chast which haue made them selues chast for the kingdome of heauens sake for a man might saye all doe so that liue chastly in matrimonie but our Sauiour speaketh of them that are impotent and vnable to generation called* Eunuches or gelded men and that in three diuers kindes some that haue that infirmitie or maime from their birth othersome that are gelded afterward by men and other that geld themselues for the kingdom of heauen not by cutting of those partes which were an horrible mortall sinne but hauing those partes as other men haue yet geld themselues for so is the Greeke and make them selues vnable to generation Which how it can be but by voluntarie profession promise and vâ—w of perpetuall continencie which they may neuer breake let the Protestants tell vs. Christ then as it is most euident speaketh of gelded men either câ—rporally or spiritually which are al such as professe perpetuall continencie and they tell vs of some that were borne chast and some that were made chast by men and some that make them selues chast â— most foolish and false translation of the Greeke wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FVLK 16. Concerning the former part of this matter Math. 19. v. 11. we haue aunswered sufficiently in the chapter of free will but here is a new cauill Because chastitie is also in mariage as in single life our translators doe not well to expresse the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by chast and haue made chaste I confesse they should more properly haue sayd gelded men or gelded them selues or els continent and made continent Although they meane none other by the worde chaste which they vse And touching your question howe men may lawfully geld them selues but by voluntary purpose of continencie which they may not breake I aunswer that we deny not but that such as be assured they haue the gift of continencie may professe to keepe it and after such profession or promise made to God they sinne if they breake it But if any haue rashly vowed that which they are not able to keepe they haue sinned in vowing and can not keepe their vowe by abstinence from mariage except they abstaine also from all filthines out of mariage for such we holde with Epiphanius and Saint Hierome that immoderate aduauncer of virginitie that it is better to marye than out of mariage to liue incontinently MART. 17. The Bezites here are blamelesse who translate it word for word Eunuches but they are more to blame in an other place where in derogation of the priuiledge and dignitie of Priestes they translate thus The Priestes lippes should preserue knowledge and they should seeke the Law at his mouth where in the Hebrew and Greeke it is as plaine as possibly can be spoken The Priestes lippes shall keepe knowledge and they shall seeke the Lawe at his mouth Which is a maruelous priuiledge giuen to the Priestes of the olde Law for true determination of matters in controuersie right expounding of the Law as we reade more fully Deutero 17. Where they are commaunded vnder paine of death to stand to the Priestes iudgement which in this place God by the Prophet Malachie calleth his couenant with Leui and that he will haue it to stand to wit in the newe Testament where Peter hath such priuiledge for him and his successors that his faith shall not faile where the holy Ghost is President in the Church of Bishops and Priestes All which these Heretikes would deface and defeate by translating the wordes otherwise than the holye Ghost hath spoken them FVLK 17. The verbe in deede which the Prophet Malachie vseth is of the future temps But who knoweth not that the Hebrewes lacke the potentiall mode and therefore they doe very often expresse it by the future temps of the indicatiue mode Which if you shoulde alwaies traÌ„slate by the future indicatiue you should make many faire promises to them that are sharpely rebuked But the circuÌ„stance of the place doth plainly declare that the Priestes of that time had broken the couenant made with Leui concerning keeping of the lawe Yea the very wordes following expresse the same But you haue departed out of the way and haue caused many to fall against the lawe You haue made voyde the couenant of Leui sayth the Lord of Hostes. By which words it is manifest that the Prophet before spake of that knowledge of the law which the Priest ought to haue not which the Priestes alwaies had for certaine it is that many of them were ignorant yea sometimes all the high Priest was ofteÌ„ an Idolater And who condemned Christ his Gospell but the high Priestes The authoritie that was giuen to the Priestes in case of controuersie was limited within the bounds of Gods law from which if they declined no man was bound to obey them For who was bound to obey Vrias the high Priest preferring the idolatrous altar of Damasco before the true altar of the Lorde or those deuilish tyrants Menclaus Alcimus and such other as occupied the Priests roomes in the time of the Maccabees or Annas and Caiphas in the â—yme of Christ. Peter then hauing none other priuiledge for him and his successors than Aaron had he and his successors might fall and be deceiued although Christ praied that his faith should not faile as he prayed for all the Apostles and for all their successors yea for all beleuers that they might be sanctified in the truth yet it were madnes to say that none of them could erre But whensoeuer you wil go about to proue this priuiledge out of those wordes of our Sauiour Christ make your Syllogisme and let vs haue no more brabling Our translation in that place of Malachie is more true than you are able to impugne for those wordes are rather a commaundement what the Priestes lippes should doe not a promise or assurance that they alway did so MART. 18. And when the Prophet addeth immediatly the cause of this singular prerogatiue of the Priest quia angelus Domini exercituum est because he is the Angell of the Lord of hostes which is also a wonderfull dignitie so to be called they after their cold maner of profane translation say because he is the messenger of the Lord of hostes So doe they in the next chapter call S. Iohn the Baptist messenger where the Scripture no doubt speaketh more honourably of him as being Christes precursor than of a messenger which is a terme for postes also and lackies The Scripture I saye speaketh thus of S. Iohn Behold I send mine Angel before thee and our Sauiour in the Gospell Mat. 11. Luc. 7. telling the people the wonderful dignisies of S. Iohn that he was more than a Prophet citeth this place giueth this reason For this is he of whom it is written Behold I send mine Angel before thee Which Saint Hierom
what is that I pray you Not wine you wil say I am sure but the bloud of Christ. If you so resolue it then followeth that vaine nugation which I haue noted against Saunder This bloud in the cuppe which bloud is shed for you is the new Testament in my bloud Is that bloud in the cuppe diuerse from that bloud in which the new Testament is confirmed If it be the same how often was â—t shed If it were shed in the cuppe how holdeth your vnbloudie sacrifice Or howe can you saye that it was shed in the cup where by your rule of concomitans it is not separated from the body as it was in his passion If it were not separated as certainly his bloud was not separated from his bodye in the supper howe can that which was in the cup be his bloud that was shed for vs for the word of shedding signifieth separation Wherefore it can not be referred to that in the cup but to his bloud which was shed on the crosse for vs so that there is a manifest enallage or change of the temps The present being put for the future as it is manifest by the other Euangelists where the word of shedding can be referred to nothing els but to his bloud shedde vpon the crosse wherfore the Greeke text can here resolue you of no ambiguity as in the place you cite act 14. Neither was there euer any auncient writer that stumbled vpon this ambiguitie but al with one consent referre the word of shedding to his bloud and not to the cuppe or the content thereof so many as speake of it MART. 40. And this is one commoditie among others that we reape of the Greeke text to resolue the ambiguitie that is sometime in the Latine whereas you neyther admit the one nor the other but as you list neither doth the Greeke satisfie you be it neuer so plaine and infallible but you will deuise that it is corrupted that there is a soloecisine that the same soloecisme is an elegancie and there vpon you translate your owne deuise and not the worde of God Which whence can it proceede but of most wilfull corruption See chap. 17. nu 10 11. 12. FVLK 40. This is nothing but generall rayling impudent slaundering as in the particular sections before is proued For we neither deuise that the text is corrupted to alter any thing of the text no not where it is vndoubtedly corrupted as in the name of Ieremie Math. 27. Neyther deuise wee a Soloecisme when wee admonish that there is a Soloecophanes which of no Papist that euer I heard of was before obserued Neither make we a Soloecisme to be an elegancie when we say against them that confound a Soloecisme with Soloecophanes that Soloecophanes is a figure vsed sometimes of most eloquent writers neither is it streight way a vertue or elegancie of speache what so euer eloquent writers sometimes haue vsed wherefore we translate nothing of our owne deuise but we translate the worde of God without any wilfull corruption MART. 41. If in ambiguous Hebrue woords of doubtfull signification where the Greeke giueth one certaine sense you refuse the Greeke and take your aduantage of the other sense what is this but wilfull partialitie so you doe in Redime eleemosynis peccata tua Dan. 4. and Inclinaui cor meum ad faciendas iustificationes tuas propter retributionem and Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus c. and yet at an other time you folow the determination of the Greeke for an other aduantage as Psal. 98. Adore his footestoole because he is holy Whereas in the Hebrue it may be as in our Latin because it is holy See chapt 13. num 18. chapt 9. num 23 24. chapt 18. num 1. 2. So you flee from the Hebrue to the Greâ—ke and from this to that againe from both to the vulgar Latine as is shewed in other places and as S. Augustine saith to Faustus the Manichee You are the râ—le of truth whatsoeuer is for you is true whatsoeuer is against you is not true FVLK 41. If Hebrue wordes be ambiguous wee take that sense whiche agreeth with other places that are playne and with out all ambiguitie and this is no partialitie but wisedome and loue of the truthe not to grounde any newe doctrine vppon suche places onely where the Hebrue worde is ambiguous and may haue diuerse significations As you do the redemption of sinnes by almesse vpon that place of Daniel 4. Where you confesse that the Hebrue worde is ambiguous are not able to bring any one plain text for it where the wordes are not ambiguous But wee ground our refusal vpon a hundred plaine textes that acribe the whole glorie of our raunsome redemption froÌ„ sinnes to the onely mercy of God But as well this text as the other two that you cite in the chapters by you quoted shall be throughly diseussed to see if you can haue any aduauÌ„tage at our translators of the same But on the coÌ„trarie side you say that at an other time we follow the determination of the Greeke for an other aduantage as in that texte Psalm 89. Adore his foote stoole because he is holy whereas in the Hebrue it may be as in your Latine because it is holy I answer that we follow not the determination of the Greeke as moued by the onely authoritie thereof for any aduantage but because wee learne our interpretation out of the verie Psalme it selfe For whereas the Prophet in the 5. verse hath sayed Exalt â—e the Lorde our God and worshippe at the foote stoole of his feete for he is holy in the laste verse of the same he repeateth againe the like exhortation Exalt ye the Lorde our God and worshippe him in his holy hill for the Lorde our God is holy In this verse for his foote stoole he placeth the holy hill which expresseth where his foote stoole was namely the holy Aâ—ke and for Cadhosh hu holy is he now he sayeth Cadosh Iâ—houa holy is the Lorde our God which putteth the other verse out of ambiguitie Wherefore if wee take testimonie of the Greeke we flie not to the Greeke from the Hebrue but shewe that the Hebrue may so bee vnderstoode hauing other more certaine arguments than the testimonie of the Greeke Againe it is vtterly false that you saie we flie from both Hebrue and Greeke to the Latine for wee neuer flie from the Hebrue but acknowledge it as the fountaine and spring from whence wee must receyue the infallible truth of Gods worde of the olde Testament following the Latine or Greeke so farre as they followe the truth of the Hebrue texte and no farther As for the saying of S. Augustine to Faustâ—s the Manichee You are the rule of truth doth moste aptly agree to you Papistes and to your Pope for you will not aforde vnto the Scriptures them selues any authoritie or certaintie of truth but vpon your approbation and interpretation
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
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
one Heretike not onely correcting his fellow euery day but one egerly refuting and refelling an other Bucer and the Osiandrians and c Sacramentaries against Luther for false translations Luther against Munster Beza against Castaleo Castaleo against Beza Caluin against Seruetus Illyricus both against Caluin and Beza The Puritanes controule the grosser Caluinists of our country yea the later translations of the selfe same Heretikes controule the former exceedingly not onely of ouersights but of wilfull falsifications as it is notorious in the later editions of Luther and Beza and in our Englishe Bibles set forth in diuerse yeares from Tindall their first translatour vntill this day yea which is more the Englishe translatours of Bezaes newe Testament controule him and his translation which they protest to followe being afraide sometime and ashamed to expresse in Englishe his false translations in the Latin FVLK 24. By false translations wilfully and of purpose to falsifie the truth of Gods word is as grosse as abhominable treacherie as to corrupt the verie text although I thinke S. Paule speaking of the couertures or cloakes of dishonestie and adultering of the worde of God 2. Cor. 4. meaneth a further cūning than false translations That those whom you call heretikes finde fault with one an others translations they do none otherwise than you Popish heretikes Do not you Gregorie Martin in the 7. chapter and 33. section of this booke finde fault with all the Catholikes as you terme them that translate Sheol Sepulchrum a sepulchre and not alwayes hell If Bucer or Zwinglius do iustly obserue any errour in Luther or Luther in Munster or Beza in Castalio the Anabaptist or Caluine in Seruetus the horrible heretike yea and if froward schismaticall Illyricus can discouer any errour committed by Caluine and Beza the truth leeseth nothing when the errours of men are found out by what meanes soeuer That you speake of the Puritanes controuling the grosser Caluinistes of our countrie I knowe not what you meane neither doe I thinke you can iustifie your words for translation of the Scriptures Where you say the later translations of the selfe same heretikes controule the former exceedingly not only of ouersightes but of wilfull falsifications it is a wilfull and impudent sclaunder yet you blushe not to say it is notorious Howe I pray you You aunswere in the later editions of Luther and Beza and in our Englishe Bibles set forth in diuerse yeares from Tyndall their first translatour That Luther Beza and the later translatours of the Englishe Bibles haue corrected some small faultes that haue escaped in their former editions it may be graunted But doe Luther and Beza therefore accuse them selues or the later Englishe translatours the former of wilfull falsifications I thinke those brute beastes to whome Ambrose ascribeth the arte of making syllogismes if they could speake would not conclude thus brutishly Certaine it is that Balaams asse did reason substantially But muche more you saye the Englishe translatours of Bezaes newe Testament doe controule him and his translation being somtimes afraid and ashamed to expresse his false translations If it be so they are more modest than you which seeme to bee afrayed or ashamed of nothing so much as least you might seeme to faile in vnshamefastnesse But to the purpose If they thinke Beza as all men may erre hath somewhat troden awrye is it a faulte to auoyde his steppe or a prowde controuling or accusing him of falsification Neuerthelesse wherein soeuer Luther Beza or the Englishe translatours haue reformed any of their former ouersightes the matter is not so great that it can make an heresie Yea if you were of Sainct Augustines iudgement you would acknowledge that the multitude and diuersitie of translations is for the benefite of them that be ignoraunt in the tongues yea of them also that be learned in them oftentimes that of diuerse mens translations they may iudge which is the aptest MART. 25. But in this Catalogue of dissentions falsifiers and disagreeing translatours I will not greatly rippe vp old faultes neyther abroad nor at home I leaue Luthers false translations into the Germaine tongue to the credite of Staphylus Apolog. part 2. and Emserus praef Annot. in no. Test. Luth. and other Germaine writers of his owne time that saw them read them and reckoned the number of them in the new Testament only about 1400. hereticall corruptions I leaue Caluines and Bezas french corruptions to so many worthie men as haue noted them in their french bookes against the said heretikes Tindals and his companions corruptions in their first English Bible to our learned countreymen of that age and namely to the right reuerend Father and Confessor Bishop Tonstal who in a sermon openly protested that he had foūd in the new Testament onely no lesse than two thousand If wee know it not or wil not beleeue it strangers in their Latine writings testifie it to the world FVLK 25. We are muche beholding to you that you will not rippe vp olde faultes abroad nor at home and leaue Luthers Dutch translation with a 1400. hereticall corruptions in the new Testament only with Caluins Bezaes French corruptions noted by Vigor and the rest Also Tyndals his companions corruptions in their first English Bible in whose translation of the new Testament Bishop Tonstal professed openly in a sermon that he found no lesse than 2000. corruptions This you know he protested with the same tongue with which he forsware the Pope sware to the kings supremacie and with which he preached a solēne sermō which is in print before the King against the Popes vsurped tirāny pride false doctrine couetousnesse crueltie treason peruerting of Scriptures as in the same Sermon more at large it appeareth and therefor we neede not Lindanus writing to testifie of his credit But thankes be to God that when you haue scraped all that vnto you seemed to haue any shewe of corruption you can not finde 200. faultes in the translation of the whole Bible nor in three seuerall translations of the same which pointes you are faine to dilate with such vaine tautologies and repetitions that all learned men are ashamed of your tedious writing and yet to make your booke to be of some tollerable lēgth you had no better shift than to note a sort of Bezaes corruptions in his Latine Testament Who if you woulde write against him in Latine any thing worth the noting woulde thanke you for your paynes and reforme his errours but if you brought nothing but cauils woulde so shake you vppe as you shoulde haue small ioy of your insolent inuectiue but you prouided well for that by writing against a Frenchman in Englishe And as for the number of errours or coruptions that you woulde haue the ignoraunt beleeue to bee in our Englishe translations you thinke is so greate as must needes make the simple abhorre it But looke homewarde a litle vnto
Christ as I haue shewed before MART. 43. Well let vs goe forwarde in their owne daunce You allowe at the least the Iewes Canonicall bookes of the olde Testament that is all that are extant in the Hebrewe Bible and all of the newe Testament without exception Yea that we doe In these bookes then will you be tried by the vulgar auncient Latine Bible onely vsed in all the West Church aboue a thousandyeares No. Will you be tried by the Greeke Bible of the Septuaginta interpreters so renowmed and authorised in our Sauiours owne speaches in the Euangelistes and Apostles writings in the whole Greeke Church euermore No How then will you be tried They answere Only by the Hebrue Bible that now is and as now it is pointed with vowels Will you so and do you thinke that only the true authenticall Hebrue which the holy Ghost did first put into the pennes of those sacred writers We do thinke it say they and esteeme it the only authenticall and true Scripture of the old Testament FVLK 43. Where so many of your owne Popish writers do accuse your vulgar Latine text of innumerable corruptions what reason is there that we should follow that translation onely especially seeing God hath giuen vs knowledge of the tongues that we may resort to the fountaines them selues as S. Augustine exhorteth As for the Greeke translation of the Septuaginta from which your owne vulgar Latine varieth although we reuerence it for the antiquitie and vse it for interpretation of some obscure places in the Hebrew why should you require vs to be tried thereby which will not be tried by it your selues If I were as captious as you are with Iohn Keltrige about the Greeke Bible of the Septuaginta Interpreters I might make sporte with you as you doe with him but I acknowledge your Synâ—cdoche that you meane the olde Testament onely whereas the word Bible is commonly taken for both But to the purpose we acknowledge the text of the olde Testament â—n Hebrew and Chaldee for in the Chaldee tongue were some partes of it written as it is now printed with vowels to be the onely fountaine out of which we muste draw the pure truth of the Scriptures for the olde Testament adioyning herewith the testimonie of the Mazzoreth where any diuersitie of pointes letters or wordes is noted to haue bene in sundry auncient copies to discerne that which is proper to the whole context from that which by errour of the writers or printers hath bene brought into any copie olde or newe MATT. 44. We aske them againe what say you then to that place of the Psalme where in the Hebrue it is thus As a lion my handes and my feete for that which in truth should be thus They digged or pearced my hands and my feete being an euident prophecie of Christes nailing to the crosse There in deede say they we followe not the Hebrue but the Greeke text Sometime then you follow the Greeke and not the Hebrue onely And what if the same Greeke text make for the Catholikes as in these places for example I haue inclined my hart to keepe thy iustifications for reward and Redeeme thy sins with almes might we not obtaine here the like fauour at your handes for the Greeke texte specially when the Hebrue doth not disagree No say they nor in no other place where the Greeke is neuer so plaine if the Hebrue worde at the least may be any otherwise interpreted drawen to an other significatioÌ„ FVLK 44. We say to you first that you haue falsely pointed the Hebrue word in the margeÌ„t for all the printed bookes that euer I haue seene as Bomberge both in folio and quarto Stephanus Basil Plantine Arias Montanus CoÌ„plutensis al place Camets vnder Caph where you make Patach But perhaps your Hebrue is most out of MuÌ„sters Dictionarie where it is pointed as you make it But for answere to your question we say that their is a double testimonie of the Mazzorites to proue that in the most auncient and best corrected copies the Hebrue was Caru they haue digged or pearced this is testified not onely by our translators but also by Ioannes Isaac your owne Rabbin against Lindanus a prelate of yours And this the auctors of the Complutense edition doe acknowledge for thus they haue pointed it Caru where is nothing but the redundans of Aleph whiche is vnderstood in euery Camets differing from the vsuall reading and declining of the Verbe Carah that signifieth to pearce or digge Againe where it is redde otherwise if it be rightly pointed as it is in Arias Montanus Caari it cannot signifie Sicut leo as a lion as both the Mazzorites do teach and Iohannes Isaac a Grammarian out of theÌ„ by the points the note ouer iod doth plainly demonstrate For what should shureâ—h sound in iod or if you would contend it should be Daghes to what purpose should it be in iod if the worde should signifie as a lion Therefore howsoeuer this varietie of copies came either by negligence of some writers or by corruption of the Iewes wee haue sufficient warrant for the auncient and true reading whiche the Greeke translator did followe whiche also was in S. Hieromes copie otherwise hee woulde not haue translated out of the Hebrue Fixerunt they haue pearced Therefore Rabbi Ioseph which made the Chaldeâ— Paraphrase vpon the Psalter laboured to expresse both the copies as well that which hath plainely they haue pearced as that whiche hath it corruptly as though it spake of a Lion and yet can not rightly be so translated because the points are imperfect euen for that reading Therefore he hath saide Nikethin Heich Cheariah They haue indented and pearced like a lion my handes and my feete as it is in the Venice print of Daniel Bomberg although Arias Montanus in his Bible haue no more but Nachethin which he traslateth biting my handes and my feete I haue played the foole to vtter these matters in the mother tongue to ignorant men that can make no triall of them but you haue not only giuen me example but also enforced me with your vnsoluble question as you thought by one word somewhat out of frame to ouerthrow the whole Hebrue text But you are to be pardoned for that you follow your M. Lindanus herein who hath nothing else in effect to quarrel against the Hebrue text but this therfore he repeteth it in many places to make greater shew of it as you doe In other places where the Hebrue worde hath diuerse significations who shall forbid vs to chuse that which is most agreeable to the circumstance of the text and to the analogie or rule of faith MART. 45. We replie againe and say vnto them why Is not the credit of those Septuaginta interpreters who them selues were Iewes and best learned in their owne tongue and as S. Augustine often and other auncient fathers say were inspired with the holy Ghost in translating the
