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. <A rejoynder to Bristow’s Replie in defence of Allens scrole of Articles and. Booke of Purgatorie. Also the cavils of Nicholas Sander, Doctor in Divinitie, ‘about Χ BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT the Supper of our Lord, and the Apologie of the Church of England touching the doctrine thereof. Confuted by William Fulke, Doctor in Divinitie, and Master of Pem- broke Hall in Cambridge. At London, H. Middleton, 1581, 8vo. pp. 792. 3 22.. A Brief Confutation of a Popish Discourse, lately set forth, and presumptuously dedicated to the Queenes most excellent maiestie, by John Howlet, or some other Birde of the night under that name. Contayning certame reasons why Papistes refuse to come to Church, which are here inserted and set downe at large, with their seuerall answeres. By D. Fulke, maister of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge. Seene and allowed. At London, printed for George Bishop, 1581, Ato. , 23. A Brief and Plain Declaration: containing the de- sires of all those faithful Ministers who seek Discipline and Reformation of the Church of England, which may come’ as a just Apology against the false Accusations and Slanders of their Adversaries. 1584. 24. De Successione EKcclesiastica et latente ab Anti- christi tyrannide ecclesia, Liber contra Thome Stapletoni principiorum fidei doctrinalium librum decimum. tertium ; auctore Guilielmo Fulcone Anglo, Aulze Pembrochiane in Cantabrigiensi Academia Preefecto. Lond. Henricus Midle- tonus, impensis Georgii Bishop, 1584, 12mo. pp. 474. 25. An -apologie of the professors of the Gospel in Fraunce against the railing declamation of Peter Frarine a Louanian turned into English by John Fowler. Written by William Fulke. 8vo. pp. 54. This and also the fol- lowing work, No. 26, were published separately, and also appended to the ‘ Treatise against the defence of the censure given upon the books of W. Clarke and Meredith Hanmer, by an unknown popish traytor, in defence of the seditious challenge of Edmond Campion.’ Camb. 1586, 8vo. 26. A Confutation of a treatise made by William Allen OF WILLIAM FULKE. xi in defence of the usurped power of Popish Priesthood to remit sinnes, of the necessity of Shrift, and of the Popes pardons. By William Fulke. Imprinted by Thomas Thomas, Cambridge, [1586], pp. 531, 8vo. Tanner mentions an edition, Lond. 1586, 8vo. Amongst the Harleian Manuscripts are the following: _ No. 422. fol. 148. A Disputation or Conference had within the Towre of London, on Monday, being the 18th of September, A. D. 1581. Wherein were assembled the Lorde of Glanrikerd, Sir Owen Hopton, Suv William George, Sir Thomas Hinnage, ‘Sir Nicholas Poynes, besides others: Doctour Foulkes and Doctour Goade, Disputants, being sittmg at a table, having there certaine bookes about them. Mr Clarke and Mr Field being as Notaries at the said table, and for the said Con- ference appointed; before whom and right opposite upon a -stoole was sett Mr Campion, Jesuite, having only his Bible. Ibid. fol. 168. A third Disputation between the said Doctors Fulke: and -Goade opponents, and Campion the Jesuite respondent. _A report of these conferences, but differing considerably from that contained in these MSS., was published with the following title, ‘The three last dayes conferences had in the Tower with Edmund Campion, Jesuite, the 18. 23. and 27. of September, 1581. Collected and faithfully set down by M. John Fielde, student in Diuinitie. Nowe perused by the learned men themselues, and thought meete to be ‘published.’ Januarij 1, 1583. London, 4to. This volume is often found appended to the report of the first day’s con- ference to which Fulke was not a party. ΧΗ NOTICE OF To the foregoing account of Fulke it may be interesting to the reader to have subjoined a brief notice of his opponent, Grecory Martin. Gregory Martin was born at Maxfield near Winchelsea, but in what precise year we are unable to state. The earliest date connected with his life informs us, that in 1557 he was nominated one of the original scholars of St John’s college, Oxford, by the founder Sir Thomas White. He went through the usual course of logic and philosophy with great diligence, and took his Master of arts’ degree in 1564. Shortly afterwards he was engaged by Thomas duke of Norfolk to be tutor to his children, amongst whom he had the honour of instructing Philip, the celebrated earl of Arundel. That Martin was a person of considerable reputation may be gathered from the circumstance, that when his patron visited Oxford, one of the fellows of St John’s delivered before him a speech, in which Martin was highly compli- mented as a Hebrew and Greek scholar, and commemorated as a distinguished ornament of their society. 7 Having terminated his engagement in the duke of Norfolk’s family he went abroad, and openly renounced the Protestant religion, haying been previously a favourer of the doctrines of the Romish church only in secret. He now settled himself at Douay, applied himself to the study of theology, was ordained priest in 1573, and licentiate in divinity in 1575. He subsequently travelled; visited Rome, and the other places in Italy which a person of his views would most naturally desire to see, and at length per- manently fixed himself at Rheims, where he became public professor and one of the readers of divinity in the English seminary. He died there Oct. 28, 1582, and was buried in St Stephen’s church. Martin was considered a person of great learning, an GREGORY MARTIN. - xi excellent linguist, and superior to most scholars of his time. Besides the work reprinted in the present volume, he was one of the principal persons concerned in that translation of the New Testament, which is quoted and generally known under the title of the Rhemish. The first edition was printed at Rheims in 4to in 1582: a second edition by Daniel Vervelict at Antwerp, 4to, 1600: a third in 1630, and a fourth at Paris in 1633. It was reprinted in London, with “the Bishops’” translation in a parallel column: and ‘A Confutation of all such arguments, glosses, and annota- tions as contain manifest impiety, or heresy, treason and slander against the catholick Church of God, and the true teachers thereof, or the translations used in the Church of England; by Dr William Fulke.’ The marginal notes of the Rhemish Testament were answered in 1588, in “A View of the marginal notes of the Popish Testament, trans- lated into English by the English fugitive papists resident at Rheims, in France, by George Withers.” The Rhemish translation was also reprinted in 1618 ‘by some friends to the memory of the learned Thomas Cartwright,’ with a Confutation’. The following are the titles of other works attributed to Gregory Martin by Antony Wood, Tanner, and Dod: A Treatise of Schisme; shewing that al Catholikes ought in any wise to abstaine altogether from heretical con- venticles, to witt, their Prayers, Sermons, &c. 1578. Ὁ. 1. 1587, Doway’. A Treatyse of Christian Peregrinatione; written by M. Gregory Martin, Licentiate, and late Reader of Divinitie, Γ᾿ Towneley’s Illustr. of Biblical Literature, Vol. 11. pp. 74, 75. Lewis’s Hist. of Engl. Transl. of the Bible, pp. 294, 295. ] [? For reprinting this book Carter the printer was condemned of treason and executed, it being thought to contain a recommendation to assasinate the queen. See Concert. Ecclesie Cathol. pp. 127, 129, 190. Strype’s Annals, πὶ. 587, m1. 281, ch. 28. Fuller’s Church Hist. xvi. 169. | ΧΙ NOTICE OF GREGORY MARTIN. at Remes: Whereunto is adioyned certen Epistles written by him to Sundrye his frendes; the copies whereof were since his decease founde amonge his writtings. Nowe espe- cially published for the benefite of those that either erre in religione of simplicitie, or folow the worlde of frailty. Lond. 1583. 16mo. Against the Marriage of Priests. 1584. Of the love of the Soul, with questions to the Protes- tants. Printed at Rouen and St Omer’s. 12mo. 1603. Roma Sancta. . Dictionarium quatuor linguarum, Hebraice, Grace, La- tine, et Anglice, et vocabulorum ac phrasium secundum cujusque lingue proprietatem. Compendium historiarum, lib. 1. Orationes de jejunio, de imaginum usu et eultu. MS, in the library of John Pits. Pro veteri et vera Grecarum literarum pronuntia- tione, adversus Adolphum Mekerchium Brugensem. Edit. Havercamp. Ludg. Bat. 1740. | τ Diversorum carminum partim Greece partim Latine, lib. 1. Besides these he left behind several translations. The Editor of the present volume has the pleasure of expressing his grateful acknowledgements to the Right Hon. the Earl Spencer, for the permission allowed him to con- sult the valuable collection of Bibles at Althorpe DEFENCE THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, IN REPLY TO GREGORY MARTIN’s DISCOVERY OF CORRUPTIONS BY HERETICS. [FuLKe. | rA DEFENDS of the sincere and true Tran- slations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong, against the manifolde cauils, friuolous quarels, and impudent slaunders of GRE- GORIE MARTIN, one of the readers of Po- pish diuinitie in the trayterous Semi- narie of Rhemes. By Wiviiam να κε D. in Diuinitie, and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge. Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of all such quarrels & cauils, as have bene of late yttered by diuerse Papistes in their English Pamphlets, against the writings of the saide WiLL1AM Ἐν, ΚΕ. AT LONDON: Imprinted by Henrie Bynneman, for George Bishop. Anno. 1583. Cum gratia & Priuilegio. A DISCOVERIE OF THE MANIFOLD CORRVPTIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTVRES BY THE Heretikes of our daies, specially the English Sectaries, and of their foule dealing herein, by partial & false trans- lations to the aduantage of their here- sies, in their English Bibles vsed and authorised since the time of Schisme. By Gregory Marrin one of the readers of Diuinitie in the Enexuish CoLLEGE oF RHEMES. 2 Cor. 2. Non sumus sicut plurimi, adulterantes verbum Dei, sed ex sinceritate, sed sicut ex Deo, coram Deo, in Christo loquimur. That is, VVe are not as very many, adulterating the word of God, but of sinceritie, & as of God, before God, in Christ vve speake. Printed at RHEMES, By Iohn Fogny. 15 8 2. 7 TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCESS ELIZABETH, BY THE GRACE OF GOD QUEEN OF ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c. Amone the inestimable benefits, wherewith Almighty God hath wonderfully blessed this your majesty’s most honourable and prosperous government, it is not to be numbered among the least, that under your most gracious and christian pro- tection the people of your highness’ dominions have enjoyed the most necessary and comfortable reading of the holy scrip- tures in their mother tongue and native language. Which exercise, although it hath of long time, by the adversaries of him that willeth the scriptures to be searched, (especially those of our nation,) been accounted little better than an Ὁ. Standuh. heretical practice ; and treatises have been written, pretending to shew great inconvenience of haying the holy scriptures in the vulgar tongue; yet now at length perceiving they cannot prevail to bring in that darkness and ignorance of God’s most sacred word and will therein contained, whereby their blind Γ᾿ John Standish here alluded to was admitted a probationer fellow of Corpus Christi, Oxford, in 1528. In the time of Edward VI. he was a zealous reformer, made rector of Wigan, and married ; but was sepa- rated from his wife when queen Mary ascended the throne, and deprived of his preferment. Bp. Bonner for his affections to popery gave him the rectory of Packlesham. Among other works he wrote “A Treatise against the Translation of the Bible into the vulgar language; printed by Caley in 1554,” of which there was a second edition by the same printer the following year. Wood's Athene. Vol. 