other Catholike writers haue affirmed of that Epistle and therefore not sufficient to charge him and much lesse others with heresie but being not his simple affirmation yet because it hath bene offensiuely taken he him selfe hath put it out and giuen it ouer O what a sturre would they keepe if they had any weightie matter of truth to burthen him withall MART. 8. To let this passe Tobie Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees are they not most certainly reiected And yet they were allowed and receiued for Canonicall by the same authoritie that S. Iames Epistle was This Epistle the Caluinists are content to admit because so it pleased Caluine those bookes they reiect because so also it pleased him And why did it so please Caluine Vnder pretence forsooth that they were once doubted of and not taken for Canonicall But is that the true cause in deede Howe doe they then receiue S. Iames Epistle as Canonicall hauing before doubted of also yea as they say reiected FVLK 8. You may well let it passe for it is not worth the time you spend in writing of it and if you had bene wise you would vtterly haue omitted it But what say you of Tobie Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees most certainly by vs reiected They were allowed you say for Canonicall by the same authoritie that S. Iames Epistle was And thinke you that S. Iames Epistle was neuer allowed for Canonicall before the third Councell of Carthage For of the other it is certaine they were neuer receiued by the Church of the Israelits before Christ his coÌ„ming nor of the Apostolike and primitiue Church for more than 300. yeres after as both Eusebius out of Origines and the Councell of Laodicea Can. â—9 confirmed afterwarde by the sixt generall Councell of Constantinople sheweth for the Greeke Church and S. Ierome in prologo Galeato for the Latine Church As for the prouinciall Councell of Carthage holden by 44. Bishops of Africa if we were bound to receiue it for these bookes we must also acknowledge fiue bookes of Salomon which in the same Councell are authorised whereas the Church neuer knew but of three And although the booke of wisedom should be ascribed to SalomoÌ„ there could be but foure Againe how they vnderstand the word Canonical it may be gathered both out of the wordes of the same Canon where they giue none other reason of the approbatioÌ„ of all those books of Scripture but that they haue receiued them of their fathers to be read in the Church and also out of S. Augustine who was one present at the same CouÌ„cell which after he hath declared how a man should discerne the Canonicall Scriptures from other writings by following the authoritie of the Catholike Churches especially those that haue deserued to haue Apostolike sees and to receiue their Epistles he addeth further Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis canonicis vt eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesijs Catholicis praeponat eis quas quaedaÌ„ non accipiunt In eis vero quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat eas quas plures grauiorèsque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatis Ecclesiae tenent Si autem alias inuenerit à pluribus alias à grauioribus haberi quanquam hoc inuenire non possit aequalis tameÌ„ auctoritatis eas habeÌ„das puto Totus autem canon scripturarum in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus his libris continetur He shall hold therfore this meane in the canonical Scriptures that he preferre those which are receiued of all catholike churches before those Scriptures which some Churches do not receiue But in those which are not receiued of all let him preferre those Scriptures which the greater number and grauer churches do receiue before those which churches fewer in number of lesse authority do hold But if he shal find some Scriptures to be had of fewer churches other some of grauer churches althogh you can not find this thing yet I thinke they are to be accoÌ„pted of equall authority Now the whole canoÌ„ of scriptures in which we say this consideration must be occupied is contained in these books Fiue books of Moises that is Genesis Exodus c. By this saying of Augustine it is manifest that he calleth canonicall Scriptures not only those bookes that ought of necessity to be receiued of al churches but also such as were receiued of some of some were not in which nuÌ„ber were these bookes of Tobie Ecclesiasticus the Machabees which by his owne rule were not to be receiued as of absolut soueraigne authority because the Apostolike churches of Asia Europa those of grauest authoritie among which was the church of Rome in that time did not receiue theÌ„ as witnesseth not only S. Hierome a Priest of Rome but also Ruffinus of Aquileia in symbolo who both declare what bookes were receiued in their churches as canonical of irrefragable authority to build principles of faith vpon them what books were admitted only to be read for instruction of maners And therfore according to the rule of Augustin testimony of the ancieÌ„t fathers because it coÌ„senteth with the rest of the scriptures not for Caluins pleasure we receiue the Epistle of S. Iames though it hath not bene alwaies and of all Churches receiued Concerning the name of Caluinists as of all other nicke names that it pleaseth you of your charity to bestow vpon vs it shall suffice to protest once for all that we acknowledge none other name of our profession but Christians Catholikes and that we haue neither receiued that Epistle nor reiected the other bicause it pleased Caluin so This may serue for a cleare demonstration that in the first English Bibles that were printed vnder the name of Thomas Mathew before Caluine wrote any word of the reiectioÌ„ of those bookes or of receiuing of the other they are called Apocrypha printed with other of that marke by theÌ„selues the Epistle of S. Iames without any question acknowledged to be one of the canonical Epistles wheras Caluines Institution was first printed An. 1536. his argument vpon S. Iames Epistle 1551. You may see what honest dealing the Papistes vse to bring the truth into discredit the professors thereof into hatred with the simple vnlearned people bearing theÌ„ in hand that we haue no cause to receiue or refuse bookes of Scripture but Caluines pleasure But the God of truth wil one day reward these impudeÌ„t liars shameles slaunderers Well let vs now see vnder what preteÌ„ce it pleased Caluine to reiect these bookes Vnder pretence forsooth sayth Martin that they were once doubted of and not taken for Canonical I pray you sir where doth Caluine pretend that only cause In his Instit. li. 3. c. 5 sect 8. He alleageth diuerse other causes touching the bookes of Machabees as euery maÌ„ that wil may read Shame you nothing to forge such manifest
therefore in controuersie with other of the same sort are sometimes called Hagiographa holy writings as of S. Hierom praefat in lib. Tobiae sometime Ecclesiastica Ecclesiastical writings and so are they called of Ruffinus Because sayth he they were appointed by our Elders to be read in the Churches but not to be brought forth to confirme authoritie of faith but other Scriptures they named Apocryphall which they would not haue to be read in the Churches So sayth S. Hierom in praefat in Prouerb Euen as the Church readeth in deede the bookes of Iudith Tobias and the Machabees but yet receaueth them not among the Canonical Scriptures so let it read these two bookes of Ecclesiasticus and wisedom for the edifying of the people not for the confirmation of the authoritie of Ecclesiastical doctrines These auncient writers shal answer for our seruice booke that although it appoint these writings to be read yet it doth not appoint them to be read for Canonicall Scriptures Albeit they are but sparingly read by order of our seruice booke which for the Lordes day other festiuall daies commonly appointeth the first lesson out of the Canonicall Scriptures And as for superstition although M. Whitaker say that some one thing sauoreth of I know not what superstition he doth not by and by condemne the whole booke for superstitious and altogither vnworthy to be read neither can he thereby be proued a Puritane or a disgracer of the order of dayly seruice MART. 10. As for partes of bookes doe they not reiect certaine peeces of Daniel and of Hester because they are not in the Hebrew which reason S. Augustine reiecteth or because they were once doubted of by certaine of the fathers by which reason some part of S. Marke and S. Lukes Gospell might nowe also be called in controuersie specially if it be true which M. Whitakers by a figuratiue speech more than insinuateth That he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit should by time winne authoritie Forgetting him selfe by by in the very next lines admitting S. Iames epistle though before doubted of for Canonicall Scriptures vnles they receiue it but of their curtesie so may refuse it when it shall please them which must needes be gathered of his wordes as also many other notorious absurdities contradictions and dumbe blanckes Which onely to note were to confute M. Whitakers by him selfe being the answerer for both Vniuersities FVLK 10. As for peeces of Daniel of Hester we reiect none but only we discerne that which was written by Daniel in deede from that which is added by Theodotion the false Iew that which was written by the spirit of God of Esther from that which is vainly added by some Greekish counterfecter But the reason why we reiect those patches you say is because they are not in the Hebrew which reason S. Augustine reiecteth Here you cite S. Augustine at large without quotation in a matter of controuersie But if we may trust you that S. Augustine reiecteth this reason yet we may be bold vpon S. Hieroms authoritie to reiect whatsoeuer is not found in the canō of the Iewes written in Hebrew or Chaldee For whatsoeuer was such S. Hierom did thrust through with a spit or obeliske as not worthy to be receyued Witnes hereof S. Augustine him selfe Epist. ad Hier. 8. 10. in which he disswaded him from translating the Scriptures of the olde Testament out of the Hebrew tongue after the 70. Interpreters whose reasons as they were but friuolous so they are derided by S. Hierom who being learned in the Hebrew Chaldee tongues refused to be taught by Augustine that was ignorant in them what was to be done in translations out of them Also Hieronym him selfe testifieth that Daniel in the Hebrew hath neither the story of Susanna nor the hymne of the 3. children nor the fable of Bel the Dragon which we saith he because they are dispersed throughout the whole world haue added setting a spit before them which thrusteth them through lest we should seeme among the ignorant to haue cut of a great part of the booke The like he writeth of the vaine additions that were in the vulgar edition vnto the booke of Esther both in the Preface after the ende of that which he translated out of the Hebrew There are other reasons also beside the authoritie of S. Hierom that moue vs not to receiue them As that in the storie of Susanna Magistrats iudgement of life death are attributed to the Iewes being in captiuitie of Babylon which hath no similitude of truth Beside out of the first chapter of the true Daniel it is manifest that Daniel being a young man was caried captiue into Babylon in the dayes of Nebucadnezer but in this counterfect storie Daniel is made a young child in the time of Astyages which reigned immediatly before Cyrus of Persia. Likewise in the storie of Bel and the Dragon Daniel is said to haue liued with the same king Cyrus and after when he was cast into the lyons denne the Prophet Habacuck was sent to him out of Iurie who prophecied before the first comming of the Chaldees and therefore could not be aliue in the daies of Cyrus which was more than 70 yeares after The additions vnto the booke of Esther in many places bewray the spirite of man as that they are contrary to the truth of the story containing vaine repetitions amplifications of that which is contained in the true historie that which most manifestly conuinceth the sorgerie that in the epistle of Artaxerxes cap. 16. Haman is called a Macedonian which in the true storie is termed an Agagite that is an Amalekite whereas the Macedonians had nothing to doe with the Persians many yeares after the death of Esther Haman I omit that in the ca. 15. ver 12. the author maketh Esther to lie vnto the king in saying that his countenance was ful of all grace or else he lyeth him selfe v. 17. where he saith the king beheld her in the vehemēcy of his anger that he was exceding terrible As for other reasons which you suppose vs to follow because these parcels were once doubted of by certaine of the fathers it is a reason of your owne making and therefore you may confute it at your pleasure But if that be true which Maister Whitaker by a figuratiue speech doth more than insinuate parte of S. Markes and S. Lukes Gospell may also be called in controuersie Why what saith M. VVhitaker Marie that he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit should by tyme winne authoritie But when I pray you was any part of S. Marke or S. Luke out of credit if any part were of some person doubted of doth it follow that it was not at al in credit you reason profoundly and gather very necessarily As likewise that he forgetteth him selfe in the very next lines admitting
¶ A DEFENSE of the sincere and true Translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong against the manifolde cauils friuolous quarels and impudent slaunders of GREGORIE MARTIN one of the readers of Popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes By WILLIAM FVLKE D. in Diuinitie and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of all such quarrels cauils as haue bene of late vttered by diuerse Papistes in their English Pamphlets against the writings of the saide WILLIAM FVLKE AT LONDON Imprinted by Henrie Bynneman Anno. 1583. Cum gratia Priuilegio To the moste high and mightie Princesse Elizabeth by the grace of God Queene of England Fraunce and Irelande defender of the fayth c. AMONG THE inestimable benefits wherwith almightie God hath woonderfully blessed this your Maiesties most honourable and prosperous gouernement it is not to be numbred among the least that vnder your most gratious and Christian protection the people of your Highnes dominions haue enioyed the most necessarie and comfortable reading of the holy Scriptures in their mother tongue and natiue language Which exercise although it hath of long time by the aduersaries of Him that willeth the Scriptures to be searched especially those of our nation beene accompted little better than an haereticall practise And treatises haue bene written praetending to shew great inconvenience of hauing the holie Scriptures in the vulgar tongue Yet now at length perceiuing they can not preuaile to bring in that darâ—knesse and ignorance of Gods most sacred word and wil therin contained wherby their blind deuotioÌ„ the daughter of ignorance as they them selues professe was wont to make them rulers of the world they also at the last are become Translators of the Newe Testament into English In which that I speak nothing of their insincere purpose in leauing the pure fountaine of the original veritie to folow the croked streame of their barbarous vulgar Latin translatioÌ„ which beside al other manifeste corruptions is founde defectiue in more than an hundred places as your Maiestie according to the excellet knowledge in both the tongs wherwith God hath blessed you is verie well able to iudge And to omit euen the same Booke of their translation pestred with so many annotations both false and vnduetifull by which vnder colour of the authoritie of holie Scriptures they seeke to infecte the mindes of the credulous readers with haeretical and superstitious opinions and to alienate their harts from yelding due obedience to your Maiestie and your most Christian lawes concerning true Religion established And that I may