Pighius Eccius the one calling the holy Scripture a nose of waxe and a dumbe iudge the other terming the Gospel written to be a blacke Gospell and an ynkie Diuinitie and that of Hosius acknowleging none other expresse word of God but onely this one worde Ama or dilige loue thou what other thing do they import but a shamelesse deniall of all bookes of the holy Scripture in deede how soeuer in worde they will seeme to admitte them MART. 2. An other way is to call into question at the least and make some doubt of the authoritie of certaine bookes of holy scriptures therby to diminish their credite so did Manicheus affirme of the whole new Testamēt that it was not writtē by the Apostles and peculiarly of S. Matthewes Gospell that it was some other mās vnder his name therfore not of such credit but that it might in some part be refused So did Marcion the Ariās deny the epistle to the Hebrues to be S. Paules Epiph. li. 2. haer 69. Euseb. li. 4. hist. c. 27 Alogiani the Apocalypse to be S. Iohns the Euāgelist Epiph. August in haer Alogianorii FVLK 2. We neither doubt of the authoritie of anie certaine booke of the holy Scriptures neither cal we any of them into question but with due reuerence do acknowledge thē all euery one to be of equall credit authority as being al inspired of god giuē to the church for the building vp thereof in truth and for the auoiding of fables heresies But the Papists arrogating to their Pope authoritie to allowe or refuse any booke of holy Scripture affirming that no Scripture hath authoritie but as it is approued by their church do bring al bookes of the holy Scripture into doubting vncertaintie with such as wil depend vpō their Pope popish churches authoritie which they affirme to be aboue the holy Scriptures saying they might as wel receaue the gospel of Nicodemus as of S. Marke by the same authoritie reiect the Gospell of S. Matthew as they haue done the Gospel of S. Bartholomew These blasphemous assertions although some of them would couler or mitigate with gentle interpretations yet their is no reasonable man but seeth into what discredite and vncertaintie they must needes bring the authoritie of the Canonicall bookes of holy Scripture with the simple and ignorant MART. 3. An other way is to expound the Scriptures after their owne priuate conceite and phantasie not according to the approued sense of the holy auncient fathers and Catholike Church so did Theodorus Mopsuestites Act. Synod 5. affirme of all the bookes of the Prophets and of the Psalmes that they spake not euidently of Christ but that the auncient fathers did voluntarily draw those sayings vnto Christ which were spoken of other matters so did all heretikes that would seeme to ground their heresies vpon Scriptures and to auouch them by Scriptures expounded according to their owne sense and imagination FVLK 3. We expound not the Scriptures after our owne priuate conceite and fantasie but as neere as God giueth vs grace according to the plaine and natural sense of the same agreable vnto the rule or proportiō of faith which bene approued by the auncient fathers and Catholike church of Christ in al matters necessarie to eternall saluation Not bringing a newe and straunge sense which is without the Scriptures to seeke confirmation thereof in the Scriptures as the manner of heretikes is rightly noted by Clemens but out of the Scriptures thēselues seeke we the exposition of such obscure places as we find in them being perswaded with S. Augustine that nothing in a manner is founde out of those obscure and darke places which may not be found to be most plaine ly spoken in other places And as for the approued sense of the holy auncient Fathers and Catholike Church of the eldest and purest times if the Papists durst stand vnto it for the deciding of many of the most waightie controuersies that are betweene vs there is no doubte but they should soone and easily be determined as hath bene shewed in diuerse and many treatises written against them In which if any thing bee brought so plainely expounding the Scripture against their popish heresies as nothing can be more expresse nor cleare then they are driuen to seeke newe and monstrous expositions of those Fathers interpretations or else they answere they are but those Fathers priuate expositions appealing to the Catholike churches interpretation which is nothing else but their owne priuate conceipte and fansie hauing no recorde to proue that Catholike Churches interpretation but the present hereticall opinions of this late degenerated Antichristian congregation And whē they haue discoursed neuer so much of the Catholike churches interpretation they reduce and submitte all mens iudgements to the determinatiō of their Councels the decrees of the Councels to the approbation of their Pope which as he is oftentimes a wicked man of life so is he ignorant and vnlearned in the Scriptures to whose most priuate cēsure the holy Scriptures themselues and al sense and exposition of them is made subiect vnder colour that Christ praying for Peter that his faith should not fayle in temptation gaue all Popes suche a prerogatiue that they could not erre in faith though they were wicked of life voyde of learning ignorant in the Scriptures destitute of the spirite of God as is proued moste inuincibly by example of diuerse Popes that haue bene heretikes and mainteyners of such errours as are not now in controuersie betweene vs least they should say we begge the principle but of the secte of the Arrians Monothelites Eutychians Saduces and such other MART. 4. An other way is to alter the very originall text of the holy Scripture by adding taking away or changing it here and there for their purpose So did the Arians in sundry places and the Nestorians in the first epistle of S. Iohn and especially Marcion who was therefore called Mus Ponticus the mouse of Pontus because he had gnawen as it were certaine places with his corruptions whereof some are sayd to remaine in the Greeke text vntill this day FVLK 4. The originall text of the holie Scripture we alter not either by adding taking away or changing of any letter or syllable for any priuate purpose which were not only a thing most wicked and sacrilegious but also vaine and impossible For seeing not only so many auncient coppies of the original text are extant in diuers places of the worlde which we can not if we woulde corrupt and that the same are multiplied by printing into so many thousande examples wee shoulde bee rather madde than foolishe if we did but once attempt such a matter for maintenaunce of any of our opinions As also it is incredible that Marcion the mouse of Pontus coulde corrupt all the Greeke coppies in the world as Lindanus of whome you borrowed that conceite imagineth in those places in which he
saye it is examined and tryed by the Scriptures And the Scriptures them selues where they are so obscure that neither by cōmon sense knowledge of the original tongue Grammer Rhetorike Logike storye nor any other humane knowledge nor iudgement of any writers olde or new the certaine vnderstanding can be found out they are either expounded by conference of other plainer textes of Scripture according to the analogie of faith or els they remaine stil in obscuritie vntill it shall please God to reueile a more cleere knowledge of thē But none so like the familie of loue as you Papists are which reiect councels fathers interpretation of the most auncient Catholike Church yea manifest Scripture it self except it be agreable to the iudgement of your P. M. Pontifex Max. the Pope as those familiar diuels submit all things to the sentence authoritie of their H. N. Shame you nothing therefore to quote Whitaker pag. 17. 120. as though he affirmed that we our selues will be iudges both of Councels Fathers whether they expound the Scriptures well or no because he writeth percase that we ought to examine al mens writings by the word of god Doth the Apostle make euery man iudge of all thinges when he willeth euery man to examine all things and to hold that which is good If any youth vpon confidence of his wit or knowledge presume too much in diuine matters we count it rashnesse But that any youth among vs vpon confidence of his spirit will saucily controwle all the fathers cōsenting togither against his fantasie except it be some Schismatike or Heretike that is cast out from amongest vs I doe vtterly denye neither are you able to proue it of any that is allowed among vs. MART. 15. Wherevpon it riseth that one of them defendeth this as very wel said of Luther That he esteemed not the worth of a rushe a thousande Augustines Cyprians Churches against him selfe And an other very finely figuratiuely as he thought against the holy Doctor Martyr S. Cyprian affirming that the Church of Rome can not erre in faith saith thus Pardon me Cyprian I woulde gladly beleue thee but that beleeuing thee I should not beleeue the Gospell This is that which S. Augustine saith of the like men dulcissimè vanos esse non peritos sed perituros nec tam disertos in errore quà m desertos à veritate And I thinke verily that not onely we but the wiser men among them selues smile at such eloquence or pitie it saying this or the like most truly Prodierunt oratores noui stulti adolescentuli FVLK 15. Why shoulde you not at your pleasure vpon your false assumption generall inferre one or two slaunders particular M. Whitaker defendeth that it was well said of Luther That he esteemed not the worth of a rush a thousand Augustines Cyprians Churches against himselfe Woulde God that euery Papist would reade his owne words in the place by you quoted that he might see your impudent forgerie For I hope there is no Christian that will imagine that either Luther would so speake or any man of honestie defend him so speaking For Luther was not so senselesse to oppose his owne person but the truth of his cause grounded vpon the holy Scriptures not only against one thousand of men holding the contrary but euen against tenne thousand of Angels if they should oppose them selues against the truth of God But I am too blame to deale so much in M. Whitakers cause who ere it be long will displaye the falshoode of Gregorie Martin in a Latine writing to his great ignominie The next cauil is vpon M. Rainoldes words in his preface to his sixe positions disputed vpon at Oxford where against Cyprian affirming that the Church of Rome can not erre in faith he sayth Pardon me Cyprian I would gladly beleeue thee but that in beleeuing thee I shoulde not beleeue the Gospel These wordes you confesse that he spake figuratiuely and finely as he thought but that he vsed the figures of Ironve and concession you will not acknowledge but all other men may easily see For first he no where graunteth that S. Cyprian affirmeth that the Churche of Rome can not erie in fayth But immediatly before the wordes by you translated after he had proued out of the eleuēth to the Romans that the particular Church of Rome may be cut of as well as the Church of the Israelites which were the naturall braunches he asketh the question Quid Cypriano secus est visum What And did it seeme otherwise to Cyprian Pardon me Cyprian c. His meaning is plaine that Cyprian thought not otherwise than S. Paule hath written or if he did it was lawfull to dissent from Cyprian As a litle after he sayth Quare si Romanam Ecclesiam errare non posse c. Wherefore if Cyprian thought that the Church of Rome could not erre in that point by the sentence of the Papistes he him selfe is to be condemned of errour for diuerse Papistes whome he nameth confesse that euery particular Church may erre and Verratus one of them affirmeth that the Church of Rome is a particular Church which the rest can not deny And in deede that which Cyprian writeth is about certaine runneagate Heretikes that flying out of the Church of Carthage sought to be receiued of the particular Church of Rome All this while here is no graunt that Cyprian affirmeth that the Church of Rome cannot erre in faith And if Cyprian had so affirmed contrary to the scripture it might haue bene iustly replied vnto him which S. Augustine saith when he was pressed with his authoritie Contra Crescon lib. 2. cap. 31. Nos nullam Cypriano facimus iniuriam We do Cyprian no wrong when we distinguish any writings of his from the Canonical authoritie of the diuine Scriptures And in truth the wordes which M. Rainolds before cited out of S. Cyprian lib. 1. ep 3. ad Cornel. are spoken of no matter of faith but in a matter of discipline Neither doth Cyprian say that the Church of Rome can not erre in faith but that those Heretikes which brought letters from schismatikes profane persons did not consider that they are Romans whose faith is praised by the cōmendation or preaching of the Apostle to whom perfidia falshood or false dealing can haue none accesse Meaning that the Romans so long as they cōtinue in that faith which was praised by the Apostle cā not ioyne with Heretikes and Schismatikes that are cast out of other Catholike Churches For that he could not meane that the Pope or Church of Rome cannot erre in faith as the Papistes affirme it is manifest for that in a question of religion he dissented both from the Bishop and Church of Rome as all learned men knowe he did which he would neuer haue done if he had beleeued they could not erre And that his meaning was not that the Bishop of Rome could not erre in matters of
¶ A DEFENSE of the sincere and true Translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong against the manifolde cauils friuolous quarels and impudent slaunders of GREGORIE MARTIN one of the readers of Popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes By WILLIAM FVLKE D. in Diuinitie and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of all such quarrels cauils as haue bene of late vttered by diuerse Papistes in their English Pamphlets against the writings of the saide WILLIAM FVLKE AT LONDON Imprinted by Henrie Bynneman Anno. 1583. Cum gratia Priuilegio To the moste high and mightie Princesse Elizabeth by the grace of God Queene of England Fraunce and Irelande defender of the fayth c. AMONG THE inestimable benefits wherwith almightie God hath woonderfully blessed this your Maiesties most honourable and prosperous gouernement it is not to be numbred among the least that vnder your most gratious and Christian protection the people of your Highnes dominions haue enioyed the most necessarie and comfortable reading of the holy Scriptures in their mother tongue and natiue language Which exercise although it hath of long time by the aduersaries of Him that willeth the Scriptures to be searched especially those of our nation beene accompted little better than an haereticall practise And treatises haue bene written praetending to shew great inconvenience of hauing the holie Scriptures in the vulgar tongue Yet now at length perceiuing they can not preuaile to bring in that darâ—knesse and ignorance of Gods most sacred word and wil therin contained wherby their blind deuotioÌ„ the daughter of ignorance as they them selues professe was wont to make them rulers of the world they also at the last are become Translators of the Newe Testament into English In which that I speak nothing of their insincere purpose in leauing the pure fountaine of the original veritie to folow the croked streame of their barbarous vulgar Latin translatioÌ„ which beside al other manifeste corruptions is founde defectiue in more than an hundred places as your Maiestie according to the excellet knowledge in both the tongs wherwith God hath blessed you is verie well able to iudge And to omit euen the same Booke of their translation pestred with so many annotations both false and vnduetifull by which vnder colour of the authoritie of holie Scriptures they seeke to infecte the mindes of the credulous readers with haeretical and superstitious opinions and to alienate their harts from yelding due obedience to your Maiestie and your most Christian lawes concerning true Religion established And that I may passe ouer the verie Text of their translation obscured without anie necessarie or iust cause with suche a multitude of so strange and vnusuall termes as to the ignorant are no lesse difficult to vnderstande than the Latine or Greeke it self Yet is it not meete to be concealed that they which neither truely nor praecisely haue translated their owne vulgare Latin and only Authenticall text haue neuerthelesse bene bolde to set forth a seuerall Treatise in which most slanderously and vniustly they accuse all our English translations of the Bible not of small imperfections and ouersightes committed through ignorance or negligence but of no lesse than most foule dealing in partiall false translations wilfull and haereticall corruptions Against which most leude and vntrue accusation though easie to be iudged of by such as be learned in the tongues yet daungerous to disquiet the conscience of them that be ignorant in the same I haue written a short and necessarie Defense Which although not labored in words yet in matter I hope sufficient to auoide all the aduersaries cauilles I am most humbly to craue pardon that I may be bolde to dedicate vnto your most excellent Maiestie that vnder whose high Christian authoritie your people haue so many yeares enioyd the reading of the holie bookes of GOD in their natiue language to the euerlasting benefit of many thousand soules Vnder the same your most gratious roial protection they may reade also the Defense of the syncere and faithfull translation of those Bookes to the quieting of their consciences and the confusion of the aduersaries of Gods truth and holie religion By which they may be stirred vp more and more in all duetifull obedience not only to be thankeful vnto your Maiestie as it becommeth them but also to continewe their most earnest and hartie prayers to almightie God for this your moste godlie and happie regiment ouer them for many yeares forwarde to be prolonged The God of glorie which hitherto hath aduaunced your Maiesties throne aboue all Princes of this age in true honour and glorie vouchsafe to preserue the same with his dailie blessing to the perfection of that glorious reparation of his Church which you haue most happily taken in hande to the euerlasting praise of his mercie and the endelesse felicity of your Maiestie Your Maiesties most humble subiect and most bounden daylie orator WILLIAM FVLKE THE PREFACE CONTEINING FIVE SVNDRIE ABVSES or corruptions of holy Scriptures common to all Heretikes and agreeing specially to these of our time with many other necessarie aduertisements to the reader MARTIN AS it hath bene alwaies the fashion of Heretikes to pretend Scriptures for shew of their cause so hath it bene also their custome and propertie to abuse the saide Scriptures many waies in fauour of their errours FVLKE WHETHER these fiue abuses haue bene common to all heretikes whether it hath bene the fashion of all heretikes to pretende Scriptures for shewe of their cause though I will spare nowe to enquire of as a thing wherin learned men at the first sight may espie the great skil that Martin pretendeth to haue in discerning of heretikes and heresies yet will I shew by the grace of God that none of these fiue abuses are committed by vs or our Catholike translations that the popish heretikes are in some sort or other guiltie of them all MART. 1. One way is to denie whole bookes thereof or partes of bookes when they are euidently against them So did for example Ebion all S. Paules epistles Manicheus the Actes of the Apostles Alogiani S. Iohns Gospell Marcion many peeces of S. Lukes Gospell and so did both these and other heretikes in other bookes denying and allowing what they liste as is euident by S. Irenaeus S. Epiphanius S. Augustine and all antiquitie FVLK 1. First we denie no one booke of the Canonicall scripture that hath bene so receaued of the Catholike church for the space of 300. yeares more as it hath bene often proued out of Eusebius S. Ierome and other ancient authorities but the Papists in aduauncing Apocryphall bookes to be of equall credite with the Canonicall Scriptures do in effect deny theÌ„ all Besides that to adde vnto the word of God is as great a fault as to take away from it the one being forbidden vnder as heauie a curse as the other Those blasphemies of
