vntruths that in such matters as you may be conuinced in them by ten thousand witnesses What credit shal be giuen to you in matters that cōsist vpon your owne bare testimonie when you force not to faine of other men that wherin euery man may reproue you And as for the only pretence you speake of Caluine doth so litle esteeme it that notwithstanding the same he doubteth not to receiue the Epistle of S. Iames because it is agreable to the whole body of the canonical Scripture as if you had read his argumēt vpon that Epistle you might easily haue perceiued MART. 9. Marke gētle reader for thy soules sake thou shalt find that heresie only heresie is the cause of their denying these books so farre that against the orders Hierarchies particular patronages of Angels one of them writeth thus in the name of the rest We passe not for that Raphael of Tobie neither do we acknowledge those seuē Angels which he speaketh of al this is farre from Canonical Scriptures that the same Raphael recordeth sauoureth I wote not what superstition Against free will thus I litle care for the place of Ecclesiasticus neither will I beleeue free will though he affirme an hundred times That before men is life death And against praier for the dead intercession of Saincts thus As for the booke of the Machabees I do care lesse for it thā for the other Iudas dreame cōcerning Omas I let passe as a dreame This is their reuerence of the scriptures which haue uniuersally bin reuerenced for canonical in the church of God aboue 1100 yeres Con. Cart. 3. particularly of many fathers long before Aug. de doct Christ. l 2. c. 8. FVLK 9. The mouth that lieth killeth the soule The reader may thinke you haue small care of his soules health when by such impudēt lying you declare that you haue so smal regard of your own But what shal he mark That heresy c. You were best say that Eusebius Hierom Ruffine al the churches in their times were heretiks that only heresie was the cause of their deniall of these bookes For such reasons as moued thē moue vs some thing also their authority But how proue you that only heresie moueth vs to reiect thē Because M. Whit. against the orders Hierarchies particular patronages of Angels writeth in the name of the rest That we passe not c. Take heede least vpon your bare surmise you belie him where you say he writeth in the name of the reste as in the next sectiō following you say he writeth in the name of both the vniuersities for which I am sure he had no cōmissiō frō either of thē althogh he did write that which may well be aduouched by both the vniuersities yet I knowe his modestie is such as he will not presume to be aduocate for both the vniuersities and much lesse for the whole church except he were lawfully called therto This is a cōmon practise of you Papists to beare the world in hand that whatsoeuer is writtē by any of vs in defense of the truth is set forth in the name of al the rest as though none of vs could say more in any matter than any one of vs hath writtē or that if any one of vs chaūce to slip in any smal matter though it be but a wrong quotatiō you might open your wide sclaunderous mouths against the whole church for one mans particular offense Now touching any thing that M. Whit. hath written you shal find him sufficient to maintaine it against a strōger aduersary thā you are therfore I wil medle the lesse in his causes And for the orders patronage or protection of Angels by Gods appointment we haue sufficient testimonie in the Canonical Scriptures that we neede not the vncertain report of Tobies booke to instruct vs what to thinke of thē But as for the Hierarchies patronage of Angels that many of you Papistes haue imagined written of neither the canonical Scriptures nor yet the Apocryphal bookes now in controuersie are sufficient to giue you warrātise The like I say of freewil praier for the dead intercession of Saincts But it grieueth you that those Apocryphal scriptures which haue bin vniuersally receiued for canonicall in the church of God aboue 1100. yeares should find no more reuerēce amōg vs. Stil your mouth rūneth ouer For in the time of the Canon of the coūcel of Carthage 3. which you quote these bookes were not vniuersally reuerenced as canonical And Augustine him selfe speaking of the booke of Machabees Cont. 2. G and. Ep. c. 23. cōfesseth that the Iewes accoūt it not as the law the Prophetes the Psalmes to which our Lord giueth testimonie as to his witnesses saying It behoueth that all things should be fulfilled which are writtē in the Law in the Prophets in the Psalmes cōcerning me but it is receiued of the Church not vnprofitably if it be soberly read or heard This writeth S. Augustine whē he was pressed with the authority of that booke by the Donatists which defended that it was lawful for them to kil themselues by exāple of Razis who is by the author of that booke commēded for that fact He saith it is receiued not vnprofitably immediatly after Especially for those Machabees that suffred paciently horrible persecution for testimony of