passe ouer the verie Text of their translation obscured without anie necessarie or iust cause with suche a multitude of so strange and vnusuall termes as to the ignorant are no lesse difficult to vnderstande than the Latine or Greeke it self Yet is it not meete to be concealed that they which neither truely nor praecisely haue translated their owne vulgare Latin and only Authenticall text haue neuerthelesse bene bolde to set forth a seuerall Treatise in which most slanderously and vniustly they accuse all our English translations of the Bible not of small imperfections and ouersightes committed through ignorance or negligence but of no lesse than most foule dealing in partiall false translations wilfull and haereticall corruptions Against which most leude and vntrue accusation though easie to be iudged of by such as be learned in the tongues yet daungerous to disquiet the conscience of them that be ignorant in the same I haue written a short and necessarie Defense Which although not labored in words yet in matter I hope sufficient to auoide all the aduersaries cauilles I am most humbly to craue pardon that I may be bolde to dedicate vnto your most excellent Maiestie that vnder whose high Christian authoritie your people haue so many yeares enioyd the reading of the holie bookes of GOD in their natiue language to the euerlasting benefit of many thousand soules Vnder the same your most gratious roial protection they may reade also the Defense of the syncere and faithfull translation of those Bookes to the quieting of their consciences and the confusion of the aduersaries of Gods truth and holie religion By which they may be stirred vp more and more in all duetifull obedience not only to be thankeful vnto your Maiestie as it becommeth them but also to continewe their most earnest and hartie prayers to almightie God for this your moste godlie and happie regiment ouer them for many yeares forwarde to be prolonged The God of glorie which hitherto hath aduaunced your Maiesties throne aboue all Princes of this age in true honour and glorie vouchsafe to preserue the same with his dailie blessing to the perfection of that glorious reparation of his Church which you haue most happily taken in hande to the euerlasting praise of his mercie and the endelesse felicity of your Maiestie Your Maiesties most humble subiect and most bounden daylie orator WILLIAM FVLKE THE PREFACE CONTEINING FIVE SVNDRIE ABVSES or corruptions of holy Scriptures common to all Heretikes and agreeing specially to these of our time with many other necessarie aduertisements to the reader MARTIN AS it hath bene alwaies the fashion of Heretikes to pretend Scriptures for shew of their cause so hath it bene also their custome and propertie to abuse the saide Scriptures many waies in fauour of their errours FVLKE WHETHER these fiue abuses haue bene common to all heretikes whether it hath bene the fashion of all heretikes to pretende Scriptures for shewe of their cause though I will spare nowe to enquire of as a thing wherin learned men at the first sight may espie the great skil that Martin pretendeth to haue in discerning of heretikes and heresies yet will I shew by the grace of God that none of these fiue abuses are committed by vs or our Catholike translations that the popish heretikes are in some sort or other guiltie of them all MART. 1. One way is to denie whole bookes thereof or partes of bookes when they are euidently against them So did for example Ebion all S. Paules epistles Manicheus the Actes of the Apostles Alogiani S. Iohns Gospell Marcion many peeces of S. Lukes Gospell and so did both these and other heretikes in other bookes denying and allowing what they liste as is euident by S. Irenaeus S. Epiphanius S. Augustine and all antiquitie FVLK 1. First we denie no one booke of the Canonicall scripture that hath bene so receaued of the Catholike church for the space of 300. yeares more as it hath bene often proued out of Eusebius S. Ierome and other ancient authorities but the Papists in aduauncing Apocryphall bookes to be of equall credite with the Canonicall Scriptures do in effect deny theÌ„ all Besides that to adde vnto the word of God is as great a fault as to take away from it the one being forbidden vnder as heauie a curse as the other Those blasphemies of
Pighius Eccius the one calling the holy Scripture a nose of waxe and a dumbe iudge the other terming the Gospel written to be a blacke Gospell and an ynkie Diuinitie and that of Hosius acknowleging none other expresse word of God but onely this one worde Ama or dilige loue thou what other thing do they import but a shamelesse deniall of all bookes of the holy Scripture in deede how soeuer in worde they will seeme to admitte them MART. 2. An other way is to call into question at the least and make some doubt of the authoritie of certaine bookes of holy scriptures therby to diminish their credite so did Manicheus affirme of the whole new Testamēt that it was not writtē by the Apostles and peculiarly of S. Matthewes Gospell that it was some other mās vnder his name therfore not of such credit but that it might in some part be refused So did Marcion the Ariās deny the epistle to the Hebrues to be S. Paules Epiph. li. 2. haer 69. Euseb. li. 4. hist. c. 27 Alogiani the Apocalypse to be S. Iohns the Euāgelist Epiph. August in haer Alogianorii FVLK 2. We neither doubt of the authoritie of anie certaine booke of the holy Scriptures neither cal we any of them into question but with due reuerence do acknowledge thē all euery one to be of equall credit authority as being al inspired of god giuē to the church for the building vp thereof in truth and for the auoiding of fables heresies But the Papists arrogating to their Pope authoritie to allowe or refuse any booke of holy Scripture affirming that no Scripture hath authoritie but as it is approued by their church do bring al bookes of the holy Scripture into doubting vncertaintie with such as wil depend vpō their Pope popish churches authoritie which they affirme to be aboue the holy Scriptures saying they might as wel receaue the gospel of Nicodemus as of S. Marke by the same authoritie reiect the Gospell of S. Matthew as they haue done the Gospel of S. Bartholomew These blasphemous assertions although some of them would couler or mitigate with gentle interpretations yet their is no reasonable man but seeth into what discredite and vncertaintie they must needes bring the authoritie of the Canonicall bookes of holy Scripture with the simple and ignorant MART. 3. An other way is to expound the Scriptures after their owne priuate conceite and phantasie not according to the approued sense of the holy auncient fathers and Catholike Church so did Theodorus Mopsuestites Act. Synod 5. affirme of all the bookes of the Prophets and of the Psalmes that they spake not euidently of Christ but that the auncient fathers did voluntarily draw those sayings vnto Christ which were spoken of other matters so did all heretikes that would seeme to ground their heresies vpon Scriptures and to auouch them by Scriptures expounded according to their owne sense and imagination FVLK 3. We expound not the Scriptures after our owne priuate conceite and fantasie but as neere as God giueth vs grace according to the plaine and natural sense of the same agreable vnto the rule or proportiō of faith which bene approued by the auncient fathers and Catholike church of Christ in al matters necessarie to eternall saluation Not bringing a newe and straunge sense which is without the Scriptures to seeke confirmation thereof in the Scriptures as the manner of heretikes is rightly noted by Clemens but out of the Scriptures thēselues seeke we the exposition of such obscure places as we find in them being perswaded with S. Augustine that nothing in a manner is founde out of those obscure and darke places which may not be found to be most plaine ly spoken in other places And as for the approued sense of the holy auncient Fathers and Catholike Church of the eldest and purest times if the Papists durst stand vnto it for the deciding of many of the most waightie controuersies that are betweene vs there is no doubte but they should soone and easily be determined as hath bene shewed in diuerse and many treatises written against them In which if any thing bee brought so plainely expounding the Scripture against their popish heresies as nothing can be more expresse nor cleare then they are driuen to seeke newe and monstrous expositions of those Fathers interpretations or else they answere they are but those Fathers priuate expositions appealing to the Catholike churches interpretation which is nothing else but their owne priuate conceipte and fansie hauing no recorde to proue that Catholike Churches interpretation but the present hereticall opinions of this late degenerated Antichristian congregation And whē they haue discoursed neuer so much of the Catholike churches interpretation they reduce and submitte all mens iudgements to the determinatiō of their Councels the decrees of the Councels to the approbation of their Pope which as he is oftentimes a wicked man of life so is he ignorant and vnlearned in the Scriptures to whose most priuate cēsure the holy Scriptures themselues and al sense and exposition of them is made subiect vnder colour that Christ praying for Peter that his faith should not fayle in temptation gaue all Popes suche a prerogatiue that they could not erre in faith though they were wicked of life voyde of learning ignorant in the Scriptures destitute of the spirite of God as is proued moste inuincibly by example of diuerse Popes that haue bene heretikes and mainteyners of such errours as are not now in controuersie betweene vs least they should say we begge the principle but of the secte of the Arrians Monothelites Eutychians Saduces and such other MART. 4. An other way is to alter the very originall text of the holy Scripture by adding taking away or changing it here and there for their purpose So did the Arians in sundry places and the Nestorians in the first epistle of S. Iohn and especially Marcion who was therefore called Mus Ponticus the mouse of Pontus because he had gnawen as it were certaine places with his corruptions whereof some are sayd to remaine in the Greeke text vntill this day FVLK 4. The originall text of the holie Scripture we alter not either by adding taking away or changing of any letter or syllable for any priuate purpose which were not only a thing most wicked and sacrilegious but also vaine and impossible For seeing not only so many auncient coppies of the original text are extant in diuers places of the worlde which we can not if we woulde corrupt and that the same are multiplied by printing into so many thousande examples wee shoulde bee rather madde than foolishe if we did but once attempt such a matter for maintenaunce of any of our opinions As also it is incredible that Marcion the mouse of Pontus coulde corrupt all the Greeke coppies in the world as Lindanus of whome you borrowed that conceite imagineth in those places in which he
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
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
owne saluation Whereas the Greeke fathers expound it of the full and assured faith that euery faithfull man must haue of al such things in heauen as he seeth not namely that Christ is ascended thither c. adding further and prouing out of the Apostles wordes next folowing that the Protestants* only faith is not sufficient be it neuer so speciall or assured FVLK 2. Hauing nothing to impugne this cleare interpretatioÌ„ of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the vnperfect translatioÌ„ of your vulgar Latine interpreter who was both an vnperfect grecian a very barbarous Latinist you are not ashamed to say we force the Greeke to make it signifie assurance whiche all men that are but meanly learned in the Greeke tongue may know that it signifieth assuraÌ„ce or ful certaine persuasioÌ„ Although for the question in controuersie the fulnesse of faith wil proue the certeintie as much in a maÌ„ner as the assuraÌ„ce But that the Greeke signifieth a full and certaine persuasion I report me not only to the best Greeke Dictionaries of this time but also to Budeus who citeth Isocrates out of Trapezuntius for proofe that it is so vsed also interpreteth that of S. Paule Rom. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let euery man be certaine of his owne minde But you haue a doughty argument that it is not onely ioyned with faith but also with hope knowledge and vnderstanding as though there could not be a certaine persuasion and assurance of hope knowledge and vnderstanding yea the assurance of hope dependeth vpon the assuraunce of faith and the assuraunce of faith vpon the certaine persuasion of knowledge and vnderstanding Yea your vulgar interpretor translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 4. v. 21. Plenissimè sciens knowing most fully may teach you that it signifieth more than fulnesse for else he should haue saide being fulfilled And better doth Beza expresse the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Tim. 4. than some of our English interpreters whiche say fulfil thy ministry wheras the Apostles meaning is that he should approue the credite and dignitie of his ministerie vnto other men But the Greeke fathers you say find none other interpretation of it and for proofe you cite Ignatius ep ad Smyr which although it be not authenticall yet I see no cause why we may not interprete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being certainly persuaded in faith loue and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the assurance of faith And so is it translated in Bibliotheca sacra Margarini de la Bigne Plenè instructae in fide charitate cognoui vos absolutè perfectos in fule stabili fully instructed in faith and charitie and I haue knowen you absolutely perfect in a stedfaste faith Chrysostome and Theodoret because you vouch at large I know not what you would shew out of them In Theophylact I finde that he speaketh against all hesitation doubtfulnesse of faith but against the certaine persuasion thereof neuer a worde Ne aliquam inducas in animum tuum haesitationem neque pendeas animi dubij quiddam cogitans Bring not into thy minde any staggering neither be incertaine of thy mind thinking any doubtfull thing But for the signification of the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Basil may bee a sufficient witnesse who commonly vseth it for assured and certaine persuasion â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 26. Euery worde and deede must be proued byâ—â—â— testimonie of the holy Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the full and certaine persuasion of the goâ—â—â— to the shame of the wicked Againe desin 80. what is the propertie of a faithfull man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. By such assured persuasioÌ„ to be disposed c. EueÌ„ so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the certaine persuasioÌ„ of godlinesse c. and so in other places And you your selfe confesse as much where you say the Greeke fathers expound it of the full assured faith c. which is enough to iustifie our traÌ„slation Now if the fathers vnderstood this full assured faith only of an historicall faith as you say not of trust and confidence in God it is an other controuersie Our translation is not false although we had a false meaning if it be answereable to the words Neither doth Chrysostome speake of an historicall faith only by certaintie whereof we haue accesse vnto God but also of coÌ„fidence which remissioÌ„ of our sinnes doth cause and that we are made coheires with Christ that we enioy so great loue neither doth he proue that the ProtestaÌ„ts only faith is not sufficient to iustisie But the Apostle sheweth saith he that not faith alone but also a vertuous life is required that a man be not guiltie to him self of malitiousnes For these holy places doe not receiue those men with certaine assuraÌ„ce which are not made such This iudgmeÌ„t of Chrysostome the Protestants do allow of better thaÌ„ the Papists for we know that a godly life is necessarie in them that beleeue to iustification without which they can haue no assurance of faith no nor faith in deede but that which is by aequiuocation called faith such saith as the Deuil and the reprobate may haue MART. 3. Yet do these termes please them exceedingly in so much that for the chosen gift of faith Sap. 3. 14. they translate THE SPECIAL gift of faith and Rom. 8. 38. â—â—ni sure that nothing can separate vs from the loue of God 〈◊〉 though the Apostle were certaine and assured not onely of h 〈…〉 wne saluation but of other mens For to this sense they doe 〈◊〉 translate here whereas in other places out of controuersie they translate the same worde as they should doe I am persuaded they are persuaded c. For who knoweth not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth onely a probable persuasion They will say that I am sure and I am perswaded is al one Beeing well meant they may indeede signifie alike as the vulgare Latine interpreter doth commonly translate it but in this place of controuersie whether the Apostle were sure of his saluation or no whiche you saye he was yea without reuelation we say he was not here why woulde you translate I am sure and not as in other places I am perswaded but in fauour of your errour by insinuating the termes of sure and assurance and such like as elsewhere you neglect the termes of iuste and iustification In which your secrete things of dishonesties craftinesse as the Apostle calleth it we caÌ„not alwaies vse demonstratioÌ„s to conuince you but yet euen in these things we talke with your coÌ„science and leaue the consideration thereof to the wise reader FVLK 3. Seeing they accompt the booke of Wisdome to be of no authoritie to establish the certaintie of doctrine it is not like they coulde haue any such respecte as you malitiously surmise And yet the translation good and true For what is the choice gifte of faith but a speciall
