ae ΤΣ Atte sac oan Wy i Nl ai —————— BRE ΐἷ (Gia te PT RP tthe I oe eee 4 » γ᾽ γ᾽») Ὗ ) , fie f γ΄ Η xo ve v we ᾿ £3 Le ᾿ς πος αν ee oe ΝΝ re re PETAR AE TAREE ES PA ee aay eee? ΟΣ ΝΑ, εἴ τ τ As ee reer me a x, ver Sos τς, δα Δ; g 2. ον 4 LESTE ALLEGAN FAA peisies fe ὁ Μή Wy 4 ἣν eet ἜΡΜΟ ED se nee ney τος fk at τ ΑΝ iy s τὶ ἐὸν εν hs A eee be ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ " ΡΝ AA, ἡ) ee [4 ἢ πε γΓε , ΠΥ.) ρον ee MEAN IAL AG Ἥ Hehe Fafelat κεν rate MOCK 44 Ψ ν᾿ 4 f P) A εν; ᾿ ated ey re CED ο bes fat MAE je es a Ε id Jee i ν᾽ ee) ἌΣ Me esse COCA ROAL Ga ss See ὡμμ ΟΝ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation vww. rchivloldetalcetenceotincrendtukie | The Parker Sorcrtety. Qustituted ἃ... M.DCCC.AL. For the Publication of the Works of the Sathers and Carly Wdiviters of the Reformed English Church. A DEFENCE OF THE SINCERE AND TRUE TRANSLATIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES INTO THE ENGLISH TONGUE, AGAINST THE CAVILS OF GREGORY MARTIN. BY WILLIAM FULKE, D.D. MASTER OF PEMBROKE HALL, CAMBRIDGE. ) ---.- »-.Ἕ-......ὄ. ....... ..-............... EDITED FOR Che Parker Socictyp, BY THE REV. CHARLES HENRY HARTSHORNE, M.A. CURATE OF COGENHOE, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE, CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED AT _ M.DCCC.XUITT. : Ν a | Ἔν REPEL Ἐπὶ RR en Go apy ATH AM vi ὙΌΣ oy: : we, 2 ait! > Perle | "ae te ©: ry SP ee ew Ye a) git. Wahi, «4 ἵν ie 1 ἴω = ' C ν1:}} a a sate Pe, ps 3 Ὰ ΡΟΣ δ᾽ ὁ “ 7 ‘ Ν, ᾿ ᾽ eo eff @ Oe etn, ἢ ΤΥ τοι est’ δ [Ore αἴ ν oS 6.0 Θ᾽ Os: e *e φΦ' . ἃ ὁ =f ἐό . Ms a ε oes os e wees . i διδ59 ag bd eave Κρ a οἷν ν΄ See), 04 >» 4 ᾿ ¢, ᾿»} ’ ὮΝ tals ett ok: ΔΥΌ ΔΝ ’ i a. : > inte 3 ἐπε ty ee: , rr va”, | : min Ku eS) am . Gas BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT OF WILLIAM FULKE. . Ir is a circumstance which has frequently been re- marked, that those authors who by their writings have greatly benefitted mankind, have left to posterity few particulars from which may be gathered the events of their own life. The course of a scholar rarely exhibits any incidents or features of variety. Living more with past generations than his own, holding converse with his books in preference to the world without, the daily tenor of his habits and occupations continues the same. We must be contented, therefore, to dwell with him in his seclusion, and to read the expression of his recorded thoughts, rather than expect to have to trace his history in events of more stirring interest. Such is the case with respect to the subject of the present memoir. The few particulars that have been preserved of the biography of William Fulke, may be briefly stated. Of his parentage nothing is known. Bishop Wren’, who -took some trouble to glean notices of his life, has not even left us the date of his birth: but we are inci- dentally informed by himself that he was born before the year 1538. (See p. 41, and compare the statement there with the notice in p. ix. of No. 17 of his works.) It is [? Bishop Wren’s collections have been used for a similar pur- pose by Tanner. (Historical Account of the Masters of Pembroke Hall. Compiled by Matthew Wren, Bishop of Ely. A MS. volume in possession of the College. Leland’s Collectanea, Vol. v. p. 396.) The Manuscript life in Caius College Library seems to be copied from the former. | W77650 “" ll BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT reasonably presumed, that he was born in London; and that whilst a boy at school. he manifested indications of that talent which developed itself so conspicuously at a later age. An anecdote has been preserved which shews that even at an early period he was possessed with the ambition of distinguishing himself above his associates. It happened, singularly enough, that as a schoolfellow he came into competition with Edmund Campian in a contest for the prize of a silver pen, offered by one of the masters as a reward for the best literary exercise. Our aspiring young scholar being unsuccessful bore his disappointment with so ill a grace as to shed tears under it, indignantly looking forward to the reprisals of a future competition. From Christ’s Hospital, where it appears likely that Fulke received the rudiments of his education, (as it is certain that Campian was educated there’,) he was transferred to St John’s College, Cambridge, a.p. 1555. After taking his degree of bachelor of arts, his father, designing him for’ the legal profession, entered him a student of Clifford’s Inn. During the six years and upwards that he remained here pursuing legal studies, he made himself well acquainted with the sciences, and gave to the world his Ovpavouayia, a treatise in which he exposed the absurdities of astrology. At length returning to the University, he proceeded to his Master’s degree, being at the same time elected fellow of his college, a.p. 1564. The change thus indicated in his plans so displeased his father, that for a time he withdrew from him the neces- sary means of subsistence. The zeal of Fulke suffered, however, little diminution under his pecuniary difficulties ; and we find him immediately pursuing his new course of study with alacrity. To that of theology he now joined [* This however is no conclusive evidence, especially ‘as Fulke must have been at least fifteen years old at the time of the foundation of the Hospital (1553). ] OF WILLIAM FULKE. ili the acquisition of the oriental languages, a deep knowledge of which was by no means common at the time. He pro- ceeded to the degree of bachelor of divinity; and dissen- sions immediately afterwards springing up in his college, and himself being suspected of holding puritanical opinions ~ in consequence of his close intimacy with Cartwright, he was ejected from the society. Driven from his college, he commenced a course of lectures, and held disputations in a house which was afterwards the Falcon Inn. These were attended by a numerous class of students. The time was however approaching, when his fortunes were to witness a beneficial change; for the Earl of Leices- ter, who was anxious to promote men of merit, irrespectively of triflmg differences of opinion, had singled him out as eminently deserving preferment. Through his means he was presented, Aug. 10, 1571, to the rectory of Warley in Essex, and soon afterwards, March, 1573, to that of Dennington in Suffolk. On the earl of Lincoln being sent as British ambassador to Paris, Fulke was appointed one of his suite, a circumstance which enabled him to obtain the honorary degree of doctor of divinity. The same influence may have contributed to his ad- vancement to the mastership of Pembroke College in 1578, on the promotion of Dr Young to the see of Rochester. He had in this elevated station ample leisure to devote his talents to- polemical theology; and that he advantageously availed himself of it, is sufficiently evident from the numerous works he has left to posterity in vindication of the reformed religion. He was also engaged in 1580 and followmg years in repeated disputations with the Papists, sometimes in the "Tower, and once at least in Wisbech Castle. (See No. 17, in the subjoined list of his works.) This castle, originally built. by William the Conqueror, was afterwards con- verted into a palace of the bishops of Ely, and in the reign of Elizabeth was used as a prison for popish conspirators. 1V BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT One account states that he was also Margaret Professor of Divinity; but this fact appears to be at least very doubtful. Having filled the office of vice-chancellor, and governed his college for eleven years, Fulke died in Au- gust, 1589. The voluminous writings he left behind him are monu- ments of that industry and love of study, which (it is supposed) alone prevented his higher advancement in the ehurch; and they furnish satisfactory evidence, that among contemporary scholars none surpassed him in erudition, in a grammatical and deep acquaintance with the learned tongues, in acuteness and closeness of reasoning: none devoted more vigorous and untiring energy in supporting the bulwarks of the Caurcu or ENGLAND. He was buried in the chancel of his church at Den- nington, and the following epitaph was placed by one of his admiring successors over his tomb. 30. November. 1621. In Memoriam Reverendi Gulielmi Fulke, Sacre Theologiz# Doct. Aule Pemb. in Cantabrigia Prefect. Hujus Ecclesie Dinning- toniensis pastor, ac in Testimonium amoris sui perpetui erga eum, hoc Monumentum posuit Robertus Wright, Sacra quo- que Theologie Professor, et nunc ejusdem Ecclesize Pastor. Corpus illus Terre traditum fuit 28 Die Augusti 1589, et in hoc sacello jacet resurrectionem expectans per adventum Christi. If deepest Learning, with a zealous Love To Heaven and Truth, could Priveledges prove To keep back Death, no Hand had written here Lies Reverend Fulke, ’till Christ in Clouds appear ; His Works will shew him free from all Error, Rome’s Foe, Truth’s Champion, and Rhemishes Terror. OF WILLIAM FULKE. Vv Heureux celui qu’ apres un long Travaill S’est assure de son repos au Ciell. The present volume, it is believed, will be found to be an accurate reprint (with a corrected punctuation, which was much needed) of the original edition of the ‘“ Defence,” 1583. But in one or two places a correction has been introduced from the folio edition, 1633: ex. gr. p. 550, senseless for insenseless, which, though not perhaps ab- solutely necessary, it appeared desirable and safe to adopt on such authority. In several instances also, in which the quotation from Martin was inaccurately given by Fulke, the mistake has been corrected by reference to the original. In both the old editions there was subjoined to the present work (but with a separate paging), ‘A briefe con- futation of all such quarrels and cauils, as have bene of late vitered by diuerse Papistes in their English Pamphlets, against the writings of the saide William Fulke;’ as the reader will see in the copy of the original title-page pre- fixed to this publication. This ‘ Confutation,’ however, has no connection whatever with the ‘Defence of the Transla- tions:’ it is therefore not here re-printed with it, but is reserved for a future volume of Fulke, where it will come more appropriately in company with the works which it undertakes to defend. Besides the ‘ Defence’ reprinted in the present volume, Fulke was the author of the following works: 1. Antiprognosticon contra imutiles astrologorum pre- dictiones Nostrodami, Cunninghami, Loui, Hilli, Vaghami et reliquorum omnium. Authore Guilielmo Fulcone. Authori- tate Londinensis episcopi juxta formam in edictis regine pre- seriptam. Sexto die Septembris, 1560. Lond. 8vo. vi BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT A translation of this work was published in the. year 1561, (Tanner says 1560), with the following title: Anti- prognosticon, that is to saye, an Inuective agaynst the uaine and vnprofitable predictions of the astrologians, as Nostro- dame, &c. Translated out of Latin into Englishe. Where- unto is added, by the author, a short treatise in Englishe, as well for the better subuersion of that fained arte, as also for the better vnderstanding of the common people, -vnto whom the fyrst labour seemeth not sufficient. Lond. 1561, 8vo. 2. A goodly gallery, with a most pléaniias prospect into the garden of naturall contemplation, to beholde the naturall causes of all kind of Meteors, As well fyery as ayery, aS watry and earthly, of which sorte be blasing starres, shootinge starres, flames in the ayre, &c.; thonder, lightninge, earthquakes, &e. ; rayne, dew, snowe, cloudes, springes, &c.; stones, metalles, earthes. To the glory of God, and the profitte of his creatures: Lond. 1571, 8yo. 1634, 1640, 8vo. From the colophon of the edition of 1571, it appears that this book was printed in 1563, but no copy has been found with that date on the title-page, and the edition of 1640 is styled the third. Tanner men- tions editions in 1563 and 1580, under the title of ‘ Me- teorologia, Anglice.’ 3. Ovpavouayia, hoc est, Astrologorum ludus ad bo- narum artium et Astrologie in primis studiosorum relax- ationem comparatus, nunc primum illustratus, ac in lucem eeditus per Guilielmum Fulconem, Cantabrigiensem. Abacus et calculi veneunt apud Guilielmum Jones, in longa officina, ad occidentalem Paulini templi portam. Londini per Thomas Eastum et Henricum Middeltonnum impensis Guilielmi Jones. 1571, 1572, 1573, 4to. 4, A confutation of a Popish and sclaunderous libelle, in form of an Apologie: geuen out into the courte, and spread abrode in diuerse other places of the realme. Written OF WILLIAM FULKE. vii by William Fulke, Bachelor in Diuinitie, and felowe of S. Johns Colledge in Cambridge. Imprinted at London by John Kingston for William Jones, and are to be solde at the newe long shop at the west ende of Poules. 1571, 1578, 1574, 12mo. 5. A Sermon preached at Hampton Court on Sonday, being the 12th day of Nouember, in the year of our. Lord 1570.’ Wherein is plainly proued Babylon to be Rome, both by Scriptures and Doctors. Preached by William Fulke, Bacheler of Diuinity, and Fellow of S. Johns Col- ledge in Cambridge. Apocalips. 14. She is fallen, she is fallen, euen Babylon, that great citie, for of the wyne of the fury of her fornication, she hath made all nations to drinke. - Imprinted αὐ London, by John Awdely. 1572, 12mo. There was a subsequent edition with the same title, except that Fulke was described as ‘ Doctor’ not ‘ Bacheler’, and ‘ lately Fellow’, &c. Imprinted at London by John Charlewod, 1579, 12mo. 6. In sacram Divi Johannis Apocalypsim preelectiones. Lond. 1573, 4to. Translated into English by George Gyfford. Lond. 1573, 4to. 7. A Comfortable Sermon of Fayth in temptations and afflictions. Preached at S. Botulphes wythout Aldersgate in London, the xv of February, 1573, by Maister William Fulke, Doctor of Divinity. 1 John v. 4. Imprinted at London by John Audeley. 1574, 1578, 1586, 12mo. 8. Two treatises written against the papistes; the one being an answer of the Christian protestant to” the proud challenge of a popish catholicke: the other, a confu- tation of the popish churches doctrine touching purgatory and prayers for the dead. By William Fulke, Doctor in Divinitie. Lond. Thomas Vautrollier, 1577, 8vo. pp. 464. _ 9. A sermon preached on Sundaye, being the 17th of March, anno 1577, at S. Alphage’s church within Creplegate Vill BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT in London, by William Fulke, Doctor in Divinitie. Seene and allowed, accordyng to the order appoynted in the queenes maiesties iniunctions. Imprinted at London for Lucas Harryson, 1577, 12mo. This sermon was translated into Latin, by John Fox, and appended to his book, entitled De Christo gratis ius- tificante, Lond. 1583. 10. Merpopayia, sive ludus geometricus. Auctore Guiliemo Fulcone Anglo. Lond. Thomas Vautrollerius, 1578, 4to. 11. Guilielmi Fulconis Angli ad epistolam Stanislai Hosii Varmiensis episcopi de expresso Dei verbo Responsio. Lond. 1578, 12mo. 12. Ὁ. Heskins, D. Sanders, and M. Rastell accounted (among their faction) three pillers and archpatriarches of the popish synagogue, (utter enemies to the truth of Christes Gospell and all that syncerely profess the same) ouerthrowne and detected of their seuerell blasphemous heresies. By D. Fulke, Maister of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge. Lond. 1579, 8vo. pp. 803. This work consists of three treatises mentioned by Tan- ner separately, as ‘Heskins parliament repealed,’ ‘ Confu- tation of N. Sanders his treatise of worshipping images,’ and ‘ Refutation of John Rastell’s confutation.’ 13. Ad Thome Stapletoni, Professoris Regii et Ordina- rii in Academia Duacena, controversiarum et calumnias in sua principiorum doctrinalium demonstratione methodica contra satisfactione, ad Rishtoni postulata quaedam, lib. 4. cap. 10 et 11 adhibitas, Guilielmi Fulconis, Angli, aula Pembrochianz in Cantabrigiensi academia prefecti, Responsio. Londini, im- pensis Georgii Bishop, 1579, 8vo. 14, A Retentive to stay good Christians in true faith and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristow. Also, a discoverie of the daungerous Rocke of the Popish Church, commended by Nicholas Sander, Doctor of Divinitie. Done OF WILLIAM FULKE. ix by William Fulke, Doctor of Divinitie, and Maister of Pem- broke Hall in Cambridge. Lond. Thomas Vautrollier, 1580, ὅγο. pp. 316. 15. T. Stapleton and Martiall (two Popish Heretikes) confuted, and of their particular heresies detected. By Ὁ. Fulke, Master of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge. Done and directed to all those that love the truth, and hate superstitious vanities. Lond. H. Middleton, 8vo. 1580, pp. 217. 16. Stapletonii fortalitium expugnatum; cum refutatione replicationis J. Martialis ad J. Calfhillum contra librum ejus de cruce. Lond. 1580, 12mo. 17. Conferentia cum pontificiis in castro Wisbicensi. 4, Oct. 1580. Lond. 1580. 8vo. 18. The text of the New Testament of Jesus Christ, translated out of the Vulgar Latine by the Papists of the traiterous Seminarie at Rhemes. With arguments of Bookes, Chapters, and Annotations, pretending to discouer the cor- ruptions of diuers translations, and to clear the controuersies of these days. Whereunto is added the translation out of the original Greeke, commonly used in the Church of Eng- land, with a confutation of all such Arguments, Glosses, and Annotations as contein manifest impietie or heresie, treason, and slander against the Catholike Church of God, and the true teachers thereof, or the translations used in the Church of England. Both by aucthoritie of the holy Scriptures, and by the testimonie of ancient fathers. By Wiliam Fulke, D.D. Lond. 1580, 1589, 1601, 1617, 1633, fol. 19. A Sermon on 2 Saml. xxiv. 1. Lond. 1580, 8vo. 20. A Sermon at the Tower on John xvii. 17. Lond. 1580, 8vo. 1581, 16mo. _ 21. Mathias Flack, or (as the name was latinised, from Albona in Istria, a part of ancient Illyria, where he was born in 1521,) Flaccus Illyricus, was a famous protestant theologian. He studied under Luther and Me- lancthon, and became a most formidable enemy to the Church of Rome. | [ruLKe. | Martin, 8. Cone. Cart. 3. can. 47. Argu. in epist. Jacob. Furxe, 8. 18 THE ANSWER 'TO THE PREFACE. spoken in comparison, would conclude by his authority, that regeneration were a contemptible matter, a thing not spi- ritual, not heavenly, but simply and altogether earthly ? And yet with as good reason, for ought I see or can learn of Luther’s words concerning this matter, he might so infer, as the papists do enforce the like against Luther. Wherefore it is nothing else but a famous and infamous c¢avillation, to the confusion of all the papists which write against Luther, that no one of them omitteth upon so false and frivolous a ground to slander him so heinously, and to charge all protestants with his assertion so enviously: which, if it were his, should not. be so evil as @ther catholic writers have affirmed of that epistle, and therefore not sufficient to charge him, and much less others, with heresy ; but being not his simple affir- mation, yet because it hath been offensively taken, he himself hath put it out and given it over. O what a stir would they keep, if they had any weighty matter of truth to bur- then him withal! Martin. To let this pass: Toby, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, are they not most certainly rejected? And yet they were allowed and received for canonical by the same authority that St James’ epistle was. Thisepistle the Calvinists are content to admit, because so it pleased Calvin: those books they reject, because so also it pleased him. And why did it so please Calvin? Under pretence forsooth, that they were once doubted of, and not taken for canonical. But is that the true cause indeed? How do they then receive St James’ epistle as canoni- cal, having been before doubted of also, yea, as they say, rejected ? Fulke. You may well let it pass, for it is not worth the time you spend in writing of it; and if you had been wise, you would utterly have omitted it. But what say you of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, most certainly by us rejected? They were allowed (you say) for canonical by the same authority that St James’ epistle was. And think you that St James’ epistle was never allowed for canonical before the third council of Carthage? For of the other it is certain, they were never received by the church of the Israelites before Christ’s coming, nor of the apostolic and primitive church for more than 300 years after, as both Eu- sebius out of Origenes, and the council of Laodicea, Can. 59. confirmed afterward by the sixth general council of Constan- [* Whitakeri ad Rationes Campiani Responsio. | THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 19 tinople, sheweth for the Greek church, and St Jerome in Lib. 6. cap. Prologo Galeato” for the Latin church. As for the provincial | council of Carthage, holden by forty-four bishops of Africa, if we were bound to receive it’ for these books, we must also acknowledge five books of Salomon, which 1 in the same council are authorised, whereas the church never knew but of three. And-although the book of Wisdom should be as- eribed to Salomon, there could be but four. Again, how they understand the word canonical, it may be gathered both out of the words of the same canon, where they give none other reason of the approbation of. all those books of scrip- ture, but that they have received them of their fathers to be read in the church; and also out of St Augustine, who was De doct. one present at the same council; which after he hath declared 2. cap: 8. how a man should discern the canonical scriptures from other writings by following the authority of the catholic churches, especially those that have deserved to have apostolic sees, and to receive their epistles, he addeth further: Tenebit igitur hune modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas que ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis, proeponat eis quas quedam non accipiunt; im eis vero que non accipiuntur ab omni- bus, preeponat eas, quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesice tenent. δὲ autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus habert, quanguam hoc invenire non possit, equalis tamen auctoritatis eas habendas puto. Totus autem canon scripturarum, in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus, his libris continetur. He shall hold therefore this mean in the canonical scrip- tures, that he prefer those which are received of all catholic churches, before those scriptures which some churches do not receive. But in those which are not received of all, let him prefer those scriptures which the greater number and graver churches do receive, before those which churches fewer in number and of less authority do hold. But if he shall [? Non idem ordo est apud Grecos, qui integre sapiunt et fidem rectam sectantur, epistolarum septem, que canonice nuncupantur, qui in Latinis codicibus invenitur. Quod quia Petrus primus est in numero apostolorum, prime sint etiam ejus epistole in ordine ceterarum. Sed sicut evangelistas dudum ad veritatis lineam correximus ; ita has proprio ordini, Deo nos juvante, reddidimus. Est enim prima earum una Jacobi; Petri due; Johannis tres; et Jude una.—Hieronym. Prolog. Septem Epistolarum Canonicarum. Opera. Vol. 1. p. 1667. | 2—2 Anno 1532. Anno 1537. 20 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. find some scriptures to be had of fewer churches and other some of graver churches, although you cannot find this thing, yet I think they are to be accounted of equal authority. Now the whole canon of scriptures in which we say this consideration must be occupied is contained in these books: Five books of Moses, that is Genesis, Exodus, &c. By this saying of Augustine it is manifest, that he calleth canonical scriptures, not only those books that ought of necessity to be received of all churches; but also such as were received of some, and of some were not; in which number were these books of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, which by his own rule were not to be received as of absolute and sovereign authority, because the apostolic churches of Asia and Europe, and those of gravest authority, among which was the church of Rome in that time, did not receive them ; as witnesseth not only St Jerome, a priest of Rome, but also Ruffinus of Aquileia, in symbolo’, who both declare what books were received in their churches as canonical, and of irrefragable authority to build principles of faith upon them, and what books were admitted only to be read for instruc- tion of manners. And therefore, according to the rule of Augustine and testimony of the ancient fathers, and because it consenteth with the rest of the scriptures, and not for Calvin’s pleasure, we receive the epistle of St James, though it hath not been always and of all churches received. Con- cerning the name of Calvinists, as of all other nick-names, that it pleaseth you of your charity to bestow upon us, it shall suffice to protest once for all, that we acknowledge none other name of our profession, but Christians and catho- lics; and that we have neither received that epistle, nor rejected the other, because it pleased Calvin so. This may serve for a clear demonstration, that in the first English? Γ᾿ Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt qui non canonici, sed ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt: ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sapientia que dicitur filii Syrach, qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur; quo vocabulo non auctor libelli, sed scripture qualitas cognominata est. Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobie, et Judith, et Machabeorum libri—Expositio in Sym- bolum Apostolorum Ruffini. p. 397, 398. ed. Ald. 1563. ] [? In the bible of 1537, known under the name of the translator, Thomas Matthew, this is the case. Also in Coverdale’s bible of 1537, 4to., imprynted in Southwarke by James Nycolson. ] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE, 21 bibles that were printed under the name of Thomas Matthew, before Calvin wrote any word of the rejection of those books, or of receiving of the other, they are called Apocrypha, and printed with other of that mark by themselves, and the epistle of St James without any question acknowledged to be one of the canonical epistles; whereas Calvin’s institution was first printed anno 1536, and his argument upon St James’ epistle, 1551. You may see what honest dealing the papists use to bring the truth into discredit, and the professors thereof into hatred with the simple and unlearned people, bearing them in hand, that we have no cause to receive or refuse books of scrip- ture, but Calvin’s pleasure. But the God of truth will one day reward these impudent liars and shameless slanderers. Well, let us now see under what pretence it pleased Cal- vin to reject these books: “ Under pretence forsooth, (saith Martin,) that they were once doubted of, and not taken for canonical.” I pray you, Sir, where doth Calvin pretend that only cause? In his Instit. lib. m1. ὁ. 5. sec. 8, he allegeth divers other causes touching the books of Machabees, as every man that will may read. Shame you nothing to forge such manifest untruths, and that in such matters as you may be convinced in them by ten thousand witnesses? What credit shall be given to you in matters that consist upon your own bare testimony, when you force not to feign of other men that wherein every man may reprove you? And as for the only pretence you speak of, Calvin doth so little esteem it, that notwithstanding the same, he doubteth not to receive the epistle of St James, because it is agreeable to the whole body of the canonical scripture; as, if you had read his argument upon that epistle, you might easily have perceived. _ Martin. Mark, gentle reader, for thy soul’s sake, and thou shalt Manni, 9. find that heresy, and only heresy, is the cause of their denying these y M : ἣ Ἢ er y these books; so far, that against the orders and hierarchies and particular 47.3% ne patronages of angels one of them writeth thus in the name of the ¢emneth rest: “We pass not for that Raphael of Toby, neither do we acknow- book which ledge those seven angels which he speaketh of; all this is far from appointeth canonical scriptures, that the same Raphael sonnei and savoureth of Tobit and celesiasti- I wot not what superstition.” Against free-will thus: “I little care cus to be for the place of Ecclesiasticus, neither will I believe free-will, though ἢ holy seri he affirm an hundred times, that before men is life and death.” And ¢ther Do [* Ad Rationes Campiani Responsio, p. 17.] they read i in their churches apocryphal and super- stitious books for holy scrip- ture, or is he a puritan that thus disgraceth their order 22 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. against prayer for the dead, and intercession of saints, thus: “As for the book of the Machabees, I do care less for it than for the other. Judas’ dream concerning Onias I let pass as a dream.” This is their reverence of the scriptures, which have universally been reverenced for canonical in the church of God above 1100 years. Con. Cart. 3. and particularly of many fathers long before, Aug. de doct. Christ. Lib. τι. c. 8. Fulke. The mouth that lieth killeth the soul. The reader ‘may think you have small care of his soul’s health, when by such impudent lying you declare that you have so small regard of your own. But what shall he mark? “That heresy, &c.” You were best say that Eusebius, Jerome, Ruf- fine, and all the churches in their times, were heretics, and that only heresy was the cause of their’denial of these books. For such reasons as moved them move us, and something also their authority. But how prove you that only heresy moveth us to reject them? Because M. Whitaker against the orders, and hierarchies, and particular patronages of angels, writeth in the name of the rest, that “we pass not,” &c. Take heed, lest upon your bare surmise you belie him, where you say he writeth in the name of the rest; as in the next section following you say, he writeth in the name of both the universities, for which I am sure he had no commission from either of them; although he did write that which may well be avouched by both the universities; yet I know his modesty is such, as he will not presume to be advocate for both the universities, and much less for the whole church, except he were lawfully called thereto, This is a common practice of you papists, to bear the world in hand, that what- soever is written by any of us in defence of the truth, is set forth in the name of all the rest, as though none of us could say more in any matter than any one of us hath written; or that if any one of us chance to slip in any small matter, though it be but a wrong quotation, you might open your wide slanderous mouths against the whole church for one man’s particular offence. Now touching any thing that M. Whitaker hath written, you shall find him sufficient to main- tain it against a stronger adversary than you are; and there- fore I will meddle the less in his causes. And for the orders and patronage or protection of angels by God’s appointment, we have sufficient testimony in the canonical scriptures, that we need not the uncertain report of Tobie’s book to instruct —————L eee — ‘THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 23 us what to think of them. But as for the hierarchies and patronage of angels, that many of you papists have imagined and written of, neither the canonical scriptures, nor yet the apo- cryphal books now im controversy, are sufficient to give you warrant. The like I say of free will, prayer for the dead, and intercession of saints. But it grieveth you that those apocryphal scriptures, which have been universally received for canonical in the church of God above 1100 years, should find no more reverence among us. Still your mouth runneth over. For in the time of the canon of the council of Car- thage 3. which you quote, these books were not universally reverenced as canonical. And Augustine himself, speaking of the book of Machabees, Cont. 2. Gaud.' Ep. ¢. 23. con- fesseth that the Jews account it not as the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which our Lord giveth testi- mony as to his witnesses, saying, “It behoveth that all things should be fulfilled which are written in the. Law, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me; but it is received of the ehurch not unprofitably, if it be soberly read or heard.” This writeth St Augustine, when he was pressed with the authority of that book by the Donatists, which defended that it was lawful for them to kill themselves by example of Razis, who is by the author of that book commended for that fact. He saith, “it is received not unprofitably,” and immediately after, “especially for those Machabees that suffered patiently horrible persecution for testimony of God’s religion, to encourage Christians by their example.” Finally, he addeth a condition of the receiving it, “if it be soberly read or heard.” These speeches declare, that it was not received [* Et hance quidem scripturam, que appellatur Machabeorum, non habent Judei sicut legem et prophetas et psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tamquam testibus suis, dicens, Oportebat impleri omnia que scripta sunt in lege et prophetis et in psalmis de me: sed recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur vel audiatur, maxime propter illos Machabeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres. a persecutoribus tam indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt; ut etiam hine populus Christianus adverteret, quoniam non sunt condigne pas- siones hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam que revelabitur in nobis, pro quibus passus est Christus, si tanta patientissime pertulerunt pro lege quam dedit Deus per famulum hominibus illis pro quibus nondum tra- diderat Filium.—Augustin. contra Gaudentium Donatist. Epise. Lib. 1. cap. 38. Opera. Vol. rx. p. 655-6. | In exposi- tione sym- boli. 24 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. without all controversy asthe authentical word of God: for then should it be received necessarily, and because it is God’s word especially, and howsoever it be read or heard, it is received of the church, not only necessarily, but also profit- ably. Beside this, even the decree of Gelasius, which was near 100 years after that council of Carthage, alloweth but one book of the Machabees. Wherefore the universal reve- rence that is boasted of cannot be justified. But Μ, Whitaker is charged in the margin to condemn the service-book, which appointeth these books of Toby and Ecclesiasticus to be read for holy scripture as the other. And where find you that in the service-book, M. Martin? Can you speak nothing but untruths? If they be appointed to be read, are they appointed to be read for holy scripture, and for such scripture as the other canonical books are ? The service-book appointeth the litany, divers exhortations and prayers, yea, homilies to be read: are they therefore to be read for holy and canonical scriptures? But you ask, Do they read in their churches apocryphal and superstitious books for holy scripture? No, verily. But of the name apocryphal I must distinguish, which sometimes is taken for all books read of the church, which are not canonical; sometime for such books only as are by no means to be suffered, but are to be hid or abolished. These books therefore in controversy, with other of the same sort, are sometimes called Hagiographa, holy writings, as of St Jerome prafat. in lib. Tobie; some- times Keclesiastica, Ecclesiastical writings, and so are they called of Ruffinus, Because (saith he) they were appointed by. our elders to be read in the churches, but not to be brought forth to confirm authority of faith: but other scrip- tures they named apocryphal, which they would not have to be read in the churches. So saith St Jerome in prasfat. in Proverb. “Even as the church readeth indeed the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Machabees, but yet receiveth them not among the canonical scriptures; so let it read these two books (of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom) for the edifying of the people, not for the confirmation of the authority of ecclesi- astical doctrines.” These ancient writers shall answer for our service-book, that although it appoint these writings to be read, yet it doth not appoint them to be read for canonical scriptures. Albeit they are but sparingly read, by order. of THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 25 our service-book, which for the Lord’s day, and other festival days, commonly appointeth the first lesson out of the canonical scriptures. And as for superstition, although M. Whitaker say, that some one thing savoureth of I know not what super- stition, he doth not by and by condemn the whole book for superstitious, and altogether unworthy to be read; neither can he thereby be proved a puritan, or a disgracer of the order of daily service. Martin. As for parts of books, do they not reject certain pieces Mann, of Daniel and of Hester, because they are not in the Hebrew, which 10- reason St Augustine rejecteth; or because they were once doubted of by certain of the fathers? by which reason some part of St Mark’s and St Luke’s gospel might now also be called in controversy, spe- cially if it be true which M. Whitaker by a figurative speech more than insinuateth, That he cannot see by what right that which once p. 10. was not in credit should by time win authority. Forgetting himself by and by, and in the very next lines admitting St James’ epistle, m. wnita- though before doubted of, for canonical scriptures, unless they receive “** °°* it but of their courtesy, and so may receive it when it shall please them, which must needs be gathered of his words, as also many other notorious absurdities, contradictions, and dumb blanks. Which only to note were to confute M. Whitaker by himself, being the answer for both universities. Fulke. ΑΒ for pieces of Daniel and of Esther, we reject Furxe,10. none; but only we discern that which was written by Daniel in deed, from that which is added by Theodotion the false Jew, and that which was written by the Spirit of God of Esther, from that which is vainly added by some Greekish counterfeiter. But the reason why we reject those patches (you say) is because they are not in the Hebrew, which reason St Augustine re- jecteth. Here you cite St Augustine at large, without quota- tion in a matter of controversy. But if we may trust you that St Augustine rejecteth this reason, yet we may be bold upon St Jerome’s authority to reject whatsoever is not found in the canon of the Jews, written in Hebrew or Chaldee: for whatsoever was such, St Jerome did thrust through with a spit or obelisk, as not worthy to be received. Witness hereof St Augustine himself, Hpist. ad Hier.’ 8 and 10, in which he Γ᾿ Petimus ergo, et nobiscum petit omnis Africanarum ecclesiarum studiosa societas, ut interpretandis eorum libris, qui Grece scripturas nostras quam optime tractaverunt, curam atque operam impendere non graveris. Potes enim efficere, ut nos quoque habeamus tales illos viros, 20 THB ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. dissuaded him from translating the scriptures of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew tongue, after the seventy inter- preters; whose reasons as they were but frivolous, so they are derided by St Jerome, who, being learned in the Hebrew and Chaldee tongues, refused to be taught by Augustine, that was ignorant in them, what was to be done in translations out of them. Also Jerome himself: testifieth, that Daniel in the Hebrew hath neither the story of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three children, nor the fable of Bel and the Dragon: which we, (saith he,) because they are dispersed throughout the whole world, have added, setting a spit before them, which thrusteth them through, lest we should seem among the ignorant to have cut off a great part of the book. The like he writeth of the vain additions that were in the vulgar edition unto the book of Esther, both in the preface, and after the end of that which he translated out of the Hebrew. There are other reasons also, beside the authority of St Jerome, that move us not to receive them. As that in the story of Susanna, magistrates and judgment of life and death are attributed to the Jews being in captivity of Babylon, which hath no similitude of truth. Beside, out of the first chapter et unum potissimum, quem tu libentius in tuis literis sonas. De ver- tendis autem in Latinam linguam sanctis literis canonicis laborare te nollem, nisi eo modo quo Job interpretatus es; ut signis adhibitis quid inter hanc tuam et Septuaginta, quorum est gravissima auctoritas, inter- pretationem distet, appareat.—Augustin. ad Hieron. Ep. xxviu. Opera. Vol. m. p. 46. Ego sane te mallem Grecas potius canonicas nobis interpretari scrip- turas, que Septuaginta interpretum perhibentur. Perdurum erit enim, si tua interpretatio per multas ecclesias frequentius cceperit lectitari, quod a Grecis ecclesiis Latine ecclesie dissonabunt, maxime quia facile contradictor convincitur Greco prolato libro, id est lingue notissime.— Augustin. txx1. Epist.ad Hieron. Opera. Vol. 1. p. 160.] (* Cui et Eusebius et Apollinarius parisententia responderunt: Susanne Belisque ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico ; sed partem esse prophetie Abacuc filii Jesu de tribu Levi, sicut juxta uxx. interpretes in titulo ejusdem Belis fabule ponitur: Homo quidam erat sacerdos, nomine Daniel, filius Abda, conviva regis Babylonis: quum Danielem et tres pue- ros de tribu Juda fuisse sancta scriptura testetur. Unde et nos ante annos plurimos quum verteremus Danielem, has visiones obelo prenota- vimus, significantes eas in Hebraico non haberi.—Hieronymi Explanatio in Danielem Prophetam. Opera. Tom. 1. p. 1074. Augustini Epist. ad Hieronymum, ixx. p. 611. Hieronym. Opera. Vol. rv. -Hieronymi Epist. ad Augustinum, uxx1v. pp. 626, 627.] “THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 27 of the true Daniel it is manifest, that Daniel bemg a young man was carried captive into Babylon in the days of Nebu- chadnezzar; but in this counterfeit story Daniel is made a young child in the time of Astyages, which reigned immediately before Cyrus of Persia. Likewise in the story of Bel and the Dragon, Daniel is said to have lived with the same king Cyrus; and after, when he was cast into the lions’ den, the prophet Habakkuk was sent to him out of Jewry, who pro- phesied before the first coming of the Chaldees, and therefore could: not be alive in the days of Cyrus, which was more than seventy years after. The additions unto the book of Esther, in many places, bewray the spirit of man; as that they are contrary to the truth of the story, contaiming vain repetitions, and amplifications of that which is contained in the true history ; and that which most manifestly convinceth the for- gery, that in the epistle of Artaxerxes, cap. 16, Haman is called a Macedonian, which in the true story is termed an Agagite, that is an Amalekite, whereas the Macedonians had nothing to do with the Persians many years after the death of Esther and Haman. I omit that in the cap. 15, ‘ver. 12, the author maketh Esther to lie unto the king, in saying that his countenance was full of all grace; or else he heth himself, v. 17, where he saith, the king beheld her in the vehemency of his anger, and that he was exceeding terrible. As for other reasons, which you suppose us to follow, be- eause these parcels were once doubted of by certain of the fathers, it is a reason of your own making, and therefore you may confute it at your pleasure. But “if that be true, which Master Whitaker by a figurative speech doth more than insinuate, part of St Mark’s and St Luke’s gospel may also be called in controversy.” Why, what saith M. Whitaker ? Marry, “that he cannot see by what right that which once was not in credit should by time win authority.” But when, I pray you, was any part of St Mark or St Luke out of credit? If any part were of some person doubted of, doth it follow that it was not at all in credit? You reason profoundly, and gather very necessarily: as likewise, that he “forgetteth himself in the very next lines, admitting St James’ epistle (though before doubted of) for canonical.” Will ye say that St James’ epistle was once not in credit, or not worthy of credit (for that is his plain meaning), be- Martin, 11. In the argu- ment bide an. 1579. ἡ πρὸς «ς , €Bpaious ἐπιστολ᾽ Παύλου. 28 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. cause it was doubted of, yea, rejected of some? Yea, γοῦ say it “must needs be gathered of his words,” that we receive it but of courtesy, and so may refuse it when it pleaseth us. Demonstrate this in a syllogism out of his words, if you can, or all the whole rabble of Rheims, if you be able. For my part I can but marvel at your bold assertions, and abhor your impudent enforcements. As for other contradictions, notorious absurdities, dumb blanks, and I know not what other monsters you feign unto him, without all proof or par- ticular declaration, all wise men see how easy a matter it is to rail and slander in generals; and when you dare come to particulars, I doubt not but the world shall see your vanity so detected by M. Whitaker himself, that you shall have little joy thus insolently to deface his godly and learned writings. It had been more than time that his book had been confuted, which hath been abroad a year and a half almost’, if you can with such facility, by only noting such matters, shew that he confuteth himself. But somewhat you must say afar off, to save your credit with your disciples, to keep them play for the time; while with long study and great travail you are crowding out great trifles, Martin. For the second point, which is not the gross denial of books, but yet calling of them in question, moving scruples about them, and diminishing their authority and credit, I will go no further than St Paul’s Epistle tothe Hebrews ; which I will not ask why they doubt of, or rather think it not to be St Paul’s, for they will tell me, be- cause it was once in doubt (not considering that it was in like man- ner doubted whether it were canonical, and yet they will not now deny but it is canonical); but I must ask them, and request them to make a reasonable answer, why in their English bible of the years 1579 and 1580, they presume to leave out St Paul’s name out of the very title of the said epistle, which name is in the Greek, and in Beza’s Latin translation, both which they profess to follow. See the title of the New Testament, anno 1580. Doth not the title tell them that it is St Paul’s?’ Why seek they further; or why do they change the title, striking out St Paul’s name, if they meant to deal simply and sincerely? and what an heretical peevishness is this, because Beza telleth them of one obscure Greek copy that hath not Paul’s name, and only one, that they will rather follow it, than all other copies both Greek and Latin! I report me to all indifferent men of common sense, whether they do it not to diminish the credit of the epistle. [? Whitaker’s Answer to Campian was printed in 1581. ] Ot Νι ὰναν-τἀ THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 29 Fulke. Now concerning the second point, which is calling Furxe, of some books into controversy, or moving scruples about them, 11: to diminish their credit or authority, whether you be guilty of that crime rather than we, 1 have somewhat noted before. But with what evidence you are able to charge us, it cometh now to be considered: you will go no further than the epistle to the Hebrews*. You may be ashamed to have gone so far; for of all books of the New Testament, there is none that we might worse spare to confound your blasphemous heresies than that epistle, which is the very mall to beat into powder the abominable idol of your mass, and your sacrilegious priest- hood serving to the same. Wherefore it is without all colour that you charge us to seek to diminish the credit of that epistle. But you “will not ask why we doubt of, or rather think it not to be St Paul’s, because we will tell you, that it was once in doubt.” If you acknowledge that the author of this epistle was once in question, you clear us of moving scruples about it, or calling it in question, which was your first charge. Let Eusebius, Jerome, and other ancient writers, peed lib. bear that blame, if it be blame-worthy to tell what other men’s Hieronym. opinions have been in such a matter; some holding that it ἴοι. 8. was written by St Luke, some by St Barnabas, some by St Clemens. But you must wit, if you will, that they which at this day doubt of the writer thereof, or else think it not of St Paul’s penning, have other reasons to lead them, than [? The argument to “the Epistle to the Hebrewes,” in the edition of the bible printed at Edinburgh, 1579, (which is a reprint of the Geneva bible of 1560,) commences thus, as indeed it does in the edition of 1557, and those printed by Barker, 1578, and 1582. ‘ Forasmuche as divers, bothe of the Greke writers and Latine, witnesse, that the writer of this epistle for juste causes wolde not have his name knowen, it were curiosite of our parte to labour muche therein. For seeing the Spirit of God is the autor thereof, it diminisheth nothing the autoritie, althogh we knowe not with what penne he wrote it. Whether it were Paul (as it is not like), or Luke, or Barnabas, or Clement, or some other, his chiefe purpose is to persuade unto the Ebrewes, (whereby he principally. meaneth them that abode ‘at Jerusalem, and under them all the rest of the Jewes,) that Christ Jesus was not only the redemer, but also that at his comming all ceremonies must have an end,” &c. In Coverdale’s bible, 1537, it bears the title of St Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews; in Matthew’s bible, 1537; in Taverner’s, 1539; in Day’s bible, 1551; inthe Bishops’ bible, 1584, and in Cranmer’s bible, 1562. The omis- sion seems to be peculiar to the Anglo-Genevese Version. ] In Isai. lib. 3. cap. 6. in Evang. 30 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. only because it was doubted of. or beside those reasons which they had, which of old time doubted of the writer thereof, as the diversity of the style, and inscription thereof, and manner of reasoning, they have also observed something out of the epistle itself, which seemeth to argue, that it was not written by St Paul: as that in the beginning of the 2nd chapter he saith, “The doctrine of salvation was confirmed to us by them that heard it, after it was first spoken by the Lord himself ;” which seemeth to agree with the profession of St Luke in the beginning of his gospel; whereas St Paul denieth “that he learned his gospel of men, but only by reve- lation of Jesus Christ.” Gal. i. 12. But of all them that doubt, or think it not to be St Paul’s epistle, there is not’ one that doubteth of the authority thereof, but that it is: equal with the epistle to the Romans, or the gospel of St John: although in the Latin church, as St Jerome’ testifieth, _ it hath been doubted whether it were canonical. The cause. [* Nam et Paulus in epistola sua que scribitur ad Hebreos (licet de ea multi Latinorum dubitent)—Comment. Hieronymi in Matthei cap. 206. Opera. Vol. 1v. pp. 125, 126. Ac primum solvenda est illa questio, que nobis objici potest : quare Apostolus Paulus cum Hebreis disputans non juxta Hebraicum, quod rectum esse cognoverat, sed juxta uxx. sit loquutus? LEvangelistam Lucam tradunt veteres ecclesie tractatores medicine artis fuisse scien- tissimum ; et magis Grecas literas scisse quam Hebreas. Unde et. sermo ejus tam in Evangelio, quam in Actibus Apostolorum, id est, in utroque volumine comptior est, et secularem redolet eloquentiam ; magisque testimoniis Grecis utitur quam Hebreis. Mattheus autem et Johannes, quorum alter Hebreo, alter Greco sermone evangelia texuerunt, testimonia de Hebraico proferunt: ut est illud, La Afgypto vocavi filium meum. Et, Quoniam Nazareus vocabitur. Et, Flumina de ventre ejus fluent aque vive. Et, Videbunt in quem compunwerunt, et cetera his similia. Pauli quoque idcirco ad Hebreos Epistole con- tradicitur, quod ad Hebreos scribens utatur testimoniis que in Hebreis voluminibus non habentur. Quod si aliquis dixerit, Hebreos libros’ postea a Judeis esse falsatos, audiat Origenem quid.in octavo volumine explanationum Isaie huic respondeat questiuncule, quod nunquam Dominus et Apostoli, qui cetera crimina arguunt in Scribis et Phariswis, de hoc crimine quod erat maximum reticuissent. Sin autem dixerint, post adventum Domini Salvatoris et predicationem Apostolorum libros Hebreos fuisse falsatos, cachinnum tenere non potero, ut Salvator et Evangeliste et Apostoli ita testimonia protulerint, ut Judei postea fal- saturi erant.—Commentar. Hieronymi in Isai Prophet. Lib. m. cap. 6.’ Opera. Vol. 11. pp. 63, 64.] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 81 seemeth to be the heresy of the Novatians, which abused a text out of the 6th chapter against remission of sins committed after grace received, which we shew was no sufficient cause to refuse so divme an epistle, seeing the apostle speaketh not of particular faults, which are common to the faithful oftentimes every day, but of an utter apostasy and falling clean away from the truth of the gospel once known and professed into an horrible contempt and persecuting of the same. But we must “make you a reasonable answer, why in the English bibles printed 1579 and 1580, we presume to leave out St Paul’s name out of the very title of the said epistle; which name is in the Greek and Beza’s Latin trans- lation, which we profess to follow.” I answer without any presumption, that that which is uncertain we spare to affirm. Example we have, not only that ancient Greek copy whereof Beza speaketh, which leaveth out the name of Paul, but also divers printed books in which that name is left out. Beside it is certain, that title was not of ancient time universally added. For St Jerome, in Catalogo scriptorum ecclesiast., after he hath recited all the epistles of St Paul, at length he cometh to this epistle, Hpistola autem que fertur ad Hebreos, ἕο. But the epistle which is called unto the Hebrews, is not thought to be his, for the difference of the style and speech; but either written by Barnabas, as Tertullian*® holdeth, or by Luke the Evangelist, as some men think, or by Clemens, that: after was bishop of the Roman church, whom they say to have ordered and adorned the sentences of Paul in his own speech, or else truly, because Paul did write unto the Hebrews, and because of the envy of his name among them he cut. off the title in the beginning of the salutation. These things considered, what need those tragical exclamations in so trifling a matter? “Doth. not the title tell it is St Paul’s? why strike they out St Paul’s name? what an heretical peevishness is this!” For lack of good matter, you are driven to loud clamours against us; but I will even conclude in your own [? Exstat enim et Barnabe titulus ad Hebreos, adeo satis aucto- ritatis viro, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentie tenore: Aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem? Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabe illo apocrypho pastore meechorum.—Tertullian, de Pudicitia. Opera. p. 741. edit. Rigaltii, 1641. cap. 20. edit. Semler..Vol. rv. p. 427. ] 92 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. words: “1 report me to all indifferent men of common sense, whether we do it to diminish the credit of the epistle,” which of all St Paul’s epistles we might least miss, when we come to dispute against your popish sacrifice and sacrificing priest- hood; or whether you do not craftily move a scruple in the minds of simple persons, to make them doubt of the authority of that epistle, (whose double cannon-shot you are not able to bear when it is thundered out against you,) under colour that it is not of sound credit among ourselves, that use it against you; which of all the lies that ever Satan invented, and taught you to utter, is one of the most abominable. Martin, Martin. I know very well that the authority of canonical scrip- 12, ture standeth not upon the certainty of the author; but yet to be Paul’s or not Paul’s, apostolical or not apostolical, maketh a great difference of credit and estimation. For what made St James’ epistle doubted of sometime, or the second of St Peter, and the rest, but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those apostles? This Luther saw very well, when he denied St James’ epistle to be James the apostle’s writing. If titles of books be of no importance, then leave out Mat- thew, Mark, Luke, and John, leave out Paul in his other epistles also, and you shall much pleasure the Manichees and other old heretics: and if the titles make no difference, urge no more the title of the Apocalypse, St John the Divine, as though it were not St John’s the Evangelist, and you shall much displeasure some heretics now-a-days. Briefly, most certain it is, and they know it best by their own usual doings, that it is a principal way to the discredit of any book, to deny it to be that author’s under whose name it hath been received. τὸς Fulke. If you know so well that the authority of the ; canonical scripture standeth not upon the certainty of the author, as indeed it doth not—for the books of Judges, of Ruth, of Samuel the later, of the Kings, &c. who can certainly affirm by whom they were written ?—with what forehead do youcharge us to doubt of the authority of this epistle, because we report out of the ancient writers the uncertainty of the author, or leave out that title which is not certainly true? “But yet (you say) to be Paul’s or not Paul’s, apostolical or not apos- tolical, maketh great difference of credit and estimation.” If by apostolical you mean, of apostolical spirit or authority, I agree to that you say of apostolical, or not apostolical. If you mean apostolical that only which was written by some apostle, you will make great difference of credit and estima- tion between the gospel of Mark, Luke, and the Acts of the THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 33 Apostles, from the gospels of Matthew and John. But which of us, I pray you, that thinketh that this epistle was not written by St Paul, once doubteth whether it be not of apos- tolical spirit and authority? Which is manifest by this, that both in preaching and writing we cite it thus, the Apostle to the Hebrews. And if it were written by St Luke, or by St Clement, which both were apostolic men, seeing it is out of controversy that it was written by the Spirit of God, it is doubtless apostolical, and differeth not in credit and estimation from those writings that are known certainly to have been written by the apostles. But I marvel greatly why you write, that to be Paul’s or not Paul’s maketh great difference of eredit and estimation. Those epistles that are Peter’s and John’s are not Paul’s; and yet I think there is no great dif- ference of credit and estimation between them and Paul's. What you think, I know not; but you write very suspiciously. You ask what made St James’ epistle, or the 2nd of Peter and the rest, to be sometimes doubted of, but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those apostles? Yes, some- thing else, or else they doubted vainly of them, and without just cause, as I think they did. But when there were two apostles called James, he that doubteth whether the epistle was written by James the brother of John, and is persuaded | it was written rather by James the son of Alpheus, doubteth nothing of the credit, authority, and estimation of the epistle. No more do we, which doubt whether the epistle to the Hebrews were written by St Paul, seeing we are persuaded it was written either by St Barnabas, or by St Luke, or by St Clement, as the ancient writers thought, or by some other of the apostles or evangelists; we make no question but that it is apostolical, and of equal authority with the rest of the holy scriptures. But Eusebius denied the epistle of St James, because he was persuaded that it was written by no apostle or apostolic man, and therefore saith plainly that itis a bastard or counterfeit ; and so belike was Luther deceived, if ever he denied it, as you say he did. “ But if titles of books be of no importance, (say you,) then leave out Matthew, Mark, John, and Paul in his other epistles.” What. need that, I pray you? [5 there no difference between leaving out-a-title whereof there hath been great uncertainty and diversity in God’s church, and which in some Greek copies both written 3 [FuLKE. | Martin, 18. 94. , THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. and printed is left out; and in leaving out those titles that never were omitted, nor never any question or controversy moved of them by any of the ancient catholic fathers? But you will us to urge no more the title of the Apocalypse of St John the Divine, as though it were not St John the Evangelist’s; and we shall please 1 know not what heretics of our time, except it be the papists, whom it would most concern that the Revelation of St John, in which their anti- christ of Rome is so plainly described, were brought out of credit. But if you had read Beza’s preface before the Apo- calypse, you should find that even by that title he gathereth a probable argument, that it was written by John the Evangelist, because it is not like that this excellent name, Tue Divine, could agree to any John in the apostles’ time so aptly, as to St John the Evangelist, beside the consent of all antiquity, ascribing that Revelation to St John the evangelist and apostle. “ Last of all (you say) it is most certain, and we know best by our usual doings, that it is a principal way to discredit any book, to deny it to be the author’s under whose name it hath been received.” How certain it is with you, whereof no man else but you can see any light of reason or necessity of conclusion, I know not; but we are not so void of wit, if we lacked honesty, that we would discredit Paul’s epistle by saying it was Peter’s, or Augustine’s sermon by saying it was Ambrose’s, or Chrysos- tom’s work by saying it was Basil’s. But if we would bring any book out of credit by denying the author whose title it hath borne, we would rather entitle it to some other writer of less credit or later time, or by some other arguments prove it unworthy of credit, not by only denying it to be the author’s under whose name it hath been received. Martin. But I come to the third point, of voluntary expositions of the scripture, that is, when every man expoundeth according to his error and heresy. This needeth no proof, for we see it with our eyes. Look upon the Calvinists and Puritans at home; the Lutherans, Zuinglians, and Calvinists abroad. Read their books written vehemently, one sect against another. Are not their expositions of one and the same scripture as diverse and contrary, as their opinions differ one from another? Let the example at home be, their controversy about the distinction of eccle- siastical degrees, archbishop, bishop, and minister ; the example abroad, their diverse imaginations and fancies upon these most sacred words, Hoe est corpus meum. THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 35 Fulke. That every one of us expoundeth the scripture Futxe, voluntarily according to his error or heresy, you say it needeth 1% no proof, for you see it with your eyes. You have very clear sight to see a mote in other men’s eyes, but cannot see a beam in your own. You make your demonstration by the Calvinists and Puritans at home, and the Lutherans, Zuin- glians, and Calvinists abroad; the one for the distinction of ecclesiastical degrees, archbishop, bishop, and minister; the other for their diverse imaginations and fancies of these words, Hoe est corpus mewm. But I beseech you, sir, touch- ing the domestical dissension, what is the text, or what be the texts of scripture, upon which these voluntary expositions are made, for the distinction or confusion of ecclesiastical degrees? If they had been as ready as, Hoe est corpus meum, they should have been set down as well as that. But I sup- pose they are yet to seek; for that controversy, as I take it, standeth rather in collections than interpretations, and in question whether the political government of the church be distinctly expressed in the scripture or no, As for the con- tention abroad, I confess to stand a great part in exposition of that text, wherein although the one part doth err, is that a sufficient cause to condemn them both? The church of Africa and the church of Rome, and the two principal lights of them both, Cyprian and Cornelius, dissented about rebaptizing them that were baptized of heretics. The Afri- Cyprianus, cans, not in one text only, but in the exposition of many, Goncllio — differed from the Romans, and from the truth; yet it were hard to condemn them both for heretics, and least of all them that held the truth. St Augustine and St Jerome’ dissented about a text of St Paul to the Galatians, of Peter’s dissembling, as their contrary epistles do testify. The truth was of St Augustine’s side; yet was not the other an heretic, following a wrong interpretation. And to come nearer home unto you, the Dominican and Franciscan friars were at daggers drawing, as we say, yea, at most sharp and bitter contention between themselves, and all the popish church was divided about their brawling, concerning the conception Γ΄ Augustin. ad Hieron. Epist. xxvut. Vol. 1. p. 45. and Vol. x1. p. 86. Hieronymus ad Augustin. Epist. uxxv1. de Petro reprehenso a Paulo. * Opera, Vol. rv. pars 2. p. 629. edit. Benedict. 1706. The text was Gal. ii, 14.] ee 96 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE, of the virgin Mary, whether she were conceived in sin, or no; where many texts of scripture must needs receive yolun- tary expositions, if not of both parts, yet at the least of one part: which of these will you say were heretics? If you say neither of both, then must you have stronger reasons to prove us all heretics, than voluntary expositions, where parties be in diverse opinions, especially in matters not overthrowing the foundation of christian religion. And when you have gathered the most voluntary expositions you can find, yet shall you find none so gross, so absurd, so im- pertinent, as you papists have coined for maintenance of your errors and heresies, of which you yourself are ashamed, though otherwise you have iron foreheads and brasen faces. A few examples among a great many shall suffice. “ God made man according to his own image:” that is to say, we must have images in the church. “ No man lighteth a candle and putteth it under a bushel :” the meaning is, that images must be set upon the altar. ‘ God made two great lights, the sun and the moon:” that is, the pope to be above the emperor'. “ Behold, here are two swords:” that is, the pope hath power of both the swords. ‘ Put on the whole armour of God:” that is, the priest must put on all his vestments, before he say mass. “1 am become as sounding brass, or as a tinkling cymbal:” that is, the bells in the steeple sig- nify preaching of God’s word. I might fill many leaves, yea, a whole book, of such popish expositions, as the papists in our days dare not for shame abide by. Mantim, Martin. And if you will yet have a further demonstration, this one 14. may suffice for all. They reject councils and fathers, and the catholic church’s interpretation, unless it be agreeable to God’s word; and whether it be agreeable or no, that Luther shall judge for the Lutherans, Calvin for the Calvinists, Cartwright for the Puritans, and another for the Whitak. brethren of love: briefly, themselves will be judges both of councils and 1x0. °*"“ fathers, whether they expound the scriptures well or no; and every youth among them, upon confidence of his spirit and knowledge, will saucily control not only one, but all the fathers consenting together, if it be against that which they imagine to be the truth. FuLKE, Fulke. We had need of a better demonstration than the 35. former, by which you yourselves are proved heretics, rather [* Innocent III. who excommunicated king John, thus interpreted Gen. i. 16, in a letter he addressed to the English monarch. See Marsh’s ἡ Lectures, pp. 369, 370. ] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 37 than we. But let us see how handsomely you begin. “They reject (say you) councils and fathers, and the catholic church’s interpretation, unless it be agreeable to God’s word.” Thus far you say well. We do reject not only those that you name, but even an angel from heaven, except his message be agreeable to God’s word. But all the rest that you as- sume, to the end of this section, is a stark staring lie, ex- cept that ‘you say of H. N.’ for the brethren of love, which are more like to you than to us. For neither Luther, nor Calvin, nor Cartwright is judge among us, whether any thing be agreeable to the word of God; but whatsoever any of them do say, it is examined and tried by the scriptures. And the scriptures themselves, where they are so obscure, that neither by common sense, knowledge of the original tongue, grammar, rhetoric, logic, history, nor any other human knowledge, nor judgment of any writers, old or new, the certain understanding can be found out, they are either ex- pounded by conference of other plainer texts of scripture, according to the analogy of faith; or else they remain still in obscurity, until it shall please God to reveal a more clear knowledge of them. But none so like the family of love as you papists are, which reject councils, fathers, interpretation of the most ancient catholic church, yea, and manifest scrip- ture itself, except it be agreeable to the judgment of your P.M. Pontifen Maz. the pope, as those familiar devils submit all things to the sentence and authority of their H. N. Shame you nothing therefore to quote Whitaker®, pp. 17 and 120, as though he affirmed, that we ourselves will be judges both of councils and fathers, whether they expound the scriptures well or no? because he writeth (percase), that we ought to examine all men’s writings by the word of God. Doth the apostle make every man judge of all things, when he willeth every man to examine all things, and to hold that which is good? If any youth, upon confidence of his wit or knowledge, presume too much in divine matters, we count it rashness. But that any youth among us, upon confidence of his spirit, will saucily control all the fathers consenting together against his fantasy, except it be some schismatic or heretic, that is cast out from amongst us, I do utterly Γ' Henry Nicholas. Vid. Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, Vol. 1. p- 392. ] Γ᾿ Ad Rationes Campiani. edit. 1581. } Martin, 1 Ibid. p. 101. Pref. ad 6.1 th eses. Oxon. p. 25. Lib. Con- fess. 1. cap. 14, lib. 7. cap. 20. Cicer. de Senect. FuLke, 15. 38 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. deny ; neither are you able to prove it of any that is allowed among us. Martin. Whereupon it riseth, that one of them defendeth this as very well said of Luther, “ That he esteemed not the worth of a rush a thousand Augustines, Cyprians, churches, against himself.” And another very finely and figuratively (as he thought), against the holy doctor and martyr St Cyprian, affirming that the church of Rome cannot err in faith, saith thus: “ Pardon me, Cyprian, I would gladly believe thee, but that believing thee I should not believe the gospel.” This is that which 8. Augustine saith of the like men: Dulcissime vanos esse, non peritos, sed perituros, nec tam disertos in errore, quam desertos a veritate’. And I think, verily, that not only we, but the wiser men among themselves, smile at such eloquence, or pity it, saying this or the like most truly : Prodierunt oratores novi, stulti adolescentuli. Fulke. Why should you not, at your pleasure, upon your false assumption general infer one or two slanders particular ? Mr Whitaker defendeth that it was well said of Luther, “ That he esteemeth not the worth of a rush a thousand Augustines, Cyprians, churches, against himself.” Would God that every papist would read his own words in the place by you quoted, that he might see your impudent forgery! For I do hope there is no Christian that will imagine, that either Luther ᾿ would so speak, or any man of honesty defend him, so speak- ing. For Luther was not so senseless, to oppose his own person, but the truth of his cause, grounded upon the holy scriptures, not only against one thousand of men holding the contrary, but even against ten thousand of angels, if they should oppose themselves against the truth of God. But I am to blame to deal so much in Mr Whitaker’s cause, who, ere it be long, will display the falsehood of Gregory Martin, in a Latin writing, to his great ignominy. The next cavil is upon Mr Rainolds’ words, in his preface to his Six Positions, disputed upon at Oxford, where against Cyprian, affirming that the church of Rome cannot err in faith, he saith, “ Pardon me, Cyprian, I would gladly believe thee, but that in believing thee I should not believe the Γ᾿ Sex Theses de S. Scriptura et Ecclesia. Rupelle. 1586, by John Rainolds. | [ἢ This is garbled from two or more passages: Nam et Homerus, peritus texere tales fabellas, et dulcissime vanus est, &c. Confess. 1. 14. p. 146. edit. Bened. Garriebam plane quasi peritus, et nisi in Christo Salvatore nostro viam tuam quererem, non peritus, sed periturus essem. Ib. vir. 20. p. 247.] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 39 gospel.” These words you confess that he spake figuratively and finely, as he thought; but that he used the figures of irony and concession, you will not acknowledge, but all other men may easily see. For first, he no where granteth that St Cyprian affirmeth, that the church of Rome cannot err in faith. But immediately before the words by you translated, after he had proved out of the eleventh to the Romans, that the particular church of Rome may be cut off, as well as the church of the Israelites, which were the natural branches, he asks the question, Quid? et Cypriano secus est visum ? “ What? and did it seem otherwise to Cyprian? Pardon me, Cyprian, &c.” His meaning is plain, that Cyprian thought not otherwise than St Paul hath written; or if he did, it was lawful to dissent from Cyprian. As a little after he saith, Quare st Romanam ecclesiam errare non posse, &c. Where- fore, if Cyprian thought that the church of Rome could not err in that pomt, by the sentence of the papists he himself is to be condemned of error; for divers papists whom he nameth, confess that every particular church may err; and ᾿ς Verratus, one of them, affirmeth that the church of Rome is a particular church, which the rest cannot deny. And indeed that which Cyprian writeth, is about certain runagate here- tics, that, flying out of the church of Carthage, sought to be received of the particular church of Rome. All this while here is no grant that Cyprian affirmeth, that the church of Rome cannot err in faith. And if Cyprian had so affirmed contrary to the scripture, it might have been justly replied unto him, which St Augustine saith when he was pressed with his authority, Contra Crescon., lib. 2, cap. 31. Nos nullam Cypriano facimus injuriam: ‘We do Cyprian no wrong,” when we distinguish any writings of his from the canonical autho- rity of the divine scriptures. And in truth the words which Mr Rainolds before cited out of St 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 cannot err in faith, but that those heretics which brought letters from schismatics and profane persons, did not consider that they are Romans, whose faith is praised by the com- mendation or preaching of the apostle, to whom porfidia, “ falsehood, or false dealing,” can have none access*: meaning Γ΄ Post ista adhuc insuper Pseudo-episcopo sibi ab hereticis consti- tuto, navigare audent, et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam princi- 40 THE ANSWER ΤῸ THE PREFACE. that the Romans, so long as they continue in that faith which was praised by the apostle, cannot join with heretics and schismatics, that are cast out of other catholic churches. For that he could not mean that the pope or church of Rome cannot err in faith (as the papists affirm), it is manifest, for that in a question of religion, he dissented both from the bishop and church of Rome, as all learned men know he did, which he would never have done, if he had believed they could not err. And that his meaning was not that the bishop of Rome could not err in matters of discipline, it is manifest in the next epistle, where he complaineth, that Basilides, a wicked man, “after his crimes were detected, and his conscience made bare by his own confession, went to Rome, and deceived our fellow-bishop, Stephanus, dwelling far off, and being igno- rant of the case, so that he sought ambitiously to be unjustly restored into the bishopric from whence he was justly deposed’.” These things prove, that St Cyprian thought it no impossible thing for the bishops and church of Rome to err in faith or government. Wherefore that you cite out of Augustine agreeth best unto yourself, and such as you are, who employ all your eloquence and utterance to set forth lies and slanders. Last of all, when you have nothing else to disgrace those grave and learned writers, you would make them, by abusing a piece of Tully, contemptible for their youth among such as know them not; who if they wanted half a score years apiece of that ripe and well-seasoned age they have, yet with those gifts of godliness and learning, which God hath in great measure bestowed upon them, they were worthy to be reverenced. So that venomous traitor, which writeth of the persecution of the papists, maketh me a very young man, and palem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, a schismaticis et prophanis literas ferre ; nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo pre- dicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia non potest habere accessum. Cypri- ani Opera. Par. 1509. 4to. fol. 7. hodie Epist. 35. ] _. L’ Quod et apud vos factum videmus in Sabini college nostri ordi- natione, ut de universe fraternitatis suffragio et de episcoporum qui in presentia convenerant, quique de eo ad vos literas fecerant, judicio episcopatus ei deferretur, et manus ei in locum Basilidis imponeretur. Nec rescindere ordinationem jure perfectam potest, quod Basilides, post crimina sua detecta et conscientiam etiam propria confessione nudatam, Romam pergens Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum et geste rei ac veritatis ignarum fefellit, ut exambiret reponi se injuste in epis- copatum de quo fuerat jure depositus.—Cypriani Epistola uxviu. edit. Baluzii. 1706. p. 119.] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 41 therefore contemned of the ancient fathers at Wisbech; and yet I can easily prove that I was of lawful age, if more than twice one-and-twenty years will serve, before ever I saw Wisbech castle. Martin. The fourth point is, of picking quarrels to the very original la text: for alter and change it I hope they shall not be able in this watch- ! ful world of most vigilant catholics. But what they would do, if all bibles were only in their hands and at their commandment, guess by this: that Beza, against the evidence of all copies, both Greek and Latin, Beza, the mouse of (in his Annotations upon the New Testament, set forth in the year 1556,) Geneva thinketh zpwros is more than should be in the text Matt. x., and to gnaweth é: ἐκχυνόμενον, Luc, xxii., and προσκυνεῖν αὐτοῖς, Acts vii.: the firs Daves against Peter’s supremacy; the second, against the real presence of Christ’s blood in the blessed sacrament; the third, against the making of whatsoever images, whether they be adored or no. Thus you see, how the mouse of Geneva (as I told you before of Marcion the mouse of Pontus) nibbleth and gnaweth about it, though he cannot bite it off altogether. Fulke. Xn this point you do nothing but pick quarrels, see- Furxe, ing you confess that neither they have, nor can alter or change !®- any thing of the original text. If Beza express his conjecture upon some ground or similitude of reason, that πρῶτος in Matthew x., τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον, Luke xxii., and προσκυνεῖν av- τοῖς, Acts vii., might perhaps be added to the text out of the margin or otherwise, and yet doth not precisely affirm it, but leave it to judgment and trial of ancient copies, if any shall be found to favour his conjecture; what hath he like to the mouse of Pontus, Marcion, which altered and corrupted the text? You say he nibbleth and gnaweth about it, though he cannot bite it off altogether: and for what advantage ? forsooth, because the first word maketh for Peter’s supre- macy, a poor supremacy that Peter can gain in that he is named the first in the catalogue of the apostles, which is but a primacy of order, not of honour ; or, as Ambrose* saith, pe foam: - a primacy of confession, not of honour, of faith, not of de- gree. The second word you say is against the real presence of Christ’s blood in the blessed sacrament. You are a perilous [5 Hic ergo qui ante reticebat, ut doceret nos quod impiorum nec verbum debeamus iterare; hic, inquam, ubi audivit, *Vos autem quid me dicitis? statim loci non immemor sui, primatum egit; primatum confessionis utique, non honoris; primatum fidei, non ordinis—Am- brosii de Incarn. Domini Liber unus. cap. 4. Opera, Vol. πὶ. p. 710. edit. Bened. Paris. 1690. ] * Matt. xvi. 15. Martin, 17. FULKE, 17. 49 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. | cat, that can spy a mouse gnawing at the real presence, which none of the ancient fathers, or late writers before these days, could find in those words. And as for making of images, who doth forbid, except it be in any use of religion, which God doth forbid in the second commandment of the first table ? And where you will have men to guess what we would do if all bibles were only in our hands, by this example of Beza’s conjectures; I wish men rather to consider what the Romish rats were like to do in that case, which in their translation of the ten commandments for the people’s instruction have clean gnawed out the second commandment ; and because they cannot bite it clean out of the. bible, they seek all shifts to hide it under the first commandment. Finally, whether Lin- danus and you do pick quarrels against all the evidence of all Greek copies, I refer me to your fourth section, where out of Lindanus you falsely affirm, that certain of Marcion’s cor- ruptions remain in the Greek text until this day. Martin. He doth the like in sundry places, which you may see in his Annotations, Acts vii. 16; where he is saucy against all copies, Greek and Latin, to pronounce corruption, corruption, avouching and endeayour- ing to prove that it must be so, and that with these words, “ To what pur- pose should the Holy Ghost, or Luke, add this?” Acts viii. 26. But because those places concern no controversy, I say no more but that he biteth at the text, and would change it according to his imagination, if he might ; which is too proud an enterprise for Beza, and small reverence of the holy scriptures, so to call the very text into controversy, that whatsoever pleaseth not him, crept out of the margin into the text, which is his com- mon and almost his only conjecture. Fulke. Where Beza noteth corruption in places that con- cern no controversy, it appeareth that without partiality he desireth to restore the text to sincerity. And yet he is charged of you with pride and sauciness. Why more, I pray you, than Lindanus, of whom you learned to prattle so much of the mouse of Pontus? Which, lib. 2, de optim. gen. inter- pret. scripturas, hath divers chapters of the defect of the Greek text, of the redundance, and of the corruption thereof. If Lindanus might do this with modesty, and desire to find out the truth (as I think he did), why may not an indifferent reader judge the like of Beza in his doings? As for creeping out of the margin into the text, which you say is his common and almost only conjecture, why may it not come to pass in writing out of the books of the scripture, as it hath in other THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 43 writings of other authors? And that either by that means, or by some other means, corruption hath happened to all copies that at this day are extant, both Greek and Latin, in naming Jeremiah for Zechariah, Matthew xxvii., who is so blind that he will not see? Yet the ordinary Gloss confesseth, that there were divers copies in times past, in which the name of Jeremiah was not, but the word prophet generally. Likewise in the vulgar Latin text, in the beginning of St Mark’s gospel, Isaiah is cited for that which is written in Malachi, and some Greek copies have the same, from whence it is like the Latin translation received that error: but the more part of best Greek copies leave out the name of Isaiah. | How these corruptions should come into the text, except it be out of the margin, if you can find a better con- jecture, we shall be content with more patience to hear you, than you can abide to hear Beza. Martin. He biteth sore at the word avarody, Luke i. 78, and will Manny, not translate that, but the Hebrew word of the Old Testament; but at ie ὠδῖνας, Acts ii. 24, much more, and at ἑβδομήκοντα πέντε, Acts vii. πε 14, exceedingly: but yet, after he hath said all that he could against it, No- eg he concludeth, that he durst not, and that he had a conscience, upon roa Ranke, conjecture to change any thing. And therefore all this is gnawing only. aeae png But in the third of Luke he maketh no conscience at all, to leave out Greek text these words, verse 36, Qui fuit Cainan, not only in his own translation, Eee hy but in the vulgar Latin which is joined therewith, saying in his Annota- the Old bo. tions, Non dubitavimus expungere; that is, “We doubted not to put it Putting ow. r out: and why? “ By the authority of Moses, Gen. xi.:” whereby he signi- text so much fieth, that it is not in the Hebrew, Gen. xi., where this posterity of Shem him. saps is reckoned ; and so, to maintain the δον verity (as they call it) in the Old Testament, he careth not what become of the Greek in the New Testament, which yet at other times, against the vulgar Latin text, they call the Greek verity, and the pure fountain, and that text whereby all translations must be tried. Fulke. His biting (as you call it) at the word ἀνατολὴ Βυτκε, Luke i., and ὠδῖνας, Acts ii., and ἑβδομήκοντα πέντε, Acts vii., 18. seeing they concern no controversy, might have been contained in the section next before, especially seeing you confess he saith he durst not, and that he had a conscience, upon conjecture to change anything. But in the third of Luke, verse 36, he maketh no conscience at all to leave out the words, Qua fuit Cainan, saying in his Annotations that he doubted not to put it out by authority of Moses, Genesis xi.; a sore charge to diminish any part of the holy scripture. But if he have — Martin, 19, Isai. vi. 9, 10. Gal. iii. 13. Ξ πᾶς κρεμα- μενος ἐπὶ ξύλου. on τ 44 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. only corrected an error of the scribe, which by all likelihood took upon him to add unto St Luke out of the Greek text of the LXX. that which is not in the Hebrew, verily, I see not what offence he hath committed. For, first, he can mean no fraud in concealing those words, whereof he doth admonish the reader, and of the cause of his leaving them out. Se- condly, he winneth no advantage against his adversaries, or to his own cause, by omitting to say, that Sala was the son of Cainan, whom Moses affirmeth to be the son of Arphaxad. And seeing Moses, Genesis xi., hath no such Cainan the son of Arphaxad, it is not like that St Luke, who borrowed that part of his genealogy out of Moses, would add anything which Moses had omitted. But you say that Beza, to maintain the Hebrew verity of the Old Testament, careth not what become. of the Greek in the New Testament. You should have made your antitheton more full (wherein it seemeth you pleased yourself not a little), if you had said that Beza, to maintain the Hebrew verity of the Old Testament, careth not what becometh of the Greek corruption in the New Testament ; and so you should have spoken both more eloquently and more truly. But at other times (you say), against the vulgar Latin text, they call the Greek text the Greek verity, and the pure fountain, and that whereby all translations must be tried. We say indeed, that by the Greek text of the New Testament all translations of the New Testament must be tried; but we mean not by every corruption that is in any Greek copy of the New Testament, and much less that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament should be reformed after the Greek of the New, where it is uncorrupted ; and least of all, where any copy is guilty of a manifest error, as in this place now in question. Martin. But if he have no other way to reconcile both Testaments, but by striking out in the Greek of the New all that agreeth not with the Hebrew of the Old Testament, then let him alter and change so many words of our Saviour himself, of the evangelists, and of the apostles, as are cited out of the Old Testament, and are not in Hebrew. Which places they know are very many, and when need is, they shall be gathered to their hands. Let him strike out (Matt. xiii. 14, 15, and Acts xxviii. 26, 27) the words of our Saviour and St Paul, cited out of Isaiah, because they are far otherwise in the Hebrew. Strike out of the Epistle to the Galatians these words, “ upon a tree,” because in the Hebrew it is only thus: “Cursed is he that is hanged.” Deut. xxi. in fine. Yea, strike out of David’s Psalms that which concerneth our redemption upon the THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 45 cross much nearer, “ They have pierced my hands and my feet,” (Psalm xxi.) because in the Hebrew there is no such thing. Let them control the apostle (Eph. iv.) for saying, dedit, “he gave gifts,” because it is ἔλαβες. both in the Hebrew and Greek, (Psalm Ixvii.) accepisti, “ thou tookest 17? gifts,” and (Heb. x.) for corpus aptasti let them put aures perforasti, be- bow cause it is so in the Hebrew, (Psalm xl.) To be short, if all must be AND reformed according to the Hebrew, why doth he not in St Stephen’s * * sermon cut off the number of five souls from seventy-five, because it is not in the Hebrew ? Fulke. If you had read Beza’s works as diligently to learn Fiat the truth out of them, as you have pried here and there !9 busily how to espy some fault or error in them, you should easily have found that he hath other ways to reconcile both the Testaments, and the difference that seemeth to be in the allegations, than by striking out of the Greek in the New all that agreeth not with the Hebrew of the Old Testament. And therefore vainly you bid him alter so many words as are cited in the New Testament out of the Old, which are not in the Hebrew, and strike out of Matthew xii. 14, 15, and Acts xxviii. 26, 27, the words of our Saviour and St Paul, cited out of Isaiah, because they are otherwise in the He- brew. Beza knoweth that Christ and his apostles always keep the sense of the Hebrew verity, although they do not always rehearse the very words. But whereas you bid him out of Gal. ii. 13, strike out these words “upon a tree,” because in the Hebrew it is only thus, ‘Cursed is he that is hanged;” you shew either gross ignorance or intolerable frowardness, for these words “‘ upon a tree” are in that verse, and in the next before. or thus the Hebrew text is: “ 22. When there yy-by shall be in any person a sin to be adjudged to death, and he yyy shall be delivered to death, if thou shalt hang him upon a tree: 23. Let not his carcase tarry all night upon that tree, but im any case thou shalt bury him the same day, for accursed. to God is he that is hanged.” The word “tree” being twice named before, who would be so mad to say, that St Paul hath added it beside the Hebrew text? Likewise, where you bid us strike out of the Hebrew, Psalm xxi., that which con- (Psal. xxii] cerneth our redemption on the cross, “They have pierced my hands and my feet,” because in the Hebrew there is no such thing; you say most untruly, for there is nothing else in the Hebrew, no, not in the common readings, as Johannes Isaac, a popish Jew, will teach you, who hath confuted the TIN Marin, 20. 406 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. cavils of Lindanus against the Hebrew text, of whom you borrowed this example, where, if you had not been blind with malice, you might have seen that St Jerome did read without controversy jixerunt, “ they have pierced,” as also that the most ancient copy of the Hebrew Psalms, supposed to have pertained to St Augustine of Canterbury, hath charu, “they have pierced ;” though you had been ignorant what is written concerning this word in the Masoreth, and what Isaac also writeth of that word, as it is commonly read, that it cannot signify, as you fancy, sicut leo, “like a lion:” and therefore the Chaldee paraphrase turneth it, “As a lion, they pierced my hands and my feet.” But of this matter more hereafter, as occasion shall be given. As for the apostle, Ephes. iv. saying that Christ gave gifts, whereas of David it is said, he received gifts, speaketh nothing contrary to the Hebrew; but sheweth wherefore Christ hath received gifts, namely, to bestow upon his church :—except you will say that Christ gave of his own and received none, and so the apostle doth shew the excellency of the truth above the figure, Christ above David. Likewise, where the psalmist saith in the Hebrew, “ Thou hast opened mine ears,” the apostle doth rightly collect, that Christ had a body, which in his obedience was to be offered unto the Father. Last of all, you would have five souls cut from seventy-five in St Stephen’s sermon, because it is not in the Hebrew; but you are deceived. For St Stephen gathereth the whole number of them that are named in the 46th chapter of Genesis, namely, the two sons of Judah that were dead, and Jacob’s four wives, to shew how great his family was at the uttermost, before he went down into Egypt, and how greatly God did multiply him afterward. What is there in any of these examples like to gui fwit Cainan, about which you make so much ado ? Martin. Must such difficulties and diversities be resolved by chop- ping and changing, hacking and hewing, the sacred text of holy scripture ? See into what perplexities wilful heresy and arrogancy hath driven them. To discredit the vulgar Latin translation of the bible, and the Fathers’ expositions according to the same, (for that is the original cause of this,) and besides that they may have always this evasion, “It is not so in the Hebrew, it is otherwise in the Greek,” and so seem jolly fellows and great clerks unto the ignorant people. What do they? They admit only the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, to be the true and authentical text of the scripture. Whereupon this followeth, THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 47 that they reject, and must needs reject, the Greek of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint) as false, because it differeth from the Hebrew. Their per- Which being rejected, thereupon it followeth again, that wheresoever Fefending those places so disagreeing from the Hebrew are cited by Christ or both the the evangelists and apostles, there also they must be rejected, because ὅν τις Οἱ they disagree from the Hebrew ; and so yet again it followeth that the ?>4 Greek Greek text of the New Testament is not true, because it is not according New. to the Hebrew verity, and consequently the words of our Saviour and writings of his apostles must be reformed (to say the least), because they speak according to the Septuagint, and not according to the Hebrew. Fulke. Who alloweth, or who can abide chopping and Furxe, changing, or hacking and hewing, the sacred text of holy scrip- 2° tures? As for the perplexities, whereunto you feign that wilful heresy and arrogance hath driven us, is of your weaving ; for (God be praised!) we can well enough with good conscience and sound knowledge, that may abide the judgment of all the learned in the world, defend both the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New: not of purpose to discredit the vulgar Latin translation and the expositions of the Fathers, but to fetch the truth, upon which the hope of our salvation is grounded, out of the first fountains and springs, rather than out of any streams that are derived from them. And this we do agreeable to the ancient Fathers’ judgments. For who knoweth not, what fruitful pains St Jerome took in translating the scripture out of the original tongue? Neither would he be dissuaded by St Augustine’, who although he [* Contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio. Et Latine quidem lingue homines, quos nunc instruendos suscepimus, duobus aliis ad scripturarum divinarum cognitionem opus habent, Hebrea scilicet et Greca, ut ad exemplaria precedentia recur- ratur, si quam dubitationem adtulerit Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas. Quamquam et Hebrea verba non interpretata sepe invenia- mus in libris, sicut Amen, et Halleluia, et Racha, et Hosanna, et si qua sunt alia; quorum partim propter sanctiorem auctoritatem, quamvis interpretari potuissent, servata est antiquitas, sicut est Amen, et Hal- leluia; partim vero in aliam linguam transferri non potuisse dicuntur, sicut alia duo que posuimus. Sunt enim quedam verba certarum lin- guarum, que in usum alterius lingue per interpretationem transire non possint. Et hoc maxime interjectionibus accidit, que verba mo- tum animi significant potius, quam sententie concepte ullam particu- lam; nam et hee duo talia esse perhibentur: dicunt enim Racha in- dignantis esse vocem, Hosanna letantis. Sed non propter hec pauca, que notare atque interrogare facillimum est, sed propter diversitates, ut 48 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. misliked that enterprise at the first, yet afterward he highly commended the necessity of the Greek and Hebrew tongue for Latin men, to find out the certain truth of the text in the infinite variety of the Latin interpretations; for thus he writeth, De Doct. Christ. lib. 2, cap. 11: Contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio. Et Latina, &c. ‘Against unknown proper signs the knowledge of tongues is a great remedy. And truly men of the Latin tongue, whom we have now taken in hand to instruct, have need also of two other tongues unto the knowledge of the divine scrip- tures, namely, the Hebrew and the Greek, that recourse may be had unto the former copies, if the infinite variety of the Latin interpreters shall bring any doubt; although we find ‘oftentimes in the books Hebrew words not interpreted, as Amen, Alleluia, Racha, Osanna, &c.,” and a little after, Sed non propter hec pauca, ὅσ. “ But not for these few words which to mark and inquire of it is a very easy thing, but for the djversities (as it is said) of the interpreters, the knowledge of those tongues is necessary. For they that have interpreted the scriptures out of the Hebrew tongue into the Greek tongue may be numbered, but the Latin interpreters by no means can be numbered. For in the first times of the faith, as a Greek book came into every man’s hand, and he seemed to have some skill in both the tongues, he was bold to inter- pret it. Which thing truly hath more helped the under- standing than hindered, if the readers be not negligent; for the looking upon many books hath oftentimes made manifest sundry obscure or dark sentences.” This is St Augustine’s sound judgment of the knowledge of tongues and diversity of interpretations, for the better understanding of the scrip- tures. But let us see what be the absurdities that you gather of our defending the original texts of both the tongues. First, we must needs reject the Greek-of the Old Testament, ut dictum est, interpretum, illarum linguarum est cognitio necessaria. Qui enim scripturas ex Hebrea lingua in Grecam verterunt, nume- rari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Grecus, et aliquantu- lum facultatis sibi utriusque lingue habere videbatur, ausus est inter- pretari. Que quidem res plus adjuvit intelligentiam, quam impedivit, si modo legentes non sint negligentes. Nam nonnullas obscuriores sen- tentias plurium codicum sepe manifestavit inspectio.—De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. 1. cap. 11, 12. Opera, Vol. m1. pp. 24, 25.] ‘THE ANSWER TO THE ‘PREFACE, 49 called Septuagint, as false, because it differeth from the Hebrew, where it is not only different in words, but also contrary in sense. Why should we not? But if it retain the sense and substance, although it express not the same words, we need not reject it. St Jerome’, who was required by Paula and Eustochium to expound the prophets, not only accord- ing to the truth of the Hebrew, ‘but also after the translation of the Septuagint, whereof he divers times complaineth, upon the Ist of Nahum saith expressly, that it was against his conscience always to follow the same. Jgnoscite proliai- tati, &c. “Pardon me that I am so long, for I cannot, following both the story and the tropology or doctrine of manners, comprehend both briefly; most of all, seeing that I am so greatly tormented or troubled with the variety of the translation, and against. my conscience sometimes I am com- pelled to frame a consequence of the vulgar edition,” which was the Septuagint. This was St Jerome’s opinion of the Septuagint translation. But upon rejection of that trans- lation (say you) it followeth, that wheresoever those places, so disagreeing from the Hebrew, are cited by Christ, or the evangelists and apostles, there also they must be rejected, because they disagree from the Hebrew; and so the Greek text of the New Testament: is not true, and consequently the words of our Saviour and writings of his apostles, speak- ing according to the Septuagint, must at least be reformed. It is an old saying, and a true, that one inconvenience being granted, many do follow; and so you may heap up an hundred after this manner. But. for answer I say, that neither our Saviour, nor his apostles, citing any place out of the Old Testament, do bring anything disagreeing in sense and sub- stance of matter (the purpose for which they allege it consi- dered) from the truth of the Hebrew text.. Therefore there is no need that the LXX. in those places should be rejected. Although our Saviour Christ, speaking in the Syrian tongue, is not to be thought ever to have cited the text of the LXX., which is in Greek. And his apostles and evangelists, using [? Ignoscite prolixitati: non enim possum, et historiam et tropolo- giam sequens, breviter utrumque comprehendere: maxime quum et interpretationis varietate torquear, et adversus conscientiam meam cogar interdum vulgate editionis consequentiam texere.—Comment. Hiero- nymi in Nahum. eap.1. Opera, Vol. 11. p. 1567. ] { [ FULKE. | 50 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. that text, regard the substance of the sentence, and not the form of words. For many times they cite not the very words of the Greek LXX. neither; and St Jerome, iz Catalogo script. Eccles., which is set. as a preface to St Matthew’s gospel, telleth you expressly, that in the Hebrew example of St Matthew, which he had, wheresoever the evangelist St Matthew, either in his own person, or in the person of our Lord and Saviour, useth the testimonies of the Old Testament, he fol- loweth not the authority of the seventy translators, but the Hebrew, of which these are two places: “ Out of Egypt have I called my son,” and “he shall be called a Nazarite.” See you not what a perilous perplexity we are in by defending both the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, when neither are contrary to the other ? νου. κω Martin, Martin. All which must needs follow, if this be a good consequence, 21. “1 find it not in Moses, nor in the Hebrew, therefore I struck it out,” as Beza doth and saith concerning the foresaid words, qui fuit Cainan. This consequence therefore let us see how they will justify ; and withal let them tell us, whether they will discredit the New Testament because ; of the Septuagint, or credit the Septuagint because of the New Testament; | or how they can credit one and discredit the other, where both agree | and consent together; or whether they will discredit both for credit of the Hebrew; or rather, whether there be not some other way to reconcile both Hebrew and Greek, better than Beza’s impudent pre- sumption. Which if they will not maintain, let them flatly confess that he did wickedly, and not (as they do) defend every word and deed of their masters, be it never so heinous, or salve it at the least. FuLKE, Fulke. No whit of that doth follow by striking out gui 5}. Suit Caiman, because it is not found in Moses; and therefore we have nothing to do to justify your vain consequence, grounded upon an absurdity of your own devising. But we must tell you, whether we will discredit the New Testament because of the Septuagint! No, not for a thousand millions of Septuagints, nor for all the world will we credit the Septuagint against the truth of the Old Testament. But whatsoever is cited out of the LXX. in the New, is not contrary to the Hebrew in the Old; and therefore the way of reconciliation is easily found, without discrediting both, or either of both, in those places, And in this place, which is a mere corruption, borrowed out of the corruption of the Septuagint, or a Judaical addition, Genesis xi. I think there is no better way of reconciling than to strike it clean out, as Beza hath done; which generation THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 51 neither is in the Hebrew verity, nor in your own vulgar Latin translation, either Genesis xi, or 1 Par. i. Beside that it maketh a foul error in the computation of time, adding no less than two hundred and thirty years between Arphaxad and Sala, more than the Hebrew verity, or the vulgar Latin agreeing therewith, doth number. And therefore he was more presumptuous, that out of the corrupt and false text of the Septuagint added the same unto the genealogy in St Luke, than Beza, which by the authority of Moses removed the same. If you will still persist to defend the authority of the Septuagint against the Hebrew verity, which like an atheist you deride, at leastwise defend your own vulgar Latin trans- lation of the Old Testament, and deliver yourself out of that perplexity in which you would place us between the Hebrew of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament; seeing no less doubts entangleth you between the Latin of the New, and the Latin of the Old, differing altogether alike as the Greek and the Hebrew do. Martin. Alas! how far are these men from the modesty of the ancient ae fathers, and from the humble spirit of obedient catholics, who seek all 2 ais aa other means to resolve difficulties, rather than to do violence to the Psege noch sacred scripture; and when they find no way, they leave it to God. salt Hetecw St Augustine, concerning the difference of the Hebrew and the Greek, lib. 18 de’ saith often to this effect, that it pleased the Holy Ghost to utter by 43. “Mages: the one that which he would not utter by the other. And St Ambrose? Doct oi. thus: “We have found many things not idly added of the seventy (?-/*: |. Greek interpreters.” St Jerome?, though an earnest patron of the He- Tn Pow i ip. [* Multa enim non otiose a Septuaginta viris Hebraice lectioni ad- dita et adjuncta comperimus.—Hexaemeron. Lib. mr. cap. 5. Opera. Vol. 1. p- 42. ] [? Legimus in apostolo: Jn aliis linguis et in labiis aliis loquor po- pulo huic, et nec sie ewaudient me, dicit Dominus. Quod mihi videtur juxta Hebraicum de presenti sumptum capitulo: et hoc in veteri ob- servavimus Testamento (absque paucis testimoniis, quibus Lucas solus abutitur, qui magis Grece lingue habuit scientiam) ubiquumque de veteri instrumento quid dicitur, non eos juxta Septuaginta, sed juxta Hebraicum ponere, nullius sequentes interpretationem, sed sensum He- braicum cum suo sermone vertentes. Symmachus, Theodotio, et LXX. de hoc loco (nempe Isaie xxviii. 9-18) diversa senserunt: et quia longum est de omnibus dicere, LXX. Interpretes, qui leguntur in ec- clesiis, breviter transcurramus.—Comment. Hieronymi in Isaie xxviii. Opera, Vol. m1. pp. 237, 238. Neque vero Septuaginta Interpretum, ut invidi latrant, errores ar- 4.2 52 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. brew (not without cause, being at that time perhaps the Hebrew verity indeed) yet giveth many reasons for the differences of the Septuagint ; in and concerning the foresaid places of St Luke, he doth give a reason guimus. * * * * Nec nostrum laborem illorum reprehensionem putamus, quum illi Ptolemeo, regi Alexandrie, mystica queque in scripturis sanctis prodere noluerint ; et maxime ea que Christi adven- tum pollicebantur; ne viderentur Judei et alterum Deum colere: quos ille Platonis sectator magni idcirco faciebat, quia unum Deum colere dicerentur. Sed et evangeliste, et Dominus quoque noster atque Sal- vator, necnon et Paulus apostolus, multa quasi de veteri Testamento proferunt, que in nostris codicibus non habentur: super quibus in suis locis plenius disseremus. Ex quo perspicuum est, illa magis vera esse exemplaria, que cum novi Testamenti auctoritate concordant.— Prefatio Hieronymi in Lib.. Heb. Quest. in Genesim. Opera, Vol. m. pp. 506, 507. Si Septuaginta interpretum pura, et ut ab eis in Grecum versa est, editio permaneret, superflue me, mi Chromati, episcoporum sanctis- sime atque doctissime, impelleres, ut Hebrea volumina Latino sermone transferrem: quod enim semel aures hominum occupayerat, et nas- centis ecclesie roboraverat fidem, justum erat etiam nostro silentio comprobari. Nunc vero, cum pro varietate regionum diversa ferantur exemplaria, et germana illa antiquaque translatio corrupta sit atque violata; nostri arbitrii putas, aut e pluribus judicare quid verum sit, aut novum opus in veteri opere cudere, illudentibusque Judeis cor- nicum, ut dicitur, oculos configere. Alexandria et Aigyptus in Sep- tuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Medie inter has provincie Palestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Euse- bius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt: totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat. Et certe Origenes non solum exemplaria compo- suit quatuor editionum, e regione singula vyerba describens, ut unus dissentiens statim ceteris inter se consentientibus arguatur; sed, quod majoris audacie est, in editione Septuaginta Theodotionis editionem miscuit, asteriscis designans que minus ante fuerant, et virgulis que ex superfluo videbantur apposita. Si igitur aliis licuit non tenere quod semel susceperant ; et post Septuaginta cellulas, que vulgo sine auctore jactantur, singulas cellulas aperuere, hocque in ecclesiis legitur quod Septuaginta nescierunt ; cur me non suscipiant Latini mei, qui invio- lata editione veteri ita novam condidi, ut laborem meum Hebreis et, quod his majus est, apostolis auctoribus probem? * * * * Christus Do- minus noster, utriusque Testamenti conditor, in Evangelio secundum Johannem, Qui credit, inquit, in me, sicut dicit scriptura, flumina de ventre ejus fluent aque vive. Utique scriptum est, quod Salvator scrip- tum esse testatur. Ubi scriptum est? Septuaginta non habent ; apo- erypha nescit ecclesia. Ad Hebreos igitur revertendum est, unde οἱ Dominus loquitur, et discipuli exempla presumunt.—Prefat. Hierony- mi in Paralipom. Opera, Vol. 1. pp. 1022, 1023. ] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE, 53. thereof, both for the seventy, and for the evangelist that followed them, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controlling them “ by the authority of Moses” (as Beza speaketh), that is, by the Hebrew. Others say concerning Cainan, that Moses might leave him out in the gene- alogy of Shem by the instinct of the same Spirit, that St Matthew left Matt. i. out three kings in the genealogy of our Saviour. Where if a man would control the evangelist by the Hebrew of the Old Testament that is read in the books of the Kings, he should be as wise and as honest a man as Beza. Lastly, venerable Bede thinketh it sufficient iret Wee in this very difficulty of Cainan to marvel at it reverently, rather than to search it dangerously. And thus far of picking quarrels to the original text, and their good will to alter and change it as they list, if they might be suffered. Fulke. Here of pity you will shew unto us a piece of learn- Furxs, ing, how the fathers reconcile the said Hebrew and Greek 22. without violence to the text, as they do always, or else leave the matter to God. First, St Augustine, De Oveitate, lib. 18, cap. 43. De Doct. Chr. lib. 2, cap. 15, of their agreement, notwithstanding they were separated into several cells, gathereth, that those Septua- gints were inspired with the same prophetical spirit of inter- preting, that the prophets were in foreshewing. But this doth St Jerome utterly deny, and derideth the ground of this Preft in’ imagination, those seventy-two cells at Alexandria, as a fable anda lie. That St Ambrose saith, “ we have found that many things are not idly added of the seventy Greek interpreters ;” Hexam, lb. we confess as much, where their addition serveth for explie~ cation of that which is contained in the Hebrew: and so meaneth Ambrose; not that they had authority to add any thing, which Moses had omitted. And we acknowledge with St Jerome, that there may be many reasons given for the difference of the one from the other. But concerning this place of St Luke now in question, you say he giveth a reason thereof, both for the LXX. and for the evangelist that fol- lowed them, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor con- trolling them by the authority 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 less any reason given to reconcile it or the Septuagint with the Hebrew. It seemeth, you read not the books yourself, but trusted too much some man’s collection, which you understood not. In the preface to the Hebrew Questions Jerome ex- 54 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE, euseth himself against envious persons, that barked against him as though he did nothing but reprove the errors of the LXX., saying, “ That he thinketh not his labour to be a reprehension of them, seeing they would not express unto Ptolemeus, king of Alexandria, certain mystical things in the scriptures, and especially those things which promised the coming of Christ, lest the Jews might have been thought to worship another God, whom that follower of Plato there- fore did greatly esteem, because they were said to worship but one God. But the evangelists also, and our Lord and Saviour, and St Paul the apostle, bring forth many things, as it were out of the Old Testament, which are not had in our books, of which in their due places we will more fully discuss. Whereof it is clear, that those are the more true examples, which agree with the authority of the New Testa- ment.” Thus much Jerome in that place; but neither in his questions upon Genesis, nor 1 Paralip. the proper places for this text, is there any mention of this place of Luke, qui Swit Cainan. In the place cited by you upon the 28th οἵ. Isaiah, he saith, Legimus in apostolo, ὅσ. ‘ We read in the apostle, ‘In other tongues and lips will I speak to this people, and neither so shall they hear me, saith the Lord :’ which seemeth to me to be taken out of this present chapter, according to the Hebrew. And this we have observed in the Old Testament, except a few testimonies which only Luke useth otherwise, which had knowledge of the Greek tongue rather wheresoever any thing is said out of the Old Testament, that they set it not according to the LXX., but according to the Hebrew, following the translation of no man, but turning the sense of the Hebrew into their own speech.” You see that Jerome saith nothing particularly; and that which he saith generally, concerneth this place nothing at all. And very like it is, that this corruption was not crept into St Luke’s text in his time, especially seeing neither St Ambrose in his Commentary upon St Luke once toucheth this contro- versy, as he doth all other questions about that genealogy. Where you say, St Jerome was “a great patron of the Hebrew, not without cause, being at that time perhaps the Hebrew verity indeed ;” it is without perhaps, or peradventure, that not one iota or prick of the law of God can perish, by the testimony of our Saviour Christ, Matthew v. And if you THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 55. will believe Arias Montanus', an excellent learned papist, he will tell you as much, out of the same text doubtless, in his preface unto the great bible by him set out, with diligent observation of all the accents and Hebrew points, which Christ (saith he) will never suffer to perish. And if the Hebrew verity were in Jerome’s time (as doubtless it was), whether he had a perfect copy thereof or no, the same Arias Mon- tanus testifieth, if you dare credit him, being one of your sect for opinion, though in sincerity of mind and love of the truth, which I pray to God to reveal unto him, I think him far better than a number of you; he (I say) affirmeth in the same preface, against the objection that is made of the Jews’ corruption of the Hebrew books: Htenim apud nonnull. “ For we read in some authors that, through the fraud and impulsion of the spirit of error, some of the nation of the Jews in times past were brought to that point of insolence or madness, that in the beginning of the christian church they changed some words, which might altogether break off that their con- tention of impugning the christian verity. But those places so defiled by them were very few; and in the books of our writers, and also in the copies both printed and written of the Jews themselves, are all for the most part noted and shewed out. For although either by the fraud of those men, or by the ignorance of the book-writers, or by injury of the times, some change hath been made in the Hebrew books which we use; yet is there not one word, nor one letter, nor point, that is mentioned to have been of old time, which is not found to have been safely kept in that most rich treasury, which they call the Mazzoreth. For in that, as in an holy and. faithful custody, appointed with uttermost diligence and great study, the remnants, monuments, tokens, steps, and examples of the ancient reading are all contained, and the way how to compare the old and new reading is shewed ; of which truly, being compared together, a very certain way [ Nam preter excellentem formarum, charte, et characterum prestantiam, integras etiam Chaldaicas in veteri Testamento paraphra- ses, et Syriac in novo lectionis libros, eosdemque diligenti studio et censura examinatos, et commoda Latinarum interpretationum copia in- structos, opus hoc Complutensibus Bibliis addit; et quod ad lectionis et sententiarum distinctionem explicationemque plurimum confert, ac- centus omnes, Hebraicosque apices, (quos nunquam perire Christus patietur,) diligentissime observatos adjungit.—Prefatio, fol. 26,1 56 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. is extant, to the prescript rule whereof the holy mysteries may be shewed forth, examples whereof sometime in this work, in due place, and elsewhere also, with God’s help, we will set forth.’ Thus far Arias Montanus, whose judgment if you say you are not bound to follow, yet I suppose you can yield no sufficient reason, why you should not credit his testimony concerning the certainty of the Hebrew verity, remaining to this day, and which shall remain to the world’s end, although all the smatterers among you would burst for spite against it. Concerning the opinion of them which think, that Moses might leave out Cainan in the Genealogy of Shem by the same Spirit that Matthew left out three kings in the genealogy of our Sayiour, I answer, If it be lawful so to imagine, we may without study answer all controversies; although the same reason is not of Moses, compiling a certain account of the time from the flood to the calling of Abraham, and of Matthew, shewing by the legal descent, which every man might take out of the books of Kings and Chronicles, that Christ was the son of David, and therefore he was not bound to the number of successors, seeing for memory it was his purpose to recite but thrice fourteen generations. _ That Bede marvelleth at the doubt which he could not dissolve, his modesty is to be commended rather than his knowledge. Nevertheless the same Bede’, in his preface unto his Retractation upon the Acts of the Apostles, speaking of such difference as he found in the Greek text of the Acts from the Latin, he saith: Que utrum negligentia interpretis omissa, &c. “Which things, whether they were omitted through negligence of the interpreter, or otherwise uttered, or for lack of regard of the writers depraved, or otherwise left, as yet we could not know, For I dare not so much as suspect that the Greek copy was falsified: wherefore I admonish the reader, that wheresoever we have done these things, he read them for his learning; yet that he interlace them not in his Γ᾿ Que utrum negligentia interpretis omissa, vel aliter dicta, an incuria librariorum sint depravata, sive relicta, nondum scire potui- mus. Namque Grecum exemplar fuisse falsatum, suspicari non audeo: unde lectorem admoneo, ut hee ubicunque fecerimus, gratia eruditionis legat, non in suo tamen volumine velut emendatos interserat, nisi forte ea in Latino codice sue editionis antiquitus sic interpretata repererit.— Prefatio ad Retractationem in Acta Apostolorum. Bede Opera, Vol. vi. p. 1. edit. Colonie Agrippinz. 1612, ] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 57 book, as places corrected, except perhaps he shall find the same in some Latin book ofa peculiar edition, to have been of old so interpreted.” This place sheweth that in Bede’s time there were more Latin translations than one, and that the vulgar Latin was not of such authority, but that it might be corrected by the Greek, with the consent of other ancient Latin translations. Likewise upon the text in question, lib. 1, im Luc. cap. 3”, he confesseth that the name and gene- ration of Cainan, according to the Hebrew verity,: is found neither in Genesis nor in the Chronicles; saying that St Luke took this generation from the edition of the Septuagint. But whether is the truer, or whether both can be true, he leaveth it to the knowledge of God; noting that whereas, according to the Hebrew verity, from the flood to the birth of Abraham there were but 292 years, the LXX. make 1077, so that the difference is no less than of 785 years. But to favour this fact of Beza,in putting out the name of Cainan, there is an ancient copy of the Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin, of as great antiquity by all likelihood as any copy this day extant in Christendom, sent unto the university of Cambridge this last year by Beza himself, there to be kept in the common library, in which copy this generation of Cainan, both in the Greek and in the Latin, is clean left out, even as Beza hath done in his translation. So that he hath not only the authority of Moses, which of itself is sufficient, but also the testimony of this most ancient book, both for the Greek and for the Latin, to approve his fact. in putting out gut fuit Cainan. What your vulgar [? Nomen et generatio Cainan, juxta Hebraicam veritatem, neque in Genesi neque in verbis Dierum invenitur ; sed Arphaxat Sala vel Sale filium, nullo interposito, genuisse perhibetur. Sic enim habes: Porre Arphawat vixit triginta annos et genuit Sale. Itemque in Paralipo- menon, Arphaxat autem genuit Sala, qui et ipse genuit Heber. Scito ergo beatum Lucam hanc generationem de Septuaginta interpretum editione sumpsisse, ubi scriptum est, quod Arphaxat centum trigin- ta quinque annorum genuerit Cainan, et ipse Cainan, cum 130 fuerit annorum, genuerit Sala. Sed quid horum sit verius, aut si utrum- que verum esse possit, Deus noverit. Nos simpliciter admonemus lec- torem, tantam inter utrosque codices in serie temporum esse discre- pantiam, ut a diluvio usque ad nativitatem Abrahe in Hebraica veritate anni ccxcu, in Septuaginta interpretum translatione m. septuaginta sep- tem reperiantur esse comprehensi.