Hebrue Bible into Greeke Is not their credit I say in determining and defining the signification of the Hebrue worde farre greater than yours No. Is not the authoritie of all the auncient fathers both Greeke and Latine that followed them equiualent in this case to your iudgement No say they but because we finde some ambiguitie in the Hebrue we will take the aduantage and we will determine and limit it to our purpose FVLK 45. S. Hieronym aboundantly aunswereth this cauill denying that supposed inspiration and deâ—iding the fable of their 70. celles which yet pleased Augustine greately yea calling in question whether anye more were translated by them than the fiue bookes of Moses because Aristaeus a writer in Ptolomees time and after him Iosephus make mention of no more The same cause therfore that moued S. Hierome to translate out of the Hebrewe mooueth vs whose translation if we had it sounde ande perfect might much further vs for the same purpose Althoughe for the signification of the Hebrewe wordes we require no more credite than that which al they that be learned in the Hebrewe tongue must be forced to yeelde vnto vs. And seeing your vulgare Latine departeth from the Septuagintaes interpretation euen in the bookes of Moses whiche if anie bee theirs may most rightly be accounted theirs because it is certaine they translated them although it be not certaine whether they translated the rest with what equity do you require vs to credite them which your owne vulgare translation affirmeth to haue translated amisse as I haue shewed before in the example of Canans generation An other example you haue in the 4 of Genesis Nonne si bene egeris recipies c. If thou shalt do wel shalt thou not receiue but if thou shalt doe euill straighte-way thy sinnes shall be present in the doores The greke texte hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. not if thou haste rightly offered but thou hast not rightly diuided hast thou sinned be stil. Where your translation commeth muche nearer to the Hebrue as might be shewed in verie many examples As for the auncient fathers credit of the greeke Church and the Latine that folowed them if our iudgement alone be not aequiualent vnto them yet let these auncient fathers Origene and Hierome that thought them not sufficient to be followed and therefore gathered or framed other interpretations let theyr iudgement I say ioining with ours discharge vs of this fonde and enuious accusation MART. 46. Againe we condiscend to their wilfulnes and say what if the Hebrewe be not ambiguous but so plaine and certaine to signifie one thing that it can not bee plainer As Thou shalt not leaue my soule in Hel whiche prooueth for vs that Christ in soule descended into Hell Is not the one Hebrewe worde as proper for soule as anima in Latine the other as proper and vsual for hel as infernus in Latine Heere then at the least wil you yeeld No say they not here neither for Beza telleth vs that the word which commonly and vsually signifieth soule yet for a purpose if a man wil straine it may signifie not onely bodie but also carcase and so he translateth it But Beza say we being admonished by his friendes corrected it in his later edition Yea say they he was content to change his translation but not his opinion concerning the Hebrewe worde as himselfe protesteth FVLK 46. You haue chosen a text for example wherein is least colour except it bee with the vnlearned of an hundred For whereas you aske whether Nephesh be no not as proper for soule as anima in Latin Sheol for Hel as infernus in Latine I vtterly deny both the one and the other For nephesh is properly the life and Sheol the graue or pit though it may sometimes be taken for Hel which is a consequent of the death of the vngodly as nephesh is taken for person or ones selfe or as it is sometimes for a dead carcase Yea there be that hold that it is neuer taken for the reasonable immortall soule of a man as anima is specially of Ecclesiasticall writers That Beza translated the Greeke of the newe Testament after the signification of the Hebrewe wordes althoughe it was true in sense yet in mine opinion it was not proper in wordes and therefore he himselfe hath corrected it in his latter editions as you confesse hee hathe not chaunged hys opinion concerning the Hebrewe the reason is because it is grounded vppon manifest textes of Scripture whiche hee citeth Leuit. 19. verse 27. cap. 21. verse 1. and 11. Num. 5. verse 2. and 9. verse 10. In the firste place your owne vulgare Latine translation for la nephesh turneth mortuo you shall not cut your flesh for one that is dead In the second place your vulgare Latine hathe Ne non contaminetur sacerdos in mortibus and Ad omnem mortuum non ingredietur omnino Lette not the Priest bee defiled with the deathes of his countreymen and The highe Priest shall not enter into any dead bodie at all where the Hebrue is lenephesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the thirde place your vulgare Latine readeth polluiusque est super mortuo they shall caste out him that is polluted by touching a dead carcase where the Hebrewe is lanephesh In the first place your vulgare Latine hathe indede anima but in the same sense that it had before mortuo for the text is of him that is vncleane by touching any dead bodie which in Hebrue is nephesh How say you nowe is the Hebrewe worde as proper for soule as anima in Latine except you wil say the Latine worde anima dothe properly signifie a dead bodie hathe not Beza good reason to retaine his opinion concerning the Hebrewe worde when hee hathe the authoritie of youre owne vulgare translation You that note such iumps and shiftes in vs whether wil you leape to saue your honestie will you saye the Hebrewe texte is corrupted since your translation was drawen out of it The seauentie interpretours then will crie out againste you for they with one mouth in all these places for the Hebrewe worde nephesh render the vsuall signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adding in the 21. of Leuit. v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which either you muste translate a deade bodie or you shall call it absurdly a dead soule Woulde any man think to haue founde in you eyther suche grosse ignoraunce or shamefull negligence or intollerable malice against the trueth that Beza sending you to the places eyther you woulde not or you coulde not examine them or if you dydde examine them that you woulde notwythstanding thus malitiouslye agaynste youre owne knowledge and conscience raile against him you make vs to saye if a manne will straine the worde it may signifie not onely bodie but also carcase What saye you did Moses straine the worde to that signification You saide beefore that wee were at the iumps and turnings of
to the Greeke text by one that fauoured Peters primacie Is it so then you will not stande to this Greeke texte neither Not in this place saith Beza FVLK 49. In graunting Peter to be the firste wee neede not graunt him to be the chiefe and if we graunt him to be the chiefe it followeth not that he is chiefe in auctoritie But if that were graunted it is not necessarie that he was head of the Church And albeit that were also graunted the Bishop of Rome could gaine nothing by it But what saith Beza where the texte saith the firste Peter If wee muste beleeue you hee saith No wee will graunt you no suche thing for these wordes were added to the Greeke texte by one that fauoured Peters primacie I praye you Martin where hath Beza those wordes will you neuer leaue this shamefull forgerie Beza in the tenth of Mathew doth only aske the question Quid si hoc vocabulum c. what if this worde were added by some that would establish the Primacie of Peter for nothing followeth that may agree with it This asketh Beza but as an obiectioÌ„ which immediatly after he answeareth concludeth that it is no addition but a naturall word of the text found in all copies confessed by Theophylact an enimie of the Popes primacie and defendeth it in the third of Marke where it is not in the common Greeke copies nor in the vulgar Latine against Erasmus who finding it in some Greeke copies thought it was vntruely added out of Mathew But Beza saith Ego verò non dubito quin haec sit germana lectio But I doubte not but this is the true and right reading of the texte and therefore hee translateth Primâ—inâ— Simonem the firste Simon out of the fewe copies Erasmus speaketh of Therefore it is an abhominable slaunder to charge him with following the common receyued texte where it seemeth to make against you when hee contendeth for the truth against the common text yea and against your owne vulgar Latine to giue you that which you make so great accompte of that Peter in the Cataloge of the Apostles was firste So greatly hee feareth to acknowledge that Peter was called first And so true it is that you charge him to say No wee will graunt you no such thing for these wordes were added to the Greeke texte by one that fauoured Peters primacie I hope your favourers seeing your forgerie thus manifestly discouered will giue you lesse credite in other your shamelesse slaunders at the leastwise this in equitie I trust all Papistes will graunt not to beeleue your report against any mans writing except they reade it thoÌ„selues Now â—â—at this worde the first argueth no primacie or superioritie beside those places quoted by Beza Act. 26. 20. Rom. 1 8. 3 2. You may read 1. Par. v 23 24. where the posteritie of Leui and Aaron are rehearsed as they were appointed by Dauid in their orders or courses Subuel primus Rohobia primus sors prima Ioiarib c. where least you should thinke of any headship or principalitie because the Hebrue is somtime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you may see that Subuel is called primus of the sonnes of Gerson when there is no more mentioned more expresly Rohobia is called primus of the sonnes of Eleazer of whome it is sayd that he had no more sonnes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth here the first in order it appeareth by those generations where the second third or fourth is named as in the sonnes of Hebron and of Oziel Also in the sonnes of Semei where Iehoth is counted the first Ziza the second Iaus and Beria becaused they increase not in sonnes were accounted for one familie In all which there is no other primacy than in the first lot of Ioiarib where the Hebrew worde is harishuon and so follow the restâ—n order vnto foure and twenty courses Therefore there is no cause why we should not stand to the Greeke text in that place neither did Beza euer deny to stande to it MART. 50. Let vs see an other place You must graunt vs saywe by this Greeke text that Christes very bloud which was shed for vs is really in the chalice because S. Luke sayth so in the Greeke text No sayth Beza those Greeke wordes came out of the margem into the text and therefore I translate not according to them but according to that which I thinke the truer Greeke text although I finde it in no copies in the world and this his doing is maintained iustified by our English Protestants in their writings of late FVLK 50. Still Beza speaketh as you inspire into him while he speaketh through your throte or quil The truth is Beza sayth that either there is a manifest Soloecophanes that is an appearance of incongruitie or els those wordes which is shed for you seeme to be added out of S. Mathew or els it is an errour of the writers placing that in the nominatiue case which should be in the datiue For in the datiue case did Basil read them in his morals 21. definition Neuertheles all our olde bookes sayth Beza had it so written as it is commonly printed in the nominatiue case Here are three seuerall disiunctions yet can you finde none but one proposition that you set downe as though it were purely and absolutely affirmed by Beza Likewise where you speake of no copies in the world you say more than Beza who speaketh but of such copies as he had who if he were of no better conscience than you would haue him seeme to be might faine some copie in his owne handes to salue the matter But the truth is that since he wrote this he found one more auncient copie both in Greeke and Latine which nowe is at Cambridge where this whole verse is wanting But of this matter which somewhat concerneth my selfe particularly I shall haue better occasion to write in the places by you quoted cap. 1. num 37. and cap. 17. num 11. where I will so iustifie that which I haue written before touching this place as I trust all learned and indifferent Readers shall see how vainely you insult against me where you bewray grosser ignorance in Greeke phrases than euer I woulde haue suspected in you being accounted the principall Linguist of the Seminarie at Rhemes MART. 51. Well yet sayewe there are places in the same Greeke text as plaine for vs as these now cited where you can not say it came out of the margent or it was added falsely to the text Aâ— Stand and hold fast the traditions c. by this text we require that you graunt vs traditions deliuered by word of mouth as wel as the written word that is the Scriptures No say they we know the Greeke word signifieth tradition as plaine as possibly but here and in the like places we rather translate it ordinances instructions and what els soeuer Nay Sirs
say we you can not so answer the matter for in other places you translate it duely and truely tradition and why more in one place than in another They are ashamed to tell why but they must tell and shame both thom selues and the deuill if euer they thinke it good to answer this treatise as also why they changed congregation which was alwaies in their first translation into Church in their later translations and did not change likewise ordinances into traditions Elder◠into Priestes FVLK 51. That the Thessalonians had some parte of Christian doctrine deliuered by word of mouth that is by the Apostles preaching at such time as he did write vnto them and some part by his Epistles the text enforceth vs to graunt and we neuer purposed to denye But that the Church at this daye or euer since the newe Testament was written had any tradition by worde of mouth of any matter necessary to saluation which was not contayned in the olde or newe Testament we will neuer graunt neither shall you euer be able out of this text or any text in the Bible to proue Make your Syllogismes when you dare and you shall be aunswered But we knowe you saye that the Greeke word signifieth tradition as plaine as possibly but here and in like places we rather translate it ordinances instructions and what else soeuer We knowe that it signifieth tradition constitution instruction precept also mancipation treatise treason For al these the Greeke Dictionaries do teach that it signifieth Therefore if in any place we haue translated it ordinaunces or instructions or institutions we haue not gone from the true signification of the worde neither can you euer proue that the worde signifieth such a doctrine onely as is taught by worde of mouth and is not or may not be put in writing But in other places you can tell vs that we translate it duely and truly tradition and you will know why more in one place than in another affirming that we are shamed to tell why For my part I was neuer of counsaile with any that translated the Scriptures into English and therefore it is possible I can not sufficiently expresse what reason moued the translators so to varie in the exposition of one and the same worde Yet can I yeelde sufficient reason that might leade them so to doe which I thinke they followed The Papistes doe commonly so abuse the name of tradition which signifieth properly a deliuerie or a thinge deliuered for such a matter as is deliuered onely by worde of mouth and so receaued from hande to hande that it is neuer put in writing but hath his credite without the holye Scriptures of God as the Iewe had their Cabala and the Scribes Pharisees had their traditions beside the lawe of God and the Valentinian Heretikes accused the Scriptures as insufficient of authoritie and ambiguously written and that the truth could not be found in them by those that knewe not the tradition which was not deliuered by writing but by worde of mouth iumpe as the Papists doe This abusing of the word tradition might be a sufficient cause for the translators to render the Greeke worde where it is taken for such doctrine as is beside the commaundement of God by the name of tradition as the worde is commonly taken But where the Greeke worde is taken in the good parte for that doctrine which is agreeable with the holy Scriptures they might with good reason auoide it as you your selfe doe not alwayes translate tradere to betray but sometimes to deliuer So did the translators giue these words ordinances instructions institutions or doctrine deliuered which doe generally signifie the same that tradition but haue not the preiudice of that partiall signification in which the Papistes vse it who wheresoeuer they find tradition straight way imagine they haue found a sufficient argument against the perfection and sufficiencie of the holy Scripture and to bring in all riffe raffe and trishe trashe of mans doctrine not onely beside but also contrarye to the manifest worde of God conteined in his most holy and perfect Scriptures To the shame of the deuill therefore and of all popish maintainers of traditions vncommaunded by God this reason may be yelded Nowe to aunswer you why Ecclesia was first translated congregation and afterward Church the reason that moued the firste translators I thinke was this the worde Churche of the common people at that tyme was vsed ambiguously both for the assemblie of the faythfull and for the place in which they assembled for auoyding of which ambiguitie they translated Ecclesia the congregation and yet in their Creede and in the notes of their Bibles in preaching writing they vsed the word Church for the same the later translators seing the people better instructed able to discerne when they read in the Scriptures the people from the place of their meeting vsed the worde Church in their translations as they did in their preaching These are weightie matters that wee muste giue accompt of them Why we chaunge not ordinances into traditions and Elders into Priests wee will answere when we come to the proper places of them In the meane season wee thinke there is as good cause for vs in translating sometime to auoide the termes of traditions and prieste as for you to auoid the names of Elders calling them auncients and the wise men sages as though you had rather speake French than English as we do Like as you translate Conside haue a good hart after the french phrase rather than you would say as we do be of good comforte MART. 52. The cause is that the name of Church was at the first odious vnto thē because of the Catholike Church which stoode against them but afterward this name grewe into more favour with them because of their English Church so at length called and termed But their hatred of Priests and traditions continueth still as it first began and therefore their translation also remaineth as before suppressing the names both of the one and of the other But of all these their dealings they shal be told in their seuerall chapiters and places FVLK 52. I pray you who translated first the creed into the English tongue and taught it to the people for that cause were accounted heretikes of the Antichristian Romish rable If the name of Churche were odious vnto them why didde they not suppresse that name in the creede whyche they taught to yong and olde and in steede of Catholike Church call it the vniuersal congregation or assembly Wel Dauus these things be not aptely diuided according to their times The firste translation of the Bible that was printed in the english tong in very many places of the notes vseth the name Church most notoriously in the song of Salomon where before euery other verse almost it telleth which is the voice of the Church to Christ her spous◠which no reasonable man would thinke the translators would
you so malitious an enimie vnto him hauing spent all your inuention to seeke holes in his translation can finde nothing but such childish cauils as when they be discouered men will maruaile that you were not ashamed to moue them MART. 56. But after this generall vewe of their wilfull purpose and heretical intention let vs examine their false translations more particularly and argue the case with them more at large and presse them to answere whether in their conscience it be so or no as hitherto is saide and that by seuerall chapters of such CONTROVERSIES as their corruptions concerne and first of all without further curiositie whence to begin in cases so indifferent of TRADITIONS FVLK 56. The more particularly you examine our translations the freer I hope they shall be found from falsehoode wilfull corruption And the more at large you argue the case and presse vs to answere the more you shall make the case to appeare worse on your side and the truth clearer on our parte And as God is witnesse of our conscience and sinceritie in setting forth his word without adulteration or corruptiō so I appeale to the consciences of al indifferent readers whether hitherto you haue gotten any aduantage against vs in this whole chapter which yet you professe to be the abridgement and summe of your whole treatise CHAP. II. Hereticall translation of holy Scripture against Apostolicall TRADITIONS Martin THis is a matter of such importance that if they shoulde graunt any traditions of the Apostles and not pretende the written worde onely they know that by such traditions mentioned in all antiquitie their religion were wholy defaced and ouerthrowen For remedie whereof and for the defacing of all such traditions they bend their translations against them in this wonderfull maner Wheresoeuer the holy Scripture speaketh against certaine traditions of the Iewes partly friuolous partly repugnant to the law of God there all the English translations follow the Greeke exactly neuer omitting this word tradition Contrariwise wheresoeuer the holy Scripture speaketh in the commendation of Traditions to wit such traditions a◠the Apostles deliuered to the Church there all their sayd translations agree not to followe the Greeke which is still the selfe same word but for traditions they translate ordinaunces or instructions Why so and to what purpose we appeale to the worme of their conscience which continually accuseth them of an hereticall meaning whether by vrging the word traditions wheresoeuer they are discommended and by suppressing the word wheresoeuer they are commended their purpose and intent be not to signifie to the Reader that all traditions are naught and none good all reproueable none allowable Fulke TRaditions in deede is a matter of such importance as if you may be allowed whatsoeuer you will thrust vpon vs vnder the name of vnwritten traditions the written worde of God shall serue to no purpose at all For first as you plainly professe the holy Scripture shall not be accounted sufficient to teach all truth necessary to saluation that the man of God may be perfect prepared to all good works Secondly with the Valentinian heretikes you accuse the Scriptures of vncertaine vnderstāding without your traditions vnder pretense of which you wil bring in what you list though it be neuer so contrary to the holy Scriptures plaine wordes by colour of interpretatiō as you do the worshipping of images many other like heresies As for the mention that is made of Apostolicall traditions in diuerse of the auncient fathers some of thē are such as you your selues obserue not not for the tenth part of those that you obserue can you bring any testimony out of the ancient fathers as is proued sufficiently by so many propositiōs as were set downe by the Bishoppe of Sarisburie M. Iewel whereof you can bring no proofe for any one to haue bene taught within 600. yeres after Christ. Now concerning the traditions of the Apostles what they were who can be a better witnesse vnto vs than Ignatius the disciple of the Apostles of whom Eusebius writeth that when he was led towardes Rome where he suffred martyrdom he earnestly exhorted the Churches by which he passed to continue in the faith and against all heresies which euen then began to bud vp he charged thē to retaine fast the traditiō of the Apostles which by that time he protested to be committed to writing for by that time were al the books of the new Testament written The words of Eusebius concerning this matter are li. 3. c. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he exhorted thē straitly to kepe the tradition of the Apostles which testifying that it was now for assurance cōmitted to writing he thought necessary to be plainly taught Against this tradition of the Apostles which for certaintie assurance is contained in their holy vndoubted writings we say nothing but striue altogither for it But because the word traditions is by you Papistes taken to signifie a doctrine secretely deliuered by worde of mouth without authority of the holy Scriptures we do willingly auoide the word in our translations where the simple might be deceiued to think that the holy ghost did euer cōmēd any such to the church which he would not haue to be committed to writing in the holy Scriptures in steede of that word so commōly taken although it doth not necessarily signifie any such matters we doe vse such wordes as do truly expresse the Apostles meaning the Greke word doth also signifie Therfore we vse the words of ordināces or instructiōs or institutiōs or the doctrine deliuered all which being of one sense the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doeth signifie and the same doth tradition signifie if it be rightly vnderstoode but seing it hath bene commonly taken and is vrged of the Papistes to signifie only a doctrine deliuered beside the word of God written in such places where the holy Ghost vseth the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that sense we translate by that worde tradition where he vseth it for such doctrine as is groūded vpon the holy Scriptures our translatours haue auoyded it not of any hereticall meaning that all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions are naught but that all such as haue not the holy Scripture to testifie of them and to warrant them are euill and to be auoyded of all true Christians which can not without blasphemie acknowledge any imperfection in the holy Scriptures of God which are able to make a man wise vnto saluation if they shoulde thinke any doctrine necessarie to saluation not to be cōtained therein MART. 2. For example Matt. 15. Thus they translate Why do thy disciples transgresse the TRADITION of the Elders And againe Why do you also transgresse the commaundement of God by your TRADITION And againe Thus haue you made the commaundement of God of no effect by your TRADITION Here I warrant you all the bels sound tradition and the word is neuer omitted