Gods religiō to encourage Christians by their example Finally he addeth a condition of the receiuing it if it be soberly read or heard These speches declare that it was not receiued without all controuersie as the authenticall word of God for then should it be receiued necessarily because it is Gods word especially how soeuer it be read or heard it is receiued of the Church not only necessarily but also profitably Beside this euen the decree of Gelasius which was neare 100. yeares after that councel of Carthage alloweth but one booke of the Maccabees Wherfore the vniuersal reuerence that is bosted of can not be iustified But M. Whitaker is charged in the margent to condemne the seruice booke which appointeth these books of Toby Ecclesiasticus to be read for holy Scripture as the other And where finde you that in the seruice booke M. Martin Can you speake nothing but vntruths If they be appointed to be read are they appointed to be read for holy Scripture and for suche Scripture as the other canonicall bookes are The seruice booke appointeth the Letanie diuerse exhortations and praiers yea homelies to be read are they therefore to be read for holy canonicall Scriptures But you aske Do they read in their Churches Apocryphall and Superstitious bookes for holy Scripture No verily But of the name Apocryphall I must distinguish which somtimes is taken for all bookes read of the Church which are not canonicall sometime for such bookes onely as are by no meanes to be suffered but are to be hid or abolished These bookes
there shal be in any person a sinne to be adiudged to death he shal be deliuered to death if thou shalt hang him vpoÌ„ a tree 23. Let not his carcase tarie all night vpon that tree but in any case thou shalt burie him the same day for accursed to God is he that is hanged The word tree being twise named before who would be so madde to say that S. Paule hath added it beside the Hebrue text Likewise where you bidde vs strike out of the Hebrue Psal. 21. that which concerneth our redemption on the crosse They haue pearced my handes and my feete because in the Hebrue there is no suche thing you say most vntruely for there is nothing else in the Hebrue no not in the common readings as Iohannes Isaake a Popishe Iewe will teache you who hath confuted the cauils of Lindanus against the Hebrue texte of whom you borrowed this exam le where if you had not beene blinde with mallice you mighte haue seene that Sainct Hierome did reade without controuersie Fixâ—runt they haue pearced as also that the most auncieÌ„t copie of the Hebrue Psalmes supposed to haue pertained to Sainct Augustine of CaÌ„terburie hath Charu they haue pearced though you had bene ignoraunt what is written concerning this word in the Masoreth and what Isaac also writeth of that word as it is commonly redde that it can not signifie as you fantasie sicut leo like a lion And therefore the Chalde paraphrast turneth it As a lion they pearced my handes and my feete But of this matter more hereafter as occasion shall be giuen As for the Apostle Ephes. 4. saying that Christ gaue giftes whereas of Dauid it is sayd he receiued giftes speaketh nothing contrarie to the Hebrue but sheweth wherefore Christ hath receiued gifts namely to bestow vpon his church Except you will say that Christ gaue of his owne and receiued none and so the Apostle doth shewe the excellencie of the trueth aboue the figure Christ aboue Dauid Likewise where the Psalmist sayeth in the Hebrue Thou hast opened mine eares the Apostle doth rightly collect that Christ had a bodie which in his obedience was to be offered vnto the father Last of all you would haue fiue soules cut from 75. in Sainct Stephens Sermon because it is not in the Hebrue but you are deceiued For Sainct Stephen gathereth the whole number of them that are named in the fortie sixt chapter of Genesis Namely the two sonnes of Iuda that were deade and Iacobes foure wiues to shewe howe greate his familie was at the vttermost before he went downe into Aegypt and howe greatly God did multiplie him afterwarde What is there in any of these examples like to Qui fuit Cainan about whiche you make so muche a doe MART. 20. Must such difficulties diuersities be resolued by chopping and changing hacking and hewing the sacred text of holy Scripture Sec into what perplexities wilfull heresie and arrogancie hath driuen them To discredit the vulgar Latine translation of the Bible and the fathers expositions according to the same for that is the originall cause of this and besides that they may haue alwaies this euasion It is not so in the Hebrue it is otherwise in the Greeke and so seeme iolly fellowes and great clerkes vnto the ignorant people what do they they admit onely the Hebrue in the old Test. and the Greeke in the newe to be the true and authenticall texte of the Scripture Wherevpon this foloweth that they reiect and must needes reiect the Greeke of the old Test. called the Septuaginta as false because it differeth from the Hebrue Which being reiected therevpon it foloweth