are Doe you not heare how Hierome alloweth the adoring of creatures I see no cause therefore why wee may not be tryed by his iudgement for adoration of holie things and namely reliques and whatsoeuer you will name beside seeing he maketh adoration proper onelie to God Finally the Apostle saith not that Iacob adored in respecte of things to come but that by faith he blessed his sonne concerning things to come and worshipped God whome no man can worshippe truely but by faith And Iacobs faith was the more commendable that being neere his ende and in that infirmitie of bodie he both beleeued the promises of God made to him concerning his sonnes and also gaue thankes vnto God for those benefites whyche hee shoulde neuer taste of in the flesh but was assured by them as tokens of Gods fauour towards him to the attainement of the lande of eternall life whereof the lande of Canaan was but a holie figure and sacrament CHAP. XX. Hereticall translation by ADDING TO THE TEXT Martin BEcause in the last corruption I spake of adding to the texte thoughe i◠bee their common and vniuersal fault in euerie controuersie as is to bee seene in euerie chapiter of this booke yet here I wil adde certaine places not yet mentioned As The reste of the actes of Iehoakim and his abhominations whych he did and CARVED IMAGES THAT VVERE LAID TO HIS CHARGE BEHOLDE THEY ARE VVRITTEN c these words carued images laid to his charge are more than is either in the Greeke or the Hebrewe Fulke YOu forget your self in the first place wherof made mention Chap. 3. sect 9. where I haue aunsweared that our firste translators added that which is the common interpretation and supply of them that write vpon this place but because that hadde beene better in the note than in the texte it is corrected in twoo later translations MART. 2. Againe Saule confounded the Iewes proouing by conferring one Scripture with an other that this is very Christe These wordes by conferring one Scripture with another are added more than is in the greeke texte in fauour of their presumptuous opinion that conference of scriptures is ynough for any man to vnderstand them and so to reiecte bothe the commentaries of the Doctours and exposition of holy Councels and Catholike Churche it is so muche more I saye than is in the Greeke text and a notorious corruption in their Bible read daily in their churches as most authenticall See the rest of their Bibles and thou shalte finde no more for al those wordes but affirming or confirming and the selfe same Bible in the first epistle to the Corinthians translateth the same Greeke worde thus Who shal instruct And indeede that is the true and vsuall signification of the word both in the olde Testament and in the newe as Deut. 4. Thou shalt teach them thy children And Esay 40. Who shal instruct our Lord The Hebrewe worde also in both places signifying no more but instructing and teaching And so doth the Apostle cite i◠to the Corinthians out of Esay and he vseth i◠to the Coloss c. 2. v. 2. in the same signification as the Churche readeth and expoundeth it and so consequently S. Luke in the place whereof we nowe treate saith nothing else but that S. Paule earnestly taught or instructed them that Iesus is Christe And yet our newe translators without respect of Hebrewe or Greeke haue coined a new signification of conferring one scripture with an other So ignorant they are in the signification of Greke wordes or rather so wilfully malitious FVLK 2. Either you make aloude lie or else some one print whych you haue of the Bishops Bible whiche you cal Bib. 1577. hath put that into the line that should be the note in the margent For of four translations that I haue neuer a one hath that addition The Bishoppes Bible hathe that 22. verse Chap. 9. this But Saule increased the more in strength and confounded the Iewes which dwelt at Damascus affirming that this was very Christe The Geneua Bible thus But Saule increased the more in strength and confounded the Iewes that dwelt at Damascus confirming that this was the Christ where the note in the margent vppon the word confirming is this proouing by the conference of the scriptures Thomas Mathews Bible translateth that verse thus But Saule increased in strength and confounded the Iewes which dwelt at Damascus affirming that this was verie Christe Maister Couerdales Bible 1562. hatla it thus But Saule increased the more in strength and confounded the Iewes whiche dwelte at Damascus affirming that this was verie Christ. Thus are al our translations without that addition which although it is not to be borne in the text yet is no hereticall addition excepte you counte it heresie to prooue a thing by conference of Scriptures MART. 3. Againe in the firste epistle of Saint Peter they translate thus The worde of the Lorde indureth euer and this is the word which by the gospel was preached vnto you where these wordes by the Gospel are added deceitfully and of il intent to make the reader thinke that there is no other word of God but the written word for the common reader hearing this word Gospel conceiueth nothing else But indeede al is the gospell whatsoeuer the Apostles taught either by writing or by tradition and word of mouth a◠S. Paul speaketh 2. Thess. 2. and S. Peter saith nothing else in the place alleadged but This