of faith necessarie to saluation are comprehended But we are content to be iudged by those places which seeme of most importance for the dignity preheminence authoritye of the Church MART. 2. Our Sauiour saith Vpon this Rocke I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it They make him to say Vpō this rocke I wil build my congregation Againe If he heare not them tell the Church if he heare not the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and as a publicane they say Congregation Againe who woulde thinke they woulde haue altered the worde Church in the Epistle to the Ephesians their English translation for many yeares red thus Ye husbands loue your wiues as Christ loued the congregation and clensed it to make it vnto him selfe a glorious congregation without spot or wrinkle And This is a great secrete but I speake of Christ of the cōgregation And to Timothee The house of God which is the cōgregation of the liuing God the pillar and grounde of truth Here is no worde of Churche which in Latine Greeke is Ecclesia Dei viui columna firmamētum veritatis Likewise to the Ephesians againe He hath made him heade of the congregation which is his bodie And to the Hebrues they are all bolde to translate The congregation of the first borne where the Apostle nameth heauenly Hierusalem the citie of the liuing God c. FVLK 2. In the first English Bible printed where it was thus translated Math. 16. vppon this rocke I will build my congregation the note in the margent is thus vpon this rock that is as saith S. Augustin vpon the confession which thou hast made knowledging me to be Christ the sonne of the liuing God I will build my congregation or Church Was not this translator thinke you sore afraid of the name of the Church What other thing should he vnderstand by the word congregation in al places by you noted or in any like but the church as he doth here expound him selfe And this translation almost worde for worde doth the Bible you call 1562. follow MART. 3. So that by this translation there is no more Church militant and triumphant but congregation and he is not head of the Church but of the congregation and this congregation at the time of the making of this translation was in a few new brethren of England for whose sake the name Church was left out of the English Bible to commend the name of congregation aboue the name of Church Whereas S. Augustine telleth them that the Iewes Synagogue was a congregation the Church a conuocation and that a congregation is of beasts also a conuocation of reasonable creatures onely and that the Iewes congregation is sometime called the Church but the Apostles neuer called the Church Congregation Doe you see then what a goodly chaunge they haue made for Church to say congregation so making themselues a very Synagogue that by the property of the Greeke word which yet as S. Augustine telleth them most truely signifieth rather a conuocation FVLK 3. A strange matter that the Church militant and triumphant should be excluded by vsing the word congregation when by it nothing is signified but the congregation or Church militant and triumphant and that Christ should no more be head of the Churche when he is head of the congregation where the differēce is only in sound of words not in sense or meaning Your vaine and ridiculous surmise why the name of Church shuld be left out of the Bible I haue before cōfuted shewing that in euery Bible it is either in the text or in the notes But S. Augustin telleth vs say you that the Iewes synagoge was a congregation the church a cōuocation that a congregation is of beasts also a conuocation of reasonable creatures only But S. Luke in the person of S. Stephen telleth vs and Augustine telleth vs as much that the synagoge of the Iewes is called also Ecclesia which signifieth the church and congregation That Congregatio the Latin word may be of beasts also it skilleth not for the church of Christ is called also a flocke and sheepe of his pasture But he that should say in English a cōgregation of beastes might be taken for as wise a man as he that said an audiēce of sheepe And wheras S. Augustine telleth you that the Iewes congregation is somtime called the church what is the cause that you doe translate it the assembly Act. 7. euen as you do the congregation of the Idolatrous Ephesians Act. 19 But further you say Augustine telleth vs that the Apostles neuer called the church congregation It is a worlde to see what foolishe fetches you haue to deceiue the ignoraunt Augustine sayeth the Apostles neuer called our assembly Synagoga but alwaies Ecclesia and yet he is a litle deceiued for S. Paul calleth our gathering togither vnto Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Congregatio a cōgregation he saith not And although he make a nice distinction betwene the wordes Congregation Conuocation yet all men which know the vse of these words will confesse no necessitie of a Iewish synagoge to be implied in the word cōgregation more than in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of the holy Ghost is vsed for an assembly or gathering togither either of Iewes Christiās or Gentils And therfore it seemeth the translatour vsed the word congregation which is indifferent for all euen as the worde Ecclesia is vsed both in the Greeke and vulgar Latine MART. 4. If they appeale here to their later translatiōs we must obtaine of them to condemne the former and to confesse this was a grosse fault cōmitted therein And that the Catholike Church of our coūtrie did not il to forbid burne such bookes which were so translated by Tyndal and the like as being not in deede Gods booke worde or Scripture but the Diuels worde Yea they must confesse that the leauing out of this worde Church altogither was of an hereticall spirite against the Catholike Romane Church because then they had no Caluinisticall Church in any like forme of religion gouernement to theirs now Neither will it serue them to say after their maner And if a man should translate Ecclesiam congregation this is no more absurdity than in steede of a Greeke word to vse a Latin of the same signification This we trow will not suffise them in the iudgement of the simplest indifferent Reader FVLK 4. Wee neede not to appeale to the later translations for any corruption or falsification of the former no nor for any mistranslation For seing the spirite of God as I haue said before vseth the word Ecclesia generally for a companie of Christians Iewes and Gentils the translator hath not gone from the truth and vse of the Scriptures to vse the word cōgregation which signifieth indifferently all three Wherefore there needeth no condemnation nor
Presbyter Doeth not Priest come of Presbyter as certainly and as agreeably as Deacon of Diaconus Doth not also the French and Italian word for Priest come directly from the same Will you alwaies followe fansie and not reason doe what you list translate as you list and not as the truth is and that in the holy Scriptures which you boast and vaunt so much of Because your selues haue theÌ„ whom you call Bishops the name Bishops is in your Englishe Bibles which otherwise by your owne rule of translation should be called an Ouerseer or Superintendent likewise Deacon you are content to vse as an Ecclesiasticall word so vsed in antiquitie because you also haue those whom you call Deacons Only Priests must be turned contemptuously out of the text of the holy Scriptures Elders put in their place because you haue no Priestes nor will none of them and because that is in controuersie betwene vs. And as for Elders you haue none permitted in EnglaÌ„d for feare of ouerthrowing your Bishops office and the Queenes supreame gouernment in all spiritual things and causes Is not this to followe the humour of your heresie by Machiauels politike rules without any feare of God FVLK 12. Here I must aunswere you that we haue no degree of Ministers distinct from Deacons but by vulgar and popular vse of speaking which we are not curious to controule Otherwise in truth we account Bishops Elders and Deacons all Ministers of the Church It is no more therefore but the common speache of men which vseth that worde which is common to all Ecclesiasticall persons as peculiar to the Elders or Priestes Why we keepe the name of Deacons in translating Diaconus rather than of Priestes in translating Presbyter I haue tolde you often before The name Priest being by long abuse of speache applied to signifie Sacrificers of the olde Testament called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we could not giue the same name to the Ministers of the new Testament except we had some other name whereby to call the Ministers of the olde Testament wherein we followe reason and not fansie for it is great reason we should retaine that difference in names of the Ministers of both the Testamentes which the holy Ghost doth alwaies obserue But you follow fansie altogither imagining that Priestes onely are put out of the text because we haue no Priestes Whereas we haue Priestes as well as we haue Bishops and Deacons and so are they called in our booke of common prayer indifferently Priestes or Ministers And where you say we haue no Elders permitted in Englande it is false for those that are commonly called Bishoppes Ministers or Priestes among vs be suche Elders as the Scripture commendeth vnto vs. And although we haue not suche a consistorie of Elders of gouernemente as in the Primitiue Churche they had and many Churches at this daye haue yet haue wee also Elders of gouernement to exercise discipline as Archbishoppes and Bishoppes with their Chauncellours Archedeacons Commissaries Officialles in whome if any defecte bee we wishe it may be reformed according to the worde of God MART. 13. Apostles you say for the most parte in your translations not alwayes as we doe and Prophetes and Euangelistes and Angels and such like wheresoeuer there is no matter of controuersie betwene you and vs there you can pleade verie grauely for keeping the auncient Ecclesiasticall wordes as your maister Beza for example beside many other places where he bitterly rebuketh his fellow Castalâ—ons translation in one place writeth thus I can not in this place dissemble the boldnesse of certaine men which would God it rested within the compasse of words only These men therefore concerning the worde Baptizing though vsed of sacred writers in the mystery or Sacrament of the new Testament and for so many yeares after by the secrete consent of all Churches consecrated to this one Sacrament so that it is now growen into the vulgar speaches almost of all nations yet they dare presume rashly to chaunge it and in place thereof to vse the word washing Delicate men forsooth which neither are moued with the perpetual authority of so many ages nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speach can be brought to thinke that lawfull for Diuines which all men graunt to other Maisters and professors of artes that is to retaine and holde that as their owne which by long vse and in good faith they haue truly possessed Neither may they preteÌ„d the authoritie of some auncient writers as that Cyprian sayeth TINGENTES for BAâ—PTIZANTES and Tertullian in a certaine place calleth SEQVESTREM for MEDIATOREM For that which was to those auncientes as it were newe to vs is olde and euen then that the selfe same words which we now vse were familiar to the Church it is euident because it is very seldome that they speake otherwise But these men by this noueltie seeke after vaine glorie c. FVLK 13. If in any place we vse not the name of the Apostles Prophetes Euangelists Angels and such like wee are able to giue as sufficient a reason why we translate those wordes according to their Generall signification as you for translating somtime Baptismata washings and not baptismes Ecclesia the assembly and not the Church with such like Therefore as Castaleo such other Heretikes are iustly reprehended by Beza for leauing without cause the vsuall Ecclesiasticall termes so when good cause or necessitie requireth not to vse them it were superstition yea and almost madnes sometimes in translating to vse them as to call the Pharisees washings Baptismes or the assembly of the EphesiaÌ„ Idolaters the Churche yet both in Greeke and Latine the wordes are Baptismata ecclesia MART. 14. He speaketh against Castaleon who in his newe Latine translation of the Bible changed all Ecclesiasticall wordes into profane and Heathenish as Angelos into genios Prophetas into Fatidicos Templum into fanum and so foorth But that which he did for foolish affectation of finenesse and stile do not our English Caluinistes the very same when they list for furthering their Heresies When the holy Scripture saith idols according as Christians haue alwayes vnderstood it for false goddes they come and tell vs out of Homer and the Lexicons that it may signifie an image and therfore so they translate it Do they not the like in the Greeke worde that by Ecclesiasticall vse signifieth penaunce and doing penaunce when they argue out of Plutarch and by the profane sense therof that it is nothing else but chaunging of the minde or amendment of life Whereas in the Greeke Church Poenitentes that is they that were in the course of penance and excluded from the Church as Catechumeni and Energumeni till they had accomplished their penance the very same are called in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FVLK 14. That Castaleo did for foolish affectatioÌ„ of finenesse you slauÌ„der vs to do for furthering of heresie
bene accounted is it credible that the holy Ghost would neuer haue called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well yea and rather than the Sacrificers of the olde Testament Seeing therefore the holy Ghost had made such a broade difference betwene their names and offices those auncient fathers that confounded those names which the spirit of God would haue to be distinct can not be excused although they neuer dreamed of the mischiefe that followed that the altar of the crosse being ouerthroweÌ„ the only sufficient sacrifice which Christ our high Sacrificer offered once for all being iudged imperfect a new altar a newe sacrifice and a new sacrificing Priesthoode shoulde be set vp in the steede of it Wherefore the vnproper speaches of the auncient writers are no warrant for vs either to translate the Scripture according to their vnproper speaking or to set vp a newe sacrifice and function of sacrificing contrarie to their meaning They named sacrifice and offering but they meant not propitiatorie sacrifiee but only of prayers or praises and giuing of thankes They named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Sacerdotes but they meant according to the generall etymologie of those wordes suche as were occupied in distributing holy things not suche as shoulde verily sacrifice the bodie of Christ againe to his father but offer the sacrifice of thankes giuing in the Sacrament of the Lordes supper which after a certaine manner as Sainct Augustine sayeth is called the bodie of Christ when in deede it is the Sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ. And it is called the sacrificing of the bodie of Christ not in trueth of the thing but a signifying mysterie as Gracian citeth out of Hierome MART. 25. Likewise when Sainct Ambrose sayth The consecration of the bodie of Christ with what wordes is it and by whose speache Of our Lord Iesus For in the rest that is said there is praise giuen to God prayer made for the people for Kings and others but when it commeth that the venerable Sacrament must be consecrated now the Priest vseth not his owne words but he vseth the wordes of Christ. And S. Chrysostome in very many places saith The sacred oblation it selfe whether Peter or Paul or any meaner Priest whatsoeuer offer it is the verie same that Christ gaue vnto his disciples and which now the Priestes doe make or consecrate Why so I pray thee because not men doe sanctifie this but Christ him selfe which before consecrated the same And againe It is not man that maketh the bodie and bloud of Christ but he that was crucified for vs Christ the wordes are vttered by the Priestes mouth and by Gods power grace are the things proposed consecrated For this sayth he is my bodie With this worde are the things proposed consecrated FVLK 25. These testimonies are heaped vp without any neede for the vnproper vsage of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacerdos in the auncient writers we doe acknowledge but in the holy Scripture you are not able to bring one place where Presbyteri of the newe Testament are called Sacerdotes or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore of the vnproper applying of these names to the Ministers of the newe Testament can followe no consequence of externall sacrifice or altar which you vrge except sacrifice and altar be likewise vsed vnproperly as where the table is called an altar the bread wine a sacrifice as in Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. where also he saith that the sacrifices do not sanctifie the man but the coÌ„science of the man being purâ— sanctifieth the sacrifice and causeth God to accept it as of a friende cap 34. Which can not in any wise be true of the naturall bodie of Christ. MART. 26. And so be these places where them selues translate Sacerdos a Priest they may learne also how to translate Presbyteros in S. Hierome saying the verie same thing that at their praiers the bodie and bloud of our Lord is made And in an other place that with their sacred mouth they make our Lordes bodie Likewise when they read S. Ambrose agaist the Nouatians that God hath grauÌ„ted liceÌ„câ— to his Priests to release forgiue as well great sinnes as litle without exception in the Ecclesiastical history how the Nouatian Heretikes taught that such as were fallen into great sinnes should not aske for remission of the Priest but of God onely they may learne howe to translate Presbyteros in S. Hierom and in the Ecclesiasticall historie where the one sayth thus Episcopus Presbyter cùm peccatorum audierit varietates scit qui ligandus sit qui soluendus and the other speaketh de Presbytero Poenitentiario of an extraordinarie Priest that heard confessions and enioyned penance who afterward was taken away and the people went to diuerse ghostly fathers as before And especially Saint Chrysostome â—ill make them vnderstand what these Presbyteri were and how they are to be called in English who telleth them in their owne word that Sacerdotes the Priestes of the newe lawe haue power not onely to know but to purge the filth of the soule therefore whosoeuer despiseth them is more worthy to be punished than the â—ebell Dathan and his complices FVLK 26. Where S. Hierom vseth the worde Presbyteri we wil make no great curtesie to translate Priests knowing that when he sayth at their prayers the bodie and bloud of Christ is made he meaneth the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ as he him selfe sayth in an other place Dupliciter sanguis Christi â—arâ— intelligitur The bloud and flesh of Christ is vnderstoode two maner of wayes either that spirituall and diuine whereof he him selfe sayde my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede and except yee shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud you shall not haue eternall life or else the flesh and bloud which was crucified and which was shedde by the speare of the souldier This and such other places teach vs to vnderstand S. Hierome if he speake any where obscurely or vnproperly of the mysterie of our Lordes supper We graunt with Ambrose that God hath giuen auctoritie to all the ministers of the worde to remit all sinnes that be remissible But this do not you graunt for you reserue some to the Bishops and some to the Pope alone to remitte wherein you goe cleane against Ambrose who fauoureth you not so much by the terme Sacerdos which you say he vseth as he condemneth your partiall Popish reseruation of cases when he alloweth euery Priest to forgiue as well great sinnes as litle without exception S. Hierom you cite at large as it seemeth to insinuate auricular coÌ„fession But the whole saying you liked not because it sheweth how they forgiue sinnes It is writteÌ„ in Math. lib. 3. cap. 16. vpoÌ„ those wordes spoken to Peter Vnto thee will I giue the keies of the kingdome of