1. p. 286—8.] Γ᾿ Thomas Heskins, or Heskyns, was collated by Cardinal Pole to the chancellorship of Salisbury, 1558, but ejected on the accession of Elizabeth the following year. (Le Neve’s Fasti, p. 269. Wood’s Fasti, p. 113.) Heskins wrote “ the Parliament of Christ, concerning the Sacrament, impugned in a sermon by John Jewell. Ant. 1566. fol.” It was answered by Fulke in his book entitled Heskins’ Parliament repealed by W. Ε΄. Lond. 1579. ] THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 5 devotion, the daughter of ignorance, as they themselves pro- fess, was wont to make them rulers of the world, they also at the last are become translators of the New Testament into English. In which, that I speak nothing of their insincere purpose, in leaving the pure fountain of the original verity, to follow the crooked stream of their barbarous vulgar Latin translation, which (beside all other manifest corruptions) is found defective in more than an hundred places, as your ma- jesty, according to the excellent knowledge in both the tongues wherewith God hath blessed you, is very well able to judge ; and to omit even the same book of their translation, pestered with so many annotations, both false and undutiful, by which, under colour of the authority of holy scriptures, they seek to infect the minds of the credulous readers with heretical and superstitious opinions, and to alienate their hearts from yielding due obedience to your majesty and your most christian laws concerning true religion established; and that I may pass over the very text of their translation, obscured without any necessary or just cause with such a multitude of so strange and unusual terms, as to the ignorant are no less difficult to understand, than the Latin or Greek itself: yet is it not meet to be concealed, that they which neither truly nor precisely have translated their own vulgar Latin and only authentical text, have nevertheless been bold to set forth a several trea- tise, in which most slanderously and unjustly they accuse all our English translations of the bible, not of small imperfections and oversights committed through ignorance or negligence, but of no less than most foul dealing in partial and false transla- tions, wilful and heretical corruptions. Against which most lewd and untrue accusation, though easy to be judged of by such as be learned in the tongues, yet dangerous to disquiet the conscience of them that be ignorant in the same, I have written a short and necessary defence; which, although not laboured in words, yet in matter I hope sufficient to avoid all the adversaries’ cavils, 6 THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. I am most humbly to crave pardon, that I may be bold to dedicate unto your most excellent majesty ; that under whose high and christian authority your people have so many years enjoyed the reading of the holy books of God in their native language, to the everlasting benefit of many thousand souls, under the same your most gracious and royal protection they may read. also the defence of the sincere and faithful trans- lation of those books, to the quieting of their consciences, and the confusion of the adversaries of God’s truth and holy re- ligion. By which they may be stirred up more and more in all dutiful obedience, not only to be thankful unto your ma- jesty, as it. becometh them, but also to continue their most earnest and hearty prayers to Almighty God for this your most godly and happy regiment over them for many years forward to be prolonged. The God of glory, which hitherto hath advanced your majesty’s throne, above all princes of this age, in true honour and glory, vouchsafe to preserve the same with his daily blessing, to the protection of that glorious reparation of his church, which you have most happily taken in hand, to the everlasting praise of his merey, and the endless felicity of your majesty ! Your majesty’s most humble subject, and most bounden daily orator, WILLIAM FULKE. THE PREFACE, Martin, CONTAINING FIVE SUNDRY ABUSES OR CORRUPTIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURES, COMMON TO ALL HERETICS, AND AGREEING ESPECIALLY TO THESE OF OUR TIME: WITH MANY OTHER NECES- SARY ADVERTISEMENTS TO THE READER. Martin. As it hath been always the fashion of heretics to pretend Heretics . . . . fi scriptures for shew of their cause; so hath it been also their custom specially and property to abuse the said scriptures many ways in favour of their paced errors. Fulke. Whether these five abuses have been common to Fuxe. all heretics, and whether it hath been the fashion of all here- tics to pretend scriptures for shew of their cause, though I will spare now to inquire of, as a thing wherein learned men at the first sight may espy the great skill that Martin pre- tendeth to have in discerning of heretics and heresies; yet will I shew (by the grace of God) that none of these five abuses are committed by us or our catholic translations, and. that the popish heretics are, in some sort or other, guilty of them all. Martin. One way is, to deny whole books thereof, or parts of Marri, 1. books, when they are evidently against them. So did (for example) peli isc, ὃ Ebion all St Paul’s epistles, Manicheus the Acts of the Apostles, Alo- 0" parts of giani St John’s gospel, Marcion many pieces of St Luke’s gospel, and so did both these and other heretics in,other books, denying and allowing what they list, as is evident by St Ireneus, St Epiphanius, St Augus- tine, and all antiquity. Fulke. First, we deny no one book of the canonical Furxe, 1. scripture, that hath been so received of the catholic church, for the space of 300 years and more, as it hath been often proved out of Eusebius, St Jerome, and other ancient au- thorities: but the papists, in advancing apocryphal books to be of equal credit with the canonical scriptures, do in effect deny them all. Besides that, to add unto the word of God is as great a fault as to take away from it, the one being Martin, 2. 