is charged by Tertullian For Marcions heresie was not so generally receiued by the Greeke Churche that all men would yeeld vnto him neither was Tertullian so souÌ„d of iudgement in the Latine Church that whatsoeuer he iudged to be a corruption in Marcion must of necessity be so taken But if adding and detracting from the Scripture be proper notes of heretikes who can purge Stephen Gardiner Gregorie Martine The one for adding vnto a the verse of the Psalme this pronowne se him selfe to proue the carnall presens citing it thus Escam se dedit timentibus eum He gaue himselfe to be meate to them that feare him whereas the words of the Prophet according to the Hebrue Greeke and Latine are no more but Escam dedit He hath giuen meat c. The other in his fond booke of schisme citing this text out of 1. Cor. 10. as many Papistes doe against the certaintie of Faith Qui stat videat ne cadat He that standeth let him take heede he fall not Whereas not only the truth of the Greeke but euen the vulgar Latin translation hath Qui se existimat stare He that thinketh or supposeth that he standeth let him take heede that he fall not But of such additions and detractions vsed by the Romishe rattes farre worse than the myse of Pontus we shall haue more occasion to speake hereafter MART. 5. Another way is to make false translations of the Scriptures for the maintenaunce of errour and heresie so did the Arians as S. Hierome noteth in 26. Esa. reade and translate Prouerb 8. Dominus creauit me in intio viarum suarum that is The Lord created mein the beginning of his waies so to make Christ the wisedom of God a mere creature S. Augustin also lib 5. cont Iulian. c. 2. noteth it as the interpretation of some Pelagian Gen. 3. Fecerunt sibi vestimenta for perizómata or campestria that is They made them selues garments Whereas the word of the Scripture is bâ—eeches or aprons proper and peculiar to couer the secretparts Againe the selfe same heretikes did read falsely Rom. 5. Regnauit mors ab Adam vsque ad Moysen etiam in eos qui peccauerunt in similitudinem praeuaricationis Adae that is Death reigned from Adam to Moyses euen on them that sinned after the similitude of the preuaricatioÌ„ of Adam to maintaine their heresie against originall sinne that none were infected therewith or subiect to death damnation but by sinning actually as Adam did Thus did the old heretiks FVLK 5. As touching false and hereticall translations which is the chiefe argument of this booke I doubt not but by the grace of god to cleare our english translators from any wilfull corruptions for the maintenance of any errour or heresie such as were those of the Arrians Pelagians which Gregorie Martin as though he vttered some great peece of skill doth so diligently expresse I shall haue occasion also to shew that the Papistes them selues of our times maintaining their corrupt vulgar translation against the truth of the originall textes of Greeke and Hebrew are most guiltie of such corruption and falsification whereof although they be not the first authors yet by obstinate defending of such errors they may proue worse than they which did first commit them For the authors of that vulgar translation might be deceiued either for lacke of exact knowledge of the tongues or by some corrupt and vntrue copies which they followed or else perhaps that which they had rightly translated by fault of the writers negligence of the times might be peruerted but these men frowardly iustifying all errours of that translation howsoeuer they haue bene brought in do giue plaine testimony that they are not led with any coÌ„scieÌ„ce of Gods truth but wilfully carried with purpose of maintaining their owne errours least if they did acknowledge the errour of the Romish church in that one point they should not bee able to defende any one iote of their heresie whose chiefe colour is the credit and authoritie of that particular and false church rather than any reason or argument out of the holy Scriptures or testimonie of the most auncient Christian and Catholike church MART. 6. What these of our daies is it credible that being so wel warned by the condeÌ„nation detestation of theÌ„ they also would be as mad and as impious as those Heretikes gentle Reader be alwayes like Heretikes and howsoeuer they differ in opinions or names yet in this point they agree to abuse the Scriptures for their purpose by all meanes possibly I will but touch foure points of the fiue before mentioned because my purpose is to stay vpon the last onely and to discipher their corrupt translations But if I would stand vpon the other also were it not easie to shew the maner of their proceeding against the Scriptures to haue bene thus to deny some whole bookes and partes of bookes to call other some into question to expound the rest at their pleasure to picke quarrels to the very originall and Canonicall text â—o fester and infect the whole bodie of the Bible with cancred translations FVLK 6. It is very true that so many Heretikes as pretend the authoritie of the holy Scriptures abuse the same to their owne destruction and no Heretikes worse than the Antichristians or Papistes As partly hath bene seene already in euery one of your fiue markes more may appeare in those foure pointes which you will handle in the Preface because the argument of your whole booke is the fift so that in the ende you shal be proued no wiser with your fiue pointes than he that came forth with his fiue egges neuer a good of them all But you aske if it were not easie for you to shew if you would stand vpon them that the Protestants vse all the said siue meanes of defacing the Scripture I answer no and that shal you see when demonstratioÌ„ is made how vainly you haue laboured in the last point which howsoeuer you would haue it appeare to be a sudden writing of small trauail by interlacing a few lines here there against M. Whitaker against me some other yet it is euident both by Bristowes threatning and Campions promise that it hath bene a work of some yeares vnto you wherin beside that you are beholding much to Lindanus for diuers quarrels against Caluin and to sir Thomas More for many cauillations against W. Tyndals translation there is litle worthy of so long study and large promises as haue gone before this diligent discouerie so that if you will make the like triall in the rest you shall finde them as hard to proue as this last MART. 7. Did not Luther deny S. Iames epistle so contemne it that he called it an epistle of strawe and not worthy of an Apostolicall spirit must I proue this to M. Whitakers who would neuer haue denied it so vehemently in the superlatiue degree for
other Catholike writers haue affirmed of that Epistle and therefore not sufficient to charge him and much lesse others with heresie but being not his simple affirmation yet because it hath bene offensiuely taken he him selfe hath put it out and giuen it ouer O what a sturre would they keepe if they had any weightie matter of truth to burthen him withall MART. 8. To let this passe Tobie Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees are they not most certainly reiected And yet they were allowed and receiued for Canonicall by the same authoritie that S. Iames Epistle was This Epistle the Caluinists are content to admit because so it pleased Caluine those bookes they reiect because so also it pleased him And why did it so please Caluine Vnder pretence forsooth that they were once doubted of and not taken for Canonicall But is that the true cause in deede Howe doe they then receiue S. Iames Epistle as Canonicall hauing before doubted of also yea as they say reiected FVLK 8. You may well let it passe for it is not worth the time you spend in writing of it and if you had bene wise you would vtterly haue omitted it But what say you of Tobie Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees most certainly by vs reiected They were allowed you say for Canonicall by the same authoritie that S. Iames Epistle was And thinke you that S. Iames Epistle was neuer allowed for Canonicall before the third Councell of Carthage For of the other it is certaine they were neuer receiued by the Church of the Israelits before Christ his coÌ„ming nor of the Apostolike and primitiue Church for more than 300. yeres after as both Eusebius out of Origines and the Councell of Laodicea Can. â—9 confirmed afterwarde by the sixt generall Councell of Constantinople sheweth for the Greeke Church and S. Ierome in prologo Galeato for the Latine Church As for the prouinciall Councell of Carthage holden by 44. Bishops of Africa if we were bound to receiue it for these bookes we must also acknowledge fiue bookes of Salomon which in the same Councell are authorised whereas the Church neuer knew but of three And although the booke of wisedom should be ascribed to SalomoÌ„ there could be but foure Againe how they vnderstand the word Canonical it may be gathered both out of the wordes of the same Canon where they giue none other reason of the approbatioÌ„ of all those books of Scripture but that they haue receiued them of their fathers to be read in the Church and also out of S. Augustine who was one present at the same CouÌ„cell which after he hath declared how a man should discerne the Canonicall Scriptures from other writings by following the authoritie of the Catholike Churches especially those that haue deserued to haue Apostolike sees and to receiue their Epistles he addeth further Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis canonicis vt eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesijs Catholicis praeponat eis quas quaedaÌ„ non accipiunt In eis vero quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat eas quas plures grauiorèsque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatis Ecclesiae tenent Si autem alias inuenerit à pluribus alias à grauioribus haberi quanquam hoc inuenire non possit aequalis tameÌ„ auctoritatis eas habeÌ„das puto Totus autem canon scripturarum in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus his libris continetur He shall hold therfore this meane in the canonical Scriptures that he preferre those which are receiued of all catholike churches before those Scriptures which some Churches do not receiue But in those which are not receiued of all let him preferre those Scriptures which the greater number and grauer churches do receiue before those which churches fewer in number of lesse authority do hold But if he shal find some Scriptures to be had of fewer churches other some of grauer churches althogh you can not find this thing yet I thinke they are to be accoÌ„pted of equall authority Now the whole canoÌ„ of scriptures in which we say this consideration must be occupied is contained in these books Fiue books of Moises that is Genesis Exodus c. By this saying of Augustine it is manifest that he calleth canonicall Scriptures not only those bookes that ought of necessity to be receiued of al churches but also such as were receiued of some of some were not in which nuÌ„ber were these bookes of Tobie Ecclesiasticus the Machabees which by his owne rule were not to be receiued as of absolut soueraigne authority because the Apostolike churches of Asia Europa those of grauest authoritie among which was the church of Rome in that time did not receiue theÌ„ as witnesseth not only S. Hierome a Priest of Rome but also Ruffinus of Aquileia in symbolo who both declare what bookes were receiued in their churches as canonical of irrefragable authority to build principles of faith vpon them what books were admitted only to be read for instruction of maners And therfore according to the rule of Augustin testimony of the ancieÌ„t fathers because it coÌ„senteth with the rest of the scriptures not for Caluins pleasure we receiue the Epistle of S. Iames though it hath not bene alwaies and of all Churches receiued Concerning the name of Caluinists as of all other nicke names that it pleaseth you of your charity to bestow vpon vs it shall suffice to protest once for all that we acknowledge none other name of our profession but Christians Catholikes and that we haue neither receiued that Epistle nor reiected the other bicause it pleased Caluin so This may serue for a cleare demonstration that in the first English Bibles that were printed vnder the name of Thomas Mathew before Caluine wrote any word of the reiectioÌ„ of those bookes or of receiuing of the other they are called Apocrypha printed with other of that marke by theÌ„selues the Epistle of S. Iames without any question acknowledged to be one of the canonical Epistles wheras Caluines Institution was first printed An. 1536. his argument vpon S. Iames Epistle 1551. You may see what honest dealing the Papistes vse to bring the truth into discredit the professors thereof into hatred with the simple vnlearned people bearing theÌ„ in hand that we haue no cause to receiue or refuse bookes of Scripture but Caluines pleasure But the God of truth wil one day reward these impudeÌ„t liars shameles slaunderers Well let vs now see vnder what preteÌ„ce it pleased Caluine to reiect these bookes Vnder pretence forsooth sayth Martin that they were once doubted of and not taken for Canonical I pray you sir where doth Caluine pretend that only cause In his Instit. li. 3. c. 5 sect 8. He alleageth diuerse other causes touching the bookes of Machabees as euery maÌ„ that wil may read Shame you nothing to forge such manifest