againe that wheresoeuer those places so disagreeing from the Hebrue are cited by Christ or the Euangelists and Apostles there also they must be reiected because they disagree from the Hebrue and so yet againe it foloweth that the Greeke text of the new Testament is not true because it is not according to the Hebrue veritie consequently the wordes of our Sauiour and writings of his Apostles must be reformed to say the least because they speake according to the Septuaginta and not according to the Hebrue FVLK 20. Who alloweth or who can abide chopping and changing or hacking and hewing the sacred text of holy Scriptures As for the perplexities wherevnto you faine that wilfull heresie and arrogancie hath driuen vs is of your weauing for God be praised we can wel inough with good conscience sound knowledge that may abide the iudgement of all the learned in the world defend both the Hebrew text of the olde Testament and the Greeke text of the new Not of purpose to discredit the vulgar Latine translation and the expositions of the fathers but to fetch the truth vpon which the hope of our saluation is grounded out of the first fountaines and springs rather than out of any streames that are deriued from them And this we doe agreeable to the auncient fathers iudgements For who knoweth not what fruitfull paines S. Hierom tooke in translating the Scripture out of the originall tongue neither would he be disswaded by S. Augustine who although he misliked that enterprise at the first yet afterward he highly commended the necessitie of the Greeke Hebrue tongues for Latine men to find out the certaine truth of the text in the infinite varietie of the Latine interpretations for thus he writetth De doct Christ. lib. 2. cap. 11. Contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio Eâ— latinae c. Against vnknowen proper signes the knowledge of tongues is a great remedie And truly men of the Latine tongue whom we haue now taken in hand to instruct haue neede also of two other tongues vnto the knowledge of the diuine Scriptures namely the Hebrue the Greeke that recourse may be had vnto the former copies if the infinite varietie of the Latine interpreters shal bring any doubt although we find ofteÌ„times in the bookes Hebrue words not interpreted as Amen Alleluia Racha Osanna c. and a litle after Sed noÌ„ propter haec pauca c. But not for these few wordes which to marke and inquire of it is a very easie thing but for the diuersities as it is said of the interpreters the knowledge of those tongues is necessarie For they that haue interpreted the scriptures out of the Hebrue toÌ„gue into the Greke tong may be nuÌ„bred but the Latine interpreters by no means can be numbred For in the first times of the faith as a Greeke booke came into euery mans hand he seemed to haue some skill in both the tongues he was bold to interpret it Which thing truly hath more helped the vnderstanding than hindred if the readers be not negligeÌ„t for the looking vpon many bookes hath often times made manifest sundry obscure or darke sentences This is S. Augustines sound iudgement of the knowledge of tongues and diuersitie of interpretations for the better
vnderstanding of the Scriptures But let vs see what be the absurdities that you gather of our defending the originall texts of both the tongues First we must needes reiect the Greeke of the olde Testament called septuaginta as false because it differeth frō the Hebrew Where it is not onely different in wordes but also contrary in sense Why should we not but if it reteine the sense and substance although it expresse not the same wordes we neede not reiect it S. Hierom who was required by Paula and Eustochium to expounde the Prophetes not onely according to the truth of the Hebrew but also after the translation of the Septuaginta whereof he diuerse tymes complayneth vppon the first of Nahum sayth expresly that it was against his conscience alwaies to follow the same Ignoscite prolixitati c. Pardon me that I am so long For I can not following both the storie and the tropologie or doctrine of maners comprehend both briefly most of all seeing that I am so greatlye tormented or troubled with the varietie of the translation and against my conscience sometimes I am compelled to frame a consequence of the vulgar edition which was the Septuaginta This was Sainct Hieroms opinion of the Septuagintaes translation But vpon reiection of that translation say you it followeth that wheresoeuer those places so disagreeing from the Hebrue are cited by Christ or the Euangelistes and Apostles there also they must be reiected because they disagree from the Hebrue and so the Greeke text of the newe Testament is not true and consequentlye the wordes of our Sauiour and writinges of his Apostles speaking according to the Septuaginta must at leaste bee reformed It is an olde saying and a true that one inconuenience being graunted manye doe followe and so you may heape vp an hundred after this manner But for aunswere I say that neyther our Sauiour nor his Apostles