2. Doubting of their authorit and calling them into question. Funke, 2. 8 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. forbidden under as heavy a curse as the other. Those blas- phemies of Pighius’ and Eccius*, the one calling the holy scripture a nose of wax and a dumb judge, the other terming the gospel written to be a black gospel and an inky divinity ; and that of Hosius*, acknowledging none other express word of God, but only this one word ama, or dilige, “love thou;” what other thing do they import, but a shame- less denial of all books of the holy scripture in deed, howso- ever in word they will seem to admit them? Martin. Another way is, to call into question at the least, and make some doubt of the authority of certain books of holy scriptures, thereby to diminish their credit. So did Manicheus affirm of the whole New Testament, that it was not written by the apostles; and peculi- arly of St Matthew’s gospel, that it was some other man’s under his name, and therefore not of such credit, but that it might in some part be refused. So did Marcion, and the Arians, deny the epistle to the He- brews to be St Paul’s, Epiph. lib. 2. her. 69, Euseb. lib. 4. hist. ¢. 27 ; and Alogiani the Apocalypse to be St John’s the Evangelist, Epiph. et August. in her. Alogianorum. Fulke. We neither doubt of the authority of any certain book of the holy scriptures, neither call we any of them into question; but with due reverence do acknowledge them all and every one to be of equal credit and authority, as being [? Sunt enim ille (scripture), ut non minus vere quam festive dixit | quidam, velut nasus cereus, qui se horsum, illorsum, et in quam volueris partem, trahi, retrahi, fingique facile permittit. Pighius, Hierarch. Eccles. Assertio, Lib. m1. cap. 3. fol. 80. edit. 1538, Albert Pighius, a mathematician and controversialist, born at Kempen in Westphalia about 1490, and died 1542. ] [? Scriptores canonici semper prius habuerunt evangelium mentale, quam ederent illud nigrum in literis. Eck. Apologia pro Principibus Catholicis. Fol. 74 b. Antverp. 1542. Tu nos ad mortuas pelles, ad atramentum remittis, et literam. Ibid. fol. 156b. Echius, or Eckius, was professor and chancellor of the University of Ingolstad, and a cele- brated controversialist of the 16th century. His chief work was a “Manual of Controversy,” which went through many editions. He was born in Suabia in 1486, and died at Ingolstad in 1543.] [ἢ Vis autem quod sit verbum salvificans cognoscere? Breve verbum est etexpeditum, Ama. Caritas est verbum salvificans, etc. Hosii Opera, De Expresso Dei Verbo. Tom. 1. p. 628. Stanislas Hosius was one of the most illustrious cardinals of the 16th century, born at Cracow in 1504. He opened the Council of Trent as legate from Pius the Fourth, and was subsequently appointed grand penitentiary by Gregory the Thir- teenth. He died in 1579. ] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 9 all inspired of God, given to the church for the building up thereof in truth, and for the avoiding of fables and heresies. But the papists, arrogating to their pope authority to allow or refuse any book of holy scripture, and affirming that no scripture hath authority but as it is approved by their church, do bring all books of the holy scripture into doubting and uncertainty with such as will depend upon their pope and popish church’s authority, which they affirm to be above the holy scriptures, saying they might as well receive the gospel of Nicodemus as of St Mark, and by the same au- thority reject the gospel of St Matthew, as they have done the gospel of St Bartholomew. These blasphemous assertions although some of them would colour or mitigate with gentle interpretations, yet there is no reasonable man but seeth into what discredit and uncertainty they. must needs bring the authority of the canonical books of holy scripture with the simple and ignorant. Martin. Another way is, to expound the scriptures after their own Marri, 3. private conceit and fantasy, not according to the approved sense of the ang, holy ancient fathers and catholic church. So did Theodorus Mopsues- 2°¢0"ding to every one’s tites (Act. Synod 5.) affirm of all the books of the prophets, and of the care oF Psalms, that they spake not evidently of Christ; but that the pa fathers did voluntarily draw those sayings mab Christ, which were spoken of other matters. So did all heretics, that would seem to ground their heresies upon scriptures, and to avouch them by scriptures ex- pounded according to their own sense and imagination. Fulke. We expound not the scriptures after our own Foxes, 3. private conceit and fantasy; but, as near as God giveth us grace, according to the plain and natural sense of the same, agreeable unto the rule or proportion of faith, which bemg approved by the ancient fathers, and catholic church of Christ, in all matters necessary to eternal salvation: not bringing a new and strange sense, which is without the scriptures, to seek confirmation thereof in the scriptures (as the manner of heretics is rightly noted by Clemens‘); but out of the scrip- tures themselves seek we the exposition of such obscure places as we find in them, being persuaded with St Augus- [* οἱ δὲ ἡδοναῖς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐκδεδωκότες βιάζονται πρὸς τὰς ἐπι- θυμίας τὴν γραφήν. Clem. Alexandr. Stromatum vu. p. 890. Ed. Potter. Venet. 