alleageth it thus the holy Euangelist S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles cap. 2. recordeth it and for this S. Augustine calleth him an infidel that denyeth it yet all this would not suffise to make Beza translate it so because of certaine errours as he heretically termeth them which he would full gladly auoide hereby namely the Catholike true doctrine of limbus patrum and Purgatorie What neede we say more he translateth animam a Carcase so calling our Sauiour Christes bodie irreuerently and wickedly he translateth infernum graue FVLK 2. That many of the Christian fathers helde this error that the godly of the old Testament were not in heauen before Christes death it is no cause why we should be afraid to confesse the truth reuealed to vs out of the holy Scriptures to the glorie of God And if the wrong or ambiguous translation of one Hebrue word Sheol deceiued them that were for the most parte ignoraunt of the Hebrue tongue what reason were it that we shoulde not in translation reforme that errour But as for Bezaes first translation of the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deade bodie and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 graue I haue aunswered at large Cap. 1. sect 31. where also it is shewed howe vainely you take hold of the English worde carcase to charge Beza with vnreuerent calling of our Sauiour Christes bodie when it was deade because he calleth it in Latine Cadauer MART. 3. Neede we take any great labour to proue this to be a foule corruption or that it is done purposely whē he confesseth that he thus translateth because else it woulde serue the Papistes Which is as much to say as the word of God if it be truly and sincerely translated maketh in deede for them For the first part we will not stand vpon it partly because it is of it selfe most absurd and they are ashamed of it partly because it shall susfise to confute Beza that two other as famous heretikes as he Castalio and Flaccus Illyricus write against him in this point and confute him partly also because we speake not here vniuersally of all hereticall translations but of the English corruptions specially therfore we may only note here how gladly they also would say somwhat else for soule euen in the text if they durst for shame for in the margent of that English trāslation they say or life or person thereby aduertising the Reader that he may reade thus if it please him Thou shalt not leaue my life in the graue or Thou shalt not leaue my person As though either mans soule or life were in the graue or anima might be translated person which the selfe same Englishe Bible doeth not no not in those places where it is euident that it signifieth the whole person For though this worde soule by a figure is sometime taken for the whole man yet euen there they doe not nor must not translate it otherwise than soule beause our tongue beareth that figure as well as Latine Greeke or Hebrue but here where it can not signifie the whole person it is wicked to translate it so FVLK 3. If you take more labour than you are wel able to beare yet shall you proue it no hereticall corruption As Castaleo and Illyricus the one an heretike the other a schismatike haue inueyed against Beza so hath he sufficiently confuted them But to our English translation where in the margent they say life or person when in the text they say soule what doeth this offende you They render the vsuall English word for the Greke word but they admonish the reader that the word soule in this place signifieth not the soule separated from the bodie but either the life or the whole person Because that although the bodie onely be layed in the graue yet according to vulgar speache and sense the whole man is sayed to be buried and his life seemeth to be inclosed in the graue according to which popular and humane conceyt the Prophet in that Psalme speaketh as appeareth in the later parte of that verse which is all one in sense with the former Neither wilt thou giue thy holy one to see corruption where corruption which is proper onely to the bodie is there spoken generally of the whole man If this expositiō please you not yet you haue no cause to finde fault with the translation which in that place is according to the cōmon and ordinarie signification of the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 soule Which as it is somtime taken for the whole person as you note Act. 7. 14. So is it here as the later parte of the verse doth most plainly declare MART. 4. But as for the worde graue that they put boldly in the text to signifie that howsoeuer you interprete soule or whatsoeuer you put for it it is not meant according to S. Augustine and the faith of the whole Catholike Church that his soule descended into Hell whiles his bodie was in the graue but that his soule also was in the graue howsoeuer that is to be vnderstoode So making it a certaine and resolute conclusion that the holy Scripture in this place speaketh not of Christs being in Hell but in the graue and that according to his soule or life or person or as Beza will haue it His carcase or bodie and so his soule in Hell as the holy Scripture speaketh shall be his bodie in the graue as Beza plainly speaketh the Bezites couertly insinuate white shall be blacke and chaulke shall be cheese and euery thing shall be any thing that they will haue it And all this their euident false translation must be to our miserable deceiued poore soules the holy Scripture and Gods word FVLK 4. The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wel beareth to be translated in some places a graue here the later part of the verse speaketh of corruption which can not be vnderstoode to be but in the graue so doth S. Peter vnderstand it saying that Dauid the Patriarch died and was buried and his sepulchre remayneth with vs vnto this day and S. Paule vpon the same verse of the Psalme saith he saw corruption Both the Apostles therfore interpreting this verse of the resurrection of Christ we thinke it in deede a resolute conclusion that the Scripture in this place speaketh not of Christs being in hell which we acknowledge in the article of our Creede but of his buriall and resurrection Your trifling of white and blacke chaulke and cheese may seeme pleasaunt Rhetorike to grosse eares whom you seeke to fill with such vanities But the wiser sort that are acquainted with figuratiue speaches wil thinke it nothing straunge if words be not alwaies taken in their vsual proper signification That the Hebrue worde Nephesh which the Prophet in that verse of the Psalme vseth is taken diuerse times in the Scripture for a deade bodie I haue before proued more plainly than euer you shall
not complaine of the singularitie of this exaÌ„ple although you require but one I wil adde out of the Psalme 141. where the Prophet saith our bones are scattered at the very brinke or mouth of sheol the graue Howe can you vnderstand him to speake of hel For the graue and not hell is a place for dead mens bones as he speaketh of the faithfull by the wicked compted as good as dead rotten consumed to the bones By these and many other examples it is manifest that the proper signification of sheol in English is a graue and not hell MART. 22. And therefore Beza doth strangely abuse his Reader more than in one place saying that the Hebrue word doth properly signifie graue beyng deduced of a verbe that signifieth to craue or aske because it craueth alwayes newe coarses As though the graue craued moe than Hel doth or swallowed moe or were more hardly satisfied and filled than Hell for in all such places they translate graue And in one such place they say The graue and destructioÌ„ can neuer be ful Whereas them selues a litle before translate the very same wordes Hel destructioÌ„ and therefore it might haue pleased them to haue said also Hel and destructioÌ„ can neuer be ful as their powfellowes do in their translation and againe We shal swalow them vp like Hel. The Diuel we reade goeth about continually like a roaring lion seeking whom he may deâ—ouâ— Who is called in the Apocalypse Abaddon that is destruction And so very aptly Hel and destruction are ioyned togither and are truly said neuer to be filled What madnesse and impudencie is it then for Beza to write thus Who is ignorant that by the Hebrue worde rather is signified a graue for that it seemeth after a sorte to craue alwaies new câ—rcasses FVLK 22. Beza doth not abuse his reader to tel him that sheol is deriued of a verbe that signifieth crauing or asking but you doe vnhonestly abuse Beza as you doe euery man when you take in hand to affirme that he standeth onely vpon the etymologie of sheol to proue that it signifieth the graue MART. 23. And againe coÌ„cerning our Sauiour Christs descending into hell and deliuering the fathers from thence it is maruel fâ—iâ—lr Beâ—a that the most parte of the auncient fathers were in this errour whereas with the Hebrues the word SHEOL signifieth nothing else but GRAVE Before he pleaded vpon the etymologie or nature of the worde now also he pleadeth vpon the authoritie of the Hebrues themselues If he were not knowen to be very impudent and obstinate wee woulde easily mistrust his skill in the Hebrue saying that among the Hebrues the worde signifieth nothing else but graue FVLK 23. Beza sayth that the worde Sheol properly signifieth nothing but the graue neuerthelesse hee saith it is taken figuratiuely for tribulation whiche is neere to extreeme destruction yea and sometime for the bottomlesse pitte of hell MART. 24. I would gladly knowe what are those Hebrues doth not the Hebrue text of the holy Scripture best tell vs the vse of this word Do not themselues translate it Hel very often do not the Septuaginta alwaies If any Hebrue in the world were asked how he would turne these wordes into Hebrue Similes estis sepulchris dealbatis you are like to whited graues And Sepulchrum eius apud vos est His graue is among you would any Hebrue I say translate it by this Hebrue worde which Beza saith among the Hebrues signifieth nothing else but graue Aske your Hebrue Readers in this case and see what they will answere FVLK 24. The best of the Hebrues that either interpreted Scriptures or made Dictionaries Iewes or Christians do acknowledge that sheol doth properly signifie the graue That the Septuaginta do alwaies traÌ„slate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it proueth not that it alwaies signifieth hel for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not alwaies hell as in the place of NuÌ„b. 16. As for the turning of Latin into Hebrue is not our coÌ„trouersie but of translating Hebrue into English sheol may signifie the graue the hole the pit as Fâ—â—ea though it be not all one with the Latine worde Sepulchrum And yet Rabbi Salomon whome you boldly cite in the 27. Section saith plainely that the true and proper interpretation of Sheol is Keber whiche you say is as proper for graue as Lac is for milke MART. 25. What are those Hebrues then that Beza speaketh of forsooth certaine Iewes or later Rabbines which as they doe falsely interprete all the holy Scriptures agaynst our Sauiour Christ in other points of our beleefe as against his Incarnation Death and Resurrection so do they also falsely interprete the holy scriptures against his descending into Hell which those Iewish Rabbines deny because they looke for another Messias that shal not die at al and consequeÌ„tly shal not after his death go downe into Hel deliuer the fathers expecting his comming as our sauiour Christ did And therfore those Iewish Rabbines hold as the heretikes do that the fathers of the old Testament were in heauen before our sauiour Christs Incarnation these Rabbines are they which also peruert the Hebrue word to the significatioÌ„ of graue in such places of the holy scriptures as speake either of our Sauiour Christes descending into hel or of the fathers going downe into Hell euen in like maner as they peruert other Hebrew wordes of the holy scripture as namely alma to signifie a young woman not a virgin against our Sauiours birth of the B. Virgin Marie FVLK 25. Beza speaketh of the holy men of God which did write the Scriptures and so vse that word Sheol as it can not be taken to signifie any thing properly but the graue or pit And as for the Iewish RabbiÌ„s what reason is there why we should not credite them in the interpretatiou of wordes of their owne tongue rather than any auncient Christians ignorant of the Hebrewe tongue And although they doe sometimes frowardly contend about the significatioÌ„ of a word or two against the truth of the Gospell that is no sufficient cause why they should be discredited in all words But beside them Beza hath also the best Hebritians that haue bene in this laste age among the Christians not onely Protestants but Papistes also namely Pagninus and Masius in their Dictionaries MART. 26. And if these later Rabbines be the Hebrewes that Beza meaneth and which these gay English translators followe we lament that they ioyne themselues with such companions being the sworne enemies of our Sauiour Christ. Surely the Christian Hebrewes in Rome and elsewhere which of great Rabbines are become zealous Doctors of Christianitiâ— and therefore honour euery mysterie and article of our Christian faith concerning our Sauiour Christ they dispute as vehemently against those other Rabbines as we doe against the Heretikes and among other things they tell them thus Saul sayd Raise me vp Samuel
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall not giue honour to God where it is certaine that by that worde is meant the graue seeing the soules of the righteous that were in Abrahams bosome did praise God and moreouer he maketh it plaine that he speaketh of the deade bodies when he sayth their spirite is taken out of their bowels MART. 32. And for the Latine worde it is the like case for all the worlde and if a man will aske but his childe that commeth from the Grammar what is Infernus he will say Hell and not graue what is Latine for graue He will aunswere Sepulchrum or monumentum But neuer Infernus vnlesse one of these Caluinisticall translatours taught him so to deceiue his father FVLK 32. I hope they that be wise will beleeue S. Augustine rather than you that the worde Inferi which is the same that Infernus hath diuerse and manifolde vnderstandings in the Scripture as I haue declared before sect 21. But with the Latine word Infornus we haue litle to doe which translate not out of Latine but out of Hebrue or Greeke MART. 33. Nowe then to drawe to a conclusion of this their corruption also in their Englishe translation whereas the Hebrue and Greeke and Latine wordes doe most properly and vsually signifie Hell and both Greeke and Latine interpreters precisely in euerie place vse for the Hebrue worde that one Greeke worde and that one Latine worde which by all custome of speaking writing signifie Hell it had bene the part of sincere and true meaning translatours to haue translated it also in English alwayes by the word Hell and afterward to haue disputed of the meaning thereof whether and when it is to be taken for Hell or graue or lake or death or any such thing As i◠one place they haue done it very exactly indifferently namely when Ionas sayth c. 2. v. 2. out of the Whales belly Out of the belly of hell cryed I and thou heardest my voice So all translate it and well whatsoeuer it signifie in this place They thinke that Hell here signifieth nothing else but the Whales belly and the affliction of Ionas and so the worde may signifie by a Metaphoricall speech as when we say in English It is a hell to liue thus and therefore no doubt they did here translate it so to insinuate that in other places it might as well signifie graue as here the Whales belly FVLK 33. Your conclusion is as good as your premisses because the Greeke and Latine Interpretors had before vs translated amisse which gaue occasion to diuerse errours therefore we also knowing the true signification of the worde muste haue followed them in wrong and doubtfull translation and afterward debated the meaning of the seuerall places But in the margent you tell vs that such Catholikes as haue translated the word Sheol for a graue haue also done amisse Pardon vs M. Martin we take you for no such learned Hebritian that you should controll Pagninus Isidorus Clarius and all other Hebritians of this time vpon suche slender sleeuelesse reasons as you haue brought hetherto And you shewe an intollerable proude stomake that being a man so litle seene in the Hebrue tongue as you shewe your selfe to be you should condemne such graue and learned persons of your owne side of rashnesse or ignorance For you make them in the case of chaunce medley that haue translated sheol a graue Thinke you the deputies of the Councell of Trent had no more discretion in perusing Isidorus Clarius correctiō of the Bible than to suffer him to chaunge life safetie into chance medly and manslaughter you may in time to come if you apply your studie proue learned in that language wherin as yet you are but a smatterer not worthy to be heard against so many so learned so famous professors of the Hebrew tongue Iewes and Christians Protestants and Papistes authors of Grammars Dictionaries and translations But in the second of Ionas it pleaseth you well that our Geneua Bible translateth this word Hell out of the bellie of hell c. but you like not that they shoulde interprete it a metaphoricall Hell or the extremitie of affliction whereinto the Prophet was brought where you make it no doubt what they would insinuate you shew your selfe more bold to affirme than ready or able to proue MART. 34. But then they shoulde haue translated it also hell in other places as they did in this and afterward haue interpreted it graue in their commentaries and not presumptuously to straiten and limite the word of the holy Ghost to their priuate sense and interpretation and to preiudice the auncient learned holy fathers which looke farremore deepely and spiritually into this prophecie than to Ionas or the Whale our Sauiour himselfe also applying it to his owne person and to his being in the hart of the earth three dayes and three nights And therefore S. Hierome sayth This belly of Hell according to the storie is the Whales bellye but it may much better be referred to the persō of Christ which vnder the name of Dauid singeth in the Psalme Thou shalt not leaue my soule in Hell Who was in Hel aliue and free among the dead And that which our Sauiour saith The Sonne of man shall be in the harte of the earth he doth interprete of his soule in hell For as the hart is in the middes of the body so is Hel said to be in the middes of the earth FVLK 34. They haue in other places trāslated it according to the proprietie of the word if in this place they had done so likewise I see not what faulte they had committed Certaine it is that the whales belly did rather resemble a graue wherein Ionas seemed to be buried than hell the receptacle of separated soules It is the office of a translator not so much to regarde what other haue written vpon the place he translateth be they auncient be they godly be they learned as what sense the interpretation of the wordes will beste beare Without preiudice therefore of any mans credite the truth in this case must be sought out That you report out of Hierom vpon this place sheweth that both the Hebrue word sheol and the Latin infernus are not proper peculiar for hel as in other places you tell vs. That S. Hierom interpreteth the saying of Christ Math. 12. v. 40. of his being in the harte of the earth to be meant of his being in hel which is said to be in the middest of the earth it is confuted by the wordes of our Sauiour Christ who sayeth that he shall be there three dayes and three nightes that is all the time of his death which is true of his bodie in the graue but not of his soule in hell for both he sayde he would be that day in Paradise and you your selues holde that he made no tariaunce in hell Beside that it is a phantasticall opinion to limit hell
diuided MART. 2. The Apostle 1. Cor. 15. 10. sayth thus I laboured more abouÌ„dantly than all they yet not I but the grace of god with me Which may haue this sense not I but the grace of God which is with me as S. Hierome somtime expoundeth it or this not I but the grace of God which laboured with me And by this later is most euidently signified that the grace of God the Apostle both laboured togither not only grace as though the Apostle had done nothing like vnto a blocke forced only but that the grace of God did so coÌ„curre as the principall agent with all his labours that his free will wrought withall Against which trueth and most approued interpretation of this place you translate according to the former sense onely making it the verie text and so excluding all other senses and commentaries as your Maisters Caluine and Beza taught you who should not haue taught you if you were wise to doe that which neither they nor you can iustifie They reprehend first the vulgar Latin interpreter for neglecting the Greeke article and secondly them that by occasion thereof would by this place proue free will By which their commentary they do plainly declare their intent and purpose in their translation to be directly against free will FVLK 2. S. Hierome fauouring this translation of ours as he doth in diuerse places lib. 2. aduers. Ioui Gratia dei quae in me est lib. 2. aduers. Pelag. ad PrincipeÌ„ Gratia dei quae mecuÌ„ est The grace of god which is in me or which is with me I maruell why you count it among heretical corruptions except you take S. Hierome for an heretike By the later you say it is signified that y e grace of God the Apostle both labored togither although it be no proper speech to say the grace of God laboreth yet that you woulde haue is expressed before where S. Paul sayth I haue labored more than they al which none but a blocke would vnderstande that he was forced like a blocke The grace of God vseth no violence but frameth the will of man to obedience and seruice of God But that S. Paule had of him selfe no free will to performe this labour but that it was altogither of the grace of God which gaue him this will he confesseth more plainly than that it can be denied where he sayth Not I. Whereby he meaneth not that he was onely helped by the grace of God and did it not alone but that he did nothing by his owne streÌ„gth but altogither by the grace of God which made him willing which of nature was vnwilling to set forth the Gospell yea by froward zeale became a blasphemer and a persecuter thereof Which grace gaue him not only a will to promote the Gospell but inspired him also with diuine knowledge by reuelation without studie or hearing of other men which gaue him also strength to ouercome so many difficulties that no labour nor trauaile nor persecution nor continuance of time did make him weary or faint in his labour All this I saye he doth ascribe wholy vnto the grace of God And this sense doth not make Paule a blocke nor enforced by violence but a willing prompt painefull labourer But if you meane that S. Paule had a free will and strength of him selfe which onely was holpen by the grace of God then is your sense abhominable Pelagianisme heresie worthy to be troden vnder feete by all Christians and of Caluin and Beza moste iustly reprehended who are vtter enimies to free will that derogateth any thing froÌ„ the grace of Christ without whome we can doe nothing which text alwayes choked the Pelagians and so doth it their halfe faced brethren the Papistes MART. 3. But concerning the Greeke article omitted in translation if they were but Grammarians in both tongues they might know that the Greeke article many times can not be expressed in Latine and that this is one felicitie and prerogatiue of the Greeke phrase aboue the Latine to speake more briefly commodiously and significantly by the article What neede we goe to Terence and Homer as they are wâ—nt Is not the Scripture full of such speaches Iacobus Zebedaei Iacobus Alphaei Iudas Iacobi Maria Cleophae and the like Are not all these sincerely translated into Latine though the Greeke article be not expressed Can you expresse the article but you must adde more than the article and so adde to the text as you do very boldly in such speaches through out the new Testament yea you doe it when there is no article in the Greeke as Io. 5. 36. and 1. ep Io. 2 2. Yea sometime of an hereticall purpose as Eph. 3. By whom we haue boldnesse and entraunce with the confidence which is by the faith of him or in him as it is in other your Bibles You say confidence which is by faith as though there were no confidence by workes you know the Greeke beareth not that translation vnlesse there were an article after confidence which is not but you adde it to the text heretically as also Beza doth the like Rom. 8. 2. and your Geneua English Testaments after him for the here sit of imputatiue iustice as in his annotations he plainly deduceth saying confidently I doubt not but a Greeke article muste be vnderstoode and therefore for sooth put into the text also He doth the same in S. Iames 2. v. 20. stil debating the case in his annotations why he doth so and when he hath concluded in his fansie that this or that is the sence he putteth it so in the text and translateth accordingly No maruell now if they reprehend the vulgar Latine Interpreter for not translating the Greeke article in the place which we began to treate of when they finde articles lacking in the Greeke text it selfe and boldly adde them for their purpose in their translation Whereas the vulgar Latine interpretation is in all these places so sincere that it neither addeth nor diminisheth nor goeth one ioâ—e from the Greeke FVLK 3. Concerning the omission of the Greeke article which Caluine and Beza reproue in the olde translator you make many wordes to no purpose for they reproue him not for omitting it where either it can not or it neede not be expressed but in this place where both it may and meete it is that it should be expressed But we you say to expresse the article doe adde more than is in the text yet in truth we adde nothing but that which is necessarily to be vnderstoode as when wee say Iames the sonne of Zebedee where you had rather say Iames of Zebedee as though you were so precise that for necessarie vnderstanding you would not adde a word to the text yet you do verie often yea sometimes where no neede is As Act. 8. where the Latine is Curauerunt Stephanum you translate it they tooke order for Stephans funerall Doth Curare
