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
therefore in controuersie with other of the same sort are sometimes called Hagiographa holy writings as of S. Hierom praefat in lib. Tobiae sometime Ecclesiastica Ecclesiastical writings and so are they called of Ruffinus Because sayth he they were appointed by our Elders to be read in the Churches but not to be brought forth to confirme authoritie of faith but other Scriptures they named Apocryphall which they would not haue to be read in the Churches So sayth S. Hierom in praefat in Prouerb Euen as the Church readeth in deede the bookes of Iudith Tobias and the Machabees but yet receaueth them not among the Canonical Scriptures so let it read these two bookes of Ecclesiasticus and wisedom for the edifying of the people not for the confirmation of the authoritie of Ecclesiastical doctrines These auncient writers shal answer for our seruice booke that although it appoint these writings to be read yet it doth not appoint them to be read for Canonicall Scriptures Albeit they are but sparingly read by order of our seruice booke which for the Lordes day other festiuall daies commonly appointeth the first lesson out of the Canonicall Scriptures And as for superstition although M. Whitaker say that some one thing sauoreth of I know not what superstition he doth not by and by condemne the whole booke for superstitious and altogither vnworthy to be read neither can he thereby be proued a Puritane or a disgracer of the order of dayly seruice MART. 10. As for partes of bookes doe they not reiect certaine peeces of Daniel and of Hester because they are not in the Hebrew which reason S. Augustine reiecteth or because they were once doubted of by certaine of the fathers by which reason some part of S. Marke and S. Lukes Gospell might nowe also be called in controuersie specially if it be true which M. Whitakers by a figuratiue speech more than insinuateth That he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit should by time winne authoritie Forgetting him selfe by by in the very next lines admitting S. Iames epistle though before doubted of for Canonicall Scriptures vnles they receiue it but of their curtesie so may refuse it when it shall please them which must needes be gathered of his wordes as also many other notorious absurdities contradictions and dumbe blanckes Which onely to note were to confute M. Whitakers by him selfe being the answerer for both Vniuersities FVLK 10. As for peeces of Daniel of Hester we reiect none but only we discerne that which was written by Daniel in deede from that which is added by Theodotion the false Iew that which was written by the spirit of God of Esther from that which is vainly added by some Greekish counterfecter But the reason why we reiect those patches you say is because they are not in the Hebrew which reason S. Augustine reiecteth Here you cite S. Augustine at large without quotation in a matter of controuersie But if we may trust you that S. Augustine reiecteth this reason yet we may be bold vpon S. Hieroms authoritie to reiect whatsoeuer is not found in the canō of the Iewes written in Hebrew or Chaldee For whatsoeuer was such S. Hierom did thrust through with a spit or obeliske as not worthy to be receyued Witnes hereof S. Augustine him selfe Epist. ad Hier. 8. 10. in which he disswaded him from translating the Scriptures of the olde Testament out of the Hebrew tongue after the 70. Interpreters whose reasons as they were but friuolous so they are derided by S. Hierom who being learned in the Hebrew Chaldee tongues refused to be taught by Augustine that was ignorant in them what was to be done in translations out of them Also Hieronym him selfe testifieth that Daniel in the Hebrew hath neither the story of Susanna nor the hymne of the 3. children nor the fable of Bel the Dragon which we saith he because they are dispersed throughout the whole world haue added setting a spit before them which thrusteth them through lest we should seeme among the ignorant to haue cut of a great part of the booke The like he writeth of the vaine additions that were in the vulgar edition vnto the booke of Esther both in the Preface after the ende of that which he translated out of the Hebrew There are other reasons also beside the authoritie of S. Hierom that moue vs not to receiue them As that in the storie of Susanna Magistrats iudgement of life death are attributed to the Iewes being in captiuitie of Babylon which hath no similitude of truth Beside out of the first chapter of the true Daniel it is manifest that Daniel being a young man was caried captiue into Babylon in the dayes of Nebucadnezer but in this counterfect storie Daniel is made a young child in the time of Astyages which reigned immediatly before Cyrus of Persia. Likewise in the storie of Bel and the Dragon Daniel is said to haue liued with the same king Cyrus and after when he was cast into the lyons denne the Prophet Habacuck was sent to him out of Iurie who prophecied before the first comming of the Chaldees and therefore could not be aliue in the daies of Cyrus which was more than 70 yeares after The additions vnto the booke of Esther in many places bewray the spirite of man as that they are contrary to the truth of the story containing vaine repetitions amplifications of that which is contained in the true historie that which most manifestly conuinceth the sorgerie that in the epistle of Artaxerxes cap. 16. Haman is called a Macedonian which in the true storie is termed an Agagite that is an Amalekite whereas the Macedonians had nothing to doe with the Persians many yeares after the death of Esther Haman I omit that in the ca. 15. ver 12. the author maketh Esther to lie vnto the king in saying that his countenance was ful of all grace or else he lyeth him selfe v. 17. where he saith the king beheld her in the vehemēcy of his anger that he was exceding terrible As for other reasons which you suppose vs to follow because these parcels were once doubted of by certaine of the fathers it is a reason of your owne making and therefore you may confute it at your pleasure But if that be true which Maister Whitaker by a figuratiue speech doth more than insinuate parte of S. Markes and S. Lukes Gospell may also be called in controuersie Why what saith M. VVhitaker Marie that he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit should by tyme winne authoritie But when I pray you was any part of S. Marke or S. Luke out of credit if any part were of some person doubted of doth it follow that it was not at al in credit you reason profoundly and gather very necessarily As likewise that he forgetteth him selfe in the very next lines admitting
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
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