1757. ] 10 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. tine’, that nothing in a manner is found out of those obscure and dark places, which may not be found to be most plainly spoken in other places. And as for the approved sense of the holy ancient fathers, and catholic church of the eldest and purest times, if the papists durst stand unto it for the deciding of many of the most weighty controversies that are between us, there is no doubt but they should soon and easily be de- termined, as hath been shewed in divers and many treatises, written against them. In which if any thing be brought so plainly expounding the scripture against their popish heresies, as nothing can be more express nor clear, then they are driven to seek new and monstrous expositions of those fathers’ inter- pretations ; or else they answer, “ They are but those fathers’ private expositions ;” appealing to the catholic church’s in- terpretation, which is nothing else but their own private conceit and fancy, having no record to prove that catholic church’s interpretation but the present heretical opinions of this late degenerated antichristian congregation. And when they have discoursed never so much of the catholic church’s interpre- tation, they reduce and submit all men’s judgments to the determination of their councils, and the decrees of the councils to the approbation of their pope; which, as he is oftentimes a wicked man of life, so is he ignorant and unlearned in the scriptures ; to whose most private censure the holy scriptures themselves, and all sense and exposition of them, is made subject, under colour that Christ, praying for Peter that his faith should not fail in temptation, gave all popes such a pre- rogative, that they could not err in faith; though they were wicked of life, void of learning, ignorant in the scriptures, [* Deinde illa que in eis aperte posita sunt, vel precepta vivendi, vel regule credendi, sollertius diligentiusque investiganda sunt, que tanto quisque plura invenit, quanto est intelligentia capacior. In iis enim que aperte in scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia que con- tinent fidem moresque vivendi, spem scilicet atque caritatem, de quibus libro superiore tractavimus. Tum vero facta quadam familiaritate cum ipsa lingua divinarum scripturarum, in ea que obscura sunt aperienda et discutienda pergendum est, ut ad obscuriores locutiones illustrandas de manifestioribus sumantur exempla, et quedam certarum sententiarum testimonia dubitationem incertis auferant. —Augustinus de Doctrina Christiana. Lib. τι. 14. Opera. Vol. m. p- 24. edit. Benedict. Paris. 1696. Ubi autem apertius ponuntur, ibi discendum est quomodo in locis intelligantur obscuris.—Ibid. Lib. ται. 37. p. 56. ] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. il destitute of the Spirit of God; as is proved most invincibly by example of divers popes that have been heretics, and main- tainers of such errors as are not now in controversy between us (lest they should say we beg the principle), but of the sect of the Arians, Monothelites, Eutychians, Saducees, and such other. Martin. Another way is, to alter the very original text of the holy Marr τᾷ scripture, by adding, taking away, or changing it here and there for £ es their purpose. So did the Arians in sundry places, and the Nestorians οἱ eevee in the first epistle of St John, and especially Marcion, who was there- original text. Tertul. cont. fore called Mus Ponticus, the mouse of Pontus, because he had gnawn Marcio. Hb. 1. in prine. (as it were) certain places with his corruptions, whereof some are said ertul. lib. 5. to remain in the Greek text until this day. Fulke. The original text of the holy scripture we alter Furxe, 4. not, either by adding, taking away, or changing of any letter or syllable, for any private purpose; which were not only a thing most wicked and sacrilegious, but also vain and im- possible. For, seeing not only so many ancient copies of the original text are extant in divers places of the world, which we cannot, if we would, corrupt, and that the same are multi- plied, by printing, into so many thousand examples ; we should be rather mad than foolish, if we did but once attempt such a matter, for maintenance of any of our opinions. As also it is incredible that Marcion, the mouse of Pontus, could corrupt all the Greek copies in the world, (as Lindanus*, of whom you borrowed that conceit, imagineth,) in those places in which he is charged by Tertullian. For Marcion’s heresy was not so generally received by the Greek church, that all men would yield unto him; neither was Tertullian so sound of judgment in the Latin church, that whatsoever he judged to be a corruption in Marcion, must of necessity be so taken. But if adding and detracting from the scripture be proper notes of heretics, who can purge Stephen Gardiner and Gregory Martin ?—the one, for adding unto a verse of the psalm this pronoun se, himself, to prove the carnal pre- sence, citing it thus, Hscam se dedit timentibus eum, “ He gave himself to be meat to them that fear him;” whereas [? William Lindanus, born in 1525, at Dordrecht, a polemical writer of the Romish Church, who has left many works of erudition written in a pure style, but disfigured by the faults common to authors of that age. | Marti, 5. False and heretical translation. ἐκτήσατο, possedit. ‘2p “ττ Aug. ep. 89. et ib. ‘a de pec. mer. cap. 11. ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτή- σαντας. Ευτκε, 5. . ments ; 12 5 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. the words of the prophet, according to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, are no more but, scam dedit, “He hath given meat’,” &c.