is charged by Tertullian For Marcions heresie was not so generally receiued by the Greeke Churche that all men would yeeld vnto him neither was Tertullian so souÌ„d of iudgement in the Latine Church that whatsoeuer he iudged to be a corruption in Marcion must of necessity be so taken But if adding and detracting from the Scripture be proper notes of heretikes who can purge Stephen Gardiner Gregorie Martine The one for adding vnto a the verse of the Psalme this pronowne se him selfe to proue the carnall presens citing it thus Escam se dedit timentibus eum He gaue himselfe to be meate to them that feare him whereas the words of the Prophet according to the Hebrue Greeke and Latine are no more but Escam dedit He hath giuen meat c. The other in his fond booke of schisme citing this text out of 1. Cor. 10. as many Papistes doe against the certaintie of Faith Qui stat videat ne cadat He that standeth let him take heede he fall not Whereas not only the truth of the Greeke but euen the vulgar Latin translation hath Qui se existimat stare He that thinketh or supposeth that he standeth let him take heede that he fall not But of such additions and detractions vsed by the Romishe rattes farre worse than the myse of Pontus we shall haue more occasion to speake hereafter MART. 5. Another way is to make false translations of the Scriptures for the maintenaunce of errour and heresie so did the Arians as S. Hierome noteth in 26. Esa. reade and translate Prouerb 8. Dominus creauit me in intio viarum suarum that is The Lord created mein the beginning of his waies so to make Christ the wisedom of God a mere creature S. Augustin also lib 5. cont Iulian. c. 2. noteth it as the interpretation of some Pelagian Gen. 3. Fecerunt sibi vestimenta for perizómata or campestria that is They made them selues garments Whereas the word of the Scripture is bâ—eeches or aprons proper and peculiar to couer the secretparts Againe the selfe same heretikes did read falsely Rom. 5. Regnauit mors ab Adam vsque ad Moysen etiam in eos qui peccauerunt in similitudinem praeuaricationis Adae that is Death reigned from Adam to Moyses euen on them that sinned after the similitude of the preuaricatioÌ„ of Adam to maintaine their heresie against originall sinne that none were infected therewith or subiect to death damnation but by sinning actually as Adam did Thus did the old heretiks FVLK 5. As touching false and hereticall translations which is the chiefe argument of this booke I doubt not but by the grace of god to cleare our english translators from any wilfull corruptions for the maintenance of any errour or heresie such as were those of the Arrians Pelagians which Gregorie Martin as though he vttered some great peece of skill doth so diligently expresse I shall haue occasion also to shew that the Papistes them selues of our times maintaining their corrupt vulgar translation against the truth of the originall textes of Greeke and Hebrew are most guiltie of such corruption and falsification whereof although they be not the first authors yet by obstinate defending of such errors they may proue worse than they which did first commit them For the authors of that vulgar translation might be deceiued either for lacke of exact knowledge of the tongues or by some corrupt and vntrue copies which they followed or else perhaps that which they had rightly translated by fault of the writers negligence of the times might be peruerted but these men frowardly iustifying all errours of that translation howsoeuer they haue bene brought in do giue plaine testimony that they are not led with any coÌ„scieÌ„ce of Gods truth but wilfully carried with purpose of maintaining their owne errours least if they did acknowledge the errour of the Romish church in that one point they should not bee able to defende any one iote of their heresie whose chiefe colour is the credit and authoritie of that particular and false church rather than any reason or argument out of the holy Scriptures or testimonie of the most auncient Christian and Catholike church MART. 6. What these of our daies is it credible that being so wel warned by the condeÌ„nation detestation of theÌ„ they also would be as mad and as impious as those Heretikes gentle Reader be alwayes like Heretikes and howsoeuer they differ in opinions or names yet in this point they agree to abuse the Scriptures for their purpose by all meanes possibly I will but touch foure points of the fiue before mentioned because my purpose is to stay vpon the last onely and to discipher their corrupt translations But if I would stand vpon the other also were it not easie to shew the maner of their proceeding against the Scriptures to haue bene thus to deny some whole bookes and partes of bookes to call other some into question to expound the rest at their pleasure to picke quarrels to the very originall and Canonicall text â—o fester and infect the whole bodie of the Bible with cancred translations FVLK 6. It is very true that so many Heretikes as pretend the authoritie of the holy Scriptures abuse the same to their owne destruction and no Heretikes worse than the Antichristians or Papistes As partly hath bene seene already in euery one of your fiue markes more may appeare in those foure pointes which you will handle in the Preface because the argument of your whole booke is the fift so that in the ende you shal be proued no wiser with your fiue pointes than he that came forth with his fiue egges neuer a good of them all But you aske if it were not easie for you to shew if you would stand vpon them that the Protestants vse all the said siue meanes of defacing the Scripture I answer no and that shal you see when demonstratioÌ„ is made how vainly you haue laboured in the last point which howsoeuer you would haue it appeare to be a sudden writing of small trauail by interlacing a few lines here there against M. Whitaker against me some other yet it is euident both by Bristowes threatning and Campions promise that it hath bene a work of some yeares vnto you wherin beside that you are beholding much to Lindanus for diuers quarrels against Caluin and to sir Thomas More for many cauillations against W. Tyndals translation there is litle worthy of so long study and large promises as haue gone before this diligent discouerie so that if you will make the like triall in the rest you shall finde them as hard to proue as this last MART. 7. Did not Luther deny S. Iames epistle so contemne it that he called it an epistle of strawe and not worthy of an Apostolicall spirit must I proue this to M. Whitakers who would neuer haue denied it so vehemently in the superlatiue degree for
shame if he had not thought it more shame to graunt it I neede not goe farre for the matter Aske M. Fulke and he will flatly confesse it was so Aske Caluin in arg ep Iacobi Aske Flaccus Illyricus in argum ep Iacobi and you shall perceiue it is very true I will not send you to the Catholike Germans and others both of his owne time and after that wrote against him in the question of iustification among whome not one omitteth this being a thing so famous and infamous to the confusion of that Arch heretike FVLK 7. I know not whether euer Luther denied S. Iames epistle as vnworthy of an Apostolical spirit but I beleue you may take a twelue monethes daye more to proue it as also that he did so contemne it that he called it an epistle of straw But M. Whitaker which denied it so vehemently must aske of me who moste slatly confesse sayth M. Martin that it was so I pray you sir vrge me not to confesse more than I know or euer knew But you haue confessed it already in two printed bookes Retent pag. 32. Disc of the Rock pag 307. In the place first cited ther are these words But to proceed LVTHER DENIETH THE EPISTLE OF S. IAMES BECAVSE IT IS AGAINST HIS HERESIE OF IVSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONELY We allow not Luther neither did he allow him selfe therein for he retracteth it afterward First those wordes of Luthers denyall being printed in a diuerse letter may testifie sufficiently to euery reasonable man that they are the obiection of Bristow and not the confession of Fulke who not simplye admitteth them as true but by concession proueth that if they were true yet Luthers opinion against which he him selfe hath written ought not to preiudice him and much lesse all other men that neuer held that opinion In the later cited place are these wordes And as touching the epistle of S. Iames it is a shamelesse slaunder of him to say that the Protestants reiect it but we must heare his reason First Luther calleth it a strawen epistle So Luther called the Pope supreame head of the Church and the masse a sacrifice propitiatorie If Protestants be charged to holde whatsoeuer Luther sometime helde and after repented c. Who seeth not in these words that I rehearse the obiection of Saunder which is common to him with many other Papistes which not discussing whether it be true or no but supposing it were as Saunder and the rest of the Papistes doe affirme I shewe that it is no good consequence to charge all Protestants with Luthers priuate opinion which perhaps he helde sometime and after retracted more than to charge vs with all opinions of Papistrie which de did hold before God opened his eyes to see the absurditie of them And yet if he had helde that opinion and neuer retracted the same he were not in worse case than Eusebius who in playne wordes affirmeth that the same epistle is a counterfet or bastard epistle lib. 2. cap. 23. Doe you not see nowe how flatly Maister Fulke confesseth that it was so Such confessions as these are nowe than extorted out of the auncient fathers writings which are not liuing to expounde their meanings But I had thought Maister Martin could haue discerned betwene a suppose or concession and an absolute assertion or a flat confession especially of one whose writing is plaine enough and beside is aliue to interprete himselfe if any ambiguitie were therein But be it that Maister Martin either would not or could not see in my writing any thing else but a flat confession of Luthers denying of S. Iames epistle and calling it an epistle of strawe of what forehead proceedeth it that he willeth Maister Whitaker to aske Caluin in argum Epist. Iacobi whether Luther so speake of that epistle in which argument Luther is not once named by Caluin so farre is it that he doth testifie any such thing against Luther Onely he sayth that some there are in these dayes which thinke that epistle not worthy of authoritie which could not be vnderstood of Luther who long before Caluin wrote that argument had forsaken that opinion if euer he helde any such as all those Dutche Bibles and Testaments of Luthers translation in which those wordes so muche bayted at and so much sought for are omitted doe giue sufficient testimonie What Flaccus Illyricus reporteth who perhaps helde that opinion him selfe and woulde father it vppon Luther I haue neither opportunitie to seeke nor care to knowe But howe great a matter it is that all the Popish Germans and other who haue written against Luther doe so spitefully gnawe vpon I haue learned at length by relation of Maister Whitaker whome you send to aske of me who after long search and many editions turned ouer at the length lighted vpon a Dutch Testament by likehood one of the first that Luther did sette forth in the German tongue in which he findeth neither deniall of S. Iames epistle to be Canonicall nor affirmation that it is vnworthy of an Apostolicall spirit no nor that whereof there hath bene so much babling of all the Papistes that he calleth it an epistle of strawe simply and in contempt but onely in comparison of the epistles of Paule and Peter and other bookes of the newe Testament the excellencie of which one aboue an other after he hath shewed in sundry degrees at last he sayth the epistle of Iames in comparison of these is strawye or like straw Which he sayth not in respect of the credit or authority thereof but in regarde of the argument or matter handled therein which all wise and godly men will confesse to bee not so excellent and necessary as the matter of the holye Gospels and Epistles of some other of the Apostles namely of Paule Peter and Iohn Our Sauiour Christ himself Ioh. 3. 12 calleth the doctrine of regeneration in such plaine maner as he vttered it to Nicodemus earthly things in comparison of other greater mysteries which he coulde haue expressed in more heauenly spirituall sort If I haue spoken to you sayth he of earthly things and you haue not beleued how if I shoulde speake to you of heauenly things will you beleue Were not he an honest and a wise man that vpon these words of Christ spoken in comparison would conclude by his authoritie that regeneration were a contemptible matter a thing not spirituall not heauenly but simply and altogither earthly And yet with as good reason for ought I see or can learne of Luthers wordes concerning this matter he might so inferre as the Papists doe inforce the like against Luther Wherefore it is nothing else but a famous and infamous cauillation to the confusion of all the Papistes which write against Luther that no one of them omitteth vpon so false and friuolous a ground to sclaunder him so haynously and to charge all Protestantes with his assertion so enuiously which if it were his should not be so euill as