—Beda in Luce Brongenees cap. iii. Opera, Vol. v. pp. 256-7. ] Martin, 24. « 58 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. Latin translation hath left out in the latter end of the Lord’s prayer in St Matthew, and in the beginning and midst in St Luke, whereby that heavenly prayer is made imperfect, not comprehending all things that a christian man ought to pray for, beside many other like omissions, whether of pur- pose, or of negligence, and injury of time, yet still by you defended, I spare to speak of in this place. Martin. Which also may be proved by all their false translations (being the principal point I mean to speak of) most evidently. For as now they translate falsely to their purpose, because they cannot alter the text; so would they, if it were possible, have the text , agreeable to their translation. For example, he that translateth “ or- the dinances,” when it is in the original Greek text “justifications” and ' “traditions,” he would rather that it were “ordinances” also in the Greek: but because he cannot bring that about, he doth at the least what he can, to make the ignorant believe it is so, by so translating it. Fulke. You shall never be able to prove by any transla- tion of ours (though perhaps in some we may err), that we have any purpose either to falsify the truth, or to change the text, though it were possible for us. In translating we have dealt with a good conscience, albeit not always peradventure we have attained to the full truth, which in translating out of one tongue into another is a very hard point throughly to observe. Your example of “ordinances” translated for that which in the Greek is “justifications” and “traditions,” when you shew where and by whom it is so translated, you shall receive an answer. In the meantime I say, a translator that hath regard to interpret for the ignorant people’s instruction, may sometimes depart from the etymology or common signification or precise turning of word for word, and that for divers causes. You yourselves translate not ecclesia always “the church,” but sometimes the assembly; nor seniores, “ elders,” but seniors, or ancients. Neither would you translate pres- byter always “a priest,” if you translated the Old Testament. In the story of Susannah you would not call them priests, that laid wait for her honesty and life; yet in your vulgar Latin they are called priests. So are they called πρεσβύτεροι in Greek in the New Testament, which you turn sometimes priests, sometimes ancients, and sometimes seniors. Martin. And this of all other is the most fine and subtle treachery » THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 59 | against the scriptures, to deceive the ignorant readers withal, (which St Paul calleth “the secret things of dishonesty and adulterating of the 2 Cor. iv. word of God,” as it were mingling water with wine, like false vintners, ) when they give them for God’s word, and under the name of God’s word, their own words, and not God’s,:forged and framed, altered and changed, according to differences of times, and variety of new opinions, and diversity of humours and spirits, diversely and differently, one heretic not only correcting his fellow every day, but one eagerly re- The here- futing and refelling another: Bucer and the Osiandrians and Sacra- ἰὸν “i8% sion about mentaries against Luther for false translations ; Luther against Munster, {πεῖν %™s- Beza against Castalio, Castalio against Beza, Calvin against Servetus, cg Illyricus both against Calvin and Beza. The puritans control the ἜΝ ὅν grosser Calvinists of our country; yea, the later translations of the See Zuing. resp. 1. and selfsame heretics control the former exceedingly, not only of over- Confess. sights but of wilful falsifications; as is notorious in the later editions — of Luther and Beza, and in our English bibles set forth in divers δ᾽ mee years, from Tindal their first translator until this day: yea (which is πα N°, more) the English translators of Beza’s New Testament control him ¢ithe year and his translation, which they protest to follow, being afraid some- Luke iii. 36. times and ashamed to express in English his false translations in the Latin. Fulke. By false translations wilfully and of purpose to Furxe, falsify the truth of God’s word is as gross and as abominable 2+ treachery, as to corrupt the very text; although I think St Paul, speaking of the covertures, or cloaks of dishonesty, and adultering of the word of God, 2 Cor. iv. meaneth a further cunning than false translations. That those whom you call heretics find fault with one another’s translations, they do none otherwise than you popish heretics. Do not you, Gregory Martin, in the 7th chapter and 38rd section of this book, find fault with all the catholics, as you term them, that translate sheol, sepulchrum, ‘‘a sepulchre,” and not always ONY “hell”? If Bucer or Zuinglius do justly observe any error in Luther, or Luther in Munster, or Beza in Castalio, the ana- baptist, or Calvin in Servetus, the horrible heretic, yea, and if froward and schismatical Ilyricus can discover any error committed by Calvin and Beza, the truth loseth nothing, when the errors of men are found out, by what means soever. That you speak of the puritans controlling the grosser Calvinists of our country, I know not what you mean, neither do I think you can justify your words, for trans- lation of the scriptures. Where you say, the later trans- lations of the selfsame heretics control the former exceed- ingly, not only of oversights, but of wilful falsifications, it . Acts i. 14, 60 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. is a wilful and impudent slander; yet you blush not to say, it is notorious. How, I pray you? You answer, In the later editions of Luther and Beza, and in our English bibles set forth in divers years, from Tyndal, their first translator. That Luther, Beza, and the later translators of the English bibles, have corrected some small faults that have escaped in their former editions, it may be granted. But do Luther and Beza therefore accuse themselves, or the later English translators the former, of wilful falsifications? I think those Hexam lib. brute beasts, to whom Ambrose’ ascribeth the art of making syllogisms (if they could speak), would not conclude thus brutishly. Certain it is that Balaam’s ass did reason sub- stantially. But much more, you say, the English translators of Beza’s New Testament do control him and his transla- tion, being sometimes afraid and ashamed to express his false translations. If it be so, they are more modest than you, which seem to be afraid or ashamed of nothing so much, as lest you might seem to fail in unshamefacedness. But to the purpose. If they think Beza (as all men may err) hath somewhat trodden awry, is it a fault to avoid his step, or a proud controlling or accusing him of falsification ? De Doct. Nevertheless, whereinsoever Luther, Beza, or the English 2-cap- ll translators, have reformed any of their former oversights, the matter is not so great, that it can make an heresy. Yea, if you were of St Augustine’s judgment, you would acknowledge that the multitude and diversity of translations is for the benefit of them that be ignorant in the tongues, yea, and of them also that be learned in them oftentimes, _. that of divers men’s translations they may judge which is the aptest. pea as _ Martin. But in this catalogue of dissensions, falsifiers, and dis- ‘ agreeing translators, I will not greatly rip up old faults, neither abroad i, 2 93, iii. 21. nor at home. I leave Luther’s false translations into the German n, French, and’ tongue to the credit of Staphylus, Apolog., Part. u., and Emserus, English cor- ruptions of Pr@f. Annot. in no. Test. Luth., and other German writers of his own [2 Ursa insidians licet, ut scriptura ait, (est enim plena fraudis fera,) tamen fertur informes utero partus edere, sed natos lingua fingere, at- que in speciem sui similitudinemque formare. Non miraris in fera tam pii oris officia, cujus naturam pietas exprimit? Ursa igitur partus suos ad sui éffingit similitudinem: tu filios tuos instituere similes tui non potes ?—Hexaemeron. Lib. vi. cap. 4. p. 18, Ambrosii Opera, Vol. 1. p- 119. ] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 61 time, that saw them and read them, and reckoned the number of them; the Ne New in the New Testament only about 1400 heretical corruptions. I leave See se Lind. Calvin’s and Beza’s French corruptions to so many worthy men as eo P. &, haye noted them in their French books against the said heretics: Vigor and Tindal’s and his companions’ corruptions in their first English bible, to our learned countrymen of that age, and namely to the right reverend father and confessor bishop Tonstal, who in a sermon openly protested that he had found in the New Testament only no less than two thousand. If we know it not, or will not believe it, strangers in ma Dabs, their Latin writings testify it to the world. Fulke. We are much beholding to you, that you will not Furxe, rip up old faults abroad, nor at home; and leave Luther’s ὅτ᾽ Dutch translation with a 1400 heretical corruptions in the New Testament only, with Calvin’s and Beza’s French cor- ruptions noted by Vigor, and the rest: also Tyndal’s and his companions’ corruptions in their first English bible, in whose translation of the New Testament bishop Tonstal pro- fessed openly in a sermon, that he found no less than two thou- sand corruptions. This you know he protested with the same tongue with which he forsware the pope, and sware to the king’s supremacy, and with which he preached a solemn sermon, which is in print, before the king, against the pope’s usurped tyranny, pride, false doctrine, covetousness, cruelty, treason, perverting of scriptures, as in the same sermon more at large it appeareth; and therefore we need not Lindanus’s writing to testify of his credit. But thanks be to God, that when you have scraped all that unto you seemed to have any shew of corruption, you cannot find two hundred faults in the translation of the whole bible, nor in three several translations of the same; which points you are fain to dilate with such vain tautologies and. repetitions, that all learned men are ashamed of your tedious writing: and yet, to make your book to be of some tolerable length, you had no better shift than to note a sort of Beza’s corruptions in his Latin Testament; who, if you would write against him in Latin any thing worth the noting, would thank you for your pains, and reform his errors; but if you brought nothing but eavils, would so shake you up, as you should have small joy of your insolent invective: but you provided well for that, by writing against a Frenchman in English. And as for the number of errors or corruptions that you would have the ignorant believe to. be in our English translations, you think De Opt. Gen. interp. lib. 3? In his epis- tle to the r rinted at cue spud translation, confesseth that it was full of errors almost innu- Juntas, 1 62 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. is so great, as must needs make the simple abhor it. But look homeward a little into your authentical vulgar Latin translation, how many faults be in that, which your Tridentine council hath authorised. And here I will not charge it with the adversaries thereof, as you do ours, but with great friends of it and your doctrine ; Lindanus, bishop of Ruremond, and Isidorus Clarius', monk of Casine, and bishop Fulginatensis : of which the former writeth a whole book, discussing how he would have the errors, vices, corruptions, additions, detractions, mutations, uncertainties, obscurities, pollutions, barbarisms, and solecisms of the vulgar Latin translation corrected and reformed ; bringing many examples of every kind, in several chapters and sections: the other, Isidorus Clarius, giving a reason of his purpose, in castigation of the said vulgar Latin merable; which if he should have reformed all according to the Hebrew verity, he could not have set forth the vulgar edition, as his purpose was. Therefore in many places he retaineth the accustomed translation, but in his annotations admonisheth the reader, how it is in the Hebrew. And, notwithstanding this moderation, he acknowledgeth that about eight thousand places are by him so noted and corrected*, This epistle the deputies [* Isidore Clarius, or de Clario, bishop of Foligno, born in 1495, in his youth a Benedictine of the monastery of Mount-Cassin. He dis- tinguished himself greatly by his eloquence and talent on several occasions, principally at the council of Trent, in the disputes upon the authority of the text and versions of scripture. After having discussed the different translations, he decides that none of them are equivalent to the text of the original, though the version of Jerome, having been used for a thousand years in the church, was entitled to preference over the rest. In consequence of his stating in his Preface to an edition of the Vulgate (1542) that he had corrected eight thousand passages in it, his work was put among the prohibited, but subsequently allowed to be sold, with the suppression of the preface and prolegomena. The work to which Fulke here makes allusion is, Vulgata editio Veteris et Novi Testamenti, quorum alterum ad Hebraicam, alterum ad Grecam veritatem emendatum est quam diligentissime, ut nova editio non Facile desideretur, et vetus tamen hic agnoscatur. Venetiis. 1542, 1557, and 1564, fol.] Γ᾿ Nam in his horum omnium studiis atque laboribus editio illa, qua totus Christianus orbis utitur, ac semper, ut facile conjecto, usurus est, nondum squalorem suum deposuerat, nec ei quisquam errores, quibus innumeris pene scatebat, adimere adhuc curaverat. * * * * Verum etsi ea, a THE. ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 63 of the council of Trent could not abide; and therefore in the later edition of this bible, set forth with observation of their censure, 1569, it is clean left out; as also a goodly collection of the same Isidorus, of places of scripture, exhorting to the study of holy scripture, and a like sound confession of those things which the scriptures teach, &c. Martin. But I omit these, as unknown to our country or to this age, and will deal principally with the English translations of our time, 26 which are in every man’s hands within our country; the corruptions whereof, as they are partly touched here and there in the Annotations upon the late new English Testament catholicly translated and printed at Rheims, so by occasion thereof I will by God’s help, to the better commodity of the reader and evidence of the thing, lay them closer together, and more largely display them, not counting the number, because it were hard}; but esteeming the weight and importance of so many as I thought good to note, specially in the New Testament. Where I have to advertise the reader of certain special things, which he must observe. Fulke. You should rather omit them as untrue ; for albeit it cannot be denied but some faults may escape the most faithful and diligent translator, yet so many heretical corrup- tions, either in the Dutch or English, are incredible, and turn rather to the discredit of the accuser, in all wise men’s judg- ment, than to the parties so charged; in like manner as Surius*® noteth no less than eleven thousand lies in Sleidan, quam diximus, usi fuerimus moderatione, loca tamen ad octo millia annotata atque emendata a nobis sunt.—Isid. Clarii Prefat. In Vulg. Edit. 1542. ] [3 The following passage will enable the reader to estimate the value of the opinion of Surius: Pestis hoc anno multis locis plurimos extinxit, presertim Argen- tine et in locis Rhenanis, et inter alios etiam Johannem Sleidanum, qui suis commentariis magnam orbi Christiano pestem invexit. Decre- verant contra illum scribere viri duo longe clarissimi, Colonie Agrip- pine preclara lumina, Johannes Grofferus designatus Cardinalis, et Eberhardus Billicus Carmelitanus Provincialis, si et Sleidano et ipsis vita prolixior contigisset. Nemo me putet hominis illius odio sepius illum perstringere. Mihi ille nec de facie unquam notus fuit. Men- dacia et errores tetros illius detestor. Multi, immo plurimi, norunt Julium Pflugium Numbergensem Episcopum, quo ob multam «xtatem nemo fere melius noverat res imperii. Is Sleidani Commentarios volebat sibi a quodam mihi notissimo, qui tum in ejus aula versaba- tur, legi. Porro vero inter legendum cum advertere res ipsi notas mala fide a Sleidano narrari, sepius exclamabat, Ibi nebulo ille scelerate Martin, The au- thor’s intent in this book. FuLKE, 26. 64 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. (more to his own reproach, than to the defacing of Sleidan’s credit,) you profess wisely, therefore, not to count the num- ber, but to esteem the weight and importance of such faults as you thought good to note, if there were as great faithfulness im your performance, as there is wisdom in your profession. But now to your nine advertisements to the reader. Martin. First, that in this book he may not look for the proof or explication and deciding of controversies, which is done in the Annotations upon the New Testament, but only the refuting or con- trolling of their false translations concerning the said controversies, which is the peculiar argument of this treatise. Fulke. 1 think there is no wise reader would look for the deciding of so many controversies in so small a book ; and. he that shall seek them in your Annotations, shall find even as little to the purpose, except he will take your determina- tion without proof for a sufficient decision. As for the doc- tors you quote without judgment, fraudulently, falsely, trun- ately, and otherwise abusively, [they] have all, or the most, Martin, 28. FuLKe, 28. been answered long ago; and if need shall be, with little labour may be answered again. Martin. Secondly, that we refute sometime one of their transla- tions, sometime another, and every one as their falsehood giveth occa- sion. Neither is it a good defence for the falsehood of one, that it is truly translated in another; the reader being deceived by any one, because commonly he readeth but one. Yea, one of them is a con- demnation .of the other. Fulke. That sheweth your malice rather than either wisdom or honesty; for if we ourselves in our later trans- lations have corrected some small and few errors, that have overslipped us in our former translations, we have shewed our sincerity and care of setting out the truth by all means, And where you say it is no good defence, the reader being mentitur. Quin et Carolus V. integerrimus et potentissimus imperator, cum ipsi quoque legerentur Commentarii Sleidani, itidem subinde ex- clamabat, Nebulo ille mentitur, nebulo ille mentitur. Et sane datum erat ab eodem imperatore negotium cuidam, ut comitiorum acta, ob Sleidani mendacia confutanda, sincere excuderentur; sed nescio quo. casu res illa impedita fuit, et omnia in Hispanas transferri jussa fe- runtur.. -Certe heretico homini nunquam tuto credi potest.—Surii Commentarius brevis rerum in orbe gestarum, pp. 370, 371. Colonie. 1674. ech 11 ὁ δ᾽ ᾿ THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 65 deceived by any one, because commonly he readeth but one; I answer you first, there is not in the worst translation any fault escaped, that may of itself lead him into a damnable error. Secondly, he hath the word of God expounded by catechising, sermons, and lectures, in which he may learn the substance of christian religion. Thirdly, he hath at hand every where learned divines, unto whose counsel he may resort, if he be offended with anything that he readeth in his bible, sounding contrary to the publicly received doc- trine of the church. In that you say the one of our trans- lations condemneth the other, it had been sufficient to have said, reproveth: which is only where there is a manifest error in the one; for otherwise, the diversities of translations, (as St Augustine teacheth you,) may much profit the simple readers; and they that be diligent students of the scriptures in the English tongue will not satisfy themselves with alee translation, but will seek for the best approved. Martin. Thirdly, that we speak indifferently against Protestants, Marri, Calvinists, Bezites, and Puritans, without any curious distinction of 29- them, being all among themselves brethren and pew-fellows, and sometime the one sort of them, sometime the other, more or less corrupting the holy scriptures. Fulke. A wise advertisement. But this is to be noted, Furxe, that now you acknowledge them to be all brethren among = themselves, and pew-fellows; but when you list, they shall be at deadly feud one against another, and no community or fellowship between them. Martin. Fourthly, that we give but a taste of their corruptions, Marty, not seeing so far, nor marking all so narrowly and skilfully, as them- selves know their own subtleties and meanings, who will smile at the places which we have not espied. Fulke. We that considereth your quarrels picked to words Furxe, of one signification, as “church” and “ congregation,” “justice” and “righteousness,” “elder” and “priest,” “image” and “idol,” “works” and “deeds,” and such like, will not think that you have passed over any great matters worth the writing of; but that you would set a vain brag of the case, as though there were much worse matter than you have wit to conceive. Yet you say confidently that we, as guilty of our own subileties and meanings, will smile at the places which you have not [FuLKE. | : Martin, 31. FuLKe, 31. Martin, 32. 66 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. espied. You are like to those soothsayers mentioned in Tully, of whom one said that he marvelled if, when they met together, one of them did not smile upon another, because they deluded the city, and got themselves much honour with such vain superstitions. So you, being newly become subtle and partial translators, think other men to be like your- selves. But even as the head of your church’ once jested with his cardinal, how great wealth and honour that fable — of Christ (so the beast called the christian religion) had brought them; even so you, his lewd limbs, make sport among yourselves of the holy word of God, which you have corrupted somewhat with your blind translations, but much more with your heretical annotations. So said your great friend, Campion, in open audience, that he could make as good sport upon the incarnation of Christ. According to your own affection, therefore, you judge of us, and not according to the truth, as the ‘day will try, when the secrets of all hearts shall be made manifest. Martin. Fifthly, that the very use and affectation of certain terms, and avoiding other some, though it be no demonstration against them, but that they may seem to defend it for true translation, yet was it necessary to be noted, because it is and hath been always a token of heretical meaning. Fulke. When our translation is true, I doubt not but we shall defend the use of some terms, and the avoiding of other some, by as good reason as you shall defend the like in your translations; especially where you affect new terms unused, or not understood, and avoid common and usual terms of the same signification, as evangelizing for preaching the gospel; advent of Christ for the coming of Christ; scandalizing for offending; scandal for offence, &c. Which if it be, as you say, always a token of heretical meaning, first pluck yourself by the nose, and then see if we cannot defend our doings. Martin. Sixthly, that in explicating these things we have endea- voured to avoid, as much as was possible, the tediousness of Greek and Hebrew words, which are only for the learned in these tongues, and which made some little doubt whether this matter (which of necessity must be examined by them) were to be written in English or no. But being persuaded by those (who themselves have no skill in the said tongues) that every reader might reap commodity thereby, to the understanding and detesting of such false and heretical translations, it [ This is told of Leo X-] _ ὐδουαυ δι παν πὔτὰὺ THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 67 was thought good to make it vulgar and common to all our dear countrymen, as the New Testament itself is common, whereof this discovery is as it were a handmaid, attending thereupon for the larger explication and proof of corruptions there briefly touched, and for supply of other some not there mentioned. Fulke. He that seeth your margin painted with Greek Fuuxe, and Hebrew words in so many places, may guess whether it = were possible for you to have avoided the tediousness of them, when in divers places the Greek and Hebrew words are set without all need of them, and sometimes where there is no controversy about them, as in the fifth section of this preface, where you shew the corruptions of the Arians and Pelagians; and in the nineteenth section, where you would shew the difference of the New Testament from the Old in citing of testimonies. But the Hebrew word in the Psalm Xx. or xxii., which you falsely say signifieth no such thing as “piercing,” you set not down, lest your falsehood, by them that have skill, might be convinced. And if you had cared as much to find out the truth, as to shew your skill in both the tongues, you would have written in Latin, especially against Beza, which never wrote in English. And vain it is, that you pretend to make the matter common to your dear country- men, that be unlearned; for the judgment must rest in them that have knowledge in the tongues, albeit you had written in ' Latin. It is all one, therefore, to the unlearned, as if you had only said, there are many faults or corruptions, which in a Latin book shall be discovered to the judgment of the learned, seeing the ignorant cannot understand your demonstrations. Martin. Seventhly, that all the English corruptions here noted and Marrm, refuted are either in all or some of their English Bibles printed in τὰ these years, 1562, 1577°, 16795, And if the corruption be in one bible, not in another, commonly the said bible or bibles are noted in the margin: if not, yet sure it is that it is in one of them, and so the reader shall find it, if he find it not always in his own bible. And in this case the reader must be very wise and circumspect, that he think not by and by we charge them falsely, because they can shew him some later edition that hath it not so as we say. For it is their common and [? The great bible, or that of Coverdale’s translation, first printed in 1535, and reprinted by Cranmer’s direction 1539. The edition of 1562, revised by Parker, will be quoted in the present volume for the Old, and that of 1539 for the New Testament, as the case may require. } [? The Genevan and Bishops’ bible were each printed in this year. ] 5—2 ΕὙΤΚΕ, 33. 68 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. known fashion, not only in their translations of the bible, but in their other books and writings, to alter and change, add and put out, in their later editions, according as either themselves are ashamed of the former, or their scholars, that print them again, dissent and disagree from their masters. So hath Luther, Calvin, and Beza’s writings and trans- lations been changed both by themselves and their scholars in many places; so that catholic men when they confute that which they find evident faults in this or that edition, fear nothing more than that the reader hath some other edition, where they are corrected for very shame, and so may conceive that there is no such thing, but that they are accused wrongfully, For example: call to mind the late pretended conference in the tower, where that matter was denied and faced out for Luther’s credit, by some one book or edition of his, which them- selves and all the world knoweth, was most truly laid to his charge. Fulke. First, this is untrue; for some you have noted in the New Testament printed 1580. Secondly, it is uncertain ; for two of these translations might be printed in one year, and so I think they were. Therefore I know not well which you mean; but I guess that the bible 1562 is that which was of Doctor Coverdale’s translation, most used in the church service in king Edward’s time. The bible 1577, I take to be that which, being revised by divers bishops, was first printed in the large volume, and authorised for the churches, about ten or twelve yearsago’. That of 1579", I know not what translation it be, except it be the same that was first printed at Geneva in the beginning of the queen’s majesty’s reign. And this conjecture, as the fittest I can make, I must follow, seeing your note of distinction is as good as that fellow’s, that would know his master’s horse by the bridle. But it is a common and known fashion, you say, used of us, that not only in translations, but in other books and writ- ings of ours, we alter and change, add and put to, in our later editions. And who useth not so to do, if by later cogitations, that often are wiser, he find anything meet to be changed? Do not you papists use the same? Is Bristow’s chapter of obedience, in his Motives, nothing altered from the high treason contained in the first edition? Is nothing added, taken away, or changed in your Jesus’ Psalter, in any of your editions? Or are you yourselves ashamed of the former? Or have your Γ᾿ Commonly called the Bishops’ bible. ] Γ᾿ It is the Genevan bible printed at Edinburgh in this year, that Martin quotes. | — —— le os — —_— “ρα... apps φησ PE EN PE SIE RP we THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 69 scholars presumed to alter their masters’ writings? If you have an evasion in these cases, I trust we are not so pent in, but we may change our own writings without shame of the former, or corruption in the latter. As for the example of St James’ epistle, denied (as you say) and faced out for Luther’s credit, [it] will serve you for no proof. For so far off is it, that we or the world do know, that it was most truly laid to his charge, that now we know of a certainty, that it was a very slander, as false as it was common; seeing Luther’s words of that epistle are not absolute, but in comparison, as is confessed by you, and found by some of us to be none otherwise in deed, who have not stood upon one only book or edition, but upon as many as they could come by, both in the Latin and in the Dutch tongue. Martin. Eighthly, in citing Beza, I mean always (unless I note Marr, otherwise) his Latin translation of the New Testament, with his 553. annotations adjoined thereunto, printed in the year 1556. Fulke. You were afraid, lest they that understood not Nema Latin, for whose sake you wrote in English this treatise, might ** take hurt by Beza’s translations and annotations in Latin. And if he himself have espied and corrected any thing of his first edition, that was either faulty or offensive, in his two later editions; with great equity, as though you were the only man that had discovered his errors, you must let I his later edition 1565. all the unlearned in England know, what shameful corruptions leg ead you have observed in Beza’s translation or annotations, baad in the vulgar Latin. Martin. Lastly and principally is to be noted, that we will not Marmy, charge them with falsifying that which indeed is the true and authen- 39: tical scripture, I mean the vulgar Latin bible, which so many years We charge em no hath been of so great authority in the church of God, and with all with forsax- the ancient fathers of the Latin church, as is declared in the preface ies eres. of the New Testament: though it is much to be noted, that as Luther, Jatin text, | only in favour of his heresies, did wilfully forsake it, so the rest 80 il'sim, | followed, and do follow him at this day, for no other cause in the world, ἐπ δ ee but that it is against them. And therefore they inveigh against it, and against the holy Council of Trent, for confirming the authority thereof, Kemnitius. both in their special treatises thereof, and in all their writings where» they can take any occasion. Fulke. Τὰ the margin, “ You will not charge us with for- Fouxy, saking the old approved Latin text, though it be an ill sign 9° 70 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. and to our evident confusion.” St Augustine’, although a mere Latin man, whom you yourself do after confess to have un- derstood but one tongue well, and that was even his mother tongue, learned (as he confesseth) of his nurses, is not so addicted to the Latin translation, but that he would have men to seek to the Hebrew and Greek fountains, which you, like a blaphemous hypocrite, deny to be the true and authen- tical scriptures indeed ; allowing only the vulgar Latin trans- lation, as though neither the churches of Greece, Syria, Ar- menia, Aithiopia, nor any other in the world, which have not the vulgar Latin, had not the true and authentical scriptures. And though your vulgar Latin hath for many years been of great authority in the Latin church, from the time when the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek tongues have decayed ; yet is it utterly false, that you say, that it hath been of great authority with all the fathers of the Latin church; whereas there is not one that lived within 400 years after Christ that knew it, but almost every one followed a several translation. And St Augustine in the place before cited telleth you, that there were innumerable translations out of the Greek into the Latin. Again, that your vulgar Latin is full of many errors and corruptions, I have shewed by the confession of Isidorus Clarius and Lindanus, two of your own profession ; of which the one took pains by the Hebrew and Greek to correct it, the other shewed means how it should be corrected. And where you say that Luther and his followers forsook it for none other cause in the world, but that it is against them, it is utterly untrue. For beside that they have made clear demonstration of many palpable errors therein, (which they that have any forehead amongst you cannot deny,) they have and do daily convince you of horrible heresies, even out of your own corrupt vulgar translation. Finally, whosoever shall read what Calvin and Kemnitius have written against the Γ' Ex hac Septuaginta interpretatione etiam in Latinam linguam interpretatum est, quod ecclesie Latine tenent. Quamvis non defuerit temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus et om- nium trium linguarum peritus, qui non ex Greco, sed ex Hebreo in Latinum eloquium easdem scripturas converterit.—Augustinus, De Civitate Dei. Lib. xvm. c. 48. Opera, Vol. vu. p. 525. See also the passage from Augustine De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. τι. c. 11. Opera, Vol. 1. pars 1. pp. 24, 25, quoted at p. 47, beginning, Contra ignota, &c. ] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 71 council of Trent for authorising that translation, shall plainly see that they had something else to allege against it, which nothing at all concerneth their opinions, that be contrary to the popish heresy. Martin. And concerning their wilful and heretical avoiding thereof Marr, in their new translations, what greater argument can there be than this, 36- that Luther, who before always had read with the catholic church and with all antiquity these words of St Paul, “ Have not we power to 1 Cor. ix. lead about a woman A SISTER, as also the rest of the apostles?” and ee ee in St Peter these words, “ Labour that By coop worKs you may make ***" sure your vocation and election;” suddenly, after he had contrary to his profession taken ‘a wife” (as he called her), and preached that all other votaries might do the same, and that faith only justified, “good works” were not necessary to salvation; suddenly, I say, after he fell to these heresies, he began to read and translate the former scriptures accordingly, thus: “ Have not we power to lead about a sisTER a WIFE, as the rest of the apostles?” and, “ Labour that you may make sure your vocation and election :” leaving out the other words, “by good works.” And so do both the Calvinists abroad, and our English Pro- testants at home read and translate at this day, because they hold the self-same heresies. Fulke. Τί there be no greater argument, as you confess Furxe, there can be none, that their avoiding of this vulgar Latin he is wilful and heretical, than this, that Luther defended his marriage, being a votary, by that text of 1 Cor. ix. wherein the apostle challengeth power to lead about with him a sister to wife, which your text hath mulierem sororem, “a woman a sister ;” and that to prove that faith only justifieth, and good works are not necessary to salvation, he left out of the text of St Peter “good works,” by which the apostle exhorteth us to make sure unto ourselves our vocation and election; there is none argument at all of wilful, needless, or heretical avoid- ing. For although the marriage of ecclesiastical ministers generally is proved by that scripture, yet the marriage of votaries specially is nothing confirmed. And for the marriage of bishops, priests and deacons, your own translation* of 1 Tim. iii. and Tit. i., both Latin and English, will warrant them to [? It behoveth therefore a bishop to be irreprehensible, the husband of one wife. 1'Tim.i.2. And shouldest ordain priests by cities, as I also appointed thee ; if any be without crime, the husband of one wife. Titus i. 5,6. Rhemish Test. 1557. | . 72 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. be the husbands of one wife; so that every child may see _ that he needed not for that purpose to corrupt the text, 1. Cor. ix. And as for the other texts, 2 Pet. i., although this word, “by good works,” is not expressed in the most Greek copies’, yet the whole circumstance of the place giveth it necessarily to be understood; and yet it maketh nothing against justifi- cation by faith only. For our election, which is most certain and immutable in God’s determination, is made certainly known unto us by good works, the fruits of justifying faith, even as the effects do necessarily prove the cause gone before. And so doth Thomas Matthew’s bible note, likewise the Bishops’ bible, and the Geneva bible; for so I had rather call them, than by the years in which they were once printed, which have been often printed, and perhaps all in some one year. Cover- dale’s bible also addeth these words, “by good works,” which is read in some Greek copies. So true it is that you say, we leave it out, because we hold the self-same heresy : as like- wise that you slander us to hold, that good works are not necessary to salvation; whereas we believe that good works are as necessary to salvation as faith, in all them that are justified by faith only. But because you are not able to with- stand the truth which we believe, you feign odious monsters, ‘ 88 dragons, centaurs, hydras, to fight withal before the people, that you might get the praise of glorious conquerors, like St George on horseback, that in a pageant vanquisheth an hide- ous dragon made of paper or painted clothes. Marty, Martin. So do they in infinite places alter the old text, which m7 pleased them well before they were heretics ; and they do it with brasen faces and plain protestation, having no shame nor remorse at all in fleeing from that which all antiquity with one consent allowed and embraced until their unhappy days. Which though it be an evident condemnation of their novelties in the sight of any reasonable man, that hath any grace; yet as I began to admonish thee, gentle reader, we will not charge them for altering the ancient approved Latin trans- lation, because they pretend to follow the Hebrew and Greek; and our purpose is not here to prove that they should not follow the Hebrew and Greek that now is, before the ancient approved Latin text, which is done briefly already in the preface to the New Testament. FuLKE, Fulke. You were afraid belike to be overmatched in rail- ᾿ ing, and therefore you thought to bear us down at once Γ᾽ It is not admitted into the text by either Griesbach or Scholz. ] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 73 with a whole flood of reproachful slanders; and that you utter even with the same face with which you affirm, that all an- tiquity with one consent allowed and embraced your vulgar Latin text: for what else you should mean I cannot con- jecture, seeing you say afterward you will not charge us for altering the ancient approved Latin translation. What say you, Martin? Doth all antiquity with one consent allow and embrace your vulgar Latin translation? What is the cause then that the most of all antiquity of the Latin church used not your vulgar Latin text? Or dare you join issue with me, that all the Latin doctors for 400 years after Christ used none other Latin translation but that? or that they all knew your vulgar Latin translation? You are never able to prove it. The Seventy translation indeed was greatly esteemed, and almost generally received in the Greek and Latin churches’, and out of it were innumerable Latin versions, as St Augus- tine affirmeth. But your vulgar Latin followeth it not in many places, as it were easy to shew if time and occasion served, and I suppose you will not deny. As for the rea- sons you bring in the preface to the New Testament, to prove that we should not follow the Hebrew and Greek that now is, before that ancient approved text; when they come to be considered, it shall appear how vain and frivolous they are. But as for the Hebrew and Greek that now is, [it] may easily be proved to be the same that always hath been; neither is there any diversity in sentence, howsoever some copies, either through negligence of the writer, or by any other occasion, do vary from that which is commonly and most generally received in some letters, syllables, or words. Martin. Neither will we burden them for not following the vulgar Mart, Latin text, when the same agreeth with most ancient Greek copies : 22 which notwithstanding is great partiality in them, and must needs be W/o,0n°78° of an heretical wilful humour, that among the Greek copies themselves ΚΒ forsakin they reject that which most agreeth with the vulgar Latin text, in peat hat places of controversies, Yet will we not, I say, neither in this case with t t lay falsehood and corruption to their charge, because they pretend to approved. translate the common Greek text of the New Testament, that is, one though x certain copy. But here at the least let them shew their fidelity, and their i ies: that they be true and exact translators, For here only shall they be fiatity examined and called to account. [? August. De Civit. Dei. Lib. xvi. c. 48. Opera, Vol. vu. p. 843. ] γ4 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. ar _Fulke. Jn translation we follow the common, usual, and printed copies, as you do in your translation; and yet you know there be as many, yea, ten times as many diverse read- ings in the Latin as are in the Greek: witness hereof the bible printed at Antwerp by Christopher Plantine, 1567, of Hentenius’ castigation; where the margins almost of every leaf be full of diverse readings, obelisks, asterisks, stigmates, signifying the variety that is in many copies, by adding, de- tracting, changing. Bibl De oot. The same is confessed by Arias Montanus. pret se. lib. Lindanus likewise acknowledgeth as much. Of that which you say, we reject that which best agreeth with the vulgar Latin in places of controversy, you bring none example. But that among your diverse readings you reject that which agreeth best with the Hebrew and with the Greek in places of controversy, I will give you an ex- ample. Gen. iii. 15., where the Hebrew truth teacheth, that the seed of the woman shall break the serpent’s head, and the Greek translateth the pronoun in the masculine gender, (he) meaning Christ, and some ancient copies of your vulgar Latin have ise; you nevertheless follow that blasphemous corruption, that in these latter times hath been received in your vulgar Latin bibles, and read still in your text ipsa, she; which though you would wrest blasphemously to the virgin Mary, which is proper to Christ, cannot by the circumstance of the place be aptly referred to any but to Eve. Martin, Martin. And if they follow sincerely their Greek and Hebrew text, 39. which they profess to follow, and which they esteem the only authen- We charge _ tical text, so far we accuse them not of heretical corruption. But if sakingand jt shall be evidently proved, that they shrink from the same also, and lating their translate another thing, and that wilfully and of full intention to and Greek countenance their false religion and wicked opinions, making the scriptures to speak as they list; then we trust the indifferent reader, for his own soul’s sake, will easily see and conclude, that they have no fear of God, no reverence of the scriptures, no conscience to deceive their readers: he will perceive that the scriptures make against them, which they so pervert and corrupt for their purpose; that neither the Hebrew nor Greek text is for them, which they dare not trans- late truly and sincerely; that their cause is naught, which needeth such foul shifts; that they must needs know all this, and therefore do wilfully against their conscience, and consequently are obstinate heretics. THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. γ 5: Fulke. We crave no pardon, if it can be proved that Furr, we have wilfully translated another thing than is contained ἊΨ in the Hebrew and Greek, to maintain any false religion or wicked opinion. Provided always, that if any translator, or all the translators, have ignorantly erred in misunderstanding any word or phrase of the Hebrew or Greek text, that if it may be plainly shewed unto them, they acknowledging the fault, they may not be charged with heretical corruption, from which it is certain their intention was most free. Martin. And the more to understand their misery and wretched- Marmn, ness, before we enter to examine their translations, mark and gather 4? of all that which I have said in this preface, their manifold flights and jumps from one shift to another, and how catholic writers have pursued and chased them, and followed them, and driven them even to this extreme refuge and seely covert of false translation, where also they must of necessity yield, or devise some new evasion, which we can- not yet imagine. Fulke. Hitherto I hope the indifferent reader will con- Furxe, fess, that you have driven us to no jumps nor shifts, but 30: only uttered your own malicious and unlearned quarrels. And how popish writers have pursued and chased us to extreme refuge, and seely covert of false translation, let it appear by the learned answers’ of Mr Jewell, Mr Horne, Mr Nowell, Mr Bridges, Mr Calfhill, and others; that I speak nothing of [᾿ For instance, Jewel’s Defence of the Apology of the Church of England, containing an answer to a certain book lately set forth by Mr Harding. Lond. 1564. Jewel’s Answer to Mr Harding’s book, entitled a detection of certain errors. Lond. 1565. Jewel’s Reply to Mr Harding’s Answer. Lond. 1566.—This was translated into Latin by Whitaker. Letters between Jewel and Dr Henry Cole. Rastel’s Return of Untruths, answered by Jewel.—This work has hitherto escaped the notice of Jewel’s biographers. Feckenham’s Declaration of scruples and stays of conscience touching the oath of supremacy, answered by Horne, bishop of Winchester. Nowell’s Reproof of a book entitled a proof of certain articles in religion, denied by Master Jewel, set forth by Thos. Dorman. Nowell’s Reproof of Mr Dorman’s Proof continued. Nowell’s Confutation of Dorman’s last book, entitled a Defence &e. Bridges’ Reply to the Horn-blast of Thos. Stapleton. Calfhill’s Answer to John Martiall’s Treatise of the Cross, | Martin, 41. The divers 76 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. mine own simple labours, who being one of the meanest, haying confuted ten or twelve of your popish treatises, can receive no reply of any man, but only of poor Bristow, to whom in this respect I confess myself more beholding than to all the papists beside, saving that I have rejoined to him almost two years ago, and yet I hear not of his answer. Martin. First, we are wont to make this offer (as we think) most reasonable and indifferent: that forasmuch as the scriptures are diversely expounded of us and of them, they neither be tied to our interpretation, nor we to theirs; but to put it to the arbitrement and judgment of the ancient fathers, of general councils, of universal custom of times and places in the catholic church. No, say they, we will be our own judges and interpreters, or follow Luther, if we be Lutherans; Calvin, if we be Calvinists; and so forth. Fulke. For expounding of the scriptures, we will not refuse the arbitrement and judgment of the ancient fathers, of general councils, of universal custom of times and places in the catholic church; for this you say is your offer, which was never refused of us, though you most falsely affirm, that we say we will be our own judges and interpreters, or follow Luther, if we be Lutherans; Calvin, if we be Cal- vinists, &c, Who ever said so, you shameless slanderer ? What have you differing from us, wherein you haye the judgment of the ancient fathers, of general councils, of universal custom of times and places in the catholic church? Unless perhaps you mean some wretched sophistry, by dis- joining these that you here seem to join together. And if you so do, we must first ask you, whether you yourselves in all expositions of the scriptures will stand to the ar- bitrement of every ancient father, or of every general council, or of any custom in any time or place? I know, and you cannot deny it, that you will stand to nothing, that is not allowed by your pope, though fathers, councils, custom, time or place, or all the world be against it, yea, the manifest scripture, which is so plain that it needeth no exposition: as the commandment against images in religion, Theodoret, Gelasius, Vigilius, Chrysostom against transubstantiation, Epiphanius against images, the sixth council of Constan- tinople for condemning the pope of heresy, the councils of Constance and Basil for deposing the popes, and decreeing that the council is above the pope, and many other like THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 77 matters beside, in which you go clearly from the consent of all antiquity for 600 years, as the bishop of Sarum hath made plain demonstration, and you are not able to reply. Martin. This being of itself a shameless shift, unless it be better Marrin, coloured, the next is to say, that the scriptures are easy and plain, and 42, sufficient of themselves to determine every matter, and therefore they will be tried by the scriptures only. We are content, because they will needs have it so, and we allege unto them the books of Tobit, Eccle- siasticus, Machabees. No, say they; we admit none of these for scrip- ture. Why so? Are they not approved canonical by the same authority of the church, of ancient councils and fathers, that the other books are ἢ No matter, say they, Luther admitteth them not; Calvin doth not allow them. Fulke. That the scriptures are plain and easy to be F Spit understood, of them that use the ordinary means to come to it, for all doctrine necessary to be known, and sufficient to determine every matter, the Holy Ghost himself doth testify, . 2 Tim. iii. and some of the ancient fathers also do bear wit- ness, as Augustine, de Doct. Christ. lib, 2, Chrysostom, in Gen. hom. 13, de verb. Hsai. Vidi dominum, &c. hom. 2. If therefore you had the spirit of the ancient fathers, you would be content to be tried by the scriptures, for re- verence you owed to God’s most holy and perfect writings ; and not because we will have it so, who are content in many controversies to be tried by the judgment of the ancient fathers, or general councils, or universal custom of times and places; and in all controversies, wherein all the ancient fathers, all councils, and universal custom of all times and places do consent, if any think such things can be brought against us, as it is falsely and sophistically bragged. But whereas we refuse the books of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees, for canonical scripture, it 1s not (as you say ridiculously) because Luther and Calvin admitted them not, but because they are contrary to the canonical scriptures, and were never received of the church of Israel for canonical, nor of the catholic church of Christ for more than 400 years after Christ, as I have shewed before. Martin. Well, let us go forward in their own dance. You allow at Marri, the least the Jews’ canonical books of the Old Testament, that is, all "= that are extant in the Hebrew bible, and all of the New Testament without exception, Yea, that we do. In these books then, will you be FuLxe, 48. Martin, 44, “ND 78 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. tried by the vulgar ancient Latin bible, only used in all the west church above a thousand years? No. Will you be tried by the Greek bible of the Septuagint interpreters, so renowned and authorised in our Saviour’s own speeches, in the evangelists’ and apostles’ writings, in the whole Greek church evermore? No. How then will you be tried? They answer, only by the Hebrew bible that now is, and as now it is pointed with vowels. Will you so? and do you think that only the true authentical Hebrew, which the Holy Ghost did first put into the pens of those sacred writers? We do think it (say they), and esteem it the only authentical and true scripture of the Old Testament. Fulke. Where so many of your own popish writers do accuse your vulgar Latin text of innumerable corruptions, what reason is there, that we should follow that translation only ; especially seeing God hath given us knowledge of the tongues, that we may resort to the fountains themselves, as St Au- gustine exhorteth? As for the Greek translation of the Sep- tuagint, from which your own vulgar Latin varieth, (although we reverence it for the antiquity, and use it for interpreta- tion of some obscure places in the Hebrew,) why should you require us to be tried thereby, which will not be tried by it yourselves? If I were as captious as you are with John Keltridge about the Greek bible of the Septuagint interpre- ters, 1 might make sport with you, as you do with him: but I acknowledge your synecdoche, that you mean the Old Tes- tament only, whereas the word bible is commonly taken for both. But to the purpose: we acknowledge the text of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Chaldee, (for in the Chaldee tongue were some parts of it written,) as it is now printed with vowels, to be the only fountain, out of which we must draw the pure truth of the scriptures for the Old Testament, adjoinmg herewith the testimony of the Mazzoreth, where any diversity of points, letters, or words, is noted to have been in sundry ancient copies, to discern that which is proper to the whole context, from that which by error of the writers or printers hath been brought into any copy, old or new. Martin. We ask them again, What say you then to that place of the psalm, where in the Hebrew it is thus, “As a lion my hands and my feet,” for that which in truth should be thus, “They digged or pierced my hands and my feet ;” being an evident prophecy of Christ’s nailing to the cross? There indeed (say they) we follow not the He- brew, but the Greek text. Sometimes then you follow the Greek, and not the Hebrew only. And what if the same Greek text make for the THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 79 catholics, as in these places for example, “I have inclined my heart to keep thy justifications for reward,’ and “ Redeem thy sins with alms ;” might we not obtain here the like favour at your hands for the Greek text, specially when the Hebrew doth not disagree? No, say they, nor in no other place where the Greek is never so plain, if the Hebrew word at the least may be any otherwise interpreted, and drawn to another signification. Fulke. We say to you first, that you have falsely pointed Futxe, the Hebrew word in the margin; for all the printed books ἢ that ever I have seen, as Bomberg, both in folio and quarto, Stephanus, Basil, Plantine, Arias Montanus, Com- plutensis, all place camets under caph, where you make patach. But perhaps your Hebrew is most out of Munster’s dictionary, where it is pointed as you make it. But for answer to your question, we say, that there is a double testimony of the Mazzorites to prove, that in the most ancient and _ best corrected copies the Hebrew was caru, “they have digged or pierced”: this is testified not only by our translators, but also by Johannes Isaac, your own rabbin, against Lindanus, a prelate of yours. And this the authors of the Complutensian edition do acknowledge; for thus they have pointed it, caru, *2 where is nothing but the redundance of aleph (which is un- derstood in every camets) differing from the usual reading and declining of the verb carah, that signifieth “to pierce or p> dig.” Again, where it is read otherwise, if it be rightly Τ' ἣν pointed, as it is in Arias Montanus, caari, it cannot sig- 3 nify sicut leo, “as a lion,” as both the Mazzorites do teach, and Johannes Isaac, a grammarian, out of them by the points and the note over tod doth plainly demonstrate. For what. should shwrech sound in iod? or if you would contend it should be daghes, to what purpose should it be in tod, if the word should signify “as a lion”? Therefore, how- soever this variety of copies came, either by negligence of some writers, or by corruption of the Jews, we have suf- ficient warrant for the ancient and true reading, which the Greek translator did follow, which also was in St Jerome’s copy; otherwise he would not have translated out of the Hebrew jiwerunt, “they have pierced.” Therefore Rabbi Jo- seph, which made the Chaldee paraphrase upon the Psalter, laboured to express both the copies, as well that which hath plainly “they have pierced,” as that which hath it corruptly, ΡῈ ὙΠῸ. TPR Tes yr) °F Martin, 45. FuLKE, Preefat. in pent. 80 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. as though it spake of a lion, and yet cannot rightly be so translated, because the points are imperfect even for that reading. Therefore he hath said, nikethin heich cheariah, “they have indented and pierced like a lion my hands and my feet,” as it is in the Venice print of Daniel Bomberg, al- though Arias Montanus, in his bible, have no more but nachethin, which he translateth, “biting my hands and my feet.” I have played the fool to utter these matters in the mother tongue to ignorant men, that can make no trial of them; but you have not only given me example, but also enforced me with your insoluble question (as you thought), by one word somewhat out of frame, to overthrow the whole Hebrew text. But you are to be pardoned, for that you follow your Mr Lindanus herein, who hath nothing else in effect to quarrel against the Hebrew text, but this; and therefore he repeateth it in many places, to make greater shew of it, as you do. In other places, where the Hebrew word hath divers significations, who shall forbid us to choose that which is most agreeable to the circumstance of the text, and to the analogy or rule of faith? Martin. We reply again and say unto them, Why? Is not the credit of those Septuagint interpreters, who themselyes were Jews, and best learned in their own tongue, and (as St Augustine often, and other ancient fathers say) were inspired with the Holy Ghost in trans- lating the Hebrew bible into Greek,—is not their credit, I say, in determining and defining the signification of the Hebrew word, far greater than yours? No. Is not the authority of all the ancient fathers, both Greek and Latin, that followed them, equivalent in this case to your judgment? No, say they; but because we find some ambiguity in the Hebrew, we will take the advantage, and we will determine and limit it to our purpose. Fulke. St Jerome abundantly answereth this cavil, de- nying that supposed inspiration, and deriding the fable of their 70 cells', (which yet pleased Augustine greatly,) yea, calling in question, whether any more were translated by them, than the five books of Moses; because Aris- teus, a writer in Ptolemy’s time, and after him Josephus, make mention of no more. The same cause therefore, that moved St Jerome to translate out of the Hebrew, moveth us: whose translation, if we had it sound and perfect, might | [See before, p. 52.] | THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 81 much further us for the same purpose: although for the signification of the Hebrew words we require no more credit, than that which all they that be learned in the Hebrew tongue, must be forced to yield unto us. And seeing your vulgar Latin departeth from the Septuagint interpretation, even in the books of Moses, which (if any be theirs) may most rightly be accounted theirs, because it is certain they translated them, although it be not certain whether they translated the rest: with what equity do you require us to credit them, which your own vulgar translation affirmeth to have translated amiss, as I have shewn before in the example of Cainan’s generation? Another example you have in the 4th of Genesis, Monne si bene egeris recipies, &e. “If thou shalt do well, shalt thou not receive? but if thou shalt do evil, straightway thy sins shalt be present im the doors.” The Greek text hath, Οὐκ ἂν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς; &e. “Not if thou hast rightly offered, but thou hast not rightly di- vided; hast thou sinned? be still.’ Where your translation cometh much nearer to the Hebrew, as might be shewed in very many examples. As for the ancient fathers’ credit of the Greek church, and the Latin that followed them, if our judgment alone be not equivalent unto them, yet let these ancient fathers, Origen and Jerome,—that thought them not sufficient to be followed, and therefore gathered or framed other interpretations,—let their judgment, I say, joining with ours, discharge us of this fond and envious accusation. Martin. Again, we condescend to their wilfulness, and say: What Marri, if the Hebrew be not ambiguous, but so plain and certain to signify one “Ὁ: thing, that it cannot be plainer? As, “ Thou shalt not leave my soul Psal. xv. in hell;” which proveth for us, that Christ in soul descended into hell. Nya ve Is not the one Hebrew word as proper for soul, as anima in Latin? the other, as proper and usual for hell, as infernus in Latin? Here then at the least will you yield? No, say they, not here neither; for Beza telleth us, that the word which commonly and usually signifieth “soul,” yet for a purpose, if a man will strain, it may signify not only “body,” but also “carcase,” and so he translateth it. But Beza (say we), being admonished by his friends, corrected it in his later edition. Yea, say they, he was content to change his translation, but not his opinion concerning the Hebrew word, as himself protesteth. Fulke. You have chosen a text for example, wherein Furxe, is least colour (except it be with the unlearned) of an hun- 4° 6 [ruLKE. | 89 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. dred. For whereas you ask, whether nephesh be not as proper for soul as anima in Latin, and sheol for hell as infernus in Latin; I utterly deny both the one and the other. For nephesh is properly the life, and sheol the graye or pit, though it may sometimes be taken for hell, which is a con- sequent of the death of the ungodly, as nephesh is taken for person, or one’s self, or (as it is sometimes) for a dead earcase. Yea, there be that hold, that it is never taken for the reasonable immortal soul of a man, as anima is, specially of ecclesiastical writers. That Beza translated the Greek of the New Testament after the signification of the Hebrew words, although it was true in sense, yet in mine opinion it was not proper in words; and therefore he him- self hath corrected it in his latter editions, as you confess : he hath not changed his opinion concerning the Hebrew : the reason is, because it is grounded upon manifest texts of scripture, which he citeth, Levit. xix. 27, and xxi. 1, and ‘11. Num. vy. 2, and ix. 10. In the first place your own vulgar Latin translation for lanephesh turneth mortuo: you shall not cut your flesh for one that is dead. In the second place your yulgar Latin hath, Ne non contaminetur sacerdos in mortibus ; and, Ad omnem mortwum non ingredietur omnino : Let not the priest be defiled with the deaths of his coun- trymen; and, The high priest shall not enter in to any dead misnb3 91 body at all: where the Hebrew is lenephesh, and ΓΙ ΞΟ Ὁ 9 τος i ny SD x5 ni. In the third place your vulgar Latin readeth ᾿ ἡ, Pollutusque est super mortuo, they shall cast out him that is te τ polluted by touching a dead carcase; where the. Hebrew is lanephesh. In the first place your vulgar Latin hath indeed anima, but in the same sense, that it had before mortuo: for the text is of him that is unclean by touching any dead body, which in Hebrew is nephesh. How say you now, is the Hebrew word as proper for soul as anima in Latin ?—except you will say, the Latin word anima doth properly signify a dead body. Hath not Beza good reason to retain his opinion concerning the Hebrew word, when he hath the authority of your own vulgar translation? You that note such jumps and shifts in us, whither will you leap to save your honesty? Will you say, the Hebrew text is corrupted since your trans- lation was drawn out of it? The Seventy interpreters then will ery out against you: for they with one mouth, THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 83 m all these places, for the Hebrew word nephesh render the usual signification ψυχὴ, adding in the xxi. of Lev. 11, τετελευτηκυῖα, Which either you must translate a dead body, er you shall call it absurdly a dead soul. Would any man think to have found in you either such gross ignorance, or shameful negligence, or intolerable malice against the truth, that, Beza sending you to the places, either you would not or you could not examine them; or if you did examine them, that you would notwithstanding thus maliciously, against your own knowledge and conscience, rail against him? You make us to say, if a man will strain the word, it may signify not only body, but also carcase. What say you? did Moses strain the word to that signification? You said before, that we were at the jumps and turnings of an hare before the hounds; such mighty hunters you are, and we such fearful hares before you. I am not skilful in the terms of hunting, but in plain English I will speak it, that if all the traitorous wolves and foxes that be in the kennel at Rhemes, would do their best to save your credit in this section, nay, in this whole preface, they shall never be able to maintain their own, with any indifferent reader. Martin. Well then, doth it like you to read thus, according to Martin, Beza’s translation, “'Thou shalt not leave my carcase in the grave ?” ig No; we are content to alter the word carcase, (which is not a seemly word for our Saviour’s body,) and yet we are loth to say soul; but if we might, we would say rather “life,” “person,” as appeareth in the margin of our bibles: but as for the Hebrew word that signifieth hell, though the Greek and Latin bible throughout, the Greek and Latin fathers in all their writings, as occasion serveth, do so read it and understand it, yet will we never so translate it; but for “hell” we will say “grave,” in all such places of scripture as might infer limbus patrum, if we should translate “hell.” These are their shifts, and turnings, and windings, in the Old Testament. Fulke. 1 have shewed you before, that in the New Furxe, Testament we like better to translate according to the “ proper and usual signification of the Greek word. But the Hebrew word in the Old Testament may be translated, accord- ing to the circumstance of the place, life, person, self, yea, or dead body, and in some place perhaps carcase. You follow us very near, to seek advantage of the English word carcase, which commonly is taken in contempt, and therefore 6—2 Cadaver, τὸ πτῶμα. Martin, 48. 84 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. we would not use it, speaking of the body of our Saviour Christ, when it was dead. But you hunt yourself out of breath, when you would bring the same contempt to the Latin word cadaver, which Beza used. For cadaver sig- nifieth generally a dead body of man or beast, and by your vulgar Latin translator is used for the dead bodies of sacri- fices, of saints and holy men, as indifferently as for carrion of beasts, or carcases of evil men: namely, in Job xxxix. 33, ““Wheresoever the dead body is, thither will the eagle resort ;” which similitude our Saviour Christ applieth to himself, Matt. xxiv. 28, “ Wheresoever the dead body is, thither will the eagles be gathered;” where he compareth himself to the dead body, and the faithful to the eagles. Now concerning the other Hebrew word, which you say signifieth hell, because the Greek and vulgar Latin in- terpreter do so translate it: when just occasion shall be given afterward, cap. vu., I will shew that it properly signi- fieth a grave, pit, or place for dead bodies; and that in this place of the xvi. psalm it must needs so signify, not only the latte: part of the verse, expressing in other words that which was said in the former, but also the apostle’s proving out of it the resurrection of Christ, do sufficiently declare. If you have no place therefore in the scriptures, to prove your limbus patrum, but where the Holy Ghost speaketh of the death and burial of the fathers, no marvel though you must strain the Hebrew word, which properly signifieth grave, and the Greek word, which properly signifieth a dark place, and especially the Latin, which signifieth generally a low place: none of all the three words signifying hell, as we commonly understand the word fell, properly and only, but by a figure, where mention is made of the death of the ungodly, whose reward is in hell. These be the poor shifts, turnings and windings, that you have to wreath in those fables of limbus patrum and purgatory, which the church of God from the beginning of the world unto the coming of Christ never heard of, nor many hundred years after Christ, until the Montanists, or such like heathenish heretics, brought in those fantasies. Martin. In the New Testament, we ask them, will you be tried by the ancient Latin translation, which is the text of the fathers and the whole church? No; but we appeal to the Greek. What Greek? THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 85 say we; for there be sundry copies, and the best of them (as Beza confesseth) agree with the said ancient Latin. For example, in St Peter’s words, “ Labour that by good works you may make sure your vocation 2 Pet. i. and election,” doth this Greek copy please you? No, say they; we appeal to that Greek copy which hath not these words, “by good works ;” for otherwise we should grant the merit and efficacy of good works toward salvation. And generally, to tell you at once, by what Greek we will be tried, we like best the vulgar Greek text of the New Testament, which is most common and in every man’s hands. Fulke. We need not appeal to the Greek, for any Furxe, thing you bring out of the vulgar Latin against us. As “δ᾽ for that text, 2 Pet. 1, “Labour that by good works,” &c., I have answered before in the 36th section. We like well the Latin, or that Greek copy which hath those words, “by good works;” for we must needs understand them where they are not expressed: and therefore you do impudently believe us to say they do not please us. Calvin upon that text saith: Nonnulli codices habent bonis operibus; sed hoc de sensu nihil mutat, quia subaudiendum est etiam si non exprimatur. “Some books have, ‘by good works’; but this changeth nothing of the sense, for that must be understood although it be not ex- pressed.” The same thing in effect saith Beza: “that our elec- tion and vocation must be confirmed by the effects of faith, that is, by the fruits of justice, &c.;. therefore in some copies we find it added, ‘by good works.’” So far off is it, that Beza misliketh those words, that he citeth them to prove the per- petual connection of election, vocation, justification, and sancti- fication. This is therefore as wicked a slander of us, as it is an untrue affirmation of the vulgar Latin, that it is the text of the fathers and the whole church; whereby you shew yourself to be a Donatist, to acknowledge no church, but where the Latin text is occupied: so that in Greece, Syria, Armenia, A‘thiopia, and other parts of the world, where the Latin text is not known or understood, there Christ hath no church by your unadvised assertion. That we like best the most common Greek text, I am sure that we do it by as good reason, if not by better, than you in so great diversities of the Latin text, who like best of that which is most common and in every man’s hands. Martin. Well, say we, if you will needs have it so, take your Martin, pleasure in choosing your text. And if you will stand to it, grant 49. us that Peter was chief among the apostles, because your own Greek Matt. x. FuLKE, 49. 86 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. text saith, “ The first, Peter.” No, saith Beza, we will grant you no such thing; for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favoured Peter’s primacy. Is it so? then you will not stand to this Greek text neither? Not in this place, saith Beza. Fulke. In granting Peter to be the first, we need not grant him to be the chief; and if we grant him to be the chief, it followeth not that he is chief in authority. But if that were granted, it is not necessary that he was head of the church. And albeit that were also granted, the bishop of Rome could gain nothing by it. But what saith Beza, where the text saith, “the first Peter” ? If we must believe you, he saith, ‘No, we will grant you no such thing; for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favoured Peter’s primacy.” I pray you, Martin, where hath Beza those words? will you never leave this shameful forgery ? Beza, in the tenth of Matthew, doth only ask the question : Quid si hoc vocabulum, ἕο. ‘ What if this word were added by some that would establish the pri- macy of Peter? for nothing followeth that may agree with it.” This asketh Beza, but as an objection, which immediately after he answereth, and concludeth that it is no addition, but a natural word of the text found in all copies, confessed by Theophylact, an enemy of the pope’s primacy, and defendeth it in the third of Mark (where it is not in the common Greek copies, nor in the vulgar Latin) against Erasmus, who, finding it in some Greek copies, thought it was untruly added out of Matthew. But Beza saith, ἔσο vero non dubito quin hac sit germana lectio: “ But I doubt not but this is the true and right reading of the text;” and therefore he translateth Pri- mum Simonem, “ the first Simon,” out of the few copies Eras- mus speaketh of. Therefore it is an abominable slander to charge him with following the common received text, where it seemeth to make against you, when he contendeth for the truth against the common text, yea, and against your own vulgar Latin, to give you that which you make so great account of, that Peter in the catalogue of the apostles was first. So greatly he feareth to acknowledge that Peter was called first ! and so true it is that you charge him to say, “No, we will grant you no such thing; for these words were added to the Greek text by one that favoured Peter’s primacy!’ I hope your fayourers, seeing your forgery thus manifestly dis- covered, will give you less credit in other your shameless slan- ders: at the leastwise this in equity I trust all papists will THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 87 grant, not to believe your report against any man’s writing, except they read it themselves. Now that this word “ the first” argueth no primacy or superiority, beside those places quoted by Beza, Acts xxvi. 20, Rom. i. 8, and 1. 2, you may read 1 Par. xxiii. xxiv. where the posterity of Levi and Aaron are [1 Chron. rehearsed, as they were appointed by David in their orders xxiv. 1 or courses : Subuel primus, Rohobia primus, sors prima Joiarib, &c. where lest you should think of any headship or princi- pality, because the Hebrew is sometime wx, and the Greek ἄρχων, you may see that Subuel is called primus of the sons of Gerson, when there is no more mention; and more expressly, Rohobia is called primus of the sons of Eleazer, of whom it is said, that he had no more sons; and that wN% signifieth here the first in order, it appeareth by those generations, where the second, third, or fourth; is named, as in the sons of Hebron and‘ of QOziel. Also in the sons of Semei, where Jehoth is counted the first, Riza the second, Jaus and Beria, because they increased not in sons, were accounted for one family. In all which there is no other primacy than in the first lot of jx Joiarib, where the Hebrew word is harishuon, and so follow ἡ Ἦν the rest in order, unto four and twenty courses. Therefore there is no cause why we should not stand to the Greek text in that place, neither did Beza ever deny to stand to it. Martin. - Let us see another place. You must grant us (say we) Marz, by this Greek text, that Christ’s very blood which was shed for us is really in the chalice, because St Luke saith so in the Greek text. No, saith Beza; those Greek words came out of the margin into the text, and therefore I translate not according to them, but according to that which I think the truer Greek text, although I find it in no copies in the world: and this his doing is maintained and justified by our ole 6 i. English Protestants in their writings of late. chap. XViie num. ll. Fulke. Still Beza speaketh as you inspire into him, while Fuxxs, he speaketh through your throat or quill. The truth is, Beza τς: saith, that either there is a manifest solwcophanes, that. 15, an appearance of incongruity ; or else those words “ which is shed for you” seem to be added out of St Matthew; or else it is an error of the writer’s, placing that in the nomi- native case which should be in the dative: for in the dative case did Basil read them in his Morals!, 21. definition. a > > ~ Ld , ΄ [2 Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη “ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ αἱματί μου, τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένῳ. Hic calix novum testamentum est in sanguine Martin, δὶ]. 1 Thess. ii. FuLKE, 51, 88 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. Nevertheless, all our old books, saith Beza, had it so written, as it is commonly printed, in the nominative case. Here are three several distinctions, yet can you find none but one proposition that you set down, as though it were purely and absolutely affirmed by Beza. Likewise, where you speak of no copies in the world, you say more than Beza, who speaketh but of such copies as he had; who, if he were of no better conscience than you would have him seem to be, might feign some copy in his own hands to salve the matter. But the truth is, that since he wrote this, he found one more ancient copy, both in Greek and Latin, which now is at Cambridge, where this whole verse is wanting. But of this matter, which somewhat concerneth myself particularly, 1 shall have better occasion to write in the places by you quoted, cap. 1. 37, and eap. xv. 11, where I will so justify that which I have written before touching this place, as I trust all learned and indifferent readers shall see how vainly you in- sult against me, where you bewray grosser ignorance in Greek phrases than ever I would have suspected in you, being ac- counted the principal linguist of the seminary at Rhemes. Martin. Well, yet, say we, there are places in the same Greek text, as plain for us as these now cited, where you cannot say, it came out of the margin, or it was added falsely to the text. As, “Stand and hold fast the traditions,” &c.: by this text we require that you grant us traditions delivered by word of mouth, as well as the written word, that is, the scriptures. No, say they, we know the Greek word signifieth tradition, as plain as possibly ; but here and in the like places we rather translate it “ ordinances,” “instructions,” and what else soever. Nay, sirs, say we, you cannot so answer the matter, for in other places you translate it duly and truly “ tradition;’ and why more in one place than in another? They are ashamed to tell why; but they must tell, and shame both themselves and the devil, if ever they think it good to answer this treatise: as also, why they changed “ congregation,” which was always in their first translation, into “church” in their later translations, and did not change likewise “ ordinances” into “ tra- ditions,” ‘‘elders” into “ priests.” Fulke. That the Thessalonians had some part of chris- tian doctrine delivered by word of mouth, that is, by the apostle’s preaching, at such time as he did write unto them, meo, qui pro vobis funditur. Basilii Moralia. Regula xxi. c. 3. Opera, v. iii, p. 254. Edit. Garnier, Parisiis, 1722. ] THE ANSWER 'TO THE PREFACE, 89 and some part by his epistles, the text enforceth us to grant, and we never purposed to deny: but that the church at this day, or ever since the New Testament was written, had any tradition by word of mouth of any matter necessary to sal- vation, which was not contained in the Old or New Testa- ment, we will never grant, neither shall you ever be able ‘out of this text or any text in the bible to prove. Make your syllogisms when you dare, and you shall be answered. But “we know,” you say, “that the Greek word sig- nifieth tradition as plain as possibly; but here, and in like places, we rather translate it ordinances, instructions, and what else soever.” We know that it signifieth tradition, constitu- tion, instruction, precept; also mancipation, treatise, treason : for all these the Greek dictionaries do teach that it signi- fieth. Therefore if in any place we have translated it “ordi- nances”, or “ instructions’, or “ institutions”, we have not gone from the true signification of the word; neither can you ever prove that the word signifieth such a doctrine only as is taught by word of mouth, and is not or may not be put in writing. But in other places you can tell us, that we translate it duly and truly “tradition”; and you will know, why more in one place than in another, affirming that we are shamed to tell why. For my part, I was never of counsel with any that translated the scriptures into English; and therefore it is possible I cannot sufficiently express what rea- son moved the translators so to vary in the exposition of one and the same word. Yet can I yield sufficient reason that might lead them so to do, which I think they followed. The papists do commonly so abuse the name of tradition, which signifieth properly a delivery, or a thing delivered, for such a matter as is delivered only by word of mouth, and so received from hand to hand, that it is never put in writing, but hath his credit without the holy scriptures of God, as the Jews had their cabala, and the scribes and Pharisees had their traditions, beside the law of God; and the Valentinian Irenaeus, heretics accused the scriptures, as insufficient of authority it hate and ambiguously written, and that the truth could not be found in them by those that knew not the tradition, which was not delivered by writing, but by word of mouth, just as the papists do. This abusing of the word “tradition” might be a sufficient cause for the translators to render the Greek 90 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. word, where it is taken for such doctrine as is beside the commandment of God, by the name of tradition, as the word is commonly taken, But where the Greek word is taken in the good part, for that doctrine which is agreeable with the holy scriptures, they might with good reason avoid it, as you yourself do not always translate tradere, to betray, but sometimes to deliver. So did the translators give these words, ‘“‘ordinances”’, “instructions”, “institutions”, or doctrine deli- vered ; which do generally signify the same that tradition, but have not the prejudice of that partial signification in which the papists use it, who, wheresoever they find tradition, straightway imagine they have found a sufficient argument against the per- fection and sufficiency of the holy scripture, and to bring in all riff-raff and trish-trash of man’s doctrine, not only beside, but also contrary to the manifest word of God, contained in his most holy and perfect scriptures. To the shame. of the devil therefore, and of all popish maintainers of traditions uncommanded by God, this reason may be yielded. Now to answer you, why ecclesia was first translated ‘“con- gregation”, and afterward “church’’; the reason that moved the first translators, I think, was this: the word church of the common people at that time was used ambiguously, both for the assembly of the faithful, and for the place in which they assembled ; for the avoiding of which ambiguity they trans- lated ecclesia the congregation; and yet in their creed, and in the notes of theirs bibles, in preaching and writing, they used the word church for the same: the later translators, seeing the people better instructed and able to discern, when they read in the scriptures, the people from the place of their meeting, used the word church in their translations, as they did in their preaching. These are weighty matters that we must give account of them. Why we change ‘not ordinances into traditions, and elders into priests, we will answer when we come to the proper places of them. In the mean season we think, there is as good cause for us in trans- lating, sometime to avoid the terms of traditions and priest, as for you to avoid the names of elders, calling them ancients, and the wise men sages, as though you had rather speak French than English, as we do: like as you translate confide, “have a good heart,” after the French phrase, rather than you would ‘say as we do, “be of good comfort.” THE ‘ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 91 Martin. The cause is, that the name of church was at the first Marr, odious unto them, because of the catholic church which stood against 52" them ; but afterward this name grew into more favour with them, be- cause of their English church, so at length called and termed. But their hatred of priests and traditions continueth still, as it first began ; and therefore their translation also remaineth as before, suppressing the names both of the one and of the other. But of all these their deal- ings they shall be told in their several chapters and places. Fulke. 1 pray you, who first translated the creed into Furxe, the English tongue, and taught it to the people, and for 52. that cause were accounted heretics of the antichristian Ro- mish rabble? If the name of church were odious unto them, why did they not suppress that name in the creed which they taught to young and old, and instead of catholic church call. it the universal congregation or assembly ? Well, Davus, these things be not aptly divided according to their times. The first translation of the bible, that was printed in the English tongue, in very many places of the notes useth the name church, and most notoriously in the Song of Salomon, where before every other verse almost it telleth which is the voice of the church to Christ her spouse; which no reason- able man would think the translators would have done, if the name of the church had been odious unto them, or that they thought the catholic church stood against them. Look Thomas Matthews’ bible, in the Canticles of Salomon, and upon the xvi. of St Matthew’s Gospel, the 18th verse, the words of Christ to Peter. Therefore your senseless imagina- tions shew no hatred of the catholic church in our translators, but cankered malice and impudent folly in yourselves. Martin. To conclude, as I began, concerning their shifts and jumps, Marrin, and windings, and turnings every way from one thing to another, till 53. they are driven to the extreme refuge of palpable corruptions and false translations: consider with me in this one case only of traditions, as may be likewise considered in all other controversies, that the ancient fathers, councils, antiquity, universality, and custom of the whole church allow traditions; the canonical scriptures have them, the Latin text hath them, the Greek text hath them ; only their translations have them not. Likewise in the Old Testament, the approved Latin text hath such and such speeches, that make for us; the renowned Greek text hath it, the Hebrew text hath it ; only their translations have it not. These are the translations which we call heretical and wilful, and which shall be examined and discussed in this book. Fuke, 53. 92 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. Fulke. By what windings and turnings, I pray you, are we driven to that miserable refuge of palpable corruptions and false translations ? for hitherto you have shewed none, but such as shew your own ignorance or malice. Neither, I hope, you shall be able to shew any, though you swear never so sore at your work. Yes, I ween, this one case only of tradi- tions, (for so you seem to say,) if it be considered, will discover no less. It is marvel, if for your sake all the Greek diction- aries in the world must not be corrected, and taught to say, that παράδοσις can signify nothing but a tradition, that is, not written. But yet you roll in your accustomed rhetoric, say- ing, that “the ancient fathers, councils, antiquity, universality, and custom of the whole church allow traditions :” and so do we, so many as be good and agreeable to the holy scrip- tures; but that there be traditions of matter necessary to salvation not contained in the holy scriptures, when you bring your fathers, councils, &c. you shall receive an answer to them. That the canonical scripture alloweth any traditions contrary to the doctrine thereof, or to supply any want or imperfection thereof, as though all things required to make the man of God perfect, prepared to all good works, were not contained in the scriptures, you shall never be able to prove, although for spite against the perfection of the eanoni- cal scripture you should brast asunder, as Judas did, which betrayed the author of the scripture. Finally, whatsoever you say out of the Old Testament without proof or shew of proof, it is as easily denied by us as it is affirmed by you. When you bring but only a shadow of reason, it shall soon be chased away with the light of truth. THE ARGUMENTS OF EVERY CHAPTER, WITH THE PAGE WHERE EVERY CHAPTER BEGINNETH. CHAPTER I. That the Protestants translate the holy Scripture falsely of pur- pose, in favour of their heresies, throughout all controversies CHAPTER Il. Maines apostolical traditions, <.... 2.0.5. .0..0d...sescessengeadivepionsvesanes CHAPTER III, Aaninat sacred imagon.... sis « of J. Howlet, all the papists in the world are not able to shew one place of scrip- fo. 35, p. 2. ture mistranslated wilfully of purpose ; therefore I will give the reader certain brief observations and evident marks to know wilful corruptions, as it were an abridgement and sum of this treatise. Fulke. Auvuoveu this trifling treatise was in hand two or Furxe, 1. three years ago, as by the threatening of Bristow* and Howlet Γ᾿ Richard Bristow, a most zealous advocate for the Roman Catholic cause, was born at Worcester in the beginning of the 16th Century. He left the University of Oxford in 1569, and becoming acquainted with Dr Allen, was made public lecturer on Divinity at Doway. He wrote, among other things, A brief treatise of divers plain and sure ways to find out the truth in this doubtful and dangerous time of heresy, contain- ing sundry motives unto the Catholic faith ; or, considerations to move a man. to believe the Catholics, and not the heretics. Antwerp, 1574. These motives were answered by Fulke in his Retentive to stay good Christ- ians in true faith and religion, against the motives -of Richard Bristow. London, 1580. Bristow also wrote A Reply to William Fulke, in Defence of Dr Allen’s Scroul of “Articles, and Book of Purgatry.. Lovaine, 1580.. To Such doth Howlett 96 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ou, it may appear; yet, that it might seem new, and a sudden piece of work compiled with small study, you thought good by carping at my confutation of Howlet’ last made, and of M. Whitaker’s* work, set forth later than it, as it were by setting on new ears upon your old pot, to make it seem to be a new vessel. And first of all, you would seem to have taken occasion of my confident speech in my confutation of Howlet’s nine reasons*, in rehearsing whereof you use such fidelity as commonly papists used to bear towards God, the church, your prince, and your country. For what face so- ever I set upon the matter, with a whorish forehead and a brasen face you make report of my saying; which, being testified by a thousand copies printed, as it were by so many witnesses, doth ery out upon your falsehood and injurious dealing. For my words, out of the place by you quoted against Howlet, are these: “That some error may be in trans- lation (although by you it cannot be shewed) I will not deny ; but that any shameless translations, or wilful corruptions, can be found of purpose to draw the scriptures to any heretical which Fulke rejoined the following year, in his book entitled A re- joinder to Bristow’s Replie in defence of Allen’s Scroll of Articles and Booke of Purgatorie, &c. 1581. p. 792. Wood’s Athene, Vol, 1. pp. 482—494,] — [? The Howlet here referred to was Persons the Jesuit, who pub- lished under this name a treatise, entitled A brief Discourse, containing the reasons why Catholics refuse to go to Church. Doway, 1580. It was answered the same year, in A Check to Mr Howlet’s Screechings to her Majesty, (Wood’s Athene, Vol. v. pp. 68, 69.;) and in a Caveat for Parson Howlet, 1581, (Hartshorne’s Book Rarities of Cambridge, p. 442;) and also by Fulke, in Howlet’s Nine Reasons; and seems to be the same book as the one just mentioned. Wood’s Athene, Vol. π. p. 60, and Possevinus in Apparat. Sacr. Vol. 1., under Robert Persons.] [? Whitaker, a learned divine, and Master of St John’s College, Cam- bridge: the able antagonist of Cardinal Bellarmine, Stapleton, Cam- pian, Saunders, Rainolds, &c. He diedin 1595.] [5 “A briefe confutation of a Papist Discourse: lately set forth, and presumptuously dedicated to the Queen’s most excellent Majestie: by John Howlet, or some other birde of the night, under that name, contayning certaine Reasons, why Papistes refuse to come to Church, which reasons are here inserted and set downe at large, with their several answers. By D. Fulke, Maister of Pembroke Hall, in Cam- bridge. Seene and allowed. At London, printed for George Byshop,’ 1581. gto. b. 1. 58 leaves.” ] 1.} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 97 opinion, all the papists in the world shall never be able to make demonstration.” This was my saying, and I repeat it again with as great confidence as before; yea, and with much greater too, forasmuch as all the papists in the semi- nary, having now beaten their heads together to find out ‘“‘ shameless translations and wilful corruptions of purpose to maintain heresies,” can find nothing but old frivolous quarrels answered long before, or new trifling cavils, not worthy in- deed of any learned man’s answer, but for satisfymg of the simple and ignorant. How this my saying differeth from your slanderous report, I trust every reasonable papist that will take pains to confer them together, will be enforced to acknowledge. or where I say “ shameless translations and wilful corruptions,” (as Howlet chargeth us), you report me to say “mistranslated ;” although in plain words I did confess that there might be some errors even in the best and perfectest of our translations. For to translate out of one tongue into another is a matter of greater difficulty than it is commonly taken, I mean exactly to yield as much and no more than the original containeth, when the words and phrases are so different, that few are found which in all points signify the same thing, neither more nor less, in divers tongues. Where- fore, notwithstanding any translation that can be made, the knowledge of the tongues is necessary in the church, for the perfect discussing of the sense and meaning of the holy scrip- tures. Now, if some of our translators, or they all, have not attained to the best and most proper expressing of the nature of all words and phrases of the Hebrew and Greek tongues in English, it is not the matter that I will stand to defend, nor the translators themselves, I am well assured, if they were all living: but that the scriptures are not impudently falsified or wilfully corrupted by them, to maintain any heretical opinion, as the adversary chargeth us, that is the thing that I will (by God’s grace) stand to defend against all the papists in the world. And this end you have falsely and fraudulently omitted in reporting my saying, whereupon de- pendeth the chief, yea, the whole matter of my assertion. You play manifestly with us the lewd part of Procrustes, the thievish host, which would make his guests’ stature equal with his bed’s, either by stretching them out if they were too short, or by cutting off their legs if they were too long. So [ruLKe. | i 98 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. if our sayings be too short for your purpose, you strain them to be longer ; if they be too long, you cut off their shanks ; yea, that which is worse, the very head, as you play with me in this place. I myself, and so did many hundreds beside me, hear that reverend father, M. Doctor Coverdale, of holy and learned memory, in a sermon at Paul’s cross, upon occasion of some slanderous reports that then were raised against his translation, declare his faithful purpose in doing the same; which after it was finished, and presented to king Henry VIII. of famous memory, and by him committed to divers bishops of that time to peruse, of which (as I remember) Stephen Gardiner was one; after they had kept it long in their hands, and the king was divers times sued unto for the publication thereof, at the last being called for by the king himself, they redelivered the book; and being demanded by the king what was their judgment of the translation, they answered that there were many faults therein. ‘“ Well,” said the king, “but are there any heresies maintained thereby?” They answered,there were no heresies, that they could find, maintained thereby. “If there be no heresies,” said the king, “then in God’s name let it go abroad among our people.” According to this judg- ment of the king and the bishops, M. Coverdale defended his translation, confessing that he did now himself espy some faults, which, if he might review it once over again, as he had done twice before, he doubted not but to amend; but for any heresy, he was sure there was none maintained by his trans- lation. After the same manner, I doubt not (by God’s help) so to defend all our translations, for all your evident marks to know wilful corruptions, that not one shall be found of pur- pose to maintain any heretical opinion, and not many errors committed through negligence, ignorance, or human frailty. Martin,2. Martin. The first mark and most general is: If they translate else- Evident where not amiss, and in places of controversy between them and us most marks or β ° : signs to know falsely ; it is an evident argument that they do it not of negligence, or ruptions in ignorance, but of partiality to the matter in controversy. This is to be ® seen through the whole bible, where the faults of their translations are altogether, or specially, in those scriptures that concern the causes in question between us. For other small faults, or rather oversights, we will no further note unto them, than to the end that they may the more easily pardon us the like, if they find them. Fuixe, 2. Fulke. This mark is. too general to know anything 1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 99 thereby: when you do exemplify it in special, you shall easily be answered: in the meantime, it is sufficient to deny generally, that wherewith you so generally charge us, that we have in places of controversy translated anything falsely. If one word be otherwise translated in any place of contro- versy, than it is in other places out of controversy, there may be rendered sufficient reason of that variety, without that it must needs come of partiality to the matter in controversy, but rather of love of the truth, which in all matters of ques- tion between us is confirmed by plain text of scriptures, or necessary collection out of the same; so that if the translation in those places were the same that yours is, of the New Tes- tament, it should neither hinder our truth, nor fortify your error. As for small faults and oversights, reason it is (as you say) they should be pardoned on both sides. Martin. If, as in their opinions and heresies they forsake the an- Martin, 3. cient fathers, so also in their translations they go from that text and ancient, reading of holy scriptures, which all the fathers used and ex- pounded; is it not plain that their translation followeth the vein and humour of their heresy ? And again, if they that so abhor from the an- cient expositions of the fathers, yet, if it seem to serve for them, stick not to make the exposition of any one doctor the very text of holy scripture ; what is this but heretical wilfulness ? See this, chap. i. numb. 43. chap. x. numb. 1, 2. chap. xviii. numb. 10, 11. and chap. xix. numb. 1. Fulke. We never go from that text and ancient reading, Fourxe, 3. which all the fathers used and expounded; but we translate that most usual text, which was first printed out of the most ancient copies that could be found; and if any be since found, or if any of the ancient fathers did read otherwise than the usual copies, in any word that is any way material, in anno- tation, commentaries, readings, and sermons, we spare not to declare it as occasion serveth: but that we ‘stick not to make the exposition of any one doctor the very text of holy scripture,” it is a very heinous slander, neither can it be proved in any of the places of your book, which you quote for that purpose. Martin. Again, if they that profess to translate the Hebrew and Marrm, 4. Greek, and that because it maketh more for them (as they say), and therefore in all conferences and disputations appeal unto it as to the fountain and touchstone, if they (I say) in translating places of con- troversy flee from the Hebrew and the Greek ; it is a most certain argu- 7—2 100 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. ment of wilful corruption. This is done many ways, and is to be observed also throughout the whole bible, and in all this book. Fuixe, 4. Fulke. We never flee from the Hebrew and Greek in any place, much less in places of controversy ; but we always hold, as near as we can, that which the Greek and Hebrew signifieth. But if in places of controversy we take witness of the Greek or vulgar Latin, where the Hebrew or Greek may be thought ambiguous; I trust no wise man will count this a flight from the Hebrew and Greek, which we always translate aright, whether it agree with the Seventy or vulgar Latin, or no. Martin, 5. Martin. If the Greek be idololatria and idololatra, and they trans- εἰδωλολα- late not idolatry and idolater, but, worshipping of images, and wor- al a shipper of images ; and that so absurdly, that they make the apostle say, TpNS. ‘ covetousness is worshipping of images ;’ this none would do but fools or Hog madmen, unless it were of purpose against sacred images. See chap. iii. Bib. an. 1577. numb. 1, 2. Furxe, 5. Fulke. If the Greek words do signify as we translate, (as hath been often proved,) who but a wrangling quarreller would find fault therewith, except it were to maintain idolatry, or worshipping of images, which before God and all wise men of the world is all one? And where you say, none but fools or madmen would translate, Ep. vy. Col. iii., “ covetousness is worshipping of images ;” I pray you, in whether order will you place Isidorus Clarius, of a monk of Casinas made bishop Ful- ginas, which in the third to the Colossians upon your vulgar Latin text, (which according to the Greek calleth idololatria, simulacrorum servitus, the service of images,) in his notes upon the place writeth this: Prater cetera peccata avaritia peculiare hoc nomen assecuta est, ut dicatur esse (horrendum nomen) cultus simulacrorum. Nam pecunia quid aliud est quam simulacrum quoddam, vel argenteum vel aureum, quod homines avari plus amant, et longe majore cultu atque honore prosequuntur, quam ipsum Deum? “Above other sins, [᾿ The translations of Tyndale 1534, Cranmer 1539, and Bishops’ Bible 1584, render Ephes. y. 5. ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, “which is a worshipper of images.” The Geneva versions 1557, 1560, have it the same as the Authorised version of 1611, “which is an idolater.” The Vulgate has, “quod est idolorum servitus.” ] [3 Critici Sacri. vii. 284. ] 1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. _ gee. we covetousness hath obtained this peculiar name, that it is called (which is an horrible name) the worshipping of images; for what other thing is money but a certain image, either of silver or gold, which covetous men do love more, and prosecute with far greater worship and honour, than they do God him- self?” Or, if you make no count of Isidorus Clarius, in what degree will you account the deputies of the council of Trent’, whose severe censure this note hath escaped? of fools, or of madmen, or of enemies to sacred images? Yea, how will you excuse your own vulgar Latin translation, which turneth idololatria out of Greek into simulacrorum servitus, “the — service or worship of images” ? I am not so unaquainted with your shameless shifts, but I know right well that you will say, this Latin word stmulacrum signifieth a false image, or an idol that is worshipped as God; for nothing else you will acknowledge to be an idol. But who shall better tell us what the Latin word simulacrum doth signify, than the father of eloquence in the Latin tongue, even Tully himself, who in his oration pro Archia poeta useth simulacrum for the same that statua and imago? Speaking of the cunning image-makers of Greece, he saith, Statue et imagines non animorum simulacra sunt, sed corporum: “ standing images and other images are not similitudes or images of the minds, but of the bodies.” And in his accusation of Verres he nameth effigies simulacrumque Mithridatis, “the shape and image of Mithridates.” In his second book De Inventione he sheweth that Zeuxis, that famous painter, did paint the image of He- lena: ut excellentem muliebris forme pulchritudinem muta in sese tmago contineret, Helene se pingere velle simulacrum dixit. “That a dumb image might contain in it the excellent beauty of a woman’s form, he said he would paint the simili- tude or image of Helena.” Also in his familiar epistles, Epist. Ixvii., Ili artifices corporis simulacra ignotis nota Jaciebant: “those workmen did make the images of the bodies known to them that knew them not.” And so com- monly he useth simulacrum justitie, virtutis, civitatis, for the image or similitude of justice, of virtue, of a city or commonwealth, &e. And so do other good Latin writers, as well as he, use, the word simulacrum, not only for an image Γ᾿ The deputies who took off the interdiction pronounced on tho edition of 1542. ] 102 = A ΡΕΡΕΝΟΕ OF THE ENGLISH [cu. tliat’ is réligiously “worshipped, but even generally for any image, and in the same signification that they use the word imago. But peradventure ecclesiastical writers use the word simulacrum only for idols forbidden; and I perhaps shall be chidden of Martin for citing testimonies out of profane authors, to know the use of ecclesiastical terms. Let us see then what christian writers say to this matter, and how they use this word simulacrum. You yourselves say we may not trans- late that verse of Genesis, “God made man after his idol.” But Lactantius’ calleth men viventia Dei simulacra, “ living images of God,” which we ought to garnish rather than stmu- lacra insensibilia Deorum, “ the senseless images of the Gods,” which the heathen garnished: yea, he hath a whole chapter, . intituled, De simulacris et vero Dei simulacro et cultu, “Of images and of the true image and worship of God”; in which also he sheweth that simulaerum is called of simili- tude: and therefore the heathenish idols, having no resem- blance of God, cannot properly be called simulacra. St Ambrose*, another writer of the church, upon 1 Cor. x., upon that text, Non quia simulacrum est aliquid, &c., “not that the image is anything”: (the Greek is idolum :) Simulacrum vere nihil est, quia imago videtur rei mortue : “ The image or idol is indeed nothing, because it seemeth to be an image of a dead thing.” Also upon the 45th psalm: “God was high in the patriarchs and prophets, which did not compare him imaginibus terrenis et simulacris scrupeis*, to images or similitudes of the earth and stone.” Tertullian* also, a Latin writer, in his book De Spectaculis, speaking of cunning workmanship of imagery, shewed in those plays, and the authors of them, saith: Scimus enim nihil esse nomina mor- tuorum, sicut nec ipsa simulacra eorum: “we know that the names of those dead men are nothing, as also their images,” Γ᾿ Nam si deorum cultores simulacra insensibilia excolunt, et quidquid pretiosi habent, in ea conferunt, quibus nec uti possunt, nec gratias agere, quod acceperint ; quanto justius est et verius, viventia Dei simulacra excolere, ut promereare viventem? Lactantii De vero Cultu, Lib. v1. cap. 13. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 472. edit. Dufresnoy, Lutet. Paris. 1748. ] [? Simulacrum vere nihil est, quia imago videtur rei mortue: sed sub tegmine simulacrorum diabolus colitur. Ambros. Op. Vol. 1. p. 145. ] Γ᾿ In Psal. χυν. Enarratio, prop. fin. ] [* Tertullianus de Spectaculis, p. 15, edit. Rigalt. 1634. ] 1.} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 105 Afterward to their names, nominibus, he joineth imaginibus, to shew that simulacra and imagines are all one, which of Christians at that time were greatly abhorred in detestation of idolatry. St Augustine’ calleth the same stmulacra, which before he called cmagines: Cum ex desiderio mortuorum constituerentur imagines, unde simulacrorum usus exortus est : “ when for desire of the dead images were made, whereof the use of images came, through flattery, divine honour was given unto them.” And so they brought in idolatry, or the worshipping of images. The same Augustine’, in his book Octoginta Question., in the seventy-eighth question, which is intituled De simulacrorum pulchritudine, “of the beauty of images,” ascribeth to God the cunning by which they are made beautiful. And in his questions upon the book of Judges, lib. vu. cap. 41, inquirmg how Gideon’s ephod was a cause of fornication to the people, when it was no idol’, he [> Non igitur mirum est, si prevaricatores angeli, quorum duo maxima vitia sunt superbia atque fallacia, per hunc aerem volitantes, quod uni vero Deo deberi noverant, hoc sibi a suis cultoribus exe- gerunt, a quibus dii putari voluerunt, dante sibi locum vanitate cordis humani: maxime cum ex desiderio mortuorum constituerentur ima- gines, unde simulacrorum usus exortus est. Augustini Contra Faustum. Lib. xx11. cap. 17. Opera, Vol. vit. p. 577. edit. Paris. 1837. ] [® Ars illa summa omnipotentis Dei, per quam ex nihilo facta sunt omnia, que etiam sapientia ejus dicitur, ipsa operatur etiam per arti- fices, ut pulchra atque congruentia faciant ; quamvis non de nihilo, sed de aliqua materia operentur, velut ligno, aut marmore, aut ebore, et si quod aliud materie genus manibus artificis subditur. Sed ideo isti non possunt de nihilo aliquid fabricare, quia per corpus operantur, cum tamen eos numeros et lineamentorum convenientiam, que per corpus corpori imprimunt, in animo accipiant ab illa summa sapientia, que ip- sos numeros et ipsam convenientiam longe artificiosius universo mundi corpori impressit, quod de nihilo fabricatum est; in quo sunt etiam corpora animalium, que jam de aliquo, id est, de elementis mundi fabricantur, sed longe potentius excellentiusque, quam cum artifices homines easdem figuras corporum et formas in suis operibus imitantur. Augustini Liber de diversis Questionibus, uxxvit. Vol. vr. p. 125. ] [7 Hoe ergo illicitum cum fecisset Gedeon, fornicatus est post illud omnis Israel, id est, sequendo illud contra legem Dei: ubi non frustra queritur, cum idolum non fuerit, id est, cujusquam Dei falsi et alieni simulacrum, sed ephud, id est, unum de sacramentis tabernaculi quod ad vestem sacerdotalem pertineret, quomodo fornicationem scriptura dicat populi ἰδία sectantis atque venerantis. Augustini Questiones in Judices, xu. Vol. m1. p. 939. ] 104 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. plainly distinguisheth simulacrum from idolum, as the ge- neral from the special, Cum idolum non fuerit, id est cujus- piam dei falsi et alieni simulacrum: “when it was no idol, that is to say, an image of some false or strange God.” Again he saith: “ Those things that were commanded to be made in the tabernacle, were rather referred to the worship of God, than that anything of them should be taken for God, or for an image of God, pro Dei simulacro. So that simulacrum with St Augustine signifieth as generally as image, and can- not be restrained to signify an idol in the evil part, except you add, that it is an image of a false or strange god. Ar- nobius, an ecclesiastical writer of the Latin church, useth the word simulacrum for an image generally ; calling man also simulacrum Dei, (as Lactantius' doth the image of God,) Cont. gent. lib. vi. Putatis autem nos occultare quod colimus, si delubra et aras non habemus? Quod enim simulacrum Deo fingam, cum si recte existimes sit Dei homo ipse simu- lacrum ? “Think you that we do hide that which we worship, if we have no temples and altars? For what image shall I feign to God? whereas, if you judge rightly, man himself is the image of God.” You see therefore that stmulacrum sig- nifieth not an idol worshipped for God, but even as much as imago, by your own rule. Last of all, (for I will not trouble the reader with more, although more might be brought,) Isi- dorus Hispalensis, an ancient bishop of the Latin church, Originum, lib. vii., speaking of the first inventors of images, which after were abused to idolatry, saith: Fuerunt etiam et qudam viri fortes aut urbium conditores, quibus mortuis homines qui eos dilexerunt simulacra finxerunt, ut haberent aliquod ex imaginum contemplatione solatium; sed paulatim hume errorem, &c. ‘There were also certain valiant men, or — builders of cities, who when they were dead, men which loved | them made their images or counterfeits, that they might have some comfort in beholding the images ; but by little and little, the devils persuading this error, it is certain that so it crept into their posterity, that those whom they honoured for the only remembrance of their name, their successors esteemed [* Itaque simulacrum Dei non illud est, quod digitis hominis ex lapide, aut ere, aliave materia fabricatur; sed ipse homo, quoniam et sentit, et movetur, et multas magnasque actiones habet. Firm. Lac- tantii Divin. Institut. Lib. 1. cap. 2.7 1.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 105 and worshipped as gods.” Again he saith, Simulacra autem a similitudine nuncupata, &c. “Images are called simulacra of the similitude, because by the hand of the artificers of stone or other matter they resemble the counte- nance of them in whose honour they are feigned; or they are called a simulando, whereof it followeth they are false things’.” These testimonies needed not for them that be but half- learned, which know right well that simulacrum is synono- mon with imago; but that our adversaries are so impudent, that to serve their idolatrous affection they care not what idols they invent, of words, of significations, of distinctions, so they may seem to say somewhat in the ears of the unlearned, which are not able to judge of such matters. But perhaps they will say, their vulgar Latin interpreter useth the word simulacrum only for idols that are worshipped with divine honour. Neither is that true; and although it were, seeing it seldom useth simulacra, and most commonly zdola, and sometimes imagines, what reason is there why we may not call those things images, which your interpreter calleth simu- lacra? And to prove that your interpreter useth simula- crum for an image generally, as all other Latin writers do, you may see 1 Sam. cap. xix.*, where speaking of the image which Michol laid in the bed, to counterfeit the sickness of David, first he calleth it statwam, and afterward the same image he calleth simulacrum. And sure it is, that David had no idols in his house. And lest you should cavil about the Hebrew word teraphim*, which the Septuaginta translate κενοτάφια, Aquila calleth μορφώματα, St Jerome telleth you Quest. Hew. [? Sed paulatim hunc errorem, persuadentibus demonibus ita ut posteris constet irrepsisse, ut quos illi pro sola nominis memoria ho- noraverunt, successores deos existimarent atque colerent. Simulacra autem a similitudine nuncupata, eo quod manu artificis ex lapide aliave materia eorum vultus imitantur, in quorum honorem finguntur. Ergo simulacra, vel pro eo quod sunt similia, vel pro eo quod si- mulata atque conficta, unde et falsa sunt. Etymologiarum, Lib. vii. cap. 5, 6, Vol. m1. p. 376. edit. Arevalo. ] [5 The LXX. have 1 Sam. 18. καὶ ἔλαβεν ἡ Μελχὸλ τὰ κενοτάφια: the Vulgate has, “ Τα autem Michol statuam.’ At the 16th verse the LXX. have, kai ἰδοὺ τὰ κενοτάφια: the Vulgate, “inventum est simulacrum.” | [* Et furata est Rachel idola patris sui: (Gen. xxxi. 19.) ubi nunc idola legimus, in Hebreo Tueraruim (D°D9F) scriptum est, que 106 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu. they signify figuras or imagines, “figures or images,” which sometimes were abused to idolatry, as those which Rachel stole, and those which are mentioned Jud. xvii. Aben Ezra, and other of the rabbins, say they were astronomical images, to serve for dials, or other purposes of astrology ; and such, it is most like, was that which was placed in David’s bed, which your interpreter calleth statuam and simulacrum. Therefore, whereas we have translated idololatria, Col. iii.', “ worship- ping of images,” we have done rightly; and your Jatin inter- preter will warrant that translation, which translateth the same word, simulacrorum servitus, the service of images. It is you therefore, and not we, that are to be blamed for translation of that word; for where you charge us to depart from the Greek text, which we profess to translate, we do not, except your vulgar translation be false. But you, pro- fessing to follow the Latin, as the only true and authentical text, do manifestly depart from it in your translation; for the Latin being simulacrorum servitus, you call it the service of idols, appealing to the Greek word, which you have set in the margin, εἰδωλολατρεία, and dare not translate according to your own Latin; for then you should have called covetousness even as we do, the worshipping or service of images. And yet you charge us in your notes with a marvellous impudent and foolish corruption. But I report me to all indifferent readers, whether this be not a marvellous impudent aud fool- ish reprehension, to reprove us for saying the same in English, that your own interpreter saith in Latin; for simulacro- rum servitus is as well the service of i images, as stmulacro- rum artifex is a maker of images, whom none but a fool or a madman would call a maker of idols; because, not the craftsman that frameth the image, but he that setteth it up to be worshipped as God, maketh an idol, according to your own Aquila poppopara, id est, figuras, vel imagines interpretatur. Hoe au- tem ideo, ut sciamus quid Judicum libro THerapuim sonet. (Jud. xvii. 5.) Hieronymi Questionum Hebraic. in Genesim. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 535. edit. Martianay. | [2 καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία. Coloss. iii. 5. “ Et avaritiam, que est simulacrorum servitus.” Vulg. ‘ And covetousness, which is worshipping of idols.” Tyndale, Cranmer. “ And covetousness, which is idolatry.” Geneva, Authorised. “And covetousness, which is worshipping of images.” Bishops’ Bible. ‘ And avarice, which is the service of idols.” Rheims. ] 1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 107 acceptation of an idol. But of this matter enough at this time. Martin. If the apostle say, a Pagan idolater, and a Christian idol- Martin, 6. ater, by one and the same Greek word, in one and the same meaning ; pert he, and they translate, a Pagan idolater, and a Christian worshipper of τρης. images, by two distinct words and diverse meanings ; it must needs be ob. se. Be done wilfully to the foresaid purpose. See chap. iii. numb. 8, 9. Fulke. We translate not only pagan idolaters, but also Funke, 6. Jewish idolaters, nor Christians only worshippers of images, but pagans also: wherefore this is a foolish observation. And if we do any where explicate, who is an idolater, by translating him a worshipper of images, both the word bear- eth it, and it is not contrary to the sense of the scriptures, in which we find the worshipping of images always forbidden, but never commanded or allowed. Martin. If they translate one and the same Greek word tradition, Martin, 7. whensoever the scripture speaketh of evil traditions ; and never translate παράδοσις. it so, whensoever it speaketh of good and apostolical traditions; their intention is evident against the authority of traditions. See chap. ii. numb. 1, 2, 3. Fulke. This is answered sufficiently in confutation of Funxe, 7. the preface, sect. 51. The English word “ tradition” sounding in the evil part, and taken by the papists for matter un- written, yet as true and as necessary as that which is con- tained in the holy scriptures, we have upon just cause avoided in such places, as the Greek word signifieth good and necessary doctrine, delivered by the apostles, which is all contained in the scriptures ; and yet have used such English words as sufficiently express the Greek word used in the original text. Do not you yourselves translate tradere some- times to betray, and sometimes to deliver ? Martin. Yea, if they translate “tradition,” taken in ill part, where it Marmn, 8. is not in the Greek ; and translate it not so, where it is in the Greek, τί δογμα- taken in good part ; it is more evidence of the foresaid wicked intention. {$7 a See chap. ii. numb. 5, 6. [? τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ δογματίζεσθε; Col. ii. 20. ‘Quid adhuc tamquam viventes in mundo decernitis?” Vulg. ‘Are ye led with tra- ditions of them that say?” Tyndale. “Are ye led with traditions?” Fuke, 8. Martin, 9. Pag. 209. Fuxg, 9. 108 ‘A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ou. Fulke. Our intention can be no worse than your vulgar Latin interpreter’s was, who, where the Greek hath ἔθη, translateth it traditions, Act. vi. And the right understanding of the word δογματίζεσθε, according to the Apostle’s mean- ing, will yield traditions, as well as ἔθη in the place before mentioned. Martin. If they make this a good rule, to translate according to the usual signification, and not the original derivation of words, as Beza and Master Whitakers do; and if they translate contrary to this rule, what is it but wilful corruption? So they do in translating idolum an image, presbyter an elder ; and the like. See chap. iv. and chap. yi. numb. 6, 7, 8, &c., numb. 13, &e. Fulke. Neither Beza, nor Master Whitaker, make it a perpetual rule to translate according to the usual significa- tion; for sometimes a word ‘is not taken in the usual signifi- cation : as Fenerator', used by your vulgar Latin interpreter, Luke vii., usually signifieth an usurer; yet do you translate it a creditor. Likewise stabulum, used Luke x., usually signifieth a stable, yet you translate it an inn, So navis, which usually signifieth a ship, you call it a boat, Mark viii; and navicula, which usually signifieth a boat, you call a ship, Luke y. And yet I think you meant no wilful corruption. No more surely did they which translated ¢dolwm an image, and presbyter an elder, which you cannot deny. But they follow the original derivation of the words; whereas some of yours both go from the usual signification, and also from the original derivation. Cranmer, Bishops’ Bible. “Are ye burdened with traditions?” Geneva. “ Are ye subject to ordinances?” Authorised. “Why do you yet de- cree as living in the world?’ Rheims. (See 6. mm, ἢ. 4.) | [? Luke vii. 41. Avo χρεωφειλέται ἦσαν Sameer τινι. Vulgate, “Duo debitores erant cuidam fceneratori.” Rhemish translation, “A certain creditor had two debtors.” Luke x. 34. ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς πανδοχεῖον. Vulgate, “duxit in sta- bulum”, rendered by the Rhemish translator, “brought him to an inn.” Mark viii. 10. ἐμβὰς εἰς τὸ πλοῖον. Vulg. “ascendens navim.” Rhemish translation, “going up into the boat.” Luke ν. 3. ἐδίδασκεν ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου τοὺς ὄχλους. Vulgate, “do- cebat de navicula turbas.” Rhemish version, “he taught the multi- tudes out of a ship.”] ————— ὩΣ ΩΣ ὡς 1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 109 Martin. If presbyter, by ecclesiastial use, be appropriated to signify Marrin, a priest, no less than episcopus to signify a bishop, or diaconus a 10 deacon ; and if they translate these two latter accordingly, and the first never in all the New Testament ; what can it be but wilful corruption in Whitak. favour of this heresy, that there are no priests of the New Testament ? ὦ See chap. vi. numb. 12. Fulke. The word priest, by popish abuse, is commonly Furxe,10. taken for a sacrificer, the same that sacerdos in Latin. But the Holy Ghost never calleth the ministers of the word and. sacraments of the New Testament ἱερεῖς, or sacerdotes. Therefore the translators, to make a difference between the ministers of the Old Testament and them of the New, ealleth the one, according to the usual acception, priests, and the other, according to the original derivation, elders. Which distinction seeing the vulgar. Latin text doth always rightly observe, it is in favour of your heretical sacrificing priesthood, that you corruptly translate sacerdos and pres- byter always, as though they were all one, ὦ priest, as though the Holy Ghost had made that distinction in vain, or that there were no difference between the priesthood of the New Testament and the Old. The name of priest, according to the original derivation from presbyter, we do not refuse : but according to the common acception for a sacrificer, we cannot take it, when it is spoken of the ministry of the New Testament. And although many of the ancient fathers have abusively confounded the terms of sacerdos and presbyter, yet that is no warrant for us to translate the scripture, and to confound that which we see manifestly the Spirit of God hath distinguished. For this cause we have translated the Greek word πρεσβύτερος an elder, even as your vulgar Latin translator doth divers times, as Acts xv.? and xx.’; 1 Pet. v.