Paule Ro. 5. v. 19. who maketh it all one to be iustified and to be made iust And againe by this reason that it shoulde bee manifestly repugnant to Gods iustice to account him for iuste that is not iuste and therfore that man in deede is made iust Thus Beza Woulde you not thinke hee were come to bee of our opinion but hee reuolteth againe and interpreateth all these goodly wordes in his olde sense saying Not that any qualitie is inwardly giuen vnto vs of which wee are named iust but because the iustice of Christe is imputed to vs by faith freely By faith then at the least we are truly iustified Not so neither but faith sayth he is an instrument wherewith we apprehende Christ our iustice So that we haue no more iustice in vs than we haue glorie for glorie also we apprehend by faith FVLK 2. Al learned meÌ„ I hope do see that you haue no regarde how vainely you cauil so you may seeme to the ignorant to say somthing against theÌ„ that be godly and learned Act. 13. v. 39. Beza translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolui that is saith hee to bee declared iust or absolued and giueth this reason why he vseth not the worde iustificaâ—i in that place which he vseth elsewhere Ne quis illud ab omnibus perinde acciperet ac si casus esset modi aut instrumenti per quod iustiâ—icemur id est iustifiamus ac pronunciemur aut pro iustis habeamur hoc quidem loco malui absolueÌ„di verbum vsurpare vt magis perspicua esset oratio Least anie man should take this worde of the texte ab omnibus as though it were the case of the meane or instrument by which we are iustified that is made and pronounced iust or accounted for iuste In this place I chose rather to vse the worde of absoluing that the sentence mighte bee more cleare The Latine ab omnibus may signifie by all things or from all things Therefore leaste anye manne shoulde mistake the Apostle as thoughe hee saide wee are iustified by all those thinges where hee meaneth wee are iustified from all thinges Beza in this place vseth the worde of absoluing or acquitting in the same sense that he doth iustifying in other places where hee speaketh of the same matter and sayeth as plainely as a man can speake that to be iustified and to be made iuste or pronounced or accompted iust beefore God is all one Yet our Momus findeth faulte with him for expounding to be iustified Rom. 2. v. 13. to bee pronounced iuste as thoughe God will pronounce anye man iuste whiche is not iuste indeede But Beza hee saith elsewhere protesteth that to be iustified is not to be pronounced or accompted iuste but rather to be iust indeede If Martin hadde not beelyed Beza we shoulde haue hadde Bezaes wordes sette downe bothe in Latine and Englishe But in truth Beza hath no suche words yet in sense he hath thus muche that to be iustified before God is to be iuste indeede and not to bee onely pronounced or accompted iuste when hee is not so in deede But that wee are made truely iust indeede by the iustice of Christe whiche is imputed vnto vs freely by faith And as for that newe life or iustice whiche is called inhereÌ„t in vs it is not the cause but the witnes of that iustice by imputation of whiche wee are saued folowing him that is iustified and not going before iustification and faith indede is the instrument by which we apprehend Christ our iustice Neither doth Beza say that we are not truely iustified by faith but that faith is not the principall efficient cause which is the mercie of God but the instrumentall cause by whiche wee take holde of the mercie of God in Christe In al this Beza hath said nothing contrarie to himself nor to the truth And it is no absurditie to say that the iustice of Christe by which we are iustified is no more inherent in vs than his glorie And yet both assured vnto vs by faith As for that iustice whiche is an effect of Gods sanctifying spirite and a fruite of our iustification beefore God by whiche also we are iustified or declared iuste beefore men as S. Iames teacheth is inhereÌ„t in vs as also the first fruits of glorification by that peace of coÌ„science ioy that we haue in God being reconciled to vs by Christ. MART. 3. For this purpose bothe hee and the Englishe Bibles translate thus Abraham beleeued God and it was reputed to him FOR IVSTICE Rom. 4. v. 3. 9. Where he interpreateth for iustice to be nothing else but. in the steede place of iustice so also taking away true inherent iustice euen from Abraham himselfe But to admit their translation whiche notwithstanding in their sense is moste false must it nedes signifie not true inherent iustice because the Scripture saith it was reputed for iustice Do such speaches import that it is not so in deede but is onely reputed so Then if wee say This shall be reputed to thee for sinne for a greate benefite and so foorth it shoulde signifie it is no sinne indeede nor great benefite But let them call to mind that the Scripture vseth to speake of sinne and of iustice alike It shal be sinne in thee or vnto thee as they translate Bibl. 1577 or as S. Hierome translateth It shall bee reputed to thee for sinne Deut. c. 23. 24. as themselues translate it shall be righteousnesse vnto thee before the Lord thy God And againe Deut. c. 6. This shall bee our righteousnes before the Lord our God if we kepe al the commaundements as he hath commaunded vs. If then iustice onely be reputed sinne also is onely reputed if sin bee in vâ— indeede iustice is in vs indeede FVLK 3. Our translation taketh not from Abraham true iustice nor yet iustice inherent but declareth that he was not iustified before God by workes that is by iustice inherent but by faith whyche apprehendeth the iustice of Christ whych is altogyther without vs. And therefore you cauil in your olde rotten quarrell when you goe aboute to make reputed to bee contrarie to truthe or indeede Faith was reputed by God to Abraham for iustice indeede but not as iustice inherent And AbrahaÌ„ was truly iustified by faith as by an instrumentall cause not that faith was the iustice by which he was iust in the sight of God excluding all other causes but there was nothing in AbrahaÌ„ but faith which God accompted for iustice But Abrahams faith embraced the mercie of God in the promised seede in whiche as well hee as all the tribes of the earth should be blessed The places of scripture that you cite speaking of sinne iustice alike be not contrary to the imputation of iustice vnto them in which it is not inherent For in neither of both places the holy ghost vseth the word of imputation howsoeuer S. Hierome translateth
of Christe But where you tell vs of S. Hieromes translation it were somewhat worth if you could shewe it The vulgare Latine text wee may not graunte you to bee S. Hieromes as for his commentarie teacheth not the worde of redeeming which is the principall worde in controuersie And indeede it is a very absurde kinde of speach to say redeeme thy sinnes or deliuer thy sinnes for pherak signifieth none otherwise to redeme than to deliuer whereas if he had meant as you think hee shoulde haue saide rather redeeme thy soule from sinnes Christ himselfe the author of our redemption is not saide to haue redeemed our sinnes with his bloud but to haue redeemed vs from oure synnes by hys bloude MART. 19. And what a miserable humour is it in these cases to slie as far as they can from the auntient receiued speach of holie Scripture that hath so many yeres sounded in all faithful eares and to inuent newe termes and phrases when the original text both Greke and Hebrue fauoreth the one as much or more than the other as that they choose to say in the Epistle to Titus where the Apostle excedingly exhorteth to good works maintaine good workes and shewe foorth good works rather than according to the auncient Latine translation bonis operibus praeesse to be chiefe and principall in doing good workes which is the very true and vsual signification of the greeke worde and implieth a vertuous emulation among good men who shal doe moste good workes or excel in that kinde But they that looke to be saued by faith onely no maruell if neither their doings nor trāslatiōs tēd to any such excellēcie FVLK 19. What a miserable humour is it when the truth is plainly reuealed by knowledge of the tongs which was hidden from many of the auntient fathers to delight rather in error which is old than in truth which is newly discouered The worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the epistle to Titus we translate also to excell and it may signifie either to shew forth to maintaine or to excell And therfore your wrangling is vaine and without reason For that Christian men ought with all diligent labour to excell in good workes it is alwaies acknowledged of vs although they muste not looke to bee saued by their workes no nor by their faith onely if their faith be not fruitefull of good workes Such collections as these and much better it were no hard matter to make a great number against you to proue that you are enimies to faith to repentance to good workes to God him self CHAP. XIIII Hereticall translation against the holy SACRAMENTS namely BAPTISME and CONFESSION Martin AN other sequele of their onely faith is that the Sacraments also helpe nothing towarde our saluation and therefore they partely take them cleane away partly depriue them of all grace vertue and efficacie making thē poore and beggarly elements either worse or no better than those of the old law Fulke THat the Sacraments helpe nothing toward our saluation is an other of Martins slaunders no assertion of ours For seeing wee holde that the Sacramentes are seales of Gods promises to confirme our faith by which we are iustified before him how can we affirme that they help nothing to saluation But this is the propertie of hers and slaunderers when they haue nothing of truth to charge their aduersaries then they eyther inuent that which was neuer saide or done by them or else they violently drawe out of their sayings or doings by deprauing them some colour of matter to serue for a shewe of their slaunders So dothe our wrangler in this place after a flatte lie solemnely aduouched against vs of that wee say the Sacramentes giue no grace Ex opere operato of the worke wrought he frameth his spiders webbe first that wee depriue them of all grace vertue and efficacie Because wee doe not include grace vertue and efficacie within the externall Elementes or the ministerie of man aboute them but ascribe the same to the mighty working of Gods spirite in his chosen children which worketh all his giftes in all men according to the good pleasure of his owne will Secondly that we make the Sacraments poore and beggerly Elements And thirdly eyther worse or no better than those of the olde lawe The spirituall matter in deede of the Sacramentes of both the Testaments wee confesse to bee Iesus Christe of equall power vnto saluation of his people liuing vnder both the states but the more abundant grace and truth according to the reuelation of Christ in the flesh we acknowledge to be testified and exhibited in our Sacraments than was in theirs that liued vnder the law MART. 2. For this purpose Beza is not content to speake as the Apostle doth Ro. 4. v. 11. that circumcision was a seale of the iustice of faith but because he thinketh that to small a terme for the dignitie of circumcision as him self confesseth he gladly auoideth it I vse his owne wordes and for the Nowne putteth the Verbe so dissolutely presumptuously that the English Bezites themselues here also dare not folow him in translation though in opinion they agree The cause of his wilful translation he declareth in his Annotations vpon the same place to wit the dignitie of circumcision equall with any Sacrament of the new Testament His wordes be these What saith he could be spoken more magnifical of any Sacrament therfore they that put a real difference betweene the Sacraments of the old Testament and ours neuer seeme to haue knowen how far Christs office extendeth Which he saith not to magnifie the old but to disgrace the newe FVLK 2. There was neuer man that had suche an artificiall coniecture of mens purposes as you pretende your selfe to haue which not only where there is likelihood to fasten a coniecture vpon but also when all likelyhoods are against you yet can so confidently pronounce of euery mans purpose Well let the purpose goe whiche is knowen best to God and nexte to them that will iudge of the man according to charitie and good reason You say Beza is not content to speake as the Apostle doth that circumcision was a seale of the iustice of faith Yes verily his desire is to expresse that which the Apostle saith to the full The name of seale therefore he auoydeth not as you falsely slaunder him but for want of a conuenient Latine worde to expresse the Apostles Greeke worde hee is content to vse circumloquution by the verbe and sayth Abraham receyued the signe of circumcision whiche should seale vp or by seale confirme the iustice of faith c. yet are not you ashamed moste impudently to say hee refused the terme of Seale sigillum and for sigillum hath vsed quod obsignaret Whereas the worde that he saith hee refused is Signaculum Signaculi nomen quod vetus interpres Erasmus vsurpauit libens refugi partim quod non sit admodum vsitatum partim quod
sundrie places againe if one be restrained from the larger signification peculiarly applyed signifie the Sacramentes of the Church the other also As the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ or the Mysterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ and the Caluinists in their Latine and Greeke Catechisme say two Sacramentes or two Mysteries FVLK 2. The English worde secret signifieth fully as much as the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which we must seeke no holinesse as papistes doe in vaine sounde of wordes but in the matter annexed which plainely expresseth that it is a great secret of great holines whereof the Apostle speaketh And it is verie false that you say that the Latine worde sacramentum is equiualent to the Greeke for both it signifieth an oth which y e Greke word doth not and also it includeth holinesse which the Greeke worde doth not Or else why sayth not your vulgar translator and you the sacrament of iniquitie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore signifieth euerie secrete sacramentum onely an holy sacrament as when you say Apoc. 17. the sacrament of the woman the meaning is the secret to be reuealed concerning her is an holy thing else in the same chapter you haue not a sacrament written in her forheade but a mysterie or secret Babylon the mother of abhominations That the sacramentes are called mysteries we confesse but that whatsoeuer is called a mysterie may also be called a sacrament that doe we vtterly denie MART. 3. This being so what is the fault of their translation in the place aforesaide this that they translate neither Sacrament nor Mysterie As for the worde Sacrament they are excused because they translate not the Latine but translating the Greeke why sayde they not Mysterie which is the Greeke worde heere in the Apostle I meane why sayde they not of matrimonie This is a great Mysterie No doubt there can be no other cause but to auoide both those wordes which are vsed in the Latin and Greeke Church to signifie the Sacramentâ—s For in the Greeke Church the Sacrament of thâ— bodie bloud it self is called but a mystery or mysteries which yet the ProtestaÌ„ts themselues call a true Sacrament Therfore if they shold haue called Matrimonie also by that name it might easily haue sounded to be a Sacrament also But in saying it is a great secret they put it out of doubt that it shall not be so taken FVLK 3. Seeing the word secrete y t we vse signifieth wholy as much as mysterie we hope all reasonable men wil allow y e same also Sacrament without preiudice to y e trueth we could not translate and mysterie for the better vnderstanding of the people we haue expressed in the English worde secrete Out of which if it haue any force of argument in it you may proue matrimonie to be a sacrament as well as out of the Greeke worde mysterie But it is the sounde of an vnknowen worde that you had rather play vpon in the eares of the ignorants then by any sound argument out of y e scripture to bring them to the knowledge of the trueth MART. 4. They will say vnto mee Is not euerie sacrament mysterie in english a secrete Yes as Angel is a messenger Apostle one that is sent But when the holy Scripture vseth these words to signifie more excelleÌ„t diuine things then those of the common sort doth it become translators to vse baser termes in steede therof so to disgrace the writing meaning of the holy Ghost I appeale to themselues when they translatâ— this word in other places whether they say not thus And wtout doubt great was y t MYSTERIE of godlines God was shewed manifestly in y e flesh c. againe The MYSTERIE which haue bin hid since y e world began but now is opened to his saincts againe I shew you a MYSTERIE we shal not al sleep but we shal all be changed And the like Where if they should traÌ„slate secret in steed of mysterie as the Bezites do in one of these places saying I wil shew you a secret thing what a disgracing debasing were it to those high mysteries there signified And if it were so in these is it not so in matrimonie which the Apostle maketh such a mysterie that it representeth no lesse mater then Christ his Church whatsoeuer is most excellent in that coniunctioÌ„ Noâ—then if in all other places of high mysterie they translate it also mysterie as it is in the Greeke only in Matrimonie do not so but say rather This is a great secret vsing so base a terme in so high excellent a mysterie must we not needs thinke at no dout it is that they do it because of their heretical opinioÌ„ against the SacrameÌ„t of Matrimony for their base estimation therofâ— FVLK 4. Nowe you flie to your old shift of y e ecclesiastiall vse of termes which you cannot proue to be like of this English word mysterie which is coÌ„moÌ„ly as prophanely secularly vsed as any other word For what is more coÌ„mon among artificers thaÌ„ their science or mystery of weauing of dying such like And yet the word may be vsed of the highest secrets of Christian ReligioÌ„ as it is of our translators And wheresoeuer they haue said a mysterie they might as truely haue saide a secret where they say a secrete they might haue said a mysterie But wher you say y t in al other places of high mystery they translate y e word mysterie it is false For Mat. 13. Mark the 4. Luk. the 8. where all y e mysteries of the kingdome of God are spokeÌ„ of they translate mysteria the secrets of y e kingdome of heauen 1. cor 4. where the sacraments al other secrets of Christian Religion are spokeÌ„ of they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stewards of y e mysteries of God Wherefore it is a shamefull and senselesse slander that heere only we vse this word secret to shew our base estimation of matrimonie MART. 5. But they wil yet reply againe aske vs what we gaine by translating it either Sacrament or mysterie Doth that make it one of the Sacramentes properly so called to wit such a Sacrament as Baptisme is no surely but howsoeuer wee gaine otherwise at least we gaine the coÌ„mendation of true translators whether it make with vs or against vs. For otherwise it is not the name that maketh it such a peculiar Sacrament For as is said before Sacrament is a generall name in Scripture to other thinges Neither do we therefore so translate it as though it were foorthwith one of the seuen Sacraments because of the name but as in other places wheresoeuer we finde this word in the Latine we translate it Sacrament as in the Apocalipse the sacrament of the woman so finding it heere we doe heere also so translate it and as for the diuerse taking of it heere and else where that
They wil say the first Hebrewe word can not be as Saint Hierome translateth and as it is in the Greeke and as all antiquitie readeth but it muste signifie Let vs destroy They say truely according to the Hebrewe word which now is But is it not euident thereby that the Hebrewe worde nowe is not the same which the Septuaginta translated into Greekeâ— and S. Hierom into Latine and consequently the Hebrue is altered and corrupted from the originall copie which they had perhaps by the Iewes as some other places to obscure this prophecie also of Christes Passion and their crucifying of him vpon the Crosse. Such Iewish Rabbines and new Hebrue words do our newe maisters gladly folow in the translation of the olde Testament whereas they might easily conceyue the old Hebrue worde in this place if they would employ their skill that way and not onely to nouelties For who seeth not that the Greeke Interpreters in number 70. and al Hebrues of best skill in their owne tongue S. Hierom also a great Hebrician did not reade as now wee haue in the Hebrue Nashchîta but Nashitha or Nashlîcha Againe the Hebrue worde that now is doth so litle agree with the wordes folowing that they cannot tell how to translate it as appeareth by the diuersitie and difference of their translations thereof before mentioned and transposing the wordes in English otherwise than in the Hebrue neither of both their translations hauing any commodious sense or vnderstanding FVLK 19. If we shoulde acknowledge the Hebrue word to be altered in so many places as the 70. departe from it we should not only condemne the Hebrue text that now is in many places but your vulgar Latine text also the translator whereof differing oftentimes from the Greeke followeth the truth of the Hebrue or at least commeth nearer vnto it Your argument of the number of the 70. interpreters al Hebrewes is very ridiculous childish Hierom him selfe will laugh you to skorne in it who acknowledged for certaintie no more than the bookes of the lawe translated by them And Lindanus proueth manifestly vnto you that some partes of the old Testament in Greeke which wee now haue are not the same that were counted the 70. translation in the auncient fathers time Whether Hierom in this place did consider the Hebrue text we know not for he doth not as his manner is shew the diuersitie of the Hebrue and the Septuaginta in this chapiter beside he professeth great breuitie intreating vpon so long a Prophete But whether a letter in this word haue bene altered or no or whether it were corrupt in the copie which the Greeke translater and Hierom did reade for the true or simple sense thereof there is no great difference No nor for that sense which Hierom bringes which although it seemeth to be farre from the Prophets meaning yet it may haue as good ground vpon the worde Naschita as vpon the worde Nashlicha MART. 20. But yet they will pretende that for the first worde at the least they are not to be blamed because they folow the Hebrue that now is Not considering that if this were a good excuse then might they as well folowe the Hebrue that now is Psal. 21. v. 18 and so vtterly suppresse and take out of the Scripture this notable prophecie They pearced my hands and my feete Which yet they do not neither can they doe it for shame if they will be counted Christians So that in deede to folow the Hebrue sometime where it is corrupt is no sufficient excuse for them though it may haue a pretence of true translation and we promised in the preface in such cases not to call it hereticall translation FVLK 20. To this cauill against the certaine truth of the Hebrue texte I haue sufficiently answered in my confutation of your preface Sect. 44. shewing that the true reading of this word as Felix PrateÌ„sis Ioannes Isaak Tremelius and other do acknowledge is still remayning and testified by the Mazzorites MART. 21. But concerning the B. Sacrament let vs see once more how truely they folow the Hebrue The holy Ghost saith S. Cyprian ep 63. nu 2. by Salomon foresheweth a type of our Lordes sacrifice of the immolated host of bread wine saying Wisedome hath killed her hostes SHE HATH MINGLED HER WINE INTO the cuppe Come ye eate of my bread and drinke the wine that I HAVE MINGLED for you Speaking of WINE MINGLED saith this holy doctor he foresheweth prophetically the cuppe of our Lorde MINGLED WITH WATER AND WINE So doth S. Hierom interprete this mixture or mingling of the wine in the chalice so doth the author of the commentaries vpon this place among S. Hieroms workes so doe the other fathers So that there is great importance in these propheticall wordes of Salomon She hath mingled her wine into the cuppe and the wine which I haue mingled as being a manifest prophecie of Christes mingling water and wine in the Chalice at his last supper which the Catholike Churche obserueth at this day and whereof S. Cyprian writeth the foresaide long epistle FVL. 21. It had bene to be wished that S. Cyprian when he goeth aboute to proue the necessitie of wine in the celebration of the Lordes supper agaynst the Heretikes called Aquarij that contended for onely water had retained the precise institution of Christe in wine onely which the Scripture mencioneth and not allowed them a mixture of water and for that purpose driuen him selfe to suche watrie expositions as this of Prouerbes 9. which without good warrant he draweth to represent the Lordes supper Where if hee had bene vrged by the aduersaries whereto the beastes slayne were referred in this Sacrament hee muste haue bene driuen to some violent comment But whereto tendeth this preparation MART. 22. But the Protestants counting it an idle superstitious ceremonie here also frame their translation accordingly suppressing altogither this mixture or mingling and in steede thereof saying Shee hath drawen her wine and drinke the wine that I haue drawen or as in other of their Bibles Shee hath powred out her wine and the wine which I haue powred out neither translation agreing either with Greeke or Hebrue Not with the Greeke which doth euidently signifie mingling and mixture as it is in the Latine and as al the Greeke Church from the Apostles time hath vsed this word in this very case whereof wee nowe speake of mingling water and wine in the chalice S. Iames and S. Basil in their Liturgies expresly testifying that Christ did so as also S. Cyprian in the place alleaged S. Iustine in the end of his second Apologie calling it of the same Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is according to Plutarche wine mingled with water likewise S. Irâ—neus in his fifth booke neere the beginning See the sixth generall Councell most fully treating hereof and deducing it from the Apostles and auncient fathers and interpreting