S. Iames epistle though before doubted of for Canonicall VVill ye say that S. Iames epistle was once not in credit or not worthy of credit for that is his plaine meaning because it was doubted of yea reiected of some yea you saye it must needes be gathered of his wordes that we receiue it but of curtesie and so may refuse it when it pleaseah vs. Demonstrate this in a syllogisme out of his words if you can or all the whole rable of Rhemes if you be able For my part I can but maruaile at your bold assertions and abhorre your impudent enforcements As for other contradictions notorious absurdities dumbe blanks I know not what other monsters you feine vnto him without all proofe or perticular declaration all wise men see howe easie a matter it is to raile slaunder in generals whē you dare come to particulars I doubt not but the world shal see your vanitie so detected by M. Whitaker him selfe that you shal haue litle ioy thus insolently to deface his godly learned writings It had bene more than time that his booke had bene confuted which hath bene abroad a yeare and a halfe almost if you can with such facilitie by onely noting such matters shewe that he confuteth him selfe But somwhat you must say afarre of to saue your credit with your Disciples to keepe them playe for the time while with long studie and great trauaile you are crowding out great trifles MART. 11. For the second point which is not the grosse deniall of bookes but yet calling of them in question mouing scruples about them and diminishing their authoritie and credite I will goe no further than to S. Paules epistle to the Hebrewes which I will not aske why they doubt of or rather thinke it not to be S. Paules for they will tell me because it was once in doubte not considering that it was in like maner doubted whether it were Canonicall yet they will not now denie but it is Canonicall but I must aske them and request them to make a reasonable answere why in their English Bible of the yeare 1579. and 1580. they presume to leaue out S. Paules name out of the very title of the saide epistle which name is in the Greeke and in Bezaes Latine translation both which they professe to folow See the title of the new Test. an 1580. Doth not the title tell them that it is S. Paules why seeke they further or why do they change the title striking out S. Paules name if they meant to deale simply and sincerely and what an hereticall peeuishnes is this because Beza telleth them of one obscure Greeke copie that hath not Paules name and onely one that they will rather folow it than all other copies both Greeke and Latin I report me to all indifferent men of common sense whether they do it not to diminish the credite of the epistle FVLK 11. Nowe concerning the seconde pointe which is calling of some bookes into controuersie or mouing scruples about them to diminish their credite or auctoritie whether you be guiltie of that crime rather than we I haue somewhat noted before But with what euidence you are able to charge vs it cōmeth now to be cōsidered you will go no further than the epistle to the Hebrewes You may be ashamed to haue gone so far For of al bookes of the new Testament their is none that we might worse spare to confounde your blasphemous heresies than that epistle which is the very mall to beate into pouder the abominable Idoll of your Masse and your sacrilegious priesthood seruing to the same Wherefore it is without all colour that you charge vs to seeke to diminish the credite of that epistle But you will not aske why we doubt of or rather thinke it not to be S. Paules because we will tell you that it was once in doubt If you acknowledge that the auctor of this epistle was once in questiō you cleare vs of mouing scruples about it or calling it in question which was your first charge Let Eusebius Hierome and other auncient writers beare that blame if it be blame worthie to tell what other mens opinions haue bene in such a matter Some holding that it was written by S. Luke some by S. Barnabas some by S. Clemens But you must wit if you wil that they which at this day doubt of the writer therof or else thinke it not of S. Paules penning haue other reasons to lead them than onely because it was doubted of For beside those reasons which they had which of old time doubted of the writer therof as the diuersitie of the stile and inscription thereof and manner of reasoning they haue also obserued something out of the epistle it self which seemeth to argue that it was not writtē by S. Paule as that in the beginning of the 2. chapter he saith The doctrine of saluation was confirmed to vs by thē that heard it after it was first spoken by the Lord him self which seemeth to agree with the profession of S. Luke in the beginning of his gospell Wheras S. Paule denieth that he learned his gospel os men but only by reuelation of Iesus Christ. Gal. 1. v. 12. But of all thē that doubt or thinke it not to be S. Paules epistle there is not one that doubteth of the auctoritie thereof but that it is equall with the epistle to the Romanes or the gospell of S. Iohn Although in the Latine church as S. Hierom testifieth it hath bene doubted whether it were Canonicall The cause seemeth to be the heresie of the Nouatians which abused a text out of the 6. chapt against remissiō of sinnes cōmitted after grace receyued which we shew was no sufficiēt cause to refuse so diuine an epistle seing the Apostle speaketh not of particular faults which are cōmon to the faithful oftētimes euery day but of an vtter apostasie falling cleane away frō the truth of the gospel once knowen professed into an horrible contempt persecuting of the same But we must make you a reasonable answere why in the English Bibles printed 1579. 1580. we presume to leaue out S. Paules name out of the very title of the said epistle which name is in the Greeke Bezaes Latine translatiō which we professe to folow I answere without any presumptiō that that which is vncertaine we spare to affirme Exāple we haue not only that ancient Greeke copie whereof Beza speaketh which leaueth out the name of Paulé but also diuerse printed bokes in which that name is left out Beside it is certain that title was not of ancient time vniuersally added For S. Hier. in Catalogo scriptorū ecclesiast after he hath recited al the epistles of S. Paule at lēgth he cōmeth to this epistle Epistola autē quae fertur ad Hebraeos c. But the epistle which is called vnto the Hebrewes is not thought to be his for the differēce of the stile
speach but either writtē by Barnabas as Tertullian holdeth or by Luke the Euangelist as some men thinke or by Clemens that after was B. of the Romane church whom they say to haue ordered adorned the sentēces of Paul in his own speach or els truly bicause Paule did write vnto the Hebrews because of the enuie of his name amōg thē he cut of the title in the beginning of the salutation These things cōsidered what neede those tragical exclamations in so trifling a matter Doth not the title tell it is S. Paules why strike they out S. Paules name what an hereticall peeuishnesse is this For lacke of good matter you are driuen to lowde clamors against vs but I will euen conclude in your owne wordes I reporte me to all indifferent men of common sense whether we do it to deminish the credite of the epistle which of al S. Paules epistles we might least misse when we come to dispute against your Popish sacrifice sacrificing priesthood or whether you do not craftily moue a scruple in the mindes of simple persons to make thē doubt of the auctoritie of that epistle whose double cannon shot you are not able to beare whē it is thūdred out against you vnder colour that it is not of sound credit among our selues that vse it against you Which of al the lies that euer Satan inuented taught you to vtter is one of the most abhominable MART. 12. I know very well that the authoritie of Canonicall Scripture standeth not vpon the certaintie of the author but yet to be Paules or not Paules Apostolicall or not Apostolicall maketh great difference of credite and estimation For what made S. Iames epistle doubted of sometime or the second of S. Peter and the rest but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles This Luther sawe very well when he denied S. Iames epistle to be Iames the Apostles writing If titles of bookes be of no importāce then leaue out Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn leaue out Paule in his other epistles also and you shall much pleasure the Manichees and other old Heretikes if the titles make no difference vrge no more the title of the Apocalypse S. Iohn the Diuines as though it were not S. Iohns the Euangelistes and you shall much displeasure some Heretikes now a daies Briefly most certaine it is and they know it best by their owne vsual doings that it is a principall way to the discredite of any booke to denie it to be that authors vnder whose name it hath bene receiued FVLK 12. If you know so well that the auctoritie of the Canonical scripture standeth not vpō the certaintie of the auctor as in deede it doth not For the bookes of Iudges of Ruth of Samuel the later of the Kings c. who can certainly affirme by whom they were written with what forehead do you charge vs to doubte of the auctoritie of this epistle because we reporte out of the auncient writers the vncertaintie of the auctor or leaue out that title whiche is not certainely true But yet you say to be Paules or not Paules apostolicall or not apostolicall maketh great difference of credite and estimation If by apostolicall you meane of apostolicall spirite or auctoritie I agree to that you say of apostolical or not apostolicall If you meane apostolicall that only which was writtē by some Apostle you will make great difference of credite estimatiō betweene the Gospell of Marke Luke and the Actes of the Apostles from the gospels of Mathew and Iohn But which of vs I pray you that thinketh that this epistle was not writtē by S. Paul once doubteth whether it be not of Apostolicall spirite and auctoritie Which is manifest by this that both in preaching and writing wee cite it thus the Apostle to the Hebrewes And if it were written by S. Luke or by S. Clement which both were Apostolike men seing it is out of controuersie that it was written by the spirite of God it is doubtlesse Apostolicall and differeth not in credite and estimation from those writings that are knowen certainly to haue bene writtē by the Apostles But I maruel greatly why you write that to be Paules or not Paules maketh great difference of credite estimation Those epistles that are Peters and Iohns are not Paules yet I thinke their is no great difference of credite estimation betweene them Paules What you thinke I know not but you write very suspitiously You aske what made S. Iames epistle or the second of Peter and the rest to be sometimes doubted of but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles Yes something else or else they doubted vainely of them and without iuste cause as I thinke they did But when their were two Apostles called Iames he that doubteth whether the epistle was written by Iames the brother of Iohn is persuaded it was written rather by Iames the sonne of Alphaeus doubteth nothing of the credit auctoritie estimation of the epistle No more doe wee which doubt whether the epistle to the Hebrewes were written by S. Paule seeing we are perswaded it was written either by S. Barnabas or by S. Luke or by S. Clement as the auncient writers thought or by some other of the Apostles or Euangelists we make no question but that it is Apostolicall and of equall auctoritie with the rest of the holy scriptures But Eusebius denied the epistle of S. Iames because he was perswaded that it was written by no Apostle or Apostolike man and therefore saith plainly that it is a bastard or counterset and so belike was Luther deceiued if euer he denied it as you say he did But if titles of bookes be of no importance say you then leaue out Matthew Marke Iohn and Paule in his other Epistles What nede that I pray you Is there no difference betwene leauing out a title whereof there hath bene great vncertaintie and diuersitie in Gods church and which in some Greeke copies both written and printed is left out and in leauing out those titles that neuer were omitted nor neuer any question or controuersie moued of them by any of the auncient catholike fathers But you will vs to vrge no more the title of the Apocalypse of S. Iohn the Diuine as though it were not S. Iohn the Euangelistes we shall please I know not what heretikes of our time except it be the Papistes whom it would most concerne that the reuelation of S. Iohn in which their Antichrist of Rome is so plainly described were brought out of credit But if you had read Bezaes preface before the Apocalypse you should finde that euen by that title he gathereth a probable argument that it was written by Iohn the Euangelist because it is not like that this excellent name THE DIVINE coulde agree to any Iohn in the Apostles time so aptly as to Sainct Iohn the Euangelist beside the consent of al antiquitie
Luke he doth giue a reason thereof both for the 70 and for the Euangelist that folowed them neither doubting of the truth thereof nor controlling them by the authoritie of Moyses as Beza speaketh that is by the Hebrue Others say concerning Cainan that Moyses might leaue him out in the Genealogie of Sem by the instinct of the same Spirite that S. Matthew left out three kings in the genealogie of our Sauiour Where if a man would controll the Euangelist by the Hebrue of the old Testament that is read in the bookes of the kings he should be as wise and as honest a man as Beza Lastly Venerable Bede thinketh it sufficient in this very difficultie of Cainan to maruell at it reuerently vather than to search it dangerously And thus farre of picking quarels to the originall text and their good will to alter and change it as they list if they might be suffered FVLK 22. Here of pittie you will shewe vnto vs a peece of learning how the Fathers reconcile the sayde Hebrue and Greeke without violence to the text as they do alwayes or else leaue the matter to God First S. Augustine De ciuitate lib. 18. cap. 43. de doctr chr lib. 2. cap. 15. of their agreement notwithstanding they were separated into seuerall celles gathereth that those Septuaginta were inspired with the same prophetical spirite of interpreting that the Prophetes were in foreshewing But this doth S. Hierome vtterly denie and derideth the ground of this imagination those 72. celles at Alexandria as a fable and a lie That S. Ambrose saith we haue found that many thinges are not idely added of the 70. Greeke interpreters We confesse as much where their addition serueth for explication of that whiche is contavned in the Hebrue and so meaneth Ambrose not that they had auctoritie to adde any thing which Moses had omitted And we acknowledge with S. Hierome that their may be many reasons giuen for the difference of the one frō the other But concerning this place of S. Luke now in question you say he giueth a reason therof both for the 70. for the Euangelist that followed thē neither doubting of the truth thereof nor controlling them by the auctoritie of Moses And for this you quote Comment in 28. Esa. and in question Hebrai in neither of which places is any mention of this place much lesse any reason giuen to reconcile it or the Septuaginta with the Hebrue It seemeth you redde not the bookes your selfe but trusted to much some mans collectiō which you vnderstoode not In the Preface to the Hebrue questions Hieronime excuseth him selfe against enuious persons that barked against him as though he did nothing but reproue the errors of the 70. saying That he thinketh not his labour to be a reprehension of thē seing they would not expresse vnto Ptolomaeus king of Alexādria certain mysticall thinges in the Scriptures and especially those things which promised the comming of Christ least the Iewes might haue bene thought to worship an other God whom that follower of Plato therefore did greatly esteeme because they were said to worship but one god But the Euangelistes also and our Lorde and Sauiour and S. Paule the Apostle bring foorth many thinges as it were out of the old Testament which are not had in in our bookes of whiche in their due places wee will more fully discusse Whereof it is cleare that those are the more true examples which agree with the auctoritie of the newe Testament Thus much Hierom in that place but neither in his questions vppon Genesis nor 1. Paralip the proper places for this texte is their any mention of this place of Luke Qui fuit Cainan In