‘, [? Acts xv. 22, Τότε ἔδοξε τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις. The Vulgate translates, “tune placuit apostolis et senioribus.” This latter word is rendered “elders” by the translations of 1534, 1539, and Geneva, 1557. “ Auncients,” by the Rhemish version. | [Ὁ Acts xx. 17. μετεκαλέσατο τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους. Vulgate, ““ Vocavit | majores.”’ | [41 Pet. v. 1. πρεσβυτέρους τοὺς ἐν ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν Vulgate, | “Seniores ergo, qui in vobis sunt.” Rhemish version, “The seniors therefore that are among you.” See also Acts ii. 17, καὶ of πρεσβύτεροι, &c. Vulgate, “Seniores.” | Acts iv. 5. id.] Martin, 11, FuLke, 1 i; τας a in ki Edw. me conte 110 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. and elsewhere calleth them seniores or majores natu, which you commonly call the ancients, or seniors, be- cause you dare not speak English, and say “ the elders.” Neither is presbyter by ecclesiastical use so appropriated to signify a priest, that you would always translate it so in the Old Testament, where your vulgar translator useth it for a name of office and government, and not for priests at any time. Neither do we always translate the Greek word episcopus and diaconus for a bishop and a deacon, but some- times for an overseer, as Act. xx., and a minister generally oftentimes. The word baptisma, by ecclesiastical use, signifieth the holy sacrament of baptism; yet are you enforced, Mark vi., to translate baptismata “ washings.” Even so do we, to ob- serve that distinction, which the apostles and evangelists always do keep, when we call sacerdotes priests, for differ- ence we call presbyteros elders, and not lest the name of priests should enforce the popish sacrifice of the mass. For this word presbyter will never comprehend a sacrificer, or a sacrificing priesthood. Martin. If for God’s altar they translate temple, and for Bel’s idolo- latrical table they translate altar ; judge whether it be not of purpose against our altars, and in fayour of their communion-table. See chap. xvii. numb. 15, 16. Fulke. Tf there be any such mistaking of one word for another, I think it was the faulé of the printer rather than of the translator; for the name of altar is more than a hundred times in the bible: and unto the story of Bel we attribute so small credit, that we will take no testimony from thence, to prove or disprove anything. Martin. If at the beginning of their heresy, when sacred images were broken in pieces, altars digged down, the catholic church’s autho- rity defaced, the king made supreme head, then their translation was “made accordingly; and if afterward, when these errors were well estab- — lished in the realm, and had taken root in the people’s hearts, all was altered and changed in their later translations, and now they could not find that in the Greek, which was in the former translation ; what was it at the first, but wilful corruption to serve the time that then was? See chap. iii. 5, chap. xvii. numb. 15, chap. xv. numb, 22, 1.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 111 Fulke. For images, altars, the catholic church’s autho- Furxe, rity, the king’s supremacy, nothing is altered in the latter 1% translations, that was falsely translated in the former, except perhaps the printer’s fault be reformed. Neither can any thing be proved to maintain the popish images, altars, church’s authority, or pope’s supremacy, out of any translation of the scriptures, or out of the original itself. Therefore our trans- lations were not framed according to the time; but if any thing were not uttered so plainly or so aptly as it might, why should not one translation help another ? Martin. If at the first revolt, when none were noted for heretics Martin, and schismatics but themselves, they did not once put the names of “" schism or heresy in the bible’, but instead thereof division and sect, Bib. 1868. insomuch that for an heretic they said, an author of sects; what may Ἷ we judge of it but as of wilful corruption? See chap. iv. numb. 3. Fulke. Yes, reasonable men may judge, that they did Furxe, it to shew unto the ignorant people, what the names of ‘ii schismatic and heretic do signify, rather than to make them believe, that heresy and schism was not spoken against in the scripture. That they translated heresy sect, they did it by example of your vulgar Latin interpreter, who, in the 24th of the Acts*, translateth the Greek word αἱρέσεως secta. In which chapter likewise, as he also hath done, they have translated the same word heresy. Martin. If they translate so absurdly at the first, that themselves Marrin, are driven to change it for shame ; it must needs be at the first wil- 1+ ful corruption. For example, when it was in the first temple, and in the later altar; in the first always congregation, in the later always church ; in the first, “to the king as chief head,” in the later, “to the [? Titus iii. 10. Αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νου- θεσίαν παραιτοῦ. Wiclif, 1580, renders it, “ Eschew thou a man here- tic ;” and Tyndale, 1534, “‘ A man that is given to heresy, after the first and second admonition, avoid.” Cranmer’s version 1539, and 1562, has, '* A man that is author of sects, after the first and second admonition, avoid.” The Geneva versions of 1557, 1560, 1577, 1580, have, “ Re- ject him that is an heretic, after once or twice admonition.” The Rhemish, Bishops’ 1584, and Authorised 1611, “A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.” ] [? Acts xxiv. 5. τῆς τῶν Ναζωραίων αἱρέσεως. Vulgate, “Secte Nazarenorum.” Rhemish version, “Sect of the Nazarenes.” “Sect of the Nazarites,” edit. 1584, 1530, 1557.] FuLKE, 1 4, 112 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu. king as having pre-eminence.” So did Beza first translate carcase, and afterward soul’, Which alteration in all these places is so great, that it could not be negligence at the first or ignorance, but a plain heretical intention. See chap. xvii. numb. 15, chap. v. numb. 4, 5, chap. xv. numb. 22, chap. vii. numb. 2. Fulke. Nay, it may be an oversight, or escape of neg- ligence, or the printer’s fault, as it is manifest in that quarrel you make of temple for altar: for in Thomas Matthew’s translation, the first that was printed in English with au- thority, there is altar in both places, 1 Cor. ix. and x. For the term congregation changed into church, it was not for shame of the former, which was true, but because the other term of church was now well understood, to shew that the word of scripture agreeth with the word of our creed; or perhaps to avoid your fond quarrel, not now first picked, to the term congregation. Whereas the former was, “To the king or chief head,” the latter saying, “the king as having pre-eminence,” doth nothing derogate unto the former, and the former is contained under the latter. For I hope you will grant, that the king is chief head of his people; or if the word head displease you (because you are so good a Frenchman), tell us what chief doth signify, but an head? Now this place of Peter speaketh not particularly of the king’s authority over the Church, or in church matters: therefore if it had been translated “supreme head,” we could have gained no greater argument for the supremacy in ques- tion, than we may by the word pre-eminence, or by the word extolling, which you use*. That Beza altered the word cadaver into animam, 1 have shewed he did it to avoid [᾿ Οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς adov. “Non derelinques animam meam,” Edit. 1582. “Non derelinques cadaver meum,” Edit, 1556. Nov. Test. Beze. “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in grave, New Test. translated out of Greek by Beza, Englished by L. Tomson. C. Barker, 1583. fol.] Γ᾿ Extolling a mistake apparently for ewcelling. The translations alluded to here are of 1 Pet. ii. 13: Ὑποτάγητε οὖν πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει διὰ τὸν Κύριον" εἴτε βασιλεῖ, ὡς ὑπερέχοντι. “Whether it be unto the king as unto the chief head,” Tyndale, 1534; Cranmer, 1539 ; Geneva, 1557. “Whether it be unto the king as unto the superior,” Geneva, 1560. “Whether it be to the king, as excelling,” Rheims, 1582. “Whether it be unto the king as having the pre-eminence,” Bishops’ Bible, 1584. “Whether it be to the king as supreme.” Authorised version, 1611. ] _ ed ae Πα νος 1.} TRANSLATIONS’ OF ΤῊΝ BIBLE: 118 offence, and because the latter is more proper to the Greek, although the Hebrew word, which David doth use, may and doth signify a dead body or carcase. Martin. If they will not stand to all their translations, but fly to Raney, that namely, which now is read in their churches: and if that which !> is now read in their churches, differ in the points aforesaid from that that was read in their churches in king Edward’s time; and if from both these they fly to the Geneva bible, and from that again to the other aforesaid: what shall we judge of the one or the other, but that all is voluntary, and as my list? See hao seh iii, numb. 10, 11, 12, one x. numb. 12. Fulke. If of three translations we prefer that which bse is the best, what sign of corruption is this? If any fault 1ὅ have, either of ignorance or negligence, escaped in one, which is corrected in another, and we prefer that which is corrected before that which is faulty, what corruption can be judged in either? Not every fault is a wilful corruption, and much less an heretical corruption. The example that you quote out of your 8rd chapter, concerning the translation of idolum, is no flymg from our translation to another, but a confuting of Howlet’s cavil against our church service ; because this word is therem read translated an image, 1 John v.‘, whereas in that bible, which by authority is to be read in the church service, the word in the text is idols, and not images; and yet will we justify the other to ‘be good and true, which readeth, “ Babes, keep yourselves _[? Archbishop Parker's translation, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, was first printed in folio in the year 1568, and in 4to. in 1569. It was ordered, in the Convocation of 1571, (Wilkins, Conc. Vol. 1v. p. 263.) that copies should be provided by all dignitaries for their private houses, and by all church officers for the use of their cathedral and parish churches. (See Constitutions and Canons Eccle- siastical, in Dr Cardwell’s Synodalia, Vol. 1. p. 128. Documentary Annals, Vol. u. p. 11.) The edition quoted in these notes is that printed by Barker, fol. 1584. The Injunctions of Edw. VI. 1547, do not specify what particular translation shall be used: neither do Queen Elizabeth’s in 1559. ] ᾿ς [ἢ Texvia, φυλάξατε ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων, | Johny. 21. “ Filioli, custodite vos a simulacris,’ Vulgate. “Babes, keep yourselves from images,’ Tyndale, 1584; Cranmer, 1539. “ Babes, keep yourselves from idols,” Geneva, 1557, 1560 ; Bishops’ Bible, 1584 ; Rhemish, 1582 ; Authorised Version, 1611. ] 8 [rurKe.| Mantin, 16. 16. Martin, 17. 114 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu. from images,” as your vulgar Latin text is @ simulacris, wherein you fly from your own authentical text to the Greek, which, except you think it make for your purpose, you are not ashamed to count falsified and corrupted. Martin. If they gladly use these words in ill part, where they are not in the original text, procession, shrines, devotions, excommunicate, images; and avoid these words which are in the original, hymns, grace, mystery, sacrament, church, altar, priests, catholic traditions, justifications ; is it not plain that they do it of purpose to disgrace or suppress the said things and speeches used in the catholic church? See chap. xxi. numb. 5, and seq. chap. xii. numb. 3. Fulke. Who would be so mad, but blind malice, to think they would disgrace or suppress the things or names of catholic church, whereof they acknowledge themselves members; of grace, by which they confess they are saved ; of hymns, which they use to the praise of God; of justi- fications, when they profess they are of themselves unjust; of sacraments and mysteries, by which the benefits of Christ are sealed up unto them; of altar, when they believe that Jesus Christ is our altar; of priests, when they hold that all good Christians are priests; of devotions, when they dispute that ignorance is not the mother of true devotion, but knowledge; of excommunication, which they practise daily? As for the names and things of procession, shrines, images, traditions beside the holy Scriptures in religion, they have just cause to abhor. Neither do they use the one sort of terms, without probable ground out of the original text; nor avoid the other, but upon some good special cause, as in the several places (when we are charged with them) shall appear. Martin. If in a case that maketh for them they strain the very original signification of the word, and in a case that maketh against them they neglect it altogether; what is this but wilful and of pur- pose? See chap. vii. numb. 36. Fulke. answer, we strain no words to signify other- wise than the nature and use of them will afford us, neither do we spare to express that which hath a shew against us, if the property or usual signification of the word, with the circumstance of the place, do so require it. . j 1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 115 Martin. If in words of ambiguous and diverse signification they Marri, will have it signify here or there as it pleaseth them; and that so 18 vehemently, that here it must needs so signify, and there it must not ; and both this and that to one end, and in favour of one and the same opinion; what. is this but wilful translation? So doth Beza urge Bezain γυναῖκα to signify wife, and not to signify wife, both against virginity Sarit d and chastity of priests: and the English bible translateth accordingly. 3-2-1879. See chap. xy. numb. 11, 12. Fulke. To the general charge I answer generally, Furs, We do not as you slander us; nor Beza, whom you shame- 18: fully belie, to urge the word «γυναῖκα, 1 Cor. vii. 1'. not to signify a wife, against virginity and chastity of priests; for clean contrariwise, he reproveth Erasmus restraining it to a wife, which the apostle Raith generally, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman;” which doth not only contain a commendation of virginity in them that be unmarried, but also of continency in them that be married. And as for the virginity or chastity of priests, he speaketh not one word of it in that place, no more than the apostle doth. Now, touching the other place that you quote, 1 Cor, ix. 5”, [ Bonum fuerit viro mulierem non attingere, is the rendering of Beza’s version, upon which he has these remarks: Mulierem non at- υ tingere, γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι. Erasmus, uxorem non attingere, id est, (ut ipse interpretatur) ab uxore ducenda abstinere. Ego vero existi- mo Paulum verbo ἅπτεσθαι significasse in genere viri cum muliere congressum: quem tamen per se non damnat, quum eo velit homines ut remedio uti, idque in matrimonio, si continere se non possint, minime id facturus si malum esset conjugium. Nam precipit quidem humana prudentia, ut ex duobus malis quod minus malum est eligamus: christiana vero religio contra, ut quicquid malum est sine ulla ex- ceptione vitemus. Falsa est igitur Hieronymi doctrina, qui adversus Jovinianum disserens, verbum ἅπτεσθαι ita urget, quasi in ipso etiam mulieris contactu sit periculum: quum constet virum non minus bona conscientia uti posse ac debere uxore sua quam esca et potu, ut recte defendit Augustinus. Nov. Test. 1556. ] [? The words are (1 Cor, ix. 5.), μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ of λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι ; Translated in Tyndale’s version of 1534: “Either, have we not power to lead about a sister to wife, as well as other apostles?” In Cranmer’s, 1539: “Have we not power to lead about a sister to wife, as well as other apostles?” In the Geneya version, 1557: “Either, have we not power to lead about a wife, being a sister, as well as other apostles?” The Rhemish 8—2 116 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH” [oH Beza doth truly translate ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα, “a sister to wife,” because the word sister is first placed, which comprehendeth a woman, and therefore the word γυναῖκα followmg must needs explicate, what woman he meaneth, namely, a. wife. For it were absurd to say, a sister a woman. Therefore the vulgar Latin interpreter perverteth the words, and saith, mulierem sororem. It is true, that many of the ancient fathers, as too much addict to the singleness of the clergy, though they did not altogether condemn marriage in them, as the papists do, did expound the sister, whereof St Paul speaketh, of certain rich matrons, which followed the apostles whither- soever they went, and ministered to them of their substance ; as we read that many did to our Saviour Christ, Matt. xxvii. 55. Luke viii. 3. But that exposition cannot stand, nor agree with this text for many causes, First, the placing of the words, which I have before spoken of. Secondly, this word, “γυναῖκα, were needless, except it should signify a wife: for the ‘word sister signifieth both a woman and a faithful woman; and otherwise it was not to be doubted, lest thé apostle would lead a heathen woman with him. © Thirdly, the apostle speaketh of one woman, and not many ; whereas there-were many that followed ‘our Saviour Christ, whereas one alone to follow the apostle might breed occasion of ill suspicion and offence, which many could not so easily. Fourthly, those that are mentioned in the gospel our Saviour Christ did not lead about, but they did voluntarily follow him: but the apostle here saith, that he had authority, as the rest of the apostles, to lead about a woman, which ar- gueth the right that an husband hath over his wife, or of a master over his maid. Fifthly, it is not all one, if women could travel out of Galilee to Jerusalem, which was nothing near an hundred miles, that women could follow the apostles into all parts of the world. Sixthly, if the cause why such women are supposed to have followed the apostles, was to minister to them of their substance, the leading them about was not burdenous to the church, but helpful: but the apostle testifieth, that he forbare to use this liberty, because he would version, 1582, has it: “ Have we not power to lead about a woman, ἃ sister, as also the rest of the apostles?” ‘The Authorised Version, 1611: “ Have we not eed to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles?” ] Πρ ἢ TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 117 not be burdenous to the church of Corinth, or to any οἵ. them. ~ Seventhly, seeing it is certain that Peter had a wife, and the rest of the apostles are by antiquity reputed to have been all married; it is not credible that Peter, or any of the rest, would leave the company of their own wives, and lead strange women about with them. As for the objection that you make in your note upon the text, To what end should he talk of burdening the Corinthians with finding his wife, when he himself clearly saith that he was single ? I answer, Although I think he was single, yet is it not so clear as you make it; for Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh he had a wife, which he left at Philippi by mutual consent. But albeit he were single, it was lawful for him to have married, and Barnabas also, as well as all the rest of the apostles. Again, to what end should he talk of burdening the church with a woman, which was not his wife, when such women, as you say, ministered to the apostles of their goods? Whereby it should follow, that none of the apostles burdened the churches where they preached with their own finding, which is clean contrary to the apostle’s words and meaning. Wherefore the translation of Beza, and of our church, is most true and free from all corruption. Martin. If the puritans and grosser Calvinists disagree about the Martin, translations, one part preferring the Geneva English bible, the other the ἦν, bible read in their church ; and if the Lutherans condemn the Zuinglians’ and Calvinists’ translations, and contrariwise ; and if all sectaries reprove each another’s translation; what doth it argue, but that the translations differ according to their diverse opinions? See their books written one against another. ες Fulke. Here again is nothing but a general charge of Fuxxs, disagreeing about translations, of puritans and Calvinists, Lu- 19. therans and Zuinglians, and of all sectaries reproving one ano- ther’s translation, with as general a demonstration, ‘See the books written one against another ;” which would ask longer time than is needful to answer such a vain cavil, when it is always sufficient to deny that. which is affirmed without certain proof. Martin, Martin. If the. English Geneva bibles themselves dare not. follow 20. their master Beza, whom .they profess to translate, because in their u‘e,"\,% at 23; iii. 21; vi. 90. 118 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [om ; Opinion he goeth wide, and that in places of controversy ; how wilful 2 Thess. ii.15. Was he in so translating ! See chap. xii. numb. 6, 8 ; chap. xiii, numb. 1. and ix. 6. FuLkE, 20. Martin, 21. FuLKe, 21. Rev. xix. 8. FuLke, | 22. Fulke. It is a very impudent slander. The Geneva bibles do not profess to translate out of Beza’s Latin trans- lation’, but out of the Hebrew and Greek ; and if they agree not always with Beza, what is that to the purpose, if they agree with the truth of the original text? Beza oftentimes followeth the purer phrase of the Latin tongue, which they neither would nor might follow in the English. If in dis- senting from Beza, or Beza from them, they or he dissent from the truth, it is of human frailty, and not of heretical wilfulness. The places being examined shall discover your vanity. Martin. If for the most part they reprehend the old vulgar trans- lation, and appeal to the Greek ; and yet in places of controversy some~- time for their more advantage (as they think) they leave the Greek, and follow our Latin translation; what is it else, but voluntary and partial translation? See chap. ii. numb. 8, chap. vi. numb. 10, 21, chap. vii. numb. 39, chap. x. numb. 6. Fulke. We never leave the Greek to follow your vulgar translation, as in the places by you quoted I will prove mani- festly: but I have already proved that you leave the Latin and appeal to the Greek, in translating simulacra, idols, Col. ii. and 1 John y. Martin. If otherwise they avoid this word justifications’ altogether, _and yet translate it when they cannot choose, but with a commentary _ that it signifieth good works that are testimonies of a lively faith; doth not this heretical commentary shew their heretical meaning, when they avoid the word altogether? See chap. viii. numb. 1, 2, 3. Fulke. To avoid the word altogether, and yet sometime to translate it, I see not how they can stand together; for Γ᾿ The Geneva bible, edit. Rouland Hall, 1560, professes, on the title page, to be “‘translated according to the Ebrue and Greke, and conferred with the best translations in divers languages.” ] [? πορευόμενοι ev πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασι. Luke i. 6. “‘Incedentes in omnibus mandatis et constitutionibus.” Vulgate. “ Ince- dentes in omnibus mandatis et constitutionibus.” Beza’s version. “Going in all the maundementis and justifiyngis.” Wiclif. “Walked in all the laws and ordinances.” Tyndale, Cranmer, ‘Commandments and ordinances.” Geneva, Bishops’ Bible, Authorised. ] eS ee re .] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 119 he that doth sometimes translate it, doth not altogether avoid it. But you will say, they do altogether avoid it in all such places where they do not translate it. That is altogether false; for the Geneva translation, Luke 1.5, telleth you that the Greek word signifieth justifications, and yieldeth a rea- son why it doth in that place otherwise translate it: and if to translate the Greek word δικαίωμα otherwise than justification, must needs shew an heretical meaning, then must you needs say, that your vulgar Latin translator had an heretical meaning; for in the second place by you quoted, namely, Rom. i. 26, he translateth it justitias‘, likewise Rom. 1. 32°, justitiam, so likewise Rom. v. 18°. And if it be an heretical commentary, to say that good works are a testimony of a lively faith, you will also condemn the apostles of heresy, which teach it to be impossible to please God without faith, Heb. xi., and that whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, Rom. xiv., if there be any good works that are not testimonies of a lively faith. But it is sufficient for you to call what you will heresy, and heretical falsification, and corruption; for your disciples are bound to believe you, though you say the gospel be heresy, and the apostles them- selves heretics. Gregory Martin calleth this an heretical commentary : what need you seek other proof? Martin. When by adding to the text at their pleasure they make Marrm, the apostle say, that by Adam’s offence sin came on all men, but that 29: by Christ’s justice the benefit only abounded toward all men, not that βου ν 18. justice came on all; whereas the apostle maketh the case alike, with- 1680. Bib. out any such irs additions, to wit, that we are truly made just by Rom. v. 19. Christ, as by Adam we are made sinners: is not this most wilful cor- ruption for their heresy of imputative and phantastical justice? See chap. xi. numb. 1. [* The Geneva Bible 1560, has this note on Luke i. 6. “The Greek word signifieth justifications, whereby is meant the outward observation of the ceremonies commanded by God.” } [* Ta δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ. Rom. ii. 96. “Justitias — custodiat,” Vulgate. 7 hy οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες. Rom. i. 82. “Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent.” Vulg.] [΄ οὕτω καὶ δ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς. Rom. ν. 18. “Sic et per unius justitiam in omnes homines in justificationem vite.” δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται of πολλοί. Rom. v. 19. Many schuln be just.” Wiclif. “Shall many be made righteous.” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised. ] . FuLxge, 23.. 120 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH” [cu. Fulke. The verse by you quoted, Rom. y. 18', is a manifest eclipsis or defective speech, to make any sense whereof there must needs be added a nominative case and a verb. Now by what other nominative case and verb may. the sense be supplied, but by that which the apostle him- self giveth before, ver. 15.? unto which all that followeth must be referred for explication: where he saith, as you yourselves translate it, “If by the offence of one many died, much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of one man Jesus Christ hath abounded upon many.” Seeing therefore that defective speech must be supplied for understanding in this probation, what is so apt as that which the apostle himself hath expressed before in the proposition ? Although you in your translation are not disposed to supply: it, because you had rather the text should be obscure and wondered at, than that it should be plain and easy, or able to be understood: albeit in other places you stick not to add such words as be necessary for explication of the text, as every translator must do, if he will have any sense to be understood in his translation. For that defective speech, which in some tongue is well understood, in some other {* “Therefore as by the guilt of one into all men into condemna- tion, so by the righteousness of one into all men into justifying of life.” Wiclif. “Likewise, then, as by the sin of one condemnation came on all men, even so by the justifying of one cometh the right- eousness that bringeth life upon all men.” Tyndale. “ Likewise, then, as by the offence of one giltship came on all men to condemnation ; even so, by the justifying of one, the benefit abounded upon all men to the justification of life.” Geneva. “Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came ae all men unto justification of life.” . Authorised version. “Apa οὖν ὡς δ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, εἰς κατάκριμα᾽ οὕτω καὶ δι’ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος, εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς. “As by the sin of one (sin came) on all men to condemnation ; even so by the righteousness of one (good came) upon all men, even to the righteousness of life.” Rom. vy. 18. edit. Jugge. 1568, “ Likewise, then, as by the offence of one (the fault came) on all men to condemnation ; so by the justifying of one (the. benefit abound- ed) toward all men to the justification of life.” Rom. ν. 18. edit. 1579. | Ἷ ..] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 121 is. altogether void of sense, and must be explicated by ad- dition of that which is necessarily or probably to be un- derstood. So you translate, Matth. vii. Quid nobis ? “ What is between us?” Mark ui. Post dies*, “after some days.”, Accumberet, “he sat at meat;”’ and many such like. But where you charge our translation to say, the benefit (only) abounded toward all men, not that justice came: on all ; you do shamefully add to our translation: for the word ‘only’ is of your own slanderous addition, and the rest is your mali- cious collection. For we mean not to extenuate the benefit of Christ’s redemption, but by all means to set it forth to the uttermost: as the word ‘abounded’ doth shew, if you do not blemish the light of it by your blockish addition of this word ‘only’. And that we are truly made just by Christ, and yet by imputation, as we are truly made sinners by Adam, and yet partly by imputation, as we are actually by corruption, we do at all times and in all places most wil- lingly confess: for the justice of Christ which is imputed unto us by faith, is no false or phantastical justice, as you do no less blasphemously than phantastically affirm; but a true and effectual justice, by which we are so truly made just, that we shall receive for it the crown of justice, which is eternal life, as the apostle proveth at large, Rom. iv. and v., whom none but an hell-hound will bark against, that he defendeth “imputative and phantastical justice.” Martin. But in this case of justification, when the question is Martin, _ whether only faith justify, and we say no, having the express words of 7, γηος ii. 14. St James ; they say, yea, having no express scripture for it: if in this Rom. iii 28. τη. 2. case they will add ‘only’ to the very text, is it not most horrible and fol. 405. edit. devilish corruption? So did Luther, whom our English protestants 1 sie Lia honour as-their father, and in this heresy of only faith-are his own ἢ children. See chap. xii. fulke. In the question of justification μὴ faith only, Fuuxs, where St James saith no, we say no also; neither can it be proved that we add this word ‘ only’ to the text in any translation of ours. If Luther did in his translation add the word ‘only’ to the text, it cannot be excused of wrong trans- . lation in word, although the sense might well bear it. But > [5 “Intravit Capharnaum post: dies.” Vulg. edit. Clem. “ Post dies octo.” edit. Sixt. ] , ; 122 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH’ [ cn. seeing Luther doth himself confess it, he may be excused of fraud, though not of lack of judgment. But why should our translation be charged with Luther’s corruption? Be- cause “our English protestants honour him as their father.” A very lewd slander: for we call no man father upon earth, though you do call the pope your father; albeit in another sense Luther was a reverend father of the church for his time. But as touching the doctrine of only faith justifying, it hath more patrons of the fathers of the ancient primitive church, than Martin can bear their books, though he would break his back, who in the same plain words do affirm it as Luther doth, that only faith doth justify. And the apostle which saith’ ‘that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” speaketh more plainly for justification by faith only (as we do teach it), than if he had said a man is justified by faith only. Which text of Rom, iii., and many other, are as express scripture to prove that we teach and believe, as that St James saith against justification by faith only, where he speaketh of another faith, and of another justification, than St Paul speaketh of, and we understand, when we hold that a man is justified by faith only, or without works of the law, which is all one. Martin, Martin. If these that account themselves the great Grecians and Their igno. Hebricians of the world, will so translate for the advantage of their cause, rance ofthe as though they had no skill in the world, and as though they knew Greek and . Mohd ἌΡΕΣΕ - ; 7 Hebrew. neither the signification of words, nor propriety of phrases in the said thet false language ; is it not to be esteemed shameless corruption ? translation hereof thereof Fulke. Yes; but if it cannot be proved that so they eek ang translate, then is this an impudent slander, as all the rest 25. ᾿ 8:19; and so it will prove when it cometh to be tried. Marmn, Martin. I willnot speak of the German heretics, who to maintain this 26. | heresy, that all our works, be they never so good, are sin, translated for Brentius.Me- | * ° . Janeth, eee Tibi soli peccavi, “to thee only have I sinned,” thus, Tibi solum peccavi, Dial. τι 6. 12. that is, “ I have nothing else but sinned : whatsoever I do, I sin :” whereas ες la neither the Greek nor the Hebrew will possibly admit that sense. Let 7725 7? these pass as Lutherans, yet wilful corrupters, and acknowledged of our Whitak. pag’ English protestants for their good brethren. But if Beza translate, 108. [+ Rom. iii. 28.] Γ᾿ Lindani Dubitantium Dialogus: de origine Sectarum hujus seculi. Colonie. 1571. 8vo. Foppen’s Bib. Belg. p. 411.] ) 1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 128 ἔτι ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν", “when we were yet of no strength,” as the pom. v. 6. Geneva English Bible also doth interpret it, whereas every young Grecian knoweth that ἀσθενὴς is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether without strength: is not this of purpose to take away man’s free will altogether ? See chap. x. numb. 13. Fulke. know not what German heretics those be which Furxe, maintain that heresy, that all our works, be they never so 30. good, are sin, except they be the Libertines, with whom we have nothing to do. For we never say that good works are sin, for that were all one to say that good were evil. But that all our good works are short of that perfection which the law of God requireth, we do humbly confess against ourselves: or else, whatsoever seemeth to be a good work, and is done of men void of true faith, is sm. For these assertions we have the scripture to warrant us. And if, to prove the latter, any man hath translated those words of David in the 51st psalm, lecha, lebadecha, tibt solum, or, 772? 1 tantummodo tibi peccavi, ἕο, ‘To thee only, or altogether to thee I have sinned,” in respect of his natural corruption which he doth express in the next verse, he hath not departed one whit from the Hebrew words, nor from the sense which the words may very well bear; which he that denieth, rather sheweth himself ignorant in the Hebrew tongue, than he that so translateth. For what doth lebad signify, but solum 435 or tantum ? and therefore it may as well be translated solum ἢ tibt, as soli tibi. And the apostle, Rom. 111., proving by the latter end of that verse all men to be unjust, that God only may be true, and every man a har, as it is written, “that thou mayest be justified in thy words,” &c. favoureth that interpretation of Bucer, or whosoever it is beside. “But if Beza translate ἔτε ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν, ‘when we were yet of no strength,’ as the Geneva English Bible doth also interpret it, whereas every young Grecian knoweth that acQevns is weak, feeble, infirm, and not al- together without strength: is not this of purpose to take away man’s free will altogether?” Chapter x. numb, 13. Nay, it is to shew, as the apostle’s purpose is, that we have no strength to fulfil the law of God without the grace of Christ; f? “Quum adhue nullis viribus essemus.” Beza’s version. edit. 1556. “Quum adhue infirmi essemus.” Vulg. Rom. v. 6.] 124 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH - [01 even as Christ himself saith, “Without me you can do nothing,” John xv. 5. But every young Grecian (say you) knoweth that ἀσθενὴς is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether with- out strength. And is there then any old Grecian that will prove, that ἀσθενὴς alway signifieth him that is weak, but not void of strength? Doth ἀσθενὴς always signify him that hath some strength? Certain it is, that the apostle speaketh here of those that were void of strength; for the same he calleth in the same verse ἀσεβεῖς, wngodly, or void of religion, for whom Christ died. How say you then? had ungodly persons any strength to be saved, except Christ had died for them? Therefore he that in this place translateth acQevns, weak, feeble, infirm, must needs understand men so weak, feeble, and infirm, as they have no strength. For how might it else be truly said, ‘‘ What hast thou that thou hast not received?” 1 Cor. iv. 7. Yes, say you, we have some piece of free will at least, some strength to climb to heaven, even without the grace of God, without the death and redemption of Christ. If you say no, why cavil you at Beza’s translation and ours? The Greek word ἀσθενὴς, as great a Grecian as you would make yourself, signifieth weak or infirm, sometime that which yet hath some strength, sometime that which hath no strength at all, as I will give you a plain example out of St Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 43. The dead body is sown ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, in weakness: it riseth again in power. Doth not weakness here signify privation of all strength? It is marvel but you will say, a dead body is not altogether void of strength. Beza telleth you out of St Paul, Rom. vii. 6, that the wisdom of the flesh without Christ is death, it is enmity against God, it is neither ‘subject unto the law of God, neither can it be: where is the strength of free will that you complain to be taken away by our translation? Beza doth also tell you, that St Paul calleth all the ceremonies of the law ἀσθενῆ, as they are separated from the Spirit of Christ, the weak and beggarly elements, Gal. iv. Are they not void of strength and riches, which are void of Christ’s grace and Spirit? But your purpose was only to quarrel, and seek a knot in a rush; and therefore you regarded not what Beza hath written to justify his translation. | . mos 1] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 125 Martin. If Calvin translate, Non ego, sed gratia Dei que mihi aderat, Martin, may not mean Grecians control him, that he also translateth falsely {5 me against free will, because the preposition σὺν doth require some other % σὺν ἐμοί. participle to be understood, that should signify a co-operation with free will, to wit, συγκοπιάσασα, “which laboured with me”? See chap. x. numb. 2. — Fulke. The Greek is, ἡ χάρις, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ σὺν ἐμοὶ, Ευύώκε, “the grace of God which is with me.” A mean Grecian will rather understand the verb substantive, than the participle, as yon do, and then must needs again understand the verb ἐκοπίασε, “hath laboured.” For thus the sense must be, if your participle be understood, ‘I have laboured more than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which laboured with me, hath laboured.? Who would commit such a vain tautology? The sense is therefore plain, which the apostle’s words do yield in the judgment of better Grecians than ever G. Martin was, or will be. ‘I have not laboured more than the rest of the apostles, of mine own strength or will; but the grace of God which is in me, or with me, hath given me greater strength and ability to travail in the gospel, than to them.’ But you are afraid lest it should be thought, that the apostle had done nothing, like unto a block, forced only: a blockish fear, and a forced collection, For when the apostle first saith, he hath laboured, and after denieth, and saith, I have not laboured; what sensible man will not gather, that in the former he laboured as a man endued with life, sense, and reason, and in the latter that he laboured not by his own strength or virtue, but by the grace of God, to which he attributeth all that he is in such respect? ‘By the grace of God I am that I am,” saith he; which manifestly excludeth natural free will, to that which is good and appertaining to the glory of God. For which cause he denieth that he laboured more than the rest: “Not I, but the grace of God which was present with me.”’ Martin. If when the Hebrew beareth indifferently, to. say, Sin lieth bo RTIN, at the door’ ; and unto thee the desire thereof shall be subject, and thou σῇ, jy. 7, shalt rule over it ; the Geneva English bible translate the first without gn, 1579, [᾿ Explained in the margin, “Sin shall still torment thy conscience.” Geneva bible, .1560. | FuLKe, 28. yan DN wy τ Martin, 29 Caly. in 5. Hebr. Bib. an. 1579. FuLKE, 29. 126 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. scruple, and the latter not, because of the Hebrew grammar ; is not this also most wilful against free will? See chap. x. numb. 9. Fulke, I grant this to be done willingly against free will, but yet no false nor corrupt translation. For in the participle robets, which signifieth lying, is a manifest enal- lage or change of the gender, to declare that in chataoth, which word being of the feminine gender signifieth sin, is to be understood auon, or some such word as signifieth the punishment of sin, which may agree with the participle in the masculine gender, that the antithesis may be perfect. ‘If thou doest well, shall there not be reward or remission ? if thou doest evil, the punishment of thy sin is at hand.’ But that the latter end of the verse can not be referred to sin, but unto Cain, not only the grammar, but also the plain words and sense of the place, doth convince. For that which is said of the appetite, must have the same sense, which the same words have before, of the appetite of Eve towards her husband Adam, that in respect of the law of nature, and her infirmity, she should desire to be under his government, and that he should have dominion over her. So Abel the younger brother should be affected toward his elder brother Cain, to whom by the law of nature he was loving and subject, and therefore no cause why Cain should envy him as he did. Otherwise it were a strange meaning, that sin, which is an insensible thing, should have an appetite or desire toward Cain, who rather had an appetite to sin, than sin to him. But you are so greedy of the latter part, that you consider not the former. I know what the Jewish rabbins, favourers of heathenish free will, absurdly do ima- gine to salve the matter; but that which I have said may satisfy godly Christians. Martin. If Calvin affirm that ἀπὸ εὐλαβείας cannot signify propter reverentiam, because 476 is not so used, and Beza avoweth the same more earnestly, and the English bible translateth accordingly, (which may be confuted by infinite examples in the scripture itself, and is confuted by Illyricus the Lutheran ;) is it not a sign either of passing ignorance, or of most wilful corruption, to maintain the blasphemy that hereupon they conclude? See chap. vii. numb. 42, 43. Fulke. Tf Beza, Calvin, and the English translations be deceived about the use of the preposition ἀπὸ, it proveth _—, 1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 127 not that they are deceived in the translation of the word εὐλαβείας, which is the matter in question. They have other reasons to defend it, than the use of the preposition, although you slander Calvin in saying he affirmeth that ἀπὸ is not used for propter, For he saith no more, but that the preposition is ἀπὸ not ὑπὲρ, or some such like, that may design a cause, gue causam designet; that is, that certainly may point out a cause, and cannot otherwise be taken. Likewise Beza saith, Atqui non facile mihi persuaserim, proferrt posse ullum exemplum in quo ἀπὸ ita usurpetur: ‘But 1 cannot easily persuade myself, that any example may be brought forth, in which ἀπὸ is so used,’ that is, for propter, or secundum, for which διὰ, κατὰ, or ὑπὲρ were more proper and usual. Now, if Illyricus have helped you with a few examples where azo is so taken, what say Beza or Calvin against it, but that it doth not usually and certainly sig- nify so? Their judgment upon the place remaineth still grounded upon other arguments, although that reason of the acception of azo be not so strong, as if ἀπὸ had never been so taken. But as for the blasphemy, you say, they con- clude upon that place, [it] will redound upon your own neck; for their exposition is honourable and glorious to God the Father, and Christ his Son, and to the Holy Ghost, by whom that epistle was indited, to the confusion of your popish blasphemies, of the sacrifice propitiatory offered in the mass. Martin. Τῇ Beza in the self-same place contend, that εὐλάβεια Martin, doth not signify reverence or piety, but such a fear as hath horror and “ἢ astonishment of mind ; and in another place saith of the self-same word clean contrary ; what is it but of purpose to uphold the said blasphemy ? See chap. vii. numb. 39, 40. Fulke. Beza in the same place doth bring many Futxe, examples to prove, that the Greek word εὐλάβεια doth ὡς signify a great fear, and so is to be taken Heb. νυ. [7.1] But it is an impudent lie to say, he doth contend that it never signifieth reverence or piety: and therefore that he saith it signifieth piety in another place, is nothing contrary to that he spake in this place; for the word signifieth both, as no man that will profess any knowledge in the Greek tongue can deny. ΜΆΔΉΤΙΝ, 91. πρόγνωσις. Δι i. 9. υχή.ἄδου. bid 277 Annotat. in No. Test. post. edit. FuLKE, 31. Martin, Annotat.in Acts ii. 27. PNW 3 Furke, 32 . Martin, 33. 128 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH" [ou. Martin. If he translate for God’s foreknowledge’, God’s providence; for soul, carcase; for hell, grave®: to what end is this, but for certain heretical conclusions? And if upon admonition he alter his translation for shame, and yet protesteth that he understandeth it as he did before; did he not translate before wilfully according to his obstinate opinion? See chap. vii. Fulke. Beza doth indeed translate προγνώσει provi- dentia ; but he expoundeth himself in his annotation: 7d est, eterna cognitione. For what heretical conclusion he should so do, you do not express, neither can I imagine. To your other quarrels, of soul and carcase, hell and grave, I have said enough in answer to your preface. Sects. 46 and 47. Martin. If to this purpose he avouch that sheol signifieth nothing else in Hebrew but a grave, whereas all Hebricians know that it is the most proper and usual word in the scriptures for hell, as the other word keber is for a grave; who would think he would so endanger his esti- mation in the Hebrew tongue, but that an heretical purpose against Christ’s decending into hell blinded him? See chap. vii. Fulke. Nay, rather all learned Hebricians know, that sheol is more proper for the grave, than for hell; and that the Hebrews have no word proper for hell, as we take hell, for the place of punishment of the ungodly, but either they use figuratively sheol, or more certainly topheth, or gehinnom. For sheol is in no place:so necessarily to be taken for hell, but that it may also be taken for the grave. That keber signifieth the grave, it is no proof that sheol doth not signify the same; and therefore’ you shew yourself to be too young an Hebrician, to carp at Beza’s estimation in the knowledge of the tongue. Martin. And if all the English bibles translate accordingly, to wit, for hell: grave, wheresoever the scripture may mean any lower place _ that is not the hell of the damned ; and where it must needs signify that Γ᾿ προγνώσει τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔκδοτον. Actsii. 23, “Prescientia Dei traditum.” Vulgate. Providentia Dei deditum.” Beza. All the English versions have foreknowledge, except the Rhemish, which has prescience.] [? The versions of Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and of James, all render εἰς ἅδου hell; the only ones having grave, being the Genevan versions of 1557 and 1560. “Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in inferno.” Vulg. ~“*Cadaver meum in sepulcro.” Beza. Acts ii. 27.] 1. ‘TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 129 hell, there they never avoid so to translate it ; is it not an evident argu- ment, that they know very well the proper signification, but of purpose "they will never use it to their disadvantage in the questions of limbus, purgatory, Christ’s descending into hell? chap. vii. Fulke. 1 have said before, there is no place in the Old ΕΥΡΕΝ Testament, where sheol must needs signify that hell, in ™ which are the damned, but the place may be reasonably and truly translated the grave: although, as in divers places by death is meant eternal death, so by grave is meant hell, or damnation. Concerning the questions of limbus, purgatory, and the descending of Christ into hell, they are nothing like: for the last is an article of our faith, which we do constantly believe in the true understanding thereof; but the other are fables and inventions of men, which have no ground, in the scripture, but only a vain surmise, builded upon a wrong interpretation of the words of the scripture, as in the peculiar places shall be plainly declared. Martin. If further yet in this kind of controversy, Beza would be Mart, bold to affirm (for so he saith), if the grammarians would give him leave, ieee im that chebel with five points signifieth funem, no less than chebel with six Acts ii, 94, points; is he not wonderfully set to maintain his opinion, that will oan change the nature of words, if he might, for his purpose ? ban Fulke. Wonderfully, I promise you; for he translateth rl ate, solutis the word for all this, doloribus, and sayeth, Nihil tamen fanibus mor. ausus sum mutare ex conjectura: “Yet I durst change no- tis doloribus thing upon conjecture.” Annotat. in Acts 11, 24°. You say, he Furxs, would change the nature of words. Nothing so; but if the 54 word might bear that signification, he thinketh it more agreeable to the Hebrew phrase, which the evangelist doth often follow. Is not this a great matter to make an evident mark of corruption ? Martin. If passives must be turned into actives, and actives into Martin, passives, participles disagree in case from their substantives, or rather be plucked and separated from their true substantives, solecisms imagined, where the construction is most agreeable, errors devised to creep out of the margin, and such like; who would so presume in the text of holy scriptures, to have all grammar, and words, and phrases, and construc- tions at his commandment, but Beza and his like, for the advantage of [5 “Quem Deus suscitavit solutis doloribus mortis.” Beza. “Quem Deus suscitavit solutis doloribus inferni.” Acts ii. 24. Vulg.] [FULKE. | FuLKE, Martin, 36. Acts iii. 21. δέξασθαι", Pag. 43, Funk, 36. 130 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [οη. their cause? See chap. v. numb. 6, and the numbers next following in this chapter. Fulke. But if all these be proved to be vain cavils » and frivolous quarrels, as in the chap. vy. numb. 6. and in the numbers following in this chapter it shall be plainly declared, then I hope all men of mean capacity and indifferent judg- ment will confess, that ignorance hath deceived you, malice hath blinded you, hatred of the truth hath overthrown you, the father of lies and slanders hath possessed you. Martin. For example, St Peter saith, “ Heaven must receive Christ.” He translateth, “Christ must be contained in heaven,” which Calvin himself misliketh, the Geneva English bible is afraid to follow, Ilyricus the Lutheran reprehendeth: and yet M. Whitakers taketh the advantage of this translation, to prove that Christ’s natural body is so contained in heaven, that it cannot be upon the altar. For he knew that this was his master’s purpose and intent in so translating. This it is, when the blind follow the blind, yea, rather, when they see and will be blind: for certain it is (and I appeal to their greatest Grecians) that howsoever it be taken for good in their divinity, it will be esteemed most false in their Greek schools, both of Oxford and Cambridge ; and howsoever they may pre- sume to translate the holy scriptures after this sort, surely no man, no not themselves, would so translate Demosthenes, for saving their credit and estimation in the Greek tongue. See chap. xvii. numb. 7, 8, 9. Fulke. Beza translateth quem oportet ὁδοῖο capi, Acts iii. 21. You say, “Heaven must receive Christ:”’ Beza saith, “Christ must be received of heaven.” Call you this turning of actives into passives, and passives into actives? Or will you deny us the resolution of passives into actives, or actives into passives? What difference is there in sense between these propositions? Your purse containeth money, and money is contained in your purse: the church must receive all Christians, or all Christians must be received of the church. But Calvin, you say, misliketh this translation, [2 καὶ ἀποστείλῃ τὸν προκεχειρισμένον ὑμῖν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν, ὃν δεῖ οὐρανὸν μὲν δέξασθαι ἄχρι χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων. Acts iii. 20, 21. “Et miserit eum qui predicatus est vobis, Jesum Christum. Quem oportet quidem ccelum recipere usque in tempora restitutionis omni- um.” Vulg. “Et miserit eum qui ante predicatus est vobis, Jesum Christum. Quem oportet quidem ccelo capi usque ad tempora restitutionis om- nium.” Beza. | το TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 131 and the Geneva bible is afraid to follow it. Yet neither of them both misliketh this sense, nor can; for it is all one with that which you translate, “whom heaven must receive.” Cal- vin only saith, the Greek is ambiguous, whether heaven must receive Christ, or Christ must receive heaven. But when you grant that heaven must receive Christ, you can not deny for shame of the world, but Christ must be re- ceived of heaven: wherefore you understand neither Calvin nor Illyricus, who speak of the other sense, “that Christ must receive heaven.” And Master Whitaker, not of Beza’s translation, but of the text, and even of your own translation, may prove, that Christ’s natural body is contained in heaven. And as for your appeal to the greatest Grecians, and the Greek schools both of Oxford and Cambridge, [it] is vain and frivolous; for the least grammarians that be in any country schools are able to determine this question, whether these propositions be not all one in sense and signification, Ego amo te, and Tu amaris a me; “I love thee,” or “thou art loved of me.” But it is strange divinity, that Christ should be contained in heaven. Verily, how strange soever it seem- eth to Gregory Martin, it was not unknown to Gregory Nazianzen, as good a Grecian and as great a divine as he is. For in his second sermon περὶ υἱοῦ, not far from the beginning, he writeth thus of our Saviour Christ: δεῖ yap αὐτὸν βασιλεύειν ἄχρι τοῦδε, καὶ ὑπὲρ οὐρανοῦ δεχθῆναι ἄχρι χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως. “For he must reign until - then, and be received or contained of heaven until the times of restitution.” Here you see Nazianzen?® citing this very place of Saint Peter, Acts ii., for the mean verb of active signification, doubteth not freely to use the passive verb in the same sense that Beza translateth the place, against which you declaim so tragically. And if you think it be such an heinous offence, to render passively in the same sense that which is uttered actively in the text, so that no man for his credit would so translate Demosthenes, as Beza doth Saint Luke; I pray you, what regard had you of your credit and estimation? when Matt. iv. you trans- late, out of Latin, Qui demonia habebant, “such as were possest ;” and Luke ii. Ut profiterentur, “to be enrolled.” [ἢ Greg. Naz. Oratio xxxvi. Opera. edit. Lutet. Parisiis 1609, p. 579.] 9—2 Martin, 37. es 34, 35. D. Sand. Rocke, pag. 308. See Comm. Bud. Figu- rata con- structio, or “A χημα͵ ᾿Αττικόν, FuLKE, 37. 132 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ou. Belike you have a privilege to do what you list, when other men may not do that which is lawful. Martin. But yet there is worse stuff behind: to wit, the famous place Luke xxii., where Beza translateth thus, Hoe poculum novum tes- tamentum per meum sanguinem, qui pro vobis funditur* : whereas in the Greek, in all copies without exception, he confesseth that in true gram- matical construction it must needs be said, quod pro vobis funditur ; and therefore he saith it is either a plain solecophanes (and according to that presumption he boldly translateth), or a corruption crept out of the margin into the text. And as for the word solecophanes, we understand him that he meaneth a plain solecism and fault in grammar, and so doth M. Whitakers: but M. Fulke saith, that he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancy and figurative speech, used of most eloquent authors; and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his devices, striving to make St Luke’s speech here, as he construeth the words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue. He sendeth us first to Budee’s commentaries, where there are examples of solecophanes: and, indeed, Budee taketh the word for that which may seem a solecism, and yet is an elegancy, and all his examples are of most fine and figurative phrases, but, alas! how unlike to that in St Luke! And here M, Fulke was very foully deceived, thinking that Beza and Budee took the word in one sense : and so taking his mark amiss, as it were a counter for gold, where he found solecophanes in Budee, there he thought all was like to St Luke’s sentence, and that which Beza meant to be a plain solecism, he maketh it like to Budee’s elegancies. Much like to those good searchers in Oxford (as it is said, masters of arts,) who, having to seek for papistical books in a lawyer’s study, and seeing there books with red letters, cried out, Mass books, Mass books: whereas it was the code or some other book of the civil or canon law. Fulke. This must needs be a famous place for the real presence of Christ’s blood in the sacrament, that never one of the ancient or late writers observed, until within these few years. But let us see what fault Beza hath com- mitted in translation. The last word in the verse, τό éxyv- vouevov, he hath so translated, as it must be referred to the word τῷ αἵματι, signifying blood, with which in case it doth not agree. That is true; but that he confesseth that all Greek copies without exception have it as it is com- monly read, it is false: only he saith, Omnes tamen ve- [? Beza’s words are, “Hoc poculum est novum illud testamentum per sanguinem meum, qui pro vobis effunditur.” Edit. 1556. and 1582.] 1] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 133 tusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant. “All our old Greek copies had it so written.” He speaketh only of his own, or such as he had, and not of all without exception; for since he wrote this note, there came to his hands one other ancient copy, both of Greek and Latin, in which this whole verse of the second delivery of the cup is clean left out. For immediately after these words, τοῦτο ἔστι τὸ σῶμά μου, πλὴν ἰδοὺ ἡ χεὶρ doth follow; and so in the Latin, Ve- runtamen ecce manus qui tradet me, &c. Moreover, Beza telleth you, that Basil in his Ethicks, 6p. κά. citing this whole text of St Luke, readeth, τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένῳ in the dative case, agreeing with τῷ αἵματι, the word next before. By which it is manifest, that in S. Basil’s time the read- ing was otherwise than now it is in most copies. Again, where you say, he confesseth that in true grammatical con- struction it must needs be said, Quod pro vobis funditur, his words are not so; but that those words, if we look to the construction, cannot be referred to the blood, but to the cup, which in effect is as much as you say: ‘ His judg- ment indeed is of these words, as they are now read, that either it is a manifest solewcophanes, or else an addition out of the margin into the text; and as for the word solecophanes, you understand him that he meaneth a plain solecism and fault in grammar, and so doth M. Whitakers.’ How you understand him, it is not material, but how he is to be understood indeed. M. Whitakers, whom you call to witness, doth not so understand him, but sheweth that if he had called it a plain solecism, he had not charged St Luke with a worse fault than Jerome chargeth St Paul. But what reason is there that you or any man should under- stand Beza, by solecophanes, to mean a plain solecism ? Think you he is so ignorant, that he knoweth not the dif- ference of the one from the other? or so negligent of his terms, that he would confound those whom he knoweth so much to differ? “But Master Fulke (say you) saith that he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancy and figurative speech, used of most eloquent authors: and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his devices, striving to make St Luke’s speech here, as he construeth the words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue.” Thus you write; but if I give not all Grecians and Latinists just oc- 184 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. casion, before I have done with you, to laugh at your proud ignorance, and to spit at your malicious falsehood, let me never have credit, I say not of a Grecian or learned man, which I desire not, but not so much as of a reasonable crea- ture. Ah, sir! and doth M. Fulke say, that this speech of St Luke is an elegancy in the Greek tongue? I pray you, where saith he so? You answer me quickly, “ Against D. Saunder’s Rock, p. 3081.” I tremble to hear what words you have there to charge me withal. Indeed in that page I begin to speak of that matter against Saunder, who chargeth Beza as you do, and moreover affirmeth that Beza should teach that St Luke wrote false Greek, because he saith, that here is a manifest solecophanes. But that neither you shall quar- rel, that I choose some piece of my saying for my pur- pose, nor any man doubt how honestly you charge me, I will here repeat whatsoever I have written touching that matter in the place by you quoted : “ But the protestants do not only make themselves judges of the whole books, but also over the very letter (saith he) of Christ’s gospel, finding fault with the construction of the evangelists, and bring the text itself in doubt. Example hereof he bringeth Beza in his annotations upon Luke xxii, of the words, ‘ This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you.’ In which text, because the word blood in the Greek is the dative case, the other word that followeth is the nominative case, Beza supposeth that St Luke useth a figure called solacophanes, which is appearance of incongruity ; or else that the last word, ‘which is shed for you,’ might by error of writers, being first set in the margin out of Matthew and Mark, be removed into the text. Here- upon M. Saunder, out of all order and measure, raileth upon Beza and all protestants. But I pray you, good sir, shall the only opinion of Beza, and that but a doubtful opinion, indict all the protestants in the world of such high treason against the word of God? For what gaineth Beza by this interpretation? Forsooth, the Greek text is con- trary to his sacramentary heresy. For thus he should trans- [* In Fulke’s work, entitled “A retentive to stay good Christians in true faith and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristow. Also, the Discoverie of the daungerous Rocke of the Popish Church, Commended by Nicholas Saunder, D. of Divinitie. London, 1580.” ] 1.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 135 late it: “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which cup is shed for you.” Not the cup of gold or silver (saith he), but the liquor in that cup, which is not wine, because wine was not shed for us, but the blood of Christ. ~Why, then the sense is this: This blood in the cup which is shed for you, is the new testament in my blood. What sense in the world can these words have? By which it is manifest, that the words ‘which is shed for you’, cannot be referred to the cup, but to his blood. For the cup was the new testament in his blood, which was shed for us; which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the manifest word of God. Neither doth the vulgar Latin trans- lation give any other sense, although M. Saunder is not ashamed to say it doth. The vulgar Latin text is this: Hic est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur. What grammarian, in construing, would re- fer qui to calix, and not rather to sanguine? Again, Erasmus translateth it even as Beza: Hoc poculum novum testa- mentum per sanguinem meum, qui pro vobis effunditur. Now, touching the conjecture of Beza, that those words by error of the scrivener might be removed from the margin into the text, [it] is a thing that sometime hath happened, as most learned men agree, in Matthew xxvil., where the name of Jeremy is placed in the text for that which is in Zachary, and yet neither of the prophets was named by the evangelist, as in most ancient records it is testified. The like hath been in the first of Mark, where the name of Esay is set in some Greek copies, and followed in your vulgar translation, for that which is cited out of Malachi; which name was not. set down by the evangelist, but added by some unskilful writer, and is reproved by other Greek copies. But this place, you say, is not otherwise found in any old copy, as Beza confesseth: then remaineth the second opinion, that St Luke in this place useth solwcophanes, which is an appear- ance of incongruity, and yet no incongruity. Wherem 1 cannot marvel more at your malice, M. Saunder, than at your ignorance, which put no difference between solecismus and solaecophanes ; but even as spitefully as unlearnedly you affirm that Beza should teach that St Luke wrote false Greek, whereas solecophanes is a figure used of the most eloquent writers that ever took pen in hand, even Cicero, 186 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. Demosthenes, Greek and Latin, profane and divine, and even of St Luke himself in other places, whereof for ex- amples I refer you to Budzus upon the word solaecophanes. The appearance of incongruity is, that it seemeth, that τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον, which is the nominative case, should agree with τῷ αἵματι, which is the dative case; whereas indeed τὸ is used as a relative for ὃ, as it is often, and the verb ἐστι, which wanteth, is understood, as it is commonly in the Greek tongue; and so the translation must be, Hoe poculum no- vum testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effun- ditur, or effusus est. So that this is nothing else but an im- pudent and unskilful quarrelling against Beza, whereas you papists defend against the manifest institution of the cup, and the practice of the primitive church, the communion in one kind of bread only. Cone. Const. Sess. xii, 21.” Where find you that I affirm St Luke’s speech here to be an elegancy in the Greek tongue? yea, or solecophanes to be nothing else but an elegancy and figurative speech ? A figure indeed I say that it is; but are all figures ele- gancies, or all figurative speeches elegancies of speech ? Some figures, I trow, serve to excuse similitudes of faults in speech. But I say solecophanes is used of the most eloquent writers. Very well; doth it thereof follow that it is always an elegancy ? Have not the most elegant authors used hyper- batons, perissologies, and other figures that are counted faults of speech, and not elegancies and fine speeches? But “all the examples of Budee, you say, to whose commentaries I send you, are of most fine and figurative phrases.” If they be such, they do the better prove that for which I called him to warrantize, namely, that solecophanes is not a solecism, or false Greek, wherewith Saunder accuseth Beza to charge St Luke. But where you utter your foolish pity, in saying, Alas, how unlike they are to that in St Luke! I think the case is not so clear as you make it; for I suppose those examples that he bringeth of the figure of the whole con- struction changed after a long hyperbaton, or parenthesis, may well be taken for figurative speeches, but not for ele- gancies and fine figurative phrases: as again, those popular sayings which, being taken out of the common people’s speech, Budzeus saith, the most eloquent orators have translated into their finest writings. Peradventure, as musicians use some- 1. | - TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 137 time a discord to set forth the harmony of concord, so they by hardly avoiding of a solecism would shew the grace of congruity and elegancy. But of this whole matter let the judgment be with them that are learned and eloquent in both the tongues. It is sufficient for me that he which useth solecophanes in Greek committeth not a solecism, or speaketh false Greek, as Saunder termeth it. But where you say, that “‘ Master Fulke was foully deceived and took his marks amiss, as it were a counter for gold, to thmk that Beza and Budee took the word in one sense,” you say your plea- sure, but you shall well know, that Master Fulke is not so young a babe, to take a counter for gold, as you are a bold bayard, to pronounce of all men’s meanings what you list. For how are you able to prove, that Beza by solecophanes. meaneth a plain solecism ? Think you that Beza is so simple a child also, to term copper by the name of gold? If he had meant a solecism, could he not have said so? But you must play Procrustes’ part; for neither my saying nor Beza’s meaning were large enough for you, to frame your. slanderous cavil against the truth, and therefore with a loud lie you must lengthen my saying, and with proud and false presumption you must stretch out his meaning. These be your arts, this is your eloquence, these are the sinews of your accusations. What “those good searchers in Oxford ” were, which, being masters of arts, could not discern between mass books, and law books, for my part I never heard; but I think it to be a matter of as good credit as that you report of me and Beza. Martin. This was lack of judgment in M. Fulke at the least, and Martin, no great sign of skill in Greek phrases; and he must no more call D. ty Saunders unlearned for not understanding Beza’s meaning, but himself, who indeed understood him not. For if Beza meant that it was an elegancy used of the finest authors, and such as Budee doth exemplify of, why doth he say, “that he seeth not why Luke should use solecophanes,” but thinketh rather, it is a corruption crept into the margin? Tell us, M. Fulke, we beseech you, whether is the better and honester defence, to say, that it is an elegancy and fine phrase in St Luke, or to say, that it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin, the gospel is here corrupted? Think you Beza such a fool, that he would rather stand upon this latter, if he might have used the former, and had so meant by solecophanes ? Yea, what needed any defence at all, if it had been an usual and known elegancy, as you would prove it ? Fuixe, 38. 138 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. ἢ Fulke. 1 had rather it should be counted want of judgment in me, so it were by a man of judgment, than to be taken so often with falsification and lack of truth. For my skill in Greek phrases, although I never professed any, yet I see nothing brought by you to change my opinion of Saunder’s unlearned slander, in railing against Beza, for say- ing that St Luke should write false Greek. And if soleco- phanes do differ as much from solecismus, as gold doth from copper, as you seem to say, when you write that I take a counter for gold, I might think myself very unlearned in- deed, if I did understand Beza speaking of solecophanes, as though he spake of solecismus. But you demand why Beza saith, that he seeth not why St Luke should use solecophanes, if he meant that it was an elegancy used of the finest authors. Still you thrust in your lie in every corner: who saith he meant it was an elegancy ? Beza saith, he seeth no cause why St Luke should use solecophanes, that is, depart from the usual and ordinary construction ; and therefore passeth to another conjecture. But you speak me fair to tell you, “whether is the better and honester defence, to say that it is an elegancy and fine phrase, or to say it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin, the gospel is here corrupted.” First, I answer you, that Beza affrmeth neither, but rather translateth as Basil did read. Secondly, I say, there is no dishonesty in either of both — conjectures; for this solecophanes, though it be no elegancy, yet may be defended from solecism, or false Greek. And certain it is that some words have crept out of the margin into the text, as the name of Jeremy in all copies that are — extant, Matt. xxvii, and of Esay in many, Marki. And yet we say not the gospel is corrupted; which foul phrase it — seemeth you have great pleasure in, notwithstanding you yourself out of Lindanus charge all the Greek copies οὗ the Epistle to the Corinthians to be corrupted by Marcion, the mischievous mouse of Pontus. You ask further, whether I “think Beza such a fool to stand rather upon the latter, if he might have used the former, and had so meant by soleecophanes ?” Nay, rather, think you Beza such a fool, that he would mean a plain solecism, and call it only an — appearance of solecism ? What he rather stood upon, his — translation doth best shew, which is both with St Basil’s 1,} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 139 reading, and with the appearance of incongruity, which is none in deed, ‘“ Yea, what needed any defence at all,” say you, “if it had been an usual and known elegancy?” So well you love a lie when you have made it, that you can never leave it until you have worn it all to nought. Now you have it, not only an elegancy, but an usual and known elegancy. Verily, I never said it was an elegancy, as my words are plain to be read of every man, and much less that it was an usual and known elegancy. Only I say it is usual and common in the Greek tongue, that the prepositive article is used for the relative; and so much in the next section you yourself do grant me: and as for defence you talk of, I see none needful, except it be for that this phrase here used of St Luke is lawful, though it be not so common as the ordinary construction. Martin. For you say further, that τὸ is taken for ὃ, and ἐστι is understood, and that this is a common thing in the best Greek authors ; but you must add, that the said relative must always be referred to the antecedent of the same case, as this speech, τὸ ποτήριον τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον may be resolved thus, τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐκχυνόμενόν ἐστι, or rather ὃ ἐκ- χύνεται : but that ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον, may be resolved, ὃ ἐκ- χυνόμενόν ἐστι, you shall never be able to bring one example; and you wilfully abuse whatsoever knowledge you have of the Greek tongue to deceive the ignorant, or else you have no skill at all, that speak so barbarously and rustically of Greek elegancies. For if you have skill, you know in your conscience, that ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυ- νόμενον is as great a solecism in Greek, and no more elegancy, than to say in Latin, Zn meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the school deserveth whipping. And yet you ask very vehemently concerning these words, Hic calix novum testamentum in meo sanguine qui pro vobis JSundetur, what mean grammarian would refer qui to caliv, and not to sanguis? J answer that a mere Latinist, for ignorance of the Greek tongue, would refer it rather as you say: but he that knoweth the Greek, as you seem to do, though he be a very young grammarian, will easily see it cannot be so referred : asin the like, Acts xiv., Sacerdos quoque ὁ Jovis qui erat ante civitatem eorum. Here qui is Gh Bisaots but in the Greek we see that qui must be referred to Jovis, and cannot be referred to Sacerdos. Fulke. First, I take that you grant me, that it is a common thing in the Greek tongue, that the article pre-% positive is taken for the subjunctive, and the verb substan- tive may be understood where it is not expressed; which if Martin, 39. ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῦ διὸς τοῦ ὄντος. ae 140 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. you would not have granted, might have been extorted from you by confession of all Grecians and Greek writers. Se- condly, where you teach me a general rule, to add to the former concession, that the said relative must always be re- ferred to the antecedent of the same case, as in the example you bring, τὸ ποτήριον τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον, you shall pardon me to learn of you. I take you for no such Aristarchus, that you have power to make new rules in the Greek gram- mar, and such as shall control not only Homer, but all good authors that ever did write in that language, of sole- cism and incongruity. For if the relative must always be referred to the antecedent of the same case, to agree with it in case, or else it is false Greek, I will abide by it, there is no Greek author whose works are extant, but he hath committed solecism. The examples that hereof might be brought out of every several writer, if they were heaped together, would make a book as big as Ilias. But in this so clear a .case to cite any examples, I see not to, what purpose it should be, unless it were to make little children, that learn τύπτω in the grammar schools, to be witnesses of your intolerable arrogancy and incredible ignorance, One example I will bring you out of St Mark, not unlike this of St Luke, but that the verb ἐστι is expressed: καὶ φέρουσιν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ “γολγοθᾶ τόπον, ὅ ἐστι μεθερμηνευό- μενον κρανίου τόπος, “and they bring him to the place Gol- gotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of sculls.” This example is more than sufficient for so plain a matter. For although it be an elegancy for the relative to agree in case with the antecedent sometimes, yet to make a perpetual rule thereof it proceedeth of too much rashness, want of know- ledge and consideration. But I “shall never be able to bring one example” like to this of St Luke, where, the relative not _ agreeing in case with the antecedent, the participle may be resolved by the verb substantive that is not expressed; and I “wilfully abuse whatsoever knowledge I have of the Greek tongue, to deceive the ignorant, or else I have no skill at all, to speak so barbarously and rustically of Greek ele- gancies, and I know in my conscience, it is as great a solecism in Greek, and no more elegancy, than to say in Latin, In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the school deserveth whipping :” and I know not what beside. But 1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 141 touching the similitude of the solecisms, if you had made your example alike, that is, put in the relative in the Latin, as it is in the Greek, Jn meo sanguine qui fusus pro vobis, there is no more solecism in the one than in the other. But all this while I brmg no example, and you urge an example, yea, so extremely, that you say confidently, I shall never be able to bring one: but what if I bring two or three? who then abuseth his knowledge in the Greek ? who hath no skill at all? who deserveth whipping ? Have you so read all authors, and bear them and all their phrases so well in mind, that you dare before all the world avouch, that I shall never be able to bring one example? But to let all the world see your vanity, I will begin with Theognis, who in the 863rd of his Elegiac Sentences writeth thus : Πολλοῖς ἀχρήστοισι θεὸς διδοῖ ἀνδράσιν ὄλβον ᾿Ἐσθλὸν, ὃς οὔθ᾽ αὑτῷ βέλτερος οὐδὲν ἐὼν, Οὔτε φίλοις. See you here the relative ὃς, being the nominative case, not agreeing with his antecedent, ὄλβον, of the accusative case, but coming before the verb ἐστὶ, that is included in the participle ἐών ἢ What can you here say? will you cavil at the subjunctive article? Then read a few verses after, and see whether this poet useth not as indifferently the preposi- tive article as the subjunctive for the relative. Iliv οἶνον τὸν ἐμῆς κορυφῆς ἀπὸ Ταὔγέτοιο ἔΛλμπελοι ἤνεγκαν, τὰς ἐφύτευσ᾽ ὁ γέρων. And within two verses, | Tov πίνων ἀπὸ μὲν χαλεπὰς σκεδάσεις μελεδώνας, speaking of the same wine. Also, Theocritus, in 24th Idyll : OvAopévors ὀφίεσσι, τὰ καὶ θεοὶ ἐχθαίροντι. And in the 23rd Idyll: Kal ποτὶ τὸν θεὸν ἦνθε τὸν ὕβρισε. From Theocritus let us pass to Hesiodus, out of whom it were over tedious to cite how often he useth the article prepositive for the relative, and not agreeing in case with the antecedent: but an example or two shall serve, where the verb substantive is understood, and not expressed, nor 142 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. any other verb to govern the relative, yet not agreeing in case with the antecedent : Κρήνης τ᾽ ἀενάου καὶ ἀποῤῥύτου, ἥ τ᾽ ἀθόλωτος. Again, in "Εργ. Ἡμέρ. Οἰωνοὺς κρίνας of ἐπ᾽ ἔργματι τούτῳ ἄριστοι. Here, methinks, I hear you grudge against poetry and poetical licence, as doubtless you would quarrel against pro- fane authorities, if I should bring you any like examples out of prosaical writers. | We must see therefore, whether we are not able to bring examples of the like phrase out of the holy scriptures. First, that solecophanes is found m St Luke, I will refer you to the first cap. of his gospel, ver. 74, and cap. vi. ver. 4; likewise, Acts xxvii. 3, and Acts xii. 6. But for the like solecophanes to this in question, Luke xxii, I will send ᾿ you first to St Paul, Col. i. 25. πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸ μυστήριον TO ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν, νυνὶ δὲ ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ. In this verse τὸ μυστήριον must needs be the ac- cusative case, as τὸν λόγον is, by apposition: then is τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον for all the world as τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον, the nominative case, signifying Quod absconditum fuit, which the latter part of the verse, νυνὶ dé ἐφανερώθη, doth most plainly declare: for what else should be the nominative case to the verb ἐφανερώθη Ὁ And even so your vulgar Latin text hath it translated: Et impleam verbum Dei, mysterium quod absconditum fuit a seculis et generationibus, nune autem manifestatum est sanctis ejus. But because this is not so evident, for that the nominative case and the accu- sative of the neuter gender be of one termination, I will bring you yet more plain examples out of the Revelation of St John, chap. 1 Mae τ “χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὧν, καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. “Grace to you, and peace from him (or from God, as some copies have) which is, and which was, and which is to come.” Would not your grammar say it is a Plain solecism, because he saith not, τοῦ ὄντος, and τοῦ ᾿ἐρχόμενου ? What have you here to quarrel? [5 not ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὧν and: ὁ ἐρχόμενος the same phrase that is in Luke, τῷ αἵματι, τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον Ὁ Well, let us ‘go 1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 143 a little further, to the next verse of the same chapter, where we read thus: καὶ ἀπὸ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς, O πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς. “And from Jesus Christ, which is a faithful wit- ness, the first-born from the dead, and prince over the kings of the earth.” The more usual construction would require that he should have said, ἀπὸ ‘Iycov Χριστοῦ τοῦ μάρτυρος TOU πιστοῦ, τοῦ προτοτόκου καὶ TOU ἄρχοντος, but that he useth the same solecophanes which St Luke doth, chap. xxii. (if the reading be not altered), where the article pre- positive is put in the place of the subjunctive, and agreeth not in case with the antecedent, as often it doth, but being the nominative case, cometh before the verb ἐστι, which is not expressed, but must needs be understood ; as even your vulgar translator doth acknowledge, rendering it ἴῃ both verses thus: ab 60 qut est, et qui erat, et qui venturus est, and a Jesu Christo qui est testis fidelis, &c. These exam- ples, I doubt: not but they are sufficient to satisfy any rea- sonable man, to shew that I have not invented a new construction that never was heard of, to save Beza’s credit, and whereof I am able to give not so much as one example. But that I may overthrow M. Martin’s vain insultation with a whole cloud of examples, [ will yet add one or two more. In the same Revelation, chap. vii. 9, thus we read : καὶ ἀπέθανε τὸ τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὰ ἔχοντα ψυχάς, “and there died the third of all creatures which are in the sea, which had lives.” Your vulgar Latin text turneth it thus: Et mortua est tertia pars creature, eorum que habebant animas in mari: ‘And there died the third part of the creatures, of those things which had life in the sea.” In which translation, although the order of the words which St John useth is somewhat inverted, yet the sense remaineth the same; and τὰ ἔχοντα is translated, que habebant, which agreeth not with τῶν κτισμάτων in case, (as every child that can decline a Greek noun doth know,) where otherwise the most common construction were to have said, τῶν κτισμάτων, τῶν ἐχόντων. Therefore the phrase and construction is the same, which is Luke xxii., τῷ αἵματι, τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον. What can fine M. Gregorie, which carpeth at my skill, that speak so barbarously and rustically of Greek elegancies, what can Master Gregorie Martin, I say, 144. ΠΑ DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. the great linguist of the seminary of Rheims, allege, why these phrases are not alike? or rather, changing the words, in figure the very same? And if he have anything to cavil against this example, as I see not what he can have, yet have I another out of the same book, chap. ii. 12: καὶ γράψω ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ μου, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς πόλεως τοῦ Θεοῦ μου τῆς καινῆς ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ, ἡ καταβαίνουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ μον. “And I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which descendeth out of heaven from my God.” The vulgar Latin translation differeth not from this, which saith: Et scribam super eum nomen Det mei, et nomen civitatis Dei mei, nove Jerusalem, que descendit de celo a Deo meo. Here the antecedent is of the genitive case, the relative of the nominative, which cometh before the verb ἐστι, understood in the participle καταβαί- vovoa, as in Luke xxii. it is in the participle ἐκχυνόμενον. By these examples, in seeking whereof, I promise you, I spent no great time, you may learn to be wiser hereafter, and not to condemn all men, beside yourself, out of your reader’s chair at Rheims, of ignorance, unskilfulness, bar- barousness, rusticity, yea, wilfulness and madness, where you yourself deserve a much sharper censure through your im- moderate insultation, the matter thereof being both more false and forged, than we might justly have borne, if we had been overtaken with a little grammatical ignorance. By these examples I trust you see, or if you will needs be blind, all the young Grecians in England may see, that as in the Latin translation you confess the relative standeth more likely to be referred to the word sanguine than to the word calix, so in the Greek there is no help to remove it from the next manifest and necessary antecedent to a word further off, with which the signification of the participle cannot agree. For who would say, that a cup is shed for us? And though you make a metonymy of the cup for that which is in the cup, what is that, I pray you? Not wine, you will say, I am sure, but the blood of Christ. If you so resolve it, then followeth that vain nugation which I have noted agaist Saunder: “This blood in the cup, which blood is shed for you, is the new testament in my blood.” Is that blood in the cup diverse from that blood an 1] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 145 in which the new testament is confirmed? If it be the same, how often was it shed? If it were shed in the cup, how holdeth your unbloody sacrifice? Or how can you say that it was shed in the cup, where, by your rule of concomitants, it is not separated from the body, as it was in his passion? If it were not separated, as certainly his blood was’ not separated from his body, in the supper, how can that which was in the cup, be his blood that was shed for us? for the word of “shedding” signifieth separation. Wherefore it cannot be referred to that in the cup, but to his blood which was shed on the cross for us; so that there is a manifest enallage, or change of the tense; the present being put for the future, as it is manifest by the other evangelists, where the word of shedding can be re- ferred to nothing else, but to his blood shed upon the cross. Wherefore the Greek text can here resolve you of no am- biguity, as in the place you cite, Acts xiv. Neither was there ever any ancient writer that stumbled upon this am- biguity; but all with one consent refer the word of shedding to his blood, and not to the cup or the content thereof, so many as speak of it. ' Martin. And this is one commodity among others, that we reap of Marr, the Greek text, to resolve the ambiguity that is sometime in the Latin : 4- whereas you neither admit the one nor the other, but as you list ; neither doth the Greek satisfy you, be it never so plain and infallible, but you will devise that it is corrupted, that there is a solecism, that the same solecism is an elegancy, and thereupon you translate your own device, and not the word of God. Which whence can it proceed, but of most wilful corruption? See chap. xvii. num. 10, 11, 12. Fulke. This is nothing but general railing, and im- Forxs, pudent slandering, as in the particular sections before is at, proved. For we neither devise that the text is corrupted, to alter any thing of the text, no, not where it is undoubtedly corrupted, as in the name of Jeremy, Matt. xxvii.: neither devise we a solecism, when we admonish that there is a solecophanes', which of no papist that ever I heard of was before observed: neither make we a solecism to be an elegancy, when we say against them that confound a ᾿ς solecism with solacophanes, that solacophanes is a figure used sometimes of most eloquent writers, neither is it straight- [' That which seems to be a solecism, but yet is not.] τὸ | FULKE. | ΜΙΑΠΤΙΝ, 41], Psal. exix. Octon. Nun. Ps. cxxxix. 146 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cn. way a virtue or elegancy of speech, whatsoever eloquent writers sometimes have used: wherefore we translate no- thing of our own device, but we translate the word of God without any wilful corruption. Martin. If in ambiguous Hebrew words of doubtful signification, where the Greek giveth one certain sense, you refuse the Greek, and take your advantage of the other sense; what is this but wilful par- tiality? So you do in Redime eleemosynis peccata tua, Dan. iv.; and, Inclinavi cor meum ad faciendas justificationes tuas propter retributionem ; and, Nimis honorati sunt amici tui, Deus, etc.: and yet at another time you follow the determination of the Greek for another advantage, as Psalm xeviii. “ Adore his footstool, because he is holy.” Whereas in the wip Hebrew it may be as in our Latin, “because it is holy.” See chap. xiii. ΝῊ Dum. 18; chap. ix. num. 23, 24; chap. xviii. num. 1,2. So you flee Lib. ii. eont. from the Hebrew to the Greek, and from this to that again, from both to the vulgar Latin, as is shewed in other places; and as St Augustine Faust. cap.2. saith to Faustus the Manichee, “ You are the rule of truth: whatsoever FuLke, 41. is for you, is true ; whatsoever is against you, is not true.” Fulke. ΤΆ Hebrew words be ambiguous, we take that sense which agreeth with other places that are plain and without all ambiguity; and this is no partiality, but wisdom and love of the truth: not to ground any new doctrine upon such places only, where the Hebrew word is ambigu- ous, and ‘may have divers significations; as you do the redemption of sins by alms, upon that place of Daniel iv. ; where you confess that the Hebrew word is ambiguous, and are not able to bring any one plain text for it, where the words are not ambiguous. But we ground our refusal upon a hundred plain texts, that ascribe the whole glory of our ransom and redemption from sins to the only merey of God. But as well this text as the other two, that you cite in the chapters by you quoted, shall be throughly discussed, to see if you can have any advantage at our translators of the same. But on the contrary side you say that at another time we follow the determination of the Greek for another advantage, as in that text, Psalm — [ Ps. cxix. 112. i. 6. in the octonary, or division of eight Versea which commences with the Hebrew letter 5, nun.] [? Vides certe quam nescias, vel te nescire fingas, quid sit evan- — gelium, nec ex doctrina apostolica, sed ex vestro errore nomines evan- gelium. Augustin. Contra Faustum, Lib. τα. 2. Opera. Vol. vm. p. 316.] 1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 147 xeviil. ‘Adore his footstool, because he is holy,” whereas (Psal. xeix.] in the Hebrew it may be as in your Latin, “ because it is holy.” I answer, that we follow not the determination of the Greek, as moved by the only authority thereof, for any advantage, but because we learn our interpretation out of the very psalm itself. For whereas the. prophet in the 5th verse hath said, “ Exalt ye the Lord our God, and wor- ship at the footstool of his feet, for he is holy ;” im the last verse of the same he repeateth again the like exhortation: “ Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship him in his holy hill; for the Lord our God is holy.” In this verse for his ‘ footstool’ he placeth the ‘holy hill,’ which expresseth where his footstool was, namely the holy ark, and for cadhosh hu, wip ‘holy is he,’ now he sayeth, cadosh Jehova, ‘holy is the Lord τὴ our God,’ which putteth the other verse out of ambiguity. ον Wherefore if we take testimony of the Greek, we fly not © to the Greek from the Hebrew, but shew that the Hebrew “im may so be understood, having other more certain arguments than the testimony of the Greek. Again, it is utterly false, that you say we fly from both Hebrew and Greek to the Latin; for we never fly from the Hebrew, but acknowledge it as the fountain and spring, from whence we must re- ceive the infallible truth of God’s word of the Old Testa- ment, following the Latin or Greek so far as they follow the truth of the Hebrew text, and no farther. As for the saying of St Augustine to Faustus the Manichee, “You are the rule of truth,” [it] doth most aptly agree to you papists and to your pope: for you will not afford unto the scriptures themselves any authority or certainty of truth, but upon your approbation and interpretation. Wherefore not only that which he saith to Faustus the Manichee agreeth aptly to you, ‘ Whatsoever is for you is true, what- soever is against you is not true:’ but that also which he reporteth Tyconius the Donatist said of his sect, Quod vo- lumus sanctum est, “Whatsoever we will is holy,” you your- selves take upon you. For no doctrine is good nor holy, though it be proved neyer so plainly out of the holy scrip- ture, except it be allowed by you for catholic and holy. Martin. What shall I speak of the Hebrew particle vau? which bleak (Gen. xiv. 18.) must in no case be translated because, lest it should 4 10—2 148 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cn. 75 ΝΎ prove that Melchisedec offered sacrifice of bread and wine, as all the * fathers expound it: but (Luke i. 42) where they translate the equiva- lent Greek particle καὶ ἡ, there Beza proveth the said particle to signify Quis bene because, and translateth accordingly, and the English Bezites likewise. beneditus. I will not urge them, why: we like the sense well, and Theophylact ctus ven- tris tui. so expoundeth it. But if the Greek copulative may be so translated, why not the Hebrew copulative much more, which often in the seripture is used in that sense? See chap. xvii. num. 13, 14, Funke, Fulke. That the Hebrew particle vaw is sometimes to 42. be taken for a causal conjunction, and signifieth because, no man denieth: but that it must be taken so Gen. xiv. because καὶ is taken so Luke i. 42, what reason is this? But all the fathers (say you) expound Melchisedec’s bring- ing forth of bread and wine to be a sacrifice. I grant that many do, but not all: yet do not they ground upon the conjunction causal ; for Cyprian, Lib. 1m. Epist. 3, ad Coecilium, readeth thus, Fuit autem sacerdos, “and he was a priest.” So doth Hierome, Epist. ad Evagriwm, expounding the very Hebrew text, say, Et Melchisedech rex Salem protulit pa- nem et vinum, erat autem sacerdos Dei excelsi. The word protulit also hath Ambrose, de mysteriis initiand, Augus- tine upon the title of the 33rd Psalm, Cyprian im the epistle before named; and the vulgar Latin hath proferens. Hierome, Ep. ad Evagrium, sheweth that the best learned of the Hebrews’ judgment was, that Melchisedee Victori Abraham obviam processerit, et in refectionem tam ipsius, quam pugnatorum ipsius®, panes vinumque protulerit: “Mel- chisedec came forth to meet Abraham the conqueror, and for refection, as well of him as of his warriors, brought forth bread and wine.” And after many interpretations of the Greek writers which he rehearseth, in the end he will de- termine nothing of his own judgment. The author of Scho- lastica Historia, cap. 64, agreeth with the interpretation of the Hebrews. “*At vero Melchisedech rex Salem obtulit οἷ Γ᾿ Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶ, καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου. Luke i. 42. “ And blessed is the fruit of thy womb,” Cranmer, Tyndale, Rheims, Authorised. “ Because the fruit of thy womb is blessed,” Geneva. [? ejus. Edit. Martianay, Vol. π. p. 56. | [5 Genesis xiv. 18. The Vulgate has, “At vero Melchisedech rex Salem, proferens panem et vinum.” Augustine says, Et tantus erat 1.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 149 panem et vinum: quod quasi exponens Josephus ait: Mi- nistravit exercitut xenia, et multam abundantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit, et super epulas benedixit Dewn, qui Abrahe subdiderat inimicos. Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi. “But Melchisedec, king of Salem, offered unto him bread and wine; which Josephus as it were expounding of it saith: ‘He ministered to his army the duties of hos- pitality, and gave him great plenty of things necessary, and beside the feast, or at the feast, he blessed God, which had subdued unto Abraham his enemies: for he was a priest of the highest God’.” Therefore not all the fathers so judged of Melchisedec’s bread and wine. But against all them that referred the same to his priesthood, we oppose the apostle to the Hebrews, chap. vii., who, searching of pur- pose whatsoever was in Melchisedec, wherein he resem- bleth. Christ, so that he omitteth not the interpretation of his name nor of his city, maketh no mention of his sacri- fice of bread and wine; whereas nothing seemeth to have greater resemblance than that, which deceived many of the ancient fathers, but yet was not observed of the Holy Ghost. Martin. But I would ask rather, why xexaptropevy* may not in any BARE, aa be translated, “full of grace ;” whereas ἡλκωμένοςδ ig translated, 4 “full of sores ;” both words being of like form and force. See chap. fake vie 20. XViii. num. 4, 5. Fulke. The former word, being a participle, is best hg sie translated by a participle ‘freely beloved:’ for the other, if * we had a participle in English, to say, ‘sored or botched,’ Melchisedec, a quo benediceretur Abraham. Protulit panem et vinum, et benedixit Abraham, et dedit ei decimas Abraham. Videte quid pro- tulit. Augustin. Enarratio in Psalmum xxxm1. cap. 5. Opera, Vol. 1v. p. 301. Et Melchisedech rex Salem protulit panem et vinum. Fuit autem sacerdos Dei summi, et benedixit Abraham. Cypriani Epist. txm. Opera, edit. Baluzi, Paris. 1726. p. 105.] τς [ἢ χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη. Luke i. 28. “Ave, gratia plena,” Vulg. “Hail, full of grace,” Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, Rheims. “Hail, thou that art freely beloved,” Geneva. “ Hail, thou that art in high favour,” Bishops’. “ Hail, thou that art highly favoured,” Authorised version. | [® ὃς ἐβέβλητο πρὸς τὸν πυλῶνα αὐτοῦ ἡλκωμένος. Luke xvi. 20. εν ποῦ jacebat ad januam ejus ulceribus plenus,” Vulg. “ Full of sores,” all the Versions. ] Martin, ἀφιλάργυ- pos! ὁ τρό- 150 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. we would use it; but for lack of a participle, we are con- strained to use the noun, ‘full of sores.’ I may likewise ask you, whether you would translate κεχρυσωμένος full of gold, or gilded? And so of all other verbs of that form, where there is in English a participle: why ought not like- wise κεχαριτωμένος be translated by the participle? Martin. Again, why say they (Heb. xiii.) “ Let your conversation be without covetousness,” and say not, “Let marriage be honourable in all, and the bed undefiled;” both being expressed alike by the mos. τίμιος apostle, and by way of exhortation, as the rest that goeth before and « , 2 ὁ γάμος". FuLKe, Martin, 45. Heb. v. 7. * Beza, Acts xxvi.‘20. 2 Thess. ii. and iii. followeth? See chap. xv. num. 15. Fulke. Although the sense were not so greatly different, yet the participle dé following in the latter part of the verse, πόρνους δὲ, &c., “but fornicators and adulterers God will judge,” sheweth that the former part of the verse is an affirmation rather than an exhortation. Again, the purpose of the apostle is plain, to dissuade them from whoredom and adultery; and not only to exhort married men to use marriage temperately, but for avoiding of whoredom and adultery, which God will punish, to shew the remedy that God hath provided for man’s infirmity to be honourable and void of filthiness. Martin. Are we too suspicious, think you? How can “fear” be translated “that which he feared ;” “repentance,” “them that repent or amend their life ;” “tradition,” the doctrine delivered; ‘ temples,” shrines ; “idols,” devotions; “ every human creature,” all ordinances of man; “foreknowledge,” providence; “soul,” carcase; “hell,” grave ; “altar,” temple; “table,” altar; and such like ? _ [2 ἀφιλάργυρος ὁ τρόπος. Heb. xiii. 5. “Sint mores sine avaritia,” Vulg. “Let your conversation be without covetousness,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops’ Bible, Authorised version. “Let your — manners be without avarice,” Rheims. | [? τίμιοξ ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσι, καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος. Heb. xiii. 4. “Ηο- norabile, connubium in omnibus, et thorus immaculatus,” Vulg. — «Let wedlock be had in price in all points, and let the chamber be — undefiled,” Tyndale. ‘ Wedlock is to be had in honour among all men, and the bed undefiled,” Cranmer, Geneva. “ Marriage, honourable in all, and the bed undefiled,’ Rheims. ‘“ Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled,’ Authorised. ‘‘ Wedlock is honourable among all men, and the bed undefiled,” Bishops’ Bible. | 1.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 151 Fulke. We think you not more suspicious,’ than mali- Fur«e, cious. “From his fear,” may well (for explication sake) be 4: translated, “from that which he feared®,” Heb. v. 7, even as hope is sometime taken for that which we hope for, as Col. 1. 5, Tit. i. 13. So may “repentance” in Beza Acts xxvi.* 20, signify them that repent, as “circumcision” often signifieth them that are cireumcised: neither is there any change of the sense, to say the fruits worthy of repentance, or the fruits worthy of them that repent, or amend their life. And I pray what doth “tradition,” 2 Thess. ii. and iu. signify, but the doctrine delivered’? Doth not the apostle declare, what his tradition was, when he delivereth this doctrine, that if any man will not work, let him not eat, 2 Thess. iii. 10.? The word ναοὺς, as it is used, Acts xix. 24, signifieth neither temples nor shrines®, but certain idolatrous coins, on which was stamped the figure of Diana’s temple, more like to your popish shrines than to the temple of God. Where “idols” [ καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας. Heb. ν. 7. “ Exauditus est pro sua reverentia,” Vulg. ‘ Exauditus esset ex metu,” Beza, 1566. “ And was herd for his reverence,” Wiclif. ‘ Heard, because of his godliness,” Tyndale. “Was heard, because of his reverence,” Cran- mer, Rhemish. “And was heard in that which he feared,” Geneva, Tomson’s translation of Beza, Edit. Barker, 1583.] [* τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγέλλων μετανοεῖν. Acts xxvi. 206. “ Annuntia- bam ut poenitentiam agerent,” Vulgate. “Annuntiavi ut resipisce- rent,” Beza, edit. 1566. “That they should repent,” New Test., Englished by W. Tomson, from Beza’s version, 1583.] [ἢ καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις. 2 Thess. ii. 15. “ Et tenete traditio- nes,” Vulgate. ‘Et retinete traditam doctrinam,” Beza, 1582. “ Et tenete traditam doctrinam,” Beza, 1556. “Keep the instructions which ye have been taught,” Tomson’s translation of Beza, Geneva. “ Holde ze the tradiciouns,” Wiclif. “Keep the ordinances,’ Tyndale, Cran- mer. “Hold the traditions,’ Rhemish, Authorised. καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρέλαβε. 2 Thess. iii. 6. “Εἰ non secundum traditionem,” Vulgate. ‘Et non ex tradita doctrina,” Beza, 1566. “And not after the techynge,” Wiclif. “And not after the institution,” Tyndale, Cranmer. “ And not after the instruction,” Geneva, Tomson’s version. “And not according to the tradition,” Rhemish. “And not after the tradition,’ Authorised.] [® ποιῶν ναοὺς ἀργυροῦς ᾿Αρτέμιδος. Acts xix. 24. “ Faciens edes ar- genteas Diane,” Vulg. “Qui faciebat templa argentea Diane,” Beza, 1566. “ Which made silver shrines for Diana,’ Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised. ] Martin, Psal. Ixxxvi. 13. Bib. 1579. Psal. xlix. Titus iii. FuULKE, 46. 152 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH | cH, are translated ‘devotions’, I know not, except you mean Acts xvii. 23, where the word is σεβάσματα', which your vulgar Latin translator, 2 Thess. ii, calleth quod colitur, “that which is devoutly worshipped,” and so the word signifieth ‘whatsoever is religiously worshipped or adored,’ and not “idols,” as you say, nor simulacra, “images,” as your translator calleth them, Acts xvii.; for it is derived of σεβάζω, or σεβάζομαι, which signifieth ‘to adore,’ ‘to worship,’ ‘to honour devoutly or religiously’.’ ‘“ Every human creature” signifieth in that place, 1 Pet. ii., every magistrate, of what creation or ordination soever he be; and so is meant by that translation (all ordinances of men), not all laws of men, which yet were not impious, if you add the restraint, “for the Lord,” for whom nothing can be that is against his law. The rest of your quarrels be all answered before. Martin. What caused these strange speeches in their English bibles? “Thou shalt not leave my soul in the grave.” “Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave.” ‘‘ A covetous man is a worshipper of images.” “By laying on of the hands of the eldership.” “ Hail, freely beloved.” “Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt rule over him.” “Break off thy sins with righteousness,” for “redeem with alms.” “ Jealousy is cruel as the grave,” for “as hell.” Cant. viii. Bib. anno 1579. “The griefs of the grave caught me.” Psalm exvi. And, “God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave.” “O grave, I will be thy destruction.” Os. 13, and such like. What made Calvin so translate into Latin, that if you turn it into English, the sense is, that God ‘ poured water upon us abundantly,’ meaning the Holy Ghost? what else, but because he would take away the necessity of material water in baptism, as in his commentary and Beza’s it is evident ? Fulke. These speeches are not strange in God’s church, howsoever they sound in your ears. So many of them as [2 ἀναθεωρῶν τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν. Acts xvii. 23. “Videns simu- lacra vestra,” Vulgate. ‘‘Contemplans sacra vestra,’ Beza. “ For as I passed by and beheld your devotions,” Geneva 1560, Tomson’s translation of Beza, 1583, though this appeared a year later than Martin’s book: it may, however, be from the first edition of the trans- lation, printed in 1576.] [ Ὑποτάγητε οὖν πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει. 1 Pet. ii. 18. “ Subjecti igitur estote omni humane creature,” Vulgate. “Ἢ Subjecti estote cuivis humane ordinationi,” Beza, 1566. “Submit yourselves unto all manner ordinance of man,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised. “‘ Be subject, therefore, to every human creature,’ Rhemish. ] 1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 153 translate for sheol the “ grave,” have their answers, sect. 32, and chap. vii., which is appointed for that question: “The covetous man a worshipper of images,” sect. 5 of this chap. and chap. iii, numb. 12. The “laying on of hands of the eldership” is warranted: by the signification of the Greek word πρεσβυτέριον, which signifieth a company of elders, as it is translated by your own vulgar Latin interpreter, Luke xxii. 66. Seniores plebis: “The elders of the people ;” and Acts xxii. 5, he calleth πᾶν τὸ πρεσβυτέριον, Omnes majores natu. And for a consistory of elders is the word presbyterium used in Latin by Cyprian, Lib. m. Epist. 11, and Lib. π. Epist. 8,10. Of “hail, freely beloved,” we spake lately, sect. 43.; of the text Gen. iv. 7, “sin lieth at the door,” &c. sect. 28, and chap. x. sect. 9; of Dan. iv. “ break,” for “redeem thy sins,” sect. 41. If Calvin, Tit. ui., did wrongly interpret that which is spoken of water, to be meant of the Holy Ghost, what is that to our translation ? But certain it is, that Calvin never meant to take away the necessity of material water from the sacrament of baptism, although he taught that the want of the external sacrament, where it cannot be had, doth not deprive God’s elect from eternal salvation: neither hath Beza any other meaning in his annotation. Martin. I had meant to have but briefly skimmed over these Marrin, things, but multitude of matter maketh me too long, as it chanceth to 47: aman that wadeth through miry and foul places ; and yet the greatest demonstration that they are wilful corrupters, is behind, which only I will add, and for the rest refer the reader to the whole book. Fulke. Jt is a small sign, that multitude of matter is Furxe, cause of your length, when you repeat one matter in so 4” many sections: your similitude of a man wading in foul and miry places doth well agree unto you; for you have been all this while wading in the puddle of your slanders, mis- prisions, and false accusations, in which you have so berayed yourself, as you shall not easily purge yourself from the mire of them. But because you say the greatest demon- stration that we are wilful corrupters, is behind, though it be tedious for us to rake in such a gogmire*® of your forge- ries and false accusations, yet we will take courage, and [5 Quagmire. ] 154 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. consider what main demonstration you can make, to prove us in our English translations to be wilful corrupters. Mart, Martin. Doubt you whether they translate of purpose and par- 48. tiality, in favour of their opinions? you shall hear themselves say so, Tom. ὃ, fol. and protest it. If I dealt with Lutherans, this one testimony of Luther Witteb. anno were sufficient, who, being asked why he added “ only” into the text, Rom. iii., answered that he did it to explicate the apostle’s sense more jue express plainly, that is, to make the apostle say more plainly, that faith only Beza, (whom justified. And his disciple Illyricus disputeth the matter, that the heretical’ apostle saying, “by faith without works,” saith in deed, “ only faith.” follow here- But because I deal rather with our English Calvinists, and Beza is their doth willy chief translator, and a captain among them, whom they profess to follow and of pur- pose translate in the title of the New. Testament, anno 1580, and by the very name of Against such their Geneva bibles, let us see what he saith. eatholie assertions. Furs, Fulke. 1 think there is no man doubteth but they trans- 48. lated the scripture with purpose to maintain their opinions; but whether they have wittingly and wilfully translated falsely, to maintain any errors or heretical opinions, that is the matter in question, and which hath need of your greatest demonstra- tion to make it apparent. That Luther might rightly inter- pret the place, Rom. iii., of only faith justifying, by the excluding of works, I have before acknowledged, and Illyricus doth rightly defend it. But that he did put in the word “only” in his translation, which is not in the original, I will not take upon me to excuse, seeing the truth of that doc- trine is manifest without that addition; and Luther himself, in his later editions, hath reformed it. Again, what fault soever other men have committed in their translation, we are unjustly charged therewith, except we follow the same in ours. That. we profess to follow Beza by the very name of our Geneva, bibles, it is a very ridiculous argument: for our Bibles are so commonly called, because they were translated and first printed at Geneva, not by Beza, (who at that time had scarce finished his translation of the New Testament, and never dealt — with translating of the old, so far as we know,) but by certain — godly and learned Englishmen, which lived there in queen — Mary’s time, to enjoy the liberty of a good conscience, which they could not have in their own country. Martin, Martin. First, concerning μετανοεῖτε, which the vulgar Latin and 4. Erasmus translate, Agite pwenitentiam, or “ Do penance.” “ This interpre- ι.} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 155 tation,” saith he, “I refuse for many causes, but for this especially, that many ignorant persons have taken hereby an occasion of the false opinions of satisfaction, wherewith the church is troubled at this day.” Lo! of purpose against satisfaction he will not translate the Greek word as it ought to be, and as it is proved to signify, both in this book -and in the annotations upon the New Testament. A little after speak- ing of the same word, he saith, “ Why I have changed the name peni- Matt. iii. 8. tentia, I have told a little before ;” protesting that he will never use those words, but resipiscere, and resipiscentia, that is, amendment of toes ae life; because of their heresy, that repentance is nothing else but a mere amendment of former life, without recompence or satisfaction or penance for the sins before committed. See chap. xiii. Fulke. Of purpose against the heresy of satisfaction, Furxe, Beza will not translate the Greek word, as the vulgar Latin 4: translator doth, but yet as the Greek word ought to be trans- lated. Erasmus, finding the vulgar Latin msufficient, hath added vite prioris, that is, “repent ye of your former life.” Neither doth Beza find fault with the English word “repent,” but with the Latin agite penitentiam, when you translate it, “do penance,” meaning thereby pain or satisfaction for sins passed, to be a necessary part of true repentance, which is not contamed in the Greek word μετανοεῖν ', which signifieth changing of the mind; that is, not only a sorrow for the sin past, but also a purpose of amendment, which is best expressed by the Latin word resipiscere, which is always taken in the good part, as μετανοεῖν is in the scripture, whereas the Latin words panitere and penitentia are used in Latin of sorrow or repentance that is too late: as penitere and penitentia may be said of Judas’ grief of mind, which caused him to hang himself, but not μετανοεῖν, or μετάνοια, or resipiscere and resipiscentia: and therefore the Holy Ghost, speaking of his sorrow, useth another word, μεταμέλειν, and μεταμέλεια. And this is the cause why Beza refused the word penitentia, [* Ferte igitur fructum dignum resipiscentia. Matt. iii. 8., Beze Vers. 1556. Ceterum μετανοεῖν quum est verbum absolutum, proprie significat post factum sapere, et de errore admisso ita dolere ut cor- rigas: quod (ut opinor) Latinis proprie significat resipiscere. Beze, Annot. in v. 2. Tertullian’s definition of μετάνοια is this: Nam et in Greco sono pee- nitentiz nomen, non ex delicti confessione, sed ex animi demutatione compositum est. Adversus Marcionem, lib. ii. Opera, p. 472. Edit. Rigaltii, 1641.] Martin, 50. δικαιώ- ματα. Luke i. 6. 156 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH, [cn. having a Latin word that more properly doth express the Greek word; as we might lawfully do in English, if we had another English word proper to that repentance which is always joined with faith and purpose of amendment, for want whereof we are constrained to use the words repent and repentance, which may be taken in good part, or in evil: for we say, repentance too late, and Judas repented too late; but there is no μετάνοια that can be called too late. But where you.say, that resipiscere and resipiscentia is nothing but amendment of life, and that repentance, in our heresy, is nothing else but a mere amendment of former life, you speak -untruly : for those words do signify not only amendment of life, but also sorrow for the sins past, although without re- compense or satisfaction, which you call penance for the sins before committed ; for we know no recompence or satisfaction made to God for our sins, but the death of Christ, who “is the propitiation for our sins.” 1 John ii. Neither hath your blas- phemous satisfaction any ground in the Greek word μετανοεῖν, but only a foolish colour by the Latin translation, agite pani- tentiam, which it is like your Latin interpreter did never dream of, and therefore he useth the word resipiscere, 2 Tim. ii. Of them to whom God should give μετάνοιαν, “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth,” οὐ resipiscant, and so they may repent, or, as you translate it, “recover themselves from the snare of the devil.” Seeing, therefore, repentance is the gift of God, it is no recompence or satisfaction made by us to God, to answer his justice; but an earnest and true grief of mind for our transgression of God’s law, and offending against his majesty, with a certain purpose and determination of — amendment, so near as God shall give us grace. Hitherto therefore we have no demonstration of any wilful corruption, but a declaration of the cause that moved Beza to use a more — exact translation, and such as cometh nearer to the original word, than that which the vulgar translation hath used, upon which occasion of a great blasphemy hath been taken, and is — yet maintained. ! Martin. Again, concerning the word “ justifications,” which in the — scripture very often signify the commandments, he saith thus: “The — Greek interpreters of the bible (meaning the Septuaginta) applieth this word to signify the whole law of God, and. therefore commonly it is_ wont to be translated word for word, justificationes: which interpreta- ι.} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 157 tion therefore only I rejected, that I might take away this occasion also of cavilling against justification by faith ;’ and so for “ justificationes” he putteth “constituta,’ Tully’s word, forsooth, as he saith. Can you have a more plain testimony of his heretical purpose ? Fulke. Concerning the Greek word δικαιώμασι, which FurKe, Beza translateth constitutionibus, “ constitutions;’ and you 5 confess that in scripture it doth very often signify the com- mandments; he saith first, that as the whole law of God is divided into three parts, moral, ceremonial, and judicial, so the Hebrews have three several words to express the several precepts of those laws. For the Hebrew word which signifieth the ceremonial precepts, the Greeks use to translate δικαιώ- ματα. So the sense is, that Zachary and Elizabeth were just, walking in all the moral commandments, and observing the holy rites and ceremonies, as much as concerned them :: but the third word, which signifieth “ judgments,” St Luke doth not add, because the exercise of judicial cases did not belong unto them, being private persons. After this he saith, that the Greek interpreters of the Bible transferred this word unto the whole law of God, and especially to the holy ceremonies : so, verily, exceedingly commending the law, that it 1s a certain rule of all justice ; and therefore men are wont commonly, in respect of the word, to turn it “justifications.” And this word im this place, Beza indeed confesseth that he refused to use, for avoiding of cavillations against justification by faith, seeing he hath none other word; neither would he for offence seek any new word to express justification by faith, whereas the word δικαιώματα, in this text, Luke i. 6., signifieth not that by which they were made just, but the commandments or pre- cepts of God, by walking in which they were declared to be just. For “by the works of the law” (such as St Luke here speaketh of) “no flesh shall be justified” before God. Therefore ικαιώματα in this place must have another sense than justi- fications, namely, commandments, as you say it is often taken, or constitutions, as Beza calleth them, which before God and the world are not of such difference, that you should charge him with wilful corruption for translating that word constitu- tions, which you confess signifieth very often commandments. Wherefore here appeareth no heretical purpose, except you will say that justification by faith, which St Paul so often, so diligently, and so purposedly doth teach, is an heresy. Martin, 51. * Lo! how simply, Ani- ma, carcase. Infernus, grave. Fu.kg, 51. Martin, §2. ὃν δεῖ οὐρανὸν δέξασθαι. Acts iii, 21. Flae. Illyr. Furs, 52. 