prooue it to be good and lawfull I will reuoke my termes Page 142. where he sayeth that bread and wine of the sacrament haue no promise I tell him he lyeth like an arrogant hypocrite for bread and wine haue as good promise in the one sacrament as water in the other Pag. 178. where M. Calfebill had distinguished traditions into some necessarie some contrary to the worde some indifferent I say Martiall like an impudent asse calleth on him to shewe in what scripture doctor or councell he findeth this distinction of traditions As though a man might not make a true distinction in disputation but the same must bee founde in so many wordes in scripture doctor or councell when he himselfe cannot denie but the distinction is true and euery part to be founde in the scriptures doctors and councelles Pag. 133. I call Martiall blockeheade and shamelesse asse because he would proue that the spirite of God is not iudge of the interpretation of the scriptures because Paule and Barnabas in the controuersie of circumcision went not to the worde and spirit but to the Apostles and elders at Ierusalem Also pag. 213. I call him asseheade because he sayth that M. Calfehill condemneth his doctrine of only faith iustifying when he affirmeth that outwarde profession is necessarie for euery Christian man Likewise pag. 215. where Martiall would learne whether M. Calfehill kneeling downe before his father to aske him blessing did not commit Idolatrie I say hee is an asse that can not make a difference betweene ciuill honour and religious worship Pag. 202. I call not onely Martiall but all Papistes shamelesse dogges and blasphemous Idolaters which mainetaine and make vowes to Images which trauell to them and offer vp both prayers and sacrifices of candels money Iewels and other thinges vnto Images Whose Idolles haue giuen answeres haue wagged their heades and lippes Pag. 198. I say he rayleth vpon Caluine like a ruffion and slandereth him like a deuill because hee sayeth a shippe would not carrie the peeces of the crosse that are shewed in so many places which yet is confirmed by testimonie of Erasmus Pag. 170. where Martiall goeth about to proove that the sacramentes are no helpes of our fayth I said Did you euer heare such a filthy hogge grunt so beastly of the holie sacramentes that they should be no helpes of our faith These are as many of the speeches noted by the censurer as I can finde wherein I trust the indifferent reader weighing vpon what cause they were vttered will not so lightly condemne me for a rayler seeing to rayle is of priuate malice to reuile them that deserue no reproch and not of zeale in defence of truth to vse vehement and sharpe speeches as all the prophets and the mildest spirited men that euer were haue vsed against the aduersaries thereof But the most heynous accusation is behinde that I call Staphylus a counsellor to an Emperour rascall I might answere as S. Paul did when hee was reprooued for calling the high priest painted wall Brethren I knewe not y t he was an Emperors counsellor or in very deede I know nothing in him worthy to be an honest mans counsellour But seeing it pleased an Emperour to accept him it is as great a fault as if an enemie of meane condition should call an English counsellour rascall So sayth our sharpe censurer But if he meane those that be of the Queenes maiesties priuie counsell I will not say he playeth the rascall but either the ignorant foole or the malicious vile person to coÌ„pare y â— Apostata Staphylus euen in his counsellership with the meanest of their honors For they that knowe the maner of the princes of Germanie and of other foreine princes can testifie that personages of meane estate only being learned in y e lawes are accepted of the Emperour and other states as their counsellours whose counsell perhapes they neuer vse but may if it please them as of counsellors at lawe So that one man is counseller to the Emperour and to many other princes As for example Lutolphus Schraderus doctor of both lawes was ordinary professor in the Vniuersitie of Frankeforde and counsellour of the Emperor of the Elector Marquis of Brandeburge of the dukes of Brunswich Luneburge Megelburge and of many other princes of Germanie This was a very great and wise man but Cassanaeus in Cat. glor â—â—â—di part 10. Consid. 