the place cited by you vpon the 28. of Esay hee sayth Legimus in Apostolo c. We reade in the Apostle In other tongues and lippes will I speake to this people and neither so shall they heare me sayth the Lorde Which seemeth to me to be taken out of this present chapter according to the Hebrew And this we haue obserued in the old Testament except a few testimonies which only Luke vseth otherwise whiche had knowledge of the Greeke tongue rather wheresoeuer any thing is said out of the old Testamēt that they set it not according to the 70. but according to the Hebrue folowing the translatiō of no mā but turning the sense of the Hebrue into their owne speach You see that Hierome saith nothing particularly that which he sayth generally concerneth this place nothing at all And very like it is that this corruption was not crept into S. Lukes text in his tyme especially seeing neyther S. Ambrose in his commentarie vpon S. Luke once toucheth this controuersie as hee doth all other questions about that Genealogie Where you say S. Hierome was a great patrone of the Hebrue not without cause being at that time perhaps the Hebrue veritie in deede It is without perhaps or peraduenture that not one iote or pricke of the lawe of God can perishe by the testimonie of our Sauiour Christe Math. 5. And if you will beleeue Arias Montanus an excellent learned Papiste he will tell you as much out of the same text doubtles in his Preface vnto the great Bible by him set out with diligent obseruation of all the Accents Hebrue points which Christ sayth he will neuer suffer to perish And if the Hebrue veritie were in Hieronyms time as doubtlesse it was whether he had a perfect copie therof or no the same Arias Montanus testifieth if you dare credite him being one of your sect for opinion though in sinceritie of minde and loue of the truth which I pray to God to reueale vnto him I thinke him far better than a number of you he I say affirmeth in the same Preface against the obiection that is made of the Iewes corruption of the Hebrue bookes Etenim apud nonnull for we reade in some auctors that through the fraude and impulsion of the spirit of errour some of the nation of the Iewes in times past were brought to that point of insolencie or madnesse that in the beginning of the Christian church they changed some words which might altogither breake of that their contention of oppugning the Christian veritie But those places so defiled by them were very fewe and in the bookes of our writers and also in the copies both printed written of the Iewes them selues are all for the most partnoted and shewed out For although either by the fraude of those men or by the ignorance of the booke writers or by iniurie of the times some change hath bene made in the Hebrew bookes which we vse yet is there not one word nor one letter nor point that is mentioned to haue bene of olde time which is not found to haue bene safely kept in that moste riche treasurie which they call the Mazzoreth For in that as in an holy and faithfull custodie appointed with vttermost diligence
and great study the remnants monuments tokens steppes and examples of the auncient reading are all conteined and the way how to compare the olde and new reading is shewed of which truely being compared togither a very certaine way is extant to the prescript rule whereof the holy mysteries may be shewed forth examples whereof sometime in this worke in due place and else where also with Gods helpe we will set forth Thus farre Arias Montanus whose iudgement if you say you are not bound to follow yet I suppose you can yeelde no sufficient reason why you should not credit his testimonie concerning the certaintie of the Hebrew veritie remaining to this daye and which shall remaine to the worldes ende although all the smatterers among you would brast for spite against it Concerning the opinion of them which thinke that Moses might leaue out Cainan in the genealogy of Sem by the same spirit that Mathew left out three kings in the genealogie of our Sauiour I answer if it be lawfull so to imagine we may without studie answer all controuersies although the same reason is not of Moses compiling a certaine account of the time from the floud to the calling of Abraham and of Mathew shewing by the legall discent which euery man might take out of the bookes of Kinges and Chronicles that Christ was the sonne of Dauid and therefore he was not bound to the number of successors seeing for memorie it was his purpose to recite but thrise foureteene generations That Beda maruaileth at the doubt which he could not dissolue his modestie is to be commended rather than his knowledge Neuerthelesse the same Beda in his preface vnto his retractation vpon the Acts of the Apostles speaking of such difference as he founde in the Greeke text of the Actes from the Latine he saith Quae vtrum negligentia interpretis omissa c. Which things whether they were omitted through negligence of the Interpreter or otherwise vttered or for lack of regard of the writers depraued or otherwise left as yet we coulde not know For I dare not so much as suspect that the Greeke copie was falsified wherefore I admonish the Reader that wheresoeuer we haue done these things he reade thē for his learning yet that he interlace them not in his booke as places corrected except perhaps he shal find the same in some Latine booke of a peculiar edition to haue bene of olde so interpreted This place sheweth that in Bedes time there were more Latine translatiōs than one that the vulgar Latine was not of such authoritie but that it might be corrected by the Greeke with the consent of other auncient Latine translations Likewise vpon the text in question Lib. 1. in Luc. cap. 3. he confesseth that the name generation of Cainan according to the Hebrew verity is found neither in Genesis nor in the Chronicles saying that S. Luke tooke this generation from the edition of the Septuaginta But whether is the truer or whether both can be true he leaueth it to the knowledge of God Noting that whereas according to the Hebrew verity from the floud to the birth of Abrahā there were but 292. yeares the 70. make 1077. so that the difference is no lesse than of 785. yeares But to fauour this fact of Beza in putting out the name of Cainan there is an auncient copie of the Gospels Actes in Greeke and Latine of as great antiquitie by all likelihood as any copie this day extant in Christendome sent vnto the Vniuersitie of Cambridge this laste yeare by Beza him selfe there to be kept in the cōmon librarie in which copie this generation of Cainan both in the Greeke in the Latine is cleane left out euen as Beza hath done in his translation So that he hath not onely the authoritie of Moses which of it selfe is sufficient but also the testimonie of this most aūcient booke both for the Greeke for the Latine to approue his facte in putting out Qui fuit Cainan What your vulgar latine translation hath left out in the later ende of the Lordes prayer in S. Mathew and in the beginning and middest in S. Luke whereby that heauenly prayer is made vnperfect not comprehending all things that a Christian man ought to pray for beside many other like omissions whether of purpose or of negligence and iniurie of time yet still by you defended I spare to speake of in this place MART. 23. Which also may be proued by all their false translations being the principall point I meane to speake of most euidently For as now they translate falsly to their purpose because they can not alter the text so would they if it were possible haue the text agreeable to their translation For example he that translateth ordinances when it is in the originall Greeke text iustifications and traditions he would rather that it were ordinances also in the Greeke but because he can not bring that about he doth at the least what he can to make the ignorant beleeue it is so by so translating it FVLK 23. You shall neuer be able to proue by any trāslatiō of ours though perhaps in some we may erre that we haue any purpose either to falsifie the truth or to change the text though it were possible for vs. In translating we haue dealt with a good conscience albeit not alwaies peraduenture we haue attained to the full truth which in translating out of one tongue into another is a very hard point throughly to obserue Your example of ordinances translated for that which in the Greeke is iustifications and tradition when you shewe where and by whome it is so translated you shall receiue an answer In the meane time I say a translator that hath regard to interprete for the ignorant peoples instruction may sometimes depart from the etymology or common signification or precise turning of worde for word and that for diuerse causes You your selues translate not Ecclesia alwayes the Church but sometimes the assemblie nor Seniores Elders but Seniors or auncients Neither would you translate Presbyter alwaies a priest if you translated the olde Testament In the storie of Susanna you would not call them Priestes that layd waite for her honestie and life yet in your vulgar Latine they are called Priestes So are they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke in the new Testament which you turne sometimes Priests sometimes auncients and sometimes Seniors MART. 24. And this of all other is the most fine and subtill treacherie against the Scriptures to deceiue the ignorant readers withall which S. Paule calleth the secret thinges of dishonestie and adulterating of the word of God as it were mingling water with wine like false vinteners when they giue them for Gods word vnder the name of Gods word their owne words and not Gods forged and framed altered and changed according to differences of times and varietie of new opinions and diuersitie of humors and spirits diuersly and differently
corruption But if it shall be euidently proued that they shrinke from the same also and translate an other thing and that wilfully and of full intention to countenaunce their false religion and wicked opinions making the Scriptures to speake as they list then we trust the indifferent reader for his owne soules sake will easily see and conclude that they haue no feare of God no reuerence of the Scriptures no conscience to deceiue their readers he will perceiue that the Scriptures make against them which they so peruert and corrupt for their purpose that neither the Hebrue nor Greeke text is for them which they dare not translate truly and sincerely that their cause is naught which needeth suche fâ—ule shiftes that they must needes knowe all this and therefore doe wilfully against their conscience and consequently are obstinate heretikes FVLK 39. We craue no pardon if it can be proued that wee haue wilfully translated an other thing than is contained in the Hebrue and Greeke to maintaine any false religion or wicked opinion Prouided alwayes that if any translatour or all the translatours haue ignorantly erred in misunderstanding any worde or phrase of the Hebrue or Greeke text that if it may be plainly shewed vnto them they acknowledging the fault they may not be charged with hereticall corruption from which it is certaine their intention was most free MART. 40. And the more to vnderstand their miserie and wretchednesse before we enter to examine their translations marke and gather of all that which I haue sayed in this Preface their manifolde flightes and iumpes from one shift to an other and howe Catholike writers haue pursued and chased them and followed them driuen them euen to this extreame refuge seely couert of false translation where also they must of necessitie yeeld or deuise some new euasion which we can not yet imagine FVLK 40. Hitherto I hope the indifferent reader will confesse that you haue driuen vs to no iumpes nor shiftes but onely vttered your owne malicious and vnlearned quarrels And howe Popishe writers haue pursued and chased vs to extreame refuge and seely couert of false translation let it appeare by the learned answeres of M. Iewell M. Horne M. Nowell M. Bridges M. Calfhill and others that I speake nothing of mine owne simple labours who being one of the meanest hauing confuted tenne or twelue of your Popishe treatises can receiue no replye of any man but onely of poore Bristowe to whome in this respecte I confesse my selfe more beholding than to all the Papistes beside sauing that I haue reioyned to him almost two yeares agoe and yet I heare not of his answere MART. 41. First we are wont to make this offer as we thinke most reasonable and indifferent that forasmuch as the Scriptures are diuersely expounded of vs of them they neither be tied to our interpretation nor we to theirs but to put it to the arbitrement iudgement of the auncient fathers of generall Councels of vniuersall custome of times and places in the Catholike Church No say they we will be our owne iudges and interpreters or follow Luther if we be Lutherans Caluin if we be Caluinists and so forth FVLK 41. For expounding of the Scriptures we will not refuse the arbitrement and iudgement of the auncient fathers of generall Councels of vniuersall custome of times and places in the Catholike church for this you say is your offer which was neuer refused of vs though you most falsely affirme that we say we will be our owne iudges and interpretours or followe Luther if we be Lutherans Caluine if we be Caluinistes c. Who euer sayed so you shamelesse sclauâ—derer What haue you differing from vs Wherein you haue the iudgement of the auncient fathers of generall Councels of vniuersall custome of times and places in the Catholike church Vnlesse perhappes you meane some wretched sophistrie by disioyning these that you here seeme to ioyne togither And if you so doe we must first aske you whether you your selues in all expositions of the Scriptures will stand to the arbitrement of euerie auncient father or of euerie generall Councell or of any custome in any time or place I knowe and you can not deny it that you will stande to nothing that is not allowed by your Pope though fathers councels custome time or place or all the world be against it yea the manifest Scripture which is so plaine that it needeth no exposition as the commaundement against images in religion Theodoret Gelasius Vigilius Chrysostome against transubstantiation Epiphanius against images the sixt councell of Constantinople for condemning the Pope of heresie the councels of Constance and Basil for deposing the Popes and decreeing that the councell is aboue the Pope many other like matters beside in which you goe clearely from the consent of all antiquitie for 600. yeares as the Bishoppe of Sarum hath made plaine demonstration and you are not able to replie MART. 42. This being of it selfe a shamelesse shift vnlesse it be better coloured the next is to say that the Scriptures are easie and plaine and sufficient of them selues to determine euerie matter and therefore they will be tried by the Scriptures onely We are content because they will needes haue it so and we alleage vnto them the bookes of Tobie Ecclesiasticus Machabees No say they we admit none of these for Scripture Why so are they not approued Canonicall by the same authoritie of the Church of auncient Councels and fathers that the other bookes are No matter say they Luther admitteth them not Caluine doth not allow them FVLK 42. That the Scriptures are plaine and easie to be vnderstoode of them that vse the ordinary meanes to come to it for all doctrine necessarie to be knowen and sufficient to determine euerie matter the holie Ghost him selfe doth testifie 2. Tim. 3. and some of the auncient fathers also doe beare witnesse as Augustine de doct Christ. lib. 2. Chrysost. in Gen. hom 13. de verb. Esai Vidi dâ—minum c. hom 2. If therefore you had the spirite of the auncient fathers you would be content to be tryed by the Scriptures for reuerence you ought to Gods most holye and perfect writings and not because we will haue it so who are content in many controuersies to be tryed by the iudgement of the auncient fathers or general Councels or vniuersall custom of times and places and in all controuersies wherein all the auncient fathers all Councels and vniuersall custom of all times and places doe consent if any think such things can be brought against vs as it is falsly and sophistically bragged But whereas we refuse the bokes of Tobie Ecclesiasticus Machabees for Canonicall Scripture it is not as you say ridiculously because Luther and Caluine admitteth them not but because they are contrary to the Canonicall Scriptures and were neâ—er receiued of the Church of Israel for Canonicall nor of the Catholike Church of Christ for more than 400. yeares after