158 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. Martin. Again, when he had rejected this translation, Act ii. 27, Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, “ thou shalt not leave my soul in hell,” ‘because,’ as he saith, ‘hereupon grew the errors of Christ’s descending into hell, of limbus, and of purgatory; at length he concludeth thus: ‘Whereas the doubtful interpretation of one or two words hath brought forth so many monsters, I chose rather simply * for ‘soul’ to say carcase; for ‘hell,’ grave; than to foster these foul ᾽ errors. Fulke. Beza sheweth, that because the doubtful inter- pretation of the Hebrew word sheol into ἄδης, which doth not properly signify “hell,” but a dark place, such as the pit is wherein the dead are put, and of the poets is taken for hell, had bred such monsters as limbus patrum, purgatory, and Christ’s descending into them; therefore he did plainly trans-’ late that verse as it is meant, of the raising up of Christ’s body out of the grave; which, if he had translated out of He- brew, as he did out of Greek, had not been offensive nor untrue, as I have shewed in answer to your preface, sect. 46, and of this chapter, sect. 32. But seeing Beza himself hath altered that translation, and it was never followed of our English translators, what demonstration is this, that we are wilful corrupters of the holy scriptures ? Martin. Again, when he had translated for “Whom heaven must receive,” thus, “ who must be contained in heaven,” he saith: ‘ Whereas we have used the passive kind of speech, rather than the active,’ which is in the Greek, ‘we did it to avoid all ambiguity. For it is very expedient that there should be in the church of God this perspicuous testimony against them, that for ascending by faith into heaven, so to be joined to our Head, obstinately maintain that Christ must be called again out of heaven unto us:’ meaning his presence in the blessed sacrament, and inveighing no less against the Lutherans than the catholics, as the Lutherans do here against him for this wilful inter- pretation, and that by Calvin’s own judgment, who thinketh it a forced — translation. Fulke. True it is, that he meant concerning the manner — of Christ’s presence in the blessed sacrament, and that he so translated, to exclude the carnal manner of presence, which the papists have invented: but all this while the translation is true, and warranted by Gregory Nazianzen, as I have shewed before, sect. 56 of this chapter. For he that saith, ‘heaven must receive Christ,’ (as you do,) cannot deny, except he be mad, -but that Christ must be received of heaven. So nf: TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 159 that Beza doth none otherwise translate, than you do, Qui demonia habebant; which is actually thus to be translated, ‘those who had devils,” and you say, ‘which were possest of devils,’ that is, were had of devils. That the Lutherans did find fault with Beza’s translation, it proveth it not to be false : he hath justified it sufficiently in his- answer to Selneecerus and the divines of Jena. Neither doth Calvin (as you say untruly) think it a forced translation; but not weighing the sentence sufficiently, supposeth that the words are placed am- biguously, for that it seemeth to be doubtful whether we should say, that heaven must receive Christ, or that Christ must receive heaven. But if it be once granted (as it is of *you) that heaven must receive Christ, there is neither Calvin nor Illyricus, nor any man that beareth the face but of a young grammarian, yea, of a reasonable man, which can deny that conversion by the passive: Christ must be received of heaven. Therefore, if you had any respect of your credit with men of understanding, you would not for shame rehearse this quarrel so often; which hath not so much as any colour or shew of reason to maintain it, but that you abuse the names of Illyricus and Calvin, as misliking it, whose arguments by no means will serve your turn, because that which is denied by them, or doubtful to them, is plain and confessed by you. Martin. But Beza goeth forward still in this kind. Rom. νυν. 18, Martin, whereas Erasmus had put propagatum est, indifferently, both of = Adam’s sin, which made us truly sinners, and of Christ’s justice, which maketh us truly just; he rejecting it, among other causes why it dis- pleased him, saith: “That old error of the sophists,” meaning catholics, “which for imputative justice put an inherent quality in the place, is so great and so execrable to all good men, that I think nothing is so much to be avoided as it.” Fulke. A manifest eclipsis, or want of words, being in Furxe, that verse, for which Erasmus hath put propagatum est, oa which word is ambiguous, and may give occasion of error, for men to think that the righteousness of Christ cometh by pro- pagation, as the guiltiness of Adam doth; Beza thought good to supply the lack, rather by such words as are warranted by the text, verses 12, 15, and 16, and can give no occasion of error. And therefore thus he rendereth that verse: Nempe igitur, sicut per wunam offensam reatus venit in omnes homi- Martin, 84. 160 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ oH: nes ad condemnationem ; ita per unam justificationem bene- jicium redundavit in omnes homines ad justificationem vite. “ΝΟΥ therefore, as by one offence guiltiness came upon all men unto condemnation; so by one justification the benefit abounded toward all men unto justification of life.’ In this verse these words, ‘guiltiness came,” and “the benefit abounded,” are added for explication sake, and are taken out of the verses going before, in which the apostle speaketh of the same matter. Therefore Beza, to ayoid occasion of the heresy of the papists, of justice inherent, among other causes which he rehearseth, refuseth that word by which Erasmus supplied the text, and useth such words for that purpose, as the apostle himself in the verses precedent doth offer, for this* necessary supply : which seeing it must be made, that there may be a sense and understanding, who can mislike that it should be made by the apostle’s own words? or who can suppose that the apostle would leave any other words to be understood, than such as he himself had before expressed ? And as for the heresy of inherent justice, [it] can have no hold in this verse, except some such word be added for supply, as the apostle never used in this case. That Christ’s justice doth make us as truly just, as Adam’s sin made us truly sinners, there is no question: but by what means we are made just, we say, as the scripture teacheth us to speak, that justice is im- puted to us through faith, Rom. iv. The papists say it is a quality inherent within us; for which words and matter they have no warrant in the holy scripture. Martin. These few examples prove unto us that the scriptures translated verbatim, exactly, and according to the proper use and signi- fication of the words, do by the heretics’ confession make for the catholics ; and therefore Beza saith he altereth the words into other: and, I think, it may suffice any indifferent reader to judge of his purpose and meaning in other places of his translation, and consequently of theirs that either allow him, or follow him, which are our English Calvinists and Bezites. Many other ways there are to make most certain proof of their wilfulness, as when the translation is framed according to their false and heretical commentary ; and when they will avouch their trans- ‘lations out of profane writers, Homer, Plutarch, Pliny, Tully, Virgil, and Terence, and reject the ecclesiastical use of words in the scriptures and fathers; which Beza doth for the most part always. But it were infinite to note all the marks, and by these the wise reader may conceive the rest. . ; 1. | TRANSLATIONS OF ‘THE BIBLE. 161 Fulke. These examples prove’ nothing less. For to run Furxs, over them all briefly, the first two we translate verbatim, °* “A man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” and “repent” and “repentance” we say for μετανοεῖν and μετάνοια. What make these for popery? If Luke i. 6, we should call δικαιώματα, “justifications,” what should popery gain but a vain cavil, when yourselves confess, that those justifications are often used for commandments? Acts ii. 27, all our English translations are as you would have them, “Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption ;” by which verse no descent into limbus, but the resurrection from death, can be proved. ‘Tf we translate as you do Acts ii. 21, “whom heaven must receive,” we will easily convince that Christ must be received of heaven. In the last example the question is not, how the word is to be translated, but by what word the want of the text is to be supplied; which we supply not with words of our own, but with the apostle’s own words. Have you not gained greatly by translating verbatim, exactly, and according to the proper use and signification of the words’? 1 like well, that. every indifferent reader may judge by these ‘examples of Beza’s purpose in other places of his translation. But you have two other ways to make certain proof of their wilfulness. The first is, when the trans- lation is framed according to their heretical commentary. A reasonable man would think rather that the commentary were framed according to the text, than the text to the commentary. But to justify the truth of those translations, for the first text you quote, it is handled sect. 26 of this chapter, and so consequently cap. vii. The second is answered sect. 46; the other two concerning tradition sect. 23 of the 1 preface, and in the chapter following. The second way of proof is, when they will avouch their translations out of pro- fane writers. I think there is no better way to know the proper or diverse signification of words, than out of ancient writers, though they be never so profane, who used the words most indifferently in respect of our .controversies, of which they were altogether ignorant. As for the ecclesiastical use of words in the scripture and the fathers, which Beza (you say) doth for the most part reject, it is untrue: except there be good and sufficient cause why he should so do, warranted [ FULKE. | i 162 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu. by the scripture itself, or necessary circumstances of the places which he doth translate. For if the scripture have used a word in one signification sometimes, it is not ne- cessary that it should always use it in the same signification, when it is proved by ancient writers that the word hath other significations, more proper to the place, and agreeable to the rule of faith, which perhaps the usual signification is not. As for example, the scripture useth very often this word παῖς for a “boy,” or “servant:” but when the same word is applied to our Saviour Christ in the prayer of the apostles, Acts iv. 27, who would not translate it “child,” or “son,” as the word doth sometime, but more seldom, signify ? How the fathers of the church haye used words, it is no rule for translators of the scripture to follow; who oftentimes used words as the people did then take them, and not as they signified in the apostles’ time: as μετάνοια for a public testification of repentance, which we call “penance,” χειροτονία for “imposition of hands,” and such like; in which sense these words were never used before the apostles’ times, and therefore it is not like that they would begin a new use of them, without some manifest explication of their meaning, without the which no man could have understood them; as they have done in the use of these words πίστις, βάπτισμα, ἐκκλησία, and such like. It is not a fault therefore prudently to seek even out of pro- fane writers, what is the proper signification of words, and how many significations a word may have, and reverently to — judge, which is most apt for the place to be translated, and most agreeable with the Holy Ghost’s meaning in that text; and not always to be tied to the usual signification of words, — as they are sometimes taken in scripture, and much less as they are used of the ancient fathers. | gi Martin. But would you think that these men could notwithstand-— Annot. ing speak very gravely and honestly against voluntary and wilful — Actsx. 46. translations of scripture, that so notoriously offend therein themselves? — Hearken what Beza saith against Castalio and the like. “The matter,” — saith he, “is now come to this point, that the translators of scripture — out of the Greek into Latin, or into any other tongue, think that they q may lawfully do any thing in translating. Whom if aman reprehend, — he shall be answered by and by, that they do the office of a translator, — not that translateth word for word, but that expresseth the sense. So — it cometh to pass, that whiles every man will rather freely follow his — own judgment, than be a religious interpreter of the Holy Ghost, he 1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. : 163 doth rather pervert many things than translate them.” Is not this well said, if he had done accordingly? but doing the clean contrary, as hath been proved, he is a dissembling hypocrite in so saying, and a wilful heretic in so doing, and condemned by his own judgment. Fulke. No wise man doubteth, but they could both ges speak very gravely and avoid most religiously all voluntary °° and wilful translations of scripture, that might tend to main- tain any error. And the rather they will be persuaded, that Beza hath avoided that lewd kind of translation, for which he reproveth Castalio, when they shall see that you, so malicious an enemy unto him, having spent all your invention to seek holes in his translation, can find nothing but such childish cavils, as when they be discovered, men will marvel that you were not ashamed to move them. Martin. But after this general view of their wilful purpose and Marry, heretical intention, let us examine their false translations more particu- larly, and argue the case with them more at large, and press them to answer, whether in their conscience it be so or no, as hitherto is said ; and that by several chapters of such controversies as their corruptions concern ; and first of all (without further curiosity whence to begin, in cases so indifferent) of traditions. Fulke. The more particularly you examine our trans- Furxe, lations, the freer, I hope, they shall be' found from false- 56. hood and wilful corruption. And the more at large you argue the case, and press us to answer, the more you shall make the case to appear worse on your side, and the truth clearer on our part. And as God is witness of our con- science and sincerity in setting forth his word, without adulte- ration or corruption; so I appeal to the consciences of all indifferent readers, whether hitherto you have gotten any advantage against us in this whole chapter, which yet you profess to be the abridgement and sum of your whole treatise. 11--2 ἸΘῈ ‘A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH, Martin, 1. | ¢ See the an- notations of the new tes- tament, 2 Thess. ii. 15. παράδοσις. Εσχκε, 1. CHAPTER II. Heretical Translation of Holy Scripture against Apostolical Traditions. Martin. Tuts isa matter of such importance, that if they should grant any traditions of the apostles, and not pretend the written word only, they know that by ‘such traditions, mentioned in all antiquity, their religion were wholly defaced and overthrown. For remedy whereof, and for the defacing of all such traditions, they bend their translations against them in this wonderful manner. Wheresoever the holy scrip- ture speaketh against certain traditions of the Jews, partly frivolous, partly repugnant to the law of God, there all the English translations follow the Greek exactly, never omitting this word “ tradition.” Con- trariwise, wheresoever the holy scripture speaketh in the commendation of traditions, to wit, such traditions as the apostles delivered to the church, there all their said translations agree, not to follow the Greek, which is still the selfsame word; but for “traditions,” they translate “ordinances,” or “instructions.” Why so, and to what purpose? We appeal to. the worm of their conscience, which continually accuseth them of an heretical meaning, whether by urging the word, “traditions,” wheresoever they are discommended, and by suppressing the word where- soever they are commended, their purpose and intent be not to signify to the reader that all traditions are naught, and none good; all reproveable, none allowable. Fulke. Traditions indeed is a matter of such import- ance, as if you may be allowed whatsoever you will thrust upon us under the name of unwritten traditions, the written word of God shall serve to no purpose at all. For first, as you plainly profess, the holy scripture shall not be ac- counted sufficient to teach all truth necessary to salvation, that the man of God may be perfect, prepared to all good works. Secondly, with the Valentinian heretics, you accuse the scriptures of uncertain understanding without your tra- — ditions; under pretence of which you will bring in what you list, though it be never so contrary to the holy scrip- ture’s plain words, by colour of interpretation, as you do the — worshipping of images, and many other like heresies, As for the mention that is made of apostolical traditions in divers of the ancient fathers, some of them are such as you yourselves observe not, and not for the tenth part of those that. you observe can you bring any testimony out of the © μ7 TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 165 ancient fathers; as is proved sufficiently ὌΥ 850. many propo- sitions as were set down by the bishop of Salisbury, M. Jewel, whereof you can bring no proof for any one to have been: taught within 600 years after Christ. Now. concern- ing the traditions of the apostles, what they were, who can -be a better witness unto us than Ignatius, the disciple of the apostles, of whom Eusebius writeth, that when: he was led towards Rome, where he suffered martyrdom, he earnestly exhorted the churches by which he passed, to continue: in the faith, and against all heresies, which even then began to bud up, he charged them to retain fast the tradition of the apostles, which by that time he protested to be com- mitted to writing; for by that time were all the books of the new testament written. The words of Eusebius concern- ing this matter are, Lib. mt. cap. 35: προὔτρεπὲ τε. ἀπρὶξ ἔχεσθαι τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως, i nV ὑπὲρ ἀσφαλείας καὶ ἐγγράφως ἤδη μαρτυρόμενος διατυποῦσθαι ἀναγκαῖον ἡγεῖτο. “And he exhorted them straitly to keep the tra- dition of the apostles, which, testifying that it was now for assurance committed to writing, he thought necessary to be plainly taught.” Against this tradition of the apostles, which for certainty and assurance is contained in their holy and un- doubted writings, we’ say nothing, but strive altogether for it. . But because the word “traditions” is by you papists taken to signify a doctrine secretly delivered by word of mouth, with- out authority of the holy scriptures, we do willingly avoid the word in: our translations, where the. simple might be deceived, to think that the Holy Ghost did ever commend any such to the church, which he would not have to be com- mitted to writing in the holy scriptures; and instead of that word so commonly taken, although it doth not necessarily signify any such matters, we do use such words as do truly express the apostle’s meaning, and the Greek word doth also signify. Therefore we use the words of “ordinances,” or “in- structions,” or “institutions,” or “the doctrine delivered,” all which, being of one sense, the Greek word παράδοσις doth signify, and the same doth “tradition” signify, if it be rightly understood: but seeing it hath been commonly taken, and is urged of the papists to signify only a doctrine delivered beside the word of God written, in such places where the Holy Ghost useth the Greek word παράδοσις in that sense, Marty, 2. παράδοσιν. 2 Thess. ii. 15. παραδό- σεις, traditiones. 2 Thess. iii. 6. 1 Cor. xi. 2. 166 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. we translate by that word “tradition ;” where he useth it for such doctrine as is grounded upon the holy scriptures, our translators have avoided it, not of any heretical meaning, that all παράδοσεις, “traditions,” are naught, but that all such as have not the holy scripture to testify of them, and to war- rant them, are evil, and to be avoided of all true Christians; which cannot without blasphemy acknowledge any imper- fection in the holy scriptures of God, which are able to make a man wise unto salvation, if they should think any doctrine necessary to salvation not to be contained therein. Martin. For example, Matt. xv’, thus they translate, “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” And again, “ Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” And again, “ Thus have you made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.” Here, I warrant you, all the bells sound “ tradition,” and the word is never omitted ; and it is very well and honestly trans- lated, for so the Greek word doth properly signify. But now on the other side, concerning good traditions, let us see their dealing, The apostle by the selfsame words, both in Greek and Latin, saith thus: ‘** Therefore, brethren, stand and hold fast the traditions which you have learned either by word, or by our epistle*.” And again, “ Withdraw yourselves from every brother walking inordinately, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us*.” And again, according to the Greek which they profess to follow: “I praise you, brethren, [2 Διατί of μαθηταί σου παραβαίνουσι τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσ- βυτέρων; Matt. xv. 3.7 ΓΞ Καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητες. 2 Thess. ii. 15, *Tenete traditiones quas didicistis,” Vulg. “Tenete traditam doctri- nam, quam edocti estis,” Beza. “Hold ye the traditions that ye have learned,” Wiclif. ‘“ Keep the ordinances which ye have learned,” Tyndale, Cranmer. “ Keep the instructions which ye have learned,” Geneva. ‘Hold the tradi- tions which you have learned,” Rheims. “Hold the traditions which — you have been taught,” Authorised version. ] [5 Καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρέλαβον παρ᾽ ἡμῶν. 2 Thess. iii. 6. “Et non secundum traditionem quam acceperunt a nobis,” Vulg. “ἘΠῚ non ex tradita doctrina quam accepit a nobis,” Beza. “And not after the teaching that they received of us,” Wiclif. — «And not after the institution which he received of us,” Tyndale, — Cranmer. “And not after the instruction which he received of us,” Geneva. “Not according to the tradition which they have received of us,” Rheims. “Not after the tradition which he received of us,” Authorised version. ] 9 a es π:. TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 167 that in all things you are mindful of me, and as I have delivered unto καθὼς you, you keep my traditions *.” pe vs 2 δόσεις κατέχετε. ΕὝΠΚΕ, 2. Fulke. No maryel, though you cannot avoid the bells sounding against man’s traditions; which sound must needs pierce your conscience more than it offendeth your ears, seeing you know that many of those things which you defend under the name of traditions, against the holy scriptures, have not God for their author, which forbiddeth to be wor- shipped in such sort, but man, or rather Satan, which hath inspired such things unto men, thereby to dishonour God, and to discredit his holy and most certain written word. Yet you say it is well and honestly translated. God knoweth how fain you would there were no such text extant in the gospel against your superstition and will-worshipping. But now let us see our crafty dealing (as you count it) against good traditions. In the first text, 2 Thess. ii, 15, you may see your understanding of traditions quite overthrown. For the apostle speaketh of such traditions as were delivered to them partly by preaching, and partly by his epistle. There-. fore tradition doth not signify a doctrine delivered by word of mouth only. But yet you will say it signifieth here a doctrine delivered by word of mouth also, which is not writ- ten. How prove you that? because all that the apostle preached was not contained in his epistles to the Thessa- lonians, therefore was it nowhere written in the scriptures? What the tradition was in the second text, 2 Thess. ii. 6, is expressed by and by after: “that he which will not labour must not eat.” Was this doctrine never written before? when God commandeth every man to labour in his vocation. As for the third place, 1 Cor, xi. 2, your own vulgar Latin translator both teacheth us how to translate it, and also dis- chargeth our translation of heresy and corruption; for he calleth παράδοσεις in that place, “pracepta’,” precepts, or instructions, or commandments, or ordinances: I see no great difference in these words. By which his translation he sheweth, that in the other places, 2 Thess. ii. and i., he meaneth the same thing by traditiones, “traditions,” that we [4 Ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοὶ, ὅτι πάντα pov μέμνησθε, καὶ καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε. 1 Cor, xi. 2.] [ἢ “Et sicut tradidi vobis, precepta mea tenete,” Vulg. | 168 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH - [ cH: do by “ordinances” or “instructions”, and might as well have used the word precepta in those two places, as he did in this one, if it had pleased him. Martin,3. Martin. Here we see plain mention of St Paul’s traditions, and consequently of apostolical traditions, yea, and traditions by word of mouth, delivered to the churches without writing or scripture, In all which places look, gentle reader, and seek all their English translations, YetM. Fulke and thou shalt not once find the word “ tradition,” but instead thereof, can Peke, ordinances,” “ instructions,” “preachings,” “institutions,” and any word pag. 153. else rather than “tradition.” Insomuch that Beza, their master, trans- Τρ Sander’ lateth it “traditam doctrinam,” “the doctrine delivered,” putting the he give not singular number for the plural, and adding “doctrine” of his own: so stance, let framing the text of holy scripture according to his false commentary, or himself the yather putting his commentary in the text, and making it the text of 2Thess.ii. scripture. Who would think their malice and partiality against tradi- παραῦδό- tions were so great, that they should all agree with one consent so duly σεις. and exactly in these and these places to conceal the word, which in other places do so gladly use it, the Greek word being all one in all the said places ? Fux, 3. Fulke. There is no question but the apostles by word of mouth, that is, by preaching and teaching, delivered the doctrine of the gospel to the churches; but that they preached, taught, or delivered any doctrine as necessary to salvation, which they proved not out of the holy scriptures, and which is not contained in the new testament or the old, this is not yet proved, neither ever can it be proved. Such matters of ceremonies, order, and discipline, which are mutable, no man denies but they might and did deliver; but yet im them nothing but agreeable to the general rules set down in the scripture. But in all these places the word “ tradi- tion” cannot once be found. Yet M. Fulke saith it is found. Yea, doth? where saith he so? You answer, p- 153, against D. Saunders’ Rocke. Therefore, if he give not an instance, let him give himself the lie. But he that chargeth — Fulke to say it is found, lieth the more. For so he saith not: read the place who will. He speaketh against Saunders, who affirmed that the very name of “tradition” used in the better part, cannot be suffered to be in the English bible, as though there were some decree of the synod, or act of parliament agaist it; and saith, it may be and is suffered in that sense which the Holy Ghost useth it, but not to I. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 169 bring prayer for the’ dead, or any thing contrary to the scripture under the name of traditions apostolic. By which words I mean, that there is no prohibition or edict. to the contrary, but if any man will use the word tradition in trans- lation of the Bible, he is permitted so to do: I do not affirm it is so found. But as. if I should say, The papists in England are suffered to live as becometh good subjects, I affirm not that they are, or shall be found so to live. But to omit this foolish quarrel, Beza our master is said to have translated παράδοσεις, “the doctrine delivered,” putting the singular number for the plural, and adding “ doctrine” of his own. What an heinous matter here is! The word “doctrine” is a collective, comprehending many precepts or traditions ; and in the next chapter the apostle useth the same word in the singular number. Again, the 1 Thess. iv. 2, he calleth the same παραγγελίας, “precepts” or “documents,” which word signifieth the same that παραδόσεις : witness your vulgar Latin translator, which gives one word for both, precepta, 1 Cor. xi. and 1 Thess. iv. And that the word doctrine is added to the text, it is a fond cavil: for the word doctrine is con- tained in παραδόσις, which signifieth a “delivery ;” but where- of, if not of doctrine? Our Saviour Christ also, Matt. xv. 9, by the testimony of Esay reproveth the tradition of the Pharisees, “teaching the doctrines precepts of men ;” which testimony of Esay could take no hold of them, if traditions were not doctrines and precepts. So that in this transla- tion of Beza (cry out as loud as you can) there is neither fraud nor corruption, malice nor partiality; but a prudent declining of that term, which might give occasion of error, and the apostle’s meaning truly and faithfully delivered. To shew that one word may be diversely translated, especially when it signifieth divers: things, to wise men is needless. I have said before, you yourselves translate, (or else you should. be taken for madmen,) the Latin word. tradere, of which tradition is derived, sometimes “to deliver,” sometimes “to betray,” and yet the Greek and Latin word being all one in all the said places. : Martin. Yea, they do elsewhere so gladly use this word, Marr, 4. “tradition,” when it may tend to the discredit thereof, that. they put the said word in all their English bibles, with the like full con- par ii. 10. τί doypa- Titecbe}, 170 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ou. sent as before, when it is not in the Greek at all: as when they translate thus, “If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, ARE YE LED wiTH TRA- * Of the year prrions?” and, as another English translation®* of theirs readeth more 1579. Col. π᾿ τ piston ἐν δόγ- μασιν. Fu.xe, 4. + heretically, “ Why are ye burdened with traditions?” ‘Tell us sincerely, you that profess to have skill in the Greek, and to translate according to the Greek; tell us, we beseech you, whether this Greek word δόγμα do signify “tradition,” and δογματίζεσθαι “to be led or burdened with traditions.” You cannot be ignorant that it doth not so signify; but as a little before in the same chapter, and in other places, yourselves translate δόγματα, “ordinances,” “decrees,” so τί δογματίζεσθε must be (as in the vulgar Latin it is) quid decernitis ? Why do you “ordain, ” or “ decree,” or, “why are you led with decrees ?” Fulke. It grieveth you that tradition should be men- tioned in the ill part as it is. And it seemeth you would defend the Colossians against St Paul, who reproveth them because they were led by ordinances according to the “ pre- cepts and doctrines of men.” But you seem to make light of such traditions, and therefore you count that the more heretical translation, which saith, “ why are you burdened with traditions?” Wherefore, 1 pray you, is that more heretical? Do you not think that such traditions as are the commandments and doctrines of men, are burdensome to men’s consciences ? But they that have skill in the Greek tongue must tell you sincerely, whether this word δόγμα doth signify “ tradition,” and δογματίζεσθαι “ to be led or burdened with traditions.” I answer you, if δόγματα, as you confess, signify “ordinances” and “decrees” or “doctrines,” and the word tradition signifieth the same, why should not doyma- τίζεσθαι “ to be led or burdened with traditions,” as well as with ordinances, customs, or decrees? These words differ much in sound, but not greatly in signification. Dogmata Γ᾿ In the original, τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ δογματίζεσθε; in Tyn- dale’s version, 1534, “ Why, as though ye yet lived in the world, are ye led with traditions of them that say—”’ Cranmer’s version 1539, and the Bishops’ bible, “ Why, as though ye yet lived in the world, are ye led with traditions?” The Geneva version, 1557, “‘ Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ and are free from the ordinances of the world, why, as though ye yet lived in the world, are ye burdened with traditions?” In the Authorised version, “Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances 7] ΨΥ. 1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 171 Pythagorea, that might never be put in writing, what were they but the traditions of Pythagoras? Such were the philosophical decrees called δόγματα, whereof Tully speaketh in his book De jinibus, which were dictata, taught by word of mouth, which to set forth among them was counted an heinous offence: might not those rightly be called tra- ditions ? Martin. Justify your translation, if you can, either out of scriptures, Martin, 5. fathers, or lexicon. And make us a good reason why you put the word “traditions” here, where it is not in the Greek ; and would not put it in the places before, where you know it is most evidently in the Greek. Yea, you must tell us why you trandlate for tradition, “ ordinance,” and παράδοσιν contrary for ordinance, “tradition ;” so turning cat in pan (as they say) wa ordi at your pleasure, and wresting both the one and the other to one end, remmadl o that you may make the yery name of traditions odious among the ('adition:’ people, be they never so authentical, even from the apostles, which your trary. conscience knoweth, and you shall answer for it at the dreadful day. Fulke. First, out of scripture I justify it thus: those Furxe, 6. dogmata, against which the apostle writeth, were according to the precepts and doctrines of men: but such the scripture cealleth traditions, Matt. xv. Therefore these were traditions. Secondly, out of the fathers: Chrysostom? upon this place saith, Traditiones Grecorum taxat, he reproveth the tra- ditions of the Greeks, saying, all is but a human doctrine. Secondly, St Ambrose* upon this text : “Love not the world,” [3 Πῶς δὲ οὐ κόσμου παρατηρήσεσι; καὶ ὅρα πῶς αὐτοὺς κωμωδεῖ, μὴ θίγῃς, μὴ ἅψῃ, μὴ γεύσῃ, ὡς μεγάλων τινων ἀπεχομένους" a ἐστι πάντα εἰς φθορὰν τῇ ἀποχρήσει. καθεῖλε τῶν πολλῶν τὴν φυσίωσιν, καὶ ἐπήγαγε' κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων. τί λέγεις; Kav τὸν νόμον εἴπῃς, λοιπὸν διδασκαλία ἐστὶν ἀνθρώπου μετὰ τὸν καιρόν. ἢ ὅτι παρεποίουν αὐτὸν, οὕτως εἶπεν, ἢ τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων αἰνίττεται. ὅλον ἀνθρώπινον τὸ δόγμα ἐστί, φησίν. Chrysost: in Epist. ad Coloss. cap. ii, Hom, vu. Opera, Vol. x1. p. 872. edit. Benedict. | _ [5 Nolite, inquit, diligere mundum, neque ea que in mundo sunt; id est, neque elementa, quibus compactus est mundus, neque errores quos humana adinvenit traditio, deligamus; sed solum Christum qui mortuus est pro nobis. Ambros. Comment. in Epist. ad Coloss. ii. 2, Opera, Vol. m. p. 270. Sagina enim carnalis sensus traditio humana est...Hine enim aggravati non poterant sursum jungi capiti suo. Ὁ. 271. (super v. 23.) ] 172 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH® [ cH! saith he, “ nor those errors guos humana adinvenit traditio, ‘which the tradition of men hath invented.” And afterward, Sagina enim carnalis sensus humana traditio est: “For the tradition of man is the pampering of carnal sense; by which, he saith, men are so burdened, that. they cannot be joined to the head which is above.” Yet “ burdening with traditions” is called of you the more heretical translation. Say as much to Ambrose, that he maketh an heretical com- mentary. The interpreter of Theodoret, printed at Collen, 1573, hath translated in the very text, for διδασκαλίας, “‘traditiones hominum,” “traditions of men.” You see now, this matter is not so void of testimony of the fathers, as you sup- posed. The reason you require us to make, is made often before. We thought it not meet to express the Greek word in both places by the same English word, because the English word, as it is used by you, is not so indifferent,. to signify the doctrine. of God. delivered out of the scriptures, as to signify doctrines of men devised beside the scriptures. If we must answer why we call tradition “ ordinance,” and ordinance “tradition;” let your vulgar Latin interpreter an- swer us, or you for him, why he calleth tradition “ precept,” and usage or precept “tradition”? The one he doth 1 Cor, xi. 2, the other Acts vi. 14, where the Greek is ἔθη, signify- ing there “ precepts,” or “observations commanded,” he trans- lateth traditiones, as in the other place the Greek being παραδόσεις he translateth “precepta.” If this be lawful for him, why should it be counted corruption or false trans- lation in us? seeing we are moved with as good reason as can be yielded for him. As for authentical and apos- tolical traditions, that are grounded upon the doctrine of the apostles expressed in their writings, we shall be ready to receive them, whensoever they shall he brought forth. If they cannot be proved by the scriptures, which are ‘ written that we might believe, and believing have eternal life,” and — “which are able to make us wise unto salvation,” we have nothing to do with them: we may well spare: them: nay, we dare not admit them, lest we should answer for blas- phemy against the holy scriptures in that dreadful day, if by admitting of such traditions we should profess, that. the | doctrine contained in. the holy scriptures. is unperfect or — insufficient to salvation. π.} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE; 173 ’ Martin.- “Somewhat more excusable 10:15, but yet proceeding of the Martin, 6. same heretical humour, and on your part (that should exactly follow the Greek) falsely translated, when you translate in St Peter’s epistle thus : ‘‘You were not redeemed with corruptible things from your vain con- versation received by the tradition of the fathers.” “Where the Greek is thus rather to be translated, “from your vain conversation delivered by the fathers.” But your fingers itched to foist in the word “tradition,” and for “delivered” to say “received,” because it is the phrase of the catholic church, that it hath “received” many things “ by tradition,” which you would here controul by likeness of words in this false trans- lation. Fulke. I marvel why you should count it an heretical _ humour, ‘to use the word “ traditions” in the evil part, which the Holy Ghost so useth, and your own vulgar translator also; but that you are more partial in allowing the tra- ditions of men, than we in avoiding the term sometimes, only for doubt lest traditions of men should creep into the place of God’s commandments. But how is it falsely trans- lated on our part, that profess to follow the Greek, which is truly translated in your vulgar Latin text, which pro- fesseth to translate the Greek as well as we? Belike, be- cause we say, “received by the tradition of the fathers,” which according to the Greek should be, “ delivered by the fathers,” but that our fingers itched to foist in the word “ tradition.” What, I pray you, hath your vulgar translator foisted in that word? did his fingers itch against such catholic phrases, that he would controul them by a false translation? Do you not perceive that while you rail upon us, you revile your own vulgar Latin translation, which hath the same word “tradition,” for which you storm against us? But for de- livered, we have said, received. See whither frowardness - driveth you: the apostle saith, “they were delivered from the vain conversation of their fathers’ tradition.” Do you then understand, that it was delivered by the fathers, but not received by their sons? Certainly they were delivered from that vain conversation which they had received. For receiving doth necessarily import delivering. And because you called for a lexicon in the next section before, Scapula will teach you, that πατροπαράδοτος doth signify as in- differently @ patre traditus‘as a patre acceptus, “ delivered by the father,” and “received by the father.” What wrangling then is this, about the .moon-shine in the water, to cry 1 Pet. i. 18. ἐκ τῆς μα- ταίας ὑμῶν ἀνα- στροφῆς πατρῦπα- ραδότου. FuLKe, 6. Martin, 7. Tradidi παρέδωκα. Poexe, oF Martin, 8. 174 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. out “false translation,” “foisting,” “itching fingers,” and 1 know not what? Martin. But concerning the word “ tradition,” you will say perhaps the sense thereof is included in the Greek word, “delivered.” We grant. But would you be content, if we should always expressly add, “tradition,” where it is so included ? Then should we say, 1 Cor. xi. 2, “1 praise you that as I have delivered you (by tradition), you keep my precepts,” or “traditions.” And again, v.23: “For I received of our Lord, which also 1 delivered unto you,” (by tradition,) &e. And Luke i. 2: “As they (by tradition) delivered unto us, which from the beginning saw,” &c., and such like, by your example, we should translate in this sort. But we use not this licentious manner im trans- lating holy scriptures; neither is it a translator's part, but an inter- preter’s, and his that maketh a commentary ; neither doth a good cause need other translation than the express text of the scripture giveth. Fulke. We will say it is contained in the Greek word πατροπαραδότου, which signifieth “received by tradition or delivery from the fathers,” and not in the verb παραδίδωμι, which signifieth otherwise many times, than simply “to de- liver ;” and when it signifieth “to deliver,” it doth not alway signify to deliver by word of mouth, without writing, as you understand tradition, but as well by writing, as by preaching. As when St Paul saith, “I received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you,” speaking of the institution of the supper, he meaneth that which the evangelists had written, and he himself doth write. So 2 Thess. ii., when he willeth them to hold the traditions which they had learned of him, he speaketh not only of such as they learned by his preaching, but such also as they learned by his epistle. Wherefore if you should expressly add the word “tradition” in your partial signification, wheresoever you find the word delivered, you should not only translate ridiculously, but also heretically and falsely. Words in derivation and composition do not always signify according to their pri- mitive. Martin. And if you will yet say, that our vulgar Latin translation hath here the word, “tradition,” we grant it hath so, and therefore we also translate accordingly. But you profess to translate the Greek, and not the vulgar Latin, which you in England condemn as papistical, and say it is the worst of all, though Beza, your master, pronounce it to be π.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 175 the very best'; and will you, notwithstanding, follow the said vulgar pas te hi Latin, rather shear the Greek, to make traditions odious? Yea, such is pag. 147. ° your partiality one way, and inconstancy another way, that for your tiem ἰὰ Test. heretical purpose you are content to follow the old Latin translation, ™* though it differ from the Greek ; and again, another time you will not follow it, though it be all one with the Greek most exactly ; as in the place before alleged, where the vulgar Latin translation hath nothing of traditions, but, “ Quid decernitis,” as it is in the Greek, you translate, “Why are ye burdened with traditions?” Col. ii. 20. Fulke. You may be sure we will say that we know Furxz, 8. to be true, and sufficient to discharge our translation from your foolish and malicious quarrelling. But we profess (you say) to translate the Greek, and not the vulgar Latin. And, I pray you, what doth your vulgar Latin interpreter pro- fess to translate, but the Greek ? If he then, translating out of Greek, could find “tradition” in the Greek word, why should not we find the same, especially being admonished by him ? who if he translated truly, why are we blamed for doing [? Beza’s opinion was not quite what Martin has here represented it. In the preface alluded to, he says as follows: “Vulgate illius editionis, qua jampridem utimur, quis auctor fuerit, video inter doctos homines non constare. Hoc quidem constat, preterquam quod pluri- mis locis a librariis est depravata, sepe illam a Grecis discedere, sepe obscure multa interpretari, quedam pretermittere, quedam adjicere ; ut minime mirum sit, eruditis hominibus nunquam satisfecisse, impe- ritis autem multis magnos errores objecisse. Eruditos voco, non eos duntaxat qui precipué hoc nomine digni sunt, quales sane perpauci semper extiterunt; sed eos quoque qui vel mediocrem utriusque lin- gue peritiam ad pietatis cognitionem attulerunt. Ceteros autem, quod ad id attinet de quo agimus, nihil moror; quorum tamen duo genera esse video: unum eorum qui per imperitiam, quod pleraque errata non modo non intelligunt, sed ne suspicari quidem possunt, idcirco in recepta illa interpretatione acquiescunt ; qui tamen proculdubio meliora amplecterentur, siquis illa commonstraret: alterum eorum qui, perverso quodam ingenio et ignobili natura prediti, ita in ecrassis illis et ob- scuris tenebris versantur, ut veritatis lucem sponte refugiant. Illi com- miseratione sane aliqua digni sunt: isti vero plane indigni quorum corruptis et depravatis judiciis quisquam commoveatur; quinimo aperti sunt veritatis hostes; mirus enim est inter mendacium et igno- rantiam, qua isti tantopere delectantur, consensus.......... Quum igitur in illa Vulgata editione (quam tamen ego maxima ex parte amplector, et ceteris omnibus antepono) permulta requirantur, laudandus est profecto eorum labor qui illam emendare studuerunt. Prefatio. in Nov. Test. edit. Beze, 1556. ] 176 A ‘DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. as he did? if his translation be false, why is it allowed as the only authentical text? We follow not, therefore, the Latin translation, but jom with it wheresoever it followeth the Greek, as we do in ten thousand places more than this; and willingly depart not from jit, but where it de- parteth from the Greek, or else useth such words as would be offensive, if they were translated into English, or occa- sion of error; as you do likewise, when you depart from the proper. and usual signification of words, which your Latin translator useth: as when you call fanerator, “a cre- ditor,” which signifieth an usurer, Luke vii.; stabulum, “ an inn,” and stabularius, “an host,’ Luke x.; wa sabbati, ‘the first of the sabbath,” John ii. ; ecclesia, “the assembly,” Acts vii.; baptismata, “washings,” Mark vii,, and such like. But we in England (say you) condemn the Latin trans- lation, as papistical. We accuse it as not true in many places, and we say it is the worst of all, though Beza, our master, pronounce it to be the very best. This toucheth me some- what; for in the margin is noted “Discovery of the Rock, Ρ. 147.” where, indeed, speaking of the Hebrew text of ‘the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, the Greek trans- lation of the Septuagint, and the common Latin translation, I say the Tridentine Council alloweth none for authentical, but — the common Latin translation, that is the worst of all. Now what saith Beza contrary to this? Speaking of the divers Latin translations of the New Testament only, he saith of — the vulgar Latin, that he followeth it for the most part, and preferreth it before all the rest: maxima ex parte am- plector, et ceteris omnibus antepono. So that I speak of the whole Bible, Beza of the New Testament only: I speak — of the vulgar Latin text, in comparison of the original He- — brew and Greek, and the. Septuagint’s translation; Beza, — of the Latin translation of the New Testament, in comparison of all other Latin translations, that were before him, as Erasmus, Castalio, and such like. According to your old — manner therefore, you rehearse out of my writings, either falsifying the words, or perverting the meaning. These ~ things considered, you have no cause to accuse us of par- — tiality and inconstancy, for following or leaving your Latin — text, which we never did but upon good ground and sibs ἶ sufficient. a u.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 177 Martin. So that a blind man may see you frame your translations Marriy, 9. to bolster your errors and heresies, without all respect of following sincerely either the Greek or the Latin. But for the Latin no marvel; the Greek at the least why do you not follow? Is it the Greek that induceth you to say ordinances for traditions, traditions for decrees, παρα- ordinances for justifications, elder for priest, grave for hell, image for rates idol? Tell us before God, and in your conscience, whether it be because δικαιώ- yy will exactly follow the Greek : nay, tell us truly, and shame the ἀξῆβα: ἐξ evil, whether the Greek words do not sound and signify most properly τερος. ian a@ons. that which you of purpose will not translate, for disadvantaging your τιν | heresies? And first, let us see concerning the question of images. _ fulke. A blind man may see, that you cavil and slan- Fux, 9. der, quarrel and rail, without respect either of conscience towards God, or honesty toward the world: insomuch, that most commonly you forget the credit of your own vulgar Latin translation, so you may have a colour to find fault with ours. And yet again you ask, whether it be the Greek which induceth us to say, for παραδόσεις ordinances, and for δόγματα traditions, &c. I tell you, the Greek alloweth us so to say, which is sufficient, when other godly causes move us beside so to translate. Is it the Latin that in- Feenerator, duceth you to say, for ‘an usurer,’ ‘a creditor; for ‘a stable,’ Quod factum, ‘an inn;’ for ‘what was done,’ ‘what was chanced';’ for ‘fas- Aftigentes tening to,’ ‘crucifying’;’ for ‘be you saved,’ ‘save yourselves*;’ S34" for ‘creature,’ ‘creation;’ for ‘confessed,’ ‘promised‘;’ for ‘a Kets vit” Naviculas, boat,’ ‘a ship;’ for ‘a ship,’ ‘a boat ;’ for ‘singing,’ ‘piping’;’ Luke v. Γ᾿ Acts v. 7. Καὶ ἡ yum) αὐτοῦ μὴ εἰδυῖα τὸ γεγονὸς εἰσῆλθεν. “Et uxor ipsius, nesciens quod factum fuerat,” Vulg. “And his wife not knowing what was chaunced,” Rhemish version. ] [? Acts ii. 23. διὰ χειρῶν ἀνόμων προσπήξαντες aveidere. “Per manus iniquorum aftligentes interemistis,” Vulg. ‘You by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain,” Rhemish version. ‘ Have crucified and slain,” Versions 1534, 1539, 1557, 1611.] [Γ᾿ Acts ii. 40. Σώθητε ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς τῆς σκολιᾶς ταύτης. “ Sal- vamini a generatione ista prava,” Vulg. “Save yourselves from this perverse generation,” Rhemish version. | [* Acts νἱῖ. 17. Καθὼς δὲ ἤγγιζεν ὁ χρόνος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἧς ὥμοσεν ὁ Θεὸς τῷ ‘ABpadu. “Cum autem appropinquaret tempus promis- sionis, quam confessus erat Deus Abrahe,” Vulg. ‘And when the time drew near of the promise which God had promised to Abra- ham, &c.” Rhemish translation. ] [ἢ Matt. xi. 17, Ἡὐλήσαμεν ὑμῖν, καὶ οὐκ ὠρχήσασθε. “Cecinimus vobis, et non saltastis,” Vulg. “We have piped to you, and you have not danced,” Rhemish version. ] 13 . “αὶ [FULKE.| 178 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH” [cu. for ‘hay,’ ‘grass';’ for ‘refection, ‘refectory*;’ for ‘foolish- ness,’ ‘madness*;’ for ‘an image,’ ‘an idol, &c.? I blame not all these as false translations; yet every man may see they are neither usual nor proper: yet as for some of these (though not for all) I know you may give good reason, so may we, for any shew of alteration or departing from the _ usual signification of the Greek word, that you are able to allege against us. Γ᾿ Matt. xiv. 19. Ἀνακλιθῆναι ἐπὶ τοὺς χόρτους. * Discumbere su- per foenum,” Vulg. ‘“ To sit down upon the grass,” Rhemish version. } Γ᾽ Mark xiv. 14, Ποῦ ἐστι τὸ κατάλυμα; “Ubi est refectio mea?” Vulg. ‘Where is my refectory?” Rhemish version. ] ) [* Luke vi. 11, ᾿Ἐπλήσθησαν ἀνοίας. “Repleti sunt insipientia,” Vulg. “And they were replenished with madness,” Rhemish version. ] m1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 179 CHAPTER III. Heretical Translation against Sacred Images. Martin. I beseech you, what is the next and readiest and most proper Marry, 1. English of idolum, idololatra, idololatria? is it not, “idol, idolater, εἴδωλον. idolatry”? Are not these plain English words, and well known in our panty language? Why sought you further for other terms and words, if you had εἰδωλολα- meant faithfully 2 What needed that circumstance of three words for τρεία. one, “ worshipper of images,” and “ worshipping of images*” ? Whether, Bib. 1577. I pray you, is the more natural and convenient speech, either in our English tongue, or for the truth of the thing, to say, as the holy scripture doth, “ covetousness is idolatry,” and consequently, “the covetous man Eph. v. is an idolater 5” or, as you translate, “covetousness is worshipping ἀπ images,” and, “the covetous man is a worshipper of images”? Fulke. If you ask for the readiest and most proper Furxe, 1. English of these words, I must needs answer you, ‘an image, a worshipper of images, and worshipping of images,’ as we have sometimes translated. The other that you would have, ‘idol, idolater, and idolatry,’ be rather Greekish than English words; which though they be used of many Englishmen, yet are they not understood of all, as the other be. And therefore I say, the more natural and convenient speech for our English tongue, and as convenient for the truth of the thing, it is to say, ‘covetousness is the worshipping of images, and the covetous man is a worshipper of images,’ as to say, ‘covetousness is idolatry, and the covetous man is an idolater,’ as I have proved before; seeing zdolum by your own interpreter is called simulacrum, and _ simula- crum signifieth as much as imago, an image, cap. 1. numb. 5. Martin. Wesay commonly in English, Such a rich man maketh Marrm, 2. his money his god; and the apostle saith in like manner of some, aie eyo “‘whose belly is their god,” Phil. iii.; and generally every creature is translation, A covetous our idol, when we esteem it so exceedingly that we make it our god. man is a Wor But who ever heard in English, that our money, or belly, were our poker [* The versions of 1534 and 1539 render ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία, Col. iii. 5, “Which is worshipping of images.” The Geneva transla- tion has, like the Authorised version of 1611, “Which is idolatry.” The Vulgate has, “Que est simulacrorum servitus.” ] 12—2 180 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. images, and that by esteeming of them too much we become worshippers of images? Among yourselves are there not some even of your super- intendents, of whom the apostle speaketh, that make an idol of their money and belly, by covetousness and belly cheer? Yet can we not call you therefore in any true sense, “ worshippers of images,” neither would you abide it. You see then, that there is a great difference betwixt idol and image, idolatry and worshipping of images; and even so great difference is there betwixt St Paul’s words and your translation. Furxz,2. Fulke, Before you can shew that absurdity of this translation, ‘a covetous man is a worshipper of images,’ you must defend your own vulgar Latin translation, which calleth εἰδωλολατρεία simulacrorum servitus, which I have proved to signify the serving or worshipping of images, cap. i. numb. 5. Now to our English phrase, ‘a rich man maketh his money his god, a glutton his belly,’ and so of other creatures honoured above measure; I say, the worshipping of images may be after two sorts, either when they are worshipped as gods, (as among the grosser sort of the gentiles and papists,) and then it is against the first commandment, “Thou shalt have none other gods but me”; or else when men pretend to worship God by them, as the Israelites did in the calf, Exod. xxxii., and in Jeroboam’s calves, and in the brasen serpent, and the wiser sort of the gentiles and papists pretend to do in worshipping their images; and then it is a sin against the second commandment, “Thou shalt make to thy- self no graven images: thou shalt not fall down to them, nor worship them.” By similitude therefore of them that trusted in images as their gods, and so honoured them which were not able to help them, the apostle calleth the covetous man a worshipper of images, and covetousness, worshipping of images ; and not properly, but because their money is to them the same occasion of departing from God, that the images was to the worshipper of them. So if we will speak unproperly, as the apostle saith, “their belly is their God,” we may say it is their idol, or their image, which they worship as God: not that the belly, or any such thing, is God, or an idol, or an image properly ; ; but that it is so termed, for that to such vile creatures is given that divine honour which is due to God, but by worshippers of idols and 1 images is given to idols or images. I confess the use of the English tongue, in these speeches, is rather to call them idols than images, and ut. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 181 to extend the name idol (which is always taken in the evil part) to that which the word image cannot so aptly signify : yet in truth of the thing there is no difference between idol and image, worshipping of idols, and worshipping of images, whether you speak of such as be idols and images, so properly ealled, or of such as be only by similitude figuratively so named. If any of our superintendents be such as you speak of, I wish them amended, or else removed. For my part, I know none to be such, although I wish to the best increase of God’s grace, to despise the world, and to be more earnest in setting forth God’s glory. As for the great difference you speak of betwixt St Paul’s words and our translation, I see none as yet. Martin. Will you see more yet to this purpose? In the English Marri, 3. bible, printed the year 1562, you read thus: “ How agreeth the temple 2 Cor. vi. of God with images'?” Can we be ignorant of Satan’s cogitations herein, that it was translated of purpose to delude the simple people, and to make them believe that the apostle speaketh against sacred images in the churches, which were then in plucking down in England, when this your translation was first published in print? Whereas in very truth you know, that the apostle here partly interpreteth himself to speak of men as of God’s temples wherein he dwelleth, partly alludeth to Salo- mon’s temple, which did very well agree with images (for it had the salomon’s cherubins, which were the representations of angels, and the figures of ses be oxen to bear up the lavatory), but with idols it could not agree, and Withinescs therefore the apostle’s words are these, “How agreeth the temple of God spt with idols 2?” Fulke. We had need to see more, before we be con- Εστκε, 3. victed of corruption ; for hitherto we have seen nothing but a foolish cavil, grounded upon the common use of the word “idol” in English, in which speech it is taken only for unlawful images, although in the Greek it signifieth as generally as imago in Latin, and by Tully himself is used for the same. But in the English bible, printed 1562, we read thus, 2 Cor. vi., “ How agreeth the temple of God with images® ?” Here you cannot be “ignorant of Satan’s cogitations, that it Γ Tis δὲ συγκατάθεσις ναῷ Θεοῦ μετὰ εἰδώλων; 2 Cor. vi. 16. What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?” Rhemish, Authorised version. |’ [? It is “images” in the Bibles of 1534, 1539, 1557, but “idols” in the Authorised version, 1611.] Martin, 4, μετὰ τῶν εἰδώλων. The brasen serpent, first an image, and lawful: afterward an idol, and unlawful. Numb. xxi. Lib. x. de Civit. ο. 8. 2 2 Kings xviii. Exod. xxxii. 182 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. was translated of purpose to make the’simple people believe, that the apostle speaketh against sacred images in churches, which were then in plucking down in England, when this translation was first published in print.” You are so cunning in Satan’s cogitations, that he hath inspired into you a mani- fest untruth ; for this text was so translated and printed near thirty years before 1562, in king Henry the VIIIth’s time, when images were not in plucking down. And when it was printed again, 1562, which was the fifth year of her majesty’s reign (God be thanked!) there was no need to pluck down images out of churches, which were plucked down in the first and second years of her reign. Wherefore that purpose is vainly imagined of you: for the translator’s purpose was the same that the apostle’s, to shew that the religion of God hath nothing to do with images made by man’s device to honour them as gods, or to honour God by them. And where you say that the apostle “ alludeth to Salomon’s temple, which did well agree with images, but not with idols ;” I answer you, Salomon’s temple did not agree with imagen made by the device of man, to honour God by them or in them. For the cherubins were not of man’s device, but of God’s commandment: the oxen to hold up the lavatory, the pomegranates, and other ornaments, were not for any use of religion to worship God in them or by them, but for use and garnishing of the house appointed by God in his law, and by direction of his Spirit in Salomon. For the commandment, “Thou shalt not make to thyself,” is no restraint unto God, but unto men of their own brain or private intent to make images to serve in religion. Therefore the apostle, speaking of such images as were forbidden by God’s law, is not otherwise to be — understood ; and no more is our translation, Martin. When Moses by God’s appointment erected a brasen — serpent, and commanded the people that were stung with serpents to — behold it, and thereby they were healed ; this was an image only, and as an image was it erected and kept and used by God’s commandment. But when it grew to be an idol, saith St Augustine, that is, when the people began to adore it as God, then king Ezechias brake it in pieces, to the great commendation of his piety and godly zeal. So when the — children of Israel, in the absence of Moses, made a calf, and said, “ These are thy gods, O Israel, that brought thee out of Egypt,” was it but an image which they made? was that so heinous a matter, that God would 4 μι. TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 183 so have punished them as he did? No, they made it an idol also, saying, The soolbars cali, an 1do0 “These are thy gods, O Israel ;” and therefore the apostle saith to the 1 cér. x. Corinthians, “‘ Be not idolaters, as some of them ;” which also you trans- τ Risen late most falsely, “Be not worshippers of images, as some of them.” ie Fulke. The brasen serpent first and last was an image, Futxe, 4. holy when it was commanded by God to be made as a sacra- ment of our redemption by Christ, lawful when it was reserved only for memory of that excellent miracle; unlawful, cursed, and abominable, when it was worshipped, and therefore justly broken in pieces by the godly king Ezechias. You cite Au- gustine as it pleaseth you, to follow your own context: Quem sane serpentem, propter, facti memoriam reservatum, cum postea populus errans tanquam idolum colere cepisset, Ezechias, &c. ‘Which serpent truly, being reserved for the memory of the fact, when afterward the people going astray began to worship as an idol, Ezechias the king, serving God with religious power, with great praise of his piety brake in pieces.” Here it is certain that Augustine, as most ecclesias- tical writers, useth the word idolum for an image abused. But that the people began to adore it as God, he saith not; for they only worshipped God by it, falsely indeed and. super- stitiously, but yet not believing that image to be God him- self, but a holy representation of his power, which was shewed by it in the days of Moses. That Ezechias, by religious or’ ecclesiastical power and authority, did put down idolatry, you pass it by, as though you saw it not in St Augustine. But you bring another example to prove that images, except they be worshipped as gods, be no idols. In truth, seeing all - religious worship is due only to God, although the idolaters © intend not to worship their images as gods, yet by worship- ping of them they make unto themselves gods of them, and so offend both against the first and second commandments. Yet how-prove you that the Israelites made a god of their ealf? Because they said, “These are thy gods, O Israel, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt.” But even by that same speech it is manifest that they worshipped not the calf, as believing it to be God; but contrariwise protested thereby, that they meant not to change their God, but to worship the same God, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, by that image ; which they could not be ignorant that, it was made but yesterday of their ear-rings, and therefore 184 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH’ [ou could not think it was the same God that brought them out of the land of Egypt, but that they would worship God by that visible shape, which they saw before them. And Aaron by his proclamation confirmeth the same: “To-morrow,” saith he, “shall be holy day to Jehovah,” that is, to the only true Martin, 5. Psal. evi. In cap. xxv. Ezech. The protest- ants are like to the Am- monites and Moabites, Furxe, 5. God, whom they dishonoured, pretending to worship him by that image: so heinous a thing it is to make images to repre- sent God, and to worship them for his honour, although thé worshipper do not believe them to be gods, Therefore where we have in some translations, 1 Cor. x., called those idolaters worshippers of images, we have not erred; for an image it was they worshipped, thinking to worship God thereby. But if either image or idol, worshippers of images or idolaters, would please you, we have both in our translations, the one expressing what we mean by the other ; that these cavillations were needless, but that malice against the truth incenseth you to pick quarrels, and that translation which useth the terms of idols and idolaters, was then in printing at Geneva, when images were in pulling down in England, namely, the first and second years of the queen’s reign, being finished the 10th of April, 1560; which notably confuteth the fond purpose, that you slander our translators to have had. Martin. We see then that the Jews had images without sin, but not idols. Again, for having idols they were accounted like unto the gentiles, as the Psalm saith: “ They learned their works, and served their graven idols.” But they were not accounted like unto the gentiles for having images, which they had in Salomon’s temple, and in the brasen serpent. St Jerome writeth of the Ammonites and Moabites (who were gentiles and idolaters), that coming into the temple of Jeru- salem, and seeing the angelical images of the cherubins covering the propitiatory, they said, “ Lo, even as the gentiles, so Juda also hath idols of their religion.” These men did put no difference between their own idols and the Jews’ lawful images. And are not you ashamed to be like to these? They accused Salomon’s temple of idols, because they saw there lawful images: you accuse the churches of God of idolatry, because you see there the sacred images of Christ and his saints, Fulke. We know that the Jews had images without » sin, and so have we; but to have images in any use of religion without God’s express commandment, neither is it lawful for them nor us, because we have a general com- mandment to the contrary. They were accounted like the gentiles therefore, for haying images contrary to God’s com- a os oa 1 τ. TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 185 mandment, of their own appointment, and worshipping them ; not for having images appomted by God, which yet it was not lawful for them to worship. But the Protestants, you say, are like to the Ammonites and Moabites, of whom St In Beech. Jerome writeth!, that coming into the temple, and seeing the cherubins covering the propitiatory, they said, “Lo, even as the gentiles, so Juda also hath idols of their religion,” as we accuse the church of God of idolatry, because we see there the sacred images of Christ and his saints. This that you say St Jerome writeth, he only reporteth it as a ridiculous fable of the Jews: Ridiculam vero in hoc loco Hebrei narrant fabulam. ‘The Hebrews in this © place tell a ridiculous fable.” But fables are good enough to bolster false accusations. Secondly, he reporteth them to say: Sicut cuncte gentes colunt simulacra, ita et Juda habet sue religionis idola, “As all nations worship images, so hath Juda also idols of their religion.” By which words you see, that he calleth images and idols the same things. For simulacrum to be taken as largely as imago, I have proved before, insomuch that man is called simulacrum Dei, “the image,” not the idol, “of God,” as idol is taken in the evil part. But neither are you like to Juda, nor we to Ammon and Moab, in this case. For Juda had God’s com- τς mandment to warrant their images; so have not you, but | his commandment against your images. Again, Moab and Ammon (if the tale were true) had idolatrous images of their own; so have not we, Martin. But tell us yet, I pray you, do the holy scriptures of Marri, 6. | either Testament speak of all manner of images, or rather of the idols of | the gentiles? Your conscience knoweth that they speak directly against The holy the idols and the idolatry that was among the pagans and infidels; from Spedketh the which as the Jews in the Old Testament, ‘so the first Christians in 2g%s)e. the New Testament, were to be prohibited. But will you have a demon- em rt γε: stration that your own conscience condemneth you herein, and that you pean of ‘apply all translation to your heresy? What caused you, being otherwise _ [ Ridiculam vero in hoc loco Hebrei narrant fabulam. Postquam urbs aperta, templumque reseratum est, filiique Ammon et Moab et Seir ingressi sunt templum, videruntque Cherubim protegentia pro- pitiatorium, dixerunt: Sicut cuncte gentes colunt simulacra, ita et Juda habet sue religionis 1401. Comment. Hieronymi in Ezech, tap, xxv. v. 8. Opera, Vol. mr. -p. 870.] 186 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. in all places so ready to translate “images,” yet Esai. xxxi. and Zachar.. xiii. to translate “idols” in all your bibles with full consent? Why in these places specially and so advisedly? No doubt, because God saith there, speaking of this time of the New Testament, “In that day every man shall cast out his idols of silver and idols of gold:” and, “I will destroy the names of the idols out of the earth, so that they shall no more be had in remembrance.” In which places if you had translated “images,” you had made the prophecy false; because images have not been destroyed out of the world, but are and have been in christian countries with honour and reverence even since Christ’s time. Marry, in the idols of the gentiles we see it verified, which are destroyed in all the world, so far as gentility is converted to Christ. Funke, 6. Fulke. Verily the commandment of God, being a com- mandment of the first.table, unto which whatsoever is said in the scriptures of images, or the worship of them forbidden, must be referred, speaketh generally of all manner of images made by the device of man for any use of religion, whether they be of Jews, pagans, or false Christians. But we are offered a demonstration, that our own conscience condemneth us herein, and that we apply all translations to our heresy. And that is this: in. Esai. xxxi, and Zachar, xiii. with one con- sent all translate “idols,” because God speaketh of the time of the New Testament, where if they had translated “images,” they ‘“‘ had made the prophecy false, because images in chris- tian countries are with honour, but idols of the gentiles are destroyed out of the world so far as. gentility is converted to Christ.” A goodly demonstration, I promise you! That the translators had no such respect, it is plain; for that, they do not understand the xxxi. of Esaias of the time of Christ, but of the reformation made by Ezechias. But in Esai. xliv., which is a manifest prophecy of the church of Christ, they all use the word “image ;” also Micheas the y. and in divers other places, where the destruction of idolatry is prophesied by the religion of Christ, which is verified only in true Christians ; for otherwise both idolatry of pagans and of false Christians hath remained in many places, and yet remaineth to this day. Martin,7. Martin, And what were the pagan idols or their idolatry? St Paul os. i. En telleth us, saying: “They changed the glory of the incorruptible God theidolsof into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds and the Pagans. Feasts and creeping things, and they served (or worshipped) the creature more than the Creator.” Doth he charge them for making the image of ee ΠΤ τπΠΨΠΠπτπτ πρὸ ut. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 187 man or beast? Yourselves have hangings and cloths full of such paint- ings and embroiderings of imagery. Wherewith then are they charged ? With giving the glory of God to such creatures, which was to make them idols, and themselves idolaters. _Fulke. That the pagans changed the glory of God Fuuxs, 7. into the similitude of the image of man, &c. it was the extremity of ther madness; but that they made images of man or beast, if you will not confess that Jupiter, Mars, &c. were men, and Isis a cow or beast, yet remember that they made images of their emperors, and committed idolatry to them: otherwise, to make images out of religion was not the offence of idolatry in them nor us, that have them in hangings, and paintings, and other lawful images. Martin. The case being thus, why do you make it two distinct things Marri, 8. in St Paul, calling the pagans “idolaters,” and the Christians doing the Le x same “ worshippers of images,” and that in one sentence, whereas the : apostle useth but one and the selfsame Greek word in speaking both of pagans and Christians? It isa marvellous and wilful corruption, and well to be marked ; and therefore I will put down the whole sentence as in your English translation: “I wrote to you that you should not company with fornicators ; and I meant not at all of the fornicators of this world, either of the covetous, or extortioners, either the idolaters, &c., εἰδωλολά- but that ye company not together, if any that is called a brother be a 7?%* fornicator, or covetous, or a worshipper of images, or an extortioner.” In the first, speaking of pagans, your translator nameth “ idolater” ac- cording to the text; but jn the latter part, speaking of Christians, you translate the very selfsame Greek word “ worshipper of images.” Why εἰδωλολά- so? Forsooth, to make the reader think that St Paul speaketh here not 7975": only of pagan idolaters, but also of catholic Christians that reverently kneel in prayer before the cross, the holy rood, the images of our Saviour Christ and his saints, as though the apostle had commanded such to be avoided. Fulke. The reason is, because we count idolaters and Fuuxe, 8. worshippers of images to be all one. But “it is a marvellous wilful corruption,” that in one sentence, 1 Cor. v., we call the pagans idolaters, and the Christians worshippers of images, and yet the same Greek word in both. If this were a fault, it were but of one translation of the three, for the Geneva Bible hath “idolater” in both, the other ‘worshipper of idols” in the latter place. And we think the latter to be understood of idolatrous papists, which worship idols made with hands of men, as crosses, roods, and other images, to Martin, 9. Εσυχκα, 9. Martin, 1@ «x w. Fulke, Confutat. of John How- let, fol. 35, Bib. 1577, Col. iii. 5 188 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. as great dishonour of God and danger of their souls as pagans did. So that if it had been “worshippers of images” in both, the translation had not been amiss. Martin. Where if you have yet the face to deny this your malicious and héretical intent, tell us why all these other words are translated and repeated alike in both places, “covetous,” “ fornicators,” “extortioners,” both pagans and Christians, and only this word “ idolaters” not so, but pagans “ idolaters,” and Christians “ worshippers of images.” At the least you cannot deny but it was of purpose done to make both seem all one, yea, and to signify that the Christians doing the foresaid reverence before sacred images (which you call worshipping of images) are more to be avoided than the pagan idolaters: whereas the apostle, speaking of pagans and Christians that committed one and the selfsame heinous sin whatsoever, commandeth the Christian in that case to be avoided for his amendment, leaving the pagan to himself and to God, as having not to do to judge of him. Fulke. I think the cause was, that Christians might understand who was an idolater, and what the word “‘idolater” signifieth, which was used in the former part of the sentence, And if the translator’s purpose was by this explication to dissuade the readers from worshipping of popish images, Τ' see not what cause he hath to be ashamed thereof, seeing the Greek word signifieth as much as he saith: not as though idols were proper only to the gentiles, and images to Christians; for in other places he useth the name of images, speaking both of the pagans and the Christians, 1 Cor, viii. Although for my part, I could wish he had used one word in both places, and either called them both idolaters or both worshippers of images. Martin. But to this the answer belike will be made, as one of them hath already answered in the like case, that in the English bible ap- pointed to be read in their churches it is otherwise, and even as we would have it corrected ; “and therefore,” saith he, “it had been good before we entered into such heinous accusations, to have examined our grounds that they had been true.” As though we accuse them not truly of false translation, unless it be false in that one bible which for the present is read in their churches ; or as though it pertained not to them how their other English bibles be translated; or as though the people read not all indifferently without prohibition, and may be abused by every one of them; or as though the bible which now is read (as we think) in their churches, have not the like absurd translations, yea, more absurd, even in this matter of images, as is before declared ; or as ul. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 189 though we must first learn what English translation is read in their church (which were hard to know, it changeth so oft), before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation; or as though it were not the same bible that was for many years read in their churches, and is yet in every man’s hands, which hath this absurd translation whereof we have ‘last spoken. Fulke. Mine answer was framed to Howlet’s reason, Furxe, who would prove that our service was naught, because the 1? scriptures were therein read in false and shameless transla- tions, example of which he bringeth, 1 John v.: ‘“ Children, keep yourselves from images.” To whom mine answer was capt, when I said, “In the Bible appointed to be read in the service it is otherwise,’ and as he himself saith it ought to be; which answer as though it were made ‘to the general -accusation of our translations, you with many supposings, as though this, as though that, would make it seem to be un- sufficient; whereas, to Howlet’s cavil, it was not only sufficient, but also proper. And therefore this is a vain supposal, “as though we accuse them not truly of false translation, unless it be false in that one bible which for the present is read in ther church.” For we grant you not the other to be false, because this is true, and so are all the rest. “As though it pertained not to them how their other English bibles be translated.” It pertaineth so far that, if there were a fault in the former, we have amended it in the latter. But in that text, for which I answered, I acknowledge yet no fault, neither is that mine only answer; for I prove that “image” and “idol” with the apostle signifieth the same thing. “Or as though the people read not all without prohibition, and may be abused by every one of them.” There is no such false translation in any of them, that the people can be abused thereby to run into heresy. Yet again: “Or as though the bible, which now is read (as we think), have not the like absurd translations, yea, more absurd, even in this matter of images, as is declared before.” As though you have proved whatsoever you prate of. Once again: “Or as though we must first learn, what English translation is read in their church (which were hard to know, it changeth so often), before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation.” If you will accuse that translation which is read in our church, as Howlet doth, reason would you should first learn 190 Πα ῬΕΡΕΝΟΒ OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. which it is; and that is no hard matter, seeing there was never more appointed than two, as oft as you say we change. “Or, (at last,) as though it were not the same bible, that was for many years read in their churches, and is yet in every man’s hands, which hath this absurd translation, whereof we last spake.” As though I could prophesy, when I an- swered Howlet for the bible appointed to be read in the church, in 1 John y., that you would find fault with an- other text in that translation, that sometime was read in the church, and yet is in many men’s hands: which, although it be well altered in that point, which you quarrel at, in the two later translations, yet I see no absurdity in the first, which for one Greek word giveth two English words, both of one signification, yea, and the latter being plainer, explicating the former, which to English ears is more obscure and less understood. Marti, Martin. Surely the bible that we most accuse, not only in this point, 1. but for sundry other most gross faults and heretical translations, spoken Bib. 1562. of in other places, is that bible which was authorised by Cranmer, their archbishop of Canterbury, and read all king Edward’s time in their churches, and (as it seemeth by the late printing thereof again, anno 1562) a great part of this queen’s reign. And certain it is, that it was so long read in all their churches with this venomous and corrupt trans- lation of “images” always instead of “ idols,” that it made the deceived people of their sect to despise, contemn, and abandon the very sign and image of their salvation, the cross of Christ, the holy rood, or crucifix, representing the manner of his bitter passion and death, the sacred images of the blessed virgin Mary, the mother of God, and of St John John xix. 26, Evangelist, representing their standing by the cross at the very time of his passion. Insomuch that now by experience we see the foul incon- venience thereof, to wit, that all other images and pictures of infamous harlots and heretics, of heathen tyrants and persecutors, are lawful in England at this day, and their houses, parlours, and chambers, are garnished with them; only sacred images, and representations of the — holy mystery of our redemption, are esteemed idolatrous, and have been openly defaced in most spiteful manner, and burned, to the great dis- _ honour of our Saviour Christ and his saints. { Furxn, Fulke. That bible perhaps you mislike more than the ape other translations, because archbishop Cranmer allowed it by his authority. But howsoever it be, (as I think there be more imperfections in it than in the other,) it is not your accusation, without due and substantial proof, that can make i. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 191 it less esteemed with any indifferent or wise man. If it have caused the people to contemn and abandon all popish idols, there is cause that we should give God thanks for it. Albeit not the translation only, but preaching of the gospel, and Christ crucified especially, by which Christ hath been truly and lively painted forth unto them, and even crucified among them, hath made them contemn, yea, and abhor all carnal and human devices of the image of our salvation, or representation of his passion by vain and dead images, to be any helps of faith, religion, or the worship of God. Where you say it is “seen by experience, that all other images of infamous harlots and heretics, of heathen tyrants and. persecutors, are lawful in England, to garnish houses, when sacred images are esteemed idolatrous, defaced, and burned,” I know not well your meaning. For if you have any true images of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, or other holy persons, I think they be as lawful to garnish private houses as the other you speak of. Yea, the stories of the whole bible painted, both of the Old Testament and the New, are not forbidden, but in many places used: provided always, that in the places appointed for the public service of God such things are not lawful, for danger of idolatry, nor in private places to to be abused, as they are of papists; but rather, though they were as ancient and as goodly monuments as the brasen serpent was, which no images at this day can be, it is to the great honour of God that they should be despised, defaced, burned, and stamped to powder, as that was, which sometime was erected by the commandment of God, by which not only great miracles were wrought, but the wonderful mystery of our salvation through faith in Christ was prefigured. Martin. And as concerning the bible that at this day is read in their Marr, churches, if it be that of the year 1577, it is worse sometime in this 12. matter of images than the other. For where the other readeth “ covet- Col. iii. δ, ousness, which is worshipping of idols,” there this latter (whereunto they appeal) readeth thus: “covetousness, which is worshipping of images.” And Ephes. y. it readeth as absurdly as the other: “A w. Fulke, covetous man, which is a worshipper of images'.” Lo, this is the En- so [* “Covetousness, which is worshipping of images,” edit. 1568. “ Covetousness, which is idolatry,” 1579. Col. iii. 5.. “ A covetous per- son, which is a worshipper of images,” Ephes. νυ. 5. edit. 1568. “ Nor covetous person, which-is an idolater,” edit. 1579.] - . 193 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. Fol. 36. glish bible, which they refer us unto, as better translated and as correcting Bib. 1979. the fault of the former. But because it is evident by these places, that this also is partly worse and partly as ill as the other, therefore this great confuter of master John Howlet fleeth once more to the Geneva English bible, saying, “ Thus we read,” and, “so we translate ;” to wit, “ A covetous person, which is an idolater.” Where shall we have these good fellows, and how shall we be sure that they will stand to any of their translations? From the first read in their churches they flee to that that is now read, and from this again to the later Geneva English bibles, neither read in their churches (as we suppose,) nor of greatest authority among them ; and we doubt not but they will as fast flee from this to the former again, when this shall be proved in some places more false and absurd than the other. Furxr, . Fulke. It pleaseth you worse, perhaps, that less favour- i eth your pelting distinction of images and idols; but it is never the worse to be liked of them that be wise and learned, which know that εἰκὼν and εἴδωλον in Greek do signify the same thing, which you cannot deny, And where you say, in your scornful mood, “ Lo, this is the bible, which they refer us unto, as better translated and as correcting the fault of the former,” you follow your accustomed vein of lying. For I acknowledge no fault of the former in this point of images, but confute the frowardness of that foolish reason, which accuseth our service of reading the bible in shameless translations, in that text, 1 John yv.; whereas in — the bible appointed for the service it is not as he saith, — but even as he would have us to say. I fly not therefore (as it pleaseth your wisdom to say) from that translation — also to the Geneva bible, neither do I allege the Geneva — translation for that cause you pretend, but to shew, that albeit we translate in such words as you cannot mislike, — _ yet your venomous slandering pens and tongues can never give over your peevish quarrelling. In the place by you quoted, I defend both as true, and answerable to the Greek, — and of one sense and meaning, where the sound of words — only is diverse, the signification of matter one and the same. — _ And yet you must have your foolish flourish in rope-ripe — terms: “Where shall we have these good fellows,” &c.? You — shall have us, by the grace of God, ready to justify all — our translation from shameless falsification and heretical — corruptions, which is your impudent charge against us. And — m1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 193 if in matter of lesser moment you can descry the least error in any or in all of our translations, we shall be willing to confess the same, and ready to reform it. For truth is dearer to us than credit; although we think it better credit to reform a fault, than, beg admonished, wilfully to continue it or defend it. Martin. But what matter is it how they read in their churches, or Martin, how they correct their former translations by the later; when the old “" corruption remaineth still, being set of purpose in the top of every door within their churches, in these words: “Babes, keep yourselves 1 John v. . from images*”? Why remaineth that written so often and so con- spicuously in the walls of their churches, which in their bibles they correct as a fault? Their later bibles say, “ Keep yourselves from idols :” their church walls say, “Keep yourselves from images.” St John, speaking to the lately-converted gentiles, biddeth them beware of the idols from whence they were converted: they, speaking to the old- instructed Christians, bid them beware of the sacred image of Christ our Saviour, of the holy crucifix, of the cross, of every such represen- tation and monument of Christ’s passion and our redemption. And therefore in the very same place where these holy monuments were wont to stand in catholic times, to wit, in the rood-loft and -partition of the church and chancel, there now stands these words as confronting and condemning the foresaid holy monuments: “ Babes, keep yourselves from images.” Which words whosoever esteemeth as the words of scripture, and the words of St John, spoken against Christ’s image, is made a very babe indeed, and sottishly abused by their scribbled doors and false translations, to count that idolatry, which is indeed to no other purpose, than to the great honour of him whose image and picture it is. Fulke. Still you harp on the old untuneable string, Εὐπικε, that the former is a corruption, which saith, “ Babes, keep 19. yourselyes from images ;” which sentence sore grieveth you, to be written in the top of church doors, or in place where the rood-loft stood. And you ask why it remaineth on the walls, which we correct. as a fault in the bibles? But who told you that they correct it as a fault in the bibles? Is every alteration with you a correction? The one ex- plicateth the other, that idols of which St John speaketh be images abused in religion. Not that all images be idols, (as the word idol in the English speech is taken,) nor that all idols be images, but as images that are worshipped. But [* Texvia, φυλάξατε ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων. 1 John v. 21.] 13 [FULKE. | 194 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. St John (you say), speaking to the converted gentiles, bid- deth them beware of the idols, from whence they were converted. That is true, but not only from them, but from all other idols. Except perhaps you think, that Christians by that text should not abhor the images of Simon Magus, and Selene, and the images of the Valentinians, and Gnosticks, and other hereticks, which worshipped the image of Christ . and of St Paul, as Irenzeus' and Epiphanius’ do testify. And it seemeth, you so think in deed. For you say soon after, - Whosoever esteemeth those words as the words of scripture (if images be put for idols,) spoken against Christ’s image, is made a very babe.” Such babes were Irenzeus and Epipha- nius, that they condemned this worshipping of images for heresy. Such a babe was Epiphanius, that finding the image of Christ painted in vail hanging in a church at Anablatha, he judged it to be contrary to the scriptures, and rent it in pieces. Such a babe was Tertullian*, that, speaking of that very text of St John, “ Little children, keep yourselves from idols,” he writeth: Non jam ab idololatria quasi ab officio, sed ab idolis, id est, ab ipsa effigie eorum. Indignum enim ut imago Dei vivi imago idoli et mortui fiat. “He biddeth them take heed, not now from idolatry, as from the service, but from the idols themselves, that is to say, from the very images or shapes of them, For it is un- worthy that the image of the living God should be made the image of an idol, and that being dead.” Finally, such a babe was your vulgar translator, that he saith: Félioli, [* Contemnere autem et idolothyta, et nihil arbitrari, sed sine aliqua trepidatione uti eis: habere autem et reliquarum operationum usum indifferentem, et universe libidinis. Utuntur autem et hi ma- — gia, et imaginibus, et incantoribus, et invocationibus, et reliqua uni- versa periergia: nomina quoque quedam affingentes quasi angelorum, annuntiant hos quidem esse in primo ccelo, hos autem in secundo; et deinceps nituntur CCCLXV. ementitorum ccelorum et nomina, et prin- cipia, et angelos, et virtutes exponere. Irenzi, Lib. 1. cap. 23. Opera, p. 102. edit. Venet. 1734.] [? Τί δὲ ἄλλο ἢ πᾶσαν ἀῤῥητουργίαν καὶ τὴν ἀθέμιτον πρᾶξιν ἣν οὗ θεμιτὸν ἐπὶ στόματος φέρειν, οὗτοι πράττουσι; καὶ πᾶν εἶδος ἀνδρο- βασιῶν, καὶ λαγνιστέρων ὁμιλιῶν πρὸς γυναῖκας ἐν ἑκάστῳ μέρει σώμα- τος, μαγείας τε καὶ φαρμακείας καὶ εἰδωλολατρείας ἐκτελοῦντες. Epiphan. ady. Her. Lib. 1. Tom. u. 27. Opera, p. 105. edit. Paris. 1622.] [ἢ De Corona. edit. de la Cerda. p. 678.] πι.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 195 custodite vos a simulacris, which is all one, as if he should have said ab imaginibus, (as I have plentifully proved,) “ Children, keep yourselves from images.” As for the pur- pose you pretend to have im honouring Christ by images, contrary to his commandment, is indeed nothing but dis- honouring of him and destruction of yourselves. Martin. But the gay confuter with whom I began, saith for further Marri, answer, “Admit that in some of our translations it be, ‘Children, 16: keep yourselves from images,’ (for so he would have said, if it were bab aw truly printed) what great crime of corruption is here committed?” ‘And when it is said again, this is the crime and fault thereof, that they mean by so translating to make the simple believe that idols and images are all one, which is absurd ; he replieth, “ that it is no more absurdity, than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification.” And upon this position he granteth that, according to the property of the Greek word, a man may say, “God made man according to his Gen. i. idol,” and that generally édolum may as truly be translated an “ image,” κατὰ τὴν as Tyrannus, a “king,” (which is very true, both being absurd ;) and “ἰκόνα-. here he cited many authors and dictionaries idly, to prove that idolum εἴδωλον. may signify the same that image. εἰκών. Fulke. But this scornful replier, with whom I have οὐδ to do, is so accustomed to false and unhonest dealing, that 14 he can never report any thing that I have written truly, and as I have written, but with one forgery or another he will clean corrupt and pervert my saying. As here he shameth nothing to affirm, that I grant that, according to the property of the Greek word, a man may say, God made man according to his idol. I will report mine own words, by which every man may perceive how honestly he dealeth with me: “But admit that in some translation it be as you say, ‘Children, keep yourselves from images: what great crime of corruption is here committed? You say, that it is to make simple men believe that idols and images are all one, which is absurd. This is no more absurdity, than instead eee — eee of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification. But you reply, that then, where Moses saith that God made man according to his own image, we should consequently say, that God made man according to his idol. I answer, howsoever the name of idols in the English tongue, for the 3 great dishonour that is done to God in worshipping of images, 13—2 Martin, 15. Rom. viii. Imagini. 1 Cor. xv. Imaginem. 2 Cor. iii. Heb. x. Col. i. 2 Cor. iv. 196 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. is become so odious that :no christian man would say, that God made man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his lawful prince ‘a tyrant,’ yet according to the Greek word, εἴδωλον may be as truly translated an image, as τύραννος a king.” Here, if I were disposed to give the rein to affection, as you do often, being unprovoked by me, were sufficient occasion offered to insult against your falsehood. But I will forbear, and in plain words tell you, that if you be so simple, that you cannot understand the difference of these two propositions, εἴδωλον, wheresoever it is read in Greek, may be truly translated “an image ;” and this, wheresoever the word image is used in English, you may use the word idol; you are unmeet to read a divinity lecture in England, howsoever you be advanced in Rhemes. If not of ignorance, but of malice, you have perverted both my words and meaning, let God and all godly men be judge between you and me. My words are not obscure nor ambiguous, but that every child may understand my meaning to be no more but this, that this English word idol is by use restrained only to wicked images. The Greek word εἴδωλον signifieth generally all images, as τύραννος did all kings, until kings, that were so called, became hateful for cruelty, which caused even the name tyrannus to be odious. , Martin. But I beseech you, Sir, if the dictionaries tell you that εἴδωλον may, by the original property of the word, signify “an image,” (which no man denieth,) do they tell you also, that you may commonly and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signification thereof? — or do they tell you that “image” and “idol” are so all one, that where- soever you find this word “image,” you may truly call it “idol”? For these are the points that you should defend in your answer. For an example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus? “God hath predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of his Son.” And again, “As we have borne the idol of the earthly (Adam,) 50. let us bear the idol of the heavenly” (Christ). And again, “We are transformed into the same idol, even as our Lord’s spirit.” And again, “The law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very idol of the things.” And again, “Christ who is the idol of the invisible God.” Is this, I pray you, a true translation? Yea, say you, according to the property of the word: but “because the name of idols in the English tongue, for the great dishonour done to God in worshipping of images, is become odious, no christian man would say so.” m1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 197 Fulke. No. man denieth (you say) that εἴδωλον may, Four, by the original propriety of the word, signify an image. ὦ It is well, that beimg convicted by all dictionaries, old and new, you will at length yield to the truth. But you demand, whether the dictionaries do tell me that I may commonly and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signifi- cation thereof. Sir, I meddle only with the translations of the scripture; and the dictionaries tell me that so: it usually signifieth, and therefore so I may translate in the scripture, or any other ancient Greek writer, that useth the word according to the original propriety thereof. Peradventure some later Greek writers, restraining it only to wicked images, may so use the term, as the general signification thereof will not agree to the meaning in some odd place or other. But that is no matter to plead against our translation of the scripture, when in that time it was written the word was indifferent, to signify any image. Further than this, you ask of me, if the dictionaries do tell me, that image and idol are all one, and wheresoever I find the word imago, I may truly call it idol? No, forsooth, Sir, they teach me no such thing: neither do I say that the word image and idol may be confounded; but the clean contrary, if your mastership had not mistaken me, because it was not your pleasure to take me either according to my words, or according to my meaning. Why, Sir, “these are the points you should defend in your answer: for an example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus, ‘God hath predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of his Son’? and again, ‘We have borne the idol of the earthly,’ &c.” I pray you, Sir, pardon me to defend that I never said nor thought: you yourself confess in the end, that I say, that no christian man would say so: wherefore when you say that I affirm, this is a true translation according to the propriety of the word; can I say less? Then you lie like a popish hypocrite. Martin. First, note how foolishly and unadvisedly he speaketh here, Martin, because he would confound images and idols, and make them falsely 16- to signify one thing: when he saith the name of “idol” is become odious in the English tongue because of worshipping of images, he should have said, the dishonour done to God in worshipping idols made the 198 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ou. name of idols odious. As in his own example of “tyrant” and “king,” ς᾽ he meant to tell us that “tyrant” sometime was an usual name for every king; and because certain such tyrants abused their power, there- Ὁ fore the name of tyrant became odious. For he will not say, I trow, that for the fault of kings the name of tyrant became odious. Likewise the Romans took away the name of Manlius for the crime of one Man- lius, not for the crime of John at Nokes, or of any other name. The name of Judas is so odious, that men now commonly are not so called. Why so? because he that betrayed Christ was called Judas ; not because he was also Iscariot. The very name of “ ministers” is odious and con- temptible. Why ? because ministers are so lewd, wicked, and unlearned ; not because some priests be naught. Even so the name of “idol” grew to be odious, because of the idols of the Gentiles, not because of holy images. For if the reverence done by Christians to holy images were evil, (as it is not,) it should in this case have made the name of images odious, and not the name of idols. But, God be thanked! the name of images is no odious name among catholic Christians, but only among heretics and image-breakers, such as the second general council of Nice hath condemned therefore with the sentence of anathema: no more than the cross is odious, which to all good Christians is honourable, because our Saviour Christ died on a cross, Fue, Fulke. Nay, first note how falsely, and then how a foolishly, and yet how impudently, he continueth a slander against me of his own devising, that I would confound those English words, “images” and “idols.” For first he will | teach me to speak English, that where I said the name of — idol is become odious in the English tongue, because of worshipping of images, I should have said, “the dishonour — done to God in worshipping of idols made the name of idols odious.” And what, I pray you, were those idols, the worshipping of which made the name odious, but images? May I not be so bold, under your correction, to use the general name images, which you say are not idols, until - they be abused? When the image of Jupiter, king of Crete, was first made, and nothing else done unto it, would you call it an image, or an idol? Sure I am, you called the brasen serpent first an image, and then an idol. Even so I trust I may, without offence of Englishmen, say, that the abuse of images, called first without note of infamy εἴδωλα, “idols,” made the name of idols to be odious, and therefore not applied, but to such abused images: and the } example I brought of tyrannus, which first did signify a king, is very plain and like, but that you are disposed — i. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 199 to play the peevish quarreller. And trow you, I will not say, that for the fault of kings the name of tyrant became odious? Yes, verily, I will not spare to say, and so I said before, that for the fault of such cruel kings, as were called tyranni, though the name itself first signified not so, that name of tyrant became odious. As for your fomblitudes' of Manlius and Judas, two proper names, compared with image, and idol, king, and tyrant, which be common names, I will not vouchsafe to answer them. But the name of “ministers” (you say) is odious, for the faults of ministers, and not for the faults of priests. Popish priests are odious enough for their own faults; so that they need not be charged unjustly with the faults of our evil ministers: which { would wish were fewer than they be; but I trust there are not so many evil of them, as your popish priests have been, and are daily found to be. And whosoever of our ministers hath been found worst, I think there may be found, not a priest, but a pope, of your side as evil, or worse than he. But if reverence done by papists, (which you call Christians,) to images had been evil, (say you,) it should have made the name of images odious also. No, Sir, that followeth not, so long as that reverence was ac- counted good and lawful; and now that it is found to be abominable, the people having the other odious word of idols in use, need not abandon the name of images, except they had another to signify lawful and good images. The curse of the idolatrous Council of Nice the second, no christian man regardeth, which knoweth that by God’s own mouth in the scriptures all makers and worshippers of idolatrous images are accursed. Martin. But to omit this man’s extraordinary and unadvised speeches, Martin, which be too many and too tedious, (as when he saith in the same sentence, i “‘ Howsoever the name ‘idol’ is grown odious in the English tongue,” as though it were not also odious in the Latin and Greek tongues, but that in Latin and Greek aman might say according to his fond opinion, Secit hominem ad idolum suum, and so in the other places, where is imago,) to omit these rash assertions, I say, and to return to his other words, where he saith, that though the original property of the words hath Γ᾿ Danish, famier, to hesitate, stammer, falter: this word of Fulke’s is deduced from fumble. Or is it a misprint for similitudes ?| . 200 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu. that signification, yet “no christian man would say, that God made man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his lawful prince a tyrant:” doth he not here tell us that which we would have, to wit, that we may not speak or translate according to the origi- nal property of the word, but according to the common, usual, and accustomed signification thereof? As we may not translate Phalaris tyrannus, “Phalaris the king,” as sometime tyrannus did signify, and in ancient authors doth signify; but “ Phalaris the tyrant,” as now this word tyrannus is commonly taken and understood: even so we may Abidolis. | NOt now translate, “ My children, keep yourselves from images,” as the + τῶν el- word may, and doth sometime signify, according to the original pro- iJoh.v. perty thereof; but we must translate, “Keep yourselves from idols,” according to the common use and signification of the word in vulgar speech, and in the holy scriptures. Where the Greek word is so noto- riously and usually peculiar to idols, and not unto images, that the holy fathers of the second Nicene council (which knew right well the signi- fication of the Greek word, themselves being Grecians) do pronounce anathema to all such as interpret those places of the holy scripture, that concern idols, of images, or against sacred images, as now these Calvinists do, not only in their commentaries upon the holy scriptures, but even in their translations of the text. Fuuxe, Fulke. We cannot yet be rid of this man’s extraordinary 17. and unadvised surmises, which are too many and tedious; as where I say the name idol is odious in the English tongue, he gathereth, that I mean it to be odious only in the English tongue, and not in the Latin and Greek. I have shewed before, that in Tully’s time it was not odious in Latin; and it is not long since Master Martin confessed the Greek word, according to the original propriety, to signify as generally as εἰκών, “an image,” which is not odious. Although in later times, among Christians, both of the Greek and the Latin church, the name of idoluwm became odious, as well as the word ‘idol’ in English. Therefore it is not my fond opinion, but M. Martin’s foolish collection, that a man may say in Latin, fecit hominem ad idolum suum: and yet I am charged with rash assertions, when nothing is reproved that I affirm, but that which he himself doth imagine. But now you will return to those words of mine, where I say, that though the original propriety of the words hath that signification, yet no christian man would say, that God made man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his lawful prince a tyrant. These words, you say, do tell us, that we may not speak or translate πι.]} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 201 according to the original propriety of the word, but ac- cording to the common, usual, and accustomed signification thereof. For speaking, I grant, as the words are used in our time: but for translating, I say you must regard how the words were used in time of the writer, whose works you translate. As if you would translate out of Euripides, τίς “γῆς τυράννος, would you say, “ Who is tyrant of this land”? or rather, “Who is king”? or in Aristophanes, Ζῆνα θεῶν τύραννον, would you translate, “ Jupiter, tyrant of the gods,” or “king of the gods”? I think, not. But in St John, seeing at that time that he wrote εἴδωλον signified an image generally, it may be translated an image generally; and seeing he speaketh of the unlawful use of images, it may also be translated an idol, as the word is now taken to signify. How the late petty prelates of the second Nicene Council were disposed to use the word, to colour their blasphemous idolatry, it is not material. The ancient dic- tionaries of Suidas, Phavorinus, Hesychius, with the examples of Homer, Plato, and other ancient Greek authors, are of more credit for the true and ancient signification of that word. Martin. This then being so, that words must be translated as their Marry, common use and signification requireth, if you ask your old question, 18 what great crime of corruption is committed in translating, “keep your- Loco citatc. selves from images,” the Greek being εἰδώλων, you have answered” *” yourself, that in so translating, “idol” and “image” are made to signify one thing, which may not be done, no more than “tyrant” and “king” can be made to signify all one. And how can you say then, that “this is no more absurdity, than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification”? Are you not here contrary to yourself? are “idol” and “image,” “tyrant” and “king,” of one signification? Said you not, that in the English tongue “idol” is grown to another significa- tion than “image,” as “tyrant” is grown to another signification than “king”? Your false translations, therefore, that in so many places make “idols” and “images” all one, not only forcing the word in the holy scriptures, but disgracing the sentence thereby, (as Ephes. v. and Sat en Col. iii.) are they not in your own judgment very corrupt ; and, as your isa rs conn: own consciences must confess, of a malicious intent corrupted, to disgrace Lely Col. fi. thereby the church’s holy images, by pretence of the holy scriptures that iceoumies speak only of the pagans’ idols 2 eed Fulke. Again I repeat, that words must, or may be Funke, translated according to that signification they had in time aa Martin, 19. τῇ Baad, subaud. στήλῃ. Num. xxii. τὸ διοπε- . τές. 202 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. of the writer whom you translate. And to my question, what absurdity is it in that text of St John, for εἴδωλον to translate “image”; you answer, by that means idol and image are made to signify one thing. But that is not so; for image signifieth more generally than idol in English, and “image” answereth properly to the Greek word εἴδωλον, *idol” to the meaning of St John, that is, of wicked images ; so that the translation is good: even as τύραννος may be translated “a king,” generally, according to the word; and if the author mean of a cruel king, it may be trans- lated “‘a tyrant.” For king is a general word, applied to good kings and to evil, as image is to lawful and un- lawful images. Therefore our translations, that for εἴδωλον say an image, are not false, much less any malicious cor- ruptions. And if the translators, in so doing, intended to disgrace popish images, I think they did well, and according to the meaning of the Holy Ghost; who, forbidding generally all images, that may be had in religious reverence, did not restrain the signification of the word εἴδωλον to the wicked idols of the gentiles, but left it at large, to comprehend all such images, and all kinds of worshipping them, as are contrary to the law and commandment of God. Martin. But of the usual and original signification of words (whereof you take occasion of manifold corruptions) we will speak more anon, if first we touch some other your falsifications against holy images ; as, where you affectate to thrust the word “image” into the text, when there is no such thing in the Hebrew or Greek, as in that notorious example’, 2 Par. xxxvi. (Bib. 1562.) “Carved images that were laid to his charge:” again, Rom. xi., “To the image of Baal?;” and Acts xix., [? Καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν λόγων Ἰωακὶμ καὶ τὰ πάντα ἃ ἐποίησεν, οὐκ ἰδοὺ ταῦτα γεγραμμένα, &c, 2 Chron. χχχγῖ. 8. “Reliqua autem ver- borum Joakim, et abominationum ejus, quas operatus est, et que inventa sunt in eo, continentur in libro Regum, &c.” Vulg. “The rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and carved images that were laid to his charge, behold, they are written, &e.” Bible 1562. “ And his abominations which he did, and that which was found upon (found in, Authorised version) him,” Geneva Bible, 1560.] : [2 οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ. Rom. xi. 4. “Qui non curvaverunt genua ante Baal,” Vulg. ‘“ Which have not bowed, the knee to the image of Baal,’ Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised. ‘ Which ut. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 203 “The image that came down from Jupiter®.” Where you are not content to understand “image” rather than “idol,” but also to thrust it into the text, being not in the Greek, as you know very well. Fulke. Three places you note, where the word image ea is thrust into the text, being neither in the Hebrew nor Greek. The first, 2 Par. xxxvi. bib. 1562, which I con- fess is a fault, but I marvel how it crept in. For Thomas Matthew’s Bible, which was printed before it, hath not that word, “carved images.” It is reformed also in both the trans- lations that followed. | The second, Romans xi., is no corruption; for seeing you acknowledge that a substantive must be understood to bear up the feminine article; what reason is there, why we should not understand εἰκόνι, rather than στήλῃ, seeing it is certain Baal had an image that was worshipped in his temple? 2 Reg. x. The third place is Acts xix., where the word image is necessarily to be understood, “which fell down from Jupiter,” as it was feigned. Hereunto Pliny beareth witness, Lib. xvi., cap. 40, and sheweth by whom it was made, and of what matter: of the like speaketh Herodianus. And the similitude of this image is yet to be seen in those ancient coins that yet remain, which were called ναοὶ, “temples*.” Wherefore your vulgar translation, which turneth τοῦ διοπε- τοῦς Jovis prolis, is not right; and therefore is corrected by Isidorus Clarius, a@ Jove delapsi simulacri, with the consent of the deputies of the council of Trent. have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal,” Bishops’ bible, 1584.] ‘ [PF bs ob γώσκει τὴν ᾿Εφεσίων πόλιν νεωκόρον οὖσαν τῆς μεγάλης Ἀρτέμιδος καὶ τοῦ Διοπετοῦς. Acts xix. 38ὅ. “Qui nesciat Ephesiorum civitatem cultricem esse magne Diane, Jovisque prolis?” Vulg. **And of the image which came down from heaven,” Tyndale. “Of the image which came from heaven,’ Cranmer. “Of the image which came from Jupiter,’ Geneva. “And of the [image] which came down from Jupiter,’ Bishops’ bible. ‘To be a worshipper of great Diana, and Jupiter’s child,’ Rhemish. “And of the image which fell down from Jupiter,” Authorised version. ] [* The Scholiast upon the Rhetoric of Aristotle 1. 16, says, that ναοὶ are εἰκονοστάσια, capellule cum imaginibus inclusis. Ammianus Marcellinus says, that Asclepias secum semper circumferret Dex coe- lestis argentum breve figmentum. Such was meant by τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Mohox, Acts vii. 48. Beza calls those coins vaol, which. have the Martin, 20. εἴδωλον. ὋΞ The meaning of the first command- ment con- cerning false gods and graven idols. The cross in the queen’s chapel. I in the Lutheran churches. 1 Kings ii. Psal. ev. FULKE, 20. 204 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ox. Martin. Of this kind of falsification is that which is crept as a leprosy throughout all your bibles, translating seulptile and conflatile, “ graven image,” “molten image,” namely in the first commandment, where you know in the Greek it is “idol,” and in the Hebrew such a word as signifieth only “a graven thing,” not including this word “image ;” and you know that God commanded to make the images of cherubins, and of oxen in the temple, and of the brasen serpent in the desert ; and therefore your wisdoms might have considered, that he forbade not all graven images, but such as the gentiles made and wor- shipped as gods: and, therefore, non facies tibi sculptile, concurreth with those words that go before, “Thou shalt have none other gods but me.” For so to have an image as to make it a God, is to make it more than an image ; and therefore, when it is an idol, as were the idols of the gentiles, then it is forbid by this commandment. Otherwise, when the cross stood many years upon the table in the queen’s chapel, was it against this commandment? or was it idolatry in the queen’s majesty and her counsellors, that appointed it there, being the supreme head of your church? Or do the Lutherans, your pue-fellows, at this day com- mit idolatry against this commandment, that have in their churches the crucifix, and the holy images of the mother of God, and of St John the evangelist? Or if the whole story of the gospel concerning our Saviour Christ were drawn in pictures and images in your churches, as it is in many of ours, were it, trow you, against this commandment ? Fie, for shame! that you should thus with intolerable impudence and deceit abuse and bewitch the ignorant people, against your own know- ledge and conscience. For wot you not, that God many times expressly forbade the Jews both marriages and other conversation with the gen- i. tiles, lest they might fall to worship their idols, as Salomon did, and as the Psalm reporteth of them? This then is the meaning of the commandment, neither to make the idols of the gentiles, nor any other like unto them, and to that end, as did Jeroboam in Dan and Beth-el. Fulke. This is a sore complaint, that we have falsified the scripture, as it were with a leprosy, in translating sculp- tile and conflatile, “a graven” and “a molten image,” and representation of the temple of Diana upon them, in the same way as others are called boves, puelle, pulli, testudines, from having those re- spective figures upon them. Casaubon, however, says, that though this is a probable conjecture, it is not satisfactory, since no one of the ancients mentions them by the name. A medal of this descrip- tion, exhibiting an octostyle temple, with the image of Diana in the centre, may be seen in Calmet’s Dictionary, p. 342. edit. Taylor, 1833. Chrysostom’s opinion is, that ναοὶ were a sort of ambrey or ciborium. Ποιῶν, φησι, ναοὺς ἀργυροῦς Ἀρτέμιδος. καὶ πῶς ἔνι ναοὺς ἀργυροῦς γενέσθαι; ἴσως ὡς κιβώρια. μικρά. Acts xix. 24. Hom. xlii. Edit. Savilii. 1v. 845.] | m1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 205 namely in the first commandment, where there is no word of image or imagery; but indeed in the second command- ment we translate the Hebrew word pesel “a graven image.” 5px You say it signifieth a graven thing, not including the word ~~ image. I answer, you are not able to bring a place in the bible, where it signifieth any other graven thing, but only an image: and yet it is derived of a verb, that signifieth to grave, or hew; as the word pisilim, Jud. ui. taken for eae) quarries of stone, doth declare. Beside this, the word next following, signifying a similitude or image, sufficiently sheweth that it is not taken generally for any graven work, but for such, wherein the likeness or similitude of God, or any creature, is meant to be resembled: and the same doth also the Greek word εἴδωλον testify. As for the cherubins, oxen, brasen serpent, or any thing which God commandeth, [it] is not forbidden by this precept; but that which man maketh of his own head, to honour as God, or to worship God by it. Wherefore, very absurdly, to cloke such abominable idolatry, you say that this commandment, Non facies sculptile, doth concur with those words, “Thou shalt have none other Gods but me.” By which, not only two several commandments are confounded, but also a vain tautology committed: or else that added for interpretation, which is more obscure than the text interpreted. Touching the cross, that stood sometimes i the queen’s chapel, whereof you speak your pleasure, as also of her majesty’s counsellors, it is not by and by idolatry, whatsoever is against that commandment; neither is the having of any images in the church (which are had in no use of religion) contrary to this commandment. And although we will not accuse the Lutherans of idolatry, neither can we, because they worship no images; yet will we not excuse them for suffering of images to be in their churches, whereof may ensue danger of idolatry, but that im some part they go. against this commandment, deceived in their judgment, and of us not to be defended in their error. After you have railed a fit, with ‘fie for shame!’ and such like rhetoric, you seem to make the prohibition of images none other, but such as the prohibition of marriage and other conversation with the gentiles, which was only for fear of idolatry. But when you can shew the like absolute commandment, to forbid mar- riage and conversation with the heathen, as this is for images Martin, 21. ητα. γλυπτά. μορφη. εἰκών. στῆλαι. στύλοι. χωνευτά. All image and images, in their translations. FuLKE, 21. 206 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. in religion and worshipping of them, we may have some regard of your similitude: otherwise the meaning of this commandment is generally to forbid all images of God, and of his creatures, to honour God by them; for to honour them as Gods is a breach of the first commandment, as properly as of the second. Martin. This being a thing so plain as nothing more in all the holy scriptures, yet your itching humour of deceit and falsehood for the most part doth translate still “‘images,” “images,” when the Latin, and Greek, and Hebrew, have divers other words, and very seldom that which answereth to “ image.” For when it is “image” in the Latin, or Greek, or Hebrew texts, your translation is not reprehended; for we also translate sometimes “images,” when the text of the holy scrip- ture requireth it. And we are not ignorant that there were images "which the pagans adored for their gods; and we know that some idols are images, but not all images idols. But when the holy scriptures call them by so many names, rather than images, because they were not only images, but made idols; why do your translations, like cuckoo birds, sound continually “images,” “images,” more than “idols,” or other words equivalent to idols, which are there meant ? Fulke. Indeed there is nothing more plain in all the holy scriptures, than that the worshipping of images of all sorts is forbidden; but that our “itching humour of deceit and falsehood,” (as it pleaseth you to speak,) hath corrupted the text, to establish any false opinion of the use of images, it is not yet proved. But now you set upon us with thirteen Hebrew words, and nine Greek words at once, which we for the most part do translate still “images,” “images :” and you say we “sound with cuckoo birds continually, ‘images, images,’ more than ‘idols’ or other words equivalent to idols.” How many times the word image is sounded, I never had care to seek, and now 1 have no leisure to number; but I am sure idols and idolatry, in that translation in which least, are named above forty or fifty times. But to a conscience guilty of worshipping of images, contrary to the express commandment of God, the very name of images must needs sound unplea- santly. That we have no greater change of words to answer so many of the Hebrew tongue, it is of the riches of that tongue, and the poverty of our mother language, which hath but two words, image and idol, and them both borrowed of the Latin and Greek: as for other words equivalent, we - Senda age a ut. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 207 know not any, and we are loth to make any new words of that signification, except the multitude of Hebrew words of the same sense coming together do sometimes perhaps seem to require it. Therefore as the Greek hath fewer words to express this thing than the Hebrew, so hath the Latin fewer than the Greek, and the English fewest of all, as will appear if you would undertake to give us English words for the thirteen Hebrew words: except you would coin such ridiculous inkhorn terms, as you do in the New Testament, azymes, prepuce, neophyte, sandale, parasceve, and such like. Martin. Two places only we willat this time ask you the reason Martin, of : first, why you translate the Hebrew and Greek that answereth to = pene statua, “image,” so often as you do? Whereas this word in the said στήλη. tongues is taken also in the better part; as when Jacob set up a stone Gen. xxviii. and erected it for a title, pouring oil upon it; and the prophet saith, | “Our Lord’s altar shall be in Egypt, and his title beside it.” So that Isai. xix. 19. the word doth signify generally a sign erected of good or evil, and there- fore might very well, if it pleased you, have some other English than “image.” Unless you will say that Jacob also set up an image, and our Lord’s image shall be in Egypt ; which you will not say, though you might with more reason than in other places. Fulke. Seemg you ask, why we translate the Hebrew ae word matsebah so often an image; it had been reason you~™ - should have told us how often we do so, or at least noted some place, where it cannot signify an image. We know the word, being derived of the verb jatsab that signifieth to stand, may be taken for something erected, that is no image, but a pillar, or (as your Latin text calleth it) a title, in both the places by you noted, Gen. xxviii., Esai. xix. and - elsewhere, Gen. xxv., 2 Sam. xviii. But whensoever we translate it an image, the circumstance of the place so re- quireth, as 2 Kings x. where it is said, that Baal’s images were taken out of his temple, broken and burnt. For they were images of Baal, that were worshipped in his temple, and not titles or pillars. Likewise, 2 Kings xvii. where it is said, that “the Israelites made unto themselves statuas, images, and groves under every high hill and under every thick tree :” as appeareth by Ezechiel vi. where they be called gillulim, idols, which had the similitude of men, as Baalim and such other. Martin, 23 εἴδωλα. 