therefore in controuersie with other of the same sort are sometimes called Hagiographa holy writings as of S. Hierom praefat in lib. Tobiae sometime Ecclesiastica Ecclesiastical writings and so are they called of Ruffinus Because sayth he they were appointed by our Elders to be read in the Churches but not to be brought forth to confirme authoritie of faith but other Scriptures they named Apocryphall which they would not haue to be read in the Churches So sayth S. Hierom in praefat in Prouerb Euen as the Church readeth in deede the bookes of Iudith Tobias and the Machabees but yet receaueth them not among the Canonical Scriptures so let it read these two bookes of Ecclesiasticus and wisedom for the edifying of the people not for the confirmation of the authoritie of Ecclesiastical doctrines These auncient writers shal answer for our seruice booke that although it appoint these writings to be read yet it doth not appoint them to be read for Canonicall Scriptures Albeit they are but sparingly read by order of our seruice booke which for the Lordes day other festiuall daies commonly appointeth the first lesson out of the Canonicall Scriptures And as for superstition although M. Whitaker say that some one thing sauoreth of I know not what superstition he doth not by and by condemne the whole booke for superstitious and altogither vnworthy to be read neither can he thereby be proued a Puritane or a disgracer of the order of dayly seruice MART. 10. As for partes of bookes doe they not reiect certaine peeces of Daniel and of Hester because they are not in the Hebrew which reason S. Augustine reiecteth or because they were once doubted of by certaine of the fathers by which reason some part of S. Marke and S. Lukes Gospell might nowe also be called in controuersie specially if it be true which M. Whitakers by a figuratiue speech more than insinuateth That he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit should by time winne authoritie Forgetting him selfe by by in the very next lines admitting S. Iames epistle though before doubted of for Canonicall Scriptures vnles they receiue it but of their curtesie so may refuse it when it shall please them which must needes be gathered of his wordes as also many other notorious absurdities contradictions and dumbe blanckes Which onely to note were to confute M. Whitakers by him selfe being the answerer for both Vniuersities FVLK 10. As for peeces of Daniel of Hester we reiect none but only we discerne that which was written by Daniel in deede from that which is added by Theodotion the false Iew that which was written by the spirit of God of Esther from that which is vainly added by some Greekish counterfecter But the reason why we reiect those patches you say is because they are not in the Hebrew which reason S. Augustine reiecteth Here you cite S. Augustine at large without quotation in a matter of controuersie But if we may trust you that S. Augustine reiecteth this reason yet we may be bold vpon S. Hieroms authoritie to reiect whatsoeuer is not found in the canō of the Iewes written in Hebrew or Chaldee For whatsoeuer was such S. Hierom did thrust through with a spit or obeliske as not worthy to be receyued Witnes hereof S. Augustine him selfe Epist. ad Hier. 8. 10. in which he disswaded him from translating the Scriptures of the olde Testament out of the Hebrew tongue after the 70. Interpreters whose reasons as they were but friuolous so they are derided by S. Hierom who being learned in the Hebrew Chaldee tongues refused to be taught by Augustine that was ignorant in them what was to be done in translations out of them Also Hieronym him selfe testifieth that Daniel in the Hebrew hath neither the story of Susanna nor the hymne of the 3. children nor the fable of Bel the Dragon which we saith he because they are dispersed throughout the whole world haue added setting a spit before them which thrusteth them through lest we should seeme among the ignorant to haue cut of a great part of the booke The like he writeth of the vaine additions that were in the vulgar edition vnto the booke of Esther both in the Preface after the ende of that which he translated out of the Hebrew There are other reasons also beside the authoritie of S. Hierom that moue vs not to receiue them As that in the storie of Susanna Magistrats iudgement of life death are attributed to the Iewes being in captiuitie of Babylon which hath no similitude of truth Beside out of the first chapter of the true Daniel it is manifest that Daniel being a young man was caried captiue into Babylon in the dayes of Nebucadnezer but in this counterfect storie Daniel is made a young child in the time of Astyages which reigned immediatly before Cyrus of Persia. Likewise in the storie of Bel and the Dragon Daniel is said to haue liued with the same king Cyrus and after when he was cast into the lyons denne the Prophet Habacuck was sent to him out of Iurie who prophecied before the first comming of the Chaldees and therefore could not be aliue in the daies of Cyrus which was more than 70 yeares after The additions vnto the booke of Esther in many places bewray the spirite of man as that they are contrary to the truth of the story containing vaine repetitions amplifications of that which is contained in the true historie that which most manifestly conuinceth the sorgerie that in the epistle of Artaxerxes cap. 16. Haman is called a Macedonian which in the true storie is termed an Agagite that is an Amalekite whereas the Macedonians had nothing to doe with the Persians many yeares after the death of Esther Haman I omit that in the ca. 15. ver 12. the author maketh Esther to lie vnto the king in saying that his countenance was ful of all grace or else he lyeth him selfe v. 17. where he saith the king beheld her in the vehemēcy of his anger that he was exceding terrible As for other reasons which you suppose vs to follow because these parcels were once doubted of by certaine of the fathers it is a reason of your owne making and therefore you may confute it at your pleasure But if that be true which Maister Whitaker by a figuratiue speech doth more than insinuate parte of S. Markes and S. Lukes Gospell may also be called in controuersie Why what saith M. VVhitaker Marie that he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit should by tyme winne authoritie But when I pray you was any part of S. Marke or S. Luke out of credit if any part were of some person doubted of doth it follow that it was not at al in credit you reason profoundly and gather very necessarily As likewise that he forgetteth him selfe in the very next lines admitting
ascribing that Reuelation to Sainct Iohn the Euangelist and Apostle Last of all you say it is most certaine and we knowe best by our vsuall doings that it is a principall way to discredit any booke to deny it to be the authors vnder whose name it hath bene receyued Howe certaine it is with you whereof no man else but you can see any light of reason or necessitie of conclusion I knowe not but wee are not so voyde of witte if we lacked honestie that we would discredite Paules Epistle by saying it was Peters or Augustines sermon by saying it was Ambrose or Chrysostomes worke by saying it was Basils But if wee would bring any booke out of credite by denying the auctor whose title it hath borne wee would rather intitle it to some other writer of lesse credite or later tyme or by some other argumentes proue it vnworthie of credite not by onely denying it to be the auctors vnder whose name it hath hene receyued MART. 13. But I come to the thirde point of voluntarie expositions of the Scripture that is when euery man expoundeth according to his errour and Heresie This needeth no proofe for we see it with our eyes Looke vpon the Caluinistes and Puritanes at home the Lutherans Zuinglians and Caluinists abrode reade their bookes written vehemently one secte against an other are not their expositions of one and the same Scripture as diuerse and contrarie as their opinions differ one from an other Let the example at home be their controuersie about the distinction of Ecclesiasticall degrees Arch-bishop Bishop and minister the example abroade their diuerse imaginations and phantasies vpon these most sacred wordes Hoc est corpus meum FVLK 13. That euery one of vs expoūdeth the scripture voluntarily according to his errour or heresie you say it needeth no proofe for you see it with your eyes You haue very cleere sight to see a mote in other mens eies but can not see a beame in your owne You make your demonstration by the Caluinists and Puritans at home the Lutherans Zuinglians Caluinists abroad the one for the distinctiō of Ecclesiastical degrees Archbishop Bishop Minister the other for their diuerse imaginations phantasies of these wordes Hoc est corpus meum But I beseech you sir touching the domestical dissentiō what is the text or what be the texts of Scripture vpon which these voluntarie expositions are made for the distinction or confusion of Ecclesiastical degrees If they had bene as ready as Hoc est corpus meum they should haue bene set downe as well as that But I suppose they are yet to seeke for that controuersie as I take it standeth rather in collections than interpretations and in question whether the political gouernment of the Church be distinctly expressed in the scripture or no. As for the cōtention abroad I confesse to stand a great part in exposition of that text wherin although the one part doth erre is that a sufficient cause to condēne thē both The church of Africa and the Church of Rome and the two principall lights of them both Cyprian and Cornelius dissented about rebaptizing them that were baptized of Heretikes The Aphricans not in one text onely but in the exposition of many differed from the Romanes from the truth yet it were hard to condemne them both for Heretikes least of all them that held the truth S. Augustine and S. Hierom dissented about a text of S. Paule to the Galathians of Peters dissembling as their contrary epistles doe testifie The truth was of S. Augustines side yet was not the other an heretike following a wrōg interpretation And to come nearer home vnto you the Dominicans Franciscans Friers were at daggers drawing as we say yea at most sharpe and bitter contention betwene themselues and all the Popish Church was deuided about their brawling concerning the conception of the virgin Marie whether she were conceaued in sinne or no where many texts of Scripture must needes receiue voluntarie expositions if not of both partes yet at the least of one parte which of those will you say were heretikes If you say neither of both then must you haue stronger reasons to proue vs all heretikes than voluntarie expositions where parties be in diuerse opinions especially in matter not ouerthrowing the foundation of Christian religion And when you haue gathered the most voluntarie expositions you can finde yet shall you finde none so grosse so absurde so impertinent as you Papistes haue coyned for maintenaunce of your errours and heresies of which you your selfe are ashamed though otherwise you haue iron foreheads and brasen faces A few examples among a great many shall suffice God made man according to his owne image that is to say we must haue images in the Church No man lighteth a candell and putteth it vnder a bushell the meaning is that images must be set vpon the altar God made two great lightes the Sunne and the Moone that is the Pope to be aboue the Emperour Beholde here are two swordes that is the Pope hath power of both the swordes Put on the whole armour of God that is the Priest must put on all his vestiments before he saye Masse I am become as sownding brasse or as a tinckling Cymbal that is the bels in the steeple signifie preaching of Gods word I might fill many leaues yea a whole booke of such popish expositions as the Papistes in our dayes dare not for shame abide by MART. 14. And if you will yet haue a further demonstration this one may suffice for all They reiect Councels Fathers and the Catholike Churches interpretation vnlesse it be agreeable to Gods word and whether it be agreeable or no that Luther shall iudge for the Lutherans Caluin for the Caluinists Cartwright for the Puritans and an other for the Brethren of loue briefly them selues will be iudges both of Councels and Fathers whether they expound the Scriptures well or no and euery youth among them vpon confidence of his spirit and knowledge wil saucily controule not onely one but all the fathers consenting togither if it be against that which they imagine to be the truth FVLK 14. We had neede of a better demonstration than the former by which you your selues are proued Heretikes rather than we But let vs see how handsomly you begin They reiect say you Councels and Fathers and the Catholike Churches interpretation vnlesse it be agreeable to Gods word Thus farre you say wel We doe reiect not only those that you name but euen an Angel from heauen except his message be agreeable to Gods word But all the rest that you assume to the ende of this section is a starke staring lye except that you saye of H. N. for the brethren of loue which are more like to you than to vs. For neither Luther nor Caluin nor Cartwright is iudge among vs whether any thing be agreeable to the worde of God but whatsoeuer any of them doe
corruption But if it shall be euidently proued that they shrinke from the same also and translate an other thing and that wilfully and of full intention to countenaunce their false religion and wicked opinions making the Scriptures to speake as they list then we trust the indifferent reader for his owne soules sake will easily see and conclude that they haue no feare of God no reuerence of the Scriptures no conscience to deceiue their readers he will perceiue that the Scriptures make against them which they so peruert and corrupt for their purpose that neither the Hebrue nor Greeke text is for them which they dare not translate truly and sincerely that their cause is naught which needeth suche fâ—ule shiftes that they must needes knowe all this and therefore doe wilfully against their conscience and consequently are obstinate heretikes FVLK 39. We craue no pardon if it can be proued that wee haue wilfully translated an other thing than is contained in the Hebrue and Greeke to maintaine any false religion or wicked opinion Prouided alwayes that if any translatour or all the translatours haue ignorantly erred in misunderstanding any worde or phrase of the Hebrue or Greeke text that if it may be plainly shewed vnto them they acknowledging the fault they may not be charged with hereticall corruption from which it is certaine their intention was most free MART. 40. And the more to vnderstand their miserie and wretchednesse before we enter to examine their translations marke and gather of all that which I haue sayed in this Preface their manifolde flightes and iumpes from one shift to an other and howe Catholike writers haue pursued and chased them and followed them driuen them euen to this extreame refuge seely couert of false translation where also they must of necessitie yeeld or deuise some new euasion which we can not yet imagine FVLK 40. Hitherto I hope the indifferent reader will confesse that you haue driuen vs to no iumpes nor shiftes but onely vttered your owne malicious and vnlearned quarrels And howe Popishe writers haue pursued and chased vs to extreame refuge and seely couert of false translation let it appeare by the learned answeres of M. Iewell M. Horne M. Nowell M. Bridges M. Calfhill and others that I speake nothing of mine owne simple labours who being one of the meanest hauing confuted tenne or twelue of your Popishe treatises can receiue no replye of any man but onely of poore Bristowe to whome in this respecte I confesse my selfe more beholding than to all the Papistes beside sauing that I haue reioyned to him almost two yeares agoe and yet I heare not of his answere MART. 41. First we are wont to make this offer as we thinke most reasonable and indifferent that forasmuch as the Scriptures are diuersely expounded of vs of them they neither be tied to our interpretation nor we to theirs but to put it to the arbitrement iudgement of the auncient fathers of generall Councels of vniuersall custome of times and places in the Catholike Church No say they we will be our owne iudges and interpreters or follow Luther if we be Lutherans Caluin if we be Caluinists and so forth FVLK 41. For expounding of the Scriptures we will not refuse the arbitrement and iudgement of the auncient fathers of generall Councels of vniuersall custome of times and places in the Catholike church for this you say is your offer which was neuer refused of vs though you most falsely affirme that we say we will be our owne iudges and interpretours or followe Luther if we be Lutherans Caluine if we be Caluinistes c. Who euer sayed so you shamelesse sclauâ—derer What haue you differing from vs Wherein you haue the iudgement of the auncient fathers of generall Councels of vniuersall custome of times and places in the Catholike church Vnlesse perhappes you meane some wretched sophistrie by disioyning these that you here seeme to ioyne togither And if you so doe we must first aske you whether you your selues in all expositions of the Scriptures will stand to the arbitrement of euerie auncient father or of euerie generall Councell or of any custome in any time or place I knowe and you can not deny it that you will stande to nothing that is not allowed by your Pope though fathers councels custome time or place or all the world be against it yea the manifest Scripture which is so plaine that it needeth no exposition as the commaundement against images in religion Theodoret Gelasius Vigilius Chrysostome against transubstantiation Epiphanius against images the sixt councell of Constantinople for condemning the Pope of heresie the councels of Constance and Basil for deposing the Popes and decreeing that the councell is aboue the Pope many other like matters beside in which you goe clearely from the consent of all antiquitie for 600. yeares as the Bishoppe of Sarum hath made plaine demonstration and you are not able to replie MART. 42. This being of it selfe a shamelesse shift vnlesse it be better coloured the next is to say that the Scriptures are easie and plaine and sufficient of them selues to determine euerie matter and therefore they will be tried by the Scriptures onely We are content because they will needes haue it so and we alleage vnto them the bookes of Tobie Ecclesiasticus Machabees No say they we admit none of these for Scripture Why so are they not approued Canonicall by the same authoritie of the Church of auncient Councels and fathers that the other bookes are No matter say they Luther admitteth them not Caluine doth not allow them FVLK 42. That the Scriptures are plaine and easie to be vnderstoode of them that vse the ordinary meanes to come to it for all doctrine necessarie to be knowen and sufficient to determine euerie matter the holie Ghost him selfe doth testifie 2. Tim. 3. and some of the auncient fathers also doe beare witnesse as Augustine de doct Christ. lib. 2. Chrysost. in Gen. hom 13. de verb. Esai Vidi dâ—minum c. hom 2. If therefore you had the spirite of the auncient fathers you would be content to be tryed by the Scriptures for reuerence you ought to Gods most holye and perfect writings and not because we will haue it so who are content in many controuersies to be tryed by the iudgement of the auncient fathers or general Councels or vniuersall custom of times and places and in all controuersies wherein all the auncient fathers all Councels and vniuersall custom of all times and places doe consent if any think such things can be brought against vs as it is falsly and sophistically bragged But whereas we refuse the bokes of Tobie Ecclesiasticus Machabees for Canonicall Scripture it is not as you say ridiculously because Luther and Caluine admitteth them not but because they are contrary to the Canonicall Scriptures and were neâ—er receiued of the Church of Israel for Canonicall nor of the Catholike Church of Christ for more than 400. yeares after