41. sayth that euery simple aduocate did vse to call him selfe the kinges counseller of Fraunce before order was taken that none should vsurpe that title except he were called vnto some office in the courtes And speaking of such as were counsellers in office in his time of whose dignity hee writeth much he complayneth that they were promoted vnto that dignitie in parliamentes by meanes of money or some other vnknowen meanes part 7. Conf. 13. Such a noble counseller was Staphylus hauing some knowledge in the lawes being preferred to that title by the Papists of fauour more than of worthinesse to giue him some shadowe of countenaunce when hee became an Apostata from true religion and from those Christian princes and noble men by whom he was before vpholden And yet in trueth if the printer had not mistaken my writing I called him Renegate and not rascall as before I called him beastly Apostata Perhaps the censurer will say I mende the matter well to call an Emperors counseller a beastly Apostata But so might I haue done though he had beene an Emperour himselfe for what else was Iulian the Emperor but a beastly Apostata or Renegate from Christian religion which once he professed Yea such an Apostata is worse than a beast for he declareth himselfe thereby to bee a reprobate Therefore the Christians in his time whereas the church had alwayes vsed to pray for heathen tyrantes that helde the empyre and made hauocke of the church by persecution contrariwise prayed against this Apostata that God would confound him and shorten his time Yea the godly constant Bishops did openly inueigh against him as Mares Bishop of Chalcedon which openly called him impious Atheist Apostata And when Iulian counterfaiting mildenes did nothing but reuile him by his blindenesse saying the Galilean thy God cannot cure thee he answered I thanke my God Christ that I am blinde that I might not see one so voyde of godlinesse as thou art Therefore Staphylus being but an Emperours counseller as he was â—â—y endure to heare worse for his Apostasie than I haue spoken against him The quarell of wordes being ended it is time to goe to the matter First pag. 14. of his aunswer to Maister Charkes preface he noteth that D. Fulke against Bristowes Mot. pa. 98. findeth that it is euident by scripture that heretikes may bee burned against Luther That blasphemous heretikes are to be put to death I finde in scripture by the lawe of blasphemers Leu. 24. and by the lawe of false prophetes Deut. 13. neither doth Luther I thinke
childbed wee beleeue not because wee haue not read it That you say Lo M. Chark S. Augustine maketh it both a matter of faith and the doubting thereof to be blasphemie how will you auoid this It is easily auoyded for it is false in many respects first S. Augustine fayeth it not but some obscure man of much latter time lesse learning and authoritie as the barbarous stile in many places declareth secondly hee fayth not that it is a matter of faith to beleeue the perpetuall virginitie of Marie but that shee conceiued brought foorth and remained a virgine after her child-birth Thirdly he maketh not the doubting thereof to be blasphemie but the obstinate denying of Heluidius which saide shee was no virgine after her childbirth But how will you auoide that which S. Ierome writeth We refuse those things that are not written we beleeue not because wee haue not read in y e scripture anything hereof as necessarie to saluation Pag. 158. you do not see why you should beleeue a Charke or a Fulke comming but yester day from the grammar schole before a Cyprian a Tertullian a Basil a Ierom an Ambrose or an Augustine especially in a matter of fact as your case is seeing they liued more than twelue or thirteene hundred yeares nearer to the deede dooing than these ministers do Why sir I pray you who requireth you to beleeue any minister of these dayes before any of those auncient fathers in respect of the credite of the persons and not of the truth which they bring You knowe that Panormitane thinketh more credite is to be giuen to one lay man speaking the trueth according to scripture than to all men of all ages speaking contrarie to the trueth or beside the truth of the scriptures But it is a matter of fact you say whether such and such traditions came from Christ his Apostles or no and therefore they that liued neerer the time of the deede dooing by twelue or thirteene hundreth yeares are more like to knowe the trueth than wee I answere that all things that you pretende for traditions are not of one sort some are contrary to the word of God and are reproued by euidence of the holy scriptures other are beside the worde of God and therefore not necessarie to bee receiued because they are not found in the holie scriptures As for the prerogatiue of antiquitie cannot argue a certaine knowledge of the fact in these ancient fathers seeing in two or three hundreth yeares that was before their time and the time of the deede supposed to be done any fable might be obtruded vnder pretence of such tradition as we prooue that many were Yea when they that were neerest of all to the Apostles time as Polycarpus and Anicetus do not agree what was the Apostles traditioÌ„ which was not expressed in their writing it is manifest that they of much latter time coulde haue no certeintie thereof And that whatsoeuer ceremonie or practise the Apostles deliuered which