—the other, in his fond book of schism’, citing this text out of 1 Cor. x. as many papists do against the certainty of faith, Qui stat, videat ne cadat, “ He that standeth, let him take heed he fall not;” whereas not only the truth of the Greek, but even the vulgar Latin translation hath, Qui se existimat stare, “He that thinketh or supposeth that he standeth, let him take heed that he fall not.” But of such additions and detractions, used by the Romish rats, far worse than the mice of Pontus, we shall have more occasion to speak hereafter. Martin. Another way is, to make false translations of the scriptures, for the maintenance of error and heresy. So did the Arians (as St Je- rome noteth in xxvi. Esa.) read and translate Proverb viii. Dominus creavit me in initio viarum suarum, that is, “The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways,” so to make Christ, the wisdom of God, a mere creature. St Augustine also, Lib. V. cont. Julian. c. 2, noteth it as the interpretation of some Pelagian, Gen. iii. Fecerunt sibi vestimenta, for perizomata, or campestria, that is, “They made themselves gar- ” whereas the word of the scripture is, breeches or aprons, pro- per and peculiar to cover the secret parts. Again, the selfsame heretics did read falsely, Rom. v. Regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen etiam in eos qui peccaverunt in similitudinem prevaricationis Ade; that is, “Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even on them that sinned after the similitude of the prevarication of Adam ;” to maintain their heresy against original sin, that none were infected therewith, or subject to death and damnation, but by sinning actually, as Adam did. Thus did the old heretics. Fulke. As touching false and heretical translations, which is the chief argument of this book, I doubt not but, by the grace of God, to clear our English translators from any wilful corruptions for the maintenance of any error or heresy ; such [7 “Wherein (in the sacrament of the altar) God instituted me- moriam mirabilium suorum, et escam se dedit timentibus eum; that is to say, ‘a memory of his marvels, and gave himself meat to them that lovingly fear him’.” Gardiner’s “ Detection of the Devil’s So- phistrie, wherein he robbeth the unlearned people of the true belief in the most blessed Sacrament of the aulter.” London, 1546. fol. 69. b. See Psal. οχὶ. 4, 5.] [° Martin’s “ Treatise of Schism, shewing that all Catholics ought in any wise to abstain altogether from heretical Conventicles, viz. their Prayers, Sermons, &c.” Douay, 1578. ] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 13 as were those of the Arians and Pelagians, which Gregory Martin, as though he uttered some great piece of skill, doth ‘so diligently express. I shall have occasion also to shew, that the papists themselves of our times, maintaining their corrupt vulgar translation against the truth of the original texts of Greek and Hebrew, are most guilty of such cor- ruption and falsification; whereof although they be not the first authors, yet, by obstinate defending of such errors, they may prove worse than they which did first commit them. For the authors of that vulgar translation might be deceived, either for lack of exact knowledge of the tongues, or by some corrupt and untrue copies which they followed, or else perhaps that which they had rightly translated, by fault of the writers and negligence of the times might be perverted : but these men frowardly justifying all errors of that trans- lation, howsoever they have been brought in, do give plain testimony, that they are not led with any conscience of God’s truth, but wilfully carried with purpose of maintaiming their own errors; lest, if they did acknowledge the error of the Romish church in that one point, they should not be able to defend any one iota of their heresy, whose chief colour is the credit and authority of that particular and false church, rather than any reason or argument out of the holy scriptures, or testimony of the most ancient christian and catholic church. Martin. What these of our days? Is it credible that being so Marr, 6. well warned by the condemnation and detestation of them, they also would be as mad and as impious as those? Heretics, gentle reader, be always like heretics ; and howsoever they differ in opinions or names, yet in this point they agree, to abuse the scriptures for their purpose by all means possibly. I will but touch four points of the five before mentioned, because my purpose is to stay upon the last only, and to de- cipher their corrupt translations. But if I would stand upon the other 1. 4. also, were it not easy to shew the manner of their proceeding against protestants and Calvin- the scriptures to have been thus: to deny some whole books and parts ists use the . ° foresaid five of books, to call other some into question, to expound the rest at means of | their pleasure, to pick quarrels to the very original and canonical text, scriptures, to fester and infect the whole body of the bible with cankered trans- lations ? Fulke. Τὸ is very true, that so many heretics as pretend Funke, 6. the authority of the holy scriptures, abuse the same to their own destruction; and no heretics worse than the antichris- tians or papists: as partly hath been seen already in every 14 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. one of your five marks, and more may appear in those four points which you will handle in the preface, because the argument of your whole book is the fifth; so that in the end you shall be proved no wiser with your five points, than he that came forth with his five eggs, and never a good of them all. But you ask, if it were not easy for you to shew (if you would stand upon them) that the protestants use all the said five means of defacing the scripture? I answer, No, and that shall you see when demonstration is made, how vainly you have laboured in the last point; which howsoever you would have it appear to be a sudden writing, of small travail, by interlacing a few lines here and there against M. Whitaker’, - against me and some other; yet it is evident, both by Bris- Martin, 7. Luther. in Novo Test. Germa. in Preefat. Jacobi. Fuuxe, 7. tow’s threatening and Campian’s promise, that it hath been a work of some years unto you; wherein, beside that you are beholden much to Lindanus for divers quarrels against Calvin, and to Sir Thomas More for many cayillations against W. Tindal’s translation, there is little worthy of so long study and large promises as have gone before this diligent discovery ; so that, if you will make the like trial in the rest, you shall find them as hard to prove as this last. Martin. Did not Luther deny St James’ epistle, and so contemn it, that he called it an epistle of straw, and not worthy of an apostolical spirit? Must I prove this to M. Whitaker, who would never have ᾿ denied it so vehemently in the superlative degree for shame, if he had ‘not thought it more shame to grant it? I need not go far for the 307; matter : ask M. Fulke, and he will flatly confess it was so. Ask Calvin, in argum. ep. Jacobi. Ask Flaccus Illyricus, in argum. ep. Jacobi; and you shall perceive it is very true. I will not send you to the catholic Germans and others, both of his own time and after, that wrote against him in the question of justification: among whom not one omit- | teth this, being a thing so famous and infamous to the confusion of that arch-heretic. Fulke. 