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
Episcopus Presbyter which came in afterward you your selfe confessed as we heard of late that it is not obserued in the Scriptures but the same men are called Episcopi which before were called Presbyteri And according to that distinctioÌ„ you can allow but one Bishop of one citie at once yet the Scripture in diuerse places speaketh of many Bishops of one citie as Act. 20. the Bishops of Ephesus called before Presbyteri Elders also he saluteth the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi Phil. 1. where your note saith that In the Apostles time there were not obserued alwaies distinct names of either function of B. Priest Would you haue vs to translate the Scripture with distinction of names which the holy ghost maketh not nor your vulgar Latin obserueth nor you your selfe for shame can obserue And if we should haue translated for Elders Priests that distinction taken vp after the Apostles times or the writing of the Scripture had bene neuer the more confirmed MART. 20. But of al other places we would desire these gay translatours to translate this one place of S. Augustine speaking of him self a Bishop and S. Hierom a Priest Quanquam enim secunduÌ„ honoruÌ„ vocabula quae iam Ecclesiae vsus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio maior fit tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est Is not this the English therof For although according to the titles or names of honour which now by vse of the church haue preuailed the degree of Bishoppe be greater than Priesthood yet in many things Augustine is lesse than Hierom. Or doth it like them to translate it thus The degree of Bishop is greater than Eldership c Againe against Iulian the heretike when he hath brought many testimonies of the holy doctors that were all Bishops as of S. Cyprian Ambrose Basil Nazianzene Chrysostome at length he commeth to S. Hierom who was no Bishop and sayth Nec sanctum Hieronymum quia Presbyter fuit contemnendum arbitreris that is Neither must thou thinke that S. Hierom because he was but a priest therfore is to be contemned whose diuine eloqueÌ„ce hath shined to vs from the East euen to the West like a lampe and so forth to his great commendation Here is a plaine distinction of an inferiour degree to a Bishop for the which the Heretike Iulian did easily contemne him Is â—ot S. Cyprian full of the like places is not all antiquitie so full that whiles I proue this me thinketh I proue nothing els but that snow is white FVLK 20. Of all other importune and vnreasonable iudges you are one of the worst that would enforce vs to translate the Scriptures which you confesse obserueth not the distinction of Bishops and Priestes according to the fathers which doe almost alwayes obserue it If we should translate those sentences of S. Augustine we might vse the word Priest for Presbyter and priesthood for presbyterium and if we vse the words Elder and Eldership what offence I pray you were it when by these names we vnderstand nothing but the same function minister which Augustine doth That Episcopus a Bishop was of very olde time vsed to signifie a degree Ecclesiasticall higher than Presbyter an Elder or Priest we did neuer deny we knowe it right well We knowe what S. Hierom writeth vpon the epistle to Titus cap. 1. idem est â—rgo Presbyter qui Episcopus The same man is Presbyter or an Elder or Priest which is Episcopus a Bishop And before that by the instinct of the deuill factions were made in religion and it was sayd among the people I am of Paule I of Apollo and I of Cephas the Churches were gouerned by common councell Presbyterorum of the Elders But afterwarde when euery one thought those whome he had baptised to be his owne and not Christes it was decreed in the whole worlde that one de Presbyteris of the Elders being elected should be set ouer the reste to whome all the care of the Churche should pertaine and the seedes of schismes shoulde be taken away This and much more to this effect writeth Saint Hieronyme of this distinction in that place and in diuerse other places which nothing proueth that we are bounde to translate Presbyter in the Scripture a Priest and least of all that we are bound in termes to keepe that distinction which the Scripture maketh not and the Papistes them selues can not obserue in their most partiall translation MART. 21. In all which places if they will translate Elder and yet make the same a common name to all Ecclesiastical degrees as Beza defineth it let the indifferent Reader consider the absurd confusion or rather the impossibilitie thereof if not but they will graunt in all these places it signifieth Priest and so is meant then we must beate them with Bezaes rodde of reprehension against Castaleon that we can not dissemble the boldnesse of these men which woulde God it rested within the custome of words onely and were not important matter concerning their heresie These men therefore touching the word Priest though vsed of sacred writers in the mysterie of the newe Testament and for so many yeares after by the secret consent of all Churches consecrated to this one Sacrament so that it is now growen to be the proper vulgar speeche almoste of all nations yet they dare presume rashly to change it and in place thereof to vse the word Elder delicate men forsooth yea worse a great deale because these do it for heresie not for delicacy which neither are moued with the perpetuall authoritie of so many ages nor by the daily custome of the vulgar speech can be brought to thinke that lawful for diuines which all men graunt to other maisters professors of artes that is to reteyne hold that as their owne which by long vse in good faith they haue truely possessed Neither may they pretend the authoritie of any auncient writer as that the old Latine translator sayth Senior Seniores for that which was to them as it were newe to vs is olde euen then that the selfe same wordes which we now vse were more familiar to the Church it is euident because it is very seldom that they speake otherwise FVLK 21. I see no impossibilitie but that in all places where we reade Presbyter we may lawfully translate Elder as well as Priest and make it stil in Scripture a common name to all Ecclesiasticall degrees at least to as many as the Scripture maketh it common without any absurditie or confusion And albeit in the fathers we should translate it Priest because they vnderstood by the name Presbyter a distinct degree from Episcopus yet the saying of Beza against Castaleo could not by any wise man be applyed to vs. For Castaleo changed the name of the Sacrament Baptismus by which both the Scriptures and the fathers vniformely did vse to signifie one and the same Sacrament whereas the name of
permitte such consistories of Elders for onely discipline and gouernment as be in some other Churches yet doe they not only permit but also mainteyne and reuerence such Elders being signified by the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as are necessarie for the gouernment of the Church in doctrine Sacraments and discipline to the saluation of Gods people The dayly sacrifice mentioned in Daniell was the Morning and Euening sacrifice of the old Lawe wherevnto your blasphemous sacrifice of the Masse hath no resemblaunce You may not therefore looke to recouer the credite of Massing Priestes by that sacrifice which being once instituted by God was at length taken away by the onely sacrifice of Christes death Against which all the Apologies in the worlde shall neuer be able to defende your Massing Priesthood As for the chapter of Allens Apologie wherevnto you refer vs conteyneth certaine quotations a few sentences of the auncient writers which haue bene answered an huÌ„dreth times to iustifie massing Priests but all in vaine for neuer shall he proue that any one from the Eldest which he nameth vnto Beda which is the yongest was such a Massing Prieste in all pointes as those traytours are which by the Queenes lawes and edict are proscribed and prohibited I meane not for their manners but for their Masse and all opinions incident therevnto CHAP. VII Hereticall translation against PVRGATORIE LIMBVS PATRVM CHRISTS DESCENDING INTO HEL Martin HAVING now discouered their corrupt translations for defacing of the Churches name and abolishing of Priest and Priesthood let vs come to another point of very great importance also and which by the wonted consequence or sequele of errour includeth in it many erroneous branches Their principall malice then being bent against Purgatorie that is against a place were Christian soules be purged by suffering of temporall paines after this life for surer maintenaunce of their erroncous deniall hereof they take away and denie all third places saying that there was neuer from the beginning of the worlde any other place for soules after this life but onely two to witte heauen for the blessed and hell for the damned And so it foloweth by their hereticall doctrine that the Patriarches Prophetes and other good holy men of the old Testament went not after their deaths to the place called Abrahams bosome or Limbus patrum But immediatly to heauen so againe by their erroneous doctrinâ— it foloweth that the fathers of the old Testament were in heauen before our sauiour Christe had suffered death for their redemption and also by their erroneous doctrine it foloweth that our sauiour Christ was not the first man that ascended and entred into heauen and moreouer by their hereticall doctrine it foloweth that our sauiour Christe desâ—ended not into any such third place to deliuer the fathers of the olde Testament out of their prison and to bring them triumphantly with him into heauen because by their erroneous doctrine they were neuer there â— and so that article of the Apostles Creede concerning our sauiour Christ his descending into hell must either be put out by the Caluinists as Beza did in his Confession of his faith printed An. 1564. or it hath some other meaning to wit either the lying of his bodie in the graue or as Caluine and the purer Caluinists his schollers will haue it the suffering of hell paines distresses vpon the Crosse. Loe the consequence and coherence of these errours and heresies Fulke WE may be bolde to say with S. Augustine We beleeue according to the auctoritie of God that the kingdome of heauen is the first place appointed for Gods elect and that hell is the seconde place where all the reprobrate such is be not of the faith of Christe shall suffer eternall punishment Tertium penitus ignoramus imo nec esse in scripturis sanctis inuenimus The thirde place we are vtterly ignorant of yea and that it is not wee finde in the holy Scriptures But hereof it followeth say you that the godly of the olde Testament went not after their deathes to Abrahams bosome or Limbus patrum but immediately to heauen Of Limbus patrum which is a border of the Popes hel I grauÌ„t it followeth but of Abrahams bosome it followeth none otherwise than if I should say Gregorie Martin went into Chepeside Ergo he went not to London That the fathers of the old Testament were in Heauen before our Sauiour Christ had suffered death for their redemption it is no incoÌ„uenience for his death was as effectuall to redeeme them that liued before he suffered actually as them that liue since because in Gods sight hee is the Lambe that was slaine from the beginning of the world And the fathers that were iustified by faith in his bloud receyued the same crowne and rewarde of rightuousnesse that we do beyng iustified by the same meanes And yet our Sauiour Christe was the first man that in his whole manhood ascended and entred into heauen into the fulnesse and perfection of glory which is prepared for all Gods elect to be enioyed after the generall resurrection That our Sauiour Christe descended into no prison after his death we verily beleeue and yet we do also constantly beleeue the article of our Creede that he descended into hel by suffering in soule the paynes due to Gods iustice for the sinnes of all whome hee redeemed and by vanquishing the Deuill and all the power of hel in working the redemption of all the children of God If Beza in his confession had cleane left out that article whiche is vntrue hee had bene no more to bee blamed than the auctors of the Nicene Creede and many other Creedes in which it is not expressed because it is partly conteyned vnder the article of his sufferings partly it is in parte of the effect and vertue of his death and redemption MART. 2. These nowe being the hereticall doctrines which they meane to auouch and defende what soèuer come of it first they are at a point not to care a rushe for all the auncient holy Doctours that write with full consent to the contrarie as themselues confesse calling it their common errour secondly they translate the holy Scriptures in fauour thereof most corruptly and wilfully as in Bezaes false translation who is Caluines successor in Geneua it is notorious for he in his newe Testament of the yeare 1556. printed by Robertus Stephanus in folio with Annotations maketh our Sauiour Christ say thus to his father Non derelinques cadauer meuÌ„ in sepulchro Thou shalt not leaue my carcasse in the graue Act. 2. For that which the Hebrue and the Greeke and the Latine and S. Hierome according to the Hebrue say Non derelinques animam meam in inferno as plainly as we say in English Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell Thus the Prophet Dauid spake it in the Hebrue Psal. 15. Thus the Septuaginta vttered it in Greeke thus the Apostle S. Peter