than a hundred times in the Bible and vnto the storie of Bell we attribute so small credit that we will take no testimonie from thence to proue or disproue any thing MART. 12. If at the beginning of their heresie whē sacred images were broken in peeces altars digged downe the Catholike Churches authoritie defaced the king made supreme head then their translation was made accordingly and if afterwarde when these errours were well established in the realme and had taken roote in the peoples hartes all was altered and changed in their later translations and now they could not finde that in the Greeke which was in the former translation what was it at the firste but wilfull corruption to serue the time that then was See chap. 3. 5. chap. 17. numb 15. chap. 15. num 22. FVLK 12. For images altars the Catholike Churches authoritie the kings supremacie nothing is altered in the later translations that was falsely translated in the former except perhaps the Printers fault be reformed Neither can any thing be proued to maintaine the popish images altars churches authoritie or Popes supremacie out of any translation of the Scriptures or out of the originall itselfe Therefore our translations were not framed according to the time but if any thing were not vttered so plainly or so aptly as it might why should not one translation helpe an other MART. 13. If at the first reuolt when none were noted for Heretikes and Schismatikes but themselues they did not once put the names of Schisme or Heresie in the Bible but in steede thereof diuision and secte in so much that for an Heretike they sayd an author of Sectes what may we iudge of it but as of wilfull corruption See chap. 4. numb 3. FVLK 13. Yes reasonable men may iudge that they did it to shew vnto the ignorant people what the names of schismatike and heretike doe signifie rather than to make them beleue that heresie and schisme was not spoken against in the Scripture That they translated heresie secte they did it by example of your vulgar Latine Interpreter who in the 24. of the Actes translateth the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sectae In which chapiter likewise as he also hath done they haue translated the same word heresie MART. 14. If they translate so absurdly at the firste that them selues are driuen to change it for shame it muste needes be at the first wilfull corruption For example when it was in the first Temple and in the later Altar in the first alwaies Congregation in the later alwaies Church in the first To the King as chiefe head in the later To the King as hauing preeminence So did Beza first translate carcasse and afterward soule Which alteration in all these places is so great that it could not be negligence at the first or ignorance but a plaine hereticall intention See chap. 17. numb 15. chap. 5. numb 4. 5. chap. 15. numb 22. chap. 7. numb 2. FVLK 14. Nay it may be an ouersight or escape of negligence or the Printers fault as it is manifest in that quarrell you make of temple for altar for in Thomas Mathews translation the first that was printed in English with authoritie there is altar in both places 1. Cor. 9. 10. For the terme Congregation changed into Church it was not for shame of the former which was true but because the other terme of Church was nowe well vnderstood to shewe that the word of Scripture agreeth with the worde of our Creede or perhaps to auoid your fōd quarrel not now first picked to the terme Congregation Wheras the former was To the King or chiefe head the later saying the King as hauing preeminence doth nothing derogate vnto the former and the former is contained vnder the later For I hope you will graunt that the King is chiefe head of his people or if the word head displease you because you are so good a french man tell vs what chiefe doth signifie but an head Now this place of Peter speaketh not particularly of the Kings authoritie ouer the Church or in Church matters therfore if it had bene translated Supreme head we could haue gained no greater argument for the supremacie in question than we may by the word preeminēce or by the word extolling which you vse That Beza altered the word Cadauer into Animam I haue shewed he did it to void offēce because the later is more proper to the Greeke although the Hebrew worde which Dauid doth vse may doth signifie a dead body or carcase MART. 15. If they will not stand to all their translations but flie to that namely which now is redde in their Churches if that which is now redde in their Churches differ in the points afore sayd from that that was redde in their Churches in King Edwards time if from both these they slie to the Geneua Bible from that againe to the other afore sayd what shall we iudge of the one or the other but that all is voluntarie and as they list See chap. 3. num 10. 11. 12. chap. 10. num 12. FVLK 15. If of three translations we preferre that which is the best what signe of corruption is this If any fault haue either of ignorance or negligence escaped in one which is corrected in an other and we preferre that which is corrected before that which is faultie what corruption cā be iudged in either Not euery fault is a wilful corruption much lesse an heretical corruptiō The example that you quote out of your 3. chapiter concerning the translation of Idolum is no flying from our trāslation to an other but a confuting of Howlets cauill against our Church seruice because this word is therein redde translated an image 1. Ioan. 5. wheras in that Bible which by authority is to be red in the church seruice the word in the text is idols not images yet wil we iustifie the other to be good true which readeth Babes keepe your selues from images as your vulgare Latine text is à simulachris wherein you flie from your owne authentical text to the Greeke which except you thinke it make for your purpose you are not ashamed to count falsified and corrupted MART. 16. If they gladly vse these wordes in ill part where they are not in the originall text Procession shrines deuotions excommunicate images and auoide these wordes which are in the originall Hymnes grace mysterie Sacrament Church Altar Priests Catholike traditions iustifications is it not plaine that they doe it of purpose to disgrace or suppresse the sayd things and speeches vsed in the Catholike Church See chap. 21. num 5. seq chap. 12. num 3. FVLK 16. Who would be so mad but blind malice to thinke they would disgrace or suppres the things or names of Catholike Church whereof they acknowledge thēselues mēbers of grace by which they confesse they are saued of hymnes which they vse to the praise of God of iustifications
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
Epistle of Iames of Peter c. As if a man shoulde say in his Creede I beleeue the general Churche because hee would not say the Catholike Churche as the Lutheran Catechismes say for that purpose I beleeue the Christian Church So that by this rule when S. Augustine telleth that the maner was in cities where there was libertie of religion to aske Qua itur ad Catholicam Wee muste translate it Which is the way to the General And when Sainct Hierome sayth If we agree in faith with the B. of Rome ergo Catholici sumus we must translate it Then we are Generals Is not this good stuffe Are they not ashamed thus to inuert and peruert all wordes against common sense and vse and reason Catholike and Generall or vniuersall we knowe is by the originall propertie of the word all one but according to the vse of both as it is ridiculous to say A Catholike Councell for a Generall Councell so is it ridiculous and impious to say Generall for Catholike inderogation thereof and for to hide it vnder a bushell FVLK 4. I doe not knowe where the name of Catholike is once expressed in the text of the Bible that it might be suppressed by vs which are not like to beare malice to the Catholike Church or religion seeing we teache euen our young children to beleue the holy Catholike Church But not finding the word Catholike in the text you runne to the title of the seuen Epistles called as commonly Canonicall as Catholike or Generall But Eusebius belike testifieth that they haue bene so called euer since the Apostles time lib. 2. cap. 22. I maruell you are not ashamed to auouch suche an vntruth Eusebius speaking of his owne time saith they are so called but that they haue bene so called euer since the Apostles time he sayth not And so farre off he is from saying so that he pronounceth the Epistle of S. Iames in the same place to be a bastarde and speaketh doubtfully of the Epistle of S. Iude. But whereas in one translation we vse the worde Generall for Catholike you make a greate may game of it shewing your witte and your honestie both at once For these 5. of Iames 2. of Peter one of Iude and the first of Iohn which are properly rightly so intituled haue that title because they are not sent to any particular Church or persons but to all in general as the Greeke scholiast truly noteth And OEcumenius before the Epistle of S. Iames sayth expressely Catholicae id est vniuersales dicuntur hae c. These Epistles are called Catholike that is to say Vniuersall or General because not distinctly to one nation or citie as S. Paule to the Romanes or Corinthians this companie of our Lords disciples doth dedicate these Epistles but generally to the faithfull or to the Iewes that were dispersed as also Peter or else to all Christians liuing vnder the same faith For otherwise if they should be called Catholike in respect of the souÌ„dnes of the doctrine coÌ„tained in theÌ„ what reason were there more to call them so than to call all the Epistles of S. Paule Wherefore in this title which yet is no part of the holy Scripture it is rightly traÌ„slated general The other translatours seeing seuen to be called general where only fiue are so in deede and seeing them also called canonicall which should seeme to be a controulling of S. Paules Epistles left out that title altogither as being no part of the text and word of God but an addition of the stationers or writers MART. 5. Is it because they would followe the Greeke that they turne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 generall euen as iust as when they turne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 image 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secrete and such like where they goe as farre from the Greeke as they can and will be glad to pretende for aunswere of their worde sect that they followe our Latine translation Alas poore shift for them that otherwise pretende nothing but the Greeke to be tried by that Latine which them selues condemne But we honour the sayd text and translate it Sects also as we there find it and as we doe in other places followe the Latine text and take not our aduantage of the Greeke text because we knowe the Latine translation is good also and sincere and approued in the Church by long antiquitie it is in sense all one to vs with the Greke but not so to them who in these daies of controuersie about the Greeke and Latine text by not following the Greeke which they professe sincerely to follow bewray them selues that they doe it for a malitious purpose FVLK 5. It is because we woulde haue the Greeke vnderstood as it is taken in those places when we turne Catholike generall Idolum image 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinaunce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secret and such like And where you say we woulde be glad for our word sect to pretend to follow your Latine translation it is a fable For in translating sect we follow the Greeke as truely as your Latine translation doeth which if it be true and sincere as you confesse what deuilish madnesse possesseth your malicious mind to burthen vs with such purposes as no reasonable man would once imagine or thinke of that we should vse that terme in fauour of heresie and heretikes whome we thinke worthie to suffer death if they will not repent and cease to blaspheme or seduce the simple CHAP. V. Hereticall translation against the CHVRCH Martin AS they suppresse the name Catholike euen so did they in their first English Bible the name of Church it selfe because at their first reuolt and apostasie from that that was vniuersally knowen to be the only true Catholike Church it was a great obiectioÌ„ against their schismaticall proceedings and it stucke much in the peoples consciences that they forsooke the Church and that the Church condemned them WherupoÌ„ very wiâ—ily they suppressed the name Church in their English translation so that in all that Bible so long red in their congregations we can not once finde the name thereof Iudge by these places which seeme of most importaunce for the dignitie preheminence and authoritie of the Church Fulke HOwe can wee suppresse the name Catholike which the holy Scripture neuer vseth as for the name of Church I haue alreadie shewed diuerse times that for to auoyd the ambiguous taking of that terme it was at the first lesse vsed but neuer refused for doubt of any obiection of the Catholike Church against vs the profession of which being contained in our Englishe creede howe could we relinquish or not acknowledge to be contained in the Scripture in which we taught that all articles
thought she is one of those last mentioned But if you say as the Geneua Bible doth but my doue is alone and my vndefiled is the onely daughter of her mother Nowe the church is excepted from all the rest of the Queenes concubines and damsels And where you say the Hebrue hath not that signification I pray you goe no further but euen to the same verse and tell me whether the sense be that she is one of her mothers daughters or the only daughter of her mother Here therefore as almost euery where you doe nothing but seeke a knot in a rush MART. 11. But we beseeche euerie indifferent Reader euen for his soules health to consider that one point specially before mentioned of their abandoning the name of Church for so many yeares out of their Englishe Bibles thereby to defeate the strongest argument that might and may possibly be brought against them and all other Heretikes to wit the authoritie of the Church which is so many wayes and so greatly recommended vnto all Christians in ho'y Scriptures Consider I pray you what a malitious intention they had herein First that the name Church shoulde neuer sound in the common peoples eares out of the Scriptures secondly that as in other things so in this also it might seeme to the ignoraunt a good argument against the authoritie of the Church to say We finde not this worde Church in all the holy Scriptures For as in other articles they say so because they finde not the expresse word in the holy Scripture so did they well prouide that the worde Church in the holy Scriptures should not stay or hinder their schismaticall and hereticall proceedings as long as that was the only English translation that was read and liked among the people that is so long till they had by preaching taken away the Catholike Churches credit and authorite altogither among the ignorant by opposing the Scriptures thereunto which them selues had thus falsely translated FVLK 11. We trust euerie indifferent Reader wil consider that they which translated the Greeke worde Ecclesia the congregation and admonished in the notes that they did by that worde meane the church and they which in the creede might haue translated Ecclesiam Catholicam the vniuersall congregation taught all children to say I beleue the Catholike churche coulde haue no such deuilish meaning as this malicious sclaunderer of his owne heade doeth imagine For who euer hearde any man reason thus This worde church is not found in the Scripture therefore the church must be despised c. Rather it is like beside other reasons before alleaged that those first translatours hauing in the olde Testament out of the Hebrue translated the wordes Cahal Hadath and such other for the congregation where the Papistes will not translate the church although their Latine text be Ecclesia as appeareth Act. 7. where they call it assembly thought good to retaine the word congregation throughout the newe Testament also least it might be thought of the ignoraunt that God had no church in the time of the olde Testament Howsoeuer it was they departed neither from the word nor meaning of the holy Ghost nor from the vsage of that word Ecclesia which in the Scripture signifieth as generally any assembly as the worde Congregation doeth in Englishe CHAP. VI. Hereticall translation against PRIEST and PRIESTHOODE Martin BVt because it may be they will stande here vpon their later translations which haue the name Church because by that time they sawe the absurditie of chaunging the name now their number was increased and them selues beganne to challenge to be the true Church though not the Catholike and for former times when they were not they deuised an inuisible Church If then they will stande vpon their later translations and refuse to iustifie the former let vs demaund of them concerning all their Englishe translation why and to what ende they suppresse the name Priest trāslating it Elder in all places where the holy Scripture would signifie by Presbyter and Presbyterium the Priestes and Priesthoode of the new Testament Fulke IF any errour haue escaped the former translations that hath bene reformed in the later all reasonable men ought to be satisfied with our owne corrections But because we are not charged with ouersights and small faults committed either of ignorāce or of negligence but with shamelesse trāslations wilful heretical corruptions we may not acknowledge any such crimes whereof our conscience is cleare That we deuised an inuisible church because we were few in number whē our translations were first printed it is a lewde sclaunder For being multiplied as we are God be thanked we holde still that the Catholike church which is the mother of vs all is inuisible and that the church on earth may at sometimes be driuen into suche streights as of the wicked it shall not be knowen And this we helde alwayes and not otherwise Nowe touching the worde Presbyter and Presbyterium why we translate them not Priest and Priesthoode of the new Testament we haue giuen sufficient reason before but because we are here vrged a freshe we must aunswere as occasion shall bee offered MART. 2. Vnderstand gentle Reader their wily pollicie therein is this To take away the holy sacrifice of the Masse they take away both altar and Priest because they know right well that these three Priest sacrifice and altar are dependentes and consequentes one of an other so that they can not be separated If there be an externall sacrifice there must be an external Priesthoode to offer it an altar to offer the same vpon So had the Gentiles their sacrifices Priestes and altars so had the Iewes so Christ him selfe being a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec had a sacrifice his bodie and an altar his Crosse vpon the which he offered it And because he instituted this sacrifice to continue in his Church for euer in commemoration and representation of his death therefore did he withall ordaine his Apostles Priests at his last supper there then instituted the holy order of Priesthoode and Priestes saying hoc faecite Do this to offer the selfe same sacrifice in a mysticall and vnblouddie maner vntill the worldes end FVLK 2. In denying the blasphemous sacrifice of the popish masse with the altar priesthood that therto belongeth we vse no wily policie but with open mouth at all times and in all places we cry out vpon it The sacrifices priestes and altars of the Gentiles were abhominable The sacrifices of the Iewes their priestes and altars are all accomplished and finished in the onely sacrifice of Christ our high Priest offered once for all vpon the altar of the crosse which Christ our Sauiour seeing he is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech hath an eternall priesthood and such as passeth not by succession Heb. 7. Therefore did not Christ at his last supper institute any externall propitiatory sacrifice of his bodie and bloud but