13 708 DE γλυπτὸν ὅτι ἔγλυ- Wav αὐτὸ ae the year 1579. Fuke, 23. 208 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. Martin. Secondly, we demand why your very last English bible hath (Esai. xxx. 22) for two Hebrew words, which are in Latin sculp- tilia and conflatilia, twice, “images,” “images;” neither word being - Hebrew for an “image,” no more than if a man would ask, what is Latin for an “image”? and you would tell him seculptile ; whereupon he seeing a fair painted image in a table, might happily say, Ecce egre- gium sculptile ; which every boy in the grammar school would laugh at. Which therefore we tell you, because we perceive your translations endeavour, and as it were affectate, to make sculptile and “image” all one; which is most evidently false, and to your great confusion ap- peareth Abac. ii. 18', where for these words, Quid prodest sculptile, quia sculpsit illud fictor suus, conflatile et imaginem falsam ? which is according to the Hebrew and Greek, your later English translation hath, “ What profiteth the image? for the maker thereof hath made it an image, and a teacher of lies.” } Fulke. Uf it had said, “ the graven images of silver, and the molten or cast images of gold,” I know not what advan- tage it had been to you, or loss to us. But neither word (you say) is Hebrew for an image. Alack! this is poor sophistry, when all the world of Hebricians know, they are Hebrew for nothing else, but for graven or cast images, and by the figure synecdoche are taken generally for images, of what making or matter soever they be. And the question is not, by what art images are made, but to what use and how they be used, that they may be condemned for unlawful, This I take to be the cause, why the interpreter neglected the difference of the Hebrew words, which sometimes is not observed, and in English unpossible always, and unprofitable to be kept. As for your own conceit, whereat you think boys might laugh, I leave it to yourself. For if we were asked, what is Latin for an image, we could answer somewhat else than sculptile. But if a boy should ask [what] pesilim or massecath in this place of Esay doth signify, we would not answer a graven thing, or a molten thing, lest he might shew us the mantel-tree of a chimney, and a brass pot hang- ing over the fire, and demand further whether Esay in this [2 Ti ὠφελεῖ γλυπτὸν, ὅτι ἔγλυψαν αὐτό; ἔπλασεν αὐτὸ χώνευμα, φαντασίαν ψευδῆ, ὅτι πέποιθεν 6 πλάσας ἐπὶ τὸ πλάσμα αὐτοῦ, τοῦ ποιῆσαι εἴδωλα᾽ κωφά. Habakkuk ii, 18. “Quid prodest sculptile, quia sculpsit illud fictor suus, conflatile, et imaginem falsam? quia speravit in figmento fictor ejus ut faceret. simulacra muta,” Vulg. The English version is given from the Bishops’ bible in loco. | i, ee ieee : Ἢ —— πι.7 TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 209 text spake of them, and all such things as they are. But it is most evidently false (you say) that sculptile and image are all one, and this appeareth to our great confusion, Abacuc the second, &c. But I say, to your shame it will appear by this very text, that pesel and massecah signify one and the same thing, and that most evidently. For thus the text is: “ What profiteth the image (pesel,) for his maker (dotsero) hath made it, or (as you will have it) hath graven it (pesalo:)” what followeth now, but massecah, an image ? you had rather say conflatile, a molten image. But then you must remem- ber, that the maker of it by graving made it a molten image ; which is a strange piece of work, except you will say, that first he did cast it, and then he did grave it: but say which way you will, the same image is called pesel and massecah, without difference. The last words are wmoreh shaker, “and a teacher of lies;” for which words your translation hath imaginem falsam, “a false image,” whereas moreh never sig- nifieth an image. But of that afterward. Martin. I would every common reader were able to discern your Marrin, falsehood in this place. First, you make sculpere sculptile, no more than 24. “to make an image’: which being absurd, you know, (because the | painter or embroiderer making an image cannot be said sculpere sculptile) | might teach you that the Hebrew hath in it no signification of image, | no more than scudpere can signify “to make an image ;” and therefore Sculptile. the Greek and the Latin precisely (for the most part) express neither γλυπτόν. more nor less than a thing graven; but yet mean always by these words “a graven idol,” to which signification they are appropriated by use of holy scripture, as simulacrum, idolum, conflatile, and sometime imago. In which sense of signifying “idols,” if you also did repeat “ images” so often, although the translation were not precise, yet it were in some part tolerable, because the sense were so; but when you do it to bring all holy images into contempt, even the image of our Saviour Christ crucified, you may justly be controlled for false and heretical translators. Fulke. 1 would “every common reader were able to dis- Furxx, cern” your foolish malice in this place. For first, while you 24. cavil at the etymology of the words, which the prophet re- gardeth not, you make him say, that the fashioner thereof hath graven a graven thing, a molten thing. Secondly, where you say, that the Hebrew word pese/ hath no signi- fication of an image in it, leaning to the bare derivation from 14 [FULKE. | 210 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ons the verb pasal, you control the only use of it, which is to signify an image or idol, whether it be graven or molten, or by what workmanship soever it be made, which you con- fess to be the sense of it. But when we do it (you say) to bring all holy images into contempt, we may justly be controlled for false and heretical translators. First, we know no holy images, made with hands, at this time so accounted, but they are all profane and abominable idols. Secondly, if the translator’s purpose were evil, yet so long as the words and sense of the original tongue will bear him, he cannot justly be called a false and heretical translator, albeit he have a false and heretical meaning; as you papists have in your late translation of the New Testament; yet where you trans- late, either according to the words, or according to the sense, no equity can condemn you for false translators. Martin, Martin. As in this very place (which is another falsehood like to se the other) confiatile you translate “image”, as you did sculptile, and so Hab. ii. here again in Abacuck (as before in Esay is noted) for two distinct words, each signifying another diverse thing from “image,” you trans- late “images,” “images.” Thirdly, for imaginem falsam, “a false image,” you translate another thing, without any necessary pretence either of Hebrew or Greek, avoiding here the name of “ image,” be- cause this place telleth you that the holy scripture speaketh against φαντασίαν false images, or as the Greek hath, “false phantasies,” or as you trans- Vevey ‘late the Hebrew, “such images as teach lies,” representing false gods 1 Cor. vii which are not, as the apostle saith, idolum nihil est ; and non sunt Dit "qui manibus fiunt. Which distinction of false and true images you will not have, because you condemn all images, even holy and sacred also ; and therefore you make the holy scriptures to speak herein accord- ingly to your own fancy. ᾿ ———* ———— ανα ΕὝΤΚΕ, Fulke. Seeing the prophet regardeth not the etymology o of the words, but useth both for one and the same image, no, nor regardeth the matter whereof it is made, as appeareth in the next verse, where he calleth this idol wood and stone, which cannot be molten; every reasonable man may see, that the word massecah doth in this place signify generally an image, which is made to be a teacher of lies. And whereas you repeat, that the two words do “signify each another diverse thing from image,’ because the one signifieth a graven thing, the other a molten thing, you speak without mt. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 211 all shame and sense of honesty: for pesel signifieth not every graven, carved, or hewn thing, but only an image. For who would say, that a morter or a gutter of hewn stone were in Hebrew to be signified by the word pesel, or a pewter pot or a dish by the word massecah? Seeing the use of the Hebrew tongue therefore hath appropried these names only to images, it is great frowardness, and no learning, to quarrel about the etymology or derivation of them. As this name building, in English, is taken only for houses: as when we say, Here are goodly buildings; which if a man would extend according to the derivation, and shewing nothing else but walls of brick or other matter, praise them for goodly build- ings, he should be thought to speak strangely in our tongue, and yet, according to the derivation, building may signify anything that is builded. But for imaginem falsam, a false image, you charge us to “translate another thing, without any necessary pretence, either of Hebrew or Greek.” Such af- firmations will make us think meanly of your knowledge in the Hebrew tongue. For what, I pray you, else can moreh mmo in this place signify, but a teacher ? or where is it ever taken for an image, as your Latin, text hath, or a fantasy, as the Greek readeth? Turn over your dictionary and Hebrew _ concordance, and see if you can find it used for an image or an idol. At leastwise, give credit to Isidorus Clarius, who thus writeth in his notes upon the text: Quod ait , tnaginem falsam, in Heb. est docens, vel annuncians menda- cium. “That he saith a false image, in the Hebrew it is teaching or shewing forth a lie.” The distinction you make of true and false images, is vain for this purpose: for all images that are used in religion are false, and teachers of falsehood, which you with Gregory say are laymen’s _ books; but what shall they teach, saith Abacuc and Jeremiah, » Hab. ii |) but fa and vanity ? Where note, that Jeremiah calleth the image wood, by synecdoche, signifying all images made with hands, of any matter. Again he saith, “Every anGuee is con- founded in his image, because it is false which he hath made, _ and there is no breath in it.” In which verse it is to be observed, that he useth first the word pesel, saying mippasel, DDSI and afterward nisco, for the same image made by the arti- iD) τς; ficer, without distinction of graving or melting, at leastwise q for the sense, though the words be diverse. Even so your | 14—2 Martin, 26. Dan, xiv. 4. Bib. 1562. 1577. FuLke, 26. 212 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH * [cH. vulgar Latin translator useth seulptile, conflatile, imaginem et simulacrum, for one and the same thing. The scripture therefore telling us that all images are false, because they, being void of life, are set up to represent the living, it is not our fantasy, but the authority of God’s word, that causeth us to reject your fantastical distinction of true and false images. Martin. Wherein you proceed so far, that when Daniel said to the king, “I worship not idols made with hands,” (εἴδωλα χειροποίητα,) you make him say thus, “I worship not things that be made with hands’,” leaving out the word “ idols” altogether, as though he had said, “nothing made with hand were to be adored ;” not the ark, the propi- tiatory, no, nor the holy cross itself, that our Saviour shed his blood upon. As before you added to the text, so here you diminish and take from it at your pleasure. Fulke. That “thing” is put for idol, I confess it to be a fault in some translations; but in the Geneva bible it is reformed. Contempt of the authority of that apocryphal chapter (as it seemed) did breed that negligence. Where you write, that he should by saying, “I worship not things made with hands,” have denied ‘the ark and the propitiatory to be worshipped, it is very true; for neither of both was to be worshipped, as they were made with hands; but God was to be worshipped where they were, and those things to be reverently esteemed, as the sacraments of God’s presence. As for the cross whereon Christ died, I see no cause why it should be worshipped, if it were to be had; but rather, if it were to be worshipped, it should be served as the brasen serpent was. None of the apostles made any account of it: Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, if there had been any — matter of religion in it, might have preserved it, and not have suffered it to be buried in the earth with the two other crosses, as the story of the invention saith, if it be true. At the finding whereof, Helena, as St Ambrose writeth, Regem adoravit, non lignum utique, quia hic gentilis est error et vanitas” Γ' The story of Bel and the Dragon. “Because I may not worship — things that be made with hands,” v. 4. edit. 1568. “Because I may not worship idols made with hand,” y. 5. ed. 1579. “ Because I may not worship things that be made with hands,’ 1562. (1584, — Bishops’ bible.) ] 111. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 213 impiorum : “She worshipped the king, not the tree verily ; for this is an heathenish error, and vanity of ungodly men.” De obit. Theodosir*. Martin. But concerning the word “image,” which you make to Marrin, be the English of all the Latin, Hebrew, and Greek words, be they 27. never so many and so distinct, I beseech you, what reason had you to translate γλυπτὰ “images”? Wisd. xv. 13. Doth the Greek word so sig- nify ? doth not the sentence following tell you that it should have been translated, “graven idols’? for thus it saith, “ They judged all the idols of the nations to be gods*.” Lo, your images! or rather, lo, the true names of the pagans’ gods, which it pleaseth you to call “images”, “images.” Fulke. J think you are not able to prove that we make Furxe, “image” the English to all the Hebrew words, though you 27. boldly affirm it. But in the place by you mentioned, I sup- pose they translated the Greek. word “graven or carved images,” rather than idol, because the writer in that place, Wisd. xv. 13. speaketh of the first framing and fashioning of those images, which, though the purpose of the workman be never so wicked, yet cannot properly be called idols, before they be abused by them that worship them. Martin. But, to conclude this point: you might, and it would have Marrry, well becomed you, in translating or expounding the foresaid words, to ~”* have followed St Jerome, the great famous translator and interpreter of the holy scriptures, who telleth you two senses of the foresaid words; the one literal, of the idols of the gentiles; the other mystical, of heresies and errors. “ Sculptile,” saith he, “and conflatile, I take to be perverse opinions, Comment. which are adored of the authors that made them. See Arius, that graved ἡ een to himself this idol, that Christ was only a creature, and adored that which he had graven. Behold Eunomius, how he molted and cast a false image, and bowed to that which he had molten*.” Suppose he had [? Opera, Vol. πα. p. 1211.] [3 Οὗτος yap παρὰ πάντας οἷδεν ὅτι ἁμαρτάνει, ὕλης γεώδους εὖὔ- θραυστα σκεύη καὶ γλυπτὰ δημιουργῶν. Sapient. Solomonis, xv. 13. “Now he that of earth maketh frail vessels and images, knoweth himself to offend above all other,” Bishops’ bible 1584, Cranmer 1562, Geneva 1560. Ὅτι πάντα τὰ εἴδωλα τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐλογίσαντο θεούς. Ibid. χν. 1ὅ. “ For they judge all the idols of the heathen to be gods,” Bishops’ bible. ] [* “Sculptile” et “conflatile” reor dogmata esse perversa, que ab his a quibus facta sunt adorantur. Vide Arium sculpsisse sibi idolum FuLkE, 28. Martin, Zech. xiii. Loco citato!. Hos. xi. Hos. xii. 214 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [on. exemplified of the two condemned heretics, Jovinian and Vigilantius also; had he not touched your idols, that is, the old condemned heresies, which you at this day adore? Fulke. Τὸ becometh us best in translation to follow the original text, and, as near as we can, the true meaning of the Holy Ghost. As for the two senses which Jerome telleth, [they ] stand whole and untouched for our translation. There is a difference between a translation and a commentary. In commenting upon the text, they that see it convenient may apply the idols of the gentiles and the worship of them to the heresies of our times, of the papists, anabaptists, libertines, and such like, as the apostle doth by similitude to covetous- ness. As for old condemned heresies, which you charge us to worship as idols, you are able to prove none, whatsoever you babble of Vigilantius and Jovinian: neither of both do we follow in any error, much less in any heresy. Martin. These only (I mean heresies and heretics) are the idols and idolaters (by the ancient doctors’ judgment) which have been among Christians since the idolatry of the gentiles ceased, according to the prophets. Therefore St Jerome saith again: “If thou see a man that will not yield to the truth, but when the falsehood of his opinions is once shewed, persevereth still in that he began; thou mayest aptly say, sperat in figmento suo, and he maketh dumb or deaf idols*.” And again, “ All heretics have their gods; and whatsoever they have forged, they adore the same, as scuiptile and conflatile; that is, ‘as a graven and molten idol*,’” And again, “He saith well, I have found unto myself an idol; for all the forgeries of heretics are as the idols of the gentiles ; creature, et adorasse quod sculpsit. Cerne Eunomium conflasse ima- ginem falsam, et conflationi sue curvare cervicem. Comment. Hie- ronymi in Abacue. ii. 18. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 1615. ] [? Sive hee idola, de quibus apostolus loquitur (1 Tim. iv. 1, 2.). Sicut enim idola fiunt manu artificis; ita hereticorum perversa doc- trina, quodcunque simulaverit, vertit in idolum; et facit Christo adorari antichristum. Comment. Hieronymi in Zachar. xiii. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 1787. | [? Si quando videris aliquem nolle credere veritati, et ostensa su- orum dogmatum falsitate in cepto studio perseverare, congrue poteris dicere, Sperat in figmento suo, et facit simulacra muta vel surda. Comment. Hieronymi in Abacue. ii. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 1615.] Γ᾿ Singuli enim hereticorum habent deos suos: et quodcunque simulaverint, quasi sculptile colunt atque conflatile. Comment. Hie- ronymi in Osee. xi. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 1811.] ut. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 215 neither do they much differ in impiety, though in name they seem to differ*.” And again, “Whatsoever according to the letter is spoken In Amos. v. against the idolatry of the Jews, do thou refer all this unto them, which under the name of Christ worship idols, and forging to themselves per- verse opinions, carry the tabernacle of their king the devil, and the image of their idols. For they worship not an idol, but for variety of their doctrine they adore divers gods. And he put in very well, ‘ which you made to yourselves ;” for they received them not of God, but forged them of their own mind’.” And of the idol of Samaria he saith, “ We In Amos. viii. always understand Samaria (and the idol of Samaria) in the person of heretics, the same prophet saying, ‘Woe be to them that despise Sion, Chap. vi. and trust in the mount of Samaria.’ For heretics despise the church of God, and trust in the falsehood of their opinions, erecting themselves against the knowledge of God, and saying, when they have divided the people (by schism), ‘ We have no part in David, nor inheritance in the 6299 son of Jesse®’, Fulke. Not these only, but the idols of the Simonists, Furxe, Valentinians, Gnostici, Carpocratits, Collyridians, and such 29. like, made with hands, of Christ, and his mother, of Paul, and Simon, and Selene, and Pythagoras, &c. and such other, were idols of false Christians, since the idolatry of the gentiles gave place, by the judgment of Irenzeus, Epiphanius, and other ancient doctors. And whatsoever you cite or can cite out of St Jerome against the idols of heresies, agreeth most [* Et pulchre, Inveni, ait, idolum mihi: omnia enim hereticorum figmenta idola sunt et simulacra gentilium: nec multum differunt in impietate, licet in nomine discrepare videantur. Comment. Hieronymi in Osee. xii. Opera, Vol. ur. p. 1821. ] [ἢ Quidquid autem juxta litteram dicitur contra populum Jude- orum, hoc omne refer ad eos qui sub nomine Christi venerantur idola, et prava sibi dogmata confingentes portant tabernaculum regis sui diaboli, et imaginem statuarum et idolorum suorum. Non enim unum colunt idolum: sed pro varietate doctrine diversos adorant deos et sidus dei sui. Comment. Hieronymi in Amos. v. Opera, Vol. ur. p. 1422. ] [° Deficientibus autem virginibus, et adolescentes deficient, qui prius vicerant mundum: et idcirco deficient, quia jurant in idolo Samariz, quam in hereticorum persona semper accipimus, dicente hoe eodem propheta: Ve qui despiciunt Sion, et confidunt in monte Samaria. Despiciunt enim heretici ecclesiam Dei, et confidunt in falsitate dogmatum suorum, erigentes se contra scientiam Dei, et scisso populo ejus dicentes: Non est pars nobis in David, neque hereditas in filio Jesse. Comment. Hieronymi in Amos. viii. Opera, Vol. 11, pp. 1444, 1445.] Martin, 30. 30. 216 ‘A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. aptly to yourselves, the papists, who worship not only idols — made with hands, but also the idols of your brains, which are abominable heresies. Martin. Thus the reader may see, that the holy scriptures which the adversaries falsely translate against the holy images of our Saviour Christ and his saints, to make us idolaters, do in deed concern their idols, and condemn them as idolaters ; which forge new opinions to themselves, such as the ancient fathers knew not, and adore them, and their own sense and interpretation of scriptures, so far and so vehemently, that they prefer it before the approved judgment of all the general councils and holy doctors, and for maintenance of the same corrupt the holy scriptures at their pleasure, and make them speak according to their fancies, as we have partly shewed, and now are to declare further. Fulke. Thus the reader may see, that when you have cavilled, quarrelled, falsified, and slandered, as much as you can, to charge us with false translation of the scripture con- cerning images, you can find nothing worth the noting: but if some small oversight, through negligence, or perhaps the printer’s fault, hath escaped, you make a great matter of it, although it be corrected by ourselves in other translations; and when all other matter faileth, you return to your ac- customed vein of railing and reviling, which in no wise man’s judgment deserveth answer, because it is so general. ! Iv. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 217 CHAPTER IV. The Ecclesiastical use of Words turned into their Original . and Profane signification. Martin. We spake a little before of the double signification of Marty, 1. ‘words ; the one according to the original property, the other according to the usual taking thereof in all vulgar speech and writing. These words (as by the way we shewed before, upon occasion of the adversaries’ Chap: 5. 17, 18. grant) are to be translated in their vulgar and usual signification, not See ce aso M. as they signify by their ksi property. As for example: major in 909; and the 6th chap. of the original signification is “greater.” But when we say, “the mayor this book, of London,” now it is taken and soundeth in every man’s ear for such iS hee 7, 8 an officer; and no man will say, “the greater of London,” according more of this to the original property of it. Likewise episcopus, a Greek word, in the original sense is “every overseer,” as Tully useth it, and other pro- fane writers; but among Christians, in ecclesiastical speech, it is “a bishop ;” and no man will say, “My lord overseer of London,” for “my lord bishop.” Likewise we say, “seven deacons, St Stephen a deacon : no man will say, “seven ministers, St Stephen a minister ;” although that be the original signification of the word “deacon.” But by ecclesiastical use and appropriation being taken for a certain degree of the clergy, so it soundeth in every man’s ear, and so it must be translated. As we say, “Nero made many martyrs ;” not, “Nero made many witnesses :” and yet “martyr” by the first original property of the word is nothing else but a “witness.” We say, “baptism is a sacrament ;” not, “washing is a sacrament:” yet “baptism” and “washing,” by the first original property of the word, is all one. _ Fulke. We have also answered before, that words must Furxe, 1. not be always translated according to their original and general signification, but according to such signification, as by use they are appropried to be taken. We agree also, ‘that words taken by custom of speech into an ecclesiastical ‘meaning are not to be altered into a strange or profane sig- nification, For such vanities and novelties of words the apostle prohibiteth; whereof the popish translation of the New Testament is fraught full. Notwithstanding our meaning | is not, that if any Greek terms, or words of any other language, have of long time been usurped in our English Janguage, the true understanding of which is unknown at this day to the common people, but that the same terms Martin, 2. *See chap. ° Xv. num. 18, and3, 4.; and 218 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. may be either in translation or exposition set out plainly, to inform the simplicity of the ignorant, by such words as of them are better understood. Also when those terms are abused by custom of speech, to signify some other thing than they were first appointed for, or else be taken ambigu- ously for divers things; we ought not to be superstitious in these cases, but, to avoid misunderstanding, we may use words according to their original signification, as they were taken in such time as they were written by the instruments of the Holy Ghost. As for example, if ‘a bishop’ be mistaken by the people, either for such an idol as the papists used to make of their St Nicolas’ bishops, or else for a great lord only, that rideth about in a white rochet; they may be told, that the name of a bishop describeth his office, that is, to be an overseer of the flock of Christ committed to his charge. Likewise if the word ‘deacon’ be taken for such an one, as — at a popish mass standeth in a disguised tunicle, holding a patten, or some other idolatrous bauble used of them; the people must be taught, that this name signifieth a minister, which was ordained not to serve the popish altar, but the poor men’s tables, that is, to provide for the poor, and to see the church’s alms bestowed upon them, Also if the name of ‘martyrs’ be not understood, but taken only for them that are tormented and rent in body, as the common speech is to say, of men and beasts, that they are martyred, when their bodies are wounded and mangled; here it is needful to shew, that the saints that suffered for Christ had their name of their witness or testimony, not of their pains and torments. The name of ‘baptism’ is so common to Christians, that it need not to be changed into washing: but yet it may and ought to be explicated unto the unlearned, what this word doth signify, which is no profane signification, but a true and general understanding of the word, which is used of the evangelist for other washings than the sacrament | baptism, and so you are enforced to translate it, Mark vii. id Martin. Now then to come to our purpose, such are the absurd translations of the English bibles, and altogether like unto these: namely, when they translate “congregation” for “church,” “ elder” for “ priest,” “image” for “idol,” “dissension” for “schism,” “general” for “catho- lic,” “secret” for “sacrament,” “overseer” for “bishop,” “messenger” for “angel*,” “ambassador” for “ apostle,” “ minister” for “deacon,” and — Iv. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 219 such like: to what other end be these deceitful translations, but to con- chet 4503 Ἵ 668] and obscure the name of the church and dignities thereof, mentioned ἢ in the holy scriptures; to dissemble the word “schism” (as they do also “heresy” and “ heretic*”) for fear of disgracing their schisms and ad 111. heresies; to say of “matrimony,” neither “sacrament,” which is the 1 Cor. xi. Latin, nor “mystery,” which is the Greek, but to go as far as they ys can possibly from the common usual and ecclesiastical words, saying, “ This is a great secret,” in favour of their heresy, that matrimony is no Eph. v. 32. sacrament’ ? Fulke. Absurd translations of the English bibles, you say, Furxe, 2. are “congregation” for “church,” “elder” for “priest,” “image” for “idol,” and such like. The word “church” being sanbigu- ously taken of the people for the place of assembly, and the assembly itself, it was as lawful for us to call congregation, as for you to call it assembly. Acts vu. This word “priest” commonly taken for a sacrificer and the same that sacerdos, and so by you translated, there was good occasion to use the word elder, for which you use senior, or ancient, in your translation, which is a name of authority, as overseer is of diligence, minister of service, pastor of feeding; all which names set forth a true bishop, pastor, and elder, and if you will needs have it, of a true priest. Of “image” for idol is said enough in the next chapter before. “Schism” I know not how Englishmen should understand, except it were Englished by dissension, division, rending, or some such like. Of “general” for catholic, we shall speak anon. “Secret” for sacrament we use, because we would retain the ecclesiastical use of this word sacrament, which is to signify the seals of God’s pro- [Γ᾿ διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις. Gal. v. 20. “ Dissensiones, secte,” Vulg. “Dissensions, sects,” Wiclif, Rhemish. ‘Sedition, sects,’ Tyndale, Cranmer. “Sedition, heresies,’ Geneva, Authorised. Αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον. Tit. iii. 10. “Hereticum hominem,” Vulg. ΚΑ man heretic,’ Wiclif. “A man that is given to heresy,” Tyn- dale. “A man that is an author of sects,” Cranmer 1539, 1562. “Him that is an heretic,” Geneva. “A man that is an heretic,” Bishops’ bible 1584, Rheims, Authorised. δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι. 1 Cor. xi. 19. “Nam oportet οὐ hereses esse,’ Vulg. “For it behoveth heresies to be,” Wiclif. For there must be sects among you,” Tyndale, Cranmer 1539, 1562. “ For there must be even heresies among you,’ Geneva, “For there must be heresies also,” Rheims. “For there must be also heresies,” Bishops’, Authorised. | Marin, 3. - 1 Cor. i. 10. 220 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. mises, and not confound it with every holy or unholy secret thing. The Greek word “mystery,” which you would enjoin us to use, was in the time of the first translation more un- known, than that we could well have used it, except we would have followed your vein in vanity and novelty of terms, prepuce, neophyte, gratis, depositum, &c., or else made general and common the proper use of this ecclesiastical term “sacrament” to every mystery, and called the sacrament of preaching, of publishing the gospel to the gentiles, of the seven stars, as you do, and yet in the sacrament of the whore of Babylon you leave it and call it mystery, Rey. xvii. 7, as you should be enforced to do, if you would translate the Old Testament out of Latin, Dan. ii., divers times, except you would call Nabuchadonozor’s dream a sacrament, and Dan. iv., where the king saith, that to Daniel no secret is impossible, meaning unknown or not understood, you would say no sacrament, and Tob. xii., you would translate sacra- mentum regis abscondere bonum est, “It is a good thing to hide the king’s sacrament,” where you should say secret, and where the English phrase would hardly bear you to say the king’s mystery. Of the other terms, in the places by you quoted it shall be sufficient to speak. But I have ren- dered reasonable causes of these terms hitherto, so that no man, but mad with malice, would think we conceal the name — of church and dignities thereof in hatred of them, or do ~ dissemble the names of schism and heresy in favour of those — abominations, which are as well set forth to their detestation in the terms of dissension and sects. As for the name sacra- — ment, we find [it] not in the Greek; but mysteriwm we trans- late “a secret” or “a mystery,” as the word signifieth, which — nothing favoureth the pretended sacrament of matrimony. Martin. St Paul saith as plain as he can speak’, “I beseech you, — a Se brethren, that you all say one thing, and that there be no schisms among _ Γ' Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοὶ, διὰ. τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες, καὶ μὴ ἦ ἐν ὑμῖν σχίσ- ματα. 1 Cor. i. 10. “Obsecro autem vos, fratres, per nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ut idipsum dicatis omnes, et non sint in vobis schismata.” Vulg. “1 beseech you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak one thing, and that there be no dissension among Iv. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 991 you.” They translate for “schisms” “dissensions ;” which may be in profane and worldly things, as well as in matters of religion. But schisms are those that divide the unity of the church, whereof they know themselves guilty. St Paul saith as plainly as is possible, “A op pages man that is an heretic, avoid after the first and second admonition:” ¢ tsb parcel they translated in their bible of the year 1562, “A man that is an author of sects.” And where the Greek is “ heresy,” reckoned among damnable αἱρέσεις. sins, they say “sects ;” favouring that name for their own sakes, and Pah dissembling it, as though the holy scriptures spake not against “heresy” or “heretics,” “schism” or “schismatics.” Fulke. St Paul indeed speaketh plainly in Greek; but Furxs, 3. if you speak English and say schisms, forty thousand of the people in England will swear they understand you not. But schisms (you say) are those “that divide the unity of the church : dissensions may be in profane and worldly things.” Verily, all schisms divide not the church, for they were not all the church, of whom it is said in St John ix., “ There was a schism among them:” for I think the best of the Pharisees were scarce good members of the church. Again, where St Paul doth say, “lest there should be a schism in the body,” 1 Cor. xii., he speaketh of the natural body, where- unto he compareth the church. St Paul also saith, as plainly as he can speak in Greek, 1 Cor. xi. 18., “I hear that there be schisms among you :” yet your vulgar Latin trans- lator is bold to say scisswras, cuttings or rendings, where you are bold to go from your Latin text and call them schisms. And for explicating the Greek name of heresy by sects, why should we be more blamed, than the vulgar Latin translator, who commonly translateth it sectas, and namely - Gal. v., 2 Pet. ii, Acts xxiv. divers times, xxvi. and xxviii., in all which places you yourselves translate “sects”? [5 it because he or you favour heresies and heretics? Will you never leave this foolish wrangling, which er turneth you to the greater discredit ? Martin. As also they suppress the very name “ catholic,” when it Martin, 4. is expressly in the Greek, for malice toward catholics and catholic reli- gion, because they know, themselves never shall be called or known by: that name. And therefore their two English bibles, accustomed to be An. 1562. read in their church, (therefore by like most authentic,) leave it clean ee you,” Tyndale, Cranmer 1539, 1562, Geneva, Bishops’ 1584. “And that there be no divisions among you,” Authorised Version.] 299 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH - [σης Huseb, Μὴν. it out in the title of all those epistles, which ows been known by the _ og Ἢ 29.in name of Catholice Epistole ever since the apostles’ time: and their later — fine. 79. English bible (dealing somewhat more honestly) hath turned the word “catholic” into “general,” saying, “The General Epistle of James, of Peter,” &c. As if a man should say in his creed, “I believe the general church,” because he would not say, “the catholic church ;” as the Lu- theran catechisms say for that purpose, “I believe the christian church.” rg ta So that by this rule, when St Augustine telleth that the manner was in cities where there was liberty of religion, to ask, Qua itur ad catholicam ? we must translate it, “ Which is the way to the general?” And when St Jerome saith, “If we agree in faith with the bishop of Rome,” ergo catholici sumus ; we must translate it, “Then we are generals.” Is not this good stuff? Are they not ashamed thus to invert and pervert all words against common sense, and use, and reason? Catholic and general or universal (we know) is by the original property of the word — all one: but according to the use of both, as it is ridiculous to say, “A catholic council,” for “A general council ;” so is it ridiculous and impious to say “general” for “catholic,” in derogation thereof, and for to hide it under a bushel. Funke, 4. Fulke. 1 do not know where the name of “ catholic” is once expressed in the text of the bible, that it might be suppressed by us, which are not like to bear malice to the catholic church or religion, seeing we teach even our young — children to believe “the holy catholic church.” But not find- — ing the word catholic in the text, you run to the title of the | seven epistles, called as commonly canonical as catholic or general, But Eusebius belike testifieth that they have been — so called ever since the apostles’ time, lib. m. cap. 22.) I marvel you are not ashamed to avouch such an untruth. Eusebius, speaking of his own time, saith they are so called; — but that they have been so called ever since the apostles’ time, he saith not. And so far off he is from saying so, that he pronounceth the epistle of St James in the same — place to be a bastard, and speaketh doubtfully of the epistles i of St Jude*. But whereas in one translation we use the a — [* See the passage quoted before, p. 16.] | [ἢ Jacobus, qui appellatur frater Domini, cognomento Justus, ut — nonnulli existimant, Josephi ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, — Marie sororis matris Domini, cujus Johannes in libro suo meminit, ὦ filius, post passionem Domini statim ab apostolis Jerosolymorum — episcopus ordinatus, unam tantum scripsit epistolam, que de septem catholicis est; que et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur. Hieronymi Catal. Scrip. Eccles. 1. Opera, Vol. rv. p. 101. 1v.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. . 33g word “general” for catholic, you make a great maygame of it, shewing your wit and your honesty both at once. For these five of James, two of Peter, one of Jude, and the first of John, which are properly and rightly so entitled, have that title, because they are not sent to any particular church or persons, but to all in general, as the Greek scholiast truly noteth. C&cumenius before the epistle of St James saith expressly, Catholicw, id est, universales dicuntur he, &c*. “ These epistles are called catholic, that is to say, univer- sal or general, because not distinctly to one nation or city (as St Paul to the Romans, or Corinthians) this company of our Lord’s disciples doth dedicate these epistles, but generally to the faithful, or to the Jews that were dispersed, as also Peter, or else to all Christians living under the same faith.” For otherwise, if they should be called catholic in respect of the soundness of the doctrine contained in them, what reason were there more to call them so, than to call all the epistles of St Paul? Wherefore in this title, which yet is no part of the holy scripture, it is rightly translated “general.” The other translators, seeing seven to be called general, where only five are so in deed, and seeing them also called canon- ical, which should seem to be a controlling of St Paul’s epistles, left out that title altogether, as being no part of the text and word of God, but an addition of the stationers or writers. Martin. Is it because they would follow the Greek, that they turn Marry, δ. καθολικὴ “general”? Even as just as when they turn εἴδωλον “image,” Catholice. παράδοσιν “instruction,” δικαίωμα “ordinance,” σχίσμα “ dissension,” αἵρεσιν “sect,” μυστήριον “secret,” and such like; where they go as far from the Greek as they can, and will be glad to pretend for answer Jacobus, Petrus, Johannes, Judas, Apostoli, septem epistolas edi- derunt tam mysticas quam succinctas, et breves pariter et longas: breves in verbis, longas in sententiis, ut rarus sit qui non in earum lectione cecutiat. Hieron. Epist. 11. ad Paulinum. Opera, Vol. ιν. Ῥ. 574. See answer to preface, p. 33.] [ἢ Καθολικαὶ λέγονται αὗται, οἱονεὶ ἐγκύκλιοι. οὐ γὰρ ἀφωρισμένως ἔθνει ἑνὶ ἢ πόλει, (ὡς ὁ θεῖος Παῦλος τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις ἢ Κορινθίοις) προσφωνεῖ ταύτας τὰς ἐπιστολὰς ὁ τῶν τοιούτων τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητῶν θίασος, ἀλλὰ καθόλου τοῖς πιστοῖς, ἤτοι ᾿Ιουδαίοις τοῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, as καὶ ὁ Πέτρος, ἢ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτὴν πίστιν Χριστιανοῖς | τελοῦσιν. (CEcumenii Argument. Cathol. Jacobi Epist. Opera, Vol. τι. p- 439, Edit. Lutet. Paris. 1631.] ΕτστκΕ, 5. 224 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [oH. of their word “sect,” that they follow our Latin translation. Alas! poor — shift for them that otherwise pretend nothing but the Greek, to be — tried by that Latin which themselves condemn. But we honour the said text, and translate it “sects” also, as we there find it, and as we — do in other places follow the Latin text ; and take not our advantage of — the Greek text, because we know the Latin translation is good also and — sincere, and approved in the church by long antiquity, and it is in sense _ all one to us with the Greek: but not so to them, who in these days of controversy about the Greek and Latin text, by not following the Greek, — which they profess sincerely to follow, bewray themselves that they do it for a malicious purpose. | Fulke. Τὰ is because we would have the Greek under- — stood, as it is taken in those places, when we turn “ catholic” general, idolum, image, παράδοσιν, instruction, δικαίωμα, or- dinance, σχίσμα, dissension, αἵρεσιν, sect, μυστήριον, secret, and such like. And where you say, we would be glad for our word “sect” to pretend to follow your Latin translation, it is a fable. For in translating “sect,” we follow the Greek as truly, as your Latin translation doth; which if it be true’ and sincere, as you confess, what devilish madness possess- eth your malicious mind to burden us with such purposes, as no reasonable man would once imagine or think of, that we should use that term in favour of heresy and heretics, whom we think worthy to suffer death, if they will not repent, and cease to blaspheme or seduce the simple? v. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 225 CHAPTER V. Heretical Translation against the Church. Martin. As they suppress the name “catholic,” even so did they Marry, 1. in their first English bible the name of “church” itself; because at their first revolt and apostasy from that that was universally known to be the only true catholic church, it was a great objection against their schismatical proceedings, and it stuck much in the people’s consciences, that they forsook the church, and that the church condemned them. Whereupon very wilily they suppressed the name “church” in their English translation, so th&t in all that bible so long read in their con- pip, 1562. gregations we cannot once find the name thereof. Judge by these places, which seem of most importance for the dignity, preeminence, and autho- rity of the church. Fulke. How can we suppress the name “catholic,” which Forxs, 1. the holy scripture never useth? As for the name of church, I have already shewed divers times, that for to avoid the ambiguous taking of that term, it was at the first less used, but never refused for doubt of any objection of the catholic church against us: the profession of which, being contained in our English creed, how could we relinquish, or not ac- knowledge to be contained in the scripture, in which we taught that all articles of faith necessary to salvation are comprehended? But we are content to be judged “by those places which seem of most importance for the dignity, pre- eminence, and authority of the church.” Martin. Our Saviour saith, “Upon this rock I will build my church, Marrin, 2. and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?” They make him to matt. xvi. say, “Upon this rock I will build my congregation.” Again, “If he wate. xviii. hear not them, tell the church ; and if he hear not the church, let him be to thee as an heathen and as a publican ;” they say, “congregation®.” Γ' οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Matt. xvi. 18. “I will build my congregation,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops’ bible. “1 will build my church,” Wiclif, Rhemish, Authorised. ] [? εἰπὲ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. Matt. xviii.17. “Tell it unto the congrega- tion,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva. “Tell it to the church,” Wiclif, Bishops’ bible, Rhemish, Authorised version. ] [ PULKE. | 15 226 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH | cH. Again, who would think they would have altered the word “church” in the Epistle to the Ephesians? Their English translation for many Eph. v. years read thus: “Ye husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the congregation, and cleansed it to make it unto himself a glorious congre- 1 Timiii. gation without spot or wrinkle.” And, “ This isa great secret, but I speak of Christ and of the congregation.” And to Timothy, “ The house of God, which is the congregation of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.” Here is no word of “church,” which in Latin and Greek is, Ecclesia Dei vivi, columna et firmamentum veritatis. Likewise to the Eph. 1. Ephesians again, “He hath made him head of the congregation, which ‘Heb. xi 23. is his body.” And to the Hebrews they are all bold to translate: “ The congregation of the first-born,” where the apostle nameth “heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God,” &c." Furxr,2. Fulke. In the first English bible printed, where it was thus translated, Matt. xvi, “Upon this rock I will build my congregation®,” the note in the margin is thus: “ Upon this rock, that is, as saith St Augustine, upon the con- fession which thou hast made, knowledging me to be Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my congregation or church*!” Was not this translator, think you, sore of the name of “the church”? What other thing should he understand by the word “congregation” in all places by you noted, or in any like, but the church, as he doth here ex- pound himself? And this translation, almost word for word, doth the bible you call 1562 follow. [᾿ The versions of Tyndale and Cranmer render ἐκκλησία at Eph. γ. 23, 24, 25, “congregation:” those of Wiclif, Geneva, Bishops’ bible, and Authorised, render it “church.” And also the same translation of ἐκκλησία is given by these several versions respectively at 1 Tim. iii. 15. Tyndale and Cranmer also translate the word “congregation” at Ephes. i. 22.: all the other versions render it “church.” At Hebrews — xii. 28, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, and the Bishops’ bible, have it “congregation :” Wiclif, Rhemish, and Authorised version, “church.”] [? Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram edificabo ecclesiam meam ; ut super hunc intelligeretur quem confessus est Petrus, dicens, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi; ac sic Petrus ab hac petra appellatus perso- nam ecclesie figuraret, que super hance petram edificatur, et accepit claves regni coelorum. Non enim dictum est illi, Tu es petra, sed, tu es Petrus. Petra autem erat Christus; quem confessus Simon, sicut — eum tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. Augustini Retractio- num, Lib. 1. 6.231. Opera, Vol. 1. pp. 67, 68. edit. Bened. Paris. 1836. ] Γ᾿ Matthew’s Bible 1537.] νον γ.] 'RANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 227 Martin. So that, by this translation, there is no more church mili- Martin, 3. tant and triumphant, but congregation, and he is not head of the church, but of the congregation; and this congregation, at the time of the making of this translation, was in a few new brethren of England, for whose sake the name “church” was left out of the English bible, to commend the name of “congregation” above the name of “church.” Whereas St Augustine telleth them, that the Jews’ synagogue was a In Ps. Ixxxi. congregation, the church a convocation; and that a congregation is of μευ τονυδαν beasts also; a convocation, of reasonable creatures only; and that the ἐκκλησία“, Jews’ congregation is sometime called “the church,” but the apostles never called the church “congregation.” Do you see then what a goodly change they have made, for “church” to say “ congregation,” so making themselves a very synagogue, and that by the property of the Greek word; which yet (as St Augustine telleth them most truly) sig- nifieth rather a “ convocation” ? Fulke. A strange matter, that the church militant and Fuxxe, 3. triumphant should be excluded by using the word congre- gation, when by it nothing is signified but the congregation or church militant and triumphant; and that Christ should no more be head of the church when he is head of the congregation, where the difference is only in sound of words, not in sense or meaning. Your vain and ridiculous surmise, why the name of church should be left out of the bible, I have before confuted, shewing that in every bible it is either in the text, or in the notes. But St Augustine telleth us (say you) that the Jews’ synagogue was a congregation, the church a convocation; and that a congregation is of beasts also, a convocation of reasonable creatures only. But St Luke in the person of St Stephen telleth us, (and Augustine telleth us as much,) that the synagogue of the Jews is called also ecclesia, which signifieth the church and congregation. [* The LXX. read in the first verse of the eighty-second Psalm, 6 Θεὸς ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, which is translated by the Vulgate, “Deus stetit in synagoga deorum.” Upon these words Augustine speaks as follows: “In synagoga populum Israel accipimus; quia et ipsorum proprie synagoga dici solet, quamvis et ecclesia dicta sit. Nostram vero apostoli nunquam synagogam dixerunt, sed semper ecclesiam; sive discernendi causa, sive quod inter congregationem unde synagoga, et convocationem unde ecclesia nomen accepit, distet aliquid; quod scilicet congregari et pecora solent, atque ipsa proprie, quorum et greges proprie dicimus; convocari autem magis est uten- tium ratione, sicut sunt homines. Augustini Enarratio in Psalmum Ixxxi, 1.] 15—2 Martin, 4. ΕὙ1ΚΕ, 4. 228 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH | oH. That congregatio, the Latin word, may be of beasts also, it skilleth not; for the church of Christ is called also a flock, and sheep of his pasture. But he that should say in English “a congregation of beasts,” might be taken for as wise a man, as he that said “an audience of sheep.” And whereas St Au- gustine telleth you, that the Jews’ congregation is sometime called the church; what is the cause that you do translate it “the assembly,” Acts vii., even as you do “the congregation of the idolatrous Ephesians,” Acts xix.? But further (you say) Augustine telleth us, that the apostles never called the church “congregation.” It is a world to see what foolish fetches you have to deceive the ignorant. Augustine sayeth, the apostles never called our assembly synagoga, but always ecclesia: and yet he is a little deceived; for St Paul calleth our gathering together unto Christ ἐπισυναγωγὴ, but congre- gatio, “a congregation,” he saith not. And although he make a nice distinction between the words “congregation” and “convocation,” yet all men which know the use of these words, will confess no necessity of a Jewish synagogue to be im- plied in the word “congregation” more than in the word ἐκκλησία, Which of the Holy Ghost is used for an assembly or gathering together, either of Jews, Christians, or Gentiles. And therefore, it seemeth, the translator used the word “con- gregation,” which is indifferent for all, even as the word ecclesia is used both in the Greek and vulgar Latin. Martin. If they appeal here to their later translations, we must obtain of them to condemn the former, and to confess this was a gross fault committed therein; and that the catholic church of our country did not ill to forbid and burn such books which were so translated by Tyndal and the like, as being not indeed God’s book, word, or scripture, but the devil’s word. Yea, they must confess that the leaving out of this word “church” altogether was of an heretical spirit against the catholic Roman church, because then they had no Calvinistical church in any like form of religion and government to theirs now. Neither will it serve them to say after their manner, “ And if a man should trans- late ecclesiam ‘congregation, this is no more absurdity, than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification.” This, we trow, will not suffice them in the judgment of the simplest indifferent reader. Fulke. We need not to appeal to the later transla- tions for any corruption or falsification of the former, no, v.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 229 nor for any mistranslation. For seeing the Spirit of God (as I have said) useth the word ecclesia generally for a com- pany of Christians, Jews, and Gentiles, the translator hath not gone from the truth and use of the scriptures, to use the word “congregation,” which signifieth indifferently all three. Wherefore there needeth no condemnation, nor confession of any gross fault herein committed; except you will count it a gross fault in St Luke, to use the word ἐκκλησία without any scrupulosity for all three, as the trans- lator doth the word “ congregation,” and you in two signifi- cations the word “assembly.” Neither can your heathenish and barbarous burning of the holy scriptures so translated, nor your blasphemy in calling it the devil’s word, be excused for any fault in translation which you have discovered as yet, or ever shall be able to descry. That stinking cavil of leaving out of the bible this word “church” altogether, being both foolish and false, I have answered more than once already. It is not left out altogether, that in con- tents of books and chapters, and in notes of explication of this word “ congregation’,” is set down. Neither could there be any purpose against the catholic church of Christ in them that translated and taught the creed in English, pro- fessing to believe “the holy catholic church.” As for our hatred of the malignant antichristian church of Rome, we never dissembled the matter, so that we were afraid openly to profess it: what need had we then after such a fantas- tical manner (as is fondly imagined) to insinuate it? Martin. But, my masters, if you would confess the former faults Marry, 5. and corruptions never so plainly, is that enough to justify your corrupt dealing in the holy scriptures? Is it not an horrible fault so wilfully to falsify and corrupt the word of God, written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost? May you abuse the people for certain years with false translations, and afterward say, “Lo, we have amended it in our later translations”? Then might the heretic Beza be excused for translating see his New instead of “Christ’s soul in hell,” his “carcase in the grave:” and po pect because some friend told him of that corruption, and he corrected it in Ὡς bert the later editions, he should nevertheless in your judgment be counted a Sven, 9 fol. right honest man. No, be ye sure, the discreet reader cannot be so abused ; but he will easily see that there is a great difference in mending some oversights which may escape the best men, and in your gross false [Γ᾿ Congregation. See No. 2.] Matt. xvi. 18. Bib. 1577. Futkg, 5. 230 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu. translations, who at the first falsify of a prepensed malice, and afterwards alter it for very shame. Howbeit, to say the truth, in the chiefest and principal place, that concerneth the church’s perpetuity and stability, you have not yet altered the former translation, but it remaineth as before, and is at this day read in your churches thus, “Upon this rock I will build my congregation.” Can it be without some heretical subtilty, that in this place specially, and (I think) only, you change not the word “ congregation” into “church”? Give us a reason, and discharge your credit. Fulke. You are very hardly, and in very deed mali- ciously, bent against us, that you will accept no confession of faults escaped, never so plainly made. As for corrupt dealing in the holy scriptures, and falsifying of the word of God, you are not able, no, not if you would burst your- self for malice, to conyict us. And therefore look for no confession of any such wickedness, whereof our conscience is clear before God, and doth not accuse us, As for Beza’s correction of his former translation, Acts ii. 27, if your dogged stomach will not accept, he shall notwithstanding with all godly learned men be accounted, as he deserveth, for one who hath more profited the church of God with his sin- cere translation and learned annotations, than all the popish seminaries and seminarists shall be able to hinder it, jangle of gross and false translations as long as you will. But “the chiefest and principal place, that concerneth the church’s. perpetuity,” is not yet reformed to your mind. For in the bible 1577, we read still, Matt. xvi, “ Upon this rock I will build my congregation.” If Christ have a perpetual congregation, “builded upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, himself being the corner-stone,” his church is in no danger ever to decay. Yet you ask, whether it can be without some heretical subtilty, that in this place spe- cially, and (as you think) only, the word “congregation” is not changed into “church.” It is an homely, but a true proverb: The good wife would never have sought her daughter in the oven, had she not been there first herself. You are so full of heretical subtilties and traitorous devices, that you dream of them in other men’s doings, whatsoever cometh — into your hands; yea, where you yourself can have no pro- — bable imagination what to suspect. And therefore we must give you a reason in discharge of our credit. For my part, « v.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 231 I know not with what special reason the translator was moved; but I can give you my probable conjecture, that he thought it all one, (as indeed it is,) to say “my congre- gation,” or “my church.” For what is Christ’s congregation, but his church ? or what is Christ’s church, but his congre- gation? And yet, to put you out of all fear, the Geneva trans- lation hath the word “church,” that you make so great ac- count of, as though it were not an indifferent word to the true church of true Christians and the false church of malignant heretics; being usurped first to signify the congregation of Christians, by a metonymy of the place containing for the people contained. For the etymology thereof is from the Greek word κυριακὴ, which was used of Christians for the place of their holy meetings, signifying “the Lord’s house ;” therefore in the northern, which is the more ancient English speech, is called by contraction kyrke, more near to the sound of the Greek word. Martin. What shall I say of Beza, whom the English bibles also Marri, 6. follow, translating actively that Greek word, (which in common use, and by St Chrysostom, and the Greek doctors’ exposition, is a plain passive,) to signify, as in his annotations is clear, that Christ may be without his church, that is, a head without a body. The words be these in the heretical translation: “He gave him to be the head over all Eph. i. — Tov πλη- ρουμένουϊ. [ The following extract from Beza’s New Testament will serve to explain the matter in dispute in this and the two succeeding num- bers: Ἥτις ἐστὲ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι πληρουμένους Ephes. i. 23. Rendered by Beza, “Que est corpus ip- sius, et complementum ejus qui omnia implet in omnibus:” upon which he has this note: Complementum, πλήρωμα, sive supplementum. Is enim est Christi in ecclesiam amor, ut quum omnia in omnibus ad plenum prestet, tamen sese veluti mancum et membris mutilum caput. existimet, nisi ecclesiam habeat sibi instar corporis adjunctam. Hine factum ut Christus interdum collective pro tota ecclesia capiti suo adjuncta ac- cipiatur, ut 1 Cor. xii. 12, 18, et Gal. iii. 16. Hine etiam illud “in Christo,” toties repetitum; quod multo expressius aliquid significat quam cum Christo, vel per Christum. Hinc factum ut diceret apo- stolus se in Christo, et Christum in se vivere, Gal. ii. 20. Hine illa Christi vox, Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris? Quo etiam pertinet quod scriptum est, Col. i. 24. Hine denique nostra spes omnis et consolatio proficiscitur. Qui implet, τοῦ πληρουμένου. Chrysostomus passive accipit, ut sit sensus, Christum prorsus impleri in omnibus, ΕὙ1ΚΕ, 6. 999 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu. things to the church, which (church) is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” “ St Chrysostom,” saith Beza, (he might have said, all the Greek and Latin ancient fathers, ) “taketh it passively in this sense, that Christ is ‘filled’ all in all, because all faithful men as members, and the whole church as the body, concur to the fulness and accomplish- ment of Christ the head. But this,” saith he, “seemeth unto me a forced interpretation.” Why so, Beza ? Fulke. That Beza translateth the participle, τοῦ πλη- ρουμένου, actively, it is plain, both in the text of his transla- tion, and in his annotations: but that he doth it to signify, that Christ may be without his church, that is, a head with- out a body, it is a shameless slander. His words, upon which you weave this cobweb, are these: Omnino autem hoe addidit apostolus, ut sciamus Ohristum per se non imdi- gere hoc supplemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus revera ; nedum ut suppleatur a quoquam, nist quatenus pro immensa sua bonitate ecclesiam dignatur sibi quasi corporis instar adjungere. ‘This the apostle hath added altogether for this end, that we may know that Christ of himself hath no need of this supply, as he which worketh in truth ‘all things in all;’ so far it is, that he should be supplied by any body, but that of his infinite goodness he vouchsafeth to adjoin his church unto himself as his body.” Who but the devil would find fault with this godly and catholic saying ? wherein it is affirmed, that Christ, which according to the perfec- tion of his divine nature needeth no supply, yet of his in- finite mercy vouchsafeth to become head of his church, as of his body; so that he will not be counted perfect with- out it. Is this to say, Christ may be a head without a body ? or is it for his benefit, or the benefit of his church, that he is the head thereof? But the more to lay open this malicious slander’ and impudent falsifying of Beza’s words and meaning, I will set down his saying, going im- id est, singulos fideles conferre ad Christi complementum, uti corpus ipsum ex singulis membris est compactum. Mihi videtur coacta ista interpretatio, [qui potius active istud accipio, edit. 1582; p. 281.] quum τὸ πληροῦσθαι pro πληροῦν Xenophon usurparit, Lib. νι. Hellen. et συμπληροῦσθαι pro συμπληροῦν Plato in Timeo. Omnino autem hoe addidit apostolus, ut sciamus Christum per se non indigere hoe sup- plemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus revera; nedum ut sup- pleatur a quoquam, nisi quatenus pro immensa.sua bonitate ecclesiam dignatur sibi quasi corporis instar adjungere. Edit. 1556, p. 249. ] v. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 233 mediately before, upon the word πλήρωμα, which he calleth complementum sive supplementum, “a fulfilling or supplying :” Is enim est Christi in ecclesiam amor, &c. “For such is the love of Christ toward his church, that. whereas he performeth all things to all men unto the full; yet he esteemeth him- self as an unperfect head, and maimed. of the members, unless he have his church adjoined to him, as his body. Hereof it cometh, that Christ is taken sometime collectively for the whole church, adjoined to her head, as 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13, and Gal. iii. 16. Hereof cometh also that phrase ‘in Christ,’ so often re- peated, which signifieth something more expressly than with Christ, or by Christ. Hereof that voice of Christ, ‘Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?’ Whither also -pertaineth - that which is written, Col. 1, 24. Finally, hereof proceedeth all our hope and consolation.” How think you? is not this man willing to separate the church from Christ, the head from the body? O monstrous malices of godless papists! His exposition of the place being such, as you see, let us now examine what can be said against his translation: fora man must not translate falsely to make a true sense. It is alleged against him, that Chrysostom and all the Greek and Latin fathers take the participle passively. Beza con- fesseth it of Chrysostom, whom the later Greek writers commonly do follow. But the participle, being derived of the mean verb, may have either passive or active signifi- cation. But why doth Beza say, that the exposition of Chrysostom is “ forced,” which taketh it passively? He saith not in respect of Chrysostom’s sense, which he himself fol- loweth, and it is contained in the word πλήρωμα, but in respect of the grammar, that πάντα should be put abso- lutely without any word to govern it, seeing the participle of the mean verb may be taken actively, and govern πάντα, being the accusative case. Martin. Mark his doctors whom he opposeth to the fathers, both Marr, 7. Greek and Latin. “ Because Xenophon” saith he, “in such a place, and Plato in such a place, use the said Greek word actively.” I omit this miserable match, and unworthy names of Xenophon and Plato, in trial of St Paul’s words, against all the glorious doctors; this is his common custom. I ask him rather of these his own doctors, how they use the Greek word in other places of their works? how use they it most com- monly ? yea, how do all other Greek writers, either profane or sacred, πληροῦ- μαι. Futxe, 7. 234 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. use it? What say the Greek readers of all universities? Surely, not only they, but their scholars for the most part, cannot be ignorant, that the use of this word and the like is passive, though sometime it may also signify actively: but that is so rare in comparison of the other, that no man lightly will use it; and I am well assured it would be counted a fault, and some lack of skill, if one now in his writings that would express this in Greek, “ God filleth all things with his blessing,” should say, πληροῦται πάντα : and, “The wine filleth the cup,” 6 οἶνος πληροῦ- ται τὸ ποτήριον. Ask them that have skill, and control me. Contrariwise, if one would say passively, “All things are filled with God’s blessing,” “The cup is filled with wine,” “Such a prophecy is fulfilled ;’ what mean Grecian would not say, as St Chrysostom here expoundeth this word, πληροῦται, using it passively ? Fulke. Mark how malice carrieth this man almost into madness. For who but a madman would think, that Beza opposeth profane writers to ecclesiastical doctors for un- derstanding of the scripture? The mean verb πληροῦμαι, which the meanest grammarian in the world knoweth to be taken both actively and passively by the grammar rule De verbo medio, Beza proveth out of Xenophon and Plato that it is and may be used actively. _ Why not therefore in this place of St Paul, where both the sense requireth it, that one thing be not repeated twice without necessary cause, and the construction of the word πάντα calleth for it, which other- wise is left at random without any government? Seeing therefore we have the common rule of grammar, and the example of eloquent writers for use, I marvel what M. Martin meaneth to waste so many words about so clear a matter. No man that knoweth any thing doubteth, but that πληροῦμαι may be, and is often, taken passively: but seeing it is also found to be a verb mean, who need to be afraid to use it actively (having Xenophon and Plato for his warrant), yea, even in those examples you put, of God’s blessing filling all things, or the wine filling the cup, if any man would speak so. But if, because the word is more usually taken passively, men would refrain so to speak ; yet why should we think that St Paul did not use it actively ? when the active signification is more agreeable, both with his words and with his meaning. But lest you should think Beza is alone, which taketh it actively, what say you to Philippus Montanus, one of your own profession ? which in his animadversions upon Theophy- lact’s translation, by him corrected, saith upon this place: v.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 235 πληρουμένου gui adimplet, vel adimpletur, verbum enim est medium, passive autem videtur accipere Theophylactus: “Which filleth, or which is filled; for it is a verb of indifferent signification, active or passive, but Theophylact seemeth to take it passively.” What say you to Isidorus Clarius, who although in his text he readeth passively, yet in his note confesseth it may be taken either passively or actively ? For this is his note: Plenitudo ejus| per omnia enim membra adimpletur corpus Christi, quia omnia in omnibus implet, dum ipse agit in omnibus, vel per omnes homines heec implet membra. Sive plenitudinem et complementum omne suum habet ipsa ecclesia ab illo, quia omnia in omnibus adimplet': ‘That is the fulness of him] for by all the members the body of Christ is filled, because he filleth all in all, while he worketh m all, or throughout all men filleth these members. Or else, the church herself hath all her fulness and accomplishment of him, which filleth all in all.” These men, both papists, were as good Grecians (I warrant you) as M. Gregory Martin is, or ever will be; by whom if he will not be controlled, it were folly to press him with the judgment of our “ Greek readers,” which he requireth. Martin. “Yet,” saith Beza, “this is a forced interpretation, because Marri, 8. Xenophon forsooth and Plato,” once perhaps in all their whole works, “use it otherwise.” Oh, heretical blindness, or rather stubbornness, that calleth that forced, which is most common and usual ; and seeth not that his own translation is forced, because it is against the common use of the word! But no marvel: for he that in other places thinketh it no forced interpretation to translate δέξασθαι “to be contained,” which Recipere. neither Xenophon nor Plato nor any Greek author will allow him to do, and ψυχὴν “carcase,” and πρόγνωσιν “providence,” and μετάνοιαν Animam. “them that amend their lives,” may much more in this place dissemble tam, his forced interpretation of tewAnpoupévov. But why he should call St ῥήνυα Chrysostom’s interpretation forced, which is the common and usual in- terpretation, that hath no more reason than if a very thief should say - toan honest man, “ Thou art a thief, and not I.” Fulke. 1 have shewed how it is enforced, because in Furxes, 8. taking the participle passively you must either be enforced to admit a plain solecism, where none needeth; or else you must hardly understand the preposition κατὰ to govern the accusative πάντα, as Montanus telleth you in Theophylact, Γ᾿ Critici Sacri, Vol. vi. Pars τι. p. 98.] Martin, 9. Eph. i. Fuke, 9. 236 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH | cH. and as CXcumenius doth, and the sense will be no more than is contained in the word complementum: whereas by taking it actively, the wonderful goodness of Christ shineth toward his church; who although he needeth nothing to make him perfect, as Chrysostom saith, but supplieth “all things in all things,” yet it is his gracious pleasure to account himself imperfect without his church, which he hath united to him as his body, in which he is not perfect without all his members. As for your vain and tedious repetition, like the cuckoo’s song, of Beza’s misprisions, I will not stand so often to an- swer, aS you are disposed to rehearse them: only I must admonish the reader of a piece of your cunning, that in repeating the participle you change the tense, and for πληρουμένου you say πεπληρουμένονυ, as though it were the preterperfect tense, which cannot be taken but only passively. I know the printer shall bear the blame of this oversight, but in the mean time it maketh a little shew to a young Grecian, that considereth it not. Martin. 1s it forced, Beza, that Christ “ is filled all m all” by the church ? Doth not St Paul in the very next words before call the church the fulness of Christ, saying, “ Which is the fulness of him that is filled all in all”? If the church be the fulness of him, then is he filled or hath his fulness of the church, so that he is not a maimed head without a body. This would St Paul say, if you would give him leave; and this he doth say, whether you will or no. But what is the cause that they will not suffer the apostle to say so? “ Because,” saith Beza, “Christ needeth no such complement.” And if he needeth it not, then may he be without a church, and consequently it is no absurdity, if the church hath been for many years not only invisible, but also not at all. Would a man easily at the first imagine or conceive, that there were such secret poison in their translation ? Fulke. You should urge Beza with a Latin epistle, seeing you are so earnest in the matter. I have told you that the sense of Chrysostom is true, but not flowing easily from the words of St Paul. That Christ hath his fulness of the church, it is granted by Beza upon the word plenitudo or complementum, as you cannot be ignorant, if you have read Beza’s annotations, as you pretend. But you charge Beza to say, that ‘Christ needeth no such complement.” Beza’s words are, as I have set them down before, ut sciamus. v.| TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 237 Christum per se non indigere hoc supplemento, “ that we may know that Christ of himself needeth not this supply.” 15 this all one with that you report him to say? No, his saying was too long for your thievish bed, and therefore you cut off per se, “of himself,’ or “by himself.” What say you? Dare you affirm that Christ of himself, in respect of his divine nature, hath need of any complement? That Christ hath had always a church since the beginning of the world, and shall have to the end, Beza doth plainly in an hundred places confess : neither can it be otherwise proved by this trans- lation, nor yet by Beza’s words “that Christ of himself is perfect and needeth no supply,” but that it pleaseth him to become the head of the church, as of his body; which his divine and merciful pleasure seeing it is immutable, Christ cannot be without his church, nor the church without him. Yea, as Beza in plain words affirmeth, this is ‘our whole hope and consolation,” that Christ esteemeth himself an unperfect head, and maimed of his members, except he have his church adjomed to him as his body. Martin. Again, it cometh from the same puddle of Geneva, that in Martin, their bibles (so called) the English Bezites translate against the unity of 10: the catholic church. For whereas themselves are full of sects and dis- Bi» 1579. sensions, and the true church is known by unity, and hath this mark given her by Christ himself, in whose person Salomon speaking saith, Una est columba mea, that is, “ One is my dove,” or, “My dove is one ;” Cant. vi. 8. therefore instead hereof the foresaid bible saith, “My dove is alone ;” μία'- neither Hebrew nor Greek word having that signification, but being as IVI proper to signify one, as unus in Latin. . Fulke. We that hath any nose may smell that this cen- Furxe, sure cometh from the stinking puddle of popish malice. For 19: he that saith “my dove is alone,” Cant. vi. 8, doth a great deal more strongly avouch the unity of the church, than he that sayeth “ my dove is one.” For whereas Salomon sayeth in the verse going immediately before, “There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and of the damsels without [? Mia ἐστὶ περιστερά pov. Canticles vi. 8. “Una est columba mea,’ Vulg. “One is my dove, one is my darling,” Cranmer 1562, Bishops’ bible. “My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her,’ Au- thorised version. “ My dove is alone,’ Geneva, 1560. ]. ; Martin, 1. FuLke, 11. 238 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cx. number ;” if you add thereto “my dove is one,” it may be thought she is one of those last mentioned. But if you say, as the Geneva bible doth, but “my dove is alone, and my undefiled is the only daughter of her mother ;” now the church is excepted from all the rest of the queens, concu- bines, and damsels. And where you say, the Hebrew hath not that signification, I pray you go no further but even to the same verse, and tell me whether the sense be, that she is one of her mother’s daughters, or the only daughter of her mother? Here therefore (as almost everywhere) you do nothing, but seek a knot in a rush. Martin. But we beseech every indifferent reader, even for his soul’s health, to consider that one point specially before mentioned, of their abandoning the name of “ church” for so many years out of their English bibles, thereby to defeat the strongest argument that might and may possibly be brought against them and all other heretics; to wit, the authority of the church, which is so many ways and so greatly recom- mended unto all Christians in holy scriptures. Consider, I pray you, what a malicious intention they had herein: first, that the name “church” should never sound in the common people’s ears out of the scriptures ; secondly, that asin other things, so in this also, it might seem to the ignorant a good argument against the authority of the church to say, “ We find not this word ‘ church’ in all the holy scrip- tures.” For as in other articles they say so, because they find not the express word in the holy scripture ; so did they well provide, that the word “church” in the holy scriptures should not stay or hinder their schismatical and heretical proceedings, as long as that was the only English translation that was read and liked among the people; that is, so long till they had by preaching taken away the catholic church’s credit and authority altogether among the ignorant, by opposing the scriptures thereunto which themselves had thus falsely translated. Fulke, We trust every indifferent reader will consider, that they which translated the Greek word ecclesia, “the con- gregation,” and admonished in the notes that they did by that word mean “the church ;” and they which in the creed might have translated ecclesiam catholicam, “ the universal con- gregation,” taught all children to say, “I believe the catholic church,” could have no such devilish meaning as this malicious slanderer of his own head doth imagine. For who ever heard any man reason thus: This word “church” is not found in the scripture, therefore the church must be despised, &c. ? Rather it is like (beside other reasons before alleged) that v.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 239 those first translators, having in the Old Testament out of the Hebrew translated the words cahal hadath, and such other for “the congregation” (where the papists will not translate “the church,” although their Latin text be ecclesia, as appeareth Acts vii., where they call it “assembly”), thought good to retain the word “congregation” throughout the New Testament also, lest it might be thought of the ignorant, that God had no church in the time of the Old Testament. Howsoever it was, they departed neither from the word nor meaning of the Holy Ghost, nor from the usage of that word ecclesia, which in the scripture signifieth as generally any assembly, as the word “congregation” doth in English. Martin, 1. Futxg, 1. Marty, 2. 240 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ on. CHAPTER VI. Heretical Translation against Priest and Priesthood. Martin. Bur because it may be, they will stand here upon their later translations which have the name “church,” (because by that time they saw the absurdity of changing the name, and now their num- ber was increased, and themselves began to challenge to be the true church, though not the catholic; and for former times when they were not, they devised an invisible church ;) if then they will stand upon their later translations, and refuse to justify the former; let us demand of them concerning all their English translations, why and to what end they suppress the name “priest,” translating it “elder” in all places where the holy scripture would signify by presbyter and presbyterium the “ priests” and “priesthood” of the New Testament ? Fulke. If any error have escaped the former transla- tions, that hath been reformed in the later, all reasonable men ought to be satisfied with our own corrections. But because we are not charged with oversights and small faults committed either of ignorance or of negligence, but with shameless translations, wilful and heretical corruptions, we may not acknowledge any such crimes whereof our conscience is clear. That we “ devised an invisible church,” because we were few in number, when our translations were first printed, it is a lewd slander. For being multiplied, as we are, (God be thanked!) we hold still that the catholic church, which is the mother of us all, is invisible, and that the church on earth may at some times be driven into such straits, as of the wicked it shall not be known. And this we held always, and not otherwise. Now touching the word pres- byter and presbyterium, why we translate them not “ priest and priesthood of the New Testament,” we have given suf- ficient reason before : but because we are here urged afresh, we must answer as occasion shall be offered. Martin. Understand, gentle reader, their wily policy therein is this: to take away the holy sacrifice of the mass, they take away both altar and priest ; because they know right well that these three, priest, sacri- fice, and altar, are dependents and consequents one of another, so that they cannot be separated. If there be an external sacrifice, there must be an external priesthood to offer it, an altar to offer the same upon. vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 941} So had the Gentiles their sacrifices, priests, and altars ; so had the Jews; so Christ himself, being a priest according to the order of Melchisedee, had a sacrifice, his body; and an altar, his cross, upon the which he offered it. And because he instituted this sacrifice to continue in his _church for ever, in commemoration and representation of his death, therefore did he withal ordain his apostles priests at his last supper, there and then instituted the holy order of priesthood and priests (saying, Hoe facite, * Do this,”) to offer the self-same sacrifice in a mystical and Luke xxii. unbloody manner, until the world’s end. Fulke. In denying the blasphemous sacrifice of the Funke, 2. popish mass, with the altar and priesthood that thereto be- longeth, we use no wily policy, but with open mouth at all times, and in all places, we cry out upon it. The sacrifices, priests, and altars of the gentiles were abominable. The sacrifices of the Jews, their priests, and altars, are all accom- plished and finished in the only sacrifice of Christ, our high priest, offered once for all upon the altar of the cross: which Christ our Saviour, seeing he is a priest according to the order of Melchisedec, hath an eternal priesthood, and such as passeth not by succession, Heb. vii. Therefore did not Christ at his last supper institute any external pro- pitiatory sacrifice of his body and blood, but a sacrament, joined with the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving ; which sacrament being administered by the ministers thereto appointed, the sacrifice is common to the whole church of the faithful, who are all spiritual priests, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, as much as the minister of the word and sa- craments. Martin. To defeat all this, and to take away all external priesthood Marrin, 2. and sacrifice, they by corrupt translation of the holy scriptures make them clean dumb, as though they had not a word of any such priests, or priesthood, as we speak of. Their bibles, we grant, have the name of priests very often, but that is when mention is made either of the priests of the Jews, or of the priests of the Gentiles (specially when they are reprehended and blamed in the holy scriptures); and in such places our adversaries have the name “ priests” in their translations, to make the very name of “priest” odious among the common ignorant people. Again, they have also the name “ priests,” when they are taken for all manner of men, women, or children, that offer internal and spiritual sacrifices ; whereby our adversaries would falsely signify that there are no other priests, as one of them late freshly avoucheth, directly whitaker’s, against St Augustine, who in one brief sentence distinguisheth priests ?} 16 [ruLKE. | See the Puri- tans’ Reply, Wl ii s Defence inst the uritans, p. 722. Futxe, 3. 242 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu. properly so called in the church, and priests as it isa common name to all Christians. Lib. xx. de Civit. Dei, cap. 10.1 This name then of “priest” and “priesthood” properly so called, as St Augustine saith, which is an order distinct from the laity and vulgar people, ordained to offer Christ in an unbloody manner in sacrifice to his heavenly Father for us, to preach and minister the sacraments, and to be the pastors of the people, they wholly suppress in their translations ; and in all places where the holy scripture calleth them presbyteros, there they never translate “priests,” but “elders.” And that they do observe so duly and so warily, and with so full and general consent in all their English bibles, as the puritans do plainly confess, and M. Whitgift denieth it not, that a man would wonder to see, how careful they are that the people may not once hear the name of any such “ priest” in all the holy scriptures. Fulke. Now you have gotten a fine net to dance naked in, that no ignorant blind buzzard can see you. The masks of your net be the ambiguous and abusive significations of this word “priest”; which indeed, according to the original deri- vation from presbyter, should signify nothing else but an “elder,” as we translate it, that is, one appointed to govern the church of God according to his word, but not to offer sacrifice for the quick and the dead, But by usurpation it is commonly taken to signify a sacrificer, such as ἱερεὺς is in Greek, and sacerdos in Latin; by which names the minis- ters of the gospel are never called by the Holy Ghost. After this common acceptation and use of this word “priest,” we call the sacrificers of the Old Testament, and of the gen- tiles also, because the scripture calleth them by one name, cohanin, or ἱερεῖς : but because the scripture calleth the minis- ters of the New Testament by divers other names, and never by the name of ἱερεῖς, we thought it necessary to observe that distinction which we see the Holy Ghost so precisely hath observed. Therefore, where the scripture calleth them πρεσβυτέρους, we call them, according to the etymology, “elders,” and not priests : which word is taken up by common usurpation to signify sacrificers of Jews, gentiles, or papists, [* Quod autem cum dixisset, Jn istis secunda mors non habet potestatem ; adjunxit atque ait, Sed erunt sacerdotes Dei et Christi, et regnabunt cum eo mille annis: non utique de solis episcopis et presbyteris dictum est, qui proprie jam vocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes ; sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter mysticum chrisma, sic omnes sacerdotes, quoniam mem- bra sunt unius Sacerdotis. Augustin. de Civitat. Dei. Lib. xx. c. 10. Opera. Vol. νι. p. 944.] ͵ οἰ Δ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 943 or else all Christians in respect of spiritual sacrifices. And although Augustine, and other of the ancient fathers, call the ministers of the New Testament by the name. of sacerdotes, and ἱερεῖς, which signify the ministers of the Old Testament ; yet the authority of the Holy Ghost, making a perfect dis- tinction between these two appellations and functions, ought to be of more estimation with us. The fathers were content to speak in Latin and Greek, as the terms were taken up by the common people newly converted from gentility; but yet they retained the difference of the sacrificing priesthood of the one, and the ministerial office of the other. This may suffice therefore to render a reason, why we use not the word “priest” for “‘ministers” of the New Testament : not that we refuse it in respect of the etymology, but in respect of the use and common signification. thereof. Martin. As for example in their translations, when there fell a Marrry, 4. question about circumcision, “They determined that Paul and Barnabas πρεσβυτέ- should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this eckineck: question.” Acts xv*. Andagain, “They were received of the congrega- [? In Acts xv. 4, τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων is ren- dered, in the Vulgate, “ab apostolis et senioribus:” also, in verses 20, 22, 23. In verse 41, seniorum is used, though there is not any corresponding clause in the Greek. See also chap. xvi. 4. πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ πρεσβυτέρους, Acts xv. 2, is rendered thus in the different versions: “ΤῸ the apostolis and preestis,” Wiclif, 1380. ‘*To the apostles and elders,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, and Authorised. ἀπεδέχθησαν ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν πρεσ-᾿ βυτέρων. Acts xv. 4. “They werun resceyued of the chirche, and of the apostlis, and of the elder men,” Wiclif. “They were received of the congregation, and of the apostles and elders,” Tyndale, Cranmer. “They were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders,” Geneva version, and Authorised. Συνήχθησαν δὲ οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ of πρεσβύτεροι. Acts xv. 6. “And the apostlis and elder men camen ’togidre,” Wiclif. “And the apo- stles and elders came together,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Autho- rised. “And the apostles and ancients assembled,” Rhemish version. Tére ἔδοξε τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις σὺν ὅλῃ TH ἐκ- | κλησίᾳ. Acts xv. 22. “Thanne it plesid to the apostles and to the elder men with alle the chirche,” Wiclif. “Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole congregation,” Tyndale, Cranmer. “Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church,” Geneva, Authorised version. οἱ 16—2 * The later bibles read *‘church.” Acts xvi. Futke, 4. 244 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. tion,* and of the apostles and elders.” Again, “The apostles and elders came together to reason of this matter.” Again, “ Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole congregation to send,” &e, Again, “The apostles and elders send greeting,” &c. Again, “They delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders.” If in all these places they had translated “ priests,” as indeed they should have done according to the Greek word, it had then disad- vantaged them this much, that men would have thought both the dignity of priests to be great, and also their authority in councils, as being here joined with the apostles, to be greatly reverenced and obeyed. To keep the people from all such holy and reverent cogitations of priests, they put “elders,” a name wherewith our holy christian forefathers’ ears were never acquainted in that sense. Fulke. 1n all those places by you rehearsed, Acts xy. and xvi., your own vulgar Latin text hath seniores, which you had rather call “ ancients” (as the French Protestants call the governors of their churches,) than “ elders,” as we do. That popish priests should have any dignity or authority in councils, we do flatly deny: but that the seniors, ancients, elders, or priests (if you will) of the New Testament, should haye as much dignity and authority as God’s word doth afford them, we desire with all our hearts. That “ our christian forefathers’ ears were not acquainted with the name of ‘elders,’ ” it was because the name of priest in their time sounded ac- cording to the etymology, and not according to the cor- ruption of the papists: otherwise I think their ears were as much acquainted with the name of “elders,” which we use, as with the name of “ancients,” and “ seniors,” that you have newly taken up, not for that they differ in signification from elders, but because you would differ from us. Oi ἀπόστολοι καὶ of πρεσβύτεροι καὶ of ἀδελφοὶ τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν καὶ Supiay..... χαίρειν. Acts xv. 23. “ Apostlis and elder britheren,” Wiclif. “The apostles, elders and brethren, send greet- ings,” Tyndale, Cranmer. “The apostles and the elders and the bre- thren send greetings,” Geneva. “The apostles and elders and brethren,” Authorised version. | παρεδίδουν αὐτοῖς φυλάσσειν τὰ δόγματα τὰ κεκριμένα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ‘Kal τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ. Acts xvi. 4. “They delivered them the decrees for to keep ordained of the apo- stles and elders,’ Tyndale, Geneva. “They delivered them the de- crees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders,” Cranmer, Authorised version. | νι.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 245 Martin. But let us go forward. We have. heard often and of old Marriy, 5. time, of making of priests ; and of late years also, of making ministers ; but did ye ever hear in all England of making “elders”? Yet by these men’s translations it hath been in England a phrase of scripture this thirty year; but it must needs be very strange, that this making of “elders” hath not all this while been practised and known, no, not among themselves in any of their churches within the realm of England. To Titus they make the apostle say thus: “ For this cause left I thee in Tit. i. Creta, that thou shouldst ordain elders in every city,” &c. Again, of Paul and Barnabas: “ When they had ordained elders by election in τοὺς πρεο- every congregation.” Acts xiv. If they had said plainly, as it is in the maser Greek, and as our forefathers were wont to speak, and the truth is, Bib. an.1562. “ Titus was left in Creta to ordain priests in every city ;” and, “Paul and Barnabas made priests in every church ;” then the people would have understood them: they know such speeches of old, and it had been their joy and comfort to hear it specified in holy scriptures. Now they are told another thing, in such newness of speeches and words, of “elders” to be made in every city and congregation, and yet not one city nor congregation to have any elders in all England, that we know not what is profane novelty of words, which the apostle willeth to be avoided, if 1 Tim. vi. this be not an exceeding profane novelty. Fulke. When you have gotten a bauble, you make more Fuxxe, 5. of it than of the Tower of London; for you have never done playing with it. It must needs be a clerkly argument that is drawn from the vulgar speeches of “making priests,” and ‘making ministers.” Those ‘priests or ministers that are made among us, are the same “ elders” that the scripture in Greek calleth πρεσβυτέρους, and the bishop’s letters of orders, testi- fying of their ordination, call them by none other name, but by the name of presbyteri, which the scripture useth: which term though in English you sound it priests, elders, ancients, seniors, or ministers, which is the common people’s word, [ἢ καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους. Titus i, 5. “ And ordeyne preetis by citees,” Wiclif. “And shouldest ordain elders in every city,” Tyndale, Cranmer, 1539, 1562, Bishops’ bible, 1514, Geneva; Authorised version. Χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς πρεσβυτέρους κατ᾽ ἐκκλησίαν. Acts xiv. 23. “Et cum constituissent illis per singulas ecclesias presbyteros,” Vulg. v. 22. “And whanne thei hadden ordeyned preestis to him bi alle citees,” Wiclif. “And when they had ordained them elders by elec- tion in every congregation,” Tyndale, Cranmer. “And when they ‘had ordained them elders by election in every church,” Geneva. “And when they had ordained them elders in every church,” Au- thorised version. ]} Martin, 6. χειροτο- νεῖν. Acts xiy}. χειροτονή- σαντες αὐτοῖς. καταστῆ- σαι. Tit. i. Fuixe, 6. 246 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. it is the same office which is described by the Holy Ghost, Tit. i., and in other places of scripture. As for the “profane novelty,” wherewith this word “elder” is changed, we will con- sider of it in the next section. Martin. That it is novelty to all English christian ears, it is evident. And it is also profane, because they do so English the Greek word of ordaining (for of the word presbyter we will speak more anon), as if they should translate Demosthenes or the laws of Athens concerning their choosing of magistrates, which was by giving voices with lifting up their hands. So they do force this word here, to induce the people’s election; and yet in their churches in England the people elect not ministers, but their bishop. Whereas the holy scripture saith, they ordained to the people; and whatsoever force the word hath, it is here spoken of the apostles, and pertaineth not to the people ; and therefore in the place to Titus it is another word which cannot be forced further than to “ordain and appoint.” And they might know, if malice and . heresy would suffer «them to see and confess it, that the holy scriptures, and fathers, and ecclesiastical custom, hath drawn this and the like words from their profane and common signification to a more peculiar and ecclesiastical speech: as episcopus, an “overseer” in Tully, is a “bishop” in the New Testament. Fulke. The name “ elders,’ used in our translation, is neither more novel to English ears, nor more profane to godly ears, than the name “ ancients,” which your translation useth. And yet I think the apostle, 1 Tim. vi., spake not of novelty to English ears, but of that which was new to the ears of the church of God. But the word “elders” (I ween) must be profane; because we “English the Greek word of ordaining, as if we should translate Demosthenes or the laws of Athens concerning the choosing of magistrates.” Doth not this cayil redound more against the Holy Ghost, to accuse his style of profaneness, which useth the same words for the ordering of priests, that Demosthenes or the laws of Athens [2 Χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς πρεσβυτέρους κατ᾽ ἐκκλησίαν. Acts xiv. 23. “And when they had ordained them elders by election in every congregation,” Tyndale, Cranmer. “In every church,” Bishops’ bible, Geneva, Authorised version. “ Priests in every church,” Rhemish version. Kat καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους. Titus i. 5, “ Ordain elders,” all the versions, except the Rhemish, which has, “Ordain priests.””] vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 247 might use for choosing of their magistrates? But this word we “enforce (you say) to induce the people’s election, and yet the bishop, not the people, elect our ministers.”” We mean not to enforce any other election than the word doth signify. Neither doth our bishops (if they do well) ordain any ministers or priests without the testimony of the people, or at least-. wise, of such as be of most credit where they are known. Where you urge the pronoun αὐτοῖς, “ to them,” as though the people gave no consent nor testimony, it is more than ridicu- lous; and beside that, contrary to the practice of the primitive church for many hundred years after the apostles; as also that you would enforce upon the words καταστῆσαι, used by St Paul, Tit. i., as though that word of “constitution” did ex- clude election. That the word χειροτονία by the fathers of the church since the apostles hath been drawn to other signi- fication than it had before, it is no reason to teach us how it was used by the apostles. Election is an indifferent thing : the election of bishops, elders, or priests, is an holy thing, the holiness whereof is not included in the word χειροτονεῖν, but in the holy institution of Christ, and authority by his appointment delivered by imposition of the hands of the eldership. Martin. And concerning χειροτονία, which we now speak of, St. Manrry,7. Jerome? telleth them in chap. lviii. Esai. that it signifieth clericorum Greg. Nazian. ordinationem, that is, “ giving of holy orders,” which is done not only Ἢ ᾿ ies by prayer of the voice, but by imposition of the. hand, according to St τὴν τοῦ Paul unto Timothy, manus cito nemini imposueris, “ Impose or put hands pi subi quickly on no man :” that is, be not hasty or easy to give holy orders. Toviav, and Where these great etymologists, that so strain the original nature of this ¢yefooro- word to profane stretching forth the hand in elections, may learn v7. Ignat. another ecclesiastical etymology thereof, as proper and as well deduced a shee of the word as the other, to wit, putting forth the hand to give orders ; βαπτίζου- and so they shall find it is all one with that which the apostle calleth γοῦσι, χει- “imposition of hands,’ 1 Tim. iv. 2 Tim. i.; and consequently, for hier sk [? Plerique nostrorum χειροτονίαν, id est, ordinationem clericorum, que non solum ad imprecationem vocis, sed ad impositionem impletur Ὁ manus; ne scilicet, ut in quibusdam risimus, vocis imprecatio clan- destina clericos ordinet nescientes. Comment. Hieronymi in Isaie 6. lviii. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 432.] [5 Gregor. Nazian. Edit. Paris. Morell. 1680. 1. 6. 7. The titles quoted are from 1 and 7. | 248 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH fou. τοῦσι. ‘ordaining elders by election,” they should have said, “ordaining or Χο στον Making priests by imposition of hands ;” as elsewhere St Paul, 1 Tim. vy. ET LUECLS τῶν xet- and the Acts of the Apostles, Acts vi. and xiii., do speak in the ordain- ps ing of the seven deacons, and of St Paul and Barnabas. Forxe, 7. Fulke. The testimony of St Jerome, whom you cite, In Isai. Iviii. you understand not; for speaking there of the extension of the finger, which the Septuaginta translate χειροτονίαν, “ and God requireth to be taken away,” he saith: ‘“ Many of our interpreters do understand it of the ordination of clerks, which is performed not only at the imprecation of voice, but also at the imposition of hands, lest (as we have laughed at in some men) the secret imprecation of the voice should ordain clerks, being ignorant thereof.” And so proceedeth to inveigh against the abuse of them that would ordain clerks of their basest officers and servitors, yea, at the request of foolish women. By which it is manifest, that his purpose is not to tell what χειροτονία properly doth signify, but that imposition of hands is required in lawful ordination, which many did understand by the word χειροτονία, although in that place it signified no such matter. And therefore you must seek further authority to prove your ecclesiastical etymology, that χειροτονία signifieth putting forth of the hands to give orders. The places you quote in the margin, out of the titles of Nazianzen’s sermons, are to no purpose, although they were in the text of his homilies. For it ap- peareth not, although by synecdoche the whole order of making clerks were called χειροτονία, that election was ex- cluded, where there was ordination by imposition of hands, As for that you cite out of Ignatius, [it] proveth against you, that χειροτονεῖν differeth from “imposition of hands ;” be- cause it is made a distinct office from χειροθετεῖν, that signi- fieth to “lay on hands”: and so χειροτονία and ἐπίθεσις τῶν χειρῶν by your own author do differ. Martin, 8, Martin, But they are so profane and secular, that they translate the Greek word πρεσβύτερος in all the New Testament, as if it had the old profane signification still, and were indifferent to signify the “ancients of the Jews,” “the senators of Rome,” “the elders of Lacedemonia,” and aaah pec “the christian clergy.” Insomuch that they say, “Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church,” Acts xx. ; and yet they were such as vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 249 had their flocks and cure of souls, as followeth in the same place. They make St Paul speak thus to Timothy: “ Neglect not the gift,” (so they x: ἔρισμα. had rather say than “grace,” lest holy orders should be a sacrament,) wie “given thee with the laying on of the hands of the eldership,” or, “by ποῦ πρεσ- the authority of the eldership’.” 1 Tim. iv. What is this company of iene “eldership” ? Somewhat they would say like to the apostle’s word ; but they will not speak plainly, lest the world might hear out of the scrip- tures, that Timothy was made priest or bishop even as the use is in the catholic church at this day. Let the fourth council of Carthage speak can. 3. in the for both parts indifferently, and tell us the apostle’s meaning; “A priest Wheres. Au- when he taketh his orders, the bishop blessing him and holding his nt oan hand upon his head, let all the priests also that are present hold their S¥bsctibed. hands by the bishop’s hand upon his head.” So do our priests at this day, when a bishop maketh priests; and this is the laying on of the hands of the company of priests, which St Paul speaketh of, and which they translate, “the company of the eldership.” Only their former translation of 1562 in this place (by what chance or conside- ration we know not) let fall out of the pen, “by the authority of priesthood.” Fulke. We desire not to be more holy in the English Furxe, 8. terms, than the Holy Ghost was in the Greek terms: whom if it pleased to use such a word as is indifferent to signify the “ancients of the Jews,” “the senators of Rome,” “ the elders of Lacedemonia,”’ and “the christian clergy,” why should we not truly translate it into English ? [} Μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ mpecBuTepiov. 1 Tim. iv. 14. “Noli negligere gratiam, que in te est, que data est tibi per prophetiam,” Vulg. “The grace which is in thee,’ Wiclif. ‘ Despise not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee through prophecy, and with laying on of the hands of an elder,” Tyndale, 1534. ‘ Despise not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee through prophecy, with the laying on of hands by the authority of the priesthood,” Cranmer, 1539, 1562. “Despise not that gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands by the eldership,” - Geneva Test. 1557. ‘ Despise not the gift, &c. with the laying on of the hands of the company of the eldership,” Geneva bible, 1560. “ Despise not the gift, &c. with the laying on of hands by the au- thority of the eldership,” Bishops’ bible, 1584. “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which is given thee by prophecy, with impo- sition of the hands of priesthood,” Rheims. 1582. “ Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” Authorised version. “ Despise not the gift,” Edit. 1579, 1568.] Martin, 9. 250 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. But I pray you in good sadness, are we so profane and secular, Acts xx., in calling those whom Saint Paul sent for out of Ephesus, “elders”? What shall we say then of the vulgar Latin text, which calleth them majores natu, as though they obtained that degree by years, rather than by anything else? And why do you so profanely and secularly call them the “ancients of the church”? Is there more pro- faneness and secularity in the English word “elders,” than in the Latin word majores natu, or in your French-English term, “ancients”? Surely you do nothing but play with the noses of such as be ignorant in the tongues, and can perceive no similitude or difference of these words, but by the sound of their ears. But now for the word πρεσβυτέριον, used by St Paul, 1 Tim. iv., which we call the “eldership,” or “ the company of elders,” I have shewed before, how it is used by St Luke in his gospel, chap. xxii., and Acts xxii, You say, we “will not speak plainly, lest the world should hear that Timothy was made priest or bishop even as the use is in the catholic church at this day.” And then you tell us, out of the council of Carthage, 4 chap. that all the priests present should lay their hands on the head of him that is ordained, together with the bishop. We know it well, and it is used in the church of England at this day. Only the term of “eldership” displeaseth you, when we mean thereby the com- pany of elders. But whereas the translators of the bible, 1562, called it “ priesthood,” either by priesthood they meant the same that we do by “eldership;” or if they meant by “priesthood” the office of priests, or elders, they were de- ceived. For πρεσβυτέριον signifieth “a company of elders,” as it is twice used by St Luke, and oftentimes by the ancient writers of the church, both Greeks and Latins. Martin. Otherwise in all their English bibles all the bells ring one note’, as, “ The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour.” [| Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν. 1 Tim. vy. 17. “Qui bene presunt presbyteri, duplici honore digni ha- beantur,” Vulg. “The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour,” Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539, 1562; Bishops’ bible, 1584, Geneva, 1560. “ Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour,” Authorised version. “The priests that rule well, let them be esteemed worthy of double honour,’ Rheims. νι. TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 251 And, “Against an elder receive no accusation, but under two or three witnesses,” 1 Tim. v. And, “If any be diseased among you, let him τοὺς πρεσ- call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, an eb ic anoint him with oil,’ &c. Jacob. v. Whereas St Chrysostom out of cias. this place proveth the high dignity of priests in remitting sins, in his oe ae book entitled, “ Of Priesthood,” unless they will translate that title περὶ ἱερω- also, “Of Eldership.” Again, they make St Peter say thus: “The elders 7!” which are among you I exhort, which am also an elder, feed ye Christ’s flock, as much as lieth in you,” &c. 1 Pet. v. Fulke, In these three texts you triumph not a little, Fuuxs, 9. because your vulgar Latin text hath the Greek word pres- byter. “The high dignity of priests, or elders, in remitting sins,” we acknowledge with Chrysostom, in his book entitled “ΟΥ̓ Priesthood ;” which seeing it is περὶ ἱερωσύνης, we will never translate “ eldership.” But we may lawfully wish, that both Chrysostom and other ancient writers had kept that distinction of terms, which the apostles and evangelists did so precisely observe. In the last text, 1 Pet. v., your vulgar Latin saith, seniores and. consenior, yourselves in English, “seniors,” and “fellow senior.” What trespass then have we committed, in saying “ elders,” and “fellow elder,” or an elder also ? _ Martin. Where if they will tell us, as also in certain other places, Marrin, that our Latin translation hath seniores, and majores natu: we tell ““" them, as heretofore we have told them, that this is nothing to them, 8: Hierom adeth, who profess to translate the Greek. Again we say, that if they meant Presbyteros no worse than the old Latin translator did, they would be as indifferent byter, Ep. 85. as he to have said sometime “priests” and “ priesthood,” when he hath in jad Gal. proving the Kara πρεσβυτέρου κατηγορίαν μὴ παραδέχου. 1 Tim. vy. 19. “ Ad- versus presbyterum accusationem noli recipere,” Vulg. ‘“ Against an elder receive none accusation,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops’ bible, Geneva, Authorised version. “‘ Against a priest receive not accusation,” Wiclif, Rheims. προσκαλεσάσθω τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας. James vy. 14. “Tnducat presbyteros ecclesie,” Vulg. ‘Let him call for the elders of the congregation,” ‘Tyndale, Cranmer. “ Let him call for the elders of the church,” Geneva, Bishops’ bible, 1584. Authorised version. “Let him bring in the priests of the church,” Rheims. Πρεσβυτέρους τοὺς ἐν ὑμῖν Trapakade ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος. 1 Pet. v. 1. “Seniores ergo, qui in- yobis sunt, obsecro, consenior,” Vulg. “The elders which are among you, I exhort, which am also an elder,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops’ bible, Geneva, Authorised version. ‘“ The seniors therefore that are among you, I beseech, myself a fellow senior with them,” Rheims, 1582. ] 252 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. the words presbyteros and presbyterium; as we are indifferent in our cay translation, saying “seniors” and “ancients,” when we find it so in our Latin; being well assured that by sundry words he meant but one thing, as in Greek it is but one,-and as both Erasmus and also Beza himself always translate it, keeping the name presbyter and presbyteri ; ees, of whom by reason they should have learned, rather than of our Latin translator, whom otherwise they condemn. And if they say they do niorhere,and follow them, and not him, because they translate not senior and ie major natu, but the word: presbyter, or πρεσβύτερος, an “elder,” in all " places; we tell them, and herein we convent their conscience, that they do it to take away the external priesthood of the New Testament, and to suppress the name “ priest,” against the ecclesiastical, and (as now since Christ) very proper and usual signification thereof, in the New Testament, councils, and fathers, in all common writing and speaking ; specially the Latin presbyter, which grew to this signification out of the Greek, in the foresaid places of holy scripture. Fulke. 1 have told you already, and you could not but know that it should be told you, that seeing we translate none otherwise than your vulgar Latin translator, we are no more to be blamed of falsehood, corruption, profaneness, novelty, than he is, who professed to translate the Greek as much as we do. But if we had meant no worse (say you) than he, we would have been as indifferent to have said some- times “ priest” and “ priesthood,” where he hath the word presbyteros and presbyterium. I answer, presbyterium he hath but once, and for that you have “ priesthood” once, as you confessed before. And if the name “ priest” were of the same understanding in common English that the word presbyter is, from whence it is derived, we would never have sought more words for it, than we do for the words “bishop,” “dea- con,” and such like. The words presbyter and presbyterium you confess that Beza doth always use: and so do we, when we write or speak Latin; but we cannot use them in English, except we should be as fond as you in your gratis, depositum, and such fantasies. And to tell you plainly, as our conscience beareth us witness, we will never dissemble, that we avoid that word “ priest,” as it is used to signify a sacrificer, because we would shew a perfect distinction between the priesthood of the law and the ministry of the gospel, between sacerdos and presbyter, a sacrificer and a governor of the church, And I appeal to your own conscience, whether, if the English vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 255 word “ priest” were as indifferent as presbyter, and sounded no more towards a sacrifice than either presbyter or your own English words “ancient” and “ senior,” whether (I say) you would make so much ado about it, for to have it in all places of the New Testament, where πρεσβύτερος is in the Greek ? But seeing your popish sacrificing power, and blasphemous sacrifice of your mass, hath no manner ground at all in the holy scriptures, either in the original Greek, or in your own Latin translation, you are driven to seek a silly shadow for it in the abusive acception and sounding of the English word “priest” and “priesthood.” And therefore you do, in the second section of this chapter, in great earnest affirm, that “priest, sacrifice, and altar” are dependents, and consequents, one of another, so that they cannot be separated. If you should say in Latin sacerdos, sacrificium, altare, or in Greek ἱερεὺς, θυσία ἢ προσφορὰ, καὶ θυσιαστήριον be such consequents, we will also subscribe unto you: but if you will change the word, and say presbyter, sacrificium, altare, or πρεσβύτε- pos, θυσία, θυσιαστήριον, every learned man’s ears will glow, to hear you say they are dependents and consequents in- separable. Therefore we must needs distinguish of the word “‘ priest” in your corollary : for [if] you mean thereby sacerdo- tem, we grant the consequence of sacrifice and altar; but if you mean presbyterium | presbyterum], we deny that ever God joimed those three in an unseparable band; or that presbyter, in that he is presbyter, hath any thing to do with sacrifice or altar, more than senior, or major natu, or ancient, or elder. Martin. Insomuch that immediately in the first canons and councils Martin, of the apostles and their successors, nothing is more common than this ~~ is : ς Agi 3 : See Can. distinction of ecclesiastical degrees and names, si episcopus, vel presbyter, Apost.Conc.i. vel diaconus’, &c.: “1 any bishop, or priest, or deacon” do this or that. ign Cone. Which if the protestants or Calvinists will translate after their manner ¢3"),}-Bem thus, “ If a bishop, or elder, or deacon,” &c., they do against themselves, which make presbyter or “elder” a common name to all ecclesiastical persons, and not a peculiar degree next unto a bishop. So that either they must condemn all antiquity for placing presbyter in the second degree after a bishop; or they must translate it “priest,” as we do; or they must make “elder” to be their second degree, and so put “minister” out of place. [? Aut, not vel, in Labbe, Vol. 1. p. 52.]} FuLkKE, 1]. Martin, 12. διάκονος. Diaconus. 5, Tim. iii. Bib. 1577. 1579. Prebstre. Prete. 254 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. Fulke. The distinction of episcopus and presbyter to signify several offices, we grant to be of great antiquity ; albeit we may not admit the counterfeit canons of the apostles, nor the epistles of Ignatius, for such men’s writings as they bear the name to be. We make presbyter, or “elder,” a common name to all ecclesiastical persons, none otherwise than you do this word “priest:” for deacons with us are not called presbyteri, or “elders.” As for the distinction of bishops’ and elders’ names, which the scripture taketh for the same, doth no more “ condemn all antiquity” in us, than m you, who acknowledge that the scripture useth those names with- out distinction, in your note upon Acts xx. v. 28, where they are called “ bishops,” which before, νυ. 17, are called πρεσβύ- tepot, Which you translate “ancients,” and expound “priests ;” and thus you write: ‘“ Bishops or priests (for those names were sometimes used indifferently), governors of the church of God, and placed in that room and high function by the Holy Ghost.” But it seemeth you have small regard to defend your own notes, so you might find occasion to quarrel at our words. Martin. And here we must ask them, how this name “ minister” came to be a degree distinct from a deacon, whereas by their own rule of translation, “deacon” is nothing else but a “minister ;’ and why keep they the old and usual ecclesiastical name of “ deacon” in trans- lating diaconus, and not the name of “ priest” in translating presbyter ? Doth 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 always follow fancy and not reason, do 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 yourselves have them whom you call bishops, the name “bishops” is in your English bibles; which otherwise by your own rule of translation should be called an “overseer” or “superin- tendent :” likewise “deacon” you are content to use as an ecclesiastical word so used in antiquity, because you also have those whom you call “deacons.” Only “priests” must be turned contemptuously out of the text of the holy scriptures, and “elders” put in their place, because you have no priests, nor will none of them, and because that is in con- troversy between us, And as for elders, you have none permitted in England, for fear of overthrowing your bishops’ office and the Queen’s supreme government in all spiritual things and causes. Is not this to follow the humour of your heresy, by Machiavel’s politic rules, without any fear of God? vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 255 Fulke. Here I must answer you, that we have no Fyurxs, degree of ministers distinct from deacons, but by vulgar and 12. popular use of speaking, which we are not curious to control. Otherwise, in truth, we account bishops, elders, and deacons, all ministers of the church. It is no more, therefore, but the common speech of men, which useth that word, which is common to all ecclesiastical persons, as peculiar to the elders, or priests. Why we keep the name of “ deacons” in translating diaconus, rather than of “ priests” in translating presbyter, I have told you oftengbefore. The name “ priest” bemg by long abuse of speech applied to signify sacrificers of the Old Testament, called ἱερεῖς, we could not give the same name to the ministers of the New Testament, except we had some other name, whereby to call the ministers of the Old Testa- ment: wherein we follow reason, and not fancy; for it is great reason we should retain that difference in names of the ministers of both the testaments, which the Holy Ghost doth always observe. But you follow fancy altogether, imagining that. “ priests” only are put out of the text, because we have no priests: whereas we have priests as well as we have bishops and deacons; and so they are called in our Book of Common Prayer indifferently “ priests,” or ‘ ministers.’’ And where you say, we “have no elders permitted in England,” it is false ; for those that are commonly called bishops, ministers, or priests among us, be such “elders” as the scripture com- mendeth unto us. And although we have not such a con- sistory of elders of government, as in the primitive church they had, and many churches at this day have; yet have we also elders of government to exercise discipline, as arch- bishops, and bishops, with their chancellors, archdeacons, commissaries, officials; in whom if any defect be, we wish it may be reformed according to the word of God. Martin. “Apostles” you say for the most part in your translations (not Marri, always), as we do, and “ prophets,” and “evangelists,” and “ angels,” and 19. such like ; and wheresoever there is no matter of controversy between you and us, there you can plead very gravely for keeping the ancient ecclesias- tical words; as your master Beza, for example, beside many other places Beza in cap. . where he bitterly rebuketh his fellow Castaleon’s translation, in one place γος ΕΣ writeth thus: “I cannot in this place dissemble the boldness of certain ἴῃ 3" emp.” men, which would God it rested within the compass of words only! Mat num. These men therefore, concerning the word baptizing, though used of Baptizo. Baptism. Baptizo. Mediator. FULKE, 13. Martin, 14, εἴδωλον. Confut. of the Reas. fol. 35. μετάνοια. μετανοεῖν. 