was not expressed in the scripture was but temporall or arbitrarie in the power of the Church to vse or not vse as it might best serue for edifying Finally where you affirme that Fulk came but yesterday from the Grammar schole to make it seeme that he is but a yong grammatian either your dayes be neere as long as thirtie yeres or else your pen runneth beyond your knowledge of him or at leastwise your malice ouer reacheth your knowledge But yet to this extremitie of crediting one Charke or Fulke before so many auncient fathers you say you are driuen and bid men hearken a little howe D. Fulke handleth these men about traditions And first S. Cyprian alledging the tradition of Christ himselfe concerning the mingling of wine and water in the chalice but if Cyprian had beene well vrged faith Fulke he would haue better considered of the matter Thus you woulde make men beleeue that I oppose nothing but mine owne authoritie or credit against S. Cyprian But then you shamefully beelie me for this is the matter and these are my wordes which you haue gelded at your pleasure Whereas Cyprian ad Pompeiâ—â— calleth all traditions to the writinges and commandements of the Apostles Martiall cryeth out that Cyprian is slandered because he himselfe alleageth the tradition of Christ for mingling of water with wine If Cyprian breake his owne rule who can excuse him But if he had beene vrged as much for the necessitie of water as he was for the necessitie of wine in the sacrament he would haue better considered of the matter Who seeth not I suppose no lesse authoritie against Cyprian than of Cyprian himselfe and therefore I boast not of mine owne credite aboue his To proceede Tertullian is alleaged saying that the blessing with the signe of the crosse is an apostolike tradition Fulke Tertullians iudgement of tradition without scripture in that place is corrupt If I should search no further heere is a reason of Fulkes mislike of Tertullians iudgement added because he affirmeth tradition of the Apostles without the writing of the Apostles But in deede there is in the place by you noted other argumentes in these wordes Tertullians iudgement of tradition without scripture in that place is corrupt for Martiall himselfe confesseth that a tradition vnwritten should be reasonable and agreeable to the scriptures and so he sayth the tradition of blessing with the crosse is because the Apostles by the holy ghost deliuered it But who shall assure vs thereof Tertullian and Basill are not sufficient warrant for so worthy a matter seeing S. Paule leaueth it out of the vniuersall armour of God This last and inuincible argument in rehearsing my wordes you leaue out which because perhaps you could not see in sewe wordes I will set it more abroade The vniuersall spirituall armour of God is deliuered by S. Paule Eph. 6. blessing with the signe of the crosse is not there deliuered by S. Paul therefore blessing with the signe of the crosse is no part of the spirituall armour of God Nowe let vs see whether you will beleeue a Paule before a Tertullian or a Basill or a Fulke with S. Paule before a Basil with Tertullian without S Paule or against S. Paule But you goe forwarde S. Ierome is alleaged saying that lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles Fulke Ierome vntruely ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles My wordes are against Bristowes Mot. pag. 35. these Againe S. Ierome fayth it was a tradition of the Apostles to fast 40. dayes in the yeare If this be true then is the popish storie false that maketh Telesphorus bishoppe of Rome author of that lenten fast Eusebius sheweth y e great diuersitie of fasting before Easter li. 5. cap. 26. saying that some fasted but one day some two dayes some more some 40. houres of day and night This diuersitie prooueth that Ierome vntruely ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles which should haue beene kept vniformely if it had any institution
of the Apostles Among so many argumentes and authorities cited for proofe you can finde nothing but Fulke faith bluntly Ierome vntruely ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles Sed perge mentiri S. Chrysostome is alleâ—ged saying that the Apostles decreed that in the sacrifice of the â—â—â—tar there should be made prayer for the departed Fulke where he sayth it was decreed by the Apostles c. he must pardon vs for crediting him because he cannot shewe it out of the actes and writinges of the Apostles If I had added none other argument this had beene sufficient for vs to for beare crediting any thing of the Apostles whereof we haue not the holy ghost in their writinges to be witnesse But you shall heare what I oppose against Chrysostome beside this Against pag. 303. it followeth immediatlie vpon these wordes noted by M. Censurer And wee will be bolde to charge him with his owne saying Hom. de Adam Heus Sâ—â—is sufficere c. Wee thinke it suffiseth ynough what soeuer the writinges of the Apostles haue taught vs according to