1 know not whether ever Luther denied St James’ epistle as unworthy of an apostolical spirit; but I believe [* William Whitaker, master of St John’s, Cambridge, and Pro- fessor of Divinity, born in 1547. Cardinal Bellarmine, his antagonist, pronounced him to be the most learned heretic he ever read. He wrote among other treatises, “Ad Rationes Decem Edmundi Campiani Jesuite, quibus fretus certamen Anglicane ecclesie ministris obtulit in causa fidei, responsio Gulielmi Whitakeri. Londini. 1581.” Re- printed in Whitaker's Works, Geneve. 1610. Vol. 1. ] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 15 you may take a twelvemonth’s day more to prove it, as also that he did so contemn it, that he called it an epistle of straw. But M. Whitaker, which denied it so vehemently, must ask of me, who most flatly confess (saith M. Martin) that it was so. I pray you, sir, urge me not to confess more than I know, or ever knew. But you have confessed it already in two printed books, Retent’. p. 32. Disc. of the Rock, p. 307. In the first place cited there are these words: “But to proceed: LuTHER DENIETH THE EPISTLE OF ST JAMES, BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST HIS HERESY OF JUSTIFICA- TION BY FAITH ONLY. We allow not Luther, neither did he allow himself therein; for he retracteth it afterward.” First, those words of Luther’s denial being printed in a diverse letter, may testify sufficiently to every reasonable man, that they are the objection of Bristow, and not the confession of Fulke, who not simply admitteth them as true, but by concession proveth that if they were true, yet Luther’s opinion, against which he himself hath written, ought not to pre- judice him, and much less all other men that never held that opinion. In the latter cited place are these words: “And as touching the epistle of St James, it is a shameless slander of him to say that the protestants reject it; but we must hear his reason. First, Luther calleth it a strawen epistle*. So Luther called the pope supreme head of the church, and the mass a sacrifice propitiatory. If protestants be charged to hold whatsoever Luther sometime held, and after repented,” {” A Retentive to stay good Christians in true faith and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristow. Also a discovery of the dan- gerous Rock of the Popish Church, commended by Nicholas Sander, Ὁ. of Divinity. Done by Wm. Fulke. 1580. | [* Campian, the Jesuit, states that the Reformer had characterised the Epistle of James as “contentiosam, tumidam, aridam, stramineam, et indignam spiritu apostolico.” The Prefaces to the Argentine, Wir- temburg, and Francfort editions do not however contain these words, that of Jena alone does. Luther’s opinion is exhibited in its truest light by the following remarks: “Epistolam hanc 8S, Jacobi, quamvis rejectam a veteribus, tamen laudo, et pro utili ac commodo habeo.” And in his treatise De Captivitate Babylonica he thus alludes to it: *Omitto quod hanc epistolam non esse apostoli Jacobi, nec apostolico spiritu dignam, ‘multi valde probabiliter .asserant.” See the question examined more fully Ad Rationes Campiani. pp. 5—13. edit. 1581; and in Whitaker’s Works, Vol. 1. p. 60. edit. 1610. | 16 τ THR ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. &e. Who seeth not in these words, that I rehearse the objection of Saunder, which is common to him with many other papists; which not discussing whether it be true or no, but supposing it were as Saunder and the rest of the papists do affirm, I shew that it is no good consequence to charge all protestants with Luther’s private opinion, which perhaps he held sometime and after retracted, more than to charge us with all opinions of papistry which he did hold, before God opened his eyes to see the absurdity of them ? And yet, if he had held that opimion, and never retracted the same, he were not in worse case than Eusebius', who in plain words affirmeth, that the same epistle is a counterfeit or bastard epistle, lib. 2, cap. 28, Do you not see now, how flatly Master Fulke confesseth that it was so? Such con- fessions as these are now and then extorted out of the an- cient fathers’ writings, which are not living to expound their meanings. But I had thought Master Martin could have discerned between a suppose or concession, and an absolute assertion or a flat confession, especially of one whose writing is plain enough, and beside is alive to interpret himself, if any ambiguity were therein. But be it that Master Martin either would not, or could not, see in my writing any thing else but a flat confession of Luther’s denying of St James’ epistle, and calling it an epistle of straw: of what forehead proceedeth it, that he willeth Master Whitaker to ask Calvin?, in argum. epist. Jacobi, whether Luther so spake of that epistle?—in which argument Luther is not once named by Calvin; so far is it that he doth testify any such thing against Luther. Only he saith, that some there are in these days which think that epistle not worthy of authority ; which could not Γ᾿ Τοιαῦτα καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἰάκωβον, ob ἡ πρώτη τῶν ὀνομαζομένων καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν εἶναι λέγεται. ἰστέον δὲ ὡς νοθεύεται μέν᾽ οὐ πολλοὶ γοῦν τῶν παλαιῶν αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσαν, ὡς οὐδὲ τῆς λεγομένης Ἰούδα, μιᾶς καὶ αὐτῆς οὔσης τῶν ἑπτὰ λεγομένων καθολικῶν. ὅμως δὲ ἴσμεν καὶ ταύτας μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐν πλείσταις δεδημ μένας éxkAnoias.