this Greeke worde by any other equiualent and more plaine to signifie this mixture FVLK 22. The authoritie of the holy Scriptures with vs is more woorth than the opinion of all the men in the world In the Scripture we finde the fruite of the vine water we find not therefore we account not water to be of any necessitie in the celebration of the Lordes supper In the primitiue Church we know water was vsed first of sobrietie then of ceremonie and at length it grew to be compted of necessitie The Armenians therfore are cōmendable in this point that they would neuer departe from the authoritie of the Scriptures to yeeld to the custome practise or iudgement of any men But against this mixture as you surmise we haue trāslated powred out or drawne I confesse our translators should more simply according to the worde haue saide mingled hir wine and the wine that I haue mingled but because that speach is not vsuall in the English tongue it seemeth they regarded not so much the propertie of the worde as the phrase of our tongue But that they had no purpose against the mixture of the wine with water in the Sacrament it is manifest by this reason that none of them did euer thinke that this place was to be interpreted of the Lordes supper but generally of such spirituall foode as wisedome giueth to mens soules Therefore it is certaine they had no meaning to auoide the worde of mixing for any such intent as you surmise MART. 23. Thus then the Greeke is neither drawing of wine nor powring out thereof as they translate but mingling But the Hebrew perhaps signifieth both or at the least one of the two either to draw or to poure out Gentle Reader if thou haue skill looke the Hebrew Lexicon of Pagnine esteemed the best if thou haue not skill aske and thou shalt vnderstande that there is no such signification of this worde in all the Bible but that it signifieth onely mixture and mingling A straunge case that to auoid this mingling of the cuppe being a most certaine tradition of the Apostles they haue inuented two other significations of this Hebrew word which it neuer had before FVLK 23. The Dictionaries are more sure to teach what a word doth signifie than what it doth not signifie I confesse Pagnine giueth none other signification of that roote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but miscuit But euen the worde miscuit may signifie a powring out when there is no respect of ioyning diuers things togither but of seruing one with the cuppe as Tullie vseth the word Qui alteri misceat mulsum ipse non sitiens He that serueth an other with sweete wine when he is not a thirst him selfe So is the Hebrew word vsed Esai 19. where the Prophet sayth The Lorde hath powred forth amonge them the spirite of errour Where the worde of mixture is not so proper Againe your owne vulgar Latine Interpretor Prouerb 23. translateth mimsach a worde deriued from the same roote not for any mixture but for drinking vppe or making cleane the cuppes student calicibus epotandis which study how to empty or drinke vp all that is in the cuppes In Hebrew it is which go to seeke strong wine or mingled wine And if a mixture be graunted in the place you require how proue you a mixture with water rather than with any thing else Verily the circumstance of the place if there must needes be a mixture requireth a mixture of spices hony or some such thing to make the wine delectable vnto which Wisedome doth inuite and allure all men to drinke it rather than of water onely to abate the strength of it As also in the text Prouerbes 23. the drunkards that continued at the wine and went to seeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mingled wine went not to seeke wine mingled with water but some other delicate mixture And Esay 5. where woe is pronoūced to drunkards the same word is vsed woe be to them that are strong to drinke wine and men of might limsoch to mingle strong drinke not to mingle it with water for sobrietie but with some other delectible matter to prouoke drunkennesse as your vulgar Interpretor translateth it So that albeit the word did signifie to mingle neuer so properly and certainly you can make no good argument for mingling with water in that place Prouerbs 9. where either it signifieth simply to drawe broche or powre out or else to prepare with some other more pleasant mixture than of water onely CHAP. XVIII Hereticall translation against the honour of SAINCTS namely of our B. LADIE Martin LEt vs passe from Gods holy Sacraments to his honourable Saincts in heauen and we shall finde that these translations plucke from them also as much honour as they may In the Psalme 138. where the Catholike Church and all antiquitie readeth thus Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus c. Thy friendes O God are become exceeding honourable their princedome is exceedingly strengthened which verse is sung and sayd in the honour of the holy Apostles agreeably to that in an other Psalme Constitues cos principes super omnem terram Thou shalt appoint them Princes ouer all the earth what meane they in all their English Bibles to alter it thus Howe deare are thy counsels or thoughts to me O God O how great is the summe of them Doth not the Hebrew make more for the olde receiued Latine translation than for theirs because the Hebrew word is vsed more commonly for to signifie friendes than cogitations doth not S. Hierom so translate in his translation of the Psalmes according to the Hebrew doth not the great Rabbine R. Salomon Doth not the Greeke put it out of doubt which is altogither according to the sayd auncient Latine translation Fulke THe context of the verse going before also the verse following not any enuye against the Saincts of god haue moued our translators to depart from the vulgar translation which is neither so proper for the words altogither impertinent to the matter of the text For when the Prophet had in the verse going before celebrated the wonderfull worke of God in the framing of his body in his mothers womb in this verse he breaketh out into an exclamatiō to behold the maruelous vnsearchable wisedom of gods councels whose strength is aboue mans reach whose nūber is as the sand of the sea To answer R Salomō we haue R. Dauid Kimchi as great a Rabbine as he and a more sincere Interpretor that expoundeth the whole verse euen as we doe MART. 2. And you my Maisters that translate otherwise I beseech you is it in Hebrew How great is the summe of thē not rather word for word most plainly how are the heades of them strengthened or their Princedoms as in the Greeke also it is most manifest Why do you then hunt after nouelties forsake the troden path of the
denie but the equitie of the same lawes doth still remaine although not euery one that erreth obstinately ought to bee delt with so extremely Also pag. 82. of that booke I say that all protestantes are one in God and Christ their redeemer from which vnitie dissention about ceremonies cannot separate them and yet I except such schismatikes as delight in contention The controuersie betweene Luther and vs doth not hinder vs from this vnitie although Luther and other of preposterous zeale of godlinesse do otherwise account of vs which errour is of infirmitie and not of malice The pag. 23. of the same aunswere there is another charge where I say that text Vow ye and render your vowes to the Lorde is a text that pertaineth to the old Testament meaning that it must haue the exposition according to the lawe of such thinges as God did allowe and were in mens power to perfourme For what if a man vowed to sacrifice a dogge What say wee to Iepthes rash vowe To the vowe of them that vowed to kill Paul Our censurer reporteth my wordes that this text belongeth onely to the olde Testament as though I sayde there was no vse of it in the newe Testament There is one lie by addition In the same place to the text If thou wilt bee perfect goe and sâ—ll what thou hast c. I say it is a singular triall to that one person Fâ—â— euery man is not bounde so to doe yet our censurâ—â— cauileth that so all the other wordes spoken to that young man may be restrained and made singular as whatsoeuer else was spoken to any singular person As though my reason were that therefore it was singular because it was spoken to one man As if wee had not generall lawes and rules to knowe what is enioyned to all men what to some men and what to a singular person In the next pag. 24. hee quarelleth at my exposition of the saying of S. Iames cap. 2. that a man is iustified of workes and not of faith onely Where I say workes are not denyed to iustifie before men and onely faith without workes is thought to iustifie before God Rom. 3. This he calleth a poore deuise because Saint Iames talking of faith without workes sayth it cannot saue a man Nay rather this is a poore cauill For S. Iames talketh of another kinde of faith as well as of an other kind of iustification when his saying seemeth to be contradictory to Saint Paule And that in the place in question hee meaneth iustification before men as in the other place a fayth voyde of good works it is manifest both by his owne wordes Shewe me thy faith by thy workes and also by the example of Abrahams tryall which was not to enforme God of his iustification but to giue testimony before men Pag. 25. to shewe how protestants deny all fathers he bringeth me for an example in many places First he sayth the consent of ancient fathers is alleaged attributing superioritie to Peter vpon that text Math. 16. Thou art Peter c. This he sayth I auoyde very lightly saying that diuerse of the auncient fathers were deceiued in opinion of Peters prerogatiue As for the consent of all which he would seeme to make for it is false but this is not all mine answere but that this prerogatiue appeareth not in the scriptures which was heuier than the answerers penne could beare or if he thinke it doeth let him prooue by syllogisme out of the scriptures if he can But vntill he can I will say this is a lie by detraction Secondly where I say those ancient fathers that expounde the text Iohn 5. I came in my fathers name c. of antichrist haue no grounde of their exposition I proue it by example of Theudas the Aegyptian Cocabus and other that deceiued the Iewes in their owne name yet none of them was antichrist Thirdly where he sayth Ierome with all the ecclesiasticall writers are alleaged for the interpretation of the wordes of Daniel cap. 7. which interpretation I do not admit because it hath no direction out of the scriptures hee maketh a lie by multiplication for onely Ierome with such ecclesiasticall writers out of whom he gathered his interpretation is alleaged Fourthly he slandereth me when he chargeth mee to say Austine doth wrongfully interprete the place for I allowe of Augustines sayinges to be true but I say hee speaketh it vppon a text wrongly interpreted that is falsly translated He hath placed his Tabernacle in the sunne whereas the truth is He hath made in the heauens a Tabernacle for the sunne and so doth Hierome interprete it â—oâ—i posuit tabernaculum in eis Fifthly where he sayeth that S. Ambrose Ephrem and Bede are alleaged for interpretation of certaine scriptures he sayth he noteth not what for they are alleaged for memories of the dead which I say I will not deny but they were vsed before their times and prayer for the dead also but without warrant of Gods worde or autoritie of scriptures but such as is so pitifully wrested and drawen vnto them as euery man may see the holy ghost neuer meant any such thing as they gather of them This I speake not of these three but of such as would goe about to proue prayer for the deade out of the scripture as Chrysostome who followeth in the sixt place who in deede I say alleadgeth scripture for it but hee applieth it madly and yet hee often applyeth it to the same purpose belike it was the best he had for that purpose God sayth vnto Ezechias I will defende this citie for mine owne cause and for Dauid my seruantes sake Alas good man what maner of reason is this Be it as he sayth that the memorie of Dauid being a righteous man and not rather the truth of Gods promise made to Dauid moued him to defend the citie from the enemies doth it therefore followe that prayer and almes are auayleable for the dead c. If M. Censurer thinke Chrysostome haue applyed the scripture rightly let him gather his argument into a syllogisme and we will shape him another aunswere Seuenthly I will not denie but I sayde that those fathers whom Martiall coted did rather dally in trifling allegories than soundly prooue that the crosse was prefigured in such places of scripture as they alleadge As Augustine maketh the two stickes that the widowe of Sarepta gathered a figure of the crosse Augustine and Tertullian the lifting vp of Moses handes c. in which places yet they ment the vertue of Christs death rather than the holinesse of the signe Moreouer page 33. Master Fulk is charged to abuse the simple people in saying often times prayer for the dead is an heresie because the Montanistes which were heretikes helde it Nay sir because the Montanistes are the first that inuented prayer for the dead Purgatorie seeing neither in scripture nor doctor is any mention of either of both before Montanus therefore he
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