citing any place out of the olde Testament doe bring any thing disagreeing in sense and substance of matter the purpose for which they alleage it considered from the truth of the Hebrue text Therefore there is no neede that the 70. in those places should be reiected Althogh our Sauiour Christ speaking in the Syrian tōgue is not to be thoght euer to haue cited the text of the 70. which is in Greeke And his Apostles and Euangelists vsing that text regard the substance of the sentence not the forme of words For many times they cite not the very wordes of the Greeke 70. neither S. Hierom in Catalogo script Eccles. which is set as a Preface to S. Mathewes Gospell telleth you expresly that in the Hebrew example of S. Mathew which he had wheresoeuer the Euangelist S. Mathew either in his owne person or in the person of our Lorde and Sauiour vseth the testimonies of the olde Testament he followeth not the authoritie of the 70. translators but the Hebrew of which these are two places Out of Egypt haue I called my sonne And he shall be called a Nazarite See you not what a perilous perplexitie we are are in by defending both the Hebrue text of the olde Testament and the Geeke of the Newe when neither are contrarie to the other MART. 21. All which must needes followe if this be a good cōsequence I find it not in Moises nor in the Hebrue therefore I strooke it out as Beza doth and saith concerning the foresaid words Qui fuit Cainan This consequence therefore let vs see how they will iustifie and withall let them tell vs whether they will discredit the newe Testament because of the Septuaginta or credit the Septuaginta because of the new Testament or how they can credit one and discredit the other where both agree and consent togither or whether they will discredit both for credit of the Hebrue or rather whether there be not some other way to reconcile both Hebrue Greeke better than Bezaes impudent presumption Which if they will not maintaine let them flatly cōfesse that he did wickedly not as they doe defend euery word and deede of their maisters be it neuer so hainous or salue it at the least FVLK 21. No whit of that doth followe by striking out qui fuit Cainan Because it is not foūd in Moises therfore we haue nothing to do to iustifie your vaine consequence grounded vpon an absurdity of your owne deuising But we must tell you whether we will discredite the new Testament because of the Septuaginta no not for a thousand millions of Septuagintaes nor for all the worlde will we credite the Septuaginta against the truth of the old Testament But what soeuer is cited out of the 70. in the new is not contrarie to the Hebrew in the old and therefore the way of reconciliation is easily found without discrediting both or either of both in those places And in this place which is a meere corruption borrowed out of the corruption of the Septuagintaes or a Iudaical additiō Gen. 11. I think there is no better way of reconciling than to strike it cleane out as Beza hath done whiche generation neither is in the Hebrew veritie nor in your owne vulgar Latin translation either Gen. 11. or 1. Par. 1. Beside that it maketh a foule errour in the computation of time adding no lesse than 230. yeares betweene Arphaxad and Sala more than the Hebrew veritie or the vulgar Latin agreeing therewith doth number And therefore he was more presumptuous that out of the corrupt and false text of the Septuaginta added the same vnto the Genealogie in S. Luke than Beza which by the authoritie of Moses remoued the same If you will still persist to defende the authoritie of the Septuaginta against the Hebrew veritie which like an Atheist you deride at leastwise defende your owne vulgar Latine translation of the old Testament and deliuer your selfe out of that perplexitie in which you would place vs betweene the Hebrew of the old and the Greeke of the new Testament Seing no lesse doubts intangleth you betweene the Latine of the new and the Latine of the olde differing altogither a like as the Greeke and the Hebrew do MART. 22. Alas how farre are these men from the modestie of the auncient fathers and from the humble spirite of obedient Catholikes who seeke all other meanes to resolue difficulties rather than to do violence to the sacred Scripture and when they finde no way they leaue it to God S. Augustine concerning the difference of the Hebrue the Greeke saith often to this effect that it pleased the holy Ghost to vtter by the one that which he would not vtter by the other And S. Ambrose thus Wee haue founde many thinges not idly added of the 70. Greeke interpreters S. Hierom though an earnest patrone of the Hebrue not without cause beyng at that time perhaps the Hebrue veritie in deede yet giueth many reasons for the differences of the Septuaginta and concerning the foresaide places of S.
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
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
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
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