the foresay de rules insomuch that we count it not at all catholike whatsoeuer shall appeare contrarie to the rules appointed And againe in Gen. H. 58. Vides in quantam c. Thou seest into howe great absurditie they fall which will not followe the canon of holy scripture but permitte all thinges to their owne cogitations But if we be further vrged we will alleadge that which hee sayeth in Euang. Ioan. H. 58. Quisacra c. he that vseth not the holy scripture but clymeth another way that is by a way not allowed is a theefe We may be as bolde with Chrysostome as hee sayd he would be with Paule himselfe in 2. ad Tim. Hom. 2. Plus aliquid dicam c. I will say somewhat more we must not be ruled by Paule himselfe if he speake anie thing that is his owne and any thing that is humane but we must obey the Apostle when he carrieth Christ speaking in him Wherefore seeing it is certaine that by testimonie of Iustinus Martyr that there was no mention of the dead in the celebration of the Lordes supper for more than an hundred yeares after Christ we must not beleeue Chrysostome without scripture affirming that it was ordeyned so by the Apostles As though this place had not beene sufficient to conuince your impudent lying you goe forwarde and say that page 362. and 363. of the same booke I aunswere to diwerse fathers alleaged together beside Chrysostome for the same purpose Who is witnesse that this is the tradition of the Apostles you will say Tertullian Cyprian Austen Ierome and a great many more But I would learne why the Lorde would not haue this set forth by Matthew Marke Luke and Paule Why they were not chosen scribes hereof rather then Tertullian Cyprian Ierome Austen and other such as you nâ—me But this is a counterfaite institution and fained tradition Heere you note in the margent a proude question which is not so right as if I should note against it a proude censure For it is a question that may be demaunded in humilitie why the Lord if it were his pleasure that the dead should be prayed for at the communion as a thing necessarie for them and dutifull for vs would not reueale so much by those witnesses that are aboue all exception rather than by such as are all manifestly conuicted of errors as you Papistes cannot denie But because neuera Papist of you all is able to answere this question to the satisfaction of any mans doubtfull conscience you thinke best to reiect it and say it is a proude question As though it were pride for any man to seeke confirmation of his faith against so iust a cause of doubt But in truth my wordes are more full than you alleage them against the pretended institution If it be lawfull for me once to pose the Papists as you doe often the protestantes I woulde learne why the Lorde would not haue this doubtlesse institution and as you take it the most necessarie vse of the sacrament plainely or at the leastwise obscurely set foorth by Matthewe Marke Luke or Paule which all haue set foorth the storie of the action of Christ the institution of the sacrament and the ende or vse of the same If it were not meete at all to be put in writing why was it disclosed by Tertullian Cyprian Augustine c If it were meete to be put in writing why were not those chosen scribes Matthew Marke Luke and Paul worthy of all credite rather appointed for it than Tertullian Cyprian Augustine and such as you name But against this counter faite institution and fayned tradition S. Paule cryeth with open mouth vnto the Corinthians 1. Cor. 11. That which I deliuered to you I receiued of the Lorde c. which wrote to that effect Last of all you say that being vrged by the like I discredite all antiquitie saying It is a common thing with the ancient writers to defende euerie ceremonie which was vsed in their time by tradition of the Apostles In deede the wordes are mine the occasion as of all â—he rest frandulently and falsely omitted For vpon occasion of Chrysostome alleaged to proue that mention of the dead was made at the coÌ„munion by tradition of the Apostles for which I remit him to mine answere of Allen lib. 2. ca. 5. I ad moreouer these wordes If we should admit all thinges to be ordeyned of the Apostles which some of the olde writers doe ascribe to their traditions we should receiue many thinges which euen the Papistes themselues do not obserue As that it is a wicked thing to fast on sunday or to pray kneeling that oblations are to be made for mens birth dayes c. Which with diuerse other superstitions Tertullian fathereth vppon the tradition of the Apostles as well as oblations for the dead De cor Mil. Hearing therefore such manifest vnthruthes are fathered vpon the Apostles tradition by most ancient writers what certainety can we haue of their tradition without their writing By this the reader may see howe honestly and truely you say there are set before you a payre of balances with Charke and Fulke in one ende and Cyprian Origen Tertullian Basill c. in an other ende And Fulke opposeth himselfe against them all Wheâ—â—as in euerie place by you noted hee opposeth either the holy scriptures or other auncient writers or the same writers themselues or euident and manifest reason to proue that such thinges are vntruly fathered vpon the Apostles tradition Last of all for your farewell you charge D. Fulke to affirme that the booke of the Maccabees was written with a prophane and Ambitious spirite Against purg pag. 209. In deede in that place among many other reasons which I bring to prooue that storie not to bee the Canon of the scriptures I say that hee maketh a verie prophane preface ambitiously commending his trauels and shewing