auncient passe the bounds which our holy forefathers haue set and appointed preferring your owne singularities newe deuises euen there where you can not iustly pretend either the Hebrew or Greeke When the Hebrew Lexicon hath giuen the coÌ„mon interpretation of this place then saith Quidam exponunt Some expound it otherwise why had you rather be of that lesser some that expound otherwise than of the great societie of all auncient interpreters FVLK 2. The Hebrew is as we haue translated how great is the summe of them So doth Kimchi expound it so doth Pagnin and to the same effect Iustinian And the same word â—atsemu missapel the summe of them is greater than can be numbred Psal. 40. Where the Prophet speaketh of the counsailes or thoughts of God as in this place Where you quarrel at vs for following the lesser number when Pagnin saith Quidam c. You may know if you list that Pagnine him selfe is one of those quidam that translateth euen as we doe Howe precious are their thoughts vnto me howe are the summes of them multiplied As for Hierom whom you would haue vs to follow in steede of Princes hath poore men And therefore you doe iniuriously to require vs to follow him whome you followe not your selues You must therefore indite Pagnine of hereticall translation beside all Protestants or els you are very partiall MART. 3. But this new fangled singularitie of teaching and translating otherwise than all antiquitie hath done shall better appeare in their dealing about our B. Ladie whose honour they haue sought so many wayes to diminish and deface that the defense and maintenance thereof against the Heretikes of our time is growen to a great booke learnedly written by the great Clerke and Iesuite father Canisius entituled Mariana FVLK 3. I thinke Canisius in all his great booke called Mariana medleth not with our English translations and therefore very idlely was this matter brought in to tell vs of Canisius booke called Mariana I haue seene a blasphemous booke against I may iustly saye though it were pretended in the honour of the blessed Virgine called Mariale I haue seene that horrible blasphemous Psalter of Bonauentur peruerting all the Psalmes vnto the honour of the Virgine Marie with intollerable blasphemie against God and the holy mother of Christ whose greatest honour is in the kingdome of her sonne and in his infinite glorie MART. 4. Concerning our purpose what was euer more common and is now more generall and vsuall in all Christian Countries than in the Aue Marie to say Gratia plena full of grace insomuch that in the first English Bible it hath continued so still and euery child in our countrie was taught so to say till the Aue Marie was banished altogither and not suffered to be sayd neither in Latine nor English What auncient father of the Latine Church hath not alwaies so redde and expounded What Church in all the West hath not euer so sung and sayd Onely our new Translators haue found a new kind of speeche translating thus Haile thou that art freely beloued and Haile thou that art in high fauour Why this and that or any other thing rather than Haile full of grace S. Iohn Baptist was full of the holy Ghost euen from his birth S. Steuen was ful of grace as the scripture recordeth of them both why may not then our Ladie much more be called full of grace who as S. Ambrose sayth onely obtained the grace which no other women deserued to be replenished with the author of grace FVLK 4. The salutation of the Virgine may be sayd still either in Latine or English as well as any parte of the holye Scripture beside But not to make a popish Orizon of an Angelike salutation That we haue translated Haile Marie freely beloued or that art in high fauour we haue followed the truth of the Greeke worde not so denying there by but that the virgin Marie of Gods special goodnesse without her merites as she confesseth was filled with all gratious giftes of the holy spirite as much as any mortall creature might be except our Sauiour Christe whose onely priuiledge it is to be free from sinne and to haue receyued the giftes of the holy Ghost without measure in his manhood MART. 5. They will say the Greeke worde doth not so signifie Doth it not I make them selues witnesses of the contrarie and their owne translation in other places shall confute them where they translate an other worde of the selfe same nature and forme and in all respectes like to this ful of sores If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be full of sores why is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full of grace Let any Grecian of them all make me a difference in the nature and significancie of these two wordes Againe if vlcerosus as Beza translateth be full of sores why is not gratiosa as Erasmus translateth full of grace or why doth Beza maruell that Erasmus translated gratiosa when him selfe translateth the like word vlcerosus All which adiectiues in osus you knowe signifie fulnes as periculosus aerumnosus Yet what a sturre doth Beza keepe here in his annotations to make the Greeke word signifie freely beloued FVLK 5. The signification of the Greeke worde with your foolish cauillation of Vlcerosus I haue discussed sufficiently cap. 1. sect 43. MART. 6. But hath it in deede any such signification tell vs you that professe this great skill of the tongues what syllable is there in this word that soundeth to that signification S. Chrysostom the Greeke Doctors that should best know the nature of this Greeke word say that it signifieth to make gracious acceptable beloued beautiful amiable so to be desired as when the Psalme saith The king shal desire thy beautie Beza him selfe saith that it is word for word gratificata made grateful yet he expoundeth it accepted before God translateth it freely beloued because he wil haue no singular grace or goodnes or vertue resident in our B. Lady but all by imputation acceptation wherof I haue spoken before S. Athanasius a greke doctor saith that she had this title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the holy ghost descended into the Virgin filling hir with al graces and vertues and I beseech the reader to see his words which are many moe concerning this fulnesse of grace and al spiritual gifts S. Hierome that knewe the Greeke word as wel as the Protestants readeth Gratia plena and findeth no fault with this interpretation but saith plainely she was so saluted full of grace because shee conceiued him in whom al fulnesse of the deitie dwelt corporally FVLK 6. Looke in the best Greeke Lexicons and you shal finde it the same signification that we translate and none other Chrisostome is of the same iudgement as I haue shewed in the place aboue mentioned That the Virgine Marie was iustified before God by
to vphold ambiguities and diuersities of senses wheras if you had the truth you might haue texts of infallible certaintie whereof there could not be diuers interpretations without manifest violence offered vnto the wordes and true signification of them But concerning the place now in question your vulgar text omitting the preposition which is both in the Greeke and in the Hebrew hath committed a manifest errour in saying that Iacob worshipped the toppe of his rodde or staffe where S. Augustine hath rightly obserued the true sense of the place and sayth that Iacob as a weake olde man worshipped vpon the toppe of his staffe that is leaniÌ„g on his staffe The Hebrew is towards the beds head Although it is not vnlike that either the Apostle did reade the worde Mattah which we reade Mittah or els that Mittah signifieth a staffe as well as Mattah For it is not like as Beza sayth that Iacob kept his bed when Ioseph came first to him for after it was told Ioseph that his father was sicke That other translators obserued not this matter whereto shall it be imputed but to humane imperfection That we adde to the text it is false the wordes leaning and God are printed in the small letter to signifie that they are not of the originall text but added for plainnesse And yet the sense may stand without them and he worshipped vpon the ende or toppe of his staffe That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is forced to signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is a forgerie of you and no enforcement by vs for it is in a manner as commonly taken so as otherwise except there be an other antecedent to whome it may be referred then to auoyde ambiguitie it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Math. 4. his pathes his meate his hande Math. 5. his Disciples and else where in euery place MART. 2. To make it more plaine when the Prophet Dauid sayth Adorabo ad templum sanctum tuum Psal. 5. 137. is not the true translation and grammaticall sequele of the wordes thus I will adore toward thy holy temple Is it not a common phrase in the Scripture that the people of God adored toward Hierusalem toward his holy mount before the Arke toward the place where his feete stoode May any man be so bolde by adding and transposing to alter and obscure all such places of holye Scripture that there may appeare no maner of adoration toward or before a creature and for worshipping or adoring toward the thinges aforesayd and the like may we say leaning vpon those thinges to worshippe or adore God Were they afrayde lest thâ—se speeches of holye Scripture might warrant and confirme the Catholike and Christian maner of adoring our Sauiour Christ toward the holye Roode at or before his image and the crucifixe before the altar and so forth For had they not feared this why shoulde they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaning vpon rather than towardes yea why in Genesis towardes his beds head and here not towards FVLK 2. You abound in leysure thus to trifle about nothing we allowe worshipping toward the temple the holye hill the footestoole the Arke of God and such like yea if you will haue it toward the beddes heade or the toppp of his staffe what gayne you for the worshipping of images forbidden by the seconde commaundemeÌ„t or before images for so you would creepe vpon poore mens consciences first to worshippe before images then to worshippe images thirdly to worship them with Dulia and not with Latria at last to worship the image of God of Christ of the Trinitie with Latria euen the same worshippe that is due to God him selfe MART. 3. And which is more when the auncient Greeke fathers Chrys. Oecum in Collectan Damase lib. 1. pro imaginibus Leont apud Damasc. put so litle force either in this preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the other alledged that they expound all those speeches as if the prepositions were of phrase onely and not of signification saying Iacob adored Iosephs scepter the people of Israel adored the temple the Arke the holy mount the place where his feete stoode and the like whereby S. Damascene proueth the adoration of creatures named Dulia namely of the crosse and of sacred images if I say they make so litle force of the prepositions that they inferre not onely adoration towards the thing but adoration of the thing howe doe these goodly translators of all other wordes so straine and racke the litle particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie leaning vpon that it shall in no wise signifie any thing tending towards adoration FVLK 3. The worship that Chrysostom and Oecumenius speake of is a ciuill reuerence done to Ioseph or to his scepter in respect of the kingdom of Ephraim that should be set vp in his posteritie What Damascene gathereth hereof to maintaine idolatrie we regard not certaine it is that Iacob worshipped none but God and bowed him self either toward the beds head or leaning vpon his staffe as S. Augustin sayth That they which follow constrained expositions are inforced to neglect the prepositions it is no warrant for vs when we see how the sense may best stand without making the prepositions which the holy Ghost vseth idle or vnprofitable both in the Hebrew and in the Greeke And if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie toward as it doth not properly but vpon your counterfet distinction of Dulia and Latria should neuer the sooner be receiued MART. 4. And if the Greeke Doctors suffise not to satisfie these great Grecians herein tell me you that haue skill in the Hebrew whether in the foresayd speeches cited out of the Psalmes there be any force in the Hebrew prepositions surely no more than if we should say in English without prepositions Adore ye his holye hill we will adore the place where his feete stoode Adore ye his footestoole For you knowe that there is the same preposition also when it is sayd Adore ye our Lord or as your selues translate worship the Lorde where there can be no force nor signification of the preposition And therefore in these places also your translation is corrupt and wilfull when you say thus We will fall downe before his footestoole fall ye downe before his footestoole before his holy mount or worshippe him vpon his holy hill Where you shunne and auoyde first the terme of adoration which the Hebrewe and Greeke duely expresse by termes correspondent in both languages throughout the Bible and are applied for the moste parte to signifie adoring of creatures Secondly you auoyde the Greeke phrase which is at the least to adore towards these holye thinges and places and much more the Hebrew phrase which is to adore the very thinges rehearsed to adore Gods footestoole is the Psalme sayth because it is holye or because he is holye whose footestoole it is as the Greeke
auncient and graue personage in respecte of ciuilitie and not of superstition may be well vsed without transgression of our Sauiour Christs commaundement Math. 23. MART. 11. Contrarywise as they are diligent to put some wordes odiously where they shoulde not so they are as circumspect not to put other wordes and termes where they should In their first Bible printed againe An. 1562. not once the name of Church in the same for charitie loue for altar temple for heretike an author of sectes for heresie sectâ—â— because in those beginnings al these words sounded exceâ—dingly against them The Church they had then forsaken Christian charitie they had broken by schisine altars they digged downe here sie and heretike they knewe in their conscience more like in the peoples eares to agree vnto them rather than to the olde Catholike faith and professors of the same Againe in all their Bibles indifferently both former and later they had rather say righteous than iust righteousnesse than iustice gift than grace specially in the sacrament of holy orders secrete rather than mysterie specially in matrimonie dissension than schisme and these wordes not at all Priest to wit of the new Testament Sacrament Catholike hymnes coÌ„fessioÌ„ penance iustifications traditions in the good part but in steede therof Elders secrete general praiseâ— acknowledging amendment of life ordinaÌ„ces instructions And which is somewhat worse carcas for soule and graue for hel We may say vnto you as Demosthenes said to Aeschines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—hat are these wordes or wonders certainly they are wonders and very wonderfull in Catholike mens eares and whether it be sincere and not hereticall dealing I appeale to the wise and indifferent reader of any sorte FVLK II. For all the termes quarrelled at in this Section wee haue answered before except perhaps for the terme of loue which is vsed in steede of charitie expressing what charitie is in deede and not as it is commonly taken of the common people for an effect of charitie when they call almesse charitie No man that patiently could abide the people to be instructed would cauill at the explication of the worde charitie by loue when in the English tongue the worde charitie of the common people is eyther not vnderstood or taken for an other thing than the Latine worde Charitas do the signifie As for the wonders of wordes that Demosthenes spake of I knowe not where more properly they shal be found than in your affected nouelties of termes such as neither English nor Christian eares euer heard in the English tongue Scandall prepuce neophyte â—â—â—osium gratis parasceue paraclete exinanite repropitiate and a hundred such like inkehorne termes Yea I woulde gladly know why among so many Greckish and Latine-like terms Gazophylacâ—â— is not a Gazophilace but a treasurie enâ—aenia the dedication and not the encaenes as wel as pasce Pentecost azymes parasceue belike the Church must haue treasure and the feast of dedication must not â—e hidde in a new found terme Why shoulde Aduentus be sometime the comming and sometime the aduent except it were for the sounde of the time of aduent beefore the feast of the natiuitie of Christ Why should Latine words be translated in Greekish termes as scissuras into selismes aemulatores zelators and such like These and suche other be wonders of wordes that wise menne can giue no good reason why they should be vsed CHAP. XXII Other faults Iudaeical prophane meere vanities follies and nouelties Martin NOW leauing matters of controuersie lette vs talke a little with you familiarly and learne of you the reason of other pointes in your translation which to vs seeme faults and sauour not of that spirite whyche shoulde bee in Christian Catholike translatours Fulke OVR translations as neare as the translators could see the truth are euen and iuste with the originall texte the sense whereof if it doe not alwaies containe suche excellent matter as the Septuaginta or vulgar Latin translation haue supposed there is no cause why our translators shoulde be blamed whose office is to regarde what the originall truth is and not to drawe it for any respecte to an other meaning thaÌ„ the spirit of god expresseth in those words MART. 2. First you are so profane that you say The ballet of ballets of Salomon so terming that diuine booke Canticum canticoruÌ„ contayning the high mysterie of Christ and his Church as if it were a ballet of leue betweene Salomon and his concubine as Castaleo wantonly translateth it But you say more profanely thus we haue conceiued we haue born in paine as thoughe wee shoulde haue brought â—ooâ—â—â—â— wind I am ashamed to tel the literall commentarie of this your translation why might you not haue said we haue conceiued and as it were traueled to bring forth and haue brought forth the spirite is there any thing in the Hebrewe to hinder you thus far Why woulde you say winde rather than spirite knowing that the Septuagintain Greeke and the auncient fathers and S. Hierome himselfe who translateth according to the Hebrew yet for sense of the place al expound it both according to Hebrew and Greeke of the spirite of God which is first conceiued in vs beginneth by feare which the scripture calleth the beginning of wisdome in so muche that in the Greeke there are these goodly words famous in al antiquitie Through the feare of thee ô lord we conceiued and haue trauailed with paine and haue brought forth the spirite of thy saluation which thou hast made vpon the earth Which doth excellently set before our cies the degrees of a faithful mans increase and proceeding in the spirite of God which beginneth by the feare of his iudgements and is a good feare though seruile and not sufficient and it may be that you condemning wyth Luther this seruile feare as euil and hurtfull meane also some such thing by your traÌ„slatioÌ„ But indede the place may be vnder stode of the other fear also which hath his degrees more or lesse FVLK 2. I meruaile why this word ballet should seme to you to be profane more than this word song or canticle songs and caÌ„ticles be many as il as any ballets But the other matter is of greate waight Esay 26. where for the spirite we translate winde whych is suche an absurditie that you are ashamed to tel the literall coÌ„mentarie of this our translation Belike you are afraide of suche a faulte as S. Lambert in your legend is reported to haue committed But excepte you hadde a prophane minde you would neuer haue imagined any such matter thereof which you are ashamed to vtter The circumstaÌ„ce of the place requireth that we should translate the word in this place for wind and not the spirit for the pro phets pur pose was to shew that people wer in desperat case without hope of help til God did raise them eueÌ„ as it were froÌ„ death The similitude is taken of a trauailing woman