why is not this confessioÌ„ a Sacrament where them selues acknowledge forgiuenesse of sinnes by the Minister These contradictions and repugnance of their practise and translation if they can wittily and wisely reconcile they may perhaps in this point satisfie the reader But whether the Apostle speake here of Sacramentall confession or no sincere translators should not haue fledde from the proper and most vsuall word of confession or confessing consonant both to the Greeke and Latine and indifferent to what soeuer the holy Ghost might meane as this word acknowledge is not FVLK 7. Of the word of penance and therevpoÌ„ to wring in satisfaction we haue heard more than enough but that penance is a Sacrament wee haue heard neuer a worde to proue it But what say wee against confession Forsooth Iames 5. wee translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acknowledge your selfes Why sir dothe acknowledging signifie any other thing than confessing you want then nothing else but the sounde of confession which among the ignoraunt woulde helpe you litle whiche terme your Popishe acknowledging rather shrifte than confession It is maruaile then that you blame vs not because wee say not shriue your selues one to an other A miserable Sacrament that hath neede of the sounde of a worde to helpe it to bee gathered But how I pray you should the reader gather your auricular shrifte or Popishe confession if the worde confesse your selues were vsed by vs I weene because the Priests are called in a little before It is more than mough if you might gaine your Sacrament of anealing by their comming in But shrifte commeth to late after extreeme vnction Well admitte the Apostle forgotte the order and placed it after which shoulde come before must wee needes haue Priestly confession proued out of that place doth not S Iames say coÌ„fesse your selues one to an other as he saith pray one for an other Then it followeth that the Lay man muste shriue the Prieste as well as the Prieste muste shriue the Laye man And the Priest muste confesse him selfe to the people as well as the people muste pray for the Prieste But you haue an obiection out of the Communion booke to proue confession to be a Sacrament which appointeth that the sicke person shal make a speciall confession to the minister and he to absolue him c. Will you neuer leaue this shamelesse cogging and forging of matters against vs The Communion booke appointeth a speciall confessioÌ„ only for them that feele their conscience troubled with any waighty matter that they may receiue counsaile and comforte by the minister who hath aucthoritie in the name of God to remitte sinnes not only to them that be sicke but also to them that be whole and dayly dothe pronounce the absolution to them that acknowledge confesse their sinnes humbly before God But hereof it followeth not that this confession is a Sacrament for by preaching the people that beleeue are absolued froÌ„ their sinnes by the ministerie of the Preacher yet is not preaching a Sacrament A Sacrament must haue an outward element or bodily creature to represent the grace of remission of sinnes as in Baptisme and in the Lordes supper But where you conclude that sincere translators should not haue fledde the proper and moste vsuall worde of confession you speake your pleasure for the worde of acknowledging is more proper and vsuall in the English tongue than is the worde of confessing And if you can proue any Sacrament out of that texte beholde you haue the Greeke and Latine vntouched and the English answereable to both make your Syllogisme out of that place to proue Popish shrift when you dare CHAP. XV. Hereticall translation against the Sacrament of HOLY ORDERS and for the MARIAGE OF PRIESTS and VOTARIES Martin AGAINST the Sacrament of Orders what can they doe more in translation than in all their Bibles to take away the name of Priest and Priesthood of the new Testament altogether and for it to say Elder and Eldership Whereof I treated more at large in an other place of this booke Here I adde these fewe obseruations that both for Priestes and Deacons which are two holy orders in the Catholike Church they translate Ministers to commend that newe degree deuised by themselues As when they say in all their Bibles Feare the Lord with all thy soule and honour his ministers In the Greeke it is plaine thus and honour his Priests as the word alwayes signifieth and in the very next sentence themselues so translate Feare the Lorde and honour the Priestes But they would needes borowe one of these places for the honour of Ministers As also in the Epistle to Timothee where S. Paul talketh of Deacons and nameth them twise they in the firste place translate thus Likewise muste the Ministers be honest c. And a litle after Let the Deacons be the husbaÌ„ds of one wife Loe the Greeke worde being one and the Apostle speaking of one Ecclesiasticall order of Deacons and Beza so interpreating it in both places yet our English translators haue allowed the first place to their Ministers and the second to Deacons and so because Bishops also went before they haue found vs out their three orders Bishops Ministers and Deacons Alas poore soules that can haue no place in Scripture for their Ministers but by making the Apostle speake three things for two Fulke FOR the names of Priest and Elder wee haue spoken heretofore sufficiently as also for the name of Minister which is vsed for the same that Elder and Prieste althoughe the word signifie more generally That the worde Ministers is put for Priests I take it rather to bee an ouersight of the firste translatour whome the rest folowed because that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commeth immediatly after than any purpose against the order of Priest or to dignifie the name of Ministers For seeing Syrachs sonne speaketh of the Priests and Ministers of the â—awe his saying can make nothing to or froe for the names of the Ministers Priestes or Elders of the new Testament That some translatioÌ„s in 1. Tim. 3. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reÌ„der Ministers it is because they supposed the Greeke word to be taken there in the generall sense as it is in manye other places not to make three degrees of twoo as you do fondly cauil For the orders of Bishops Elders or as you cal them Priests and as they be commonly called Priests and Ministers is all one in authoritie of ministring the word the Sacraments The degree of Bishoppes as they are taken to be a superiour order vnto Elders or Priestes is for gouernment and discipline specially committed vnto them not in authoritie of handling the worde and the sacraments MART. 2. There are in the Scripture that are called Ministers in infinite places and that by three Greeke wordes commonly but that is a large signification of minister attributed to al that minister waite serue or attend to doe any
Apostles which it is sufficient that it is receiued of the doctrine of the Apostles Ruffinus in deede expositione in symbolum sayeth it was an opinion receiued from the elders that the Apostles before their dispersion made this briefe forme of beliefe which is called their Creede And I acknowledge the opinion hath some probabilitie but that it is to be beleeued of necessitie of saluation neither Ruffinus sayeth nor if he did were he able to prooue it Ambrose Ep. 81. Syricio to prooue that Marie in the birth of Christ was a virgine sayeth Credatur symbolo Apostòlorum quod Ecclesia Romana iteratum semper custodit seruat Let credit bee giuen to the Apostles Creede which being repeted often the Church of Rome doth alwayes keepe and obserue That this Creede is called the Apostles symbole or Creede it may well be because it containeth the summe of the Apostles doctrine although it had not beene compiled by them The testimonie of Augustine which you quote Serm. 118. De tempore must needes be some yonger mans because he repeteth the verie wordes of Ruffinus which Augustine liuing almost in his time woulde not repete as his owne You might as well and more for your purpose haue quoted Serm. 115. De tempore where euery Apostle maketh an Article which is the absurde opinion of the late Papistes but neuer was credited by Augustine himselfe howsoeuer these sermons haue gotten vnder the shadow of his name To conclude as some of the auncient fathers thinke the Creede was of the Apostles making so none of them affirmeth that it is damnable to doubt thereof so a man doubt not of the doctrine contained therein whereof the holy ghost is author as it is proued by the holie scriptures whether the Apostles or their successours did gather this short summe or forme of beliefe which we call the Apostles Creede For the obseruation of the Easter day which is the seconde point wherein you dare Master Charke I dare affirme that seeing it is not commaunded in the scripture the obseruation thereof is not necessarie to saluation That Eusebius calleth it an Apostolike tradition it is not materiall seeing that verie contention which he reporteth was about the obseruation of Easter according to the Apostolike tradition by the immediate successors of the Apostles Anicetus and Polycarpus doe plainly testifie what credit is to bee giuen to the traditions of the Apostles without the warrant of the Apostles writings Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 26. For while Anicetus pretendeth the tradition of S. Peter and Polycarpus S. Iohn and neither would yeelde to other they teache vs what to esteeme of traditions apostolical not contained in the holy scriptures Namely that in these dayes there can bee no certeintie of them when they which might see and heare the Apostles themselues could not agree about them Last of all which you make the greatest matter the perpetuall virginitie of the mother of Christ after his birth although for my part I do beleeue it and wish all men so to doe yet dare I affirme that it is not damnable not to beleeue it except it can be prooued that the scripture hath taught it But you obiect against mee first the condemnation of Heluidius testified by Sozomenus Whereto I aunswere that he was iustly condemned not because he beleeued not but because he did obstinately denie it troubled the peace of the church about an vnnecessary question But you aske vs if wee remember not the solemne curse for this matter of so many holy bishops recorded and confirmed by S. Ambrose Ep. 81. 79. It seemeth you remember it not your selfe for that curse contained in the ende of the Ep. 81. was against them that like Manichees denyed that our Sauiour Christ tooke flesh of a virgine And Ep. 79. he reprooueth them which did contende that the virgine Marie had more sonnes than our Sauiour Christ which to affirme is a great errour and conuinced by the authoritie of the scripture seeing as Ambrose well noteth our Sauiour Christ committed his mother to Iohn the Euangelist which had not beene needefull if shee had naturall sonnes of her owne which might take care of her But you will stoppe our mouthes if you can as you say with these wordes of Saint Augustine Integra fide credendum est c. Wee must beleeue with a sounde faith blessed Marie the mother of Christ to haue conceiued in virginitie to haue brought foorth her sonne in virginitie and to haue remained a virgine after her childbirth neither must wee yeeld to the blasphemie of Heluidius Your author goeth on and telleth what that was Qui dixis fuit virgo ante partum non virgo post partum Who sayd shee was a virgine before her child-birth shee was no virgine after her childbirth But where shall wee finde this saying in Saint Augustine Your quotation directeth vs to Augustine in Encherid Cap. 34. where in deede some mention is of Maries virginitie namely that she conceiued in virginitie but nothing of Heluidius or his heresie Wherefore it secmeth that out of Canisius or some other mans collection your common places of the doctors sayings are borowed and not taken out of your owne reading Therefore howsoeuer you haue mistaken the matter the saying you alledge is in the bastarde booke De dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis Cap. 69. which may as easily be knowen from Augustines writing as a goose from a swanne And yet if it were of as good authoritie as Augustines owne writing it were not sufficient to stop our mouth when wee heare that wee are slaundered For wee dare not say with Heluidius which is the blasphemie noted by that writer that the virgine Marie was no virgine after her childbirth although wee say that it is no article of faith necessarie to saluation except it haue demonstration out of the holy scriptures neither doth your author say it is blasphemie to doubt of it but to denye it although for my part I do neither denie it nor doubt of it but beleeue it as I do manie other truethes not expressed in the scripture but yet not as articles of Christian faith necessarie to saluation I will conclude with a saying of Saint Ierome and stoppe your mouth if I can which concerning this verie question in controuersie against Heluidius to shewe what a man is bound to beleeue vpon necessitie of saluation euen that which is contained in the scriptures and that which is not coÌ„teined that he is not bound vpon losse thereof to beleeue thus writeth Sed vt haec quae scripta sunt non negaâ—ius ita â—a quae non sunt scripta renuimus Natum Dâ—â—â— esâ—e de virgine credimus quia legimus Mariam â—â—psisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus But as wee do not deny those things that are written so we do refuse those things that are not written That God was borne of a virgin wee beleeue because we haue read it that Marie vsed marriage after her
childbed wee beleeue not because wee haue not read it That you say Lo M. Chark S. Augustine maketh it both a matter of faith and the doubting thereof to be blasphemie how will you auoid this It is easily auoyded for it is false in many respects first S. Augustine fayeth it not but some obscure man of much latter time lesse learning and authoritie as the barbarous stile in many places declareth secondly hee fayth not that it is a matter of faith to beleeue the perpetuall virginitie of Marie but that shee conceiued brought foorth and remained a virgine after her child-birth Thirdly he maketh not the doubting thereof to be blasphemie but the obstinate denying of Heluidius which saide shee was no virgine after her childbirth But how will you auoide that which S. Ierome writeth We refuse those things that are not written we beleeue not because wee haue not read in y e scripture anything hereof as necessarie to saluation Pag. 158. you do not see why you should beleeue a Charke or a Fulke comming but yester day from the grammar schole before a Cyprian a Tertullian a Basil a Ierom an Ambrose or an Augustine especially in a matter of fact as your case is seeing they liued more than twelue or thirteene hundred yeares nearer to the deede dooing than these ministers do Why sir I pray you who requireth you to beleeue any minister of these dayes before any of those auncient fathers in respect of the credite of the persons and not of the truth which they bring You knowe that Panormitane thinketh more credite is to be giuen to one lay man speaking the trueth according to scripture than to all men of all ages speaking contrarie to the trueth or beside the truth of the scriptures But it is a matter of fact you say whether such and such traditions came from Christ his Apostles or no and therefore they that liued neerer the time of the deede dooing by twelue or thirteene hundreth yeares are more like to knowe the trueth than wee I answere that all things that you pretende for traditions are not of one sort some are contrary to the word of God and are reproued by euidence of the holy scriptures other are beside the worde of God and therefore not necessarie to bee receiued because they are not found in the holie scriptures As for the prerogatiue of antiquitie cannot argue a certaine knowledge of the fact in these ancient fathers seeing in two or three hundreth yeares that was before their time and the time of the deede supposed to be done any fable might be obtruded vnder pretence of such tradition as we prooue that many were Yea when they that were neerest of all to the Apostles time as Polycarpus and Anicetus do not agree what was the Apostles traditioÌ„ which was not expressed in their writing it is manifest that they of much latter time coulde haue no certeintie thereof And that whatsoeuer ceremonie or practise the Apostles deliuered which was not expressed in the scripture was but temporall or arbitrarie in the power of the Church to vse or not vse as it might best serue for edifying Finally where you affirme that Fulk came but yesterday from the Grammar schole to make it seeme that he is but a yong grammatian either your dayes be neere as long as thirtie yeres or else your pen runneth beyond your knowledge of him or at leastwise your malice ouer reacheth your knowledge But yet to this extremitie of crediting one Charke or Fulke before so many auncient fathers you say you are driuen and bid men hearken a little howe D. Fulke handleth these men about traditions And first S. Cyprian alledging the tradition of Christ himselfe concerning the mingling of wine and water in the chalice but if Cyprian had beene well vrged faith Fulke he would haue better considered of the matter Thus you woulde make men beleeue that I oppose nothing but mine owne authoritie or credit against S. Cyprian But then you shamefully beelie me for this is the matter and these are my wordes which you haue gelded at your pleasure Whereas Cyprian ad Pompeiâ—â— calleth all traditions to the writinges and commandements of the Apostles Martiall cryeth out that Cyprian is slandered because he himselfe alleageth the tradition of Christ for mingling of water with wine If Cyprian breake his