—Eusebii Pam- phili Eccles. Hist. Lib. τι. c. 23. Opera. Vol. 1. p. 66. edit. Valesii.] [ Calvin’s words are: “Hane epistolam non sine certamine olim receptam a multis ecclesiis fuisse ex Hieronymi Eusebiique testimonio notum est. Sunt etiam hodie nonnulli, qui eam auctoritate dignam non — censeant. Ego tamen, quia nullam ejus repudiande satis justam causam video, libenter cam sine controversia amplector.”—Argumentum cum Joh. Calvini Commentariis. p. 91. edit. Stephan. 1560. ] THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 17 be understood of Luther, who long before Calvin wrote that argument had forsaken that opinion, if ever he held any such; as all those Dutch bibles and testaments of Luther’s translation, in which those words so much baited at, and so much sought for, are omitted, do give sufficient testimony. What Flaccus Illyricus* reporteth, who perhaps held that opinion himself, and would father it upon Luther, I have neither opportunity to seek, nor care to know. But how great a matter it is, that all the popish Germans, and other, who have written against Luther, do so spitefully gnaw upon, I have learned at length by relation of Master Whitaker, whom you send to ask of me; who, after long search and many editions turned over, at the length lighted upon a Dutch testament, by likelihood one of the first that Luther did set forth in the German tongue, in which he findeth neither denial of St James’ epistle to be canonical, nor af- firmation that it is unworthy of an apostolical spirit; no, nor that whereof there hath been so much babbling of all the papists, that he calleth it an epistle of straw simply and in contempt, but only in comparison of the epistles of Paul and Peter, and other books of the new testament; the excellency of which, one above another, after he hath shewed in sundry degrees, at last he saith, the epistle of James in comparison of these is straw, or like straw: which he saith not in respect of the credit or authority thereof, but in regard of the argument or matter handled therein; which all wise and godly men will confess to be not so excellent and necessary, as the matter of the holy gospels and epistles of some other of the apostles, namely of Paul, Peter, and John. Our Saviour Christ himself, John ii. 12, calleth the doctrine of regeneration, in such plain manner as he uttered it to Nico- demus, earthly things, in comparison of other greater mysteries, which he could have expressed in more heavenly and spiritual sort. “If I have spoken to you,” saith he, “of earthly things, and you have not believed, how, if I should speak to you of heavenly things, will you believe?” Were not he an honest and a wise man, that upon these words of Christ, __ [> 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 «<gss<disirnucinagidiise hn ete amas ebb goa CHAPTER IV. The ecclesiastical use of words turned into their original and τ ΠΕ WISDTMCHMAGDI <2 ccs ἡ cdapceces cos τὺ νι MINORS WEDOR YS, 1061s add dee dehsecieirdve teh asrdoperanecssinannne κενοὶ CHAPTER VI. Against priest and priesthood. Where much also is said of their profaning of ecclesiastical Words ............cssescessencessenceseans CHAPTER VII. Against purgatory, Limbus Patrum, and Christ’s descending into RMR tae Re, δεν abe ad easerian’s ἐφ vende antes γος ἐπείη αν εν heey CHAPTER VIII. Concerning justification, and God’s justice in rewarding good works CHAPTER IX. Against merits, meritorious works, and the reward for the same CHAPTER X. Against free will ........... 0. cesecsevecssnecenseeceesanceesancessareeeenanes CHAPTER XI. For imputative justice against true inherent justice .........6+ +. PAGE 95 164 179 240 278 94 THE ARGUMENTS OF EVERY CHAPTER. CHAPTER XII. For special faith, vain security, and only faith.......... er ς, 415 CHAPTER XIII. Against penance and satisfaction ..............csccescesesececeeeeseesnes 428 CHAPTER XIV. Against the holy sacraments, namely baptism, and confession ... 450 CHAPTER XV. Against the sacrament of holy orders, and for the marriage of SIPAONED BIN VOURTSOR, τ, ΟΣ ΥΑ S AIP TU TA oars 99 cnn veswmdeveabass 460 CHAPTER XVI. Against the sacrament of matrimony ..... ...Ὁ 66 ΚὙκ γὴν εν εκ κεν εν νεκνενν 492 CHAPTER XVII. Against the blessed sacrament, and sacrifice, and altars ............ 497 CHAPTER XVIII. Against the honour of saints, namely, of our blessed lady......... 526 CHAPTER XIX. se Against the distinction of Dulia and Latria ................6...- wees CHAPTER XX. Adding to the text ..... ......465 eduis cnr pdeving ancien: egy {canbe 547 CHAPTER XXI. Other heretical treacheries and corruptions worthy of observa- __ SBOE ony'ase5s<s0sayeeroahtorsPunds tissue Gabe πρσωρεσέν. γος ἀμνῷ στο he DOE. CHAPTER XXII. Other faults Judaical, profane, mere vanities, follies, and novelties 571 A DISCOVERY Marti, OF THE MANIFOLD CORRUPTIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, BY THE HERETICS OF OUR DAYS, SPECIALLY THE ENGLISH SECTARIES, AND OF THEIR FOUL DEALING HEREIN, BY PARTIAL AND FALSE TRANSLATIONS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR HERESIES, IN THEIR ENGLISH BIBLES USED AND AUTHORISED SINCE THE TIME OF SCHISM. CHAPTER I. That the Protestants translate the holy Scriptures falsely of purpose, in favour of their heresies. Martin. Tuoveu this shall evidently appear throughout this whole Marry, 1. book in every place that shall be objected unto them; yet because it is an observation of greatest importance in this case, and which stingeth them sore, and toucheth their credit exceedingly, insomuch that one of them setting a good face upon the matter saith confidently, that Confutation - > 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