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.