translate another thing without any necessary pretence of Hebrewe or Greeke and here you would haue it of the necessitie of the Hebrew that we should translate a teacher yet Pagnine in the roote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherevnto you referre vs saith that Esay the 30. verse 20. this word is taken either for raine or for a teacher Ioel the 2. hee maketh no question but it signifieth raine sauing that some thinke it to be the name of a place In the thirde place Psalme 84. after he hath tolde you how Hierome translateth it hee telleth you how R. Dauid and other doe translate it for raine as wee doe and in al these places the sense is more proper for raine than for a teacher sauing that in Esay perhappes it may signifie more aptly a teacher and so the Geneua translation noteth it In Ioel where the Prophet before hadde threatened famine through drought nothing is so conuenient to bee vnderstoode as seasonable raine In the Psalm 84. where the Prophet commendeth the courage of the people that trauailed to Ierusalem through the drie desarts and places that wanted water it is moste apte to vnderstand that God filleth their pits with raine for their comfort This how cold soeuer it is counted of you that care not whereon faith shoulde be grounded yet is it an hundred times more comfortable to a godly conscience that desireth to bee established in trueth than anye violent wresting of the Scripture from the true and naturall sense to anye other interpretation how good in shew soeuer it be MART. 6. And againe where S. Hierom translateth and the Church readeth and all the fatheâ—s interprete and expound accordingly There shal be faith in thy times to expresse the maruelous faith that shall be then in the first Christians specially euen vnto death and in all the rest concerning the hidden mysteries of the newe Testament there you translate There shal be stabilitie of thy times The Prophete ioyneth togither there iudgement iustice faith wisedome knowledge the feare of our Lord you for a litle ambiguitie of the Hebrue worde turne faith into stabilitie FVLK 6. The word stabilitie Esai 33. v. 6. excludeth not faith but sheweth wherein faith is grounded And therefore this is as all the reste a fonde quarrel without any good grounde at all Seing our translation may stande with the truth of the wordes and of the matter and comprehendeth as much as you would haue and more also Yea it sheweth that faith is setled vpon stabilitie and stedfastnesse of truth which shall flourish in the time of Christ. MART. 7. If I should burden you with translating thus also concerning Christ Cease from the man whose breath in his nostrels for wherein is he to be esteemed You would say I did you wrong because it is so pointed now in the Hebrue Wheras you know very wel by S. Hieroms commentarie vpon that place that this is the Iewes pointing or reading of the worde against the honour of Christe the true reading and translation being as he interpreteth it for he is reputed high and therefore beware of him Otherwise as S. Hierom saith what a consequence were this or who would commend any man thus Take heede ye offende not him who is nothing esteemed yet that is your translation Neyther doth the Greeke helpe you which if the accent be truely put iâ— thus because he is reputed for some body or some thing as S. Paule speaketh of the chiefe Apostles and it is our phrase in the commendation of a man FVLK 7. So long as you acknowledge wee haue translated truely according to the Hebrue texte that we reade there is no reason that you should burden vs with false interpretation The Septuaginta as Hierome confesseth did reade as we doe and plaine it is not oneliâ— by the vowels but also by the contexte that so it muste be read For the Prophet disswadeth the people from putting affiance in any mortall man for God wil bring downe the pride of all suche as they truste moste in as it followeth in the next chapiter whereof this verse should be the beginning The dismembring whereof by the ill diuision of the Chapiter deceiued Hierome to think the Prophet spake of Christe when he spake of a prowd man whose breath was in his nostrels and therefore he was of no strength euen as Dauid vseth the same argument Psalme 146. for the purpose The Chaldee Paraphrase also did reade euen as the Septuaginta MART. 8. The like excuse you woulde haue by alleadging the Hebrue vowels if you were told that you much obsâ—ure a notable saying of the prophet concerning Christ or rather the speach of Christe himselfe by his prophete saying I haue spoken by the Prophets and I haue multiplied vision and in the hand of the Prophets that is by the Prophets haue I beene resembled Which later words do exceedingly expresse that al the Prophets spake of Christ as oâ—r Sauiour himself declareth beginning from Moyses and al the Prophetes to interprete vnto the two disciples the things that concerned him as S. Petâ—r saith in these words Al the prophets from Samuel and that spake after him didde tell of these daies This prophecie then being so consonant to these speaches of the â—ewe Testament the Greeke also being word for word so the Hebrewe by changing one little pricke whyche the latter Iewes haue added at their owne pleasure being fully so as wee â—eade with the Catholike Church why pretend you the Iewes authoritie to maintaine an other lesse Christian translation whiche is thus I vse similitudes by the ministerie of the Prophetes as though there were nothing there concerning Christ or the second person peculiarly FVLK 8. Seeing our Sauiour Christ hath promised that neuer a pricke of the lawe shall perishe wee may vnderstande the same also of the Prophets who haue not receiued the vowels of the latter Iewes but euen of the Prophets themselues howsoeuer that heathenish opinion pleaseth you and other Papistes MART. 9. You wil also perhaps alleadge not onelye the later Iewes but also some later Catholike men that so translate the Hebrewe But the difference betweene them and you is that they with reuerence and preâ—erment alwaies of S. Hiâ—roms and the Churches aâ—â—â—ient translation tel vs how it is nowe in the Hebrewe you with derogation and disanulling the same altogâ—ther set downe your owne as the onlie true interpretation according to the Hebrewe aâ—ouching the Hebrewe that nowe iâ— and as now it is printed to be the only authenti cal truth of the olde Testament Where you can neuer answere vs howe that in the Ps. 22. As a lion my hand and my feete as now it is in the Hebrewe can be the true and old authentical Hebrewe whiche none of the fathers knewe the auncient Rabbines condemne as a corruption your selues translate it not but after the olde accustomed reading They haue pierced my handes my feete
editions yet the wordes maye beare that other interpretation also In Titus the firste the participle is of the meane voyce and therefore may signifie actiuely or passiuely In Gal. the transposition Sina before Agar seemeth to be the faulte of the Printer rather than of the translator MART. 20. Let these and the like be small negligences or ignorances such as you will pardon vs also if you finde the like Neither do we greatly mislike that you leaue those wordes Vrim and Thummim and Chemarim and Ziims and Iims vntranslated because it is not easie to expresse them in English and we would haue liked as wel in certaine other words which you haue translated images images and stil images being as hard to expresse the true signification of them as the former And we hope you will the rather beare with the late Catholike translation of the English Testament that leaueth also certaine wordes vntranslated not only because they can not be expressed but also for reuerence and religion as S. Augustine saith and greater maiestie of the same FVLK 20. Some in deede are small faultes some none at al. That you mislike vs not for not translating a few words whose signification is vnknowen or else they can not be aptly expressed in the English tongue it is of no equitie towardes vs but that you might vnder that shadowe creepe away with so huge a multitude of wordes which may as well be translated as any in the Bible and that in the new Testament which is scarse the sixte parte of the whole Bible The wordes which wee haue translated Images are out of question termes signifying Images and of your translator they be called eyther imagines simulachra sculptilia Idola c. Our English tongue being not so fruitefull of wordes we call them sometimes Idols sometimes Images which when we speake of worshipped images can be none other but such as you call Idols To obscure such a multitude of words so much matter by them as you do S. Augustine wil not warrant you who speaketh only of two or three words vsually receiued in the Latine Church in his time not of such a number as you haue counterfaited MART. 21. Of one thing we can by no meanes excuse you but it must sauour vanitie or noueltie or both As when you affectate newe strange wordes which the people are not acquainted with all but it is rather Hebrue to them than English 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Demosthenes speaketh vttering with great countenance and maiestie Against him came vp Nabucadnezzar king of Babel 2. Par. 36. v. 6. for Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon Saneherib for Sennacherib Michaiahs prophecie for Michaeas Iehoshaphats prayer for Iosaphats Vzza slaine for Oza When Zerubbabel went about to builde the Temple for Zorobabel Remember what the Lorde did to Miriam for Marie Deut. 34. And in your first translation Elisa for Elisaeus Pekahia and Pekah for Phaceia and Phacee Vziahu for Ozias Thiglath-peleser for Teglath-phalasar Ahaziahu for Ochozias Peka the sonne of Remaliahu for Phacee the sonne of Romelia And why say you not as wel Shelomoh for Salomon and Coresh for Cyrus and so alter euery word froÌ„ the knowen sound pronunciatioÌ„ thereof Is this to teach the people wheÌ„ you speake Hebrue rather than English Were it a good â—y hearing thinke you to say for IESVS Ieshuah and for MARIE his mother Miriam and for Messias Messiach and Iohn Iachannan and such like moÌ„strous nouelties which you might aswel do and the people wold vnderstand you as wel as when our preachers say Nabucadnezer King of Babel FVLK 21. Seing the moste of the proper names of the olde Testament were vnknowne to the people before the Scripture was read in Englishe it was beste to vtter them according to the truth of their pronuntiation in Hebrewe rather than after the common corruption which they had receiued in the Greke and Latin tongs But as for those names which were known vnto the people out of the new TestameÌ„t as Iesus Iohn Marie c. it had bin follie to haue taught meÌ„ to souÌ„d theÌ„ otherwise than after the Greke declination in which we find them MART. 22. When Zuinglius your greate Patriarke did reade in Munsters translation of the old TestameÌ„t Iehizkiabu Iehezchel Choresh Darianesch Beltzezzer and the like for Ezechias Ezechiel Cyrus Darius Baltasar he called them barbarous voices and vnciuil speaches and saide the worde of God was soiled and depraued by them Know you not that proper names alter and change and are written and sounded in euerie language diuersly Might not al antiquitie and the generall custome both of reading and hearing the knowen names of Nabuchodonosor and Michaeas and Ozias suffice you but you must needes inuent other which the people neuer heard rather for vaine ostentation to amase and astonish them than to edification and instruction Which is an olde hereticall fashion noted by Eusebius lib 4. c. 10. and by the author of the vnperfect commentaries vpon S. Mathew ho. 44. and by S. Augustine lib. 3. c. 26. contra Cresconium FVLK 22. That Zuinglius is no Patriarke of ours you may knowe by this that we doe freely dissent from him when we are perswaded that he dissenteth from the truth But where you charge vs with an hereticall fashion in sounding Hebrew names according to the truth of the Hebrew tongue if your authors be well weyed they will conuince you of an hereticall fashion in framing of new wordes which are more apt to amase and astonishe men than to instruct or edifie them and in vsing strauÌ„g language in all your Church seruice and in that also diuerse Hebrew wordes So did the Marcosians of whome Eusebius out of Irenaeus writeth in baptising And the author of the vnperfect worke vppon Mathew though him selfe an Heretike yet truly sayth of heretike Priests as you are in the homily by you quoted Sic modo haeretici Sacerdotes c. Euen so the Heretike Priestes shut vp the gate of truth For they knowe that if the truth were made manifest their Church should be forsaken c. For which cause vntill this tyme you haue bene vtter enimies to the translation of the Scripture But nowe you see you can not preuaile against the translation you haue begunne so to translate the Scripture as in many thinges it were as good not translated for any thing the people shall vnderstande by it For you haue not explicated the fourth parte of the fayned inkehorne termes that you haue vsed And that Saint Augustine sayth Cresconius went fondly about to terrifie him with the Greeke word Antiâ—athegoria you doe the like with Parasceue Azymes scandals Neophyte yea with Latine wordes gratis depositum and such like seeke to bring the ignorant in great admiration of your deepe knowledge which is nothing els but an hereticall fashion vnder strange termes to hide the poison of your pestilent doctrine MART. 23. What shal
you to proue Forsooth that his aduersaries do confesse all the olde fathers to be on their side and to haue erred with them as Fulke doth of S. Ambrose Austen Tertullian Origen Chrysostom Gregorie and Bede by name with most reprochefull and contemptuous words against them This is spoken generally as though we confesse all the doctors to bee on their side in euery controuersie which we doe not acknowledge to be true in any one although many of the later sort do in some part fauour one or two errours of theirs among an hundreth But let vs examine his prooues which seeme to be verie plentifull yet of nine quotations I must needes strike out two page 306. and 279. because in them is not one syllable of my writing but all of Allens In the pages 315. 316. is nothing more contained touching this matter than I haue alreadie declared There remaineth nowe page 349. where I say touching a rule of S. Augustine which hee giueth to trie faith and doctrine of the Church onely by the scripture that if he had as diligently followed it in examining the common error of his time of prayer for the dead as he did in beating downe the schisme of the Donatistes or the heresie of the Pelagians hee woulde not so blindly haue defended that which by holy scripture he was not able to maintaine as he doeth in that booke De Cura pro mortuis agenda and else where What most reprochefull or contemptuous wordes are here against S. Augustine Seeing the holie scripture is a light shining in a darke place as S. Peter sayeth who so goeth without it must walke blindly which I say in commendation of the light of the scripture not in contempt of Augustines reason whome as I may not honour with contempt of the trueth so when he is a patrone maintainer of the truth I honour him from my heart Likewise page 78. Saint Ambrose is named but nothing acknowledged to fauour any popish errour Augustine is againe noted speaking of the amending fire whereof he hath no ground but in the common errour of his time and whereof he affirmeth sometimes that it is a matter that may bee doubted of sometimes that there is no third place at all Wherefore this place hath neither reprochful wordes nor confession of any constant opinion of Augustine inclining to your errours Then let vs passe to the next place which is page 435. where concerning this matter I haue written thus I denie that any of the auncient fathers in Christs time or scholers to his Apostles or within one or two hundreth yeares after Christ except one that had it of Montanus the heretike as he had more things beside in any one word maintained your cause for purgatorie or prayers for the dead Secondly of them that maintained prayers for the dead the most confessed they had it not out of the scriptures but of tradition of the Apostles and custome of the church therefore they are not to be compared vnto vs in better vnderstanding of the scriptures for that point which they denyed to be receiued of the scriptures Thirdly those of the auncient fathers that agreed with you in any part of your assertion for none within 400. yeares was wholly of your errour notwithstanding manie excellent gifts that they had yet maintained other errors beside that and about that diffented one from another and sometime the same man from himselfe and that is worst of all from manifest truth of the holy scriptures Therefore neither is their erronious interpretation in this matter to be receiued nor M. Allens wise iudgement of vs to bee regarded Here also I appeale to the iudgement of indifferent readers what confession I haue made of the fathers to be on their side or what reprochefull or contemptuous wordes I haue vsed against them for dissenting from vs. The next place is quoted page 247. where I say against Allen boasting of auncient testimonies for prayer for the dead I will not denie but you haue much drosse and dregges of the later sort of doctors the later the fuller of drosse But bring me any worde out of Iustinus Martyr Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus or any that did write within one hundreth yeares after Christ that aloweth prayer or almes for the dead I will say you are as good as your word Here except he will cauil that I acknowledge much drosse and dregs to be in the later sort of doctors I knowe not what hee findeth that hath any shadowe of his slander But the trueth must be confessed that the pure waters of life are to be founde onely in the worde of God and beside that the best and purest liquors that are to bee seene are not cleare from all dregges and drosse of humane error and frailtie In the next page Origen deliuered from the shamefull mangling of Allens allegation is shewed plainly to be an enimie of purgatorie prayer for the dead in that he affirmeth the day of a Christian mans death to be the ende of all sorrowe and the beginning of all felicitie There remaineth nowe the last place quoted page 194. where I acknowledge that Gregorie Bernard Bede vpon the text Matth. 12. are of opinion that sinnes not remitted in this world may be remitted in the world to come But how happeneth it say I that Chrysostome Ieronyme which both interpreted that place could gather no such matter although they otherwise allowed prayer for the dead The reason must needes be because the errour of purgatorie growing so much the stronger as it was neerer to the full reuelation of Antichrist Gregorie and Bede sought not the true meaning of Christ in this scripture but the confirmation of their plausible error Here is all the confessions most reprochefull contemptuous wordes that are conteined in so manie of those places as he hath quoted in which I will not tarrie to rehearse how manie vntruthes he hath vttered against mee but wish the indifferent reader to consider that if he be so bolde to slander mee concerning a booke printed in English by which he may be conuinced of euerie simple reader what dare he not aduouch of matters done and past at Rome whither none may trauell to trie out his tretcherie but he is in manifest danger neuer to returne the answere of his message From this Popish Parson whatsoeuer his name be I must passe to another gentleman namelesse in deede but not blamelesse yea much more blame worthie than the other who among so manie and so great flanders as it is wonder howe they could bee conueyed into so small a booke against our prince her lawes her councellors her iudges her officers the nobilitie the comminaltie the church the gouernors the pastors the people thereof against all states persons of the land in whome there is religion towardes God ioyned with dutie towarde their prince and countrie hath founde yet some emptie corners where he might place me in particular And
first of all page 46. of his Latine Epistle after he hath described the manner of quartering vsed in the execution of traytors and most impudently flandered the officers of Iustice to make such haste in cutting downe the Papistes which are hanged as they vse not in punishment of other traytours to the ende they might satisfie their cruel minds in their torments which is proued false by manie thousand eye witnesses that haue not lightly seene any of them reuiue with any sense of their paynes except one Storie who also did hang so long before he was cut downe that it was great wondering to manie to see him so soone recouered not onely in life but also in strength At length he commeth in his tragical manner to inueigh against the crueltie of their aduersaries whome this cruell sight doth nothing at all moue to pitie but they laugh and make sport at it and insult against them that are a dying But especially saieth hee if any ouercome with paine hath giuen foorth any groning which yet happeneth most seldome so one of them no meane preacher in a certeine imprinted booke doeth gather that ours are not true martyrs because one of them as he himselfe affirmeth gaue foorth a certaine howling as of an helhound that I may vse his owne wordes O sentence worthie of a preacher O new charitie of the new gospel What ruffinaly theefe at any time hath not blushed to vtter such a voice What murtherer did euer shewe a minde so cruell and barbarous This froth of wordes I might easily match with like rhetoricall exclamations O impudent lyer O shamelesse slanderer O trayterous backbyter c. But I had rather beat it downe with trueth of matter Bristowe in his booke of Motiues maketh Martyrs his 15. Motiue Among whome hee commendeth as well for the goodnes of their cause as also for their patient suffering The good Earle of Northumberland I vse his owne traiterous wordes Storie Felton Nortons Woodhouse Plomtree and so manie hundreths of the Northeren men whome approued by miracles vndoubted he opposeth against Foxes martyrs as he calleth them Against this traiterous commendation of open rebels and traitors among other things thus I haue written Retent page 59. Seeing not the paine but the cause maketh a martyr whosoeuer haue suffered for treason and rebellion may well be accounted Martyrs of the popish church but the church of Christ condemneth such for enimies of Christes kingdome and inheritours of eternall destruction except they repent and obteine mercie for their horrible wickednesse And seeing patient suffering is by Bristowes owne confession a gift of God vnto all true martyrs such as were manifestly voyde of patience can be no true martyrs as were most of these rebels and traitors and Storie by name who for all his glorious tale in the time of his most deserued execution by quartering was so impatient that he did not onely roare and crye like an helhound but also strake the executioner doing his office and resisted as long as strength did serue him being kept downe by three or foure men vntill he was dead O patient martyr of the popish church What cause had this slaunderous spirite vppon these my wordes to make such hydeous outcryes what theefe what ruffian what murderer or what matter is ministred in this my saying to accuse all the aduersaries of Papistes in England of such barbarous crueltie We are not so voide of humanitie but we lament y e miserie euen of our greatest most graceles enimies but yet wee are not so voide of vnderstanding to acknowledge impatient suffering to bee true martyrdome no not if the cause were neuer so good Not that wee thinke true martyrs to be voide of sense and feeling of their torments or that they may not testifie their paines euen with teares and strong crying sometimes but that there is a great difference between the crying of patient martyrs vnto God for strength comfort and the brutish roaring of impatient sufferers expressed only with paine and torment as was this of Storie who vttered no voice of prayer in all that time of his crying as I heard of the verie executioner himselfe beside them that stoode by but onely roared and cryed as one ouercome with the sharpnes of the paine as no martyr is whome God is faithfull to deliuer out of temptation so that although they haue neuer so great sense of their torment yet are they neuer ouercome thereby But peraduenture this orator for the popish traytors wil take me vp for concluding against Storie that he did not pray because no voice of prayer was heard to come from him as though I could not consider that he was immediatly before strangled so that the passage of his voice might be stopped that albeit that roaring were his prayer yet it might not bee vnderstood by them which heard it In deede if there had beene no other signe of his impatiencie but his crying I would not haue beene bolde to haue iudged therof and made him an example of impatiencie as I did But what patient martyr euer strake his tormentor Who praying for his persecutors would striue to buffet and beat them What man submitting himselfe to the will of God in his suffering would resist the executioners that he might not suffer yea when there was no remedie but he must suffer except God for his crueltie shewed against his patient saints had not onely giuen him a taste of such torments as he procured to others but also made him an open spectacle of the impatient vncomfortable state of them that suffer not in a good cause and with a good conscience By this it is manifest how honestly this proctor of the persecuted Papistes reporteth that vpon a litle groning I gather that hee was no true martyr and further rayleth as his facultie well serueth him The like honest dealing and trueth is shewed in the English translation of this pamphlet toward the latter ende where hee speaketh of certaine imprisoned pyned with famine at Yorke There in the margent Fulke is placed as though he had beene author or executer of some persecution at Yorke neere to which citie he neuer came by 40. miles But this will be excused perhaps by the printers fault because it is not mentioned in the Latine Howsoeuer it be it argueth a lying and a slaunderous stomack of the setters foorth of this treatise that would suffer so open and so apparent a slander to passe vncorrected being in such a place where it could not escape their sight and knowledge But the storie of the conference at Wisbich is a worthie matter wherein not onely this rhetoritian but also the confuter of M. Charke if they be not both one Parson as I gesse they be haue thought good to exercise their stile The trueth whereof is this as it is easie to be prooued in euery respect by sufficient testimonies It pleased the Lordes and other of her maiesties councell after those obstinate recusantes