translation receaued that errour But the more part of best Greeke copies leaue out the name of Esay Howe these corruptions should come into the text except it be out of the margent if you can finde a better coniecture we shall be content with more patience to heare you than you can abide to heare Beza MART. 18. He biteth sore at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 1. v. 7â— and will not translate that but the Hebrue word of the old Testament but at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 2. v. 24. much more and at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 7. v. 14. exceedingly but yet after he hath said all that he could against it he concludeth that he durst not and that he had a conscience vpon coniecture to change any thing And therefore all this is gnawing only But in the 3. of Luke he maketh no conscience at all to leaue out these wordes vers 36. Qui fuit Cainan not onely in his owne translation but in the vulgar Latine which is ioyned therewith saying in his Annot. Non dubitauimus expungere that is We doubted not to put it out and why by the authoritie of Moyses Gen. 11. Whereby he signifieth that it is not in the Hebrue Gen. 11. where this posteritie of Sâ—m is â—eckened and so to maintaine the Hebrue veritie as they call it in the old Testament he careth not what become of the Greeke in the newe Testament which yet at other times against the vulgar Latine text they call the Greeke veritie and the pure fountaine and that text whereby all translations must be tried FVLK 18. His biting as you call it at the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 1. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ast. 2. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 9. Seeing they concerne no controuersie might haue bene contained in the section next before especially seing you confesse he sayth he durst not and that he had a conscience vpon coniecture to chaunge any thing But in the 3. of Luk. vers 36. He maketh no conscience at all to leaue out the words Qui fuit Cainan saying in his annotations that he doubted not to put it out by authoritie of Moyses Gen. 11. A sore charge to diminish any part of the holy Scripture But if he haue only corrected an errour of the scribe which by all likelihoode tooke vpoÌ„ him to adde vnto S. Luke out of the Greeke text of the 70 that which is not in the Hebrue verily I see not what offense he hath committed For first he can meane no fraude in coÌ„cealing those words wherof he doth admonish the reader and of the cause of his leauing them out Secondly he winneth no aduantage against his aduersaries or to his own cause by omitting to say that Sala was the sonne of Cainan whom Moyses affirmeth to be the sonne of Arphaxad And seeing Moyses Gen. 11. hath no such Cainan the sonne of Arphaxad it is not like that S. Luke who borrowed that parte of his genealogie out of Moises woulde adde any thing which Moises had omitted But you say that Beza to maintaine the Hebrue verity of the old Testament eareth not what become of the Greke in the new Testament You should haue made your antitheton more ful wherein it seemeth you pleased your selfe not a litle if you had sayed that Beza to maintaine the Hebrue veritie of the olde Testament careth not what becommeth of the Greeke corruption in the newe Testament and so you shoulde haue spoken both more eloquently and more truly But at other times you say against the vulgar Latine text they call the Greeke text the Greeke veritie and the pure fountaine and that whereby all translations must be tried We say in deede that by the Greeke text of the newe Testament all translations of the newe Testament must be tried but we meane not by euerie corruption that is in any Greeke coppie of the newe Testament and muche lesse that the Hebrue text of the olde Testament should be reformed after the Greeke of the newe where it is vncorrupted and least of all where any copie is guiltie of a manifest errour as in this place nowe in question MART. 19. But if he haue no other way to reconcile both Testaments but by striking out in the Greeke of the new all that agreeth not with the Hebrue of the old Testament then let him alter and chaunge so many wordes of our Sauiour him selfe of the Euangelistes and of the Apostles as are cited out of the olde Testament and are not in Hebrue Which places they know are verie many and when neede is they shall be gathered to their handes Let him strike out Mat. 13. v. 14. 15. Act. 28. v. 26. 27. the wordes of our Sauiour and S. Paule cited out of Esay because they are farre otherwise in the Hebrue Strike out of the Epistle to the Galathians these wordes vpon a tree because in the Hebrue it is only thus Cursed is he that is hanged Deut. 21. in finc Yea strike out of Dauids Psalmes that which concerneth our redemption vpon the crosse much neerer They haue pearced my handes and my feete Psal. 21. because in the Hebrue there is no suche thing Let theÌ„ controule the Apostle Eph. 4. for saying dedit he gaue gifts because it is both in the Hebrue and Greeke Psal. 67. Accepisti thou tookest giftes and Hebr. 10. for corpus aptasti let them put aures perforasti because it is so in the Hebrue Psalm 40. To be short if all must be reformed according to the Hebrue why doth he not in S. Steuens sermon cut off the number of siue soules from seuentie fiue because it is not in the Hebrue FVLK 19. If you had read Beza his workes as diligently to learne the truth out of them as you haue pried here there busily howe to espie some fault or errour in them you shoulde easily haue founde that he hath other waies to reconcile both the Testaments the difference that seemeth to be in the allegatioÌ„s than by striking out of the Greeke in the newe all that agreeth not with the Hebrue of the olde Testament And therefore vainly you bid him alter so many words as are cited in the new Testament out of the old which are not in the Hebrue and strike out of Matth. 13. v 14. 15. and Act. 28. v. 26. 27. the words of our Sauiour and S. Paule cited out of Esay because they are otherwise in the Hebrue Beza knoweth that Christ and his Apostles alwaies kepe the sense of the Hebrue verity although they do not alwaies rehearse the verie wordes But whereas you bid him out of Gal. 3. 13. strike out these words vpon a tree because in the Hebrue it is only thus Cursed is he that is hanged You shew either grosse ignoraunce or intolerable frowardnesse for these words vpon a tree are in that verse in the next before For thus the Hebrue text is 22. When
in 25. Eidyll 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the 24. Edyll. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Theocritus let vs passe to Hesiodus out of whome it were ouer tedious to cite how often he vseth the article prepositiue for the relatiue and not agreeing in case with the antecedent but an example or two shall serue where the verbe substantiue is vnderstood and not expressed nor any other verbe to gouerne the relatiue yet not agreeing in case with the Antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Againe in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here me thinkes I heare you grudge against poetrie and poeticall licence as doubtlesse you would quarrell against profane authorities if I should bring you any like examples out of Prosaicall writers We must see therefore whether we are not able to bring examples of the like phrase out of the holy Scriptures First that Soloecophanes is found in S. Luke I wil referre you to the first cap. of his Gospell v. 74. and cap. 6. v. 4. Likewise Actes 27. v. 3. and act 13. v. 6. But for the like Soloecophanes to this in question Luc. 22. I will sende you first to S. Paule Col. 1. v. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needes be the accusatiue case as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by apposition then is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all the world as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nominatiue case signifying Quod absconditum fuit which the later part of the verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth most plainly declare For what else should be the nominatiue case to the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and euen so your vulgar Latine text hath it translated vt impleam verbum Dei mysterium quod absconditum fuit à saeculis generationibus nunc autem manifestatum est sanctis eius But because this is not so euident for that the nominatiue case the accusatiue of the neuter gender be of one termination I will bring you yet more plaine examples out of the reuelation of S. Iohn cap. 1. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grace to you and peace from him or from God as some copies haue which is and which was which is to come Would not your grammer say it is a plaine Soloecisme because he saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what haue you here to quarrel Is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same phrase that is in Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Well let vs goe a litle further to the next verse of the same chapter where we reade thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And from Iesus Christ which is a faithfull witnesse the first borne from the dead and Prince ouer the kinges of the earth The more vsuall construction would require that he should haue sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But that hevseth the same Soloecophanes which S. Luke doth ca. 22. If the reading be not altered where the article prepositiue is put in the place of the subiunctiue and agreeth not in case with the antecedent as often it doth but being the nominatiue case commeth before the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not expressed but must needes be vnderstoode as euen your vulgar translator doth acknowledge rendring it in both verses thus ab eo qui est qui erat qui venâ—urus est and à Iesu Christo qui est testis fidelis c. These examples I doubt not but they are sufficient to satisfie any reasonable man to shew that I haue not inuented a newe construction that neuer was heard of to saue Bezaes credit and whereof I am able to giue not so much as one example But that I may ouerthrow M. Martines vaine insultation with a whole cloude of examples I wil yet adde one or two more In the same reuelation ca. 8. v. 9. Thus we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there dyed the thirde of all creatures which are in the sea which had liues Your vulgar Latine text turneth it thus Et mortua est â—ertia pars creaturae eorum quae habebant animas in mari And there dyed the thirde parte of the creatures of those thinges which had life in the sea In which translation although the order of the wordes which Saint Iohn vseth is somewhat inuerted yet the sense remayneth the same and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated quae habebant which agreeth not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in case as euerye childe that can declyne a Greeke noune doth knowe where otherwise the moste common construction were to haue sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore the phrase and construction is the same which is Luke 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What can fine M. Gregorie which carpeth at my skill that speake so barbarously and rustically of Greeke elegancies what can Maister Gregorie Martin I saye the great linguist of the Seminarie of Rhemes alledge why these phrases are not alike or rather changinge the wordes in figure the very same And if he haue any thing to cauill against this example as I see not what he can haue yet haue I an other out of the same booke cap. 3. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I will write vppon him the name of my God and the name of the cittye of my God the newe Ierusalem which descendeth out of heauen from my God The vulgar Latine translation differeth not from this which sayth Et scribam super eum nomen dei mei nomen ciuitatis dei mei nouae Ierusalem quae descendit de coelo à deo meo Here the antecedent is of the genitiue case the relatiue of the nominatiue which commeth before the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnderstoode in the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Luc. 22. it is in the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By these examples in seeking whereof I promise you I spent no great time you may learne to be wiser hereafter not to condemne all men beside your self out of your readers chaire at Rhemes of ignorance vnskilfulnes barbarusnes rusticity yea wilfulnes madnes where you your self deserue a much sharper censure through your immoderat insultation the matter thereof being both more false and forged than we might iustly haue borne if we had bene ouertaken with a litle grammatical ignorance By these examples I trust you see or if you will needes be blinde all the young Grecians in England may see that as in the Latine translation you confesse the relatiue standeth more likely to be referred to the word Sanguine than to the word Calix so in the Greeke there is no help to remoue it from the next manifest necessary antecedent to a worde further of with which the signification of the participle can not agree For who would say that a cup is shed for vs And though you make a metonymye of the cup for that which is in the cup
hāds least as we haue laughed at in some men the secrete imprecation of the voyce should ordaine Clerkes being ignorant thereof And so proceedeth to inueigh against the abuse of them that would ordaine Clerkes of their basest officers and seruitours yea at the request of foolish women By which it is manifest that his purpose is not to tell what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly doth signifie but that imposition of handes is required in lawfull ordination which many did vnderstand by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although in that place it signified no such matter And therefore you muste seeke further authoritie to proue your Ecclesiasticall etymologie that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth putting foorth of the handes to giue orders The places you quote in the margent out of the titles of Nazianzens sermons are to no purpose although they were in the texte of his Homilies For it appeareth not although by Synecdoche the whole order of making Clerkes were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that election was excluded where there was ordination by imposition of handes As for that you cite out of Ignatius proueth against you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differeth from imposition of hands because it is made a distinct office from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifieth to lay on handes and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by your owne author doe differ MART. 8. But they are so profane and secular that they translate the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all the new Testament as if it had the old profane signification still were indifferent to signifie the auncients of the Iewes the Senatours of Rome the elders of Lacedemonia and the Christian Clergie In so much that they say Paul sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Act. 20. and yet they were such as had their flockes and cure of soules as foloweth in the same place They make S. Paul speake thus to Timothee Neglect not the gift so they had rather say than grace lest holy orders should be a Sacrament giuen thee with the laying on of the handes of the Eldership or by the authoritie of the Eldership 1. Tim. 4. What is this companie of Eldership Somewhat they woulde say like to the Apostles worde but they will not speake plainly least the worlde might heare out of the Scriptures that Timothee was made Priest or Bishop euen as the vse is in the Catholike Churche at this day Lette the fourth Councell of Carthage speake for bothe partes indifferently and tell vs the Apostles meaning A Prieste when hee taketh his orders the Bishoppe blessing him and holding his hande vppon his head let all the Priestes also that are present holde their handes by the Bishops hand vpon his head So doe our priestes as this daye when a Bishop maketh priests and this is the laying on of the handes of the companie of Priests which S. Paule speaketh of which they translate the companie of the Eldership Onely their former translation of 1562. in this place by what chaunce or consideration we know not let fall out of the penne by the authoritie of Priesthood FVLK 8. We desire not to be more holy in the englishe termes than the holye Ghost was in the Greeke termes Whome if it pleased to vse such a word as is indifferent to signifie the auncients of the Iewes the Senators of Rome the Elders of Lacedemonia and the Christian Cleargie why shoulde we not truely translate it into English But I pray you in good sadnes are we so profane and secular Act. 20. in calling those whome Saint Paule sent for out of Ephesus Elders What shall we saye then of the vulgar Latine text which calleth them Maiores natu as though they obtayned that degree by yeares rather than by any thing else and why doe you so profanely and secularly call them the Auncients of the Church Is there more profanenesse and secularitie in the Englishe worde Elders than in the Latine worde Maiores natu or in your Frenchenglishe terme Auncients Surely you doe nothing but play with the noses of such as be ignorant in the tongues and can perceiue no similitude or difference of these wordes but by the sounde of their eares But nowe for the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed by Saint Paule 1. Tim. 4. which we call the Eldershippe or the companye of Elders I haue shewed before howe it is vsed by Saint Luke in his Gospell cap. 22. and Act. 22. You saye we will not speake playnely lest the worlde shoulde heare that Timothie was made Priest or Bishop euen as the vse is in the Catholike Church at this day And then you tell vs out of the Councell of Carthage 4. cap. 3. that all the Priestes present shoulde laye their handes on the heade of him that is ordayned togither with the Bishoppe We knowe it well and it is vsed in the Church of England at this daye Onely the terme of Eldership displeaseth you when we meane thereby the companye of Elders But whereas the translators of the Bible 1562. call it Priesthood eyther by Priesthood they meant the same that we doe by Eldershippe or if they meant by Priesthood the office of Priestes or Elders they were deceiued For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a companie of Elders as it is twise vsed by S. Luke and oftentimes by the auncient writers of the Church both Greekes and Latines MART. 9. Otherwise in all their English Bibles all the bells ringe one note as The Elders that rule well are worthye of double honour And Against an Elder receiue no accusation but vnder two or three witnesses 1. Tim. 5. And If any be diseased among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray ouer him and annoynt him with oyle c. Iacob 5. Wheras Saint Chrysostom out of this place proueth the high dignitie of Priestes in remitting sinnes in his booke entituled Of Priesthood vnlesse they will translate that title also Of Eldershippe Againe they make S. Peter saye thus The Elders which are among you I exhort which am also an Elder feedeye Christes flocke as much as lyeth in you c. 1. Pet 5. FVLK 9. In these three textes you triumphe not a litle because your vulgar Latine text hath the Greeke worde Presbyter The high dignitie of Priestes or Elders in remitting sinnes we acknowledge with Chrysostom in his booke entitled of Priesthood which seing it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will neuer translate Eldershippe But we may lawfully wishe that both Chrysostom and other auncient writers had kept that distinction of termes which the Apostles and Euangelists did so precisely obserue In the last text 1. Pet. 5. your vulgar Latine sayth Seniores and Consenior your selues in English seniors and fellow senior What trespasse then haue we committed in saying Elders fellow Elder or an Elder also MART. 10.