Ios. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 1â—1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 98. 13◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 95. or 96. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 98. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praef. in Ps. 33. 1. 2. Paral. 36. v. 8. in Bib. 1562. Against Images 1. Act. 9. v. 22. Bib â—577 For conference of Scriptures against fathers Councels c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 2. v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— Pet. â— v. 35. Bib. 1562. 1577. Against traditions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euangelizo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 2. v. 10. Act. 13. v. 32. Gal. 3. 8. Dominus dabit verbum euangelizantibus Qui Euangelizas Hierusalem Ps. 67. Isa. 40. â—ind Dubit pag. 88. Ia 4. v. 6. Marc. 3. v. 16. Bibl. 1579. Mat. 10. v. 2. Col. 1. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 16. Gal. c. 1. 2 2. Thess. 2. Heb. 13. 1. Tim. 6. 2. Tim. 1. 2 1. Tim. 1. 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. Corruption coÌ„cerning the easines of the scriptures Beza in Annos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Test. Gr. Crisp. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Corruption to make God the Author of sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gagneius Annot. No. Test an 1556. Mat. 6. verse 1â— See Beza An. not in Rom. c. 1. v. 24. Act 2. v. 23. Wâ—â—it ad rat Camp pag. 139. 145. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 2. v. 23. Corruption in abusing Catholike vvordes 2. Mach. 6. v. 7. Bib. 1570. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Procession Bib. 1562. 1577 Founded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shrines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deuotions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excommunication Aposynagogum sacere Altarâ— Images Traditions Mat. 23. A heaâ—e of corruptions Demosth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 11. Act. 20. 1. 1. Esay 26. v. 18. Ambr. li. 2. de interpel c. 4. Chryso in Ps. 7. prope finem See S. Hierome vpon this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bib. 1579. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—yrain 30. Esa. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esa. 5â— Esa. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 2. v. 6. Osee. 12. 10. â—uc 24. v. 27. Acts. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Hebrevve text is no certaine rule to interpreate by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faultes in the Hebrevv text * Bib. 1579. Bib. 1579. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the preface of the neâ—ve Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esay 37. v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Bib. 1577. Alleluia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bib. 1562. 1577. Deut. 23. v. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ibid. v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cant. Cantic c. 8. v â—2 â—ab 2579. Isa. 7. v. 11. Mat. 14. v22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bib. 1577. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Tim. 3. Mar. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 2. v. ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aâ— 1562. Mat. 22. 1 Mat. 24. 2 Mar. 5. 3 Mat. 25. Eph. 3. Tit. 1 1 Deut. 33. * 4. Reg. 23. 2 Ierem. 50. Hamanim Esa. 17. Gillulim Ier. 50. Miphlet seth 3. â—o 15. Fib 1579. Demosth. 2. Par. 36. r. 6. c. 32. Fol. 172. 173. Fol. 160. Epistle to the Queene Bibl. 1562. 4. Reg. c. 15. 16. Calâ—iâ— Prafat in Esa. Iehouah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad Victor lib. 4. cap. 1. Euseb. lib. 5 ca. 25. 26 Conc. Carth. 3. ca. 26. Gratian dist 99. Mileuit ca. 22. Conc. Aph. ad Celestin. De oct Dulcit quest q. 1. De fid op c. 16. ser. in mont lib. 1. The epistle â—f persecution Def. pa. 13. Trip. hist. li. 6. Cap. 6. Against the Rocke p. 291 Against the Foretresse pag. 52. Against pur gatorie p. 262. Pag. 237. Against Martiall P. 146. pag. 333. Against Brist Mâ—t. pag. 19. Against Stap pag. 1. Gal. Mon. Against Mot. p 6. 8. Against Mart. p. 170 Against Mart. p. 178. Ephes. 6. In diuerse proude and foolish questions Ag. Brist Mâ—t. p. 36. Reâ—em p. 89