reproueth others for intemperate speech there is nothing more in substance but that I did set foorth that pamphlet in mine owne commendation and I attempted the matter without authoritie wherein without all rhetorike I must tell him plainely hee lyeth impudently As for the disputation he sayth they haue sued for in seditious maner and for a purpose of seditioÌ„ by Campion their valiant champion for other suite they cannot prooue that euer they made or by any other meanes that euer I hearde of howe like it is they would sewe for it we may knowe by this that they would not accept it when it was offered and howe well it was discharged by Campion their lusty chalâ—nger when he could not refuse it there be many both wise and learned witnesses that can testifie to the reproofe of such impudent reportes as haue beene bruted in popish pamphlets by ignorant asses to whom their owne champion is so litle beholding that they haue for the most part made his answere a great deale more absurde and further from shewe of learning than in deede it was But if you be so sharpe set vpon disputation as you pretende why doth neuer a papist of you all aunswere my chalenge made openly in print to all learned papists almost three yeere ago set before my Retentiue against Bristowes Motiues wherein you may expresse what you haue in mainteinaunce of your opinion without suite without danger and to the best and surest try all of the trueth But nowe it is time to come to other cauilles of this syrly censurer They are of two sorts the one concerning wordes the other touching matter I will beginne first with the wordes and as neere as I can readily finde them I wil quote the places of my bookes where I haue vsed them And letting the reader see what cause moued mee sometimes to such vehement termes I referre it to his iudgement whether I haue passed the bondes of modestie or equitie yea or nay First he chargeth me with a ruffianlike spirite because I say to Allen Shewe me Allen if thou canst for thy guttes pag. 241. In that place I answere to Allen which scornefully biddeth the Papistes say vnto vs M. Protestant let me haue sight of your onely fayth I would be of that religion c. that Iames calleth pure and vnspotted c. Whiles he requireth a sight of our fayth by our good workes I aunswere that because the tryall of singular persons is vncertaine and vnpossible let vs consider the whole states Then followeth Shewe me if thou canst for thy guttes or name any popish citie that hath made such prouision for the fatherlesse and widowes as the citie of London c. What speech is heare like a ruffian Except the delicate censurer cannot abide to heare Allens guts named but he thinketh it russianlike as though he had neuer hearde of these phrases ruparis licet non si te ruperis inquit rumpantur ut ilia Codro In which sauing the authoritie of this noble censurer no wise man did euer conceiue any ruffianlike spirite It sauoureth a great deale more of a ruffianlike spirite that himselfe abuseth the phrases of the holie Ghost to scorning and scoffing as heare in the margent Doctor Fulkes tallent in rayling and pag. 50. Luthers lying with a nunne in the lord who but an atheist would not abhor to speake so But let vs examine what rayling he hath noted out of my Retentiue against Bristowes Motiues First leaud Losell and vnlearned dogbolt which I finde pag. 6. where I say that some of the Papistes were moderators of the conference at Westminster at least one namely D. Heath then occupiing the place of the Bishoppe of Yorke Therefore not onely lay Lordes and vnlearned heretikes as this leaude losell and vnlearned dogbolt and trayterous papist I am bolde with him because he is so malepeart with the learned and godly nobilitie of England most slaunderously and maliciously affirmeth were onely moderators of that disputation but some of the popish faction were not onely present but presidentes of that action beside all the rest of the popish prelates which then were of that parliament for information whereof that conference was appointed I say let the reader iudge whether hee haue not deserued those termes that being but a man of verie meane learning as his writinges declare was not ashamed to call all the nobilities and coÌ„mons of the parliament lay lordeâ— and vnlearned heretikes Againe pag. 58. I call Bristowe a traiterous Papist because he slaundereth our state not onely for publike execution of open rebelles and errant traytours as the Earle of Northumberlande Storie Felton Nortons Woodhouse and so many hundreths of the northeren men whom all hee calleth holy martyres prooued by miracles vndoubted but also with priuie murthering by poysoning whipping and famishing what lesse I could haue sayde of him for this hygh treason openly printed and what an honest Papist the censurer is for reproouing me in so terming him I refer to the iudgement of all Christian and faithfull subiectes To proceede I call him shamelesse beast pag. 18. because he maketh a shamlesse and beastly conclusion in those wordes Whosoeuer haue at any time set themselues against any doctrine confirmed by miracle they haue beene against the trueth There can to this no instance bee giuen our doctrine which they resist hath beene confirmed by miracles therefore playne it is that they are enemies of the trueth Doe you not heare this shamelesse beast say quod I there can be no instance giuen against his proposition when the Lorde himselfe giueth an expresse lawe against a false prophet which sheweth signes and miracles Deut. 13. c. Weigh the terme with the desert of the person in this bolde assertion and if it bee too extreme I desire no fauour Yet againe pag. 10. I write thus Where Luther confesseth that the mockers of the true Church were commonly called heretikes his conscience did not accuse him as Bristowe sayde of him that his side were heretikes For hee was able to put a difference betweene him that by heretikes is called an heretike and him that is so indeede although Bristowe either for his blockish wit cannot or for his spitefull malice will not conceiue it Heere I doe not simply accuse his wit but either his wit or his malice and that one of them was to blame if not both euery wise man may see by his argument Furthermore pag. 39. I say he is an impudent asse which to stablish his grounde of custome is not ashamed to falsifie the wordes of holy scripture For hee had said that Saint Paul after many reasons 1. Cor. 11. for the vncomlinesse of womens going bareheaded recoyleth to this inuincible fort Si quis c. But if any man seeme to be contentious we haue no such custom for women to pray vncouered nor the church of God His ignorance and impudence is manifest in this place If the terme asse offende any man let him
childbed wee beleeue not because wee haue not read it That you say Lo M. Chark S. Augustine maketh it both a matter of faith and the doubting thereof to be blasphemie how will you auoid this It is easily auoyded for it is false in many respects first S. Augustine fayeth it not but some obscure man of much latter time lesse learning and authoritie as the barbarous stile in many places declareth secondly hee fayth not that it is a matter of faith to beleeue the perpetuall virginitie of Marie but that shee conceiued brought foorth and remained a virgine after her child-birth Thirdly he maketh not the doubting thereof to be blasphemie but the obstinate denying of Heluidius which saide shee was no virgine after her childbirth But how will you auoide that which S. Ierome writeth We refuse those things that are not written we beleeue not because wee haue not read in y e scripture anything hereof as necessarie to saluation Pag. 158. you do not see why you should beleeue a Charke or a Fulke comming but yester day from the grammar schole before a Cyprian a Tertullian a Basil a Ierom an Ambrose or an Augustine especially in a matter of fact as your case is seeing they liued more than twelue or thirteene hundred yeares nearer to the deede dooing than these ministers do Why sir I pray you who requireth you to beleeue any minister of these dayes before any of those auncient fathers in respect of the credite of the persons and not of the truth which they bring You knowe that Panormitane thinketh more credite is to be giuen to one lay man speaking the trueth according to scripture than to all men of all ages speaking contrarie to the trueth or beside the truth of the scriptures But it is a matter of fact you say whether such and such traditions came from Christ his Apostles or no and therefore they that liued neerer the time of the deede dooing by twelue or thirteene hundreth yeares are more like to knowe the trueth than wee I answere that all things that you pretende for traditions are not of one sort some are contrary to the word of God and are reproued by euidence of the holy scriptures other are beside the worde of God and therefore not necessarie to bee receiued because they are not found in the holie scriptures As for the prerogatiue of antiquitie cannot argue a certaine knowledge of the fact in these ancient fathers seeing in two or three hundreth yeares that was before their time and the time of the deede supposed to be done any fable might be obtruded vnder pretence of such tradition as we prooue that many were Yea when they that were neerest of all to the Apostles time as Polycarpus and Anicetus do not agree what was the Apostles traditioÌ„ which was not expressed in their writing it is manifest that they of much latter time coulde haue no certeintie thereof And that whatsoeuer ceremonie or practise the Apostles deliuered which was not expressed in the scripture was but temporall or arbitrarie in the power of the Church to vse or not vse as it might best serue for edifying Finally where you affirme that Fulk came but yesterday from the Grammar schole to make it seeme that he is but a yong grammatian either your dayes be neere as long as thirtie yeres or else your pen runneth beyond your knowledge of him or at leastwise your malice ouer reacheth your knowledge But yet to this extremitie of crediting one Charke or Fulke before so many auncient fathers you say you are driuen and bid men hearken a little howe D. Fulke handleth these men about traditions And first S. Cyprian alledging the tradition of Christ himselfe concerning the mingling of wine and water in the chalice but if Cyprian had beene well vrged faith Fulke he would haue better considered of the matter Thus you woulde make men beleeue that I oppose nothing but mine owne authoritie or credit against S. Cyprian But then you shamefully beelie me for this is the matter and these are my wordes which you haue gelded at your pleasure Whereas Cyprian ad Pompeiâ—â— calleth all traditions to the writinges and commandements of the Apostles Martiall cryeth out that Cyprian is slandered because he himselfe alleageth the tradition of Christ for mingling of water with wine If Cyprian breake his owne rule who can excuse him But if he had beene vrged as much for the necessitie of water as he was for the necessitie of wine in the sacrament he would haue better considered of the matter Who seeth not I suppose no lesse authoritie against Cyprian than of Cyprian himselfe and therefore I boast not of mine owne credite aboue his To proceede Tertullian is alleaged saying that the blessing with the signe of the crosse is an apostolike tradition Fulke Tertullians iudgement of tradition without scripture in that place is corrupt If I should search no further heere is a reason of Fulkes mislike of Tertullians iudgement added because he affirmeth tradition of the Apostles without the writing of the Apostles But in deede there is in the place by you noted other argumentes in these wordes Tertullians iudgement of tradition without scripture in that place is corrupt for Martiall himselfe confesseth that a tradition vnwritten should be reasonable and agreeable to the scriptures and so he sayth the tradition of blessing with the crosse is because the Apostles by the holy ghost deliuered it But who shall assure vs thereof Tertullian and Basill are not sufficient warrant for so worthy a matter seeing S. Paule leaueth it out of the vniuersall armour of God This last and inuincible argument in rehearsing my wordes you leaue out which because perhaps you could not see in sewe wordes I will set it more abroade The vniuersall spirituall armour of God is deliuered by S. Paule Eph. 6. blessing with the signe of the crosse is not there deliuered by S. Paul therefore blessing with the signe of the crosse is no part of the spirituall armour of God Nowe let vs see whether you will beleeue a Paule before a Tertullian or a Basill or a Fulke with S. Paule before a Basil with Tertullian without S Paule or against S. Paule But you goe forwarde S. Ierome is alleaged saying that lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles Fulke Ierome vntruely ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles My wordes are against Bristowes Mot. pag. 35. these Againe S. Ierome fayth it was a tradition of the Apostles to fast 40. dayes in the yeare If this be true then is the popish storie false that maketh Telesphorus bishoppe of Rome author of that lenten fast Eusebius sheweth y e great diuersitie of fasting before Easter li. 5. cap. 26. saying that some fasted but one day some two dayes some more some 40. houres of day and night This diuersitie prooueth that Ierome vntruely ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles which should haue beene kept vniformely if it had any institution
of the Apostles Among so many argumentes and authorities cited for proofe you can finde nothing but Fulke faith bluntly Ierome vntruely ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles Sed perge mentiri S. Chrysostome is alleâ—ged saying that the Apostles decreed that in the sacrifice of the â—â—â—tar there should be made prayer for the departed Fulke where he sayth it was decreed by the Apostles c. he must pardon vs for crediting him because he cannot shewe it out of the actes and writinges of the Apostles If I had added none other argument this had beene sufficient for vs to for beare crediting any thing of the Apostles whereof we haue not the holy ghost in their writinges to be witnesse But you shall heare what I oppose against Chrysostome beside this Against pag. 303. it followeth immediatlie vpon these wordes noted by M. Censurer And wee will be bolde to charge him with his owne saying Hom. de Adam Heus Sâ—â—is sufficere c. Wee thinke it suffiseth ynough what soeuer the writinges of the Apostles haue taught vs according to the foresay de rules insomuch that we count it not at all catholike whatsoeuer shall appeare contrarie to the rules appointed And againe in Gen. H. 58. Vides in quantam c. Thou seest into howe great absurditie they fall which will not followe the canon of holy scripture but permitte all thinges to their owne cogitations But if we be further vrged we will alleadge that which hee sayeth in Euang. Ioan. H. 58. Quisacra c. he that vseth not the holy scripture but clymeth another way that is by a way not allowed is a theefe We may be as bolde with Chrysostome as hee sayd he would be with Paule himselfe in 2. ad Tim. Hom. 2. Plus aliquid dicam c. I will say somewhat more we must not be ruled by Paule himselfe if he speake anie thing that is his owne and any thing that is humane but we must obey the Apostle when he carrieth Christ speaking in him Wherefore seeing it is certaine that by testimonie of Iustinus Martyr that there was no mention of the dead in the celebration of the Lordes supper for more than an hundred yeares after Christ we must not beleeue Chrysostome without scripture affirming that it was ordeyned so by the Apostles As though this place had not beene sufficient to conuince your impudent lying you goe forwarde and say that page 362. and 363. of the same booke I aunswere to diwerse fathers alleaged together beside Chrysostome for the same purpose Who is witnesse that this is the tradition of the Apostles you will say Tertullian Cyprian Austen Ierome and a great many more But I would learne why the Lorde would not haue this set forth by Matthew Marke Luke and Paule Why they were not chosen scribes hereof rather then Tertullian Cyprian Ierome Austen and other such as you nâ—me But this is a counterfaite institution and fained tradition Heere you note in the margent a proude question which is not so right as if I should note against it a proude censure For it is a question that may be demaunded in humilitie why the Lord if it were his pleasure that the dead should be prayed for at the communion as a thing necessarie for them and dutifull for vs would not reueale so much by those witnesses that are aboue all exception rather than by such as are all manifestly conuicted of errors as you Papistes cannot denie But because neuera Papist of you all is able to answere this question to the satisfaction of any mans doubtfull conscience you thinke best to reiect it and say it is a proude question As though it were pride for any man to seeke confirmation of his faith against so iust a cause of doubt But in truth my wordes are more full than you alleage them against the pretended institution If it be lawfull for me once to pose the Papists as you doe often the protestantes I woulde learne why the Lorde would not haue this doubtlesse institution and as you take it the most necessarie vse of the sacrament plainely or at the leastwise obscurely set foorth by Matthewe Marke Luke or Paule which all haue set foorth the storie of the action of Christ the institution of the sacrament and the ende or vse of the same If it were not meete at all to be put in writing why was it disclosed by Tertullian Cyprian Augustine c If it were meete to be put in writing why were not those chosen scribes Matthew Marke Luke and Paul worthy of all credite rather appointed for it than Tertullian Cyprian Augustine and such as you name But against this counter faite institution and fayned tradition S. Paule cryeth with open mouth vnto the Corinthians 1. Cor. 11. That which I deliuered to you I receiued of the Lorde c. which wrote to that effect Last of all you say that being vrged by the like I discredite all antiquitie saying It is a common thing with the ancient writers to defende euerie ceremonie which was vsed in their time by tradition of the Apostles In deede the wordes are mine the occasion as of all â—he rest frandulently and falsely omitted For vpon occasion of Chrysostome alleaged to proue that mention of the dead was made at the coÌ„munion by tradition of the Apostles for which I remit him to mine answere of Allen lib. 2. ca. 5. I ad moreouer these wordes If we should admit all thinges to be ordeyned of the Apostles which some of the olde writers doe ascribe to their traditions we should receiue many thinges which euen the Papistes themselues do not obserue As that it is a wicked thing to fast on sunday or to pray kneeling that oblations are to be made for mens birth dayes c. Which with diuerse other superstitions Tertullian fathereth vppon the tradition of the Apostles as well as oblations for the dead De cor Mil. Hearing therefore such manifest vnthruthes are fathered vpon the Apostles tradition by most ancient writers what certainety can we haue of their tradition without their writing By this the reader may see howe honestly and truely you say there are set before you a payre of balances with Charke and Fulke in one ende and Cyprian Origen Tertullian Basill c. in an other ende And Fulke opposeth himselfe against them all Wheâ—â—as in euerie place by you noted hee opposeth either the holy scriptures or other auncient writers or the same writers themselues or euident and manifest reason to proue that such thinges are vntruly fathered vpon the Apostles tradition Last of all for your farewell you charge D. Fulke to affirme that the booke of the Maccabees was written with a prophane and Ambitious spirite Against purg pag. 209. In deede in that place among many other reasons which I bring to prooue that storie not to bee the Canon of the scriptures I say that hee maketh a verie prophane preface ambitiously commending his trauels and shewing
the authoritie of God the sonne which is equall with his father from the ministerie of y e man Iesu Christ inferior to his father as touching his manhood Secondly they charge vs that we sticke not to say Christ was a priest or did sacrifice according to his Godhead Wee say he was a priest and did offer sacrifice both according to his godhead according to his manhood And the same saâ—eth the Apostle in effect when he saith The bloud of Christ which by his eternal spirit offered himself vnreprouable to God shal purge your conscience c. Heb. 9. 14. For not y e bloud of beastes nor of any man though he had beene innocent but the bloud of that man which was God was the price of our redemption in which respect the Apostle Act. 20. ver 28. sayeth that God purchased his Church vnto him selfe by his owne bloud For by the eternall spirite is vnderstood that infinite power of the diuinitie vnited to the humanitie by which the sacrifice of Christ was consecrated that by the same liuely or quickening vertue by which he created vs he might also restore vs. Whereunto our Sauiour Christ had regard when he saide Ioh. 6. It is the spirite that giueth life the flesh profiteth nothing But this say the Papistes is to make Christ God the fathers priest not his sonne Nay rather this is to acknowledge Christ to be both his fathers sonne and his priest euen as the Apostle sayeth The law appointeth priestes men that haue infirmitie but the worde of the othe which is after the lawe the Sonne for euer perfected Heb. 7. v. 28. Where by the oppositioÌ„ of men hauing infirmitie with the Sonne perfected for euer it is most cleare that the worde of the othe maketh Christ as he is the Sonne of God a priest after the order of Melchisedech Where I cannot omitte the shamefull corruption of this text in the popish translation which to hide this opposition betweene men and God the sonne of God hath altogither left out this worde men although it be in the Latine expressed manifestly Lex enim homines constituit sacerdotes infirmitatem habentes which they translate thus For the law appointeth priestes them that haue infirmitie But to proceede Our accusers adde further that our assertion is to make Christ to doe sacrifice and homage to God his father as his Lorde and not as his equall in dignitie and nature I aunswere no more than when S. Paul sayeth that Christ when hee was in the forme of God and thought it no robberie to bee equall with God he made himselfe of no reputation tooke vpon him the shape of a seruant became obedient to the death euen the death of the crosse I haue sufficiently before distinguished that all partes of his priesthood that required obedience seruice homage ministerie subiection he perfourmed as man but the authoritie of reconciling men vnto God he wrought as God and man euen as the Apostle writeth God was in Christ reconciling the world to him selfe 2. Cor. 5. ver 19. That he might be a priest therefore able and worthie to make attonement with God he was God that his reconciliation and satisfaction might extende to men he was man and so beeing God and man he is â— perfect mediator betweene God and man and an high priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech All this notwithstanding they oppose against vs the authoritie of the fathers who doubtlesse had no other meaning than we to keepe this distinction First Augustine in Psal. 109. is produced to say that as hee was man he was priest as God he has not priest But Augustines wordes are somewhat otherwise vppon the text Iurauit Dominus c. Ad hoc enim natus ex vtero ante luciferum vt esses sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordineÌ„ Melchisedech Si natuÌ„ ex vtero de virgine intelligimus ante LuciferuÌ„ noctu sicut â—uangelia contestantur procul dubio inde ex vtero ante luciferuÌ„ vt esset Sacerdos in aeternuÌ„ secunduÌ„ ordinem Melchisedech Nam secundum id quod natus est de patre Deus apud Deum coaeternus gignenti non Sacerdos sed sacerdos propter carnem assumptam propter victimam quam pro nobis offerre◠á nobis acceptam The Lorde hath sworne c. For to this ende thou wast borne out of the wombe before the day starre that thou mightest be a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech For according to that he is borne of God the father God with God toeternall with him that begetteth he is not a priest but a priest for his flesh assumpted for the sacrifice which being taken of vs he might offer for vs. In these words Augustines meaning is plaine ynough that Christ according to his diuine and eternall generation could not haue beene a priest for vs except hee had taken our flesh and beene borne a man which wee doe alwaies confesse But that our redemption by his sacrifice was the meere worke of his manhoode onely he sayth not but the contrarie if he be marked For he sayth that the sonne of God was a priest for the fleshe which he tooke of vs that he might offer for vs that sacrifice which he tooke of vs. Heere it is plaine that Christ as God offereth sacrifice but he offereth as a priest for to offer sacrifice pertayneth to a priest therefore Christ as God is a priest yet not as God only but as God and man Whereupon the same Augustine saith afterwarde O domine qui iâ—rasti c. O Lorde which hast sworne and sayde Thou arâ— a priest for euer after the order of Mâ—lchisâ—dech the same priest for euer is the Lorde on thy right hande the very same I say priest for euer of whom thou hast sworne is the Lorde on thy right hande because thou hast sayde to the same my Lorde Sit thou on my right hande vntill I make thine enemies thy footestoole Heere he affirmeth that the eternall God Dauids Lorde as he was God Dauids sonne as he was man is that eternall priest And to what ende but to perfourme those partes of a priest which were proper to God that is to reconcile vs vnto God to haue authoritie of himselfe and of his owne nature and worthynesse to come before God and to remaine in the fauour of God alwayes which no creature hath but through his worthinesse and gracious gift The next authoritie brought against vs is Theodoret in Psal. 109. who is cited thus As man he did offer sacrifice but as God he did receiue sacrifices verily we say as much and more also that he offered sacrifice as God also reconciling the world to himselfe But in truth the wordes of Theodoret are otherwise and to an other ende Sacerdos autem non est Christus qui ex Iuda secundum carnem ortus est non ipse aliquid offerens sed vocatur caput eorum qui offerunâ— quandoquidem eius corpus ecclesiam