And here againe with lothsomnes you repeate your rotten quarrell of idols translated images which was to discouer your abhominable idolatrie cloked vnder a blind false distinction of images and idols The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we translate repentance as you doe sometimes when you can not for shame vse your Popishe terme penance by which you vnderstande satisfaction for sinne which in diuerse places you are enforced to giue ouer in the plaine fielde and to vse the terme repentance as in the fift of the Actes This Prince and Sauiour God hath exalted with his right hand to giue repentance to Israell and remission of sinnes likewise Act. 11. where the Scripture speaketh of God giuing repentaunce to the Gentils And when you speake of Iudas you say also repenting him so that the repentance of Iudas and that which God gaue to Israell and to the Gentils is vttered in one terme whereas else you haue almost euerie where penance and doing of penance Where you say we make repentance nothing but chaunging of the minde or amendment of life you speake vntruely for not euerie chaunging of the minde is godly repentance neither is only amendment of life all repentance but there must be contrition and sorowe for the life past That in the Greeke Church they that were Catechumeni and Energumeni were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as are in repentance it maketh nothing against the true vse of the Greeke word as it is vsed in the Scriptures We know the discipline of the Churche appointed an outwarde exercise of praying fasting and other humbling for a trial and testimonie of true and hartie repentance which was some times called by the name of repentaunce by a Metonymia signi whiche hee that will enforce by that name to bee partes of true and inwarde repentaunce is as wise as hee that will contend the Iuy bushe to be a parte of wine because some men seing it hang ouer the house will say loe here is wine MART. 15. They therefore leauing this Ecclesiasticall signification and translating it according to Plutarch doe they not much like to Castaleo Doe they not the same agaynst the famous and auncient distinction of Latrîa and Dulîa when they tell vs out of Eustathius vpon Homer and Aristophanes the Grammarian that these two are all one Whereas wee proue out of S. Augustine in many places the seconde Councell of Nice Venerable Bede and the long custome of the Churche that according to the Ecclesiasticall sense and vse deduced out of the Scriptures they differ very much Doe they not the like in Mysterium and Sacramentum which they translate a Secrete in the profane sense whereas they know how these wordes are otherwise taken both in Greeke and Latine in the Church of God did they not the like in the worde Ecclesia when they translated it nothing else but congregation Doe they not the like in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they translate ordaining by election as it was in the profane court of Athens whereas S. Hierons telleth them that Ecclesiasticall writers take it for giuing holy orders by imposition of hands Do they not the like in many other wordes wheresoeuer it serueth their hereticall purpose And as for profane translation is there any more profane than Beza him selfe that so often in his annotations reprehendeth the olde translation by the authoritie of Tullie and Terence Homer and Aristophanes and the like profane authors yea so fondly and childishly that for Olfactum which Erasmus vseth as Plinies word he will needes say odoratum because it is Tullies word FVLK 15. In translating the Scripture we vse the worde repentance in the same signification that the scripture vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In other Ecclesiasticall writers we can neuerthelesse vnderstand it as they meane it Concerning that vnlearned distinction of Latria and Dulia we doe rightly to shewe out of profane writers that it is vaine and that the termes signifie all one and you your selfe confesse in your marginall note that sometimes in the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe not signifie the seruice and honour that is proper to God as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in more than an hundred places vsed for the seruice honour proper to God S. Augustine you confesse afterward knew wel but one tōgue therfore he is no meete iudge of distinction of Greeke wordes Bede followeth Augustines error The idolaters of the 2. Nicene councel were glad of a cloke for the raine cōtrary to the property of their tongue As is proued by Eustathius Aristophanes Xenophon Suidas and by later writers no Protestants Laurentius Valla and Ludouicus Viues Mysterium we translate a secret or a mysterie indifferently the word signifying no more an holy secret than a prophane and abhominable secrete as the mysterie of iniquitie the mysterie of Babylon For the wordes Ecclesia and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we haue sayd sufficiently and very lately To vse Tullies words when they answer the Greeke as properly as any barbarous wordes or lesse commendable wordes I knowe not why it shoulde be counted blame worthy in Beza or in any man except it be of such a Sycophant as liketh nothing but that which sauoureth of his owne spittle MART. 16. But to returne to our English translatours doe not they the like to profane Castaleo and doe they not the very same that Beza their Maister so largely reprehendeth when they translate Presbyterum an Elder Is it not all one fault to translate so and to translate as Castaleo doth Baptismum washing Hath not Presbyter bene a peculiar and vsual word for a Priest as long as Baptismus for the Sacrament of regeneration which Castaleo altering into a cōmon and profane worde is worthily reprehended We will proue it hath not for their sake who know it well enough but for the Readers sake whom they abuse as if they knew it not FVLK 16. If it be as great a fault in vs to translate Presbyterum an Elder as for Castaleo to translate Baptismum washing your vulgar translatour must be in the same faulte with vs which so often translateth Presbyteros seniores or maiores natu which signifie Elders and not Priestes it is a vaine thing therefore that you promise to proue that Presbyter hath bene a peculiar and vsual word for a Priest as long as Baptismus for the Sacrament of regeneration For peculiar you can neuer proue it seeing it is vsed in the Scripture so often for such Elders Ancients as you your selfe would not cal Priests So that if you did translate the whole Bible out of your owne vulgar Latine you must translate Presbyter thrice an Elder or Auncient for once a Priest MART. 17. In the first and second Canon of the Apostles we reade thus Episcopus à duobus aut tribus Episcopis ordinetur Presbyter ab vno Episcopo ordinetur Diaconus alij Clerici that is
why is not this confessioÌ„ a Sacrament where them selues acknowledge forgiuenesse of sinnes by the Minister These contradictions and repugnance of their practise and translation if they can wittily and wisely reconcile they may perhaps in this point satisfie the reader But whether the Apostle speake here of Sacramentall confession or no sincere translators should not haue fledde from the proper and most vsuall word of confession or confessing consonant both to the Greeke and Latine and indifferent to what soeuer the holy Ghost might meane as this word acknowledge is not FVLK 7. Of the word of penance and therevpoÌ„ to wring in satisfaction we haue heard more than enough but that penance is a Sacrament wee haue heard neuer a worde to proue it But what say wee against confession Forsooth Iames 5. wee translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acknowledge your selfes Why sir dothe acknowledging signifie any other thing than confessing you want then nothing else but the sounde of confession which among the ignoraunt woulde helpe you litle whiche terme your Popishe acknowledging rather shrifte than confession It is maruaile then that you blame vs not because wee say not shriue your selues one to an other A miserable Sacrament that hath neede of the sounde of a worde to helpe it to bee gathered But how I pray you should the reader gather your auricular shrifte or Popishe confession if the worde confesse your selues were vsed by vs I weene because the Priests are called in a little before It is more than mough if you might gaine your Sacrament of anealing by their comming in But shrifte commeth to late after extreeme vnction Well admitte the Apostle forgotte the order and placed it after which shoulde come before must wee needes haue Priestly confession proued out of that place doth not S Iames say coÌ„fesse your selues one to an other as he saith pray one for an other Then it followeth that the Lay man muste shriue the Prieste as well as the Prieste muste shriue the Laye man And the Priest muste confesse him selfe to the people as well as the people muste pray for the Prieste But you haue an obiection out of the Communion booke to proue confession to be a Sacrament which appointeth that the sicke person shal make a speciall confession to the minister and he to absolue him c. Will you neuer leaue this shamelesse cogging and forging of matters against vs The Communion booke appointeth a speciall confessioÌ„ only for them that feele their conscience troubled with any waighty matter that they may receiue counsaile and comforte by the minister who hath aucthoritie in the name of God to remitte sinnes not only to them that be sicke but also to them that be whole and dayly dothe pronounce the absolution to them that acknowledge confesse their sinnes humbly before God But hereof it followeth not that this confession is a Sacrament for by preaching the people that beleeue are absolued froÌ„ their sinnes by the ministerie of the Preacher yet is not preaching a Sacrament A Sacrament must haue an outward element or bodily creature to represent the grace of remission of sinnes as in Baptisme and in the Lordes supper But where you conclude that sincere translators should not haue fledde the proper and moste vsuall worde of confession you speake your pleasure for the worde of acknowledging is more proper and vsuall in the English tongue than is the worde of confessing And if you can proue any Sacrament out of that texte beholde you haue the Greeke and Latine vntouched and the English answereable to both make your Syllogisme out of that place to proue Popish shrift when you dare CHAP. XV. Hereticall translation against the Sacrament of HOLY ORDERS and for the MARIAGE OF PRIESTS and VOTARIES Martin AGAINST the Sacrament of Orders what can they doe more in translation than in all their Bibles to take away the name of Priest and Priesthood of the new Testament altogether and for it to say Elder and Eldership Whereof I treated more at large in an other place of this booke Here I adde these fewe obseruations that both for Priestes and Deacons which are two holy orders in the Catholike Church they translate Ministers to commend that newe degree deuised by themselues As when they say in all their Bibles Feare the Lord with all thy soule and honour his ministers In the Greeke it is plaine thus and honour his Priests as the word alwayes signifieth and in the very next sentence themselues so translate Feare the Lorde and honour the Priestes But they would needes borowe one of these places for the honour of Ministers As also in the Epistle to Timothee where S. Paul talketh of Deacons and nameth them twise they in the firste place translate thus Likewise muste the Ministers be honest c. And a litle after Let the Deacons be the husbaÌ„ds of one wife Loe the Greeke worde being one and the Apostle speaking of one Ecclesiasticall order of Deacons and Beza so interpreating it in both places yet our English translators haue allowed the first place to their Ministers and the second to Deacons and so because Bishops also went before they haue found vs out their three orders Bishops Ministers and Deacons Alas poore soules that can haue no place in Scripture for their Ministers but by making the Apostle speake three things for two Fulke FOR the names of Priest and Elder wee haue spoken heretofore sufficiently as also for the name of Minister which is vsed for the same that Elder and Prieste althoughe the word signifie more generally That the worde Ministers is put for Priests I take it rather to bee an ouersight of the firste translatour whome the rest folowed because that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commeth immediatly after than any purpose against the order of Priest or to dignifie the name of Ministers For seeing Syrachs sonne speaketh of the Priests and Ministers of the â—awe his saying can make nothing to or froe for the names of the Ministers Priestes or Elders of the new Testament That some translatioÌ„s in 1. Tim. 3. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reÌ„der Ministers it is because they supposed the Greeke word to be taken there in the generall sense as it is in manye other places not to make three degrees of twoo as you do fondly cauil For the orders of Bishops Elders or as you cal them Priests and as they be commonly called Priests and Ministers is all one in authoritie of ministring the word the Sacraments The degree of Bishoppes as they are taken to be a superiour order vnto Elders or Priestes is for gouernment and discipline specially committed vnto them not in authoritie of handling the worde and the sacraments MART. 2. There are in the Scripture that are called Ministers in infinite places and that by three Greeke wordes commonly but that is a large signification of minister attributed to al that minister waite serue or attend to doe any
and not copulatiue wee were driuen to the wall But seeing the Hebrue coniunction copulatiue must be expounded according to the sense you do very vnskilfully to coÌ„clude the sense which is in controuersie vpon the coniunction which is indefinite and wee without partialitie haue translated the coniunction copulatiue as it doth most commonly and ordinarily signifie MART. 14. Wherein the reader may see their exceeding partialitie and wilfulnesse For besides infinite like places of Scripture whereby we do easily shew that this Hebrue particle is vsed to giue a reason or cause of a thing themselues also in an other place proue it for vs and that by the authoritie of Theophylact and allegation of examples out of the Scripture and translate accordingly thus Blessed art thou among women because the fruite of thy wombe is blessed Let them giue vs a reason why the sayd coniunction is here by their translation quia or enim where it was neuer so translated before and it must not be in any case in the other place of Genesis where it hath bene so translated and generally receiued euen in the Primitiue Church In other places of Scripture also which Theophylact alledgeth and many moe may be alledged they coÌ„fesse and like very well it should so signifie onely in the place of Genesiâ— they can not abide any such sense or translation thereof but He brought forth bread and wine and he was the Priest c. not because he was the Priest What is the cause of this their dealing None other vndoubtedly and in all these cases I knocke at their consciences but that here they would auoide the necessarie sequele of Melchisedecks sacrifice vpon such translation which typicall sacrifice of bread wine if it should be graunted then would follow also a sacrifice of the newe Testament made of bread and wine aunswering to the same and so we should haue the sacrifice of the altar and their bare communion should be excluded FVLK 14. Because we will not falsly translate to maintaine a colour of your popish sacrifice we shewe great partialitie Wherein I praye you The coniunction copulatiue we knowe may often be resolued into the causall where the sense so requireth But it neuer hath any force in it selfe to breede such a sense or to conclude suche a sense by it It is agaynste all reason therefore that you woulde vrge vs to translate contrarie to that whyche in our consciences beefore GOD wee take to bee the sense Where you say that the sacrifice of Melchisedech if it were graunted woulde bring in your Masse and exclude oure communion it is altogither vntrue For none of the auncient fathers who were deceiued to imagine a sacrifice where the Apostle seeking al things pertaining to Melchisedechs priesthoode coulde find none doth allow your propitiatorie sacrifice but contrariewise by those onely speeches that they vse aboute Melchisedechs oblation of breade and wine wee are able to prooue that they didde speake of a sacrifice of thankesgiuyng onely And your sacrifice in whyche you say is neither bread nor wine should hardly resemble Melchisedechs oblation made of bread and wine MART. 15. For whiche purpose also their partiall translation aboute altare and table is notorious For the name of altare as they know verie wel both in the Hebrue and Greeke and by the custome of al peoples both Iewes and Pagans implying and importing sacrifice therfore we in respect of the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud say altar rather than table as all the auncient fathers Chrys. ho. 53. ad po Antioch and ho. 20. in 2. Cor. and in Demonst. ê™ Christus sit Deus to 5. Nazianz. de Gorgonia sorore Basil. in Liturg Socrat. li. 1. Hist. c. 20. 