owne rule who can excuse him But if he had beene vrged as much for the necessitie of water as he was for the necessitie of wine in the sacrament he would haue better considered of the matter Who seeth not I suppose no lesse authoritie against Cyprian than of Cyprian himselfe and therefore I boast not of mine owne credite aboue his To proceede Tertullian is alleaged saying that the blessing with the signe of the crosse is an apostolike tradition Fulke Tertullians iudgement of tradition without scripture in that place is corrupt If I should search no further heere is a reason of Fulkes mislike of Tertullians iudgement added because he affirmeth tradition of the Apostles without the writing of the Apostles But in deede there is in the place by you noted other argumentes in these wordes Tertullians iudgement of tradition without scripture in that place is corrupt for Martiall himselfe confesseth that a tradition vnwritten should be reasonable and agreeable to the scriptures and so he sayth the tradition of blessing with the crosse is because the Apostles by the holy ghost deliuered it But who shall assure vs thereof Tertullian and Basill are not sufficient warrant for so worthy a matter seeing S. Paule leaueth it out of the vniuersall armour of God This last and inuincible argument in rehearsing my wordes you leaue out which because perhaps you could not see in sewe wordes I will set it more abroade The vniuersall spirituall armour of God is deliuered by S. Paule Eph. 6. blessing with the signe of the crosse is not there deliuered by S. Paul therefore blessing with the signe of the crosse is no part of the spirituall armour of God Nowe let vs see whether you will beleeue a Paule before a Tertullian or a Basill or a Fulke with S. Paule before a Basil with Tertullian without S Paule or against S. Paule But you goe forwarde S. Ierome is alleaged saying that lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles Fulke Ierome vntruely ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles My wordes are against Bristowes Mot. pag. 35. these Againe S. Ierome fayth it was a tradition of the Apostles to fast 40. dayes in the yeare If this be true then is the popish storie false that maketh Telesphorus bishoppe of Rome author of that lenten fast Eusebius sheweth y e great diuersitie of fasting before Easter li. 5. cap. 26. saying that some fasted but one day some two dayes some more some 40. houres of day and night This diuersitie prooueth that Ierome vntruely ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles which should haue beene kept vniformely if it had any institution
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
vocat propterea sacerdotio fungitur vt homo recipis autem ea quae offeruntur vt Deus offeri verò ecclesia corporis eius sanguinis symbola omne fermentum per primitias sanctificans And Christ is nowe a priest which is sprung of Iuda according to the flesh not offering any thing himselfe but is called the head of them that offer seeing he calleth the church his bodie and therefore he exerciseth the priesthoode as a man and hee receiueth those thinges that are offered as God and the church truely doth offer the tokens of his bodie and bloud sanctifying euerie leauen by the first fruites In these wordes Theodoret speaketh not of the sacrifice that Christ offered himselfe but of the spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing which the church offereth to him in celebrating the memorie of his death Not of the priesthoode which Christ did exercise in earth but of the priesthoode that he doth exercise in heauen not now offering anie thing but as God receiuing oblations And where he sayth that nowe he exerciseth the priesthoode as man he denieth not but that he doeth exercise it as mediator God and man Which is more plaine in his exposition of the Epistle to the Heb. cap. 8. where he enquireth how Christ doth both sit at the right hande of maiestie and yet is a minister of the holy thinges Quonam enim munere sacerdotali fungitur qui seipsum semelobtuliâ— non offert amplius sacrificium Quomodo autem fieri potest vt idem sedeaâ— socerdotali officio fungatur Nisi fortè dixerit quispiam esse munus sacerdotale salutem quam vt dominus procurat Tabernaculum autem vocauit coelum cuius est ipse opifex quem vt hominem dixit Apostolus fungi sacerdotio For what priestly office doth he exercise which hath once offered vp himselfe and doth no more offer any sacrifice And howe can it be that the same person shoulde together both sit and exercise the priestly office Except perhaps a man will say that the saluation which he procureth as Lorde is a priestly office Neither hath he any other meaning Dialog prime where his purpose is to prooue that Christ had a body Si est ergo sacerdonum proprium offerre munera Christus autem quod ad humanit atem quidem attinet sacerdos appellatus est non aliam autem hostiam quam suum corpus obtuliâ— Dominus ergo Christus corpus habuiâ— If therefore it be proper for priestes to offer giftes and Christ as concerning his humanitie truely is called a priest and he offered none other sacrifice but his owne bodie therefore our Lorde Christ had a bodie He sayth not that Christ is a priest according to his humanitie onelie whereas the excellencie of his person being both God and man caused â—is sacrifice to be acceptable and auaileable for the redemption of man But to make the matter cleare beside that which the Apostle writeth to the Hebrues ca. 9. these argumentes may plainely be drawen out of the 7. cap. where he speaketh expresly of his priesthood after the order of Melchisedech Christ as he is without father and without mother is â— priest after the order of Melchisedech Christ as he is God and man is without father and without mother therfore Christ as he is God and man is a priest after the order of Melchisedech Againe Christ as he hath no beginning of his dayes nor ende of his life is a priest after the order of Melchisedech Christ according to his diuinitie hath no beginning of his daies nor ende of his life according to his whole person Therefore Christ according to his diuinitie and according to his whole person is a priest after the order of Melchisedech Againe except you vnderstand Christ to haue beene a priest according to his diuinitie he was tythed in the loynes of Abraham as well as Lcui but according to his diuinitie hee was not in the loynes of Abraham and therfore payde no tythe in Abraham as God though as man he was subiect to the law but receiued tythes of Abraham in his priest and figure Melchisedech For the priest receiueth tythes in the name of God as also he blesseth in the name of God Therefore if Christ giue priestly blessing in his owne name he giueth it as he is God and not as man onely Finally to say that that Christ was a priest only in respect of his manhood â—auoreth rankely of Nestorianisme whereas our assertion that Christ is an high priest both according to his deitie in which he is equall with his father and also according to his humanitie in which the father is greter than he is as farre from Arrianisme as the Papistes are from honestie and synceritie to charge vs with such open blasphemie God be praised Imprinted at London by George Bishop and Henrie Binneman 1583. D. Standish D. Heskins Heretikes fiue vvaies specially abuse the Scriptures â— Denying certaine bookes or parts of bookes 2 Doubting of their authoritie and calling theÌ„ into question 2 Voluntarie expositions according to euery ones fansie or heresie 4. Changing some vvordes or sentences of the very originall text Tertul. cont Marae cio li. â— in princ Tertul. lib. 5. False and heretical traÌ„slation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 possedi◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. ep 89. lib. 1. de pec mer. cap. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Protestants Caluinists vse the foresaid fiue meanes of defacing the Scriptures * Cont. rat Edm. Camp pag. 18. Retent pag. 32. dist of the Rock pag. 307. Luther in noâ—o Test. Germa in Prefat Iacobi Conc. Cart. 3. can 47. * Argu. in epist. Iacob * Whitak p. 10. * Ibid. Lib. 6. cap. 18. De doct Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8. Anno. 1532. Anno. 1537. Ibid. pag. 17. M. VVhitaker by these vvords condemneth their ovvne Seruice booke vvhich appointeth these bookes of Tobie and Ecclesiasticus to be read for holy Scripture as the other Doe they read in their Churches Apocryphall superstitious bookes for holy Scripture or is he a Puritane that thus disgraceth their order of daily Seruice In expositione Symbolâ— pag. 10. M. VVhitakers booke In the argument Bib. an 1579. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. lib. 6. cap. â— Hieronim ad â—aâ—d Tom. 3. â—â—â—â—â—â— lib. 3. cap. 6. in EuaÌ„g Math. â—â— 5. cap. 26. Cyprianus aliâ— in Concilio Aphricano * Whitak pag. 17. 120. Ibid. pag. 101. Praef. ad 6. theses Oxon pag. 25. Lib. Confess 1. cap. 14. lib. 7. c. 20. Cicer. de Senect Beza the mouse of Geneua gnavveth the text of Scripture De ineam dom cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No. Test. an 1556. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza reconcileth the Greeke â—â—â—â— of the nevv TestameÌ„t vvith the Hebrevve text of the old by putting out of the Greeke text so much as pleaseth him Est. 6. 9. 10. Gal. 3. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
this Greeke worde by any other equiualent and more plaine to signifie this mixture FVLK 22. The authoritie of the holy Scriptures with vs is more woorth than the opinion of all the men in the world In the Scripture we finde the fruite of the vine water we find not therefore we account not water to be of any necessitie in the celebration of the Lordes supper In the primitiue Church we know water was vsed first of sobrietie then of ceremonie and at length it grew to be compted of necessitie The Armenians therfore are cōmendable in this point that they would neuer departe from the authoritie of the Scriptures to yeeld to the custome practise or iudgement of any men But against this mixture as you surmise we haue trāslated powred out or drawne I confesse our translators should more simply according to the worde haue saide mingled hir wine and the wine that I haue mingled but because that speach is not vsuall in the English tongue it seemeth they regarded not so much the propertie of the worde as the phrase of our tongue But that they had no purpose against the mixture of the wine with water in the Sacrament it is manifest by this reason that none of them did euer thinke that this place was to be interpreted of the Lordes supper but generally of such spirituall foode as wisedome giueth to mens soules Therefore it is certaine they had no meaning to auoide the worde of mixing for any such intent as you surmise MART. 23. Thus then the Greeke is neither drawing of wine nor powring out thereof as they translate but mingling But the Hebrew perhaps signifieth both or at the least one of the two either to draw or to poure out Gentle Reader if thou haue skill looke the Hebrew Lexicon of Pagnine esteemed the best if thou haue not skill aske and thou shalt vnderstande that there is no such signification of this worde in all the Bible but that it signifieth onely mixture and mingling A straunge case that to auoid this mingling of the cuppe being a most certaine tradition of the Apostles they haue inuented two other significations of this Hebrew word which it neuer had before FVLK 23. The Dictionaries are more sure to teach what a word doth signifie than what it doth not signifie I confesse Pagnine giueth none other signification of that roote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but miscuit But euen the worde miscuit may signifie a powring out when there is no respect of ioyning diuers things togither but of seruing one with the cuppe as Tullie vseth the word Qui alteri misceat mulsum ipse non sitiens He that serueth an other with sweete wine when he is not a thirst him selfe So is the Hebrew word vsed Esai 19. where the Prophet sayth The Lorde hath powred forth amonge them the spirite of errour Where the worde of mixture is not so proper Againe your owne vulgar Latine Interpretor Prouerb 23. translateth mimsach a worde deriued from the same roote not for any mixture but for drinking vppe or making cleane the cuppes student calicibus epotandis which study how to empty or drinke vp all that is in the cuppes In Hebrew it is which go to seeke strong wine or mingled wine And if a mixture be graunted in the place you require how proue you a mixture with water rather than with any thing else Verily the circumstance of the place if there must needes be a mixture requireth a mixture of spices hony or some such thing to make the wine delectable vnto which Wisedome doth inuite and allure all men to drinke it rather than of water onely to abate the strength of it As also in the text Prouerbes 23. the drunkards that continued at the wine and went to seeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mingled wine went not to seeke wine mingled with water but some other delicate mixture And Esay 5. where woe is pronoūced to drunkards the same word is vsed woe be to them that are strong to drinke wine and men of might limsoch to mingle strong drinke not to mingle it with water for sobrietie but with some other delectible matter to prouoke drunkennesse as your vulgar Interpretor translateth it So that albeit the word did signifie to mingle neuer so properly and certainly you can make no good argument for mingling with water in that place Prouerbs 9. where either it signifieth simply to drawe broche or powre out or else to prepare with some other more pleasant mixture than of water onely CHAP. XVIII Hereticall translation against the honour of SAINCTS namely of our B. LADIE Martin LEt vs passe from Gods holy Sacraments to his honourable Saincts in heauen and we shall finde that these translations plucke from them also as much honour as they may In the Psalme 138. where the Catholike Church and all antiquitie readeth thus Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus c. Thy friendes O God are become exceeding honourable their princedome is exceedingly strengthened which verse is sung and sayd in the honour of the holy Apostles agreeably to that in an other Psalme Constitues cos principes super omnem terram Thou shalt appoint them Princes ouer all the earth what meane they in all their English Bibles to alter it thus Howe deare are thy counsels or thoughts to me O God O how great is the summe of them Doth not the Hebrew make more for the olde receiued Latine translation than for theirs because the Hebrew word is vsed more commonly for to signifie friendes than cogitations doth not S. Hierom so translate in his translation of the Psalmes according to the Hebrew doth not the great Rabbine R. Salomon Doth not the Greeke put it out of doubt which is altogither according to the sayd auncient Latine translation Fulke THe context of the verse going before also the verse following not any enuye against the Saincts of god haue moued our translators to depart from the vulgar translation which is neither so proper for the words altogither impertinent to the matter of the text For when the Prophet had in the verse going before celebrated the wonderfull worke of God in the framing of his body in his mothers womb in this verse he breaketh out into an exclamatiō to behold the maruelous vnsearchable wisedom of gods councels whose strength is aboue mans reach whose nūber is as the sand of the sea To answer R Salomō we haue R. Dauid Kimchi as great a Rabbine as he and a more sincere Interpretor that expoundeth the whole verse euen as we doe MART. 2. And you my Maisters that translate otherwise I beseech you is it in Hebrew How great is the summe of thē not rather word for word most plainly how are the heades of them strengthened or their Princedoms as in the Greeke also it is most manifest Why do you then hunt after nouelties forsake the troden path of the