256 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [on, sacred writers in the mystery or sacrament of the new testament, and for so many years after, by the secret consent of all churches, consecrated to this one sacrament, so that it is now grown into the vulgar speeches almost of all nations, yet they dare presume rashly to change it, and in place thereof to use the word “washing.” Delicate men forsooth, which neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so many ages, nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speech can be brought to think that lawful for divines, which all men grant to other masters and professors of arts; that is, to retain and hold that as their own, which by long use and in good faith they have truly possessed. Neither may they pretend the authority of some ancient writers, as that Cyprian saith tingentes for baptizantes, and Tertullian in a certain®place calleth sequestrem for mediatorem. For that which was to those ancients as it were new, to us is old: and even then, that the selfsame words which we now use were familiar to the church, it is evident, because it is very seldom that they speak otherwise. But these men by this novelty seek after vain glory,” &c. Fulke. Τῇ. ἴῃ any place we use not the name of the “apostles,” “prophets,” “evangelists,” “angels,” and such like,. we are able to give as sufficient a reason why we translate those words according to their general signification, as you for translating sometime baptismata, “washings,” and not bap- tisms ; ecclesia “the assembly,” and not the church, with such like. Therefore as Castaleo and such other heretics are justly reprehended by Beza for leaving (without cause) the usual ecclesiastical terms; so when good cause or necessity requireth not to use them, it were superstition, yea, and almost madness sometimes, in translating to use them; as to call the Pharisees’ washings “ baptisms,” or the assembly of the Ephesian idolaters “ the church ;” yet both in Greek and Latin the words are baptismata, ecclesia. Martin. He speaketh against Castaleon, who in his new Latin trans- lation of the bible changed all ecclesiastical words into profane and heathenish ; as angelos into genios, prophetas into fatidicos, templum into Jfanum, and so forth. But that which he did for foolish affectation of fineness and style, do not our English Calvinists the very same, when they list, for furthering their heresies? When the holy scripture saith “ idols,” according as Christians have always understood it, for false gods, they come and tell us out of Homer and the lexicons, that it may signify an image, and therefore so they translate it. Do they not the like in the Greek word that by ecclesiastical use signifieth “ penance,” and “ doing penance,” when they argue out of Plutarch, and by the profane sense thereof, that it is nothing else but changing of the mind or amendment Vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 957 of life? Whereas in the Greek church penitentes, that is, they that were in the course of penance, and excluded from the church, as catechumeni and energumeniy, till they had accomplished their penance, the very same are called in the Greek οἱ ἐν μετανοίᾳ ὄντες. Fulke. That Castaleo “did for foolish affectation of fine- ness,” you slander us to do “for furthering of heresy.” And here again with loathsomeness you repeat your rotten quarrel of idols translated “images,” which was to discover your abo- minable idolatry, cloaked under a blind and false distinction of images and idols. The word μετάνοια we translate ‘“re- pentance ;” as you do sometimes, when you cannot for shame use your popish term “penance,” by which you understand _ satisfaction for sin, which in divers places you are enforced to give over in the plain field, and to use the term “repentance ;” as in the fifth of the Acts*: “This Prince and Saviour God hath exalted with his right hand to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins*;” likewise Acts xi., where the scripture speaketh of God giving “repentance to the gentiles.” And when you speak of Judas, you say also “repenting him*:” so that the repentance of Judas, and that which God gave to Israel and to the gentiles, is uttered in one term; whereas else you have almost everywhere “penance,” and “doing of penance.” Where you say we make repentance nothing but changing of the mind, or amendment of life, you speak un- truly ; for not every changing of the mind is godly repent- ance, neither is only amendment of life all repentance: but there must be contrition and sorrow for the life past. That in the Greek church they that were catechumeni, and ener- - Martin appears to have had the following passage of the 19th Canon of the Council of Laodicea in his mind, when he wrote this: “Mera τὸ ἐξελθεῖν rods κατηχουμένους, τῶν ἐν μετανοίᾳ τὴν εὐχὴν γίνεσθαι. Quibus (catechumenis) egressis, orent etiam hi qui in pcenitentia sunt constituti.” Ed. 1559. p. 34.] | Γ" δοῦναι μετάνοιαν τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, Acts v. 31. “To give repentance to Israel and remission of sins,” Rhemish Version, 1582.] [3 "Apaye καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὁ Θεὸς τὴν μετάνοιαν ἔδωκεν εἰς ζωὴν, Acts xi. 18. “God then to the Gentiles also hath given repentance unto life,” Rhemish version, 1582. ] Γ΄ ὅτι κατεκρίθη, μεταμεληθεὶς, Matt. xxvii. “Seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself,’ Rhemish version. ] . [ruLKr.| τὰ Εὐχκὲ, 14. Dionys. Ee. Meer. cap. 3. Martin, 15. Latria. Dulia. Beza in 4. Mat. num. 10. λατρεύω and λα- τρείαϑ inthe scriptures, al- most always used for the service and honour pro- per to God. August. de ᾿ς Civit. Dei. li, oe ἃ, ἃ; 258 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. gumeni, were called ἐν μετανοίᾳ ὄντες, “such as are in re- pentance,” it maketh nothing against the true use of the Greek word, as it is used in the scriptures. We know the discipline of the church appointed an outward exercise of praying, fast- ing, and other humbling, for a trial and testimony of true and hearty repentance, which was sometimes called by the name of repentance by a metonymia signi ; which he that will enforce by that name to be parts of true and inward re- pentance, is as wise as he that will contend the ivy-bush to be a part of wine, because some men, seeing it hang over the house, will say, Lo, here is wine. Martin. They therefore leaving this ecclesiastical signification, and translating it according to Plutarch, do they not much like to Castaleo ? Do they not the same against the famous and ancient distinction of latria and dulia, when they tell us out of Eustathius upon Homer, and Aristophanes the grammarian, that these two are all one? Whereas we prove out of St Augustine! in many places, the second council of Nice, Venerable Bede, and the long custom of the church, that according to the ecclesiastical sense and use deduced out of the scriptures they differ very much. Do they not the like in mysterium and sacramentum, which [1 Hic est enim divinitati vel, si expressius dicendum est, deitati debitus cultus, propter quem uno verbo significandum quoniam mihi satis idoneum non occurrit Latinum, Greco ubi necesse est insinuo quid velim dicere. λατρείαν quippe nostri, ubicumque sanctarum scrip- turarum positum est, interpretati sunt servitutem. Sed ea servitus, que debetur hominibus, secundum quam precepit apostolus servos dominis suis subditos esse debere, alio nomine Grece nuncupari solet: λατρεία vero, secundum consuetudinem qua locuti sunt qui nobis divina eloquia condiderunt, aut semper, aut tam frequenter ut pene semper, ea dicitur servitus que pertinet ad colendum Deum. Augustini de Civitate Dei, Lib. x. c. i. Opera, Vol. vu. p. 381.] [? Upon the 33rd verse of the 23rd chapter of Exodus, Augustine thus speaks: Hic Grecus δουλεύσῃς habet, non λατρεύσῃς. Unde intelli- gitur, quia et δουλεία debetur Deo tanquam Domino, λατρεία vero non- nisi Deo tanquam Deo. Questiones in Exodum. xciv. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 711. This distinction between the two words is frequently alluded to by Augustine: for instance, in his treatise against the sermon of the Arians, he says, “ Et tamen, si apertissime legerent in sanctis scripturis Salomonem regem lignis et lapidibus jussu Dei templum struxisse Spi- ritui Sancto, Deum esse Spiritum Sanctum dubitare non possent, cui tanta religionis servitus, que latria dicitur, legitime exhiberetur in vi. TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 259 they translate a secret in the profane sense; whereas they know how these pip. an. 1569. words are otherwise taken, both in Greek and Latin, in the church of God? Did they not the like in the word ecclesia, when they translated it nothing else but “congregation”? Do they not the like in χειροτονία, which they translate, ordaining by election, as it was in the profane court of Athens; whereas St Hierom telleth them, that ecclesiastical writers take it for giving holy orders by imposition of hands? Do they not the like in many other words, wheresoever it serveth their heretical purpose? And as for profane translation, is there any more profane than Beza himself, that so often in his annotations reprehendeth the old translation by the authority of Tully and Terence, Homer and Aristophanes, and the like profane authors? yea, so fondly and childishly, that for o/factum, which Erasmus useth, as Pliny’s word, he will needs say odoratum, because it is Tully's word. Fulke. Jn translating the scripture, we use the word “re- Furs, pentance” in the same signification that the scripture useth 1ὅ- μετάνοια. In other ecclesiastical writers, we can neverthe- less understand it as they mean it. Concerning that un- learned distinction of latria and dulia, we do rightly to shew out of profane writers that it is vain, and that the terms signify all one; and you yourself confess in your marginal note, that sometimes in the scripture Aatpévw and λατρεία populo Dei, ut illi etiam templum fabricaretur; cum Dominus. dicat, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies: quod in Greco est, λατρεύσεις." Cap. xx. also cap. xxix. Opera, Vol. vu. pp. 980 and 987. Again, in his treatise on the Trinity, cap. xiii. he says, “ Maxime vero illo loco satis claret, quod Spiritus Sanctus non sit creatura, ubi jubemur non servire creature, sed creatori: non eo modo quo jubemur per caritatem servire invicem, quod est Grace δουλεύειν, sed eo modo quo tantum Deo servitur, quod est Grace λατρεύειν." (Opera, Vol. vu. p- 1164.) Other passages of a similar kind may be quoted; but these are sufficient to shew the opinion of Augustine. On the other hand may be produced the following passages of scrip- ture, to shew that it is doubtful whether there exists this nice distinction betwixt the two words. See Matt. vi. 24. Luke xvi. 13. Romans vii. 25 ; xvi. 18. Col. iii. 24. Gal. iv. 8. 1 Thess. i. 9. in which places δουλεύω is used for serving God. The two words are frequently used promis- cuously in scripture: λατρεύω is applied to the service of men, as well as God. Compare Deut. xxviii. 48. Lev. xxiii. 7, where λατρεύω is used ina servile sense. In the whole of the 4th chapter of Galatians δουλεύω is applied to the worship of God. Nonnus interprets λατρεία by dov- λοσύνη and δοῦλος : for, says Casaubon, that unsound distinction which confines λατρεία to God, and δουλοσύνη to angels, had not arisen. 17—2 260 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. do not signify the service and honour that is proper to God: as for δουλεύω, [it] is in more than an hundred places used for the service and honour proper to God. St Augus- tine, you confess afterward, knew well but one tongue; and therefore he is no meet judge of distinction of Greek words. Bede followeth Augustine’s error. The idolaters of the second Nicene council were glad of a cloak for the rain, con- trary to the property of their tongue; as is proved by Eustathius, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Suidas, and by later writers, no protestants, Laurentius Valla, and Ludovicus Vives. Mysterium we translate a “secret,” or a “mystery,” in- differently ; the word signifying no more an holy secret, than a profane and abominable secret, as the “ mystery of iniquity,” “the mystery of Babylon.” For the words ecclesia, and χειροτονία, we have said sufficiently, and very lately. To use Tully’s words, when they answer the Greek as properly as any barbarous words, or less commendable words, I know not why it should be counted blame-worthy in Beza, or in any man, except it be of such a sycophant as liketh nothing but that which sayoureth of his own spittle. Martin, Martin. But to return to our English translators: do not they the λ6. like to profane Castaleo, and do they not the very same that Beza their master so largely reprehendeth, when they translate presbyterum “an elder?” Is it not all one fault to translate so, and to translate, as Castaleo doth, baptismum washing? Hath not presbyter been a peculiar and usual word for a priest, as long as baptismus for the sacrament of regeneration, which Castaleo altering into a common and profane word, is worthily reprehended? We will prove it hath, not for their sake, who know it well enough, but for the reader's sake, whom they abuse, as if they knew it not. Fux, Fulke. If it be as great a fault in us to translate pres- ane byterum, “an elder,” as for Castaleo to translate baptismum “ washing ;” your vulgar translator must be in the same fault with us, which so often translateth presbyteros, seniores, or majores natu, which signify “elders,” and not “priests :” it is a vain thing therefore that you promise to prove, that “pres- byter hath been a peculiar and usual word for a ‘priest,’ as long as baptismus for the sacrament of regeneration.” For peculiar you can never prove it, seeing it is used in the scripture so often for such elders and ancients as you your- vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 261 self would not call priests. So that, if you did translate the whole bible out of your own vulgar Latin, you must translate presbyter thrice an “elder” or “ancient,” for once a “ priest.” Martin. In the first and second canon of the apostles we read thus: Marri, Episcopus a duobus aut tribus episcopis ordinetur. Presbyter ab uno ~"* episcopo ordinetur, et diaconus, et alii clerici!: that is, “ Let a bishop be ter nanny consecrated or ordained by two or three bishops.” “ Let a priest be eon teers made by one bishop.” See in the fourth council of Carthage the diverse μῶν μέλον manner of consecrating bishops, priests, deacons, &c. where St Augus- Can. 2, 3, 4. tine was present and subscribed. Again, Si quis presbyter contemnens gan a post. episcopum suum, &c.: “If any priest contemning his bishop,” make a 33: several congregation, and erect another altar, that is, make a schism or heresy, let him be deposed. So did Arius, being a priest, against his bishop Alexander. Again, “ priests and deacons, let them attempt to do can. 40.2 nothing without the bishop.” The first council of Nice saith : “ The holy can. 3.2 synod by all means forbiddeth, that neither bishop, nor priest, nor deacon, &c., have with them any foreign woman, but the mother, or sister, &c., in whom there is no suspicion.” Again, “It is told the holy council, can. 14.4 that in certain places and cities deacons give the sacraments to priests. This neither rule nor custom hath delivered, that they which have not authority to offer the sacrifice, should give to them that offer the body of Christ.” The third council of Carthage, wherein St Augustine was, and to the which he subscribed, decreeth, “That in the sacraments of can. 2945. the body and blood of Christ, there be no more offered than our Lord himself delivered, that is, bread and wine mingled with water.” Which the sixth general council of Constantinople repeating and confirming, addeth: “ If therefore any bishop or priest do not according to the order εξ τις οὖν given by the apostles, mingling water with wine, but offer an unmingled ἢ τριοβυ ἢ sacrifice, let him be deposed,” &c. But of these speeches all councils be tepos®. full: where we would gladly know of these new translators, how presby- ter must be translated, either an “elder,” or a “ priest.” Fulke. 1 think you have clean forgotten your promise Fuxxs, so lately made. That this word presbyter hath always been 1’ peculiar for a “priest,” you bring many testimonies, some coun- terfeit, some authentical, in which the name of πρεσβύτερος and presbyter is found; but that in all them it is peculiar [ Vel tribus Episcopis. Et reliqui cleri. Canon xxx. Concilia edit. Labbe, Vol. 1. p. 26, not. xxxii.] [3 Can. xxxviii. Edit. Labbe.] [* Can. iii. Vol. π. p. 28.] [* Can. xviii. ] [ἢ Vol. 1. p. 1170.] [δ Can. xxxii. Vol. νι. p. 1157. ] Martin, 18. Ep. 2. ad Trallianos. τὸ πρεσ- βυτέριον. οἱ πρεσβύ- τεροι. Comment. ine. 7. Mi- chea. Ep. 85. ad vangelum. Epitaph. Ne- potiani, ο. 9. 262 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. for a “priest,” you shew not at all. Some colour it hath of that you say, in the 14th canon of the Nicene council, and Carth. iii. c. 24, repeated Const. vi., where mention is made of sacrifice and offering; for so they did improperly call the administration of the Lord’s supper, in respect of the sacri- fice of thanksgiving that was offered therein. After which phrase also, they called the ministers ἱερεῖς and sacerdotes, “sacrificers.” So they called that which indeed was a table of wood, an altar, and the inferior ministers Levites; by which it appeareth they did rather allude to the names used in the Old Testament, than acknowledged a sacrificing priest- hood, that might as properly be so called, as the priesthood after the order of Aaron was. Sometime they used the name of “ sacrifice” and sacerdos generally, for religious ser- vice, and the minister of religion, as the gentiles did. And hereof it is, that we read often of the sacrifices of bread and wine ; and in the canon of Carthage by you cited, Nec amplius in sacrificiis offeratur quam de uvis et frumentis’: “And let no more be offered in the sacrifices, than that which is made of grapes and corn.” This was bread and wine, not the natural body and blood of Christ. Wherefore these improper speeches prove not a sacrificing priesthood, whereby the natural body and blood of Christ should be offered in the mass, which is the mark you shoot at. Martin. Do not all the fathers speak after the same manner, making always this distinction of “bishop” and “ priest,” as of the first and second degree? St Ignatius, the apostle’s scholar, doth he not place presbyterium, as he calleth it, and presbyteros, “ priests,” or the “college of priests,” next after “bishops,” and “deacons” in the third place, re- peating it no less than thrice in one epistle, and commending the dignity of all three unto the people? Doth not St Jerome the very same, saying, “ Let us honour a bishop, do reverence to a priest, rise up to a deacon? ?” And when he saith, that as Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the temple, so are bishops, priests, and deacons in the church, for place [᾿ Vol. π. 1170.] [ἢ Nolite credere in ducibus, non in episcopo, non in presbytero, non in diacono, non in qualibet hominum dignitate. ***** Honoremus episcopum, presbytero deferamus, assurgamus diacono; et tamen non speremus in eis: quia hominis vana, et certa spes est in Domino, Com- ment. Hieronymi in Michee, c. vii. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 1549.] VI. ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 263 and degree*; and in another place, speaking of the outrages done by the Vandals and such like, “Bishops were taken, priests slain, and diverse of other ecclesiastical. orders; churches overthrown, the altars of Christ made stables for horses, the relics of martyrs digged up,” &c.4 when he saith of Nepotian, fit clericus, et per solitos grudus presbyter ordinatur ; “he becometh a man of the clergy, and by the accustomed degrees is made,” what? a “priest,” or an “elder”? when he saith, Mihi ante presbyterum sedere non licet, &c., doth he mean he could not sit above an elder, or above a priest, himself as then being not priest? When he and Vincentius, as St Epiphanius writeth, of reverence to the degree, Ep. 60. hy ap were hardly induced to be made presbyteri, did they refuse the eldership ? sb What was the matter, that John the bishop of Jerusalem seemed to be so much offended with Epiphanius and St Jerome? was it not because Epiphanius made Paulianus, St Jerome’s brother, priest within the said E Ep. iad John’s diocese ? Fulke. Before the blasphemous heresy of the popish Futxz, sacrifice of the mass was established in the world, the fathers 18: did with more liberty use the terms of “sacrifice” and “ sacri- ficing priests ;” which improper speeches, since they have given occasion in the time of ignorance to maintain that blasphemous heresy, there is good reason that we should beware how we use any such terms, especially in translation of the scriptures. All the rest of the authorities you cite in this section, and five hundred more such as they are, speak of presbyter or πρεσβύτερος, which words we embrace : but of the English word “priest,” as it is commonly taken for a sacrificer, or against this word “elder,” they speak nothing ; for in all those places we may truly translate for presbyter an “elder.” Martin. When all antiquity saith, Hieronymus Presbyter, Cecilius ana Presbyter, Ruffinus Presbyter, Philippus, Juvencus, Hesychius, Beda, presbyteri ; and when St Jerome so often in his Catalogue saith, such a man, presbyter; is it not for distinction of a certain order, to signify that they were priests, and not bishops ? ? namely, when he saith of St Chry- ~ ©: [* Et ut sciamus traditiones apostolicas sumtas de veteri testamento, quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levite in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi epis- copi et presbyteri et diaconi vendicant in ecclesia. Hieronymi Epist. 6. i. ad Evangelum. Opera, Vol. 1v. p. 803. ] [* Capti episcopi, interfecti presbyteri, et diversorum officia cleri- corum. Subverse ecclesix, ad altaria Christi stabulati equi, martyrum effosse reliquie. oe ae Epitaph. Nepotiani. Opera, Vol. ιν. p- 274. | FuLKE, 19. Martin, 20. Inter Episto- las Hiero. Ep. 97. in fine. Lib. 1. ο. 2. in fine. 264 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. sostom, Joannes presbyter Antiochenus, doth he not mean he was as then but a priest of Antioch? Would he have said so, if he had written of him after he was bishop of Constantinople ? Fulke. All this while here is nothing for the English word “‘priest,” in that respect we avoid it in translation; nor against the word “elder,” which we use, by which we mean none other thing than the scripture doth give us to under- stand by the word πρεσβύτερος. As for the distinction of episcopus and presbyter, which came in afterward, you your- self confessed, as we heard of late, that it is not observed in the scriptures; but the same men are called episcopi, which before were called presbyteri. And according to that dis- tinction, you can allow but one bishop of one city at once : yet the scripture in divers places speaketh of many bishops of one city, as Acts xx., the bishops of Ephesus, called before presbytert, “ elders ;” also he saluteth the bishops and deacons of Philippi, Phil. i, where your note saith, that in the apostle’s time there were not observed always distinct names of either function of bishop and priest. Would you have us to translate the scripture with distinction of names which the Holy Ghost maketh not, nor your vulgar Latin observeth, nor you yourself for shame can observe ? And if we should have translated for “elders” “priests,” that distinction taken up after the apostle’s times, or the writing of the scripture, had been never the more confirmed, Martin. But of all other places, we would desire these gay transla- tors to translate this one place of St Augustine, speaking of himself a bishop, and δὲ Jerome a priest: Quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula, que jam ecclesi@ usus obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major sit ; tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est. Is not this the English thereof? “ For although according to the titles or names of honour, which now by use of the church have prevailed, the degree of bishop be greater than priesthood, yet in many things Augustine is less than Jerome.” Or doth it like them to translate it thus, “The degree of bishop is greater than eldership,” &c.? Again, against Julian the heretic, when he hath brought many testimonies of the holy doctors, that were all bishops, as of St Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Nazianzene, Chrysostom ; at length he cometh to St Jerome, who was no bishop, and saith, Nee sanctum Hieronymum, quia presbyter fuit, contemnendum arbitreris ; that is,“ Neither, must thou think that St Jerome, because he was but a priest, therefore is to be contemned ; whose divine eloquence hath shined to us from the east even to the west, like a lamp ;” and so vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 265 forth to his great commendation. Here is a plain distinction of an infe- rior degree to a bishop, for the which the heretic Julian did easily con- temn him. Is not St Cyprian full of the like places? Is not all antiquity so full, that whiles I prove this, methinketh I prove nothing else but that snow is white 7 Fulke. Of all other importune and unreasonable jndges I on you are one of the worst, that would enforce us to translate 7° the scriptures, which you confess observeth not the distinction of bishops and priests, according to the fathers, which do almost always observe it. If we should translate those sen- tences of St Augustine, we might use the word “ priest” for presbyter, and “priesthood” for presbyteriwm; and if we use the words “elders” and “ eldership,” what offence I pray you were it, when by these names we understand nothing, but the same function and minister which Augustine doth? That episcopus, a “ bishop,” was of very old time used to signify a degree ecclesiastical higher than presbyter, an “ elder” or “priest,” we did never deny; we know it right well. We know what St Jerome writeth upon the epistle to Titus, chap. i. Idem est ergo 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 devil, factions were made in religion, and it was said among the people, ‘IT am of Paul, I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by common counsel presbyterorum, ‘of the elders. But afterward, when every one thought those whom he had baptized to be his own, and not Christ’s, it was de- creed in the whole world, that one de presbyteris, ‘of the elders, being elected, should be set over the rest, to whom all the care of the church should pertain, and the seeds of schisms should be taken away.” This, and much more to this effect, writeth St Hieronyme of this distinction, in that place, and in divers other places; which nothing proveth that we [* Idem est ergo presbyter qui episcopus: et antequam diaboli in- stinctu studia in ‘religione fierent, et diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephe, communi presbyterorum consilio ecclesie gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptiza- verat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur ceteris, ad quem omnis ecclesie cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur. Comment. Hiero- nymi in Titum, c. i. Opera, Vol. rv. p. 413.] Martin, 21. Annot. in 1 Pet. v. Beza’s words in the place above alleg- ed. Prete. Prebstre. Priest. Presbyter, for a priest. Baptismus, for the sacra-~ ment of bap- tism. Fuixe, 21. 266 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. are bound to translate presbyter in the scripture a “ priest,” and least of all, that we are bound in terms to keep that distinction, which the scripture maketh not, and the papists themselves cannot observe in their most partial translation. Martin. 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 impossibility thereof: if not, but they will grant in all these places it signifieth “priest,” and so is meant ; then we must beat them with Beza’s rod of reprehension against Castaleon, that “we cannot dissemble the boldness of these men, which would God it rested within the custom of words only, and were not important matter concerning their heresy! These men therefore, touching the word ‘priest,’ though used of sacred writers in the mystery of the New Testament, and for so many years after, by the secret consent of all churches, consecrated to this one sacrament, so that it is now grown to be the proper vulgar speech almost of all nations; yet they dare presume rashly to change it, and in place thereof to use the word ‘elder.’ Delicate men, forsooth !” (yea, worse a great deal, because these do it for heresy, and not for deli- cacy,) “which neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so many ages, nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speech can be brought to think that lawful for divines, which all men grant to other masters and professors of arts; that is, to retain and hold that as their own, which by long use, and in good faith, they have truly possessed. Nei- ther may they pretend the authority of any ancient writer,” (as that the old Latin translator saith senior and seniores ;) “for that which was to them as it were new, to us is old; and even then, that the selfsame words which we now use were more familiar to the church, it is evident, be- cause it is very seldom that they speak otherwise.” Fulke. I see no impossibility, but that in all places where we read presbyter, we may lawfully translate “ elder,” as well as “ priest,” and make it still, im scripture, a common name to all ecclesiastical degrees, (at least, to as many as the scripture maketh it common,) without any absurdity or confusion. And albeit in the fathers we should translate it “ priest,” because they understood by the name presbyter a distinct degree from episcopus ; yet the saying of Beza against Castaleo could not by any wise man be applied to us. For Castaleo changed the name of the sacrament bap- tismus, by which both the scriptures and the fathers uni- formly did use to signify one and the same sacrament : whereas the name of presbyter in the scripture signifieth one thing, and in the fathers another. For in the scripture 2 .. « —_—-—- Ψ{Ψ0ῳ0Ε vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 267 it is taken indifferently for episcopus, and episcopus for presbyter: but in the fathers these are two distinct degrees. Therefore he is worthy to be beaten in a grammar-school, that cannot see manifest difference between the use of the word baptismus, which, being spoken of the sacrament, m the scriptures and fathers is always one, and of presbyter, which in the scriptures is every ecclesiastical governor, in the fathers one degree only, that is subject to the bishop. Martin. Thus we have repeated Beza’s words again, only changing Marz, the word “baptism” into “ priest,” because the case is all one: and so “ unwittingly Beza, the successor of Calvin in Geneva, hath given plain sentence against our English translators in all such cases, as they go from the common received and usual sense to another profane sense, and out of use: as, namely, in this point of “ priest” and “ priesthood.” Where we must needs add a word or two, though we be too long, because their folly and malice is too great herein. For whereas the very name “ priest” pin a never came into our English tongue, but of the Latin presbyter, (for minat the thereupon sacerdos also was so called only by a consequence,) they ply, p. 72, 4 2? . »” Ω h f- translate sacerdos “ priest,” and presbyter, not priest, but “elder,” as wisely firmeth that and as reasonably, as if a man should translate Pretor Londini, “ Mayor unre. of London,” and Major Londini, not “ Mayor of London,” but “ Greater Sie ΣἿἢ of London ;” or Academia Owoniensis, “the University of Oxford,” and ἰδ ha wae Universitas Oxoniensis, not “the University,” but “the Generality of sacerdos. Oxford ;” and such like. Fulke. Beza’s words agree to us, as well as German’s Furxe, lips, that were nine mile asunder. For if this English word “priest,” by custom of speech, did signify no more than the Greek word πρεσβύτερος, we would no less use it in our trans- lations, than “ bishops” and “ deacons :” which offices though they be shamefully abused by the papists, yet the abuse of the words maketh no confusion between the ministers of the law and of the gospel, as this word “ priest” doth, by which the Jewish sacrificers are rather understood, than preachers of the gospel and ministers of the sacraments. But whereas the etymology of this English word “ priest” cometh from presbyter, you charge us with great folly and malice, that for sacerdos we translate “ priest,” and for pres- byter “elder.” To this I answer, We are not lords of the common speech of men; for if we were, we would teach them to use their terms more properly: but seeing we cannot change the use of speech, we follow Aristotle’s counsel, which ΜΆΔΉΤΙΝ, Ruffin. lib, 1. ec. 2. Epist. 32. ad alentinia- num Imp. Juris sacerdo- talis. In Apolog. pro sua fug. orat.1l. ᾿ Χριστῷ συνιερεύ- εἰν, Epist. 1. ad Hieronem. Sacerdotes, ἱερεύς. διώκονος ἱερέων. ἱεράρχην σὺν τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν. * Ee. Hiera. e. 3. Martin, 24, Lib. 8. ο. 27. De Civ. Dei. 268 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. is to speak and use words as the common people useth, but to understand and conceive of things according to the nature and true property of them. Although, for my part, I like well of the French translation, which for ἱερεῖς, or sacerdotes, always translateth sacrijicateurs, “sacrificers;” and for presbyteri, where they signify the ministers of the word and sacraments, prestres, “ priests.” But this diversity being only of words, and not of matter or meaning, reasonable men will take an answer; fools and quarrellers will never acknow- ledge any satisfaction. Martin, Again, what exceeding folly is it, to think that by false and profane translation of presbyter into “elder,” they might take away the external priesthood of the new testament, whereas their own word sacerdos, which they do and must needs translate “priest,” is as common and as usual in all antiquity as presbyter ; and so much the more, for that it is used indifferently to signify both bishops and priests, which presbyter lightly doth not but in the New Testament. As when Constantine the Great said to the bishops assembled in the council of Nice: Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, &c. “God hath ordained you priests, and hath given you power to judge of us also.” And St Ambrose: “When didst thou ever hear, most clement prince, that laymen have judged bishops? Shall we bend by flattery so far, that forgetting the right of our priesthood, we should yield up to others that which God hath commended to us?” And therefore doth St Chrysostom entitle his six books, De Sacerdotio, Of Priesthood, concerning the dignity and calling not only of mere priests, but also of bishops: and St Gregory Nazianzene, handling the same argument, saith, “that they execute priesthood together with Christ.” And St Ignatius saith: “ Do nothing without the bishops; for they are priests, but thou the deacon of the priests.” And in the Greek liturgies or masses, so often: 6 ἱερεὺς, “Then the priest saith this and that,” signifying also the bishop when he saith mass ; and *St Denys saith sometime, Archisacerdotem cum sacerdotibus, “‘The high priest or bishop with the priests ; whereof come the words ἱερατεύειν, ἱερουργεῖν, ἱεράτευμα, ἱερατεία, iepoupyia, in the ancient Greek fathers, for the sacred function of priesthood, and executing of the same, Martin. If then the heretics could possibly have extinguished priesthood in the word presbyter, yet you see it would have remained still in the words sacerdos and sacerdotium, which themselves translate “priest” and “ priesthood ;” and therefore we must desire them to trans- late us a place or two after their own manner. First, St Augustine speaking thus: Quis unquam audivit sacerdotem ad altare stantem etiam super reliquias martyrum dicere, Offero tibi, Petre, et Paule, vel Cypriane?* [* The passage of Augustine here referred to is incorrectly quoted. In the Paris reprint of the Benedictine edition it stands thus: “Quis VI. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 269 “Who ever heard that a priest standing at the altar, even over the relics of the martyrs, said, I offer to thee, Peter, and Paul, or Cyprian”? So, we trow, they must translate it. Again, Nos uni Deo et martyrum et gg Civ. nostro sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrificium sicut homines Dei suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote invocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrificat, quamvis in memoria sacrificet eorum, quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum. Ipsum vero sacrificium corpus est Christi. We think they will and must translate it thus: “ We offer sacrifice to the only God both of martyrs and ours, at the which sacrifice, as men of God they (martyrs) are named in their place and order ; yet are they not invocated of the priest that sacrificeth. For he sacrificeth to God, So as he said and not to them, though he sacrifice in the memory of them, because pegs Peter he is God’s priest, and not theirs. And the sacrifice itself is the body of ““ Christ.” Fulke. Nay, “what exceeding folly is it to think” that Fuxxe, an external sacrificing office can be established in the New Hey 8 Testament (which never calleth the ministers thereof sacer- dotes, or ἱερεῖς), because men of later time have improperly transferred those terms unto the “elders” or “ priests” of the New Testament! Certainly among so many names as the scripture giveth them, if sacrificing for the quick and the dead had been the principal part of their function, as by you papists hath been accounted, is it credible, that the Holy Ghost would never have called them ἱερεῖς, as well, yea, and rather than the “sacrificers’ of the old testament ? Seeing therefore the Holy Ghost had made such a broad difference between their names and offices, those ancient fathers that confounded those names, which the Spirit of God would have to be distinct, cannot be excused; although they autem audivit aliquando fidelium stantem sacerdotem, ad altare etiam super sanctum corpus martyris ad Dei honorem cultumque constructum, dicere in precibus, Offero tibi sacrificium, Petre, vel Paule, vel Cypriane ? Augustini Opera, Vol. vu. p. 349. Edit. Paris. 1838. ] [ἢ This quotation also, as here given, differs from the Benedictine edition, where it stands thus: “Sed uni Deo et martyrum et nostro; ad quod sacrificium, sicut homines Dei, qui mundum in ejus confes- sione vicerunt, suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote, qui sacrificat, invocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrificat, quam- vis in memoria sacrificet eorum; quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum. Ipsum vero sacrificium corpus est Christi, quod non offertur ipsis, quia hoc sunt et ipsi.” p. 1073. At ‘nostro’ there is a various reading with this remark: “ Hie editi addunt, sacrificium immolamus: quod abest a manuscriptis.” V. Lectiones Variantes, p. 1288, upon the passage. ] 270 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH | cur. never dreamed of the mischief that followed, that the altar of the cross being overthrown, and the only and sufficient sacri- fice, which Christ our “high sacrificer” offered once for all, being judged imperfect, a new “ altar,” a new “ sacrifice,” and a new “ sacrificing priesthood” should be set up in the stead of it. Wherefore the improper speeches of the ancient writers are no warrant for us, either to translate the scripture ac- cording to their improper speaking, or to set up a new sacrifice and function of sacrificing contrary to their mean- ing. They named “ sacrifice” and “ offering,” but they meant not propitiatory sacrifice, but only of prayers, or praises and giving of thanks. They named ἱερεῖς and sacerdotes, but they meant, according to the general etymology of those words, such as were occupied in distributing holy things ; not such as should verily sacrifice the body of Christ again to his Father, but offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, which after a certain manner, Epist. 3. Bo- 8 St Augustine saith, is called the body of Christ, when indeed seer. distinct. it 18 the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And 2. ca est, et ΤΥ it is called the “sacrificing” of the body of Christ, not in ibidem te. truth of the thing, but a signifying mystery, as Gracian citeth out of Jerome. Martin, Martin. Likewise when St Ambrose saith, “The consecration (of the body of Christ) with what words is it, and by whose speech? Of our Lord Jesus. For in the rest that is said, there is praise given to God, prayer made for the people, for kings, and others; but when it Sacerdos. | cometh that the venerable sacrament must be consecrated, now the priest useth not his own words, but he useth the words of Christ®.” And St Lib. de Sac. c. 4. [Γ᾿ Si enim sacramenta quamdam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina acci- piunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est; ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Nihil est autem aliud credere, quam fidem habere. Augustini Epist. ad Bonifacium. Epist. xcvm. c. ix. ordo novus. Opera, Vol. τι. p. 400.] 4 [? Consecratio autem quibus verbis est, et cujus sermonibus? Domini Jesu. Nam reliqua omnia que dicuntur in superioribus, a sacerdote dicuntur, laudes Deo deferuntur, oratio petitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro ceteris; ubi venitur ut conficiatur venerabile sacramentum, jam non suis sermonibus utitur sacerdos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi. Ambrosii de Sacramentis, Lib. 1v. ὁ. iv. Opera, Vol. 11. p. 368. ] v1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 271 Chrysostom in very many places saith: “ The sacred oblation itself, Hom. 2, in whether Peter, or Paul, or any meaner priest whatsoever offer it, is Sacurdoe: the very same that Christ gave unto his disciples, and which now the “>: priests do make or consecrate. Why so, I pray thee? because not men do sanctify this, but Christ himself, which before consecrated the same.” And again: “It is not man that maketh the body and blood of Christ, but he that was crucified for us, Christ ; the words are uttered by the Sacerdotis. priest's mouth, and by God’s power and grace are the things proposed consecrated. For this, saith he, ‘is my body*.’ With this word are the things proposed consecrated.” Fulke. These testimonies are heaped up without any need, Furxe, for the improper usage of these words ἱερεὺς, or sacerdos, in the ancient writers we do acknowledge: but in the holy scripture you are not able to bring one place where presby- tert of the New Testament are called sacerdotes, or ἱερεῖς. Wherefore of the improper applying of these names to the ministers of the New Testament, can follow no consequence of external “sacrifice,” or “altar,” which you urge, except “ sacrifice” and “altar” be likewise used improperly, as where the table is called “ an altar,” the bread and wine “ a sacri- fice,” as in Irenzeus’, lib. 1v. cap. xxxii. where also he saith, that the “sacrifices” do not sanctify the man, but the con- science of the man being pure sanctifieth the “ sacrifice,” and causeth God to accept it as of a friend, cap. xxxiv.: [32 Ἢ προσφορὰ ἥ αὐτή ἐστι, Kav ὁ τυχὼν προσενέγκῃ, Kav Παῦλος, “Δ ΄, [3 δὲ... ene a ε A “ “ yy soa κἂν Πέτρος, ἡ αὐτὴ ἐστιν, ἣν 6 Χριστὸς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἔδωκε, καὶ ἣν νῦν οἱ ἱερεῖς ποιοῦσιν: οὐδὲν αὕτη ἐλάττων ἐκείνης, ὅτι καὶ ταύτην οὐκ CA ε / > > >. \ ς \ > , Fan 4 . ἄνθρωποι ἁγιάζουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς 6 καὶ ἐκείνην ἁγίασας. Chrysost. in 2 Epist. ad Timoth. c.i. Hom. ii. Opera, Vol. x1. p. 671. Edit. Mont- faucon, Par. 1734. | [* Οὐδὲ yap ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ὁ ποιῶν τὰ προκείμενα γενέσθαι σῶμα καὶ αἷμα Χριστοῦ" ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν Χριστός. σχῆμα “ a δ, "ὦ Α \ A , ΞΡ. 5 ε Ν ’ πληρῶν ἕστηκεν 6 ἱερεὺς, τὰ ῥήματα φθεγγόμενος ἐκεῖνα. ἡ δὲ δύναμις ‘\ «ς - - > - ’ὔ > \ A -“ , καὶ ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι. TOUTO μου ἐστὶ TO σῶμα, φησι. Chrysost. de Proditione Jude, Hom. i. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 384. ] [° Quoniam autem non indigens Deus servitute eorum, sed propter ipsos quasdam observantias in lege preceperit, plenissime prophete indicant. Et rursus quoniam non indiget Deus oblatione eorum, sed propter ipsum qui offerat hominem, manifeste Dominus docuit, quem- admodum ostendimus. Irenei, Lib. rv. Contra Heres. c. xvii. Opera, p. 247. Igitur ecclesie oblatio, quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo mundo, purum sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum, et acceptum est ‘ Martin, Presbyteri. Sacerdotibus. Sacerdote. Sozom. lib. 7. ce. 16. Socrat. lib. 5. c. 19. 272 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [on. which cannot in anywise be true of the natural body of Christ. Martin. And so by these places, where themselves translate sacerdos a “priest,” they may learn also how to translate presbyteros in St Jerome, saying the very same thing, “that at their prayers the body and blood of our Lord is made ;” and in another place, “that with their sacred mouth they make our Lord’s body.” Likewise when they read St Ambrose’ against the Novatians, that God hath granted licence to his priests to release and forgive as well great sins as little, without excep- tion; and in the Ecclesiastical History”, how the Novatian heretics taught that such as were fallen into great sins, should not ask for remission of the priest, but of God only: they may learn how to translate presbyteros in St Jerome’, and in the Ecclesiastical History, where the one saith thus: Episcopus et presbyter, cum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, qui solvendus ; and the other speaketh, de presbytero penitentiario, of an extraordinary priest, that heard confessions and enjoined penance, who afterward was taken away, and the people went to divers ghostly fathers, as before. And especially St Chrysostom* will make them ei: non quod indigeat a nobis sacrificium, sed quoniam is qui offert, glorificatur ipse in eo quod offert, si acceptetur munus ejus. Irenzi, Lib. 1v. Contra Hereses. c. xviii. p. 250. Edit. Paris, 1710.] [Γ᾿ Similiter impossibile videbatur per poenitentiam peccata dimitti ; concessit hoc Christus apostolis suis, quod ab apostolis ad sacerdotum officia transmissum est. Ambrosii de Pcenitent. Lib. . ο. ii. Opera, Vol. τι. p. 419.] [? Sed aiunt se, exceptis gravioribus criminibus, relaxare veniam levioribus. Non hoc quidem auctor vestri erroris Novitianus, qui ne- mini peenitentiam dandam putavit; ea scilicet contemplatione, ut quod ipse non posset solvere, non ligaret, ne ligando sperari a se faceret solutionem. In eo igitur patrem vestrum propria damnatis sententia, qui distinctionem peccatorum facitis, que solvenda a vobis putetis, et que sine remedio esse arbitremini: sed Deus distinctionem non facit, qui misericordiam suam promisit omnibus, et relaxandi licentiam sacer- dotibus suis sine ulla exceptione concessit, Ambrosii de Pcenitent. Lib. 1. c. iii. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 393. ] [ἢ Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur: vel spiritualis illa atqué divina, de qua ipse dixit, Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere potus; et, Nisi manducaveritis carnem meum, et sanguinem meum biberitis, non habebitis vitam @ternam: vel caro et sanguis, que crucifixa est, et qui militis effusus est lancea. Comment. Hieronymi in Epist. ad Ephes. ὁ. i. Opera, Vol. 1v. p. 328. ] Γ΄ Εἶχον ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἱερεῖς: καὶ οἶσθα πῶς περιμάχητον ἦν τὸ τῶν ἱερέων τότε; οὗτοι δὲ οὐ λέπραν σώματος, ἀλλ᾽ ἀκαθαρσίαν ψυχῆς, οὐκ ἀπαλλαγεῖσαν δοκιμάζειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπαλλάττειν παντελῶς ἔλαβον ἐξουσίαν. ὥστε οἱ τούτων ὑπερορῶντες πολλῷ καὶ τῶν περὶ Δαθὰν «tev vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 273 understand what these presbyteri were, and how they are to be called in English, who telleth them in their own word, that sacerdotes, “the Liv. 3. de Sa- priests of the new law, have power, not only to know, but to purge the oye: filth of the soul; therefore whosoever despiseth them, is more worthy to be punished than the rebel Dathan and his complices.” Fulke. Where St Jerome useth the word presbytert, we Furxe, will make no great curtesy to translate “priests ;” knowing 7°: that when he saith, at their prayers “the body and blood of Christ is made,” he meaneth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, as he himself saith in another place: Du- plieiter sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur ; “The blood and flesh of Christ is understood two manner of: ways,” either that spiritual and divine, whereof he himself said, ‘My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed; and except ye shall eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have eternal life;? or else the flesh and blood which was cruci- fied, and which was shed by the spear of the soldier.” This and such other places teach us to understand St Jerome, if he speak any where obscurely or improperly of the mystery of our Lord’s supper. We grant with Ambrose, that God hath given authority to‘all the ministers of the word to remit all sins that be remissible. But this do not you grant; for you reserve some to the bishops, and some to the pope alone to remit: wherein you go clean against Ambrose, who favoureth you not so much by the term sacerdos, which you say he useth, as he condemneth your partial and popish reservation of cases, when he alloweth every priest to for- give as well great sins as little, without exception. St Jerome you cite at large, as it seemeth, to insinuate auricular confession: but the whole saymg you liked not, because it sheweth how they forgive sins. It is written in Matt. Lib. m. cap. 16. upon those words spoken to Peter, “Unto thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” &c. Istwm locum episcopi et presbytert non intelligentes*’, &c. “This place ἐναγέστεροι, καὶ μείζονος ἄξιοι τιμωρίας. Chrysost. de Sacerdotio, Lib. m. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 284.] [° Istum locum episcopi et presbyteri non intelligentes, aliquid sibi de Phariseorum assumunt supercilio: ut vel damnent innocentes, vel solvere se noxios arbitrentur; quum apud Deum non sententia sacer- dotum, sed reorum vita queratur. Legimus in Levitico de leprosis, ἘΠῚ jubentur, ut ostendant se sacerdotibus ; et si lepram habuerint, tunc [ruLKx, | TS Martin, 27 Heb. xii. 274 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ oH. bishops and priests not understanding, take upon them some- what of the pride of the Pharisees: so that they think they may either condemn the innocents, or loose the guilty persons : whereas with God, not the sentence of the priests, but the life of the persons accused is inquired of. We read in Leyi- ticus of the lepers, where they are commanded to shew themselves to the priests; and if they have the leprosy, then by the priest they are made unclean: not that priests make lepers and unclean persons, but that they may have know- ledge of him that is a leper, and him that is no leper; and may discern who is clean or who is unclean. Therefore even as the priest doth there make the leper clean or unclean; so here also the bishop and priest doth bind or loose, not them that be innocent or guilty, but according to his office, when he shall hear the variety of sinners, he knoweth who is to be bound, and who is to be loosed.” But where you say, the people went to diverse ghostly fathers, as before, when that extraordinary penitentiary priest was taken away for the adultery of a deacon at Constantinople’; you speak beside the book, to make the ignorant believe that the people went to auricular shrift. For in Constantinople, where this privy confession was taken away, the people were left to their own consciences. At Rome, the same time, great offenders did open penance, neither were there any such diverse ghostly fathers, as you speak of. That Chrysostom saith, Lib. πὶ, de sacerdotio, we receive it, being so understood, as it be not contrary to that I cited even now out of Jerome. But what maketh all this against translating presbyter “an elder” ? Martin. Now then, to conclude this point, seeing we have such a cloud of witnesses, as the apostle speaketh, even from Christ’s time, that testify not only for the name, but for the very principal functions asacerdote immundi fiant: non quo sacerdotes leprosos faciant et immun- dos; sed quo habeant notitiam leprosi et non leprosi, et possint dis- cernere qui mundus, quive immundus sit. Quomodo ergo ibi leprosum sacerdos mundum vel immundum facit; sic et hic ‘alligat vel solvit episcopus et presbyter, non eos qui insontes sunt vel noxii; sed pro officio suo, quum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, quive solvendus. Comment. Hieronymi in Matth. c. xvi. Opera, Vol. 1v. p. 75.] [* See Socrates, Eccl. Hist. lib. v. cap. xix. Sozomen. vu. xvi.] vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 975 of external priesthood, in offering the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, in remitting sins, and so forth; what a peevish, fmalicious, and impudent corruption is this, for the defacing of the testimonies of the holy scriptures tending thereunto, to seek to scratch advantage of the word presbyter, and to make it signify an “elder,” not a “ priest ;” presbyterium, “eldership,” rather than “ priesthood : as if other new- fangled companions, that would forge an heresy that there were no apos tles, should for that purpose translate it always “legates;” or that there were no angels, and should translate it always “ messengers ;” and that baptism were but a Judaical ceremony, and should translate it “wash- ing ;” which Castaleo did much more tolerably in his translation than any of these should, if he did it only of curiosity and folly. And if to take away all distinction of “clergy” and “laity,” the protestants should always translate clerum “lot” or “lottery,” as they do translate it for Clerus. the same purpose “parish” and “heritage ;’ might not Beza himself «1, 1 pet, v. control them, saying, “that the ancient fathers transferred the name ὅ96 5. Hier. | clerus to the college of ecclesiastical ministers” ? sich 4 ad > . , e. 5. Fulke. A cloud of testimonies indeed you have heaped ἢ ΤΈΡΕΝ, together, not, as the apostle did, to uphold the certainty of 7 faith, but to obscure the light of truth. For our translation of πρεσβύτερος “an elder” is true, clear and plain, without ambiguity: insomuch as the vulgar Latin interpreter, who (as it seemeth) was a Grecian, and therefore useth gladly many Greek terms, doth yet translate this word almost twice as often senior, or major natu, as he doth presbyter, when he speaketh of the ministers of the gospel. How the ancient writers applied unto them improperly the name of “sacrificer,” as unto the sacrament the name of “ oblation” or “ sacrifice,” I have spoken already sufficiently. . Our translation therefore is nothing like your vain supposal of new-fangled companions, which to deny “apostles,” “angels,” and “baptism,” would turn the words into “legates,” “messengers,” and “ washing.” Whereas we have no purpose to deny any office or function of the church appointed by Christ, but to distinguish in name, as his Spirit in the scriptures doth always, the sacrificers of the Old Testament from the ministers of the New Testament. The word clerus, 1 Pet. v. which we translate “parish” or “heritage,” yourselves in your notes of that place confess to comprehend in signification “all Christians,” which you are not able to prove, that in St Peter’s time it was transferred unto the “college of ecclesiastical ministers,” as Beza saith it was afterward: wherefore it is one of your accustomed slan-- ders, to say we translate it so of purpose to take away 18—2 Martin, Chap. vi. Fuxer, 28. 276 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [on. all distinction of clergy and laity; when all men know, that wheresoever our churches are established, we retain the distinction, and so think it necessary always. Martin. But, alas! the effect of this corruption and heresy concern- ing priests, hath it not wrought within these few years such contempt of all priests, that nothing is more odious in our country than that name ; which before was so honourable and venerable, and now is among all good men? If “ministry” or “eldership” were grown to estimation instead thereof, somewhat they had to say: but that is yet more contemp- tible, and especially “elders” and “ eldership;”’ for the queen’s majesty and her councillors will permit none in government of any church in England ; and so they have brought all to nothing else but profane laity. And no marvel of these horrible inconveniences: for as the sacrifice and priesthood go together, and therefore were both honourable together ; so when they had, according to Daniel’s prophecy, abolished the daily sacrifice out of the church, what remained, but the contempt of priests and clergy, and their offices? so far forth, that for the holy sacrifice’ sake priests are called in great despite “‘ massing priests,” of them that little consider, or less care, what notable holy learned fathers of all ages since Christ’s time this their reproach toucheth and concerneth, as by the testi- monies before alleged is manifest, and whereof the reader may see a peculiar chapter in the late Apology of the English Seminaries. Fulke. A warvellous corruption, for us to call them “elders,” whom you in your translation call “ancients,” and the vulgar Latin before us both called seniores! But what is come to pass, I pray you, by this wonderful corruption? The name of “ popish priests” is so contemptible, that nothing is more odious in England. And good cause, why; both for their blasphemy against God, and traitorous practices against the honourable state of the realm, and our most gra- cious queen. But “elders” and “eldership” (you ween) is more contemptible, because “the queen’s majesty and her councillors will permit none in government of any churches in England, and so they have brought all to nothing else, but ‘profane laity.’” This traitorous slander of yours is as true as all the rest: for although the queen’s majesty and the council do not permit such consistories of elders for only discipline and government, as be in some other churches; yet do they not only permit, but also maintain and reve- rence such elders, being signified by the Greek word πρεσβύτεροι, as are necessary for the government of the church in doctrine, sacraments, and discipline, to the salva- vi. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 277 tion of God’s people. The daily sacrifice mentioned in Daniel was the morning and evening sacrifice of the old law, whereunto your blasphemous sacrifice of the mass hath no resemblance. You may not therefore look to recover the credit of massing priests by that sacrifice, which, being once instituted by God, was at length taken away by the only sacrifice of Christ’s death; against which all the apologies in the world shall never be able to defend your massing priesthood. As for the chapter of Allen’s Apology, whereunto you refer us, [it] containeth certain quo- tations, and a few sentences of the ancient writers, which have been answered an hundred times, to justify massing priests; but all in vain: for never shall he prove that any one, from the eldest which he named unto Beda, which is the youngest, was such a massing priest in all points, as those traitors are, which by the queen’s laws and edict are proscribed and prohibited: I mean not, for their manners, but for their mass and all opinions incident thereunto. Martin, 1. Calvin’s In- stitutiors, lib, 2. ο. 16. sect. 10. and in his Cate- chism. Fu.xg, 1. 278 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. CHAPTER VII. Heretical Translation against Purgatory, Limbus Patrum, Christ’s descending into Hell. Martin. Havine now discovered their corrupt translations for de- facing of the church’s name, and abolishing of priest and priesthood ; let us come to another point of very great importance also, and which, by the wonted consequence or sequel of error, includeth in it many erroneous branches. Their principal malice then being bent against purgatory, that is, against a place where christian souls be purged by suffering of temporal pains after this life, for surer maintenance of their erroneous denial hereof they take away and deny all third places, saying that there was never from the beginning of the world any other place for souls after this life, but only two; to wit, heaven for the blessed, and hell for the damned. And so it followeth by their heretical doctrine, that the patriarchs, prophets, and other good holy men of the Old Testament, went not after their deaths to the place called “ Abra- ham’s bosom,” or limbus patrum, but immediately to heaven: and so again by their erroneous doctrine it followeth, that the fathers of the Old Testament were in heaven before our Saviour Christ had suffered death for their redemption ; and also by their erroneous doctrine it fol- loweth, that our Saviour Christ was not the first man that ascended and entered into heaven ; and moreover by their heretical doctrine it follow- eth, that our Saviour Christ descended not into any such third place, to deliver the fathers of the Old Testament out of their prison, and to bring them triumphantly with him into heaven, because by their erro- neous doctrine they were never there ; and so that article of the apostles’ creed concerning our saviour Christ’s descending into hell, must either be put out by the Calvinists, as Beza did in his confession of his faith, printed anno 1564; or it hath some other meaning, to wit, either the lying of his body in the grave, or (as Calvin and the purer Cal- vinists, his scholars, will have it) the suffering of hell pains and distresses upon the cross. Lo the consequence and coherence of these errors and heresies ! Fulke. We may be bold to say with St Augustine, We believe, according to the authority of God, that the kingdom of heaven is the first place appointed for God’s elect, and that hell is the second place, where all the reprobate, and such as be not of the faith of Christ, shall suffer eternal punishment. Tertiwm penitus ignoramus, imo nec esse in scripturis sanctis invenimus: “The third vu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 279 place we are utterly ignorant of, yea, and that it is not we find in the holy scriptures.” But hereof it followeth say you, that the godly of the Old Testament went not after their deaths to Abraham’s bosom, or limbus patrum, but immediately to heaven. Of limbus patrum, which is a border of the “ pope’s hell,” I grant it followeth; but of Abraham’s bosom it followeth none otherwise than if I should say, “Gregorie Martin went into Cheapside,” ergo, “he went not to London.” That the fathers of the Old Testament were in heaven before our Saviour Christ had suffered death for their redemption, it is no inconvenience ; for his death was as effectual to redeem them that lived before he suffered actually, as them that live since; be- cause in God’s sight he is “the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world.” And the fathers that were justified by faith in his blood, received the same crown and reward of righteousness that we do, being justified by the same means. And yet our Saviour Christ was the first man, that in his whole manhood ascended and entered into heaven, into the fulness and perfection of glory, which is prepared for all God’s elect, to be enjoyed after the general resurrection. That our Saviour Christ descended into no prison after his death, we verily believe; and yet we do also constantly believe the article of our creed, that “he descended into hell,” by suffering in soul the pains due to God’s justice for the sins of all whom he redeemed, and by vanquishing the devil, and all the power of hell, in working the redemption of all the children of God. If Beza in his confession had clean left out that article, (which is untrue,) he had been no more to be blamed than the authors of the Nicene creed, and many other creeds, in which it is not expressed, because it is partly contained under the article of his sufferings, partly it is in part of the effect and virtue of his death and redemption. Martin. These now being the heretical doctrines which they mean Martin, 2. to avouch and defend, whatsoever come of it; first, they are at a point not to care a rush for all the ancient holy doctors, that write with full consent to the contrary, as themselves confess, calling it their common Beza in 1 Pet. error; secondly, they translate the holy scriptures in favour thereof vin’s institut. most corruptly and wilfully, as in Beza’s false translation, who is Calvin’s tights “i successor in Geneva, it is notorious; for he, in his New Testament of Hiero. in Ps. verso ex He- ᾿ς breo. ΙΝ [Psal. xvi.] ψυχὴν εἰς ἅδον. * See his An- not. in 2. Act. Ευχκε, 2. IND Marty, 3. 280 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. the year 1556, printed by Robertus Stephanus in folio, with annotations, maketh our Saviour Christ say thus to his Father, Non derelinques cadaver meum in sepulchro; “Thou shalt not leave my carease in the grave,” Acts ii. for that which the Hebrew, and the Greek, and the Latin, and St Jerome, according to the Hebrew, say, Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, as plainly as we say in English, “'Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell.” Thus the prophet David spake it in the Hebrew, Psal. xv.; thus the Septuagint uttered it in Greek; thus the apostle St Peter allegeth it; thus the holy evangelist St Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, chap. ii., recordeth it; and for this, St Augustine calleth him an infidel that denieth it: yet all this would not suffice to make Beza translate it so, because of certain errors, (*as he heretically termeth them,) which he would full gladly avoid hereby, namely, the catholic true doctrine of /imbus patrum and “purgatory.” What need we say more? He translateth animam, “a carcase ;” so calling our Saviour Christ’s body, irreverently and wickedly, he translateth infer- num “grave.” Fulke. That many of the christian fathers held this error, that the godly of the Old Testament were not in heaven before Christ’s death, it is no cause why we should be afraid to confess the truth revealed to us out of the holy scriptures, to the glory of God. And if the wrong or ambiguous translation of one Hebrew word, sheol, de- ceived them that were for the most part ignorant of the Hebrew tongue; what reason were it that we should not in translation reform that error? But as for Beza’s first translation of the Greek word ψυχὴ “dead body,” and dons “ grave,” I have answered at large, cap. 1. sect. 31.; where also it is shewed, how vainly you take hold of the English word “ carcase,” to charge Beza with unreverent calling of our Saviour Christ’s body, when it was dead, because he calleth it in Latin cadaver. Martin. Need we take any great labour to prove this to be a foul corruption, or that it is done purposely, when he confesseth that he thus translateth, because else it would serve the papists? Which is as much to say, as, the word of God, if it be truly and sincerely translated, maketh indeed for them. For the first part, we will not stand upon. it, partly because it is of itself most absurd, and they are ashamed of it ; partly because it shall suffice to confute Beza, that two other as famous heretics as he, Castaleo and Flaccus Llyricus, write against him in this point, and confute him ; partly also, because we speak not here universally of all heretical translations, but of the English corruptions specially ; and therefore we may only note here, how gladly they also would say vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 281 somewhat else for “ soul,” even in the text, if they durst for shame: for in the margin of that English translation they say, “or life,” “or Bib. an. 1579. person ;” hereby advertising the reader, that he may read thus if it please him, “Thou shalt not leave my life in the grave,” or, “Thou shalt not leave my person.” As though either man’s soul or life were . in the grave, or anima might be translated “ person,” which the self- same English bible doth not; no, not in those places where it is evident Acts vii. 14. that it signifieth “the whole person.” For though this word “soul,” by a figure, is sometime taken for “the whole man,” yet even there they do not, nor must not translate it otherwise than “soul ;” because our tongue beareth that figure as well as Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; but here, where it cannot signify “the whole person,” it is wicked to translate it so. Fulke. If you take more labour than you are well Furxs, 3. able to bear, yet shall you prove it no heretical corrup- tion. As Castaleo and Illyricus, the one an heretic, the other a schismatic, have mveighed against Beza, so hath he sufficiently confuted them. But to our English trans- lation, where in the margin they say “life,” or “person,” when in the text they say “soul ;” what doth this offend you? They render the usual English word for the Greek word, but they admonish the reader that the word “ soul” in this place signifieth not the soul separated from the body, but either ‘the life,” or “the whole person ;” because that, although the body only be laid in the grave, yet according to vulgar speech and sense the whole man is said to be buried, and his life seemeth to be inclosed in the grave, according to which popular and humane con- ceit the prophet in that psalm speaketh; as appeareth in the latter part of that verse, which is all one in sense with the former, “neither wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption,” where corruption, which is proper only to the body, is there spoken generally of the whole man. If this exposition please you not, yet you have no cause to find fault with the translation, which in that place is according to the common and ordinary signification of the Greek word wWvy7, ‘“soul;” which, as it is some- Actsii time taken for the whole person, as you note, Act. vu. 14, so is it here, as the latter part of the verse doth most plainly declare’. Π Ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ἅδου, Acts ii. 27. “ Quo- niam non derelinques animam meam in inferno,” Vulg. | Martin, 4. : See Vigors’ Sermons, pp. 110. 115. and deinceps. Fuxg, 4. 282 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. Martin. But as for the word “grave,” that they put boldly in the text, to signify that, howsoever you interpret “soul,” or whatsoever you put for it, it is not meant according to St Augustine and the faith of the whole catholic church, that his soul descended into hell, whiles his body was in the grave; but that his soul also was in the grave, howsoever that is to be understood. So making it a certain and resolute conclusion, that the holy scripture in this place speaketh not of Christ’s being in hell, but in the grave; and that according to his soul, or life, or person, or, as Beza will have it, “his carcase or body ;” and so “his soul in i hell,” as the holy scripture speaketh, shall be “his body in the grave,” as Beza plainly speaketh, and the Bezites covertly insinuate ; and white shall be black, and chalk shall be cheese, and every thing shall be any thing that they will have it. And all this their evident false translation must be to our miserably deceived poor souls the holy scripture and God’s word. Fulke. The Greek word ἄδης well beareth to be trans- lated in some places “a grave,” and here the latter part of the verse speaketh of corruption, which cannot be under- stood to be but “in the grave ;” and so doth St Peter under- stand it, saying, “that David the patriarch died, and was buried, and his sepulchre remaineth with us unto this day:” and St Paul upon the same verse of the psalm saith, “he saw corruption.” Both the apostles therefore interpreting this verse of the resurrection of Christ, we think it indeed a “resolute conclusion,” that the scripture in this place speaketh not of Christ’s being in hell, which we acknowledge in the article of our creed, but of his burial and resurrection. Your trifling of “white and black,” “chalk and cheese,” may seem pleasant rhetoric to gross ears, whom you seek to fill with such vanities: but the wiser sort, that are acquainted with figura- tive speeches, will think it nothing strange, if words be not always taken in their usual and proper signification. That the Hebrew word nephesh, which the prophet in that verse of the psalm useth, is taken divers times in the scripture for “a dead body,” I have before proved more plainly than ever you shall be able to deny: where you may, if you be disposed to sport yourself, use your figurative compari- son of “white and black,” “chalk and cheese ;” but you shall sooner of white make black, of chalk cheese, than you can possibly avoid the clear light of those texts, which was seen even of your own vulgar Latin interpreters. vu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. ᾿ 288 Martin. Where we cannot but marvel, why they are afraid to trans- Manrin, 5. late the words plainly in this place, “of his soul being in Π6]] : whereas in the creed they admit the words, and interpret them, that by suffering hell pains upon the cross, so “he descended into hell,” and no otherwise. Why did they not here also keep the words for the credit of their trans- lation; and afterward, if they would needs, give them that gloss for maintenance of their heresy? This mystery we know not, and would gladly learn it of the puritan Calvinists, whose English translation perhaps this is. For the grosser Calvinists, being not so pure and precise in following Calvin as the puritans be, that have well deserved that name above their fellows, they in their other English bibles have in Bin. an. 1569. this place discharged themselves of false translation, saying plainly, gore “Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell?.” But in what sense they say « gee Lina, so, it is very hard to guess; and perhaps themselves cannot tell yet ‘>it Ρ. 19. what to make of it, as appeareth by M. Whitaker’s answer to Εἰ, Cam- whitaker, pion. And he is now called a bishop among them, and proceeded doctor Oi. Το, dep. in Oxford, that could not obtain his grace to proceed doctor in Cam- of St Asaph bridge, because he preached Christ’s descending into hell; and the puritans in their second admonition to the parliament, p. 43, cry out against the politic Calvinists, for that in the creed of the apostles, (made in English metre, and sung openly in their churches, in these words’, “His spirit did after this descend, into the lower parts, to them that long fin darkness were, the true light of their hearts,”) they favour his descending into hell very much, and so consequently may thereby build limbus patrum and “purgatory.” And the puritans in their second reply against M. Whitgift’s defence, p. 7, reprehend one of their chiefest Calvinistical martyrs for assuming, as they term it, a gross descending of our Saviour Christ into hell. Thus the puritans confess plainly their heretical doctrine, against Christ’s descending into hell. [* “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.” Acts ii. 27. Edits. 1562, 1568. 1584. “Thou wilt not leave my soul in grave,” 1560, 1579. | [? William Hughes received his first education in Oxford, but sub- sequently went to Christ College, Cambridge, where he took his degrees in arts, and holy orders; and being soon after made chaplain to Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk, he attended him to Oxford in 1568, where he was incorporated bachelor of divinity, as he stood at Cambridge. The year after, says Wood, the said duke writing letters to Dr Laur. Hum- phrey in his behalf, he was, by his endeavours made to the Vice-Chan- cellor and convocation, permitted to proceed in his faculty. He was promoted to the episcopal see of St Asaph in 1573. Wood’s Athene Vol. 1. 844. ] [3 The lines in Sternhold and Hopkins, upon the twelve Articles of the Christian Faith, are these: His soul did after this descend Into the lower parts, A dread unto the wicked sprites, But joy to faithful hearts.’’] Furxg, 5. | IND 284 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [on. Fulke. By confessing in our creed that Christ “descended into hell,” you might know, (but that you had rather be igno- rant, that you might marvel still,) that we purposed not in translating this place to deny that article, as you falsely slander us; but because this place might seem unto the ignorant to confirm the error of Christ’s descending into limbus patrum, as it doth not, if it be rightly under- stood, it was thought good of some translators, that (seeing this verse must have the same sense in the Greek sermon of Peter, that it hath in the Hebrew psalm of David, and the Greek word ἄδης, used by the evangelist instead of the Hebrew word sheol, may bear to signify a “grave,” as the Hebrew word doth most usually,) by translating it the “grave,” to shew that this verse in Greek maketh no more for that error of descending into limbus, than the same doth in Hebrew. As for your distinction of gross Calvinists and puritans, it may be packed up among the rest of your quar- rels and slanders. What Master Whitaker hath written in his answer to friar Campion, he is able to explain unto you himself, if you do not understand him. That the bishop of Saint Asaph did once fayour your error in some part, and for that was misliked of the University of Cambridge, it is as true, as that afterward, reforming his judgment at Oxford, where he proceeded, he was also incorporated doctor at Cambridge. The English metre upon the creed, except it be drawn to an allegory, in my judgment cannot be defended; which judg- ment I declared openly at Paul’s cross, fourteen or fifteen years ago. Master Latimer’s error of Christ suffering tor- ments in hell, after his death, is justly reprehended, by whom- soever it be." By all which I know not what may be rightly gathered, but that we flatter not one another in errors; but [᾿ In Latimer’s sermon on the Passion of Christ, we find him thus speaking, and affixing a different sense to the words, “He descended into hell,”from that which they have been generally considered to bear : “He descended into hell. I see no inconvenience to say, that Christ suffered in soul in hell. I singularly commend the exceeding great charity of Christ, who for our sakes would suffer in hell in his soul. It sets out the unspeakable hatred that God hath to sin. I perceive not that it derogates from the dignity of Christ’s death ; as in the garden when he suffered, it derogates nothing from that which he suffered on the cross.””] φυσι «(ὦ eel oe a ee vil. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 285 if any among us be deceived, of what account or credit soever he be, we spare not to reprove his error, preferring God’s truth before all worldly and private respects of friendship, countenance, credit, and whatsoever. Martin. The truth is, howsoever the politic Calvinists speak or Manrrin, 6. write in this point, more plausibly and covertly to the people, and more agreeably to the article of our faith, than either Calvin, or their earnest brethren, the puritans, do, which write and speak as fantastically and madly as they think; yet neither do they believe this article of the apostles’ creed, or interpret it as the catholic church and ancient holy fathers always have done, neither can it stand with their new profession so to do, or with their English translations in other places. It cannot stand with their profession ; for then it would follow that the patriarchs, and other just men of the Old Testament, were in some third place of rest, called “ Abraham’s bosom,” or limbus patrum, till our Saviour Christ descended thither, and delivered them from thence; which they deny in their doctrine, though they sing it in their metres. Neither can it stand with their English translations; because in other places, where the holy scriptures evidently speak of such a place, calling it “hell,” (because that was a common name for every place and state of souls departed in the Old Testament, till our Saviour Christ, by his resur- rection and ascension, had opened heaven,) there, for “hell,” they trans- late “ grave.” Fulke. The truth is, howsoever you slander us with Fuxxe, 6. odious names of schism, and diverse interpretations, we all agree in the faith of that article, and in the true sense and meaning thereof. As also we consent against your errors of limbus patrum, or any descending of Christ into that fan- tastical place. As for “Abraham’s bosom,” we account it no place of descent, or going down, but of ascending; even the same that our Saviour Christ upon the cross called “ para- dise,” Luke xxiii. saying to the penitent thief, “This day thou shalt be with me in paradise;” which of St Paul is called “the third heaven,” 2 Cor. xii., saying that he was “taken up into the third heaven, whether in the body, or out of the body, he knew not, but he was. taken up into paradise, and there heard words that could not be uttered, which it is not law- ful for a man to speak.” And that “Abraham’s bosom” is a place far distant from hell, that only text where it is named, Luke xyi., doth evidently declare. First, the angels carry the soul of Lazarus into Abraham’s bosom: he might as well DINW Martin, 7. Gen. xxxvii. nw ons. Ἶ Infernus. Fux, 7. 286 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. have said hell, if he had meant hell. But angels use not to go down into hell. Secondly, it is a place of comfort; for Lazarus was there comforted. Thirdly, there is a great chaos, which signifieth an infinite distance, between Abraham and the rich glutton; which utterly overthroweth that dream of lim- bus, which, signifying a border or edge, supposeth that place to be hard adjoining to the place of torments. Last of all, if the article of our faith had been of limbus patrum, or of “Abraham’s bosom,” we should have been taught to say, he descended into limbo patrum, or he descended into Abraham’s bosom, which all christian ears abhor to hear. The word sheol, used in the Old Testament for a common receptacle of all the dead, signifieth properly a place to receive their bodies, and not their souls; and therefore most commonly in our translations is called “the grave.” Martin. As when Jacob saith, Descendam ad filium meum lugens in infernum ; “I will go down to my son into hell, mourning:” they translate, “I will go down into the grave unto my son, mourning? :” as though Jacob thought that his son Joseph had been buried in a grave; whereas Jacob thought, and said immediately before, as appeareth in the holy scripture, that a wild beast had devoured him, and so could not be presumed to be in any grave: or as though, if Joseph had been in a grave, Jacob would have gone down to him into the same grave. For so the words must needs import, if they take “grave” properly ; but if they take “grave” unproperly, for the state of dead men after this life, why do they call it “grave,” and not “hell,” as the word is in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin? No doubt they do it to make the igno- rant reader believe, that the patriarch Jacob spake of his body only, to descend into the grave to Joseph’s body ; for as concerning Jacob’s soul, that was, by their opinion, to ascend immediately after his death to heaven, and not to descend into the grave. But if Jacob were to ascend forthwith in soul, how could he say, as they translate, “I will go down into the grave unto my son”? As if according to their opinion he should say, “ My son’s body is devoured of a beast, and his soul is gone up into heaven ; well, I will go down to him into the grave.” Fulke. A proper quiddity you have found out of Jacob, supposing his son to be devoured of wild beasts: yet saith, “I will go down unto him mourning;” which you think cannot be [? “I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning,” Cran- mer’s Bible, edition, 1562. Bishop’s Bible, 1584. Geneva, 1560. Ὅτι καταβήσομαι πρὸς τὸν υἱόν μου πενθῶν cis Gdov. Gen. xxxvii. 90.1 vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 287 into the grave, because he did not think he was buried. But you must remember, it is the common manner of speech, when men say in mourning, they will go to their friends departed, they mean they will die, although their friends perhaps were drowned in the sea, or their bodies burned, or perhaps lie in desolate places unburied. So Jacob’s descend- ing into the grave signifieth no more but death, by which he _ knew he should be joined to his son in soul, though he were not in body. The name of grave is used, because it is usual, that dead men are buried, though it be not universal. And that the grave is taken commonly for death, it appeareth by that phrase so often used im the scriptures, “he slept with his fathers, and was buried;” which being spoken indifferently of good men and evil, cannot be understood of one place of their souls, but of death, which is common to all, and is proper to the body, not unto the soul; for the souls of the departed sleep not. The like is to be said of the phrase used in Genesis of Ismael, as well as of the godly patriarchs, “he was laid up to his people.” And lest you should please yourself too much in your childish conceit of Joseph’s bemg devoured, (whereof yet his father was not certain,) you shall hear how Isidorus Clarius translateth the same place in his bible, censured by the depu- ties of Trent council, Descendam ad filium meum lugens in sepulchrum: “I will go down to my son, mourning into my grave.” This is one of the places which he thought meet to be corrected, according to the Hebrew; and in other places, where he is content to use the old word, znfernus, he signifieth in his notes, that he meaneth thereby sepulerum, “the grave.” And indeed this word infernus signifieth generally any place beneath; as the Greek word dons, which the Greek translators used for sheol, the Hebrew word, signifieth a place that is dark and obscure, where nothing can be seen, such as the grave or pit is, in which the dead are laid, which therefore of Job is called, “The land of darkness, and the shadow of sopx. death.” Martin. Gentle reader, that thou mayest the better conceive these Marti, 8. absurdities, and the more detest their guileful corruptions, understand, as we began to tell thee before, that in the Old Testament, because there was yet no ascending into heaven, “the way of the holies” (as the apostle Heb. ix. 8. in his epistle to the Hebrews speaketh) “being not yet made open,” Heb. x. 20. because our Saviour Christ was to dedicate and begin the entrance in Fu.xr, 8. Heb. iv. 16. Heb. x. 19. Heb. xi. 40. 288 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cn. ‘his own person, and by his passion to open heayen ; therefore, we say, in the Old Testament the common phrase of the holy scripture is, even of the best men, as well as of others, “that dying they went down” ad inferos, or ad infernum: to signify, that such was the state of the Old Testament before our Saviour Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that every man went down, and not up; descended, and not ascended : by descending, I mean not to the grave, which received their bodies only, but ad inferos, that is, “to hell,” a common receptacle or place for their souls also departed, as well of those souls that were to be in rest, as those that were to be in pains and torments. All the souls both good and bad, that then died, went downward; and therefore the place of both sorts was called in all the tongues by a word answer- able to this word- “hell,” to signify a lower place beneath, not only of torments, but also of rest. Fulke. Where you reason that there was no ascending into heaven, “because the way of the holies was not yet made open, when the first tabernacle was standing,” you abuse the reader and the scripture. For the apostle’s meaning is, in that verse, to shew that to the great benefit of Christians that first tabernacle is fallen, because that now we have more familiar access unto God by Jesus Christ. For whereas the high priest only but once in the year, and then not with- out blood, entered into the second most holy. tabernacle, be- cause the way of the holies, that is, unto the holiest, or sancta sanctorum, was not then opened; now our Saviour Christ having once entered into the holiest place by his own blood, and found eternal redemption, we have by him, without any ceremonies, sacrifices, or mediation of any mortal priest, free access unto the throne of grace, even into the holy place, by the new and living way, which he hath prepared for us. But all this is to be understood of the clear revelation of the mercy of God in Christ, which was obscurely set forth unto the fathers of the Old Testament; and not of the effect and fruit of his passion, which was the same for their salvation, that it is for ours. Neither have the souls of the faithful, since the coming of Christ, any other place of rest, than the fathers had before his incarnation; God providing most wisely, that they without all the rest of their brethren, that shall be unto the world’s end, shall not be made perfect. And whereas you say, that all the souls of good and bad then went down- ward, you are controlled by the wise man, Eccles. iii., where he speaketh in the person of the carnal man, doubting of vu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THER BIBLE. 289 that which is not comprehended by reason, but believed by faith : “ Who knoweth whether the spirit of man ascend up- ward ?”—and more plainly in the last chapter of that book, where he exhorteth to repentance, shewing in the end, “that. though dust return to the earth from whence it was, yet the spirit returneth to God that gave it.” It returneth to God: therefore it goeth not down. For who would abide to hear this speech, The souls of the faithful went downward to God : yea, went into hell to God? nay, returned downward into hell to God that gave them? That common receptacle there- fore of the dead was the receptacle of their bodies, which all, first or last, returned to the earth from whence they were taken. And where you say, that place was called in all tongues by such a word as signifieth a lower place beneath, it is true of the common receptacle of their bodies, but not of their souls. For the soul of Lazarus was not carried by the angels into hell, but into Abraham’s bosom; which was not only a place of rest, but also of joy and comfort, contrary to torments; between which and hell was an infinite distance. Who would call that a common receptacle, when there was an infinite distance unpassable from one to the other ? Martin. So we say in our creed, that our Saviour Christ himself Marriy, 9. descended into “hell,” according to his soul: so St Hierome, speaking gpitaph. Ne- of the state of the old testament, saith: Si Abraham, Isaac, Jacob ?%* * in inferno, quis in celorum regno? that is, ‘If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were in hell, who was in the kingdom of heaven?” And again: Ante Christum Abraham apud inferos: post Christum latro in Paradiso: that is, “ Before the coming of Christ, Abraham was in hell; after his coming, the thief was in paradise.” And lest a man might object, that Luke xvi. Lazarus, being in Abraham’s bosom, saw the rich glutton afar off in hell, and therefore both Abraham and Lazarus seem to have been in heaven: the said holy doctor resolveth it, that Abraham and Lazarus SeeS. Au. ὦ . Xxxv, 13,1 [? Aliam etiam opinionem dicam. Fortassis enim apud ipsos inferos est aliqua pars inferior, quo truduntur impii qui plurimum peceaverunt. Etenim apud inferos utrum in locis quibusdam non fuisset Abraham, non satis possumus definire. Nondum enim Dominus venerat ad infer- num, ut erueret inde omnium sanctorum precedentium animas; et tamen Abraham in requie ibi erat. Et quidem dives cum torqueretur apud inferos, cum videret Abraham, levavit oculos. Non eum posset levatis oculis videre, nisi ille esset superius, ille inferius. Et quid ei respondit Abraham, cum diceret, Pater Abraham, mitte Lazarum, &c. ? (Luke xvi. 22—26.) Ergo inter ista duo fortasse inferna, quorum in 19 [ruLKE | Ευχκὺ, 9. 290 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. also were in hell, but in a place of great rest and refreshing, and therefore very far off from the miserable wretched glutton that lay in torments. Fulke. We say in our creed, that Christ “descended into hell ;” which being an article of our faith, must have relation to such benefit as we receive by his descending, namely, that thereby we are delivered from the pains of hell. But that he should descend into limbus patrum, to fetch out the fathers, (which before you said were in prison, now you say in rest,) we neither say it in our creed, neither doth it pertain unto us. But Jerome is cited as a favourer of your opinion, who, I confess, in some part held as you do, but not altogether. For thus he writeth in Epitaph. Nepot’. After he hath given thanks to Christ for our redemption by his death: Quid autem miserius homine, qui eterne mortis terrore prostratus vivendi sensum ad hoe tantum acceperat ut pertret, ἕο. ‘What was more miserable than man before, which being cast down with terror of eternal death, received sense of living for this end only, that he might perish. For ‘death reigned from Adam unto Moses, yea, upon those which have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam.’ If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in hell, who in the kingdom of heaven? If thy friends were under the pun- uno quieverunt anime justorum, in altero torquentur anime impiorum, attendens quidam orans hic, jam in corpore Christi positus, et orans in voce Christi, eruisse Deum animam suam ab inferno inferiore dixit, quia liberavit se a talibus peccatis per que posset deduci ad tormenta inferni inferioris. Augustin. Enarrat. in Psalmum Ixxxvy. c. 18. Opera, Vol. 1v. pp. 1308, 1304. ] [* Quis autem miserior homine ; qui eterne mortis terrore prostratus, vivendi sensum ad hoc tantum acceperat, ut periret? Regnavit enim mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen, etiam super eos qui non peceaverunt in similitudinem prevaricationis Ade. Si Abraham, Isaac et Jacob in inferno, quis in ceelorum regno? Si amici tui sub pcena offendentis Adam, et qui non peccaverant, alienis peccatis tenebantur obnoxii; quid de his credendum est, qui dixerunt in cordibus suis, non est Deus ? qui corrupti et abominabiles facti sunt in voluntatibus suis? qui de- clinaverunt, simul inutiles facti sunt; non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum? Quod si Lazarus videtur in sinu Abrahe, locoque refrigerii; quid simile infernus et regna celorum? Ante Christum Abraham apud inferos: post Christum latro in paradiso. Et idcirco in resurrectione ejus multa dormientium corpora surrexerunt, et visa sunt in ccelesti Jerusalem. Hieron. Epit. Nepot. Opera, Vol. rv. p. 267. | ΙΝ — vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 291 ishment of Adam’, and they which sinned not were held guilty by other men’s sins; what is to be thought of them which said in their heart, ‘there is no God,’ &c.? And if Lazarus be seen in the bosom of Abraham and in a place of rest, what like hath hell and the kingdom of heaven? Before Christ, Abraham in hell; after Christ, the thief in paradise.” In these words Jerome after his rhetorical manner, amplify- ing the benefit of our redemption by Christ, doth rather touch this error, than plainly express it. For first, he maketh all men miserable before Christ, and cast down with terror of eternal death; which is true, if ye consider them with- out Christ, in which state are all men since Christ: but of all men that lived before the time of Christ’s death, and yet embraced their redemption by him, it is not true. As also, that there are some which have not sinned. But that all this is to be understood, specially of the death of their bodies, and allegorically of their souls, he addeth immediately, Et idcirco in resurrectione ejus multa dormientium corpora, &e. “And therefore at his resurrection many bodies of them that slept arose, and were seen in the heavenly Jerusalem.” See you not, how he turneth all into an allegory, to set forth the virtue of Christ’s redemption? who brought all his elect by his death from hell, and the power of darkness, into the king- dom of heaven. Furthermore, you bid us see Augustine in Ps. Ixxxv. 18, Where in the beginning he professeth his ignorance in discussing the question of the nethermost hell. First, supposing this world in which we live to be tnfernum superius, and the place whither the dead go infernum in- Serius, from which,God hath delivered us, sending thither his Son, who to this infernum or “lower” place came by his birth, Nascendo. to that by his death ; he addeth another opinion, Fortassis enim apud tpsos rife est aliqua pars inferior, &c. “ Per- adventure even in hell itself there is some part lower, in which the ungodly which have much sinned are delivered. For whether Abraham had been now in certain places in hell, we cannot sufficiently define.” And afterward when he hath spoken of the diverse places of Lazarus and the rich glutton, he concludeth as uncertainly as he began: Ergo inter ista fortasse duo inferna, quorum in uno, &c. “Therefore per- adventure between these two hells, in one of which the souls of [? Old edition, under the punishment. If Adam and—] 19—2 Moriendo. 202 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu: the righteous rested, [in the other] the souls of the wicked are tormented, one attending prayeth in the person of Christ,” &c. Here you may see, what an article of belief this was with St Augustine, when he hath nothing to define, but only bringeth his conjectural opinions and peradventures: also how he taketh infernum for any lower place, msomuch that he calleth this world infernwm. Wherefore much more may infernum signify the “grave,” and be so sometimes translated. Martin, Martin. His words be these in effect: “If a man will say unto 10. me, that Lazarus was seen in Abraham’s bosom, and a place of refresh- ing” even before Christ’s coming ; true it is, but what is that in com- parison? Quid simile infernus et regna celorum? “ What hath helt and heaven like?” As if he should say, “ Abraham indeed, and La- zarus, and consequently many other, were in place of rest, but yet in hell, till Christ came, and in such rest as hath no comparison with the Epist. 99.ad joys of heaven.” And St Augustine’, disputing this matter sometime, Gen. adlit. and doubting whether Abraham’s bosom be called “hell” in the scrip- ture, and whether the name of hell be taken at any time in the good part, (for of Christ’s descending into hell, and of a third place where the patriarchs remained until Christ’s coming, not heaven, but called [Γ᾿ Quanquam et illud me nondum invenisse confiteor, inferos appella- tos, ubi justorum anime requiescunt. Et Christi quidem animam venisse usque ad ea loca in quibus peccatores cruciantur, ut eos solveret a tor- mentis, quos esse solvendos occulta nobis sua justitia judicabat, non immerito creditur. Quomodo enim aliter accipiendum sit quod dictum est, Quem Deus suscitavit ex mortuis, solutis doloribus inferorum, quia non poterat teneri ab eis, non video, nisi ut quorumdam dolores apud inferos eum solvisse accipiamus, ea potestate qua Dominus est, cui omne genu flectitur, ceelestium, terrestrium, et infernorum; per quam potes- tatem etiam illis doloribus, quos solvit, non potuit attineri. Neque. enim Abraham, vel ille pauper in sinu ejus, hoc est in secreto quietis ejus, in doloribus erat, inter quorum requiem et illa inferni tormenta legimus magnum chaos firmatum ; sed nec apud inferos esse dicti sunt. Contigit enim, inquit, mori inopem illum, et anferri ab angelis in sinum Abrahe : mortuus est autem et dives, et sepultus est ; et cum apud inferos in tormentis esset, et cetera. Videmus itaque inferorum mentionem non esse factam in requie pauperis, sed in suppliciis divitis. Proinde, ut dixi, nondum inveni, et adhuc quero, nec mihi occurrit inferos alicubi in bono posuisse scripturam duntaxat canonicam: non autem in bono accipiendum sinum Abrahe, et illam requiem quo ab angelis pius pauper ablatus est, nescio utrum quisquam possit audire ; et ideo quo- modo eam apud inferos credamus esse, non video. Augustini de Genesi ad litteram, Lib. xm. c. 63, 64. Opera, Vol. vin. pp. 509, 510. Vol. mr. p. 702. Edit. Froben. 1556.] a vu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 993 Abraham’s bosom, he doubted not, but was most assured ;) the same holy doctor in another place, as being better resolved, doubted not upon these words of the psalm, “Thou hast delivered my soul from the Jp ps. ixxxy. lower hell”, to make this one good sense of this place, that the lower |* hell is it wherein the damned are tormented, the higher hell is that wherein the souls of the just rested; calling both places by the name of “ hell?.” Fulke. I have set down his very words indeed, which Furxg, being well weighed, make nothing so clearly for your fancied !°- limbus, as you would have men ween. You say Augustine doubteth, whether Abraham’s bosom in the scripture be called “hell,” Ep. 99, et de Gen. ad lit. Lib. xu. cap. 33.- But there he doth utterly deny it, and in Ps. txxxv. as by his words cited before appeareth, he doubteth. So that where he flatly denieth, with you he doubteth; and where he doubteth, with you he is better resolved. Wherefore this matter, of Abraham and the faithful being in hell, is no article of faith®; except you will say that St Augustine was not re- solved in the articles of our faith, who touching the third place, whatsoever at divers times he speaketh doubtingly in his Hypognosticon, he affirmeth resolutely, that he findeth in the scriptures, that there is none. Martin. And surely, of his marvellous humility and wisdom, he Marri, would have been much more resolute herein, if he had heard the opinion !!- of St Jerome, whom he often consulted in such questions, and of other fathers, who in this point speak most plainly, that Abraham’s bosom, or the place where the patriarchs rested, was some part of hell. Ter- tullian, Lib. 1v. advers. Marcion. saith, “I know that the bosom of Loco citato. Abraham was no heavenly place, but only the higher hell, or the higher part of hell.” Of which speech of the fathers rose afterward that other name, limbus patrum, that is the very brim or uppermost and outmost part of hell, where the fathers of the old testament rested. Thus we see that the patriarchs themselves were as then in hell, though they were there in a place of rest ; insomuch that St Jerome saith again‘, [? Quid his ergo prestiterit qui dolores solvit inferni, in quibus illi non fuerunt, nondum intelligo; presertim quia ne ipsos quidem inferos uspiam scripturarum in bono appellatos potui reperire. Quod si nusquam in divinis auctoritatibus legitur, non utique sinus 1116 Abrahe, id est secrete cujusdam quietis habitatio, aliqua pars inferorum esse credenda. Augustini Epistola clxiv. c. 7. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 860.] [? This subject is fully discussed by Bishop Pearson on the 5th Article of the Apostles’ Creed. | [* Adde quod ante resurrectionem Christi notus tantum in Judes Hom. quod Christus sit Deus, tom. 5. ἅδης. Infernus. FuLKE, ΕἸ, 294 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. Ante resurrectionem Christi notus in Judea Deus, et ipsi qui noverant eum, tamen ad inferos trahebantur : that is, “‘ Before the resurrection of Christ God was known in Jury, and they themselves that knew him, yet were drawn unto hell.” St Chrysostom in that place of Esay, “1 will break the brasen gates, and bruise the iron bars in pieces, and will open the treasures darkened, &c. “So he calleth hell,” saith he; “for although it were hell, yet it held the holy souls, and pre- cious vessels, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob*.” Mark that he saith, “though it were hell,” yet there were the just men at that time, till our Saviour Christ came to deliver them from thence. Fulke. As wise and humble as he was, he was not ready to yield to every opinion of Jerome, as his epistles written to Jerome do declare. Neither was Jerome so re- solute in this matter, whereof he speaketh under a cloud and in an allegory; as it is plam, where he saith the bodies that were raised at the resurrection of Christ were seen in the heavenly Jerusalem, whereas it is certain they were seen only in the earthly Jerusalem actually. But he meaneth, the effect of Christ’s redemption was acknowledged either in the catholic church, which is Jerusalem above in one sense; or else that they shall be seen in the new Jerusalem erat Deus; in Israel magnum nomen ejus. Et ipsi qui noverant eum, tamen ad inferos trahebantur. Hieronymi Epitaphium Nepot. Opera, Vol. rv. p. 267. Utrum autem sinus ille Abrahe, ubi dives impius, cum in tor- mentis esset inferni, requiesceritem pauperem vidit, vel paradisi cen- sendus vocabulo, vel ad inferos pertinere existimandus sit, non facile dixerim. De illo quippe divite legimus dictum esse, Mortuus est autem et dives, et sepultus est in inferno; et, cum apud inferos in tormentis esset. In pauperis autem morte vel requie non sunt inferi nominati: sed, Contigit, inquit, mori inopem illum, et auferri ab angelis in sinum Abrahe. Deinde ardenti diviti dicit Abraham, Inter nos et vos chaos magnum fir- matum est; tanquam inter inferos sedesque beatorum. Non enim facile alicubi scripturarum inferorum nomen positum invenitur in bono, Augustini Epist. chxxxvii. c. 8. Opera, Vol. u. pp. 1019, 1020.] [2 Νῦν δὲ ἑτέρως 6 “Hoaias, πύλας χαλκᾶς συνθλάσω, καὶ μοχλοὺς σιδηροῦς συντρίψω, καὶ ἀνοίξω σοι θησαυροὺς σκοτεινοὺς, ἀποκρύφους, ἀοράτους ἀναδείξω σοι, τὸν ἅδην οὕτω καλῶν: Ei γὰρ καὶ ἅδης ἦν, αλλὰ ψυχὰς ἐκράτει ἁγίας καὶ σκεύη τίμια, τὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ, τὸν ᾿Ισαὰκ, τὸν ᾿Ιακὼβ, διὸ καὶ θησαυροὺς ἐκάλεσε᾽ σκοτεινοὺς δὲ, ἐπείπερ οὐδέπω ὁ τῆς δικαιο- σύνης ἥλιος ἦν καταλάμψας αὐτόθι, οὐδὲ τοὺς περὶ ἀναστάσεως κηρύξας λόγους. Chrysost. contra Judeos et Gentiles quod Christus sit Deus. Opera, Vol. 1. p. 564; Vol. νι. p. 626, edit. Savill.] vu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 295 and blessed felicity of the godly at the world’s end; whereof a testimony was given in that sight of their appearing and particular resurrection known at Jerusalem on earth. But you cite another place out of Tertullian, Lib. 1v. ad- versus Marcionem, and in the margin you say, loco citato; but I wot not where. And these be Tertullian’s words, if you be an honest man: “I know that the bosom of Abraham was no heavenly place, but only the higher hell, or the higher part of hell.” I see you will be as bold with the ancient doctors’ works, as you are with my poor writings, whom you make to say even what you list. In the last section before you said, St Augustine, Hpistol. 99, et de Gen. ad lit. Lib. xu. cap. 33. doubted whether Abraham’s bosom were called “hell.” Quod st nusquam, ἕο. ‘If it be never read in the holy scriptures (scilicet that hell is taken in the good part) verily that bosom of Abraham, that is the habitation of a certain secret rest, is not to be believed to be any part of hell.” And again, by reason of the in- finite chaos, Satis ut opinor appareat, “It may appear, as I think, sufficiently, that the bosom of that so great feli- city is not a certain part, and as it were a member of hell.” In the other place he speaketh to the same effect, and upon the same ground, that he never findeth in the scriptures “hell” taken in good part; and cap. 34, where he proveth that paradise is heaven, he saith: Quanto magis ergo, “How much more then may that bosom of Abraham after this life be called paradise ?” This saith Augustine, and much more to this purpose; wherein I thought to have forborne you, but that you come upon us still with new forgeries. Tertullian in the book by you quoted, p. 274 of Frob. printed 1550, thus writeth: Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit, &c.* “ But Marcion driveth it another way, so forsooth, that [? Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit: scilicet utramque mercedem Creatoris, sive tormenti sive refrigerii, apud inferos determinat eis positam qui legi et prophetis obedierint ; Christi vero et Dei sui coelestem definit sinum et portum. Respondebimus, et hac ipsa scriptura revincente oculos ejus, que ab inferis discernit Abrahe sinum pauperis. Aliud enim inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque sinus. Nam et magnum ait inter- cedere regiones istas profundum, et transitum utrinque prohibere. Sed nec allevasset dives oculos, et quidem de longinquo, nisi in superiora, et de altitudinis longinquo, per immensam illam distantiam sublimitatis © 296 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISIT [oH. he determineth both the rewards of the Creator, either of torment or of refreshing, to be laid up for them in hell, which have obeyed the law and the prophets. But of Christ, and his God, he defineth an heavenly .bosom and heayen. We will answer, and even by this self-same seripture, con- vincing his blindness, which against hell discerneth this Abra- ham’s bosom to the poor man. For one thing is hell, (as I think,) and Abraham’s bosom another thing. For a great depth, he saith, is between those regions, and that doth let the passage to and fro. But neither should the rich man have lifted up his eyes, and that truly from afar off, but into higher places, and that of an exceeding height, by that m- finite distance of height and depth. Whereof it appeareth to every wise man, that hath ever heard of the Elysian fields, that there is some local determination, which is called Abra- ham’s bosom, to receive the souls of his sons, even of the gentiles; he being the father of many nations, to be accounted of Abraham’s family, and of the same faith, by which Abra- ham believed God under no yoke of the law, nor in the sign of circumcision. That region therefore I call the bosom of Abraham, and if not heavenly, yet higher than hell, which shall give rest in the mean season to the souls of the just, until the consummation of things do finish the resurrection of all with the fulness of reward.” This is as much as I can find in Tertullian touching Abraham’s bosom, which is clean contrary to that you affirm him to speak. For by this say- ing it is manifest, that your opinion is Marcion’s heresy. Secondly, that Abraham’s bosom is not hell, but higher by an infinite distance, although not in full perfection of heavenly glory. Thirdly, that it is not limbus patrum, but the re- ceptacle of all the just souls to the end of the world. Ter- et profunditatis. Unde apparet sapienti cuique, qui aliquando elysios audierit, esse aliquam localem determinationem, que sinus dicta sit Abrahe, ad recipiendas animas filiorum ejus, etiam ex nationibus; patris scilicet multarum nationum in Abrahe censum deputandarum et ex eadem fide, qua et Abraham Deo credidit, nullo sub jugo legis, nec in signo circumcisionis, Eam itaque regionem, sinum dico Abrahe, etsi non celestem, sublimiorem tamen inferis, interim refrigerium prebituram animabus justorum, donec consummatio rerum resurrectionem omnium plenitudine mercedis expungat. Tertull. Adv. Marcion, Lib. 1v. Edit. Rigult. p. 559.] . i i a “ἢ —— vil. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 297 tullian’s authority therefore doth you small pleasure, and less honesty, unless you did cite him more truly. But I am unwise to look for plain dealing and sincerity at your hands, Well, your limbus patrum, the very brim, or uppermost, or outmost part of hell, wherein all the patriarchs should rest, we have now found from whence it came, even from your old acquaintance, the mouse of Pontus, Marcion the abomi- nable heretic. The other saying of Jerome, but that the opinion of the fathers in hell had by that time taken some strength, might be understood of the mortality whereunto they were subject, and never should have been raised, but by the resurrection of Christ; as it seemeth by that which he opposeth of all nations, since the passion and resurrection of Christ, acknowledged to speak like philosophers of the im- mortality of the soul, and rejoicing in the resurrection of the dead, as the fathers mourned at their death. Chrysostom’s place is more apparent for your error, although he also may be understood to speak allegorically of the effect of Christ’s death and resurrection, by which all the patriarchs were delivered from death, and hell was spoiled; not that they were in prison there, but that the justice of God had condemned them thither, if Christ’s death had not redeemed them: but I will not stand to clear Chrysostom of this error, which it is sufficient for me to have found that Marcion the old heretic was the first author thereof, by Tertullian’s con- fession; howsoever it came to pass, that many good men after- ward, deceived by the words ἄδης and infernus, did hold it. Martin. Therefore did Jacob say, “I will go down to my son unto Martin, hell.” And again he saith: “If any misfortune happen to (Benjamin) Sa xlviii. by, the way, you shall bring my grey head with sorrow unto hell,” which is repeated again twice in the chap. xliv. ; by which phrase the holy scripture will signify, not only death, but also the descending at that time of all sorts of souls into hell, both good and bad. And there- 1 Kings ii1. Γ᾿ Kat od μὴ ἀθωώσῃς αὐτὸν, ὅτι ἀνὴρ σοφὸς εἶ σὺ, καὶ γνώσῃ ἃ ποιήσεις αὐτῷ, καὶ κατάξεις τὴν πολιὰν αὐτοῦ ἐν αἵματι εἰς ἄδου. 1 Kings ii. 9. “Tu noli pati eum esse innoxium. Vir autem sapiens es, ut scias que facies ei, deducesque canos ejus cum sanguine ab inferos,” Vulg. “Deal with him therefore according to thy wisdom, and bring not his hoar head down to the grave in peace,” Edit. 1562. “ But thou shalt not count him as unguilty: for thou art a man of wisdom, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him, his hoar head thou shalt bring In cap. 13. Osee. Aug. in Psal. Ixxxv. 131, FuLKg, 12. 298 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISA | on. fore it is spoken of all sorts in the holy scripture, both of good and of bad. For all went then into hell; but some into a place there of rest, others into other places there of torments. And therefore St Jerome saith, speaking of hell, according to the old testament: “ Hell is a place wherein souls are included ; either in rest, or in pains, according to the quality of their deserts*.” Fulke. Jacob said he would be joined to his son by death, as in the other text you bring it is more manifest than the sun at noon days. For Jacob, speaking of his grey head, must needs mean of his body, and therefore of the grave, and not of hell. So in the 3 Reg. 2, which you quote, David chargeth Salomon, that he suffereth not the grey head of Joab to go down to the grave in peace, and that he shall cause the hoar head of Shemei to go down to the grave with blood; which by no means can be understood of his soul going to hell, which goeth not with blood; although it is plain enough by the word “hoar head,” that he meaneth his body in age, or his old body. And this text Pagnine, in his dic- to the grave with blood,” Edit. 1584. “Therefore thou shalt cause his hoar head to go down to the grave with blood,” Geneva, 1560. “ But his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood,” Autho- rised version. Καὶ κατέβησαν αὐτοὶ, καὶ ὅσα ἐστὶ αὐτῶν ζῶντα εἰς ἅδου. Numb. xvi. 33. “‘Descenderuntque vivi in infernum,” Vulg. “ They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit,” Authorised version. | [* Et descenderunt ipsi, et omnia quecumque sunt eis, viventes ad inferos. Notandum secundum locum terrenum dictos esse inferos, hoc est in inferioribus terre partibus. Varie quippe in scripturis et sub intellectu multiplici, sicut rerum de quibus agitur sensus exigit, nomen ponitur inferorum, et maxime in mortuis hoe accipi solet. Sed quoniam istos viventes dictum est ad inferos descendisse, et ipsa narratione quid factum fuerit satis apparet; manifestum est, ut dixi, inferiores partes terre inferorum vocabulo nuncupatas, in comparatione hujus superioris terre in cujus facie vivitur; sicut in comparatione cceli superioris, ubi sanctorum demoratio est angelorum, peccantes angelos in hujus aéris detrusos caliginem scriptura dicit tanquam carceribus inferi puniendos reservari. Augustini Questiones in Numeros, c. xxix. Opera, Vol. m1. pp. 838, 839. Edit. Bened. Paris. 1836. ] [? Inter mortem autem et inferos hoc interest: mors est, qua anima separatur a corpore; infernus, locus in quo anime recluduntur, sive in refrigerio, sive in peenis, pro qualitate meritorum. Comment. Hiero- nymi in Osee. 6. xiii. Opera, Vol. m. p. 1829.] vit. | ) TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 29S tionary, thought necessary to be understood of the grave, although he make the word sheol indifferent to signify “hell,” and the “grave.” That all went to hell, some to rest, and some to torments, it was first devised by Marcion the heretic. But St Jerome is once again cited in Osea, cap. xiii. where he saith, “that hell is a place wherein souls are included,” &c.: by which you see that he speaketh not of limbus, wherein souls were included before Christ, but of such a place wherein they are now included; taking the word znfernus generally for any place that receiveth the souls of the departed, as he saith most plainly himself in the same place: Quicquid igitur separat fratres, infernus est appellandus. ‘ Whatso- ever doth separate brethren, is to be called hell.” Augustine is quoted to multiply a le, and for nothing else, as I have shewed before. Martin. And in this sense it is also often said in the holy scrip- Marrin, tures, that such and such were gathered, or laid to their fathers, though | they were buried in divers places, and died not in the same state of The scrip- salvation, or damnation. In that sense, Samuel being raised up to (apeak penis ig ta to Saul, said, “To-morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me:” that pose oor τὰ is, dead, and in hell, though not in the same place or state there: in this sense all such places of the holy scripture as have the word “inferi,” or “infernus,” correspondent both to the Greek and Hebrew, ought to be, and may be most conveniently translated by the word “hell.” As when it is said, “Thou hast delivered my soul from the lower hell,” Ab inferno Psal. lxxxviii. 13, that is, as St Augustine expoundeth it, “Thou hast oe preserved me from mortal sins, that would have brought me into the lower hell, which is for the damned.” Which place of holy scripture, and the like, when they translate “ grave,” see how miserably it soundeth : “Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave.” Which they Bib. 1579. would never say for very shame, but that they are afraid to say in any place} be the holy scriptures never so plain, that any soul was delivered or returned from hell, lest thereof it might follow by and by, that the patriarchs, and our Saviour Christ, were in such a hell. Fulke. That which is spoken indifferently of the elect Furxs, and reprobate, must needs be understood of that which is ἦν common to both, that is, corporal death. How can it be verified of their souls, that they were laid to the fathers, when between the godly and the wicked there is an infinite distance? but the earth, the grave, or pit, is a common receptacle of all dead bodies. That Samuel, which being raised up spake to Saul, might truly say of his soul, though 300 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [on. not of all his sons, that he should be with him in hell, (for it was the spirit of Satan, and not of Samuel, although coun- terfeiting Samuel,) he might speak of the death of Saul and his sons. As for that verse of the eighty-fifth psalm‘, where- upon you do falsely so often allege St Augustine’s resolution, what absurdity hath it, to translate it, “from the lowest grave,” or “from the bottom of the grave” ? whereby David meaneth extreme danger of death that he was in by the malice of his persecuting enemies, Saul and his accomplices. But we “are afraid to say in any place, that any ‘soul was delivered and returned from hell.’” We say that the souls of all the faith- ful are delivered from hell; but of any which after death is condemned to hell, we acknowledge no return. And these words are spoken by David while he lived, and praised God for his deliverance; which might be not only from the “graye,” but also from “hell,” saving that he here speaketh of his pre- servation from death. | Marmiw, Martin. And that this is their fear, it is evident, because that in 14. all other places, where it is plain that the holy scriptures speak of the hell of the damned, from whence there is no return, they trans- late there the very same word “hell,” and not “grave.” As for example, Prov. xv. 24. “ The way of life is on high to the prudent, to avoid from hell beneath*.” Lo, here that is translated “hell beneath,’ which before was translated “the lowest grave.” And again, “ Hell and destruction are before the Lord: how much more the hearts of the sons of men?” But when in the holy scriptures there is mention of delivery of a soul from hell, Bib. 1879. then thus they translate : “God shall deliver my soul from the power inferi. of the grave, for he will receive me.” Can you tell what they would say ? doth God deliver them from the grave, or from temporal death, [7 ὅτι τὸ ἔλεός σου μέγα ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ, καὶ ἐῤῥύσω τὴν ψυχήν pov ἐξ ddov κατωτάτου. Psal. Ιχχχν. 13, “Quia misericordia tua magna est super me ; et eruisti animam meam ex inferno inferiori,’” Vulg. “ For great is thy mercy toward me; and thou hast delivered my soul from the nethermost hell,” Bishops’ bible, 1584; Cranmer, 1562. “For great is thy mercy toward me; for thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave,” Geneva version, 1560, 1579. | [? ‘Odi faqs διανοήματα συνετοῦ, iva ἐκκλίνας ἐκ τοῦ ἅδου σώθῃ. Proy. xv. 24. “Semita vite super eruditum, ut declinet de inferno no- vissimo,” Vulg. “The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath,” Version 1611. “The way of life is on high to the prudent, to avoid from hell beneath,” Geneva, 1560. “The way of life leadeth unto heaven, that a man should beware of hell Vil. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 301 whom he receiveth to his mercy? or hath the grave any power over the soul? Again, when they say, “ What man liveth and shall not ἕπτ Ιχχχῖχ see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?” Fulke. I have shewed before divers times, that although Funxr, the Hebrew word sheol do properly signify a receptacle of !4: the bodies after death, yet when mention is of the wicked, by consequence it may signify “hell ;” as the day signifieth light, the night darkness, fire heat, peace signifieth prosperity, and an hundred such like speeches. But where you say that Proverbs xy. 24, that is translated “hell beneath,” which before was translated the “lowest grave,” Psalm Ixxxy. 13, you say untruly ; ; for although in both places there is the word sheol, yet in that psalm there is tachtyah, in the Proverbs mattah, for which if it were translated “the grave,” that declineth, or is downward, it were no inconvenience. In the other texts you trifle upon the word “soul; whereas the Hebrew word sig- nifieth not the reasonable soul, which is separable from the body, but the life, or the whole person of man, which may rightly be said to be delivered from the hand or power of the grave, as the verse 48° doth plainly declare, when in the latter part is repeated the sense of the former, as it is in many places of the Psalms. ΓΤ) m0 Martin. If they take “‘ grave” properly, where man’s body is buried, Martin, it is not true either that every soul, yea, or every body is buried in beneath,” Cranmer, 1562. ‘“‘ The way of life is on high to the wise, that a man should beware of hell beneath,” Bishops’ bible, 1584. "EK χειρὸς ἅδον ῥύσομαι, καὶ ἐκ θανάτου λυτρώσομαι αὐτούς" ποῦ ἡ νίκη σου, θάνατε ; ποῦ τὸ κέντρον σου, an; “ De manu mortis liberabo eos, de morte redimam eos; ero mors tua, 0 mors, morsus tuus ero, inferne,” Vulg. “1 will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction,” Version 1611. Hosea xiii. 14. Ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον; ποῦ σου, ἅδη, τὸ νῖκος; Ubi est, mors, victoria tua? ubi est, mors, stimulus tuus?” Vulg. ‘Oh death, where is thy sting? oh grave, where is thy victory?” Authorised ver- sion, 1611. 1 Cor. xv. 55.] [3 ῥύσεται τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκ χειρὸς ἅδου ; Psal. Ixxxvii. 48. “ Eruet animam suam de manu inferi?” Vulg. Ixxxix. 48. “And shall he deliver his soul from the hand of hell?” Bishops’ bible, 1584; Cranmer, 1562. ‘Shall he deliver hissoul from the hand of the grave?” Geneva, 1560; Authorised version. | FuLKE, 15. Martin, 16, 302 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. a grave. But if in all such places they will say they mean nothing else but to signify death, and that to go down into the grave, and to die, is all one; we ask them, why they follow not the words of the holy scripture to signify the same thing, which call it going down to “hell,” not going down to the “grave”? Here,they must needs open the mystery of antichrist working in their translations, and say, that so they should make hell a common place to all that departed in the old testament; which they will not, no, not in the most important places of our belief concerning our Saviour Christ’s descending into hell, and triumphing over the same. Yea, therefore of purpose they will not, only for to defeat that part of our christian creed. Fulke. We cannot always take the word “grave”’ pro- perly, when the scripture useth it figuratively. But if we say, to go down to the grave and to die is all one, you ask us why we follow not the words of the holy scripture. I answer, We do, for the scripture calleth it “grave,” and not “hell.” Where then is your vain clattermg of the mystery of antichrist, that we must open? Because we will not acknow- ledge that heretical common-place, invented by Marcion the heretic, we purpose to defeat the article of Christ’s descend- ing into hell. A monstrous slander! when we do openly confess it, and his triumphing over hell in more triumphant manner than you determine it. For if he descended into that hell only, in which were the souls of the faithful, which was a place of rest, of comfort, of joy, and felicity ; what triumph was it to overcome such an hell? which, if you take away the hateful name of “hell,” by your own descrip- tion will prove rather an heaven than an hell. But we believe that he triumphed over the hell of the damned, and over all the power of darkness, which’ he subdued by the virtue of his obedience and sacrifice, so that it should never be able to claim or hold any of his elect, whom he had redeemed. Martin. As when the prophet first, Osea xiii., and afterward the apostle, 1 Cor. xv. in the Greek, say thus! : Evo mors tua, 0 mors, morsus [Γ᾿ Κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νῖκος. ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον ; ποῦ σου, ἅδη, τὸ νῖκος ; τὸ δὲ κέντρον τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ἁμαρτία. 1 Cor. xv. 54, 55, 56. “Absorptaest mors in victoria: ubi est, mors, victoria tua ? ubi est, mors, stimulus tuus? Stimulus autem mortis peccatum est,” Vulg. “ Death is consumed into victory. Death, where is thy sting? vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 303 tuus ero, inferne. Ubi est, mors, stimulus tuus? ubi est, inferne, victoria Nw tua? “40 death, I will be thy death: I will be thy sting, O hell. . ἄδη. Where is, O death, thy sting? where is, O hell, thy victory?” They translate in both places, “O grave,” instead of “O hell.” What else Bib. 1579. can be their meaning hereby, but to draw the reader from the com- mon sense of our Saviour Christ’s descending into hell, and conquering the same, and bringing out the fathers and just men triumphantly from thence into heaven? which sense hath always been the common sense of the catholic church and holy doctors, specially upon this place of ρα φόρον ον the prophet. And what a kind of speech is this, and out of all tune, 13. Osee®. to make our Saviour Christ say, “O grave, I will be thy destruction” ? as though he had triumphed over the grave, and not over hell ; or over the grave, that is, over death ; and so the prophet should say “death” twice, and “hell” not at all. Fulke. St Jerome, whom you quote in the margin, to Furxe, prove that all the catholic doctors understood this text of 1 Osee, of Christ’s descending into hell, and thereby reprove our translation, which for “hell” saith “grave,” after he hath repeated the words of the apostle, 1 Cor. xv. upon this text, thus he concludeth: Itaque quod ille in resurrectionem interpretatus est Domini, nos aliter interpretari nec pos- sumus nec audemus. ‘Therefore that which the apostle hath interpreted of our Lord’s resurrection, we neither can nor dare interpret otherwise.” You see therefore by Jerome’s judgment, that in this text, which is proper of Christ’s re- surrection, it Is more proper to use the word of “grave,” than of “hell.” How vainly the same Jerome interpreteth the last words of this chapter, of spoiling the treasure of every vessel that is desirable, of Christ’s delivering out of hell the most precious vessels of the saints, &c. I am not ignorant; but we speak of translation of the 14th verse, which being un- derstood of Christ’s resurrection, it argueth, that the grave is spoken of, rather than hell. As for the repetition of Hell, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin,” Tyndale, 1534. “Death is swallowed up in victory; death, where is thy sting ? Hell, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin,’ Cranmer, 1539. Bishops’ bible, 1584, with an interjection. “Death is swallowed up into victory. Death, where is thy sting? grave, where is thy victory? the sting of death is sin,” Geneva, 1577. Authorised Version, 1611, with an interjection after. “Death is swallowed up in victory. Death, where is thy victory! Death, where is thy sting, and the sting of death is sin,” Rheims, 1582. | [? Comment. Hieronymi in Osee, c. xiii. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 1380. ] Martin, 17. FuLkKr, 17. Martin, 18. Hierom. in Osee. ο. 13,1 304 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu. one thing twice for vehemency and certainty’s sake, [it] is no inconvenient thing, but commonly used in the scriptures. Martin. Why, my masters, you that are so wonderful precise trans- lators, admit that our Saviour Christ descended not into hell beneath, as you say, yet I think you will grant that he triumphed over hell, and was conqueror of the same. Why then did it not please you to suffer the prophet to say so at the least, rather than that he had con- quest only of “death” and the “ grave’? You abuse your ignorant reader very impudently, and your own selves very damnably, not only in this, but in that you make “ grave,” and “death,” all one; and so, where the holy scripture often joineth together “death” and “hell,” as things different and distinct, you make them speak but one thing twice, id and superfluously. Fulke. For our faith of Christ’s triumphing over hell, I haye spoken already sufficiently; but of the prophet’s meaning, beside the words themselves, the apostle is best expounder, who referreth it to the resurrection, and his victory ‘over death, which he hath gained not for himself alone, but for all his elect. Where you say we make “grave” and “death” all one, it is false. We know they differ; but that one may be signified by the other, without any idle or superfluous repetition, in one verse, I refer me to a whole hundred of examples, that may be brought out of the Psalms, the Prophets, and the Proverbs, where words of the same, like, or near signification are twice together repeated, to note the same matter; which none but a blasphemous dog will say to be done idly or superfluously. Martin. But will you know that you should not confound them, but that mors and infernus, which are the words of the holy scripture, in all tongues are distinct ; hear what St Jerome saith: or if you will not hear, because you are of them which “have stopped their ears,” let the indifferent christian reader hearken to this holy doctor and great interpreter of the holy scriptures, according to his singular knowledge in all the learned tongues. Upon the aforesaid place of the prophet, after he had spoken of our Saviour Christ’s descending into hell, and overcoming of death, he addeth: “ Between death and hell this is the [᾿ Inter mortem autem et inferos hoc interest: mors est, qua anima separatur a corpore; infernus, locus in quo anime recluduntur, sive in refrigerio sive in peenis, pro qualitate meritorum. Hoc diximus, ut os- tenderemus id mortem facere, quod meretricem mulierem. Mors enim vite] TRANSLATIONS: OF, THE BIBLE» 305° difference, that death is that whereby the soul is separated from the body ; hell is the place where souls are included, either in rest, or else in pains, according to the quality of their deserts. And that death is one thing, and hell is another, the psalmist also declareth, saying : “There is not in death that is mindful of thee, but in hell who Pasal. vi. shall confess to thee?” And in another place: “ Let death come upon them, and let them go down into hell alive.” Thus far St Jerome. Fulke. He that by the grave understandeth a place Funes, to receive the bodies of the dead, and figuratively death, doth no more confound the words of “death” and the “ grave, " than he that by a cup understandeth a vessel to receive drink properly, and figuratively that drink which is con- tained in such a vessel. Therefore that you cite out of Jerome maketh nothing against us; for he himself, although deceived by the Septuagintes, or rather by the ambiguity of. the word dons, which they use, in the signification of the Hebrew word 5inw, yet by infernus anderstandath them that be in inferno, and the dead, as we do by the word “orave” oftentimes. As for his opinion of the godly souls m happy hell before Christ’s death, or his interpretation of any other part of scripture, we profess not to follow in our translations, but as near as we can, the true signifi- cation of the words of holy scripture, with such sense (af any thing be doubtful) as the proper circumstances of every place will lead us unto, that we may attain to the meaning of the Holy Ghost. :- Martin. By which differences of “death” and “hell,” whereof we Martin, must often advertise the reader, are meant two things: death, and the 19 going down of the soul into some receptacle of hell, in that state of the old testament, at what time the holy scriptures used this phrase so often. Ἶ Now, these impudent translators in all these places translate it “grave,” Bib. 1579. of purpose to confound it and “death” together, and to make it but one thing, which St Jerome sheweth to be different, in the very same sense that we have declared. ‘ dividit fratres, hoc et mulier facit. In fratribus, omnem intellige ca-- ritatem: quod et mater dividatur a filia, et pater a filio, et frater a fyatre. ‘Quod autém aliud sit mors, et aliud infernus, et Psalmista demonstrat, dicens: Von est in morte qui memor sit tui ; in inferno autem quis confitebitur tibi ? et-in alio loco: Veniat mors super 608, et descendant in infernum viventes, Hieronymi Comment. in Osee. c. xiii. Opera, i. p. 1829. ] | | 20 [FULKE.] ΕσΤΚΕ, 19. Martin, 20. dons. DINW Infernus. τάφος. Ap Sepulchrum. 306. A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH for. Fulke. The difference of mors and infernus, which Jerome maketh, cannot always stand; as I have shewed of the hoar heads of Jacob, Job, and Shemei, (which none but mad men will say to have descended into a receptacle of souls,) beside other places of scripture, where sheol must of necessity signify a place for the body. And even those’ places of the Psalms, that St Jerome calleth to witness, dq make against his error. For where David saith, Psalm vi.' “In hell who shall confess unto thee?” how can it be true of the souls of the faithful, being in that -holy hell, Abra- ham’s bosom? Did not Abraham confess unto God, and acknowledge his mercy ? Did not Lazarus the same? did not all the holy souls departed confess God in Abraham’s bosom ? ‘Were all those blessed souls so unthankful, that being car- ried into that place of rest and comfort, none of them would confess God’s benefits? It is plain therefore, to the con- fusion of your error, that sheol in that place of David must needs signify the “grave,” in which no man doth confess, praise, or give thanks unto God, of whom in death there is no remembrance. Therefore he desireth life and restoring of health, that he may praise God in his church or congre- gation. Likewise in the 54th psalm’, where he prophesieth unto the wicked a sudden death, such as befel to Chore, Dathan, and Abiram, which went down quick into the “grave ;” not into “hell,” whither come no bodies of men living, but the souls of men that are dead, | Martin. But, alas! it is the very nature of the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, that forceth them so much to English it “grave,” rather than **hell.” We appeal to all Hebricians, Grecians, and Latinists in the world : first, if a man would ask, What is Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin for “hell”? whether they would not answer these three words, as the very proper words to signify it, even as panis signifieth “bread.” Se- condly, if a man would ask, What is Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin, for a “grave”? whether they would answer.these words, and not three. other, which they know are as proper words for “grave,” as Jac is for “ milk.” [2 Ἐν δὲ τῷ adn τίς ἐξομολογήσεταί σοι; Pgal, vi. 5. “In inferno autem quis confitebitur tibi,” Vulg.] [? Ἑλθέτω θάνατος én’ αὐτοὺς, καὶ καταβήτωσαν εἰς ἅδου ζῶντες. Psal. liv. 15. “Veniat mors super illos: et descendant in inferno εν Vulg. Psal. ly. 15.] vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLK. 207 Fulke. The very nature of the Hebrew word 53yy Furxe, is most properly to signify a “grave”, or receptacle of dead 39: bodies, as all that be learned in that tongue do know. About the Greek and Latin terms is not our question, and therefore you deal deceitfully to handle them all three together : although neither ἅδης nor infernus are so proper for “hell,” but that they may be taken also sometimes “for the graye,” and so perhaps were meant by the Greek and Latin translators in divers places. You speak, therefore, as one void of all shame, to say they are as proper for “hell,” as panis for “bread.” Where you ask what is Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, for “hell,” you must understand, that if you speak of a proper word for those invisible places, wherein the souls departed are either in joy or torments; I answer, there is no proper word for those places, either in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. For that which of all these tongues is translated “heaven,” is the proper word for the sensible sky, 1 in which are the sun, moon, and stars; and by a figure is transferred to signify the place of God’s glory, in which he reigneth with the blessed spirits of angels and men, above this sensible world. Paradise” and “ Abraham’s bosom,” who is so childish not to acknowledge them to be borrowed words, and not proper? So for the receptacle of the reprobate souls, in the Hebrew tongue topheth or gehinnom, which properly are the names of an abominable place of idolatry, are used; and sheol sometimes figuratively may signify the same. In Greek and Latin, gehenna is used for the same, which is borrowed of the Hebrew. Sometimes also the word ἄδης, in Greck, is taken for the place of the damned and the kingdom of darkness. The Latin word infernus is any low place. Wherefore I cannot marvel sufficiently at your impudency, which affirm these three words, >ixw, ons and infernus, to be as proper for our English word “hell,” as panis is for “bread.” That there be other words beside these in all the three tongues to signify a “grave,” I marvel to what purpose you tell us, except you would have ignorant folk suppose that there cannot be two Hebrew, Greek, or Latin words for one thing. Martin. Yea, note and consider diligently what we will say. Let aes them shew me out of all the bible one place, where it is certain and agreed among all, that it must needs signify “orave”; let them shew 20—2 t Γ᾿ Gen. xlix. FuLKE, 21. 808 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH: [cn. me in any one such place, that the holy scripture useth any of those former three words for “grave.” As when Abraham bought a place. of burial, whether he bought “infernum” ; or when it is said the kings of Israel were buried in the monuments or sepulchres of their fathers, whether it say, in infernis patrum suorum. So that not only divines by this observation, but grammarians also and children may easily see, that the proper and natural signification of the said words is in English “hell,” and not “ grave.” Fulke. We note well your foolish subtilty, that will have us to shew you one place, where it is certain and agreed. among all, that sheol must needs signify “grave.” Iam persuaded that you and such as you are, that have sold your- selves to antichrist, to maintain his heresies with all impudency, will agree to nothing that shall be brought, though it be never so plain and certain that it must needs so signify. I have already shewed you three places, where the hoary head is said to go down into sheol, that is, into the “grave.” For whither should the hoary head go but into the grave? Nothing can be more plain to him that will agree to truth, that sheol in all such places is taken for the “grave.” But. to omit those places, because I have spoken of them already, what say you to that place, Numb. xvi., where the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the rebels with their tents, and all their substance of cattle, and whatsoever they had? where the text saith, “ They went GoM, and all that they had, alive, sheolah, into the pit or grave.” God made a great grave or hole in the earth, to receive them all. Where no man will say that either the bodies of these men, or their substance of tents, cattle, and stuff, went into “hell,” as it is sure their souls went into torment. And if authority do weigh more with you than good reason, hear what St Augustine writeth upon the same text, and how he taketh your inferos or. infernum, which in the Hebrew is sheol, quest. super Num. Lib. tv. ὁ. 29: Et descenderunt ipsi et omnia quecunque sunt eis viventes ad inferos. Notan- dum secundum locum terrenum dictos esse inferos, hoc est, &e. “And they themselves descended, and all that they had, alive unto inferos, the lower parts. It is to be noted, that infert are spoken of an earthly place, that is, in the low _ partsof the earth. For diversely and under «manifold understanding, even as the sense of things which are in hand vit. ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 309 requireth, the name of inferi is put in the scriptures, and especially it is wont to be taken for the dead. But foras- much as it is said that those descended alive ad inferos, and by the very narration it appeareth sufficiently what was done; it is manifest, as I said, that the lower parts of the earth are termed by this word inferz, in comparison of this upper part of the earth in which we live. Like as in com- parison of the higher heaven, where the dwelling of the: holy angels is, the scripture saith, that the sinful angels being thrust down into the darkness of this air, are reserved as it were in prisons of a lower part, or hell, to be punished.” St Augustine here doth not only understand this place of the grave, or receptacle of bodies; but also sheweth that the Latin word inferi or infernus doth not always signify “hell,” as you made it of late as proper for “hell,” as panis for “bread.” But because you shall not complain of the singu,; larity of this example, although you require but one, 1 will add out of the Psalm exli., where the prophet saith, “Our bones are scattered at the very brink or mouth of sheol, ‘the grave’.”! How can you understand him to speak of hell? For the grave, and not hell, is a place for dead men’s bones: as he speaketh of the faithful, by the wicked counted as good as dead and rotten, consumed to the bones. By these and many other examples it is manifest, that the proper significa- tion of sheol in English is a “grave,” and not “ hell.” Martin. And therefore Beza doth strangely abuse his reader more Segre, than in one place, saying that the Hebrew word doth properly signify 22 An not. in “orave,” being deduced of a verb that signifieth to crave or ask, be- Acts ii. 25, 27 cause it craveth always new corses. As though the grave craved more xv. 55. than hell doth, or swallowed more, or were more hardly satisfied and ἘΠ. 1670. ; xxx. 15, 163. [2 ‘Qoet πάχος γῆς διεῤῥάγη ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, διεσκορπίσθη τὰ ὀστᾶ ἡμῶν παρὰ τον ἅδην, Psal. cxl. 7. “Sicut crassitudo terre erupta est super terram, dissipata sunt ossa nostra secus infernum,” Psal. cxli. 7. νυ. | ᾿ς [3 Καταπίωμεν δὲ αὐτὸν ὥσπερ Gdns ζῶντα, Prov. i. 12. “ Deglutia- mus eum sicut infernus viventem,” Vulg. ‘ We will swallow them up alive like a grave even whole,” Geneva bible, 1560. “We shall swal- low them up like the hell,’ Cranmer, 1562. “ Let us swallow them up like the grave,” Bishops’ bible, 1584. Authorised version, 1611.] ’ [? Ἅδης καὶ ἔρως γυναικὸς, Prov. xxx. 16. “ Infernus et os vulve,” Vulg. “The grave and the barren womb,” Bishops’ bible, 1560, Auhorised version, ~ *' The grave, a woman’s: womb,” Cranmer, 1562.] . Prov. xxvii. 20. Prov. xv. 11. Bib. 1562. 1577. Prov. i. 1 Pet. v. Rev. ix. 11. Beza, before alleged. FuLKE, 22. Martin, 23. Annot. in Acts ii. 24. 310 ‘A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH filled than hell; for in all such places they translate “grave.” And in one such place they say, “The grave and destruction can never be 0111," Whereas themselves a little before translate the very same words “hell and destruction? ;” and therefore it might have pleased them to have said also, “hell and destruction can never be full,” as their pew- fellows do in their translation: and again, “ We’shall swallow them up like hell.” ‘“ The devil,” we read, “ goeth about continually like a roar- ing lion, seeking whom he may devour:” who is called in the Apo- calypse “ Abaddon,” that is, “destruction.” And so very aptly “hell” and “destruction” are joined together, and are truly said never to be filled. What madness and impudency is it then for Beza to write thus : “Who is ignorant that by the Hebrew word rather is signified a “grave,” for that it seemeth after a sort to crave always new carcases ?” Fulke. Beza doth not abuse his reader, to tell him that sheol is derived of a verb that signifieth “craving” or “asking ;’ but you do unhonestly abuse Beza, as you do every man, when you take in hand to affirm that he standeth only upon the etymology of sheol, to prove that it signifieth “the grave.” | Martin. And again, concerning our Saviour Christ’s descending into hell, and delivering the fathers from thence, “it is marvel,” saith Beza, “that the most part of the ancient fathers were in this error; whereas with the Hebrews the word sheol signifieth nothing else but ‘grave’.” Before, he pleaded upon the etymology or nature of the word ; now also he pleadeth upon the authority of the Hebrews them- selves. If he were not known to be very impudent and obstinate, we Γ' ἽΛδης καὶ ἀπώλεια οὐκ ἐμπίμπλανται, Prov. xxvii. 20. “ Infernus et perditio nunquam implentur,” Vulg. “The grave and destruction can never be full,” Geneva, 1560. “Hell and destruction are never full,” Cranmer, 1562. Bishops’ bible, 1584, Authorised version. ] [? “Adns καὶ ἀπώλεια, Prov. xv. 11. “Infernus et perditio,” Vulg. “Hell and destruction are before the Lord,” Bishops’ bible, 1584. Geneva, 1560. Authorised version. “Hell and perdition are known unto the Lord,” Cranmer, 1562.] [ἢ Fateor tamen etiam de profundissimis illis subterraneis locis idem vocabulum interdum dici, quos alibi scriptura vocat abyssum, unde etiam porte inferorum nominantur, Matt. xvi. 18. et dives ille apud inferos collocatur in summo cruciatu, Luc. xviii. 23. et rogant demones ne mittantur in abyssum, Luc. viii. 31, Sed quid quisque locus ferat, diligenter animadvertendum. ****** Dico igitur ΘΝ (scheol) hoe ἢ in loco (Act. ii. 27.) propria significatione accipiendum pro sepulchro, et “animam meam” vel loco pronominis me accipi, sicut vulgo dici- mus ma personne, etc. Noy, Test. Edit. Beza, 1582, pp. 415, 416.] , vu] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 911 ‘would easily mistrust his’ skill in the Hebrew, saying that among the Hebrews the word signifieth “nothing else but grave.” Nihil aliud. Fulke. Beza saith that the word sheol properly signi- Furxe, fieth nothing but “the grave:’ nevertheless he saith it is 2° ‘taken figuratively for “ tribulation,’ which is near to ex- treme destruction, yea, and sometime for the “ bottomless pit of hell.” Martin. 1 would gladly know what are those Hebrews. Doth not Marry, the Hebrew text of the holy scripture best tell us the use of this or word? Do not themselves translate it “hell” very often? do not the Septuaginta always? If any Hebrew in the world were asked, how he would turn these words into Hebrew, Similes estis sepulchris dealbatis, “You are like to whited graves;” and, Sepulchrum ejus apud vos est, “His grave is among you”: would any Hebrew, I say, translate it by this Hebrew word which Beza saith among the Hebrews signifieth Sheolim. nothing else but “grave”? Ask your Hebrew readers in this case, Ἵ and see what they will answer. Fulke. The best of the Hebrews, that either interpreted Furxe, scriptures, or made dictionaries, Jews or Christians, do ac- 24. ‘knowledge that sheol doth properly signify “the grave.” That the Septuaginta do always translate it ddys, it proveth not that it always signifieth “hell;” for ἄδης signifieth not valways “hell,” as’ in the place of -Numb. xvi.- As for the | turning of Latin into Hebrew, is not our controversy, but of translating Hebrew into English: sheol may signify “the grave,” “the hole,” “the pit,” as fovea, though it be not all one with the Latin word sepulehrum. And yet rabbi Salomon, whom you boldly cite in the 27th section, saith In Gen. plainly, that the true and proper interpretation of sheol is 6Ὸῦ keber, which you say is as proper for “ grave,” as lac is for “ milk.” Martin. What are those Hebrews then that Beza speaketh of? For- Marriy, sooth, certain Jews or later rabbins, which, as they do falsely inter- a ΩΝ pret all the holy scriptures against our Saviour Christ in other points oe inter- of our belief, as against his incarnation, death, and resurrection ; so do seriptures they also falsely interpret the holy scriptures against his descending sae Joan ‘into hell, which those Jewish rabbins deny, because they look for = a ole another Messias that shall not die at all, and consequently shall not fathers and after his death go down into hell, and deliver the fathers expecting his church. coming, as our Saviour Christ did. And therefore those J ewish rabbins “hold, as the heretics do, that the fathers of the old testament were in Isai. vii. Fike, 25. Martin, 26. 1 Sam. xxiii. 312 ‘A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ‘fort. heaven before our Saviour’s incarnation. And these rabbins are they which also pervert the Hebrew word to the signification of “grave,” in such places of the holy scriptures as speak either of our Saviour Christ’s descending into hell, or of the fathers going down into hell ; even in like manner as they pervert other Hebrew words of the holy scripture, as namely, alma to signify a young woman, not a virgin, against our Saviour’s birth of the blessed Virgin Mary. Fulke. Beza speaketh of the holy men of God which did write the scriptures, and so use that word’ sheol, as it cannot be taken to signify any thing properly, but “ thie grave” or “pit.” And as for the Jewish rabbins, what reason is there why we should not credit them in the inter- pretation of words of their own tongue, rather than any ancient Christians ignorant of the Hebrew tongue? And although they do sometimes frowardly contend about the signification of a word or two, against the truth of the gospel, that is no sufficient cause why they should be discredited in all words. But beside them, Beza hath also the best Hebricians that have been in this last age among the Christians, not only protestants, but papists also, namely Pagninus, and Masius, in their dictionaries. : Martin, And if these later rabbins be the Hebrews that Beza meaneth, and which these gay English translators follow, we lament that they join themselves with such companions, being the sworn ene- mies of our Saviour Christ. Surely the christian Hebrews in Rome and elsewhere, which of great rabbins are become zealous doctors of Christianity, and therefore honour every mystery and article of our christian faith concerning our Saviour Christ, they dispute as vehe- mently against those other rabbins as we do against the heretics; and among other things, they tell them that Saul said, “Raise me up Samuel ;” and that the woman said, “I see gods ascending out of the earth,” and, “An old man is ascended or come up;” and that Samuel _ said, “ Why hast thou disquieted me, that I should be raised up?” and, Eccl. xlvi. 23. “To-morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me.” And the book of Ecclesiasticus saith, that Samuel died, and afterward “lifted up his voice out of the earth,” &c. All which the holy scripture would never haye thus expressed, whether it were Samuel indeed or not, if Saul and the Jews then had believed that their prophets and patriarchs had been in heaven above. And as for the Hebrew word, they make it, as every boy among the Jews doth well know, as proper a word for “hell, as panis is for “bread,” and as unproper for a grave; though so it “may be used by a figure of speech, as cymba Charontis is Latin for * death.” vit, | {TRANSLATIONS OF -THE BIBLA. 3138 Fulke. ΤΆ we followed the Jews in exposition of the Furxe, scriptures against Christ, we were not so much to be pitied si as to be abhorred : but if we be content to learn the propriety .of Hebrew words of the learned rabbins, as Jerome was glad to do of his rabbin, who (as it appeareth by his scholar ‘in some places) was not excellently learned; there is no cause ‘why any man should pity us, but them rather, that, to cloke their ignorance in the Hebrew tongue, pretend as if it were more unlawful to learn Hebrew of the Hebrew rabbins, ‘than Latin of Quintilian or Priscian, and Greek of Gaza, ‘Suidas, and such like. That you tell us of the Romish -rabbins converted from Judaism to papistry, is not worth a straw. For their argument of Saul’s and a witch’s opinion, that the dead might be raised, proveth nothing in the world that they were in hell. And the son of Sirach sheweth himself not to be directed by the Spirit of God, which affirm- eth Samuel did lift up his voice after his death out of the earth, contrary to the judgment of catholic doctors of the church. For that the scripture speaketh of Samuel raised -by the witch, is meant of a wicked spirit counterfeiting the Shape and similitude of Samuel. For the souls of the faithful, .and holy prophets, be not at the commandments of witches, -but at rest with God, where they cannot be disquieted. As for the authority of those unknown authors, that teach boys ‘to say sheol is as proper for “hell,” as panis for “ bread,” ‘we may esteem it to be of as good credit as Charon’s boat, ‘Pluto’s palace, and Cerberus’s three heads, &c. Martin. But what speak I of these? Do not the greatest and most Marrin, ancient rabbins, (so to call them,) the Septuaginta, always translate the 27: .Hebrew word by the Greek ays, which is properly “hell?” do not Geneb. lib. 8. the Talmudists, and Chaldee paraphrases, and rabbi Salomon Jarhi, sacha handling these places of the psalms, “He will deliver my soul from ‘the hand of sheol,’ interpret it by gehinum, that is, gehenna, “hell?” ‘and yet the Calvinists bring this place for an example that it signifieth ‘orave.” Likewise upon this place, “Let all sinners be turned into _sheol,” the aforesaid rabbins interpret it by gehinum, “hell.” Insomuch .that in the Proverbs, and in Job, it is joined with “ Abaddon.” Where Prov. xv. rabbi Levi, according to the opinion of the Hebrews, expoundeth sheol bean: ‘to be the lowest region of the world, a deep place opposite to heaven, “whereof it is written, “If I descended into hell, thou-art present :” and so doth rabbi Abraham expound the same word in chap. ii. Jone. E, i» Fulkes Although the Septuaginta do always translate τς « 814 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH -[cu. sheol by the word dos, yet do they not thereby always understand “hell;” as it is manifest in all those places, where the scripture speaketh of a receptacle of dead bodies. But now you will bear us down with rabbins, Talmudists, and Chaldee paraphrases. And first you say that all these, handling that verse of the 49th psalm, “ He will deliver my soul from the hand of sheol,” interpret it by gehinnom, that is, “hell.” I grant that rabbi Joseph, using the liberty of a paraphrast, rather than a translator, interpreteth the word by gehinnom, that signifieth “ hell-fire:” and so the sense is true; for God delivered David from eternal damnation : but rabbi David Chimchi, expounding the same place accord- ing to the proper signification of sheol, saith, X°237 ἼΩΝ WxN2, &c. “The prophet said, when he saw the destruction of the souls of the wicked in their death, ‘In the day in which my body shall go down to (sheol) the grave, God shall de- liver my soul from the hand of (sheol) the grave, that my soul shall not perish with my body.’” You see, therefore, that all the rabbins be not of your side; no, nor rabbi Salomon Jarchi, whom you cite. For upon Genesis xxxvii. 35, where Jacob saith he will go down to the grave mourning, thus he writeth: “17 NT Tap pwo wowed: mew dar. Mourning to sheol: according to the plain and literal sense, the interpretation thereof is ‘the grave,’ in my mourning I will be buried, and I will not be comforted all my days: but after the midrash, or exposition, not according to the letter, it is ‘hell.’ This sign was delivered by hands, or by tradition, from the mouth of his power, (that is, from a divine oracle;) if not one of my sons shall die in my life-time, I had confidence that I should not see hell.” By this saying it is manifest, that this rabbin acknowledged the true and proper translation of this word sheol was “to the grave ;” although after figurative, and sometimes fond, expositions, it was inter- preted for “hell.” Likewise you say, but untruly, of this verse, Psal. ix. 18, “ Let all sinners be turned to sheol;” for there the Chaldee paraphrast retaineth the word sheol, and doth not give any other word for it. David Chimchi inter- preteth it according to the literal sense, 9295 DYywn iw, “Let the wicked be turned into the grave;” which is so strange with you to be answerable to sheol, although, as R. Salomon saith, it may be understood of their burial in hell, That sheol in the Proverbs and Job is joined with abaddon, it vu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, ‘315 -hindereth it not to signify the grave, where is the destruction Prov. xv. and consumption of the body. And Proverbs xv. 11, the Chaldee paraphrast retaineth sheol, which Kabuenaki ex- poundeth thus: “79N), &c. It is said of sheol and abaddon, that sheol is “the grave,” 72pm, and abaddon is “ hell,” which is deeper than the grave, ὅζο. And although in Job rabbi Levi and others expound sheol for a secret place about ‘the centre of the earth, which should seem to be hell; yet they say not that this is the proper signification of the word sheol. For in Job xxi. 13, the Chaldee para- phrast for sheol interpreteth kebureta, “the grave”; and in the xiv. 13, beith kebureta, “the house of the grave;” and xvi. 12 and 15, “the grave.” In both which places rabbi Abraham Peritsol joineth sheol and keber together, both signifying “the grave’; and in the latter verse he maketh Job to say to his friends, “ D2;377 92, the bars of lies with which you comfort me, into the midst of the pit of the grave shall go down with me when I die.” By all which testimonies it is manifest, that sheol is not the proper word for “hell,” the receptacle of souls; but for “ grave,” ‘the common dwelling-house of men’s bodies. But you will press us yet further with the authority of rabbi Abraham upon Jonas ii. Indeed, in Abraham Aben Ezra I read as you say: but this is only his opinion of the figurative sense of that place; for upon Hosee xii. 14, he expoundeth xw Pp thus, “I have been a redeemer of thy fathers; now I will be a destruction of death which is to thee.’ And so do R. Shelomo Jarchi, and rabbi David Chimchi: yea, so doth St Paul, more worth than all the ‘rabbins that ever were, expound it. xvi, NAID ΓΞ NANI Martin. This being the opinion and the interpretation of the He- Marrty, brews, see the skill or the honesty of Beza, saying that sheol, with the 78 Hebrews, signifieth nothing but “grave.” Whereas indeed, to speak skil- fully, uprightly, and not contentiously, it may signify “ grave” some- time secondarily, but ‘‘hell” principally and properly, as is manifest ; for that there is no other word so often used, and so familiar in the scriptures to signify “hell,” as this; and for that the Septuaginta do always interpret it by the Greek word dns. Fulke. The opinion of the Hebrews being as I have Furxn, rehearsed out of their own words, “see the skill.or honesty” 28, Martin, ‘Annot. in Acts ii, 27. Fuk, 29. 316 , ὸ 4 > ~ ri “ “ ~ 3 , “» ὧν οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγ- μένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, Apoc. xiii. 8,7 vu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 331 we neither do, nor are willing to dissent, except the same dissent from the original text. Otherwise the truth of this assertion, that Christ was “slain from the beginning of the world,” hath not only testimony of the ancient fathers, but also may be confirmed out of the scripture. For by the obedience of Christ, St Paul, Rom. v. teacheth that “many are justified,” meaning all the elect of God; who, except * Christ’s death had been effectual to them, before he suffered actually on the cross, must have gone, not into limbo patrum, but into hell diabolorum, which is the place appointed for all them that are not “justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption of Christ Jesus, whom God before hath set forth to be a propitiatory in his blood,” Rom. ii. 24, &c. The title of this chapter threateneth a discovery of heretical translations against purgatory especially ; but in the whole discourse thereof, which is a shameful long one, containing forty-five sections, there is not one place noted against purgatory. Amphora cepit institui: currente rota cur urceus exit ἢ Martin, 1. aA , τα OLKALW- ματα. 992 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ᾿ [ cr. CHAPTER VIIL. Heretical Translation concerning Justification. Martin. Asovt the article of justification, as it hath many branches, and their errors therein be manifold, so are their English translations , accordingly many ways false and heretical. First, against justification by good works and by keeping the commandments, they suppress the very name of “justification” in all such places where the word signifieth the commandments or the law of God, which is both in the Old and New Testament most common and usual, namely in the books of Moses, in the psalm cxviii.’, that beginneth thus, Beati immaculati, in the psalm cxlvii. 193, 1 Mach. i. 51°, and ii. 21*, Luke i. 6°, Rom. ii. 26°. In all which places, and the like, where the Greek signifieth “justices” and “jus- tifications” most exactly, according as our vulgar Latin translateth [Δ Μακάριοι ἄμωμοι ἐν ὁδῷ. “ Beati immaculati in via,” Psal. exix. 1. “Blessed are all those that be undefiled in the way of the Lord,” Cranmer’s bible, 1562. “ Undefiled in the way,” Bishops’ bible, 1584, Authorised version, 1611. “Upright in their way,’ Genevan version, 1560. “Odedoy κατευθυνθείησαν ai ὁδοί pov, τοῦ φυλάξασθαι τὰ δικαι- ὦματά σου, Psal. cxix. 5. “Utinam dirigantur vie mee ad custodiendas justificationes tuas,” Vulg. ‘“‘ Keep thy statutes,” Cranmer's bible, 1562, Geneva, 1560, Bishops’ bible, 1584. Authorised version. ] Γ᾿ ᾿Απαγγέλλων τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ τῷ ᾿Ιακὼβ, δικαιώματα καὶ κρίματα αὐτοῦ τῷ Ἰσραήλ. Ῥραὶ. exlvii. 19. “Qui annunciat verbum suum Ja- cob, justitias et judicia sua Israel,” Vulg. “His statutes and ordi- nances unto Israel,” Cranmer, 1562, Bishops’ bible, 1584. “ His statutes and his judgments unto Israel,” Geneva, 1560. Authorised version 1611. ] [? Καὶ ἀλλάξαι πάντα τὰ δικαιώματα, 1 Mace, i. 49. Edit. Grabbe. “Change all the [holy, Cranmer’s bible, 1562] ordinances of God,” Bishops’ bible, 1584. ‘ Change all the ordinances,” Geneva, 1560, v. 51. Authorised version, 1611, v. 49. | [* Καταλιπεῖν νόμον καὶ δικαιώματα, 1 Mace. ii. 21. “ Forsake the law and ordinances,” Bishops’ bible, 1584, Cranmer’s Bible, 1562, Geneva, 1560, Authorised, 1611.] Γ΄ Πορευόμενοι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασι τοῦ Κυρίου ἄμεμπτοι, Luc. i. 6. ‘ Incedentes in omnibus mandatis et justificatio- nibus Domini sine querela,” Vulg. “Going in all the maundementis and justifyings of the Lord without plaint,” Wiclif, 1380. “Laws and ordinances,” Tyndale, Cranmer. “Commandments and ordinances,” Geneva, Bishops’ bible. Authorised version. ‘‘Commandments and justifications,” Rhemish. | [ἡ ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ, Rom. ii. 26. “Si igitur preputium justitias legis custodiat,” Vulg. “If the vit. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 398 justitias et justifieationes ; there the English translations say jointly and with one consent, “ ordinances,” or, “statutes.” For example, Rom. ii., “If the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall it not be δικαιώμα- counted for circumcision?” And Luke i. 6,“ They were both righteous Hodes before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the καὶ δικκιώ- Lord blameless.” Why translate you it “ordinances,” and avoid the “4% term “justifications?” is it because you would follow the Greek? I beseech you, is not δίκαιος “just,” δικαιοῦσθαι “to be justified,” δικαιώματα “justifications,” or “justices?” In the Old Testament you might perhaps pretend that you follow the Hebrew word,.and therefore there you Dp translate “statutes,” or “ordinances.” But even there also are not the τὰς seventy Greek interpreters sufficient to teach you the signification of the Hebrew word; who always interpret it δικαιώματα, in English “ justifica- tions ?” Fulke. These matters were driven so thin in the first Furs, 1. chapter, that you shall sooner press out blood than any more probable matter. For the Old Testament, which we translate out of the Hebrew, you yourself do set forth our answer, that we give the English of chukim, when we say, “ ordinances” DPM or “statutes,” and not of the Greek word δικαιώματα, which ΐ of the Septuaginta is used in the same sense for “ precepts” and “commandments,” as you yourself confess, cap. 1. sect. 50, that very often in the scripture it signifieth “ command- ments.” But the Septuaginta, you say, “are sufficient to teach us the interpretation of the Hebrew word, who always interpret it δικαιώματα." If they had always interpreted it so, it is not sufficient to teach us; for then there needed none other translation: but according to theirs then must you depart from your vulgar translation, which in many things departeth from them. But where you say they always interpret the Hebrew word chukim by δικαιώματα, it is false. For Exod. xviii. 20’, they translate it tpootay- ODN para, precepta, which your vulgar translation calleth cere- ᾿ monias, “ceremonies ;’’ as it doeth also Gen. xxvi. 5, where the Septuaginta translate δικαιώματα ; by which you see uncircumcised keep the right things contained in the law,” Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539, Geneva, 1557. ‘If the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law,” Bishops’ bible, 1584. ‘ Therefore if the uncir- cumcision keep the righteousness of the law,” Authorised version, 1611. “ If then the prepuce keep the justice of the law,” Rhemish version, 1582. | [ Καὶ διαμαρτύρῃ αὐτοῖς τὰ προστάγματα τοῦ Θεοῦ, Exod. xviii. 20. “Ostendasque populo ceremonias,” Vulg. ‘Kal ἐφύλαξε τὰ προστάγ- para pov, Gen. xxvi. 5. “Et custodierit precepta et mandata mea,” Vulg.] nipn 334 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ‘ou. that “justification” is not always the English for the Greek word which the Septuaginta do use. Also Numb. ix. 3, for chukoth they translate νόμον, “the law,” which the vulgar Latin calleth ceremonias, “ ceremonies ;’ and for the Hebrew Daw word misphatim they give σύγκρισιν, “comparation,” the npn πὰς OPT DPT opr Dawid Martin, 2. vulgar Latin “justification;” by which you may see how your translator useth even the Latin word, that you make so much ado about. Likewise in the fourteenth verse of the same chapter, the Septuagint translate chukath, twice together, νόμον; and that which the vulgar Latin calleth “ justification of the passover,” the Greek calleth συντάξιν, “ the order of the paschal.” Deut. iv., your vulgar Latin turneth chukim thrice ceremonias, ‘“ ceremonies ;” and Deut. y. twice, and Deut. vi. twice, Deut. vii. onee; and so commonly almost in every chapter. But in the chap. xi. 32, the Greek for chukim hath προστάγματα, where as in the beginning of the chapter he had δικαιώματα; the Latin in both ceremonias, “ceremonies.” By which it is evident, what the Greeks and Latins meant by those words, chap. xx. for this Hebrew word; and in another the Greek hath nothing but ἐντολάς, “commandments.” So hath he, 1 Reg. ii. 3, for DPN, ἐντο- Aas, “commandments.” Also 1 Reg. viii. 58, for chukim he hath προστάγματα, and for misphatim he hath δικαιώ- ματα, as he hath it twice in the next verse, where Salomon prayeth that God will defend his cause, and the cause of his people Israel, as the cause shall require. More examples might I bring, but for tediousness, to convince the bold rashness of this quarreller; but these may suffice all indif- ferent readers, and answer sufficiently for us. Within the New Testament, we translate δικαιώματα “ ordinances,” or “ sta- tutes,” seeing it is proved both by the Septuaginta, which calleth the same Hebrew word not only “ justifications,” but often ‘ commandments,” “statutes,” “ precepts,” “judg- ments;” and the vulgar Latin interpreter, which commonly calleth it “‘ ceremonies” or “precepts.” Martin. But be it that you may control them in the Hebrew, which none but fools will grant unto you: in the New Testament what pretence have you? do you there also translate the Hebrew word, or rather the Greek? The Greek undoubtedly you should translate. What reason then can you have why you do not? None other surely, than that which Beza giveth for himself, saying, that he rejected the word “ justi- vill. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 335. fication,” (notwithstanding it expressed the Greek, word for word, not- withstanding the seventy Greek interpreters used it to signify “the whole law,” and in Latin it be commonly translated justificationes,) Ἀέθε notwithstanding all this, “for this only cause (saith he) did I reject it, to a avoid the cavillations that might be made by this word against justification by faith.” As if he should say, This word truly translated, according to the Greek, might minister great occasion to prove by so many places of scripture, that man’s justification is not by faith only, but also by keeping the law, and observing the commandments, which therefore are called, according to the Greek and Latin, “ justifications,” because they concur to justification, and make a man just, as by St Luke’s words also is well signified, which have this allusion, that they were both just, because they walked in all the justifications of our Lord. Which they of purpose suppress by other words. Fulke. None but fools, considering what I have brought Furxe, 2. of the usage of that word, δικαιώματα, will judge that it signifieth only “justifications : and all wise men may see that we have good warrant to translate it otherwise in the Greek testament, where it must needs have another signi- fication. The concurrence of works with faith to justification before God, which the apostle doth exclude, Rom. iii., we may not admit. But justification by works, as St James teacheth, we do acknowledge. I hope you will not say that your Latin translator, against justification by works, trans- lated the word so often ‘“ ceremonies,” or that ceremonies of the law do concur to justification by faith. The command- ments indeed are called “justifications,” because the works of the law, if a man keep it wholly, are able to justify. Not that every ceremony or observation of any piece of the law is a justification, or maketh a man just; which you may better say, upon the etymology of the word, than that every particular observation of the law, or good work, doth concur with faith unto justification. Martin. And hereof also it riseth, that when he cannot possibly Maarin,3. avoid the word in his translation, (as Apoc. xix. 8', bissinum enim ra δικαιώ- justificationes sunt sanctorum, “The silk is the justifications of saints,”) “*7* there he helpeth the matter with this commentary, “That justifications Bene Annot. poe. xix, [2 Τὸ yap βύσσινον τὰ δικαιώματά ἐστι τῶν ἁγίων, Apoc. xix. 8. “ Justifying of saints,” Wiclif. ‘Righteousness of saints,” Tyndale’s, Cranmer’s, Genevan, Bishops’, Authorised version. “Justifications of saints,” Rhemish, 1582. ] | 336 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ on. are those good works which be the testimonies of a lively faith.” But our English translators have another way to avoid the word even in their translation. For they say here, “the righteousness of saints ;” because they could not say, “ordinances of saints ;” and they would not say, *‘ justifications of saints ;” knowing very well by Beza’s own commen- tary, that this word includeth the good works of saints ; which works if they should in translating call their “justifications,” it would go sore against justification by only faith. Therefore do they translate instead thereof “ordinances,” and “ statutes,” where they can, which are terms furthest off from justification ; and where they cannot, there they say, “righteousness,” making it also the plural number, whereas the more proper Greek word for righteousness is εὐθύτης, Dan. vi. 22, which there some of them translate “ unguiltiness,” because they will not translate exactly, if you would hire them. _ Forge, 3. Fulke. When δικαιώματα, Apoc. xix., are translated justificationes, they signify “ just works,” as I have already, proved the signification of the word to bear; beside that it is so used by Aristotle in his £thics', who of justification before God, whereof we speak, understood never a whit. Therefore, if instead of “righteousness,” which is the singular number, it were translated “righteous or just works,” it were not amiss, in mine opinion. Although by “righteous- ness” in that place, is nothing meant but “ good or righteous works,” as Beza’s note doth tell you. Mariy,4. Martin. And therefore as for “justice,” and “ justifications,” they yer is, say “righteousness,” so for “just” they translate “righteous ;” and by ed. Pt’ this means, “ Joseph was a righteous man,” rather than a just man ; tone 5 τᾷ and Zacharias and Elisabeth “were both righteous before God*,” rather than just ; because when a man is called just, it soundeth that he is so in deed, and not by imputation only ; as a wise man is understood to be wise in deed, and not only so imputed. Therefore do they more gladly and more often say “righteous men,” rather than “just men ;” and when they do say “just men,” (as sometime they do, least they might seem wilful [᾿ Καλεῖται δὲ τὸ κοινὸν μᾶλλον δικαιοπράγημα᾽ δικαίωμα δὲ, τὸ ἐπαν- όρθωμα ἀδικήματος. Arist. Ethic. v.] Γ᾽ Ἰωσὴφ.---δίκαιος dv, Matt. i. 19. “Joseph cum esset justus,” Vulg. “Joseph being a perfect man,” Tyndale, 1534. “Joseph was a righteous man,” Cranmer, 1539, Bishops’, 1584. “Joseph was a just man,” Genevan, Rhemish, Authorised versions. | [5 ἦσαν δὲ δίκαιοι ἀμφότεροι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, Luc. i. 6. “ Exant autem justi ambo,” Vulg. “ Both were perfect before God,” Tyndale, Geneva. “They were both righteous before God,” Bishops’ bible, 1584, Cranmer, Authorised. “Both just before God,” Rheims. ] γπι.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 337 inexcusably,) there they understand “ just” by imputation, and not in deed ; as is to be seen in Beza’s annotations upon the Epistle to the Romans. Note also, that they put the word “just,” when faith is joined withal, as Rom. i.,‘ “The just shall live by faith,” to signify that justification is by faith. But if works be joined withal, and keeping the commandments, as in the place alleged, Luke i., there they say “righteous,” to sup- press justification by works. Fulke. This is a marvellous difference, never heard of Futxr, 4. (I think) in the English tongue before, between “ just” and “righteous,” “justice” and “ righteousness.” I am sure there is none of our translators, no, nor any professor of justification by faith only, that esteemeth it the worth of one hair, whether you say in any place of scripture “ just” or “righteous,” “justice” or ‘“ righteousness ;” and there- fore freely they have used sometimes the one word, sometimes the other. Therefore it is a monstrous falsehood, that you feign them to observe this distinction, that they join “just” with “faith,” and “righteous” with “works.” Do they not translate, Rom. 11. 13, “the hearers of the law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified®”? Have you not again, “the righteousness of God is made manifest without the law, &c., by the faith of Jesus Christ”? And where you read, “ the just shall live by faith,” have you not imme- diately, ‘“ the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, The just shall live by faith”? Who then but the devil, which hath his name of slandering, would here invent a distinction of “just” and “righteous”? Martin. And certain it is, if there were no sinister meaning, they Marrty, 5. would in no place avoid to say “ just,” “justice,” “justification,” where τῆς δικαιο- both the Greek and Latin are so, word for word ; as for example, 2 Tim. ὁ δέος iv. 8°. in all their bibles, “ Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown κριτὴς of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at ARGUES, [* Ὃ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, Rom. i. 17. “Justus autem ex fide vivit,’ Vulg. ‘ The just shall live by faith,’ Tyndale’s, Cran- mer’s, Geneva, Bishops’, Authorised versions. ‘“ The just liveth,” &c., Rhemish. | | Γ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ποιηταὶ τοῦ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται, Rom. ii. 18. “ But the doers of the law shall be justified,’ Rhemish, and all the versions. | [ὁ λοιπὸν, ἀπόκειταί μοι ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος, ὃν ἀποδώσει μοι ὁ Κύριος ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ὁ δίκαιος κριτής. 2 Tim. iv. 8. “Co- rona justitie,” Vulg. “Crown of justice,” Rheims. “Crown of righte- ousness,” all the other versions. | 22 [FuULKE. | τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως. δίκαιόν ἐστι. justum est. οὐ γὰρ ἄδι- κος. Non enim in- eo est Fuxkg, 5. 338 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ ou. that day.” And again, 2 Thess, i., “ Rejoice in tribulation, which is a token of the righteous judgment of God’, that you may be \counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye suffer. For it is a righteous thing with God, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you ; and to you that are troubled, rest with us, in the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven.” And again Hebrews vi. 10, “God is not unrighteous to forget your good work and labour,” &c.* These are very pregnant places to discover their false purpose in concealing the word “justice” in all their bibles. For if they will say, that “justice” is not an usual English word in this sense, and therefore they say “ righteousness ;” yet, I trow, “just,” and “unjust,” are usual and well known. Why then would they not say at the least, in the places alleged, “God the just judge,” “a token of the just judgment of God,” “it is a just thing with God,” “ God is not unjust to forget,” &c.? Why is it not at the least in one of their English bibles, being so both in Greek and Latin? Fulke. Certain it is, that no Englishman knoweth the difference between “just” and “ righteous, ” “ unjust” and “ unrighteous,” saving that “righteousness” and “ righteous” are the more familiar English words. And that we mean no fraud between “ justice” and “ righteousness,” to apply the one to faith, the other to works, read Rom. x. 4, 5, and 6%, of the Geneva translation, where you shall see “ the right- eousness of the law,” and the “righteousness of faith.” Read also against this impudent lie, in the same translation, [? Ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, 2 Thess. i. 5. “ Exem- plum justi judicii Dei,” Vulg. “A token of the righteous judgment of God,” all the versions, except the Rhemish, which has, “ An example of the just judgment of God.”] [? οὐ yap ἄδικος ὁ Θεὸς ἐπιλαθέσθαι τοῦ ἔργου ὑμῶν, ἅς. Heb. vi. 10. “Non enim injustus Deus,” Vulg. “God is not unrighteous,” &c., all the versions, except those of Wiclif and Rheims, which have “un- just.” a For Christ is the end of the law, to justify (εἰς δικαιοσύνην) -allthat believe. For Moses describeth the righteousness (τὴν δικαιοσύνην) which cometh of the law, in these words, that the man which doth these things, shall live thereby. But the righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) which cometh of faith speaketh on this wise,” &c., Rom. x. 4, 5, 6. Genevan testament, 1557. “For Christ is the end of the law for righte- ousness unto every one that believeth. For Moses thus describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth these things, shall live thereby,” Geneva bible, 1560. Upon which pas- sage is the following marginal note: “The end of the law is to justify them which observe it: therefore Christ having fulfilled it for us, is made our justice, sanctification,’ &c.] vu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 339 Luke i., “ Zachary and Elizabeth were both just*:’ cap. ii., “Simeon was just:” Matt. i, “Joseph a just man”; and elsewhere oftentimes, and without any difference in the world from the word “righteous.” Who ever heard a difference made between a “just judge” and a “ righteous judge” ? This trifling is too shameful abusing of men’s patience, that shall vouchsafe to read these blotted papers. Martin. Understand, gentle reader, and mark well, that if St Paul’s Martin, 6. words were truly translated thus, “ A crown of justice is laid up for me, ein ἐδ which our Lord the just Judge will render unto me at that day,” and SVget for so in the other places; it would infer that men are justly crowned in aanueunhe heaven for their good works upon earth, and that it is God’s “justice” faith. so to do, and that he will do so because he is “a just judge,” and because he will shew his “just judgment,” and he will not forget so to do, because he is not unjust; as the ancient fathers, namely the Greek doctors, St Chrysostom, Theodoret, and C£cumenius upon these Ps2!. lvl. Si , 5 utique est places do interpret and expound. Insomuch that (cumenius?® saith cog dng thus upon the foresaid place to the Thessalonians, ὅρα ὅτι, &c.: “See Deus judi- cans eos In here, that to suffer for Christ procureth the kingdom of heaven accord- terra. ing to just judgment, and not according to grace.” Which lest the κατὰ δικαι- adversary might take in the worse part, as though it were only God’s καὶ οὐ card justice or just judgment, and not his favour or grace also, St Augustine x¢puv*. excellently declareth how it is both the one and the other; to wit, his grace, and favour, and mercy, in making us by his grace to live and believe well, and so to be worthy of heaven; his justice and just judg- ment, to render and repay for those works, which himself wrought in us, life everlasting. Which he expresseth thus: “How should he Rig, δὲ (το. render or repay as a just judge, unless he had given it asa merciful ο. 6. father?” Where St Augustine urgeth the words of “ repaying” as due, and of being “a just judge” therefore. Both which the said translators corrupt ; not only saying “righteous judge,” for “just judge ;” but that he will “‘ give a crown,” which is of a thing not due, for that which is in the Greek, “He will render or repay,” which is of a thing due and ἀποδώσει. deserved, and hath relation to works going before, for the which the crown is repaid. ‘‘ He said not,” saith Theophylact upon this place, “‘‘ he Γ᾿ “ Both were just (δίκαιοι) before God,” Geneva version, 1560. “ Both were perfect before God,” Geneva version, 1557, Luke i. 6. “ This man was just and feared God: (δίκαιος καὶ εὐλαβὴς), Luke ii. 25, Geneva version, 1557, 1560, Tyndale, 1534. “Just and godly,” Cran- mer, 1539, Bishops’ bible, 1584. “Just and devout,” Authorised ver- sion. | [® ὅρα δὲ ὅτι τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν κατὰ δικαιοκρισίαν παρέχει τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ οὐ κατὰ χάριν. CEcumen. Comment. in 2 Epist. ad Thessal. Vol. π. p. 189.] 22— 2 Ευχκε, 6. In Ps. Ix χῦ, and in Ps. ci’. 340 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cn. will give,’ but, ‘he will render or repay,’ as a certain debt. For he being just, will define and limit the reward according to the labours. The crown therefore is due debt, because of the judge’s justice.” So saith he. Fulke. Whatsoever you may cayil upon the words “just” and “ justice,” you may do the same, with as great advantage, upon the words “righteous” and “ righteous- ness.” That God as a just judge rewardeth good works of them that are justified freely by his grace, by faith without works, with a crown of justice, it proveth not either justification by works, or the merit or worthiness of men’s works; but all dependeth upon the grace of God, who pro- miseth this reward of his mere mercy, and of the worthiness and merits of Christ, which is our justice; whereby we being justified before God, our works also, which he hath given us, are rewarded of his justice, yet in respect of Christ’s merits, and not in respect of the worthiness of the works. Again, God is not unmindful of his promise to reward our works; for then he should be unjust: he is just therefore to perform whatsoever he hath promised, though we nothing deserve it. Neither hath Chrysostom, or Theo- doret, any other meaning. That you cite out of Gicumenius, a late writer in comparison’, is blasphemous against the grace of God; neither is St Augustine, that lived five hundred years before him, a sufficient interpreter of his saying to excuse him. With Augustine we say, “‘ God crown- [᾿ Gcumenius, bishop of Tricca in Thessaly, in the tenth century, wrote a Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St Paul, and the Catholic Epistles. But the remarks are chiefly taken from Chrysostom, Cyril, and other preceding writers. | [ἢ Hane ergo gratiam commendat nobis Deus et in isto psalmo: intueamur illum, et videamus an ita sit, an forte ego aliter suspicer. Ktenim arbitror hunce eum habere affectum, et hoc omnibus prope suis syllabis resonare: id est, hoc nobis commendare, gratiam Dei gratuitam, que nos liberat indignos, non propter nos, sed propter se; ut etiamsi non hoc dicerem, neque hoc prelocutus essem, quilibet mediocris cordis homo, attente audiens verba ejusdem psalmi, saperet hoc ; et forte ipsis verbis, si aliud habebat in corde, mutaretur, et fieret quod hic sonat. Quid est hoc? Ut tota spes nostra in Deo sit, nihilque de nobis tam- quam de nostris viribus presumamus; ne, nostrum facientes quod ab illo est, et quod accepimus amittamus. Augustini Enarrat. in Psal. Ixx. Opera, Vol. rv. p. 1027. ] [* Ergo coronat te, quia dona sua coronat, non merita tua. Plus virt. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 341 eth his gifts, not our merits.” And as he acknowledgeth God’s mercy, and also his justice, in rewarding our works, so do we. Where ἀποδώσει is translated “he will give,” I confess it had been more proper and agreeable to the Greek to have said, “he will render,” or “repay ;” which yet is wholly of mercy in respect of us or our deserving, but of justice in respect of his promises, and of Christ’s merits, unto which is rendered and repayed that which he deserved for us. The crown therefore is due debt, because it is promised to us for Christ’s sake, not because any works of ours are able to purchase it. Martin. Which speeches being most true, as being the express words Marti, 7. of holy scripture, yet we know how odiously the adversaries may and do misconstrue them to the ignorant, as though we challenged heaven by our own works, and as though we made God bound to us: which we do not, God forbid! But because he hath prepared good works for us, as the apostle saith, to walk in them, and doth by his grace cause us Eph. ii. 10. to do them, and hath promised life everlasting for them, and telleth us in all his holy scriptures, that to do them is the way to heaven ; therefore not presuming upon our own works as our own, or as of our- selves, but upon the good works wrought through God’s grace by us, his seely* instruments, we have great confidence, as the apostle speak- Heb. x. . eth, and are assured that these works, proceeding of his grace, be so acceptable to him, that they are esteemed, and be, worthy and merito- rious of the kingdom of heaven. Against which truth let us see further their heretical corruptions. Fulke. Wf you would abide by your first protestation, Funxe, 7. we should not need to contend much about this question. But after you have in the beginning magnified the grace and mercy of God, and abased your own merits, you come back again with a subtle compass, to establish your own free will, the worthiness of your works, and your merit of omnibus illis laboravi, ait apostolus: sed vide quid adjungit, Non ego autem, sed gratia Dei mecum. Et post labores omnes exspectat ipsam coronam, et dicit, Bonum agonem certavi, cursum consummavi, fidem servavi: de cetero superest mihi corona justitie, quam reddet Dominus in illa die justus judex. Quare? Quia agonem certavi. Quare? Quia cursum consummavi. Quare? Quia fidem servavi. Unde certasti? unde fidem servasti? Non ego autem, sed gratia Dei mecum. Ergo et quod coronaris, illius misericordia coronaris. Augustini Enarrat. in Psalm. cii. Opera, Vol. rv. pp. 1592, 1593. Edit. Bened. Paris. 18365. | [* Simple. } Luke xviii. 342 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. the kingdom of heaven. First, you say, God telleth us in all his holy scriptures, that “to do good works is the way to heaven.” Indeed to fulfil the law, is to deserve heaven. But whosoever is guilty of sin, must seek another way than by good works to come to heaven, namely to Jesus Christ, who is the only way to heaven, the truth, and the life; by whose blood when he is purged from his sin, and reconciled unto God, and the kingdom of heaven purchased for him, then he hath the way of good works appointed him to walk in toward the same. Secondly, you say, you “presume not upon your own works, as your own, or as of yourselves, but upon the good works wrought by God’s grace, by you his seely instruments, you have great confidence.” Thus while you would seem to fly from Pelagianism, you fall into flat — Pharisaism. For you trust that you are righteous in your- selves, though not as of yourselves. Such was the Pharisee of whom Christ telleth the parable; which, ascribing all his works to the grace of God, had confidence in them, that he was just before God by them. “God, I thank thee,” saith the Pharisee. He acknowledgeth the grace of God, as author of all his works: yet against such as he was, Christ telleth that parable. And whereas you call the apostle, Heb. x., to witness of your error, you do him great wrong; for he speaketh not of any confidence to be had upon good works, wrought by the grace of God by us; but in the new covenant of remission of sins, by the sacrifice of Christ’s death, by whom we have access to God, that we may be acceptable to him, not for any meritorious works wrought by us, but by the only oblation of his body once for all, by which “he hath made perfect for ever those that are sanctified.” Ix. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 345 CHAPTER IX. Heretical Translation against Merits, or Meritorious Works, and the Reward for the same. Martin. Wuen they translate Rom. viii. 18, thus, “I am certainly Marr, 1. persuaded, that the afflictions of this time are not’ worthy of the Bib. 1677. glory which shall be shewed upon us’ ;” do they not mean to signify to the reader, and must it not needs so sound in his ears, that the tribula- tions of this life, be they never so great, though suffered for Christ, yet do not merit nor deserve the heavenly glory ? But in the Greek it is far otherwise. J will not stand upon their first words, “I am certainly λογίζο- persuaded,” which is a far greater asseveration than the apostle useth ; a:?. «1 and I marvel how they could so translate that Greek word, but th αἱ ee they were disposed not only to translate the apostle’s words falsely against meritorious works, but also to avouch and affirm the same lustily, with much more vehemency of words than the apostle speaketh. Well, let us pardon them this fault, and examine the words follewing : οὐκ ἄξια where the Greek saith not, as they translate with full consent in all πρὸς τὴν their English bibles, “The afflictions are not worthy of the glory,” &c., cee but thus, “ The afflictions of this time are not equal, correspondent, or evious comparable to the glory to come ;” because the afflictions are short, the pd πος glory is eternal ; the afflictions small and few in comparison, the glory upon sost. great and ptncadeath above measure. Ρ i Fulke. Although an invincible argument against merits Furxe, 1. and desert of good works may be drawn out of this text; yet the meaning of the translators is to shew no more than the apostle saith, that the heavenly glory is incompa- rably greater than all the tribulations of this life. And this the apostle speaketh, not doubtingly, as our English [' Bishops’ bible, 1584. ] Γ᾽ Δογίζομαι yap ὅτι οὐκ ἄξια τὰ παθήματα τοῦ viv καιροῦ πρὸς THY μέλ- λουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς, Rom. viii. 18, “And I deem that the passions of this time,” &c., Wiclif. ‘For I suppose that the afflic- tions of this life,’ Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539. “ For I confirm that the afflictions of this life,” Geneva testament, 1557. “For I count that the afflictions of this present time,” Geneva bible, 1560. “ For I think that the passions of this time are not condign to the glory to come,” Rheims, 1582. “ For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us,” Authorised version, 1611. | 944 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. word “I suppose” doth signify, when a man may be deceived in his supposal; but he avoucheth it constantly, as a thing, which being well considered, with the reasons thereof, he concludeth of it with certainty. And so doth λογίζομαι signify in this place, and in divers other, by the judgment of better Grecians than Gregory Martin will be these seven years ; as Rom. iii. 28, where the apostle, having discussed the controversy of justification by faith or works, concludeth, as of a certain, λογιζόμεθα οὖν, “we determine therefore, that — a man is justified by faith without the works of the law.” Likewise, Rom. vi. 11, after he hath proved, that sanctification is necessary to all them that shall or have put on the justice Martin, 2. of Christ, he saith with great asseveration unto the Romans, λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς, “Make you full account therefore, that you are dead to sin;” and not uncertainly think or suppose it so to be. Therefore for the translation of λογίζομαι, in this place, we will accept no pardon of you; it is better translated than your wit or learning serveth you to under- stand. Now let us come to the other words, ἄξια πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν, “are not worthy of the glory.” Where you say, it should be “not equal,” “correspondent,” or “ com- parable,” to the glory. Verily, those words we use have none other sense in this place, than the words which you supply us withal; but our words do express the most usual significa- tion of the Greek word ἄξια, even as your vulgar Latin doth, calling it in the same sense condigne, which you in your own translation dare not render “equal,” “correspondent,” or “comparable,” but “condign” ; lest following the sense, you might be accused to forsake the word: even so we think it best, where the usual signification of the word will bear the sense in our English, to retain the same, and not to change it. Martin. This is the Greek phrase and the apostle’s meaning, which we need not greatly to prove, because their own doctors, Calvin and Beza, do so interpret it: and therefore wonder it were that the Geneva English bibles also should forsake their masters, and follow the error of the other English bibles, but that they thought the more voices the better. In the mean time, the people seeth no other translation, and thinketh it is the apostle’s very words. But Beza himself telleth them the contrary, translating thus: Statuo minime esse paria que presenti tempore perpetimur, future glorie nobis revelande: that is, “1 am of this 1x, | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 345 opinion, that the things which we suffer in this present time, are not equal to the glories that shall be revealed to us.” And in his commen- tary thus: “ St Paul’s discourse and matter handled in this place declare, that he speaketh not of the value or price of the afflictions which we suffer for Christ; but rather by comparing their quality and quantity with life everlasting, he gathereth that we shall be infinitely more happy with Christ, than we are miserable here. Therefore did he use the Greek word rightly and properly, which the grammarians say is spoken ἀξία. of such things as, being poised or weighed, are found of one weight.” Thus far Beza’. Fulke. We contend not, as it seemeth, at this time Funxz, 2. about the meaning of the place, but about the true translation of the words. If you can prove therefore, that the Greek word ἄξιος doth not signify “worthy,” or that this English word “worthy” cannot express the meaning of the apostle in this text, your accusation is Just; but if you can prove neither of both, you multiply words, as your manner is, without matter, to no purpose but to weary the reader. And wisely you translate Beza’s Latin word statwo, “1 am of opinion,” which signifieth more truly, “1 determine,” or, as our transla- tion hath, “I am certainly persuaded,” and not, “I am of an opinion,” whereof there is no certain knowledge; for an opinion may be false, and is of uncertainties. Martin. If then a comparison only be signified, why do they not 0 Martin, 3. translate it in English, that it may be taken for a comparison in our English phrase? For they know very well, that if a man should say in English, according as they translate, “Good works are not worthy of heaven ;” “this man is not worthy of my favour,” “he is not worthy of such a living, of so great praises ;’ every Englishman understandeth it thus, that they “ deserve not heaven,” and that such a man “ desery- eth not this or that.’ Even so must the reader needs take it in this place, and they must needs have intended that he should so take it. For though the Greek phrase may signify a comparison, being so uttered, Prov. iii. [15, yet ποῦ πὸ English. And if it might, yet obscurely, and ambiguously : : dod αὐ- and if it might, yet here they do falsely translate so, because here the 7S: Greek phrase is otherwise, and therefore should otherwise be Englished. For it is not ἄξια τῆς δόξης, which is as they translate, “worthy of the glory ;” but ἄξια πρὸς τὴν δόξαν, which cannot be so translated. For if it might, then these Greek phrases were all one, and might be used indifferently. And then I must desire them to turn me this into Greek, “He is not worthy of thanks:” and if they turn it by the apostle’s phrase in this place, οὐκ ἄξιός ἐστι πρὸς τὴν χάριτα, to all Grecians they [* Nov. Test. Beze, p. 189, in Rom. viii. 18.] FuLKE, 3. 346 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. shall be ridiculous. And yet this is as well turned out of English into Greek, as they have turned the other out of Greek into English. Fulke. Verily I cannot see, nor any wise man else, I think, what this English word “worthiness” doth signify, but a comparison of equality in price, valour’, goodness, excel- lency, or such like. And even in those English phrases. that you bring for example, “ good works are not worthy of hea- ven,” the meaning is, there is not an equality of excellency in good works and heaven ; or, good works compared to heaven are not equal in value. And even so, “ this man is not wor- thy of my favour ;” “the goodness of this man is not so great, as the goodness of my favour ;” and so of the rest. And where you say, “every Englishman understandeth it thus, that they deserve not heaven, and that such a man deserveth not this,” &c. I grant they may of worthiness gather desert, in such as may deserve; and so may they of the comparison of equality conclude desert in the like case. For to deserve is, by doing to make himself equal in good or eyil to that reward or punishment which is valued with such doing. Therefore whether you say “worthy,” or “equal,” it is all one. And in this text by either of both merit or desert is neces- sarily excluded. For if the heavenly glory be incomparably greater than the afflictions of this life, it followeth of necessity, that the afflictions of this life deserve not, that is, make not an equality of excellency with heavenly glory. But the Greek phrase, you say, is otherwise; for ἄξια is not joined with a genitive case, but with an accusative and a preposition. Indeed this latter construction of ἄξιος is not so usual, and doth more fully set forth the comparison ; but the same also is set forth by the genitive case, as you yourself cannot deny. Now our English phrase would not bear that we should say, “worthy to the glory;” and therefore we said, “worthy of the glory.” But if that were good, you say, the “ Greek phrases were all one, and might be used indifferently.” I see no great difference between the Greek phrases; and yet it followeth not that they may be used indifferently. For unusual phrases are not to be used as indifferently as common phrases. And therefore your example, of turning English into Greek, is not all one with turning Greek into English. If I translate out [? Valour: value.] 1x. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 347 of Greek into English, I must observe the English phrase as near as I can; and so, if I translate into Greek, must I have respect to the usual Greek phrase. And to speak of your ridiculous translation out of English into Greek ; I think he that should say ἄξιος χάριτος, for “worthy of thanks,” should deserve no great commendation: but he that should say, ἄξιος πρὸς “τὴν χάριν τοῦ βασιλέως. for “worthy of the king’s favour,” though it be no usual phrase, I see not why he should be ridiculous. And if you should translate these words into English, Νέρων οὐκ ἄξιος ἣν πρὸς τὴν βασιλείαν, would you not, or might you not, translate it thus, “ Nero was not worthy of the kingdom”? Therefore we have not done amiss to translate “worthy of the glory.” Martin. Marry, if they would express a comparison of equality or Marty, 4. inequality between thing and thing, then this is the proper Greek phrase thereof, and much more proper for this purpose, than by ἄξιος and a genitive case. Which notwithstanding is often so used in scriptures by The Greek way of comparison, as Prov. iii., concerning the praise of wisdom: where it it. St Augustine, to express the oniebuadial readeth thus : Omne pretiosum στόμα or τον non est illi dignum: and St Hierome, according to the Hebrew, thus: οὐκ ἄξιον Omnia que desiderantur non valent huic comparari, or adequari; and αὐτῆς Ν ί. Eccles. xxvi. we have the very like speech proceeding of the said Greek 3 word ἄξιος, Omnis ponderatio non est digna continentis anime. Which Dam the English bibles thus, “ There is no weight to be compared unto a so mind that can rule itself, or, with a continent mind.” a eed raw Fulke. You cannot use the word ἄξιος but it will in- Furxe, 4. clude a comparison, whether it be with a genitive case, as in the examples you bring, or with an accusative, as in this text of St Paul. And even so the English word, “ worthy,” doth comprehend an equality in good or evil. Wherefore the sense is all one, whether you say in this text “ equal,” or “worthy,” but that the usual signification of ἄξιος is “worthy,” as no man will deny- that is not past all shame. Martin. And if ἄξιος with a genitive case signify a comparison, Manny, 5. and themselves so translate it in all their bibles, should not ἄξιος in the ἄξια πρὸς apostle’s phrase much more be so translated? I appeal to their own τὴν δόξαν. consciences. Again, if here in Ecclesiasticus they say not according to the Greek words, “ There is no weight worthy of a continent mind,” ἀξιος éy- because they would by an English phrase express the comparison ; is ara χης it not more than evident, that when they translate the apostle by the ° very same words, “ worthy of the glory,” &c. they know it cannot, and they mean it should not, signify a comparison? I cannot sufficiently Fux, 5. Martin, 6. How good works merit life everlast- ing, though one preore: parably ex- ceed the other. 348 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. express, but only to the learned and skilful reader, their partial and heretical dealing. Briefly I say, they translate οὐκ ἄξιος ἐγκρατοῦς ψυχῆς, “Not to be compared with a continent mind,” being in Greek, word for word, “not worthy of a continent mind ;” and contrariwise they translate in St Paul, οὐκ ἄξια πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν, “Not worthy of the glory to come,” being in the Greek, “ Not to be com- pared to the glory to come ;” according to the very like Latin phrase by dignus, Eccl. vi., Amico fideli nulla est comparatio, et non est digna pon- deratio auri et argenti contra bonitatem fidei ; that is, according to their own translation, “A faithful friend hath no peer: weight of gold and silver is not to be compared to the goodness of his faith.” Fulke. If the English word “ worthy” did not signify a comparison, as well as the Greek word ἄξιος, it were some- what that you say; but seeing one signifieth as much as the other, there is no more savour in your disputation than in an egg without salt. When we say there is no weight of gold to be compared “to a continent mind,” it is all one as if we said, “ worthy of a continent mind ;” for we meant, to be com- pared in goodness, price, excellency, &c. And therefore you speak out of measure falsely and impudently, when you say, we mean not that the word “ worthy” in this text of St Paul should signify a comparison, for it is not possible that it should signify otherwise. Doth not the Geneva note in the margin say, “or of like value”? If you be so blind that you cannot see a comparison in the word “ worthy,” at the least shore up your eyes, and behold it in those words, “ of like or equal value.” or all comparison is either in quantity or quality. And where you say that you cannot express your conceit, “but only to the learned,” there is none so meanly learned, but they may well laugh at your foolish and un- learned trifling. Martin. Now if they will say, though their translation of St Paul’s words be not so exact and commodious, yet the sense and meaning is all one; (for if these present afflictions be not equal or comparable to the glory to come, then neither are they worthy of it, nor can de- serve or merit it ;) let the christian reader mark the difference. First, their Beza and Calvin telleth them, that the apostle speaketh of the one, and not of the other. Secondly, the passions and afflictions that Christ our Saviour suffered all his life, were not comparable to the eternal glory which he obtained thereby: yet did he thereby deserve and merit eternal glory, not only for himself, but for all the world; yea, by the least affliction he suffered did he deserve all this :—unless 1x. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 349 you will deny also that he merited and deserved his glory, which your opinion a man might very well gather by some of your false translations, Heb. ii. 9. but that you would think us too suspicious, which, perhaps, we will Testament examine hereafter. Thirdly, the present pleasure of advoutry during $540 (2a pip. a man’s life is not comparable to the eternal torments of hell fire ; 1519: and yet it doth merit and deserve the same. Fourthly, the apostle by making an incomparable difference of the glory to come with the afflic- tions of this time, doth, as St Chrysostom saith, exhort them the more προτρέπει vehemently and move them to sustain all things the more willingly : μειζόνως. but if he said, as they translate, “The afflictions are not worthy of heaven, you are never the nearer heaven for them, only believe ;” this had not been to exhort them, but to discourage them. Fifthly, the apostle, when he will elsewhere encourage them to suffer, saith plainly, “Our tribulation which presently is for a moment and light, worketh 2Cor.iv. 17. above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in us’.” ete μὰ hase i ζεται. Fulke. We say our translation, both in word and sense, Fuxxe, 6. is the same in English that St Paul did write in Greek. As for the argument against “ merit” or “desert,” which doth follow thereof, we affirm that it is as necessarily gathered of the words “ equal,” or “ comparable,” or “correspondent,” as of the word “worthy.” But to overthrow this argument, you have five reasons. The first is of the authority of Beza and Calvin, which, you say, “telleth us, that the apostle speaketh of the one, and not of the other.” To this I answer, that they both affirm the consequence against merits out of this text, although it be not the apostle’s direct purpose to abase the merit of works by comparison of the excellency of the glory. To your second argument I answer, that though “the afflictions that Christ our Saviour suffered were not comparable” in respect of the length of time “ with the eternal glory that he obtained thereby ;’ yet in respect of the excellency of his person, and the perfection of his obedience, they were com- parable, and of equal value to deserve eternal glory, according to the justice of God, by which one man’s disobedience was sufficient to eternal condemnation, Romans v. What the least of his afflictions, separated from all the rest, was in value, I have not learned out of the scripture : only I think, [Γ᾿ To yap παραυτίκα ἐλαφρὸν τῆς θλίψεως ἡμῶν καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολὴν αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης κατεργάζεται ἡμῖν, 2 Cor. iv. 17. Κατεργάζεται. ‘ Operatur,” Vulg. “Worketh,”’ Wiclif’s, Rhemish, Authorised version. “ Prepareth,” Tyndale’s, Cranmer’s, Bishops’ bible. “Causeth,” Geneva Test. 1557. ] Martin, 7. 350 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. he suffered nothing superfluously, nor less than was needful to answer the justice of God. Your other fond surmises I omit, until you express them. To your third argument I say, that one act of adultery is worthy of damnation, and deserveth eternal torment, not by comparison of the short pleasure with infinite pain, but because it is a sin committed against the majesty of the eternal God, and therefore is worthy of eternal punishment. For the sin is to be measured after the excel- lency of the person against whom it is committed. Therefore that word, which being spoken against a poor man is a light fault, as to say he is a knave, the same being spoken against a lord is an heinous offence and deserveth the pillory; but being spoken against a king, is high treason, and is worthy of death. Seeing therefore the eternal majesty of God is contemned in every sin, that sin doth justly deserve eternal torments. Fourthly, it is true that the apostle doth exhort us cheerfully to abide the small and momentary afflictions of this life, in respect that they shall be rewarded with incom- parable glory. But hereof it followeth not, that the glory is deserved by short and small sufferings, but is given of the bountiful liberality of God to them that for his sake patiently suffer such small afflictions. Therefore, if it be an encourage- ment for a man to labour, to hear that he shall be paid his hire, as much as his work deserveth, it is a much greater encouragement for him to hear, that he shall receive a thousand times more than his labour deserveth. The words you add (‘“ you are never the nearer heaven, only believe ”) are yours, and none of ours; for we say with the apostle, “we must suffer with Christ, if we will reign with him ;” and the patient suffering of the faithful is nothing repugnant to the justification before God by faith only. To the last argument of the apostle’s authority, I answer: our patient suffering worketh infinite weight of glory, not by the worthiness, merit, or desert of our suffering, but by the bountiful libe- rality of God, who hath promised so incomparable reward to small tribulation suffered for his sake. Wherefore, all your fine reasons notwithstanding, our translation is sound and true. Martin. See you not a comparison between short and eternal, light tribulation and exceeding weighty glory; and yet that one also “worketh” 4 Ix. ] _ TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 351 the other, that is, causeth, purchaseth, and deserveth the other? For, like as the little seed, being not comparable to the great tree, yet causeth it and bringeth it forth; so our tribulations and good works, other- See this é “ - : Greek word, wise incomparable to eternal glory, by the virtue of God’s grace work- 8 Gotti ing in us “worketh,” “purchaseth,” and “causeth” the said glory. For so themselves ranslate It they know very well the Greek word importeth ; though here also they «causeth,” translate it most falsely. Bib. an. 1577. Ἄν, rie fi Fulke. We see the comparison well, but we see not Εὐτκε, 7. that “worketh” or “causeth” is all one with “ purchaseth” and “deserveth.” |Your comparison of “seed,” and “tribu- lation,” is not like. For in the seed is the formal cause of the great tree: so is not the formal cause of eternal glory in our tribulation. But as if an emperor for one day’s valiant service in war do give unto his son one of his kingdoms, we may truly say, that day’s service wrought him this great reward, or caused him to be advanced to this kingdom; but we cannot say truly, it purchased or deserved a kingdom ; for then every one that served as well as he deserved the like reward: so is the reward of eternal life, which is the gift of God, incomparably greater than our tribulation, not by the desert of the sufferer, but by liberality of the giver. That translation that useth the word of “ preparing,” is not so proper, according to the word; but it differeth not much in sense, shewing how those afflictions do work, or cause, namely, by preparing and making us conformable to the sufferings of Christ. Martin. Lastly, for most manifest evidence, that these present tri- Martin, 8. bulations and other good works are meritorious and worthy of the joys to come, though not comparable to the same; you shall hear the holy doctors say both in one passage or sentence. St Cyprian thus: “O Ep. 56. num. what manner of day shall come, my brethren, when our Lord shall oe recount the merits of every one, and pay us the reward or stipend of faith and devotion ?”! Ep. lvi. Here are “merits” and “reward” for the [* O dies ille qualis et quantus adveniet, fratres dilectissimi, cum coeperit populum suum Dominus recensere, et divine cognitionis ex- amine singulorum merita recognoscere, mittere in gehennam nocentes, et persecutores nostros flamme pcenalis perpetuo ardore damnare, nobis vero mercedem fidei et devotionis exsolvere! Que erit gloria, et quanta letitia, admitti, ut Deum videas; honorari, ut cum Christo Domino Deo tuo salutis ac lucis xterne gaudium capias! Abraham, et Isaac, et Jacob, et Patriarchas omnes, et Prophetas, et Apostolos, et Martyres ἘσπκΕ, 8. 352 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cn. same. It followeth in the said doctor: “ What glory shall it be, and how great joy, to be admitted to see God, so to be honoured that thou receive the joy of eternal life with Christ thy Lord God, to receive there that which neither eye hath seen, nor ear hath heard, nor hath ascended into the heart of man! for that we shall receive greater things than here either we do or suffer, the apostle pronounceth, saying, ‘The passions of this time are not condign or comparable to the glory to come.’” Here we see, that the “ stipend” or “reward” of the merits aforesaid are incomparably greater than the said merits. Fulke. For lack of scriptures you fly to the doctors to find “merits ;” in whom nevertheless, being catholic and sound doctors, you shall sooner find the word meritwm than your meaning of it. The place of Cyprian I marvel why you geld, except it be to joi the reward that he speaketh of with the word “merits;” which he useth, either generally for works, as it is often used in the ancient writers; or if he mean thereby “deserts,” he speaketh but of examination only of all men’s deserts, that he may give to the wicked that they have deserved, and to the godly that which he hath promised : therefore he calleth it the reward of their faith and devotion, His words are these: “ὁ dies ille qualis et quantus adveniet, fratres dilectissimi, cum caperit populum suum Dominus recensere, et divine cognitionis examine sin- gulorum meritum recognoscere, mittere in gehennam nocentes, et persecutores nostros flamme penalis perpetuo ardore damnare, nobis vero mercedem fidet et devotionis exsolvere.” “O that day, what manner a one, and how great shall it come, my dearest beloved brethren, when the Lord shall begin to recount his people, and by examination of his divine know- ledge consider the merits of every one, to send into hell fire the guilty, and to condemn our persecutors with perpetual burning of penal flame; but unto us to pay the reward of faith and devotion!” The reward of faith is not that which belief deserveth, but which it looketh for according to God’s salutare ; cum justis et Dei amicis in regno ccelorum date immortalitatis voluptate gaudere ; sumere illic quod nec oculus vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascendit! majora enim nos accipere, quam quod hic aut operamur aut patimur, Apostolus predicat, dicens: Non sunt condigne passiones hujus temporis ad superventuram claritatem, que revelabitur in nobis. Cypriani Epist. lvi. p. 96. Opera, ed. Rigalt. 1656. ] ὮΝ TRANSLATIONS. OF THE BIBLE. 353° promise, whereunto it leaneth. For in respect of desert of God’s favour, he saith, and bringeth divers texts for proof: Fidem tantum prodesse, et tantum nos posse quantum credi- Aa quirin. mus'; “That faith only doth profit, and that so much we can” * do, how much we believe.” Wherefore we see not in Cyprian the incomparable glory to be a reward of deserts. Martin. Likewise St Augustine: “The exceeding goodness of God: Μλπτιν, 9. hath provided this, that the labours shall soon be ended, but the rewards ser. 37. de of the merits should endure without end; the apostle testifying, ‘the Prete ules passions of this time are not comparable, &c. For we shall receive ὅτ greater bliss, than are the afflictions of all passions whatsoever.” Thus we see plainly, that short tribulations are true merits of endless glory, though not comparable to the same: which truth you impugn by your false and heretical translation. But let us see further your dealing in the selfsame controversy, to make it plainer, that you bend your translations against it, more than the text of the scripture doth permit you. Fulke. A man may see you are driven to extreme Furs, 9. shifts, when you will seek premia meritorum in St Augus- tine, and can find it nowhere, but among the sermones de sanctis, which bear no credit of Augustine’s works, but of some later gatherer. The true Augustine in Ps. Ixx. Con. 1, thus writeth: Mihil es per te, Deum invoca; tua peccata sunt, merita Dei sunt; supplicitum ἰδὲ debetur, et cum premium venerit, sua dona coronabit, non merita tua. “ Thou art nothing by thyself, call upon God; thine are the sins, the merits are God’s; to thee punishment is due, and when the reward shall come, he will crown his gifts, not thy merits.” Finally, Augustine in nothing is more earnest than in denying the reward which is of grace, to be due in respect of merit or worthiness of works. Martin. In the book of Wisdom, where there is honourable mention Martin, of the merits of saints and their, rewards in heaven, you translate the ἰὸς holy scripture thus: “God hath proved them, and findeth them meet Γ᾿ Fidem tantum prodesse: for which reading Rigaltius, p. 278, has, fidem in totum prodesse, and says upon it, “ pro eo quod corruptissime et suspectissime Erasmici omnes, fidem tantum prodesse.” It does not how- ever appear, that the reading of Rigaltius rests upon any thing more authoritative than the reading of Manutius, Fidem in totum. Edit. Oxonie, 1682, p. 77.] : [? Augustini Enarrat. in Psalm. Ixx. Opera, Vol. ιν. p. 1053.] 23 [FULKE.] 354 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH * [on. ἀξίους éav- for himself.” To omit here that you use the present tense, whereas in: ase osse, ὑπὸ Greek they are preter tenses, (God knoweth why; only this we know, ἐπείρασεν. that it is no true nor sincere translation,) but to wink at smaller faults, a why say you here in all your bibles, that God findeth his saints and holy servants “meet for himself,” and not “worthy of himself?” See your partiality, and be ashamed. Furxe, Fulke. The book of Wisdom, written by Philo the Jew, a8 as St Jerome thinketh', is no holy canonical scripture, to confirm the credit of any article of belief. Therefore, whether’ he thought that men’s merits were worthy of the favour and grace of God, and the reward of eternal life, or no, it is not material. But somewhat it is that you say, that our transla- tors for ἄξιος have not translated “worthy,” but “meet.” For. my part, I wish they had retained the usual signification of that word, and said “worthy of himself,” only to take away: your cavil. For otherwise in the sense there is no difference κα if that he saith be true, none is meet for God, but they that are worthy of him, which are not meet or worthy of them- selves, but made such by grace, not for merit of their works, but by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them by faith. This if the wise man meaneth not, but that their virtues were such as deserved God’s favour and eternal life, we may boldly reject him as going against the wisdom of God re- vealed in the canonical scriptures. Mart, Martin. In the apostle’s places before examined you said negatively, 11, that the afflictions of this time were “not worthy of” the glory to come, the Greek not bearing that translation; but here, when you should say affirmatively, and that word for word after the Greek, that God found ἀξίους éav- them “ worthy of himself,” there you say, “meet for himself,” avoiding pore the term “worthy,” because merit is included therein. So that when Condignee ad you will in your translation deny merits, then condigne ad significth *. “worthy of” when. you should in your translation affirm “merits,” then Dignos se. dignus with an ablative case doth not signify “worthy of.” No marvel if such willfulness will not see the word “merit,” or that which is equivalent thereto, in all the scripture. For when you do see it, and Merit: ego should translate it, you suppress it by another word. But this is a case proved by the worthy of examination, whether the scriptures have the word “merit,” Scriptures, : . Ὕ or the equivalent thereof. For we will force them, even by their own translations, to confess that it is found there, and that they should trans- [* Unde et in Sapientia, que Salomonis inscribitur, (si cui tamen placet librum recipere,) scriptum reperimus. Hieronymi Comment. im Zach. xii. Opera, Vol. m1. pp. 1783, 1784.] ιχ. TRANSLATIONS OF ‘THE BIBLE. 355 late it accordingly often when they do not; yea, that if we did not see it in the vulgar Latin translation, yet they must needs see it and find it in the Greek. Fulke. In the canonical scripture, it seemeth, the trans- LB lators had a religious care, to keep both the property of ὃν the words, and the true meaning of the Holy Ghost. In the apocryphal books they had a wise consideration, to trans- late them according to the best meaning that their words would bear. Now, whether you say “worthy of God,” or “meet for God,” you must understand this meetness or wor- thiness to be of grace, and not of merit; or else the saying is blasphemous against the grace of God. For merit is not necessarily included in worthiness. The king’s son is worthy to succeed his father by right of inheritance, not by merit of virtue always. o ει \ , ὅτι διὰ τοῦ θανάτου ἡγιάσθης τοῦ Χριστοῦ ; οὐχ ὅτι εἰς Χριστὸν πιστεύεις ; , > \ 4 > \ > »~ 2Qs 2 4 Qs » πόθεν ἀδελφὸς γέγονας ; οὐ yap ἐν ἔργῳ, οὐδὲ ἐν λόγῳ, οὐδὲ ἐν κατορ- θώματι πιστὸς ἐφάνης. Id. p. 90.] 366 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cus likewise we might tell you of other words and phrases that do plainly xara ra import and signify “merit.” As when it is said, Eccles, xvi., ‘‘ Every ἔργα αὐτοῦ man shall find according to his works.” Budee, both your master and εὑρησει. λαβεῖν αὐθ᾽ ours in the Greek tongue, telleth us that the Greek word εὑρέσθαι, “ to ὧν τις ἔδω- find.” is properly “to receive for that which a man hath given or aon τον Jaboured.” And to requite you with some profane authority, because εὑρεῖν ἀτέ- you delight much in that kind, the whole oration of Demosthenes δαναν: πρὸς Λεπτίνην will tell you the same. Now, “to receive for that which a man hath laboured or wrought,” what doth it else presuppose, but “merit” and “desert”? It isa common phrase of the scripture, that Feeles. xvi. “God will judge and reward or repay according to every man’s works” : fey. atl doth not this include “ merit” and “ demerit” of works? But 1 wot not how, nor wherefore, in this case you translate sometime “ deeds” for κατὰτὰ “works,” saying, “ Who will reward every man according to his deeds.” ἔργα αὖ And again, “ You see then how that of deeds a man is justified, and not του. ἐξ ἔργων. of faith only.” FuLKE, Fulke. We do not yet see, that the holy scriptures, 19. used any word equivalent to “merit,” whereby it might be gathered, that we are justified or saved by merit of good works. But you have other, words and phrases, that do plainly import and signify merit, as in Ecclesiasticus xvi, “Every man shall find according to his works,” Where you put us in mind, what our Master Budee writeth of the proper signification of εὑρέσθαι, that is, “to deserve,” bringing example therefore out of Demosthenes’ oration πρὸς Λεπτίνην. But I pray you, doth our said Master affirm this to be the only signification of that verb? Where he bringeth you the example out of Gregory, of Saul, which, seeking his father’s asses, βασιλείαν εὕρατο, “found a kingdom,” doth he mean that by seeking his father’s asses he deserved a kingdom? Again, the example he bringeth out of St Luke, εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, “thou hast found favour,” or “grace with God;” doth he under; stand that the virgin Mary deserved the grace of God? But you object, that “it is a common phrase of the scrip- © ture, that God will judge or reward, or repay to every man according to his works.” It is true, but not to every one according to his merits; for then all should be damned, for all have deserved death; and no man should be saved, for no man meriteth salvation. But God rendereth to the faithful according to their works, when he freely giveth for Christ’s sake eternal life to them, that by. the perseve- Ix. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 367. rance of good works (as the apostle saith) seek glory, ho- nour, and incorruption. Their works therefore are the fruits of his grace, not the “merits” or “deserts” of his grace by which we are saved: Eph. ii. But here again you quarrel, that for “works” we say sometimes “deeds,” as though they were not all one: or if they be not, why do you, 1 Cor. vy. translate Qui hoc opus fecit, “that hath done this deed ?” Martin. I know you will tell us, that you use to say “deeds” or Marry, “works” indifferently ; as also you may say, that you put no difference ~~’ between “just” and “righteous,” “meet” and “worthy,” but use both indifferently. To the ignorant this is a fair answer, and shall soon per- suade them ; but they that see further must needs suspect you, till you give a good reason of your doing. For the controversy being of “faith” and “works,” of “justice” and “justification” by works, of the “ worthi- ness” or value of works; why do you not precisely keep these terms pertaining to the controversy, the Greek words being always pregnant in that signification? Why should you once translate the Greek ἔργα, “‘ deeds,” rather than “ works’? You know it is properly “ works,” as πράξεις, “deeds.” It were very good in matters of controversy to be precise. Beza maketh it a great fault in the old vulgar Latin trans- Prefat. in no. lator, that he expresseth one Greek word in Latin divers ways: you ἜΣ chop and change significations here and there, as you list, and you think you satisfy the reader marvellous well, if sometime you say ‘‘idol,’ and not always “images ;” sometime “just,” and not always “righteous :” and if in other places you say “ works,” or if one bible hath “ works,” where another hath “deeds,” you think this is very well, and will answer all the matter sufficiently. God and your conscience be judge herein, and let the wise reader consider it deeply. ‘The least thing that we demand the reason of, rather than charge you withal, is, why your church bible saith in the places before alleged, “ The righteous judg- δικαιοκρι- ment of God, which will reward every man according to his deeds,” ee . and, “man is justified by deeds, and not by faith only.” Whereas you ἐξ ἔργων. know the Greek is more pregnant for us than so, and the matter of controversy would better appear on our side, if you said thus: “The just judgment of God, which will reward every man according to his works ;” and, “man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” Fulke. Τί you could tell us, what advantage our doc- Futxe, trine might have by translating “deeds” rather than “works,” ie it might be suspected why some translations use the one, rather than the other; but seeing you cannot imagine, nor any man else, what it should avail us, to use the one rather than the other, it may be reasonably thought, that the translators meant no subtilty ; especially when in places Martin, 21. 368 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cn. of like appearance for our assertion they use the word: “deeds” also: as Gal. ii. 16. “A man is not justified by the deeds of the law, but by faith of Jesus Christ;” where the Greek word is ἔργων, as well as in St James. But where you say that πράξεις is proper for “ deeds,” you were best call the second book of St Luke, The “ Deeds” of the Apostles. The fault that Beza findeth with the vulgar Latin translation is, that in diverse places he translateth one word diverse ways, and them differing. For otherwise to. translate for ξίφος sometimes gladius, and sometimes ensis, it were no’ fault; no more than it is in us to use the words “ justice” and “righteousness,” “ works” and “deeds,” “faith” and “belief,” “trust” and “confidence,” &c. And you your- selves in such words do often use the same liberty. Martin. But will you not yet see “merit” and “ meritorious works” in the scripture? I marvel your skill in the Greek teacheth you 2. Epist. v.8. nothing in this point. St John saith, “ Look to yourselves, that you a εἰργά- σασθε. ἐργάσασ- θαι τὸν βίον. ἐργάζεσθε τὴν βρῶ- σιν. * ἐργάτας. Matt. xx. * ἐργάτης. Luke x. Fuke, 21. lose not the things which you have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward.” Methinketh in these words the equivalent of “merit” is easily seen of any man that is not wilfully blind: but you should see further than the common sort; for you know that the Greek here signifieth not only that which we work, but that which we work for: as in the Greek phrase of working for a man’s living, and as you translate John vi. 27, “ Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto life everlasting.” Such * labourers God hired to work in his vineyard, and “*the workman is worthy of his hire.” So that the apostle in the former words exhorteth to perseve- rance, that we lose not the reward or pay for which we work, and which by working we merit and deserve. | Fulke. You fare with us, as a merry fellow did with his friends, of whom Erasmus telleth; who affirming that. he saw in the sky a fiery dragon, with often asking them if they did not see it, he induced them at length every one to confess they saw it, lest they should have been thought to be purblind. But in good earnest, and in my conscience, I see no more “merit” in the scriptures, than I did before. Yea, I have this argument more to persuade me that it is not found in the scriptures, because the chiefest patrons thereof, having taken such pains to find it, are now as far from it as ever’ they were. But to the matter: I say there is no “merit” included in the saying of St John, although you rehearse it in’ ιχ.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 369 the second person, after the vulgar Latin translation, and not after the Greek, which is in the first person, and may be referred to the reward of the apostles, which shall be full, if they whom they have converted to the faith do per- severe unto the end. But make it as strong for your part as you can; the full reward is given, according to the most bountiful promise of God, to our good works, of his mere mercy and grace, and not by desert of our works, And the parable of the labourers, whom God hired into his Matt. xx. vineyard, declareth most evidently, that the reward is of grace, not of merit. For if it were of merit, they that eame first early in the morning should have received more, as their labour was greater, than they which came at the last hour. Where our Saviour Christ saith, “The workman Luke x. is worthy of his hire,” he teacheth his disciples, that they may lawfully take meat and drink of them to whom they preach, according to that common saying or proverb. But thereof it followeth not, that every one which worketh in God’s vineyard is worthy for his work’s sake, and by desert of his labour, of eternal glory; for he promiseth greater reward to his workmen, a thousand fold and more, than their labour doth deserve. So that yet we see not that we merit and deserve by working, although we receive reward for our work, or according to our works. | Unde smnbes: δὰ mihi tantum meriti, saith a godly father, cur indulgentia >- est pro corona? ‘Whence should I have so great merit, when pardon or mercy is my crown?” Martin. Again, Beza telleth us, that ἀντιμισθία signifieth mercedem Mant, que meritis respondet, that is, “a reward answerable to the merits.” And 2 we find many words in the scripture like unto this, μισθὸς, ἀπόδοσις, Rom, 1. 2. μισθαποδοσία, μισθαποδότης, which are on God's part, who is the re- corner warder and recompenser. And on our part we have, as the apostle παῤῥησίαν. saith, Heb. x. and iv., “great confidence, confidence (saith Photius, a a τὴν ὦ ἜΡΙΣ notable Greek father) of our works, confidence of our faith, of our ἄς. Phot. temptations, of our patience,” &c. Yea, we have ἀνταπόδοσις and ἀντά- in Mee μειψις in the scripture, which must needs signify as much as Bezas and exvil. dvryucbia. By the one is said, “In keeping thy commandments is - we great reward.” Again, “You shall receive the retribution of inherit- ν ance,” Col. iii. 24, and 2 Thess. i. 6 ; God's repaying just, and retri- ἀνταπο- bution of hell or heaven for good and evil deserts, is expressed by ϑοῦναι. the same word. And by the other is said, “I have inclined my heart to keep thy justifications (or commandments) always for reward.” δι᾿ ἀντά- μειψιν. [ruLKE. | 24 FuLKE, 22. Luke xviii. and xvii. Col. iii. 370 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH. Fulke. Tf you can find ἀντιμισθία in the scripture, you convince us of “merit” by Beza’s judgment. Therefore tell us, . I pray you, in what book and chapter we shall find it. First you tell us, that you find many words like unto it. Yea, but neither the same, nor any that is equivalent. For rendering of “reward,” which all your words do signify, may be according to promise, by grace; and not by de- sert. ‘The confidence of our works,” that Photius speaketh of, must be understood as they are testimonies of God’s sanctifying Spirit, or else it is contrary to the scripture. The parable told against them that trusted in themselves that they are righteous; whereas we must confess, that we are unprofitable servants in all our obedience and best works that we do. Yea, but you have ἀνταπόδοσις and ἀντά- μειψις in the scripture, which must needs signify as much as Beza’s ἀντιμισθία. Who will yield to this necessity ? If a man promise a labourer twenty shillings for every day’s work, the rendering of this wages may be called ἀνταπόδοσις, Or ἀντάμειψις, and yet no man will say, that a day’s labour deserveth twenty shillings. That there is great reward promised for them that keep God’s command- ments, we confess: but this reward is either of merit, if they perfectly keep all God’s commandments, which no man doth; or of mercy, if being justified by faith through re- mission of their sins, they endeavour according to the measure of God’s grace given unto them to keep God’s command- ments in some part, as God giveth strength. In the tes- timony of St Paul, the word of “inheritance” following imme- diately after the word of “reward” or “retribution,” excludeth merits: for the inheritance dependeth of God’s free adop- tion, by which he maketh us his sons, that he may give us that inheritance which we can never deserve. In the other place the apostle promiseth reward of glory to them that suffer for Christ’s name: which God haying promised of his mere mercy to give us, and the same being pur- chased for us by the merits of our Saviour Christ, it is as just before God to render unto us, as to repay the wicked with eternal condemnation according to their me- rits. So that the merits of Christ, and his satisfaction, plead for us in all rewards; and not the merits of our ‘good works, which yet are not ours, but God’s gifts in Ix. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 371 us. That you allege out of the psalm, followeth afterward to be considered. Martin. But all this will not suffice you; for wheresoever you Mart, can possibly, you will have an evasion. And therefore in this 7? latter place you run to the ambiguity of the Hebrew word, and trans- late thus: “I have applied my heart to fulfil thy statutes always, apy even unto the end.” Alas, my masters! are not the seventy Greek fie interpreters sufficient to determine the ambiguity of this word? is not St Jerome, in his translation according to the Hebrew? Are not all the ancient fathers, both Greek and Latin? “It is ambiguous,” say you, “and therefore you take your liberty.” You do so indeed, and that like princes. For in another place, where the Greek hath determined, you follow it with all your heart, saying, “Fall down before his footstool, ὅτε ἅγιός because he is holy :” whereas the ambiguity of the Hebrew would °°“. have borne you to say, as in the vulgar Latin, “because it is holy,” ΦῪΡ and so it maketh for holiness of places, which you cannot abide. NYT Fulke. You need not be half so earnest for the word Furxz, of “reward” in that verse of the psalm, which we translate 2° “unto the end;” for if it were granted unto you, that for which you make so much of it, the merit of good works will never be established by it. For “reward,” as I have often said, and plainly proved, doth not of necessity import the merit or desert of him that is rewarded; but oftentimes the liberality and bountifulness of the rewarder, which for small labour giveth wonderful great reward. Now concerning the translation of this word yekebh, the Seventy interpreters py nor yet St Jerome are sufficient to determine the ambiguity ὁ in this place, more than in an hundred other places where our translations depart from their judgment. But it is still free for men of every age to use the gift of knowledge, and interpretation of tongues, unto the exact finding out of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost in the scriptures. Neither do we join with them only for advantage, as you fondly charge us; but as I have shewed you reason in the example you bring, so is there reason also to be shewed wheresoever we either join with them or depart from them. Where you say, “we cannot abide holiness of places,” it 15 false; for we do acknowledge the holiness of all places which you can prove that God hath sanctified, as he did the ark, the temple, the tabernacle, &c. 24—2 $72 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ox. Martin, Martin. But you use, you say, the ambiguity of the Hebrew. aA. Take heed that your liberty in taking all advantages against the common and approved interpretation of the whole church, be not very suspicious. For if it do signify also “reward,” as you know it doth very commonly, and yourself so translate it, Psalm xviii. 11, when you cannot choose ; and if the Septuaginta do here so translate it in Greek, Proptes οὶ τωρὰ and St Khia: in his Latin translation according to the Hebrew, and tionem scl. the ancient fathers in their commentaries; what upstart new ‘masters pope are you, that set all these to school again, and teach the world a new reaper translation? If you will say you follow our own great Hebrician, Tn comment Sanctes Pagninus, why did you follow him in his translation, rather than in his lexicon called Thesaurus, where he interpreteth it as the whole church did before him? Why did you follow him, or Benedictus Arias either, in this place, and do not follow them in the selfsame case Ps. exix. 112. a little before, translating that very Hebrew word which is in this place, apy propter retributionem, for “reward”? So that you follow nothing, neither judgment nor learning in Hebrew or Greek, but only your own error and heresy, which is, that we may not do well in respect “ of reward,” or “ for reward ;” and therefore, because the holy prophet David said of himself the contrary, “that he did bend his whole heart to keep God's commandments for reward,” you make him say another thing. Funke, Fulke. If Sanctes Pagninus, Benedictus Arias, and Isi- dorus Clarius, be “upstart new masters” in your judgment, because they depart here from the Septuaginta and St Jerome, we poor men must look for small favour at your hands. But because you say we “follow nothing, neither judgment nor learning in Hebrew or Greek, but only our own error and heresy,” I will set down the judgment of Isi- dorus Clarius upon this place, who translateth it as all the Hebricians of this age do, and yieldeth his reasons in these words: “‘Inclinavi cor meum. | Accommodavi animum meum, ut opere prestem precepta tua, &c. “1 have in- clined my heart. I have applied my mind, that in work or deed I might perform thy commandments, even unto the end of my life.” For that word, proper retributionem, “for reward,” the Hebrew words have not: and truly it is to be taken away; for it is too servile a thing, and not worthy of so great a prophet, to give diligence to God’s command- ments for reward and hope of retribution. For that is the part of an hireling, and of him which is unworthy the name of a son; neither can he be worthily called a christian man, that serveth Christ with this mind. For what if God should say so, that he would not reward us with any other 1χ.} TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 373 retribution, seeing for this one thing, that we are created by him, we can never satisfy this debt, shall we refuse to serve him? Therefore we are bound to serve him with our whole mind, although he had decreed to thrust us into hell fire, both for that which we owe him, and for that we live only that time which we bestow in well doing; for they which give over themselves to all wicked works, by no means can be said to live. Yet there may be an interpretation of the Hebrew words without such offence; so that it may be said, ‘for ever is the reward,’ as elsewhere we read, ‘In keeping of them is great reward.’ For by this means it is signified, that the fruit indeed of keeping God’s law is very great, but yet that retribution is not the end and scope, but the love of God.” Let all in- different readers judge by this, what just cause you have thus to rail, not only upon our translators, but also upon all learned papists that have translated even so. And let the ignorant judge what knowledge you have in the Hebrew tongue, which urge the false translation of the Seventy against the opinion and translation of all the learned Hebricians of this age, both papists and protestants; although it were no hard thing to prove that the Greek text of the Psalms, which now we have, is none of the Seventy translation, as even Lindanus might teach you, de Opt. gen. Lib. m1. 6. vi. Martin. And to this purpose perhaps it is, (for other cause I cannot Marrm, guess,) that you make such a marvellous transposition of words in your 25. translation, Matt. xix., saying thus: “ When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his majesty, ye that have followed me in the regene- ration shall sit also upon twelve seats." Whereas the order of these words, both in Greek and Latin, is this: “You that have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in his majesty, you also shall sit upon twelve seats.’ To follow Christ in the regene- ration is not easily understood what it should mean: but to sit with Christ in the regeneration, that is, in the resurrection, upon twelve seats, that is familiar, and every man’s interpretation, and concerneth the great reward that they shall then have which here follow Christ, as the apostles did. Fulke. You look for faults very narrowly, that can Fuuxe, espy but a comma wanting, although it be no impious sense oa to follow Christ in the regeneration ; for the world by Christ was after a sort renewed, When the cause of the restoration thereof was performed: as for the “reward,” of which you Martin, No. Test. 1580. Utmori pos- set. 5 See Calvin in epist. ad Philip. FuLkE, 26. 374 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. have such a servile care, [it] is expressed in sitting upon — twelve seats to judge the tribes of Israel. Wherefore there was no need that you should fear the loss of your “reward” by this transposition. Martin. The like transposition of words is in some of your bibles, Heb. ii. 9, thus: “We see Jesus crowned with glory and honour, which was a little inferior to the angels, through the suffering of death’.” Whereas both in Greek and Latin the order of the words is thus: ‘Him that was made a little inferior to angels, we see Jesus, through the passion of death, crowned with honour and glory.” In this latter the apostle saith, that Christ ‘was crowned for his suffering death, and so by his death merited his glory. But by your translation he saith, that Christ was made inferior to angels by his suffering death, that is, saith Beza, “for to suffer death ;” and taking it so, that he was made inferior to angels that he might die: then the other sense is clean excluded, that for suffering death he was crowned with glory; and this is one place among other, whereby it may very well be gathered that some of you think, that Christ himself did not merit his own glory and ex- altation. So obstinately are you set against merits and meritorious works. To the which purpose also you take away man’s free will, as having no ability to work toward his own salvation. Fulke. Whether we say, “ Christ was crowned for his suffering,” or ‘Christ was made inferior to the angels through his suffering,” the sense of either of both is good and godly, and may stand with the place; neither doth the one of them exclude the other, although but one only can be the sense of the place. And if this be the “ place by which you may gather, that some of us think that Christ merited not his own glory,” it is not worth a straw. We hold that Christ for himself needed not to merit, because he was the Lord of glory: but that he merited for us, to be exalted in our nature, for our salvation, it is so far off that we deny, that our whole comfort resteth in his merits; and in his glory, which he hath deserved for us, we hope to be glorified for ever. When you make your transition to the next chapter, you say, we “take away man’s free will, as having none ability to work:” by which it seemeth that you do not only allow to man the freedom of his will, but also power to work whatsoever he will; so that he shall not only have a free will, but also a strength by the same to work towards his own salvation. [? This is not quite correctly given, the word “ made” being omitted | alter “ was”; as the cavil is taken at the later Genevan version. | tte x. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 375 CHAPTER X. Heretical Translation against Free Will. Martin. Acatsr free will your corruptions be these: John i. 12, Marr, 1, where it is said, “ As many as received him, he gave them power to be ἐξουσίαν. made the sons of God.” Some of your translations say, he gave them δος Tet. “prerogative” to be the sons of God: Beza, “ dignity : who protesteth that whereas in other places often he translateth this Greek word “power” and “authority,” here he refused both indeed against free will, which, he saith, the sophists would prove out of this place, repre- vt jiceret hending Erasmus for following them in his translation. But whereas #28 θεῖ the Greek word is indifferent to signify “dignity” or “liberty,” he that will translate either of these, restraineth the sense of the Holy Ghost, and determineth it to his own fancy. If you may translate “dignity,” may not we as well translate it “liberty”? Yes, surely. For you know it signifieth the one as well as the other, both in profane and divine writers. And you can well call to mind αὐτεξούσιος and τὸ αὐτεξούσιον, whence they are derived, and that the apostle calleth a man’s liberty of his own will ἐξουσίαν περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος. 1 Cor. vii. 17. Now then, if “potestas” in Latin, and “power” in English, be words also indifferent to signify both “ dignity’ and “liberty,” translate so, in the name of God, and leave the text of the scripture indifferent as we do: and for the sense, whether of the two it doth here rather signify, or whether it doth not signify both, as no doubt it doth, and the fathers so expound it, let that be examined otherwise. It is a common fault with you, and intolerable, by your translation to abridge the sense of the Holy Ghost to one particular understanding, and to defeat the exposition of so many fathers, that expound it in another sense and signification: as is plain in this example also following. Fulke. Seeing you confess that the Greek word sig- Furxs, 1. nifieth not only “power,” but also “dignity,” and that in this place it signifieth both, it can be no corruption, but the best and truest interpretation, to translate ἐξουσίαν “dignity ;” for that includeth “power,” whereas power may be severed from [? Ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτὸν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι, John i. 12. “ Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei δου," Vulg. “Quotquot autem eum acceperunt, dedit eis hance dignitatem ut filii Dei fierent,” Beza. ‘To them gave he power,” Cranmer, 1539, Authorised version, 1611. ἐξουσία is rendered “power” in the Genevan, Rhemish, Tyndale’s, and Wiclif’s versions. | Martin, 2. 9) χάρις τοὺ Θεοῦ ἡ σὺν ἐμοί. 976 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. dignity. Where you would have us use a word that is am- biguous, when the sense is clear by your own confession, you bewray your own corrupt affection, which desire to have the scriptures so ambiguously or doubtfully translated, that the ignorant might receive no benefit of certain understanding by them. When a word hath diverse significations, a wise trans- lator must weigh which of them agreeth with the text in hand, and that to use: but not to seek ambiguous words, that may bring the matter in doubt, when the meaning to him is certain. As here you say, “there is no doubt but it signifieth both,” and yet you quarrel at our translation which comprehendeth both; and urge the word of “ power,” from which dignity may be severed, whereas from “ dignity” power, or ability, or license, cannot be divided. Martin. The apostle, 1 Cor. xv. 10, saith thus, “I laboured more abundantly than all they, yet not I, but the grace of God with me’.” Which may have this sense, “not I, but the grace of God which is with me,” as 8S. Jerome sometime expoundeth it; or this, “not I, but the grace of God which laboured with me.” And by this latter is most evidently signified, that the grace of God and the apostle both laboured together, and not only grace, as though the apostle had done nothing, like unto a block, forced only: but that the grace of God - did so concur as the principal agent with all his labours, that his FULKE, 2. free will wrought withal. Against which truth and most approved interpretation of this place, you translate according to the former sense only, making it the very text, and so excluding all other senses and com- mentaries, as your masters Calvin and Beza taught you; who should not have taught you, if you were wise, to do that which neither they, nor you, can justify. They reprehend first the vulgar Latin inter- preter for neglecting the Greek article, and secondly, them that by oceasion thereof would by this place prove free will. By which their commentary they do plainly declare their intent and purpose in their translation, to be directly against free will. Fulke. St Jerome favouring this translation of. ours, as he doth in divers places, lib. nu. advers. Jovi. Gratia Dei que in me est; and lib. τι. adver. Pelag. et ad Principem Gratia Dei que mecum est, “The grace of God which is in me,” or “ which is with me;” I marvel why you count [2 ἀλλὰ περισσότερον αὐτῶν πάντων ἐκοπίασα' οὐκ ἐγὼ δὲ, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ σὺν ἐμοί, 1 Cor. xv. 10.] x. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 377 it among heretical corruptions, except you take St Jerome for an heretic. By the latter you say it “is signified, that the grace of God and the apostle both laboured together :” although it be no proper speech to say, the grace of God laboureth, yet that you would have is expressed before, where St Paul saith, “I have laboured more than they all ;” which none but a block would understand, that he was forced like a block. The grace of God useth no violence, but frameth the will of man to obedience and service of God. But that St Paul had of himself no free will to perform this labour, but that it was altogether of the grace of God which gave him this will, he confesseth more plainly than that it can be denied, where he saith, “Not I.’ Whereby he meaneth, not that he was only helped by the grace of God, and did it not alone; but that he did nothing by his own strength, but altogether by the grace of God, which made him willing, which of nature, was unwilling, to set forth the gospel, yea, by froward zeal became a blasphemer and a persecutor thereof. Which grace gave him not only a will to promote the gospel, but inspired him also with divine knowledge, by revelation, without study or hearing of other men: which gave him also strength to overcome so many difficulties, that no labour, nor travail, nor persecution, nor continuance of time, did make him weary or faint in his labour. All this, I say, he doth ascribe wholly unto the grace of God. And this sense doth not make Paul a block, nor enforced by violence ; but a willing, prompt, and painful labourer. But if you mean that St Paul had a free will and strength of himself, which only was holpen by the grace of God; then is your sense abominable Pelagianism, heresy, worthy to be trodden under feet by all Christians, and of Calvin and Beza most justly reprehended, who are utter enemies to free will, that derogateth any thing from the grace of Christ, “ without whom we can do nothing :” which jon xv. 5. text always choked the Pelagians, and so doth it their half- faced. brethren, the papists. Martin. But concerning the Greek article omitted in translation, Marry, 3. if they were but grammarians in both tongues, they might know i χάρις f that the Greek article many times cannot be expressed in Latin, σὺν pol. and that this is one felicity and prerogative of the Greek phrase (1 1688.) (sins. ) Bib. 1562. Nov. Test. 1580. ἐν πεποι- θήσει διὰ τῆς πί- στεως. τοῦ πνεύ- ματος (τοῦ) ὶ πίστις (ἡ). ΕὙΠΚΕ, 9. 378 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. above the Latin, to speak more briefly, commodiously, and signifi- cantly by the article. What need we go to Terence and Homer, as they art wont? Is not the scripture full of such speeches ; Jacobus Zebedai, Jacobus Alphai, Judas Jacobi, Maria Cleophe, and the like? Are not all these sincerely translated into Latin, though the Greek article be not expressed? Can you express the article, but you must add more than the article, and so add to the text? as you do very boldly in such speeches throughout the New Testament; yea, you do it when there is no article in the Greek: as John v. 36, and 1 John ii. 2. Yea, sometime of an heretical purpose: as Eph. iii?: “By whom we have boldness and entrance with the confidence which is by the faith of him,” or “in him,” as it is in other your bibles. You say, “confidence which is by faith,’ as though there were no confidence by works: you know the Greek beareth not that translation, unless there were an article after “confidence,” which is not; but you add it to the text heretically: as also Beza doth the like, Rom. viii. 2, and your Geneva English testaments after him, for the heresy of imputative justice ; as in his annotations he plainly deduceth, saying confidently, “I doubt not but a Greek article must be under- stood,” and therefore (forsooth) put into the text also. He doth the same in St James ii. 20, still debating the case in his annotations why he doth so; and when he hath concluded in his fancy that this or that is the sense, he putteth it so in the text, and translateth accordingly. No marvel now, if they reprehend the vulgar Latin interpreter for not translating the Greek article in the place which we began to treat of, when they find articles lacking in the Greek text itself, and boldly add them for their purpose in their trans- lation: whereas the vulgar Latin interpretation is in all these places so sincere, that it neither addeth nor diminisheth, nor goeth one iota from the Greek. Fulke. Concerning the omission of the Greek article, which Calvin and Beza reprove in the old translator, you make many words to no purpose: for they reprove him not for omitting it, where either it cannot or it need not be expressed, but in this place, where both it may, and meet it is that it should be expressed. But we, you say, to ex- press the article, do add more than is in the text: yet in truth we add nothing but that which is necessarily to be understood ; as when we say, “ James the son of Zebedee,” where you had rather say, James of Zebedee, as though you were so precise, that for necessary understanding you would Γ᾿ Ἔν ᾧ ἔχομεν. τὴν παῤῥησίαν καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐν πεποιθήσει διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ, Ephes. iii. 12. “In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him,” Authorised version. ] a xi] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 379 not add a word to the text; and yet you do very often, yea, sometimes where no need is: as Acts viii.” where the Latin is curaverunt Stephanum, you translate it, “ they took order for Stephen’s funeral.” Doth curare signify to take order for a funeral? So likewise Luke x., peeniterent, “they had done penance.” But to answer for our own doings. John v. 36°, where Christ saith, “I have a greater witness than John’s witness,” why may not the article τοῦ be referred rather to μαρτυρίου, that is of necessity to be understood, than to *Iwavvov? In the other place, 1 John ii. 2*, the word “sins,” must needs be understood in the pronoun adjective “ ours.” In the third text, where you accuse the translators of here- tical purpose, the sense is all one whether you add the article or no. For when the apostle saith, “by Christ we have boldness and entrance with confidence by faith,” how can you understand “confidence by works?” and whether there be con- fidence by works or no, there can none be proved by this place. Where Beza understandeth an article, Rom. viii., whom our English translation doth follow, it is only to make that plain, which otherwise is necessarily to be understood. For there is no difference between these sayings: ‘“ The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” and this, “ The law of the spirit of life, which is in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and death.” The article or relative therefore declareth no more but, ‘the law of the spirit of life is in Christ Jesus, which delivereth us.” For both the text saith, “ in Christ Jesus,” and it cannot be in any other to deliver us. For he saith not, the law of the spirit of life in us, but in Christ Jesus; and the next verse following doth manifestly confirm the same, as every man may see that will consider it. Likewise James the second: “ Wilt thou know, O thou vain [? Συνεκόμισαν δὲ τὸν Στέφανον ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς, καὶ ἐποιήσαντο κοπε- τὸν μέγαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Acts viii. 2. “Curaverunt autem Stephanum viri timorati, et fecerunt planctum magnum super eum,” Vulg. “ And devout men took order for Steven’s funeral, and made great mourning upon him,” Rhemish Test. 1582. | [3 Ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου' τὰ yap ἔργα ἃ ἔδωκέ μοι ὁ πατὴρ ἵνα τελειώσω αὐτὰ, τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ, μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ, ὅτι ὁ πατήρ με ἀπέσταλκε, John v. 36.] [* Καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστι περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου, 1 John ii. 2.] Martin, 4. Non ego, sed gratia Dei mecum. ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου. ε ᾿ ε 4 χαρις ἡ σὺν ἐμοί. 380 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. man, that faith without works is dead?” If you say, “the faith which is without good works is dead,” is not that the meaning of the apostle? where he addeth immediately, that “Abraham was justified by” such a faith as was fruitful of good “works.” And when he bringeth example of devils’ faith, is it not manifest he speaketh of such a faith as is utterly void of all good works? Where you say that Beza putteth the article into the text, and translateth it accordingly, you do. most shamefully belie him. For to the original text he addeth none of his own collection, but in his translation only, where he judgeth that according to the sense of the place it must of necessity be understood: which if it be a fault in articles, it must be so in other words also, for like cause added. Then answer to your own translations, where be- side those that I have noted before, which seem to proceed of some popish purpose, you have added to your Latin authen- ‘tical text. As in these examples, Matt. viii. Quid nobis et tibi? “What is between us?” Chap. ix. confide, “have a good heart.” Chap. xxi. male perdet, “he will bring to nought.” Mark ii. post dies, “after some days.” Accum- beret, “he sat at meat.” Luke xvii. ab illo, “more than he.” John xii. discumbentibus, “them that sat at the table.” Non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum, “not because he cared for thepoor.” Acts ix. Eece ego, Domine, “Lo, here 1 am, Lord.” Chap. x. gustare, “to take somewhat.” Chap. xvi. colentibus, “that serveth God.” Nobiliores eorum qui sunt Thessalonice, “more noble than they that are at Thes- salonica.” Rom. i. vocatis sanctis, “ called to be saints,” &c. Martin. But you will say, in the place to the Corinthians there is a Greek article, and therefore there you do well to express it. I answer, first, the article may then be expressed in translation, when there can be but one sense of the same: secondly, that not only it may, but it must be expressed, when we cannot otherwise give the sense of the place; as Matt.i.6. Ex ea que fuit Urie: where you see the vulgar interpreter omitteth it not, but knoweth the force and signification thereof very well. Marry! in the place of St Paul which we now speak of, where the sense is doubtful, and the Latin expresseth the Greek sufficiently otherwise, he leaveth it also doubtful and indifferent, not abridging it as you do, saying, “the grace of God which is with me;”’ nor as Calvin, gratia que mihi aderat ; nor as Illyricus, gratia que mihi adest. Which two latter are more absurd than yours, because they omit and neglect alto- x.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 381 gether the force of the preposition cum, which you express, saying, σὺν ἐμοί. “with me.” But because you say, “which is with me,” you mean heretically, as they do, to take away the apostle’s co-operation and labouring together with the grace of God by his free will: which is by the article and the preposition most evidently signified. Fulke. You take upon you to prescribe rules of trans- Furxe, 4. lation, as though you were prince of the Critici or Areopa- gite. But all reasonable men will confess, that the article is so often to be expressed as it may, and maketh any thing to the sense and understanding of the place. But as for your rule, that it is not to be expressed in translation when there may be more senses than one of the same, [it] is so good a rule, that by the same reason and by equity thereof, whensoever any word cometh in the text that may have more senses than one, we must skip it over, and not translate it at all; and so we shall leave out five hundred words in the New Testament. A better rule I take it to be, in all such cases, to examine what is most agreeable to the common phrase of the tongue, and the scope of the text in hand: according to which I say, the verb substantive is both more usual, and also more probable to be understood in this text, 1 Cor. xv., than the participle συγκοπιάσασα. Martin. And here I appeal to all that have skill in Greek Marry, 5. speeches and phrases, whether the apostle’s words in Greek sound not thus: “I laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but ἐκοπίασα : the grace of God (that laboured) with me.” Understanding not the adn’ χάν participle of sum, but of the verb going before, as in the like pus τοῦ ease when our Saviour saith, “It is not you that speak, but the ier pois Holy Ghost that speaketh in you.” If he had spoken short thus, “ but κοπίασα- the Holy Ghost in you,” you perhaps would translate as you do here, ree ioe “the Holy Ghost, which is in you.” But you see the verb going before ἄς) ᾿ is rather repeated, “Not you speak, but the Holy Ghost that speaketh τὸ πνεῦμα in you.” Even so, “Not I laboured, but the grace of God labouring τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν. with me,” or, “which laboured with me.” So prayeth the wise man, Sap. ix. 10, “Send wisdom out of thy holy heavens, that she may be with me, and labour with me,” as yourselves translate. Bib. 1577. Et mecum Fulke. And I likewise appeal, not only “to all that have Fuxxe, 5. skill in Greek speeches and phrases,” but to all them whose ears are accustomed to reasonable speeches, whether it be like that the apostle would understand that participle, whereof (perhaps) there is no verb; for where shall we read συγ- 382 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH. [cu. κοπιάω ? Secondly, whether he would understand the par- ticiple of another verb adjective than went before; for before he said ἐκοπίασα. Thirdly, whether he were so desirous to set forth his own co-operation with the grace of God, that he would express it with two prepositions, one in apposition, the other in composition. Fourthly, whether he meant to attribute any thing to himself, when, as it were correcting that which he said of “labouring,” he saith, “ yet not I, but the grace of God.” Fifthly, whether he purposed to challenge any merit - of the labour to himself, or make his labour any thing separate or separable from the grace of God, when he said before, “by the grace of God I am that Iam.” Last of all, whether, his words being resolved, if this participle be added, they contain not a ridiculous tautology or vain repetition, “1 have laboured more than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which laboured together with me hath laboured.” To conclude in your example which you feign, because you can find none to answer your fancy: if the words were as you suppose, οὐχ ὑμεῖς ἐστε οἱ λαλοῦντες, ἀλλὰ TO πνεῦμα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν, Wo would, and must, if we did well, translate it thus: “It is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost, which is in you,” and so understand “speaketh.” The saying of Philo, or whatsoever eloquent Jew that was which gathered that book of Wisdom, is not of such importance that we need to seek any interpretation thereof; although it is certain, that by “wisdom” he meaneth not the Son of God, the Wisdom of the Father; but divine knowledge and under- standing, which is a gift of his Spirit, whereof he speaketh by a rhetorical prosopopwia, or fiction of person. Martin,6. Martin. And so the apostle calleth himself and his fellow preachers Θεοῦσυνερ- “ God's coadjutors,” “co-labourers,” or such as labour and work with δ: gustine, 2043 Which also you falsely translate “God's labourers,” to take away Cooperarit οἱ all co-operation ; and in some of your bibles most foolishly and peevishly, Cor. vi. 1. συνεργοῦν- a8 though you had sworn not to translate the Greek, “We together ae “(a oo. Ὁ God's labourers :” as well might you translate Rom. viii. 17, that νόμοι “‘we together be Christ's heirs,” for that which the apostle saith “co- Χριστοῦ. heirs,” or “joint-heirs with him ;” the phrase and speech, as you know, Eph. ii.5. in Greek being all one. So doth Beza most falsely translate, Una vivi- ficavit nos per Christum, for that which is plain in the Greek, “He hath The English quickened us together with Christ." Where the English Bezites leave esis yom also the Greek, and follow our vulgar Latin translation rather than ee ΜΝ ΣΝ Θ0ΟΝ ΝΣ ΝΣ ΝΑΙ. . ὐϑνν νυ) μον τον ως 5. ων. οὐδ. .......ὦ x. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 383 Beza, who goeth so wide from the Greek, that for shame they dare not of ther follow him. Fie upon such hypocrisy and pretensed honour of God, that mec. you will not speak in the same terms that the holy scripture speaketh, but rather will teach the Holy Ghost how to speak, in not translating as he speaketh! As though these phrases of scripture, “men are God’s co- adjutors,” “co-workers with his grace,” “ raised with Christ,” “co-heirs with him,” “co-partakers of glory with him,” were all spoken to the dishonour of God and Christ; and as though these, being the speeches of the Holy Ghost himself, needed your reformation in your English translations. Otherwise, if you mean well, and would say as we say, that whatsoever good we do, we do it by God's grace, and yet work the same by our free will together with God’s grace, as the mover and helper and directer of our will; why do you not translate in the foresaid place of St Paul accordingly 2 Fulke. St Paul saith, 1 Cor. iii. 9’, that he and Apollos Fuuxe, 6. are Θεοῦ συνεργοὶ, “ joined together in the work and business of God:” he saith not that they are “helpers of God,” for God needeth no help. A helper is of him that lacketh strength, which is blasphemous to say of God. Therefore even Faber Stapulensis, as Beza telleth you, reproveth that term adju- tores, which your vulgar translator useth, and you yourself in favour of your heresy of free will do not translate, but fly to the Greek word συνεργοὶ, and say ‘“ coadjutors,” which if you would express in English, signifieth “fellow-helpers of God.” The word cooperarii, which St Augustine useth, as Beza also telleth you, may be referred to the joint labour of the ministers in several offices of planting and watering. And although it be referred to God, that he, as the Lord [Γ᾿ Θεοῦ yap ἐσμεν συνεργοὶ, 1 Cor. iii. 9. “ Dei enim sumus adju- tores,” Vulg. “Etenim Dei sumus administri,” Beza. “For we are God’s labourers,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva. ‘“ For we are God’s coad- jutors,’ Rhemish. “ For we are labourers together with God,” Autho- rised version. Administri, συνεργοὶ, Augustinus et Erasmus, cooperarii. Ambro- sius, operis participes, Vulg. adjutores; vocabulo, fateor, Latino, sed quod recte, ut opinor, reprehendit Stapulensis. Dicimur enim eum adjuvare cui vires non sufficiunt: quis autem hoc de Deo dicat? Ei autem subservire nihil prohibet, cui opera nostra uti placeat in eo quod ipse solus, si velit, possit efficere. Sed in hoc opere, de quo hic disseritur, amplius etiam aliquid considerandum est. Primum scilicet, istos qui Dei sunt administri, viribus uti non a natura insitis, sed a gratia collatis, ut apta et idonea fierent instrumenta; sicut significat apostolus infra xv. 10. et 2 Cor. iii. 6. ut nihil habeant συνεργοὶ de quo in sese glo- rientur. Beza in locum, p. 205. | 384 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. and Master, and they, as the servants, altogether by his grace and strength do work together, the sense is not evil, yet not proper for this place. Because the apostle doth not here set out the dignity of the ministers, but abaseth their labour, and submitteth all to God. For he had to do with them, that did attribute too much unto the ministers’ work ; with whom it was unseasonable to extol their labours, and make them “‘coadjutors” or “fellow-helpers of God.” But con- trariwise, he ascribeth the fruit of all their labours to God ; and to take away the schisms that were among them, by depending of one minister more than another, declareth that they altogether are ‘“God’s labourers,” “ God’s husbandmen,” &c. Inthe other place 2 Cor. vi. 1, συνεργοῦντες, it is more proper to say, that the apostles joined their labours unto Christ offering his grace, that it should not be received in vain: where, nevertheless, the strength of man’s free will is not avouched; but the grace of God, who worketh by his minis- ters, giving them strength to labour, and fruit to their labours. Next followeth an open outery against Beza for false translation, and our translators for being ashamed to follow him. If we mislike Beza’s translation, are we by and by ashamed to follow him? And if his translation be false, as you affirm, and we ashamed to follow him in falsehood, do we deserve to be defied as hypocrites, because we prefer the truth before the credit of our master, as you call him? O how glad you are, when you have never so small an occasion, to set abroad the sails of your railing and reviling oration! But let us see whether Beza deserve so much blame as you charge him withal. Beza having translated, as he thought, most near to the apostle’s meaning, Eph. 11. 5’, in his annotation upon the place thus writeth: “Convivificavit, &c. The Vulgar and Erasmus translate, ‘he hath quick- [᾿ συνεζωοποίησε τῷ Χριστῷ, Ephes. ii. 5. “ Convivificavit nos Christo,” Vulg. “Una vivificavit nos per Christum,” Beza. ‘Quick- ened us together in Christ,” all the versions, except the Authorised, which has “ with-Christ.” ‘‘Convivificavit nos una cum Christo,” Eras- mus. Quam sententiam minime reprehendo. Sed nihil tamen rei ipsi detrahetur; et magis fortassis apposite dici possit prepositionem σὺν ad- hibitam esse, ut gentium ac Judeorum in uno Christo coagmentationem declaret, quo modo etiam accipitur τὸ συνοικοδομεῖσθαι, infra vers. 21. Nov. Test. Edit. Bezee, p. 249. | x. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLR. 385. ened us together with-Christ,’ which sense I do in no wise reprehend. But yet nothing shall be detracted from the self-same matter, and perhaps it may be said more aptly, that the preposition σὺν, in this place, is used rather to de- clare the uniting together of the gentiles and Jews in one Christ; after which manner the word συνοικοδομεῖσθαι, which signifieth ‘to be builded together,’ is afterward used, verse 22.” This is Beza’s judgment, not contrary to the ᾿ common translation and ours, but agreeing in the sense thereof, and comprehending a further matter, whereof the apostle in that chapter speaketh. But our translators thought best to follow the plain and common understanding, not for shame of Beza, or his translation, but for desire of sincerity and plainness. Contrariwise, where your vulgar translator is sometimes so barbarous, that his phrase hath no sense ac- cording to the text, it may well be thought you were ashamed to follow him, lest you should have been ridiculous to all men. As you translate timoratus “religious” oftentimes. Non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum, which in English is, Jonn xii. “ποῦ because of the poor it pertained to him ;” but you have translated, ‘‘ not because he cared for the poor.” Una Sab- sonn xxi. bati, ‘the first of the sabbath.” Sabbati habens iter, actsi. “having the journey of a sabbath,” you translate, “ distant Acts xiv. a sabbath’s journey.” Yea, you are bold to correct your text, and for Italia to say Attalia. Ad abluenda crimina, which sets xxv. is, “to wash away the crimes,” you say, “to clear himself of the crime.” Cum multa ambitione, which is, “ with much ia. ambition,” you say, “with great. pomp.” Exhortentur, τ cor. xiv. which is a deponent, you translate, “may be exhorted :” ad reverentiam vobis, which is, “for reverence to you,” 1Cor. xv. you say, “to your shame:” and such like. I do not blame you, that you are ashamed to follow your vulgar Latin text in these phrases; but that you are not ashamed to allow that translation, as the only authentical text, which no man for shame will follow in many places. To conclude, our meaning for free will is, that we confess it at all times to be free from constraint, but never free to embrace that which is good. indeed, but. only when it is reformed by the grace of God: who also, in all good things that we take in hand, doth not only make us willing, but also giveth all the strength we have to, perform them. If this be your meaning, as I [ FULKE. | = 386 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu. am afraid it is not, by your terms of “ working, and helping, and directing,” “as though it could go alone with a. little help and direction,” we jom with you; but if you think you can do anything that good is, without the grace of God, like to Pelagius, Celestius, and other like heretics of the devil’s black guard, we leave you. Mantin,7- μμαγίϊη. You say moreover in some of your bibles, thus: “So lieth οὐ ὑέλον. it not then in a man’s will or running, but inthe mercy of God’.” What- τος, τρέχον- soever you mean, you know this translation is very dissolute, and wide ἐλεοῦ » ἀλλ᾽ from the apostle’s words, and not true in sense ; for salvation is in willing εοὔντος. PP Aug. Berm. and running, according to that famous saying of St Augustine, ; He that Apostoli, _ made thee without thee will not justify thee without thee;” that is, against 2Tim.ii. thy will, or, unless thou be willing. And the apostle saith, “‘ No man is 1Cor.ix. | erowned, unless he fight lawfully.” And again, “‘So run that you may Rom. ii. obtain.” And again, “ The doers of the law shall be justified." And our Matt. xix. Saviour, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” We see then, that it is in willing, and running, and doing: but to will, or run, or do, are not of man, but of God's merey. And so the apostle speaketh: “It is not of the willer, nor runner, but of God that hath mercy.” And it is much to be marvelled, why you said not, “It lieth not in the willer, nor in the runner,” which is near to the apostle’s words ; but so far off, “in a man’s will and running.” Furxe,7. Fulke. The translation you reprehend, I grant, is not proper for the words, and therefore is reformed in the later translations: yet in sense it is all one; for salvation lieth not in the will, or running of man, but in the mercy of God; even as St John saith: “The children of God are not made of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but they are born of God.” But thus you reason against it. We are not saved, except we will, and run; ergo, salvation lieth in willing and running. I deny your argument, which is as good as this: we are not saved from sin, except we have committed sin; ergo, salvation from sin lieth in commit- ting sin. The “ famous place of Augustine” is a famous cor- ruption of papists, to establish the strength of free will, clean contrary to St Augustine’s mind, where a point in- terrogative is changed into a period; for in ancient written copies, it is read with interrogation: Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te justijicat sine te? “He therefore that made thee [2 dpa οὖν ob τοῦ θέλοντος, οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεοῦντος Θεοῦ, Rom. ix. 16. “So then [election] is not- οὗ the willer, nor of x.] TRANSLATIONS OF ΤῊΝ BIBLE. 387 without thee, doth he not justify thee without thee?” And the whole discourse of that father, both before and after, requireth that reading. For thus he writeth: Si hominem te fecit Deus, et justum tu te facis; melius aliquid facis, quam feeitt Deus. Sed sine te fecit te Deus. Non enim adhibuistt aliquem consensum, ut te faceret Deus. Quo modo consentiebas qui non eras? Qué ergo fecit te sine te, non te justificat sine te? Ergo fecit nescientem, jus- tificat volentem. Tamen ipse justificat, ne sit justitia tua*. “If God have made thee a man, and thou makest thyself a just man, thou makest some better thing than God hath made: but God made thee without thee, for thou gavest no consent that God should make thee: how didst thou consent, which wast not? He therefore that made thee without thee, doth he not justify thee without thee? There- fore he hath made thee not knowing; but he justifieth thee, being willing: yet it is he that doth justify thee, that. it should not be thy justice.” The meaning of St Augustine is, that we have no more free will to be justified, before we be prevented by the grace of God, than we had will to be created. For it is God’s grace that maketh us willing to be justified and saved, not the strength of man’s free will; as he proveth at large throughout the whole homily. Now to the texts of scrip- ture which you cite, I answer, there is not one that proveth any strength or sway of man’s free will toward the true. goodness, before, of an ungodly man and enemy of God, he be reconciled by the grace and mercy of God, and made an obedient child in some part, willing to do the will of his Father. First, those texts of “fighting and running” prove that fighting and running is necessary for them that are exhorted thereto; but not that fighting or running are in the free will of man, or that salvation lieth in them. Eating and drinking are necessary for the life of man; yet the life of man lieth not in eating and drinking. Where the apostle saith, “‘the doers of the law shall be justified,” he meaneth them that fulfil the law; and doth our Saviour Christ, an- the runner; but of God that taketh mercy,” Bishops’ bible, 1584. “ So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy,” Authorised version, 1611. ] Γ᾿ Augustin. Sermo. crxrx. Opera, Vol. v. p. 1178.] 25—2 388 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH | cut. swering. to the question of him that asked, “what he should do to obtain life?” declare, “that there is no way to enter into life by doing, but only by doing of God’s command- ments: for the man that doth them shall live by them.” Joh. χῖν. But. if he were asked, ‘“‘ which is the way to eternal life ?” as he was by Thomas, he will answer, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.’ Those texts therefore declare not, how a man that is a transgressor of the law may be saved ; but that to obtain salvation by works, it is necessary for a man to keep the whole law and commandments of God, or else he is accursed. Martin, 8. Martin. Again, touching continency and the chaste single life, you ov πάντες translate: “ All men cannot receive this saying,” Matt. xix.11. Now χωροῦσι. you wot well, that our Saviour saith not, “All men cannot,” but, “all strange trans- men do not receive it:” and that therefore, as St Augustine saith, “be- ib. grat.et cause all will not.” But when our Saviour afterward saith, “ He that ὁ δυνάμενος can receive it, let him receive it;” he addeth another Greek word to ere express that sense’: whereas by your fond translation he might have said, ' 6 χωρῶν xwpeirw. And again, by your translation, you should translate these his latter words thus: “He that can or is able to receive it, let him be able to receive it.” For so you translate χωρεῖν before, as though it were all one with δύνασθαι χωρεῖν. Do you not see your folly, and falsehood, and boldness, to make the reader believe that our Saviour should say, “Every man cannot live chaste, it is impossible for them, and therefore no man should vow chastity, because he knoweth not whether he can live so or no 2” Furxr, 8. = Fulke. The Greek word χωρεῖν doth signify “to be able to hold, or contain;” and 50 it is used, Mark ii, wore μηκέτι χωρεῖν μηδὲ πρὸς τὴν θύραν: which you trans- late, “so that there was no place, no, not at the door.” Do you not mean, that the place about the door was not able to hold that multitude? Your vulgar Latin is, Ita ut non caperet neque ad januam, in barbarous words, but in sense as I have said before. So John ii, the six pots, [ Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, οὐ πάντες χωροῦσι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, ἀλλ᾽ οἷς δέδοται, Matt. χῖχ. 11. ‘O δυνάμενος χωρεῖν χωρείτω, y.12. “He said unto them, All men cannot away with that saying, save they to whom it is given,” Tyndale. “He said unto them, All men cannot comprehend this saying, save they to whom it is given,” Cranmer, Bishops’ bible. “Cannot receive,” Authorised version. ‘‘And he said unto them, All men receive not this speech, save they to whom it is given,” Geneva Bible, 1557. ] x. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 389. when they were empty, are said χωροῦσαι, “able to receive every one of them two or three measures.” Likewise, John xxi, where the word is χωρῆσαι, you yourselves translate “not able to contain.” Seeing the word therefore signifieth not only “to receive,’ but also “to be able to receive,” it is rightly translated, Matth. xix.; and according to the mean- ing of our Saviour Christ, “all men cannot receive this saying, but they to whom it is given ;” which he doth after evidently confirm, when he addeth the participle ὁ δυνάμενος, “ he that is able to receive it, let him receive it :” which were yainly said, if all men were able that would, and if it were given to all that would; for then he should say, “all men do not receive this saying, but they that will, let them receive it.” Where you call Augustine to witness of your foolish gloss, you do him shameful injury: for he saith not, “all men do not, because all will ποὺ; but these are his words in the place by you quoted: Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed quibus datum est: quibus enim non est datum, aut nolunt, aut non implent quod volunt; quibus autem datum est, sic volunt ut impleant quod volunt®. “All men receive not this word, but they to whom it is given: for they to whom it is not given, either they will not, or else. they fulfil not that which they will; but they to whom it is given, do so will, that they fulfil that which they will.” Augustine is plain to the contrary, that it is not in every man that will to be continent, but it is the special gift of God that any both will, and be able to perform it; for which he citeth also the saying of the wise man, Sap. vill., which with you is canonical scripture: ‘“ When I knew that otherwise I could not be continent, except God should give it, and this same was wisdom to know whose gift it is, I went unto the Lord and prayed to him*.” These things considered, our translation is justified, both according to the word, which signifieth sometime “ to be able to receive ;” and according to the sense, which here must needs require that it should be so translated. Wherefore it is impossible for any man to [5 Augustin. de Gratia et Lib. Arb. c. 4. Opera, Vol. 1. 1236.] © [ἢ Eruit enim et eximit in se sperantes, non suis viribus quod acce- perint tribuentes. Zt hoc ipsum enim est sapientic, scire cujus est donum. Augustin. Sermo οὐχ. Opera. v. 1118. ] Martin, 9. Bib. 1579. Lib. 15. e. 7. de civit. Dei. Quest. Heb. in Genes. Foxe, 9. 390 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. live chaste, except he have the gift of God; whereof unless a man be certain, he doeth foolishly and presumptuously, to vow that which he knoweth not whether he shall be able to perform. Martin. Again, in some of your bibles, Gen. iv. 7, where God saith plainly, “that Cain should receive according as he did, well or evil, be- cause sin was subject unto him, and he had the rule and dominion thereof,” evidently declaring his free will; you translate it thus: “If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou dost not well, sin lieth at the door: and also unto thee his desire shall be subject, and thou shalt rule over him.” By which relatives, falsely put in the mas- culine gender, you exclude the true antecedent, sin, and refer them to Abel, Cain’s brother; as though God had said, not that sin should be in his dominion, or subject unto him, but his brother Abel. But that this is most false and absurd, we prove many ways. First, St Augustine saith directly the contrary: T'u dominaberis illius: nunquid fratris ? absit ; cujus igitur nisi peccati? “Thou shalt rule,” saith he, “over what? over thy brother? Notso; over what then, but sin?” St Jerome also explicateth this place thus: “ Because thou hast free will, I warn thee that sin have not dominion over thee, but thou over sin*.” More- over, the text itself, if nothing else, is sufficient to convince this ab- surdity. For where this word, “sin,” goeth immediately before in the same sentence, and not one word of Abel his brother in that speech of God to Cain; how is it possible, or what coherence can there be in saying, as you translate, “Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt have dominion over him,” that is, “thy brother?” But if we say thus, “Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt have dominion thereof ;” it hath this direct and plain sense: “If thou dost ill, sin lieth at the door ready to condemn thee, because it is in thee to overrule it.” Fulke. The relatives be the masculine gender in the Hebrew tongue, and therefore referred to Abel, and not to sin, which is of the feminine gender. Again, sin hath no appetite to Cain, but rather Cain to it : therefore, even as it was said to Eve, Thy appetite shall be to thy husband; so it is said of Abel, His appetite shall be to thee. St Augustine follow- eth the corrupt translation of the Septuaginta, which for [? Augustin. Opera, Vol. vu. p. 615.] [? Ait enim Dominus ad Cain: Quare irasceris? et quare concidit vultus tuus? Nonne si bene egeris, dimittetur tibi; et si non bene egeris, ante fores peccatum tuum sedebit? et ad te societas ejus: sed tu magis dominare ejus.. Hieronymi, Liber Quest. Hebraic. in Gene- sim. Opera. Vol. mp. 511.] χ.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 391 “appetite” read ‘ conversion ;” and therefore there is the less account to be made of his authority, being also igno- rant in the Hebrew tongue, and not regarding the Greek relative to be also of the masculine gender. Jerome also in that place interpreteth not “appetite,” but “ society,” and fantasieth that chataoth is the masculine gender, and not the feminine; whereas it is never read but in the feminine gender, out of this place of controversy. But ‘the text itself,” you say, “is sufficient to convince this absurdity, because in this speech of God to Cain there is no word of Abel.” It is somewhat that you say, if this that Moses reporteth were all that God said to Cain; but seeing it is certain that God at large discoursed with him of the cause of his envy against his brother, we may easily understand in this speech two arguments to reprove Cain’s envy, the one of the person of God, the other of the person of Abel. For God doth re- prove his envy by his own justice, and by Abel’s innocency : which latter argument your false translation doth utterly suppress. But that a relative is referred to an antecedent, which in the same verse is not expressed, it is no strange thing to them that read the scripture. Examples I will give you, Job xxvi., v. 6, 11, and 12, and cap. xxvii. ν. 9 and 10, Yea, it is very usual, when the antecedent may be easily understood, as here, both by the gender, and also by manner of speech, which, being the same that was spoken of Eve’s infirmity and subjection to her. husband, must needs here have the same sense of Abel toward Cain, his elder brother. Dison Martin. Now if against the coherence of the text, and exposition Marrin, of the holy doctors and of the whole church of God, you pretend the l Hebrew grammar forsooth, as not bearing such construction: not to trouble the common reader that cannot judge of these things, and yet fully to satisfy every man, even of common understanding, we request here the adversaries themselves to tell us truly according to their knowledge and skill, whether the Hebrew construction or point of grammar be not all one in these words, “Sin lieth at the door ;” and in these, “the desire thereof shall be subject to thee, and thou shalt rule over it.” If they say, as they must needs, that the Hebrew con- 0. PRON yn ΤῸΝ struction or syntax is all one, then will it follow, that the Hebrew 4 ΤΡ beareth the one as well as the other: and therefore, when the selfsame translation of theirs maketh no scruple of grammar in the former, but translate as we do, “Sin lieth at the door ;” a blind man may see, that wan FuLKE, 10. Cap. 1. Sect. i yn Marvin, 11. . Hebr. in enes. Quinquarbo- reus, FuLKE, Sue 392 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH fou. in the latter words also the Hebrew is but a foolish pretence, and that the true cause of translating them otherwise proceedeth of an heretical humour, to obscure and deface this so plain and evident scrip- ture for man’s free will. Fulke. 1 have shewed before the cause of the change of the gender in the word robets to be, for that by sin is meant the punishment of sin. Sanctes Pagninus taketh the word “sin” for “an oblation for sin:” and for the punishment of sin it is taken, Zach. xiv. 19. The Septuaginta also do plainly refer these relatives unto Abel; and therefore they are in the masculine gender, αὐτοῦ, “the conversion of him pertaineth to thee, and thou shalt rule over him.” Martin. And as for the Hebrew grammar in this point, were it not for troubling the reader, we could tell them that the word “sin” in Hebrew is not here of the feminine gender, as they suppose, but of the masculine: so saith St Jerome expressly upon this place’, who had as much knowledge in the Hebrew tongue, as all these new doctors, Aben Ezra also, the great rabbin, in his Hebrew commentaries upon this text saith, “It is a mere forgery and fiction to refer the mascu- line relative otherwise than to the word ‘sin: which, though else- where it be the feminine gender, yet here it isa masculine, according to that rule of the grammarians, that the doubtful gender must be dis- cerned by the verb, adjective, pronoun, or participle, joined with the same:” as the said Hebrew doctor doth in the word “ paradise,” Gen. ii., which there by the pronouns he pronounceth to be a feminine, though elsewhere a masculine. Lastly, if the word “sin” were here, and always, only a feminine, and never a masculine; yet they have little skill in the Hebrew tongue, that think it strange to match mas- culines and feminines together in very good and grammatical construc- tion: whereof they may see a whole chapter in Sanctes Pagninus with this title, Faminea masculeis juncta, that is, “Feminines joined with masculines.” Fulke. Not only the Hebrew grammar, but the same phrase used before, maketh plainly for our translation. That St Jerome saith, the Hebrew is of the masculine gender; as great an Hebrician as he was, he may not carry the matter away with his authority, except he bring an instance, where [’ Quod autem in septuaginta interpretibus fecit errorem, illud est: quia peccatum, id est, arraTu, in Hebreo generis masculini est, in Greco feminini. Et qui interpretati sunt, masculino illud (ut erat in Hebreo) genere transtulerunt. Hieronymi, Liber Quest. Hebraic. in Genesim. Opera. Vol. τι. p. 511.] x.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 393 it is of the masculine gender. The Jewish rabbins, patrons of free will, as ignorant of the grace of God, err in this place, as they do in a thousand more, and are forced to invent strange applications of the word “appetite” to make their sense probable. How the gender of Hebrew words may be found out, we are not now to learn; which because you bave but lately learned, you think all men ignorant thereof, but yourself. By the chapter of Pagninus, where he sheweth that femmines are jomed to masculines, you might learn that chataoth is the feminine gender, although it be joined with a participle of. the masculine gender. Who also might have taught you the difference of nouns ending in he, precedente camets, to be this, that feminines have the accent in the last syllable, masculines in the last save one; and therefore chataoth in this place, having the accent in the last syllable, notwithstanding the participle, which is masculine, must needs be of the feminine gender. Martin. Now for the last refuge, if they will say all this needed not, because in other their bibles it is as we would have it: we tell them, they must justify and make good all their translations, because the people readeth all, and is abused by all, and all come forth with privilege, printed by the Queen's printer, &c. If they will not, let them, confess the faults, and call them in, and tell us which transla- tion or translations they will stand unto. In the meantime they must be content to hear of all indifferently, as there shall be cause and occasion to touch them. nNon Milra et milel. nyon Martin, "-- nw Fulke. We tell you that we may not justify any fault Furxe, committed in our translations, but we have reformed them, !- if any were espied, in the later. Nevertheless those faults are not so great, that we need call in all the bibles in which is any fault: it is sufficient that we admonish the reader in our later editions of such faults as are escaped in the former ; especially when the faults are such, about which men are not agreed, as in this place you should rather commend our equity, that suffer such translations to be in the people’s hands, in which is some colour of maintaining your errors against us. But if you be so rigorous, that a book of scripture may not be read in which there is any fault, 1 charge you call in your translation of the new testament; for therein are shameful faults, and such as you cannot de- 394 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cu. fend or excuse, except it be by the fault of the printer, where- of yet you have not admonished the reader. I will give you a taste of some, and let all men judge whether they be not intolerable faults; for they are no less than detract- ing and taking away from the word of God. As 1 Cor. xiv. 38, where both the Greek and the Latin is, “If they will learn :” your translation is, “If they learn any thing.” Likewise Acts v. 4, where both the Greek and Latin is, «Festus answered that Paul is kept at Casarea:” you translate, ‘Festus answered that Paul is in Casarea;” leaving out the word “kept,” as before you left out the word “will” or “desire,” which altereth the sense very much. But in a place of greater moment, and in a matter of some con- troversy, of God’s particular preordination and fore-appoint- ment, you leave out a whole clause, Acts x. 41. For where it is both in the Greek and in the Latin, “that God made the resurrection of his Son manifest, not to all the people, but to the witnesses chosen before of God, to us which did eat and drink with him,” &c. your English translation hath no more but thus: ‘ Not to all the people, but to us, who did eat and drink with him,” &c,—leaving clean out that which is in your Latin text, Testibus preordinatis a Deo. Also in the epistle to the Hebrews, cap. vil. 28, where both the Greek and your vulgar Latin hath, “The law appointeth priests, men that have infirmity,” leaving out homines, a word very material in this place, to observe the opposition between the priesthood of men and the priesthood of the Son of God. These faults in the New Testament being some of them which I by no diligent reading have observed, now you be admonished of them, we shall see whether you will call in your translation, or command your disciples to burn their books. If you will not, I pray you be good mas- ter to us, and let our bibles go abroad still, for any faults we have ourselves amended, and admonished all diligent readers thereof by our later translations. And because you crack so much of “the exposition of the doctors and of the whole church of God” against us, I must let the reader understand, that the whole Greek church, which for the most part knew none other text but the Septuagint, must needs expound the place of Abel as we do, because the Greek text is manifestly in the masculine gender. And so doth χ.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. $95 Chrysostom, in Gen. Hom. xviii'. expound the place in these words: “ Ne putes, inquit, licet tuum aversatus sim sacrificium 0b pravam mentem, fratrisque oblationem acceptam habuerim 0b sanam intentionem, quod ideo primatu te destituam, et primogeniture dignitatem a te auferam. Nam licet honore ego illum prosecutus fuerim, acceptaque fuerint illius dona, ete. “Think not, saith he, that although I have refused thy sacrifice for thy naughty mind, and have re- ceived thy brother’s oblation for his good and sound: meaning, that therefore I will deprive thee of the primacy, and take away from thee the dignity of the birthright. For although I have vouchsafed him of honour, and that his gifts have been received; yet unto thee belongeth his conversion, and thou shalt rule over him. And this I per- mit after thy sin, that thou mayest enjoy the privileges of thy birthright, and I command him to be under thy power and dominion.” You were best now to rail upon Chrysostom, and charge him with heresy and schismatical exposition, “ contrary to the holy doctors and the whole church of God,” against free will of man. Which because itis your quarrel, you have St Ambrose also your enemy, De Caine et Abel, Lib. τι. cap. 7*: who although, as he read it in Latin, did think it must be referred to him, and not to his brother; yet he expoundeth it not of the strength of free will, but chargeth Cain to be author of his own error: Culpee ipsius ad te conversio est. ‘‘ The conversion of the [ Μὴ νομίσης, φησὶν, εἰ καὶ ἀπεστράφην σου τὴν θυσίαν διὰ τὴν οὐκ ὀρθὴν γνώμην, καὶ εἰ τὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ δῶρον προσεδεξάμην διὰ τὴν ὑγιῆ προαίρεσιν, ὅτι τῶν πρωτείων σε ἀποστερῶ, καὶ τῆς ἀξίας τῶν πρωτοτόκων σε ἐκβάλλω: ἥμαρτες" ἡσύχασον. El γὰρ καὶ τῆς περὶ ἐμοῦ τιμῆς ἠξίωται, καὶ εὐπρόσδεκτα αὐτοῦ γέγονε τὰ δῶρα, ἀλλὰ πρὸς σὲ ἡ ἀποστροφὴ αὐτοῦ, καὶ σὺ ἄρξεις αὐτοῦ. ὥστε καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ταύτην ἔχειν σε συγχωρῶ τὰ προτερήματα τῆς πρωτοτοκίας, κἀκεῖνον ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν ἐξουσίαν εἶναι κελεύω. Chrysost. Homil. in Genes. xviii. Opera, edit. Savill. Vol. 1. pp. 126, 127.] 3 [? Culpe ipsius ad te conversio est. Non enim frater ei addicitur, sed error adscribitur, cujus ipse sibi auctor est. In te, inquit, revertitur crimen, quod a te coepit. Non habes in quo necessitatem magis quam mentem tuam arguas. In te retorquetur improbitas tua; tu princeps es illius. Bene ait, Tu princeps es illius: etenim impietas mater quedam est delictorum. Ambrosii de Cain. et Abel. Lib. τι. ὁ. 7. Opera, Vol. 1. p- 217. edit. Bened. 1686. ] 996 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH: fault itself is unto thee. For his brother is not added to him, but error is ascribed, whereof he himself is author to himself. The crime, saith he, will return upon thee, which began of thee. Thou hast not whereby to accuse necessity more than thine own mind. The wickedness is retorted back upon thee, thou art prince of it. He saith well, thou art prince of it; for impiety is the mother of sins, &c.” You see therefore, that if you could obtain that these relatives were referred to him, yet your free will were not by and by to be builded upon the place, and that all be not hereticks which draw that text to another exposi- tion than standeth with your good liking. Martin. Again, they translate in some of their bibles against free will, thus: ‘Christ, when we were yet of no strength, died for the un- Nov. Test. godly.” Rom. v. 6. The apostle’s word doth not signify that we had a no strength, but that we were weak, feeble, infirm. Man was wounded ἡμῶν ἀσθε- in free will by the sin of Adam, (as he that in the gospel went down angel from Jerusalem to Jericho, which is a parable of this thing ;) he was not slain altogether. But I stand not here, or in any place, to dispute the controversy: that is done elsewhere. This only I say, because they falsely hold, that free will was altogether lost by Adam’s sin: there- Whitaker's, fore they translate accordingly, “‘ When we had no strength.” But the, ei Greek word is well known, both in profane authors and ecclesiastical, and specially in the New Testament itself throughout, to signify no- Multi inter thing else but weak, feeble, sick, infirm. Look me through the New vos infirmi Testament ; wheresoever infirmity, feebleness, languishing, and the like sunt, &e. 1 Cor. xi. 30. are spoken of, there is found this Greek word to express it. What Cum infir- mor, tum po- Grecian knoweth not, be he but simply acquainted with phrases and 2 Cor. xii. 10. nature of words, what ἀσθενεῖν, and ἀσθενῶς ἔχειν, do signify? When ; the apostle saith, Quis infirmatur, et ego non uror? “Who is weak 2 Cor. xi. 29. and infirm, and I am not much grieved ?”—shall we translate, “ who is of no strength,” &c.? Or let them give us an instance, where it is ue and certain that this word must needs'signify, “of no strength.” Will they yum, pretend the etymology of the word? A ridiculous and absurd evasion ! ἄῤῥωστος. We ask them of ῥώμη, a word of the very same signification, which geri. ‘ being compounded in like manner as the other, what doth it signify ? Lexicon: mag- any thing else but infirmity and feebleness? Yea, it is so far from περὶ τοῦ Signifying “ no strength,” that the greatest Grecians say, it is not spoken properly of him that for weakness keepeth his bed, which is νοσεῖν, Martin, 13. [1 Ἔτι yap Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν, κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανε, Rom. v. 6. ἀσθενῶν, “ yet weak,” Tyndale’s, Cranmer’s, Bishops’: bible. “Yet of no strength,” Geneva. “ Yet without strength,” Autho- rised version. ] x. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 397 but of him that is ill disposed and distempered in body. Yet the καχεκτοῦν- etymology is all one with that word, which these men will have to iti σω- signify “him that hath no strength.” And if they will needs urge the etymology, we tell them, that σθένος and ῥώμη signify robur, that is, “great strength,” such as is in the strongest and stoutest champions ; and so the etymology may take place to signify “ a man of no great strength,” not, “of no strength.” But M. Whitaker putteth us in good p. 209. hope they will not stand upon etymologies. Fulke. This cavil is fully answered, cap. 1. sect. 26 : Furxe, therefore I will not spend many words here about it. The 1° word ἀσθενὴς, we know, signifieth “ weak,” that is, of small strength, and sometimes, so weak that there is no strength; as Gal. iv. where St Paul calleth the ceremonies of Moses’ law, now expired, “the weak and beggarly elements,” that is, void of all strength and riches. Likewise the apostle to the Hebrews, cap. vii. saith, the commandment of the Aaronical priesthood is abolished, dia τὸ ἀσθενὲς, because It was weak and unprofitable without Christ: as unprofitable is void of profit, so is weak void of strength. St Paul, 1 Cor. xv., saith: ‘Our dead body is sowed in weakness :” is there any strength of a dead body? Moreover, Rom. viii, “that which was unpossible by the law,” ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει, “by means it was weak :” is not that void of strength to save us, which hath no possibility to do any thing? These instances may serve to prove, that ἀσθενὴς may signify “that which is so weak that it hath no strength.” Upon the etymology alone we stand not. But where you say, that man was wounded in free will by the sin of Adam, not slain altogether, (grounding your assertion upon a fond and false allegory of him that fell among thieves, which is no parable of a man in this case, but of man in necessity to be helped by right of neighbourhood,) I pray you, how came man to be dead altogether in sins? Eph. i, Col. ii, and in many other places of the scripture. Beside, is there any freedom of will to godliness remaining in them that are altogether dead in sin? But we are not now to handle controversies, but translations, as you do well ad- monish us. Martin. When they have bereaved and spoiled a man of his free 7 haba will, and left him without all strength, they go so far in this point, | Beza in δΔη- not. Rom. ii. 27. Mandata ejus gravia non sunt. Ee ‘ ai ἐντολαὶ βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσί. οὐχ ὑπέρ- ογκός ἔστι. N ND) 720 βαρύς. Fuike, 14. βαρεῖαι. 998 A DEPENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cH. that they say, the regenerate themselves have not free will and ability, no not by and with the grace of God, to keep the commandments. ‘To this purpose they translate, 1 John v. 3, thus, “ His commandments are not grievous,” rather than thus, “ His commandments are not heavy ;” ‘for in saying “they are not heavy,” it would follow, they might be kept and observed: but in saying “they are not grievous,” that may be true, were they never so heavy or impossible, through patience. As when a man cannot do as he would, yet it grieveth him not, being patient and wise, because he is content to do as he can and is able. Therefore do they choose to translate, that the commandments are not grievous, where the apostle saith rather, they are not heavy, much more agreeably to our Saviour’s words, “My burthen is light,” and to the words of God by Moses, Deut. xxx. “ This commandment which I command thee this day is not above thee,” that is, beyond thy reach, “but the word is very near thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it ;” and to the common signification of the Greek word, which is “heavy.” Beza would say somewhat in his commen- tary, how the commandments are heavy or light ; but his conclusion is against free will, and that there can be no perfection in this life, inveighing against them that would prove it out of this place: which is as much to say, (but he is ashamed to speak plainly,) that we can- not keep the commandments: which the holy doctors have long since condemned and abhorred, as most absurd, that God should command that, under pain of damnation, which is impossible to be done’, Fulke. Seeing our English word “grievous” cometh of the Latin word “grave,” which is not only “weighty,” but also “troublesome;” it better answereth both the Greek and the Latin, than “heavy,” which is properly, “that which is of great weight;” and the same word being both in Greek and Latin, 2 Cor, x., you yourselves translate “sore,” “his epistles are sore and vehement:” but in effect there is no great differ- ence. We acknowledge that his commandments are not [? Nam multo vehementius est quod dicit Apostolus, Judeos scilicet non modo non justificari cireumcisione externa, eo quod transgressores essent legis; sed etiam per eam ipsam circumcisionem transgredi legem, ut qui hoc ipso profanarent sacrosanctum Domini symbolum: velut si hodie dicamus contra sophistas, non modo non conferri gratiam ex opere operato baptismi iis qui sordes conscientie non abluerunt, sed quotidie magis ac magis se polluunt, ut etiam per hoc ipsum quod baptizati sunt, magis sint ire Dei obnoxii, ipsorum tamen yitio, non baptismi. Beze, Nov. Test. in Rom. ii. 27, p. 177. Ai ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσίν, 1 John y. 8. “ Mandata ejus gravia non sunt,” Vulg. Beza. “His commandments are not heavy,” Wiclif, Rheims. “His commandments are not grievous,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised version. ] x.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 899 heavy to him that is born of God, which overcometh the world by faith: otherwise the yoke of the law, as the apostle confesseth, “is such a burthen, as neither we nor our fathers were able to bear,” but believe to be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who having taken ‘away the curse of the law, and satisfied for our transgressions of the law, hath also given us grace to love the law and command- ments of God, and in some weak measure to observe them: so that, the curse being taken away, our transgressions answered in Christ, and our hearts framed by his grace to love his commandments, and some strength given us to keep them, they are not heavy, they are not burdenous, or grievous. That which God speaketh, Deut. xxx., is of the knowledge of the law, which was plainly revealed, and not of the strength that men have to keep it; and there- fore is by the apostle referred unto faith, for the observation thereof, Rom. x.: for by faith in Christ, which hath ful- filled the law for us, we are accounted to have fulfilled it in him. Beza’ speaketh plainly enough, if you had grace to understand him; and therefore is nothing ashamed to say, that we cannot keep the commandments of God, not only without the grace of God, but neither having the [ἢ Lex per se considerata nec gravis nec levis dici potest, sed compa- rate duntaxat, pro varia eorum conditione quorum respectus habetur. Gravis est igitur eorum respectu qui in carne sunt. Sunt autem in carne omnes homines qui non sunt renati ex Spiritu; adeo quidem ut eos non modo nihil allevet, sed etiam opprimat legis pondus, non suo tamen, sed illorum vitio, ut declaratum est copiose septimo epistole ad Romanos capite. E contrario vero levis est illis qui novas vires ccelitus accepe- runt, qui Spiritu Dei aguntur, quia filii Dei sunt; qui denique peccato mortui sunt: adeo quidem ut nulla re eque ac lege Dei delectentur ; nedum ut illis sit gravis et onerosa. Superest tamen, fateor, difficillimum et asperrimum certamen Spiritus cum carne: sed ne hac quidem ratione ullum legis pondus sentiunt, tum quia Spiritus tandem victor evadit ; tum vero quia quicunque credit, liberatus est ab illo longe gravissimo legis pondere, id est, ab ejus execratione......... Itaque stupidam esse oportet eorum conscientiam, et valdeineptum judicium, qui hunc locum citant ut liberum (quod vocant) arbitrium statuant, ut et eorum qui perfectionem aliquam putant fidelibus in hac vita contingere. Eos vero meminisse oportuerat, quod scriptum sit Rom. vii. 22. et deinceps, Philipp. iii. 9. et supra i. 8., denique saltem conscientiam suam dili- genter scrutari, nisi jampridem illius sensum amisissent. Beze, Nov. Test. in 1 John v. 8, p. 317. ] Martin, 15. FuLKE, 15. 400 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ en. grace of God in such measure, as God giveth it to no man but that he sinneth. Otherwise, what grace God is able to give, we doubt not; but what he doth, and will give to any man in this life, we speak. That God should command, under pain of damnation, that which is impossi- ble to be done, is no absurdity; seeing for them whom God will have to be saved, he provided another way of their salvation, than by keeping the law, namely, the re- demption of Christ. As for the reprobate, void of God’s grace, say you (if you dare) that they are able to keep the law without grace, or without grace have so much as any will to desire to have grace. Martin. Thus having taken away free will to do good, and pos- sibility to keep the commandments, and all merit or value and efficacy of good works, their next conclusion is, that we have no true justice or righteousness in us, but an imputative justice, that is, Christ’s justice imputed to us, be we never so foul and filthy in our souls, so that we believe only, and by faith apprehend Christ’s justice. For this purpose they corrupt the scriptures in their English bibles, thus. Fulke. The justice whereby we are accounted just in the sight of God, is not inherent in us, but in Christ, which is “the Lord our Righteousness,” Jerem. xxiii. Notwithstand- ing, it is the only true justice, and we are truly just by it. And yet we are not void of the Spirit of sanctification, which is a fruit and consequent of justification, by which we have grace to withstand sin, and to work righteousness, not whereby’ we should be made righteous before God, but whereby we are declared to be righteous in part, until, the body of sin being abolished, we shall be wholly renewed according to the image of God. xt. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE ΒΙΠΊ AOL CHAPTER XI. ‘Heretical Translation for Imputative Justice against True. Inherent Justice. Martin. Owe place might suffice instead of many, where Beza Marry, 1, doth protest, that his adding or alteration of the text is specially against “the execrable error of inherent justice’, which, he saith, is to be Annot. in avoided as nothing more. His false translation thus our English Bezites ea and Calvinists follow in their bibles: “ Likewise then, as by the offence of Rom. v. one” the fault came “on all men to condemnation; so by the justi- fying of one” the benefit abounded “toward all men to the justifi- [2 Ἄρα οὖν ὡς δὲ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα" οὕτω καὶ Ov ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς, Rom. v.18. “Igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes ' homines in condemnationem ; sic et per unius justitiam in omnes homines in justificationem vite,” Vulg. ‘ Nempe igitur sicut per unam offensam yeatus venit in omnes homines ad condemnationem; ita etiam per unam justificationem beneficitum redundavit in omnes homines in justi- ficationem vite.” Beze versio. | Beneficium redundavit in omnes homines, εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους. Quia precisa est oratio, supplevimus quod deerat, ex vers. 15. et 16. Nam quod Erasmus adjecit, propagatum est bonum, multis de causis mihi displicuit. Primum quia, quamvis de plenitudine Christi accipere nos oporteat, tamen inter nature propagationem et gratuitam impu- tationem discrimen aliquod constitui par est. Deinde quia nusquam (quod sciam) ita loquitur apostolus. Preterea vetustus ille sophistarum error, qui pro imputata justitia inherentem qualitatem substituunt, tantus est tamque execrandus bonis omnibus, ut nihil eque fugiendum putem. Beze Nov. Test. p. 179. “ Likewise then as by the sinn of one condemnation came on all men: even so by the justifying of one cometh the righteousness that bringeth life upon all men,” Tyndale, 1534. “ Likewise then as by the sin of one there sprang up evil on all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one springeth good upon all men to the righteousness of life,” Cranmer, 1539. “ Like- wise then as by the offence of one giltship came on all men to con< demnation: even so by the justifying of one the benefit abounded upon all men to the justification of life,” Geneva, 1557. ‘Therefore as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice of one unto all men to justification of life,” Rheims, 1582. “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation ; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came ye all men unto justifieation_of life,” Authorised version. ] - / 26 [FuLKE. | Εὐχκε, 1. 402 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH’ [ cH. cation of life.’ Where there are added to the text of the apostle six words, and the same so wilfully and voluntarily, that by the three first they make the apostle say, sin came on all men by Adam, and they were made sinners indeed ; by the three latter they make him say, not that justice or righteousness came likewise on all men by Christ, to make them just indeed, but that the benefit of Christ’s justice abounded towards them, as being imputed forsooth unto them. Whereas, if they would needs add to the text, (which yet is intolerable,) so much and in so doubtful a case, they should at the least have made the case equal, as the apostle himself teacheth them to do in the very next sentence, saying thus: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many also be made righteous.” So they translate, rather than, “be made just.” For they are the lothest men in the world to say that we are made just, for fear of justice inherent in us, though the scripture be never so plain: as here we see the apostle maketh the case like that we are made just by Christ, as we were made sinners by Adam. Fulke. This one place is delivered from your vain cavillation, cap. i. sect. 23. When the sentence is ecliptical or defective, they that will translate to have it understood, must needs supply the words that are wanting. And where shall they find what words are lacking, but in the same place, and in the treaty of the same matter? It appeareth you had rather the text had no sense, than that it might seem to make against your blasphemy of “justice inherent.” As for that fond quarrel of yours, that they be not just in deed, to whom the justice of Christ (which you like an hell- hound do scorn at) is imputed, [it] deserveth no answer. For who is such a block to say or think, that those whom God doth justify, are not made just in deed? Was not Abraham just in deed, when God imputed his faith unto justice? 15 not he made rich in deed, which is made rich by another man’s gift? Christ is given unto us of God to be justice, wisdom, sanctification, and in him we are just, wise, and holy ; not in our own righteousness, wisdom, or holiness. As for adding to the text, God knoweth how we abhor it: but adding of words which do explicate the sense of the Holy Ghost, is no addition forbidden; for then all preaching were accursed, which is, or ought to be, nothing else but an explaining and setting forth of the word of God in more words, the matter whereof, though in fewer words, is con- tained in the scripture. And if we speak of adding of words Ὗ x1] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE: 403 in translation, have I not shewed before that you have added many ? some indeed upon necessary cause, and some without necessity, What needed you to say for peniterent, “they had done penance,” Luc. x.; for in omnibus bonis, “in all his goods,” Gen. vi.; for separamini, “separate your- selves,” 2 Cor. vi, &c. To say we are “justified,” and to say we are made “just,” is all one; and therefore I marvel, why you think us loth to say the one rather than the other. Is any man so senseless to think we can say a man is made righteous, and dare not say he is made just? I tell you plainly, we defy the heresy of “righteousness inherent,” as much as of “justice inherent.” We are just, we are righteous in the sight of God, not by the justice or righteousness of our works, but by the justice or righteousness of Christ imputed to us through faith. And we are made just by Christ, as we were made sinners by Adam, in some respect, but not in every respect; for the apostle maketh a broad dif- ference between the transgression and, the benefit, Rom. v. 15 ; and other differences there be which none but a Pelagian will deny. Nay, Pelagius will not say, that we are just by Christ according to propagation, but according to faith. Martin, And it is a world to see, how Beza shifteth from one Mapriv, 2, signification of the word “justified,” or “ made just,” to another. Some- δικαιωθῆ- time to be justified, is to be pronounced quit from all sin, or de- ¥@. _ x ΓΝ. τὰ absolvi. clared just before God’s judgment-seat ; and so he translateth it in the δικαιοῦται. text}, Acts xiii. 389; and as though his guilty conscience were afraid of °°" a blow, he saith he fleeth not the term of “ justifying” or “justification,” because he useth it in other places. He doth so indeed, but then his commentary supplieth the turn, as Rom. ii. 13, ‘Not the hearers of [? Kat ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωσέως δικαιωθῆναι, ἐν τούτῳ πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων δικαιοῦται, Acts xiii. 89. “Et ab omnibus qui- bus non potuistis in lege Moysi justificari, in hoc omnis qui credit justifi- catur,” Vulg. v. 38, 39. “ Et quod ab omnibus a quibus non potuistis per legem Mosis absolvi, per hunc omnis qui.credit absolvitur,” Beze Nov, Test. Οὐ yap of ἀκροαταὶ τοῦ νόμου δίκαιοι mapa τῷ Θεῷ, GAN’ οἱ ποιηταὶ τοῦ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται. Rom. ii. 13, “For before God they are not righteous which hear the law: but the doers of the law shall be justified,” Tyndale, Geneva. “ For in the sight of God they are not righteous,” &c. Cranmer. “For not the hearers of the law are just with God: but the doers of the law shall be justified,” Rhemish Version, 1582, Autho- rised, 1611. ] . 26—2 404 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH» [cu the law are righteous before God ;” (so they delight to translate, rather than, “just before God”;) ‘but the doers of the law shall be justified,” Justi pronun- that is, saith Beza, “shall be pronounced just.” The apostle must needs γα ug say by the coherence and consequence of his words, Not the hearers are just, but the doers shall be just or justified. Beza will in no case have it so, but either in text or commentary make the apostle say as Annot.m himself imagineth. Yet in another place he protesteth very solemnly, mm that to be “justified” is not to be pronounced or accounted just, but rather to be just in deed; and that he proveth out of St Paul, Rom. δικαιοῦ- ν΄ 19, who maketh it all one “to be justified,” and “to be made just :” 5 baa κα. 2nd again by this reason, that it should be manifestly repugnant to θίστασθαι. God’s justice to account him for just that is not just, and therefore that man in deed is made just. Thus Beza. Would you not think he were come to be of our opinion? But he revolteth again, and interpreteth Non quasi all these goodly words in his old sense, saying, “ Not that any quality x gaia is inwardly given unto us, of which we are named just; but because the justice of Christ is imputed to us by faith freely.” By faith then at the least we are truly justified. Not so neither; but “ faith,” saith Annot.in he, “is an instrument wherewith we apprehend Christ our justice.” Rom. ἵν. 2. 5 that we have no more justice in us than we have glory; for glory also we apprehend by faith. Foxe, 2. Fulke. All learned men, I hope, do see, that. you have no regard how vainly you cavil, so you may seem to the ignorant to say something against them that be godly and learned. Acts xiii. v. 39, Beza translateth δικαιωθῆναι “ αὖ.- solvi,” that is, saith he, ‘to be declared just,” or “ absolved;” and giveth this reason why he useth not the word justificari in that place, which he useth elsewhere: Ne quis illud “ab omnibus” perinde acciperet, ac si casus esset modi aut instrumenti, per quod justificemur, id est, justi fiamus ac pronunciemur, aut pro justis habeamur; hoe quidem loco malui absolvendi verbum usurpare, ut magis perspicua esset oratio’: “Lest any man should take this word of the text ‘ab omnibus, as though it were the case of the mean or instrument by which we are ‘justified,’ that is, ‘made and pronounced just,’ or ‘accounted for just;’ in this place I choose rather to use the word of ‘ absolving,’ that the sentence might be more clear.” The Latin ab omnibus may signify “ by all things,” or “ from all things.” There- fore, lest any man should mistake the apostle, as though he said we are “justified by all those things,’ where he [᾿ Novum Testamentum, edit. Beze, p. 164. δον" ων. x1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLEs. 405 meaneth “ we are justified from all things,” Beza in this place useth the word of “absolving,” or “ acquitting,” in the same sense that he doth “justifying” in other places, where he speaketh of the same matter ; and saith as plainly as a man can speak, that to be “justified” and to be made “just,” or pronounced or accounted “just before God,” is all one. Yet our Momus findeth fault with him, for expounding “ to be justified,” Rom. i. 13, “to be pronounced just ; 5” as though God will pronounce any man just which is not just in deed. But Beza, he saith, elsewhere protesteth that “to be justified,” is not “ to be pronounced or accounted just,” but rather “to be just in deed.” If Martin had not belied Beza, we should have had Beza’s words set down, both in Latin and English. But in truth Beza hath no such words: yet in sense he hath thus much, that to be justified before God is “to be just in deed,” and not “ to be only pronounced or accounted just,” when he is not so in deed; but that we are “made truly just im deed by the | pete of Christ,” which is imputed unto us freely by faith. And as for that new life or “justice,” which is called “ in- herent in us,” it is not the cause but the witness of that “justice” by imputation of which we are saved, following him that is “ justified,” and not going before “ justification :” and faith indeed is the instrument by which we apprehend, Christ our “justice.” Neither doth Beza say, that we are not truly “justified by faith:’ but that. faith is not the principal efficient cause, which is the mercy of God, . but the instrumental cause, by which we take hold of the mercy of God in Christ. In all this Beza hath said nothing con- trary to himself, nor to the truth. And it is no absurdity. to say, that the “justice of Christ,” by which we are “justified,” is no more inherent in us than his glory; and yet both assured unto us by faith. As for that “justice,” which is an effect of God’s sanctifying Spirit, and a fruit. of our “ Shaece, before God,” by which also we are “justified,” or “declared just,” before men, as St James teacheth, rie is inherent in us; as also the first-fruits of glo- rification, by that peace of conscience and joy that we have in God being reconciled to us by Christ, Martin. For this purpose both he and the English bibles trans¢ Marty, 8. Pro justitia. els δικαιο- σύνην. Vice et loco. Reputabitur tibi in peeca- tum. 7277 NOM ἔσται ἐν σοι ὧμαρ- tia. Mp Ts my 19 Furxe, 3. 406 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH - fon, late thus: “Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him for justice,”! Rom. iv. 8. and 9. Where he interpreteth, “for justice,” to be nothing else but “in the stead and place of justice ;” so also taking away true inherent justice even from Abraham himself. But to admit their translation, which notwithstanding in their sense is most false, must it needs signify, not true inherent justice, because the scripture saith it was ‘reputed for justice?” Do such speeches import that it is not so in deed, but is only reputed so? Then if we say, this shall be reputed to thee for sin, for a great benefit, and so forth ; it should signify, it is no sin in deed, nor great benefit. But let them call to mind, that the scripture useth to speak of sin and of justice alike. “It shall be sin in thee,” or, “unto thee,” as they translate, bible 1577: or as St Jerome translateth, “ It shall be reputed to thee for sin,” Deut. xxiii. and xxiy., and, as themselves translate, “it shall be righteousness unto thee before the Lord thy God.” And again, Deut. vi.: “This shall be our righteousness before the Lord our God, if we keep all the commandments, as he hath commanded us.” If then justice only be reputed, sin also is only reputed: if sin be in us in deed, justice is in us in deed. Fulke. Our translation taketh not from Abraham true justice, nor yet justice inherent; but declareth that he was not justified before God by works, that is, by justice inherent, but by faith, which apprehendeth the justice of Christ, which is altogether without us. And therefore you cavil in your old rotten quarrel, when you go about to make “ reputed” to be contrary to “truth,” or “indeed.” Faith was reputed by God Γ΄ ᾿Ἐπίστευσε δὲ ᾿Αβραὰμ τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Rom. iy. 8. “Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam,” Vulg. “Credidit autem Abraham Deo, et imputatum est ei pro justitia,” Beze Vers. λέγομεν yap ὅτι ἐλογίσθη τῷ "ABpaap ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Rom, ἦν. 9. “Dicimus enim quia reputata est Abrahe fides ad justitiam,” Vulg. “Dicimus enim quod imputata fuerit Abrahe fides pro justitia,” Beze Vers. Pro justitia, εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Vulg. et Erasmus ad verbum, ad justi- tiam, quod est obscurius dictum, Est enim hic quoque (ut supra ii. 26) Hebraismus in prepositione «is: id 5 est que significat vice et loco, ut Psal. xxx. 3, et alibi sepe. Beze, Nov. Test. p. 180. "Ἢ Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for right- eousness,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised versions, v. 3. “Abra- ham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice,” Rhemish version. v. 3. “We say verily that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness,” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised, v. 9. “ For we say that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice,” Rhemish.] x1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 407 to Abraham for justice in deed, but not as justice inherent. And Abraham was truly justified by faith as by an instru- mental cause: not that faith was the justice by which he was just in the sight of God, excluding all other causes; but there was nothing in Abraham but faith, which God accounted for justice. But Abraham’s faith embraced the mercy of God im the promised seed, in which as well he, as all the tribes of the earth, should be blessed. The places of scripture that you cite, speaking of sin and justice alike, be not contrary to the imputation of justice unto them in which it is not inherent. For in neither of both places the Holy Ghost useth the word of imputation, howsoever St Jerome translateth it, but the verb substantive ; and the meaning is plain. “ It shall be sin in thee:” for sin is indeed inherent, as perfect justice also should be, if we could observe all the commandments of God, as Moses saith, Deut. vi., and we should be justified thereby. But by one just act, whereof Moses speaketh, Deut. xxiv., though it proceed of justice that is in us, the scripture never saith that we shall be “justified.” To conclude, we confess that both sin and justice are in the children of God; but not that justice, whereby they are reputed “just” or “justified,” or made “just” before God, but an effect or fruit thereof. Martin. Again, the Greek fathers make it plain, “that to be re- Marrin, 4. puted unto justice” is to be true justice indeed, interpreting St Paul’s cum. in word in Greek thus: “Abraham obtained justice, Abraham was justi- tini. fied.” For that is, say they, “It was reputed him to justice.” Doth not ante ἡμέρῃ St James say the like, cap. ii. 23, testifying, that in that Abraham was τοῦτο yap justified by faith and works, the scripture was fulfilled, that saith, “it was ἐλογίσθη reputed him to justice?” Gen. xv. 6. In which words of Genesis, where αὐτῷ εἰς these words were first written by Moses, in the Hebrew there is not, seg oh “‘for justice,” or, “instead of justice,’ which Beza pleadeth upon by τεστιν, ὅτε the Hebrew phrase ; but thus: “ He, God, reputed it unto him justice ;” ἐδικαιώθη: though here also the English bibles add “for:” which precisely trans- maw lating the Hebrew they should not do, especially when they mean it was Mpg oP) so counted or reputed for justice, that it was not justice in deed. Fulke. 1 know not against whom you fight, but against Fuxxe, 4. your own shadow. For we say, that to be justified, and be reputed just, and to obtain justice, is all one in this case. But where St James saith that Abraham was “justified by works,” he meaneth, that he was declared just before men ; even as he saith, “Shew me thy faith by thy works; for Martin, 5, [Ps. CXix. 119.] ἐλογισά- μὴν. ΠΣ, 408. A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH - [ous Abrahani was not justified by a dead faith, but by a work-' ing faith ;” and yet he was not justified before God by works : but the scripture was fulfilled which said, “Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him for justice ;” which is, as St. Paul expoundeth it, “‘ Abraham was justified before God by faith, and not by works.” But in Gen. xv. 6 there is not. the preposition “for” or “instead,” but simply ‘justice :” therefore it should be translated, “he reputed it to him justice.” And will you then control both the apostles, Paul and James, for adding the preposition εἰς, which signifieth “unto,” or “for?” Or will not common sense enforce the same understanding that both the apostles do give it? He reputed it to him as “justice,” or “for justice.’ Must not such particles in translation be always expressed to make the sense plain, which in English without the particle hath no sense or understanding? To translate precisely out of the Hebrew is not to observe the number of words, but the perfect sense and meaning of them, in fewer or more words, as the phrase of our tongue will serve to be understood: or else 2 Cor, viil., qué multum, why do you translate “he that had much?” and, qui modicum non minoravit, * he that had little wanted not ?” You should have said “which much,” and “ which little not lessed,” if you would have given word for word, and not added any word for explication; Again, 2 Cor. i., supra virtutem, “ above our power,” why add you “our,” which is not in the text, and indeed not necessary to be added in the translation? Again, 1 Cor, xiii,, Evacuavi que erant parvuli, “I did away the things that belonged to a little one.” Here for four Latin words you have given ten or eleven English words; which no reasonable man can greatly mislike, if you were not such a quarreller at other men’s doing, without all cause or wise colour, but only to blear the eyes of the ignorant. Martin. But as for either the Hebrew or Greek word that is here used, to “repute” or “account,” they are then used when it must needs signify that the thing is so in deed, and not only so reputed, as Psal, exviii. octonario samec: “I have reputed or accounted all the sinners of the earth prevaricators,” or “ transgressors ;” prevaricantes reputavi. So did the Septuaginta take the Hebrew word, and read it. And St ἡμᾶς hoyt- Paul, “So let a man repute” or “account us as the ministers of Christ.” ζέσθω. 1 Cor. iv. Let them go now and say, that neither they were sinners in deed, nor χι.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 409 these Christ's ministers in deed, because they were reputed for such: let them say, the children of the promise were not the seed of Abra- ham, because the apostle saith, Rom. ix, 8, “they are reputed for λογίζεται the seed.” But howsoever it be, the protestants will have it so to be “ἐσ τώρμα. taken, at the least in the matter of justification. Fulke. Silence were the best answer to these tedious Furxy, 5, repetitions. It were sufficient once to say among reasonable men, When faith is reputed by God, or accounted for justice, faith is truly and in deed the instrumental cause of justification, or apprehending the justice of Christ, by which we are accounted and made just in the sight of God. Τὸ is therefore a most ridiculous cavil of the difference between “reputing just,” and being “just in deed.” For God, when he justifieth the ungodly, doth both repute him and make him just in deed by the justice of Christ, of his own mere mercy, and not of the man’s merits, or by justice inherent. For what justice can be in an ungodly man? ‘and such is _every one of us whom God doth justify, and then give us his holy Spirit, to sanctify usin newness of life, to set forth his glory in our holy and blameless conversation. Martin. Again, where St Paul saith, 2 Cor. v.! “That we might be Martin, 6. made the justice of God in him ;” they in their first translations intolerably corrupt it thus: “That we by his means should be that righteousness, Bib. 1562. which before God is allowed.” Who taught them to translate so dis- μύλων, solutely, justitia Dei, “the righteousness which before God is allowed 2” αὐτῷ. Did not their error and heresy, which is, that God reputeth and_ac- counteth us for just, though we be indeed most foul sinners ; and that our justice being none at all in us, yet is allowed and accepted before him for justice and righteousness ? Fulke. There is no text in all the bible more clear Furxs; 6: against justification by justice inherent, than this 2 Cor. v., wherein not, altogether causeless you reprove our first in- terpreters to translate dissolutely. There it is certain they [2 ἵνα ἡμεῖς γινώμεθα δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ, 2 Cor. v.21. “Ut nos efficeremur justitia Dei in ipso,” Vulg.. “That we by his means should be that righteousness which before God is allowed,’ Tyndale, Cranmer, 1539, 1562. ‘“ That we should (might, version 1611) be made the righteousness of God in him,” Bishops’ bible, 1584, Geneva, 1557, “‘ That we might be made the justice of God in him,” Rheims. ] 410 A: DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH’ [ons had no such purpose as you ascribe unto them: for their translation doth rather obscure than set out our justifi- cation by the justice which is not in us, but in Christ. The text is therefore plain: “Him that knew no sin, he made sin for us, that we might become the justice of God in him,” that is, in Christ, and not in ourselves. For though we be indeed most foul sinners, and all our justice be, as the prophet saith, as a menstruous cloth ; yet in Christ he washeth and cleanseth us from our sins, and reputing his justice as ours, he maketh us truly just before him; “not having our own justice which is of the Phil. iii, law, but the justice which is by faith of Jesus Christ, the justice which is of God through faith.” Where you charge us to affirm, “that our justice being none at all in us, yet is allowed and accepted before him for justice and righteousness,” it is no assertion of ours, but a dogged slander of your own. Mantin,7. Martin. Again to this purpose: they make St Paul’ say that God Eph.i.6. “hath made us accepted,” or, “freely accepted” in his beloved Son, as éxapitwoe. they make the angel in St Luke say to our lady, “ Hail, freely be- loved ;* to take away all grace inherent and resident in the blessed virgin, or in us; whereas the apostle’s: word signifieth, that we are truly made gracious or grateful and acceptable ; that is to say, that our soul is inwardly endued and beautified with grace and the virtues proceed- ing thereof, and consequently is holy indeed before the sight of God, and not only so accepted and reputed, as they imagine. If they know. not the true signification of the Greek word, and if their heresy will suffer them to learn it, let them hear St Chrysostom, not only a fa- mous Greek doctor, but an excellent interpreter of all St Paul’s epistles ; who in this place putteth such force and significancy in the Greek, χαρίσα- that he saith thus by an allusion and distinction of words: “He said treats σαι. 20t, which he freely gave us, but, wherein he made us grateful; that is, not only delivered us from sin, but also made us beloved and ami- able, made our soul beautiful, grateful, such as the angels and archangels are desirous to see, and such as himself’is in love withal, according to that in the psalm, ‘The king shall desire, or, ‘be in love with thy beauty”.’"’ So St Chrysostom, and after him Theophylact, who with many more words and similitudes explicate this Greek word, and this [) Eis ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὑτοῦ, ἐν ἧ ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ. Ephes. i. 6.] > > e > U > > > , ca , > [2 Οὐκ εἶπεν, ἧς ἐχαρίσατο, ἀλλ᾽, ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς: τουτέστιν, ov: μόνον ἁμαρτημάτων ἀπήλλαξεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπεράστους ἐποίησε. ᾿Ἐπιθυ-' x1. ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 411 making of the soul gracious and beautiful inwardly, truly, and inhe- rently. Fulke. We make St Paul say no otherwise than he Furxg, 7. saith indeed, ἐχαρίτωσε, “he hath made us accepted,” or “he hath freely accepted us in his beloved Son.” And so we truly say, “the blessed virgin Mary was freely accepted,” or, “freely beloved.” But this taketh not away the gracious gifts of God, [with] which the blessed virgin in most plentiful manner was, and we in some measure are, endued by his grace and favour; which also God loveth in us, because they be his . gifts, and because he loveth us freely in. his beloved Son, whom always you forget, when you speak of justice, or acceptation before God. For that, being sanctified by his Spirit, we are holy in deed, though not perfectly, as sanctifi- cation is begun, and not consummate in this life, (for if it were, we should be void of sin and death,) we do thankfully acknowledge: yet those virtues wherewith our soul is inwardly endued and beautified, are not the cause that justifieth us, or maketh us acceptable in God’s sight; but only his mercy in Jesus Christ, for whose sake also he accepteth this unperfect holiness and righteousness, which is in us by his grace and gift, rewarding the same for his sake also with everlasting glory. And nothing else doth Chrysostom say or mean in the place by you cited, about whom you make so many words, that you might be thought, by giving him his due praise, to have him (as it were) bound to you to maintain your unrighteous cause. But Chrysostom careth not for your commendation, and that which he saith maketh nothing for. ‘justice inherent,” by which we should be justified; for he saith not so much as that our soul is made amiable and _ beautiful. by virtues and good qualities infused by his grace, much less, that for such qualities inherent in us God should justify us ; but he hath made us acceptable in Christ, amiable, and beau- tiful, and lovely to the angels; some effect of which grace also appeareth.in our life and conversation, to the praise of God, and good example of men... “a 4 aw λ i 7 4 4 , 4 > ; μοῦσι γὰρ ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην Ψυχὴν, ἀρχάγγελοι, πᾶσαι αἱ ἄλλαι δυνάμεις. Οὕτως ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπιχάριτας ἐποίησε, καὶ “ ’ 3 , - ἑαυτῷ ποθεινούς. ᾿Επιθυμήσει γάρ, φησιν, ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ κάλλους cov. Chrysost. Homil. in Ephes. Opera, Vol. m1, p. 767. Edit. Savill.) 412 ‘A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH’ | [ou. Mart, 8.~ Martin. And 1 would gladly know of the’ adversaries, if the like Greek words be not of that form and nature to signify so much as “to make worthy, to make meet ;" and whether he whom God maketh ἀξιῶσαι. worthy, or meet, or grateful, just, and holy, be not so in very deed, ἱκανῶσαι. byt by acceptation only: if not in deed, then God maketh him no better ee than he was before, but only accepteth him for better; if he be so in deed, then the apostle’s word signifieth not to make accepted, but to make such an one as, being by God's grace sanctified and justified, is worthy to be accepted for such purity, virtue, and justice as is in him. Fuuxe,8. Fulke. I have told you before, that ἀξιῶσαι signifieth not to “make worthy,” but to “account worthy ;” for many ἃ man may desire (using this verb) to be accounted worthy of him, which cannot make him worthy, but in his own judg= ment and account. But where you demand further, “whether he whom God maketh meet, worthy, grateful, just, holy; be not so in deed, but by acceptation only : I answer, those whom he accepteth for worthy, meet, just, holy, grateful, are so in deed; but then it is further to be known, whether they be such in themselves, or in Christ. We say they are not such in themselves, but in Christ. Then are they made nothing better, say you, in themselves. Yes, verily, as soon as they are accepted to be God’s children, and the justice of Christ is imputed to them through faith, they receive the Spirit of adoption, which reneweth them in the inward man, and beginneth in them holiness, and justice, purity, virtue: but because all these qualities are imperfect, they are not worthy in God’s justice to be accepted for them; but the cause of their acceptation is still the mercy of God in Christ, in whom both they and their imperfect good qualities are accepted to reward, Marriy,9. © Martin. Again, for this purpose, Dan. vi. 22, they will not trans- cipédn ἐν late according to Chaldee, Greek, and Latin, “Justice was found in ἐμοὶ. me ;” but they alter thus: “ My justice was found out; and other of “wi 1 them: “My unguiltiness was found out,” to draw it from inherent noon * justice, which was in Daniel. 5 Furxe, 9. Fulke. .1 can but wonder at your impudence and malice, which say so confidently, that for this purpose they translated thus. Would any man by the justice or innocency that was in Daniel, or in any just man, fear lest any thing. should x1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 413 be detracted from the justice of Christ, whereby Daniel, and all just men, are justified in God’s sight? Well, let that purpose rest in God’s judgment, as Daniel’s justice did, when he was shamefully slandered. But what is the fault of the translation? According to the Chaldee, Greek, and Latin, it should be, “justice is found in me.” For Greek and Latin we will not contend, because we translate not Daniel out of Greek and Latin, but out of the Chaldee. But in good sadness, are you so deeply seen in Chaldee, that you will avouch the proper signification of "Ὁ to be “in me?” A hundred boys in Cambridge know that it signifieth as well in Chaldee, as in Hebrew, ‘to me,” rather than “in me.” But most pro- perly have our translators expressed the phrase in English, saying, “my justice” or “ unguiltiness was found out ;” for of a virtue inherent Daniel speaketh otherwise, Dan. 11. 30, to the king, °2 ὙΝ 7 ΓΏΣΙΤΣ NY, “not by wisdom, which nD is in me.” So that here your quarrel bewrayeth more spite M2202 than wit, more malice than learning. ΝῊ ae ἘΠ 2 Martin. Again, it must needs be a spot of the same infection, that Marri, ὃ they translate thus: “As David describeth the blessedness of the man, 12 unto whom God imputeth righteousness,” Rom. iv. 6 ; as though imputed tele righteousness were the “description” of blessedness. They know the σμὸν τοῦ Greck doth not signify “to describe.” I would once see them pre- ἀνθρώπου. cise in following the Greek and the Hebrew: if not, we must look to their fingers. , Fulke. It must needs come of an high wit, to have Furxe, such deep insight into other men’s intents and purposes, ᾽ν But why, I pray you, is not “righteousness imputed by God,” &c., and so forth, as Paul saith, “a description of man’s blessedness?” If they had said “defineth,’ where they say, “describeth,” you would have made much ado. But can you not allow this that the prophet saith, to be a “ de- scription” of man’s blessedness? Howsoever it is, λέγω sig- nifieth not “to describe,” but “to speak,” “to say,” “ to pronounce ;” and in effect there is nothing else meant by the word “ describeth” here used, but that David pro- nounceth or setteth forth the blessedness of man in such words. You in your translation say “termeth,” as “David termeth ;” which, if you mean it not scornfully, cometh as near a definition as “ describeth,” the word which we use; 414 4 DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH’ fou. and our “ describeth” is as near the Greek λέγει, as your “termeth” is to the Latin dicit. But “look to our fingers,” and spare not to tell us where you see us go wide from the Greek or Hebrew: but if you do nothing but trifle and quarrel, as you have done hitherto, be sure we will be bold to beshrew your fingers, and hit you on the thumbs now and then also to your discredit. x11. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE ‘BIBLE. 415 CHAPTER XII. Heretical Translation for Special Faith, Vain Security, — and Only Faith. t Martin. Aw. other means of salvation being thus taken away, Martin, 1. their only and extreme refuge is, “only faith ;” and the same not the christian faith of the articles of the creed and such like, but a special faith and confidence, whereby every man must assuredly be- lieve, that himself is the son of God, and one of the elect and predestinate to salvation. If he be not by faith as sure of this as of | Christ's incarnation, he shall never be saved. Fulke. ‘All other means of salvation being taken away,” Funxg, 1. and only faith apprehending the mercy of God in the re- demption of Jesus Christ bemg left, we have great and sufficient cause to account ourselves happy, and assured of eternal life, because he that hath promised is faithful also to perform. But where you say, that our “only faith is not the christian faith of the articles of the creed,” you lie with- out measure impudently : for that faith, and none other, do we believe, teach, and profess. And that faith is a special faith and confidence in the merey of God, whereof every man that believeth doth make a singular confession for him- self, saying, “I believe in God,” &c. And of all things contained in that profession of faith, (that is, of forgiveness of sins, resurrection of our bodies, and life everlasting, by belief and trust in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, conceived, born, suffered, crucified, dead, buried, de- scended into hell, risen again, and ascended into heaven, and in God the Holy Ghost, by whose gracious and mighty work- ing we are incorporate into the body of Christ, and made members of his holy catholic church, which is the communion of saints,) every christian man ought to be as certainly persuaded, as the things are most true, being inwardly taught by the Spirit of truth, that he is the child of God, and consequently elect, and’ predestinate unto eternal salya- tion. But that a man shall never be saved, except he have such certainty of this faith, as the truth of God’s promises Martin, 2. ἐν πληρο- Φορίᾳ πίστεως. Annot. in Luke iy 1. πληροφο- ρίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος. πληροφο- ρίας τῆς συνέσεως. πληροφο- ρηθεὶς, plenissime sciens. πληροφό- ρῆσον. Ministerium tuum imple. An. 1577. An. 1562, Ignat. Ep. Smyrn. "ExkxAnoia Θεοῦ πα- πρὸς πε- πληροφο- ρημένη ἐν , faith ;” 416 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [om doth deserve, none of us doth teach, none of us doth think. For we know our own infirmity, we know the temptation of Satan : nevertheless we acknowledge in ourselves, and so seek to persuade all men, that these things standing upon the immoveable pillars. of God’s promises, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, ought to be most certain unto us; and for daily confirmation and increase of this faith, “all those means are of us diligently to be used, that God for this purpose in his holy scripture hath appointed. Martin For this heresy, they foree the Greek to express the very word of assurance and certainty, thus: “ Let us draw nigh with a true heart, in assurance of faith,” Heb. x. 22; and Beza, certa persuasione fidei, that is, “with a certain and assured persuasion of interpreting himself more at large in another place, that he meaneth thereby such a persuasion and so effectual, as by which we know assuredly without all doubt, that nothing can separate us from God. Which their heretical meaning maketh their translation the less tolerable, because they neither express the Greek precisely, nor intend the true sense of the apostle. They express not the Greek, which signifieth properly the fulness and complement of any thing, and therefore the apostle joineth it sometime with faith; elsewhere, Heb. vi. 11, with hope ; with knowledge, or (Col. ii. 2) understanding ; to signify the fulness of all three, as the vulgar Latin interpreter most sincerely (Rom. iv. 21.) always translateth it: and to Timothy, 2. Tim. iv.’, he useth it to signify the full accomplishment and execution of his ministry in every point. Where a man may wonder that Beza, to maintain his conceived signification of this word, trans- lateth here also accordingly, thus, ministerii tui plenam fidem facito: but their more current church English bibles are content to say with the vulgar Latin interpreter, “fulfil thy ministry,” or, “fulfil thine office to the utmost.” And the Greek fathers do find no other in- terpretation. Thus when the Greek signifieth “‘ fulness of faith,” rather than “assurance” or “ certain persuasion,” they translate not the Greek precisely. Again, in the sense they err much more, applying the aforesaid words to the certain and assured faith that every man ought to have, as they say, of his own salvation. Whereas the Greek fathers expound it of the full and assured faith that every faithful man must have of all such things in heaven as he seeth Γ᾿ τὴν διακονίαν cov πληροφόρησον, 2 Tim. iy. ὅδ. Ministerium tuum imple,” Vulg. “ Fulfil thine office unto the utmost,” Tyndale, Cranmer, 1539, 1562, Geneva, 1557. “ Make thy ministry be fully known,” Geneva, 1560. “ Fulfil thy ministry,” Bishops’ bible, 1584, Rheims, 1582. ‘ Make full Berghe of ἫΝ errr Ἢ ae ver- sion, 1611.} - "ὦ ξ ba tise x1I. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 417 not, namely that Christ is ascended thither, &c., adding further and πίστει καὶ proving out of the apostle’s words next following, that the protest- rig hin ants’ only faith is not sufficient, be it never so special or assured. ροφορίᾳ πίστεως. Chrys. Theo- dor. Theo- Fulke, Having nothing _to impugn this clear interpre- Roy! ur tation of the Greek word πληροφορίας. but the imperfect Fuxxe, 2. translation of your vulgar Latin interpreter, who was both an imperfect Grecian, and a very barbarous Latinist; you are not ashamed to say, we force the Greek to make it signify assurance; which all men that are but meanly learned in the Greek tongue may know, that it signifieth “assurance,” or “full and certain persuasion :” although for the question in controversy, the “fulness of faith” will prove the certainty, as much in a manner as “‘the assurance.” But that the Greek signifieth “a full and certain persuasion,” I report me not only to the best Greek dictionaries of this time, but also to Budeus ; who citeth Isocrates out of Trape- zuntius for proof that it is so used, and also interpreteth that of St Paul, Rom. xiv. ἕκαστος ἰδίῳ vot πληροφορείσθω, “Let every man be certain of his own mind.” But you have a doughty argument, that it is not only joined with faith, but also with hope, knowledge, and understanding; as though there could not be a certain persuasion and assurance of hope, knowledge, and understanding: yea, the assurance of hope dependeth upon the assurance of faith, and the assurance of faith upon the certain persuasion of knowledge and understanding. Yea, your vulgar interpreter translating πληροφορηθεὶς, Rom. iv. 21, plenissime sciens, “ knowing most fully,” may teach you, that it signifieth more than “ ful- ness ;”, for else he should have said, “being fulfilled.” And better doth Beza express the word πληροφόρησον, 2 Tim. iv., than some of our English interpreters which say, “ fulfil thy ministry ;” whereas the apostle’s meaning is, that he should ap- prove the credit and dignity of his ministry unto other men. But the Greek fathers, you say, find none other in- terpretation of it, and for proof you cite Ignatius ep. ad Smyrn., which although it be not authentical, yet I see no cause why we may not interpret πεπληροφορημένῃ, “bemg certainly persuaded in faith and love,” and ἐν πλη- popopia πίστεως, “in the assurance of faith.” And so is it translated in Bibliotheca sacra Margarini de la Bigne, : 27 [ruLKE. | 418 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH | cH. Plene instructe in fide et caritate, et cognovi vos absolute perfectos in fide stabili, “fully instructed in faith and charity,” and “I have known you absolutely perfect in a stedfast faith.’ Chrysostom and Theodoret, because you vouch at large, I know not what you would shew out of them. In Theophylact’, I find that he. speaketh against all. hesitation and doubtfulness of faith; but against the certain persuasion thereof never a word; Ne aliquam inducas in animum tuum hesitationem, neque pendeas animi, dubii quiddam cogitans, “ Bring not into thy mind any stagger- ing, neither be uncertain of thy mind, thinking any doubtful thing.” But for the signification of the word πληροφορία, St Basil? may be a sufficient witness, who commonly useth it for assured and certain persuasion. As Ἤθικ, 26, “Every word and deed must be proved by the testimony of the holy scripture,” eis πληροφορίαν μὲν τῶν ἀγαθῶν, “to the full and certain persuasion of the good, and to the shame of the wicked.” Again, defin. 80°, “what is the property of a faithful man?” τὸ ἐν τοιαύτῃ πληροφορίᾳ, &e. “ By such assured persuasion to be disposed, ” ἄς, Even so ἐν ‘Op. κατ᾽ ép. “Epwr. στ΄. εἰς πληροφορίαν τῆς θεοσεβείας, “to the certain persuasion of godliness,” &c.; and so in other places. And you yourself confess as much, where you say, “the Greek fathers expound it of the full assured faith,” &c., which is enough to justify our translation. Now, if the fathers understood this “full assured faith” only of an his- torical faith, as you say, and not of trust and confidence in God, it is another controversy. Our translation is not false, although we had a false meaning, if it be answerable to the words. Neither doth Chrysostom‘ speak of an his- [2 Μὴ εἴπῃς yap, φησιν, ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου τάδε καὶ τάδε, τουτέστι, μὴ ἐννοήσῃς ὅλως ἀμφιβολίας τι νόημα. Theophylact. Comment. in Epist. ad Roman. c. x. Opera. Vol. u. p. 76, ed. Venet. 1755. ] [? Ὅτι δεῖ πᾶν ῥῆμα ἢ πρᾶγμα πιστοῦσθαι τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ τῆς θεο- πνεύστου γραφῆς εἰς πληροφορίαν μὲν τῶν ἀγαθῶν, ἐντροπὴν δὲ τῶν πονηρῶν. Basilii Moralia, Regula xxvi. Opera, Vol. πι. p. 358, edit. Paris, 1889.] Γ᾿ Basilii Moralia, c. xxii. Opera, Vol. m1. p. 444. “Op. Ixxx. cap. xxii. The reference that follows to the sivth of the Ὅροι κατ᾽ ἐρώτησιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν does not appear to be accurate. | Γ᾿ ἐνταῦθα δείκνυσιν ὅτι οὐ πίστις μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ βίος ἐνάρετος a ΄ ‘ ζητεῖται, καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ἑαυτοῖς συνειδέναι πονηρόν. ov yap δέχεται τὰ x11. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 419 torical faith only, by certainty whereof we have access unto God; but also of confidence, which remission of our sins doth cause, and that we are made coheirs with Christ, and that we enjoy so great love: neither doth he prove that “the protestants’ only faith is not sufficient to justify.” “But - the apostle sheweth,” saith he, ‘that not faith alone, but also a virtuous life is required, and that a man be not guilty to himself of maliciousness. For these holy places do not, receive those men, with certain assurance, which are not made such.” This judgment of Chrysostom the protestants do allow of better than the papists; for we know that a godly life is necessary in them that believe to justification, without which they can have no assurance of faith, no, nor faith in deed, but that which is by equivocation called ‘faith ;” such faith as the devil and the reprobate may have. Martin. Yet do these terms\please them exceedingly, insomuch Martin, ὃ. that for “the chosen gift of faith,” Wisd. iii. 14, they translate, “the τῆς πί- special gift of faith’;’ and Rom. viii. 38, “Iam sure that nothing cae can separate us from the love of God*;" as though the apostle were τή. Fidei certain and assured not only of his own salvation, but of other pecrtaaelb es, men’s. For to this sense they do so translate here ; whereas in other elt θα places, out of controversy, they translate the same word as they should do, “I am persuaded, they are persuaded, &c.” For who Luke xx. 6. , ° i Rom. xv. 4. knoweth not that πείθομαι importeth only a probable persuasion ? Heb. vi. 9. They will say that “I am sure,” and “I am persuaded,” is all one- Being well meant, they may indeed signify alike, as the vulgar Latin interpreter doth commonly translate it: but in this place of con- troversy, whether the apostle were sure of his salvation or no, which you say he was, yea, without revelation, we say he was not; here why would you translate, “I am sure,” and not, as in other places, “1 am persuaded,” but in favour of your error, by insinuating the terms of “sure,” and “assurance,” and such like? as elsewhere you neglect the terms of “just” and “justification.” In which your “ secret 2 Cor. iv. things of dishonesty and craftiness” (as the apostle calleth it) we ἅγια τοὺς μὴ οὕτω διακειμένους μετὰ πληροφορίας" ἅγια yap ἐστι, καὶ ἅγια ἁγίων. οὐκοῦν ἐνταῦθα ἄνθρωπος οὐδεὶς βέβηλος εἴσεισιν. Chrysost. Hom. in Hebr. 18. Opera, Vol. τν. p. ὅ80.1 [> Δοθήσεται yap αὐτῷ τῆς πίστεως χάρις ἐκλεκτὴ, Wisdom of Solo- mon iii. 14. “For unto him shall be given the special gift of faith,” Bishops’ bible, 1584, Geneva bible, 1560. ] [δ πέπεισμαι yap ὅτι οὔτε θάνατος οὔτε ζωὴ, &c., Rom. viii. 38. “Certus sum enim,’ Vulg. “For I am sure,’ Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops bible, Rheims. “ For I am persuaded,” Geneva, Authorised.| | 27—2 ΕὐχκΚΕ, 3. Martrn, 4. περὶ ἐξι- λασμοὺ μὴ ἄφυρυς γί- νου, Tpoc. θεῖναι ἀμαρτίαν ᾽ Rg ep auap- τίαις. 490 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ cu. cannot’ always use demonstrations to convince you: but yet even in these things we talk with your conscience, and leave the consideration thereof to the wise reader. Fulke. Seeing they account the Book of Wisdom to be of no authority to establish the certainty of doctrine, it is not like they could have any such respect, as you mali- ciously surmise. And yet the translation [is] good and true. For what is the choice gift of faith, but a special gift? Or dare you say, that faith is not a special gift of God? They say not a “special faith,” but a “special gift of faith.” The other quarrel of the translation of πέπεισμαι, “1 am sure,” is so brutish, that when you confess the vulgar Latin inter- preter commonly to translate it, certus sum, and that in the end you can use no demonstration to convince us, yet still nevertheless you charge “our conscience with the secret things of dishonesty.” That the apostle was sure of his own salvation by the testimony of God’s Spirit, which is given to all his children, we doubt not; and that he was sure of the salvation of all God’s elect, of which it is impossible that any should perish. And seeing the same Spirit of adoption is given to all the children of God, which is the earnest of the heavenly inheritance, we cannot affirm without blasphemy against God’s truth, that any man ought to dis- credit the promises of God, or the testimony of his Spirit. Martin. You hold also in this kind of controversy, that a man must assure himself that his sins be forgiven: but in the book of Eccl. v. 5, we read thus, “Of thy sin forgiven be not without fear ;” or (as it is in the Greek), “Of forgiveness and propitiation be not without fear, to heap sin upon sins.” Which you translate falsely, thus: “ Because thy sin is forgiven thee, be not therefore without fear’.” Is that περὶ ἐξιλασμοῦ, “because thy sin is forgiven thee”? You know it is not: but that we should be afraid of the very for- giveness thereof, whether our sin be forgiven or no, or rather whether our sin shall be forgiven, or no, if we heap one sin upon another: which seemeth to be the truest sense of the place, by the words following; as though he should say, Be not bold upon forgive- ness to heap sin upon sin, as though God will easily forgive, &c. [’ “ Because thy sin is forgiven thee, be not therefore without fear,” Cranmer, 1562, Bishops’ bible, 1584. “ Because thy sin is forgiven, be not without fear, to heap sin upon sin,” Geneva bible, 1560. ‘“ Concern- ing propitiation, be not without fear to add sin unto sin,” Authorised version. | x1. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 421 Fulke. We hold that a man, when he is truly penitent, Furxx, 4. ought to assure himself that his sins be forgiven him, be- cause God hath so promised in an hundred places, without injury of whose credit we cannot doubt of the performance of his promise. But that which the son of Sirach speaketh of propitiation, is meant of the shadowy propitiation by the sacrifices of the law; which cannot assure any man of the forgiveness of his sins by themselves, much less them that “heap sin upon sin,” which are never truly repentant. For unto true repentance is required an hatred of sin, and a desire and purpose of amendment. Our translation is, as your vulgar Latin, not precise to the words of the Greek, but just unto the meaning; for the words are, “ concerning propitiation, be not without fear;”’ and your Latin is, de propitiato peccato, “of sin forgiven.” And if you will reprove your Latin as well as our English, and say we must be afraid of the very forgiveness; I have told you, that the forgiveness of God, testified by the sacrifices, per- tained unto them that be truly penitent, and not to hypocrites. And where you make it a doubt, whether sin shall be for- given or no in them that heap one sin upon another, we are out of doubt, that sin shall never be forgiven to such as so continue without true conversion unto God. Martin. I touched before upon another occasion, how you add to Martin, 5. the text, making the apostle say thus, Ephes. iii.2 “ By whom we have Bib. 1662. boldness and entrance with the confidence which is by the faith of him,” or (as in another bible, which is alone) “in the confidence by faith of Bip. 1577. him.” The learned and skilful among you in the Greek tongue know 9, κει, διὰ τῆς πίστε- [5 Ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν παῤῥησίαν καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐν πεποιθήσει “" αὐτοῦ. διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ, Ephes. iii. 12. “In quo habemus fiduciam, et accessum in confidentia per fidem ejus,” Vulg. “In whom we have trust and nigh coming, in trusting by the faith of him,” Wiclif. ‘“ By whom we are bold to draw nigh in that trust which we have by faith on him,’ Tyndale. “By whom we have boldness and entrance, with the confidence which is by the faith of him.” Cranmer. “ By whom we have boldness and entrance with confidence, by the faith which we have in him,” Geneva. “ By whom we have boldness and entrance in the confidence by faith of him,” Bishops’ bible, 1584. “In whom we have affiance and access in confidence, by the faith of him,’ Rheims. ‘In whom we have bold- ness and access with confidence by the faith of him,” Authorised version, 1611.] 1 John iii. Heb. x. 2 Cor. iii. Fuk, 5. Martin, 6. πᾶσαν πί- στιν. 1 Cor. xiii. Annot. in Nov. Test. 1556. 422 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [ on. that this translation is false, for two causes: the one is, because the Greek in that case should be thus, ἐν τῇ πεποιθήσει τῇ διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ ; another cause is, the point after πεποιθήσει, so that the very simple and sincere translation is this, ““ We have affiance and access with confidence by the faith of him :” even as elsewhere it is said, “We have confidence, if our heart reprehend us not ;” we have confidence by keeping the com- mandments, by tribulations and afflictions, and all good works: hope also giveth us great confidence. Against all which your translation is prejudicial, limiting and defining our confidence toward God to be faith, as though we had no confidence by works, or otherwise. Fulke. For understanding of the article, I have answered already, and mean not here to repeat it. The point you miss, in the bible 1577, is observed in that book which I have of Richard Jug’s printing, “by: whom we have boldness and entrance in the confidence, by faith of him.” But it can- not be “the confidence,” you think, but “confidence,” because the article τῇ is not put before the word that signifieth confi- dence. But all Englishmen know that our English “the” may be put, and sometime must be put, before nouns with- out any article either in Greek or Latin. And in this place I would not give a rush to choose whether it be in or out, for any sense that it changeth. What confidence we have by a good conscience, by suffering tribulation, and by all good works, it skilleth not for this question, so it be determined that we have no confidence in the merits of a good conscience, of suffering, of all good works that we can do, to have bold- ness and entrance unto God. But of merits we have spoken before in their proper place. Martin. For this confidence by faith only, Beza translateth so wil- fully and perversely, that either you were ashamed to follow him, or you lacked a commodious English word correspondent to his Latin. “1 I have all faith,” saith the apostle, “and have not charity, I am nothing?.” Totam fidem, saith Beza, I had rather translate, than omnem /idem, “because the apostle meaneth not all kind of faith, to wit, the faith that justifieth ;” but he meaneth, that if a man have the faith of Christ's omnipotency, or of any other article of the creed, or of all, wholly and entirely and perfectly, that is nothing without charity®. This is Beza’s [ Kai ἐὰν ἔχω πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν. 1 Cor. xiii. 2. Et si habuero omnem fidem, Vulg. Et si habeam totam fidem, Beza.] [ἢ Fidem hic accipi pro dono edendorum signorum, ut supra xii. 9, apparet ex ipsius effectis, quorum unum commemorat. Sed et pro fide historica, quam vocant, accipi potest, quum de Christi omnipotentia xu. | TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 423 tota fides, “ whole faith,” thinking by this translation to exempt from the apostle’s words their special justifying faith, and wrestling to that pur- pose in his annotations against Pighius and other Catholic doctors. Whereas every man of small skill may see, that the apostle nameth all faith, as he doth all knowledge and all mysteries; comprehending all sorts of the one and of the other; all kind of knowledge, all kind of mysteries, all faith whatsoever, christian, catholic, historical or special ; which two latter are heretical terms newly devised. Fulke. When your spiteful and dogged malice cannot Futxe, 6, reprove our English translation, then we must answer for Beza’s Latin, who hath sufficiently answered for himself to them that understand and list to read him. In the place mentioned by you, he chooseth to say totam jidem, rather than omnem, because it appeareth by the effects, that he speaketh of faith as it was a special gift of working of mira- cles ; of which effects he nameth one, removing of mountains. And that πάσα is so taken, namely, for the perfection of one kind, not the universal comprehension of all kinds, he bring- eth you example, Rom. vi. 8, and elsewhere oftentimes. But if it should be taken, as you say all knowledge and all mysteries is generally to be taken, yet he telleth you this separation is but upon an impossible supposition ; for justify- ing faith can never be separated from charity ; but if it might be separated, it should not profit to justify. The angels of heaven cannot preach another gospel; but if they did preach another gospel, they should be accursed.