25. Theodoret. hist. li. 4. c. 20. Theophyl in 23. Mat. Cypr. epist. 63. Optat. cont Parm. Aug. ep 86. li. 9. Confess c. 11. 13. alibi saepe are wont to speake and write namely when S. Hierom calleth the bodies or bones of S. Peter and Paule the altars of Christ because of this sacrifice offercd ouer and vpon the same though in respect of eating and drinking the body and bloud it is also called a table so that with vs it is both an altar and a table whether it be of wood or of stone But the Protestants because they make it only a communion of bread and wine or a supper and no sacrifice therefore they call it table onely and abhorre from the worde altar as Papistical For the which purpose in their firste translation Bible an 1562. when altares were then in digging downe throughout England they translated with no lesse malice than they threwe them downe putting the word temple in steede of altare which is so grosse a corruption that a man woulde haue thought it had beene done by ouersight and not of purpose if they hadde not doone it thrice immediately wythin twoo Chapiters 1. Cor. 9. and 10. saying Know you not that they whiche waite of the TEMPLE are partakers of the TEMPLE and Are not they whiche eate of the sacrifice partakers of the TEMPLE in al which places the Apostles worde in Greeke is altare and not temple and see here their notorious peeuishnesse where the Apostle saith temple there the same translation saith sacrifice where the Apostle saith altar there it saith temple FVLK 15. That the ancient fathers vsed the name of altar as they did of sacrifice sacrificer leuite and such like improperly yet in respect of the spirituall oblation of prayse and thankes gyuyng whyche was offered in the celebration of the Lordes supper wee doe easilye graunte as also that they doe as commonly vse the name of table and that it was a table indede so standing as menne mighte stande round about it and not against a wall as your popishe altares stande it is easie to prooue and it hathe oftentimes bene prooued and it seemeth you confesse as muche but that it is with you bothe an altare and a table with vs indeede it is as it is called in the scripture only a table That we make the Sacrament a communion of bread and wine it is a blasphemous slaunder when wee beleeue as the Apostle taught vs that it is the communion of the bodie and bloud of Christe and the Lordes supper as for the corruption you pretend I cannot thinke as I haue aunsweared before it was any thing else but the first Printers ouersight For why shoulde the name of altare mislike vs in that place more than in an hundreth other places when it is certaine wheresoeuer it is vsed in the scriptures in the proper sense it signifieth the altares of the Iewes or of the Gentiles and neuer the communion table or that at whyche the Lordes supper is prepared and receiued MART. 16. Thus we see howe they suppresse the name of altare where it shoulde be now let vs see howe they putte in their translation where it shoulde not bee this also they
readeth FVLK 4. If the Apostle had meant nothing by the preposition he might and would as it is most like haue left it cleane out yea if he had meant no more but the adoration of Iosephs scepter what needed he to haue added the toppe or the extremitie or why was the top of his scepter more to be adored than all the other length of it But certayne it is the Apostle would expresse the Hebrewe preposition which muste needes haue some signification And where you aske them that haue skill in the Hebrewe whether there be any force in the preposition in those sayings out of the Psalme that speake of worshipping or falling downe before his footestoole his holye hill c. I aunswere yea there is great force for the hill was not to be worshipped but he whose tabernacle or temple was on it But you obiect that we our selues neglect the preposition Psal. 96. and say worship the Lord. The fault is the lesse because the worship is referred to none but the Lorde yet the precise translation in that place should be bowe downe or fall ye downe before the Lorde in the glorious sanctuarie And where you say we shunne the worde of adoration which the Hebrew and Greeke duely doe expresse by termes applyed for the most part signifie adoring of creatures You haue packed vp a great number of vntruthes togither as it were in a bundell First that we shunne the terme of adoring for doubt of your Dulia which is vtterly vntrue for it is auoyded partly because it is more Latine than English partly because it doth not expresse either the Greeke or the Latine termes which the Scripture vseth Secondly you auouch that both the Hebrew lishtachauoth and the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas all that be learned in both the tongues doe know that the Hebrew worde doth signifie properly to bowe downe and therefore is vsed of such bowing downe as is not to the ende of adoration as Psalme 42. v. 5. 6. Why art thou cast downe O my soule and in diuers other places The Greeke word also signifieth to vse some gesture of bodie in worshipping sometimes to fall downe as Herodotus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they must worship the King falling downe before him Finally where you say they are applied to the adoring of creatures if you cal it adoration which is vsed in ciuil manner to Princes and other persons of authoritie I graunt it is often so applyed but if you meane of religious adoration it is expresly forbidden to any creature or Image of creature by the second commaundemēt in the Hebrue terme and by the wordes of our Sauiour Christ to the Deuill Math. 4. In the Greeke worde Thou shalt worship the Lorde thy God and him onely shalt thou serue Where Sathan desired not to bee worshipped as God with diuine honour but that our Sauiour Christe would fal downe before him and worship him as an excellēt minister of God to whom the dispositiō of all the kingdomes of the world as he falsly said were by God committed Luk. 4. v. 6. which vtterly ouerthroweth your bold distinction of Dulia and Latria seeing it was that which you call Dulia that the Deuill required but our Sauiour Christe telleth him that all religious worship and seruice pertaineth onely to God Touching the adoration of Gods footestoole I haue spoken sufficiently before Cap. 1. Sect. 41. MART. 5. This being most manifest to all that haue skill in these tongues it is euident that you regard neither Hebrue nor Greeke but only your heresie and that in S. Paules place aforesaid of adoring Iosephs scepter you alter it by your owne fansie and not by S. Augustines authoritie whom I am sure you will not admit reading in the Psalme Adore yee his footestoole and so precisely and religiously reading thus that he examineth the case and findeth thereby that the B. Sacrament must be adored and that no good Christian doth take it before he adore it Neither will you admitte him when he readeth thus of Dauid He was caried in his owne handes and interpreteth it mystically of Christ that he was caried in his owne handes when he gaue his body and bloud to his Disciples Yet are S. Augustines interpretations how so euer you like or mislike thē very good as also that aboue named of Iacobs leaning vpō his staffe adoring may be one good sense or cōmētarie of that place but yet a cōmentarie one Doctors opiniō not the sacre text of Scripture as you wold make it by so trāslating FVLK 5. Let Pagnine for the Hebrew word the Greeke Lexicons for the other be iudge betwene vs. For you are the most impudent aduoucher I thinke that euer became a writer That we leane to Augustines iudgement in this case it is not because we make him an author of truth but a witnesse of the same against such venemous tongues and pennes as yours is that call euery thing hereticall that sauoureth not of your owne drowsie dreames of antichristian heresie Neither is it reason that by vsing the testimonie of Augustine where he beareth witnesse to the truth we should be bound to euery interpretation of his when he declineth therefro Where you say that by adoring the footestoole of God he findeth that the blessed Sacrament must be adored you say vntruly he gathereth that Christes humanitie or body must be adored but not the blessed Sacrament thereof Likewise when he sayth vpon a feeble ground of a false interpretation that Christ was carried in his owne hands in the Sacrament he affirmeth it not so absolutely as you alledge it but quodam modo after a certaine maner he bare himselfe in his handes when he saide this is my bodie Yea in that place Augustine as in many other declareth his iudgement that he acknowledged not the corporall maner of presence and eating of Christes bodie in the sacrament for whych you Papistes so greatly contend that you ate content to make so many senses of the scripture it declareth that you acknowlege none certaine and so derogate al credite and authoritie from the word of God which may haue so many meanings as there be diuers doctors that haue commented vppon it Whereas diuers interpretations may haue al a true sense but it is impossible that they should al be senses of the same Scripture MART. 6. And if S. Hierome like not the Greke doctors interpretation in this place of adoring Ioseph and his scepter yet he also saith that Iacob adored toward Iosephs rodde or toward the beddes heade and not leaning vpon his staffe hee adored which you make the texte of Scripture And thoughe he thinke that in this place is not meant any adoration of Ioseph yet I am sure for adoration of holie things namely Reliques the holie lande and al the holie places and monuments of Christs being and doing vpon the earth you wil not bee tryed by S. Hierome And againe why S. Paule should say that by faith
to maintaine any cause of ours by plaine syllogismes onely In the meane time to finde you occupieâ— â—here hath beene a booke called syllogisticon set fooâ—th by maister Foxe more than twentie yeares agoe let vs see in a sheete of printed paper what ye haue to answere those syllogismes whether you will finde them defectiue in forme or matter or else there is no reason but you should graunt their conclusion Pag. 146. to prooue that protestantes are lordes of the scripture to make them say what they list D. Fulkes wordes to maister Bristowe are cited For the diuision of parishes excommunication suspension publike solemnizing of mariages with the lawes thereof and punishing of heretikes by death they are all manifestly prooued out of the scripture This I say alleaging no one place of scripture to prooue it sayth our censurer I say as much of holding of councels which Bristowe with the rest wil haue vs as apes to haue borrowed of the popish church Whereas I affirme they are proued out of the scriptures if Bristow wil reply denie y t such things may be proued out of the scriptures it shall be no harde matter to do it Yet in the meane time if you thinke I haue sayde more than I can shewe I will giue you this tast For diuision of Churches or parishes Act. 14. v. 23. Elders in euerie church and Tit. 1. v. 5. elders in euerie citie or towne Holding of councelles Act. 15. excommunication where the partie cast out is to be taken for an heathen or publicane Math. 18. v. 17. separation or suspension where the partie separated is to be taken as a brother 2. Thess. 3. publike solemnizing of mariage Mat. 1. v. 18. where betrothing and publike comming together are expressed Example Ioan. 2. for punishment of heretikes I haue cited before What the Puritans will grant I care not although I thinke there are none of them that are so called will denie any of these except he be some madde schismatike and for the last which you say was for a long time denied by our selues till nowe we haue burned some for religion in Englande you should haue tolde howe long For we haue not now first of all consented to the burning of heretikes The Arrians and Anabaptistes burned in king Edwardes dayes for thirtie yeares agoe can beare witnesse But you may say your pleasure I knowe few in other countries but heretikes themselues that denie it to be lawful to punish blasphemous obstinate heretikes by death If any haue any priuate opinion what haue we to doe wich it or to bee charged by it If I shoulde note your phrase when you say that protestantes doe now reigne in Englande as though there were more kinges than one you would say perhaps I were ouer captious Well let it passe But such thinges sayde I as are not euidently conteined in the worde a Christian is not absolutely bounde to beleeue them In plaine dealing you should haue bestowed a note in your margent where I haue so sayde as well as placed there hereticall audacitie of your papisticall charitie The saying I confesse or the like yet the circumstances of the place where it was vttered would perhaps haue bewrayed some part of your vsuall and honest dealing But what cause haue you to criâ—â—ut so loude Behoulde the last refuge of a proude hereticall spirite in breaking where he cannot otherwise get out Call you it proude heresie to holde that nothing is to be credited vpon necessitie of saluation which hath not authoritie of the holy scripture which are able to make a man wise to saluation which are written that beleeuing we might be saued which are able to make the man of God perfect prepared to euerie good worke And why doe yee dare M. Charke to aâ—ouch that which I haue affirmed I knowe he dare affirme and is able to defend this truth but there is no reason that he should be dared with my assertioÌ„s I dare affirm to your face if you dare shewe it that a christian man is not bounde to beleeue that the common creede was made by the Apostles after that fabulous maner that you papistes doe teach Namely that Peter made one peece Andrewe another and so of the rest yet I doubt not but it is gathered out of the doctrine and writinges of the Apostles But you haue ancient doctors which affirme that it was made by the Apostles Origen Terâ—llian Ierome Ruffinus Ambrose Austen and all the primitiue church doe so constantly affirme to be their doingâ—s Let vs consider then in order First Origen in proâ—â— lib. de princip testifieth that the Apostles by their preaching did most plainely deliuer y e summe of faith according to the capacitie of the most simple whereof hee maketh a rehearsall contayning in deede some articles of the creed but neither al nor any one in such forme of words as our creede doth expresse them And before he beginneth the rehearsall of them thus he sayeth Species verò eoruÌ„ quae per praedicationem ApostolicaÌ„ manifesté traduntur istae sunt These are the particulars of those thinges which by the preaching of the Apostles are manifestly deliuered Which wordes doe shewe that the Apostles in deede taught the doctrine yet prooue not that they made this creede rather than the Nicen creede or Athanasius Creede Tertullian against Praxeas much after the same maner yet more neere the wordes of the creede rehearseth the articles pertaining to the three persons of the deitie and then he addeth Hâ—â—c regulam ab initio euangelii de cucurrisse etiam ante priores quosque haereticâ—s nedum ante Praxeam hesternum probabis â—â—â— ipsa posteritaâ— omnium hâ—â—â—â—icorum quà m ipsa nouellitas Praxeae hesterni That this rule hath runne downe from the beginning of the gospell euen before all former heretikes not onely before Praxeas a yesterdayes birde as wel the later spring of all heretikes shall prooue as the verie noueltie of Praxeas one that came but yesterday That the rule of faith contained in the Creede is as auncient as the preaching of the Gospel I alwayes agreed with Tertullian but that the Apostles made the Creede I heare him yet say neuer a worde Ierom ad Pammachium against the errours of Iohn of Ierusalem sayth In symbolo fidei spei nostrae quod ab Apostolis traditum non scribitur in charta atramento sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus post confessioneÌ„ trinitatiâ— vnitatem ecclesiae omne Christiani dogmatis sacramentâ—m carnis resurrectione includitur In the symbole of our faith and hope which being deliuered from the Apostles is not written in paper and ynke but in the fleshie tables of our hearts after the confession of the Trinitie and the vnitie of the Church all the mysterie of Christian doctrine is inclosed in the resurrection of the flesh Although it be graunted that Saint Ierome here speaketh of our common Creede yet it followeth not that hee affirmeth it to bee made by the
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
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
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